19970722 Ver 1_Report_19980210

1

1

1
1
1
Z--/v- 9~
Randleman Lake
rE~.us~~~~E ~ Nutrient Reduction Strategy
~`~ " '~. ; ~~; and
~ ~ ~-
' ~~ Implementation Plan
' ~.
1 ~~
,,
;' ~ ~ x ~ February 1998
~~ ~ ~ ~
i DRAFT
~~~ r
~ w~ Macow ~f++
~ ~A1ff , she
NicH iaNr ~:: wa,~.
GA~f J~~ r1
~ ~ 1
~, .Y^ TOM ,
^{M -OUIT ~~ c
i t
Cwff~ ~r~.
R~CN1.~M
`~
~~
~u'l~Cap COUNTr
A,NOO~~y CO{INTr
~` ~RCMOALE ~'oao ~
1I, ` t
4+~ ~r
f~~
~ ~•
~wo~~•
1
~ MOIO.tfO
RAMOLfYAN 1
~'~~+~ LARf
.,
.~
~ , ~ ~~
''"' S
wio~ati~M
~ ~ ~~
c~'^ ~,
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority
1

Acknowledgments
' This Nutrient Reduction Strategy and Implementation Plan document was written and prepared
for the Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority (PTRWA) by
Tetra Tech Inc.
4401 Building, Suite 200
79 Alexander Drive
i'.O. Box 14409
RTP, NC 27709
' in coo eration with Hazen & Sa er P.C. PTRWA also wishes to ex ress a reciation for the
p wY P pp
' cooperation of its members, the Piedmont Triad Council of Governments, and other local
jurisdictions within the proposed Randleman Lake watershed, in compiling data and information
for this document and the strategy development process.
' Watershed nutrient loading models and the lake water quality model used to develop and
evaluate the proposed Nutrient Reduction Strategy are summarized in separate documentation
' prepared by Tetra Tech Inc.

t

1

1
Draft (February 1998) Table of Contents
' TABLE OF CONTENTS
' Acknowledgments ............................................................. i
List of Figures ................................................................ v
List of Tables ................................................................ vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................... ES-1
I. BAC KGROUND ............................. 1-1
1.1 ...........................
PTRWA and the Proposed Randleman Lake 1-1
1.2 Need for a Nutrient Reduction Strategy .............................. . 1-5
1.3 Purposes of Strategy and Implementation Plan ........................ . 1-5
1.4 Components of the Strategy and Implementation Plan .................. . 1-5
2. NUTRIENT REDUCTION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ............................ 2-1
2.1 Applicable Water Quality Standards ................................. 2-1
' 2.2
2.3 General Discussion of Assimilative Capacity . : : :::::: : ::: : ::::::::::..
Point and Nonpoint Source Reduction Goals .. 2-1
2-4
2.3.1 Analysis of Existing Conditions .............................. 2-5
' 2.3.2 Analysis of Future Conditions without Water Supply Protection .... 2-11
3. NUTRIENT REDUCTION STRATEGY ........................................ 3-1
' 3.1 Point Source Nutrient Control Program ............................... 3-1
3.1.1 Enhanced Phosphorus Removal at High Point Eastside WWTP ...... 3-1
3.1.2 Potential for Control of Minor Dischargers ...................... 3-2
3.2 Nonpoint Source Control Program .................................. 3-3
3.2.1 Watershed Protection Ordinances ............................. 3-3

' 3.2.2 Structural Controls on Loads ................................
3.2.3 Non-structural Control on Loads ............................. 3-12
3-18
3.2.4 Education and Outreach Programs ............................ 3-26

3.3 3.2.5 Monitoring and Enforcement ...........................:::..
Summary and Evaluation of Proposed Nutrient Reduction Strategies .. 3-27
3-27
3.3.1 Point Source Controls ..................................... 3-28
' 3.3.2 Estimated Effectiveness of Nonpoint Source Control Strategies :::..
3.3.3 Net Load Reductions under Nutrient Reduction Strategy .. .. 3-28
3-30
3.3.4 Estimated Chlorophyll a Response with Nutrient Reduction Strategies
' ....................................................... 3-30
4. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ................................................ 4-1
' 4.1 Schedule for Implementation ....................................... 4-1
4.2 Monitoring Program .............................................. 4-2
' Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority iii
t

Randleman Lake Nutrient Reduction Strategy and Implementation Plan Draft (February 1998)
4.2.1 Tracking Implementation Activities ........................... 4-2
4.2.2 Tracking Environmental Effectiveness ......................... 4-3
4.3 Data Management ............................................... 4-6
4.4 Evaluating and Updating Strategy and Implementation Plan .............. 4-6
5. REFERENCES ......................................................... $-1
APPENDIX I. EXISTING POINT SOURCE NUTRIENT LOADS ........................ A-I-1
APPENDIX II. ESTIMATION OF FUTURE LAND USE CONDITIONS ................... A-II-1
iv Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority

John_D
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jimmie Overton [jimmieC~dem.ehnr.state.nc.us]
Wednesday, February 11, 1998 1:21 PM
john dorney; tarry ausley
Fwd: Randleman
Subject: Randleman
Sent: 2/11/98 6:12 PM
Received: 2/11/98 5:09 PM
From: coleen sullens, coleenC~dem.ehnr.state.nc.us
To: beth~dem.ehnr.state.nc.us
boyd ~ dem.ehnr.state.nc. us
dennis~dem.ehnr.state.nc.us
Greg Thorpe, gregC~4dem.ehnr.state.nc.us
Jason C~dem.ehnr.state.nc.us
lisa ~ dem.ehnr.state.nc.us
michelle~dem.ehnr.s
CC: Steve_Mauney~WSRO.ENR.State.NC.US
bradley~ dem.ehnr.state.nc.us
jimmie~dem.ehnr.state.nc.us
jay sauber ,jay C~dem.ehnr.state.nc.us
Randleman -plan to take to WOC in March (Steve Z is working on a
schedule),
we need to go through document in detail to determine what it says will
be
done to control nutrients, how it compares to other strategies, are there
additional controls they could propose (as I have heard, it does still
indicate they will violate the chlorophyll a standard), determine if it
is
possible to meet the standard -take that analysis and lay it before the
EMC
for their decision. Boyd will be the person organizing the review of the
document. Copies have been sent to everyone (also to the agencies who
have
commented on various parts of the proposal in the past - DEH, DWR, WRC,
DWM).
Comments need to be back by FEBRUARY 23rd. In order to get it before the
WQC
by March, time will be needed to evaluate everyone's comments.
Therefore,
the sooner you can get the comments in the better. This has been
identified
as a high priority.
Steve -Larry has WSRO's copy of the document.
If anyone notices I have missed someone on the message, please let me
know.
Coleen

t
Draft (February 1998) Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES
' Figure 1. Location of Proposed Randleman Lake ................................... 1-2
Figure 2. Randleman Lake Watershed ............................................ 1-3
' Figure 3. Randleman Lake Watershed Model Segmentation .......................... 2-3
Figure 4. Randleman Lake Watershed High Growth Areas for Year 2025 ............... 2-13
' Figure 5. Annual Phosphorus Loads from High Point Eastside Vv WTP ................. 3-2
Figure 6. Existing Water Supply Watersheds in the Randleman Lake Watershed .......... 3-5
Figure 7. Existing and Projected 2025+ Land Use for Randleman Lake Watershed ....... 3-11
Figure 8. Location of Regional Detention Ponds ................................... 3-13
Figure 9. Location of Proposed Constructed/Enhanced Wetlands ..................... 3-16
Figure 10. Future Nonpoint Source Phosphorus Loads with and without Watershed
Protection Ordinances ................................................. 3-28
' Figure 11. Locations of Proposed Monitoring Sites ................................. 4-5
Figure A-1. Sewered Areas and Soils with Poor Suitability for Onsite Wastewater Disposal
in the Guilford County Portion of the Randleman Lake Watershed ............ A-II-4

Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority v

Randleman Lake Nutrient Reduction Strategy and Implementation Plan Draft (February 1998)
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Jurisdictional Composition of Proposed Randleman Lake Watershed (acres and
percent of land surface) Including Municipal Extra-Territorial Jurisdictions ........ 1-4
Table 2. Nutrient Export Rate Estimates ......................................... 2-6
Table 3. Estimated Existing Land Use by Sub-Watershed (acres) ...................... 2-7
Table 4. Estimated Nutrient Loads by Lake Segment (kg/yr) for Existing Conditions with
WWTP at 10.5 MGD, 4 mg/1 Total Phosphorus, and 20 mg/1 Total Nitrogen ....... 2-8
Table 5. Chlorophyll a Predictions for Existing Conditions .......................... 2-9
Table 6. Estimated Future Land Use by Sub-Watershed (acres), without new WS Ordinances
................................................................... 2-15
Table 7. Estimated Nutrient Loads by Lake Segment (kg/yr) for Future Conditions, without
Nutrient Reduction Strategy,
WWTP at 26 MGD, 1 mg/1 Total Phosphorus, and 6 mg/1 Total Nitrogen ......... 2-16
Table 8. Chlorophyll a Predictions for Future Conditions,
without Nutrient Reduction Strategy ...................................... 2-16
Table 9. Future High Point Eastside WWTP Nutrient Loads (kg/yr) .................... 3-2
Table 10. Existing Watershed Overlay Districts for Randleman Lake Watershed........... 3-6
Table 11. Limits to Development Density in Water Supply Protection Ordinances ......... 3-8
Table 12. Estimated Future Land Use by Sub-Watershed (acres) with Water Supply
Protection Ordinances ................................................. 3-10
Table 13. Estimated Reduction in Nonpoint Nutrient Loads by Lake Segment (kg/yr)
Achieved by New Water Supply Protection Ordinances for Future Land Use
Conditions .......................................................... 3-11
Table 14. Proposed Constructed /Enhanced Wetlands ............................. 3-15
Table 15. Stormwater Controls Required by Water Supply Protection Ordinances ........ 3-19
Table 16. Primary Resource Concerns Addressed by Agricultural Soil Erosion
Control Plans ........................................................ 3-20
Table 17. Estimated Reduction in Nonpoint Nutrient Loads by Lake Segment (kg/yr)
Achieved by Enhanced BMP Implementation on Crop Land for Future Land Use
Conditions .......................................................... 3-21
Table 18. Stream Buffer Requirements in Water Supply Protection Ordinances .......... 3-22
Table 19. Factors Determining Suitability for Septic Systems ........................ 3-25
~~ Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority

Draft (February 1998) Table of Contents
1
Table 20. Estimated Nutrient Loads by Lake Segment (kglyr) for Future Conditions,
with Nutrient Reduction Strategy, WWTP at 0.2 mg/1 Total Phosphorus and
6 mg/1 Total Nitrogen ................................................. . 3-29
Table 21. Chlorophyll a Predictions for Future Conditions with Nutrient Reduction
Strategy and WWTP at 26 MGD and 0.2 mg/1 Total Phosphorus ............... . 3-31
Table 22. Schedule for Implementation of Management Actions .................... .. 4-1
' Table 23. Proposed Programmatic Indicators to Track Plan Implementation ........... .. 4-2
Table 24. Proposed Environmental Indicators to Track Plan Implementation ........... .. 4-3
' Table A-1. Domestic Type Dischargers in Randleman Lake Watershed ............... .. 6-2
Table A-2. Transfer Matrix for Calculating Potential Future Guilford Co. Land Use Based
' On 2025 Projections ................................................. A-II-S

1
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority vii

1

1

Draft (February 1998) Execzetive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background and Purpose
The Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority (PTRWA) plans to build Randleman Lake as a
safe and dependable water supply for the North Carolina Piedmont Triad Region. The
impoundment, expected to satisfy water demands for the next 50 years, will have a surface area
of 3,230 acres (at normal pool) in G~.~~~forc? and Randolph Counties and will fall within sub-basin
03-06-08 of the Upper Cape Fear River Basin. The Randleman Lake watershed (450 km2;
110,930 acres) will include parts of nine local jurisdictions-Forsyth, Guilford, and Randolph
counties, and the cities of Archdale, Greensboro, High Point, Jamestown, Kernersville, and
Randleman.
Because of the proposed lake's location downstream of the region's most rapidly urbanizing area,
existing and future sources of pollution could threaten water quality of the lake. Although the
majority of the lake is projected to meet water quality standards, modeling studies indicate that
nutrients from existing and proposed wastewater discharges and nonpoint sources will cause an
overabundance of algae growth and pose difficulty in meeting the state's related chlorophyll a
standard in the upper reaches of the lake. The purpose of this Nutrient Reduction Strategy and
Implementation Plan is to establish a set of goals and a management plan of action to achieve and
maintain adequate water quality in the proposed reservoir.
Nutrient Reduction Goals and Objectives
The following water quality goals have been established based on North Carolina water quality
standards and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recommendations:
1) Attain a lakewide areal average chlorophyll a concentration of less than 25 µg/1.
2) Meet an average chlorophyll a concentration of less than 15 µg/1 at the water supply
intake.
3) Do not exceed 40 µg/1 chlorophyll a more than 5% of the growing season in any segment
of the lake.
Modeling studies indicate that goals 1 and 2 can be met under both existing and projected future
nutrient loading conditions without a nutrient reduction strategy. The third goal cannot be met in
some segments of the lake under existing and projected future nutrient loading conditions.
Nutrient reduction goals and objectives are therefore driven by the third water quality goal.
Nutrient loading capacity (i.e., the maximum amount of nutrient loading that can be assimilated
by a waterbody and still allow the waterbody to meet water quality standards) varies by lake
segment and flow conditions. The upper segment of the Deep River arm of Randleman Lake is
projected to be the most sensitive to nutrient loading. To meet the third water quality goal in this
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority ES-1

Randleman Lake Nutrient Reduction Strategy and Implementation Plan Draft (February 1998)
lake segment, total phosphorus loading would need to be reduced to 2,880 kg during a high flow
year, 1,800 kg during an average flow year, and only 600 kg during a low flow year based on
water quality modeling analysis. For the upper segment of the Muddy Creek arm of Randleman
Lake, the total phosphorus loading capacity is estimated to be 2,290 kg/yr under high flow
conditions, 1,700 kg/yr under average flow conditions, and 780 kg/yr under low flow conditions.
Existing phosphorus loading to the upper segment of the Deep River arm is estimated to be about
60,700 kg during a low flow year, 63,600 kg during an average flow year, and 66,150 kg during a
high flow year. Approximately 58,000 kg/yr of these estimated loads is attributed to the
discharge from the High Point Eastside Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). To meet the
loading targets in the upper segment, therefore, total phosphorus loading would need to be
reduced from existing loading levels by 60,100 kg during a low flow year, 61,800 kg during an
average flow year, and 63,860 kg during a high flow year. For the Muddy Creels arm, existing
total phosphorus loading is estimated to be about 800 kg during a low flow year, 1,700 kg during
an average flow year, and 2,730 kg during a high flow year. To meet the loading targets in the
Muddy Creek arm, total phosphorus loading must be reduced from existing loading levels by 20
kg during a low flow year, 0 kg during an average flow year, and 440 kg during a high flow year.
These nutrient reduction goals are summarized in the table below.
Total Phosphorus Nutrient Loading Reductions Goals for the Randleman Lake
Watershed
Randleman Lake Segment TP Reduction TP Reduction TP Reduction
Goal for Goal for Goal for
Low Flow Year Average Flow High Flow Year
(kg) Year (kg) (kg)
Upper segment of Deep River 60,100 61,800 63,860
Lake arm
Upper segment of Muddy 20 0 440
Creek Lake arm
Full achievement of the nutrient reduction goals for the upper segment of the Deep River arm is
not feasible at this time because of technological, economic, and environmental constraints on
reducing phosphorus loading from the High Point Eastside WWTP. Under an assumption that
half of the phosphorus load at loading capacity is attributable to nonpoint sources, the WWTP
would need to achieve an effluent concentration of 0.020 mg/1 total phosphorus to meet the
loading capacity during low flow conditions and 0.060 mg/1 during average flow conditions for
the current WWTP discharge of 10.5 MGD. For expected buildout capacity flow from the
WWTP of 26 MGD, concentrations would need to be reduced to 0.008 mg/1 during a low flow
year and 0.025 mg/1 during an average flow year to meet the loading capacity. Even if all of the
point source loading were removed, however, achieving the reduction goals for nonpoint sources
would prove to be a formidable challenge. The initial objectives of this Nutrient Reduction
Strategy have therefore been set to make substantial progress toward these goals, with the hope
ES-2 Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority

1
t

1

A

t
1

Draft (February 1998) Executive Summary
of moving even closer or attaining the goals in the future as technology improves and constraints
are removed or reduced. Achieving the reduction goals in Muddy Creek is feasible at present,
but significant increases in development density by 2025 could pose a substantial challenge to
meeting the goals in the future.
Initial Management Objectives for the Nutrient Reduction Strategy
Reduce point source loadings to the maximum extent feasible by connecting minor facilities
into the major municipal systems within the region and by reducing the High Point Eastside
WWTP total phosphorus concentration to the limits of technology and as environmentally and
economically feasible.
Implement nonpoint source nutrient loading controls in accordance with North Carolina Water
Supply Watershed Protection Rules and Regulations (NCGS 143-214.5 and 15A NCAC
2B.0100 and .0200) to protect the water supply and prevent additional degradation of water
quality in the upper tributary segments of the reservoir.
Summary of Nutrient Reduction Strategy
The Nutrient Reduction Strategy is divided into two program areas, control of point source
nutrient loads and control of nonpoint source nutrient loads.
Control of Point Source Nutrient Loads
An expansion and upgrade of the High Point Eastside WWTP is currently underway, and is
expected to be online by July 2001. Initial plans for the 26-MGD facility called for meeting
effluent concentrations of 1 mg/1 total phosphorus and 6 mg11 total nitrogen. Under this first
phase of the Nutrient Reduction Strategy, PTRWA will work with the City of High Point to
achieve the environmentally sound limits of technology for phosphorus removal. The initial goal
is to achieve an effluent concentration of 0.2 mg/1 total phosphorus. PTRWA will provide a
financial incentive to the City of High Point to ensure meeting the goal on a consistent basis.
Additionally, PTRWA has identified two minor wastewater discharges that will be connected to
municipal WWTPs. PTRWA will also work with local utilities and the Division of Water
Quality to pursue connection of other minor facilities to the larger municipal sewer systems.
Combined, these actions should result in a reduction of approximately 51,750 kg/yr total
phosphorus (TP) and 78,200 kg/yr total nitrogen (TN). This constitutes more than 80 percent of
the phosphorus reduction goals for low and average flow years (see summary table below).
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority ES-3

t
Randleman Lake Nutrient Reduction Strate~ry and Implementation Plan Draft (February 1998)
Total Phosphorus (TP) Reductions from First Phase Point Source Control Strategies
Proposed Action Achieved TP Percent of TP
Reduction (kg/yr) Reduction Goal
Meet 0.2 mg/1 TP in effluent of 26 MGD 50,850 85% -low flow yr
High Point Eastside WWTP 82% -average flow yr
Connect two minor discharges to 910 < 1% -low flow yr
municipal sewer systems < 1 % -average flow yr
TOTAL 51,760 86% -low flow yr
84% -average flow yr
Control of Nonpoint Source Nutrient Loads
Whereas significant reductions in point source loading can be achieved through improvements in
phosphorus removal technologies, total nonpoint source nutrient loading is expected to increase
over existing levels-even with significant management practices implemented-because of
anticipated development within the watershed and conversion of forested land to residential and
commercial use. Without a nutrient reduction strategy, nonpoint source loading of total
phosphorus in the year 2025 would be expected to increase from existing conditions by
approximately 14,100 kg in a low flow year, 20,740 kg in an average flow year, and 32,040 kg in
a high flow year. Although implementing nonpoint source controls will help minimize loading
increases, such controls are not expected to reduce loadings below existing levels.
The Nutrient Reduction Strategy for nonpoint sources has five major components:
^ Water supply protection ordinances
^ Structural controls on loads (e.g., regional stormwater ponds, constructed wetlands)
^ Nonstructural controls on loads (e.g., best management practices)
^ Education and outreach programs
^ Monitoring and enforcement
WATER SUPPLY PROTECTION ORDINANCES
Seven jurisdictions have area in the watershed that drains directly to the proposed Randleman
Lake and not to the upstream water supply watersheds (Oakdale, City Lake, and Oak Hollow
Lake) for which ordinances are already in place. PTRWA is working closely with each of these
jurisdictions to encourage adoption of ordinances that will help protect Randleman Lake.
Guilford County, Randolph County, Greensboro, and Randleman have all adopted water supply
protection ordinances for the proposed Randleman Lake that are more stringent than required
under the state's minimum guidelines for a WS-IV classification (the anticipated classification
for Randleman Lake). High Point, Jamestown, and Archdale will also adopt ordinances by law
assuming Randleman Lake is built and classified for water supply use. These ordinances will
exceed State standards for WS-IV and will include restrictions on housing density, limits on
ES-4 Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority

1

Draft (February 1998) Executive Summary
impervious area for development, requirements regarding buffers along streams and stormwater
controls for higher density development, and other means of reducing potential contamination of
the water supply.
Estimated reductions in nonpoint nutrient loads from future (2025) land use conditions are
summarized in the table below.
Estimated Reduction in Nonpoint Nutrient Loads to Randleman Lake for Future
Land Use Conditions (2025) Achie~~ed by NPw Water Supply Protection Ordinances
Flow Condition Phosphorus Reduction (kg/yr) Nitrogen Reduction (kg/yr)
Low flow year 5,130 (22%) 36,330 (18%)
Average flow year 6,250 (16%) 36,800 (10%)
High flow year 9,870 (16%) 57,920 (10%)
For the upper Deep River segment of the lake, the water supply ordinances provide a total
phosphorus load reduction of approximately 1,900 kg/yr under an average flow condition-3
percent of the needed reductions from future loading conditions to meet water quality goals in
this segment.
STRUCTURAL CONTROLS ON LOADS
Urban and development stormwater controls are assumed to be covered under the Water Supply
Watershed Protection Ordinances. However, the City of High Point plans to construct a fifth
regional stormwater pond in the watershed along the West Fork of the Deep River at the
outermost reach of Oak Hollow Lake. (The four existing structures have already been accounted
for in loading estimates.) The Skeet Club Road facility will provide an estimated loading
reduction of 1,280 kg/yr total phosphorus, and 6,600 kg/yr of total nitrogen under average flow
conditions. Net reduction in loading to Randleman Lake will be somewhat less, however, ~.~
because of assimilation of nutrients within Oak Hollow Lake and City Lake. ~ ~ Q
s
Six constructed/enhanced wetland areas will be created under the strategy. Th ites will either
be constructed directly by PTRWA or by the State under the W oration Enhancement
Program (WREP) if the Authority elects to pay into this we and ba hese sites will be
developed directly by PTRWA or by the State using funds pa y PTRWA into the State
mitigation bank. The primary purpose of the new wetlands is for mitigation of impacts on.
existing wetlands caused by impoundment of Randleman Lake, but the wetlands will also
provide a water quality benefit. The estimated load reductions under average flow conditions
from the projects combined are 890 kg/yr total phosphorus and 15,620 kg/yr total nitrogen.
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority ES-5

Randleman Lake Nutrient Reduction Strategy and Implementation Plan Draft (February 1998)
NnNSTRU('TURAL CONTROLS ON LOADS '
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) estimates the current rate of best
management practice (BMP) implementation on active agricultural cropland within the
watershed to be near 90 percent. NRCS believes incentives are such that 100 percent
implementation in the future is a realistic goal because area in cropland is expected to decline
sharply in the watershed. However, only a small net reduction in nutrient load could be
expected-approximately 150 kg total phosphorus and 420 kg total nitrogen during a low flow
year; 330 kg total phosphorus and 900 kg total nitrogen during an average flow year; and 600 kg
total phosphorus and 1,600 kg total nitrogen during a high flow year.
There are only three animal operations within the watershed, and therefore an explicit estimate of
nutrient load reduction due to animal waste management has not been included. Waste
management plans are, however, important to ensure that these farms do not become a source of
excessive nutrient loads. Under 15A NCAC 2H .0200, concentrated animal operations of
significant size must have an animal waste management system to receive certification under a
general permit.
Other meaningful nonstructural management programs include stream buffer and setback
requirements (covered by Water Supply Protection Ordinances), site development standards, '
erosion and sediment ordinances, and onsite wastewater disposal requirements. Although these
management programs are not credited with additional nutrient reduction, they nonetheless
represent proactive steps in preventing nutrient loads from exceeding those estimated from ,
export coefficients.
EDUCATION AND OUTREACH PROGRAMS
PTRWA will work with its members and other jurisdictions in the watershed to conduct
education and outreach on the importance of public pollution prevention measures in helping to ,
achieve nutrient reduction goals in the Randleman Lake watershed. Existing means, such as
conservation district outreach programs and Greensboro's storm water management outreach
will be used as a foundation for this strategy component. PTRWA will provide
ram
ro
,
,
p
g
information to outreach programs summarizing the goals of the Nutrient Reduction Strategy and
the responsibilities of the public in helping achieve the goals. '
MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
Monitoring and enforcement is an important part of the Nutrient Reduction Strategy. This
component helps ensure that the load reductions estimated for many of the proposed management
controls will actually be achieved. Enforcement Officers, such as those employed by the City of
High Point under its Development Ordinance, ensure that development activities comply with
ordinance provisions. Use of civil and criminal penalties provides an extra incentive for
compliance with requirements.
ES-6 Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority

Draft (February 1998) Executive Summary
' Summary and Evaluation of Proposed Nutrient Reduction Strategy
The projected effectiveness of all of the nonpoint source nutrient controls combined is displayed
in the table below.
t

1
1
1

Effectiveness of Nutrient Reduction Strategy in Minimizing Future
Nonpoint Source Loads
Load Description Low Flow Year High Flow Year Average Flow
Year '
TP (kg) TN (kg) TP (kg) TN (kg) TP (kg) TN (kg)
Estimated total existing 8,890 96,540 29,680 375,220 18,900 243,870
nonpoint source loads
Total future nonpoint source 22,990 203,470 61,720 589,150 39,640 386,190
loads without Nutrient
Reduction Strategy
Total future nonpoint source 16,460 158,390 49,520 513,810 31,640 336,950
loads with Nutrient
Reduction Strategy
Net reduction for future 6,530 45,080 12,200 75,340 8,000 49,240
nonpoint source loads from
implementing Strategy (28%) (22%) (20%) (13%) (20%) (13%)
Net Load Reductions in Critical Lake Segments Under Nutrient Reduction Strategy
Combining the point and nonpoint loading estimates, the proposed Nutrient Reduction Strategy
is expected to result in a decrease from existing loading to the upper Deep River segment of
Randleman Lake of 48,340 kg total phosphorus (78 percent of the nutrient reduction goal) during
an average flow year. The corresponding reduction in total nitrogen loading for the upper Deep
River Segment is 58,180 kg. These figures, and loading figures for low and high flow years, are
summarized in the table below.
Net Nutrient Load Reductions in Critical Upper Deep River Segment of
Randleman Lake
[percent of reduction goal shown in brackets below reduction estimates]
Low Flow Year High Flow Year Average Flow Year
TP (kg) TN (kg) TP (kg) TN (kg) TP (kg) TN (kg)
49,370 64,760 47,090 50,390 48,340 58,180
[82%] [74%] [78%]
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority
ES-7
1

,~` ~'
~h
i
~~
~~~~
Randleman Lake Nutrient Reduction Strategy and Implementation Plan Draft (February 1998)
Loading in the upper Muddy Creek segment is expected to increase, although the Nutrient
Reduction Strategy decreases loadings from what they would expected to be in the future without
the nonpoint source management strategies.
Net Nutrient Load Change in Upper Muddy Creek Segment of Randleman Lake
Scenario Description Low Flow Year High Flow Year Average Flow
Year
TP (kg) TN (kg) TP (kg) TN (kg) TP (kg) TN (kg)
Existing load 800 12,000 2,730 47,210 1,690 29,580
Future load w't t Nutrient 4,150 35,460 10,220 90,160 6,400 58,220
Reduction Strategy
Future load wit Nutrient 2,530 26,320 7,280 76,400 4,460 48,970
Reduction Strategy
Net increase from existing 1,730 14,320 4,550 29,190 2,770 19,390
load w~'tlt Nutrient Reduction
(216%)
(119%)
(166%)
(62%)
(164%)
(66%)
Strategy
Net reduction from future 1,620 9,140 2,940 13,760 1,940 9,250
load wi Nutrient Reduction
(39%)
(26%)
(29%)
(15%)
(30%)
(16%)
Strategy
Estimated Chlorophyll a Response with Nutrient Reduction Strategy
Substantial reductions in nutrient loading can be achieved through the first phase of the Nutrient
Reduction Strategy. Ultimate loading levels necessary to meet all water quality goals, however,
cannot yet be achieved because of technological constraints on WWTP nutrient removal.
Although chlorophyll a concentration goals are expected to be achieved for the lakewide average
and at the water supply intake, concentrations in the upper segments of the lake tributary arms are
still expected to exceed the 40 µg/1 criterion more than 5 percent of the days during the algae
growing season. Chlorophyll a predictions under estimated loading conditions that reflect the
Nutrient Reduction Strategy are presented in the table on the next page.
Although the percent reductions in nutrient loading to the upper Deep River arm are relatively
high (e.g., 74-82 percent of goal), the response in chlorophyll a concentration is not as great
because this lake segment--dominated by effluent flow-responds more to the concentration of
the effluent than to the total loading. Progress toward reaching the goal of exceeding 40 µg/1 less
than 5 percent of the time will only be achieved only when WWTP phosphorus removal
technology is improved and an effluent concentration of 0.008-0.025 mg/1 is achievable for the
High Point Eastside WWTP.
~ ~.
ES-8 Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority

t

1

1

Draft (February 1998) Executive Summary

i

1

1

Randleman Lake Chlorophyll a Predictions for Future Conditions
with Nutrient Reduction Strategy
[gray-shaded rows provide comparative information for upper segments]
Lake Segment Low Flow Year High Flow Year Average Flow
Year
Chl a Percent Clii a Percent Chl a Percent
(µg/l) of time (µg11) of time (µg/1) of time
> 40 µg/1 > 40 µg/1 > 40 µg/1
Lakewide average 20 NA 19 NA 19 NA
Water supply intake 12 1 % 12 1 % 12 1.0%
segment
Upper Deep River arm.- 117' 94% 83 84% 95 89%
exi ti nutrient loading
conditions
Upper Deep Riverarm- 95 89% 71 76% 80 83%
future. without Nutrient
Reduction Strategy
Upper Deep River arm- 81 83% 61 67% 67 73%
future with Nutrient
Reduction Strategy
Upper Muddy Creek 19 5% 20 7% 17 5%
arm existing nutrient
loading conditions
Upper Muddy Creek 28 18% 28 L8% 28 18%
arm- future. wit ut
Nutrient Reduction
'Strategy
Upper Muddy Creek arm- 26 14% 26 16% 2.6 14%
future with Nutrient
Reduction Strategy
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority ES-9
1

Randleman Lake Nutrient Reduction Strategy and Implementation Plan Draft (February 1998)
Implementation Plan Summary
PTRWA will work with its members to implement the Strategy, monitor progress and
effectiveness, and adapt the Strategy-based management actions as needed to reach interim and
long-term reduction goals.
Schedule
Management plan administration will be set up within 6 months of plan approval by the '
Environmental Management Commission (EMC), and protocols and means for data collection,
information management, and assessment will be established within 12-18 months of EMC plan '
approval.
Reduction of the High Point Eastside WWTP effluent TP concentration to 0.2 mg/1 is scheduled '
for July, 2001. Completion of the six wetlands projects is expected before filling of the
reservoir. Many of the watershed protection ordinances are already in place, and the remaining
jurisdictions will act quickly following reclassification ofthe waters for water supply. Actions
such as education and outreach, and ordinance enforcement will be conducted on an ongoing
basis.
PTRWA plans to reevaluate the Nutrient Reduction Strategy and Implementation Plan within '
3-5 years of filling the reservoir, and every 5 years thereafter, coordinated with the Division of
Water Quality (DWQ)'s 5-year management cycle for the Cape Fear River Basin. An annual
progress report will be prepared for the Authority's Board and copied to DWQ within the first
3-6 months of the end of each calendar year.
onitorin Pro ram ,
M g g
The PTRWA monitoring program will track both programmatic and environmental indicators to
evaluate performance. Monitoring programmatic indicators of plan implementation will help to
ensure that proposed actions are completed, and will provide the Authority with information that ,
is key to analyzing the effectiveness of management actions. Proposed programmatic indicators
include the following
^ t
i
i
t
ti
Pl
Ad
t
f
Mil
d
on se
up
m
n
s
ra
or
an
a
es
estone
^ Date High Point Eastside enhanced treatment process comes on line
^ Dates projects are completed (constructed wetlands, regional stormwater ponds)
^ Date by which all local ordinances for water supply watershed protection are in place
^ Dates of revisions to watershed protection ordinances by individual jurisdictions
^ Dates environmental monitoring is performed
^ Annual progress reports
^ Dates of strategy and plan reevaluation amendment
r
ES-10 Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority

Draft (February 1998) Executive Summary
Monitoring environmental impacts of plan implementation will allow PTRWA to gauge the
overall effectiveness of the Nutrient Reduction Strategy and Implementation Plan.
Environmental indicators to be tracked include the following:
^ Annual point source TP and TN loads
^ Annual nonpoint source TP and TN loads
^ Tributary water quality (TP, orthophosphate, total inorganic nitrogen, total organic
' nitrogen)
^ Lake water quality (same as tributary plus chlorophyll a, temperature, pH, Secchi
depth, and dissolved oxygen)
^ Downstream Deep River water quality (same as upstream tributary parameters)
A
Baseline monitoring will be conducted prior to impoundment of the reservoir, and a full
monitoring program will begin after reservoir impoundment.
Data Management
PTRWA will develop and maintain computerized databases to track all programmatic and
environmental indicator results. A metadata file on all data coverages will be maintained.
PTRWA members will be advised regarding formats and protocols for transferring data and will
be responsible for adhering to quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) and other protocols.
Evaluating and Updating Strategy and Implementation Plan
PTTRWA will conduct annual evaluations will be conducted by to determine progress made in
implementing the plan and achieving strategy goals. An annual progress report will be prepared
for the Authority's Board, and copied to DWQ within 3-6 months of the end of each calendar
' year. The report will include estimates of point and nonpoint source loadings for the previous
year, as well as summaries of tributary and inlake water quality conditions. In each succeeding
year, the reports will include comparisons to loading rates and water quality conditions from
previous years' monitoring.
The PTRWA Board will be responsible for periodically updating the Nutrient Reduction Strategy
' and Implementation Plan. The first update is scheduled for 3-5 years from the date of
impoundment of Randleman Lake. PTRWA anticipates that the new reservoir will take at least
2-3 years to stabilize with regard to water quality, based on reviewing study results from other
large impoundments in the Piedmont area. Therefore, the Authority will need to be careful not to
place too much emphasis on the intake water quality monitoring data during those first 2-3 years
when evaluating the effectiveness of the initial plan. A decision on a more specific due date for
the plan update will not be made until after the first 2-3 years of data have been analyzed and
evaluated.
i

Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority ES-11
1

i

1
Draft (February 1998) Section 1 -Background
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 PTRWA and the Proposed Randleman Lake
This Nutrient Reduction Strategy and Implementation Plan is being developed by the Piedmont
Triad Regional Water Authority (PTRWA), in cooperation with the Nortli Carolina
' Environmental Management Commission (EMC) and the NCDENR Division of Water Quality
(DWQ). PTRWA is comprised of the governmen±s of Randolph County ;end the municipalities
of Greensboro, High Point, Jamestown, Archdale, and Randleman. Archdale and Randleman are
located in Randolph County, while the other three municipalities are located in adjacent Guilford
County. PTRWA was formed in 1986 for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, and developing
long-term water supply alternatives for member governments.
PTRWA plans to develop a safe and dependable water supply for North Carolina Piedmont Triad
region that will satisfy estimated water demands for a planning period of approximately 50 years.
The Piedmont Triad Region is one of the faster growing areas in North Carolina, adding an
average 14,900 people and 14,100 jobs per year over the last decade (personal communication,
State Demographer, NC Office of State Planning to Andrea Spangler, PTRWA, 1/5/98).
Projections show the regions adding 273,400 people over the next 25 years. Based upon
expected regional growth in water demand, water shortages are predicted to occur shortly after
the turn of the century. While water conservation may reduce the rate of demand increase,
continued regional growth is expected to lead to more water consumption and more severe
shortages in the future. PTRWA seeks to establish a water supply to provide an additional safe
yield of approximately 48 MGD to meet its projected needs through the year 2050. An adequate
water supply is necessary to support continued growth and economic vitality of the region.
To meet the growing demand for water, PTRWA has proposed building Randleman Lake. This
public investment of 123 million dollars would augment the region's water supply with an
allocation of 48 million gallons per day to meet projected demands. The proposed Randleman
Lake will be formed as an impoundment of the Deep River just north of Randleman, in Randolph
Co., NC (Figure 1). The proposed impoundment will have a surface area of 3,230 acres (at
normal pool) in Randolph and Guilford Counties, and will fall within the state's sub-basin 03-06-
, 08 of the Upper Cape Fear River Basin. The normal water surface elevation of the reservoir
would be 682 feet above mean sea level (msl), with a minimum water surface elevation of 635
msl. At the normal surface elevation the reservoir would have a storage volume of 18.3 billion
gallons, and an estimated safe yield of 54 million gallons per day (MGD) (Black & Veatch,
1990). The reservoir will contain two major arms, one formed along the Deep River and the
' other formed along Muddy Creek.
Total watershed area draining to Randleman Lake will be 427 km2 (105,294 acres) exclusive of
lake surface, lying in Randolph, Guilford, and Forsyth Counties (Figure 2). Three water supply
watersheds are located upstream of Randleman Lake: Oakdale, City Lake (High Point Lake), and
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority 1-1
1

Randleman Lake Nutrient Reduction Strategy and Implementation Plan Draft (February 1998)

LEGEND
~ Proposed Randleman Lake
~ Randleman Lake Watershed
(~ County Boundaries
Location of Proposed
Randleman Lake
10 15 20 Mles
Figure 1. Location of Proposed Randleman Lake
Oak Hollow Lake Watersheds, all classified by the state as WS-IV. The Oakdale Watershed,
located above the Oakdale mill run-of--the-river dam on the Deep River below High Point Lake,
was the former water supply for the City of Jamestown, but is no longer used for this purpose.
High Point Lake (City Lake) is an impoundment on the Deep River completed in 1928 to serve
as a water supply for the City of High Point. This lake has a surface area of 275 acres, a storage
volume of 1.2 billion gallons, and a total drainage area of 61.4 square miles. Oak Hollow Lake,
on the West Fork of the Deep River above High Point Lake, was completed in 1971 to
supplement High Point's water supply. Oak Hollow Lake has a surface area of approximately
700 acres, a storage volume of 3.3 billion gallons, and a drainage area of 31.2 square miles. Both
Oak Hollow and High Point Lakes have sufficiently large storage capacity and retention time to
exert an important influence on the flow of water and movement of nutrients from the watershed
to Randleman Lake.
The Randleman Lake watershed will include parts of nine local jurisdictions with zoning and
planning authority, each of which will be responsible for implementing local water supply
protection ordinances. Areas of the watershed under direct zoning control of each jurisdiction
(including municipal extra-territorial jurisdictions) are shown in Table 1, which includes the area
which will be flooded by the proposed lake. This table represents best estimates of existing
(1997) zoning authority, although High Point's zoning map was not available electronically.
1 _2 _ Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority

t

1

t
Draft (February 1998) Section 1 -Background
Legend
0 Randleman LaKe Watershed
Lakes
Major Streams
-County Lines
'~] Cities
1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Niles
Figure 2. Randleman Lake Watershed
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority 1-3

Randleman Lake Nutrient Reduction Strategy and Implementation Plan Draft (February 1998)
Table 1. Jurisdictional Composition of Proposed
Randleman Lake Watershed (acres and percent of land surface)
Including Municipal Extra-Territorial Jurisdictions
Jurisdiction Randleman City (High Point) Oak Hollow Randleman Lake
Lake Direct Lake Watershed Lake Watershed Total Watershed
Drainage
Guilford Co. 24,202 4,570 8,551 37,323
(36.0 %) (24.0 %) (41.9 %) (35.0 %)
Randolph Co. 22,942 0 0 22,942
(34.1 %) (0 %) (0 %) (21.5 %)
Forsyth Co. 0 0 2,310 2,310
(0 %) (0 %) (11.3 %) (2.2 %)
Archdale 4,719 0 0 4,719
(7.0 %) (0 %) (0 %) (4.4 %)
Greensboro 1,769 5,141 4 6,914
(2.6 %) (27.0 %) (0.0 %) (6.5 %)
High Point 11,410 8,638 7,995 28,043
(17.0 %) (45.3 %) (39.1 %) (26.3 %)
Jamestown 1,797 715 0 2,512
(2.7 %) (3.8 %) (0 %) (2.4 %)
Kernersville 0 0 1,564 1,564
(0 %) (0 %) (7.7 %) (1.5 %)
Randleman 372 0 0 372
(0.6 %) (0 %) (0 %) (0.3 %)
Total Land Area 67, 211 19, 064 20, 424 106, 700
(63.0 %) (17.9 %) (19.1 %) (100 %)
Water Surface 3,123 365 742 4,230
Total Area 70, 334 19, 429 21,166 110, 930
1-4
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority
1

t

A

Draft (February 1998) Section 1 -Background
Within Oak Hollow and City Lake watersheds, there has been a shift in jurisdiction from the
county to Greensboro and High Point since the CDM (1989) study. Total watershed area
calculated for this plan is 110,930 acres.
1.2 Need for a Nutrient Reduction Strategy
Randleman Lake is proposed to be built downstream of the most rapidly urbanizing area in the
region. Although the lower section of the lake proposed for the water supply intake is projected
to meet water quality standards, existing development and projected growth could generate
pollution that threatens the quality of the upper sections of the lake. Projections of nutrients
discharged from wastewater treatment plants and running off city streets, subdivision lawns,
gardens, septic fields, and farmland are a particular coneern. Water quality modeling studies
indicate that nutrients from existing conditions in the region will cause overabundance of algae
growth and pose difficulty in meeting the state's related chlorophyll a standard in the upper
reaches of the lake. The water quality conditions are further threatened by projections of added
growth.
1.3 Purposes of Strategy and Implementation Plan
The purposes of this Nutrient Reduction Strategy and implementation plan are to:
^ determine the level of nutrient reduction needed to assure that associated water
quality standards are met throughout the lake
^ identify the most cost-effective ways of reducing nutrient loading to target levels
^ establish accountability in meeting nutrient reduction targets
^ provide a gauge to measure success in meeting water quality standards and to adapt
management to take advantage of new information and technologies.
1.4 Components of the Strategy and Implementation Plan
The proposed Randleman Lake Nutrient Reduction Strategy and Implementation Plan, as
detailed herein, contains the following three components:
^ Nutrient Reduction Goals and Objectives
^ Nutrient Reduction Strategy
^ Implementation Plan
The ~Tnals and Ohjectives component (Section 2) uses modeling analysis and North Carolina
water quality standards and U.S. EPA guidance as a basis for establishing nutrient loading
targets, and documents predicted water quality conditions if the reservoir was built now,
predictions for future conditions without water supply protection, and needed nutrient loading
reductions. The Nutrient Reduction Strategy component (Section 3) describes proposed
approaches to reducing nutrient loading from point and nonpoint sources and provides an
estimate of expected results of the strategy. Finally, the Implementation Plan component
(Section 4) outlines how the reductions will be accomplished and sustained into the future.
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority

