19970722 Ver 1_Public Hearing Info_19980901

R
r
State of North Carolina Department of
Environmental and Natural Resources
Report of Proceedings
Proposed Reclassification of
Segments of the Deep River
(Proposed Randleman Reservoir)
Public Hearing
September 1, 1998
Jamestown, NC
Please Note: Appendices A and 8
are not included in this edition

a~
HEARING OFFICERS' REPORT
Table of Contents
HISTORY ............................................................... 1
HEARING OFFICERS' RECOMMENDATION .................. • • • • • • • • • • • • 3
-Suitability of Waters as a Water Supply ............ • .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3
-Point Source Controls ............................................. 5
-Maintenance of Riparian and Buffer Areas .......................... 11
-Stream Determinations ............................................ 14
-Stormwater Requirements ......................................... 15
-Nutrient Sensitive Waters Classification ............................ 16
SUMMARY OF MAJOR COMMENTS AND STAFF RESPONSES ...... • • • • • • • 17
RECOMMENDED RULE CHANGES

( P gY) ....................................
- 2B .0245 O tion A -Strate 28

- 2B .0246 (Option A -Wastewater Discharges) ....... • • • • • • • • 29
- 2B .0247 (Option A -Stormwater) .................................... 29
- 2B .0248 O tion B -Strate .................
( P gy) ....................... 30
- 2B .0249 (Option B -Wastewater Discharges) .......................... 30
- 2B .0250 (Option B -Riparian Areas) ................................. 31
- 2B .0251 (Option B -Stormwater) .................................... 36
-Proposed Stream Reclassifications ................................... 41
ANNOUNCEMENT OF PUBLIC HEARINGS ................................ 45
APPENDIX A
- Analysis of Potential Water Quality for Toxic Organic
Chemicals in the Proposed Randleman Lake ....................... A-1
-High Point Estimate of Discharge Relocation Costs ...... • • • • • • • • • • • • • • A-26
-High Point Estimate of Costs to Meet 0.18 mg/1 Limits ................. A-27
-Letter Concerning Ability to Meet 0.18 mg/1 Limits .................... A-29
-Comparison of Proposed Watershed Protection Ordinances ............ A-30
APPENDIX B
- Comments and Information Received in DWQ Offices ................ C-1
-Comments and Information Received at Hearing ..................... H-1

~'
PROJECT HISTORY
AND
RECLASSIFICATION
REQUEST

~ Report of Proceerlinq; Project Hi~tvri~ nttd Reclezssifiention Request
PROJECT HISTORY AND RECLASSIFICATION REQUEST
The Randleman Reservoir project has an extensive history dating back for almost 30 years.
The first major milestone was in 1968, when the U.S. Congress authorized the
construction of the 10,100 acre multi-purpose Randleman Lake project by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. The project was to have a lake of 3,045 acres and approximately 7,000
acres for flood control and recreation. However, because of changes in federal funding
policies, the Corps of Engineers withdrew its support of the project in May of 1987. Several
months before that time, the Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority (PTRWA) was
formed by several local governments to purchase water from the reservoir. Then, after an
independent study of their water supply alternatives, the PTRWA decided to pursue
construction of the reservoir, on their own, as a single purpose water supply project. Their
proposal would have the same 3045 acre reservoir pool size but the additional lands for
recreation and flood control would be removed, leaving an approximate 6,000 acre project.
In the early and late 70's, and even into the 80's, the Corps of Engineers funded several
studies to look at the water quality characteristics of the reservoir, and the social, economic
and environmental effects of the project, and prepared a draft and final Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS). The Department of Environment and Natural Resources became
involved in the project in addressing the State's requirement, in Section 153A-285 of the
North Carolina General Statutes, which provides that "No county acting jointly may
divert water from one stream or river to another nor institute any proceeding in the
nature of eminent domain to acquire lands until the diversion or acquisition is authorized
by a certificate from the Environmental Management Commission pursuant to 162A-7."
In addition, it was also decided that since this was a State action, involving public moneys,
that an EIS should be prepared. The Division of Water Resources prepared the draft and
final EIS documents and held a public hearing on the EIS and the eminent domain and
water transfer issues in February of 1991.
In December of 1991, the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) voted to give
the PTRWA permission to use the power of eminent domain to purchase land for the lake
and also gave them authority to divert up to 30.5 million gallons per day from the Deep
River Basin to the Haw and Yadkin basins. This interbasin transfer would occur in the
normal distribution of the lake's treated waters and the disposal of treated wastewater in
another basin. Since that time, PTRWA has been purchasing land, which is now
approximately 95% completed.
In November of 1997, the PTRWA formally requested that the process for reclassifying the
proposed Randleman Reservoir watershed to a water supply watershed be placed on the
Water Quality Committee Agenda. In March of 1998, the Water Quality Committee was
briefed on the reclassification proposal and in April, they were asked to support going
forward with the request to the full EMC to take the issue through the rulemaking process.
That approval was given and in May of 1998, the EMC approved initiating the process to
consider the reclassification.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) staff informed the PTRWA in early 1997 that they
would need a "Comprehensive Watershed Management and Protection Plan" as part of
the 401 process. The plan was to include assurances that point and nonpoint source
controls on nutrients would be given which would provide protection of the lake's water
quality now and in the future. The PTRWA was encouraged to develop a plan that would

Report of Proceedings Project History acid Reclassification Request ,~
go beyond the minimal water supply ~~~atershed protection requirements. A draft
"Nutrient Reduction Strategy and Implementation Plan" was submitted by the PTRWA in
March of 1988. Although the Plan did contain many proposals which went beyond the
minimum statewide requirements, it was decided that the best approach to implementing
a Plan for the watershed was through adoption of rules by the EMC.
The DWQ staff utilized the PTRWA Draft Plan as a basis for developing the proposed rules
to be taken to public hearing. In June, the DWQ held an "Information Exchange"
workshop in Jamestown, N.C. which was attended by approximately 100 individuals. Two
watershed management strategies were proposed by DWQ staff, and on July 9th, the EMC
gave permission to send the proposals out for public review and consideration. The two
strategies that were proposed were presented as an Option A and an Option B. Option A
represented essentially what the Authority had proposed in their draft March 1998
Strategy. Option B was developed by the staff and included more stringent requirements
for point sources, riparian area protection and stormwater controls. Classifying the waters
as Nutrient Sensitive was also proposed. In Option B, streams within the proposed
Randleman Reservoir water supply watershed were proposed for reclassification from
Class C to Class WS (Water Supply)-IV and Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW). (There was
also a Class B, primary recreation, stream which was proposed to be reclassified to WS-IV
& B NSW.) In Option A, the proposal did not include applying the supplemental NSW
classification to these streams.
In addition to the standard water supply watershed reclassification, the North Carolina
Water Supply Watershed Protection Act provides that the "Commission may designate
water supply watersheds or portions thereof as critical water supply watersheds and
~mpos? management requirements that are more stringent than the minimum statewide
water supply watershed management requirements (G.S. 143-214.5(b))." It was proposed
that the watershed be designated by the Commission as a "Critical Water Supply
Watershed" in order to provide greater authorities for the development of the additional
point and nonpoint source requirements as proposed in Option B.
A public hearing was held on September 1, 1998, in Jamestown, N.C. Three EMC
members, Dr. David Moreau, Mr. Jeffrey Morse, and Mr. Robert Epting, served as hearing
officers. Two-hundred and forty-six individuals attended the hearing. Fifty-two
individuals provided comment at the hearing. The written information provided to the
hearing officers is presented in Appendix B of this document, pages H-1 through H-80.
Approximately 130 letters (including resolutions) were received during the comment
period and are included in this report in Appendix B, pages C-1 through C-331.
The hearing officers have considered comments offered and have recommended to the
EMC that the reclassification to a water supply classification be approved and that certain
point and nonpoint source requirements be applied in the watershed. Those
recommendations are included in the "Hearing Officers' Recommendation" Section of this
report.
2

HEARING OFFICERS'
RECOMMENDATION

~' Report Of Proceedings Hearing Officers' Summand
HEARING OFFICERS' RECOMMENDATION
It was the intent of the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) to occtline, and propose
to the Enviro~rmerttal Management Cor-imission (EMC), a "Randleman Lake
Watershed Management Strategy that would provide the additional protection
measieres deemed necessary to assure that the Randleman Lake, if built, would
support all designated water gccality ccses and standards. The staff prepared a Jicly
24, 1998 dociement which set forth proposed rules which became that
"Management Strategy." This "Report of Proceedings" includes the proposed
rules, and, along with the recommendations set forth herein, after approval by
the EMC, constitactes t11e final "Randleman Lake Watershed Management
Strategy. "
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
It is the hearing officers' recommendation that the waters of the proposed
Randleman Reservoir be reclassified as a water supply and that a nutrient
management strategy, and rules to implement that strategy, as described
herein, be adopted by the Commission.
SUITABILITY OF THE WATERS AS A WATER SUPPLY
The Environmental Management Commission rules codified in 15A NCAC 2B
.0104(d) provide that "In considering the reclassification of waters for water
supply purposes, the Commission shall take into consideration the relative
proximity, quantity, composition, natural dilution and diminution of potential
sources of pollution to determine that risks posed by all significant pollutants are
adequately considered." They also require in 15A NCAC 2B .0216(2) that "The
waters, following treatment required by the Division of Environmental Health,
shall meet the Maximum Contaminant Level concentrations considered safe for
drinking, culinary, or food-processing purposes which are specified in the
national drinking water regulations and in the North Carolina Rules Governing
Public Water Supplies, 15A NCAC 18C .1500. Sources of pollution which
preclude any of these uses on either ashort-term or long-term basis shall be
considered to be violating a water quality standard."
There has been considerable comment, especially in the previous discussions
regarding the decision of the Environmental Management Commission to grant
Eminent Domain authority to the Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority,
about the potential quality of the reservoir. Much of the discussion focused on
3

Report Of Proceedil2ss
Hearil2g Officers' $1L112111Qrtf ~
the potential for contamination of the reservoir from the two adjacent landfills.
There also have been comments given about other waste sites in the basin and
concerns voiced about data available which showed toxic chemicals in the Deep
River which might contaminate the quality of the reservoir. Fortunately, the
measured quality in the river has improved from earlier investigations made by
the Division and the levels of potentially toxic chemicals have not been such
that a threat to the suitability of the reservoir as a source of water supply has been
seen. The staff and the hearing officers reviewed information provided by the
Authority in their "Randleman Lake Nutrient Reduction Strategy and
Implementation Plan" (Draft version -March 1998) in reaching their
recommendation on reclassification. Section 3 of that document provides a
summary of an analysis made by Tetra Tech, Inc. and was particularly useful in
helping the staff and the hearing officers develop an opinion on the suitability ~f
the source for water supply purposes. (Copy of Section 3 is included in Appendix
A, pages A-1 through A-25.) The article addressed four major areas of concern
regarding the potential contamination of the water supply source: 1)
concentrations of lindane in High Point WWTP effluent, 2) potential leaching of
chemicals from the Seaboard Chemical/Riverdale Landfill sites, 3)
concentrations of phenolics seen in the Deep River, and 4) unidentified organic
chemicals in DWQ analyses of the Deep River. The work done by Tetra Tech
concluded, and the staff and hearing officers agreed, that, based on the
concentration of pollutants observed and the conservative nature of the models
used, the information available does not indicate the existence of any significant
potential threat to the quality necessary for a WS-IV water supply.
The other major water quality concern in the Randleman Lake Reservoir is the
high nutrients contribution observed in the Deep River and the potential that, if
impounded, the hydrologic conditions in some parts of the lake would be such
that excessive growths of algae could occur and affect the suitability of the lake
for some of its designated uses. Nutrient response models applied to the
proposed reservoir predict that, unless nutrient contributions are reduced from
present levels, and from expected future levels, the water quality of the reservoir
could be severely impacted by excessive growths of algae. The algae levels
predicted could affect taste and odor of the water withdrawn from the lake and
could also result in other uses of the lake being affected. For example, excessive
growths of algae could result in some parts of the lake not being suitable for
water-body contact. Furthermore, excessive growths of algae could also adversely
affect dissolved oxygen, and fish and other aquatic species' life support and
propagation.
Because of these predictions, the proposed rules offered by the Commission at
the public hearing address the potential eutrophication problem by requiring
reductions of nutrients from point sources in the lake, principally the City of
High Point's waste discharge, and by requiring nonpoint source controls such as
4

Rc~ort Of Proccecliri~~>s
Hem•i1~~~ Officers' Summary
riparian buffer protection around streams and stormwater controls such as
density limitations or stormwater treatment.
The final rules adopted by the Commission are expected to include both point
and nonpoint source elements. This "Recommendation" package is similarly
outlined to present those issues and the discussions and conclusions of the
hearing officers_
POINT SOURCE CONTROLS
Effluent Limits for High Point Eastside
One of the most critical issues facing the Environmental Management
Commission relative to the decision to reclassify the waters of the Deep River, to
enable the creation of the Randleman Reservoir, is the phosphorus limits that
would apply to the City of High Point's Eastside Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WWTP). The recommendations that were sent out to public hearing specified
two point source options: one associated with Option A and one associated with
Option B. The Option B proposal offered two sub-options. The Option A
proposal would require the City of High Point's Eastside facility to meet a
monthly average total phosphorus concentration of 0.5 mg/1 which would be set
in the rule and later in the permit. The proposal also included a goal for the
facility of 0.2 mg/1 phosphorus concentration for a monthly average. This option
was offered by the Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority (PTWRA).
Both alternatives offered in Option B for point sources were considered to be
more stringent than the Option A. The point source sub-option 1, under the
Option B, required that the City of High Point relocate the discharge from its
Eastside plant to a point located downstream of the proposed Randleman Dam.
The point source sub-option 2, on the other hand, allowed the discharge to
remain at its present site but required that the City meet a monthly average total
phosphorus concentration of 0.18 mg/1 year round. The Option B proposal also
included a provision that "There shall be no new or expanding permitted
wastewater discharges in the watershed with the exception that the City of High
Point Eastside WWTP may be allowed to expand beyond the 26 million gallons
per day provided that it meets a monthly average total phosphorus
concentration that would not exceed a permitted total phosphorus load of 14,200
pounds per year."
The staff and the hearing officers spent considerable time in evaluating these
proposals and how they might affect the discharger, other members of the
PTRWA, and the Deep River and Randleman Lake environments. The final
recommendation of the hearing officers is a combination of each of these options
5

Report Of ProceedhTgs
Hearing Officers' Suntmarl~
and offers similar environmental benefits as Option B but with reduced costs
from those of Option B.
The option to discharge around the lake received, by far, the most negative
comments. In addition to resolutions from various chambers of commerce and
water and sewer authorities, 17 local government bodies in the lake area and
downstream on the Deep and Cape Fear Rivers sent resolutions opposing this
option. (See Appendix B for resolutions.) Commentors at the public hearing
noted that the reservoir was predicted to assimilate approximately 80% of the
phosphorus that entered its tributaries. Downstream users of the river felt that
the quality of their drinking water would be adversely affected by the discharge
being routed below the dam. These factors, along with the estimated $25-30
mil]ion dollar cost increase associated with this option, caused it to be dropped
from the list of viable options by the hearing officers.
The option of allowing the High Point East Side discharge to remain at its
present location in Richland Creek but to meet a 0.18 mg/1 monthly phosphorus
limitation also received significant comment. The DWQ used water quality
models to predict the eutrophic response in the proposed lake. They used these
models to predict the eutrophic response for various point source control levels,
such as the 0.18 mg/1 limitation and various nonpoint source control measures
such as a 50 ft. buffer requirement. The results of several modeling analyses are
included in Table 1 and Table 2 of this report. As can be seen from the
information presented in Table 1, if the High Point Eastside discharge were to
remain at its present site and discharge at a 0.5 mg/1 phosphorus effluent
concentration into the Deep River Segment 1, the average chlorophyll a value
expected in that segment of the lake, during the growing season, would be 76
ug/l. Also, the models predict that the waters would violate the 40 ug/1
chlorophyll a standard 80% of the time during the growing season (May through
September). This level of eutrophication would result in unacceptable water
quality conditions in that arm of the lake. (This prediction was based on the
nonpoint source controls recommended by the PTRWA -Option A.) The staff
recommendation that went to hearing was to control the effluent phosphorus
from the High Point facility to 0.18 mg/1, based on a monthly average.
Considerable comments were received during the public involvement process
on the additional costs and the technical feasibility of meeting that level of
phosphorus treatment in the effluent. The City of High Point has estimated that
the additional treatment facilities required and the additional costs of treatment
would create an additional Present Worth cost to the City of 514,122,000. (See
Appendix A, page A-27, 28 or Appendix B, page C-268.) As to the technical
feasibility of meeting the limits, information obtained from a Maryland
consulting firm indicated that there were six facilities discharging into the
Potomac River which have a 0.18 mg/1 phosphorus limitation. DWQ staff talked
with staff of the Upper Occoquan Service Authority, in Fairfax County Virginia,
who indicated that their plant was achieving an effluent concentration of lower
6

