19970570 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19970731

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources •
Division of Water Quality ?/
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor 1
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary ED E H N F=?L
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
September 18, 1997
Mecklenburg County
DWQ Project # 970570
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Mr. Dennis Gwaltney
Project Manager
CMUD
5100 Brookshire, NC 28216
Dear Mr. Gwaltney
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to
place temporary fill in 12.28 acres of wetlands or waters for the purpose of constructing the Six Mile
Creek sewer out fall at Six Mile Creek, as you described in your application dated July 23, 1997.
After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality
Certification Number 3101 This certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 12 when
it is issued by the Corps of Engineers. 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. This approval
will expire when the accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the
General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application
except as modified below. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required
to send us a new application. 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) (6) and (7).
For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification and
any additional conditions listed below.
1. Applicant is reminded that the construction corridor shall not exceed forty feet in width.
2. Bioengineering techniques shall be used instead of riprap to stabilize stream crossings.
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 919-733-1786.
Attachment
Sincerely,
F.on?How , Jr. PE.
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Mooresville DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorsey
Central Files
9705701tr
Division of Water Quality • Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
Sep 15 }97 1406 P.01/01
3 Poo?lt!•F?x Note; . 7.671.,' ; ?? pag?s? ? .? ?"?
PRINT NAMES : 4
:l l R?vla+ca?r ;
ATE
• Fax M ? ?;.:. r ? ;.
gDATIONS
ITEM MUST'EE ANSWF.D'(t'IIA.',TORiI?E?T AFPL!ICABi.,E,):.?
PERMIT-•!YR-.:: `97 : i 'PMIT, NO- ;00005'70. COUNTY-t! MECKLMURG'.
kP•P ICANT'.' NAME : `.'C1 D-$? ;;.MILE ER??K SEWER,
Rl?E?JE,CT ' TYPE : ;SEA LI1 Ei ( FE104IT_TYPE,.- NW12
DOT!_
4,D,,;;FR0M- CDK: .'AP-P ' ,' DATE I FRM_CTA 071:3.1197.
tEG? OFFI-CE;.. MRO
:VE7' AND
'SUB' .BASIN 'QE83$ STR: INDEX- No; 111
?. -13p-322
s:.TRLASs:.: CA
!
WL IMPACx.17'4N .WL_TYPE : ,a7dh'?i9
?'' i ...
WtEQUES:TED L1'= 33::
ACR•
- ? ..
WL: CORE,E d? } t . I?/,il. ' ;y:_: ; WATL!Ii IMFAETED BY F'E :L?
/N
. G
. . op.
M2T GATIQN? Y ; ..MITIGATION. TYPE:: ;n1 pl?? • ?//arrv ?'v? L:'l : '
MITIGATION'•SI.2E.'' .?
P- i,DID 'SOUR Qi EST: 1 ORE Z 0? : Y 7
:?IS* WE ILtND .RATING.. smEt .ATTAGA ? . Yi?T
HAVE PROJECT--"CFiA1?FGES/C: NDITIONS'.!BEEN Ul5'ClU- SED•:WITH APi LICANT'? ; ?;N
R CQN -1
ON ono);:.:` Issue F71 i?`
0 7- -1 1711 JoAll,
I
-T Is- r c-- i
Central - Files _
NEWITT & BI3UNY
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW
SUITE 104, EAST BOULEVARD OFFICE CONDOMINIUMS
417 EAST BOULEVARD
GHABLOTTE, NORTH GAHOLINA 28203
JOHN G. NEWITT, Sa. (1897-1973)
? JOHN G. NEWITT, Ja.
1 ROGEE H. BR-uNY
May 5, 1998
Mr. John R. Dorney r
North Carolina Department of Health, Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Road F
Raleigh, NC 27607
Via fax to: [phone]
TELEPHONE
[phone]
F"AOSIMILE
[phone]
p ..?

MAY 1 21998

Re: Water Quality Certification
Six Mile Creek Outfall Sewer
DWQ #971041
Mecklenburg County
Dear Mr. Dorney:
I am in receipt of your letter of April 23, 1998 which is in
response to my letter of March 3, 1998. This letter was mailed
on April 27, 1998, and received by this office on April 29, 1998.
Since receipt of this letter, I have tried on two occasions to
reach you by telephone, but as yet I have been unsuccessful.
You state in your letter that DEHNR is considering whether
or not to issue written approval of deviations from the General
401 Certification which is enclosed in your letter. The
certification was not enclosed with the letter. You also state
that you are enclosing a copy of CMUD's application which we did
not receive. Finally, you ask us to review CMUD's application
and submit our comments on the deviations by April 1, 1998, 26
days prior to the date that your letter was mailed to us.
Upon receipt of this letter please give me a call and also
fax me the Certification and application which were omitted from
your letter.
Sincerely yours,
NEWITT /& BRUNY
Roger H. Br ny
RHB:ms
cc: Mr. Cy N. Bahakel
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
7 and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
Mr. Roger H. Bruny
Newitt and Bruny
Suite 104, East Boulevard Office Condominiums
417 East Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28208
Dear Mr. Bruny,
Subject: 401 Water Quality Certification
CMUD Six Mile Creek Outfall
Mecklenburg County
DWQ No. 970570
F?WAA
NC ENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
I am in receipt of your 3 March 1998 letter regarding the EA for the Six Mile Creek
Outfall and the issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification (401 Certification) for
that project. The Charlotte/Mecklenburg Utilities Department (CMUD) applied for a 401
Certification on 23 July 1997. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) granted a 401
Certification to CMUD for the Six Mile Creek Outfall project on 18 September 1997.
This was a final decision and not a "preliminary" certification. This approval had 19
conditions in the general certification corresponding to Nationwide Permit 12. Condition
2 states, "The edge of the construction corridor [shall not be] installed parallel to and
closer than 10 feet (3 meters) to a stream...". This would allow CMUD to move further
away from the stream if they chose to. In many cases, this could result in greater impacts
to the riparian area and to property owners.
Condition 11 states, "The construction corridor (including access roads and stockpiling of
materials) is limited to 40 feet (12.2) meters) in width in wetlands and must be minimized
to the maximum extent practicable." CMUD will be required to adhere to this 40 feet
width in wetlands. The size of the temporary corridor acquired and impacted by CMUD
is not regulated by DWQ unless it is in wetlands. The EA states that they will adhere to
this condition.
Condition 12 requires that the permanent corridor be no larger than 10 feet in width
(except at manhole locations) in wetlands. The DWQ does not have regulatory authority
to control the width of the corridor in uplands and therefore, this width is not restricted.
Environmental Sciences Branch 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
Mr. Roger H. Bruny
Page 2
DWQ placed a specific condition requiring that the stream stabilization be performed
using bioengineering techniques rather than rip rap. This should maintain or enhance the
aquatic habitat.
The EA was followed up with a FONSI. The endangered species issue should be
addressed in the EA or FONSI. This is not an issue for the 401 Certification but may be
an issue for the Corps of Engineers.
Another condition of the 401 Certification is that it is not valid until the document has
been received a FONSI or ROD from the State Clearinghouse. We believe that the 401
Certification should not be revoked since the Charlotte/Mecklenburg Utilities Department
is unable to use it at the present time. Once DWQ approves the FONSI, the 401
Certification will be valid and will remain valid as long as all conditions are met. DWQ
will likely inspect this project to ensure that all conditions are being met.
Thank you for providing comments on this project. Should you have any questions
regarding the 401 Certification, please contact Mr. John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Questions regarding the environmental document should be directed to Ms. Mary Kiesau
at 919-733-5085 ext. 567.
Sincerely,
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
Cc: John Dorney; DWQ
Mary Kiesau; DWQ
Rex Gleason; Mooresville DWQ Regional Office
Dennis Gwaltney; Charlotte/Mecklenburg Utilities Department
Jeff Davis; Blavk and Veatch

(=t q I oq
Na42.v-?a 141 ce?
&---X At % /, e- - (? L 4 eo?
6k,om vi
"6 F
lf?'?-?-? ?! S
?o4 - S io - Fvs-
NEWITT & BxUNY
JOHN G. NEWITT, SIR. (1897-1973)
JOHN G. NEWITT, J$.
ROGER H. BHUNY
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW
SUITE 104, EAST BOULEVARD OFFICE CONDOMINIUMS
417 EAST BOULEVARD
CHAI?LOTTE, NORTH GAAOLINA 28203
TELEPHONE
[phone]
FACSIMILE
[phone]
March 3, 1998
Mr. A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
And via fax to:
[phone] pl?
MAR
?1LeLPYt ,' a ' _-?
_,_„ TER Qt
Re: Charlotte/Mecklenburg
Utilities Department Six Mile
Creek Outfall
Dear Mr. Howard:
This law firm represents the Cy N. Bahakel family in
connection the proposal by the'Charlotte/Mecklenburg Utilities
Department (CMUD) to run a`24 inch sewer line known as the Six
Mile Creek Outfall across their property. The proposed sewer
would run along the rear of our client's property from the
eastern margin of Providence Road and extend in northeasterly
direction for a distance of approximately 4,5001, or almost a
mile. This distance comprises 25% of the total length of the
proposed sewer line. The area on our clients property where CMUD
proposes to place the sewer is heavily wooded, lies in part in a
flood plain and as you know is in a wetlands area.
In September of 1997, you issued a preliminary 401 Water
Quality Certification for this project. Our clients were given
no notice of the application for the Water Quality Certification
and as a result, they were not afforded an opportunity to submit
their comments to you prior to the issuance of the preliminary
Certification. In addition, to our knowledge no one ever
visited or inspected the portion of their property over which the
proposed sewer line would pass. We believe that there are
serious environmental issues which have not been adequately
evaluated and resolved and that for these reasons you should
revoke the preliminary certification under NCAC 15A § 507 and
refuse to grant a final certification under NCAC 15a § 506(b) and
(c) until the project has been studied further and all interested
parties have had an opportunity to provide input in the decision
making process.
We did not receive a copy of the Environmental Assessment
prepared by Camp Dresser & McKee until last week and have not had
an adequate opportunity to review all of its contents. However,
Page 2
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
March 3, 1998
just a cursory review indicates that there are issues which are
not dealt with at all or which are not adequately examined.
First, the Assessment fails to adequately account for the
possibility of the presence of endangered species within the
project area. It states on page 4-3 that Appendix A (in
actuality it is Appendix B) lists "Wildlife species expected to
occur in the project area, particularly in wetlands and
floodplains along the streams," and that "The North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) indicated that there are no
records of known rare species, high quality natural communities,
or significant natural areas occurring with a 1-mile radius of
the proposed project area,". A review of Appendix B shows that
it lists eleven species of plants and animals classified as
endangered species by the North Carolina Department of Health,
Environment and Natural Resources. Clearly further study should
be conducted concerning the presence of the endangered species
and the potential impact of the project on them.
Secondly, it appears that the Assessment is incorrect in
several respects in the description of the details of the
project. For example, construction blue prints prepared by CMUD
for the portion of the sewer line running across our clients
property show a 24 inch pipe with a 25 foot permanent easement
and a 20 foot temporary construction easement for a total
construction corridor of 45 feet. The Environmental Assessment,
on the other hand shows in a map (Figure 1-1) that the entire
length of the pipe along our clients property is 21 inches in
diameter. It also asserts on page 1-4 that "the width of the
construction disturbance, which includes temporary sedimentation
and erosion control will be limited to 40 feet in wetland areas."
In addition, the Assessment states on page 3-4 that the outfall
must be constructed "to collect and treat wastewater from the Six
Mile Creek drainage basin, including the newly annexed areas.".
This is clearly not true since the newly annexed areas already
have access to municipal sewer services without the construction
of the outfall. Finally, the assessment incorrectly implies that
there is no practical alternative to the construction of the
proposed outfall along the route proposed. (See page 3-1 wherein
it is stated that, "In order to convey wastewater flows by
gravity from the Six Mile Creek service area, the pipeline must
be located along Six Mile Creek. Thus the only alternative to
the proposed route involved slight variations in alignment..")
In fact, the route was chosen because of its proximity to Union
County so that CMUD could provide wastewater treatment services
for Union County developments under a contract with Union County.
Undoubtedly, further study of the Assessment will reveal
additional inaccuracies.
Page 3
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
March 3, 1998
Finally, the Assessment fails entirely to deal with the
potential effect of the permanent clearing of the land which
would take place. The project envisions a construction corridor
40 feet or more in width and 3.3 miles long. Much of this area
is heavily wooded and after the construction of the sewer line,
the easement area would be kept permanently cleared. The
assessment without any justification states on page 5-2 that this
"can be considered a beneficial effect since it provides a
diverse habitat corridor that may be used by various wildlife
species for activities such as foraging and migrating.". No
mention is made of the potential effect of a clearing project of
this magnitude. Further study and evaluation is in order to
determine the effect of such activity on the environment and on
the natural beauty of the area.
We look forward to your comments on this request. In the
interim, we will be going forward with an in depth analysis of
the Environmental Assessment and possible alternatives to the
proposed project. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can
answer any questions.
Sincerely yours,
NEWITT & BRUNY
Roger H. Brunt'
cc: Mr. Cy N. Bahakel
Bahakel Communications
Post Office Box 32488
Charlotte, NC 28232
MAY- 5- 9 a T U e 19 :3 3

JONI" Cr. Nmw{TT.88,11807-W7w
J07TN G. Nu'WXTV. 377.
Rao:aa H. DnVxy
N=WXWT & DxvN-r
ATTORNEYS AND C0V"4CLLOR8 AT LAW
SUITC 1*4. LAST ¦8ULPYARD fl?NC[ CONOOMINiUM.
417 [AOT DOULRVAng
CRAJ bOTT71, NQ)&T$ CAROX.INA 'U-M-00
May 5, 1998
Mr. John R. Dorney
North Carolina Department of Health, Environment
and Natural, Resources
Division of Water Quality
4401 Reed' Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Via fax to: [phone]
Re: Water Quality
SiX Mile Creek
D'WQ #971041
P - 0 1

Tm.ur7nowr,
(704) 31YO-0j aA
PAWIMTtle
(70-Z) 07'r•OOUD
Certification
Outfall Sewer
Mecklenburg County
Dear Mr. Doarney:
I em in receipt of your letter of April 23, 1998 which is in
response to my letter of Maroh 3, 1998. This letter was mailed
on Appril, 27, 1998, and received by this office on April 29, 1990.
Since receipt of this letter, I have tried on two occasions to
reach you by telephone, but as yet I have been unsuccessful.
You state in your letter that DEHNR is considering whether
or not to issue written approval of deviations from the General
401 Certification which is enclosed in your letter. The
certification was not enclosed with the letter. You also state
that you are enclosing a copy of CMUD's application which we did
not receive. Finally, you ask us to review CMUD's application
and submit our comments on the deviations by April 1, 1998, 26
days prior to the date that your letter was mailed to us.
Upon receipt of this letter please give me a call and also
fax me the Certification and application which were omitted from
your letter.
Sincerely yours,
VEWITT & BRUNY
Roger H. Br Z31
RES : ms
CC: Mr. Cy N. Sahakel
"-:9A R- 3-5S 7U E 1 2 55
N7rWITT & Bn-UNY'
"C'"14 Cr. bFUWATT, SIL (4007.3*7Q?
JOIZtiY G. NmWtIV, Jn,
Itooun H. )33%uwv
Mr. A. Preston Howard, ar., P.E.,
North Carolina Department of Envir
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Road,
Raleigh, NC 27607
And via fax to: (919) 7339959
Dear Mir Howard:
P
Via,
op -?
GnxAbz.rN.A ?.rsxosa e
Director
onment,
1998
(70,W3700-018
Re: Charlotte/Mecklenburg
Utilities Department Six Mile
Creek Qutfall
This law firm represents the Cy N. Bahakel family in
connection the proposal by the Charlotte/Mecklenburg Utilities
Department (CMUD) to run a 24 inch sewer line known as the Six
Mile Creek Qutfall across their property. The proposed sewer
would run along the rear of our client's property from the
eastern margin of Providence Road and extend in northeasterly
direction for a, distance of approximately 415001, or almost a
mile. This distance comprises 25$ of the total length of the
proposed sewer line. The area on our clients property where CMUD
proposes to place the sewer is heavily wooded, lies in part in a
flood plain and as you know is in a wetlands area.
In September of x.997, you issued a preliminary 1401 Water
Quality Certification for this project. Our clients were given
no notice of the application for the Water Quality Certification
and as a result, they were not afforded an opportunity to submit
their comments to you prior to the issuance of the preliminary
Certification. In addition, to our knowledge no one ever
visited or inspected the portion of their property over which the
proposed sewer line would pass. We believe that there are
serious environmental issues which have not been adequately
evaluated and resolved and that for these reasons you should
revoke the preliminary certification cation under NCAC 15A 5 507 and
refuse to grant a final certification under NCAC 15a S 506(b) and
(c) until the project has been studied further and all interested
parties have had an opportunity to provide input in the decision
making process.
ATTORNEYS AND GOUNSELLQRS AT LAW
$YIT6 104. CAST N0U"VARp arnrQS QOND6mf, 1y1.1a
4f7 CAZT ROVL6YAnD
C.JrARr.07CTri. Nownr
March 3,
??rLTY•Y(70,W3700-018
?.Aa3YM.[7 8i
(7o+b) [37f?p434
We did not receive a copy of the Environmental Assessment
prepared by Camp Dresser & McKee until last week and have not had
an adequate opportunity to review all of its contents. However,
44AR- 3-98 TUE 12 : 56 P 02
Page 2
A. Preston Howard, arr., p.E.
March 3, 199$
just a cursory review indicates that there are issues which are
not dealt with at all, or which are not adequately examined.
First, the Assessment fails to adequately account for the
possibility of the presence of endangered species within the
project area. It states on page 4-3 that Appendix A (in
actuality it is Appendix B) lists "Wildlife species expected to
occur in the project area, particularly in wetlands and
fl,oodplai.ns along the stream,," and that "The North Carolina
Natural Haritage Program (NHF) indicated that there are no
records of known rare species, high quality natural oommunities,
or significant natural areas occurring with a 1-mile radius of
the proposed project area,". A review of Appendix A shows that
it lists eleven species of plants and animals classified, as
endangered species by the North Carolina Department of Health,
Environment and Natural Resources. Clearly further study should
be conducted concerning the presence of the endangered species
and the potential impact of the project on them.
Secondly, it appears that the Assessment is incorrect in
several respects in the description of the details of the
project. For example, construction blue prints prepared by CRUD
for the portion of the sewer line running across our clients
property show a 224 inch pipe with a 25 foot permanent easement
and a 20 foot temporary construction easement for a total
construction corridor of 45 feet. The Environmental Assessmentr
on the other hand shows in a map (Figure 1-1) that the entire
length of the pipe along our clients property is 21 inches in
diameter. rt also asserts on page 1-4 that "the width of the
construction, disturbance, which includes temporary sedimentation,
and erosion control, will be limited to 40 feet in wetland areas."
In addition, the Assessment states on page 3-4 that the outfall
must be constructed "to collect and, treat wastewater from the Six
Mile Creek drainage basin, including the newly annexed areas.".
This is clearly not true since the newly annexed areas already?
have access to municipal sewer services without the construction
of the outfall. rinally, the assessment incorrectly implies that
there is no practical alternative to the construction of the
proposed outfall along the route proposed. (See page 3-1 wherein
it is stated that, "In order to convey wastewater flows by
gravity from the Six Mile Creek service area, the pipeline must
be located along Six Mile Creek. Thus the only alternative to
the proposed route involved slight variations in alignment..")
In fact, the route was chosen because of its proximity to Union
County so that CMUD could provide wastewater treatment services
for Union County developments under a contract with Union County.
undoubtedly, further study of the Assessment will, reveal
additional inaccuracies.
. ,• ,+qAR- 3-90 TUE 12 :!5G P _ 0?
Page 3
A. Preston Heyward, Jr., p . E .
March 3, 1998
Finally, the Assessment fails entirely to deal with the
potential effect of the permanent clearing of the land which
would take place. The project envisions a construction corridor
40 feet or more in width and 3.3 miles long. Much of this area
is heavily wooded and after the construotion of the sewer line,
the easement area would be kept permanently cleared. The
assessment without any justification states on page 5-2 that this
"can be considered a beneficial effect since it provides a
diverse habitat corridor that may be used by various wildlife
species for activities suoh as foraging and migrating.". No
mention is made of the potential effect of a clearing project of
this magnitude. Further study and evaluation is in order to
determine the effect of such activity on the environment and on
the natural beauty of the area.
We look forward to your colments on this request. In the
interim we will be going forward with an in depth analysis of
the Environmental Assessment and possible alternatives to the
proposed project. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can
avower any questiono.
Sincerely yours,
NEWITT & BRUNY
Roger H. Sruny
cc: Mr. Cy N. Baba,kel
Dahakel Communications
Post Office Box 32488
Charlotte, NC 28232
w 'State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 12, 1997
LTO.KNA
A&4?1 0
IT
Now
D E N F=1
TO: Jeanette Fumey, State Clearinghouse
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe, WQ Planning Branch
RE: EA/FONSI for Clearinghouse Review -Six Mile Creek Sanitary Sewer Outfall
(DEHNR Project # 879); Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utility District
Mecklenburg County
The Division of Water Quality is submitting the enclosed 6 copies of the above FONSI and
Environmental Assessment for State Clearinghouse review. This document has been reviewed at
both the Division level and through DEHNR and has been amended to satisfy any in-house
concerns. Please publish this project and circulate it in the Environmental Bulletin on December 19,
1997 for a 30 working day review to end February 6, 1998.
If you should have any questions, please give me a call at [phone], ext. 567.
enclosures
cc: Kelly Reiser Boone, CDM (w/FONSI)- -
Doug Miller, DWQ - Mooresville Regional Office (w/FONSI)
Kim Colson, DWQ - Non-Discharge Permitting Unit (w/final EA and FONSI for file)
misAsc879 memo - Emile creek
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Ms. Michelle Suberkrubbe
N.C. Dept. of Environment and
Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Archdale Building
Raleigh NC 27603
Dear Ms. Suberkrubbe:
Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
RECEIVED
DEC J0, u" 1997
ENVIRONMENTALSCIENCES
Subject: Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact - Charlotte-Mecklenburg +_
-?
Utilities - Proposed Six Mile Creek Sanitary Sewer Outfall Project
The N. C. State Clearinghouse has received the above project for intergovernmental review. This
project has been assigned State Application Number 98-E-4300-0392. Please use this number with"`
all inquiries or correspondence with this office. -_'
Review of this project should be completed on or before 02/06/1998. Should you have any v
iN3
questions, please call [phone].
Sincerely,
U
Ms. Jeanette Furney
Administrative Assistant
December 12, 1997
116 West Jones Street * Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 * Telephone [phone]
State Courier 51-01-00
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
It
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Assessment for the
Six Mile Creek Sanitary Sewer Outfall
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utility District
Mecklenburg County
An environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared, pursuant to the requirements of the North
Carolina Environmental Policy Act, for a proposed relief sewer for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Utility District in Mecklenburg County.
The project includes the construction of 3.3 miles (17,600 linear feet) of 8- to 24-inch diameter
gravity sewer line that will accommodate a flow of 1.68 million gallons per day (mgd) of
wastewater. This sewer line will serve the remainder of the Six Mile Creek drainage basin, which
is located in the southern region of Mecklenburg County, and extends into Union County. The
proposed gravity sewer will connect to an existing section of previously constructed sewer lines,
and will convey the wastewater to the McAlpine Treatment Plant, which discharges to McAlpine
Creek, within the Catawba River Basin. The project is located in southeastern Mecklenburg
County, east of Providence Road and west of the Walker and Weddington Road area.
This sewer outfall is designed both to serve areas currently developed in the CMUD service area,
including existing residences on septic systems, and to accommodate additional planned growth.
This EA and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) are prerequisites for the issuance of a state
non-discharge permit for the sewer line by CMUD, who has delegated authority to self-permit
gravity sewer lines.
The subject EA addresses a wide array of potential primary and secondary impacts associated with
pipeline construction and secondary growth development. Considering the findings of the EA and
on the impact avoidance and mitigation measures contained therein, it is concluded that the
proposed project will not result in significant impacts to the environment.
Mitigation measures for the project include standard wetland and water quality measures for
Section 401 Certifications, minimal clearing along the 45-foot wide construction corridor, and the
implementation of proper erosion and sedimentation control practices.
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.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
December 12, 1997
Y V I L7 zX
Environmental Review Tracking Sheet
DW- Wateruali Section
A SEP S lg
9j
F?lnnt,
MEMORANDUM sCiFN??s
To. Env. Sciences Branch (WQ Lab) Technical Support Branch (Archdale 9th)
* Wetlands O Coleen Sullins, P&E
O John Dorney O Dave Goodrich, P&E, NPDES
O Cyndi Bell (DoT) )K Kim Colson, P&E, State
>Eric Galamb (others) O Bradley Bennett, P&E, Stormwater
O O Ruth Swanek, Instream Assess. (modeling)
O Carl Sanderson, Rapid Asse s.
* Bio. Resources, Habitat, End. Species
O Trish MacPherson
O Kathy Herring (forest/oRwaiQw) Operations Branch (Archdale 7th)
O O Kent Wiggins, Facility Assessment
O Tom Poe, Pretreatment
* Toxicology O Lisa Martin, Water Supply Watershed .
O Larry Ausley
O Regional Water Quality Supervisors
O Asheville O Mooresville O Washington
Planning Branch (Archdale - 6th) O Fayetteville - O Raleigh O Wilmington
O O Winston-Salem
FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe, Planning Branch °
Cv? u - s ; x wt; e? a r- - 0
Thank you for your assistance. Suggestions for streamlining and expediting this process are greatly
appreciated! l a r? /6C"
Notes: ? ( 15S
v?-C1_ © n ?Qf I can be reached at
phone: [phone], ext. 567 fax: [phone] e-mail: [e-mail]
mis.\circmemo - mac version
Attached is a copy of the above document. Subject to the requirements of the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act, you are being asked to review the document for potential significant impacts
to the environment, especially pertinent to your jurisdiction, level of expertise or permit authority. Please
check the appropriate box below and return this form to me along with your written comments, if any, by
the date indicated.
? v
1
1 ?
1 ?
1 ?
1 ?
a?
1
1 ?
? O
1 ?
1 W

