20170926 Ver 1_More Info Received_20171023

Homewood, Sue
From:Ward Marotti <[e-mail]>
Sent:Monday, October 23, 2017 10:48 AM
To:Homewood, Sue
Cc:Leslie, Andrea J; Elliott, William A CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Subject:\[External\] RE: Elkin Water Line
Attachments:2017-10-23Elkin404PCN.PDF
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify that the
attachment and content are safe. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to [e-mail].

Sue:
Please see our response to comments below and the updated PCN attached.

I will be in the field the rest of the week, but available by cell much of the time. Should you require further clarification, please
call.
Thanks.

Ward Marotti
WK Dickson & Co., Inc.
Mobile: [phone]
Office Direct: 704-227-3428

From: Homewood, Sue \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 11:28 AM
To: Ward Marotti <[e-mail]>
Cc: Leslie, Andrea J <[e-mail]>; Elliott, William A CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<[e-mail]>
Subject: Elkin Water Line

Hi Ward,

I reviewed the Elkin Water Line project and have some questions and/or need some clarifications:

 It appears that the Town is proposing to bore under Big Elkin Creek but I don’t see an explanation of why they can’t do
that for the other two crossings. In order to meet Avoidance and Minimization we need some discussion of why a
directional bore isn’t feasible at the other two crossings.

The first and third crossings do not present favorable conditions for horizontal directional drills. Based on geotechnical bore
results, the drills would encounter rock. Horizontal and vertical alignment restrictions were the primary reasons for not drilling at
these locations. Horizontal directional drills must be lengthened as drilling depth increases in order to accommodate the limited
vertical curvature of the pipe line and drilling equipment. At both locations, the required horizontal length does not exist to allow
horizontal directional drills at the required depths.

 Can you clarify whether the boulder toe and j-hooks in Big Elkin Creek will be installed “in the dry”. There is good detail
of the coffer dams and pump around for the stream crossings but it’s unclear about the stabilization measures in Big Elkin
Creek. If they are not proposing to install them “in the dry” then we specifically need a request to be exempt from
Condition II.9 of GC4086 (attached)

Because Big Elkin Creek drains over 34 square miles to the project, the stream restoration work within the banks shown on C3.1
is proposed to be constructed without diversion. Pump around for the unnamed tributary is called for in the notes on sheet C3.3,
and a detail is provided on C3.4.

1

Because the length of time anticipated to complete the project’s bank stabilization (i.e. considerably longer than each individual
line installation/stream crossing), as well as Big Elkin Creek’s storm flow volumes/velocities, project scientists and engineers
have collaboratively determined that negative water quality impacts (both ambient and habitat) resulting from the installation and
maintenance of coffer dams are likely to be more significant than “working in the wet.” Specifically, because of the watershed’s
size, Big Elkin Creek’s flow volumes and velocities in response to storm events would severely compromise, and are likely to
completely destroy constructed coffer dams, which would result in significant downstream deposition of both materials mobilized
by each storm, as well those mobilized during each repair/reconstruction effort following the storm(s).

An exemption from Condition II.9 is, therefore, requested.

 Condition I.2 of GC4086 states that the construction corridor may not be within 10’ of the top of bank where a utility is
parallel to a stream. It looks like there may be portions of this line where this requirement can’t be met. Can you please
verify that and if there are no other options than to work that close to the stream then we’d need a request for exception
and justification, as well as what additional measures will be proposed to ensure the stream bank remains stable and the
stream will be protected.

The construction corridor of the proposed emergency raw water line is within 10 feet of Big Elkin Creek’s top of bank. This
occurs primarily between Sta. 8+00 and Sta. 16+00 and again between Sta. 32+00 and Sta. 35+50. Alternate routes for the raw
water line were evaluated and ruled out due to the proposed line’s elevation/slope requirements, steep terrain and the presence of
significant rock formations. To compound the matter, the corridor traverses a Clean Water Management Trust Fund conservation
easement. While the conservation easement allows the installation of the water line, it has restrictions that limit routing options.

Unlike the stream reaches proposed for stabilization, stream banks within these areas are stable and straight (i.e. without
significant meanders or actively eroding areas). The Limits of Disturbance within these areas will be restricted to locations within
the existing, relatively flat and actively maintained corridors (i.e. trail and existing raw water line rights of way). Disturbed areas
will be stabilized, matted (where appropriate) and planted immediately following construction, to ensure the maintenance of
bank/surface stability.

 Condition I.4. requires that the construction corridor be minimized to 40’ in width. Crossing S-1 on the PCN table of
impacts indicates that the impact/construction corridor will be 50’ wide. Again, we can approve exceptions but we it to be
requested and we need justification.

As shown on Sheet C2.1, stream crossing S-1 will be 30 feet wide. The typographical errors in the PCN Table C3 (attached) have
been corrected.