TABLE I. .
RANDLEMAN RESERVOIR -OPTION A
Discharge Relocation Scenarios
All four scenarios based on future conditions with PTRI~VA NPS Nutrient Reduction Strategy
and Eastside WWTP discharging 26 MGD with TN = 6.0 mg/I.
v
PREDICTED AVG. CHLOROPHYLL-A (FREt~UENCY OF STD VIOLATIONS" - % growing season)
1. Discharge to 2. Discharge to 3. bischarge to 4. Discharge to
RESERVOIR SEGMENT Deep River 1 Deep River 1 Deep River 2 Deep River 2
TP=0.18m /I TP=0.5m n TP=0.18m /I TP=0.5m /I
Deep River 1 66 pg/I (72 %) d 76 ug/I (80 %) 45 pg/I (47 %) 45 pg/I (47 %)
Deep River 2 28 pg/t (19 %) 31 ug/I (23 %) 29 Ng/I (20 %) 32 ug/I (25 %)
Deep River 3A 17 pg/I (3 %) 18 pg/I (5 %) 17 Ng/I (4 %) 19 ug/I (5 %)
Deep River 3B 12 Ng/I (1 %) 13 Ng/I (1 %) 12 ug/I (1 %) 13 pg/I (1 %)
Muddy Creek 1 26 ug/I (14 %) 26 pg/I (14 %) 26 Ng/I (14 %) 26 ug/I (14 %)
Muddy Creek 2 13 Ug/I (1 %) 13 pg/I (1%) 13 pg/I (1 %) 14 pg/I (2 %)
Near Dam 10 ug/I (<1%) 11 pg/I (1 %) 10 pg/I (<1 %) 11 pg/I (1 %)
Reservoir Average 19 ug/I 20 pg/I 18 ug/I 19 ug/l
'Frequencies of standard violations are the predicted percentages of the growing season (May-September) during which chlorophyll-a
levels are expected to exceed the N.C. water quality standard of 40 pg/I.

TABLE II.
RANDLEMAN RESERVOIR -OPTION B
Discharge Relocation Scenarios
All four scenarios based on future conditions with DWQ NPS Nutrient Reduction Strategy
and Eastside WWTP discharging 26 MGD with TN = 6.0 mg/I.

I
'Frequencies of standard violations are the predicted percentages of the growing season (May-September) during which chlorophyll-a
levels are expected to exceed the N.C. water quality standard of.40 pg/I.
PREDICTED AVG. CHLOROPHYLL-A (FREQUENCY OF STD VIOLATIONS' - % growing season)
1. Discharge to 2. Discharge to 3. Discharge to 4. Discharge to
RESERVOIR SEGMENT Deep River 1 Deep River 1 Deep River 2 Deep River 2
TP=0.18m I TP=0.5m /1 TP=0.18m /1 TP=0.5m /I
Deep River 1 62 pgA (69 %) 74 pg/I (79 %) 39 pg/I (37 %) 39 Ng/I (37 %)
Deep River 2 27 Ng/I (16 %) 30 pg/I (22 %) 27 pg/I (17 %) 31 pg/I (24 %)
Deep River 3A 16 pg/I (3 %) 17 ug/I (4 %) 16 pg/I (3 %) 18 Ng/I (5 %)
Deep River 3B 11 Ng/I (1 %) 12 u9n (1 %) 12 ug/I (1 %) 13 Ng/I (1 %)
Muddy Creek 1 22 ug/I (9 %) 22 ~g/I (9 %) 22 Ng/I (9 %) 22 Ng/I (9 %)
Muddy Creek 2 12 pg/I (1 %) 13 ug/I (1%) 12 Ng/I (1 %) 13 Ng/I (1 %)
Near Dam 10 Ng/I (<1 %) 10 pg/I (<1 %) , 10 Ng/I (<1 %) 11 pg/I (<1 %)
Reservoir Average 17 pg/l 19 pg/I 17 pgA 18 pg/I

Report Of Proceedifigs
Hearins Officers' Summart/
than 0.18mg/1 phosphorus on a monthly basis and that the average monthly
effluent concentration for 1997 was 0.036 mg/l. (See Appendix A, page A-29.) In
addition, discussion with Virginia Division of Environmental Quality staff
indicated that the Roanoke Virginia WWTP had a permit limit of 0.20 mg/1
phosphorus and had met that limit for the past 12 months.
The hearing officers considered the comments offered by the affected local
governments and the predicted violations of the chlorophyll a standard and
suggested another alternative which could reduce the costs to the local
governments yet offer an opportunity to drastically reduce the expected
chlorophyll a violations in the Deep River Segment 1 waters. The option offered
was to rPlo~ate the discharge point from the present location on Richland Creek
to a point downstream, approximately 1.5 miles, near Freeman Mill. The reason
for this proposal has to do with the constricted area of the proposed lake
upstream of this point. The upper Deep River segment of the proposed reservoir
will be separated from the rest of the Deep River arm by a narrow constriction
resulting from the existing topography in the area projected to be flooded. The
constriction will likely increase residence times for nutrients entering the upper
arm and impede the waters in the upper arm from mixing with the main body of
the reservoir. This limited mixing and increased residence time make the upper
Deep River arm highly susceptible to algal blooms and are a major reason why
the most eutrophic conditions are predicted to occur in this portion of the
Randleman Reservoir. Moving the High Point-Eastside WWTP discharge, the
largest source of nutrient loading to the reservoir, below the constriction, to the
Freeman Mill location, results in significantly lower predicted levels of
eutrophication in the upper Deep River arm, without resulting in dramatic
increases in the predicted levels of eutrophication in the main body of the
impoundment. The discharge relocation is not predicted to cause significantly
increased algal activity in the remainder of the Deep River arm because the main
body of the reservoir has a much greater volume and is much better mixed.
If the Option A (PTRWA) nonpoint source controls were applied and the point
source limit of 0.5 mg/1 phosphorus, the predicted average chlorophyll a value
for Deep River Segment 1 would be 45 ug/1 and in Segment 2, the predicted
chlorophyll a average would be 32 ug/1. (See Table 1.) However, when an
approximation of the nonpoint source controls recommended by the staff in
Option B (Table 2) are applied to the model, along with relocation of the
discharge, the predicted average chlorophyll a value for Deep River Segment 1
would be 39 ug/1 and in Segment 2, the predicted chlorophyll a average would be
31 ug/l.
Because the alternative downstream discharge location (at Freeman Mill)
significantly affects the predictions of eutrophication levels in Deep River
Segment 1, the hearing officers further expanded their evaluations on this
9

Report Of Proceedings
Hearing Officers' Summary
alternative. The City of High Point commented that relocating the discharge
would cost around X10,000,000 and that the environmental benefits would not
justify that expenditure. They proposed that the effluent concentration be set at
0.5 mg/1, based on a quarterly average, and that the discharge remain in Segment
1 of the lake, where it is now located. They noted that the average chlorophyll a
predictions in downstream arms of the lake would be minimally affected by
having the discharge in Segment 1. The hearing officers considered this
information in reaching a decision but have concluded that, in their opinion, the
benefits of keeping the predicted chlorophyll a values in segment 1 in
compliance with the standard, did justify the anticipated cost of relocating the
discharge. Their recommendation is that the DWQ Director require that the
permit given High Point include stipulations that the discharge be relocated
downstream to a point near Freeman Mill and inter Segment 2 of the lake.
The City of High Point recommended in their comments that a phosphorus
limit of 0.5 mg/1 be applied (at the existing site) but on a quarterly average. The
DWQ staff noted that, due to the size and hydrology of the reservoir and the
availability of the phosphorus for algal growth, having quarterly limits would
enable excursions of phosphorus levels, especially during the growing seasons,
which could result in algal bloom conditions at an unacceptable level. The
recommendation of the hearing officers contains guidance for the Director to
issue the permit with monthly limits.
The initial proposal that went out to hearing included provisions for a mass
(poundage) limitation of phosphorus that could be discharged at the High Point
WWTP at the design flow of 26 MGD. The mass limit was calculated by
multiplying the 26 MGD flow times the concentration at 0.18 mg/1. The total
permitted load would be 14,200 lb/yr. However, since the discharge location is to
be moved 1.5 miles downstream to Freeman Mill, the hearing officers would
recommend that the permit contain a total permitted load limit of 40,000 pounds
per year. This volume is based on the 0.5 mg/1 concentration. The hearing
officers wanted it made clear that no more additional phosphorus over this
amount should enter the lake from point sources unless the Commission was
involved in the decision.
On the other hand, the hearing officers wanted to emphasize that, based on the
analyses provided them, this point source limitation, combined with their
recommended nonpoint source control requirements, should result in a lake
that will support all designated uses assigned and that the reclassification action
of the Commission would be consistent with the requirements of the Federal
Clean Water Act and the State's laws and rules.
Although the recommendations in the proposed rules provide that the point
source limitations be adopted in rule, it is the hearing officers' recommendation
that the rules recommended to the full Commission do not specify point source
10

Report Of Procecdin~~Ts
Henrirrg Officers' St~ntnr~rt/
limitations. There are several reasons that led to this conclusion. Probably the
most significant one is that having specific point source limits in a rule make
future permitting changes extremely difficult and does not provide the
opportunity to address water quality impairments in a timely fashion. Because
of the approximate two year length of time now required for rule making in this
state, if the Division were to see a need to modify the limitations in phosphorus
levels in High Point's permit, based on water quality degradation, the staff would
be facing a lengthy, cumbersome process to get that accomplished. The best
information now available is based on a computer simulation model. When the
reservoir is built, actual water quality conditions may be better than those
predicted by the model. If that is the case, it may be possible to set permissable
loadings higher than what is recommended now. On the other hand, water
quality condition may be worse than predicted, and further action may be
necessary when the permit is reissued in future years. Making changes in those
permit limitations should be able to be accomplished within the existing
authorities granted to the Director through the requirement to protect water
quality standards. Therefore, the final proposed rules do not include the permit
limits for the High Point East Side WWTP. However,'the conclusions of this
report are to be used by the Director in preparing the NPDES permit for the
expanded High Point WWTP discharge.
Therefore, for the High Point Eastside WWTP, it is the hearing officers'
recommendation that the NPDES permit be issued requiring that the discharge
location be moved downstream approximately 1.5 miles and the effluent limits
for phosphorus be established at a monthly average of 0.5 mg/1 at a maximum
flow of 26 MGD and that the Commission would be involved in any future
decision which might increase the phosphorus above the mass loading at that
flow and concentration.
Other discharges in the basin
The hearing officers agreed to maintain the prohibition on new or expanded
discharges of phosphorus-containing waste to the entire Randleman basin,
except for the potential expansions at the High Point Eastside WWTP. Expansion
of the High Point Eastside facility may be considered if the water quality of the
reservoir can be protected. This means that the few small discharges in the basin
will not be able to expand over their existing (1998 average) loads, in the amount
of phosphorus they contribute.
MAINTENANCE OF RIPARIAN AND BUFFER AREAS
The Water Quality Section staff recommended that, in addition to the statewide
water supply watershed requirements to maintain a vegetated (or revegetated)
11

Report Of Proceedings
Hearing Officers' Sicntnra~y
buffer around perennial streams, the buffers in the Randleman watershed
should include protection of a riparian zone where only limited disturbances are
allowed in the existing riparian areas. They also recommended that the
enhanced riparian area protection requirements be applied not only around
perennial streams but also around intermittent streams. The proposal that was
sent to public hearing contained in Option B the requirement that a buffer be
applied similar to that applied by the Commission in the Neuse River Basin.
The proposal in the Neuse basin, and in the Randleman watershed proposal that
went to hearing, was to protect a 50 ft. zone adjacent to the streams, where no
land disturbing activities could occur. The 50 ft. zone included a 20 ft. zone
where limited tree or fruit crop harvesting could occur. (Some essential land
disturbing activities could occur in both zones when special conditions are met.)
The proposals were based on an understanding by the staff that in order to
protect larger streams and lakes from severe degradation, the Division's program
must be more aggressive in protecting first and second order streams. The staff
firmly believe that it is essential to protect these perennial and intermittent
streams from mass grading, channelization, enclosing 'in pipes, and other
activities which significantly increase flow volumes, velocities and erosion
potential along with nutrients and sediment contribution. Phosphorus is
particularly vulnerable to these types of stream destruction practices since it
readily adheres to sediment particles and is transported downstream to larger
streams and lakes. Riparian areas, especially forested riparian areas, are valuable
in that they provide shading, food source, channel protection, streambank
stabilization, pollutant filtering, habitat source, and act as a sponge for rainfall.
In working with those affected by the proposed riparian area protection
requirements in the Randleman watershed, the question has been asked if the
riparian area requirements that are effective for nitrogen removal are also
effective for phosporus. Many question if the 50 ft. riparian area distance is
necessary. While it is true that phosphorus responds very differently from
nitrogen when it is introduced into the environment, current research shows
that the type of riparian area needed to control the two nutrients is very similar.
Research also shows that sufficiently wide, forested riparian areas provide
indispensable overall protection to our waters. Riparian areas are needed so that
our waters can provide a livable environment for aquatic life by protecting
streambanks, moderating temperature, providing food and habitat, and filtering
a wide range of pollutants.
In North Carolina, numerous well-known scientists have been documenting the
effectiveness of forest riparian areas in removing nutrients from waters. Unlike
nitrogen, which dissolves and is found mainly in groundwater, phosphorus is
usually present in surface runoff. Phosphorus can be easily absorbed by soils and
has a great potential to react with organic material and accumulate in surface
12

Report Of Procecdi--gs
Hec+ri-t~ Officers' Su-ytniary
layers. Therefore, most phosphorus loss is closely tied to soil erosion. Research
indicates that a forested riparian area combined with a vegetated filter is one of
the most effective management practices to reduce phosphorus and sediment, as
well as nitrogen. This design is the same as that proposed in the Neuse NSW
strategy. The effectiveness of various riparian area designs in reducing sediment
and phosphorus is listed in the following table.
Effectiveness of Various Riparian Area Designs in Reducing Sediment and
Phnsnhnrus from Surface Runoff (from Lowrance et al., 1995)
Phosphorus Sediment
Buffer Buffer Type % Reduction % Reduction
Width (ft)
5 grasp 24.2 61.E
30 grass 28.5 74.6
60 forest 70.0 89.8
75 15' grass + 60' forest 78.5 96.0
90 30' rass + 60' forest 77.2 97.4
The Final Report of the Chesapeake Bay Riparian Forest Buffer Panel stated that
a stream and its riparian area function as one system. The condition of a riparian
area helps determine the quality and integrity of stream channels and habitat
available for fish and other wildlife. One of the most important functions of
forest riparian areas is to protect streambanks and reduce streambank erosion.
This protection is critical to a watershed facing significant development pressure.
Changes resulting from impervious cover, such as buildings, streets, parking lots
and other hard surfaces, are permanent and result in cumulative changes in the
size and frequency of stormwater runoff events. These hydrologic impacts due to
urbanization cause water quality problems such as streambank erosion,
sedimentation, eutrophication, increased temperatures, habitat changes, and the
loss of fish populations.
The staff recognizes that riparian area protection is critical in areas where a
potential already exists for violations of water quality standards. This is the case
for the Randleman Reservoir and the reason the staff made this proposal for that
watershed.
Many comments were offered supporting the enhanced riparian protection,
although many were against the proposal. Those against pointed to the loss of
developable land, the increased permitting complexities, and questioned the
rationale for applying those requirements in this watershed when they ~n~ere not
required in other water supply watersheds in the state. Many comments
received suggested that the riparian area protection rules should not be applied
in the upper portions of the watershed. They indicated that the local
governments with jurisdictions in the upper reaches of the basin (above Cotton-
Mill Dam) had only recently gone through the rule adoption process for water
13

