Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20210050 Ver 1_7_Citizen Comments_20201223Citizen Comments SEPI T D ■ . N S ,A � 1iI Environ mental gin e e r s & S c i e n t i s t s Ms Nancy ■ , Newe ■ Environmental City Durham October 30, �00 %Nor Progra Engineer , Department Environmental Resources 101 C'I'tly Hall Plaza Durham, ■ � , ■ Re: Teer Quarry Feasibilltv Study Final H&zrN) � Project No. Dear Ms. Newel'l: Hazen a n d Sawyer, P.C. 4011 WestChase Blvd. —17 Raleigh, NC 27601 919 833-7 152 Fax. 919 833-182-W8 - - ■ Hazen and Sawyer is pleased to transmit herewith to the City of Dur Department Env I iron ental ent-itled Feasibility e e Studv, - ■ Resources, ten copies our final report - 111111111111 11111110�1 r 0 u 1111111in I Off_Line Raw Water Storage Reservoir, ■ Our' concludes that, based on existi'ng geological infor � ation, it - is ible feas for public water evaluate areas o note our analyses o he City supply. concern and define parameters for project design. Please o develop a � Teer Quarry as a n off4--line storage reservoir for The report identifies addItional studies that are. needed to f r eservoir were completed in the record drought 2002. this . design should evaluate the impact the -quarry pro � ct and the 1 _ prior to � a Studies be conducted in conjunction with proj ect ' - Ci s w e r s in general,, It has been our pleasur e t . e o complete this s i � City aoL of * Durha, e would 11ke o express out thanks to you and other City staff for L much valuable assistance provided dur'ing the study. Very truly yours, H_ A Z. 1 D N. _ . .SAWYER._ . � P C _ r, e ji ` � � � -•. �� � . _ ames c a , enio ;SE � r y, 13007 �D / � 4- r s s o 0 %, i E"ki t e t h � W.P � � �� � � � .-P � '•-----.-'V 70 r4 S M . w Grk, N Y ® Armonk. NY ® Woodbury, N Y ® D e ro.it, M! ® R a|e|g h, N C � Ch arlorie_ N O � Atlanta, G"A ® ; 2|rfax, �� ® � ��| ��� �� � � ® � � � d ���� �� � � � � � � ������ �f ® Sarasota. �� � ��| �| �1 @ Ph`l| s. a d � Na| a. + A 4 1 P r the quarry's hydraulic influence. groundwater in the deep aquifer in the shallow acquirer will quarry as a water supply r To the north, outside of this i may flow toward the Eno River., probably not be affected significantly by use of the eservoir., Filling the reservo hand, will increase the hVcrauli the flow in t c head adjacent to t ir with Ovate he quarry and he deep aquifer away from the quarry. This influence will vary depending oH the level LU which the quarry is filled and on water level fluctuations r, on the other tend to direct dung operation. Groundwater flow direction is normally the dominant drivinno Tc rce Denina ontaminant niume m�rtin: oweer.cCachvMiftusin I I I tend to ower or r a I dF In • nf It ip, nrr- .0 Flow direction mitigate any contamina aquifers. 11111111 11 tion that may occurs from either the 2.5 Recommendations and Conclusions 2.5.2 Conclusions upper 1. Existing geological information indicates that it is feasible to develop the quarry as a water supply reservoir. However, there exists some potential, as yet unquantified, that exfiltrat'ion from the quarry will affect the stability and function of the reservoir and will contaminate nearby water supply wells. Additional investigation and testing is needed to quantify these impacts. Local geology 2s favorable for stable quarry walls. Loss of water'l'rom the quarry through the diabase and metavolcanic rock formations is expected to be relatively minor. Direct impact on the Eno River is also not anticipated. Exf1*1tration through Triassic Formation materials that for the southern and eastern boundaries of the quarry is likely. The extent of this exf*11tration will be � dependent- on the level of storage to which the quarry is developed. Impacts are expected to be small provided that the storage level is maintained at or near elevation 265-ft., Storage development above this&MEW level will involve eL progressivelyincreasing risk of impacting adjacent r�oundwate vels. Astudies are nececsary fn quantify Such impacts. 