|
. . . . .. .
<br /> . . .. . ,,. . . . „ ,.....-....-
<br /> . . • : ., • .•:•,:., . . •,, f:17..,'-::-. ,'.'-ii•t.i:::-. .,'
<br /> .•. . . .. _ • .
<br /> . .
<br /> . .
<br /> „ .
<br /> • .
<br /> ., .
<br /> . ...
<br /> •
<br /> . . . ■
<br /> ■
<br /> '..4;.. i,"4::L.Vigie%rt
<br /> , ..;‘■
<br /> '' ..;:.:7„;.,.„:. • .:„,,', ,-,-..4,7M.,:•:;:e.; ', ....-i`:..,.:;t14:,,,',` 1,4;-.7.,:Zi,.:'-,;
<br /> . ,' •.L.:.,'":-.":':•.-,;r9,11....,itAw:.,:;''' ''..2`4,- 1:i4471-?,p...5..";.,. ...';;* ;..,-.. :, . - . . ;..:.:;•1•1.
<br /> --
<br /> SUMMARY OP CANE CREEK EIS
<br /> • ..
<br /> Susexuer of Quia-'Creek-EIB::eta
<br /> •
<br /> The Environaantui. Impact Statement- (ELS) prepared by the ITC Department
<br /> -
<br /> of Envircnvsneal Mau:gement nu"the proposed Cane Creek reservoir relies
<br /> heavily ceeprevions reports prepared:lb?MASA-and the the ELS prepared by.
<br /> the t Azar COrps of Ehgineers.. The.ftalowing are saw of the sigdficarit
<br /> coaclusians-of the'EZZ:and Planntn,g.Staff=lents on theme.
<br /> •
<br /> %ter•Qualitt
<br /> .,
<br /> . ,
<br /> The,=at viable Eaternattve to the acne Creek supply fbr-southern
<br /> Orange Consity Is.,Tordare Lake. Me,expected.water quality in-these taro, •
<br /> reservoirs has low hem s cartrovemey and.the question is discussed
<br /> exteradveiy ire the SIT-
<br /> The Cane Creek supply is located in a relatively sma12, rural.water— . '.
<br /> • shed., 'Mere are no perrmEtted point source%discharges upstreeci or the
<br /> QM'Creek dame Cane Creek water quality Is therefare privaselly in-
<br /> fluenced by moped= source,runofr.. Since=et of the watershed Is
<br /> . . .,
<br /> eittier wade&or etativated as fOrdant,the potential:pollutants which .•:,,
<br /> ,.....-
<br /> nig*be found in tter runoff-cora&include nutrienta, agricultural_
<br /> teals.and=spends&sediments...
<br /> lir contrast the If=prdnts out that there are 132 point smite as.- . _,•:,;.;-.•:,
<br /> charmer,of di:emetic:or induetattat wastes to the streams in the Jordan
<br /> .:',: •:-:
<br /> Laker watershed. These include 94-ctLscharess of dcreatic wastes and 39
<br /> lizbistrial waste diecharges-in the waterslari. Effulent from these dis—
<br /> charges represents 4-or the average flow at the&Mari deer. Mr:paint
<br /> source pollution Can might to be=re'signifenant In Jordan TAIonk because : ••:-'.:•i'•-.1:
<br /> , ..
<br /> its diethlager area Iria31136,the ulterrized areas.of areerusboro,,Burlington,
<br /> Chapel Fii.7.1. and part,of Durham. Based on-what wee 1thow•about the quality'
<br /> of runoff from.Urban areas and the 7.arge=ter-of point sources or-:,, •
<br /> Aft multi= in the-Jordan waters.bed„ the conclusion should be that the Cane
<br /> IV Creek supply should be far.sup:rice.The EIS, however, does. not reach
<br /> this cw-beim.
<br /> are.Creek art andint Take have been proeosect as water supply soure _
<br /> fbr lime than la years and e body of water-quality data.has accuseahted
<br /> for these.potential: sources in that time. The EIS states that in the past,.
<br /> Cane Creek reservoir was cOnaddered the better quality water-supply based
<br /> on existing data.. Based on more recent nonitatIng.and analysis, the EIS
<br /> conaudes that the differences III quality are not so readily apparent..
<br /> The report,suggests that the improves:eft may be due to better water quality
<br /> in the Base and New Sopa stews brought about by increasing regulation of
<br /> point source-disc:barges:.
<br /> Anotter.reascn that themore recent data appears to show improved water
<br /> quality in the Haw ant New liope• steams could be that an Insufficient number
<br /> of sampiss were taken,. that they-were taken at the wrong tiara or the samples
<br /> were of czar a.few,selected pollutants'of the-many possible pollutants. In.
<br /> anr CaSe*the final water quality'of an impconinent cannot be completely
<br /> assessed until each of the lakes have formed and stabilized for several years.
<br /> •
<br /> .... .. ,
<br /> -'.... .
<br /> . —
<br /> - .
<br />
|