Report Of Proceedin~Qs
HL'R1'111~~ Off1CCYS' SI111111I(I1`If
supply and this additional mandate would not be well-received. They also
pointed to the location of the upper-watershed reservoirs and the protection they
provide from sediment and phosphorus loading to the Randleman Lake.
The hearing officers considered the comments provided and weighed them
against their desire not to allow the creation of a reservoir where unacceptable
levels of algal growth are expected to occur. They also recognized the fact that
once the buffers were gone, it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, to restore
them. Accordingly, they recommended that the 50 ft. riparian area protection
requirement be applied throughout the entire Randleman Reservoir watershed.
However, after considering comments provided and considering the fact that
most phosphorus travels over land rather than via subsurface migration, the
hearing officers recommended that the rules allow additional activities such as
clearing and grading along the outer 20 ft. section of the riparian area.
The final recommendation of the hearing officers regarding riparian area
protection is that a 50 ft. buffer be protected along all intermittent and perennial
streams in the entire Randleman Lake Reservoir watershed. The first 30 ft.
(immediately adjacent to the surface water), referred to as Zone 1, will be a "no
disturbance" zone and only specific activities will be allowed. A 20 ft.
"vegetated" area on the outside of and adjacent to Zone 1, referred to as Zone 2,
will also be protected, although land disturbing activities such as land clearing
and grading would be allowed prior to the area being revegetated.
STREAM DETERMINATIONS
Comments were received that modifications should be made in the proposal that
would require the PTRWA to develop a map of the watershed that provided
where the riparian protection requirements apply. The idea was that they would
use the USGS topo maps and the USDA soil survey maps to determine which
streams needed buffer protection but would also add additional conditions
specified by the state at a later date in development of that map. It was decided
that using the topo map and the soil survey maps to determine which streams
would be affected by the riparian protection requirements would be adequate.
However, because of comments received, the rule proposal was modified to
allow local governments to develop their own maps which, if approved by the
Division of Water Quality, could be used to enforce the riparian area provisions
of the rules in lieu of using the USGS and USDA maps. The Division would
need to assure that the locally-developed maps provide an equivalent level of
protection as the use of the USGS and Soil Survey maps would achieve.
14

Report Of Proceedings Hem•i~1g Officers' S11111111QY1J
STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS
The initial proposals that went to public hearing contained stormwater
management requirements. The proposals, offered in Option B, were that the
stormwater management requirements would apply for the entire Randleman
Reservoir watershed drainage area. The hearing officers evaluated the
environmental benefits of requiring the stormwater (density) provisions in the
upper portion of the Randleman watershed, as well as the lower portion of the
watershed. Because of the location of the Oak Hollow Lake and the High Point
Lake, the benefits of the density controls were somewhat "dampened" by the
reservoirs and the benefits to the Randleman Lake would be less than they might
otherwise be. Also, the hearing officers considered the fact that they only
recently approved the local stormwater management programs for the Oak
Hollow Lake, High Point Lake and the Oakdale watersheds. The
recommendation of the hearing officers is that the additional stormwater
provisions be applied only in the lower portion of the Randleman Lake
Reservoir watershed, which is defined as the land area upstream and draining to
the Randleman Lake water supply reservoir from the Oakdale-Cotton Mill Dam
to the Randleman Dam.
Many comments were received indicating that the existing stormwater
requirements were more stringent than the statewide requirements for water
supply watersheds and that there was no justification for requiring more
stringent controls for this watershed. The staff noted to the hearing officers that
this proposal was a special case that deserved special attention. They noted that
the lake is not built and a management strategy should be developed that would
provide the highest degree of confidence that the water quality of the reservoir
would be protected. As shown through the modeling efforts, a significant
potential exists for the average chlorophyll a values in some segments to exceed
the adopted water quality standard during the growing season. The management
strategy as proposed is predicted to enable each of the segments outlined in the
DWQ model to average less than the 40 ug/1 standard during the growing
season. They suggest that this would enable the Director to conclude that the
lake would achieve an overall level of chlorophyll a that would comply with the
requirements of the Clean Water Act. The hearing officers agreed to recommend
that the stormwater requirements be adopted by the Commission for the lower
portion of the watershed (from Oakdale Dam to Randleman Dam) as was
proposed in Option B and sent to public hearing.
Comments were provided which noted that the existing stormwater
requirements and those proposed for portions of High Point, Jamestown and
Archdale would be nearly as stringent as the Option B proposals. Although the
stormwater requirements in the Critical Areas around the lake are generally
equal to, and in some instances more stringent than, the recommendations in
Option B, the existing density options would allow considerably more
15

Report Of Proceedings
Hearing Officers' Sermmary
development in the remainder of the watershed, or the Protected Areas. For
single family residences, the rules now in place or proposed for the Protected
Areas would generally allow at least twice the single family residence densities
than would be allowed under the Option B proposals. Although much of the
land in the protected areas is now limited to one house per acre (12%), as is
recommended in the Option B proposal, the existing ordinances would have
allo~~ed the density to increase to two houses per acre or (24%) once sewer
service is provided. (See Appendix A, page 30 for chart on densities.) Also, in all
the protected areas in the lower watershed, except Randolph County, up to 70%
impervio~.is area coverage would have been allowed with stormwater controls in
place, undE~r existing ordinances. This allows greater densities than are proposed
in Option B (50% maximum in Protected Areas). Because of the expectation that
much of the watershed will eventually be sewered; and the greater densities
allowed, the hearing officers have recommended that the Option B stormwater
proposals remain as the recommendation for the final rule for those areas
downstream of the Oak Dale Dam and draining to the Randleman Reservoir.
NUTRIENT SENSITIVE WATERS CLASSIFICATION
The draft rules that went to public hearing recommended, as one of the options
to be considered, reclassi:ving the waters of the reservoir as Nutrient Sensitive
Waters or NSW. However, the hearing officers decided to recommend that this
classification not be applied at this time. The most important reason was that,
since the affected segments are being proposed as a "Critical water supply
watershed", any additional authority gained by documenting conditions for
NSW classification would not btu needed. The statutes give the Commission
authority to "impose management requirements that are more stringent than
the minimum statewide water supply watershed management requirements" in
watersheds defined as a "Critical water supply watershed."
16

Report Of Proceedings Comments and Responses
SUMMARY OF MAJOR COMMENTS AND STAFF RESPONSES
Comment: Allow construction of the reservoir with the management strategy
recommended in Option A.
Response: Of the comments received during this process, approximately 45%
noted a desire for the EMC to proceed with the reclassification
action along the lines proposed as the Option A recommendation.
Most noted that Greensboro has severe short and long-term needs
for additional water sources, that enough time and money had
been spent studying this source, and that it was not appropriate to
place controls on the affected governments more stringent than are
being applied in other water supplies in the state. The hearing
officer recommendation is for those portions of the Randleman
Lake watershed, not presently classified as water supply, to be
reclassified to the WS-IV classification. The management strategy
recommendation is a combination of the requirements in Options
A and B.
Comment: Require very stringent point and nonpoint source controls as
outlined in Option B.
Response: Approximately 55% of those providing comments indicated either
a desire to require stringent point and nonpoint source controls as
suggested in Option B or to deny the classification as a water supply
source. The recommendation for the full Commission is a
combination of the point and nonpoint source controls in Option
A and Option B.
Comment: Do not require moving the discharge pipe from the High Point
Eastside WWTP downstream to a location below the Darn.
Response: The proposal to move the discharge of the High Point Eastside
WWTP to a location below the dam did not receive much support.
The option was included because it would be a means of
substantially reducing the predicted chlorophyll a violations in the
proposed reservoir. However, many comments were provided
indicating opposition to moving the discharge. Many cited the
need to use the reservoir to remove pollutants from the High Point
Eastside discharge and in so doing, to reduce the impact on the
quality of the downstream river. Resolutions opposing the
movement of the discharge were received from the following:
Town of Angier
17

Report Of Proceedings Comments and Responses
Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority
Randolph County Board of Commissioners
City of Archdale
City of Randleman
Town of Jamestown
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority
City of Asheboro
Town of Sanford
New Hanover County Board of Commissioners
Town of Lillington
Seagrove/Ulah MSD
Harnet County Board of Commissioners
Randolph County Chamber of Commerce
Town of Franklinville
City of Trinity
Town of Ranseur
Town of Liberty
Town of Seagrove
Town of Erwin
In light of the resolutions and comments received, and other
information available, the hearing officers are recommending not
pursuing this alternative.
Comment: Predicted lake eutrophication will result in a problem for the water
supply.
Response: Although existing models have predicted that certain areas of the
lake may see violations of the chlorophyll a standard during some
of the growing season, the staff has concluded that, based on the
predictive models and their uncertainty, the requirement that the
uses of the lake will be supported will be met and the lake will be
an acceptable source for a water supply. The hearing officers'
recommended management strategy will include provisions that
point source phosphorus levels from the High Point Eastside
WWTP will be set at 0.5 mg/l, provided the discharge is relocated
approximately 1.5 miles downstream to a point in the lake below
the Division's Deep River Segment 1. The nonpoint source
requirements also include provisions for densities and buffer
requirements greater than what is required for other water supplies
in the state to address the eutrophication concerns associated with
the proposed reservoir:
Comment: The quality of the proposed lake will be similar to, or possibly better
than, what we are now seeing in other Piedmont reservoirs, and
18

Report Of Proceedings Comments and Responses
therefore, no additional requirements are warranted.
Response: Proponents of the reservoir point out that the predicted
chlorophyll a violations, averaged over the entire lake, would be
within limits and would be better than Falls and Jordan Lakes are
now. However, under certain effluent conditions (0.5 mg/1 for the
High Point Eastside discharge), models predict that, in the Deep
River Segment I arm of the lake, there is a potential for chlorophyll
a levels to occur that would be greater than those now seen in other
piedmont lakes. At full capacity of the High Point Eastside WWTP,
and at 25-year build-out development impacts, the predicted
chlorophyll a violations would be in the 80% range. This compares
to the violation frequency in the upper arms of the Falls and Jordan
Reservoirs in the 40% range. Although some exceedences of the 40
ug/1 standard occur now in the Deep River and are expected in the
future reservoir as well, this level of exceedence would not be
considered acceptable. It should also be noted that, due to
continuing concerns over the quality of the Falls and Jordan Lakes,
the Division has recently accellerated the strategies to protect the
Falls Lake watershed and is now evaluating strategies on the Jordan
Lake watershed to determine if further controls are needed to
address concerns on that lake.
Comment: Other sources of water are available for the region.
Response: Although the Division staff did not undertake a detailed,
independent analysis of the potential to use other water sources
to supply the needs of the PTRWA (Piedmont Triad Regional
Water Authority), it did review existing information and
concluded that, although there were other sources of water that
could be used, this source appeared to best meet the requirements
of the PTRWA for a water source. A 1985 CH2M Hill report
evaluated 40 alternatives that could be used as sources of water
for the region. These alternatives included: purchasing water
from the City of Burlington, from Lake Jordan, from Winston-
Salem, from Lake Reese, from Reidsville, using the Dan River,
the Mayo, the Haw, groundwater, combinations of these and
many others. Although most provided an inadequate safe yield
for the long-term needs of the Authority, some would provide
the volume necessary. However, with each source, there were
some problems such as interbasin transfer issues, excessive costs
of the resultant supplies, or serious legal, political, or
environmental hurdles. In addition, it was noted at an EMC
meeting that the action of reclassification did not mandate the
Commission making a determination if this was the best source
of water for the Authority but only to make a decision as to its
19

Report Of Proceedings Cor~tments and Responses
suitability as a source and whether it should be accordingly
reclassified.
Comment: The proposed point source control requirements on High Point
are unachievable.
Response: Discussions with other states indicate there are several facilities
in this country who are meeting levels of phosphorus removal at
or below the 0.18 mg/1 level that was proposed for the High Point
East Side facility, if the discharge were to remain at its present
location. However, if the discharge is moved, it appears from the
models that a limit of 0.5 mg/1 phosphorus will provide adequate
protection to enable reclassification to occur.
Comment: The costs of achieving extremely low phosphorus levels at the
High Point facility are not in proportion to the benefits achieved.
Response: If the discharge from High Point Eastside WWTP was to remain
in the Deep River Segment I, meeting a 0.5 mg/1 phosphorus
level at the High Point East Side WWTP would still constitute
over 45% of the phosphorus entering the basin on a yearly basis.
According to models, that would result in unacceptable levels of
chlorophyll a excursions. The hearing officers' recommendation,
that the discharge be moved downstream to a point below Deep
River Segment 1, would enable the permits to be set at a 0.5 mg/1
rate rather than the 0.18 mg/1 that was originally proposed.
Comment: The "lost opportunity" costs of requiring local governments to
restrict densities further than is now required in the Watershed
Protection Program is not justified.
Response: Projections of costs to local governments to implement the
Option B requirements have been in the area of 100 million
dollar impact for small local governments and over a billion for a
larger government. Although there will be some costs to local
governments for these more stringent density requirements, we
believe the extremely large estimates have not considered other
factors associated with lower density development. A major
problem is that the estimates of costs provided to the State did not
consider the costs to the local governments to provide services,
such as sewerage, schools, and police and fire protection. The net
costs to local governments would be considerably lower than
earlier projections. It is further noted that local governments in
North Carolina now requiring similar densities have not
reported the extreme values of lost revenues.
20

Report Of Proceedings Comments and Responses
Comment: The existing requirements for water supply watershed protection
are working in Oak Hollow and City Lake watersheds and Option
B is not needed.
Response: The DWQ believes that additional point and nonpoint source
controls are needed to address the potential eutrophic conditions
expected in the lake. The Division does not want to create a lake
that will soon be adversely affected by algal growth at eutrophic
levels. In the area of nonpoint source controls, the Division has
urged the hearing officers to seek the most conservative densities
and buffer requirements that are acceptable. They emphasized
that correcting problems, after the fact, that are caused, or
influenced, by overly dense development or loss of protective
buffers is extremely costly, if it can be done at all. Taking a pro-
active approach in trying to prevent the problem from occurring
in the first place is much more effective, economically and
environmentally.
Comment: Local governments who initiated watershed protection programs
before the state requirements were developed should be given
credit for their early programs.
Response: Several local governments are to be commended for their
innovative programs, some of which were started over ten years
ago. The DWQ believes those programs have been instrumental
in helping control the problems seen in the existing reservoirs
and has discussed with the hearing officers ways to include those
factors in their final recommendations. However, the final
requirements must be sufficient to ensure that the quality of the
future lake will be protected. The hearing officers are
recommending that the existing protection program be continued
in the upper portion of the Randleman Lake watershed with the
additional requirement that buffers be protected throughout the
entire watershed as described previously.
Comment: The existing landfills and other waste sites will threaten the lake's
water quality to the extent that it would not be suitable as a water
supply source.
Response: The potential for contamination of the reservoir from the two
adjacent landfills has been an issue of concern to many.
Predictive modeling information available to the Division
indicates that the concentration of toxicants in drinking water
obtained from this lake will not result in any exceedences of state
or federal drinking water standards. The recommendation of the
hearing officers does not include any additional management
21

