EPA 904/9-76-018
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
CRABTREE CREEK, WAKE COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
INTERCEPTOR SEWER
EPA PROJECT C 370344
PREPARED BY
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309
IN COOPERATION WITH
THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES
-------
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
CRABTREE CREEK, WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
INTERCEPTOR SEWER
EPA PROJECT C370344
Prepared By
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
Atlanta, Georgia 3030Q
In cooperation with
The State of North Carolina
Department of Natural and Economic Resources
Approved by
gional Administrator Datef
RECEIVED
JUL231976
EPA REGION. 5
OFFICE OF REGIONAL
ADMINISTRATOR
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. General Descriptive Information
A, Project History 10
B. Project Description 12
1. Proposed Project Facilities 14
a. Oak Park to Richland Creek 14
b. Richland Creek 15
c. Force Main and Pumping Station 15
d. 1-40 to Gary Wastewater Treatment Plant lfi
2, Service Areas ig
a. Richland Creek interceptor 1?
b. Mobile City Interceptor . lg
c, Morrisville Interceptor 2o
d. Coles Branch Interceptor 20
e. Future Service Areas -2i
C, Description of Project Area- 24
1. Natural Resources 24
a. Surface Water 24
b. Geology 26
c. Soils 27
d. Groundwater 28
e. Climate 29
f. Vegetation and Wildlife 30
g. Air Quality 33
2. community Resources 36
a. Wastewater Systems 36
b. Water Supply 37
3. Population Projections . 38
II. Interrelationship With Other Projects, Programs
or Efforts 42
A. Federal - 42
1. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 42
2. Soil conservation Service (SCS) 43
3. Corps of Engineers (COE) 47
g^ State __ .___... -... .- 48
cl Region J Research Triangle Planning
Commission 50
D. Wake County 50
E. Cities 52
1. Raleigh 52
2. Gary 54
F. Public 55
-------
III. Alternatives .- . 57
A. No Action 57
B. Alternative Routing . 61
1, Walnut CreeK . 61
2. Pump to New Hope Basin . 62
C, Reduced Scope - 64
IV. Impact of the Proposed Project . 68
A. Primary Impacts . 68
1, Beneficial Impacts . 68
2. Adverse Impacts . 70
a, Wastewater and Sludge Disposal . 70
b. Erosion and Sedimentation , 71
c. Construction Inconveniences and Annoyances_72
d. Aesthetics 73
e. Disruption of Natural Drainage Patterns 75
f. Archeological, Historical and Cultural 76
g. SCS Flood Control Structures -77
3. Alterations of Ecosystems 77
U. Growth and Development Impacts 83
B. Secondary Impacts 85
1. Stream Flow 86
2. Erosion and Sedimentation 89
3. Water Quality 91
4, Community Services and Utilities 94
5. Air Quality Assessment 98
V. Adverse Impacts Which Cannot Be Avoided and
Mitigative Measures 102
A. Adverse Impacts That Cannot Be Avoided . 102
1. Primary Impacts 102
2. Secondary Impacts 103
B. Mitigative Measures to Adverse Primary Impacts _m
1. Wastewater and Sludge Disposal .
2. Erosion and Sedimentation . 104
3. Archeological Impacts 108
4. SCS Flood Control Structures 109
5. Aesthetic Losses 109
6, Alterations of Ecosystems 110
C, Mitigative Measures to Secondary Impacts 115
1. Flooding -115
a. SCS Flood Control Project 116
b. Floodplain and Floodway Ordinances ng
c. Stormwater Runoff Ordinances 124
d. Downstream Flood Protection Measures 126
2. Erosion and Sedimentation . 127
3. Water Quality . 129
-------
VI. Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of
Man's Environment and the Maintenance and
Enhancement of Long-term Productivity 133
VII. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of
Resources 135
VIII. comments by Interested Persons, Organizations,
Federal, State, and Local Agencies and Response
to These Comments _ . 137
111
-------
List of Figures
No.. Title Page
Fig. 1 Crabtree Creek Interceptor Sewer 12a
Fig. 2 Existing Land Uses 16a
Fig. 3 Proposed Open Space - Adopted Thorough-
fare Plans 16b
Fig. 4 Upper Crabree Creek Basin Present and
Ultimate Sewage Loading 17a
Fig. 5 Wastewater Collection System, Gary, N.C. 21a
Fig. 6 Bedrock Geology 24a
Fig. 7 Soils 27a
Fig. 8 Wake Wastewater Facilities Pl.an, Wake
County, North Carolina 36a
Fig. 9 Wake Water Facilities Plan, Wake County,
North Carolina 37a
Fig, 10 Project Total Water Use for Wake County
and Raleigh 37b
Fig. 11 Future Projected Areas Served by
Municipal Water Systems - Wake County,
North Carolina 37c
Fig. 12 Wake County Population Projections,
1970-2000 38a
Fig. 13 Town of Gary Population Projections,
1970-2000 38b
Fig. 14 Town of Morrisville Population
Projections, 1970-2000 3gc
Fig. 15 SCS Flood Control Project Map, Crabtree
Creek Watershed 46a
Fig. 16 Flood Stage Profiles 46b
Fig. 17 Crabtree Creek Interceptor Sewer,
Perimeter Service Areas 52a
Fig. 18 Effects of Urban Development on Flood
Hydrographs ' R7a
Fig. 19 Effect of Urbanization on Mean Annual
Flood 87b
Fig. 20 Thoroughfare Plan, Wake County 953
IV
-------
List of Tables
Title
12
Table 1 Project Costs
Table 2 Population and Wastewater Usage
Projections ----------------------- 18
Table 3 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat ------- 31a
Table 4 National Primary and Secondary Ambient
Air Quality Standards ------------ 35a
Table 5 Crabtree Creek Watershed Projections- 3 9
Table 6 SCS Flood Control Structure Data ---- 45a
Table 7 2020 Capacity - Walnut Creek
Interceptor ----------------------- 6ia
Table 8 1970 Capacity - Crabtree Creek
Intercepting Sewer ---------------- 61b
Table 9 Requests for Point Source Discharge -69
Table 10 Average Annual Flood Damages -------- gga
Table 11 Service Area Property Owners ------- 133a,b,c
Appendices
No,
Title
1 Initial Public Correspondence
2 Notice of Intent
3 Inspection Reports and Data on Existing
Wastewater Treatment Plants
H Woody Vegetation Inventory
5 Region J Concurrence 201
6 Handout Distributed at the Corps of
Engineers1 November 28, 1973
Public Meeting on the
Crabtree Creek Study 2Q4
7 Wake County Plan of Action 2li
8 Raleigh Resolution to Establish a Policy
for the Extension OF City Facilities 23i
9 Project Flood Control Petition 233
10 Request for Archeological Study 335
11 Public Hearing 2op
12 Written Comments 040
13 Flood Frequency Data ,
14 Archeological Survey
15 Vegetative Survey
16 Greenway Plan
v
-------
Page
17 Comments From the North Carolina
Department of Natural and Economic
Resources and Response 494
18 Status of Flood Control Projects 509
VI
-------
SUMMARY SHEET FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
CRABTREE CREEK, WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Draft ( )
Final (X)
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
1421 Peaentree Street, N. E,
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
1. Administrative Action (X)
Legislative Action ( )
2. The subject action of this Environmental Impact
Statement is the awarding of grant funds for the
construction of an interceptor sewer line in Wake County,
North Carolina to service the upper drainage basin of
Crabtree Creek. The present EPA grant, offer is $2,415,750
of a total estimated project cost of $5,300,000 for
approximately 92,000 linear feet of pipe sized from *8M to
12", 12,600 linear feet of 20" force main, and one pumping
station,
3. The major impacts of the project are divided into
the following: a) beneficial, b) growth and development, c)
primary adverse and d) secondary adverse impacts. The main
beneficial impact of the project is the establishment of a
1.
-------
regional wastewater collection system providing for (1) the
elimination of present and possible future wastewater
discharges to Crabtree Creek and its tributaries, (2)
discontinuance of use of septic tanks in the unsuitable
soils in the Opper Crabtree Basin, and (3) factors other
than wastewater disposal to be the developmental constraints
in this basin.
The major growth and development impact will be the
stimulation of the rate of development and the allowance of
increased densities in the project service area.
The major primary and secondary adverse impacts are
listed below followed by mitigative factors and recommended
control measures.
A. Primary
a. Construction Erosion and Sedimentation
Sewer line construction adjacent to a waterway presents
a potential for significant amounts of soil erosion from
excavation and surface traffic. In order to lessen this
potential impact. Wake County shall provide to EPA and the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control commission for approval
an erosion and sedimentation control plan which indicates
those specifications to be included in the construction
contract for the proposed project. As a minimum, control
2.
-------
measures shall comply with the North Carolina and Wake
County erosion and sedimentation control requirements and
whenever possible provide a 10 meter {33 feet) buffer
between the creek bank and the edge of the construction
right-of-way.
b. Archeological and Historical
A surface survey along the construction right-of-way
revealed three potentially significant archeological sites
(Appendix 14). The applicant will work with the North
Carolina State Archeologist before project construction to
insure that no irreparable damage will be done to
significant cultural resources.
c. Odors
Since the proposed project is approximately 10 miles
long and ties in with an interceptor that is also about 10
miles long, there is a possibility that the wastewater may
become anaerobic and produce offensive odors. To alleviate
this potential impact, the design of the lift station will
include facilities for aeration of the wastewater.
d. Alteration of Ecosystems
The proposed project will clear a 12.5 meter (40 ft.)
right-of-way. Preservation of certain unique vegetative
communities is desirable for use in the proposed greenway
3.
-------
system and for other recreational and aesthetic uses, A
vegetative survey was conducted to identify unique areas
(Appendix 15}. Route realignment will be considered in
those areas identified as specified in Section 6 of Chapter
V.
B. Secondary
a. Flooding
Development of the Upper Crabtree Creek Basin associated
with the proposed project will increase the probability of
damages from flooding in downstream areas. The completion
of the SCS flood control project is one method of mitigating
this adverse impact. Grant funds shall be withheld from the
proposed project until all land rights have been acquired
for Soil Conservation Service Control Structures located
within each proposed service area, or until other structural
and non-structural measures are taken, including, but not
limited to, channel improvement, flood proofing, urban
runoff controls, developmental restrictions, and other land
use modifications which will insure an equivalent amount of
flood protection as determined by the State of North
Carolina, the SCS, the COE, and the EPA.
-------
b. Developmental Erosion and Sedimentation
Development of the Upper Crabtree Basin will
significantly increase the amount of sediment reaching
Crabtree Creek. Wake County has enacted the Wake County
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance in order to
reduce this potential impact.
c. Demand for Community Services
The project will allow an increase in the rate and
density of growth in the service area. Associated with this
growth is the need for water supply, transportation, power,
schools, open space and recreational facilities, shopping
areas, fire and police protection, health facilities, and
garbage pickup. In order to adequately supply these
services, a comprehensive program of land use and community
services planning should be initiated.
4, The alternatives considered were the "no action"
alternative and possible alternative routing systems to
satisfy the wastewater collection needs of the upper
Crabtree Creek basin. A routing along Walnut Creek to the
Neuse River Sewage Treatment Plant and a system discharging
to the New Hope Basin are evaluated. Reducing the scope of
the project is also considered.
5.
-------
The proposed project, is considered the most appropriate
course of action following provisions of flood protection.
For purposes of this EIS, EPA, Region IV, Atlanta,
Georgia is the "responsible Federal agency" as required by
NEPA.
5, The following Federal, State, and local agencies
and interested groups have submitted written comments on the
draft impact statement. These comments are included as
Appendix 12.
Forest Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture
U. S, Army Corps of Engineers
Federal Power Commission
U. S. Coast Guard, U. S, Department of Transportation
U. S. Department of the Interior
U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Federal Highway Administration, U. S. Department of
Transportation
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic
Resources
North Carolina Department of Agriculture
Wake County Department of Natural Resources
6.
-------
Wake Soil and Water Conservation District
Triangle J, Council of Governments
Water Resources Institute, University of North Carolina
City of Raleigh, North Carolina
League of Women Voters of Raleigh-Wake County
Oak Park - Glen Forest - Deblyn Park Civic Association
Sierra Club, Joseph Leconte Chapter
Crabtree Creek Citizens Assistance Committee
Mr, Robert E. Giles, Private Citizen
Mr. Russell C. Walton, Jr., Private Citizen
Mr. James L. Briley, Private Citizen
Dr. Terry S. Dunn and Dr. William L. Dunn, Private
Citizens
Ms. Lucille Grissom, Private Citizen
Ms. Mary H. Chappell, Private Citizen
Mr. Rex Gary Schmidt, Private Citizen
Mr. Lloyd M, Hedgepeth, Private Citizen
Mrs, Ben L. Clifton, Private Citizen
Mr. Irvin B. Tucker, Jr., Private Citizen
Mr, David F. Portet, Private Citizen
Mr. and Mrs. Robert Butler, Private Citizens
Mr. Russell Lee Walton, Private Citizen
Mr, Charles Patta, Private Citizen
7.
-------
Mr. Bill White, Private Citizen
Mr. D. E, Herdren, Private Citizen
Ms. Martha Walton, Private Citizen
Ms. Margie G. Walton, Private Citizen
Ms. Mary Walton, Private Citizen
Mr. Thomas G. Crews, Jr., Private Citizen
Mr. James C. Johnson, Private Citizen
Mr. Russell Walk, Jr., Private Citizen
Mr. Joe A. Marlin, Private Citizen
Mr. John W. Cromwell, Jr., Private Citizen
6. The Draft of this Statement was made available to
the Council on Environmental Quality and the Public on
January 31, 1975. A public hearing was held on March 13,
1975, a transcript of which is included as Appendix 11.
Copies of this Final Environmental Impact Statement were
delivered to the Council and made available to the Public on
July 15, 1976.
8.
-------
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
CRABTREE CREEK, WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
INTERCEPTOR SEWER
EPA PROJECT C370344
I. GENERAL DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION
The Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, through Title II of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act {PL 92-500), is authorized to make grants to any
State, municipality or intermunicipal or interstate agency
for the construction of publicly-owned treatment works. The
Federal share of construction costs shall be 75 percent of
the total eligible costs. Each applicant for a grant shall
submit plans, specifications, and cost estimates for
approval, and must show that such works are in conformance
with applicable areawide or State plans. Further, the
proposed works must be certified by the appropriate State
water pollution control agency as entitled to priority over
other works in the State, and that the size and capacity of
such works, relate directly to the needs to be served by
such works, including sufficient reserve capacity.
Wake County, in response to present and future
anticipated water quality problems, has requested funds for
the construction of an interceptor sewer line t;o service the
9.
-------
Upper Crabtree Watershed area. At present, nine existing
wastewater treatment plants discharge to Crabtree Creek or
its tributaries; the Brier Creek Plant, Mobile City Plant,
Cary*s Coles Branch Plant, three plants in the little Brier
Creek Basin, two plants on Sycamore Creek, and one facility
serving a quarry on Crabtree Creek. Septic tank
malfunctions and applications for site approvals for
additional treatment facilities in this basin further
indicate the need for a comprehensive program for waste-water
transmission and treatment.
A. Project History
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received an
application on June 30, 1971 for grant funds for the
construction of an interceptor sewer to serve Morrisville, a
mobile home park, a portion of Gary, and future service
areas west of Raleigh, North Carolina, An environmental
impact appraisal was made from information supplied by the
applicant, Wake County, North Carolina, and a negative
declaration was published on December 12, 1972. On December
29, 1972 EPA offered Wake County $2,145,750, which was 75
percent of the total eligible project costs. This grant
offer was formally accepted by the Wake county
Commissioners.
10.
-------
Following the grant announcement, concerned persons
contacted EPA, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ),
and the North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic
Resources. Ms. Anne Taylor, Conservation Chairman of the
Research Triangle Group, Sierra Club, and Mr. Floyd
Hedgepeth and Mr. Robert E. Giles, representing the Oak
Park-Glen Forest-Deblyn Park Civic Association, expressed
concern about flooding, sediment control, floodplain
regulation, and area planning (Chapter II.E and Appendix 1) .
The CEQ also forwarded additional information that had been
brought to its attention by the League of Women Voters, Wake
Environment, and the Sierra Club.
After review of the new information, and consultation
with the State of North Carolina Department of Natural and
Economic Resources, agreement was made to prepare a joint
Federal-State environmental impact statement, and a notice
of intent was released on September 2, 1973. (Appendix 2)
11.
-------
B. Project Description
The EPA project 370344, Crabtree Creek, Wake County,
North Carolina, includes interceptor sewer lines, a force
main, and a pumping station. (Figure 1). Table 1 gives
projected costs, available funds and desired additional
funds.
Table 1
Project Costs Table (August 24, 1973)
Project Summary
Land & Rights-of-way $ 300,000
Construction 4,195,386
A/E Services 300,000
Legal & Fiscal 76,000
Administrative 10,000
Project contingency 418 f 614
TOTAL PROJECT COST $5,300,000
Available Funds
EPA Grant Offer* (75S) $2,445,750
State Supplemental Grant* (12.5%} 407,625
Acreage Fees (Advance) 450,000
Additional To Be Requested (EPA) 1,203,140
Additional To Be Requested (N.C.) 192,375
County of Wake 320,000
Town of Gary 180,000
TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDS $57300,000
* EFA ruled $3,261,000 as eligible costs in their grant
offer of 12-29-72,
NOTE: Revised cost estimates by Wake Engineering Study
Group
12.
-------
CRABTREE CREEK INTERCEPTOR
SEWER
-------
The effluent from this project will be routed to the
existing interceptor at the old non-operating Oak Park
Wastewater Treatment Plant on Crabtree Creek. This 30-inch
interceptor is expected to be adequate until 1985 or 1990,
at which time a parallel 42-inch interceptor is planned.
Paralleling of part of this interceptor is required
regardless of the contribution from the proposed project due
to increased flows from existing service areas. The
wastewater from the Crabtree Creek project will be conveyed
via the existing and future interceptors to the new Neuse
River Wastewater Treatment Plant now under construction.
The initial plant capacity will be 30 million gallons per
day (mgd) with secondary extended aeration biological
treatment followed by sand filtration. Average biological
oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended solids (SS) removal are
anticipated to be 97-98 percent, giving an effluent
containing approximately 6 parts per million (ppm) BOD and 5
ppm SS. Ultimate capacity is expected to be 100 mgd by
incremental increases in plant size. The impacts associated
with this plant are not within the scope of this EIS.
13.
-------
1, Proposed Project Facilities
For discussion, the proposed project facilities are
separated into four segments; Oak Park to Richland Creek,
Richland Creek, force main and pumping station, and 1-40 to
Gary's wastewater treatment plant (See Figure 1).
a. Oak Park to Richland Creek
The proposed 48-inch interceptor sewer ties in with the
existing system at the old Oak Park Wastewater Treatment
Plant located off Oak Park Road on the north edge of
Crabtree Creek, The line then follows a westerly course
through the backyards of property owners on a 40-foot right-
of-way. The interceptor is to be placed at an average depth
of ten feet except at station 10+00, where drainage for an
existing ditch must be provided. The interceptor crosses
Crabtree Creek at station 25+38.65, approximately 850 feet
south of Duraleigh Road, and then passes under the Duraleigh
Road bridge.
The interceptor must then pass the Nello Teer Rock
Quarry, near two settling ponds situated close to the creek.
The interceptor crosses Crabtree Creek at station 45+57
and back at 52+82. It then proceeds upstream to where it
follows Richland Creek.
14.
-------
b. Richland Creek
From the confluence with Crabtree Creek a 42-inch
interceptor crosses under Richland Creek and follows the
west bank. It crosses Ebenezer Church Road and Reedy Creek
Road, In these areas occasional steep slopes may
necessitate placement close to the bank. On the southwest
side of Reedy Creek Road the interceptor splits to a 36-inch
main and a 21-inch main. The 36-inch main connects to the
20-inch force main around Umstead State Park, and the 21-
inch main serves the Upper Richland Creek Basin.
c. Force Main and Pumping Station
The 20-inch force main connects to the 36-inch interceptor
line at Trenton Road, passes under 1-40, and roughly follows
Interstate 40 northwest to the pumping station located
slightly southwest of 1-40 on Crabtree Creek. This pumping
station will have three pumps initially with future plans
for a fourth. Two 750 gallons per minute (gpm) and one 2000
gpm pumps are planned, operating on power supplied by three
150 horsepower (hp) electric motors with a standby
generator. Initial capacity would be 2000 gpm (2.88 mgd).
Ultimate capacity is projected to be 12,000 gpm (17,3 mgd).
15.
-------
d. 1-40 to Cary Wastewater Treatment Plant
The sewer then follows the southern edge of the proposed
Soil Conservation Service's (SCS) flood control structure
No. 23 and passes under the flood pool on Reedy Creek. At
station 178+66.21 the 15-inch Mobile City interceptor ties
in, and passes under the flood pool and up a small tributary
of Crabtree Creek, The trunk interceptor then passes under
Highway 54 and the Southern Railroad tracks near
Morrisville. It follows Crabtree Creek, then up Coles
Branch, skirts around the SCS control structure No. 18 and
ties in with the Cary treatment plant influent line.
2. Service Areas
Figure 2 gives existing land uses and Figure 3 presents
the proposed open space and the adopted thoroughfare plans
for the project service area as established by the Region J
Research Triangle Planning Commission. As may be seen from
Fig, 2, existing land use in the project service area is
predominantly rural with the major development located along
arterial roadways in Cary, in Morrisville, and east of
Umstead State Park. Following placement of the proposed
interceptor, additional development is anticipated. The
following sections discuss the design flow and approximate
densities of the project service areas divided by secondary
16.
-------
LEGEND
RESIDENTIAL. MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL. ISOLATED MOBILE HOMES
RESIDENTIAL. MOBILE HOME COURTS
RESIDENTIAL, ISOLATED BUILDINGS
[RESIDENTIAL. SINGLE FAMILY BUILT-UP
AREAS
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRY (INCLUDIN**RESEARCH TRIANGLE
PARK. MINING JtNO QUARRIES)
UNIVERSITY LAND ,.
UMSTEAO STATE PARK E J
RALEIGH - DURHAM AIRPORT /
OTHER STATE LAND /
GOLF COURSES
CHURCHES .;
SCHOOLS ,^/
X
AIRPORTS
OTHER PUBLIC USES
OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION LINES
PIPE LINES
CONDEMNED OR ABANDONED STRUCTURES
DETEJWIOTD BY BEGION 3,
Ef.SEAXCH TRIANGLE FUU4NIMG COMMISSION
-------
DEVELOPED Bit REGION J,
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PLANNING COMMISSION
-------
interceptor tie-ins and their sub-basins as shown on Figure
4,
a, Richland Creek Interceptor
The proposed Richland Creek interceptor will serve
various State-owned properties, including the State
Fairgrounds, Carter Stadium, and the National Guard
Headquarters. Further, residential, commercial, and
industrial needs in this basin will be satisfied.
The area is presently served by the 8-inch House Creek,
the 12-inch Rocky Branch, and the 24-inch Walnut Creek
interceptors. These lines are presently at or approaching
capacity and future development and expansion of facilities
suggest a need for additional capacity. The present peak
flow from the Richland Creek Basin is estimated to be 1.9
mgd. Table 2 outlines population and wastewater usage
projections for this basin as determined by the Wake
Engineering Study Group.
The Richland Creek basin is approximately 4500 acres, of
which 50% is state owned. (See table 2). Approximately
30%, or 1350 acres of this basin, is proposed to be
residential with 14,000 persons, or ten persons per acre
net. This density would probably occur as a mix of
apartments and single family dwellings.
17.
-------
=-4 NC STATE UNIVERSITY a RESIDENTIAL (FUTUBB
C-l TOWN OF CflRY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
UPPER CRABTREE CREEK BASIN
PRESENT 8 ULTIMATE SEWAGE LOADING
AKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
-------
Table 2
Population and Wastewater Usage Projections
POPULATION*
STATE OWNED (50SI J2MIST FUTURE
N.C.S.U. (35%) (Carter Stadium) 48,000 80,000
N.C. National Guard (51) 500 1,000
Umstead State Park (5%)
State Fairgrounds (5%) 120,000 200^000
POPULATION TOTALS 168,500 281,000
*These are temporary crowds only
Waste Flow generated 1 10 gpd
8Peak Rate
PRIVATELY OWNED (40%)
Residential (30%)
Commercial (9%)
Industrial (1%)
POPULATION TOTALS
Waste Flow generated d 250 gpd
a Peak Rate
PUBLICLY OWNED (10%)
Schools (less than 1%)
R/W, Etc., (Approximately 1%)
Other Public Owned {2%)
POPULATION TOTALS
Waste Flow generated $ 20 gpd
a Peak Rate
TOTAL FLOW GENERATED
1,685,000gpd 2,810,000
700
2001
50t
950
14,000
1,400
350
15,750
237,500 gpd 3,937,000 gpd
100
140
240
800
J9J?
1600
4,500 gpd 32,000 gpd
1,927,000 gpd 6,779,000 gpd
* For design purposes, an ultimate peak flow of 5,000,000
gallons per day is used. The reasons for this are as
follows: the complexity of usage of the area, the time of
18,
-------
peak crowds at sporting events and the State Fair, and the
large percentage of this area is State ownership.
b. Mobile City Interceptor
This interceptor will serve the Mobile City Mobile Home
Park located northeast of Morrisville, The line will
eliminate the Mobile City 21,000 gpd extended aeration
treatment plant discharging into an unnamed tributary df
Crabtree Creek. This tributary has an average discharge of
0.8 cubic feet per second (cfs) and a 7-day, 10-year minimum
flow of 0 cfs. At certain times the flow from the
wastewater treatment plant is the entire flow of this
tributary.
The plant is presently discharging an effluent with a 5-
day BOD of 10 milligrams per liter (mg/1) and a suspended
solids concentration of 9 mg/1. The average flow is
estimated to be 16,000 gpd, serving approximately 100
trailers. Inspections on August 16 and 29, 1972 by the
State Office of Water and Air Resources show DO in the
stream to be less than 4 ppm (Appendix 3). This water
quality violation can be directly related to the Mobile City
treatment plant.
The owner of Mobile City has applied for a permit to
construct additions to this plant raising its capacity to
19.
-------
0.5 mgd. Future peak loading on the proposed interceptor is
projected to be 1.8 mgd (Figure 4).
c. Morrisville Interceptor
Approximately 200 residents of the city of Morrisville
are served by septic tanks and drainfields. Due to the low
permeability of the soils in the area, several drainfields
have failed, Large lots are required by the County Public
Health Department to help minimize unsanitary conditions.
The interceptor would allow an elimination of the health
hazards attributable to septic tank failure in this area.
Projections of growth for Morrisville show a
greatly increasing population. Waste disposal is and would
be a limiting factor for this growth. Present and future
peak flows expected in this interceptor are 0.1 mgd and 0.8
mgd, respectively (Figure 4).
d. Coles Branch Interceptor
The proposed interceptor would eliminate the Gary
wastewater treatment plant located on Coles Branch northwest
of Gary. The plant has a capacity of 100,000 gallons per
day with a present average flow estimated to be 60,000 gpd.
It is a trickling filter type plant with effluent grab
samples showing a 5-day BOD of 22 mg/1, fecal coliform
values of 1000/100 ml, and suspended solids of 44 mg/1
20.
-------
(Appendix 3}. During dry periods the effluent comprises the
entire flow of Coles Branch. This plant is causing water
quality violations of both dissolved oxygen and fecal
coliforms. Coles Branch is a Class C water with DO and
fecal coliform limits of 4,0 mg/1 and 1000/100 ml
respectively. Water quality data show a DO of 1.4 and fecal
coliform concentration of 6100/100 ml. (See Appendix 3.)
This treatment plant serves a small portion (about 500)
of Gary's approximately 10rOOO persons. The remainder of
Gary's residents are served by pumping to the Walnut Creek
interceptor (See Figure 5) .
e. Future Service Areas
The proposed Crabtree Creek interceptor sewer is
designed to satisfy existing and future demands for sewerage
in the project area. Figure 4 summarizes present and
projected ultimate flows in each segment of the project
interceptor. The area adjacent to and east of Morrisville
is expected to experience pronounced residential growth.
Mr. E. N. Richards proposes to develop the land south of
Crabtree Creek when sewerage facilities are provided. This
area is expected to be developed as mixed residential, with
both single family and multi-family dwellings. Figure 4
gives projected ultimate flows from this area (PT. "I" and
21.
-------
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
TOWN OF
GARY
EXISTING FORCE MAIN
EXISTING PUMPING STATIONS
EXISTINS WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
WAKE COUNTY, N.C.
FIGURE 5
-------
PT. WK") as 5.1 mgd (25,000 persons at 200 gpcd peak flow).
This flow would accomodate a gross density of approximately
7 persons per acre,
Mr. J. T. Hobby has submitted an application for
additions to the existing Mobile City Wastewater Treatment
Plant. The proposed interceptor would allow expansion of
the mobile park and residential growth in the adjacent
properties without additional wastewater discharges to the
Crabtree Creek Basin,
The Wake County Planning Department proposes the land
northeast of Morrisville be developed as light industrial.
Presently the area is rural with approximately one-third of
the non-residential land in crops and pasture. Grains, corn
and tobacco are the major crops. A few industries operate
in this area (A. R. Gray Steel Fabricating Company, Tar Heel
Wood Treating Company, Truss Builders, and Koppers Company),
and additional industries are expected to locate in the area
following the availability of adequate sewerage. There are
three wastewater treatment plant discharges in the Little
Brier Creek Basin serving industries(Appendix 3). Sycamore
Creek, in a basin adjacent to the Brier Creek Basin, is
classified "B" by the State for recreational purposes in
Umstead Park. It receives the discharge from two inadequate
22.
-------
industrial sewage treatment facilities. An interceptor
force main and pumping system to tie in with the Crabtree
Creek interceptor is proposed to eliminate the wastewater
discharges in these basins and to satisfy future wastewater
disposal needs. The projected flow (Figure 4) from this
area is 13.3 mgd, which is sufficient to serve the Brier
Creek and Stirrup Creek basins at a gross density of seven
persons per acre.
A 635-acre industrial park is planned by Mr. J. W. York,
immediately north and west of the confluence of Coles Branch
and Crabtree CreeJc and adjacent to the SCS flood control
structure No. 18, This development is also awaiting the
provision of wastewater collection and treatment.
Interceptor Pt. "C", the tie in point to the trunk
interceptor, is anticipated to have a wastewater flow of 3.4
mgd which is sufficient capacity for greater than nine
persons per acre.
The proposed Crabtree Creek interceptor, excluding the
Richland Creek portion, is projected to service a combined
present population of approximately 10QO. Future flows in
the interceptor are designed for a population in excess of
80,000 (20 mgd) .
23.
-------
C, Description of Project Area
1. Natural Resources
a. Surface Water
The Crabtree Creek Watershed encompasses 90,750 acres in
Wake and Durham Counties (See II.A.2). The headwaters begin
on the east side of a ridge extending roughly from Research
Triangle Park southward to the city of Apex. The watershed
extends north above William B. Umstead State Park and the
Raleigh city limits. The southern boundary runs through the
Raleigh city limits separating the Crabtree Creek and Walnut
Creek watersheds. Crabtree Creek discharges to the Neuse
River southeast of Raleigh, approximately 20 miles from its
origin.
The project area topography shows a relief rarely
exceeding 180 feet. The stream gradient of Crabtree Creek
west of the Jonesboro fault (Figure 6) averages
approximately 10.5 feet per mile and east of the fault
approximately 2.8 feet per mile. The Richland Creek
gradient is approximately 37 feet per mile.
Stream flow data for Crabtree Creek shows great
variation. At Crabtree Creek just west of 1-40, the 7-day
10-year low flow is 0.3 cfs (USGS). At US 70 the 7-day 10-
year low flow is 2.2 cfs (USGS). Conversely, on February 2,
-------
:RABTREE CREEK INTERCEPTOR
SEWER
T3IASSIC COXGLOMEtlATES. SILISTONSS, & SASOSTOKES
j[ j ! j PHYLLITES & CREENSTOKE SCHIST
C-SAS1TE
:: HOBN3LEOTE GNEISS
GNEISS
-------
1973 and June 29, 1973, stream flows were estimated by the
USGS to be 10,400 and 12,500 cfs at Highway 70. These flows
were the highest on record and constituted an estimated 20-
year flood (a flood which has a probability of occurring
once every 20 years).
The water quality of Crabtree Creek is generally good.
Data supplied by the North Carolina Department of Natural
and Economic Resources, Office of Water and Air Resources,
show that from the confluence of Coles Branch to the
abandoned wastewater treatment plant in Oak Park, DO is 6.0
rag/1 and above throughout. Fecal coliform values range
considerably, from less than ten to above 10,000 per 100 ml
sample. From this data it appears that either the
chlorination of wastewater discharges is inadequate or
septic tank drainfields are short-circuiting directly to
surface waters. As described previously, the water quality
of Coles Branch, Brier Creek, and an unnamed tributary
(Mobile City Discharge) are in various degrees of
degradation.
25.
-------
b. Geology
The discussion of geological features, soils, and
groundwater has been excerpted from a Statement of Impact,
Proposed Crabtree Creek Sewer Outfall, as prepared by
Geological Resources, Inc. for J. W. York and Company,
Realtors.
Bedrock Geology
The area of the proposed sewer outfall is
divided into eastern and western portions by the
Jonesboro fault (Figure 6) , a regional fault
which extends in a northeasterly direction from
Chesterfield County, South Carolina into Granville
County, North Carolina, The fault dips approxi-
mately 65 degrees west-northwest....
The Jonesboro fault has been inactive
since the late Triassic or early Jurassic period
(approximately 180 million years ago) and poses
no threat of earthquake to the area. The fault
now serves only as a boundary between the Triassic
sedimentary rocks of the basin to the west and the
pre-Triassic igneous and metamorphic rocks to the
east.
Field inspection of the area reveals that
the outcropping Triassic sedimentary rocks are
poorly consolidated siltstones, sandstones, and
conglomerates.
Triassic rocks are usually encountered be-
tween 35 and 100 inches below the surface (Soil
Survey of Wake County, North Carolina, U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
1970, pp. 21 and 61) and are difficult to dig or
blast. These rocks are indurated well enough
to refuse light digging equipment, and because
of their clay content they tend to absorb the
shock from blasting, producing large boulders
rather than shattering into small pieces.
26.
-------
East of the Jonesboro fault, the rocks are
igneous and -metamorphic in origin, with moderate
to well-developed jointing and fracturing, Folia-
tion in the metamorphic rocks strikes northeast
and dips steeply to the northwest in the area
between Raleigh and the fault.
Along Coles Branch between Gary and the
Jonesboro fault, the rock types are phyllite
and greenstone schist (Figure 6). Along Inter-
state Highway 40 between Raleigh and the fault,
the rock types are hornblende gneiss and felsic
gneiss interrupted by a granite body in the
William B. Umstead State Park area,
c. Soils
Soils west of the Jonesboro fault, in the
Crabtree Creek area, are within the Creedmoor-
White Store association (Figure 7). These soils
have a reddish brown to yellowish brown sandy
loam topsoil with a red to brownish red clayey
subsoil. The subsoil has a low permeability pro-
ducing a very shallow perched water table during
the wet seasons (Soil Survey of Wake County,
pp. 20, 60, 61, and 123), Montmorillonite, the
dominant clay mineral in Triassic soils, expands
when wet and creates a relatively impermeable
soil. When over six percent of a soil is
montmorillonite, expansion problems may result
(personal communication, Mr. Robert Kirby, Soil
Conservationist, Wake County Planning Department,
1974). Montmorillonitic soils also have the
property of thixotrophism, a property which
causes undisturbed stable loam soils to become
somewhat liquid upon being disturbed.
Because of slow permeability of Triassic
subsoils and underlying rocks, a relatively
smaller amount of rainfall is absorbed into
the ground west of the Jonesboro fault compared
to the area east of the fault. Thus, for a
given amount of rainfall, surface runoff will
naturally be greater for areas west of the fault
than for areas east of the fault.
27.
-------
RABTREE CREEK INTERCEPTOR
SEWER
TjQJI CI.CiT,-,^UXG \SS VLVac.%'
-------
Natural fertility of both Triassic soils
and soils formed from crystalline rocks is low,
and both require proper application of lime and
fertilizer for good crop growth. Both soil
types become cloddy and form a crust at the sur-
face if worked when either too wet or too dry.
Because of the more impermeable nature of Triassic
soils, which retain a very shallow water table
for a longer period of time compared to soils
east of the Jonesboro fault, it is difficult to
obtain a uniform stand of crops because of cloddy
soils (Soil Survey of Wake county, pp. 63-68).
The alluvial soils making up the flood
plain along Crabtree Creek are mostly soils of
the Chewacle Series and Congaree Series. These
fine, sandy loam soils have good infiltration
capabilities, but because of high water table
(season high depth to water table in soils of
Chewacle Series is approximately 1.5 feet;
season high depth to water table in soils of
the Congaree Series is approximately 2.5 feet
Soil Survey of Wake County, pp. 18-19} these
soils have a limited capacity to absorb
additional water.
Soils in the area derived from igneous and
metamorphic rocks are divided into the Cecil-
Appling, Herndon-Georgeville, and Cecil associa-
tions (Figure 7). All of these soils have moderate
permeability and shrink-swell potential and are
typical in areas characterized by a gently
sloping to moderately steep, well-drained
topography.
d. Groundwater
Groundwater in the area to be served by
the Crabtree Creek sewer outfall is generally
of good guality. Ground water yields in the
crystalline rocks east of the Jonesboro fault
average 10 to 20 gallons per minute (10 to 15
gallons per minute in saprolite); groundwater
yields in the Triassic rocks west of the Jones-
boro fault average approximately 5 gallons per
28,
-------
minute (3 to 5 gallons per minute in overlying
soils) (Ground Water Bulletin Number 15,
pp. 100-101).
Due to compaction, cementation, and intimate
mixing of sand and clay, the Triassic sedimentary
rocks are practically impermeable, and very
limited percolation occurs along joint and frac-
ture planes. However, joints and fractures
permit moderate water percolation in the granite
gneisses and schists east of the fault.
e. Climate
The Raleigh-Durham area lies between the mountains on
the west and the Atlantic coast on the south and east. The
mountains form a partial barrier to cold air masses moving
eastward from the interior. As a result, this area enjoys a
favorable climate where only a few days in the mid-winter
have a temperature below 2QOF, The average length of frost-
free growing season is about 210 days.
Summer climate is influenced by the ocean, bringing warm
temperatures and high humidities to the area. Afternoon
temperatures reach 90 F or higher an average of every third
day in mid-summer but rarely exceed 100 .
The i*3.6 inch yearly average rainfall is well
distributed throughout the year, with the heaviest in July
and the lightest in November. Summer rainfall is generally
produced by thundershowers and is occasionally accompanied
by strong winds and intense rains.
29.
-------
f. Vegetation and Wildlife
The proposed project area lies within the eastern United
States geographical and climatological region. Plentiful
rainfall, combined with a long growing season, relatively
mild winters, and the absence of any unusual limiting
factors, allowed the development here of a well diversified
mesophytic deciduous forest, A few limited modifications of
the natural forest were made by the aboriginal population in
the last few thousand years, but its almost total alteration
was accomplished within the last 300 years by European
settlers. As the climax vegetation was removed, biotic
communities representing earlier successional stages become
more prevalent. In many cases and at various times, these
communities were, in turn, cut over. In some places, land
whose natural cover was removed for use in row-cropping has
been allowed to recover much of its original species
diversity.
These man-induced changes, which took place irregularly
and sporadically both in space and time, have left the
project area a patchwork of agricultural lands, open fields
and pastures, pure pine stands, unclassified previously
logged areas, hardwood groves, roads, rights-of-way, narrow
strips of bottom land vegetation along major and minor
30.
-------
watercourses, and suburban and urban development. As a
result, there is a great variety of trees, shrubs and
associated flora. Appendix 4 lists some of the more common
and interesting species.
Since much of the proposed sewer line right-of-way for
this project lies adjacent to streams, tree species commonly
found in floodplain areas will be most frequently
encountered, including American beech, tulip tree, ironwood,
river birch, black gum, red maple, sweetgum, American
sycamore, and several species of oaks. Since streams!de
areas offer limited opportunities for intensive farming or
for building permanent structures due to the obvious
flooding hazards, many stretches of the creeks and streams
have remained undisturbed. As a consequence, species
diversity is high, vegetative structure and biomass are
great, many ecological niches are present, and physical
factors such as wind, temperature, and humidity are well
damped within the sub-crown forest ecosphere. Such a
community has high aesthetic appeal and represents an
advanced stage of ecological succession.
Intimately associated with this diverse vegetative cover
are a great many species of vertebrate and invertebrate
animals. Table 3, prepared by the Soil Conservation
31.
-------
Table 3
WILDLIFE AND WILDLIFE HABITAT
SPECIES
Deer, whitetailed
Rabbits, cottontail
Rabbits, marsh
Squirrels, grey
Bobwhite
Dove, Mourning
Ducks
Geese
Turkey
Furbearers:
Mink, Muskrat
Raccoon
Fisheries
Warm-water
Population I
Rating
Good
X
X
X
X
X
X
Fair
X
Poor
|
X
X
X
X
X
Existing
Habitat
Good!
X
X
X
X
X
i X
1
Fair
X
Poor
X
X
X
X
X
Habitat
Trend
UP
X
X
Down'
X
X
X
Same
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Habitat |
Potential
Good
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Fair
X
X
X
Poor
X
1 X
No. Acres
Potential
Habitat
275,000
375,000
50,000
300,000
375,000
75,000
20,000
unknown
175,000
50,000
100,000
20,000
Comments
One flock in county
Over 3,000 ponds in
Wake County.
-------
Service, gives an overview of population and habitat trends
for the most common game and trapped species within Wake
County, The principal game species found in the central and
western portions of the project area include white-tailed
deer, turkey, bob white quail, mourning dove, gray squirrel,
eastern cottontail rabbit, woodcock and wood duck. Mr. P.
S, Morgan of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service noted that
the deer and turkey populations are generally confined to
the lands adjacent to the Raleigh-Durham Airport and the
William B. Umstead State Park.
J. D. Bayless and W. B. Smith of the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission reported species from the
following orders of insects commonly found on stream
bottoms; Diptera (mosquitoes) , Trichoptera (caddis flies),
Coleoptera (beetles), Ephemeroptera (mayflies), and Odonata
fdragonflies). Oligochaeta (aquatic worms) and Gastropoda
(snails) were also found, Many of these animals are food
for the largemouth bass, redfin pickerel, redbreast sunfish,
bluegill, crappie, channel catfish, yellow bullhead, and a
variety of shiners and darters present in portions of
Crabtree Creek, local farm ponds, or the 100-acre Umstead
Lake. No anadromous fish runs have been reported in the
streams in the proposed service area.
32,
-------
The project area supports many more mammalian and avian
species as well as various reptiles and amphibians. The
numerous terrestrial invertebrates are an important link in
the area's food chains, and the resident bacteria, fungi,
and other micro-organisms are necessary components of the
nutrient recycling processes.
g. Background and Present Air Quality
Under the Clean Air Act of 1970, EPA was required to set
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) that affect
public health and welfare. To implement these standards
EPA, in conjunction with each State Air Pollution Control
/
Agency, developed a State Implementation Plan (SIP). Each
State was divided into sub-districts known as Air Quality
Control Regions (AQCRs). These regions were then classified
on a priority basis for each of 5 pollutants. The priority
classification ranged from priority I thru III, three being
the lowest. These classifications were based upon either
measured ambient air quality data, where such data was
available, or estimated ambient air quality where data did
not exist. These AQCR classifications were then published
in the SIP. Wake County is part of what is known as the
Eastern Piedmont AQCR, The Eastern Piedmont is classified
as follows:
33.
-------
Pollutant
Prioritv Classification
Sulfur Dioxide(SO2)
Particulates (Part)
Oxidants (Ox)
Carbon Monoxide (C)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
III
I
III
III
III
A priority I means that the AQCR presently violates the
NAAQS, and priority III means that they do not violate the
standards.
The present existing ambient air quality for 1973 is as
follows:
Pollutant Location County
Part.
Part.
S02
S02
Raleigh Wake
Raleigh Wake
Raleigh Wake
Raleigh Wake
Site Averaging
Address Concentration Time
121 Sea- 75 ug/m3
board Ave.
121 Sea- 157 ug/m3
board Ave.
4465 Six- 21 ug/m3
Forks Rd.
9465 Six- 108 ug/m3
Forks Rd.
AGM
Max 24-hour
AAM
Max 24-hour
-------
There is no measured air quality data for the RaleigJ
area for CO2, Ox, and NO2. The area is classified priori
III for the above pollutants.
As mentioned earlier, the Federal Government sets
minimum air quality standards for certain pollutants,
although the States may set more stringent standards if t
wish. National primary ambient air quality standards are
set to protect the public health and secondary standards
set to protect the public welfare. Such primary and
secondary standards have been set for carbon monoxide,
hydrocarbons, nitrogen dioxide, photochemical oxidants,
particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide (Table 4). Each
standard specifies an averaging time, frequency, and
concentration. The averaging times are 1, 3, 8, and 2 *
hours, and 1 year. The frequency parameter column of Tab
2 specifies either annual maximum concentrations for
averaging times of 24 hours or less, or an arithmetic or
geometric mean for a 1-year period. The standards specif
that the maximum concentrations are not to be exceeded mo
than once per year.
35.
-------
Table 4 NATIONAL PRIMARY AND SECONDARY AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Pollutant
Carbon
monoxide
Nitrogen
dioxide
Photochemical
oxidants
Particulate
matter
Sulfur
dioxide
Type of
s tandard
Averaging
time
Frequency
parameter
Primary and 1 hr Annual maximum3
secondary 8 hr Annual maximum
Primary and 1 yr Arithmetic mean
secondary
Primary and 1 hr Annual maximum
secondary
Primary
Secondary
Primary
Secondary
Concentratior
pg/m3
40,000
10,000
100
160
ppm
35
9
0.05
0.08
24 hr Annual maximum 260
24 hr Annual geometric mean 75
24 hr Annual maximum
24 hr Annual maximum
1 yr Arithmetic mean
3 hr Annual maximum
150
365
80
1,300
0.14
0.03
0.5
aNot to be exceeded more than once per year.
-------
2. Community Resources
a. Wastewater Systems
The present and proposed collection systems for the
Raleigh-Wake County project areas are shown in Figure 8.
The project area is served by ten wastewater treatment
facilities - the Walnut Creek Plant and the previously
identified Coles Branch
-------
WAKE WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN
CXISTIN4
PWSE r - cowr vr UTS
MMi tl - OOMT tT I9 0
KMME W - CONST SY ItM
n
WAKE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
-------
b. Water Supply
Present and proposed water supply systems to satisfy
demands in Raleigh and Wake County are presented in Figui
9. The Neuse River and Lake Raleigh are the present raw
water sources. Present capacity of the Northside water
treatment facilities is 25 mgd from the Neuse River, and
capacity of the Southside plant is 13 mgd from Lakes
Raleigh, Johnson, Benson, and Wheeler. (Figure 9).
According to the Wake County Water Use Study (1970)
surface waters are expected to remain the major source of
water supplies in Wake County. The city contract with tin
D. S. Corps of Engineers is for a maximum of 100 mgd froir
the Falls of the Neuse Reservoir. The Southside Water
Treatment Plant is to continue. The same report gives
projected water use for wet and dry years (Figure 10).
Fig. 11 shows future water supply service areas. Not
that the project area is not proposed to be served until
sometime after 1980. Provision of adequate water supplie
for the city of Raleigh assumes construction of the Falls
the Neuse Reservoir. In the interim, the city of Raleigh
proposing to provide a raw water supply from Beaverdam Cr
to alleviate the immediate needs. Contract awards were IT
37.
-------
-f
WAKE WATER FACILITIES PLAN
SERVICE LEVEL DES181 NATION
RALEHJM LOW LEVEL OVERFLOW ELEV 497*
RALEIGH HUH LEVEL OVERFLOW ELEV 09t
CARY-A X OVERFLOW CLCV ft4Oi '/////
FUQUAY-VARIHA OVERFLOW ELCV SCO: - >:
OAmCA OVERFLOW ELEV 590 f MM
WAKE FOREST OVERFLOW ELEV MOt . '
WAKE WATER SYSTEM
EXISTING MAINS
PHASE I - CONST 0Y 197$
PHASE H- CONST BY 1990
PHASE m - CONST BY 1990
PHASE BT- CONST BY 2000
NOTE SMM
WAKE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 9
-------
PROJECTED
TOTAL WATER USE
FOR WAKE COUNTY AND RALEIGH
DRY YEAR WET YEAR
CO
S3
O
:s
o
H
H
WAKE COUNTY
RALEIGH
WAKE COUNTY WATER USE STUDY
DEFT. HATER & AIR RESOURCES, NORTH CAROLINA
JUNE 1970
1960
1970
1980 1990
2000
2010
2020
-------
lUAT-VARIN* \l
WAKE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
WAKE COUNTY WATER USE STUDY
DEPT. WATER & AIR RESOURCES, NORTH CAROLINA
JUNE 1970
FUTURE PROJECTED AREAS
SERVED BY MUNICIPAL,
WATER SYSTEMS
1980
2020
FIGURE 11
-------
by Raleigh in October, 1973, and the project is financed
the city and a grant from the state, (See Appendix 7.)
The Cary area is in need of additional water supplie
Distribution and storage systems are inadequate. In orde
to satisfy future demand from development in the project
area, additional water supplies and storage capacity will
needed.
3. Population Projections
The following figures and tables give projected
populations for Wake County, Raleigh, Morrisville, and th
Upper Crabtree service area.
38.
-------
600
WAKE COUNTY
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
1970 thru 2000
N.C. SOCIAL SCIENCE
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
RESEARCH TRIANGLE
REGIONAL PLANNING
COMMISSION (! M)
WAKE ENGINEERING
STUDY GROUP
1950
I960
1970
1980
1990
2000
-------
POPULATION
IN THOUSANDS
8
-------
TOWN OF MORRISVILLE
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
1970 thru 2000
RESEARCH TRIANGLE
REGIONAL PLANNING
COMMISSION (1980)
WAKE ENGINEERING
STUDY GROUP
FIGURE 14
1940
1950
I960
1970
1980
1990
2000
-------
Table 5
Crabtree Creek Watershed Projections
1970 1980 19'
JCensusl JEst^I J[Esj
Raleigh urbanized area 152,289 210,000 275, (
{Bureau of Census definition)
Town of Gary 7,389 30,000 (2) NA
Wake County 228,453 288,910 342,2
Cra fatreem Creek Watershed (1)
Wake County part 15,449 23,204 29,5
Durham County part ____ ,.-$28
____ ,.- ___ ____ .
Both 16,377 24,596 31,2
(1) Upstream from intersection of Crabtree Creek and U.S.
Highway 70
(2) Town of Cary located on drainage divide; southern
half drains into Walnut Creek basin; northern into
Crabtree Creek. Present estimate for 1980 being
revised downward by Cary Planning Department.
Wake County Planning Department, 1974,
The Wake County Planning Department projections (Table
5) indicate a population increase in the Upper Crabtree
Basin of approximately 8000 in 1980 and 14,000 by 1990.
These projections are in close agreement with OBERS series E
projections (Appendix 17). These projections appear small
when compared with the project design flow. Construction of
the project may greatly increase the population growth in
this area. Since the projections were made on the
assumption that the watershed population would continue to
39.
-------
increase at about the same rate as previous growth rates of
townships within the watershed, a higher growth rate might
be expected with the provision of sewer and water utilities
in the project service area.
From the Wastewater Treatment and Collection Master Plan
(1971), the predicted population for the upper and lower
Crabtree Creek Basin is as follows:
1973 107,9110
1985 140,000
2000 185,000
2020 228,320
This data indicates an increase in population in the
Crabtree Creek Basin of 78,000 persons by the year 2000.
Assuming the entire increase to occur in the project service
areas, the interceptor will be adequate beyond the year
2000.
Reasonable population projections assuming construction
of the interceptor sewer do not appear to be available.
Most available projections do not reflect the present trend
toward development of the Upper Crabtree Watershed. The
centralized location between Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel
Hill, the proximity to Research Triangle Park and the
Raleigh-Durham Airport, and the existence of major arterial
40.
-------
transportation corridors suggest an acceleration of future
growth and development in this area.
41.
-------
II. IEEgSSgI;MIQN iIgg WITH OTHER PROJECTS^^PROGRAMS
OR EFFORTS
A. Federal
1. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
\
The EPA, through the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, has authority to improve water quality
by administering a program of grants for research, planning,
engineering, and construction of wastewater treatment
facilities and their appurtenances. The Amendments also
authorize EPA to establish the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System, under which EPA establishes a permit
system for the discharge of any pollutant into the waters of
the United States.
Section 208 of the Amendments provides for the
development of an areawide multifacet wastewater management
plan in areas with complex point and non-point source
wastewater problems. The 208 plan will include controls for
municipal and industrial point source wastes systems, for
pollution emanating from diffuse sources, for protection of
the groundwater, and for disposal of residual wastes. This
program also includes the use of non-structural techniques,
including the control of the use of land for water quality
management. The program provides for a one-year period.
42.
-------
following designation of a 208 planning agency, to set u|
continuing planning process and two years thereafter to
submit the initial plan to the Administrator. The Saleig
area has been designated the first 208 planning area in t
U. S. The effective date of designation was April 10, 19
and Region J Research Triangle Planning Commission is the
designated planning agency.
The EPA, through the mandate of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, is co-author of
this environmental impact statement. NEPA provides that ;
detailed statement by the responsible official, on
recommendations or reports on proposals for legislation ai
other major Federal actions significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment, be prepared. In the
present context, the issuance of grant funds for
construction of the proposed project is considered a
significant Federal action.
2. Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
The development of the Crabtree Watershed, associated
with the proposed project, will increase the probability c
flood damages in the downstream areas (See IV.B.1,) The
has an ongoing flood control project in the Crabtree Cree*
basin. In March 1964, the SCS released the Crabtree Creek
43.
-------
Watershed Work Plan. The objectives of the plan were to
reduce floodwater and sediment damage on agricultural
floodplains and to provide 100-year storm frequency
protection for the urban and industrial-zoned floodplain in
and adjacent to the city of Raleigh by utilizing structural
works of improvement, supported by land treatment.
This study was initiated as a result of a flood which
occurred in May 1957, which hydrologic determinations
indicated the storm to be of 6.7-year frequency. The stona
flooded 50 homes, the Farmers Market, and other properties,
causing damages estimated to be in excess of $100,000.
Projections indicated a once-in-a-century storm would have
damaged 189 homes and endangered numerous lives.
Following the flood, several committees were formed to
study the problem and to recommend action. Wake County, the
city of Raleigh, and the Neuse River Soil Conservation
District (later subdivided into the Wake, Durham, Orange,
and Wilson County Soil and Water Conservation Districts)
then jointly sponsored an application for funds under the
Watershed Protection and Flood Protection Act, Public Law
566. Planning assistance was authorized by the SCS on April
15, 1958, and the State then passed legislation enabling the
establishment of either a watershed improvement district or
44.
-------
a countywide program. The result was the formation of an
improvement district which became the sponsor of the project
in October 1960. The Crabtree Creek Watershed Work Plan was
then prepared by the SCS, and Administrator Donald A.
Williams authorized operations on September 25, 1961.
On November 2, 1965 a referendum was passed by the
county voters to establish a countywide watershed
improvement organization with the power to levy taxes. In
May 1968, Wake voters approved a million dollar bond
referendum to support the project.
The original plan called for 15 flood control structures
and channel improvements. Since that time, structures No.
7, 15, 16, and 21 have been eliminated, and the need for
flood damage reduction measures below structure 25 is being
restudied by the Corps of Engineers. Table 6 shows the
available design data for the remaining SCS structures.
To implement the plan, the Wake County Watershed
Improvement District was formed. Its function was to obtain
land, easements, and rights-of-way and a limited power of
eminent domain was initially provided (when 75 percent of
the total easements in a construction unit has been
obtained). Since that time, comprehensive power of eminent
domain has been provided. Monies for property must be
-------
Table 6 ~ Structure Data
STRUCTURES WITH PLANNED STORAGE CAPACITY
ITEM UNIT
Class of Structure
Drainage Area Sq.Mi.
Controlled Sq.Mi.
Curve No. (1-day )(AMC II)
Elevation Top of Dam Ft.
Elevation Crest Emergency Spillway Ft.
Elevation Crest High Stage Inlet Ft.
Elevation Crest Low Stage Inlet Ft.
Maximum Height of Dam Ft.
Volume of Fill Cu.Yds.67
Total Capacity!./ Ac. Ft.
Sediment Submerged Ac. Ft.
Sediment Aerated Ac. Ft.
Retarding Ac. Ft.
Between High and Low Stage Ac. Ft.
Surface Area
Sediment Pool Acres
Retarding Pool Acres
[Principal Spillway Design
Rainfall Volume (areal) (1 day) In.
Rainfall Volume (areal)(10 day) In.
Runoff Volume (10 day) In.
Capacity of Low Stage (Max.) cfs
Capacity of High Stage (Max.) cfs
Freq. operation - Eraer. Spillway % Chance
Dimensions of Conduit Ft. or In
Emergency Spillway Design
Rainfall Volume (ESH) (areal) In.
Runoff Volume (ESH) In.
Storm Duration Hrs.
Type
Bottom Width Ft.
Velocity of Flow (Vg) Ft/Sec.
Slope of exit channel Ft/Ft.
Max. reservoir water surface elev. Ft.
Freeboard Design
Rainfall Volume (FH) (areal) (-hrs.) In.
Runoff Volume (FH) In.
Storm Duration Hrs.
Max. reservoir water surface elev. Ft.
Capacity Equivalents
Sediment Volume In.
Retarding Volume In-
-
1
A
2.06
81
321.5
316.0
305.0
32.5
474
668
167
22
480
-
28.6
64.2
8.0
13.7
9.01
106
-
1
. 30"
10.28
7.92
6
Veg.
250
5.44
.035
317.8
25.08
22.47
6
321.5
1.71
4.37
2
A
1.43
81
341.5
335.5
333.0
326.0
34.0
53,469
476
114
16
346
223
26.7
57.0
8.0
13.7
9.01
20.5
99
1
30"
10.28
7.92
6
Veg.
130
6.16
.035
337.3
25.08
22.47
6
335.5
1.70
4.54
CRABTREE
1 3 1
A
2.33
81
358.5
352.5
349.5
342.5
35.0
97,272
785
199
25
561
349
45.0
80.0
8.0
13.7
9.01
34
155
1
36"
10.28
7.92
6
Veg.
300
6.23
.033
354.2
25.08
22.47
6
358.5
1.79
4.52
CREEK WATERSHED
SA 1
B
8.85
80
329.4
323.0
306.5
42.5
(29,600)
2,890
315
415
2,160
2,160
62.0
280.0
8.1
13.7
8.85
410
-
1
3-10' x 10'
8.9
6J47
6
Concrete Drop
.
_
_
324.7
15.40
12.77
6
329.4
1.55
4.58
, NORTH CAROLINA
1.1 | 13
B C
4.57
76
343.5
336.0
-
Dry Pool
48.0
106,200 177
1,339 2
-
217
1,122 2
_
.
85.0
8.0
13.7
8.03
120
.
I
30"
9.56
6.59
6
Veg.
260
6.0
.040
338.1
23.30
19.88
6
343.5
/
.89
4 ."60
8.15
79
285.0
275.0
~
252.0
51.0
,944
,640
356
89
,195
53.0
143.0
8.0
13.7
8.69
175
-
1
36"
12.10
9.41
6
Veg.
328
8.8
.025
278.9
29.50
26.53
6
285.0
1.02
5.05
18
A
2.51
79
334.0
329.0
~
316.0
34.0
99,837
714
91
12
611
_
22.0
77.0
8.0
13.7
8.69
106
_
1
30"
10.28
7.66
6
Veg.
320
5.2
.035
330.6
25.08
22.15
6
334.0
.77
4.56
20A
C
10.92
80
-
-
-
-
.
940
123
-
-
_
7.8
13.7
8.85
_
_
1
| 22B
B
3.73
79
354.0
349.0
-
335.0
39.0
69,410
1,117
180
18
919
.
36.0
99.0
8.0
13.7
8.69
118
1
23
C
51.84
28.10
80
298.0
284.9
-
276.0
42.0
(64,400)
9,298
1,850
148
7,300
-
511.0
1,096.0
7.7
13.5
8.67
1,205
1
-* 30" 2-5.5' x 5.5^
11.98
9.49
6
-
.
.
-
29.50
26.70
6
1.83
"
8.80
6.26
6
Veg.
160
5.53
.033
350.8
15.40
12.61
6
354.0
.99
4.61
10.28
7.79
6.2
Veg.|/
400 I/
7.6
.027
288.1
25.08
22.31
6.2
298.0
1.58
5.77
25
C
81.86
56.92
73
274.1
258.5
-
Dry Pool
.
_
4,569
-
969
3,600
-
_
392.0
7.7
13.5
7.19
3,350
1
2-7' x 9'
10.72
7.28
8.82
Veg.
400
10.2
.025
263.0
26.36
22.39
8.82
274.1
.71
2.65
i/ Crest of Emergency Spillway
2.7 Dependent on Obtaining Adequate Bulk Length
Date: August 1973
-------
raised locally, while monies for construction of the control
structures are provided by the SCS through P.L. 566 funds.
It was expected that most of the land would be donated by
developers, but this has not been the case.
Completion of the project has been very slow. Four
structures--Nos, 2, 3, 13, and 18 have been completed, and
two additional structures Nos. 22 and 1 are under
construction. (See Figure 15). There are not sufficient
funds available for outright acquisition of the remaining
lands, nor a reasonable expectation that they will be
donated. Speculation has occurred and has greatly increased
land prices.
The two largest floods on record occurred in February
and June 1973 and flooding along lower Crabtree Creek was
extensive. According to Corps of Engineers damage
estimates, the two floods caused a total of $13.3 million in
residential and commercial property damage.
Should the SCS project be completed and the associated
downstream channel improvements implemented, flood
protection from the 100-year storm will be provided for the
city of Raleigh, and the severity of flooding in the upper
watershed will be reduced. Figure 16 gives the projected
flood stages as determined by the Corps of Engineers for
46.
-------
DURHAM AND WAKE COUNT.ES
NORTH CAROLINA
-------
ORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY
S HWY I (NORTH BLVD)
EABOARD COASTLINE RAILROAD
S HWY I A(WAKE FOREST RD
UINS OF OLD DAM
NDERSON DRIVE FT 1-
ASSITER MILL RO_2L=
WBftH'MSBl' S t;K: 1=^
ASSITER MILL DAM
LD LASSITER MILL RD
US HWY I BYPASS (BELTLINE) EAST
US HWY I BYPASS (BELTLINE) WESTF!
NEW BRIDGE BELOW US HWY 70
US HWY 70 WEST
US HWY 70 EAST
SHOPPING CENTER ENTRANCE / BLUE RIDGE RD
SHOPPING CENTER ENTRANCE - EDWARDS MILL -
-------
1L--| : 1^M.rh!-'M|-!-h^ii--i-.^--H--irj-i-'-:
L_LJ.!Tr ! . 1...J.. I1 JJTf FT"! "i
80 / DEVELOPMENT LEVE1. WITHOUT SCS DAMS
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT SCS DAMS
80 / OrVELOPMENT LEVEL WITH II SCS DAMS
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT WITH H SCS DAMS
* * TOP OF LOW BANK
STREAM BED
=4=4
-------
DURHAM AND WAKE
.,^TH CAROLINA
-------
four conditions: existing development with and without the
SCS structures and 80 percent development with and without
the SCS structures. Sediment delivered to the mouth of
Crabtree Creek will be reduced from 176,400 tons to 47,100
tons annually (as estimated in the 1964 plan). The plan
calculates a primary benefit cost ratio of 2.5 to 1.
3. Corps of Engineers (COE)
The Wilmington District of the Corps of Engineers is
studying Crabtree Creelc from SCS structure No. 25 to the
Neuse River in an effort to reduce the remaining flood
damage, develop the recreational potential, and upgrade
environmental quality. The proposed project interceptor and
the associated development will affect this COE study by
increasing the flows and stages that must be accommodated.
The Corps study allows for considerable citizen
participation through a citizens committee and public
meetings. A list of problems, needs, and possible solutions
has been prepared as a result of these meetings in
collaboration with the Crabtree Creek Citizens Assistance
Committee formed in conjunction with this study. (See
Appendix 6.)
47.
-------
Future meetings will discuss alternatives for the
watercourse, and from this input a recommendation as to the
most reasonable course of action will be made.
B. State
The State of North Carolina Department of Natural and
Economic Resources has primary responsibility for permitting
point source discharges and sewer line construction,
administering the State Clean Water Grants program for
wastewater treatment works projects, and developing and
administering a sedimentation control program.
Permit program regulations provide that a permit shall
be required to: 1) make any outlets into the waters of the
State; 2) construct or operate any sewer system, treatment
works or disposal system within the State; 3) alter, extend,
or change the construction or method of operation of any
sewer system, treatment works or disposal system within the
State; or 4) enter into a contract for the construction and
installation of any outlet, sewer system, treatment works,
pretreatment facility or disposal system or for the
alteration or extension of any such facilities.
The Clean Water Bond Act of 1971 authorized $50 million
from the Pollution Control Account for use in making State
grants of up to 25 percent for the construction of
48.
-------
wastewater treatment works projects approved for Federal
grants. A resolution establishing a policy setting
limitations on State Clean Water grants for wastewater
treatment works projects accepted for Federal construction
grants was certified January 18, 1973. This resolution
limits the amount of funds available to 25 percent of the
total cost or 50 percent of the non-Federal share of the
eligible project cost, whichever is less. In the case of
Crabtree Creek, the Federal government (EPA) is proposing to
supply 75 percent of the eligible project costs, with the
State share being 12.5 percent. {See Table 1.)
The State of North Carolina is in the process of
establishing a program for sedimentation control. The 1973
session of the General Assembly ratified the Sedimentation
Pollution Control Act of 1973 on May 9, 1973 to establish a
program for the control of pollution from sedimentation.
The stated purpose of this act is to provide for the
creation, administration, enforcement of a program, and for
the adoption of minimal mandatory standards which will serve
to permit development of the State to continue with the
least detrimental effects from pollution by sedimentation.
This act provides for the creation of the North Carolina
Sedimentation Control Commission under the Department of
-------
Natural and Economic Resources, charged with developing and
adopting rules and regulations for the control of erosion
and sedimentation.
The State of North Carolina enacted an environmental
policy act in 1971. This act, very similar to the National
Environmental Policy Act, provides for the preparation of a
detailed statement by the responsible official generally
paralleling the Federal requirements. The Crabtree Creek
project has been determined to require a State environmental
impact statement. This document is being prepared as
fulfillment of both Federal and State requirements.
C. Region^J Research Triangle Planning Commission
Region J is the regional planning authority for the
project area. This commission has approved the proposed
project as consistent with regional planning objectives.
(Appendix 5). Further, as presented in II A.I., Region J
has been designated the planning agency for the 208 areawide
wastewater management plan.
D. Wake County
Wake County is the applicant for the proposed project,
and in this role assumes primary responsibility for
satisfaction of application and EPA grant conditions.
Further, the county assumes responsibility for mitigating
50.
-------
potential adverse environmental impacts of the project. The
County Commission, in response to this requisite, has passed
a resolution presenting a plan of action to provide
reasonable assurance that there will be no increase in the
probability of flood damages and no increase in the extent
of sedimentation resulting from development prompted by
sewer line construction. The resolution may be found in
Appendix 7.
The resolution recognizes that extension of water and
sewer utilities into the Upper Crabtree Creek Watershed will
encourage and facilitate development of land. It also
recognizes that completion of a major sewer outfall prior to
completion of flood control programs may cause an increase
in flood and erosion intensity as a consequence of
development.
The plan commits the Wake County Planning Department to
completing a geophysical study to determine what changes in
land use regulations will be necessary to prevent an
increase in the probability of flood damage or
sedimentation. These land use restrictions are to be
included in the county comprehensive plan and land use code
system. Ploodplain and erosion control ordinances were
adopted on June 3, 1974r and the county is committed to a
51.
-------
program for accelerating completion of the flood control
program. Recognition of these problems and the commitment
to their solution is a major step in preventing
environmental degradation from future development of the
Upper Crabtree Watershed.
The Wake County Department of Public Health has
authority for permitting septic tank installation. The
department requires residences in the Upper Crabtree
Watershed utilizing septic tanks to have large lots (40 -
60,000 square feet). Minimum allowable lot sizes are 30,000
square feet without public water supply and 20,000 square
feet with a public water supply,
E. Cities
1. Raleigh
The city of Raleigh has a significant interest in the
proposed project since the wastewater collected by this
interceptor will be transported through its Crabtree Creek
trunk sewer and treated at the new Neuse River treatment
plant (Chap. I.B.). The city exercises primary
responsibility for extensions of sewer and water service and
maintenance in the Raleigh "perimeter area.11 This perimeter
area is shown on Figure 17.
52.
-------
CRABTREE CREEK INTERCEPTOR
SEWER
-------
The city reserves the right to approve the plans and
specifications of other interceptors outside its perimeter
area tying in to the city system. In order to protect
itself from possible increased flood damage, the city passed
a resolution (Appendix 8) to establish a policy regarding
the expansion of city facilities. The resolution resolves
that
... the City of Baleigh joins the County of Wake
in taking a position of not encouraging develop-
ment of land which will necessarily result in
greater liquid runoffr soil erosion and sedimenta-
tion until adequate devices have been installed
to reduce those adverse effects of land development
...the City of Raleigh, to that end, hereby states
a policy of not extending water and sewer service
facilities or any other facilities under its
control into areas of Wake County outside
the City Limits, except in unusual circumstances,
unless and until areas into which such services
are extended and the area within the City Limits
of the City of Raleigh are adequately protected,
through the installation of related flood control
and other such devices, and unless and until adequate
facilities are available for the supply of water
and the treatment of sewage.
The city has also passed floodway and sedimentation
ordinances to help solve the flooding and siltation caused
by further development within the city limits. There is
still considerable undeveloped property within the city.
Coordination or a combination of programs between the city
and county could minimize costs and increase efficiency.
53,
-------
2. Cary
The northern portion of the city of Cary lies in the
Upper Crabtree Creek Watershed. Should the proposed project
be constructed, growth to the north and west of Cary will be
accelerated. Careful coordination of control programs
between the city of Cary, city of Raleigh and Wake County in
the areas of utilities hookup, erosion and sedimentation,
design densities, and land uses is necessary to ensure
adequate and uniformly enforceable programs. Cary also has
contractual agreement with Wake County delineating a
perimeter service area (Figure 17). Cary assumes
responsibility for water and sewer hookup and maintenance in
this perimeter area.
Since Cary has the ability to annex portions of the
Crabtree Creek Basin outside its present incorporated
limits, it must coordinate extensions with Wake County to
assure that the percentage of impervious surfaces above any
one flood control structure does not allow a hydrologic
overload to occur. Guidelines now being prepared by the
Wake County Planning Department will provide the necessary
data. The Region J 208 planning process may also provide
future guidance.
-------
Gary has indicated it intends to pass a sedimentation
and erosion control ordinance similar to the Raleigh and
Wake County ordinances. Should annexation become a reality,
the city must take a responsible position in this regard and
in following land use restraints and impervious surface
limitations in the watershed,
F- Public
Various groups and citizens in the Wake County area have
been active in environmentally sensitive matters. The
Citizens to Save Umstead State Park had a profound influence
on the area surrounding and in this park. The Raleigh-
Durham Airport expansion plans were altered to eliminate the
use of park lands and to reorient the proposed runway so the
flight path would not be directly over the park. This
citizen's group was also instrumental in assuring that the
SCS flood control structure in the park would be a dry dam.
Additionally, the relocation of the project interceptor
around the park requested by the State of North Carolina and
the National Park Service was supported by this group.
Another citizen's effort in the Wake County area is
Project Flood Control. A petition circulated and signed by
6,000 residents of Wake County called for floodplain
ordinances, soil erosion and sedimentation ordinances,
55.
-------
controls for public works projects, and completion of the
SCS flood control structures (Appendix 9). This endeavor
has contributed substantially toward educating the public
about these major current environmental issues and
influenced passage of these ordinances.
Various other groups have likewise contributed
substantially to identifying the environmental problem areas
within Wake County. The Oak Park-Glen Forest-Deblyn Park
Civic Association, the Sierra Club and the Crabtree Creek
Citizens Assistance Committee (CCCAC) have been especially
active. The CCCAC was formed as a part of the public
participation program initiated by the Corps of Engineers on
their study of alternatives for the Crabtree Creek channel
between Structure No. 25 and the Neuse River.
56.
-------
III. ALTERNATIVES
Alternative routings of interceptors capable of satisfying
the wastewater collection and disposal needs of this basin
plus the "no action" alternative are discussed in this
chapter.
A. No Action
The alternative of "no action11 represents the withdrawal
of EPA grant funds from the Crabtree Creek interceptor
project. Should no action be taken, the adverse primary and
secondary impacts attributable to its placement would not
occur, and the benefits of adequate regional wastewater
treatment would not be realized. Further, other adverse and
beneficial impacts would occur.
Development of the upper basin would still occur,
although at a different pace and in a different pattern.
Due to the large lot size required for septic tanks, many
areas would develop at a lower density. In other areas,
developers may attempt to install their own package plants
which would result in higher density development. For a
package plant, siting approval would be required frow the
State Office of Water and Air Resources and the discharge
would require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Permit from the EPA. Although a very high degree of
57.
-------
treatment would be required, a plant failure above Umstead
State Park would be undesirable since crabtree Creek in the
Park is designated a Class B water (water contact recreation
area), Due to low flow conditions in this basin
immediately above the Park (0.3 cfs, 7-day,10-year), a
relatively small amount of dilution water is available to
serve as a safety buffer for Park users. For example, a
typical package treatment plant serving 3,000 persons at
peak discharge during low flow conditions would only provide
a three parts sewage to one part natural flow dilution
(assuming 200 gallons sewage per capita per day peak
discharge).
The above limitations on discharges to Crabtree Creek
could be expected to stimulate the use of septic tanks for
development. However, this area is not very suitable for
septic tanks since it has soil permeability limitations.
Large lots would be required to ensure maintenance of health
standards. Nevertheless, malfunctions could still be
expected to occur.
In addition to the threat to water quality and sanitary
conditions in the Upper Crabtree Creek Basin, to a lesser
extent the same secondary impacts of development would occur
under this alternative. There would be an increase in
58.
-------
runoff due to an increase in impervious surfaces, an
increase in sedimentation, an increase in urban runoff
pollution, and an increased demand for community services.
Since development would be expected to proceed at a slower
rate and to be at a lower density, these impacts would be
less immediate and less pronounced without the interceptor.
Should this Mno action" alternative be opted, some other
action would be necessary to improve the water quality of
Coles Branch. This could be accomplished by upgrading the
existing Cary plant to provide advanced waste treatment
(since Coles Branch has a 7-day, 10-year low flow of 0,0
cfs) , by pumping the wastewater from this plant to the
existing Walnut Creek interceptor, or by using an
alternative disposal method. Spray irrigation is possible
if a proper area with adequate soil drainage could be found,
but in this area this seems unlikely. Pumping to the Walnut
Creek interceptor is also feasible and would involve the
construction of a small pumping station and approximately
one mile of force main.