2. Based on reports bY others on treatment of groundwater contamination that has resulted from previous on -site operations, residual contamination does not appear to represent a serious engineering obstacle to the development of the quarry as a water supply reservoir. However, it is probable that the existing recovery and treatment system, while effective in limiting migration of the contaminat6ion plumes, !ill not el.imi.n.A......t..e all of the contami,nAntS fol%ind:in the groundwater. Total elimination of these contaminants is probably not practical given the specifics o is case,. Should the City procure the quarry site, �t Mould have the option of continuing to operate the recovery system, even after the quarry has been placed into service as a water supply, until such time that concerns by the Cty,ithe State, and/or the public are satisfied. The pumping system could be used to lower the water table in the impacted area to minimize the risk of migration. The groundwater that is removed could be treated on -site or pumped to the sanitary sewer. Once groundwater levels in the vicinity of the quarry have been stabilized, the influence o e 11 2-7 4 r T f t 4 t t e -4-11- The Durham Water System will be allowed to withdraw water from the Eno River below U.S. 501 Bridge in amounts uq to,5,000,000 million gallons per day when the flows, as measured at the USGS Eno River gage at Durham, are above 30 cfs from March through May and 10 cfs during other times of the year. Withdrawals will cease when flows fall below these levels. The study considers diversion rates ranging from 5 through 50 mgd from the Eno River, with downstream flows being maintained in accordance with the above requirements. The results of these analyses are summarized in Table S-1 and Figure S-1 & Figure S-2 shows comparative results when the quarry is supplied alternatively from the Eno River, Lake Michie. and/or Little River Lake. The following are summary comments pertaining to these analyses,, 4e1. At a diversion rate from the Eno River of 5 mgd. the safe yield of the City's supply could be increased by 7..3 mgd to 9.0 mgd, depending on the level of quarry storage utilized. 2. If the State were to permit the U"'It'y to C111&Vert flow from the Eno River ai' a maximum rate of up to 50 mgd, while maintaining minimum downstream flows in accordance with the Capacity Use Investigation, safe yield could be increased by up to 11,,8 mgd, depending on the level of quarry storage utilized. Table Sm-1 Safe Yield of Teer Quarry With Alternative Levels of Quarry Storage and Diversion from The Eno River S-3 a r i I f I 3. Diversion from the Eno River at a rate higher than. 5 mgd would, in addition to increasing safe yield, also reduce the length of time that Teer Quarry would remain less than full,, As listed in the column titled "Longest Drought Days" in Table S-1, with river diversion limited to S m d, the quarrywould take from 28 to 69 months to refill Burin the. Ion est drought, depending on the level of quarry storage utilized. Increasing the rate of diversion to 50 mad would shorten th�maximumguarry fill time to less than oneeary__ which is very desirable from the standpoint of water supply planning and management,. 4. The Column titled "% Days Q Pumped from Quarry" lists the percentage of total days during the record drought that flow would be pumped from the quarry to the C'Ity's WTPs. In accordance with criteria discussed in Section 3, the model assumes that one half of the quarry safe yield is pumped when either of the City I s reservoirs is one foot or more below normal level and that the full quarry safe yield is pumped when both reservoirs are one foot or more below normal. 5. Assuming that the State were to limit withdrawals from the Eno River to 5 Mgd, the rate of withdrawal from the quarry could be lowered (equivalent to reducing'. safe yield) to a level that would ensure that it would refit! within any nth period, even during the longest drought c f record. However, analysis indicates that, if the quarry were operated in this manner, storage utilization during severe droughts would be limited to less that 500 million gallons, and the net gain in safe yield would be reduced to ap..proximately 4.2 mgd. This translates to a reduction of more than 3 mgd from the gain in safe yield that could be achieved if the reservoir were developed to the 1.32 billion gallon storage level (refer Table S-1, Row 1). Increasing the rate of withdrawal to utilize mere storage within the quarry; while holding the maximum fill rate to 5 m9d, would inev*tably lengthen the time required to replenish the reservoir during a drought. 6. The safe yield values listed in Table S-1 for the individual reservoirs are of less importance than the total values listed for all sources. The safe yield of the quarry is higher than might be expected, and even exceeds the indicated rates of diversion from the Eno River because. in accordance with the operating rules listed in Section 3, Table 3-4, raw water is pumped from the quarry only during those periods -when the levels of Lake M*ich'ie and Little River Lake are more than one foot below their respective normal levels. During the remaining, relatively wet, periods, all raw water i's assumed to be 4L supplied by the existing reservoirs. 