Report Of Proceedings Comments crud Responses
recommendations for those landfills.
Comment: The classification schedule shown on page 19 of the information
package speaks as though the reclassification was "a done deal."
Response: Several comments were received indicating that the classification
schedule showed that the DWQ had already decided to reclassify
the lake as a source since it states that the "schedule of
classifications was amended effective April 1, 1999." According to
state rule-making requirements, the proposed rule changes must
be written as they would be adopted. Then the Commission
would adopt, modify, or take no action. We acknowledge that it
is confusing but want to emphasize that the intent was not to
preclude any decision of the Commission. The proposals have
been presented as required by the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA) and the Office of Administrative Hearings APA
implementation rules.
Comment: Because of the distance upstream and the existing Oak Hollow
and City Lake impoundments, the need for requiring additional
controls in the upper watershed is not as critical.
Response: The staff and the EMC hearing officers have considered the role
of the existing Oak Hollow and City Lake impoundments on
reducing the impact of additional nutrient nonpoint source
runoff from those watersheds, along with the controls presently
in place by affected local governments, in deciding whether to
apply additional density controls in the uppermost portion of the
Randleman watershed. The recommendation of the hearing
officers is to accept the existing density controls now in place in
those watersheds (above Oakdale-Cotton Mill dam) rather than
recommending a change. However, as stated above, the hearing
officers are recommending that 50 ft. buffer be required in those
watersheds as it recommended for the lower Randleman Lake
watershed.
Comment: There is no environmental benefit from moving the High Point
Eastside downstream from its present site.
Response: If the High Point Eastside discharge were to remain at its present
site and discharge at a 0.5 mg/1 phosphorus level into the Deep
River Segment I, the average chlorophyll a value expected in that
arm of the lake, during the growing season, would be 76 ug/1
(with the Option B NPS controls). Also, the models predict that
the waters in the Deep River Segment 1 would violate the 40 ug/1
chlorophyll a standard 80% of the time. The staff have concluded
22

Report Of Proceedings Comments and Responses
that this level of eutrophication would result in an unacceptable
level of water quality in that arm of the lake. The models predict
that moving the discharge downstream approximately 1.5 miles,
and implementing appropriate nonpoint source (NPS) controls,
will result in an average chlorophyll a value in that Segment 1,
during the growing season, of 39 ug/l.
Comment: The City of High Point proposed that the density requirements
only apply to projects needing a sedimentation and erosion
permit.
Response: The hearing officers have concurred with the staff position that
this reservoir is unique in its need for water quality protection.
They also support the position that all reasonable action be taken
to minimize the risk of substantial water quality problems
occurring in the developed lake. Although WS-IV's do not
usually mandate that the density rules apply except when a
sedimentation erosion control permit is required, WS-II and WS-
III watersheds require that they apply for all development.
Because the staff and hearing officers desire to take every
reasonable opportunity to apply a management strategy that will
reduce the nutrient loading to the future reservoir, they
concurred that this requirement is appropriate.
Comment: Do not require the Authority to use both USGS and USDA maps
and create a new one based on DWQ criteria.
Response: After reviewing the minimal potential for additional protection of the
lake's water quality, it was decided that using the topo map and the soil
survey maps to determine which streams would be affected by the
riparian protection requirements would be adequate. However,
because of comments received, the rule proposal was modified to allow
. local governments to develop their own maps which, if approved by
the Division of Water Quality, could be used to enforce the riparian
area provisions of the rules in lieu of using the USGS and USDA maps.
Comment: High Point proposed using the "10/70" rule in the noncritical
area.
Response: The 10/70 provision, which is available in other WS-IV water
supply watersheds, was intentionally left out of the proposed
rules. The "10/70" rule allows local governments who do not use
the high density option to allow 10% of the land in the watershed
in their jurisdiction to be developed at an impervious cover
maximum of 70%. The staff concluded that they did not want to
encourage 70% impervious coverage development in this
23

Report Of Proceedings Comments and Responses
watershed, especially when treatment of the first inch of rainfall
is not required in the 10/70 provisions of the existing water
supply watershed protection rules. They also question whether it
would be used by any local governments in the watershed. The
hearing officers' recommendation is that this provision not be
included in the lower Randleman watershed, although where it
exists in the upper watershed local ordinances, it shall continue
to be allowed as an option.
Comment: The City of High Point's comments suggested that rather than use
the USGS topo maps and USDA soil maps to define where
perennial and intermittent streams start, use an acreage number.
Response: The City recommended that 50 acres be used to define where a
stream exists. The DQW data for piedmont streams indicates that
the average size of a watershed that determine the starting point
for an intermittent stream is 20 acres. Some watersheds as low as
two or three acres produced viable perennial streams. The
hearing officers did recommend that local governments would be
able to use other methods of defining streams if those methods
were approved by the Division.
Comment: The City of High Point commented that "non residential
development is difficult to infeasible at 50% built-upon area."
Response: There are 99 watersheds in the state that are classified as WS II or
WS III. The maximum impervious area allowed in WS III
watersheds, using the high density option, is 30% in the critical
area and 50% in the remainder of the watershed. In WS II
watersheds, the maximum densities allowed are 24% and 30%.
Other communities across the state have been able to comply
with these water supply protection measures. It is recognized that
these limitations will cause difficulties in some cases. Variance
provisions in the rules would allow opportunities for site-specific
consideration of some of these difficult situations. The
recommendation is to not modify the proposed maximum
densities allowed. The hearing..officers recommendation
includes this density maximum in the lower Randleman
Reservoir watershed.
Cornment: Buffers should be around perennial streams only.
Response: In an article in the September/October 1998 EPA Nonpoint
Source Newsnotes, the author (Earl Shaver, Auckland Regional
Council) provided that: "If our goals include protection of
instream resources, we must provide more aggressive protection
24

Report Of Proceeclin~s Conrntents alyd Responses
of first and second order streams [small, intermittent-type
streams]. Seventy-two percent of all waterways in the United
States are first or second order streams. We cannot hope to
protect third order or larger streams if we allow enclosure,
channelization, or destruction of first and second order ones. "
Since allowing grading next to the intermittent streams not only
increases the potential that they will be destroyed, the
downstream segments, which eventually become perennial
streams, receive the sediment, nutrients, and other stormwater
runoff from those streams. Larger streams will not be protected
without protecting the upstream intermittent streams. The
recommendation is that the buffer be applied to all perennial and
intermittent streams in the entire Randleman watershed.
Comment: More buffer than 50 feet needed.
Response: Although more buffer is desirable, and research shows that in
many cases it will enhance protection of the water quality, the
hearing officers' recommendation supports the 50 ft. buffer
requirement.
Comment 15 ft undisturbed buffer is ok.
Response: Some comments indicated that a reduction from the proposed 30
ft. undisturbed buffer to 15 ft. undisturbed buffer would be
adequate for the watershed. Research showed that a 15 ft.
vegetated buffer only can achieve a 25% reduction in phosphorus.
The hearing officers' recommendation is to keep the undisturbed
area of riparian protection at 30 ft.
Comment: Allow a reasonable amount of time for local governments to
complete the comprehensive stormwater planning effort.
Response: The recommendation of the hearing officers includes a provision
to allow the local governments one year after the rules go into
effect to develop the strormwater management plan before it is
submitted to the DWQ for review and approval by the
Commission. Then the local government will have six months
to begin the stormwater managment plan implementation.
Comment: The proposed rules would require all infrastructure stream
crossings to be approved by the EMC.
Response: Although it is not clearly stipulated in the rules who makes these
type of calls, unless it is stipulated that the EMC make the
decision, the Division Director or his designees will make them.
25

Report Of Proceedings Comments acid Responses
It is the intent of the hearing officers that these decisions are to be
made by the DWQ staff, unless a major variance is being
requested.
Comment: The lakewide average chlorophyll a values are acceptable under
Option A management strategy.
Response: Some commentors suggested that since the models predicted that
the lakewide averages of chlorophyll a would be well below the
40 ug/1 standard, it was an inefficient use of funds to require the
controls specified in Option B. The DWQ pointed out that even
though the average value would be within the standards range,
there will be significant areas of the lake where the standards will
be violated and excessive algal growths will occur unless a more
aggressive management strategy is followed.
Comment: The state should not require controls in this lake more stringent
than in similar lakes.
Response: This lake is different from existing lakes because there is a
potential to create a segment of water that will not fully support
its uses -that is, to create water quality problems where those
problems do no± presently exist. The DWQ believes it should
proceed with caution and apply whatever controls are needed to
minimize the potential for more serious future problems.
Comment: Classify the waters as NSW.
Response: The DWQ had considered recommending reclassifying the waters
of the reservoir as Nutrient Sensitive Waters or NSW. However,
it was decided to not seek that classification since the affected
segments are being proposed as a "Critical water supply
watershed." The statutes give the Commission authority to
"impose management requirements that are more stringent than
the minimum statewide water supply watershed management
requirements" in these critical watersupply watersheds. It was
concluded that adequate authorities were available to apply the
controls intended for the watershed and that going through the
additional steps to complete the NSW reclassification was not
needed.
Comment: The City of High Point suggested that the rules require the
recording of the riparian protection areas only on new plats, not
on modified ones. They also suggested that, in dealing with the
density requirements, the provision that local government
permits require recorded deed restrictions and protective
26