"No action" may also be expected to have an impact on
land use planning for the Crabtree Basin. The rate of
development might be slowed and allow the preparation of the
county land use plan and the regional 208 planning program
59.
-------
to occur before irrevocable land use commitments are made.
Unfortunately, deleterious developments could nevertheless
occur. Clustering of high density developments around
package plants in close proximity to watercourses presents a
situation that could result in deleterious impacts.
Alterations to natural drainage and potential erosion and
sedimentation problems would be greatest in these areas.
The Wake County Planning Department, in the Plan of
Action
-------
provisions for flood and sedimentation protection to
downstream areas. Preventive action now would allow
maintenance of environmental quality where future remedial
action would probably be more difficult and more costly.
B. alternative Routing
1. Walnut Creek
The proximity of the existing Walnut Creek interceptor
which serves Cary suggests consideration of its use for
transporting the wastewater generated in the Upper Crabtree
Basin. The proposed interceptor includes a pumping station
to be built west of Umstead State Park. By expanding the
lift capability of this station, the wastewater from the
upper basin could be pumped along Reedy CreeJc Road to the
Walnut Creek interceptor and thence to the new Neuse River
wastewater treatment plant.
There are several problems with this approach. The
Walnut Creek interceptor is presently considered adequate to
the year 2020 (See Table 7). Should the Upper Crabtree
Basin wastes be added, a parallel interceptor would be
required by 1995. Further, the proposed paralleling of part
of the existing Crabtree Creek interceptor would still be
necessary without the contribution from the Upper Crabtree
area. As may be seen from Table 8, sections of the Crabtree
61.
-------
TABLE 7
2020 CAPACITY - WALNUT CREEK INTERCEPTING SEWER
Location
From
To
Area
Served
(Acres)
Sewer
Size
Required
Capacity
fcngd)
Existing
Sewer Capacity
(mgd)
Gary
Macednia
Road
Lake
Raleigh
Lake
Wheeler
Road
Highway
#70
Cloverdale
Road
Cloverdale
Creek
Macedonia
Road
Lake
Raleigh
Lake Wheeler
Road
Highw ay
#70
Cloverdale
Road
Cloverdale
Creek
Existing
STP
3,770
6,980
9,130
11,050
14,730
17,990
19,160
25"
30"
30"
30"
42"
42"
42"
3.77
6.98
9.13
11.05
14.73
17.99
19.16
6.50
14.00
15.00
13.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
-------
TABLE 8
1970 CAPACITY - CRABTREE CREEK INTERCEPTING SEWER
Area Capacity
Location Served Sewer Required
From
House
Creek
Mine
Creek
Beaver
Dam
Creek
Big
Branch
Pigeon
House
Creek
Marsh
Creek
To Acres Size mgd
Mine
Creek 3,340 30" 2.30
Beaver Dam
Creek 10,540 36" 7.25
Big 13,660 36" 9.40
Branch 24"
Pigeon House 36" j
Creek ^.34 30,,
Marsh
Creek 23,890 42" 16.40
Pumping
Station 30 , 1 40 42" 20.70
Existing
Sewer
Capacity
mgd
7.50
12.00
14.00
4.50
13.00
8.00
17.50
17.50
The above analysis is based on a maximum flow of 250 gallons
per capita per day and the present population density of 2. 75 people
per acre.
-------
trunk sewer are already at capacity. With continued
expansion of existing service areas paralleling will be
required within ten years.
This alternative, therefore, is considered unreasonable
since it 1} would necessitate additional expenditures of
funds for pumping and paralleling the existing Walnut Creek
interceptor, 2) would not avoid paralleling the existing
Crabtree Creek interceptor, 3) would not avoid any adverse
primary or secondary impacts due to the proposed project,
and 4) would cost more than the proposed projects. See
Section 8 of Chapter VIII for additional discussion.
2. Pump to the New Hope Basin
This alternative was recommended in the Research
Triangle Planning Commission1s Development Guide based on
information available in 1969, which projects 12 mgd of the
Upper Crabtree Watershed wastes will be pumped to the New
Hope River Basin via a pump located just west of 1-40 on
Crabtree Creek, This alternative would eliminate the force
main around the Park but would still require the Turkey
Creek and Richland Creek interceptors.
The Commission supported this proposal due to the
following two factors:
62.
-------
an effort to keep as much waste as possible
out of the Neuse River, the Neuse being a
major water supply source for the Raleigh
portion of the Region and for downstream
uses. With the Neuse being a water supply
stream, it was logical to use the Cape Fear
basin for as much thoroughly treated
effluent as possible. (It is noted that
North Carolina water law does not prohibit
inter-basin transfer between the Neuse and
the Cape Fear Basins.)
an effort to eliminate the temptation of
running a major outfall through Omstead
State Park.
Both the Neuse Basin and the Cape Fear Basin in the
Research Triangle Region contain the sites of major Corps of
Engineer reservoir projects the Falls of the Neuse and the
Wilson Mills Reservoir in the Neuse Basin and the New Hope
Reservoir in the Cape Fear Basin.
The Environmental Protection Agency, since the
preparation of the Development Guide, has established egual
water quality standards for reservoirs in both basins.
Therefore, there is no longer merit in endeavoring to make
the wastewater treatment process easier in the Neuse Basin
by pumping some of the burden into the Cape Fear Basin.
Such an effort would merely intensify the difficulty in the
Cape Fear Basin.
63,
-------
The pumping and piping costs associated with this
alternative would be significantly higher than those of the
proposed project. Further, it has no particular
environmental advantages, Wastewater from the Richland and
Turkey Creek Basin would still necessitate construction of
the Oak Park section and Richland Creek section of the
project. Also, the proposed project avoids the deleterious
impacts of a major outfall in Dmstead State Park since the
effluent will be pumped around the area. Additionally,
equivalent adverse primary and secondary impacts would occur
by pumping to the Cape Fear basin. For these reasons, this
alternative was discarded.
C, Reduced Scope
! . HP. . HI ! .-.. MM ... I J. 1 || fall
There are various possibilities involving building only
a part or parts of the proposed project. One of these
possibilities is to build only the Richland Creek section of
the interceptor. This alternative would allow the provision
of service to the presently overloaded facilities in this
basin.
The State Fairgrounds are now in need of additional
capacity. Also, Carter Stadium, the National Guard Armory,
the State Prison Farm and other wastewater generators in
this basin are producing wastewater at. the capacity of
64.
-------
existing pumping stations and interceptors. There is a
proposal to increase the capacity of the facilities serving
the Fairgrounds because of the overloaded condition. By
building the Richland Creek section of the proposed project,
the ultimate Regional plan may be followed without interim
"stopgap" measures.
The immediate need for provision of adequate sewage
transmission in this basin is well founded. However, the
same potential adverse effects from construction and induced
development would be expected to occur. Increased flooding
and sedimentation could occur due to development without
control measures, and the impacts of interceptor
construction would affect aesthetic qualities and also cause
potential erosion and sedimentation impacts.
Greatly increased pressures for development would be
placed on this basin. Existing non-public lands could be
rapidly developed and public lands would become considerably
more valuable. As discussed in Chapter II, approximately
60% of this basin is publicly owned. Land which in the
future will be needed for constructing the dam for SCS
structure No. 25 and probably No, 23 can be expected to
raise in price.
65.
-------
This alternative may actually occur since requirements
made in this EIS regarding flood control structure
acquisition may necessitate reduction of the project scope.
For example, the county may not be able to raise sufficient
funds to purchase the land for the entire SCS project. In
this case, the EPA would not fund those portions of the
project for which adequate flood protection measures for
downstream areas have not been provided.
Even with the above policy of not extending SPA funded
interceptors into non-flood controlled areas, under this
alternative, there is the potential for development located
outside the Richland Creek basin to pump to this section of
the interceptor. Local developers could, if the city and
county allowed, complete other portions of the interceptor
system. This possibility could pose the threat of increased
flooding without controls, and at the same time, increase
land prices for the necessary flood control structures since
eventual sewering could be considered imminent.
Fortunately, if this reduced scope alternative becomes a
reality, the city of Raleigh and Wake County have committed
themselves to not extending sewer lines into areas which do
not have flood control protection provided. But
66,
-------
nevertheless, increased property values make the completion
of the structures more costly.
67.
-------
IV. IMPACT OF THE_PRQPQSED PROJECT
The proposed project will have both beneficial and
adverse impacts on the human environment. These impacts may
be subdivided further into primary and secondary effects.
The following chapter is a discussion of these impacts.
A. Primary Impacts
Primary impacts may be classified as those effects which
are a direct result of the project. In the case of the
Crabtree Creek interceptor sewer these includes improvement
of water quality in the Upper Crabtree Basin, stimulation of
development* alteration of ecological communities, erosion
of soil from the construction areas, and loss of certain
aesthetic values. These and other primary impacts are
directly attributable to the proposed project.
1. Beneficial Impacts
The major beneficial impacts afforded by the project are
the elimination of present and possible future wastewater
discharges to Crabtree Creek and its tributaries, and the
provision for regional wastewater treatment. The Coles
Branch, Mobile City and, in the future. Brier Creek plants,
which now contribute to the pollutant loading on Crabtree
Creek, will be eliminated. Future discharges, the
possibility of which may be evidenced by the presently
68.
-------
unapproved requests for point source discharges received by
the North Carolina Office of Water and Air Resources since
1970 (Table 9), will be precluded. Further, present and
future septic tank operation in the unsuitable areas of the
Upper Crabtree Basin may be avoided.
Table 9
Requests for Point Source Discharge
Persons Requesting
Site Approval/Purpose
Wester Lloyd
Mobile Home Park
Taylor Realty Company
Industrial Park
Castleberry Edgerton Co.
Mobile Home Park
Adams Realty Co.
Industrial Park
J. w. York
Subdivision
The Ervin Company
Subdivision
Mobile Townes Corp.
Mobile Home Park
Ogburn Realty Company
Industrial Park
Wastewater Discharge
Date Volume Requested
8-1970 50,000 gpd
5-1970 2,500 gpd
7-1972 25,000 gpd
8-1970 90,000 gpd
(5,000 gpd approved)
5-1971 500,000 gpd
5-1971 500,000 gpd
6-1970 80,000 gpd (est.)
12-1970 10,000 gpd (est.)
The placement of the proposed interceptor will also
facilitate implementation of good planning and land use
objectives. Areawide wastewater collection will allow other
69.
-------
environmental considerations to be foremost among
development priorities. Instead of development being
located convenient to waste treatment facilities with spotty
uncoordinated growth, considerations such as slope,
transportation, vegetation, soils, water supply, and
aesthetic values can have a greater bearing on the location
and type of development.
2. Adverse Impacts
a, Wastewater and Sludge Disposal
The project will initially transport a peak of 2.3 mgd
of wastewater to the Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant
with ultimate peak flow projected at 20 mgd. This project
further commits the city of Raleigh to its program of
incremental increases in the size of the new Neuse River
Wastewater Treatment Plant. The impacts associated with
this plant are beyond the scope of this environmental impact
statement. (I.B.)
Following treatment, the effluent will be discharged to
the Neuse River containing 6 ppm BOD and 5 ppm suspended
solids attaining 97 - 98 percent removal. Due to the low
flow characteristics of the Neuse River, a high removal
percentage is required to meet water guality standards.
70.
-------
The sludge generated at the Neuse plant will be disposed
by landfilling adjacent to the treatment facilities. A
research grant to recycle this sludge on North Carolina
State farm lands and to study the effects has been proposed.
This project is in the planning stage.
b. Erosion and sedimentation
Underground sewer line construction requires excavation
for pipe installation. Erosion of the exposed soils with
the resultant sedimentation may be the result. Exposure of
unprotected soil to the erosive energy of falling rain and
overland flow, plus the action of men and machines at
construction sites, can cause significantly increased soil
loss and siltation. This loss of top soil not only is a
waste of a valuable natural resource, but often creates
undesirable sediment deposition in downstream areas.
Continuation of this deposition can significantly affect the
water-carrying capacity of a stream channel and increase
flood stages. Farther, increased turbidity may inhibit
aquatic flora and fauna and significantly change the
established predator-prey relationships. Photosynthetic
activity of rooted aquatic plants may be impaired. Sediment
contribution may also adversely affect water temperature,
especially during the summer months.
71.
-------
In the case of this project, the situation is
compounded since construction will occur adjacent to a
stream course. This poses the possibility of disturbing the
creek bank or adjacent rooted vegetation and could cause
significant erosion from soil transport by the natural
stream flows.
c. Construction Inconveniences and Annoyances
There will be minor inconveniences to traffic during
crossing of roadways. Three paved roads Ebenezer Church
Road, Old Trinity Road, and the Youth Center Drive must be
disrupted. Two unpaved roads Reedy Creek Road east of 1-40
and Trenton Road will be affected. Trenton Road may be
closed during construction since the interceptor is
projected to run 400 feet down its center line. N, C. 54
and 1-40 at Richland Creek will be traversed by boring or
tunneling and no disruption of traffic is expected. The
remaining roadways Duraleigh Road, Reedy Creek Road west of
1-40 and 1-40 at Crabtree Creek will be crossed by passing
underneath existing bridges. The impact on traffic from
these crossings, excepting Trenton Road, is anticipated to
be slight and of short duration.
Dust could present problems should dry conditions
prevail. Standard methods for dust control will be
72.
-------
utilized, including watering, and no significant impacts are
anticipated.
Noise may be a substantial annoyance to residents living
in close proximity to the construction. Equipment will be
operated only during daylight hours, and the contractor
should be directed to keep muffler systems functioning on
all machinery. This impact will be of limited duration.
d. Aesthetics
Tree loss along Crabtree Creek will be a major
aesthetic loss. As proposed, the project will cut a 13
meter (10-foot) right-of-way, resulting in a tree loss swath
of at least 13 meters and possibly 16 or more meters (50
feet) due to root damages. Many trees, notably the beech,
tulip tree, and loblolly pine, will not survive damage or
disturbances to their root systems. Deposition of sediment,
changes in water table, or damage to the roots will result
in a high death rate. Special care should be given in
developed areas where private yards are to be traversed if
unnecessary tree loss is to be avoided. Reductions in the
width of right-of-way should be made wherever possible in
these areas. Due to the extreme hazard of pine bark beetles
in the project area at the present time, special care should
be taken during the construction phase. All seriously
73.
-------
damaged trees, especially pines, should be removed as
injuries often increase beetle susceptibility,
Regrowth of vegetation will not be allowed since access
to the interceptor must be provided and damage to the pipe
must be avoided. Maintenance of the interceptor right-of-
way is to be provided by the city, although property owners
may wish to give greater care to maintaining this area. No
herbicides will be utilized to control vegetation on the
right-of-way.
The original proposal for high manholes has been changed
to provide sealed, bolted down covers. Plans call for a
vent which would be above the 100-year flood level. This
vent would be a visual distraction and should be avoided by
using a snorkel device or underground piping to a ground
level vent above the 100 flood level.
Since right-of-way clearing provides easy access from
existing roadways, hikers, bicyclists, and motorcyclists may
attempt to utilize this scenic route. Following
revegetation, management and surveillance of the right-of-
way may be desirable. The proposed greenway system provides
a means for this kind of management.
Odors may be a substantial annoyance to persons
subjected to them. Whenever wastewaters are allowed to
74.
-------
become anaerobic, that is, without oxygen, malodorous gases
may escape and become a nuisance to nearby residences. In
the case of the Crabtree Creek project, there is a
possibility that due to the length of the interceptor, flow
time may be sufficiently long to allow the oxygen in the
wastewater to be expended. Should this condition occur,
odors would be produced. This potential will be avoided by
providing aeration of the wastewater at the proposed pumping
stations.
e. Disruption of Natural Drainage Patterns
In some areas the interceptor will cross ditches and
other small surface water channels. This could result in
disruption of the natural drainage patterns of some areas,
creating ponds or wet areas. Due to the depth of the
interceptor these instances are expected to be rare, and
measures to preclude this occurrence have been provided in
the engineering plans and specifications. Inspections
should be made during and following placement of the
interceptor to ensure that all areas have been adequately
identified and protected, especially in existing residential
areas (i.e.. Oak Park). In those areas where problems
occur, French drains or other relief methods must be
75.
-------
utilized to provide adequate drainage before final grant
payments will be made.
f. Archeological, Historical and Cultural
Two residences are listed in the Wake County Historic
Inventory, the Trinity Road Cottage and the Nancy Jones
House. Neither are located along the alignment of the
interceptor sewer and no impact is anticipated. Mr.
Thornton Mitchell, Acting State Historic Preservation
Officer, states that care should be taken during sewer
construction to protect the integrity of the Nancy Jones
House; however, the restoration of the Trinity Road Cottage
has lessened the importance of the building historically by
gutting the interior and covering the original brick
exterior with stucco.
Crabtree Creek itself is of considerable historical
importance to Wake County as one of the earliest settlement
areas. The 1775 Mouzon map (London) is one of the first
showing the existence of the creek, which was named while
the area was still part of Johnson County.
The State Department of Cultural Resources recommended
and conducted a surface survey along the proposed
interceptor line to identify significant archeological
artifacts. Three potentially significant sites were
76.
-------
discovered and recommended for further study (Appendix 14) .
The applicant will contact the Department of Cultural
Resources before project construction to determine the most
cost effective way of avoiding the destruction of significant
cultural resources.
g. SCS Flood Control Structures
The laying of the project pipe may affect the future
construction of the SCS control structures. Structures 11,
25, 23, and 18 all lie adjacent to the proposed project.
The interceptor is planned to skirt around Structure 25 on
the south side and to have sealed bolted man-hole covers
where the cover is below the 100-year flood level. The
interceptor is also routed to avoid Structure 18 on Coles
Branch by passing on the north side above the 100-year flood
level. The applicant should maintain close coordination
with the SCS concerning the construction of the project.
3. Alteration of Ecosystems
Laying the large sewer lines involved in this project
will involve the use of mechanized equipment. As a
consequence, a right-of-way approximately 13 meters (40
feet) in width will have to be cleared of all impeding
vegetation. A trench about three meters (nine feet) wide
will be excavated, with the removed dirt temporarily piled
77.
-------
adjacent to the cut. Wheeled and tracked vehicles will ply
the right-of-way, compressing the upper soil layers of areas
not trenched or covered with removed soil. The branches of
trees and shrubs that extend into the working space of the
entrenchment machines will be removed. In general, the
natural communities located in the path of the line will be
severely traumatized. Most subterranean and surface forms
of insects and other invertebrates will be killed when the
soil horizons are mixed, covered, or crushed by heavy
equipment. The population dynamics of the soil micro-flora
and fauna will also be significantly altered.
After the sewer pipe is in place, the ground surface
above it will be seeded with quick-growing grasses to
control erosion. The right-of-way will be kept permanently
clear of any vegetation that might hinder periodic
maintenance and inspection. This means that no significant
woody vegetation will be allowed to encroach. Normal plant
succession on disturbed land in the Crabtree Creek area
leads to a forest cover as the climax type, thus continuous
effort and energy will have to be expended to maintain the
right-of-way.
The degree of permanent change made in the biotic
community located on the right-of-way site depends naturally
78.
-------
upon the original type of community. (Appendix 15) . Areas
that have been cleared within the last two years, and areas
used as pasturage, will experience little change. Within
two to five years, surface indications of the presence of
the line on these sites will be very small. Areas thickly
covered with large deciduous trees and their associated
understory vegetation will suffer the greatest temporary and
permanent alterations.
In most cases, species diversity will be reduced along
the right-of-way whenever it passes through a natural
community, although in some special cases, such as routing
through a dense eight- to fifteen-year-old pure pine stand,
overall diversity will be increased. The greatest expected
changes will occur to the streamside ecotone dominated by
gums, beech, river birch, sycamore, tulip tree, and several
species of oaks, where natural succession has been left
undisturbed by man for a few decades.
When deciduous trees with trunks and foliage extending
over a few meters in height are removed from the right-of-
way, suitable habitat for several species of warblers and
woodpeckers who feed largely within the middle and upper-
story forest layers will be reduced. Birds who originally
feed within the cleared area will be forced to move their
79.
-------
feeding areas to adjacent suitable territory or to remain
and utilize the food associated with low-growing shrubs and
grasses. While attempting to move their feeding areas,
these birds will be forced into competition with nearby
established members of the same species occupying and
feeding in the same ecological niche. If they attempt to
keep the same geographical location for their feeding area,
they will have to compete with other species of birds who
will move in and who are already fully adapted to utilizing
the food produced by a low-growing shrub and grass
community. In either case the displaced bird is at a great
disadvantage.
It is commonly believed that destruction of an area's
wildlife habitat will result in a movement of the displaced
animals into suitable surrounding areas not directly
affected by the given project. This is a partially true but
grossly misleading belief. If an adjacent similar habitat
is acceptable, it usually is already saturated to its
carrying capacity with a population of the same or closely
competing species. When, this is the case, ingress of
additional individuals will result in a population size and
resultant density above the supporting capabilities of the
remaining habitat. The net result will be the death of the
80.
-------
excess population least able to obtain food and shelter,
almost all of whom will be those animals who have been
displaced from their home range.
Conversely, those species, such as sparrows, mourning
doves and the like, who are adapted to making maximum
utilization of food produced by annuals, grasses, and low
shrubs, will benefit from an opening up of the forest
canopy.
On the ground, population shifts in the small mammals
will occur as species of insectivores (shrews, moles), mice,
rats and voles, adapted for life on the forest floor, are
replaced by species adapted for life in a more open
environment. These changes will also influence the local
population of raptorial birds (hawks and owls) who prey on
these animals. The primary food supply for the gray
squirrel will also be removed when the trees are cut,
although it probably will be a visitor to the area after the
ground cover has regrown.
Larger and wider-roaming mammals, such as the raccoon
and opossum, will be less affected by the right-of-way
clearing due to their adaptability and omnivorous feeding
habits. One large mammal, the beaver, which occurs in the
area, is adapted to making a home in the nearby stream and
81.
-------
feeding upon the succulent portions of streamside woody and
semi-woody vegetation. They, and other semi-aquatic
mammals, such as the otter and mink, usually move away from
sites extensively visited by humans. Their continuing
presence will depend upon the relative increase in human use
of the cleared right-of-way.
The aquatic communities in Crabtree Creek may be altered
as well. If additional clay, silt, and sand enter Crabtree
Creek as a result of streamside construction, the primary
productivity of the green plants in the stream will be
reduced to the extent they are excessively shaded from the
sun by the suspended and deposited particules. Of course,
where construction is so close to the stream that a portion
of the tree canopy formerly shading the stream is removed,
available sunlight at the water's surface would go up,
counterbalancing to some extent the former effect. If the
vegetative canopy along the creekbank is cut away, increased
diurnal variations in water temperatures will also result.
During the day, due to increased direct solar radiation,
temperatures will increase; in the evening, decreased
vegetative insulation will allow greater heat loss and an
associated lowering of temperature. These temperature
alterations may affect spawning and fry survival.
82.
-------
The texture of a stream bottom influences the species
mix of benthos living on and in it. A rocky bottom will
support one set of species on it while pebblely, sandy,
silty, and clay bottoms will have different fauna1
associations. An increased layering of the smaller
particules likely to wash off construction sites onto the
larger rocks and pebbles usually found in undisturbed
piedmont streams will cause a loss of available habitat for
some life forms such as caddis flies and an increase in
suitable substrata for forms such as aquatic worms. This
will affect the species diversity and population of game
and other fish which feed on these types of organisms.
4. Growth and Development Impacts
There will be major impacts from the proposed project on
land use and development. Adequate sewerage will allow
development to occur faster than might otherwise be
expected. The proposed interceptor is designed to serve a
population of at least 80,000 persons, 70,000 of which may
be expected to reside west of a north-south line through
Umstead State Park. Proposed densities vary from five to
greater than nine persons per gross acre (gross meaning
total land area,including residential dwellings, streets,
commercial enterprises, schools, floodplains, open space,
83.
-------
etc.). The net densities of some areas may be somewhat
higher.
Densities without the interceptor could be expected to
be lower. Should package plants discharging to Crabtree
Creek be built, localized growth around these plants could
be expected, but a limited number of persons could be
served. The Wake County Plan of Action Resolution states
maximum capacity of Crabtree Creek and its tributaries to be
the wastewater generated from 3,000 persons. This quantity
would still, under low flow conditions, provide only one
part natural flow to three parts treated sewage flow. The
use of septic tanks might therefore be expected. Lot sizes
of 40,000-60,000 square feet have been required by the
Public Health Department in this area which would cut
maximum gross densities to between three to five persons per
acre. Minimum allowable lot sizes have been set at 30,000
square feet where a public water supply source is not
available and 20,000 square feet where water is supplied.
Even at this lower figure, maximum net densities would be
approximately seven persons per acre.
Presently, there is no comprehensive land use plan for
the Upper Crabtree Basin; however, the Wake County Planning
Department is working on such a plan. It is therefore
84.
-------
impossible to compare the design flows of the various
segments of the interceptor with approved county plans. The
rate and density of residential developments may be set by
individual zoning requests.
The rate of development, type of land use, and
population density all have significant impacts on both
local watercourses and their surrounding areas. The higher
the density, the greater the amounts of impervious surfaces
and runoff, and the more significant the impact on streams.
The higher the density, the greater the impact on
transportation, community services, recreational facilities,
commercial establishments, and practically all other urban
activities. These impacts are discussed in the following
section. Secondary Impacts,
B- Secondary Impacts
Secondary impacts are those changes resulting from a
direct or primary impact of a project. Often, secondary
impacts are impacts that are already occurring or may occur
with or without the project interceptor. EPA participation
in funding the Crabtree Creek interceptor sewer will result
in increased severity of certain environmental problems.
This interceptor will increase the amount and speed of
85.
-------
urbanization in the Upper Crabtree Watershed and will cause
aggravation of certain impacts of development.
1. Stream Flow
Development of a rural watershed has been repeatedly
shown to have significant effects on stream flow
characteristics. Urbanization can double or triple flood
magnitudes in the Piedmont North Carolina area (Putnam,
1972). This increase can be attributed to (1) increases in
impervious surfaces causing a decrease in infiltration and,
therefore, an increase in the volume of runoff, and (2)
hydraulic changes of the basin decreasing the time necessary
for the rainfall to reach the watercourse.
The volume of runoff is governed primarily by
infiltration characteristics and is related to the
percentage of impervious surfaces, slope, soil type and
vegetative cover. Urbanization includes the construction of
roofs, parking lots, and streets which significantly
increases the impervious surfaces and decreases the surface
available for infiltration to groundwater. Typical
urbanization of a rural area may increase the percentage of
impervious surfaces from practically zero to 30 percent or
more. The associated loss of vegetative cover decreases the
86.
-------
rainfall intercepted and retained on foliage. The net
result is a significant increase in the volume of runoff.
Urbanization likewise reduces lag time, the average time
necessary to move storm water across land surfaces to the
stream channel (Figure 18). Sewers, gutters, and paved
surfaces allow storm waters to flow unimpeded and reduce the
lag time. This reduction can greatly increase the flood
stage in a receiving stream. When a particular volume of
water falls on an area, if the time for this water to reach
the stream channel decreases, the rate of discharge in the
stream must increase. This increase in discharge results in
a higher stage and increased flooding.
The combination of increased volume and decreased lag
time can have drastic effects on downstream areas. Figure
19 shows some typical ratios for storm water discharges
after urbanization vs. discharges before urbanization. For
example, if an area becomes urbanized such that 20 percent
of the area is impervious and only 40 percent is sewered by
storm sewers, the peak discharge will be twice as much after
urbanization as before. The graph is not specific for
Crabtree Creek, but it illustrates similar greatly increased
stream flows in other areas which may be expected in this
basin. As may be readily seen, increased impervious
87.
-------
to
u.
Hydroulicolly improved basin having
associated impervious surface
Hydroulicolly improved basin having
natural basin surface
Natural channels and
natural basin surface
- T,,TU
TIME
Figure '18 Schematic drawing illustrating the effects of urban development on
flood hydrographs. Hydrographs are not to scale. T , T and T , lag times;
n
u'
P > P , and P flood peaks of the hydrographs for the three basin types shown.
Robert Coughlin and Thomas Hammer, "Stream Quality Preservation Through
Planned Urban Development," EPA, May 1973
-------
100
-------
surfaces and increased storm sewerage can greatly affect
stream flows.
Another effect of urbanization, somewhat less known, is
the change in low flow characteristics. Since the low flow
is basically groundwater seepage into the stream, an
increase in the percentage of rainfall that runs off due to
increased impervious surfaces represents a similar decrease
in rainfall that percolates into groundwater storage. The
net result is often decreased flow available from
groundwater. In areas which commonly have zero or very low
flows, an increase in the frequency of these conditions may
be expected.
The impacts of urbanization on stream flows described
above will occur to varying degrees in the Upper Crabtree
Creek Basin. The Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District,
has computed average annual dollar damages to existing
downstream development from flooding for conditions with and
without future urban development in the watershed and with
and without the SCS control structures (Table 10) . As may
be seen from this table, 80 percent development of the
watershed would raise average annual damages to existing
development from $933 thousand to $1.9 million if the SCS
structures were not built. If the structures are built,
88.
-------
TABLE 10
Average Annual Flood Damages
Existing Development
Without SCS Structures
Wake Forest Road
Farmers Market Area
Crabtree Valley
Mall Area
$ 501.000 (54%)
$ 276.000 (30%)
Average Annual
Damages
$ 933,000
Existing Development
With SCS Structures
114,000 (71%)
15,000 ( 9%)
161,000
80% Development
Without SCS Structures
1,029,000 (54%)
560,000 (29%)
1,918,000
80% Development
With SCS Structures
219,000 (65%)
42.000 (13%)
335,000
Corps of Engineers' Letter
April 21, 1976
-------
then even with 80 percent development, average annual flood
damages are estimated at $335 thousand or about a third the
damages under existing conditions without the SCS
structures. Table 10 also shows the increase in average
annual downstream flood damages, caused by 80 percent
development, is less with the SCS structures than without
them. The flood stages associated with the varying
conditions are given in Figure 16, This figure shows flood
stages for a 100-year storm of approximately two and one-
half feet greater than present stages due to 80 percent
urbanization of the Crabtree Basin without the SCS
structures. Flood stages with 80 percent development of the
Upper Crabtree Basin with the structures are shown to be
three to four feet lower than with existing development
without the SCS structures.
The actual damages incurred and other adverse impacts
will depend on the measures taken to mitigate these impacts.
Chapter IV presents a discussion of available mitigative
measures.
2. Erosion and Sedimentation
Development of a watershed can increase the amount of
erosion and the resultant sedimentation in two ways. First,
runoff from construction sites that have been stripped of
89.
-------
vegetation carry large quantities of silt into the
waterways. Secondly, an increase in runoff causes increased
erosion of the channel banks. These two sources can greatly
increase the total sediment loading on a receiving stream.
Piedmont lands have been estimated by Wolman (1964) to
produce sediment yields of 500 tons per square mile per
year. Sediment yields from urbanizing areas have ranged
from 1,000 to more than 100,000 tons/square mile/year.
Other researchers (Guy and Ferguson, 1962; Keller, 1962;
Wark and Keller, 1963) have estimated that urbanization
increased sediment yields from four to 250 times that of
rural areas. Additionally, the increase in sediment
production through erosion of channel banks due to increased
peak flows has been estimated as high as five times the
usual production from a non-urban area.
Uncontrolled development of the Upper Crabtree Creek
Basin can be expected to significantly increase the
production of sediment as described. The highly erodable
Creedmore-White Store, Cecil-Appling and Cecil association
soils, which predominate in the upper basin, make the
erosion potential more serious. The adverse impacts
associated with erosion and sedimentation that are described
in the primary impacts section will also occur from this
90.
-------
secondary source. Aquatic fauna and flora growth will be
inhibited, and flood stages may rise due to deposition of
sediment in the stream bed.
3. Water Quality
There can be little doubt that as a watershed becomes
urbanized, the quality of its surface water decreases. As
discussed previously, the sediment loading increases due to
construction runoff and stream bank erosion. Following
construction, materials found on street surfaces wash into
adjacent surface waters, causing urban runoff in many
respects to be similar to sanitary sewage.
Street surface contaminants are comprised primarily of
particulate matter but also include soluble and suspended
matter. These constituents come from the degradation of
asphaltic and concrete pavements, various contributions from
motor vehicles (e.g., leakage of fuel, lubricants and
fluids; particulates from tires, clutches and brakes; dirt
and rust; and components from wrecked vehicles) , fallout
from the atmosphere, vegetation (e.g., leaves, branches),
litter, spills, and other sources. In some areas lawn
fertilization may also become a significant contributor to
urban runoff pollution. Particular land uses dictate which
91
-------
of the above sources are significant in any individual urban
area.
Constituents of urban runoff may lower the dissolved
oxygen content of receiving waters by adding oxygen-
demanding materials to the stream. A low oxygen content can
result in oxygen starvation for fish and, in extreme cases,
production of noxious odors. One measurement of the ability
of a waste to deplete waters of oxygen is the biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD) . The BOD is measured by determining the
amount of oxygen necessary for the biological degradation of
a waste for a specified length of time, usually five days.
The BOD contribution has been evaluated by various
researchers in terms of pounds per curb mile (Ibs/curb mile)
found on street surfaces. Values for BOD contributed to
watercourses per storm have been reported as low as 0.8
Ibs/curb mile (Water Pollution Aspects of Urban Runoff,
1969). Following dry periods with continued buildup of
pollutants, values as high as 50 Ibs/curb mile (Water
Pollution Aspects of Street Surface Contaminants, 1972) have
been reported. BOD values between five and 20 Ibs/curb mile
are typical in urban residential areas. During the first
minutes of rainfall, the discharge of these pollutants
occurs rapidly, and concentrations of oxygen-demanding
92.
-------
material can reach significant proportions. In cases of low
stream flow with a light rainfall, very high concentrations
of oxyqen demanding materials (BOD) in the receiving waters
may occur. Should this low flow condition persist,
continued oxygen utilization may result in low or zero
dissolved oxygen concentrations, killing aquatic aerobic
organisms.
Other pollutants which can cause adverse impacts are
nutrients (phosphates, nitrates, and ammonium nitrogen),
heavy metals (zinc, copper, lead, nickel, mercury, chromium,
etc.) and various pesticides. An abundant supply of the
nutrients necessary for growth can result in algal blooms.
During daylight hours, photosynthesis by these algal
organisms may raise dissolved oxygen concentrations above
the saturation level. But during the nightime hours, algal
respiration can reduce oxygen concentrations to very low
levels. Death and settling of these organisms can
contribute significantly to the benthic (bottom) oxygen
demand of the water. Unsightly conditions, odors, and fish
kills may be the ultimate result of this over-enrichment.
Heavy metals and pesticides concentrations may also
affect the ecological balance. With high levels, they can
become toxic to certain aquatic organisms, changing or
93.
-------
destroying the naturally occurring trophic (feeding)
structures. For example, a certain fish may be able to
survive a certain concentration of a toxicant, but the
organisms that the fish uses as a food source may not be
able to survive. Species diversification is often reduced,
with only a few tolerant species flourishing. Lower levels
of these toxicants can cause chronic effects on organisms;
changes in activity levels, reproduction rates, etc.
Following urbanization of the Upper Crabtree Creek
Watershed, storm water runoff will contribute to the
pollutant loadings, and the water quality of Crabtree Creek
may be expected to deterioriate. Control measures exist and
are discussed in Chapter V.
4, Community Services and Utilities
With increased development comes the necessity of
providing community services such as water supply,
transportation, power, recreation, schools, health
facilities, fire and police protection and garbage pickup.
Each of these services is provided to the general public
through taxation, special assessments, or service charges.
Since each involves an expenditure of natural and economic
resources, impacts are involved.
91.
-------
Most of the water supply needs of the city of Raleigh
and the surrounding area are presently satisfied with water
originating from the Neuse River. Future plans project raw
water supplies from the Falls of the Neuse Reservoir. This
reservoir is presently under construction. Construction of
the proposed interceptor sewer commits the raw water
resources of the Neuse to satisfying the water supply needs
of approximately 80,000 persons (10 mgd at 125 gpcd).
Similarly, land and economic resources must be committed
toward supplying the projected population with roadways
and/or mass transit facilities. Present plans provide for a
system of arterial roadways connecting the project area to
State Highway 5*, 1-40, Duraleigh Road (1661) and Highway
70. (See .Figure 20.) Urbanization of the Upper Crabtree
Creek Basin may be expected to significantly increase the
volume of traffic using these corridors.
The possibility of mass transit for the Triangle area
has not been intensively researched, existing rail lines
from Raleigh to most major populated areas (Durham, Research
Triangle, Gary, Wake Forest, Wendell, Zebulon, Garner, and
Fuquay-Varina) suggests the possibility of such a system.
The incorporation of plans for mass transit facilities into
the Wake County Master Transportation Plan needs to be given
95.
-------
I
-------
future consideration to assure this option remains open
should population densities increase sufficiently to make
these facilities cost effective and environmentally
desirable.
Population growth also increases the generation of solid
wastes. Land use plans being developed by the Wake County
Planning Department should consider and specify the
appropriate ultimate fate of solid waste generated by the
proposed population. Planned land filling prior to
development can often provide much needed land for
recreational purposes or open space. By planning the
location of a landfill area, the potential for reuse may be
more fully utilized.
In addition to these required services, the increased
power demands necessary to satisfy a population of 80,000
will need to be supplied. Assuming approximately 27,000
residences, approximately 135 MVA of electric power will be
required. Utilities such as water and sewage and commercial
establishments within the area would require another 135
MVA giving a total estimated demand for the area of 270 MVA.
At the present time, the following distribution substations
serve the area of the Crabtree Creek Basin: 1) Prison Farm
substation located to the north of the Raleigh beltline and
96.
-------
east of Interstate 40, 2) the Gary Substation located in
Gary, 3) the Raleiqh-Durham Airport Substation located just
north of S.R. 1002 and northeast of the airport, 4) the
Leesville Substation located to the east of Highway 70, and
5) the Oak Park subdivision substation. Each of these
substations has a present capacity or can be expanded to 100
MVA. Future plans call for the establishment of stations in
Gary, Morrisville, and to the west of the present Crabtree
Valley Shopping Center, each of which will have an ultimate
capacity of 100 MVA. In addition, there are plans to
install a 500/230 KV bulk power substation to the north of
the Raleigh-Durham Airport. This power demand may initially
require additional burning of fossil fuels. The Shearon
Harris Nuclear facility, when completed, will provide
further generation capacity (Correspondence, Earl F.
Stephenson, Carolina Power and Light, April 12, 1974).
Schools and recreational areas also will be needed. The
usage of Omstead State Park may be expected to rise
considerably due to the increased proximity of residential
areas. Additional facilities will be required to accomodate
this use, i.e., parking, trails, picnic areas, etc. Plans
are being developed by the State Parks Department to provide
the additional facilities and allow for usage and
97.
-------
preservation of the ecological integrity of this park area.
The Capital City Greenway Plan is one of these proposals
(Appendix 16). Although EPA can take no active role in
funding such a project, this Agency does favor multiple use
of interceptor right-of-way for such purposes. Also, the
New Palls of the Neuse Reservoir will provide additional
recreational facilities for the Wake county area.
The need for comprehensive planning in this watershed is
great. Haphazard growth, which is indifferent to areawide
planning objectives and stimulated by available utilities,
could have a marked impact on the future quality of life for
persons in this watershed area and on existing usage of
downstream areas. The Areawide Plan, Wake county Land Use
Plan, and a coordinated effort between Raleigh, Gary,
Morrisville, and Wake County offer great possibilities to
avoid foreseeable developmental problems.
5, Air Quality Assessment
Wake County, which is part of the Eastern Piedmont AQCR,
is classified as follows:
98.
-------
Pollutant Priority Classification
S02 III
Part I
Ox III
CO III
N02 III
Since a priority classification of III indicates *
pollutant concentrations below the natural Ambient Air *
Quality Standards, particulates become the major concern.
Particulates, which have a significant effect on air
quality, come from large point sources greater than 100 tons
per year. Because necessary dust control measures will be
used, the construction of the interceptor sewer would be
considered a very small overall source of particulate air
pollution. Electrical power for this project will come from
an existent coal fired plant for the interim. The coal-
fired plant is presently being controlled by State
regulations.
When housing projects begin to develop in and around the
interceptor sewer, electrical power is to be furnished by a
new nuclear power plant. Nuclear power does not emit
significant amounts of particulates. The small amount
emitted would come from emergency diesel generators which
99.
-------
have no significant impact upon air quality. There will
only be slight emissions of sulfur dioxides from the
emergency diesel generators and none from the nuclear power
station, Therefore, there are no significant impacts
expected by the construction of this project on air quality.
Pollutants emitted from automobiles are classified
priority III and do not violate the ambient standards,
although automotive traffic contributes to increasing the
i
amount of particulates in the air by stirring up materials
located on roadways,
To assure that the ambient air quality standards are not
violated at some future date, EPA has developed Indirect
Source Regulations. The regulations require that an
assessment be made of the effect of a project classified as
an indirect source. An indirect source is one that does not
emit pollutants itself, but one which would create an air
pollution problem by inducing mobile source activity such as
with parking facilities, shopping centers, and housing
developments. Each State was given the option to develop
their own Indirect Source Regulations, North Carolina is
one State that did. These regulations have also been
approved by EPA. During the development of these
regulations, certain size cut-offs were set for various
100.
-------
types of projects. Projects which are above these sizes
would be required to obtain a permit to construct. These
cut-off sizes were set very conservatively to protect air
quality. After comparing the size of this project with the
criteria, we conclude that it does not qualify as an
Indirect Source under State regulations.
The regulation adopted by the State of North Carolina
and approved by EPA applicable to this project are
Regulation No. 9.1(b). This section deals with populat-ion
densities and requires an air quality assessment if the
population density is greater than, or equal to, 12 persons
per acre. Since the projected density for this project is
7.4 persons per acre, no assessment is necessary. This
project should not cause a violation of the NAAQS nor should
its potential growth.
101,
-------
v- ADVERSE^IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIPEP AND MITIGATIVE
MEASURES
In all construction projects, certain impacts are
unavoidable and represent an irreparable loss of a resource.
However, with many of these impacts, actions can be taken to
reduce considerably the severity of the adverse effects.
This section lists those adverse impacts that cannot be
avoided and discusses the measures that nay be taken to
mitigate them. In many cases, the measures necessary to
alleviate a problem are not within the jurisdiction of the
Environmental Protection Agency or the North Carolina
Department of Natural and Economic Resources.
A- Adverse Impacts Which Cannot Be Avoided
Adverse impacts that cannot, be avoided are listed below.
These impacts were discussed in Chapter IV.
1. Primary Impacts
a. Wastewater and sludge disposal
b. Erosion and sedimentation from the inter-
ceptor construction
c. Archeological, historical, and cultural
impacts
d. SCS flood control structures
e. Aesthetic losses
102.
-------
f. Disruption of ecological systems
2. Secondary Impacts
a. Changes to flood stages and low flows
b. Erosion and sedimentation from develop-
mental activity
c. Changes in water quality
d. Demand for community services and resources
B Mitiqative Measures to Adverse Primary Impacts
Although the preceeding impacts cannot be totally
avoided, there are measures that can be taken to reduce the
adverse effects. These measures are discussed in the
following sections.
1. Wastewater and Sludge Disposal
Discharge of the treated wastewater from the Neuse River
Sewage Treatment Plant generated in the Upper Crabtree Basin
will contribute to the pollutant loading on the Neuse River
below Raleigh. As discussed previously, the Neuse River
Sewage Treatment Plant is designed to reduce BOD and SS
concentrations in the effluent to 6 mg/1 and 5 ppm,
respectively. At ultimate design flow, 100 mgd, this plant
will allow maintenance of fish and wildlife water quality
standards. The Falls of the Neuse Reservoir would allow an
103.
-------
even greater dilution capacity since low flows will be
controlled.
Sludge disposal will be accomplished by landfill
adjacent to the sewage treatment facility. A program has
been proposed to study the effects of recycling this sludge
on North Carolina State University farm lands. Results from
this study may indicate a means for recycling this potential
resource.
2. Erosion and Sedimentation
Erosion and sedimentation can be controlled in
practically all instances of sewer line construction. Lack
of adequate precautions has caused the adverse impacts of
the past. By providing a sufficient vegetative buffer
between the edge of the right-of-way and the stream bank,
the major effects may be mitigated. Special erosion control
efforts must be taken for stream crossings, steep banks, and
other cases which require the disturbance of the natural
stream bank. Timely efforts of revegetation and proper
construction techniques can assure maximum protection.
The natural bank of a creek is held in place by the root
systems of the vegetation. The ground foliage filters
sediment from overland flow and protects the soil from the
erosive energy of rain. Whenever this vegetation is
104.
-------
appreciably disturbed, high stream flows, overland flows,
and rainfall can erode the unprotected soil. To avoid this
condition a minimum natural buffer of at least 10 meters (33
feet) between the edge of the construction right-of-way and
the stream bank should be provided to protect the vegetation
on the creek edges. A 10 meter (33 foot) buffer will ensure
that the roots of the large trees on the bank will not be
appreciably disturbed, Many mature species of trees have a
root spread of up to 10 meters in radius. Also, trees on
creek banks often extend root systems appreciably further
upland for support. Root damage from construction vehicles
may damage or kill some particularly sensitive species of
trees in the buffer zone, e.g., beech, tulipwood, loblolly
pine, but major vegetative losses will be avoided.
In those rare areas where this setback cannot be
provided, special erosion control techniques should be used.
Riprap can be used to protect exposed banks with steep
slopes or temporary measures, such as chemical soil binders
or nettings, until a vegetative cover is provided.
Techniques and available materials are presented in the
Environmental Technology Series publication "Guidelines for
Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Implementation"
and the Office of Water Programs Operations publication
105.
-------
"Comparative Costs of Erosion and Sediment Control,
Construction Activities.
By utilizing proper construction techniques and prompt
revegetation, the remaining dangers of erosion may be
avoided, The stockpile of excavated soil, construction
equipment, and heavy traffic should be kept on the upland
side (away from the creek) of the ditch to avoid
disturbances to the root systems of trees in the buffer
>
zone. This will also minimize disturbed soil available for
possible erosion on the creek 'side of the construction
trench. Unnecessary clearing should be avoided, and damage
to remaining vegetation should be kept at a minimum. In
areas where the property owners do not wish to retain their
lumber, all wood should be chipped and placed on the exposed
soil immediately following compaction. The chips will
provide protection from sheet erosion and will help
dissipate the energy of rain. Lumber too large to be
chipped should be made available to the public as free
firewood.
Revegetation should follow placement as soon as
practicable, but in no case should soil remain exposed
longer than 30 days following construction activities on
that area. Continuous revegatation presents the most
106,
-------
desirable condition, although practicality limitations may
dictate revegetation in segments.
The State of North Carolina, in the Sedimentation
Pollution Control Act of 1973, has presented mandatory
standards for land disturbing activity which are similar to
the above recommendations. These standards are listed
below:
(a) No land disturbing activity shall be per-
mitted in proximity to a lake or natural
watercourse unless a buffer zone is pro-
vided along the margin of the watercourse
of sufficient width to confine visible
siItation within the twenty-five percent
(25%) of the buffer zone nearer the land
disturbing activity, provided, that this
subsection (a) shall not apply to a land
disturbing activity in connection with the
construction of facilities to be located
on, over, or under a lake or natural
watercourse.
(b) No slope may be graded to an angle greater
than the angle of repose for saturated
soil conditions applicable for the type
of soil involved; unless the soil on such
slope is retained by some adequate erosion
controlling structure or device. In any
event, soil left exposed will, within 30
working days of completion of any phase
of grading, be planted or otherwise pro-
vided with a ground-cover sufficient to
restrain erosion.
(c) Whenever land disturbing activity is under-
taken on a tract comprising more than one
acre, if more than one contiguous acre is
uncovered, a ground-cover sufficient to
restrain erosion must be planted or other-
107.
-------
wise provided within 30 working days on
that portion of the tract upon which
further active construction is not being
undertaken, provided, that this subsection
(c) shall not apply to cleared land form-
ing the basin of a reservoir later to be
inundated.
To insure implementation of the above recommendations,
an erosion control plan should be prepared for the project
and submitted to North Carolina Sedimentation Control
Commission and to EPA for approval before construction
begins. Consultation on measures and plans for reduction of
soil erosion may be obtained from the SCS where necessary.
3. Archeological Impacts
There are three potentially significant archeological
sites endangered by the proposed Crabtree Creek interceptor
sewer. (Appendix 1U) Prior to construction in those
identified areas, their archeological worth will be
determined by the North Carolina Department of Cultural
Resources, Possible rerouting to avoid the site or removal
of artifacts will be investigated in those areas deemed
historically significant or particularly unusual. The new
right-of-way between Trenton Road and Reedy Creek Road has
not been surveyed. An archeological survey must be
108,
-------
conducted along this right-of-way prior to the construction
of this segment of the project.
U. SCS Flood Control Structures
The proposed interceptor on Richland Creek shall be
designed so that construction of the SCS structure 11 is not
impaired. This may be accomplished by realignment of the
interceptor and/or provision of sealed, bolted down covers,
vented above the 100 year flood level. Further, the
interceptor should not be aligned where it would be
adversely affected by the location or construction of
structure 25 on Crabtree Creek below the confluence of
Richland Creek. Close coordination should be maintained
between the applicant and the SCS to be sure that no siting
conflicts develop in areas where the interceptor line runs
adjacent to proposed SCS structures.
5. Aesthetic Losses
Odors will be controlled by providing aeration of the
wastewater at the proposed pumping station. This will be
accomplished by locating an aerator in the wet well or by
other appropriate methods. Plans and specifications shall
include the facilities prior to final approval. It is
recommended that venting of the proposed interceptor be
accomplished by either utilizing a snorkel device or by
109,
-------
placing a vent pipe underground up to the 100 year flood
contour. In this manner, the visual impact of the vent may
be eliminated.
6. Alterations of Ecosystems
Four criteria for preserving the vegetation in any given
area are:
(1) It is aesthetically pleasing and has recreational
potential.
(2) It is a rare biotic association, either considered
on a local or regional basis.
(3) Its existence is the result of a long successional
process and would take a considerable amount of time to
become reestablished.
(4) Its preservation will ensure direct economic
benefits.
The ecotonal vegetation occupying the streamside water-
land interface on much of the project area meets all of the
above criteria. A walk through the pathways under a canopy
of trees by Crabtree Creek is certainly pleasing. The
proposal to extend the Capital City Greenway system along
Crabtree Creek and to develop the land around the scs
structure 23 into a recreational area demonstrates its
potential.
110.
-------
Stream beds and the narrow strips of associated
vegetation occupy only a fraction of one percent, of the
project area. These bottomland sites in the Piedmont area
are continually being impacted by adjacent development or
are succumbing to development themselves as local suburban
building sites run out. Therefore, these areas are becoming
increasingly rare over a wide area as urbanization proceeds.
The presence of large - over 1/2 meter dbh (diameter
breast height) - beech trees along the proposed sites in
association with other vegetative members of a climax
community indicates a long passage of time since early
successional stages. As beech trees are relatively
intolerant to the widely fluctuating humidities and
temperatures found in early serai stages, their
recolonization will be postponed. Once beech seedlings have
started, several decades are required before trees of the
1/2 meter dbh class are regrown.
Many of the streambanks juxtaposed to the proposed sewer
line rights-of-way are vertical in aspect for one to three
meters (three to ten feet) immediately adjacent to the
flowing water. As the soil itselt in these areas does not
have a particularly steep angle of repose, it is clear that
these vertical banks are being supported by the vegetation
111.
-------
clinging to them. Their cover ranges from small liverworts
and mosses to over 1/2 meter (18 inches) diameter river
birches. The small plants hold the soil grains in place
from gravity and the larger tree roots provide protection
from erosion by swiftly moving water during periodic floods.
Without this root matrix to hold these banks in place,
serious slumping into the creek would take place. On
Crabtree Creek just below Oak Park a collapse of the creek
banks was noticed only six weeks after vegetation was
disturbed. A previously emplaced large interceptor sewer
line was put in danger of being undermined. Corrective
action utilizing backfill and riprap is expensive, time
consuming, and wasteful of resources.
Because of its value in reducing the initial
construction cost, and in reducing the cost of maintenance
through erosion control along these bottomland sewer rights-
of-way as discussed in Section V.B.2, a minimum of a 10
meter (33 foot) undisturbed buffer should be left between
the right-of-way and the stream's vertical banks whenever
practical.
To reduce adverse impacts on Crabtree Creek itself and
on the valuable streamside community, line placement will be
made at a distance greater than 10 meters whenever a less
112.
-------
complex vegetative association such as pasture, open field
or a young pine stand is adjacent and its location doesn't
pose exceptional slope or grade problems. These type
communities represent an earlier stage of ecological
succession and their disruption would represent a smaller
loss of biotic information and structure.
In order to ascertain the types of cover growing on the
proposed sewer rights-of-way, and, therefore whether the
line routing should be changed, a vegetative survey was
made to determine the frequency of occurrence and basal area
of certain species of trees along the proposed right-of-way
(Appendix 15). This survey utilized standard statistical
biological field sampling methods, such as quadrats, random
pairs, line intercept, transects, or a variable-radius
plotless method, and describes, in general, the types of
natural communities growing within the proposed right-of-way
boundaries. A primary vegetative survey was made of 100
meter (328 feet) sections along the right-of-way. Only
trees over six inches dbh were sampled.
The area included in each primary 100-meter section was
that area within 10 meters (33 feet) on either side of the
proposed right-of-way centerline, unless the centerline was
closer than 10 meters from the edge of the vertical creek
113.
-------
banks in which case the section width ran 20 meters (66
feet) from the edge of the vertical banks.
Whenever it was determined that 60 percent of the trees
sampled in any 100 meter long section of right-of-way were
either beeches, sweetgums, black gums, sycamores, ironwood,
or 1/2 meter (18-inch) dbh and larger oaks, an additional
secondary vegetative survey was done.
This secondary survey ran parallel to, and shared a
common boundary with, the primary 20-meter-wide survey. It
extended 60 meters (200 feet) in depth perpendicular to the
primary survey boundary away from the creek bank.
The secondary survey was divided into three parallel
strips 20 meters wide and 100 meters long. The three parts
were called Secondary A (closest to the primary survey),
Secondary B (next furtherest away), and Secondary C
(furtherest from the primary survey). Sampling proceeded on
the Secondary A, B, and C strips as it was carried out on
the primary survey.
Where this secondary survey discloses an area where
there are no trees over 1/6 meter (six inches) dbh, or where
more than 60 percent of the individuals sampled are species
other than those listed above, the survey site is marked on
a map as an area of potential alternative routing.
-------
Engineering cost estimates will be made regarding the
placement of the sewer line on said alternative route. If
these estimates are no larger than 125 percent of the
original proposed routing, then a change in line routing to
the secondary surveyed site will be made. If any areas are
found where an exceptionally unique ecotonal community
exists, EPA reserves the option of relocating the
interceptor regardless of the cost estimates.
The new right-of-way between Trenton Road and Reedy
Creek Road has not been surveyed. A vegetative survey must
be conducted along this right-of-way prior to completion of
this segment of the project.
Following the determination of the actual route
alignment certain measures can be taken to enhance the
production of wildlife and to increase the aesthetic quality
of the right-of-way. Prompt revegetation with shrubs as
well as grasses is recommended. Also, the use of wildlife
food-producing perennials would be desirable.
C. Mitigatiye Measures to Adverse Secondary
Impacts
1. Flooding
As discussed in Chapter IV, Impact of the Proposed
Project, there is a great potential for increased flooding
115.
-------
due to development of the Upper Crabtree Watershed. The use
or non-use of measures to lessen the impact will determine
the actual effects on downstream properties. The following
are some measures which would mitigate these impacts.
a. Soil Conservation Service Flood Control Project
The SCS has an ongoing program to construct flood
control structures in the Upper Crabtree Basin (Chapter
II.A.2). Various difficulties have been encountered, with
the result that only four of 11 structures have been built,
although two others are under construction. The remaining
five are stalled, awaiting land acquisition. Two of the
these five are considered the major flood control structures
of the plan.
The Corps of Engineers flood damage data {Table 10)
shows the amount of protection that may be afforded by the
construction of these dams. Under the present conditions
(existing development without SCS structures), average
annual flood damages to existing downstream development are
estimated to be $933,000. Completion of the structures
would reduce these average annual damages to $772,000, an
average annual savings of $161,000. However, an assumed 80
percent development of the watershed after the structures
are built would increase average annual damages from
116.
-------
$161,000 to $335,000, This increase is $811,000 less than
without the SCS structures. Adherence to land use and
impervious surface limitations developed by the Wake County
Planning Department will be necessary to assure that the
design hydrologic capacities of the proposed control
structure will not be surpassed. Coordination of sewer
hookups, land use planning, and zoning between Wake County,
Cary and Raleigh will be necessary.
Completion of this flood control project is one method
whereby the threat of increased flooding may be eliminated.
Grant funds shall be withheld from the proposed project
until land rights have been acquired for the Soil
Conservation Service control structures located downstream
of each respective proposed service area, or until other
structural and non-structural measures are taken, including,
but not limited to, flood protection, flood proofing, urban
runoff controls, developmental restrictions, and other land
use modifications which will insure an equivalent amount of
flood protection as determined by the State of North
Carolina, SCS, the COE, and the EPA. Grant funds shall be
withdrawn July 1, 1976, from the proposed project if land
rights are not acquired for the SCS structures or agreement
117.
-------
on other measures to insure adequate flood protection is not
reached.
Should the rights to the property for structure 11
(Richland Creek) be acquired, construction of this segment
shall proceed to provide service to the State facilities
presently at capacity. If the remaining property rights are
not obtained and other measures are not agreed upon, the
project scope shall be reduced to include only this
construction.
b. Floodplain and Floodway Ordinances
For the protection of persons who, knowingly or
unknowingly, desire to reside in or utilize floodplain
areas, many localities have adopted ordinances to help
protect persons and properties from undue damage or injury.
The city of Raleigh and Wake County have passed such a
floodplain and floodway ordinance. These ordinances are
designed to prevent or minimize future development on the
flood plain which would otherwise tend to increase average
annual flood damages.
The major requirements of the Raleigh ordinance are as
follows:
(A) Building Permits shall be required for all
proposed new construction and for all major
repairs to existing construction within the
118.
-------
floodplain area.
(B) Before a building permit shall be issued
for any new construction or substantial
improvements within the floodway fringe
area, the plans for the proposed construc-
tion (including prefabricated and mobile
homes) shall indicate that said construc-
tion:
(1) will be protected against flood damage,
(2) is designed or will be modified and
anchored to prevent the flotation col-
lapse or lateral movement of the
structure,
(3) will involve the use of materials and
utility equipment which are resistent
to flood damage,
(4) will involve the use of construction
methods and practices which will mini-
mize flood damage.
(C) Before a building permit shall be issued for
any major repairs within the floodway fringe
area, the plans for the proposed repairs
shall demonstrate that said repairs:
(1) will involve the use of construction
materials and utility equipment which
are resistant to flood damage.
(2) will involve the use of construction
methods and practices that will minimize
flood damage.
(D) Any and all new construction or substantial
improvements of residential structures with-
in the floodway fringe area shall have the
lowest floor (included basement) elevated
to or above the level of the 100-year flood,
(E) Any and all new construction or substantial
119.
-------
improvements of non-residential structures
within the flood plain area shall have the
lowest floor (including basement) elevated
to or above the level of the 100-year flood;
or together with attendant utility and sani-
tary facilities shall be floodproofed up to
the level of the 100-year flood.
The ordinance passed on June 3, 1974 by the Wake County
Commissioners is similar to the Raleigh ordinance. Its
purpose and intent is as follows:
...to declare that certain areas of the
County shall be designated as floodways
and floodway fringes; and to help control
and minimize the extent of floods by pre-
venting obstructions which inhibit water
flow and increase flood height and damage,
and thereby to prevent or minimize loss
of life, injuries, property damage, and
other losses, both public and private, in
flood hazard areas, and to promote the
public health, safety, and welfare of the
citizens."
Generally, any use having low flow obstructing
characteristics shall be permitted within floodway areas
provided the one-hundred year flood level is not increased,
and that no equipment or material shall be stored which may
be flammable, explosive, toxic or which could otherwise be
injurious to human, animal or plant life.
The following requirements must be met to obtain
approval of plans and building permits to construct, add to
or alter in the floodway fringe areas:
120,
-------
(1) Application for a building permit,
accompanied by plans for the proposed
development, shall be presented to the
Board of Adjustment for review and
approval, approval with modification, or
rejection.
(2) The plans shall consist of but not be
limited to the following;
(a) a general site plan showing the
location and type of buildings and
structures to be erected, areas to
be filled, and the boundaries of the
floodway fringe;
(b) cross sections at intervals not
exceeding fifty (50) feet, prepared
by a registered engineer, landscape
architect, or architect showing the
regulatory flood protection eleva-
tion, boundaries of the floodway and
floodway fringe, existing and proposed
contours, floor elevations, and a
profile of the associated streams; and
(c) such hydrologic calculations as
needed and necessary, as well as
applicable structural and nonstruc-
tural flood proofing measures and
soil erosion and sedimentation
control plans.
(3) In considering such permit and plans
the Board of Adjustment shall consult with
the Wake Soil and Water Conservation Dis-
trict, who after receipt and review of the
appropriate data related to the request,
shall make a recommendation to the Board.
No permit shall be granted:
(a) for a development on one side of
a stream which would raise the regula-
tory flood protection elevation more
121.
-------
than one-half (1/2) foot, or for a
development on both sides of a stream
which would raise the regulatory flood
protection elevation more than one (1)
foot;
(b) for a development which does not
meet the standards of the code, or
meet or exceed the technical standards
and specifications of the Soil conserva-
tion Service, as adopted by the Wake
Soil and Water Conservation District;
or
(c) for a development which may result
in the pollution of, or injury or dry-
ing up of any stream or creek, or other-
wise endanger the public health, safety,
or general welfare.
(5) A certificate of compliance must be
issued by the zoning enforcement officer
prior to the utilization of any structure
approved as a special use of a floodway
fringe area.
The ordinance also affects the placement of water and
sewer systems in floodway fringe areas. These systems are
to be designed to minimize and eliminate infiltration of
floodwaters. This interceptor is designed to minimize this
possibility.
There is an interesting relationship between flood plain
usage and sewer line construction with regard to the
proposed greenway system. Since the proposed interceptor is
adjacent to streams in floodplain areas, a multipurpose
122.
-------
right-of-way could be utilized to provide many uses for
floodplain land while reducing overall individual costs.
Since sewer line right-of-way will require continued
maintenance, the greenway system management process could be
available to provide this service. Access and usage of the
right-of way could be controlled most effectively by
patrolling and providing public facilities. Aesthetic
values for the right-of-way area may be significantly
increased by park landscaping and management. The expected
advent of floodplain zoning suggests a public usage of these
areas. Utility placement and recreation are two uses that
are particularly suited for this purpose.
Implementation of the above Floodplain and Floodway
Ordinances will mitigate the effects of flooding under
future development conditions in Raleigh and Wake County.
Outright purchase of projected downstream flood hazard areas
is a possible mitigative measure to increased flood stages.
123.
-------
c. Stormwater Runoff Ordinances
Since urbanization is shown to increase storm water
runoff, development plans should include provisions for
controlling increases in runoff,
The city of Raleigh has taken such action through their
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance. The city's
ordinance provides that;
After the completion of construction on each
land- disturbing site to which this ordinance
applies, provisions shall be made, on or off
the site, for the impoundment of enough of the
natural liquid runoff from the site for a long
enough period of time to limit the rate of
such runoff leaving the site to that which
would result from a two (2) year frequency
storm if the site were developed in single
family homes at a density of four (* } familes
per acre or less and if impoundment were not
provided; provided, no impoundment shall be
required of runoff from sites developed
for residential purposes at a density of
four (4) familes per acre or less; pro-
vided further, part of the space, including
parking areas, otherwise required by law
to be left open, may be jointly used to
satisfy the impounding requirements herein;
provided still further, this standard shall
not apply to sites of two (2) acres or
less in size unless such site is part of
a larger subdivision or other project
area which, when fully developed, will
generate a more significant amount of
runoff.
calculations and plans for impoundment
structures and areas must receive the approval
of the Chief Engineer of the City before any
building permit may be issued.
124.
-------
Wake County also recently passed such an ordinance which
will mitigate the increase in runoff attributable to
urbanization, The major provisions of the County Erosion
and Sedimentation Control Ordinance regarding urban runoff
provide that
after the completion of construction on
each land-disturbing site to which this
ordinance applies, provisions shall be
made, on or off the site, for the impound-
ment, during storms, of that quantity of the
natural liquid runoff from the site which
is equal to the calculated difference
between the amount of runoff which would
result from.a two (2) year frequency storm
on that land if it were zoned and developec
for residential purposes at a density no
greater than four (4) families per acre and
that which would result from a storm of the
same frequency on the same land if developed
to the degree for which it is actually zoned;
provided, no impoundment shall be required
of runoff from sites developed for residen-
tial purposes at a density of four (4)
families per acre of rless; provided further,
part of the space, including parking space,
otherwise required by law to be left often,
may be jointly used to satisfy the impound-
ing requirements herein; provided still
further, this standard shall not apply to
sites of five (5) acres or less in size
unless such site is part of a larger sub-
division or other project area which,
when fully developed, will generate a
more significant amount of runoff. All
calculations and plans for impoundment
structures and areas must receive the
approval of the Wake County Department
of Natural Resources before any building
permit may be issued.
125.
-------
As with the erosion control program, coordination between
city and county could simplify operation and provide uniform
control management.
The combination of urban runoff controls with
construction of the SCS flood control structures represents
the best solution for mitigating the impact of development
in the Upper Crabtree Watershed on flooding. Since an urban
runoff ordinance has been passed, some of the increased
damages estimated by the Corps of Engineers due to future
upstream development with the structures as compared to
existing upstream development with the structures may be
avoided,
d. Downstream Flood Protection Measures
The Corps of Engineers (COE) is investigating
alternatives to control the remaining flood problem along
Crabtree Creek from SCS structure No. 25 to the Neuse River
(Chapter 1.1). This study will provide the necessary
information on the costs and benefits attributable to
various non-structural and structural measures (Appendix 6)
and the environmental and social impacts of each. From this
analysis a recommended plan will be selected to provide
additional flood protection.
126.
-------
2, Erosion and Sedimentation
Chapter IV discusses the impact of construction of a
sewer interceptor in an undeveloped area on erosion and
sedimentation. Without the provision of control measures,
there would be greatly increased top soil loss from
developmental construction sites and deposition in
downstream waterways. Various structural and vegetative
measures exist to control sediment production, and enactment
of an erosion and sedimentation control ordinance is a means
for assuring uniform control standards and adequate
protection for downstream areas.
The State of North Carolina has initiated a program for
erosion and sedimentation control (Chapter II and IV) . In
this endeavor, the State is to provide rules and regulations
for preventing excessive sedimentation by March 1975. The
proposed regulations are similar to those enacted by the
city of Raleigh (Chapter II). The State plan will require
individual governmental bodies, i.e., region, county, or
city, to enforce uniform sedimentation ordinances. Erosion
control plans must be prepared for developments over a
specified size and approved by local and State agencies.
The Wake County government has passed an erosion and
sedimentation bill, which provides that it is unlawful to
127.
-------
conduct any land disturbing activity without first obtaining
a permit from the county. Agricultural activity, forest
production and harvesting, mining activities and any land
disturbing activities at any one time, on any one tract, by
any person that do not not exceed one acre in surface area
are excluded from this requirement. In order to obtain a
permit, a soil erosion and sedimentation control plan must
be submitted to and approved by the county. Further, before
approval of an application for building construction, a
certificate of preliminary erosion control compliance
indicating that initial soil erosion and sedimentation
controls as specified on the approved plan have been
installed must have been given by the county.
Implementation of this control program before construction
in the Upper Crabtree Watershed begins is considered
imperative to avoid unnecessary soil erosion and deposition.
Some sedimentation control benefits will also be
realized by the construction of the SCS flood control
structures. These structures are designed to include a
total of 6,266 acre-feet for sediment. A reduction in
sediment production reaching the sediment ponds by on-site
control will allow retention of the aesthetic qualities of a
permanent pool behind these structures. Proposed
128.
-------
recreational uses of the control structures will be greatly
enhanced by reduced sedimentation.
3. Water Quality
Urbanization of a watershed often signals an increase in
the contribution of pollutants to watercourses from runoff.
This byproduct of development has just recently been
generally recognized as a significant contributor to
pollutant loadings. Chapter IV discusses sources of
pollutants and general impacts. Fortunately, methods are
available to lessen the impact of this non-point source of
contaminants
The completion of the SCS control structures will have a
marked beneficial effect on the downstream water quality.
Particulate material suspended in solution will settle out
in the sediment ponds behind these structures. Since
approximately 75 percent of the BOD in an urban runoff
sample has been shown (Water Pollution Aspects of Street
Surface Contaminants, 1972) to be associated with particles
larger than 43 u (microns), most of the biological oxygen
demanding material would be deposited in the sediment pools,
or in the upstream channels.
Nutrients, heavy metals, and pesticides are, to a lesser
extent, also removed by settling. A large portion of these
129.
-------
pollutants are adsorbed, adhering to, or complexed with
particulate matter. The extent of their disolution from the
sediments back into the water is not well defined, and
future benthic demands associated with the deposition of
these particulates are likewise unknown. Onsite urban
runoff control measures, as discussed in the chapter under
stormwater runoff ordinances (Chapter I.C), would reduce the
contributions of pollutants to the SCS sediment ponds. The
capture of the first flush of urban runoff from a rainfall
event can significantly reduce the benthic pollution
contribution to the SCS sediment ponds. The Wake County
Soil and Erosion Control Ordinance provides that after
completion of construction on each land-disturbing site of
five acres or larger, to which this ordinance applies,
provisions shall be made on or off the site, for the
impoundment, during storms, of that quantity of the natural
liquid runoff from the site which is equal to the calculated
difference between the runoff which would result from a two
year frequency storm on that land if it were zoned and
developed for residential purposes at a density no greater
than four familes per acre. Runoff may be captured in many
ways, but by designing control structures to retain the
initial flush for sufficient time to allow for sedimentation
130.
-------
of the larger particulates, a significant amount of the
pollutants contributed to watercourses by urban runoff may
be contained on the sites where they are generated.
An additional or alternative measure may be taken.
Provision for sheet flow of the initial flush of runoff
across a vegetated area would allow for deposition of
particulates and percolation of the most concentrated
polluted runoff waters. In this manner the ion exchange and
filtering capacity of the soil may be utilized.
This may be accomplished, partially by not installing
curbs and storm sewers, unless hydraulicly necessary. In
this manner, as mentioned above, the runoff generated on
these surfaces will experience overland flow and major
pollutant reductions may be accomplished through vegetative
filtration and percolation through soil to the groundwater.
In many sections of proposed service areas, curb and
guttering may be required because of the topography of the
land, since erosion of road shoulders or ponding on private
property must be avoided.
The SCS control structures, the implementation of the
sedimentation control ordinance, and limited use of storm
sewering and curbed streets would appreciably mitigate the
impact of urbanization on water quality in downstream
131.
-------
channels and future sediment lakes. The above combination
of measures provides maximum water quality protection by
utilizing the most practicable control methods.
132.
-------
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S
ENHANCEMENT OF
LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
Approval of the proposed project has been conditioned on
prior assurance of adequate flood control measures. The
completion of the Soil Conservation Service1 s flood control
structures as planned will provide this protection.
Development of the upper watershed must not be allowed at
the expense of further endangering property and lives in
downstream areas.
Some owners will gain considerable increases in property
values following placement of this interceptor. Persons and
companies holding greater than 100 acres in the upper
watershed are listed in Table 11.
These persons will realize an increase in property
values and a potential decrease in development costs. The
benefits may or may not be reflected in the ultimate cost to
the buyers. Nevertheless, the ultimate cost to the human
environment will be reduced by assuring a maintenance of
water quality standards.
The construction of the proposed interceptor has the
potential for enhancing of the human environment through
provision for a maintenance of lor>^ -term environmental
133.
-------
TABLE 11
TAX MAP PARCEL PROPERTY OWNERS ACREAGE
256
275
276
277
278
295
298
317
318
319
320
321
344
371
372
376
400
427
8
21
24
25
12
9
16
6
3
7
4
6
10
7
15
6
9
10
13
25
1,5
3
27
16
17
19
1
7
41
1
9
10
W i 1 1 i am J Mart i n
Earl T, Jones
Ideal Development Corp.
a n n
Truman W. Mi 1 1 er
n n
Joyce Heinyen & Alice Eve
Ze 1 ma King
E. G. Spikes
W. V. Roberts
R. A. Isley
Ethel Some 1 1 Blackman
S. B. Jones
J . B. Wi 1 k i nson
Junius Sanders
// //
Airpark Industrial Center
// // n
n n n
n ii n
Charles Wray
R. E. Shuffler
City of Raleigh
Vacilios Chiotakis
Jesse Marcom
Contiental Can Co. Inc.
Raleigh Memorial Park
James Poyner
// n
Ste 1 la Watkins
Dav id Will! ams
Routh Dixon
361
179
76
104
118
31
142
342
104
106
106
247
104
172
189
114
13
61
21
57
127
105
120
121
102
100
135
81
29
173
210
III
-------
Page 2
428 I Bobby Murray 127
3 WiIbur L. Combs 165
429 4 E. N. Richards 47
5 " " " 48
6 " " " 58
7 " " " 399
430 19 J. DeWhitte Davis 163
455 10 J. J. & Hazel R. Williams 126
21 Omer G. & Betty J. FerreI I 4
22 " " " 52
23 " " " 48
24 Will is Smith, Jr. 176
456 20 J. W. York & Westhall Inc. 203
458 I John D. & The I ma Lynch, et-al 150
2 E. N. Richards, & R. A.Bryan 301
4 John D. & Thelma Lynch, et-al 133
460 I Joe W. Barber & Reid S. Towler 161
485 2 Willie Lee Edwards 101
5 W. L. Edwards, Heirs 201
486 7 Charles B. Upchurch 100
8 " " " 40
9 " " " 88
5 Southern Pine Mgmt. Co. 104
487 I J. W. York & Westhall Inc. 422
490 130 Jerry J. NowelI 170
514 I Cleo S. Baucom I 17
2 WiI Iiam B. Upchurch 100
3 " " " 87
4 Randolph D. Mi I Is 200
515 I Wachovia Bank & Trust 250
6 John W. & Maggie B. Sears 100
12 Sidney W. Stone 122
-------
Page 3
516 I T. V. Martin 105
2 Wachovia Bank & Trust 316
520 7 Windsor Park Inc. 130
543 3 Margaret S.Pointer 120
5 " " 137
8 R. S. Barker 147
544 7 Jack-Hoi Ii Inc. 122
12 Wachovia Bank & Trust 308
570 I Thurman J. & Lucille W. Howe I I 100
571 3 W. J. Booth 195
9B " " .93
14 Five Inc. 286
82 " " 103
-------
quality. The provision of regional wastewater collection
will allow other environmental factors to be the
developmental constraints; e.g., soils, slope,
transportation, water supply, etc. Alternatively,
development dependent on other wastewater disposal methods,
such as package treatment plants, would provide situations
for spotty uncoordinated growth.
