NC0036277_Regional Office Historical File Pre 2018

C�
E�: F{pT W-wf 1f�7``��41. ��m.•,.•��r\,w � ..� �'
B 1` i'C�ML ES OL VL1 1 NWP# i �` 1 0 L..F= ^ �« °l �` 'Nt
t
SEE SHEET-ol
;-
•j
,„, � .i. � � � ,.:`«'"_- +� : �_ .� spec a ' { �� '1 $, gnu r'� .� � �""' ��i3•����:.:..�-- �'t' s
WP #26 530 LF LFLI61t IPOR 1, 1 1 `III F EAM10 C L: _ s
1 � w
t
v�
F
t
»" e
AwP# 6 120 LF- & FI0=140tv1F ESE C'F
t tt
4 � f T j
t �t
74,
1 jJ 4ti CfiSl rsaw
} j 1 p 'r
...-... ,!t 3 rF f�j
.. r ,�. f 1 . a.,. �. ^ew -"t..FS( r 1 ` A j k r' 1 1
>l t dr'ts J^ f " ` kx "` t�' .. .s,.-?, 7,, k ... t-.F ._! di
w bt
! " 7z
4, ,��, .0 e �,;, �• x - „+....x`a .' +a y ,� '�,, o�t kr \ `�"' { ,,.� =�az LU° ry.. . to tt
r' `"',:,{✓ e' .! !' �::�^ � � t' ......t s. f)y '•�. , . �„'�..:: °� . #, � ' �'�..�µ.�`�-�-. � �J� "'�;.�v� e"sy ..• µ„��^(Y'��»'��.... � y i.... �� p d�..: "scvc„ini�. ry r,, �c�itr '"'.4�t
��.� YY ""`"� ..� e` i rJ "`mot . l �,, ;. �"`,,,..�.. � l� .s �'M � r ..-., � �.. ,' 6, �. - •'�F` .`\,, °,Y � �'" .#I, ,t f�! 1 it t#
b wr;<„"p_ } +,-...r`.�7.,'�..�...�.... __. .✓` x � `' .,% ��*^�.� �' �t �� # to � " - -. � : jr�� tb.
e
xi s �.l Vl� 3 A1� A
„tnvm.rt,s � �f}� �. ..t NWI #2 120 LI" W 1 F.A1U)S 0.19 AC: 1!�( 1l S i {(
#
s � f
W .: ._ ..,. '.r..... ...,� . i 4
f ttrt to Fa"W tW, ak t Ca?bd 7fi Gi74Y .:Ef h£Fi rbtt{k ".
tl4 J S CiFS 1Y fi tN, t# W 7 ( R %i pE P+•n CtT t�
Fj j
e t Rscr taro r i
r, r, 'a 61 Ev^+#oui,ii iF'5 Pk sy4Es
460 dot)
a$
"
WETLAND IMPACT MASTER PAN
` ` t f a14'H•tt a1ltlwl+,•hl :E of 41b ':a J tt tl „s t i 4.1+ t_C;/ �'Y G,. ...4 !'l IO Y
tt 'y ����rJ(, / ( ty{ p' t,
. ';'6Y, 121 kj jd -..•... _.. . ,. ., It..�tit'L lfi,Fi',IES
ail�fiC l it ii(JPl mSE l l.E, _tiC R IH CArCA N,

Ch Carlo t -Mecklenburg Utilities
McDowell Creek Basin Flory Study
Stakeholders Group Meeting
AGENDA
March 27, 2000
6.00 p.m., North Mecklenburg Water Treatment Plant
Visit to McDowell Wastewater Treatment Plant at 5:00 p,m.
Dinner
Land Use
• Current Land Use Situation
• Status of Future Land Use Scenarios
Wastewater Management and Alternatives
• Mecklenburg County Watershed Regulation' Summary
• Reclaimed Water Permitting Process
• Short Term Alternatives
Diversion of Wastewater from. Basin
w Reclaimed Water Alternatives
- Birkdale
- North Mecklenburg
Parks and Recreations Property
- ether Properties
Wetlands Mitigation Required for Airport
Project Schedule
Other Items
-.:At,s ref
' n tit`.,,,. JCS <
,77Kgj

DRAFT
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
McDowell Creek Basin
Wastewater Management Strategy
June 5, 2000
Coal 00 � 4.� � ` ��
The primary goal of the McDowell Creek Basin Wastewater Management Strategy is to
treat the wastewater to a level that will protect and maintain the water quality in
Mountain Island Lake, which is the major water supply for the City of Charlotte,
Mecklenburg County, and neighboring counties.
T
Strate' ies to Accom fish Goal �,- , �. `�
1. Reuse Water
Implement programs and policies to encourage reuse of wastewater treatment plant
effluent to include the Dirkdale Golf Course, North Mecklenburg Water Treatment
Plant site, Mecklenburg Darks & Recreation Department, and other suitable land.
. Industrial and Commercial Users
Continue to implement pretreatment program that will protect the wastewater
treatment plant and water in McDowell Creek and Mountain Island Labe.
. Water Conservation
Continue to develop and implement water conservation programs to reduce potable
water use and flow to wastewater treatment plants.
4. Advanced Water Treatment
Evaluate and consider different levels of treatment and their costs:
- Implement technology to protect water quality.
In future, evaluate to determine if additional or different technologies exist that will
be beneficial in protecting water quality:
5. Monitoring
Continue monitoring of Mountain Island Lake for the parameters included in the
SDWA including gia dia, cryptosporidi m, and viruses.
Develop a self -monitoring program to confirm compliance with the watershed
regulation.
Develop a water duality -monitoring program possibly in conjunction with MCDEP
for water quality in McDowell Creek and Mountain Island Lake. This maybe already
in place and just a matter of reporting or providing data to all interested entities

Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities ,
McDowell Creek Basin Flow Study
Stakeholders Group Meeting
AGENDA
.dune 5, 2000
6:00 p.m., North Mecklenburg Water Treatment Plant
Visit to McDowell Wastewater Treatment Plant or North Mecklenburg Water Treatment
Plant at 5:00 p.m.'
Land Use
• Current Land Use Situation
• Future Land Use Scenarios
Wastewater Management and .Alternatives
• Short Term
- Reclaimed Water Alternatives
• Birkdale
• North Mecklenburg WTP
• Parks and Recreation's Property
• tither Properties
- Plant Modifications
• Long Term
- Advanced Water Treatment Plant
Pump Raw Wastewater to Long Creek Pumping Station
New Regional WWTP Outside of McDowell Greek Basin
- Pump Raw Wastewater Out of McDowell Creek Basin to
Mallard Creep WRF or Rocky River Regional WWTP
- Pump Treated Effluent Out of McDowell Creek :Basin
Other Items'
Next Meeting

r
WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
cDOWELL CREEK BASIN
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Annual O&M has not been considered at this point, all oasts are capital costs only. The
screening criteria is based can a kale of I-. , with a rating of one being the most favorable.
SNORT TERM/ INTERIM ALTERNATIVES
Maximize Treatment Capacity of Existing McDowell Creak Plant
1. Permit Modification to Allow Maximum Month Treatment Capacity
Concept: Increase weekly and monthly now limits in the NPQES Permit to allow
flow up to 7.6 m d, the maximum month design flow of the plant. Organic,
nutrient and inorganic permit parameters will not exceed permitted pollutant loads
for compliance with zoning ordinance.
Capital Cost: Nominal permit renewal cost
Screening Criteria;
Cost = "1
Permitting
.Environmental Impact = ,I
Land Acquisition/Easements = I
Construction Impact = I
Schedule : I
Considerations:
• NC DWQ was consulted in May 2000 and was not favorable to this type
of permit modification.
• If allowed, may require an Environmental Assessment.
2. Temporary Reduction in Flaw to McDowell Creek WWTP
Concept: Consider temporarily diverting flow from McDowell .Basin to Rocky,
River Basin until additional capacity at McDowell Creek plant can be constru&d.
C Lpital Cost: T1 A
Screeni,ng Criteria,
Cost ='?
Permitting
Environmental Impact = I
Land Acquisition/Easements
Construction Impact = ?
06/05/00 1 C;MU - McCaooWELL BASIN STUDY
BLACK & VEATCH WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING

Schedule w 2
Considerations:
• Only a ternporaryj, short term alternative.
• Temporary pumping to divert subdivisions to Rocky River Regional
WWTP:
a. Greenfarm and Lupton .
b. Area bounded by Stumptown Rd, I-77 Gilead Rd and Rt 115.
c. Peninsula developments near Lake Norman already pumped into
McDowell Basin).
3, Expand Existing Plant to 7.8 mgd
Concept. Expandthe plant to 7.8 md, the most practical maximum capacity of
the existing plant. May be in combination with Option 5 in order to reduce or
maintain pollutant load.
CapitalCost: $11.63 million
Screening Criteria:
Cost = 3
Permitting = 2
Environmental Impact = I
Land Acquisition/Easements = 1.
Construction Impact
Schedule
Considerations:
• Expansion to T8 mgd average day and 9.0 and maximum month.
Construct 4 `h primary clarifier, increase in aeration capacity, 3`d final
clarifier, 6"' effluent filter cell, flow equalization, and various pumping
and piping modifications.
4. Expand Existing Plant to 9.0 ingd
C`.once t: Construct a 3.0 treatment train parallel to the existing plant. Igo not
modify or expand existing process units.
Capital Cost: $21 million
ScreeninL Criteria:
Cost
Permitting
Environmental Impact = 1
Land Acquisition/Easements = 1
Construction Impact = ?
Schedule = ?
06/05/00 2 GMU - WDOWELL BASIN STUDY
BLACK & VEATC*1 i VVASTEWA TER MANAGEMENT PLANNING