7. The safe yield results summarized in the table and figures are based on idealized hydraulic conditions, in which all river flow above the required minimum downstream flow is diverted to the quarry up to the indicated $- 10 IP maximum diversion rate. As is discussed in report Section 4, it wiil probably S-5 t not be possible to achieve such idealized conditions in practice due to 4k practical limitations in desiin ind operation of the river intake. These limitations, which may effectively reduce safe yield from the values shown will vary depending on intake and related con stage. the design and level of sophistication Df tile river trots but -should be fully. assessed during the design 8. Figure S-2 shows that the safe yield that could 11111111D e developed b y filling the quarry with water pumping from Lake Michie/Little Rive mgd to 10 mgd would be from 2.4 mgd to 3.3 mgd l r ess t Lake at a rate of 5 han could be achieved by diverting flow at the same rate from the Eno River. 9. Figure S-2 also shows that supplying the quarry at a rate of 5 mgd from Little River Lake i'n addition to a 5 mgd supply from Lake Michie would not result in an appreciable increase in safe yield over that achieved by pumping solely from Lake Michie at 5 mgd. 10. Although drought duration is not reflected in Figure S-2, the quarry would remain less than full for considerably longer PeriOaS IT Tilled TroM Lake M'ichie and/or Little River Lake instead of the Eno River. For example, at a comparative fill rate of 5 mgd during the li,Dngest period of drought, the quarry would not completely refill for a period of over 41/2 years if filled from Lake Michie versus less than 2'/2 years if filled from the Eno River. 11. Analysis indicates that lowering the instream fl he Eno never Capacity Use Investigate by t increase in safe yield. Conceptual Design Report Section 4 discusses conceptua River to divert flow into the quarry and that would deliver flow from the quarry ow below the levels required on would not result in a substantial l designs for a new structure on the Eno for a quarry intake and pumping facility to the City S Brown and/or Williams WTPS. For development of quarry storage up to 2�65 feet, the Eno River diversion structure can be aesigned as a intake and gravity T iow connection i� ii�e quallya This connection, at a del 1h of 40 feet below grade, would either be tunneled or constructed as a pipe installed an a deep trench. Flow diversion could potentially be controlled by a simple weir and gate arrangement. However, preliminary analysis indicates that a more sophisticated approach will be necessary to achieve the level of flow control required to maximize the quarry safe yield. Detailed studies will be necessary to determine parameters for intake design. An intake arrangement that does not involve construction of a weir or other structure across the river is recommended in order to avoid the need far a Section 404 permit. S-6 O F i J i k IL L_ '■ yield Df 28 mgd, is approximately $1-6/gaI. it should be note d that the actual sale ;'lPld that can be developed may e affected bV State permit conditions for withdrawals of water from the Eno River a nd/or by practical limitatio()n HPIQ1 nsnn lnd operation of the river intake . Estl* Item Table S-2 mated Costs for Project Design and Construction Total Project Cost Net Safe Yield. (Mgd) Cost ($/ga Cost for Indicated Level of Development Elm 265 feet $113150 000 9.10 $1.24 El 285 feet $1510005()00 100.7 $1,,40 Table 6-2 is a summary of estimate nr(Ir- r-..„f,ryI�,,.,,�..,�.. El 300 fte $18t050)000 11.8 $1653 S11111111113 yenta! �n�+ � n�tri y��1�1UecoTor equipment a ,action reC�!�1 ir?rl tp p�rrprn, o�� the existing water stored in the quarry. Table 6-2 does not inclHIP rnctc fr,Y ar extension of an eleci desel-driven pumps trical service if motor..drivenun c are provided maintenancn eeuoorf Table Swz3 Summary of Estimated Costs for Pumpi� Out Existing Water Stored in Quarry Item Cost 2 months LIM rental 1,I ora 500 feet of 6-inch temP � 25000 ry pipin $100000 Connections and related valves $ 507000 30% En ineering and contin en cies $ 50000 TotaIT2$25,000 - W%M� Table S-3 is a summary of estimated ordinterim use of t truction costs for These costs assume that rrom either the existing Eno River intake and/or from Lake Michie/Little River Lake at a rate of 5 mgd. Costs are included for purchase of trailer-monted constant-speed pumps of the capacity required. These pumps could be placed in storage and hothe quarry during periods of severe drought. Barge -mounted pumps would also be aoption--thogcost ois item would probably increase several fold --as would pump rental. Estimated costs for related piping and connections are as noted above for Table 6-2. Costs for engineering evaluaticns and design assume that the Ciy woucomplete the task of identifying private wellsand sepic systemsin the vicinitythe quarry using its own forces and that the recommended geotechnicainvestigations would be completed by outside consultants. �.