? Q
Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Utilities
Six Mile Creek Sanitary Sewer Outfall
September 1997

DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
for
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG UTILITIES
SIX MILE CREEK SANITARY SEWER OUTFALL
Prepared for: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Charlotte, North Carolina
Prepared by: Camp Dresser & McKee
301 S. McDowell Street
Suite 200
Charlotte, North Carolina 2820
4
.
[phone]
Responsible Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Agency: Division of Water Quality
512 North Salisbury Street
PO Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Contact Person: Ms. Michelle L. Suverkrubbe
[phone]
State Clearinghouse
Scoping
Project Number: 97-E-4300-0675

J

J

n

Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
Section 1 Description of Proposed Project .................................... 1-1
1.1 Introduction ................................................ 1-1
1.2 Project Location ............................................ 1-1
1.3 Description of Project Components ............................. 1-1
Section 2 Project Need ................................................... 2-1
2.1 Existing Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Sewer Facilities ............ 2-1
2.2 Need-for Six Mile Creek Sanitary Sewer Facilities .................. 2-1
Section 3 Alternatives Analysis ............... ......................... 3-1
3.1 Alternative Pipeline Routes .. .... ...................... 3-1
3.2 Alternative Designs or Construction Methods ...................... 3-2
3.3 "No Action" Alternative .. ............................. .... 3-4
Section 4 Description of Existing Environment ................ . ................ 4-1
4.1 Topography and Soils ........................................ 4-1
4.2 Land Use .................................................. 4-1
4.3 Surface Waters and Wetlands ................................. 4-1
4.4 Fish and Wildlife Resources ................................... 4-3
4.4.1 Wildlife Habitat and Resources .......................... 4-3
4.4.2 Fishery Habitat and Resources .......................... 4-3
4.4.3 Rare and Protected Species or Habitats ................... 4-3
4.5 Cultural Resources .......................................... 4-4
Section 5 Environmental Consequences ...................................... 5-1
5.1 Changes in Land Use ........................................ 5-1
5.2 Wetlands .................................................. 5-2
5.3 Agricultural Land, Public Land, and Recreational Areas ............. 5-2
5.4 Historical or Archaeological Resources .......................... 5-2
5.5 Air Quality ............................................... 5-3
5.6 Groundwater Quality ......................................... 5-3
5.7 Noise Levels ............................................... 5-4
5.8 Potable Water Supplies ...................................... 5-4
5.9 Fishery Resources and Habitats ............................... 5-4
5.10 Wildlife Resources and Habitats ................................ 5-4
5.11 Introduction of Toxic Substances ............................... 5-5
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee i
i
i
i
i
i
i
Section 6
Section 7
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Contents
(continued)
5.12 Eutrophication of Receiving Waters ............................. 5-5
5.13 Summary of Environmental Impacts ............................. 5-5
Mitigative Measures .............................................. 6-1
6.1 Surface Waters ............................................. 6-1
6.2 Wetlands .................................................. 6-2
6.3 Noise ..................................................... 6-3
6.4 Air Quality ................................................. 6-3
6.5 Forest Resources and Wildlife Habitat ........................... 6-4
References ..................................................... 7-1
General Certifications for Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit Number 12
Rare Species of Mecklenburg County
Copies of Relevant Correspondence
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
i
i
i
List of Figures
Figure
1-1 Location of Project .................................... 1-2
1-2 Project Service Area ................................... 1-3
1-3 Creek Crossing A ..................................... 1-6
1-4 Creek Crossing B ..................................... 1-7
1-5 Creek Crossing C ..................................... 1-8
3-1 Locations of Surface Waters and Wetlands ................. 3-3
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee.
i
i
i
i
i
i
List of Tables
Table
2-1 Mecklenburg County O&D Zone Land Use Data ............. 2-3
2-2 Mecklenburg County Sewer Service Area Population
Projections .......................................... 2-3
2-3 Summary of Population and Flow Projections-Six Mile
Creek Sanitary Sewer Facilities .......................... 2-4
3-1 Description of Wetland Crossings ......................... 3-2
4-1 Wetland Types and Dominant Species in Wetland Areas ...... 4-3
5-1 Estimated Wetland Disturbance ......................... 5-3
5-2 Summary-of Environmental Impacts ....................... 5-6
6-1 Recommended Seed Types for Temporary Vegetative Cover .. 6-3
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
1

I

Section 1
Description of Proposed Project
1.1 Introduction
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities proposes to construct a gravity sewer to service
the Six Mile Creek drainage basin, which is located in the southern region of
Mecklenburg County near the Union County line. The proposed Six Mile Creek
sewer outfall includes approximately 3.3 miles of pipeline ranging from 8 to 24
inches in diameter.
Construction of the sewer triggers the need for an Environmental Assessment
(EA) under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) because it involves:
¦ Expenditure of public funds;
¦ Action by the state (permit); and
¦ A potential effect upon natural resources, natural beauty, or historical or
cultural elements of the state's common heritage. .
Because the pipeline will be greater than 3 miles in length with a design flow
greater than 1 million gallons per day (mgd), the project is considered a major
activity in the Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Departmental rules regarding the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
(NCEPA) (Title 15A: U1C.0504). This EA provides an evaluation of the likely
short- and long-term effects associated with the project and the mitigation
measures that are proposed to minimize or avoid these effects.
1.2 Project Location
The proposed Six Mile Creek sewer outfall is located in the southern portion of
Mecklenburg County, approximately 10 miles south of the City of Charlotte near
the South Carolina border. The approximate location of the sewer outfall is
depicted in Figure 1-1, and the project service area is delineated by a dashed line
in Figure 1-2.
1.3 Description of Project Components
The proposed sewer outfall consists of approximately 17,600 linear feet of 8- to
24-inch diameter pipeline. The wastewater will be transferred to the McAlpine
Creek wastewater management facility (WWMF). The pipeline diameters were
selected by Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities based on the following assumptions:
¦ Design flow is the peak flow.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 1-1
i
i
i
i
i
i
END CONSTRUCTION
3440°\
J A
O '?C
O O II , '
/? O J Al
cc< Q °
m\ r
Z \ $ p
q /J P
rn ,
702
%;
Q
1 ? l
65
sibs BEGIN CONSTRUCTION ?e fg A
1346 7?
ler
700 P 134¢
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
1334 6v 2000 0 2000
\\Scale in Feet
I ? __?a4'?C,-9c'?i ?`1 ! it /\,?•`.\ ?? i\. ? ?\--?? ?? ' r ? ??? I
' CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
Figure No. 1-1
SIX MILE CREEK SEWER OUTFALL
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
i
i
(C t+
V!m(
END CONSTRUCTION WALKER' `?4,u
\ w/ l ?J _- p 1 ?"r/'\? X00 ? ? - • •?`? / '-- •
? ? ,f ? -. i yon ?-? C1 •? . ?`
J?_)
r ?
d Flu)
02
'?.y m a 'a_°;\U Z r` .ACID
. r.- ? o,9yo 5 ? ems' i ? a°\ ? v '` . / ? .:.;/ •{? ??\ i ? 1 .
yI V/ ? ? ?)1
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
r UNDER CONSTRUCTION
.\_ ?'\ Lam!." It?„/.ti1 ??'1 N; 1?1 1 \ ,\` :b 'i. , Il???? ? ?' ? f?.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
Figure No. 1-2
SIX MILE CREEK SEWER OUTFALL
PROJECT SERVICE AREA
Section 1
Description of Proposed Project

n

¦ Peaking factors are based on data provided in ASCE No. 60 for service area
population of project area with a minimum peaking factor of 2.5.
¦ Standard Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities pipe sizes will be used.
¦ The minimum slope for gravity sewers is based on Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Utilities Design Guidelines.
Manhole spacing and venting requirements are based on Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Utilities Design Guidelines. The maximum manhole spacing for pipe diameters
to be used for the proposed sewer outfall ranges from 500 feet for 8-inch diameter
pipes to 550 feet for pipes 24 inches in diameter. For sewers 15 inches in
diameter and smaller, a 0.2-foot vertical drop will be provided at manholes.
Drops will not be provided for sewers 18 inches in diameter and larger. Vents
will be provided at approximately 2,000-foot intervals. All non-vented manholes
will have solid covers, and all frames and covers subject to flooding or inflow
from stormwater will be sealed in accordance with Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Utilities standard specifications. Manholes with external vents will have sealed
frames and covers. Vent inlets will be located 2 feet above the 100-year flood
elevation.
Along most of the route, the pipelines will be installed using typical cut and
cover methods. The pipeline along most of the sewer route will be either PVC or
reinforced concrete pipe (RCP). The excavation depth. and width will vary
somewhat depending on the pipe diameter, changes in topography, location of
existing utilities, and various obstructions. Typical trench dimensions will be
around 10 feet deep, 7 feet wide at the bottom, and 12 feet (maximum) wide at
the top. The width of construction disturbance, which includes temporary
sedimentation and erosion controls such as diversion ditches, will be limited to _
40 feet in wetland areas.
Construction techniques across the small streams and wetlands will be similar to
those used in drier areas except that particular care will be taken to minimize the
area of disturbance. Flow in the small streams may be temporarily blocked
and/or diverted around the construction area in order to install the pipeline.
Temporary creek crossings will be used when crossing streams. In both wetland
and upland areas, the existing ground contours will be restored to the extent
possible once the pipe is installed. The general sequence of pipeline construction
will be as follows:
1. Place erosion control devices
2. Remove trees
3. Strip and stockpile topsoil
4. Excavate and dewater trench
5. Place gravel bedding
6. Install pipe
7. Backfill trench to within 6 to 12 inches of grade
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 1-4
Section 1
Description of Proposed Project

0

n

1-7
L
8. Place topsoil and restore existing grade to the extent possible, paying
particular attention to existing drainage swales
9. Seed and mulch disturbed area
Although the route was selected to minimize work in environmentally sensitive
areas, several stream crossings will be necessary. Specifically, the gravity sewer
will cross Six Mile Creek in three locations and tributaries or ditches in several
other locations. The pipeline is expected to be installed across the creek and its
tributaries by temporarily diverting the streams. The excavated creek sediments
will be temporarily stockpiled in an upland location set back from the river bank.
Figures 1-3,1-4, and 1-5 show detailed drawings of the three proposed creek
crossings. Once the pipe is installed in the trench, the trench will be backfilled
and compacted, and the original stream contours will be restored to the extent
possible. Stabilization and seeding of banks at creek crossings will occur
immediately after construction (within 5 days). Pipelines will be ductile iron or
reinforced concrete pipe under drainage tributaries where the pipe is less than 2
feet below grade. In no case will the top of the pipeline be less than 1 foot below
the existing tributary or stream bed. Anti-seep collars will be provided at least
every 150 feet along the segments of pipeline located in wetlands to control the
migration of groundwater along the pipe bedding and avoid draining wetland
areas. The contractor will be responsible for removing any excess excavated
sediments from the site for disposal in a suitable upland location. No instream
activities will take place in April and Mayz to prevent impact on fish spawning.
This project will meet all of the requirements for certification according to Corps
of Engineers Nationwide Permit 12 (see Appendix A).
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 1-5
I ? PROPOSED 21 ° SAN. SEWER & 25' R/W
STA. 74t33.11=
R STA.Ot00 PROPOSED 18" SAN.
I PROPOSED
pIA ? ? ?, (SEE SHEET
/
/
of t
y
F
I

CON .5.
JD-
<N,
, r ? EA

PROP. TEMP. STREAM CROSSING
\ EC STD. t
\ 3-15" CMP 15' LENGTH
yC? \c
NAIL. IN 6 - CEDA L PROP. - SILT FENCE `
NA"R EC STD. 6.62
2' INSIDE TCE.
N. SEWER & EXISTING 15' R/W tiT s` \
249.78 L. F.
PROP. SILT FEN
EC STD. 6.62
2' INSIDE TCE
,(U
,N l
EXIST. PUMP STA TION (BY
1 CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
Figure No. 1-3
SIX MILE CREEK SEWER OUTFALL
CREEK CROSSING A
1

EXIST. 470RCE MAIN
CMUO JOB #100-96-732
Q \ EXIST. 6" CAROLINA WATER N
\ THIS SIDE OF ROAD (EXACT.
MARSH MORTGAGE CO\ NOT DETERMINED)
DS 4404 PG 349
231-111-01
TBM
TOP C
EAST I :r wATER EL 65'
MAN CMW) Joe
3aa-96-11 -STA. 1 +49.02 1 s"OAK
• ? .A ? t?»OA t2 OpK
PROP. SILT FENCE
EC STD. 6.62
o -
PROPOSED 18" SAN.
SEWER dl: 20' R/W w 2 -?
(SEE SNT. 11 OF 20 2 s?'ART- !?32
9 \ C 2 7 $4- c
HARLES H. STEPHENSON. 4 s? cup
& WIFE MARGARET 6 - C -
DB 2905 PG 525 .199
231-111-02 N
Y5t'QTZ3"E 15•?
65 t ?p
P P
P
GPP p
p ? P P \ r
• .: CON T. EASEMEN S
- 41
SIX MILE CREEK x 64 .
................
STA. 102+69.0 \w
PROPOSED ,
M. H.
1
t CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
Figure No. 1-4
SIX MILE CREEK SEWER OUTFALL
CREEK CROSSING B
i
i
i
i
EXIST. 4"FORCE MAIN 1 2
CMUD JOB #100-96-732 LARRY NEAL
EXIST. 6" CAROLINA WATER MAIN ON & WF ELSIE
THIS SIDE OF ROAD (EXACT. LOCATION D8 5266 PG
NOT DETERMINED)
231-101
TBM #43 STA.
TOP OF 84NCMP
-? \ N 096 EL 651.36 PROA
\ 1s"OAK TO
\
.-
P
\ \ ,?OA 12 OaK d ?~?
114.
\ - \ _ --` , 5713. . .
w \ 2 17•5?p
232
2 8=? N??L? D C
2 7 5t C '232
41. d S IX -2
9 2P
\ 6 35
:M.. 36.
6?
o °
.n
2 _ rN G \ \1' \ 7.5'
.: CON T. EASEMEN p S \ AC44C DRI'
1\ g OAK
O DO(
STA. 102+69.0
PROPOSED M. H. ?, G \
8 SAN. SWR. & 15 /
1
1 CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
Figure No. 1-5
SIX MILE CREEK SEWER OUTFALL
CREEK CROSSING C

Section 2
Project Need
2.1 Existing Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Sewer
Facilities

H

u

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities currently operates five wastewater treatment
plants (WWTPs). Three of these plants are located in the Sugar Creek drainage
basin-the McAlpine Creek, Sugar Creek, and Irwin Creek WWTPs. Each of these
plants, which have been upgraded or expanded to satisfy new National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit limits, are discussed below:
McAlpine Creek wastewater management facility (WWMF) - Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Utilities' largest plant, serving all of southern Mecklenburg County
downstream of the Sugar Creek and Irwin Creek WWTPs. The McAlpine Creek
facility also treats flow bypassed from the upstream Irwin Creek and Sugar Creek
plants as well as wastewater flows generated in the Long Creek and Paw Creek
drainage basins. The plant upgrade and expansion currently under construction
will increase the plant capacity- from the current 48 million gallons per day (mgd)
to 64 mgd.
Sugar Creek WWTP - Sen-es uptown Charlotte and the northeast quadrant of the
city. The plant's treatment capacity is currently 20 mgd.
Irwin Creek WV VTP - Servesthe north and northwest portions of the city with a
current treatment capacity of 15 mgd.
The total treatment capacity in the Sugar Creek drainage basin will be 99 mgd
after the expansion of McAlpine WWTP is completed. Three major pump
stations and an extensive network of pipelines also comprise Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Utilities' existing wastewater facilities in the Sugar Creek basin.
2.2 Need for Six Mile Creek Sanitary Sewer Facilities
The proposed Six Mile Creek sanitary sewer outfall is needed to collect
wastewater throughout the Six Mile Creek drainage basin (including newly
annexed areas) and convey it to the McAlpine Creek WWMF. The project will
provide essential municipal sewer services to a rapidly developing area in
southern Mecklenburg County. In addition, the proposed sewer outfall may
service portions of Union County.
This outfall is part of the Six Mile Creek Sanitary Sewer Facilities project
currently under construction. Population projections made for the Six Mile Creek
Sanitary Sewer Facilities project included the area this outfall is intended to serve.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 2-1
Section 2
Project Need
I
I
I