1-5

w

t

t

1

1

Draft (February 1990 Section 2 -Nutrient Reduction Goals and Objectives

1

2. NUTRIENT REDUCTION GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
2.1 Applicable Water Quality Standards
The proposed Randleman Lake is expected to be classified as a Class WS-IV Water. Under state
regulations, waters of this class are protected as water supplies which are generally in moderately
to highly developed watersheds (15A NCAC 2B.0211 (f)(2)). Because of the presence of the
High Point Eastside Wastewater Treatment Plant ~t the upper end of the Deep River arm, the
proposed reservoir is expected to experience excess loading of the nutrients phosphorus and
nitrogen, which can lead to undesirable growth of nuisance algae and unaesthetic conditions.
The State of North Carolina does not specify numeric water quality standards for nutrients;
however, a water quality standard applicable to all fresh surface waters is established for
chlorophyll a, a measure of algal concentration (15A NCAC 2B.0211 (b)(3)(A)):
Chlorophyll a (corrected): not greater than 40 µg/1 for lakes, reservoirs, and other
slow-moving waters not designated as trout waters ... ;the Commission or its
designee may prohibit or limit any discharge of waste into surface waters if, in the
opinion of the Director, the surface waters experience or the discharge would
result in growths of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation such that the
standards established pursuant to this Rule would be violated or the intended best
usage of the waters would be impaired;
EPA Region 4 has suggested more stringent limits for chlorophyll a in southeastern
impoundments': "It was determined that at a mean growing season limit of s 15 µg/1 of
chlorophyll a, that very few problems would be incurred with respect to water supply. For other
uses, a mean growing season chlorophyll a of < 25 µg/1 is recommended to maintain a minimal
aesthetic environment for viewing pleasure, safe swimming, and good fishing and boating."
Based on these recommendations, North Carolina has considered more stringent goals for water
supply waters, including an average ambient chlorophyll a concentration of 25 µg/1 coupled with
a not-to-be-exceeded action level of 40 µg/l, although adoption of these goals as standards is not
currently being pursued by DWQ.'-
2.2 General Discussion of Assimilative Capacity
The aim of the Nutrient Reduction Strategy is to attain the relevant water quality standard of 40
µg/1 chlorophyll a within Randleman Lake. The Nutrient Reduction Strategy also addresses

' Raschke, R. 1993. Guidelines for Assessing and Predicting Eutrophication Status of Small Southeastern Piedmont
Impoundments. EPA Region lV, Environmental Services Division, Ecological Support Branch, Athens, GA.
2 Diane Reid, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, personal communications Feb. 8, 1996 and Nov. 21, 1997.
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority 2-1

Randleman Luke Nutrient Reduction Strategy and Implementation Plan Draft (February 1998)
attainment of the EPA recommendations of a lake-wide average concentration of < 25 µg/1
chlorophyll a, and an average concentration of <_ 15 µg/1 within the lake segment adjacent to the
water supply intake. Attaining a chlorophyll a concentration goal within an impoundment
generally requires controlling the loading of nutrients into the impoundment.
Determining appropriate nutrient reduction goals requires an assessment of the assimilative
capacity of the proposed reservoir (also known as loading capacity). That is, what magnitudes of
nutrient loads are consistent with achieving the chlorophyll a standard? Federal regulations
under the Clean Water Act (40 CFR 130.2(f)) define the loading capacity as "the greatest amount
of loading that a water can receive without violating water quality standards." It is important to
realize that the assimilative capacity for nutrients is not a single, fixed loading amount. First,
algal response within a lake varies from year to year in response to variable rates of inflow of
water and flushing of reservoir segments. The water quality response within a reservoir also
depends on where the loads occur: a nutrient load concentrated in one arm of the reservoir may
produce a violation of the chlorophyll a water quality standard in that arm, whereas the same
load distributed throughout the reservoir might not result in any excursion of the standard.
Finally, loading capacity for one algal nutrient depends on the availability of other nutrients
required for algal growth. Assimilative capacity thus varies in both time and space, and cannot
be specified as a single fixed rate of loading. Instead, assimilative capacity for a reservoir must
be specified conditional on assumptions about hydrology and locations of nutrient sources.
For development of the Nutrient Reduction Strategy, the assimilative capacity of the proposed
Randleman Lake was evaluated through the application of water quality models of the lake and
watershed. The reader is referred to the separate modeling report (Tetra Tech, 1997) for a
complete description of the model development and implementation. For the purposes of '
modeling and analysis, Randleman Lake has been divided into a number of segments, as
described in the separate modeling report. These segments and their associated watersheds are
shown in Figure 3. Note that sub-watershed Deep River 3 is divided into two lake segments for
water quality modeling. The proposed water intake is located in segment Deep River 3B.
The Tetra Tech Randleman Lake models were used to assess expected water quality if the
reservoir were constructed now, and future water quality which would be expected from
increased development of the watershed and increases in wastewater flow without a nutrient
reduction strategy. These results provide the baseline against which to evaluate assimilative
capacity (both current and future) and needed levels of nutrient reduction.
The lake water quality model allows prediction of expected chlorophyll a concentrations. These
concentrations are most strongly driven by phosphorus concentrations. Assimilative capacity
for phosphorus was then assessed in terms of the expected probability of meeting (1) the state
standard of 40 µg/1 chlorophyll a, (2) the EPA recommendation of attaining a lake-wide areal
average concentration of less than 25 µg/l, and (3) the EPA recommendation of meeting an
average concentration of less than 15 µg/1 at the water intake segment. It is not reasonable to
propose that the 40 µg/1 standard be predicted to be met 100% of the time. First, occasional algal
2.2 Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority

Draft (Febrzrary 1998) Section 2 -Nutrient Reduction Goals and Objectives
1

1
1

1

I
I
I
I
1 0 1 2 3 Nf les
qq_
UIU
~(-o
NI o
~~ Oak High
~ Hollow Point
~ Lake Lake
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
Deep River 2
Deep River 1
--------------------- ---------- -------Guil ord Count
Ra olph County
Muddy Creek 1 ~
Dee River 3
N
Mu dy Creek 2
Dam
Figure 3. Randleman Lake Watershed Model Segmentation
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority
2-3

Randleman Lake Nutrient Redzzction Strate~,ry and Implementation Plan Draft (February 1998)
blooms occur in most Piedmont reservoirs even when the average algal concentration and
nutrient load is moderate. Second, the predictive modeling tool generally yields a good estimate
of mean chlorophyll a, but can provide only a rough approximation of the expected frequency of
nuisance algal blooms. It is therefore proposed that model-predicted frequency of less than 5
percent of days during an annual growing season (May to October) with chlorophyll cz
concentration greater than 40 µg/1 is a reasonable indicator and appropriate target for assessing
assimilative capacity.
In general, the second and third goals are expected to be attained fairly easily, as documented
below in Section 2.3.1. Within the lower segments of the reservoir there is available assimilative
capacity for nutrients, and low chlorophyll a concentrations are expected. Potential excursions
of the 40 µg/1 standard are, however, likely in the upstream segments of the reservoir (upstream
segments of Deep River arm and Muddy Creek arm). Both of these upstream segments have a
small volume and receive substantial nonpoint source runoff from the urbanized High Point-
Archdale area. In addition, the Deep River arm receives effluent from the High Point Eastside
WWTP. Indeed, the model predicts that the goal of less than 5 percent of days with chlorophyll ,
a concentrations greater than 40 µg/1 would not be met in the uppermost part of the Deep River
arm due to nutrient loads from the WWTP alone and with no watershed contribution of load,
even with the WWTP attaining a very high degree of nutrient removal. The hydrologic
characteristics of the uppermost section of the Muddy Creek arm will also make it very difficult
to achieve this goal within that area. Assimilative capacity is thus expected to be exceeded in the
upstream segments of the Deep River an Muddy Creels arms regardless of the controls placed on
watershed loading of nutrients. The strategy proposed for these segments is thus to reduce
nutrient loads as far as possible in order to minimize the occurrence of unacceptable conditions. '
As noted above, assimilative capacity cannot be given as a single loading rate, due to interactions
among parameters. The model predicts chlorophyll a response to both phosphorus and nitrogen
loading, and the effects of phosphorus load depend on the level of nitrogen load. Algal response
is also sensitive to the partitioning between organic and inorganic fractions of the influent load.
Assimilative capacity will therefore be presented in context of specific analysis scenarios.
2.3 Point and Nonpoint Source Reduction Goals
Because loading capacity for nitrogen and phosphorus cannot be given by a single number,
reservoir chlorophyll a response must be analyzed for a variety of different conditions and
evaluated for attainment of water quality standards. Where water quality standards are not met,
additional reductions can be determined suitable to the specific conditions analyzed. In general,
water quality standards ought to be met both at the time the reservoir is built (existing land use)
and in the future as development occurs and land use changes (future land use). Further,
attainment of standards needs to be addressed across the expected range of meteorological
conditions.
2-4 Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority

Draft (February 1998) Section 2 -Nutrient Reduction Goals and Objectives
2.3.1 Analysis of Existing Conditions
The first point of reference for analysis of assimilative capacity is predicted water quality given
that the reservoir was built now, with existing land uses and point sources at current operating
levels. Note that the Nutrient Reduction Strategy proposed for the High Point Eastside
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) is expected to result in a significant reduction in these
loads prior to actual filling of the impoundment. The existing condition analysis provides a
baseline for evaluating nutrient reductions.
Existing Point Source Loads
Existing point source loads are described in detail in Appendix I. The vast majority of point
source loading to the proposed Randleman Lake will come from the High Point Eastside WWTP.
Based on facility self-monitoring data (May 1996-May 1997), the High Point Eastside WWTP
discharges an annual phosphorus load of 58,070 kg/yr (128,021 lbs/yr), and a total nitrogen load
of 290,350 kg/yr (640,105 lbs/yr).
In addition, there are 11 active "domestic type" permitted discharges of treated wastewater within
the Randleman Lake Watershed (letter from W. C. Basinger, NCDWQ Winston-Salem, to
Andrea Spangler, PTRWA, 19 November 1997). These discharges-made up of schools, mobile
home parks, and a correctional center-do not have self-monitoring data on total phosphorus (TP)
and total nitrogen (TN) loading. Upper bound estimates of total load from these facilities, based
on a total operational permitted flow of 0.29 MGD and assuming typical TP and TN
concentrations of 5 mg/1 and 20 mg/1 respectively, are 2,005 kg/yr (4,420 lbs/yr) TP and 8,020
kg/yr (17,680 lbs/yr) TN. Actual load is likely to be considerably less, as actual flow is expected
to be less than permitted flow.
Existing Nonpoint Source Loads
Nonpoint loading of nutrients reflects physical features of the land surface (e.g., geology, soils,
slopes, and vegetative cover) and the uses of the land (e.g., agricultural, commercial, industrial,
residential, and open space), including management practices that influence the amount and
quality of water running off the land. Nonpoint source loads are estimated using a modified
export coefficient approach, as described in the accompanying modeling document. Table 2
provides nutrient export rate estimates (export coefficients) for each land use type as a long-term
average rate, as documented for the Randleman Lake watershed in CDM (1989) and Black &
Veatch (1991). Different rates apply to generalized hydrologic soil groups B and C; however,
soils within the watershed are primarily Class C soils.
There is not a detailed map of existing land uses in the Randleman Lake watershed available.
Instead, land use must be determined from a variety of sources, including Census, zoning, and
land cover information. To represent "existing" conditions we relied on the analysis presented in
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority 2-5
1

Randleman Lake Nutrient Reduction Strategy and Implementation Plan Draft (February 1998)
Black & Veatch (1991), which summarizes land uses as of ca. 1989, modified to account for
Randleman Lake being constructed. The distribution of land uses by sub-watershed is shown in
Table 3. Note that large-lot rural residences are not accounted for separately, but are subsumed
into the forest, pasture, and agricultural land uses. (The total area shown in Table 3 is slightly
less than the revised area determined from the project GIS and shown in other tables because
Black & Veatch data were developed using other means.)
Table 2. Nutrient Export Rate Estimates
Land Use Phosphorus (lb/acre-yr) Nitrogen (lb/acre-yr)
Soil Group B Soil Group C Soil Group B Soil Group C
Forest 0.08 0.08 0.6 0.6
Open Space 0.08 0.08 0.6 0.6
Pasture 0.5 0.5 2.6 2.6
Cropland with BMPs 0.8 0.9 10.3 10.5
Cropland, High Till 4.7 5.6 15.9 17.3
Large Lot SF Residential (2
to 5-acre lots) 0.4 0.4 4.4 4.1
Low Density SF Residential
(1 to 2-acre lots) 0.8 0.9 6.7 6.6
Low-Medium Density SF
Residential (0.5 to 1-acre
lots) 1.0 1.0 8.0 8.0
Medium Density SF
Residential (0.25 to 0.5 acre
lots) 1.1 1.1 8.8 8.8
Institutional 1.1 1.1 8.8 8.8
Townhouse/ Apartment 1.6 1.7 12.9 13.1
Commercial/ Office 1.6 1.6 13.2 13.2
Heavy Industry 1.3 1.3 11.3 11.2
t

1

2-6 Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority

r air a~ >~ ~s ~i~r » ~ ~ ~ ~ r s ~r ~r ~ .r ~
Table 3. Estimated Existing Land Use by Sub-Watershed (acres)
Land Use Sub-Watershed
Oak
Hollow City
Lake Deep
River 1 Deep
River 2 Deep
River 3 Muddy
Creek 1 Muddy
Creek 2 Dam
Area Total
Forest 10,718 9,768 9,144 11,284 4,110 7,830 1,747 2,940 ~7,~41
Open Space 229 292 978 3~~ 90 158 27 38 2,167
Pasture 2,299 1,97 1,901 2,924 944 2,008 ~~2 432 13,03
Cropland with BMPs 1,466 1,121 845 1,347 692 1,553 363 X08 7,89
Cropland, High Till 163 125 94 149 77 173 40 56 877
Large Lot SF Residential (2 to 5-acre
lots) 969 609 995 598 166 127 89 124 3, 677
Low Density SF Residential (1 to 2-
acre lots) 940 994 778 342 0 169 0 0 3, 223
Low-Medium Density SF Residential
(0.5 to 1-acre lots) 1,163 243 1,649 374 0 137 0 0 3,66
Medium Density SF Residential (0.25
to 0.~ acre) 288 1,328 2,324 674 0 140 0 0 4, 7~4
Institutional 236 178 152 178 226 766 i37 37 1,910
Townhouse/ Apartment 484 542 642 0 0 89 0 0 1, 7~ 7
Commercial/ Office 256 426 1,143 325 25 50 0 0 2,22
Heavy Industry 242 1,134 1,530 37 0 10 0 0 2,93
Water (with Randleman Lake) 742 36~ 138 553 936 219 46~ 812 4,230
Total 20,19 19,100 22, 313 19,140 7, 266 13, 429 3, 4~ 0 4, 947 109, 810

Randleman Lake Nutrient Reduction Strategy and Implementation Plan Draft (February 1998)
The predicted algal response within the proposed Randleman Lake is sensitive to loading of both
phosphorus and nitrogen. Table 4 presents estimates of the total nutrient loads to the proposed
reservoir from both point and nonpoint sources (including minor point sources) if the reservoir
was built under existing conditions. The loads are shown by lake segment. Note that these
estimates include nutrient reductions achieved by the recent construction of four regional
stormwater detention ponds in the Oak Hollow and City Lake watersheds (see Section 3.2.2).
Table 4. Estimated Nutrient Loads by Lake Segment (kg/yr) for Existing Conditions
with WWTP at 10.5 MGD, 4 mg/1 Total Phosphorus, and 20 mg/l Total Nitrogen
Segment Low Flow Year High Flow Year Average Flow Year
P N P N P N
Oak Hollow 1,240 15,980 4,690 65,150 3,030 43,620
City Lake 1,790 16,770 7,320 72,400 4,020 42,230
Deep River 1 (NPS and
minor PS) 2,610 24,130 8,080 87,670 5,570 60,260
Deep River 1 (WWTP) 58,070 290,350 58,070 290,350 58,070 290,350
Deep River 2 1,130 14,830 3,290 58,170 2,260 39,190
Deep River 3A 910 6,420 1,670 18,030 1,250 12,340
Deep River 3B 60 1,060 280 4,410 160 2,760
Muddy Creek 1 800 12,000 2,730 47,210 1,690 29,580
Muddy Creek 2 170 2,350 780 9,940 440 6,150
Near Dam 180 2,990 850 12,250 480 7,750
TOTAL 66,960 386,890 87,750 665,580 76,970 534,220
Total Nonpoint Source 8,890 96,540 29,680 375,220 18,900 243,870
Loading generated by land uses in the proposed Randleman Lake watershed will vary from
average load rates in a given year because of differences in rainfall patterns and runoff.
Accordingly, loading rates are modified to reflect load generation corresponding to meteorology
experienced in an actual year (see modeling report).
Chlorophyl[ a Predictions for Existing Conditions

i
1

Predictions for growing-season average chlorophyll a concentrations and frequency of nuisance
conditions (chlorophyll a greater than 40 µg/1) are shown in Table 5, based on existing watershed
2-8 Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority
t

t

Draft (Febrarary 1998) Section 2 -Nutrient Reduction Goals and Objectives
and point source conditions described above. Results are given for extreme low flow, high flow,
and average flow years, representing the range of potential responses. The predictions for Oak
Hollow and City Lakes reflect the nutrient reduction achieved by the recently-constructed
regional stormwater detention ponds, which are estimated to reduce average chlorophyll a
concentrations in City Lake by approximately 2µg/1 from conditions observed prior to 1997.
Table 5. Chlorophyll a Predictions for Existing Conditions
Lake Segment Low Flow Year High Flow Year Average Flow Year
(see Figure 3)
Chl a
(µg/1)
Nuisance
Frequency
Chl a
(µg/1)
Nuisance
Frequency
Chl a
(µg/1)
Nuisance
Frequency
Oak Hollow 11 0.6% 14 1.5% 13 1.2%
City Lake 19 6.0% 21 7.7% 20 7.0%
Deep River 1 117 94.4% 83 84.2% 95 89.0%
Deep River 2 39 36.8% 33 25.9% 35 30.0%
Deep River 3A 19 5.7% 20 6.2% 20 6.2°%
Deep River 3B 13 1.1% 14 1.6% 14 1.6%
Muddy Crk 1 19 5.4% 20 6.5% 17 5.1%
Muddy Crk 2 11 0.6% 15 2.0% 14 1.4%
Near Dam 8 0.1% 12 1.0% 11 0.5%
Lake Randleman
Average 22 22 22
Predicted chlorophyll a concentrations for existing conditions, with no reduction in point or
nonpoint source loads of nutrients, meet two of the three management objectives: the predicted
lakewide average concentration is less than 25 µg/1, and the average concentration in the water
supply intake segment (Deep River 3B) is less than 15 µg/1 under all flow conditions. All
segments of Randleman Lake are expected to experience occasional algal blooms, although the
frequency of days with concentrations of chlorophyll a greater than 40 µg/1 (nuisance conditions)
is expected to be less than 5 percent in the lower portions of the lake. Severe nuisance conditions
are, however, predicted for the lake segments immediately downstream of the High Point
WWTP. Within segment Deep River 1, the predicted growing season average concentration of
chlorophyll a ranges from 83 to 117 µg/l, with nuisance conditions with concentrations greater
than 40 µg/1 present for more than 84 percent of the growing season. In segment Deep River 2
the growing season average concentration is predicted to be slightly less than 40 µg/l, but
nuisance conditions are predicted to occur on between 25 and 37 percent of days during the
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority 2-9

Randleman Lake Nutrient Reduction Strategy and Implementation Plun Draft (February 1998)
growing season. Thus nutrient reductions from current load rates are needed to meet water
quality standards in the Deep River 1 segment. The Muddy Creek 1 segment is also predicted to
experience nuisance blooms at a rate slightly above the 5 percent goal.
Nutrient Reduction Goals for Existing Conditions
Eutrophication in lakes is usually controlled through reduction of phosphorus loads, as this is
most commonly the nutrient limiting algal growth and nitrogen is more difficult to control, as it
has significant ground water and atmospheric loading pathways. Given the assumptions that
WWTP phosphorus loading is 75% orthophosphate (the approximate composition of wastewater
effluent) an approximate loading capacity for phosphorus in the Deep River 1 segment may be
calculated. When total nitrogen concentration in the WWTP effluent is at current levels of
approximately 20 mg/1, the loading capacity for phosphorus in the Deep River 1 segment needed
to achieve the nuisance frequency goal is approximately 1,800 kg/yr during an average flow year.
This results in a predicted average chlorophyll a concentration in this segment of 18 µg/1, and a
nuisance frequency of 5 percent. During a low flow year, the loading capacity for phosphorus in
Deep River 1 to achieve the nuisance frequency goal is only about 600 kg/yr. The low loading
capacity reflects the small dilution capacity present in this narrow, relatively shallow segment.
The loading capacity is inversely related to the rate of flow through this segment, with lower
flows resulting in longer residence and greater utilization of the nutrients by algae. During a
high flow year the loading capacity of the Deep River 1 segment is approximately 2,800 kg/yr.
Estimated phosphorus loads to this segment under existing conditions are on the order of 60,000
kg/yr, and direct loading to this segment from nonpoint sources alone is estimated to be from 4 to
10 times the loading capacity. These findings suggest that it will be difficult or infeasible to
achieve the nuisance frequency goal within the Deep River 1 segment, due to the natural
hydraulic characteristics of the proposed lake.
Nuisance frequency goals are also predicted not to be met within the Muddy Creek 1 segment.
This segment is primarily affected by nonpoint loads, and it was assumed that phosphorus
loading was 50% orthophosphate. Nitrogen loads were held at existing levels. With these
assumption, the phosphorus loading capacity of the Muddy Creek 1 segment is approximately
780 kg/yr under low flow conditions, 1,700 kg/yr under average flow conditions, and 2,290 kg/yr
under high flow conditions. The loading capacity under average flow is slightly greater than the
phosphorus loading under existing conditions shown in Table 4, yet a nuisance frequency of
5.1% is predicted. This is due to the presence of a small amount of domestic-type wastewater
discharge to this segment, the effluent of which is assumed to contain greater than 50 percent
bioavailable orthophosphate, thus creating a slightly greater algal response than assumed for the
calculation of assimilative capacity. The Melbille Heights discharge to this segment will be
connected to the municipal sewer by PTRWA as part of the Nutrient Reduction Strategy.
Given these assumptions, reductions from existing levels of phosphorus loading needed to
achieve loading capacity are summarized below:
2-10 Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority

1
i
1

1

1

i

f

Draft (February 1998) Section 2 -Nutrient Reduction Goals and Objectives
Total Phosphorus Nutrient Loading Reduction Goals for the Randleman Lake
Watershed (kg/yr)*
Lake Segment Low Flow Year High Flow Year Average Flow Year
Deep River 1 60,100 63,860 61,800
Muddy Creek 1 20 440 0
(* Assumes WWTP effluent is 75% orthophosphate, nonpoint loading is 50% orthophosphate,
and nitrogen concentration in High Point Eastside effluent is 20 mg,'l.)
2.3.2 Analysis of Future Conditions without Water Supply Protection
As the Triad area continues to grow and develop, both point and nonpoint sources of nutrient
load to the proposed reservoir will also change. Changes to point sources include expansion of
the High Point WWTP, and potential elimination of some minor discharges. Nonpoint sources
will change as land is converted from rural uses to residential and commercial uses. Rates of
withdrawal for water supply from the reservoir will also increase. These changes will affect both
pollutant loading and flows. The combined effects of changes in load and alteration in flow
through the reservoir can be analyzed with the water quality model described above.
Future conditions in the watershed and reservoir are analyzed at approximately year 2025. This
date was chosen because land use predictions for 2025 have been developed as part of the
Piedmont Triad Regional Transportation Study.
WWTP and WTP Expansion
The High Point Eastside WWTP will expand in the near future to a design capacity of 26 MGD
that the facility is expected to reach by the year 2020. This expansion will be accompanied by
additional reductions in nutrient concentration and load, as described in Section 3.1.1. The
expected permit limits without additional reduction efforts are expected to be 1 mg/1 total
phosphorus and 6 mg/1 total nitrogen (summer). The corresponding total phosphorus and total
nitrogen loads are:

t

Effluent flow of 16 MGD Effluent Flow of 26 MGD
Total Phosphorus 22,110 kg/yr 35,950 kg/yr
(48,750 lb/yr) (79,270 lb/yr)
Total Nitrogen 132,640 kg/yr 215,690 kg/yr
(292,480 lb/yr) (475,5901b/yr)
At the same time, withdrawals from Randleman Lake by the water treatment plant will also
increase, changing flow patterns in the lake, reaching a design capacity of 48 MGD by 2040.
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Azrthority
2-11
1

Randleman Lake Nutrient Reduction .Strategy and Implementation Plurt Draft (February 1998)
Withdrawals by the WTP will remove a significant amount of nutrient mass from the lake.
During an average flow year with future land use without water supply protection ordinances and
the WWTP operating at capacity, the WTP is predicted to remove 460 kg of phosphorus and
8,210 kg of nitrogen per year.
Minor Dischargers
It is assumed that no new domestic-type wastewater discharges will be permitted by the State
within the Randleman Lake watershed. It is also assumed that permitted flow will not be
increased on existing permits.
Future Land Use
Increased population and economic development in the Piedmont-Triad area will result in
changes in land use, including a shift from rural (forest, agriculture) to urbanized (residential,
commercial, industrial) uses. The dominant existing land use of undeveloped portions of the
watershed is forest (see Table 3), which provides low per-acre loadings of nutrients. To the
extent that forest land use is converted to urbanized land uses increases in nutrient loading will
occur. Increased impervious surface cover accompanying urbanization will also change runoff
patterns.
Changes in land use will occur as a result of the interaction of demand and water supply
protection efforts. Changes will be greatest, and water supply protection ordinances most
important, where development pressure is strongest; where development pressure is weak change
will come slowly, and water supply protection ordinances will be less critical. ~
Some parts of the Randleman Lake watershed are expected to experience rapid growth,
particularly the area between High Point and Greensboro. Other parts of the watershed, such as
the rural parts of Randolph Co. north of Randleman, are expected to remain largely rural and will
not approach buildout capacity within the foreseeable future.
To distinguish areas of high and low development pressure we used projections for year 2025 !~
developed for the Piedmont Triad Regional Transportation Study, as shown in Figure 4. Areas
of the watershed predicted to be key "living areas" and "working areas" by 2025 in this study
were assumed to be near fully developed (90% of buildout capacity), while outlying areas were
assumed to experience a 20% increase in housing units over current conditions, consistent with
the expected rate of population increase in the watershed by 2025. Future conditions for the
analysis are thus based on approximate 2025+ conditions. Longer term projections are not
available.
Methods for estimating future land use changes, with or without water supply protection efforts,
are described in Appendix II. Table 6 summarizes the future land use distribution expected
without water supply protection ordinances for Randleman Lake, but including existing water
2-12 Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority
1

1
1

t
A
a

1

Draft (February 1990 Section 2 -Nutrient Reduction Goals and Objectives
Figure 4. Randleman Lake Watershed High Growth Areas for Year 2025
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Azrthority
2-13
t
"% County Boundaries 1 0 1 2 3 4 Niles
`~ Watersheds
~ Projected Working Areas
Projected wing Areas

Randlemun Lake Nutrient Reduction Strategy and Implementation Plan Draft (February 1998)
supply protection ordinances for the Oak Hollow, City Lake, and Oakdale watersheds.
Concentrations in effluent from the High Point Eastside WWTP are assumed to continue at
current concentrations as flow increases. Predicted nutrient loads and chlorophyll a response are ~
shown in Tables 7 and 8.
For average flow conditions, total phosphorus load is predicted to decline slightly from existing ?~
conditions, representing the reduction in WWTP effluent from 4 mg/1 to 1 mg/1 total phosphorus. ^
Total nonpoint phosphorus loads at average flow, however, are predicted to more than double,
from 18,900 to 39,640 kg/yr. Nonpoint nitrogen loads are also predicted to increase significantly
in the absence of a nutrient reduction strategy.
Chlorophyll a concentrations predicted for future conditions without a nutrient reduction strategy
show a significant reduction versus predictions for existing conditions in segments Deep River 1
and Deep River 2. Again, this is due to the decrease in phosphorus concentration in the WWTP
effluent, which is assumed to be required regardless of whether a nutrient reduction strategy for
Randleman Lake is implemented. In addition, increased through flow rate in these segments
associated with increased impervious surface and increased flow from the WWTP helps flush
excess nutrients out of the upstream segments of the lake. Within other lake segments,
chlorophyll a concentrations are predicted to increase in future due to increased nonpoint source
loading of nutrients. For instance, the average chlorophyll a concentration in segment Muddy
Creels 1 is predicted to increase from 17 to 28 µg/1 during an average flow year.
Impact of Predicted Future Conditions on Nutrient Reduction Goals
Predictions for future conditions without a nutrient reduction strategy continue to meet two of the
three chlorophyll a management goals: The lakewide average concentration is predicted to be
less than 25 µg/1 and the concentration in the water intake segment (Deep River 3B) is less than
15 µg/1. However, the frequency of nuisance conditions (chlorophyll a concentrations greater
than 40 µg/1) is predicted to exceed 5% within four segments of the proposed Randleman Lake
(Deep River 1, Deep River 2, Deep River 3A, and Muddy Creek 1). The frequency is predicted
to increase relative to existing conditions in Deep River 3A and Muddy Creek 1.
Predicted future conditions without a nutrient reduction strategy are closer to meeting goals
within the Deep River 1 segment than under existing conditions (due to the reductions in the
WWTP effluent nutrient concentrations), but still far in excess of target levels. Increased
degradation is predicted for the Muddy Creek 1 segment. A nutrient reduction strategy is needed
to improve conditions in both segments. ~;

1
2-14 Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority ~'

Table 6. Estimated Future Land Use by Sub-Watershed (acres), without new WS Ordinances
Land Use Sub-Watershed
Oak
Hollow City
Lake Deep
River 1 Deep
River 2 Deep
River 3 Muddy
Creek 1 Muddy
Creek 2 Dam
Area Total
Forest 2,462 2,883 3,674 6,231 2,588 2,379 1,626 2,540 24,383
Open Space 1,670 6,329 1,403 501 90 179 27 55 10,24
Pasture 10 0 301 891 607 527 514 370 3,220
Cropland with BMPs 0 0 271 802 447 409 338 435 2, 702
Cropland, High Till 0 0 30 89 50 46 37 48 300
Large Lot SF Residential
(2 to 5-acre lots) 1,166 33 416 1,433 204 151 158 200 3,761
Low Density SF
Residential (1 to 2-acre) 5,659 511 185 419 38 125 25 32 6,994
Low-Medium Density SF
Residential (0.5 to 1-acre) 5,026 1,287 429 28 22 1,967 19 24 8,802
Medium Density SF
Resid. (0.25 to 0.5 acre) 2,326 4,447 8,814 4,630 1,356 3,565 9 145 2,292
Institutional 236 178 152 178 256 766 164 44 1,974
Townhouse/Apartment 492 542 2,938 1,963 626 1,378 12 94 8,04
CommerciaU Office 688 1,720 1,851 1,028 29 766 12 132 6,226
Heavy Industry 689 1,134 1,530 392 14 951 12 16 4,738
Water (with Randleman
Lake) 742 365 138 553 936 219 465 812 =1,230
Total 21,166 19, 429 22,133 19,140 7, 266 13, 429 3, 420 1, 94 110, 930

Randleman Lake Nutrient Reduction Strategy and Implementation Plan Draft (February 1998)
Table 7. Estimated Nutrient Loads by Lake Segment (kglyr) for Future Conditions,
without Nutrient Reduction Strategy,
WWTP at 26 MGD, 1 mg/1 Total Phosphorus, and 6 mg/1 Total Nitrogen
Segment Low Flow Year High Flow Year Average Flow Year
P N P N P N
Oak Hollow 3,780 34,830 10,690 103,320 6,980 69,250
City Lake 3,080 28,210 9,660 93,710 5,710 57,470
Deep River 1 (NPS
and minor PS) 6,140 49,690 15,480 137,800 10,460 93,170
Deep River 1 (WWTP) 35,950 215,690 35,950 215,690 35,950 215,690
Deep River 2 4,040 36,520 10,860 104,490 7,040 70,190
Deep River 3A 1,190 10,430 2,290 27,120 1,630 17,720
Deep River 3B 140 2,210 460 7,030 270 4,320
Muddy Creek 1 4,150 35,460 10,220 90,160 6,400 58,220
Muddy Creels 2 190 2,640 830 10,580 470 6,520
Near Dam 270 3,480 1,220 14,950 700 9,350
TOTAL 58,940 419,160 97,670 804,840 75,590 601,900
Total Nonpoint Source 22,990 203,470 61,720 589,150 39,640 386,190
Table 8. Chlorophyll a Predictions for Future Conditions,
without Nutrient Reduction Strategy
Segment Low Flow Year High Flow Year Average Flow Year
Chl a
(µg/1) Nuisance
Frequency Chl a
(µg/1) Nuisance
Frequency Chl a
(µg/1) Nuisance
Frequency
Oak Hollow 15 2.3% 17 3.6% 17 3.3%
City Lake 22 9.0% 23 9.8% 23 10.4%
Deep River 1 95 89.3% 71 76.2% 80 82.5%
Deep River 2 36 32.1% 30 22.0% 33 26.1%
Deep River 3A 20 6.8% 19 5.7% 19 6.1%
Deep River 3B 14 1.9% 13 1.4% 14 1.6%
Muddy Crk 1 28 18.1% 28 17.7% 28 18.0%
Muddy Crk 2 14 1.6% 15 2.5% 15 2.0%
Near Dam 10 0.3% 13 1.3% 12 0.8%
Lake Randleman
Average 23 21 22
2-16
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority

t
t
1
f

1

I
t

Draft (Febrzrary 1998) Section 3 -Nutrient Reduction Strategy
3. NUTRIENT REDUCTION STRATEGY
The Nutrient Reduction Strategy is divided into two program areas: control of point source
nutrient loads, and control of watershed nonpoint source nutrient loads. To address predicted
water quality problems within the Deep River 1 segment the emphasis must be placed on point
source reductions, as the High Point Eastside contributes the bulk of nutrient load to this
,~ segment. For the Muddy Creek 1 segment there are no significant point sources, so the emphasis
must be on nonpoint source controls.
3.1 Point Source Nutrient Control Program
3.1.1 Enhanced Phosphorus Removal at High Point Eastside WWTP
Under existing operations, the High Point Eastside WWTP has achieved approximately 4 mg/1
total phosphorus and 20 mg/I total nitrogen (summer), for a total load of 58,070 kg/yr of
phosphorus and 290,350 kg/yr of nitrogen. New permit limits are currently being negotiated for
the plant. As part of the strategy for protecting the proposed Randleman Lake, it is expected that
these will include a 0.5 mg/1 limit for total phosphorus and a 6 mg/l total nitrogen (summer only)
limit. PTRWA proposes to enter into an interlocal agreement with the City of High Point as
provided for in G.S. 160A-460 that will establish an operating goal of 0.2 mg/1 total phosphorus
for the Eastside plant. The interlocal agreement will serve to create a financial incentive for the
City of High Point to provide this higher level of treatment. The incentive payment by the
Authority will be based on the projected higher cost of treatment for this lower phosphorus
concentration. The agreement will also provide for a review and extension of the financial
incentive, if necessary, coincident with the permit renewal cycle for the Eastside plant.
The enhanced treatment levels of 0.2 mg/1 total phosphorus and 6 mg/1 total nitrogen (summer),
represent a 20-fold reduction in phosphorus and a 3-fold reduction in nitrogen for anear-term
discharge of 16 MGD. By the time the plant reaches expected buildout capacity of 26 MGD, the
additional treatment will still result in a phosphorus load 88 percent less than that currently being
discharged from the plant. Nutrient loads for the WWTP are summarized in Table 9, and the
1
1

e
reduction in phosphorus load is shown graphically in Figure 5. Loads with the Nutrient
Reduction Strategy in place are compared to loads with an effluent limit of 1 mg/1 total
phosphorus as assumed for the analysis of future conditions without water supply protection
(Section 2.3.2).
Given an assimilative capacity at average flow of 1,800 kg/yr phosphorus within the Deep River
1 segment, and predicted future loads to this segment of 46,400 kg/yr without a nutrient
reduction strategy, a reduction in loading of 44,600 kg/yr would be needed to meet all water
quality goals. The improvements to the WWTP accomplish a reduction of 28,760 kg/yr, or 64
percent of the needed reductions.
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority 3-1

Randleman Lake Nutrient Reduction Strategy and Implementation Plan Draft (February 1998)
so,ooo
50,000
40,000
Y
(6
O
~ 30,000
0
L
n
0 20,000
L
a
10,000
0
cxisung wao ~ i~.o wi~u a[ 4 mgn~ ruwra Iowa ~co wiuv ec u.~ inyn~
Figure 5. Annual Phosphorus Loads from High Point Eastside WWTP
Table 9. Future High Point Eastside WWTP Nutrient Loads (kg/yr)
Operating Condition Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen
10.5 MGD at 4 mg/1 P, 20 mg/1 N 58,030 290,150
16 MGD at 1 mg/1 P, 6 mg/1 N 22,110 132,640
26 MGD at 1 mg/1 P, 6 mg/1 N 35,950 215,690
16 MGD at 0.2 mg/1 P, 6 mg/1 N 4,420 132,640
26 MGD at 0.2 mg/1 P, 6 mg/1 N 7,190 215,690
3.1.2 Potential for Control of Minor Dischargers
The majority of the minor "domestic-type" permitted wastewater discharges within the watershed
of the proposed Lake Randleman are in areas for which no sewer extension is planned.
Currently, PTRWA has committed to remove two minor discharges-Melbille Heights and
Hidden Forest-by connecting their effluent to municipal sewer systems. For analysis of future
3-2 Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority
1
1
1

1
A
1

t
Draft (February 19)8) .SeCt10Y! 3 -Nutrient Reduction Strategy
conditions with nutrient reduction strategies it is assumed that these two dischargers will be
connected to the municipal sewer system, removing a total of 0.135 MGD in permitted flow.
This would result in an estimated reduction of 910 kg/yr total phosphorus and 3640 kg/yr total
nitrogen loading. Other existing minor dischargers falling within areas of future sewer extension
will be evaluated for discharge removal on a plant-by-plant basis. There are three minor
dischargers located within the boundaries of the future sewer service area of Greensboro. These
are Hickory Run Mobile Home Park (Bull Run Creek), and Plaza and Crown Mobile Home
Parks (Hickory Creek), all of which drain to the Deep River I segment of the proposed
Randleman Lake.
3.2 Nonpoint Source Control Program
Additional nutrient reductions will be achieved through a nonpoint source control program.
Within the downstream segments of the lake the nonpoint source control program provides
~.~ additional actions to help prevent exceeding assimilative capacity. Within the upstream
segments Deep River 1 and Muddy Creek 1, where assimilative capacity is expected to be
exceeded, the Nutrient Reduction Strategy for nonpoint sources will focus on preventing
additional degradation of water quality.
1

a
I

e
The Nutrient Reduction Plan for nonpoint sources contains five major components. First are the
watershed protection ordinances which restrict density of development and types of land use in
the watershed, as described in Section 3.2.1. Other components include structural controls on
load generation from specific land uses (Section 3.2.2), non-structural controls on load
generation (Section 3.2.3), education and outreach programs (Section 3.2.4), and monitoring and
enforcement (Section 3.2.5).
3.2.1 Watershed Protection Ordinances
Basis in State Regerlations
Approximately 50 % of North Carolina's population depends on rivers and lakes for drinking
water as well as commercial and industrial uses. In the last decade, the state and many local
governments recognized the need to rely not just on treating drinking water to remove chemicals
and pathogens but also on preventing pollution from entering water supplies. Responding to the
growing demand on the state's surface water supplies and growing concern about degradation of
surface water sources by nutrients and other pollutants, the NC General Assembly passed the
Water Supply Protection Act of 1989 (NCGS 143-214.5). The Act requires all local
governments that have land use jurisdiction within surface water supply watersheds to implement
and enforce nonpoint source pollution management according to minimum standards adopted by
the state. The water supply standards for managing nonpoint source pollution apply to local
governments' urban development and to agricultural, silvicultural, and Department of
Transportation activities in the watershed.
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority 3-3

Randleman Lake Nutrient Reduction Strategy crud Implementution Plan Draft (February 1998
In the State's Water Supply Watershed Protection standards, there are five water supply classes
(WS-I to WS-V) that are defined by the existing intensity of land use and types of permitted
wastewater discharges. The WS-I watersheds are the least disturbed and have the most stringent
minimum requirements for future water quality protection. WS-IV watersheds have an urban
character and less stringent controls on future development. (WS-V watersheds are those that
local governments-have designated as future water supply sources but currently have no water
supply withdrawal.)
The standards require dual action by state and local governments. By classifying a watershed as
a water supply, all local governments within the watershed must take action to control nonpoint
sources of pollution through housing density controls, limits on impervious area in a
development, buffers along streams, stormwater control requirements for higher density
development, and other means of reducing the potential contamination of the water supply. In
turn, the state limits the point source discharges that can locate within the watershed.
Watershed Overlay Districts
The Randleman Lake watershed contains three smaller water supply watersheds: Oakdale, City
Lake, and Oak Hollow Lake watersheds, all classified as WS-IV (Figure 6). The relevant
jurisdictions of Guilford Co., Forsyth Co., High Point, Jamestown, Kernersville, and Greensboro
all have approved water supply protection ordinances in place for these watersheds.
Seven jurisdictions have area in the watershed which drains directly to the proposed Randleman
Lake, and not to the upstream City Lake and Oak Hollow watersheds. These are: Guilford Co.,
Greensboro, High Point, Jamestown, Randolph Co., Archdale, and Randleman. Guilford Co.,
Greensboro, Randolph Co., and Archdale have all adopted water supply watershed overlay
districts and water supply protection ordinances for the proposed Randleman Lake. Guilford Co.
and Greensboro have designated the water supply watershed overlay district for Randleman Lake
(referred to as Randleman Dam watershed) as a WS-IV classification. Much of the watershed
lying in Randolph Co. is currently undeveloped, and Randolph Co. and Randleman have
voluntarily adopted a higher degree of protection, defining the overlay district as WS-III.
High Point has existing WS-IV watershed overlay districts for City Lake and Oak Hollow Lake.
For areas within High Point's zoning jurisdiction draining directly to Kandleman Lake, High
Point has agreed to adopt Guilford County's watershed protection ordinances, which are more
stringent than the state minimum for WS-IV. These more stringent ordinances will also be
applicable in the existing Oakdale watershed overlay district. Jamestown and Archdale have not
yet adopted watershed overlay districts for the proposed reservoir. These jurisdictions, however,
have existing WS-IV water supply protection ordinances for other watersheds, and it is assumed
that similar ordinances will be adopted for Randleman Lake. The status of watershed overlay
districts for the Randleman Lake watershed and upstream watersheds is shown in Table 10.

