More Lost Rapids

More Lost Rapids of the Triangle

A Carolina Paddler Article

By Zach Schiada

My last writing brought up memories from those that used to run the now Lost Rapids of the Haw. It felt necessary to hear from those that I didn’t have a chance to speak to last time as well as give a nod to the effort that was made to preserve this stretch of river now lost to the paddling community. This led me to understand that despite the battle over the Jordan Lake dam construction being lost by those who enjoyed running the longer Lower Haw section, it was not without significant effort to produce a different outcome. I became curious about the history of other rivers in our area, so I’ve decided to include some background on them as well. I apologize in advance for what seems like a novel’s worth of information. Also, despite my own view on the topics, I will attempt to provide an objective picture of the subject matter since this is a complex issue with pros and cons and each side feeling so passionately about their point of view.

It is not my intention to argue for or against dams necessarily since I have benefited from Jordan Lake in my younger years and didn’t get into paddling until I became an adult. I have fond memories of wakeboarding and tubing on Jordan as a kid as well as many trips to the now-gone rope swing at the Robeson Creek portion of the lake. I have also suffered many days of stuffy noses in my youth from the lake water getting who knows what chemicals up my nasal cavity. At the same time, having learned about what was lost, I’m disappointed that perhaps I’ll never get to know the experience of paddling down some of our state’s rivers as they naturally existed. While I do not intend to argue for or against dams, it seems as if a key takeaway would be that community involvement, especially early on, is necessary if there is a wish to have a voice in whatever changes happen to our local rivers.

Haw River– Many people in the Triangle area as well as throughout the state consider the Lower Haw a special stretch of river. The Haw seems to run more than most rivers in the area due to the many tributaries that flow into it, and I’m told the Haw used to run even more often than it does now. In unfortunate news to paddlers of the Lower Haw, however, the project to complete what was originally called the New Hope Dam and later renamed to the B. Everett Jordan Project, was passed as PL 88-253 in 1963. According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers website, construction started in 1967 and water impoundment began in September of 1981 with full capacity reached by February of 1982. The idea was to create a reservoir that would provide a local water supply, additional recreation opportunities and offer flood control. The total project cost ended up being $146.3 million by completion. Local paddlers were both disappointed by the loss of rapids as well as concerned about worsening the already problematic water quality. Additionally, the small towns of Seaforth and Pea Ridge were displaced due to their location in the floodplain of New Hope River.

I spoke to Gary Cousino who paddled the Haw prior to the dam impounding the river and he mentioned that in addition to the known Lost Rapids of Pipeline and Finder’s Keepers, there were also lesser-known class I rapids all the way up to the site of the earthen dam, mostly located by Gunther Harris Island. This was not a popular paddling section, but he mentioned he would find lost paddles and other equipment in this area and would return them if he could figure out who they belonged to. Additionally, although he never paddled the area, he mentioned that while motorboating he spotted what looked to be class II rapids near the Pea Ridge Rd area of the New Hope River on the lake east of the Haw River. The New Hope River no longer exists as a river but was a Haw River tributary that formed from the confluence of New Hope Creek and Morgan Creek and makes up the main part of Jordan Lake.

Per William Nealy in “Whitewater Home Companion Southeastern Rivers Volume I”, the Army Corps of Engineers had done a study on the construction of the dam and determined that the lake water would be unsuitable for contact recreation. Contact recreation refers to water activities like swimming or diving where people fully immerse in the water.  Steve Groetzinger, CCC Conservation Chair, mentions in his report in “The Paddler, Vol. 8, No. 1, May 1979” that prior to final approvals on the impoundment of the river to create the reservoir, there was speculation by paddlers that President Jimmy Carter would strip the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of their power to plan and execute water projects. This was based on the President’s harsh words for such projects, but this ultimately did not halt the inevitable filling of the lake. The Carolina Canoe Club, with contributions by Bob Miller and Rick Serano, attempted to convince the planners to maintain the lake level at 190’ for environmental reasons as well as to maintain the lowest rapids Finder’s Keepers and Pipeline, but were told that they were too late to give their input. In “The Paddler Vol. 8, No. 1 of May 1979”, Groetzinger notes in his conservation report:

“Thanks to an incredible amount of work by Bob and Dr. Serano, our arguments for a low lake level (190’) were infallible. It appears that the lower lake level will offer a good alternative to the shallow, polluted culdesacs which will form at lake levels of 200’ to 240’ feet and also save “Finder’s Keepers” and “Pipeline” and all other rapids below “Gabriel’s Bend”. Needless to say, the $105 million already spent on the project (including polluted swamp areas) precluded anything being done with the level of water.”

Ultimately, Steve concluded that despite the club feeling that they were not included in discussions for the plan by the Army Corps of Engineers, they were advised that the project had been too far along for any changes to be made at that point. His advice now is to avoid future projects from eliminating our paddling spots, there should be more involvement earlier on. In speaking to him, he expressed doubt that acting earlier on this matter would have prevented any changes to the dam project, but he did manage to assemble a team in Bob Miller and Rick Serano and present a case that at the very least gave the appearance of trouble to the Corps of Engineers’ plans. Steve has a great story on this situation if you get the chance to speak with him and he tells it in such an entertaining way that is difficult to present in this format.

The dam construction was not a total loss for paddlers. Steve Groetzinger noted that they did make a favorable impression while meeting with those responsible for the project and the Army Corps of Engineers did agree to work with paddlers to establish easier put-ins and take-outs in the future. This meant there would no longer be necessary to paddle a long distance on flatwater to finish the shortened run. The current takeout at Robeson Creek Canoe Launch was not completed until July 1993 according to Paul Ferguson in the September/October 1993 edition of “The Paddler”, but it was a result of the efforts made by the club, which the government assumed was much larger than it was at the time. Carolina Canoe Club member, Jim Clarke, mentioned that the take-out was especially useful except when park rangers would often lock the gates at unusual times.  Jim recalled an experience when Bob Miller and Rick Serano had been locked in after an afternoon of paddling and he had to help remove a wooden bollard to free them from the locked gate. Additionally, the original fears of high levels of pollution were mitigated by community efforts to improve the Haw’s water quality from pollution upstream. Jim Clarke also mentioned that it was the fears of further pollution from the mills upstream that pushed local governments to clean up the river since it would be worsened with the dam going in. For further reading on the efforts made to clean up the Haw River from factories’ pollutants and from construction along the river, I’d recommend reading “Down Along the Haw:The History of a North Carolina River” by Anne Melyn Cassebaum.

Little River– I also did research on the Little River (Eno Tributary), which is listed in the northern part of Durham where the North Fork Little River and South Fork Little River meet. “Paddling Eastern North Carolina” provides information on this section as starting from the North Fork on South Lowell Rd and starts as a fast-moving Class I-II run followed by a steep, Class III Gorge Section before arriving at the current takeout at Hwy 501. There was less of a fight to construct the dam to impound the reservoir on the Little River. This reservoir was created to add to Durham’s water supply. However, there was some resistance to the Durham area project in determining the right source for the city’s new demand for water. Construction on the dam was completed in 1987 and the reservoir now supplies about 50% of the city’s water. The site was chosen after evaluating expansion of the existing reservoir, Lake Michie (on the Flat River) or the more controversial choice of damming the Eno River for a reservoir. The Little River was ultimately chosen due to the steep slate channel of the natural topography in addition to the community’s protests against the use of the Eno River as a source. Jim Clarke, who lived in Northern Durham at the time mentioned that the Eno as a source was problematic largely due to the increased interest in trails and paddling along the Eno River as a recreation destination for those in the Triangle. Prior to the construction of the current dam on the Little River, the land the reservoir flooded was the town of Orange Factory. There had already been a dam in the mid 1800s which was approximately 15 feet high and provided power for the factory, which produced cotton yarn. The town utilized the dam both for power generation and collecting water for steam power.