The project area is located centrally to Raleigh,
Durham, and Chapel Hill. Research Triangle Park and the
Raleigh-Durham Airport are nearby. Inevitably, human use of
this area will increase. This use must be designed to
provide maximum long-term desirability by orderly planned
development. Provision of recreational facilities, open
space, transportation corridors, educational facilities, and
commercial centers must be coordinated into a functional
community.
Wake County, Cary, and Raleigh, through land zoning,
control of water and sewer hookups, and various ordinances,
have the necessary tools to coordinate development.
Construction of the proposed interceptor stimulates the need
for utilizing these managing mechanisms.
134.
-------
IRREVERSIBLE AND, IRRETRIgVABLE COMMITMENTS
OF_RESOIJRCES
The proposed project causes irreversible and
irretrievable expenditure of certain labor, material, land,
and community resources. The construction process will
utilize considerable manpower and will commit approximately
105,000 linear feet of concrete pipe and right-of-way.
Development induced by these available utilities will commit
service area land resources by systematically reducing the
number of alternative uses available. Evolving land use
patterns and economic restraints will gradually narrow the
options. Further, community resources must be committed to
provide the services necessary for establishing and
maintaining a functional community.
The design capacities of the interceptor segments allow
for densities of seven to nine persons per acre. Even
though the placement of this interceptor does not set the
future usage, it supports development up to this ultimate
capacity. As development proceeds, certain alternative uses
of land may be lost. Existing farm, pasture, and open land
will experience increasing developmental pressure. Higher
land values caused by the availability of utilities will
exert great pressure on land owners to either commit their
135.
-------
land to usages yielding greater monetary benefits or to sell
their property to others who wish to exploit this natural
resource. The potential for public acquisition or low
density usage will be greatly reduced, following placement.
The project commits the local governmental bodies to
provide considerable community services, including
transportation corridors, water supply, schools, fire and
health protection facilities, and recreational and open
space. Plans for.providing these resources must be devised
to ensure availability of these support services in a timely
and cost effective manner.
The proposed project right-of-way presents an
opportunity to commit land resources for multiple uses. The
Capitol City Greenway concept provides a system whereby a
utility corridor may serve as an open and recreational
space, a floodplain area, and as a transportation corridor
for bicyclists and pedestrians. In order to fully realize
the potential of the multiple use, plans for incorporating
this system must be made now to ensure minimum costs while
maximizing benefits. Increased land prices and potential
conflicting developments may preclude implementation of this
plan at a later date.
136.
-------
VIII. COMMENTSn BY INTERESTED PERSONSf ORGANIZATIONS,
FEDERALt_ STATED.A.ND LOCAL AGENCIES ^AND RESPONSE
TO T HES E COMMENTS
This chapter summarizes the individual comments made in
regard to the Draft EIS. These comments were either
presented at the Public Hearing held on March 13, 1975, or
were submitted in writing by April 15, 1975. Appendix 11
contains the complete record of the Public Hearing.
Appendix 12 contains the written comments.
The summarized comments are categorized and presented by
major topic. Following the presentation of all comments
related to a particular topic, a response is presented.
i. Comments related to the January 1^ 1976 deadline
for comglgtion of land acquisitions for flood
control structures.
a. Dr. Mi Hard B. Bethel
Wake County Health Department
Potential public health risks necessitate the swift
completion of the proposed project. Growth will occur
whether the sewer line is constructed or not.
137,
-------
b. Mr. H. A. Smith
Wake County Department of Natural Resources
Wake County is making great progress in obtaining flood
control structures. However, it is not feasible to acquire
land rights for structure No, 25 before January 1, 1976.
Funding of Richland Creek portion of project should proceed
if land for structure No. 11 is acquired.
c. Mayor Johnnie H. Robertson (Morrisvilie)
The benefits to be gained from the project far outweigh
the disadvantages. Morrisville has applied for PEA and
State grants to construct a water system and these requests
are being denied for reasons related to the Crabtree Creek
interceptor.
d. James O. Waller
D. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Immediate action to facilitate completion of the SCS
structures is imperative to reduce flood problem.
e. Robert E. Giles
Northwest Community Task Force
There should be no cutoff date. The project should be
funded whenever the land for all structures is purchased and
the SCS signs an agreement that they have appropriated
funds. Also, the FEIS should say that the grant shall be
138.
-------
withheld from the proposed project until: 1) land rights
have been acquired for all the SCS flood control structures;
and 2) project agreements on all structures are signed by
the county and SCS.
f. Mr. George R. Goodwin, Sr.
Wake County Commissioner
Approve the grant funds for construction of the sewer
interceptor line with the following provisions:
(1) That the sewer line be constructed in each
subdrainage basin or service area only after land
has been acquired for flood-control dams and that
grant funds be segmented to accommodate this
schedule.
(2) Remove requirement of acquiring land for No. 25
before the Richland Creek segment of the
interceptor line is constructed.
(3) Extend time period for acquiring land for Numbers
5-Af 20-A, 23, and 25. Not feasible to accomplish
by 1/1/76.
g. Mr. G. Dodge Geoghegan
Raleigh Chamber of Commerce
Feels that acquisition of the land is not realistic and
is impossible to accomplish by the termination date. Wants
139.
-------
the establishment of a more realistic timetable for
completion of flood control structures.
h. Mr, George S. Willoughby, Jr.
Progress for Raleigh-Wake County Through
Orderly Development
Does not feel that the DEIS should contain the reference
to the withdrawl of grant funds 1/1/76, although does agree
that the acquisition of sites should be accelerated within
the limits of the funding available from Wake County.
i. Mr. Victor V. Langston
Project Flood Control
Lives in flood plain. Wants no sewer line construction
until dams are built. Suggests moving cutoff date of 1/1/76
back by a year or more.
j. Miss Anne Taylor
Sierra Club
If the sewer line is extended only to Richland Creek to
serve the State Fairgrounds, Carter Stadium area, the
completion of the SCS dams must still be a condition. The
date mentioned in the Environmental Impact Statement could
well be extended to allow completion of these dams, but the
sewer line as planned or the sewer line only to the Richland
Creek area must have the protection of all the dams. If the
140.
-------
sewer line is installed, but. tap-ons are not allowed until
the scs flood control structures are constructed as proposed
by the Raleigh City Council, what is to prevent the next
Council, if it should be different people, from reversing
this Council's decision? Also, a developer would probably
be within his legal rights to demand the right to tap on to
the "best available means" of sewage disposal. The sewer
line should not be installed until land is acquired for all
structures and bids have been let for their construction.
k. Mr. R. A. Dunaway
Seels it would be foolish to bring the sewer line out
and have more development before flooding is brought under
control.
1, Mr. Tom Adams
Recommends that the line be installed while prices are
perhaps lower than they will ever be, and that provision be
made that no tap-ons would be permitted and that legal
assurance of that be determined until such time as flood
control is assured. To stall means to run the price up.
Wants plan adopted which would assure immediate installation
of the line but would prohibit use until adequate flood
protection is afforded.
-------
m. Mr. L. P. Zackary
Raleigh City Council
The City Council of Raleigh supports the construction of
the Crabtree Creek interceptor sewer line provided this
sewer service extention is performed in accordance with
their resolution adopted February 7, 1974. The resolution
is reproduced on page 224 of the DEIS. The City would
permit sewer service to developing areas in watersheds
upstream of flood control structures which are in place or
under contract to be constructed. However, no connections
would be allowed to the sewer line unless a reasonable
ongoing program of land acquisition and construction of all
the remaining necessary flood control structures is
underway.
n. Mrs. Joyce Anderson
Wake Environmental Incorporated
EPA should require that structure No. 11 be under
construction before the Richland Creek outfall can be
constructed. EPA should expand its contract with the county
to show that the county agrees to complete the watershed
project as planned by 1/1/RO, and that the county recognizes
that EPA will not. make reimbursement for any sewer line NW
of Richland Creek until the watershed project is completed.
1U2.
X.
-------
o. Mr. F, S. Worthy, Jr.
Commends EPA for the report and thinks that it is a good
compromise. Urges completion of project now that the State,
County, and Federal Government are cooperating.
p. Mayor Fred Bond (Gary)
Because of doubling of population since 1970, Caryfs
treatment plant has been condemned. They are waiting to tie
into interceptor. They are concerned about the development
of recreational facilities at Lake No. 3 but because of the
lack of proper sewage disposal, are afraid that the lake
will not be of any great use for recreation. Expeditious
completion of the project is needed.
q. Mr. Charles Elam
The City of Gary has based all planning for future
growth and development upon the completion of the Crabtree
interceptor line, and local officials are ready to work
toward the solution of any problem that impedes completion
of the interceptor line.
r. Triangle J Council of Governments
The project should be funded as requested by Wake
County. However, the lower Crabtree watershed must be
protected from flooding at all reasonable cost.
Construction grant funds should not be withdrawn from the
143.
-------
project on January 1, 1976, if all land rights for the
proposed SCS structures are not acquired by that date. Work
should proceed on acquiring these land rights. So long as
progress is being made, EPA grant funds should remain
available to Wake County.
s. Mr. James L. Briley
Grant funds should be withheld until all land rights
have been acquired and contracts for construction granted on
all flood control structures. The deadline of January 1,
1976 should be extended until January 1, 1980.
t. Irvin B. Tucker, Jr.
On behalf of Mr. A. J. Harman and his enterprises, we
desire to go on record as opposing the above-named project
unless and until all of the proposed dams on Crabtree Creek
are completed.
u. Mr, Lloyd M. Hedgepath
The funds for the sewer line should be withheld until
the required dam sites for protection against a 100-year
flood have been acquired and contracts for the dams have
been let.
-------
Resgonse_to_Comments_gelated to January 1, 1976 Deadline for
Completion of Land Acquisitions for Flood Control Structures
EPA has extended the deadline for land acquisition
and deleted the requirement for purchase of
land for Structure 25 for funding of the Richland Creek
portion of the project. It is felt that adequate flood
protection from development will be provided in the Richland
Creek area by structure 11, together with the other
structures already in place or under construction. It is
still the position of EPA that implementation of the
remaining structures is necessary to avoid a significant
increase in flooding before the rest of the sewer line is
constructed. It is not appropriate to allow construction of
the line with a no-tap on provision since EPA cannot enforce
this type of provision after grant funds are authorized.
Since the SCS is committed to the construction of the
flood control structures, land acquisition is a sufficient
grant condition rather than requiring construction contracts
to be signed.
145.
-------
2- Comments concerning flood damage_which_will_occar
with the sewer line and the SCS structures
a, Mr. James Q. Walker
Crabtree Creek Study Coordinator of the Corps
of Engineers
The corps of Engineers is currently studying alternative
ways of solving the flood problems that will remain along
Crabtree Creek after the upstream SCS structures are
completed.
b. Mr. Robert E. Giles
Northwest Community Task Force
Wants assurance that the project will not be a
contributing factor to endangering property and lives in
downstream areas.
Questions lack of data on flood information in DEIS (how
and by whom estimates of storm and flood frequency were
made. Also wants specific information on frequency and
amount of rainfall).
Request SCS and COE certify to EPA that flood control
structures, land use, water runoff and development
regulations that will be in effect will provide protection
from flooding for the urban and commercial areas within and
adjacent to Raleigh in the Crabtree Creek Basin.
146.
-------
Wants clarification on whether or not the 11 SCS flood
control structures will provide 100-year flood protection.
c. Mr. Victor V. Langston
Project Flood Control
Notes serious discrepancies in statistical data on
flooding from various agencies. Figures on 1973 flood range
from 3 to 20 year frequency.
With 80 percent development and the SCS structures,
average annual flood damages are estimated at $1,900,000.
How much damage is acceptable?
d. UNC Water Resources
Water Resources Institute
An understanding of flood probabilities and damages
under varying conditions of development and SCS structures
would be more complete if the assumptions and methodology
utilized in calculations were made available. The lack of
reliable data makes one very uncomfortable with estimates
which must be taken at face value.
e. 11. S. Department of Interior
Assuming that the sewer will encourage urban
development, we visualize that the flood problems will get
considerably worse in Raleigh, The upstream flood-control
reservoir being built by the SCS are supposedly to provide
117.
-------
protection to Raleigh from the 100-year flood. However, if
the upstream urban development produces the normal amount of
sediment runoff, the protection offered by these reservoirs
may be transitory. We suggest that this matter be
considered in the environmental statement.
f. Mr. Lloyd M, Eedgepeth
The question of the rainfall frequency which is the
basis for flood control design criteria should be resolved.
The $1.9 million average annual flood damage is not to be
considered acceptable. It seems that this is much too high
a level for the annual average. The question of the
rainfall frequency which is the basis tor flood control
design criteria should be resolved.
g. Mr. James L. Briley
Are we still going to be provided with 100-year flood
protection with only eleven structures?
h. Mr. J. R. Bohannon, Jr.
Oak Park Glen Forest - Deblyn Park Civic
Association
We do not believe the impact of the future Raleigh-
Durham Airport development has been shown in sufficient
depth with regard to increased surface drainage from that
area.
me.
-------
Response to Comments Concerning Flood Damage Which Will
Occur with the^Sewer Line and the SCS Structures
The February, 1973, flood on Crabtree Creek was
approximately a ten-year frequency flood, and the June,
1973, flood was approximately a 20-year flood. These flood
frequencies should not be confused with rainfall or storm
frequencies. The frequency of a flood is determined not
only by the amount, duration, intensity, and distribution of
rainfall, but also by soil permeability, antecedent soil-
moisture conditions, land slope, and ground cover. See
Appendix 13 for procedure for estimating flood damages and
Wake County average rainfall data.
The average annual flood damages with and without SCS
structures under current and 80 percent development
conditions are shown on Table 10 of the FEIS. These figures
are significantly less than those shown on Table 10 of the
Draft EIS. The reason for the difference is a field study
of elevations conducted by the U. S. Corps of Engineers.
The study found that the topographic maps which had been
used in figuring Table 10 in the Draft EIS were incorrect.
The result was a drastic decrease in the level of damages.
The construction of all eleven SCS structures does not
represent complete 100-year flood protection (see the SCS*s
149.
-------
DEIS entitled, "Crabtree Creek Watershed," December 1975,
pp. 2,34, and 61). However, additional means of flood
protection are being studied by the COE. Upon completion of
their study, the COE will issue recommendations for
mitigating remaining flooding. (Chapter II.A.3 in FEIS.)
The Wake County Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Ordinance has been enacted to reduce the potential impact of
increased sediment caused by growth.
3. Comments Concerning Alternative Methods of
Flood Control
a. Mr. Victor V. Langston
Project Flood Control
The EIS did not consider in great enough depth the
mitigative measure of purchase of flood plain property.
Suggests that clearing certain areas in the flood plain and
adding these areas to the Greenway System would be more
economical than continually building structures to
compensate for additional development.
b. .Miss Anne Taylor
Sierra Club
The COE should publicly state its assurance that
development encouraged by this sewer line will not
necessitate the eventual channelization of Crabtree Creek.
150.
-------
would like to see the omission of the channelization option
from the FEIS.
Flood victims should be given the opportunity to
relocate under the COE's flood control project, or assurance
given the citizens in the lower reaches of the watershed
that the sewer line will not increase their flooding
problems.
Wake county Commissioners should adopt subdivision
regulations to assure retention of on-site runoff in order
to alleviate increased rainstorm runoff caused by paving
streets and building homes upstream.
c. UNC Water Resources Institute
On page 137, the alternative to acquisition of land
rights for SCS structures appears to be unnecessary. Why
should there be an alternative? The structures are needed
and the land must be acquired. The "or until other measures
are taken," offers a way out of what should be a commitment,
d. U. S. Department of Interior
We believe the environmental impact statement is
inadequate in explaining the relationships of Raleigh's
Capitol City Greenway Plan to the prepared project's
"secondary1* or indirect impact on future flooding in the
area downstream of the proposed sewer line; namely, the
151.
-------
Lower Crabtree Creek Watershed area. Furthermore, it would
seem that the current North Carolina, Wake County, and
Raleigh municipal flood-plain ordinances, together with
Raleigh's participation in the emergency Federal flood
insurance program, provide some measure of insurance against
the increased "probability of danger from flooding in
downstream areas."
e. Mr. Lloyd M. Hedgepeth
The other measures to insure adequate flood control
should be fully defined and analyzed. "Other measures"
should not become a convenient loophole. Why not include,
on a grant condition, the requirement for county land use
plans which would restrict development to a level yielding
no damage when the flood control dams are in place. Also,
that if the sewer line is not built, permits for package
plants (with their attendant development) should not be
issued until the required dams are in place.
f. Mr. James L. Briley
Studies should be made to determine what additional
measures should be taken to insure protection from 100 year
floods. No further development should be allowed until
flood control structures are completed.
152.
-------
g. M . Betty Ann Knudsen
League of Women Voters
The statement on paqe x of the DEIS should be changed to
read, "Grant funds shall be withdrawn January 1, 1976, from
the proposed project if land rights are not acquired for the
Soil Conservation Service structures and agreement on other
measures to insure adequate flood protection is not
reached."
h, N. C, Department of Natural and Economic
Resources
We suggest that EPA further condition approvals for this
grant on the successful completion of the Action Plan by
Wake County and Raleigh,
Response to Comment _Concerninq Alternative
Methods of Flood Control
The discussion on page 137 in the DEIS on alternative
means of flood control was presented to add as much
flexibility as possible to the requirement of adequate flood
protection. As of this time, however, no suitable
alternative to the SCS flood control structures has been
developed. As the COE comment letter in Appendix 12 states,
"immediate action to facilitate completion of the SCS
structures is imperative. Only then can any downstream non-
strucural or structural flood control measures be fully
153.
-------
effective." The COE is currently investigating what
measures, additional to the SCS structures, would be
appropriate to further improve the downstream flooding
problem (page 54).
Comments concerning the advisability of channelization
and subdivision regulations should be addressed to the study
now being conducted by the COE (page 51). EPA has no
authority to require land use controls or to limit the
construction of package plants if the sewer line is not put
in.
4. Comments Concerning the Need for Archaeological
and Vegetative Surveys
a. Miss Anne Taylor
Sierra Club
An archaeological survey and vegetative survey should be
part of the project.
154.
-------
b. North Carolina Department of Cultural
Resources
This office would like to have an archaeological survey
of the area prior to any construction. We are requesting
this survey because archaeological sites are known from the
vicinity and because they are found in the same ecological
situations which will be impacted by the sewer. Until such
time as this survey is performed by a competent,
professional archaeologist, this office would have to
comment adversely upon the project.
c. Mrs, Martha M. Gardner
Crabtree Creek Citizens Assistance Committee
To ensure that endangered or threatened plants along the
project area are located and inventoried, I strongly
recommend that a survey of plants other than woody
vegetation be made.
Response to^ Comments Concerning the Need
for^Archaeological and Vegetative Surveys
Archaeological and vegetative surveys have been done
along the interceptor right-of-way (Appendices 14 and 15).
Unique plant communities other than woody vegetative were
part of the vegetative survey. The proposed list of
155.
-------
endangered plants has not yet been officially adopted by the
U, S. government,
5, Comments^On_the Capital City Greenway Plan
A. Miss Anne Taylor
Sierra Club
A public recreation area along the route of the sewer
line would benefit the people who are paying for the sewer.
A Greenway system up to Umstead State Park and around to
Gary would provide a form of transportation and recreation
which would benefit all of the citizens of Raleigh, Gary,
and Wake County.
b. Mr. R, A. Dunaway
Fears Greenway proposition will be overlooked. The
Greenway is one of the biggest considerations in making
Paleigh one of the best places to live. Does not want
Greenway to come to Umstead Park. Does want it to come to
Cary, but would like to have it come up Turkey Creek and the
rest of the county.
c. Mrs. Joyce Anderson
Wake Environment, Inc.
The right-of-way for the sewer line and the land needed
for the remaining flood retention structures should be
purchased in fee simple. A linear open space network would
156.
-------
then be available for future development as Greenway trails
and recreational activity areas linking Raleigh, Gary, and
Umstead Park.
d, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
We note with interest that a multi-purpose project
right-of-way presents an excellent opportunity to commit
flood-plain lands to the Capital City Greenway.
e. U. S. Department of Interior
The flood-plain ordinances and insurance program bear a
direct, beneficial relationship to the Greenway system
plans. The environmental impact statement should also
explain what effects the proposed project will have on the
ordinances and insurance program if the SCS structures are
installed.
f. U. S. Forest Service
We recommend that multiple use of the total right-of-way
(for hiking, bicycle trails, conservation education, etc.)
be fully considered and incorporated in the project design,
and that a fully coordinated plan for multiple use of the
riqht-of-way be made part of this proposed project,
g. Mr. Russell C. Walton
He opposes the construction of the Greenway. Feels it
will invite undesirables into the area.
157.
-------
h. U. S. Soil Conservation Service
The report does not address itself to alternative
productive uses of the land involved in the sewer line
right-of-way or the productivity of the land area that will
be indirectly affected by the installation of the sewer
line.
Response to Comments on the Capital City Greenway Plan
The locally conceived Greenway System (Appendix 16)
would use the sewer right-of-way as a bike and hiking trail
and linear park. This type of multiple use of right-of-way
is to be encouraged. EPA regulations do not provide funding
mechanisms for the purchase of right-of-way land so this
agency can give no direct financial help to this desirable
project. The existing land uses in the sewer interceptor
right-of-way are shown on page 5 of the second letter in
Appendix 17.
6. Comments on Routing Through Umstead Park
a. U. S. Department of Interior
From the information presented in the draft statement,
it in unclear whether the proposed project right-of-way will
require taking any land from the William B. Umstead State
Park. From the sentence in the Draft Statement that "The
36-inch main serves the Upper Bichland Creek Basin" (p.8),
158.
-------
we conclude that the 21-inch force main itself will bypass
the park. However, the project will cut a 40-foot right-of-
way (p.87) and figures 7 and 17 show the proposed project
will cross Umstead State Park.
b. N. C. Department of Natural and Economic
Resources
The land between the present park boundary and 1-40 is
scheduled for acquisition by the State for inclusion in the
State park. The proposed sewer line, therefore, would
ultimately be located within the boundary of Umstead Park as
it parallels 1-40 and any environmental damages occurring
during construction will be within the proposed park
boundary. This would be incompatible with the park and
therefore unacceptable to this agency. We suggest that
consideration be given to having the sewer line cross 1-40
at Trenton Road rather than at the Reedy Creek Road crossing
and that the line be located within the 1-40 road cut on the
south side of the highway as it parallels 1-40.
c. Mr. Russell C. Walton
Pumping for eternity would be much more costly than to
run the sewer along the creek right through the park.
Umstead is a natural area, only about forty years old. To
159.
-------
pump over the hill for years to come will cost more than the
whole park to begin with.
gg E9ngg-fcQ-CQffg*gfttg on Routing Through Umstead Park
The interceptor will cross 1-40 at Trenton Road rather
than at Reedy Creek Road and will follow the cut on the
south side of the highway as it parallels 1-40.
7. Comments on Right-gf-Way Cleared for Sewer Line
a. U. S. Forest Service
We question the need to maintain the 40-foot width of
the right-of-way clear of trees and shrubs. At a minimum,
these trees along the right-of-way line which do not survive
construction damages (such as severance of lateral roots,
soil compaction, disturbance of natural drainages, the
piling of dirt above the root collars, etc.) should be
replaced immediately.
To the extent possible, turns should be designed into
long straight segments of the line of sight along the right-
of-way.
b. U. S. Soil Conservation Service
Observations of current sewer line installations
indicate actual right-of-way use following standard
construction practices involve considerably more than a
forty-foot right-of-way to allow for proper water management
160.
-------
and erosion control where any cuts or fills are made in
conjunction with the installation of the sewer line.
Adequate right-of-way to insure stable cut and fill slopes
should be obtained as well as temporary and permanent
surface water disposal easements.
Permanent stabilization of the construction right-of-way
should include appropriate shrubs and ground cover, as well
as grasses, to reduce long-term maintenance cost and erosion
and resulting sedimentation. The use of wildlife food-
producing perennials for this purpose would be desirable.
c. N. C. Department of Natural and Economic
Resources
The EIS should clearly state how the right-of-way will
be maintained. If chemical control is planned, the chemical
name, rate, and frequency of treatment planned should be
given.
d. Mrs. Joyce Anderson
Wake Environment, Inc.
EPA should give serious study to the possibility of
revegetation along the outermost ten feet of either side of
the 13 meter right-of-way with bottom land hardwood
vegetation.
161.
-------
e. Mr. Robert E. Giles
The FEIS should make it a mandatory requirement that the
width of the right-of-way be 10 meters or less in existing
residential and other particularly aesthetic areas.
on Right-of-way Cleared_f or_Sewer_Ling
The cutting of a 40-foot right-of-way for installation
of the sewer line will be necessary along most of the line.
Where possible, a smaller cut will be taken. Also, larger
cuts will be taken in any area necessary to insure that
stable cut and fill slopes can be obtained during
construction. Appropriate vegetation will be used to
stabilize the soil along the right-of-way. No herbicides
will be utilized to control vegetation on the right-of-way.
The width of right-of-way maintained after construction will
be that which is necessary to allow for maintenance work to
be conducted and to keep tree roots away from the pipe.
8- 22J2! S l 2S HSiBH^ Creek Alternative
a. Robert E. Giles
We take strong exception to the analysis and conclusions
stated in the DEIS regarding this alternative. The PIES
should address the\f ollowing points: Savings from need to
run parallel interceptor up to present Oak Park location,
savings and lessened impact from cutting out the segment
from Oak Park to pumping station west of Umstead State Park,
162.
-------
cost of additional lift capacity from upper Crabtree Basin
to Walnut, Basin, and cost of additional flow from State
Fairgrounds to Walnut Creek.
b. Anne Taylor, Joyce Anderson, Martha Gardner
We would appreciate further study and cost analysis of
Walnut Creek alternative. Specifically, is there a major
cost difference in the proposed pumping station at Richland
Creek and a pumping station to Walnut Creek? What is the
difference in annual OSM costs of pumping station vs.
gravity flow? What areas of the upper watershed would be
without service if the Walnut Creek route were used? Would
use of the Walnut Creek line avoid the necessity of a
parallel line from Oak Park to the Crabtree Mall area?
Response to Comments on Walnut Creek Alternative
An economic analysis was performed by EPA to determine
if it would be advantageous to use the Walnut Creek
interceptor system to transport the wastes generated in the
Upper Crabtree Creek area rather than using the Crabtree
Creek interceptor system as proposed in the Draft EIS. The
results of that analysis is as follows:
163,
-------
COSTS
Proposed Plan Alternative Plan
(Crabtree Creek) (Walnut Creek)
Interceptors within
the Upper Crabtree
Creek Planning
Area 2,600,000 2,178,000
Interceptors
Outside the
Planning area 2,687,000 3,807,000
Pumping stations 1,800,000 3,940,000
Force iMains 256,000 iOJLtOOO
TOTALS 7,343,000 10,741,000
As the chart indicates, the cost of the Walnut Creek
alternative is significantly higher because of the costs
related to pumping the sewage from one drainage area into
another. These costs are reflected in the figures for
pumping station and force mains. These costs far outweigh
the cost saved by not having to parallel a portion of the
existing Crabtree interceptor line if the Walnut Creek
alternative is chosen (see Table 8). Also, the effect of
not having to construct a line from Oak Park to the pumping
station west of Umstead state Park is equalized by the
additional line required to the Walnut creek Basin.
Further, this alternative routing does not provide any
wastewater transmission system for the Turkey Creek basin.
164.
-------
9- Comments on Adverse Impacts of SCS Structure No. JM
a. Mr. Russell C. Walton
SCS structure No, 11 has been moved from where it is
located in pages 56 and 57 in the DEIS. The structure has
been moved to a position near the park boundary of Umstead
Park, This involves 35 acres of my farm and results in the
closing of Reedy Creek Road which is the primary road for
people in this area. I urge you to hold all funds and
require that suitable planning be made to prevent such
things as flooding to prevent flooding and the closing of
public roads.
b. Mr. and Mrs. Robert Butler
The closing of Reedy Creek Road would cause me and my
neighbors to drive more miles to work and would be a real
hardship on us. We do not object to flood control programs,
only closing of Reedy Creek Road.
c. Mr. Rex Gary Schmidt
The closing of Reedy Creek Road will create a hardship
for its users, double the mileage and driving costs of the
residents and users, and cause a devaluation of our
properties. If the lake is necessary, then mitigation
should be provided through construction of a new bridge
sufficient to abrogate this problem.
165.
-------
d. Mrs. Ben L. Clifton
I urge you to hold all funds and require that suitable
planning be made to prevent such things as flooding to
prevent flooding and closing of public roads, I have owned
land on road 1655 for about forty years, and the closing of
Reedy Creek Road will seriously devalue my property.
e. Mrs. Mary H. Chappell
I urge you to hold all funds and require that suitable
planning be made to prevent such things as flooding to
prevent flooding, and closing of public roads.
f. Mrs. Lucille Grissom
I urge you to hold all funds and require that suitable
planning be made to prevent such things as flooding to
prevent flooding, and closing of public roads.
g. Dr. Terry C. Dunn and Dr. William L. Dunn
It should be pointed out that it is of primary
importance that both Trenton and Reedy Creek Roads are not
closed simultaneously as no access to and from the places of
residence of those of us living on Reedy Creek and Trenton
Roads would be possible. This could happen if Structure 11
closes Reedy Creek Road and sewer line construction closes
Trenton Road. An impact statement on the SCS projects
should be required.
166.
-------
h. Ms. Martha Walton
Keep structure No. 11 as shown on page 56 - Don't allow
road t!650 to be closed.
i. Ms. Margie Walton
Keep structure No. 11 as shown on page 56.
j. Ms, Mary Walton
Keep structure No. 11 as shown on page 56.
k. Mr. Charles Patta
Keep structure No. 11 as shown on page 56.
1. Mr. David Portet
Keep structure No. 11 as shown on page 56.
m. Mr. Russell Lee Walton
Keep structure No. 11 as shown on page 56.
n. Mr. Bill White
Keep structure No. 11 as shown on page 56.
o. Mr. D. E. Henderson
Keep structure No. 11 as shown on page 56.
p. Mr. James C. Johnson
Keep structure No. 11 as shown on page 56.
q. Mr. Russell Walk, Jr.
Keep structure No. 11 as shown on page 56.
r. Mr. Joe A. Marlin
Keep structure No. 11 as shown on page 56.
167.
-------
s. Mr. John Cromwell, Jr.
Keep structure No. 11 as shown on page 56.
t. Mr. Thomas Crews, Jr.
Keep structure No. 11 as shown on page 56.
u. Mr. H. A. Smith:
Wake County Department of Natural Resources
It is correct that structure No. 11 has been relocated
to a new site different from that shown in the DEIS and this
location would cause the closing of Reedy Creek Road. As a
result of citizen complaints, we have entered into
negotiations with the North Carolina Department of
Transportation to elevate the bridge and keep the road open.
We feel the expense to Wake County is justified due to the
objections and the apparent inconvenience that will be
caused to residents in the area.
Response^to CQmments_on Adverse Impacts of Structure No. 11
As the letter from Mr. H. A. Smith (Appendix 12)
indicates, Wake County is committed to keeping Reedy Creek
Road open by raising the bridge. Comments concerning other
possible adverse impacts of the structure should be
addressed in the SCS publication "Crafctree Creek Watershed,
Draft Environmental Impact Statement, December 1975".
168.
-------
10. Comments on Growth Related Impacts
a. U. S. Forest Service
Among stated benefits of the project are stimulation of
the rate of development and allowances for increased
densities in the project service area. Without a
comprehensive land use plan for the Upper Crabtree Creek
Basin, how is the public investment in the project and
public concern for maintenance of environmental quality
safeguarded against unsuitable development within the flood
plain and possibly over-development in portions of the
basin?
b. N. C. Department of Natural and Economic
Resources
Our staff expressed substantial concern regarding the
implications of the potential secondary impacts of growth
and development that will be the result of construction of
this sewer line.
Response to Comments^on_Growth Related Impacts
Wake County is currently in the process of revising its
land use plan for the service area based upon urban runoff
data recently compiled. Upon completion, this plan will
help to guide growth in an orderly manner. The probable
impact of growth induced by the project upon community
169.
-------
facilities costs is shown on page 7 of the second letter in
Appendix 17.
11. Comments on Odor Problems Resulting from Project
Construction
a. Ms. Betty Ann Knudson
League of Women Voters
The detrimental effects of odor problems on established
neighborhoods are great enough so that adequate procedures
to prevent the problem before it occurs should be
established.
b. UNC Water Resources Research Institute
While I have no personal experience with aeration of
sewage for odor control, I would question whether this could
be done effectively within the limited space available in
pumping stations. Even so, exhaust venting would itself
become a source of offensive odors. Would chlorination be
more effective?
c. Mr. Robert E. Giles
The FEIS should contain language to require measures
which would assure that there would be no discernible odors,
especially where the line might run through developed areas.
170,
-------
Response to Comments on Odor Problems
The design of the lift station will include facilities
for aeration of the wastewater. This will alleviate the
potential odor impact.
12. Comment On Assurance that Project is Completed as
Planned
a. J. R. Bohannon, Jr.:
Oak Park - Glen Forest - Deblyn Park
Civic Association
We feel it is essential to provide adequate confidence
that the project will be successfully completed as
originally planned. We recommend that the definitized plan
include a stated set of conditions or technical
specifications as an appendix to the FEIS.
Response to Comment on Assurance that Project
is completed as Planned
A grant will not be given until the land has been
purchased for the flood control structures. Other
mitigative measures which will either be required or
recommended are listed in the Summary and in Chapter V.
Mitigative measures related to the construction of the flood
control structures should be discussed in the DEIS by the
SCS, "Crabtree Creek Watershed, DEIS, December, 1975".
171.
-------
113. Comment. Concerning Wake County ''Plan of Action.1*
a. Mr, Robert E. Giles
The FEIS should contain an up-to-date report on the
progress of the County in accomplishing the things called
for in the County Plan of Action (Appendix 7).
gesponsg to Comment Concerning "Plan of Action**
Appendix 18 contains status reports on the SCS flood
control structures. The development of new land use plans
and control ordinances referred to in the "Plan of Action"
is still in the preliminary stage.
14. Comment on the Use of Vents Instead of Man Holes
a. Mr. Robert E, Giles
The FEIS should provide that the vents will extend
underground from their connection with the sewer line, so as
to emerge and rise above ground at the right-of-way edge
nearest the creek.
Response to Comment Concerning the Use of Vents Instead of
Man Holes
The use of a snorkel device or underground piping (see
VB5) is now being considered. One of these methods will be
used if found to be feasible.
172.
-------
15. Miscellaneous Comments No Response Given
a. Ms. Betty Ann Knudsen
League of Women Voters
It seems to us that there should be some procedure
requiring either outright donation or at least a way to
acquire the land for the dams at some reasonable price not
dependent on inflated development potential.
b. N. C. Department of Agriculture
We have many people congregate at the fairgrounds during
fair week and we have to make temporary provisions in some
areas of the fairgrounds for sanitary sewage disposal. Even
though we take the necessary precautions, we recognize this
as a potential health hazard which could be cured by the
extention of the Richland Creek sewer outfall.
173.
-------
REFERENCES
American Public Works Association; "Water Pollution Aspects
of Urban Runoff," Water Pollution Control Research Series,
11042-01/69, January 1969.
"An Appeal" (Petition); Project Flood Control, July 1973.
Armstrong, T. F, , Department of Natural and Economic
Resources; Written Communication, November 23, 1973.
Becker, Burton C. , et al; "Guidelines for Erosion and
Sediment Control Planning and Implementation," Environmental
Protection Technology Series, EPA-R2-72-015, August 1972.
Bosch, L.; Written Communication, October 1, 1973.
Caddell, W. F., Jr., State of North Carolina Department of
Transportation and Highway Safety; Written Communication,
December 20, 1973.
Gary City Council and Wake County Board of Commissioners;
"Town and County Water and Sewer Main Agreement,11 May 10,
1973.
Consoer, Townsend and Associates and Peirson and Whitman,
Inc.; "Master Plan, Wastewater Treatment and Collection,
Raleigh Metropolitan Area," May 1971.
Corps of Engineers; "Neuse River Basin, North Carolina,"
December 31, 1963.
Coughlin, Robert E. and Thomas R. Hammer; "Stream Quality
Preservation Through Planned Urban Development,"
17U.
-------
Socioeconomic Environmental Studies Series, EPA-R5-73-019,
May 1973.
"Crabtree Creek Watershed Pact Sheet," February 1973.
Economic Systems corporation; "Storm Water Pollution From
Urban Land Activity," Water Pollution Control Research
Series, 11034 FKL 07/70, July 1970.
Ellwood, Eric L., North Carolina State University; Written
Communication, January 23, 1974.
Engineer Agency for Resources Inventories; "Environmental
Reconnaissance Inventory of the State of North Carolina,"
December 1973.
Environmental Impact Appraisal
Environmental Protection Agency; "The Control of Pollution
From Hydrographic Modifications," 1973.
Flournoy, W. L., Jr.; "A Report to the City Council on the
Benefits, Potential, and Methodology of Establishing a
Greenway System in Raleigh."
Flournoy, W. L., Jr., Wake County Planning Department;
Written Communication.
Geological Resources, Inc.; "Statement of Impact of Proposed
Crabtree Creek Sewer Outfall," February 1974.
Giles, Robert; Oral Statement for Hearing, August 9, 1973.
Giles, Robert; Written Communication, April 25, 1973.
Giles, Robert; Written Communication, October 26, 1973.
Gluckman, Stephen J., State of North Carolina Department of
Cultural Resources; Written communication, January 29, 1974.
Hardee, Joseph; "Revised Cost Estimates by Wake Engineering
Study Group," August 24, 1973. Harland, Bartholomew and
Associates; "Long Range Thoroughfare Plan, Raleigh Urban
Area," 1967.
175.
-------
Barton, Thomas G., Department of Natural and Economic
Resources; "The State of Water Resource Management in North
Carolina."
Hazel, Robert B., State of North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission; Written Communication, December 11, 1973.
Hedgepeth letter
Health, Education and Welfare; "Water resource Study, Neuse
River Basin, North Carolina," May 1964.
Howells, David H., UNC Water Resources Research Institute;
Written Communication, December 18, 1973.
Kaiser, Edward J., et al; "Promoting Environmental Quality
Through Urban Planning and Controls," Socioeconomic
Environmental Studies Series, EPA-600/5-73-015, February
1974.
Langston, Vann; Oral Statement for Hearing, September 4,
1973,
Leopold, Luna B.; "Hydrology for Urban Land Planning - A
Guidebook on the Hydrologic Effects of Urban Land Use,"
Geological Survey Circular 554, 1972.
Matuszeski letter
Mitchell, Thornton W., State of North Carolina Department of
Art, Culture and History; Written Communication, April 18,
1974,
Moore, Gardner, and Associates, Inc.; "Crabtree Creek
Watershed Water and Sewer Needs 1970-2000," January 1970.
Morgan, Phillip S,, Fish and Wildlife Service; Written
Communication.
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration,
Department of Commerce; "Local Climatological Data, Raleigh,
North Carolina," 1972.
176.
-------
North Carolina Board of Health; "Regulations Governing
Sewage Disposal in Wake County," October 8, 1973.
North Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources;
"Regulations Governing the Filing of Applications and
Issuance of Permits for Discharges to the Surface Waters,"
November 15, 1973.
North Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources; "Resolution
of the North Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources
Establishing a Policy Setting Limitations on State Clean
Water Grants for Wastewater Treatment Works Projects
Approved for Federal Construction Grants," January 18, 1973.
North Carolina Board of Water and Air Resources; "North
Carolina Water Plan Progress Report, Chapter 25, The Concept
of Basin and Region Reports in the North Carolina Water
Plan" (Draft), May 1971.
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act, July 21, 1971.
North Carolina State Highway Commission; "Thoroughfare Plan,
Wake County, North Carolina," December 1972.
Office of Water and Air Resources; "Interim Water Quality
Management Plan for Sub-Basin 09-02 (Wake County Area),"
September 1972.
Palisoul, Alan, Department of Natural and Economic
Resources; Written Communication, February 4, 1974.
Putnam, Arthur L., U.S. Geological Survey; "Effect of Urban
Development on Floods in the Piedmont Province of North
Carolina," 1972.
Raleigh City Council; "City of Raleigh Flood Plain
Ordinance."
Raleigh City Council; "City of Raleigh Soil Erosion
Ordinance," July 11, 1973.
Raleigh City Council and Wake County Board of Commissioners;
"City and County Water and Sewer Main Agreement," August 7,
1972.
177.
-------
"Report of Proceedings at Special Meeting of the North
Carolina State Stream Sanitation Committee," October 18,
1960.
Research Triangle Regional Planning Commission; "A General
Plan for the Development of the Research Triangle Region as
Affected by Waste Disposal and Water Resources," June 1962.
Research Triangle Regional Planning Commission; "Research
Triangle Region Development Guide," April 1969.
Sartor, James D and Gail B. Boyd; "Water Pollution Aspects
of Street Surface Contaminants," Environmental Protection
Technology Series, EPA-R2-72-081, November 1972.
Scott, John, Wake County Planning Department; Written
Communication, February 24, 197ft.
Scott, John, Wake County Planning Department; Written
Communication, July 11, 1974.
"Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973," May 9, 1973.
Smith, Ann Webster, Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation; Written Communication, January 8, 1974.
Soil Conservation Service; "An Appraisal of Potentials for
Outdoor Recreational Development, Wake County, North
Carolina," August 1973.
Soil conservation Service; "Crabtree Creek Watershed Work
Plan," March '1964.
Soil Conservation Service; "Guide for Sediment Control on
Construction Sites, North Carolina," March 1973.
Soil Conservation Service; "Soil Survey, Wake County, North
Carolina," November 1970.
Stem, George L., Soil Conservation Service; Written
Communication, October 24, 1973.
Stephenson, Earl F., Carolina Power and Light, Written
Communication, April 12, 1974.
178.
-------
Stewart, Pearson H., Research Triangle Regional Planning
Commission; Request for Certification of Functional
Water/Sewer Planning and Programming, December 20, 1971.
Thronson, Robert E., Environmental Protection Agency;
"Comparative Costs of Erosion and Sediment Control
Construction Activities," EPA-430/9-73-016, July 1973.
University of Cincinnati, Division of Water Resources;
"Urban Runoff Characteristics," Water Pollution Control
Research Series, 11024 DQU 10/70, October 1970.
Wake County Board o'f Commissioners, "Resolution to Amend the
Wake County Zoning Ordinances," June 3, 1974.
Wake County Board of Commissioners, "Wake County Plan of
Action," June 3, 1974.
Wake Engineering Study Group; "Report on Wake County Water
and Wastewater Engineering Study," Vol. 1 and 2.
Wake Engineering Study Group; "Upper Crabtree Creek Area
Wastewater Needs, Wake County, North Carolina," June 1971,
Waller, James O., Corps of Engineers; Written Communication,
May 15, 1973.
Waller, James O., Corps of Engineers; Written Communication,
January 29, 1974.
Water and Air Quality Control Committee; "Proposals Relative
to the Upgrading of Classification and Water Quality
Standards."
Williams, J. O., Public Works Commission; Written
Communication, July 18, 1974.
Wray, John D., Department of Water and Air Resources; "Wake
County Water Use Study," June 1970.
179.
-------
APPENDIX 1
Initial Public Correspondence
180
-------
OAK PARK* GLEN FOREST - DEBLYN PARK
Civic Association
Raleigh, N.C. 27612
P. 0. Box 30357
ma
APR 3 0 1973
U Lb
April 25, 1973
Mr. Jack Ravan, Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Ul2l Peachtree Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Reference; EPA Project C3703Wi
Wake County, N. C.
Dear Mr. Ravan:
The Environmental Protection Agency proposes to make a grant of Federal funds.
for the construction of waste treatment facilities in Wake County, including
a large sewer outfall line along Crabtree Creek west of the City of Raleigh.
You have already heard from other citizen groups in Wake County who have ex-
pressed serious environmental concerns about this project as presently proposed.
This Association expresses, on behalf of its members, these same concerns and
joins with others in strongly urging that you take prompt action to ensure the
preparation of an Impact Statement with respect to this EPA grant project, in
accord with the National Environmental Policy Act.
This Aesociation shares with your agency, with County officials and with others
the desire to see adequate provision for waste treatment facilities throughout
Wake County, to eliminate the continuing and worsening pollution of our streams.
But the very laudable objective of purer and cleaner streams should be achieved
by means which are entirely compatible with other equally vital environmental
interests.
Tour prompt action in requiring the Impact Statement in accord with applicable
Federal laws and regulations will be greatly appreciated.
We shall look forward to hearing from you in the near future.
Sincerely,
Robert E. Giles
President
cc: Mr. Waverly Akins, Chairman
Wake County Board of Commissioners
Mr. Joseph Sanders
County Coordinator
181
Mr. John Scott, Director
County Planning Department
Members, County Planning Board
-------
Oak Park Road
Raleigh, N. G. 27612
April 21, 1973
Mr. Jack Ravan, Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
1^4-21 Peachtree Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Reference; EPA Project
Wake County, N. C.
Dear Mr. Ravan:
By letter dated December 29, 1972, to Mr. Garland H. Jones, County Manager,
Mr. James R, Westlake of your office extended to Wake County an offer of a
Federal grant of $2,^(45,750 for the construction of proposed waste treatment
facilities. This offer was subsequently accepted by the County.
This project includes what has come to be called the Crabtree Creek sewer
outfall line. Property owners residing in Oak Park whose land would be
traversed by the proposed outfall line became aware of the project in
February of this year when an engineering firm, retained by the County,
conducted surveys across our property.
Enclosed is a copy of a letter dated February 23, 1973, signed by twelve
property owners in Oak Park, addressed to Mr. Joseph Sanders of the Wake
County government. This letter sets forth the concerns which we have
expressed to the County regarding this proposed project.
We now restate these same concerns to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Furthermore, we feel that these additional points must be stated:
The proposed sewer outfall will open an additional 29,000 acres of land
for development. This additional 29,000 acres in the Crabtree watershed
lies "upstream" of Oak Park, which is in turn "upstream" from the City
of Raleigh. Development of this additional 29,000 acres, and the
associated increase in runoff and sediment buildup, will greatly
increase the flood potential of Crabtree Creek. It should be noted
that on February 2, 1973, a 3.5 inch rain caused considerable flooding
and extensive damage along the Crabtree throughout the City of Raleigh.
The February, 1973, flood was considered to be a once in two to five year
frequency flood. Development of the upper Crabtree watershed, which will
follow the proposed sewer outfall, can only create more flooding for land
which is already flood-prone and will undoubtedly create a much greater
flood plain. That is, land which is not now considered to be in the flood
plain will eventually flood with every heavy rain unless proper planning
and timing are exercised.
It is true that flood control dams are being built along the Crabtree.
However, the program to build the dams was initiated as the result of
a flood which occured in May, 1957. There were originally 15 dams planned
along the creek, but due to a number of problems that number has been
reduced to 11. Of the 11, only two dams have been completed with a third
structure to be completed this year. It is evident that at this rate, the
182
-------
To Mr. Jack Ravan Page 2
completion of these 11 dams lies well in the future and it can
reasonably be pondered if all 11 will ever be completed. It appears
quite evident on the other hand that the proposed Crabtree Creek sewer
outfall would be completed in a much shorter time. The subsequent
development of the upper Crabtree watershed would then precede the
flood control measures. Furthermore, the limits of the flood plain for
a once in 100 year frequency flood should be calculated taking into
account the increased runoff resulting from the development of the
upper Crabtree watershed. This additional development will undoubtedly
require more stringent flood control measures than are currently proposed
for the 11 dams. It appears quite obvious that the impact of the proposed
Crabtree sewer outfall has yet to be brought into focus.
I am writing to you as the Chairman of the Oak Park property owners group,
to submit our formal, official request that the Environmental Protection
Agency, in conformance with the National Environmental Policy Act, ^2 United
States Code, Sections ^321 et.seq. and in conformance with Executive Order
No. 1151^, 35 F.R. ^24?, March 5, 19?0 take prompt action to ensure the
preparation of an Impact Statement with respect to this EPA grant project.
It appears to us that award of this grant is indeed an action on the part of
the Environmental Protection Agency "Significantly affecting the quality of
the human environment;" and therefore, the provisions of the Federal statutes
and of Executive Order No. 1151^- pertaining to an Impact Statement are
clearly applicable.
County officials have been most courteous and helpful to us in furnishing
information on the status of the project. However, it seems to us that
fundamental issues of marked environmental concern have not been given full
and adequate consideration in a coordinated manner by such agencies ;as' the
Soil Conservation Service, the Corps of Engineers, and the City of Raleigh,
particularly with respect to flood control implications. In order for the
environmental issues to be fully resolved, we feel that an Impact Statement is
in order.
Your prompt consideration of this request will be greatly appreciated, and
we shall look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
cc: Mr. Waverly Akins, Chairman
Wake Co. Board of Commissioners
Mr. Garland H. Jones
County Manager
Lloyd M. Hedgepeth
Mr. Joseph Sanders
County Coordinator
Mr. John Scott, Director
County Planning Department
183
-------
SIERRA CLUB 3 Joseph LeConte Chapter
... To explore, enjoy and preserve the nation's forests, waters, wildlife and wilderness ...
March 25, 1973
Mr. Jack Ravan, Regional Administrator
Environmental Pr tecti n Agency
1421 Peachtree Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
REs PROJECT EPA C 370
CRABTREE GREEK SEWER OUTFALL
Dear Mr. Ravans
As Mr. Matuszeski suggested in his letter f March 16, 1973,
I am providing a brief analysis f the issues we believe need
t be given special c@nsideration.
Of great concern t us is the capability f Crab tree Creek t
carry the quantity and quality f increased runoff fr m
development which will result from the installation of this
line. The eleven dams planned by the Soil Conservation Service
will perhaps alleviate the existing flo ding when they are
c@mp.le ted. There are presently two dams completed with a third
under construction. Land acquisition is held up in court pro-
ceedings. Th Corps f Engineers is studying the flooding
along the creek wiMi input fr m the Crabtree Creek Citizens
Advisory Committee as a result f public outcry when SCS
first published its watershed pragram f extensive channelization,
We know that h avy development, which this major outfall is
designed te aeeemm@date, will greatly increase the amount and
rate f runeff in the watershed above the City f Raleigh and
alth ugh the line d es circumvent Umstead Park, we believe
the valued laurel and rh d@dendr@n in the Park will suffer ar
be l st as Crabtree Creek adjusts itself t the increased
fl@w and sediment v r a long term peri d.
Sediment c ntr l, fla@dp.lain regulati n and area planning,
theugh all are imminent, are n t yet applied t Wake C unty.
There are differences f epinisn as to whether sediment control
measures eeuld adequately c ntr l upstream devel pm nt.
It may fee that the pr p sed Wake County Development Guide's
relation te development in the upper watershed will b useful.
Thin is being prepared in Mr. J hn Scott's office, Wake County
Planning Department.
184
-------
Mr. Jack Ravan -2- March 25, 1973
We might also mention a decision by a private developer and
the City of Raleigh t install a smaller sewer line through
unique vegetation n the south bank of Grabtree Creek directly
paralleling the route of the subject sewer outfall causing
double destruction in that particular area. The City has chosen
not t provide an environmental impact study for that develop-
ment or that sewer line, although residents of the area requested
it.
Flooding of Crabtree Creek is a major problem for which we
believe there is, under existing conditions, an envirenmentally
sound remedy. We believe the environmental impact of thic;
project as planned will be quite extensive and we will appreciate
the pportunity to be of assistance as you study the matter.
With kind regards, I am
Yours very truly,
Anne Taylor, Conservation Chairman
Research Triangle Group
421? Laurel Ridge
Raleigh, N. C. 2?6.12
CCs Council on Environmental Quality
185
-------
APPENDIX 2
Notice of Intent
186
-------
NOTICE OF INTENT
The Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, and the State
of North Carolina will prepare an environmental impact statement on
EPA Wastewater Treatment Project C-370344, the Crabtree Creek inter-
ceptor sewer system.
EPA proposes to contribute $2,445,070 toward a total cost of
$3,561,000 for the project. The balance will be paid by Wake County,
the applicant, and the State of North Carolina.
The facilities are to be located in Wake County, west of Raleigh,
North Carolina and include interceptor lines, a force main, and a
pumping station.
Major issues to be addressed in this statement include
Flood frequency and magnitude
Water quality and secondary effects
Sedimentation
Wildlife and vegetation
Aesthetics.
Comments are invited and should be sent to
David R. Hopkins
Chief, EIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
1421 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
A public hearing will be held following publication of the draft
environmental impact statement.
Jack E. Ravan
Regional Administrator
187
-------
APPENDIX 3
Inspection Reports and Data on Existing
Wastewater Treatment Plants
188
-------
INSPECTION REPORT
MOBILE CITY MOBILE HOME PARK
WASTEWATRR TREATMENT FACILITIES
WAKE COUNTY
BY
Randall Kornegay, Analytical Chemist
Central Regional Office
Office of Water and Air Resources
October 16, 3972
-------
The wastewater treatment facilities serving Mobile City Mobile Home
Park near Morrisville (SR 1615) were inspected on September 6, 1972.
The treatment facilities consist of a 2],000 GPI) extended aeration
type, chlorination, and the discharge of the treated effluent into an
unnamed tributary to Crabtree Creek, in the Neuse River Basin.
PERSONNEL
Mr. J. T. Hobby, Jr., President
Mr. Cecil Sears, Manager (WTPO I - Grandfather Clause)
OPERATOR CLASSIFICATION FOR TREATMENT FACILITIES
WTPO I
PERMIT
Number 561
Expiration Date: June 30, 1969
RECEIVING STREAM
The effluent discharges into an unnamed tributary to Crabtree Creek.
The average discharge of the receiving stream is 0.8 cfs and the 7-day
10-year minimum discharge is 0 cfs.
The following data was obtained from the. Stream Monitoring Section
of the Office of Water and Air Resources:
Upstream
Dissolved
Date_ Oxygen Temperature __PJi...
8-16-72 8.0 mg/1 20 C 5.4
8-23-72 7.2 mg/1 24 C 4.5
8-29-72 6.!: mg/1 25 C 6.3
9-6-72 8.7 mg/1 19 C 3.3
9-13-72 7.0 mg/1 19 C 5.2
190
-------
Downstream
Dissolved
Date QxjifaSIL Temperature pH
8-16-72 3.0 rog/1 22 C 6.4
8-23-72 5.2 mg/1 22 C 7,1
8-29-72 3.6 mg/1 23 C 6.5
9-6-72 8.G mg/1 19 C 5.1
9-13-72 5.2 mg/1 19 C 6.5
The stream was noted to be turbid and to have a slight sulfide odor
at times, downstream from the treatment facilities.
LABORATORY AND FIELD TESTS
Effluent
B.O.D. - 5 day, mg/1 - 10
Residue: Suspended, rcg/l - 9
Volatile, mg/1 - 8
Fixed, mg/1 - 1
Dissolved Oxygen, n>g/l - 0.0 *
Temperature, C - 23
Chlorine Residual, mg/1 - 1.5
Flow Rate at 11:30 a.TV., GFD - 185,000
* Note: Test was made before chlorination.
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION
1. Aeration basin has a sufficient amount of air induced, light brown
color, and a musty odor.
2. Floating solids were present in the settling basin indicating a
poor return of solids to the aeration basin.
3. In general, the proper maintenance and operational procedures are
followed in a satisfactory manner.
191
-------
t-._a amMRecords)
Facilities are not available to perform the necessary wastewater
analysis. Records are not kept and reports are not prepared.
DESIGN CRITERIA FOR PERFORMANCE
The treatment facilities are expected to effect overall reductions
in pollution as follows:
B.O.D. - 92%
Total Solids - 85%
Suspended Solids - 90%
Cpliform Bacteria - 98"
Flow - 21,000 GPD
PERFORMANCE
The treatment facilities are effecting overall reductions in
pollution as follows:
Using the data obtained from the laboratory section of the Office
of Water and Air Resources and the standard data of raw wastewater (B.O.D,
and Suspended Solids - 250 mg/1).
B.O.D. - 96%
Suspended Solids - 96%
Flow (estimated) - 16,000 GPD (serving 100 trailers)
Conclusions
The treatment facilities were performing in accordance with the
conditions of the permit and protecting water quality standards at the
time of the inspection. However, due to the poor return of solids'from
the settling basin to the aeration basin, water quality standards in the
receiving stream could be violated at times.
RECOMMENDATIONS;
1..Explore the possibility of constructing a fine solids settling
pond for the effluent.
192
-------
J.. C. Office of Water and Air Resources
<* & Inspection Report of
Wastowater Treatment Facilities
Date of Inspection
9/27/73
, Comity
Wake
A. GENERAL INFORMATION *
1. PLANT
(a)
NAME (b.) OV.'NKR
Gary Wastewater Treatment Plant
(c). LOCATION
Gary
Town of Gary
2. Description of Trc_atrcont Fad lit Jos (include Design Flov:)
The treatment facilities (secondary type) providing a capacity of 100,000 GPD,
consist of primary and secondary settling, low rate filtration with recirculation,
sludge drying beds, and the discharge of the treated effluent into Coles Branch, a
tributary to Crabtree Creek, in the Neuse River Basin.
Location of Discharge:
Adjacent to Treatment Facilities.
3. Personnel
Mr. Harry Conte - Town Manager
Mr. Norman Padget - Director of Public Works
Mr. John Smith - Operator
* Mr. Carlton Ruth - Operator
* Present during inspection
4. Treatment Facilities (!1. i^sifj cat Lo n
WTPO I
Fermit Status
Number: T-563
Expiration Date:
4-30-76
5. Receiving Stream Statistics
Name of Stream:
River Basin:
Stream Classification:
OWAR Sub BasLn No.:
EPA Sub Basin No.:
Coles Branch
Neuse River
"D"
09-02
03-04-02
County: Wake
U.S. G". S. No. :
Location: ' .
7-Day, 10-Year Min. Dis:
Estimated AviM-age Discharge: Q cfs
Drainage Area:
193
-------
GlJIDt: - VISUAL OnSERVATION - UNIT PROCESS
RATING COOKS: S Sat i:.f;ut.ir\ , U UIV..M i I .i< l,u v, M \l.ni',i.i..l, IN : ; (< ,-i,.( u.u, ' HJ 1 ( mt ut Op>'i ,itu)u
U I L I )t N G 5
OT AUL r VVA I I 'i JlllTI . I' I-M ,
j A i- r T Y F r <\ i u F * r s
D V P A -jS I 5
STO RM W A T u r, O V T '! t
MAIN TUN AN CT O I" C O I. t. L
P U M F1 STATION
VKNTIL AliON
I O M > b \ ' ' 1 . , Q
__ _ % yi
. s
Q A R 5 C R F_ ft N
* Periodic- break-downs-has oeeurr^d-at- Greenwood
-- Forest and -Stoney Brook Pump-Statd&n&
DISPOSAL or
COMMINU TOR
5CE?[ i MINGS
GRIT CMAMBFK'
DISPOSAL OF
SETTLING T A X K b
StUM HF.MOVAL J O
Need_to_waste -sludge-
E Fr T U U EN T
Dl GHO I LI'!
TLMP F;RA i
G Ab P MO C.HJ C I 1 O N
H L" A 7 I N G F QUl I >M[
5L. U DO C PUMf S
DRYING C3 L. C ' S
VACUUM 1-1 L Ti.'
i NI c H-J r. n A n o n
DISPOSAL or
g ' .._ __
i . ... _. - .
s" ~T~
FLOW M U T r. H A NO 1 >' t- <: ^ K" '
LAD C O^J r F^O 1. S
u
u
No ..flow measurements .made
No records kept
No lab controls made
-Trickling Filter
Secondary Clarifier
! S
! S
- Some leakage from seal.
Ul
I-
*
LFI-'LU I7N 1
E I-" F i" c 11 v I; 11 o s A o L :
C ON *1 A C I TIM I
CON r AC 1 T AK K
'Page 2
194
-------
Plant Performance
; f Month
JL i_(Month _ Yoarl
Max. Flow .Month Min. Flow
Flow
SuKjigndetl Solids (mp/1) %
Influent Effluent Rcmova 1
Average Annual
Average Max.
Flow Month '
No data available
Average Min.
Flow Month
Design
Fquiprncnt Prog7*am
Adequate Tr.ndcquatc
Cptnmc- n t s
Routine Maintenance?
Records
X
No records kept
Spare Parts Inventory
B.O.D., 5-day, mg/1
Residue: Suspended, mg/1
Volatile, mg/1
Fixed, mg/1
PH
Estimated Flow - 60,000 GPD
Design Flow - 100,000 GPD
Comments:
Laboratory Tests (Performed by Water & Air)
Influent (Grab Sample) Effluent
130 22
108 44
52 22
56 22
7.1 7.1
The treatment facilities in general are operated and maintained in a satisfactory
manner. The system is in need of sludge removal and effluent chlorination. Chlorination
of the effluent is needed due to the low flow of the receiving stream in a 'congested area-.-
Periodic break-downs, have occurred at the Greenwood Forest and Stoney Brook pump stations
due to mechanical failure. These two pump stations will be replaced by December 31, 1973
by the new Southeastern Regional Pump Station. The operator of the facilities is not certi-
fied. The treatment facilities will be abandoned when Raleigh's new treatment plant is
placed into operation.
Recommendations;
, . 1. Remove sludge. . ..
2. Install- chlorination unit and maintain residual of 1.0 mg/1. .
3. File request for operator's certification.
Inspection Performed by:
'Randall Kornegay, 'Analytical Chemist
195
Page 3
-------
River Basin
DATA SUMMARY
OFFICE OF WATER AND AIR RESOURCES
River Miles Stream Classification
Station Number
Ne^ise,
D
31C
Station Name: Coles Branch near Carv. N.C.
Station Location: Located on Coles Branch. 0.3 mi. below point of effluent discharge from
Town _of Carv sewaee treatment plant
Date
Collected
Day
Time
Discharge
Temp
D.O.
. c
Mg/1
% Sat.
PH
Alka
Acid
11ULV t0 8-3 NR/1
Iinity to 4.5 Mg/1
to 4.5 Mg/1
^ to 8.3 MR/I
30 min. Settlable Solids
Arsenic Mp/1
5 Da
at 20 C Mg/1
y at 20 C Ibs/day
Cadmium Mg/1
Tota
1 Carbon T&ariic M&/1
Inorganic Mg/1
COD MR/]
Chlorides Mg/1
Chroi
Hexavalent Mg/1
Total Mg/1
Cobalt Mg/1
Color units
Copper Mg/1
Cyanide Mg/1
H 6
o o
o m
Dcr/100 11F Fecal
pcr/iuu m Total
'MTN 1 1 00ml ,,,e, -..,,
MlW/lUUml Total
Flouride Mg/1
Formaldehyde Mg/1
Grease Mg_/l
Hardness as CaCO^ Mg/1
I ron
Lead
Mg/1
Mg/1
Mercury ug/1
Nickel Mg/i.
Ammonia Mg/1
Nitrogen Total. Kjeldahl Mg/1
Nitrate ^Nitrite Mg/1
Phenols Mg/1
Phophorous Mg/1
Resii
Mg
, Total
. Suspended
Dissolved
Resin Acid Soap Mg/1
Sulfate Mg/1
Sulfide Mg/1
Synthetic Detergent Mg/1
Turbidity units
Zinc
MR /I
8-29-73
T
1035
24/75
1.4
16
7.4
0
150
18
6100
196
-------
APPENDIX 4
Woody Vegetation Inventory
1Q7
-------
Woody Vegetation of the Umstead Park-Research Triangle Area
Scientific Name
Acer negundo L.
Acer rubrum L.
Acer isaccharum ssp. floridanum (Chap.) Desm.
Aesculus sylvatica Bartr.
Ailanthus altissima (Mill.) Swingle
Albizia julibrissin Durazz.
Alnus serrulata (Ait.) Willd
Amelanchier arborea (Michx.f.) Fern.
Aralia spinosa L.
Asimina triloba (L.) Dunal
Bacharis halimifolia
Betula nigra L.
Campsis radicans (L.) Seemann
Carpinus caroliniana Walt.
Carya. carolinae septentrionalis
fa cordiformis (Wang.) K. Koch
ja. glabra (Mill.) Sweet
fa ovalis (Wang.) Sarg.
Carya ovata (Mill.) K. Koch
Carya tomentosa Nutt.
Castanea pumila Mill.
Catalpa bignonioides Walt.
Ceanothus americanus L.
Celtis laevigata Willd.
Cephalanthus occidentalis L.
Cercis canadensis L.
Chionanthus virginicus L.
Cornus amomum Miller
Cornus florida L.
Corylus americana Walter
Corylus cornuta Marsh.
Crataegus sp.
Diospyros virginiana L.
Euonymus americanus L.
Common Name
boxelder
red maple
Florida maple
painted buckeye
ailanthus
mimos a
hazel alder
downy serviceberry
Devils-walkingstick
pawpaw
groundsel tree
river birch
trumpet vine
ironwood or American hornbeam
southern shagbark hickory
bitternut hickory
pignut hickory
red hickory
shagbark hickory
mockernut hickory
Allegheny chinkapin
southern catalpa
New Jersey tea
sugarberry
common buttonbush
eastern redbud
fringetree
silky dogwood
flowering dogwood
American hazel
beaked hazel
hawthorn
common persimmon
strawberry bush
198
-------
Scientific Name
Common Name
Fagus grandifolia Dherh.
Fraxinus americana L.
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Marsh.
Gleditsia triacanthos L.
Hamamelis virginiana L.
Hydrangea arborescens L.
Ilex decidua Walt.
Ilex opaca Ait.
Juglans nigra L.
Juniperus virginiana L.
Kalmia latifolia L.
American beech
white ash
green ash
honeylocust
witch-hazel
wild hydrangea
possumhaw
American holly
black walnut
eastern redcedar
mountain-laurel
Ligustrum sp.
Lindera benzoin (L.) Blume
Liquidambar styraciflua L.
Liriodendron tulipifera L.
Lonicera japonica Thunberg
Lonicera sempervirens L.
Magnolia tripetala L.
Malus pumila Mill.
Melia azedarach L.
Morus rubra L.
Myrica cerifera
Nyssa sylvatica Marsh.
Ostrya virginiana (Mill.) K. Koch
Oxydendrum arboreum (L.) DC
Parthenocissus quinquefolia
Paulownia tomentosa (Thunb.) Sieb. & Zucc.
Pinus echinata Mill.
Pinus serotina Michx.
Pinus taeda L.
Pinus virginiana Mill.
Platanus occidentalis L.
Prunus angustifolia Marsh.
Prunus serotina Ehrh.
Pueraria lobata (Willd.) Ohwi
privet
spicebush
sweetgum
tulip tree or yellow-poplar
Japanese honeysuckle
trumpet honeysuckle
umbrella magnolia
apple
chinaberry
red mulberry
wax myrtle
black gum or black tupelo
eastern hophornbeam
sourwood
Virginia creeper
royal paulownia
shortleaf pine
pond pine
loblolly pine
Virginia pine
American sycamore
Chickasaw plum
black cherry
Kudzu
199
-------
Scientific Name
Common Name
Quercus alba L.
Quercus coccinea Muetichh.
Quercus falcata Mlchx.
Quercus marilandica Muenchh.
Quercus michauxii Nutt.
Quercus nigra L.
Quercus phellos L.
Quercus prinus L.
Quercus rubra L.
Quercus stellata Wangenh.
Quercus velutina Lam.
Rhododendron sp.
Rhus copallina L.
Rhus glabra L.
Rhus radicans L.
Robinia pseudoacacia L.
Rosa sp.
Rubus sp.
Salix nigra Marsh.
Sambucus canadensis L.
Sassafras albidum (Nutt.) Nees
Smilax sp.
Sorbus arbutifolia (L.) Heynhold
Staphylea trifolia L.
Styrax grandifolia Ait
Symplocos tinctoria (L.) L'Her.
Tilia heterophylla Vent.
Tsuga canadensis (L.) Carr.
Ulmus alata Michx.
Ulmus americana L.
Ulmus rubra Muehl.
Vaccinium arboreum Marsh.
Vaccinium sp.
Vlbrunum acerifolium L.
Viburnum dentatum L.
Viburnum prunifolium L.
Viburnum rufidulum Raf.
Vitis sp.
white oak
scarlet oak
southern red oak
blackjack oak
swamp chestnut oak
water oak
willow oak
chestnut oak
northern red oak
post oak
black oak
azalea
shining sumac
smooth sumac
poison ivy
black locust
wild rose
blackberry
black willow
American elder
sassafras
greenbriar
red chokeberry
American bladdernut
bigleaf snowbell
common sweetleaf
white basswood
eastern hemlock
winged elm
American elm
slippery elm
tree sparkleberry
blueberry
maple-leaved viburnum
southern arrow-wood
blackhaw
rusty blackhaw
grape
200
-------
APPENDIX 5
Region J Concurrence
201
-------
THE RESE^CH TRIANGLE REGIONAL BANNING COMMISSION
CLARENCE O. JONES, Chairman
E. K. POWE, First V.ce-Chairman
JAMES R. HINKLE, Second Vice-chairman
HARVEY 0. BENNETT, Secretary-Treasurer
ROBERT M. HANES MEMORIAL BUILDING
P. 0. BOX 12255
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27709
(Area Code 919) 549-8302
PEARSON H. STEWART, Executive Director
CHAPEL H!U ORANGE COUNTY DURHAM.-DURHAM COUNTY . RALEIGH . WAKE COUNTY
' October 31, 1972
DEC 2 01972
ISIL'J GTE
Mr. Waverly Akins, Chairman
Wake County Commissioners
P. 0. Box 266
Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina
Dear Waverly:
RE: A-95 Regional Review
. Interceptor Outfalls to serve
the Upper Crabtree Creek Basin,
Wake County (Clearinghouse No.
"' 72-0020)
/ ^
At its regular meeting on October 2k, 1972, the Research Triangle
Regional Planning Commission voted unanimously to comment as
follows concerning the above referenced project.
The sewer interceptor outfall proposed to serve the Upper
Crabtree Creek will follow the Crabtree upstream to its
confluence with Richland Creek, up Richland Creek to the
vicinity of I-^fQ, then generally westerly to the near
vicinity of the Crabtree. Thereafter, the interceptor will
follow .the Crabtree to a point just south and west of the
Town of Cary. This route 'goes around, rather than through,
Umstead State Park.
The area to be served is one that holds promise of
considerable development in the next several decades,
development of various sorts including residential development
at urban densities. The area, centered among Ral.eigh, Cary
and the Research Triangle Park will come under the urbanizing
influence of the places named. Soils in the Crabtree Basin
are not suitable to development based both on septic tanks and
on site water supply. Consequently, adequate wastewater collection
and transmission lines and, eventually, an adequate water distribution
system must be provided.
CHAPEL HILL
ORANGE COUNTY
HOWARD N. LEE
Mayor
JAMES C. WALLACE
HARVEY 0. BENNETT
County Board Chairman
CLARENCE D. JONES
OSCAR R. EWING
DURHAM
DURHAM COUNTY
202
JAMES R. HAWKINS
Mayor
E. K. POWE
DEWEY S. S'CARBORO
County Board Chairman
W. W. EDWARDS
RALPH P, ROGERS, JR.
RALEIGH THOMAS BRAOSHAW
Mayor
JAMSS D. RAY
WAKE COUNTY GEORGE R. GOOOWIN,
I County Board Memo
JAMES R. HINKLE
WILLIAM McLAURIN
-------
The provision of treated water.and the collection, treatment
and disposal of wastewater in this area must involve the use
of Raleigh's water supply and sewerage sys.tems. Both Raleigh
and Wake County are to be commended.for their foresight that
will enable the City and County to grow together.
The benefits and advantages of a' regional utility system are
difficult to over-emphasize. This proposed interceptor is
adjudged a most acceptable addition to a Raleigh area regional
uti1i ty system.
t
Cordial.ly,
Pearson H.' Stewart
PHS:ns " '
cc: Joseph Sanders
V/i 1 Ham Carper
Mayor Thomas Bradshaw, Jr.
Benjamin Seymour
203
-------
APPENDIX 6
Handout Distributed at the Corps of Engineers
November 28, 1973 Public Meeting on the
Crabtree Creek Study
204
-------
Reference Section
This reference section is provided to furnish you with more
information on the (1) problems and needs, (2) things which can
be done, (3) study history, and (4) governing directives.
The explanations of the problems and needs and the things
which can be done are listed by number and color-coded to correspond
with the listings on pages 3 to 5. You, the public, are urged to
review these lists and make further suggestions on the problems and
needs and the things which can be done to solve them.
Explanations of Problems and Needs
Flood Damage
1. Determine fextent of flooding: Where will flooding occur? How
serious can 1t be?Will future development affect flooding? How
much effect will the 11 Soil Conservation Service (SCS) structures
have? How much flood control is desirable? (See the flood-plain
maps included In this packet.)
2. Establish flood-plain regulations: Such Regulations will facilitate
future planning by delineating flood-prone areas. Upcoming decisions
by the Raleigh City Council on flood regulations will affect this study.
3. Promote 11 SCS structures; There is lack of public support for
these dams which will reduce flooding throughout the study area.
While 11 dams are proposed and funded, three have been completed,
and there has been some difficulty in acquiring easements to build
the rest.
4. Remove old dam ruins (Anderson Drive); These old ruins cause
increased flooding just upstream.Adjacent owners support removal.
5. Clean up stream; There is a need for removal of minor obstructions
to flow.Civic groups might take this on as a project.
Water Quality
6. Improve water quality; Should Crabtree Creek be used for swimming?
What is involved to upgrade classification? A class "B" stream is
suitable for swimming. Major improvements would be necessary to
upgrade the stream from its present "C" classification to a "B"
classification.
7. Control Irosion; New construction sites and other disturbed areas
are sources of sediment entering the stream. What is the extent
of this problem, and what can be done?
205
-------
Open Space And Environment
8, Retain Lassiter's Mill dam; The dam has aesthetic, recreational,
and historic vatue.There 1s strong citizen support for its
retention.
9. Establish greenway system: There 1s citizen support for a
connected park and trail system along the stream. There Is also
some landowner opposition. The city is now developing a plan.
10. Reclaim Nello Teer rock quarry: State law now requires a
reclamation plan, and one exists. There are questions about the
life of the quarry and whether 1t could and should be included in
future plans for the stream.
11. Reclaim cutoffs left by channel changes; Where the channel has
been straightened, there are old channel sections which are cutoff*
They hold stagnant water and breed mosquitos.
12. Provide additionalurecreation areas; Should the full range of
recreational activities be considered as possibilities for the area?
13. Preserve natural areas; Undeveloped areas,containing unusual or
scarce plant or animal 1 ife should be preserved.
14. Protect environment during project implementation; During
possible construction phases, measures should be undertaken
to protect all aspects of the environment.
15. Protect f1s h and wi1dl1fe: Insure that fish and wildlife species
are protected and that thelr future is secure.