•.y� nwuc l.Vl IJe quarry as a water supply reservoir.water wou d hP n��►7,no.r f„ +k„ �..____ r . . S.9 r. t 6. The safe yield values listed in Table 3-6 for the individual reservoirs are of less sted for all sources. The safe yield nf the quarry and even exceeds the indicated rates of diversion from the Eno River because. in accordance with the operating rules listed in Table 3-4, raw Ovate than 3 mgd from the gain in safe yield that could be achieved if the reservoir were developed to the 1.32 billion gallon storage level (refer Table 3d-6, Row 1). Increasing the rate of withdrawal to utilize more storage within the quarry, while holding the maximum fill rate to 5 mgd, would inevitably lengthen the time required to replenish the reservoir during a drought. importance than the total values is higher than might be expected • is pumped from t the levels of Lake Michie and Little River he quarry only during those periods when Lake are more than one foot below their respecu&viwe i ��rr i jai levels. During the remaining water is supplied by the existing reservoirs. � elto-l-�iV��jl wet, pt':1,10US, ctii � a`�ir' 7. The results summarized in Figure 3-3 and Table 3-6 are based on idealized 1P Ithydraulic conditions, in which all river flow above the required min1h imum downstream flow is diverted to the quarry up to the indicated maximum diversion rate. �s is discussed i^ report ScCiiOCI �� ii'vb'iii �^iiC��''i2iuiy ^ ^vi �e poss�Ul� iC akch'ieve such idealized conditions in practice due tO practical limitations in design and do operation of the river intake. These limitations, which may effectively reduce safe yield from the values shown, will vary depending on the design and level of sophistication of the river intake and '0 during the design stage. related controls but should be fully assessed Additional analyses were performed to evaluate the impacts on safe yield of supplying the quarry from Lake Michie and Little River instead of from the Eno River. The following are comments on the results of these analyses, which are summarized in Figure 3@-4. These analyses are all based on a quarry storage volume of 1320 MG. i . Tne safe yield that cou'u be developec by fil"ling the quarry V!"L'I wat r PUmping from Lake Michie ata rateof 5 mgd to 10 mgd, would befrom 2.4 m.gdto3.3 mgd less than could be achieved by diverting flow at the same rate from the Eno River. 2. SUPPly�ng the nij;;r,ry VME"% WA.W-ft IN at a Cite of 5 mncl from I ittlP Riper Lake in qdditinn to a 5 mgd supply from Lake Michie would not result in an appreciable increase in safe yield over that achieved by pumping solely from Lake Michie at 5 mgu. 3. Although drought duration is not reflected in Figure 3-4, the quarry would remain less than fuji for consi,derably longer PE?rlOuS ;f fIlled from Lake MiC.1,hle and/or Little River Lake instead of from the Eno River, For example, at a comparative fill rate of 5 mgd during the longest period of drought, the quarry would not COmpletely .-,-,refill for a period of over 41/2 years if filled from aK617VHcnie versus raw less than 2'/��ears ij e-C) T r Q-- River.--------�---------_ 3-14 �3 i r A final set of analyses was-perfor ed to evaluate the impacts of changing the operating assumptions and rules as listed in Table 3-4. The findings of these additional analyses 4 are summarized below. 1. Modify Eno River instream bi flow requirement: Lowering the instream TIC W requirement during March through May from 30 cts per the Eno River Capacity Use Study to 10 cfs would result in no app rE ciaDie increasp. i maximum inc rease of Lowering the instream flow requirement of 10 for the other months of the year was not evaluated because this flow is considered to be a minimum n safe yield for 0.4 mgd. 'EL- %WW an-qt coof nditions anal}2P� ?nd an a 2. Safe yield would be increased only very marginally if, instead of quarry tiulely from the Mno nivpr ai a a iversion 0 Ppu pea from Lake micne0 a iat a rate of 5 mgCJS 3. Pursuant to Rule 2B in Table 3-4, the quarry until the lake level(s) fall to one foot below normal. Evaluation of transfers from rate .f 5 mgd supplying the TIOW were a!so raised t normal is filled from the existing reservoirs Lake Michie indicate that safe yield would not be affected if the trigger depth was 0 0.5 feet below normal, while lowering the trigger depth to 2 feet below would argi'nally decrease safe yield. 