New Hope Lake, North Carolina Environmental Impact Statement

Part-B

NEW HOPE LAKE, NORTH CAROLINA

ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
STATEMENT

VOLUME I NOVEMBER 1971

U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT,WILMINGTON
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON , NORTH CAROLINA

RESPONDANT'S EXHIBIT 9

New Hope Lake, Haw River Basin, North Carolina

( ) Draft (X) Final Environmental Statement

Responsible Office: U. S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington, N.C.

1. Name of Action: (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative

2. Description of Action: Complete construction of a multi-purpose
reservoir project on the Haw River, Cape Fear River Basin, North Carolina.
An earth dam will provide 235,400 acre-feet of storage within the conser-
vation pool and 778,100 acre-feet at the top of the flood control pool.
Project land will lie in Chatham, Orange, Wake, and Durham Counties.

3. a. Environmental Impacts: Provide flood protection, water supply,
water quality control, general recreation, and fish and wildlife enhance-
ment; loss of 14,300 acres of land by conversion to an impoundment; loss
of natural stream section.

b. Adverse Environmental Effects: Complete relocation of 85 of 150
families from within guide acquisition line. Loss of natural stream and
surrounding bottomlands.

4. Alternatives: Abandonment; dry dam; others.

5. Comments Received:
Environmental Protection Agency
Soil Conservation Service, USDA
U . S. Forest Service
N . C. Department of Water and
Air Resources
ECOS, INC.
N . C. State University, School of
Forest Resources
N . C. State University, School of
Agriculture and Life Sciences
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
Wildlife, USDI

Federal Highway Administration
U. S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
Research Triangle Regional
Planning Commission
Conservation Council of North
Carolina
UNC at Chapel Hill, Department
of Environmental Sciences
and Engineering

6. Draft statement to CEQ 11 MAY 1971.
Final statement to CEQ 22 OCT 1971.

FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

NEW HOPE LAKE, HAW RIVER BASIN, NORTH CAROLINA

Prepared by
U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
November 1971

VOLUME I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragraph No. Subject Page No.
1 Project Description
a. General 1
b. Basin Plan A 1, 2
c. Current Status as of 15 October 1971 2, 3

2 Environmental Setting Without the Project
a. General 3
b. Climate 3
c. Geology 3, 4
d. Archeological Remains and
Historical Sites 5
e . Land Use 5, 6
f. Social and Economic Environment 7, 8
g. Transporation Facilities 8
h. Recreation Resources 8, 9
i. Fish and Wildlife 9-11
j. Forest Resources 11-13
k. Ground Water 13
l. Surface Water 13-15
m. Air Quality 15
n . Solid Waste 15
3 The Environmental Impact of the Proposed
Action
a. General 15, 16
b. Climate 16
c. Geology 16
d. Archeological Remains and
Historical Sites 16
e . Land Use 16, 17
f. Social and Economic Environment 17
g. Transportation Facilities 17
h. Recreation Resources 17, 18
i. Fish and Wildlife 18, 19
j. Forest Resources 19, 20
k. Ground Water 20
l. Surface Water 20-25
m. Air Quality 26
n. Solid Waste 26

4 Adverse Environmental Effects Which
Cannot Be Avoided
a. General 26, 27
b. Objections of Concerned Parties 27-32

a

TABLE OF CONTENTS --Continued

Paragraph No. Subject Page No.

5 Alternatives to the Proposed Action
a. Operation as a Dry Dam 33-35
b. Cease all work and abandon
project 35, 36
c. Other Alternatives
(1) System of small dams 36
(2) Flood plain zoning 36, 37
(3) Project reduced in size 37
(4) Flood insurance 37
(5) Outright Government purchase
of the flood plain 37, 38
(6) Operation of a dry flood control
dam at the New Hope site and
develop a second reservoir on
the Haw River for conservation
purposes 38
(7) Local protection works at
Fayetteville 38
(8) Floodproofing 39

6 The Relationship Between Short-Term Uses
of Man's Environment and the Maintenance
and Enhancement of Long -Term Productivity 39

7 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment
of Resources Which Would Be Involved in
the Proposed Action 39

8 Coordination With Others
a. Public Participation 40
b. Coordination on 30 March 1971
Government Agencies 41, 42
(1) Soil Conservation Service, USDA
(2) Federal Highway Administration,
USDT
(3) Bureau of Outdoor Recreation,
USDI
(4) Department of Housing and Urban
Development
(5) N. C. Department of Water and
Air Resources
(6) Research Triangle Regional
Planning Commission
(7) U. S. Forest Service
(8) Environmental Protection Agency
(9) Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
Wildlife, USDI

b

TABLE OF CONTENTS --Continued

Paragraph No. Subject Page No.

8 Coordination With Others --Continued
b. Coordination on 30 March 1971—Continued
Citizen Groups
ECOS, Inc. 42
c. Coordination on 23 April 1971
Government Agencies
(1) Soil Conservation Service, USDA-
(2) Federal Highway Administration,
USDT 42
(3) Bureau of Outdoor Recreation,
USDI 42
(4) Department of Housing and Urban
Development 42
(5) N. C. Department of Water and
Air Resources 42, 43
(6) Research Triangle Regional
Planning Commission 43-45
(7) U. S. Forest Service 45-50
(8) Environmental Protection Agency 50-53
(9) Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
Wildlife, USDI 54-59

Citizen Groups
(1) Department of Biological and
Agricultural Engineering, NCSU 59
(2) Daniel A. Okun, Head, Department
of Environmental Sciences and
Engineering, UNC at Chapel Hill 59, 60
(3) School of Forest Resources, NCSU 60, 61
(4) ECOS, INC. 61, 62
(5) Conservation Council of North
Carolina 62, 63
(6) Department of Civil Engineering,
NCSU 63
(7) North Carolina Botanical Garden,
Chapel Hill, N. C. 63
(8) League of Women Voters,
Raleigh -Wake Area 63
(9) Sierra Club, Joseph LeConte
Chapter 63
(10) Litigation
(a) Water Quality 63-70
(b) Wildlife 70-72
(c) Forestry 72-74
(d) Fishing 75
(e) Aesthetic Values 75, 76
(f) Recreation 76-78
(g) Air Quality 78, 79

c

TABLE OF CONTENTS --Continued

Paragraph No. Subject Page No.

8 Coordination With Others --Continued
c. Coordination on 23 April 1971—Continued
Citizen Groups
(10) Litigation
(h) Vector Control 79, 80
(i) Sedimentation 80, 81
(j) Flood Control 81, 82
(k) Alternatives 82-86
d Additional Information 87

EXHIBITS TO VOLUME I

Subject Page No.

MAP - "GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN"
MAP - "GENERAL MAP"
LIST OF AGENCIES CONTACTED 1-2
LETTERS OF COORDINATION
Soil Conservation Service, USDA 3-4
Federal Highway Administration, USDT 5-6
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, USDI 7
Department of Housing and Urban Development 8-11
N. C. Department of Water and Air Resources 12-13
Research Triangle Regional Planning Commission 14-19
U. S. Forest Service 20-31
Environmental Protection Agency 32-39
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, USDI 40-44
Department of Biological and Agricultural
Engineering, NCSU 45
Daniel Okun, Department of Environmental
Sciences and Engineering, UNC, Chapel Hill 46-47
School of Forest Resources, NCSU 48, 49
ECOS, INC. 50-52
Conservation Council of North Carolina 53-54
OBJECTIONS OF CONCERNED PARTIES
Complaint filed by Conservation Council of North
Carolina, James C. Wallace, Paul E. Fearington and
wife, Ruby B. Fearington, Agnes M. Sparrow, and
ECOS, INC. 55-83
Letters
Roger Wells to Nick Galifianakis; includes an essay
from ECOS. (12 November 1970) 84-88
Roger Wells to Colonel Denison. (5 November 1970) 89-91
Roger Wells to Colonel Denison. (13 October 1970) 92, 93
C. Ritchie Bell, Department of Botany, UNC,
Chapel Hill, to Colonel Denison. (30 December 1970) 94, 95

d

TABLE OF CONTENTS --Continued

EXHIBITS TO VOLUME I --Continued

Subject Page No.

OBJECTIONS OF CONCERNED PARTIES --Continued
Letters
Mr. Greenia to B. Everett Jordan, which includes a
printout from ECOS - "New Hope Reservoir: A
$38,000,000 Cesspool?" (5 December 1970) 96-101
Camilla J. Wilson to B. Everett Jordan.
(20 November 1970) 102-104
Mr. Jerry Kendrick to B. Everett Jordan.
(29 November 1970) 105-107
Cathe Herman to B. Everett Jordan. (20 November 1970) 108-110
Mr. J. M. Hester, Jr. to B. Everett Jordan.
(18 November 1970) 111-113
Rebecca S. Purcell to B. Everett Jordan.
(13 November 1970) 114, 115
Theodore Snyder, Sierra Club, to Colonel Denison.
(11 November 1970) 116, 117
Wallace Kaufman, Conservation Council of North Carolina,
to Colonel Denison. (6 November 1970) 118, 119
Roger Wells to Colonel Denison; list of questions.
(9 January 1971) 120-122
P. Aarne Vesilínd, Assistant Professor at Duke University,
to Nick Galifianakis. (14 April 1971) 123-126
Dr. Arthur Prange, Jr. to B. Everett Jordan.
(15 January 1971) 127-137
Statement from James E. Wuenscher, Professor of Forest
Ecology, Duke University, Agreement by: Boyd Strain,
F. M. White, W. D. Bee, James B. Duke, Peter Kilburn.
(22 March 1971) 138-140
Letter from an Environmental Biologist (Unidentified)
to Nick Galifianakis. (20 May 1971) 141-144
Mrs. Frederick P. Brooks, Jr. to Nick Galifianakis
(26 July 1971) 145-148
William A. Russell, Jr. to Chief of Engineers.
(19 August 1971) 149
Mr. and Mrs. Fred Choate and Mr. John C. Stout, Jr., to
Sam J. Ervin; sent newspaper article "Forest Service
warns of Major Environmental New Hope Damage."
(28 July 1971) 150-152

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Letter from N. C. Forest Service, 3 August 1971. 153
SAWDE letter of 13 August 1971 to N. C. Board of
Water and Air Resources. 154-155
Letter from Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority,
18 August 1971. 156

e

TABLE OF CONTENTS --Continued

EXHIBITS TO VOLUME I --Continued

Subject Page No.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION --Continued
Letter from City of Dunn, N. C., 24 August 1971 157, 158
Letter from N. C. Board of Water and Air Resources,
25 August 1971. 159-165
Letter from Town of Erwin, N. C., 8 September 1971. 166, 167
Letter from New Hanover County Board of Commissioners,
9 September 1971. 168-170
Letter from Research Triangle Regional Planning
Commission, 9 September 1971. 171-180
Letter from Town of Lillington, N. C., 10 September 1971. 181, 182
Answer of Intervenors, City of Fayetteville and
Cumberland County, Civil Action File No. C-184-D-71,
22 September 1971. 183-201
SAWVE letter to Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife,
28 September 1971. 202-207
Answer to Intervenors, Town of Elizabethtown and
Bladen County, Civil Action File No. C-184-D-71,
29 September 1971. 208-218
SAWHW letter to Mr. George Marienthal, Acting Director,
Office of Federal Activities, Environmental Protection
Agency, 4 October 1971. 219, 220
Answer of Intervenors, City of Wilmington, New Hanover
County, Pender County, Columbus County, The Lower Cape
Fear Water and Sewer Authority, Civil Action File No.
C-184-D-71, 7 October 1971. 221-230

VOLUME II

Additional correspondence received since original draft
environmental statement was coordinated on 30 March 1971.
Transcripts of Depositions

VOLUME III

f

NEW HOPE LAKE

HAW RIVER, NORTH CAROLINA

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

1. Project Description.

a. General. The New Hope Lake project area of approximately 47,000
acres is located on the Haw River in central North Carolina, about 10
miles south of Durham and about 15 miles west of Raleigh. New Hope Lake
is a multipurpose project authorized by the Congress for flood control,
water supply, water quality control, general recreation, and fish and
wildlife enhancement. An earth dam with an overall length of 1,330 feet
and a maximum height of 112 feet above streambed will impound the lake
waters. A multilevel intake structure will allow selective withdrawal
from the lake when it is thermally stratified, and an ungated spillway
on the east abutment will handle unusual floods. Five separate subim-
poundments will be located on tributaries below the elevation of the top
of the flood control pool and will be operated and managed by the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission for migratory waterfowl. Twenty-
eight sites will be developed as public -use and service areas to provide
a variety of recreational opportunities. A map showing the project area
is attached.

New Hope Lake will impound the waters of the Haw River and its principal
tributary, the New Hope River. The drainage area above the dam is 1,690
square miles. At the top of the conservation pool (216 feet mean sea
level) (m.s.l.), the lake will contain 235,400 acre-feet (1 acre-foot =
326,000 gallons) of water and have a surface area of 14,300 acres.
Within the conservation pool, storage is provided as follows: Low flow -
94,600 acre-feet; water supply - 52,400 acre-feet; and 88,400 acre-feet
for sedimentation. At the top of the flood control pool (240 feet m.s.1.),
the lake will contain 778,100 acre-feet of water and have a surface area
of 32,000 acres. At elevation 216 feet m.s.l., the lake will have a
shoreline of 150 miles, the impoundment extending for 5 miles on the Haw
River and 17 miles on the New Hope River. The conservation pool will lie
entirely within Chatham County, although the 47,000 acres of land to be
acquired will extend into Durham, Orange, and Wake Counties.

b. Basin Plan. The New Hope Lake project is the key project of the
plan of development authorized by Congress for the Cape Fear River Basin
which includes three principal reservoirs, New Hope, Randleman, and Howards
Mill, as well as smaller reservoirs in the headwaters and downstream
areas. This plan of development, which is designed to provide for the
water resource needs of the Cape Fear River Basin for a period of 100 years,
was approved as outlined in House Document 508, 87th Congress, 2d session,
8 August 1962. At the present time, work is continuing on a joint study
of the Cape Fear River Basin above Fayetteville, N. C., as directed by

Public Law 88-253, enacted on 30 December 1963, to formulate specific
plans for the smaller headwater reservoirs and other measures to complete
the basin plan.

c. Current Status as of 15 October 1971. Construction of the New
Hope Lake project was authorized on 30 December 1963, by Public Law 88-253,
in accordance with recommendations contained in House Document 508, 87th
Congress, 2d session. The most recent economic analysis (December 1970),
using a 3-1/8-percent interest rate and a 100-year project life, produces
a benefit-cost ratio of 1.9 to 1.0. The project is presently under con-
struction. The Reservoir Manager's Office and access roads to the site
were started in August 1967 and completed in June 1968.

About 54% of the total land required for the project has been acquired at
a cost of about $7.7 million. Construction is underway on four major
contracts. The contract for construction of the dam, spillway, and out-
let works was awarded on 5 November 1970. The site of the dam has been
cleared and considerable foundation excavation work has been done. The
concrete foundation for the outlet works is being placed and drilling
and grouting of the rock substrate is in progress. Work is 22% complete
on the dam.

Two major relocation contracts are underway which are 2.8 miles of U. S.
Highway 64, awarded on 17 June 1970, and 18.5 miles of the Norfolk
Southern Railroad, which was awarded on 20 May 1970. The highway project
is 38% complete with work accomplished worth $1.8 million. The railroad
roadbed and structures are 82% complete with a present inplace value of
over $2 million. A fourth contract for the railroad trackwork is pro-
ceeding and approximately $300,000 worth of material is assembled at the
site. The total cost of the project to date (September 1971), including
engineering and other costs, is about $16.9 million.

The following table lists the amount of land that has been cleared and
that remains to be cleared for the present contracts and other work asso-
ciated with the project:

Cleared To be cleared
Work Acres Acres
Contractor's Site and Access Road 30 0
Dam, Spillway, Outlet Works 148 0
(Saddle Dike #1) 1 0
Saddle Dikes #2, ;#3, #4) 0 4
U.S. 64 Highway Relocation, 2.8 miles 206 0
Norfolk Southern Railroad Relocation,
18.5 miles 309 0
Reservoir Clearing 0 14,080
Total 694 14,084

2

Five contracts have heen let for harvesting merchantable timber from
3,700 acres of Government -owned land. This involves the removal of
selected timber from within the 195 feet above m.s.l. to 216 feet above
m.s.l. About 1,300 acres have already been harvested. As of August 1971,
this work has been suspended.

Seventy-seven of the 150 families to be moved from lands within the proj-
ect guide acquisition line have been relocated.

2. Environmental Setting Without the Project.

a. General. The New Hope Lake project lies near the central eastern
edge of a region of rolling hills in North Carolina known as the Piedmont
Plateau. The project area includes portions of four central North Carolina
counties - Chatham, Durham, Orange, and Wake. The waters to be ímpounded
are part of the Haw River sub -basin of the Cape Fear River basin, the Haw
River joining the Deep River 4.2 miles below the damsite to form the Cape
Fear River. The Haw River sub -basin above the damsite covers a 1,690-
square-mile drainage area.

The Haw River is a swiftly moving river having a narrow valley and a steep
stream gradient. It is joined by its largest tributary, the New Hope
River, 0.3 mile above the damsite. The New Hope River is a slow -moving
river with a comparatively wide flood plain and a gentle stream gradient.
Due to the difference in stream gradients, 90 percent of the impoundment
will be in the New Hope basin. A map showing the project location ís
attached.

b. Climate. The climate of the project area is described by meteor-
ologists as continental. Generally, this means hot summers and cool
winters with no wide extremes in temperature. Temperatures average about
60 degrees F. annually. The January average temperatures is 42 degrees F.,
while the July average temperature is 78 degrees F. Precipitation averages
about 45 inches per year, the driest month being October and the wettest
months June, July, and August. Annual snowfall averages about 4 inches.
The growing season averages about 200 days per year. Prevailing wind
direction is from the southwest.

c. Geology. The New Hope Lake project lies within the Piedmont
Physiographic Province, an uplifted peneplain in various stages of dis-
section, having a generally southeasterly slope ranging from 1,000 feet
mean sea level in the west to 300 feet mean sea level where the Piedmont
meets the Coastal Plain. The Píedmont Plateau has been very gradually
eroded by rivers to form pronounced hills and ridges. The topography is
rolling to hilly, with moderately sloping valleys and low-lying ridges
formed by southeastward -flowing streams cutting through the crystalline
rock. The hilltops have a moderate to deep mantle of residual soil from
the decomposition of igneous and sedimentary rocks.

The New Hope Lake project lies near the western margin of the Durham
Triassic Basin, which was formed by a downfaulting of relatively recent

3

age sedimentary formations into the much older igneous formations both
of which were then subjected to erosion. The New Hope Lake project is
situated predominantly within the basin with only a few small portions
extending over the contact onto the older crystalline igneous rock. The
lake area is underlain predominantly by Upper Triassic Age formations of
reddish -brown conglomerates, red to purple sandstones, and dark greenish-
gray siltstones, claystones, and sandstones. These rock formations are
fractured by many joints, faults, and diabase dikes.

The portions of the lake which extend out of the Triassic Basin are under-
lain by rock of the Carolina Slate Belt Series, Pre-Cambrian or Lower
Paleozoic Period. These rocks, ranging in color from dark grayish -black
to a light blue or green, are a series of slates, schists, and gneiss
originating from metamorphosed sedimentary and igneous rocks, including
meta-basalts, meta-dacites, meta-felsites, and volcanic breccía and flows.
These rocks are predominantly rough and hard and are cut by numerous
quartz veins and diabase dikes.

The igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks are overlain by residual
soils and recent flood plain alluvium. Residual soils in the area are
formed generally by the in situ chemical decomposition of gneiss, meta-
basalts, meta-dacites, meta-felsites, conglomerates, and siltstones. The
meta-volvanics weather generally to a red, yellow, or brown clay with
minor silt and sand which is classified as a lean clay or highly plastic
clay. The residual soils found in the area underlain by Triassic sedi-
mentary rocks are composed of lean clays, low plasticity silts, and silty
gravels.

The soils, classified as the White Store-Creedmore Association, lie in
three major physíographic divisions within the project area: river bot-
toms and swamplands, adjacent river terraces, and rolling "foothill"
terrain beyond the terraces. Except where deep plowing has brought fresh
clays and gravel to the surface, the soils in the bottoms range from
sandy loam, often with gravel, to an almost pure whitish sand. A thin
mantle of coarser sand covers a molted orange clay/sand matrix on the
terraces, while laterite-like clays with deteriorating rock inclusions
comprise the majority of the hilly region. The soils are subject to
erosion if extensive conservation is not practiced during cultivation.

Mineral resources in the region include clay, crushed stone, sand and
gravel, pyrophyllite, copper, iron, gold, and coal. Present market con-
ditions, combined with mining difficulties and small quantities, do not
warrant commercial mining of most mineral deposits. Presently, the only
production is of clay, crushed stone, and sand and gravel which will not
be affected by the project.

The Triassic Basin within which the New Hope Lake project will predomi-
nantly lie is rich in plant fossils. Typical flora fossils found are:
Otozamites hespera Wieland, Otozamites powelli (Fontaine) Berry,
Phlebopteris smithii (Daugherty) Arnold, Cladophlebis microphylla
Fontaine, Lonchopteris virginieasis Fontaine, Neocalamites virginiensis
(Fontaine) Berry, and Neocalamites Knowltoni Berry.

4

d. Archeological Remains and Historical Sites. Archeological remains,
principally of aboriginal origin, are distributed at the New (lope Lake site.
The lake area was investigated for archeological resources by the Depart-
ment of Anthropology of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Physical remains of approximately 10,000 years of aboriginal cultures have
been obtained from 313 sites in the area of the proposed lake. The greatest
percentage of the artifacts excavated falls within the Archaic time period
(8000 BC to 0), while the least fall within the Paleo-Indian period (Pre-
8000 BC) and the Historic period (1500 AD to 1700 AD).

The lake area was investigated for historical resources by the North
Carolina Department of Archives and History, and preservation of several
buildings for uses related to the project is proposed. The surrounding
area is rich in antebellum homes and historic structures. Among the most
significant historic sites in the general project area are the Bennett
Place State Historic Site, where General Joseph Johnston surrendered the
armies of the Confederacy to Sherman, located approximately five miles
north of the project, and O'Kelley's Chapel -Christian Church, immediately
adjacent to the project. O'Kelley's Chapel is the first church of the
denomination, with the grave of its founder nearby. None of these signi-
ficant sites will be disturbed by the project.

e. Land Use. Throughout history, farming and farm production have
been of primary significance in the Cape Fear River Basin. Although the
area underwent rapid industrialization in the early twentieth century,
improved farming methods and better transportation enabled agriculture to
become a pillar of the economy. However, some striking changes have
occurred in the Cape Fear River Basin since World War II: (1) the number
of farms decreased between 1945 and 1967 and, (2) much of the abandoned
farmland reverted to forest land.

Urban and built-up areas in North Carolina and the Cape Fear basin in-
creased 83% and 48% respectively, between 1958 and 1966. About 4% of
the total land in North Carolina was in urban and built-up areas in 1958;
and in 1966, it was 7%. Agricultural and forest lands represented 92% of
the total land area ín 1958, but dropped to 89% by 1966 as other uses of
land became more pronounced. Generally, these trends are expected to
continue as land shifts from agricultural uses to urban and industrial
uses to meet demands of the expanding population and industrialization.

In recent years, adjustments in the agricultural economy of the Cape Fear
River Basin have been taking place and many small farms are being consoli-
dated into large tracts. Technology with its more efficient methods and
equipment and its increased cost has, in part, caused an exodus of the
rural population to urban centers, with the result that farms are con-
solidated and land is returned to forests from agricultural use. Abandoned
dwellings in the basin are evidence of this trend.

The ownership and use of the remaining agricultural land resource is also
undergoing change in the Cape Fear River Basin. Within the lands used for
farms, cropland, which is submarginal for crop production, is being shifted

5

into other uses. This represents an adjustment from early settlement
patterns and associated upland clearing operations to meet modern con-
ditions. The top soil has eroded from many of the upland areas as they
were cleared and placed in continuous row cropping; these areas are now
sub -marginal for crop production. Part of this acreage has been shifted
to forest land. There is a moderate to firm demand already evident for
rural home sites in the rural areas, more especially on the easterly,
northerly, and northwesterly limits of the project resulting from new
industrial development, industrial research development, and expansion of
educational facilities. The trend toward suburban and ^rural home living
is indicated by sales and increase in Farmers Home Administration loans
in the area.

Of the agricultural lands in the Cape Fear River Basin, 557,700 acres
(1964) were used for crops. Corn was the major crop with 131,000 acres,
following by tobacco with 82,700 acres. Other crops produced are wheat,
oats, barley, cotton,fresh fruits, and vegetables. The Cape Fear
River Basin also produces beef, hogs, poultry, and dairy products.

Commercial forests occupy 3,388,600 acres (1964) or about 62% of the
total land area in the Cape Fear River Basin and about 17% of the forest
land in North Carolina. Of this acreage, only 7% (156,300 acres) is
Federal forest land. The forests consist of 51% upland hardwoods, 40%
Southern yellow pine, 8% bottomland hardwoods, and 1% Eastern red cedar.
Currently, the growth of all species slightly exceeds the harvest.

Chatham County is primarily an agricultural county. Due to wide profit
margins, livestock and poultry have become an important base of Chatham
County agriculture. In 1966, 94% of the land in Chatham County was crop-
land, pasture, and woodland. Of the county's 452,400 total acres,
343,600 acres are in commercial forest land, 76% of the total land. The
New Hope Lake project area will require roughly 47,000 acres, or about
10% of the total county area. The White Store-Creedmore Associations soils
of the townships are rated poor to fair for use in general agriculture,
and fair to good for use as woodlands. The principal agricultural pro-
duct is tobacco, while dairying, poultry, and food crops are also main-
tained. Lumbering is also done within the townships.

The New Hope Lake project area is overwhelmingly devoted to agricultural
and forest land uses. Scattered residential occupancy associated with
farming is found throughout the area. Small settlements at Wilsonville
and Farrington are adjacent to project lands, and a similar settlement
formerly existed at Seaforth, within the conservation pool area. All
residents of Seaforth have been relocated and all structures removed.
Other than small country stores, there are no commercial or industrial
activities within the project boundary. There are several areas on the
upper end of the New Hope River arm of the lake where parts of subdivi-
sions are located within the project guide acquisition line. Most of
these developments are along N.C. 54, N.C. 55, or secondary roads in the
area and are the result of an expansion of the Durham, Chapel Hill suburbs.

6

f. Social and Economic Environment. The 1970 population of the 21
counties which are wholly or partially in the Cape Fear River Basin was
about 1,631,000. In 1930, the population of these counties was about
840,000. The average rate of growth in population during the 40-year
period was 1.67 percent per year, compared with average rates of 1.19 and
1.26 percent per year for the State of North Carolina and the United States,
respectively, during the same period. In the last decade, 1960-1970, the
population growth rate has averaged 1.64 percent per year in the Cape Fear
River area. Approximately 65 percent of the people in ^he 21 counties
that compose the Cape Fear River Basin live within the basin. Data from
the 1960 census of population reveals the median age of these people was
25.3 years, compared with the National median of 29.5 years. During the
last two decades, the population of the basin has become more urban than
rural. Increases in population are expected to continue and will result
in largely uncontrolled losses of more forest lands, farmlands, and
presently undeveloped rural areas. The population trend indicates the
need for better utilization of existing, developed areas and the increasing
importance of lasting conservation and enhancement measures.

The Cape Fear River Basin is undergoing urbanization and industrialization
which is brightening the economic status of the regional inhabitants. In
1960, the median family income was $4,046, or 72% of the United States'
$5,660, while North Carolina's median family income of $3,956 was 70% of
the Nation's. However, median family income in the predominantly rural
counties of the basin was $2,837, or 50% of the United States' median.

Employment trends reveal the change from a rural to an urban economy.
Total employment in 1960 was 447,198, which represents a 59 percent in-
crease in jobs since 1940, versus a 41 percent íncrease in population
during the same period. In 1960, agricultural employment constituted
about 10 percent of total employment, compared with 25 percent of 1940
total employment.

In 1960, most employment in the basin was in textiles, construction, wood
products, agriculture, and public administration. In 1964, sales of farm
products totaled $196.8 million while the value of timber harvested and
value added from timber -based economic activities was $182.2 million.
Value added by manufacturing índustries in the Cape Fear River area was
about $1,383 million in 1963 and increased to almost two billion dollars
by 1967.

Except for the more sophisticated and cultured life styles of the urban
areas, the contemporary life styles and mores within the basin are heavily
oriented towards the agrarian, rural way of life which has long been a
controlling factor in the area development. Rudimentary belief and
attitudes reflect a culture fostered by a yeoman approach to life in a
predominantly Protestant atmosphere.

Chatham County is a rural county with a large segment of its economy being
agriculture. In 1960, census figures were compiled on the housing units
of the county; 37% of all housing units in the county are in deteriorating

or dilapidated conditions. Pockets of extreme poverty exist in Haw River,
New Hope, and Williams townships, all of which lie in portions of the
New Hope Lake project.

The proximity of three major universities at Chapel Hill, N. C., Durham,
N. C., and Raleigh, N. C., influenced the establishment of the Research
Triangle Institute and the research park, all located near the project
site. The attractiveness of the research park and the availability of
academic resources have resulted in rapid development of the research
park, where new Environmental Protection Agency facilitlies will be
located.

g. Transportation Facilities. Transportation ín the project area
and the four surrounding counties - Chatham, Durham, Orange, and Wake -
is provided by all forms of overland service. Roads and highways serving
the area range from interstate highways to secondary roads. Two inter-
state highways serve the region, I-85 running from North to South, and
I-40 running from East to West. Other four -lane and two-lane numbered
U.S. highways crossing the four-county area are: US 1, US 15-501, US 64,
US 70, US 401, and US 421. Two-lane numbered North Carolina State high-
ways are: NC 54, NC 55, NC 57, NC 86, NC 87, NC 751, and NC 902. In
addition, there are many well-paved secondary roads. The total length
of the network of numbered highways in the four-county area is 652 miles
(1 January 1971).

The four -county area is amply served by five railroads. The Southern
Railroad serves each of the four counties; the Seaboard Coast Líne and
Norfolk Southern Railroad serve Chatham, Wake, and Durham Counties; the
Durham and Southern Railroad serves Wake and Durham Counties; and the
Norfolk and Western Railroad serves Durham County.

The aeronautical transportation facilities consist of one major commer-
cial airport and four minor municipal and private airports. The Raleigh-
Durham Airport is situated in Wake County, midway between Raleigh and
Durham. Scheduled airline service at Raleigh-Durham Airport is provided
by Delta, Piedmont, Eastern, and United Airlines. The four minor air-
ports are so situated that one is located in each of the four counties.

h. Recreation Resources. Resources in the general project area in-
clude varied recreational opportunities. City parks, playgrounds, tennis
courts, ball fields, and similar recreational facilities exist within the
urban areas. The acreage of parks and recreation resources in the princi-
pal cities adjacent to the project are as follows:

Raleigh 490 acres
Durham 450 acres
Chapel Hill 90 acres

The John B. Umstead State Park and various municipal water-supply lakes
contribute 8,000 acres of land, and the area's golf courses, with 430
holes on public and private courses, total 2,150 acres. Other open-space

8

areas include the 7,000-acre Duke Forest, containing several significant
natural areas, and substantial landholdings of the various departments of
the State of North Carolina, the University of North Carolina, North
Carolina State University, and other educational institutions. In common
with other areas of the State, the general area of the project has a
deficiency of recreation space.

Free-flowing streams in the vicinity of the New Hope Lake project include
the Haw River above and below the New Hope Lake project, the Deep River
and its tributaries to the south, and the Cape Fear River, beginning at
the confluence of the Deep and Haw Rivers below Moncure.

Large reservoirs and lakes, 75 to 100 miles from the project site, include
the John H. Kerr Dam and Reservoir, Lake Norman, Lake Tillery, and High
Rock Lake. All of these lakes are intensively used for recreation; total
visitations at the 90,000-acre John H. Kerr project exceeded three million
in 1970, and is showing an increase of 19 percent in 1971.

Within the New Hope Lake project boundary, there are no publically-owned
recreation lands. Recreation opportunities on private property include
stream-bank fishing, hunting, pond -fishing, and hiking. At present, the
reservoir site receives considerable hunting use, limited fishing use and
very little use for other forms of recreation. The National Park Service
has concluded that the New Hope River is not attractive for extensive
recreation use.1

i. Fish and Wildlife. No complete inventory of species in the project
area has been made. However, a study has identified 47 species of fishes
as occurring within the region.2 The predominant fishery resources in the
project area include largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), redbreast
sunfish (Lepomis auritus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), green sunfish
(Lepomis cyanellus), redfin pickerel (Esox americanus americanus), chain
pickerel (Esox niger), spotted sucker (Minytrema melanops), lake chub -
sucker (Erimyzon sucetta), creek chubsucker (Erimyzon oblongus), red
horse sucker (Moxostoma), white catfish (Ictalurus catus), brown bullhead
(Ictalurus nebulosus), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), margined
madtom (Notropis insignis), white shiner (Notropis albeolus), highfin
shiner (Notropis altipinnis), speckled killifish (Fundulus rathbuni),
steelcolor shiner (Notropis whipplei), whitemouth shiner (Notropís
alborus), pirate perch (Amphredoderus sayanus), Johnny darter (Etheostoma
nigrum), carp (Cyprinus carpío), American eel (Anguilla rostrata), warmouth
(Chaenobryttus gulosus), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gíbbosus), and black crappie
(Poxomis nigromaculatus). Gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedíanum), a land -locked
species, is also found in the project area.

1 Reconnaissance Report on the Recreation Resources of New Hope Reservoir
Cape Fear River Basin, North Carolina, May-1958, United States Department
of Interior, National Park Service, Region One, Richmond, Virginia,
7 May 1958.
2 Appendices To The Survey and Classification of the Deep -Haw Rivers and
Tributaries, North Carolina, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Raleigh, N. C., 1964.

9

Benthic organisms reported are those typically found throughout the
southeastern United States. Fish-food organisms include such aquatic
insects and other invertebrates as Ephemeroptera (may flies), Trichoptera
(caddis flies), Diptera (two-winged flies), Coleoptera (beetles),
Plecoptera (stone flies), Odonata (dragon flies and damsel flies),
Gastropoda (snails and slugs), Annelida (segmented worms), and Mollusca
(mussels). Types of organisms differ with locality. Studies show that,
upstream near sewage outflows, five to nine genera of bottom organisms
were found completely dominated by pollution-tolerantrploodworms, sludge
worms, and phantom midge larvae. Downstream quality improves with 24 to
34 genera of bottom organism, including clean -water associated mayflies,
caddisflies, and riffle beetles.

The Haw River has a larger fish population than the New Hope River. Fish-
ing pressures along the Haw and New Hope Rivers are generally low due to
the limited access and scattered populations of sport fish. Most angling
is done from streambanks near highway crossings, and in the reach of the
Haw River downstream from the New Hope damsite to Buckhorn Dam, a Carolina
Power and Light Company run-of-the-river hydroplant about 10 miles down-
stream from the proposed project damsite. Probably the most successful
fishery for individual fishermen is the gigging of suckers during their
spring spawning runs in tributary streams. There is no known commercial
fishery present in the project area.

The Cape Fear River, ín its lower reaches, is an outstanding stream for
anadromous fishes and it supports a sizeable commercial and sports fishery
for American shad (Alosa sapidissima). The river is also used by the
striped bass (Roccus saxatilus) and herring (Pomolobus aestivalis and P.
pseudoharengus) in lesser but increasing numbers. Although fish ladders
were provided in the design of the three navigation locks on the lower
portion of the river, they are completely ineffective in passing anadro-
mous fish upstream during Spring spawning runs. Therefore, the Army Corps
of Engineers, in cooperation with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission,
operates the three locks to pass fish upstream during the spawning runs.
Smiley Falls, 180 miles upstream from the mouth of the Cape Fear River,
limits the upstream movement of anadromous fishes.

The New Hope and Haw River Valleys provide excellent habitat for high
numbers of both the eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) and the
eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus). Other fur bearers,
such as opossum (Didelphis marsupialis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), gray
fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), and muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) are
common. Woodcock (Philohela minor) winter in the marshy bottoms and
wood ducks (Aix sponsa) are abundant. Overall use of the project area
by migratory waterfowl is low, although mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) and
black ducks (Anas rubripes) are sighted frequently. Other game birds
include large populations of quail (Colinus virginianus) and dove (Columba
livia, Zenaidura macroura). There are also scattered marginal populations
of wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo). The proximity of the urban areas
and the pressure from transportation routes prevent the establishment of
larger game such as deer. Ranges of many species of other animals over-
lap various portions of the proposed project area. Data taken from

10

various field guides are presented in the following tabulation to illus-
trate the faunal diversity of this area.

Mammals - 36 known species and/or subspecies. Most common
species include opossum, bats, raccoon, fox, eastern chip-
munk, eastern gray squirrel, southern flying squirrel,
field mice, field rats, muskrat, and eastern cottontail
rabbit.

Birds - Over 200 known species and/or subspecies. Most com-
mon game species include bobwhite quail, woodcock, mourning
dove, and wood duck, and marginal populations of wild turkey.

Reptiles and Amphibians

Turtles - 9 known species and/or subspecies.
Lizards - 10 known species and/or subspecies.
Salamanders - 12 known species and/or subspecies.
Toads - 3 known species and/or subspecies.
Frogs - 10 known species and/or subspecies.
Non-poisonous Snakes - 19 known species and/or subspecies.
Poisonous Snakes - 5 known species and/or subspecies.

An examination of the list of rare and endangered species prepared by the
Department of the Interior reveals that there are no known rare or en-
dangered species in the project area, nor is the area essential as a
nesting site or breeding area for any such species.

The value of the project area as a wildlife habitat has been diminished
due to the urban sprawl of Durham, Raleigh, and the Research Triangle
area and because of timber stripping by some of the landowners following
Congressional authorization of the New Hope Lake project in 1963.

At present, there are no lands that have been dedicated or managed ex-
clusively for wildlife, nor are there assurances that lands will be
retained in their natural state for use by the public without the project.
However, there are two outstanding natural wilderness areas in the vi-
cinity of the project area. One is the Big Woods and the other is
Edwards Mountain just south of Chapel Hill. In both cases, the proximity
to the New Hope Lake adds to the desirability of maintaining the areas
in their present state. These areas are not a part of the New Hope Lake
project but were recommended for preservation by the Research Triangle
Region Planning Commission of North Carolina.

j. Forest Resources. The New Hope Lake project contains a variety
of woody plants. The configuration and size of the project are such that

11

it contains a diversity of plant habitat. This variety of trees and
shrubs will enhance the aesthetic value of the completed project.

The pine types in the project area are composed of shortleaf pine
(Pinus echinata), Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), and loblolly pine
(Pinus taeda).

Some of the more common hardwood species are: Northern red oak (Quercus
rubra), southern red oak (Quercus falcata), water oak (Quercus nigra),
willow oak (Quercus phellos), white oak (Quercus alba),^black walnut
(Juglans nigra), hickories (Carya sp.), river birch (Betula nigra),
American beech (Fagus grandifolia), American elm (Ulmus americana),
slippery elm (Ulmus fulva), yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera),
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis),
black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), American holly (Ilex opaca), red
maple (Acer rubrum), and white ash (Fraxina americana).

Scattered throughout the project area are numerous species of small
trees and shrubs which are important from both ecological and aesthetic
standpoints. These include: Dogwood (Cornus florida), redbud (Cercis
canadensis), serviceberry (Amelanchier sp.), black willow (Salix nigra),
American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum),
plums (Prunus sp.), sumac (Rhus sp.), red cedar (Juniperus virginiana),
and hazel alder (Alnus rugosa).

The Forest Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, has determined that
the following forest types are located in the New Hope Lake project area:

Area in Percent of
Forest Type Acres Project Area

Pine 8,000 17
Pine and Hardwoods 8,000 17
Upland Hardwoods 15,500 33
Bottomland Hardwoods 12,000 25
Total 43,500 92

The forested land within the New Hope Lake project is typical of the
privately-owned land within the North Carolina Piedmont. The forest-
management practices on such privately-owned land are largely determined
by the financial status of the individual landowners. In many instances,
the need for immediate financial returns has precluded the employment of
desirable forest-management practices.

Since the New Hope Lake project is made up of a large number of small
ownerships, the existing forested land reflects all degrees of past
management practices. Some owners have employed good forest management
practices to enhance their forest holdings, but many have sold their forest
products as they attained merchantable size. The only forestry program
that approaches a coordinated effort for this region is carried out by

12

the N. C. Forest Service. This agency offers landowners advice, at their
request, on the proper management of their woodlands. The landowners,
however, are not bound to accept or implement this advice.

k. Ground Water. Ground water in the project area is obtained from
springs and from dug, bored and drilled wells. The most productive wells
are drilled wells in meta-volcanic units although reliable wells do exist
in other units. The larger metropolitan areas of Durham, Raleigh, and
Chapel Hill use surface water supplies to meet domestic needs. However,
most of the areas outside of city limits are supplied ley ground water.
The general quality is a combination of sodium, calcium, and magnesium
types and is suitable for most domestic uses. In some areas, iron
exceeds the recommendations of the U. S. Public Health Service for
drinking water.

l. Surface Water. The New Hope Lake damsite is located on the Haw
River 4.2 miles above its confluence with the Deep River at Moncure and
0.3 mile below the confluence of the Haw and New Hope Rivers. Flood-
producing storms occur in all seasons of the year ín the Cape Fear River
Basin. Tropical hurricanes and related atmospheric disturbance cause
the most severe storms and floods. Cyclonic or low pressure systems,
occurring in late winter and early spring, cause basin -wide flooding,
but are less severe than the hurricanes. Another significant storm ís
the late afternoon thunderstorm which, with its high intensity rainfall
over small areas, causes local flooding.

The surface waters of the Cape Fear River Basin have been classified by
the N. C. Board of Water and Air Resources in accordance with their
best use. The main stem of the Haw, from above Bynum to about 3 miles
below the damsite, is classified as "AII" as of 1 April 1971, indicating
a best use of raw-water supply. These waters, if subjected to approved
treatment will meet the "Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards."
The N. C. State Board of Health examined data gathered from these waters
during the summer of 1970 and advised that they do meet the criteria.3
The New Hope River is, for the most part, classified as "C," indicating
a best use of fishing and fish and wildlife propagation. The majority of
the smaller tributaries in the area are classified as "D," indicating a
best use of agriculture and industrial cooling and process water.

There are presently 53 points of municipal and industrial waste discharges
to New Hope Lake tributaries, 32 in the Haw River Watershed and 21 on the
New Hope River Watershed. All waste discharges, except that from Mebane,
N. C., (0.3 million gallons per day) in Alamance County receives secondary

3 Report of Proceedings At Public Hearing Relative to Applications filed
by Allied Chemical Corporation and Saralyn, Incorporated, Requesting
Reclassification of a Segment of Haw River and Brooks Branch, Cape Fear
River Basin, Chatham County, September 10, 1970, Water and Air Control
Committee, North Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources, Raleigh, N. C.

13

or higher waste treatment. The town of Mebane will complete construction
of secondary -type facilities by December 1971. The complete list of waste
sources appears in section 3.1.

The water quality of the Haw River Basin has been well documented.
Although most of the discharges receive at least secondary treatment,
water quality degradation does occur; many tributaries to and the
main stream of the Haw River contain pollutants violating stream stan-
dards. On the Haw River, degradation occurs in the upper basin with
natural stream recovery taking place so that, within the project area,
stream quality has improved considerably. In the New Hope River basin,
the major upstream tributaries are degraded by discharges from the
Chapel Hill -Research Triangle -Durham complex. Because of the low natural
assimilative capacity of these tributaries, degradation occurs for a
considerable distance from the discharges. Particularly during the
summer months, dissolved oxygen concentrations are low and bacterial
levels are high. Natural purification also occurs along the New Hope
River so that water quality improvement has taken place at the point
where impoundment will take place. However, degraded conditions still
persist, particularly during summer low -flow periods.

The most important parameters which violate the North Carolina State
water quality standards are the nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus.
Nitrogen and phosphorus levels in all streams receiving waste -treatment
plant discharges are extremely high. Within the Haw River above the
damsite, approximately 2,500 pounds per day of total phosphorus and
5,850 pounds per day of total nitrogen are discharged. Approximately
1,930 pounds of total nitrogen and 600 pounds of total phosphorus are
discharged daily to the New Hope River drainage area. The following
table lists selected water quality parameters for the New Hope and Haw
Rivers within the project area: 4

Parameter Haw River New Hope River

Temperature (Degrees Centigrade) (°C) 13.1 14.7
Turbidity (Jackson Turbidity Units) (JTU) 28.7 36.4
Conductivity (Micromhos) 290 164
Dissolved Oxygen (milligrams per liter)
(mg/l) 10.8 5.9
Biological Oxygen Demand (mg/l-5 day 20°C) 2.8 1.7
Total Nitrogen (mg/l) 2.21 2.01
Total Phosphorus (mg/l) 0.85 1.01
Fecal Streptococci (No./100 ml.) 83 128

4 Water Quality Characteristics of the New Hope and Lower Haw Rivers,
July 1966-February 1970, with Estimates of the Probable Quality of New
Hope Lake, by Charles M. Weiss, Professor of Environmental Biology,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N. C., January 1971, Water
Resources Research Institute of the University of North Carolina,
Report No. 48.

14

Characteristically, runoff from agricultural areas contains pesticides,
nutrients, bacteria, and oxygen-demanding materials.

m. Air Quality. Within the project area, control of air pollution
is set forth in the Rules and Regulations Governing the Control of Air
Pollution which are administered by the Air Pollution Control Division
of the N. C. Department of Water and Air Resources. Although no para-
metric data are available from the project site, permanent monitoring is
done at Sanford in Lee County, and at Raleigh in Wake County. The
North Carolina Air Pollution Control Division does, however, consider
the project area to have excellent air quality with no known sources of
air pollution. They estimate that the air quality of the project area
would meet the National secondary ambient air quality standards, as set
forth by the Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to the Clean Air
Act, As Amended. These standards are set on six pollutants: sulfur oxides,
articulate matter, carbon monoxide, photochemical oxidants, hydrocarbons,
and nitrogen dioxide. The standards for the secondary ambient air quality
are the highest standards and represent air quality requisite to protect
the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects associ-
ated with the presence of air pollutants.

n. Solid Waste. The North Carolina State Board of Health, through
its Rules and Regulations Providing Standards for Solid Waste Disposal,
has authority for control of solid waste management within the State.
Within the immediate project area, all solid waste areas are presently
classified as open dumps. Plans have been prepared by the State Board of
Health to provide one sanitary landfill for Chatham County and a similar
plan for Wake County. The present open dumps will be compacted and
covered. Five open dumps are presently located near the project and
their locations given below:

(1) Pittsboro (Chatham County) - about 7 miles west of the project.

(2) Chatham County Road 1522 - a dead end at the dump, about 8 miles
west of the project.

(3) Holly Springs (Wake County) - about 12 miles east of the project.

(4) Cary (Wake County) - about 13 miles east of the project.

(5) Morrisville (Wake County) - located between the Research Triangle
Park and Morrisville, about 9 miles east of the project.

3. The Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action.

a. General. The authorized New Hope Lake project will dedicate a
total of about 47,000 acres of land to public ownership for the benefit of
present and future generations. About 14,300 acres will be inundated by
the conservation pool, leaving about 32,700 acres for recreation, forest
management, and wildlife management. At the 216 m.s.l. elevation, about
22 miles of free -flowing stream will be inundated - 5 miles of the Haw
River and 17 miles of the New Hope River. The project will provide for

15

regulation of flood flows, reducing destruction of life and property
downstream. In addition, waters will be released during periods of low
natural flows to provide for adequate minimum flows downstream.

b. Climate. Construction of the New Hope Lake project will supply a
permanent body of water with a surface area of about 14,300 acres. The
lake should have a slight moderating effect on local temperature extremes,
as is common adjacent to large bodies of water.

c. Geology. The Forest and Land Management Program to be carried out
on the 32,700 acres of project land outside the conservation pool should
reduce soil erosion throughout the project area. No mining operations will
be affected by the project.

d. Archeological Remaíns and Historical Sites. Numerous minor sites
of aboriginal remains are located in the area to be permanently ínundated.
The Department of Anthropology of the University of North Carolina has
carried out extensive field investigations of these sites, and is con-
ducting salvage and exploration of sites deemed important. This effort
should be satisfactorily completed before impoundment. All sites are
being plotted on grid maps so they may be located if the permanent pool
is ever drained. Sites above the conservation pool level will continue
to be made available for further scientific exploration after construction
ís complete.

The project will not affect any areas of historic significance. Acquisi-
tion of several early dwellings for uses related to the project is proposed.
Other buildings of interest have been removed by their owners.

e. Land Use. Dedication of the 47,000 acres of project lands for
public use will eliminate about three percent of Chatham County's 3,052
working farms. However, the project lands included roughly 60 percent of
the allotted tobacco acreage in the county and are especially suited for
this crop.

The New Hope Lake project will enhance the aesthetic value of the region.
The lake and the surrounding terrain will provide an outstanding scenic
attraction that will be protected from urban pressures and preserved for
the enjoyment of generations. Access roads, vista clearing, and secondary
roads have been planned to enhance the value of the project as a major
scenic attraction. The development of the project will effect a shift
from an uncontrolled and relatively inaccessible river environment to that
of a controlled and aesthetically pleasing lake environment. The lake
will have a magnetic attraction for the general public seeking outdoor
"water-oriented" recreation activities and facilities.

The Research Triangle Regional Planning Commission has stated that New
Hope Lake and its adjacent publicly-owned area is vital in the preservation
of open space extending well into and around Chapel Hill and Durham urban
areas. The project and its lands can be a nucleus around which public
acquisition can provide a valuable network of open space.

16

Reduction of flooding as a result of the New Hope Lake project will en-
hance the value and utility of more than 200,000 acres downstream, now
subject to flooding. This area includes much of southeast Fayetteville,
as well as the sites of that city's sewage treatment facilities. A portion
of the affected area of Fayetteville is now included in a Federally-
assisted urban renewal program; the Federal Housing Administration has
declared that they cannot participate in the program until completion of
the New Hope Lake project insures that flooding will be prevented.

f. Social and Economic Environment. The guarantee of a more depend-
able river flow as a result of the New Hope Lake project could lead to
more industrial development along the Cape Fear River, especially at
Moncure, Fayetteville, and Elizabethtown. Total investment in new plants
along the river since 1965 is estimated to exceed $300,000,000.

Completion of the project will lead to improved potential for economic
development in a region now showing a low per-capita income, and will
allow an orderly transition from an agrarian -way of life to decentralized
industrial employment. Out-migration from the region to major urban areas
will be reduced, and the standard of living will improve.

Relocation of the 73 families now within the project area will be in
accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and
Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970, which, in many cases, will result
in an improvement in living conditions. Many of the families already
relocated have found new homes of substantially better quality. In addi-
tion, the large number of visitors to the New Hope Lake project's recrea-
tion opportunities can be expected to spur economic growth in the vicinity
of the project.

g. Transportation Facilities. The primary and secondary road reloca-
tion plan for roads affected by the project will assure that important
arteries are not affected by the project. In addition, reconstruction of
the relocated roads to current standards will improve the quality and
safety of many roads. The North Carolina State Highway Commission is
participating in the relocation of U. S. 64, bearing the cost of two
additional traffic lanes. The 2.8 miles of U. S. 64 across the project
will be the first stretch of four-lane highway in Chatham County. Re-
placement of 18.5 miles of Norfolk Southern Railroad branch line with a
new right-of-way, including two grade separations, will also improve the
quality of transportation facilities.

h. Recreation Resources. The New Hope Lake project will have a major
recreational impact on a region which is the center of North Carolina's
population and industry as well as the home of its major educational
institutions. A total of 28 areas (approximately 11,117 acres) within the
project lands have been selected for development as recreational areas,
of which 16 will be developed initially by the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Eventual utilization of all recreation areas will provide a
broad range of facilities to a recreation-hungry area of North Carolina,
including campsites, picnic areas, boat-launching ramps, boat docks and
marinas, fishing piers, and nature trails.

17

There is no general agreement on the meaning of beauty, nor is there a
clear definition of scenic quality. Both are judgment values expressed
by the beholder. From the naturalist's point of view, the scenic quality
of our natural environment is highest when undisturbed by man. Some
consider a lake, even though developed by man, as pleasing and refreshing.
For those, the eventual impoundment of New Hope Lake will be an enhance-
ment of the setting's scenic qualities. Access roads, vista clearing,
and secondary roads have been planned to enhance the value of the project
as a major scenic attraction. The lake will have a magnetic attraction
for the general public seeking outdoor "water-oriented' recreation activi-
ties and facilities.

The maximum annual visitation which the lake and adjacent recreational
lands can support without permanent damages to the lands or undue con-
gestion of the water surface is estimated at 2,760,000. Public recrea-
tional demands were computed at more than this figure for the contributing
area; however, those above the 2,760,000 annual visitors that the project
could support must seek recreation at other projects or sites. In esti-
mating recreational use of New Hope Lake, consideration was given to
three other reservoir sites: Altamahaw, 15 miles northeast of Greensboro,
N. C., on the Haw River; Howards Mill, 22.5 miles west of Sanford, N. C.,
on the Deep River; Randleman, also on the Deep River at Randleman, N. C.,
and other recreation areas which may have varying degrees of competitive
or complementary effects upon visitation at New Hope Lake.

i. Fish and Wildlife. The immediate effect of the project on wild-
life will be a loss of 14,300 acres of habitat and a long-range loss of an
estimated 15,800 man days of hunting annually. During reservoir clearing
operations, some of the game animals in the area will migrate to nearby
areas for refuge. However, after impoundment, the 18,000 acres dedicated
to wildlife management will offer a refuge for all types of game presently
found in the area and productivity for most species will continue at about
the same level. Included in the management area are five separate "green-
tree" subimpoundments, totaling about 800 acres, which will be maintained
for migratory waterfowl as feeding and resting areas. All wildlife areas
will be managed by the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission. 5

The regulation of the project for flood control will cause a reduction in
the frequency and extent of overbank flooding downstream from the project.
Within the downstream area from the damsite to Lock and Dam No. 1,
about 131 miles, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife estimates that
about 19,000 acres of wildlife habitat will be lost due to the conversion
of these lands to other uses.

Although the total amount of land to be inundated by the conservation pool
will be lost as upland wildlife habitat, over the life of the project the

5 Design Memorandum 4B (C1) Public Use and Access Facilities (Part of the
Master Plan for the New Hope Reservoir). 1 August 1966.

18

lake will provide a warm-water fishery habitat, supporting a fishery of
the same species as now found in the Haw and New Hope Rivers, but in much
larger numbers, and will result in substantially increased sport-fishing
opportunity estimated at $320,000 annually. This does not include bene-
fits to downstream fisheries resulting from increased low flows. The
shift from free-flowing streams to a lake will cause other alterations in
the primary aquatic ecosystem. This will not result in a loss of valuable
species as most of the species now present will adapt to the different
conditions. As already mentioned, the sport fishery is expected to be
favorably affected. Increased low flows in the Cape Fear River will
result in more successful spawning runs of anadromous fishes during drought
periods. Without low-flow regulation from New Hope, locking operations
for fish at the three navigation locks must be terminated when natural
river flows are low. With project regulation, the locking operations for
fish will continue throughout virtually all drought periods, insuring the
continuance of this valuable fishery.

The project will not adversely affect any rare or endangered species of
fish or wildlife.

j. Forest Resources. About 14,300 acres of land (92 percent forested)
will be permanently dedicated for the conservation pool. Another 32,700
acres will be subject to intermittent flooding. Flooding of the 32,700
acres within the flood control pool ranges from about 4,000 acres at the
one-year frequency to the total 32,700 acres at about the 125-year fre-
quency. Complete clearing by land methods is proposed generally between
elevation 217 and elevation 197. This exceeds the regulations of the
North Carolina State Board of Health, and other interested agencies for
the lower limit of clearing. While the remaining vegetation in the flood
control pool will be affected by periodic flooding, experience at other
projects indicates that this effect will occur mainly at the lower eleva-
tions. The lake clearing will result in the removal of about 14,300 acres
of land from other uses.

One effect of the New Hope Lake project will be to increase the elevation
at which bottomland hardwoods can grow. Soil conditions and water levels
should enable the establishment of bottomland hardwoods in certain areas
of the lakeshore following impoundment. Some species, such as the cypress
(Taxodium distichum), have been successfully planted at the John H. Kerr
Dam and Reservoir project on the Roanoke River.

The project will result in the loss of about 6,000 acres hardwood bottom-
lands bordering the 22 miles of streams to be inundated. Substantial
hardwood areas in the northern area of the project will not be affected,
except for periodic inundation during flood events. It is considered that
these areas will be enhanced by preservation and management in connection
with the project; additional areas bordering the conservation pool will be
planted in hardwoods. The project will have little adverse effect on woody
plants which grow downstream from the dam; however, control of downstream
flooding may hasten the conversion of woodlands to other uses. The project
will not adversely affect any rare botanical species.

19

In conformance with related Federal laws and regulations, the entire
forested area in the New Hope project will be managed to enhance and com-
plement the planned uses of the project. A forest-management plan is being
developed by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers for when the project becomes
operational. This management plan will be based on the multiple-use con-
cept of land management. All aspects of forest management, including
watershed management, recreation, wildlife, timber, aesthetics, and opera-
tional requirements will be considered. Provisions will be made to
integrate these various uses into a coordinated and workable forest manage-
ment plan. The objective of the program will be to e4,tablísh and maintain
a vigorous and fast-growing forest cover. Periodic improvement thinnings
are planned to achieve the objective of a healthy forest cover. Many of
the existing fields in the project area will be converted to forest and
wildlife management areas. This will produce a forest of exceptional
beauty, as this practice is seldom followed by private landowners.

k. Ground Water. Due to geologic conditions, the New Hope Lake proj-
ect should have no effect on ground -water conditions within the area.

l. Surface Water. About 22 miles of free -flowing stream will be
permanently inundated - 5 miles of the Haw River and 17 miles of the New
Hope River. About five miles of free -flowing stream above the conservation
pool level will be preserved in their natural state as part of the Federal
Forest Management Program, which does not include removal of hardwoods
overarching the stream. A lake surface of 14,300 acres will be created by
the project.

The project will provide for regulation of flood flows, reducing destruction
of life and property downstream. In addition, waters will be released
during periods of low natural flows to provide for a minimum flow of 600
cubic feet per second (c.f.s.) at Lillington, N. C., about 23 miles down-
stream from the damsite. The average flow at Lillington is now 3,288 c.f.s.,
with a recorded low of 11 c.f.s. The increased low flows will assist in
improving stream-water quality, particularly where such quality is degraded
by uncontrolled pollutants such as urban storm runoff, animal wastes, and
agricultural runoff.

The project will also provide storage for water supply and will be available
for present and future needs. The N. C. Department of Water and Air Resources
has already allocated 20 million gallons per day of storage to Chatham County,
and has received indications of interest in further allotment from towns in
western Wake County. (See 8d(6).)

The effects of runoff from agricultural areas will be insignificant in terms
of oxygen demanding materials, nutrients, bacteria, and pesticides. The
majority of this type of influent will come from the Haw River watershed
and has been included in the water quality measurements taken to date (see
paragraph 2.1.). These measurements indicate that the contribution from
agricultural runoff cannot be detected. The major concern for this type of
influent would be for pesticides and other toxic materials that could injure
man and other vertebrate animals, vegetation, and useful invertebrate animals.

20

Federal control of such substances is through the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 135 et seq.).