Please go through GC4087 with the plans again and ensure that the project can meet all conditions of the GC, or specifically
request exceptions and provide justifications.

Thanks,

Sue Homewood
Division of Water Resources, Winston Salem Regional Office
Department of Environmental Quality

336 776 9693 office
336 813 1863 mobile
[e-mail]

450 W. Hanes Mill Rd, Suite 300
Winston Salem NC 27105

2

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

3

0� VVA rE,. G
6 lqi� Y
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.4 January 2009
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Processing
1 a.
Type(s) of approval sought from the Corps:
❑X Section 404 Permit ❑ Section 10 Permit
1 b.
Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 12 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c.
Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps?
❑ Yes ❑X No
1 d.
Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
❑X 401 Water Quality Certification — Regular ❑ Non -404 Jurisdictional General Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification — Express ❑ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e.
Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required?
For the record only for DWQ
401 Certification:
❑ Yes NX No
For the record only for Corps Permit:
❑ Yes ❑X No
1f.
Is payment into a mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program proposed for
mitigation of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank
or in -lieu fee program.
N Yes ❑X No
1 g.
Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1 h
below.
❑ Yes NX No
1 h.
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2.
Project Information
2a.
Name of project:
Elkin Raw Water System Improvements
2b.
County:
Surry
2c.
Nearest municipality / town:
Elkin
2d.
Subdivision name:
2e.
NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state project no:
3.
Owner Information
3a.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed:
Worth Winebarger
3b.
Deed Book and Page No.
Book 804 Page 993
3c.
Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable):
3d.
Street address:
15821 Elkin Highway 268
3e.
City, state, zip:
Elkin, NC 28621
3f.
Telephone no.:
3g.
Fax no.:
3h.
Email address:
Page 1 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4.
Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a.
Applicant is:
❑ Agent ❑X Other, specify: Town of Elkin
4b.
Name:
John Holcomb, Town Manager
4c.
Business name
(if applicable):
Town of Elkin
4d.
Street address:
226 N. Bridge Street
4e.
City, state, zip:
Elkin, NC 28621
4f.
Telephone no.:
336-835-9800
4g.
Fax no.:
4h.
Email address:
[e-mail]
5.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a.
Name:
Ward Marotti
5b.
Business name
(if applicable):
WK Dickson
5c.
Street address:
616 Colonnade Dr.
5d.
City, state, zip:
Charlotte, NC 28205
5e.
Telephone no.:
919-368-8043
5f.
Fax no.:
5g.
Email address:
[e-mail]
Page 2 of 10

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
008040993
1 b.
Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 36.260412
Longitude: -80.868305
1 c.
Property size:
13.78 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
Elkin Creek
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
C
2c.
River basin:
Yadkin Pee -Dee
3.
Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
See attached.
3b.
List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.07
3c.
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property: 800
3d.
See
Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
attached.
3e.
See
Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
attached.
4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a.
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
project(including all prior phases in the past?
❑ Yes ❑X No ❑ Unknown
Comments: William Elliot USACE visited the site on 5 October
4b.
If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
of determination was made?
❑ Preliminary ❑ Final
4c.
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Ward Marotti
Agency/Consultant Company: WK Dickson
Other:
4d.
If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
5.
Project History
5a.
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑ Yes ❑X No ❑ Unknown
5b.
If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6.
Future Project Plans
6a.
Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ❑X No
6b.
If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
❑X Wetlands ❑X Streams — tributaries ❑ Buffers ❑ Open Waters ❑ Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a.
2b.
2c.
2d.
2e.
2f.
Wetland impact
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
Type of jurisdiction
Area of
number
Corps (404,10) or
impact
Permanent (P) or
DWQ (401, other)
(acres)
Temporary T
W1 T
Excavation
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
No
Corps
0.07
W2
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W3 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W4 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W5 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
W6 -
Choose one
Choose one
Yes/No
2g. Total Wetland Impacts:
0.07
2h. Comments:
Temporary disturbance of an existing, maintained herbaceous wetland to install water line. Impact location is shown on drawing C2.2 and C3.2.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f.
3g.
Stream impact
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial (PER) or
Type of
Average
Impact
number
intermittent (INT)?
jurisdiction
stream
length
Permanent (P) or
width
(linear
Temporary (T)
(feet)
feet)
S1 T
Excavation
Elkin Creek
PER
Corps
30
30
S2 T
No Impact
Elkin Creek
PER
Corps
30
0
S3 T
Excavation
Elkin Creek
PER
Corps
30
40
S4 P
Stabilization
Elkin Creek
PER
Corps
30
330
S5 P
Relocation
UT Elkin Creek
PER
Corps
5
70
S6 -
Choose one
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
470
3i. Comments:
Temporary impacts will result from installation of a raw water line. Permanent impacts will result from stabilization of Elkin Creek in the vicinity of (over)
an existing raw water line and the realignment of an unstable, actively eroding unnamed tributary.
Impact locations are shown on drawings C2.1, C2.3, C2.4, C3.1
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then indivi ually list all open water impacts below.
4a.
Open water
impact number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
4b.
Name of waterbody
(if applicable)
4c.
Type of impact
4d.
Waterbody
type
4e.
Area of impact (acres)
01
Choose one
Choose
O2 -
Choose one
Choose
03 -
Choose one
Choose
04 -
Choose one
Choose
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If pond or lake construction proposed, the complete the chart below.
5a.
Pond ID number
5b.
Proposed use or
purpose of pond
5c.
Wetland Impacts (acres)
5d.
Stream Impacts (feet)
5e.
Upland
(acres)
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
P1
Choose one
P2
Choose one
5f. Total:
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a. Project is in which protected basin?
❑ Neuse ❑ Tar -Pamlico ❑ Catawba ❑ Randleman ❑ Other:
6b.
Buffer Impact
number —
Permanent (P) or
Temporary (T)
6c.
Reason for impact
6d.
Stream name
6e.
Buffer
mitigation
required?
6f.
Zone 1
impact
(square
feet)
6g.
Zone 2
impact
(square
feet)
B1
Yes/No
B2 -
Yes/No
B3 -
Yes/No
B4 -
Yes/No
B5 -
Yes/No
B6 -
Yes/No
6h. Total Buffer Impacts:
6i. Comments:
Page 5 of 10

