20001091 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_20000302

Xee17
Aa, OLT
-404s, 7, Zo oi" <for
J/?y "7j C-47T
?Cla?u v' G'Sc> 3 36 37 3 - zvs"v
339-53-3z/ s
Fs?3-33?J
-? -33L-
P;7-2,t,)
??vcd' Fr???I<(? ?, (Jsrtc:E 9 /n ?.s ms's z
-JENN'rttt- f?Ryf- two- weez 33 - 7`71 yG 00
?? - .33 -97a?
y ?
r 06 l vi e-
NO fe-s-
l 1 P?, 0 1110 ?e- "-(U G%
j
_{ (' 1 t 4 k-", Q Lit 6,j,( -F? J / -(
/' Ae-- /rte G? i ( " lat,/ k
?14 o -4 (:f A ?r? 6?-j 5c-f
4 / -
?U l ? ?u f
?- ?,) 111 some/ ?4 c-l
I e ?? U S?i? n?Uv'--) ?IJ14
UvP/? //
y ? "-j ill(J'e' I
1
?
? ?UW v
/ 4e C d -
n ?(?y--,?f ??4?"? ICJ' ",

1?
i
,?Nd? f°
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
IV4
D E N R
September 20, 2000
DWQ# 00-1091
Guilford County
City of High Point
C/o Perry Kairis
P.O. Box 230
High Point, NC, 27261
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Dear Mr. Kairis:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to fill 0.25 acre of wetlands which will
impact 420 feet of channel in Guilford County. This project was described in application materials received by the
Division of Water Quality on March 2, 2000, but the project remained on hold pending finalization of the SEPA
process which is now complete. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by
General Water Quality Certification Number 3288, which can be downloaded from our web site at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands . This Certification allows to use Nationwide Permit Number 12 when the
Corps of Engineers issues it. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go
ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-
Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. Also this approval will expire when the accompanying 404
permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General Certification. This Certification replaces the one issued
March 10, 2000.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change
your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application for a new certification. If
the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of the Certification and approval letter and is thereby
responsible for complying with all conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed
one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h). For this approval to
be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You
must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition which
conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O.
Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask
for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-9646.
Sincerely,
d ?
Kerr T. Stevens
Non-Discharge Branch 1621 Mail Service tenter Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post consumer paper
Attachment
cc: Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Winston-Salem DWQ Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Gerald Pottern, 8480 Garvey Drive, Raleigh, NC, 27604
001091
Re: Deep Rkver Oulfall project
Subject: Re: Deep River Outfall project
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 200109:43:36 -0400
From: Jennifer Frye <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR Water Quality
To: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
CC: Greg Thorpe <[e-mail]>, Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>
I would just like to add that it appears that the 401 issued in September 2000
(00 0199) is for only one segment of the entire project and that another 401 was
issued in May, 2001 (01 0480) for another segment. 401 applications have yet to
be submitted for the remaining segments (at least two) - to my knowledge - but
were included with the EA document dated June 22, 1999.
Jen
John Dorney wrote:
> greg - i will bring file downtown for our meeting this morning (be there
> around 11:30 ish). rather confused file but bottom line is the application
> does not discuss buffers but the EA/FONSI (approved by DWQ on August 15,
> 2000) discussed buffer impacts as unavoidable and needing a variance from
> the Randleman buffer rules. i am not sure that the COE saw the EA much less
> commented (this may be the lapse in communication in this process?). in any
> event, it appears that a randleman variance is needed and the applicant was
> notified of this in the EA. no variance application received to date as far
> as i can tell. the final 401 was issued on sept 20, 2000 (the earlier 401
> was issued on march 10, 2000 but then put on hold on july 7 (sort of anyway)
> once we learned of the EA process on july 5 from gloria putnam in
> planning). we (me actually) did confuse things by having two project
> numbers for the same project (000199 and 001091- the fact that the two
> numbers are similar is anti-serendipity!).
> cyndi will come play with you all on july 11
> Greg Thorpe wrote:
> > The project # & date for the 401 for this project that Bobby provided in
> > his message, below, don't quite match up with the info that David
> > Franklin provided from his file, but this is the project for which the
> > Corps is considering revoking the 404. Bobby also provided the ND permit
> > #, below. David Franklin has 2 project #'s for this one: DWQ project #
> > 000199 (same as Bobby's), with a 401 approval date of 3/7/00; and a DWQ
> > project # 001091 with a 401 approval date of 9120100. John, if you could
> > straighten those out for me, that'd be helpful in any case, the Corps is
> > having a meeting on July 11 at 10:30 AM at the Falls lake conference
> > room. I plan to attend, and I would like Jennifer to attend (Jennifer,
> > please let me know if this presents any conflicts for you), and, John, I
> > would like someone from your shop to attend with me, if there's someone
> > other than yourself who is knowledgeable on this topic - I realize this
> > is the same day as the WQC, so you won't be able to attend this one.
> > Apparently, High Point is currently planning to put this pipe much
> > closer to the lake then their plans showed when the 401 & 404 were
> > approved last year, and it is now encroaching into zone 1 of the
> > buffer. On the upside, I believe Jamestown is supposed to be taken of
> > line by this project, and a pump station will be eliminated. On the
> > down side, and what the Corps is so concerned about, is that the revised
> > plans call for about 10,000 feet of buffer impacts (much of it in zone
> > 1, and very close to the water), according to David.
> > The Corps is considering revoking the 404 for the project. Actually, as
> > I understand it, if High pint does this, it could result in the PTRWA
> > having to modify the 404 for the entire Randleman Lake project, because
1 of 2 6/29/01 10:01 AN
Re: Deep River Outfall project
> > their is a condition in the lake project 404 that protects the buffer
> > from encroachment. John Kime has told the Corps they won't allow that
> > to happen, while at the same time giving High Point the go-ahead on
> > their current plans, as I understand things. The Corps, apparently, has
> > two letters signed by John Kime on the same date, one to High Point and
> > one to the Corps, saying two different things. Needless to say, the
> > Corps is not happy. High Point and the PTRWA authority (John Kime, I
> > presume) will be there on the 11th to discuss plans, etc.
> > John D looked at a 401 for this project for me yesterday (I assume it
> > was the 9120100 401) and didn't see any conflict with the 401, even if
> > the route for the pipe is changed (as an aside, I'm a little surprised
> > the 401 isn't a bit more specific than that). Clearly, though, if the
> > pipe is going to encroach on the buffer, it would be a violation of the
> > Randleman buffer rules and, at the very least, they will need a major
> > variance for that.
> > Jennifer just called me & clarified that the first 401 (with the march
> > date) was voided for some reason and it's the Sept 401 that rules.
> > Jennifer also indicated that Abner is familiar with the existing line,
> > and he may attend the July 11 meeting, as well. Dennis, do we need
> > anyone from Nondischarge (other than 401 rep) to attend? Please
> > advise. John, let me know who might be able to attend from 401.
> > Thanks!! Those of us who will be attending the meeting on the 11th
> > should probably plan to get together to discuss issues prior to the
> > meeting on the 11th., also. If we could have a conference call on the
> > morning of the 9th (before 11:00), or the afternoon of the 10th (late
> > afternoon), that would be good. The morning of Monday, the 9th, would
> > be preferable for me. Let me know. Thanks!!
> > Bobby Blowe wrote:
> > > FYI--
> > > DWQ non-discharge permit # WQ 0019758
> > > 404 permit # 199921157 signed 3-6-00 by John Thomas
> > > 401 permit # 00-0199 signed 7-7-00 by Dorney
> > > info provided by Ed Powell, who is the consultant involved.
Jennifer Serafin Frye
Division of Water Quality
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Winston-Salem Regional Office
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Voice: 336-771-4608 ext. 275 Fax: [phone]
2 of 2 6/29/01
Re Deep River Ootf ill project
Subject: Re: Deep River Outfall project
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 09:28:11 -0400
From: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
To: Greg Thorpe <[e-mail]>
CC: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>, Jennifer Frye <[e-mail]>
greg - i will bring file downtown for our meeting this morning (be there
around 11:30 ish). rather confused file but bottom line is the application
does not discuss buffers but the EA/FONSI (approved by DWQ on August 15,
2000) discussed buffer impacts as unavoidable and needing a variance from
the Randleman buffer rules. i am not sure that the COE saw the EA much less
commented (this may be the lapse in communication in this process?). in any
event, it appears that a randleman variance is needed and the applicant was
notified of this in the EA. no variance application received to date as far
as i can tell. the final 401 was issued on sept 20, 2000 (the earlier 401
was issued on march 10, 2000 but then put on hold on july 7 (sort of anyway)
once we learned of the EA process on july 5 from gloria putnam in
planning). we (me actually) did confuse things by having two project
numbers for the same project (000199 and 001091- the fact that the two
numbers are similar is anti-serendipity!).
cyndi will come play with you all on july 11
Greg Thorpe wrote:
> The project # & date for the 401 for this project that Bobby provided in
> his message, below, don't quite match up with the info that David
> Franklin provided from his file, but this is the project for which the
> Corps is considering revoking the 404. Bobby also provided the ND permit
> #, below. David Franklin has 2 project #'s for this one: DWQ project #
> 000199 (same as Bobby's), with a 401 approval date of 3/7/00; and a DWQ
> project # 001091 with a 401 approval date of 9120100. John, if you could
> straighten those out for me, that'd be helpful in any case, the Corps is
> having a meeting on July 11 at 10:30 AM at the Falls lake conference
> room. I plan to attend, and I would like Jennifer to attend (Jennifer,
> please let me know if this presents any conflicts for you), and, John, I
> would like someone from your shop to attend with me, if there's someone
> other than yourself who is knowledgeable on this topic - I realize this
> is the same day as the WQC, so you won't be able to attend this one.
> Apparently, High Point is currently planning to put this pipe much
> closer to the lake then their plans showed when the 401 & 404 were
> approved last year, and it is now encroaching into zone 1 of the
> buffer. On the upside, I believe Jamestown is supposed to be taken of
> line by this project, and a pump station will be eliminated. On the
> down side, and what the Corps is so concerned about, is that the revised
> plans call for about 10,000 feet of buffer impacts (much of it in zone
> 1, and very close to the water), according to David.
> The Corps is considering revoking the 404 for the project. Actually, as
> I understand it, if High pint does this, it could result in the PTRWA
> having to modify the 404 for the entire Randleman Lake project, because
> their is a condition in the lake project 404 that protects the buffer
> from encroachment. John Kime has told the Corps they won't allow that
> to happen, while at the same time giving High Point the go-ahead on
> their current plans, as I understand things. The Corps, apparently, has
> two letters signed by John Kime on the same date, one to High Point and
> one to the Corps, saying two different things. Needless to say, the
> Corps is not happy. High Point and the PTRWA authority (John Kime, r
> presume) will be there on the 11th to discuss plans, etc.
> John D looked at a 401 for this project for me yesterday (I assume it
> was the 9120100 401) and didn't see any conflict with the 401, even if
I of 2 6/29/01 10:01 AN
Re: Deep River Outfall project
> the route for the pipe is changed (as an aside, I'm a little surprised
> the 401 isn't a bit more specific than that). Clearly, though, if the
> pipe is going to encroach on the buffer, it would be a violation of the
> Randleman buffer rules and, at the very least, they will need a major
> variance for that.
> Jennifer just called me & clarified that the first 401 (with the march
> date) was voided for some reason and it's the Sept 401 that rules.
> Jennifer also indicated that Abner is familiar with the existing line,
> and he may attend the July 11 meeting, as well. Dennis, do we need
> anyone from Nondischarge (other than 401 rep) to attend? Please
> advise. John, let me know who might be able to attend from 401.
> Thanks!! Those of us who will be attending the meeting on the 11th
> should probably plan to get together to discuss issues prior to the
> meeting on the 11th., also. if we could have a conference call on the
> morning of the 9th (before 11:00), or the afternoon of the 10th (late
> afternoon), that would be good. The morning of Monday, the 9th, would
> be preferable for me. Let me know. Thanks!!
> Bobby Blowe wrote:
> > FYI--
> > DWQ non-discharge permit # WQ 0019758
> > 404 permit # 199921157 signed 3-6-00 by John Thomas
> > 401 permit # 00-0199 signed 7-7-00 by Dorney
> > info provided by Ed Powell, who is the consultant involved.