Impoundment of the Haw and New Hope Rivers will cause some definite shifts
in water chemistry and quality which can be predicted with varying degrees
of accuracy. As is the natural tendency with reservoirs in the temporate
latitudes, thermal stratification will occur in the summer months. The
cycle of events includes a homogenous temperature during the winter from
top to bottom; as Spring progresses, isolation causes a warming of the
surface waters of the lake until finally, the density 4ifference between
top and bottom results in a two-layered lake. The warm surface layer
(epilimnion), which is expected to range from 20 to 30 feet deep, will
float on the colder more dense bottom layer or hypolimnion. In the Fall,
as the surface gradually cools, the lake will once again become homogeneous.
During the stratification period, chemical stratification can be expected
so that various layers within the lake may have varying amounts of dissolved
oxygen and other parameters. None of these changes are expected to have an
adverse effect on humans, fish, or wildlife. The multilevel intake structure
of the New Hope dam was designed and model-tested at the U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station to provide for selective with-
drawal during the stratified period, so that water quality management can
be effected both within the lake and downstream. The lake will also function
as a sediment trap thus reducing turbidity downstream. Impoundment will
also improve the bacterial and general mineral content of the influent
water.

Of primary concern is the possible eutrophic tendency of the lake. Eutro-
phicatíon is a term used to describe the natural change in productivity of
a lake during aging. It is usually a long-term phenomenon which may be
measured in geologic time. An oligotrophic lake is, characteristically,
a nutrient-poor lake, while a eutrophic lake ís a nutrient-rich lake. The
natural process of an oligotrophic lake being transformed into a eutrophic
lake ís termed eutrophication. The process can be artificially accelerated
by the addition of municipal sewage or some other nutrient -rich effluent.
The main concern expressed for the New Hope Lake is over the aspect of
algae growth; a prime indicator of eutrophication. Studies have shown that,
assuming that all other elements necessary are available, the amounts of
nitrogen and phosphorus presently found in the influent are adequate to
produce algae blooms in the lake. The blooms are likely to occur during
the spring, summer, and fall months in theupper reaches of the lake where
the nutrients enter. Excessive algae growth can become unsightly and cause
taste and odor problems in water supplies. Direct withdrawal of water from
the lake for water supply can be planned to avoid undesirable water charac-
teristícs.

Recent studies show that many of the nutrient influents are in contravention
of established N. C. State water quality standards.6 The N. C. Department
of Water and Air Resources has completed studies that show that 99 percent

6 A Study of Nutrients Discharged to the New Hope Reservoir in Wastewater
Effluents, May 1971, N. C. Department of Water and Air Resources.

21

of the phosphorus contributed to the rivers above the point of impoundment
comes from 27 of the 53 points of waste discharge; that reduction of
phosphorus concentration in waste -water effluents Erom the 27 points to
1 mg/l or less will bring phosphorus concentrations to levels recommended
in the State water quality standards; and that this will cost about
$821,000 per year. The Department considers that these measures will
protect and enhance the waters of New Hope and Haw Rivers. Many other
factors at work - dilution, biological uptake, recycling, etc. - would
continue to play a strong role in determining phosphorus concentrations
at any given time and place. The reduction from an average of about 1 mg/l
to about 0.2 mg/l would reduce a mass of algae to be expected in a
standing crop and, in all likelihood, result in a reduction in the fre-
quency and severity of adverse effects of eutrophication of the lake.
The complete inventory of municipal and industrial discharges are attached
at the end of this section along with the average flow, design capacity,
type of treatment, receiving stream, and classification of the receiving
stream. The 27 sources mentioned above are also identified.

In regard to the action taken by the State of North Carolina on pollution
cleanups, conferences have already been held with the City of Durham,
Durham County, and Greensboro, on the need for nutrient removal. Compre-
hensive studies have been approved by the Board of Water and Air Resources
to measure the degree of nutrient pollution in other State waters and the
Board will begin hearing from the 27 major sources of nutrients in the
New Hope drainage area in December 1971. The State has pledged that these
major dischargers will be required to provide nutrient removal facilities
within a reasonable period of time (see letter from Department of Water
and Aír Resources, 25 August 1971).

New Hope Lake will experience an initial enrichment and display eutrophic
tendencies after initial filling, resulting from the organic material left
within the pool area and due to leaching at the mud-water interface. Equi-
librium is usually reached after a few years as the organic material is
decomposed and the mud -water interface becomes relatively sealed by
sedimentation and a reduced concentration gradient.

The regulation of the lake level to accommodate water quality releases and
water supply will not result in severe drawdowns of great fluctuations.
The almost constant lake level will be ideal for recreational activities.
Since the lake is not part of a power project, normal operating range will
not exceed 3 feet in elevation. A simulated lake performance determined
for the period of record, 1930-1968, through the use of the computer indi-
cates that 90% of the time the lake will be above elevation 213 feet
above mean sea level; during the prime recreation season, May through
September, the lake will be above 214 feet above mean sea level, or only
a two -foot drawdown. Regulation of lake levels and the application of
well -developed methodology for vector control (a vector is an organism,
usually an insect, which carries and transmits disease -causing micro-
organisms), as approved by the Public Health Service, will assure that
mosquitoes and other vectors will not be a problem.7

7 Design Memorandum 17, New Hope Project, Cape Fear River Basin, N. C.,
Reservoir Clearing and Mosquito Control. 12 December 1967.

22

Waste Source and Treatment Inventory

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
SOURCE
TREATVENT
STATUS
RECEIVING STREAM
No.
Name
xci
"g
Si
á
'mgd
-
k
i
ngd (
RE MT-
Component.
Name
r
-
_
P
_o
ó "
N2.
Exp.
Date
:4
F:ex:,n rubrics, ,no., Rollo-
J.015
None
Legal
..
No permit - action in
propnes
Big Alamanoe Cr.
.. r Burlington, Ala+rno.
:,of
:J.941:
8,000
1411
063076
SC -GM -AA -NM -PC
Alonance Crook
- i :'e::.rs Manufacturing Co. ,
. narpahau, N. C.
0.350 0.440
405
063075
ASS -NM
Ha, laver
-
49 :':e:: .Manufacturing Co.,
I °:men, N. C.
t
i
CS-PCS
Need chlorination
Hac River
f i ee:sier P_ultry Co., Pitts-
':ro, N. C.
O.3C0 10.250
527
063070
OM-L
Cap hrmtrh
g!I :_vi ,f PI:taboro
0.:00 10.250
21'
063072
SC-AE-PC-V80
hotsem 'n•<>
' ; :. .uereet .Mobile Home Park,
. :range County, N. C.
0.9011 0.001
CS_pcv
(SBN1
Neu Hope Creek
'
•'? hti:aop Mobile Home Park,
' 'h.'el Hill, N. C.
0.001 10.007
CS-FCU
(S8N1
Old field Creek I
n
49 :r.angls Apartments Land-
. urk lnwe:rent Co.,
::rhr, N. C.
0.915
0.0125
1496
123173
SH-ACAS-NP-TNS-PC
Trib. of Neu mote
Creek
'_ , 9ir:Muood Mobile None Park,
:.rhr, N. C.
J.007
0.018
753
070170
SH-AEAS-NP-PC
Mamie Espied -need
of Neu :Iwo:
Creek
Creek
renewal
u of Ourhr, Pau Hope Plant
2.900
3.000
JM-GM-OA-FTN-NN-DNCP-VBO-XP
Engineering studio underway
Neu Note Creep
...Itr Terrace, Mobile Home Park
0.093
0.007
A£S-NM-PC
(S8N1
Drib. of Neu hops
Creek
:.rhr, N. C.
'' :ity of ?urham, Sandy Creek
Pant
0.173
0.500
1119
123176
SC-ACAS-NM-PC-TL-P
Neu Hope Creek
'J , Devonshire Manor, Greenberg
':nstruotion Co., Durham,
3. C,
0.921
0.025
860
123175
SC-AEAS-NP-PC
I
Trib. of Neu Hz.'e;
Creek 1
3: :y , f Ow -ham, Third Fork
1 'reek Plant
3.430
5.000
C 29
063070
OA FTN-FTH-NM-DNP-VBO-XP
Engineering studies underway
Third Fork ^nsk
_
SM-GH
. :u of Durham, Hope Valley
34 .
:Cant
0.252
0.500
1049
063076
SC -ACAS -NM -PC
Third Park Creek
5 Wright'. Mobile Hone Park,
l.rhr, N. C.
0.003
0.005
662
123169
CS-FCU
Cedar Creek
:echnitrot Inc., Researoh
:ri:ngle Park
0.003
0.008
1619
063074
AEA-TL
i
Trib. of Nar:hew
Creek
-
Rorkwood Subdivision No. 1,
I •e. Company, Durham, N. C.
0.980
0.100
241
123175
SC-AEAS-NM-PC-HC
.Northeast :reek
c8
_:duty of Durham, Research
Triangle Plant
0.354
3.000
1893
123180
SM-GN-AEMS-NM-TL-PC
Northeast ':reek
39
:American Association of Tex -
:tie Chemists and Colorist,
Research Triangle Park
0,002
0.005
399
063074
AEA-TL
Trib. of B.r e c
:reek
9.9
1m:ernational Business
4achines Co., Research
riangle Park
0.000
0.050
1038
063071
XP-XP
No effluent
Drib. of Burdens
Creek
3L
_. S. Forestry Sciences
:..:boratory, Research
triangle Park
0.001
0.0025
148
123173
AEM-TC-FCS
Trib. of Burdens
Creek
:
l
32
Research Triangle Institute,
Research Triangle Park
0.031
0.015
54
070170
AEAS
Peewit expired - extension
requested - in -plant
waste reduction underpay
Drib. of Burdens
Creek
1
: I
1
J3
Parkwood Subdivision No. 2,
Key Company, Durham, N. C.
0.110
0.200
1867
063075
SC-ACAS-HP-TMS -PC -DB
Trib. of North-
oast Creek
: I
35 ra,r, of Carrboro
0,503
0.400
SH-B11-C7-PTH-NM-DNO-VB0
Improvements planned
Morgan Creak
36 :art of Chapel Hill
2.223
4.500
1006
073176
SM-GM-CM-PTH-NM-DNPP-ZC-MC-
V80-XP
Morgan Creak
I
38
Greenway Mobile Hone Park,
Chapel Hill, Y. C.
0.018
0.015
1616
063074
AES-NM-PC
Site approved for expansions
Cub Creek
:,
* Recommended for phosphorus removal.
24

Key to Treatment Plant Component Code

Operational
B - Operation and monitoring

A - Class 1 operator
B - Class 2 operator
C - Class 3 operator
D - Clots 4 operator
E - No laboratory facilities
F - laboratory facilities rated 1
G - Laboratory facilities rated 2
H - laboratory facilities rated 3
I - No flow measurement
J - Manual flow measurement
K - Flow Indicator
L - flow recorder

PRE-TREATMENT
S - Screens
B - Bar rack (1/2' - 2") hand cleaned
M - gar race (1/2' - 2') mechanically cleaned
R - Coarse reds (over 2')
C - Communitor (screenings ground in stream)
G - Screenings ground separately end returned
T - Garbage ground and added to sewage.
F - Fine screen (less than 1/8')
I - Intermediate screen (1/8" to 1/2")

6 - Grit Climbers or Classifiers
M - Continuous removal
H - without continuous removal
A - Aerated
P - Grit pocket or screen chamber
W - Separate grit washing

9 - Grease Removal or Skimming - Not Part of Settling Tanks
A - Diffused air
M - Mechanicelly equipped

E - Pre-Chlorination
C - Contact tank
H - No contact tank
G - Gas
N - Hypochlorite

PRIMARY TREATMENT
C - S - Septic Tank

C - Primary Settling
I - Two-story Imhoff
M - Mechanically equipped
P - Plain hopper bottom or Intermittently drained
T - multiple tray - mechanically equipped
L - Settling ponds

SECONDARY TREATMENT
L - Oxidation lagoons
F - Filters
C - Sand
R - Rapid sand
S - Intermittent sand (surface)
U - Intermittent sand (sub-lurface)

T - Trickling
A - Standard capacity
H - Nigh capacity
0 - Roughing
N - Fixed nozzle
R - Rotary distributor
T - Traveling distributor

K - Precipitation
S - Solids sedimentation
H - Heavy metals Precipitation
O - Other chemical precipitation
P - Cyanide destruction
A - Air agitation
M - Mechanical agitation
X - No chemical used
Y - Chemical facilities provided but used
C - Chemicals used

R - Intermediate Settling
I - Two story Moff
N - Mechanically equipped
P - Plain hopper bottom or Intermittently drained
T - Multiple tray or mechanically equipped
I - Settling ponds

A Activated Sludge
C - Contact stabilization
E - Extended aeration
H - High rate
N - Conventional process
A - Conventional process
M - Mechanical aeration
P - Without sludge return
S - with sludge return

N - Final Settling
I - Two story Imhoff
N - Mechanically equipped
I - Plain hopper bottom or Intermittently drained
T - Multiple tray or mechanically equipped
L - Settling ponds

TERTIARY TREATMENT

T Solids Removal
C - Chemical coagulation and sedimentation
O - Diatomite filtration
L - Fine solids settling ponds
M - Micro straining
N - Rapid gravity filtration
S - Sand
C - Mixed media
P - Pressure filtration
S - Sand
C - Mixed media
S - intermittent or 100 sand filtration

ADVANCED TREATMENT

W - Advanced Treatment
A - Active carbon adsorption
N - Nutrient removal
C - Chemical reduction and ammonia stripping
M - Anaerobic filters
L - Anaerobic ponds
O - Maturetlon ponds
H - Mechanical algae harvesting
8 - Biological algae harvesting
M - Algae not harvested
P - Phosphorous precipitation
K - Foaming
I - Ion exchange
G - Electrolysis
R - Reverse osmosis
B - Effluent aeration
A - Diffused aeration
M - Mechanical aeration

P - Chemical reduction

DISINFECTION

P - Post Chlorination
C - Contact tank
N - No contact tank
G - Gas
N - Hypochlorite

TREATED WASTE DISPOSAL

I - Sewage Disposal (To Surface Waters if not Specified)
D - Industrlal re-use
C - Irrigation
0 - Evaporation - percolation lagoon (no discharge)
U - Sub-surface application

SLUDGE HANDLING AND DISPOSAL

H - Sludge Thickening or Holding
O • Open
C - Covered
M - Stirring mechanism
D - Digester - Separate Sludge
B - Aerobic
A - Diffused air
M - Mechanical air
M - Anaerobic
T - Staged
N - Conventional
O - Open top
C - Fixed cover
F - Floating cover
G - Gasometer cover
P - Heated
R - Unheated

Z - Sludge Conditioning
A - Alum
C - Unidentified chemical
I - Iron salt
L - Lime
X - No chemicals
P - Polymer
Y - Elutriation
V - Sludge dewatering
8 - Drying beds
O - Open
C - Covered
V - Mechanical
C - Centrifuge
V - Vacuum filter
P - Pressure filter
O • Other
M - Incineration
M - Multiple hearth
F- Fluidized bed
O - Wet Oxidation
X - Sludge Oleposal
B - Barged to Sea
D - Used for fertiltzer
P - ordinary IoMflll
G - Sanitary landfill
S - Storage lagoon
L - Settling lagoon

25

m. Air Quality. Extensive timber harvesting on lands within the
project area has been carried out by private interests before acquisition
o f their land by the United States. In addition, about 14,300 acres will
be cleared in preparation for permanent inundation. The loss of
timber and other green plants from the area will result in a temporary
reduction in the ability of the area to absorb impurities from the air.
However, impoundment of the permanent pool will increase carbon cycle
benefits, as water surfaces are efficient mediums for removing impurities
from the air.

Government ownership of the land surrounding the conservation pool will
insure that these forested areas will be properly managed for healthy,
vigorous growth and thus will represent an area set aside as a green area,
as future expansions of urban areas take place. This Federally -managed
forest preserve will be essential in maintaining future air quality.

During clearing operations necessary for project construction, any open
burning will be carried out within all the "Rules and Regulations Governing
the Control of Air Pollution" adopted by the N. C. Department of Water and
Air Resources, to insure that harmful air pollution does not occur during
construction of the project.

Automobiles, power boats, and other internal combustion -powered equipment
will be attracted by the project. It is felt that the amounts of pollu-
tants introduced into the air from such sources will be minor. Control of
emissions from internal combustion sources is provided by State and Federal
laws that should substantially reduce present emission levels by completion
of the project.

n. Solid Waste. All solid waste from recreation areas and other
sources associated with the project will be disposed of in sanitary land-
fills operated in accordance with rules and regulations of the North
Carolina State Board of Health. In addition, existing small open dumps
at residences and other sites within the project area will be disposed of
in the same manner. No open burning of solid waste matter will be per-
mitted.

4. Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided.

a. General. Overflow bottom lands and forested hill lands will be
replaced by the New Hope Lake. The adverse effect of this action is the
loss of farmlands, forests, and habitat for forest animals. Another adverse
effect is the required relocation of families and structures from within
the project area. Seventy-seven families and 21 structures have already
been moved. At the present time, 20 more relocations of families are pend-
ing and 37 structures are ready for disposal. The 20 pending relocations
and the remaining 53 families are all eligible for additional benefits from
the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of
1970 which, in many cases, will result in an improvement in their housing.
Approximately 74 more structures remain to be moved from within the guide

26

acquisition line. Other adverse effects include the loss of forest re-
sources and wildlife habitat downstream from the project as a result of
changed land use.

Water quality monitoring during the present construction has shown no major
increases in turbidity due to the construction at the damsite. The highest
readings (130 Jackson Turbidity Units (JTU)) have occurred following rain-
fall, when runoff carries exposed material into the river. Based on current
readings (Avg. 34 JTU), turbidity during construction ins not expected to
pose any real threat to aquatic life downstream from the project. The higher
readings will, however, result in reduced light penetration and other tempo-
rary effects. A complete program of water quality monitoring that covers
the entire project area is being maintained to indicate any significant
adverse water quality effects, so that modifications can be made to minimize
or eliminate them. This program includes periodic sampling at 11 water
quality stations on New Hope River and 13 stations on Haw River and tribu-
taries. All stations are sampled on alternate weeks, New Hope one week
and Haw the next. Determinations are made of temperature, pH, conductivity,
residue, dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand, total carbon, soluble
carbon, inorganic carbon, total nitrogen, organic nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen,
nitrite nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen, total phosphorus, total inorganic
phosphorus, soluble orthophosphorus, total coliform, fecal coliform,
enterococci, and chlorophyll.

b. Objections of Concerned Parties. The disposition of the New Hope
Lake project has received considerable attention within the last year and
controversy has developed concerning all aspects of the project. Numerous
letters have been received and answered from the general public and
organizations writing either directly or indirectly through their Congress-
men. In all cases, the letters were answered by the District in an attempt
to clarify misunderstandings about the project. Many of the criticisms
and/or questions about the project were reoccurring. The following is a list
of criticisms received concerning the project; the numbers in parenthesis
correspond to the numbered list of references at the end of this section.
These 20 letters are considered to be representative of all complaints re-
ceived on the project and are included in Volume I of the environmental
statement. See the table of contents for page numbers.

1. CRITICISM: Benefits are exaggerated and the benefit-cost ratio would
fall below unity if recreation and water supply benefits are reduced.
(1, 5, 13, 17)

ANSWER: A major project purpose is flood control. Analysis shows that
the project is fully justified based on flood control alone. Annual bene-
fits from flood control only are calculated to be $1,539,000 vs. annual
costs of $1,431,000.

2. CRITICISM: The Corps has greatly overestimated the frequency of flood
events. (1, 2, 5, 9, 15, 17)

27

ANSWER: Peak discharge frequency was determined by the Pearson Type III
method which has been adopted by The Water Resources Council for use in all
Federal planning involving water and related land resources. Peak discharge
frequencies are not overestimated.8

3. CRITICISM: Flood damages are vastly overestimated. (1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 17)

ANSWER: The evaluation of flood damages was based on field surveys made
immediately after the major flood of 1945 and the lesser floods of 1955,
1956, 1958, and 1960. The methodology used was the floád hydrograph damage
evaluation method, a standard method. Damages were not estimated but were
measured.

4. CRITICISM: Recreation benefits are overestimated. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
15)

ANSWER: Public recreation demands for the contributing area were com-
puted to be considerably more than what the project can support (2,760,000
annually) so that many visitors must seek recreation at other projects or
sites. The Ad Hoc Committee Report sanctions a value anywhere between
$0.50 to $1.50 per visitor.9 A value of $0.55 was used to estimate bene-
fits; therefore, benefits are conservative.

5. CRITICISM: Low-flow augmentation will lessen the need for sewage
treatment downstream. (1, 15)

ANSWER: The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, As Amended (33 U.S.C.
466 et seq.), specifically prohibits the use of storage and water releases
as a substitute for adequate treatment or other methods of controlling
waste at the source.

6. CRITICISM: There will be a loss in productivity ín the estuary at the
mouth of the Cape Fear River if New Hope "traps" nutrients. (13)

ANSWER: A recent study and report prepared by Dr. Ruth Patrick shows
that the Cape Fear River at Fayetteville already has nutrient levels con-
siderably lower than those at the damsite.10 At the mouth of the river,
about 145 miles downstream from Fayetteville, the effect of New Hope on
nutrient levels will be insignificant.

8 A Uniform Technique For Determining Flood Flow Frequencies, December 1967,
Bulletin No. 15, Hydrology Committee, Water Resources Council.
9 Ad Hoc Committee Report - Supplement No. 1 to Senate Document 97, June 4,
1964.
10 Cape Fear River Surveys, 1969 and 1970, for the E. I. duPont de Nemours
and Company, Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Department of
Límnology, February 1971.

28

7. CRITICISM: It is unfair to deprive area residents of their homes,
farms, and land. (12, 15)

ANSWER: As of September 1971, approximately 77 families had moved
out of the area. The remaining 73 families will be eligible for addi-
tional benefits from the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Act of 1970 which, in many cases, will result in an improve-
ment over their present situation. The total of 150 rural families to
be relocated for the project is a small number when compared to the vast
number of families that will benefit from the project.

8. CRITICISM: The New Hope Lake project will inundate 17 miles of free -
flowing stream. (12, 16)

ANSWER: The inundation of the free-flowing stream will result ín bene-
fits to the general public that far outweigh the value of the stream in its
native condition. The effects of inundation will be to multiply the
fishery, enhance the esthetics, and provide tángible benefits from flood
control, water quality control, water supply, and recreation. The project
lands will be under the umbrella of public ownership, open to all, and yet
preserved as green areas.

9. CRITICISM: The New Hope Lake will inundate 40,000 acres of prime
forest lands. (2, 5, 18, 19, 20)

ANSWER: The Lake will inundate 14,300 acres of cleared and forested
lands. The remaining acreage will remain under a forestry management
program.

10. CRITICISM: New Hope Lake will be a "cesspool." (1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9,
12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19)

ANSWER: The quality of water initially impounded in the New Hope
Lake project is expected to be of a quality sufficient to guarantee the
benefits of which the project was justified, including fish and wildlife,
recreation, and water supply. The State of North Carolina has recently
completed a study identifying sources of pollution in tributary streams
and has established a plan for removal of nutrients.11 In addition,.
impoundment will improve turbidities and reduce bacterial counts.

11. CRITICISM: The New Hope Lake will create vast mud flats. (4, 15)

ANSWER: Exposure of land has been minimized by establishing the con-
servation pool level at elevation 216 feet m.s.l. Since the project does
not include power production, the normal operating range in pool level is
not expected to exceed 3 feet. This will not cause offensive mud flats;

11A Study of Nutrients Discharged to the New Hope Reservoir in Wastewater
Effluents, May 1971, N. C. Department of Water and Air Resources.

29

less than three square miles of land would be exposed by a 3-foot draw -
down. The three square miles are spread over about 150 miles of shoreline
so that little or no offensive mud flats will be exposed.

12. CRITICISM: New Hope will be a mosquito factory. (1, 5, 15)

ANSWER: The methodology for mosquito control is well developed and
effective for the control of mosquitoes around impoundments. The clearing
plan has been evaluated by the Public Health Service (now EPA) and with
proper reservoir regulation and shoreline maintenance, mosquitoes and other
vectors will not be a problem.12

13. CRITICISM: The lake will not be suitable for primary contact recre-
ation. (1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 15, 16)

ANSWER: Recent studies of the Haw and New Hope Rivers indicate that
both rivers are presently acceptable using chemical, physical, and bacteri-
ological standards.13 It has always been accepted that impoundment improves
the bacterial quality of water. Many areas of the lake are expected to be
suitable for primary contact recreation.

14. CRITICISM: New Hope Lake will not be desirable as a water supply
source. (1, 8, 9, 15)

ANSWER: Guided by the physical, chemical, and bacteriological stand-
ards specified in the 1962 edition of the "Public Health Service Drinking
Water Standards," the State of North Carolina has recently determined that
the waters of the Haw River from Bynum to Moncure are presently suitable
as a water supply source.14 Impoundment of these waters will further
improve them.

15. CRITICISM: Lake will not support fish. (1, 5)

ANSWER: The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in conjunction with the
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission, has studied the project and concluded
that the lake will support the same species as found in the river.15 Their

12 Design Memorandum 17, New Hope Project, Cape Fear River Basin, N. C.,
Reservoir Clearing and Mosquito Control. 12 December 1967.
13 Report of Proceedings At Public Hearing Relative to Applications filed
by Allied Chemical Corporation and Saralyn, Incorporated, Requesting
Reclassification of a Segment of Haw River and Brooks Branch, Cape Fear
River Basin, Chatham County, September 10, 1970, Water and Air Control
Committee, North Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources, Raleigh, N. C.
14 See Footnote 13 above.
15 An Evaluation Report of Fish and Wildlife Resources In Relation To
Proposed Development of New Hope Reservoir, Haw River, North Carolina,
U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Region 4, Atlanta, Georgia, December 1961.

30

studies indicate that the reservoir will represent a vastly improved habi-
tat for fishes and annual net fishing benefits will be about $320,000.

16. CRITICISM: The New Hope project will result in irreversible damage
to wildlife. (1, 5, 12, 15, 18, 20)

ANSWER: The lake will impound about 14,300 acres for the conservation
pool. Only the clearing necessary for installation of roads and recrea-
tional facilities will be accomplished above the conservation pool with the
remainder of the land, approximately 23,128 acres, available for wildlife.
Approximately 18,000 acres will be leased to the N. C. Wildlife Resources
Commission for extensive wildlife management, free forever from pressures
or urban development. None of the present species are expected to vanish
from the area. In addition, five "green-tree" subímpoundments totaling
800 acres willincrease waterfowl use.

17. CRITICISM: Wildlife subimpoundments are 150 miles from nearest wild-
fowl flyway and will be useless. (15)

ANSWER: The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the N. C. Wildlife
Resources Commission state that the lake and its appurtenant wildlife
management areas will attract and meet the needs of migratory waterfowl.

On 10 August 1971, the Conservation Council of North Carolina, James C.
Wallace, Paul E. Fearington and wife, Ruby B. Fearington, Agnes M. Sparrow,
and ECOS, Inc., filed a complaint in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of North Carolina, Durham Division. The Plaintiffs
ask that the complaint be treated as a motion for preliminary and permanent
injunction enjoining further steps toward construction of the New Hope Lake
project. A discussion of the environmental issues involved is included in
paragraph 8c. The Plaintiffs have taken the depositions (direct examination
only) of eleven of their proposed witnesses. Copies of transcripts of these
depositions are contained in Volume III. The depositions contain the same
allegations as the Complaint and are therefore not responded to separately
from our responses to the Complaint.

NEW HOPE LETTERS
(See Table of Contents for Location)

Reference
Number Description of Letter
1 Roger Wells to Nick Galifianakis; includes an essay from ECOS.
(12 November 1970)

2 Roger Wells to Colonel Denison. (5 November 1970)

3 Roger Wells to Colonel Denison. (13 October 1970)

4 C. Ritchie Bell, Department of Botany, UNC, Chapel Hill, to
Colonel Denison. (30 December 1970)

31

Reference
Number Description of Letter

5 Mr. Greenia to B. Everett Jordan, which includes a printout
from ECOS - "New Hope Reservoir: A $38,000,000 Cesspool?"
(5 December 1970)
6 Camilla J. Wilson to B. Everett Jordan. (20 November 1970)

7 Mr. Jerry Kendrick to B. Everett Jordan. (29 November 1970)

8 Cathe Herman to B. Everett Jordan. (20 November 1970)

9 Mr. J. M. Hester, Jr. to B. Everett Jordan. (18 November 1970)

10 Rebecca S. Purcell to B. Everett Jordan. (13 November 1970)

11 Theodore Snyder, Sierra Club, to Colonel Denison.
(11 November 1970)

12 Wallace Kaufman, Conservation Council of North Carolina, to
Colonel Denison. (6 November 1970)

13 Roger Wells to Colonel Denison; list of questions.
(9 January 1971)

14 P. Aarne Vesilind, Assistant Professor at Duke University, to
Nick Galifianakis. (14 April 1971)

15 Dr. Arthur Prange, Jr. to B. Everett Jordan. (15 January 1971)

16 Statement from James E. Wuenscher, Professor of Forest Ecology,
Duke University, Agreement by: Boyd Strain, F. M. White,
W. D. Bee, James B. Duke, Peter Kilburn. (22 March 1971)

17 Letter from an Environmental Biologist (Unidentified) to
Nick Galifianakis. (20 May 1971)

18 Mrs. Frederick P. Brooks, Jr. to Nick Galifianakis.
(26 July 1971)

19 William A. Russell, Jr. to Chief of Engineers.
(19 August 1971)

20 Mr. and Mrs. Fred Choate and Mr. John C. Stout, Jr., to
Sam J. Ervin; sent newspaper article "Forest Service warns
of Major Environmental New Hope Damage." (28 July 1971)

32

5. Alternatives to the Proposed Action.

a. Operation as a Dry Dam. Numerous groups and individuals have
recommended a dry dam at New Hope to provide flood protection downstream.
Operation as a dry dam could be for either a short time to allow for some
predetermined water quality cleanup to occur or for the full life of the
project. In either case, the environmental impact would be the same. To
gain some general insight into the effect a dry dam would have on the area,
a simulated flood the size of the September 1945 Flood was mathematically
routed through New Hope Lake project, operated as a dry'dam (no sediment or
conservation storage). The outlets on the dam would be closed at the time
the rise began, and from that time to the time the reservoir is emptied,
outflows would be the same as for the multipurpose project now authorized
for construction by the Corps of Engineers. Thus, the same degree of
protection would be provided the downstream area.

In the 1945 Flood, runoff started at 1200, 14 September. Some comparisons
of the effect of the storm on the reservoir -are listed in the following
table. It should be emphasized that the figures listed in the table are
for the changes that would occur as a result of the flood, i.e., they
represent the final condition minus the original condition for each case.
This means that the original elevation, area, and content of the multi-
purpose and dry dam are subtracted each time to obtain the change in each
of these values.

Comparison of Reservoir Performance

Multipurpose
Item Lake Dry Dam

Elevation at start of flood (Feet, m.s.l.) 216.0 155.0
Reservoir content at start of flood
(Acre-feet) 253,382 0
Total storm inflow (Acre-feet) 635,000 635,000
Maximum reservoir elevation (Feet, m.s.l.) 242.1 234.3
Total reservoir rise (Feet) 26.1 79.3
Duration of reservoir rise (Days) 28 28
Reservoir area flooded by storm (Acres) -
1 day or more 19,472 27,253
1 week or more 17,108 24,335
2 weeks or more 11,482 17,956
3 weeks or more 5,563 9,739

Effect on reservoir rise and area flooded. The above comparison shows
that there is less than 8 feet difference in the maximum elevation reached
in the two operating plans, and while the multipurpose reservoir rose
26.1 feet, the dry-dam reservoir rose 79.3 feet, over 3 times as much.
The area flooded by the multipurpose reservoir is approximately two-thirds
of the area flooded by the dry -dam reservoir for any given time period.

33

Effect on sedimentation. Floodflows entering the reservoir would carry a
very heavy sediment load and would be the same for either plan of operation.
Depositing of this sediment load would be quite different for the two
plans. Some of the fine material would pass through the reservoir and
continue downstream in either case, but a large percent would be deposited
in the reservoir.

For the multipurpose lake, silt-laden water entering the reservoir would
have a higher density than the clear water already in storage. Instead of
mixing, the incoming water would flow under the lighter water as a density
current and occupy the lower portion of the reservoir. The less turbid
water would be forced upward and occupy the upper portion of the reservoir.
As the velocity of the inflowing water decreased, the sediment would begin
to settle out, being deposited in the sediment pool provided for that pur-
pose. The water flooding over the normally dry land above the conservation
pool would be relatively free of sediment and so, there would be very little
sediment deposited in this area.

For the dry dam, the silt-laden inflow would spread over the entire flooded
area, depositing sediment over the normally dry land. The depth of depos-
ited sediment would be greatest in and near the streambed due primarily to
the greater depth of water above this area, but it would be substantial on
all flooded areas.

Effect on forestry resources. Forestry resources for the multipurpose lake
are previously described ín this statement. For the dry dam, nutrient -rich
sediment deposited on the land would produce a lush growth. However, fre-
quent flooding for extended periods and occasional complete submergence
for a number of days would rapidly kill off the present forest cover at the
lower elevations. Water-tolerant coppice, annuals, and aquatic plants would
rapidly take over at lower elevations. The elevation to which they would
predominate would depend on the frequency and severity of floods. At higher
elevations, the less water-tolerant tree varieties would be eliminated.
Thick underbrush would flourish throughout the flooded area.

Effect on mosquito control. Water, standing in heavy plant growth, pro-
vides ideal mosquito grounds. The dense vegetative cover would make
larviciding ineffective and would retard drying out after each flood
event, providing an extended mosquito -breeding period.

Effect on wildlife. The lush plant growth in the dry dam reservoir would
attract a variety of wildlife for nesting, feeding, and resting, only to
become a death trap in the event of a flood, particularly due to the
rapid rate of rise. Especially vulnerable would be the young if the flood
comes during the nesting season. Burrowing animals would be vulnerable at
all times.

In regard to fish, recurrent high waters would drive fish from their natu-
ral habitat to flooded lands outside the riverbanks where many would be
isolated and lost when the waters receded.

34

All streams other than Haw River would become completely closed by aquatic
plants and water -tolerant coppice, making them, to some extent, uninhabit-
able for fishlife.

Effect on recreation. Large areas of public -owned land normally are
heavily used for recreation even though a lake or reservoir may not be
included in the area. Although wildlife would abound in the New Hope dry -
dam reservoir during extended dry periods, the heavy undergrowth at the
lower elevations would make the area virtually inaccessi,ble to the hunter,
fisherman, or naturalist. The sediment deposits and mosquito population
would make most of the reservoir area undesirable for recreation. Flat
water recreation would also be lost with the dry dam.

Effect on water supply and flow augmentation. Operation as a dry dam would
preclude any storage of waters for use as a source for public water sup-
plies or for low -flow augmentation. These benefits would not be realized
if the project was operated as a dry dam and the municipalities, whose plans
for water supply depended on New Hope, would have to develop new sources.
The alternative of a dry dam is not considered to be more favorable than
the proposed plan because of the reduced benefits and adverse environmental
effects. Temporary operation as a dry dam was not acceptable for the same
reasons and also since impoundment at New Hope is scheduled for June 1974.
Therefore, the proposed plan to continue construction of the multi -purpose
project, as scheduled, does allow time for additional improvements in
waste-water treatment.

b. Cease all work and abandon project. The abandonment of the New Hope
project would result in the forfeiture of annual net project benefits cur-
rently estimated to be about $2 million. At an interest rate of 3-1/8 per-
cent and a 100-year project life, these project net benefits would have an
equivalent present worth value of $61 million. Although about $16.9 million
had been invested by 30 September 1971 in the project, about $2.5 million of
these costs could be recaptured through real estate salvage measures. ..How-
ever, additional project cessation costs would be incurred, including de-
mobilization costs, restoration cost, continuation of some contract work
where completion costs would be less than cessation costs, and certain
additional costs resulting from termination of contracts for the convenience
of the Government. In summary, the total monetary costs to the Government
that would be incurred through this course of action would approach $23
million, plus forfeiture of $61 million in net benefits foregone.

The environmental impacts of project abandonment would be substantial. The
environmental quality of the flood plains that would have been protected
by the project would continue to degrade. In Fayetteville, the market
value of lands subject to natural overflow would drop and the likelihood of
the implementation of an effective flood plain evacuation and recreation
program to preclude the spawning of ghetto areas is remote because of the
extensive development that has already occurred. Flood plain lands along
the Cape Fear River, currently devoted to the production of agricultural

35

commodities, would continue to produce at marginal levels, thereby creating
a need to clear and farm less productive upland areas. The less productive
agricultural economy and the more costly use of the urban flood plain ín
the Fayetteville area would result in a braking effect on efforts to in-
crease the already low per capita income of the area.

Abandonment of the New Hope Lake project would preclude meeting the water -
resource -conservation needs of the basin with a minimum public investment
and result in adverse environmental impacts. By not meting the water-
resource-conservation needs of the basin, the area could no longer support
a viable economy and a general out -migration and under -utilization of
resources would result at the expense of other areas. Preceding the out-
migratíon would be a period of accelerating economic decline in the standard
of living with growing unemployment and welfare expenditures. With such an
economy, a general degradation of the environment occurs. Timber and edible
wildlife resources are eradicated to provide subsistence for those reluctant
to leave. Land values decline, and general maintenance expenditures for
homes and business establishments are curtailed in favor of other, more
pressing necessities. Those who would have been well sustained with a
high standard of living provided by effective resource -conservation
measures would be forced to seek their livelihoods in other areas, thereby
placing increase demands on the resources of other, better managed areas.

c. Other Alternatives.

(1) System of small dams. Early in the preauthorization study
period, a system of 232 small and intermediate sized multiple-purpose
reservoirs was studied as an alternate to the New Hope project. The re-
sults of this study indicated that the system of small dams, while costing
about 45% more than the New Hope project, would produce about 33% more
annual project benefits and would be economically feasible from a monetary
standpoint. The New Hope Lake project is favored over the small dam plan
primarily because to execute the small dam plan more than twice the amount
of land would be required and many more miles of free-flowing stream
would be inundated.

Of all the projects in the basin -wide plan of development, the New Hope
project requires the least amount of land resource per unit of water re-
source needed to sustain the growing population.

(2) Flood plain zoning. This non-structural alternative has been
shown to be a most effective means of reducing the growth of flood damages
stemming from new developments in the flood plain since such development
usually occurs without adequate knowledge of the risks involved. However,
on flood plains where substantial development has already occurred, the
enforcement of effective zoning laws with concomitant land use regulations
is impractical. This problem is also evident in agricultural areas of very
broad flood plains, such as those along the Cape Fear River. In these
cases, effective zoning regulations may preclude the use of entire farms
that have been in existence for many years. Evaluation of the costs for

36

this alternative must include potential losses in the net production
value of the land resource that could be protected by other means. This
alternative was eliminated as an alternative to structural protective
measures primarily because of the amount of development existing on the
flood plains and the potential loss of net returns to over 200,000 acres
of land, including the 3,000 plus homes and commercial establishments on
the 7,000 acres of flood plain land in the Fayetteville area. However,
flood plain zoning is recommended for those remaining areas where struc-
tural measures do not provide sufficient flood protecth on to effectively
reduce flood risk, as recommended in House Document 508, 8 August 1962.

(3) Project reduced in size. Single-purpose alternative projects
were developed for the New Hope site and along the main stem. These
projects were formulated to include sufficient storage and other project
measures to meet a single-project purpose such as flood control, water
supply, low-flow augmentation, etc. The costs of providing similar
storage for all purposes in a multiple-purpose project was considerably
less in each instance. Implementation of single-purpose reservoir at the
New Hope site would preclude meeting other water -resource needs in the
basin.

Reservoir projects were also developed at the New Hope site that omitted
one purpose which the multiple-purpose project (as authorized) contained.
For example, a reservoir project without flood control storage was evalu-
ated and compared with the multiple-purpose project. This analysis was
done for all purposes and in no case did a more economically or environ-
mentally favorable project result than the multiple-purpose project in
meeting the conservation needs of the basin.

(4) Flood insurance. As an alternative to the structural flood
protection afforded by the New Hope project, flood insurance is both un-
economical and impractical. Federal flood insurance is not currently
available at any location in the Cape Fear River Valley, but, upon request
of local governments, could be made available for small businesses and
residential buildings. Flood insurance for crops is available in some,
but not all, counties, but is applicable only to crops grown under Federal
control programs. Although these programs are heavily subsidized by the
Federal Government and are consequently attractive to some property owners,
a long-term net economic loss results since the insurance premium rates
include flood damage actuarial costs plus administrative costs. Presumably,
similar insurance programs for heavy commercial and industrial properties
may be available from private firms such as Lloyds of London, etc. However,
rates for such insurance would be established under a similar net loss
situation as cited above. Existing flood insurance programs do not cover
damages to grounds, roads, shrubbery, trees, outbuildings, etc., and there
is no evidence to indicate future establishment of full coverage flood
insurance programs.

(5) Outright Governmental purchase of the flood plain. The New Hope
project provides flood protection to 300,000 acres of flood plain land below
the confluence of the Deep and Haw Rivers. About 10,000 acres of this land

37

is in urban areas, including 7,000 acres in the Fayetteville area. A
breakdown of a precursory estimate of the costs that would be involved in
a flood plain purchase program is given below:

Item Amount Unit Cost Total
Rural land 290,000 acres $ 200 per acre $ 58,000,000
Urban land 10,000 acres $5,000 per acre 50,000,000
Buildings 5,000 $10,000 each 50,000,000
Total $158,000,000

Although the above estimate does not include many cost items such as re-
settlement costs, highway, railroad, bridge, and utility relocations costs,
etc., the impracticability of considering such a program is indicated.
The certain widespread opposition to such a proposal would preclude imple-
mentation.

(6) Operation of a dry flood control dam at the New Hope site and
develop a second reservoir on the Haw River for conservation purposes. A
discussion of the environmental effects of operating a dry flood control
dam at the New Hope site is given in paragraph 5a above. Reservoir sites
on the Haw River upstream from the New Hope site are very limited in
storage capacity. A site about 6,000 feet upstream from the New Hope dam -
site is limited in storage capacity to a maximum elevation of about 240
feet above mean sea level due to a low saddle on the ridge between the
Haw and New Hope Rivers. The maximum storage capacity of this site would
be very slightly over the amount required for sedimentation storage and
grossly inadequate to meet the water conservation needs of the basin. A
second site on Haw River located about two miles above the New Hope site
could be developed for a storage reservoir having a maximum surface eleva-
tion of 300 feet above mean sea level. Here again the capacity of the
reservoir is so limited by the steep stream gradient of the Haw River that
the total capacity of the reservoir would have to be allocated to sediment
storage.

(7) Local protection works at Fayetteville. Early in the plan
formulation períod, detailed studies of providing dikes and levees in the
Fayetteville area were conducted. Even though about 40 percent of the
average annual flood damages along the Cape Fear River occur in the
Fayetteville area, and that it is reasonable to expect that an economically
feasible system of dikes and levees would provide a high degree of protec-
tion to the Fayetteville area, the overall reduction in total flood damages
would be less than produced by reservoir storage. The area not protected
by the Fayetteville levee system would still sustain average annual
damages amounting to $1.4 million. Upstream reservoir storage would be
the most effective in reducing this remaining flood damage and would re-
quire the same amount of storage as would be needed to protect the
Fayetteville area. Provision of this storage in addition to the Fayette-
ville levee system would not be economically feasible.

38

(8) Floodproofing. Floodproofing of the residential development
in Fayetteville was determined to be impracticable because of building
types. Buildings are predominantly low-value wooden structures which
would require unsightly secondary structural works for floodproofing.
Since floodproofing was not acceptable from aesthetic and practical stand-
points, economic evaluations were not made.

The commercial and industrial buildings of masonry construction at higher
elevations in the flood plain could likely be floodproofed. However, the
floodproofing of this limited number of buildings is not a basic alterna-
tive to flood control protection provided by the New Hope project.

b. The Relationship Between Short-Term Uses of Man's Environment and the
Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity. Implementation of
the New Hope Lake project will result in establishment of a long-lasting,
multi-purpose, multi-objective water impoundment that will provide bene-
fits for flood control, water quality control, water supply, fish and
wildlife, and readily accessible outdoor recreational facilities for both
contiguous and regional areas, thereby meeting the needs of increased
growth of industry and commerce. Social and economic gains resultant from
the project will have a regional impact as well as a local impact, not only
initially, but for generations to come. The lake, with its surrounding
wildlife areas, will provide areas permanently set aside for future
generations to enjoy. Regulation of streamflows by the project will make
it possible to utilize more fully the water and land resources of the
lower Cape Fear River Basin through flood control and insurance of adequate
depths for fish propagation and water supply. With the establishment of
local industrial and commercial facilities and the opportunities for social
and economic gains in the area, there would be a pronounced intensification
o f long-term productivity. Associated with these gains will be the long-
term loss of productive lands that would be committed to other uses without
the project; however, benefits accruing from the project outweigh these
values.

The project provides a wide range of long-term opportunities for beneficial
enhancement of the environment through public management of forest resources,
wildlife preserves, natural areas, and fishery resources. Maintenance and
continued operation of project facilities will be required on a long-term
basis to assure continuing project benefits.

7. Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Which Would Be
Involved in the Proposed Action. Commitment of the 14,300 acres of land,
including 22 miles of free-flowing stream habitat, required for construc-
tion and operation of the project which otherwise could be utilized for
timber production, agriculture, human habitation, and wildlife habitat,
will be the major irreversible and irretrievable involvements. Indirectly,
the anticipated economic growth and downstream land development induced by
the project may further commit other resources which cannot be reclaimed.
The labor and materials required for construction and operation of the
project will also be irretrievable.

39

8. Coordination With Others.

a. Public Participation. A public hearing was held concerning the
New Hope Lake project on 8 February 1957, at Fayetteville, N. C. News
releases were issued concerning the public meeting. A series of public
meetings were held with interested segments of the public after
authorization in December 1963:

26 February 1964 - Bells Baptist Church, Chatham Co»nty, C.
27 February 1964 - Durham, N. C.
24 March 1964 - Dunn, N. C.
5 May 1964 - Barbee's Chapel, Durham County, N. C.
10 June 1964 - Chapel Hill, N. C.

Other meetings have been held with individuals, groups, Boards of
Commissioners, and State and Federal agency representatives at frequent
intervals since authorization of the project.

During the summer of 1970, various environmental groups began an active
campaign against the New Hope project. The most active of these groups
was the Duke University Chapter of ECOS, INC., led by Mr. Roger Wells.
Mr. Wells and his group were invited to the Wilmington District office of
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers for a meeting to discuss any aspect of the
New Hope Lake project. The meeting was held on 4 December 1970. All
aspects of the project were explained and all questions answered. A
transcript of the meeting is filed in the Wilmington District Public
Affairs Office.

On 14 December 1970, the District Engineer made a written request to various
persons and organizations, asking if they had any information which they
felt the District Engineer should consider in preparing the environmental
impact statement. The letter request was not a part of the formal coordina-
tion, but was an attempt to encourage public participation on preparation
of the environmental statement. The informal letter was sent to the fol-
lowing organizations and individuals; comments were received from those
marked with an asterisk (*):

* Conservation Council of North Carolina
League of Women Voters, Raleigh -Wake Area
* Research -Triangle Regional Planning Commission
The University of North Carolina, Water Resource Research Institute
* Dr. Edward H. Bryan, Duke University, Department of Civil Engineering
Joseph LeConte Chapter, Sierra Club
* Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, University of
North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Durham ECOS
* Chapel Hill ECOS
Department of Civil Engineering, N. C. State University
* School of Forestry, N. C. State University
Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering,
N. C. State University
* Mr. Richie Bell, N. C. Botanical Garden, Chapel Hill.

40

b. Coordination on 30 March 1971. On 30 March 1971 the draft
environmental statement was sent to the following agencies requesting
their views and comments. Their comments are summarized below and copies
of the replies are attached.

Government Agencies

(1) Soil Conservation Service, USDA.
Comment: The statement is well prepared ant presents the
positive and negative effects of the project on the environ-
ment.

(2) Federal Highway Administration, USDT.
Comment: Provisions to minimize erosion and/or other
environmental damage to any relocation of Federal -aid
highways should be included in contract.

Response: The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works
Construction Guide Specification for Environment
Protection is being used to eliminate or reduce degradation
of the New Hope Lake project.

(3) Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, USDI.
No comments received.

(4) Department of Housing and Urban Development.
No comments received.

(5) N. C. Department of Water and Air Resources.
No comments received.

(6) Research Triangle Regional Planning Commission.
No comments received.

(7) U. S. Forest Service.
No comments received.

(8) Environmental Protection Agency.
No comments received.

(9) Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, USDI.
No comments received.

41

Citizen Groups

(1) ECOS, INC.
No comments received.

c. Coordination on 23 April 1971. On 23 April 1971, a revised draft
was sent to the same agencies. Their comments are summarized below and
copies of replies attached.

Government Agencies

(1) Soil Conservation Service, USDA.

Comment. Feel that total impact of project will not be
adverse.

(2) Federal Highway Administration, USDT.

Comment: No additional comments.

(3) Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, USDI.

Comment: The Bureau has no comments at this time.

(4) Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Comment: Draft statement fails to reflect consultation
with city and/or county planning agencies.

Response: The draft environmental statement was coordinated
with the Research Triangle Regional Planning Commission,
composed of City and County planning agencies ín Durham,
Orange, and Wake Counties.

Comment: Draft statement fails to reflect consultation with
appropriate Clearinghouse, as required by OMB Circular A-95.

Response: At the time of original coordination, the Governor
of North Carolina had designated the N. C. Department of
Water and Air Resources as the State agency to receive and
provide State comments on environmental statements. State-
ments are now filed with the Clearinghouse.

(5) N. C. Department of Water and Air Resources.

Comment: The findings of the May 1971 study of nutrient
discharge into the New Hope Lake by the Department of Water
and Air Resources should be incorporated into the environ-
mental impact statement. The study found that 99% of total
(P) phosphorus contributed originates from 27 of 53 sources,
and that treatment at those sources would bring concentra-
tions into compliance with recommendations.

42

Response: The findings of the Department's study are
incorporated into paragraph 3 of this environmental impact
statement.

Comment: Add the following information: "The Haw River in
1959 was grossly polluted. Although waste discharges have
greatly increased, the streams have been considerably im-
proved through the efforts of the State of North Carolina."

Response: We agree that the State has shown its ability to
provide the stream quality desired by the citizens of the
State.

Comment: Reference to proposed legislation should be updated.
Response: All reference to proposed legislation has been
deleted.

(6) Research Triangle Regional Planning Commission.

Comment: Based on scientific investigation, it is agreed
that current inputs to reservoir are highly polluted and that
without increased levels of treatment, the waters of the lake
will become seriously polluted.

Response: Several studies have indicated that the major water
quality problem will be associated with anticipated nuisance
algal growths resulting from excess nutrients from upstream
sources. Although no one can accurately predict which por-
tions of the lake would be most seriously affected or in
what degree, it is generally accepted that algal blooms may
occur on the upper reaches of the New Hope arm of the lake.
The State of North Carolina has identified all sources of
nutrients; determined their significance to the problem; and
has outlined a solution to the problem to protect the waters
in accordance with their present classifications. We agree
also that the protection of present stream classifications
will involve additional waste treatment.

Comment: Planning Commission pointed out the difficulties in
advanced waste -treatment technologies and in the abilities
of local governments to meet additional costs. Also dis-
cussed was the commendable progress made by the N. C. Board
of Water and Air Resources in investigation of the problem
and in making positive recommendations to provide a solution.
Should point out that phosphorus reduction will also reduce
other pollutants.

Response: Agree; the State of North Carolina has taken the
lead in protection of the streams. Also, since all treatment
measures aimed at phosphorus removal are sedimentary in na-
ture, other contaminants will also be removed.

43

Comment: Added costs for nutrient removal should be incurred
by the project.

Response: Disagree; nutrient removal is necessary to meet
present water-quality classifications and costs would be
incurred by polluters. In accordance with the Federally-
approved State "Rules, Regulations, Classifications and
Water Quality Standards Applicable To The Surface Waters of
North Carolina":

Regulation No. VII. "... Advanced waste-treatment processes
shall be required insofar as practicable in instances where
a higher degree of treatment is required to maintain the
assigned water quality standards."

Regulation No. VIII. "The maximum limits for toxic and
other deleterious substances in receiving waters shall not
exceed the values recommended in the most recent edition of
the 'Report of the National Technical Advisory Committee on
Water Quality Criteria' where stated ..."

Comment: A drawdown of three feet will be quite apparent in
the upper reaches of the lake where the water is shallow.

Response: We agree that water-level fluctuations on a mild
slope will expose more land than fluctuation on a steeper
slope. However, these upper reaches are set aside for wild-
life and are not intended for recreational use. Recreation
sites have been selected so that exposure of land due to
normal water-level fluctuations will pose no problems.
Comment: The environmental statement should mention flood
control.

Response: Agree; the impact of flood control has been added
to the final statement in paragraph 3.1.

Comment: The New Hope project could be a part of a widespread
and exceedingly valuable network of open space within the
region. Other site acquisition to augment the New Hope proj-
ect lands would be desirable.

Response: Agree; it is anticipated that the project lands
will become more and more valuable as natural areas as
adjacent open land becomes swallowed up by the surrounding
urban areas. The Wilmington District is cooperating with
other public and quasi-public landowners in the region in
developing a trails system to tie open-space lands together
in a network.

44

Comment: A possible alternative to the present project would
be a dry dam at the present site and a second dam upstream
for permanent storage.

Response: The above alternative is discussed in detail in
paragraph 5a of the statement.

(7) U. S. Forest Service.

Comments of the U. S. Forest Service digested here reflect the
contents of two coordination letters received from the agency: Original
comments of 18 May 1971, and a further letter of 5 October 1971, which
"revises and/or clarifies" original comments.

Comment: The latest figures for the project show it to
encompass an area amounting to approximately 47,000 acres.
The final project figures may be somewhat more than
47,000 acres.

Response: The Design Memoranda 8 and 8a.(Real Estate Design),
1965, estimated that a total of 48,665 acres would be re-
quired for the project. A more recent estimate, 1971, is
the 47,000 acres and is the most accurate figure to date.

Comment: A table of forested land area is furnished, in-
cluding a breakdown of types. Our figures show that 90%
of the area is forested.

Response: The draft statement showed from 85 to 87 percent
forested. The more exact information furnished by the
U. S. Forest Service is included in paragraph 2j of the
final statement.

Comment: Since the project has been initiated, logging has
occurred on an estimated 41,000 acres in the project area.
About 26,000 acres have been or are being clearcut. Most
of this forest has been commercially cut over the years
(high-grading or diameter-limit cuts). Much of this cutting
was generated by the desire of the landowners to sell the
commercial timber before selling the land to the Corps. To
date, actual complete removal of forest cover within the
project has occurred on only 694 acres. Most of this has
occurred at the dam site and/or where new roads have been
built.

Response: During the summer of 1971 the Corps initiated the
harvesting of merchantable timber on 3,700 acres of
Government-owned land within the conservation pool between
elevations 195 to 216 feet, m.s.l. The Wilmington District
discourages "clearcutting" but cannot prevent it on lands
not yet acquired. As used in North Carolina Piedmont,

45

"clearcutting" refers to the removal of all marketable
trees above a certain size, leaving young growth, under-
brush, non-commercial trees, and shrubs such as dogwood,
holly, and other specimens. As of 30 August 1971, all
Government contracts for timber harvesting within the
conservation pool have been suspended.

Comment: The beneficial effect of plants absorbing impuri-
ties from the air will be lost or curtailed on the 12,500
acres of the conservation pool. This loss could have ad-
verse air-quality impacts in this rapidly urbanizing
Piedmont area.

Response: The loss of timber and other green plants from the
area will result in a temporary reduction in the ability of
the area to absorb impurities from the air. However, impuri-
ties from the air, with the exception of CO2, are definitely
detrimental to green plant growth. Water surfaces are capable
of absorbing large quantities of nitrogen and sulfur oxides
as well as many carbon compounds, including both CO2 and CO.
Absorption of these impurities is not detrimental to water
quality, except ín exceedingly large quantities. Natural
processes of animal and plant growth may actually recycle
these compounds from water solution. Government ownership
of the land surrounding the conservation pool will insure
that these forested areas will be properly managed for
healthy, vigorous growth and thus will represent an area set
aside as a green area, as future expansions of the urban
areas take place. This Federally-managed forest preserve
will be essential in maintaining future air quality, as pointed
out by the U. S. Forest Service.

Comment: Concern is expressed over the release of air contami-
nants resulting from open burning.

Response: All open burning will be carried out within
the "Rules and Regulations Governing the Control of Air
Pollution" adopted by the N. C. Department of Water and Air
Resources, to insure that harmful air pollution does not occur
during the construction of the project.

Comment: Construction equipment, automobiles, power boats, and
other internal combustion -powered equipment associated with the
project will result in additional degradation of air quality.

Response: It is felt that the amount of pollutants introduced
into the air from such sources will be minor. Control of
emissions from internal combustion sources is provided by the
North Carolina "Rules and Regulations Governing the Control
of Air Pollution," the Clean Air Amendments of 1970, and
other laws.

46

Comment: Vegetative matter left in the reservoir area will re-
sult in pollution of the lake waters. Sediment delivery to
the streams has been increased due to the logging operations
in the area.

Response: All major reservoirs experience an initial degrada-
tion of water quality after filling due to the organic
material left within the pool area and due to leaching at the
mud-water interface. After the initial temporary period, the
reservoir experiences seasonal, complex chemical reactions.
The clearing plan for the New Hope Lake project is designed
to minimize the adverse effects of leaving organic material
within the conservation pool area. The plan calls for total
removal of vegetation from elevation 197 to 217 feet, m.s.1.,
except in "fish-drop" areas. We agree that sediment delivery
has increased within the immediate area, but anticipate a
reduction when proper forest management and other conservation
practices are implemented within the project area under the
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers forest management procedures.

Comment: Runoff from logged areas will be higher and could
contribute to higher flood peaks. Hydrologic benefits from
the forest, such as storage, will be lost.

Response: Runoff from logged areas will be temporarily in-
creased, but the effect on flood peaks is too small for
measurement. There will be no effect on downstream flood
control as a result of logged areas. Government acquisition
of these lands and the forest management practices that will
be followed will insure that no benefits that might accrue
from forested land will be lost. In fact, the project will
insure that these benefits will be maintained for future
generations.

Comment: There will be approximately 12,500 acres of forest
cleared for the conservation pool. The clearing plan indicates
clearing between elevations 197 and 217. This will remove
about 8,000 acres of forest cover. From elevation 165 (main
river at the dam) to elevation 197, all trees and brush over
2" in diameter will be removed. Forest cover removal in
this zone will amount to 4,500 acres. In selected areas
below elevation 212, brush thickets 1/4 to 1/2 acres in size
will serve as fishing drops. Some 32,000 acres within the
project boundaries are destined to remain in forest cover
and under management for a number of forest uses. This
management should produce returns to the public considerably
above those available presently from these same acres. Loss
of evapo-transpiration from the 12,500 acres could result in
greater diurnal temperature fluctuations.

47

Response: Agree that the forest management program will re-
sult in a more vigorous, healthy forest and that the total
effect of the project will be an enhancement of the forest
resources within the project area and the benefits gained
therefrom. The loss of Forest resources from the area
within the conservation pool has been acknowledged in para-
graph 3 of this statement. Large bodies of water have long
been recognized as temperature moderators. There should be
no undesirable change in ambient temperatures in the project
area as a result of the project.

Comment: The New Hope River flows through a wide and level
flood plain; mature bottomland hardwoods line the stream
bank, arching overhead to form a canopy. The stream is one
of few in the North Carolina Piedmont with an excellent
potential for float trips or canoeing.

Response: Aesthetic values are subjective and evaluation
becomes difficult. Certainly, some people will consider the
loss of about 17 miles of the New Hope River to be major;
however, a flat lake surrounded by carefully managed forests
will also be aesthetically pleasing to many. Currently,
float trips and canoeing are somewhat difficult due to the
debris and snags in the stream.

Comment: Above Durham, the New Hope River is unpolluted and
free -flowing. Local universities have ongoing water research
projects in the area.

Response: The area mentioned does not lie within lands to be
acquired by the project and will be unaffected by the project.
Comment: Improvement of sewage and waste-treatment discharges
to the Haw and New Hope Rivers will virtually eliminate the
need for dilution water in the Haw River.