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Instead of installing an additional raw water line to convey raw water flows from the reservoir to the treatment plant, the existing, exposed raw water
line will be protected by stabilizing Elkin Creek using natural channel design techniques. This will minimize impacts, while simultaneously enhancing
and stabilizing an actively eroding reach that contributes significant sediment loads into the system. Following the project's erosion and sedimentation
control plan will minimize temporary water quality impacts to the maximum extent practicable.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Impacts will be minimized by following an approved erosion and sedimentation control plan, which was submitted to NCDEQ on 12 July 2017.
Additional impacts to Waters of the US were avoided by using the existing line, rather than replacing it.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply):
❑ DWQ ❑ Corps
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project?
❑ Mitigation bank
El Payment to in -lieu fee program
❑ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter)
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Type: Choose one
Quantity:
Quantity:
Quantity:
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In -lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in -lieu fee program is attached.
❑ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested:
linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature:
Choose one
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only):
square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4f. Non -riparian wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested:
acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) — required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
❑ Yes ❑X No
buffer mitigation?
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
6c.
6d.
6e.
Zone
Reason for impact
Total impact
Multiplier
Required mitigation
(square feet)
(square feet)
Zone 1
3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2
1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in -lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 7 of 10

E.
Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1.
Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a.
Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified
❑ Yes X❑ No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b.
If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
❑ Yes ❑ No
2.
Stormwater Management Plan
2a.
What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project?
0
2b.
Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan?
❑ Yes ❑X No
2c.
If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
No
new impervious area will be added.
2d.
If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative
description of the plan:
2e.
Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan?
3.
Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a.
In which localgovernment's jurisdiction is thisproject?
Town of Elkin
❑ Phase II
❑ NSW
3b.
Which of the following locally -implemented stormwater management programs
❑ USMP
apply (check all that apply):
❑ Water Supply Watershed
❑ Other:
3c.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑X No
attached?
4.
DWQ Stormwater Program Review
❑Coastal counties
❑ HQW
4a.
Which of the following state -implemented stormwater management programs apply
❑ORW
(check all that apply):
❑Session Law 2006-246
❑ Other:
4b.
Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
❑ Yes ❑ No
attached?
5.
DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a.
Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements?
❑ Yes ❑ No
5b.
Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met?
❑ Yes ❑ No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the
❑X Yes
❑ No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State
❑X Yes
❑ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c.
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
❑X Yes
❑ No
letter.)
Comments: FONSI attached.
2.
Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards,
❑ Yes
❑X No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes
❑X No
2c.
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3.
Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a.
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in
❑ Yes
❑X No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance
with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
The project will not increase the water treatment plant's capacity and will, therefore, not support or result in additional development.
As a result, no
cumulative impacts to water quality are anticipated.
4.
Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a.
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non -discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
flow
The
project will not generate additional wastewater volumes.
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form — Version 1.4 January 2009

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
❑ Yes
❑X No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act
X❑ Yes
❑ No
impacts?
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
NHP element occurrences and USFWS scoping.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat?
❑ YesX❑
No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
Existing GIS data.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
❑ Yes
X❑ No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
SHPO scoping.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA -designated 100 -year floodplain? ❑X Yes
❑ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: See attached.
The project is concurrently seeking confirmation of a No Rise to existing flood elevations.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
Project -specific modeling See attached
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
Date
pplicant/Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization
fetter from the applicant isprovided.)
Page 10 of 10