General Considerations
16. Rights of landowners; The property rights of landowners are
essential considerations in any plan.
17. Land use: Land use planning for the stream area should reflect
consideration for plans in the general area.
18. Plans for the stream area will be evaluated for their economic,
environmental, and social effects.
zuo
-------
Explanations Of Things Which Can Be Done About Flooding
Non-Structural Measures
1. Establish flood-plain regulations and flood-insurance program:
Flood-plain regulations prohibit building in the floodway and
they permit building elsewhere only if the structures are
elevated above the flood level (see No. 5). Communities which
intend to establish flood-plain regulations become eligible to
participate in the subsidized National Flood Insurance Program,
which makes flood insurance available to existing property
located in the flood plain where it was not previously.
2. Move out flood-threatened buildings; Remove from the flood plain
any building which is likely to incur major damage from flooding*
or act as a dam if left standing.
3. Re-develop threatened areas; Re-pi an and re-build neighborhood
and commercial districts so they will no longer be vulnerable to
flooding. This can mean to build them higher, or to move them.
4. Build above the flood level; Build on "stilts", or fill the land
to a safe level.
i
5. Establish an early-warning plan for floods; Provide for notifi-
cation of each occupant of the flood plain when flooding is
expected.
6. Establish an emergency evacuation plan; Provide for temporary
evacuation of each flood-plain occupant, and perhaps some
valuables, when flooding is expected.
7. Manage land to slow down surface flow; Promote gradual runoff of
stormwater by techniques such as contour plowing and surface drainage
in wide vegetated channels.
8. Clean up the stream; Remove debris, snags and other minor obstructions
which cause water to ba'ck up in the stream channel. '
9. Do nothing; Leave things as they are.
Structural Measures Outside The Study Area
10. Provide more temporary stormwater storage; Build more ponds or
lakes which can hold back some of the floodwater for release later
when the stream can take it without flooding. The 11 SCS structures
are examples of this*
207
-------
Explanations Of Things Which Can Be Done About Flooding (cont.)
11, Build small flood-retarding devices throughout watershed: Use
suitable street crossings, park bridges, parking lots, and similar
structures, as locations for small stormwater storage devices.
12. Do nothing: Do no structural work outside study area.
Structural Measures Within The Study Area
13. Floodproof bui1dings; Close all openings, temporarily or permanently,
where floodwater can enter, treat walls to prevent seepage, provide
valves on drains and sewer pipes, and use waterproof electrical
wiring.
14. Modify bridges: Make bridges higher or longer so that floodwaters
will not back up behind them.
15. Modify the channel: Straighten, widen, and/or smooth out critical
segments of the channel in various combinations of ways so more
'water can be carried within the channel.
16. Divert main channel flood flow; Build an auxiliary floodway channel,
one that is dry except at flood time, to carry floodwaters around
critical stream segments.
/
17. Divert storm drainage; Intercept all or some of the storm drainage
entering upstream from critical segments of the stream, and by-pass
it downstream.
18. Build levees: Build grassy banks along the stream to contain a
large flood within safe limits.
19. Build floodwalls: Build a narrow concrete wall along the stream
to contain a large flood within safe limits.
20. Use Lassiter's Mill dam for flood control: Re-build flood gates in
dam to lower flood elevation behind dam, or increase temporary
storage capacity of lake behind dam.
21. Remove Lassiter's Mill dam: Remove the obstruction to flow in order
to lower the flood level upstream.
22. Remove minor obstructions to flow: For example, remove old dam
ruins near Anderson Drive.
23. Modify obstructing pipe lines: 'Relocate pipes and elevated manholes
which exist above ground in the floodway where they collect debris
and obstruct flow.
24. Remove channel lediment: Remove sandbars and other deposits where
excess sediment fleposits have reduced natural flow capacity.
25. Do nothing: Do no structural work within the study area.
208
-------
Explanations Of Things Which Can Be Done About Hater Quality
26. Build sediment traps: Construct basins, or small ponds, 1n
which sediment will accumulate for periodic economical removal
so that deposition in the stream will be reduced.
27. Stabilize streambanks: Make streambanks resistant to erosion
and undercutting to cut off that source of sediment.
28. Remove channel sediment: Remove contaminated channel deposits.
29. Maintain minimum flow: Maintain sufficient flow during dry
periods for the preservation of stream life and for the dilution
of contaminants.
30. Manage land to release minimum pollutants: Control the release
of pesticides, fertilizers, and other contaminants from land areas
within the watershed.
31. Raise oxygen content of streams: Increase the amount of dissolved
oxygen available to fish and other streamlife by installing
artificial rapids, or by mechanically bubbling air through the
water.
i
32. Upgrade stream classification: A higher stream classification will
limit stream uses which degrade water quality.
33. Establish sediment control ordinance; By limiting the quantity of
sediment released from land under construction, the quantity of
sediment which reaches the stream is correspondingly reduced.
34. Stop untreated waste discharge: Insure that no inadequately treated
municipal, commercial, or industrial wastes are released to the
stream system.
35. Route urban runoff through vegetated strip: Create vegetated areas
near the stream across which storm drainage can flow in thin sheets.
Natural filtering action will improve water quality.
36. Collect worst urban runoff and by-pass downstream: By routing
particularly poor-quality surface runoff downstream, some segments
of the stream can enjoy higher quality.
37. Collect worst urban runoff and treat it in a plant: Transfer poor-
quality surface runoff to a treatment plant, either a conventional
sewage plant or a special one for stormwater.
38. Collect worst urban runoff and treat it in the interceptor lines;
Install treatment devices in the collecting lines to improve water
quality before release.
209
-------
Explanations Of Things Which Can Be Done About Water Quality (cont.)
39. Install treatment ponds for urban runoff; Build treatment ponds to
allow contaminants to settle or be consumed before reaching the
stream,
40. Do nothing: Take no action regarding water quality.
Explanations Of Things Which Can Be Done About Open Space And Environment
41, Retain Lassiter's Mill dam; Preserve the dam, but do not re-build
the mill.
42, Establish greenway trail system; Provide a system of parks, nature
walks, bike trails, and other trails along the stream.
43. Provide additional recreation activity: Develop a variety of
facilities in or near the flood plain for recreation.
44. Preserve natural areas; Select representative or unusual
natural areas for preservation in their natural state.
45. Beautify the landscape; Execute a program of regrading, planting,
and otherwise enhancing the general view along the stream.
46. Operate fish and wildlife programs: Establish, stock, and maintain
habitats for fish, birds, and animals along the stream.
47. Protect environment during project implementation: Reserve and protect
resources which are part of final plan.Manage any construction
with minimum environmental effect.
48. Clean the entire stream area: Remove refuse and debris from the
entire stream area.
49. Beautify man-made structures; Modify or hide distractive
structures in the stream area such as sewer lines, manholes, and
bridges,
50, Promote beautification program by landowners: Provide free
education, coordination, and advice to landowners as to how to
improve their streamstde property.
51. Re-claim abandoned facilities: Re-claim mined-out quarries.
Restore or modify cut off stream meanders. Include otherwise
unusable properties.
52. Do nothing; Take no action regarding open, space and environmental
needs.
210
-------
APPENDIX 7
Wake County Plan of Action
211
-------
' ' . . RESOLUTION
"TO ADOPT A PLAN OF ACTION TO MANAGE- LAND USES AND PUBLIC
..".FACILITIES WITHIN THE UPPER CRABTREE CREEK WATERSHED~""FOR '
THE PURPOSE OF MINIMIZING INCREASES (.N FLOOD DAMAGES AND
SEDIMENTATION
WHEREAS; the'Board of-'Commissioners-of the County of Wake is
(. >*-.. 4, i .-'
"cognizant of'the fact that recent floods - - of a magnitude which
'occur about once every fifteen years - - did cause extensive damage ,
to properties'- located along Crabtree Creek downstream from llmstead
State Park; and '
WHEREAS, the Board is aware that conversion of land from rural
to urban-type uses, hereafter.referred to as development, causes
increases in the volume .and velocity of" surface runoff of rainwater,
because impervious materials such as roofs and pavement reduce
absorption of water into the ground; and . . .
WHEREAS, the Board is likewise aware that extension of water
and sewerage systems into the upper Crabtree Creek watershed will
encourage and facilitate development of land, especially in view
of the proximity of the watershed to the Research Triangle Park,
the Raleigh-Durham Airport, aesthetic attractiveness of the landscape,
and U. S. Hig-hway 1-40; and
WHEREAS, the Board has officially adopted the Wake .County Water
-,
and Wastewater Facilities Plan which proposes extension of utilities
into the .-upper watershed as an immediate need; and
WHEREAS, of the nine impoundments proposed as flood control
structures in the upper Crabtree Creek watershed, as parts of the
Crab'tree Creek flood control project, only three have been completed,
and unless significant changes are initiated, the remaining structures
may require up to eight and a half years to build; and
WHEREAS, \fche Board realizes that completion of major sewer
outfalls prior to completion of flood control programs may cause
an increase in flood and erosion intensity as a consequence of
development,
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Commissioners resolves. That a plan
\
of action is necessary to coordinate public works and private devel-
opment within the upper Crabtree Creek watershed to provide reasonable
assurance that there will be no^increase in the probability of flood
damages or in the extent of sedimentation as a result of development
prompted by sewer-line construction.
Clipper Crabtree Creek watershed is here defined as that portion .of'-
the watershed upstream of Crabtree Valley Mall
212
-------
Resolution
Page 2 ...-,- . .
FURTHER, the Board of Commissioners resolve that the plan
of action shall include the following elements:
/
I. Complete the geophysical study of soils, topography, etc.
. *
^started-In September," 1973rby the Wake County fanning
Department to determine: . ...
A. Existing drainage characteristics of the land;
B, Effects of future development related -to increase in
surface runoff, flood elevations, and sedimentation ...
1. with existing flood .retention structures,
2. with existing land use regulations,
3. with additional flood retention structures in place;
C. Maximum amount of impervious surfaces within the water-
shed under various conditions-, such as listed under B.
above;
D. What changes in land use regulations will be necessary
to prevent increase in probability of flood damage or.
sedimentation.
II. Expedite initiation of flood plain'and erosion control
regulations in coordination xvdth the work of the Raleigh-
Wake County Land Use Code Committee and the U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency's proposed "208 planning program,
/ in the event the latter goes into effect. " -
III. Explore possibilities of new approaches to reduce the time
required to complete the system of dams and flood control
impoundments in the Crabtree Creek Watershed Project from
seven-and a half years to a shorter period.
In any event, expedite completion of the Project as
soon as possible.
IV. Apply existing County land use regulations and health regu-
. lations to help minimize development impact, to the extent
possible, and to encourage developers to employ, voluntarily,
*
*
runoff and sediment control techniques.
V. Coordination of sex-;er extension timing with: (1) Progress
*
on the Crabtree Creek Watershed Project; (2) completion
of the study described in element I, above; (3) and ennct-
71 ?
-------
Page 3 ' .
* ' ' ' .
merit of new land-use regulations, as required, in such manner
that extension of sewers will not initiate, encourage, or
facilitate untimely, large-scale development which would
increase the-probability of flood damage or degree of
sedimentation. . .
In adoption of this policy the Wake County Board of Commiss-
ioners take note of and call attention to the fact that its
plan of action cannot, alone, accomplish all desired public
purposes. Intergovernmental cooperation and coordination will
also be required.
For example, the role of the County in extension of a
major sewer interceptor into the upper Crabtree Creek basin
is chiefly that of funding. The County of Wake has entered into
contractual agreements with the City of Raleigh and the Town
of Gary whereby, within established geographic bounds, known
as "perimeter areas," those municipalities will assume respon-
sibility for installation, maintenance and management of water
and wastewater utility systems. The County may or may not provide
financial 'assistance in providing major lines and .-treatment
facilities, and to that extent the County may.play a part in
the-timing of capital improvement programs.
Further, the Commissioners are aware that whereas extension
of a major sewer interceptor into the upper basin of Crabtree
Creek will induce development, it is not likely that s.uch deve-
lopment will begin on a significant scale until contracts for
the project have been awarded and construction i-s under way.
It is reasonable to anticipate that developers may begin grading
and'land preparation activities at approximately the same time
work begins on the interceptor. Erosion', sedimentation and <
flooding problems customarily accompany such activities. However,
the Commissioners intend to have an erosion control ordinance
214
-------
Resolution
Page 4*
in effect by that time. - .-
1 -. Completion of the entire interceptor, however, will require
up "to four and a half years which corresponds to the most optimistic
estimate of the length of time required for completion of the nine
flood control impoundments upstream of State Road 1649 (Ebenezer Road).
: e,<, v, i FOUr major' activities wi I 1 be~ carried-on simultaneously within
the upper basin: .- ._ " "
"
I. Construction of the Crabtree Creek interceptor;
2. Construction of flood control impoundents;
3 Private land development dependent upon public sewerage
facilities (the interceptor);
4 Private land development dependent upon private sewage
treatment facilities.
Elements of the plan of action out-lined above, must be applied
with proper timing in order to be most effective. ' The Commissioners
estimate the following sequence of activities and events governmental
and private, which may affect flood damage probability'; the kind of
problems that may result; and the action to be taken by the Com-
missioners to minimize undesirable consequences.
YEAR 1974
Governmental activities and events;
Completion, Element I - - geophysical study of
upper Crabtree Creek watershed - - including
amendment of Zoning Ordinance to reguI ate.surface
coverage of land by impervious materials.
Preparation of flood plain and erosion control
ordinances for adoption either as separate
ordinances or for incorporation into the Zoning
Ordinance. (Element I I) (adoption of erosion
control ordinance might be delayed by changes
.made in State law and policies during the current
session of the General Assembly.')
3 County: (a) Acceleration of land acquisition for proposed
impoundments.
(b) Expedite progress on two impoundments (sites I
and 13), one under construction and one for
which funds are now available.
(9) Revise Crabtree Creek Watershed Project in attempt
' to fund and schedule simultaneous construction
of all impoundments - - a crash program - - to
effect completion of the project at least by
the middle, of 1978 and sooner i f--poss i b I e ,
4. Preparation of comprehensive plan and completely revised
land use code system for County.
5.' City of Raleigh;
(a) Construction of new sewage treatment1 p1 ant by
C.ity of Raleigh,
(b) Construction by City of main interceptor from
new treatment plant, up Ncuse River and Crabtree
Creek, to existing pumping station on Crubtreo
Creek where existing outf,1! I along the Crook
now terminates.
215
-------
Resolution
Page 5
' Completion of these two elements is necessary before the proposed-
upper basin interceptor (E.P.A. Project C370344) can serve the area.
Completion is scheduled for February, 1976. .
6. City of Raleigh and Town of Gary; Start of;construction
- of Gary water storage tank ( I or 2 mi I Iion gaI Ions) and,
watervwa'in:"fiexteris i-orr f *bm--Raleigh rto Cary - - 1^ to 2 years
- ! required'-for comp'1-e-ti on. Significance^ j-.ExtenS i ve development.
in- upper Crabtree basin depends upon pubJic water system;
.: igrouhdwater resources general ly very po.or.i ;,
7 'FederaJ, Environmental Protection Agency; -, Hopefu I I y/,, award
of $2.6 million grant, E.P.A. Project C370344 for Crabtree
Cre-ek Sewer Interceptor. ' :
Private Activities;
I. Sporadic development within upper basin mostly single-family
dwelling units; limited by groundwater resources;
suitability of soils for septic tanks; *capabiIity of streams
to receive effluent from private treatment plants (package
- plants). . ,
2. Submission of petitions by property owners, to amend zoning
-map to permit developments anticipating availability of
public water and sewer facilities.
3 Some unauthorized land-disturbing activities - - grading,
road building - - in preparation for development.
Potential problems accTuing from private action;
In reference to numbers immediately above . . -.
(I) Some increase in surface runoff, erosion, and sedimentation
but probably not significant amount in 1974.
(2) Arbitrary rezoning may make water and land management much.
more difficult later;
(3) Land disturbance without proper authorization may not oniy
aggravate water management problems but"a I so tends to
commit developers to projects they may not be able to
complete under existing or proposed land use regulations;
vested rights may not accrue from their actions.
County action to minimize undesirable consequences;
In reference to numbers above .....
(I) (a) Strict enforcement of land use regulations.
(b) Encourage County and State public health agencies
to do likewise with pub Iic. heaIth regulations.
. (c) Encourage strict policy in reference to issuance of
permits for private treatment plants (Presently, Crabtree
Creek and its tributaries hive a capacity to receive
treated effluent from a maximum population of 3,000 at
3/4 dilution ratio.) This is a function of the N. C.
Office of Water & Air Resources.
(2) Application of policy which would maintain existing zoning
unless petitioner can present evidence which demonstrates
that existing zoning was applied in error or that circumstances
have so changed since existing zoning was applied that the
Ordinance must be changed in the public interest. Further,
that evidence submitted in support of petition must be more
than fairly debatable in order to overcome presumption of
validity of existing zoning. Such policy is in keeping with
basic legal principles protecting the public and private
interests against arbitrary, c.ioricious, discriminatory,
confiscatory, legislative and discpetionary abusn.
216
-------
Reso lirt ion
Page 6
(3) Enforcement of existing ordinance requiring permit
' prior to land disturbing activities.
'YEAR 1975. . .
Governmental activities and events:
County: (:1) clfahdr'tjse^regu-l-aTbironsi'in-1 effect governing ratio ofj./,;
"' '' -'imper-vi-ous fnaterial-s area-to gross acire.age,,6f , l.ancT. ,
i.with.in the watershed. These regu lat ions wi I I ,be . ,
based upon quantitative data determined ,in the ,, . .
-geophysical study; Element I above. ReguI at ion of
-the amount of impervious materials used in development
* .can- control surface runoff to the extent that, when
all proposed flood control structures of the watershed
'project are in place, flooding from a 100-year storm
'would be less than would occur in runoff from the same
'land in its natural condition during a 100-year storm.
-Without the - comp fete sys-tem of. dams in--place, increase in
runoff resulting from development may be controlled by:
(a) regulation of amount of impervious land cover;
(b) requiring private, on-site retention structures
and landscaping designed to retard runoff; and-
(c) enforcement of flood plain and erosion control
ordinances.
(2) County; Accelerated work on construction of impoundments.
G ity-County; Land acquisition and'construction of
inceptor into upper1 Crabtree Creek basin.
.Raleigh;
(a) Completion of sewer interceptor from Crabtree Creek
pumping station to treatment plant site.
(b) Construction of sewage treatment plant.
(5) Gary-Rale igh; Construction of water main'from Raleigh
to Gary and elevated tank in Gary.
(6) County-Rale igh; Completion of comprehensive plans and
revised land use code new planning
system.
(7) Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority: Construction of new
10,000 runway.(Erosion and flood retention controls are
integral parts of the airport expansion plans.) FAA
approval of environmental impact statement pending.
Private activities;
(I) When the upper Crabtree Creek basin interceptor becomes a
definite, firm project, considerable development activity
will probably start, including several projectsinvoIving
100 acres or more.
(2) Numerous, petitions to change zoning within the Crabtree
Creek headwaters area will probably be filed.
\
County action to minimize undesirable consequences;
. -In reference to numbers above-;
(I) (a) Land use controls wi I I be in effect, ^s outlined
above, to control development characteristics.
Enforcement will be accomplished by means of a
land use code that Integrates and coordinates
zoning,; subdivision regulations, use of flood
plains, erosion a'hd sedimentation regulation,
and change in ratio of permeable area to impcrnuinbIe
ground cover.
217
-T
-------
'Resolut i on
Page 7*
(b) Implementation of land use policies, to the extent
possible in keeping with the rights of property
owners, to preclude extensive surface runoff in
any subbasin prior to completion of adequate public
or private flood retention structures downstream,
(c) Assignment of construction priorities,to impoundments
" :;t-downstream-'of .areas- !|'?'! & 1:y to develop first. For
--example, assuming that the interceptor from the
vicinity of Oak Park subdivision, up Richland Creek
: to Interstate-40 highway, will be completed first, it
becomes imperative that flood retention structure
number eleven on Richland Creek be completed as
soon as.possible. Similarly, during 1975 priorities
should be assigned to impoundments downstream of
tracts of land known to be "ripe" for major development,
. - ' YEAR 1976
G^overnmehtal activities 'and events;
I,- County; All land-use controls described above will be in
effect,
2. County: Construction of sewer interceptor system proceeding.
3. County; Construction of impoundments in Crabtree Creek
Watershed Project proceeding, either simultaneously
or on priority basis in coordination with completion
of segments of the interceptor.
4 Rale igh: New sewage treatment plant completed. Sewage from
connections in the Crabtree Creek- basin may then
proceed by gravity flow to the new treatment plant,
5. Gary-Raleigh; .Completion of water main from Raleigh'to Cary
and completion of Gary's elevated storage tank.
6. Rale igh-Durham A irport Authority: Construction of 10,000 runway.
7, TrianaJe-J CounciI .of Governments; Probable completion of
of Areawide Waste Treatment Management Planning
Process plan, E.P.A. "208" project,
Private Activities;
I. Probable acceleration of development anticipating public
water supply from Cary and eventual availability of public
sewerage facilities.
Governmental action to minimize undersirable consequences;
In reference to numbers above;
(I) Application of policies and land use reguI ations_out Iined
above, all ordinances strictly enforced, and coordination
of public and private activities to effect water management
through the mechan i sm'.of a comprehensive planning program
and day-to-day operational decisions,
X
Municipal activities to minimize undesirable consequences:
WHEREAS; the County Commissioners can not speak for the City of
Raleigh or Town of Cary, it is appropriate in this plan of action to
mention that, both municipalities may play a leading role by using
sewer and water extension policies to help guide development into
the proper places at the proper time. Officials are aware of the need.
IntergovernmentaI coordination is expected.
-------
.Resolution .
Page 8* .
. YEARS 1977 through 1978
Governmental activities and events; . .
1. . County; Construction of sewer interceptor and flood retention
structure systems will proceed si tnu l-taneous ly.
Both, according to .optimistic estimates, may be
.- .<.-:.-> - - completed during 1978. . v,
. _ " ""2." Rale igh-Durham A'iVpt>ffi\'Au'-t1ibrii''tyi Extensile construct ion
-activity related^to;~A-i rport expansion program,
involvrng"Very large-scale earthmoving. (The
Author i.tyh'as' recog-nized, in advance, potential
runoff and sedimentation problems and have included
on-site control and abatement techniques in engineer-
ing plans.)
3 Imp lementat iorv_~- of revi-sed'comprehens-i ve plans and regulations
- 'steming from the work of he Raleigh-Wake County Land Us-e
Code Committee. The problem of possible increase in flooding
resulting from sewer-induced development will likely be reduced
through the application of a comprehensive plan-based system
of land use regulations as part of a code that also includes
articles of procedure designed to provide maximum resistance
to attempts to change plans or amend regulations in an a.rbitrary,
capricious, discriminatory, or otherwise unlawful manner.
Pr ? vate act i y i t i fi8 .
Development of land within the watershed will likely proceed
apace. Completion of major development such as industrial parks,
planned communities, shopping centers, etc. will coincide
approximately with completion of the interceptor and.impoundment
systems. ,
Governmental activities tominimize tndftrsirable consequences:
I. Continued application of policies and regulations outlined
above. . "
SUMMARY
-WHEREAS, this plan of action acknowledges that private development
of the upper Crabtree Creek watershed wiI I be stimulated by the prospect
of public sewage facilities, and that such development would, if un-
controlled-, i ncrease the amount of flood damage both within the headwaters
and downstream,the Commissioners feel reasonably assured that such a
threat to the public health, -safety, and general welfare need not,
and probably will not, materia Iize-jfthis plan of action is consci-
entiously carried out,
THEREFORE, the Board of Commissioners of Wake County do hereby
declare by resolution its intent to administer this plan of action
to the best of its ability. \
The date of effect of this resolution shall be from and after
its passage.
219
-------
RISOJ.MIIOJN
V/rlLl^EAS, t;-.e Wnkc County Board cf Co:m i ;--i-ncrE reccsr. i zee c
greet r.eed to control soil erosion and sedimentation and those
activities which result in erosion and sedimentation within Wake
County; and
WHEREAS, the Wake County Board of Conrn i ss i oners recognizes tfu-
need to establish a county-wide erosion and sediment control progr:m;
and
WHEREAS, the North Carolina General Assembly through Chapter 392
of the Session Lfl"s of North Carolina, 1973, and other laws, has
delegated to loci' governments the power to control such erosion ard
sedimentation; Qi.ci
WHEREAS, the Wai
-------
(4) i he Wr-k County Department of Natural Resources shall be
responsible for approval, issuance of permits related to, and enforce-
ment of sediment control plans.
(5) The Director of the Wake County D(partment of Natural Resources
shall annually furnish the Wake County 8oar i es to prevent unnecessary
soil erosion and sedimentation in order that water pollution
from sedimentation may be control'ed, that the obstruction
of natural and artificial drainage ways may be prevented,
and that flooding may be inhibited,
(2) establishing procedures through which these purposes can be
fulfiI led.
Section 2. DEFINITIONS
As used in this ordinance, unless the context clearly indicates
otherwise, the following definitions apply:
(I) Active Construction - means activities which contribute
directly to the completion of facilities contemplated or
shown on the construction plans.
(2) Adequate Erosion Control Measure, Structure, or Device - means
one which controls the soil material within the land area under
responsible control of the person conducting the land-disturbing
activity.
(3) Buffer Zone - means the strip of land adjacent to a lake or
natural watercourse, the width of which is measured from the
edge of the water to the nearest edge of the disturbed area7
with the twenty-five percent (25%) of the strip nearer the
land-disturbing activity containing natural or artificial means
of confining visible siltation.
(4) Pi stryic.t - means the Wake Soil and Water Conservation D.istrict
created pursuant to Chapter I39 North Carolina General Statutes.
(5) Eros i on - means the wear ing-away of land surface by the action
of wind, water, gravity, or any combination thereof.
(6) Ground Cover - means any natural vegetative growth or other
material which renders the soil surface stable against acceler-
ated erosion.
221
-------
(^.' La !^ c m^_ 'rl ft i-i r a I W c j t cjp c o LI t' se - means cmy stream, river, brook,
swamp, so ind, bay, creek, run, brciich, canal, waterway, estuary,
and any reservoir, lake or pond, natural or impounded, in '/liich
sediment may be moved or carried in suspension, and which could
be damaged by accumulation of sediment.
(8) Land-d i st-irb i ng Activity - means any use of the land by an/
person ii. residential, industrial, educational, institutio la I,
or commetcial development, highway and road construction and
maintenance that results in a change in the natural cover or
topograpl y and that may cause or contribute to sedimentati in,
(9) Person Enjaged in or Conducting Land-disturbing Activity - mentis
the individual, partnership, firm, association, joint ventjre,
public or private corporation, trust, estate, commission, board,
public or private institution, utility, cooperative, interstate
body, or other legal entity, financially responsible for the
land-disturbing activity.
(10) PI an - means erosion and sedimentation control plan.
(II) Protective Cover - means natural or artificial ground cover
of grass, trees, shrubs, or mulch sufficient to reduce erosion
potential to within allowable limits.
(12) Sed i ment - means solid particulate matter, both mineral and
organic, that has been or is being transported by water, air,
gravity, or ice from"~its site of origin.
(13) Si 11 at i on - means sediment resulting from accelerated erosion
which is settleable or removable by properly designed, con-
structed, and maintained control measures; and which has
been transported from its point of origin within the site
of a land-disturbing activity; and which has been deposited,
or is in suspension in water.
(14) " Tract - means all contiguous land and bodies of water in
one ownership, or contiguous land and bodies of water in
diverse ownership being developed as a unit, although not
necessarily all at one time. -^
(15) Uncovered - means the removal of ground cover from, on, or
above the soiI surface.
(|6) Undertaken - means the initiating of any activity, or phase
of activity, which results or will result in a change in
the ground cover or topography of a tract of land.
( 17) Work i ng Days - means days exclusive oF Saturday or Sunday
during which weather conditions permit land-disturbing
activity to be undertaken.
222
-------
-4-
Scction 3, SCOPE AND EXCLUSIONS
(, I ) This ordinance shrill apply to I pnH-d i sturb i ng activities
undertaken by any person, with the Following exclusions:
(a) Land-disturbing activities undertaken on agricultural
I and for the production of p ants and animals useful to
man but not limited to: forjge and sod crops, grain
and feed crops, tobacco, cocoon, and peanuts; dairy
aninals and dairy products; poultry and poultry products;
Iivestock, including the breeding and grazing of any
or rill such animals; bees and apiary products; and fur animals.
(b) Land-disturbing activities undertaken on' forest land
for the production and harvesting of timber and timber
products.
(c) Land-disturbing activities u idertaken by persons who
are otherwise regulated by the provisions of G.S. 74-46
through G.S. 74-68, the Mining Act of 1971.
(2) This ordinance shall not apply to the following land-disturbing
activities, as such activities are subject to the control of the North
Carolina Sediment Control Commission.
(a) Land-disturbing activities conducted by the State.
(b) Land-disturbing activities conducted by the United States1.
(c) Land-disturbing activities conducted by persons hevir.g
the power of eminent domain.
(d) Land-disturbing activities conducted by local governments.
(e) Land-disturbing activities Iicensed by the State or the
United States.
' (f) Land-disturbing activities funded in whole or in part
by the State or the United States.
Section 4. PERMITS
Except as provided in Section 3 herein, it shall be unlawful to
conduct any-land-disturbing activity without first obtaining a permit
from the County. Permits may be obtained upon submitting a soil erosion
and sedimentation control plan and the application, fees and security
deposit prescribed by the County and by obtaining approval of the
proposed project. No permit shall be issued until such time as the
County is assured that the proposed land-disturbing activity will be
carried out in accordance with the proposed soil and sedimentation
control plan, A certificate of preliminary erosion control compliance
shall be issued, indicating that initial soil erosion and sedimentation
controls have been installed. This certificate shall be issued prior
to the approval by the County of an application for building construction
in the County, in any oF the incorporated areas of the County, or extra-
territorial jurisdictions! areas of the municipal ities of the County
subject to this oreinonce.
223
-------
Ho permit shall be required for the following ! nnd-d i sturb i n
-------
-6-
Section 6. INSPECT IONS
(I) Agents and officials of the County may inspect the sites
of land-disturbing activities for which permits have been
issued al reasonable times to determine whether the
activities are being conducted in accordance with the
plan anc to determine whether the measures required in
the plan are effective in control! ing erosion and sediment
result'ino from land-disturbing activities. Notice of the
County's right to make such inspections shall be included
in the certificate of the plan's approval.
(2) If, through inspection, it is determined that a person
engaged in land-disturbing activities has failed to
comply with the approved plan, a notice to comply shall
be served upon that person by registered mail. The notice
shalI set forth the measures necessary to achieve compIiance
with the plan and shall state the time within which such
measures must be completed. If the person engaged in the
I and-d. i sturb i ng activities fails to comply within the time
specified, he shall be deemed in violation of this ordinance.
Section 7. FEES
The fees charged by the County for ^he administration and en-
forcement of this ordinance shfall be prescribed by the Wake County
Board of Commissioners.
Section 8. APPEALS
(I) The disapproval or modification of any proposed erosion
control plan by the County shall entitle the person submitting
the plan to a public hearing before the Director of the Wake
County Department of Natural Resources if such person submits
written demand for a hearing within 15 days after receipt of
written notice of the disapproval or modification.
(2) Hearings held pursuant to this Section 8(1) above shall be
conducted within 30 days after receipt of the request and
notice of such hearing shall be published at least once,
in a local newspaper not less than seven (7) days before the
date of the hearing.
(3) The Director shall make his recommendation to the Commissioners
of Wake County within five days after the date of the hearing.
(4) The Wake County Commissioners shall render its decision on any
erosion control plan for which a hearing is requested at one
of its next two regular meetings.
225
-------
-7-
Sfcction 9- __
(I) All unco/ered areas existing on the effective date of this
ordinance shalI be provided with protective cover within
90 days after the effective date if this ordinance unless
an extension of time is granted.
(2) All aredi uncovered subsequent t,> the effective date of
this ordinance shall be provided with protective cover
within 60 days after commencement of land-disturbing
activities, unless a longer or shorter time is specified
in the pirmit or unless an extension of time is granted,
provided that in no instance sha,' J the establ ishment of
protective cover be delayed more than 30 working days
after the completion of any disturbance of land upon which
further active construction is not being undertaken.
(3) Upon the identification and illustration by the County
Commissioners of those portions of each property adjoining
or tangent to a natural watercourse or to a public water
impoundment area, upon which building is proposed, required
by G.S. II3A-570) to remain as buffer zones, such buffers
shall be provided of such length, width, and design to
control, detain, or confine sedimentation consistent wiih
the provisions of this ordinance. This standard shall not
be construed to require the dedication of such buffer zones
to public use, without due process of law, including just
compensat i on.
(4) After the completion of construction on each land-disturbing
site to which this ordinance appI ies, provisions shalI be
made, on or off the site, for the impoundment, during storms,
of that quantity of the natural liquid runoff from the site
. which is equal to the calculated difference between the
amount of runoff which would result from a two (2) year-
frequency storm on that land if it were zoned and developed
for residential .purposes at a density no greater than four
(4) families per acre and that which would result from a
storm oF the same frequency on the same land, if developed
to the degree for which it is actually zoned; provided, no
impoundment shall be required of runoff from sites developed
for residential purposes at a density of four (4) fa,,iiiies
per acre or less; provided further, part of the space,
including parking areas, otherwise required by law to be
left open, may be jointly usea (:o satisfy the impounding
226
-------
requirements herein; provided still further, this standard
shall not apply to sites of five (5) acres or less in size
unless such site is part of a larger subdivision or other
project area which, when fully developed, will generate a
more significant amount of runoff. All calculations and
plans for impoundment structures ' and areas must receive
i
the approval of the Wake County Department of Natural
. Resources before any building permit may be issued,
(5) During construction, the planned soil erosion and sedi-
mentation control practices and devices shall be employed
to restrict sedimentation soil losses from each land-
disturbing site in accordance with plans approved by the
Wake County Department of Natural Resources. Such erosio'i
and sedimentation control measures, structures, and devices
shall be so planned, designed, and constructed as to provide
control from the calcuIated'peak rates of runoff from a
ten-year frequency storm. Runoff rates shall be calculated
using the procedures in the USDA, Soil Conservation Service's
"National Engineering Field Manual for Conservation
Practices", or other acceptable calculation procedures.
Runoff computations shall be based on rainfall data published
by the National Weather Service for the area,
(6) Following the completion of construction, provisions shall
be made to limit calculated, anticipated annual soil losses
from unpaved areas of developed sites to two (2) tons per
acre or less per year and not to exceed four (4) tons per
acre from any unpaved sloping area following the completion
of construction using the Universal Soil Loss Prediction
Equation with the adopted standard factors as a guide.
(7) All soil erosion and sedimentation control plans and
measures shall conform to the minimum applicable standards
specified in the Wake Soil and Water Conservation District's
Standards and Specifications for Soil Erosion and Sediment
Control in Urbanizing Areas as adopted by the Wake County
Board of Commissioners and amended and supplemented from
time to time. A copy of the current Standards and Speci-
fications shall remain, at all times, on file in the office
of the Director of the Wake County Department of Natural
Resources.
(8) The angle for graded slopes and fills shall be no greater than
the angle which can be retained by vegetative cover or
other adequate erosion control devices or structures. in
any event, slopes left exposed will, within 30 working days
227
-------
of completion of any phase of grading, be planted or otherwise
provided with ground cover, devices, or structures sufficient
to restrain erosion.
Section 10. PENALTIES
A. Civil Penalt ies
(I) Any person who violates any of the provisions of this
ordinance, or rule or order adopted or issued pursuant to
this ord;nance, or who initiates or continues a land-
disturbing activity for which an erosion control plan is
required except in accordance with the terms, conditions,
and provisions of an approved plan, shall be subject to
a civii penalty of not more than $100. No penalty shall
be assessed until the person alleged to be i'n v i o I at i on
has been notified of the violation. Each day of a con-
tinuing violation shall constitute a separate violation.
(2) The Wake County Board of Commissioners shall determine the
amount of the civil penalty to be assessed under this
subsection and shall make written demand for payment upon
the person in violation, and shall set forth in detail a
description of the violation for which the penalty has
been imposed. In determining the amount of the penalty
the Commissioners sh.all consider the degree and extent of
harm caused by the violation and the cost of rectifying
the damage. If the payment is not received or equitable
settlement reached within 60 days after demand for payment
is made, the matter shall be referred to the County Attorney
for institution of a civil action in the name of the County,
in the appropriate division of the General Court of Justice
for recovery of the penalty. Any sums recovered shall be
used to carry out the purposes and requirements of this
ord i nance.
'B. Criminal Penalties
Any person who knowingly or willfully violates any provision
of this ordinance, or rule or order adopted or issued
pursuant to this ordinance, or who knowingly or willfully
initiates or continues a land-disturbing activity for
which an erosion control plan is required except in accordance
with the terms, conditions, and provisions of an approved
plan, shall be guilty of a mi sdemeanor pu-n i shab I e by
imprisonment not to exceed ,90 days, or by a fine not to
exceed $3,000, or by both, in tnc discretion of the court.
228
-------
<,:-,
INJUNCTIFFLiCF
(l) Whenever the. Coitim i oS i oners of "Wake County have cause to
believe that any person is violating or threatening to
violate this ordinance or any rule or order adopted or
issued pursuant to this ordinance, or any term, condition,
or provision of an approved erosion control plan, they may,
either before or after the institution of any other action
or proceeding authorized by this ordinance, institute a
civil action in the name of the County for injunctive
relief to restrain the violation or threatened violation.
The action shall be brought in the Superior Court of
Wake County.
(2) Upon determination by a court thot an alleged violation
is occurring or is threatened, it shall enter such orders
or judgments as are necessary to abate the violation or
to prevent the threatened violation. The institution of
an action for injunctive relief under this section shall
not relieve any party to such proceeding from any civil
or criminal penalty prescribed for violations of this
ord i nance.
Section 12. CIV I L RELIEF
(I) Any person injured by a violation of this ordinance, or
of any rule, regulation, or order duly adopted by the
Commissioners of Wake County, or by the initiation or
continuation of a land-disturbing activity for which an
erosion control plan is required other than in accordance
with the terms, cond i t i ons, and provisions of an approved
plan, may bring a civil action against the person alleged
to be in violation. The action may seek:
a. Injunctive re I ief; ,
b. An order enforcing the ordinance or rule,
regulation, order, or erosion control plan
viol ated; or
c. Damages caused by the violation; or
d. Both damages and injunctive rel ief; or
e. Both damages and an enforcement order.
If the amount of actual damages as found by tne court or
jury in suits brought under this Section 12 is five hundred
dollars ($500) or less, the plaintiff shall be awarded
double the amount of actual damages. If the amount of
actual damages as found by the court or jury is greater
than flv ^ hundred dolUrs ($500), the |_ I a i .-.t i f f shall
229
-------
receive damages in the amount so found.
(2) Civil action under this Section 12 shall be brought in
the Superior Court of Wake County. The court, in issuing
any final order in any action brought pursuant to this
Section 12 may award costs oF litigation (including
reasonable attorney and expert witness fees) to any party,
whenever it determines that such an award is appropriate.
The court may, if a temporary restraining order or
preliminary injunction is sought, require the filing of
a bond or equivalent security, the amount of such bond
or security to be determined by the court.
(3) Nothing in this Section 12 shall restrict any right whi^h
any person (or class of persons) may have under any statute
or common law to seek injunctive or other relief.
-ARTICLE III
Section I. Nothing in this ordinance shall restrict any right
which any person or class of persons may have under any statute or
common law to seek injunctive or other relief.
Section 2. If any provision of this ordinance or the application
thereof to any person or circumstance is declared to be invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect other1 provisions or applications of the
ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or
application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are
declared to be severable.
Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective on and after
12:01 A.M., October I, 1974.
Adopted this 3rd day of June , 1974.
230
-------
APPE1TOIX
RALEIGH RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH A POLICY
FOR THE EXTENSION OF CITY FACILITIES
231
-------
RESOLUTION NO. (1974) ~112
A RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH A POLICY FOR THE EXTENSION OF CITY FACILITIES
, i(
WHEREAS, the City of Raleigh has recently suffered extensive flood
damage; and
WHEREAS, the City of Raleigh, through its policy of extending
City facilities, has the power to encourage development of various
areas of Wake County in and around Raleigh; and
WHEREAS, the County of Wake is aware of the need to protect its
county seat, Raleigh, from flood damage; and
WHEREAS, the County of Wake has recently assumed a more active
role in providing flood protection devices for the benefit of citizens
of Raleigh and the remainder of Wake County; and
WHEREAS, the County of Wake is in a position to expedite the
development of flood control devices still further.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA:
Section 1. The County of Wake is hereby commended for its efforts
to provide flood protection for its citizens, in Raleigh and elsewhere.
Section 2. That the City of Raleigh joins the County of Wake in
taking a position of not encouraging development of land which will,
necessarily, result in greater liquid runoff, soil erosion and
sedimentation until adequate devices have been installed to reduce
those adverse effects of land development.
Section 3. That the City of Raleigh, to that end, hereby states
a policy of not extending water and server service facilities -- or any
other facilities under its control --"Into areas of Wake County outside
the City Limits, except in unusual circumstances, unless and until
areas into which such services are extended and the area within the
City Limits of the City of Raleigh are adequately protected, through
the installation of related flood control and other such devices, and
unless and until adequate facilities are available for the supply of
water and the treatment of sewage.
Section 4. All resolutions, policies and other such actions of
the Raleigh City Council in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to
the extent of said conflict.
Section 5. That this resolution shall be effective immediately
upon its adoption.
Adopted: 2/7/74
Effective: 2/7/74 232
-------
APPENDIX 9
PROJECT FLOOD CONTROL PETITION
233
-------
A PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES IMPOSED UPON THE CITIZENS OF WAKE COUNTY.
Many homeowners and many small business establishments have suffered crushing damage from the
flooding of Crabtree Creek and other streams in this county. This has been due, in large measure, to
the pell-mell, haphazard land development which has been permitted in this county.
We, the undersigned, do now call upon each and every member of the Wake County Board of Commissioners
and we do now call upon each and every member of the Raleigh City Council to heed the injuries visited
upon the persons and the property of countless citizens; and we do petition these elected public officials to
do the following:
(1) Take appropriate action to condition the issu-
ance and continuing validity of any building
permit for any structure in the county upon a
showing that the structure will not contribute
to the flooding of other property and a show-
ing that the builder is adequately providing for
surface water runoff and protecting against soil
erosion, to the end that the property of others
is not damaged!
(2) Enact effective ordinances for floodplain con-
trol to the end that citizens throughout the
county will qualify for flood damage insurance
under Federal programs.
13) Take effective action to assure that no public
works construction, whether buildings or sewer
lines or streets or highways, will contribute to
flooding or damage to other property.
(4) Get underway promptly effective action to
complete adequate flood control dams in the
Crabtree Creek basin.
Signature
(5) Stop projects for extending sewer lines west of
Raleigh which will permit further land develop-
ment until effective flood control measures in
the Crabtree Creek basin has been completed.
(6) Get underway promptly effective action to
clear the Crabtree and other waterways of
debris and obstructions and provide for appro-
priate dredging, consistent with other environ-
mental impact concerns, of those shallow por-
tions of the waterway channels.
(7) Institute a system of early warning of possible
flooding to reach ALL citizens in the flood
susceptible areas.
(8) Provide for emergency post-flood public services
for flood victims, trash and damaged property
removal, street and road washing to clean away
silt and mud, and appropriate health protection
measures to guard against insect breeding.
Address
Mail To: PROJECT FLOOD CONTROL, P. 0. BOX F26374, RALEIGH, N. C. 27611 or 2719 ROTHGEB DRIVE Raleiqh N C 27609
234 '
-------
APPENDIX 10
REQUEST FOR ARCHEOLOGICAL STUDY
235
-------
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Cultural Resources
Raleigh 2761 1
f' Division of Archives and
H. G. Jones, Director
Grace J. Rohrer 16 January 1974
Secretary
Ms. Jenny Munro, Project Assistant
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
1421 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Ms. Munro:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on historical and cultural
resources near the proposed Crabtree Creek Interceptor Sewer, Wake County.
We have consulted the National Register of Historic Places and can report
that no National Register properties or properties under consideration
for nomination lie in the project area.
It should be noted, however, that Crabtree Creek is itself a natural
feature of considerable historical significance as one of Wake County's
earliest landmarks and focuses for settlement. The Mouzon map (London,
1775) shows the existence of Crabtree Creek so named when the area was
still part of Johnston County. The historical importance of the creek
requires that two steps be taken: the investigation of potential archae-
ological sites and the protection of its natural condition.
Since the creek and its tributaries provided a favorable living area
for aboriginal settlement, it is likely that a number of aboriginal archae-
ological sites exist within the project area. In addition, at least two
early mill sites are known to exist, and there may be more. Little or no
archaeological survey work has been done; we would like the opportunity
to perform such a survey. For further information, please contact Dr.
Stephen J. Gluckman, Chief, Archaeology Section, of this Division.
Despite rapid development which has altered the natural growth along
some sections of the creek, much of the creek remains in its natural con-
dition and is recognized by environmentalists as being an important eco-
logical and recreational resource. Given the significance of the creek
to the history of Wake County, any further development along its banks
should be done in a manner to protect the natural growth along its banks.
-------
Ms. Jenny Munro, 16 January 1974, Page 2
Thus we would urge that any sewer installation follow the guidelines for
erosion and sediment control in the publication EPA-R-2-72-015. As you
know, it has been suggested that the sewer line installation, if done
according to these guidelines, could become part of the proposed greenway
system. Such a project would enhance the historical and cultural sig-
nificance of the creek to Wake County.
Please let us know if we can provide any additional information or
assistance.
Sincerely yours,
237
-------
APPENDIX 11
PUBLIC HEARING
238
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
OFFICIAL REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE
EHVIRONMKNTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
IN THE MATTER OF
The Draft Bnvironraental Impact Statement
On The Crabtree Creek Sewer Intersect
Place: State Highway Commission Building* Wilmington,
Street, Raleigh* North Carolina
Date: March 13, 1975
Pages:
Name:
Address:
100
Thyra D. Ellis & Associates
500 Ninth Avenue, North
Jacksonville Beach, Florida
Reporter: Susan Gay Hess
239
-------
1 UNVERIFIED LISTING
2
3 Tree Academy 77
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
240
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Dr. Millard B. Bethel
Mr. H. A. Smith
Mr* Johnnie B. Robertson
Mr. James O. Waller
fir, Robert B. Qile*
tir, George R, Goodwin* Sr,
Mr. Dodge Geoghegen
Mr. George S. Willoughby*
Mr. Victor V. Langston
Miss Anne Taylor
Mr. R. A. Donaway
Mr. Tom Adams
Mr. I . P. Zachary
Mrs. Joyce Anderson
Mr. F. 8. Worthy* Jr.
Mr. Fred Bond
Mr. Charles M. Blam
Representing Pacre
Wake County Health Depart-
ment 10
Department of natural
Resources, Wake County 12
Mayor* Town of
Morrisville 19
U. 8* Army Corps of 21
Engineers
northwest Community 25
Task Force 86
. Wake County Commissioner 35
Raleigh Chamber of 39
Commerce
Jr. PROD 42
Project Flood Control 46
Sierra Club 52
Citizen 58
Mobile City 62
Raleigh City Council 69
Hake Environment* Inc. 72
Citizen 77
Mayor* Town of Gary 80
Gary* North Carolina 81
241
-------
1 (The hearing was called to order at 7:30 o'clock
2 p.m.. March 13/1975.)
3 MR. ORXB BRIGGS: Okay. Let's call the meeting to
4 order. I an Orin Briggs. regional counsel for the
5 Environmental Protection Agency in Atlanta, and on behalf
6 of the SPA* I would like to welcome all of you to the
7 hearing tonight on the Draft Environmental Impact State-
8 raent on the Crabtree Creek Sewer Intersect, which is
9 almost flooded out there as we drove by today.
1 I would like to first introduce the other members
11 of the panel. On my immediate left is Mr. William H.
12 Puette, who is assistant director of the North Carolina
13 Department of Natural and Economic Resources, and with
U Mr. Puette, we have Mr. W. B. Knight, director of
15 Water and Air Quality Control next to him.
ifi
Then, on the far left* my far left, we have Mr. L.
P. Benton, Jr., who is chief, Field Service Unit, in
18
the same department. And, then, the other two members
19 of the staff of Region IV in Atlanta on my immediate
20 right is Mr. Joe Pranzmathes, who is the director of
21 the Water Program Division, and then on the far right,
22 is Mr. David Hopkins, who is chief of our Environmental
23 Impact Statement Branch and who has the responsibility
24 of preparing the Draft Impact Statement and reviewing
25 the comments that will be made tonight.
242
-------
1 Before we begin hearing statements from those who
2 wish to make statements, I would like to ask a member
3 of our staff* Mr. Bob Howard, to come and give us a
4 brief statement about the statements and comments that
5 are in the Environmental Impact Statement and give us
6 a brief summary of the project at this time.
7 MR. ROBERT B. HOWARD: Thank you. Orin. I want to
8 thank all of you for coming here tonight, and I have
9 seen many familiar faces here and ray name, for those who
10 don't know me, is Bob Howard, and Z am the project
11 officer with the Crabtree Creek Environmental Impact
12 Statement, and this statement has been prepared in
13 accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act
14 of 1969, and the Council on Environmental Quality Guide-
15 lines and EPA Guidelines.
16 These regulations direct the responsible Federal
17 agency in this case, EPA to prepare a report when
18 a major action will have a significant impact on the
19 quality of the human environment.
20 This statement addresses the environmental impact
21 of granting funds for the construction of an interceptor
22 sewer to service the upper Crabtree Creek basin west of
23 Raleigh.
24 It may be seen from this map, which you can't see.
25 The project is going to tie in with the existing
243
-------
Crabtree Creek interceptor in the Oak Park subdivision,
and it will 90 up Crabtree Creek, around Omstead State
Park, up Richland Creek, out Crabtree Creek to Gary's
Coles Branch Treatment Plant.
The waste water generated in the project service
area will be transported to the New Eteuse River Waste
Water Treatment Plant, and this plant is designed to
provide better than secondary treatment and discharge to
the Heuse River, meeting fish and wildlife water quality
standards.
The major benefits to be gained from the proposed
project include the elimination of nine waste water
treatment plants now discharging to Crabtree Creek or
its tributaries.
Further, the project has the potential to facilitates
good land use planning in the project area since area-
wide waste water collection will remove sewage treatment
and disposal as a primary developmental constraint and
allow other considerations such as slope, transportations
soils and water supply to have a greater bearing on the
location and type of development in the upper Crabtree
basin.
The proposed project will greatly affect the
growth and development of the project area, also.
Development could be expected to occur considerably
244
-------
1 faster with the project than might otherwise be expected,
2 Further, densities in the service area would also
3 be expected to be higher with the interceptor than
4 without. The major adverse impacts of construction and
5 operation of the project are: Potential erosion and
6 sedimentation impacts from construction, potential
7 archaeological* historical and cultural impacts from
8 construction, and certain aesthetic losses.
9 The major secondary impact from the induced
10 growth of the proposed project would be increased flood
11 stages in Crabtree Creek from development, potential
12 contributions of pollutants from urban runoff, and an
13 increased demand for community services and resources.
14 Various measures have been included in the project
to avoid or mitigate the primary adverse impacts. The
most significant of these include the preparation of an
erosion control plan, a survey of the vegetative coramu-
18 nities, and the investigation of archaeological sites
along the interceptor route.
The secondary adverse impact of increased flooding
is one of considerable concern to all of us, especially
22 the people in the downstream community from this proposed
23 project, and the EPA proposes to delay release of grant
24 funds for the project until steps are taken to assure
25 the project will not aggravate flooding problems.
245
-------
7
1 The proposed Soil Conservation Service's dams
2 present the best solution known today. Accordingly, the
3 Draft EIS recommends required land for the dam sites be
4 acquired by January 1, 1976.
5 There is considerable additional information given
6 in the Draft EXS* and if you haven't had the opportunity
7 to review the EXS* you may do so at the local libraries.
8 Also* the record of the public hearing will remain
9 open for 15 working days following this hearing for the
10 submittal of written comments, and these comments should
11 be sent to Mr. David R. Hopkins, Chief, EIS Branch,
12 EPA, Region XV* 1421 Peachtree Street, Northeast, Atlanta
13 Georgia, 30309.
14 Mrs. Reid* at the door* can give you this address
! * if you need it later. Thank you.
16 MR. BRIGGSs Thank you. Bob. The notice of this
1 public hearing was published on February the 20th, and
to
March the 10th, in the Raleigh News and Observer, and
19 we will attach a copy of this notice as part of the
20 record of this hearing.
21 This public hearing is held pursuant to regula-
22 tions of the Environmental on the Council Environmental
23 Quality and on EPA's regulations with regard to prepara-
24 tions of Impact Statements* and the purpose of it is to
25 encourage the full participation of the public in the
246
-------
8
1 SPA decision-Making process, and it is intended to
2 develop greater responsiveness of governmental action
3 to the public's concerns and priorities and to develop
4 improved public understanding of federally-funded pro-
5 jects.
6 Earlier this evening, I took the opportunity to
7 walk through the grounds of your old capitol over there,
8 and X think I found an appropriate quote from one of
9 your early statesmen, and I am going to read it at this
10 time.
11 It was on the statue of Mr. Zebulon B. Vance, and
12 he had this to say, and it is engraved on the granite
13 stone over there below his statue: "The subjection of
14 every passion and prejudice to the coolest way of
15 judgment and reason when the coaraon welfare is concerned
16 is the first victory to be won. *
17 X am sure Mr. Vance would be proud of us tonight
18 since we are letting reason prevail and we are giving
19 the public the opportunity to express their opinion, and
20 I hope those who wish to will tonight.
21 We will hear from the speakers in the order that
22 you have registered, and if there are some here who wish
23 to speak and have not registered, X would again urge
24 you to go back and register out in the hall with Mrs.
25 Reid.
247
-------
1 We would like to ask you, if you would* to limit
2 your comments to between ten and fifteen minutes on the
3 first go-round, and then if you have more to say when
4 we have heard from everyone* we will be glad to give you
5 additional time.
6 In addition to this, you are welcome to submit any
7 lengthy statement in written form, and, of course, you
8 are welcome to submit any written statements after the
9 hearing until April the 1st, when the hearing record
10 will be closed.
11 In addition to this, we would like to remind you
12 , that there will be no questions from the audience
13 addressed either to the panel or to a speaker. However,
14 if there is a point that needs clarifying or there is
15 some data that we are in question about, I will ask one
I of the members of the panel to address a question to the
17 speaker for the purpose of clarification.
18 Of course, there will be no formal rules of evideno
19 life won't ask the witnesses to state an oath, and as Z
20 indicated, we will not have direct questions to the
21 speakers or to the panel.
22 However, if there arises a point where a member of
*i *
23 the audience would like to rebut something made some
24 statement made by a speaker, we would ask you to follow
25 procedure, to register again, and you can come back up
248
-------
10
1 and make your rebuttal remarks as you choose to,
2 And, before we call those who are going to speak,
3 I would suggest this, that when you are called upon, we
4 request you to give a copy of your statement, if you
5 have one, to me and to the court reporter down below,
6 and then state your name and any organization which you
7 represent, and then begin your statement.
8 And, with those comments, we would like to begin
9 the statements tonight with Dr. Bethel, director of
the Wake County Health Department.
11 DR. MILLARD B. BETHEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
12 am Dr. Millard B. Bethel, director of the Wake County
13 Health Department, Raleigh, North Carolina.
14 The thought of permitting any kind of growth or
development within the upper Crabtree catchment basin
without sanitizing the resultant human wastes is so
1' revolting as to preclude consideration,
ifi
The connection between disease transmission and poor
19
or absent sanitation is so well established that it is
20 no longer debated in modern societies. That further
building within the area under discussion shall be
22 forever prohibited is likewise too farfetched to contem-
23 plate. It will not happen.
24 There will be growth. There will be odious wastes,
both domestic and industrial. The health of this
249
-------
11
1 community of people will be increasingly at risk if these
2 wastes are not properly handled. The privy of yesteryear
3 we contemplate only in jest.
4 The grotesque septic tank, for all its widespread
5 use, is but little better. It is inefficient, expensive
6 and requires constant monitoring. The soils in the
7 western reaches of Wake County are singularly unsuited to
8 septic tank installations; there is almost no way to
9 foretell success or failure in any particular case.
10 The next step up the ladder is the so-called package
11 treatment plant. Ideal installations under ideal super-
12 vision backed by ideal government monitoring will work,
13 but these ideals are so rare as to be unreal. Something
14 nearly always slips and the stream next below is
15 victimized.
I What we need in the upper Crabtree is a basic
1? system of sewers. Most pressing, even overdue, are the
18 Richland Creek and Coles Branch portions because four
19 sister agencies have very compelling need for sewers.
20 These are Btorth Carolina State University, the
21 towns of Apex and Gary, and the state government. When
22 it becomes necessary once a year, at state fair time, to
23 haul away in tank trucks the sewage from the milling
24 throngs, many are the heads that should be bowed in
25 shame.
259-
-------
12
Now that we have a chance to do so much good in one
2 mighty stroke, let us grasp the sword and have at it.
3 Good for the public health? Of course it is; basic and
necessary
5 MR. BRIGGSs Thank you. How we will hear from H. A.
6 Smith, director of the Department of natural Resources
for Wake County.
MR. H. A. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am
H. A. Smith, director of the Wake County Department of
Natural Resources. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman,
for the opportunity to comment on the Environmental
2 Impact Statement relative to the awarding of grant funds
for construction of an interceptor sewer line in Wake
14 County
Wake County, or the government of Wake County, is
1ft
vitally concerned with all the many facets of the project
17
the establishment of a regional waste water collection
18
system, the control of flooding, the control of erosion
19
and sedimentation, the wise use of all of our natural
20
resources in this area, as well as meeting the demands
21
for community services.
22 in essence, the county government is desirous of
23 and is committed to maintaining and enhancing the
24 "*livability' of the total community."
The awarding of the grant funds, according to the
251
-------
13
1 Environmental Impact Statement, is conditioned upon
2 acquisition of land rights for the proposed Crabtree
3 Creek flood control dams within each of the proposed
4 service areas, or some agreement on other measures to
5 insure adequate flood control.
6 Wake County has already taken a number of specific
7 and very significant steps indicative of the commitment
8 of the county to wise land use management.
9 For example, voters of the county approved a
10 $1 million bond referendum in 1968, to help pay the cost
11 of the flood control project. The county established a
^ Department of Natural Resources and it staffed it to
13 deal with not only flood control, but with sediment
14 control, conservation planning and all related natural
* resource matters.
1 C
As a matter of fact. Wake County was the first and
17
the only county in the state to take such action. A
18
county sediment control ordinance has been adopted and
19 is now in the process of being fully implemented. A
flood plain ordinance has also been adopted. In addition
91
* to that, a tentative schedule for completion of all five
22 of the remaining flood control dams in the Crabtree
23 basin has been formulated, and a target date for comple-
24 tion of that construction will be within about four years
25 I would like to point out that progress on
252
-------
construction of dams in the Crabtree Creek project has
been very significant* especially in recent years. The
current status shows a rather dramatically improved
condition over that that is reflected in the Environ-
mental Impact Statement.
Dams Number 2, 3 and 18 are correctly reported as
being complete as they have been for several years. In
addition to that, l>am Number 13 and many of you have
seen that on Shelley Road is now about 90 percent
completed and it is in a position to retard flood
waters should we have a flood tonight, as some people
are predicting.
It should be totally completed within 60 to 90
days. All that remains is some finished grading and
building of a fence. Bams Number 1 and 22 are under
construction contracts and they are scheduled to be
completed before January 1 of 1976.
These new dams will afford considerably more flood
water storage capacity than the older dams, and I would
like to cite some figures to you to verify that state-
ment.
Dam Number 2, which was completed in June of 1972,
has a capacity of 346 acre feet. That is its storage
capacity. Dam Number 3 has a capacity of 561 acre feet,
and Dam Number 18 has a capacity of 611. This gives you
253
-------
15
1 a total of 1,518 acre feet* and the three dams have been
2 in place for two to three years.
3 Humber 13 that we mentioned, that is now 90 percent
4 complete in a condition to hold flood waters, will,
5 within itself, have a capacity of 2,195 acre feet, raore
6 than the other three combined.
7 number 22-B, which will be completed this year, has
8 a capacity has a planned capacity of 919 acre feet,
9 and Number 1 has a capacity of 480 acre feet, so the
three that will be completed during this year will have
a combined capacity of 3,594 acre feet.
Dam Mumber 11 is projected for completion during
13 , calendar year 1976, and it will have a capacity of
14 1,122 acre feet. At that time, at the end of 1976, the
total capacity for those seven dams will be 6,234 feet.
16
In essence, I am saying that the completion of the
17
three dams in this calendar year, 1975, will more than
18
triple the capacity to retard flood water in the
19
Crabtree Creek basin as compared to previous conditions.
20
Completion of Dam Number 11 next year will quad-
21
ruple the capacity. These measurements we feel will
22 go far toward mitigating the probability of damages
23 from flooding in downstream areas, and in our opinion,
*4 they should be given very heavy consideration, Mr.
Chairman, as an indication of what Wake County has done
254
-------
16
1 and ia doing to alleviate flood damages in the Crabtree
2 Creek basin.
3 On Page 138 of the BIS* a statement is made, and I
4 quotes "Should the rights to the property fox Structure
5 11 and Structure 25 be acquired, construction of this
6 segment shall proceed to provide services to the state
7 facilities presently at capacity."
8 Hake County concurs in and readily accepts the
9 requirement or the prerequisite* if you will to
10 acquire land rights for dam site number 11 as an appro-
11 priate, reasonable and feasible prerequisite to be
12 accomplished before January 1. 1976.
13 As a natter of fact* efforts are already underway
14 to accomplish this within the year, and I night add
15 that that purpose is intended to be accomplished with
1ft
or without the awarding of the sewer grants.
This is an ongoing part of the flood control
18
project. Acquisition of land rights for dam site
1Q
*" Humber 25 before January 1* 1976, is not considered to
20 be so practical or as feasible, and we would like to
21 cite four reasons for that.
22 The first reason: Of the five remaining structure?
23 to be built in the Crabtree Creek project* Bam Number
24 25 is scheduled to be the very last daa to be built.
25 For engineering and hydrologic reasons, the Soil
255
-------
17
1 Conservation Service will not proceed with construction
2 of Number 25 until the other upstream dams, namely, 5-A,
3 20-A and 23, are constructed.
4 While actual land acquisition for Number 25 is
5 theoretically possible during 1975, the acquisition of
6 these land rights alone will contribute nothing toward
7 the problem of alleviating flood damages in the foreseeable
8 future since the dam cannot be built iaraediately, as we
9 have indicated earlier.
10 The third point, to accomplish acquisition for the
11 land rights for Number 25 during 1975, would require that
12 both Wake County and the Soil Conservation Service divert
13 some of their financial and some of their personnel
14 resources from their planned and scheduled uses on other
15 dam sites.
IB
Such diversion of resources would actually delay
the rapidity with which flood retarding structures could
18
and actually would be built.
19
The fourth point we would like to raise is that dam
20
site Number 25 is near the boundaries of Umstead State
Park, So development is anticipated within the park
22 which would contribute to increased flooding.
23 Extension of the sewer line along Richland Creek
24 II could conceivably result in some activities in dam site
25 'I Number 25 and dam site number 11, which could add to
256
-------
18
1 downstream flooding. However, we are more than confi-
2 dent that these increases, should they occur, would be
3 more than mitigated by the completion of Dams Number 13,
4 22 and 1 in 1975, and the completion of Humber 11 in
5 1976,
6 As a result of these considerations, Wake County
7 very respectfully and very sincerely recommends to you*
8 Mr. Chairman, that the requirement to obtain land rights
9 for Structure number 25 be stricken from the Draft
10 Environmental Impact Statement as a prerequisite for
awarding of the grant funds for construction of the
interceptor sewer lines*
Should, for some reason* this recommendation not
be totally acceptable to you. Wake County would offer
an alternate recommendation that a requirement to
16 acquire land rights for either Structure Humber 5-A or
17 Structure Number 20-A, two of the upstream dams, be
18
substituted in lieu of the requirement to acquire land
19 rights for Structure Humber 25.
20 At either of these alternate sites, the dam could
21 be built very shortly after land rights have been
22 acquired, thereby contributing to retardation of flood
23 waters really at a much earlier date than would be the
24 case if we were to acquire land for Number 25.
25 2n summary, I make these four pointst Wake County
257
-------
19
1 needs the grant funds for the interceptor sewer line;
2 Wake County has made significant progress in several
3 areas to alleviate flooding in the Crabtree Creek basin
4 and is committed to the completion of the flood control
5 project; Wake County accepts the prerequisite for
6 acquiring land rights for Structure number 11-A before
7 January 1* 1976; the requirement to acquire land rights
8 for Structure number 25 can be totally stricken from
9 the Environmental Impact Statement without changing the
10 principal thrust of the statement to closely correlate
11 provisions for flood control with any potential develop-
12 ment.
13 Thank you for the opportunity of presenting this
14 statement.
15 MR. BRIGGS: Shank you, Mr. Smith. We will now
16 hear from Mayor Johnnie Robertson, the Town of
17 Morrisville.
18 MAYOR JOHNNIE H. ROBERTSON (Morrisville): Mr*
19 Chairman, on behalf of the citizens of Morrisville, I
20 want to thank the Environmental Protection Agency for
21 providing us with this opportunity to express our
22 interest in the proposed waste water outfall along
23 Crabtree Creek.
24 As you are aware, Morrisville is a small town
25 located on Highway 54 near the headwaters of Crabtree
258
-------
20
1 Creek. We have a population of about 200, and we are
2 growing. As a result of this growth, we are facing the
3 usual problems of providing our people with the municipal
4 services they need and deserve.
5 Foremost among these needs are a water distribution
6 system and a sanitary sewer or waste water collection
7 system. Morrisville lies within the Triassic basin,
8 and we have the usual problems with our water wells. If
9 we are lucky enough to get a few gallons per minute from
10 a well, the water is highly mineralized.
11 we rely entirely on septic tanks for sewage dis-
12 posal, and the percolation rate in the soil is so low
13 that our drain fields require an unusually large amount
14 of space.
15 We have had engineering studies made and have
16 applied for FH& and North Carolina state grants to
17 construct a water system. The agencies tell us they
18 cannot approve our request for grants for reasons all
19 related to the laet of the proposed Crabtree Creek out-
20 fall.
21 We are aware of the anxieties of some of our
22 neighbors downstream. However, the benefits to be gained
23 from the proposal outfall clearly outweigh the disad-
24 vantages. Crabtree Creek is not receiving the effluent
25 from the Mobile City waste treatment plant and from the
259
-------
21
1 Town of Gary's Cole Branch Treatment Plant. During
2 low flow periods, this is not very pleasant, but this
3 problem can be eliminated by the outfall line. The
4 erosion and the sediment control ordinances already
5 adopted by Gary, Raleigh, and Wake County will control
6 the adverse effects of land development in the watershed*
7 The route of the outfall line can be incorporated by a
8 greenway system.
9 Many people will benefit from the existence of the
10 proposed Crabtree Creek waste water outfall line, and
11 we want the records to show that the Town of Morrisville
12 is in favor of the line being built as soon as possible*
13 and I want to thank the people from the Town of
14 Morrisville for being here tonight at this meeting.
Thank you. Sir.
IB
ME. BRIGGSs Thank you, Mayor. The next person
17
will be Mr. James O, Waller, Corps of Engineers,
18 Wilmington District.
1Q
MR. JAMES O. WALLER: I am James O. Waller, the
20
Crabtree Creek study coordinator of the Corps of
21
Engineers in Wilmington, North Carolina.
22 The Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, concurs
23 with the conclusion of the Craft Environmental Impact
24 Statement that completion of the Soil Conservation
25 Service's upstream flood retardation structures is
260
-------
22
1 necessary to reduce the serious flood problem along
2 Crabtree Creek in Raleigh. Additional runoff from
3 future development of the watershed should also be
4 controlled so as not to further increase flood stages
5 and endanger property and lives in downstream areas*
6 Immediate action to facilitate completion of the
7 SCS structures is imperative. Only then can any down-
8 stream non-structural or structural flood control
9 measures be fully effective.
10 As most of you know, the Corps of Engineers is
11 currently studying alternative ways of solving the
flood problems that will remain along Crabtree Creek
13 after the upstream Soil Conservation Service structures
14 are completed, lie began our Crabtree Creek study in
1972, at the request of the State and the Soil Conserva-
tion Service, and we expect to complete our study and
*' make recommendations sometime next year.
18 Host likely* some of you suffered heavy losses from
19 the two major floods in 1973. The February flood was
20 approximately a ten-year flood, and the June flood was
approximately a 20-year flood, and these two floods
22 caused a total of $13.3 million in property damage and
23 Raleigh can expect to receive an average of $3.7 million
24 in flood damages annually along Crabtree Creek until the
Soil Conservation Service structures are complete.
261
-------
23
1 Completion of these upstream structures will lower
2 the average annual damage total to $1.4 Million* or by
3 approximately two-thirds. However, an assumed 80 percent
4 development of the watershed after the structures are
5 built would increase the remaining annual damages front
6 $1.4 million to $1.9 million.
7 Our study is looking at the alternative ways of
8 reducing the remaining $1.9 million in average annual
9 damages. Of the remaining damages, 95 percent of it is
10 to commercial and residential properties in the Wake
11 forest Road and Farmers Market areas. I might add that
12 our study results will not be valid if all the SCS
13 structures as presently designed are not built.
14 In our study, we are evaluating the possible flood
15 control and recreation alternatives. Kie flood control
alternatives include non structural measures such as
17 flood proofing the flood-prone building and structural
18 measures such as channel improvement to protect major
1Q
** damage areas.
20 Implementation of the greenway system of trails
21 and recreation areas along Crabtree Creek as part of
22 any project is also being evaluating. In all cases* we
23 will seek to preserve and protect the natural environment
24 as much as possible* and we will not destroy Lassiter's
25 Mill Dam,
262
-------
24
1 Throughout the study, as an integral part of the
2 planning process, we h ve tried, to the limit of our
3 available resources, to involve the public in what we are
4 doing to help the citizens of Raleigh. We formed the
5 Crabtree Creek Citizens Assistance Committee and asked
6 several civic, neighborhood, environmental and business
7 organizations to work with us.
8 Three meetings were held to identify and discuss the
9 problems and needs along the creek. It has been almost
two years since our last meeting with the citizens' group
11 due to planning progress which has been hampered by limite
resources and funding.
However, this delay has not reduced our desire to
an open planning process and to include the public and
their interests and viewpoint. We plan to have the next
16
Citizens' Committee meeting as soon as we complete our
17
evaluation of the alternative measures.
18
Before the end of 1975, we will present our alterna-
19
tive plans, which will include the various flood control
20
and recreation measures combined into comprehensive plans
21 that must be economically justified, environmentally
22 sound and socially acceptable.
23 & plan to be recommended to Congress will be
24 selected from the alternative plans in 1976. Construction
of the project to reduce the remaining flood damages
i
-------
25
1 would then depend on authorization and funding by
2 Congress and strong local support.
3 Thank you for the opportunity to make these comments
4 MR. BRIGGS: Thank you, Mr. Waller. We will next
5 hear from Mr. Robert E. Giles, chairman. Northwest
6 Community Task Force.
7 MR. ROBERT E. GILES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
8 Chairman, I have a rather lengthy and to me completely
9 interesting statement which is going to take more than
10 15 minutes, so I am,going to limit myself to that period
v
11 of time and request if it is possible to have maybe four
12 or five minutes following everybody else for some con-
13 eluding remarks because I don't think I will get to that
14 portion.
15 MR. BRIGGS: Let me comment that you may have that
16 additional time, but if you would rather not do it, we
17 can print the statement as though it were read in its
18 entirety. But, you may read the whole statement and
19 make any comments that you wish.
20 MR. GILESi Mr. Chairman, as you noted, I am here
21 as chairman of this Horthwest Community Task Force group.
22 This is one of some 18 task force groups in the Raleigh
23 area. It is a fairly large area and includes several
24 subdivisions.
25 Through this area runs Crabtree Creek and some of
264
-------
26
its tributaries* and this area experienced some serious
2 flooding on the two occasions in '73, although not as
3 extensive and damaging as occurred in areas further down-
stream.
5 At least on one occasion in January of '75, the
6 Crabtree Creek channel in the Raleigh area filled to the
top and it overflowed in some places. We came pretty
8 close to having another serious flood in 1975. So, what
9 happens in the upper Crabtree Creek area which adds to the
10 flood conditions of the basin downstream is of direct
consequence to those of us in the Northwest sector.
12 You night say that the residents there, as well as
13 the residents of the other areas, are parties at interest.
14 We commend the authors of this report that direct the
15 Draft Impact Statement for its comprehensive scope. It
ifi
certainly reflects a great deal of study and careful
17 analysis.
18
The discussion regarding the consequences of heavy
19
development in the upper Crabtree basin, and the compellin
20
need for sound* comprehensive land use planning and action
21
on the part of local government, that discussion is out-
22 standing. At Page 1S3 of the statement Impact State-
23 latent is this comment and conclusion, and I quote:
"Development of the upper watershed must not be allowed
at the expense of further endangering property and lives
265
-------
27
1 in downstream areas."
2 How* we are in absolute complete agreement with that
3 conclusion and we cannot imagine that any citizen in
4 Wake County, whatever his private interests may be, coulc
5 support any different conclusion. We cannot imagine that
6 any public official or any local governing body in Wake
7 County could fail to support, in word and in deed* the
8 simple, clear-cut proposition: Development of the upper
9 watershed must not be allowed at the expense of further
10 endangering the property and lives in downstream areas.
11 We approve and endorse the general thrust of the
12 draft Impact Statement. However, we are concerned as to
13 whether the wording on the release of the federal funds
14 is sufficient to assure that this sewer line project wii:
not be a direct contributing factor to "further endanger4ng
16
property and lives in downstream areas," a consequence
17
which none of us wants to occur.
18
Our questions and recommendations on the Impact
19
Statement are offered for the purpose of being construe-
on
tive, and we hope that is what they will be. Mr. Chair-
21
man, we have some questions perhaps because we don't
22 understand the discussion in the Impact Statement
23 regarding the frequency of rainfall and the floodings
24 that have occurred.
25 At Page 53, it is noted that the 1957 flood was one
266
-------
23
1 was from a storm of a 6.7-year frequency. With regard to
2 the February 2nd and June 29, '73, floods, there is this
3 comment on Page 22; "These flows were the highest on
4 record and constituted an estimated 20-year flood ( a
5 flood which has a probability of occurring once every 20
6 years.)*
7 Now, there is no indication in the Impact Statement
8 as to how and by whom these estimates of storm and flood
9 frequency were made. We suggest that any such estimates
10 relied upon in the final Impact Statement should be
11 jj spelled oat in an appendix and expressed in terms that
12 will be readily understood by the public.
13 And, in particular, any assumptions about the amount:
14 and frequency of rainfall should be stated. There is
15 some fairly specific information on frequency and the
16 amount of rainfall which has occurred in Hake County.