2 of 2 6/29/01 10:01 AM
Re: Deep Riyer Mtfall project
Subject: Re: Deep River Outfall project
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 10:31:24 -0400
From: Greg Thorpe <[e-mail]>
To: John Dorney <[e-mail]>, Jennifer Frye <[e-mail]>,
Steve Zoufaly <[e-mail]>, Abner Braddy <[e-mail]>,
megan owen <[e-mail]>
CC: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>, Dennis Ramsey <[e-mail]>,
Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>
Can anyone tell me where this new pipeline will fall, or does fall, on the landscape,
relation to the Randleman buffers? Is it (or, will it be) in violation of the buffer
(either ours, or the local govts)? Is a variance required? Did the segment that Abnl
the photos out on - did that segment fall within the buffer? If so, was it in compliai
the buffer rules? Please advise. Thanks!!
John Dorney wrote:
> true (sort of and now there is even more confusion).
> the certification issued on march 10 was for kivett drive to north of business 29170
> certification issued on sept 20 was for the same amount of stream impact (420 feet) ,
> wetlands (0.25 acres) as that on march 10. the sept 20 certification also says it
> replaces the one from march 10. therefore they are for the same project. the only
> have is for this segment.
> however.... the SEPA document is for the sewer line from johnson street TO kivett d.
> (i assume jennifer that these are not the same area!). therefore we have NOT certif
> the segment of the sewer line that is in the EA/FONSI. part of the confusion comes
> the consultant who said they were the same project (he was obviously wrong).
> are we confused yet?
> Jennifer Frye wrote:
> > Same project ...different segments. The Certifications were issued for different
> > sections of the same outfall line. ..the information included with both PCNs distin
> > show different portions of the outfall and the Certifications are for different
> > amounts of wetland/stream impacts.
> > John Dorney wrote:
> > > close but no cigar. both certifications are for the same project.
> > > Jennifer Frye wrote:
> > > > I would just like to add that it appears that the 401 issued in September 2000
> > > > (00 0199) is for only one segment of the entire project and that another 401 w.
> > > > issued in may, 2001 (01 0480) for another segment. 401 applications have yet
> > > > be submitted for the remaining segments (at least two) - to my knowledge - but
> > > > were included with the EA document dated June 22, 1999.
> > > > Jen
> > > > John Dorney wrote:
> > > > > greg - i will bring file downtown for our meeting this morning (be there
> > > > > around 11:30 ish). rather confused file but bottom line is the application
> > > > > does not discuss buffers but the EA/FONSI (approved by DWQ on August 15,
> > > > > 2000) discussed buffer impacts as unavoidable and needing a variance from
> > > > > the Randleman buffer rules. i am not sure that the COE saw the EA much less
> > > > > commented (this may be the lapse in communication in this process?). in any
> > > > > event, it appears that a randleman variance is needed and the applicant was
> > > > > notified of this in the EA. no variance application received to date as far
> > > > > as i can tell. the final 401 was issued on sept 20, 2000 (the earlier 401
> > > > > was issued on march 10, 2000 but then put on hold on july 7 (sort of anyway)
I of 3 7/6/01 9:23 M
Re: Decp River Outfall project
> > > > > once we learned of the EA process on july 5 from gloria putnam in
> > > > > planning). we (me actually) did confuse things by having two project
> > > > > numbers for the same project (000199 and 001091- the fact that the two
> > > > > numbers are similar is anti-serendipity!),.
> > > > > cyndi will come play with you all on july 1.1
> > > > > Greg Thorpe wrote:
> > > > > > The project # & date for the 401 for this project that Bobby provided in
> > > > > > his message, below, don't quite match up with the info that David
> > > > > > Franklin provided from his file, but this is the project for which the
> > > > > > Corps is considering revoking the 404. Bobby also provided the ND permit
> > > > > > #, below. David Franklin has 2 project #'s for this one: DWQ project #
> > > > > > 000199 (same as Bobby's), with a 401 approval date of 3/7/00; and a DWQ
> > > > > > project # 001091 with a 401 approval date of 9120100. John, if you could
> > > > > > straighten those out for me, that'd be helpful in any case, the Corps is
> > > > > > having a meeting on July 11 at 10:30 AM at the Falls lake conference
> > > > > > room. I plan to attend, and I would like Jennifer to attend (Jennifer,
> > > > > > please let me know if this presents any conflicts for you), and, John, I
> > > > > > would like someone from your shop to attend with me, if there's someone
> > > > > > other than yourself who is knowledgeable on this topic - I realize this
> > > > > > is the same day as the WQC, so you won't be able to attend this one.
> > > > > > Apparently, High Point is currently planning to put this pipe much
> > > > > > closer to the lake then their plans showed when the 401 & 404 were
> > > > > > approved last year, and it is now encroaching into zone 1 of the
> > > > > > buffer. On the upside, I believe Jamestown is supposed to be taken of
> > > > > > line by this project, and a pump station will be eliminated. On the
> > > > > > down side, and what the Corps is so concerned about, is that the revised
> > > > > > plans call for about 10,000 feet of buffer impacts (much of it in zone
> > > > > > 1, and very close to the water), according to David.
> > > > > > The Corps is considering revoking the 404 for the project. Actually, as
> > > > > > I understand it, if High pint does this, it could result in the PTRWA
> > > > > > having to modify the 404 for the entire Randleman Lake project, because
> > > > > > their is a condition in the lake project 404 that protects the buffer
> > > > > > from encroachment. John Kime has told the Corps they won't allow that
> > > > > > to happen, while at the same time giving High Point the go-ahead on
> > > > > > their current plans, as I understand things. The Corps, apparently, has
> > > > > > two letters signed by John Kime on the same date, one to High Point and
> > > > > > one to the Corps, saying two different things. Needless to say, the
> > > > > > Corps is not happy. High Point and the PTRWA authority (John Kime, I
> > > > > > presume) will be there on the 11th to discuss plans, etc.
> > > > > > John D looked at a 401 for this project for me yesterday (I assume it
> > > > > > was the 9120100 401) and didn't see any conflict with the 401, even if
> > > > > > the route for the pipe is changed (as an aside, I'm a little surprised
> > > > > > the 401 isn't a bit more speci fic than that). Clearly, though, if the
> > > > > > pipe is going to encroach on the buffer, it would be a violation of the
> > > > > > Randleman buffer rules and, at the very least, they will need a major
> > > > > > variance for that.
> > > > > > Jennifer just called me & clarified that the first 401 (with the march
> > > > > > date) was voided for some reason and it's the Sept 401 that rules.
> > > > > > Jennifer also indicated that Abner is familiar with the existing line,
> > > > > > and he may attend the July 11 meeting, as well. Dennis, do we need
> > > > > > anyone from Nondischarge (other than 401 rep) to attend? Please
> > > > > > advise. John, let me know who might be able to attend from 401.
> > > > > > Thanks!! Those of us who will be attending the meeting on the 11th
> > > > > > should probably plan to get together to discuss issues prior to the
> > > > > > meeting on the 11th., also. if we could have a conference call on the
> > > > > > morning of the 9th (before 11:00), or the afternoon of the 10th (late
> > > > > > afternoon), that would be good. The morning of Monday, the 9th, would
2 of 3 7/6/01 9:23 AN
Re: Deep River Outfall hruject
> > > > > > be preferable for me. Let me know. Thanks!!
> > > > > > Bobby Blowe wrote:
> > > > > > > FYI--
> > > > > > > DWQ non-discharge permit # WQ 0019758
> > > > > > > 404 permit # 199921157 signed 3-6-00 by John Thomas
> > > > > > > 401 permit # 00-0199 signed 7-7-00 by Dorney
> > > > > > > info provided by Ed Powell, who is the consultant involved.
> > > > Jennifer Serafin Frye
> > > > Division of Water Quality
> > > > NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
> > > > Winston-Salem Regional Office
> > > > Winston-Salem, NC 27107
> > > > Voice: 336-771-4608 ext. 275 Fax: [phone]
> > Jennifer Serafin Frye
> > Division of Water Quality
> > NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
> > Winston-Salem Regional Office
> > Winston-Salem, NC 27107
> > Voice: 336-771-4608 ext. 275 Fax: [phone]
3 of '3 7/6/01 9:23 AN
Re: Deep River OL6111 project
Subject: Re: Deep River Outfall project
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 13:25:42 -0400
From: Abner Braddy <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR Water Quality
To: Greg Thorpe <[e-mail]>
CC: John Domey <[e-mail]>, Jennifer Frye <jennifer.frye@ ncmail.net>,
Steve Zoufaly <[e-mail]>, megan owen <[e-mail]>,
Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>, Dennis Ramsey <[e-mail]>,
Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>, Larry Coble <[e-mail]>,
Jenny Rankin <[e-mail]>
I spoke with Perry Kairis with the City of High Point this morning. The information he provided indicates
that there are no encroachments into the DWQ riparian buffers (neither zone 1 nor 2, 50' off mean high
water line or top of bank), but there would be encroachment into the PTRWA self-imposed buffer of 200
horizontal feet.
As related by Perry, the section of line we are talking about is noted as Section 2 by High Point. It will
replace the section of line running from the old Jamestown WWTP, to the old Riverdale Landfill. All of
the line would be a minimum of 100' off the bank of the Deep River, permissible under DQW buffer rules,
but not PTRWA rules. Section 2 will tie into existing Section 1, which was completed sometime in the
early '90s, and is thus existing development, presumably not subject to the rules. Section 1 consisted of
replacing a segment of the outfall which ran under the old landfill with as much as 80-100' of garbage
covering it. Due to the weight upon the line, the City deemed it appropriate to by-pass the landfill, and
Section 1 did so via constuction of a pump station approximate to the landfill, and construction of a force
main to convey the wastestream from the pump station to the headworks of the Eastside WWTP. Also
included in Section 1 was the installation of 1000 linear feet of 66" gravity sewer, upstream of the
Riverdale pump station. Section 2 would tie in here. That brings up the obvious issue of, even if Section 2
were not within the PTRWA buffer of 200', how do you facilitate the tie-in to Section 1 which already
exists within that 200' buffer zone?
My understanding from Perry is that adhering to the 200' buffer would entail placing portions of Section 2
some 80' underground, much of it bedrock, due to the steeply sloped riverbank. Cost differential aside (his
estimate is 4 to 5 mill.) how many contractors are capable of such work, and, upon completion, how could
you maintain such a line?
An additional wrinkle is that, under the 100' buffer, plans are to eliminate the existing pump station at the
old Jamestown WWTP, but that may not be economically practical if the 200' must be adhered to.
According to Perry, none of this is a revision, this was the original route shown on all applications.
Additionally, all these issues will be revisited when the relocation of the effluent outfall from Eastside
WWTP to the lake proper begins. In addition to the obvious fact that the pipe will encroach into the
PTRWA buffer ( and at its terminus, the DWQ buffers), plans are to construct a cascade outfall reaeration
stucture, which would also be within the buffers.
Greg, with respect to your question as to whether the section of pipe shown in the photos is compliant with
all buffers, I frankly am unsure. This was an emergency line replacement of a failing section which had
been the source of several immense spills. As the line was essentially replaced in its original location,
would it be considered "redevelopment" @ 2B .0104 (q) ?
With respect to your question as to whether Section 2 will require a variance, while Steve Z. is obviously
the person to give a definitive answer, my reading of the rules @ 2B .0104 (r) is that the answer is "Yes"
but, it would be a minor variance, in that the last sentence of the operative paragraph reads... "When local
ordinances are more stringent than the state's minimum water supply protection rules a variance to the local
government's ordinance is not considered a major variance as long as the result of the variance is not less
stringent than the states's minimum requirements."
If the information conveyed to me and related above is true and accurate, that appears to be the case here,
I of 4 7/6/01 9:24 An
Re: Deep River Outfall project
in that none of the pipe falls within 50' of top of bank.
Should anybody have questions (or, for that matter, better answers) give me a call.
Ab
Greg Thorpe wrote:
Can anyone tell me where this new pipeline will fall, or does fall, on the landscape, in
relation to the Randleman buffers? Is it (or, will it be) in violation of the buffer rules
(either ours, or the local govts)? Is a variance required? Did the segment that Abner sent
the photos out on - did that segment fall within the buffer? If so, was it in compliance with
the buffer rules? Please advise. Thanks!!
John Dorney wrote:
> true (sort of and now there is even more confusion).
> the certification issued on march 10 was for kivett drive to north of business 29/70. the
> certification issued on sept 20 was for the same amount of stream impact (420 feet) and
> wetlands (0.25 acres) as that on march 10. the sept 20 certification also says it
> replaces the one from march 10. therefore they are for the same project. the only PCN we
> have is for this segment.
> however.... the SEPA document is for the sewer line from johnson street TO kivett drive
> (i assume jennifer that these are not the same area!). therefore we have NOT certified
> the segment of the sewer line that is in the EA/FONSI. part of the confusion comes from
> the consultant who said they were the same project (he was obviously wrong).
> are we confused yet?
> Jennifer Frye wrote:
> > Same project ...different segments. The Certifications were issued for different
> > sections of the same outfall line ...the information included with both PCNs distinctly
> > show different portions of the outfall and the Certifications are for different
> > amounts of wetland/stream impacts.
> > John Dorney wrote:
> > > close but no cigar. both certifications are for the same project.
> > > Jennifer Frye wrote:
> > > > I would just like to add that it appears that the 401 issued in September 2000
> > > > (00 0199) is for only one segment of the entire project and that another 401 was
> > > > issued in May, 2001 (01 0480) for another segment. 401 applications have yet to
> > > > be submitted for the remaining segments (at least two) - to my knowledge - but
> > > > were included with the EA document dated June 22, 1999.
> > > > Jeri
> > > > John Dorney wrote:
> > > > > greg - i will bring file downtown for our meeting this morning (be there
2 of 4 7/6/01 9:24 AN
Re: Decp River (hltfall project
> > > > > around 11:30 ish). rather confused file but bottom line is the application
> > > > > does not discuss buffers but the EA/FONSI (approved by DWQ on August 15,
> > > > > 2000) discussed buffer impacts as unavoidable and needing a variance from
> > > > > the Randleman buffer rules. i am not sure that the COE saw the EA much less
> > > > > commented (this may be the lapse in communication in this process?). in any
> > > > > event, it appears that a randleman variance is needed and the applicant was
> > > > > notified of this in the EA. no variance application received to date as far
> > > > > as i can tell. the final 401 was issued on Sept 20, 2000 (the earlier 401
> > > > > was issued on march 10, 2000 but then put on hold on july 7 (sort of anyway)
> > > > > once we learned of the EA process on july 5 from gloria putnam in
> > > > > planning). we (me actually) did confuse things by having two project
> > > > > numbers for the same project (000199 and 001091- the fact that the two
> > > > > numbers are similar is anti-serendipity!).
> > > > > cyndi will come play with you all on july 11
> > > > > Greg Thorpe wrote:
> > > > > > The project # & date for the 401 for this project that Bobby provided in
> > > > > > his message, below, don't quite match up with the info that David
> > > > > > Franklin provided from his file, but this is the project for which the
> > > > > > Corps is considering revoking the 404. Bobby also provided the ND permit
> > > > > > #, below. David Franklin has 2 project #'s for this one: DWQ project #
> > > > > > 000199 (same as Bobby's), with a 401 approval date of 3/7/00; and a DWQ
> > > > > > project # 001091 with a 401 approval date of 9/20/00. John, if you could
> > > > > > straighten those out for me, that'd be helpful In any case, the Corps is
> > > > > > having a meeting on July I I at 10:30 AM at the Falls lake conference
> > > > > > room. I plan to attend, and I would like Jennifer to attend (Jennifer,
> > > > > > please let me know if this presents any conflicts for you), and, John, I
> > > > > > would like someone from your shop to attend with me, if there's someone
> > > > > > other than yourself who is knowledgeable on this topic - I realize this
> > > > > > is the same day as the WQC, so you won't be able to attend this one.
> > > > > > Apparently, High Point is currently planning to put this pipe much
> > > > > > closer to the lake then their plans showed when the 401 & 404 were
> > > > > > approved last year, and it is now encroaching into zone 1 of the
> > > > > > buffer. On the upside, I believe Jamestown is supposed to be taken of
> > > > > > line by this project, and a pump station will be eliminated. On the
> > > > > > down side, and what the Corps is so concerned about, is that the revised
> > > > > > plans call for about 10,000 feet of buffer impacts (much of it in zone
> > > > > > 1, and very close to the water), according to David.
> > > > > > The Corps is considering revoking the 404 for the project. Actually, as
> > > > > > I understand it, if High pint does this, it could result in the PTRWA
> > > > > > having to modify the 404 for the entire Randleman Lake project, because
> > > > > > their is a condition in the lake project 404 that protects the buffer
> > > > > > from encroachment. John Kime has told the Corps they won't allow that
> > > > > > to happen, while at the same time giving High Point the go-ahead on
> > > > > > their current plans, as I understand things. The Corps, apparently, has
> > > > > > two letters signed by John Kime on the same date, one to High Point and
> > > > > > one to the Corps, saying two different things. Needless to say, the
3 of 4 7/6/01 9:24 AN
Re: Deep River Outfall project
> > > > > > Corps is not happy. High Point and the PTRWA authority (John Kime, I
> > > > > > presume) will be there on the 11th to discuss plans, etc.
> > > > > > John D looked at a 401 for this project for me yesterday (I assume it
> > > > > > was the 9/20/00 401) and didn't see any conflict with the 401, even if
> > > > > > the route for the pipe is changed (as an aside, I'm a little surprised
> > > > > > the 401 isn't a bit more specific than that). Clearly, though, if the
> > > > > > pipe is going to encroach on the buffer, it would be a violation of the
> > > > > > Randleman buffer rules and, at the very least, they will need a major
> > > > > > variance for that.
> > > > > > Jennifer just called me & clarified that the first 401 (with the march
> > > > > > date) was voided for some reason and it's the Sept 401 that rules.
> > > > > > Jennifer also indicated that Abner is familiar with the existing line,
> > > > > > and he may attend the July 11 meeting, as well. Dennis, do we need
> > > > > > anyone from Nondischarge (other than 401 rep) to attend? Please
> > > > > > advise. John, let me know who might be able to attend from 401.
> > > > > > Thanks!! Those of us who will be attending the meeting on the 1 Ith
> > > > > > should probably plan to get together to discuss issues prior to the
> > > > > > meeting on the 11th., also. If we could have a conference call on the
> > > > > > morning of the 9th (before 11:00), or the afternoon of the 10th (late
> > > > > > afternoon), that would be good. The morning of Monday, the 9th, would
> > > > > > be preferable for me. Let me know. Thanks!!
> > > > > > Bobby Blowe wrote:
>>>>> > > FYI--
> > > > > > > DWQ non-discharge permit # WQ 0019758
> > > > > > > 404 permit # 199921157 signed 3-6-00 by John Thomas
> > > > > > > 401 permit # 00-0199 signed 7-7-00 by Dorney
> > > > > > > info provided by Ed Powell, who is the consultant involved.
> > > > Jennifer Serafin Frye
> > > > Division of Water Quality
> > > > NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
> > > > Winston-Salem Regional Office
> > > > Winston-Salem, NC 27107
> > > > Voice: 336-771-4608 ext. 275 Fax: [phone]
> > Jennifer Serafin Frye
> > Division of Water Quality
> > NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
> > Winston-Salem Regional Office
> > Winston-Salem, NC 27107
> > Voice: 336-771-4608 ext. 275 Fax: [phone]
4 of 4 7/6/01 9:24 AM
Re: Deep River Otitllill proicct
Subject: Re: Deep River Outfall project
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 14:14:59 -0400
From: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
To: Greg Thorpe <[e-mail]>
CC: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>, Jennifer Frye <[e-mail]>
as far as i can tell, here are the answers to your questions (i suspect a real meeting
needed with all parties to clarify this mess):
1. I have not seen a map/plan detailed enough to tell how the project with affect
Randleman (50 foot) buffer or the Corps (200 foot buffer).
2. From what i read however they will need a variance from the Randleman buffer r,
3. I don't think I've seen the pictures you refer to.
good luck!
Greg Thorpe wrote:
> Can anyone tell me where this new pipeline will fall, or does fall, on the landscape
> relation to the Randleman buffers? Is it (or, will it be) in violation of the buffe.
> (either ours, or the local govts)? Is a variance required? Did the segment that A-
> the photos out on - did that segment fall within the buffer? If so, was it in compl
> the buffer rules? Please advise. Thanks!!
> John Dorney wrote:
> > true (sort of and now there is even more confusion).
> > the certification issued on march 10 was for kivett drive to north of business 291
> > certification issued on sept 20 was for the same amount of stream impact (420 feet
> > wetlands (0.25 acres) as that on march 10. the sept 20 certification also says it
> > replaces the one from march 10. therefore they are for the same project. the onl_
> > have is for this segment.
> > however.... the SEPA document is for the sewer line from johnson street TO kivett
> > (i assume jennifer that these are not the same area!). therefore we have NOT cert
> > the segment of the sewer line that is in the EA/FONSI. part of the confusion come.
> > the consultant who said they were the same project (he was obviously wrong).
> > are we confused yet?
> > Jennifer Frye wrote:
> > > Same project ...different segments. The Certifications were issued for differen
> > > sections of the same outfall line... the information included with both PCNs dist
> > > show different portions of the outfall and the Certifications are for different
> > > amounts of wetland/stream impacts.
> > > John Dorney wrote:
> > > > close but no cigar. both certifications are for the same project.
> > > > Jennifer Frye wrote:
> > > > > I would just like to add that it appears that the 401 issued in September 20
> > > > > (00 0199) is for only one segment of the entire project and that another 401
> > > > > issued in May, 2001 (01 0480) for another segment. 401 applications have ye
> > > > > be submitted for the remaining segments (at least two) - to my knowledge - b
> > > > > were included with the EA document dated June 22, 1999.
> > > > > Jen
> > > > > John Dorney wrote:
> > > > > > greg - i will bring file downtown for our meeting this morning (be there
> > > > > > around 11:30 ish). rather confused file but bottom line is the applicatio.
> > > > > > does not discuss buffers but the EA/FONSI (approved by DWQ on August 15,
1 of 3 7/6/01 9:24 AN
Re: Deep Rivcr Outfall project
> > > > > > 2000) discussed buffer impacts as unavoidable and needing a variance from
> > > > > > the Randleman buffer rules. i am not sure that the COE saw the EA much le.
> > > > > > commented (this may be the lapse in communication in this process?). in a.
> > > > > > event, it appears that a randleman variance is needed and the applicant wa.
> > > > > > notified of this in the EA. no variance application received to date as f.
> > > > > > as i can tell. the final 401 was issued on sept 20, 2000 (the earlier 401
> > > > > > was issued on march 10, 2000 but then put on hold on july 7 (sort of anywa.
> > > > > > once we learned of the EA process on july 5 from gloria putnam in
> > > > > > planning). we (me actually) did confuse things by having two project
> > > > > > numbers for the same project (000199 and 001091- the fact that the two
> > > > > > numbers are similar is anti-serendipity!).
> > > > > > cyndi will come play with you all on july 11
> > > > > > Greg Thorpe wrote:
> > > > > > > The project # & date for the 401 for this project that Bobby provided in
> > > > > > > his message, below, don't quite match up with the info that David
> > > > > > > Franklin provided from his file, but this is the project for which the
> > > > > > > Corps is considering revoking the 404. Bobby also provided the ND permit
> > > > > > > #, below. David Franklin has 2 project #'s for this one: DWQ project #
> > > > > > > 000199 (same as Bobby's), with a 401 approval date of 3/7/00; and a DWQ
> > > > > > > project # 001091 with a 401 approval date of 9120100. John, if you could
> > > > > > > straighten those out for me, that'd be helpful in any case, the Corps is
> > > > > > > having a meeting on July 11 at 10:30 AM at the Falls lake conference
> > > > > > > room. I plan to attend, and I would like Jennifer to attend (Jennifer,
> > > > > > > please let me know if this presents any conflicts for you), and, John, I
> > > > > > > would like someone from your shop to attend with me, if there's someone
> > > > > > > other than yourself who is knowledgeable on this topic - I realize this
> > > > > > > is the same day as the WQC, so you won't be able to attend this one.
> > > > > > > Apparently, High Point is currently planning to put this pipe much
> > > > > > > closer to the lake then their plans showed when the 401 & 404 were
> > > > > > > approved last year, and it is now encroaching into zone 1 of the
> > > > > > > buffer. On the upside, I believe Jamestown is supposed to be taken of
> > > > > > > line by this project, and a pump station will be eliminated. On the
> > > > > > > down side, and what the Corps is so concerned about, is that the revised
> > > > > > > plans call for about 10,000 feet of buffer impacts (much of it in zone
> > > > > > > 1, and very close to the water), according to David.
> > > > > > > The Corps is considering revoking the 404 for the project. Actually, as
> > > > > > > I understand it, if High pint does this, it could result in the PTRWA
> > > > > > > having to modify the 404 for the entire Randleman Lake project, because
> > > > > > > their is a condition in the lake project 404 that protects the buffer
> > > > > > > from encroachment. John Kime has told the Corps they won't allow that
> > > > > > > to happen, while at the same time giving High Point the go-ahead on
> > > > > > > their current plans, as I understand things. The Corps, apparently, has
> > > > > > > two letters signed by John Kime on the same date, one to High Point and
> > > > > > > one to the Corps, saying two different things. Needless to say, the
> > > > > > > Corps is not happy. High Point and the PTRWA authority (John Kime, I
> > > > > > > presume) will be there on the 11th to discuss plans, etc.
> > > > > > > John D looked at a 401 for this project for me yesterday (I assume it
> > > > > > > was the 9120100 401) and didn't see any conflict with the 401, even if
> > > > > > > the route for the pipe is changed (as an aside, I'm a little surprised
> > > > > > > the 401 isn't a bit more specific than that). Clearly, though, if the
> > > > > > > pipe is going to encroach on the buffer, it would be a violation of the
> > > > > > > Randleman buffer rules and, at the very least, they will need a major
> > > > > > > variance for that.
> > > > > > > Jennifer just called me & clarified that the first 401 (with the march
> > > > > > > date) was voided for some reason and it's the Sept 401 that rules.
> > > > > > > Jennifer also indicated that Abner is familiar with the existing line,
> > > > > > > and he may attend the July 11 meeting, as well. Dennis, do we need
2 of 3 7/6/01 9:24 AN
Re: Deep River Outfall project
> > > > > > > anyone from Nondischarge (other than 401 rep) to attend? Please
> > > > > > > advise. John, let me know who might be able to attend from 401.
> > > > > > > Thanks!! Those of us who will be attending the meeting on the 11th
> > > > > > > should probably plan to get together to discuss issues prior to the
> > > > > > > meeting on the 11th., also. If we could have a conference call on the
> > > > > > > morning of the 9th (before 11:00), or the afternoon of the 10th (late
> > > > > > > afternoon), that would be good. The morning of Monday, the 9th, would
> > > > > > > be preferable for me. Let me know. Thanks!!
> > > > > > > Bobby Blowe wrote:
> > > > > > > > FYI--
> > > > > > > > DWQ non-discharge permit # WQ 0019758
> > > > > > > > 404 permit # 199921157 signed 3-6-00 by John Thomas
> > > > > > > > 401 permit # 00-0199 signed 7-7-00 by Dorney
> > > > > > > > info provided by Ed Powell, who is the consultant involved.
> > > > > Jennifer Serafin Frye
> > > > > Division of Water Quality
> > > > > NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
> > > > > Winston-Salem Regional Office
> > > > > Winston-Salem, NC 27107
> > > > > Voice: 336-771-4608 ext. 275 Fax: [phone]
> > > Jennifer Serafin Frye
> > > Division of Water Quality
> > > NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
> > > Winston--Salem Regional Office
> > > Winston-Salem, NC 27107
> > > Voice: 336-771-4608 ext. 275 Fax: [phone]
3 of 3 7/6/01 9:24 AN
Re: Dec) River Outfa l )rojeo
Subject: Re: Deep River Outfall project
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 200109:58:34 -0400
From: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
To: Jennifer Frye <[e-mail]>
CC: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>
i know you are trying to be helpful but this one is a confusing mess.
Jennifer Frye wrote:
> John,
> Your files must be completely different from what I have. The EA that I have is sho
> entire outfall line (from Johnson St. to just South of Kivet:t Dr.), a portion of whi
> detailed in the PCN for the March 101Sept. 20 Certification, 00 0199, from just Sout
> Kivett Drive to just North of 29170. This has to be the same sewer outfall area - e
> Point wouldn't be inane enough to have 2 different outfalls planned for along the De
> There is another Certification (00 0480), that I looked at, that was issued May 4, 2
> outfall runs from Eastchester Drive to just north of Greensboro Rd.- this segment is
> shown on the EA that is in my files.
> Believe it or not, John, I am not trying to be argumentative....I am just trying to
> Jenni fer
> John Dorney wrote:
> > true (sort of and now there is even more confusion).
> > the certification issued on march 10 was for kivett drive to north of business 291
> > certification issued on sept 20 was for the same amount of stream impact (420 feet
> > wetlands (0.25 acres) as that on march 10. the sept 20 certification also says it
> > replaces the one from march 10. therefore they are for the same project. the onl_
> > have is for this segment.
> > however.... the SEPA document is for the sewer line from johnson street TO kivett
> > (i assume jennifer that these are not the same area!). therefore we have NOT cert
> > the segment of the sewer line that is in the EA/FONSI. part of the confusion come.
> > the consultant who said they were the same project (he was obviously wrong).
> > are we confused yet?
> > Jennifer Frye wrote:
> > > Same project ...different segments. The Certifications were issued for differen
> > > sections of the same outfall line... the information included with both PCNs dist
> > > show different portions of the outfall and the Certifications are for different
> > > amounts of wetland/stream impacts.
> > > John Dorney wrote:
> > > > close but no cigar. both certifications are for the same project.
> > > > Jennifer Frye wrote:
> > > > > I would just like to add that it appears that the 401 issued in September 20
> > > > > (00 0199) is for only one segment of the entire project and that another 401
> > > > > issued in May, 2001 (01 0480) for another segment. 401 applications have ye
> > > > > be submitted for the remaining segments (at least two) - to my knowledge - b
> > > > > were included with the EA document dated June 22, 1999.
> > > > > Jen
> > > > > John Dorney wrote:
> > > > > > greg - i will bring file downtown for our meeting this morning (be there
> > > > > > around 11:30 ish). rather confused file but bottom line is the applicatio.
1 of 3 7/6/01 9:24 AN
Re: Mel) River OL6,111 project