M%WK
WDICKSON
community infrastructure consultants
Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) Form:
Town of Elkin Raw Water Intake and Storage Improvements
Baa. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the
project at the time of this application:
The proposed water line and bank stabilization areas are located within and adjacent to an
abandoned railroad bed, portions of which have been converted into a pedestrian and
bicycle path that parallels Elkin Creek. The wetland area to be impacted is under and
immediately adjacent to an NCDOT-maintained bridge and is dominated by herbaceous
vegetation and regularly maintained. Stream crossings and stabilization areas are
dominated by successional and mature bottomland hardwood forest.
Bad. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The project is needed to address deficiencies within the current raw water supply pumps at
Big Elkin Creek, raw water supply piping from the reservoir to the water treatment plant
and emergency raw water supply from the Yadkin River. Additionally, the project is to
replace the inoperable sluice gates within the reservoir intake structure to permit multilevel
withdrawal from the reservoir.
A "no -action" alternative will leave the current raw water piping subject to continued
erosion and undermining of the stream bank, potentially resulting in the failure of the raw
water supply piping. A failure of the raw water supply line would have catastrophic
consequences to the Town's ability to provide safe and reliable water to its citizens and
would impact the public health and welfare.
Bae. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The project's Engineering Report/ Environmental Information Document (ER/EID)
included an alternatives analysis, including the "No Action" alternative described above.
The selected alternative (Alternative 4) proposes the continued use of the existing 24" cast
iron raw water line with approximately 7001f of stream bank restoration/stabilization in
the areas of exposed pipe, including the installation of three J -hooks within the stream to
direct flows away from the stream bank, the construction of a new 12" emergency raw
water line to the reservoir, replacement of the Big Elkin Creek raw water pumps, controls
and valves, and replacement of the existing sluice gates in the outlet structure that are no
longer operable.
616 Colonnade Drive
Charlotte, NC 28205
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]
www.wkdickson.com Transportation 9 Water Resources 9 Urban Development • Geomatics

Elkin Raw Water Line and Bank Stabilization Improvements
25 July 2017
Page 2
The project will use normal construction equipment, including track hoes, bobcats and
dump trucks.
F8b.If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
The project has been designed to result in no changes to flood elevations. Initial modeling
results were provided to the North Carolina Department of Public Safety Division of
Emergency Management National Flood Insurance Program (NCNFIP) on 8 June 2017.
NCNFIP comments were received on 10 July 2017 (attached). Design was modified, per
these comments. Models were revised to reflect these design changes and were re-
submitted to NCNFIP on 26 July 2017.
F8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
Project -specific modeling and NCNFIP review (see attached).
WD
IICKSON

r�
f
"fir " - •+ - �r� } }- � +`r
\ ug a h
am
Memorial
� ■ v
{~ I x Hospital • µ
i ¢ ; •F
Hill ----- ;_ i• � + "'
Elkin 1 ��� r •� x
r, + #� * r` .. ' f •� j Dutchman Creek +. f Ae
-
1 F
w �
A;A,
fil-
r _ � r�
Hollywood �• Rte-
Cein
Ike
tripJP,000
��
01. ILL
as V
+-�-_ L I t sir. + �• _ • • , ' "
,C
DICKSON 9 ��
1.
ity infrastructure consultants
E
Crater ParkYt <
Surry Yadkin River r E
I Yadkin
r
■R2: [fir.

• r
- ro
a A4
• W r
,
• --
• r
-� 'fit r� --
f _ •
I!� S ■ t i
P1 at
■ 1 �_
♦ /!
_vl't? It
S '•11061- 1 71iig5:ni - ;. _ , i i
� �� ` — � ', %�%, i� Vii` � � JI �' f . � ■ ■
Y
■
mor
dp-
11
CD
".No : r �-- ■
- - _ Jam• � ■ � � •
Ar " %' ■ i
tr
■ •'; 1 %Annual Chance Flood H@z@rd
R egul@tory Floodu
de
Speci @I FI oodw@y
• 'moi _— Are@ of U ndeterm i ned F Iood H azard
yr "' ■, 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard
-- � F uture Conditions 1 % Annual Chance Flood Hazard
�� - r I■ s ■ Area with R educed R isk Due to Levee
N Figure 5.1: FEMA Floodplain and Floodway Map
- oXL W F.
■►WIC Legend �S Elkin, NC
l I� Existing Water Treatment Plant
DICKSON
C
v V J Hook
community infrastructure consultants Existing Raw Water Intake Boulder Toe
Existing Raw Water Emergency Raw Water Alignment o 250 500 1,000 1 inch - 500 feet
Feet