Report Of Proceedings Comments and Responses
convenants should be removed.
Response: The staff considered the concerns voiced but believes the benefit
to the public and to the environmental control programs out-
weighs those concerns. Many communities have been recording
riparian protection areas on new and modified plats for some
time. This requirement is also now in place in the entire Neuse
River Basin. In addition, the requirement for recorded deed
restrictions and protective covenants has been a part of the coastal
stormwater protection program for several years and DWQ staff is
not aware of any significant implementation problems.
Comment: A local government suggested that all variances could be handled
on the local levels.
Response: The Commission rules require that major variances be approved
by the Commission but allow minor varinaces to be approved by
local governments. The Statute also specifies the role in the
Commission for variances. Therefore delegation to local
governments could not occur without changes in the statewide
rules and legislation modifications. In addition, in reviewing the
proposed rules, which contained a varinace clause for buffers, it
~~~as realized that the location of that provision should be moved
from Rule .0250 (Riparian protection area) to Rule .0248 to cover
variances from any provision of the rules affecting the
Randleman watershed.
27

MAJOR COMMENTS RECEIVED
AND
STAFF RESPONSE

RECOMMENDED RULE
CHANGES
Includes Changes Recommended
From Public Hearing Version of
Proposed Rules

Report of Proceedings
Proposed Rules With Changes
NOTE: THE RULES BELOW ARE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE HEARING
OFFICERS. INDICATE WHERE ELEMENTS WERE
REMOVED FROM THE VERSION SENT TO HEARING. UNDERLINED
SECTIONS INDICATE WHERE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE IS PROPOSED BY
THE HEARING OFFICERS.-
~a~~~~+
r',-j$~le .n~n4 ~t„«..:o.,. t~,r,,.,.,no....o.,. ct...,Fo,...
r~~n„to n~.ta ~ r tixt„~t ,..*or r~:~,.t.,.,..,.o~
A[~VJ
l21D„to mcn ~ ,. n.,,*o~•;,, „a ~.. „*e e „~v: .,..;,,., n.-

28

Report of Proceedings
Proposed Rules With Changes

*l, D .71 T 1 + 1 * T~od_
!1\D 1 l17~~ 4'.,. \711.,~ro,:.motor ll:~`_

l17~'7 \xl * k .i D r ~'
~ 0
.i cr • l~~f.,„...,o.,,,e.,+ .,.~
cF3r
Ct7 0

29

Report of Proceedings Proposed Rules With Changes

/2\ TL. D' ~I • T .7 D 1 lxl t ~ A„~1,.,-:*„ lDTD\x 7Al ~ ,:1L 1.....:r ., .,1 ~o .+.r ~~, ~L,e
~ ~ i r
c
n .~ i 1 • *' D1.,., L,:..L, :~ l.o.~ol-.., :~n_~rn~.~.,*
........»...,....» ., ....-~-- -~ ------~ ------r----- o.a L.., .
-- -~ - of~.-o....o
-------- -
.0248 RANDLEMAN LAKE WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED: NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT
STRATEGY
(a) All waters of the Randleman Lake (Deep River) water supply watershed sl~l-be are classified ~
\x7.,*o.. c,,....~,. rv lu7e~ for water supply uses and designated by the Environmental Management
Commission as a Critical Water Supply Watershed pursuant to G.S. 143-214.5(b). The following
Rules a~e-te shall be implemented ~ " ~ *" D '" 1 '~ "* ""'" '•: =±='°-"-'=' for the
'~=~ rr-~
entire drainage area upstream of the Randleman Lake Dam:
(1)Rule .0249 for Wastewater Discharges
(2)Rule .0250 for Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas, and
(3)Rule .0251 for Urban Stormwater Management
(b) Failure to meet the requirements of the Rules e€ in this Section may result in the imposition of
enforcement measures as authorized by N.C.G.S. 143-215.6A (civil penalties), N.C.G.S. 143-215.6B
(criminal penalties), and N.C.G.S. 143-215.6C (injunctive reliefj.
(c) Development activities may be granted minor and major variances from the requirement of Rules
.0250 and .0251 of this Section based on the process stated in 15A NCAC 2B .0104(r). However, for
the purposes of rules .0250 and .0251 of this Section, minor and manor variances shall be defined as a
variance from the more stringent Randleman Lake stormwater management requirements for the lower
watershed and the more stringent riparian area requirements for the upper and lower watersheds.
.0249 RANDLEMAN LAKE WATERSUPPLY WATERSHED :WASTEWATER DISCHARGE
REQUIREMENTS
IICC\ ., ..ire
~, 1 ;w^A
S c~
30

Report of Proceedings Proposed Rules With Changes
The following is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) wastewater discharge
management strategy for the Randleman Lake `x'~~~~ watershed. For purposes of this rule,
permitted wastewater discharges means those facilities permitted to discharge domestic wastewater or
wastewaters containing phosphorus:
(1) The City of High Point's Eastside facility shall meet a~~ total phosphorus
concentration predicted to provide a level of water quality in the Randleman Lake which meets
all designated uses of those waters. ^~n , Q ....,,n „°n ~-~„na, r ..~:°~°° ,~.:+~, +k.~~o+~
(2) There shall be no new or expanding permitted wastewater discharges its the watershed with the
exception that the City of High Point Eastside wastewater treatment plant may be allowed to
expand~eye>~ provided that-it °+~ ° ~+'~'~~ ° ° +^+°'
perms-per~}ea~ any new permit contains concentration and mass limits predicted to provide
a level of water quality in the Randleman Lake which meets all designated uses of those waters.
.0250 RANDLEMAN LAKE WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED: PROTECTION AND
MAINTENANCE OF RIPARIAN AREAS
The following is the management strategy for maintaining and protecting riparian areas in the
Randleman Lake ~~~^+°~ °~~~~'~~ watershed.
(1) Within 270 days of the effective date of this rule, all local governments with jurisdictions in the
Randleman Lake watershed shall submit to the EMC for approval, local water supply
ordinances, or modifications to existing ordinances, which include protection of riparian areas as
provided in this rule. Local Qovernments shall use__the following provisions in applying this
rule:
~ Riparian areas shall be protected and maintained in accordance with this Rule on all sides of
surface waters in the Randleman Lake watershed-E 2 such as, intermittent streams,
perennial streams, lakes, and ponds} , as indicated on the most recent version of either the
31

Report of Proceedings Proposed Rules With Changes
United States Geological Survey 1:24,000 scale (7.5 minute quadrangle) topographic maps or
the Soil Survey maps developed by USDA-Natural Resource Conservation Service, or other
site-specific evidence that indicates to the DWQ the presence of waters not shown on either of
these two maps or as provided in sub-item (2)(b) of this rule, evidence that no actual stream or
waterbody exists.
(b\ T1. D' .i + T !1 D 1 VU + A rh 't , /DTD \IlI A \ ~~,..>> Local governments may, if
ll l b ~ ~
then choose to do so, develop detailed stream network maps for the watershed based on these
USGS and USDA maps a~ or field criteria, ~ approved by the Division of Water
Quality, showing the presence or absence of a stream. Th° DTD\a/ A ~..,>> ....,,.~.:+ +~,°~° These
maps shall be submitted to the Division for approval by any local government wishing to use
this method of implementation of riparian area protection. ~+"' +" ~+ +" °f~ =+•= ~'e
a~+° °~'*'~~~ D~~'° After these detailed stream network maps are approved by the Division,
riparian areas shall be protected and maintained in accordance with this Rule on all sides of
surface waters in the Randleman Lake •~~~+°~ °~~~^'=r watershed as delineated on these approved
stream network maps; and,
(c) Exceptions to the requirements of this Rule for riparian areas are described in Sub-Items (2) (a-
h). Maintenance of the riparian areas ~ shall be such that, to the maximum extent possible,
sheet flow of surface water is achieved. This Rule specifies requirements that shall be
implemented in riparian areas to ensure that the pollutant removal functions of the riparian area
are protected anti maintained. All local governments that have land use authority within the
proposed Randleman Lake water supply watershed shall adopt and enforce this Rule through
local water supply and other local ordinances. Ordinances shall require that all riparian
protection areas are recorded on new or modified plats. No building permits shall be issued and
no new development shall take place in violation of this Rule.
(2) The following waterbodies and land uses are exempt from the riparian area protection
requirements:
(a) Ditches and manmade conveyances, other than modified natural streams, which under normal
conditions do not receive drainage from any tributary ditches, canals, or streams, unless the
ditch or manmade conveyance delivers runoff directly to waters classified in accordance with
15A NCAC 2B .0100;
(b) Areas mapped as intermittent streams, perennial streams, lakes, ponds, or estuaries on the
most recent versions of United States Geological Survey 1:24,000 scale (7.5 minute
quadrangle) topographic maps or soil survey maps where no perennial waterbody, intermittent
waterbody, lake, pond or estuary actually exists on the ground;
(c) Ponds and lakes created for animal watering, irrigation, or other agricultural uses that are not
part of a natural drainage way that is classified in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B .0100;
(d) Water dependent structures as defined in 15A NCAC 2B .0202, provided that they are located,
designed, constructed and maintained to provide maximum nutrient removal, to have the least
adverse effects on aquatic life and habitat and to protect water quality;
32

Report of Proceedings Proposed Rules With Changes
(e) T~ ~' '~^••~~~^ ••~°^ -~~•r'~° ~"^••~°a Uses where no practical alternative exists. A lack of
practical alternatives may be shown by demonstrating that, considering the potential for a
reduction in size, configuration or density of the proposed activity and all alternative designs,
the basic project purpose cannot be practically accomplished in a manner which would avoid or
result in less adverse impact to surface waters. Also, these structures shall be located, designed,
constructed, and maintained to have minimal disturbance, to provide maximum nutrient removal
and erosion protection, to have the least adverse effects on aquatic life and habitat, and to
protect water quality to the maximum extent practical through the use of best management
practices.
(-i} Road crossings, railroad crossings, bridges, airport facilities, and utility crossings tie
a~lleyved are exempt if conditions specified in ~(~ 2{e} of this Rule are met.
(~ Stormwater management facilities and uonds, and utility construction and maintenance
corridors for utilities such as water, sewer or gas, .Y,..•, ~.° ~"^••~°~ are exempt in Zone 2
of the riparian area as long as the conditions specified in ~~ 2{e} of this Rule are met
and they are located at least 30 feet from the top of bank or mean high water line.
Additional requirements for utility construction and maintenance corridors are listed in
~{~} 2 ~ of this Rule;
(f) A corridor for the construction and maintenance of utility lines, such as water, sewer or gas,
(including access roads and stockpiling of materials) ~~ running parallel to the stream and
maybe located within Zone 2 of the riparian area, as long as no practical alternative exists, as
defined in paragraph (e) above, and best manageme~:t practices are installed to minimize n:noff
and maximize water quality protection to the maximum extent practicable. Permanent,
maintained access corridors shall be restricted to the minimum width practicable and shall not
exceed 10 feet in width except at manhole locations. A 10 feet by 10 feet perpendicular vehicle
~~ turnaround, ~d provided they are spaced at least 500 feet apart along the
riparian area;
(g) Stream restoration projects, scientific studies, stream gauging, water wells, passive recreation
facilities such as boardwalks, trails, pathways, historic preservation and archaeological
°~ activities, ar~a~lawed provided that they are located in Zone 2 and are at least 30 feet
from the top of bank or mean high water line and are designed, constructed and maintained to
provide the maximum nutrient removal and erosion protection, to have the least adverse effects
on aquatic life and habitat, and to protect water quality to the maximum extent practical
through the use of best management practices. Activities that must cross the stream or be
located within ~e~e-1- Zone 1, a~° ~'~~ as long as all other requirements of this Item are
met; and
(h) Stream crossings associated with timber 13a~ves~t~g harvesting, °.°r°~-~l~d if performed in
accordance with the Forest Practices Guidelines Related to Water Quality (15A NCAC 1J
.0201-.0209).
(3) The protected riparian area shall have two zones as follows:
(a) Zone 1 is intended to be an undisturbed area of vegetation.
33

Report of Proceedings
Proposed Rules With Changes
(i) Location of Zone l : Zone 1 begins at the top of bank for intermittent streams and
perennial streams and extends landward a distance of 30 feet on all sides of the
waterbody, measured horizontally on a line perpendicular to the waterbody. For all
other waterbodies, Zone 1 begins at the top of bank or mean high water line and extends
landward a distance of 30 feet, measured horizontally on a line perpendicular to the
waterbody.
(ii) The following practices and activities are allowed in Zone 1:
(A) Natural regeneration of forest vegetation and planting vegetation to enhance the
riparian area if disturbance is minimized, provided that any plantings ~ shall
primarily consist of locally native trees and shrubs;
(B) Selective cutting of individual trees in Zone 1, where forest vegetation as defined in
Rule .0200 of this Section exists, as long as the following conditions are met every
100 feet on each side of the stream;
(I)Of existing trees 12-inches and greater diameter breast height (dbh), minimum of
five trees must remain uncut;
(II) Trees 12-inches and greater dbh maybe harvested based on the following
equation: Number of Trees harvested = (Total number of trees greater than
12-inches dbh - 5) / 2 ;
(III)No trees less than 12-inches dbh can be harvested unless exceptions provided in
this Rule are met;
(IV) Trees may not be harvested more frequently than every 10 years; and,
(V)No tracked or wheeled equipment are allowed.
(C) Horticulture or silvicultural practices to maintain the health of individual trees;
(D) Removal of individual trees which are in danger of causing damage to dwellings,
other structures or the stream channel;
(E) Removal of dead trees and other timber cutting techniques necessary to prevent
extensive pest or disease infestation if recommended by the Director, Division of
Forest Resources and approved by the Director, Division of Water Quality; and
(F) Ongoing agricultural operations provided that existing forest vegetation is
protected.
(iii) The following practices are not allowed in Zone 1:
(A) Land-disturbing activities and placement of fill and other materials, other than those
allowed in Items 2-~ and 3'~;~; 3 a ii of this Rule, ~" ''' a~°'""`' ~ "°~:
(B) New development, except as provided in Sub-Items 2~`", "°` ^^a?,~ ~2)(d), (2)(e)
and 2 of this Rule;
(C) New on-site sanitary sewage systems which use ground adsorption;
(D) The application of fertilizer; and
(E) Any activity that threatens the health and function of the vegetation including, but
not limited to, application of chemicals in amounts exceeding the manufacturer's
34

Report of Proceedings
Proposed Rules With Changes
recommended rate, uncontrolled sediment sources on adjacent lands, and the
creation of any areas with bare soil.
(b) ~~~getatie~i--in Zone 2
sflee-ie~ is intended to provide protection through a vegetated riparian zone which provides for
diffusion and infiltration of runoff and filtering of pollutants.
(i) Location of Zone 2: Zone 2 begins at the outer edge of Zone 1 and extends landward a
minimum of 20 feet as measured horizontally on a line perpendicular to the waterbody.
The combined minimum width of Zones 1 and 2 shall be 50 feet on all sides of the
waterbody.
(ii) The following practices and activities are allowed in Zone 2 in addition to those allowed
in Zone 1:
(Al Periodic mowine and removal of plant products such as timber, nuts, and fruit is
allowederrs-p°~~~ provided the intended purpose of the riparian area is not
compromised by harvesting, disturbance, or loss of forest or herbaceous ground
cover; and
(-l~}
-~et~rex~sed.
(B) Grading and timber harvesting provided that revegetation is implemented
immediately following completion of the land-disturbing activity..
(iii) The following practices and activities are not allowed in Zone 2:
.,11.,..,°.a :., 1*°.~,~ 7 .,.,.1 2lL,\l:;l .,f'~1,:~ D.,1°.
(B~} New development, except as provided in Sub-Items 2{e} ~e~ and ~} 2 f of
this Rule;
(~} New on-site sanitary sewage systems which use ground adsorption;
(-l~} Any activity that threatens the health and function of the vegetation including, but
not limited to, application of chemicals in amounts exceeding the manufacturer's
recommended rate, uncontrolled sediment sources on adjacent lands, and the
creation of any areas with bare soil.
(4)(~} Timber removal and skidding of trees shall be directed away from the water course or water
body. Skidding shall be done in a manner to prevent the creation of ephemeral channels
perpendicular to the water body. Any tree removal must be performed in a manner that does
not compromise the intended purpose of the riparian area and is in accordance with the Forest
Practices Guidelines Related to Water Quality (15A NCAC 1J .0201-.0209).
(5)(~} Maintenance of sheet flow in Zones 1 and 2 is required in accordance with this Item.
(ate} Sheet flow must be maintained to the maximum extent practical through dispersing concentrated
flow en~e~ and re-establishment of vegetation to maintain the effectiveness of the riparian
area.
35

Report of Proceedings Proposed Rules With Changes
(b)(~} Concentrated runoff from new ditches or manmade conveyances must be dispersed into sheet
flow before the runoff enters Zone 2 of the riparian area. Existing ditches and manmade
conveyances, as specified in Sub-Item 2(a) of this Rule, are exempt from this requirement;
however, care sl~euld shall be taken to minimize pollutant loading through these existing
ditches and manmade conveyances from fertilizer application or erosion.
(c~}Periodic corrective action to restore sheet flow sl}e~I~ shall be taken by the landowner if
necessary to impede the formation of erosion gullies which allow concentrated flow to bypass
treatment in the riparian area.
(6)Ee} Periodic maintenance of modified natural streams such as canals is allowed provided that
disturbance is minimized and the structure and function of the riparian area is not compromised.
A grassed travelway is allowed on one side of the waterbody when alternative forms of
maintenance access are not practical. The width and specifications of the travelway shall be
only that needed for equipment access and operation. The travelway shall be located to
maximize stream shading.
~(4} Where the standards and management requirements for riparian areas are in conflict with other
laws, regulations, and permits regarding streams, steep slopes, erodible soils, wetlands,
floodplains, forest harvesting, surface mining, land disturbance activities, or other environmental
protection areas, the more protective shall apply.