According to Bob Benner and Tom McCloud in “A Paddler’s Guide to Eastern North Carolina”, prior to the dam that was erected in 1987, there was still an extra whitewater section of river that was runnable beyond the popular Little River Gorge section that went from the US 501 bridge and ended at Rt 1627. It consisted of class I-II rapids and included an old dam drop that was runnable. The total section was approximately 2.5 miles long with a gradient of around 8 ft/mile. Despite the lower gradient, Steve Groetzinger said that this was good quality whitewater, with nice standing waves to play in and good eddy service to get in and out of them. This section, while not as popular as others in the area, was given up in order to provide drinking water for the City of Durham and with the flooding of Orange Factory will likely be lost forever.

YouTuber and Carolina Canoe Club member, Jerry Yang, however, was able to run two extra rapids that are normally underwater and it can be seen in his YouTube video “Whitewater Kayaking – Exploring a Micro Creek – Little River (Eno Tributary) Exploratory Run”. One of the thought-to-be lost rapids is a right turn against a rock wall that he says is sort of like the last portion of Razorback on Wilson Creek but with a turn to the right rather than the left. The other recovered rapid was a wave train that carries you to the 501 bridge. He says this rapid is similar to Keeneys on New River Gorge, but on a much smaller scale. He did not go beyond Hwy 501, but he did mention that in the laps he ran, the wave train was the best at 4.5 ft. The lake level at the time of his January 3^rd paddle was around 336 ft of elevation, whereas the normal capacity is 355 ft. At the time of this writing, it is at 341 ft, but I have not had the chance to get a visual on whether this elevation offers any waves. It should be noted, however, that even if the reservoir were to drop low enough to expose extra rapids, paddling beyond the HWY 501 bridge is not permitted even with the required permit to takeout before the bridge per the City of Durham’s “Code of Ordinances”.

In addition to the lost rapids, taking out at the Little River is no longer as easy as it used to be. What is left is a confusing and at times frustrating experience with the takeout with talks of paddlers being hassled by City employees for even being on the water and some limitations to parking on the side road next to HWY 501. I was able to find documents from the city that suggest plans on improving the put in and take outs for the still runnable Mini Gorge section, but was unable to find any concrete plans being moved forward.

Neuse River– In my research on dams and reservoirs in our area, I looked into the creation of Falls Lake by damming the Neuse River. Falls lake had a similar history to Jordan Lake in terms of constant delays and budget overruns. It, too, was carried out by the US Army Corps of Engineers as was Jordan Lake. Unlike the Haw River, however, there is very little information on what the Neuse River was like prior to the dam construction.  Human intervention for accommodating mills began in the 1700s and the Falls of Neuse community always had some form of dam from that point on. The only account that we have of what the natural river was like comes from John Lawson, an English explorer that described this as “Falls of a large creek”. According to Janet Steddum in “The Battle for Falls Lake”, the section that is referred to as the Falls of Neuse was a drop of about 30 ft over 500 ft distance of river. While there is no written record of anyone boating over the Falls in any way, a settler’s canoe was discovered in the silt near a previously built wooden dam while construction was taking place for the current earthen dam that is in place today. I’d like to imagine that someone got to go on a wild ride down the Falls of Neuse during exploration, but there is no written record of what happened to the canoe that was discovered.

Despite the history of human intervention, Gary Cousino mentioned that he used to run the Neuse prior to the current dam. There was a granite dam in place at that time, but there was a portion that was breached that offered a five to six foot drop, followed by waves for about 150 feet. This was a section that is not currently runnable but added to the Tailrace area still in place today. Having run this section prior to the current dam, Cousino has doubts about the existence of a 30 ft drop now buried by the lake since the old dam was only about 15 feet high. Perhaps John Lawson’s account took the current Tailrace area into consideration, but regardless we can feel confident in knowing that there was some high gradient whitewater lost through each project that dammed up this section of the Neuse.

