NC0024210_Meeting Notes_19970714

41(6621-11,1-0
From:
<[e-mail]>
Organization:
DEM Water Quality
To:
[e-mail],
brentmcd@dem,ehnr.state.nc.us,
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail],
[e-mail]
Date sent:
Mon, 14 Jul 1997 15:22:02 EST
Subject:
Revised (Final) Minutes - High Pt. Mtg
Priority:
normal
Below are final minutes from the High Point WWTP EA Meeting on
7/7/97. 1 have made a few corrections, suggested by Jay Sauber and
Lee Spencer. Hopefully this addresses everyone's concerns. Please
let me know if they do not.
- FINAL MINUTES -
High Point WWTP EA Staff Meeting
7/7/97
13th floor conference room
10 am -11:30 am
Attending -
Michelle Suverkrubbe - WQ Planning
Jay Sauber - WQ Lab (ESB)
Larry Ausley - WQ Lab (ESB)
Kurt Trumbower - WQ Lab (ESB)
Owen Anderson - Wildlife Res. Comm.
Lee Spencer - DEH (public water)
Steve Zoufaly - WQ Planning
Alan Clark - WQ Planning
Jason Doll - WQ/ TSB (Instream Assessment)
Larry Coble - WQ WSRO
Lisa Martin - WQ (Operations/ Water Supply Watershed Protection)
Wayne Munden - DEH (water supply)
Coleen Sullins - WQ/ TSB (Permits & Engineering)
As we discussed yesterday, the water quality issues in the Deep River

below the WWTP and the proposed Randleman Lake are complicated,
to say the least. The purpose of the meeting was to figure out how to
proceed on the EA (i.e. let go,, require more studies,, require EIS) in
light of the water quality issues involved with the project (e.g.
existing WQ in river, projected WQ in proposed lake,, contribution of
additional loads from both the proposed WWTP expansion and NPS
pollutants from stormwater).
In discussing the WWTP EA,, a variety of issues were brought up at
the meeting,, a summary of which follows -
1. The local governments that are located in the Randleman Lake
Watershed that are currently enforcing water supply watershed
ordinances include Guilford County, Greensboro, & Randolph County.
Other jurisdictions located in this proposed Randleman lake
watershed area that DO NOT currently protect for stormwater include
High Point, Jamestown,, Archdale and Randleman.
2. The jurisdictions that will be served by the proposed WWTP
expansion include Guilford County,, Forsyth County, High Point,
Jamestown and Archdale. Obviously,, High Point,, Jamestown and
Archdale will be served by the WWTP but do not currently protect
for stormwater under WSWS reg's. What, if anything can we make
them do to protect from NPS impacts of project?
3. Jay Sauber reported that WQ studies have shown that nutrient
levels in the main stem of the Deep River and Muddy Creek (where
the lake is proposed) are currently very high. If it was a lake,, it
would for sure be eutrophic. A consultant for ESB ran a model on the
lake's WQ, and the algal growth potential for the lake reached new
records. The question was reaised whether or not the proposed
treatment plant improvements would be reduced enough to allow this
system to go from a river to a lake and still meet WQ stds. Jay
indicated that the river currently violates stds. and no matter what
happens with the WWTP,, the proposed lake will violate WWTP stds.
Alan Clark asked about the retention time in the lake- Jay reported
that the model predicted that it was quite large.
It was asked if the limits for the WWTP will protect WQ Stds. Jay
requested that when DWQ permits the WWTP,, we make it clear that
the water quality predicted for the lake violates WQ stds, so that we
are not blamed for the condition of the lake and we are not asked to
try to fix it once it is impounded. Another option was to set effluent
limits for the WWTP that assure that WQ stds will be met. Jason
indicated that spec. limits are not written to guarantee a clean bill of
health. DWQ should recognize the WQ problems in our
communications on this and mention the type and cost of technology
that would be necessary to treat the water in the lake for public use.
Coleen asked Jason to re-evaluate the speculative analysis and waste
load allocation model on the WWTP to see if the limits for the WVVTP
will protect WQ stds.
Larry Coble felt that we should build mitigation into the WWTP

ect in order to get assurances of WQ protections, from point and
proi ,
non -point sources.
Larry Ausley asked how we know the lake is an inevitable project.
Several staff discussed the politics of the situation. Wayne Munden
talked about how the local governments in the area desperately need
the Randleman Lake water supply. He realizes that there will be WQ
problems there irregardless of the dam.
4. Lee Spencer stated that he has grave concerns with the proposed
dam and water supply. He was concerned that the water quality in
the lake would not be adequate to protect environmental concerns
and public health. He further talked about the technology that would
be required by the water treatment plant -- GAC (activated carbon)
or membrane filters and possibly auxiliary treatment lagoons -- for
treating this water. He also mentioned that he has heard that a
consultant (Hazen & Sawyer?) is working on the EA for the water
treatment plant for the Lake. No one in attendance has heard
anything on that project to date.
Lee also mentioned that there are better water supply alternatives
available to High Point and Greensboro, and these should be
evaluated in great detail before settling on Randleman Lake as the
only choice.
5. A question was asked regarding High Point!s committment to
reduction in I/I. Larry Coble responded that they have done some
work,, but they have discovered it was cheaper to treat it than correct
it.
6. In discussing what to do about the indirect / NPS impacts from
this project,, Coleen commented that all the WQ issues have not yet
been resolved. Several staff felt that there should have been one EIS
(not several EAs and EISs) which looked at all the inter -related WQ
issues for the entire project,, from the construction of the dam and
loss of wildlife and wetlands.. to the interbasin transfers and eminant
domain issues,, to the WWTP expansion and water treatment plant
construction. As it stands now,, staff feels that the wq issues have
sort of "fallen through the cracks" and not yet been addressed
adequately in any of the studies out there. Several staff (including
Coleen Sullins) requested that the EA address the nutrient loadings
anticipated from the treatment plant (as proposed to be improved)
vs. anticipated loads from development.
7. There was a lot of discussion about the EIS that was prepared by
DWR in 1991 on the eminant domain and the interbasin transfer
aspects of the Lake. That EIS "addressed all the WQ issues involved
with the Lake". according to the Army Corps of Engineers. The new
EIS (due out this week on the Lake by the Corps) supposedly will only
address wetlands and the 404 permit.
The consensus of the group was for me to research into the status of
this EIS and report back to the group. If the ES still is good (i.e. has
not been over -turned) then the question becomes - should DWQ ask
\ 11

for a new evaluation of water quality in the WWTP EA or should we
ask for an EIS, since signing a FONSI will require giving them a
finding that no significant impacts to WQ will occur? If the EIS was
rejected by the court case,, then it should be 6xpected that the
Randleman Lake EIS should address these WQ issues.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 AM.
Michelle L. Suverkrubbe, AICP
Environmental Specialist
NC Department of Environment Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality, Planning Branch
512 N. Salisbury Street
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
[phone] x 567