Response: Evaluation of water quality needs is not within the
scope and authority of the U. S. Forest Service. However,
this comment ís discussed in the Environmental Protection
Agency's comments in this statement.

Comment: There is little wilderness value to adjacent areas
such as "Big Woods" and "Edwards Mountain" without the mature
hardwood bottoms of the New Hope Valley to connect them.

Response: The New Hope Lake project will be a valuable part
of the future open -space network which could include other
desirable areas such as "Big Woods" and "Edwards Mountain."
At the present time, the only part of the network committed
to public use is the New Hope Lake project. The other areas
are still subject to the rapid urbanization mentioned earlier
by the U. S. Forest Service.

48

Comment: The potential for and actual existence of wildlife
requires mature hardwoods. The mature bottomland hardwood
forest is largely found only in the areas where it was too
difficult to log. Bottomland hardwoods are presently the
dominant species on about 12,000 acres. Clearing of the
conservation pool will take about half or 6,000 acres of the
bottomland forest.

Response: The draft statement was revised to incorporate more
information on wildlife values and the use of the area as
habitat. Paragraph 2i of the final statement gives a detailed
explanation of the wildlife aspects of the project area.

Comment: The temperate forest of the New Hope area could be
especially significant for future air quality.

Response: Public ownership and proper forest management will
insure the value of 32,700 acres for the future.

Comment: The Forest Service feels that the full range of
alternatives to the project have not been explored. The
Forest Service offers as alternatives for:

Water quality tertiary and secondary waste treatment,
effluent fees.
Flood control flood insurance, flood proofing, advance
warning, other non-structural measures.
Recreation improved access to the New Hope River,
expansion of facilities on other exist-
ing large reservoirs.
Water supply system of smaller municipal lakes, user
fees, relocation of heavy water -using
industries, importation of water.

Other alternatives include abandonment and a reduction in the
size of the project to more reasonable proportions.

Response: Paragraph 5 (Alternatives to the Proposed Action)
of this final statement discusses fully the alternatives to
the project.

Comment: The Forest Service feels that the presentation of the
environmental effects should include other actions proposed in
the Cape Fear, Tar, and Neuse River Basins. The consideration
of individual projects constitutes a "tyranny of small decisions."
The statement should include Falls Lake, Randleman, Howards
Mill, Altamahaw, Benaja, Grey Rock, White Oak, Spring Hope,
and Buckhorn.

Response: In considering what constitutes a major action
significantly affecting the environment, it is recognized
that over a period of years, individual agencies may make

49

minor but cumulative and collectively major impacts on an
area. Therefore, a single environmental statement would be
prepared by the lead agency when such a cumulative impact is
anticipated. It is felt, however, that a discussion of the
approved plan of development for the Cape Fear River Basin,
as discussed in paragraph 2 of this final statement, ade-
quately describes the New Elope Lake project and its relation-
ship to the region and is in accordance with the Guidelines
issued by the Council on Environmental Quality.

(8) Environmental Protection Agency.

Comment: Neither the statement nor other reports on this
project indicate storage capacity dedicated to each project
use or cost -benefit ratio for each allocation.

Response: More detail is included in the description of the
project on storage capacity; see paragraph 1 of this final
statement. A single-benefit-cost ratio for the total project
is given, as the environmental impact statement is not re-
quired to be part of the project justification.

Comment: The statement should address impact on air quality
and solid-waste management.

Response: Agree and the statement is revised to include air
quality and solid -waste management in paragraph 2.

Comment: Bacterial levels are extremely high in both the
Haw and New Hope Rivers, and although natural recovery pro-
cesses significantly improve water quality at the impoundment,
there is a need for improved BOD and bacterial reductions at
several key points to insure that water quality will be
compactible with proposed use.

Response: Current water quality is documented by several
studies.16,17 The data does indicate contravention of
present water -quality classifications at certain points and
improved treatment will be necessary to meet those standards.
Accurate predictions of water quality at various locations
within the lake cannot be made; however, water quality

16Water Quality Characteristics of the New Hope and Lower Haw Rivers,
July 1966-February 1970, with Estimates of the Probable Quality of New
Hope Lake, by Charles M. Weiss, Professor of Environmental Biology,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N. C., January 1971, Water
Resources Research Institute of the University of North Carolina,
Report No. 48.
17A Study of Nutrients Discharged to the New Hope Reservoir in Wastewater
Effluents, May 1971, N. C. Department of Water and Air Resources.

50

within the lake and its tributaries will be protected by
the Federally-approved water quality standards and the
State's implementation of those standards.

Comment: Nutrient concentrations in both the Haw River
and New Hope River are high, and nuisance algae growth
detrimental to water supply and recreation are a virtual
certainty unless concentrations are reduced.

Response: Refer to our response to the Reasearch Triangle
Regional Planning Commission comment on the same subject,
paragraph 8c(6).

Comment: Although it is not possible to predict the extent
of nutrient removal necessary, a 90-percent reduction of
phosphorus at all waste sources may reduce nuisance algae
blooms to a tolerable level.

Response: The State's water-quality criteria for nutrients
are based on the recommendations of the National Technical
Advisory Committee and as such, represent the most reliable
and accurate information to date. Compliance with those
recommendations, and hence the recently proposed plan of
the Department of Water and Aír Resources, to reduce
nutrients in tributary streams, will protect the waters
of the lake for all proposed purposes.

Comment: Additional reduction of phosphorus and also
nitrogen and carbon by more sophisticated advanced
waste -treatment techniques may be necessary to insure
control of algal blooms at all times.

Response: Agree. However, control of algae at all times
may not be desirable if the waters of the project meet
all uses. Most projects, such as the John H. Kerr proj-
ect on the Roanoke River, have no control for the high
inflow of nutrients from upstream sources. The resultant
algae growth poses no problem for project uses at John H.
Kerr since recreation areas and other uses are planned
to avoid undesirable portions of the lake.

Comment: Impoundment should not take place until there is
a strong technical basis for the prediction that nuisance
algal growths will not occur.

Response: Benefits to be derived from the project are not
contingent on a theoretical, pure lake but are based on
a recognition of probable water-quality conditions which
would include the possibility of algae blooms in the
upper reaches of the lake at times. Based on present
knowledge of eutrophication and the relationship of algae
growth to nutrients, vitamins, trace elements, and other

51

factors, it is doubtful whether a strong technical basis
exists for the predíction that nuisance algal growths
will not occur on most existing reservoirs, including
valuable recreational lakes such as the John H. Kerr
Reservoir.

Comment: The statement dealing with public water supply
should be amplified to indicate what kind of additional
treatment may be necessary to remove naturally present
impurities to meet Public Health Service Drinking Water
Standards.

Response: The statement was quoted from the EPA approved
Water Quality Standards Applicable to The Surface Waters
of North Carolina so that a definition of "additional
treatment" would appropriately come from either the North
Carolina Department of Water and Air Resources or from
EPA. To avoid confusion, the reference to "additional
treatment" is removed from paragraph 2.1.

Comment: Tastes and odors in the water associated with
luxuriant algal growths require special treatment prior
to domestic use.

Response: Withdrawal for water supply will not be made
from an area ín which excessive algae growths are likely.

Comment: Because of the marginal quality of reservoir
input and the likelihood of vertical stratification in
the reservoir, water-supply intake structures should have
multilevel intake ports for selection of best quality
water and the cost thereof considered in the benefit -
cost analyses.

Response: We anticipate that the New Hope Lake will
develop a strong, seasonal thermal stratification having
a markedly clinograde dissolved oxygen curve. An inverse
relationship between iron and oxygen will develop so that
the most desirable location for a water-supply intake
during stratified conditions would be in the epilimnion
zone of the lake. The density gradient within the
epilimnion would be small, thus making it somewhat
difficult to effectively use selective withdrawal. In
addition, stratification of chemical parameters within
the epilimnion may not warrant the expense of multi-
level intakes. The costs of such features would be borne
by the user and it is felt that any improvement in water
quality probably would not exceed the costs of these
features since the same water treatment would be required
anyway.

52

Comment: Water-quality storage is based on atarget flow of
600 c.f.s. at Lillington, N. C. A preliminary reevaluation
based on current policies and improved technology indicates
that no low-flow augmentation needs exist below the project.

Response: The present storage is based on a study performed
by Public Health Service and was based on laws and policies
at that time. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, As
Amended, which controls water -quality storage in Federal
projects, has been amended four times since its passage in
1956. Flow augmentation would provide water to meet stream
dissolved oxygen criteria when natural stream flows are not
sufficient even with secondary treatment of waste sources.
In accordance with the recommendations in the 1959 water
quality study, the low -flow augmentation needs for the Cape
Fear River will be updated before project completion to
reflect the more stringent water quality standards, increased
waste loads, and other factors that would affect the changing
need for low -flow regulation.

Comment: The elimination of the water quality augmentation
needs could eliminate the need for water supply storage ín
the reservoir. Elimination of water quality flow needs would
leave only the demand for water supply needs to be met from
available stream flows.

Response: Water supply needs are clearly outlined in the
recent letter received from the N. C. Department of Water and
Air Resources (letter to Colonel Costanzo from George Pickett,
25 August 1971, see table of contents). The Corps of Engineers
has estimated the future water supply needs and allocated
storage to meet those needs. The State of North Carolina has
already received requests for portions of the water supply
storage from Chapel Hill and Chatham County. Stream flows are
not available to match the ability of the New Hope project in
supplying raw water to meet those needs.

Comment: Based on the foregoing environmental considerations,
a new project feasibility study may be required to insure
that contemporary environmental values and present costs are
factored into the benefit-cost analysis.

Response: The benefit-cost ratio was developed using prescribed
methodology in accordance with policy, criteria, and guidelines
applicable to the project. The benefit-cost ratio has subse-
quently been periodically revised and updated to include rises
in the price index, developments in the affected zones, and
changes in project storage allocations. A complete reevalua-
tion of project benefits under the multipurpose, multi-
objective concept would probably result in greater benefits
than claimed. Therefore, one cannot assess only the costs
associated with the project, but he must also consider the
corresponding benefits.

53

(9) Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, USDI.

Comment: Based on the August 4, 1971 letter from EPA to the
Corps (Comments on Environmental Statement), the Bureau of
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife disagrees with the draft
environmental statement when it says that fishery values
will be as supplied by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
Wildlife in 1962. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wild-
life is now of the opinion that the water q.ualíty conditions
and fishery values presented in the draft statement cannot
be obtained. The presence of large quantities of nuisance
algae growths in the shallow upper portions of the lake will
discourage fishing and quick die offs may cause fish kills.
In any case, since nuisance algae growths are a virtual
certainty, the Bureau can only conclude that the lake and
tailrace may become the scene of massive fish kills.

Response: The position stated by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife seems to be based on a misunderstood water quality
prediction. Paragraph 3.1. of the final statement explains
the impact of the project on water quality. As stated in the
draft and final impact statements, fishery values are expected
to be enhanced by the project. The essential relationships
between upstream pollution sources and expected concentra-
tions of bacteria, nutrients, and other parameters that will
exist in the New Hope Lake will be essentially the same as
predicted in 1962 (Comprehensive Report on Cape Fear River
Basin, North Carolina, House Document 508) and in the Cape
Fear River Basin, North Carolina; Interim Report on Randleman
and Howards Mill Projects, House Document 343, 1968. Recent
studies have only confirmed former predictions concerning
nutrients and algae growths and have identified measures that
would improve the quality of the impounded water (see EPA com-
ments on the environmental statement, paragraph 8c(8). We
therefore disagree that the lake and tailrace may become the
scene of massive fish kills; no evidence points to that pre-
diction.

Comment In their natural state, the Haw and New Hope Rivers
experience recovery ín downstream reaches. After impound-
ment, waters at lower depths will be devoid of oxygen. High
nutrient concentrations will intensify and extend water
quality problems into the upper surface layers. Therefore,
impoundment will create a pollution problem to the detriment
of the ecosystem.

Response: We agree that the Haw and New Hope Rivers experi-
ence natural recovery from organic loading upstream. In
fact, at the point of impoundment on the Haw River, the
waters are well aerated and are low in bacteria and oxygen -
demanding matter (see paragraph 2.1., of the final environ-
mental statement). We do not agree that impoundment will

54

create or cause a pollution problem; the effects of impound-
ment on water quality are outlined in paragraph 3.1., of the
final environmental statement.

Comment: The draft environmental statement places too much
emphasis on the State of North Carolina's authorities,
responsibilities, and commitments to correct water quality
problems. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife sus-
pects that the people will be asked to maks the final
decision to clean up the water so that impoundment will pre-
sent no water quality problem.

Response: The final environmental statement places the State
of North Carolina in its rightful position regarding enforce-
ment of water quality standards. The primary responsibility
for enforcement of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
As Amended, rests with the states. Water quality in most
stream segments ín the reservoir drainage area is actually
rower than that required for the assigned classification.
This is due primarily to the fact that major segments of
streams have recently been upgraded in classification, that
considerably more stringent water quality standards appli-
cable to the classifications were adopted by the Board of
Water and Air Resources in late 1970, and that some major
waste discharges are made to very small streams so that
even though secondary treatment facilities are provided, they
are not sufficient to protect water quality in accordance with
present standards.

Comment: The draft statement attributes unidentified benefits
to downstream anadromous fishery resulting from the New Hope
Lake project. In fact, it is more likely that the project
will cause a loss to anadromous fisheries. It is at the time
of arrival of flood flows in the estuary that anadromous fish
species begin to move upstream to their traditional river
spawning grounds. Any alteration of the floodflows regimens
could endanger the present spawning success of anadromous
fishes.

Response: We disagree that the downstream anadromous fishery
will be detrimentally affected by the New Hope Lake project.
The following is a quote from the Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife, Beaufort, N. C., Laboratory, Report of the
Steering Committee for Roanoke River Studies 1955-1958, pp.
224-225, an intensive investigation of the spawning of
striped bass (Roccus saxatilus):

"We have no information that would verify or reject the need
for an attraction flow since there appears to be no relation-
ship between volume of flow and catches made by commercial
gear in the lower river. In view of the fact that striped

55

bass have from the earliest available records been known to
migrate into the Roanoke River to spawn on either low or
high flows, it is hardly conceivable that mature fish would
refrain from entering the river ín the absence of an attrac-
tion flow. There is a possibility that flushing the river
of pollutants immediately prior to the arrival of spawners
could benefit from the standpoint of water quality. Other-
wise, benefits are believed to be questionable and special
flows unnecessary for attraction purposes.

The same principle applies to other anadromous fishes.
Riverflow seems to be important for three reasons. With
higher flows, the fish move further upstream to spawn than
w ith lower flows; higher flows help the fish to avoid anglers
in their migration; and, in the Cape Fear River, minimum
flows are essential to continue the locking operation at the
three locks and dams. There have been several occasions when
the number of locking operations on the Cape Fear River for
anadromous fishes had to be reduced due to low water. The
releases from the New Hope Lake project will provide an
increase in low flow so that the locking operations for
anadromous fishes by the Corps of Engineers can continue at
a desirable level even in dry years. Regulation of the
project will be such that normally occurring high (non -flood)
flows in the Spring will continue. Therefore, there should
be no adverse effect of anadromous fishes.

Comment: The N. C. State Wildlife Resources Commission, the
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Corps of Engineers
are presently operating the locks on the Cape Fear River
below Fayetteville to pass fish during anadromous runs. The
Service will conduct followup studies to determine the
effects of the New Hope Lake project on anadromous fishes.

Response: As mentioned in the final environmental statement
(2i) and in the comment above, the three locks on the
Cape Fear River are operated to pass fish during anadromous
runs. Although fish ladders were provided in the design of
the locks, they are completely ineffective ín passing
anadromous fish. At the present time, the anadromous fishery
has recovered as a result of the locking operations and is an
excellent example of project modification for the benefit of
anadromous fishes. As was done on the Roanoke River, the
Corps of Engineers will welcome any opportunity to work with
the Fish and Wildlife Service to the benefit of reservoir
and/or downstream fisheríes.

Comment: There is no need to pass resident fish populations
thru the locks during low flow.

56

Response: We agree; there is enough reproduction recruitment
from the tributaries in the basin to keep the reproductive
capacity of the area in balance. Locking operations would
only be required for anadromous fishes.

Comment: The final environmental statement should be ex-
panded and clarified on wildlife resources.

Response: The final statement has been clarified and expanded
on wildlife resources, paragraph 2i and paragraph 3i.

Comment: A man-day loss in hunting opportunities is a small
part of the total loss. Wildlife values have a non consump-
tive value for recreation and also as a part of an ecosystem.
Also the loss of 19,000 acres of high quality wetland wild-
life habitat downstream from the project, through conversion
to agricultural uses should be covered.

Response: The final environmental impact statement discusses
the loss of wildlife habitat resulting from the New Hope Lake
project, paragraph 3i. It should be remembered, however,
that the lands downstream from the project are in private
ownership. There is no estimate of the loss of habitat that
would occur without the project as a result of actions by
private owners. We agree that hunting opportunities do not
represent the total worth of wildlife. Many people who do
not hunt enjoy wildlife values.

Comment: Wildlife mitigation features are overemphasized in
relation to their importance.

Response: The final environmental statement treats mitigation
measures in its proper context. The loss of certain wildlife
habitat is recognized in the environmental statement, but the
project will make these losses less severe by providing for
intensive wildlife management. We feel that these measures
are of great importance.

Comment: Timber cutting operations that preceded acquisition
of these lands have diminished their value from excellent to
something less. Most of the 18,000-acre area above the con-
servation pool will not be suitable for "intensive wildlife
management" because of periodic filling of the flood control
pool.

Response: We agree that timber harvesting by private land-
owners has resulted in a reduction in the value of the land as
wildlife habitat. However, as stated in paragraph 3j of the
final statement, the Corps will provide forestry management
for these lands that will return them to their "excellent"
quality. Experience at many Corps of Engineers lakes has

57

shown that the land lying in the flood control pool can be
used with success as wildlife habitat. Full use of the
flood control pool (elevation 240 feet, mean sea level) at
New Hope Lake can be expected to occur, on the average,
once in every 125 years.

Comment: The land lying within the flood control pool
(elevation 216' to 240' mean sea level) will not be suitable
for "intensive wildlife management" because of the steep
terrain.

Response: Disagree; the land lying between elevation 216 feet,
mean sea level, and 240 feet, mean sea level, at the New Hope
Lake project are not too steep for intensive wildlife manage-
ment. In fact, lands have been purchased specifically for
wildlife management that are considerably steeper than the
topography at the New Hope Lake project, such as those around
the Philpott Lake project and Ferrystone State Park in Patrick
and Henry Counties in Virginia. In North Carolina, land on
Uwharrie, Pisgah, and Nantahala National Forests will be
added in 1971 to the Game Lands Program of the N. C. Wildlife
Resources Commission. Bureau of Sport Fisheries comment
contradicts its other statements about the same land. On
page 3, 4th paragraph of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries com-
ments on the environmental statement, the Bureau described
these same lands as being "excellent" prior to timber har-
vesting. It should also be noted that the Bureau has claimed
wildlife losses from this area and recommended that these
lands be set aside for wildlife management.

Comment: Due to errors in mapping, it appears that initial
subimpoundment locations may be jeopardy. Field transects
show that at least one of the five subímpoundments may be
out of the project boundary.

Response: It has been the plan and intent of the District to
assist the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission to provide
waterfowl subimpoundment as feeding and attraction areas.
The surfaces of the subimpoundments are planned at elevations
from 230 feet to 238 feet above mean sea level, and above
the 216' conservation pool. However, due to expected eleva-
tion variance of project topographic maps, and final
acquisition of the project boundary, these subimpoundments
may be shallower and either smaller or larger in size than
the original concept. However, no problem is expected ín
either relocating these, or providing two or three addi-
tional subimpoundments in view of topographic conditions,
infringing subdivisions, and finalization of the preliminary
alignments of Interstate Highway I-40 and an express N. C.
Highway 54.

58

Comment: We believe that greater attention should be given
to alternatives.

Response: The final environmental statement discusses alter-
natives in paragraph 5 in detail.

Comment: We are of the opinion that many of the project
benefits will be achieved upon other lands in the basin. In
addition, it is difficult to understand the justification for
the New Hope Lake project.

Response: Justification of the New Hope Lake project is con-
tained in House Document No. 508, 87th Congress, 2d Session,
1962.

Comment: We strongly support the recommendations of the
Environmental Protection Agency's 4 August 1971 letter.

Response: Refer to our responses to the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency's 4 August 1971 letter in paragraph 8c.

Comment: The Fish and Wildlife Service recommends that the
final environmental statement be withheld until project
reevaluation has been completed.

Response: The final environmental statement on the New Hope
Lake project will be filed in conformance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

Citizen Groups. The revised draft environmental statement was
coordinated with citizen groups on two occasions, 23 April and 3 August
1971. All comments received are summarized below and copies of the com-
ments attached to the final statement.

(1) Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, NCSU.
Comment: The Department had no comments to make on the
statement.

(2) Daniel A. Okun, Head, Department of Environmental Sciences
and Engineering, UNC at Chapel Hill.

Comment: It now appears that nutrient control, or
more specifically, phosphate control, will be necessary
to preserve the water quality of the lake.

Response: The study of May 1971 by the North Carolina
Department of Water and Air Resources found that phosphorus
reductions at 27 major sources would bring concentrations
to within water-quality standards and thus protect the
lake waters and its tributaries.

59

Comment: The establishment of water-quality standards by
the Water and Air Resources Board will not assure that
these standards will be met, nor is there assurance as
to the source of funds for providing the proposed phos-
phate removal.

Response: There is no reason to suspect that the State
will not enforce water-quality standards. The State of
North Carolina has frequently assured the people that the
waters tributary to the New Hope Lake project will be
protected.

Comment: It would not be necessary for phosphate removal
if the New Hope Lake were not to be built, as nutrient
enrichment in flowing streams creates no problems.
Treatment costs should be borne by the project.

Response: Present concentrations of nutrients are in
contravention of present water-quality standards and
reductions would be required with or without New Hope
Lake. The water -quality standards specify criteria
not problems as the guide for meeting standards. Costs
of treatment to meet State standards will be borne by
the individual polluters.

Comment: If water quality can be maintained in New Hope
Lake, the lake will be a positive asset to the region.

Response: Agree; and this item is covered in paragraph 3.1.,
of the final statement.

Comment: Statements of legislation on water-quality
control should be revised to incorporate the legislation
that has currently been enacted.

Response: All reference to proposed or recently enacted
legislation was deleted. The water quality criteria for
the Haw and New Hope Rivers were not changed by recent
legislation.

(3) School of Forest Resources, NCSU.

Comment: Although reference is made to the preservation
of forest research plots on the periphery of the project
and to forests within the flood control pool, no reference
is made to future management of these lands.

Response: The statement is revised in paragraph 3j to
indicate the future management of forest lands.

60

Comment: We would like to insure continuity of our research
in Hope Valley forest and suggest that acquisition bounda-
ries be changed to exclude research plots.

Response: Agree that research plots should be maintained
and research continued. Mutually satisfactory agreements
regarding acquisition or lease of lands desired by N. C.
State University will be worked out.

Comment: The statement that in North Carolina "less than
10% of the forest land receives forest management" is
incorrect. Actually, between one-third and one-half of
North Carolina forest land receives fairly intensive
forest management.

Response: The statement is corrected in paragraph 2j of the
final statement.

Comment: Reference is made to the fact that 14,300 acres
will be inundated by the lake and that this is only 5%
of North Carolina's 20 million acres of forest land.
Actually, the inundated land is more valuable to forestry
than the specific acreage would indicate because site and
hence potential productivity of these bottom lands are
of the highest and particularly adapted to good hardwood
production.

Response: We agree. Although past practices in the region
have ignored, for the most part, hardwood production, the
climax forest would indeed be hardwood. Comparison of
this land with total forest acreage in North Carolina
would be inappropriate, so the comparison has been deleted.

(4) ECOS, INC.

Comment: The draft environmental statement should present
a point-by-point rebuttal to alternatives that have been
presented in detail such as the multiple dam proposal
and the flow retardation proposal. The alternative of
no change of the valley is felt to be still economically
viable.

Response: Please refer to our response to the Forest
Service comment on the same subject, paragraph 8c(7). Also
the discussion on alternatives within the statement is
expanded in paragraph 5 to include all known alternatives.

Comment: Present water quality in the Haw and New Hope
Rivers is unsuitable for input to the lake. These waters
should be brought into compliance with State standards
prior to construction of the dam. However, no specific
plan of action has been set by the State.

61

Response: Benefits used in justifying the project were
not contingent on proposed water quality, but were based
on anticipated initial restrictions on certain water
uses in parts of the lake. When complete cleanup upstream
is brought about, added and unclaimed benefits will
accrue from the project. The N. C. Department of Water
and Air Resources made a study of the water quality
problems of the Haw River Basin in May 1971, and their
recommendations are currently being considered by the
Board of Water and Air Resources.

Comment: The benefit-cost ratio emerges as a center of
controversy. Specific points should be covered by the
impact statement as they relate to the benefit-cost ratio:

A. Flood frequency calculations of others;
B. Recreational benefit projections;
C. Cost of additional treatment; and
D. Land enhancement benefits.

Response: Refer to response to EPA on project benefit-cost
ratio, paragraph 8c(7).

Comment: Construction work should be halted immediately
to prevent further irrevocable damage to environment
until an adequate environmental impact statement has
been filed.

Response: As outlined in the description of the project,
all clearing has already been accomplished for the re-
location contracts and the dam and outlet works contract
with the exception of four acres of land at three saddle -
dike sites. No clearing will take place on these sites
until the statement is filed. Also, all Government con-
tracts for harvesting merchantable timber were suspended
as of August 1971. No further work of an irreparable or
irretrievable nature will take place until after the
statement ís filed.

(5) Conservation Council of North Carolina.

Comment: The Conservation Council shares comments from
other agencies on certain topics:

Forest Service - - - - concern for loss of valuable
timberland and wildlife habitat.

62

EPA concern for low-flow augmentation
needs and water quality within
impoundment. Should reevaluate
project in terms of present poli-
cies, needs, technologies, and
costs.

Response: The comments of the Forest Service are responded
to under paragraph 8c, Government Agencies subparagraph (7);
those of EPA are found ín subparagraph (8).

(6) Department of Civil Engineering, NCSU.
No comments received at this time.

(7) North Carolina Botanical Garden, Chapel Hill, N. C.
No comments received at this time.

(8) League of Women Voters, Raleigh-Wake Area.
No comments received at this time.

(9) Sierra Club, Joseph LeConte Chapter.
No comments received at this time.

(10) Litigation. The environmental questions contained in the
plaintiff's complaint in the action filed against the project
(see paragraph 4, Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot
be Avoided) are summarized below and appropriate responses
made. The comments are referenced in parenthesis by paragraph
and page number to the complaint.

(a) Water Quality.

1. Comment: Defendants assert they are working to
prevent excessive nutrient enrichment in the
lake. The only way to eliminate the nutrient
enrichment from waste discharge would be to re-
quire every municipal and industrial waste
source to implement tertiary treatment of íts
wastes, a process that would require a vast
capital investment, a period of at least two or
three years of construction, and an annual main-
tenance of upwards of $800,000. Defendants have
neither the authority nor the resources to
achieve this result. (Par. 15(c), pp. 11 and 12)

Response: The State of North Carolina, through
its water quality standards has affirmed that
it will require nutrient removal where present
effluent contravenes stream classifications.

63

The May 1971 report by the State of North Carolina
concluded that such nutrient reductions would be
sufficient to protect New Hope Lake. As with any
pollution problem, cleanup costs are incurred by
the polluter. The detailed report by the State
of North Carolina does not agree that nutrient
removal would be required at every source or that
the cost of annual maintenance would be $800,000.
The Corps of Engineers will coope±ate in this
effort through administration of the discharge
permits program under 33 USC 407 (1899 Refuse Act).
In a recent letter from the N. C. Department of
Water and Air Resources, the State of North
Carolina has reaffirmed its intention to control
nutrients discharged into tributary streams to
New Hope Lake. Refer to paragraph 8d(6).

When the New Hope project was in its early stages
of consideration, untreated sewage was being dis-
charged into Haw River. Today, the bulk of the
total load of waste effluent entering Haw River
has received secondary treatment. This is undeniable
evidence of substantial progress. Although operating
data is not available on all plants in the basin,
data from 27 of the largest facilities (representing
99% of the volume) indicate that average pollution
reduction (organic material) of 84 percent is being
reached. More stringent water quality standards
were adopted by the State in 1970 and the Board of
Water and Air Resources will re-examine all stream
classifications with a view toward upgrading classi-
fications in the near future. All of these things
document the ability and determination of the State
of North Carolina to provide needed pollution
abatement.

2. Comment: Moreover, because of the lake's slow
flushing time and the recycling of nutrients to
algae to sediments to macrophytes, noticeable
water quality improvement as a result of tertiary
treatment could not be expected within 25 years.
Even in the absence of nutrients from wastes, the
shallowness of New Hope Lake would insure abnor-
mally heavy algae growths that could not be
controlled. (Par. 15(c), pp. 12)

Response: Disagree. Noticeable water quality
improvement, as the result of increased treatment,
is expected to take place before water is impounded
in New Hope Lake. Noticeable improvement in other
lakes has occurred shortly after remedial measures

64

were taken. A reduction in phosphates and other
nutrients would have a noticeable effect at the
upper end of the New Hope Arm where algae may
occur. The shallowness of New Hope Lake is not
expected to contribute to any nutrient problem.
The available research data does not conclusively
define the relationship between lake depth and
the algae problem; for example, no problem has
occurred at Kerr Reservoir where depths and con-
ditions are similar.

3. Comment: The algae would result in significant
taste and odor problems if any of the lake water
were used as a public water supply. The growth
and decomposition of algae and the presence of
partially treated sewage in the lake would
severely reduce the quality and quantity of fish
population, by limiting spawning areas, hindering
development of fish food chains, interfering with
the dissolved oxygen supply, and emitting toxic
substances. (Par. 15(c), pp. 12)

65

Response: Disagree. Areas where unusually high
algae concentration may occur are remote from
proposedwater supply intake zones. These areas
are so small in size compared to the total area
of the lake that ample spawning areas should
exist in other areas of the lake where fish
attractors are provided. Some nutrients in the
form of algae and bacteria are beñeficial to the
fish population, since fish food chains are based
on the presence of these organisms.

4. Comment: While the report conceded that the lake
would be of questionable quality for recreational
purposes, the report failed to mention that deter-
minations have been made that a portion of the
lake at least will be so highly infiltrated with
coliform bacteria that swimming, water skiing,
and other contact recreation would be prohibited
for public health reasons. (Par. 15(c), pp. 12)

Response: Initial bacterial levels may prohibit
primary contact recreation in the upper reaches of
New Hope Lake; however, the lower reaches should
be available for water contact recreation. The
State of North Carolina states that all sewage
treatment plants in the Haw-New Hope Watershed
will be required to install and continuously
operate chlorination facilities. This measure
ís expected to reduce coliform bacteria to a
level permitting extensive use of the lake for all
recreational purposes.

5. Comment: There was no exploration of the environ-
mental effects of the creation of vast mudbanks
and potholes, which are inevitable in the New Hope
River arm of the lake, where the distance between
high and low watermark will be measured in miles
and fractions of miles, and where about 44 percent
of the surface area of the lake will be less than
12 feet deep, 24 percent of ít will be less than
six feet deep, and 16 percent of it will be less
than four feet deep. (Par. 15(a), pp. 10)

Response: Average annual fluctuation in conserva-
tion pool level at New Hope Lake should not exceed
three feet, and in no area would this result in
exposed bottoms of the magnitude suggested in the
comment. As for relative depths of New Hope Lake,

66

a comparison with the John H. Kerr Dam and Reser-
voir is useful.

New Hope John H. Kerr

less than 12' 44% 34.0%
6' 24% 18.5%
4' 16% 13.0%

The John H. Kerr project experiences much greater
annual fluctuation, and no substantial adverse
environmental effects have resulted from exposed
bottoms.

6. Comment: The report justified in part the project
on the anticipated enactment of North Carolina
State statutes protecting water quality, which
ultimately were not passed by the 1971 General
Assembly. (Par. 15(b), pp. 11)

Response: The final environmental impact statement
does not refer to any legislation passed or pro-
posed for the North Carolina General Assembly. The
letter from the N. C. Department of Water and Air
Resources cites the laws enacted by the General
Assembly which provide authority for enforcement
of water quality standards. See paragraph 8d,
The environmental impact statement is a report on
environmental aspects of the project and is not
a part of project justification.

7. Comment: Probably the most serious deficiency of
defendants' environmental statement is its de-
emphasis on the certainty that the water of New
Hope Lake will be of exceptionally bad quality.
(Par. 15(c), pp. 11)

Response: The final environmental statement is
revised to include more detail on water quality
conditions so that the full extent of the situation
is presented. Detailed parametric data appear in
paragraphs 2.k. and 2.1., and the impact is in
paragraph 3.1. We do not agree that there is a
certainty that the water of New Hope Lake will be
of exceptionally bad quality. On the contrary,
the degree of waste treatment already provided and
planned portends water of acceptable quality which
will further improve after impoundment.

67

8. Comment: As a product of nutrient content in muni-
cipal and industrial wastes discharged into the
Haw and New Hope Rivers, principally phosphate and
nitrate, and as a result of the shallowness of a
large portion of the lake, extremely heavy growths
of algae are certain to occur. (Par. 15(c), pp. 11)

Response: The possibility of unusually high algae
growth is discussed in paragraph 3.1. of the
final environmental statement.

9. Comment: The report represents phosphorus intake of
the lake to be 1.01 mg/l and .085 mg/l at various
stations; in fact some surveys of phosphate data
indicate 10 to 15 mg/l in this watershed. At the
same time there are abnormally high concentrations
of nitrate. (Par. 15(c), pp. 11)

Response: As outlined in paragraph 2.1. of the
final environmental statement, representative
sample stations have average values of phosphorus
at 1.01 mg/l and 0.85 mg/l. The higher values
(10 to 15 mg/l range) that have been measured do
not represent average inflow values.

10. Comment: No attention is given to the chemical
pollution of the lake and downstream waters by
vegetative matters that will be left ín the reser-
voir area, such as tannins, wood sugars, dissolved
salts, and partially decomposed organic material.
(Par. 15(a), pp. 9)

Response: The final environmental statement dis-
cusses the effects of impoundment on water quality
in paragraph 3.1. This discussion includes
information about initial eutrophic tendencies
from materials left in the reservoir area.

11. Comment: By the processes of eutrophication
described in the immediately preceding subparagraph,
the present quality of the water in both the New
Hope River and the Haw River will be adversely
affected. The portion of the Haw River involved
in this project is rated All by the North Carolina
Board of Water and Air Resources. This is the
highest rating in the State system, and indicates
a best use as raw-water supply. The New Hope River
is classified C by the North Carolina Board of
Water and Air Resources, indicating a best use of
fishing and fish and wildlife propagration. Once
these waters become impounded, and affected by the

68

processes described above, they will undoubtedly
be either within or below the lowest classification
D recognized by the North Carolina Board of Water
and Air Resources. (Par. 23, pp. 22)

Response: Disagree. The highest classification in
the State system is A-I, not AII. Also, impound-
ment and storage of water in New Hope Lake will
tend to improve them, as described in paragraph 3.1.

12. Comment: The municipalities in the vicinity of the
New Hope Lake project have public water supplies
which are ample for the present and for the fore -
seeable future; there is no established need for
this lake as a source of water supply. (Par. 22,
pp. 21)

Response: Disagree. House Document 508 outlines
the future water supply needs which will be met by
the New Hope Lake project. The State of North
Carolina has already allotted 20% of the water
supply capacity of New Hope Lake in response to
requests from municipalities in the vicinity. The
letter from the N. C. Department of Water and Air
Resources dated 25 August 1971 reiterates the need
for water supply. (See Table of Contents, Additional
Information.)

13. Comment: In the absence of extreme low flow, the
principal justifícation for increasing the flow
by discharging water from New Hope Lake would be
to dilute sewage from downstream sources. This
is an objective that ís in clear contravention
of 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1153 (b) (1), which provides
that in the planning of any reservoir by the Corps
of Engineers, storage and water releases shall not
be provided as a substitute for adequate treatment
or other methods of controlling waste at the source.
(Par. 23, pp. 22 and 23)

Response: Disagree. The State of North Carolina
advises that stream flow augmentation is considered
essential to adequate water supply and the dilution
of treated waste effluents below the dam. Swamp -
waters have a material effect on water quality in
the lower Cape Fear River and these too must be
diluted. As the District Engineer stated in House
Document 508 (p. 51): "The key to a high degree
of water -quality control in the basin is considered
to be (1) complete secondary treatment at all pollu-
tion sources and (2) adequate dilution of residual
wastes."

69

14. Comment: Defendants maintain that by varying the
release of water from the lake to the lower Cape
Fear Basin, the variations in flow will be lessened
and periods of excessively low flow will be elimi-
nated. The Cape Fear River in its natural state
is not susceptible to periods of extreme low flow.
(Par. 23, pp. 22)

Response: Disagree. On 14 and 15 October 1954, the
flow at Lillington, N. C., was 11 cubic feet per
second (c.f.s.) as opposed to an average flow of
3,288 c.f.s. and a high flow of over 140,000 c.f.s.
Other low flow daily amounts and year of occurrence
are as follows: 22 c.f.s. in 1927, 37 c.f.s. in
1942, 45 c.f.s. in 1969, 48 c.f.s. in 1931 and 1932,
55 c.f.s. in 1952, and 60 c.f.s. in 1948. The
lowest mean monthly flows at Lillington were 90
c.f.s. in October 1927, 96 c.f.s. in September 1968,
and 101 c.f.s. in October 1931.

15. Comment: Because of the severe diminution of water
quality in New Hope Lake, as a result of the eutro-
phicatíon processes described herein, the water that
would be released for downstream water quality control,
itself would be of an exceedingly poor quality, and
would intensify downstream pollution instead of
diluting it. (Par. 23, pp. 23)

Response: Disagree. As pointed out in the final
environmental statement, paragraph 3.1., impoundment
is expected to improve water quality.

16. Comment: The algae growth will be stimulated, and
hence the objectionable qualities of the water will
be increased by the presence in the lake of phosphates
and nitrates from municipal and industrial sewer dis-
charges. (Par. 22, pp. 21)

Response: There is no question that algae growth is
stimulated by nutrient content in waste water efflu-
ent. However, some algae growth is essential to a
healthy lake. Reductions in nutrient levels lessens
the likelihood of algae blooms.

(b) Wildlife.

1. Comment: The report does not take into account the
effects on recreation and wildlife interests of the
loss of thousands of acres of wildlife habitat that
will be displaced by the lake and by the intensi-
fied activities around the lake that must be anti-
cipated. (Par. 15(a), pp. 9)

70

Response: 14,300 acres of existing wildlife habitat
will be converted to a reservoir fishery of more
than local significance. An additional 18,000 acres,
principally in the upper reaches of the project area
and removed from the intensified activities, will
be turned over to the Wildlife Resources Commission
for intensive wildlife management. This area in-
cludes sites to be developed as wildlife subimpound-
ments. In areas of intensified.astivities there
should be a significant increase in the population
of squirrel and song birds.

2. Comment: The precious population of wild turkey in
the area was said to live in the "Big Woods," area
that will not be inundated, when in fact the turkey
primarily inhabit the wooded bottom lands that will
be flooded. (Par. 15(b), pp. 11)

Response: This statement has been corrected in the
final environmental statement's paragraph 3i.
While significant bottom-land habitat areas will
be inundated by the project, substantial bottom-
land areas will be preserved, licensed for wildlife
management, and benefit from implementation of a
Federal forestry management plan. This area should
provide a permanent base for the wild turkey popula-
tion.

3. Comment: It was stated by defendants that wildlife
habitat had been diminished as a result of urban
sprawl and the pressure of transportation routes;
in fact this area has remained remote, thinly
populated, without a network of heavily traveled
roadways, and in all respects an excellent wild-
life habitat. (Par. 15(b), pp. 11)

Response: The Research Triangle Regional Planning
Commission, among others, has pointed to the in-
creasing trend to urbanization in the project area.
Located as it is in a rapidly expanding urban area,
the value of the project area as a wildlife habitat
would continue to diminish as farms and forests
were converted to residential area. It is felt
that, without the project, further degradation of
the habitat value would be irreversible.

4. Comment: The portion of the river basin to be inun-
dated contains a population of deer, squirrel,
rabbit, fox, fur-bearing animals, woodcock, many
species of song birds, doves, waterfowl, and quail,
in addition to a small population of wild turkey.

71

All of this game would be lost. An estimated
15,800 man-days of hunting at the same time would
be lost. (Par. 24, pp. 23)

Response: See response to Comment 1. The actual
area of wildlife habitat would be reduced but
management for wildlife should mitigate this
loss. Conditions should be much improved for
waterfowl through the lake and subimpoundments.
Hunting opportunities are abundant in the general
area of the project; the loss of hunting opportunity
within the project area is offset by the vastly im-
proved fishery, as well as the environmental value
of areas protected for wildlife management.

(c) Forestry.

1. Comment: The report fails to mention the loss of
more than $1 million per year of farm and timber
crops from the area to be inundated. (Par. 15(a),
pp. 9)

Response: The environmental impact statement does
not discuss economic matters evaluated by the
Congress in authorizing the project. The environ-
mental impact statement does recognize the amount
of land to be inundated, paragraph 3a.

2. Comment: It was represented in the report that a
forestry management program would be one of the
benefits of the project, when in fact the excel-
lent timber has been stripped from approximately
5,000 acres of land that will not be flooded and
that otherwise had no need to be cleared for the
project. (Par. 15(b), pp. 11)

Response: The land referred to is identified in
the Forest Service report as being outside the
boundaries of the project. The United States
cannot restrict the right of individual citizens
to harvest timber on privately-owned land.

3. Comment: Construction of New Hope Lake would have
detrimental effects on forest resources, water
quality, air quality, and carbon cycle.
(Par. 25, pp. 24)

Response: Disagree. Forest and resource manage-
ment plans will be prepared to insure proper
management of the 32,700 acres of land above the
conservation pool. Public ownership of this area

72

will insure that the forested areas are managed
by qualified personnel to provide maximum bene-
fits to the public. Public ownership will also
insure that the entire area will be free from
encroachments associated with urban use. Water
and air quality will be maintained at existing
levels or improved by Government ownership.

4. Comment: Construction of the lakerwill cause the
destruction of an excellent mature forest of
bottom-land hardwoods, mixed with coniferous
varieties; the forest to be displaced consists of
approximately 2.3 percent of all forest land in
the upper Cape Fear River Basin, and about 0.5 per-
cent of all forest land in North Carolina.
(Par. 25, pp. 24)

Response: Agree that 12,870 acres of forest land
will be inundated; however, the major hardwood
areas are in the creek bottoms outside the con-
servation pool and will be preserved in their
present state. Forest acreage data is not
available for the upper Cape Fear River Basin.
The latest forest survey (1966) of North Carolina
by the U. S. Forest Service indicates that the
State contains 20,448,100 acres of forest land.
If this estimate is correct, the area to be inun-
dated is 0.063 percent of the total forested area
in the State.

5. Comment: Defendants are not only destroying the
forest in the lands to be inundated, but they
also are permitting the forest resources to be
stripped from areas surrounding the lake that do
not need to be cleared in connection with the
project. (Par. 25, pp. 24)

Response: See Comment 2. above.

6. Comment: By constructing an unnecessary reservoir
and engaging in unnecessary clearing operations
beyond the shoreline, the defendants are in
violation of 16 U.S.C. Sec. 580m and 580n.
(Par. 25, pp. 24)

Response: The project has been determined to be
necessary by the Congress; the United States is
not engaged in clearing outside the conservation
pool. See Comment 2. above.

73

7. Comment: Destruction of the forest means the
sacrifice of evapo-transpiration benefits of
thousands of acres; the result will be warmer
maximum temperatues and lower minimum tempera-
tures in the area. (Par. 25, pp. 24 and 25)

Response: See our response to the U. S. Forest
Service, paragraph 8c(7).

8. Comment: The loss of this large block of forest
cover in a rapidly urbanizing section of North
Carolina will have a substantial adverse impact
on air quality, caused by the removal of plant
leaves which absorb impurities and pollutants from
the air. (Par. 25, pp. 25)

Response: See our response to the U. S. Forest
Service, paragraph 8c(7).

9. Comment: Air pollution will be increased by internal
combustion-powered boats and other equipment intro-
duced into the area. (Par. 25, pp. 25)

Response: It is felt that the amount of pollutants
introduced into the air from such sources will be
minor. Control of emissions from internal com-
bustion sources is provided by the North Carolina
Rules and Regulations Governing the Control of Air
Pollution, the Clean Air Amendments of 1970, and
other laws.

10. Comment: The hydrologic benefits of the forest,
such as storage of water during precipitation and
slow release from subsurface flows, will be lost.
(Par. 25, pp. 25)

Response: In terms of hydrology involved, all rain-
fall within the conservation area will fall directly
on the water surface; therefore, relative storage
of water within this area is not a loss. Signifi-
cant changes within the remainder of the areas are
not planned nor would they have an effect on
storages or slow releases as implied.

11. Comment: Forests are an efficient ecosystem for
consuming carbon dioxide and storing carbon; this
critical contribution to the environment will be
sacrificed. (Par. 25, pp. 25)

Response: Disagree; the combination of a managed
forest and a large area of surface water will
produce necessary carbon-cycle benefits.

74

(d) Fishing.

1. Comment: Fishing in the free-flowing streams is
good; they are well populated with largemouth bass,
crappie, bluegills, catfish, and other species.
(Par. 24, pp. 23)

Response: The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife,
in cooperation with the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, studied the fish and wildlife
resources in the New Hope Lake area. They found
that utilization of the fishery resources of the
Haw and New Hope Rivers is generally Low due to the
scattered population of bass, crappie, bluegills,
and catfish, and limited access. The most success-
ful fishery was found to be gigging for suckers.

2. Comment: It is probable that the fish population in
the lake will be diminished as a result of excessive
algal growth and pollution from industrial and
municipal waste sources. The tendency, of course,
will be for the more desirable species to disappear
and the fish that remain, if any, will be of less
desirable varieties. (Par. 15(a), pp. 10)

Response: We do not agree that algal growth and
pollution will be sufficient to have an adverse
effect on the fish population of the lake. Some
algal growth is necessary for thriving fish popu-
lation. The John H. Kerr Reservoir, located just
north of New Hope Lake in North Carolina and
Virginia, under conditions similar to New Hope
Lake, has provided excellent fishing for 19 years,
consisting principally of largemouth bass, striped
bass, bluegill and other sunfish, crappie, and
catfish. In recent years, an excellent striped
bass fishery has been developed.

(e) Aesthetic Values.

Comment: While the statement contends that the
aesthetic value of the region will be enhanced,
no mention is made of the loss of the exceptional
aesthetic qualities of the gentle, tree -lined and
canopied New Hope River, and of the rushing and
rapid -filled Haw River. (Par. 15(a), pp. 10)

Response: Disagree that the aesthetic qualities of
the New Hope River are outstanding, in view of the
finding of the U. S. Department of the Interior to
the contrary. Only five miles of the Haw River
will be affected. Both above and below the dam,

75

the free-flowing characteristics of the Haw will
remain. There is no general agreement on the
meaning of beauty, nor is there a clear definition
of scenic quality. Both are judgment values ex-
pressed by the beholder. From the naturalists'
point of view, the scenic quality of our natural
environment is highest when undisturbed by man.
Some consider a lake, even though developed by man,
as pleasing and refreshing. For those, the
eventual impoundment of New Hope Lake will be an
enhancement of the setting's scenic qualities.

2. Comment: Special attention should have been given
by defendants to the loss of a wild natural area
of impressive scenic beauty, largely covered by
forests that play a critical role in the mainte-
nance of air and water quality, in an increasingly
industrialized, urbanized Piedmont North Carolina.
Neither of these long-range consequences of the
project was analyzed by defendants in their state-
ment. (Par. 18, pp. 16)

Response: These aspects are discussed in the final
environmental impact statement in paragraphs 3m
and 4.

(f) Recreation.

1. Comment: No reference is made to the loss of recre-
ation on free-flowing water, such as canoeing,
fishing, and riverside hiking. (Par. 15(a), pp. 9)

Response: A reference to the extremely limited use
of free-flowing streams for recreation is included
ín the final environmental impact statement, para-
graph 2h.

2. Comment: In both qualitative and quantitative terms,
more recreation will be destroyed than will be
created by the construction of New Hope Lake.
(Par. 24, pp. 23)

Response: Disagree. The National Park Service has
concluded that very little recreation use is made
of the site, and the New Hope River is not attrac-
tive for extensive recreation use. In contrast,
facilities for a broad range of recreation uses
will be provided in conjunction with the New Hope
Lake project.

76

3. Comment: The sections of New Hope and Haw Rivers
that are to be destroyed, are waterways of great
scenic beauty. They are ideal for boating,
swimming, and fishing excursions, and for hiking
and camping along their banks. (Par. 24, pp. 23)

Response: Disagree. The U. S. Department of the
Interior has concluded that the scenic qualities
and natural values which might be"destroyed are
not outstanding. See the above Comment 2.
response on suitability for recreation use.

4. Comment: A portion of the New Hope River flows
through the only natural swamp of substantial size
in Piedmont North Carolina, an area that has re-
mained virtually unspoiled. (Par. 24, pp. 23)

Response: Disagree. Many other natural swamp areas
exist in Piedmont North Carolina. The New Hope
swamp area, most of which will be undisturbed by
project construction and licensed for wildlife
management, has been subjected to frequent timber
harvesting.

5. Comment: The malodorous and unsightly character of
the water will be a deterrent to other recreational
uses of the lake. (Par. 24, pp. 24)

Response: Disagree that the water, as impounded,
will be malodorous and unsightly.

6. Comment: Moreover, there is ample extant and planned
flat water recreation in Piedmont North Carolina,
but recreation on free-flowing bodies of water in
their natural state, such as the Haw River and New
Hope River, is severely limited in the area. The
destruction of this scenic river in its free-flowing
condition is contrary to the declared policy of
Congress in 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1271. (Par. 24, pp. 24)

Response: The National Park Service finds:
"There are no large lakes or reservoirs in the
vicinity of the New Hope Reservoir site. The
closest large body of water is John H. Kerr Dam
and Reservoir, which lies about 75 highway miles
to the northeast."

Nevertheless, the location of other lakes were
considered in establishing recreation needs. The
New Hope-Haw River system was not specifically

77

selected by the Congress for the Scenic Rivers
Program; instead, the New Hope -Haw Rivers site was
approved by the Congress for water resource
development.

(g) Air Quality.

1. Comment: No attention is given to the effects on
air quality of the loss of a larger block of forest
cover with an ability to absorb impurities and
pollutants from the air, in a rapidly urbanizing
area. The effects upon air quality of automobiles,
power boats, and other internal combustion-powered
equipment associated with the project and to be
brought into the area by the lake, are not analyzed.
(Par. 15(a), pp. 9)

Response: The assumption in the comment that forests
supply the most efficient mode for removing pollu-
tants from the atmosphere is inaccurate. The
absorbtion of excessive impurities and pollutants
is generally detrimental to plant life, and cases
are common of plant and tree death resulting from
severe pollution loads. Of course, photosynthesis
in whatever form achieves CO2 removal. Water sur-
faces are generally capable of absorbing larger
quantities of impurities, and in many cases, the
elements removed from the air are cycled into
natural processes without diminishing water quality
or affecting the organisms. Assuming motor vehicle
traffic in the project vicinity will increase, it
is felt the emission standards enforced by the
Environmental Protection Agency will eliminate the
threat of a serious air quality problem.

2. Comment: Defendants make no mention of loss of
evapo-transpiration benefits of the forested land,
and the result of warmer maximum temperatures and
lower minimum temperatures from replacement of the
forest land with lake and cleared land.
(Par. 15(a), pp. 10)

Response: Refer to our response to the U. S. Forest
Service, in paragraph 8c(7) for a statement of the
effects on regional temperature of large bodies of
water.

3. Comment: Defendants did not discuss the effects of
losing the forest in the area as a part of the
carbon cycle, by which carbon dioxide is consumed
and carbon is stored. (Par. 15(a), pp. 10)

78

Response: The effects of the loss of the forest
cannot, of course, be denied. The point that is
neglected is that the plant life of the reservoir
will contribute to the carbon cycle in the same
manner as the forest.

4. Comment: The report does not comment on the possi-
bilities of the creation of an environmental
disaster as a result of some obscure, but not
altogether improbable effect of the project, such
as the elimination of a keystone species in the
ecosystem, or the impoundment of deadly chemical
or radiological materials from upstream sources.
(Par. 15(a), pp. 10)

Response: Attention has been given to both the
ecosystem of the project area and the components
of lake influent. It is believed that speculation
on "obscure but not altogether improbable" environ-
mental hazards is not a function of the environ-
mental impact statement.

(h) Vector Control.

1. Comment: No consideration was given to the impact
on the environment of the insecticide needed to
carry out the mosquito control program promised
by the defendants, which will be necessitated by
the great mosquito breeding capacity of the
stagnant pools that will occur during periods of
low water in the shallow lake. (Par. 15(a), pp. 10)

Response: Full and continuing consideration is
given to the environmental impact of mosquito con-
trol programs conducted by the Corps of Engineers
at reservoir project. Insecticides currently in
use by the Corps do not include DDT agents or
o ther chemicals known to have harmful effects. For
example, the mosquito larvicide currently in use
at the John H. Kerr project has been approved by
the U. S. Public Health Service, U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Virginia and North Carolina state
fish and wildlife agencies, and state public health
services. The mosquito control program is moni-
tored continuously by state agencies and the
larvicidal agent has no residue or build-up char-
acteristics. Exhaustive tests have revealed no
detectable affects on fish or wildlife.

For the New Hope project, similar monitoring of the
mosquito control program will be conducted and all

79

insecticides and larvicides will be approved for
use by the Environmental Protection Agency and
agencies of the State of North Carolina.

Effective control of mosquitoes may be achieved by
periodically controlled minor fluctuations in the
surface level of the lake during the mosquito
breeding season. Use of this method may reduce or
eliminate the need for chemical insecticides.
Biological vector control measures such as the
introduction of the Gambusia fish, a known mosquito
larva predator, will be used if proven feasible in
current research studies.

(i) Sedimentation.

1. Comment: The threefold increase on sediment delivery
to streams as a result of clearing and logging
activities connected with the project, is ignored.
(Par. 15(a), pp. 9)

Response: The alleged threefold increase in sedi-
mentation is based on comparison of the lands
within the New Hope Lake project logged by private
individuals, with runoff from undisturbed forest.
In fact, almost all lands have been logged on a
regular basis since the forest succeeded agricul-
tural uses approximately 50 years ago. The Federal
Forest Management Program should reduce sedimenta-
tion below existing levels.

2. Comment: Particular attention should have been
given by defendants to the consequence of the lake's
filling up with silt and becoming useless for any
of the purposes of flood control, water quality
control, water supply, and recreation that have been
projected, in approximately 50 years' time, when at
the same time, down-river development in the
flood plain and basin of the Cape Fear River will
have become increasingly dependent on these very
functions of New Hope Lake. (Par. 18, pp. 16)

Response: The estimated annual rate of silting of
50 acre-feet per 100 square miles of drainage area
at New Hope is based on surveys by the U. S.
Department of Agriculture confirmed by studies by
the Corps and other agencies of actual sedimenta-
tion rate on existing ponds in the area. At the
estimated rate it would require 105 years to fill
the space provided in the reservoir for sediment
storage. It would require an additional 174 years

80

to fill the conservation pool (water quality con-
trol, water supply, and recreation) and another
641 years to fill the flood control pool.

3. Comment: The project will have a useful life of
50 years; presumably after that time the lake will
be silted to the point that it will no longer be
very useful for flood control or other purposes.
(Par. 21, pp. 20)

Response: Covered in response to Comment 2. above.

(j) Flood Control.

1. Comment: The report does not concern itself with
the loss of hydrologic benefits (including flood
control potential) of the natural swampland and
forest to be inundated, such as storage of water
and slow release from subsurface flows.
(Par. 15(a), pp. 9)

Response: The hydrologic benefits of the New Hope
Valley ín its natural state were considered in
project formulation prior to project authorízation
by the Congress. Streamflow gaging records on the
Cape Fear River reflect the influence of New Hope
Valley storage and, although the natural storage of
the valley does afford a damping effect, this
storage alone does not provide a significant degree
of flood protection downstream as evidenced by floods
of record.

2. Comment: Defendants have greatly overstated both
the frequency and extent of flooding, and the
extensiveness of flood damage, in the Cape Fear
Basin. The likelihood of destructive floods in
the near future in this area is not great enough
to justify construction of the dam.
(Par. 21, pp. 20)

Response: Disagree. Flood frequency was calculated
using the log -Pearson Type III Method, which has
since been adopted for use in all Federal water -
resources planning by the Water Resources Council.
Conclusions on the extent of flooding are projected
from profiles based on known flood events.

3. Comment: Various estimates of major destructive
floods in the Cape Fear River Basin, when averaged,
indicate that a flood of this type is to be expected
only once every 118 years. (Par. 21, pp. 20)

81

Response: Disagree. Records of the Fayetteville
stream gage, the oldest on the Cape Fear River,
have been maintained since 1889; they indicate
major floods occurred at this location during
August 1908, September 1928, October 1929, and
September 1945. Other records supply evidence of
severe floods in the basin in 1865, 1895, and 1901.

(k) Alternatives.

1. Comment: Defendants' statement suggests, as alter-
natives to the New Hope Lake project, a series of
small dams on tributaries to provide flood protec-
tion and water supply; a dry dam on the main river
to provide flood protection; flood plain zoning;
and storage locations within a main-stem reservoir.
These alternatives are all dismissed with the
statement that each has been discarded as being
impracticable or uneconomical. This sketchy treat-
ment of alternatives does not fulfill the statutory
requirement. (Par. 17, pp. 14 and 15)

Response:

a. For discussion of small dam plan, see response
to Comment 8. below.

b. For discussion on dry dam, see paragraph 5a of
final statement.

c. Flood plain zoning. This non-structural alter-
native has been shown to be a most effective
means of reducing the growth of flood damages
stemming from new developments in the flood
plain since such development usually occurs
without adequate knowledge of the risks involved.
However, on flood plains where substantial
development has already occurred, the enforce-
ment of effective zoning laws with concomitant
land use regulations is impractical. This
problem is also evident in agricultural areas
of very broad flood plains, such as those
along the Cape Fear River. In these cases,
effective zoning regulations may preclude the
use of entire farms that have been in exist-
ence for many years. Evaluation of the costs
for this alternative must include potential
losses in the net production value of the land
resource that could be protected by other
means. This alternative was eliminated as an
alternative to structural protective measures

82

primarily because of the amount of development
existing on the flood plains and the potential
loss of net returns to over 200,000 acres of
land, including the 3,000 plus homes and com-
mercial establishments on the 7,000 acres of
flood plain land in the Fayetteville area.
However, flood plain zoning is recommended for
those remaining areas where structural measures
do not provide sufficient flood protection to
effectively reduce flood risk, as recommended
in House Document 508, 8 August 1962.

d. Single-purpose alternative projects were
developed for the New Hope site and along the
main stem. These projects were formulated to
include sufficient storage and other project
measures to meet a single-project purpose such
as flood control, water supply, low-flow aug-
mentation, etc. The costs of providing similar
storage for all purposes in a multiple-purpose
project was considerably less in each instance.
Implementation of single-purpose reservoir at
the New Hope site would preclude meeting other
water -resource needs in the basin.