Considerations:
• May be easier to construct than Option 3.
• Expansion to 9.0 mgd average day and 10.4 mgd maximum month.
$. Addition of Advanced 'Tertiary Treatment (ATT) to Maintain or Reduce
Pollutant Load
oncept: Provide advanced tertiary treatment in the form of 0.1 micron
membrane filtration for an increase in discharge of 1 to 3 mgd. This option could'
be part of Options 3, 4, or 6. This additional treatment step would contribute to
allow an increase in the existing plant capacity and maintain or reduce the
pollutant load to McDowell Creek.
Canital Cost: $5.67 million [1.5 mgd system expandable to 3 mgd]
Screening criteria:
Cost
Permitting = 1
Environmental Impact = 1
Land Acquisition/Easements = I
Construction Impact'
Schedule - 2
Considerations:
• Proven technology, used to achieve very high quality effluent.
• Will also decrease turbidity of reuse water (Option ).
• Can be part of a long term option.
Water Reclamation
. Reuse at Birkdale {wolf Coarse and North Mecklenburg WTP
Concept: Construction of a 3.0 rngd pumping station and 31,900 ft long pipeline
to Birkdale Golf Course and North Mecklenburg 'water Treatment Plant.
Reclaimed water to be used for irrigation.
Ca ital Cost: $5.05 million
Screening Criteria:
Cost = 2
Permitting
Environmental Impact = 1
Land Acquisition/Easements = 2
Construction Impact = 2
Schedule
06/06I00 3 CMU — McDOWEI_L BASIN STUDY
BLACK & VEAT H WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING,

r
ons ldt nations:
• Consistent with NC DWQ goals to implement water reuse statewide.
Environmental Assessment and non -discharge permit are required.
• Can be designed and constructed in 12 to 24 months.
• Additional customers may be identified to further expand system.
Concept supported by the Mecklenburg Department of Environmental
Protection.
Spray Irrigate
Concept: Use plant effluent for irrigation of crop or forested farad. Purchase or
lease land in the vicinity of the McDowell Creek WWTP and construct a spray
irrigation system.
C a ital Cost: $0.68 million [1 mgd capacity]
Screening Criteria:
Cost
Permitting = l
Environmental impact = 1'
LandAcquisition/Easements
Construction Impact = 1
Schedule = 1
Considerations:
Consistent with County plan to set aside open space. Funds are available
for purchasing open space.
* Consistent with watershed protection goals.
200+ acres of County owned property surrounds McDowell Creek plant
site.
Other property acquisition being considered by CMU.
* Site and wail testing confirm feasibility.
* Rate of application will may 'allow an application rate - 0.8 mgd per o
acres.
LONG TERM ALTERNATIVES
On -site Tertiary or Advanced Tertiary Treatment
7. New [can -site] Parallel Advanced "Tertiary Treatment to Train
Concept: Construct a 12 mgdtreatment train parallel to the existing plant.
Modify existing plant process units to increase level of treatment. Total plant
capacity of iS an d will approach build -out capacity.
Ca ital t o t: $6 00 to 7.00/gallon [new parallel train]
$2.00 to $ .00/gallon [upgrade existing train]
06105/00 4 CMU - McCDoWELL BASIN STUDY
BLACK & VEATCH WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING

r
Screening ril .,i :
Cost
Permitting =
Environmental Impact = 1
Land Acquisition/Easements = 1
Construction Impact = ?
Schedule =
Considerations:
* Discharge to McDowell Creek Basin.
Advanced treatment required to comply with Watershed Ordinance
* Advanced biological nutrient removal and coarse media filtration and/or
membrane filtration.
Existing plant will need modifications to provide same higher level of
treatment.
8.`Pump Treated Effluent to Mallard Creek Basin (Yadkin River Basin)
Conch: Expand the McDowell Creek plant having treatment capability that will
allow discharge in the Mallard Creep Basin. The level of treatment may be less
than McDowell Basin and therefore have lower cost.
C a itat "o t: $8.40 /gallon [new parallel train]
Screening Criteria:
Cost = 4
Permitting = 4
Environmental Impact = 4
Land Acquisition/Easements = 4
Construction Impact =
Schedule = 4
Considerations:
• Pumping station and force main construction cost may offset savings i
treatment cost,
• New NPLES permit is required.
• Point of discharge? (Stoney Creek?)
alternative considered in the 01 Facility Plan prepared in 1977,
• Requires NC DWQ approval of interbasin transfer (Catawba. River Basin
to the Yadkin River Basin).
. Pump Treated Effluent to Long Creek Basin
Concept: Expand the McDowell Creek plant having treatment capability that
will allow discharge within the Long Creek Basin, The level of treatment will be
the same as McDowell, Creek Basin (the same Watershed Ordinance applies to
06/05/00 5 CMU - McooWELL BASIN STUDY
BLACK & VEATCH WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING

Long Creek Basin). There may be some benefits to improving water quality to
the McDowell Creek Cove that make this alternative feasible;
Cat ital Cost: $6 3 /gallon [new parallel train]
Screening ,`riteri :
Cost = 4
Permitting
Environmental Impact = I
Land Acquisition/Easements
Construction Impact
Schedule
Considerations:
• New NPDES permit is required,
• Discharge' point will be between into Long Creek or the Catawba River
between Mt Island Lake and Lake Wylie, Discharge paint is closer to the
Catawba Pumping Station (water supply intake) than McDowell Creek
plant point of discharge. Water quality based NPDES Permit Limits may
be more restrictive than McDowell Creek plant.
• FER.0 permit may be required.
Off site Regional Treatment
10. Regional Treatment at Irwin Creek WWTP or McAlpine Creek WWMF
Concept: Pump untreated wastewater from the McDowell Creek Basin to Long
Creek Pumping Station.' Treatment will be provided at the Irwin Creek WWTP or
bypassed and treated at the McAlpine Creed WWMF.
Cal2ital Cast: $8.4 /gallon
Screening Criteria:
Cost
Permitting
Environmental Impact = 2
Land Acquisition/Easements = 3
Construction ction Impact
Schedule = 3
Considerations:
• Pumping station and force main construction cost may offset savings in
treatment cost.
• Will require expansion of the Long Creek and Paw Creek Pumping
Stations and Irwin Creek WWTP,
• NPDES permit modification for Irwin Creek WWTP is required.
06/05/00 6 CMU — McDOWELL BASIN STUDY
BLACK & VEATCH WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING

• Diversion of water will bypass two Duke Energy power plants. A F'ERC
permit or FERC approval will most likely be required.
It. New Regional AsTT Plant
Concept: Pump untreated wastewater from the McDowell Creek Basin to a new
regional advanced tertiary treatment plant. The level of treatment may be less
than required in the McDowell Basin and therefore have lower cast.
C anital Cost: $% /gallon
ScreeningCriteria:
Cast
Permitting
Environmental Impact
Land Acquisition/Easements = 4
(construction Impact = 4
Schedule = 4
Considerations:
• Watershed Ordinance?
• Site to be determined.
• An Environmental Impact Statement will likely be required.
• A new NPDES permit is required.
• An alternative considered in the 201 Facility Plan prepared in 1977.
• McDowell Creek pumping station and interbasin pipeline construction.
12, Regional Treatment at Mallard Creek Water Reclamation Facility
Concept: Pump untreated wastewater from the McDowell Greek Basin to the
Mallard Creek. Water Reclamation Facility: There may be some cost savings in
treatment due to less restrictive permit in the Mallard Basin.
Capital Cost: $9-10 /gallon
Screening- Criteria:
Cost
Permitting
Environmental Impact
Land Acquisition/Easements
Construction Impact
Schedule
Considerations:
• Pumping station and pipeline construction cost may offset swings in
treatment cost.
06/05/00 ? CMU — McDOWEL.L BASIN STUDY
SLACK & VEA `CH WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING

• NPI ES permit modification for Mallard Creek WWTP is required,
• Subtracts water from two Duke Energy power plants. A FERC permit or
FERC approval will most likely be required,
• Requires NC DWQ approval of interbasin transfer (Catawba River Basin
to the Yadkin River Basin),
13. Regional Treatment at Rocky River Regional W"V4'TP
Concept. Pump untreated wastewater from the McDowell Creek Basin to the
Rocky River Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (RFRWWTP) in Cabarrus
County. There may be some cost savings in treatment due to less restrictive
permit in the Rocky River Basin,
Capital Cost. $q-Cl/gallon
crenin -z criteria:
Cost
.Permitting
Environmental Impact
Land Acquisition/Easements = 3
Construction Impact
Schedule = 3'
Considerations:
• An inter -jurisdictional agreement exists between the WSACC (owner of
the RRR T) and CtI for treatment of wastewater from the northeast
portion of the Rocky River Basin in Mecklenburg County,
• Pumping station and pipeline construction cost may offset savings in
treatment cost.
• Expansion of the RRR TP will be required.
• NPDES permit modification for Rocky river Regional WWTP is required:"
• Subtracts water from two Duke Energy power plants. A FERC permit or
FERC approval will most likely be required.
It Requires NC DWQ approval of interbasin transfer (Catawba River Basin
to the Yadkin River Basin).
06/05/00 C IU -- McDOWELL BASIN STUDY
BLACK & VEATCH WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING

Purpose of the
Water Quality Modeling
Examine the impacts on water quality in the
McDowell Creek Cove of Mountain Island
Lake from potential future development in
the basin considering both point and
nonpoint sources of pollutant loadings to the
lake.

Changes as the Basin Ue
NPS pollutant loadings will inc
will not increase
• Concentrations of nutrients from the plant will
decrease

Summary and Cons,
Effects on Lake Water Qualit
• Increased NPS loadings would increa:.
phosphorus concentrations in the cove.
• Decreased concentrations and higher flow,
from the plant would decrease phosphorus
concentrations in the cove.
• The combination of these changes has no
significant effect on water quality.

i aote i
CMU Customer Types;
Type Name
A Apartments
C Commercial
F Fire Line
Government
1 Industrial
L. Dawn Service
M Miscellaneous
N Public Schools
0 Organizations
Residential
Table
CMU Customer Codes
1 = Water and ewer in city limits only
Water in city limits only
Water and ewer in county only
4 = Water in county only
='Sewer in city limits only
5 = Sewer in county only
sFire line
='Miscellaneous

Table 3
199912000 WATER SYSTEM Water Consumption
Future McDowell Service Area
Annual
Monthly
(CCF per Year)
Total
Consumption
Consumpboo
Water Consumption In CCF by Customer Code
Consumption
Total
Per Emit
Per Unit
Type Name
1
2
3
4 5 6
7 9 Total
In Gallons
Emits
Gallionst
A Apartments
3,566
143,139
581
147,28
9%
110169,928
25
4,406,797
367,233
C Commercial
7,259
19
203,426
39,669
- 250,363
15%
187,271,524
370
-506,139
42,178
F Fire Line
378 W 378
282,744
21
13,464
1,122
G Government
-
4,169
1,251
5,420
0%
4,054,160
70
57,917
4,826
I Industrial
1,116
3,605
4,721
0°%
3531,308
4
882,827
73,569
L Lawn Service
-
5,587
640
139,638
145,865
9%
109107,020
172
634,343
52,862
M Miscellaneous
-
0%
-
it
-
N public Schools
22,369
879
4,855 28,103
2%
21,021,044
16
1,313,815
109,485
0 Organizations
8,779
909
8,212 17,
1%
13,389,200 :
21
637,581
53,132
R Residential
8,771
16,746
022,331
77,792
- 1,025,
63%
767,178,720
7200
106,553
8,879
20,712
22,352
'1,308,458
260,709
378 13,067 1,625,676
1.214; ,648
7,899
153,94412,829
MgalIYr
1,216
Mad
3.33