4. Pursuant to Rule 3A fen Table 3-4, during wet weather periods, all raw water is supplied from the existing re normally supplied from the d ir supplies half of the water Analysis indicates that safe yield would not be affectedty adjusti ng the percentage of flow supplied by Lake Michie during these periods. 5. Pursuant to Rule 3B in Table 3.4, pumping from the quarry, commences when the level of Lake Mici�ie or Little River Like falls to mire than 1 foot belnvv nor al M low, level. Adjusting this "trigger" depth upwards to 0..". feet does not appreciable affect IN safe yield, while adjusting the trigger downward to 2 feet marginally decreases safe yield. 6. The safe yield model also includes an adjustable setting, referred to as supplementary pumping from Lake Michie, to evaluate the impacts on safe yield of increasing the rate of pumping from Lake Michie when its level is higher, than that in Little River Lake. This feature was added il i recognition of the fact that the water supply potential (equivalent to average streamflow) o e 167 square mile Lake Michie drainage is considerably greater than that available from the 98 square mile Little River Lake drainage. As a result, during drought conditions, the water level of servoirs; each reservo uring drought periods. 3-15 F of F" IMPORTA INFORMATION REGARDING A PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING ZONING MAP CHANGE REQUEST CITY OF DURHAM DURHAM COUNTY IJL 4 . C� Case Numbers. Z1900016 � Hebron Village Body Conducting This Public Hearing Planning Commission Time and Date of Public Hearing 530 pm on November 12,, 2019 Location of Public Hearing Council Chambers at 101 City Hall Plaza, Durham, NC 27701 Property Ad -dress or Location of Subject 472DeLLr,',�2�d Strut Property Residential Suburban-20 (RS-20) Residential Existing Zoning SuburbanA40 (RS=10), Eno River District B (Es-13), Falls/Jordan District B (F/JmB) Planned Development Residential 5,117 (PDR Requested Zoning 5.117), Eno River District B (EwB), Falls/Jordan District B (F/J-*-B) Dear Property Owner, As a recipient of this letter, you either own a property near another property for which a Zoning Map change (ZMC) has been requested, or your property is included in the requested change. A description of zoning: Zon4 ing is a series of laws that regulate the density., location, size, and type of buildings allowed on parcels of land. A Zoning Map change refers to the process by which an owner or other proponent requests to change the zoning designation for a particular parcel or set of parcels, often resulting i*n a different set of uses, densities, intensities, and other site characteristics than those currently allowed, P'lease no'Le that most ZJViC requests require two public hearings. 1-he i`isrstq Puoiic nearing is cona'uctea 'ay the Planning Commission, a 14-member citizen advisory board appointed by the City Council and the Board of County Commissioners to advise the elected boards on land use and planning matters. The final decision to approve or deny any requested ZMC request rests with the City Council (for properties within city jurisdiction) or the Board of County Commissioners (for properties within county jurisdiction). Any interested partly may appear and speak at either public hearing. Please be advised that substantial changes to the proposed action may be made during and following a public hearing, prior to the final decision. If you would like additional information on the proposed action, the agenda and staff report will be posted on our website approximately one week before the hearing at the following link: http.-,//durhamnc. ov/PC. You may also contact me at EmIlY.Struthers@[ urhamNC. ov or at 919,.560,.4137 ext. 282639 � >t with 18 roses — one for each of or matt. dees C& newso bserver.com, �oos- N� Council approves storage studies BY MICHAEL BMSECKER STAFF WRITER DURHAM - With Durhami"n the grip of a prolonged drought de. the cold rain faUing Mon- daynight, the'Ci Council inched closer to using an old rock quarry stream by Orange County, and the river's flow can slow to a trickle ion extremely dry condi- tions. City officials say the quarry could retain water pumped out of the nearby Eno during the spring rainy season. Once the current study las tom- Plete, ththeCity Council is consid- eredlikely