> > > > does not discuss buffers but the EA/FONSI (approved by DWQ on August .15,
> > > > 2000) discussed buffer impacts as unavoidable and needing a variance from
> > > > the Randleman buffer rules. i am not sure that the COE saw the EA much le
> > > > commented (this may be the lapse in communication in this process?). in a.
> > > > event, it appears that a randleman variance is needed and the applicant wa.
> > > > notified of this in the EA. no variance application received to date as f.
> > > > as i can tell. the final 401 was issued on sept 20, 2000 (the earlier, 401
> > > > was issued on march 10, 2000 but then put on hold on july 7 (sort of anywa_
> > > > once we learned of the EA process on july 5 from gloria putnam in
> > > > planning). we (me actually) did confuse things by having two project
> > > > numbers for the same project (000199 and 001091- the fact that the two
> > > > numbers are similar is anti-serendipity!).
> > > > cyndi will come play with you all on july 11
> > > > Greg Thorpe wrote:
> > > > > The project # & date for the 401 for this project that Bobby provided in
> > > > > his message, below, don't quite match up with the info that David
> > > > > Franklin provided from his file, but this is the project for which the
> > > > > Corps is considering revoking the 404. Bobby also provided the ND permit
> > > > > # below. David Franklin has 2 project #'s for this one: DWQ project #