I

The service area for this sewer outfall (east of Providence Road) is depicted in
Figure 1-2. The total average day flow for the Six Mile Creek Sanitary Sewer
Facilities project was estimated at 7.82 mgd, and this part of the project accounts
for 1.68 mgd of that total.
Population projections for the Six Mile Creek service area were developed for
2010, the year in which buildout conditions and the peak population are
predicted to occur.
The population projections were based on the following data:
¦ Origin and Destination (O&D) Zone population and land use data
¦ Discussions with the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission,
Charlotte Department of Transportation, Mecklenburg County Tax
Department, and Mecklenburg County Engineering Department
¦ Information provided by local developers, including land use maps
¦ Discussions with the Union County (North Carolina) Planning Department
and Union County Public Works' Department
¦ Peaking factors based on data provided in the American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE) Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice-No.
60/WPCF-Manual of Practice-No. FD-5, Gravity Sanitary Sewer Design
and Construction, 1982 (ASCE. No. 60)
¦ Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities design guidelines
Residential as well as commercial and industrial growth were considered in the
flow projections. The Mecklenburg County residential fraction was based on
year 2010 O&D Zone population projections, and the non-residential fraction was
based on Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities' design guideline of 15 people per acre.
In addition, the 1990 land use data open land allocation was reduced to 20
percent per Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities design guidelines, with the
remainder of the open land converted to residential development assuming 50
percent as single family lh-acre lots and 50 percent as single family 1/4-acre lots
(see Tables 2-1 and 2-2).
No O&D Zone data was available for Union County. Without specific
development plans, the Union County Planning Department indicated that an
assumption that half of the area would be developed as 1-acre lots and half of the
area would be developed as lh-acre lots is reasonable for the purpose of the
evaluation. Based on the 1990 Union County census data, 2.82 people per
household was assumed. Based on Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities' design
guidelines, it was also assumed that 20 percent of the land area would be
developed as streets.
I CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 2-2
I

I

F F

Section 2
Project Need
Table 2-1
Mecklenburg County O&D Zone Land Use Data a
Six Mile Creek Sanitary
Sewer Outfall Project Six Mile Creek Sanitary Sewer
Facilities (including outtall)
Open Land 461 1,583
Open Land Converted to
Single Family 1h-acre lots 468 1,754
Open Land Converted to
Single Family 1/4-acre lots 469 1,755
Residential 898 2,309
Manufacturing 0 2
Trans/Comm/Util 7 16
Institutional (Landfill) 1 976
Total Acreage 2,304 8,395
Based on reduction in 1990 land use data open land allocation to 20 percent per cnanotte-MecKlenourg
Utilities design guidelines, with remainder of open land converted to residential development assuming 50
percent as single family Y2-acre lots and 50 percent as single family 1 -acre lots. (Source: Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Utilities Six Mile Creek Sanitary Sewer Facilities Preliminary Design Memorandum, CDM report
dated November 16, 1993)
Table 2-2
Mecklenburg County Sewer Service Area Population Projections
Six Mile Creek Sanitary
Sewer Outtall Project Six Mile Creek Sanitary Sewer
Facilities (including outfall)
Residential ° 4,266 18,812
Non-Residential ° 120 4,080
Open Land Converted to
Residential 7,030 26,330
Total Population, 11,416 49,222
9 Year 2010 O&D Zone population projection
b Based on 15 people/acre per Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities design guidelines
Assuming 20 percent open land designated for O&D Zone total acreage; remainder of open land converted to
residential use assuming 50 percent development as single family 1/2-acre lots and 50 percent development for
single family Y4-acre lots with 2.5 people/household based on 1990 census for Mecklenburg County.
(Source: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Six Mile Creek Sanitary Sewer Facilities Preliminary Design
Memorandum, CDM report dated November 16, 1993)
Table 2-3 summarizes the population and flow projections for the Six Mile Creek
Sanitary Sewer Outfall and for the entire Six Mile Creek Sanitary Sewer Facilities
project.
I CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 2-3

Section 2
Project Need
Table 2-3
Summary of Population and Flow Projections
Six Mile Creek Sanitary Sewer Facilities
Design Population Peak Design Flow (mgd)
Six Mile
Creek Outfall Six Mile Creek
Facilities Total d six mile
Creek Outfall Six Mile Creek
Facilities Total d
Mecklenburg County Service Area 11,416' 49,222' 3.20 12.31
Union County Service Area 5,368 b 20,646 b 1.50' 5.16
Landfill Leachate --- --- --- 0.02
Clem's Branch Service Area 1,958 0.49
Area South of Ballantyne
Development, North of Providence
Road West
698
0.17
Ballantyne Development 4,675 1.40
Total 16,784 77,199 4.70 19.55
Mecklenburg County service area popwanon wiu C? uC a a1 ,??I ?u?`? ?•• • ??• -- •- ___ __.__
population projection, non-residential fraction based on 15 people/acre per Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
design guidelines, and additional projection to conversion of open land to residential development.
b Based on 20 percent of total area developed as streets, 40 percent as single family 1-acre lots, 40 percent as
single family'/2-acre lots, assuming 2.82 people per household per 1990 Union County census.
Based on average flow rate of 100 gpcd with 2.5 peaking factor.
d Source: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Six Mile Creek Sanitary Sewer Facilities Preliminary Design
Memorandum, CDM report dated November 16, 1993.
Based on average flow rate of 100 gpcd with 2.8 peaking factor.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
2-4

E

'.7

Section 3
Alternatives Analysis
This section describes the alternatives to the proposed project that would enable
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities to fulfill the project need stated in Section 2.
Rather than assessing all of the potential alternatives to providing wastewater
treatment services to a developing area, the analysis focuses on variations to the
proposed project that would be associated with less environmental impacts.
Specifically, these alternatives include:
¦ Alternative pipeline routes
¦ Alternative pipeline design or construction methods
¦ The "no action" alternative
Each of these alternatives is discussed below.
3.1 Alternative Pipeline Routes
The sewer route was selected based on the following goals and criteria:
¦ Follow natural grades as closely as possible to minimize excavation depths
¦ Minimize stream crossin;?s
¦ Minimize the number of parcels affected
¦ Parallel pcuperty lines wherever possible
¦ Follow lutiv-1v ing areas in floodplains and near creeks to minimize pumping
needs
¦ Facilitate connections to existing wastewater treatment facilities
¦ Minimize work in wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas
Preliminary sewer routes were identified by Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities on
topographic maps developed by the Mecklenburg County Engineering
Department. The proposed routes were then transferred to 400-scale planimetric
maps and adjusted based on field investigations.
In order to convey wastewater flows by gravity from the Six Mile Creek service
area, the pipeline must be located along Six Mile Creek. Thus, the only
alternatives to the proposed route involved slight variations in alignment based
on the goals and criteria listed above. Based on the selection process described
above, the pipeline route was chosen in an effort to minimize wetland crossings.
Table 3-1 summarizes the wetland crossings associated with the selected
I CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 3-1
Section 3
Alternatives Analysis
route and justifies the need for each proposed wetland crossing. The
' approximate location of each wetland noted is shown on Figure 3-1. Most of the
proposed wetland crossings cannot be avoided because they are extensive in
width and the pipeline must be kept in low-lying areas to maintain gravity flow.

u

Table 3-1
Description of Wetland Crossings
Station Location No.
tion
ri
D
Wetland p
esc
No. Begin End
1 00+30 (West of 00+00 Broad wetland area along Six Mile Creek
Providence Rd) (Providence Rd) stretching from Providence Road to Tilley
..............
.
. ................................... Morris Road; includes several tributary/
................
..
.
00+00 103+10 (East of ditch crossings; includes one crossing of
(Providence Rd) Providence Rd) Six Mile Creek necessary to eliminate an
existing pump station
2 103+30 123+60 Includes three tributary crossings and two
crossings of Six Mile Creek at Tilley Morris
Road.
3 144+85 145.30' Small wetland area within park currently
under construction
4 158+10 165+40 Small wetland area within park currently
under construction; includes one ditch
crossing
5 172+15 174+25 Small wetland area located just before
intersection of pipeline route and Walker
Road
3.2 Alternative Pipeline Designs or Construction
Methods
Aside from routing the pipeline to avoid or minimize wetland crossings and
restricting construction activities to a limited corridor,-little can be done to the
pipeline design to minimize wetland impacts. Use of smaller diameter pipelines
would be associated with narrower trench widths and less construction impacts;
however, the minimum pipeline diameters were selected to convey the project
peak flows. Thus, a smaller pipeline would not be able to handle the design
flows.
' The proposed construction methods were selected to minimize wetland and
environmental impacts; thus, there are few alternatives that would further
minimize these impacts. Some potential alternatives, and a brief explanation of
' why each is not proposed, include: .

I CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 3"2
1
END CONSTRUCTION
• ? II• " ~\ tel.
?•I CREEK CROSSING C ? T o
CREEK CROSSING B 'k.
J
1 `Z
>- Icy $
1 ?
i CREEK CROSSING A
if CONSTRUCTION \ I ='.4
..\ f I\ `\ \ ?UNDER CONSTRUCTION ?? ? \/\ •, 6 ???J,, .?.?(?_ . l??`%?tiy?`?
130 \ `,C Z0 0 0 2000
'Z Scale in Feet /
1
Figure No. 3-1
SIX MILE CREEK SEWER OUTFALL
' CDM Camp Dresser & McKee LOCATION OF SURFACE WATERS AND WETLANDS
Section 3
Alternatives Analysis
Use of taller trench boxes to minimize trench width in wetlands. Trench
box construction will be required to minimize the widths of the construction
trenches through the wetland areas. The selected maximum construction
widths were chosen to utilize the tallest practical trench boxes for the
construction. If taller boxes were utilized, the equipment necessary to move
the boxes would be significantly larger and impractical for handling the
pipeline construction materials.

I
I

7

¦ Use of horizontal directional drilling to cross streams or wetlands.
Directional drilling and tunneling under wetland areas could be used but
the associated additional costs would add so significantly to the project cost
that Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities could not afford to construct the
project with the available funding.
3.3 "No Action" Alternative
If the proposed sewer outfall is not constructed, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
will not be able to collect and treat wastewater' from the Six Mile Creek drainage
basin, including the newly annexed areas. As a result, development in the area
will likely be treated by privately-ow, ned "package" wastewater treatment plants.
Construction of numerous small plants is generally a more costly and less reliable
alternative to larger, regional treatment facilities. In addition, this alternative is
likely to be associated with more widespread environmental impacts. If such
package plants cannot be permitted and/or constructed, development in
southern Mecklenburg County and northern Union County may be limited.
I CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 3-4

n.

t

Section 4
Description of Existing Environment
4.1 Topography and Soils
The topographic features of the proposed project area were shown in Figure 3-1.
Most of the pipeline route is characterized by relatively flat or gently rolling
terrain. Elevations along the proposed route range from 650 feet above sea level
near Walker Road to around 600 feet near the connection to the existing pipeline
at Providence Road.
According to the Mecklenburg County soil survey, soils along the Six Mile Creek
gravity sewer consist primarily of Iredell fine sandy loam and Monacan soils.
Moderately well drained Iredell soils are typically found in broad, flat, upland
areas, while Monacan soils are somewhat poorly drained, nearly level, and
typically found in floodplains along streams and drainage ways. The
Mecklenburg County Natural Resources Conservation Service includes Monacan
soils on its hydric soils list. Iredell soils are noted by the soil survey as having a
slight erosion potential, providing good habitat for woodland wildlife-and fair
habitat for wetland and openland wildlife. Monacan soils are productive for
trees such and as yellow-poplar, loblolly pine, and white oak. These soils are also
found in the lower elevations along the proposed Six Mile Creek Sewer Outfall
(USDA Soil Conservation Service, 1977).
4.2 Land Use
The proposed sewer outfall is located primarily in undeveloped, forested, and
pasture land areas and low density residential areas along Providence Road,
Tilley Morris Road, and Walker Road. The proposed route crosses a park which
is currently under construction. The park construction includes creation of a
small lake, and the sewer route was modified to avoid crossing the lake.
4.3 Surface Waters and Wetlands
The proposedsewer pipeline route crosses Six Mile Creek three times and
unnamed tributaries and ditches of Six Mile Creek several times. All tributaries
are approximately 30 to 60 feet wide with a sand and silt substrate. Six Mile
Creek is a Class C surface water. The location of these surface waters was shown
in Figure 3-1.
Much of the proposed pipeline route extends through forested wetland areas
associated with the creek. A wetland is defined by the US Army Corps of
Engineers as:
... an area that is inundated or saturated by surface or
groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support,
and that under normal circumstances does support, a prevalence
I CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 4-1
Section 4
Description of Existing Environment
of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions.

u

Wetlands are valuable because they provide habitat for a variety of wildlife
species and because they filter overland runoff, serve as storm water storage
basins, and stabilize stream banks. As noted in the above wetland definition,
three basic parameters are used for identifying and delineating wetlands: the
presence of wetland hydrology, hydrophytic_ or "water loving" vegetation, and
hydric soils. Wetland hydrology is determined by the presence of permanent or
periodic inundation, or soil saturation to the surface during at least part of the
growing season. Hydric soils are soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded
long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic (oxygen-deficient)
conditions in the upper layers. Hydrophytic vegetation is macrophytic plant life
growing in water, soil, or on a substrate that is at least periodically deficient in
oxygen as a result of excessive water content. The methodology described in the
1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual is based on interpretation
and assessment of these criteria.
The wetlands in the project vicinity were field' delineated according to the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation' Manual in April 1997. The wetland
boundaries were flagged in the field and demarcated on the construction
drawings. The wetland delineation was conducted by Mr. Jim Lee, a wetland
specialist from CDM. Mr. Lee has more than 20 years experience conducting
wetland delineations in the southeastern United States according to applicable _
federal and state methodologies. He is currently certified by the Army Corps of
Engineers to perform delineations in the southeastern United States according to
the 1987 Corps manual.
Based on the field assessment, the riverine and palustrine wetlands are located
along Six Mile Creek. Riverine wetlands are those contained within a channel,
while palustrine wetlands are those where persistent emergent vegetation such
as trees, shrubs, or emergent mosses cover 30 percent or more of the area and the
water regime is not influenced by oceanic tides.- Dominant vegetation identified
includes American elm (Ulmus americana), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), willow oak
(Quercus phellos), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). The wetlands in these
areas are characterized by a narrow strip of natural levee within the floodplain
along the riverbank.
Figure 3-1 shows the approximate location and extent of wetlands in the project
area. The limits of each wetland along the pipeline route, and the dominant
species in each wetland area, are listed in Table 4-1.
1 I CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 4-2

F_J

C

u
Section 4
Description of Existing Environment
Table 4-1
Wetland Types and Dominant Species in Wetland Areas
Wetland No. * Wetland Type Dominant Species
Six Mile Creek
SM-1 bottomland/mixed hardwood wetland American elm, sweetgum, giant cane, box elder
SM-2 bottomland/mixed hardwood wetland American elm, sweetgum, giant cane, box elder
SM-3 bottomland/mixed hardwood wetland American elm, sweetgum, giant cane, box elder
SM-4 bottomland/mixed hardwood wetland American elm, sweetgum, giant cane, box elder
SM-5 bottomland/mixed hardwood wetland American elm, sweetgum, giant cane, box elder
*See Figure 3-1 for approximate location of each wetland area.
4.4 Fish and Wildlife Habitat and Resources
4.4.1 Wildlife Habitat and Resources
The most common vegetation community in the proposed project area is
bottomland hardwood forests. This relatively high quality habitat is dominated
by species such as American elm, sweetgum, laurel oak, water oak, red maple,
giant cane, and Japanese honeysuckle. Other vegetational communities located
within the project area include pasturelands, upland hardwood forests, and
freshwater marshes. In addition, much of the pipeline route passes through the
fringe of residential areas where various tree and shrub species merge with
mowed residential lawns. Althou h each of the communities provides habitat
for a variety of wildlife species, none of the habitats are known to be particularly
unique in Mecklenburg County.
Wildlife species expected to occur in the project area, particularly in the wetlands
and floodplains along the streams, are presented Appendix A. These species
were identified through a computerized literature search by the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program' (NHP) in March 1997.
4.4.2 Fishery Habitat and Resources
Six Mile Creek provides habitat for a variety of fish species. As previously noted,
these streams are approximately 30 to 60 feet wide with a predominately sand
and silt subsurface. The stream is mostly bordered by forested floodplains, with
dense vegetation often extending to the incised banks. There is one rock outcrop
within the stream bank located upstream between Tilley Morris Road and
Walker Road.
4.4.3 Rare and Protected Species or Habitats
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) indicated that there are no
records of known rare species, high quality natural communities, or significant
natural areas occurring within a 1-mile radius of the proposed project area, and a
field survey to identify rare species in the area is not necessary. A 2-day field
survey of the proposed route was conducted on April 14 and 15, 1997, and none
of the listed species were observed at that time.
I CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 4-3

Section 4
Description of Existing Environment
Copies of relevant correspondence with NHP are included in Appendix B.
4.5 Cultural Resources
Based on field observations and communication with the North Carolina
Department of Cultural Resources Division of Archives and History (DAH), no
known structures of historical or archaeological significance would be affected by
the sewer outfall project. This comment is 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.
Copies of relevant correspondence from DAH are included in Appendix B.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
4-4

r
Fill

Section 5
Environmental Consequences
5.1 Changes in Land Use
Construction of the proposed sewer pipelines will not result in any direct, long-
term changes in land use since the pipelines will be installed entirely
underground and the existing ground contours will be restored to the extent
possible. During construction, some land use impacts may occur as a result of
temporarily displaced activities. These impacts are expected to be minor and
short-term in nature.
While the proposed project is not intended to encourage development in the
proposed service area, localized development may occur as an indirect result of
the improved access to municipal sewer services. This development may be
associated with a variety of environmental impacts including loss of wildlife
habitat or forest resources, increased stormwater runoff and erosion, wetland
filling, additional water consumption, and/or water quality impacts. However,
because the existing developments in the service area occurred without access to
municipal sewers by construction of small package plants, it is expected that
additional development will occur even without the proposed sewering.
Construction of the proposed sewer outfall will eliminate the necessity of
constructing numerous small package wastewater treatment plants, which are
generally less reliable and more costly than larger, regional treatment facilities.
In addition, it is expected that the existing package WWTPs will be removed once
the Six Mile Creek sanitary sewer facilities are constructed.
Construction of the proposed sewer outfall may indirectly increase the rate of
development in the service area, but it should be noted that the Mecklenburg
County Planning Department uses zoning and other appropriate measures,
rather than the lack of essential municipal services such as wastewater collection
and treatment, to control development. According to Mecklenburg County O&D
Zone land use data (Table 2-1), the majority of the land in the Six Mile Creek
sewer outfall service area that will be developed will be used for residential
purposes. Therefore, without the construction of this outfall, small package
wastewater treatment plants will most likely be constructed to meet the demands
of development. Buildout conditions in the service area would be ultimately
similar with or without the project, and the proposed project does not represent a
significant long-term secondary impact in terms of increased development.
The McAlpine Creek WWMF has a permitted capacity of 48 mgd and is currently
being expanded to 64 mgd. Current flows (maximum month average day) at the
plant are approximately 39 mgd. The Six Mile Creek sanitary sewer facilities
currently under construction will increase flows by 7.82 mgd (average day) by
year 2010. This outfall represents 1.68 mgd of that total flow, so the flow from
this outfall has already been accounted for. Thus, the McAlpine Creek WWMF
will have sufficient capacity to handle the wastewater flows from the proposed
service area.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 5-1

l

n
fl

C

Section 5.0
5.2 Wetlands
Environmental Consequences
Because significant portions of the pipe route pass through hardwood forests and
freshwater wetlands, short-term wetland impacts will be unavoidable. As
discussed in Section 3, wetland impacts were avoided and minimized to the
extent possible. The unavoidable impacts will likely include disturbance and/or
excavation of wetland soils, disturbance and/or removal of wetland vegetation,
and displacement of wildlife. Because the sediments in most of the affected
wetlands are fairly stable mineral soils, extensive soil disturbance is not expected
except within the trench. Once the pipeline is installed, existing grades will be
restored to the extent possible and the areas will be revegetated with a
herbaceous seed mix identified in Section 6. Because the restored areas will still
be wetlands once the construction is completed, no net loss of wetlands is
expected as a result of this project. However, the wetlands along the pipeline
corridor will be mowed periodically. Thus, they will be changed from forested to
herbaceous or scrub-shrub wetlands as a result of the project. In many ways, this
change can be considered a beneficial effect since it provides a diverse habitat
corridor that may be used by various wildlife species for activities such as
foraging and migrating.
Table 5-1 summarizes the estimated wetland impacts, in acres, for each pipeline
component. As shown in this table, the total estimated wetland disturbance as a
result of this project is approximately 12 acres. It should be emphasized that
none of these wetlands will be filled' or lost. The project will not result in a net
loss of wetland resources. it should also be noted that some of these wetland
areas must be cleared for construction of the park. The mitigation measures
described in Section 6.2 will minimize the short-term and long-term wetland
impacts associated ? ith the proposed project.
5.3 Agricultural Land, Public Land,-and Recreational
Areas
The proposed ,ewer facilities will not have an adverse effect on any prime or
unique agricultural lands or scenic areas because none of these resources are
located within or near the project area.
A park is currently under construction in the proposed sewer outfall project
vicinity. The proposed sanitary sewer outfall route transects the park, but the
route was carefully selected to avoid interfering with the new lake and parking
areas as much as possible.
5.4 Historical or Archaeological Resources
According to the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources Division of
Archives and History (DAH), no known structures of historical or archaeological
significance will be affected by the proposed sewer outfall.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 5-2