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (131)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (62)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water -Stained Leaves (69)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
3.
4.
ON
50% of total cover:
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
4.
5.
7.
8.
9.
50% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
5.
7
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
50% of total cover:
rs here or on a separate
Sampling Point:
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
= Total Cover
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
20% of total cover:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 553.0'
= Total Cover 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
20% of total cover:
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree —Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
= Total Cover of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
20% of total cover:
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
heiaht.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
= Total Cover Present?
20% of total cover:
Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
= Total Cover
20% of total cover:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 553.0'
= Total Cover 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
20% of total cover:
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree —Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
= Total Cover of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
20% of total cover:
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
heiaht.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
= Total Cover Present?
20% of total cover:
Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc' Texture Remarks
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (Al)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (131)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (62)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water -Stained Leaves (69)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
3.
4.
ON
50% of total cover:
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
4.
5.
7.
8.
9.
50% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
5.
7
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
50% of total cover:
rs here or on a separate
Sampling Point:
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Dominance Test worksheet:
% Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
= Total Cover
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
20% of total cover:
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 553.0'
= Total Cover 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
20% of total cover:
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree —Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
= Total Cover of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
20% of total cover:
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
heiaht.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
= Total Cover Present?
20% of total cover:
Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
= Total Cover
20% of total cover:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 553.0'
= Total Cover 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
20% of total cover:
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree —Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub — Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, regardless
= Total Cover of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
20% of total cover:
Woody vine — All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
heiaht.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
= Total Cover Present?
20% of total cover:
Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc' Texture Remarks
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol (Al)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:
5 October 2016
Project/Site: Elkin Water Line:
UT Elkin Ck.
Latitude: 36.260412
Evaluator: Ward Marotti
County: Surry
Longitude: -80.868305
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30
2
3
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal=_)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1"Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No
= 0
Yes = 3
Sketch:
Q artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 0.5
1 1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
0
No = 0
Yes = 3
1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75;
OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:
5 October 2016
Project/Site: Elkin Water Line:
Elkin Ck
Latitude: 36.260412
Evaluator: Ward Marotti
County: Surry
Longitude: -80.868305
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30
2
3
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal=_)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1"Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No
= 0
Yes = 3
Sketch:
Q artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 0.5
1 1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
0
No = 0
Yes = 3
1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75;
OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

North Carolina Department of Public Safety
Qa Emergency Management
Eft
Roy Cooper, Governor
Erik A. Hooks, Secretary
July 3. 20 17
George H. Crater
Planning Director
P. Q. Sox 857
EIkin, NC 28621
Michael A. Sprayberry, Director
Subject: No -Rise Certification for Elkin Raw Water System Improvements, Town of Elkin,
Surry County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Crater:
The North Carolina Department of Public Safety Division of Emergency Management Risk
Management National Flood Insurance Program {NCNFIP} staff has reviewed the hydraulic
model and report for the Elkin Raw Water System improvements along Elkin Creel: in the Town
of Elkin, Surry County. The certification is dated June 8. 210 17. It was received in this office on
June I4, 2017.
As I understand from the documents provided, the applicant is proposing to perform stream
stabilization work in Elkin Creek to protect existing and proposed raw water infrastructure in the
Town of Elkin.
The NCNFIP cannot concur with the No -Rise Certification based on the information in the report
provided. in accordance with the FEMA Region IV "Procedures for No -impact Certification For
Proposed Development in Regulatory Floodways". the NCNFIP review identified the -following
issues that will need to be resolved prior to concurrence:
1. The modeling shows grading at cross-section 9596, but the plans do not show grading
that far downstream. Also, since 9596 is the upstream bounding cross-section for C C
Camp Road, changing this cross-section will change the internal cross-section for the
bridge model. The plans do not indicate any proposed work under the C C Camp Road
bridge.
2. If the No -Rise is contingent on the cross-section modification at 9595, including internal
to the bridge, then work through the cross-section needs to be included on the
topographic work map and plans. If not, the model should be adjusted.
MAILING ADDRESS:
4218 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 2 769 9-42 18
�vww.ncem.arg
r'Ji
s,
H014TII CA ROI IIIA
• I r -
GTM OFFICE LOCATION:
4145 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Telephone: (9I9) 825-2341
Fax: i919j825-0408

George Crater
Page 2 of?
July 3, 2017
If you have any questions or concerns with the items herein, please contact me at (919) 825-
2300. by email at dan.brubakerancdps.gov or at the address shown on the footer of this
document.
Sincerely,
John D. Brubaker, P.E., CFM
NFIP Coordinator
Risk Management
cc: Milton Carpenter, Central Area Planner
WK Dickson & Co., Inc.
_,Attn: Ebony Hagans, P.E.
720 Corporate Center Drive
Raleigh. NC 27507
File