1

i
1
1

a

1

3-4 Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority

1
1
1
f

1
e
i
1
1
1
w
c

t
1
1
Draft (February 1998) Section 3 -Nutrient Reduction Strategy
~ ~~C~
® Critical Area (Randolph County)
Critical Area Tiers (Guilford County)
~2
3
;: 4
1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Niles
ty
Figure 6. Existing Water Supply Watersheds in the Randleman Lake Watershed
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority
3-5

i
Randleman Lake Nutrient Reduction Strategy and Implementation Plan Draft (February 1998)
Table 10. Existing Watershed Overlay Districts for Randleman Lake Watershed.
Jurisdiction Applicability Critical Area (CA) Protected Area (PA)
Guilford County Randleman Dam (Lake) Not less than '/z mile from the Balance of the reservoir
High Point (City Lake) normal pool elevation of reservoir. watershed.
Oak Hollow Lake Tiers defined within CA:
Tier 1: within 200 ft of normal
pool elevation of reservoir
Tier 2: 200-750 ft
Tier 3: 750 ft-3000 ft, not to
exceed CA boundary
Tier 4: between Tier 3 and
Guilford CA boundaries
Greensboro Randleman Dam (Lake) Not less than '/z mile from the Balance of the reservoir
High Point (City Lake) normal pool elevation of reservoir. watershed.
Tiers: defined as in Guilford
County
High Point Oak Hollow Lake To the ridgeline of reservoir; for All land within
City Lake major feeding streams, not less jurisdiction that drains
Oakdale Watershed than 2,750 ft upstream. to reservoir and falls
(Randleman Lake:Guilford i rs: defined as in Guilford outside of Critical Area
County ordinances County, except that Tier 3 extends
proposed for adoption) to 2,750 ft
Jamestown High Point (City Lake) To the ridgeline of reservoir; for All land within
Oakdale Watershed major feeding streams, not less jurisdiction that drains
(Randleman Lake: not yet than 2,750 ft upstream. to reservoir and falls
adopted) Tiers: defined as in Guilford outside of Critical
County, except that Tier 3 extends Area.
to 2,750 ft
Randolph County Randleman Lake Defined on Randolph County's Balance of the reservoir
Watershed Protection Map; must watershed.
meet State requirement of/z mile
and draining to reservoir.
Randleman Randleman Lake Defined on Randleman's Balance of the reservoir
Watershed Protection Map; must watershed.
meet State requirement of/z mile
and draining to reservoir.
Archdale (Randleman Lake: not yet Not applicable.
adopted)
Forsyth County Oak Hollow Lake Not applicable. (Approximately '/Z Balance of the reservoir
mile of normal pool of reservoir) watershed.
Kernersville Oak Hollow Lake Not applicable. Balance of the reservoir
watershed.
1

w
1
i
1
1
1

1

1
3-6 Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority

1

w
i

r
1

e

1
Draft (February 1998) Section 3 - Nartrient Reduction Strategy
In keeping with the state's watershed protection rules, ordinances in all of the jurisdictions define
two overlay districts: a Critical Area near the water supply (in which the most stringent land use
controls are required) and a Protected Area. The state rules require the Critical Area to include
all land within''/2 mile of and draining to a water supply reservoir; Table 10 shows that all of the
jurisdictions meet this rule in the existing ordinances. Guilford County has adopted a Critical
Area that in some areas goes beyond the state-required '/z mile minimum. In all of these
jurisdictions, the Protected Area has been defined as the balance of the reservoir's watershed
falling outside of the Critical Area, which meets the State requirement for WS-III watersheds and
exceeds the requirement for WS-IV watersheds.
In the Guilford County jurisdictions (Guilford County, Greensboro, High Point, and Jamestown),
four tiers have been delineated within the Critical Area that act as further overlay districts. Tier 4
is outside the state-defined Critical Area but within the Guilford County Critical Area
designation. Table 11 shows the density limits associated with the water supply ordinances.
Projected Future Land Use with Water Supply Protection Ordinances
The water supply protection ordinances place significant restrictions on potential development
within the watershed by controlling the minimum lot size in residential developments and the
maximum allowed areal coverage by buildings, roads, parking lots, and other impervious
surfaces in commercial and industrial developments. However, for some areas in the watershed
expected development is also restricted by other factors, such as lack of demand for
development, presence of public water and sewer, and poor suitability of soils for septic systems.
The actual impact of the ordinances on future land use must therefore be determined through
careful analysis of the interaction of ordinances, demand, and environmental features. The
methodology used to estimate future land use conditions is described in Appendix II. As with
the estimate of future conditions without water supply protection, the analysis is based on
approximate year 2025+ conditions. Projected future land use with water supply protection
ordinances is shown in, Table 12, which can be compared with Table 5. Figure 7 contrasts
projected 2025+ land use under existing conditions and with and without proposed water supply
projection ordinances. The water supply ordinances result in an increased amount of forest and
open land. Commercial and industrial uses are diminished, with a corresponding shift to forest
and open land by the impervious surface cover limitations in the ordinances. The ordinances will
result in only a small decrease in the total land area in residential uses; however, the residential
land developed with WS-IV ordinances will generally be at lower density and greater lot size.
Table 13 shows the reduction in nutrient loads expected to be achieved by water supply
protection ordinances alone, without considering other nonpoint source control strategies. The
water supply protection ordinances are predicted to result in a net reduction of 6,250 kg/yr total
phosphorus (19% of the nonpoint source load) and 36,800 kg/yr total nitrogen (11 % of the
nonpoint source load) during an average flow year. The greatest reductions are achieved in those
subwatersheds subject to growth pressure; little savings occur in areas such as Muddy Creels 2
where little growth is expected. No reductions are indicated for Oak Hollow and City Lake
watersheds because water supply protection ordinances for these watersheds are already in place.
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority 3-7

Table 11. Limits to Development Density in Water Supply Protection Ordinances
Critical Area Balance of Watershed
Low Density Development High Density
Low Density Development High Density Development Low Density Development without curb i3< gutter ` Development
State Regulations Residential 2 du/ac 50% 2 du/ac 3 du/ac 70%
(WS-IV)
Non-residential 24% 50% 24% 36% 70%
Guilford County Residential No public sewer Public sewer NA No public sewer Public sewer NA 70%
(existing) Tier 1: NA Tier 1: NA 40,000 sq ft lot 2 dulac
and Tier 2: 1 du/5 ac Tier 2: 1 du/5 ac
High Point direct Tier 3: 1 du/3 ac Tier 3: 2 du/1 ac
drainage to Tier 4: 1 du/1 ac Tier 4: 2 du/ 1 ac
Randleman Lake or <= 24%
(proposed)
Non-residential No public sewer Public sewer No public sewer Public sewer No public sewer Public sewer NA 70%
Tier 1: NA Tier 1: NA NA Tier 3: 34% 40,000 sq ft lot 24%
Tier 2: 2.5% Tier 2: 2.5% Tier 4: 40%
Tier 3: 4.0% Tier 3: 24%
Tier 4: 12% Tier 4: 30%
Greensboro Residential No public sewer Public sewer NA 2 du/ac NA 70%
Tier 1: 0.5% Tier 1:0.5%
Tier 2: 1 du/5 ac Tier 2: 1 du/5 ac
Tier 3: 1 du/3 ac Tier 3: 2 du/1 ac
Tier 4: 1 du/1 ac Tier 4: 2 du/ 1 ac
Non-residential No public sewer Public sewer No public sewer Public sewer 24% NA 70%
_ Tier 1:0.5% Tier 1:0.5% NA Tier 3: 34%
Tier 2: 2.4% Tier 2: 2.4% Tier 4: 40%
Tier 3: 4.0% Tier 3: 24%
Tier 4: 12% Tier 4: 24%
High Point Residential (Public sewer required in Critical Area) Tier 4: 2.5 du/ac 2 dulac 3 du/ac 70%
(City Lake and Tier 1: NA
Oak Hollow Lake) Tier 2: 1 du/ac
Tier 3: 2 du/ac
Tier 4: 2 du/ac
Non-residential (Public sewer required in Critical Area) Tier 3: 35% 24% 36% 70%
Tier 1: NA Tier 4 50%
Tier 2: NA
Tier 3: 24%
Tier 4: 24%
High Density Development =with construction of stormwater control (usually wet detention pond) designed to control first 1" of rainfall
` If Low Density development in the watershed Protected Area is built without curb 8 gutter street systems, state regulations allow a maximum of 3 du/ac or 36% built-upon area.
This option is not available in the Critical Area.
"Tier 4 defined by Guilford County is outside of state minimum 1/2 mile Critical Area, but inside the Critical Area boundary on the Guilford Water Supply Overlay District Map.
NA =Not available
~ s ^~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~~ r~ a ri r ~ ~ ~ ~

Table 11. Limits to Development Density in Water Supply Protection Ordinances (cont.)
Critical Area Balance of Watershed
Low Density Development High Density
Low Density Development High Density Development Low Density Development without curb & gutter' Development
State Regulations Residential 2 du/ac 50% 2 du/ac 3 du/ac 70%
(WS-IV)
Non-residential 24% 50% 24% 36% 70%
Jamestown Residential (Public sewer required in Critical Area) Tier 4: 2.5 du/ac 2 du/ac 3 du/ac 70%
Tier 1: NA
Tier 2: 1 du/ac
Tier 3: 2 du/ac
Tier 4: 2 du/ac
Non-residential (Public sewer required in Critical Area) Tier 3: 35% 24% 36% 70%
Tier 1: NA Tier 4: 50%
Tier 2: NA
Tier 3: 24%
Tier 4: 24%
Randolph County Residential 1 du/2 ac NA No public sewer Public sewer NA NA
1 du/40,000 sq ft 2 du/ac
Non-residential 6% NA 24% NA NA
Randleman Resid 1 du/2 ac NA No public sewer Public sewer NA NA
1 du/40,000 sq ft 1 or 2 (?) du/ac
Non-residential 12% NA 24% NA NA
Archdale Residential NA (No Randleman Lake NA No public sewer Public sewer NA NA
Critical Area within 1 du/40,000 sq ft 2 du/ac
Archdale jurisdiction.)
Non-residential NA NA 24% NA NA
Forsyth County Residential 1 du/20,000 sq ft or 24% NA 1 du/20,000 sq ft or 24°/ 1 du/13,500 sq ft or 36% NA
Non-residential 24% NA 24% 36% NA
Kernersville Residential NA (No Randleman Lake NA 2 du/ac or 24% NA 70%
Critical Area within
Non-residential NA Kemersvillejurisdiction.) NA 24% NA 70%
High Density Development =with construction of stormwater control (usually wet detention pond) designed to contrcl first 1" of rainfall
' If Low Density development in the watershed Protected Area is built without curb 8 gutter street systems, state regulations allow a maximum of 3 du/ac or 36% built-upon area.
This option is not available in the Critical Area.
"Tier 4 defined by Guilford County is outside of state minimum 1/2 mile Critical Area, but inside the Critical Area boundary on the Guilford Water Supply Overlay District Map.
NA =Not available

Table 12. Estimated Future Land Use by Sub-Watershed (acres) with Water Supply Protection Ordinances
Land Use Sub-Watershed
Oak
Hollow City
Lake Deep
River 1 Deep
River 2 Deep
River 3 Muddy
Creek 1 Muddy
Creek 2 Dam
Area Total
Forest 2,462 2,883 4,437 6,721 2,608 2,474 1,649 2,618 2,8.52
Open Space 1,670 6,329 1,491 1,258 90 621 27 104 11,590
Pasture 10 0 272 865 599 587 516 371 3,220
Cropland with BMPs 0 0 245 770 442 460 339 436 2, 692
Cropland, High Till 0 0 27 84 49 46 37 48 291
Large Lot SF Residential (2 to 5-acre lots) 1,166 33 1,00 2,54 822 259 152 208 6,244
Low Density SF Residential (1 to 2-acre lots) 5,659 511 1,297 1,764 1,424 3,019 57 72 13,803
Low-Medium Density SF Residential (0.5 to
1-acre) 5,026 1,287 7,386 3,333 9 3;042 0 0 20,083
Medium Density SF Residential (0.25 to 0.~
ac) 2,326 4,447 2,324 674 0 772 0 176 10, 719
Institutional 236 178 152 178 256 766 164 44 1, 974
Townhouse/ Apartment 492 542 642 0 0 97 0 21 1, 794
Commercial/ Office 688 1,720 1,143 347 28 462 12 37 4,437
Heavy Industry 689 1,134 1,530 37 0 724 0 0 4,114
Water (with Randleman Lake) 742 365 138 553 936 219 46~ 812 4,230
Total 21,166 19, 429 22,135 19,140 7, 266 13, ~ 49 3, 420 4, 947 111, 052

Draft (February 19TH) Section 3 -Nutrient Reduction Strategy
Existing Conditions
Commercial/Industri~' "°' `
Residential (16%)
Agriculture (21%)
Oper, ,~ ~,
Future, with Ordinances
Commercial/ Forest (24%)
Industrial (8%) ~~~~
- Open (11 %)
Agriculture (6%)
Residential (51 %)
Open (5%)
Agriculture
(6 %)
Residential (52%)
Figure 7. Existing and Projected 2025+ Land Use for Randleman Lake Watershed
Table 13. Estimated Reduction in Nonpoint Nutrient Loads by Lake Segment (kg/yr)
Achieved by New Water Supply Protection Ordinances
for Future Land Use Conditions
Segment Low Flow Year High Flow Year Average Flow Year
P N P N P N
Oak Hollow 0 0 0 0 0 0
City Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0
Deep River 1 1,740 12,360 2,990 18,220 1,940 11,620
Deep River 2 1,750 12,370 3,710 20,690 2,290 12,950
Deep River 3A 170 2,430 320 4,40 210 2,840
Deep River 3B 50 700 90 1,310 60 820
Muddy Creek 1 1,360 7,840 2,590 11,670 1,640 7,660
Muddy Creek 2 10 100 20 210 10 130
Near Dam 60 520 160 1,280 100 780
TOTAL 5,130 36,330 9,870 57,920 6,250 36,800
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority
Forest (54%)
Future, without Ordinances
Commercial/ Forest (21%)
Industrial (16%)
3-11

Randleman Lake Nutrient Reduction Strategy and Implenrentution Plan Draft (February 1998)
For the Deep River 1 segment, the water supply protection ordinances provide a reduction of
1,940 kg/yr total phosphorus during an average flow year, or 3 percent of the needed reductions
to meet assimilative capacity in this segment.
3.2.2 Structural Controls on Loads
The second component of the strategy for reducing loads from nonpoint sources is use of
structural controls on loads. Given that land uses associated with increased pollutant loads will
be present, structural controls are designed to trap or isolate pollutants before they can reach the
reservoir.
Regional Stormwater Ponds
CDM (1989) conducted a watershed management study to design ways to improve the protection
of Oak Hollow and City Lake watersheds. This report recommended establishing a regional
BMP Master Plan to mitigate the impacts of NPS pollution loading into High Point's reservoirs.
Specific recommendations included 72 detention ponds (62 wet, 10 dry), of which 33 ponds
would be located in City Lake watershed and 39 ponds in Oak Hollow Lake watershed. The goal
of these detention ponds would be to reduce nonpoint source loading from existing and future
development. In addition, the ponds would provide retention and containment capabilities for
any potential hazardous material spills.
High Point began to implement the CDM recommendations for Stormwater ponds on a pond-by-
pond basis. After permitting four of the ponds, USACE required that High Point document the
cumulative impacts on wetlands of a1172 of the ponds simultaneously to obtain necessary
permitting, rather than permitting ponds individually. High Point contracted with HDR to study
the permittability of the remaining 68 proposed ponds, and chose not to pursue a single permit
for financial reasons.
At present there are four regional detention ponds which have been constructed in the High
Point/Guilford County area (see Figure 8). The four sites are Piedmont Lake, Davis Lake,
Regency Lake, and the Oak Hollow Mall Lake. The purpose of these four facilities is to provide
storm runoff protection and improved water quality for the City of High Point's two existing
water supplies: Oak Hollow Lake and City Lake. A fifth site is in the planning stage.
The Piedmont Lake facility is located north of High Point on Piedmont Parkway between NC
Highway 68 and Tarrant Road on the East Fork of Deep River. The watershed contributing to
the Piedmont Lake facility consists of 1,200 acres of medium density single family, commercial,
office, and woodland areas. This watershed also includes the petroleum tank farm at Friendship
along the I-40, railroad, and Piedmont-Triad International Airport corridor. The Piedmont Lake
facility has a normal pool elevation of 806 msl, a maximum water surface elevation of 816.3 msl,
a corresponding total storage volume of 304 acre-feet, and a total surface area of approximately
12 acres. Due to the potential for spills from the tank farm, Piedmont Lake has spill containment
capabilities.
3-12 Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority

1

SKEET CLUB ROAD
FACILITY REGENCY LAKE
<,
I ~+i
I ~ a~ ao
y~ ~ F 041RY /
O
19~ Y ~ ~ ` •
~ ago PIEDMONT ~ / ~
U I ~ \t LAKE ~ ` N
= z
a
2~ P~~
~ I clue
~ \ DAVlS LAKE
t
1 ~~ OAK
HOLLOW
LAXE
O 68 NIGH
Z POI,'VT LAXE
~~~ ~
-+~ 3n By,
p `~
311 ~~L,1, `,~~
MFR
OAK HOLLOW I ~
MALL LAKE
1 29A
H 70A
~ LEX~ G? .. ~n 29
U b 70
I ~ ~ MONt~~~J ~~
I O KI~ET7
~ I
J 70A es
HIGH 1
POINT 1 OR
1
I ``
0 2 9
MILES
Figure 8. Location of Regional Detention Ponds

Randleman Lake Nutrient Reduction Strate~,ry and Implementation Plan Draft (February 199~Y)
The Davis Lake facility is located just north of High Point between NC Highway 68 and Tarrant
Road on the East Fork of Deep River. The watershed contributing to the Davis Lake facility
consists of 1,258 acres of mainly woodland and agricultural land uses, with some industrial and
commercial development appearing in the past several years. Davis Lake has a normal pool
elevation of 794 msl, a maximum surface elevation of 800.4 msl, a corresponding total storage
volume of 310 acre-feet, and a total surface area of 22 acres.
The Regency Lake facility is located north of High Point between Gallimore Dairy Road and
Regency Drive, east of NC Highway 68 on the East Fork of the Deep River. The watershed
contributing to the Regency Lake facility consists of 4,095 acres of industrial, commercial,
office, and medium density residential land uses. Regency Lake has a normal pool elevation of
792 msl, a maximum water surface elevation of 799 msl, a corresponding storage volume of 90
acre-feet, and a total surface area of approximately 4 acres.
The Oak Hollow Mall facility is located in High Point between Johnson Street and Eastchester
Drive, southeast of the Oak Hollow Mall. The watershed contributing to the Oak Hollow Mall
facility consists of 742 acres of medium density single family, multi-family residential,
commercial, office, and institutional land uses, and includes the northern segment of the North
Main Street corridor from Lexington Avenue north of Highway 68. The Oak Hollow Mall
facility has a normal pool elevation of 814.8 msl, a maximum water surface elevation of 822 msl,
a corresponding total storage volume of 163 acre-feet, and a total surface area of approximately 8
acres.
The City of High Point also plans to construct a fifth storm water treatment facility. The
proposed Skeet Club Road facility, which is scheduled to begin construction in the near future,
will be situated on the West Fork of the Deep River at the outermost reach of Oak Flollow Lake.
The watershed contributing to this proposed facility consists of approximately 9,800 acres of
urban and rural housing development, commercial, institutional, and agricultural land uses. The
Skeet Club Road facility will consist of an impoundment and containment structure which will
create approximately 11 acres of constructed/enhanced wetlands. A sediment forebay will
provide approximately 21,000 cubic yards (4.25 million gallons) of storage volume. The
proposed facility is currently being re-designed by the City's consultant, and construction is
scheduled to be completed by the summer of 1998.
For developments requiring stormwater control occurring in an area that is already controlled by
one of the existing ponds, the developer has the option of paying a share of costs of the existing
pond. If there is no stormwater detention already existing then the developer must construct one
on site.
WRRI conducted a study of pollutant trap efficiency in High Point's Davis and Piedmont Ponds
(Borden et al., 1996). They found that the ponds were capable of removing an average of 43
percent of influent phosphorus load and 26 percent of the influent nitrogen load. Four of the five
ponds have already been constructed, and do not represent an additional reduction in nutrient
3-14 Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority

Draft (February 1994)
,Section 3 -Nutrient Reduction Strategy

load. These ponds are included in the model simulations for future conditions both with and
without a nutrient reduction strategy. The fifth, proposed pond (Skeet Club Road facility) is
estimated to provide an additional reduction in loading to Oak Hollow Lake of 1,281 kg/yr total
phosphorus and 6,648 kg/yr total nitrogen under average flow conditions.
Constructed Wetlands
Uncontrolled stormwater runoff can accelerate erosion and downstream flooding, and transport
large amounts of nutrients and other pollutants to receiving waters. Control of runoff, with
opportunity for trapping and deposition of pollutants, can provide a significant reduction in
nutrient load. One alternative to the use of wet detention ponds for runoff control is use of
constructed or enhanced wetlands. Where runoff passes through a wetland, the force of the
flowing water is reduced, less particulate material is transported, and the pollutant load delivered
downstream is reduced.
Construction and operation of Randleman Lake would impact, principally by inundation,
' approximately 121 acres of wetlands. As required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,
PTRWA is addressing the loss of these wetlands through the implementation of a mitigation
program that includes the acquisition and permanent conservation of approximately 700 acres of
' swamp forest located along the Black River and the creation restoration of approximately 120
acres of forested wetland along tributaries of the Deep River. The 120 acres will be located in
areas that would also provide water quality benefits, reducing loading to Randleman Lake from
upstream sources of pollution. l ~,r~rd 2
1

1

1

Davis-Martin-Powell & Associates has condu study on the use of constructed
and enhanced wetlands to reduce nutrient load n Lake. Nine candidate wetland
mitigation sites were initially identified. From s were identified on which
constructed/enhanced wetlands will be created. These sites will either be constructed directly
PTRWA or by the State under the Wetland Restoration Enhancement Program (WREP) if t
Authority elects to pay into this wetland bank. These are shown in Table 14 and Figure 9.
~ 's~,~
o ~~ ~~
Table 14. Proposed Constructed /Enhanced Wetlands
Site Surface Area (acres) Draina Area (acres)
Richland Creek/Eastside WWTP 38.1 9,979
Reddicks Creek 3.2 5,900
Hickory Creek 3 6,211
Up er Muddy Creek 16.6 2,020
erse Va e 7.0 450
Butt e Dairy ~, ~ 2.8 429
Td ALS---- 121.6 24,989
~t Triad Regional Water A
w ~~-- ~ ~
~y
cted feasibility
ing o Randlema
t s list six site
~j~ 3-15
k~~~M a~- 1" ~~ ~~~~j~~~

MUDDY CREEK ~ I • ~ LAND I~ ;~.-
:~ ~ ,.
nur
'l' ~ ~ / gyn.. I. r
"r ~/..... C ~~
~ ;: ~ ~ ~;
j ~, ....., ..
..
• ....
,... ,~
• --,.
,.1- J' ~
~ - ~, I ~ / .....
f".S'''~
. - ~ ,,J
••.
( '• (-
.. l +n•.an: ~
BUTTKE DAIRY ~ ~ ~ ' - '• ~ .I~:;:, K i
SITE ' ~ - l ~~;•• '• ~ ~i... I __ 'T
.~ . .~
~, `"'
,,,, , , .
2 ° Y
~ J ,., /
~~.,
~ Wrtt-MU~r ir~o~eli t Auoc.. Inc.
L ~ / ~ I ~ - ) ~tMINQI1tM-lAlO rw«IM-«wrnnn
'• r' t ~ _ I ~ _ tU MTt11000 lR.. NIit Itt
_._ 1 ._ - ~ ~- ~ ~ , I ~ ~ _ I ~ ~ t11N r01tT. pORTN CUIOL IMA Y72tt
• ~ ~ _ •-•! . ••• ~•' f10t11M-liA C01(TilOl f~CIIITIEi
.....r... r • ~ _ i PIEOIiONT TI11A0 11Et10MAL WATER AIITNONIiY
...~. .;
-~ ~ ._.
\ ~ ~ ~ ~~•~• RANDLEMAN LAKE
"" ~ S!!!!! IUMOOI/N t tVIl~O~D COUNTIE!
.~ ~
! /~ ...nn n...... n.. •... ....n~ M011TN C4110 LIMA
1 ~ ~. u. . ~~ .......... u.. a.r...~
•... . ww +w rw
u.a ~. rctt
Figure 9. Location of Proposed Constructed/Enhanced Wetlands

Draft (February 1998) Section 3 -Nutrient Reduction Strategy
Cach constructed/enhanced wetland site will consist of low head dams as necessary to maintain a ~
normal water depth of -6" to +18" above natural ground level throughout the site. Some minimal ~y~V
grading will be required to shape the constructed wetland and obtain the desired normal pool ~~' ~,/i "~
depth, but the intent is to preserve the existing bottomland hardwood forests common to these ~~ ~~ ~q o
sites and re lace the undergrowth with aquatic plants native to the wetland environment. The ~d
P
types of vegetation that can be established will depend on the depth of water and how frequently ~J`~L ~
the areas will be inundated. A planting plan will be developed during the design of the wetlands
to coincide with the grading and site plans.
~~
~d ~ ; ~ ~ r ; ti 9 ~o r s uc<<t> J
In general, wetlands designed for water quality treatment can provide significant nitrogen
removal through plant uptake and denitrification. Their performance for phosphorus removal is
highly variable (MWCOG, 1992).
The Water Pollution Control Federation (Schueler et al., 1990) provides guidelines for use of
wetlands for nitrogen removal. To achieve significant (> 50%) nitrogen removal they
recommend a minimum wetland surface area of 4 hectares (10 acres) per 1,000 m3 of average
daily flow to provide sufficient retention time and trapping capability. Average daily flows to
the proposed wetlands range from about 10,000 to 50,000 m3/d-which. would require wetland
areas of 100 to 500 acres for effective treatment. The areas of the proposed wetlands range from
17 to 38 acres, so only a small amount of pollutant removal is expected.
Based on data summarized in Novotny and Olem (1994), minimal nutrient removal capabilities
of 10% of influent total nitrogen and 5% of influent total phosphorus are assigned to these
wetlands for scoping purposes. Total estimated removal of nutrient load under average flow and
future land use conditions with water supply ordinances is as follows:
Sub-watershed Total Phosphorus (kg/yr) Total Nitrogen (kg/yr)
Deep River 1 590 9,200
Deep River 2 220 5,040
Muddy Creek 1 70 1,250
Muddy Creek 2 10 130
TOTAL 890 15,620
Urban Stormwater and Development Stormwater Controls ~~'~~ °~ ~~~~ ru~~C
None of the municipalities in the watershed have large-scale centralized Stormwater collection
systems or Stormwater utilities operating or planned for the Randleman Lake watershed. For the
majority of the most urbanized areas (in and around High Point and Jamestown), there are no
piped Stormwater collection systems, mainly diffuse drainage. New developments are subject to
stormwater control under the Watershed Ordinances discussed above. Most commercial and
industrial development prior to the Watershed Ordinance does not have any type of onsite
stormwater retention facilities.
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority 3-17

Randleman Lake Nutrient Reduction .Strate~ry and Implementation Plan Draft (February 1 >98)
Most of the water supply overlay districts for Randleman Lake include a high density option, in
which increased impervious surface coverage is allowed if structural control of stormwater is
included in a project. State Regulations for WS-IV watersheds require controlling runoff from
the first inch of rainfall for the high density option. All jurisdictions within the watershed have
adopted requirements for stormwater controls, as shown in Table 15.
All of the local jurisdictions in the Randleman Lake watershed have ordinances which meet or
exceed the minimum requirements of the state regulations. As shown in Table 15, many of the
localities have stormwater control requirements in Low Density as well as High Density
developments. Greensboro and Kernersville require that the engineered stormwater controls be
designed to control 85% of total suspended solids, in addition to the State requirement of
controlling the first inch of rainfall. It should be noted that several of the jurisdictions (Randolph
County, Randleman, Archdale, and Forsyth County) do not permit High Density development
within the water supply watershed, and therefore do not specify any requirements for stormwater
control. Where stormwater control is required, wet detention ponds are generally the preferred
control method, although some of the ordinances allow for the use of other approved control
methods such as natural infiltration areas.
The effect of the Watershed Ordinance requirements for stormwater control is evident for recent
commercial and industrial development in the City Lake and Oakdale watersheds. Development
prior to the Watershed Ordinance generally does not have any type of onsite stormwater
retention. However, any construction or development which has taken place after the
implementation of the Watershed Ordinance has been required to comply with this ordinance by
limiting impervious cover or construction onsite detention/treatment ponds. Due to the high land
costs within these watershed areas, most developers have chosen onsite detention facilities as a
method of complying with the ordinance. It is estimated by the City staff that approximately 75
onsite detention ponds for the treatment of stormwater runoff have been constructed within the
designated watershed critical areas. These detention ponds have contributing drainage areas
ranging from 10 to 50 acres. Design standards for these onsite detention ponds are included in
the Watershed Ordinance.
For the purposes of modeling it is assumed that the stormwater detention requirements for high
density development result in water quality equivalent to similar development under the low
density requirements of the water supply ordinances. Therefore, no additional credit for nutrient
removal is assigned to onsite detention ponds.
3.2.3 Non-structural Control on Loads
The third component of the Nutrient Reduction Strategy for nonpoint source loads is non-
structural control. Non-structural controls generally consist of modifications to land
management practices (i.e., use of "Best Management Practices") so that the amount of nutrient
load generated in nonpoint runoff is minimized.
3-18 Piedmont Triad Regional WaterAuthnrity

Draft (Febrzzary 1998) Section 3 -Nutrient Redzzction Strategy
' Table 15. Stormwater Controls Required by Water Supply Protection Ordinances

Crltlcai Area Balance of Watershed
Low Densi Develo ment Hi h Densit Develo ment Low Densi Develo ment HI h Densi Develo ment
State Regulations No requirements Must control runoff from first No requirements Must control runoff from first
inch of rainfall inch of rainfall
Guilford County If built-upon area 12°/ or less, Must control runoff from first If site does not score 100, Must control runoff from first
permanent infiltration area or inch of rainfall then control first 1/2" by one t" of rainfall with wet
runoff control fof first 1/2" of of a number of approved detention pond
rainfall aver total drainage methods
area
If built-upon area > 12%.
must control runoff from first
inch of rainfall _
Greensboro If built-upon area 12% or less, Control of first 1" of rainfall Not required, but will increase Control of first 1" of rainfall
permanent infiltration area or and 85% of TSS, with wet ability to meet performance and 85% of TSS, with wet
runoff control of first 1" of detention pond or other BMP standards (scoresheet) detention pond or other BMP
rainfall and 85% of TSS
If built-upon area > 12%,
must control runoff from first
inch of rainfall and 85% of
TSS
High Pofnt If <= 1 dull ac or 6% built- Wet detention pond or If <= 1 dull ac or 6% built- Wet detention pond or
upon area, no specific regional runoff control, in upon area, no specific regional runoff control, in
requirements. compliance with City's requirements. compliance with City's
Stormwater Guidelines Stormwater Guidelines
Other low density may use of Other low density must meet
one of 5 alternate measures, performance standards
in compliance with City's (scoresheet) or apply an
Stormwater Guidelines approved stormwater control
measure
Jamestown If <= 1 dull ac or 6% built- Wet detention pond or If <= 1 dull ac or 6% built- Wet detention pond or
upon area, no specific regional runoff control, in upon area, no specific regional runoff control, in
requirements. compliance with High Point's requirements. compliance with High Point's
Stormwater Guidelines Stormwater Guidelines
Other low density may use of Other low density must meet
one of 5 alternate measures, performance standards
incompliance with High (scoresheet) or apply an
Point's Stormwater approved stormwater control
Guidelines measure
Randolph County No specific requirements in NA (no option provided for No specific requirements in NA (no option provided for
the watershed protection high density development) the watershed protection high density development)
ordinances. ordinances.
Randleman No specific requirements in NA (no option provided for No specific requirements in NA (no option provided for
the watershed protection high density development) the watershed protection high density development)
ordinances. ordinances.
Archdale NA (no Randleman Lake NA (no Randleman Lake No specific requirements in NA (no option provided for
Critical Area within Archdale Critical Area within Archdale the watershed protection high density development)
jurisdiction) 'urisdiction) ordinances.
Forsyth County None required. Regulations NA (no option provided for None required. Regulations NA (no option provided for
stipulate that impervious area high density development) stipulate that impervious area high density development)
be sited and designed to be sited and designed to
minimize runoff and limit minimize runoff and limit
concentrated runoff. concentrated runoff.
Kernersville NA (no Randleman Lake NA (no Randleman Lake No specific requirements in Wet detention pond designed
Critical Area within Critical Area within the watershed protection to control first 1" of rainfall
Kernersville jurisdiction) Kernersville jurisdiction ordinances. and 85% of TSS
Agricultural Cropland Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Erosion from cropland can be a significant source of sediment and nutrient loading to water
bodies unless proper management practices are followed. Cropland BMPs are developed as site-
specific systems of practices designed to reduce erosion and nonpoint source pollution. Soil

Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority
3-19

Randleman Lake Nutrient Reduction Strategy and Implementation Plan Draft (February 1998)
erodibility, slope length, cropping factors, and practice factors are all considered in conservation
planning. A combination of rotation, tillage practices, and strip cropping are used to develop the
best system of cropland BMPs. According to NRCS District Conservationists, there are 241
agricultural Soil Erosion Control Plans in the Guilford Co. portion of the watershed, 166 in
Randolph Co., and 50 in the Forsyth Co. portion of the watershed. NRCS estimates that there are
approximately 150 locations within the Guilford Co. portion of the watershed that are registered
as farms but do not have a soil conservation plan. Within the Randolph Co. portion of the
watershed there are estimated to be approximately 250 locations registered as farms which do not
have a soil conservation plan. Forsyth Co. has approximately 25 registered sites without control
plans. Most of the listed sites without plans have either been developed (but not removed from
the list) or consist of pasture land with no tillage occurring on the property.
Most of the Soil Erosion Control Plans are for Subclass "e" crop lands. Subclass "e" land is made
up of soils where the susceptibility to erosion is the dominant limitation for cropland use. A
combination of several conservation practices may be needed on cultivated fields to control
erosion and provide for proper water disposal.
The practices typically used include the following:
• Conservation Cropping Sequence (1-corn, 2-small grain - no till soybeans)
• Conservation Tillage
• Crop Residue Use
• Grassed Waterways
The primary resource concerns that are addressed by these conservation practices are shown in
Table 16.
Table 16. Primary Resource Concerns Addressed by
Agricultural Soil Erosion Control Plans
Erosion
Control Water
Disposal Resource
Management Water
Management Offsite
Effects
Conservation
Cropping Sequence x x x
Conservation Tillage x x x
Crop Residue Use x x x
Grassed Waterwa s x x x
The current rate of implementation of BMPs on crop land is estimated by NRCS District
Conservationists to be 90%. For future conditions with the Nutrient Reduction Strategy in place
it is assumed that BMP implementation on cropland will be increased to 100%. However, area
in cropland is expected to decline sharply in the watershed, resulting in only a small net
reduction in nutrient load. Estimated reductions in nutrient loads achieved by enhanced
agricultural BMP implementation are shown in Table 17.
3-20 Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority

1

Draft (February 1994) Section 3 -Nutrient Reduction Slrategy
Table 17. Estimated Reduction in Nonpoint Nutrient Loads by Lake Segment (lcg/yr)
Achieved by Enhanced BMP Implementation on Crop Land
for Future Land Use Conditions
Segment Low Flow Year High Flow Year Average Flow Year
P N P N P N
Oak Hollow 0 0 0 0 0 0
City Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0
Deep River 1 10 50 40 130 30 80
Deep River 2 40 110 140 430 80 240
Deep River 3A 20 60 90 230 50 140
Deep River 3B 10 20 20 70 10 30
Muddy Creek 1 30 80 90 240 50 140
Muddy Creek 2 20 50 110 230 50 120
Near Dam 20 50 130 290 70 150
TOTAL 150 420 600 1,600 330 900
Animal Operations
Concentrated animal operations, such as dairies, can provide significant sources of nutrient input
to water bodies. On June 21, 1996 the NC general Assembly passed Senate Bill 1217, An Act to
Implement Recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Study Commission on Agricultural Waste.
The new law establishes that, effective January 1, 1997, permits are required for operation of
animal waste management systems under a general permit system. This is implemented in the
NC Administrative Code, Section 15A NCAC 2H .0200. Under the general permit system,
animal operations are not required to obtain individual permits, but those above the threshold
numbers are required to submit documentation certified by recognized authorities showing they
are complying with regulations established for animal waste systems in the general permit.
Animal waste management systems must have the following components:
• odor BMPs;
• insect control BMPs;
• methods for disposing of dead animals;
• BMPs for riparian buffers or equivalent controls along perennial streams;
• an emergency management plan designed to prevent lagoon failure and to minimize
environmental damage from lagoon overflows;
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority 3-21

Randleman Lake Nutrient Reduction Strategy and Implementation Plan Draft (Febrarury 1998)
provisions for testing waste to determine nutrient content and testing of soils where waste
is to be applied;
provisions of a plan for applying waste at a rate that assures a balance between nitrogen
application and nitrogen requirements of crops; and
provisions for keeping records of the required waste and soil testing and waste
application requirements.
The law also establishes a process under which each animal operation must undergo an
operational review and a regulatory inspection at least once per year. The law includes
provisions for fees, special orders of consent for getting an operation into compliance, operator
certification and training, and the permitting schedule. General permits are being issued over a
five-year period, commencing on January 1, 1997.
There are no animal operations within the Guilford Co. portion of the watershed. Within the
Randolph Co. portion of the watershed there are three farms with animal waste management
plans: Buttke Dairy, Cashatt Dairy, and Green Valley Farm. These three farms together have a
design capacity of 1,750 dairy cattle. Nutrient loading from these operations has not been
simulated separately from other agricultural operations; therefore, an explicit nutrient reduction
due to animal waste management has not been included in model predictions. Waste
management plans are, however, important to ensure that these farms do not become a source of
excessive nutrient loads.
Stream Buffer and Setback Requirements
State water supply regulations (15A NCAC 2B.0211 (f)(3)(B)(VI)) require the maintenance of a
vegetative buffer between all new development activities and perennial streams draining to a
WS-IV water. The minimum buffer width is 30 feet for low-density development, and 100 feet
for development under the high-density option. No buffer is required for intermittent streams.
All of the local jurisdictions in the Randleman Lake watershed have ordinances which meet or
exceed these minimum requirements, as shown by Table 18. Randolph County and all of the
Guilford County jurisdictions require wider buffers around the reservoir itself. In addition, High
Point and Jamestown require buffers around some intermittent waters (open drainage channels).
Randolph Co., Randleman, and Archdale all specify a 50' buffer width in the critical area. All
buffers are to remain vegetated and undeveloped, with some exceptions allowed for road and
greenway crossings and water-dependent structures.
The stream buffer requirements were assumed to be not significantly different from those in
place in the northern Virginia watersheds from which the nutrient export coefficients were
obtained. Therefore, no additional nutrient reduction component was assigned to the stream
buffer requirements.

1

3_22 Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority ,

Draft (February 1>98) Section 3 -Nutrient Reduction Strate~ry
' Table 18. Stream Buffer Requirements in Water Supply Protection Ordinances

Around Other Perennial Waters Intermittent Waters
Reservoir
Low Density High Density
Develo ment Develo ment
State Regulations 30' 30' 100' No specific requirements.
Guilford County 200' (Tier 1) 30' 100' No specific requirements.
Greensboro 200' (Tier 1) 30' 100' No specific requirements.
Protected buffer around open
drainage channels. Width
High Point 200' (Tier 1) 30' 100' varies from 10' to 100-year
floodplain contour, depending
on area of drainage basin.
Protected buffer around open
drainage channels. Width
Jamestown 200' (Tier 1) 30' 100' varies from 15' to 100-year
floodplain contour, depending
on area of drainage basin.
Randolph County 100' S0' NA No specific requirements.
Randleman 50' 50' NA No specific requirements.
Archdale 50' 50' NA No specific requirements.
Forsyth County 30' 30' NA No specific requirements.
Kernersville 30' 30' 100' No specific requirements.
Erosion and Sedimentation Ordinances
' The NC Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 addresses the issue of soil erosion and
sedimentation. This act prohibits visible sediment from washing off construction sites. The law
' does not specify a rigid set of practices; rather, they require the land developer to prepare an
erosion and sedimentation control plan and employ appropriate measures to meet the
' performance standards.
This law is generally administered by the Land Quality Section of NCDENR, but local
governments may gain authority by adopting local sedimentation control ordinances at least as
stringent as the State standards. Greensboro, Guilford County, Jamestown and High Point have
their own sedimentation control ordinances, while Archdale, Randleman, and Randolph County
are regulated by the regional offices of NCDENR.

Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority
3-23

Randleman Luke Nutrient Reduction Strategy and Implernentution Plcrn Draft (February 1998)
A soil erosion and sedimentation control plan is necessary if the land-disturbing activity:
1. Exceeds one (1) acre; (State and ordinances)
2. Will take place on highly erodible soils with a "k" factor greater than 0.36 in a
watershed critical area; (ordinances)
3. Includes a pond or retention structure in a watershed critical area; (ordinances)
4. Will take place in tier 1 or tier 2 of a watershed critical area (ordinances)
The NC Sedimentation Pollution Control Act and the local sedimentation control ordinances
listed above all specify the following mandatory standards for land-disturbing activity:
1. Buffer Zone: A sufficient buffer zone must be retained or established along any natural
watercourse or lake to contain all visible sediment from the site in the first 25% of the
buffer strip nearest the disturbed area.
2. Graded Slopes and Fills:
State -the angle of cut-and-fill slopes must be no greater than that sufficient for proper
stabilization. Graded slopes must be planted with vegetation or otherwise stabilized
within 30 working days.
Ordinances -The angle for graded slopes and fills shall be no steeper than two (2) to one
(1) slope if they are to be stabilized with vegetative cover. Slopes or fills steeper than
two (2) to one (1) slope must be protected by structures. Graded slopes must be planted
with vegetation or otherwise stabilized within 30 working days.
3. Ground Cover: Off-site sedimentation must be prevented, and a ground cover sufficient
to prevent erosion must be provided within 30 working days or 120 calendar days after
activity is completed, whichever is shorter.
4. Prior plan approval: An erosion and sedimentation control plan must be submitted at
least 30 days before land disturbance begins for any site larger than 1 acre.
Erosion and sedimentation control plays an important part in controlling nutrient loads,
particularly during construction. The ordinances are not credited with additional nutrient
reduction; rather they are a proactive step to help prevent nutrient loads greater than those
estimated from export coefficients.
On-site Wastewater Disposal
The counties within the watershed of the proposed Lake Randleman follow State standards for
on-site waste disposal. NC General Statutes, Chapter 130A Public Health, Article 11
Wastewater Systems, 333-343: governs the treatment and disposal of domestic-type sewage from
septic tank systems. Under NC law, an Improvement Permit or Construction Authorization must
be received from the local health department (i.e., Guilford, Forsyth, or Randolph Counties)
before a septic system can be installed. The local health department must evaluate the site to
determine if a permit could be issued.
3-24
Piedmont Ti•iad Regional Water Authority

t

1
1

Draft (February 1918) Section 3 -Nutrient Rechrction Strategy
The site evaluation includes the following factors: topography and landscape position, soil
characteristics, soil wetness, soil depth, restrictive horizons, and available space. These factors
are classified as Suitable, Provisionally Suitable, and Unsuitable.
Sites are classified as:
• Suitable -may be utilized for a septic system
• Provisionally Suitable -may be utilized for a septic system, but have moderate limitations
• Unsuitable -have severe limitations for the installation and use of a septic system
If all factors are classified the same, that classification will prevail. Where there is a variation in
classification of the criteria, the most limiting uncorrectable characteristics shall be used to
determine the overall site classification, as shown in Table 19.

i
Table 19. Factors Determining Suitability for Septic Systems
Factors Suitable Provisionally Unsuitable
Suitable
Topography (slope) < 15% 15% - 30% >30%
Soil Characteristics
texture sandy, coarse loamy tine, loamy others
structure crumb and granular clayey platty, prismatic
clay mineralogy slightly expansive expansive
organic yes
Soil Wetness >48 in. below soil 36-48 in. below soil <36 in. below soil
surface surface surface
Soil Depth (to saprolite, >48 in. 36-48 in. <36 in.
rock, or parent material)
Restrictive Horizons >48 in. 36-48 in. <36 in.
(3in. or more in
thickness)
Available Space based on square footage of nitrification field required for the long-term
acceptance rate
Location of septic systems is subject to a variety of restrictions. Specifically, every septic system
shall be located at least the minimum horizontal distance from the following:
1. any private water supply source, including any well or spring, 100 feet;
2. any public water supply source, 100 feet;
3. streams classified as WS-I ,100 feet;
4. waters classified as SA, 100 feet from mean high water mark;
5. other coastal waters, 50 feet, from mean high water mark;
6. any other stream, canal, marsh, or other surface waters, 50 feet;
7. any Class I or Class II reservoir, 100 feet, from normal pool elevation;
8. any permanent storm water retention pond, 50 feet from flood pool elevation;
9. any other lake or pond, 50 feet, from normal pool elevation;
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority
3-25

Randleman Luke Nutrient Reduction Stratefry and Implementation Plan Draft (February 1998)
10. any building foundation, 5 feet;
11. any basement, 15 feet;
12. any property line, 10 feet;
13. top of slope of embankments, 15 feet;
14. any water line, 10 feet;
15. drainage systems:
A. Interceptor drains, foundation drains, and storm water diversions
i. upslope, 10 feet
ii. sideslope, 15 feet
iii. downslope, 25 feet
B. Groundwater lowering ditches and devices, 25 feet
16. any swimming pool, 25 feet;
17. any other nitrification field, 20 feet
Regulation of on-site wastewater disposal plays an important part in controlling nutrient loads,
particularly in limiting the number of failing septic systems. Septic system failure rate is not
considered separately in the watershed model, and is not considered a major source at the whole-
watershed scale. The ordinances are not credited with additional nutrient reduction; rather they
are a proactive step to help prevent nutrient loads greater than those estimated from export
coefficients.
3.2.4 Education and Outreach Programs
PTRWA will work with its members and other jurisdictions in the watershed to conduct
education and outreach on the importance of public pollution prevention measures in helping to
achieve nutrient reduction goals in the Randleman Lake watershed. The general public is likely
to be unaware of the challenges associated with achieving the reduction goals and their role in
the process. The implementation plan will include developing information and presentation
materials that raise public awareness of the impacts of fertilizer runoff from commercial and
residential lawns and other common causes and sources of nutrient loading.
Existing means, such as conservation district outreach programs and Greensboro's storm water
management outreach program, will be used as a foundation for this strategy component.
Greensboro's public education component of its water conservation program won the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region IV's first-place "Public Education" award in 1997,
and knowledge from that successful effort can be used to help design the public education
component for the Nutrient Reduction Strategy. PTRWA will provide information to the
existing outreach programs summarizing the goals of the Nutrient Reduction Strategy and the
responsibilities of the public in helping achieve the goals. Existing materials on best
management practices for commercial and home use of fertilizers can be used in this context.
3-26 Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority

t

f

Draft (Februury 1998) Section 3 -Nutrient Reduction Strategy
3.2.5 Monitoring and Enforcement
Monitoring and enforcement is an important part of the Nutrient Reduction Strategy. This
component helps ensure that the load reductions estimated in previous sections will actually be
achieved. All of the local watershed ordinances adopted to date include mechanisms to ensure
compliance with their site development standards. Each locality has designated an "Enforcement
Officer" or "Watershed Administrator" (typically the Town Manager or Planning Director) who
' has responsibility for issuing permits pursuant to the locality's water supply watershed protection
ordinance. In these localities, all development plans within a water supply watershed are
reviewed by this individual, or by a designated review committee (the Plannmg Board, the Board
of Adjustment, or an appointed Watershed Review Board), prior to issuance of any building
permits. No building permit is issued unless the proposed development is found to be in
compliance with the locality's watershed protection ordinance. In the Randolph County
jurisdictions, the localities also review the development after construction is completed, and will
not issue an occupancy permit unless the development is found to meet all requirements of the
watershed protection ordinance. In those jurisdictions where High Density development is
allowed, the localities require approval of the required stormwater controls by a North Carolina
registered professional engineer (or, in the case of Kernersville, a landscape architect). Violators
of provisions of the watershed protection ordinances may also be subject to criminal and civil
' penalties. In the case that a development is not approved, the developer may appeal this decision
to the designated review committee.
The Development Ordinance of The City of High Point requires that development activities
which relate to zoning, subdivision and land use will be monitored and enforced by an
Enforcement Officer. The Enforcement Officer is responsible for issuing all permits required by
the Ordinance for development activity such as grading, building, land use, flood plain
development, erosion control, and others as required. Permit applications are submitted by the
property owner or his authorized agent and reviewed and processed by the Enforcement Officer
in accordance with the requirements of the Ordinance. Once development and/or land-disturbing
activity has begun, the Enforcement Officer will conduct periodic inspections and investigations.
The Enforcement Officer has the right upon presentation of proper credentials to enter on any
premises, public or private, at any reasonable hour, for the purpose of inspection and
determination of plan compliance. If a violation is found by the Enforcement Officer, the owner
or occupant is notified of the violation. The owner or occupant shall immediately remedy the
violation. If the owner or occupant fails to take prompt corrective action, the Enforcement
Officer will give the owner or occupant a written Notice of Violation indicating the following: 1)
that the land, building, structure or use is in violation of the Ordinance, 2) the nature of the
violation, and citation ofthe Section(s) of the Ordinance violated, and 3) the measures necessary
to remedy the violation.
3.3 Summary and Evaluation of Proposed Nutrient Reduction Strategies
This section summarizes the expected results of the proposed plan, including nutrient loads and
BATHTUB model results and analysis of likelihood of meeting targets.
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority 3-27

Randleman Lake Nutrient Reduction Strategy and Implementation Plan Draft (February ! 9>8)
3.3.1 Point Source Controls
For future conditions at buildout flow of 26 MGD, proposed reductions in effluent
concentrations from the High Point Eastside WWTP will provide a reduction of 50,880 kg/yr
total phosphorus (88%) from existing loads. An additional 910 kg/yr phosphorus will be
eliminated through connection of minor dischargers. Nitrogen loads from the WWTP under the
Nutrient Reduction Strategy will be reduced by 74,660 kg/yr (26%) from existing loads, while
nitrogen loads from minor dischargers will be reduced by 3,640 kg/yr.
3.3.2 Estimated Effectiveness of Nonpoint Source Control Strategies
Estimated reductions in nonpoint source nutrient loads associated with the proposed Nutrient
Reduction Strategy are primarily attributed to changes in predicted commercial and residential
density achieved under the water supply protection ordinances. Additional reductions are
achieved through increased use of agricultural BMPs, constructed wetlands and stormwater
controls. Figure 10 and Table 20 summarize the estimated nutrient loads by lake segment for
fixture conditions with the Nutrient Reduction Strategy in place.
Nonpoint source loads are expected to increase relative to existing conditions, due to increased
development, but this impact is mitigated by the Nutrient Reduction Strategy. In an average flow
12000
10000
~, so0o
~ 6000
N
O
L
y 4000
0
r
a
2000
0
Wit out W r finances
Wit r mances
Oak Hollow Deeo 1 Deep 3A Mud 1 Dam
High Point Deep 2 Deep 36 Mud 2
Sub-watershed
Figure 10. Future Nonpoint Source Phosphorus Loads with and without Watershed
Protection Ordinances
3.28 Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority

w

1

Draft (February 1998) Section 3 -Nutrient Reduction Strategy
Table 20. Estimated Nutrient Loads by Lake Segment (kg/yr) for Future Conditions,
with Nutrient Reduction Strategy,
WWTP at 0.2 mg/l Total Phosphorus and 6 mg/( Total Nitrogen
Segment Low Flow Year High Flow Year Average Flow Year
P N P N P N
Oak Hollow 3,780 34,830 10,690 103,320 6,980 69,250
City Lake 3,080 28,210 9,660 93,710 5,710 57,470
Deep River 1 (NPS and 4,120 34,040 11,870 111,950 8,110 76,470
minor PS)
Deep River 1 (WWTP, at 7,190 215,690 7,190 215,690 7,190 215,690
26 MGD)
Deep River 2 2,210 22,950 6,840 79,800 4,560 54,690
Deep River 3A 310 5,180 1,200 19,590 690 12,000
Deep River 3B 90 1,490 350 5,650 200 3,460
Muddy Creek 1 2,530 26,320 7,280 76,400 4,460 48,970
Muddy Creek 2 160 2,460 700 10,030 400 6,220
Near Dam 190 2,910 940 13,390 540 8,420
TOTAL 23,650 374,080 56,710 729,510 38,830 552,640
Total Nonpoint Source, 16,460 158,390 49,520 513,820 31,640 336,950
Future Conditions with
Nutrient Reduction
Strategy
Total Nonpoint, Existing 8,890 96,540 29,680 375,220 18,900 243,870
Conditions
Total Nonpoint, Future 22,990 203,470 61,720 589,150 39,640 386,190
Conditions without
Nutrient Reduction
Strategy
TOTAL, Existing 66,960 386,890 87,750 665,580 76,970 534,220
Conditions
TOTAL, Future 58,940 419,160 97,670 804,840 75,590 601,880
Conditions without
Nutrient Reduction
Strategy
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority 3-29

i
Randleman Lake Nutrient Reduction Strategy and Implementation Plan Draft (February 1998)
year, the proposed Nutrient Reduction Strategy is expected to result in a reduction of 8,000 kg/yr
(20%) total phosphorus loading from nonpoint sources versus future conditions without the
strategy, and a reduction of 49,240 kg/yr (13%) in total nitrogen loading from nonpoint sources.
3.3.3 Net Load Reductions under Nutrient Reduction Strategy
As summarized in Table 20, combining the point and nonpoint load reductions for the proposed
nutrient strategy is expected to result in a reduction during an average flow year of 36,760 kg/yr
(49%) of total phosphorus compared to future conditions without the Nutrient Reduction
Strategy, and a reduction of 38,140 kg/yr (50%) versus existing conditions. For total nitrogen,
the proposed Nutrient Reduction Strategy is expected to result in a reduction of 49,240 kg/yr
(8%) of total nitrogen load versus future conditions without the Nutrient Reduction Strategy
(during an average flow year), although total loading will increase relative to existing conditions.
As techniques for additional nutrient removal at the WWTP prove feasible it will be possible to
further reduce nutrient loading levels toward the identified target loads.
For the upstream segments, the total phosphorus load to Deep River 1 with the WWTP at 26
MGD is approximately 15,300 kg/yr, while the load to Muddy Creek 1 is approximately 4,460
kg/yr for future land use and average flow conditions. Despite the reductions in load associated
with the Nutrient Reduction Strategy, these loads remain well in excess of the assimilative
capacities for phosphorus in these segments, estimated at 1,800 and 1,700 kg/yr, respectively.
Reaching the goal in Deep River 1 will only occur when the High Point Eastside WWTP effluent
can be reduced to 0.008-0.025 mg/1 total phosphorus.
3.3.4 Estimated Chlorophyll a Response with Nutrient Reduction Strategies
Algal response is determined by the combination of nutrient loading and flow patterns. The
Nutrient Reduction Strategy results in a reduction in total nutrient loads, but also reduces dilution
flows by placing restrictions on impervious surface cover which promote direct runoff rather than
infiltration of rainfall.
Table 21 summarizes chlorophyll a predictions for future conditions with the Nutrient Reduction
Strategy in place, and can be compared to Table 8. (Note that there is no change in predicted
concentrations within Oak Hollow Lake and City Lake because water supply protection
ordinances are already in place for these reservoirs). At average and high flows, the Nutrient
Reduction Strategy results in a small decrease in predicted chlorophyll a concentrations in all
segments of the proposed Randleman Lake. For instance, at average flow the predicted
concentration in the Deep River 1 segment declines from 95 µg/1 under existing conditions and
80 µg/1 for future conditions without the Nutrient Reduction Strategy to 67 µg/1 for future
conditions with the Nutrient Reduction Strategy.
3-30 Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority

1

1

1
i

t

Draft (February 1998) Section 3 -Nutrient Reduction Strate,~ry
Table 21. Chlorophyll a Predictions for Future Conditions
with Nutrient Reduction Strategy and
WWTP at 26 MGD and 0.2 mg/1 Total Phosphorus
Lake Segment Low Flow Year High Flow Year Average Flow Year
(see Figure 3)
Chl a
(µg/I)
Nuisance
Frequency
Chl a
(µg/I)
Nuisance
Frequency
Chl a
(µg/1)
Nuisance
Frequency
Oak Hollow 15 2.5% 17 3.8% 17 3.4%
City Lake 22 9.1% 23 9.9% 23 10.4%
Deep River 1 81 83.0% 61 67.1% 67 73.3%
Deep River 2 32 24.3% 27 16.7% 29 19.0%
Deep River 3A 17 3.7% 17 3.5% 17 3.4%
Deep River 3B 12 0.9% 12 0.9% 12 0.9%
Muddy Crk 1 26 14.2% 26 15.5% 26 14.4%
Muddy Crk 2 12 0.8% 14 1.4% 13 1.0%
Near Dam 8 0.1 % 12 0.7% 10 0.4%
Lake Randleman
Average 20 19 19
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority
3-31

1

i

t

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Draft (February 1>98)
4. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Section •l -Implementation Plan
PTRWA will work with its members to implement the Strategy, monitor progress and
effectiveness, and adapt Strategy-based management actions as needed to reach interim and long-
term nutrient reduction goals. The Authority will track overall implementation of the Strategy,
including but not limited to the following methods and responsibilities for implementation.
4.1 Schedule for Implementation
Section 3 of this document outlines management actions to reduce existing nutrient loads and
mitigate nutrient loading impacts associated with firture growth. The schedule for implementing
these measures is detailed in Table 22.
Table 22. Schedule for Implementation of Management Actions
Description of Management Proposed Schedule
Action
Set up PTRWA management Establish plan administration within 6 months of EMC plan
plan administration approval
Establish PTRWA data Refine monitoring plan (e.g., perform reconnaissance; establish
collection, information specific sampling sites, flow measurement methods, field and
management, and assessment laboratory methods) and assessment methods (e.g., determine how
protocols and means annual nutrient loading estimates will be calculated, and relate to
data collection), within 12 months of EMC plan approval
- Establish interlocal agreements between PTRWA and local
jurisdictions to share residential and commercial development
information and land use data, within 12-18 months of EMC plan
approval
- Establish informations management system to quality assure, store,
share, assess, and present data, within 12-18 months of EMC plan
approval
Implement PTRWA Baseline monitoring prior to impoundment of reservoir
monitoring program Full monitoring program after reservoir impounded
Reduce High Point Eastside Facility renovation expected by July, 2001; PTRWA will also work
WWTP effluent TP with High Point to have the interlocal agreement providing financial
concentration to < 0.2 mg/l incentives in place by Jul}~, 2001
Complete construction of 6 To be completed prior to filling of the reservoir area
wetlands projects to filter
water in these drainage areas
Reevaluate Nutrient Within 3-5 years of filling of the reservoir, and every 5 years
Reduction Strategy and thereafter coordinated with DWQ's 5-year management cycle for the
Implementation Plan Cape Fear River Basin
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority
4-1

Randleman Lake Nutrient Reduction Strategy and Implementation Plan Draft (February 1998)
In addition to management actions detailed in Section 3, Table 22 includes the proposed schedule
for implementation of the administrative structure and monitoring program, and for reevaluation
of the overall Nutrient Reduction Strategy and Implementation Plan. PTRWA will be
responsible for tracking progress in adhering to the schedule.
4.2 Monitoring Program

PTRWA will establish a monitoring program to track implementation of strategies and evaluate
their effectiveness.
4.2.1 Tracking Implementation Activities
Monitoring programmatic indicators of plan implementation will help PTWRA ensure that
proposed actions are followed through with, and provide the Authority with information that is
key to analyzing the effectiveness of management actions. Programmatic indicators to be
tracked by PTRWA are listed in Table 23.
Table 23. Proposed Programmatic Indicators to Track Plan Implementation
Description of Programmatic Indicator Source of Tracking Information
Milestone dates for Plan administration setup PTRWA
(e.g., date information management system for
plan implementation tracking is in place)
Date enhanced treatment process completed for City of High Point
High Point Eastside WWTP
Date interlocal agreement between City of High PTRWA
Point and PTRWA is in place providing financial
incentive to meet 0.2 mg/1 total phosphorus goal
in Eastside WWTP effluent
Dates projects are completed (constructed PTRWA contractors
wetlands, regional stormwater ponds)
Date by which all local ordinances for water Local jurisdictions within watershed,
supply watershed protection are in place; Dates of summarized by PTRWA
revisions to water supply watershed protection
ordinances by individual jurisdictions
Dates environmental monitoring is performed PTRWA
Annual progress reports PTRWA
Dates of strategy and plan reevaluation and PTRWA
amendment
4-2
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority

i

Draft (February 1990 Section ;f - Lnplementation Plan
4.2.2 Tracking Environmental Effectiveness

1

t

Monitoring environmental impacts of plan implementation will allow PTRWA to gauge overall
effectiveness of the Nutrient Reduction Strategy and Implementation Plan. Environmental
indicators to be tracked by PTRWA are listed in Table 24.
Table 24. Proposed Environmental Indicators to Track Plan Implementation
Description of Environmental Indicator Source of Tracking Information
Annual Point Source TP and TN Loads Facility monitoring data [assuming permission
can be received to gain onsite access, small
domestic facilities will be periodically sampled
by PTRWA]
Annual Nonpoint Source TP and TN Loads Local jurisdictions report new residential and
commercial development information
including area of project, density, impervious
surface area, type of land use/land cover
project is replacing, and BMP details
including SW detention
- Local health departments report new onsite
septic systems and existing systems that are
failing
- NRCS and conservation district data on BMP
implementation, animal operations and
cropping
Tributary Water Quality PTRWA monitoring program (see details below)
- Total Phosphorus, Orthophosphate, Total
Inorganic Nitrogen, Total Organic Nitrogen
[concentrations and loading]
Lake Water Quality PTRWA monitoring program (see details below)
- Total Phosphorus, Orthophosphate, Total
Inorganic Nitrogen, Total Organic Nitrogen,
Chlorophyll a, Temperature, p13, Secchi
Depth, Dissolved Oxygen
Downstream Deep River Water Quality PTRWA monitoring program (see details below)
- Total Phosphorus, Orthophosphate, Total
Inorganic Nitrogen, Total Organic Nitrogen
[concentrations and loading]
Although PTRWA will be responsible for conducting the instream monitoring program, the
Authority will depend heavily on its local jurisdiction members to report changes in land
use/land cover from development. Local jurisdictions, therefore, will be responsible for tracking
and reporting this information in a timely manner and in a format that follows protocols for
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority
4-3

Randleman Lake Nutrient Reduction Strategy and Implementation Plan Draft (Fehruary 1995)
information management and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC). PTRWA will pursue
interlocal agreements with local government jurisdictions to ensure commitment to this process.
ili
tate data exchange. Key sources
In addition, PTRWA will coordinate with other agencies to fac
of information will include the Division of Water Quality NPDES discharge monitoring data,
local health department septic system data, and NRCS and Conservation District data on
agricultural best management practices being used within the watershed.
Tributary and Downstream Deep River Sampling Program
Tributary monitoring data will be needed to help estimate nutrient loading being delivered to

Randleman Lake. Proposed monitoring sites include each of the significant tributaries, including '
(see Figure 11 for approximate locations):
1. Bull Run at mouth
2. Deep River above confluence with Bull Run
3. Richland Creek upstream of WWTP outfall*
4. Reddicks Creek at mouth
5. Hickory Creek at mouth
6. Muddy Creek at mouth
[* Coordination with DWQ and High Point Eastside is needed to ensure adequate effluent ,
nutrient monitoring data are collected to provide accurate annual point source loading estimates
for the Richland Creek subwatershed.]
Monitoring downstream of the Randleman Lake dam will be conducted to support calculations of
nutrients trapped in the lake on an annual basis. Figure 11 indicates an approximate station
location for:
7. Deep River below Randleman Lake dam and above Randleman WWTP outfall

PTRWA lans to conduct ear round monitorin at the tributa and downstream monitorin
p Y g rY g
locations, with a minimum of monthly sampling. Sampling will performed such that a range of
flows are captured, including base and high flow conditions. In addition to the parameters listed
in the indicator table, flow will be measured so that phosphorus and nitrogen loads can be
estimated. PTRWA anticipates using a combination of grab samples and some selected
composite sampling over high-flow events. Specifics of the monitoring program will be worked
out during the first 12 months following EMC approval of the overall Nutrient Reduction
Strategy and implementation plan.
Lake Sampling Program
Monitoring lake sites will be critical to evaluating the effectiveness of nutrient loading
management strategies. One station will be located in the upper Deep River segment of the lake,
which is expected to be the most heavily impacted by nutrient loads. Monitoring in the
4-4 Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority

1

Draft (.Iunuary 199b) Seclinn ,! - Imhlemenlation Plan
CEffU15VILLE
/~~
I~~
te
r
`
~ ~ ~
~
' ~
' `
'
~ ~
~ ~
`
'
l ,
~
i
~
,
~ ;
~
~ ~

, ~
_
~
` C I
~, a ~* ~
- ~, ce~~[ a n ~u
,
.
~ ~ O+I A M~. LO'A
1
£ ~f7~
`S
(
4
MlGN •pIMT 'O
~ = ypA

L/RE `
~ ,~,
[+ 1
` ~J
~` cif TOf M '

~ '

a
` ~ o_
~ ~, `
MM /01 /T

~ ~`,
i
/ Q
cRtr~ ~
.~
RiCN~
,
`~
•1
~~~ ~ •YIL10110 COyM~•
A~rpO~-~ COur~r 1
L~
i• utnoLLE ~`oo ~