(8) The existing water supply requirement in Rule 2B .0216(3)(b) that stipulates a 100 ft. vegetated
buffer adjacent to perennial streams, for all new development activities which utilize the high
densitti~ option applies to the entire Randleman Lake watershed. Tl:e first 50 ft. of these
riparian areas on either side of these waters must also be protected in accordance with all the
requirements of this Rule.
,,,,.oa..,.,a
.0251 RANDLEMAN LAKE WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED: STORMWATER
REQUIREMENTS
The following is the urban stormwater management strategy for the Randleman Lake water supply
watershed.
(1) All local governments that have land use authority within the Randleman Lake water supply
watershed shall comply with stormwater management requirements as outlined in this Rule. Although
the management reauirements for the upper and the lower portions of the watershed are similar,
additional density-related stormwater requirements apply to the lower portion of this watershed that
do not apply to the upper portion of the watershed. The upper portion of the watershed is defined as
36

Report of Proceedings Proposed Rules With Changes
those waters and lands of the Deep River watershed which drain to the Oakdale-Cotton Mill Dam.
The lower portion of the watershed are those waters and lands of the Deep River upstream and
draining to the Randleman Lake water supply reservoir from the Oakdale-Cotton Mill Dam to the
Randleman Dam.
(2) To meet the requirements of this Rule, the local governments with jurisdictions in the upper
portion of the Randleman Reservoir watershed shall meet the state's rules for a WS-IV classification as
specified in 15A NCAC 2B .0104, .0202 and .0216, the conditions specified in their existing
ordinances, the riparian area protection requirements of rule .0250 of this Section, along with the
Stormwater planning requirements set forth in sub-Items (4), (5), and (6) of this Rule.
To meet the requirements of this rule, local governments with jurisdictions in the lower portion of
the Randleman Lake watershed shall meet the provisions of Sub-Items (4) (5) and (6) of this rule along
with the following:
~ (-~ Within 270 days of the effective date of this rule, the affected jurisdictions, in coordination
with the Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority, shall submit local water supply ordinances
to the Environmental Management Commission for approval. The ordinances shall at least
meet the state's minimum rules for a WS-IV classification as specified in 15A NCAC 2B .0104,
.0202 and .0216, except that ~" ~ " '- °'°"'°"*°'" *"'° v"'° the requirements of this Sub-
Item ~ - *"° n °~'"°'~°~ '~~~'°r-"°`' shall replace the nonpoint source requirements in -1~4
1~C~ ~' '~ .^" ~'2""': 15A NCAC 2B .0216(3)(b) for the lower portion of the Randleman
Lake watershed.
(~) The local ordinances shall provide for review and approval of Stormwater management
plans for new developments to ensure that the following conditions can be met:
(i) Stormwater pollution control criteria for watershed outside of critical area:
(A) Low Density Option: For each development project, development density must be
limited to either no more than one dwelling unit per acre of single family detached
residential development (or 40,000 square foot lot excluding roadway right-of--way)
or 12 percent built-upon area for all other residential and non-residential
development. Stormwater runoff shall be transported primarily by vegetated
conveyances. Conveyance system shall not include a discrete Stormwater
collection system as defined in Rule 15A NCAC 2B .0202.
(B) High Density Option: If new development exceeds the low density option
requirements as stated in Sub-Item (~a~i-} 2 b i of this Rule, then engineered
Stormwater controls must be used to control runoff from the first inch of rainfall.
Engineering controls may consist of wet detention ponds designed in accordance
with 15A NCAC 2H .1000 or alternative Stormwater management systems
consisting of other treatment options, or a combination of options, that are
approved by the Director of the Division of Water Quality in accordance with 15A
NCAC 2B .0104(g). New residential and non residential development shall not
exceed 50 percent built-upon area.
(C) Cluster development shall be allowed on aproject-by-project basis as follows:
37

Report of Proceedings
Proposed Rules With Changes
(I) overall density of the project meets associated density or storrnwater
control requirements of this Section;
. (II) buffers meet the minimum statewide water supply watershed protection
requirements and those specified for the Randleman Lake watershed
riparian areas in Rule .0250 ;
(III) built-upon areas are designed and located to minimize stormwater runoff
impact to the receiving waters, minimize concentrated stormwater flow,
maximize the use of sheet flow through vegetated areas, and maximize
the flow length through vegetated areas;
(IV) areas of concentrated development are located in upland areas and away,
to the maximum extent practicable, from surface waters and
drainageways;
(V) remainder of tract to remain in vegetated or natural state by utilization of
one of the methods provided in sub-item 2{a~B~(~I-} 3(b)(i)(C)(VI)
of this rule;
(VI) area in the vegetated or natural state may be conveyed to a property
owners association; a local government for preservation as a park or
greenway; a conservation organization; or placed in a permanent
conservation or farmland preservation easement;
(VII) a maintenance agreement for the vegetated or natural area shall be filed
with the Register of Deeds, and;
(VIII)cluster development that meets the applicable low density option
requirements shall transport stormwater runoff from the development
by vegetated conveyances to the maximum extent practicable;
(D) If local governments choose the high density development option which requires
engineered stormwater controls, then they shall assume ultimate responsibility for
operation and maintenance of the required controls as outlined in Rule .0104 of this
Subchapter;
(E) Impervious cover she~rld shall be minimized to the maximum extent practical
through clustering, narrower and shorter paved areas (streets, driveways, sidewalks,
cul-de-sacs, and parking lots), spreading rooftop and other impervious area runoff
over pervious areas. Land clearing during the construction process ~ shall be
limited to the maximum extent practical. The local government permit shall require
recorded deed restrictions and protective covenants to ensure development
activities maintain the development consistent with the plans and specifications
approved by the local governments;
(F) The project is in compliance with the riparian area protection requirements as
specified in 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Lake riparian area rule);
(G) No new development shall be allowed within 50 feet of waters affected by the
Randleman riparian area rule (2B .0250);
38

Report of Proceedings Proposed Rules With Changes
(H) New development meeting the high density option shall be located at least 100 feet
from perennial waters as identified on topo or soil survey maps; however, within
the area between 50 and 100 feet adjacent to the perennial water body, water
dependent structures, or other structures, such as flag poles, signs and security
lights, which result in only diminimus increases in impervious area and public
projects such as road crossings and greenways maybe allowed where no practicable
alternative exists; these activities shall minimize built-upon surface area, divert
runoff away from surface waters and maximize the utilization of BMPs;
(ii) Stormwater pollution control criteria for critical areas of the watershed:
(A) Low Density Option: Development density must be limited to either no more than
one dwelling unit per two acres of single family detached residential development
(or 80,000 square foot lot excluding roadway right-of-wayl or six percent built-
upon area for all other residential and non-residential development. Stormwater
runoff shall be transported primarily by vegetated conveyances to the maximum
extent practicable.
(B) High Density Option: If new development exceeds the low density option
requirements as stated in Sub-Item (~.-}(a}(~} 3 b ii of this Rule, then engineered
stormwater controls must be used to control runoff from the first inch of rainfall.
New residential and non residential development shall not exceed 30 percent built-
upon area.
(C) No new permitted sites for land application of residuals or petroleum cont.:minated
soils shall be allowed;
(D) No new landfills shall be allowed.
(E) Sub-Items ~2~°'~7 (3)(b)(i)(C-H) of this Rule also apply to the critical area.
Within 12 months of the effective date of adoption of this Rule, all local governments with
jurisdictions in the Randleman Lake watershed shall develop comprehensive stormwater
management plans and submit those plans to the Commission for review and approval. Within
six months of the Commission's approval of the local plan, subject local governments shall
adopt and implement their approved plan Those plans shall include, but not limited to, the
followin
(a Ei} Evaluation of existing land use within Oak Hollow Lake subwatershed, High Point Lake
subwatershed acid Deep River 1 subwatershed in the Randleman Lake. water supply
watershed with recommendations that show how se-tI~ overall built-upon area (for
existing and future development) for each subwatershed ~i~s can be minimized and high
intensity land uses aye can be targeted away from surface waters and sensitive areas. Oak
Hollow Lake subwatershed is defined as all land areas draining to Oak Hollow Lake.
High Point Lake subwatershed is defined as all land areas draining to High Point Lake,
East Fork Deep River and West Fork Deep I~~e River from Oak Hollow Lake Dam.
Deep River 1 subwatershed is defined as all land areas draining to the Deep River from
39

Report of Proceedings
Proposed Rules With Changes
High Point Lake Dam to Freeman Mill Dam. This evaluation shall be done by the local
¢overnments having jurisdiction in those watersheds, working in cooperation with the
PTRWA;
~b)(i~Coordination between all affected jurisdictions to encourage their development in the
existing urban areas. The planning effort shall include provisions for ~ areas of
contiguous open space sl~al-1 to be protected through conservation easements or other
long-term protection measures and provisions to direct r~F ^°+^~°~•~° infrastructure
growth °"^"'~° m.;a°a towards existing urban development corridors rather than to rural
lands; a~
~(-i~Evaluation of existing ordinances, municipal programs (maintenance, street cleaning, etc.)
and other local policies to identify opportunities for stormwater quality improvements
including reducing the amount of built-upon area that is required for uses such as parking,
building setbacks, road widths and cul-de-sacs. The evaluations shall consider E~
development options such as multiple story buildings, mixed use to encourage pedestrian
travel and mass transit and an identification of t-i~ municipal activities and
procedures that may be modified to allow for stormwater pollution prevention
pportunities;
fe-}Implementation of watershed protection public education programs;
~ (}Identification and removal of illegal discharges; and
~f (e}Identification of suitable locations for potential stormwater retrofits (such as riparian areas)
that could be funded by various sources.
~(~} Local governments may submit a more stringent local stormwater management program plan.
Local stormwater management programs and modifications to these programs shall be kept on file
by the Division of Water Quality.
~(~ If a local government fails to submit an acceptable local stormwater management program plan
within the time frames established in this Rule or fails to properly implement an approved plan,
then stormwater management requirements for existing and new urban areas within its jurisdiction
shall be administered through the NPDES municipal stormwater permitting program per
15A NCAC 2H .0126 which ~ shall include at a minimum:
(a) Subject local governments w~ shall be required to develop and implement comprehensive
stormwater management programs for both existing and new development.
(b) These stormwater management programs shall provide all components that are required of
local government stormwater programs in T*°~ '"~^' '°' ^"^~~° this rule.
(c) Local governments that are subject to an NPDES permit shall be covered by the permit for at
least one permitting cycle (five years) before they are eligible to submit a revised local
stormwater management component of their water supply watershed protection program for
consideration and approval by the EMC.
40

PROPOSED AN~IDNh2rI' TO THE CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN
SCHEDIII.E OF CLASSIFICATIONS AS REFERENCED IN TITLE 15A
NORTH CAROLINA ADMII~ISTRATIVE CODE 2B .0311
Existing Description of Proposed
Name of Stream Description Class
-------- Proposed Segment
---------------- Class
--------
--------------
DEEP RIVER (including -----------
From source in backwaters of High Point
WS-IV CA
Same
WS-IV CA *
High Point Lake at Lake to dam at High Point Lake (City
normal pool elevation) of High Point water supply intake)
East fork Deep River From source to a point 0.4 mile down- WS-IV Game +~-N *
stream of Guilford County SR ]54]
East Fork Deep River From a point 0.4 mile downstream of WS-IV CA Same WS-IV CA
Guilford County SR 1541 to High Point
Lake, Deep River
Long Branch From source to a point 0.5 mile down- WS-IV Same WS-IV
stream of Guilford County SR 1541
Long Branch Fran a point 0.5 taile downstream of fiS-IV CA Same WS-IV CA
Guilford County SR 1541 to East Fork
Deep River
West Fork Deep River From source to a point 0.3 mile down- WS-IV Same WS-N *
stream of Guilford County SR 1850
West Fork Deep River From a point 0.3 Rile downstream of WS-IV CB Same WS-IV CA
- (Oak Hollow Reservoir) Guilford County SR 1850 to dam at Oak
Hollow Reservoir
Hiatt Branch From source to a point 0.6 mile up- WS-IV Same ~-~ *
stream of mouth
Hiatt Branch From a point 0.6 mile upstream of mouth WS-IV CA Same WS-IV CA
to Oak Hollow Reservoir, West Fork Deep
River
West Fork Deep River From dam at Oak Hollov Reservoir to WS-IV Same WS-N *
Boulding Branch
Boulding Brancb From source to West Fork Deep River WS-IV Sage ~-N *
West Fork Deep River From Goulding Branch to High Pofat Lake, WS-IV CA Same WS-IV CA *
Deep River
BEEP RIVER Frog dam at High Point Lake to Guilford WS-IV Sage ~-N *
' County SR 1334
DEEP RIVER From 6wilford County SR 1334 to dam at WS-IV CA Same WS-IV CA *
Oakdale Cotton Mi11s, Inc. (Town of
Jamestown water supply intake)
DEEP RIVER Fran dam at Oakdale Cotton Bills, Inc. C From dam at Oak- WS-IV CA
to Grassy Creek Cotton Mills, Inc.
to dam at Randle-
man Reservoir
(located 1.6 mile
upstream. of O.S.
Hwy. 220 Business)
Fran dam at Randle- C
man Reservoir to
Grassy Creek
Bull Run Fram source to Deep River C From source to WS-IV *
a point 0.5 mile
upstream of mouth
41

PROPOSED AMENDN~F.NT TO THE CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN
SCHEDIILE OF CLASSIFICATIONS AS REFERENCID IDI TITLE 15A
?1ORTH CAROLINA ADMIRISTRATIVE CODE ZB .0311
Name of Stream Description
-------------- -----------
Copper Branch ,(Cooper Branch) From source to Deep River

Richland Creek From source to Deep River
ti
Kivett Lake Botire lake and connecting stream to
Richland Creek
Triangle Lake Entire lake and connecting stream to
Richland Creek _
Mile Branch (Tr+o From source to Richland Creek
Mile Branch) (Jackson Lake)
Reddicks Creek From source to Deep River
mood Lake Entire lake and connecting stream to
Reddicks Creek
C.Yl sting Description of Proposed
Class
-------- Proposed Segment
---------------- Class
--------
From apoint 0.5 WS-IV CA
mile upstream of
mouth to Randleman
keservoir, Deep
River
C From source to WS-IV
a point 0.6 mile
upstream of mouth
From a point 0.6 WS-IV CA
mile upstream of
mouth to Randleman
Reservoir, Deep
River
C Fran source to a WS-IV
point 0.4 mile
upstream of
ruilford County
SR 1154
Fran a point 0.4 WS-IV CA
mile upstreamo of
Guilford County
3R 1154 to kandle-
wan Reservoir,
Deep River
C Same ~-N *
c same Ws-IV
C Same WS-IV
C Fran source to a WS-IV
point 0.9 mile
upstream .of mouth
Fzom a point 0.9 WS-IV CA
aisle upstream of
mouth to Randleman
Reservoir, Jeep
River
C Same '+~-N
42

PSCi QED BMEIiDNlENT TO THE CBPE FEBR RIYER BBSIN
SCHEDULE 9F CLASSIFICATIONS AS REFERENCED IDl TITLE 158
VGRTH CBROLINB ADIS 2iISTRBTIVE LADE 2B .0311
Name of Stream
Jenny Branch
Hir_korp Creek
Unnamed Tributary at
Camp Douglas Long
Unnamed Tributary at
~nP mu9~r ~9
27uddp Creek
Taylor Branch
Bob Branch
Simmons Branch
Existing Description of Proposed
Description
- Class
-------- Proposed Segment
---------------- Class
--------
----------
Fran source to Reddicks Creek C Same WS-IV *
Fran source to Reddicks Creek C From source to a WS-IV
point 0.6 mile up-
stream of mouth
a point 0.6 mile WS-IV CB
7pa-tream of mouth
to Randleman
Reservoir, Deep
River
Fran source to dam at Camp Douglas Long B Same WS-IVS~B *
Lake
Fran dam at Camp Douglas Long Lake to C Same WS-IV *
Hickory Czeek
Fran source to Deep River C Fran source to a WS-IV
a point 0.5 mile
upstream of mouth
Fran a point 0.5 WS-IV CA
mile upstream of
mouth to Randleman
Reservoir, Deep
River '
FYan source to Muddy Creek C Fran source to a WS-IV
point 0.5 mile
upstream of mouth
Fran a point 0.5 WS-IV CB *
mile upstream of
month to Randleman
Reservoir, Deep
River
Fray soures± to lluddp Creek C Fran source to a WS-I11
point 0.5 mile up-
stream of mouth
Fray a point 0.5 WS-IV CA *
mile upstream of
mouth to Rand]eman
Reservoir, Deep
lover
Fran source to Deep River C Fran source to a WS-IY *
point 0.5 mile
upstream of mouth
43

xOPOSED BMFd7DMENT TO T}iE CBPE FEBR RIVER BBSIN
SCHEDIILE OF CI.BSSIFICBTIONS LS REFERENCED IN TITLE 15A
NORTH CBROLINB BDNII2iISTRBTIVE CODE 2B .0311
Existing Description of
Name of Stream Description Class Proposed Segment
-------------- From a point 0.5
mile upstream of
!south to Randleman
Keservoir, Deep
River
* This symbol identifies eaters that are within a designated Critical pater Supply patershed and are
subject to a special management strategy specified in 15B NC9C 28 .0248.
Proposed
Cass
'.1S-IV C~
9-~

ANNOUNCEMENT
OF
PUBLIC HEARING

ANNOUNCEMENT OF A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE DEEP RIVER - RANDLEMAN
RESERVOIR: SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
The N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) on behalf of the Environmental Management Commission
(EMC) will conduct a public hearing in order to receive public comments on a proposal to reclassify a portion of the Deep River
(Randleman Reservoir) for drinking water supply use. Public comments are being solicited on two management strategy options
that are intended to protect the water quality of the proposed reservoir.
PUBLIC HEARING
Location: Guilford Technical College -Jamestown Campus (High Point Road)
Applied Technology Center Auditorium (located adjacent to Rochelle Road)
Jamestown, NC
Date: September 1, 1998 (Tuesday)
Time: 6:00 p.m.
In case of inclement weather the day of the hearing, please call 919-733-5083, extension 559 or 360 to confirm whether the hearing
will be held as noticed.
BACKGROUND
The PTWRA has requested that the Deep River be reclassified for driN:ing water supply use. A dam is proposed to be built on the