C

Section 5.0
Environmental Consequences
Table 5-1
Approximate Area of Wetland Disturbance
Wetland Pipeline Length of Width of Width of Area of Area of
No. a Diameter Crossing ROW b . TCE b Disturbance Disturbance
(in) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sq.ft.) (acres)
1 24 660 25 40 26,400 0.606
21 1,960 25 40 78,400 1.800
21 5,010 25 40 200,400 4.601
8 240 15 35 8,400 0.193
18 445 20 35 15,575 0.358
18 1,140 20 40 45,600 1.047
18 1.235 20 40 55,575 1.134
10,690 9.738
2 8 and 18 1,075 20 40 43,000 0.987
18 560 20 40 22,400 0.514
12 395- 15 35 13,825 0.317
2,030 1.819
3 12 45 15 35 1,575 0.036
4 12 350 15 35 °- 12,250 0.281
8 380 15 35 13,300 0.305
730 0.587
5 8 210 15 35 7,350 0.169
TOTAL WETLAND DISTURBANCE (ACRES) 12.35
9 See Figure 4-1 for approximate location of each wetland area.
ROW = Right-of-Way,
TCE = Temporary ConstructionEasement
All disturbed wetlands will be restored.
5.5 Air Quality
Construction of the pipeline will be associated with a short-term localized air
quality impact such as increases in suspended particulate matter due to dust
emissions from the construction site and exhaust emissions from diesel and
gasoline powered equipment. Equipment exhaust emissions typically include
nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter. Proper
mitigative measures will be used to minimize dust and vehicular emissions.
The proposed sewer pipeline will not result in any significant long-term effects
on air quality, although there may be slight emissions of odor-causing
compounds around the sewer manholes.
5.6 Groundwater Quality
There will not be any significant impacts to groundwater quality as a result of
any of the project components. None of the project components will result in a
significant disturbance to any water bearing strata, nor will any of the
components involve a groundwater discharge.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 5-3

I

1

Section 5.0
Environmental Consequences
5.7 Noise Levels
Construction of the proposed pipeline will be associated with a short-term noise
impact due to operation of the construction equipment. This impact is expected
to be negligible, however, since most of the construction will occur in
undeveloped areas. The impact will be further minimized by the mitigation
measures listed in Section 6.
Once construction of the pipeline is completed, no long-term noise impacts will
be associated with its operation.
5.8 Potable Water Supplies
The proposed sewer outfall is not expected to affect potable water supplies.
5.9 Fishery Resources and Habitats
Construction of the proposed pipeline across Six Mile Creek in three locations
may result in a short-term impact to the fishery resource and habitats in this area.
Specifically, these impacts may include the following:
¦ Increased turbidity in the water due to resuspension of the creek sediments,
particularly during the installation and removal of the temporary creek
crossings.
¦ Temporary loss of fish habitat in the construction area.
¦ Loss of benthic organisms in the construction area due to temporary
diversion of streai:is.
¦ Increased river>velocity in the construction area due to constricted flows at
the stream diversions.
Every reasonable effort will be made to minimize these impacts using
appropriate mitigation measures as discussed in Section 6.
As soon as construction is completed in the creek, the turbidity levels are
expected to return quickly to baseline conditions. Fish species in the area are
expected to return immediately to the area, while it may take somewhat longer
for benthic organisms to recolonize the area. No long-term impacts to fishery
resources or habitats in Six Mile Creek or any other surface waters in the project
vicinity are expected as a result of this project.
5.10 Wildlife Resources and Habitats
Approximately 16 woodland acres, much of which is floodplain and/or
wetlands, will be cleared as a result of pipeline construction. The remainder of
the impact area consists of open meadows, cleared areas along roadways and
powerline easements, and a park which is currently under construction. The
1 CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 5-4
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1

1
1
Section 5.0
Environmental Consequences
wildlife species and habitats associated with the pipeline corridor will be
temporarily disturbed or displaced. Because the areas that will be disturbed
provide relatively common habitat and no rare wildlife species are known to
inhabit the area, this short-term impact is not considered to be significant. As
noted in Section 6, every effort will be made to minimize disturbance in the
forested areas and to salvage merchantable trees. Once the pipeline is installed,
the cleared areas will be planted with herbaceous species that will provide food
and habitat for wildlife. The restored meadow areas will provide similar habitat
to their existing conditions, whereas the disturbed forested areas will be
converted to a herbaceous or scrub-shrub community as a result of the project. In
many ways, this change can be considered a beneficial effect since it provides a
diverse strip of habitat through a predominantly forested area. This corridor
may be used by a variety of species to forage or migrate.
5:11 Introduction of Toxic Substances
No toxic substances, as defined by the NCAC Title 15A, Chapter 2, Subchapter
2B, "Surface Water Standards," will be introduced into any surface waters as a
result of construction or operation of the proposed sewer pipeline.
5.12 Eutrophication of Receiving Waters
The proposed sewer pipeline will not directly contribute to eutrophication of any
surface waters since it does not involve the use or discharge of any nitrogen or
phosphorus compounds. However, the proposed facilities will convey
wastewater to the McAlpine Creek WWMF where it will be treated and
discharged with the rest of the plant flows into McAlpine Creek. The McAlpine
plant currently pry rides a high level of treatment including nitrification and
tertiary filtration and is regulated by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
(NPDES) permit.
5.13 Summary of Environmental Impacts
Table 2 summarizes the expected short- and long-term impacts associated with
the proposed Six Mile Creek sewer outfall. As noted in this table, only a few
adverse environmental impacts are expected as a result of any of the components
of the proposed project. These impacts include the following:
¦ Localized turbidity increases in Six Mile Creek as a result of sediment
disturbances during construction.
¦ Temporary displacement and/or loss of benthic organisms at the Six Mile
Creek crossings.
¦ Temporary alteration of approximately 12 acres of wetlands. Although
much of this area will be converted from forested to herbaceous and scrub-
shrub wetland, there will be no net wetland loss as a result of the project.
¦ Temporary alteration of several small tributaries of Six Mile Creek.
I I CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 5-5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1

Section 5.0
Environmental Consequences
¦ Clearing of approximately 16 acres of woodland (some of this woodland
will have already been cleared for park construction).
¦ Construction-related noise and air quality impacts.
Table 5-2
Summary of Environmental Effects

Environmental Parameter Six Mile Creek Gravity Sewer Outfall
Effects
Short-Term Long-Term
Land Use - 0
Wetlands -- 0
Agric. Land, Public Land, and Rec. Areas o 0
Historical and Archaeological Resources o 0
Air Quality - 0
Groundwater Quality o 0
Noise Levels - 0
Potable Water Supplies o 0
Fishery Resources and Habitats - o
Wildlife Resources and Habitats -- o
Introduction of-Toxic Substances o 0
F Eutrophication of Receiving; Waters o 0
Effect Ratings: ;
++ = significant beneficial effect
+ = slight beneficial effect
0 insignificant effect
- = slight adverse effect and/or adverse effect that can be mitigated to an insignificant level
- = significant adverse effect
I CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 5-6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
J
1
1
1
1
1
1

Section 6
Mitigative Measures
This section outlines the mitigation measures that are proposed to minimize
impacts related to construction of the proposed facilities. These measures have
been developed based on Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities' and Camp Dresser &
McKee's experience with constructing sewer facilities and discussions and
written correspondence with various agencies such as the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Division of Water
Quality.
6.1 Surface Waters
The proposed pipeline route was selected to avoid crossings of Six Mile Creek
where possible and to minimize the extent of work within the surface waters that
must be crossed. Surface water impacts at the proposed crossing locations will
be minimized by the following measures:
¦ Stream crossings will be made: perpendicular to the stream to the extent
possible to minimize impacts to stream sediments and riparian vegetation.
¦ Riparian vegetation will be preserved as much as possible.
¦ Trees that must be removed outside of the trench area will be cut near
ground level, leavin- the stump acid the roots in the bank for stability and
to possibly ;sprout. If appropriate and necessary to stabilize the bank, the
restored bank will be vegetated. Stabilization and seeding of banks will
occur immediately after construction (within 5 days).
¦ Excavated material will be stockpiled away from streams.
¦ All pipelines will be installed below grade at each stream crossing, and pre-
construction contours will be restored in all affected areas once construction
is completed.
¦ No instream activities will occur in April and May to prevent impacts to
fish spawning.
In addition, a 50-foot undisturbed vegetated buffer zone will be left between
streams and construction activities wherever possible. This buffer will serve to
minimize sedimentation into streams, preserve riparian vegetation that stabilizes
stream banks, and maintain a travel corridor for wildlife. A buffer zone will not
be maintained at stream crossing locations and where construction activities
must occur adjacent to the stream to avoid work in wetlands, developed areas, or
other constrained locations. This buffer zone will serve as an added layer of
protection to any stream above and beyond the protection afforded by an
.engineered erosion and sedimentation control system. Erosion and
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 6-1

1
1
?'J
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Section 6
Mitigative Measures
sedimentation controls (e.g., siltation fences) will be installed and maintained
between the construction site and any nearby, downgradient surface waters. The
controls will minimize indirect surface water impacts resulting from erosion and
sedimentation. Temporary cover will be placed on bare surfaces once
construction is completed, and disturbed areas will be seeded and mulched
within 15 days of project completion wherever possible. Disturbed stream banks
will be restored with natural materials. Riprap may be used to stabilize the bank
below the high water mark, and vegetation will be used above the high water
mark.
As recommended by Samar Bou-ghazale of NCDEHNR Division of Water
Quality, the use of a combination of rip-rap and special stabilization plantings
will be considered by Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities. The stabilization scheme
will be developed based on NCDEHNR's "Streambank Stabilization and Planting
Guidelines for Stream Restoration and Relocation."
An erosion and sedimentation control system will be implemented in accordance
with the plans approved by the Division of Land Resources. Because of the
potential to expose a large area of earth along the pipeline trenches parallel to
streams with the associated potential adverse environmental consequences, the
contractor will not be allowed to proceed with any additional land disturbing
activities if any area has remained without ground cover in excess of 30 days.
The contractor will be required to strictly adhere to the approved erosion and
sedimentation control plan, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities' erosion and siltation
control standards, and all applicable state regulations.
6.2 Wetlands
The proposed project pipeline was located so as to minimize wetland impacts to
the extent possible. However, for the reasons explained in Section 3, much of the
pipeline route passes through forested wetland areas. Approximately 12 acres of
bottom land/mixed hardwood wetlands will be disturbed for construction of the
sewer outfall, but these areas will be restored. In order to minimize the extent of
wetland impacts, the construction width in wetland areas, will be limited to 40
feet, due to OSHA' requirements for trench dimensions and construction width
necessary for equipment access and erosion control.
Since the sediments in most of the affected wetlands are fairly stable, the soil
distribution outside of the trench area is expected to be minimal. Once
construction is completed, original contours will be restored in the wetland area,
and the top 12 inches will be replaced with the stripped topsoil to provide a seed
bank for revegetation. The disturbed soil will be reseeded with fast-growing
annual grasses such as those listed in Table 6-1. In addition, siltation fences will
be installed and maintained between the construction site and any nearby, down
gradient wetlands to minimize sedimentation impacts. Temporary cover will be
placed on bare surfaces once construction is completed, and disturbed areas will
be seeded and mulched within 15 days of project completion wherever possible;
stabilization and seeding of banks at creek crossings will occur within 5 days
immediately after construction. Anti-seep collars will be provided at least every
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 6"2
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
E

Section 6
Mitigative Measures
Table 6-1
Recommended Seed Types for Temporary Vegetative Cover
Species Seeding Rate* Seeding Rate* Recommended
(Ibs per 1,000 ft2) (Ibs per Acre) Seeding Dates*
Annual Ryegrass 1 40 3/1 - 5/15
(Lolium temulentum) 8/15-10115
Sudangrass 1 40 4/15 -9/15
(Sorgen sudanense)
Japanese Millet
(Echinochloa crusgalli var. 1 40 4/1 - 9/30
trumentacea)
Annual Wildrice 1 40 8/1-10/15
(Zizania aquatica)
Rice 1 30- 4/15-10/15
(Oryza sativa)
Wheat 1 30 4/15-10/1
(Triticum aestivum)
*Seeding rates and dates should be confirmed by manufacturer.
Note: A diverse mixture of seed types should be planted in disturbed areas to ensure rapid
vegetative cover under varying environmental conditions.
150 feet along the pipeline to control the migration of groundwater along the
pipe bedding and draining of wetland areas. Permanent, maintained easements
will be limited to 15 to 25 feet along all pipeline segments. All permanent
easements will be allowed to revert to natural vegetation and will be mowed as
necessary to prevent trees and other large woody vegetation from becoming
established.
6.3 Noise
In order to minimize the noise-related disturbance to the local community,
construction activity will be limited to normal daytime hours (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.,
Monday through Saturday) wherever possible. In addition, large construction
equipment will be equipped with proper noise attenuation devices such as
mufflers and silencers to minimize construction-related ambient noise level
increases.
6.4 Air Quality
To control the amount of dust that becomes airborne due to construction
activities associated with the sewer outfall, open construction areas will be
sprayed lightly with water. Discharges of vehicular airborne pollutants will be
mitigated through the use of proper emission control systems.
' CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 6-3
Section 6
Mitigative Measures

6.5 Forest Resources and Wildlife Habitat
Every reasonable effort will be made to minimize the extent of tree clearing
required to construct each component of the project and to salvage merchantable
trees that must be removed. In addition, the contractor will be required to
protect trees outside of the construction area from damage (e.g., skinning of tree
trunks, soil compaction or root exposure by heavy equipment, placement of fill
over trees' root systems, oil spills, etc.). Cleared areas along the pipeline routes
will be replanted with appropriate grasses, including a fast-growing wetland
seed mix for the wetland areas. Once replanted, right-of-ways will be mowed
every 3 to 4 years. Specific guidelines outlining each of these mitigation
measures will be included in the construction specifications.
Temporary pipeline easements will be replanted with grass but will not be
mowed so as to protect small game nesting in the area and allow natural
revegetation. The maintenance width (area to be mowed) in the permanent
easement will be limited to 15 to 25 feet in wetland areas.

1
1
1
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 6-4
1
1
1

1
1
1

Section 7
References
Camp Dresser & McKee. February 1994. Six Mile Creek Sanitary Sewer Facilities
Preliminary Design Report. Prepared for Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utility
Department.
Camp Dresser & McKee. July 1994. Environmental Assessment for Six Mile
Creek Sanitary Sewer Facilities. Prepared for Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utility
Department.
Camp Dresser & McKee. November 16,1993. Six Mile Creek Sanitary
Sewer Facilities Preliminary Design Memorandum. Prepared for Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Utility Department.
Department of the Army. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual. US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington D.C.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(Division of Environmental Management). September 6,1995. General
Certifications for Projects Eligible for Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit
Number 12 or Regional Permit 049 (Utility Line Backfill and Bedding).
North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation - Natural Heritage Program.
1997. Computerized literature search for species that are likely to occur within
the project area.
US Department of A'giculLure Soil Conservation Service (Natural Resources
Conservation Service). 1977. Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North
Caroluza.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 7-1

APPENDIX A
' General Certifications for Corps of Engineers
Nationwide Permit Number 12
1
i
1
1

State ofi-Narth -Carolina -
•? " aepa?tYi?t?t'a?f frcvironmet?t; .. . ' ' ?? '
Health.::arid..Ncturci"R.esour-ces. -
_ DiviscQ:?fvirohntal:rtanagertfe?xt-,.
Gavernor
- - .lonathan-S. Howes.'Secreto.
A: Presto'n' f?bv?Qrd. Jr., P.E.; Director-
October 6, 1995
M MO
- «':?r ?T.4..: Vii.«•.•
To: Wedaad consultants and municipalities
From: John Dom y
Re: _ Modification m CerdfIcation for Nationwide Permit 12 - Utility lines
The Division of Environmental Managemem (DE1) has r..issued the Gene..-al Ce:?c -lion
' (GC) for Nationwide Permit 12 and Regional Permic 049. The new GC will expedit°. the petmitiing
process and clarify for the applicant conditions necessary for a ce-=-able project. The si=fffcant
chz_nzes are:
1) No- fe.-tilizer applied within 10 fee: of streams;
2) And-seep collars every 150. feet in wedands
3) Restore to original contours after construcion A specific plan is needed:
4) Rip rap is restricted to streann bottom and banks directly impacted by the
utility line;
The construction corridor (including ac=ss roads and stock: ng of mate:i_Is)
' is limited to 40 feet in width
6 Construction corridors parallel to sm=s shall be placed at the furthest
distance from the stream to the maximum extent practicable: and
) Although you still need to avvIv to the U.S_ Ar,-nv Coros of Ensineers for
these oetmits. written concurrence from DEM is no longer needed yrovided
that all conditions of the General Certification are followed. Written
?via?.vIli?ra.?. iS 1a:1ills?u If the .'IzMri lase w msmued parAllel and closer titan 10
feet to a stream or if the line crosses a stream channel ar less than 75 degrees
or more than 105 degas (i.e., not perpendicular stream crossing).
' A copy of the revised GC is enclosed for your information. DF-M will be malting compliance
site inspections. Should the utility line be installed such that a condition is violated. remedial actions
inc.u! ng utility line relocation or installation of and-seep collars fines may be imposed.
' Should you have. any questions,.please coruac: Eric oalamb or John Domey at (9I9) 7_3s +
-
1786. '
RECEIVE)
nwi? mun
' OCT 16 1995
e*craA99ALsCa=s
' ?STOPPED
nUU-17-177( ID •J10 1-Kum

Dbl wHitK UUHLITY SECTION TO
87043422296 P.02i05
1
t rns gene 21* Certification is issued in conformity with the requirements of.
_ Section 401, Public I.r-ws 92-500 and 95-277 of the United States and North Carolina Division of Environmental Management Regulations in 15A Not to the
Section .0500 and 15A NCAC 2B .0109 AND .0201 for the discharge of fill AC 2H,
waters and wetland areas as described in 33 CFR 330 Appendix A B (12) 'and to
_ General Permit No. I S8100049 of the Corps of Engineers regulations (i e., r cl de any
fill activity for utility line backfll and bedding. This certincation replaces Water Qualit
Certification. Number 2664. issued on Janus Y
Co s of Engineers r ry 21, 1,,o,, e2 and is rescinded when the
reauthorize Nationwide 12 or Reoionai Permit 049.
' The State of North Carolina certifies that the specified c.-:teoo-ry of not violate Sertiorts 301, 302, 303, 306 and 307 of the Public taws 92-50 0 activity 5-
217 if conduced in a-cCordance with the conditions hereinafter set forth.
Conditions of Certification:
' 1 • Activities covered by this -
Y General Certification do not recuire written
concurrence from the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) as
' long as they comply with all conditions of this Genera CeriiTicafion and
the conditions of Nationwide 12 or Regional Permit 049;
' 2- Written. concurrence from OEM is required ii the utility line is ins-ti
pararlel to and c!oser than 10 feet (3 meter). to a strE_n or if the util ty
line crosses a stream channel at less than 75 dear2_s or-more
' than 105
decrees (i.e., not Perpendicular stream crossing) of the stra;t bank;
3. Construction corridors parallel to streams s:-gall be placed at the furthest
' distance from the stream to the maximum extent practica`ie; - -
-4. - That established sediment and erosion control ra l s are
' prevent violations of.the appropriate-turbidity water Practices
uality standard 50
NTUs in streams and riveot designated as trout water by OEM; 25
NTUs in all salt water classes, and all lakes and reservoirs; and 10 NTUs
' in trout waters). All sediment and erosion control measures faced in
wetlands shall be removed and the natural grade restored after the
Division of Land Resources has released the project; _
' S. Annual ??
?l spe,,.es suitable for wet locations shall be planted within
jurisdic:icnai wetlands for soil and erosion ccntroI. Perennials such as
' fescue are prohibited;
6. No fertilizer shall be applied within 10 feet (3 meters) of streams;

riUU-17-177( 1>•?b tmurl Ltl WHItX UUHLlIY bal.ltuN 1u 137043422296 P.03/05
The s onsfnlction corridor- fticluding. access roads Ind- stockpiiing, of
:. ::.materials)--is limited to 40-feet (12.2- meters) in width and must.b
minimized-to the maximum extent practicable.
5• Measetres shat{ be -taken to prevent five or fresh concrete 'from 'c
into contact with waters of the state until the-concrete has hardenedng
9.. .-Permanent, maintained access corridors shall be restricted to the _
minimum width practicable and shall not exceed 10 feet (3 meters) in
i
' w
dth except at manhole locations. A 1.0 feet (3 meters) by 10 feet (3
meters) perpendicular vehicle, turnaround must be spaced at least 500
feet (152.4 meters) apart.
10. An anti-seep collar shall be laced at the
p downstream (utility line
gradient) wetland-boundary and every 150 feet (45.7 meters) up the
gradient until the utility exits the wetland for buried utility lines. Anti-seep
collars may be constructed with class S concrete or compacted clay

