19981236 Ver 1_Complete File_19980101

g
??F W ATFRp ,q
7??1?1w4
t? <
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
10 December, 2001
Mr. Jim Cooper
Soil and Environmental Consultants, Inc.
11010 Raven Ridge Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27614
Regarding: Pre-construction Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Survey Report
Charleston Forge Project
DWQ Project No. 981236
Watauga County
Dear Mr. Cooper,
Thank you for the above mentioned report su wnarizing the benthic macroinvertebrate data from this
project. The information contained in this repay compfes with all requirements of the 401
certification. In addition these data appear to accurately summarize the biological community of this
small stream prior to construction. P4?ase be reminded of the fact that these data cannot be used to
assign bioclassification ratings as noted in the NC-DWQ Standard Operating Procedures manual.
Since this stream does not meet the n 9mum s ze criteria the Biological Assessment Unit of DWQ
uses to assign ratings. The authors of thhis sti;iamary report did a good job summarizing the biological
data. However, it is interesting to node fe d°rerence between the two locations. For example, the
EPT/Chironomidae ratio is much grea>Jar forttrae reference reach at Station 2 than for the data at the
test site at Station 1, presumably dw ID the pctesm of lieptageniid mayflies and Paraleptophlebia
at this upstream reach. Also even #zxxfi the D50 values reported in the report suggest that there
are no differences between the two motion 61DcationS (<2nm), there were more observations in the
larger particle size categories at Std 2. Pfd report all pebble count information as percent
cumulative data. The presence of laappr par5*?s at the upstream reach may be related to the
EPT/Chironomidae ratio and the D84 sather #m the D50 data may be an important metric to
consider in the analyses.
Please be reminded that all post-cos?cuction snwrlary data should contain data from the pre- -
construction investigation. of you ham arty quons phase do not hesitate to give me a call (919-
733/9502) or contact me at dave:peru ncmail
? ?$i1Cerr.
e Pesnrose
CC: Jennifer Frye, Winston Salem Regiorid
File Copy
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service: CarSter NC 271 1617 (919) 7337015 Customer Service
1 800 623-7748
t .
PIEDMONT
February 6, 2002
qJ fj\ayc'? 11
TRIAD REGIONAL
Mr. John Dorney
NCDWQ - Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Re: Randleman Lake Bridge Crossings
Dear John,
)"1,
0, ', d
WATER

AUTHORITY

It is my understanding that the road modifications required by the construction of Randleman
Lake (figure 5d in the Randleman Dam FEIS) would be covered by the 401 Water Quality
Certification that we received from DWQ, March 1999. Therefore, it would seem that
individual permits for these projects would not be required.
Categorical Exclusions (CE's) for these projects have been prepared by NC DOT based on the
documentation contained in the Randleman FEIS.
The wetland delineation prepared for the lake (121 acres) also included those wetland impacts
associated with the road modifications.
I am not complaining about the permit fee. I am just trying to avoid further delay in getting
these bridge projects under construction.
Please call when you have a chance to review this.
Sincerely,
J , On F. Kime
Executive Director
JFK:j s
Enclosures
Wilmington Building, Suite 204 . 2216 West Meadowview Road • Greensboro, North Carolina 27407-3480
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
x-
Road modifications and abandonments would be required for the proposed lake. Existing roadways
would either be abandoned if traffic loads permit or raised so that the roadway is above the maximum
water level in the lake. The locations of the proposed road modifications and abandonments are
shown on Figure 5d. All wetlands impacts associated with the proposed road relocations and
abandonments are included in the wetlands impacts of the proposed project. Y
Up to 30.5 mgd, or approximately 63 percent of the lake's total yield of 48 mgd, would be diverted from the
Deep River basin to other river basins through wastewater discharge. The authority for this tram'
granted to the PTRWA by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (NCEMC) on De
12, 1991, following the State's evaluation of the project and preparation of an Environmental Impact Sta,
(EIS) (NCDEHNR,1991). The certificate from the NCEMC appears in Appendix B. Of the water pump
High Point, up to 2.0 mgd would be transferred to the Yadkin River basin through the High Point West,
WWTP on Rich Fork Creek. Most of the water pumped to Greensboro (up to 28.5 mgd) would be dischar5
as wastewater into the Haw River basin. Greensboro currently is expanding its WWTPs to accommodate th
additional flow to the Haw River. Since water demand for the PTRWA is expected to increase gradually ove,
time, the interbasin water transfers are expected to be small immediately after reservoir completion but to
gradually increase up to the permitted limits over several decades.
Up to 17.5 mgd of the Randleman Lake yield would return to the Deep River watershed. Of this amount, up to
11.5 mgd would be discharged to the reservoir, while the remaining 6.0 mgd would be discharged in other
areas of the Deep River watershed. Discharges to Randleman Lake would include most of High Point's water
allocation (up to 10.08 mgd), which would enter as effluent from the Eastside WWTP. A small portion of the
Greensboro allocation would be returned to the Deep River basin, because the Greensboro water distribution
system contractually serves unincorporated areas in Guilford County that are located in the Deep River basin.
In addition, some portions of Greensboro's water service area are served by the Jamestown wastewater
system, which also discharges into the Deep River basin.
The reservoir would employ a three-tiered release schedule to provide low-flow augmentation in the Deep
River. This plan provides for normal minimum releases of 30 cubic feet per second (cfs), followed by
reductions to 20 cfs and 10 cfs with increasing drought conditions. This release :plan is consistent with the
current NCDENR policy on minimum flows from public water supply systems (NCDEHNR, 1994c).
The PTRWA has no specific plans to develop recreational facilities for the proposed project. However,
the PTRWA will cooperate with Guilford and Randolph Counties in their plans to develop recreational
facilities adjacent to the buffer area around the proposed lake. The recreational facilities will be limited
to boat access and day visitor picnic facilities. Guilford County also plans to include comfort stations
and walking and/or bicycle trails. All facilities would be located in the land adjacent to the buffer area
except for boat access facilities, which would be within the buffer area. Acceptable recreational
activities may include boating, fishing and picnicking, as well as nature study and bird watching. No
hunting will be permitted in the buffer area.
The estimated total cost of constructing the Randleman Lake project is approximately $140 million. This
includes the costs of land acquisition, land clearing, road modifications, engineering and design, dam
construction, wetland mitigation, water treatment plant construction, water intake and transmission facilities,
and relocation of the discharge for the Eastside WWTP.
3-4
r
',0rD 8"A,%
• A •
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 - 8960