Today, we only have a section after the dam with runnable rapids classified II+ according to Paul Ferguson in “Paddling Eastern North Carolina”. The rapids below the modern earthen dam are only runnable once the lake level reaches 251 ft above sea level so the dam will release enough flow. Unfortunately for residents whose homes were flooded at Possum Track Road and nearby areas and for recreational boaters’ purposes, several alternative project plans were proposed but not accepted. One of them put the location of the dam further upstream, which would have maintained some of the rockier areas of the fall line. The geology of the river is such that the fall line occurred with the most gradient being on the eastern side of the existing lake, with steep granite cliffs being in the current location and shallow swampy areas near the confluence of the Flat and Eno Rivers. While I was unable to find any descriptions of the river without a dam due to constant exploitation of hydropower as early as the 1700s, one can only speculate as to the fun that may lie beneath the water and silt in this rocky part of the river before human intervention. Ultimately, the geology of this part of the river was the main deciding factor for the site chosen, with the granite walls aiding the structure needed to build the dam. The proposal to put the dam further upstream lost to the current design due to weaker bedrock and the risk of erosion, which could cause costly repairs or even failure.

According to Janet Steddum, the construction of this dam was more a story of money, politics and concerned homeowners than “paddlers vs Army Corps of Engineers.” Congress had approved the construction of a dam in 1965, but construction did not get completed until 1983 at a total cost of $183 million. Delays were largely due to finding an agreement on the plan for how to supply water to the Raleigh area.  Meanwhile costs increased due to inflation as well as the rising property values for needed land since proposed lakeshore property increased in value. The delays led the City of Raleigh to contract the Army Corps of Engineers to construct a dam of Beaverdam creek to create Beaverdam lake in 1976, while the larger project was pending an outcome. The political divide on the larger Falls dam project pitted US Senator Jesse Helms versus US Senator Sam Ervin.  Helms opposed the construction of the dam (the one proposed by the Army Corps of Engineers) due to costs and fears that the US Government would not support it financially. Ervin argued that the good of the community outweighed the cost and the belief that the Federal Government would eventually fund the project. UNC-Chapel Hill had conducted a poll of citizens and found 78% were in favor of the project and 22% against it, with a consensus being that it was necessary for the progress of the growing Raleigh area. This was all happening at a time that land needed for the project was increasing in value since it would now be lakefront property, thus increasing costs. Ultimately, the project was completed by the Army Corps of Engineers and funded by Congress.

Some of the information about these dams and their construction was known by our group because of several members’ involvement. However, it may be the case that all of our club’s issues with dams are not only in the past. This can become relevant in the future too as the Triangle continues to gain popularity as a place to live and the population grows. In my researching this history, I discovered the city of Raleigh is looking into damming the other Little River (Neuse Tributary) near Zebulon. This project is also facing constant delays, but I’ve found evidence of involvement by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, so it is a possibility. While this Little River is not a popular paddling destination for whitewater, there are areas further downstream that can be paddled and Paul Ferguson’s book, “Paddling Eastern North Carolina” gives information on several sections leading to Goldsboro, including some with class I and II rapids. While hiking and swimming with my kids, I’ve scoped out this river near where the dam is proposed and I’m on the fence about whether it would be worth paddling the short, but high gradient quarter mile or so of drop at the Mitchell Mill State Natural area as well as at a breached dam downstream at Little River Park. It is also worth noting that it is considered one of the healthiest rivers in the Southeast according to American Rivers. Perhaps if this river is of interest to us paddlers, it would be best to heed Steve Groetzinger’s advice in his Conservation Report and be prepared well in advance to become involved with local governments’ plans.