2. Comment: In the first place, several alternatives
are omitted altogether. No mention is made of the
alternatives of privately or publicly subsidized
insurance, removal of heavy water-using industries,
or outright governmental purchase of the flood
plain. (Par. 17, pp. 15)

Response: Flood insurance as an alternative to the
structural flood protection afforded by the New
Hope project ís both uneconomical and impractical.
Federal flood insurance is not currently available
at any location in the Cape Fear River Valley,but,
upon request of local governments, could be made
available for small businesses and residential
buildings. Flood insurance for crops is available
in some, but not all, counties, but is applicable
only to crops grown under Federal control programs.
Although these programs are heavily subsidized by
the Federal Government and are consequently attrac-
tive to some property owners, a long-term net
economic loss results since the insurance premium
rates include flood damage actuarial costs plus
administrative costs. Presumably, similar insurance
programs for heavy commercial and industrial
properties may be available from private firms such
as Lloyds of London, etc. However, rates for such

83

insurance would be established under a similar net
loss situation as cited above. Existing flood in-
surance programs do not cover damages to grounds,
roads, shrubbery, trees, outbuildings, etc., and
there is no evidence to indicate future establish-
ment of full coverage flood insurance programs.

Removal of heavy water -using industries. This
alternative to providing for the water-supply needs
of the basin was not given serious consideration
because of its impracticability. The water re-
sources of the Cape Fear basin, if prudently con-
served, are capable of sustaining the industrial
development that now exists, and such development
as is needed to provide a desirable standard of
living for future generations.

Outright Governmental purchase of the flood plain.
The New Hope project provides flood protection to
300,000 acres of flood plain land below the con-
fluence of the Deep and Haw Rivers. About 10,000
acres of this land is in urban areas, including
7,000 acres in the Fayetteville area. A breakdown
or a precursory estimate of the costs that would
be involved in a flood plain purchase program is
given below:

Item Amount Unit Cost Total
Rural land 290,000 acres $ 200 p/acre $ 58,000,000
Urban land 10,000 acres $5000 p/acre 50,000,000
Buildings 5,000 $10,000 each 50,000,000
Total $158,000,000

Although the above estimate does not include many
cost items such as resettlement costs, highway,
railroad, bridge, and utility relocations costs, etc.,
the impracticability of considering such a program
ís indicated. The certain widespread opposition to
such a proposal would preclude implementation.

3. Comment: As alternatives for recreation, defendants
should have discussed improved access to the river
for recreation and expansion of recreational facili-
ties of existing near-by reservoirs, such as High
Rock Lake, Kerr Reservoir, Lake Tillery, and Lake
Norman. (Par. 17, pp. 15)

Response: The satisfaction of outdoor recreational
needs is based on many factors, all of which must
be considered in developing an effective plan for

84

meeting such needs. The physical limitations of
the river limits its recreational capacity. Nature
trails, bank fishing, canoeing, camping, hiking,
and picnicking would be the major activities. Since
the river would be the main attraction, recreational
facilities to support the above-mentioned activities
would be difficult to provide near the river because
of frequent flooding, partícularl, during the
recreation season. Assuming 20 miles of river were
to be developed for recreational purposes and that
the development would produce equivalent recrea-
tional opportunities of the New Hope Lake project,
visitations would have to be of such magnitude that
both banks would be lined with recreationists
spaced less than 35 feet apart. Such a development
would be grossly saturated, unattractive, and not
feasible.

It has always been recognized that the New Hope
Lake project would compete with other existing or
proposed lakes and reservoirs in the region. How-
ever, as the project will be much more convenient
to the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill urban area than
Lake Tillery, Lake Norman, the John H. Kerr Dam and
Reservoir, and other recreation areas, the National
Park Service concludes that an important needed
water-recreation resource for boating would be
created by the project, and that adequate recreation
facilities would be utilized and should be provided.

4. Comment: More important, mere mention of various
alternatives does not suffice; the statute requires
detailed study, development, and description of
each alternative. (Par. 17, pp. 15)

Response: Adequate consideration was given to all
feasible alternatives before project authorization
by the Congress and are covered in House Document
No. 508, 8 August 1962. The final environmental
impact statement discussed the alternatives in
paragraph 5.

5. Comment: A dry dam, which would not disturb the
natural forest, swampland, and animal habitat,
would adequately serve the flood protection purpose
of the project. (Par. 17, pp. 15)

Response: See discussion of dry dam in paragraph
5a of the final environmental statement.

85

6. Comment: The alternative of leaving alone the Haw
and New Hope Rivers and their basins, deserves
serious consideration, particularly when viewed in
light of an accurate and objective cost-benefit
analysis. (Par. 17, pp. 15)

Response: See discussion of abandoning the project,
paragraph 5b.

7. Comment: The environmental statement incorrectly
assumes that recreational and wildlife conservational
features of the project cannot be disassociated from
the dam and lake. Government funds could be used
to maintain a wildlife preserve and recreational
area on the river bottoms which have been acquired
without construction of the dam, that would be far
superior to the presently proposed wildlife and
recreational features of the project.
(Par. 17, pp. 15)

Response: See response to Comment 3. above.

8. Comment: One of the alternatives, that of construct-
ing several smaller dams, has been explored in
detail by the Soil Conservation Service of the
United States Department of Agriculture; at the
very least, defendants could have incorporated the
data from this study in their environmental report.
(Par. 17, pp. 15-16)

Response: The 232 Soil Conservation Service small
dam plan was fully considered prior to the authori-
zation of the New Hope Lake project by the Congress.
System of small dams. Early in the preauthorization
study period, a system of 232 small and intermediate
sized multiple-purpose reservoirs was studied as an
alternate to the New Hope project. The results of
this study indicated that the system of small dams,
while costing about 45% more than the New Hope
project, would produce about 33% more annual project
benefits and would be economically feasible from a
monetary standpoint. The Congress favored the New
Hope Lake project over the small dam plan primarily
because to execute the plan 125% more land would be
required and many more miles of free-flowing stream
would be inundated.

Of all the projects in the basin-wide plan of develop-
ment, the New Hope project requires the least amount
of land resource per unit of water resource needed
to sustain the growing population.

86

d. Additional Information. Pertinent correspondence concerning the
environmental statement and/or the environmental impact of the New Hope
Lake project occurring after the complaint was filed against the New Hope
project (see paragraph 4, Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be
Avoided) is attached and is self-explanatory. The following is a list of
additional information: (See table of contents for location)

(1) Letter from N. C. Forest Service, 3 August 1971.

(2) SAWDE letter of 13 August 1971 to N. C. Board of Water
and Air Resources.

(3) Letter from Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority,
18 August 1971.

(4) Letter from City of Dunn, N. C., 24 August 1971.

(5) Letter from N. C. Board of Water and Air Resources,
25 August 1971.

(6) Letter from Town of Erwin, N. C., 8 September 1971.

(7) Letter from New Hanover County Board of Commissioners,
9 September 1971.

(8) Letter from Research Triangle Regional Planning Commission,
9 September 1971.

(9) Letter from Town of Lillington, N. C., 10 September 1971.

(10) Answer of Intervenors, City of Fayetteville and
Cumberland County, Civil Action File No. C-184-D-71,
22 September 1971.

(11) SAWHW letter to Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife,
28 September 1971.

(12) Answer to Intervenors, Town of Elizabethtown and
Bladen County, Civil Action File No. C-184-D-71,
29 September 1971.

(13) SAWHW letter to Mr. George Marienthal, Acting Director,
Office of Federal Activities, Environmental Protection
Agency, 4 October 1971.

(14) Answer of Intervenors, City of Wilmington, New Hanover
County, Pender County, Columbus County, The Lower Cape
Fear Water and Sewer Authority, Civil Action File No.
C-184-D-71, 7 October 1971.

(15) Subsequent to initial coordination of the draft environmental
impact statement on 30 March 1971, correspondence has been
received which, although not a comment on the draft state-
ment itself, has concerned the New Hope project. This
correspondence, together with answers where appropriate,
has been attached as Volume II.

87

CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN, N C
RESERVOIR REGULATION MANUAL
GENERAL MAP
U.S ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, WILMINGTON,NC. NOV. 1970
PLATE I

LIST OF AGENCIES CONTACTED

1 Regional Director
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Department of the Interior
Peachtree -Seventh Building
Atlanta, Georgia 30323

2, Regional Director
Southeast Regional Office
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
U . S. Department of the Interior
810 New Walton Building
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

3, Regional Director
Environmental Protection Agency
Water Quality Office
918 Emmet Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901

4. Regional Director
Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Water Hygiene
Water Quality Office
50 Seventh Street, N. E,
Atlanta, Georgia 30323

5, State Conservationist
Soil Conservation Service
U . S. Department of Agriculture
P. O, Box 27307
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611

6, Director
N. C. Department of Water and Air Resources
P. O, Box 27048
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611

7. The Research Triangle Regional Planning Commission
Box 1488
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602

8, Division Engineer
Bureau of Public Roads, Region 3
Federal Highway Administration
U . S. Department of Transportation
P. O, Box 26806
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611

9. Regional Forester and Area Director
Forest Service
U, S. Department of Agriculture
50 Seventh Street, N. E,
Atlanta, Georgia 30323

10, Regional Administrator
Department of Housing and Urban
Development
Peachtree -Seventh Building
Atlanta, Georgia 30323

11, Durham EGOS
P. O. Box 4782, Duke Station
Durham, North Carolina 27706

Copy furnished (w/cy incl):
Field Supervisor
Bureau of Spot Fisheries and Wildlife
U, S, Department of the Interior
Division of River Basin Studies
310 New Bern Avenue, Room 468
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601

1

CORPS OF ENGINEERS
NEW HOPE LAKE
General Development Plan
PLATE I

2

Clearing operations are not expected to begin until just before the
impounding of water begins. The previously stated annual erosion
and sediment rates basically still apply. However, with the complete
clearing occurring just before impoundment begins, it is doubtful that
any eroded material will leave the impoundment area. If there is
considerable disturbance coupled with high intensity, long duration
rainfall, there is a strong likelihood of some sediment going down-
stream of the impoundment area.

The area above that cleared for the conservation pool will not be
cleared. After acquisition is completed, the only logging that will
be permitted in this area will be that authorized under the required
forest management plan.

The flood control pool area above the conservation pool (elevation 217
to 240) will have about 17,000 or 18,000 acres of forest in it, and is
expected to be flooded completely once in 125 years. The annual flood
will cover 4,000 acres, the five-year flood 7,000 acres, and the 10-year
flood, 8,200 acres. Time of year and duration of flooding data were
not available to us, so we can only speculate as to the effects of
flooding on the forest cover. In general, quick removal of flood water
(in less than 2 weeks) or flooding only in the dormant season will have
no significant adverse effects. Flooding of hardwoods over extended
periods of time can kill them, but if the flooding occurs only during the
dormant season, it has been found to significantly increase their growth.
Since most of the figures shown in our previous comments were predicated
on clearing of the entire flowage area, they no longer apply. The
forest relationships stated previously in regard to air quality, water
quality, wildlife, and carbon cycle are still the same except that
adverse effects caused by the project apply to a much reduced acreage --
about 12,500 acres.

Some 32,000 acres within the project boundaries are destined to remain
in forest cover and under management for a number of forest uses. This
management should produce returns to the public considerably above those
available presently from these same acres.

Sincerely,

R. K. Smith
Environmental Coordinator

31

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Water Quality Office
Middle Atlantic Region
918 Emmet Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901

June 2, 1971

Colonel Paul S. Denison
District Engineer
U. S. Army Engineer District
Wilmington
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402

Dear Colonel Denison:

We have reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement of the proposed
New Hope Jake, North Carolina Project.

In accordance with interim procedures in our agency, Regional
comments have been forwarded to EPA Headquarters for their consider-
ation in making a direct response to your office. In light of this
development we anticipate further delay in finalizing EPA comments
and request additional time to complete our coordination and submit
comments to your office.

Sincerely yours,

John W. Baumeister
Regional EIS Coordinator

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

Aug 4 1971

Colonel Paul S. Denison
District Engineer
U.S. Army Engineer District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402

Dear Colonel Denison:

The Environmental Protection Agency has completed
its review of the Environmental Impact Statement which
your office has prepared for New Hope Lake, North Carolina,
and submit the following comments for your consideration.

Based on an analysis of available water quality
information collected in the project area we foresee
major water quality problems in New Hope Lake if waste
discharges upstream from the reservoir do not receive
a high level of treatment. For example, nutrient con-
centrations in the Haw and New Hope Rivers greatly
exceed generally accepted criteria for recreational
and water supply impoundments. If these waters are
impounded, nuisance algae growths and other adverse
effects of eutrophication can be anticipated. Condi-
tions which are characteristic of eutrophic waters can
seriously reduce beneficial water uses, including
fishing, boating, water contact recreation and public
water supply.

Our recently completed reevaluation of low flow
augmentation storage needs in New Hope Lake indicate
that no augmentation storage is needed in the free
flowing portion of the Cape Fear River downstream from
New Hope and that none is needed in the estuary in the
foreseeable future. This conclusion represents a major
change in the conclusion reached following the 1959
study of this river basin. The change is the result of
improved waste treatment technology and policy since
that time.

33

Page 2 - Colonel Paul S. Denison

In light of these considerations, the EPA recom-
mends that (1) the project be reevaluated based on
current policies, needs, technologies and costs, (2)final
impoundment of waters in New Hope Lake be deferred until
waste treatment facilities can be constructed that achieve
the degree of treatment necessary to assure the realiza-
tion of all beneficial water uses in the reservoir and
(3) these new environmental considerations be factored into
the cost/benefit calculations.

Sincerely yours,

George Marienthal
Acting Director
Office of Federal Activities

Attachment

34

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
COMMENTS ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT FOR NEW HOPE LAKE, HAW RIVER,
NORTH CAROLINA, CORPS OF ENGINEERS -
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA, DISTRICT OFFICE

The following comments are offered concerning the
New Hope Lake, North Carolina.

1. The proposed New Hope Lake is a multipurpose
project authorized by Congress in 1963 for flood protec-
tion, water supply, water quality control, recreation
and other purposes. Neither the statement nor other
reports on this project indicates what storage capacity
is dedicated to each project use, or what the annual
costs and benefits are to each storage allocation. A
summary of this information should be provided. The
New Hope Reservoir will cause the loss of 22 miles of
stream, inundation of 14,300 acres (30,000 acres during
flood control) and the dislocation of 150 families.

2. The statement does not address impacts on air
quality and solid waste management. These impacts will
result from site-clearing operations unless precautions
are taken. A plan for disposal of construction debris
and also a plan for disposal of refuse from recreation
sites should be carefully developed and cleared through
appropriate local, state and Federal agencies. (We
suggest you contact our Regional Office in Atlanta for
Federal assistance.)

3. Information obtained from the North Carolina
Department of Water and Air Resources indicates that
there are 32 and 21 points of municipal and industrial
waste discharge in the Haw and New Hope watersheds,
respectively. Although most of these discharges folq.ow
secondary or higher degree treatment, recent studies

1
Report in Press.

35

Page 2

by this agency and data presented by Weiss clearly
indicate severe water quality degradation occurs
downstream from major wasteloads in the New Hope
River Basin. Dissolved oxygen concentrations in
Morgan Creek and New Hope Creek are normally less
than that required to support a balanced aquatic
population. Bacterial levels are extremely high
in both streams. Natural recovery processes signif-
icantly improve water quality where the stream will
enter the impoundment, however, there is a need for
improved BOD and bacterial reductions at several
key points to insure that water quality will be
compatible with proposed use; impoundment in the
reservoir. The Haw River at its point of entry
into the proposed reservoir is also in the zone
of recovery from waste sources in the Greensboro-
Burlington area. Additional treatment may be needed
in the near future to protect water quality in the
Haw River Arm at all times.

4. Nutrient concentrations in both the Haw and
New Hope Rivers greatly exceed generally accepted
criteria for recreational and water supply impoundments.
Because of the tendency of the Haw and New Hope River
waters to mix during the periodic filling cycles,
nutrient removal in both basins is essential. Nuisance
algae growths in the reservoir are a virtual certainty
unless nutrient concentrations are reduced in both
the Haw and New Hope River Basins.

2
Weiss, Charles M., 1971. Water Quality Characteristics
of the New Hope and Lower Haw Rivers July 1966 - February
1970 with Estimates of the Probable Quality of New Hope
Lake. E.S.E. Publication No. 257, Department of Environ-
mental Sciences and Engineering, School of Public Health,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514.

3
ibid - pp. 16-63

36

Page 3

It is not possible to predict the extent that
nutrients must be reduced to in order to protect
the proposed reservoir. Initially, we believe
reductions of phosphorous concentrations at all
waste sources by 90 percent may reduce nuisance
algal blooms to a tolerable level. However,
additional reduction of phosphorous and reductions
in nitrogen and carbon utilizing more exterfsive
and sophisticated advanced waste treatment techniques
may be necessary to ensure the control of algal blooms
at all times.

A rational alternative approach to the problem
would be the provision of a high degree of phosphorous
removal at all significant waste sources before water
is impounded by the New Hope Dam, the determination
of the effectiveness of these facilities in limiting
stream nutrient concentrations, and implementation of
any appropriate additional steps to reduce nutrients
to acceptable levels. Impoundment should not take
place until there is a strong technical basis for
the prediction that nuisance algal growths will not
occur. In this regard, it is important that water
quality monitoring continue to provide data necessary
for such a prediction.

5. The portion of the statement dealing with
public water supply should be amplified. It should
state what kind of "additional treatment (might be
necessary) to remove naturally present impurities"
to meet Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards.

6. In addition to the organic and bacterial
pollution tastes and odors in the water associated
with luxuriant algal growths, will require special
treatment prior to domestic use. Iron and manganese
concentrations exceed accepted levels in the New Hope/
Haw flows under some flow conditions. Because of this
rather marginal quality of reservoir input and the likelihood
of vertical stratification in the reservoir, it is important
that water supply intake structures be carefully located
and that they be equipped with multilevel intake ports
for selection of the best quality water available. The
statement does not clearly indicate if these factors
have been considered and if their cost has been included
in cost -benefit analyses.

37

Page 4

7. On Page 11 of the Statement, reference is made
to flow augmentation for meeting a water quality target
at Lillington, North Carolina, of 600 cfs. We under-
stand that this water quality target led to the inclusion
of 72,000 acre-feet of federally -funded water quality
control storage in the design of the New Hope Reservoir,
representing approximately 50 percent of the total
reservoir conservation storage. The Environmental
Protection Agency has recently completed a reevaluation
of the free flowing portion of the Cape Fear River in
conjunction with the Upper Cape Fear Basin Joint Study.
These studies revealed that secondary waste treatment
would be adequate to maintain water quality standards
in the Upper Cape Fear River Basin and that no augmenta-
tion storage was needed in the New Hope Reservoir. The
reevaluation reflected the changes in waste treatment
technology, water quality control laws and the establish-
ment of standards, and the advances in water quality
evaluation methods that have taken place since the last
New Hope Reservoir evaluation was completed in 1959.
The major cause for the change from the old evaluation
is that water quality standards are now a legal require-
ment to be met by water quality control projects and
adequate waste treatment (current policy assumes adequate
treatment as secondard or equivalent, normally 85 percent
BOD removal) must be provided before consideration can
be given to reservoir storage for water quality flow
augmentation; during the 1959 investigations, flow
regulation storage was considered as a substitute for
secondard treatment. Under present criteria our
preliminary examination indicates no anticipated need
for water quality control storage for augmentation
of any stream reaches below the proposed project. The
elimination of the water quality augmentation needs
could eliminate the need for water supply storage in
the reservoir. Elimination of water quality flow needs
would leave only the for water supply needs to
be met from available stream flows. Preliminary
examination indicates that all water supply demands can
be met at least through year 2020, from the stream
flows that are anticipated to be available at the
New Hope dam site, without violating minimum stream
flow regulations. These developments could essentially
reduce the reservoir to a dual-purpose facility, i.e.,
flood control and recreation.

4
Report in press.

38

Page 5

8. Based on the foregoing environmental considera-
tions a new project feasibility study may be required to
insure that contemporary environmental values and present
costs are factored into the benefit/cost analysis.

Estimates of cost should consider the following:

1. Nutrient removal facilities for all waste
water discharges in the Haw and New Hope
River Basins:

(a) Phosphorus removal facilities for all
upstream wastewater discharges would
cost the people of the Haw and New
Hope River Basins approximately
$2,300,000 annually.

(b) Nitrogen removal facilities for all
wastewater discharges in these basins,
if necessary, would cost an additional
annual amount estimated at $3,500,000.

(c) Nutrient control of urban and/or
agricultural runoff by treatment or
land management programs if required
would substantially increase the cost.

2. Benefits should be decreased by the amount
estimated for flow augmentation since it
is currently not considered a benefit to
be accrued from this project.

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE
PEACHTREE-SEVENTH BUILDING
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323

September 7, 1971

District Engineer
U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402

Dear Sir:

In response to your April 23, 1971, letter, the Fish and Wildlife
Service has reviewed your draft environmental impact statement for
the authorized New Hope Reservoir, North Carolina, project. Our
comments are presented in accordance with provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law 91-190.

The Service has delayed comment on the draft statement until the
Environmental Protection Agency completed studies cited in Mr. J.
Gary Gardner's November 19, 1970, letter to Mr. E. C. Long, of your
staff. We have received copies of this agency's August 4, 1971,
comments on your draft statement, and new information presented gives
cause for alarm. As you are aware, the original fishery values pre-
sented in our March 12, 1962, report were based on the assumption
that water quality in the reservoir would be suitable for survival
and propagation of fish. However, in view of the information presented
in the Environmental Protection Agency's comments and draft report,
we disagree with the statement in your draft that "The quality of
water initially impounded in New Hope Lake project is expected to be
of a quality sufficient to guarantee the benefits on which the project
was justified, including fish and wildlife . . . ." To the contrary,
we are of the opinion that the assumed water quality conditions and
the fishery values presented in your draft statement cannot be attained.
The presence of large quantities of nuisance algae growths in the
shallow upper portions of the reservoir will discourage fishing, and
quick die offs and decomposition of this material will reduce the
available oxygen supply to the extent that fish kills may be inevitable.
In any case, the Environmental Protection Agency definitely suggests
that nutrient concentrations will be such that nuisance algae growths
in the reservoir are a virtual certainty. Therefore, we can only
conclude that the reservoir and tailrace may become the scene of
massive fish kills.

40

In their natural free flowing state, the waters of the Haw River and
New Hope Creek are sufficiently aeriated so that the streams recover
and some water quality features improve in downstream reaches. How-
ever, these impounded waters will become stratified and devoid of
oxygen at lower depths. The presence of high nutrient concentrations,
as reported by the Environmental Protection Agency, will intensify
and extend water quality problems into the upper reservoir surface
layers inhabited by fish and other aquatic organisms essential to
that fishery. In this case, the act of impounding a free-flowing
stream will become the instrument in creating a pollution problem to
the detriment of this ecosystem.

In your draft, great emphasis is placed upon the State of North Carolina's
authorities, responsibilities, and commitments to correct the water
quality problems in the upper watershed after impoundment. However,
State agencies have had these authorities, responsibilities, and
commitments for over 20 years and while much progress has been made
to abate pollution in this watershed, the basic problem of nutrients
has continued to increase. Because of the high costs of treating these
effluents, we suspect the people will be asked to make the final deci-
sion and commitment to clean up the upper drainage to the degree that
impounding the flow will present no water quality problem.

We are extremely concerned about the statements in your draft attributing
unidentified benefits to the downstream anadromous fishery resulting
from the operation of this project. In fact, it is more likely that
the opposite will occur, and the operation of this project will cause
losses to this fishery. It is at the time of arrival of floodflows in
the estuary that anadromous fish species begin to move upstream to their
traditional river spawning grounds. Any alteration of these floodflow
regimens by the operation of this project could endanger the present,
spawning success of anadromous fishes. As you are aware, the three-
lock navigation system all but eliminated anadromous fish species from
their traditional spawning grounds in upper segments of the Cape
Fear River.

The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and your office are attempting to restore some part
of this loss by operating the locks to pass fish during anadromous
runs. The quantity of water needed to operate the locks is no problem
at this time of year when spring flows are normally high in the stream's
free flowing state. However, after river impoundment, the project
must provide flows which will insure that no further damages will be
inflicted on the anadromous fish runs and subsequently on the commer-
cial fishery dependent on their success. This Service has responsibilities

41

to protect these species and restore their traditional spawning grounds
under the Anadromous Fish Act. Followup studies will be made to
determine the effect of project operation on these species, and some
modifications of project operation may be required as a result of
these studies.

We are not aware of any need to pass resident fish populations through
the lock system during low flow periods. Presently, there is enough
reproduction recruitment from the thousands of small ponds, lakes, and
tributaries in the basin to stock several streams comparable to the
Cape Fear River with resident freshwater populations provided suitable
water quality and quantity are maintained.

The treatment of the impact of the New Hope Lake on wildlife resources
is inadequate and should be greatly expanded and clarified so as to
present a clearer picture. The man-day loss in hunting opportunities
resulting from the construction and operation of the project is a
very small part of the total loss. The wildlife resources that are
produced on lands which will be affected by this project have much
greater value for such uses as non-consumptive wildlife-oriented recrea-
tion and maintenance of the biological balance in the existing ecosystem
than for hunting. In addition, no mention is made in the draft of
the 19,000 acres of high quality wetland wildlife habitat in the three
downstream reaches which will be converted to agricultural uses as
a result of the reduction of floodflow regimens caused by project
operation. This conversion accounts for the majority of hunter -day
losses in this Service's March 12, 1962, report. To the contrary,
your draft actually states that. the control of floods " . . . will
also reduce wildlife loss due to flood incident . . . ." This Service
is not aware of any wildlife loss in downstream reaches that can be
reduced by flood control through the operation of this project. In
fact, it is the natural periodic flooding that make these bottom lands
the most productive wetland wildlife habitat in the entire basin.

The wildlife mitigation features are overemphasized in relation to
their importance. The 18,000 acres above the conservation pool were
excellent wildlife habitat prior to private timber cutting operations
that preceeded acquisition of these lands. Most of this area will
not be suitable for "intensive wildlife management" because of periodic
filling of the flood pool and the steep terrain. The "intensive
management" technique most likely to be applied to these land will
consist of allowing the land to recover from the initial impact of

42

project construction. In addition, recent visits to your office have
revealed that the contour maps used in the location and planning of
the largest and most promising of the five "greentree" subimpoundments
in the General Design Memorandum stage are as much as 5 to 10 vertical
feet in error. Field transects show that this potential subimpoundment
is above the flood pool and out of the project boundary. Therefore,
it is highly possible that the other contour maps develaped by the
same contractor and used to plan and locate the remaining four sub-
impoundments are also in error. This will require additional field
transects to determine; however, it is possible that all of the planned
"greentree" subimpoundments may not be in project land, and therefore
are in jeopardy.

We believe much greater attention should be given to alternatives.
Your reasons for concluding that certain alternatives are impractical
and uneconomical should be presented in more detail. In addition, a
more detailed explanation is needed of your statement that $1,960,000
annual net benefits credited to the project would be forfeited if the
project were abandoned. We are of the opinion that many of these bene-
fits will be achieved upon other lands such as idle lands in the basin
if there is sufficient demand in the future. In addition, it is
difficult to comprehend the justification for destroying thousands of
acres of existing productive land for a flood pool in the upper basin
to protect future problematical development in the natural flood
plains in the lower basin when flood insurance is available and flood
plain zoning is practical.

We strongly support the recommendations presented in the Environmental
Protection Agency's August 4, 1971, letter that (1) the project be
reevaluated based on current policies, needs, technologies, and costs,
(2) final impoundment of waters in New Hope Lake be deferred until
waste treatment facilities can be constructed which will achieve the
degree of treatment necessary to assure the realization of all bene-
ficial water uses in the reservoir, and (3) these new environmental
considerations be factored into cost/benefit calculations.

Therefore, this Service recommends that your draft environmental state-
ment be withheld until the project reevaluation has been completed.
At that time a new statement should be prepared to reflect the revised
project that may result from the reevaluation.

43

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on your draft statement.

Sincerely yours,

C. Edward Carlson
Regional Director

44

NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY AT RALEIGH
SCHOOL OF AGRICULTURE AND LIFE SCIENCES
DEAPRTMENT OF BIOLOGICAL AND AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING
BOX 5906 ZIP 27607

August 17, 1971

Major Joel T. Callahan
Deputy District Engineer
Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, N. C. 28401

Dear Major Callahan:

In acknowledging receipt of your Environmental Statement
for the New Hope Lake date 3 August 1971, this is to advise
that the Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering
will not submit comments on the Statement.

Sincerely yours,

F.J. Hassler, Head

FJH:nc

45

THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
AT
CHAPEL HILL
THE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES AND ENGINEERING
Chapel Hill 27514
919 966.1171

August 17, 1971

Major Joel T. Callahan
Deputy District Engineer
Wilmington District
Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, N. C. 28401

Dear Major Callahan:

Thank you very much for your letter of 3 August 1971 inviting comments on
the summary draft environmental statement on New Hope Lake dated 21 April
1971. I have only two comments:

On page 10 in the discussion.of projected water quality in New Hope Lake,
mention is made that nutrient enrichment of the lake and possible algal
blooms are of primary concern. In order to preserve the quality of waters
in the lake, it now appears that nutrient control, or more specifically
phosphate control, will be necessary from the major pollutors tributary
to the lake. These include Chapel Hill, Durham, Greensboro, and Burlington,
as well as possibly several other less significant sources of phosphates.
The methods for attaining this nutrient removal are not delineated, and
based upon this environmental statement, we have no assurance as to the
source of funds for providing phosphate removal from these wastewaters.
The establishment of standards by the Water and Air Resources Board will
not assure that these standards will be met nor is the availability of
funds from a $150,000,000 bond issue, which has not yet been passed,
assurance that funds for nutrient removal will be available to these communi-
ties.

Were New Hope Reservoir not to be built, phosphate removal from wastewaters
from Chapel Hill, Durham, Greensboro, and Burlington would not be necessary,
as nutrient enrichment in flowing streams creates no problems. The require-
ment for phosphate removal is, therefore, a proper cost of the New Hope
project if the benefits from the project are to be attained. Accordingly,
the Corps of Engineers should not only assist with the studies necessary to
determine the most efficacious way of removing phosphates, but should share
substantially in the costs of phosphate removal both for the capital
construction required and for the operation of the phosphate removal facilities.

A suggestion that this approach is appropriate is made in the report on
the Randleman project where diversion of High Point's wastewaters around
the lake is proposed as an alternative for protection of water quality
in the lake, the cost to be borne by the project.

46

Major Joel T. Callahan -2- August 17, 1971

My personal belief is that, if water quality can be maintained in New Hope
Lake, the lake will be a positive asset to the region. However, based upon
the environmental statement, we have no assurance that water quality will
be maintained. That assurance can only come from the Corps of Engineers.
A second concern is the statement of legislation introduced into the North
Carolina General Assembly for water quality control on page 12. Now that
the Assembly has adjourned, this section should be revised to incorporate
statements concerning legislation that has been enacted. For example,
legislation concerning detergent nutrient control did not get out of
committee.

Sincerely yours

Daniel A. Okun
Professor of Environmental Engineering
Head

DAO;p

47

NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
Box 5488 /w 27607 SCHOOL OF FOREST RESOURCES

August 18, 1971

Major Joel T. Callahan
Department of the Army
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401

Dear Major Callahan:

Your letter to Dean Preston regarding the New Hope Project
has been referred to me.

We have reviewed the draft of the environmental statement
dated March 30th and submit the following comments with respect to
land held by North Carolina State University which is affected by
the project.

Although reference is made to the preservation of forest re-
search plots on the periphery of the project and to forests within
the flood control pool, no reference is made to future management of
these lands. As pointed out in Dean Preston's letter of January 15th
to you, we would like to insure continuity of our research - the one
100-acre and three smaller plots on the west side of the ridge in our
Hope Valley Forest.

It is our suggestion that the proposed acquisition boundary be
changed to exclude these plots from acquisition or that a long-term
lease be accorded us to insure continuity of our experiments.

Secondly, we would like to arrange a long-term lease or other
appropriate arrangement for the land between the 240' contour and
the permanent pool in our forest to develop as an additional multiple
use teaching and research laboratory which would also include outdoor
recreational aspects which is a part of our school program.

We believe that indication of the intent for disposition and use
of the above lands would help clarify the environmental statement.

I want to also point out that we believe the statement on
page #2 that in North Carolina "less than 10% of the forest land
receives forest management" is incorrect. Actually between one

48

Major J. T. Callahan - 2 - August 18, 1971

third and one half of North Carolina forest land receives fairly in-
tensive forest management.

On page #9 reference is made to the fact that 14,300 acres will
inundated by the lake and that this is only 5% of North Carolina's
twenty million acres of forest land. Actually the inundated land is
more valuable to forestry than the specific acreage would indicate
because site and hence potential productivity of these bottomlands are
of the highest and are particularly adapted to good hardwood production.

Availability of this type of land is diminishing.

Sincerely,

Eric L. Ellwood
Dean

ELE:as

cc: Chancellor Caldwell
Dr. Davey
Dr. Bryant

49

ECAS

16 August 1971

Col. Albert Costanzo
District Engineer, Wilmington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington, N.C. 28401
Dear Col. Costanzo:

Thank you for affording us an opportunity to comment on the Environmental
Impact Statement for the New Hope Lake, N.C. We have carefully reviewed
the draft of 30 March 1971, as revised 21 April 1971. Unfortunately, we
found this document to be almost entirely devoid of information on which
we could base an appraisal of the environmental impact of the New Hope
Lake Project. Therefore, we have analyzed several dozen additional docu-
ments bearing on the project and offer the following comments for your
perusal:

1. Alternatives

The Environmental Impact Statement lists several alternatives to the pro-
posed project, but gives a detailed analysis of none. We feel that the
Corps is obligated to analyze the several alternatives and to present a
point-by-point rebuttal of those alternatives which have been advanced in
detail, such as the Multiple Dam proposal of Dr. Edward Wiser and the Flow
Retardation proposal of the Soil Conservation Service.

We feel that the alternative of no change of the valley may still be eco-
nomically viable, and that a benefit/cost analysis of this alternative
should be included in the Impact Statement. We do not feel that monies
spent on the present project prior to careful consideration of alternatives
should be entered as a cost of this or any other alternative, as such ex-
penditures are due to administrative error.

2. Water Quality

We agree with the Corps and the N.C. Department of Water and Air Resources
that the present water quality in the Haw and New Hope Rivers is unsuitable
for input into a reservoir protected for fish and wildlife, and feel that
the waters entering the proposed reservoir should be brought into compliance
with state regulations governing the quality of such waters prior to con-
struction of the dam. The Environmental Impact Statement cites evidence
of good will on the part of the State of North Carolina in cleaning up the
wastewater inputs into the Haw and New Hope Rivers, but presents no positive
plan of action, costs, or timetable for execution of this undertaking. We
feel a plan must be included in the Impact Statement.

50

2

The only state plan available to us at this time is a draft from the
Department of Water and Air Resources dated May 1971. This document
identifies the sources of pollution in the system and proposes that a
90% reduction of phosphorus in 27 of these sources may bring the input
waters to a phosphorus concentration of .041 mg/l and thus into compliance
with state regulations of .050 mg/l for reservoir feeds in waters protected
for fish and wildlife. We feel that, in view of the sampling variances
stated in the report and the untested nature of the model for dissipation
of phosphorus in the streams, this is far too thin a margin of safety for
the plan to be relied upon. The plan also calls for some sources of phos-
phorus to be reduced to the 0.3 to 0.4 mg/l range, which we feel is beyond
the range of proven technology. The draft report estimates the cost of
this plan to be about $820,000 annually, but we estimate the cost at more
than $2 million. In the light of these uncertainties, we recommend that
New Hope Dam not be built until the nutrients of the proposed input waters
are actually reduced to comply with state regulations.

3. Benefit-Cost Ratio

The benefit-cost ratio for the New Hope Project emerges as a center of
controversy in our collection of New Hope material. We feel the Corps
has not answered carefully stated and compelling criticism of its calcula-
tions and that this must be done in the Environmental Impact Statement
to furnish a basis against which to assess the inevitable environmental
losses. Specific points to consider are:

A. Dr. Wiser and the U.S. Geological Survey, using the same basic data
and calculation techniques, report lower flood frequency projections than
those of the Corps, while a U.S. Weather Bureau report of actual flood
damage indicates the Corps' flood damage multiplier ís excessive. Both
these discrepancies greatly inflate the Corps' flood damage benefit figure.

B. Recreational benefit projections by the Corps are gross benefits, as
they have not been decreased by the value of the recreation potential of
the unflooded valley and the free -flowing streams. Free-flowing stream
recreational opportunities are decreasing rapidly in the region of the
Project as well as the nation at large, while impounded water recreational
opportunities are increasing. Therefore, a high future value must be placed
on the remaining free-flowing waters. We feel that the Corps must explore
these possibilities in the Impact Statement and provide a realistic net
recreational benefit.

C. Any recreational and water supply benefits at all must be premised
upon a relatively pollution-free inflow to the impoundment. This condition
does not currently exist. Although present planning places the financial
burden for production of this feed-water upon the people of the project
area, these costs are nonetheless necessary to obtain the recreational bene-
fits promised by the Corps, and thus they must be added to the costs of the
project before rational assessment of the environmental impact can proceed.

D. Land enhancement benefits have been rejected as vague during Congress-
ional hearings in the past, and have been described by the noted economist
Otto Eckstein as an unfair way of counting again an item that has already
been included as a direct benefit. It is doubtful that the private profits
of a few real estate speculators could be considered to be a public benefit.
While capital investment attracted to the area by the existence of the pro-
ject might result in a benefit to the people of the project area, its cost

51

3

is being borne by the investors themselves. If such benefits are included,
then their costs must also be included, as well as their environmental im-
pacts. We feel that the $552,000 in land enhancement must be removed from
the flood control benefits claimed for this project.

In conclusion, we feel that the construction work on this project should be
halted immediately to prevent further irrevocable damage to the environment
and should remain so halted until an adequate Environmental Impact Statement
has been prepared by the Corps and reviewed through the process established
by law.

Again we appreciate your seeking our criticism and we thank you in advance
Eor the careful consideration we know you will give to our analysis. We
share with the Corps an interest in protecting and enhancing mants environ-
ment and seek to exchange ideas on such matters in the future.

Sincerely,

Watson Morris
Executive Secretary
ECOS, Inc.

JWM/leb

52

CONSERVATION
COUNCIL OF
NORTH
CAROLINA
CCNC

Post Office Box 1207
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514
August 15, 1971

Major Joel T. Callahan
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401

Dear Major Callahan

I am pleased to respond to your request for comments on the draft Environmental
Statement regarding the New Hope Project as follows:

1. I share the Forest Service's concern for the losses of valuable timberland
and wildlife habitat which will result from the Project.

2. I share the Office of Water Programs' concern regarding the low quality of
the water to be impounded. Further, I agree with the EPA that the water should
not be impounded until the water has been treated, monitored and found of sufficiently
high quality as to reasonably assure no eutrophication.

3. I am convinced that alternative methods of flood control, mentioned by the
Forest Service and the Research Triangle Regional Planning Commission in their
comments, would do the job with less damage to the environment and for less money.

4. Last of all, I think that you are in too much of a hurry. I think that you
should heed EPA's recommendation and reevaluate the Project in the light of "current
policies, needs, technologies and costs." To do less is inexcusable and irresponsible.
You say that "The Corps Cares." If that is so, then the Corps should stop what it
is now doing and listen to the considered opinions of the many experts who are
raising the most severe and critical questions regarding the Project.

As I am sure you are aware, the comments to which I have alluded are not the
strident cries of a small group of environmental pop-offs. They represent, instead,
the first serious inter -disciplinary effort to be applied to the Project during
its long life. The Corps should not seek to obscure this fact, despite the great
amount of time, money and prestige which it now has riding on going through with
the Project as planned.

A halt now, a thoroughgoing reevaluation and design changes where necessary, would
serve the Corps well in the years ahead. Bulling it through now, in the face of a
chorus of,pbjections -- scientifically -based objections, not the know-nothing
objections -- will, in the end, make the Corps the scape-goat of the Project and
tend to make your new slogan a joke.

53

CONSERVATION
COUNCIL OF
NORTH
CAROLINA
CCNC

-2-

After all, this is only one project, although a very important one. There
will be others; some, surely, that reasonable conservationists will be able
to support. There is no doubt that the Corps will emerge, in the next few
years, as the principal protector of the environment. No other institution
in our society is geared up to do the job.

I look forward to the day that the old, arrogant image of the Corps will have
faded, and the new one of a Caring Corps will have taken its place. This most
desirable of transmutations could be helped along by your action in the case
at hand.

For the record, I am responding to your second letter of August 3. I did not
receive your (i. e., Colonel Denison's) letter of December 14, 1970. I was
elected President of the Conservation Council on December 6, 1970, and did
not take office until January 1, 1971. The letter must have gone to someone
else.

Also, your letter was sent to Box 234, Route 3, Chapel Hill. This is the
address of Mr. Wallace Kaufman, Vice President of the Conservation Council.
He signed for the letter and brought it to me. My residence is Kings Mill
Road, Chapel Hill, and my box number is as shown at the beginning of this letter.

If I may be of further service to you, please let me know.

Looking forward to working with you in the future, I remain

Sincerely yours

James C. Wallace, President
Conservation Council of North Carolina

54

-2-

In discussing this problem the Corps of Engineers has said that the State of
North Carolina through the Board of Water and Air Resources will insure that
water quality in the Reservoir will be at acceptable levels through the use
of its available powers and authorities. This type of statement has been
received with skepticism by many.

It has been pointed out frequently that nutrient removal is very difficult
and much of the technology required is not known. In addition, it has also
been pointed out that the costs of providing the additional levels of treatment
are expensive and will be very difficult for the appropriate municipalities,
counties, anti industries to provide. Further, it has been said that while the
Hoard of Water and Air Resources has all the best intentions in the world it
cannot go counter to the facts of life of local governmental economics. If
the money for treatment facilities is not available, requirements are of
little value, it is said.

Contrary to the belief expressed in much public discussion, the Board of
Water and Air Resources has been making serious investigation into the problem
of nutrients and other wastes being discharged into the New Hope Reservoir
basin. A little publicized report by the Department issued in draft form in
May of this year, "A Study of Nutrients Discharged into the New Hope Reservoir
in Waste Water Effluents," investigates the problem in detail and includes
recommendations for actions. The gist of this report is tnat proper treatment
will develop a water quality quite good enough for all of the Reservoir's planned
uses. This quality is dependent on the reduction by 90% of the phosphates from
the most significant 27 of 53 points of waste water discharge in the two river
basins. These 27 points contribute 99% of the phosphorus that come from all
53 points of discharge. A 90% reduction from these 27 points would be
sufficient to maintain water quality in the Reservoir at acceptable levels.

The report estimates that with present day technology it is possible to
reduce phosphorus to necessary levels at an operating cost of approximately
5¢ per thousand gallons. The cost of such removal at the 27 principal
discharge points would be about $820,000 annually. It appears, the report
states, that the removal of a large percentage of phosphorus should be
adequate to limit algal growth within the proposed Reservoir so that water
quality will be suitable for all beneficial uses. If the lake is filled and
it is found that the reduction of phosphorus is not adequate to prevent
excessive algal growth or if nitrogenous compounds otherwise interfere with
water uses, then it will be necessary to consider nitrogen removal. It should
be added that the process involved in reducing phosphorus will reduce other
pollutants substantially.

Significant points to be made are that technology for phosphorus removal is
available, that the Reservoir can have entirely acceptable water quality,
and that the Board of Water and Air Resources is taking the lead in making
the information available.

16

-3-

It should be noted that federal standards from the Environmental Protection
Agency for waste water treatment have become very stringent. Durham and
Durham County, for instance, have already been faced with the need to meet.
these severe additional treatment requirements.

Money for construction costs to provide treatment facilities remains a
problem. The General Assembly did authorize a 150 million dollar bond
issue election to help localities in the construction of waste water
treatment facilities Should the issue be approved by the State's voters,
state and federal aid together would be available for 80% of the cost of
construtr on rather than for 30% as at present.

While the quality of the Reservoir water remains a question - because the
reservoir is not in existence yet - it is by no means a fact that the
Reservoir will be a gigantic cess pool, as many have predicted. Rather,
the contrary seems much more likely in view of the trend of actions taken
- that the water quality will permit all beneficial uses.

Advanced Treatment Costs

The increased cost of waste water treatment in excess of what would be
necessary to maintain required water quality standards in the existing free
flowing streams can be attributed directly to the Reservoir. There would
not be the same immediate pressure for phosphorus removal and other aspects
of advanced high level treatment if the Reservoir were not in the picture.
Increased levels of treatment are required with or without a reservoir but
the cost will be greater with the reservoir.

As the Reservoir is presently planned the added costs of waste water that
will need to be required of localities did not enter into the cost benefit
analyses of the project. It does seem reasonable that these added costs
should be assigned to the New Hope Reservoir project and enter into the
cost benefit analysis. It does seem appropriate that localities being
required to install treatment facilities over and above what they would
normally be required to install should have the local portion of such costs
reimbursed by the Reservoir project.

Draw Down

Quoting from the Corps' environmental statement, "The regulation of the
lake level to accommodate water quality releases and water supply will not
result in severe draw downs or great fluctuations. The almost constant
lake level will be ideal for recreational activities. Since the lake is
not part of a power project, normal operating range will not exceed three
feet in elevation. During periods of extreme droughts, draw down is not
expected to exceed five feet."

It is very good that draw down will be at a minimum. It must be noted,
however, that a three foot draw down in the upper reaches of the New Hope
River arm of the Reservoir with its broad expanses of shallow water fringing
the shorelines will make relatively small draw downs quite apparent.

17

-4-

Adjacent Natural Areas

Again quoting from the Corps' environmental statement, "Two outstanding
natural wilderness areas are in the vicinity of the project area. One is
the Big Woods and the other Is Edwards Mountain Just south of Chapel Hill.
In both cases, the proximity to the New Hope Lake adds to the desirability
of maintaining these areas in their present state. These areas are not a
part of the New Hope Lake protect but were recommended for preservation by
the Research Triangle Regional Planning Commission."

The New Hope Reservoir and its adjacent publicly owned area could be a
part of a widespread and exceedingly valuable network of open space within
the Research Triangle Region extending well into and around the Chapel Hill
and Durham urban areas The site acquisition and planned development of
the Carolina Power & Light installation on White Oak Creek and abutting
the New Hope site extends the Reservoir centered open space well Into Wake
County.

An open space network will require acquisition and preservation of land
by many agencies other than the Corps of Engineers. The Corps project can
be a nucleus if the network principle is utilized and developed.

Flood Control

The April 21 draft of the environmental statement does not make mention of
the flood control benefits of the New Hope Reservoir project. Since these
benefits are to the areas downstream of the Reservoir and consequently
outside of the Research Triangle Region, they are not within our purview.
However they are definite and measureable and, being a prime reason for
the protect, should be included in the environmental impact-statement.

Possible Alternative

There is a possible alternative to the present New Hope Project that would
accomplish all the purposes of the present project but would eliminate the
widely publicized disadvantages in the upper New Hope River portion.

The alternative would change the dam presently under construction to a dry
dam. A dry dam could use the present proposed flood storage pool for flood
storage and provide the same degree of protection from flood damage as
presently planned. However, there would be no permanent pool at the Moncure
site. The New Hope River basin, of course, would not be permanently flooded.

A second dam six thousand feet upstream on the Haw River could be built
and useddfor permanent pool storage. There are several advantages in the
use of this second site as a reservoir for the storage of water when compared
with the Moncure site.

18

-5-

1) A better quality water; more nearly at equilibrium after receiving
treated wastes.

2) A comparable capacity for storage If at an elevation of 240' or
more that is permitted by the site as presently proposed.

3) A smaller area would be required for storage with greater average
depth and less flooding of free flowing stream.

4) A shorter flow through or retention time of impounded waters.

5) Prevention of the occurence of the troublesome upper New Hope
River pollution problem.

The Haw River does carry a significantly heavier load of pollutants than does
the New Hope. This may be seen in the report "Water Quality Characteristics
of the New Hope and Lower Haw Rivers . .," Water Resources Research Institute,
Report No. 48, by Charles M. Weiss, University of Worth Carolina at Chapel Hill.
This results from the treated wastes from Greensboro, Burlington, Graham and
Mebane. Use of this site would need to be coupled with better waste treatment
practices at the towns and cities. Nutrient removal would be especially
important.

There is one very significant additional difference between the current
project and the suggested modification. If the current project is completed
as planned the alternate storage site on the Haw River will be preempted.
However, the Moncure site can be used for a flood protection structure without
destruction of the upstream site and the upstream site can be developed at a
later time.

19

UNITED TATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
FOREST SERVICE
Southeastern Area, State and Private Forestry
Atlanta, Georgia, 30308

May 18, 1971
1920

Col. Paul S. Denison
Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
Wilmington District
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, N.C. 28401

Dear Col. Denison:

We have reviewed the Corps of Engineers New Hope Lake
project and the Environmental Statement which you provided
us.

Enclosed are Forest Service comments on the project and
your Environmental Statement.

Sincerely yours,

D. E. Larson
Acting Assistant Area Director
Enclosure

20

2

Prior to initiation of the project, the forest land was very well
stocked with high value, desirable tree species. The bottomland hardwood
stands growing on alluvial and terrace soils were particularly valuable to
the furniture industry which is a mainstay of North Carolina's economy.
The estimated volume of standing timber and of timber removed as a result
of clearcutting is given in Table 2.

Table 2. Estimated volume of standing and recently removed timber, by
sawtimber and pulpwood size classes and major forest types, New
Hope Lake Project Area.

Standing Timber : Recently Removed Timber
Forest Type Sawtimber : Pulpwood : Sawtimber : Pulpwood
thousand cubic feet 1/----
Pine 1,120 5,325 6,610 2,960
Pine and Mixed Hardwoods 1,945 5,440 1,985 755
Mixed Upland Hardwoods 760 1,750 3,030 1,090
Bottomland Hardwoods 340 6,990 30.500 5,150

Total 4,165 19,505 42,125 9,955

1/ Can be converted to board feet at rate of 1 c.f. = 6 b.f. and to cords
at rate of 70 c.f. = 1 cd.

Logging has occurred or is in process on an estimated 41,000 acres
of land in the project area. About 26,000 acres have been or are being
clearcut. This is mostly the valuable bottomland hardwood stands. In
addition to the clearing in the project area, there has been some clear-
cutting on adjacent areas where landowners have been persuaded to sell the
timber on their entire tract, whether in the project or not. The area of
these induced clearings is estimated to be 5,000 acres. Little shift in
downstream flood plain land use is expected as a result of the project.

22

3

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT

The environmental effects related to forestry stem from these
processes and changes:

a. Clearing and construction
b. Replacement of forest cover by stored water
c. Replacement of forest cover by grass or brush
d. Substitution of immature pioneer forest cover for mature
climax forest cover
e. Shifts in use of forest land adjacent to or in vicinity of
the project.

These processes and changes would have environmental impacts in
the following areas:

a. Air quality
b. Water quality
c. Water quantity and balance
d. Aesthetics and natural beauty
e. Wildlife and fish habitat
f. The carbon cycle.

Air Quality - The ability of plant leaves to absorb impurities and
pollutants from the air is well documented. This beneficial effect will be
lost or curtailed on the 45,300-acre prbject area and the 5,000-acre area of
induced clearing. The loss of such a large block of forest cover in this
rapidly urbanizing piedmont area could have substantial and serious air
quality impacts. Chemicals known to be absorbed by plant leaves include
ozone, sulfur dioxide, peroxacetyl-nitrate (PAN), carbon monoxide, ethylene,
and others.

Although North Carolina has statutes which prohibit open burning,
it is possible that the logging debris and other organic vegetational
material in the cleared portion of the project area could be burned. This
would result in release of an estimated 60 pounds per acre of particulate

23

4

matter. In addition, open burning can result in production of sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen oxide, and other organic compounds. The heavy construction equipment,
the automobiles, power boats, and other internal combustion-powered equipment
associated with the project or brought to the area will result in additional
air quality degradation. In this regard, it should be noted that both Durham
and Raleigh have serious air quality problems; and these are worsening.

Water Quality - A large mass of vegetative matter will be left in
the reservoir area. This will result in chemical pollution of reservoir and
downstream waters with tannins, wood sugars, dissolved salts, and partially
decomposed organic material.

The clearing and other logging practices already in progress have
resulted in increased erosion of about 1.8 tons per acre annually and sedi-
ment delivery to streams conservatively estimated at 0.10 tons per acre
annually. The 41,000 acres of logged forest land are now contributing an
estimated minimum of 4,100 tons of sediment to streams each year. This can
be compared with 0.03 tons per acre of sediment delivered from undisturbed
forests.

Water Quantity and Balance - Runoff from the logged areas will be
significantly higher and could contribute to higher flood peaks than normally
expected. In addition, hydrologic benefits of the forest, such as storage
of water during precipitation and slow release from subsurface flows, will
be lost. Evapo-transpiration benefits of the 41,000 acres of cleared land
will be lost. This will result in greater diurnal air temperature fluctu-
ations with significantly warmer maximum temperatures during peak solar
radiatión periods and significantly lower minimum temperatures at night.

24

5

Ambient stream temperatures will be increased 5 degrees to 12 degrees where
the forest cover is removed. This will, in turn, reduce the oxygen-holding
capacity of the water.

Aesthetics and Natural Beauty - The New Hope River is unique.
This is pointed out by the Corps of Engineers on page 2 of their environ-
mental statement. The stream flows through a wide and level flood plain;
however, the stream is not sluggish. Mature bottomland hardwoods line the
stream bank, arching overhead to form a canopy for long reaches. The stream
has excellent potential for float trips or canoeing and is one of the few in
the North Carolina piedmont with this quality. Although the cities of Durham
and Chapel Hill pollute the stream with treated sewage effluent, this could
be remedied through more intensive sewage treatment. Such treatment is now
being considered by both municipalities. Above Durham, the New Hope River
is unpolluted and free -flowing. This is so unusual that Duke University,
North Carolina State University, and the University of North Carolina have
all installed water research projects in the area. With installation of
98 percent BOD removal treatment being considered, the entire stream would
have high recreation, aesthetic, and research value.

Improvement of sewage and waste treatment discharges to the Haw
River will have similar effects. Currently, the city of Greensboro dis-
charges waste treated at about 85 percent BOD removal. Planned improve-
ments will improve the treatment to the 95 to 98 percent level. If other
municipalities and industries followed suit, the need for dilution water
in the Haw River would be virtually eliminated. The two areas mentioned
on page 4 of the report (Big Woods and Edwards Mountain ) do have

25

6

natural significance, but only with the forested New Hope Valley to connect
and enhance them. Both of these areas are. foreeted with cut-over upland
hardwoods and pine on old fields. There is little wilderness value to
either area without the complementary mature hardwood bottoms of the New
Hope Valley.

The most unique area of outstanding natural significance in the
project area is the New Hope River Valley itself, which would be cleared
and inundated by the project.

Wildlife and Fish Habitat - Wildlife which require mature hardwoods
as habitat include grouse, turkey, bear, and squirrel. Mature hardwoods
enhance and complement the habitat of deer, waterfowl, especially wood duck,
quail, woodcock, rabbit, birds of prey, many songbirds and fur -bearers.
With the exception of bear and grouse, all of these are found in the New
Hope Valley. The potential population of these wildlife species is much
greater than the current population, but both potential and actual wildlife
will be lost with completion of the project. The Big Woods area previously
mentioned does contain scattered wild turkey, but the primary habitat of
these birds is the bottomland of the New Hope Valley. A remnant population
of these birds has found refuge in the heavily wooded bottomlands and, as in
many other areas of the South, provides the nucleus from which future popu-
lations will spring when afforded better protection from poaching and other
human activities.

On pages 3 and 4 of the environmental statement, reference is made
to the diminution of wildlife habitat due to urban sprawl and pressure of

26

transportation routes, the latter in specific reference to deer. We fail
to understand how this can occur on an area of 10 to 20 square miles which
has only one major highway and three or four secondary state highways. Also,
we feel that this attempt to minimize the value of the forest habitat for
wildlife is contradicted by the statement in the last paragraph on page 2
which describes the area as "generally rural and remote from built-up
areas." In our opinion, the forest lands of the New Hope project have very
high wildlife potential, both for game and non-game species.

The Carbon Cycle - Forests are generally recognized as the most
efficient natural ecosystem on land for consuming carbon dioxide and storing
carbon. Carbon dioxide absorption and release appear to be in balance in
the world's oceans; and, thus, forests offer the best opportunity to absorb
the recent increases in worldwide carbon dioxide. Atmospheric carbon diox-
ide has increased since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, primarily
from the burning of fossil fuels; and this could result in worldwide tempera-
ture increases. The temperate forest of the New Hope area has an estimated
annual carbon dioxide absorption capacity of 1.85 tons per acre. This could
be especially significant in view of rapid industrialization of the piedmont
crescent which surrounds the New Hope Valley on two sides.

ALTERNATIVES

We feel that the full range of alternatives to the project has
not been explored. We offer the following suggestions. For water quality
benefits, we suggest that the alternatives of tertiary and secondary waste

27

8

treatment at the source of pollution and a system of user or effluent
disposal fees be investigated. For flood control, alternatives include
flood insurance, flood-proofing, advance warning, and other non-structural
measures. For recreation, we suggest as alternatives improved access to
the New Hope River to provide better streamside recreation; expansion of
recreation facilities on the many existing large reservoirs such as John
Kerr, Blewett Falls, Lake Hickory, Lookout Shoals, Catawba Lake, Badin
Lake, High Rock Lake, Lake Tillery, and Roanoke Rapids --all of which are
within a few hours' drive of the same segment of the public used to compute
recreation demand or New Hope Lake; and a system of smaller lakes. For
water supply, some alternatives which could be included are a system of
smaller municipal lakes, a system of user fees, relocation of heavy water-
using industries such as textiles, and import of water from other under-
utilized systems.

The alternative of abandonment of the project is not as grim as
is portrayed, since most of the $15 million invested is in land purchased
for the reservoir. This could be resold to the public or used as a wildlife
and recreation area under state, federal, or local management. In any
event, the fact that $15 million has been invested has no bearing on
environmental effects of the project.

Another unexplored alternative is to reduce the size of the
project to more reasonable proportions. This could be accomplished by.
substituting some of the suggested non-structural alternatives for some of
the so-called beneficial uses of the project. For example, flood damage

28

9

reduction and water pollution dilution could be eliminated from the project,
thus substantially reducing the size and impact.

As our final comment, we would like to point out that the New
Hope Lake project is being presented out of context. This project is only
one of a group of projects proposed for the central piedmont area of North
Carolina. Others include Randleman, Howarde Mill, Altamahaw, and Benaja
in the upper Cape Fear River Basin; Grey Rock, White Oak, and Spring Hope
in the Tar River Basin; and Falls and Buckhorn in the Neuse River Basin.
These proposed lakes are in a small area of ten contiguous counties and
will result in the loss of 40 to 50 percent of the bottomland hardwood
type in the entire central piedmont and inundation of about 150 miles of
free-flowing streams. We feel that presentation of the environmental effects
of these projects on a piecemeal basis contributes to a "tyranny of small
decisions." These are the small choices which, when taken independently of
each other, seem insignificant but, when taken altogether, create major
problems.

29

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
FOREST SERVICE
Southeastern Area, State and Private Forestry
Atlanta, Georgia 30304

October 5, 1971
1940

Mr. E. G. Long, Jr.
Chief, Engineering Division
Wilmington District, COE
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401

Dear Mr. Long:

Subsequent to our comments on your 30 March 1971 draft environmental
statement, we obtained additional information on the project and wish
to revise and/or clarify our original comments accordingly -

The latest figues for the project show it to encompass an area amounting
to approximately 47,000 acres. The final project figures may be somewhat
more than 47,000 acres, but will not be known until All land acquisition
has been completed.

About 90 percent of the project area is in forest cover. Most of this
forest has been commercially cut over the years (high-grading or diameter-
limit cuts), Much of this cutting was generated by the desire of the
landowners to sell the commercial timber before selling the land to the
Corps. The mature bottomland hardwood forest is largely found only in
the areas where it was too difficult to log. In our previous comments,
we said there were 23,000 acres of bottomland hardwoods. This was based
on soil survey information which indicated there were 23,000 acres of
bottomland forest site. Bottomland hardwoods are presently the dominant
species on about 12,000 acres of this. Clearing of the conservation
pool will take about half or 6,000 acres of the bottomland forest.