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT AWACT
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
TOWN OF ELE IN
RAW WATER SYSTEM IM1PROVEMENTS
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
CONTACT: SETH ROBERTSON, P.E., CHIEF
STATE REVOLVING FUND SECTION
DIVISION OF WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
1633 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1633
[phone]
May 1, 2017

.f
(This page intentionally left blank)
0

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IlVIPACT
Article I, Chapter 113A of the North Carolina General Statutes requires an action to be subject to
the requirements of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NCEPA) if it involves the
expenditure of public funds and if a potential impact is anticipated to the environment. The
project has been evaluated for compliance with the NCEPA and is determined to be a major
agency action, which will affect the environment.
Project Applicant:
Project Description:
Project Number.
Project Cost:
Drinking Water State
Revolving Loan Fund:
Local Funds:
Town of Elkin, North Carolina
The project will include the following improvements to the Town's
drinking water infrastructure: (1) restoration of approximately 700
linear feet (l.f.) of stream bank; (2) 3,9001.f. of new 12" water main
to extend the existing emergency raw water line to the Town's
existing reservoir; (3) improvements to the existing reservoir outlet
structure; and (4) replacement of existing submersible raw water
pumps with three new vertical turbine pumps, electrical controls,
valves, and pump intake sediment scour system.
WIF 1905
$1,724,152
$1,690,345
$33,807
The review process indicated that significant adverse environmental impacts should not occur if
mitigative measures are implemented, and an environmental impact statement will not be
required The decision was based on information in the Engineering Report and reviews by
governmental agencies. The attached Environmental Assessment supports this action and
outlines mitigative measures that must be followed. This Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) completes the environmental review record, which is available for inspection at the
State Clearinghouse.
No administrative action will be taken on the proposed project for at least 30 days after
notification that the FONSI has been published in the North Carolina Environmental Bulletin.
Sincerely,
Seth Robertson, P.E., Chief
State Revolving Fund Section
Division of Water Infrastructure

r
t�

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Proposed Facilities and Actions
The proposed project will make improvements to the Town of Elkin's raw water supply line
between the Town's reservoir and water treatment plant (WTP), the emergency raw water line
from the Yadkin River to the WTP, and the reservoir water intake pumps and outlet structures.
Approximately 700 linear feet (l.f.) of stream bank will be restored and stabilized along Elkin
Creek in endangered areas of the existing 24" raw water line. The existing emergency raw water
line, which currently runs from the Yadkin River directly to the WTP, will be extended with
3,9001.f. of 12" line to connect to the existing influent supply line going into the reservoir to
allow for pre -settling of the raw water prior to treatment. The existing submersible raw water
intake pumps will be replaced with three new vertical turbine pumps, electrical controls, valves,
and pump intake sediment scour system. At the outlet structure in the reservoir, sluice gates will
be replaced to facilitate optional water withdrawal from the reservoir at different levels.
Funding_ Status: The estimated total cost for the project is $1,724,152. The Town is applying for
a Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) loan of $1,690,345. The loan fee of $33,807 will
be covered by local funds.
B. Existing Environment
Topog"hy and Soils. Surry County is located in the Piedmont Physiographical Province.
Elevations in the project area range from approximately 970 feet to 1,000 feet above mean sea
level. The project area is located within the valley created by Elkin Creek and is in the
Metagraywacke, Amphibolite, and Kyanite Schist geologic unit composed primarily of
metasedimentary rock and amphibolite.
Soils in the project area include the occasionally flooded Colvard and Suches complex with zero
to three percent slopes, very rocky Devotion-Rhodhiss-Bannertown complex with forty to
ninety-five percent slopes, moderately eroded Fairview Sandy Clay Loam with fifteen to twenty-
five percent slopes, and stony Woolwine-Fairview-Westfield complex with fifteen to twenty-five
percent slopes.
Surface Waxer. The project area is located in the Upper Yadkin River Sub -Basin (HUC
03040101). Elkin Creek into and including the Elkin Reservoir is designated as WS -II, HQW,
and CA, and it is designated Class C below the reservoir.
Water Sunoly. The Town provides drinking water drawn from Elkin Creek immediately above
and within the project area.