river near the Town of Randleman (Randolph County) to form the Randleman Reservoir.
PTWRA has requested that the EMC reclassify portions of the Deep River which, upon impoundment, would become the
Randleman Reservoir. Nutrient response models applied to the proposed reservoir predict that, because of the hydrologic character
of the lake and the nutrient loading expected, the lake could experience excessive growths of algae and exceed the state's chlorophyll
a standard in some of its segments. Because of these predictions, DENR required that a management strategy be developed to assure
that the highest level of protection is provided for the lake. PTRWA provided a draft plan in March 1998 and the EMC has
reviewed the plan components and utilized much of the information provided in deciding what type of strategy is appropriate for the
lake. Two watershed management strategies are being proposed by the EMC for public review and consideration. These two
strategies are proposed herein as an Option A and an Option B. In Option B, streams within the proposed Randleman
Reservoir water supply watershed are proposed for reclassification from Class C to Class WS (Water Supply)-IV Nutrient Sensitive
Waters (NSW). There is a Class B (primary recreation) stream which would be reclassified to WS-N & B NSW. In Option A,
the proposal does not include applying the supplgmental NSW classification to these streams. To implement a "Watershed
Management Strategy", much of the controls would need to be implemented through the adoption of new rules by the EMC. The
proposed new rules, which aze the subject of this hearing, would be codified in 15A NCAC 2B .0245 - .0251.
The North Carolina Water Supply Watershed Protection Act provides that the "Commission may designate water supply
watersheds or portions thereof as critical water supply watersheds and impose management requirements that are more stringent
than the minimum statewide water supply watershed management requirements (G.S. 143-214.5(b))." The EMC is taking a range
of management strategy options to public hearing, including some provisions that aze more stringent than the minimum statewide
standards for water supply protection, in order to notify all potentially interested parties and give them an opportunity to review and
comment, and to provide the EMC sufficient flexibility in making its final decision on which rules to adopt. Therefore, as noted
above, two management strategies, Option A and Option B, are included in the proposed rules (please see the table on the
reverse side). Both options have point (wastewater discharge) and nonpoint (storrnwater runoff) source pollution management
components. The EMC may adopt rules that follow parts of either option or they may adopt a variation by taking components of
the two proposed options. These rules aze proposed to apply to the entire Randleman Reservoir drainage area. from the source of
the Deep River to the Randleman Reservoir dam, including all tributaries. A copy of the Public Hearing Information Package,
which offers more details on the proposal, can be obtained by calling Hope Thompson at 919-733-5083, ext. 360.
Because predictive modeling information available to the Division of Water Quality indicates that the concentration of toxicants in
the drinking water obtained from this lake will not result in any exceedances of state or federal drinking water standards, the
Management Strategy proposed does not have any additional requirements specific'to. the existing landfills or other potential
sources of toxic pollutants. The strategy proposed relies on the state's point source discharge regulations, the state and federal solid
and hazardous waste management programs, and the state's Water Supply Watershed Protection program to provide the appropriate
level of protection. However, the EMC welcomes any additional information or comments on the risks of toxic pollution to this
water supply source.
PUBLIC INPUT
The purpose of this announcement is to encourage those interested in this proposal to provide comments. You may either attend
the public hearing and make relevant verbal comments or submit written comments, data or other relevant
information by October 13. 1998. The Hearing Officer may limit the length of time that you may speak at the public
hearing, if necessary, so that all those who wish to speak may have an opportunity to do so. We encourage you to submit written
(Over)
~~

comments as well. The EMC is very interested in all comments pertaining to the proposed rules. It is very important that all
interested and potentially affected persons or parties make their views known to the EMC whether in favor of or opposed to any and
all provisions of the proposed rules. The EMC may not adopt a rule that differs substantially from the text of the proposed rule
published in the North Carolina Register unless the EMC publishes the text of the proposed different rule and accepts comments
on the new text. The EMC may adopt rules that aze a logical outgrowth of the rule-making proceedings. All interested and
potentially affected persons are strongly encouraged to read the entire announcement and supporting information, and make
appropriate comments on the proposal. Written commcnts should be sent to:
Boyd DeVane
N.C. Division of Water Quality / Planning Branch
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535.
Proposed Management Strategy Options for Randleman Reservoir
uatton A
Point Source Control(s)
(wastewater discharges)
• High Point Eastside wastewater
treatment plant would meet a monthly
average total phosphorus limit of 0.5
mgA with a goal of meeting 0.2 mg/1.
• Two existing wastewater discharges
would be connected to the Eastside
facility.
Nonpoint Source Control(s)
(stormwater runoff)
Density Options
Buffer /Riparian Area Protection
11'fonitoring and Education
Programs
• Local governments with water supply
protection ordinances more stringent
than the state minimum could not
reduce existing provisions.
• Local governments without water
supply protection ordinances would
have to, at a minimum, adopt state's
minimum criteria as follows:
- Critical Area:
- low density: 1 dwelling unit per
1/2 acre or up to 24% built-upon
`- high density: up to 50% built-
upon azea using stormwater
controls
- Balance of watershed:
- low density: 1 dwelling unit per
1/2 acre or up to 24% built-upon
azea
- high density: up to 70% built-
upon area using stormwater
controls
• Vegetated buffer would be required for
perennial streams only:
- low density development: 30 feet set-
back
-high density development: 100 feet
set-back
• PTRWA shall submit annual nonpoint
source control progress report.
• Develop and implement a local water
quality-related education program.
• High Point Eastside wastewater
plant will have two options:
-relocate discharge below Randleman
Reservoir dam, or
- meet a monthly average total
phosphorus limit of 0.18 mg/l.
• No new or expanded wastewater
• All local governments within the
watershed shall adopt or modify water
supply watershed protection ordinances
to meet the following criteria:
- Critical Area:
- low density: 1 dwelling unit per 2
acres or up to 6% built-upon area
- high density: up to 30% built-upon
area using stormwater controls
-Balance of watershed:
- low density: 1 dwelling unit per
acre or up to 12% built-upon area
- high density: up to 50% built-upon
azea using stormwater controls
• 50 foot riparian area protection required
adjacent to all perennial and
intermittent streams (first 30',
measured from stream bank, is to
remain forested and 20 additional feet of
vegetated buffer required). Some uses,
such as utility line corridors, road
crossings, bridges, stormwater controls,
tree harvesting, and greenway contrac-
tion are allowed to a limited extent.
• Identify and remove illegal discharges.
• Identify locations for stormwater
retrofits.
• Develop comprehensive land use plan
to protect water quality by targeting
growth and reducing development
-lh

Drr~~tf'r~ ~/it'+ uerS~aN~4•'d
w~
CLw~ ~ GCw~y~ ~ ~-rro~'J 0~4H VCrSfe~
J T~O~~-CC: ~ ~ -J,G ~f~
RANDLEMAN RESERVOIR PROTECTION RULES
January 8, 1999
.• .0248 RANDLEMAN LAKE WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED: NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT
STRATEGY
(a) All waters of the Randleman Lake (Deep River) water supply watershed are classified for water supply uses
and designated by the Environmental Management Commission as a Critical Water Supply Watershed pursuant to
G.S. 143-214.5(b). The following Rules shall be implemented for the entire drainage area upstream of the
Randleman Lake Dam:
(I) Rule .0249 of this Section for Wastewater Discharges,
(2) Rule .0250 of this Section for Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Areas, and
(3) Rule .0251 of this Section for Urban Stormwater Management.
(b) Failure to meet the requirements of the Rules in this Section may result in the imposition of enforcement
measures as authorized by G.S. 143-215.6A (civil penalties), G.S. 143-215.6B (criminal penalties), and G.S. 143-
215.6C (injunctive relief). .
(c) Development activities may be granted minor and major variances from the requirements of Rules .020 and
.02~ 1 of this Section based on the process stated in 15A NCAC 2B .0104(r). However, for the purposes of Rules
.020 and .0251 of this Section, minor and major variances shall be defined as a variance from the more stringent
Randleman Lake stormwater management requiremenu fot the lower watershed and the more strinsent riparian area
requirements for the upper and lower watersheds.
HistvrylVote: AuthoriryG.S. 1-13-21.1; I-l3-ZI-J..i; 1~3-?Li.3(a)(1); 1-13-?1.6.4; 1-13-?1.5.6B; 1-13-21.5.6C;
Eff. April 1, 1999.
.02-19 RANDLEMAN LAKE -WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED :WASTEWATER DISCHARGE
REQUIREMENTS
Tne followins is the National Pollutant Dischazge Elimination System (NPDES) wastewater discharge
management strategy for the Randleman Lake w•atershed_ For purposes of this Rule, permitted wastewater
discharges means those facilities permitted to discharge domestic wastewater or wastewaters containing phosphors:
(1) The City of High Point's Eastside facility shall meet a total phosphorus concentration predicted to provide
a level of water quality in the Randleman Lake which meets all designated uses of those waters.
(?) There shall be no new or expanding permitted wastewater.dischazges in the watershed with the exception
that the City of High~Point Eastside wastewater treatment plant maybe allowed to expand provided that
any new permit contains concentration and mass limits predicted to provide a level of water quality in the
•~ Randleman Lake which meets ail designated uses of those waters::
History Nore: :Authority G. S. 143-214.1;'143-214.5; 743-215.3(a)(I);
EfJ.' Apri! 1, :1999.
r'-~ _ - - '
,,
.. ., vs. ,_.',
.0250 RANDLEMAN LAKE_WATER_SUPPLY~WATERSHED: PROTECTION AND
_ MAINTENANCE DF.RIPARIAN ~~AREAS `" tK`~~~gy,~,, . ~ _ .
. w,
The followm~ is the manag~ entairategyformamtainmgaadprotecting npanart areas m the Randleman Lake
watershed: _ ..~ _, ~, ..:; <~ ~ °. ` " T~ ~'~,~,~;rc ~~~~y ~. , . .
(1) ~ ~..« ithm370 days Df th~e`~'eeate.thYss~e~lllx goveramen ~zv~th~unsdtcnons in the .
Randleman Lake watershed shall `submit to tNe~NiO~f'orapproval,siocal water supply ordinances, or
modifications to existing ordinances;•tivhich include protection oftiparian areas as provided in this Rule.
Local governments shall use the following provisioas in applyuig this Rule:.:-
(a) Riparian areas shall be protected and maintained in accordance w' v •.s.•~l~'+;-:s od~~
~q4 1 r` ~~ age
pJ
I"

surface waters in the Randleman Lake watershed such as intermittent streams, perennial streams,
lakes, and ponds, as indicated on the most recent version of either the United States Geological .
Survey 1:24,000 scale (7.5 minute quadrangle) topographic maps or the Soil Survey maps
developed by USDA-Natural Resource Conservation Service, or other site-specific evidence that
indicates to the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) the presence of waters not shown on either of
these two maps or, as provided in Sub-Item (2)(b) of this Rule, evidence that no actual stream or
waterbody exists.
(b) Local governments may, if they choose to do so, develop detailed stream network maps for the '
watershed based on these USGS and USDA-NRCS maps or criteria, approved by the Division of
Water Quality, showing the presence or absence of a stream. These maps shall be submitted to the
Division for approval by any local government wishing to use this method of implementation of
. riparian area protection. After these detailed stream network maps are approved by the Division,
riparian areas shall be protected and maintained in accordance with this Rule on all sides of surface
waters in the Randleman Lake watershed as delineated on these approved stream network maps;
and
(c) Exceptions to the requirements of this Rule for riparian areas are described in Sub-Items (2) (a)-(h)
of this Rule. Maintenance of the riparian areas shall be such that, to the maximum extent possible,
sheet flow of surface water is achieved. This Rule specifies requirements that shall be
implemented in riparian areas to ensure that the pollutant removal functions of the riparian area are
protected and maintained. All local governments that have land use authority within the proposed
Randleman Lake water supply watershed shall adopt and enforce this Rule through local water
supply and other local ordinances. Ordinances shall require that all riparian protection areas are
recorded on new or modified plats. No building permits shall be issued and no new development
shall take place in violation of this Rule.
(2) The following waterbodies and land uses are exempt from the riparian area protection requirements:
(a) Ditches and manmade conveyances, other than modified natural streams, which under normal
conditions do not receive drainage from any tributary ditches, canals, or streams, unless the ditch or
manmade conveyance delivers runoff duectly to waters classified in accordance with 15A NCAC
2S .0100;
(b) Areas mapped as intermittent streams,perennial streams, lakes, ponds. or estuaries on the most
' recent versions of United States Geological Survey 1:24,000 scale (7.5 minute quadrangle)
topographic maps or soil survey maps where no perennial waterbody, intermittent waterbody, lake,
pond or estuary actually_exists on the ground; -_-
(c) .Ponds and.lakes created for.animal watering;zrrigation,-or other a~icultural uses that are not pan
of a natural drainage waylhat is;~lassified in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B :0100;
(d) Water dependent. structures as defined in `15A NCAC2B :0202, provided that they are located,
~~ ~~ designed,~constructed and mamtained to provide maximurii nutrient removal, to have the least
adverse effects on aquatic life siia habitat and to protect water quality;
(e) 'The followtng uses where no practical alternative exists. A lack of practical alternatives may be
shown by demonstrating that,'Co IISidering the potential for a reduction in size, configuration or
density of the proposedracttvi~ty~ d all altemat'*ve designs; the basic project purpose cannot be
...
°pra~[ically.accompl~sdin amanneravhich~w~uldavoid or result in less adverse impact to surface
-waters.-Also; these structures a"~11 betel sated,ziestgned,•constructed,~and maintained to have
~• +~c~a .._. ..
~_minunal disturbance,~o rout emazimuttinutnen removal and erosion protection,-to have the :.
-:.least adverse tff ctsnn ~c~. if ha~brta rotect waterquality to the maximum extent
:: -practical shrotrgh3hearsea eai , , .,:
. (i) _ Roatitross tliries;-andnrilrtvzrossmgs if
r - .,. _.
:.::con ' ons_apec~ .,,w ._ e~~remei. "`:~*T ~ ~,~~
,:
(ii) Stormwater.marragement facilities aad~d uttlity'construct~on and maintenance
corridors for utilities such as watei,~sewer;or~ii,-in Zone 2 of the riparian area as long as the
conditions~specified in Sub=Item (2xe)"iDf thisRule are met and they are located at least 30 '

~s.,..

feet from the top of bank or mean high water line. Additional requirements for utility
construction and maintenance corridors are listed in Sub-Item (2)(f) of this Rule;
(f) A corridor for the construction and maintenance of utility lines, such as water, sewer or gas,
(including access roads and stockpiling of materials) running parallel to the stream and located
within Zone 2 of the riparian area, as long as no practical alternative exists, as defined in Sub-Item
(2) (e) of this Rule, and best management practices are installed to minimize runoff and maximize
water quality protection to the maximum extent practicable. Permanent, maintained access
corridors shall be restricted to the minimum width practicable and shall not exceed 10 feet in width
except at manhole locations. A 10 feet by 10 feet perpendicular vehicle turnaround shall be
allowed provided they are spaced at least S00 feet apart along the riparian area;
(g) Stream restoration projects, scientific studies, stream gauging, water wells, passive recreation
facilities such as boardwalks, trails, pathways, historic preservation and archaeological activities,
provided that they are located in Zone 2 and are at least 30 feet from the top of bank or mean high
water line and are designed, constructed and maintained to provide the maximum nutrient removal
. and erosion protection, to have the least adverse effects on aquatic life and habitat, and to protect
water quality to the maximum extent practical through the use of best management practices.
Activities that must cross the stream or be located within Zone 1, are allowed as long as all other
requirements of this Item are met; and
(h) Stream crossings associated with timber harvesting, if performed in accordance with the Forest
Practices Guidelines Related to Water Quality (15A NCAC 1J .0201-.0209).
(3) The protected riparian area shall have two zones as follows:
(a) Zone 1 is intended to be an undisturbed area of vegetation.
(i) Location of Zone 1: Zone 1 begins at the top of bank for intermittent streams and perennial
streams and extends landward a distance of 30 feet on all sides of the waterbody, measured
horizontally on a line perpendicular to the waterbody. For all other waterbodies, Zone 1
begins at the top of bank armean high water line and extends landward a distance of 30 feet.
measured horizontally on aline perpendicular to the waterbody.
(ii) The following practices and activities are allowed in Zone 1:
(A) .Natural regeneration of forest vegetation and planting vegetation to enhance the
riparian area if disturbance is minimized, provided that any plantings shall primarily
• consist of locally native trees and shrubs;
(B) Selective cutting of iindividual trees in Zone 1, where forest vegetation as defined in
Rule .0202 ofihis~ection exists,as long as the following conditions are met every
.. ~, w.: _ .,.
-100 feet on-eachside`~f.the stream; =.
(I) y fOf ezisting~ees 12 inches and greater diameter breast height (dbh), a
::.~-minimum Dffive trees must remain uncut; _ .
(II) ~.~Trees72 inches and greater dlih may be harvested based on the following
equahon:~umber of Trees harvested = (Total number of trees greater than 12-
(III) No trees less than 32 inches dbh may be harvested unless exceptions provided