> 000199 (same as Bobby's), with a 401 approval date of 3/7/00; and a DWQ
> project # 001091 with a 401 approval date of 9120100. John, if you could
> straighten those out for me, that'd be helpful in any case, the Corps is
> having a meeting on July 11 at 10:30 AM at the Falls lake conference
> room. I plan to attend, and I would like Jennifer to attend (Jennifer,
> please let me know if this presents any conflicts for you), and, John, I
> would like someone from your shop to attend with me, if there's someone
> other than yourself who is knowledgeable on this topic - I realize this
> is the same day as the WQC, so you won't be able to attend this one.
> Apparently, High Point is currently planning to put this pipe much
> closer to the lake then their plans showed when the 401 & 404 were
> approved last year, and it is now encroaching into zone 1 of the
> buffer. On the upside, I believe Jamestown is supposed to be taken of
> line by this project, and a pump station will be eliminated. On the
> down side, and what the Corps is so concerned about, is that the revised
> plans call for about 10,000 feet of buffer impacts (much of it in zone
> 1, and very close to the water), according to David.
> > > The Corps is considering revoking the 404 for the project. Actually, as
> > > I understand it, if High pint does this, it could result in the PTRWA
> > > having to modify the 404 for the entire Randleman Lake project, because
> > > their is a condition in the lake project 404 that protects the buffer
> > > from encroachment. John Kime has told the Corps they won't allow that
> > > to happen, while at the same time giving High Point the go-ahead on
> > > their current plans, as I understand things. The Corps, apparently, has
> > > two letters signed by John Kime on the same date, one to High Point and
> > > one to the Corps, saying two different things. Needless to say, the
> > > Corps is not happy. High Point and the PTRWA authority (John Kime, I
> > > presume) will be there on the 11th to discuss plans, etc.
> > > John D looked at a 401 for this project for me yesterday (I assume it
> > > was the 9120100 401) and didn't see any conflict with the 401, even if
> > > the route for the pipe is changed (as an aside, I'm a little surprised
> > > the 401 isn't a bit more specific than that). Clearly, though, if the
> > > pipe is going to encroach on the buffer, it would be a violation of the
> > > Randleman buffer rules and, at the very least, they will need a major
> > > variance for that.
> > > > > > > Jennifer just called me & clarified that the first 401 (with the march
> > > > > > > date) was voided for some reason and it's the Sept 401 that rules.
> > > > > > > Jennifer also indicated that Abner is familiar with the existing line,
2 of 3 7/6/01 9:24 AN
Re Deep River Outfall project
> > > > > > > and he may attend the July 11 meeting, as well. Dennis, do we need
> > > > > > > anyone from Nondischarge (other than 401 rep) to attend? Please
> > > > > > > advise. John, let me know who might be able to attend from 401.
> > > > > > > Thanks!! Those of us who will be attending the meeting on the 11th
> > > > > > > should probably plan to get together to discuss issues prior to the
> > > > > > > meeting on the 11th., also. If we could have a conference call on the
> > > > > > > morning of the 9th (before 11:00), or the afternoon of the 10th (late
> > > > > > > afternoon), that would be good. The morning of Monday, the 9th, would
> > > > > > > be preferable for me. Let me know. Thanks!!
> > > > > > > Bobby Blowe wrote:
> > > > > > > > FYI--
> > > > > > > > DWQ non-discharge permit # WQ 0019758
> > > > > > > > 404 permit # 199921157 signed 3-6-00 by John Thomas
> > > > > > > > 401 permit # 00-0199 signed 7-7-00 by Dorney
> > > > > > > > info provided by Ed Powell, who is the consultant involved.
> > > > > Jennifer Serafin Frye
> > > > > Division of Water Quality
> > > > > NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
> > > > > Winston-Salem Regional Office
> > > > > Winston-Salem, NC 27107
> > > > > Voice: 336-771-4608 ext. 275 Fax: [phone]
> > > Jennifer Serafin Frye
> > > Division of Water Quality
> > > NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
> > > Winston-Salem Regional Office
> > > Winston-Salem, NC 27107
> > > Voice: 336-771-4608 ext. 275 Fax: [phone]
> Jennifer Serafin Frye
> Division of Water Quality
> NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
> Winston-Salem Regional Office
> Winston-Salem, NC 27107
> Voice: 336-771-4608 ext. 275 Fax: [phone]
3 of 3 7/6/01 9:24 AN
34- f D ?
Vo/do go/
-A-166 EA
76
At-- 004
1 ' ?
Deep River Outfall - Chronology
DWQ - Wetlands/401 Unit
July 9, 2001
Event Date Notes
Application received March 2, 2000 Dated 2/29/00
401 Issued (NW P 12) March 10, 2000 Condition in
General Certification re EA
DWQ letter to consultant re EA July 5, 2000 From WQ Planning - discusses
variance need
Letter - 401 on hold until EA done July 7, 2000
DWQ letter okaying EA August 11, 2000 Duplicate file set up by 401 staff
at this time (in error)
DWQ letter - need fee August 22, 2000
Consultant email re fee paid September 6, 2000 Consultant correct
Updated 401 issued September 20, 2000
Faxed file to Corps of Engineers December 14, 2000
Other items
Project # 000199 and #001091 are the same application and project.
Randleman buffer rules came into effect April 1, 1999. Phased in by local governments
after EMC approval of programs?
Randleman Lake 401 - nothing specific about buffer rules except if rules change, 401
goes away. Rules did not change in Legislature so 401 still valid.
Addendum to EA - discusses minimization of impacts to buffer. Unsure whether Corps
of Engineers are in review cycle for state EA's.
k r Q)vo - y?`Cv
-- ??,
,?'2-vy,A_
a-A 2-- 4 /d C)
I (S? ?l PCB (/(?C? 7Q,?ICX.? lo Z U7?7?
LL U c YT .:? ors
f ` 1T? ?OV?f1U' ?d/? 1
2 Z 2 ?v
Cuf
e
o ?od z
Cyrb
2,e
r
Do '
wo cb cv:'
fw'?'-
? C
'2 X-1 o
.Yc? rtG?L ?-rL-L(?c?. I / G'?'Jr•? / r?` r ,?, ? 1 _,. C/t 'isf??r> '',??
r: C.-
Re: DeeO River Outfall project
Subject: Re: Deep River Outfall project
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 200109:37:16 -0400
From: Jennifer Frye <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR Water Quality
To: John Dorsey <[e-mail]>
CC: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>
John,
Your files must be completely different from what I have. The EA that I have is shown
entire outfall line (from Johnson St. to just South of Kivett Dr.), a portion of which
detailed in the PCN for the March 10/Sept. 20 Certification, 00 0199, from just South
Kivett Drive to just North of 29/70. This has to be the same sewer outfall area - eve]
Point wouldn't be inane enough to have 2 different outfalls planned for along the Deep
There is another Certification (00 0480), that I looked at, that was issued May 4, 200
outfall runs from Eastchester Drive to just north of Greensboro Rd.- this segment is a
shown on the EA that is in my files.
Believe it or not, John, I am not trying to be argumentative .... I am just trying to he.
Jennifer
John Dorney wrote:
> true (sort of and now there is even more confusion).
> the certification issued on march 10 was for kivett drive to north of business 29170
> certification issued on sept 20 was for the same amount of stream impact (420 feet) .
> wetlands (0.25 acres) as that on march 10. the sept 20 certification also says it
> replaces the one from march 10. therefore they are for the same project. the only
> have is for this segment..
> however.... the SEPA document is for the sewer line from johnson street TO kivett d.
> (i assume jennifer'that these are not the same area!). therefore we have NOT certif
> the segment of the sewer line that is in the EAIFONSI. part of the confusion comes
> the consultant who said they were the same project (he was obviously wrong).
> are we confused yet?
> Jennifer Frye wrote:
> > Same project ...different segments. The Certifications were issued for different
> > sections of the same outfall line... the information included with both PCNs distin
> > show different portions of the outfall and the Certifications are for different
> > amounts of wetland/stream impacts.
> > John Dorney wrote:
> > > close but no cigar. both certifications are for the same project.
> > > Jennifer Frye wrote:
> > > > I would just like to add that it appears that the 401 issued in September 2000
> > > > (00 0199) is for only one segment of the entire project and that another 401 w
> > > > issued in may, 2001 (01 0480) for another segment. 401 applications have yet
> > > > be submitted for the remaining segments (at least two) - to my knowledge - but
> > > > were included with the EA document dated June 22, 1999.
> > > > Jen
> > > > John Dorney wrote:
> > > > > greg - i will bring file downtown for our meeting this morning (be there
> > > > > around 11:30 ish). rather confused file but bottom line is the application
> > > > > does not discuss buffers but the EA/FONSI (approved by DWQ on August 15,
> > > > > 2000) discussed buffer impacts as unavoidable and needing a variance from
> > > > > the Randleman buffer rules. i am not sure that the COE saw the EA much less
1 of 3 7/2/01 9:58 AN
'Re: Deep River Outfall project
>

> > commented (this may be the lapse in communication in this process?). in any
> > event, it appears that a randleman variance is needed and the applicant was
> > notified of this in the EA. no variance application received to date as far
> > as i can tell. the final 401 was issued on sept 20, 2000 (the earlier 401
> > was issued on march 10, 2000 but then put on hold on july 7 (sort of anyway)
> > once we learned of the EA process on july 5 from gloria putnam in
> > planning). we (me actually) did confuse things by having two project
> > numbers for the same project (000199 and 001091- the fact that the two
> > numbers are similar is anti-serendipity!).
> > cyndi will come play with you all on july 11
> > > Greg Thorpe wrote:
> > > > The project # & date for the 401 for this project that Bobby provided in
> > > > his message, below, don't quite match up with the info that David
> > > > Franklin provided from his file, but this is the project for which the
> > > > Corps is considering revoking the 404. Bobby also provided the ND permit
> > > > #, below. David Franklin has 2 project #'s for this one: DWQ project #
> > > > 000199 (same as Bobby's), with a 401 approval date of 3/7/00; and a DWQ
> > > > project # 001091 with a 401 approval date of 9120100. John, if you could
> > > > straighten those out for me, that'd be helpful in any case, the Corps is
> > > > having a meeting on July 11 at 10:30 AM at the Falls lake conference
> > > > room. I plan to attend, and I would like Jennifer to attend (Jennifer,
> > > > please let me know if this presents any conflicts for you), and, John, I
> > > > would like someone from your shop to attend with me, if there's someone
> > > > other than yourself who is knowledgeable on this topic - I realize this
> > > > is the same day as the WQC, so you won't be able to attend this one.
> > > > Apparently, High Point is currently planning to put this pipe much
> > > > closer to the lake then their plans showed when the 401 & 404 were
> > > > approved last year, and it is now encroaching into zone 1 of the
> > > > buffer. On the upside, I believe Jamestown is supposed to be taken of
> > > > line by this project, and a pump station will be eliminated. On the
> > > > down side, and what the Corps is so concerned about, is that the revised
> > > > plans call for about 10,000 feet of buffer impacts (much of it in zone
> > > > 1, and very close to the water), according to David.
> > > > The Corps is considering revoking the 404 for the project. Actually, as
> > > > I understand it, if High pint does this, it could result in the PTRWA
> > > > having to modify the 404 for the entire Randleman Lake project, because
> > > > their is a condition in the lake project 404 that protects the buffer
> > > > from encroachment. John Kime has told the Corps they won't allow that
> > > > to happen, while at the same time giving High Point the go-ahead on
> > > > their current plans, as I understand things. The Corps, apparently, has
> > > > two letters signed by John Kime on the same date, one to High Point and
> > > > one to the Corps, saying two different things. Needless to say, the
> > > > Corps is not happy. High Point and the PTRWA authority (John Kime, I
> > > > presume) will be there on the 11th to discuss plans, etc.
> > > > John D looked at a 401 for this project for me yesterday (I assume it
> > > > was the 9120100 401) and didn't see any conflict with the 401, even if
> > > > the route for the pipe is changed (as an aside, I'm a little surprised
> > > > the 401 isn't a bit more specific than that). Clearly, though, if the
> > > > pipe is going to encroach on the buffer, it would be a violation of the
> > > > Randleman buffer rules and, at the very least, they will need a major
> > > > variance for that.
> > > > Jennifer just called me & clarified that the first 401 (with the march
> > > > date) was voided for some reason and it's the Sept 401 that rules.
> > > > Jennifer also indicated that Abner is familiar with the existing line,
> > > > and he may attend the July 11 meeting, as well. Dennis, do we need
> > > > anyone from Nondischarge (other than 401 rep) to attend? Please
> > > > advise. John, let me know who might be able to attend from 401.
2 of 3 7/2/019:58 AN
Re: Deep River Outfall project
> > > > > > Thanks!! Those of us who will be attending the meeting on the 11th
> > > > > > should probably plan to get together to discuss issues prior to the
> > > > > > meeting on the 11th., also. If we could have a conference call on the
> > > > > > morning of the 9th (before 11:00), or the afternoon of the 10th (late
> > > > > > afternoon), that would be good. The morning of Monday, the 9th, would
> > > > > > be preferable for me. Let me know. Thanks!!

> > > > > > Bobby Blowe wrote:

> > > > > > > FYI--
> > > > > > > DWQ non-discharge permit # WQ 0019758
> > > > > > > 404 permit # 199921157 signed 3-6-00 by John Thomas
> > > > > > > 401 permit # 00-0199 signed 7-7-00 by Dorney

> > > > > > > info provided by Ed Powell, who is the consultant involved.

> > > > Jennifer Serafin Frye
> > > > Division of Water Quality
> > > > NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
> > > > Winston-Salem Regional Office
> > > > Winston-Salem, NC 27107
> > > > Voice: 336-771-4608 ext. 275 Fax: [phone]