C. E"M Wastewater Facilities
The Town's water system has 2,064 service connections, approximately 75% of which are
residential meters. The Town also supplies wholesale water to Surry County and the Town of
Ronda. The Town's WTP has a permitted capacity of 3.0 MGD. The water system also includes
a raw water intake pumping station on Elkin Creek; a 63 million gallon reservoir with influent
and intake structures; approximately 4,000 11 of 24" raw water supply piping for conveyance of
raw water from the reservoir to the WTP; an emergency 12" raw water line from the Yadkin
River to the WTP for standby service during drought conditions; a finished water distribution
system with a 1 million gallon clearwell storage and elevated tank storage in each of the three
pressure zones providing a total of 2.9 million gallons of storage; and approximately 55 miles of
water mains ranging from 1" to 8" of asbestos cement, PVC, and cast iron for distribution of
finished drinking water. Original portions of the water system serving the downtown area were
installed in the 1920s. The raw water pumping station, reservoir, raw water supply line, and
WTP were constructed in the mid-1960s with the emergency line added in 2004. The pumps at
the raw water intake pump station were replaced in the mid-1980s.
D. Need for Proposed Facilities and Actions
Erosion of the stream bank has resulted in exposure and undermining of sections of the raw
water supply line along Elkin Creek, which puts the line at risk of compromise. The existing
pumps at the raw water intake pump station have operational, maintenance, and performance
issues, and the valves and piping are showing signs of severe corrosion. The reservoir outlet
structure sluice gates for changing the intake water level are inoperable. The emergency raw
water line from the Yadkin River frequently has turbidity levels that exceed the treatment
capabilities of the plant without pre -settling. The project will address these problems to ensure
the Town's ability to continue to provide safe water.
E. Alternatives Analysis
No -Action Alternative: The No -Action Alternative would leave the raw water subject to
continued undermining, potentially resulting in failure of the line, with catastrophic
consequences to the Town's ability to provide safe water to the community.
Alternative 1— Complete Replacement and Relocation of 4,000 l.f. of the Raw Water Line: This
alternative would replace approximately 4,0001.f. of the existing 24" cast iron raw water supply
line with ductile iron pipe and relocating the line away from the areas subject to erosion and
undermining. This alternative would also include a 3,9001.f. extension of the emergency raw
water line from the Yadkin River to the reservoir to allow for pre -settling, replacement of raw
water intake pumps, controls, and valves, and replacement of the reservoir outlet sluice gates.
This alternative was rejected because of the environmental impact that would result from right of
way clearing and six stream crossings to relocate the raw water line and because of the high
capital and present worth costs.
Fa

Alternative 2 — Replacement and Relocation of 1,7001.f. of the Raw Water Line: This
alternative is similar to Alternative 1 but would replace and relocate a shorter segment of the
water line (1,70011) that is most at -risk of failure. Like Alternative 1, this alternative would also
include the extension of the emergency raw water line, new intake pumps, and replacement of
the reservoir outlet sluice gates. The proposed alignment of this alternative presented topography
constraints to permit gravity flow, construction constraints associated with the Highway 286
bridge, and environmental impacts associated with. clearing and three stream crossings to
relocate the raw water line. This alternative was rejected because of these constraints,
environmental impacts, and higher capital and present worth costs.
Alternative 3 — New 4,000 11 Raw Water Line and Conversion of Existing Line: This alternative
would construct a new 4,000 Lf. ductile iron raw water line and convert the existing cast iron raw
water line into an emergency raw water line by reversing the flow direction and connections to
the existing emergency raw water line from the Yadkin River. This alternative would include
stream bank restoration, new intake pumps, and replacement of reservoir outlet sluice gates. This
alternative has similar environmental impacts as the Preferred Alternative including four stream
crossings and clearing for the new line; however, this alternative was rejected due to higher
capital and present worth costs.
Alternative 4 — Continued use of Existing Raw Water Line: This alternative will include
restoration of approximately 7001.f. of stream bank in areas of exposed pipe and installation of
J -hook boulder in the stream to divert water and stabilize the stream bank in areas at risk of
erosion to allow continued use of the existing raw water line. Like Alternatives 1 and 2, this
alternative will also include the extension of the emergency raw water line, new intake pumps,
and replacement of the reservoir outlet sluice gates. This alternative is preferred because of the
favorable environmental impacts achieved by stabilizing the stream bank to avoid the
construction impacts associated with relocating the line and lower capital and present worth
costs.
F. Environmental Consequences and Mitigative Measures
Top2UWhy and Soils: Some temporary changes in topography are expected from construction
activities to stabilize the stream bank, the emergency raw water line extension, replacement of
existing sluice gates, and installation of the new raw water pumps. These construction areas will
be returned to pre -construction elevation and slope upon completion of construction. Minor
permanent changes to topography are anticipated from installation of a j -hook to redirect flows
away from the existing raw water line. Permanent impacts to the 100 -year floodplain or
floodway are not expected. A no -rise study will be conducted and if the results indicate that the
initial design will impact the Elkin Creek floodway, design modifications will be implemented to
offset impacts to obtain a No -Rise Certification. Applicable floodplain development permits will
be obtained from the Town of Elkin -
3