There will be approximately 12,500 acres of forest cleared for the
conservation pool. The clearing plan indicates clearing between eleva-
tions 197 and 217. This will remove about 8,000 acres of forest cover.
From elevation 165 (main river at the dam) to elevation 197, all trees
and brush over 2" in diameter will be removed. Forest cover removal in
this zone will amount to 4,500 acres. In selected areas below elevation
212, brush thickets ,1/4 to 1/2 acres in size will serve as fishing drops.
To date, actual complete removal of forest cover within the project has
occurred on only 94 acres. Most of this has occurred at the dam site
and/or where new roads have been built.

30

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
Post Office Box 27307, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone: [phone]

April 2, 1971

Colonel Paul S. Denison
Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401

Dear Colonel Denison:

We have reviewed your environmental statement related to the
New Hope Lake, North Carolina. The statement is well prepared
and presents the positive and negative affects of the project
on the environment. We feel the net results will be positive.

Sincerely,

CHARLES W. BARTLETT
State Conservationist

3

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
P. O. Box 27307, Raleigh, N. C. 27611

May 26, 1971

Col. Paul S. Denison
Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401

Dear Sir:

We have reviewed the revised draft of the environmental statement for
the New Hope Lake, North Carolina. From the statement as proposed, we
do not feel that the total impact of the project will have an adverse
affect on the environment.

Sincerely,

Charles W. Bartlett Acting
State Conservationist

4

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
REGION THREE
Post Office Box 26806
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611

April 15, 1971

In reply refer to:
03-31.3

Colonel Paul S. Denison
District Engineer
Wilmington District
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401

Dear Colonel Denison:

Subject: Your File SAWHW

We have received your letter dated March 30, 1971 and attached
draft Environmental Statement concerning the New Hope Lake,
North Carolina project which is currently under construction.

We have reviewed your environmental submission and considered
the project in relation to responsibilities of this office in
regard to the Federal -aid highway program in North Carolina.
Our only comment regarding this project is that provisions to
minimize erosion and/or other environmental damage to any
relocation of Federal -aid highways through the lake area be
included in contracts for their relocation. Such provisions
have been developed by the North Carolina State Highway
Commission.

The above finding does not in any way commit our cooperating
state agency, the North Carolina State Highway Commission.
We assume that comments will be solicited from the State
through Clearinghouse procedures required by Bureau of the
Budget Circular A-95.

Sincerely yours,

T. J. Morawski
Division Engineer

5

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
REGION THREE
Post Office Box 26806
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611

April 28, 1971

In reply refer to:
03-31.3

Colonel Paul S. Denison
District Engineer
Wilmington District
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401

Dear Colonel Denison:

Subject: Your File SAWHW

We have reviewed the submission transmitted with your
April 23, 1971 letter regarding the revised draft environ-
mental statement for the New Hope Lake, North Carolina.

The comments contained in our April 15, 1971 letter are
applicable to the revised submission, and we have no
additional comments.

Sincerely yours,

T.'J. Morawski
Division Engineer

6

METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT OFFICE
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
PEACHTREE SEVENTH BUILDING, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323
Room 645
REGION IV

April 30, 1971

IN REPLY REFER TO:
4MB

Paul S. Denison, Colonel
Corps of Engineers
Department of the Army
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401

Dear Colonel Denison:

Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement
New Hope Lake, North Carolina
U.S. Corps of Engineers (P.L. 88-253)

Enclosed for your consideration is Attachement "A", DHUD Comments,
in connection with the subject project.

In addition to the attached remarks, we note the absence of coor-
dination or consultation with City and/or County planning agencies
in the preparation of the proposed General Development Plan. In
view of the magnitude of the project and its effect on future land
uses in the "Piedmont Crescent", we feel that all effected planning
agencies should be afforded an opportunity to review and comment on
the contents of the draft prior to final approval.

If we may be of further assistance, please feel free to write me or
call Mr. Richard D. Case, Metropolitan Area Representative, at 404/
526-3468.

Sincerely yours,

Thomas J. Armstrong
Assist Regional
Administrator

Enclosure

8

Attachment "A"

DHUD COMMENTS ON DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Project Identification: New Hope Lake, North Carolina
U.S. Corps of Engineers (P.L. 88-253)

Project Location: Portions of Orange, Chatham, Durham, and Wake Counties,
State of North Carolina

The following includes the general caveats and remarks which we feel
should be brought to the attention of any State, local or Federal agency
which has requested DHUD review of and comment on a draft Environmental
Statement under the Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the CEQ Guide-
lines. We have checked those comments which seem to be particularly
applicable to the draft statement identified above; however the letter
of transmittal will amplify these general comments if appropriate.

COMMENTS

/ / Inasmuch as HUD has no direct program involvement in Historic
sites or structures effected by the subject project, we defer
to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation with respect
to Historic Preservation matters.

/ / HUD has direct program involvement in the Historic Preservation
aspects of the proposed project and appropriate comment is in-
cluded in the transmittal letter.

/ / The subject project effects an urban park or recreational area
and appropriate comment is included in the transmittal letter.

/ / The subject project effects only rural parks and recreational
areas and HUD therefore defers to the Forest Service of the
Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation,
Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service and the Bureau
of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife with respect to comments on
the Parks, Forests and Recreational effects thereof.

/ / This project will probably involve a statutorily required HUD
review under Section 4(f) of the Transportation Act of 1966.
Therefore, we defer comment on the parks and recreational as-
pects of the project pending request by D.O.T. for such a review.

9

2

/ / This review covers the HUD responsibilities under Section 4(f)
of the Transportation Act of 1966.

/ X / The Drift Environmental Statement fails to reflect clearance or
consultation with the appropriate local planning agency which
is: Please refer to our letter of comment

/ / The Draft Environmental Statement fails to reflect consultation
or clearance with the appropriate areawide planning agency which
is:

/ X / The Draft Environmental Statement fails to reflect consultation
or clearance with the appropriate State Clearinghouse as re-
quired by Circular A-95, Office of Management and Budget. The
A-95 Clearinghouse of jurisdiction is: Planning Coordinator, Clearinghouse
& Information Center P.O. Box 1351. Raleigh. N.C. 27602

/ / The project apparently requires the displacement of businesses
or residences. The Draft Environmental Statement does not re-
veal full consideration of the requirements of the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies
Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646). If relocation assistance is
desired, please contact Mr. Joseph C. Behrens, Room 645, Peachtree -
Seventh Street Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30323 at 404-526-3521.
In the local community the person or office most familiar with
relocation resources is:

/ / The draft statement does not discuss apparently feasible alter-
natives which may have a more beneficial effect on the urban
environment. See letter of transmittal for possibly overlooked
alternatives.

/ / In general, HUD defers to other agencies with respect to estab-
lishing and enforcing air and water quality standards, thermal
pollution standards, radiation and general safety standards. We
have no formal jurisdiction over such matters and no comments
contained herein should be construed as assuming such responsi-
bility or jurisdiction.

10

3

/ / Since this project raises issues involving radiation safety, we
recommend consultation with: Dr. Joseph Lieberman, Radiation
Office, E.P.A., 5600 Fishers Lane, Parklawn Building, Rockville,
Maryland 20852.

/ / We recommend that you write or call the Office of Management and
Budget for a copy of "Directory of State, Metropolitan and
Regional Clearinghouses under B.O.B. Circular A-95," and consult
with such clearinghouses as appropriate.

11

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND AIR RESOURCES
ROBERT W. SCOTT
GOVERNOR
P D. DAVIS
J.NELSON GIBSON.JR
WAYNE MABRY
HUGH L. MERRITT
LEE L. POWERS
J. AARON PREVOST
W. GRADY STEVENS
S. VERNON STEVENS. JR
CHAIRMAN
P. GREER JOHNSON
VICE CHAIRMAN
RAYMONO S. TALTON
JOSEPH E. THOMAS
GLENN M TUCKER
H. W. WHITLEY
GEORGE E PICKETT. DIRECTOR
TELEPHONE [phone]
E C. HUBBARD ASST DIRECTOR
TELEPHONE [phone]
RALEIGH. N C. 27611
P O. Box 27045

WS 71 RJBP

May 21, 1971

Colonel Paul S. Denison
District Engineer
U. S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington
Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401

Dear Colonel Denison:

By letter dated March 30th you asked for the State's comments on the draft
Environmental Statement on New Hope Lake. We later received a revised version
of the draft (revised April 21, 1971), and a revised page 5. Our comments per-
tain to the lastest revisions. The views of affected State agencies have been
obtained. The following changes in the draft are suggested:

1. Add a new paragraph after line 2 on page 11 as follows: A study of
nutrient discharge into the New Hope Lake by the North Carolina Department of
Water and Air Resources and was presented to the Board of Water and Air Resources
on May 13, 1971. The study finds that 99% of the phosphorous contributed to the
lake comes from 27 of the 53 points of waste discharge; that reduction of the
phosphorous concentration in wastewater effluents from the 27 points to 1 mg/liter
or less will bring phosphorous concentrations to levels recommended in the State
Water quality Standards; and that this will cost about $821,000 per year. While
the Board did not act immediately to impose this limitation on the specific waste-
water discharge points involved, the Department considers that the action is
feasible, and the problem manageable. The Department further considers that the
factors affecting lakes throughout the State are sufficiently similar that the
standard for phosphorous discharges should be imposed State-wide.

2. Delete the first sentence in the pargraph beginning in the middle of page
11 (which begins "The State of North Carolina..." and substitute therefore the
following: The State of North Carolina, acting through its Department of Water
and Air Resources and predecessor organizations, has for many years had an active
and successful campaign to improve water quality in streams tributary to the New
Hope project. The Haw and New Hope Rivers were grossly polluted when the streams
of these river basins were classified in 1959, and although waste discharge have
materially increased, the streams have been considerably improved. The effort

12

Colonel Paul S. Denis
Page 2
May 21, 1971

continues actively, not only to maintain present stream classifications, but
to meet the higher classifications which will be necessary as the lake provides
opportunities for new uses. The State completed...

3. Omit the sentence beginning on line 17 on page 11, or change it to read
as follows: The Board has announced that legislation would be introduced autho-
rizing a $150-million bond issue for water and sewerage facilities, part of which
would be used to match the Federal 5-year plan for cleaning up streams.

A copy of the draft report of the study referred to in paragraph 1 above is
enclosed for your information.

Sincerely,

Earle C. Hubbard
Assistant Director

Enclosure
cc: Mr. Marshall Staton

13

THE RESEARCH TRIANGLE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
WILLIAM McLAURIN, Chairman
CLARENCE D. JONES, First Vice Chairman
E. K. POWE, Second Vice-Chairman
JAMES D. RAY, Secretary-Treasurer
ROBERT M. HANES MEMORMIAL BUILDING
P. O. BOX 12233
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27709
(Area Code 919) 349-83O2
PEARSON H. STEWART, Executive Director
CHAPEL HILL • ORANGE COUNTY • DURHAM • DURHAM COUNTY • RALEIGH • WAKE COUNTY

July 28, 1971

Colonel Paul S. Dennison
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401

Dear Col. Dennison:

The attached memorandum of July 27, 1971, to the Research Triangle Regional
Planning Commission members concerning the Corps of Engineers environmental
statement concerning the New Hope Reservoir constitutes the Commission's
comments concerning the Corps' April 21 Environmental Statement.

Cordially,

Pearson H. Stewart

PHS:ns

Enclosures

cc: Clarence D. Jones, Chairman

14

CHAPEL HILL HOWARD N. LEE DURHAM R. WENSEL GRARAREK RALEIGH SEBY B. JONES
Mayor Mayor Mayor
MICHAEL R. BROOKS E. K. POWE JAMES D. RAY, JR.
ORANGE COUNTY HARVEY D. SENNETT DURHAM COUNTY DEWEY S. SCARBORO WAKE COUNTY WAVERLY AKINS
County Board Member County Board Chairman County Board Chairman
CLARENCE D. JONES EDWIN S. CLEMENT JAMES R. HINKL.E
OSCAR R. EWING JAMES R. HAWKINS WILLIAM McLAURIN

RESEARCH TRIANGLE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
Robert M. Hanes Memorial Building P. O. Box 12255
Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27709 549-8302

MEMORANDUM

July 27, 1971

TO: Regional Planning Commission Members

FROM: Pearson Stewart
Ray Lester

SUBJECT: new Hope Reservoir - Environmental Statement by
Corps of Engineers

The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers is in the process, as we all know, of
preparing an environmental statement concerning the new Hope Reservoir
with the dam being currently under construction on the claw River just below
its confluence with the new Hope River. The Corps prepared a first draft
on March 30 and a revision on April 21 of 1971. The Corps has made a
widespread request for comments concerning its environmental statement
drafts. This memorandum constitutes our reaction to portions of the
statement.

In this memorandum we have not attempted to comment concerning all the
environmental statement but rather have limited our comments to aspects
with which we are most familiar.

Water Quality

A most significant aspect of the new Hope Reservoir is the quality of
the water that will be impounded. There has been a great deal of public
attention and scientific investigation concerning tiie probable quality of
the Reservoir waters. The current waste water inputs into both the Haw
and New Hope river basins are highly polluted and they carry an excess of
nutrients as well as of other more conventional pollutants. It is agreed
that if treatment of waste waters entering the basins remains at present
levels the Reservoir will become seriously polluted.

Without increased levels of treatment an unacceptable concentration of
nutrients and other pollutants will occur in the Reservoir. Intensified
conventional waste water treatment and the provision of advanced treatment
for nutrient removal will be required if all the beneficial uses of the
Reservoir are to be realized.

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
DURHAM DIVISION

CIVIL ACTION FILE No. C-184-D-71

Conservation Council of North Carolina,
James C. Wallace, Paul E. Fearrington, and
wife, Ruby Ferrington, Agnes M. Sparrow,
and ECOS, Inc.,

Plaintiffs

v. SUMMONS

Robert P. Froehlke, Secretary of the Army,
Lieutenant General Frederick B. Clarke,
Chief of Engineers, Corps of Engineers
of the United States Army, and Colonel
Albert Costanzo, Wilmington District
Engineer, Corps of Engineers of the United,
States Army,

Defendant

To the above named Dfendant:
You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon Norman B. Smith, planintiff's

plaintff's attorney, whose address is 816 Southeastern Building, Greensboro,
North Carolina, 27401

an answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within 60 days after service of this
summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be
taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.

Carson J. Stuart
Clerk of Court

Deputy Clerk

Date 8-10-71 [Seal of Court]

Note: - This summons is issued pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

55

Page 2

waterways, and other features of the natural environment.
Plaintiff James C. Wallace is a citizen and resident of Orange
County, North Carolina, and is the owner of approximately
155 acres of real property in Chatham County located within
approximately one mile of the proposed boundary of the
New Hope Lake project. Plaintiffs Paul E. Fearrington and wife,
Ruby B. Fearrington, are citizens and. residents of Chatham
County, North Carolina, and are the owners of approximately
158 acres of real property ín Chatham County, part of which
property would be inundated by New Hope Lake and part of which
would consist of the shoreline of New Lope Lake. Plaintiff
Agnes M. Sparrow is the owner of approximately 48 acres of
real property in Chatham County, part of which property would
be inundated by New Hope Lake and part of which property would
consist of the shoreline of New Hope Lake. plaintiff ECUS, Inc.,
is a non-profit corporation, organized and existing under the
laws of the State of North Carolina, and with its principal
office in Raleigh, North Carolina; thís organization is composed
of citizens of North Carolina, including citizens who live in
the vicinity of the New Hope Lake project, who have interests ín,
and are dedicated to, the preservation and enhancement of man's
environment.

3. Defendant Colonel Albert Costanzo is the duly appointed
and acting Wilmington District Engineer, Corps of Engineers
of the United States Army, and in this capacity he has the super-
vision and control over the planning, development, and construction
of the New Hope Lake project. Defendant Lieutenant General Frederick
B. Clarke is the duly appointed and acting Chief of Engineers, Corps
of Engineers of the United States Army, and in this capacity
he is the chief officer and executive head of the Corps of
Engineers, which is the agency charged with the responsibility

57

SMITH AND PATTERSON
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW

Page 3

of planning, developing, and constructing the New Hope Lake project.
Defendant Robert F. Froehlke is the duly appointed and acting
Secretary of the Army.

4. Jurisdiction of this action is founded upon 5 U.S.C.
sec. 702, 28 U.S.C. sec. 1331(a), and 28 U.S.C. 2201. With respect
to each of the plaintiffs, the amount in controversy in this
action is in excess of $10,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.

5. This is a class action brought by plaintiffs on their
own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, pursuant
to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The principal
class represented by plaintiffs consists of all persons in the
vicinity of the New Hope Lake project site, who have interest in
the preservation and enhancement of their natural environment,
including particularly animal lífe, plant life, and waterways.
The class additionally represented by the individual plaintiffs
is composed of all of those persons who own real property, on
and near the shoreline of New Hope Lake, as well as real property
which would be inundated by New Hope Lake.

6. Plaintiffs and the members of their classes have painfully
and painstakingly, over a span of more than 20 years, campaigned,
petitioned, and argued against this project. They have exhausted
every conceivable means of administrative relief.

II. THE UPPER CAPE FEAR BASIN AND THE NEW HOPE LAKE PROJECT

7. Defendants, and their predecessors in office, secured
the authorization of Congress by Public Law 88-253, enacted
December 30, 1963, for the construction of the New Hope Lake project.
This project is located on the Haw River about 20 miles south of
Durham, North Carolina, and about 20 miles west of Raleigh, North
Carolina.

8. The source of the Haw River is in Guilford County,
North of Greensboro. The river passes through Rockingham County, .

58

SMITH AND PATTERSON
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW

Page 4

Alamance County, Orange County, and Chatham County. In Chatham
County, the New Hope River flows into the Haw River. In Chatham
County, the Deep River (beyond its point of confluence with the
Rocky River) joins with the Haw River to form the Cape Fear River.
The Cape Fear River flows in a generally southerly direction toward
the Atlantic coast. Before reaching the city of Fayetteville,
the Cape Fear River is joined by the Little River, and as it
approaches the coast, the Cape bear River is joined by various
other tributaries. The Cape Fear River flows into the Atlantic
Ocean at Wilmington, North Carolina.

9. The river basin of the Haw River and its tributary, the
New Hope River, in the vicinity of the New Hope Lake project
consists of rolling hills, a part of the Piedmont Plateau. The
area for the most part is in woodland, hardwoods mixed with
cedar, loblolly pine and shortleaf pine. The forest land
included in thc project consists of approximately 2.3 percent
of all forest land in the Upper Cape bear Basin, and about .5
percent of all forest land in North Carolina. The soil in the
area ís rich and fertile, and there is a considerable amount of
good farmland. Part of the area consists of natural swampland.
This region is thinly populated; approximately 85 families
presently live in the area that would be inundated by the
New Hope Lake. There is no commercial or industrial development
here. The Haw River is an exceptionally attractive natural water-
way. Its banks are undeveloped, and are overgrown with abundant
and varied foliage. It is a swiftly flowing river; there are
many rapids along its course. The New Hope River ís unique. It
is a calm, though not sluggish, body of water bordered by mature
bottomland hardwoods which arch overhead to form a canopy.
The rivers are well populated with largemouth bass, crappie,
bluegills and other sunfishes, carp, bowfin, suckers, pickerels,

59

SMITH AND PATTERSON
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW

and catfish. The woodlands are inhabited by deer, squirrel, rabbit,
fox, fur-bearing animals, woodcock, many species of songbirds,
doves, waterfowl (especially wood duck), and quail. There is a
small population of wild turkey in an area near the margin of
the proposed lake.

10, There are 29 points of municipal and industrial waste
discharges along the Haw River, and 17 points of municipal and
industrial waste discharge on the New Hope River, upstream of
the proposed dam. Discharge from the town of Mebane receives
only primary treatment. The other waste discharges receive
secondary treatment. None of the wastes receive tertiary treat-
ment. The principal sources of sewage are from the waste treatment
systems of Durham, Chapel Hill, Burlington, and Greensboro. The
New Hope River is a slow flowing, nearly flat body of water,
whereas the Haw River is a swiftly flowing ,waterway with abun-
dant rapids, it the present time sewage which has been discarded
into the New Hope River creates a substantial environmental problem,
in the form of noxious odors, algal growth, and unsightly appearance,
en the other hand, the Haw River, because of its structure, is
able to absorb the substantial pollutíonal load that is placed
on it, and to remain a stream of good quality.

11, The New Hope Dam site ís located approximately 4.2 miles
upstream from the point where the Haw River joins the Deep River
to form the Cape Fear River. The dam site is about .3 miles
downstream from the confluence of the New Hope River and Haw
River. Because of the flat flood plain of the New Hope River,
approximately 90 percent of the impoundment of the dam would be
along the bed of this river. The lake would impound a surface
area of 14,309 acres in Chatham, Durham, Crange and Wake Counties.
The dam ís designed to be 112 feet in height and 133' feet in
length. The Haw River arm of the lake would have a length of

60

SMITH AND PATTERSON
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW

Page 6

about five miles, and the New Hope River arm would have a length
of about 17 miles. A maximum detention time of water in the lake
is projected to be 400 days, A total of 34,000 acres of land are
to be dedicated for the project.

III. VIOLATION OF PROCEDURAL DUTIES

12, The New Hope Lake project, as a whole, and that part
of the project consisting of construction of the dam, are both
major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of
the human environment. The project as a whole, and of that
part of the project that consists of building the dam and
creating the lake, defendants are enjoined by the National
Environmental Policy Act, and administrative regulations, to
abide by the following procedures:

(a) 42 U.S.C. 4332. The Congress authorizes and
directs that, to the fullest extent possible:
(1) the policies, regulations, and public laws
of the United States shall be interpreted and
administered in accordance with the policies
set forth in this chapter, and (2) all agencies
of the Federal Government shall --
(A) utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary
approach which will insure the integrated use
of the natural and social sciences and the
environmental design arts in planning and
in decisionmaking which may have a impact on
man's environment;
(B) identify and develop methods and pro-
cedures, in consultation with the Council on
Environmental Quality established by subchapter
II of this chapter, which will insure that
presently unquantified environmental amenities
and values may be given appropriate considera-
tion in decisionmaking along with economic
anll technical considerations;
(C) include in every recommendation or
report on proposals for legislation and
other major Federal actions significantly
affecting the quality of the human environ-
ment, a detailed statement by the responsible
official on--

(i) the environmental impact of the
proposed action,
(ii) any adverse environmental effects
which cannot be avoided should the
proposal be implemented,
(iii) alternatives to the proposed action,
(iv) the relationship between local short -

61

SMITH AND PATTERSON
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW

Page 7

term uses of man's environment and
the maintenance and enhancement of
long-term productivity, and
(v) any irreversible and irretrievable
commitments of resources which would
be involved in the proposed action
should it be implemented.
Prior to making, any detailed statement, the
responsible Federal official shall consult
with and obtain the comments of any Federal
agency which has jurisdiction by law or special
expertise with respect to any environmental
impact involved. Copies of such statement
and the comments and views of the appropriate
Federal, State and local agencies, which are
authorized to develop and enforce environ-
mental standards, shall be made available to
the President, the Council on Environmental
Quality and to the public as provided by
section 552 of Title 5, and shall accompany
the proposal through the existing agency
review processes;
(D) study, develop, and describe appropriate
alternatives to recommended courses of actíon
in any proposal which involves unresolved
conflicts concerning alternative uses of
available resources;
(b) Guidelines, Council on Environmental
Quality, 36 F.R. No. 79, June 39 1971,
Application of section l02(2)(C). Procedure
to Existing Projects and Programs. To the
maximum extent practicable the section 122(2)(C)
procedure should be applied to further major
Federal actions having a significant effect
on the cnvirount even though they arise
from projects or programs initiated prior
to the enactment of the Act on January 1,
1970. Where it is not practicable to reassess
the basic course of action, it is still impor-
tant that further incremental major actions be
shaped so as to minimize adverse environmental
consequences. It is also important in future
actíon that account be taken of environmental
consequences not fully evaluated at the out-
set of the project or program,
(c) Memorandum, David Packard, Deputy Secretary
of Defense, Interim Guidelines on Environ-
mental Statements, August 8, 1970.
e.,Projects or Programs Initiated Before
January 1, 1970.--Consistent with the above
guidelines, an environmental statement shall
be on actions significantly adversely
affecting the quality of the environment
even then though actions arise from projects
or programs initiated prior to the enactment
of the N.E.P.A. on January 1, 1970. Where it
is not practicable to reassess the basic

62

SMITH AND PATTERSON
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW

Page 8

course of action, further incremental major
action should take into account the environ-
mental consequences not fully evaluated at
the outset of this project or program.

(d) Army Corps of Engineers Regulation L.C.
1129-2-56, which is essentially similar to
the above Deputy Secretary of Lefense Memo-
randum.

13. Defendants are in violation of the provisions or 42
U.S.C. 4332(2); Guidelines, Council on Environmental Quality,
36 F.R. No. 79; memorandum, Davíd Packard, Deputy Secretary of
Defense, Interim Guidelines on Environmental Statements; and
Army Corps of Engineers Regulation E.C. 1129-2-56, which are
set out in the immediately preceding paragraph, in that
defendants commenced work on the New Hope Lake project without
having prepared an environmental impact statement, and because
defendants have threatened to and unless enjoined by this court,
will begin the construction of the dam and lake increment of the
project without having completed an environmental impact statement
in proper and legal form. Groundbreaking at the site occurred on
December 7, 1970. It was not until March 39, 1971, that a draft
of an environmental statement for the project was issued by defendants;
this draft was revised as of April 21, 1971. As of the date of the
commencement of this action, no final environmental statement has
been issued by defendants. As of the time of the commencement of
this action, defendants had begun only preliminary construction
of the dam itself. The work on the project to date has consisted
primarily of relocation of railroad tracks and highways, and land
clearing. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and so allege,
that defendants possess the present intention of proceeding with
the construction work on the dam itself before an environmental
statement in final form is issued, and before the environmental
statement has been rendered into a form compatible with the statutory
and regulatory standards to which reference was made above.

63

SMITH AND PATTERSON
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW

Page 9

14, The procedural deficiencies, all in violation of the
authority stated above, of defendants' environmental impact
statement issued March 30, 1971, as revised April 21, 1971,
are set out in paragraphs 15 through 18.

15. The statement does not set forth all environmental
impacts of the proposed actionand does not set forth all
adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should
the proposal be implemented, in violation of 42 U,S,C 4332
(2)(c)(i) and (ii).

(a) Omissions. The report fails to mention the loss of
more than $1 million per year of farm and timber crops from
the area to be inundated. No reference is made to the loss of
recreation on free flowing water, such as canoeing, fishing,
and riverside hiking. The report does not take into account
the effects on recreation and wildlife interests of the loss
of thousands of acres of wildlife habitat that will be displaced
by the lake and by the intensified activities around the lake
that must be anticipated. No attention ís given to the effects
on air-quality of the loss of a large block of forest cover with
an ability to absorb impurities and pollutants from the air,
ín a rapidly urbanizing area. The effects upon air quality of
automobiles, power boats, and other internal combustion-powered
equipment associated with the project and to be brought into
the area by the lake, are not analyzed. No attention is given
to the chemical pollution of the lake and downstream waters by
vegetative matters that will be left in the reservoir area,
such as tannins, wood sugars, dissolved salts, and partially
decomposed organic material. The threefold increase on sediment
delivery to streams as a result of clearing and logging activities
connected with the project, is ignored. The report does not
concern itself with the loss of hydrologic benefits (including

64

SMITH AND PATTERSON
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW

flood control potential) of the natural swampland and forest
to be inundated, such as storage of crater and slow release from
subsurface flows. Defendants make no mention of loss of evapo-
transpiration benefits of the forested land, and the result of
warmer maximum temperatures and lower minimum temperatures from
replacement of the forest land with lake and cleared land.
While the statement contends that the aesthetic value of the region
will be enhanced, no mention is made of the loss of the exceptional
aesthetic qualities of the gentle, tree-lined and canopied New
Hope River, and of the rushing and rapid-filled Haw River.
Defendants did not discuss the effects of losing the forest in
the area as a part of the carbon cycle, by which carbon dioxide
is consurluned and carbon is stored. There was no exploration of
the environmental effects of the creation of vast mudbanks and
potholes, which are inevitable in the New Hope River arm of the
lake, where the distance between high and low watermark will be
measured in miles and fractions of miles, and where about 44 percent
of the surface area of the lake will be less than 12 feet deep,
24 percent of it will be less than six feet deep, and 16 percent
of it will be less than four feet deep. The report does not
comment on the possibilities of the creation of an environmental
disaster as a result of some obscure, but not altogether improbable
effect of the project, such as the elimination of a keystone
species in the ecosystem, or the impoundment of deadly chemical
or radiological materials from upstream sources. No consideration
was given to the impact on the environment of the insecticide
needed to carry out the mosquito control program promised by the
defendants, which will be necessitated by the great mosquito
breeding capacity of stagnant pools that will occur during
periods of low water in the shallow lake.

(b) Misstatements. In addition to the many omissions of

65

SMITH AND PATTERSON
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW

Page 11

critical factors, the statement also contained many serious
misstatements. The precious population of wild turkey in the
area was said to live in the "Big Woods," area that will not be
inundated, when in fact the turkey primarily inhabit the wooded
bottomlands that will be flooded. The report justified in part
the project on the anticipated enactment of North Carolina state
statutues protecting water quality, which ultimately were not
passed by the 1971 General Assembly, It was represented in the
report that a forestry management program would be one of the
benefits of the project, when in fact the excellent timber has
been stripped from approximately 5,000 acres of land that will not
be flooded and that otherwise had no need to be cleared for the
project. It was stated by defendants that wildlife habitat had
been diminished as a result of urban sprawl and the pressure of
transportation routes; in fact this area has remained remote,
thinly populated, without a network of heavily travelled roadways,
and in all respects an excellent wildlife habitat,

(c) The Water Quality Problem. Probably the most serious
deficiency of defendants' environmental statement is its de-emphasis
on the certainty that the water of New Hope Lake will be of
exceptionally bad quality. As a product of nutrient content in
municipal and industrial wastes discharged into the Haw and New
Hope Rivers, principally phosphate and nitrate, and as a result
of the shallowness of a large portion of the lake, extremely heavy
growths of algae are certain to occur. The report represents
phosphorous intake of the lake to be 1.01 mg/l and .085 mg/l at
various stations; in fact some surveys of phosphate data indicate
10 to 15 mg/l in this watershed. At the same time there are
abnormally high concentrations of nitrate. Defendants assert
they are working to prevent excessive nutrient enrichment in the
lake. The only way to eliminate the nutrient enrichment from

66

SMITH AND PATTERSON
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW

Page 12

waste discharge, would be to require every municipal and industrial
waste source to implement tertiary treatment of its wastes, a
process that would require a vast capital investment, a period
of at least two or three years of construction, and an annual
maintenance of upwards of $800,00.00. Defendants have neitler
the authority nor the resources to achieve this result. Moreover,
because of the lake's slow flushing time, and the recycling of
nutrients to algae to sediments to macrophytes, noticeable water
quality improvement as a result of tertiary treatment could not be
expected within 25 years. Even in the absence of nutrients
from wastes, the shallowness of New Hope Lake would insure
abnormally heavy algae growths, that could not be controlled.
The algae would result insignificant taste and odor problems
if any of the lake water were used as a public water supply.
The growth and decomposition of algae and the presence of
partially treated sewage in the lake would severely reduce the
quality and quantity of fish population, by limiting spawning
areas, hindering development of fish food chains, interfering
with the dissolved oxygen supply, and emitting toxic substances.
While the report conceded that the lake would be of questionable
quality for recreational purposes, the report .ailed to mention
that determinations have been made that a portion of the lake at
least will be so highly infiltrated with conform bacteria that
swimming, water skiing, and other contact recreation would be
prohibited for public health reasons.

16, Defendants have failed to carry out their duty of,
and the report does not reflect, the utilization of a systematic,
interdisciplinary approach which will insure integrated use
of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design
arts in planning and in decision making, and the identification
and development of methods and procedures which will insure that

67

SMITH AND PATTERSON
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW

Page 13

presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may
be given appropriate consideration in decision manking, in vio-
lationof 42 U.S.C, sec, 4332(2)(A) and.(B). This portion of
the statute requires an integrated and comprehensive cost-benefit
analysis of projects that affect the environment. Defendants'
environmental statement contains a cost-benefit analysis that
falls woefully short of the statutory requirement. Defendants'
cost-benefit analysis produces a benefit-cost ratio of 1.9 to
1.0. Defendants have employed a three and one-eighth percent
interest rate, whereas a five and one-quarter percent interest
rate is now currently accepted for this purpose. Defendants
have assumed a 100-year project life, whereas a 50-year project
life for this type of project ís not generally accepted.
It is clear that defendants have not taken the probable impact
of inflation into account sufficiently in their formula. A
value of $2,994,000.00 has been assigned to flood control;
this figure should he reduced to approximately $1,019,000.90,
in view of the fact that flood frequency and flood damage have
been greatly overestimated by defendants. Defendants estimated
an annual benefit of $441,000.00 for water supply purposes; since
the lake will be unacceptable as a source of water supply,
because of coliform bacteria, and disagreeable taste and odor,
it is doubtful that any value should be assigned to water supply.
Defendants assigned a value of $1,145,000.00 per-year to general
recreation, and $320,000.00 per year to fish and wildlife.
This calculation does not take into account the virtual certainty
that the fish population will be reduced by the effects of algae
concentrations, that a negative increment is required to repre-
sent the loss of approximately 16,000 man-days hunting per
year in the river basin that will be flooded, that water contact
sports will be prohibited in a large portion of the lake, that

68

SMITH AND PATTERSON
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW

Page 14

substantial boating and otheer recerational opportubnities along
the free-flowing rivers are being lost, and that general recrea-
tional uses of thelake will be diminished as a result of the
unsightly and malodorous character of the water. The cost-beneifit
analysis failed to take into account, wither as negative benefits
or as costs, the loss of aesthetic character if the natural river
basins, lose of over $1 million per year in crops and timber
income from the flooded lands, loss of homesites of 85 families
presently living in the area to be flooded, and estimated cost
of upwards of $800,000.00 per year for tertiary treatment of
municipal and industrial wastes that flow into the rivers above
the dam site, adverse effects on air quality from loss of plant
leaves in the forest and introduction of combustion-powered boats
and equipment, loss of evapo-transpiration benefits from thousands
of acres of land, and loss of the forests as part of the carbon
cycle. By making all reasonably necessary adjustments for the
factors mentioned above, the cost-benefit ratio would be reduced
to such a point that the annual costs of the project will greatly.
exceed its annual benefits.

17. Defendants failed to discuss all of the alternatives
to the proposed action, and to study, develop and describe
approppriate alterntaives to the recommended course of action,
in violation of 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)(iii) and (D). Defendants'
statement suggests as alternatives to the New Hope Lake project,
a series of small dams on tributaries to provide flood protection
and water supply; a dry dam on the main river to provide flood
protection; flood plain zoning; and storage locations within
a main-stem reservoir. These alternatives are all dismissed
with the statement that each has been discarded as being
impracticable or uneconomical. This sketchy treatment of

69

SMITH AND PATTERSON
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW

Page 15

alternatives does not fulfill the statutory requirement.
In the first place, several alternatives are omitted altogether.
No mention is made of the alternatives of privately or publicly
subsidized insurance, removal of heavy water-using industries,
or outright governmental purchase of the flood plain. As alterna-
tives for recreation, defendants should have discussed improved
access to the river or recreation and expansion of recreational
facilities of existing near-by reservoirs, such as High Rock Lake,
Kerr Reservoir, Lake Tillery, and Lake Norman. More important,
mere mention of various alternatives does not suffice; the statute
requires detailed study, development, and description of each
alternative. The use of small dams on tributaries, located above
sources of sewer discharge and impounding water suitable for public
water supplies, would adequately serve the recreational, flood
protection and water quality control purposes of the project; at
the same time a series of small dams would provide erosion control
and sources of water supply which cannot be realistically expected
from the project. A dry dam, which would not disturb the natural
forest, swampland, and animal habitat, would adequately serve the
flood protection purpose of the project. The alternative of leaving
alone the Haw and New Hope Rivers and their basins, deserves serious
consideration, particularly when viewed in light of an accurate and
objective cost-benefit analysis. The environmental statement
incorrectly assumes that recreational and wildlife conservational
features of the project cannot be disassociated from the dam and
lake, Government funds could be used to maintain a wildlife preserve
and recreational area on the river bottoms which have been acquired
without construction of the dam, that would be far superior to
the presently proposed wildlife and recreational features of the
project, One of the alternatives, that of constructing several

70

SMITH AND PATTERSON
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW

Page 16

smaller dams, has been explored in detail by the Soil Conserva-
tion Service of the United States Department of Agriculture; at
the very least defendants could have incorporated the data from
this study in their environmental report.

18. Defendants failed to set forth the relationship between
local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance
and enhancement of long-term productivity, in violation of 42
U.S.C. sec 4332(2)(c)(iv). Particular attention should have
been given by defendants to the consequence of the lake's filling
up with silt and becoming useless for any of the purposes of flood
control, water quality control., water supply, and recreation
that have been projected, in approximately 50 years' time,
when at the same time, down-river development in the flood
plain and basin of the Cape Fear River will have become increas-
ingly dependent on these very functions of New Hope Lake.
Special attention should have been given by defendants to the
loss of a wild natural area of impressive scenic beauty, largely
covered by forests that play a critical role in the maintenance
of air and water quality, in an increasingly industrialized,
urbanized Piedmont North Carólina. Neither of these long-range
consequences of the project was analyzed by defendants in
their statement.

IV. CONTRAVENTION OF SUBSTANTIVE STANDARDS

19. The sections of the New Hope and Haw Rivers involved
in the New Hope Lake project are free-flowing scenic rivers, and
the New Hope Lake project, is a public works project, is a part
of a federal plan and program, and involves the construction of
a reservoir. Because of these attributes of the New Hope Lake
project, defendants are bound to conform their activities to the
following substantive Congressional and Executive mandates:
(a) 42 U.S.C. 4331. (a) The Congress, recognizing
the profound impact of man's activity on the

71

SMITH AND PATTERSON
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW

Page 18

each person has a responsibility to contribute
to the preservation and enhancement of the
environment.

(b) Executive Order No. 11507, 35 F'.::. 2573, February
4, 1970.

Sec. 4. Standards. (a) Heads of agencies
shall ensure that all facilities under their
jurisdiction are designed, operated, and main-
tained so as to meet the following requirements:

(1) Facilities shall conform to air and
water quality standards as defined in
section 2(d) of this order. In those
cases where no such air or water quality
standards are in force for a particular
geographical area, Federal facilities in
that area shall conform to the standards
established pursuant to subsection (b)
of this section. Federal facilities shall
also conform to the performance specifica-
tions provided for in this order....

Sec. 7. Procedures for federal water resources
projects. (a) All water resources projects of
the Departments of Agriculture, the Interior, and
the Army, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the
United States Section of the International Boun-
dary and Water Commission shall be consistent
with the requirements of section 4 of this order..,,

(c) 33 U.S.C. 1153. (b)(1) In the survey or planning
of any reservoir by the Corps of Engineers, Bureau
of Reclamation or other Federal agency, consid-
eration shall be given to inclusion of storage for
regulation of streamflow for the purpose of water
quality control, accept that any such storage and
water releases shall not be provided as a substi-
tute for adequate treatment or other methods of
controlling waste at the source.

(d) 33 U.S.C. 1171. (a) Each Federal agency (which
term is used in this section includes Federal
departments, agencies, and instrumentalities)
having jurisdiction over any real property or
facility, or engaged in any Federal public works
activity of any kind, shall, consistent with
the paramount interest of the United States as
determined by the President, insure compliance
with applicable water quality standards and
the purposes of this chapter in the administra-
tion of such property, facility, or activity.

(e) 16 U.S.C, 580m. It is declared to be the policy
of the United States to provide that reservoir
areas of projects for flood control, navigation,
hydroelectric power development, and other related

73

SMITH AND PATTERSON
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW

interrelations of all components of the
natural environment, particularly the pro-
found influencer, of population growth, high -
density urbanization, industrial expansion,
resource exploitation, and new and expanding
technological advances and recognizing further
the critical importance of restoring and
maintaining; enviromnntal quality to the
overall welfare and development of man, de-
clares that it is the continuing policy of
the Federal Government, in cooperation with
State and local governments, and other con-
cerned public and private organizations, to
use all practicable means and measures, in-
cluding financial and technical assistance,
in a manner calculated to pester and pro-
mote the general. welfare, to create and
maintain conditions under which man and
nature can exist in productive harmony,
and fulfill the social, economic, and
other rrequirements of present and future
generations of Americans.

(b) In order to carry out the policy set forth;
in this chapter., it is the continuing res-
ponsibility of the Federal Government to
use all practicable means, consistent with
other essential considerations of national
policy, to improve and coordinate Federal
plans, functions, programs, and resources
to the end that the Nation may--

(1) fulfill the responsibilities of each
generation as trustee of the environ-
ment for succeeding generations;
(2) assure for all americans safe, health-
ful, productive, and esthetically and
culturally pleasing surroundings;
(3) attain the widest range of beneficial
uses of the environment without degra-
dation, risk to health or safety, or
other undesirable and unintended con-
sequences;
(4) preserve important historic, cultural,
and natural aspects of our national
heritage, and maintain, wherever
possible, an environment which supports
diversity and variety of individual
choice;
(5) achieve a balance between population
and resource use which will permit
high standards of living and a wide
sharing of life's amenities; and
(6) enhance the quality of renewable
resources and approach the maximum
attainable recycling of depletable
resources.

(c) The Congress recognizes that each person
should enjoy a healthful environment and that

72

SMITH AND PATTERSON
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW

Page 19

purposes owned in fee and under the jurisdiction
of the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of
Engineers shall be developed and maintained so as
to encourage, promote, and assure fully adequate
and depenahle future resources of readily available
timber through sustained yield programs, refores-
tation, and accepted conservation practices, and
to increase the value of such areas for conserva-
tion, recreation, and other benefical uses:
provided, That such development and management
shall be accomplished to the extent practicable
and compatible with other uses of the project.

(f) 16 U.S.C. 580n. In order to carry out the national
policy declared in section 580m of this title,
the Chief of Engineers, under the suprrvision of
the Secretary of the Army, shall provide for the
protection and development of forest or other
vegetative cover and the establishment and
maintenance of other conservation measures on
reservoir areas under his jurisdiction, so as
to yield the maximum benefit and otherwise
improve such areas. Programs and policies
developed pursuant to the preceding sentence
shall be coordinated with the Secretary of
Agriculture, and with appropriate State con-
servation agencies.

(g) 28 U.E.C. 1271. It is hereby declared to be the
policy of the United States that certain selected
rivers of the Nation which, with their immediate
environments, possess outstandingly remarkable
scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife,
historic, cultural, or other similar values, shall
be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that
they and their immediate environments shall be
protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present
and future generations. The Congress declares that
the established national policy of dam and other
construction at appropriate sections of the rivers
of the United States needs to be complemented by
a policy that would preserve other selected rivers
or sections thereof in their free-flowing condition
to protect the water quality of such rivers and
to fulfill other vital national conservation
purposes.

20. Defendants claim that the New Hope Lake project will
serve the purposes of providing flood protection, water supply,
water quality control, and recreation benefits. None of these
objectives will be attained by the project, when measured by
the standards and limitations that Congress has prescribed, and
if defendants are permitted to construct the New Hope Lake project
they will be in violation of several Acts of Congress creating

74

SMITH AND PATTERSON
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW

Page 20

substantive standards for treatment of the environent, as set
forth in paragraphs 21 through 26.

21. Flood protection. Defendants have greatly over-
stated both the frequency and extent of flooding, and the
extensiveness of flood damage, in the Cape Fear Basin. The
likelihood of destructive floods in the near future in this
area is not great enough to justify construction of the dam.
The project will have a useful life of 53 years; presumably
after that time the lake will be silted to the point that: it
will no longer be very useful for flood control or other pur-
poses. Various estimates of major destructive foods ín
Cape Fear River Basin, when averaged, indicate that a flood of
this type is to be extracted only once every 118 years alternatíves,
much less costly in their adverse effects on the environment,
would provide whatever flood control is needed in the Cape rear
Basin; a dry dam, or several small reservoirs near the headwaters
of the Cape Fear tributaries, would suffice. Privately or publicly
subsidized insurance against flooding would provide adequate
compensation for flood damage, but would not entail any alteration
of the environment. Other alternatives such as flood-plain
zoning and government purchase of flood-plain areas, would mini-
mize damage to parsons and property in the event of flood.
The natural swamp bordering the New Hope River presently acts
as an important flood control device by absorbing and retaining
great amounts of water during periods of heavy rain; by building
the lake and destroying the swamp there is only a limited gain
in flood control effect.

22, Watersupply. New Hope Lake would not be usable
as a public water supply source. The lake would be exceedingly
shallow, 44 percent of it to be less than 12 feet deep, 24
percent of it to be less than six feet deep, and 16 percent

75

SMITH AND PATTERSON
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW

Page 21

of it to be less than four feet deep; and the distance from,
high water mark to low water mark on the New Hope River arm
of the lake would be hundreds of yards. Consequently, massive
algal growths in the lake are inevitable; during periods of
low water great quantities of the algae will die and putrify.
The natural excretions from the algae, together with the residue
of decaying algae, combined with partially treated sewage dis-
charged into the lake, and with chemical pollution of the
reservoir from vegetative matter present before flooding (tannins,
wood sugars, dissolved salts, partially decomposed organic
material), will cause the water to be very odorous and unpalatable.
The algae growth will be stimulated, and hence the objectionable
qualities of the water will be increased, by the presence in
the lake of phosphates and nitrates from municipal and industrial
sewer discharges. None of the waste that enters the rivers
upstream of the dam receives tertiary treatment for the removal
of these nutrients; to effect tertiary treatment, a period of
two or three years of construction, a large capital outlay,
and an annual investment in an amount estimated to be upwards
of $800,000.00, would be required. Even if universal tertiary
treatment could be achieved, noticeable water quality improve-
ment could not be expected within 25 years, because nutrients
would have already begun a natural recycling. Some of the
wastes being discharged into the rivers upstream are not being
treated to remove coliform bacteria in sufficient amounts,
and therefore, a part of the lake can be expected to be too
dangerous to public health for use as a water siippiy source.
The municipalities in the vicinity of the New Hope Lake project
have public water supplies which are ample for the present and
for the foreseeable future; there is no established need for
this lake as a source of water supply.

76

SMITH AND PATTERSON
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW

Page 22

23, Water quality control. By the processes of
eutrophication desribed in the immediately preceding subpara-
graph, the present quality of the water in both the New Hope
River and the Haw River will be adversely affected. The portion
of the Haw River involved in this project is rated AII by the
North Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources. This is the
highest rating ín the state, system, and indicates a best use
as raw-water supply. The New Hope River is classified C by
the North Carolina Board of Water and Aír Resources, indicating
a best use of fishing and fish and wildlife propagation. Once
these waters become impounded, and affected by the processes
described above, they will undoubtedly be either within or
below the lowest classificatíon D recognized by the North
Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources. The North Carolina
stream classification program is a water quality standard adopted
pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The
reduction of water quality in the New Hope Lake project will
cause the standards established by the North Carolina Board
of water and Air Resources to be violated, and for this reason
defendants' action in constructing the dam will be contrary to
33 U.S.C. 1171(a) and Executive Order No. 11577, sec. 4(a)(1), 7(a).
Defendants maintain that by varying the release of water from the
lake to the lower Cape Fear Basin, the variations in flow will be
lessened and periods of excessively low flow will be eliminated.
The Cape Fear River in its natural state is not susceptible to
periods of extreme low flow. In the absence of extreme low flow,
the principal justification for increasing the flow by discharging
water from New Hope Lake, would be to dilute sewage from down-
stream sources. This is an objective that is in clear contra-
vention of 33 U.S.C. sec. 1153(b)(1), which provides that
in the planning of any reservoir by the Corps of Engineers,

77

SMITH AND PATTERSON
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW

Page 23

storage and water releases shall not be provided as a substitute
for adequate treatment or other methods of controlling waste
at the source. Congress has placed the burden on downstream
producers of waste to construct adequate treatment facilities;
the existence of New Hope Lake cannot be justified for this
purpose. Because of the severe diminution of water quality
in New Hope Lake, as a result of the eutrophication processes
described herein, the water that would be released for down-
stream water quality control, itself would be of an exceedingly
poor quality, and would intensify downstream pollution instead
of dilluting it.

24. Recreation. In both qualitative and quantitative
terms, more recreation will be destroyed than will be created
by the construction of Idew Hope Lake. The sections of New
Hope and Haw Rivers that are to be destroyed, are waterways
of great scenic beauty. They are ideal for boating, swimming,
and fishing excursions, and for hiking and camping along their
banks. A portion of the New Hope River flows through the only
natural swamp of substantial size in Piedmont North Carolina,
an area that has remained virtually unspoiled. The portion of
the river basin to be inundated contains a population of deer,
squirrel, rabbit, fox, fur-bearing animals, woodcock, many
species of song birds, doves, water fowl, and quail, in addition
to a small population of wild turkey. All of this game would
be lost. An estimated 15,800 man-days of hunting at the
same time would be lost. Fishing in the free-flowing streams
is good; they are well populated with largemouth bass, crappie,
bluegills, catfish, and other species. It is probable that the
fish population in the lake will be diminished as a result of
excessive algal growth and pollution from industrial and
municipal waste sources. The tendency, of course, will be

78

SMITH AND PATTERSON
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW

Page 24

for the more desirable species to disappear and the fish that
remain, if any, will be of less desirable varieties. It is
certain that swimming and other water contact sports will be
prohibited in a substantial part of the Lake for reasons, of
the public health, since excessive quantities of dangerous
bacteria from sewage discharges will be present. The malodorous
and unsightly character of the water will be a deterrent to
other recreational uses of the lake, Moreover, there is ample
extant and planned flat water recreation in Piedmont north
Carolina, but recreation on free-flowing bodies or water in
their natural state, such as the Haw River and New Hope River,
is severely limited in the area, The destruction of this
scenic river in its free-flowing condition ís contrary to
the declared policy of Congress in 16 U.S.C. sec. 1271.

25. Other effects. Construction of New Hope Lake
would have detrimental effects on forest resources, water
quality, air quality, and carbon cycle. Construction of the
lake will cause the destruction of an excellent nature forest
of bottamland hardwoods, mixed with coniferous varieties; the
forest to be displaced consists of approximately 2.3 percent of
all forest land in the upper Cape Fear River Basin, and about .5
percent of all forest land in North Carolina. Defendants are
not only destroying the forest in the lands to be inundated,
but they also are permitting the forest resources to be stripped
from areas surrounding the lake that do not need to be cleared
in connection with the project. By constructing an uncessary
reservoir, and engaging in unnecessary clearing operations
beyond the shoreline., the defendants are in violation of 16
U.S.C. sec. 580m and 580n. Destruction of the forest means
the sacrifice of evapo-transpiration benefits of thousands
of acres; the result will be warmer maximum temperatures and

79

SMITH AND PATTERSON
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW

Page 25

lower minimum temperatures in the arca. The loss of this
large block of forest cover in a rapidly urbanizing section
of North Carolina will have a substantial adverse impact
on air quality, caused by the removal of plant leaves which
absorb impurities and pollutants from the air. Air pollution
will be increased by internal combustion-powered boats and
other equipment introduced into the area. The hydrologic
benefits of the forest, such as storage of water during
precipitation and slow release from subsurface flows, will
be lost. Forests are an efficient ecosystem for consumming
carbon dioxide and storing carbon; this critical contribution
to the environment will be sacrificed.

26. The construction of New Hope Lake would be an environmental.
disaster. This project will not contribute to safe, healthful,
productive, andaesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;
this project will result in degradation, risk to health or
safety, and other undesirable consequences; this project will
not serve to maintain an environment which supports d.versity
and variety of individual choice; this project will not
contribute toward high standards of living and a wide sharing
of life's amenities; this project will not enhance the quality
of renewable resources, and ít will not have the effect of
maximízirg recycling of depletable resources. For the reasons
stated in this paragraph, the New Hope Lake project is violative
of 42 U.S.C. 4331(b).

V. CONCLUSION AND PRAYERS FOR RELIEF

27. Plaintiffs and the members of their classes are threatened
with grave and irreparable injury, by defendants' construction
of the New Hope Lake project. Plaintiffs and the members of
their classes have no adequate remedy at law.

80

SMITH AND PATTERSON
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW

Page 26

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that:

1. This complaint be treated as motin for preliminary
and permanent injunction.

2. This complaint be treated is an affidavit in support
of motion for preliminary and permanet injunction.

3. The Court promptly set a hearing for a determination
of plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction.

4, The Court issue a preliminary injunction, enjoining
and restraining defendants, their agents and servants, and
all persons acting in participation and concert with them,
from taking any further steps toward construction of the New
Hope Lake project, until determination of thin action
on its merits.

5. This Court issue a permanent injunction, enjoining
and restraining defendants, their agents and servants, and all
parsons acting in concert or participation with them, from
(a) taking any further steps toward the construction of the
New Hope Lake project, and, alternatively, (b) taking any
further steps toward the construction of the New Hope Lake
project until such time as a complete, proper, and lawful
environmental statement has been prepared and processed by
defendants, as is provided by law, submitted by defendants
to this Court, and approved by this Court.

6. This Court enter a judgment declaring that (a)
the New Hope Lake project is illegal, as an arbitrary and
capricious violation of controlling substantive standards,
and, alternatively, (b) the environmental statetment prepared
by defendants is violative of the applicable procedural
requirements.

81

SMITH AND PATTERSON
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW

Page 2 7

7. The costs of this action be taxed against defendants.

8. Plaintiffs have such other and further relief as to
the Court may seen just and proper.

Attorney for Plaintiffs
Norman B. Smith
Smith & Patterson
816 Southeastern Bldg.
Greensboro, N. C. 27401
Telephone [phone]

Attorney for Plaintiffs
Roger WI Smith
Tharrington & Smith
835 Durham Life Bld.
Raleigh, N. C. 27601
Telephone: [phone]

82

SMITH AND PATTERSON
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW

North Carolina
Orange County

James C. Wallace, being first duly sworn, deposed and
says that in one of the plaintiffs in the above entitled
action, that he has read the foregoing Complaint and knows
the contents thereof, and that said contents are true of his
own knowledge, save and except for thost matters and things
stated thereing upon information and belief, and as to such
and things, he believes said content to be true.

Affiant

Sworn and subscribed to
before this 2 day
of August, 1971.

Notary Public

My commission expires:
9-18-'74

A True Copy
Teste:
Camron J. Stuart, Clerk:

Deputy Clerk

85

SMITH AND PATTERSON
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW

Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.
November 22, 196

Sir:

The attached communication
is sent for your consideration.
Please investigate the statements
contained therein and forward me
the necessary information for re-
ply, returning the enclosed corre-
spondence with your answer.

Yours truly,

Nick Galifianakis M. C.
213 Post Office Building
Durham, N.C. 27701

84

DURHAM ECOS
citizens for a decent environment
P.O. Box 4782, Duke Sation
Durham, North Carolina 27706

Room 302 Union Bldg.
Phone: [phone]

Roper Wells
Box 5409, Duke Station
Durham, N.C. 27706

Rep. Nick Galifianakis
Post Office Building
Durham, N.C. 27706

Dear Mr. Galifianakis:

Since the first of the year I have been heading an
investigatin by EGOS of the proposeded New Hope Reservoir. Much
of the basis for what I have to say is contained in the enclosed
essay. Since it was written, pollution in the Haw River has
been denied by N.C. Dept. of Air and Water Resources in direct
contradiction of the facts, access to Army files on land purchase
proceedings has been denied to me, and various officials are
proposing the reservoir as a location for the N.C. zoo on the
assumption of a supply of clean water.

As a member of the body responsible for funding this
project, you might be interested in hearing some more about this
side of it. If so, please let me know when you'll be here in

85

Durham and will have time to talk to me.

Yours truly,

86

Introduction Continued---
gale arc a —'number of arguments against
the project which do not relate directly
to the stated reasons for building it.
Perhaps the most significant is the fact
that in the past the Soil Conservation
Service of the U. S. Department of Agri-
culture had undertaken a joint study of
« \ flood control plans for the area with
the Engineers; SGS investigated the pos-
sibility of construction of 232 small and
intermediate size reservoirs, while the
Engineers studied a 'one large reservoir'
plan (p. xix). The SGS conclusion was:
\ "These studies did not indicate a clear-
' cut economic advantage for either plan
;, with respecs to flood damage reduction
on the main stem. ...It appears that the
\ comprehensive program recommended in the
Chief of Engineers' report, which is
essentially a combination of elements of
both plans, is dependent on benefits
which will accrue from purposes other than
flood control. ...In view of these and
other factors,..the data presented in the
report do not conclusively show that the
C, m..;rr: hr::::i vc plan...will provide tire
must feasible method for the development
of the Ind and water resources of the
Cape Fear River Basin." (p.xx) In other
words, although a seri.a of small dams
r'ould suffice, the Engineers would prefer
to build a BIG dam as well. In a reply to
the Department of Agriculture, the Engin-
eers blatantly omit any reference to this
issue (p. xxi):
Other official comment concerning the
project include:
"...the District Ergiiteer apparently'
assigned a value of $1.00 per day to the
estimated number of man -days of hunting
lost as a result of the project..," (x)
"Construction of the project would
directly liminate 9,400 acres of excellent
quality wildlife habitat." (212)
"Whitetail deer, turkey, cottontail 8
and awemp rabbits, gray squirrel, foxes,
1;: ;:,unx:TlttN CONTINUED----
'unmtts a ire di deuce of treatment of do-
m, ,tic sewn;,, and some industrial wastes.
Further retr::.rim, ne of industrial wastes
to virtu.)lly eliminate residual pollutants
would be extremely expensive. ...As the
rnrluutriul development continues through-
out the bairn, these reniduol wastes will
continue to build up. 1'hcther or not, in
the future, ,ollution abatrmont can pro-
gress rapidly enough to offset the in-
creases in residual wastes is a moot
question. (p. 51), The state Board of
Pater R,•sources seems to hold a similar
position; they are working (efficiency
unknown) to reduce pollution from specific
sources, but show little interest in con-
sidering long-range threats of even low
pollution levels, not to mention ecolo-
gical disruption due to the reservoir
itself.
As stated in another HEW study, "NO
large municipality plans to take its
municipal raw water supply from the pro-
posed New llope Reservoir." Rather, it is
"believed that the impounded New (lope
enters will be used for industrial pur- be'faced. It is extremely difficult
poses" (p,155). Again, the basis for the _ to stop a project of this nature once
project can be seen as being to encourage it has received Congressional approval.
industrial expansion, seeing it as the Strong legal and political pressure
obvious result of 100 years of future must be developed with the help of EGOS
population growth and continued material- members. Individuals should educate
themselves with the material available
raccoon, opossum, and bobwhite quail aro
the most common resident game animals...
Black bear are present. Fur animals
include mink, muskrat, weancl, and otter.
Woodcock, mourning dove, and woodduck
commonly neat and winter in the area."
(207)
"It appears that archaeological re -mains exist at the confluence of the
Haw and Cape Fear Rivers" (xi).
"This (vegetation clearance) Is
recommended to control effectively
mosquitoes which transmit malaria and
encephalitis and which otcur in the
reservoir area." Other measures would
include use of herbicides and insect-
icides. (xiv)
There is also a study entitled llnt.-r
Resources Development in the Cape Fear
River Basin on file in the ECOS office
library. It develops some significant
points not covered in this treatment,
and should definitely be read.
Once it has been seen that this pro-
ject is a mistake and a waste of money,
the question of how to oppose it must
in the ECOS library relating to the New
Hope Reservoir and simultaneously work
with the action group organized around
this issue. Contact ua:
* * * * * * * *
Silent Epidemic
Although lead pigments were elimi-
nated from interior paints Ln the U.S.
some 20 years ago, multiple layers of
lead -based paint still cover the walls
and woodwork in many old houses and
apartments. Therefore lead poisoning,
once an occupational hazard for paint -
ere, is now primarily a disease of
small children: toddlers between one
and five who live in slum housing and
nibble steadily at the paint that
flakes off dilapidated walls and can
be gnawed off peeling windowsills. At
a conference at Rockefeller University
in March participants estimated that
lead poisoning in children is much more
prevalent than is generally assumed,
but they pointed out that the "silent
epidemic" could be eliminated by ag-
gressive medical, social and legal
action.
A child who eats two or three paint
chips a day for three months can ac-
cumulate a potentially lethal dose.
Lead poisoning often goes unrecognized.
Mass screening for lead poisoning
can be undertaken on the basis of the
urine test, spectrophotometry of hair
samples or blood tests. None of these
measures is simple, however, and ex-
perts at the conference urged that pre-
ventive measures be instituted instead:
the eradication of slum housing or at
least the removal or covering of dan-
gerous painted surfaces.