Table 4
199912000 WATER SYSTEM Customers
Future McDowell Service Area
End of Year Count
Customer Count by Customer Cade
Type Name
1
2
3
4 5 7
Total
Apartments
1
-
2
1 _
- 25
0%
Commercial
5
1
242
122 _ -
_ 370
5%
F Fire Line
-
-
- - 21
- 21
6
Government
-
12
58 -
70
1%
1 Industrial
2
_ -
_ 4
0%
L Lawn Service
-
10
1
161 _ - -
_ 172
2%
Miscellaneous
_
_
-
- - -
0%
Public Schools
11
4
1 16
0%
0 Organizations
-
15
5
1 21
R Residential
79
100
6,400
621 - -
- 7,200
91 %
87
111
6,706
972 21
2 7,699
Final.LandUse.xls
615100 3:56 PM
Page 3

CustomersUtilities
500400
I
I
300 - 'f
-'
Apt ire Govt Ind Lawn Misc Sch Org Res

9705T 100
McDowell Basin Wastewater Flaw Forecasting Project For: Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities
Table 5
Match of Land Use Categories and Water Customer Classes
Combined Classes
Customer Classes
Land Classes
# Name
Types Names
LandNames
1 Redd.
AApartments
general Residential
R Residential
& teen Space Residential
& Nhood Resid.
2 Comm.
C> Commercial
Nhood tenter
G' Government
& Town tenter
I Industrial
& Highway Commercial
M Miscellaneous
N' Public Schools
a Organizations'
Other
L + F Lawn + Fire

97057,100
McDowell Basin Wastewater Flow Forecasting Project
For Charlotte MecMenburg utilities
Table
199912000 TOTAL Water Consumption in CCF for FUTURE SERVICE AREA
Annual C F
Gallon [Yr.
Gal/Clay
Type
Name
Total
TOTAL
TOTAL
Units
Gal/Unit /Measure
A
Apartments
147,286
9.1%
110,169,928
301,789
2,528
119.38 /households,
C
Commercial
250,363
15.4%
187,271524
512,995
8,32
61.57 /employees
F
Fire Line
378
0.0%
282,744
775
G
Government
5,420
0.3%
4,054,160
11,106
1
Industrial
4,721<
0.3%
3,531,308
9,673
3,092
3.1 /employees
L
Lawn Service
145,865
9.0%
109,107 020
298,878
Miscellaneous
0.0%
0
N
Public Schools
28,103
1.7%
21,021 44
57,583
Q
Organizations
17,900
1.1%
13,389,200
36,677
Residential
1,025 640
63.10%o
76,178720
2,101,540
7,200
291.88 (households
1,625,676
100,0%
1,216,005 648
3,331,015
Population
29,476
1,216
Mgal / Yr
Households
9,728
3.33
Mgd
4.08
11 .01
GaVday/POP
Apartments, Commercial,
Industrial, and Residential =
87.8% of total water consumed
Fire line, Gov't, Lawn Serv., chools and Organizations =
12.2% of total water consumed
1999/2000 TOTAL Water Consumption in CCF for FUTURE SERVICE AREA
Annual C F
Gallons/Yr.
Gal/Day
Type
Name
Total
TOTAL
TOTAL
Units
Gal/Unit /Measure
A
Apartments
147,286'
9A%
110,169,928
301,789
316
955.03 (ACRES
C
Commercial
250,363
15.A%
187,271,524
512,995
1,512
339,28 /ACRES
F
Fire Line
378
0.0%
282,744
77
G
Government
5,420'
0.3%
4,054,160
11,106
1 `
Industrial
4,721
0. %
3,531,308
9,673
1,607
6.02 /ACRES
l
Lawn Service
145,865
9.0%
109,107,020
298,878
M
Miscellaneous
-
0,0%
-
0
N
Public Schools
28,103
1.' %
21,021,044
57,583
{
Organizations
17,900'
1 A %
13,389,200
36,677
R
Residential
1,025,640
63,10/6
767,178,720
2,101,540
4,236
496.11 /ACRES
1,625,676
100.0%
1,216,005,648
3,331,015
1,216
Mgal / Yr
133
Mgd

aesr csce»e�ts�rs�xira ac»cncrrev.— coucaccs- e»cvcua.-cacva
N st N W K"7 V` C+"9 tit U? C*i r tC! ri3 Q? h• Qs iw
W N, O�W "
c�cczsc
0 "t
rua
0c ct:s
r
N ip t'0 Ot M N i 5 Ce7 CFP et C:8 w 0, a - txi r to 'd a w N N V) 0 hw 05 fit? fit'? t�k 4CS Ca U? �! Cp N
, , �tW Nt. a) fNar)w U� U30)Cs sta N t� r WW WWt,mt -.
r ray
Czi U9NU7
C> ii3
N0)—t.
'�` G3 cf}
KJWr+
Cri �t f-�.r-toN Kits 00r
n -r n Ka r% Cl Ka tea Kcs s it s C _
to aN
N-<= .=
cn ,r- KFt
t!9 KO tom- Cb t7 R r C) c i W .^� tat C> h4. iCt W t0 C7 W fA v- CV CS Ui
t N G) r4 U) 0) K„b to to W N c- N M c0 t^� 0 as t+. '. t0 to � .0
4) N to (a
w°^ 00 t- r�-
t Q
r 0)
r* W W r r G7 0; N tit t"3: W Ci t0 ^3` CJ C9
icr ra ra cs rt, v a a v r) to cv to iKt v N ca r c> uz ca v Ot ct r K co r c? cr iK� �
err cv cr
6 rr
cv . Kti cv N t i ,- ,- .= .= - .= ,= ,=
0to
N tt� W
s iv r
ci
Q at) M N - W Ki} N ua" rs U its cis co n N t a sar ur N ry r .r c ua c� < c N Us r n K» N
*`
en
Q- U2 N ca co 0IW M o
aeut-
ca
"
D
srs�,ea*r r Wcssu)Nt WMta It 0aa00�t.-0r Kar�r�crzca cnU�+nt»<—c»C)NWNNr,-Nan KaQa)u>t
at�Neaca
�
aaN�—
C3
Q .r- '�' 'V' Ktt h- W Q W w- Oa U).'t <- 0) N — 10 W W N CIi to m fl) Q N r- 04 tl- W ^cr' Q U> U? N: W N W W
0%0 —.—t W NnmNr� KoraK»v S rx.—rr.— a rcoc ramKcrrar v Nr Kc ua a> N a,
J
Q Cs w
+v v Kc
tam
m Itui
eq
Q Cs N Q v- t4- tU tl' to— W o +[7 �' C) N r- e- N ea7 '4$` U7 o w r+ r•- W st t;9. cGs 0) s- : tr? C3 tl" W W W o r- t - W 0 0
Q—Oit'0 mW llt'+tm W W a) +' :rrbM _Cl i"}W *e#' NUi et 0)Os C', '?
Q W W W
Qt-4t-
W to W
mm
ro
t!;W2N..r^-KOtO"u7—mor-W 10NiA
Wt- (Naact9vasv in ta.-u) ttaWmmtomr-It mt- U') U) cnoo04 0
Q Irv_
Omm
r cSri
t�
W N 0O)i�r G7 tt7 Li Ci N^t-c-W W0t-"t MNNr�cti h-vi0 W 0 M N d' It ��gg N M 0 LO h N O hU'#tV Wa)
C9 tCs ^�` h- td 3 ti) h 7 G7 Ct W t? i Cs P^» d W tti W N r- 't8' is tCA "c4' •^` Ci: *et` U) N "d' M h N Cs 'V' N N to w d': t;
U9 Ka cy7 iCs
Kti � '4t
d3 W W
I"9. Ci C"s
o ce) m w 0 r- r KC} is �-. M: ai iKro N N a- .- tGs ri") hi e� t0 •--. t+i a-..'�` N N 'd' ce) N r+. W Ct N to
0 . OD
('4 N
m�
20
o �"
'4 N r- to tom- W g tKS W W 0) t - to `M "t W W 0) 0 N 0 0 t0 t-W a> Cis N t^'i R3' Ui KO h W 0) K7 e- N d' U> is C�
"" a7
t M 'et Ui U? U7 cis tD t- hb t^- to t1s h- t_ tom. r» r - ter W W W as W W aa. Oa K7a c7i 07 tri 09 ris K] Ka K:t C9 t c") Ka C'
r c4 aN3
C 0 0
N
0 0 0
r r nr rent r r t r K»Kr a)aaa)a)K»a)K7tmcsta>O)aaa)asaarna>K»isscricna>a>a>cKacacacadKara
AUU.,
ui

AlternativeCDOT and r
Future McDowell Service Area
80,000
Scenario 1
f
,0
20,000
1995 2000 2005 2010