- .
Perpendicular wetland crossings less than 1 50 feet (45.7 meters) icng do
not re
i
i
qu
re ant
-seep collars.
The compacted clay shall have a specific discharge of I X 10-5 cmtser or -
l
' ess. A section and plan view diagram is attached for compaeted clay
and concrete anti-seep collars.
' The following specifications shall apply to class 8 concret
e:
a) Minimum cement contena, sacks -
' per cubic yard with rounded
course aggregate 5.0
b) Minimum cement content, sacks
per cubic yard with angular -
' course aggregate 5.5
c) Maximum water-cament ratio
gallons per sack - 6.8-
d) slump range 2- to 4-
e) Minimum strength - 28 day psi 2,500
11. Placement of rip rap is restricted to stream bottom and banks directly
1 impacted by the placement of the utility line.
restored to the original contour after constructione stream berm must be
12. This general certification does not authorize
any permanent changes in
preconstruction elevation contours in waters or wetlands. The permittee
'. will have a,specinc plan for restoring wetland contours. Any excess
material will be removed to a high ground disposal area;
13. If an environmental document is required, this Certification is not valid

riUU-l?-1?7 ( 1?• ?l rKUVI LG'I wH I tK UU-iLi f Y SEC. f IUN 1U 87043422296
P.04/05
until a FONSI or ROE) is issued by the State Clearinghouse;
14. Stormwater management Shall not be required for this Certification;
15. :Compensatory mitigation (i.e., restoration, creation or preservation) for
wetland losses will not be. required for this Certification; _
16. This Certification does not relieve the applicant of the responsibility to
obtain all other required or local approval.
Non-compliance with or violation of the conditions herein set forth by a specific
fill project shat{ result in revocation of this Certification for the projee. .
' The Director of the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management may
require submission of a formal application for individual certification for any project in
this category of activity, if it- is determined that the project is likely to have a significant
' adverse effect upon water quality or de?r2de the waters so that existing uses of the
wetland or downstream waters are precluded.
1
1
1
I
Public hearincs may be held for spec.fic applicctiors or groua or apo[ica:ion5
prior o a cer fication decision it deems in the publics best interes-, by the Director of
the North- Carolina Division of Environmental Manacernent.
-
This is thee 7lday of September, 1995
DIVISION OF E,NVIRONMEiU T AL MANAGEMENT
1
l
6y
A
A. Freston Hcwa. ?- n .
- -Director
nwl2b.cer
WCC ? 3022
boa a: _4zs :oe„Ma:t rare ;race.' at a --Sr of SS-.e: or S.zQ ese?.
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
w? + _ r r i . a..? .? ? . . ?..,ii . ?L. 1 wri i LI ? uluflL a 1 1 JL?.. i 1 ul 1 1 i..l
ANTI-SEEP COLLAR

? it,ches Utility Line
_ l (Diameter Varies)
I -footer Class B Concrete
1.4 or Compacted Clay
l
1 ?
6 inches rencfi. IS 6 inches
Not to exceed 40 feet
SECTION
Class B Concrete
or Compacted Clay
,IC=j L 12
inches
S inches-,. *- -.,0? . inches
PLAN
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
APPENDIX B
Rare Species of Mecklenburg County
NC Natural Heritage Program, NC Division of
Parks and Recreation, DEHNR
February 1997
NC NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM COUNTY SPECIES LIST COVER SHEET
' The county species list from the NC Natural Heritage Program is a listing of the elements (rare species, natural communities, geologic
features, and special animal habitats) known to occur in a county. The information on this printout is compiled from a variety of
sources, including field surveys, museums and herbaria, literature, and personal communications. The Heritage Program's Biological
' and Conservation Database (BCD) is dynamic, with new records being added and old records being revised as new information is
received. The BCD was developed and is being maintained using methodology developed by The Nature Conservancy. The enclosed
list cannot be considered a definitive record of natural heritage elements, and it should not be considered a substitute for field surveys.
When this information is used in any document, we request that the printout date be given and that the NC Natural Heritage Program be
' credited.
This cover sheet explains the four columns of status codes that are given on the right-hand side of the county list printout.
' STATE PROTECTION
' CODE STATUS CODE STATUS
E Endangered P_ Proposed (E, T, or C)
T Threatened SR Significantly Rare
SC Special Concern EX Extirpated
' C Candidate WL Watch List
Plant statuses are determined by the Plant Conservation Program (NC Department of Agriculture) and the Natural Heritage Program _
(NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources). E, T, and SC species are protected by state law (Plant Protection
' and Conservation Act, 1979). C and SR designations indicate rarity and the need for population monitoring and conservation action.
WL indicates a species not warranting active monitoring, but believed to of conservation concern.
' Animal statuses that indicate state protection (E, T, and SC) are published in Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina, March 16, 1992,
Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program (NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources). SR and EX statuses
are Natural Heritage Program designations. SR indicates rarity and the need for population monitoring and conservation action. WL
indicates a species not warranting active monitoring, but believed to be of conservation concern.
FEDERAL PROTECTION
' This status is designated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Federally listed Endangered and Threatened species are protected under
the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended through the 100th Congress. Unless otherwise noted, definitions are
taken from the Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 225, November 21, 1991 (50 CFR Part 17).
' CODE STATUS DEFINITION
E Endangered A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
T Threatened A taxon "likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
' portion of its range."
P_ Proposed A taxon proposed for official listing as endangered or threatened.
L_ Listed A taxon officially listed as endangered or threatened.
' C Candidate A taxon under consideration for listing for which there is sufficient information to support listing. Prior to
February, 1996, this category was designated as Candidate 1 (C 1) species.
FSC Federal A taxon for which there is insufficient information to support listing. Prior to February, 1996, this category
Species of was referred to as Candidate 2 (C2) species. Also called Federal "Species at Risk."
' Concern
T(S/A) - In reference to the American alligator - this species is threatened due to similarity of appearance with other rare
crocodilians and is listed for trade purposes. The species is no longer biologically endangered or threatened
' and is not subject to Section 7 consultation.
Please note that the US Fish and Wildlife Service no longer recognizes the following categories:
' 3A Candidate 3A A taxon for which the US Fish and Wildlife Service has "persuasive evidence of extinction."
3B Candidate 3B A taxon formerly under consideration for listing, but which current taxonomic understanding does not support
as a distinct entity meeting the Endangered Species Act's definition of "species."
3C Candidate 3C A taxon formerly under consideration for listing, but which has been "proven to more abundant or widespread
' than previously believed and/or [which is] not subject to any identifiable threat."

t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SCIENTIFIC AND
COMMON NAME
Avery
Vertebrates
ACCIPITER STRIATUS
SHARP-SHINNED HAWK
AEGOLIUS ACADICUS
NORTHERN SAW-WHET OWL
CATHARUSGUTTATUS
HERMIT THRUSH
CLEMMYS MUHLENBERGII
BOG TURTLE
COCCYZUSERYTHROPTHALMUS
BLACK-BILLED CUCKOO
CORVUSCORAX
COMMON RAVEN
CORYNORHINUS (=PLECOTUS) TOWNSENDII VIRGINIANU_S
VIRGINIA BIG-EARED BAT
CRYPTOBRANCHUS ALLEGANIENSIS
HELLBENDER -
DENDROICA MAGNOLIA
MAGNOLIA WARBLER
EMPIDONAX ALNORUM
ALDER FLYCATCHER
FALCO PEREGRINUS
PEREGRINE FALCON
GLAUCOMYS SABRINUS COLORATUS
CAROLINA NORTHERN FLYING SQUIRREL
MICROTUS CHROTORRHINUS CAROLINENSIS
SOUTHERN ROCK VOLE
MUSTELA NIVALIS
LEAST WEASEL
MYOTIS LEIBII
EASTERN SMALL-FOOTED MYOTIS -
MYOTIS SEPTENTRIONALIS
NORTHERN MYOTIS
NEOTOMA MAGISTER
ALLEGHENY WOODRAT
PARUS ATRICAPILLUS
BLACK-CAPPED CHICKADEE
PLETHODON WELLERI
WELLER'S SALAMANDER
RIPARIA RIPARIA -
BANK SWALLOW
SOREX DISPAR
LONG-TAILED SHREW
SOREX PALUSTRIS PUNCTULATUS
SOUTHERN WATER SHREW
SPHYRAPICUS VARIUS
YELLOW-BELLIED SAPSUCKER
SYLVILAGUS OBSCURUS
APPALACHIAN COTTONTAIL
THRYOMANES BEWICKII ALTUS
APPALACHIAN BEWICK'S WREN
VIREO GILVUS
WARBLING VIREO
STATE FED. STATE GLOBAL
PROT. PROT. RANK RANK
SR
SC
SR
T
SR .
SR
E
SC
SR
SR
E
E
SC
SR
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SR
SC
SC
SR
SR
E
SR
NC NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM, NC DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION, DEHNR
Data compiled using BCD software developed by The Nature Conservancy.
- S3B,S4N G5
- S2B,SUN G5
- S1B,S5N G5
FSC S2 G3
- S2B,SZN G5
- S3 G5
LE S1 G4T2
FSC S3 -G4
- S1B,SZN G5
- S2B,SZN G5
LE S1B,S2N G4
LE S1 G5T1
FSC S2 G5T3
- S2 G5
FSC SUB,S2N G3
- SUB,S2N G4
FSC S1S2 G3G4
- S3 G5
- S2 G4
- SUB,SZN G5
- S2 G5
FSC S1S2 G5T3
- S2B,S5N G5
FSC S3 G4
FSC SHB,SZN G5T2T3
- S2B,SZN G5
FEBRUARY 1997
i
SCIENTIFIC AND
COMMON NAME
Invertebrates
ASCETOCYTHERE COSMETA
GRAYSON CRAYFISH OSTRACOD
ERORA LAETA
EARLY HAIRSTREAK
EUPHYDRYASPHAETON
BALTIMORE
GLYPHYALWIA VANATTAI
HONEY GLYPH
MESODON SUBPALLIATUS
VELVET COVERT
MICROHEXURA MONTIVAGA
SPRUCE-FIR MOSS SPIDER
PALLIFERA HEMPHILLI
BLACK MANTLESLUG
PARAVITREA ANDREWSAE
HIGH MOUNTAIN SUPERCOIL
*POLYGONIA FAUNUS
GREEN COMMA
POLYGONIA PROGNE
GRAY COMMA
SPEYERIA DIANA
DIANA FRITILLARY
SPEYERIA IDALIA
REGAL FRITILLARY
VENTRIDENS COELAXIS
BIDENTATE DOME
Vascular plants
ACONITUM RECLINATUM
TRAILING WOLFSBANE
AGROSTIS MERTENSII
ARCTIC BENTGRASS
ALNUS VIRIDIS SSP CRISPA
GREEN ALDER
ARABIS GLABRA
TOWER MUSTARD
ARETHUSA BULBOSA
BOG ROSE
ARISAEMA TRIPHYLLUM SSP STEWARDSONII
BOG JACK-IN-THE-PULPIT
ASTILBE CRENATILOBA
ROAN FALSE GOAT'S BEARD
BOTRYCHIUM MATRICAREFOLIUM
DAISY-LEAF MOONWORT
BOTRYCHIUM ONEIDENSE
BLUNT-LOBED GRAPE FERN
BRACHYELYTRUM SEPTENTRIONALE
NORTHERN SHORTHUSK
CALAMAGROSTIS CANADENSIS
CANADA REEDGRASS
CALTHA PALUSTRIS
MARSH MARIGOLD
CAMPANULA APARINOIDES
MARSH BELLFLOWER
STATE FED. STATE GLOBAL
PROT. PROT. RANK RANK
SR FSC S2? G?
SR - S2? G4
SR - S2S3 G4
SC - S2 G?
SC - S2 G?
SR LE S1 G1
SC - S2 G3
SC - S2 G?
SR' - S2S3 G5
SR - S1S2 G5
SR FSC S3 G3
SR FSC S1 G3
Sc - S2 G3
SR - S3 G3G4
C - S1 G5
C - S1 G5T5
C - SH G5
E - S1 G4
-SR - Sl G5T4
C FSC SH GHQ
SR - S1 G5
C - S1 G4?
SR - S2? G4G5
SR - S1 G5
SR - S1 G5
SR - S2 G5
NC NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM, NC DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION, DEHNR
Data compiled using BCD software developed by The Nature Conservancy.
FEBRUARY 1997
1
1
SCIENTIFIC AND STATE FED. STATE GLOBAL
COMMON NAME PROT. PROT. RANK RANK
CARDAMINE CLEMATITIS C FSC S2? G2
MOUNTAIN BITTERCRESS
CAREX AENEA E - S1 05
BRONZE SEDGE
CAREX LEPTONERVIA C - Sl 04
A WOOD SEDGE
CAREX MANHARTII C FSC S2 G2?
MANHART'S SEDGE
CAREX MISERA SR - S3 G3
WRETCHED SEDGE
CAREX OLIGOSPERMA C/PE - S1 G4
FEW-SEEDED SEDGE
CAREX PROJECTA C - SH G5
NECKLACE SEDGE
CAREX TRISPERMA SR - S1 G5
THREE-SEEDED SEDGE
CAREX WOODII SR - S2 G4Q
WOOD'S SEDGE -
CHELONE CUTHBERTII SR - S3? G3
CUTHBERT'S TURTLEHEAD - -
COELOGLOSSUM V1RIDE VAR VIRESCENS C - S1 05T5
LONG-BRACTED FROG ORCHID
CONIOSELINUM CHINENSE E - S1 G5
HEMLOCK-PARSLEY
COREOPSIS LATIFOLIA SR - S3 G3
BROADLEAF COREOPSIS
EPILOBIUM ANGUSTIFOLIUM SR - S1 G5
PURPLE WILLOWHERB
EPILOBIUM CILIATUM SR - S2 G5
PURPLELEAF WILLOWHERB
GEUM ALEPPICUM C - S1 G5
YELLOW AVENS
GEUM GENICULATUM T FSC S2 G2
BENT AVENS
GEUM LACINIATUM VAR TRICHOCARPUM - SR - S1 G5T?
ROUGH AVENS
GEUM RADIATUM E-SC LE S1 GI
SPREADING AVENS
HELIANTHEMUM PROPINQUUM C - S1 G4
CREEPING SUNROSE
HOUSTONIA MONTANA E LE S2 G2Q
(=HEDYOTIS PURPUREA VAR. MONTANA) MOUNTAIN BLUET
HUPERZIA APPALACHIANA C - S2 G3
APPALACHIAN FIR-CLUBMOSS
LIATRIS HELLERI T-SC LT S1 GI
HELLER'S BLAZING STAR
LILIUM CANADENSE SSP EDITORUM C - S1 G5T4
RED CANADA LILY
LILIUM GRAYI T-SC FSC S3 G3
GRAY'S LILY
LILIUM PHILADELPHICUM VAR PHILADELPHICUM C - S1 G5T?
WOOD LILY
*LIAARIS LOESELH C - S1 G5
FEN ORCHID
NC NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM, NC DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION, DEHNR
Data compiled using BCD software developed by The Nature Conservancy.
FEBRUARY 1997
1
SCIENTIFIC AND
' COMMON NAME
*LISTERA CORDATA
HEART-LEAVED TWAYBLADE
' LYCOPODIELLA INUNDATA
BOG CLUBMOSS
MEEHANIA CORDATA
' MEEHANIA
MINUARTIA GROENLANDICA
GREENLAND SANDWORT
' *OENOTHERA PERENNIS
PERENNIAL SUNDROPS
*PARNASSUA GRANDFFOLIA
LARGE-LEAVED GRASS-OF-PARNASSUS
' PLATANTHERA GRANDIFLORA
LARGE PURPLE-FRINGED ORCHID
POA PALUDIGENA
' BOG BLUEGRASS
POA PALUSTRIS
SWAMP BLUEGRASS
PRENANTHES ROANENSIS
' ROAN RATTLESNAKEROOT
RHODODENDRON VASEYI
PINK-SHELL AZALEA
ROBINIA HISPIDA VAR FERTILIS
FRUITFUL LOCUST
SAXIFRAGA CAROLINIANA
CAROLINA SAXIFRAGE
' SENECIO PAUPERCULUS
BALSAM RAGWORT
SENECIO SCHWEINITZIANUS
' SCHWEINITZ'S RAGWORT
SOLIDAGO SPITHAMAEA
BLUE RIDGE GOLDENROD
*SPARGANIUM CHLOROCARPUM
GREENFRUIT BUR-REED
SPIRANTHES OCHROLEUCA
YELLOW LADIES'-TRESSES
' THELYPTERIS SIMULATA
BOG FERN
*TORREYOCHLOA PALLIDA
' PALE MANNAGRASS
TRICHOPHORUM CESPITOSUM
DEERHAIR BULRUSH
VACCINIUM MACROCARPON
' CRANBERRY
VERONICA AMERICANA .
AMERICAN SPEEDWELL
' ZIGADENUS LEIMANTHOIDES
PINEBARREN DEATH-CAMUS
Nonvascular plants
' BAZZANIA NUDICAULIS
A LIVERWORT
CAMPYLOPUS PARADOXUS
' PARADOXICAL CAMPYLOPUS
STATE FED. STATE
PROT. PROT. RANK
C - SH
C - S1
SR - S2
C - S2
C - S1
C/PT - S1
SR - S2
E FSC S1
SR - S1
SR - S3.
SR - S3
C - S1
C FSC S2
SR - Si?
E - S2
E LT S1
C - S1
SR - S1
T - S1
SR - S1
C - S2
C - S2
SR S2
- C - S1
C FSC S2
C - S1
GLOBAL
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G3G4
G5
G3
G5
G3
G3
G5T2
G2
G5
G5?
G1
G5
G4
G5
G5?
G5
G4
G5
G4Q
G2G3
G3?
NC NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM, NC DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION. DEHNR FEBRUARY 1997
Data compiled using 13CD software developed by The Nature Conservan-.y.
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SCIENTIFIC AND STATE FED. STATE GLOBAL
COMMON NAME PROT. PROT. RANK RANK
CETRARIA ARENARIA SR - S2 G4
A FOLIOSE LICHEN
DICRANUM UNDULATUM SR - S1 G5
BOG BROOM MOSS
GYMNODERMA LINEARE T LE S2 G2
ROCK GNOME LICHEN
HOMALIA TRICHOMANOIDES C - S1 G5
LIME HOMALIA
HYDROTHYRIA VENOSA C - S2 G3
AN AQUATIC LICHEN
LEPTODONTIUM EXCELSUM C - S1 G2?
GRANDFATHER MOUNTAIN LEPTODONTIUM
*LEPTODONTIUM FLEXIFOLIUM SR - S I G5
PALE-MARGINED LEPTODONTIUM
MELANELIA STYGIA SR - S1S2 G4G5
A FOLIOSE LICHEN
MYLIA TAYLORII SR - S1 G5
A LIVERWORT -
PLAGIOCHILA AUSTINII SR - S1S2 G3
A LIVERWORT
PLAGIOCHILA CORNICULATA SR - S2 G3?
A LIVERWORT
PLAGIOCHILA SULLIVANTII VAR SULLIVAN_TII C FSC S2 G2T2
A LIVERWORT
PLAGIOCHILA VIRGINICA VAR CAROLE41ANA C FSC S1 G3T2
A LIVERWORT
RHYTIDIUM RUGOSUM SR - S2 G5
GOLDEN TUNDRA-MOSS
SPHAGNUM FALLAX SR - S1 G5
PRETTY PEATMOSS
SPHENOLOBOPSIS PEARSONE C FSC S2 G2
A LIVERWORT
*SPLACHNUM PENNSYLVANICUM C - SH G2?
SOUTHERN DUNG MOSS
Natural communities
ACIDIC COVE FOREST - - S5 G5
BOULDERFIELD FOREST - - S3 G3
CANADA HEMLOCK FOREST = - S5 G5
CHESTNUT OAK FOREST - - S5 G5
FRASER FIR FOREST - - S1 Gl
GRASSY BALD - - S2 G2
HEATH BALD - - S3 G4
HIGH ELEVATION GRANITIC DOME - - S2 G2
HIGH ELEVATION RED OAK FOREST - - S5 GS
HIGH ELEVATION ROCKY SUMMIT - - S2 G2
NC NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM, NC DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION, DEHNR
Data compiled using BCD software developed by The Nature Conservancy.
FEBRUARY 1997
SCIENTIFIC AND
' COMMON NAME
HIGH ELEVATION SEEP -
' MONTANE ACIDIC CLIFF
MONTANE ALLUVIAL FOREST -
' MONTANE CALCAREOUS CLIFF -
MONTANE OAK-HICKORY FOREST -
' NORTHERN HARDWOOD FOREST (BEECH GAP SUBTYPE) -
' NORTHERN HARDWOOD FOREST (TYPIC.SUBTYPE) -
PINE-OAK/HEATH
' RED SPRUCE-FRASER FIR FOREST -
RICH COVE FOREST -
' ROCKY BAR AND SHORE -
' SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN BOG (NORTHERN SUBTYPE) -
SWAMP FOREST-BOG COMPLEX (TYPIC SUBTYPE) -
Geologic features -
BOG
1
NC NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM, NC DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION, DEFLN-R
Data compiled using BCD software developed by The Nature Conservancy.
TATE FED. STATE GLOBAL
'ROT. PROT. RANK RANK
- S3 G3
- S3 G4
- S1 G2?
- S1 G?
- S5 G5
- S2? G2?
- S4 G5
- S4 G5
- S2 G2
- S4 G4
- S5 G5
- S1 G1T1
- S2 S
G2G3T2
FEBRUARY 1997
APPENDIX C
Copies of Relevant Correspondence
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality

I
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
?EHNR
RECD
August 7, 1997
Ms. Kelly E. Reiser AU G 1 11997
Project Engineer
Camp Dresser & McKee CDIVI-OriARLOTTE
301 South McDowell Street, Suite 200
Charlotte, INC 28201-2686
Subject: Draft EA - Six Mile Creek Sanitary Sewer Outfall
Mecklenburg and Union Counties
' Dear Ms. Reiser:
As Lead Agency under the North Carolina (State) Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), the
t Water Quality Section has reviewed the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) your firm prepared
for the project identified above. This review was undertaken to determine whether or not the
document was complete. A further review of the document within the whole Division of Water
Quality concurrently with the Department will be necessary to determine the document's adequacy
in evaluating specific environmental impacts from the proposed activity.
Overall, the document contains most of the elements as required for inclusion under rules
' adopted pursuant to SEPA and Division policy. However, the items listed on the attachment
should be amended or added to the document to be complete.
' Once these items are amended in the document, please send me 15 copies of the revised
EA. The EA will then be circulated within the Department, including other branches of the Water
Quality Division for a complete in-house review. After that process, this EA and Finding of No
Significant (if applicable) will be circulated through the State Clearinghouse for a thirty working
day review.
Please give me a call at [phone] if you have any questions.
' Sincere ,
' r
Michelle L. Zrbbe, AICP
Environmental Specialist
' misAsix mile CMUD completeness
attachment

P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
' An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 1 0% post-consumer paper

I
1

Six Mile Creek Sewer EA
Completeness Review
August 7, 1997
Page 2
Division of Water Quality
Water Quality Section, Planning Branch
Completeness Evaluation
Six We Creek Sanitary Sewer Outfall
Draft Environmental Assessment
1. On the Title Sheet, please add wording to clarify that the listed Project Number applies to a
prior State Clearinghouse scoping completed for this project. Another "Project Number"
will be assigned to this EA once it is s:;bmin-ed to the Clearinghouse.
2. On the Title Sheet, please add your company's address and phone number.
3. In Section 1, Project Description, please add a readable map that shows the Service Area
for the project and major roads, jurisdictional boundaries and surface waters (it should
match the population projections provided in Section 2).
4. In Section 1, please add a statement defining the design flow for the proposed sewer line
(in mgd).

5. Figures 1-1 and 3-1 should be revised to be more readable (with a clearer base map that
isn't so faded out from copying). These maps should also clearly show the surface waters
affected by the sewer line (if the topographic map does not reveal the stream lines clearly,
please add another line to these maps that obviously shows the creek alignment). As
currently drawn, the surface waterways are not clearly visible on these maps.
6. In Section 2, please clarify whether or not McAlpine WWTP can receive the full design
flow (#mgd?) proposed from the Six Mile Creek project Please consider any other flows
McAlpine has committed to receive when calculating its available capacity.
7. Table 2-1 shows the current and future population projections for the sewer project using 5
and 15 persons per acre ratios. Please explain how these figures were developed. Also,
please describe (quantified by acreage, if possible) the land uses in the service area., both in
terms of existing land uses and projected future land uses. If the current or future land uses
for the project service area will include non-residential uses, please clarify (in Section 2.2)
how population alone can be used to define future sewer service demands for the project
area.
8. If this sewer project is intended to serve either an increase in single family residential
densities (beyond the maximum densities allowed for septic systems or private package
plants) or industrial or commercial land uses in the project service area (that could not
reasonably occur without municipal sewer service), please re-address the discussion on
page 5-1 (Changes in Land Uses) to reflect the potential for this project to allow land use
changes and induce development in the project service area. Are densities or types of future
land uses projected for the service area only feasible with the provision of this sewer
project? If so, the built-out conditions in the service area would not "ultimately be similar
with or without the project", and the project may in fact represent a "significant long-term
secondary impact in terms of increased development" Please clarify this issue in Section
5.1.

Six Mile Creek Sewer EA
Completeness Review
' August 7, 1997
Page 3
9. Please describe and show on maps (if possible) details of sewer crossings at all creeks and
' streams. The prospective alignment of all crossings is necessary to show compliance with
the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit 12 and to address the
potential for a 401 Water Quality Certification from our Division. Please see attached
information on the NW 12 Permit for more information on this issue.
' 10. Please. define in Section 6.2 the amount (acreage) and types of wetlands to be lost or
temporarily impacted by the proposed project.
11. Is the project intended to comply with the General Certification for a Nationwide 12 Permit
from the Army Corps of Engineers? If so, please clearly. state how this project design
meets the numerous conditions of a NW 12 Permit. Currently, the project appears to
exceed the conditions of a General Certification for a Nationwide 12 Permit. For example,
one requirement is that the construction corridor (including access roads and stockpiling of
materials) cannot be larger than 40 feet in width (see attached handout). However, on page
' 6-2 of the Draft EA, this project is proposing a "construction width in wetlands will be
limited to 50 feet". Please review the attached handout on the conditions of the NW 12
permit.
12. If the project is not intended to comply with the General Certification for a Nationwide 12
Permit, please explain in the EA how the applicant is planning to address the wetlands
impacts of the project. Would an individual permit be required for this project? Please
consult with the Army Corps of Engineers and our Environmental Sciences Branch to
discuss these impacts and necessary permits, certifications or mitigation for this project.
Results of both of these consultations should be discussed in the document.
' mis.1six mile creek CMUD completeness

1

North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
May 22, 1997

1
I
Ms. Kelly Reiser
Camp Dresser & McKee
301 S. McDowell Street, Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 28204-2686
Dear Ms. Reiser:
RECD
MAY 2 31997
CM-CHARLOTTE
Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
Re: SCH File # 97-E-4300-0675; Scoping Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Proposal to Construct a
Gravity Sewer to Service Six Mile Creek Drainage Basin Located in the Southern Region of
Mecklenburg County near the Union County, South Carolina Line
' The above referenced environmental impact information has-been reviewed through the State
Clearinghouse under the provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Attached to.this letter are comments made by agencies reviewing this document which identify issues to
be addressed in the environmental review document. The appropriate document should be forwarded to
the State Clearinghouse for compliance with State Environmental Policy Act. Should you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 733-7232.
Sincerely,
at
' Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
N. C. State Clearinghouse
' Attachments
cc: Region F
Melba McGee, DEHNR

116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer

L State of North Carolina IT a
' Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 4 •
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs ;A &Nldwl
' James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary U E H N R
Richard E. Rogers, Jr., Acting Director
MEMORANDUM
' TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee?V
Environmental Review Coordinator
RE: 97-00675 Scoping for Six Mile Sewer outfall EA, Mecklenburg County
' DATE: May 13, 1997
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources has reviewed the
proposed information. The attached comments are for the applicant's
consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
attachments

Cr-'VED
MAY 14 1997
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
y
C
P
.O. Box 27687, 7W; FAX 715-.060
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 NVf An Equal Opportunity/Affirr-.ative Action Employer
919-715-4148 50% recycled/ 1 0°k per; consumer paper
' `IVl..WN nl.r i r' hLL.D LriNr-
I L L -'Ji`_1-JG6 -J6Jy
I'lay i.:, 'J.( i _ U PAO . UU.:) F . 05
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
I

MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative. anI'ver tat Affairs
w•-- t
From: Owen F. Anderson, edmont Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
Date: May 13, 1997
' SUBJECT: Scoping liar Six-Mile Sewer Outfall Environmental Assessment, Mecklenburg
County, Project No. 9.7-0675
Staff biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed
the subject project for potential impacts to fish and wildlife resources and sensitive habitats. Our
ca -nments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Section 201 of the Clean Water Act,
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C 661-667d), and the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G. S. 113A-1 through I I3A-10; 1 NCAC 25).
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Utility Department is proposing to construct a
' gravity sewer to Service the Six Mile Creek drainage basin, which is located in the southern
region of Mecklenburg County neat the Union County, SC line.. The proposed outfall includes
approximately 3.3 miles of pipeline ranging from 8 to 24 inches in diameter. The sewer will
connect to the Six Mile Interceptor Sewer that is currently under construction. Some forested
wetlands will be disturbed along the route.
' The major direct impacts from this project will come from the destruction of riparian
habitat and disturbance of floodplain wetlands. Efforts should be made to locate the sewer as far
off the creek bank as possible and to minimize impacts to wetlands. We recommend that the
edge of the disturbed corridor be located a minimum of 100-feet from the top of the creek hank.
The greatest overall adverse impacts will be from secondary development and golf
courses. Impervious surfaces and highly manicured grassed areas will increase nutrient and toxic
substances (e.g., heavy metals, pesticides, herbicides and petroleum products) input into Six Mile
Creek.
Uncontrolled stormwater runoff also scours stream beds and destabilizes riparian areas.
A number of streams in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg area have been degraded significantly due to
excessive stormwater runoff. Sorne streams have been degraded to the paint that riprap has been
used as a means of stabilization. Converting natural streams to artificial stonnwater ditches not
1?
;,.?? ,?. ,i n?? ?nr,? rGL• 1 ?c7- 1JJ? I"Ids 1J fir,' 12 .'1 NO .UUU 1--' 04
Six Mile Gravity Sewer 2 May 13, 1997
Mecklenburg County
' only destroys the habitat of the area bein stabilized but causes habitat. g adverse
impacts to downstream
We recommend protecting the entire I00-year floodplain as a greenway of park. if
maintained in forest, these areas will provide both recreational and aesthetic amenities while
' helping protect riparian habitat and water quality. Stormwater should be controlled at the source.
We request that wet detention ponds and other stormwater BMPs be incorporated into the
development of this basin. Commercial, industrial and high density residential developments are
of particular concern.
The information provided is not sufficient for our staff to make definitive
recommendations or conclusions concerning this project. Due to staff limitations, this
' standardized response was developed for projects such as this. Although some of the
information, requests and comments may not be applicable to certain projects, these guidelines
should facilitate preparation of fish and wildlife impact assessments. 11iis inlonnation will be
very useful if it becomes necessary to prepare an environmental document.
In addition to addressing the concerns discussed above, the environmental document
should include a detailed assessment of existing natural resources within these areas of potential
' development and should discuss the potential of mitigating development impacts to wetlands,
waters and high quality upland habitat. Additionally, to provide a meaningful review of
proposed project impacts on fish and wildlife resources, we request that consultants, project
sponsors or permit applicants provide the following information in the environmental doicument:
1. Include descriptions of fish and wildlife resources within the project area, and a listing of
federally or state designated threatened, endangered or special concern species. When
practicable, potential borrow areas to be used for project construction should be included
in the inventories. A listing of designated species can be developed through consultation
' with: The Natural Heritage Program, NC Division of Parks and Recreation, P. O. Box
27687, Raleigh, N. C. 27611, PH: (919433-7795
2. Include descriptions of any streams or wetlands aM aMeted by the project.
3. Include project maps identifying wetland areas. Identification
of wetlands may be
accomplished through coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CUE). If
' the COE is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be identified and
criteria listed.
4. Provide a description of project activities that will occur within wetlands, such as till or
channel alteration. Acreage of wetlands impacted by alternative project designs should
be listed.
' 5. Provide a description and a cover type map showing acreage of upland wildlife habitat
impacted by the project.
' 6. Discuss the extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation or fraunientation of
wildlife habitat (wetlands and uplands).
' 7. Discuss any measures proposed to avoid or reduce impacts of the project or to mitigate
unavoidable habitat losses.
8. Discuss the cumulative impacts of secondary development facilitated by the proposed
' utilities improvements and interrelated infrastructure projects, especially the impacts of

' IYWI`1- Y I i? 1 $ I f9 L_L.J Lil I,, I GL _I l :J-JL? .' ? i'id?{ l.J ?•I 1..' l.'U HU . Q Q 4 t- LPL:
Six Mile Gravity Sewer 3 May 13, 1997
' Mecklenburg County
water quality in Six Mile Creek and in downstream habitats. Such discussion should
weigh the economic benefits of such growth against the costs of associated environmental
' degradation.
(a) Include specific measures that will be used to address stormwater at the source.
' Include specific requirements for both residential and industrial developments and
BMPs that will be required.
(b) Include specific measures that will be used to protect stream corridors, riparian
habitat and a minimum of a 100-year floodplain.
(c) Include specific measures that will be implemented to promote water
' conservation and wastewater reuse.
(d) Include a discussion of any other local ordinances or programs (e.g., industrial
pretreatment, infiltration and inflow management and recycling) that will miti&te the
' impacts of development.
' 9. Include a list of document preparers which shows each individual's professional -
background and qualifications.
Measures to avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive resources, including wetlands, should
be implemented during construction. Where impacts to wetlands are unavoidable, we will
reco»imend mitigation of the losses. In addition to providing wildlife habitat, wetland areas
perform important fiunctions of flood control and water quality protection.

To avoid or minimize wetland impacts, we offer several generalized recommendations.
Utility lines should be placed in or adjacent to upland areas. It is recommended that a minimum
I 00-foot buffer of natural vegetation be left between construction corridors and the banks of
perennial streams. These buffers will help minimize impacts to water quality, stabilize stream
banks and provide travel corridors for wildlife. Trees and shrubs should be retained or
established in the buffers. Buffers should also be left along intermittent drains or streams.
Construction corridors should be no wider than absolutely necessary.-The 401
certification for Nationwide Permit 12 stipulates that wetland construction corridors are not to
exceed 40 feet and permanent maintained corridors are not to exceed 10 fzet except at access
points. Plant communities should be re-established which would result in wetland plant
community succession into habitat of equal or greater value than that which was destroyed.
Disturbed wetland areas should be returned to original soils and contours. 't'emporarily disturbed
wetlands should be reseeded with annual small grains appropriate for the season (e.g. oats,
millet, rye, wheat, annual lespedeza or rye grass) and be allowed to revert to natural wetland
vegetation. Crossings of wetlands and streams should be minimized, located at narrow areas,
and made perpendicular to the stream.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early plariuiing stages for this
project. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at [phone].
cc: John Flefner, USFWS

state of fftionn cwouna
' Department of Envin mment, MWth, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL UMEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
Reviewing Office:
Projec Number.
V v
Due Date:
1'-0
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
ceder for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions agardinp these permits should be addressed to the Al tonal Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
iMortmation and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the sarne
All applications
l P
N
,
' Regional Office. orma
rocess
Time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOWREMENTS Imam" time
Hmit)
Penn to aonstrvcl t operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
I facitftka, newer system extensions. A sewer construction contracts on-site inspection. Posi-moiCattion
systems not discharging into stale surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPOES • permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 190 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. W120 days
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pro-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
J
1 discharging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPOES Reply (NIA)
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
1 permit-whichever is later.
90 Jaya
water Use Permit Pre-application Mchrocal conference iusuafly necessary
i - - (N/A)
7 days
Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued
prior to the anstailataon of a well.
(15 days)
Application Copy must be served on each ad)acent riparian property 55 days
Dredge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
J may requireEasement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 days)
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct i operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 days
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21MMO ) NIA (90 days/
Any open burning associated with subteel proposal
must be in Compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A 60 days
NCAC 20.0525 which requires notification and removal NIA
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
919.733-W20. (90 days)
Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 20.0900.
he Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1673 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion i sedimentatlo
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Ouaiaty Sen.) at Mast 30 20 days
days before beginning activity A fee of SW for the first acre and 520.00 for each additional acre or n must accompany the tan 00 days)
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenaed Local Ordinance: 930 days)
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with ENNR. ('fond amount
Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond (9o days)
must be received before the permit can be issued.
North Carding Burning Permit - On•sfte Inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources If pain it 1 day
exceeds 4 days (NIA)
Speicial Ground Clearance Burning Permit • 22 Omits inspection by N.O. Division Forest Resources rmWw d "N more a day
counties is Coastal N.C. with organic soles then five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. InIpections fN/A)
should be requested at Mall tan days before actual burn k planned."
90.120 days
Oil Ilehhing Facottes MIA "A)
If permit required. aVPl"ion W days before begin ooi lructson.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans.
30 ass
Dam Safety Permit impact construction. terrify construction is according to EMJ1R approv-
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito Contra program. And 00 days)
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An Inapet:tion of alts is rieees•
nary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of t{200.00 m uSt ac-
' company the application. An addltional processing fee bawd on a
VarcenlAVt or the total orcoct C =l will be required upon completion
Ater, Continued on reverse
' Normal Prp«ys '
Y rw.
i
i

PERMITS
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOUIREMENTS (statutory tome
(statRory

File surety bond of SS 000 with EHNR running to Slate of N.C. 10 days
Psrmit to drill exploratory OR or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall upon (NIA)
abandonment. be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EMNR at least 10 days prior to Issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard.application form. (NJA)
Stake Lakes Construetion Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include 15.20 days
descriptions i drawings of structure t proof of ownership (NIA)
of riparian property.
• 60 days
101 Water tOuality Certification NIA 030 days)
55 days
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development 2250.00 fee must accompany application (150 days)
22 days
LAMA Permfrt for MINOR development 550.00 fee must accompany application (25 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or now the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed. Please notify:
H.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687, Raleigh. N.C. 27611
Abandonment of any .cells. if required, must be in accordance with -Title 15A, Subchapter 20.0100.
Notification of the proper regional office is requested if 'orphan" underground storage tanks LASTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2M.1000 (Coastal Stormwater Ruies) is required. 45 cl S
(N/A)
Oiner comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment autnonty).
X''7
- y7
6 Gv_ 1{ (47'

i
i

REGIONAL OFFICES
' Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office ? Fayetteville Regional Office
i
i
il
i
S
7
59 Woodfin Place ng
te
14 Wachov
a Bu
u
d
' Asheville, NC 28801 Fayetteville, NC 28341
(704) 251 208 (919) 48&1541

11J' Mooresville Regional Office ? Raleigh Regional Office
919 North Main Street, P.O. Box 950 3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
Mooresville, NC 28115 Raleigh, NC 27609
2314
9
9
733
(r04) 663.1699 1
)
-
(
? Washington Regional Office ? Wilmington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue 127 Cardinal Drive Exicnsion
NC 27889
Washington. i (9
C 284..
46.64
1 19) 395-3900
19
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
P
8025 N
i
orth
o
nt Blvd.
Suite 100
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
1`9191 99&7nn7
State of North Carolina M A
Department of Environment,
' Health and Natural Resources 4 • e
Division of Land Resources
' James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor ED E H N F?
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary Charles H. Gardner, P.G., P.E.
Director and State Geologist
PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS
Proj ect Number: 9 7 - O & 7 5 County: 1`?l BC `e e -? ?u?rq
Project Name : .S/ x /YI,'/? Ci'Ge f?.. S ?t?- 4Cm u D
! 7
' NC Office of State Plannin4 - Geodetic Survey
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C."
Geodetic Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O.
Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional.
destruction of a geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General
Statute 102-4. _
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the N.C. Office of State
Planning, Geodetic Survey Office at 919/733-3836.
arAq o,(w D f 1 a? ,1gq,,7
Reviewer Date I J.
' Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
' ? This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if
more than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
' ? If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as
part of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
' If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality
Water 'Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental
Management, increased design standards for sediment and erosion
control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan.required for this
project should be prepared by the Department of Transportation
' under the erosion control program delegation to the Division of
Highways from the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
' For more information contact the Land Quality Section at 919/733-4574.
4 /z s/y 7
' R viewer Date
Geological Survey Section Land Quality Section Geodetic Survey Section
[phone] [phone] [phone]
FAX: [phone] FAX: [phone] FAX: [phone]
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Forest Resources

1

James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Stanford M. Adams, Director
e
?EHNR
Griffiths Forestry Center
2411 Old US 70 West
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
May 2, 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Legislative Affairs
FROM: Don H. Robbins, Staff Forester
SUBJECT: CMU EA Scoping for Six Mile Creek Sewer Outfall in Mecklenburg and Union
Counties
PROJECT #: 97-0675
DUE DATE: 5-8-97
We have reviewed the above subject scoping document of April 18, 1997 and have the following
comments concerning potential impacts to woodland:
Type of Information that we would like to see in this Environmental Document to Address Impacts.
to Woodland - The following should be addressed for each alternative or project.
1. The total forest land acreage by types and merchantability aspects that would be taken out of
forest production or removed as a result of new right-of-way purchases, easements, spray
irrigation and all construction activities. Emphasis needs to be directed towards reducing
impacts, whenever possible to the following types of woodland in the following order of priority -
a. High site index productive land that is currently under active forest management.
b. Productive forested wetlands.
c. Lower site index productive land that is currently under active forest management.
d. Unique or unusual forest ecosystems.
e. Unmanaged, fully stocked woodland.
f. Unmanaged, cutover rural woodland.
g. Urban woodland.
2. The productivity of the forest soils as indicated by the soil series that would be involved within
the proposed project.
3. The impact upon existing greenways within the area of the proposed project.