> > Jennifer Serafin Frye
> > Division of Water Quality
> > NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
> > Winston-Salem Regional office
> > Winston-Salem, NC 27107
> > Voice: 336-771-4608 ext. 275 Fax: [phone]
Jennifer Serafin Frye
Division of Water Quality
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Winston-Salem Regional Office
Winston-Salem, NC 27107
Voice: 336-771-4608 ext. 275 Fax: [phone]
3 of 3 7/2/01 9:58 AM
Re: Deep River Outfall project
Subject: Re: Deep River Outfall project
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 17:01:49 -0400
From: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
To: Jennifer Frye <[e-mail]>
CC: Greg Thorpe <[e-mail]>, Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>,
"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,
Dennis Ramsey <[e-mail]>
true (sort of and now there is even more confusion).
the certification issued on march 10 was for kivett drive to north of business 29/70.
certification issued on sept 20 was for the same amount of stream impact (420 feet) any
wetlands (0.25 acres) as that on march 10. the sept 20 certification also says it
replaces the one from march 10. therefore they are for the same project. the only PC]
have is for this segment.
however.... the SEPA document is for the sewer line from johnson street TO kivett dri-
(i assume jennifer that these are not the same area!). therefore we have NOT certifies
the segment of the sewer line that is in the EA/FONSI. part of the confusion comes fri
the consultant who said they were the same project (he was obviously wrong).
are we confused yet?
Jennifer Frye wrote:
> Same project ...different segments. The Certifications were issued for different
> sections of the same outfall line... the information included with both PCNs distinct
> show different portions of the outfall and the Certifications are for different
> amounts of wetland/stream impacts.
> John Dorney wrote:
> > close but no cigar. both certifications are for the same project.
> > Jennifer Frye wrote:
> >
> > > I would just like to add that it appears that the 401 issued in September 2000
> > > (00 0199) is for only one segment of the entire project and that another 401 was
> > > issued in May, 2001 (01 0480) for another segment. 401 applications have yet to
> > > be submitted for the remaining segments (at least two) - to my knowledge - but
> > > were included with the EA document dated June 22, 1999.
> > > Jen
> > > John Dorney wrote:
> > > > greg - i will bring file downtown for our meeting this morning (be there
> > > > around 11:30 ish). rather confused file but bottom line is the application
> > > > does not discuss buffers but the EA/FONSI (approved by DWQ on August 15,
> > > > 2000) discussed buffer impacts as unavoidable and needing a variance from
> > > > the Randleman buffer rules. i am not sure that the COE saw the EA much less
> > > > commented (this may be the lapse in communication in this process?). in any
> > > > event, it appears that a randleman variance is needed and the applicant was
> > > > notified of this in the EA. no variance application received to date as far
> > > > as i can tell. the final 401 was issued on sept 20, 2000 (the earlier 401
> > > > was issued on march 10, 2000 but then put on hold on july 7 (sort of anyway)
> > > > once we learned of the EA process on july 5 from gloria putnam in
> > > > planning). we (me actually) did confuse things by having two project
> > > > numbers for the same project (000199 and 001091- the fact that the two
> > > > numbers are similar is anti-serendipity!).
> > > > cyndi will come play with you all on july 11
> > > > Greg Thorpe wrote:
> > > > > The project # & date for the 401 for this project that Bobby provided in
1 of 3 6/29/01 5:03 M
Re: Deep River Outfall project
> > > > > his message, below, don't quite match up with the info that David
> > > > > Franklin provided from his file, but this is the project for which the
> > > > > Corps is considering revoking the 404. Bobby also provided the ND permit
> > > > > #, below. David Franklin has 2 project #'s for this one: DWQ project #
> > > > > 000199 (same as Bobby's), with a 401 approval date of 3/7/00; and a DWQ
> > > > > project # 001091 with a 401 approval date of 9120100. John, if you could
> > > > > straighten those out fox, me, that'd be helpful In any case, the Corps is
> > > > > having a meeting on July 11 at 10:30 AM at the Falls lake conference
> > > > > room. I plan to attend, and I would like Jennifer to attend (Jennifer,
> > > > > please let me know if this presents any conflicts for you), and, John, I
> > > > > would like someone from your shop to attend with me, if there's someone
> > > > > other than yourself who is knowledgeable on this topic - I realize this
> > > > > is the same day as the WQC, so you won't be able to attend this one.
> > > > > Apparently, High Point is currently planning to put this pipe much
> > > > > closer to the lake then their plans showed when the 401 & 404 were
> > > > > approved last year, and it is now encroaching into zone 1 of the
> > > > > buffer. On the upside, I believe Jamestown is supposed to be taken of
> > > > > line by this project, and a pump station will be eliminated. On the
> > > > > down side, and what the Corps is so concerned about, is that the revised
> > > > > plans call for about 10,000 feet of buffer impacts (much of it in zone
> > > > > 1, and very close to the water), according to David.
> > > > > The Corps is considering revoking the 404 for the project. Actually, as
> > > > > I understand it, if High pint does this, it could result in the PTRWA
> > > > > having to modify the 404 for the entire Randleman Lake project, because
> > > > > their is a condition in the lake project 404 that protects the buffer
> > > > > from encroachment. John Kime has told the Corps they won't allow that
> > > > > to happen, while at the same time giving High Point the go-ahead on
> > > > > their current plans, as I understand things. The Corps, apparently, has
> > > > > two letters signed by John Kime on the same date, one to High Point and
> > > > > one to the Corps, saying two different things. Needless to say, the
> > > > > Corps is not happy. High Point and the PTRWA authority (John Kime, I
> > > > > presume) will be there on the 11th to discuss plans, etc.
> > > > > John D looked at a 401 for this project for me yesterday (I assume it
> > > > > was the 9120100 401) and didn't see any conflict with the 401, even if
> > > > > the route for the pipe is changed (as an aside, I'm a little surprised
> > > > > the 401 isn't a bit more specific than that). Clearly, though, if the
> > > > > pipe is going to encroach on the buffer, it would be a violation of the
> > > > > Randleman buffer rules and, at the very least, they will need a major
> > > > > variance for that.
> > > > > Jennifer just called me & clarified that the first 401 (with the march
> > > > > date) was voided for some reason and it's the Sept 401 that rules.
> > > > > Jennifer also indicated that Abner is familiar with the existing line,
> > > > > and he may attend the July 11 meeting, as well. Dennis, do we need
> > > > > anyone from Nondischarge (other than 401 rep) to attend? Please
> > > > > advise. John, let me know who might be able to attend from 401.
> > > > > Thanks!! Those of us who will be attending the meeting on the 11th
> > > > > should probably plan to get together to discuss issues prior to the
> > > > > meeting on the 11th., also. if we could have a conference call on the
> > > > > morning of the 9th (before 11:00), or the afternoon of the 10th (late
> > > > > afternoon), that would be good. The morning of Monday, the 9th, would
> > > > > be preferable for me. Let me know. Thanks!!
> > > > > Bobby Blowe wrote:
> > > > > > FYI--
> > > > > > DWQ non-discharge permit # WQ 0019758
> > > > > > 404 permit # 199921157 signed 3-6-00 by John Thomas
> > > > > > 401 permit # 00-0199 signed 7-7-00 by Dorney
2 of 3 6/29/01 5:03 PM
Re: Deep River Outfall project
> > > > > > info provided by Ed Powell, who is the consultant involved.
> > > Jennifer Serafin Frye
> > > Division of Water Quality
> > > NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
> > > Winston-Salem Regional Office
> > > Winston-Salem, NC 27107
> > > Voice: 336-771-4608 ext. 275 Fax: [phone]
> Jennifer Serafin Frye
> Division of Water Quality
> NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
> Winston-Salem Regional Office
> Winston-Salem, NC 27107
> Voice: 336-771-4608 ext. 275 Fax: [phone]
3 of 3 6/29/01 5:03 PM
Re: Deep River Outfall project
0 0 6v_k4-e? u vA
0 1
Subject: Re: Deep River Outfall project C , 09 ) -
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 200108:51:42 -0400
From: Greg Thorpe <[e-mail]>
To: Dennis Ramsey <Dennis.Ramsey@ncmail. net>, John Dorney <[e-mail]>,
Jennifer Frye <[e-mail]>, Larry Coble <[e-mail]>,
Abner Braddy <[e-mail]>
CC: Corey Basinger <[e-mail]>, Coleen Sullins <[e-mail]>,
cyndi karoly <[e-mail]>
The project # & date for the 401 for this project that Bobby provided in
his message, below, don't quite match up with the info that David
Franklin provided from his file, but this is the project for which the
Corps is considering revoking the 404. Bobby also provided the ND permit
#, below. David Franklin has 2 project #'s for this one: DWQ project #
000199 (same as Bobby's), with a 401 approval date of 3/7/00; and a DWQ
project # 001091 with a 401 approval date of 9/20/00. John, if you could
straighten those out for me, that'd be helpful In any case, the Corps is
having a meeting on July 11 at 10:30 AM at the Falls lake conference
room. I plan to attend, and I would like Jennifer to attend (Jennifer,
please let me know if this presents any conflicts for you), and, John, I
would like someone from your shop to attend with me, if there's someone
other than yourself who is knowledgeable on this topic - I realize this
is the same day as the WQC, so you won't be able to attend this one.
Apparently, High Point is currently planning to put this pipe much
closer to the lake then their plans showed when the 401 & 404 were
approved last year, and it is now encroaching into zone 1 of the
buffer. On the upside, I believe Jamestown is supposed to be taken of
line by this project, and a pump station will be eliminated. On the
down side, and what the Corps is so concerned about, is that the revised
plans call for about 10,000 feet of buffer impacts (much of it in zone
1, and very close to the water), according to David.
The Corps is considering revoking the 404 for the project. Actually, as
I understand it, if High pint does this, it could result in the PTRWA
having to modify the 404 for the entire Randleman Lake project, because
their is a condition in the lake project 404 that protects the buffer
from encroachment. John Kime has told the Corps they won't allow that
to happen, while at the same time giving High Point the go-ahead on
their current plans, as I understand things. The Corps, apparently, has
two letters signed by John Kime on the same date, one to High Point and
one to the Corps, saying two different things. Needless to say, the
Corps is not happy. High Point and the PTRWA authority (John Kime, I
presume) will be there on the 11th to discuss plans, etc.
John D looked at a 401 for this project for me yesterday (I assume it
was the 9/20/00 401) and didn't see any conflict with the 401, even if
the route for the pipe is changed (as an aside, I'm a little surprised
the 401 isn't a bit more specific than that). Clearly, though, if the
pipe is going to encroach on the buffer, it would be a violation of the
Randleman buffer rules and, at the very least, they will need a major
variance for that.
Jennifer just called me & clarified that the first 401 (with the march
date) was voided for some reason and it's the Sept 401 that rules.
Jennifer also indicated that Abner is familiar with the existing line,
and he may attend the July 11 meeting, as well. Dennis, do we need
anyone from Nondischarge (other than 401 rep) to attend? Please
advise. John, let me know who might be able to attend from 401.
Thanks!! Those of us who will be attending the meeting on the 11th
should probably plan to get together to discuss issues prior to the
meeting on the 11th., also. If we could have a conference call on the
1 of 2 6/29/01 8:54 AN
Gr'I I ;aura r,cs ;ur ??s
1I1 I?iC:n
Ij - -- _. , ;unr, Jr., -aver lcr
Eiil ;"ciman, Sec,eiary
K-, , . Stevens, Dirac:cr
now
D E N R
Divisicn at Water Quality t4
Envircnmenici Sc;ences Branc;h &'Neflands/401 Unit '
Lac-- icn: , ,G i ??<eecy C,eC1c Rcc?
Rcleic N.C.2X07
Mailing Address: 1 c21 iL1cii Service Cen er
Rcieicl?- ::, V.C. 27 c
FAX: (q i q; 7
I b11 1 A1111%A WL.:;
- to 2 J f?-2..
=ROM:
119 - -7
NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS SHE=i. 01 I I
V (d. 6i -n i?? zv
y P? G 40 J o?
If6 jr?2
, J 1?,
.1
c ?
J I_ r
62-
1?, k P- -i,
A 5L " SS
I. ycu r;,Ceive ;his cx 7 ,"37ck ..c !: ' -.
;C •'J `'? v.V ugly lv -vr 1v'/e ICI i?? `? 1 ?.?? I VV ? ICC•
Re: City of High Point - Deep River Outfall
Subject: Re: City of High Point - Deep River Outfall
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 07:48:14 -0400
From: Rob Ridings <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DWQ
To: John Dorney <john.dorneyCancrnail.net>, dmpC hpe.infi.net
CC: [e-mail]
Dear Mr. Palmer,
You are correct and we apologize for the confusion. Your project (actual number
is 000199) with fee was recieved on March 2 and a 401 permit written on March
10. John then wrote a letter in July about the FONSI requirement.
I will combine the information you sent in u gust into that on anal file and
give to John to review. y C? 1yJ??
Hope this clarifies everything,
Rob Ridings
John Dorney wrote:
C
> rob - please check on this project and a'de LQinkx
> Ben Palmer wrote: p (9 C
>nT? t
> > Mr. Dorney -"?
> > U

1 of 2
I have received a copy of your August 22, 2000 letter to Mr. Gerald Pottern
(Robert J. Goldstein & Associates) in regards to the subject project (DWQ#
001091). Your letter indicated that an application and fee were required
for the project.
Our files indicate that seven (7) copies of the application as well as the
required fee were submitted to your office under a February 29, 2000 cover
letter from our office.
Please check your files to verify that this information has been received.
High Point received a July 7, 2000 letter indicating that the 401
Certification had been issued on March 10, 2000, but was being held until
the SEPA process was complete.
I understand that the application was submitted prematurely (prior to
FONSI) and I apologize for any confusion this has created. Please give me
a call if you have any questions.
Thanks
Ben Palmer, PE
Davis-Martin-Powell & Assoc
218 Gatewood Avenue
High Point, NC 27262
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Robert Ridings <rob [e-mail]>
i
?`I
9/6/00 7:48 AM
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Mr. Gerald Pottern
Robert J Goldstein & Associates
8480 Garvey Drive
Raleigh, NC 27604
NWA
4 LI.Ca •
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
August 22, 2000
Re: Deep River Outfall-City of High Point
Guilford County
DWQ# 001091
Dear Mr. Pottern:
In response to the EA for the above mentioned project, please be aware that an
application for the 401 Certification and Certification fee will be required for this project
since the width of the construction corridor exceeds that specified in General Certification
Number 3288. Please refer to project number 001091 when you submit the seven copies
of your application.
Please call me at [phone] if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
n D mey
Cc: File Copy
Central Files
Wetlands/401 Unit • 1621 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, North Carolina 27669-1621
Telephone [phone] • FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
50% recycled/ 10% post consumer paper
001091
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
eENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
RCDENR DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
r
August 15, 2000
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
Gerald Pottern
Robert J. Goldstein and Associates
BILL HOLMAN 8480 Garvey Drive
SECRETARY Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
VIETANDS
,11, GRpUT
PTF!i t1l1P,L1,Y.S. C ;;
Subject: City of High Point, Deep River Outfall EA
KERR T. STEVENS DENR# 1004; SCH# OOE-4300-0400
DIRECTOR
Dear Mr. Pottern:
I have received and reviewed the addendum to the Environmental Assessment (EA)
for the Deep River Outfall. It appears that all of the comments received during the
Clearinghouse review have been adequately addressed. It is now acceptable to
proceed with your permit applications through the Division of Water Quality for the
proposed project. No further actions on the Environmental Assessment are required,
with the exception of allowing the Wildlife Resources Commission to review and
comment on future final alignments of the sewer line.
If there is anything I can assist you with, please do not hesitate to give me a call at
[phone], ext. 567.
Sincerely,
Gloria F. Putnam
Environmental Specialist
cc: Kim Colson, Nondischarge Permitting Unit, DWQ
John Domey, 401/Wetlands Unit, DWQ
Perry A. Kairis, Public Services Director
Ben Palmer, Davis-Martin-Powell & Associates, Inc.
John Kime, Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority
Renee Gledhill-Early, State Historic Preservation Office
Owen Anderson, Wildlife Resources Commission
Melba McGee, DENR
e
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1617
website: h2o.enr. state. nc. us PHONE 919-733-SO83 FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - SO% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
ILF.WMA,
IT
A&4
D E N R
July 7, 2000
DWQ# 00-0199
Guilford County
City of High Point
C/o Petry Kairis
P.O. Box 230
High Point, NC, 27261
Notice regarding 401 Water Quality Certification for City of High Point, Deep River Outfall
Dear Mr. Kairis:
Reference is made to the 401 Water Quality Certification issued to you on March 10, 2000 for the Deep River
Outfall project in Guilford County,-involving 0.25 acre of wetland fill and 420 linear feet of stream impact. We
have been notified by DWQ Planning staff that this public project is currently under review by the State
Clearinghouse. We understand that the City of High Point was instructed by Planning staff not to apply for the
401 Water Quality Certification until the State Clearinghouse issued a final decision. It is expected that a Finding
of No Significant Impact (FONSI) will not be issued until late summer or fall 2000. In accordance with NCAC
15A:01C .0402, DWQ cannot issue a 401 Water Quality Certification until the project has received a FONSI.
Therefore, the 401 Certification previously issued will not go into effect until the SEPA process is complete. Any
conditions related to water quality in the FONSI will automatically become conditions of the 401 Water Quality
Certification. We recommend that you notify us when the SEPA process is complete, and then we will re-activate
your project. In addition, by copy of this letter, we are notifying the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that the 401
Water Quality Certification should be considered on hold.
Thank you for your attention. If you have any questions, please contact John Dorney at 919-733-9646 or
Cyndi Karoly at [phone].
SAN'( IU
FIL Sincerely,
?tevens
Attachment \J V 2r
cc: Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Winston-Salem DWQ Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
000199rescind
Non-Discharge Branch 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper

Aooio'A
RCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
June, 22, 2000
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
BILL HOLMAN
SECRETARY
KERR T. STEVENS.
DIRECTOR
Gerald Pottern
Robert J. Goldstein and Associates
8480 Garvey Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
n -} t ?
t ll?