Land Use: No permanent direct impacts to land use are anticipated. Temporary impacts to, Town
greenways will occur during construction, but the construction site will be restored to existing
conditions and use for greenways and trails following construction.
Wetlands: Construction of the emergency raw water line will include two wetlands crossing
with less than 0.10 acre of temporary impacts. Disturbed areas will be returned to original slope
and contour and will be replanted with native vegetation. Construction will be in accordance
with a NCDENR-approved and county -approved erosion and sedimentation control plan and
other provisions of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 to minimize imps from
erosion and sedimentation. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was consulted and did not object
to the project (August 11, 2016).
lZnportant Farmlands: There will be no net loss of important farmlands. Silt fences will be used
during construction, and following construction, soil will be backfilled and returned to
preconstruction slope and contour. Land that will be disturbed is not currently in agricultural
use.
Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and State Natural Areas: There will be no negative
permanent impacts to public lands or scenic, recreational, or state natural areas. The project will
improve long term water quality and aquatic habitat in Elkin Creek, which will benefit area
parks.
Cultural Resources: In a memorandum dated August 29, 2016, (No. ER 16-1400, the North
Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) stated that no historic resources are likely to
be affected by the project.
Air Quality: Temporary impacts to air quality including increased dust and vehicle exhaust
emissions may occur during construction activities. Proper vehicle maintenance and emission
control devices will reduce these impacts. No permanent impacts are expected.
Noise Levels: There will be a temporary increase in noise related to construction equipment
during weekday working hours. Weekend and after-hours construction work is not anticipated.
There will be no permanent impacts to noise levels once construction is complete.
Water Resources: There is the potential for temporary impacts due to erosion and sedimentation
during construction, including four stream crossings. Two crossings will be open cut, one will be
jack and bore, and one will be installed in existing fill over an existing culvert. Stream bank
stabilization will utilize natural channel design methods to restore the banks to their pre -erosion
condition and J -hooks to divert flow away from sensitive areas of the streambank. To minimize
construction impacts, all construction will be in accordance with a NCDENR-approved and
county -approved erosion and sedimentation control plan and other provisions of the
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973. Long term impacts will be positive with the
restoration and stabilization of the stream banks resulting in improved water quality and aquatic
habitat in Elkin Creek.
El

Forest Resources: Impacts to forest resources are not expected to be significant. Much of the
alignment will use maintained greenways and easements. Where clearing is required,
permanently maintained corridor widths will be limited to approximately 15 feet, and areas that
do not require maintenance will be allowed to return to their natural conditions following
construction.
Shellfish or Fish and Their Habitats: Net impacts to shellfish, fish, and their habitats are
expected to be positive. Construction impacts will be minimized through adherence to a
NCDENR-approved and county -approved erosion and sedimentation control plan and other
provisions of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973. Restoration and stabilization of
the stream bank will improve water quality and aquatic habitat in Elkin Creek.
Wildlife and Natural Vegetation: Impacts to wildlife and natural vegetation will be temporary
due to construction activities. Much of the construction will take place within or adjacent to
existing maintained rights of way and trails with very limited, temporary impacts to habitats.
Introduction of Toxic Substances: Introduction of toxic substances from construction activities
is possible from vehicle fluids. Such impacts will be minimized by proper vehicle maintenance
and proper collection of and disposal of fluids.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reviewed the proposed project and concluded that the
requirements of Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act have been fiilfilled (September
15, 2015, Log No. 42-16-382). The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Natural
Heritage Program, and DWR Winston-Salem Regional Office, and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers concur with the proposed project. The North Carolina Department of Cultural and
Natural Resources is not aware of any properties of architectural, historical, or archaeological
significance that would be affected by the project.
G. Public Participation, Sources Consulted
A public meeting was held on February 13, 2017 including a presentation about the meeting.
There were no objections to the project. The current user charge for a typical customer is $73.75
per month for 5,000 gallons for sewer and water combined. The proposed project is expected to
cause an increase of $10.06 per month for a total of $83.81.
Sources consulted about this project for information or concurrence included
1) Town of Elkin
2) North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
-Wildlife Resources Commission
-Natural Heritage Program
-DEQ Winston-Salem Regional Office
-Division of Air Quality
-Division of Water Resources
-Division of Forest Resources
-Division of Environmental Assistance and Customer Service
-Division of Waste Management
�1

3) North Carolina Department of Cultural and Natural Resources
4) North Carolina State Clearinghouse
5) North Carolina Department of Public Safety
6) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
7) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P

Elkin Creek
Raw Water
Intake
Legend
■ Water7reatmenlPlant
Water 8aosterPump Statlon
MrerTank
Mferinlake .
Proposea Emergency Raw Waler Line Ext,
Existing Raw Water Lines
-^ Exa5ng Water tines
------ Streanl/River
Boundary'
Raw Water
Intake Reservoir
Proposed Stream Bank
Restoration
Proposed 3, -TF 4
12" Emergency Raw Water
Line Extension
Raw Waiter Line Improve Lents
Fi'oure.H�d1, Alternative 4
Elkin, NC
.July, 2014
W DICKSON
erns�+mras a.rs� r,A-,Pr arra
Existing 12"
Emergency
Raw Water Line