97057,100
Fi- f..-WV Plslld
f. Chwvxe U..Wae,.A Like,
Tab[* a
Projected Land Use god Utility Demands by Scenario
For the McDowell Wastewater Service Area
Open Space and Cluster Plan
Variable Development Pattern
Conventional Devalopaword Coverage
Scenario Acres HH
Po
Em I W-1-1til
Wwate 2
Acres
HH
pa
Ern i
ate 1
Wwata 2Acres
Hri
po
Wat I
Wwat
General Residential 2,916 5,740
14,923
0
1:68
1A2
2.863
5,633
14,645
0
1.64
1.40
3,101
6,109
15'am
0
1,78
152
Open Space Residential 2,258 7,352
19,116
252
2.16
1,84
2,867
9,430
24,518
251
217
2,35
2,9%
9,713
25,254
219
2,86
2,42
Neighborhood Residential 2,183 %664
26,126
889
138
2.02
3,214
15,759
40,973
1,691
3.89
3,31
3,873
10,004
49,410
2,021
4-69
398
Neighborhood Center 1,336 6,881
17,89D
5,382
1.98
1-69
663
3,671
9,284
2,812
1.03
0,88
879
4,813
12,5`14
3,816
1,39
1,18
Town Center 333 1,679
4,365
2,461
0,63
0,60
333..1,932
5,023
2,864
019
076
340
1,975
5,135
2,944
096
093
Highway Commensal 5299 115
UN
Z&a
am
110
00
iaLs
3,600
7 7_83
QN
983
.49-0
1J9A
3.622
LM
i2i
i J1
Sub -Total Now Development 9,618 32,569
64,680
16,013
9,51
8,22
10,525
37,709
98,043
15,400
11,00
9,51
11,739
43,007
111,819
16,866
12,93
11,21
:::.Existing Development 7,352 9,728
29,476
16,406
2,93
2.49
7,352
9,728
29,476
16,406
193
2,49
7,352
9,728
29,476
16,406
193
2,49
Approved Development AASA 8.7-11
ZZMZ
14&5-9
Z-H
I -A
1_4A8-
8L-11
22 6_47
!AM
V-7
Z 3_6
1488
LZI-I
ZZPAZ
1 9-
Total Developed Land 20,458 51,OD8
136,803
46,478
15.2
13.1
21,365
56,147
150,166
45,865
16,7
14.4
22,679
61,446
163,942
47,331
18.6
16,0
Q%Klp_nd_U_n
Public land and preserves 4,755
3,847
2,636
Historic sites 383
383
383
229
2X12
=2
Total 27,009
27,901
21,910
OLhM&atqr C4t1oM&DiU3
Fire Une
0.00
000
0,00
000
0-00
0,00
Government
0,06
0,05
0.06
0.05
0.07
0,05
public Schools
0.30
0.25
0.33
0,28
0,37
031
Lawn Service
1.55
0,00
130
0;00
1,90
OOD
Organizations
Total at Build -out 27,904 51,008
136,803
46,478
QJ-9
17.3
ts
27,907
56.147
150,166
45,865
U1
19.0
27,910
61,446
163,942
41,331
W
21,2
)
..:Nate:
1, Estimated MOO based on the following rates of water consumption in gallons per day from CMUD customer rtcorda:
Single family residential
291.88 per unit
Multi family residential
119,38 per:unit
Commerciall office
61.57 per employee adjusted upwards by scenario
Industrial
3.13 per employee
Z Estimated MGD at 85% of total water use nrims fire line and lawn service,
3, other customers water use ptefected to increase in proportion to water use on developed land.

Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
McDowell Creek Basin Flow Study
Stakeholders Group Meeting
AGENDA
March 27,2000
6:00 p.m., North Mecklenburg Water Treatment Plant
Visit to McDowell Wastewater Treatment Plant at 5:00 p.m.
Dinner
Land Use
• Current Land Use Situation
• Status of Future Land Use Scenarios
Wastewater Management and Alternatives
Mecklenburg County Watershed Regulation Summary
Reclaimed Water Permitting Process
• Short Term Alternatives
Diversion of Wastewater from Basin
Reclaimed Water Alternatives
- Birkdale
- North Mecklenburg
- Parks and Recreations Property
- Other Properties
Wetlands Mitigation Required for Airport
Project Schedule
Other Items

well Stakeholders Group Meeting
Subject. McDowell Stakeholders Group Meeting
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 06:48 33 -060 3
From: "Reuss, Brent M." <ReussBM cr 6v. o >
CC: "Bean, Doug" <[e-mail]>, "BrownJim" <[e-mail]=us ,
"Co hell, nary" <co [e-mail]>, "Firth, Linda" <[e-mail]>,
"gullet, ba " <[e-mail]>,
"H mond Ann" <[e-mail]>, "Hawkins,, Jim" <[e-mail]>,
"Nelson, Richard" :Nelson @bv.com>, "Parker, David" <[e-mail]>,
"Pearson,Bob" <rpearson@ci charlotte.ne us>, "Quinlan, Elizabeth" beth"` < uinl [e-mail]>,
"Shearin, Barry" <bshearin@ei,charlotte.n.us>;
"Walsh,G ett" <[e-mail] ds>,
"Walters, David" [e-mail]. du>, "Zieburtz, William" <Zieb= zWB@bv. om>
This is a reminder that the next Stakeholders Group meeting for the McDowell
Creek Basin Study project will be held on Monday, March 27, 2000. As we
discussed at the last meeting, for these who would like, we will meet at the
McDowell. Creek. Wastewater Treatment Plant at 5:00pm for a tour of the plant.
We will then meet at the North Mecklenburg; Water Treatment Plant at 6:00pm
the Stakeholders Group meeting. Dinner will be served.
The McDowell Creek WWTP is located on Neck Road near McDowell. Creek: If you
plan to go can the plant tour, please arrive at least by 5:00 so we can have
adequate time to tour the facility and then travel to the North Mecklenburg
W'P and be ready to start the meeting at 6; t7SpmR
Please call -Ferri at our office at 548--8461 if you need directions to the
plant.
I have also attached the agenda for the Stakeholders Group meeting for your
information;
If you were sitting in on the first Stakeholders Group meeting for someone,
please relay this email to 'them.`
Please contact me at 510-8423 if you have any questions, <<Stakeholders Grp
3-27 mtg Agenda,doc>
Thank
Brent
Name: Stakeholders Grp -2 T mtg Agenr a.doc
Stakeholders Gr 3-27 mtg A enda. oc Type: Winword File (applieationlmsword)
Encoding: base64
Download Status. Not downloaded with message
I of 1 3/ 7/00 8:19 Al

McDowell reeBasin
Study
Charlotte- Mecklenburg Utilities
Existing yst - o u atio
• Population: 36,476
• Employment: 16,000
• Tributary Areas'unil2002)
--- Davidson
- Cornelius:
—' untrsville
2

Existing System- Facilities
15" diameter and larger- 16.9 miles,
224 manholes-
• 24 WWPSand multiple low pressure sewer
systems
• Total estimated collection system lenth-
10 miles
Flow ro ec ioSummary
POPUIBO Peak Peak Peak Peak--"
Peak
Year on ADF Mont Peak Day Hoor
ADF, Met
Day
Hear; .
and MO rid mod, �
� ��gd
2000 36418 02 8.55819 2.7
126.8' 1811 240,8
182,8
2010 72505 881 118,1 41.2
1214 148.9 21.0
567.7
2020 111500 13,28 15,93 28.22, 88.4
119.1 142.9 2261,
481,
20800 1639241,19,24 23,08 RE 74, 11133 148 223,0
481,
2

McDowell Basin Flows and
WWTP Capacity
2 �
20 i ...�....,., ...�....«. �..mw..�....m.o�...,.,..
Max Mon
15
10
t
i
existing capacityf 1
0
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Year

Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
McDowell Creek Basin
Wastewater Management Strategy
August 23, 2000
Goal
The primary goal of the McDowell Creep Basin Wastewater Management Strategy is to treat the
wastewater to a level that will protect and maintain the water quality in Mountain Island Lake,
which is the major water supply for the City of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, and neighboring
counties.
Strate ies tc� Act~om fish Coal
1. Reuse Later.
Implement programs and policies to encourage reuse of wastewater treatment plant
effluent to include the Eirkdale golf Course, North Mecklenburg Water 'Treatment Plant
site, Mecklenburg Park and Recreation Department, and other suitable land.
2. Industrial and Commercial Users,
Continue to implement pretreatment program that will protect the wastewater treatment
plant and water in McDowell Creek and Mountain Island Lake.
3. Water Conservation,
- Continue to develop and implement water conservation programs to reduce potable water
use and flow to wastewater treatment plants.
. Advanced "Water Treatment.
- Evaluate and consider different levels of treatment and their costs.
Implement technology to protect water quality.
In future; evaluate to determine if additional or different technologies exist that will b
beneficial in protecting water duality.
. Monitoring.
Continue monitoring of Mountain Island Lake for the parameters included in the SD A,
including Giardia, eryptosporidium, and viruses.
- Develop a self -monitoring program to confirm compliance with the watershed regulation.
- Develop a water quality -monitoring program possibly in conjunction with. MCDEP for
water quality in McDowell Creek and Mountain Island Lake. This maybe already in
place and just amatter of reporting or providing data to all interested entities.
t

Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
McDowell Creek Basin
Land Use Evaluation
tion
August 23, 2000
The McDowell Creek. Basin Study evaluated the existing land use plans of the Town of
Cornelius, Town of" Huntersv lle, and Mecklenburg County. The project team worked very
closely with staff from each of the Manning staffs. The results of the evaluationincluded the
followings
L A current land use situation was developed from existing records, including those
developments which have been permitted but not constructed.
. All evaluations assumed no changes in the existing land use plans.
. In addition to the land use plans, data from the Charlotte -Mecklenburg Tax Assessors Office,
Charlotte Department of Transportation traffic analysis zone, and building permit records
were obtained and included in the evaluation
. "Three potential build -out scenarios were developed using the existing data and the existing
land use plans. The three scenarios are described as follows:
Scenario 1. {open Space and Cluster Plan —A network of mixed -use density urban villages
1/2 mile in radius looted in areas best served by infrastructure and separated b
green belts.-
Scenario 2. Variable Development Patterns -Combination of Scenario 1 and conventional
suburban development patterns.
Scenario 3. Conventional Land Coverage --Extensive land coverage of better -designed
and connecter) individual subdivisions with open space set aside but no major open space
network other than the basic creek buffers.
. each of the Scenarios meet and are consistent with the existing watershed protection
regulations, including the amount of impervious area requirements and all SWIM buffer
requirements.
t

Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
McDowell Creek'Basin`
Lund Use Evaluation
August 23, 2000
The results of the land use evaluation resulted in population projections for each scenario as
indicated below:
Population
Scenario Currrent* Year 2025 Build -cut
29,500 62,500 136,800
2 29,500 89,200 150,200
29,500 10,500 164,000
* The current population equivalent, including the areas outside of the basin where the
wastewater is pumped into the basin is 36,476.
The projected wastewater flow which will be generated in the basin will be determined using
these population projections.
2

