Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Attachment 3 7 <br /> From: Miller.Svtlnev <br /> To: N ctoM1rr <br /> Q: OirirtooM1er Santlt <br /> subject FW:[External]Re:Maps provided In RxIassifcatlan Request ror Eno RNer and Tm,curry <br /> Data: Tuesday,September 20,2022 3:09:33 PM <br /> Attachments: Ian-001— <br /> Cy, <br /> n-001 onCy, <br /> I just got off the phone with Christopher(copied on this email).Below is an email exchange I had with Elizabeth Kountis(DWR Planning Section)who is responsible for surface water reclassifications.I have <br /> highlighted the relevant statements confirming that the surface water reclassification of the Eno River that the City of Durham requested for a proposed Eno River intake upstream of our existing Eno River <br /> emergency intake will not result in any change to the existing Protected Area that was established for our existing Eno River emergency intake. <br /> All of this is consistent with the information that.was presented to the EMC,and is consistent with the information DWR sent to the public for the hearing on November 3`d.There is nothing for Orange County <br /> to do if the EMC reclassifies the Eno River for water supply as the City has requested. <br /> --Syd <br /> Sydney Paul Miller <br /> Water Resources Manager <br /> Department of Water Management <br /> City of Durham <br /> 1600 Mist Lake Drive <br /> Durham,NO 27704 <br /> 919.560.4381 ext.35201 <br /> Sydney MillsrPdurhan eov <br /> I ®WATER MANAGEMENT <br /> CITY OF DURHAM <br /> Please note that—rd correspondence to ondfro thissender may besubject In <br /> the provisions of North Carolina Public Records Law and disclosed to third parties. <br /> From:Miller,Sydney <br /> Sent:Tuesday,February 22,2022 2:20 PM <br /> To:Kountis,Elizabeth<elizabeth.kountis@ricclenr.gov, <br /> Ce:Roper,Brooke<Brocke.Roper@durhamri <br /> Subject:RE:[External]Re:Maps provided in Reclassification Requestfor Eno River and Teer Quarry <br /> Elizabeth, <br /> 1. 1 will work with Brooke to obtain a shapefile ofthe quarry perimeter. <br /> 2. We see no reason to extend the CA for the quarry beyond its perimeter. <br /> 3. We are OK with keeping the PA forthe existing Eno River intake as is,understanding that the PA for the existing Eno River intake would also serve as the PA for the proposed Eno River intake. <br /> --Syd <br /> Sydney Paul Miller <br /> Water Resources Manager <br /> Department of Water Management <br /> City of Durham <br /> 1600 Mist Lake Drive <br /> Durham,NC 27704 <br /> 919.560.4381 ext.35201 <br /> Svdney.M iller(adurhamnc.eov <br /> In WATER MANAGEMENT <br /> CITY OF DURHAM <br /> Please note that-0 correspondence m oddhom this sender may be subject m <br /> the provisions of North Carolina Public Records Low and disclosed to third parties. <br /> From:Kountis,Elizabeth<elizabeth.kountisrancdenr.eov> <br /> Sent:Tuesday,February 22,2022 2:08 PM <br /> To:Miller,Sydney<Svdney.Mlller andu rham nceov> <br /> Cc:Roper,Brooke<Braoke.Roperno durhamnceov> <br /> Subject:RE:[External]Re:Maps provided in Reclassification Request for Eno River and Teer Quarry <br /> Good afternoon! <br /> State staff have been looking at the mapping info and files for the proposed reclassifications,and have a few questions: <br /> • There appears to be no shapefile/layer for the proposed CA for the quarry in the gdb file.Can you please send us one?It would be the(top of the)quarry's berm according to the state.If Durham <br /> desires,Durham could request a larger CA for the quarry. <br /> • The existing PA(for the existing intake just downstream of the proposed river intake)would suffice as the proposed PA for the proposed river intake.Is that ok with Durham?Or does Durham want a <br /> larger PA for the proposed intake that would include the non-gray-shaded&hatched area shown on the left side of the map provided in the reclassification request,which is also provided below? <br />