yfa`
~ `
I~r~rr~~
~
`
`
MOAA• ~

A roximate location of ~ ~
~
proposed stream monitoring ~ R w°oi~,u°r ~
~
~~ ~ l/Rf I
t
wr
~ Approximate location of ~ WOIEY~N
proposed lake monitoring sites ~ ~, f
~•
Figure 11. Locations of Proposed Monitoring Sites
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority
4-5
1

Randleman Lake Nutrient Reduction Strategy and Implementation Plan Draft (February 1998)
upper segment of the Muddy Creek arm will provide information on the most sensitive area of ,
that tributary. A third station will be located near the water supply intake to monitor quality in
the lower section of the lake and in an area of high interest given the lake's intended drinking
water use. In summary, the proposed lake sites for monitoring include (see Figure 11 for
approximate locations):
A. Deep River Segment 1
B. Muddy Creek Segment 1
C. Deep River Segment 3B near intake
Lake sampling will be performed monthly during the growing season, May through October, of
each year. Depth integrated samples over a distance of twice the secchi depth from the surface
will be collected for chemical analyses. Temperature, pH, and dissolved oxygen will be recorded
at 1-3 meter intervals.
Sampling Quality Assurance/Quality Control
All samples will be collected and processed using standard operating procedures and quality
assurance protocols consistent with monitoring conducted by the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality.
4.3 Data Mana ement
g
PTRWA will develop and maintain computerized data bases to track all programmatic and '
environmental indicator results. A meta-data file on all data coverages will be maintained.
PTRWA members will be advised regarding formats and protocols for transferring data, and will
be responsible for adhering to QA/QC and other protocols.
4.4 Evaluating and Updating Strategy and Implementation Plan
Annual evaluations will be conducted by PTRWA to determine progress made in implementing
the plan and achieving strategy goals. An annual progress report will be prepared for the
Authority's Board, and copied to DWQ within 3-6 months of the end of each calendar year. The
report will include estimates of point and nonpoint source loadings for the previous year, and
summaries of tributary and inlake water quality conditions. In each succeeding year, the reports
will include comparisons to loading rates and water quality conditions from previous years'
monitoring.
u datin the Nutrient Reduction Strate
The PTRWA Board will be responsible for periodically p g gy
and Implementation Plan. The first update is scheduled for 3-5 years from the date of
impoundment of Randleman Lake. PTRWA anticipates that the new reservoir will take at least
2-3 years to stabilize with regard to water quality, based on reviewing study results from other
large impoundments in the Piedmont area. Therefore, the Authority will need to be careful not to
place too much emphasis on the inlake water quality monitoring data during those first 2-3 years
4-6 Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority t

a

Draft (February 1998) Section ;l -Implementation Plarr
when evaluating effectiveness of the initial plan. A decision on a more specific due date for the
plan update will not be determined until after the first 2-3 years of data have been analyzed and
evaluated.
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority
4-7