Subject: City of High Point, Deep River Outfall EA
Dear Mr. Pottern:
I have received Ben Palmer's letter of April 28, 2000 in response to my letters
to you dated April 13`h and 17t1, 2000 regarding the Deep River Outfall
Environmental Assessment (EA). I have also received copies of Mr. Palmer's
letters to Mike Mills (NC DOT) and Renee Gledhill-Early (SHPO) regarding
the same project.
Based on the information Mr. Palmer provided regarding the 2-mile segment
of outfall to be placed between Harvey Road and south of Kivett Drive, the
City of High Point will need to apply for a variance from our 15A NCAC 2H
v
.0200 rules for this portion of the project. The variance should be requested at
the time an application is submitted to the Non-Discharge Permitting Unit for
the outfall (after the remaining EA issues have been resolved). Provided this
variance is granted, and based on information Mr. Palmer provided, it appears
that the proposed project will comply with our rules for minimum separations
as defined at 15A NCAC 2H.0219 (i)(G).
With respect to the issues raised by the NC DOT, the Division is satisfied with
Mr. Palmer's response to Mike Mills and requires no further action on this
item.
In reference to the archaeological survey, it is understood that the draft
findings of this survey should be available by the end of this month and will
be provided to Renee Gledhill-Early for her review. We are requesting
through this letter that Ms. Gledhill-Early copy us on her response so we can
promptly respond, as needed.
r
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1617
website: h2o.enr.state.nc.us PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
HIGH POINT DEEP RIVER OUTFALL REPLACEMENT
CITY OF HIGH POINT
GUILFORD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
State Clearinghouse Review Number OOE-4300-0400
NC-DENR Review Number 1004
2 August 2000
Lead Agency Contact:
Ms. Gloria F. Putnam
NC-DWQ Water Quality Planning
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
[phone] ext. 567
Municipal Contact:
Mr. Perry A. Kairis
Public Services Director
City of High Point -- P.O. Box 230
High Point, N.C. 27261-0230
[phone]
Project Engineer:
Mr. Randy L. McNeill, P.E.
Davis-Martin-Powell & Assoc., Inc.
218 Gatewood Ave., Suite 102
High Point, N.C. 27262
[phone]
RJG&A Project No. 9875
Robert J. Goldstein & Associates, Inc.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
8480 Garvey Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27616-3175
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
INTRODUCTION
The Draft EA for the City of High Point's Deep River Outfall Replacement project
(previously referred to as the Eastside Outfall Improvement project) was submitted to the N.C.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ), as lead agency, for NC-DENR review in June 1999.
Comments on the Draft EA were received from the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(WRC) and DENR Winston-Salem Regional Office (WSRO). The document was revised in
response to these comments and to incorporate proposed design changes at several stream
crossings, and a Final EA was submitted to DWQ in January 2000. The Final EA was
reviewed through the State Clearinghouse in February 2000, along with a FONSI prepared by
the lead agency (copy of FONSI is included here). Comments on the Final EA and project
plans were received in April 2000 from DWQ, WRC, the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO), N.C. Department of Transportation (DOT), and the Piedmont Triad Regional Water
Authority (PTRWA). These comments are summarized and responses are provided below and
in the attached correspondence.
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
A. DWQ - Gloria Putnam, 13 April 2000
Comment A1: Satisfactory responses to concerns raised by PTRWA, SHPO, and DOT will be
required.
Response: These agencies have been consulted and their concerns are addressed in the
following sections of this addendum.
Comment A2: "If the project cannot meet all conditions of the 401 Certification, the applicant
will need to apply directly to [DWQ's] Wetlands Unit (with appropriate fees) for an individual
Certification. A copy of the Final EA [with this addendum] should be included with the 401
Certification application."
Response: The project will require construction corridors wider than 40 feet and permanent
topographic changes at some stream and wetland crossings; these activities are generally not
authorized under Nationwide Permit 12 and General Water Quality Certification 3101.
However a Corps of Engineers (COE) indicated during a pre-application meeting that NWP
12 and %,W.26 may be combined, allowing the project to proceed without requiring a Section
404 Indivi ual Permit. The DWQ Wetlands Unit will determine whether 401 General
Certification can also proceed in this way, and whether appropriate compensatory mitigation
will be required.
Comment A3: Ms. Putnam requested a set of construction plans for review.
Response: The project engineers mailed her a set of construction plans on 28 April 2000.
2
B. PTRWA - John Kime, 16 March 2000
Comment 131: Figure 4a fails to indicate that more than 9,000 feet of construction easement
is within the buffer surrounding Randleman Lake.
Comment 132: The document is not consistent with the EMC's recently adopted "Randleman
Rules." Project design began prior to these rules, and some of the reasons for selecting this
alignment may no longer apply.
Comment 133: PTRWA requests further review of the project before the alignment is finalized.
Responses: DWQ non-discharge design criteria (15A NCAC 2H.0219) require that sewerlines
be placed at least 100 feet from the shoreline of Class I or II reservoirs. If this separation
cannot be met, then ferrous pipe with joints equivalent to water main standards must be used.
Furthermore, the High Point Watershed Protection Ordinance and DWQ's Randleman Lake
Rules require undisturbed buffers 50 to 100 feet wide (depending on development density and
stormwater management) along all intermittent and perennial streams, ponds, and lakes in the
watershed. Sewerline construction parallel to streams is not allowed in the innermost 30 feet
of these buffers unless no practicable alternative exists.
Of the 11,800 feet of proposed construction corridor in project segment 2 (as shown
in the Jan 2000 EA), undisturbed riparian buffers (measured from the downslope corridor edge
to either the Randleman Lake normal pool elevation (682 contour) or nearest tributary) will be
100 feet or wider along 4,400 feet of corridor. Of the remaining 7,400 feet of corridor,
undisturbed riparian buffers will be 20 to 50 feet wide along 3,500 feet, and 50 to 100 feet
wide along 3,900 feet of corridor. The 100-foot wide Randleman Lake buffer is unavoidable
in these areas due to the elevation of the Jamestown pump station at the northern end of the
project. Reasons for this and safety features of the proposed pipes and joints are discussed
further in the attached letter from Davis-Martin-Powell.
Davis-Martin-Powell and City engineers met with PTRWA in June 2000 to review the
project construction plans and determine whether further design improvements could be
incorporated to protect riparian buffers or provide other water quality safeguards.
Consequently, three segments totalling 3,100 feet of the outf all have been shifted away from
the river to preserve wider buffers along the future reservoir: 1) Station 21 +00 to 34+39,
2) Station 55 +00 to 69 + 70, and 3) Station 86 + 50 to 89 + 60 (map attached). The shifts
vary from 0 feet at the tie-in points to a maximum of 60 feet. The attached letter from John
Kime of PTRWA (5 July 2000) acknowledges these shifts and concurs that their previous
comment has been adequately addressed.
The remaining 56,200 feet of future project segments from the Jamestown pump
station upstream to Johnson Street, all in the Randleman Lake watershed, have not been
designed. However, preliminary mapping indicates that 60 to 70 percent of the project will
be 100 feet or farther from parallel streams and lake shorelines. Only 10 to 15 percent of the
remaining project is likely to be closer than 50 feet, mainly where existing development on
uplands adjacent to High Point Lake and Oak Hollow Lake must be served. These lake
shorelines are subjected to lower flow velocities and are thus less prone to erosion than free-
flowing streams.
3
C. NC-DOT - Alena Cook, 24 February 2000
Comment Cl: The information provided was not sufficient to determine if the proposed
sewerline construction will impact DOT right-of-way. An encroachment agreement may be
required prior to construction, and should be coordinated with Mike Mills at the DOT Division
7 Office (336-334-3192).
Response: On 27 April 2000 Davis-Martin-Powell sent a letter to Mr. Mills itemizing the two
NC-DOT encroachments in project segment 2 (Kivett Drive and US-29-70) and nine future
encroachments in project segments 3, 4, and 5. Encroachment agreement notifications will
be submitted to the DOT Division 7 Office as design of each project segment proceeds.
D. SHPO - Renee Gledhill-Early, 8 March 2000 and 4 August 2000
Comment D1: SHPO requested in a September 1998 scoping letter that an archaelogical
survey be conducted in the project corridor between Kivett Drive Extension (SR 1113) and
Harvey Road (SR 1355), and that a previously recorded mill site on the Deep River (31 GF85)
be evaluated for eligibility to the National Register.
Response: Wake Forest University Archaeology Laboratories conducted a survey of this
segment during May to June 2000, and DMP submitted a report to SHPO. One Early
Woodland Period campsite (31 GF419) was found and excavated, artifacts and information
were retrieved. Site 31 GF85 was investigated and determined to lack sufficient integrity to
qualify for the National Register of Historic Places. SHPO concludes that no further
investigations at either site is warranted.
E. WRC - Shari Bryant, 13 April 2000
Comment E1: Ms. Bryant reviwed the construction plans for project segment 2 and concurs
with the selected design, particularly the location of the permanent access corridor on the off-
stream side of the manholes to maximize buffer width. WRC has no further comments or
recommendations for segment 2, but requests that plans for each subsequent project segment
be submitted for WRC review at the appropriate time.
Response: High Point agrees to coordinate with WRC regarding design of the remaining
project segments, which may be a few years away.
4
ATTACHMENTS: Finding of No Significant Impact, DWQ -- 18 Feb 2000
Gloria Putnam, DWQ -- comment letter 13 Apr 2000
John Kime, PTRWA -- comment letter 16 Mar 2000
Alena Cook, NC-DOT -- comment letter 24 Feb 2000
Renee Gledhill-Early, SHPO -- comment letter 08 Mar 2000
Renee Gledhill-Early, SHPO -- comment letter 04 Aug 2000
Shari Bryant, WRC -- comment letter 13 Apr 2000
DMP -- response letter 22 Mar 2000 to RJG&A re: Randleman buffers
DMP -- response letter 28 Apr 2000 to DWQ re: Randleman buffers
Gloria Putnam, DWQ -- response letter 22 June 2000
John Kime, PTRWA -- response 05 July 2000 re: Randleman buffers
Map of proposed alignment shifts to maximize Randleman buffer width
DMP -- response letter 27 Apr 2000 to DOT re: DOT encroachments
DMP -- response letter 10 May 2000 to SHPO re: Archaeological survey
5
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Assessment for the
City of High Point Deep River Outfall Improvements Project
City of High Point, Guilford County
February 18, 2000
An environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared, pursuant to the requirements of the North
Carolina Environmental Policy Act, for the proposed construction of 68,000 feet of new 24 to 66-
inch diameter sanitary sewerlines in Guilford County. The sewer lines will be along the Deep
River and its tributaries, including High Point Lake and Oak Hollow Lake, from Johnson Street
in the northwestern section of the City of High Point to Kivett Drive Extension east of the City.
The project will replace severely deteriorated and undersized segments of the existing Deep
River Outfall, increase collection system capacity, provide service to unsewered areas, and allow
future retirement of an existing pump station. In most areas, the sewer line will be in new right-
of-way but in others the existing Deep River Outfall will be paralleled. The new sewer line will
service the following areas: the Deep River basin upstream of Richland Creek and south of
Interstate 40 which includes northern High Point, Jamestown; southwestern Greensboro; and
southeastern Kernersville. The entire service area is 69.2 square miles, of which 48.3 miles is
existing and 20.9 square miles is proposed.
Wastewater will be conveyed to the Eastside Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). This plant
is currently in the permitting review process for an expansion from 16 million gallons per day
(MGD) to 26 MGD. An EA for this expansion was completed under the guidance of the
Division of Water Quality's Construction Grants and Loans Section. The State Clearinghouse
review of the EA Was completed on July 7, 1999.
The alternatives for the proposed project included the "no action" alternative; repairing/replacing
the outfall at the existing location, and replacing the outfall on a new location (preferred
alternative).
The "No Action" alternative was dismissed because existing infiltration and exfiltration
problems would not be addressed and High Point would need to limit new connections to the
existing Deep River Outfall. Additionally, growth in the area would still be expected to occur
without the project but with less desirable wastewater treatment, such as septic tanks.
The alternative of repairing the outfall was dismissed because it was not considered cost-
effective nor: would-'it solve capacity limitation or wastewater pumping problems. The
alternative of replacing. the outfall with a new large pipeline adjacent to the existing outfall was
also dismissed. Although this option would have addressed capacity concerns it would not have
addressed wastewater pumping problems and obtaining new construction easements for the
pipeline was considered impractical in many areas due to existing development.
. 1,

The preferred alternative is replacement of the Deep River Outfall, mostly in new right-of-way.
It is the alternative that best solves problems of maintenance, capacity limitations, and excessive
pumping. The principal engineering constraints in selecting the preferred route included
providing sewer service where most needed; providing a suitable horizontal gradient to ensure
flow, and providing adequate depth to avoid aerial segments or obstructions to stream flow.
The preferred route for' the pipeline was chosen to minimize work in environmentally sensitive
areas and the corridor will be limited to 25 feet right-of ways. However, the preferred route will
require the clearing of approximately 37.74 acres of upland forest, 15.84 acres of floodplain
forest, 13.64. acres of old field/scrub habitats, and 25.62 acres of developed land, and crossing
fifty streams or impoundments.
The final alignment for only a portion of the eastern segment of the project has been determined
at this time. Design plans for the remainder of the outfall from Jamestown WWTP west to
Johnson Street (56,000 feet) will be developed when funding becomes available. The North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission will be provided the opportunity to review the final
sewer alignment before construction.
Most of the stream crossings are not anticipated to produce permanent topographic changes.
However, four stream crossings along the segment.of the pipeline which has a final design, will
require filling the existing channel and constructing a new channel on top of the filled area.
To minimize impacts to water quality and aquatic resources, no instream activities will take place
during April and May. Post construction mitigation activities will include restoring the site to
previous grade and contours, and revegetating to control erosion.
To minimize impacts from construction in wetlands, all construction activities will conform to
any conditions imposed by permits required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers and
401 Water Quality Certifications required from the North Carolina Division of Water Quality. If
it is determine that 401 Certification conditions will not be met, the City will apply for a 401
Certification. Mitigation for stream and wetland, impacts will be determined during the
Certification process..
Based on the findings of the EA and on the impact avoidance/mitigation measures contained
therein, it is concluded that the proposed project will not result in significant impacts to the
environment. This EA and Finding of-No Significant Impact (FONSI) are prerequisites for the
issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Sewer Extension Permit by the Division of
Water Quality. Pending approval by the State Clearinghouse, the environmental review for this
project will be concluded. An environmental impact statement will not be prepared for this
project.
Division of Water Quality
February 18, 2000
A
I}ZC9 H` NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
.:>
?{ $ TS JR
ERNOR"?. HOLMAN, [iCTARY
W
April 13, 2000
Gerald Pottem
Robert J. Goldstein and Associates
8480 Garvey Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Re: High Point Deep River Outfall EA, State Clearinghouse Review
Dear Mr. Pottern:
e January 3, 2000 Environmental Assessment (EA) for the
0 utfall4Improvements
,. project in Guilford County
through the Department of Administration's State Clearinghouse h99 ended
The review generated the attached comments from the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT), the Department of Cultural
Resources, (DCR)` and the Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority
(PTRWA) The issues identified by the NCDOT regarding whether the
protect will impact NGDOTright-of-way and the need for an encroachment
agreement, can be xe?olyed during the permitting` process, prior to
p•1tia
construction. It is recommended that the applicant contact the NCDOT
immediately to determine what further actions are needed on this matter.
For " e : "' eats received during the Clearinghouse review, a
sats f x[11 be?equired in order for the Division of Water
Quality (Division) ider-the EA review-process complete. The response
will ultimately need to beT> oared as a ld6ifrlum. o'tlie EA. Please
coordinate with Renee-Gledhill Early (DCR, 919-733-4763) and John Kime
(PTRWA, 336-547-8437) to address their concerns. Please keep me informed
of any correspondence that occurs on these issues. Note that as a preliminary
step to answering concerns raised by the PTRWA, I have forwarded to. John
Kim the M&6f 22,x:2(100 letter from Ben Palmer to you regarding required
stteti°?buffers for the project.
I would also like to restate a subject we discussed in our telephone
conversation on February 17, 2000. If the project cannot meet all conditions
of. the 4Q1 Water Quality Certification, the applicant will need to apply
directly to the Division's Wetlands Unit (with appropriate fees) for an
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1 6 1 7
website: h2o.enr state.nc.us PHONE 91 9-733-SOR3 FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - SOq RECYCLEO/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
r
.s
Page 2 of 2
High Point EA
4/13/00
individual Certification. :A copy of the final EA, along with the additional
information being provided to address comments generated during the State
Clearinghouse review, should be included with the'401 Certification
application.
You also mentioned in your facsimile to me on March 24, 2000 that Ben
Palmer is "sending a set of plans" to Owen Anderson and asked if I wanted a
set. Is this a final set of plans for the sewer alignment? If so, IrV.6- ild-like'a
set of ;the::plansI!ttd request°that you sendzthem as soon as possible:
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 919-733-5083 ext. 567.
Sincerely,

Gloria F. Putnam
DWQ SEPA Coordinator
Attachments
cc: John Kime, Piedmont Triad Water Authority
Kim Colson, NDPU (w/attachments)
John Dorney, Wetlands Unit (w/attachments)
Renee Gledhill-Early, NCDCR
u
PIEDMONT TRIAD REGIONAL WATER
March 16, 2000
Ms. Chrys Baggett
North Carolina State Clearinghouse a S??FcF?I,, ?0
NC Department of Administration
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27603-8003
Dear Ms. Baggett:
AUTHORITY
I have recently (March 10) received a copy of the Environmental Assessment for the City of High Point
Deep River Outfall Improvements prepared by Goldstein and Associates dated January 3, 2000.
I would like to offer the following comments:
Figure 4a is somewhat misleading since it does not indicate that more than.9000 feet of 66-inch
pipe with an 80-foot construction easement is proposed to be placed Nyithunfhe ,Wi surrounding
Randleman Lake.
"?
2. Sections of the document do: not,appeat to be consistent;with'the Environmental Management
Commission's recently adopted "Randleman Rules" ielative to development within the watershed
critical area. Since it appears the design of this project and its proposed routing began in 1997 or
1998, predating the EMC rules, some of the reasons for selecting this alignment may no longer
apply.
3. The Board of Directors of the Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority has historically been very
protective of the Randleman buffer and would request further raiew ofthe project before the
actual routing is finalized.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a
call.
Sohn F. Kime
Executive Director
JFKJs
Wilmington Building, Suite 217 • 2216 West Meadowview Road • Greensboro, North Carolina 27407-3480
Telephone: [phone] • FAX: [phone]
C
w
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
February 24, 2000
MEMORANDUM
TO: North Carolina State Clearinghouse
Department of Administration
Intergovernmental Review
FROM: Alena R. Cook, E.I.T..'
Statewide Planning Branch
919-733-4705
SUBJECT: State Number: 00-E-4kd-;0400
City of High Point Deep River Outfall Improvements Project
The information provided was not sufficient to determine if the proposed construction
of sanitary sewer lines in Guilford County impacts NCDOT right of way. If the
proposed construction is within NCDOT right of way, an encroachment agreement may
be required before any construction begins: Please coordinate with the NCDOT
Division 7 Office at [phone].
cc: Mr. Mike Mills, P.E., Division 7 Engineer

PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
,. ST?tF o?
b
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J• Crow, Director
March 8, 2000
Gloria F. Putnam
N. C. Division of Water Quality
P. 0. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Re: Final Environmental Assessment, High Point Deep River Outfall Improvements,
CH00-E-4300-0400, Guilford County
Dear Ms. Putnam:
We have received the cited document concerning the above project from the State Clearinghouse.
As outlines in our letter of September 18, 1998, to Ben Palmer of David-Martin-Powell & Associates, Inc., (included
in the final environmental assessment) Project 2 is of concern. One recorded archaeological site (31 GF85**) is likely
to be affected by the proposed construction. The proposed project area between the Kivett Drive Extension and SR
1355 is likely to contain as yet unrecorded archaeological sites.
Our recommendation for testing of site 31 GF85** to determine its National Register eligibility and an archaeological
survey of the high probability area remains unchanged. This survey and testing should be undertaken as soon as
possible to avoid project delays. We look forward to working with the applicant on this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations -for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, please
contact Renee Gledhill-Earlev, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
,?,...,....;
` I ?-
;f
i.1Y,David Brook
V
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB: scb
cc: Perry A. Kairis, City of High Point
Randy L. McNeill, Davis-Martin-Powell & Associates, Inc.
Robert J. Goldstein & Associates, Inc.