Recently, I requested this information from the National
18 Weather Service, the Raleigh-Durham Airport station.
19 I received the recorded information on the rainfall
20 which fell in connection with the May *57 flood, the
21 February 2nd '73, and June 29 '73, floods. Mr. Thomas
22 Zickus, hydrologist at the Weather Service office,
23 responded to my request.
24 i have submitted a copy of his letter along with my
25 statement for the record. He refers to the Rainfall
267
-------
29
1 Frequency Atlas of the Weather Bureawu fhat is id&nti-
2 fied as Technical Paper Number 40. It shows the amount
3 and frequencies of recurrence for all sections of the
4 United States, including Wake County.
5 Let me give you just a brief rundown. In terms of
6 frequency of rainfall, what is a one-year rainfall in
7 Wake County? The Weather Bureau Atlas says, on the basis
8 of their records* that is three inches , A two-year
9 rainfall* 3.6 inchesi a five-year rainfall* 4.75 inches?
10 a ten-year, 5.7? twenty-five years, 6.S? fifty years*
11 7.25, and a one hundred-year rain storm is 8 inches.
12 The amount of rainfall that fell in connection with
13 the three floods, what was it? 4.33 inches in May, 1957.
f
14 During the 24-hour period of February 2nd, *73* the
15 Weather Bureau records show that at the airport 3.22
16 inches.
17
Four inches in the Leesvilie area* 4.6 inches north
18
of Raleigh, 4.5 inches within Raleigh. For the Crabtree
1Q
1 Creek basin overall, something like four to four and a
20 half inches.
21 During the 24-hour period of June 29, 3.4 inches
22 measured at the airport. 4.4 inches in Leesville. At
23 points north of Ealeigh* 3.5. In Raleigh itself, 3.7
24 inches, with a very heavy rainfall. Mayor, that happened
25 out at Morrisville, 5.5 inches.
268
-------
30
I So, it is obviously spotted. But, for the Crabtree
2 Creek basin area overall, apparently, according to the
3 Weather Bureau records, something in the neighborhood of
4 four inches. June 29, 1973.
5 How, our only question is how do these statistics
6 relate to a conclusion that those were 20-year floods in
7 '73? It seems to me that we have these conclusions,
8 that the rains in connection with them were rains on the
9 approximate five-year frequency.
10 Incidentally, the Raleigh area has experienced three
11 major floods during the 16-year period, '57-'73, three
12 divided into 16 gives something. Anyway, there appears
13 to be a rather close correlation between what we have
14 actually had and what the Weather Service Rainfall
15 Frequency Atlas indicates.
16 Our next question? What kind and what extent of
17 flood protection from these 11 Soil Conservation Service
18 flood control dams? In March of 1964, the Crabtree
19 Creek Watershed Work Plan was released. It was explained
20 and expressed as a plan which would provide 100-year
21 storm frequency protection for the urban and industrial-
22 zoned floodplain in and adjacent to the City of Raleigh
23 by utilizing structural works of improvement, supported
24 by land treatment.
25 Since '64, four structures have been deleted and
269
-------
31
1 the proposed channel improvement program is still under
2 study* and that has been turned over to the Corps of
3 Engineers. The Draft Impact Statement says, Page 58:
4 "Should the SCS project be completed, flood protection
5 from the 100-year storm will be provided for the City of
6 Raleigh.*
7 In other words, apparently completion of the 11
8 flood control dams which now remain in the project will
9 give Raleigh 100-year flood protection. Perhaps I am
10 * misreading. Perhaps the point should be clarified.
11 Certainly* we would all agree that this is a very
12 important point for the clarification of the people in
13 this county. Exactly what can we expect if this project
14 as it is now on the table or on the board, if it is
15 completed? Specifically, we would like to urge SPA to
1 submit the following questions to SCS* as well as to the
^ Corps of Engineers:
18 Ones Will completion of the 11 flood control
19 structures now in the Wake County Watershed Improvement
20 Plan provide the Baleigh area with protection from 100-
21 year frequency rain storms?
22 Twos In the light of development in the Crabtree
23 Creek basin since 1964, and assuming 80 percent develop-
24 ment in the upper Crabtree basin as a result of installi4g
25 the sewer interceptor line, does SCS or the Corps
270
-------
32
1 recommend any change in the system of 11 dams in order
2 to provide water retention capacity above that which
3 will toe possible?
4 It would be quite disillusioning if we went ahead
5 with this project in proper timing with the completion
6 of the dams and then we learned when it was too late that
7 the measure of protection from flooding, which we all
8 expected* simply was not there* and in fact* could never
9 have been there.
10 Question threes What conditions should be met
11 before the sewer line project is funded? On Page 137*
12 the restrictions* or qualifications* are set out. The
13 grant fund shall be withheld until land rights have been
14 acquired for the 11 structures* or until other measures
15 are taken, including but not limited to channelization,
16 urban run-off controls* development restrictions and so
17 on.
18 "Grant funds shall be withdrawn January 1* 1976*
19
et cetera." Undoubtedly, it is intended by these
s -
20 ^ restrictions on the release of federal funds that the
21 planned flood control dams will be completed by the time
22 the sewer line is installed and before any significant
23 development takes place upstream. However* we question
24 whether the particular wording on the release of the
funds is adequate to accomplish that result.
271
-------
33
1 First, what is scant by other measures? We do
2 not know. There are some examples, but is it concelvabl*
3 that other measures, whatever they sight be, could
4 possibly provide flood control protection equal to that
5 of these flood control dams?
6 Perhaps there are, bat I am not aware of them.
7 There is another questionable feature in that wording.
8 Even if all the land rights for all the dams are obtainec
9 as of January 1* 1976, there is no guarantee that the
10 flood control dans can be completed by the time the
sewer line is installed and development take place thereby
contributing to flooding.
13 For one thing, construction of these dams must be
14 funded by appropriations from Congress. We cannot count
15 on that funding until the appropriations have* in fact,
16 been enacted into law by the Congress.
17
How, how, then, should the qualifications on the
1A
10 release of these funds be worded in order to give
reasonable assurance of adequate flood protection by
20 the tirae the sewer line is installed and development
21 begins to take place? We suggest the following, and I
22 quote:
23 "Grant funds shall be withheld from the proposed
24 project untilt One, land rights have been acquired for
25 all the Soil Oonservation Service flood control
272
-------
34
1 structures; and* two, project agreements on all struc-
2 tares are signed by the county and SCS."
3 Sow, incidentally, SCS does not sign project agree-
4 mints until they have got the appropriated funds to build
5 the dam, and that is the reason for that one.
6 "Three, the Soil Conservation Service and the Corps
7 of Sngineers each certifies to EPA that in their opinion
8 the flood control structures together with such land use,
9 water run-off and development regulations as are then
10 in effect will provide protection from flooding (caused
by 100-year frequency rainfall) for the urban and
12
commercial areas within and adjacent to the City of
13 Raleigh in the Crabtree Creek basin.*
14 This suggested wording is no more and would
provide no more than the objective of the 1964 SCS
16
Watershed Plan, namely, 100-year flood protection, that
17
is the objective which every involved local governmental
18
unit has enforced. That is the objective citizens of
19
Wake County endorsed in 1965, when they voted to set up
20
the Watershed Agency.
21
It is the objective when the voters in Wake County
22
* endorsed in 1968 the bond issue, and no governmental
23
agency federal, state or local -- has ever indicated,
24
to my knowledge, that this objective of 100-year flood
25
protection in the Crabtree Creek basin should be
273
-------
35
1 abandoned.
2 If this line Is put la without requiring that, that
3 will be an abandonment of that central, fundamental
4 objective. Z would like to emphasize la our recommenda**
5 tion that there should be no cut-off date. He strongly
6 urge deletion of that January 1st, *76 deadline* and X
7 would have a few more comments later* If it Is
8 permissible, Mr. Chairman, In concluding my remarks.
9 Thank you very much.
10 MR. BIGGS: We will give you as much as you need
11 to finish your statement. I would like to call now Mr.
12 George Goodwin, Wake County commissioner.
13 MR. GEORGE R. GOODWIN, Sft.s Mr. Chairman and
14 ladies and gentlemen, we certainly appreciate this
15 opportunity on behalf of the Wake County Board of
^ Commissioners to appear before you and your panel, and
17 I have with us tonight, besides myself, two of our
^ commissioners, Mr. J. T. Knott and Mr. Robert Beater,
19 who are commissioners.
20 We also have with us Mr. James Mills, our county
21 coordinator, and Mr. John Scott, director of our
22 Planning Department, and Mr. Sraedes York, chairman of
23 our Planning Department.
24 The Wake County Board of Commissioners is very
25 grateful for the opportunity to talk with you this eveninc
274
-------
36
1 about a project that means a great deal to the comity
2 and the City of Raleigh. The Board of Commissioners of
3 Wake County recognises its responsibility to assist the
4 City of Raleigh and all the other municipalities in oar
5 great county to provide for an adequate source of clean,
6 pure water to meet the present and future needs of our '
7 citizens and to provide for the proper collection and
8 disposal of the waste water generated thereof, to the
9 end that a healthy, orderly and coordinated life-style
10 might fee maintained in a manner most conducive to the
H public health and general welfare of oar county, as well
12 a* other municipalities.
13 Some four years ago, after a number of discussions
14 between the county and the municipal governments in
15 Wake County, the Wake County Board of Commissioners
16 adopted a county-wide water and waste water plan, whereby
17 in cooperation with the municipalities, water and waste
18 water services could be extended to a greater number of
19 people through a regional or an area-wide system.
20 The Crabtree Creek sewer interceptor line that we
21 are discussing tonight is a very important part of the
22 plan for waste water collection in m very large area of
23 our county.
24 As you might know, the Raleigh-Durham Airport, the
25 North Carolina State Fairgrounds, North Carolina State
275
-------
37
1 University, Carter Stadium, the National Guard Armory,
2 Umstead State Park., the State Correctional Center,
3 several agricultural experimental farms belonging to the
4 State of North Carolina and University, the Town of
5 Horrisville, portions of the Town of Cary, as well as
6 industrial, school and residential areas presently are
7 located in the upper Crabtree basin, and this sewer
8 interceptor line will vastly improve the waste water
9 pollution problem for the entire area.
10 As Hake County has attempted to find a solution to
11 this rather complicated problem, it was realized in 1971,
12 that to achieve the most desirable results, the finan-
13 cial assistance of the Environmental Protection Agency
14 and the State of liorth Carolina would be needed.
Requests for funds were made to EPA on June 30,
16 1971, and to the State of North Carolina in 1972. The
Environmental Protection Agency responded positively,
f
18 and on December 29, 1972V made a grant offer of
$2,445,750. It is our understanding that the State of
20 North Carolina will consider financial assistance on
this project as soon as Hake County meets all the
22 requirements of EPA.
23 The financial assistance of both these agencies is
24 desperately needed, and as we see the situation, we are
25 dealing with a twofold problem: First, the waste water
276
-------
38
1 pollution pr@lp.em of the tipper Crabtree basin, and,
2 second, the existing and fature problems of the lower
3 Crabtree basin.
4 As of th end of the calendar year of 1975, six of
5 tiie proposed 11 flood-control dams will have been
6 completed, and the county has intensified its efforts
7 to complete the remaining structures within four years
8 Wake County government is tremendously concerned that
9 the flood problem of the lower Crabtree Creek basin be
10 solved* and has placed this program in high priority.
11 We would close our remarks this evening by requesting
that the &tvironmtntal Troteetion Agency and the State
13 of Morth Carolina to consider the following actionst
14 Qa*. Approve the grant funds for the construction of
15 the Crabtree Creek sewer interceptor line with the
16 following provisionst
17 A. That the sewer line be constructed in each
1Q
...k^M.4... basin r service area only after land has
19 teften acquired for the flood-control dams in that area,
am<3 that grant funds be segmented to accommodate this
B Remove the requirement of acquiring land for
23 Structure Number 25 before the Richland Creek segment
24 f the interceptor sewer line is constructed.
25 Section tarns Ksctend the time period *cxr~ cquiring
-------
39
1 the land for flood control structures Huaaber 5-A 20--A,
2 23 and 25, because our technical people tell us that it
3 is snot feasible to accomplish this by January 1, 1976.
4 Wake County and all of the people* which comprise
5 all of the people of this great community which you
6 gentlemen have had the opportunity to see; Z have heard
7 you make some comments about the area this evening
8 seeks your help in achieving the best solution to this
g problem.
10 And, in closing, we, Mr. Chairman, thank you very
11 kindly for allowing us this time to present this matter
12 as we as eosssissioners and the members of oar coasmittees
13 see this problem* and we thank you again for the
14 opportunity.
15 ISU BRIGGS? We thank you, Coneeaissioner* Mow we
16 will hear from Mr. Dodge Geoghegan, representing the
17 Saleigh Chamber of Commerce as president-elect.
18 MR, G, DODGE QSOGBEOAM; Mr. Chairman and gentlemen
19 of the panel, ladies and gentlemen, I am Dodge
i
20 3eoghegan, vice-president of the Raleigh Chamber of
21 Commerce.
22 Our organization is an association of some 2,200
23 business and professional people representing over 1,400
24 business concerns throughout the community. Our organi-
25 zation concerns itself with the economic well-being of
278
-------
40
1 the business and citizen interest of Make County. The
2 scope of our program, implemented through task force
3 assignments comprised of our membership* broadly spans
4 all of those activities relating directly to the quality
5 of life in our community.
6 Me are pleased with this opportunity tonight to
7 comment on the Environmental Impact Statement relative
8 to the awarding of grant funds for construction of
9 interceptor sewer lines in Hake County.
10 During the last decade, the growth of Raleigh aad
11 Wake County has been dramatic. In fact* our growth
12 rate has been higher than Charlotte* Durham, Greensboro,
13 Winston-Salem, all of urban North Carolina and the stats;
14 as a whole.
15 & recent study forecasts that population within the
16 city will almost double again during the next 20 years.
17 This growth has been and will be created primarily by
18 the expansion of government, by the broadening of our
19 trade area, by increased travel business within our
20 community, new industry locating here, and the need for
21 new services.
22 The Raleigh business community, in accepting its
23 role for the responsible growth of Wake County, also
24 accepts responsibility for supporting those governmental
25 and private interests working towards providing
279
-------
41
1 coHBBunity service* necessary to maintain the quality of
2 life for which we all. strive* regardless of our endeavors
3 or affiliations.
4 We feel that toe discussion here tonight* pertaining
5 as it does to one of the most important community
6 services, deserves the serious and responsible consider-
7 ation of all our citizens. We are pleased and indeed hav
8 strongly supported the efforts undertaken by our county
9 officials in the vital areas of establishing a regional
10 waste water collection system and the collateral issues
v
11 of flood* erosion and sedimentation control.
12 We have been working closely through the years with
13 Raleigh and Wake County officials in support of the flooc
14 control problem, and are committed presently in firm
15 support of Wake County's efforts to achieve early conple-
16 tion of the remaining flood control structures.
17 Much significant progress has been accomplished and
18 has been properly documented for this hearing tonight.
19 It is documentation* in our opinion* which testifies to
20 the good faith and concern of our county, city and public
21 officials* for the problems which past and future growth
22 has and will create.
23 It is our understanding that the awarding of federal
24 grant funds for construction of an interceptor sewer lin<
25 in Wake County is contingent on purchase of all remainin
280
-------
42
1 lauds for flood control by January 1, 1976.
2 Our county, Mr. Chairman, needs the financial
3 support of these federal funds* and our citizens need
4 the proposed interceptor sewer lines. But, in consulta-
5 tion with county officials and civic leaders* we feel
6 that the acquisition of the proposed land areas by the
7 termination date is not realistic and, indeed* inpossibl<
8 to accomplish.
9 We would instead file this request most respectfully'
10 that you consult and work with our county officials to
11 establish a more realistic timetable for the completion
12 of flood control structures coinciding with the con-
13 struction of the interceptor sewer lines.
14 It is my pleasure* on behalf of the Raleigh Chamber
15 of Consaerce, to thank you* Mr. Chairman, for the granting
16 of these federal funds and the opportunity of appearing
17 here tonight.
18 MU BRIGGS: Thank you. Mr. George S, Willoughby,
19 . Jr., president and executive director of PROD.
20 MR. GEORGE S. WIU.OUGHBY, JR. j Mr. Chairman,
21 gentlemen, I am George Willoughby, president and
22 executive director of an organization known as PROD,
23 or Progress for Raleigh-Wake County through Orderly
24 Development.
25 Our organization has been labeled as a lobbyist
. ,r 281
-------
43
1 group for the development and real estate industry in
2 Raleigh. While the term "lobbyist* is not inclusive of
3 the many activities of this group, we will accept it if
4 it means that we dare to speak out on issues that nay
5 not have public appeal
6 First, let me say that we are not anti-environ en-
7 talist. Raleigh did not achieve its reputation as a
8 desirable place to live in just the last two or three
9 years. This reputation is a result of nany years of
10 planning and development by the industry which we attempt
to represent.
12 However* we do not support flooding. As a nattier oi
13 fact, Z live in the Oak Park-Glen Forrest-Deblyn Park arcla
myself, and X don't particularly like to live in it. Box
15 do we support the uncontrolled development of our
ifi
natural resources.
17
However, we do support the construction of an
18
interceptor sewer line in Hake County to service the
upper drainage basin of Crabtree Creek. We are concerned
20
with recent media reports which quote the draft EIS as
stating that grant funds would be withdrawn unless all
22 land rights have been acquired for the flood control
23 structures by January 1, 1976.
24 The Wednesday, March 12, issue of The Raleigh
25 Times states, and I quote: "EPA said in its draft
282
-------
44
1 statement that no federal funds will be granted for the
2 line until the county acquires land rights for 11 dan
3 sites. BFA placed a January, 1976* deadline on the
4 acquisition."
5 The Draft Environmental Impact Statement states,
6 and I quote: "Grant funds shall be withdrawn January 1,
7 19*76, fro the proposed project if land rights are
8 not acquired for the SCS structures or agreement on othe:
9 measures to insure adequate flood protection is not
10 reached* *
11 The statement is emphatic that other measures can
12 be taken including, but not limited to, channelization*
13 urban run off controls, developmental restrictions and
14 other lane use modifications which will insure adequate
15 flood control as determined by the State of North
16 Carolina, the Soil Conservation Service, the Corps of
17 Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency.
18 Wake County has enacted the Hake County Erosion and
19 Sedimentation Control Ordinance which has already
20 restricted development in the upper Crabtree basin.
21 Although development in western Wake County is not
22 restricted, it will still take place even if the sewer
23 interceptor is not constructed*
24 The land would be developed through th use of
25 septic tanks (where soil conditions allow) and through
283
-------
45
1 package treatment plants. This type of haphazard develop}-
2 awsnt is not needed in western Wake County.
3 At the urging of PROD, the Wake County Board of
4 Commissioners has appointed a Real Estate Advisory
5 Committee to assist in the acquisition of land rights
6 for the SCS control structures. This committee is ecsa-
7 posed primarily of members of our organization.
8 It is sate to state that more progress has been
9 made in the past 18 months in the area of dam construct!
10 and acquisition of land rights than had been raade in the
11 previous ten years.
12 For this reason, we do not feel that the Draft
13 Environmental Impact Statement should contain the refer-
14 ence to the withdrawal of grant funds January 1, 1976,
15 although we would agree that the acquisition of sites
16 for the flood control structures should be accelerated
17 within the limits of the funding available from $3ake
18 County.
19 The serviced area lends itself for a model community
20 planned through the comprehensive programs of land use
21 and community service. The area will serve not only the
22 Raleigh community, but the Research Triangle as well*
23 Raleigh, state governmental agencies, Gary and
24 Morrisville, need the sewer interceptor. The time has
25 come to initiate an affirmative and not a negative
284
-------
46
1 approach to this construction project. Thank you.
2 MR. BRIGGSt Thank you, Mr. Willoughby. Hext, Mr*
3 Victor V. Langston, chairman, Project Flood Control.
4 MR. VICTOR V. LANGSTONt Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
5 Ladies and gentlemen, I speak to you this evening as an
6 aggrieved citizen* a flood victim. My residence at
7 2719 Rothgeb Drive was flooded twice in 1973, by Crabtret
8 Creek.
9 On each occasion* every room in ray house was
10 covered by at least 12 inches of water. In the February
11 flood, ray automobile was covered with water up to the
12 dashboard.
13 When I purchased this house in 1972, I took the
14 time to check with the City Planning Department con-
15 cerning its proximity to Crabtree Creek and the possibility
16 of flooding. The information given to me was that there
17 was no real danger of flooding in my particular location.
18 The owners of the home knew nothing of the possi-
19 bilities of flooding since they had lived there only two
20 years. I later learned that this property was partially
21 flooded during 1956, but that there had been no flooding
22 since that time.
23 I say this to point out that X did not knowingly
24 locate in the flood plain and then ask for protection.
25 I would maintain that the flood plain has increased to
285
-------
47
1 include ray property as development has increased*
2 Secondly, I cone to you as the chairman of Project
3 Flood Control* a citizens* group formed after these
4 floods in 1973. We sought effectively, I think, to
5 place some curbs on pell-mell development and to insure
6 that adequate steps were taken to improve flooding in
7 the area. We presented petitions signed by several
8 thousands of citizens to the City Council and the
9 County Conrasissianers. The petition asked for the
10 following actions, eight points:
11 To take appropriate action to condition the
12 issuance and continuing validity of any building permit
13 for any structure in the county upon a showing that the
14 structure will not contribute to the flooding of other
15 property and a showing that the builder is adequately
providing for surface water run off and protecting
17 against soil erosion to the end that the property of
18
others is not damaged;
*9 Enact effective ordinances for flood plain control
20 to the end that citizens throughout the county will
21 qualify for flood damage insurance under federal program
22 Take effective action to assure that no public work
23 construction, whether buildings or sewer lines or street) s
24 or highways, will contribute to flooding or damage to
25 other properties?
286
-------
48
^
1 Get underway promptly effective action to complete
2 adequate flood control dams in the Crabtree Creek basin;
3 Stop projects for extending sewer lines west of
4 Raleigh which will permit further land development until
5 effective flood control measures in the Crabtree Creek
6 basin has been completed;
7 Get underway promptly effective action to clear the
8 Crabtree and other waterways of debris and obstructions
9 and provide for appropriate dredging, consistent with
10 other environmental impact concerns of those shallow
H portions of the waterway channels;
Institute a system of early warning of possible
flooding to reach all citizens in the flood susceptible
14 areas j
15 Provide for emergency post-flood public services
16 for flood victims, trash and damaged property removal,
17 street and road washing to clean away silt and mud, and
|Q
appropriate health protection measures to guard against
^ insect breeding.
an
u That petition was carried throughout the community
21 and we delivered them to the county commissioners and
22 to the council with thousands of signatures. Project
23 Flood Control certainly continues in its belief that
24 government has a moral responsibility to protect its
25 citizens against disasters wherever possible.
287
-------
49
1 We are even more certain that the government shoulc
2 not contribute to increasing flood dangers by building
3 sewer lines and allowing development without first
4 planning to compensate for that development. I commend
5 this impact statement, and it is obvious that thousands
6 of hours of work has gone into its preparation. It does
7 an excellent job of tying together all the related
8 impacts of this sewer line project.
9 However, there are several points which do concern
10 me: One. On Page ; 137, and I quote: "Grant funds shall
11 be withheld from the proposed project until land rights
12 have been acquired for the Soil Conservation Service
13 Control Structures*" and so forth it has been quoted
14 many times but I would underline this part: "or
15 until other measures are taken, including but not
ifi
limited to channelization, urban run off controls,
17
developmental restrictions, and other land use raodifica-
18
tions which will insure adequate flood control," and it
suggests that the grant funds will be removed until
20 there is agreement on other measures to insure adequate
*1 flood protection unless these agreements are not
22 reached.
23 As far as we are concerned, this condition is not
24 strong enough for those who live in the flood plain or
. !
25 in its fringes. We want no sewer line constructed until,
288
-------
50
1 the dams are built. Promises and plans seem to have a
2 way of being diluted by time. We have waited for 17
3 years for flood protection. Now we are asked to approv<
4 significant new development which will increase flooding
5 greatly with only some conditional plans. This is
6 not acceptable.
7 We would also suggest that a corollary of this
8 position would be to move back by a year or more the
9 cut-off date of January 1, 1976. It is obvious that
10 sight acquisition and dam construction could not be
11 completed by then.
12 Secondly, the statistical data on flooding came to
13 you from several different sources. We have noticed
14 serious discrepancies within the date from various
1s agencies. The June, 1973, flood was variously described
as being from a three year to 20-year flood. Some
definitive study needs to be made before we continue
18
with our assumption that the plan for the flood control
19 structures will be adequate.
20 On Page 107, average annual flood damages are
21 listed for several areas, both within and without the
22 structure, with 80 percent development and the
23 Soil Conservation Service structures, average annual
24 damages are estimated to be $1,900,000. Assuming these
25 figures are correct, we ask the question: How much
289
-------
51
1 damage is acceptable? Surely we can plan a program
2 which allows for less than almost $2 million in annual
3 damages.
4 Thirdly, we are disappointed that the Impact
5 Statement did not consider in greater depth the raitiga-
6 tive measures of purchase of flood plain proterty. It
7 seems that clearing certain areas in the flood plain and
8 possibly adding those areas to the Greenway System would
9 be more economical than continually building more struc-
10 tures to compensate for additional development.
11 The Littleton Project near Denver is an excellent
12 example of this approach. I don't believe any agency
13 would find considerable opposition to the purchase of
14 homes in the flood plain. Most persons there would move
15 now if they could sell their property without losing all
16 their life savings in the process.
17 I ask the philosophical question; Can we afford to
18 build flood control structures forever* or should we
I9 attempt to work with nature?
20 I appreciate the opportunity to be heard this
21 evening, and I ask that you remember two points from
22 my presentation. The first is that I am not opposed to
23 development, but I do believe that future development
24 should, in no way, jeopardize the safety or well-being
25 of those of us who are already here.
290
-------
52
1 Secondly, unless you actually live in a flood-
2 prone area, you cannot imagine the heavy burden of
3 anxiety which one feels each and every time it rains.
4 This is a horrible way to live being fearful each
time rain occurs. Thank you.
6 MR. BRIGGSs Thank you, Mr. Langston. In case
7 some more of you are getting warm, we will take a break.
8 We will cover a few more statements and take a ten
minute break.
We call now Anne Taylor, representing the Sierra
11 Club.
12 MISS ANHE TAYLOR? My name is Anne Taylor. I am a
13 member of the Sierra Club. First of all, I would like
to thank the Environmental Protection Agency for its
decision to reverse the negative declaration on this
ifi
the impact of this sewer line. We think the mere
17
decision to reverse that negative declaration and the
18
decision to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement
19
has had a beneficial effect already on watershed
20 , .
planning.
21
This has to be the most interesting sewer line evei
22 proposed. The effects of building, partially building
or not building this sewer line reach far beyond the
0 *
scope of this impact statement. Any position taken is
ne
a gamble. The Crabtree Creek watershed is a serious
291
-------
53
1 problem in its present condition.
2 The present problems are the result of development
3 and poor planning in the lower one-third of the water-
4 shed. This sewer line opens up the remaining two-thirds
5 of the Crabtree Creek watershed, and it is all upstream.
6 It is such a mess, if it weren't so pitiful, it might
7 be laughable, and we have to clean it all up with tax
8 sarnies, so the lack of confidence in future expenditures
9 of public monies is perhaps understandable.
10 The dilemma and the gamble w are forced to take
11 appear to be as follows: number one, if the sewer line
12 is not built, the Town of Gary could perhaps route its
13 waste into the Walnut Creek sewer line. But, developers
14 would then look t6 the use of environmentally unde-
15 sireable sewer package plans to serve the land they want
^ to develop.
17 The Horth Carolina Division of Environmental
*8 Management would be "very reluctant? to issue permits at
19 this time. The gamble is that pressure for development
20 causes the Division of Environmental Management of
21 North Carolina to become less and less reluctant to
22 issue such permits with (water Duality problems resulting.)
23 Sc-o> 21- II ;he sewer line is installed, but tap
24 ems are not allowed until the SCS flood control structures
25 are constructed as proposed by the Raleigh City Council,
2'J2
-------
54
I
1 what is to prevent the next Council, if it should be
2 differeat people* from reversing this Council's decision
3 The gambles A developer would probably be within his
4 legal rights to demand the right to tap on to the "best
5 available means" of sewage disposal.
6 Thirdly, if the sewer line is not installed until
ail 11 flood control structures are under construction
or completed, there appears to be a serious lack of
confidence that the dams can handle 80 percent develop-
*" ment in the upper watershed.
We are concerned that the dams will fully protect
12 the homes flooded in 1973 under the existing conditions
The gamble here is homes and perhaps lives.
14 It would help somewhat to have SPA, SCS and the
Corps of Engineers state unequivocably that their
1 fi
respective projects are planned with the safety and
17
welfare of these people as their prime consideration.
18
Unless that statement can be made, then the project
19
should be replanned with priorities adjusted or those
20
citizens given the opportunity to relocate under Public
21
Law 93-251, Section 73, which allows relocation as a
22 flood control alternative.
nq
11 Fourthly, if the sewer line is extended only to
" Richland Creek to serve the State Fairgrounds, Carter
II
" Stadium area, the completion of the SCS dams must still
293
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20'
21 !
22
55
be a condition. The date mentioned in the Environmental
Impact Statement could well be extended to allow conqsle-
tion of these dams, but the sewer line as planned or the
sewer line only to the Riehland Creek area must have the
protection of all the dams, be that as it may.
Hie gamble once again with partial construction of
the line is package plants upstream.
Quite frankly, we found the Environmental Impact
Statement to b one of the best we have ever had the
opportunity to eoiament on, and w@ commend SPA for the
depth of its investigation.
We find the statement's recommendation for Greenway
planning into this project to be a redeeming factor in
a project that is low in benefits save, perhaps, for a
select few.
We reluctantly choose not to oppose the installatio
of this sewer line, but our decision is based specifi-
cally on the following conditions:
Number one* that the sewer line not be installed
until land is acquired for all 11 SCS flood control
structures and bids have been let for their construction
Secondly, that the Corps of Engineers state publicl
23 jj its assurance that the development encouraged by this
;i
24 ;| sewer line would not necessitate the eventual channeli-
zation of Crabtree Creek,, The public cannot fo asked to
-------
56
1 pay several million for a sewer line* several million
2 for flood control and unlimited millions for massive
3 structures through the city where, again, a select few
4 benefit.
5 We would like to see the omission of the channeli-
6 cation option from the final environmental impact state-
7 ment.
8 Thirdly, a public recreation area along the proposec
9 route of the sewer line would benefit the people who are
10 paying for the sewer line. Again, not only a select few
11 and also in the same light* more people would benefit
12 from the dam than a select few.
13 The sewer line will serve nonexistent development*
14 and the dams* though easier to justify* serve a relatively
IS few taxpayers* At least a Greenway system up to Umstead
16 State Park and around to Gary would provide a form of
*7 transportation and recreation which would benefit all of
18 the citizens of Raleigh, Gary and Wake County.
19 Fourthly* the archeological survey and the vegeta-
20 tive survey should be a part of any such project* and
21 will greatly enhance the education value if a Greenway
22 is put into this sewer line construction.
23 Maintenance could be through Raleigh's Parks and
24 Recreation as well as Raleigh's Public Utilities Depart-
25 ment. Easements would have to be acquired in fee
295
-------
57
1 simple.
2 Fifthly* we emphasize that flood victims should be
3 given the opportunity to relocate under the Corps of
4 Engineers flood control project unless total assurance
5 can be given the citizens in the lower reaches of the
6 watershed that the sewer line will not increase their
7 flooding problems,
8 Sixth, the County Commissioners cite rising land
9 prices as a deterrent in completion of the 11 SCS
10 dams. We believe that development potential from the
C
11 installation of the sewer line is one cause of these
12 rising land costs, and we find this an intolerable wind-
13 fall situation for a small handful of land owners.
14 number seven, Wake County Commissioners should
15 adopt subdivision regulations which assure retention of
16 on site run off in order to somewhat alleviate the
1? increased rain storm run off caused by paving streets
18 and building homes and building upstream. The degree
19 of retention should be stringent, in view of the existing
20 downstream situation.
21 This sewer line proposal has put Kaleigh in a very
22 difficult position of gambling on the future. It is not
23 a pleasant situation to be in. We are struck by the
24 similarity of the Environmental Protection Agency's
25 Borsepen Creek Sewer Project in Greensboro, which has
296
-------
58
1 thrown citizens there into a very similar dilemma. X
2 hope we can re-evaluate priorities in this case and
3 solve existing problems before we create new ones.
4 lhank you.
5 MR. BRIGGSs Thank you, Miss Taylor. Mr* R. A.
6 Dunaway, as a concerned citizen, representing Lake
7 Anne and the Springdale area.
8 MR. R. A. DDMAWAY: Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentle-
g men, I am one of those citizens that you have been tryine
10 to get involved, bat ray neighbors have a knack of doing
11 it* and after a few phone calls and a few calls, I
12 decided to come up.
13 I haven't any statement to give tine secretary, but
14 I am just bringing the ideas and the thoughts of the
15 people in my neighborhood,
16 First* we are in a different situation from most
17 of the county. We are in the highest part of Wake
I8 County and we have more to contribute in the way of flooc
19 control than we have fear of flooding. We are definitely
20 interested in the sewer line, but we do think it would
21 be foolish to bring the sewer line out and have more
22 development before flooding is brought under control.
23 Our chief concern I won't say it is our chief
24 concern but the one that is apt to be overlooked more
25 than any other is the Greenway proposition. Raleigh is
297
-------
59
1 recognized as one of the best cities in the country to
2 live in. It has just been declared an All-American city*
3 We know that when the sewer line coaes up that develop-
4 sent would be fast and we would be in Baleigh.
5 That best city can be temporary, and we can make it
6 more or less permanent, but it is going to take continu-
7 ous work to make it permanent. The Greenway was one of
8 the biggest considerations given in declaring Raleigh an
9 All-American city and one of the best places to live.
10 We would like to see that Greenway not cone oat to
11 Umstead Park. We do want it to come out there and on to
12 Gary, as ray predecessor just said* but we would like to
13 have it come up Turkey Creek and the rest of the county.
14 When we do become a part of Raleigh* we want to be
1s a part of Raleigh that is the best place to live in.
Some years ago a few here can remember Will Rogers
17 he had a list of what he called the three cities in
18 America that had they were different from any other
19 cities. All the others were more or less facsimiles;
20 varied a little.
21 But, the first one was New Orleans and the second
22 was San Antonio, Texas. I won*t name the third because
23 all other cities would like to be it. But, the reason
24 he gave them was the fact that they all had something
25 that Chambers of Commerce could not take away from them.
298
-------
60
1 Z mention this in particular because San Antonio is
2 one of those cities. It was the second that Will Rogers
3 mentioned. San Antonio has a little river it is not
4 as big* I don't think* as Crabtree Creek running
5 right through it* and they have utilised every bit of
6 that - they have spent millions trying to make something
7 out of that river.
8 They have backed it up, they have canalized it,
9 they have little ponds, and it has been planted. The
10 Crabtree Creek area is made up of everything from some-
11 thing that a sewer line would be improved an iaprove-
12 raent on to something you might say the original growth
13 that dates back several thousand years.
14 That is the type of vegetation, they mention in
15 this draft impact the such conaaunity as a high
I6 aesthetic appeal that represents an advanced stage of
17 ecological succession.
18 In case anyone doesn't know what that ecological
19 succession is* we will take an old* worn out field*
20 eroded, red clay, nothing will grow on it, supposedly,
21 but in a year or two you do see pines coating up, a few
22 persimmons, black cherries, and such comes up after
23 that, eventually gets up into oaks and ashes and so on.
24 But, when they get above the tops of the pines,
25 which were the first tree to come in, the pines die. You
299
-------
61
1 have got a hardwood forest. The last stage of that is
2 the beech forest. & beech tree will live in one-fiftieth
3 san light, and it clouds out practically everything under-
4 neath it.
5 Some of this area is that old, the advanced stage
6 of succession, and if this land is disturbed, it is gone
7 you might say, forever. It is not just the beeches,
8 though. There are other trees. There are well, ther<
9 used to be rhododendron there. When I was a child, why,
10 Hake County was known as the farthest east natural
11 habitat of rhododendron, and I would ride a streetcar
12 out to old Boonesberry Park, go up the creek, and trans-
13 planted them around Raleigh.
M I don't think'any of them lived, but it helped me.
!5 HOW Z wish Z hadn't done it. Z wish we had it. We do
16 have mountain laurel.
17 But, this draft of an environmental impact state-
18 raent Z think should be carried all the way through on
19 that vegetative end. State College, Z believe, has
20 offered to contribute and with its students and at
21 the price of only $3,000. Considering the total price
22 of such a study for everything, that is negligible and
23 Z think it well worth it, and I think it would be also
24 very much desirable, insofar as possible, when you have
25 to have a right open place for the sewer line to go
300
-------
62
through, bat if you could have a canopy of trees, it
2 would sort of go over it* that would not interfere with
3 anything any work on it.
4 But, it could provide a nice place for bicycles or
5 walking, and all of that is desirable and it all boils
6 down to the same thing Raleigh is going to go oat
1 there. Zt is going to go out there very fast, as soon
8 as this goes through, and when it does, we want to still
9 be one of the best cities to live in* and I probably
10 won't be living, but we hope most of you will.
11 Thank you*
12 MR. BRIGGSt Thank you, Mr. Ounaway* He now call
13 Mr* Tom Adams, Mobile City.
14 MR. TOM ADAMSs Mr. Chairman, sty name is Tom Adams.
15 I am a real estate attorney. I am also a developer, and
16
if I may say so, I am a developer who believes and
17
practices good environmental development. I own some
18
property in the area that is involved. I have some
19
experience there, and I would like to share it with you.
Most of what I would say has been said, so 1 will
21
omit that portion. Something which has been mentioned,
22 but not explained, is the fact that the Trlassie Basin
23 begins in the upper Crabtree Creek.
24 I would like to tell you what the Triassic Basin
means as translated to the development of real estate.
301
-------
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
il
22
28
63
There is a fault line which is known as the Jonesboro
Fault, and when you came in on the airplane at Raleigh-
Durham, I don't know whether you got in that way or not*
but it has been fogged in lately but, anyway, when
you got in there, if you walk across the street in front
of the airport and walk about 50 yards, you will have
crossed the Jonesboro Fault Line.
Everything east of that line is one formation, and
everything west of that line is another formation, and
the formation west of that line is the Triassic Basin.
The Jonesboro Fault Line runs northeast and southwest*
It goes just beyond the Town of Gary and it goes eastward
up into the Granville County area, as I recall.
Let me tell you the meaning and what the significance
of that is. The Triassic Basin formation at that area is
ten to twelve thousand feet thick and it is an ancient
geologic fault in the earth. The Triassic Basin is
basically a face powder soil with some conglomerates mixed
in.
Very, very powdery. It is not uniform, but it is
all powdery. Some of it is what is commonly referred to
as gumbo. If you step on gumbo, it sticks to your feet
and then gumbo sticks to the gumbo, and the only reason
you don't keep stepping up higher is because it is mushy
R \
45 ! and you sink back down through it.
302
-------
64
1 In terms of development, what that means is that
2 the rain which cones in comes down onto the earth does
3 not soak in. The rain simply runs off* Consequently,
4 the development of land in that area does not have the
5 same effect as the development of land east of the
6 Jonesboro Fault area.
7 And the reason is that it will not soak in. If you
8 drill a well up there or dig a well* as the people in
9 the Morrisville area well know, it is rare that you get
10 more than one to three gallons of water per minute, and
11 if you had to rely upon a sustained flow* it is doubtful
that you could have one gallon per minute.
13 There are a few exceptions to that. 1 will just
14 deviate to say this. There are some rock dikes, igneous
15 rock dikes in the area which cone up through the earth.
16 If you are lucky enough to get into one of those, and
1*7
1 if it is lucky enough to be into a low area where it
18
can be recharged when surface water conies across it,
19 you may have good water.
20
Other than that* you have mineralized water* as
21 Mayor Robinson said* and you also have almost none of it.
22 Some of it has a great deal of salt. It is not even
23 fit for human consumption. The only way the area can
24 develop is to have water, and as a practical matter*
there must be some type of sewer system either private
303
-------
65
1 or public.
2 As Dr. Bethel said and I wholeheartedly sub-
3 scribe to that you may do all you want to about a
4 private sewer system, do the best job you can, give it
5 every treatment that you know how, and you still have
6 your problems* I don't care how sincerely and objee-
7 tively you try.
8 Now, the area up there can develop, but that is the
9 only way it can develop unless there is a public system.
10 I support any plan which requires that we avoid flooding,
but, I would call to your attention the fact that as,
12 Mr. Chairman, you pointed out that you noticed the
13 Crabtree was flooded now, or about so*
14 When we had the rains last year and the year before
which flooded the Crabtree with four to five inches, thosfc
6 were tistes approximately like you find in Raleigh today.
17
This is an ideal time for the hearing. The ground was
18 saturated with water and therefore the water can't soak
19 in. It simply runs off.
20 And that is what could happen today. If we had
four inches of rain the next 24 hours, everything up and
22 down the Crabtree would be under water. I have had
23 experience with a flooded house and I know how that feels
24 and the gentleman told you exactly right you dread to
see it rain. You get to where you can*t enjoy the raindrjaps
304
-------
66
l hitting the top of your house and your windowpanes.
2 I would urge you upon you, though, the fact to
3 observe these things: Humber one, the only tiling which
4 prevents run-off of water in the Triassic Basin is the
5 ground cover* fhat does arrest the run-off of water.
6 3&e soaking in of the water does not arrest the run-off
7 of water because it simply won't soak in and you can
8 experiment with that by simply taking a post hole
9 digger and go up there and dig a post hole about a
10 foot or two thick just about anywhere you choose, pour
11 it full of water and come back three or four days later
12 and see how much of it is still there. It just does not
13 soak in.
14 As the city manager over here would tell you, in
15 the City of Raleigh when they lay water lines, they test
16 them and they require that where there are leaks they
17 be fixed. I can tell you that no test works adequately
18 to prevent leaks except to build one in the Triassic
19 Basin because if you have a leak there it will come righ
20 to the top and it will not soak in anywhere and it will
21 be mush all around it right over the top of it where it
22 comes up.
23 But, that is the situation there because it simply
24 runs off. It does not soak in. It doesn't soak in a
25 bit more than if it were asphalt, except that the flow
305
-------
67
1 is arrested on account of the ground cover. The growth
2 in western Wake County may astound you, and the forces
3 of growth in the western Wake County may astound you.
4 For example, the Town of Gary grew 120 percent from
5 I960 to 1970s and from 1970 to 1973, it grew another
80 percent in those three years. The Research Triangle
Park, which is located in the Triassic Basin, is a very
8 great influence in this area.
9 A great deal of land has been zoned for industrial
10 ] use in that general area, and, of course, as has been
11 i pointed out, much development will occur once the sewer
line is in.
I would like to reconnaend this to you. Prices toda;
are cheaper than they are likely to ever be again to
put this sewer line in. X have not considered the legal
consequences which were referred to by Miss Taylor as to
17
whether or not someone could demand to connect to that
18 line.
19 I suspect that that could be handled and would not
20 be a problem. X would recommend to you that the line
21 be installed while prices are perhaps lower than they
22 will be forever to come, and that provision be made that
23 no tap cms would be permitted and that the legal assur-
24 ance of that be determined until such time as flood
control is assured,
306
-------
68
1 I do not believe in flooding people downstream. I
2 know that there are ways to handle this and there are
3 more ways to handle it than we are presently engaging*
4 if that should be determined to be necessary.
5 But. it is a desirable time, from the standpoint of
6 economics, of installing it. The developers and people
7 who are interested in having the area grow, and good
8 growth is desirable, they have waited a long time. PeopJ
9 who would have put in private package plants a long time
10 ago have been requested to wait and they have waited,
11 and the gentlemen from the State Health Department and sc
12 forth will vouch for this. They have waited and they
13 have been cooperative, but to stall until prices go up
14 and we face that on the Heuse River up here. We have
15 stalled that out and stalled it out and now it costs
16 several times what it would have cost a few years ago to
1? go on and data that river up so we would have our water
18 supply for the next 20, 40, 50 years.
19 But, to stall it simply means we run the price up.
20 It may get prohibitively expensive. Vie don't need to do
21 that. We need to save the money. I am just as inter-
22 ested in saving federal dollars as I am the local dollar
23 because we are the people who have to supply the federal
24 money from the local sources, so Z would urge that the
25 plan which is adopted be one which will assure immediate
307
-------
69
1 installation of the line, but which would prohibit the
2 use of that line until such time as adequate flood
3 protection is afforded.
4 Thank you.
5 MR. BRIGGSs Thank you, Mr. Adams. The Chair is
6 going to call a ten-minute break. We will come back and
7 start again at 25 minutes till 10s00
8 (Whereupon, a short recess was had.)
9 MR. BRIGOS: Let's get started. Is Mr. Sachary
10 here? The Chair is going to take judicial notice that
11 we have got seven more statements. We have already
12 had 12. It has taken us about two hours. So, we have
13 got at least another hour to go, so you can plan
14 accordingly if you are in a hurry to get out or go
somewhere else.
18 Mr. Sachary, city manager.
17
MR. L. P, ZftCH&RY; X didn't bring enough copies.
18 so I will mail the required number in. The City
19 Council of the City of Raleigh discussed and debated
20 this issue at length last Tuesday. Much of the dis-
21 cussion centered around the fact that Raleigh, the
22 Research Triangle, is a very desirable place to live,
23 perhaps one of the most desirable places on the eastern
24 seaboard, because it has grown faster than most any
25 place that I know of.
308
-------
70
1 It is centered on the fact that no visas are
2 necessary in this country and people move where they
3 want to. Many people want to move to this area. In
4 preparation for their moving here* the thinking was that
5 services should be available when this growth takes plac*
The city staff has reviewed this statement along
with our erosion control section* and the comments were
reviewed again by the City Council last Tuesday. These
are the official comments of the Councils
10 " Raleigh City Council position concerning the
11
22
Crabtree Creek interceptor sewer line and the Draft
12 " Environmental Impact Statement* BPA Project C-370344.
13 The City Council of the City of Raleigh, Sorth Carolina*
14 " supports the construction of the Crabtree Creek inter-
II
11 ceptor sewer line provided this sewer service extension
ii
1 fi
" is performed in accordance with the City Council resolu-
ii
17
tion adopted on February the 7th* 1974, concerning
ii
18
extension of water and sewer service into wake County.
ii
19
" This resolution is reproduced on Page 224 of this
ii
20
" Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The City Council
n
21
" recognizes the need for adequate flood control for the
City of Raleigh, and to that end, strongly supports an
23 II ongoing program by flake County, the Soil Conservation
Service and other involved agencies* to cosaplete all the
25
" planned flood control structures in western Wake County.
309
-------
71
1 The City, therefore* takes the position that the
2 City would permit sewer service to developing areas in
3 watersheds upstream of flood control structures which ar
4 in place or under contract to be constructed.
5 However* the City Council reserves the right not to
6 continue to allow any connections to the interceptor
7 sewer line if, in its opinion, Wake County, the Soil
8 Conservation Service and other involved agencies are not
9 maintaining a reasonable ongoing program of land acqui-
10 sition and the construction of all the remaining
11 necessary flood control structures.
12 The City Council feels this policy is needed as
13 the installation of all of the planned flood control
14 structures are necessary to provide areas in Saleigh
15 adjoining Crabtree Creek with flood protection.
*6 Development upstream from Raleigh which will be
1? incurred by the sewer line extension will cause increased
18 flooding unless ail of the structures are instailed.
19 Tiie City Council feels the Environmental Impact State-
20 raent should reflect this position.
21 And, Mr. Chairman, in the essence of time, our
22 staff has made several corrective notes on pages that
23 are listed in the material that I will submit to you.
24 They will not make much sense read in the context that
25 I have them. X will submit that.
310
-------
72
1 MR. BRIGGS: They will be printed * though read.
2 MR. ZACHARYi Thank you, Sir.
3 MR. BRIGGSt Thank you, Mr. Zachary. Mrs. Joyce
4 Anderson, representing Wake Environment, Incorporated*
5 MRS* JOYOB AHDBRSON: Mr. Chairman and members of
6 the Board, ladies and gentlemen, my naw* is Joyce
7 Anderson* I am president of Wake Bnvironmnt, Incor-
8 porated, whose name we will refer to as MS We. This is
9 a local coalition of group and individuals woo are
10 advocating and working for greater environmental raspon-
11 sibility in Wake County*
12 These comments were prepared by one of oar special
13 task forces which has thoroughly studied this Environ-
14 mental Impact Statement.
15 We would like to open our coonents by recognising
16 Cary's need to abandon its deplorable, oalfunctioning,
17 undersized sewage treatment plant on Coles Creek. It is
18 only by the grace of an existing 868 flood retention
19 structure which holds the plant's discharges until
20 nature has had time to biodegrad* it a little, that the
21 lower regions of Crabtree Creek have been spared extrene
22 quality degradation*
23 And on the unplanned* bat advantageous functioning
24 of the flood retention structure Hnabor 18, WK would
25 like to thank the county's Department of Hatural
311
-------
73
1 Resources and the Soil Conservation Service, yet. Wake
2 Environment realizes that this situation cannot be
3 allowed to exist much longer.
4 Gary must either upgrade its existing plant ox it
5 n wt connect to Raleigh's new treatment plant. It is
6 our opinion that the most cost efficient and environ-
7 mentally efficient that is, in terms of extreme water
8 quality method of solving Gary's problem is to connect
9 to Baleigh's system.
1 the question then becomes how to connect* There
v
H seems to be two reasonable alternatives: Either pipe
12 the effluent down Crabtree Creek around Umstead Park and
13 continue around, or pipe the effluent down and puap it
14 back into the Walnut Creek outfall.
I5 Both of these alternatives allow for the needed
16 connections at Horrisville with the private treatment
17 plant at Mobile City and with the proposed new facilities
18 at the Raleigh-Durham Airport.
19 And there does not seera to be any particular advan-
20 tage for either outfall since each must have additional
21 capacity built into its lower sections in the future* and
22 that outfall which is utilized will be upgraded sooner
23 in order to handle the greater volume.
24 "Jfherefore, Wake Environment finds itself hard
25 pressed to recommend either of these alternatives over thje
312
-------
74
1 other. The only item that Wake Environment can note is the
2 completion of the 1-40 and Southern Belt Line facility in
3 the next few years, and if the rapid development generated
4 by these highways will demand that the Vfalnut Creek outfall
5 be upgraded before such a demand arises for the lower
6 Crabtree outfall, then it may be advantageous to puiap
7 Gary's sewage back to the Walnut Creek outfall. These
8 two possibilities should be given a thorough evaluation
and discussion ia the final Impact statement with the
10 recommended alternative being completely justified.
11 If, as Wake Environment has done* one accepts the
12 fact that migration into the Raleigh-Gary urban area cannot
13 be stopped, then one must also accept the fact that the
14 area must have sewers. It would be unthinkable to expect
15 these 50*000 acres which will be developed over the next
ifi
quarter century to be serviced only by a combination of
17
septic tanks and private treatment plants.
18
Yet* mo sooner than one accepts the idea that massive
19
sewage system is necessary, then one is faced with a whole
20
series of new problems. The following are Wake Environment
21 assessments of the potential problems and our reconmenda-
22 tions for resolving them. X think we all agree that
23 increased flooding is a potential problem developed in the
24 upper Crabtree. Th* expedient watershed project shesaid b
made a condition of the BP&'s contract for this project.
313
s
-------
75
1 By the completion date of the Crabtree sewer line,
2 the Cities of Raleigh and Gary and the county should be
3 required to adopt levies on the amount of impervious
4 service which can be put in any new development. And
5 title third thing we recommend is the Corps of Engineers
6 should be given serious encouragement to include the
7 evacuation of existing flood-prone residences as part
8 of their Crabtree Creek project.
9 The second potential problem that we foresee is
10 increased sedimentation. The county should recognize
11 that development, no matter where it occurs, is a
12 transition from rural to urban character storm water
13 run-off. And the county should adopt Raleigh's more
14 appropriate requirement for 12,000 square feet rather
15 than the acre requirement, 43,560 square feet of land
16
disturbing activity requiring a sediment control plant*
17
and for ten-year frequency storm water retentions on
18
larger developments.
19 Construction timing is another potential problem.
9O
*u The EPA should require that Structure Number 11 be
21
under construction before the Richland Creek out fall
22 can be constructed.
23 Since Structure Number 25 must be the last struc-
24 ture built, there is little reason to consider it at
25 this point. The EPA should expand its contract with the
314
-------
76
1 county to clearly show that the country agrees to con*
2 plete the Crabtree Creek watershed project as planned
3 by January 1, 1980, and that the county recognizes that
4 the BPA will not make reimbursement for any sewer line
5 northwest of Richland Creek until the watershed project
6 is completed.
7 Thus, the county could proceed on good faith on
8 the orderly execution of both the sewer line and the
9 flood retention structures, and the burden would be on
the county to live up to its agreement by the agreed-
upon date.
12
Utilization of open space has wore potential*
13 The right-of-way for the sewer line shall be purchased
14
flood retention structures should be., also*
and fee simple, and the land needed for the remaining
15
16
Thus, a linear open space network will be avail-
17
able for future development as Greenway trails and
18
recreational activity areas linking Raleigh, Cary and
19
ftastead Park.
20
The flora and fauna in the area have been dis-
21
cussed previously tonight. We feel that the EPA should
no
give serious study to the possibility of revegetation
OO
along the outermost ten feet of either side of the
13 meter right-of-way with bottom land hardwood vege-
25
tation types. There would still be about 12 feet from
315
-------
13
77
1 the actual sewer line which would be adequate clearance
2 and would provide 24 feet for maintenance vehicles and
3 for and the roots would not pose any problem at the
4 depths of the sewer line.
5 This would allow for the possible closing of the
6 tree academy at some future tiae* thus shading out
7 unwanted trash growth and allowing for reduced mainte-
8 nance costs. Hiis would also be returned to an environ-
9 ment similar to what exists there today.
10 We appreciate the opportunity to present these
11 comments, and-as a citizens' group, we express our
12 desire and our willingness to work in any way we can to
implement these suggestions. Thank you.
14 MR. BRIGGSt Thank you, Mrs. Joyce Anderson. Oar
next speaker is Mr. Sraedes York* general manager, J, W.
16
York and Company. Is Me. York here?
17 ______
KQDXBBCS MEMBER* I believe he left, Mr. Chairman.
MR. BRIGGS: Mr. F. S. Worthy, Jr., listed himself
19
as a citizen, which is a good occupation.
2Q ___ _
MR. W. S. WORTHY, JR.: Mr. Chairman, ay name is
21
ford Worthy. I am a citizen* Z also am interested in
22 this over -rail project. Z am a real estate consultant
23 in this area. I have advocated good planning practices
ever since Z have lived here. Z have been a supporter
25
of the Urban Land Institute, which is a national
316
-------
78
organization, that advocates this type of long-term
2 '
planning for I have been a member or supporter of
g
that for probably 20 years* and I believe this is
perhaps* in the 17 years that X have lived 18 years
in Wake County this is perhaps the sost significant
/*
long-range planning effort that X have seen take place.
7 Xt is with great interest that X watch this plan
o
cone together because X grew up on the coast* X have
g
watched a lot of areas that didn't have the availability
10
of a central sewer* and there has,recently been publicity)
concerning like Ihompson Beach, that is one that comes
12
to my mind* and X think what Thompson Beach could be
13
had they had the planners that would think ahead like
14
the planning people in our Wake County are doing at
15
this time to try to make preparations for growth rather
16
than trying to fight there.
17
Ever since X have lived in Raleigh, most of the
18
activities that have occurred in the way of utilities
19
expansion, it seems to me that over the years, our city
20
has had a good history of planning ahead for water, but
21 i
X don't know X can't say the same about sewer.
22
X think we have planned ahead for sewer when we
23
saw septic tank runovers. I happen to have a small
24 1
interest in a piece of property in the general area
25
that will be involved here in the Crabtree watershed.
317
-------
79
1 I have an undivided half interest in a septic tank,
2 and the septic tank works extremely well in dry weather.
3 Z feel like that my neighbors the neighboring property
4 to my property, his septic tank doesn't work quite as
5 well as mine, so I am getting some of Ms runoff. I
6 think this is the real key.
7 Now, I have worked hard to help Hake County acquire
8 some of these dam sites* and I think that the flood
9 control is of an extremely high priority. But, X think
the highest priority is for us as a cosntunity to take
advantage of the opportunity of planning ahead and going
12
ahead and doing this sewer system now while the develop*-
"* raent is spare .
14 X commend the EPA for such a comprehensive report*
ha a real estate consultant, X write reports and X know
16
that to put together a package like this it takes a lot
17
of doing, and X think you have been extremely meticulous
18
in trying to do a good job, and X consaend you for that
19
and X hope that you will I think it is a good compro-
20 <
ma.se.
21
There are always extremists on either side, some
22 people that would like to have started yesterday and
23
run full speed ahead, and others that would like to
postpone it and postpone it and postpone it to death,
and X think the time has cone now while we have an
318
-------
80
1 opportunity to have participation between the county
2 aad tha state and this federal government to do this
3 project, X think the time has come to do it now.
'
4 We have talked about it long enough.
5 Mfe. BRIOQSi Thank you, Mr. Worthy. Mayor Fred
"S^f
6 load. Town of Gary.
*
7 M&TOR FRKD BOHD
-------
81
1 solve that problem* so we ar very anxious about this,
2 IBS are indeed anxious about It*
3 Another area that we are trying to work on that ha*
4 I think, a bearing here is that we are trying to develop
5 some recreational facilities in joint venture with Wake
6 County at one of these lakes. X believe it is Lake fend
7 3,
8 This i a beautiful lake and the water is fine, but
Q
we are concerned that if w don*t get this sewer installed
that th quality of thist water, because of' the surface
water cotsingf into that lake, can be detrimental and
12
probably not of any great use for recreation.
13 I think this would be true of other lakes in the
area, So* we are anxious about it. We are concerned
about it and we would certainly hope that we aove
16
expeditiously to the completion of this project.
17
How* if Mr. Blara may present you a very brief
18
stateottsnt, Z would appreciate it.
19
MR* HRIGGS: Okay. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Charles
20
Klaa, director of planning.
21
CHARLES II . RLAM: Mr. Chairman, X would like
22
to take this opportunity to thank the Environmental
23
Protection Agency, on behalf of the Town of Gary, Horth
Carolina, for providing us a means to comment on the
25
Praft Knvironraental Xnpact Statement.
320
-------
2
1 Daring the review of the Impact Statement, a number
2 of items were found to conflict with policies and
3 planning processes adopted by the Town of Cary* Z will
4 address these items in the following statement as they
5 relate to sections outlined in the Environmental Impact
6 Statement.
7 Item ones The Town of Cary has adopted a future
8 land development plan through 1990, This plan is
9 presently being updated by the use of watersheds as
10 planning units. These watershed planning units will
11 help develop criteria for the following items*
12 A. Urban runoff controls for each basinj
13 B. Development restrictions for each basin; (these
14 restrictions will enable the town to plan for each basin
22
without overloading any one basin with more density than
16
it can physically support.)
17
C, Transportation and sewage outfall planning is
18
in progress at th time of writing;
19
D, School sites* recreation sites* open-space
20
and Greenway systems are being planned at the present
21
through each watershed and will be updated yearly;
The Town of Cary has adopted* by resolution*
23 the water and waste water master plan for Wake County,
Zf this plan is implemented as proposed* it will greatl
OR
reduce the effluent discharge into Crabtree Creek and
321
-------
83
1 its tributaries*
2 F. Tlw Town of Gary has adopted a 50-year Flood-
3 plain Ordinance and Erosion and Sedimentation Control
4 Ordinance. The Krosion and Sedimentation Control
5 Ordinance requires the impoundment of water up to a ten-
6 year frequency storm;
7 G. Surveys of construction rights-of-way for futor
8 sewage outfall lines have begun in each basin in the
g
upper Crabtree watershed.
The previously mentioned items will also
determine certain unique vegetative communities which
12
are desirable for use la proposed Greenway systems and
13
recreational uses*
Item number twos X would like new to comment oa a
part of the summary sheet in the Environmental Impact
16
Statement* (Page IV, Subsection B. Secondary, a,
17
Flooding), which the SPA states the followingt
18
Development of the upper Crabtree Creek
19
basin associated with the proposed project will
20
increase the probability of damages from flooding
21
in downstream areas. The completion of the SCS
An
flood control project is one method of metigating
no
this adverse impact. Grant funds shall be with-
held from the proposed project until all land
rights have been acquired for Soil Conservation
322
-------
84
1 Service control structures located within each
2 proposed service area, or until other measures
are taken, including bet not limited to chan-
4 ilisation, urban runoff controls, developmen-
5
tal restrictions, aad other land use modifica-
6 tions which will insure adequate flood control
as determined by the State of Worth Carolina,
8
7
the SCS, the CO1, and the BKU Grant funds
shall be withdrawn January 1, 1976* from the
proposed project if land rights are not acquired
for the SCS structures or agreement OB other
12
measures to insure adequate flood protection is
13
not reached,
The Town of Cary has implemented or is in the
process of implementing every item mentioned in the
16
previous statement. The Town, by zoning restrictions,
17
controls a major portion of all the land and watersheds
18
the upper Crabtree Basin.
19
In the near future, we will be extending our
20
extraterritorial zoning limits to encompass the
21
remaining basins. Planning for these basins is in
22
progress at the tii&e of writing.
23
Item Number threat Ml items mentioned throughout
24
the Impact Statement, such as septic tank constraints in
25
areas with poor soil suitability, geology studies,
323
-------
85
1 ground water supply and recharging areas, pollution
'""^
2 control for point and nonpoint sources of pollution,
3 additional water supplies for the town* participation
4 in the 208 waste water management plan* and controls in
5 the amount of runoff that will be allowed in each basin
6 in the future are at present underway or completed.
7 In sutonary, tine Town of Cary at present is pollutin<
8 Coles Branch because of an outdated waste water treatsten
9 plant located in the Coles Branch watershed. This
10 pollution eventually ends up in Raleigh and many other
i
11 municipalities water supply located in lower portions of
12 the Sense River basin.
13 The completion of the proposed Crabtree outfall
14 line will eliminate the need for operation of waste
15 water treatment facilities by the town of Cary and will
16
route all waste water to a modern treatment plant* thus
17
eliminating a great amount of pollution that is present! '
18
being discharged into Coles Branch and Beuse River
basin.
on
I strongly feel we have prepared for the responsi-
21
bility of controlling urbanization with th most coapre-
22 hensive planning processes known* I further feel we
23 can control any major impact from the proposed project
24 as they relate to land use and development.
25 If construction for the proposed outfall line were
324
-------
1 to begin tomorrow, by project completion, the Town of
2 Gary would have implemented each watershed planning
3 unit into policy and set development guidelines for the
4 annul
5 X would hope that this statement which X have
6 presented to you tonight will have a positive effect
7 on the proposed development of the Crabtree outfall
8 line. We in Gary desperately need a new outfall line
9 and have prepared ourselves in every way possible to
10 compensate for positive and negative effects that nay
v
11 be encountered.
12 Site future growth and development of Gary and much
13 of western Hake County is dependent upon the completion
14 of the Crabtree outfall line. Xt is, without question,
1S our number one priority and greatest need. Us in .-.
Cary stand ready to work toward the solution of any
17 problem that impedes completion of the Crabtree outfall
18 p*o;J*ct
19 X thank you, again, Mr Chairman.
20 MS. BRIGGS* Xs Mr. Smedes York here? Okay. We
21 call on Mr. Robert Giles for him to complete his state-
22 ment. Mr. Giles, you may take such time as you need to
23 complete your statement*
24 MR. SILKSi Thank you very much, Mr* Chairman.
25 X know the hour is getting late* so X am not going to
325
-------
8?
1 really read the rest of my statement* bat X will talk
2 from it and try to finish here in just a few minutes.
3 One point X would like to make in expressing some
4 difference of opinion with the Draft Impact Statement
5 really castes down to this. Z don't believe there should
6 be a halfway sawer line or a partway sever line or half-
7 way or partway flood protection,
8 Stow, I refer to the item in the Impact Statement
T
which reaches the conclusion that the line could go
partway up to serve the area in the vicinity of the
State Fairgrounds, the Riehlaad Creek basin* provided
12
rights to property for Structure 11 and Structure 25 are
13 obtained.
X don't believe that that is really a sound conclu-
15 sion, and X think the reason is this. Xf that line is
16
put up there, there is going to be a great deal more
17
development in that area than there would be otherwise*
18
and that development is going to contribute significantl
19
to the flood problem downstream.
20
X don't think there could be any question about
21
that. And the fundamental proposition that the Impact
no
Statement has already reached and to which X have
00
referred on ag@ 153 is further development of the
24 Crabtree basin should not contribute to the damage to
25
property and endangering of lives downstream* X think
326
-------
88
that is a good conclusion and one that should be stuck
A
with, adhered to and accomplished.
o
How, X am quite willing to assume that there is
a problem in the State Fairgrounds area and that the
State several state agencies are at capacity. How,
c
I would simply say that if this was the only problem
7
that we were taking care of, we wouldn't be running a
a
48-inch sewer line up that creek.
g
You would so something else* And that obvious
alternative probably would be to increase the state
facilities that are already there, pumping facilities
12
and lines, and send the waste water over the crest to
13
the Walnut Creek line*
14
The point is, even extending that line part way
15
up, the only basis for the justification is to take
16
care of future development, as X see it.
17
How, gentlemen of the panel, if a citizen down-
18
stream has got five or six feet of dirty flood water at
19
his place of business or in his home, his misery is not
20
going to be reduced one iota if he is told: "How, this
21
wasn't private development this time which added the
22
extra punch to this flood. This was your state govern-
23 a.
ment**
24
That is not going to help him one bit. So, X
25
would express a most serious question about that part to
327
-------
89
the Impact Statement and urge your reconsideration. At
2
Page 107, there is a. statement of estimated average
3
annual flood damages for just two areas, and the Hake
4
Forest Road, Farmers Market area, and the Crabtree Valley
Mall area, the estimated annual damage at 30 percent
6
development in the upper basin, with the 11 flood control
7
structures in place, is $1,9 million*
8
Now, just applying simple arithmetic, that comes
9
out, Mr. Chairman, to $19 million every ten years. Now,
10
we are just talking about two places there, and most of
11
that damage obviously would be sustained by businessmen.
12
Now, I would just like to ask a rhetorical question,
13
and that is whether the Chamber of Commerce has really
14
called this particular part to the attention of its
15
members and particularly those members there? $19 millicfn
16
in ten years? How, of course, all of that 19 could hit
17
in one year.
18
You know bow facetious and fickle floods are.
19
Sometimes the two five-year floods that you are supposed
20
to get at least five years apart* sometimes they come
21
within five months of each othere and X am just talking
22
dollars and cents on the same basis that I would assume
23
the members of the Chamber of Commerce are required to
24
deal.
25
I simply can't imagine that the members of that
328
-------
90
1 organization have read this report closely* or if they
2 have some question about it* to question those figures
3 and estimates, then they ought to come up with different
4 conclusions and say well, that is not right.
5 But* if anything* based again on the statistics
6 that X have been able to study on the matter, X don't
7 think those statements are overstated. Xf anything, X
8 think they are understated fox the reasons that X have
9 tried to spell out in raising the questions about the
10 adequacy of our present flood structure plan,
Mr. Chairman, X would like to make a few comments
12 on the aspect of the Impact Statement that has reference
13 to packaged treatment plants in the upper basin.
14 fhe Impact Statement seems to indicate and per-
15 haps correctly so that land development made possible
16
by a planned system of gravity sewer lines is likely to
17
be more orderly and present less problems than developmen
18
made possible by the so-called package treatment plants*
and that is assuming that the quality of the waste water
20
treatment is all right.
21
And, then, there seems to be soae indication that
22 if the major sewer line is not installed, then some
23 substantial development utilizing privately-owned package
24 treatment plants must be anticipated. Now* X question
25 that. As the Impact Statement notes at Page 71,
329
-------
approval for such package treatment plants is required
o
from the state office of Water and Mr Resources* and a
g
permit is required from the United States Environmental
4
Protection Agency.
Sow* even assuming that these proposals for package
c
treatment plants really measure up in terms of water
7
quality treatment and many of our speakers have
Q
indicated* and X am sure with good reason* that whatever
g
is done in that area is always going to be suspect
there is another consideration, and this is the main
point that I want to make* and that is* Is it conceivable
12
that the state agency and EPA would completely ignore t |e
13
devastating addition to the flood conditions that such
14
development would produce any more than they could
15
ignore such consequences produced toy development service^
16
by gravity sewer lines? X don't think so,
17
Because* if that were done* X believe that would
18
constitute a serious question under the applicable
19
statutes and regulations designed to protect the public
20
from adverse environmental impact* both for the federal
21
agency and the state*
22
There is very specific language in the federal
23
regulation which says that issuance of a permit is a
24
significant or can be a significant action and very
25
specifically says* as an example* that in considering
330
-------
I 1
92
1 the issuance of permits, the cumulative effect must be
2 taken into account. You just can't look at one little
3 old permit for one little package plant and say well,
4 now, this particular installation is not going to cause
5 a great big flood because if you issue a permit to one*
6 you have got to treat others on a similar basis.
7 I simply am suggesting and urging that you think
8 through that and do not include anything in your final
9 Impact Statement which seems to say we don't really have
10 to consider environmental impacts if we are talking abou
11 issuing permits because I believe you do* and I hope tha
12 you would*
13 A few summary observations. I think it is importanl
14 for all of us to understand the central and primary
15 factors that are involved in this proposed sewer line
16
project. I believe the impact statement sites facts
17
and figures that make it very clear, if there was ever
18
any doubt, that this project cannot, by any stretch of
19
the imagination, be justified on the grounds that it
20
would take care of an existing waste water disposal
21
situation* or an existing public health situation.
22 The facts and figures just don't bear it out. How,
23 I am not suggesting and would not for one moment question
24 Dr. Bethel's statements or conclusions that that is not
25 good area for septic tanks or good area for package
331
-------
93
1 treatment plants. I am saying that if you were correct-
n
ing what is there now to the extent that it needed to
o
be corrected, you would never do it with this particular
4 sewer line project, not in a million years*
For example, the Coles Branch Gary Treatment Plant
serves only about 500 of Gary's approximately 10,000
persons* Obviously* if that were the thing you were
Q
going to correct* you would tie that situation in to
g
Halnut Creek interceptor* Economics and everything
10 would point to that.
> thJ
J
Sxamplet She State Fairgrounds situation. If that
12
is the only thing you want to take care of* you wouldn't
13
run a 48-inch line up that creek basin. YQJI just
14 wouldn't. What would you do? Well, you would tell the
15
state you would put a little money in there and you
16
would fix up your facilities and another pumping station
17
increase your capacity, and shift it over the crest to
18
the Walnut Creek line where it is going now*
19
Yes* take care of those situations. I do not
20
argue against that* but I would argue against justifying
21
this project on the basis of taking care of some present
22
critical problem. On Page 21 of the statement, it says
23
the proposed Crabtree Creek sewer interceptor is designed
24
for a population in excess of 80,000. On Page 21 of
25
the statement, we are told that the interceptor,
332
-------
94
1 excluding the temporary population at the State Fair-
2 grounds and Carter Stadium areas, will serve a combined
3 present population of 1,000. One thousand versus SO.
4 Now, the citizens in the northwest community
5 sector are not, by any means, opposed to development as
6 such. Without any question, I think it is in the interest
7 of the future economic welfare of Wake County that we
8 have a great deal ssore development in this county, and
9 from the information available to us, it seems that
much of the upper Crabtree basin area is far more suited
to development than it is for agricultural use, and I,
12
for one, would not wish to see agriculture disappear
13
as a significant economic factor in Hake County, and I
would rather see extensive coanercial and residential
development take place on the land which is least suited
16
for agricultural purposes*
17
But, we do not want, and we cannot afford, the kind
18
of development which is haphazardly conceived just to
19
reap benefits for a few people, at the risk of countless
20
other citizens, and, I would suggest, at the risk of
21
undermining the future financial stability of local
22
governmental units in Hake County.
23
I think the day has passed when we can afford, if
24
indeed it ever made sense, to fling out sewer and water
OR
lines here and there and just assume that whatever cones
333
-------
95
to pass from those first steps will all just be dandy.
2
How, I know none of us subscribe to that statement
g
I made. None of us would say veil. I believe we ought
4
to do it* But, X would like to emphasize I think it
is relevant for purposes of this hearing, Mr. Chairman -f
g
we had the scrap to get this Impact Statement ever
1
written. It was an uphill battle, and I didn't get any
Q
support from the County Board of Commissioners, I can
tell you.
10
I didn't get any support from the Chamber of
11
Commerce. How, that is all in the past. I simply want
12
to try to pull this together to emphasize this point,
13
and that takes into account the conflicting interest,
14
the need for Gary to have a gravity sewer line so they
15
won't have to do a lot of expensive work on their
16
present system.
17
The need for the State Fairgrounds area, the need
18
for the other areas. The need that we will do what we
19
ought to do so that, in Dr. Bethel's term, we won't hav
20
to go around hanging our head in shame because of our
21
present sewage matters.
22
But, I think it would be wrong dead wrong to
23
go ahead with this project unless we do take care of
24
and I mean take care of the flood problem. It has
25
been 17 years. I don't know why we didn't get going
334
-------
96
1 back there in 1969* Hte had the bond money. Nothing
2 was done* apparently. X don't know why.
*
q
This report speaks ~ well, land value has gone op
4 and there is speculation. 2hat is disturbing. I don't
know why* X think the people in this county would
fully support the Country Board of Commissioner a if they
"7
know what is going on; if they are told.
o
X support the proposition that owners of the land
Q
here should receive just and fair compensation, not
exorbitantt speculative profits. And, as far as X know
not one case has been carried into court. And* in this
12
situation, the county has got eminent domain authority.
13 II
There is no reason for the county to agree to pay specu-
14
lative, exorbitant prices* unless a jury says so.
15
X would like to emphasize it is my belief that the
16
present County Board of Comissioners is the only one
17
that has really got behind this flood project and done
18
something and made a lot of progress this past year*
18
and that is why X don't think it is good to put on this
20
arbitrary cut-off date. X believe our present Board wi:
21
do what has to be done if they are given a chance* and :
22
believe the public will support them*
23
We are not asking that the State Department of
24
Natural and Economic Resources and the Environmental
25
Protection Agency do anything more than meet their own
-------
97
responsibilities tinder the law with respect to the
2
environmental features. We know that putting up flood
3
control structures, putting every one of them up and
4
patting in the sewer line, is not going to guarantee
5
that we will have nice* orderly development tip there.
6
You are not going to have it that way.
7
It is going to take some decisions toy local govern-
8
raent, county, the City of Raleigh and the Town of Gary,
9
and some of those decisions are going to be hard ones*
10
There again* I believe that we can have that kind of
U
decision in Wake County, and I believe it is what the
12
public wants and will support.