aremet,~~,
.::gym this7tu e ~ ~ ,.. .. .
` (I~ ~#I'rees ma of 'yharvested more"frequently than every 10 years; and
veo- „~.. ..~:
. (~ ~No trac eeled cqu~ment are allowed. ,~_
(C)~-Iocliculturti~yl~dn~s ~ctiees to iiriatntain the health of individual trees; ..
~(D) ;~Removat:otaaaiv~nuatireesztrdtcnarem>aanger.ofcausing damage to dwellings, _
c'~I;otheratrttcwres strram e • : `~' ~, ,
::(E) Remo ~ am svlring2achntquesnecessary toprevent.--
extensive on mommended bylhe~irector;-Division of
,,...g<...- .~...
>:Forest Resourcesaa appro „ by3hts Director, Division of Water Qualityy; and
(F) . ~C+ngoing agneu}n~ua~] operations provided that existing forest vegetation is protected.
(iii) The following practices are not allowed in Zane I:
.:; -~'~~
3
,~-,~~
~~ x.

(A) Land-disturbing activities and placement of fill and other materials, other than those
allowed in Items (2) and (3)(a)(ii) of this Rule; '
(B) New development, except as provided in Sub-Items (2)(d), (2)(e) and (2)(f) of this
Rule;
(C) New on-site sanitary sewage systems which use ground adsorption;
` (D) The application of fertilizer; and
(E) Any activity that threatens the health and function of the vegetation including, but not
limited to, application of chemicals in amounts exceeding the manufacturer's
recommended rate, uncontrolled sediment sources on adjacent lands, and the creation
of any areas with bare soil.
(b) Zone 2 is intended to provide protection through a vegetated riparian zone which provides for
diffusion and infiltration of runoff and filtering of pollutants.
(i) Location of Zone 2: Zone 2 begins at the outer edge of Zone 1 and extends landward a
minimum of 20 feet as measured horizontally on a line perpendicular to the waterbody. The
combined minimum width of Zones 1 and 2 shall be 50 feet on all sides of the waterbody.
(ii) The following practices and activities are allowed in Zone 2 in addition to those allowed in
Zone 1:
(A) Periodic mowing and removal of plant products such as timber, nuts, and fruit is
allowed provided the intended purpose of the riparian area is not compromised by
harvesting, disturbance, or loss of forest or herbaceous ground cover; and
(B) Grading and timber harvesting provided that vegetated ground cover be established
immediately following completion of the land-disturbing activity.
(iii) The following practices and activities are not allowed in Zone 2:
(A) New development,~except as provided in Sub-Items (2)(e) and (2)(f) of this Rule;
(B) New on-site sanitary sewage systems which use ground adsorption;
(C) Any activity that threatens the health and function of the vegetation including, but not
limited to,-application of chemicals in amounts exceeding the manufacturer's
recommended rate,vncontrolled sediment sources on adjacent lands: and the creation
of any areas with bare soil.
(-'.) Timber removal and skidding of trees shall be directed away from the water course or water body.
• S1:idding shall be done in a manner to prevent the creation of ephemeral channels perpendicular to the
water body. Any tree removal must be performed in a manner that does not compromise the intended
purpose of the riparian area and is m accordance with the Forest Practices Guidelines Related to Water
Quality (15A NCAC:1J:0201 ~0209)_~, , ..,
(~) Maintenance of sheet flowriZones 3~nd 2 is required in accordance with this Item.-.
(a) -Sheet flow must be i;namtained to the maximum extent practical through dispersing concentrated
... u~:-~n::'t- "stir ~+'•.
flow and re-establishment ofa~egetation to maintain the effectiveness of the riparian area.
(b) Concentrated iunofffr mn~ew itches or manmade conveyances must be dispersed into sheet flow
before the runoff enters'7lone~ ~f the riparian area: existing ditches and manmade conveyances,
as specified to Sub-Ytem (2~(a) ~ofthts"Rule,~are exempt from this requirement; however, care shall
-~ ~-_~
be taken to minimize pollutantloadmg throush these existing ditches and manmade conveyances
-.from fertiliser npph~on ~rtmston t~~-~`" T: ~-: `r-~ ::
(c) Periodic corrective-a'°~cho~re ah~eet flow shall be taken by the landowner~if necessary to
-impede the ahonn srostoa ie s"vhu~ allow co~ centrated flow to bypass treatment in the
~ _ ~„
.~ riparian area.
~+'
(6) =:Periodicmaintenancenfm suchassxnaLs ss allowed provtded that dtsturbance is
minimised and ihesiru n e ~rimisnot~om romised.=~A~sassedtravelway is
allowed on one sideD a ea ~ mamtetiance access$re notpracncal.-:
The width and spectficaUOns of ei~ lwayshall be on7ythat Heeded for equtpment access and
.,: ..
operation. The travelway shall be~7oca~ted to maximize stream shading....
(7) Where the standards and managemeatrrqutretneatsforiiparia:t areas are in conflict with other laws,
4
... A al`.~.y,
+1'xnY Te_. tel. ~jRy~•'

regulations, and permiu regarding streams, steep slopes, erodible soils, wetlands, floodplains, forest
harvesting, surface mining, land disturbance activities, or other environmental protection areas, the more
protective shall apply.
(8) The existing water supply requirement in Rule 2B .0216(3)(b) of this Section that stipulates a 100 foot
vegetated buffer, adjacent to perennial streams, for all new development activities which utilize the high
density option, applies to the entire Randleman Lake watershed. The first 50 feet of these riparian areas
on either side of these waters must also be protected in accordance with all the requirements of this Rule.
History Note: Authority G. S. 1-13-214.1; 1-t3-21a.5; I.13-2/.i.3(a)(I);
Eff. April I, 1999.
0251 RANDLEMAN LAKE WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED: STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS
The followins is the urban stormwater management strategy for the Randleman Lake watershed:
(I) All local governments that have land use authority within the Randleman Lake watershed shall comply
with stormwater management requirements as outlined in this Rule. Although the management
requirements for the upper and the lower portions of the watershed are similar, additional density-related
stormwater requirements apply to the lower portion of this watershed that do not apply to the upper
portion of the watershed. The upper portion of the watershed is defined as those waters and lands of the
Deep River watershed which drain to the Oakdale-Cotton Mill Dam. The lower portion of the watershed
are those waters and lands of the Deep River upstream and draining to the Randleman Lake Dam, from
the Oakdale-Cotton Mill Dam to the Randleman Dam.
(2) To meet the requirements of this Rule, the local governments with jurisdictions in the upper portion of the
Randleman Reservoir watershed shall meet the state's rules for a WS-IV classification as specified in 1 SA
NCAC 2B .010.1, .0202 and .0216, the conditions specified in their existing ordinances, the riparian area
protection requirements of Rule :0250 of this Section, along with the stormwater planning requirements
set forth in Sub-Items (4), (5), and (6) of this Rule.
(3) To meet the requirements of this Rule, local governments with jurisdictions in the lower pomon of the
Randleman Lake watershed shall meet the provisions of Sub-Items (4) (5) and (6) of this Rule along with
the followine:
• (a) Within 270 days of the effective date of this rule, the affected jurisdictions, in coordination with the
Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority, shall submit local water supply ordinances to the
Environmental Management Commission for approval.:The ordinances shall at least meet the
state's minimum rules for a3?VS-IV_classification as specified in 15A NCAC 2B .0104, .0202 and
.0216, except that the ie,quiremeats of this Sub-Item shall replace the nonpoint source requirements
in 15A NCAC 2B.:0216(3xb) foc:the lower portion of the Randleman Lake watershed.
(b) The local ordinances shall~provide for review and approval:of stormwater management plans for
new developments to ensure that the following conditions can be met: --
(i) Stormwater pollutionZOntrol criteria for the Randleman Lake watershed outside of critical
area: _(A) :Low Denstty:Option: For each development project, development density
_,;;must Ioe~`>liniited to either no more than one dwelling unit per acre of single
•-~'amily~etached residential development (or 40,000 square foot lot excluding
..ro rdway~ing ~f way) ora_2~percentbuilt-upon area for all other residential
,: ~. ; .. . e.,.,, . ,
•aea d non tdentta] develoPmenL~Stormwater runoff shall be transported
^Mnll~ +h~ri~v1'R1UlJ~ 'ii"Xa.~ Y4 ~ ~ •
§ run~tated eonveyan'~ei:sCon'veyance system shall not include a
.collection aSdefiniain~Rule35ANCAC2B:0202.
` fnrw>aeve ~ tnitrxixedslhe lowrlen'stty-option -
~equtrem as to u tem• ~f this7tule;~~then engmeei•ed stotmwater
..controls must be used to control runofffrom the fast arch of rainfall.'.Engineering
Leo .r. ::..~...:.
._ controls may consul of wet detention ponds designed in accordance with 15A NCAC
2H :.1000 or ilttrnative stormwater management systems consistins of other treatment

options, or a combination of options, that are approved by the Director of the Division
of Water Quality in accordance with I SA NCAC 2B .0104(8). New residential and
non residential development shall not exceed 50 percent built-upon area, unless an
alternative high density option is submitted to the Commission as part of the submittal
of the local water supply watershed protection ordinance and determined by the
Commission to provide equal or greater water quality protection in Randleman
Reservoir and its tributaries.
(C) Cluster development shall be allowed on aproject-by-project basis as follows:
(I) overall density of the project meets associated density or stormwater control
requirements of this Section;
(II) buffers meet the minimum statewide water supply watershed protection
requirements and those specified for the Randleman Lake watershed riparian
areas in Rule .0250 of this Section;
(III) built-upon areas are designed and located to minimize stormwater runoff
impact to the receiving waters, minimize concentrated stormwater flow,
maximize the use of sheet flow through vegetated areas, and maximize the
flow length through vegetated areas;
(IV) areas of concentrated development are located in upland areas and away, to the
maximum extent practicable, from surface waters and draina8e~vays;
(V) remainder of tract to remain in vegetated or natural state by utilization of one
of the methods provided in Sub-Item 3(b)(i)(C)(VI) of this Rule:
(VI) area in the vegetated or natural state may be conveyed to a property owners
association; a local govemment for preservation as a park or greenway; a
conservation organization; or placed in a permanent conservation or farmland
preservation easement;
(VII) a maintenance agreement for the vegetated or natural area shall be filed with
the Register of Deeds; and
(VIII) cluster development that meeu the applicable low density option requirements
shall transport stormwater runoff from the development by vegetated
conveyances to the maximum extent practicable;
• (D) If local governmenu choose the high density development option which requires
engineered stormwater controls,~then they shall assume ultimate responsibility for
operation and maintenance of the required controls as outlined in Rule .0104 of this

(E) Subchapter, +.,,~,~„„F •:
_Impervious covershall be minimized to the maximum extent practical through
ciustering,-natrower~rtd shorter paved areas (streeu, driveways, sidewalks, cul-de-
..
. ,~
.. • ~ .
..
sacs,-and parking low ),-artd spreading roofrop and othec impervious area runoff over
pervious areas.~l.sitd clearing during the construction process shall be limited to the
maxitntun extent practical.~'he local government permit shall require recorded deed
restrictions •and protective covenants to ensure that development activities maintain
~~...n,... ~rv~r..
the development consistent wtth the plans and specifications approved by the local
goVet7lrnCIItS; ~~.a ~ j ,

(F) .1~f.Yi
The proJec'u m comb ranee wtt}t the riparian area protection requiremenu as
spfie-ii iin~35A~IC~hAC~2B~2SO jRartdlemati Lake riparian area rule);
..
(G) ar-^-^s ~,,
. No ne~oa'll besllo within30 feet of waters affected by the
wRaa`~leman °~Ie~5A~0At3~B T.0250;'".:~` ,,.. ,;
(N) :==Ttei;eve a ~~ ~ on shall be located at least 3 00 feet
from at~'ea'~fie'~ on ~rsotl surveyinaps; however; withinihe
.area be~een°50 00 feed adjacent to the perennial water body, water dependent
~:. ..
structures,~'orntherstructures,-such as.tlag poles signs and security li~hu, which
• ' resuh in only diminimus increases in impervious area and public projects such as road
6
f
-~~ ~~;,

crossings and greenways may be allowed where no practicable alternative exists;
these activities shall minimize built-upon surface area, divert runoff away from
surface waters and maximize the utilization of BMPs;
([) For local governments that do not use the high density option, a maximum of 10
percent of each jurisdiction's portion of the watershed outride of the critical area as
delineated on April 1, 1999 may be developed with new development projects and
expansions to existing development ofup to 70 percent built-upon surface area in
addition to the new development approved in compliance with the appropriate
requirements of Sub-Item (3)(b)(ii)(A) of this Rule. For expansions to existing
development, the existing built-upon surface area shall not be counted toward the
allowed 70 percent built-upon surface area- A local government having jurisdiction
within the watershed may transfer, in whole or in part, its right to the 10 percent/70
percent land area to local government within the watershed upon submittal of a joint
resolution for review by the Commission. When the designated water supply
watershed area is composed of public land, such as National Forest land, local
governments may count the public land acreage within the designated watershed area
outside of the critical area in figuring the acreage allowed under this provision. Each
project shall, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize built-upon surface area,
direct stormwater runoff away from surface waters and incorporate best management
practices to minimize water quality impacts;
(ii) Stormwater pollution control criteria for critical areas of the watershed:
(A) Low Density Option: Development density must be limited to either no more than one
dwelling unit per two acres of single family detached residential development (or
80,000 square foot lot excluding roadway right-of--way) or six percent built-upon area
for all other residential and non-residential development. Stormwater runoff shall be
transported primarily by vegetated conveyances to the maximum extent practicable.
(B) High Density Option: If new development exceeds the low density option
requiremenu as stated in Sub-Item (3)(b)(ii) of this Rule, then engineered stormwater
controls must be used to control runoff from the first inch of rainfall. New residentia'.
and non residential development shall not exceed 30 percent built-upon area.
(C) No new permitted sites for land application of residuals or petroleum contaminated
soils shall be allowed; ,
(D) No new landfills"'shall be allowed; and
(E) .:Sub Items(3)(b)(i)(C}(H) of this Rule also apply io the critical area.
(d) Within 12 months of the effective date ~f adoption of this Rule, all local governmenu with jurisdictions in
the Randleman Lake watershed shall develop comprehensive stormwater management plans and submit
• those plans to the Commission for review and approvaL~Comprehensive stormwater management plans
meeting the criteria set forth in`Subparts (4xa) through (4)(f) of this Rule shall be approved.:Within six
months of the Commission's approval of the local plan,-subject local governmenu shall adopt and
implement their approved plan.~7rose plans shall include,-but not be limited to, the following:
(a) Evaluation of existing land use~svithin Oak Hollow Lake subwatershed, •High Point Lake .
subwatetshed and Deep`Rivec] aubwatershed in the Randleman Lake watershed with --
recommendations that'sho nho~~overall bmh-uponarca (for existing acid futtire development) for
each subwateished can be tnmtmized and htgh~inteasityiand uses can be targeted away from
~~ •.
surface waurs nd secistn ~~sOak~HoUow '' esvbwatershed is-defined as all land azeas
. i-,. a...... .. _.
.draining ioDalc}Io~llow Pnmll~ce`subwatie:shed is><iefuied as all land areas draining
to High Point .s+• ana 31Vfo~c~e` tverfrom Oak~iollow Lake`Dam.
r. -. ... ._. ..._ .__
Deep Rived subwa _ u as areas gto the Deep River`frorir Hi~r:Point
Lake Dam to FreemanMill Dais ~tris evaluation shall be done by the local governments having
jurisdiction in those watersheds,°working in cooperation with the P7RWA;
(b) Coordination between all affected jurisdictions to eneonrage then development in the existins
7
~,'~'{-

urban areas. The planning effort shall include provisions for areas of contiguous open space to be
protected through conservation easements or other long-term protection measures and provisions to
direct infrastructure growth towards existing urban development corridors rather than to rural
lands;
(c) Evaluation of existing ordinances, municipal programs (maintenance, street cleaning, etc.) and
other local policies to identify opportunities for stormwater quality improvements including
reducing the amount of built-upon area that is required for uses such as parking, building setbacks,
road widths and cul-de-sacs. The evaluations shall consider development options such as multiple
story buildings, mixed use to encourage pedestrian travel and mass transit and an identification of
municipal activities and procedures that may be modified to allow for stotTrtwater pollution
prevention opportunities;
(d) Implementation of watershed protection public education pro=rams;
(e) Identification and removal of illegal discharges; and
(f) Identification of suitable locations for potential stormwater retrofits (such as riparian areas) that
could be funded by various sources.
(~) Local governrrients may submit a more stringent local stormwater management program plan. Local
stormwater management programs and modifications to these programs shall be kept on file by the
Division of Water Quality.
(6) If a local government fails to submit an acceptable local stot7rtwater management program plan within the
time frames established in this Rule or fails to properly implement an approved plan, then stormwater
management requirements for existing and new urban areas within its jurisdiction shall be administered
through the NPDES municipal stot7rtwater permitting program per 1~A NCAC 2H .0126 which shall
include at a minimum:
(a) Subject local governments shall be required to develop and implement comprehensive storm~vater
management programs for both existing and new development.
(b) These stormwater management programs shall provide all components that are required of local
government stormwater programs in this Rule.
(c) Local governments that are subject to an 2vPDE5 permit shall be covered by the permit for at lest
one permitting cycle (five years) before they are eligible to submit a revised local sto~~~~water
management component of their «ater supply watershed protection program for consideration anc
approval by the Ei/fC.
Hrston•Note: Authorin~G.S. 1-J3-21-1.1: 1-13-?1-~.~: 1~3-?1;.7; 1-;3-'1~.1, I-13-21~.3(a)(1);
Eff. April 1, 1999.