' P. O. Box 29581, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0581 N%? C An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Voice 919-733-2162 FAX [phone] 50% recycled/] 09% post-consumer paper

I
2
' 4. The provisions that the contractor will take to sell any merchantable timber or woody material
that is to be removed. Emphasis should be on selling all wood products first, including energy
chips. If wood products cannot be sold, then efforts should be made to haul the material off or
' nun through a tub grinder and turned into mulch. This practice is encouraged to accomplish the
following -
a. Minimize the need for piling and burning debris during construction.
' b. To reduce the danger of escaped fires and smoke on nearby highways.
c. Reduce smoke management problems to the traveling public, towns and cities.
5. Woodland. Land Clearing and Open Burning - If any open burning is needed, the contractor
' should comply with all laws and regulations pertaining to debris burning. The regulation of open
fires are covered under G.S. 113-60.21 thru 113-60.31 all inclusive. Land clearing contractors
should make particular note of G.S. 113-60.23 High Hazard Counties requiring a special permit
' from our local county rangers and 113-60.24 for Open Burning in Non-High Hazard Counties
requiring a regular burning permit from our local burning permit agents.
' Mecklenburg and Union- Counties are non-high hazard counties and G.S. 113-60.24 would
apply. Certain conditions may exist at the time that would prevent the issuance of this permit.
Also there may be other local requirements such as most cities do not now allow any burning
' and some counties now have a burning ordnance that would take precedence. -
6. The provisions that the contractor will take during the construction phase to prevent erosion,
' sedimentation and construction damage to forest land outside the right-of-way and construction
limits. Trees outside the construction limits should be protected from construction activities to
avoid:
a. Skinning of tree trunks by machinery.
' b. Soil compaction and root exposure or injury by heavy equipment.
c. Adding layers of fill dirt over the root systems of trees, a practice that impairs root aeration.
d. Accidental spilling of petroleum products or other damaging substances over the root
' systems of trees.
7. Any cumulative impacts to woodland as a result of the expansion to the water and sewer or
other improvements in the service area. Of particular concern would be a good estimate of
t future loss of woodland acres from future development coming into the service area as a result
of increase waste capacity ability or from these improvements.
' Efforts should be made to address the above items and to reduce impacts to woodland. We would
hope that the improvements would have the least impact to forest and related resources in that
area.
pc: Warren Boyette - CO
Tommy Thompson - R3
' Howard Williams - D12
File

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
May 5, 1997
MEMORANDUM
TO, Melba McGee
1 FROM: Michelle Suverkrubbe

THROUGH: Alan Clark *-N-

LT.K;WA
T4
?EHNR
RE: Comments on DEHNR # 97-0675; DWQ#11586
Six Mile Creek Sewers
EA Scoping Request
CMUD, Mecklenburg County
The proposed project consists of approximately 17,600 linear feet of 8- to 24-inch diameter
sewer designed to connect to a new 24-inch gravity sewer that was recently approved within DWQ
and is currently under construction.
Under the North Carolina (State) Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), the Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) will be the lead agency in overseeing the adequate preparation of the Environmental
Assessment (EA) on this project. The Division reviewed the proposed project and has provided
the following scoping comments on the proposal:
I. The applicant should follow the Guidelines for contents of EA's that is discussed in the
attached Memorandum from the State Clearinghouse. In addition to the items listed in the
Clearinghouse memo, the EA should contain the following items:
A . Project Description - This section should describe all aspects of the project,
including planning, phasing, construction and operations, and project location(s).
1. Existing systems and conditions - Discuss the functions, locations and
operating status of all existing systems and conditions on the project site(s).
Identify the entity who owns/ operates the system. Is this owner/operator a
local government with powers delegated by DWQ to self-permit gravity
sewer lines? What is the current average daily flow and maximum capacities
in the system? If current system or operational problems exist, outline the
existing problem and discuss the steps currently being taken to remedy the
problem. Describe the existing sewer network to which the proposed project
will connect, including pipe sizes and locations and types of lines (e.g.
gravity vs. force main, etc.).
2. Proposed changes - Discuss and explain all structural and operational
changes and improvements proposed from the project, including any
phasing proposed. What is average daily flow anticipated from the proposed
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

Six Mile Creek Sewer EA
t DEHNR #97-0675
May 8, 1997
Page 2
' project? Indicate acreage of site disturbance proposed and indicate what
proposed changes will be temporary and which will be permanent in nature.
' Describe and show the specific improvements being proposed relative to
existing systems.
Discuss and show how and where the proposed lines will connect to
' existing and future systems. How many feet, what diameter, what MGD of
design flow, and what types of lines are proposed (show on a map)? Are
any pump stations planned (if so, where and of what size, in gallons per
' day)? Discuss the treatment plant and/or system that the proposed line will
be connected. Specify treatment method and disposal destination. Will the
proposed additional flow cause the plant to require an expansion or rerating?
' 3. Project Service Area - Discuss the service area for the project, what
population and land uses the proposed project will serve, and provide an
explanation of how these figures and geographic areas were derived.
' Describe what jurisdiction(s) the project, including its service area, are
within. Discuss the site's and project service areas' current zoning and/or
land use designations (if applicable).
' 4. Vicinity / Location Map- reproducible 8 1/2" x 11" map drawn at a readable
scale that shows location of project site(s), including service area for
project, relative to surrounding areas. Should show proposed project
' location and any significant environmental or locational features, such as:
a. surface waters
b. river basins
' c. major roads and highways
d. project boundaries (site and service areas)
e. municipal and county jurisdiction lines
f. north arrow and scale
5. Site Plan - reproducible 8 1/2 x 11 map(s) at a readable scale that shows
the project site and immediately adjacent properties. This map(s) should
' show all existing and proposed improvements to the project site, as
appropriate, with all significant environmental features on-site or
immediately adjacent to the project site, such as:
' a. surface waters (ponds, lakes, streams or creeks)
b. details of all stream crossings, including distances to streams
c. existing topography and slopes shown
d. drainage direction
' e. railroad lines and road right-of-ways (public and private)
f. marshes, swamps and wetlands
forested areas
h
' . locations and uses of all building pads and structures existing and
proposed on-site
i. property lines and total site acreage
j. existing and proposed easements (dimensions and types)
k. limit of construction areas
1. floodways and floodplains
m. connections of proposed system to existing systems
' n. proposed utility line sizes and types

Six Mile Creek Sewer EA
' DEHNR #97-0675
May 5, 1997
Page 3
o. north arrow and scale
r

B . Need - Within the Project Need section, the following items should be provided,
as applicable:
1. Quantitative justification for the requested sewer service, based on local
growth trends and future plans of the municipality or county (including
population projections, existing and proposed land use changes, and any
water conservation measures proposed). The need for the specific amount
and location of the proposed sewer service in the project area, including
failing existing systems or other reasons for the project must be discussed in
this section. Please provide references to all figures and show map(s) of
sewer service area with existing uses and full build-out projected land uses,
if available.
2. If there is an Infiltration and Inflow-(I&I) problem currently with the
system, a full discussion of I&I management should be presented, along
with an outline of steps currently being taken to remedy the problem (e.g.
smoke testing for stormdrain connections, manhole inserts, etc.).
C . Environmental Consequences ..The Environmental Consequences section.
should first describe, as appropriate and applicable to the individual project, the
existing environmental conditions on the project site and in the project's service
area. The Environmental Consequences section should then describe, as appropriate
and applicable to the individual project, the anticipated environmental effects of the
preferred alternative on the project site and on the project's service area.
Environmental effect is defined in the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act as
including the "direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts for the project or program
that may be significant, depending on the manner in which it is carried out".
"Cumulative Effects" are defined as "resulting from the incremental impact of the
proposed activity when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future activities regardless of what entities undertake such other activities." "Indirect
Effects" are "caused by and result from the proposed activity although they are later
in time or further removed in distance, but they are still reasonably foreseeable."
This section of the EA should describe anticipated direct, indirect and cumulative
' changes to the project site and project service area as they are anticipated to appear
as a result of the proposed project. These changes must be discussed for all
relevant environmental categories. Without evaluating both the direct and indirect
environmental consequences of the proposed alternative on all aspects of the
' environment, it is not possible to fully determine that the project will not have
significant impacts on the environment.
' In addition to the listed categories presented in the Clearinghouse memorandum, the
impact of the project on the following resources should also be considered and
discussed as appropriate to the significance of the impact:

Six Mile Creek Sewer EA
' DEHNR #97-0675
May 5, 1997
Page 4

1

1. Forest and woodland resources
2. Surface waters -
a. River basin and general water quality & quantity information (see
attached Catawba Basinwide Management Plan).
b. Details of surface waters including names, classifications and use
support ratings and number and location of all stream crossings
c. Floodplains
d. Interbasin Transfers, if applicable
For example, the direct effects of a sewer line installation may include some direct
water quality impacts to the stream, aquatic habitat, wetlands and downstream users
(these need to be discussed), but the indirect impacts of the project may include
other eventual impacts to streams and water quality in the service area of the plant.
What would these indirect impacts likely be, how severe will they be, what are their
causes, and what can be done to mitigate or avoid them?
One typical indirect impact of the project might be increased development that will
be served by this sewer line. Will this development create increasing amounts of
urban stormwater in the service area? Will land-disturbing activities associated with
road construction and land development in the service area result in increased
stream sedimentation? Will development features such as increased impervious
surface areas and stormwater drainage systems exacerbate water quality, problems in
the area? Predictable impacts could include more rapid and erosive stream flow in
the creek, loss of aquatic habitat and more efficient delivery of pollutants (such as.
fertilizers, pesticides, sediment and automobile byproducts) to the stream. These
impacts could be of special concern if the project is proposed in an area with state
and federally endangered species or if the waters are nutrient sensitive or already
not supporting their uses.
D . Reasonable Alternatives - This section of the document should describe in
concise terms all reasonable alternatives to the preferred alternative for the proposed
project, including the alternative of doing nothing (i.e. the "No Project" alternative).
An alternative is reasonable if it could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the
project or it is capable of eliminating the project's significant adverse environmental
effects or reducing them to a level of insignificance, even if those alternatives would
impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more
costly.
This section of the document should explain. clearly why these other alternatives
were disregarded and the preferred alternative chosen. The EA should focus
primarily on environmental consequences for determining alternatives, but it is also
reasonable to disclose the fiscal differences between alternatives. If an alternative is
being disregarded based on an environmental impact, or due to fiscal reasons, that
impact should be fully discussed in this section.
Provide a summary of optional sewer alignments and conveyance alternative
options (force mains with pump stations vs. gravity lines, etc.) that were
considered and why the proposed system was selected. The summary should have

Six Mile Creek Sewer EA
' DEHNR #97-0675
May 5, 1997
Page 5
' sufficient detail to assure that the most environmentally sound alternative was
selected from the reasonably cost effective options.
E . Mitigation Measures - If an EA determines that a proposed project may cause a
' significant, adverse impact on the environment, this impact must be avoided by a
redesign of the project or minimized through the addition of mitigation measures,
including possible compensatory wetland mitigation, to the project in order to
receive a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the project. If such a
' FONSI cannot be issued, the project will need to have an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) prepared.
' This section of the EA should contain a comprehensive list of all the avoidance,
minimization and mitigation measures proposed for the project, along with a
discussion of how and when they will be implemented, what impacts will be
reduced and who will be responsible for their completion.
F . ApAendices - Should consist of materials substantiating any analysis fundamental
' to the principal document and/or normally be analytic and relevant to the decision to
be made. If an appendix is included in an EA, it shall not be counted in the 25 page
limit and may be required by DWQ to be circulated with the EA.
' Please have the applicant call me at 919-733-5083, ext. 567 if they have any questions.
' misASix Mile Creek - Scoping
enclosed Clearinghouse Memo and Basin Plan

James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
? ?w. SfA7F o?
ti , ??nn
CO.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
' June 18, 1997
Kelly E. Reiser, Project Engineer
' Camp Dresser & McKee
301 South McDowell Street, Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 28204-2686

Re: Six Mile Creek Sewer Vutfaii, Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Utilities, CH 97-E-4300-0675
Dear Ms. Reiser:
C#
JUN 19 1997
CDM-GHARL®T-L
Thank you for your letter of June 10, 1997, concerning the above project. We
have also received this project through the State Clearinghouse.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no properties of
architectural, historic, or archaeological significance which would be affected by the
project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project.as currently proposed.
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-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
' Sincerely,
e' David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
' DB:slw

100 Fact Tnnec Ctreet • RAPAah mnrth Cnrnunn 77h01_75Z07
MO
State of North Carolina ILFWMA, 'T141W
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources / We •
Division of Parks & Recreation 11111111110f M
' James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary Dr. Philip K. McKnelly, Director
June 19, 1997 ',UN 2 31997
Mr. Kelly E. Reiser CM-CHARLOTTE
' Camp Dresser & McKee
301 South McDowell Street, Suite 200
Charlotte, North Carolina 28204-2686
Natural Communities, and Significant Natural
' SUBJECT: Rare Species, High Quality
and Priority Areas in the Proposed Construction Site of a Gravity Sewer to
Serve Six Mile Creek Drainage Basin, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
' Dear Mr. Reiser:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program does not have records of known rare species, high
quality natural communities, or significant natural areas occurring at or within a 1-mile radius of the
proposed construction site of a gravity sewer in the vicinity of Six Mile Creek in Mecklenburg
County near the Union County border. Mecklenburg County has not been systematically inventoried,
' so we cannot definitively state that rare species or significant natural areas do not occur at or within
one mile of the project area.
' Since there are sensitive areas including freshwater wetlands and forested floodplains within the
project area, I would recommend that you obtain information from the Corps of Engineers on their
Best Management Practices for construction in forest wetlands. These would have detailed
' descriptions and specifications for stream crossings and other erosion prevention measures that can
be implemented during the construction process.
' Enclosed is a list of rare species that are known to occur in Mecklenburg County. If suitable habitat
for any of these species occurs in the project area, then those species may be present. To be certain
that this site does not contain rare species, a field survey would need to be conducted.
1 -
Call me at [phone] if you have any questions or need further information.
' Sincerely,
Susan Reece Giles, Information Specialist
' Natural Heritage Program
' /SMRG
Enclosure
' P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

7

F

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Parks & Recreation
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Dr. Philip K. McKnelly, Director
Ms. Kelly E. Reiser
Camp Dresser & McKee
301 South McDowell Street, Suite 200
Charlotte, North Carolina 28204-2686
LT.WWA
'Ia
141
0"A%-
AMIN
C) EHNR
RECZ
July 8, 1997
JUL - 91997
CM-CHARLOTTE
SUBJECT: Rare Species, High Quality Natural Communities, and Significant Natural
and Priority Areas in the Proposed Construction Site of a Gravity Sewer to
Serve_ Six Mile Creek Drainage Basin, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
Dear Ms. Reiser:
Please consider this as an addendum to my letter of June 19, 1997 regarding the above mentioned
site. After discussion with Natural Heritage Program Ecologist, Stephen Hall, we determined that
a species inventory of the Six-Mile Creek corridor is not necessary. We have no records of rare
species within a one mile radius of the proposed site and do not anticipate endangered wetfand
species along this corridor
Call me at (919) 715--8703 if you have any questions or need further information.
Sincerely,
Susan Reece Giles
Information Specialist
Natural Heritage Program
/SMRG
' P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
i
i
i
i
i

i

i ,
DEId ID: ACTION ID:
Nationwide Permit Requested (Provide Nationwide Permit #): 12
JOINT FORM FOR
Nationwide permits that require notification to the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide permits that require application for Section 401 certification
VMIYUNGTON DISTRICT ENGINEER
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTN• CESAW-CO-E
Telephone [phone]
WATER QUALITY PLANNING
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
ATTN: MR. JOHN DORNEY
Telephone [phone]
ONE (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION SHOULD BE SENT TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT.
PLEASE PRINT.
1. Owners Name: Charlotte-Mecklenburq Utility Department
2. Owners Address: 5100 Brookshire Boulevard
3. Owners Phone Number (Home):
(Work): [phone]
4. If Applicable: Agent's name or responsible corporate official, address, phone number-
Dennis Gwaltney- Project Manager -- CMUD [phone]
5. Location of work (MUST ATTACH MAP). County: Mecklenburg
Matthews, North Carolina
Nearest Town or City: -
Specific Location'(Include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Alonq Six Mile Creek from Providence Roc
to Weddington Road. Includes two (2) Crossings o f Six Mile Creek.
6. Name of Closest Stream/River.
Six Nile Creek
7. River Basin: Six Mile Creek Basin
8. Is this project located in a watershed classified as Trout, SA, HQW, ORW, WS I, or WS II? YES [ ] NO
9. Have any Section 404 permits been previously requested for use on this property? YES [ ] NO PC IC
If yes, explain.
10- Estimated total number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, located on project site:
± 25.55 = 25.62 acres in 35" to
acres wetland + ± .07 acres waters 45 corridor
11. Number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, impacted by the proposed project:
Filled: NIA
Drained: Temporary
Flooded: NIA
Excavated: Temporarv
TotalImpacted: Temporary Impact of 25 62acres in 15', 20' & 25'
Sanitary ewer Rights-of-Way.
[ t
t 1
12. Description of proposed work (Attach PLANS-8 12" X 11" drawings only): Installation of approximate:
18,000 linear feet of gravity, outfall (see map)
13. Purpose of proposed work: To provide Sanitary Sewer service to Six Mile Creek
14. State reasons why the applicant believes that this activity must be carried out in wetlands. Also, note measures
taken to minimize wetland impacts. Sanitany Sewer outfall must extend along Six Mile Creek
to serve annexation area.
15. You are required to contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National Marine.Fisheries Service
(NMFS) regarding the presence or any Federally listed orproposed for listing endangered orthreatened species or critical
habitat in the permit area that may be affected by the proposed project. Have you done so? YES [XJ< NO( ]
RESPONSES FROM THE USFWS AND/OR NMFS SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
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? Have you done so? YES [X$ NO [ ]
RESPONSE FROM THE SHPO SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
17. Additional information required by DEM:
A. Wetland delineation map showing all wetlands, streams, and lakes on the property.
B. If available, representative photograph of wetlands to be impacted by project.
C. If delineation was performed by a consultant, include all data sheets relevant to the placement of the
delineation line.
D. If a stormwater management plan is required for this project, attach copy.
E. What is land use of surrounding property? Residential & Wooded Areas
F. If applicable, what is proposed method of sewage disposal? NIA
K
l 1
1
r^
, / i