13
I think Mr. Adams raised a very interesting point
14
and one that X hope will be given consideration, and
15
that is, put in the sewer line, but just don't let
16
new development tap on. 1 would be very willing to
17
support that, provided it was clear that that
18
particular procedure and approach was fully justified
19
and would work. It may be well that a little special
20
bill introduced im the North Carolina General Assembly
21
and supported by all of the governmental units in this
22
county would make crystal clear that our local govern-
23
mental units have the authority to enter into that kind
24
of agreement with EPA*
25
Z am not suggesting that SPA put that restriction
336
-------
98
on because I am not sure you have got the legal autho-
2 I,
rity, bat you might have the authority to enter into that
o
kind of agreement where the county, other units involved*
4 I
commit themselves not only to EPA, but to the citizens
5
in this county as to what they will do.
c
Anyway, I think that is something that is worthy
7
of consideration* I am after and speaking for, on
8 j
behalf of our citizens, ade
-------
99
impact statement and tell the county they can begin or
2
cannot begin the project, and under what conditions ther
g
can begin the project, if they can
4
If there are no other statements to be made, then
the public hearing is concluded.
6
(thereupon, the hearing was adjourned at 10s30
7 o'clock p.m., March 13, 1975.)
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
338
-------
100
is to certify that the attached proceedings before
2 the Environmental Protection Agency in the matter of *
3
4
She Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the
Crabtree Creek Sewer Intersector
6
State Highway Commission Building* Wilmington
7 Street* Raleigh* Horth Carolina
8
9
10 was held as herein appears* and that this is the origins
11 transcript thereof for the file of the Agency
12
13
14
Susan Gay Hess /"' '
16 Official Reporter
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
339
.
-------
APPENDIX 12
WRITTEN COMMENTS
340
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
FOREST SERVICE
Southeastern Area, State and Private Forestry
1720 Peachtroe Road, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
April 2, 1975
r
Mr. David R. Hopkins
Chief, EIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Room 208 - 1421 Peachtree St., N. E.
. Atlanta, Ga. 30309
Dear Mr. Hopkins:
Here are U. S. Forest Service, State and Private Forestry comments
and questions on the draft environmental impact statement for the
Crabtree Creek, Ware County, North Carolina Interceptor Sewer Line
Project.
Project provisions to maintain a 10 meter (minimum) buffer strip
between Crabtree Creek and the sewer line R/W for erosion and sedi-
ment control and to conduct a vegetative survey of the R/W to
determine the least destructive routing of the sewer Iine are
commendable. However, we question the need to maintain the full
40 foot width of the R/W clear of trees and shrubs. As a minimum,
those trees along the R/W line which do not survive construction
damages (such as severance of lateral roots, soil compaction,
disturbance of natural drainage, the piling of dirt above tftee
root collars, etc.) should be replaced immediately.
To the extent possible, turns should be designed into long straight
segments of the line of sight along the R/W.
The project proposal points up the potential for multiple-purpose
use of the R/W. Multiple use of the greenspace is certainly most
desirable. However, attainment of the widest range of beneficial
uses of this natural environment without degradation, risk to
health or safety, or other undesirable or unintended consequences
as required by N.E.P.A., cannot be left to piecemeal, single purpose
planning. Therefore, we recommend that multiple use of the total
R/W (for hiking, bicycle trails, conservation education, etc.,) be
fully considered and incorporated in the project design and that
a fully coordinated plan for multiple use of the R/W be made a part
of this project proposal.
341
6200 -lib ( 4/74)
-------
Among stated benefits of the project are stimulation of the
rate of development and allowances for increased densities
in the project service area. Without a comprehensive land
use plan for the Upper Crabtree Creek Basin, how is the public
investment in the project and public concern for maintenance
of environmental quality safeguarded against unsuitable develop-
ment within the flood plain and possibly over-development in
portions of the basin?
This is a good Environmental Impact Statement. Thank you for
the opportunity to review and comment on it.
SI nee rely,
PAUL E. BUFFAM
Area Environmental Coordinator
342
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
P. 0. Box 27307, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone 755-4210
March 10, 1975
Mr. David R. Hopkins
Chief, EIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Room 208 - 1421 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Mr. Hopkins:
The draft environmental statement for Crabtree Creek, Wake County, North
Carolina, EPA Project C370344 that was addressed to the U.S. Department
of Agriculture on January 31, 1975 was referred to the Soil Conservation
Service for review and comment.
We have reviewed the statement and our comments follow:
1. Page 25, fourth paragraph, lines 14 and 15 should read;
" (Personal Communications, Mr. Robert Kirby, Soil Scientist, SCS, IPA
Wake County Planning Department, 1974.)"
2. Page 27, third paragraph, correct spelling of Chewacla Series on
third and seventh lines.
3. Page 5^, first and second lines should read; " Conservation
District. (Later subdivided into the Wake Soil and Water Conservation
District, Durham Soil and Water Conservation District, Orange Soil and
Water Conservation District and Wilson Soil and Water Conservation
District)--."
4. Page 55, first line should read; " Engineers. Table 6 shows the
available design data for the remaining structures."
5. Page 55, third and fourth lines should read; "To implement the
plan, the Crabtree Creek Watershed Improvement District was formed."
6. Page 55, lines 17 and 18 should be corrected to show structures
1, 13, and 22 are under construction.
7. Page 58. The SCS floodwater retarding structures alone will not
provide a 100-year frequency level of protection. The associated channel
work now being studied by the Corps of Engineers and the appropriate
land use controls above the structures must be added to provide protection
from the 100-year frequency flood event.
343
-------
Mr. David R. Hopkins 2
8. Page 88, third paragraph should read; "The original proposal
for high manholes has been changed to provide sealed, bolted-down covers.
Plans call for a vent which should be above the 100-year flood level as
defined by the SCS Flood Hazard Analysis of the upper Crabtree Creek basin."
9. Page 138, paragraph 1. The writing of this section could lead one
to believe that the Soil Conservation Service could and would build
structures 11 and 25 even if the land rights on 5A, 20A, and 23 were not
obtained. The Service would build structure 11 without the others.
However, the plan and design of structure 25 is based upon 5A, 20A, and 23
being placed. If structure 25 were built without these three, its plan
and design would have to be changed substantially.
Other comments are as follows:
1. Observations of current sewer line installations indicate actual
right-of-way use following standard construction practices involve con-
siderably more than a forty foot right-of-way to allow for proper water
management and erosion control where any cuts or fills are made in con-
junction with the installation of the sewer line. Adequate right-of-way
should be obtained to insure that stable cut and fill slopes can be obtained
during construction. Temporary and permanent surface water disposal
easements should be obtained in conjunction with construction right-of-way
easements to facilitate the management of surface water run-off from the
;==sewer line right-of-way during and after construction to reduce the cost
and improve the quality of the erosion and sediment control phase of the
project.
2. The use of the phrase "skirts around the SCS control structures"
does not exactly correlate with on-the-ground observations of the proposed
sewer line location and the location of the Crabtree Creek Flood Control
structures. On-the-ground locations of the sewer line and the existing
and proposed flood control structures indicate the sewer line will pass
through the flood control dams. This fact emphasizes the need for close
coordination of the dams. In the interest of both projects, it is
recommended that at least that portion of the sewer line under or through
the dam be installed prior to or as an integral part of the construction
of the dams.
3. Permanent stabilization of the construction right-of-way should
include appropriate shrubs and ground covers, as well as grasses, to
reduce long-term maintenance costs as well as erosion and resulting sedimen-
tation. The use of wildlife food-producing perennials for this purpose
would be desirable.
344
-------
Mr. David R. Hopkins 3
4. The inference on Page 146 that the urban run-off control incor-
porated in the Raleigh and Wake County sediment control ordinances will
provide a degree of flood control of Crabtree Creek is misleading. The
level of flooding that would occur with and without these controls would
be substantially the same for a storm of any appreciable significance.
These urban run-off controls are for the purpose of erosion control and
do not provide either sufficient storage or retention time to significantly
affect flood levels in Crabtree.
5. The report does not address itself to alternative productive
uses of the land involved in the sewer line right-of-way or the productivity
of the land area that will be indirectly affected by the installation of
the sewer line.
The Soil Conservation Service assists soil and water conservation districts
in technical phases of their program. If desired, consultive services
that are consistent with priorities for work established by the districts
are available from the Service in reviewing or developing plans for
controlling erosion during and after construction.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed project.
Sincerely,
Jesse L. Hicks
State Conservationist
cc: Council on Environmental Quality, 722 Jackson Place, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20006 (5 copies)
Office of Coordinator of Environmental Quality Activities, Office of
the Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250
K. E. Grant, Administrator, SCS, Washington, D.C.
Grady Lane, Director, State Soil & Water Conservation Committee,
Raleigh, N. C.
David L. Dixon, Area Conservationist, SCS, Raleigh, N. C.
Clyde S. Sawyer, District Conservationist, SCS, Raleigh, N. C.
345
-------
SAWEE 12 March 1975
Mr. David R. Hopkins
Page 58, last paragraph: "The Wilmington District of the Corps of
Engineers is studying Crabtree Creek from SCS structure No. 25 to
the Neuse River in an effort to reduce the remaining flood damages,
develop the recreational potential, and upgrade environmental quality.
The proposed project interceptor and the associated development
will affect this COE study by increasing the flows and stages that
must be accommodated. The Corps study allows for considerable
citizen participation through citizen committee and public meetings.
A list of problems, needs, and possible solutions has been prepared..."
Page 70, last sentence: "The CCCAC was formed as a part of the
public participation program Initiated by the Corps of Engineers
in their study of alternatives for Crabtree Creek between SCS
structure No. 25 and the Neuse River."
Page 105, last sentence: "The Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District,
has computed average annual dollar damages to existing downstream
development from flooding for conditions with and without future urban
development in the watershed and with and without the SCS control..."
Page 106, 1st paragraph: "...structures (Table 10). As may be seen
from this table, 80 percent development of the watershed would raise
average annual damages to existing downstream development from
$3.7 million to $5.7 million if the SCS structures were not built.
If the structures are built, then even with 80 percent development,
average annual flood damages are estimated at $1.9 million or about
half the damages under existing conditions without the SCS structures.
Table 10 also shows that the increase in average annual downstream
flood damages caused by 80 percent development is less with the
SCS structures than without the structures. ...Flood stages with
80 percent development of the Crabtree Basin with the structures are
shown to be three or four feet lower than with existing development
without the SCS structures."
Page 107, Table 10: Change the title to: "Existing Average Annual
Flood Damages Along Crabtree Creek from SCS Structure No. 25 to Neuse
River" (also make change on p. v). The following footnote would aid
in interpretation: "Existing average annual flood damages are those
expected to occur in any year over a 100-year period given the
probability of various flood events and the existing level of downstream
development."
346
-------
SAWEE 12 March 1975
Mr. David R. Hopkins
Page 136, 2nd paragraph: "The Corps... these dams. Under the present
conditions (existing development without SCS structures), average
annual flood damages to existing downstream development are estimated
to be $3.7 million. Completion of the structures would reduce these
average annual damages to $1.4 million, an average annual savings of
$2.3 million. However, an assumed 80 percent development of the
watershed after the structures are built would increase average annual
damages from $1.4 million to $1.9 million. This increase is $1.5 million
less than without the SCS structures. Adherence to land use..."
Page 137. line 9: change "elimination" to "reduced."
Page 137, lines 13 and 14: "area, or until other structural and
non-struetural measures are taken, including but not limited to
channel improvement, floodproofing. urban runoff controls,..."
Page 137, next to last line: "...agreement on other measures to
insure an equivalent amount of flood..."
Page 138, 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence: "These ordinances are designed
to prevent or minimize future development on the flood plain which
would otherwise tend to increase average annual flood damages."
Page 143, line 16: Change "existing" to "future development."
Page 146, 1st complete paragraph, 2nd sentence: "Since an urban runoff
ordinance has been passed, some of the increased damages assumed by
the Corps of Engineers due to future upstream development with the
structures as compared to existing upstream development with the
structures will be avoided."
Page 146, section d: Change "Channel Improvements" to "Downstream
Flood Protection Measures" (also make change on p. ii). Change
paragraph to read: "The Corps of Engineers (COE) is investigating
alternatives to control the remaining flood problem along Crabtree Creek
from SCS structure No. 25 to the Neuse River (Chapter II). This study
will provide the necessary information on the costs and benefits
attributable to various non-structural and structural measures
(Appendix 6) and the environmental and social impacts of each. From
this analysis a recommended plan will be selected to provide additional
flood protection."
347
-------
SAWEE 12 March 1975
Mr. David R. Hopkins
In addition, the Falls of the Neuse Reservoir is now tinder construction.
Removal of the words "proposed" and "controversial" used in describing
this project on pages 40, 44, 113, and 124 is suggested.
Overall, the draft EIS was thorough in its analysis and presentation of
the impacts of the proposed interceptor sewer line and clearly stated
the need for completion of the 80S flood-retardation structures as soon
as possible. Thank you for the opportunity to extensively comment on
this draft. My planning staff wishes to commend Mr. Bob Howard for a
job well done.
If you have any questions on our comments, please contact Mr. James 0. Waller,
our Crabtree Creek Study Coordinator (919-763-9971, ext. 550).
Sincerely yours,
PLEASANT H. WEST
LTC, Corps of Engineers
Deputy District Engineer
Copy furnished:
Mr. Timothy Atkeson, General Counsel
Council on Environmental Quality
Executive Office of the President
722 Jackson Place, NW
Washington, DC 20506 (5 cys)
348
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P. O. BOX 189O
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 284O1
SAWEE 12 March 1975
Mr. David R. Hopkins
Chief, EIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Room 208 - 1421 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30309
Dear Mr. Hopkins:
We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) on
Crabtree Creek, Wake County, North Carolina, EPA Project C370344, and
our comments are as follows:
We concur with the conclusion of the draft EIS that completion of the
Soil Conservation Service's (SCS) upstream flood-retardation structures
is necessary to reduce the existing serious flood problem along Crabtree
Creek in Raleigh. Additional runoff from future development of the
watershed should also be controlled so as not to further increase flood
stages and endanger property and lives in downstream areas. Immediate
action to facilitate completion of the SCS structures is imperative.
Only then can any downstream non-structural or structural flood control
measures be fully effective.
As shown by our flood damage estimates on page 107 of the draft EIS,
average annual flood damages to existing downstream development under
present conditions (existing development without the SCS structures)
are estimated to be $3.7 million. Completion of the structures would
reduce these average annual damages to $1.4 million, an average annual
savings of $2.3 million. However, an assumed 80 percent development of
the watershed after the structures are built would increase the remaining
average annual damages from $1.4 million to $1.9 million. Alternatives
to reduce the remaining $1.9 million in average annual flood damages
will be presented as soon as we have completed our evaluation of them.
We also note with interest that a multi-purpose project right-of-way
presents an excellent opportunity to commit flood-plain lands to the
Capitol City Greenway.
349
-------
SAWEE 12 March 1975
Mr. David R. Hopkins
In order to clarify the role the Corps of Engineers has in the analysis
and solution of the remaining downstream flooding problem along Crabtree
Creek, we offer the following suggested changes in the text for your
consideration:
Page ix, last two lines: "...each proposed service area, or until
other structural and non-structural measures are taken, including
but not limited to channel improvement, floodproofing,..."
Page x, lines 2 and 3: "...other land use modifications which will
insure an equivalent amount of flood protection as determined by
the State of North..."
Page xiii; "...Crabtree Creek Citizens Assistance Committee..."
Page 21, 2nd complete paragraph, last sentence: Crabtree Creek is
significantly longer than 20 miles from its origin to the Neuse
River.
Page 54, last two lines: "...and the need for flood damage reduction
measures below structure No. 25 is being restudied by the Corps of..."
Page 55, line 2: "...remaining SCS structures."
Page 55; Addition of the following paragraph to the bottom of the
page would aid in visualization of flood damage potential. "The
two largest floods on record occurred in February and June 1973 and
flooding along lower Crabtree Geek was extensive. According to Corps
of Engineers damage estimates, the two floods caused a total of
$13.3 million in residential and commercial property damage.
Page 57, SCS project map: The downstream channel modifications shown
on this map are those originally proposed by the SCS and are not to be
construed as measures proposed by the Corps of Engineers. The
alternative downstream non-structural and structural flood control
measures for Crabtree Creek are still being evaluated by the Corps
and will be presented as soon as the evaluation is completed.
Page 58, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: "Figure 16 gives the projected
flood stages as determined by the Corps of Engineers for four
conditions; existing development with and without the SCS structures
and 80 percent watershed development with and without the SCS
structures."
350
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P. O. BOX 189O
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 284O1
SAWEN-PP
21 April 1976
Mr. Bob Howard
EPA - EIS Staff
1421 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Mr. Howard:
This letter is in response to your request today for sending you the
latest damage estimates for our Crabtree Creek Study as soon as possible.
As I mentioned to you on the phone, the latest damage estimates are much
less than we had previously reported. The reason for the difference
is that a field check of the City of Raleigh topographic maps showed
that the maps were not accurate enough for our studies. The city topo
maps had been used by us to determine elevations of structures for use
in our damage calculation program. Subsequently, we conducted a field
survey to determine the actual elevations. The result was a drastic
decrease in the level of damages.
After a quick review of the January 1975 draft EIS for EPA Project
C370344, I believe that the only numerical changes that need to be made
will be on pages 106 and 107 of that report. I am enclosing corrected
copies of those two pages. Naturally, any of our 12 March 1975 comments
that you have incorporated should be adjusted to agree with these latest
dollar amounts. I trust that this information will meet your immediate
needs.
Sincerely,
2 Incl
as
M. DEPONAI III
Study Manager
Crabtree Creek Study
III
351
-------
FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION
REGIONAL. OFFICE
730 Peachtree Building
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
February 24, 1975
Mr. David R. Hopkins
Chief, EIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Room 208 - 1421 Peachtree St., N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Mr. Hopkins:
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact State-
ment for the construction of an interceptor sewer line to
Wake County, North Carolina, to service the upper drainage
basin of Crabtree Creek, EPA Project C370344, which was re-
ceived with Mr. Jack E. Ravan's letter dated January 31, 1975.
Our primary concern with projects or improvements that
affect land and water resources is their possible effect on
matters involving the Commission's responsibilities. Such
responsibilities relate to the assurance of reliability and
adequacy of electric service and the development of hydroelec-
tric power under the Federal Power Act, and the construction
and operation of natural gas pipelines under the Natural Gas
Act.
Staff review of this DEIS indicates that the proposed
sewer line should have no significant effect on any hydro-
electric project under the jurisdiction of the Federal Power
Commission. As far as we know, there are no existing and no
plans to construct bulk power transmission lines, hydroelec-
tric projects, or steam-electric plants in this area. How-
ever, any electrical transmission lines or natural gas pipe-
lines in a construction area should be protected.
Very truly yours,
very truly yours,
a^-^^^^-^
C. L. Fishburne
Regional Engineer
352 livi FEB251975
: i
-------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MAILING ADDRES
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
FIFTH COAST GUARD DISTRICT
FEDERAL BUILDING
43) CRAWFORD STREET
PORTSMOUTH. VIRGINIA 23705
5922
10 February 1975
Mr. David R. Hopkins
Chief, EIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Room 208
1421 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Mr. Hopkins:
The Fifth Coast Guard District has "no comment" to make concerning
the draft EIS on Crabtree Creek, Wake County, North Carolina, EPA
Project C370344. This proposed project is not expected to affect
any area where the Coast Guard has jurisdiction by law or special
expertise.
The opportunity to review this draft EIS is appreciated. Any future
environmental impact statments should be forwarded to the attention
of the Marine Environmental Protection Branch.
Sincerely,
jommanderl U. S. Coast Guard
Chief, Environmental Protection Branch
By direction of the Commander
Fifth Coast Guard District
353
-------
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, B.C. 20240
In reply refer t :
EGS
ER-75/105
Dear Mr. Ravan:
This Department has received and reviewed the draft environmental state-
ment for the interceptor sewer line, Crabtree Creek, Wake County, North
Carolina (EPA Project C370344). We offer the following comments for
your consideration.
Although potential adverse environmental impacts related to geologic
conditions have been given adequate consideration in the draft environ-
mental statement, we believe that the statement needs to more adequately
evaluate the impact of encouraging upstream development on the already
severe flood problem existing in the city of Raleigh. The area into
which the sewer is to be built is in the headwaters of Crabtree Creek
west of Raleigh. There is considerable development along the flood plain
of the creek through the city and its suburbs, which now sustain signifi-
cant damages during floods as frequent as those expected at intervals of
five to 10 years. Assuming that the sewer will encourage urban develop-
ment, we visualize that the flood problem will get considerably worse in
Raleigh. The upstream flood-control reservoirs being built by the Soil
Conservation Service are supposed to provide protection to Raleigh from
the 100-year flood. However, if the upstream urban development produces
the normal amount of sediment runoff, the protection offered by these
reservoirs may be transitory. We suggest that this matter be considered
in the environmental statement.
We commend the Environmental Protection Agency for the mitigative measures
which will be taken to protect the recreational environment of the area
immediately adjacent to the proposed project during construction. However,
the draft environmental statement lacks sufficient detail and clarity with
respect to several major recreational concerns.
354
-------
Mr. Jack E. Ravan, Atlanta, Georgia
We are concerned about the proposed project's potential impact on the
planned, partially funded, and partially implemented Raleigh Capital
City Greenway Plan. In accordance with the current Nationwide Outdoor
Recreation Plan, the Federal government will encourage the use of flood
plains, wherever feasible, for park and recreation purposes. The draft
statement notes on page ix that the Environmental Protection Agency will
withdraw grant funds from the proposed project on January 1, 1976, "if
land rights are not acquired for the proposed Soil Conservation Service
structures or agreement on other measures to insure adequate flood pro-
tection is not reached." Although the statement describes the history
and present status of the proposed SCS structures, and indicates that
the adequacy of "other measures" to insure flood protection in the
Lower Crabtree Creek Watershed will be determined by the State of North
Carolina, the Soil Conservation Service, the Corps of Engineers, and
the Environmental Protection Agency (p. 137), we believe the environ-
mental impact statement is inadequate in explaining the relationships
of Raleigh's Capital City Greenway Plan to the proposed project's
"secondary," or indirect, impact on future flooding in the area down-
stream of the proposed sewerline, namely the Lower Crabtree Creek
Watershed area. We have appended a brief description of the Capital
City Greenway Plan and its present status.
We suggest that the environmental statement include information and
a master conceptual plan map of the Greenway System as available from
the city. We further suggest that the Greenway System information be
considered in the determinations to provide grant funds for the pro-
posed sewerline project contingent upon "adequate flood protection"
on Crabtree Creek. Furthermore, it would seem that the current North
Carolina State, Wake County, and Raleigh municipal flood-plain ordi-
nances, together with Raleigh's participation in the emergency Federal
flood insurance program, provide some measure of insurance against the
increased "probability of damages from flooding in downstream areas"
(p. ix). The flood-plain ordinances and insurance program bear a
direct, beneficial relationship to the Greenway System plans. The
environmental impact statement should also explain what effects the
proposed project will have on the ordinances and insurance program
if the SCS structures are installed.
From the information provided in the draft statement, it is unclear
whether the proposed project right-of-way will require taking any land
355
-------
Mr. Jack E. Ravan, Atlanta, Georgia
from the William B. Umstead State Park. From the sentence in the draft
statement that "The 36-inch main serves the Upper Richland Creek Basin"
(p. 8), we conclude that the 21-inch force main itself will bypass the
park. However, the project will cut a 40-foot right-of-way (p. 87) and
figures 7 and 17 show the proposed project will cross Umstead State Park.
Umstead State Park was, in part, developed with Land and Water Conser-
vation Fund monies administered by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. If
the right-of-way is required from the park, it is possible that Section
6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act will apply. Under Sec-
tion 6(f), such park land converted to another use requires prior appro-
val by the Secretary of the Interior and, if conversion is approved, the
land taken must be replaced by suitable lands of at least equivalent
value. The impact statement should clarify if the proposed project will
require taking of park land and, if such is anticipated, the statement
should detail the impact of such taking on the existing recreation use
of the park and on the planned expanded recreation use of the park as
indicated by the current master plans for expanded recreational development
at Umstead State Park.
We wish to note that the poor reproduction quality of figures 2 and 3
in the draft statement makes it impossible to adequately comment on
the full potential impacts of the proposed project on planned
recreational development in the area.
We also note that the suspended solids content in the effluent from the
treatment plant is given as five parts per million on page 84 (last line)
but as six parts per million on page 123 (three lines from bottom).
We thank you for the opportunity to review this environmental impact
statement and hope that our comments will assist in the preparation
of the final statement.
Sincerely yours,
r ^.,, . , , Secretary of the Interior
Enclosure
Mr. Jack E. Ravan
Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
1421 Peachtree Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
356
-------
Capital City Greenway Plan
Raleigh, North Carolina
Brief Description
The locally conceived and proposed Capital City Greenway System
includes planned acquisition of the 100-year flood plain from Umstead
State Park to the Neuse River. In its entirety, the Capital City Green-
way System project basically proposes implementation of a metropolitan
Raleigh "greenbelt" following the metropolitan area's flood plains.
The Greenway System project proposes a "main stem" continuous green-
belt loop essentially following the Crabtree Creek and Walnut Creek
flood plains. Greenway System "penetrators," following the numerous
smaller urban tributaries to Crabtree Creek and Walnut Creek, will tie
into the central greenbelt loop. The proposed Capital City Greenway
Plan represents a nonstructural flood control method which has the
potential to provide the following benefits: highly accessible out-
door recreation to a fast-growing metropolitan population, buffering
of incompatible land-use zones, a humanly healthful and energy-con-
serving bicycle and pedestrian metropolitan transportation mode, main-
tenance of, or contribution to, clean urban air quality, reduction of
certain toxicants in storm-water runoff water pollution, sociological
neighborhood cohesion by linkage of community service facilities, and
intangible aesthetic values associated with a natural environment.
According to the data of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, much
of the 1,500-acre Crabtree Creek 100-year flood plain area is in a
natural state. According to consultations with the Raleigh Recreation
and Parks Department and with the Raleigh City Planning Department in
February 1975, the Greenway System's status is as follows. Local funds
in the amount of $350,000 are available for Greenway acquisition this
year. These funds are expected to be used for full acquisition of the
Lead Mine Creek Greenway penetrator on Crabtree Creek and of the Gar-
ner Branch Greenway penetrator on Walnut Creek this year. Local rec-
reation funds of $200,000 are budgeted annually for additional Green-
way acquisition in the next five fiscal years. The Raleigh Parks and
Recreation Department and the citizens' Greenway Commission are sup-
porting a vigorous program for Greenway flood-plain land donations.
Approximately 75 to 100 acres of the Crabtree Creek flood plain are
presently owned and developed for recreational purposes by the city of
Raleigh.
357
-------
In addition to locally budgeted municipal funds and private dona-
tions, sources of financial assistance to fully implement the entire
Greenway System nay include the following:
(1) The Land and Water Conservation Fund allocations.
(2) Contingency Reserve Funds from the Land and Water Conserva-
tion Fund.
(3) Special appropriation by the North Carolina State Legisla-
ture (this potential is under investigation by the city).
(4) Bicycle and pedestrian walkway grant funds per the Federal
Aid Highway Act of 1973.
(5) Federal revenue sharing funds.
(6) Block grant funds per the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974.
(7) Federal grant funds for acquisition of the flood plain for
flood control purposes per Section 73 of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1974.
358
-------
REGION IV
Peachtree Seventh Building
50 Seventh Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30323
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
GREENSBORO AREA OFFICE
2309 WEST CONE BOULEVARD
NORTHWEST PLAZA
GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA 27408
February 12, 1975
IN REPLY REFER TO:
Mr. Jack E. Ravan
Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
11+21 Peachtree Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Mr. Ravan:
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement
EPA Project 0370314+
Wake County, N.C.
Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing the proposal.
We have no substantative comments to make at this time.
Sincerely,
L B. Barnwell
' / / Area Director
cc:
Mr. Leo Zuber
359
-------
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Region Four
Post Office Box 26806
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
March 28, 1975
In reply refer to:
04-37.3
Mr. David R. Hopkins
Chief, EIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Room 208 - 1421 Peachtree Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Mr. Hopkins:
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Crabtree Creek,
Wake County, North Carolina.
We have reviewed the Draft EIS in terms of existing and future
planned highways. Except for the normal problems associated with
sewer line construction along and across highways, there are no
apparent conflicts associated with this proposal.
It appears, however, that the majority of the information concerning
transportation in Section TV. B. 4. "Community Services and Utilities"
was ommitted. In this section, p. 113 ends in a discussion of storm
water runoff, and p. 114 begins in the middle of a sentence dealing
with highways. The Final EIS should include the missing information.
Sincerely yours,
'
//U^<-
//
Tj/J. Morawski
Division Engineer
cc:
Chief, Environmental Dev. Div.,
Wash., D. C. (HEV-10) (1)
Council on Environmental Quality,
Wash., D. C. (5)
Office of Environmental Affairs,
US DOT, Wash., D. C. (TES-70) (1)
Federal Highway Administration,
Atlanta, Georgia 04-00.7 (2)
360
-------
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Cultural Resources
Raleigh 27611
James E. Holshouser, Jr. nn
Governor February 11, 1975 .
V30vernor Division of Archives and History
Grace J. Rohrer Robert E. Stipe, Director
Secretary
Mr. Jack E. Ravan
US EPA
1421 Peachtree St., NE
Atlanta, GA 30309
Dear Sir:
As stated on page 227 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
on Crabtree Creek, Wake County, North Carolina, this office would like
to have an archaeological survey of the area prior to any construction.
We are requesting this survey because archaeological sites are known
from the vicinity and because they are found in the same ecological
situations which will be impacted by the sewer.
Until such time as this survey is performed by a competent,
professional archaeologist, this office would have to comment adversely
upon the project.
Robert E. Stipe
cc: Ms. Catherine Cockshutt
Dr. Stephen J. Gluckman
>;;. "tf v'Ai'T
t.t
361
-------
xtf
JAMES A.GRAHAM ^partmetti trf Agriculture
COMMISSIONER
April 3, 1975
Mr. David Hopkins, Chief
EIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Room 20&-1421 Peachtree Street, ME
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Mr. Hopkins:
As Commissioner of Agriculture of North Carolina, my department is charged
with the responsibility of operating the North Carolina State Fair. The
State Fair property is in the Richland Creek Watershed of Wake County. It
is my understanding that.you held a hearing in Raleigh on March 13, 1975
concerning the extension of the existing Crabtree Sewer Outfall up Richland
Creek. I would like to go on record as favoring the extension of this
sewer line. Currently a part of the sewage from the North Carolina State
Fair is being pumped over a hill into the Walnut Creek drainage area and
currently we are going to spend several hundred thousand dollars for an
additional pumping station which will enable us to better utilize the State
Fair property. However, the pumping station will not meet our needs
indefinitely.
In endorsing the extension of the sewer line up Richland Creek, I would like
to say to the EPA that this action on the part of Wake County will be very
beneficial to the State of North Carolina insofar as the State Fairgrounds
are concerned. As you no doubt know, we have many people to congregate at
the fairgrounds during fair week and we have to make temporary provisions
at this time in some of the areas of the fairgrounds for sanitary sewage
disposal. Even though we take the necessary precautions, we recognize this
as a potential health hazard which could be cured by the extension of the
Richland Creek sewer outfall.
Very truly yours,
JAG-.ji
/James A. Graham
'Commissioner
362
-------
Olmmtg
Department ot JSaturai &e*ource*
Room 612 Wake County Courthouse P. O. Box 1226 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
H. A. JACK- SMITH Telephone (919) 755-6838
DIRECTOR
April 4, 1975
Mr. David R. Hopkins, Chief
EIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
1421 Peachtree Street, N. E.
Room 208
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Re: Rex Gary Schmidt letter of March 27,
1975 relating to EPDA Project C
370334 Crabtree Creek Sewer Outfall
Dear Mr. Hopkins:
Mr. Rex Gary Schmidt of Raleigh, North Carolina was kind enough to
share with me a copy of his letter to you concerning EPA Project C
370334 in which he raised several questions concerning structure #11
of the Crabtree Creek Watershed project.
Mr. Schmidt is correct in that structure #11 has been relocated
to a new site different from that shown on the map used in the Environmental
Impact Statement. The new location was selected sometime ago and was
done to provide additional storage volume and to provide the best possible
utilization of all resources in the area while at the same time providing
the needed degree of flood control.
It is also true as Mr. Schmidt indicated that Wake County at one
point proposed to close the bridge over Reedy Creek Road (State Road
1775). Mr. Schmidt, Dr. Walton, operators of the North Carolina State
University Agricultural Farm and other residents did raise objections
to this proposed closing. As a result, we have entered into negotations
with the Division of Highways of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation to develop plans for elevating the bridge and keeping
the road open. Construction of a new bridge to keep Reedy Creek Road
open over Richland Creek will, of course, be an expense to Wake County;
an expense that we feel is justified due to the objections and the
apparent inconvenience that would be caused to residents in the area.
We trust that our actions in keeping the road open will mitigate
the objections raised by Mr. Schmidt and alleviate his suggestion that
there be a delay in granting of funds for the sewer outfall extension.
363
-------
P. 2
I wholeheartly concur with Mr. Schmidt that the individual tax
payers hopes and aspirations are indeed worthy of consideration in any
public undertaking. The Wake County Department of Natural Resources
attempts at all times to fully consider points raised by citizens
in developing the watershed project.
Should you need any further information pertaining to the plans
for structure #11, we will be pleased to provide them to you or to
ask the Soil Conservation Service to provide the information which
they have developed that would assist you in evaluating the project.
Sincerely yours,
H. A. Smith
HS/dc
cc: Mr. Vassar Shearon
Chairman, Wake County Commissioners
Mr. Stewart Adcock
Chairman, Wake Soil and Water Conservation District
Mr. C. S. Sawyer, District Conservationist
Soil Conservation Service
Dr. Russell Walton
Mr. Ernest Stone
Mrs. Ora Lee Jones
Mr. Marvin Moss
Mr. Bill Dunn
Dr. James A. Valone
Mr. Garland H. Jones
Mr. James H. Mills
Mr. Rex Gary Schmidt
364
-------
WAKE
Soil and Water Conservation District
OUR SOIL * OUR STRENGTH
P. O. Box 1226 Raleigh, N. C. 27602
Telephone (919) 755-6134
February 25, 1975
Mr. David R. Hopkins
Chief, EIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Room 208, 1421 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Re: Draft Environmental Impact
Statement, Crabtree Creek
Wake County, North Carolina
EPA Project C370344
Dear Mr. Hopkins:
We have reviewed the subject impact statement and would suggest that
two statements, both appearing on page 55, be corrected.
On page 55, in the first paragraph, the statement is made "to
implement the plan, the Wake Soil and Water Conservation District was
formed." Wake County has been part of a soil and water conservation
district since 1939. Initially part of the four county Neuse River
district, the Wake Soil and Water Conservation District was chartered
as a single county district in 1965.
The soil and water conservation district has been and continues
to be a sponsor of the Crabtree Creek Watershed Project. However,
we believe your reference is actually to the Wake County Watershed
Improvement Commission.
We would suggest that the first sentence of the first paragraph
on page 55 should read:
"To implement the plan, the Wake County Watershed Commission was
formed".
To be correct as of this date, the second sentence in the second
paragraph of page 55 should read as follows:
"Three structures, Nos. 2, 3, and 18 have been completed; three
additional structures, Nos. 13, 22, and 1 are under construction and
should be completed by the end of 1975."
365
-------
P. 2
We will appreciate your consideration of these corrections and
changes.
Stewart Adcock
Chairman
SA/dc
366
-------
TRlANGLi; J COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
100 PARK DRIVE P.O. BOX 12276 RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, N.C. 27709 (919) 549-8302
March 28, 1975
Mr. David R. Hopkins
Chief, EIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Room 208-1421, Peachtree Street,
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Mr. Hopkins:
RECEIVED
APR U i V375
N.E.
RE: EPA C370
The Triangle J Council of Governments has reviewed the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for the construction of an
interceptor sewer line in Wake County, North Carolina, to service
the upper drainage basin of Crabtree Creek. The Triangle J
Council of Governments, as the Council of Governments for the
area of concern as well as the 208 agency for the area of concern,
has the following comments relative to that Draft Environmental
Impact Statement.
1. TJCOG recommends that the subject project be funded as requested
by Wake County. The area to be served is one that holds promise
of considerable development in the next several decades. The
area will come under the urbanizing influence of Raleigh, Gary,
and the Research Triangle Park. Since soils in the basin are
not suitable for development for septic tanks or on-site water
supplies, adequate wastewater collection and transmission tines ,
must be provided.
2. The lower Crabtree Creek watershed must be protected from
flooding at all reasonable costs. This area is already heavily
developed and subject to flooding at present. The projection for
significant increases in urbanized areas in the upper watershed
indicates that significantly greater amounts of stormwater will
be released to the streams after development of the area.
Existing and proposed Soil Conservation Service structures are
projected to mitigate this problem, and assurances of this ,.
projection should be received.
3. Construction grant funds should not be withdrawn from the project
on January I, 1976, if all land rights for the proposed SCS
structures are not acquired by that date. Work should proceed on
APEX BENSON BROADWAY CARRBORO CARY
CLAYTON DURHAM FOUR OAKS FUQUAY-VARINA
GOLDSTON IULLSUOROUGH * HOLLY SPRINGS KENLY
MICRO 9 MORRISV1LLE PINE LEVEL PUTSBORO
RALEIGH ROLESVILI.E SAN'rORD SELMA
SMITHFIELD * WAKE FOREST WENDELL
CHATHAM COUNTY * DURHAM COUNii
LEE COUNTY . ORANGE COUNTY
CHAPEL HILL
GARNER
KMGHTDALE
PRINCETON
SILER CITY
ZEBULON
JOHNSTON COUNTY
WAKE COUNTY
367
-------
acquiring these land rights and so long as progress is being
made, EPA grant funds should remain available to Wake County.
k. The 208 Agency (TJCOG) in conjunction with the local governmental
bodies, plan to address the effects of urbanization and changing
land use on water quality. By the time the project is funded and
development of the area begins, we hope to be better able to make
wise judgments to allow the water quality of Crabtree Creek to be
maintained and enhanced.
V/e appreciate the opportunity to make these comments relative to the
subject project.
lomas W. Bradsha/, Jr.
i i rman
TWBjr:ns
cc: Vassar Shearon
Garland Jones
Clearinghouse & Information Center
James Mshar
368
-------
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Office of the Director
124 Riddick Building
North Carolina State University March 13, 1975
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27607
Telephone: 919:737-2815
Mr. David R. Hopkins
Chief, EIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Room 208 - 1421 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Mr. Hopkins:
You are to be congratulated on the quality of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for Crabtree Creek in Wake County, North Carolina. The following
comments are submitted for your consideration:
1. An understanding of flood probabilities and damages under varying
conditions of development and SCS structures would be more complete
if the assumptions and methodology utilized in calculations were made
available. The lack of reliable data makes one very uncomfortable
with estimates which must be taken at face value.
2. Your estimates of pollution from urban land runoff might be made
more site specific by reference to data from the Durham studies.*
3. Some of the text has been omitted in moving from page 112 to page 113.
It appears that page 114 should follow page 112 - but there is a break
in text from page 113 to page 115.
4. While I have no personal experience with aeration of sewage for odor
control, I would question whether this could be done effectively within
the limited space available in pumping stations. Even so, exhaust
venting would itself become a source of offensive odors. Would chlorina-
tion not be more effective?
5. Use of the interceptor sewer right of way for greenway and recreation
should be planned concurrently by local government.
6. On page 137, the alternative to acquisition of land rights for SCS
structures appears to be unnecessary. Why should there be an alterna-
tive? The structures are needed and the land must be acquired. The
"or until other measures are taken, " offers a way out of what
should be a commitment.
*WRRI-UNC Report No. 37, "Quality of Stormwater Drainage From Urban Land Areas
in North Carolina," by E. Bryan, copy available on request.
EPA Report, "Characterization and Treatment of Urban Land Runoff," by N. V.
Colston, Jr., Project 11030 HJP (in press - draft copy available at the Institute),
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA is comprised of the sixteen public senior institutions in North Carolina
369
-------
Mr. David R. Hopkins
Page 2
March 13, 1975
7. The Jan. 1, 1976, deadline for land rights may be too restrictive.
I hope that these remarks will be useful in the preparation of the final
environmental impact statement.
Sincerely yours,
David H. Howells
Director
DHH:em
370
-------
Gity Of
-------
Gitu Of 3{aleif>h
^ J O March 13, 1975
SYorth Qarolina
Raleigh City Council Position Concerning the Crabtree Creek Interceptor
Sewer Line, and Draft Environmental Impact Statement. EPA Project C370344
The City Council of the City of Raleigh, North Carolina supports the
construction of the Crabtree Creek interceptor sewer line provided this
sewer service extension is performed in accordance with the City Council
resolution adopted on February 7, 1974 concerning extension of water
and sewer services into Wake County. (This resolution is reproduced
on page 224 of the EIS.)
The City Council recognizes the need for adequate flood control for the
City of Raleigh and to that end strongly supports an on-going prpgram
by Wake County, the Soil Conservation Service, and other involved
agencies to complete all the planned flood control structures in
Wake County.
The City Council therefore takes the position that the City will permit
sewer service to developing areas in watersheds upstream of flood
control structures which are in place or under contract to be
constructed.
However, the City Council reserves the right not to continue to allow
any connections to the interceptor sewer line if, in its opinion,
Wake County, the Soil Conservation Service, and other involved agencies
are not maintaining a reasonable, on-going program of land acquisition
and construction of all the remaining necessary flood control structures,
The City Council feels this policy is needed as the installation
of all the planned flood control structures are necessary to provide
areas in Raleigh adjoining Crabtree Creek with flood protection.
Development upstream from Raleigh, which will be encouraged by the
sewer line extension, will cause increased flooding in Raleigh unless
all of the flood structures are installed.
The City Council feels that the Environmental Impact Statement should
reflect this position.
In addition, the City Council recommends that the following comments
and corrections be incorporated into the Environmental Impact Statement.
OFFICES-110 SOUTH MCDOWELL STREET POST OFFICE BOX 590 RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27602
372
-------
Page 2
Page No. Comment
6 If this project is not constructed the paralleling of
existing 30" Interceptor west of Blue Ridge Road and
Highway 70 will not be required.
38 The Walnut Creek wastewater plant effluent has been
relocated to SR 2551 and is greatly improved; it is not
causing considerable water quality degradation.
40 The Southside water plant is rated at 13 MGD and its
sources of supply are Lakes Raleigh, Johnson, Benson,
and Wheeler.
The Southside plant will be used continuously,
not as a standby facility.
The City contract with U. S. Corps Engineers is
for a maximum of 100-MGD supply from Falls Reservoir.
The City has no plans to withdraw any water from
New Hope Reservoir.
44 The Beaver Dam Creek Reservoir is a City of Raleigh
project. Contract awards were made by Raleigh in October,
1973 and is financed by the City and a grant from State
of North Carolina.
69 The request for change of the interceptor location was made
by the State of North Carolina and National Park Service.
88 The City of Raleigh objects to the vents above 100 year
flood unless they are installed underground and vent
above the contour elevation of the 100 year flood.
89 If proper aeration at the pump station is provided, there
should be no odor problems.
112 & 113 Pages are out of sequence.
117 Additional recreational facilities will be available
at the proposed Palls Reservoir.
124-125 The minimum natural buffer of 10 meters (33 feet) is
adequate but should not be reduced. The boundaries of
the buffer should be marked and the contractor required
to stay out of the buffer.
124-128 Erosion control measures suggested in the EIS are
excellent and should be part of the erosion control
plan.
373 - 374
-------
An erosion control plan is required for the project and
will be submitted to the State.
The vegetative survey proposal is excellent and should
help make the project acceptable to environmental groups,
Labeled incorrectly or is out of sequence.
hary, Jr./
:ager
pb/Th885-634
375
-------
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
OF RALEIGH-WAKE COUNTY
617 Macon Place
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
March 14, 1975
TESTIMONY ON THE EPA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON THE CRABTREE
WATERSHED
First the League of Women Voters would like to complement EPA
on the care with which the environmental impact statement was pre-
pared. Except for one item, the problem of odor (mentioned on
pages 89 and 129), we feel that the statement adequately discusses
possible adverse impacts on the areas through which the sewer line
will actually be built. The detrimental effects of odor problems
on established neighborhoods are great enough so that adequate pro-
cedures to prevent the problem before it occurs should be estab-
lished.
Most of our comments tonight are prompted by a concern for
those living downstream from the area to be serviced by the sewer
%
line. On page X of the environmental impact statement it says
that "Grant funds shall be withdrawn January 1, 1976 from the pro-
posed project if land rights are not acquired for the soil con-
servation service structures or agreement on other measures to
insure adequate flood protection is not reached." The word "or"
in the statement seems to make requiring the land rights optional.
We would recommend that "and" be substituted so that there would
be no confusion about the requirement.
The major obstacle to acquiring the land rights is that tfc^
increased development potential of the area has led to a sharp
rise in land prices. This puts the public in the position of
subsidizing private development in this area twice. First, it
376
-------
Page 2 - EPA Impact Statement Crabtree Watershed
pays for the extension of the sewer line and secondly, it then
must pay high prices to protect itself (in terms of flood preven-
tion structure) from the development that the sewer encouraged.
It seems to us that there shouldbe some procedure requiring either
outrightdonation or at least a way to acquire the land for the
dams at some reasonable price not dependent on inflated develop-
ment potential. People who have been waiting many years for con-
struction of the dams would feel much more confident if the county
were also required to have a schedule which would insure that the
dams could be completed before the sewer was built.
The final point to be realized is that even construction of
the eleven dams remaining in the project will not wholly protect
Raleigh citizens downstream from flooding if the area is rapidly
and completely developed or if the development itself is allowed
to cause sedimentation and runoff problems; Because of this we
recommend that the county prepare a schedule for land use planning
and zoning in this area. This plan could also time development
so that available resources (such as our water supply) would not
be threatened by a too rapid growth in demand.
We thank you for this opportunity to testify.
377
-------
OAK PARK - GLEN FOREST - DEBLYN PARK
Civic Association
Raleigh, N.C. 27612
March 11, 1975
Ref: EPA Project
Cra"btree Creek, Wake County,
Worth Carolina
Mr. David R. Hopkins
Chief, EIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Room 208 - 1^21 Peachtree St., N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Mr. Hopkins:
Our Association of more than 600 members wishes to go on record with
regard to this Project. First, we do recognize that EPA has done a com-
mendable and responsible job in the development of the EIS draft, especially
when one reflects on the county's land plan. Second, our Association in
no way wishes to deliberately interfere with or stop the logical develop-
ment of the Crabtree Creek drain basin. Third, our expressed concerns
regarding this Project are the result of deliberate and constructive dis-
cussions with our counterparts in the community and with professional
engineers and scientists in our Association.
We wish to comment as follows:
1. We endorse as logical, responsive and representative of our position,
the statement by Mr. Robert E. Giles, Chairman, Northwest Community Task
Force, as released at the Raleigh, N. C., hearing on 13 March 1975. We
request serious consideration of the concerns expressed.
2. Reference page 153 of the EIS which states: "Development of the
upper watershed must not be allowed at the expense of further endangering
property and lives in downstream areas." We fully endorse this EPA position
and urge that the Final Environment Impact Statement (FEIS) make every
assurance that this stated objective is met.
3. We take the position that: "Assurance" that the stated position
and objectives of this Project are met can only be assured if all required
schedule events and actions are formalized within the Project's writeup.
This we feel is essential to provide adequate confidence that the Project
will be successfully completed as originally planned.
378
-------
Mr. David R. Hopkins
March 11, 1975
Page 2
k. To insure that the Project is completed as noted above, we recom-
mend that the definitized plan include a stated set of conditions or
technical specifications as an appendix to the FEIS. This would include
a summary statement of the bases or reasons for each specification. In-
cluded also in the specifications would be provisions which would insure
that future necessary changes to the specification and plans be processed
and evaluated in the same manner as were the original. These specifi-
cations would be a part of the FEIS and would be binding to the partici-
pants in the Project.
5. We do not believe the impact of the future Raleigh-Durham airport
development has been shown in sufficient depth with regard to increased
surface drainage from that area.
We thank you for the opportunity to present our concerns and support
of your Project. We will be following up with additional inputs after
the 13 March hearing in Raleigh.
Regards,
J. R. Bohannon, Jr.
Chairman, Streets & Environment
JRBjrrgw
cc: Std. Distribution
Mr. Giles
EPA Headquarters
C. Commissioners
379
-------
SIERRA CLUB 2 Joseph LeConte Chapter
... To explore, enjoy and -preserve the nation's forests, waters, wildlife and, wilderness ...
March 26, 1975
Mr. David R. Hopkins, Chief
SIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
1^21 Peachtree Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
IH HE* Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Crabtree Creek, Wake County,
Sbrth Carolina IPA Project 03703^
Alternative touting to the Walnut Creek Interceptor (pp. 75-76)
Dear Mr. Hopkins:
He feel that the Northwest Community Task Force has raised some valid
questions in the attached supplemental statement submitted by Mr. Robert
E. Giles. We would appreciate jour further study and cost analysis of
the alternative routing to the Walnut Creek interceptor. Specifically, is
there a major cost difference in the proposed pumping station at Hichlaad
Creek and a pumping station to Walnut Creek? Also, what would be the
difference in the cost of annual Maintenance and operation of the pumping
station rather than using gravity flow? What areas of the upper water-
shed would be without sewer service if the Walnut Creek route were used?
Would use of the Walnut Creek line avoid the necessity for a parallel
line from Oak Park to the Crabtree Mall area? Looking at Figure 17, we
cannot see any developable area between the Oak Park section and the Rich-
land Creek pumping station. This is another reason we recommend your
further study and analysis of the possibility of using the Walnut Creek
alternative routing for the final Environmental Impact Statement.
Thank you very much for such a thorough draft US, and for your considera-
tion of our questions concerning the use of the Walnut Creek alternate
route.
Sincerely yours,
Anne Taylor, Chairman
North Carolina Conservation Committee, Sierra Club
Joyce Anderson, Acting President
Wake Environment
Martha M. Gardner
Crabtree Creek Citizens' Assistance Committee
oot Mr. Robert Giles
380
-------
Anne Taylor, North Carolina
Conservation Chairman, Sierra Club
4217 Laurel Ridge Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 2?612
Joyce Anderson, Acting President
Wake Environment
P. 0. Box 5524
Raleigh, North Carolina 2?60?
Ifertha M. Gardner
Crabtree Creek Citizens' Assistance Committee
4206 Azalea Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 2?612
381
-------
4206 Azalea Drive
Baleigh, North Carolina 2?612
March 26, 1975
Mr. David R. Hopkins
Chief, EIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
BOOB 208 - 1421 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Qeorga 30309
Dear Mr. Hopkins:
In reading the draft environmental impact statement for the Crabtree
Creek, Wake County, Horth Carolina EPA Project C370344, I cannot find
specific reference made to the inclusion of a vegetative survey which
includes plants other than trees. On pages 129-134, criteria and plans
for preserving the vegetation are outlined, and I was especially pleased
to read that it is felt that the ecotonal vegetation in much of the
project area meets the criteria listed on page 130. However, to ensure
that endangered or threatened (see definitions on page 93 of enclosed
copy of article "One-tenth of Our Plant Species May Hot Survive" from
the January 1975 SMITHSOffLAM magazine) plants along the project area
are located and inventoried, I strongly recommend that a survey of
plants other than woody vegetation be made.
I live in the upper Crabtree Creek watershed and am familiar with portions
of the area the sever line will traverse in which endangered and/or
threatened plant species are located. I am enclosing a copy of the
letter I wrote to the Coastal Zone Resources Corporation in which I
listed a few of these plants. The enclosed copies of articles or por-
tions of articles from the January 1975 SKTHSOKEAJ magazine give in
detail the reasons for preserving plant species in their natural habitat;
in short, not enough is now known about the potential of these plants for
possible future food, medicine, and insecticide/pesticide sources to
allow them to be lost to us. As the article "One-tenth of Our Plant
Species Hay Hot Survive" referred to above states "Imagine the loss to
mankind if we had destroyed the cinchona before discovering quinine's
antimalarial qualities," page 94.
Now that the "Report on Endangered and Threatened Plant Species of the
United States" mandated by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 has recently
been completed by the Smithsonian Institution and submitted to Congress
(see enclosed copy of the Sierra Club Sational Mews Report, Volume 7,
Mumber 10, March 21. 1975 "Around the nation"), I feel it is imperative that
a non-woody vegetative plant survey be made of the EPA Project C370344.
Could you tell me if such a survey is planned, and when? Are citizens
382
-------
Mr. David R. Hopkins 2 March 26, 1975
allowed to go along? If so, I would like to accompany the botanists. As
you know, the tine of year the survey is made is important, because the
foliage of sone of these plants disappears completely in the stumer and/
or fall. If this survey is made, will it be included in the final EPA
environmental impact statement for this project?
Thank you very much for a generally excellent draft EIS on this project.
Sincerely yours,
?)) < /
Martha M. Gardner
(Mrs. Robin P. Gardner)
Crabtree Creek Citizens' Assistance
Committee
Enclosures
383 ' 384
-------
ROBERT E. GILES
4216 OAK PARK ROAD
RALEIGH, N. C. 27612
March 2$, 1975
Mr. David R. Hopkins, Chief
EIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Ili21 Feachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Mr. Hopkins:
I wish to supplement my retnaks at the public hearing of March 13 on
the Grabtree Creek sewer line project, and ask that the attachment
be included in the record and be given full consideration in your
preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement,
In particular, I call your attention to the observations and re-
commendations concerning the alternative routing to the Walnut
Creek interceptor (pp. 75-76 of the Draft EIS).
The recommended wording appearing on page 9 of my statement of
March 13, already filed with EPA, would of course be applicable
to EPA participation in a revised project which eliminates that
segment of the interceptor line between Oak Park and Uinstead State
Park.
Our recommendation with respect to the alternative routing to
the Walnut Creek interceptor was arrived at only after further
intensive study and consideration of the Draft EIS, and consideration
of the best available information.
If you have any question regarding this supplemental statement of
views, I would be pleased to hear from you.
I wish again to express my appreciation to EPA for the fine work
reflected in the Draft EIS, for the conduct of the public hearing
on March 13, and for your further efforts in connection with this
matter.
Sincerely,
Robert E. Giles
attachment
585
-------
SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT BY ROBERT E. GILES
on
THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, CRABTHEE CREEK SEWER LINE PROJECT
Pages 63-6!? of Draft EIS Discussion of the Wake County "Plan of Action"
which is set out in Appendix 7.
The Final EIS should contain an up-to-date report on the
progress of the County (as of April 1, 1975) in accomplishing
the things called for in the County Plan of Action, compared
with the schedule of activity specified for the County in
that Plan.
Page 88 of Draft EIS Discussion of the width of the right-of-way and
a recognition that a width of 10 meters or less is possible and should
attempted in existing residential and other particularly aesthetic areas.
The Final EIS should make this a mandatory requirement rather
than a passing exhortatory observation.
Page 88 of Draft EIS Discussion on use of a "vent" in lieu of the unsightly
nigh man holes.
The Final EIS should provide that the vents will extend underground
from their connection with the sewer line, so as to emerge and
rise above ground at the right-of-way edge nearest the creek.
This would seem to be a simple and feasible measure which would
reduce the visual distraction which would result if the vents
(presumably small diameter pipe) rose several feet in the air
in the middle of the right-of-way area.
Pages 80 and 129 of Draft EIS Discussion of s*eps to eliminate odors.
The Final EIS should contain language to require measures which
would assure that there would indeed be no discernible odors,
especially where the line might run through developed areas.
Pages 75>-$6 of Draft EIS Discussion on the alternative routing to the
Lsting Walnut Creek interceptor.
The Draft EIS acknowledges that by expanding the lift capability
of the pumping station which is to be built west of Umstead State
Park, the wastewater from the upper basin could be pumped along
Reedy Creek Road to the Walnut Creek interceptor and thence to
the Neuse River treatment plant.
We take strong exception to the analysis and conclusions then
stated in the Draft EIS regarding this alternative.
386
-------
First, thgre is no explanation or justification as to why the
Richland Creek and Turkey Creek areas must have a connection
with the existing Crabtree Creek interceptor. Why, indeed,
should they?
Is not the answer clear, to accommodate future development in
those areas? And this, on the face of matters, is an inadequate
justification when the total circumstances are properly con-
sidered.
The specific question should be put this way: why install that
segment of a major interceptor sewer line from the Oak Park area
to the pumping station which is to be built west of Umstead State
Park? What is there in that particular area that compels and
genuinely justifies the installation of this huge interceptor
line?
Is it not true that if State agencies need additional capacity
for the State Fairgrounds area, the existing line and pumping
capacity to send the wastewater to the Walnut Creek interceptor,
from that area, can be improved?
Is it not true that without the proposed U8" line connecting at
Oak Park, the segment of the existing 30" line from Oak Park to
Crabtree Valley Mall and further downstream would not have to be
paralleled? That the justification for oaralleling the existing
Crabtree Creek interceptor applies only to a segment of that
interceptor well below the Oak Park area, a situation that is
completely unrelated to the proposed U8-inch interceptor line?
We strongly urge that your Final Impact Statement should, with
respect to this alternative, analyze and respond^to the following
points?
(1) How much savings would be effected by eliminating the
future necessity of running a parallel line to the
existing Crabtree Creek interceptor all the way up
to the present Oak Park termination?
( ) How much savings in money would be effected, and the
primary and secondary adverse impacts eliminated, by
cutting out the several-mile segment of the proposed
interceptor which would run from Oak Park to the
pumping station west of Umstead State Park?
(3) How much additional cost to expand the lift capacity of
the pumping station west of Umstead Park so that the
wastewater from the upper basin could be pumped along
Reedy Creek Road to the Walnut Creek interceptor?
({4.) How much additional cost to improve existing line and
pumping capacity to send the wastewater from the
State Fairgrounds area to the Walnut Creek interceptor?
387
-------
-3-
We strongly urge that your Final Impact Statement should, following
a careful analysis of all the relevant factors and giving appropriate
consideration to all the environmental factors, reach the following
conclusion in lieu of that set out in the last paragraph on page 76:
"This alternative, therefore, is indeed reasonable. It
would: (1) avoid a parallel line to the existing
Crabtree Creek interceptor for a significant distance
from the Oak Park area to a point downstream! (2) avoid
the tremendous expense of installing several miles of
sewer line from Oak Park area to Umstead State Park;
(3) avoid the significant primary adverse impacts of
installing several miles of sewer line from the Oak
Park area to Umstead State Park; (U) while eventually
requiring a parallel line to the existing Walnut Creek
interceptor (by about 1995) this expense would have to
be incurred in any event by the year 2020 or earlier.
"Therefore, the project should be revised to eliminate
the extension of an interceptor line from the Oak Park
area to the pumping station west of Umstead State Park
in order to qualify for Federal financial participation."
388
-------
RUSSELL C. WALTON. JR.. D. D. S.
2OOI CLARK AVENUE
RALEIGH. NORTH CAROLINA 276OB
TELEPHONE 834-5157
March 21, 1975
Mr. David R. Hopkins
Chief, SIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Boom 208 - 1421 Peachtree Street, N. B.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Sirs
I regret that I was unable to stay past the intermission
at the public hearing held at Raleigh, North Carolina on March 13,
1975 in order that I may speak my opinion concerning EPA Project
C370334, Crabtree Creek sewer outfall extension. I call your
attention specifically to the error of Mr. Jack Smith of the
Wake Soil and Water Conservation District who presented his
part swiftly and ambiguously*.
I call to your attention specifically to page 56, table 6,
and the accompanying project map Crabtree Creek watershed and
refer to Structure #11. I ask you to take note of this structure
as given in table 6 and on the map as it is lOOJf wrong.
I have been Informed that this structure has now been moved
as of the last thirty days to a position near the park boundary
of Urnstead Park. This involves about 35 acres of ray farm, and
results in the closing of Reedy Creek road 1650 as shown on the
map, to accomodate a sixteen acre^wa^'pool which would all but
cover the bridge.
Reedy Creek Road is the primary road to and from our place
389
-------
RUSSELL C. WALTON. JR.. D. D. S.
ZO01 CLARK AVENUE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 276OS
TELEPHONE 834-SI57
of employment for those of us that live along roads #1650 and
#1655. Considerable traffic along this road consists of slow
moving, heavy farm machinery which is incompatible with traffi*
moving along the only other longer alternate route, as we will
now be on a dead end road. I have asked to see a traffic study,
but naturally received only mumbo Jumbo. The closure of the
road will result in undue hardship for the people of our area,
and certainly this should be considered at this time. I have
called this to the attention of each county commissioner, but
I get only ambiguous answers and referrals, or no response at all.
I can assure you that flooding is one thing, but to have
your high and dry lands purposely flooded is another intolerable
thing. To have your farm and life's work taken to protect others
life work is also Just as undesirable from my point of view.
I feel that the change of structure #11 without a public hearing
as to the effects of closing of road #1650 and dead ending of
#1655, and the flooding of my pastures, certainly involves more
planning than has been given.
This plan unknowingly involves a very old graveyard that
has an undetermined number of graves that must be disturbed to
construct the dam and overflow as planned. The cost or feasi-
bility of this factor was never considered. Also, I have yet
to see any traffic study published as to the effects of closing
of route #1650.
390
-------
RUSSELL C. WALTON. JR.. D. D. S.
2OOI CLARK AVENUE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 276O5
TELEPHONE 834-3187
I urge you to delay any granting of funds until at least
this error of structure #11 has been considered seriously, and
the matter resolved rather than accept a casual "We will take
care of that later." I feel that the deadline established has
placed a state of panic among those few who are to receive tre-
mendous benefits from the project, and all they can think about
is to push it on through.
Certainly all responsible citizens are interested in orderly
development, especially when it comes to long term water and
sewer development for the county. I can assure you that pump-
ing for eternity would be much more cdstly than to run the sewer
along the creek right through the park. As you know, Uiustead
tipf-Hx*
is a natural area only about tare jyears old. To pump over the
hill for years to come will cost more than the whole park to
begin with.
A very close friend of mine, Mr. John C. Anderson, Wake
Farm Agent, was one of the most instrumental persons in select-
ing the location of the park. The park was located there be-
cause the land was absolutely worthless for anything else but
a park. It has about thirty-five to forty years growth on it
since its establishment. Structure #25 will change drastically
the nature of the creek and its surrounding low grounds even
more so than the establishment of a sewer right of way. After
all, #25 will ruin the natural creek for sure.
391
-------
RUSSELL C. WALTON. JR. D. D. S.
2OO1 CLARK AVENUE
RALEIGH. NORTH CAROLINA 276O5
TELEPHONE 834-5157
As for all the chatter to establish Greenways along the
sewer right of way, is only to invite vandals and hippies who
make tfiastead Park a doubtful place now to take your family. I
live adjacent to the park and it is shocking to see what goes
on. On a warm summer afternoon the park wardens are busy Just
keeping lovers off the tops of the tables, much less policing
the area. I canft keep them out of my pasture either. If my
bull had the same ideas of some of the present generation, he'd
be worn out before the cows come in season.
It's easy for these conservation club members to advocate
these greenways and beautiful idealistic parks along a right of
way, but it's hard to understand how they would be safe to be
near us as one can hardly walk down main street without fear
of getting slugged for his pocket change.
I feel that this whole project has had a number of idealistic
factors tacked to it to accomplish some things that require
long and serious thinking and consideration.
I again urge you to hold all funds and require that suit-
able planning be made to prevent such things as flooding to
prevent flooding and closing of public roads.
I thank you for the kind consideration to allow my input
into the project. The need for the Richland Creek portion has
long been with us as these facilities are already built and in
dire need of relief now. I however urge you to withhold these
392^
-------
RUSSELL C. WALTON. JR.. D. D. S.
2OOI CLARK AVENUE
RALEIGH. NORTH CAROLINA 276OS
TELEPHONE 834-5157
funds for at least another year to allow for orderly planning
of the Rlchland Creek basin at least. Haste makes nothing but
waste.
iperely yours,
11 C. Walton
393
-------
-
/'
&<;
* "
'
-------
395
-------
96
-------
March 29, 1975
Mr0 David R, Hopkins
Chief, EIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
1421 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Mr0 Hopkinsi
This letter is in reference to the public hearing on March
13t 1975 in Raleign, Nortn Carolina concerning EPA Waste water
Treatment Project C-370334 Crabtree Creek interceptor sewer
system, wake county, as covered in the Draft Environmental
Impact statement for this Project, EPA 904/9-75-001
We would like to draw your attention to the statement: made
on page 80 of the impact Statement that "Trenton Road may be
closed during construction since the Interceptor is projected
to run 400 feet down its center llnee" In addition, on page
87 the following statement occurst "The impact on traffic from
these crossings, excepting Trenton Road, is anticipated to be
slight and of short duration.11 The implication of these state-
ments in fact indicates that Trenton Road will be closed for
some period of time for the construction of the sewer line*
The location of the sewer crossing Trenton Road is indicated
in Figure 17 page 66* The sewer also crosses Reedy Creek Road
(east or 1-40); however, it is not clear whether the road will
be closed or the sewer line will go in under the bridge at
Reedy Creek Road and Richland Creek.
It should be pointed out that it is of primary importance
that both Trenton and Reedy Creek Roads are not closed simul-
taneously as no access to and from the places of residence of
those of us living on Reedy Creek and Trenton Roads (1655 and
1650) would be possible. If the construction of the sewer
line does not alone seal off the area, then the sewer construc-
tion in conjunction with the recent plans of the SCS to
relocate structure 11 north of Road 1650 willo The plans of
the SCS are to condemn Reedy Creek Road and tnen close it so
that it can be flooded. The construction of Structure 11
simultaneously with or before the construction of the sewer
line on Trenton Road would necessarily imply, then, that the
affected areas of Reedy Creek and Trenton Roads would be
completely inaccessible to the people living there. Access
to and from work would be denied usc This, of course^ is. ^.,.
an intolerable situation The planned temporary closing""*'
rfSf*. .FPA .|
APR ? .375
397
REQib;; v, ATLANTA, GA;
-------
Trenton Road for construction of the sewer line is indeed
questionable in light of the actions of the SCS in the past
thirty days first in relocating Structure 11 and tben in
planning the closing of Reedy Creek Road.
Since the SOS Flood Control plan was initiated in 1964 an
impact statement on the dam systems should be required before
action is taken,, Furthermore, we feel that the closing of
Trenton Road for any length of time for construction of the
sewer line whould be reevaluated in light of the SCS shift in
placement of structure 11 and the attendant closing of Reedy
Creek Road.
Thank you for your attention to this mattero
Sincerely yours,
Dr. Terry So Dunn
Dr. William L. Dunn
3713 Trenton Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 2?60?
398
-------
David R. Hopkins , ,
.Chief, EIS Branch , ,
Environmental Protection Agency
Room 208-1^21 Peachtree St., N*E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Sir*
In reference to the public hearing held at Raleigh, N. C.
on March 13 concerning EPA Project C370334, Crabtree Creek sewer
outfall extension, I call your attention to the error of Mr. Jack
Smith of the Wake Soil and Water Conservation District. I call
your attention to page 56, table 6,, and the accompanying -project
map Crabtree Creek Watershed and refer to Structure #11. I ask you
to take note of this structure as given in table 6 and on the map
as it is 100^ wrong.
We are now informed that this structure has now been moved
as of the last thirty days, and results In the closing of'Heedy
Creek road 1650 as shown on the map, to accomodate a 16 acre ;
permanent pool which would all but cover the bridge.
I urge you to delay any granting of funds until at least (
this error of structure #11 has been considered seriously.
Reedy Creek Road is the primary road to and from our place
of employment for those of us that live along roads #1650 and
#1655. Considerable traffic along this road consists of slow
moving, heavy farm machinery which is incompatible with traffic
moving along the only other longer alternate route. We have
asked for a traffic study, but have as yet to see it.
I again urge you to hold all funds and require that suitable
planning be made to prevent such things as flooding to prevent
flooding, and closing of public roads. - ' ,,
399
-------
David R. Hopkins
Chief, EIS Branch ' ',
Environmental Protection Agency i
Room 208-1421 Peachtree St., N.E. ;
Atlanta, Georgia 30309 .,'''"'
Dear Sir*
In reference to the public hearing held at Raleigh, N. C.
on March 13 concerning EPA Project C3?033^, Crabtree Creek sewer
outfall extension, I call your attention to the error of Mr. Jack
Smith of the Wake Soil and Water Conservation District. I call
your attention to page 56, table 6, and the accompanying -project
map Crabtree Creek Watershed and refer to Structure #11. I ask you
to take note of this structure as given in table 6 and on the map
as it is 100/& wrong.
We are now informed that this structure has now been moved
as of the last thirty days, and'results in the closing of Reedy
Creek road. 1650 as shown on the map, to accomodate a 16 acre
.permanent pool which would all but cover the bridge.
I urge you to delay any granting of funds until at least
this error of structure #11 has been considered seriously.
Aeedy Creek Road is the primary road to and from our place
of employment for those of us that live along roads #1650 and
#1655. Considerable traffic along this road consists of slow
moving, heavy farm machinery which is incompatible with traffic
moving along the only other longer alternate route., We have
asked for a traffic study, but have as yet to ,see it.
I again urge you to hold all funds and require that suitable
planning be made to prevent such things as flooding to prevent
flooding, and closing of public roads.
.'.' ''wo
-------
MR AND MRS. REX GARY SCHMIDT
1700 foftkM Road - Raleigh. N C.
27607
March 27, 1975
Mr. David R. Hopkins
Chief, EIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
1421 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Room 208
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Mr. Hopkins:
This letter refers to the public hearing held in Raleigh, North Carolina, on
March 13, 1975, concerning EPA Project C 370334, Crabtree Creek sewer outfall ex-
tension, Wake County, as covered in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
this Project: EPA 904/9-75-001.
An error exists in the accompanying map on page 56, Crabtree Watershed, the
location of structure no. 11 is different from that now being considered by the
Wake Soil and Water Conservation District, represented by Mr. Jack Smitho
A new site has been selected and is being developed downstream on Richland
Creek from that shown on the above-mentioned map. Its location will not only take
away excellent pasture land of my neighbor, Dr. Russell Walton, but in establishing
the new dam site to create a flood pool to control flooding downstream, it will de-
prive all of us living on Trenton Road (1655) and Reedy Creek Road (1650) convenient
access to and from our homes and property.
Further, these roads are in constant use not only by the residents but by the
State Farm for moving heavy farming equipment back and forth between different units
of the Farm. And the closing of Reedy Creek Road will create a hardship on its users,
double the mileage and driving costs of the residents and users, and cause a devalua-
tion of our properties. The 16-acre permanent lake proposed along with the so-called
100-year flood pool need not cause the closure of the road and the bridge over Richland
Creek; and if this is absolutely necessary, then mitigation should be provided through
construction of a new bridge sufficient to abrogate this problem.
I urge that there be a delay in granting funds for this project until further
study and reexamination of the newly-proposed Richland Creek dam structure and pro-
posed pool has been fully considered in the context as it affects those people living
on and using the roads,
I have spent considerable time and money in rebuilding and in the development of
my property for my retirement. I am a professional Wildlife Specialist, interested in
improving the environment and habitat for native wildlife. Recognizing that some land
must be sacrificed to provide downstream protection in case of flooding, I'm also aware
that the rights and interests of many individuals are sacrificed without effective miti-
gation. Planning is not always considerate, but often follows the most expedient manner
without considering individual taxpayers whose hopes and aspirations are worthy of con-
sideration.
401
-------
Mr. David R. Hopkins -2- March 27, 1975
Again, I urge that EPA withhold funds and approval of this part of the Crabtree
Project until mitigation required by this alternate dam site is considered in the
light of the economic and transportation impact on the residents and users of Reedy
Creek Road.
Sincerely yours,
7 '
Rex Gary Schmidjt
RGS/dw
CC: Wake County Commissioners
Wake Soil and Water Conservation District
Soil Conservation Service
Dr Russell Walton
Mr. Ernest Stone
Mrs. Ora Lee Jones
Mr. Marvin Moss
Mr. Bill Dunn
Dr James A. Valone
Other interested persons
402
-------
4312 Cak Park Road
Raleigh, N. G. 2?6l2
>'!arch 25, 1975
Kr. David R. Hopkins, Chief, KIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Room 208 - 1421 Peachtree Street, N. ::;.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Kr. Hopkinss
My wife and I would like to commend your efforts on the Impact Statement
and are very grateful that it was undertaken. We fully asrree with your
conclusion that "development of the upper watershed must not be allowed at
the expense of further endangering property and lives in the downstream
areas."
I'm sorry that I was unable to attend the hearing on I'arch 13, as I
was out of town on business. Fy wife did attend and took notes and gave
me a copy of the statement by Robert Giles. I would like to go on record
as endorsing his statement, and I reiterate the following recommendations
for the final Environmental Impact Statements
1. That the funds for the sewer line be withheld until the required
dam sites for protection asainst a 100-year flood have been acquired and
contracts for the dams have been let,
2, That if the sewer line is not built, permits for package plants
(with their attendant development) should not be issued until the
required dams are in place.
3. That the question of the rainfall frequency which is the basis
for flood control design criteria be resolved.
4. That the "other measures" (Page 13?) to insure adequate flood
control be fully defined. These "other measures" should be analyzed
thoroughly and should be shown to equal or surpass the dams in ability
to control floods prior to their being accepted. "Other measures" should
not become a convenient loophole.
5. That the 31.9 million average annual flood damage not be considered
acceptable. It seems that this is much too high a, level for the annual
average. Why not include, as a grant condition, the requirement for
county land use plans which would restrict development to a level yielding
no damage when the flood control dams are in place.
6. That the proposed sewer line not be tied into the city sewer line
until the dams are complete.
Thank you for your interest.
Sincerely yours,
Lloyd M. Hed^epeth
Copy to James Waller, Corpsof Engineers
-------
David a. Hopkins
Chief, Eis Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Hoom 208 - 1421 Peachtree St., N.E.
Atlanta, Ga. 30309
In regard to EPA Project C37033^t Crabtree Creek sewer
outfall extension, I call your attention to page 56, table
6, and the accompanying project map Crabtree Creek watershed
and refer to Structure #11. We have been informed that
this structure has now been moved, as of the last thirty
days, and because it has been moved, Reedy Creek Road will
be closed.
Reedy Creek road is the primary road to and from our
place of employment for those off w who live along roads
#1650 and 1655.
I urge you to delay any granting of funds until at
least this error of structure #11 has been considered,
and the matter resolved. I urge you to hold all funds
and require that suitable planning be made to prevent such
things as flooding to prevent flooding and closing of public
roads.
I have owned land on road #1655 for about forty years,
and the closing of Reedy Creek Road will seriously devalue
my property.