1

i

Draft (February 19>8) References
5. REFERENCES
Black & Veatch. 1990. Water Qzrality and Quantity Studies to Support Randleman Lake
Environmental Impact Statement, December 1, 1990. Prepared for Piedmont Triad Regional
Water Authority, Greensboro, NC.
Borden, R.C., J.L. Dorn, J.B. Stillman, and S.K. Liehr. 1996. Evaluation of Ponds and Wetlands
for Protection of Public Water Supplies. Report submitted to Water Resources Research Institute
of the University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC.
Butcher, J., T. Clements, A. Beach, K. Brewer, D. Korn, N. Archambault, P. Kellar and G.
Pesacreta. 1995. Falls Lake Watershed Study, Final report. Prepared for The North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. The Cadmus Group, Durham, NC.
Davis-Martin-Powell & Associates. 1996.
CDM. 1989. Watershed Mana,~lcment Study.• Oak Hollow and City Lake Watersheds. Report to
City of High Point and Guilford County, N.C. Camp Dresser & McKee, Raleigh, NC.
NCDEM. 1994. Water Quality Monitoring Data for Waters in the Upper Deep River Area, July
28, 1992 -October 7, 19>3. North Carolina Division of Environmental Management, Water
Quality Section, Environmental Sciences Branch, Raleigh, NC.
NCDWQ. 1996. Cape Fear River 13asinwide Water Quality Management Plan. North Carolina
Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Raleigh, NC.
Novotny, V. and H. Olem. 1994. Water Quality: Prevention, Identification, and Management of
Diffuse Pollution. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Schueler, T.R., P.A. Kumble, and M.A. Heraty. 1992. A Current Assessment of Urban Best
Management Practices: Techniques for Reducing Non-Point Source Pollution in the Coastal
Zone. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC.
Tetra Tech. 1997. Randleman Lake Project: Water Quality Considerations.for the Siting and
Design of a Drinking Water Treatment Plant, Phase II Report. Tetra Tech, Inc., Research
Triangle Park, NC.
Walker, W.W., Jr. 1987. Empirical Methods for Predicting Eutrophication in Impoundments.
Report 4-Phase III: Applications Manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Technical
Report E-81-9. U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory,
Vicksburg, MS.
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority
5-1

Randleman Lake Nutrient Reduction Strategy and Implementation Plan Draft (February 1998)
Walker, W.W., Jr. 1985. Empirical Methods for Predicting Eutrophication in Impoundments. '
Report 3-Phase II: Model Refinements. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Technical
Report E-81-9. U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory,
Vicksburg, MS.
WPCF. 1990. Natural Systems for Wastewater Treatment. Manual of Practice FD-16. Water
Pollution Control Federation, Alexandria, VA.

i
5_2 Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority
1

i

t
Draft (February 1990 Appendix 1
APPENDIX L EXISTING POINT SOURCE NUTRIENT LOADS
High Point Eastside WWTP
Existing discharge from the High Point Eastside WWTP is assumed to average 10.5 MGD, with
an average phosphorus concentration of 4 mg/l, based on monthly monitoring data collected from
January 1986 through December 1989 (Black & Veatch 1990). This is consistent with results
from monthly effluent monitoring data for May 1996 through May 1997, which has an average
of 3.98 mg/1 total phosphorus.
Black & Veatch (1990) reported an average total nitrogen concentration in the effluent of 23 mg/1
from 1986-1989. For the May 1996-May 1997 period, concentrations of total nitrogen varied
from 9 to 42 mg/l, with an average of 19.6 mg/l. Average concentration in the effluent was thus
assumed to be approximately 20 mg/1 total N.
The specification of nutrient chemical form is also an important factor in water quality
simulation, since it helps determine the availability of nutrients to algae and the rate of
sedimentation losses. Information on phosphorus speciation in the High Point Eastside effluent
is not available, but it is unlikely that the phosphorus is 100% orthophosphate, and some
conversion to organic forms by bacteria and plankton is expected within the stream reach
between the discharge point and the proposed lake pool. Based on recent experience with
Durham dischargers and analysis of phosphorus species reported by NCDEM (1994) for 1992-93
at station RL4, in Deep River just below the WWTP discharge, an estimate of 75 percent
orthophosphate in the WWTP effluent (as delivered to the proposed lake) appears reasonable.
For nitrogen, it was assumed that approximately 85% of the load would be in inorganic form,
based on analysis of performance monitoring of the Durham Northside WWTP (Butcher et al.
1995).
Existing `Domestic-type "Dischargers
As of July 1, 1997 there were a total of 12 "domestic type" permitted discharges of treated
wastewater within the Randleman Lake watershed, of which 9 were actively discharging to the
watershed downstream of the Oak Hollow and High Point Lake watersheds (letter from W. C.
Basinger, NC Division of Water Quality Winston-Salem to Andrea Spangler, Piedmont Triad
Water Authority, November 19, 1997). These facilities discharge treated sewage, and thus
constitute an additional source of nutrient loading. There are two "domestic type" permitted
dischargers of treated wastewater above Oak Hollow Lake. Current status of these dischargers is
shown in Table A-l.
In addition to the domestic-type dischargers, there are 13 permitted small industrial dischargers
in the watershed. Most of these permits are for stormwater and non-contact process water, and
include 11 permits for stormwater flow from the tank farm on the East Fork of Deep River. The
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority A-[-1
1

Randleman Lake Nutrient Reduction Strategy and Implementation Plan Draft (February 19>8)
Table A-1. Domestic Type Dischargers in Randleman Lake Watershed
Discharger NPDES Location Status
Permit
Disc/urges to the direct drainage of proposed Randleman Lake
Hickory Run MHP NC- UT Bull Run Operating; permitted flow 0.035
0041505 Creek
Sumner Elementary NC- UT Hickory Operating; permitted flow 0.009 MGD
School 0037117 Creek
Plaza MHP NC- UT Hickory permitted flow 0.003 MGD
0041483 Creek
Crown MHP NC- UT Hickory Operating; permitted flow 0.05 MGD
0055255 Creek
Southern Guilford NC- UT Hickory Operating; permitted flow 0.012 MGD
High School 0038229 Creek
Southern Elementary NC- UT Hickory Operating; permitted flow 0.0075 MGD
School 0038091 Creek
Penman Heights NC- Taylor Br. of Operating; permitted flow 0.025 MGD
(Rayco Utilities) 0055191 Muddy Creek
Hidden Forest MHP NC- UT Deep River Operating; permitted flow 0.10 MGD
0065358
Rimmer Mobile NC- Muddy Creek Permitted for 0.0204 MGD, but never
Home Court 0069451 constructed.
Melbille Heights NC- Muddy Creek Operating; permitted flow 0.0315 MGD
(Rayco Utilities) 0050792
DisclTarges to Oak Hollow Lake watershed
Slate Residence NCG- UT W Fork Operating; permitted flow 0.00045 MGD
550102 Deep River
Sandy Ridge NC- UT W. Fork Operating; permitted flow 0.0175 MGD
Correctional Center 0027758 Deep River
Total Permitted Flow 0.029 MGD
A-1-2
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority

1

f

t

t

1
1

1
1

1

r
t

Draft (February 1998) Appendix 1
other two permitted discharges are AMF Hatteras Yachts (NCG-500204), discharging to a
tributary of Richland Creek with a permitted flow of 0.002 MGD; and LCP National Plastics
(NC-0036366) discharging to a tributary of West Fork Deep River above Oak Hollow Lake. The
Hatteras Yachts discharge will be discontinued as the plant is moving out of the basin. None of
these industrial discharges contains a significant nutrient load.
The total permitted flow from operating domestic-type dischargers appears to be 0.029 MGD
While these sources contain nutrients, their combined load is insignificant compared to the
current 10.5 MGD flow from High Point Eastside WWTP. These small discharges are of little
importance in terms of the overall nutrient balance of Randleman Lake, but do have the potential
to present localized problems.
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority A-I-3

1

r

i

1

a
1

1

1
t

1
i

1
1
Draft (February 1998) Appendix Il
APPENDIX II. ESTIMATION OF FUTURE LAND USE CONDITIONS
Developing a Nutrient Reduction Strategy requires a reasonable estimate of future changes in
land use patterns within the watershed. Future land use cannot be predicted with certainty;
however a reasonable estimate can be obtained by analysis ofgrowth-shaping factors.
Future land use within any given area of the watershed will be largely determined by the
interaction of four factors: (1) demand or development pressure; (2) water supply protection
ordinances which limit the types of development permissible; (3) infrastructure, including
availability of roads, water, and sewer; and (4) natural characteristics of soils and slopes.
Future demand is one of the most difficult factors to evaluate. For this study we have based
estimates of future land use demand on year 2025 trendline scenario developed for the Piedmont
Triad Regional Transportation study. This study identifies projected living and working areas,
and represents the best available consensus information on future land use demand. We assumed
that the 2025 projected living and working areas represent areas of high demand, while areas not
so identified are areas of low demand. For the high-demand areas it was assumed that the land
would be developed to 90% of the capacity allowed by the applicable water supply protection
ordinances and natural environmental constraints, with the "living" areas converting to residential
development and the "working" areas converting to commercial, office, light industrial, or
institutional uses. For the lower demand areas it was assumed that there would be an
approximately 20% increase in the existing number of housing units, reflecting the general rate
of population increase expected for the Piedmont-Triad area.
The methods used to estimate future land use differed by county, according to the type and
format of data which were available. For Guilford Co., detailed coverages of a variety of
growth-shaping factors were obtained in a Geographic Information System (GIS). The Guilford
Co. portions of the watershed contain most of the expected high growth areas and are most
critical for the Nutrient Reduction Strategy, and a detailed geographically-based estimate of
future land use was constructed using the GIS. For Randolph and Forsyth counties, only limited
data (primarily zoning) were obtained in GIS format, and a simpler method of analysis was
applied.
For the high-growth portions of Guilford Co. the estimates of future land use involved the
following steps:
1. Account for existing high-intensity land uses grand-fathered under water supply
protection ordinances.
2. Account for publicly owned land and other preserved open space.
3. Determine relevant future jurisdiction, based on the annexation agreement established by
High Point, Archdale and Jamestown extra-territorial jurisdictions, and planned sewer
expansion by Greensboro.
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority A-II-1

Randleman Lake Nulrient Reduction Strategy and Implementation Plan Draft (February 1998)
r
4. Determine whether an area is now or will be sewered. Projections of future sewered areas
within Guilford Co. are given by the Guilford Co. Atlas "Forecast 2015" and the water
and sanitary systems improvement map for the High Point Southeast Economic
Development Area (April, 1996). Jamestown's entire extra-territorial jurisdiction is also
assumed to be sewered in the future. Existing and future sewered areas, along with the
occurrence of poor soils for onsite wastewater disposal, are shown in Figure A-1.
5. For sewered high-growth areas, assume 90% development by 2025, in either residential
or commercial land uses, subject to water supply protection ordinances of the relevant
jurisdiction. For residential areas in the high-growth area, new lots are assumed to be
created in the minimum specified zoning size class allowed under the ordinances. Actual
lot yield per acre is based on the assumption used by Guilford Co. Planning that 25% of a
developed area is typically required for roads, other utilities, high slopes, and other
characteristics of a site which increase effective lot size. Thus development under 1 acre
zoning is assumed to achieve an effective lot size of 1 dwelling unit per 1.25 acres.
6. For unsewered areas, 90% development is also assumed for high growth areas. However,
effective lot size and potential yield of dwelling units is potentially limited by soil
qualities. For unsewered areas with soils with poor qualities for onsite wastewater
,'
disposal it is assumed that the minimum effective lot size is 5 acres per dwelling unit,
even if zoning allows denser development.
For areas in Guilford Co. without substantial development pressure, the potential future land use
is assumed to represent a mix of 60% forest, 10% crop, 10% pasture, and 20% residential use.
The residential land uses are distributed across a range of lot sizes, with half in the minimum
allowed lot size.

The transfer matrix showing the calculation of potential land use distribution in response to
growth shaping factors is shown in Table A-2. Once potential land use is estimated it is
combined with existing land use information to create an estimate of future land use. This
procedure allows existing higher-density land uses, as well as commercial and institutional land
uses in residential areas, to be retained for the future land use scenario.
In the absence of water supply protection ordinances, it is assumed that all areas with high
development pressure would be sewered and 90% developed. High growth residential areas are
then assumed to achieve a mix of 70% 0.25-0.5 acre single family lots and 30%
townhouse/apartment development. High growth commercial areas are assumed to achieve a
mix of 50% commercial/office, 10% open space, 20% heavy industry, and 10% institutional land
use.
Outside of Guilford Co., GIS coverages were available for zoning and 2025 "living" and
"working" areas; however, other growth-shaping factors were not available in GIS, requiring a
different approach. For the Forsyth Co. portion of Oak Hollow watershed, the CDM (1989)
analysis under Scenario lA was used. For Randolph and Forsyth counties, future land use is
based primarily on zoning and an assumption that approximately 50% of the soils have poor
A-II-2 Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority '~

Draft (February 1998) Appendix II
characteristics for onsite wastewater disposal (the same ratio observed in southwestern Guilford
Co.) For Randolph Co. it is assumed that sewer extension under water supply ordinances will be
confined to the extra-territorial jurisdiction limits of Archdale, Randleman, and Kernersville.
Finally, in all low-growth areas of Randolph and Forsyth counties it is assumed that future land
uses represent a 20% increase in number of housing units, with some limited outlying
commercial development to support the increased population. The housing unit baseline is
drawn from 1990 US Census data. New lots created in these areas are distributed across a
variety of lot sizes. Future land use is then estimated based on existing land use, modified by
transferring land area from rural (forest, agriculture) land uses to residential land uses.
1
s

1

1
1
1

Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority
A-II-3

Randleman Lake Nutrient Reduction Strate~,ry and Implementation Plan Draft (February 1998)
Legend
/~/ County Boundaries
~~'-1 Randleman Lake Watershed
Poor Development Soils
F~dsting Severed Areas
iii Proposed Sewer Areas
1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Niles
Figure A-1. Severed Areas and Soils with Poor Suitability for Onsite Wastewater Disposal
in the Guilford County Portion of the Randleman Lake Watershed

1

A
1

A
1
A-II-4 Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a
Table A-2. Transfer Matrix for Calculating Potential Future Guilford Co. Land Use Based On 202 Projections
Growth Shaping Factors Resulting Land Use Distribution

Jurisdiction
Future
Sewered
Growth
Factor

Soil
WS
Tier

Forest Rural
Res
>5 ac Large Lot
Res
2-5 ac Low Dens
Res
1-2 ac Low-Med
Dens Res
.5-1 ac Med Dens
Res
.25-.5 ac
Townhouse
/A t
Comm/
Office
Open
S ace
Heavy
Indus
Insti-
tutional

Cro

Pasture
With WS Ordinances
(any) (any) (any) (any) 1 1.00
Y R (any) 2 0.10 0.90
Y R (any) 3 0.10 0.90
Y R (any) 4 0.10 0.90
Y R (any) Prot 0.10 0.90
~, N R poor 2 0.10 0.90
N R poor 3 0.10 0.90
f6
0 N R poor 4 0.10 0.90
~ N R poor Prot 0.10 0.90
o N R good 2 0.10 0.90
~ N R good 3 0.10 0.90
a° N R good 4 0.10 0.90
m N R good Prot 0.10 0.90
= Y C (any) 2 0.32 0.03 0.65
~ Y C (any) 3 0.24 0.27 0.49
Y C (any) 4 0.22 0.33 0.44
j Y C (any) Prot 0.24 0.27 0.49
o N C (any) 2 0.32 0.03 0.65
N C (any) 3 0.32 0.04 0.64
~ N C (any) 4 029 0.13 0.58
N C (any) Prot 0.24 0.27 0.49
Y N (any) 2 0.60 0.20 0.10 0.10
Y N (any) 3 0.60 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Y N (any) 4 0.60 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Y N (any) Prot 0.60 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10
N N poor (all) 0.60 0.20 0.10 0.10
N N good 2 0.60 0.20 0.10 0.10
N N good 3 0.60 0.20 0.10 0.10
N N good 4 0.60 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10
N N good Prot 0.60 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10

Table A-2. Transfer Matrix for Calculating Potential Future Guilford Co. Land Use Based On 2025 Projections
Growth Shaping Factors Resulting Land Use Distribution

Jurisdiction
Future
Sewered
Growth
Factor

Soil
WS
Tier

Forest Rural
Res
>5 ac Large Lot
Res
2-5 ac Low Dens
Res
1-2 ac Low-Med
Dens Res
.5-1 ac Med Dens
Res
25-.5 ac
Townhouse
/A t
Comm/
Office
Open
S ace
Heavy
Indus
Insti-
tutional

Cro

Pasture
Y R (any) Prot 0.10 0.90
N R poor Prot 0.10 0.90
o N R good Prot 0.10 0.90
0
w
Y
C
(any)
Prot
0.24
0.27
0.49
m N C (any) Prot 0.24 0.27 0.49
c7 Y N (any) Prot 0.60 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10
N N poor Prot 0.60 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10
N N good Prot 0.60 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10

Y R (any) 2 0.10 0.90
Y R (any) 3 0.10 0.90
Y R (any) 4 0.10 0.90
Y R (any) Prot 0.10 0.90
N R poor 2 0.10 0.90
m
N
R
poor
3
0.10
0.90
~ N R poor 4 0.10 0.90
L
``
~
N
R
poor
Prot
0.10
0.90
a N R good 2 0.10 0.90
~, N R good 3 0.10 0.90
s
~
N
R
good
4
0.10
0.90
N R good Prot 0.10 0.90
U
~
Y
C
(any)
2
1.00
3 Y C (any) 3 0.24 0.27 0.49
-°
0 Y C (any) 4 0.24 027 0.49
= Y C (any) Prot 020 0.40 0.40
Y
~
N
C
(any)
2
1.00
0.00
0.00
N C (any) 3 0.24 0.27 0.49
a° N C (any) 4 0.24 0.27 0.49
a, N C (any) Prot 0.20 0.40 0.40
= Y N (any) 2 0.60 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Y N (any) 3 0.60 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10
Y N (any) 4 0.60 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10
Y N (any) Prot 0.60 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10
N N poor (any) 0.60 0.20 0.10 0.10
N N ood an 0.60 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
~r ~ +~ ar ~ ~~- ~ ~ r s ~ l>r s r ~ ~^r ~ r >•

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 11~ ~ ~~ ~
Table A-2. Transfer Matrix for Calculating Potential Future Guilford Co. Land Use Based On 202 Projections
Growth Shaping Factors Resulting Land Use Distribution

Jurisdiction
Future
Sewered
Growth
Factor

Soil
WS
Tier

Forest Rural
Res
>5 ac Large Lot
Res
2-5 ac Low Dens
Res
1-2 ac Low-Med
Dens Res
.5-1 ac Med Dens
Res
.25-.5 ac
Townhouse
/A t
Comm/
Office
Open
S ace
Heavy
Indus
Insti-
tutional

Cro

Pasture

Y R (any) 2 0.10 0.90
Y R (any) 3 0.10 0.90
Y R (any) 4 0.10 0.90
Y R (any) Prot 0.10 0.90
N R poor 2 0.10 0.90
N R poor 3 0.10 0.90
N R poor 4 0.10 0.90
N R poor Prot 0.10 0.90
N R good 2 0.10 0.90
N R good 3 0.10 0.90
N R good 4 0.10 0.90
3 N R good Prot 0.10 0.90
°
m Y C (any) 2 1.00
~ Y C (any) 3 0.24 0.27 0.49
~ Y C (any) 4 0.24 027 0.49
Y C (any) Prot 0.24 0.27 0.49
N C (any) 2 1.00
N C (any) 3 0.24 0.27 0.49
N C (any) 4 0.24 0.27 0.49
N C (any) Prot 024 0.27 0.49
Y N (any) 2 0.60 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Y N (any) 3 0.60 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10
Y N (any) 4 0.60 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10
Y N (any) Prot 0.60 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10
N N poor (any) 0.60 0.20 0.10 0.10
N N good (any) 0.60 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10

Y R (any) Prot 0.10 0.90
a~
N
R
good
Prot
0.10
0.90
N R poor Prot 0.24 0.27 0.49
Y C (any) Prot 0.24 027 C.49
Q N C good Prot 0.24 0.27 0.49
N C poor Prot 0.24 0.27 0.49

Table A-2. Transfer Matrix for Calculating Potential Future Guilford Co. Land Use Based On 2025 Projections
Growth Shaping Factors Resulting Land Use Distribution
Rural Large Lot Low Dens Low-Med Med Dens
Future Growth S Res Res Res Dens Res Res Townhouse Comm/ Open Heavy Insti-
Jurisdiction Sewered Factor Soil Tier Forest >5 ac 2-5 ac 1-2 ac .5-1 ac .25-.5 ac /A t Office S ace Indus tutional Cro Pasture
WITHOUT WS Ordinances
{assume
{all} Y} R {all} NA 0.10 0.63 0.27
{assume
{all} Y} C {all} NA 0.10 0.50 0.10 0.20 0.10
{assume
{all} N} N poor NA 0.60 0.20 0.10 0.10
{assume
{all} N} N good NA 0.60 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10