87

INTRODUCTION "t(--, y ( Roger Wells River. Use of fertilizers lends to run } f E(j -
off of nitrat. into surface water;
The following present. ha case for ab- nitrates can't oe removed by present
andottmcnt of Lhc Net Hope Reservoir pro- treatment methods and are potentially
joct; arguments Ln favor of the project toxic.)
will he mentioned but not developed at Since water flow in the Cape Year
length. Tho primary source used herein River is often low during the summnr, an
la a report from the Army Engineers, in- upstream reservoir would function to re -
eluding criticisms from various cabinet lease water as needed to dilute pollu-
departntents, which was published in 1962 Cants entering downstream. A multiple -
as Cnpc Fogy Rivet Bae.in, North Carolina, level outlet structure is planned for
House Document No. 50C. The other study the dam itself to nllow selectivity Aa
,noted is titled farce Supply and Water to what duality water is sent downstream.
out lily Control Study - Il,,arr Cane Pear (p. 65 HEW study) It seem, the primary 9
River Blain, Nnrth Carolina, published by benefit would be to inclustrica unable, 7
HEW office at Charlottesville, Va. in •
or unwilling, to process their effluent
April, 1962. To my present knowledge, adequately. It is not'dcmonstrated that
these papers represent the most recent the diluted water, when the additional
considerations of the Reservoir project. tastes are added due to rrmnvnl nt tlood
Both are available in the ECOS office. d;tñ^er tó ítiúú .Lrí dcvelornrrnt, • -,7.
All of the possible solutions for the ó7 suitaGIc tc,r human consumption. It
problems to be discussed are expensive; Berms ("td fo sepacaLu Luc i:,etors of
it scans more likely that the engineers, 1,,,"i .,,t)ply and water quality control
as vt•ll an associated state agencies, into two categories; the supply of suf-
would rather advocate living uiLh obvious ficient quantity of water during drou-
dtawhacks than facing up to them. Jhr ghta.will be of little use if it is pol-
rentt;tl_qmrntion it: tltrthrr ecolog ic_nt lutcd. Likewise, it is not at all cer-
TreIrrvarton^lustitirs restrictions on twin that the water in the reservoir
industrial expansion nd_Snlluttio: will be of food quality itself. +
ihc tvuw itopc cs rvoir was planned by -
Water quality in ate -New Hope Reser-
the Army Carps of Engineers as a project sole itself will most directly influence
requiring 50,000 acres of land in the area its potential as a recreation area. In
south of Durham. The original cost esti- a study conducted by the department of
mate was $31 million; it will surely re- Agriculture, it was concluded that "the
quire more. A11 that is holding up tom- pollution factor would render this re-
pletion of the project is allocation of servoir unsuited for water -associated
funds by Congress; only about half the recreational activities such as swim -
land has been purchased, no work done on ming and hater -skiing. The pollution
actually building the dam. It is there- factor may also adversely affect the use
fore still not too late to stop. of the reservoir for fishing" (p. xix).
The purposes of the New Hope Reservoir Likewise, it was found by the Department
are stated to be: 1. flood control, 2. of the Interior that it is "very doubt -
water sung y_ 3. water -quality control, ful that any site on the New Hope Re -
and 4, recreation (pp. 79-80). The first servoir will meet established N.C. State
three of these benefit only the downstream Park standards "(p. 168) and that "the
areas, Fayetteville in particular, and
mountain region to the west and the
assume continued population growth and séasñuré tf the east are more attractive 1
industrial expansion for the next 100 to North Carolinians for vacation type -'
years in this area. Only recreational use" (p. 171). The latest word on this
potential would benefit upstream residents. problem is that "existence of these
The need for flood control was sup- highly significant waste loads indicates
ported by citing damage caused in 1945, that consideration must be giyent o the
particularly in Fayetteville, by the build-úp Oi nutrients in the New Hope
worst flood on record. The 15/.2 report Reservoir. The enrichment of fresh
states that "a flood of this magnitude water lakes by a highly nutritious ef-
has an estimated occurrence frequency of fluent mn, produce nuisance algal
about ... once in 37 years at Fayetteville" growth, offensive odors, and periodic
(p. 37). however, a fr•t sheet presently fish hills, thus severely limiting the
being distributed and dated August, 1557, recreational uses in the reservoir
states that this was a 200-year flood. to to
is known for this change in proper. ...Its become necesslFyoprovide ilr.i. j:_L.,
,ontA,entmencl tciin^
estimate. It does appear that a large nutrienremovn,l„for the domestic waste s
Part of Fayetteville (k-p. 42) would be
entering the reservoir ox., divert all of
damaged if this flood repeated. In part- the effluent from the Durham and Chapel
icular, "many industrial tracts readily Hill area around the reservoir to insure
accessible to the navigable channel and a suitable quality water for water
water supply of the river have not been supply and recreation" (p. 64 HEW). ,No .
developed because of the risk of floods." mention is made of where such effluent
(p. 3C) The flood plain is stated to be could be diverted en. There is such
"fertile", producing "excellent crops" thorough documentation of pollution,
(p. 38). No mention is made of the pow- both urban and industrial, of the How
Bible benefits to agriculture due to Rivcr•and New Hope Creek that no re -
minor flooding enriching the soil. (The statement will be attempted here. See
Aswan Dam in Egypt, for example, has Bev- pp. 11G-132.
erely disrupted not only agriculture The degree of concern manifested by
downstream, but has also caused lowered the Army Engineers over this problem
fish yields offshore, both due to elimin- of water quality is shown by their
ation of seasonal flooding of the Nile statement that "present technology
Continued----
88

Roger Wells
Box 4782, Duke Station
Durham, N.C. 27706
November 5, 1970

Col. Paul S. Denison
District Engineer
Corps of Engineers
Wilmington, N.C.

Dear Col. Denison:

I am enclosing a copy of a letter outlining conditions
under which I may inspect and copy records pertaining to the
New Hope project, as set forth under the 1967 Freedom of Information
Act. s noted by Mr. Long in his letter from your office to me
of 16 October, "budgetary data, land acquisition plans," and whatever
"etc.'s" are marked FOÜC would understandably be unavailable for
perusal. I am also aware I cannot see memos or personal correspondence

I propose that myself and other ECOS workers be allowed
to examine the documents to be described at the location where
they are filed (Wilmington or Cary) and make decisions at that time
as to which specific pages or reports we would like copies of.
We would certainly ask for no more copies than we could pay for, and
agree to pay search charges initially to $20.00, an arbitrary figure
which I think should get us started, at least.

May I be frank? It is obvious that the phrase "reasonable
description" could be used to require precise titles, dates, etc.
to gain access to your records. I hope your attitude can rather be
one of cooperation in a detailed examination of data and policies.
Much of what I now find questionable may only appear so due to
justifiable brevity for the sake of clarity.

We would like to examine the following, in approximate
order of importance in case search charges prove to be extensive:

1) Land acquisition records of completed purchases (Cary?),
beginning with any summary sheets available and including a detailed
look at all records and regulation handbooks 'pertaining to a
randomly-selected purchase of one small parcel of land (5-10 acres).
If you insist, we can designate a specific plot and may do so in
any case.

2) Records leading to the change by 1967 of the expected
occurrance of the 1945 flood from every 37 years to 200 years.

3) Some samples of the field data and criteria used to arrive
at the original estimates of expected yearly flood damage, particularly
interviews with local residents.

4) Handbooks containing the new Corps policies for estimating
recreation benefits.

5) Records concerning the justification, cost, and benefits
derived from increase of the original pool size of 8,800 acres to
14,300 acres.

89

I would like to make an initial visit to the Cary
office on Friday, Nov. 13, to "get the feel" of the procedures.
If that date would be too early, Nov. 20 would also be convenient.
I would suggest Dec. 4 for a visit to Wilmington.

I await your commentG on the feacibilitl, of these
requests.

Yours truly,

90

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20314

ENGGC-K 3 November 1970

Mr. Roger A. Wells
Box 4782, Duke Station
Durham, North Carolina 27706

Dear Mr. Wells:

Kindly refer to your letter of 19 October 1970, addressed to the Chief
of Engineers, requesting permission under the Freedom of Information
Act for your organization to examine records of the Wilmington District
of the Corps of Engineers, pertaining to the New Hope Reservoir Project,
North Carolina.

Your request should be made directly to the District Engineer in
Wilmington, North Carolina, with (1) a reasonable description enabling
the Government employees having custody of the files to locate the
requested records, and (2) assurance that you will pay the fee deter-
mined to be appropriate for any searches or reproduction costs
involved.

Sincerely yours,

RICHARD B. APPLLETON
Assistant General Counsel

91

DURHAM ECOS
citizens for a decent environment
P.O. Box 1782 Duke Station
Durham, North Carolina 27706

Room 302 Union Bldg.
Phone: [phone]

Roger Wells
October 13, 1970

Paul S. Denison
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District

Dear Col. Denison:

In my continued perusal of the New Hope project,
I just happened to notice that the $1,206,000 yearly average
recreational benefits cited in the enclosed 1967 printout
is a bit higher than the $405,000 listed in the original
1962 project plan.

I would appreciate as detailed an explanation as
possible of how the recreational potential of this project
was tripled. Also, could you tell me what types of records
held by your office , as well as the land purchase facility
in Cary, N.C., are specifically classified materials and
therefore not covered by the Freedom of Information Act?

92

Yours truly,

SUMMARY OF PERTINENT DATA ON
NEW HOPE DAM AND RESERVOIR PROJECT

Year Original Flood Control Study made by the Corps of Engineer 1933
Number Major Floods Occurring During 35-Year Cycle 11
Year Maximum Flood -of -Record, September 1945
Area Flooded in Acres (219,000 - 1945) (200-yr.fl.) 313,000
Cost of Flood Damage at 1964 Values $10,000,000
Year Flood Control Study Authorized by Congress 1946
Cost of New Hope Dam 830,900,000
Total Cost Average Annual Benefits 83,196,400
Flood Control $1,752,000
Water-Quality Control 90,900
Water Supply 53,500
General Recreation 1,206,000
Fishing and Hunting 114,000

Benefit -Cost Ratio 2.6/1
Acres of Land Required 48,151
Length of New Hope Dam in feet 1,330
'El• a€ioh of Flood Control Pool, feet 240
Elevation of Conservation Pool, feet 216
Height of Dam, feet 112
Completion Date, Estimated 1970
Surface Area of Flood Control Pool in Acres 32,000
Surface Area of Conservation Pool in Acres 14,300
"'Ptibiic Use and Other Areas in Acres 2,677
Floot,Storage Capacity, Acre -Feet 543,000
Water Supply and Quality Control Storage, Acre -Feet 147,000
Water SúpplShare of Cost 370,000
Reservoir Cleared between Elevations, feet 195-217
Estimated Population in Cape Fear Bassin, 1970, 1,163,000
65% of river basin below Fayetteville wooded.

Note: 100,000,000 gallons per day of water supply available and ndt
obligated at this time.

Wilmington District
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
15 August 1967

93

The
NORTH CAROLINA
BOTANICAL
GARDEN

Department of Botany
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514

Research
Teaching
Conservation

Ritchie Bell, Director

December 30, 1970

Colonel Paul S. Denison
District Engineer
Department of the Army
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401

Dear Colonel Denison:

In reply to your form letter of December 14, I am pleased to see
that public pressure has finally forced your consideration of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 in relation to the New Hope
dam project. However the exceptionally broad context in which you
use the word "environments' indicates that the Corps of Engineers is
either dangerously naive as regards the real problem or that, as so
often happens, completely unrealistic subjective evaluations of
cultural benefits (e.g. "recreation") will be used to hide the true
cost and undesirable impact of this proposed (and now under construc-
tion) open cesspool. For example: you gave the "estimated annual
fishing benefit" (p.2) as $320,000, but failed to indicate the actual
cash loss of crops once grown in the area to be flooded!

If the water were clean, and if the water level stayed reasonably
constant, and if the upper reaches of the lake were deeper, it would
indeed be a great thing for the area. But such is not the case. The
unfortunate thing is that the upper end of the lake, which, as you re-
port (p.3), is already in an urbanized area, will be the worst and the
limited water-sport opportunities (p.3) will be even more limited as
"selective withdrawal" (p.1) will make sewage flats of the upper areas
that "will likely be restricted initially anyway" (p.6). I see
absolutely no improvement in the quality of life in the eastern Pied-
mont" by this project as now proposed. Nor does it appear to be the
beat solution to flood control downstream.

The only way the lake will be an asset to the Piedmont will be to
clean up the water in the rivers before the dam is built. You have

94

Colonel Paul S. Denison
Page 2
December 30, 1970

the legal power to do much of this under the law, but you obviously
don't have the political clout to pull it off. The only answer seems
to be pressure from private citizens. If you really think "the possi-
bility of increased body-contact use" will indeed "act as an impetus
to municipalities and others to continue upgrading their effluent dis-
charges" (p.4), I can only conclude that the Corps of Engineers is run
by a machine (political or otherwise) so out of touch with reality as
to make the present Corps a hazard to the health and well-being of
American citizens.

The Corps of Engineers has, in the past, done many valuable ser-
vices for the country and it could (with some rather drastic reorien-
tation of concepts and goals away from what is commonly known as the
"engineering mentality") become a leading force in the coming environ-
mental fight for survival. If you as an individual, as well as a
member of the Corps of Engineers, really want to "provide the kind of
environment we want for ourselves and the kind that future generations
deserve to inherit" (p.7), why not use your every effort to start such
a shift with the New Hope dam?

Sincerely yours,

C. Ritchie Bell
Professor of Botany

CRB:mlh

95

December 11, 1970

United States Senate

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
PO Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 27401

Respectfully referred to:

Colonel Paul S. Denison
District Engineer

Because of the desire of this office to be
responsive to all inquiries and communications,
your consideration of the attached is
requested. Your findings and views, in
duplicate form, along with return of the
enclosure, will be appreciated by

B. Everett Jordan,
USS USS

96

Saturday, December 5, 1970

Senator B. Everett Jordan
Senate office Building
Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator,
Please inform me of your position
cencerning the New Hope Dam and the
enclosed handout.
Thank you.

Sincerely
Nicholas H. Greenia
442 Hinton James
U.N.C.
Chapel Hill, N.C.

United Staes Senate
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510

December 11, 1970

Mr. Nicholas H. Greenia
442 Hinton James
University of North Carolina
Chapel I-Iill, North Carolina

Dear Mr. Greenia:

I appreciate very much your December 5 letter asking
for my position on the New Hope Dam, and I am enclosing a copy
of my December 2 news release on this project.

I was glad to ask the proper authorities in the Army Corps
of Engineers to furnish answers to the points made in the copy of
the printout of the Chapel Hill and Durham ECOS which you enclosed.

As soon as I have a reply, I will send you a copy.

Again, thank you for writing me, and with all best wishes
for a happy holiday season,

Sincerely,

B. Everett Jordan, USS

BEJ:prc

98

Chapel Hill ECOS Durham ECOS
Suite B, Union Building, UNC 302 Union Building
Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514 Box 4782 Duke Station
Durham, N.C. 27706
933-3757 884-5795

New Hope Reservoir: A $30,000,000 Cesspool?

Allowing serious damage in the area of Fayetteville, N.C.,
along the Cape Fear River in 1945, studies were
to determine the posibility of flood control projexts
that region. In 1962, the U.S. House of Representatives
Reservoir, justified on the basis of flood control,
, water s upply, and water quality control benetfits.
Appropriation of funds by the U.S. Senate has proceeded so
slowly tha only half of the needed lands has been acquired and
little construction don at the dam site.

In the opinion of interested members if Durham ECOS and
Chapel Hill ECOS, the New Hope Reservoir project should be
halted. Too much of the original justification of the reservoir
was faulty, too much environmental damage will result, for the
public to allow construction to continue. At the time the New
Hope Reservoir was approved by the House, voter interest in
environmental destructin was insufficient to question the wis-
dom of the project. Now, on the basis of new informatin and
public environmental concern, the entire basis of the project
should be reexamined.

As presently planned by the Corps, the New Hope Reservoir
will inumdate 30,000 acres of land and require an additional
20,000 acres to allow for flood control usage at a project cost
of over $38,000,000. It is planned to last 100 years and will
be located primarily in Chatham County, west of S.R. 751 and
north of U.S. 1. Much of the land not to be conststantly sub-
merged is located along New Hope Creek and its tributaries in
Durham County.

New consideratin must be given to the traditinal economic
rationale behind the New Hope Reservoir, as presented by the
Corps. As a multi-purpose facility, the reservoir is supposed
to provide: flood control ($1,752,000 yearly), recreation
($1,206,000 yearly), water quality control ($91,000 yearly),
and water supply ($35,000 yearly). A report published in 1962
and sent to the N.C. Department of Water and Air Resources
and to the Corps of Engineeers concluded that the Corps had
greatly overestimated the frequency of flooding and of flood
damage along the Cape Fear. In addition to a statistical anal-
ysis, this report, authoried by Dr. Edward Wiser of N.C. State
University's Agricultural Engineering Department, noted that
while the Corps had estimated an average yearly loss due to
flood damage for the Cape Fear of $1,330,000, the U.S. Weather
Bureau records for the entire South Atlantic region show an
average yearly flood loss of $1,572,000. One agency or the
other is obviously in error; the Cape Fear does not account
for 3/4 of the total South Atlantic regional flood damage.
Also, the Wiser report concluded that there would not be suf-
ficient water in the reservoir to provide "water quality control"
(dilution of downsream pollution) in times of drought, evi-
dently due to underestimation by the Corps of water loss due
to evaporation. The Corps has apparently corrected this error
by increasing the size of the reservoir; however, the additinoal
land purchases thereby made necessary have not been used for
a recalculation of the justification of the project.

At the time this report was published, the then director
of the N.C. Department of Water and Air Resources, Harry Brown,
dismissed the report by saying, "It appears unreasonable to
assume that the staffs of these agencies...are in such grievous
error as the author contends." However, no facts were offered
to dispute Dr. Wiser's contentions. No factual has

100

In addition, the 1945 flood was used in the original cal-
culations on an expectation that it would occur every 37 years.
The Corps now lists it as a 200-year flood, calculated on this
basis, a drastic drop would be seen in flood-control benefits
of the New Hope Reservoir.

It was recognized by the Corps at the time the project was
being studied that pollution from the Naw River and New Hope
River would adversely affect the water quality of the reservoir.
The Corps has always admitted that the major part of the reser-
voir would not be fit for "water-contact" sports. Basically,
the Haw River carries residual metals and persistent organic
chemicals from upstream points where it is heavilly polluted
by Greensboro, Burlington, and numerous textile mills. Little
is known of what it carries in specific, or what the long-range
of would be. As

lies in the fact that all of Chapel Hill will
Durham's sewage will enter the shallow northern aresas of the
reservoir. This sewage is not treated as to remove nutrients
(nitrates, phosphates, carbon compounds) and will not be in the
near future, as expensive as such treatment would be. The com-
bination of nutrients, shallow water (1/3 of the normal water
level would be less than 6 feet deep), and heating by the sun
would produce massive growth of acuatic vegetation. Such a
process characteristically lasts until available nutrients are
used up, at which point the vegetation dies, sinks to the bot-
tom, and rots, killing fish due to oxygen depletion and pro-
ducing extremely offensive odors. In a word, the New Hope
Reservoir will quickly become eutrophic, the situation the
late Lake Erie now finds itself in. If this occurs, the shallow
areas of the reservoir would rapidly fill with silt, would
periodically cause a horrible stench, and would be unsuitable
for many types of aquatic life (mosquitoes excepted, but they
can be controlled with insecticides, of course...).

North Carolina's Department of Water and Air Resources
recognizes that this embarrassing problem may be near at hand
and has commissioned studies to define the extent of the pol-
lution and to search for a possible solution. A definite
decision has been made to require further treatment of all
sewage entering New Hope Creek; it is possible that the Haw
River will be similarly designated as needing better sewage
facilities. However, the exact type of treatment to be required
has not yet been decided, nor is any estimate of the expense
available. In addition, there are reliable retorts that several
large industries plan to locate near the reservoir in order to
use its water. It would seem that a public evaluation of the
pollution hazard is in order.

It would also be well to look at some of the "intangible"
environmental factors associated with this project. At least
10,000 acres of prime wildlife habitat will be lost. No consider
ation was given by the Corps to the possible value of minor
flooding in enriching the soil of downstream areas. Flood con-
trol will encourage the development by industry of low-lying
areas downstream, ultimately resulting in further pollution.
More importantly, the justification of the project for its 100-
year life is strongly based on the assumption of the same rate-
of population and industrial growth as has occurred in the past.
This cannot be so; this "frontier technology" attitude is no
longer viable. Quality of life is more important than quantity
of goods produced. The primary benefits of the New Hope Reser-
voir are based on an outdated philosophy of the past.

Flood control may be derived from a "dry" dam with no per-
manent reservoir or from a series of small upstream reservoirs,
if flood control is necessary. Raleigh needs a source of water
and can get it from the Falls of the reuse Reservoir, present-
ly lacking funds due to the New Hope Project. EGOS therefore
recommends a total halt to the construction and land purchases
on the New Hope project, use of available funds for the reuse
project and a thorough investigation by uninvolved biologists
and engineers of all aspects of the New Hope Reservoir. Such

100

a study is required for federal projects under the 1969
National Environmental Policy Act. The Corps of Engineers
has finally agreed to compile this statement but refuses to
delay construction. It appears to ECOS that such a study
could well question the validity of the entire project;
if this is so all construction should be halted.

To be realistic, it is going to be difficult to stop the
New Hope Reservoir. The factors outlined in this printout
must bo placed before the public. If you can't do anything
else, at least write, at once, to the officials named below
and state your opinion of this use of your money and natural
resources, or ask for a full investigation if you don't think
this handout gives enough information.

If you want to help in a more substantial way, visit, call,
or write your ECOS office. We need people to hand out leaflets,
do further research (either with documents or people), give
talks, prepare legal action, etc. Thee are a lot of possibili-
ties!

Governor Scott has the power to stop this project.

Senator Jordan has been the main force behind its
receiving funds.

If you can only write two letters, write to them.

Write to:

Gov. Robert Scott
Cavitol Building
Raleigh, North Carolina

Senator B. Everett Jordan
Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C.

Representative Nick Galifianakis
House Office Building
Washington, D.C.

Your local newspaper

November 30, 1970

United States Senate

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 27401

Respectfully referred to:

Colonel Paul S. Denison
District Engineer

Because of the desire of this office to be
responsive to all inquiries and communications,
your consideration of the attached is
requested. Your findings and views, in
duplicate form, along with return of the
enclosure, will be appreciated by

B. Everett Jordan, USS
U.S.S.

102

United States Senate
Committee on Public Works
Washington D.C. 20510

November 30, 1970

Mrs. Camilla J. Wilson
Route 6, Box 418-A
Burlington, North Carolina

Dear Mrs. .Wilson:

Thank you very much for your November 20 letter
letting me know of your opposition to the New Hope Dam project.

The issues involved in this project were the subject
of extensive hearings before congressional committees several
years ago, and all state and federal agencies having jurisdiction
over any aspects of the project made careful reports on it as they
are required to do by federal law.

However, in view of your comments, I was glad to
call your letter to the attention or the proper authorities in the
Army Corps of Engineers requesting answers on a current basis
to the points you made. When I have a reply, I will be in touch with
you again.

Again thanking you, and with all best regards,

Sincerely,

B. Everett Jordan, USS

BEJ:prc

103

Route 6, Box 18-A
Burlington, North Carolina
November 20, 1970

Senator B. Everett Jordan
Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C.

Dear Sir:

As an interested and concerned citizen, I am taking this
opportunity to voice my strong disapproval of the proposed
New Hope Reservoir project. It is my understanding that this
project eventually provide benefits in water supply,
water quality control, and recreation - and all under the
larger goal of preventing flooding in the Fayetteville area.

Upon closer scrutiny of these "benefits," however, it appears
that these aims are outdated and no longer supported by facts.
Since the existing river system is a "flush system," damming
of the Cape Fear will result in a closed system. This would
seem irrelevent to my point if it were not for the fact that
great amounts of chemical wastes, poisons, metals, and sewage
flow into this river system everyday, and the ultimate effect
of damming wold be back-up and stagnation of this "mess."
The state of this reservoir, then, would preclude any possible
benefits from recreation or water quality control. As for the
possibility of preventing damaging floods, the proposed dam
will last 100 years while the flood level on which the project
plan is based on listed as a 200-year flood!

Senator, I am sure that you are quite aware of all of this.
My point is that I, too, and aware of it, and I think you are
in a position to do domething about it. Although you have
tried consistently to push this project through the Senate,
I am appealing to you to halt this apparently useless project
now and asking you to concentrate on other methods ot attaining
the same worthy goals originally ascribed to the new Hope
project. Perhaps a "dry" dam with not permanent reservoir, or
even a series of small dams on the main tributaries could solve
the flooding problen without the loss of so much valuable and
productive land or the creation of a "$30,000,000 cesspool."
I am sure there must be several possible solutions, but in my
opinion the propoased solution in neither adequate or advisable.

Thank you very much for your time, and I hope very much that you
will at least consider my arguments on this subject.

Sincerely,

Mrs. Camilla J. Wilson

104

December 3, 1970

United States Senate

District Engineer
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 27401

Respectfully referred to:

Colonel Paul S. Denison

Because of the desire of this office to be
responsive to all inquiries and communications,
your consideration of the attached is
requested. Your findings and views, in
duplicate form, along with return of the
enclosure, will be appreciated by

B. Everett Jordan, USS
U.S.S.

United States Senate
Committee on Public Works
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20510

December 3, 1970

Mr. Jerry Kendrick
350 Morrison Hall
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514

Dear Mr. Hendrick:

I appreciated your November 29 letter letting
me know of your opposition to the New Hope Reservoir
project.

The issues involved in this project were the sub-
ject of extensive hearings before congressional committees
several years ago, and all state and federal agencies having
jurisdiction over any aspects of the project, including its
effect on the environment, made careful reports on it as
they are required to do by federal law.

For your information, I am enclosing a copy of
my December 2 press release concerning current pollution
factors in the Cape Fear Basin.

In view of your comments, I was glad to call your
letter to the attention of the proper authorities in the Army
Corps of Engineers requesting answers to the points you made.
When I have a reply, I will send you a copy of it promptly.

With all best regards,

Sincerely,

B. Everett Jordan, USS

BEJ:prc
encl.

106

November 29, 1970
350 Morrison Hall
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, North Carolina

Senator B. Everett Jordan
Senate Office Building
Washington D.C.

Dear Senator Jordan,

I am impressed to write you by the dangers of the
New Hope Reservoir to the environment. The reservoir
will destroy much of the finest land in North Carolina
without adding enough benefits to compensate for the
destruction. A report by Dr. Edward Wiser of North Carolina
State University's Agricultural Engineering Department
noted that the estimates of yearly does an average
because of flood damage were overestimated by the Army
Corps of Engineers. Furthermore, the water from the
reservoir will be too polluted for recreation purposes
and ther are easier and more inexpensive methods of
obtaining waster for drinking and other uses. Please
consider these facts.

Respectfully yours,
Jerry Kendricks

107

November 25, 1970

United States Senate

District Engineer
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 27401

Respectfully referred to:

Colonel Paul S. Denison

Because of the desire of this office to be
responsive to all inquiries and communications,
your consideration of the attached is
requested. Your findings and views, in
duplicate form, along with return of the
enclosure, will be appreciated by

B. Everett Jordan, USS
U.S.S.

United States Senate
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510

November 25, 1970

Miss Cathe Herman
Route 3, Box 139A
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514

Dear Miss Herman:

Thank you very much for your November 20
letter letting me know of your opposition to the New
Hope Dam project.

The issues involved in this project were the
subject of extensive hearings before congressional com-
mittees several years ago, and all state and federal
agencies having jurisdiction over any aspects of the proj-
ect, including its effect on the environment, made careful
reports on it as they are required to do by federal law.

However, in view of your comments, I was glad
to call your letter to the attention of the proper authorities
in the Army Corps of Engineers requesting answers on a
current basis to the points you made. When I have a reply,
I will send you a copy of it promptly,

Again thanking you, and with all best regards,

Sincerely,

B. Everett Jordan, USS

BEJ:prc

109

November 20, 1970
Cathe Herman
Rt. 3 Box 189A
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
27514

Senator B. Everette Jordan
Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C.

Dear Sir,

I am extremely disturbed about the recent plans
for the New Hope Dam Project. I emphasize "recent"
in reference to the fact that in 1945 when the
original plans were conceived, the environmental
crisis was not as critical as it is today. At
that time inadequate projections of the long-term
effects of the dam may have been excusable.
Today, they are not.

As I see it, the dam will be self-defeating.
Constructionsists say the dam will serve as a
recreational facility. However, with all the raw
sewage that is dumped into tributaries feeding
into the New Hope River, the reservoir
water will not be safe in which to put one's
hand. Furthermore, the possibility of treating the
water to be used for drinking will be
markedly more expensive because sewage water
from nearby towns is not treated before dump-
ing it into the reservoir. Eutrophication will
prevent abundant fish life after the first three
years of the lake's existance. These are simple,
yet VITAL, examples of what New Hope Dam
would be like in a very short time. Lake
Eric did not survive and neither will New
Hope Reservoir.

I ask you to delay this project until more
research can be done which will justify rather
than denounce such a costly yet insufficient
project.

Sincerely

110

November 24, 1970

United States Senate

District Engineer
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 27401

Respectfully referred to:

Colonel Paul S. Denison

Because of the desire of this office to be
responsive to all inquiries and communications,
your consideration of the attached is
requested. Your findings and views, in
duplicate form, along with return of the
enclosure, will be appreciated by

B. Everett Jordan, USS
U.S.S.

111

November 24, 1970

UNited States Senate

District Engineer
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 27401

Respectfully referred to:

Colonel Paul S. Denison

Because of the desire of this office to be
responsive to all inquiries and communications,
your consideration of the attached is
requested. Your findings and views, in
duplicate form, along with return of the
enclosure, will be appreciated by

B. Everett Jordan, USS
U.S.S.

111

United States Senate
Committee on Public Works
Washington D.C. 20510

November 24, 1970

Mr. J. M. Hester, Jr.
Route 3, Box 189A
Chapel fill, North Carolina 27514

Dear Mr. Hester:

I appreciate your November 18 letter concern-
ing the New Hope Reservoir project.

The issues involved in this project were the
subject of extensive hearings before congressional committees
several years ago, and all state and federal agencies having
jurisdiction over any aspects of the project, including its effect
on the environment, made careful reports on it as they are re-
quired to do by federal law.

In view of your comments, I was glad to call your
letter to the attention of the proper authorities in the Army Corps
of Engineers requesting answers on a current basis to the points
you made. When I have a reply, I will send you a copy of it prompt-
ly.

With all best regards,

Sincerely,

B. Everett Jordan, USS

BEJ:prc

112

J.M. Hester, Jr.
Rt. 3 Box 189A
Chapel Hill NC 275

Senator B. Everett Jordan
Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20501

Sir

I have only recently become acquainted with the
New Hope Reservoir Project. I understand that you
have been very instrumental in securing funds
for this project. Due to the "age" of the
proposal and in light of the relatively new available
information, I ask you to rethink your
position to see if this is really a worthwhile
use of tax money.

If we look at a few reports, the multi-purpose
facility doesn't look so good. First, the flood
control frequency and amount of damage have
been overestimated. Second, because surrounding
cities will dump sewage into streams leading
into the reservoir, it will be too filthy
for recreation requiring water to body contact.
Third, this filthy water will be much harder
and more costly to purify raising doubt as to
whether it will be used as a water supply.

Are we tax payers in fact paying for a large
cesspool? I think maybe we are.
I urge you to stop development of the dam
until a complete analysis can be made by
scientists - to include ecologists.

Yours very truly,

J.M. Hester, Jr.

University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill, N.C.

Senator B. Everett Jordan
Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator:

I am presently a student as the University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In my
science-lab course, Botany 10 - we are studying
different projects that affect the environment
particularly of North Carolina. For my class project
I was assingend to research the developments
and for the New Hope Dam Project
soon to be begun. In a newpaper clipping,
from the Durham Herald,. I saw that your
office is connected closely with the project.

It would be of benefit to myself
and fellow classmates to learn more of the
embryonic for the Reservoir - as well
the long-range hopes. If at all
possible, please send me some information
of every sort available (economic as well as scientific).
I have already gotten in touch with Mr.
Barkley of the Sanford Construction Company - so

114

is seems to be off to a good start! Any
information you could let me have would
benefit my paper though I'm sure.

Thank you so much sir, - I hope you are
help me.

Yours truly,
Rebecca S. Purcell

P.S. please send the information to my home

Address: 1613 Acadia Street - incase it
Durham, N.C. 27701

arrives over the Thanksgiving holidays.

115

SIERRA CLUB
Joseph LeConte Chapter
P.O. Box 232
Greenville, S.C. 29602
11 November 1970

Colonel Paul S. Denison
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington, North Carolina

Re: New Hope Reservoir

Dear Colonel Denison:

At its meeting on October 31, the Joseph LeConte
Chapter (North Carolina and South Carolina) of the
Sierra Club adopted a resolution concerning construction
of the New Hope Reservoir. A copy of that resolution
is enclosed.

We believe that a full evaluation of the project,
including public hearings, would likely show that the
damage to the environment caused by the reservoir would
exceed any possible benefit it might have.

The Joseph LeConte Chapter of the Sierra Club
therefore respectfully demands that the Army Corps of
Engineers file an environmental statement concerning
the New Hope Reservoir Project, as required by section 102
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

We further request that the Corps of Engineers
suspend all work on the project pending completion of
that statement.

Yours very truly,

THEODORE A. SNYDER, JR.
Chairman

116

RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE NEW HOPE RESERVOIR

WHEREAS it is our conviction that the environmental
impact of the New Hope project has never been fully evaluated,
and

WHEREAS certain alternatives to the project have never
been fully explored, and

WHEREAS it is our view that a full re-evaluation would
substantially affect the Benefit-cost analysis related to this
project,

NOW, THEREFORE,
Be it resolved that the Joseph LeConte Chapter of the
Sierra Club (North and South Carolina) requests this Air Corps
of Engineers to file an environmental statement concerning the
New Hope Project as required by section 102 of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

Be it further resolved that the Corps of Engineers be
requested to suspend work on the project pending completion of
the statement.

Adopted October 31, 1970.

CONSERVATION
COUNCIL Of
NORTH
CAROLINA

Box 234 Rt. 3
Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514
November 40, 1970

Colonel Paul Dennison
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington, N.C.

Dear Colonel Dennison:

The Conservation Council of North Carolina, a statewide federation
of conservation groups and private citizens requests a halt to all
work on the New Hope Dam and Reservoir until such time as its
environmental consequences can be carefully evaluated according to
the best knowledge and methods available. We feel that such an
evaluation would remove all questions of whether or not the
project violates the Environmental Policy Act and just what the
merits of the project are.

In light of new facts and an increased awareness of the total
Triangle Environment, our members and many other citizens have be-
come increasingly doubtful of the wisdom of the New Hope project.
Since this project is something that will be with us for over
one hundred years, we feel all doubt about it should be removed
before it goes ahead. In particular we question these things:

1. The destruction of highly productive wildlife habitat
in the watershed lowlands.

2, The desirability of a lake that will be eutrophic and
unfit for body contact recreation because of the high
amount of partially treated sewage and storm sewer
run-off from upstream municipalities. (We understand
these towns may upgrade sewage treatment plants, but
in view of the expense of an adequate job and past
delays, and in view of the growing population of the
area and other sources of pollution, this upgrading
may not be significant to the overall pollution problem.)

3. A lake that will remove 48,000 acres of land from the
land available for planned, limited, and attractive
development which might help alleviate crowding in the
rapidly growing Triangle area.

4. A recreation lake that in most parts will be less than
12 feet deep and frequently less than 5 feet deep --
thus encouraging the growth of aquatic weeds.

5. The displacement of a rural population at a time when

118

CONSERVATION 2.
COUNCIL OF
NORTH
CAROLINA
CCNC

urban and suburban living is extremely expensive and increasingly
crowded; and at a time when state and federal governments are
trying to stop the unhealthy movement of low and middle income
people from country to city.

Instead of the presently planned dam and reservoir we support
the suggestions of Citizens to Save Cape Fear Watershed. Specifically
we support a dry dam to store water only at flood times. This
would provide the same flood control as the present project for
much less cost. Or we would support a series of small dams which
would be less harmful to the environment and which would provide
cleaner, more varied sources of water recreation and water supply.

We urge you to demonstrate your concern for the total environmental
impact of your project by proceeding immediately to comply with
the spirit and letter of the Environmental Policy Act.

Sincerely,

Wallace Kaufman
Board of Directors

119

Roger Wells
Box 4782 Duke Station
Durham, N.C. 27706
January 9, 1971

Col. Paul S. Denison
Corps of Engineers
Wilmington, N.C.

Dear Col. Denison:

Here is a concise presentation of what I feel my best contribution
to the NEPA statement can consist of. The agencies and individuals
that have actually done research thus far are better qualified to speak
on what is now known than I am; therefore, the questioning format of
this statement. I would appreciate it if it can remain in its present
form rather than being revised into the specific Sec. 102 format. If
you feel this is simply grossly inappropriate, please inform me.

Thanks for the transcript from the Dec 4 meeting. I must mildly
object to the alteration of Mr. Moore's opening comment (p.6) from
something like "...I am more concerned about the environment than anybody
else in this room..." to its printed form. If you were going to correct
things like that to smooth out the Corps' image, you might at least have
edited some of my rambling comments into decent sentence structure to
balance things out. (This is a humorous aside rather than an irritated
protest, don't take it wrong.)

On getting constructive comments from conservation groups....
one big problem is the time it takes simply to look over the background
of such a project, much less. develop creative responses. Besides, the
orientation of such groups is solidly toward stopping the project rather
than assuming it will be built. If construction is still proceeding six
months from now, we'll have to shift over to 'your' frame of reference,
but not quite yet...

I believe it was Chapel Hill ECOS that wanted to compile a pollution
survey of North Carolina. As far as I know, it was simply a summary of
Dept. of Water and Air Resources information designed to help get the
most general sort of picture across to totally uninformed residents. I
have never actually seen it, so it may not even have been completed.

Sincerely,

120

ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT ON THE NEW HOPE RESERVOIR PROJECT, N.C.
SUBMITTED BY: ROGER WELLS (DURHAM ECOS)

I would like to restrict my remarks to a series of questions
concerning, apects of the New Hope project that have not been researched
in detail, but should be before the project is allowed to continue.

1) Nutrient levels (both phosphorus and nitrogen) of the Haw River
are high. How much does agricultural runoff of fertilizer, or natural
breakdown of rotting vegetation, contribute to the load? If a large amount
comes from non-municipal sources, higher degree of treatment by upstream
cities would not alleviate eutrophiccation threat,

2) Is there any significant benefit to downstream cropland from
occasional flooding enriching soil productivity?

3) Will there be a loss of productivity in the estuaries at the
mouth of the Cape Fear River if the New Hope project "traps" nutrients
upstream?

4) The radioactve waste disposal dump of the University of North,
Carolina at Chapel hill is located in close proximity to land to be bought
as part of the flood control pool for the New Hope project. Are there any
hazards? Will expensive precautionary measures have to be taken?

5) Rumors are afoot that reduction of nutrient levels by use of
a series of shallow pools in the upstream areas of the reservoir is being
planned. No studies have been done on whether such a procedure will actually
be effective.

6) The Corps frequently cites the plans for a series of upstream
impoundments for waterfowl management by the State of North Carolina
as an example of how the New Hope Project will be environmentally beneficial,
as well as to help justify the economic analysis. In fact, such wildlife
mitigation proposals have been frequently planned for both Corps and
Soil Conservation Service projects in North Carolina, but at this date,
none have been implemented. Will New Hope fare any better once the dam is
finished?

7) Flood control will open up the Cape Fear flood plain in the area
of Fayetteville to widespread development. In the absence of evidence that
such expansion will be controlled and orderly, one should suspect another
environmental disaster in the making.

8) Economic justification for this project rests heavily on the
Corps' projections of future benefits assuming continued population growth
(1.75% compounded annually) and economic expansion (4.75% compounded annually)
for the next 100 years. If these trends do not materialize, this project
will have wasted resources that could be better used elsewhere.

121

I therefore suggest the alternative of halting all construction
on this project due to its highly questionable economic and environmental
value until a thorough re-examination of its justification has taken place,

Roger A. Wells

122

Congress of the United States
House of Respresntatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

April 23, 1971

Colonel Paul Denison
District Engineer
Wilmington District
Corps of Engineers
Department of the Army
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401

Dear Colonel Denison:

Thank you very much for your comprehensive letter regarding the
environmental aspects of the New Hope Lake project.

On the same subject, I am enclosing a copy of a report I have
received from a constituent. I hope you will give it your
careful consideration.

Once the nutrient loads are reduced to an acceptable level,
I am confident that the New Hope Lake project will be a valuable
contribution to the welfare of the entire state, and I am dedi-
cated toward that ultimate goal.

I am hopeful that the involved State agencies will soon offer to
the public detailed information on their plans to clean up the
sources of the New Hope water supply.

I appreciate your continuing cooperation in keeping me posted
on this vital project.

Kindest regards,

Nick Galifianaki

NG:ss

123

Duke University • School of Engineering
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
Durham North Carolina 27708 Tel. [phone]

14 April 1971

Honorable Nick Galifianakis
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.

Dear Sir:

Enclosed is a copy of a discussion of the recent
report on the New Hope Lake. Several interested people
have suggested that you might be able to put it to some
good use. As you would gather from my discussion, I am
very much against the construction of this dam, and
feel that the people of North Carolina are being taken by
some political and financial interests. I hope you will
see fit to oppose this project.

If I can ever be of help, in my personal or
professional capacity, please do not hesitate to call
on me.

Sincerely yours,

P. Aarne Vesilind
Assistant Professor of
Civil Engineering

124

DISCUSSION

"Water Quality Characteristics of the New Hope and Lower Haw Rivers,
July 1966 - February 1970, with Estimates of the Probable Quality of
New Hope Lake" by Charles M. Weiss U.N.C. Water Resources Research
Institute, Report No. 48, January 1971.

by P. Aarne Vesilind
Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering
Department of Civil Engineering
Duke University
Durham, N.C.

Dr. Weiss is to be commended for a thorough survey of water
quality and for his keen interpretations of the possible problems
with the proposed New Hope Lake. The parameters used in this study
are widely accepted as the best indicators we have for measuring
the extent of injury to water courses. Dr. Weiss has shown that
they can be put to good use in predicting water quality. I would,
however, like to discuss the potential pollution by materials not
considered in this study.

Broadly speaking, there are two kinds of materials of both
organic and inorganic nature can be dumped in a stream; those that we
can measure and those that we either cannot measure or don't ordinarily
measure. Phosphates are an example of the former. Almost all aquatic
surveys now include the determination of phosphorus and for good reason{
An example of a material not usually measured, however, is mercury.
Who would have thought, several months ago, to measure mercury levels
in tuna and swordfish? It was by accident that these excessive
concentrations were discovered. Here is a well established analytical
technique for an element known and used by man since antiquity, and for
which reasonably good toxicity levels have been established, and no-
one bothered to measure its concentration: Even if we did run tests
for all of the known poisons, there are approximately 500,000 "new"
chemicals for which we have no test or toxicity data. Obviously,
in the face of such odds, our known tests are no longer adequate for
protecting humans and the environment from harm. In addition, radio-
logical wastes create their own invisible horror.

125

2

Potentially poisonous chemicals of all kinds are continuously
discharged into our watercourses. Damage to plants, animals and
humans can result from accidental spills or from the discharge of
unknown wastes. Similarly, the first reaction to an accidental
radiation exposure is to "wash it down". Someday, somewhere, disaster
will strike. It will not be a comparatively "minor" incident like a
fish kill. It will involve whole communities. The odds in favor of
such a disaster are mounting daily.

The only way to avoid this possibility is to keep industrial
wastes out of our watercourses, and especially those lakes and rivers
which are intended for water supply or recreation. Considering the
number of industries contributing to the flow, such a restriction on
the rivers feeding the proposed New Hope Lake does not seem possible
in the near future. A reasonable alternative, which should have been
reached years ago, would be to not build the dam. Dr. Weiss' data
certainly suggest this, and the horde of unknown pollutants which
may eventually be introduced to the lake make this course of action
even more sensible.

126

January 25, 1971

UNited States Senate

District Engineer .4
U. S. Army Corps of .Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North' Carolina 27401

Respectfully referred to:

Colcnel Paul S. Denison

Because of the desire of this office to be
responsive to all inquiries and communications,
your consideration of the attached is
requested. Your findings and views, in
duplioate form, along with return of the
enclosure, will be appreciated by

B. Everett Jordan, USS
U.S.S.

127

UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
WASHINGTON D.C. 241110

Dr. Arthur J. Prange, Jr.
1804 Rolling Road
Chapel Hill, North Carolina

January 25, 1971

Dear Dr. Prange:

Thank you very much for your January 18 letter
enclosing a copy of your letter to the editor of the Chapel
Hill Weekly stating your reasons for opposing construction
of the New Hope dam.

I have asked the District Engineer of the Army
Corps of Engineers to answer the specific points you made,
and as soon as I have a reply,: I will be in touch with you
again.

Meanwhile, with all best regards,

Sincerely,

B. Everett Jordan, USS

BEJ:prc

128

DR ARTHUR J. PRANGE, JR..
1804 ROLLING ROAD
CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27514

January 18, 1971

The Honorable B. Everett Jordan
Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Senator Jordan:

I have taken the liberty to enclose a copy of a
letter that I have sent to the editor of the Chapel
Hill Weekly. It states my reasons for opposing con-
struction of the New Hope dam. It is indeed late in
the process to voice opposition, but I do not feel re-
stricted by this observation since I have been voicing
opposition for ten years.

Sincerely,

Arthur J. Prange, Jr., M.D.

129

January 15, 1971

Dear Sir:

In mid-November, about three weeks before the dedication ceremony
for the New Hope dam, an official of the Federal Water Quality Admin-
istration was quoted in the local press as concerned about possible
severe pollution in the proposed reservior. A spate of letters and
editorials followed. Some two hundred people of all descriptions
appeared at the dedication to protest the project. All but one of
the dedication speakers employed the faintest possible praise. An
officer of the Army Corps of Engineers, after intensive discussion
with a spokesman of local ECOS, concluded his arguments by saying,
"Well, we just do what we're told."

In this context, I was dismayed to learn that not all your writers
had yet seen "a rational argument against the positive benefits of
the project in keeping with the present and continuing plans for its
completion." In addition to the letters and editorials cited above
I recommend the following documents, copies of which I will gladly
loan to anyone who asks for them:

1. 1961. Alternative proposal by the Soil Conservation Service
for flood control.

2. 1962. Resolution Opposing Construction of a High Dam. North
Carolina Academy of Science.

3. 1966. Durham Morning Herald. Recommendation of the N.C. De-
partment of Water Resources that Durham transport its ef-
fluent to a point below the proposed dam.

4. 1970. Environmental Aspects, New Hope Lake. Army Corps of
Engineers. Statement that possible severe pollution in the

130

- 2 -

upper reaches of the lake would not hamper recreation as
these areas will likely be restricted.

These documents present several arguments that I will not pursue
and not all my arguments are included in them. What follows, therefore,
is still another editorial. I shall strive to be rational.

What benefits can be hoped from a major outer impoundment?
1. Generation of electric power.
2. Control of downstream flooding.
3. Guarantee of minimum flow downstream.
4. Alteration in, and therefore possible improvement of, wildlife
habitat.
5. Provision of recreational facilities.
6. Supply of usable water.

It seems reasonable to organize these items according to the
relevance of pollution or its obverse, water quality, as it is this
issue that has revived the question of the desirability of the New
Hope dam itself. Items 1 through 3 are relatively independent of water
quality while items 4 through 6 depend upon it to one degree or another.

Within ten years our area is predicted to experience a power short-
age. However, the earthen dam now under construction is not designed to
supply power., Instead, it will remove the Haw and New Hope Rivers as
potential power sources for the 100 years of its estimated existence.

The New Hope dam, like all dams, will diminish downstream flooding.
A serious flood occurred in Fayetteville in 1945. There seems to be
little agreement about the frequency of such major floods. Minor floods
are likely but they may, in fact, produce advantages such as silt de-
position on crop land and control of pests. The Aswan Dam, indeed, has

131

- 3 -

proven disastrous because the ecology of the Nile Valley is quite
dependent on annual flooding. But let us assume that even minor
flooding on the Cape Fear is intolerable.

One of several natural means of flood control is the construction
of a series of small dams on the tributaries of main rivers. Beavers
do this. An impoundment kills trees, collects silt, breaks, and leaves
a fertile meadow, during which process other dams have been built.
Imitating this scheme in a practical manner, as recommended by the Soil
Conservation Service almost ten years ago, admittedly costs more than
a single large impoundment. However, it has the great financial ad-
vantage that dams can be built above the sources of pollution and there-
fore can be used for water supply and recreation even as they serve
the cause of flood control. Thus, for example, the enlargement of
University Lake will help prevent flooding in Fayetteville. Every com-
minity in the Haw-New Hope watershed will need more water within ten
years. Provision of this water would have the automatic, and free,
consequence of controlling Cape Fear to the extent that control is
likely needed.

Another natural means of flood control is the existence of swamps
along river courses, Such areav become reservoirs during times of heavy
rainfall and only gradually give up their water downstream. The New
Hope valley between NC 54 and US 1 is such an area. If the river must
be dammed it should be done in an area that does not presently con-
tribute to flood control. There are many such areas in the higher
ground upstream.

132

- 4 -

The chief purpose of ensuring a minimum downstream flow is to pro-
vide a constant supply of diluent for downstream wastes. Thus, if our
area will tolerate the dam there will be less need for Lillington and
Fayetteville to diminish their pollution. We shall guarantee them
sufficient water with which to send their wastes to Wilmington.

The improvement of wildlife habitat does not depend absolutely on
water quality. Obviously íf dirty rivers are made dirtier by stopping
their flow, fish life cannot increase. Within limits, however, wildfowl
habitat might be provided simply by increasing water surface area, though
such habitat could only be a temporary resting area unless the water is
suitable to grow food. As it happens, the proposed impoundment is 150
miles from the nearest wildfowl flyway, i.e. from the nearest need for
a rest area, many of which in any ease are presently provided at inter-
vals along the coast. True, the New Hope Valley is one of the few re-
maining areas in the Piedmont suitable for the wild turkey and other
marginal species. How their habitat will be improved by submersion has
not been explained. Wildlife areas are proposed at intervals around
the impoundment, but continuity of habitat is needed, not just acreage.
That is why these species have retreated to and survive in the vast
reaches of the New Hope Valley.

Recreational facilities depend absolutely on water quality. The
Weekly has provided us with the information that "at this time sewage
and industrial wastes are dumped into these waters at 59 points on the
watersheds." Thus boating may be possible, but only in certain areas.
Fishing is unlikely, and you may swim at your own risk. The bait for
Chapel Hill is a park ten miles from town. Although this may seem in-
conveniently far, it may be uncomfortably close.

133

- 5 -

Improvement of water quality is possible, but the chances, I think,
of a substantial Haw -New Hope cleanup before the impoundment starts to
fill in 1973 are nil. Action is no further advanced than it was in 1966,
when it was recognized that Durham's effluent alone would make the re-
servior intolerably dirty. Interest rates are high, and bond issues
and new tax programs are rejected more often than accepted. In any
case, some kinds of pollution are legal, or quasi-legal, on the grounds
that they are less harmful than other current practices. Thus a com-
munity that employs secondary sewage treatment may be a major polluter
but still a shining example to communities that use only primary treat-
ment. Other forms have been illegal by federal statute since 1899, when
the Army Corps of Engineers was charged with reporting and recommending
suit against any individual or corporation found contaminating a stream
any part of which is navigable. It is worth''remembering that once a
lake is contaminated its self-cleaning time (when pollution is finally
stopped) is immensely long.

The question of water supply, of course, depends heavily on water
quality. It would be agreeable for our area to be presented with a
"free" water supply. But no one who has studied the matter will depend
upon the New Hope reservoir for this purpose. This is among the reasons
why still another nearby dam -- Falls of the Neuse -- is on the Corps of
Engineers' drawing board. To use dirty water as water supply is pro-
hibitively expensive. But even if the water were clean how would it
get to Greensboro or Burlington? And at what expense?

Thus far I have tried to illustrate my belief that if the New Hope
dam is built we will lose much and gain little, and that even this little

134

- 6 -

could be provided in a more sensible way. The New Hope dam is the wrong
treatment for a doubtful disease. It is a pill with disappointing bene-
fits and many noxious side-effects.

Smell is difficult to predict, but residents within half a mile
of New Hope Creek, where it passes under Old Durham Road, have told me
they can smell its contaminants all summer. Stagnation is unlikely to
improve this condition, and neither is shallow water, of which our end
of the reservoir will largely consist. These conditions do insure that
during low water vast mud banks, with potholes, will be exposed. In
some areas the distance between high water and low water is measurable
in miles. There is the clear possibility that our end of the lake will
constitute an enormous mosquito factory.

I have mentioned the loss of wildlife habitat of a kind that can-
not be replaced. One must also mention the loss of adjacent crop land,
some of which is the most fertile in the Piedmont. This will occur in
the face of burgeoning population and diminishing tillable soil.. It is
worth remembering that world starvation is already rampant, that North
America must feed other continents, and that this burden is shifting
toward us, not away from us. Domestic food surpluses have vanished and
cereal crops can no longer be certified as disease resistant. It would
seem the wrong time to destroy crop land.

There is still another agricultural point: it is unfair, especially
for foolish reasons, to deprive families of their farms, many of which
have been their heritage since their forebears cleared the forest. This,
Governor Scott explained at the dam groundbreaking ceremony, is why he
was opposed to the New Hope project when it was first proposed.

135

- 7 -

Finally we come to the question of expense. It has been suggested
that we must spend $38,000,000 because we have already spent $14,000,000,
and example of financial logic that requires no comments, Unfortunately,
$38,000,000 is an old estimate and includes neither cost over-run, a
custom of our times, nor inflation, an absolute compulsion. As I write
I have before me the latest official map of the reservoir. It will cross
NC 54 at three places for a total distance of about one and a half miles,
US 64 at two places for a total distance of about five miles. Many
secondary roads as well as twenty miles of the Norfolk Southern Railroad
will be submerged. Prepare to pay.

A weekly editorial has related that "gratitude has been expressed
by the Town of Chapel Hill. . . to the Corps of Engineers for its co-
operation in a current (my italics) ecological study. . . ." This
organization is noted neither for ecological concern nor timeliness,of
action. They alone are not to blame, for they do what they are told, as
they should, and they have often been ill-advised. In 1969 the Corps
was stopped by federal injunction brought by the Environmental Defense
Fund from constructing the Cross-Florida Barge Canal, which would have
destroyed the Oklawaha River. The Canal was designed to allow Allied
ships to escape German U-boats. Since the New Hope project has been
planned for at least ten years, an ecological study begun ,the same week
as dam construction is not, to my mind, cause for gratitude. In any
case, the final report by the Water Quality Administratign, due this
winter, may deserve more credence, since that organization does not
build dams.

136

- 8 -

In fact, if we build this dam it will be because inch by inch we
have been drawn into a swamp of false hopes, misunderstanding, and apathy.
The project was first proposed in 1933 duríng the Depression as something
to do. It was next proposed after the flood of 1945. Congressional
authorization for the project was made in 1962 when we lived in quite a
different world and thought it was even more different. The eight years
that have elapsed have further reduced the chances of building a clear,
clean lake by damming sluggish contaminated rivers on relatively flat
ground. If the proposal were made in light of current information it
wouldn't have the chance of a fish in Lake Erie.

At every step the trick has been to produce the aura of inevitability.
In fact, although dam construction is underway, land acquisition is far
from complete. Ten years ago objectors were told they were against pro-
gress. Today they are told they should have spoken up sooner. The
Water Quality Administration and other agencies charged with environ-
mental protection may soon speak for them.

Yours truly,

Arthur J., Prange Jr.

137

Duke University
Durham
North Carolina

School of Forestry

March 22, 1971

Col. Paul S. Denison
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401

Dear Col. Denison:

Enclosed is a statement expressing the views of
several ecologists at Duke University regarding the
construction of New Hope Lake. Please include this
statement in your environmental impact study of the
project.

Sincerely yours,
James E. Wuenscher
Assistant Professor
of Forest Ecology

JEW:nm
Enclosure

138

Duke University
Durham
North Carolina

School of Forestry

Statement of Environmental Considerations
Regarding Construction of New Hope Lake

Any major reservoir entails a large degree of essentially
irreversible environmental damage by flooding a large area
of potentially productive land and destroying the character
and value of free-flowing streams. In some cases this
destruction may be offset by the value of the impoundment
in providing recreation, esthetic enhancement, water supply
and/or flood control. In the case of the proposed New Hope
reservoir, it is extremely doubtful whether any of the
supposed benefits will materialize and whether they will
even partially balance the project's cost --both monetary and
environmental.

As reported by Dr. C. M. Weiss of the Department of
Environmental Science and Engineering of the University of
North Carolina, rural and urban drainage to this proposed
reservoir would provide inflow water relatively rich in
phosphorus even if 100 percent efficient nutrient removal
were achieved by the sewage treatment plants of the cities of
Durham and Chapel Hill. In University Lake, Dr. Weiss found
nitrogen, rather than phosphorus, to be the likely limiting
nutrient for algal growth. Provided the same situation
would hold for New Hope Lake, water from the New Hope River
drainage would still be favorable to the growth of blue-
green algae which can derive their nitrogen from the
atmosphere so long as other requirements including phosphorus
are available. Blue-green algae are a serious nuisance in
reservoirs --creating odors, contributing to oxygen depletion
as they are decomposed, and presenting.an unsightly condition.
In short, Dr. Weiss' report and my knowledge of the situation
indicate that New Hope Lake would be highly eutrophic even
in the absence of sewage effluents and would present an
essentially unbearable situation if sewage effluent input
to the drainage is continued.

If this is the case, the value of New Hope Lake for
fishing, water sports, and esthetic quality would be extremely
low --probably below that currently existing in the free -flowing
streams. High eutrophication, together with the presence of
other possible pollutants from industries upstream and the

139

Congress of trhe United States
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.

May 20, 1971

Col. Paul S. Denison
District Engineer
U.S. Army Engineer Dist., Wilmington
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402

Sir:

The attached communication
is sent for your consideration.
Please investigate the statements
contained therein and forward me
the necessary information for re-
ply, returning the enclosed corre-
dpondence with your answer.

Yours truly,

NICK GALIFIANAKIS, M. C.
225 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

141

The Honorable Nick Galífíanakis
House Office Building
U. S. House of Representatives
Washington, D. C.

Dear Congressman Galifianakis:

I am an environmental biologist who is particularly interested in
limnology and wastewater treatment. My employment is such that I would
like this communication to remain confidential. I am concerned about the
advisability of continuing the New Hope Reservoir Project as it is presently
conceived.

John Wiser of N. C. S. U. seems to have shown that the estimates made
by the Corps of Engineers of flood frequency, flood discharge, flood damage,
and flow control are highly overestimated. Using revised figures, he estimates
a cost-benefit ratio of 0.8. This, of course, would eliminate the reser-
voir from consideration. Not being a qualified judge of either estimate,
I think these should be recalculated by some impartial agency (possibly the
Environmental Council).