Sincerely,
404
-------
LAW OFFICES
BLANCHARD, TUCKER, TWICCS & DEN5ON
404 BRANCH BANK 8 TRUST BUILDING
P. O. DRAWER 30
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27602
TELEPHONE (919) 828-43S7
CHARLES F. BLANCHARD CARY OFFICE:
IRV1N B. TUCKER, IR. 119 W. MAYNARD ROAD
HOWARD F. TWICCS M3.3T Ch 24,1975 p. O. BOX 117
ALEXANDER B. DENSON CARY, NORTH CAROLINA 27511
THEODORE E. CORVETTE, JR. TELEPHONE (919) 467-0195
ROBERT A.HASSELL
CHARLES A. PARLATO
THOMAS A. EARLS
MARY CATHERINE HOLCOMB,
OF COUNSEL
Mr. David R. Hopkins
Chief, E.I.S. Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Room 208
1421 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Re: EPA Project C370344
Dear Mr. Hopkins:
We represent Mr. A. J. Harmon, who is the Volkswagen
dealer in the Raleigh area and controls the corporation
upon which the Volkswagen building and other buildings are
located.
Mr. Harmon has invested over $1,000,000 in the land
and buildings involved. The first time the Volkswagen building
was flooded, Mr. Harmon had no knowledge of the flooding
danger to the land.
The Volkswagen building and business was flooded in
both the June and February floods of 1973, and great damage
was suffered. As late as March 19, 1975, flooding of the
Volkswagen building was threatened to such an extent that
cars had to be moved. Fortunately, the flood on March 19 did
not materialize to the point that the Volkswagen place was
flooded.
Mr. Harmon has too much invested in this property
near Crabtree Creek to gamble on whether or not this project
will increase the flood danger.
Mr. Harmon's property is already greatly diminished
in value because of the other two floods, and one more could
be total disaster.
405
-------
Mr. David R. Hopkins
Page 2
March 24, 1975
On behalf of Mr. Harmon and his enterprises, we desire
to go on record as opposing the above-named project unless
and until all of the proposed dams on Crabtree Creek are
completed.
Very truly yours,
:;;>"-z ^ >>
^IRVIN B. TUCKER, JR.
IBT/cm
cc: Mr. A. J. Harmon
406
-------
o-*- CX_XT i-<_ c^L/v*-/ %/6<-^L-
- -"'- ^- ^ ^' - < ^
407
-------
L.
m C: IA ix ^ c r
v\
.
o u. r fc r ^ c/ cf ^ e 4-
, '" " ^
C-4 \ &_ \^, C ce Q /c, p r
O | , rf\ 4,
(~\s ^ k O'-J- ~> \ e A
SVW-t'/OC*'^ */|
/"5 A IDVA p 4. c f
LX ij
, 71 o .;/
c-/~ M r C. ^ / I
.
^-c-lcu e ^ //
408
-------
o
to
S
"X V
X
'X
"i. \
i> ^
r-
\
??
o r .
B
^
3
Cr
ev
Q_
O
O
"P
O
r
o
w
n t^,
Ai p O
D
-------
410
-------
TTfr
4 1*-?"
7
J U/
v; ^ ^1P / /
' '
-------
a^i
/ -;
-------
APPENDIX 13
FLOOD FREQUENCY DATA
413
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P. O. BOX 189O
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 284O1
SAWRM
11 April 1975
Mr. Robert B, Howard
Project Officer, Crabtree Creek EIS
Environmental Statement Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
1421 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30309
Dear Mr. Howard:
In reply to your 31 March 1975 letter concerning questions that have
arisen from the draft Environmental Statement on Crabtree Creek
sewerline interceptor, I have attached a "Procedure for Estimating
Flood Damages."
In addition, based on our hydrologic analysis of streamflow and using
flood flows measured by the U.S. Geological Survey, we have determined
that the February 1973 flood on Crabtree Creek was approximately a
10-year frequency flood and the June 1973 flood was approximately a
20-year flood. These flood frequencies should not be confused with
rainfall or storm frequencies the frequency of a flood is determined
not only by the amount, duration, intensity, and distribution of rain-
fall, but also by soil permeability, antecedent soil-moisture conditions,
land slope, and ground cover, to name a few factors.
We trust these comments will answer your questions.
us if you have any other questions.
Sincerely yours,
1 Incl
As stated
Please contact
E. G. LONG, JR.
Chief, Engineering Division
414
EPA-IMPACT STATEMENTS
3EDIL/21ZI
APR 1 6 1075
-------
Procedure for Estimating Flood Damages
Generally, the first step in evaluating a flood problem is the determi-
nation of the depth and frequency of flooding within the flood plain
area. Studies are made of historical flood records and computations
made to determine the stage-frequency relationship of floods. For sim-
plicity, this relationship can be converted to a stage-exceedence curve
which shows the number of times in a 100-year period one could reason-
ably expect flood waters to reach a certain stage or elevation.
With these and other data provided by hydrologists within the Corps,
flood profiles and flood plain maps can be delineated to determine the
extent of flood prone areas. These data are then turned over to eco-
nomic evaluation personnel. With these data, a study is made to
determine the damages that would occur within the flood prone area
from flood events of various sizes. This determination is made by an
actual field survey of all properties located in the flood plain. This
survey includes estimates of the value of real and personal property
and the elevation of each structure within the flood plain. With this
information and historic information on damages from flooding on all
types of property plus current estimates of repair or replacement
costs, a stage-damage curve for the study is developed. This curve
indicates the amount of damages expected to occur if flooding should
reach various stages or elevations.
The stage-damage curve and the stage-exceedence curve have a common
factor; i.e. stage. This enables the economist to combine these
curves into a damage-frequency or exceedence curve that shows the
number of times within a 100-year period that a specific level of damages
will occur. By determining the area under this curve, average annual
damages under existing conditions can be determined. This simply means
that by considering the changes of flood events occurring and their
415
-------
associated damages plus averaging these damages over a 100-year period,
we can state that, on the average, so many dollars in damages can be
expected to occur every year over the 100-year period.
416
-------
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COJVJJV1ESCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE
P.O. BOX 25379
Raleigh, N.C. 27611
March 8, 1975
Mr. nobert li. Giles
4216 Cak Park Road
Raleigh, N. C. 2?612
Dear Mr. Giles:
This is in response to your request for information on the recorded amount
of rainfall which fell in the Crabtree basin area in connection with the
floods which occurred May 11, 1957, February 2, 1973 and June 29, 1973.
You also requested the average 24-hour rainfall amounts with various re=
currence frequencies, for Wake County, as shorn in the United States
Leather Bureau Rainfall Frequency Atlas, Technical Paper No. 40.
Attachment No. 1 lists the average 24-hour precipitation amounts, with
various recurrence frequencies, for Wake County. This data was inter-
polated from Charts 43-49 of the Rainfall Frequency Atlas, Technical
Paper No. 40* The data in this Atlas is based solely upon past climata-
logical data and may be used as a working guide to practical problems in-
volving rainfall frequency.
Attachment No. 2 is a map showing the .measured amounts of precipitation
recorded by the National Weather Service for the storms of February 2, 1973
and June 29, 1973 in the Crabtree basin area. This data was recorded by
volunteer observers, some being employees or retired employees of the
National Weather Service and others who receive instruction in accurate
measurement of rainfall and who participate in the recording program of
the Weather Service, using Taylor plastic rain gauges with a 4-i^ch diameter.
The measurements at Raleigh-Durham Airport, Durham, V.ilsonville and Neuse
reporting stations were made by official Weather Service observers, using
8-inch standard gauges.
Attachment No. 3 lists the published climatalogical data preceeding and
including the storms of May 11, 1957, February 2, 1973 and June 29, 1973
for the Weather Service gauge at Raleigh-Durham Airport.
V 'ith reference to the storm in Kay, 1957, the climatalogical data form
attached is the only record of the National Weather Service on recorded
rainfall in,the Raleigh area, with which I ara familiar, since the volunteer
observer network was not set up until 1970.
\
Sincerely,
Thomas A. Zickus
Hydrologist
attachments
417
-------
Attachment 1
Rainfall frequency during 24-hour period -- for,Wake^ County area
as shown in Er.IiJFALL F^GCULiiCY ATLAS OF THE UwITLD STATL3 (Technical
Paper No. 40), published by the United States Weather Bureau, 19 61
Frequency Amount (inches)
1-year 3.0
2-year 3.6
5-year 4.75
10-year 5.70
25-year 6.50
50-year 7.25
100-year 8.0
Note: Technical Paper No. 40 is the most current Rainfall Frequency
Atlas, published by the National Weather Service, applicable
to Southeastern United States.
418
-------
-------
-------
LOCAL CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
U.S. DEPARTMENT Or COMMERCE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SERVICE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLIN4
NAT WEATHER SERVICE FCST CFC
JUNE 1973
Attachaent 3
li\
S.-J
r^
i
E
C ' S i
1 ' 2 '
1
2
3
4
5
6
I
9
10
11
12
14
17
18
23
24
27
30
73 '
87
89
87
87
86
84
84
83
67
87
83
85
83
85
35
95*
83
74
89
87
79
83
85
86
83
85
85
83
84
Sum
Avs
84.7
La:,-.,ce 5, ' , Lo^.-.ude 7i '
Te~re- '----e "F 0
5 5: ^i 3 S 3
*? < i < ~5
3 4,5,6
61
57
65
65
67
66
63
65
67
67
63
71
67
61 |
68
69
69
66
68
67
66
63
62
62
64
69
66
66
59
Sum
1965
Avg_
65.5
70
72 !
77
76 '
"J6 i
77
75
74
74
77
11
73
75
??
82*
76
70*
79
77
74
76
74
74
74
77
76
75
72
~2
0
5
3
3
1
0
0
3
2
1
3
-1
1
6
0
-6
2
0
-3
-1
-3
-3
-3
0
-2
-3
-6
57
61
65
65
66
; 66
67
6S
69
69
1 69
69
72
66
70
70
69
66
70
70
70
68
67
66
67
68
70
69
65
Avg 1 Dep Avg
75.1 1 "0.0 F67
Kumber of days
Maximum Temp T MimmurrTTemp
^ 90' t ^ 32" 1 -^ 32* L -^ Ov
1
0 | 0 0
c"
7 A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
_0
o"
G^
4
M ' 5 .
= 6 C
I \\
73 '
,7 ', E:.'.I-.IO-. grou-v)'
a''"er
i aa*e
Ja;l
.Laze
.lowing
8
:e re'.i; .
^r
107AM
9
5 , 8
7 |
12 8
11 ' 1 8
1 1 ! 1 8
12
10 1
9 1 8
91 8
12 2
12 2
U 1 3
13 1 3 8
10 [ 1 8
3 i a
12 1 6
17 1 3 8
11 1 3 8
5 1
14 1 3 8
12 23
913 B
11 1 8
9 23 8
9 1 8
92 8
12 1 3 8
11 1 3 8
10 1 3 8
71 8
Tots
-^
De
0 1 Numbe
3. Preeipi
s: 01 i
0
0
0 ,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
r of davs
tation
.ch 12
Season to date Snow, ice pellets
Total | Total > 1 0 inch 0
3462 441! Thunderstorms 11
Dep
69
Dep. I i-
.eavy tog J
lilear 3
C 5
P^^-or
In
10 11
0
0
0
0
0
T
.22
0
T
T
0
.10
.33
0
0
.12
.25
.07
T
.35
.47
1.15
T
2.90
0
T
0
1.55
1.87
0
Total
9.38
Dep
5.6E
i
!
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
43-
"
A', g
E.e "
fett
12
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29.
29,
29.
29.
29.
29.
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29.
29
29
29
29
29
29
63
60
66
71
71
67
68
74
72
65
62
56
49
55
58
45
34
44
61
68
66
61
56
52
50
52
46
35
30
44
r-'o
:=j ===--
Standard time used E4STERN 3t.N 13722
\Viad Sunshine
"5 ^ "5 "o
13 14
33
15
17
19
19
I19
20
17
R2
19
19
17
,24
01
14
18
04
01
02
13
11
21
07
04
02
05
03
17
24
r
1
2.0
2.0
3.3
6.0
6.0
7.1
. 4.3
2.9
6.0
, 5.2
5.2
' 8.0
; 5.2
: 4.0
3.1
6.6
4i8
4.9
2.5
3.7
5.9
1.5
2.5
4.2
5.5
3.7
5.7
5.2
3.4
, ;J ir-
15
i
7.1
5.2
, 8.6
7.3
] 6.6
7.5
5.3
3.3
6.6
5.6
6.2
8.1
6.3
5.8
5.3
7.8
9.2
6.9
6.5
6.2
4.9
6.8
5.3
3.0
5.*6
3.9
7.2
6.3
3.7
i Fa
I 16
12
12
13
: 12
10
14
12
12
12
g
13
14
9
12
10
14
18
11
13
18
13
9
21
9
12
14
10
>test
0
o
f5
17
36
?9
18
26
21
18
20
15
21
18
18
18
24
06
15
08
02
36
11
17
29
02
15
06
05
09
15
21
21
the month
2.2
li
18
9.1
12.2
12.3
13.2
13.1
10. 1
10.3
9.1
8.3
10.2
10.8
7.7
3,9
10.7
8.5
6.1
10.7
6.1
0.4
6,0
6.7
0,5
5.8
6,0
11.3
9,4
9.2
5.6
8.2
9.8
Total
^ .a
c "~
S 3
1 19
63
34
85
91
91
70
71
63
57
70
74
53
26
74
58
42
11
3
41
46
3
40
41
77
64
63
38
56
63
%
Date ?4 | Po?s o c -nontti
436,5! 58
^ Greatest m 24 hours and dates
Precipitation PSnow, ice pellet^T"
3.42| 23-2
Partly cioudy 14
L
HOURLY PRECIPITATION (Water equivalent
a
1
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
27
29
30
X
T
Th
1
T
.07 .
.01 T
.06 .
T
.62 S .
A M Hour ending at
2 3
11 .15
01
.02
85 .30
4
T
.03
5 S 7 8 9
T
T
T
.07
.18
T
.11
T
.04
T
T
T
Extreir'e temperatures fir the month May be the Ui=
of more than one occurrence
Be]o iero tempertture or ne^at've departure fro
^ 7(T at Alaskan stations
A!-.o on an fa-',er c ite, or dates
H,\u> fo? restricts v.s'bi l\ to (4 mi'e or les>
In the HourU Precroita'.io i table a",1 in co'j-nr
9 10 a -d 11 imi'cate;. an am, ,,-it too s-na 1
meagre
anc' with J..n
tn: n ,o;u
H id (li'ectn
Resultant i
an spee s
Fibres for
N^rth . l t? , O'.i
ar,' 00 - r-i
111 Col 17.
1-ri -late spe
-.n for too ,rtr
T-H 6 13. IS 11 ,\-,n \=i
T< ?-e those In T, n ch
"J i '.'<. : *eoni = ,T ','.
A vu-rt !;> t>,e " ,'"
= Ea',' IS - S.J--.27 - '>
em If rr* , upe'r- '
the v ], ,i o'o-i
"e=t 3u -' Nv-t
T
t
n
I
f.
T
10
T
11 12
T
T
1
T
T
1
~2 1
T
.55
lou
r
0
13
f-
S^ cover
Tenths
S = i~2
ff.? S
20 21
7
3
2
1
5
7
5
7
8
B
7
3
9
7
6
9
4
7
10
9
9
10
9
7
4
9
7
6
7
8
Sum
5
2
2
1
^
7
7
7
8
7
7
8
9
6
6
7
5
3
10
9
3
10
7
6
3
8
7
7
8
5
Sum
207~| 194
"""6 . 9 ' 6~i 5~
Greatest depth on ground of snow,
ice pellets or ice and date
0 1
i
22
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
30
n inches'
a
.05
T
Subscription Price: Local Climatolog
ical Data $ 2,00 per year includin
annual issue if published, forei
rrailing 75C extra. Single copy 2C
Eor monthly issue; 15c for annUc
suranary. Make checks payable to Dt
^artrfent of Commerce, NCAA. Send paj
mepts and orders to rational dinar
Center, Federal Building, Asheville
North Caro ma 288:1-
I
4 r
T
T
T
i
c!
1
c
'
1 certify that this is an official
publication of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Adminis tration , and
is co-piled frc-ri records on file at
the National Climatic Center, Ashe-
ville, North Carolina 283C1.
02;
!
1
j
1 M Hout ending at
5
T
.25
.08
.051
2.48
6
T
.32
.16
.41
7 i 8
.06
.05
.01
T
T
,08
T
a
.06
.03
10
.03
.06
T
1!
T
T
.07
.01
T
.03
.15
12
T
.10
.18
T
.01
T
1.40
a
1
2
3
4
5
6
B
9
10
U
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
30
SUMMARY BY HOURS
' AVERAGES ', Resultant :
1
j y Temperature '
_ , '-1 -~ , ~j j' ^ ' | " ij
^ >. C, ol Cj J j., .Cl , ' -5
""' "* , 3 A 0 x
^ G. - ' 2
|:|" Q
=.= i
o *^
A c i
01 5' 29.57', 68, 67 66 94; 4.5 18 2.7,
04 6 29.56' 67 66 65 96' 4,3' 19 1.4,
07 7 29.59 69| 68) 67 94 5.8! J9; i.i,
10 7 29.60, 77; 71, 63 75 7.3 25, 1.6!
13 8 29.53, 81 72 67 64 8.4 19; 3.0
16 7 29.54, 81; 72 68' 65' 6,9, is 2.6'
19 7 29.54! 76 71 69 79' 5.6, 15 2.T
22 7 29.57, 71, 69, 68 89' 6.1, 15 3.4
Director, National Clinalic Center
I'SJOXM SOAA AS',EVILLE
-------
t JHfr-o tT^B 1
V . ^
f>w\lv
, ' % i
\3K_j:
LOCAL CLiMATOLOGICAL DATA
U S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
RALEIGH, NORTH CSR3LIN1
NAT ^EITHER SERVICE PCST OPC
FE8ROA
RY 1973
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SERVICE
Latitude 35" 52'
-
' 1 ' 1 ' & 5 =
c i S , S < =i
12 345
1 "61 ^ 36 ,49 ~7
2 67* 52 , 60* IS
3; 54 34 44 ' z
4 59 29 44 2
5) 64 33 ; 49 , 6
6 57 34
7 53
8. 57
9 40
loi 33
U 35
12 40
13, 47
14 53
l!l 56
16J 41
17 33
181 40
19! 55
20 58
21 53
22 46
23 56
4 59
25 66
25 58
Z7 51
28 52
Sum
1446
36
46 ! 3
47 i 4
37 ] 47 ! 4
29 35 ! -3
22 26 -17
21 | 28
6*1 23*
12 | 30
33 43
39
23
14
12
20
24
34
29
26
26
29
45
32
28
Sum
794
~Kvg.
28. V
-15
-20
-13
0
43 5
32 ! -U
24 -19
26
33
41
44
38
41
43
48
52
42
40
40.0
-17
-6
-3
0
6
-3
-1
4
8
-3
-5
-Kjr
N
F
, s
< -t;
fi
40
57
34
27
3 2
33
37
41
15
13
6
5
10
L.,;-
^SJ
^
-
~
7 A
lo
i
21
21
16
19
18
16
30
39
37
42
35
-de
e -Ja>s
c
~
C
73
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
78 47' (( E:-is:.jn g.-j-j-'d'
V.'eatr.t. t.pes !? -.!' p,oc,v..a,.0[.
on da'-f.^ Oi .^^
occurrerce o-'l'-e,^
1 FO^ f o-
V.V.;r ce
1 !,.e peltsts r J-'- i^:1,'.
5 hail ! a! In
6 Gla e 1 07AH
? c^5:j,:3rm i
3 s^:k?p Haze f
8 19 If) I'.
0 T C
1 0 3.22' 0
0 T 0
000
0' 0 C
13 8 0 .20, 0
1
1
000
0 .18' 0
000
2 9 11 .45' 4.5
0'
0
33, 22 0' 1
43
17
14! 33
- 2
1
4 1
39
0
0
Q
0
2 8
141 27 0!
211 24
25
10
16
19
26
47
35
24
Number of davs
Maximum Temp. | Minimum Temp
0
3; 32'
1
PiH^
TS
21
27
24
22
17
13
23
25
[jTBtaLj
692
0
o
o
0
o
0
0
0
0
lota!
_P- E_.
Total Total"1
2809
0
Deo [ Pep
500
200
434 -i
A-..?
Lre
441
.-^T
r- s '.
12
29.36
29.35
29.31
29,66
29.69
29.63
29.72
29.46
29,61
29.56
29.76
Standa-d time used
W:nd
; Fastest
i.
- ?
-^~
13
09
13
27
22
22
01
36
la
36
02
01
29. 90: 01
1 0' 0! 29.87
T
0
0
0
.19 0
o! o
0 0
0 0
0 0! 0
000
0 Oj 0
1 3 8
148
Number of da
Precipitation
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
vs
71
> 1 0 inch 1
Thunderstorms 2
Hpavy tog X 2
ClearlO T^rtTy
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
01 0
,73| 0
.53 T
o! o
Total Total
5.50 4.5
Deo^
Greatest in
Precipitation
29.61
29,33
29.50
29.60
29,89
29,8:
29.73
29.60
c. S
- -
& 7-
L4
7.1
12.1
11.0
3.0
2.5
3.1
5.7
4.2
13.0
14.7
'
;, a.
< E
15
9.2
16.4
12.1
4.8
5.2
^ D.
K
IB
o
5
17
17 13
25
23
10
9
6 . 6) 12
8.1
8.2
13.5
14
16
17
16.3 28
12.6 12.8i 18
2.5
19' 2.6
12
?6
30
33
14
7.7
7.9
13.6
4.0' 9
5.0
10.1
9.1
14,1
12.3J 12.5
1.6
4.5
211 2.91 4.3
8
20
15
22
21
7
8
J5 4.4 5,9i 12
30 3.7
29.45; 29i 9.2
29.38
29,70
29.89
?7
30
13
29.72 06
29.67
29.89
. Fo
01
36
^331
5,3
11.2
10,4
5.9
3.0 5.2
5.2
5.9
4.7| 5.5
11.9
4.6
the
2.4
^lEEEJ
12.4
6.3
m o n
25
21
If.
15
1?
1?
17
9
th
17
27
28
22
28
01
16
35
02
36
03
15
13
29
30
33
07
27
27
31
28
S3
13
13
36
34
8.8J 28| 02
-
24 hours and dates
1 Snow.
ice pe
3.22 2 ] 4.51
Itets
.0
Date
EASTERN
Stir's! .r
W3A1, V3
72?-
* " ' |
e Skv cowr
T : Tenths
t3
C
*.
3
_is_ '
2.5
0.2
5,81
! L
X - '
~ ' ? ^
19 ' 20
24' 10
2, 10
55! 6
10.5' 100- 0
7.0
2.0,
B.I'
0.0'
0.0
0.0
10.7
10.31
0.0
0,7
3.8
67; 7
19' 9
76| 4
Of 10
0' 10
o' 10
99| 0
96' 1
38! 7
o! 10
7; 9
35! 2
11.0 100! 0
9.0
821 5
11, ij loo1 a
6,5
5.3
9.4
7.91
59- 6
47! 6
84 0
71 1
11.2! lOOl 1
9,7
0.0
0.0
11.4 1
Total
153.2
1 0 ) P?-s bit? m
86 4
0: 10
ol 10
00 0
% Sum
or 149"1
nlhTSvji
S3
5-5
X? c
2!
10
9
^
0
3
8
3
9
10
1
1
5
10
^
o
^
3
5
1
2
10
10
2
Sum
Greatest depth on ground of snow.
ice pellets or ice and date
5 1 11*
t-
a
22
1
i
^
5
t,
7
fl
9
If)
11
1?
n
1 4
15
in
1 n
1 9
?n
^^
23
?4
25
26
?7
28
cloudy 8 Cloudy 10 [
HOURLY PRECIPITATION i Water equivalent in inches!
Q
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
it)
19
20
21
22
71
24
25
26
27
28
A.
1
.01
T
2
,06
, -
T
S
3
.05
T
T
V
4
.13
T
T
.09
M Hour end
5 6
.24
T
.02
T
.42
.02
T
T
ng at
[7
.45
.03
T
r-j-
9
r t~T r~
.59; .85
10
.35
T
.07 ,06J .09
i
.02
* Fvt 3 MrtT-iir k f f-Vt th ^F h (h ! t-
of nw? thnn one otcurrenie
EeSo'V ?cro tcrsipf-aturo or nepntive depart'. cv from
normal
t S70" at Ali-km tatior'
r- Msn on .in earl'tr i'i( ' or rlnte-
X He, \\ fo" n^t'-i t- M-.il.i' n M '', -uilf m !"-,>
T In the fiJiirh fitvifiit.it".-; ta'-I .nui ir> t-M i-rn*
9, 10. ami 11 tfdit.-i-fi* an .I^A-HU t- ) -r-.a1' Vi
measure
anil wtth J.inii.u* fur coo i"?
Datj in rohi'nn- li U 13. 11 an! T> 'tt L. i-eii o: ^
.45
11 1 12
T
T
.10
T
t
.23' .03
.12 .12
1
.09
.06
T
T
.05
.05
i
J
J
1 F1 M Hour priding at
I 1 I 2
.Oil
T T
j
T
.03
.01
.06
3
T
T
.12
j
T
.03
.01 .01
4 1 5 6
T
,02
1
1
.02
.01
T
.05
.02
.02! T T
.05
.03
7
T
.07
.02
1
T j T
T ! T
819 10 1 11 12
T
T
T
T
.01
T
T 1 T
f
T
l i
i T
T
I
T
T
a
1
3
4
i
6
7
H
in
1 1
1 7
1 }
14
15
It,
17
13
19
20
?t
7?
24
25
27
28
Subscription Price: Local Climatolog-
ical Data S2 .00 per year including
annual issue if published; 75c extra
for foreign trailing. Single copy : 20c
for monthlv issue; 15C for annual
issue. Make checks payable to Depart-
ment of Co.-^n&i"
and orders to:
e, NOAA s^nd payments
National CLiraaCic
Center, Federal Building, Asbeville,
fi. C. 28301. Attn: Publications .
\Vinrf dirt Lti. 11^ ,ne thn-e l- ni ^n^r :' w (.',>, I certify that
Resultant \vi:vi is. il'e \e,t'i -un i.' v "i ! .'.f^' "- publication Ot
aiul s,p-*t?.l^ ii \u ed b' th ? r- -m't" ' ' ' - " -- ard A cr-o spheric
SUMMARY BY HOL'RS
; A v E n A o E s
p'i c
i Temperature ' fr^ j ^
! Resultant'
-*Jg^^^^ *1 0.^ !--H'5'-cj^''?-C
5^--5c;o~' ' ^.^'Li-^'^'-tj'T.v'Q,?!
oT '4~29V66 " 35"~32~ jT~ * V ~" ?7 51" T5"~572
04 5 29,65' 33 30 23 69' 7.1 Ol 2.5'
this is an official 07. 4 29,67 31 ?8 22 72 6.s' 35 3,0'
the National Oceanic 10 5 29,70 40 34; 2* 57 11.6. 34i 4,0,
Administration, and 13 6 29,65 4& 38 25 4S'l'.0*30' 3.!'
No^th^itf (^'-'^''"M -^ ''"^ i--r'v'T". ' 'v!.'*n is compiled fro-' records on file at 16' 5 29.61 49' ^0 25' t&J 10.6. ZS 3.l'
ii-i i-O - ritr- "ut"T /'V-' - "'.* ."-""-'1- > - e the N'atl nal Climatic Center, Ashe- 19 5 29.63 ^2' SD 26 5&' 7.2 3Q 1 . ,TV ' .---- ', - ^ \l ville, North Cc
rolina 28301. 22, A_29_,6&_ 38t _ 33__25_ 6 1| 8,^32 2 . 2_|
Director, National Climatic Center
USCO^I N'OAA ASHEVILLE
375
422
-------
'A C^MWt-*CS
!=! K,91.,CA(iCH }
' > /"
- JT .- - v v
Y/.V\ t
llvM
LOCAL CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
U.S. DEPARTMENT Or COMMERCE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SERVICE
La:.;-c!e 35 53' N Z-jr^.-Liie 7a 47' ,, El-r.a-or grv.-l" 434!' itar.da.d time used
R4LEIGH, N3RTM CS ni! 'i
NiT WE&THER SERVICE FCST OPC
JANU1RY 1973
EiSTERN
V.34S 13722
Wind
Fastest
mile
C S i ^ ! *" - <"3 , 0 Q Blowing , no-
1 i 3 ; 4 ' 5 ' B ' 7A 7B ' 8
In !
9 i 10
1 68 ' 52 ' 60 19 ' 56 5 0 1 0 0
2' 53 ; 37 45 ' 4 ' 22 20 0 0 C
3, 40 31 36 -5 29, 29 0 I
0 .32
4' 53 ' 36 , 45 4 : A 3' 20 02 8 0 T
5
6
7
U
y
10
n
12
13
15
16
I/
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
29
30
Jl
49 33 ! 41 -1 36 24, 0, 2 80 .02
47 ' 32
4l 0
28 | -14 13 37 o1 8 4t 0
26 I -16 7, 39| o'
23 -1'. 11' 37 Oi
13 29
36
26
30
36
44
29
27
42
43
29
24
32
41
31
25
13
24
Sum
887
[ 2876
44
39
46
-13 15 36 o!
2 27, 21 oi
-3
4
51 9
52 10
45 3
39
57
55
41
43
45
50
42
36
26
~?9.3
-3
15
13
-1
1
3
8
0
-6
-14
-2
27 26 0|
31 19i 0;
39 14 o!
49 13 o! 1
29 20l 0
19 26 Oi
48 6 0|
32 10 O,1
22; 24 o!
23 22 o!
31 20 oi
*3 151 0 2
3 0
3 0
2 0
2 T
T 0
0 0
11
C
0
0
Q
0
0
,7
5."
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0 0, Q
0 .16
c
;)
29,44
29,79
29,9!
29.57
29.51
29.64
29.91
2^.79
29.80
29.81
29.53
2"y,75
29.85
29.75
29.57
29.90
29.87
29.77
29.36
0 0, 0, ?9.42
0 0
0
0 .251 0
0 0
0
29.71
29.36
29.40
0 01 Oi 29.54
0 0
0 .10
0 .17
*1| 23 02 80 .73
24 29 Ol 1 T
10 37 0 00
18| 25 01 100
1 Total | Total i 1 Total
790 Ot Number of days 1 2,67
DejJ^ lAvgiDt'P 1 ^eP i Precimtation j Dep
-2.3T 26] 65| ,7] .5? Clinch .JiB^iUSS
0
Q
o
0
29.72
29.66
29.41
29.30
0, 29.31
0
0
Total
29,75
29,87
Fo
1 ^
?*
35
06
75
?6
33
03
1?
3ft
07
3 ,
]
12.51 IS
10.8
17
15.5 23
14.4
6.61 7.6
1.9
4.3
?3
17
3.91 8
6.0
20i UOi 7.2
19
?9
.8
11.9
23| 5.3
16
r
* ,*L ?9 .A5I23
Number of days | Total Total | 3 1 0 inch i Greatest in
Maximum Temp j Minimum Temp 2117 0' Thunderstorms Q' Precr
s-SO'jj <532' < 31>;" { --0' Dep Dfp ' Hfavy fo }
. . 0 j 4 I 21 I 0 41 1 ClearJi
Portly cloudy
iitauon
3.7
the
2.3
- 1
4.6
13. S
8.3
m o n
13
15
2 i
15
t h
I_2J. U
00
22
31
33
02
02
34
01
34
03
03
23
31
19
26
24
18
30
10
13
24
3Z
26
22
12
24
31
22
r~^~
18 19 20 21 L2
1.2
0,1
0.0
3,6
o.o'
1.*
o.o
0 ,ri
9.5
2.5
9,4'
7.7
8.3
9.3
5,0
10,0, 1
9.4
7,7,
1.4;
9.8
6.3'
4.1J
10.2 1
10.0
10.2 1
2.3
0.0
9.7
" 10.4 1
5iA
Total
I5LI
^rr^jyi'f. z3iL>2s!5! . -1
24 hours and dates
1 Snow
6 Cloudy
.4
ice^ellels
J 1
Or"
12 9
1 10
0 10
16 10
0 10
0 10
96 1
25 9
95 1
77 3
93' 3
5i 6
g.< ,
76 7
K; 9
97 3
62 8
40 8
00 0
98 I
oo; o
2! 10
39 7
0 10
94 2
00 3
J3t_ 7
* (Sum
^
9
10
7
v
9
9
9
10
3
9
2
5
5
3
7
,
5
6
2
7
1
7
6
3
I
6_
Sum
5-^A
atest depth on grouncT oT snow.
ice pellets or ice and date
. i
1
1
2
}
c
ft
7
a
9
12
i 3
15
16
17
18
?n
21
23
2^
25
26
?7
29
^o
n
HOURLY PRECIPITATION tW.iter equivalent m inches'
s
Q
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
?2
23
24
25
26
27
28
A M. Hour ending at
1
T
T
2 1 3
T
.01
.01
T .
T
, -
T
.03
.06
4
T
.01
.07
5
,01
.07
.01
6
T
.07
7
.01
.10
8
.10
1
T i T 1
.02
1
.07 .6*3! .03 ,02i .02
> 1
29
Evtier
: !
j
T T
_J_L
-,pts-nper i.wfi>rtti
m"ntt< Mn b
|
.07
9
10 T H
r
T
1
.05
.01
1
L .
ethe!, s!
n.,rna|
V1'' ,'> * ' ,,''1 ^''f10''1/ i
\ Ti!',\\ V< - n'>"', ' * V *' '', ' [ ' t >S ' ' tr ie < k' A
T In 111,- 1! ,;.rli Pr,\ rit.i:n.i t.r.,,"' a"J In (.A^-.r~
0 10 a.1,! 1 L)u\.c: let ," IP ,'."lt t,u, -i'.,'! ',,
n >> ^'^rt'
Tht se i. i'i :\>r ,kcr,'e (1 1, v,t em^ v ,tq J.,1. f,,r >.e.VM;r
Di'i in c1',,!^! ,i' 1'" ^ii ' ' '~> ',],, '- >' .n <
.06
.05
.05
.05
T
' 12
T
.07 .04
T
.03
.07
T
j
T
L_i
[ P M Hour endms at [~2
1 2 3)4
.04
.05
01 .04 .01
T
T ^
I
j
!
.04
T
1
.01
T
5
T
.01
.01
i i
i
6
.04
T
T
.02
7^T 8
. ,. |
.03
.01
.01
T
T
.01
T
.02
T
j-
I '
T ; -02,' .02' .10' .22 .231 .09; 7
' ' , ! !
i_J
Subscription trice: Local Cliir,--ttolog-
ical Data $2.09 per year including
an:iual it.sue if published; 75c extra
foi- foreign rrailing. Single copy:20v
for i?ont_hly is'jue; 15c for annual
issue. Make checks payable to Depart-
ment of Corranerce, NOAA; send payr'.ents
and orders to: National Clirracic
Cjnter, Federal Buildin;:, Asheville,
N. C. 288U1. At en: Publications.
,
1 I .
9
.02
T
.01
T
10
12
.01
T
T
11
T
T
.01
T
n
T
T
.01
d
2
3
4
5
A
a
9
10
U
12
13
15
16
1 17
lie
i 19
.08! ,02i T T
,0l|
.04 T
- J i
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
_L
SUMMARY BY HO'.'RS
A V n R A C K S | Resultant
^ "i'emper.iture ' ^ _j ; ' i
E?- S^.i ti."T^^>''^' '~
.~ "^ - * .- >~. ' " v LJ .Citj ^~ -^ - ^ ~
~~~ ^ 5 o ^ "* ' t, ' -^ u^'3'^^"''j 5.c*
~ -, ^ ~ ,^ Q. H Q^!? "J ,.^ ~ ^ V* ~~
" ' *J*l*^!^,d;ji-:' "
01' 5 29.65 36 33 27 71' 9.2 27 1 9
,.i.,,n.i'i...-. |,.i J,,. t ,W .',- ,-,;>/. 04 6 29,6't 34 31' 26 74 9.6 24 1 5
U n,f lir^'.-n- .!>>* th,i.o t ? vi,^ tn \\ ./ I1 '^ I certify that tn\s is an official 07 6 29,66 33 30 25 76 3.4 26 1 Q
Fi"' "C"i'- ''" ''' ''' '' -th'- ' '"' ' '' ' ' ' and "f"3*!'1121"1-0 A^"11 nistratior, and 13 6 29,64 47 39, 27 50 11.7' 29' 4 1'
Xm't'h le'W-'V'- '"n "^!'.'>." '- v iT ' ' -\'"- 1Sl co"3i-Le'1 fror- re ords on file at 16 6 29.62 '3 39J 2 ' 47 11.0' 23 3 9
'.>',H,<> - (-.i'-., \\r.^.!i -.' -.".' ,> ' -" - : .,,.'. ch :;atlonal Clir-at c Center, Ashe- 19, 5 29,65' *l' 361 27, 60' 8.5. 32 1 2
in C,,l 17 ,., -re, . r, ],-, .,r, .,..,, i>., . vilU, Xorth Caroli d 2'3b'0l. _22. _. S 29. 671 37_ 33, 26 66 ?.9 2S 2jJ.
tioadl CLirratic Conter
423
-------
U S DipARTMENT OF COMMERCE, WEATHER BUREAU
LOCAL CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
R4ISKH, !!. C. (Ealel jh-
uar 1957
Lahtuda 35 52 N Longitude 73 W ' W ElM-ahon (ground) W:5 ft, Eastern s andilrd hme used
1
&
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
3_L
iW
Temperature ("F)
|
g
3
S
a
2
84
75
60
56
66
69
77
81
82
81
70
82
86
87
88
87
77
86
84
62
?!
88
89
83
86
2
74
74
68
_25
2422-
/vvt^ , ,n_j
T .0 CT.lun.tti 7
3
g
'g
a
3
61
59
50
40
36
47
39
50
55
57
62
64
61
65
64
62
59
63
66
64
U
67
66
65
65
64
55
54
56
56
17Jt_
157*5 . J
8, 9 tad
8.
0
i
<
4
-3
W
g g I , ' r*
,32 o to
s. n o
a E
o o
D ^
S
73 ino
67 +4
55 H 8
48 -tt
51
58
58
66
69
69
66
73
74
76
76
75
75
75
73
68
67
78
78
74
76
73
65
64
62
67
ID th* H
-13
-6
- 7
+ 1
+ 4
* 4
0
<- 7
* 7
* 9
* 9
+ 8
0
+ 7
+ 7
+ 4
- 2
+ 8
+ 8 .
+ 4
-f 5
+ 2
- 6
- 7
-10
- 5
oudt PI*
& s
a 1
6
0
0
10
17
14
7
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
CtpltAtlOb
Precipitation ' Scow,
_ j Sie*t,
3) ,_,
1 r
^_ Ice on
2 *r a i ,
s i o ( crOimd
-5
3 3
trt T
1 "
o o- c
H O t Cfi
di
7=30 am
(In )
7 8 I 9
0 i 0
0 ! 0
o ! o
.0* | 0
0
1
0
0
0
0
4,33
.07
.01
.11
.04
0
T
0
.18
.21
T
.05
0
T
.32
.42
.06
0
0
.02
0
5.86
t*bl* ladic*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
in it ma
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ui too small to
Wind
" a
1
^3 *
s 1
Fre^a.nq drill I-
a lonqat peno-i of hoi
* Fastest observed one-minute wind speed and dlr4cti.cn*
j/ Iratioates xrst of mar than ona occurrence. aBaTo'uiTocoiV
Tha rain ^Aiich fell on the lith and 12th was the greatest 24 hour amount ever recorded at thla station during the month ot May, and was the cause of
one of the biggadt floods in many years along Crabtrae Creek in the city of Raieigh. The low tejaperatitre of 36 degrees on the morning of the 5th was
a new record lo* for that date.
HOURLY PRECIPITATION (In.)
Date
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
H
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
A. M. Hour ending at
"~TT~5~T 3
T
T
t
.03 .01 \01
.14 .08 .03
4 5 I 6
T I
T
*
.02
T T
T T
.01
7 I 8 9
TIT
T J1
T T
T
T
i T
31 f i
10 11 12
.02 .02
T .02 .03
.06 T
T T .01
P. M. Hour ending at
123
.13 ,08 .23
.15
.04 .01
.01 T
4)5 6
.14 .09 .13
.01
1
.08 .12 .08
.31
T T
7 \ 8 9
.10 .37 .83
I
.08
.01 .03
T
.04
.08 .03 T
T
10 \ n 12
1.25 .68 .25
.03
T T
T T .03
T
T
T T
Date
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
g
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
26
27
23
29
30
31
npt.on Pnce $1 SO per year '^eluding supplement a^i
3 copies 15 cents lor aach mostb, 15 cents lot annudl
l summary if published j Checks and money orders should be made payable and remittances and correspondence should
b sent to the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office. Washington
' 23' D C JRSC, Ashevills, IJ. C. 6-1657 225
424
-------
APPENDIX 14
ARCHFOLOGICAL SURVEY
425
-------
THE CRABTREE CREEK INTERCEPTOR
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Eugene J. Ham
and
Jo Watson
October, 1975
Submitted to:
Archaeology Section
Division of Archives and History
Department of Cultural Resources
State of North Carolina
426
-------
Table of Contents
List of Figures Page ii
List of Tables Page iii
Introduction ....... Page 1
Method ...... Page 3
Environment .. Page 3
Site Discussions
CCI. 1 Page 5
CCI.2 Page 7
CCI.3 .c Page 10
CCI. 4 -.- Page 12
CCI. 5 Page 13
CCI.6 Page 15
CCI. 7 oo . Page 16
CCI.8 Page 18
CCI. 9 Page 19
CCI. 10 Page 22
CCI. 11 c Page 24
CCI. 12 Page 27
Archaeological Perspective of Survey Page 28
Summary ... Page 29
Bibliography Page 32
Appendix .- Page 33-
427
-------
List of Figures
Figure I. Crabtree Creek Interceptor Sewer with sites indicated .. Page 2
Figure II. Site plan CCI.l Page 6
Figure III. Site plan CCI.2 Page 9
Figure IV. Site plan CCI.3 Page 11
Figure V. Site plan CGI.5 Page 14
Figure VI. Site plan CCI.7 Page 17
Figure VII. Site plan CGI. 9 Page 21
Figure VIII. Site plan CCI.IO Page.23
Figure IX. Site plan CCI.ll Page 26
428
-------
List of Tables
Table I. Temporal Affinity and Significance of Sites Identified Page 31
iii
429
-------
Introduction
This report covers the results of an archaeological surface survey
of the proposed Crabtree Creek interceptor and pump station as described
in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, EPA"project C370344 (1975).
The interceptor is 20.1 miles long. The pump station will encompass 38,000
square feet. The interceptor right-of-way is defined as being 50 to 33
feet in width (Ibid., Sec. d, p.87). Two archaeologists, Eugene J. Ham
and Jo Watson, were contracted to conduct the surface survey under a con-
tract drawn between Peirson & Whitman, Inc., Raleigh, N.C. and the
Division of Archives and History, Archaeology Section. In 1971 and 1972
the interceptor corridor was mapped under six survey contracts. These
maps can be obtained from Peirson & Whitman, Inc., Raleigh, N.C.
Two weeks, September 15 through October 1, 1975 were taken to conduct
the fieldwork involved in the archaeological survey. Twelve sites were
located as well as eleven occurrences of lithic debitage (see Figure I).
Sites were designated in order of their discovery with the prefix "CGI"
(Crabtree Creek Interceptor) identifying the project under which the sites
were found. The location of sites is given in feet from the nearest
permanent feature and is referenced to the nearest station and contract
number. Primary impact by the Crabtree Creek interceptor, as proposed,
would occur at three sites; i.e., CCI.2, CCI.7, and CCI.ll.
430
-------
CRABTREE CREEK INTERCEPTOR
SEWER
t -
I |MTti*Ct*tOft mtm >
-------
Method
The survey involved the surface reconnaissance of a 60 foot wide
corridor to locate any archaeological or historical artifacts or structures
that would potentially be impacted by construction and maintenance of the
Crabtree Creek interceptor. Roughly 90% of the survey line was situated
in forests and floodplains where the leaf cover was up to 6 inches thick.
Trowels and hand shovels were used to expose the surface soil. Generally
the soil was turned up to a depth of 3 inches in order to examine a greater
surface area. A second method used on the survey was to sample locations
where cultural material was uncovered to define sites and their relation-
ship to the interceptor. The sampling procedure, hereafter referred to
as bucket sampling, involved taking samples at measured intervals on and
off the interceptor. Enough soil was taken to fill a ten-quart bucket.
The bucket sample was then sifted through 1/4 inch screen mesh and the
artifacts removed. This procedure required a lensatic compass, measuring
tape, hand shovel, ten-quart capacity bucket, and 1/4 inch screen mesh.
Finally, a preliminary cataloging of artifacts recovered was under-
taken to determine the cultural affinity, and significance of the site.
Environment
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Ibid.) includes a detailed
discussion of the environment. Further, Dr. J. Stucky is presently con-
ducting a botanical survey of the Crabtree Creek interceptor. The following
432
-------
deals with the major environmental factors that influenced the survey.
The CGI runs through two basic topographic features. Roughly 60%
of the interceptor is located on floodplains. The greatest width of the
floodplains is 2000 feet and the average width is 60 - 100 feet. The
floodplains border small creeks and intermittent streams. The uplands
consist of steep slopes on large hills. Slope wash-erosion is evident.
The vegetation along the interceptor is secondary forest and pasture.
the predominant forest character is mixed pine and hardwood, though oc-
casional pine tree stands occur.
Floodplain soils are silty loams with a high clay content and appear
to be relatively young. Forest soils are sandy loams.
Gneiss and granite are the dominant rock types underlying the eastern
half of the interceptor survey line. The west half is underlain by Triassic
sediments. Throughout the survey area, the most abundant material was
quartz in the form of outcrops, veins, and cobbles.
433
-------
CCI.l
Location
The site is located 2,680 feet north of the State Route 1849 (Ebenezer
Church Road) bridge over Richland Creek, and 2,230 feet north of CCI.2.
The north edge of the site is approximately 535 feet south of station 76+
40
26 , contract IV, at the south fence line of Wake Academy.
Description
CCI.l is situated on the floodplain of Richland Creek. The floodplain
is currently used as a pasture. There is evidence that the floodplain has
been covered with at least 3 to 6 inches of red clay mixed with gravel with
resultant flattening of the relief. The limits of the site are irregular.
The densest area of cultural material is 33 feet by 15 feet (see Figure II).
Sampling Procedure and Results
Surface reconnaissance of the floodplain exposed scattered quartz and
rhyolite debitage, within 40 feet of the proposed interceptor. Subsequently,
ten bucket samples were taken across a portion of the floodplain. to deter-
mine the boundaries and intensity of the site (see Figure II). The results
of the 10 samples coincided with surface observations that a small localized
occurrence of pottery and debitage occurred 15 feet from the creek bank
(see Figure II and Appendix).
Significance
The only diagnostic material is three small potsherds, all grit-tempered,
434
-------
N
PASTUR E
DENS EST AREA
ARTIFAC T;8
8CA LE : (inch 20fc t
FIGURE II
-------
two cord-marked and one net-impressed. The pottery indicates a Woodland
occupation. The lack of any evident organization in CCI.l suggests trans-
portation of cultural material during the land-fill operation, noted in
the description of the site, probably from a broad high knoll overlooking
the floodplain.
Impact Mitigation and Alternatives
Due to the disturbed nature of CCI.l, no impact is anticipated on
the site. However, care should be exercised not to exceed the 40 foot
right-of-way, particularly on the west side of the interceptor.
CCI.2
Location
Site.CGI.2 lies 290 feet northeast of State Route 1849 (Ebenezer Church
Road) where it crosses Richland Creek. It is 190 feet northeast of Con-
trol Point #37, contract IV.
Description (see Figure III)
CCI.2 is located above the floodplain of Richland Creek. It is set
against a slope in an immature forest of mixed hardwood and pine.
The site is an old mill. The extant features of it include a fieldstone
foundation, a mill race with low stone walls and an out flow channel. A
1930's C.C.C. project has modified a portion of the mill-race area.
436
-------
Sampling Procedure and Results
Surface reconnaissance was conducted at this site. Measurements were
made of the extant structural features (see Figure III), and debris was
noted but not collected. Fallen wooden beams with machine-cut and wire
nails, tin roofing, window glass and rusting iron containers were scattered
over the area. A cogged iron wheel, 5.8 feet in diameter rested on top
of two of the fieldstone walls.
Significance
This mill is probably one of the thirty-odd mills operating in the
western part of Wake County during the post-Civil War period. Its founda-
tion and parts of the machinery appear to be in good condition. The
significance of this mill to local history will require further reserach.
Impact Mitigation and Al terna t ives -
The proposed interceptor will have a primary impact upon two areas
of this site - those portions of the mill race and out flow channel which
will be cut by the interceptor. Profiles should be drawn in both these
areas. Testing should be carried out east of the mill race area to deter-
mine what effect the proposed line will have on the stone wall structure.
The mill structure itself will be secondarily impacted. If the
proposed greenway plan (Ibid., p.89) goes into effect the mill will be
opened to public access and potential vandalism. This site could become
an important educational feature of the proposed greenway system. Archival
research should be done to determine its historical significance and ori-
ginal appearance. Further recommendations should be based on these findings.
437
-------
ui
u-
-------
CGI. 3
Location
CCI.3 is located 2,380 feet west of State Route 1849 (Ebenezer Church
Road) approximately 65 feet north of Richland Creek. The site is bordered
by Control Point #46 through Control Point #49, contract IV.
Description
The site is situated on a low level knoll overlooking the Richland
Creek floodplain. It is approximately 285 feet above sea level. The area
is characterized by mixed hardwood and pine forest vegetation.
Sampling Procedure and Results
Initially a surface collection of the area resulted in the recovery
of quartz debitage and one tool. Subsequently, the bucket sampling pro-
cedure was instituted. Eight samples were taken at CCI.3. The results
of the bucket sampling indicate that the focus of cultural material is
restricted to the knoll (see Figure IV and Appendix).
Significance
A potentially significant ceramic period occupation is suggested by
the material collected and its distribution over the knoll.
Impact Mitigation and Alternatives
No primary impact on CCI.3 is foreseen. The interceptor right-of-way
lies within the floodplain which defines the eastern limits of the site.
439
-------
X MATERIAL RECOVERED
<3> NOMATERIAL RECOVERED
-~* LIMITS OF SITE
EDGE OF KNOLL
SCALE: i inch = so f e t
FIGURE IV
-------
Care should be exercised not to exceed the 40 foot right-of-way, particular-
ly on the west side of the interceptor.
CCI.4
Location
CCI.4 is located approximately 800 feet from the north border of Mt.
Vernon School and approximately 800 feet from an intermittent stream that
is overlooked by the site.
Description
The site is situated on the top of a hill that overlooks an intermittent
stream flowing into Richland Creek. The area is a tree farm that has been
harvested within the last six months, destroying all evidence of the inter-
ceptor survey line. This made it impossible to determine the exact loca-
tion of the interceptor. It is estimated that the site is more than 150
feet from the interceptor.
Sampling Procedure and Results.
A surface reconnaissance of the area was carried out, resulting in
the recovery of one stone tool.
Significance
No diagnostic artifacts were found. Based on present data no temporal
affinity can be ascribed to this site.
441
-------
Impact Mitigation and Alternatives
No impact by the interceptor is anticipat
of the interceptor survey line suggests the si
pipeline excavation and maintenance.
id for this site. Reconstruction
te will not be affected by
CCI.5
Location
CCI.5 is located 1,480 feet northwest of the end of the existing access
road that begins at State Route 1654, just north of the north exit onto
1-40. The William Umstead State Park gate is at station 2+95, contracts
I and II.
Description
CCI.5 is situated on the side of" a steep hill overlooking the Crabtree
Creek floodplain and proposed Crabtree Creek interceptor pump station.
The area is covered by a mixed hardwood and pine forest.
Sampling Procedure and Results
Surface reconnaissance indicated that cultural material was present.
Nine bucket samples were taken at this site (see Figure V). Results of
the bucket sampling include quartz debitage and bifaces (see Appendix).
Material recovered was restricted to a steep hillside.
S i gn i f icanc e
No diagnostic artifacts were recovered and the steep hillside exhibits
442
-------
CGI . 5
X MATERIAL RECOVERED
NO MATERIAL RECOVERED
7 PUMP STATION
SCALE : t inch 50 f t
N
FIGURE V
-------
extensive slope erosion. No significant organization is present at CCI.5.
Impact Mitigation and Alternatives
No impact is anticipated at this site.
CGI. 6
Location
Site CCI.6 is located 700 feet southeast of State Route 1654 (Reedy
Creek Road) at the entrance gate to Reedy Creek State Park. It is 30 feet
northwest of station 58+00, contract III.
Description
This site appears to be the remains of a springhouse. A two foot
square concrete reservoir surrounds 'the head of an active spring bounded
on three sides by a narrow stone wall. The area enclosed is 15 feet by
15 feet. It is located at the base of a steep hill. The site lies within
a mixed hardwood and pine forest.
Sampling-Procedure and Results
Surface reconnaissance was carried out. At various points around
the structure the ground was exposed and examined for artifacts and structural
features. An iron wheel hub, barrel hoops, and a mason jar were among
the debris observed.
Significance
This site is not significant.
444
-------
Impact Mitigation and Alternatives
There will be no primary impact on this site. However, care should
be exercised not to exceed the 40 foot right-of-way, particularly on the
north side of the interceptor.
CCI.7
Location
CC1.7 is located approximately 2800 feet southeast of State Route
1654 (Reedy Creek Road) where it enters William Umstead State Park, Reedy
Creek Section. The southern end of the structure lies 80 feet northwest
4
of station 77+46 , contract III.
Description
CCI.7 is located in a mature hardwood forest. A fieldstone structure
is bisected by Reedy Creek.
Features of CCI.7 include two large fieldstone wall segments, a long
ditch running from the northern wall down to the creek, and two smaller
stone walls. A mass of tumbled stone extends from the northern wall along
the edge of the creek (see Figure VI ).
Sampling Procedure and Results
Surface reconnaissance was carried out at this site. The structure
was measured and existing features were noted. A cast iron wheel was found
on the southern bank of the creek below the stone wall.
445
-------
\\\\\
\\S\U\\\
DITCH
a:
<9
ui
z
O
I-
OT
0 *
z
n
co o
Ul
a.
o
CO
O
O
o
c
UJ
o
-------
Significance
Preliminary investigation indicates this structure may have been a
mill. However, the significance of this site cannot" be determined without
further historical research.
Impact Mitigation and Alternatives
The intercept and force main project will have primary impact upon
CGI.7. The proposed line will go directly through the main stone wall on
the southern side of the creek. Further research must be conducted to deter-
mine the significance of this site.
CGI. 8
Location
CCI.8 is 800 feet southwest of-.State Route 1650 (Reedy Creek Road)
where it crosses Crabtree Creek west of 1-40. The site lies between MH #25
and MH #26, contract VI.
Description
CCI.8 is located in a mature mixed hardwood and pine forest on the
south side of Crabtree Creek. The area has been extensively disturbed
by heavy machinery.
Sampling Procedure and Results
Extensive surface examination was carried out at this site. A number
of quartz and rhyolite bifaces and flakes were found scattered throughout
447
-------
the area (see Appendix). No temporal affinity could be assigned to CGI.8
as no diagnostic artifacts were recovered.
Si gnif icance
Due to construction activities in the area by a Soil Conservation
Service dam project most of the ground cover has been removed. Erosion
has been severe. It is doubtful that much information in this site can
be salvaged. It can therefore no longer be considered significant.
Impact Mitigation and Alternatives
No primary or secondary impact is relevant to this site based on its
disturbed condition.
CCI.9
Location
CCT.9 is 1,520 feet west of the State Route 1650 (Reedy Creek Road)
bridge over Crabtree Creek, west of 1-40. A Soil Conservation Service
dam survey baseline is 300 feet east of the site. The site is bordered
by the interceptor from 100 feet east of MH #27, to MH #27 to 70 feet north
of MH #28, contract VI.
Description
CCI.9;is on a rise above the floodplairi on the south side of Crabtree
Creek. The dominant vegetation is immature pine trees and tall grasses.
To the east of the interceptor is a plateau 3 to 5 feet higher than the
448
-------
upper limit of the floodplain. The soils on the plateau suggest that they
were artificially transported.
Sampling Procedure and Results
Cultural material was first observed during the standard surface recon-
naissance of the interceptor right-of-way. Subsequently, 13 bucket samples
were taken along the interceptor and plateau (see Figure VII).
Results of the sampling procedure do not indicate any clear structure
to the site. Quartz and rhyolite debitage are most frequent on the west
side of the site (see Appendix). Sampling on the plateau revealed that
the soil there was carried in as fill. Accordingly, the major portion
of the site may be covered at the present time.
Significance
The temporal affinity of CCI.9 cannot be determined based on the
available data. The proximity of CGI.8 to the plateau on CCI.9 (500 feet)
suggests that CCI.9 may be a remaining portion of a quarry site overlooking
Crabtree Creek.
Impact Mitigation and Alternatives
No direct impact to CCI.9 is anticipated by the Crabtree Creek inter-
ceptor. Care should be exercised not to exceed the 40 foot right-of-way,
particularly on the southeastern side of the interceptor.
449
-------
S .
S
H'W
OVX ..
w
ON
-------
CCI.10
Location
CCI.10 is located 2000 feet northwest of the Coles Branch wastewater
treatment plant on the north side of Coles Branch. The site is 130 feet
west of MH #126, contract VI.
Description
This site is restricted to an area of quartz outcrops approximately
40 feet by 15 feet. It lies on a low plateau just above a narrow flood-
plain of Coles Branch. The site is located within an immature forest of
mixed hardwoods and pine. The area surrounding the quartz outcrop has
been plowed.
Sampling Procedure and Results
After routine surface reconnaissance, 7 bucket samples were taken
at this site (see Figure VIII). Bucket samples along the pipeline and on
the plateau outside of the immediate vicinity of the outcrops yielded
little cultural material. Surface examination of the outcrop area showed
several crude quartz bifaces, flakes and possible cores (see Appendix).
Significance
Because of the restricted nature of this site and the disturbance to
the surrounding area it appears to be of minimal significance to the
prehistory of the area.
451
-------
7
\ -^
^
\ <^
\
4
V 0
o <
' 0
*. o
PROPOSED
INTERCEPTOR
-------
Impact Mitigation and Alternatives
There will be no impact upon this site. However, care should be taken
not to exceed the 40 foot right-of-way, particularly on the western side
of the proposed interceptor line.
CGI.11
Location
The site is located in a cleared field 5,280 feet west of State Route
1613 off a dirt road which is 1,056 feet south of State Route 1002. The
interceptor crosses the site from station 320+00 heading southwest to MH #99
where it turns due west across the field.
Description
CCI.ll is restricted to a rise approximately 320 feet above sea level.
The western half of the site is a corn field that was recently harvested.
The eastern half of the site is a mixed pine and hardwood forest (see Figure
IX) . On the southeastern border of the site is Coles Branch which empties
into Crabtree Creek at the far end of the corn field. The dimensions'of
the site appear to be related to its location on a rise overlooking Coles
Branch and its confluence with Crabtree Creek.
Sampling Procedure and Results
Artifacts were first observed in the cleared field. Chippage, pot-
sherds, one side-notched serrated quartzite point and two quartz tools were
recovered. Subsequently, 9 bucket samples were taken. Results of the 9
453
-------
samples and the surface collection (see Appendix) indicate that cultural
material is thinly scattered on the surface along'the interceptor right-
of-way. The surface collection points to two areas with possible sub-
surface cultural features (see Figure IX). The first area is marked by
rhyolite and quartz debitage and rhyolite and quartz tools. This location
is near Coles Branch. The second area is roughly 30 to 60 feet from MH #99
where the quartzite point, tools, and potsherds were recovered.
Significance
CCI.ll is a multi-component prehistoric site. The earliest component
is indicated by a quartzite, serrated side-notched projectile point. The
straight stem and blade to stem proportions suggest that it is a Late Archaic
Savannah River variant as illustrated by Coe (1964, p.110, Fig. 106).
However, a major portion of the base is missing so that positive identifi-
cation cannot be made. The second component is represented by several small
potsherdso The pottery sample is too small for typological identification.
All are grit-tempered and the surface treatment is plain on two sherds and
net-impressed on one sherd.
Impact Mitigation and Alternatives
Surface examination of the site indicates that the interceptor will
cross CCI.ll. Primary impact on the site would occur if the present plan
for the interceptor is followed. A major activity focus of the prehistoric
occupation will be disturbed, located just south of MH #99.
There are two alternatives to impact on CCI=11. First is a rerouting
of the interceptor, north of its proposed location. Second, a program
25
454
-------
\
\
\
\
C C I. II
X MATERIAL RECOVERtD
> NO MATERIAL RECOVERED
FOR E ST E D E
APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF \
3 LOPE
ARTIFACT CONCENTRATION V
APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF SITE \
SCALE : I ineh 30 f t
? FIGURE IX
-------
of testing could be initiated for two areas - near MH #99 and in the forest
on the eastern end of CCI.ll.
CCI.12
Location
CCI.12 is located approximately 1000 feet east of N.C. Highway 54,
700 feet south of the Crabtree Creek bridge. The site is near MH #78,
contract VI.
Description
CCI.12 is situated in a cultivated field. Presently, the corn stands
8 feet high. The site is located on the side of a rise running south into
a mixed pine and hardwood forest.
Sampling Procedure and Results
The field in which the site was discovered has been cultivated for the
past year so that any traces of the Crabtree Creek interceptor survey line
have been destroyed. Reconstruction of the survey line by hand compass
aided in conducting a surface reconnaissance. Several rhyolite flakes were
observed. The distal portion of a projectile point was recovered.
Significance
Based on material recovered, the temporal affinity of this site cannot
be determined. In addition, the scattered debitage associated with this
site is suspected of having been transported down slope.
27
456
-------
Impact Mitigation and Alternatives
No impact on this site is anticipated. Care should be exercised not
i
to exceed the 40 foot right-of-way in this area.-
Archaeological Perspective of Survey
The cultural history of Wake County is little understood. However, in
the perspective of the Carolina Piedmont, the results of the Crabtree Creek
Interceptor survey are applicable to the prehistoric cultural chronology
developed by Coe (1964). The results of this chronology have been gathered
from excavations, in which stratified cultural remains have been identified.
Different periods have been defined on the basis of the association of
diagnostic artifacts, carbon-14 dates and the stratigraphic position of the
cultural material. Diagnostic artifacts traditionally include projectile
points, ceramics and other lithic'material. The Paleo-Indian period,
10,000 BC to 8,000 BC, is characterized by fluted projectile points and an
absence of pottery. During this time the cultural occupations were generally
small and reflected generalized hunting and gathering subsistence patterns,,
The succeeding period is the Archaic, ca. 8,000 BC to 500 BC. During this
period there was a shift toward specialized hunting and gathering. Diagnostic
artifacts range from notched projectile points to stemmed projectile points
and the appearance of ground stone tools and shell middens. Again, there is
an absence of pottery. The settlement pattern of the Archaic is nomadic
with a preference for riverine resources. The Woodland period, ca. 500 BC to
1700 AD is primarily defined by the presence of pottery. During this period __
prehistoric cultures became increasingly sedentary, their social organization
457
-------
became increasingly stratified and their subsistence was marked by the
development of incipient agriculture. Their settlement pattern is char-
acteristically sedentary with permanent village sites usually located .on
broad knolls overlooking rivers. During the later Woodland period warfare
becomes endemic and confederacies develop.
CCI.l and CCI.3 represent Woodland period cultural occupations. CCI.ll
is a multi-component prehistoric site ranging from the Archaic period to the
Woodland period.
-1
Summary
Twelve archaeological sites were excavated during the survey. Seven '
sites were found to be not significant or their significance was unknown
(Table I). This was due either to their disturbed condition (CCI.l, CCI.5,
CCI.8, CCI.10 and CGI.12), their distance from the proposed interceptor
(CGI.4, CGI.9) or their recent temporal affinity (CCI.6). CCI.3 was found
to be a potentially valuable Woodland period occupation. However, it xo.ll
not be directly impacted by the interceptor.
At three sites, (CGI.2, CCI.7, and CCI.ll), the significance was not
determined due to the lack of sufficient information available and insuffi-
cient data recovered. CCI.2 and CCI.7 are field stone structures. CCI.2 is
a post-Civil War mill structure. The state of preservation of the mill
structure and associated features, such as the mill race and out flow channel,
indicate that a significant amount of information can be recovered. CCI.7 is
suspected of being a mill. Its significance cannot be fully assessed based
on the present information. CCI.ll is a large prehistoric and multi-component
site. Little information is known concerning the prehistory of Wake County.
458
-------
This site could contribute much needed data concerning the cultural
history of this area. Table I lists the twelve sites identified as to
their temporal affinity (if known), their significance and the recommended
mitigation.
459
-------
Table I. Temporal Affinity and Significance of Sites Identified
Period Not Significant Significance Unknown Testing Recommended
CCI.l Woodland X
CCI.2 post-Civil War X X
CCI.3 Woodland X
CCI.4 Prehistoric,
unknown X
CCI.5 Prehistoric,
unknown X
CCI.6 1930's X
CCI.7 post-Civil War X X
CCI.8 Prehistoric,
unknown X
CCI.9 Prehistoric,
unknown X
CGI. 10 Prehistoric, =-
unknown X
CCI.ll Woodland and
.. . - late Archaic X X
CCI.12 Prehistoric,
unknown X
460
-------
Bibliography
Coe, Joffre L.
1964 Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions
of the American Philosophical Society, n.s. Vol.54, Pt. 5.
Philadelphia.
Environmental Protection Agency
1975 Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Crabtree Creek, Wake
County, North Carolina, EPA Project C370344, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Atlanta.
461
-------
APPENDIX
462
-------
Key to Abbreviations
CCI Artifact Inventory
NMR - No Material Recovered
Lithic Material
Q - Quartz
Q/ - Quartzite
R - Rhyolite
C - Chert
Pottery
Temper
G - Grit-tempered
Surface Treatment
C - Cord-marked
N - Net-impressed
P - Plain
? - Indeterminate
Projectile Points
Sn - Side-notched
Tools
CO - Core
FCR - Fire-cracked rock
frag. - fragment
-------
CGI Artifact Inventory
Pottery
Points
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
TOTAL
NMR
NMR
NMR
2G/C
1G/N
2G/C
1G/N
IQBf
4Q, 3R
1Q
2Q
1Q
13Q
6R
Pottery
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Points Tools Debitage Other
6Q iQCo
2Q
1Q
NMR
1G/P
1G/?
1G/P
2Q
5Q, 1R
8Q
5Q
12Q, 4R
1Q/
1FCR
IQCo
1 graphitt frag.
464
-------
TOTAL
2G/P
1G/?
41Q 2QCo
5R 1FCR
1Q/. 1 graphite frag.
CCI.4
Sample #
General Surf.
TOTAL
Pottery
Points
Debitage Other
1FCR
1FCR
CGI. 5
Sample //
General Surf.
1
NMR
Pottery Points Tools Debitage Other
2QBf 2Q
1Q
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
TOTAL
NMR
NMR
IQBf
2QBf
5QBf
7Q
25Q
10Q
1Q
5Q
51Q
CCI.8 - -
Sample [
General Surf.
TOTAL
Pottery Points Tools Debitage Other
3QBf 1Q, 2R
3QBF 1Q,
2R
465
-------
CGI. 9
Sample //
General Surf.
1
2
3
4 NMR
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
TOTAL
Pottery
Points
Tools
IQBf
IQBf
Debitage Other
2Q
4Q, 2R 1FCR
1R
7Q
1Q, -1R
1Q
2Q
3Q
2Q
2Q, 2R
1R
1Q, 1R
2Q
27Q
8R
1 wire nail frag.
1 machine-cut nail
frag.
1FCR
2FCR
1 wire nail frag.
1 machine-cut nail
frag.
CCI.10
Sample //
General Surf.
1 NMR
2 NMR
3
4
5
Pottery Points Tools Debitage Other
2QBf 2Q
2Q
3Q
4Q
467
-------
Sample
6
7
TOTAL
NMR
Pottery Points Tools Debitage Other
4Q
2QBf 15Q
CCI.ll
Sample # , Pottery
General Surf. 1G/P
1G/N
1
2 1G/P
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 NMR
TOTAL . 2G/P
1G/N
CCI.12
Sample # Pottery
General Surf.
TOTAL
Points Tools Debitage
IQ/Sn, IQBf 2Q, 1R
serrated IRBf
3Q
IQ
2Q
2Q
1R
2Q
1R
IQ/Sn, *" IQBf 12Q
serrated IRBf 3R
Points Tools Debitage
1C frag.
1C frag.
Other
IQCo
1FCR
IQCo
1FCR
Other
General Surf.
TOTAL
Pottery Points Tools Debitage Other
1R
1R
468
-------
APPENDIX 15
VEGETATIVE SURVEY
469
-------
Vegetation Analysis of the
Proposed Crabtree Creek Interceptor in
Wake Co., N. C.
Prepared for Peirson and Whitman, Inc.
by
Jon M. Stucky, Ph.D.
and
Bill Champion,
Graduate of Forestry School
Field Work Completed in
September and October, 1975
Submitted in December, 1975
470
-------
INTRODUCTION
This survey was conducted to fulfill requirements for environmental
assessments in regard to vegetation. During the survey, the vegetation
along the proposed Crabtree Creek Interceptor was analyzed for the purposes
of compiling a species list of the dominant canopy and subcanopy species,
establishing the community types that would be affected by the proposed
construction, and mapping the locations of any populations of rare species
or communities in an ecological balance such that they might be totally
and permanently destroyed by the construction.
DESCRIPTION OF VEGETATION
Contract IV; Crabtree Creek, Richland Creek, and Wyatt Branch Outfalls
The right-of-way (RW) began approximately 100 yds. south of the
intersection of Oak Park Road and Weaver Connell Drive in a mature river
bottom forest on the north side of Crabtree Creek. The canopy of this
forest was dominated by Liriodendron tulipifera (15-20" DBH), Betula nigra
(24" DBH), Acer saccharum (25" DBH), Quercus alba. Q. falcata. and
Liquidambar styraciflua. The dominant subcanopy species were Carpinus
caroliniana, Ilex opaca. A. saccharum. Carya glabra, and C_. tomentosa.
The RW parallelled Crabtree Creek as it turned northwest and passed through
bottomland forest of this type for 2500'. At this point, the RW crossed
Crabtree Creek to the west side and passed up a gradual slope that had
shallow rocky soil. The vegetation at this location was poorly developed.
The canopy was dominated by Fagus grandifolia (15-25* ht.) and the under-
story was composed of scattered saplings of this same species. This
vegetation type extended approximately 200' along the RW.
The vegetation type along 500' of the RW southeast of Duraleigh Rd.
was a mixed pine-hardwood forest with Pinus taeda in the canopy along the
up slope side and Liquidambar styraciflua. Acer saccharum and Betula
nigra. on the creek side of the RW. Saplings of Quercus nigra and Dim us
americana and Hamamelis virginiana predominated in the understory.
The RW passed under the Duraleigh Rd. bridge and parallelled Crabtree
Creek through the property of the Nello Teer Co. About 300' west of the
bridge, the RW passed between Crabtree Creek and two silt ponds belonging
to the Company. The bank of the silt ponds were about 50' from the bank
471
-------
of the creek. This space restriction might pose some construction
difficulties. The land on the Company property had been disturbed so the
vegetation was composed entirely of weedy herbs; Solidago sp., Aster
pilosus. Ambrosia artemisiifolia. and Eupatorium capillifolium. This
weedy vegetation continued approximately 1000' along the RW.
The RW next crossed to the west side of Crabtree Creek and passed
just west of a maching shop owned by the Company. Approximately 300'
southwest of the machine shop the RW recrossed Crabtree Creek to the
southwest side. In this area the line ran parallel to the creek along a
floodplain approximately 75-100" wide. The floodplain was bordered on the
southwest by a steep rocky slope. The vegetation in this area was sparse,
being composed of widely scattered low canopy trees, a thin subcanopy, and
a thin herb layer. Betula nigra dominated the canopy near the creek bank
and Liriodendron tulipifera (15-20" DBH), Acer saccharum (20-25" DBH),
and Liquidambar styraciflua (15-20" DBH) dominated the canopy farther from
the creek. The subcanopy dominants included saplings of Acer saccharum,
Ulmus rubra, and Carya spp. This cover type extended approximately 700'
west along the RW.
The bottomland forest in the area approaching the junction of Crabtree
and Richland Creeks was composed of younger canopy than that of the previously
described area. Fraxinus pennsylvanica. Acer saccharum, Liriodendron
tulipifera, and Platanus occidentalis dominated the canopy. The subcanopy
and herbaceous layers were denser than in the previous cover type.
Liriodendron tulipifera saplings and Aesculus _sylvatica (3" DBH, 8' ht.)
and Lindera benzoin dominated the shrubby understory.
A grove of 15-20 individuals of Juglans nigra (8-12" DBH) was located
150-300' east of the junction of Crabtree and Richland Creeks. There was
no apparent walnut reproduction so care should be taken to avoid destroying
these maturing individuals. This walnut grove is mapped on sheet 5 of
Contract IV.
The RW sharply turned south and crossed Richland Creek approximately
400' south of the junction of the two creeks. Another individual of
Juglans nigra was located next to Richland Creek near this point where the
RW crossed the creek. This walnut is actually outside the RW but care
should be taken to avoid its accidental destruction.
After crossing Richland Creek, the RW sharply turned to the east and
parallelled the creek. The vegetation was a mature bottomland forest with
472
-------
a canopy dominated by Ljguidambar styraciflua (20-25" DBH), Liriodendron
tulipifera. and Qu YCUS alba (15-25" DBH) and an understory of Carpinus
caroliniana and saplings of Fraxinus gennsylvanica and Acer saccharum.
This bottomland forest extended 1000' southeast along Richland Creek.
The next cover type was composed of widely scattered young individuals
of Pinus taeda (5-8" DBH) and scattered individuals of Ulmus americana,
Cercis canadensis. Cornus florida, and Prunus serotina in the low canopy and
Solidago sp., Bidens frondosa. Eupatorium sp., and Aster pilosus in the
weedy herb layer. This pine dominated area extended 1000-1500' along the RW.
The RW next passed over a hill through approximately 500' of an
undisturbed slope community dominated by Quercus alba, Q_. rubra, Ulmus
americana, and Fagus grandifolia in the canopy and Rh us copallina, Smilax
sp., and Diospyros virginiana saplings in the understory. The next 500'
was a disturbed area overrun by Lonicera japonica, Rubus sp., and Smilax
sp.
A cover type with a canopy dominated by Fagus _grandi folia, Quercus
alba. Q. rubra, and Ulmus americana and an understory with saplings of Acer
saccharum, Ulmus americana, Nyss_a sylvatica, and Cornus florida was next
traversed by the RW. This cover type extended 600-800' along the RW.
Richland Creek and the RW abruptly turned west about 1/8 mi. east of
Ebenezer Church Road. The canopy in the area from this point to the road
was dominated by Pinus taeda (50-70* ht.), scattered Betula nigra in the
depressions, and Fagus grandifolia on the slopes and slight elevations.
The understory dominants included Alnus serrulata and 15. nigra saplings in
the low areas and Carpinus caroliniana, Cercis canadensis, and Acer rubrum
on the slopes and elevations.