to spend the money to Put the plan into action — esti- mated to be more than $11 milm to ease future shortages in lion. If approved, the quarrycould Durham's water supply. be in use by 2010. _ Durham has been looking at us- Before the councff's 7 p.m. meet- ing the old T r Quarry on the ing, about 20 people marched 9 dst�'north side for nearly 30 years from the Durham County court - because of its potential to hold as house three blocks to City Hall much as1.3 billion gallons of wam as part of a silent protest against ter. Once full, early estimates say violence in the community. The up to 9 milliorgamzedon gallons of water a march was in the wake day could be drawn back out — of a quadruple homicide ion the enough to supply about one-third city Ih November. Cheryl Smith, of the ei 's daily usage. whoseson was killed in a separate "It's a readyatmade way to add to November shooting, walked at our capacity," said Patrick $alter, the front of in the group. the Durham city manager. "I don't Later, members of the council think.we would be putting this elected last month were sworn much money and resources into it in., They included incumbent unless we were serious about do-w Mayor Bill Bell, Mayor Pro Tem Mg it." Cara Cole -McFadden and council On Monday, the council voted member Howard Cle ent., New- 7-0 to spend $187,550 to tom- comer Mike Woodard, who won Plete 48 environmental studies and the seat representing the city's an engineering assessment of Ward 3, also took the oath. what it would take to bring the Before outgoing Ward 3 coun-P quarry into use. The city already cil member John Best Jr. gave up has spent more than $300,000 in his seat, he have a lengthy speech Studies to confirm the feasibility that lashed out at the media and of us ing the quarry for water storm made light off his oft -reported per - age. The city has signed n-O-D6- sonal nd legal troubles. to buy the big hole from its cur.. `�'hese last four years have been rent owner, Hanson Aggregates teresting. I've been through two Southeast Inc. [city] managers, two wives and Durham already Ias reservoirs four lawye*�s," quipped Best, on two o its three major water whose farewell address ran about sources the Little River and 15 mionutes."Now it-s time to re - the Flat River — but those lakes lax, thanks to Mr. Woodard and have been badly depleted during the voters. I've been given a vam. the current drought, forcing cation, and I need one." mandatory water restrictions. The city can also draw water Staff writer Michael Blesecker from the Eno River, but that can be reached at 956=2421 source is dammed farther up- or mbiaeseck@newsobservercom, 8-6-20; 9 am; Phone call received from Mrs. Layman, who lives near the old quarry (Roxboro and Monk Streets). She is concerned that a new high school will attract even more kids to trespass into the quarry, which is very dangerous. Kids have drowned and there have been suicides. The city police are trying to keep them out, giving tickets lately, but the neighbors are having to step in to chase kids away or call police. Very worried that it will become even more of an attractive danger with the new HS next door. She asked what the City is planning to do to prevent trespassing/accidents at the quarry? She indicated she would follow up with an email for the official record. From: Neisha Reynolds To: Michelle Suverkrubbe Subject: Proposed Northern High School Replacement Date: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 3:58:37 PM I am a resident of Old Farm Neighborhood. I am interested in the environmental impact study related to placing Northern Highschool Campus in close proximity to the neighborhood where I reside. I understand that there are concerns about the impact on the watershed being in close proximity to the Eno River watershed. I share those concerns in addition to concerns as a resident about how light and noise pollution will be managed throughout the proposed development - in general how the greenspace will be preserved as a buffer to the commercial development. I am also curious to know how and whether walkability and bike/pedestrian planning is being integrated with the preservation of greenspace to protect the quality of life of my family and elderly neighbors, throughout the development planning? I can be reached for follow up at the following: 5102 Partridge Street Durham, NC 27704 Neisha Reynolds, MPA (m) 917-287-4007 neishadr&gmail.com Thank you and best regards! Power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is power correcting everything that stands against love." - Martin Luther King, Jr.