My interest is in maintaining a reservoir of high enough quality to
allow the water supply and recreation benefits which are claimed by the Corps.
This will require substantial increases in wastewater treatment plant perfor-
mance as well as totally new treatment of urban runoff (see Ed Bryan's report
for the Water Resources Research Institute of U. N. C.). I estimate that the
cost of chemicals alone for phosphorus removal in waste treatment plants will
be $0.03-0.04/1000 gal. This is corroborated by other workers and represents
a doubling of wastewater treatment costs. This figure does not include the
required additional capital or personnel expenditures. While the former are,
in most cases, relatively minor, the latter could be substantial.

Stormwater treatment for phosphorus removal will require off-stream
storage capacity for storm discharges. The stored water would then be treated
at a constant rate by chemical addition. This should be required only in the
New Hope basin; not in the Haw. The cost and scope of this is clearly too great
to be borne by the towns involved; furthermore such units would most likely
have to be located on Corps-owned land. This treatment must be provided by
the Corps.

Dr. Charles M. Weiss, in a report for the Water Resources Research
Institute of U. N. C., has stated that the configuration of the reservoir
and the flows in the two streams are such that overall quality, will be
controlled by nutrient (phosphorus) removal from the Chapel Hill and Durham
effluents. He, therefore, recommends that nutrient removal be initiated in
these plants by the time the dam is closed. I feel that the first statement
is true, overall quality will be controlled by Durham and Chapel Hill. But
since the flow in the Haw is much greater than the New Hope (approximately
10 times), the reservoir will initially fill with Haw water. Dr. Weiss has shown
that this water is of sufficiently low quality that I am certain extensive
eutrophication will occur in the New Hope arm during the first years after

142

the closing of the dam. Thus, even if Chapel Hill and Durham remove nutrients,
the New Hope arm will be unsatisfactory for at least 1-2 years. The public
hue and cry will be that Chapel Hill and Durham are not providing adequate
treatment while in reality Greensboro, Burlington, and Graham are the culprits.
I, therefore, recommend that nutrients be removed in these cities for at least
1-2 years after closing the dam.

I'm sure you realize that Greensboro, Burlington, and Graham are going to
find this distasteful since they will receive no conceivable benefit from the
reservoir. This brings up the question of who pays for this treatment.
Presently the federal government through E.P.A. provides 30% of the funds
for waste treatment plant construction in North Carolina. Funds are not
provided for operation. Since construction is a minor portion of phosphorus
removal costs, the federal government through E.P.A. can offer little relief
to the affected cities.

The people in the upper Cape Fear and especially Fayetteville will
realize, if Corps predictions are accurate, substantial benefits from the
construction of the reservoir. Additionally, whoever owns the flood plain land
in Fayetteville will realize substantial profits from the sale of this land since
it will be free of flooding and on a navigable waterway. These people realize
the benefits and, along with all other U. S. citizens, pay for the reservoir.
The cost of wastewater treatment in Chapel Hill, Durham, Greensboro,
Burlington, and Graham is not part of the reservoir costs. Thus, the citizens
of these communities will pay their share of reservoir costs and all of the
treatment costs. This additional treatment would not be required if there
were no reservoir.

In light of the above, I recommend one of the following:

(1) If Wiser's estimates are correct, cease construction of the reservoir
immediately and investigate alternatives for satisfaction of some of
the necessary project objectives.

(2) Provide phosphorus removal in Greensboro, Burlington, and Graham for at
least 1-2 years after closing the dam and in Durham and Chapel Hill
continuously after the first year;

(a) the cost of nutrient removal by these cities should be provided
by the Corps as part of the cost of the reservoir project. This
would require a recalculation of the cost -benefit ratio or

(b) a portion of the costs be borne by the prime beneficiaries, the
citizens of Fayetteville and the present owners of flood-plain land.

(c) Stormwater treatment for.phosphorus removal be provided by the
Corps. This should also be added to reservoir costs with consequent
recalculation of the cost-benefit ratio.

If one of the above is followed, I think the end result will be a decision
realistically made (stop construction) or construction of a reservoir which

143

3

very likely will satisfy its justification and whose costs will be shared by
the whole nation (as is presently the practice with such projects) or by all
those who will realize benefits from its construction.

I think you would do the Fourth District a great service if you would
discuss this matter and the financial implications of the project with those
Congressmen who represent Greensboro, Burlington, and Graham. I wonder if
they realize that Greensboro, for instance, is required to upgrade secondary
treatment ( as is presently required of them) and additionally would have to
provide tertiary phosphorus removal because of the New hope Project. The
total upgrading would considerably more than double present treatment costs.

Thank you for your attention in this matter. My residence is in Durham
County, and I am generally quite pleased with your representation in Congress.

144

Congress of the United States
Houew of Resprentatives
Washington D.C. 20515

July 10, 1971

Col. .Albert C. Costanzo
District Engineer
Wilmington U.S. Army Engineer District
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401

Dear Col. Costanzo:

Enclosed is a letter I have just received which strongly reflects
yet another apprehension many of my constituents are having re-
garding the ecological feasibility of the New Hope Project.

It would be sincerely appreciated if you would provide me with
a complete report on this particular situation so that I can
more knowledgeably reply to my constituents.

Since the enclosed copy of the Chapel Hill Weekly article is my
only copy, please return it after you have studied its contents.

Your continuing cooperation is surely appreciated. I hope you
find your new job sufficiently challenging for a man with your
obviously outstanding characteristics.

Kindest regards,

Nick Galifianakis

NG: ss

145

413 Granville Road
Chapel Hill, N.C.
July 26, 1971

The Honorable Nick Galifianakis
House of Representatives
Washington D.C.

Dear Nick,

As an old Junior High classmate of Mike, I
am going to appeal to the love I know we all
share for the North Carolina Piedmont.

In yesterday's Chapel Hill Weekly I read
newly-published informatin from the National
Forest Service concerning the New Hope Dam that
distressed me so much I am writing my first
letter to my respresentative.

The joys of North Carolina which we share are
not only the people and the climate, but the
lush and varied natural resources and beauty.

146

2

I have been most hopeful that the state will
acquire Bald Head island, but beside the impending
New Hope disaster, even Bald Head pales.

I am appalled at the the thought of "40-50%
of bottomland hardwoods in the entire central
piedmont" being clearcut. The loss of furniture
lumber over the years, the loss of wildlife, the
loss of stream and woodland recreation, and the
loss of our only great natural agents for air
purification and water control is a greater price
than we Piedmonters can pay. It would be
quite possible to allow our homeland to
deteriortate so badly in one generation by excessive
introduction of industry and destruction of forests
thatthe climate and native Piedmonters now

147

3

enjoy would no longer exist. The Corps project
absolutely flies in the face of today's environmental
conservation.

Our editor deeply lamented the fix in which
we now find ourselves, but he despaired of halting
the Corps. I have read, though, of situations in
which governors or othe persons in public office
have stopped a project in midflight by injunction,
and finally the project has been abandoned. That
is why I am writing to you. Every day the clear-
cutting laying waste to more acres. Can you bring
forests to bear which will arrest this project quickly,
at least for deeper study, perhaps permanently?

It is commonly help opinion that we inherit a
cesspool, not a lovely recreation spot if projects is
finished.

Yours sincerely,
Nancy Greenwood Brooks
(Mrs. Frederick P. Brooks, Jr.)

August 19, 1971
Rt. 2, Weaver Dairy Road
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514

Chief of Engineers
Department of the Army
The Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20310

Sir;

I am writing to protest the actions of the Corps of En-
gineers surrounding the construction of the New Hope Reservoir
in North Carolina. In my opinion the Corps has been guilty of
cross misconduct in this matter by deliberately misleading the
public and other federal agencies.

The Corps has gone full steam ahead with construction of
this project despite assurances to the Presidents Council on
Environmental Quality that "no irreversible actions" would be
taken pending the completion of a more detailed report. Now
the Corps claims that too much construction has been completed
to permit any further delay.

Additionally, it turns out that the Corps mislead the U.S.
Forest Service as to the amount of timber that would be de-
stroyed by the reservoir.

Further, the Environmental Protection Agency now disputes
the Corps original findings as to the probable quality of the
water which will ae: impounded by the reservoir.

This is the kind of action that lessens the respect of
American citizens for their government. If existing government
agencies should prove incapable of responsible actions, I will
undertake to recommend that their responsibilities be transfer-
ed to more capable departments.

Your truly,

William A. Russell fir.
Acting Chairman, Orange County
Young Republicans Club.

149

UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
WASHINGTON D.C.

August 24, 1971

Colonel Paul S. Denison
District Engineer
Wilmington District
Department of the Armor
Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina

Dear Colonel Denison:

I am in receipt of a letter and an article from THE CHAPEL
HILL WEEKLY concerning the New Hope project. I enclose a copy of
this letter and article for your information.

I would appreciate your comments in reference to the con-
tentions of the United States Forest Service regarding the New
Hope project.

With all good wishes, I am

Sincerely yours,

Sam J. Ervin, Jr.

SJE:wm
Enclosures

150

July 28, 1971

Honorable S.J. Ervin
United States Senate
Washington, D.C.20510

Dear Sir:

We are enclosing an artical from the Chapel Hill Weekly
on Sunday, July 25,1971, regarding the New Hope Reservoir project by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Since its inception we have been most
concerned over the environmental damage that will result from its construction
as well as the needless expenditures of taxpayer's dollars. Now we find
that in addition to the numerous individuals and groups that have spoken
out against the project, the U.S. Forest Service has openly condemned it.

It is with a deep sense of frustration and anxiety that
we call your attention to a project that we believe is certainly not in
the best interests of the State of North Carolina and its citizens. Now
we feel is the time to halt the project and we would welcome your support
and your thoughts on the matter.

Respectfully Yours,

Mr. and Mrs Fred Choate
Stratford Hills Apts.
Apartment #24A
Chapel Hill. N.C.

Mr. John C. Stout, Jr,
803 Coker Drive
Chapel Hill, N.C.

151

THE CHAPEL HILL WEEKLY

25 July 1971

"Forest Service Warns of Major Environmental New Hope Damage"
Article reported on U. S. Forest Service comments of 18 May 1971
on draft environmental impact statement for New Hope Lake.

152

ROBERT W. SCOTT
GOVERNOR

ROY O. SOWERS, JR.
DIRECTOR

State of North Carolina
Department of
Conservation and Development
Raleigh, 27611

N. C. FOREST SERVICE
TELEPHONE 829•4141

August 3, 1971

Colonel Paul S. Denison
District Engineer
U. S. Army Engineer District, Wilmington
Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401

Dear Colonel Denison:

Will you please forward me a copy of the Corps of Engineers Environmental
Statement covering the New Hope Reservoir in Chatham, Durham, and Orange
counties North Carolina. If available, I would like to also have a copy
of the U. S. Forest Service comments on your environmental statement.

Please add the N. C. Forest Service, Administration Building, P. O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, N. C. 27611, to your mailing list of agencies to receive your Flood
Control Reservoir Reports and Environmental Statements covering each project.

Sincerely,

L. E. Hicks
Senior Staff Forester
Cooperative Programs

LEH:ljk

153

SAWDE
13 August 1971

Colonel George C. Pickett, USA Retired
Director, N. C. Department of Water
and Air Resources
P. O. Box 27041
Raleigh, N. C. 27611

Dear Colonel Pickett:

As you know, suit was filed this week by several private individuals and
environmental groups seeking a halt to construction of the New Hope Lake
project. While the plaintiffs and others have made criticisms of various
project features, the primary area of concern is the question of water
quality in the New Hope River and its characteristics when impounded.
Based on studies done by your department and others, we are in agreement
that the present quality of water in some tributaries of New Hope Lake
is less than desirable as a result of inadequate municipal site water
treatment. I inclose a copy of the recent letter of the Environmental
Protection Agency, which supports this position.

In order that I may respond to allegations in plaintiffs' complaint, which
I inclose, please furnish the following information:

a. A statement of the necessity for raw water supply capacity in New
Hope Lake, together with what data you have on proposed users.

b. A statement that the present "C" and "D" classifications of streams
in the New Hope Basin do not necessarily indicate actual quality of water;
your assurance that the State will begin immediately to re-examine these
streams with a view to reclassification, and a timetable for this re-
classification activity that indicates completion by March 1974, when
impoundment is scheduled.

c. A schedule showing what treatment facilities or other solutions
to present effluent problems are proposed for each of the 53 identified
sources of pollution in the New Hope River and Haw River drainage systems,
and when completion of each can be expected.

154

SAWDE 12 August 1971
Colonel George E. Pickett, USA Retired

d. Statutory authorities available to your department to enforce water
quality standards, together with details of recently enacted legislation
for this purpose, including the authorised $150 million water supply and
waste treatment bond referendum.

e. Details of regulations proposed or now in effect for limitation
of nutrients and coliform in bacteria effluent discharges.

f. Such comments as you my have on the Environmental Protection
Agency's conclusion that low flow augmentation is unnecessary, including
the effects of low flow periods on downstream water supply.

g. Such comments as you may have on the value of the 32,600 acres of
open space to be maintained in forest as a part of the project, on air
quality in the Research Triangle Region. Specifically, do you agree with
our position that maintenance of a managed forest program will provide,
benefits in evapo-transpiration, carbon-oxygen cycle, and other aspects?
You may also want to respond to the charge that passenger cars and motor-
boats attracted by the project will create an air pollution problem.

I hope to forward the completed Environmental Impact Statement to higher
authority by 1 September 1971, so an early reply would be appreciated.
I look forward to working with you further to ensure that the New Hope
Lake project fulfills its potential of service to the people of North
Carolina.

Sincerely yours,
ALBERT C. COSTANZO
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer

3 Incl
1. EPA statement
2. Complaint
3. Handout sheet b
statement of fact

Copy furnished:
Honorable Robert W. Scott
Governor of North Carolina
Raleigh, N. C. 27602

155

LOWER CAPE FEAR WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
POST OFFICE 1290
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 24401
August 18, 1971

Col. Albert C. Costanzo
District Engineer
USA Engineer District
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, N. C. 28401

Dear Colonel Costanzo:

The Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority
program involves furnishing raw and finished water to the municipali-
ties in the counties of New Hanover, Brunswick, Columbus and Pender,
the City of Wilmington, the major industries in these counties, and
to the island beach communities. The source of this water supply is
the Cape Fear River, above the first lock and dam at King's Bluff.

Normal development in Southeastern North
Carolina calls for quantities of water far in excess of those cur-
rently available in these four counties. Existing ground water is
in short supply, saline intrusion continues, and the City of Wil-
mington's existing pipeline is utilized to capacity.

The Authority's program, with projects totalling
over $48 million, is dependent upon an adequate supply of water from
the Cape Fear River. The New Hope Dam has been planned to provide an
additional 100 million gallons per day (mgd) of water for water supply.
Our first project requirements are for 45 mgd and later for 90 mgd
(see attached brochure).

This proposed stoppage of construction of the
New Hope Dam cannot be tolerated. Action must be taken to permit
continued construction and completion of the Dam. Our first project
is scheduled for completion at the same time as the Dam. Our program
has the support of the State of North Carolina, and five Federal
Agencies, in addition to the regional and local agencies.

By this letter the Authority is recording its
strong opposition to the stoppage, and expressing its position that the
continued construction is very definitely in the public interest and a
necessity to the region.

Very truly yours,

Michael C. Brown
Chairman

MCB:s

156

City of Dunn
DUNN. NORTH CAROLINA 28334

August 24, 1971

Commanding Officer
United States Army Corps of Engineers
District Office
Wilmington, N. C.

Re: New Hope Lake

Dear Sir:

I am forwarding herewith a resolution adopted by the
Mayor and Board of Commissioners of the City of Dunn, North
Carolina supporting the construction of New Hope Lake on
Haw River.

The City of Dunn has been interested in the construction
of the New Hope Lake since its inception nearly fourteen years
ago. The City of Dunn obtains its raw water from the Cape
Fear River at a point just south of Erwin, North Carolina.
During the mid 1940's our water supply suffered severe damages
as a result of flood conditions of the Cape Fear River. Over
the years we have from time to time experienced severe drought
conditions when the water levels in the river dropped to
drastically low proportions.

For the reasons mentioned above we are vitally inter-
ested in the construction of the New Hope Lake because
of the fact that it will help to eliminate flood conditions
and drought conditions. We will support the construction
of the lake in any way that we can.

It will be appreciated if you will send a copy of
Civil Action C-184D71 to our city attorney, Mr. Wiley
Bowen at 105 E. Divine Street, Dunn, North Carolina 28334.
We anticipate that we may become a party to the subject
civil action if it appears to be in the best interest of the
City of Dunn.

Ver truly yours,

H.T. Ragland, Jr.
City Manager
City of Dunn

HTR/pa
Enclosurer

157

RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE
CITY OF DUNN, NORTH CAROLINA

WHEREAS, the City of Dunn, North Carolina is dependent
upon the Cape Fear River for it's water supply which is nec-
essary and vital to the people of Dunn and Erwin for the
sake of general welfare, safety, and economic well being,
and;

WHEREAS, the New Hope Lake on the Haw River, a tri-
butary of the Cape Fear River; as proposed by the United
States Army Corps of Engineers, is vital to the cont'inued
well being of the Dunn-Erwin area, and;

WHEREAS, the New Hope Lake will be instrumental in
alleviating drought conditions during extreme dry periods
by providing for continued stream flow in the Cape Fear
River, and;

WHEREAS, the flood control aspects of the proposed Mew
Hope Dam will also be beneficial to the Dunn-Erwin area as
evidenced by the flood damage of past years, and;

WHEREAS, a legal suit has been instituted against the
United States Army Corps of Engineers to prevent the
construction of the proposed New Hope Dam in spite of over
thirteen years of work and the expenditures of large
amounts of public funds in support of the project,

NOW, THEREFORE, on motion of Commissioner Bradham
seconded by Commissioner G. E. McNeil, Jr., with a unanimous
vote of approval,

BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Board of Commissioners
of the City of Dunn, North Carolina that it does herewith
pledge it's full support to the United States Army Corps
of Engineers in it's efforts to proceed with the construction
of the New Hope Flood Control Project; moreover, this action
is taken in the profound belief that it is in the best
interests of all our citizens as well as the people of
Harnett County.

Mayor:
Commissioners:

ATTEST:

158
City Clerk

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND AIR RESOURCES

ROBERT W. SCOTT
GOVERNOR

P. D. DAVIS
J. NELSON GIBSON. JR.
WAYNE MADRY
HUGH L. MERRITT
LEE L. POWERS
J. AARON PREVOST
W. GRADY BELVINS

GEORGE E. PICKETT, DIRECTOR
TELEPHONE [phone]
E. C. HUBBARD, DIRECTOR
TELEPHONE [phone]
RALEIGH. N C. 27611
P O. Box 27048

S. VERNON STEVENS, JR.
CHAIRMAN
P. GREER JOHNSON
VICE CHAIRMAN
RAYMOND O. TALTON
JOSEPM E. THOMAS
GLENN M. TUCKCR
H. W. WHITLEY

August 25, 1971

Colonel Albert C. Costanzo, District Engineer
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401

Dear Colonel Costanzo:

In your August 13 letter you requested information for
use in responding to allegations made in a recent court
action seeking to halt construction of the New Hope Project.
You asked for information in seven categories which you de-
fined in sub-paragraphs "a" through "g" of your letter. The
following information is keyed to those sub-paragraphs:

a. Reference sub-paragraph "a" of your letter.

(1) The total water supply storag planned for
New hope Lake is 52,000 acre-feet, which will provide an
estimated yield of 100,000,000 gallons a day. The Wake
County Board of Commissioners, on December 20, 1965, request-
ed the Wilmington District Engineer to include storage in the
New Hope project sufficient to provide this amount of water.

(2) On November 2, 1966, Governor Moore, in a
letter to the Wilmington District Engineer, gave the State's
assurance of payment of the cost of including water supply
storage in the New Hope project. The Governor's letter fol-
lowed an examination of probable long-range water needs and
resources in the region that might be reasonably served from
New Hope Lake. His letter stated that although the State
could foresee a definite need for the water supply to be
stored in New Hope Lake it was not possible to determine the
exact quantities that will be needed by each county and muni-
cipality or precisely when the water will be needed.

159

-2-

(3) In 1969 the Department of Water and Air Re-
sources examined probable future needs for water from New
Hope Lake to supply an area embracing Chatham, Orange and
Wake Counties (excluding Raleigh) and the southern quarter of
Alamance County. The resulting estimate of needs totalled
27,000,000 GPD by 1980, 50,000,000 GPD by the year 2000, and
96,000,000 GPD by 2020. The estimate was quite conservative
with respect to future industrial water supply requirements.
It did not include the requirements of new industries on the
Cape Fear River tliat might depend to a significant extent on
New Hope Lake storage.

(4) The Department of Water and Air Resources has
received the following requests for allocation of water from
New Hope Lake:

Chatham County: 10 MGD to 1980 and 20 MGD thereafter.
Chapel Hill (UNC): 10 MGD to 1980 and 25 MGD thereafter.
No formal requests for allocation have been received from
Wake County or municipalities therein; however, the towns
of Apex and Cary have informally expressed a desire to draw
on New Hope Lake.

(5) Planning is underway for a regional water
system to serve New Hanover, Brunswick, Pender and Columbus
Counties. This planning calls for drawing raw water for the
entire system from the Cape Fear River well above Wilmington.
It assumes the existence of New Hope Lake as a means of assur-
ing that an adequate quantity of acceptable water will be
available, during periods of extremely low flow, for the multi-
county regional system.

(6) Although it is still not possible to deter-
mine the exact quantities of New Hope Lake water that will be
needed by each county and municipality, nor the exact time-
frames in which the various needs will develop, it is clear
from objective analysis that, contrary to the plaintiffs'
allegation, there is an established need for water
supply storage in the New Hope project and, further, that the
long-range needs justify storage sufficient to yield 100,000,-
000 GPD.

b. Reference sub -paragraph "b" of your letter.

(1) The classifications presently assigned to
streams in the New Hope Reservoir watershed do not indicate
the actual quality of water in these streams. Classifications
are assigned to particular streams or segments of streams by
the Board of Water and Air Resources and are significant from
the standpoint that the Board will require pollution abatement
so that quality of the water will be at least good enough
to be used for the assigned use.

160

—3—

(2) Water quality in most stream segments in
the reservoir drainage area is actually lower than that
required for the assigned classification. This is due
primarily to the fact that major segments of streams have
recently been upgraded in classification, that considerably.
more stringent water quality standards applicable to the
classifications were adopted by the Board in late 1970, and
that some major waste discharges are made to very small
streams so that even though secondary treatment facilities
are provided, they are not sufficient to prote/t water quality
in accordance with the standards.

(3) This Department is now in the process of re-
examining stream classifications in the New Hope reservoir
drainage area, as well as other areas of the State, with a
view toward upgrading classifications where water quality
needs so indicate. These investigations have been in pro-
gress for about one year. It is expected that public hear-
ings concerning the reclassifications will be held and that
new classifications will be assigned to those stream segments
in the State for which re-classification is indicated by
July 1, 1973.

c. Reference sub-paragraph "c" of your letter.

(1) Of the 34 municipal-type significant sources
of waste discharge, 4 have secondary followed by tertiary
settling treatment facilities, 29 have secondary-type facili-
ties, and one has a primary-type plant. Twenty-three of the
plants have chlorination facilities at the present time,
The Town of Mebane which now has a primary-type plant will
complete the construction of secondary-type facilities by
December, 1971. Operating data on all these plants are not
available; however, data from 27 of the largest facilities
(those which represent 99% of the volume of wastes discharged
to the basin) indicate that average pollution reduction
(organic material) of 84%o are being realized.

(2) Plans are being made for wastes from Elon
College and the Town of Carrboro to be discharged to the City
of Burlington and the Town of Chapel Hill sewerage systems
respectively.

(3) Requirements for further reduction of organic
materials in waste discharges will vary. Some treatment
facilities now provide a very high degree of treatment, and
in some instances outfalls to larger receiving bodies of wa-
ter may constitute the best means of meeting dissolved oxy-
gen standards. The major problem areas are those where large
volumes of treated wastewater are discharged into very small
streams.

(4) About 99% of the total quantity of nitrogen
and phosphorus discharged into waters of the New Hope Basin
are contributed by 27 of the 53 significant sources of wastes.

161

-4-

Conferences have been hold with officials of the City of Dur-
ham, Durham County and the City of Greensboro concerning the
need for nutrient removal. No time schedules for nutrient
pollution abatement of any of the sources have been established.
It is the intention of the State, however, to establish re-
gulations that will limit the concentration of nutrients ín
water reservoirs throughout the State to acceptable levels.
The total phosphorus discharged into tributary streams of
New Hope Lake in waste effluents will be reduced by about
90%. Major discharges of waste into these streams will be
required to provide nutrient removal facilities within a rea-
sonable period of time.

d. Reference sub-paragraph "d" of your letter. En-
closure No. 1 is a packet of items that provide the informa-
tion requested. The items are self-explanatory. Items 1
and 2 have been appropriately marked-up.

(1) Laws of N. C. Relating to Water and Air Re-
sources 1967 Cumulative Supplement (Relative Sections Marked)

(2) Laws of N. C. Relating to Water and Air Re-
sources, 1969 Supplement (Relative Sections Marked)

(3) An Initial List and Summary of 1971 General
Assembly Legislative Action.

(4) Water Resources Legislation of the 1971
General Assembly, by Wicker.

(5) Unedited and unabridged copies of pertinent
legislation enacted by the 1971 General Assembly. These bills
and resolution are as follows:

(a) Chapter 630 (Senate Bill 96)
(b) Chapter 633 Senate Bill 498)
(c) Chapter 769 House Bill 1143)
(d) Chapter 824 House Bill 119) ,
(e) Chapter 832 Senate Bill 445r
(f) Chapter 870 Senate Bill 802)
(g) Chapter 909 Senate Bill 758) (proposed bond
issue)
(h) Chapter 1044 House Bill 1070
(i) Chapter 1045 House Bill 1071)
(j) Chapter 1077 House Bill 1430)
(k) Chapter 1167 (Senate Bill 432)
(l) Chapter1203 (House Bill 649)
(m) Resolution 74 (SJR 511)

e. Sub -paragraph "e" of your letter.

162

(1) Regulation No. VIII of Rules, Regulations,
Classifications and Water Quality Standards Applicable to
the Surfaco Waters of North Carolina" (Enclosure No. 2),
stipulates that the maximum limits of toxic and other de-
leterious substances shall not exceed the values recommended
in the "Report of the National Technical Advisory Committee.
on Water Quality Criteria." Guideline maximum limits for
phosphorus and nitrogen are contained in the criteria; how-
ever, it is anticipated that public hearings concerning maxi-
mum limits for nutrients will be held and that allowable
limits for these nutrients will be established for all North
Carolina waters by additional regulations of the Board.

(2) It is believed that the existing criteria
for limitation of coliform bacteria in waters tributary to
New hope Lake are quite adequate. In this connection, those
facilities at which chlorination facilities are provided
will be required to continously chlorinate the effluent and
those treatment plants at which chlorination facilities are
not provided will be required to install them.

f. Sub-paragraph "f" of your letter.

(1) The State does not agree that low-flow aug-
mentation is unnecessary in the Lower Cape Fear River area.

(2) The State's policy has been, and is now, to
require treatment to a reasonable extent and to not use flow
augmentation as a substitute for secondary or other treatment
which can reasonably be expected and required under present-
day technology. Stream flow augmentation is considered essen-
tial to adequate water supply and the dilution of treated
waste effluents below New Hope dam, particularly in that area
of the Cape Fear River below Fayetteville where there is a
heavy concentration of people and industry and where pro-
jected increases in population and industrial development
must be provided for.

(3) Swamp waters have a material effect upon
water quality in the Lower Caps Fear River area and,non-
swamp waters are and will continue to be needed to offset de-
gradation of river water quality during periods when this low -
quality water is flushed into the Cape Fear. In addition a
reduction in the concentration of pollution is needed in es-
taurine areas to provide water quality adequate for recreation
and shellfish. Difficulty is now being experienced in pro-
viding an acceptable fishery although high degrees of treat-
ment are provided by the majority of waste dischargers. We
reiterate that flow augmentation is needed to provide for
development and growth of the lower Cape Fear Basin and to
assume water of adequate quality for beneficial uses.

g. Reference Sub -paragraph "g" of your letter.

(1) The plaintiffs allege that no attention is
given to the effects on air quality of the loss of a large

163

-6-

block of forest cover with an ability to absorb impurities
and pollutants from the air in a rapidly urbanizing area.
It is assumed that this complaint relates to the ability of
vegetation to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by
photosynthesis. It should be pointed out, therefore, that
surface waters, including the oceans, have a greater ability.
to remove CO2 from the atmosphere than does vegetation.
Enclosure 3 is a schematic diagram reproduced from the July
1959 Scientific American, which quantifies contributions of
various processes involved in maintaining a carbon dioxide
level balance. According to this article, photosynthesis
removes 60 x 109 tons of carbon dioxide each year and sur-
face waters remove 100 x 109 tons per year. On this basis,
the absorption of carbon dioxide in surface waters is 1.54
times greeted than the absorption of carbon dioxide by vege-
tation. New Hope Lake, which will have a surface area of
approximately 22 square miles, can be expected to absorb more
CO2 than the equivalent surface area of woodland.

(2) The plaintiffs further allege that the
effects upon air quality of automobiles, power boats and
other internal combustion power equipment that will be brought
into the area by the lake are not analyzed. In. this con-
nection, emissions from motor vehicle engines are controlled
through regulations and standards established by the Environ-
mental Protection Agency. These regulations require a 90
percent reduction in such pollutants by 1975. Emission con-
trol devices are now required on motor vehicle engines be-
ginning with the 1968 models. With the enforcement of presently
established standards, air pollutants from motor vehicles are
not expected to significantly affect the air quality in the
lake area.

Notably absent from the plaintiffs' argument is any re-
ference to the improvements in waste treatment that have been
achieved within the New Hope Basin during recent years. When
the New Hope project was in its early stages of consideration,
untreated sewage was being discharged into Haw River. Today,
the bulk of the total load of waste effluent entering Haw
River has received secondary treatment. This is undeniable
evidence of substantial progress. Our actions to further im-
prove the efficiency of waste treatment, with consequent im-
provement in water quality, are continuing unabated not only
in the New Hope Basin but throughout North Carolina. To achieve
optimum results and solid progress, our actions must be well-
timed and properly geared to a wide variety of situations
and problems - local, regional, state and federal. We must
maintain considerable flexibility in both timing and course
of action. It is simply not realistic to adopt or impose a
rigid set of time-scheduled actions toward achieving a pre-
established uniform level of water quality in the New Hope
Basin or any other major basin. To do so would be to ignore

164

-7-

many basic facts and factors, as has been done to a major
extent in the argument of the plaintiffs and the report of
the Environmental Protection Agency.

We will be pleased to furnish additional information íf
you so desire.

Sincerely,

George E. Pickett

3 Enclosures:

1 - Packet of items
2 - Rules, regs. etc.
3 - CO2 diagram

165

TOWN OF ERWIN
ERWIN, NORTH CAROLINA MOM

LEONIDAS JACKSON
MAYOR
J. ED WILLIAMS
TOWN MANAGER
JAMES F. PENNY, JR.
TOWN ATTORNEY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
DAVID A. ENNIO
A. P. FOWLER. JR.
K. O. HORNE. JR.
CECIL MOORE
DONALD POLLARD

September 8, 1971

Commanding Officer
United States Army Corps of Engineers
District Office
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401

Dear Sir:

Re: New Hope Lake and Dam

We forward herewith a copy of a resolution adopted by the Mayor and Board
of Commissioners of the Town of Erwin, North Carolina at their regular
meeting held on September 2, 1971. The resolution is in support of the
construction of the dam and New Hope Lake on Haw River.

The people of Erwin have known the damages caused by the flooding of the
Cape Fear River and we have known the concern caused by the lack of water
during seasons of drought and we believe that the proposed Lake and Dam
will mean to us just what the name implies-New Hope.

We fully support the proposed project and will help in any way we can to
bring about its completion.

Sincerely yours,

J. Ed Williams, Town Manager
Town of Erwin
Erwin, North Carolina 28339

JEW:row

cc: Governor Scott
Attorney General Morgan
Enclosure

166

RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE
TOWN OF ERWIN, NORTH CAROLINA

WHEREAS, the Town of Erwin, North Carolina is de-
pendent upon the Cape Fear River for it's water supply
which is necessary and vital to the people of Dunn and
Erwin for the sake of general welfare, safety, and economic
well being, and;

WHEREAS, the New Hope Lake on the Haw River, a tri-
butary of the Cape Fear River; as proposed by the United
States Army Corps of Engineers, is vital to the continued
well being of the Dunn-Erwin area, and;

WHEREAS, the New Hope Lake will be instrumental in
alleviating drcught conditions during extreme dry periods
by providing for continued stream flow in the Cape Fear
River, and;

WHEREAS, the flood control aspects of the proposed
New Hope Dam will also be beneficial to the Dunn -Erwin area
as evidenced by the flood damage of past years, and;

WHEREAS, a legal suit has been instituted against the
United States Army Corps of Engineers to prevent the
constructicn of the proposed New Hope Dam in spite of over
thirteen years of work and t.ne expenditures of large amounts
of public funds in support cf the project,

NOW, THEREFORE, on motion of Commissioner Edgar Myers,
Jr., seconded by Commissioner A. F. Fowler, Jr., with a
unanimous vote of approval,

BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Board of Commissioners
of the Town of Erwin, North Carolina that it does herewith
pledge it's full support to the United States Army Corps of
Engineers in it's efforts to proceed with the construction of
the New Hope Flood Control Project; moreover, this action is
taken in the profound belief that it is in the best interests
of all our citizens as well as the people of Harnett County.

Mayor:
Commissioners:

ATTEST:

Town Clerk

167

OFFICE OF
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
WILMINGiTON. N. C.

September 9, 1971

Col. Albert C. Costanzo
District Engineer
USA Engineer District
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, N. C. 28401

Dear Col. Costanzo:

At joint meeting held August 18, 1971 the Board of
New Hanover County Commissioners and the Council of the
City of Wilmington adopted resolution supporting the
Corps of Engineers in their recommendations on the New
Hope Dam Project and went on record encouraging the con-
tinuation of the building of New Hope Dam and opposing
the injunction now being sought.

Copy of resolution is enclosed for your records.

Yours very truly,

(Mrs.) Hazel Savage
Clerk to the Board

/hs
Encl.
cc: Mr. Rudolph G. Singleton
Attorney at Law
Nance, Collier, Singleton, Kirkman & Herndon
301 First Union National Bank Building
Fayetteville, N. C. 28302

Mayor B. D. Schwartz
Wilmington, N. C.

168

RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF WILMINGTON AND THE COMMISSIONERS OF
NEW HANOVER COUNTY WITH RESPECT TO THE
CONTINUATION OF WORK ON NEW HOPE DAM

WHEREAS, the officials of the City of Wilmington and
New Hanover County are advised that the construction on the New Hope
Dam project is threatened by prayer for an injunction by ecologists, and

WHEREAS, this project has been before the public for more
than ten years, and moneys have been appropriated for said construction
and more than $19,000,000.00 has already been spent on this project,
and to stop construction will burden the taxpayers with additional costs,
and

WHEREAS, Wilmington and its vicinity depend on its water
supply from King's Bluff area of the Cape Fear River, and

WHEREAS, much of the farmland and roads, including
some of the major highways, are from tirne to time flooded by excess
waters of the Cape Fear River, and

WHEREAS, the City and County officials are informed and
believe that the United States Army Corps of Engineers have made a careful
and methodical study of the benefits and disadvantages involved and are of
the opinion that the New Hope Dam is an asset to North Carolina and will not,
in the opinion of the engineers, damage the ecology of our state, but to
the contrary, is vital to flood and water control for eighteen counties
which would benefit from the building of the dam,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF WILMINGTON AND THE COMMISSIONERS OF NEW
HANOVER COUNTY AT A MEETING ASSEMBLED ON THIS THE 18TH
DAY OF AUGUST, 1971, AS FOLLOWS:

169

That any delay in the construction of this project
will result in irreparable damage. to the city and
county and its citizens.

That they go on record encouraging the continuation
of the building of New Hope Dam and opposing the
injunction now being sought.

That copies of this resolution be sent to the proper
officials involved.

The foregoing resolution adopted at the meeting aforesaid.
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WILMINGTON

Mayor and Councilman
Councilman
Councilman
Councilman
Councilman

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF NEW
HANOVER COUNTY

Chairman and Member
Member
Member
Member
Member

170

THE RESEARCH TRIANGLE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
CHAPEL HILL • ORANGE COUNTY • DURHAM • DURHAM COUNTY • RALEIGH • WAKE COOT''

September 9, 1971

Mr. Robert Blanco
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water Programs
Region III
918 Emmet Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901

Dear Mr. Blanco:

Thank you for sending a copy of the comments made by the Region III Office
of Water Programs, EPA, concerning the Corps of Engineers Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for the New Hope Lake.

The comments have produced a great deal of interest and some puzzlement in
our staff. We must admit that some of the comments, particularly those
concerning low flow augmentation, do not correspond well with the appropri-
ate portions of the Corps of Engineers plan for the Cape Fear River and
the New Hope Reservoir that we have. Our report is dated October 10, 1961.

Accordingly, I take the liberty of sending along a copy of our staff review
of your comments, asking if there is Corps of Engineers plan material
concerning the Reservoir other than the October, 1961, report which we
should have used.

Cordially,

Pearson H. Stewart

PHS/dr
Enclosure
cc: Colonel Costanzo

171

RRL
RTRPC
September, 1971

COMMENTS ON EPA'S COMMENTS ON THE CORP OF ENGINEERS'
NEW HOPE RESERVOIR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The comments by EPA are given in eight numbered stations. The same
numbering scheme will be used in this.

1. Contrary to EPA's comments the Corps in its "Comprehensive Report
On Cape Fear River Basin, North Carolina" (Copy No. 54) on page 45, Table
14 does give the storage capacity dedicated to each use.

In the same report on page 60 and 61, Table 20, a summary of costs
in 1960 dollars is given. Tables 21 and 22 give a summary of benefits
and costs apportioned among the various purposes. These may be found on
pages 64 and 65 of the same report.

Twenty-two miles of free flowing stream and 14,300 acres of land will
be inundated. This really is a choice possible between the present
situation and the proposed lake. The question to be answered is which is
most desirable or felt most necessary. The added comment about flooding
(32,000 acres curing flood control) is essentially meaningless. Flood
control or protection begins with construction of the dam and exists
there after. Further, the 32,000 acres would hold the waters that other-
wise would cover much larger areas. The September, 1945 flood covered
219,000 acres of land along the main stem of the Cape Fear /1, with
approximately $10,000,000 in damages resulting. A comparable flood now
would do much more damage because of the rapid rate of growth in the

1/ Cape Fear River, N. C. Joint Report of Land and Water Resources Study,
Part I, 1961 (SCS, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Corps of Engineers
and N. C. Department of Water Resources).

172

-2-

basin. If the difference in the value of the 1945 dollar aid the present
day dollar is considered, present day flooding would be even more expensive.
This dislocation of 150 families was necessary when the project was
first approved by the Congress. At the time the Environmental Protection
Agency was established and, with it, Impact Statements some 65 families
had been relocated. Except that the Act is made retroactive, or is so,
to speak of relocating 150 families does not square with reality.

2. This deals with uncontrolled burning of vegetation cleared from the
project site and the erosion with resultant water borne silt accompanying
clearing and construction. Burning may be forbidden. Considering the
total amount of vegetation to be removed it might be almost as convenient
and inexpensive, if not an economic gain, to locate a "chipping mill" at
the project site to prepare the woody material for use in pulp paper
manufacturing. The immediate proximity of a rail line would ease shipping.

Some degree of downstream turbidity is forcast by the Corp of Engineers'
Impact Statement. A considerable part of this would result from clearing
and construction. Precautions should be taken to keep it at the absolute
minimum. However, it can be avoided altogether no more than can the
breaking of egg shells in making an omlette. It might also be noted that
turbidity in the area's streams is endemic, particularly during and
following rain storms. To a marked extent the dam will, over the long
haul, reduce turbidity by trapping water borne silt behind the dam. More,
much more is needed. Better cropping practices, cover crops, control of
urban run-off and small headwater soil erosion and flood control dams are
some of the measures that might and should be taken. These may be joint

173

-3-

local-SCS ventures.

The disposition of wastes and refuse from recreation sites developed
in conjunction with the reservoir seems entirely manageable. This is for at
least two reasons:

a. The plans presently being followed by the Corps of Engineers
in project development provides for operation of such sites
or concessions within then by lease holders or concession-
aires. These arrangements will provide for proper waste and
refuse disposal under penalty of lease or concession loss.

b. If current plans are modified and sites are transferred to
local jurisdictions adequate provisions exist to insure
waste and refuse disposal.

(1) The transfer agreement may provide for reversion of the
site if proper and agreed to methods are not followed.

(2) The State of North Carolina and its subdivisions in
their statutes and ordinances provide for proper disposal.
At the State level the Boards of Water and Air Resources
and Health have the principal roles.

3. This paragraph should be expanded and could well be combined with
paragraph 4.

In its investigations the State Board of Water and Air Resources has
determined 27 of the 53 principal points of waste discharge to be signif-
icant. These 27 contribute some 3,052 pounds of phosphates daily while
the remaining 26 add but 23 pounds. Other nutrients and pollutants are
discharged at the 53 points in roughly the same proportion as phosphates.

174

-4-

Water quality in both the Haw and New Hope is shown to be severely degradated
be Weiss. /2 Quite apart from the dam the quality of water in these two
streams needs to be improved by more efficient waste water treatment in
both river basins. This is necessary to meet the more rigorous standards
now imposed by the Federal Government and the State of North Carolina.

If the dam is built and the lake formed even more efficient treatment
will be necessary to insure water quality permitting the lake's proposed
uses.

The State Board of Water and Air Resources has pledged that water
quality in the lake necessary to its proposed uses will be provided. This
pledge foresees heightened levels of waste water treatment in both basins,
treatment directed at the removal of both pollutants and nutrients.

4. The State Board of Water and Air Resources proposes a 90% reduction
in phosphates now discharged at the 27 more significant waste discharge
points in the two basins. These 27 points are divided, 18 are in the Haw
River Basin and the remaining 9 are located in the New Hope Basin.

The Haw receives approximately 2,480 pounds of phosphorus and the New
Hope some 595 pounds of phosphorus each day. Of this total of 3,075 pounds
99% (3,050 pounds) is discharged by the 27 more significant points,
mentioned above. A 90% reduction of phosphorus at these 27 points and the
25 pounds discharged per day at the remaining 25,points totals 330 pounds
per day, a reduction of 2,745 pounds or 89%. This reduction in phosphorus

2/ Weiss, Charles M., 1971 Water Quality Characteristics of the New Hope
and Lower Haw Rivers, July 1966-February 1970, With Estimates of the
Probable Quality of New Hope Lake. School of Public Health, UNC-CH,
Chapel Hill, N. C. 27514

175

-5-

will also achieve significant reductions in B.O.D. concentrations.

The above proposal is essentially the solution suggested by EPA In the
last paragraph of comment #4 of its numbered comments on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for New Hope Reservoir prepared by U. S.
Army Corp of Engineers. The added proviso in the EPA comment that
impoundment should not take place until there is a strong technical basis
that water quality of an adequate level will result should be accepted
without question.

The view that phosphorus removal alone may not be enough to maintain
acceptable water quality is recognized. Limitations on the quanity of
nitrogenous compounds is seen as a possible next step. The provision of
space for these facilities should be provided when phosphorus removal
facilities are added to existing plants and in the design of new plants
so that, if necessary, they may be added and in the proper sequence in the
treatment process.

5. This criticism might be answered by listing all of the means
that might be employed to remove impurities. The specific means employed
would depend on the raw water's characteristics. When the concern is with
odor or taste use of aeration, activated carbon or superchlorination may
meet the need. Excessive turbidity may be corrected by preliminary
sedimentation prior to coagulation or double coagulation. An excessive
coliform count may be corrected by heavy disinfection, double filtration
or both. Double filtration with pre and post chlorination and storage
prior to treatment also serve to reduce coliform count.

176

-6-

Some water supply sources have heavy concentrations of dissolved
inorganic compounds resulting in a high degree of hardness. The particular
chemical process used in softening excessively hard water depends on the
dissolved Inorganic compounds such waters contain.

The preceeding two paragraphs mention some of the additional means
that may be employed in a water treatment plant to produce an acceptable
municipal water supply from a raw water of poor quality. These mentioned
are not a complete listing of all methods. It should be sufficient to
say that the complete treatment process at any plant is a combination of
means shaped by the uses intended for the treated water and the systems
raw water supply characteristics.

6. Most of the questions raised by this comment are related to treat-
ment processes and have been discussed in Paragraph 5 above.

The question of water supply intake structure type, location and
cost does not seem valid in relation to the Corps cost-benefit analyses.
The Corps of Engineers contracts to provide storage space for municipal
water supply. Responsibility, fiscal, design and location for water
supply intake structures rests upon the water supply system not the Corps.

7. This comment is somewhat difficult to deal with, in part, because
of some ambiguity. The.benefit value assigned water quality control for
New Hope Lake's low flow augmentation storage by the Corps in their
October, 1961 report is $255,000. This meets the costs of 72,000 acre
feet of low flow augmentation storage. Immediately, 20,000 acre feet
are assigned to dównstream water supply. The mission of water supply was

177

-7-

later dropped. Thus all of the remaining 72,000 acre feet are to augment
low flow downstream for water quality control.

This low flow will improve water quality but only after secondary
treatment of wastewaters has been provided. Thus it will tend to support
more advanced methods of treatment and provide an improved water quality.

The elimination of this storage, while it might not result in down-
stream water quality contravention, would result in a lower water quality.
The augmented flow would contribute other advantages. These would include
navigation, water supply for both municipalities, if not Immediately then in
the future, and power generating plants, recreation, not only downstream
but by the area of the larger lake as well, agricultural uses including
irrigation and benefits to fish and wildlife.

To reiterate the importance of developing considerable permanent
storage seems only sane. Its use for whatever purpose in time seems
assured. And when due consideration is given to the fact that the New
Hope is the keystone in a basin -wide development plan to provide for the
next 100 years, retention of the maximum conservation storage seems the
only reasonable course.

Answering directly to the question of water quality control two
further points need to be made:

a. EPA's comment 7. states that the last evaluation was completed
in 1959. The Corps' October 30, 1961 Report states, in
paragraph 139, page 62, that the U S. Public Health Service
reviewed low flow augmentation benefits in 1961.

b. The EPA's comment 7. states further that in the Corps' planning
"flow regulation storage was considered as a substitute for
secordard (sic) treatment."

178

-8-

In paragraph 98, 99, and 100 on page 41 of the same report,"
points are made that "treatment of wastes at their source" and
"dilution of discharges wastes through increased stream flows"
provide a means o` improving water quality. In some cases of
industrial pollution dilution is highly desirable.

Paragraph 100 on page 41 states, "The key to high degree of water
quality control in the basin is considered to be (1) complete secondary
treatment at all pollution sources and (2) adequate dilution of residual
wastes."

Consideration should be given to the primary purpose of the New Hope
Reservoir and its place in the plan for the development of the Cape Fear
Basin. The questions:

Can the plan succeed without the New Hope Reservoir? and
What single factor constitutes the most serious bar to public
acceptance and the reservoir's construction?

Considering the study that has been done and the purposes to be
met by the Reservoir and the Basin Development Plan the answer to the
first question must be no. A complete restudy of the entire basin
development plan is clearly out of the question. Accomplishment of the
plan without the use of the flood storage basin of the New Hope Reservoir
seems impossible.

The answer to the second question may have several possible answers.
First, the fear that water quality in the impoundment might, except for
flood control, prevent some of the lake's proposed uses is certainly one.

Secondly, the answer could concern the availability and feasibility
of the technology necessary to provide impounded water of an acceptable
quality? The technology is available and feasible.

179

-9-

will this technology be used in so timely a fashion that
the necessary treatment facilities will be provided upstream before the
lake's waters are impounded? If we accept the need for the Reservoir in
the Development Plan for the Basin, the availability of the technology to
provide impounded waters of a sufficiently high quality and the timely
use of that technology than no reasonable basis preventing constuction
of the Reservoir makes itself evident.

8. There are two possible courses that may be followed with the New
Hope Reservoir: (1) it may be built or (2) it may not be built. In
either case more stringent regimen of waste treatment must be followed.
The difference in the capital costs of the two situations will need to
be determined and charged as a project cost to the Reservoir if it is
built. Further, some method of providing for adequate federal partic-
ipation in meeting this difference in capital costs by the upstream
sewerage systems must be implimented.

On balance the Reservoir appears to be a useful and desirable
increment in the Basin Development Plan. The measures necessary to an
acceptable water quality seem to admit to ready accomplishment under
present technology, existing Public Laws and Statutes and by existing
institutions. A positive approach seems the single absent ingredient.

180

Town of Lillington
EDWARD H. MCCORMICK. MAYOR
LILLINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA
27546

September 10, 1971

Commanding Officer
United States Army Corps of Engineers
District Office
Wilmington, North Carolina

Re: New Hope Dam

Dear Sir:

As attorney for the Town of Lillington, I enclose a resolution
adopted by the Town of Lillington supporting the construction
of the New Hope Dam on Haw River in Chatham County.

The Town of Lillington is very interested in the construction
of the dam and the lake for the reason that the Town obtains
its water supply from the Cape Fear River. The Town feels
that this will improve its source of water supply. Likewise,
it feels that the dam will control the flooding along the
river and, consequently, will open large areas of land for
development which have heretofore been flooded at flood time
on the Cape Fear River.

If there is anything further that the Town of Lillington can
do, please advise.

Yours very truly,

Edga R. Bain

ERB/mb
Enclosure

181

RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE
TOWN OF LILLINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA

WHEREAS, the Town of Lillington, North Carolina is dependant
upon the Cape Fear River for its water supply which is necessary
and vital to the people of Dunn and Erwin for the sake of general
welfare, safety, and economic well being, and;

WHEREAS, the New Hope Lake on the Haw River, a tributary
of the Cape Fear River; as proposed by the United States Army
Corps of Engineers, is vital to the continued well being of the
Dunn-Erwin area, and;

WHEREAS, the New Hope Lake will be instrumental in alle-
viating drought conditions during extreme dry periods by pro-
viding for continued stream flow in the Cape Fear River, and;

WHEREAS, the flood control aspects of the proposed New
Hope Dam will also be beneficial to the Dunn-Erwin area as
evidenced by the flood damage of past years, and;

WHEREAS, a legal suit has been instituted against the
United States Army Corps of Engineers to prevent the construction
of the proposed New Hope Dam in spite of over thirteen years of
work and the expenditures of large amounts of public funds in
support of the project.

NOW; THEREFORE, on motion of Commissioner
seconded by Commissioner , with a
unanimous vote of approval,

BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Board of Commissioners of
the Town of Lillington, North Carolina that it does herewith
pledge its full support to the United States Army Corps of
Engineers in its efforts to proceed with the construction of
the New Hope Flood Control Project; moreover, this action is
taken in the profound belief that it is in the best interest
of all our citizens as well as the people of Harnett County.

Mayor:
Commissioners:

ATTEST:

City Clerk

182

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
DURHAM DIVISION

CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. C-184-D-71

CONSERVATION COUNCIL OF NORTH
CAROLINA, JAMES C. WALLACE,
PAUL E. FEARRINGTON and wife,
RUBY B. FEARRINGTON, AGNES M.
SPARROW, and ECOS, INC.,

Plaintiffs, ANSWER OF INTERVENORS,
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
v. AND
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
ROBERT F. FROEHLKE, Secretary
of the Army; LIEUTENANT GENERAL
FREDERICK B. CLARKE, Chief of
Engineers, Corps of Engineers
of the United States Army; and
COLONEL ALBERT COSTANZO,
Wilmington District Engineer,
Corps of Engineers of the
United States Army,

Defendants,

THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, a
municipal corporation, and
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, a political
subdivision of the State of
North Carolina,

Intervenors

Intervenors, City of Fayetteville and Cumberland County,
answering the complaint, allege:

FIRST DEFENSE

1. That the complaint fails to state a claim for which
relief can be granted.

SECOND DEFENSE

2. That the allegations contained in Paragraphs 7, 8 and 11
are admitted; further answering the allegations contained in
Paragraph 7, it is alleged that many others, including these

183

NANCE. COLLIER. SINGLETON. KIRKMAN & HERNDON

intervenors, participated with defendants and their predecessors
in office, towards. securing the alleged authorisation.

3. That the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 are ad-
mitted except it is denied that defendant, Costanzo, has super-
vision and control of the planning and developing of the New
Hope Lake Project.

4. That so much of Paragraph 19 is admitted as alleges that
the sections of the New Hope and claw Rivers involved in the
New Hope Dam 'and Reservoir Project are free-flowing rivers and
that the New Hope Dam and Reservoir Project is a public project
which involves construction of a reservoir.

5. That so much of Paragraph 20 is admitted as alleges that
the New Hope Lake Project will serve the purposes of providing
flood protection, water supply, water quality control and
recreation benefits.

6. That so much of Paragraph 23 is admitted as alleges that
the Haw River is rated All, that the New Hope River is classi-
fied C, that the North Carolina stream classification program
is a water quality standard adopted pursuant to the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, that by varying the release of
water from the lake to the lower Cape Fear Basin, the variations
in flow will be lessened and periods of excessively low flow will
be eliminated, and that the dilution of sewage from downstream
sources is an object of the project.

7. That as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 2,
these answering intervenors are without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth thereof and the
same are, therefore, denied.

184
NANCE. COLLIER. SINGLETON. KIRKMAN & HERNOON

8. That as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 13,
these answering intervenors are without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth thereof and the
same are, therefore, denied, except that it is specifically
denied that the original defendants are in violation of the
provisions of any applicable law.

9. That the remaining allegations of the complaint are
denied.

THIRD DEFENSE

10. The City of Fayetteville, with a 1970 census of 53,510
people, occupies an area of 25.3 square miles and is the rapidly
growing county seat and largest incorporated community of
Cumberland County. It is located primarily upon the west bank
of the Cape Fear River, with a sizable section of the city being
east of the river. The first bridge within the city is situate
at milepost 115 from the mouth of the Cape Fear. The New Hope
Dam construction site is approximately 60 miles up-river from
Fayetteville. This community, which is designated by the
Federal Reserve System as a Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Area is a center of retail and wholesale activities which has
recently enjoyed extensive industrial plant development.
Approximately 25% of the land area within the corporate limits
of the City of Fayetteville is within the flood plain of the
Cape Fear River, as indicated on Exhibit "A" attached hereto.

11. Cumberland County, with a 1970 census of 212,042 people,
occupies an area of 661 square miles and is one of North
Carolina's largest counties. The Cape Fear River, running
generally in a northwardly - southwardly direction almost equal-
ly divides this political subdivision which includes as corporate

185
NANCE. COLLIER. SINGLETON. KIRKMAN & HERNDON

communities, the City of Fayetteville and the towns of Falcon,
Godwin, Hope Mills, Linden, Spring Lake, Stedman and Wade. It
is the home of two colleges, a technical institution,innumerable
businesses, many industries and the military installations of
Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base. Interstate 95, the main
North - South arterial highway from New York to Miami runs
through Cumberland County and thousands upon thousands of tourist
annually visit the area and its numerous motels. Although the
county is, in large part, agrarian, recent years have seen sever;
multi-million dollar industrial plants built upon either the
Cape Fear River, or within its flood plain, which flood plain
includes approximately 10% of the county's area.

A. FLOOD CONTROL

12. The flood records of the Cape Fear River at Fayetteville
have been maintained by the Corps of Engineers of the United
States Army since date of 1888. The average depth of the river
at Fayetteville during normal flow is 12.5 feet. Flood level is
35 feet. Since 1888, a period of 83 years, the Cape Fear River
has reached or exceeded flood level on 140 occasions or an
average of more than 1-1/2 times each year, as vividly portrayed
by Exhibit "B" attached hereto. These floods have all been
serious, but have, of course, varied in magnitude. The five most
devastating floods occurred in the order of their severity on
21 September 1945, on 29 August 1908, on 4 October 1929, on
22 September 1928 and on 24 May 1901. The 1945 flood reached a
height at Fayetteville of 68.9 feet and had a peak discharge of
water of 124,000 cubic feet per second. The 1908 flood
reached a height of 68.7 feet and had a peak discharge of
water of 123,000 cubic feet per second. The figures for the
floods of 1929, 1928 and 1901 were 65.3 feet, 64.7 feet and

186
NANCE COLLIER. SINGLETON. KIRKMAN & HERNDON

58.5 feet with peak discharges of water of 110,000 cubic feet
per second, 108,000 cubic feet per second and 86,000 cubic feet
per second, respectively.

13. The losses and damages in the Fayetteville, area result-
ing from these floods have been incapable of calculation. First
and foremost, over the years, there has been loss of life.
Thousands of homes have been inundated or destroyed with atten-
dant loss of personal treasures and buildings. Businesses that
have not been devastated have been interrupted in their normal
operation for extended periods of time. Industrial plants have
suffered heavily and, in addition to total destruction of crops
and livestock, the topsoil of once fertile farm land has time and
again washed down the muddy turbulent river leaving behind barren
farm land incapable of further supporting its occupants and
tillers. Schools have been flooded and closed, the roadways and
bridges have been destroyed and great damage has been done to
trestles and terminals. Utilities have, time and again, been
completely shut down in large areas at great costs, inconvenience
and danger.

14. Again, it is impossible to calculate the costs to
Fayetteville and Cumberland County of these 140 floods. However,
an indication of a small portion of these costs can be gained by
referring to the official records of the minutes of the public
hearing regarding the Cape Fear River held on 16 September 1946
by the Corps of Engineers of the United States Army. Partial
damage of the 1945 flood was assessed in the Fayetteville area
as follows: Industry - $485,000, Commerce - $125,000,
Utilities - $115,000, Highways and Bridges - $513,000, Railroads -
$125,000, Homes - $285,000, and Agriculture - $500,000, for a

187
NANCE COLLIER. SINGLETON. KIRKMAN & HERNDON

total of $2,148,000. If inflation at a rate of 5% over a period
of 25 years is taken into consideration, it is readily apparent
that a current value of these figure is more than $4,750,000.
These monetary damages have no reference to suffering or health
hazards, nor can they include intangible loss of man-hours reach-
ing into the hundreds of thousands of hours, nor loss of profits,
which by their very speculative nature must remain unquantifíed,
but which would undoubtedly reach into the millions. The fore-
going figures relate to the flood of 1945 only. However, they
will serve well as a point from which comparative accurate
analyses of the other 139 floods may be made.

15. Without the New Hope Dam, there is no deterrent to pre-
vent a recurrence within the Fayetteville area of a flood of the
severity of 1945, which flood was almost equalled in severity in
1908. If such a flood should occur again, a total of approxi-
mately 3500 homes, more than 300 commercial and industrial
establishments, schools, churches, public buildings and hundreds
of farms in the flood plain would be affected. In addition, the
25-Million Dollar industrial fiber plant of Rohm & Haas, located
on the Cape Fear River some 10 miles south of Fayetteville,and
the multi-million dollar plastic plant of duPont,located on the
river some 16 miles south of Fayetteville, would be, likewise,
severely affected.