ADYIINISTRATION Location Mailing Address Telephone!Fax

ARCHAEOLOGY 507 N.

421 N Blount St.. Raleigh NC 4017 Mail Ser6c,: Center. Ralci ,h \C ?71699-4017
(91 )) 733-763 7
:3-8653

RESTOR:11-I0N .
515 N. Blount St.. Raleigh \C
Blount St
Ralei
h \C' 4619 ?I;iil Smice (,fmcr.
1
! Ralei_h \C _,o91)-1h19 (919) 733-734? 7 1:-11071
SURVEY & PLANNING MI5 N. ..
g
Blount St.
Raleigh \C' 0
? Mail Sc,, ice Center.
46 IN
' Ralei__h \C _-699-101 7 7
11191 7.3 0=?. 7 ,: 1QOl
!:,
. Mail Service (C:I
r. R;ilcich \C: ''699-1r,lS
- 191 )) 7333-654i 7 15 -1;101
rrP?--G?-vv LJJ I :7oH um r
336-886-4458 P_02

® North Carolina Wildhfe Resources Commission KN
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
April 13, 2000
Mr. Ben Palmer, PE
Davis-Martin-Powell & Associates, Inc.
218 Gatewood Avenue, Suite 102
High Point, NC 27262
Dear Mr. Palmer:
We have reviewed the construction plans you sent for a 2-mile section of the Deep River
Outfall Sewer System Improvements. Our primary concern «vith this project is the direct impact to
riparian habitat, including wetlands, along the outfall route. We appreciate the effort that was made
to minimize, where practicable, the impacts to fisheries and wildlife resources. Positioning the
corridor so the outer boundary will be next to the access manholes and travel upgradient of the
outfall will maximize the buffer width and minimize impacts to aquatic and fisheries resources. It
appears that approximately 90% of the outfall route will have a minimum 50-foot buffer between
the edge of the construction/maintenance corridor and the Deep River. Also, utilizing orush and
low-quality timber for wildlife habitat, re-vegetating and allowing the corridor to return to pre-
construction conditions will further *minimize impacts.
We concur with the design of this 2-mile section of the project and have no further
comments or recommendations. Thank you for the opportunity to review the construction plans.
We would appreciate the opportunity to review the designs for the remaining portions of the
project once completed.
Since ly_,
Shari L. Bryant
Fisheries Biologist
cc: Owen Anderson, Piedmont Region Coordinator
Melba McGee, Office of Legislative and Internal Affairs
DAVIS - MARTIN - POWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.
ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING • SURVEYING
218 GATEWOOD AVENUE • SUITE 102
- HIGH POINT, NC 27262
PHONE [phone] • FAX[phone]
March 22, 2000
Re: City of High Point, NC
Deep River Outfall
Sewer System Improvements
DMP Job No. E-1959
Mr. Gerald Pottern
Robert J. Goldstein & Associates, Inc.
8480 Garvey Drive
Raleigh, NC 27616
Dear Gerald:
In regards to your March 20, 2000 email concerning buffer requirements on the above project, we have
compared our design with the requirements of the local Watershed Ordinance. Our proposed design
places the actual sewer main no closer than 50 feet to any channel or the proposed normal pool level of
Randleman Lake. The exception to this being areas where channels are crossed with the sewer main and
this is done at or near 90 degrees. Our proposed construction corridor will not fall within 30 feet of the
channels or normal pool level.
The Watershed Ordinance defines the Riparian Protection Area as consisting of two (2) zones. Zone 1 is
described as "an undisturbed area of vegetation extending a minimum of 30 feet landward ..." and Zone 2
as "a vegetated area beginning at the outer edge of Zone 1 and extending landward a minimum of 20
feet" (see attached excerpt from Watershed Ordinance).
The horizontal alignment of the proposed outfall was established to minimize impacts to these buffers and
still maintain an economical project. Shifting the alignment further away from the Deep River would result
in much deeper sewer installation cuts resulting in much higher costs. The grade of the proposed pipe is
necessary to intercept the Jamestown Pump Station flows, so it can be removed from service.
Based on the proposed design, Zone 1 of the Riparian Protection Area will not be disturbed during or after
construction. After construction, the City plans to maintain only a 20 foot vegetated corridor along the l
sewer route. Any areas disturbed within Zone 2 during construction will be re-vegetated and allowed to
return to pre-construction conditions (with exception of the 20 foot maintenance corridor).
We trust this information will be useful in addressing comments concerning the FONSI. We have included
a fresh set of plans which are up-to-date. Should you have any questions or, require additional
information, please contact our office.
Very Truly Yours,
BP/cma
DAVIS-MARTIN-POWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.
gm Par-
Ben Palmer, PE
File
fesporlse )) Pwq
DAVIS - MARTIN - POWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.
dmp- ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING • SURVEYING
218 GATEWOOD AVENUE • SUITE 102
- HIGH POINT, NC 27262
PHONE [phone] - FAX [phone]
April 28, 2000
Re: City of High Point, NC
Deep River Outfall
Environmental Assessment
DMP Job No. E-1959 (BF)
Ms. Gloria F. Putnam
DWQ SEPA Coordinator
NCDENR - Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
Dear Ms. Putnam:
We have received your April 17, 2000 letter to Mr. Gerald Pottern (RJG&A) regarding the
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed High Point Deep River Outfall in Guilford
County. This letter is in response to your request for additional information to determine if the
proposed outfall is in compliance with the Division of Water Quality's sewer line regulations.
The proposed Deep River Outfall will replace an existing outfall which serves as the main
collector line for the east side of High Point and surrounding areas. The existing outfall was
constructed in the early 1960's of reinforced concrete pipe with steel aerial segments. Since
installation, this existing outfall has been subject to hydrogen sulfide attacks and has continued
to deteriorate over time. This deterioration has caused problems for the City of High Point as
flows contributed to this outfall have increased.
The proposed Deep River Outfall will allow for the abandonment of the existing deteriorated
and undersized outfall. Your April 17, 2000 letter addresses buffer requirements as they relate
to the proposed Randleman Reservoir, specifically for the 2-mile segment of outfall between
Harvey Road and south of Kivett Drive. The Town of Jamestown presently conveys wastewater
to High Point's Eastside WWTP via a pump station, short force main and the existing
deteriorated outfall. This pump station is located north of Hwy 29/70 and south of Harvey
Road. One of the goals of the proposed Deep River Outfall is to intercept influent to this pump
station so that the station may be abandoned. In order to accomplish this goal and due to
existing topographic features, the 100-foot buffer requirement for Class I or Class II impounded
reservoirs could not be met. However, along this proposed segment of the outfall, the
Randleman Reservoir is confined within the existing channel of the Deep River and the project
is actually at the headwaters of the reservoir. The normal pool elevation of the reservoir
t"
Ms. Gloria F. Putnam
NCDENR - Division of Water Quality April 28, 2000 Page 2
terminates approximately 400 feet south of Harvey Road. The proposed route is located at
least 50 feet from the proposed normal pool level of the proposed Randleman Reservoir within
this 2-mile segment of the outfall. At some locations, 20 feet of undisturbed riparian buffer will
remain, with an additional 20 feet being allowed to re-vegetate to pre-construction conditions
upon construction completion. Upstream of the Jamestown Pump Station, the proposed
outfall will shift away from the proposed reservoir and be outside of the 100-foot buffer area of
the Deep River.
The 2-mile segment of outfall in question will consist of large diameter sewer pipe with deep
installation depths at several locations. Due to problems the City of High Point has
experienced in the existing outfall with the pipe materials used, the City's goal is to install a
corrosion resistant pipe which will provide for a long, maintenance-free service life. Hobas
fiberglass pipe has been selected as the product of choice for this project. Hobas Pipe is a
thick-walled, glass-fiber-reinforced pipe manufactured by a centrifugal casting process. The
pipe can be used in pressure applications and features a gasketed, zero-leakage joint. The
coupling joint is a structural filament wound sleeve over-wrapped and mechanically locked to
an internal full-face EPDM elastomeric membrane. The joint is suitable for pressure service up
to 250 psi and meets the performance requirements of ASTM D4161 and International
Standards. The pipe is composed of inert materials which provide for a highly corrosion
resistant pipe and will not be subject to hydrogen sulfide attacks. Ferrous and concrete pipe
do not provide this corrosion resistance without elaborate and expensive interior coatings
which are subject to long term failure. Ferrous pipe is also not available in the large diameter
proposed for this segment of outfall.
In summary, the proposed 2-mile segment of the Deep River Outfall from south of Kivett Drive
to the Jamestown Pumping Station will be within the 100-foot buffer area of the proposed
Randleman Reservoir. The project is located at the headwaters of the proposed reservoir and
the normal pool will be confined to the existing channel in this area. The fiberglass pipe
proposed for this project offers a joint suitable for pressure service and provides for a highly
corrosion resistant material not subject to hydrogen sulfide attacks.
We trust the information provided satisfies your request and meets with the Division's approval.
Also, per your April 13, 2000 letter to Mr. Pottern, we are enclosing one (1) set of construction
plans for your review. Should you have any questions or comments, please contact our office.
Very Truly Yours,
DAVIS-MARTIN-POWELL & ASSOC., INC.
1Jt,n PJM,--
Ben Palmer, PE
c: Mr. Perry Kairis, PE, City of High Point
Mr. Gerald Pottern, RJG&A
File
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
f
I
$ 414T J R
Y. VE?RNOR
fir; la'
a
LL HOLMAN

r ?

?13June 22, 2000

Gerald Pottern
Robert J. Goldstein and Associates
8480 Garvey Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Subject: City of High Point, Deep River Outfall EA
Dear Mr. Pottern:
I have received Ben Palmer's letter of April 28, 2000 in response to my letters
to you dated April 13' and 17'h,2000 regarding the Deep River Outfall
Environmental Assessment (EA). I have also received copies of Mr. Palmer's
letters to Mike Mills (NC DOT) and Renee Gledhill-Early (SHPO) regarding
the same project.
Based on the information Mr. Palmer provided regarding the 2-mile segment
of outfall to be placed between Harvey Road and south of Kivett Drive, the
City o?High Point will need to apply fora variance from our 15A NCAC 2H
0200 les for this portion of the project. The variance should be requested at
the time an application is submitted to the Non-Discharge Permitting Unit for
the outfall (after the remaining EA issues have been resolved). Provided this
variance is granted, and based on information Mr. Palmer provided, it appears
that the proposed project will comply with our rules for minimum separations
as defined at 15A NCAC 2H .0219 (i)(G).
With respect to the issues raised by the NC DOT, the Division is satisfied with
Mr. Palmer's response to Mike Mills and requires no further action on this
item.
In reference to the archaeological survey, it is understood that the draft
findings of this survey should be available by the end of this month and will
be provided to Renee Gledhill-Early for her review. We are requesting
through this letter that Ms. Gledhill-Early copy us on her response so we can
promptly respond, as needed.
rrtsr
1N AM 6RILA2 0 1 0
1617 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1617
website: h2o.enr.state.nc.us PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST-CONSUMER PAPER
Finally, as I stated in my April 13, 2000 letter to you, EA comments submitted
to the State Clearinghouse by the Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority
need to be addressed. Please update me on the response, if any, that has been
provided on their comments. If there has been any written communication to
date, please provide me with a copy.
I look forward to resolving these remaining issues related to the proposed
project. Please feel free to call me at 919-733-5083 ext. 567 if there are any
questions.
Sincerely,
Gloria F. Putnam
Environmental Specialist
cc: Perry A. Kairis, Public Services Director
Ben Palmer, Davis-Martin-Powell & Associates, Inc.
John Kime, Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority
Renee Gledhill-Early, State Historic Preservation Office
Page 2, High Point Deep River Outfall, 6/22/00
--- -- -- ••••?• •?.-v• .•. ••- - -•--° -------- -• - a •aaa aavr vvvvvvvv V?
PIEDMONT TRIAD REGIONAL WATER
July 5, 2000
Ms. Gloria F. Putnam
NC Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Subject: City of High Point, Deep River Outfaft EA
Dear Ms. Putnam:
a r V V
AUTHORITY
1 am writing in response to our earlier comment (March 16, 2000) to the State
Clearinghouse on the High Point Deep River Outfall EA.
The PTRWA's initial concerns were relative to the routing of the pipe within the 200'
buffer surrounding Randleman Lake.
We have met with the City of High Point and their engineers,
they are attempting to move the pipe line as far from the 82' lake ielevaation as Powell, and
practicable.
I also understand from Davis Martin Powell that the construction corridor is anticipated to
be 80' wide and that a written 401 certification will be required. Consequently, the .
proposed alignment may change further due to wetland impacts, etc. once the Division of
Water Quality has completed its review.
Therefore, we feel our earlier comment has been addressed.
JFK: js
Wilmington Buaclingr Suite 217 •2216 West Meadowviow Road • GreensbOrO. North CorpUna 27407-3480
Telephone: [phone] . FAY: [phone]
seyment 9 Alipment Revisions
>? ,? l .? 1 1 ?' ?_ X021{'
C
,-?? ?,?,;?? ? ?7 ?? l.', ? ? ?`'?? : ? ! ?? l?? ? 1 ` !,•• ? T may` (?
ll /
• r ? ? N
• i o
?.y
-Wn
- _ 14
?' - ??-
/??
)?V ?? ? ? ? • ' ? ?JJ ? ? '? it ?? ?? ? -=???? I j ??, a .2 ??-\?
--'?? \•.,=?? I??? 750 ` /' ???` ;/? - /
, ?` ; o / /? ? j/? 9 I,I CO / 1140
?4f
O w ?
All / L_
-?'? q