To bring some positivity to this otherwise downer subject of dams taking away our ability to paddle certain whitewater sections of rivers in our area, I think it’s worth noting some successes in recent years. As many know, Milburnie Dam on the Neuse River was removed in 2017. In addition to the rapids at the site of the dam, I’ve found more rapids while exploring about a mile above the dam location but I’m unsure of their having been runnable prior to the dam removal since I’ve not seen them mentioned in any of my guide books and I’ve not spoken to many people familiar with this section.

Another dam recent removed is the Hoosier Dam along the Rocky River just upstream from the Bear Creek confluence. This exposed previously extinct rapids and helped the Cape Fear Shiner fish that was discovered there. Bob Brueckner has a nice writeup of a couple of trips he did in this section on the Carolina Canoe Club Facebook page and I’ve heard of the dam site as having a powerful class II wave. When I recently spoke with an American Whitewater representative, I was told there is also interest in other dam removals along the Deep River to save the natural habitat of the Cape Fear Shiner. I can think of several locations on the Deep River specifically that I’d like to explore with the removal of dams, including the one at Moncure and one at High Falls to name a couple. It seems as if proposals for new dams and reservoirs to provide drinking water and recreational opportunities will always threaten to change rivers and remove rapids for paddlers. However, low head dam removal appears to be a more common practice as communities learn of the dangers that they pose to swimmers and boaters and their intended purpose becomes obsolete.

Sources:

1. Nealy, W. “Whitewater Home Companion Southeastern Rivers Volume I”. Menasha Ridge Press,1981.
2. Ferguson, P. “Paddling Eastern North Carolina, 2nd Edition”. Pocosin Press, 2007.
3. Benner, B., McCloud, T. “A Paddler’s Guide to Eastern North Carolina”. Menasha Ridge Press, 1987.
4. Steddum, J. “The Battle for Falls Lake”. Lulo Press, 2007.
5. Cassebaum, A. “Down Along the Haw: The History of a North Carolina River”. McFarland & Company, 2011.
6. Groetzinger, S. “Conservation Report. The Paddler, Volume 7, No. 6”. March 1979.
7. Groetzinger, S. “Conservation Report. The Paddler, Volume 8, No. 1”. May 1979.
8. Ferguson, P. “President’s Column. The Paddler, Volume 22, No. 4”. September/October 1993.
9. https://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Locations/District-Lakes-and-Dams/B-Everett-Jordan/History/
10. http://epec.saw.usace.army.mil/BEJDESC.TXT
11. http://epec.saw.usace.army.mil/BEJPERT.TXT
12. https://www.hazenandsawyer.com/projects/little-river-dam-and-reservoir
13. https://www.opendurham.org/buildings/orange-factory
14. Little River Corridor Open Space Plan, https://www.durhamnc.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1035
15. https://web.archive.org/web/20160419180913/http://www.americanrivers.org/initiative/water-supply/projects/protecting-the-little-river-nc-sustainable-water-supply-vs-new-reservoir/
16. https://library.municode.com/nc/durham/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH38PARE_ARTIIILIRILAAR_S38-153PE
17. https://www.durhamnc.gov/1225/Lake-Levels#:~:text=Little%20River%20Reservoir%20Elevation%3A%20340.30%20feet%2C%20msl%20Lake,River%20Reservoir%20is%20full%20at%20355.00%20feet%2C%20msl
18. https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/2d7a8b3b8a2e47cdb87c55d7ea0ac172
19. Yang, J. (Personal Communication, November 29-30, 2022)

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgEfCsI6drw

1. Clarke, J. (Personal Communication, November 29, 2022)
2. Cole, S. (Personal Communication, October 14, 2022)
3. Couisino, Gary (Personal Communication, December 1, 2022)
4. Brueckner, B. (Personal Communication, October 14, 2022)
5. Groetzinger (Personal Communication, December 5, 2022)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falls,_North_Carolina#/media/File:NeuseRiverDam.jpg