Rra enc'
V
6•, 3440 ? , • ?` ? '?4 ? .,, 's l? ? r
END CONSTRUCTION °
?, r?„'? ` _ - - J 13¢4.
j/ 71 v f ,?,- `?•?1 ,/`' • , •? Jam' ?
I ` rr 34+4 r.. :fi goo j: ";? 17 SEiin?aa?\\s\"
. z p - MCI,.
CREEK CROSSING.
10
J \ ° -? - ,? 9
CREEK CROSSING
BhY. ?h. / -/• -`? `?' 1? -`. J \?•'N...-.Ill ?- •- ! a' t
02
as w
Sao ....???\ O ( -Zoo 3
4 4-
e -can.'
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
ter }•? ?_?.
i UNDER CONSTRUCTION \-
26
2000 0 2000
_
Mond
Scale in Feet
SIX MILE CREEK SEWER OUTFALL
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee GENERAL WETLAND LOCATIONS
't
LSE G7
- - I' +> • „? ! % . ;(?` it
-' _
OZ
\r 3430
r
° I :10
`\^'•' v?t1•- j go? END CONSTRUCTION °'
X 19
'ra enc -?? l•`t it;?'% - ? '?k -
MC Kc ???`? :t •°
If
.. •' ?.??; .?
Q 14 P
13
j 1, : ?`? ?i'/ % Jr ,?, , l* ,;o ^ 1'2 - J,, . ?e- ;• ? •-^.?'' =.;,-; ?--`??:?: ? ?? _ '.:1
i?? a ??? `?' : J ?P ~?? f- CREEK CROSSING ZrJ
1345 \ ^. '
O?`? i
10)
t?j
CREEK CROSSING r? y
'?I ' ?? ? ; ; .? `?`??,; ?/rrriJ? ?\ ? ?"? l? `?. •(? ,/: yip
`\ \? -? . '\\? 1 • l t'a'i ?,??.:??• i/.' - ? i = i' ?? .? 1 ? ?\? r . f•, •.-?/ r t
.._./ rx ? - rte.-?.-.;? - ??_ ?? • : ? \ ,
ass ? ? ? `?a / ^`47 ?=?. ?:i-a `` •? ? \, ''°' ° r `•. s? •\
)7?a ?(1 t•.? %•. •'.
__ 3 r rJ '?°- \'?_:•\?.?-n` \.f ri J~r _ 1/l .. - `?`?1? !f?`'?? i• :;?`. h?
l r?-4=>,? l 1316 - - _ .?;•
-/- _1 rte.. = -- 9 `/' ? -? ` - e
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION -?-y
fer
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
•?? ? ??' 726 - -\
2000 0 2000
- - Q -? ' ) j _ - - _ - Scale in Feet
SIX MILE CREEK SEWER OUTFALL
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee GENERAL WETLAND LOCATIONS
rn
v
N
CAD
N
? N
O ?
? V
3 =
N°
i C
U c
d p
fl.
YW
G
I
O co
O .p. L
° O
co
N 5 N w N C
U O o c ° c ? cts
rn ca
Cl)
w
g v
i
y
°
Q
?,
c
c
a
ca
v 0
O
c i
?
co
2
x
O
?
CD
N
C
N
ca
0
y
Co
'r-
x U) :3 c
cm "
ca ca
CL
U .. C
o p to co:) Cva c O C °- N
L
_
p U 3 a
L c co ° U .. o
O
N
cm ca
Cl)
co
0 w
N 3 cn
CO N
>
A:? CO O ca ca CD r OL co v ? -0 3
a) -0 V
•(? co CD () w
(V Ca M Y- '0 U 0 yL+ N L •C

N
N
E
U
i
O
U L
o L
cu
N L
co ca
O of
N

0 U
p C
7 N
Q (a C
co )
CU 0
CU 0)
c a)
-0 j
-0 ?
d
? 7
O
0 L
ca _Q
c
Q c
(a L
CO
E a c

ca

-0

co
Cl)

U

c

c
-0
ca

F-

2
s

c
Q
p
ca
N
a)
°
W
r- O
° c -
Co
2-
° CO
a) a)
3 a
° as
CL U) -? 3 c
a
p p w 2 a) O 3 - co
3
C - ? w x a a- cl E v
-
o -0 E

a c
0

M O O O N O O CO N
c O 0 N M 0 M ? M W M N
c t co
t CO
+ O
+ f?
+ O
+ CO
+ E 0
t W
+ . + t r .

W

O

co

CQ

to

O

N

O ?

O O

r

r

N to

d

CO
O cn

CD
'IT
I?
C N N CO C
O M T T T r T T r T T
Z
O c w

cc w+
N v
J c O O O O O O O CO N O
• + + C+ _
t . t t t . .
O
t'
O
t
0
N
?
m O O O T N N CEO Z M N O
T d
O
T r
T r
T N
T d
T to
T CO
T r-
r

c

p

•

T
N

•

m

"t

LO

W

r-

CO O r

T N

T h

T d

T w

T 0

r f*?

T CO

T 0

T

O '
T
a CL
0 0
U
W
a?
m
Y
U
L
L
Q.
E
co
U
Section 6
Mitigative Measures
other constrained locations. This buffer zone will serve as an added layer of
protection to any stream above and beyond the protection afforded by an
engineered erosion and sedimentation control system. Erosion and
sedimentation controls (e.g., siltation fences) will be installed and maintained
between the construction site and any nearby, downgradient surface waters. The
controls will minimize indirect surface water impacts resulting from erosion and
sedimentation. Temporary cover willbe placed on bare surfaces once
construction is completed, and disturbed areas will be seeded and mulched
within 15 days of project completion wherever possible. Disturbed stream banks
will be restored with natural materials. Riprap may be used to stabilize the bank
below the high water mark, and vegetation will be used above the high water
mark.
An erosion and sedimentation control system will be implemented in accordance
with the plans approved by the Division of Land Resources. Because of the
potential to expose a large area of earth along the pipeline trenches parallel to
streams with the associated potential adverse environmental consequences, the
contractor will not be allowed to proceed with any additional land disturbing
activities if any area has remained without ground cover in excess of 30 days.
The contractor will be required to strictly adhere to the approved erosion and
sedimentation control plan, CMU's erosion and siltation control standards, and
all applicable state regulations.
6.2 Wetlands
The proposed project pipeline was located'so as to minimize wetland impacts to
the extent possible. However,: for the reasons explained in Section 3, much of the
pipeline 650eet, asses through forested wetland areas. In order to minimize the
extent of d`mpacts, the construction width in wetland areas will be
limited t due to OSHA requirements for trench dimensions and
construc'tion'width necessary or equipment access and erosion control.
Since the sediments in most of the affected wetlands are fairly stable, the soil
distribution outside of the trench area is expected to be minimal. Once
construction is completed, original contours will be restored in the wetland area
and the top 12 inches will be replaced with the stripped topsoil to provide a seed
bank for revegetation. The disturbed soil will be reseeded with fast growing
annual grasses such as those listed in Table 6-1. In addition, siltation fences will
be installed and maintained between the construction site and any nearby, down
gradient wetlands to minimize sedimentation impacts. Temporary cover will be
placed on bare surfaces once construction is completed, and disturbed areas will
be seeded and mulched within 15 days of project completion wherever possible;
stabilization and seeding of banks at creek crossings will occur within 5 days
immediately after construction. Anti-seep collars will be provided at least every
150 feet along the pipeline to control the migration of groundwater along the
pipe bedding and draining of wetland areas. Permanent, maintained easements
will be limited 20 et along all pipeline segments. All permanent easements
will be allowed t to natural vegetation and will be mowed as necessary to
prevent trees and other a woody vegetation from becoming established.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 5 T 2 S 6-2
I
J
i
i
i
1
1
i
1
i
i
i
r
r
i
Section 6
Mitigative Measures
Table 6-1
Recommended Seed Types for Temporary Vegetative Cover
Species Seeding Rate` Seeding Rate' Recommended
(Ibs per 1,000 ft) (Ibs per Acre) Seeding Dates*
Annual Ryegrass 1 40 3/1-5115
(Lolium temulentum) 8/15-10/15
Sudangrass 1 40 4/15 -9/15
(Sorgen sudanense)
Japanese Millet 1 30 4/1 - 9/30
(Echinochloa crusgalli var.
frumentacea)
Annual Wildrice 1 40 8/1-10/15
(Zizania aquatica)
Rice 1 30 4/15-10/15
(Oryza sativa)
Wheat 1 30 4/15-10/1
(Triticum aestivum)
'Seeding rates and dates should be confirmed by manufacturer.
Note: A diverse mixture of seed types should be planted in disturbed areas to ensure rapid
vegetative cover under varying environmental conditions.
6.3 Noise
In order to minimize the noise-related disturbance to the local community,
construction activity will be limited to normal daytime hours (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.,
Monday through Saturday) wherever possible. In addition, large construction
equipment will be equipped with proper noise attenuation devices such as
mufflers and silencers to minimize construction-related ambient noise level
increases.
6.4 Air Quality
To control the amount of dust that becomes airborne due to construction
activities associated with the sewer outfall, open construction areas will be
sprayed lightly with water. Discharges of vehicular airborne pollutants will be
mitigated through the use of proper emission control systems.
6.5 Forest Resources and Wildlife Habitat
Every reasonable effort will be made to minimize the extent of tree clearing
required to construct each component of the project and to salvage merchantable
trees that must be removed. In addition, the contractor will be required to
protect trees outside of the construction area from damage (e.g., skinning of tree
trunks, soil compaction or root exposure by heavy equipment, placement of fill
over trees' root systems, oil spills, etc.). Cleared areas along the pipeline routes
will be replanted with appropriate grasses, including a fast-growing wetland
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
6-3

Table 5-1
Approximate Area of Wetland Disturbance

Wetland
Pipeline Length
of
Width of
Width of
Area of
Area of

No. * Diameter
Crossing ROW** RCE** Disturb- D
(in)
(ft) (ft) () ance (fe) ance
(acres)
1 24 660 25 45 29,700 0.682
21 1,960 25 45 88,200 2.025
21 5,010 25 40 200,400 4.601
8 240 -15 35 8,400 0.193
18 445 20 :35 15,575 0.358
18 1,140 20 _ 40, 45,600 1.047
18 1.235 20 ' 45 55,575 1.276
10,690 10.180
2 8 and 18 1,075' 20".. 45 48,375 1.111
18 560 20 40 22,400 0.514
12 ; . ., 15 35 13,825 0.317

,
2030
1.942
3 12 45 15 35 1,575 0.036
4 12 350 15 35 12,250 0.281
8 380 15 35 13,300 0.305
730 0.587
5 8 210 15 35 7,350 0.169
Total Wetland Disturbance (acres)***= 25.62
See Figure-4-1 for appropriate location of each wetland area.
ROW = Right-of-Way
TCE = Temporary Construction Easement
US ARMY CORPS/ENGRS ID:1-704-252-1721 AUG 04'97 15:50 No.026 P.01
U, S. ARMY ORS'', OF
ENGINEERS
151 Pattm .Averjue, 12vo,r: 143
Asheville, Nottlt C_ tily)1ina 211,10.1-5006
(704) 271-48.54
r-(I,r. (704) 271-48 561
FAX TRANSMISSION COVER S14EET
Date.•
.. ..........:..
STish
Fax
RC:
}
W"i J.
Sender.
l?Rti,i,l+!?+? iWYVfiM?{l?rrYfMk?M'?•
YOU 5 ' IVE J 9 PACXff), INQ-UDINC T.141S Co "R"
U DO
:ty'E1VLL T1' l'AG?: ikAS" CALL:(904) 2 ?1»4:::•::::::::•"
-lit
............
...
Remarks: W:;,, .
tUched PC,N fat` revi??tnY?i1cu1ttt;tlikcct to wai'r r,i7t:, .aS WI1 xs.
W 4hrcatcncc t1r #;ndan c tecA s ar their e rjth:1 habit at ithin your ALT
SHPO: We sire forwarding illeiltta.clict! 1'S'N fctr rcvi?w and c?i?,?it conccryi'x1a ?,_
alilikely affect to 111storical and/or rultttral sites wit tin your . ge.U ies' iurisd tj?on. _
"Action rri: I r.? 1 `7 6 7A / 3 /,ry
m*Anp-&..?1j1?1• L& a r- JO _/'-& ipll) U- 0e :, V
*"` F esponse )n e 5 ds g fr
Z date of i • ratlsrtni &k-.
•
Lommem 12m- 11ine (10_ davs-fton-idate of this transmittal I! / ?.(? A4,r- ? ?
4
CHARLOTTE-
RECEIVED
VIA T 1 1997.
July 23, 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
a.1. r11_u
"k
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Planning 0
Division of Environmental Management 0
N.C. Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, N.C. 27626-0535
SUBJECT: Proposed Sanitary Sewer to serve Six Mile Creek from
Providence Road to Weddington Road.
Job Number: 225-94-690
Dear Mr. Dorney:
Enclosed Please find our submittal of the application for a
Nationwide Permit to extend a sanitary sewer outfall along Six Mile
Creek from Providence Road to Weddington Road. Included with the
submittal are our specifications to restore wetland impacts within
the proposed corridor as well as other relevant information. Please
note that an Environmental Assessment is currently under review.
Should you have any questions please call me at 704-391-5080.
Si cerely,
-hut
Dennis D. Gwaltney, P.E.
Project Manager / Capital Projects
cc: Steve Lund
CESAW-CO-E
Dennis Gwaltney
Files/wetsixl
Engineering Division 5100 Brookshire Boulevard Charlotte, NC 28216 704/399-2551
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utility Department
A

SEEDBED PREPARATION AND SEEDING SPECIFICATIONS - Wetland Areas
1. Surface water control measures to be installed according to plan.
2. Areas to be seeded shall be ripped and spread with available topsoil 6" deep. Total seedbed
prepared depth shall be 6" to 8" deep.
3. Loose rocks, roots and other obstructions shall be removed from the surface so that they will not
interfere with establishment and maintenance of vegetation. Surface for final seedbed preparation,
at finish grades shown, shall be reasonably smooth.
4. Provide agricultural lime at rate required to bring soil acidity to slightly acid - ph 6, according to
soil test report
5. Lime and fertilizer shall be applied uniformly and mixed with the soil during seedbed preparation.
6. Apply 0-20-10 commercial fertilizer at the rate of 20 lbs/1000 s.f for wane season mix (see
schedule).
-7: Apply 10-20-10 commercial fertilizer at the rate of 20 lbs/1000 s.f. for cool season mix (see
schedule).
8. Apply 10-10-10 commercial fertilizer at the rate of 20 lbs/1000 s.f. for temporary cover crops. In
addition, provide 15 lbs/1000 s.f of superphosphate.
9. The following is for the warm season mix:
a. All warm grass seed shall be debearded or conditioned by brushing to create a product
nearly the same as debearding. This does not apply to Switchgr,3ss.
b. Disc two times to break-up crop residue and dirt clods prior to seeding.
C. Pack soil to create a firm seedbed with a culdpacker or roller.
d. If a rain shower should fall after the seedbed is prepared but before planting break-up any
crust formation.
C. Seeding shall be installed to a depth of %" utilizing a rangeland drill or conventional grass
drills. It is extremely important that seed not be planted deeper than W depth. Do not
disc .or harrow after seedin . This will out the seed too deep. A Brillion seeder ll wi be
acceptable-
E If seeding is done by broadcasting or hydroseeding, seeding rate shall be increased by
250.
10. Seed in accordance with the following schedule and application rates:
Wetland Areas
Dates Tvves Rate
Apr. 1 - Jul. 15 Warr Season Mix
Switchgrass, Cave-in-rock, Alamo 8 pls Wacre or 4 oz./1000 s.f.
Smartweed 2 bulk Wacre or 1 oz./1000 s.f.
and
Japanese Millet or 20 lb/acre or M lbs/1000 s.f.
Sorghum Sudan Grass Hybrids
(Mow prior to maturity)
July 16 - Sept. 1 Temporary crop of Japanese Millet or 20 lb/acre or % Ibs/1000 s.f.
Sorghum Sudan Grass Hybrids
(To be followed by permanent mixture)
?y '
Sept. 2 - Nov. 1
Cool Season Mix
Reed Canary Grass
Smartweed
Nov. 1 - March 31 Temporary Crop of Wheat
(To be followed by permanent mixture)
12 bulk #/acre or
6 oz./1000 s.f.
2 bulk #/acre or
1 oz./1000 s.f
40 lbs/acre
11. . Contractor shall be required to provide a permanent mixture according to the schedule.
12. Temporary crops must be incorporated prior to seeding of permanent mixtures
13. Cover crops or temporary crops must be mowed at proper time to prevent seed heads from
maturing. Wheat may be harvested.
14. Grass mix and temporary covers shall be mulched with straw applied at the rate of 75 lbs to 100
lbs/1000 S.F. Use clean Wheat Straw.
15. If hydroseeded use Vim* Paper Mulch only.
Note:
Seed and additional information for the wetland mix as well as for other grass areas may be
purchased from, but not limited to:
Sharp Brothers Seed Company
Route 4, Box 237 A
Clinton, Missouri 64735
Phone [phone]
Contact: Jef Hodges

ANTI -SEEP COLLAR
[nches I Utility Line
I (Diameter Varies)
1 foot I I Cbja" Concrete
or Compacted Clay
l_ I
I
6 inches rench Width 6 inches
Not to exceed 40 feet
SECTION
harp-' a concrete
or Compacted Clay
12
inches
6 inchesu-0- inches
PLAN
4
t
•
CRARLOTTE
July 24, 1997
Wilmington District Engineer
Corps of Engineers
Department of the Army
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, N.C. 28402-1890
ATTN: CESAW-CO-E
SUBJECT: Proposed Sanitary Sewer to serve Six Mile Creek from
Providence Road to Weddington Road.
Job Number: 225-94-690
Dear Sirs:
Enclosed Please find our submittal of the application for a
Nationwide Permit to extend a sanitary sewer outfall along Six Mile
Creek from Providence Road to Weddington Road. Included with the
submittal are our specifications to restore wetland impacts within
the proposed corridor as well as other relevant information. Please
note that an Environmental Assessment is currently under review.
Should you have any questions please call me at 704-391-5080.
Si cerely,
Dennis D. Gwaltney, P.E.
Project Manager / Capital Projects
cc: Steve Lund
John Dorney
Dennis Gwaltney
Files/wetsix2
Engineering Division 5100 Brookshire Boulevard Charlotte, NC 28216 704/399-2551
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utility Department
•
11ARLt )7'TL .
July 23, 1997
Mr. Steve Lund
The Department of The Army
Corp Of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
1510 Patton Avenue, Room 143
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
SUBJECT: Request for Wetland Permit for Proposed Sanitary Sewer
Outf all along Six Mile Creek from Providence Road to
Weddington Road.
Job Number: 225-94-690
Dear Mr. Lund:
Enclosed Please find our submittal for a Nationwide Permit #12 to
extend a sanitary sewer outfall along Six Mile Creek from
Providence Road to Weddington Road. Included with the submittal are
our specifications to restore wetland impacts within the proposed
corridor as well as other relevant information. Please note that an
Environmental Assessment is currently under review.
Should you have any questions or if additional information is
required please call me at [phone].
Si erely,
.,??sc y
Dennis D. Gwaltney, P. .
Project Manager / Capital Projects
cc: John Dorney
CESAW-CO-E
Dennis Gwaltney
Files/wetsix3
Engineering Division 5100 Brookshire Boulevard Charlotte, NC 28216 704/399-2551
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utility Department
?s
July 22, 1997 (ILIRLOTTE-
Mr. Robert R. Currie
Acting Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, N.C. 28801
Subject: Nationwide Permit #12 Application
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utility Department Proposed Sanitary Sewer
Six Mile Creek Outfall From Providence Road to Weddington Road
CMUD Project No. 225-94-690
Mecklenburg County, N.C.
Dear Mr. Currie:
As part of the application for a Nationwide Permit in the above referenced matter, the applicant is
required to contact your agency 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. Enclosed please find exhibits included in the permit application recently
forwarded to the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers' Asheville Regulatory Field Office. Please note
that an Environmental Assessment is currently under review, and you will be contacted by the
States Clearinghouse for your comments.
Should you have any questions please don't hesitate to call me at [phone]. Thank you for
your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG UTILITIES
40,;
Dennis D. Gwaltney, P.E.
Project Manager / Capital Projects
cc: Kathy Freeze
Files/fishwild
Engineering Division 5100 Brookshire Boulevard Charlotte. NC 28216 704/399-2551
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utility Department
i
it
July 22, 1997 CHARLOTTE
Mr. David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-2807
Subject: Nationwide Permit #12 Application
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utility Department Proposed Sanitary Sewer
Six Mile Creek Outfall From Providence Road to Weddington Road
CMUD Project No. 225-94-690
Mecklenburg County, N.C.
Dear Mr. Brook:
As part of the application for a Nationwide Permit in the above referenced matter, the applicant is
required to contact the State Historic Preservation Officer regarding the presence of historic
properties in the permit area that may be affected by the proposed project. Enclosed please f ind
exhibits included in the permit application recently forwarded to the U. S. Army Corp of
Engineers' Asheville Regulatory Field Office. Please note that an Environmental Assessment is
currently under review, and you will be contacted by the States Clearinghouse for your comments.
Should you have any questions please don't hesitate to call me at [phone]. Thank you for
your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
C RLOTTE-MECKLENBURG UTILITIES
_4t 1? Z
?rW??
Dennis D. Gwaltney, P.E.
Project Manager / Capital Projects
cc: Kathy Freeze
Files/Historic
Engineering Division 5100 Brookshire Boulevard Charlotte, NC 28216 704/399-2551
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utility Department