Colonel James W. DeLony
District Engineer
ATTN: Mr. Michael Bell
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. BOX 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
SUBJ: NCDOT: TIP R-2551; Modification of Permit for
Action TTY No. 199509134
Dear Colonel DeLony:

a
MAY 2 0 2001
anoke Island Visitor Center
This is in response to a letter from the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT), dated May 3, 2001, concerning modification of the permit for the widening of
US64/264. The modification is to fill 1.14 acres of wetlands and 145.5 linear feet of SA stream
to construct the Roanoke Island Visitor Information Center and Rest Area. Wetland mitigation is
proposed in the form of a combination of (a) 0.11 acre wetland restoration, 0.77 acre wetland
creation, and 1.1 acre wetland preservation on-site, (b) 0.26 acre riverine wetland restoration at
the Dismal Swamp Mitigation Site in Gates and Perquimans Counties, and (c) 1.3 acre of
wetland preservation at the Mashoes Road Mitigation Site in Dare County. On-site stream
stabilization (vegetation planting in the stream buffers), in the amount of 820 linear feet, is also
proposed.
In response to the public notice for this project, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4 Wetlands Section (EPA) submitted comments dated April 24, 2001. In our
letter, we recommended that NCDOT be required to provide compensatory mitigation for the
stream impacts. It appears from the May 3, 2001 letter from NCDOT that the 820 linear feet of
stream stabilization will adequately compensate for the 145.5 linear feet of stream impacts.
In our April 24, 2001 letter, EPA also stated that the proposed wetlands mitigation is
insufficient to compensate for the anticipated impacts, and we continue to believe that additional
wetland mitigation is necessary. Although the May 3, 2001 letter from NCDOT provides a good
discussion of the avoidance and minimization efforts which were conducted, we do not believe
that mitigation ratios should be reduced only because NCDOT provided adequate avoidance and
minimization. After avoidance and rnn' i ?.ation has been addressed, appropriate compensatory
mitigation should be provided for all remaining impacts. We do not believe it is appropriate to
compensate wetland losses with 1:1 restoration, 1:1 creation, or 5:1 preservation. As in our
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.

2
April 24, 2001 letter, we continue to recommend that the EPA's mitigation ratios be applied to
the mitigation proposal. Applying these ratios, one arrives at the following number of acres
which are compensated:
0.11 acre Estuarine Fringe Restoration = 2 =
0.77 acre Estuarine Fringe Creation = 6 =
0.26 acre Riverine Wetland Restoration = 2 =
1.3 acre Forested Wetland Preservation _ 10
1.1 acre Estuarine Fringe Preservation = 10 =
Total
0.06
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.11
0.56 acres credit
As the total number of wetland impacts is 1.14 acres, the applicant should mitigate for the
remaining 0.58 acre. We note that the use of the Dismal Swamp mitigation bank is acceptable.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions or
comments, please contact Kathy Matthews, at [phone].
Sincerely,
Duncan M. Powell
Acting Chief
Wetlands Section
cc: USFWS, Raleigh
NCWRC, Raleigh
DWQ/NCDENR, Raleigh
NCDOT, Raleigh
Wa7FgQ
?O G
4 ?
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
Division of Water Quality
RECEIPT" .'r
May 16, 2001
Mr. John Cassell Z 0 20dl
?i
Landcraft Homes NT?4Nt)y
201 North Tryon Street, Suite 2650 'TF.o-;:}?A! 9? y SECTtpP,
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
Dear Mr. Cassell:
Subject: DWQ #: 990793
County: Mecklenburg
The North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) has received a check
in the amount of $ 36, 250.00 check number 002154, as payment for the compensatory
mitigation requirements of the 401 Water Quality Certification, Certificate of
Authorization, and/or Section 404 Permit issued for the subject project. This receipt serves
as notification that the compensatory mitigation requirements for this project have been
satisfied. Please note that you must also comply with all other conditions of this
certification and any other state, federal or local government permits or authorization
associated with this activity.
The NCWRP, by acceptance of this payment, acknowledges that the NCWRP is
responsible for the compensatory mitigation requirements associated with the subject
permit and agrees to provide the compensatory mitigation as specified in the permit. The
NCWRP will restore 290 linear feet of stream in subbasin 030711 of the Catawba River
Basin.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Crystal
Braswell at [phone].
Sincerely,
eonalld --
E. F ell,
Program Manager
cc:
VCKF
rNCCENR
Customer Service
Rob Ridings
file
Division of Water Quality 1619 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Wetlands Restoration Program [phone] Fax: [phone]
1 800 623-7748