DAVIS - MARTIN - POWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.
dMP ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING • SURVEYING
218 GATEWOOD AVENUE • SUITE 102
- HIGH POINT, NC 27262
PHONE [phone] • FAX [phone]
May 10, 2000
Re: City of High Point, NC
Deep River Outfall
Environmental Assessment
ER99-7340, Guilford County
DMP Job No. E-1959 (BF)
Ms. Renee Gledhill-Early
NC Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-4617
Dear Ms. Gledhill-Early:
This is to inform your office that the City of High Point has secured the services of the Wake Forest
University Archaeology Laboratories to perform an intensive archaeological survey and site
assessment of the areas identified in the September 18, 1998 letter to our office and the March 8,
2000 letter to Ms. Gloria Putnam (NCDWQ). Specifically, the areas include the proposed sewer
construction corridor between Kivett Drive Extension and SR 1355 and a previously recorded site -
31 GF85**. These comments are a result of the Environmental Assessment review process.
The actual field survey will begin May 11, 2000 and we anticipate a draft report to be available by the
end of June. A copy of the draft report will be submitted to your office for review upon completion.
Any comments you may have in regards to the draft will be included in the final report.
We trust this information is useful and look forward to working with you on this project. Should you
have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact our office.
Very Truly Yours,
DAVIS-MARTIN-POWELL & ASSOC., INC.
Ben Palmer, PE
BP/bp
c: Mr. Perry Kairis, PE, City of High Point
Ms. Gloria Putnam, NCDWQ
Mr. Kenneth Robinson, WFU Archeology Laboratories
Mr. Gerald Pottern, RJG&A
File
?,.• $TATr w
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Hisiorie Preservation Office
Vivid I .. S. liroolc, Administrator
Janes B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Rett.y Ray McCain, Sec euiry Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
August 4, 2000
Mr. Ben Palmer, PE
David-Martin-Powell & Associates, Inc.
218 Gatewood Avenue, Suite 102
High Point, NC 211262
Re: Management Summary, Archaeological Survey and Testing, Eastside Outfall
Rehabilitation Project, Guilford County, ER 99-7340 & CH00-E-4300-0400
Dear Mr, Palmer:
We have receivee A management summary for the above project from Ken Robinson of
Wake Forest University and offer the following comments.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we
concur that the following site is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under
criterion D:
31GF419
This small Early Woodland campsite contains undisturbed cultural horizons to a depth of
approximately 95 ;entimeters below ground surface.
Based on the small size of the campsite and the absence of pit features, it is our opinion
that the excavation of approximately seven square meters of the core site area during the
intensive testing phase was sufficient to retrieve the important information contained
within the site. No additional archaeological excavations at site 31GF419 are
recommended.
The results of the Irchaeologieal investigations indicate that the portion of the historic mill
site, 31GF85"*, af:tcted by the project lacks sufficient integrity to qualify for National
Register eligibility. No additional investigation at this site is warranted.
It is our opinion that no additional archaeological investigation is necessary in connection
with this project as :;urrently proposed, if project plans, such as the outfall alignment,
change, please forward those plans to us for additional review and comment, We look
forward to receipt Athe completed survey and testing report by Wake Forest University,
AWHINISTRAI ION
AM- 11ALO1.OGY
RFSTnAAlION
SURVEY & I't.ANNING
I:Ovrtiun
Mailing Addre$4
s07 N Itluunl St.. Raleigh NC 4617 Muil Scrvicr Center, rtulcigh N(' 2769V•4617
471 N Blount St., Ralr.igh N('. 4619 \,1aii Scrvicc ('c01dr, Raleigh N(' 27699 4619
S ` 5 N. Bluunt St., Ralrig)t N(: 4613 Mail Service (.' micr, Ralcigh N(' 2.7699_.161 _t
N. Blount St , N lrigh NC 4618 Mail servicc C e.1 ler, Raleigh N( 27099 4618
7v1vphvn0Fa)t
{919) ','31-4763 733.865
[phone] 715-2671
(919) 733.6S47 715-4,401
(919) '733-6545 715-4X01
Page 2 of 2
Ben Palmer, Pl?
August 4, 2000
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for yo(ir cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review
Coordinator, at 919/733-4763,
Sincerely,
b )avid Brook
Deputy State Mist?)ric Preservation Officer
DB:kgc
CC: Ken Robinson, Archaeology Laboratories, Wake Forest University
Clearinghouse

4
a!

N
S

State of North Carolina
Department of Environmenk 11kT1?WAJ
and Natural Resources 0
Division of Water Quality ?..?,?..
James B. Hunt, Jr., Govemor 4C ENR
Bill Holman, Secretary NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
Kerr T. Stevens, Director VIIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
March 10, 2000
Guilford County
DWQ Project # 000199
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Cer!tiiF)i..cation
City of High Point
c/o Perry Kairis
PO Box 230
High Point, NC 27261
Dear Sirs:
You have our approval, in accordance with ii
impact 420 feet of channel in Guilford County as vt
Water Quality on March 2, 2000. After rQviewina
by General Water Quality Certification Number 311
Number 12 when issued by the U.S. Army Corps
or local permits before you go ahead with your proj
Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regul
404 permit expires unless otherwise specified in tht
This approval is only valid for the purpose at.
below. If you change your project, you must nomiy
property is sold, the new owner must be given a co
complying with all conditions. If total wetland fil'
mitigation may be required as described in 15A N-1-
corresponding Nationwide Permit expires or as oth-
valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the s
If you do not accept any of the conditions o t
act within 60 days of the date that you receive this
Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statut
N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its ronditi
This letter completes the review of the Divisi(
have any questions, please telephone John Dorney
conditions, to fill 0.25 acres of wetlands which will
A in your application received by the Division of
:ation, we have determined that this action is covered
'ertification allows you to use Nationwide Permit
s. In addition, you should get any other federal, state
ing (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control,
>o this approval will expire when the accompanying
ertification.
)at you described in your application except as modified
u may be required to send us a new application. If the
'ertification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for
project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory
,506 (h) (6) and (7). This approval shall expire when the
vided in the General Certification. For this approval to be
afication.
:ation, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must
-isk for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to
,ffice of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh,
i.al and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
-r Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you
-9646.
Stevens
Attachment
cc: Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Winston-Salem DWQ Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files 000199
Division of Water 0; Jon-Discharge Branch
1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 2765 elophone 919-733-1786 FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative A(.tion ET 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
hftp://h2o.e^r ,s/wetlandc.html
dm
??p
DAVIS - MARTIN - POWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.
ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING • SURVEYING
218 GATEWOOD AVENUE • SUITE 102
HIGH POINT, NC 27262
PHONE [phone] • FAX [phone]
February 29, 2000
Mr. John Thomas
US Army Corps of Engineers
6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 102
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27615
Dear Mr. Thomas:
Re: City of High Point
Deep River Outfall
Sewer System Improvements
DMP Job No. E-2450 (BF)
PAYMENT Q'® ,
RECEIVED
In regards to the above referenced project we are enclosing two (2) executed Pre-Construction
Notification Application forms, as well as 8'/2" x 11 " copies of the construction plans and the USGS
topographic map indicating the location of this work.
As you recall from previous conversations and a subsequent field visit, this project involves the
construction of a new sewer outfall (66", 60" & 54" pipe) to replace an existing aged system. The
proposed outfall will be installed parallel to Deep River down-gradient of the existing outfall. This
segment will extend from just south of Kivett Drive to North of Bus. 29/70 at the abandoned
Jamestown WWTP. The proposed outfall will reduce infiltration/inflow problems, allow for the
abandonment of several problematic aerial pipe crossing on the existing line and remove the
Jamestown pumping station from operation. As we discussed earlier, due to grade limitations,
certain portions of the sewer pipe will exposed in channels that are to be crossed. We are proposing
to fill these channels and construct a new channel on top of the fill to maintain adequate cover over
the pipe. Enclosed is a schematic of the proposed dimensions and lining material for the proposed
channels.
We trust this information is complete and will allow you to complete your review at an early date.
Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact our office.
Sincerely,
DAVIS-MARTIN-POWELL & ASSOC., Inc.
8,vn ` r --
Ben Palmer, PE
c: Mr. John Dorney (7 copies & application fee)
Mr. Perry Kairis (enc)
File (enc)
cj
I1 ,
sl-
00199 ;P
DWQ ID: CORPS ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #)
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1. NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2. APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3. COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE FIELD
OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). SEVEN (7)
COPIES MUST BE SENT TO THE NC DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY,
ATTN: JOHN DORNEY, 4401 REEDY CREEK ROAD, RALEIGH, NC
27607. PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE.
1. OWNER'S NAME: City of High Point p4 )r 1-
2. MAILING ADDRESS: PO Box 230 RECEI V[_U
SUBDIVISION NAME
CITY: Hi Point STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 27261
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER: (HOME) (WORK) (336 883-3166
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL, ADDRESS,
PHONE NUMBER:
Mr. Penn Kairis. PE Public Services Director - same as above
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Guilford - NEAREST TOWN: Hi Point
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ECT.) Along Deep River
between Kivett Drive and the abandoned Jamestown WWTP
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Deep River RIVER BASIN: Cape Fear
7. (a) IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER, (SA),
HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW), WATER
SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES ? NO ® IF YES, EXPLAIN:
(b) IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)? YES ? NO
(c) IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR LIST OF
COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
8. (a) HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON THIS
PROJECT? YES ? NO ® IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF PREVIOUS PERMIT AND
ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401 CERTIFICATION):
(b) ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE FUTURE?
YES ? NO ® IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9. (a) ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBERS OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: 13 +/- acres
(b) ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE:
4.48 acres
10. (a) NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: EXCAVATION: 0.25 AC
FLOODING: OTHER :
DRAINAGE : TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 0.25 AC
(b) (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF RELOCATED,
PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION:
LENGTH BEFORE: FT AFTER: FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): 14 FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: 4 FT AFTER: 1 FT
(b) (2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER: See Attachment No. 1
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE WATERSHED
DRAINING TO THE POND? WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA? .
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF MECHANICAL
EQUIPMENT TO BE USED? (ATTACH PLANS; 81/2 BY 1 I DRAWINGS ONLY)
See Attachment No. 2
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Replacement of major sewer outfall
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED OUT IN
WETLANDS (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND IMPACTS)
See Attachment No. 3
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND/OR
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY
LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL
HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
DATE CONTACTED: 8/21/98
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA
WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED 8/21/98
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE OF PUBLIC
(STATE) LAND? YES CR NO ? (IF NO, GO TO 16)
(a) IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT? YES (9 NO ?
(b) IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE YES ? NO ® 9k WZO&My v4
IF ANSWER 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF PROPOSED
ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OF FILL MATERIAL INTO
WETLANDS:
(a) WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES, AND
PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21, 26, 29, AND 38).
ALL STREAM (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON
THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS 50 FEET OF 1 INCH EQUALS 100 FEET
OF THEIR EQUIVALENT.
(b) IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE IMPACTED BY
PRODUCT.
(c) IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA SHEETS
RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
(d) ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
(e) WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY?
(f) IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE US MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1. ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2. EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
CERTIFICATION, AND
3. (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE NORTH
CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM,
1??e 5?0?
OWN 'S/ ENT' SI NATURE DATE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED).
ATTACHMENT NO.1
Stream channel impacts will result from installation a 60" sanitary sewer line at
approximately Station 90+00 and a 54" sanitary sewer line at approximately
Station 109+00. Due to the grade of the proposed sewer line, a portion of the
line will be exposed in the channels being crossed. The proposed design calls
for a portion of the channel to be filled to an elevation just above the top of the
proposed pipe. The total fill will affect approximately 420 linear feet of channel.
Once the proposed fill has been placed, a channel will be constructed on the fill
to carry any normal flows as well as the 10-year storm event. The channel will
be lined with a Reno mattress to allow for stabilization of the channel and
eventual re-vegetation.
Copper Branch will be crossed at approximately Station 65+30. This crossing
will be constructed such that the sewer line will be below the channel and no
pipe will be exposed in the channel. Upon completion of the crossing, the
channel will be restored to natural grade and lined with rip-rap. U
Ephemeral streams will be crossed at Station 41+00 (66" pipe) and Station
103+00 (60" pipe). These channels will be filled to an elevation and a channel
constructed on top of fill as described above.
ATTACHMENT NO.2
The proposed work will involve excavation of a trench by means of a track
mounted backhoe. Channels to be crossed will be stabilized immediately upon
crossing, as specified in Attachment No. 1. Wetland areas to be crossed
(Station 72+30 - 72+80 and Station 81+60 - 82+50) will be returned to natural
grade and seeded with a native vegetation species upon completion of the
crossing. No fertilizer or non-native vegetation will be used in the wetland areas.
ATTACHMENT NO.3
Due to the location of the proposed outfall replacement (approximately 500 L.F.
down-gradient of the existing outfall) it will be necessary to impact these
wetlands and channels. Wetland impacts have been minimized by shifting the
horizontal alignment of the sewer as far as economically feasible to avoid more
extensive impacts. Wetland crossings have been designed to as near 900 as
possible to minimize impacts.
Stream channel crossings which will require filling to maintain cover over the
sewer have been designed to allow for passage of flows and maintain protection
of the sewer line. The channel liner proposed (Reno mattress) will allow for
natural re-vegetation and still maintain channel stability.
Due to the size of the proposed sewer line and the economics associated with
the project, the sewer alignment has been designed to minimized wetland and
channel impacts and maintain an economical solution to this much needed
outfall rehabilitation.
41
o
i • r
J

)1.(?-(1

f I 1 y }`
a?

21
U m Ufr re
?? ? ?o • 1 ? ?C 11 ?
1 (? - / ro 1140
?•?? ? i ? - L • (`'may ?/ 15 ; ?`%?> > / „'1? /
rl ?\ ? r i
a °
Oil
o.°.
1 ! HIGH-POINT EAST, 1982
??,??` , *? -') SCALE: V = 2000' ?? i?
?o
?I I

0
N
o
I
Z
O
Z
us
?i 8 8 8 g
io 0 0 0
S

?

O O

nO
O

ri O

M

8 +
Z
N
N
N
N
4®®®
Eva

RIB

10
K

? I

U
,
j

COL
a
• x' I
t z

i
For
i

p h
M
?V
Z
W <?
U
i 8
I
s
0

t FILL IN THIS AREA
\\ \ / TO ELEV. 684±
A, fts
,. ?? r l r `? I I 1• PTRWA
6807-884-
_ D8 4246 PG
IPE ?? I ? \ 1\ ?. ?
\
42+00
39+94.99 .-? 1 1? • I \ `? PROPbEO 66„
/B
?4 02 58 BEND f ?? I 1 1 PROPERTY LINE \ ?ERO?AS
8 0?'F SE7" l"EE- 4 INTERSECTION O
STA.41+77.85
48 I RISER
?;
S
W 0.0 0
D INV.
40+00 41+00 42+00
i
GoPPtR
sutl Ga
13 6%/
r
?" ?` / ?. te`a' Y r?
-'K-66"X48" OFFSET TEE 2
. WITH 48" RISER
• • Elp
• STA. 65+61.61
I 66"-88'1341" BE
/ Cj??``\v d ? 1
1 1111111 11 1
14. 1 .F 32. 3L..
I III 66"FIEGAS IE 010k.

/ ?11r? ?er?aap

TA. 72+12.57
60"-88'44'00" BEND
?? 60"X48" OFFSET TEE
WITH 48" RISER
o Srq. _ ? ?
TON
40,
?„ - 4 ?
S
60

MAR1
D@ 4
704
)ZlkAOf
pFR?
101*
6Cr
-- 847.50 L• f- ""'r •-"'"r `? ' ?
loe
>r? ? 1 1 l? I/ l l
! 1? ?l I j i! / 1 1
NCH #2 - SEE 1 / ?l lsJR
=T 13 FOR / ! 1 1
GN INFORMATION
/ ! 1 ? ? ?sl 4 I
I9+60.49 1 1 / I I / l
838'04" BE
3" OFFSET r E ,
jf
?8" RISE /
i

?054J?u1H + ;
H 1 ?
i I •i
I sI
F
? 1\J J 1
! I J?
f ( I J J
J

r
I J ?
J ? j ?? I 1
. 41+0t
1 19'841 2
J I? ? J ' 1
I I I 1 J 1+' ?
FI L/ iV /ThIS AREA
T? 'ELEV./ 691 f
ry

STA. 90+70.05
60"-22005'16" BEP
1 ?
t 1 ?
t
?i t =
PROPERTY `1NE t
INTERSECTION
STA.90+89.89
2
P?0
FIB R
z
VAKUALL UUTTUM MILLS. INC.
DB 312 PG 286
7041-939-21
OQ-
o?
lo A-0
? -? ? F??E / ? / j ?..., .,., ,,,_, ?, ? ""r '?. _ J-, ? .ter. ? /? ,/
-FItL IN T IS AREA ?? °-r'•?
llo?
l 1
10
! ! /
o(N
?"?,, ? ) 9 r °• ./ / ; / 11 11 l?l / i211.''
?sp??? pR .tai :• - / /?!!/! ! ,? t"'? ?O f
\f y O ;? J off/
?o \Rc , ,? ?r / 11 "!!!I ! Q Qo?P /
STA. 0+15
8' DIA. MANI-iOLE f
IVL' IN'/THyS? AREA STA. 109+67.05
70 NEV. /694t 54" PLUG
STA. 109+52.05=
0
TH
0 II II 'PIPE 0 0.
INV. 1690.12
? 15- TO L.
o 69.6L. 54" 1 FIEGAS
w 5 FIR GL S I, E 0
cj