16. The Public Works Commission of the City of Fayetteville
utilizes for that community currently approximately 16-million
gallons of water per day. Of this, one-half or 8-million gallons
per day is obtained from the Cape Fear River through the 3-Million
Dollar water purification plant built in 1969 near the bank of the

188
NANCE COLLIER, SINGLETON. KIRKMAN & HERNDON

Cape Fear River. This is designed hydraulically for expansion
to 100-million gallons per day inasmuch as the City of
Fayetteville has no other current available sources of water
other than the Cape Fear River, The raw water pumping station
of the City of Fayetteville is located adjacent to this purifica-
tion plant. The City's 9-million gallon per day sewage treatment
plant pumping and piping station is also located on the Cape
Fear River, into which it empties. The interceptor sanitary
sewer to Methodist College runs parallel for several miles with
the river. Likewise, the sanitary sewage lift station and force
main to Kelly-Springfield Tire Company which industrial plant,
8 miles north of Fayetteville with 1-1/2 million square feet,
is North Carolina's largest enclosure of manufacturing space.
Proposed for construction in 1972, and still in the flood plain,
is the interceptor sanitary sewer to Texfi/Lively Knits plant and
proposed for construction in 1974 is the 8 to 10-million gallons
per day sewage treatment plant at the confluence of Cape Fear
River and Rockfish Creek. In event of a flood of the magnitude
of 1945, not only would all of these be severely damaged, but
each of these would be inoperative until water receded and damage
could be repaired. The chaos to ensue requires no imagination to
calculate the inevitable environmental disaster. One-half or
more of the water supply of the City would be gone. Millions of
gallons of raw sewage daily would by-pass the treatment plant and
discharge directly into the river. The resulting problems of
health and disease, both to the local community and to those
doom -river would be staggering. It is, indeed, ironic that the
municipal decision of intervenor City of Fayetteville to locate

189
NANCE COLLIER. SINGLETON. KIRKMAN & HERNDON

its new water plant upon the river was predicated upon construc-
tion of the New Hope Dam complex providing flood control for that
city.

17. In addition, there is a residential area within the
southeastern portion of the City of Fayettevílle which is in
dire need of an urban renewal project to provide better housing,
paved streets and recreational facilities. More than 90% of the
dwelling units located therein are substandard or deteriorated.
For years municipal leaders have worked toward securing an urban
renewal project for this area of Southeast Fayetteville -- a
project for which the Federal government would provide 66% fund-
ing, yet the elevation of the considered area ranges from approxi-
mately 82 feet to slightly over 90 feet above mean sea level. The
flood of September, 1945 had a stage of 89.3 feet above mean sea
level and, of course, almost all of this area was flooded.
Through the years, the Renewal Assistance Administration, through
which urban renewal projects are administered, has been unable to
secure necessary loans from the Federal Housing Authority (FHA)
because FHA must be assured that the properties on which they
insure loans are reasonably above the flood line of nearby water.
Unquestionably, this assurance simply could not have been given
in Southeastern Fayetteville. Then came approval and initial
construction of the New Hope Dam -- and a new hope for Southeastern
Fayetteville. Based upon the recent evaluation of the Corps of
Engineers; FHA has advised that the removal of the flooding
hazard will make the area eligible for mortgage insurance. The
City Council of the City of Fayetteville has voted approval for
the urban renewal project. The only major obstacle now remaining
to total redevelopment of this blighted and poverished area is

190
NANCE, COLLIER. SINGLETON. KIRKMAN & HERNOON

the ill-founded law suit by the plaintiffs. If the New Hope
Project is delayed or thwarted, then the hopes, aspirations and
visions of hundreds of the citizens of Fayetteville will be
destroyed and their opportunity for a better station in life
eliminated.

18. Plaintiffs allege in their complaint that "...flood
frequency and flood damage have been greatly overestimated by
the defendants." Indeed! Such an allegation could have been
made only upon a total lack of information by parties up-river
looking down on a day removed from high water and on a day
obscured by lack of pre-vision from future devastation.

B. WATER SUPPLY

19. The total water supply storage planned for New Hope Lake
is 52,000 acre-feet, which will provide an estimated yield of
100-million gallons a day. There is, already existing, an esti-
mated need for water supply storage in the New Hope project
sufficient not only to justify but to require this yield. Up-
stream requests to the North Carolina Department of Water and Air
Resources have been from Chatham County for initially 10-million
gallons per day for the first decade and 20-million gallons per
day thereafter. Similarly, the town of Chapel Hill has requested
allocation for 10-million gallons per day for the first decade and
25-million gallons per day thereafter. Wake County and other
communities, although not having made official request for exact
allocation, have indicated desires for large and substantial
respective allotments. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs,
the City of Fayetteville has, at present, no source to turn to
other than the Cape Fear River for additional water supply.

191
NANCE. COLLIER. SINGLETON, KIRKMAN & HERNDON

Cumberland County and the area surrounding Ft. Lauderdale,
Florida are the two fastest growing counties in the southeastern
United States. The census figures for Cumberland County far the
years 1940, 1950 and 1960 were, respectively, 59,320, 96,006,
and 148,418. The 1970 census of 212,042 was a 42.9% increase
over 1960. The growth of the City of Fayetteville, together
with the growth of its adjoining suburbs, has been comparable.
The continued growth of the population of the City of
Fayetteville and of Cumberland County has put an unprecedented
strain upon the procurement of water. Projections for future
area growth have wisely necessitated the Public Works Commission
for the City of Fayetteville to design its water purification
plant for ultimate expansion to 100-million gallons per day.
This figure is identical with the total storage designed for the
New Hope Dam. In addition, industrial plants, hereinabove men-
tioned, within the County, require daily intake of water from the
Cape Fear River far.in excess of that currently utilized by the
City of Fayetteville. It follows logically and conclusively
that a constant, steady and assured flow of water of the requisite
amount within the bed of the Cape Fear can result only from con-
struction of New Hope. The Cape Fear has historically had
periods of low-flow resulting from drought. It is only from
low-flow augmentation of a dam such as New Hope that the water
supply problems of the City of Fayetteville and its citizens
and industries within its limits and environs can be solved.

C. INLAND PORT

20, Fayetteville, at milepost 115, is the last navigable
point upstream on the Cape Fear. Historically, there was, in

192
NANCE, COLLIER, SINGLETON, KIRKMAN & HERNDON

late 1855, an attempt to dig and blast through the rock barrier
areas of the waters of the Cape Fear above Fayetteville and this
was partially achieved with a lock and dam around every point of
swift water from Fayetteville up to the area later known as
Haywood, which is in the Moncure area near the present site of
the New Hope Dam. However, a flood in September of 1859 swept
away all locks and dams from Haywood to Fayetteville and, for far
more than a century no boat of any commercial size has been able
to navigate northwardly beyond the latter city. Fayetteville is
a natural for an inland port. Industrial needs, commercial needs,
as well as military potential require this. However, the channel
of the Cape Fear, at normal flow,from Navassa at milepost 30 to
Fayetteville,is 8 feet in depth. In periods of low water, which
frequently occur, this channel is less than 8 feet in depths,
sometimes dwindling to 5 feet of water. The present situation as
it exists makes the operation of the three water control locks
below Fayetteville extremely difficult and impedes all river
traffic. Until such time as the channel of the Cape Fear from
Navassa to Fayetteville can either be deepened to 12 feet or a
constant flow maintained at 8 feet, the City of Fayetteville can-
not even approach realizing its capacity as an inland port. For
years annual commercial tonnage to Fayetteville has stagnated at
approximately 1/2-million tons. However, with the approval and
initial construction of New Hope, prospects of more than doubling
this annual tonnage to 1-million and better have been so predict-
able that a third river terminal in the Fayetteville area is
currently in the process of completing necessary facilities. With
the completion of New Hope, Fayetteville will become a true in-
land port, but, without such completion, this long needed economic

193
NANCE, COLLIER, SINGLETON, KIRKMAN & HERNDON

impetus is apparently impossible.

D. CONCLUSION

21. The plaintiffs have labored their oars long and hard in
a murky sea of inaccurate accusations against a project which is
worthwhile to all the people and all of the communities of North
Carolina. It is inherently good in design, resulting from long
years of engineering study, which study has, in turn, resulted
from the anguished pleas primarily of those down-river seeking
the essential benefits of flood control and water supply. The
New Hope will alleviate 65% of the flooding of the Cape Fear area
and its sister dams of Randleman and Howard's Mill, now in the
planning stages, will eliminate an additional 20%. The hopes,
livelihoods and the well-being of thousands ought not be destroyed
by the imagined fears of plaintiffs, who are threatened with no
grave and irreparable injury.

WHEREFORE, intervenors pray:

1. That this answer be treated as an affidavit in opposition
for motion for preliminary and permanent injunction;

2. That this action be dismissed and that the costs be taxed
against the plaintiffs;

3. That these intervenors have such other and further relief
as they may, in the premises, be entitled.

RUDOLPH G. SINGLETON, JR. OF
NANCE, COLLIER, SINGLETON, KIRKMAN & HERNDON
P. O. DRAWER 1210
FAYETTEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
TELEPHONE NUMBER 919 - 483-0447
ATTORNEY FOR INTERVENORS

194
NANCE, COLLIER, SINGLETON, KIRKMAN & HERNDON

TABLE I-70

Floods of record in order of magnitude
Cape Fear River at Fayetteville. N. C. (1888-1957)

: : Gage :. Peak :: : Gage : Peak
: :height:discharge:: : :height:discharge
Rank: Flood date :(feet): jcfs) ::Rank: Flood date :(foot): (efts)
s : : :: : t :
1 :21 Sep. 1945: 68.9: 124,000 :: 21 :18 Mar. 1912: 49.2: 58,500
s : :: : : :
2 :29 Aug. 1908: 68.7: 123,000 :: 22 : 8 Feb. 1896: 48.0: 56,000
t : : :: t : :
3 : 4 Oct. 1929: 65.3: 110,000 :: 23 :12 Feb. 1921: 48.0: 56,000
: : t :: t : :
4 :22 Sep. 1928: 64.7: 108,000 :: 24 : 6 Mar. 1929: 48.0: 56,000
: : :: : t
5 :24 May 1901: 58.5: 86,000 :: 25 :12 Oct. 1894: 47.9: 56,000
: s :: : : :
6 :12 Jan. 1895: 58.0: 84,000 :: 26 :10 Apr. 1895: '47.7: 55,500
: : :: : t :
7 : 8 Sep. 1928: 55.5: 76,000 :: 27 : 5 Apr. 1901: 47.7: 55,500
: s: : t t
8 s 8 Apr. 1936: 55.4: 75,000 :: 28 : 5 Aug. 1909: 47.6: 55,300
t : t t: : t :
9 : 1 Mar. 1888: 52.3: 66,000 :: 29 :24 Jan. 1954: 47.1: 54,600
s : t :: : t :
10 : 9 Feb. 1899: 52.0: 65,000 :: 30 :17 Feb. 1922: 47.0: 54,000
: : : :: : t
11 :24 Jul. 1919: 52.0: 65,000 :: 31 : 2 Sep. 1952: 47.0: 54,000
t : 1 t: t t t
12 : 6 t•Sar. 1952: 51.9: 64,000 :: 32 : 8 Mar. 1932: 46.5: 53,600
: : t :: : : :
13 :25 Mar. 1903: 50.5: 62,000 t: 33 :22 Feb. 1905: 46.4: 53,500
t t t t: : : t
14 :17 Sep. 1904: 49.9: 60,000 :: 34 :23 Apr. 1918: 45.6: 51,500
: t t :t t : :
15 : 2 Mar. 1929: 49.9: 60,000 :: 35 :30 May 1891: 45.1: 50,800
: : t :: : t :
16 :16 Feb. 1948: 49.7: 59,900 :t 36 :29 Jul. 1889: 45.0: 50,500
: : s :t : t :
17 :13 Sep. 1888: 49.7: 59,900 t: 37 : 6 Aug. 1901: 44.8: 50,000
: : t :: : • :
18 : 2 Oct. 1924: 49.6: 59,500 :: 38 t 4 Feb. 1916: 44.5: 49,800
: : : :: t : :
19 :21 Jan. 1892: 49.5: 59,400 :: 39 : 6 Mar. 1922: 44.5: 49,800
: : : :: t t :
20 t11 Jan. 1896:• 49.5: 59,400 :: 40 : 2 Oct. 1944: 44.4: 49,500
: : : :: : :
EXHIBIT "B"

195

TABLE I-70 (Cont'd)

Floods of record in order of magnitude
Cape Fear River at Fayetteville. N. C. (1888-1957)

: : Gage : Peak :: : : Gage : Peak
: :height:discharge:: : :height:discharge
Rank: Flood date :(feet): (cfs) ::Rank: Flood date :(feet): (cfs)
: : : :: : : :
41 :29 Apr..1928: 44.4: 49,500 :: 61 :12 Jan. 1925: 42.0: 45,600
: : : :: : : :
42 112 Feb. 1946: 44.2: 49,200 :: 62 : 2 Apr. 1936: 42.0: 45,600
: : : :: : : :
43 :18 Deo. 1888: 44.1: 49,000 :: 63 :11 Feb. 1939: 42.0: 45,600
: : : :: : :
44 :27 Oct. 1957: 44.1: 49,000 :: 64 : 2 Mar. 1902: 41.7: 45,000
: : : :: : : 1
45 :20 Apr. 1900: 44.0: 48,800 :: 65 :26 Mar. 1908: 41.7: 45,000
: : :: : : :
46 :21 Jan. 1925: 43.9: 48,500 :: 66 :21 Jul. 1920: 41.6: 44,800
: : :: : : :
47 130 Nov. 1948: 43.9: 48,500 :: 67 :12 Aug. 1905: 41.4: 44,500
1 : : :: : : :
48 :20 Sep. 1901: 43.6: 48,000 :: 68 :10 Jan. 1932: 41.3: 44,300
: : : 1: : : :
49 : 5 Jan. 1936: 43.3: 47,600 :: 69 :30 Aug. 1949: 41.0: 44,000
: : : :: : : :
50 :24 Aug. 1891: 43.1: 47,200 :: 70 :14 Mar. 1891: 41.0: 44,000
: : : :: : : :
51 :20 Feb. 1889: 43.0: 47,000 :: 71 :19 Aug. 1955: 40.7: 43,500
: $ : :1 : : :
52 : 5 Sep. 1955:.42.8: 46,700 :: 72 :30 Aug. 1908: 40.5: 43,000
: : : :: : :
53 : 8 Mar. 1932: 42.7: 46,500 :: 73 :27 Dec. 1914: 40.2: 42,600
: : : :: : : :
54 :19 Mar. 1936: 42.5: 46,400 :: 74 :21 Jan. 1936: 40.2: 42,600
: : : :: : :
55 :15 Feb. 1893: 42.3: 46,000 :: 75 :21 Mar. 1944: 40.2: 42,600
: : : :: : .: :
56 :18 Cot. 1954: 42.1: 45,800 :: 76 : 4 Jun. 1915: 40.2: 42,600
: : : :: : : :
57 :24 Oct. 1893: 42.0: 45,600 :: 77 :11-Feb. 1931: 40.1: 42,200
: : : :: :.:
58 :17 Mar. 1899: 42.0: 45,600 :: 78 :2 Jun. 1899: 40.0: 42,000
: : : :: : :
59 : 6 Mar. 1917: 42.0: 45,600 :: 79 :18 tsar. 1923: 40.0: 42,000
: : : :: : 1 :
60 :10 Dec. 1920: 42.0: 45,600 :: 80 :27 Jul. 1936: 40.0: 42,000
: : : :: : : :

196

TABLE I-70 (Cont'd)
Floods of record in order of magnitude
Cape Fear River at Fayetteville. N. C. (1888-1957)

: Gage :, Peak :: : t Cage t Peak
: :hoight:discharge:: : theight:discharge
flank: Flood dato :(fret): (ere) ::Ranks Flood date :(feet): (ete)
t : : st t t :
81 :18 Mai. 1956: 39.9: 41,800 t1101 :21 Jan. 1943: 36.9: 35,800
t : t t: 1 t t
82 :30 Jan. 1937: 39.8: 41,600 ::102 :14 Jan. 1915: 36.8: 35,600
: : t t: : : s
83 :17 Feb. 1953: 39.7: 41,400 1:103 :23 Aug. 1931: 36.7: 35,400
t : : t: 1 : 1
84 113 Apr. 1944: 39.5: 41,000 ::104 :27 Feb. 1939: 36.7: 35,400
: s t :: : t t
85 : 2 Mar. 1957: 39.4: 40,800 ::105 t 8 Feb. 1897: 36.5: 35,000
t : t t: t t t
86 t 6 Dec. 1927: 39.3: 40,600 ::106 : 2 Jan. 1925: 36.5: 35,000
t : s s: 1 t :
87 :20 Aug. 1939: 39.2: 40,500 ::107 : 3 Nov. 1949: 36.4: 34,800
s : : t: : : :
88 : 3 Feb. 1957: 39.1: 40,500 ::108 :14 Jan. 1908: 36.3: 34,600
s .: : t: : t :
89 :29 Aug. 1939: 39.0: 40,000 ::109 :18 Aug. 1928: 36.2: 34,400
: : : :: : - : :
90 t 3 Dec. 1934: 38.2: 38,600 2:110 :23 Aug. 1931: 36.2: 34,400
s : : is t : :
91 :22 Nov. 1952: 38.2: 38,600 ::111 :31 Dec. 1945: 35.9: 33,600
: : :: : : s
92 :26 Mar. 1952: 38.1: 38,300 ::112 t 8 Feb. 1955: 35.8: 33,200
t : : t: : : :
93 :15 Mar. 1923: 38.0: 38,000 ::113 :16 Jul. 1944: 35.6: 32,400
: : : t: t : :
94 :16 Mar. 1897: 37.6: 37,200 12114 : 4 Jan. 1937: 35.6: 32,400
: : : t: t : :
95 t 3 Mar. 1939: 37.6: 37,200 ::115 :21 Jan. 1937: 35.6: 32,400
: : : :: t : t
96 :15 Jul. 1943: 37.6: 37,200 ::116 :21 Apr. 1943: 35.3: 31,200
t : t :: : • : t
97 :20 Jan. 1915: .37.34 36,800 ::117 :12 Dec. 1936: 35.3: 31,200
: : : tt : : t
98 :11 Apr. 1934: 37.3: 36,800 ::118 :25 Dec. 1908: 35.0: 30,000
t : : :t : : :
99 :22 Jan. 1947: 37.3: 36,800 ::119 :15 Jan. 1947: 35.0:. 30,000
: : : :: : t :
100 :18 Jan. 1954 t' 37.0: 36,000 :: 1 C`-R r NEKT PA Ci g-)

197.

CALENDRE YEAR 1958 THRU 1970
DATA SHEET Sheet of
Computation REcorded flood stages @ Fayetteville
Basin Cape Fear River Drainiage Area
Stream Cape Fear River Computed by Date 10 Sep '71

Max Flood Stage
stage
in Feet

Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army
Wilmington, North Carolina District
CAPE FEAR RIVER,
CROSS, LITTLE CROSS,
BLOUNTS, & BRANSON CREEKS
FAYETTEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA

Exhibit A

199

NORTH CAROLINA )
)
CUMBERLAND COUNTY )

HECTOR E. RAY, being first duly sworn, deposes and says
that he is Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of
Cumberland County, North Carolina, one of the Intervenors in
this action,and in such capacity is authorized to make this
verification; that he has read the foregoing Answer and knows
the contents thereof; that the same is tale and correct to his
own knowledge, except as to those matters therein stated on
information and belief, and that as to those, he believes it
to be true.

Sworn to and subscribed before me,
this the day of September, 1971.

Notary Public
My Commission Expires:

200
NANCE, COLLIER, SINGLETON, KIRKMAN & HERNDON

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE:

I, Rudolph G. Singleton, Jr., Attorney of Record for the
Intervenors, do hereby certify that on this date I served a copy
of Notice of Motion to Intervene, copy of Motion to Intervene and
a copy of Answer filed herein by these Intervenors by mailing
copies of sarne, first class mail, postage prepaid to William
Osteen, United States Attorney, P. O. Box 1858, Greensboro,
North Carolina 27402, Attorney of Record for Defendants; to
Norman B. Smith, Smith & Patterson, 816 Southeastern Building,
Greensboro, North Carolina 27401 and Roger W. Smith, Tharrington
& Smith, 835 Durham Life Building, Raleigh, North Carolina 27601,
Attorneys of Record for Plaintiffs.

This the day of , 1971.

201
NANCE, COLLIER, SINGLETON, KIRKMAN & HERNDON

U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, WILMINGTON
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
108 CUSTOMHOUSE
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA

28 September 1971

Mr. C. Edward Carlson, Regional Director
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Department of the Interior
Atlanta, Georgia 30323

Dear Mr. Carlson:

This is in response to your letter of 7 September 1971 conveying the
comments of the Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S. Department of the
Interior, on the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the New Hope
Lake project. I appreciate your interest in this project, and assure
you that the Final Environmental Impact Statement gives adequate con-
sideration to your comments.

Nevertheless, a number of points in your letter disturb me, as there
appear to be inconsistencies both within the letter and with corre-
spondence previously received from your agency. As you may be aware,
a group of citizens are currently maintaining a lawsuit to prevent
further work on the Iew Hope Lake project, and have expressed an intent
to introduce your letter in evidence. I think you will agree, therefore,
that it is especially important that the position of your agency be
accurate in all respects.

Your letter states:

.. the Environmental Protection Agency definitely suggests that
nutrient concentrations will be such that nuisance algae growths
in the reservoir are a virtual certainty."

In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency's letter of 4 August 1971
actually reads as follows:

4. nutrient concentrations in both the Haw and Rev Hope Rivers
greatly exceed generally accepted criteria for recreational and
water supply impoundments. Because of the tendency of the Haw and
Nev Hope River waters to nix during the periodic filling cycles,

202

SAWVE 28 September 1971
Mr. C. Edward Carlson

"nutrient removal in both basins is essential. Nuisance algae
growths in the reservoir are a virtual certainty, unless nutrient
concentrations are reduced in both the Haw and New Hope River
basins. (Emphasis supplied.)

The Wilmington District agrees that nutrient removal is desirable for
the Haw and New hope Basins; indeed, EPA Administrator Maskelhause
recently announced that such removal was desirable in all of the
Nation's rivers and streams. I as sure you will agree that the in-
complete statement in your letter of EPA's position could be misleading.

Also with reference to water quality, your letter states:

"We are of the opinion that the assumed water quality conditions
and the fishery values presented in your draft statement cannot
be attained." (Emphasis supplied.)

This position is not in accord with that of EPA, which advises:

"There is a need for improved BOD and bacterial reductions at
several key points to insure that water quality will be compatible
with proposed use; impouadmant in the reservoir."

I would further point out that your statement quoted above is contra-
dicted by your adoption, on page 4 of your letter, of EPA's recommen-
dation that

"final impoundment of waters in New Hope Lake be deferred until
waste treatment facilities can be constructed which will achieve
the degree of treatment necessary to assure the realization of
all beneficial water uses in the reservoir,..."

I am puzzled by your statements regarding the authorities and responsi-
bilities of the State of North Carolina. I must advise you that these
comments have led to public speculation that your agency has no con-
fidence in the will or ability of State agencies to fulfill their re-
sponsibilities under state law. I trust you will want to clarify your
position on this point.

I regret that the discussion of effects of the project on the down-
stream fishery was unclear; naturally any indication that resident
fish populations are passed through the navigation locke in low flow
periods is erroneous, as it is the anadromous fish species that benefit
from locking operations. The Final Environmental Impact statement has
been corrected to reflect this point.

203

SAWVE 28 September 1971
Mr. C. Edward Carlson

Your letter states:

"As you are aware, the three-lock navigation system all but
eliminated anadromous fish species from their traditional spawn-
ing grounds in upper segments of the Cape Fear River.

The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, and your office are attempting to restore
some part of this loss by operating the locks to pass fish during
anadromous runs."

I would point out that the 14 September 1971 letter of Acting Regional
Director Scherer, referring to the same Cape Fear River - shad fishery,
states:

"The American Shad fishery was recently reestablished through the
joint efforts of your office, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, and the Fish and Wildlife Service."

Both your comments and recent articles in wildlife and sports publication
had convinced me that the Cape Fear shred fishery had indeed recovered
from its former parlous state. I hope you will clarify this point.

I am also concerned by your statement that:

"Any alteration of these floodflow regimens by the operation of
this project could endanger the present spawning success of
anadromous fishes."

I had assumed that the statements made by your Beaufort, N. C., Labo-
ratory regarding spawning of striped bass (Roecus saxatilus) in the
Report of the Steering Committee for Roanoke River Studies 1955-58
applied equally to the American Shad. I refer to pp 224-225 of that
report:

"We have no information that would verify or reject the need for
an attraction flow since there appears to be no relationship
between values of flow and catches made by commercial gear in the
lower river. In view of the fact that striped bass have from the
earliest available records been known to migrate into the Roanoke
River to spawn on either low or high flows, it is hardly con-
ceivable that mature fish would refrain from entering the river
in the absence of an attraction flow. There is a possibility that
flushing the river of pollutants immediately prior to the arrival
of spawners could benefit from the standpoint of water quality.
Otherwise, benefits are believed to be questionable and special
flows unnecessary for attractions purposes."

204

SAWVE 28 September 1971
Mr. C. Edward Carlson

Again, I hope you will supply further information on this point.

It is our opinion that operation of the New Hope Lake project will
benefit the anadromous fishery in the Cape Fear River in three respects:

(1) Reduced turbidities. I assume that high turbidities associated
with flood-water runoffs can cause significant mortalities of eggs
and fry. Restraint of floodwaters by the project should materially
lessen such turbidities.

(2) Low-flow augmentation. While your statement that: "The
quantity of water needed to operate the locks is no problem at
this time of year when spring flows are normally high in the
stream's free flowing state is not necessarily inaccurate, you
will recognize that not every year provides a normal flov. In
fact, there have been several occasions when the number of lock-
ing operations for anadromous fishes on the Cape Fear River had to
be reduced due to low water. The low-flow capacity of the New Hope
Lake project will allow us to avoid a recurrence of this problem.

(3) Reduction of major flood events. I understand that floods in
the downstream river drive fish from their natural habitat to
flooded Lands outside the riverbanks where many are subsequently
isolated and lost. In addition, all of the most severe floods
took place in August and early September, and would logically
have flushed out fingerling shad up to two months earlier than
mid-October when you have indicated they normally leave the river.
These losses, too, can be avoided by operation of the project.

I note your statement that: "This Service is not aware of any wildlife
loss in downstream reaches that can be reduced by flood control thorough
the operation of this project."

I had relied on reports such as that of Dr. Willis King of the North
Carolina Division of Game and Inland Fisheries, who testified as follows
at the 16 September 1946 Public Hearing on the Cape Fear River:

"The more inaccessible swampy lowlands are frequently the best
habitat for many species of wild life. Recurring floods in this
area drive the game to higher ground where they are subject to
illegal killing and poaching. It is essential that the water be
confined to natural courses insofar as that is practical. I can't
give you a dollar and cents figure on the lose to wild life, but we
knew that it is considerable. In regard to fishing, recurrent high
waters drive fish from their natural habitat to lands outside where
many are lost, the flood bringing tremendous loads of silt from the
head waters, drowning out sparring areas and some of the food supplies.
Any program which will hold those waters to the section where they
belong will benefit fish and game alike."

205

SAWVE 28 September 1971
Mr. C. Edward Carlson

Of course, your agency many disagree vith the conclusions of Dr. King
and others; if so, I hope you will inform me.

I am bewildered by your statement that: "Most of (the proposed wild-
life management) area will not be suitable for 'intensive wildlife
management' because of periodic filling of the flood pool and the
steep terrain." You inform me that these same lands "Were excellent
wildlife habitat prior to private timber cutting operations that
preceeded acquisition of these lands" and that, with regard to similar
downstream areas, 'it is the natural periodic flooding that make these
bottom lands the most productive wetland wildlife habitat in the en-
tire basin."

In addition, topographic maps reveal that most of this land in ex -
tremely flat in character. I would remind you that your Agency's
letter of 5 December 1967, concerning these earns wildlife areas, stated:

"We congratulate you on the very fine cooperation you and your
staff have demonstrated during the planning phase of this project.
As a result, some excellent fish and wildlife features have been
included in plans for development of this reservoir."

I earnestly request you supply me with your current evaluation of the
value of these areas for wildlife management. The "intensive management"
referred to in the Environmental Impact Statement will consist of two
parts:

(1) A Forest Management Plan, designed, among other goals, to
promote the growth of mast-producing hardwoods. This will be
carried out, as on other projects, by personnel of the Wilmington
District.

(2) Wildlife management, as indicated in your Agency's letter of
12 March 1962, would be directed to development of waterfowl and
increasing the productivity of forest and farm game animals. This
program will be undertaken by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission.

I share your concern about the sites selected by your agency for water-
fowl subimpoundments. Please be assured that the Wilmington District
will continue to cooperate with the Fish and Wildlife Service to provide
these project features.

I hope you will favor me with your thoughts on these points at your
earliest convenience. Both my own staff and the Department of Justice
are eager to know the position of your Agency, and I would hope also
to remake your further comments available to the Council on Environmental
Quality, for their use in evaluating the New Hope Lake Environmental

206

SAWVE 28 September 1971
Mr. C. Edward Carlson

Impact Statement. I look forward to working with you further to
insure that all federal activities are planned and carried out to
best meet all the needs of all the people.

Sincerely yours,

ALBERT C. COSTANZO
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer

Copy furnished:
Hon. William Osteen
United States Attorney, Middle District of N. C.
324 West Market Street
Greensboro, North Carolina 27401

207

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
DURHAM DIVISION

CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. C-184-D-71

CONSERVATION COUNCIL OF NORTH CAROLINA,
JAMES C. WALLACE, PAUL E. FEARRINGTON
and wife, RUBY B. FEARRINGTON, AGNES M.
SPARROW, and ECOS, INC.,

Plaintiffs

-vs-

ROBERT F. FROEHLKE, Secretary of the ANSWER OF INTERVENOR,
Army; LIEUTENANT GENERAL FREDERICK B.
CLARKE, Chief of Engineers, Corps of TOWN OF ELIZABETHTOWN
Engineers of the United States Army;
and COLONEL ALRERT COSTANZO, Wilmington AND
District Engineer, Corps of Engineers
of the United States Army, BLADEN COUNTY

Defendants

THE TOWN OF ELIZABETHTOWN, a municipal
corporation, and BLADEN COUNTY, a political
subdivision of the State of North Carolina,

Intervenors

Intervenors, Town of Elizabethtown and Bladen County,
answering the complaint, allege:

FIRST DEFENSE

1. That the complaint fails to state a claim for which
relief can be granted.

SECOND DEFENSE

2. That the allegations contained in Paragraphs 7, 8 and 11
are admitted; further answering the allegations contained in

208

Paragraph 7, it is alleged that many others, including these
intervenors, participated with defendants and their predecessors
in office, towards securing the alleged authorization.

3. That the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 are ad-
mitted except it is denied that defendant, Costanzo, has super-
vision and control of the planning and developing of the New
Hope Lake Project.

4. That so much of Paragraph 19 is admitted as alleges that
the sections of the New Hope and Haw Rivers involved in the
New Hope Dam and Reservoir Project are free-flowing rivers and
that the New Hope Dam and Reservoir Project is a public project
which involves construction of a reservoir.

5. That so much of Paragraph 20 is admitted as alleges that
the New Hope Lake Project will serve the purposes of providing
flood protection, water supply, water quality control and
recreation benefits.

6. That so much of Paragraph 23 is admitted as alleges that
the Haw River is rated AII, that the New Hope River is classi-
fied C, that the North Carolina stream classification program
is a water quality standard adopted pursuant to the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, that by varying the release of
water from the lake to the lower Cape Fear Basin, the variations
in flow will be lessened and periods of excessively low flow will
be eliminated, and that the dilution of sewage from downstream
sources is an object of the project.

7. That as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 2,
these answering intervenors are without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth thereof and the
same are, therefore, denied.

209

8. That as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 13,
these answering intervenors are without sufficient knowledge
or information to form a belief as to the truth thereof, and
the same are denied, except that it is specifically denied
that the original defendants are in violation of the provi-
sions of any applicable law.

9. That the remaining allegations of the complaint are
denied.

THIRD DEFENSE
Introduction

10. Historical evidence and a realistic evaluation of
human needs supports the position of defendants that the
New Hope Dam is a much needed and justifiable project.

11. Plaintiffs degrade the seriousness of flood problems
and the damages which have resulted from floods over the
years. (Paragraph 2] of the complaint, in particular.)
Whatever the plaintiffs' intentions in their allegations
regarding flood frequency and damage, they exhibit callous
diregard for the historical facts, a concurrent disregard
and evaluation of potential effects of new floods occurring
now or in the future, and an insensitivity to the human
needs of the people of the lower Cape Fear Basin, which
includes both the Town of Elizabethtown and Bladen County.

12. The historical facts, as reported in defendants cumula-
tion of reports and studies prior to authorization of the
New Hope Dam, as well as events such as testimony at the
public hearing of September 16, 1946, in Fayetteville, North
Carolina, have well documented the damage of past floods in
the Cape Fear Basin in monetary terms. Exhibit I attached
to this answer, an excerpt from the public hearing minutes
of September 16, 1946, illustrate the damage which has and
can occur along the Cape Fear River in Bladen County at flood
time. The human anguish and suffering cannot be adequately

210

represented by monetary computations. Where technology
reasonably permits people have a right to rid themselves
of such hazards. However, it. appears that plaintiffs feel
that the suffering that the people of the Cape Pear. Basin
must surely suffer in the future is preferable to any
interference with the natural environment where plaintiffs
live. This is apparent even though the uses of the land in
plaintiffs' area of the state have contributed to the water
problems in the Cape Fear Basin. Floods are a pollution of
the land, livestock, crops and people of the Cape Fear Basin.
Such floods have resulted in part from the reduction of the
upland watersheds by the development of thn Piedmont Region.
Now that a plan has been devised to hold this runoff water
from the hills,to keep it from flooding the Cape Fear Basin
people out of their homes, property and livelihoods, plaintiffs
contend that the project should be halted and prevented, among
other reasons, because it might interfere with some of the
natural areas that they have not already exploited in their
area of the state.

13. In addition, plaintiffs allege that the New Hope Lake will
result in a pooling of industrial, municipal and human wastes
in their midst. They obviously prefer that they be allowed
to continue this pollution - if it really exists in the quan-
tities they allege - to be exported to persons, properties,
and communities down river from them. Plaintiffs admit
(Paragraph 15(c) of the complaint) that it would be tougher
and more expensive, but ultimately more sound, to deal with
pollution at its sources. But, plaintiffs apparently prefer
that the cheaper route be chosen albeit at the expense of the
intervenors, their citizens, and people similarly situated
along the Cape Fear Basin. Regardless of cost, these inter-
venors cannot and ought not be required by the court to accept
forever an increasing burden of uplands pollutions created by
plaintiffs and persons similarly situated with them in the
furtherance of their owe' industrial and economic development.

211

14. Furthermore,, plaintiffs rely on the weak argument
( Paragraph 21) that such disastrous floods as those of
1908, and 1945 (though they deny the seriousness of these
floods) occur only so infrequently as to not warrant
retraint: by the New Hope Dam. In other words it would
seem that. if an ,alternative wholey acceptable to the plaintiffs
cannot be found, the people of the Cape Fear. Basin ought to
be required to put up with the floods., or get out. The
only constructive alternatives that are proposed have
already been considered by the defendants and found want-
ing, except, apparently, the (1) subsidized insurance plan
and (2) the government purchase of the flood plain. Either
of these alternatives is still a great disruption to the
people of the land, and a hindrance to the development of.
the Basin.

15. The people of Elizabethtown and Bladen County want to
develop their resources, and to do so in an enlightened
manner, taking into proper account the needs of economic,
social and industrial growth and the rich natural environ-
ment which is theirs in this now heavily rural area. To
this end, while seeking economic expansion and industrial
growth, the county and town have undertaken land use zoning,
general economic, social and recreational planning, and have
already demanded statements of prospective industries regard-
ing their activities in relation to environmental concerns.
These intervenors are not interested in, nor do they agree
that they ought to either (1) suffer floods (which of course
do not follow an timetable, notwithstanding plaintiffs'
allegation that such floods as 1908 and 1945 might be "expected
only once every 118 years") with adequate insurance protection,
or (2) abandon the flood plain which has so many possibilities
for human use and humane development.

16. Every contemporary study of Elizabethtown and Bladen County
points to the tremendous potential that exists here. In this
relatively unspoiled area, there exists the opportunity to
develop human and natural resources whim profiting from the

212

accumulated and accumulating knowledge of how to develop
these resources with a proper regard for and protection of
natural areas.

17. Your intervenors do not seeck to do damage to plaintiffs'
or anyone's environment in any way; but, they do assert the
right to control the environment so that its extremes do not
prevent or destroy opportunities for development of their
human resources in making more fruitful lives for themselves
and their posterity. Your intervenors believe and allege that
the New Hope Dam will, not seriously adversely effect the natu-
ral environment as plaintiffs have alleged. Your intervenors
further believe and allege that the values to be gained in
the Cape Fear Basin are so substantial that they far outweigh
the highly speculative and imaginary values, if any, which
plaintiffs allege will be lost by allowing this project to be
completed.

BLADEN COUNTY

18. Bladen County lies in the rich Coastal Plain Region of
Southeastern North Carolina, where the county is almost
equally divided geographically by the Cape Fear River. Thou-
sands of acres of land lie within the flood plain cf the River,
and to some extent these lands are subject to flooding every
year. On several occasions, there have been floods of a
disastrous nature, such as in 1908 and 1945. These floods
have resulted in substantial losses of crops, livestock,
topsoil, homes and other buildings, and increased illness
caused by insects breeding in the stagnant flood waters. The
New Hope Dam would substantially avert all these problems.

19. Bladen County is now experiencing the early stages of
industrial growth, and its first substantial changes from a
rural, agrarian community. As a result, the high rate of

213

population out-migration is being curbed for the first time.
For the first time, there is the prospect that there will be
enough jobs available to support the people of the county
without their having to leave the county to find employment.
But, despite the need for more industrial development, the
county and municipal governments are conscious of and have
concerned themselves with keeping industrial growth and
development in a proper balance with the natural environment.

20. Bladen County had a 1970 census population of 26,477,
down 2,404 from 1960. Nevertheless, the loss would no doubt
have been more substantial without the industrial development
which the county has experienced since 1965.

21. There are six municipalities within the county, to -wit:
Bladenboro, Clarkton, Dublin, Elizabethtown, Tar Heel, and
White Lake. The largest of these is Bladenboro (population
estimated to be 2,750 following a June 30, 1971, annexation),
located in the Southwest corner of the county in the lowlands
"Big Swamp" area. Three of these municipalities are close to
the Cape Fear River, the closest being Elizabethtown, and
the others being Dublin and Tar Heel.

22. One of the most important reasons given by industry for
locating in Bladen County has been the promise of a substantial,
dependable water supply to be provided in the Cape Fear River
by the New Hope Dam. No other source exists for the quanti-
ties of water which are required by such industries as E. I.
DuPont deNemours, Veeder-Root, Incorporated, and West Point-
Pepperell, Inc. Presently, industries are locating only on
the high bluffs which provide natural protection from floods,
mostly on the south side of the river. With the completion of
the New Hope Dam, both the low north aide and the high side of
the river can increasingly be used for industrial, agricultural
and recreational activities.

23. For the reasons cited above, and for others such as the
need for new sources of water for city and county water systems,

214

the New Hope Dam is a requirement foi significant progress
in development and utilization of our human resources.

TOWN OF ELIZABETHTOWN

24. The Town of Elizabethtown is a municipality located on
the southern bank of the Cape Fear River about one mile
north of Lock and Dam No. 2 of the Cape Fear River at Brown's
Landing. Elizabethtown is one of the oldest municipalities
in North Carolina, having been founded by an act of the
colonial legislature in 1773. The town was incorporated in
1843. The town contains some 0.6 square mile ( 380 acres),
of which some 55 acres lie within the flood plain of the
Cape Fear River. While there has been some construction in
the flood plain area in the remote past, this area has been
largely undeveloped, although it has great potential due to
its beauty and historical significance, as well as access to
the river. The 1970 population of Elizabethtown was counted
at 1,418, a loss of 207 (12.7 %) from 1960. However, this is
misleading because of the substantial growth of suburban areas
and a lack of municipal expansion keeping pace with this growth.
Therefore, a realistic population figure for the urban Elizabethtown
area is estimated at more than 3,500.

FLOOD CONTROL

25. No permanent use can be made of the area of the Town of
Elizabethtown which now lies in the flood plain of the river,
although there are many uses of this area not inconsistent with
sound ecological practice. Flood control is essential to any
fruitful development of this area, which now is little more
than wasteland.

WATER SUPPLY

26. The Town of Elizabethtown is rapidly approaching the point
at which it cannot take from underground wells the quantity of

215

water required to meet the nerds of this growing community.
The only source for water in sufficient quantities to meet
the needs which are anticipated within them near future is
the Cape Fear River. This water supply must be both adequate
and dependable. Only with the New Hope Dam can this goal be
accomplished, for even if this source could now be tapped,
the threat of floods that would rise to contáminate this
source is substantial.

RECREATIONAL AREAS

27. The opportunity now exists to develop a large portion
of the land within the flood plain area of the Town of
Elizabethtown for recreational uses by the residents of the
town and surrounding area residents, as well as tourists and
visitors. in anticipation of the utilization of this flood
plain area, some citizens have already purchased land in the
flood plain area and donated the land to the town.

28. Within or at the edge of the flood plain is a Revolutionary
War historical site, known as the "Tory Hole." It was here
that an important battle of the American Revolutionary War
was fought for control of a large portion of Eastern North
Carolina. This battleground has never been developed, in part
because of the vulnerability of the area from floods. This
site would be of significant interest to historians, as well
as an attraction to tourists. Plans are already under way
for development of the site in connection with a 15 acre river-
side nature park and recreation area to include nature trails
and nature study. These plans are directly dependent upon the
completion of the New Hope Dam. The historical and recreational
park area are planned for development prior to the bicentennial
of Elizabethtown in 1973.

CONCLUSION

29. The New Hope Dam is a project of enormous significance for
the people of Bladen County and the Town of Elizabethtown. The

216

arguments and allegations of the plaintiffs with reference to
cost-benefit ratios - after degrading and minimizing the his-
torical values of damage and suffering - are esentially static
in nature. Plaintiffs speak entirely in terms of reducing
values for present and past flood experience, when they are increasing
They have omitted the fact that Lhe mc)irrt,rry measure of damages
from the 1945 flood alone, when interpolated into today's values,
would be in the millions of dollars, not to mention the value
of development of those areas of the flood plain which people
have attempted to put into fruitful use since 1945. And, most
certainly plaintiffs have failed to take into account the tre-
mendous needs and potential of the Cape Fear Basin - now and
in the foreseeable future.

30. If the sleeping giant that is the potential of Southeastern
North Carolina has been arroused in recent years, it is the New
Hope Dam - more than any other. single asset except the people
themselves - that will cause this giant to develop its great
potential.

31. Plaintiffs fears are largely speculative and even imaginary.
Their unsubstantiated allegations are rebutted by the extensive,
tedious studies which defendents made prior to authorization of
the New Hope Dam. The benefits that can be established have
been fairly and accurately documented. Defendants and your
intervenors' speculations about the potential and future develop-
ment of the area after the construction of the New Hope Dam are
immeasurably more substantial and probable than plaintiffs'
speculations.

32. The hopes and futures of thousands - perhaps millions - of
citizens of this state ought not to be buried under plaintiffs'
barrage of unfounded allegations, plaintiffs who are not
threatened With irreparable harm as they allege.

WHEREFORE, your intervenors pray the Court as follows:
1. That this answer be treated as an affidavit in opposition
to the motion for preliminary and permanent injunction:

217

2. That this action be dismissed, and that the costs of
this action be taxed against the plaintiffs:
3. That these intervenors have such pther and further relief
to which they way be entitled in the premises.

JOSEPH E. CHANDLER, JR.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
P. O. DOX 1166
ELIZABETHTOWN, N. C. 28337
TELEPHONE NUMBER 919-862-2134
ATTORNEY FOR INTERVENORS:
TOWN OF ELIZABETHTOWN
COUNTY OF BLADEN

VERIFICATION

NORTH CAROLINA:
BLADEN COUNTY:

C. P. EDGE, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that
he is the Mayor of the Town of Elizabethtown, Bladen County,
North Carolina, one of the intervenors in this action; that
in such capacity he is authorized to make this verification;
that he has read the foregoing Answer and knows the ccntents
thereof; that the same is true of his own knowledge, except
as to those matters alleged upon information and belief, and
as for those matters he believes them to be true.

The foregoing statement was sworn to and subscribed before me,
this the 28th day of September, 1971.

NOTARY PUBLIC
My commission expires:

218
11

Mr. Jackson
SAWEW 4 October 1971

Mr. George Marienthal, Acting Director
Office of Federal Activities
Environnental Protection Agway
Waashington D. C. 201460

Dear Mr. Marienthal:

This is in reference to your letter of 4 August 1971 transmitting the
Environmental Protection Agency Comments cm Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for Nev Hope Lake, Haw River, North Carolina, CoCorps of Engineeers -
Wilmington, North Carolina, District Office. I appreciate the thorough
review given to the draft environmental statement and assure you that all
comments received are being considered in the final statement.

Your comment number 7, page 4, makes reference to a recent reevaluation of
the Cape Fear River concluding that no flow augmentation storage is needed
in the New Hope Lake project. As you point out, this is a major change in
the conclusion reached in the 1959 study (revised in 1961) for this basin.
office has no knowledge of any recent study from which that conclusion
can be reached. Therefore, I am requesting that you furnish me with a copy
of that study including:

1. Math equation used in model.

2. Waste load projections.

a. Base year used and amount of waste per stream reach.

b, projected amounts, especially for significant industrial
areas such as below Lock No. 1.

3. Description of sections or reaches considered in the rodel.

4. Quantities of flow considered.

5. Water quality criteria considered.

6. Reaction rate constants used in the math model and the method
used to make those determinations.

219

Mr. Jackson
SAWEW 4 October 1971

7. Time of travel for each reach and method used to determine time
of travel.

As you may be aware, a group of citizens are currently maintaining a lawsuit
to prevent further work on the New Hope Lake project. I therefore feel that
it is imperative that my staff review in detail the study referred to in your
4 August letter.

The Wilmington District agrees that nutrient removal is desirable for the
Haw and New Hope Basins indeed, EPA Administrator Ruckelshaus recently
announced that such removal was desirable in all of the Nation's rivers and
streams, I am puzzled by your statement that water quality control laws have
changed with regard to streamflow regulation. There has been no change in the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended (33 U.S.C. 466 et. seq.) with
regard to inclusion of storage in federal projects for water quality control
since the New Hope Lake project was authorised in 1963. I am also puzzled by
your statement that the establishment of standards lessens the need for low
flow augmentation. Water quality standards and classifications were established
for the Cape Fear River by N.C. State Stream Sanitation Committee in February
of 1958. The latest upgraded standards (1970) are considerably more stringent
t;. .before, especially for dissolved ozypen criteria. It vould tncrefore appear
that more stringent standards would result in an even greater need for flow
augmentation during tiees of low natural flow.

I would appreciate an early reply to this letter so that I can furnish the
additional information to the Council on Environmental Quality for their
use in evaluating theNew Hope Lake environmental impact statement.

Sincerely yours,

Major, Corps of Engineers
Acting Districtr Engineer

Blind copy furnished:
Hon. William L. Osteen
U.S. Attorney, Middle District of North Carolina
Greenshoro, North Carolina 27402

220

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
DURHAM DIVISION

CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. C-184-D-71

CONSERVATION COUNCIL OF NORTH )
CAROLINA, JAMES C. WALLACE, )
PAUL E. FEARRINGTON and wife, )
RUBY B. FEARRINGTON, AGNES M. )
SPARROW, and ECOS, INC., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
)
ROBERT F. FROEHLKE, Secretary ) ANSWER OF INTERVENORS
of the Army; LIEUTENANT GENERAL )
FREDERICK B. CLARKE, Chief of )
Engineers, Corps of Engineers )
of the United States Army; and )
COLONEL ALBERT COSTANZO, )
Wilmington District Engineer, )
Corps of Engineers of the )
United States Army, )
)
Defendants, )
)
THE CITY OF WILMINGTON, a )
municipal corporation; )
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, PENDER )
COUNTY, COLUMBUS COUNTY, )
political subdivisions of )
the State of North Carolina; )
and THE LOWER CAPE FEAR )
WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY, )
a public instrumentality of )
the State of North Carolina, )
)
Intervenors )

Intervenors, the City of Wilmington, New Hanover County,
Pender County, Columbus County, and the Lower Cape Fear Water and
Sewer Authority, answering the complaint, allege:

FIRST DEFENSE

1. That the complaint fails to state a claim for which
relief can be granted.

221

SECOND DEFENSE

2. That the allegations contained in Paragraphs 7, 8
and 11 are admitted; further answering the allegations contained
in Paragraph 7, it is alleged that many others, including these
intervenors, participated with defendants and their predecessors
in office, towards securing the alleged authorization.

3. That the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 are
admitted except it is denied that defendant, Costanzo, has super-
vision and control of the planning and developing of the New Hope
Lake Project.

4. That so much of Paragraph 19 is admitted as alleges
that the sections of the New Hope and Haw Rivers involved in the
New Hope Dam and Reservoir Project are free-flowing rivers and
that the New Hope Dam and Reservoir Project is a public project
which involves construction of a reservoir.

5. That so much of Paragraph 20 is admitted as alleges
that the New Hope Lake Project will serve the purposes of providing
flood protection, water supply, water quality control and recreation
benefits.

6. That so much of Paragraph 23 is admitted as alleges
that the Haw River is rated AII, that the New Hope River is classi-
fied C, that the North Carolina stream classification program is a
water quality standard adopted pursuant to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, that by varying the release of water from
the lake to the lower Cape Fear Basin, the variations ín flow will
be lessened and periods of excessively low flow will be eliminated,
and that the dilution of sewage from downstream sources is an
object of the project.

7. That as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 2,
these answering intervenors are without sufficient knowledge or

222

information to form a belief as to the truth thereof and the same
are, therefore, denied.

8. That as to the allegations contained in Paragraph 13,
these answering intervenors are without sufficient knowledge or
information to form a belief as to the truth thereof and the same
are, therefore, denied, except that it is specifically denied that
the original defendants are in violation of the provisions of any
applicable law.

9. That the remaining allegations of the complaint are
denied.

THIRD DEFENSE

10. Intervenors, New Hanover County, Pender County and
Columbus County, are political subdivisions of the State of North
Carolina. The City of Wilmington is a municipal corporation situated
on the banks of the Cape Fear River in New Hanover County. The
Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority is a public instrumentality
of the State of North Carolina, created pursuant to N. C. General
Statutes Chapter 162A. Intervenors are situated in the lower Cape
Fear valley, and are directly and unusually affected by the quantity
and the quality of the flow of said river.

SALT WATER INTRUSION:

11. The Cape Fear River drains a basin which is 170
miles long and 68 miles wide. The basin's total area is 8,570
square miles. The river has its head waters in the vicinity of
Greensboro, North Carolina, and it flows in a southeastern or
eastwardly direction to empty into the Atlantic Ocean near Southport,
about 25 miles south of Wilmington, North Carolina.

12. The lower regions of the river are subject to tidal
flow. Tidal flow extends 39 miles (23 land miles) upstream of

223

Wilmington to US Lock and Dam Number 1 at Kings Bluff. The top
of the dam is at elevation 11.1 above msl (Mean sea level).

13. The normal mean range of tides just below the dam
is 1.5 feet based on a lower pool elevation of 0.1 feet above mean
sea level. The highest water elevation on record in the reach
below the dam is 7.3 feet above msl given at Wilmington, N. C.
This occurred in 1954 during hurricane Hazel.

14. The river downstream of Lock #1 at Kings Bluff is
protected for drinking water quality for a distance of 7 miles to
the water supply intake at Riegel Paper Corporation. A possible
use for the water downstream of Riegel Paper Corporation is an
industrial raw water source. However, this portion of the river
has a variable saline content due to salt water encroachment caused
by tidal flow. The extent of salt water encroachment in this reach
is discussed in an open file report completed in 1968 by H. B.
Wilder and E. F. Hubbard of the United States Department of Interior
in cooperation with the North Carolina Department of Water and
Air Resources. The summary of the report titled "Interim Report on
Sea Water Encroachment in the Cape Fear River Estuary, N. C."
states that the extent of salt water encroachment as affected by
total fresh water flow of the drainage basin in conjunction with
high tides height indicates that the maximum annual advance of
river water with a 200 mg/l (Milligrams per thousand) chloride
concentration will be as far upstream as the mouth of Black River
less frequently than once every 50 years. Black River enters the
Cape Fear River at a point 16 river miles above Wilmington. The
report further states that unpredictable metrological events such
as Hurricane Hazel in 1954 may cause salt water to penetrate
considerably upstream.

224

15. Stream augmentation and regulated flow to be provided
by New Hope Dam will increase fresh water inflow into the estuary
with the result that salt water will not penetrate as far upstream
as Black River except when affected by extremely high storm driven
tides. Completion of the New Hope Dam project will substantially
reduce salt water intrusion, increase the economic and industrial
potential of the Lower Cape Fear River region, while cessation of
the project will severely limit intervenors in their economic and
industrial growth.

WATER SUPPLY

16. The lower Cape Fear area contains many features
favorable to population and industrial growth. Among these are
attractive residential areas, convenient commercial establishments,
desirable cultural and water oriented recreational opportunities,
and railroad, highway and seaport facilities.

17. The present and estimated future population of Wilmington
and New Hanover County is as follows:

YEAR ESTIMATED TOTAL POPULATION - CITY OF WILMINGTON, NEW HANOVER CO.
1970 82,996
1985 112,500
2000 150,000
2020 200,000

18. Certain communities in the lower Cape Fear River
basin are currently served by ground water supplies. This source
in most instances is characterized by excessive hardness and
undesirable iron content. Moreover, excessive ground water withdrawals
may result in salt water intrusion, further destroying the quality
of this supply for domestic purposes. These considerations coupled
with past records of well failures in the area lead to the conclusion
that the use of ground water supplies in this region will become
more and more restricted to domestic purposes and sparsely settled

225

areas and isolated communities. In New Hanover County alone, taking
into account that part of the county population which will continue
to be served by ground water in the future, the remaining population
which will require public water service is estimated to be as follows:

YEAR ESTIMATED POPULATION TO BE SERVED
1970 55,000
1985 97,500
2000 140,000
2020 195,000

19. Certain industries in the lower Cape Fear River
basin are currently served by ground water supplies totaling in
excess of 10 mgd (million gallons per day). It is estimated that
ground water sources will continue to supply in excess of 10 mgd to
industrial users through the year 2020.

20. It is estimated that future average daily and
maximum day requirements to meet water demand in New Hanover County,
alone, will reach a demand of 77 mgd for the average day, and 102
mgd on the maximum day by the year 2020.

21. The City of Wilmington presently obtains its raw
water from the Cape Fear River at a principal intake at Kings Bluff
some 23 miles upstream. The capacity of the existing raw water
supply facilities which includes a transmission main, river intake
and pump station is 12 mgd. These supply facilities are barely
adequate to meet the city's current maximum needs, and planning
for their expansion has been initiated.

22. To meet the year 2020 estimated requirements of
New Hanover County, additional facilities for supplying 90 mgd are
indicated. After giving due consideration to ground water sources,
surface water sources, waste water reuse, desalinization, and
combinations thereof, it is the inescapable conclusion that the best
water source to meet the projected requirements of New Hanover County

226

and the Lower Cape Fear River Basin will be the Cape Fear River.
At the present time the flow at Lock #1 varies from a minimum of
145 mgd to a maximum of 72,000 mgd. New Hope Dam completion will
provide a minimum regular flow of 405 mgd and is essential to
adequate water supply to the area. Cessation of the New Hope Dam
project, or delay in its completion, will result in irreparable
harm to intervenors' water supply. It is only from regulated flow
provided by a dam such as New Hope that the water supply problems
of the Lower Cape Fear River Basin and its citizens and industries
can be solved.

COMMERCE

23. The Cape Fear River is navigable to Fayetteville,
North Carolina, with a channel width of generally 400 feet and depth
ranging from 30 to 35 feet from the Atlantic Ocean to Wilmington;
thence a 200 foot width and 25 foot depth from Wilmington to Navassa;
and a depth of 8 feet with varying widths for the remaining distance
to Fayetteville. Wilmington harbor is a major deep water port at
one of the major petroleum distribution centers on the Atlantic
seaboard. Commerce for 1970 totaled in excess of 6,300,000 tons, of
which approximately 55 per cent was petroleum products. The remaining
commerce consisted of substantial quantities of sugar, unmanufactured
tobacco, molasses, pulpwood, paper and paper products, sulphur, iron
and steel scraps, city steel mill products, fertilizer materials,
and miscellaneous commodities. In 1970 waterborne commerce between
Wilmington and Fayetteville totaled 500,000 tons. Commerce upon
the river is important to the local economy of the entire Cape Fear
River Basin, including intervenors.

24. Shoaling in the channel from Wilmington to Fayetteville,
North Carolina, consists primarily of sand shoals which are built up

227

during floods which usually occur during the period January to
June of each year. Said sand shoals consist of large grained sand
which is placed in suspension and moved by the rapid flood currents.
Reduction in flood currents will reduce shoaling. It is estimated
that completion of the New Hope Dam project will reduce shoaling
by 50 per cent by reason of elimination of freshets, sudden flooding
which carries large volumes of silt from upland areas, which silt
is deposited upon reaching the slower moving and broader deep water
channel in the Lower Cape Fear basin.

WATER QUALITY

The lower Cape Fear River basin begins at the eastern edge
of the Sand Hills region at the "Fall Line" and continues eastward
to the Atlantic coast. The terrain is flat, resulting in relatively
sluggish stream flows. The soil consists primarily of sands, clay
and moss, much of which are unconsolidated. Vast areas of swamp are
found in the basin, and swamp water, with its high rate of decomposition
of organic material, results in degradation of water quality in the
lower Cape Fear River. Stream flow augmentation is essential to
adequate water supply and the dilution of treated waste effluents.
Swamp waters have material effect on water quality and as indicated,
and must be diluted. The key to high degree of water quality
control in the lower Cape Fear River Basin is stream flow augmentation
and regulated flow, made possible by the New Hope Dam project.
Cessation of the project or delay in its completion will cause
irreparable harm to the quality of water in the Lower Cape Fear
River Basin, and to the citizenry thereof.

CONCLUSION

Termination of the New Hope Dam Project, or delay in its
completion will cause irreparable harm to intervenors. Problems
arising from salt water intrusion, swamp water degradation of water

228

quality, impediment of navigation and commerce, and adequacy of
potable water are not pertinent to other parties to this litigation,
and representation of intervenors interests by such other parties is
not adequate.

WHEREFORE, Intervenors pray that:

1. This answer be treated as an affidavit in opposition to
the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary and permanent injunction;
2. This action be dismissed, the cost to be taxed against
the plaintiffs;
3. These intervenors have such other and further relief
as they may, in the premises, be entitled.

James C. Fox
Murchison, Fox & Newton
16 North Fifth Street
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401
Telephone: 919 - 763-2426
Attorney for Intervenors

NORTH CAROLINA )
)
NEW HANOVER COUNTY )

MEARES HARRISS, being first duly sworn, deposes and says
that he is Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of New
Hanover County, North Carolina, one of the Intervenors in this action,
and in such capacity is authorized to make this verification; that he
has read the foregoing Answer and knows the contents thereof; that
the same is true and correct to his own knowledge, except as to those
matters therein stated on information and belief, and that as to those,
he believes it to be true.

Mears Harriss

Sworn to and subscribed before me,
this the 7th day of October, 1971.

Notary Public
My commission expires: March 28, 1975

229

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, James C. Fox, Attorney of Record for the Intervenors,
do hereby certify that on this date I served a copy of Notice of
Motion to Intervene, copy of Motion to Intervene and a copy of
Answer filed herein by these Intervenors by mailing copies of same,
first class mail, postage prepaid to William Osteen, United States
Attorney, P. O. Box 1858, Greensboro, North Carolina 27402, Attorney
of Record for Defendants; to Norman B. Smith, Smith & Patterson,
816 Southeastern Building, Greensboro, North Carolina 27401 and
Roger W. Smith, Tharrington & Smith, 835 Durham Life Building,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601, Attorneys of Record for Plaintiffs.
This the 7th day of October, 1971.

Jame C. Fox

230