The RW next crossed Ebenezer Church Road and ran northwest in the
ditch parallel to the road for 750'. Only weedy herbaceous species,
Solidago sp., Aster p i1o s u s, Ambrosia artemisiifolia, and Amaranthus
hybridus, and scattered individuals of Rubus and Lonicera japonica occurred
in the RW in this area.
The RW abruptly turned west between Richland Creek and a private
driveway. There was an area of extremely dense shrub and vine vegetation
composed of Lonicera japonica, Rubus sp., and Smilax sp. that stretched
about 200' west along the RW. This vegetation changed fairly abruptly into
a rich stand of bottomland forest in the narrow floodplain north of the creek.
473
-------
The canopy species included Acer saccharum* Ulmus alata, Liquidambar
gi-yrar j f 1 iia_t Liriodendron tulipifera, Quercus alba, Platanus occidentalis ,
and Fraxinus pennsylvanica. The understory was dominated by saplings
of Fraxinus and Ulmus with occasional patches of Rubus spp. and Lonicera
laponica.
The RW soon passed within 20-25" of the southeast bank of a small pond.
At this same point, a small grove of 10-15 individuals of Juglans nigra
(10" DBH, 40' ht.) was located on the southeast edge of the RW. The pond
on the northwest and the walnuts on the southeast edge of the RW will
require that care be exercised during construction in this area so neither
the ecology of the pond nor the walnuts are destroyed. The walnut grove is
mapped on sheet 9 of Contract IV.
The RW passed through the weedy area under a power line and into a
forest dominated by Fraxinus pennsylvanica and Quercus alba (15-20" DBH)
in the canopy and Acer saccharum saplings, Carpinus caroliniana, Ostrya
virginiana, and Cornus florida in the subcanopy. Viburnum acerifolium was
dominant in the shrub layer. This oak-ash cover type extended 750-1000"
along Richland Creek.
The creek and the RW then turned sharply west and back south. At this
pair of turns in the creek, the floodplain was saturated with water. The
canopy was dominated by large individuals of Fraxinus pennsylvanica (25" DBH)
and Platanus occidentalis (25" DBH). The extremely wet condition of the
soil was indicated by the dominance of Impatiens capensis, Cinna arundinacea,
and Tovara virginiana in the herbaceous understory. This wet area extended
approximately 1000' along the RW.
The RW soon entered a pasture with no vegetation other than grass.
The RW ran through this pasture for 1500' before crossing to the south side
of Reedy Creek Road.
The bottomland forest on the south side of Reedy Creek Road was dense
and the canopy dominants were Platanus occidentalis (15-20" DBH), Ulmus
rubra (15" DBH), and Fraxinus pennsylvanica. This bottomland forest occupied
approximately 300' of the RW. When the RW turned west away from Richland
Creek, the bottomland species were replaced by a dense stand of Pinus taeda
(18-22" DBH) that extended up slope to the north. Hardwoods were restricted
to the subcanopy. The dominants in this subcanopy were Acer rubrum and
saplings of Quercus spp. Lonicera japonica was the dominant of the herb
474
-------
layer. This pine dominated cover type occupied the next 1500" of the RW,
Approximately 300' into this pine cover type, the RW crossed the south edge
of a dirt dam. Behind this dam to the west was a pond. The pond is mapped
on sheet 13 of Contract IV0 The RW passed to the south of the pond and, if
care is exercised, construction should not upset the ecology of the pond.
At the west edge of the pine dominated area, the RW began to ascend the
east face of a slope. Just to the west of the marker for Manhole #66 was
located a pure stand of 20-25 individuals of Fagus grandifolia (20-25" DBH).
The beeches were protected due to their eastward exposure and, as a result,
were particularly healthy specimens. There was no apparent beech reproduction
in this area, as a result of the area being fenced for cattle. The only
understory component was Juniperus virginiana. Pure stands of beech are
not common, so it is recommended that a number of these beeches should be
saved. This beech grove is mapped on sheet 14 of Contract IV0 The remaining
800-1000' west to Trinity Road (SR 1655) was occupied by pasture and weed
vegetation. The RW then ran south-southeast down the center of SR 1655 for
500" before it turned west into the area covered in Contract III.
Contract V; Richland Creek Outfall and Interceptor
The RW for Contract V originated 250' south of Reedy Creek Road along
the west bank of Richland Creek. The RW in this area ran quite close to
Richland Creek; the center line at one point only 15' from the creek bank.
A dense population of Betula nigra (15-20" DBH) dominated the canopy of the
bottomland forest. Scattered among the birches were large individuals of
Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Platanus occidentalis (25" DBH), and Liquidambar
styraciflua (25" DBH). Saplings of Acer saccharum and Quercus rubra dominated
the subcanopy while Lonicera japonica and Rubus spp. dominated the low shrub
and herb layer. This bottomland forest extended 750-900' along the RW
paralleling Richland Creek.
The dominant birch forest was replaced by a more diverse forest in the
next area where the RW began to ascend a slope and the soil was not as wet.
The canopy was composed of Liriodendron tulipifera, Liquidambar styraciflua,
Carya cordiformis, with occasional large individuals of Fagus grandifolia
(25" DBH). The subcanopy included Oxydendrum arboreum, saplings of Quercus
alba, Q. rubra, and C. cordiformis, Cornus florida, Cercis canadensis, and
475
-------
occasional individuals of Tilia heterophylla. This mesic slope cover
type with scattered individuals of Betula nigra and Fraxinus pennsylvanica
near the creek extended approximately 3000' to a point where the RW approached
to within 50' of the west bound lane of 1-40.
At this point the RW assumed a southeast direction to parallel 1-40.
The runoff from the slope of 1-40 to the southwest and Richland Creek to the
northeast made the substrate of the RW wet in much of the next 1000'. The
vegetation reflected this increased moisture. The oaks and hickories
declined in abundance and were replaced by birch, sweetgum, alder, and some
sycamore. A stand of 50-75 individuals of Betula nigra (15-20" DBH)
occupied the 300" extent of the RW in the area just southeast of the junction
of the RW and 1-40 to the point where the RW crossed Richland Creek.
Immediately after crossing to the southeast side of Richland Creek,
the RW ran through a pure stand of 30-40 individuals of Liriodendron
tulipifera (15-20" DBH). These trees were research material of the North
Carolina State University School of Forestry. Considering the large amount
of time that the School of Forestry had to invest to raise an experimental
population of trees as large as these, it is suggested that care be taken to
injure or destroy as few of these trees as possible. The trees are widely
spaced so reducing the number of trees harmed should not be unreasonably
difficult. The location of this experimental plot of tulip trees is plotted
on sheet 5 of Contract V.
The RW then entered more bottomland hardwood forest with a canopy
dominated by Liriodendron tulipifera and Liquidambar styraciflua and a
subcanopy dominated by Alnus serrulata and young Betula nj^gra (5-10" DBH),
with scattered individuals of Morus rubra, Cornus florida, and Carpinus
caroliniana. This bottomland forest extended 1000-1200' along the RW.
Near the proposed location for Manhole #28, the RW entered an extensive
area of wet soil and large shallow expanses of standing water. The wet
condition of this area could cause construction difficulties. Betula nigra
and Li-quidambar styracif lua were the canopy dominants in this wet area.
Salix nigra occurred as several small scattered groves. The subcanopy and
herb layer were sparse. This swampy area extended over 1500" of the RW.
The RW then emerged from the swampy area into a field occupied by small
planted pines belonging to the North Carolina State University School of
Forestry. The RW was sandwiched between these pines on the northeast and
Richland Creek on the southwest. The space available for construction
476
-------
between the pines and the creek was minimal, so care will be necessary to
avoid destroying some of these pines. The RW continued to skirt the south
edge of the open fields owned by North Carolina State University and the
north bank of Richland Creek. The vegetation along the bank was composed
largely of dense low woods of Alnus serrulata, Liquidambar styraciflua, and
Liriodendron tulipifera. The branch of the RW on the northeast side of 1-40
continued to fringe NCSU fields for approximately 3500".
The RW next encountered light woods along Richland Creek composed of
Pinus taeda. Salix nigra, and small individuals of Liquidambar styraciflua.
The understory became thick with weedy herbs and shrubs such as Rubus spp.,
Solidago spp., and Aster pilosus as the RW approached the National Guard
Armory.
A branch of the RW included in Contract V veered south along a small
branch of Richland Creek and crossed 1-40. The canopy of the vegetation
here was dominated by Pinus taeda (15-20" DBH) with occasional individuals
of Liquidambar styraciflua, Liriodendron tulipifera, and Be_tula_ nigra near
the stream. Small individuals of Cornus florida, Alnus serrulata, Acer
rubrum. and saplings of Quercus rubra occupied the subcanopy. Arundinaria
gigantea and Lindera^ benzoin were prominent in the understory. This pine
forest extended 2500' along the RW.
At the end of the 2500" stretch of pine forest described above, the
Carter Stadium Interceptor RW veered east toward Carter Stadium. It passed
through the pine forest for 700' and then through the Carter Stadium parking
lot for 1050'.
Beginning at its junction with the Carter Stadium Interceptor RW,
the main north-south RW passed out of the pine forest and ran along the
south margin of a cultivated field for 1000'. The low, dense vegetation of
the creek bank on the south edge of the RW was composed primarily of Alnus
serrulata and Myrica cerifera.
The RW then crossed Old Trinity Road into more pine forest with a
composition like that encountered on the north side of Trinity Road. The
composition of this forest remained constant all the way to Mt. Vernon
Goodwin School, a distance of 3900".
At a point along the RW 900' south of Old Trinity Road, the State
Fairgrounds Interceptor RW branched off the Mt. Vernon Goodwin School
RW and ran east to the State Fairgrounds. The RW began to ascend a north
477
-------
facing slope and the pine forest graded into a slope community composed of
Quercus alba in the canopy, with Liriodendron tulipifera and Q_. rubra at
the base of the slope nearer the stream. The subcanopy of the slope
community was dominated by Oxydendrum arboreum and saplings of Acer rubrum.
Oxydendrum arboreum saplings, Viburnum acerifolium, and Hamamelis virginiana
were important components of the understory with occasional patches of
Osmunda regalis nearer the creek. This slope community extended the 2200'
to SR 1658 just west of the State Fairgrounds. The RW then passed into the
Fairgrounds.
Contract III; 20" Sewage Force Main
The vegetation along the RW included in Contract III is described as
it was encountered starting from SR 1655, sheet 22, then running northwest
along 1-40 toward the area depicted by sheet 13. In general, the section
of the RW between SR 1655 and SR 1654 at the entrance to Umstead State
Park ran perpendicular to the long axes of numerous ridges and ravines.
The vegetation on the different slopes was quite similar and is presented
in tabular form. The areas that departed from this slope vegetation type
are described in the text.
The RW entered the area characterized by the ridges about 500' west
of SR 1655. This topography and the accompanying vegetation occupied the
next 3200' of the RW.
Upper Slope
Canopy Pinus taeda
SLOPE VEGETATION
DOMINANTS
Mid Slope
Quercus alba
Fagus grandifolia
Lower Slope
Liriodendron tulipifera
Liquidambar styraciflua
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Oxydendrum arboreum
Subcanopy
Cornus florida Cercis canadensis
Acer rubrum Acer rubrum
Oxydendrum arboreum Ulmus rubra
Fagus grandifolia
Carpinus caroliniana
Ostrya virginiana
Carya spp. saplings
Understory
Oxydendrum arboreum Magnolia tripetala
Viburnum acerifolium Acer saccharum saplings
478
-------
The RW emerged from the area of the ravines and slopes into floodplain
vegetation adjacent to Reedy Creek. The RW ran through this vegetation
in a path parallel to the Creek for approximately 2200'. The canopy in the
vicinity of the Old Mill on Reedy Creek was dominated by Quercus phellos
(25" DBH), Liquidambar styraciflua. and Liriodendron tulipifera (15-18" DBH)
with scattered individuals of Betula nigra and Juglans^ nigra near the stream.
The subcanopy of the floodplain vegetation in this area was composed mainly
of Magnolia tripetala and Ti1ia heterophylla near the stream and Carpinus
caroliniana and Ostrva virginiana up slope from the stream. Lindera benzoin,
Ulmus rubra. and Polvstichum acrostichoides were important in the understory.
A large individual of Juglans nigra (23" DBH, 90" ht.) worthy of being saved
was located approximately 500' northwest of the Old Mill at the junction of
Reedy Creek and one of its small tributaries. It was situated on the edge
of the RW next to the creek. Its location is plotted on sheet 18 of
Contract III.
The RW next began to ascend a slope up out of the floodplain toward
SR 1654. The vegetation on this slope was dominated by Pinus taeda and
Quercus coccinea in the canopy and Oxydendrum arboreum. . prinus, Acer
rubrum, and scattered individuals of Kalmia latifolia in the subcanopy.
This vegetation type persisted the 1750' to SR 1654.
The next 3150' of the RW of Contract III passed along the middle of
an existing dirt road. No natural vegetation would be disturbed in this
area. The final 1500' of the RW passed over a series of ridges characterized
by dense stands of Pinus taeda and Quercus prinus on the ridges and Liquidambar
styraciflua and Liriodendron tulipifera on the lower slopes.
Contract VI; Crabtree Creek. Coles Branch, and Mobile City Outfalls
The RW began just west of the site for the proposed pumping station
included in Contract III. At this point, the RW parallelled the south side
of Crabtree Creek for 1800'. The topography here was quite level and the
soil was wet. The canopy of the lowland forest vegetation was dominated
by Betula nigra (50' ht.) with scattered large individuals of Liquidambar
styraciflua (60' ht.). The subcanopy included Acer saccharum, Carpinus
caroliniana, and small individuals of Fagus grandifolia. After passing
south underneath 1-40, the RW passed through similar heavy stands of
B. nigra for an additional 1450'.
479
-------
The RW next veered west away from Crabtree Creek as it entered a
vegetation type dominated by young individuals of Pinus taeda (5-8" DBH,
20' ht.). This pine dominated vegetation extended 1400" along the RW.
The subcanopy of this vegetation was composed of Oxydendrum arboreum,
Cornus florida, and Acer rubrum.
The RW next passed within 40-50' of the east side of an extensive
marsh that was estimated to be 1/4 x 1/8 mi. in area. The bank of the
marsh was occupied by Typha latifolia and Scirpus sp. The canopy in the
adjacent forest was a mixture of Betula nigra. Liquidambar styraciflua. and
Platanus occidentalis. The RW skirted the east edge of this marsh for
approximately 600' before veering west across a stream. The RW in this area
was probably far enough away from the marsh itself to avoid destroying the
aquatic vegetation along the bank.
Once across the stream and on the southwest side of the marsh, the RW
passed through bottomland forest with a sparse canopy of Liriodendron
tulipifera and Liquidambar styraciflua and a subcanopy of Cornus florida,
scattered Pinus taeda, and Carya sp. saplings. The RW then ascended a
steep rocky slope into a community dominated by Fagus grandifolia and
Ouercus alba. The RW traversed this steep slope for approximately 600'
before entering an area of mixed woods with heavy understory. The canopy
dominants in this area were Liriodendron tulipifera, Quercus alba, and
Pinus _ta_eda. The dense understory was composed of Lonicera laponica and
Smilax sp. This mixed woods continued for approximately 1500".
The vegetation type throughoyt the next 1650' was situated on a steep,
rocky slope and was composed of a low, sparse canopy of Pinus taeda (20* ht.)
with scattered small individuals of Liriodendron tulipifera and Liquidambar
styraciflua (15* ht.). Occasional individuals of Juniperus virginiana
occurred here indicating the dry nature of this slope. The understory was
composed mainly of Lonicera laponica and Smilax sp.
For the next 1200' the pines decreased in abundance. This area was
occupied by a mixed hardwood stand dominated by Quercus alba with a diverse
subcanopy including Oxydendrum arboreum, Acer rubrum, and Cornus florida and
an understory dominated by Viburnum dentatum.
The RW left the mixed hardwoods and entered a cleared area 200; long
that was occupied by small pines (151 ht.) and a grassy understory. The
RW turned sharply south and gradually entered a more mesic area occupied
480
-------
by a mature bottomland forest composed of Betula nigra (60" ht.), Fraxinus
pennsylvanica (80* ht.), Platanus occidentalis, Liriodendron tulipifera,
and Ouercus phellos. The subcanopy was composed mainly of Carpinas caro-
liniana and Ulmus alata_. The understory was moderately dense with saplings
of Acer rubrum. Liquidambar styraciflua. Quercus falcata, and Magnolia
tripetala. This mature bottomland forest occupied 1500' to the point where
the Mobile^'City Outfall departed from the main RW.
The area along the main RW beyond the Mobile City Outfall junction became
less mesic and Pinus taeda and Quercus rubra shared dominance in the canopy
with the bottomland species. Oxydendrum arboreum increased in the subcanopy
with the drier substrate. This mexed pine-oak-gum woods persisted along the
RW for approximately 1100". At this point the RW entered and passed through
a corn field for 1150' to NC Highway 54.
The RW crossed NC Highway 54 and began traversing a cleared trail that
was approximately 20' wide and that parallelled Crabtree Creek. The trail
itself had been cleared of natural vegetation and only herbaceous weeds grew
on it. The narrow bank of river bottom vegetation that was left between
the trail and Crabtree Creek to the west was composed mostly of large
individuals of Betula nigra with scattered Platanus occidentalis, Fraxinus
pennsvlvanica. Ulmus alata, and Sassafras albidum. On the east side of the
trail farther from the creek, Pinus taeda was associated with the bottomland
species. There were frequent individuals of Alnus serrulata along the creek
bank in the subcanopy. Construction in this area should not disturb much
vegetation other than the weeds in the trail and the very edge of the
adjacent vegetation. The RW followed the cleared trail for approximately
2600'.
The RW then entered a fallow field with grass, Festuca pratensis, and
scattered weeds, Eupatorium capillifolium. The RW exited this field and
entered a corn field. At the point where Cole's Branch joins Crabtree
Creek, the RW turned sharply eastward and continued through a cleared field.
The total distance that the RW passed through these fields was 3100'.
The RW then entered an extensive pine forest. This forest was dominated
by Pinus taeda (40-50' ht.) with Myrica cerifera, Oxydendrum arboreum,
Prunus serotina, and saplings of Liquidambar styraciflua predominating in
the understory. The RW passed through this vegetation type for 5300' to
a point where it ran within 30' of Cole's Branch to the south.
481
-------
At this point, the vegetation began to assume a more mesic aspect with
Liquidambar styraciflua and Liriodendron tulipifera beginning to share
dominance and finally replacing Pinus taeda in the canopy. In the subcanopy,
P_. taeda still persisted with Juniperus virginiana. This mixture of pine
and bottomland species persisted for approximately 2000".
At this point, the RW passed into a mature mixed mesophytic forest
composed of Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Betula nigra, Quercus phellos, Liriodendron
tulipifera, and Liquidambar styraciflua in the canopy and Acer saccharum,
Tilia heterophylla, (}. rubra, Cornus florida, Carpinus caroliniana, and Ulmus
rubra in the subcanopy. A mixed forest of this composition occupied the RW
for the remaining 8000' to its termination at the Gary Water Treatment Plant.
At one point in this mesophytic forest, there was an individual of
Juglans nigra that was located directly on the RW. This tree was especially
worthy of mention because it was the finest specimen of this desireable and
diminishing species that the investigators, both botanists, had seen in this
part of North Carolina. The tree was 20" DBH and 100' tall. Its trunk
was straight and devoid of branches for the lowest 40-50;. No walnut
reproduction was noted in the area. This individual was located on the RW
300-500' north-northwest of the overhead powerlines in the area represented
on sheet 27 of Contract VI. Its position is plotted on this sheet.
Seedlings of Juglans nigra are shade intolerant, so this species can
not reproduce in dense woods. This shade intolerance and the heavy lumbering
of this species have severely reduced its abundance in North Carolina.
Although this species is not on the list of rare and endangered species for
North Carolina, it is no longer common and every effort should be made to
preserve especially fine specimens such as the one encountered. The
investigators recommend that this individual be identified in the field and
the RW diverted around it.
SUMMARY
Based on the 40' width of the RW and the estimated lengths of the
vegetation types encountered along the RW, it is estimated that construction
of the proposed Crabtree Interceptor would disturb 19 acres of vegetation
that has already been altered by man (vegetation of roadsides, pastures,
fallow fields, and cultivated fields), 39 acres of hardwood forest, 23
acres of pine forest, and 3 acres of mixed pine-hardwood forest.
482
-------
None of the species encountered along the RW are included in the list
of rare and endangered species for North Carolina or for the United States.
However, in the opion of the investigators, Juglans nigra is declining in
abundance in this part of North Carolina to such an extent that every
effort should be exerted to preserve especially fine specimens and reproducing
populations of this species. The investigators recommend that construction
of the Crabtree Interceptor could occur without destroying any rare or
endangered species or populations in delicate ecological balance if the
individuals and populations at the following sites are avoided:
Contract IV, sheet 5; Juglans nigra. grove of 15-20 individuals
Contract IV, sheet 9; Juglans nigra, grove of 10-15 individuals and pond
Contract IV, sheet 13; pond
Contract IV, sheet 14; Fagus grandifolia. population of 20-25 individuals
Contract V, sheet 5; Liriodendron tulipifera. experimental plot
Contract III, sheet 18; Juglans nigra, single individual
Contract VI, sheet 27; Juglans nigra, single individual
SPECIES LIST OF IMPORTANT CANOPY AND SUBCANOPY SPECIES
Acer negundo
A. rubrum
A. saccharum
Aesculus sylvatica
Alnus serrulata
Betula nigra
Carpinus caroliniana
Carya cordiformis
C. glabra
C. ovata
C. tomentosa
Celtis laevigata
Cercis canadensis
Cornus florida
Crataegus sp.
Diospyros virginiana
Euonymus americanus
Fagus grandifolia
Hamamelis virginiana
Ilex opaca
Juglans nigra
Juniperus virginiana
Kalmia angustifolia
Liriodendron tulipifera
Liquidambar styraciflua
Lindera benzoin
Magnolia tripetala
Nyssa sylvatica
Ostrya virginiana
Oxydendrum arboreum
Pinus echinata
P. taeda
Platanus occidentalis
Populus deltoides
Prunus serotina
Quercus alba
Q. falcata
Q. michauxii
Q. nigra
Q. phellos
Q. prinus
Q. rubra
Q. velutina
Rhus copallina
R. glabra
R. radicans
Robinia pseudoacacia
Salix nigra
Smilax sp.
Sambucus canadensis
Tilia heterophylla
Ulmus alata
U. rubra
Vaccineum sp.
Viburnum acerifolium
V. dentatum
V. prunifolium
Vitis sp.
483
-------
<(
\
vc
By Dale W.Jenkins
and Edward S. Ayensu
One-tenth of our
plant species
may not survive
The first national census of threatened plants
in the United States lists some 2,000. For
many reasons, all of us stand to be the losers
Extinc t in the wiM by 1806, the lost Franklinia
may become the symbol for endangered U.S. plains.
The lost Franklinia shown above is the first native
species of flowering plant of North America known
to have become extinct in the wild. This splendid
tree was discovered in 1765 on two acres near the
Altamaha River in Georgia. It is named Franklinia
alatamaha in honor of Benjamin Franklin. It was
exterminated in the wild by 1806 and survives in cul-
tivation only because of the beauty and fragrance of
its flowers, for which it was apparently greedily col-
lected. Specimens were taken to England's Kew Gar-
dens and a few were cultivated in gardens in the
United States. Three of them now grow in front of the
National Museum of Natural History in Washington.
How many species of plants have become extinct in
the United States since the arrival of the first settlers?
More to the point, how many more are endangered or
marked for extinction?
A proposed list of endangered, threatened and re-
73.75;
484
-------
cently or apparently extinct species of higher plants
native to the United States has just been drawn up.
It will be published by the Smithsonian Institution in
response to the Endangered Species Act of 1973. This
act called upon the Secretary of the Institution to re-
view species of plants which are now or may become
endangered, to present methods for preserving such
species, and to report the results with recommenda-
tions to Congress in one year.
Of the approximately 20,000 species, subspecies and
varieties of native higher plants of the continental
United States, at least ten percent warrant concern.
About 100 species are recently (within 200 years) ex-
tinct or presumed extinct, about 750 endangered, and
more than 1,200 threatened. These species are either
very rare, with local or limited distributions, are sub-
ject to threats, or are heavily depleted by destruction
of habitats or by commercial or private collectors.
Hawaii is a special case. Its flora are among the most
vulnerable and heavily damaged in the world. Of
Hawaii's approximately 2,200 kinds of higher plants,
the Smithsonian report lists about 50 percent of them
as endangered or recently extinct.
Endangered species are those currently in danger
of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of their range; threatened species are those likely
to become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of their range;
and recently or possibly extinct species of plants are
those which can no longer be found after repeated
search in the locality where they were originally ob-
served, or in other likely places. Some species may be
extinct in the wild but preserved in cultivation, as is
the lost Franklinia.
The Smithsonian lists include the higher plants:
angiosperms (flowering plants), gymnosperms (pines
and relatives) and pteridophytes (ferns). Lower plant
groups will be included later. Only species native or
indigenous to the United States (including Alaska and
Hawaii) were listed. If a rare species also occurred out-
side the United States, it was not listed unless its exact
status was known. No introduced species were in-
cluded. Species and well-recognized subspecies and va-
rieties were included, but color forms, known hybrids
and horticultural variations were excluded.
Even with all these restrictions and omissions, the
number of endangered plants is alarmingly high.
Unfortunately, plants are not only taken for granted,
but are destroyed without concern. Most of us know
that plants are essential to our survival, that we are
dependent on their fixing solar energy as carbohy-
Dale Jenkins is consultant on the Endangered Plant
Project; Edward Ayensu is chairman o/ the botany
department, National Museum of Natural History.
Amoreuxia wrightii, too rare to have a common
name, is endangered by collectors in its native Texas.
Hawaii's Rollandia angitstifulia is pollinated by
birds with bills curved to match its flowers.
> *\ ' '
Ar^' Y'\
Calochortus obispoensis is a threatened mariposa
lily found only in Obispo County, California.
485
93
-------
Epithalantlia is a button cactus genus threatened
by collectors and commercial exploitation in Texas.
drates in supplying our food, fiber, shelter and fuel.
But we often fail to appreciate that the widest possible
variety of plants is crucial to our future well-being
for many other reasons.
Esthetic appreciation and love of beauty for its own^
sake are important reasons for preserving rare plants.
Natural areas and flowers in our homes make our en-
vironment more livable and beautiful. But some of the
most prized plants are also the most rare, and many
rare species are too beautiful for their own good, espe-
cially orchids, cnrti, lilic.s, heaths and primroses. Some
medicinal plants such as ginseng and goklenseal have
been seriously depleted by over-collecting. Unique or
bizarre plants such as the carnivorous Venus's-flytrap
and pitcher plants are commercially exploited.
Every species or variety of plant has a unique type
of germ plasm, or gene pool, with its_o_wn_gcnetjcally
coded characteristics ancLvalues. When a plant species
is extinguished, thc-gen.e pool canngt_be duplicateiLor
reestablished and is lost^ forever. Each kind thatjwc
jlestrov narrows our options.. Imagine the loss to man-
kind if we hadjiestroyed the cinchona before discover-
ing quinine's antimalarial qualities. It is estimated
that ^OjOfXLnew chemical compounds can be^discov-
ered in plants, including some with important medical
uses. Plants produce biologically active chemicals, in-
cluding safe insecticides, and provide us with the
chemical structures to synthesize others.
EoQdjjrocljjcjign has become a major world prob-
lem. The species of food plants now being grown and
marketed are the results of long years of selection.
Each species represents a unique genotype, and to lose
The Tennessee coneflower, Echinacea tennessecnsis,
grows on cedar barrens, is threatened by construction.
some ol the genetic variability could be disastrous.
\Ve need to conserve the piogcnitois ol 0111 pieseni
food ciops (see p. 5!)) loi use in Inhiiclmim jind
crossbicedmg, preserving oiij^inaj__v.Uiies, and de-
veloping disease- and pest-resistant strains. Some of
the ancestors of corn, for example, are very rare; some
are apparently extinct.
II we arc' to use presently uncultivated lauds to
supplement the world's lood supply, or adapt crops
to changing climates, new types and varieties ol plants
will have to be developed. We do ncnjsn^owjwjiiilijiare
species may have vajuc- for fond production.
The numerous habitats and ecos)stems ol the world
require a wide clheisily of plant species. This divei-
sity is essential to maintain ecological stability and to
prevent wind and water erosion, develop soil and re-
tain water. Many ol our rare and threatened species
arc especial!) valuable since they are able to glow in
difficult habitats, such as cedar and shale barrens,
islands, sand dunes, ocean and estuary shoielines, rock
faces, mountaintops, bogs and other unstable areas.
They should not be lost.
Throughout the course of the evolution of life on
ua
t-y
486.^
-------
r
Earth, some species have disappeared, while others
have adapted or developed into new forms. Those de-
stroyed by the rising and sinking of the Earth's crust,
Hooding and severe climatic changes have been slowly
replaced by new species adapted to the new environ-
ment. But enter Man, with his technology, growing
and eneral ipnnranre. and^the natural
* gmpo is speeded upjike a time-lapse film of a sunset .
There is no time 'for adaptation or replacement.
Habitat destruction is only one problem. Overgraz-
ing by domestic animals, use of fertilizers and herbi-
cides, introduction of foreign plants without their
natural controls, and destruction of insect, bird and
bat pollinators all can endanger plants. Locally intro-
duced foreign diseases, insects, birds or other orga-
' nisms may spread over the entire continent.
Plant populations are directly destroyed by the col-
; lection of entire plants, their seeds, fruits or flowers.
, Collectors of rarities persist in causing serious damage
', to critical species, despite the high frequency of un-
successful transplants.
Now that we know how many species of plants are
in trouble, what can wedo to save them? Most impor-
487
Pntnus havardii, the Havavcl plum, has potential
for agriculture but is threatened in Texas.
tant is preservation of their habitats. It is also impor-
tant to control commercial exploitation. The public
must be alerted to the damage done by transplanting
rarities and picking their flowers. We need to study
certain species to determine their requirements and to
monitor their populations. Some, for example. ma\
require periodic fire.
A promising approach to habitat ptcsei \.nion is
mapping ol all species lo deicimine .iggicg.nions 01
(Tillers ol cndangm'd ones.
In the United .Stales iheie are .several areas with
concentrations ol species known only in those regions.
The major centers are in Florida, the southern Appa-
lachiau Mountains, Texas and California. Locating
endemic ccnteis and aggregations ol species enables us
to set priorities for preserving theiv habitats. Land ac-
quisition by lederal, state and local government and
by private groups, designation ol natuial landmarks
and conservation easements are all ways to do it.
Endangered plants should be given a high priority in
evaluating environmental impact statements.
Commercial exploitation must be controlled. Nearly
a third of the native cacti are on the endangered.
threatened or extinct list. Net cadi are commeii iall\
collected by the truckload, with most pressure on the
rarest species which command the highest prices.
Some species of cactus and other succulents are so
rare that they could be made extinct in minutes.
Commercial suppliers should be subject to stifl pen-
alties lor collecting threatened species from the wild.
Rather, they should be encouraged to grow them
directly from seed.
lan-to
-------
Roll call for endangered plants
The craze for rarities should be discouraged. The
owner of an extremely rare and endangered plant dug
from the wild should be made to feel the same social
disapproval that owners of leopard coats now receive.
Digging rare plants to transfer them to a garden,
even a professionally run botanic garden, is not the
answer. Breaking the roots of some species causes in-
fection and death. Many rare plants have highly spe-
cialized requirements which are frequently unknown.
Even if transplanting is successful, the future, espe-
cially the reproductive future, of the plant is uncer-
tain. Plant collections are often lost with the death of
the owner. Even the best botanic gardens' rare species
are exposed to hybridizing with related species, and
records may be lost over long periods of time. Artifi-
cial cultivation should be considered only as a lust
resort if an unavoidable threat endangers the species,
and only with the ultimate objective of reestablish-
ment in its original or a similar habitat.
It is incumbent on Man, as the dominant species,
and the only species which has some control over not
only its own future hm the future of lifg_arQuridJjt, to
interact wisely with his natural environment. The
irony of the present situation is that Mail, for the most
part, is destroying those species which can give the
bes_t jnsighL-jntO evolutinn.-iry rlpyplnpmpnt T-hfire
are several thousand species whirh have aHapig/3 _tr>
unusual environmental conditions. What genetic
quirks have they developed that nothing else has?
With the ansWgrS_tCLiIuLt-q.iiPstirin, Man rnighf rppnir
some_of the damage already done.jmd^be more
tjye in assuring future ecological stability.
Collectors and grazing have endangered the silver
sword, Argyroxiphium kauense, in Hawaii.
96
M i Tr5S> PA/ ffl A)
J?75
488
I ...
-------
APPENHIX 16
GREENWAY PLAN
489
-------
Capital City Grcenway Plan
Raleigh, North Carolina
Brief Description
The locally conceived and proposed Capital City Greenway System
includes planned acquisition of the 100-year flood plain from Umstead
State. Park to the Ncusc Raver. In its entirety, the Capital City Green-
way System project basically proposes implementation of a metropolitan
Raleigh "greenbelt" following the metropolitan area's flood plains.
The Greenway System project proposes a "main stem" continuous green-
belt loop essentially following the Crab tree Creek and Walnut Creek
flood plains. Greenway System "penetrators," following the numerous
smaller urban tributaries to Crabtree Creek and Walnut Creeki will tie
into the central greenbelt loop. The proposed Capital City Greenway
Plan represents a noristructural flood control method which has the
potential to provide the following benefits: highly accessible out-
door recreation to a fast-growing metropolitan population, buffering
of incompatible land-use zones, a humanly healthful and energy-con-
serving bicycle and pedestrian metropolitan transportation mode, main-
tenance of, or contribution to, clean urban air quality, reduction of
certain toxicants in storm-water runoff water pollution, sociological
neighborhood cohesion by linkage of community service facilities, and
intangible aesthetic values associated with a natural environment.
According to the data of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, much
of the 1,500-acre Crabtree Creek 100-year flood plain area is in a
natural state. According to consultations with the Raleigh Recreation
and Parks Department and with the Raleigh City Planning Department in
February 1975, the Greenway System's status is as follows. Local funds
in the amount of $350,000 are available for Greenway acquisition this
year. These funds are expected to be used for full acquisition of the
Lead Mine Creek Creenway penetrator on Crabtree Creek and of the Gar-
ner Branch Greenway penetrator on Walnut Creek this year. Local rec-
reation funds of $200,000 are budgeted annually for additional Green-
way acquisition in the next five fiscal years. The Raleigh Parks and
Recreation Department and the citizens' Creenway Commission are sup-
porting a vigorous program for Greenway flood-plain land donations.
Approximately 75 to 100 acres of the Crabtree Creek flood plain are
presently owned and developed for recreational purposes by the city of
Raleigh.
490
-------
In addition to locally budgeted municipal funds and private dona-
tions, sources of financial assistance to fully implement the entire
Greenway System nay include the following:
(1) The Land and Water Conservation Fund allocations.
(.2) Contingency Reserve Funds from the Land and Water Conserva-
tion Fund.
(3) Special appropriation by the North Carolina State Legisla-
ture (this potential is under investigation hy the city).
(4) Bicycle and pedestrian walkway grant funds per the Federal
Aid Highway Act of 1973.
(5) Federal revenue sharing funds.
(6) Block grant funds per the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974.
(7) Federal grant funds for acquisition of the flood plain for
flood control purposes per Section 73 of the Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 1974.
2
491
-------
GREENWAY TRAIL
This page and the map facing it constitute the focus of the Wake County
American Revolution Bicentennial Commission's proposed Horizon Project:
A Bicentennial Greenway Trail. When completed, the trail would link
Raleigh, Umstead State Park, Morrisville, and Gary, and would be the
catalyst for maximizing the public benefits from the two previously
mentioned projects.
The proposed sewer line's right-of-way would provide a multiple-use
corridor for the Bicentennial Greenway Trail for.most of its length,
thereby generating additional benefits from the sewer line. A recently
adopted master plan for the redevelopment of Umstead Park accommodates
this Bicentennial proposal through its careful consideration to con-
necting points between park trails and those from outside the park.
Thus, the Bicentennial trail would provide an opportunity for citizens
of the county to walk or bicycle to the park, offering a more well-
rounded recreational experience. Camping provided in the park will
give added incentive for trail use for weekend excursions, giving
people a way to enjoy a mini-wilderness experience within a few min-
utes of home. Surveys being conducted as part of the sewer line's
environmental impact statement process will unveil archeological and
biological points of interest that interpretive signs along the trail
could explain for the education and enjoyment of the trail user. The
visual and recreational pleasure of three of the flood-retention lakes
would be brought to the county's rapidly urbanizing population.
This population, like all urban populations, will need recreational
space within which to retune tired bodies after a day at the office
or to seek a short break from the hustle and bustle of city activity.
The proposed trail would appeal to urbanites by providing a space
within which they could walk, hike, jog, or bike; sit, look at trees
and wildflowers, or just be.
The Bicentennial Greenway would be a "linear park within which an urban
population could recreate itself.
492
-------
BICENTENNIAL GREENWAY TRAIL
493
-------
APPENDIX 17
COMMENTS FROM THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OE NATURAL AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES AND RESPONSE
494
-------
N- I ^ North Carolina Department of
Lr 1 Natural & Economic Resources
JAMES E HOLSHOUSER, JR , GOVERNOR
JAMES E. HARRINGTON, SECRETARY
ARTHUR W CGOPl R
ASSISTANT SECRS FAkY'
April ^k, 1975
trpa (!."P',PT o
Ur r\ - (jVlf/ '. I *
Mr. David R. Hopkins
Chief, EIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Room 208 - 1^21 Peachtree Street,
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Mr. Hopkins:
N.E.
iv, AILV.TA. GA.
The North Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources has reviewed
the draft environmental impact statement entitled, "Crabtree Creek, Wake
County, North Carolina, EPA Project C3703M. We submit the following
comments for EPA's consideration:
Title
The title of the EIS should be changed to reflect the nature of the proposed
project, for instance, "Interceptor Sewer to Service the Upper Crabtree Creek
Watershed, Wake County, North Carolina."
I. General Descriptive Information
1. Figure #1, page 4, portrays the proposed force main located along Inter-
state kQ, between I-40 and William B. Umstead Park. The land between
\-kO and the present park boundary is scheduled for acquisition by the
state for inclusion in the state park. The proposed sewer line, there-
fore, would ultimately be located within the boundary of Umstead Park
as it parallels \-kO and any environmental damages occurring during
construction (or later) will be within the proposed park boundary.
The destruction of wildlife habitat and the aesthetic degradation
associated with a * 0' wide clearcut for the right-of-way at the park's
edge would be incompatible with the park and therefore unacceptable to
this agency. As the segment of sewer line proposed to parallel l-^tO
is a force main and not gravity flow, its location need not be restricted
to the north of the highway. Therefore, we suggest that consideration
be given to having the sewer line cross 1-^*0 at Trenton Road rather
than at the Reedy Creek Road crossing and that the line be located
within the 1-^0 road cut on the south side of the highway as it
parallels 1-^0. The vegetative survey (reference Summary and p. 133)
should be expanded to include this alternative right-of-way.
2. The discussion of service areas, pp. 9-17, gives population projection
figures for different service areas. It would be helpful if a state-
ment of the methodology used in determining these projections, and
subsequent water use figures, were contained in an Appendix. Also,
how do these population projections compare with recent projections,
such as those of OBERS?
495
-------
Mr. David R. Hopkins
Page 2
April 14, 1975
3- Reference page 14: Assumptions used for design purposes at the bottom
of the table need a more thorough explanation. It is not clear from
the explanation why a 6,779,000 gpd flow is projected and then a peak
flow of 5>000,000 gpd is used for design purposes. An explanation of
how water usage figures were derived is also needed. Why, for example,
are the water usage figures for some students based on 20 gpd while for
other students the figure is 10 gpd? Also, how were water usage figures
derived for commercial and industrial users?
4. Figure 8 (the "Wake Wastewater Facilities Plan") is in error in that it
shows the interceptor following Crabtree Creek through Umstead Park
rather than along 1-40. We assume this error will be corrected in
the Wake Wastewater Facilities Plan.
5. Reference page 33: The Walnut Creek wastewater treatment plant is no
longer causing considerable water quality degradation in Walnut Creek
as the effluent is now being piped to the vicinity of the confluence
of Walnut Creek and Neuse River.
III. Alternatives
1. Reference page 75: Should the Wake County Complex 201 Facilities Plan
indicate that, should wastewater from Apex be transported via the Walnut
Creek interceptor to Raleigh Neuse River wastewater treatment plant for
treatment, then there will be a further increase in the load on the
interceptor.
2. General Comment: The discussion of alternatives is somewhat less than
comprehensive." The information provided on effects of the stated
alternatives is scanty. For instance, on page 80 it is stated that
the "Pump to New Hope Basin Alternative," results in significantly
higher costs and has no particular environmental advantages. Sufficient
information should be presented so that the reader can determine whether
this statement is valid.
In addition, we recommend that an alternative that reflects a solution
with broader scope (than those alternatives presented) be developed and
evaluated. Such an alternative could combine some of the following
elements:
a)Upgrading of existing treatment facilities servicing the subject
area(this alternative partially discussed for Cary Treatment Plant only)
b)L)se of package treatment plants in selected areas where they may be
practical.
c)Land use guidance and facilities phasing (land use guidance regulations
might be enacted to phase and restrict growth to acceptable levels in
the Upper Crabtree Basin and extend the date when additional inter-
ceptors will be required.
d)Construction of a pumping station and force main to transfer wastewater
from the 500 residents on the Coles Branch Treatment Plant to an
existing Walnut Creek interceptor.
496
-------
Mr. David R. Hopkins
Page 3
April 14, 1975
IV. Impact of the Proposed Project
1. Reference page 88, first paragraph: We suggest the following sentences
be included. "Due to the extreme hazard of pine bark beetles in the
project area at the present time, special care should be taken during
the construction phase. All seriously damaged trees, especially pines,
should be removed as injuries often increase beetle susceptibility."
2. Reference page 88, line 14, and page 93, line 3: The EIS should clearly
state how the right-of-way will be maintained. If chemical control is
planned, the chemical name, rate and frequency of treatment planned
should be given.
3. Reference pages 112 and 113: Order of the two pages should be reversed.
V. Adverse Impacts Which Cannot Be Avoided and Mitigation Measures
1. Reference page 126, line 18: We suggest that material not wanted by
landowners and too large to be chipped be made available to the public
as free firewood.
2. Reference page 133: The completed "vegetative survey" should include
present land use of the proposed right-of-way and acres in each use.
General
In the course of reviewing this EIS, our staff expressed substantial concern
regarding the implications of the potential secondary impacts of growth and
development that will be the obligate result of construction of this sewer
line. The following comments indicate the nature of our concern:
"The proposition that . . . The proposed project promotes good planning and
land use objectives must be questioned in light of its probable impacts on
land use patterns and public service costs. In a recent study of sewer
construction programs, CEQ concluded that these programs may 'have an adverse
impact on energy conservation and land use and may, by encouraging urban
sprawl, increase water pollution problems.1 The report, prepared by Urban
Systems Research and Engineering, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts, reviewed
52 wastewater treatment projects in urban fringed areas. The study found
that when sewerage interceptor facilities are built so as to service poten-
i tial growth far into the future, the over-capacity appears to encourage ad-
verse development patterns. These projects encourage development to be
strung out and to leapfrog over vacant land. A related study, The Cost
of Sprawl, released by CEQ, HUD and EPA concludes that 'planning, to some
extent, but higher densities to a much greater extent, result in lower
economic cost, environmental cost, natural resource consumption and some
personal cost for a given number of dwelling units. ' The study also indi-
cates that the higher density community requires about 44% less capital
investment; requires a lower proportion of government investment; requires
about 55% lower construction cost; generates about 45% less air pollution;
and uses about 44% less energy and about 35% less water. While the above
figures are not directly applicable to the Crabtree Creek project, they do
raise serious questions about the planning philosophy outlined in this
report and they do illustrate the importance of addressing the cost of urban
sprawl in the impact statement.
497
-------
Mr. David R. Hopkins
Page 4
April 14, 1975
"To say that 'the placement of the proposed interceptor will also facilitate
implementation of good planning and land use objectives' ignores the fact
that current funding mechanisms for interceptor sewers stimulate development,
with communities fostering growth of any kind under pressure to amortize their
public investments. Additionally, the local cost is generally paid from
property or sales taxes. These taxes are regress!ve--meaning that lower
income people pay a higher portion of their income in these taxes than do
higher income people. This increased burden may make it impossible for other
programs (i.e., housing and economic development) to achieve their objectives.
The impact statement should discuss the allocation of the burden among various
income groups, equitable ways of financing this program and impacts on other
community objectives.
"Finally, according to the impact statement (p.55), the SCS flood control
program for the area has encouraged speculation. Will this project en-
courage additional speculation? What will this do to the land use pattern?
Prime agricultural land? What measures might be taken to avoid these prob-
lems? What about allocating the local cost to benefiting property owners
and project phasing?"
Staff comments on this subject conclude by recommending that final approval
of the project by EPA be conditioned on completion of appropriate land use,
201 and 208 plans by Wake County and their approval by the state and federal
governments and on acquisition of land rights for SCS flood control dams by
Wake County. EPA has included the last restraint (that relating to the
flood control dams) as a provision of funding for the project and we concur
with this step.
This still leaves open the question of any conditioning of this project on
completion of the county land use and facilities planning efforts. At
present, there is no doubt that Wake County lacks the appropriate full
array of land management tools necessary to prevent (or minimize) adverse
secondary impacts from this project. In this regard, Wake County is no
different from all other North Carolina counties. The county has recog-
nized this problem and its Plan of Act-ion to Manage Land Uses and Public
Facilities within the Upper Crabtree Creek Watershed represents its response
to the issue. It appears to us that, if Wake County and Raleigh proceed
with the key planning elements of this action plan, then a major step will
have been taken to assure that the potential undesirable impacts of the
development of the upper basin will be minimized. We suggest that, in
order to assure that this vital phasing come to pass, EPA further condition
approvals for this grant on the successful completion of the Action Plan by
Wake County and Raleigh. In this regard, a phasing of the Crabtree Creek
interceptor project may be appropriate. For example, the Richlands Creek
branch, designed to serve overloaded state facilities and private interests
near the Fairgrounds, could be built first after completion of the planning
elements relating to that area. The E1S seems to suggest this approach on
page 138 (paragraph at top of page) but includes only flood control struc-
tures as conditions. In this regard, we wish to point out that land rights
to Structure 25 are not really vital to protecting the lower Crabtree basin
from development upstream on Richlands Creek. Structure 11 is the key. We
498
-------
Mr. David R. Hopkins
Page 5
April Il , 1975
suggest the inclusion of Structure 25 in this condition be deleted. We
suggest that this concept be broadened to include appropriate land use,
201 and 208 facilities planning. Such conditioning, it seems to us, will
permit needed service to be extended into presently overloaded areas and
will assure that the undesirable secondary effects from the project will
be minimized. It would also provide interested parties with more informa-
tion needed to evaluate the proposed project by clearing up certain questions
that cannot now be answered except by speculation.
Although some undesirable growth and development might take place prior
to completion of the above items and construction of the sewer project,
it would appear that such activities could be minimized by strict en-
forcement of minimum lot sizes and effluent discharge requirements
pursuant to Pl.92-500.
Sincerely yours,
Arthur W. Cooper
AWC:cj
cc Thayer Broi1i
John Wray
Berry Wi11iams
Alan Eakes
Page Benton
John Scott
499
-------
IN R
North Carolina Department of
Natural & Economic Resources
ARTHUR W COOPER
ASSISTANT SI
BOX ^687 RALEIGH ,"0i :
TELEPHONE s- Q sr^-i^^i
JAMES E. HOLSHOUSER, JR., GOVERNOR GEORGE W. LITTLE, SECRETARY
March if, 1976
Mr. John E. Hagan, I I I
Chief, EIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
1^21 Peachtree Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Dear Mr. Hagan:
The following comments will summarize DNER's response to questions arising as a
result of our review of the draft EIS for "Crabtree Creek, Wake County, North
Carolina, EPA #3703^-" These comments were developed after several meetings
between our respective staffs and as a result of your response of February 5, 1976,
to my informal communication to you of December 2, 1975.
Title
We assume that our suggested title "Interceptor Sewer to Service the Upper Crab-
tree Creek Watershed, Wake County, North Carolina" is acceptable to EPA and will
be used.
I. General Descriptive Information
1. We asked that consideration be given to moving the location of the
forced main line proposed for the north side of I-40 between Umstead
Park and 1-40 from the north side of I-UO to the south side. The
consulting engineers for this project have agreed to move the pumping
station and the force main to the south side of 1-^0. The force main
as now planned will cross I-^O at Trenton Road and tie into the gravity
line as originally proposed. A copy of the consulting engineers letter
on this subject is attached. Your February 5, 1976, letter indicates
that you concur with this proposal.
2. We have examined the methodology used to develop the population pro-
jections described in the DEIS and have compared them to OBERS figures.
The population projections used in the DEIS were derived from the "Report
on Wake County Water and Wastewater Engineering Study." According to
that Study:
500
-------
"These population projections have been
based on field observations, development
plans now under consideration within the
county, other pertinent information avail-
able in published reports and on the best
judgment of the Engineers."'
The projections for the Upper Crabtree Creek Watershed (see Table 5,
page 48, DEIS) compare very favorably with projections based on OBERS
Series "E" and are in fact slightly less than OBERS based projections
(see Table 5 below)
TABLE 5
UPPER CRABTREE CREEK WATERSHED POPULATION PROJECTIONS
irtion
Portion
I960
(census)
6,316
853
1970
(census)
15,499
928
1980
(proj.)
23,306*
1,042*
1990
(proj.)
32,204*
1 , 1 38*
2000
(proj.)
42,064*
1,204*
TOTAL 7,169 16,377 26,348* 33,352* 43,267*
(24,596**) (31,283**)
Therefore, the data contained in Table 5 in the original version of the
DEIS are satisfactory. However, we suggest use of the revised Table 5
provided above so that the close agreement with OBERS Series "E" projec-
tions can be demonstrated.
3. The questions we raised regarding water use figures and derivation of
the 5,000,000 gpd design figure have been answered and we accept the
data in this table.
4. EPA has agreed to remove from Figure 8 the interceptor shown following
Crabtree Creek through Umstead Park.
5. EPA agrees that the Walnut Creek wastewater treatment facility is no
longer causing water quality degradation in Walnut Creek and will
correct the final EIS to reflect this fact.
p.6 "Report on Wake County Water and Wastewater Engineering Study": Volume 1,
Wake Engineering Study Group, Gary, N. C. 1969
* Disaggregation from OBERS Series "E" County Population Projections (1975 draft
revision)
** Wake Engineer Study Group Projections
501
-------
III. Al ternat i ves
1. We understand that EPA is expanding the cost analysis of the Walnut
Creek alternative.
2. Our staff and EPA discussed the question of treatment of alternatives
to the proposed project at considerable length. We are now satisfied
that the alternatives discussed in the draft EIS are satisfactory and
represent those that are the most feasible under the circumstances.
The discussions with EPA clarified a number of the questions our in-
formal reviewers had raised and it is on this basis that we find the
treatment in the EIS satisfactory.
IV. Impact of the Proposed Project
1. EPA has agreed to this sentence and will include it in the final EIS.
2. DNER has discussed the matter of ROW maintenance with the Director of
Utilities for the City of Raleigh (p. 88 and 93, DEIS). The inter-
ceptor right-of-way will be maintained by the Utilities Department of
the City of Raleigh. The city will conduct an initial seeding with
grass over the right-of-way. No herbicides will be utilized to con-
trol vegetation on the right-of-way. The city does not anticipate
further maintenance since upkeep will be the responsibility of the
individual property owners.
3. The page order will be changed in the EIS.
V. Adverse Impacts Which Cannot be Avoided and Mitigation Measures
1. EPA agrees that our suggestion is, in principle, fine except for the
fact that there are procedural problems associated with giving the wood
away and that there may be adverse air pollution impacts from burning
it. It is our understanding that the contractor who clears the ROW is
free to discard the wood in any way he wishes. We suggest that the
contractor be encouraged to put the wood that cannot be chipped to some
useful purpose rather than burning it on the job.
2. The following information summarizes present land use and acreages de-
voted to each in the proposed ROW:
Existing land use on the proposed Crabtree Creek Interceptor
right-of-way is predominately undeveloped. A rough land-use
inventory of the right-of-way has been made from existing
data, principally the "Research Triangle Regional Development
Guide.' Use of the State Land Classification System is made
for categorization nomenclature of land uses. This system
identifies the following categories: developed, transitional,
community, rural and conservation. Explanatory sub-categoriza-
tions are made as needed.
o
"Research Triangle Regional Development Guide"; Research Triangle Regional
Planning Commission; Research Triangle, NC; April, 1969
502
-------
Referencing the map "Crabtree Creek Interceptor Sewer" (page 5
of the DEIS) and beginning at the northeastern point of the intei
ceptor off Oak Park Road and then proceeding south, then east, and
finally west, existing land use patterns on the interceptor right-
of-way may be noted as follows:
From the old Oak Park Treatment Plant off Oak Park Road on the
north edge of Crabtree Creek following a westerly course to the
Duraleigh Road Bridge is roughly 3,500 linear feet (3.2 acres^) of
community (primarily residential) usage;
From the Duraleigh Road Bridge westward to the confluence of Crab-
tree and Richland Creeks, southward along Richland Creek to the
splitting of the interceptor below Reedy Creek Road is approximately
13,300 linear feet (12.2 acres) of rural (predominately agricultural)
usage;
From the split below Reedy Creek Road southward to the division above
1-40 and traveling eastward toward the National Guard Armory is
roughly 11,900 linear feet (10.9 acres) of rural (predominately
agricultural) usage;
From the division above 1-40 traveling south and east to the Carter
Stadium and State Fairground service areas is approximately 13,800
linear feet (12.7 acres) of rural (primarily agricultural) usage;
From the split below Reedy Creek Road traveling northwest along
1-40 to the point that the interceptor crosses 1-40 is about 19,000
linear feet (17.5 acres) of rural (predominately forestry) usage;
From the crossing at 1-40 traveling in a southwest direction along
Crabtree Creek to the split for the Mobile City interceptor is
roughly 11,900 linear feet (10.9 acres) of rural (mixed forestry
and agricultural) usage;
The Mobile City interceptor ROW is approximately 4,200 linear feet
(3-9 acres) of predominately rural (mixed) usage;
From the split for the Mobile City interceptor traveling southwest
along Crabtree Creek past Morrisville to Highway 54 is roughly
7,000 linear feet (6.4 acres) of transi tional (suburban) usage;
From Highway 54 traveling southwest along Crabtree Creek to Coles
Branch is about 6,300 linear feet (5.8 acres) of rural (primarily
agricultural) usage;
"Acreage is based on a standard 40 foot right-of-way; figures are not adjusted
for any deviations occurring in residential areas.
503
-------
The Coles Branch interceptor from the confluence of Crabtree
Creek and Coles Branch southeastward to the end of the interceptor
is approximately 14,000 linear feet (12.9 acres) of rural (pre-
dominately agricultural) usage.
The following table summarizes, by acres and percent of total usage,
the existing land uses on the ROW. We suggest its inclusion in
the existing land uses on the
the EIS.
SUMMARY OF EXISTING LAND USES
ON THE
CRABTREE CREEK INTERCEPTOR Rl GHT-OF-V/AY
Category
Rural
Acres
86.8
Percent of
Total Usage
90%
Sub-Category
Acres
Percent of
Total Usage
Communi ty
3.2
Forestry 17-5
Agricul-
tural 54.5
Mixed 14.8
57%
15%
Trans i t ional
6.4
n
Res iden-
tial 3-2
Suburban 6.4
n
Total
96.4
100%
96.4
100S
General Discussion
The following information has been provided by our staff to speak to the questions
raised concerning the impacts to community facilities and local tax rates caused
by growth induced by the project. Although general in nature, they should suffice
for purposes of demonstrating, in the EIS, the magnitude of such affects and we
suggest the inclusion of this material in the EIS.
1. Population Growth
Any effort to estimate the costs of growth must be based on population increases
induced by the facility in question. Five separate calculations of induced
growth are possible based on the data in the EIS:
504
-------
a. Wake County Planning Department projection through 1990 - Upper
Crabtree Creek Watershed 31,283.
b. DEIS p. 121 - projected density for this project is J.k persons
per acre. (7-4 x 16,500 acres = 122,100)
c. Upper Crabtree Creek Area Wastewater Needs Wake County, N. C. by
Wake Engineering Study Group.
Wastewater flows in the Upper Crabtree Creek were based on present
and projected land use in the various sub-basins. The following
design criteria were used for projecting future waste generation:
Waste Generation Design Criteria
Industrial - 10,000 gal/acre/day
Commercial - 4,500 gal/acre/day
Residential - 2,000 gal/acre/day
Park - 1,000 gal/acre/day
(2,000 gpd/acre ? 80 gpcd = 25 persons per acre x 15,400 acres = 412,500
persons in Upper Crabtree Creek Basin.)
d. DEIS PP. 98 and 116 indicate population will be 80,000.
e. Map No. 2 shows the Estimated Future Peak Flow to be 49.1 mgd.
49.1 mgd -f 80 gpcd = 613,800 population equivalent - 35,000 state
owned land population = 578,300 population equivalent (private).
Estimates (b) and (c) are used in subsequent analyses as estimates of high
and low populations to be expected in the Upper Crabtree Creek basin.
2- Determination of the amount of growth induced by the proposed interceptor
sewer.
To determine the amount of growth induced by the proposed interceptor sewer,
it is necessary to calculate the practical holding capacity (population) of
the Upper Crabtree Creek basin with sewer service and subtract from this figure
the practical holding capacity w? thout sewer.
There are approximately 30,000 gross acres of developable land in the Upper
Crabtree Creek basin. Based on land uses in other North Carolina cities,
it is estimated that these 30,000 acres will be developed as follows: resi-
dential 16,500 acres (55 percent), transportation 7,500 acres (25 percent),
commercial 3,000 acres (10 percent), industrial 1,500 acres (5 percent), and
public/institutional 1,500 acres (5 percent). Based on information supplied
by the Wake County sanitarian, minimum lot sizes in western Wake County
average 60,000 square feet due to soils generally unsuitable for development
506
-------
with septic tanks. Based on this average minimum lot size and a population
of three persons per household, the study area could accommodate a population
of approximately 33,000 in 11,000 dwelling units on 16,500 net acres of
residential land without the sewer facility.
Determining maximum population in the study area with sewer available could
be based upon any of the estimates in (l) above. Estimate (c), 412,500
persons is chosen as an upper limit. Estimate (b), rounded to 7 persons
per acre, yields a population of 115,500 persons (7 x 16,500 acres) and
is utilized as a lower estimate. Cost of providing services for the future
population is given in (3) below for both these target populations, less
the 33,000 persons (11,000 dwelling units) who could live in the study area
without the proposed sewer system.
3. Determination of costs of providing municipal-type services for the induced
populat ion.
The table below gives estimated costs for providing municipal-type services
for the study area population induced by the proposed sewer system. High
and low estimates are given for induced populations of 379.500 and 82,500,
respectively. Costs per capita were derived from City of Raleigh costs in
FY 1975~76 for all categories, except libraries, which reflect Wake County
per capita costs in 1975-7&-
SERVICE COSTS
Cost for Cost for
Service Cost/Capita 82,500 pop. 379,500 pop.
Fire protection $ 25-75 $ 2,124,375 $ 9,772,125
Police protection 40.17 3,314,025 15,244,515
Solid waste 21.75 1,794,375 8,254,125
Library 1.94 160,050 736,230
Parks and recreation 22.16 1,828,200 8,409,720
Streets 9-17 756,525 3,480,015
Administration 19-82 1,635,150 7,521,690
TOTAL $140.76 $11,612,700 $53,418,420
4. Analysis of benefits versus costs of induced population growth.
For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that revenues generated by tax
base from induced development would be adequate to pay for the urban-type
services needed by the induced population. However, it must be realized that
the above costs do not include capital expenditures for municipal infrastructure,
507
-------
particularly streets, water and sewer. According to estimates provided by
the planning departments in the City of Raleigh, City of Durham and the
Town of Cary, these municipalities already have in place most community
facilities needed to serve an additional 223,000 people without adding
additional sewer lines. Obviously added costs would be incurred by each
of these cities if they had to serve this many more people, but the costs
should be substantially lower than providing these services in the hinter-
lands of Wake County. This is particularly true of capital expenditures
for facilities such as fire stations, libraries, and parks which have a
"service area radius" as well as a maximum population each can serve.
Based on this brief analysis, future growth in Wake County would probably
be less costly, in terms of required public expenditures, if vacant proper-
ty already served by public utilities and facilities were "in-filled" before
intensive development outside this area is induced by public expenditures
for sewer facilities.
I trust that these responses are satisfactory and that it will now be possible
for you to complete the EIS prior to your March 15, 1976 deadline.
Sincerely yours,
Arthur W. Cooper
AWC:eh
cc: Sandy Beach
Everett Knight
Thayer Broi 1 i
508
-------
APPENDIX 18
STATUS OF FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS
509
-------
' ID r= \A//\ K E
I CD P=) T H l^ >a P=) O l__
November 28, 1975
Mr. Robert D. Howard, Chief
Environmental Impact Statement Preparation Branch *
Environmental Protection Agency
1421 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Re: EPA Project C 370344 Crabtree
Creek, V7ake County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Howard:
t-fe are most interested in finalizing the EPA grant offer of
$2,445,750 for the captioned project.
In your draft Environmental Impact Statement of January, 1975
you recognize on page 137 that "Completion of this flood control project
is one method whereby the threat of increased flooding may be eliminated."
Wake County is totally committed to the completion of the Crabtree
Creek Watershed Project as evidenced by our tabulated accomplishments
which are enclosed as an attachment to this letter.
You further state in the draft EIS that "Grant funds shall be
withheld from the proposed project until land rights have been
acquired for the Soil Conservation Service control structures
located downstream of each respective service area, or until other
measures are taken/ including but not limited to channelization,
urban runoff controls, developmental restrictions, and other landuse
mod if ica-cions which will insure adequate flood control . ". . . ."
We respectfully submit that instigation of sediment control programs
and flood plain zoning by both Wake County and the City of Raleigh are
substantial rr.easures currently established to alleviate the flooding
proble~i and by their nature- constitute "other measures".
It is our understanding that the land acquisition requirements
imposed upon Wake County prior to January 1, 1976 are limited to
Structure 11A. This structure includes eleven parcels of land. Eight
of these parcels have been fully and totally acquired as evidenced
by the attached list.
Ti KPV*?'?"^!:!^7T v"^>
'i>hl!i(ii ~ ' i vv ' ';*'-"' '^.i
WAKE COUNTY'
510 - COORDINATOR
-------
COLjrsJTY OR
The three1 remaining parcels (described on a second list) can
be summarized as follows: Morton Property - The owner died recently
and the estate is being handled by the Trust Department of Wachovia
Bank and Trust Company. Negotiations are virtually complete and
should be closed well before December 31, 1975. Valone Property -
Condemnation action has been instituted, appraisers have been appointed
by the Clerk of Court, the appraisers are to be briefed on December 3,
1975 and are to report their findings on December 13, 1975 to the Clerk
of Court. At that point Wake County can and fully intends to take
possession of the land. Walton Property - Condemnation proceedings
have been instituted against the Walton property. County attorneys
are diligently seeking to schedule a preliminary hear>ing before the
Clerk of Court with Walton's attorneys to confirm a hearing date.
Walton's attorneys are apparently seeking to delay proceedings.
As you are aware Dr. Walton entered suit in Eastern District
Court of North Carolina some months ago seeking a preliminary injunction
to halt county and federal action in the Crabtree Creek Watershed"
Project. Wake County successfully defended the suit and Judge Dupree-'
has denied the request. It is speculated that Dr. Walton will appeal
Judge Dupree's ruling, but as of this date, no appeal has been entered.
In essence, Wake County has taken every available legal step to
acquire the Walton property. Cr.ere appears to be no doubt that the
county will be able to acquire the property through the exercise of
the power of eminent domain. He'..ever/ the wheels of justice do turn
slowly. ^~^~-
In view of Wake County's cercnstrated accomplishments on Crabtree
" Creek Watershed Project, and in consideration of the eminent acquisition
of all land rights for Site 11.-. except for the Walton property, and
in further consideration of the extraordinary efforts by Wake County
to acquire the Walton property, -.:e do respectfully and sincerely
request that the Environmental Protection Agency authorize the disbursal
of the grant funds for the appropriate segments of the Crabtree Creek
sewer outfall associated with Structure 11A.
In absence of approval ve vc-la further request that an extension
of time be granted until July 1, IS76 to "conclude the Walton condemnation
before any consideration is civer. by EPA to withdrawal of the grant funds.
We will be pleased to ir.eei '.'ith you and your associates at a
mutually agreeable time durir.r the r.onth of- December to discuss this
matter further.
Sincerely,
Vassar P. Shearon
Chairman
VS/dc
Enclosure
511
-------
Accomplishments on the Crabtree Creek
Watershed Project
Since July 1, 1974
".V Site Analysis
Site 1 v
r
A construction contract in the amount of $225,524.50 was awarded on
September 19, 1974 and is scheduled to be completed in Decejmber 1975.
The local cost for land rights previously expended totaled $18,018.
Site 2 ;
A vegetative maintenance contract in the amount of $389 was awarded
and work was completed on November 17, 1975. "
Site 3
A vegetative maintenance contract in the amount of $517 was awarded
and the work was completed on November 17, 1975
Site 5A
A property survey contract in the amount of $31,028 was awarded on
April 21, 1975 and work was completed on October 3, 1985.
One tract of land totaling 10.568 acres of land was purchased for
$23,150.
(The easements on five parcels of land totaling approximately 22 acres
were acquired prior to July 1, 1974).
Condemnation actions have been filed in court on one tract totaling 17.858
acres.
Authority was sought and obtained from the State Soil and Water Conservation
Commission to institate condemnation on two additional tracts of land
totaling 5O.1 acres.
.
Site 11A
An engineering contract v.-as negotiated and executed between the County of
Wake and the State Department of Transportation for a $10,000 engineering
design for elevation of a road crossing Site 11. It is estimated that
the total cost of the road, most of which must be born by Wake County
will total $270,000.
512
-------
A property survey contract in the amount $7,728.90 was awarded on April 7,
1975 and completed on June 17, 1975.
i
Eight parcels of land have been obtained to include six parcles by
easement totaling 71.645 acres and two parcels by purchase totaling
9.303 acres at a total cost of $27,558. , .*
\ ''
(Two of the easements obtained involved seeking and obtaining approval
of the easements by the Council of State and obtaining signatures
of the Governor and the Secretary of State on the easements granted).
Condemnation proceedings have been instigated for two parcels of land
totaling approximately 34 acres of land.
Site 13 '
A construction contract in the sum of $465,959.57 was completed on
June 5, 1975.
Three repair contracts for Site 13 have been awarded and completed
since June '5, 1975 and total $5,362 in cost.
(Land rights cost for Site 13, expended prior to July 1, 1974 total
approximately one-half million dollars)
A contract has been negotiated and executed between the County of Wake
and the City of Raleigh for utilisation of Site 13 for recreational purposes
by the City of Raleigh. ^ .
Site 18
Two vegetative maintenance contracts have been awarded and completed at
a total cost of $814. The contracts were completed in April and November,
1975.
A maintenance contract in the amount of $16,802 was awarded on November
8, 1974 and completed on September 9, 1975.
Site 22B
A construction contract in the amount of $228,984 was awarded on
Seotember 19, 1975. Construction is scheduled to be completed, in
December 1975.
Site 23
s
A property survey contract in the amount of $39,821.35 was awarded on
September 16, 1974 and completed on March 28, 1975.
Eleven tracts of land have been acquired. Six tracts by easement totaling
3.799 acres, four tracts by deed totaling 234.826 acres and one tract
by contract totaling 267.707 acres have been-acquired at a total
expenditure of $532,976.
513
-------
Project Wide
Wake County has expended approximately $9,000 since July 1, 1974 for
property appraisals, legal services, and miscellaneous survey connected
with the project. _ .
i
Wake County applied to the Farmer's Home""Administration for a watershed
loan in the amount of 1 1/2 million dollars and the application was
approved in June of 1975. i
The Wake County Soil"Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program became
operational on March 1, 1975. Since that time five incorporated municipalities
within the county have, by resolution, come under operational control
of the county's Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program.
Field accomplishments on both pre-existing sites and for new construction
have materially contributed to aba-tement of the sedimentation problem -
thereby contributing to alleviation of flooding problems.
The City of Raleigh and the City of Cary both operate sediment control
programs within their respective jurisdictions.
Wake Countyhas applied to the Federal Insurance Administration for
coverage by their program, and a contract has been awarded by FIA to
the Corp of Engineers to conduct a flood plain study within the county.
Flood hazard regulations for the County of Wake became operational
on October 1, 1975 thereby adding further to the alleviation of the
flood hazard within the county.
e
The City of Raleigh also operates a flood plain zoning ordinance.
514
-------
(Emmtg
#f JJatural
Room 610 Wake County Courthouse P. O. Box 1226 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
"' A'mRAECTORSMITH , Telephone (919) 755-6838
January 28, 1976
Mr. Jack E. Ravan
Regional Administrator
Region IV . .
Environmental Protection Agency
1421 Peachtree Street N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Attention: Water Division
Re: C370344
Crabtree Creek, Wake County/ NC
Dear Mr. Ravan:
In accordance with your letter of December 19, 1975 to Mr. Vassar
P. Shearon granting an extension of time on the captioned project/ we
are pleased to submit a monthly project report.
All property for dam site 11 has been acquired except for the
property owned by Dr. Russell C. Walton, Jr. Dr. Walton has entered
a suit in Eastern District Court for North Carolina seeking an injunction
against the Crabtree Creek Watershed Project. The suit was -denied,
and is now on appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond,
Virginia. Our attorney has received a time schedule from the Court of
Appeals which includes a February 18, 1976 deadline for Dr. Walton
, to perfect his appeal, a 30 day subsequent period for Wake County and
- the U. S. Government to answer his complaint, and an established
date in May for oral arguments before the Court of Appeals.
In the meantime, Wake County is vigorously pursuing condemnation
action against Dr. Walton in the state courts.
Negotiations have been completed to acquire a key tract of land
on dam site 23, which constitutes one half of the actual dam site.
The other half has already been procured.
Negotiations continue with landowners on site 5A. Two tracts are
in .the process of being condemned.
A surveying contract for site 20 has been drawn and will be
advertised for bids shortly.
515
-------
Page 2
Winter shut-down is in effect on the two construction sites sites
22B and 1.- Both are virtually complete except for final seeding etc.
We will be pleased to answer any questions which may arise concerning
the project.
Sincerely
H. A. Smith
HS/dc '
cc: Vassar Shearon
G. H. Jones
B. G. Brock
James Mills
516
-------
afee (Eomttg
Room 610 IVal^e County Courthouse
P. 0. Box 1226
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
H. A. "JACK" SMITH
DIRECTOR
March 2, 1976
Telephone (919) 755-6838
Mr. Jack E. Ravan
Regional Administrator
Region IV
Environmental Protection Agency
1421 Peachtree Street N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Attention: Water Division
Re: C370344 '
Crabtree Creek, Wake County, NC
Dear Mr. Ravan:
We are pleased to submit our monthly report on the captioned project:
1. Wake County continues to pursue condemnation of the Walton Property
on Site 11A in the State courts. No definitive accomplishments can be
reported at this time.
2. Negotiations have been completed to acquire a minor tract on Site 5A
consisting of .002 acres; the deed will be recorded shortly.
3. A deed has beendrawn and executed by the Wake County Commissioners to
transfer four small parcels of property on Site 22B in accordance with an
earlier "consent judgement".
4. Estimates have been received for surveying Site 20; upon review and
approval by the Board of Commissioners, the contract will be awarded.
5. Vigorous negotiations have been underway with virtually all property
owners on Site 5A. Seven parcels will be submitted on March 10, 1976 to the
State Soil and Water Conservation Commission for approval of condemnation.
Upon receipt of approval, which normally takes no more than 7 days, condemnation
proceedings will be initiated.
Negotiations on four other parcels are nearing conclusion, and should be
consummated in March.
All other parcels will be vigorously pursued.
-------
Mr. Jack E. Ravan
Pac,e 2
March 2, 1976
6. Globe Industries (owner of a sizeable needed acreage on Site 20,
including buildings considered subject to 'relocation) has declared bank-
ruptcy. Wake County has contacted the referee in bankruptcy/ has ordered
an appraisal of the subject property, and is developing plans to acquire the
needed property.
7. Winter shutdown remains in effect on Sites 22B and 1.
8. Appended hereto are current status reports, by landowners, for
Sites 11A, 23, n " 5A on land, rights, plus a recapitulation for the entire
project.
We remain available to answer any questions which you may have.
Sincerely,
H. A. Smith
Director
jls
.Enclosures
cc.
Vassar Shearon
G. H. Jones
James W. Mills
B. G. Brock
518
-------
LAND RIGHTS x
CRABTREE CHEEK WATERSHED PROJECT
Site
11A
Acquired
Date
6-17-75
6-13-75
6-23-75
6-30-75
'.0-3-75
LO-3-75
10-7-75
10-7-75
'
Grnntor
Earnie G. Stone
S. R. Turner, Jr.
Lucille A. Grissom
Frank M. Harper
Lillic Mao Grisnom
iillic Mac Grissom
St;iL-; of NC
(DeiJt of Correction:;*
'
State of MC '
(NCSO)
Grantoo
County of Wake
County of Wake
County of Wake
.
County of Wake
County of Wake
County of Wake
-County of Wake
County of Wake
. , .
. Type of
Instrument
Easement
Easement
Easement
Deed .
Easement
Deed
Easement
Easement
i-
Recorded
Book
2325
2325
2325
2327-
.
2350
2350
2350
2350
.
Page
373-394
367-368
369-370
142
403.405
401-402
559-562
563-567
' '
Acres
0.147
0.289
0.771
4,779
2.438
4.524
13. .
55. +
'
Price
0
0
9,558.00
0
18,000.00
o
' 0
0
-
Remarks
11A-6 Flood Pool
11A-2 Flood t-ool
11A-3
11A-4 /2",748 Perm Pool
(_2_.031 Flood: Pool
11A-5 Flood Pool
11A-5 -Perm Pool
!
-------
LAND RIGHTS
CRABTREE CIIEEK WATERSHED PROJECT
Site 11A
NEEDED
Date
,-.
'
Grantor
: 1
John G. Morton
Jajncs A. Valonc
Ru:;r;cll C. Walton, :
\
-
Grantee
'
Type of
Instrument
,-
Recorded
Book
)
\
1
^
Page
-
Acres
1.546
.449
1.866
5.526
13.059
7.733
6.997
Price
,
Remarks
Flood pool 11A-1
Work limits
Perm Pool 11A-7
Flood pool
Perm Pool 11A-6
Flood Pool
Work limits
0
CO
LO
a
o>
s
s
0.
IU
u.
S
g
i
g
3
------- |