Charlotte- Mecklenburg Utilities
McDowell Creek Basin
Wastewater Management Alternatives
August 23, 2000
The McDowell Creek Basin Study evaluated wastewx
wastewater generated in the McDowell Creek Basin. ,'
interim, and long-term alternatives as described below
the wastewater in the basin by expanding the existing'
recommended alternative also includes providing a ret
Golf Course, North Mecklenburg WTP, and the City_
wastewater treatment plant site. Identifying additiona
the reuse water system is also recommended. Waters[
used to examine the potential impacts of development
to treat th
late
ping
>r
,reek
Cave considering both point and nonpoint sources of pollutants, As the basin develops, nonpoint
source loadings will increase, loadings from the plant will not increase and, therefore,
concentrations will decrease.The combination of these changes has no significant effect on
lakes water quality. These recommendations are consistent with the existing watershed
regulations and support the McDowell Creek Wastewater Management Strategy in the following
ways.
1. Implements the reuse waster system which will reduce the amount of water and pollutants
discharged to McDowell Creek. The reuse system will include a pumping station and
pipeline from the plant to the Birkdale golf Course and will include elevated storage.
2. The plant expansion will include membrane and other advanced water technologies to protect
water quality in McDowell Creek and Mountain Island Lake and meets the watershed
regulation. The plant expansion will include biological nitrogen and phosphorus removal,
filtration, ultraviolet disinfection, and membrane filtration.
3. The advanced water treatment technologies implemented in the plant expansion are the same
as those used in potable water treatment.
. CMU will continue monitoring Mountain Island Lake for parameters, including la iar ia,;
crytospori itun, and viruses.
The projected wastewater flow is shown in the following table.
Projected Projected plow, T d
Year Po elation A
Zg Day Max Month
2000 36,476 .6 5.55
2010 72,505 8.81 1058
2020 111,500 13.28 15.93
2050 163,924 19.24 2108

BLACK & V ATCH INTERNATIONAL COMPANY
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities B V Project 97057,10
McDowell Creek basin Flow'Study B V Fite
Stakeholders Group Meeting July 25, 2000
Meeting held on Monday, June 26, 2000, at 6:00 p.m. at the North Mecklenburg Water
Treatment Plant:
Recorded by: Linda Firth
Brent Reuss opened the meeting by asking the group what it saw as the deliverable which
summarized the stakeholder participation portion of the project. Brent suggested a document
that includes the wastewater management strategy, the land use evaluation, method of projecting
wastewater flows, the wastewater alternatives the groin had examined, and a recommendation
on which to move forward. The documents would be presented to town bards, and ultimately to
City Council.
The ;group stated that its concerns have all: been answered to date, and reiterated that it came
away from the last meeting with the clear impression that it was appropriate to proceed`on the
basis of handling the basin's wastewater problems within the basin.
Brent reiterated that the land use document will describe the process by which wastewater flows
were projected. That process included data provided by existing land use glans, the
Department of Transportation, building permits, and the tax assessor's office. It includes three
land use scenarios developed from the existing land use plans ranging from use of more green
space to conventional development, All scenarios are consistent and meet the existing watershed
regulations.
The question of the need to choose a scenario was raised again. Brent responded that choice
would not be necessary. He said we have been particularly interested in the difference in
wastewater flows) between build out potential of the three scenarios. In fact, the difference
between the least populated and the most will not result in significant differences or gnat
impacts to the plant in terms of wastewater flows.
Brent stated that should the land use plans change, or the population grog at a greater rate than
projections now indicate, the technology exists to still treat wastewater to the extent desired b
the group, i.e., handling the basin's wastewater within the basin.
CM .J does not wish to be the limiting factor in the way the basin develops. They wish to
develop a model sufficient to provide planners with wastewater/water quality ramifications o
planning greater growth densities:

BLACK & VEATCH INTERNATIONAL COMPANY
CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM Page 2
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities B V Project 97057.100
McDowell Creep Basin Flow Study B&V File
Stakeholders Group Meeting July 25, 2000
The document will be presented to Huntersville Cornelius, and Charlotte City Council and will
contain the statement that the Stakeholders' Group determined that this basin's wastewater
should be handled within this basin;
The comment was made that the stakeholder group has a great concern for water quality and that
a statement stressing the needed to protect water duality should be included in the document
as well.
WASTEWATER, MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
Dave Parker then discussed bath long and short term alternatives in some detail.
The question was asked about the level of treatment given to water to be reused as irrigation.'
Effluent used for irrigation is treated to a higher level, given supplemental disinfection.
In regard to long term alternatives, the emphasis on treating wastewater within the basin and all
t the plant was reiterated.
Addition discussion included the following comments and questions:
Do we have enough land at the punt site without negotiation with untersville? It will be
handled as a variance, through zoning.
Will this point be included in the report Yes
We can take increasing flaws and treat it so as to not increase pollutant loud can the lake?
Jim Hawkins noted that concurrently with the Stakeholders' Group's arrival at the conclusion
that it was most appropriate to handle the basin's wastewater within the basin and treat it at the
plant; the engineering team arrived at the same conclusion based on the coasts of pumping and
infrastructure to export wastewater to other basins.
There was some discussion of the wastewater spill that occurred today. The question, ``II' at is
the potential of this happening again?" was asked. Because the spill occurred as the result of a
series of events following a power surge, the group concluded that this presented yet another
argument against pumping wastewater out of the basin.
The alternatives which did not meet the Stakeholders' Croup's criteria were scratched from the
list of viable alternatives.

ACK & VEATCH INTERNATIONAL COMPANY
INFERENCE MEMORANDUM Page
.irlotte- Mecklenburg Utilities B&V Project 97057,1(
�Dowell Creek Basin Flow Study B&V File
keholders Group Meeting July 25, 20(
at happens to the solids? They are stabilized on site (both from the water and wastewater
nts); CMU contracts to have these disposed of. The 10-year contract specifies that solids wil
used for land application, composting, and landfill. There is a residuals management facility
v1F) at the McAlpine Creek WWTP, which is operated by the contractor.
At the next meeting, July 24, at 6:00 pm. at McDowell Creek WWTP, the group will review the
consolidated document. It was suggested that
the document contain drawings and that the
drawings contain easily identifiable locators such as main streets.
A hard copy of the meeting handouts will be mailed to those not in attendance.
McD2/jhb
Distribution: Attendees
cc (w/hando!jts)
Nancy Brunnerner
Marilyn Ainslie
Charlotte Epley
Alex Barnette
Linda Firth
Pam Beck
Bill Gartland
Samar Bou-Ghazale
Pete Goins
Tricia, Byrd
Barry Gullet
Edna Chirico
David Kroenig
Michael Cole
Jerome Lucky
Joe Cooke
Terry Orell
Kenneth Cooke
Dave Parker
Byron Davis
Bob Pearson
Steve Fairley
Brent Reuss
Art Fields
Thurman Ross
Ann Harrison
Steve Spenser
Ray Holt
Ellen Huffman
Linda Kidd
Donna Lisenby
Jeff Lowrance
Mike McLaurin
Don Morris
Larry Olmstead
Christine Poinsette
Rusty Rozzelle
Gordon Smith
Jerry Smith

Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
McDowell Creek Basin Flow Study
Stakeholders Group Meeting
AGENDA
,dune 26, 2000
6:00 .m. North Mecklenburg Water' Treatment Plant
Wastewater Management Strategy
Land Use Evaluation Summary
Wastewater Management and Alternatives
• Short Term
- Reclaimed Water Alternatives
• °Birkdale
• North Mecklenburg WTP
• Parks and Recreation's Property
• tither Properties
Plant Modifications
• long Terra
AdvancedWater Treatment Plant
Pump Raw Wastewater to Lang Creek Pumping Station
New Regional WWTP Outside of McDowell Creek Basin
Pump Raw Wastewater Out of McDowell Creek Basin to
Mallard Creek WRF or Rocky River Regional WWTP
- Pump Treated Effluent Out of McDowell Creek Basin
Other Items
Next Meeting
Project Schedule

DRAFT
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
McDowell Creek Basin
Wastewater Management Strategy
June 26, 200
Goal
The primary goal of the McDowell Creek Basin Wastewater Management Strategy is to
treat the wastewater to a level that will protect and maintain the water quality in
Mountain Island Lake, which is the major water supply for the City of Charlotte,
Mecklenburg County, and neighboring counties.
`strategies to Accomplish Goal
1. Reuse utter
Implement programs and policies to encourage reuse of wastewater treatment plant
effluent to include the Birkdale Golf Course, North Mecklenburg Water Treatment
Plant site, Mecklenburg Parks &. recreation Department, and other suitable land.
Industrial and Commercial Users
Continue to implement pretreatment program that will protect the wastewater
treatmentplant and water in McDowell Creek and Mountain Island Lake:
. Water Conservation
- Continue to develop and implement water conservation programs to reduce potable
water use and flaw to wastewater treatment plants.
. Advanced Water Treatment
- Evaluate and consider different levels of treatment and their costs.
- Implement technology to protect water quality.
In future evaluate to determine if additional or different technologies exist that will be
beneficial in protecting water quality.
5a Monitoring
Continue: monitoring of Mountain Island Lake for the .parameters included in the
SDWA including giardia, cryptosporidium, and viruses.
Develop a self -monitoring program to confirm compliance with the watershed
regulation.
Develop a water quality -monitoring program possibly in conjunction with. MCDEP
for water quality in McDowell Creek and Mountain Island .Lake. This maybe already
in place and just a matter of reporting or providing data to all interested entities.

Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities DRAFT
McDowell Creek Basin
Land Use Evaluation
,June 26, 2000
The McDowell Creek Basin Study evaluated the existing land use Mans of the Town of
Cornelius, Town of l luntersville, and Mecklenburg County. The project team worked very
closely with staff from each of the planning staffs. The results of the evaluation included the
following:
L A current land use situation was developed from existing records including those
developments which have been permitted but not constructed.
. All evaluations assumed no charges in the existing land use plans.
3. In addition to the land use plans, data from. the Charlotte -Mecklenburg Tax Assessors Office
Charlotte Department of Transportatio traffic analysis zone, and building permit records
was obtained and included in the evaluation:
4. Three potential build -out scenarios were developed using the existing data and the existing
land use plans. The three scenarios are described as:
Scenario 1. Open Space and Cluster Plan -A network of mixed -use density urban villages
'/ mile in radius located in areas best served by infrastructure and separated by
green belts.
Scenario 2. Variable Development Patterns —Combination of Scenario 1 and conventional
suburban development patterns.
Scenario 3. Conventional Land Coverage —Extensive land coverage of better -designed
and connected individual subdivisions with open space set aside but no major open space'
network other than the basic creekbuffers.
5. Each of the Scenarios meet and are consistent with the existing wastershed protection
regulations including the amount of impervious area requirements and all SWIM buffer
requirements.
1

Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
McDowell Creek Basin
Land Use Evaluation
,tune 26, 2000
results of the land use evaluation resulted in population projections for each scenario as
cared below.'
Population
Scenario Currrent Year 2025 Build -cut
1 29,500 62,500 136,80
2 29,500 89,200 150,200
3 29,500 110,500 164,000
projected wastewater flow which will be generated in the basin will be determined using
population projections.
2

WASTEWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
McDOWELL CREEK BASIN
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Annual O&M has not been considered at this point, all costs are capital costs only. The
screening criteria is based on a scale of 1-5, with a rating of one being the most favorable,
SHORT TERMI INTERIM ALTERNATIVES
Maximize Treatment Capacity of Existing McDowell Creek Plant
1. Permit Modification to Allow Maximum Month Treatment Capacity
Concept: Increase weekly and monthly flow limits in the NPDES Permit to allow
flow up to 7.6 mgd, the maximum month design flow of the plant, Organic,
nutrient and inorganic permit parameters will not exceed permitted pollutant loads
for compliance with zoning ordinance.
Capital Cost: Nominal permit renewal cost
Screening Criteria:
Cost = 1
Permitting = 3
Environmental Impact = I
Land Acquisition/Easements
Construction Impact = 1
Schedule = 1
Considerations:
• NC DWQ was consulted in May 2000 and was not favorable to this type
of permit modification.
• If allowed, may require an Environmental Assessment.
2. Temporary Reduction in Flow to McDowell Creek WWTP
Concept: Consider temporarily diverting flow from McDowell Basin to Rocky
River Basin until additional capacity at McDowell Creek plant can be constructed.
Capital Cost: TBA
Screenin Criteria:
Z_
Cost = 2
Permitting = 3
Environmental Impact = I
Land Acquisition/Easements = 2
Construction impact = 2
06/26/00 1 MU — McDOWELL BASIN STUDY
BLACK & VEATCH WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING

Schedule = 2
Considerations:
• Only a temporary, short term alternative.
• Temporary pumping to divert subdivisions to Rocky River Regional
WWTP:
a. Greenfarm and Hampton .
b. Area bounded by Stumptown Rd, 1-77, Gilead Rd and Rt 115.
c. Peninsula developments near Lake Norman (already pumped into
McDowell Basin).
3. Expand Existing Plant to 7.8 mgd
Concept: Expand the plant to 7.8 mgd, the most practical maximum capacity of
the existing plant. May be in combination with Option 5 in order to reduce or
maintain pollutant load.
Capital Cost: $11.65 million
Screening Criteria:
Cost;= 3
Permitting = 2
Environmental Impact
Land Acquisition/Easements
Construction Impact = 3
Schedule = 2
Considerations:
• Expansion to 7.8 mgd average day and 9.0 mgd maximum month.
• Construct 4 1h primary clarifier, increase in aeration capacity, 3d final
clarifier, 6 to effluent filter cell, flow equalization, and various pumping
and piping modifications.
4. Expand Existing Plant to 9.0 mgd
Concept: Construct a 3.0 treatment train parallel to the existing plant. Do not
modify or expand existing process units.
Capital Cost: $21 million
Screening Criteria:
Cost = 2
Permitting = 2
Environmental Impact = 1
Land Acquisition/Easements = I
Construction Impact = 2
Schedule = 2
06/26/00 2 CMU - WDOWELL BASIN STUDY
BLACK & VEATCH 1AJAST=AA1A'rt=0 RAAXIAGCAA Xt -1-
Llw I r-L.-NNIN

Considerations:
• May be easier to construct than Caption 3,
• Expansion to 9.0 mgd average day and 10.4 mgd maximum month.
5. Addition of Advanced Tertiary Treatment (ATT) to Maintain or Reduce
Pollutant Load
Concept: Provide advanced tertiary treatment in the form of 0.1 micron
membrane filtration for an increase in discharge of 1 to 3 mgd. This option could
be part of Options 3, 4, or 6. This additional treatment step would contribute to
allow an increase in the existing plant capacity and maintain or reduce the
pollutant load to McDowell Creek.
Capital Cost: $5.67 million [1.5 mgd system expandable to 3 mgd]
Screening Criteria:
Cast=
Permitting = 1
Environmental Impact = 1
Land Acquisition/Easements - 1
Construction Impact
Schedule
Considerations.
• Proven technology, used to achieve very high quality effluent:
• Will also decrease turbidity of reuse water (Option 6).'
• Can be part of a long term option.
Water Reclamation
6. Reuse at Birkdale Golf Course and North Mecklenburg WTP
Cc�nce�t: Construction or a 3.0 mgd pumping static
to Birkdale Golf Course and North Mecklenburg
Reclaimed eater to be used for irrigation.
Capital Cost: $5.05 million
Screenin Criteria.
Cast =
Permitting
Environmental Impact =1
Land Acquisition/Easements
Construction Impact
Schedule
CMo - WDOWELL BASIN

Considerations:
• Consistent;with NC DWQ goals to implement water reuse statewide,
• Environmental Assessment and non -discharge permit are required.
• Can be designed and constructed in 12 to 24 months,
• Additional customers may be identified to further expand system.
• Concept supported by the Mecklenburg Department of Environmental
Protection,
Spray Irrigate
Concept: Use plant effluent for irrigation of crop or forested land. Purchase or
lease land in the vicinity of the McDowell Creek WWTP and construct a spray
irrigation system.
Cavital Cost: $0.68 million [1 mgd capacity]
Screenina Criteria:
Cost = 2
Permitting = 1
Environmental Impact = I
Land Acquisition/Easements = 2
Construction Impact = I
Schedule = 1
Considerations:
* Consistent with County plan to set aside open space. Funds are available
for purchasing open space,
• Consistent with watershed protection goals.
• 200+ acres of County owned property surrounds McDowell Creek plant
site.
0 Other property acquisition being considered by CMU.
•' Site and soil testing confirm feasibility.
• Rate of application will may allow an application rate = 0.8 mgd per 100
acres.
LONG TERM ALTERNATIVES
On -site Tertiary or Advanced Tertiary Treatment
7. New [on -site] Parallel Advanced Tertiary Treatment (ATT) Train
Concept: Construct a 12 mgd treatment train parallel to the existing plant.
Modify existing plant process units to increase level of treatment. Total plant
capacity of 18 mgd will approach build -out capacity.
Capital Cost: $6.00 to 7.00/gallon [new parallel train]
$2.00 to $3.00/gallon [upgrade existing train]
06/26/00 4 CMU — McDOWELL BASIN STUDY
BLACK & VEATCH WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING

Screenina Criteria:
Cast
Permitting
Environmental Impact = 1
Land Acquisition/Easements 1
Construction Impact
Schedule
Considerations:'
• Discharge to McDowell Creek Basin.
• Advanced treatment required to comply with Watershed Ordinance,
• Advanced biological nutrient removal and coarse media filtration and/or
membrane filtration:
• Existing plant will need modifications to provide same higher level of
treatment:
S> Pump Treated Effluent to Mallard Creek Basin (Yadkin River Basin)
Concept: Expand the McDowell Creek plant having treatment capability that will
allow discharge in the Mallard 'Creek Basin. The level of treatment may be less
than McDowell Basin and therefore have lower coast.
Capital Cost: $8.40 /gallon [new parallel train]
Screening Criteria:
Cast = 4
Permitting
Environmental Impact = 4'
Land Acquisition/Easements - 4
Construction Impact
Schedule = 4
Considerations.
• Pumping station and force main construction cost may offset savings in
treatment cost.
• New NPDES permit is required.
• Point of discharge? (Stoney Creek)
• -An alternative considered in the 201 Facility Plan prepared in 1977.
• Requires NC DWQ approval of interbasin transfer (Catawba River Basin
to the Yadkin River Basin).
9. Pump Treated EMuent to Long Creek Basin
Concept: Expand the McDowell Creek plant having treatment capability that
will allow discharge within the Long Creek Basin. The level of treatment will be
the same as McDowell Creek Basin (the same Watershed Ordinance applies to
06/26/00 5 CMU — McDOWELL BASIN STUDY
BLACK VEAT H WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING

Long Creep Basin). There may be some benefits to improving water quality to
the McDowell Creek Cove that make this alternative feasible,
Capital Cast: $o. /gallon [new parallel train]
Screenina Criteria:
Cost
Permitting
Environmental Impact
Land Acquisition/Easements
Construction impact
Schedule
Considerations:
• New NPDES permit is required.
* Discharge point will be between into Long Creek or the Catawba River
between Mt Island Lake and fake Wylie. discharge point is closer to the
Catawba, Pumping Station (water supply intake) than McDowell Creek
plant point of discharge. Water quality based NPDES Permit Limits may
be more restrictive than McDowell Greek plant.
FERC permit may be required.
Off -site Regional Treatment
10. Regional Treatment at Irwin Creek WWTP or :McAlpine Creek'WWMF
Concep : Pump untreated wastewater from the McDowell Creek Basin to Long
Creek Pumping Station. Treatment will be provided at the Irwin Creek WWTP or
bypassed and treated at the McAlpine Creek WW F.
Capital Cost. $8.4 /gallon
Screening Criteria.
Cost
Permitting
Environmental Impact
Land Acquisition/Easements
Construction Impact =
Schedule
Considerations:
• Pumping station and force main construction cost may offset savings in
treatment cast.
• Will require expansion of the Long Creek and Paw Creek Pumping
Stations and Irwin Creek
• NPDES permit modification for Irwin Creek WWTP is required.
06/26/00 E CMU — McDQWELL BASIN STUDY
BLACK & VEATCH WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING

4;
Diversion of water will bypass two Duke Energy power plants. A FERC
permit or FERC approval will most likely be required.
IL New Regional ATT Plant
Concept: Pump untreated wastewater from the McDowell Creek Basin to a new
regional advanced tertiary treatment plant. The level of treatment may be less
than required in the McDowell Basin and therefore have lower cost.
Capital ital Cast. $6 /gallon
Screening -Criteria:
Cast
Permitting = 3 "
Environmental Impact
Land Acquisition/Easements = 4
Construction Impact
Schedule
Considerations,
• Watershed Ordinance
• Site to be determined.
•An Environmental Impact Statement will likely be required.
• A new NPDES permit is required.
•An alternative considered in the 201 Facility Plan prepared in 1977,
• McDowell Creek pumping station and interbasin pipeline construction.
12. Regional Treatment at Mallard Creek Water Reclamation Facility
Concept: Pump untreated wastewater from the McDowell Creek Basin to the
Mallard Creek Water Recl m t nn Fnrilitv Tharp rnnv ha enrn rnct catrincrc in
treatment due to less restrictive permit in the Ma
Capital Cost. -10 /gallon
Screening Criteria..
Cost
Permitting
Environmental Impact
Land Acquisition/Easements = 3
Construction Impact
Schedule
Considerations:
• Pumping station and pipeline constructio
treatment cost.
06/ 6/00 ` 7
BLACK & VEATCN
lard Basin.
a cost may offset savings i
GMU - McDOWELL BASIN STUDY
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING

• NPDES permit modification for Mallard Creek WWTP is required.
• Subtracts water from two Duke Energy power plants. A FERC permit or
FERC approval will most likely be required,
• Requires NC DWQ approval of interbasin transfer (Catawba River Basin
to the Yadkin River Basin).
13. Regional Treatment at Rocky River Regional WWTP
Concept: Pump untreated wastewater from ithe McDowell Creek Basin to the
Rocky River Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (RRRWWTP) in Cabarrus
County. There may be some cost savings in treatment due to less restrictive
permit in the Rocky River Basin.
Canital Cost: $9-10/gallon
Screening Criteria:
Cost = 5
Permitting = 5
Environmental Impact = 2
Land Acquisition/Easements = 3
Construction Impact = 3
Schedule = 3
Considerations:
• An inter -jurisdictional agreement exists between the WSACC (owner of
the RRRWWTP) and CMU for treatment of wastewater from the northeast
portion of the Rocky River Basin in Mecklenburg County.
• Pumping station and pipeline construction cost may offset savings in
treatment cost.
• Expansion of the RRRWNVTP will be required.
• NPICES permit modification for Rocky river Regional WWT? is required,
• Subtracts water from two Duke Energy power plants. A FERC permit or
FERC approval will most likely be required.
• Requires NC DWQ approval of interbasin transfer (Catawba River Basin
to the Yadkin River Basin).
06/26/00 8 CMU — McDOWELL BASIN STUDY
BLACK & VEATCH WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING

tt t. * t. to • st t t a• t .t.
• a.t •: •e
e- t` to -_ t ,a • s: ♦ t • ,.tt- .t t ♦ r •
rt4t .tw
- s t- s s . t«
t .• r
• •• e • t,
st t t - tt
s r
w
f Rs
t t s• t. ttLLt
• t et e
s t m ..i t_ :1 t.
t t. .t •t
•, • 't
n t ►tt .t
tt t. •t • '• st ♦
t t. c. • •
t tt t- tt.s• . .* at t. a - t x tt ' tt •* e
• • - st .ts .tt tt � . t t. . . _.
• -t et
tr t,..t•• a t. .
♦ e•-t't stt
.t• • .• t, .t a
•s •.c •t
is • • •® • t to♦
o •- is ►t '+ t�
t. s • •-, -t •.•
t �. ,.tt
t ` tt ` • t e
rr rc • . e e
"• 'tM`BA. 6 t.'il.
'.t. tt.t.,. i t` `: •.# t
I "!
t s st• • "a -• •
•® • ®tt •w
.• •t •t'r• r: t .' # # et

Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
McDowell Creek Basin Flow Study
Stakeholders Group Meeting
AGENDA
August 2, 2000
:00 p.m., North Mecklenburg WaterTreatment Plant
Wastewater Flow Projections
Water Quality Model
Wastewater Management Strategy
,and Use Evaluation
Wastewater Management and Alternatives
Other Items

Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
McDowell Creek Basin Flow Study
Stakeholders Group Meeting
February 28, 2000
6:00 p.m. at North Mecklenburg Water Treatment Plant
AGENDA
1. Introduction
Sign In
Introductions
What is Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities?
IT. Dinner
111. Discuss Project Scope 0
Why is project needed?
What is included in project?
IV. Stakeholder Group
Role of Stakeholder Group
Role of Steering Group
Stakeholder Group Charter
V. Project Schedule
VT. Questions & Answers
NITT 4Z,-borl"L, fnr Next AX tira

CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG UTILITIES
Mc t WLPL. CREEK SItN FLOW STUDY PROJECT
February 2I., 2000
WHY IS PROJECT NEEDED':'
Flow at McDowell Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant is increasing at a last rate.
Plant rated capacity is Ci mgd current annual average flow is 4.2 mgd; current
maximum month flow is 4.5 mud.
WHATIS INCLUDED IN THIS PROJECT?
• Evaluate current and future: land -use plans.
• Develop sewer hydraulic model.
• Project wastewater flow based on land use plans.
m Evaluate wastewater management alternatives for treating the projected flow.
• Model the water duality in Mountain Island Lake, particularly in McDowell Creek
Cove.
• Implement, a public information program which includes developing a stakeholder
group to advise the steering committee.
SCHEDULE.
• Project is underway,
• Stakeholder group to meet approximately monthly for next C months,
• Draft report submitted by ALIg st 1, 20{)t1.
• Final report submitted by October 16, 20Cl(I,

McDowell Creek basin Study
Nor s.
4.
Why Igo We Deed This Project?
February 28, 2000
Traditional Utility Planning
• No unusual environmental issues
• Treatment needs based can historical trends
• Build for 10-year growth projection
• Little public involvement
$F� t
McDowell Creek Basin Study
17

Reason #
Watershed and ether environmental issues are complex.
µFA
McDowell Creek in study
Reason
Historic trends are not a good indicator of future needs.
McDowell Creek Basin study

Dowell Creek WW`IP
Annual Average Flows
6
Last Expansion
a
tame - ro,-ect U--
4 '
Year 2000 flow = 2,75
and
3
1
Actual flow = 3+ mid
0
— --
1990 1991 1992
1993 19 4 1995 1996 19971998 1999
Calendar Year �
u
McDowell Creek Basin Study
999
at
c
McDowell Creek Basin Sturdy
w
5

McDowell creek Basin Study
What Is Included In This Project?
February 28, 2000
What Is .Included In This Pr 01
*ect?
• evaluate current and future land -use plans
• Develop sewer hydraulic model
• Project wastewater flaw based an land -use
plans
• :evaluate wastewater management
ement
alternatives for projected flaw
z
McDowell Creek 8asln .Sturdy

What Is Included In This Prject?
• Nadel water quality in Mountain Island
Lake, particularly in McDowell Cove
e
• Implement public information program,
including stakeholder group to advise
steering group
McDowell Creek Basin .study
w
Project Schedule
• Project is underway
• Stakeholder group to'meet monthly for next
i months
• Draft report submitted by August 1 2000
• Final report submitted by October 16, 2000
McDowell Creek Basin .study ti
z a
2

Charter
Stakeholders' Group
McDowell Greek Basin Flury Study
Thank you for agreeing to serve on the Stakeholders" Group for this project. Your involvement is
key to identifying community issues in the McDowell Creek Basin.
The charter lists a few; guidelines which will enable us to work effectively. It defines roles, clarifies
the decision making process, and provides groundrules for effective group process.
Roles
The Steering Group was put together by CU to assist in carrying out the study. It consists of
CMU staff, consultants working on the study, and representatives from Cornelius and
Huntersville. The Steering Group will combine the input of the Stakeholders' Croup with the
technical data produced by the study to form recommendations. The recommendations will then
be presented to the Charlotte; City Council.
The Stakeholders' Group Includes a wide range of individuals with diverse community visions.
The Stakeholders' Group will provide the Steering group with feedback on the study as it
progresses. The feedback or reaction to the information presented will reflect the various visions
of the group. The Steering Group will incorporate this feedback into its recommendations„
balancing community visions, technical feasibility and economic reality.
Decision Making Process
Based on input from the Stakeholders' Group combined with technical and economic feasibiilities,
the Steering Group will make decisions about which recommendations should be included in the
decide whether or riot to accept the study.
Groundrules
Meetings will follow the forum model; The forum is effective way to:
Air the issues surrounding a topic
Shed more light on complex issues
Express different points of view
Capture and record issues and paints of view
Reach substantial agreement on a course of action
Forums do not, however, vote or make decisions.
In carrying out our work, each group member will please:
• Make sure that every other group member has a chance to express his or her opinions - at
least once during each discussion period
• Discourage every other group member from expressing the same opinion more than once
during each discussion period

To ensure the group process works efficiently and effectively, all meetings will have berth a
facilitator and a recorder present.
Again, thank you for participating. This is a critical project for the Charlotte
Mecklenberg community — one that will affect quality of life for our families
in years to come. We book forward to an exciting and mutually rewarding
endeavor.

� �,,} sum �..
„'q....
�„^.?kk��Y`'�
< £t at a �3�
' ,. ss�'z,�, e `. �.. �` .., ',?tr.. # ^, '�+ fi u Z ! `� n. �. ! ~•xt,. `;. k. :�iro1€ i,'; a i`f,Y, zx ¢ 't`.: `� uZ: `tut; \ Y* u e `t�..x '�': e �"# ^,.^at,. t'r
`xr.,. Y-s
xY��,,,
900 101FEB00 Kick Ctff meeting
s
1020 02FEBOO A 31MAROO Prepare Project Handouts
1 02FEB00 A 14MAROO Recruit Stakeholder Group
1060 15FEBOO A 15MAROO Craft Public Involvement Plan
1080 15FE800 A 02GCTOO MWASENUMM Conduct Stakeholder Group Meeting
1100 01 MAY06 020CTOO Conduct Public Meetings
1120 02FEBOO A 29FEBOO MOWN on Data Acquisition
1160 02FEBOO A 02MAROO Assess Current Land Use
1180 21 FEBOO A 24MAROO Assess Future Land Use
1240 28FEBOO 05MAYOO MENNONNON Prepare Factors for Flow Projections
1260 01 FEBOO A 04APROO ENNENNUM Obtain/Review Background data
1800 01MAR00 01JUOO develop Flow Projections
1 01MAY00 01AUG00MUNNEEMMEEMMEINNNIN Analyze Sewer Capacity
1320 03JULO0 01 SEP00 Recommend Sewer Improvements
140 01 FEBOO A 29BE MMEM Monitor & Project Flow
1 01 FEBOO A 31 MAR00 11111111111110 Identify/Evaluate Short Term Alternatives
180 01 FEBOO A 14JUL00 Identify/Evaluate Long Term Alternatives
1400 03JUNOO 01 EP00 NOMENNEMENEW Recommend Wastewater Management Alternatives
1460 01FEBOOA 29FEBOO SON= ME Obtain Data
1480 01 FEBOO A 31 MAROO NOWN NOMMENNOW develop Watershed/Lake Model
1500 21APROO 03JULOO VINNONNOmmmmmommmm Calibrate & Run Watershed Model
1520 01JUN00 101AUG00 NNNM Calibrate & Run Lake Model
1420 03JULOO MUG00 develop Craft Report
1440
01AUG00 116OCTOO WMENNEMENNOMMMONOW Finalize Report
Start date01 FEBOU EM Early bar
FEnih date _0(7TUCi�_._._w____.._.___ �t;�f : Veatch Progress bar
Cata elate 2 FEB 0-0Black
bar
Run gate 28FE800 McDowell ell Creek Basin Flow Study Summary bar
Pa a number 1A PROJECT SCHEDULE start milestone point
a Primavera stems_ Inc.
— i Finish milestone point t

Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
McDowell Creek Basin :Flow Study
!t Steering Group Address List
The address, email address, telephone number, and fax number of all steering group
members are listed below,
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
5100 Brookshire Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 2821
[phone] FAX
(704) 399-221 Main Telephone Number
Doug Bean dbean [e-mail]€atte.nc.us
(70) 391-07
Barry Gullet b ullet ci.charlotte.nc.us
(704) 391-.JOYS
3arry Shearin
bshearin c:i.charlotte.nc.us
[phone]
Sob Pearson
earson ei.charlotte nc.us
[phone]
Lawn of Iiutersville
". 0. Box 664'
Guntersville, NC 28070
704) 875- 546 FAX
704) 875-7000 Planning Department
\nn Hammond
ahammond( huntersville,,2E
[phone], ext. 108
Fawn of Cornelius
'. C. Box 399
,orneltus, NC 28031
704) 892-6031 Main Telephone Number
704) 892-2462 FAX
m Brown [e-mail]
1 2/09/0

Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
McDowell Creek Basin Flaw Study
Steering Group Address List
Mack & Veatch
8604 Miff Cameron Drive
Suite 164
Charlotte, NC 2826
(704) -8640 FAX
[phone] Main Telephone Number
Brent Reuss
reussbLn c yxom
[phone]
Dave Parker
RESrdrn�
(704) 510-838
Black &'Veatch
8400 Ward Parkway
Kansas City, Mtn 64114
(13) 458-3730 FAX
[phone] Main TelephoneNumber
Beth Quinlan
uin�bv»cum
(1) 458-360
Rick Nelson
nelson!S bv,com
[phone]
Black & Veatch
1145 Sanctuary Parkway
Suite 475
Alpharetta, GA 30004
(770)751-832 FAX
(770) 71-7517 Main Telephone Number
Bill Zieburtz
zieburt �vti r`bv,com
(770) 51-8148
2/09/00

Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
McDowell Creek Basin Flow Study
Steering Group Address List
Black & Veatch
36 Robert Quigley Drive
Scottsville, NY 14546
(716) 89-5139 FAX
Linda Firth
firthl'@bv.com
(716) 889-559
David Walters
1`1211Vyrtle Avenue
Suite 6
Charlotte, NCB 2823
(704) 547-33. FAX
(704) 47-2538 Department Office
(704) 376-8 15 game
David 'Walters
[e-mail]
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Planning Commission
600 Fast Fourth Street
Charlotte, NC 2820
[phone] FAX
(` 04) 336-2205 Main Telephone Number
Garet "Walsh
[e-mail],nc.us
(704) 36-8 64
EDAW
3475 Lenox Read
Suite 100
Atlanta, GA 30326
(404) -1129 FAX
(404) 365-111► .Main Telephone Number
Gary Cornell
corner a�daw.com
3
2/09/00

DPu
Lan
Stakeholder
March'.'
;e Study
atinal Company
corporated
Walter
xr©up Meeting
! , 2000

EXISTING LAND USE AND
POPULATION DATA

Charlotte, NC
3-2
Table -1
CENSUS RECORDS
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
1980-1990
Change
Charlotte
Cornelius
134,042
201,564
241,420
314, 447
395,934
2 0
1,548
,423
1,444
2,573
1,296
2,931
1,460
2,581
.910
7&8%
Huntdson
Huntersville
Mathews
916
1,004
1,538
3,241
1,294
4,046
3, 014
u
24.8�0
13.910
MintHill589.
i
609
78
1,648
13,651
728.3%
Pineville
1,373
1,514
1948
7,915
1,525
11,567
46A%
Waddington
,
2,970
94,8%
Township 1: Charlotte
Township 2: Berryhill
134,042
201,564
®
241,178
314,447
3[�j'g�7
, 803
389,571
2 %
Township 3: Steel Creek
9,760
1,847
8,250'
3,009
11,03
,0
38
-.
.6%
Township 4. Sharon
5,706
7,971
4,858
1,68
4,668
6,586
41.1 %
Township 5. Provtdenee
1,807
,185
5,304
7,064
7
_89.9�da
Township 6 Clear Creek
2,204
3,121
6,104
11,925
14,712
108.3%
Township 7, Crab Orchard
7,146
8,301
18,435
9,912
16,157
35:5°7°
Township 8: Mallard Creek
5,744
7,802
10,975
688
15,851
59:9%
Township 9: Deweese
5,024
4,988
4,969
5,754
8,81
49°lr,
Township 10: Lamle y
1,749
1, 78
1,99
3,454
6,804
%
18:210
Township 11. Long Creek
3,901
4,748
9,059
9,735
6,121
77.2%
Township 12. Paw Creek
10,248:
9,308
1,978
9,452
11,022
13,2%
Township 1 : Morning Star
2,811
3,246
4,802
7,730
6,317
-33.2%
Township 14: Pineville
2,313
3,174
3,954
15,995
106.9%
Township 15, Huntersville '
2,750
2, 866
334
,93
3, 786
,
-22A%
Mecklenburg County
17,052
272,111
,
35,656
404270
5, C)13
5,013
1
511,433
32.4°�
26,5%
CENSUS POPULATION
{
Charlotte Mecklenburg County
600,000
500,000
4.10,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
i
0`,
I
1950
1960
190
1980
f
190 !

Population Growth Estimates
County P1990 ` P2000 i P20% P2020
M CI LENB RG 511,481 648,305 �776,521909,800
°f0, hange 27% ( 20%n 1 17%
NORTH CAROLINA 6132,448 7 734,4611 8,675,5641,9,600,054
%Change 12�1c r 11 °I�
Municipality Apr-90 Jul-981 %Change
bHAR-L6-TTIf 395,934521,4 3 %
CC}RNELILlS _ ,9,056', 251%
C7AVICtSON 4,046,714 41 %
HLiNTERSV/ILLE 3,023 20,2811 571 %
fitalunilcipa1 ___ v0405,58 56,52L_.__.. 37%
E
Total Pop.! Urbanl 90 Land Annex.! 98 Lund
TOWN' POP98i POP90d Growth Annex.~ Growthl Area; 1990-98: Area
(sq miles)I (sq miles) (sq miles)
CHARLOTTE, 521,478 395934# 125,544 6 287. 56,257 174 59.95 234,18
HUNTERSVI'LLEL 0,281_ 3,0231 17,258 16 942j _ _31`6 1 94 16 8i_ 18.32
CORNELIIJSi 9,056 f 581; 6,4 975 2,5C0� .30� w� 5 _..._. _.6.4
I AVIC? { N t 5,71 €3 ' ,0461 1,6 ._�.. 1,1851 _.4 __.. 7i 1.87 4,84
Office of StatePlanning (from website 3/10/00) June 1998

�► •
x � •.'
t ^_�
�,
i
».
,,®
•".� � >,
;� �"
' a W
�r� ••> •� •• •• •• aa� •s •s: s+r•

Total Permits
ski,99
Y9
99
Total Permits
461
427
670
9681
754
690
(} 7 2
_
..
1155'
_.
93**
Percent Change
� - °
57%
-44%
_42 �I.
-8%
_ .W.m 1'99°l -6 %
52°l
- 3°l
Total Permits in 1990s;
8844
Permits By Housing Type
na'.�"'6.�� ♦d
'",
,,,ei� 3�L?v4a0*BiMV3"k„°
F!Kc
i�.y%
101
409 47 440
58
51
518
68 603
772
622
1
. u 1
_. 8
14
11
_ 0 0
7
103
2 0 1
0
0
0
4 0
0
2
105
0 0 208
290
0
80
1288 0
18(3
M
114
0 0 0
0 ..
_ .0
_._ 0_
_ 6 _ 0
.
28
. ..__
0
115
36 67 21
85
39
81
8 159
97
24
Total
461 427 670
68
754
_ 90
2064 762
1155
723*
Housing Type by Code
* value thru 3rd quarter 1999
101=one family houses detached.
** value for entire 1999,
102=one family houses attached
including
estimate for 4th quarter
103=two family buildings
104=3&4 family buildings
105-115=5 or more family buildings
EDAW, Inc.
3/21/00

DRAFT
Study Area Characteristics
Land Area in Study Area
McDowell Greek Basin GIS
27,960 acres
Land'Use in Stud Ares
Tay Map
Land Use
Ades
Percent
SF Residential
20,284
72.5%
MF Residential
316
1.1%
Commercial
1,153
4.1%
Office
359
1.3%
Institutional
917
3.3%
Industrial
1,607
5.7%
utility
1,074
3.8%
Vacant
121
0.4%
Uncoded'
2,128
7.6%
TOTA
27,960
100.0%
Source: Charlotte -Mecklenburg Tax Assessor's Office. Not Meld Tied.
Population and Employment in Study Area
Residents Persons per household
Population 38,887
Households 1,82
3.03
Employment
Percent of Jobs
Manufacturing 1,858
11 3%
Transp., Comm., Utilities 2,577
15 7°r'
Wholesale Trade 1,234
7.5%
Detail Trade 2,249
13.7%
11my. Retail 668
4.1%
Services 4,645
283%
Finance, Real Est., Insurance 770
4.7%
Other 2,405
14 7%
TOTAL 16,406
100.0%
Source- Charlotte Dept. of Transportation- —traffic analysis zone data (2000). EDAM' calculations.
EDAW, Inc.
03/26/00

TOWN OF CORNELIUS
ZoWing C;istricbi
C ensit
Permitted Uses
Other Provisions
Rural Preservation (RP)
1 unit per 5 acres
SFR
1 du/5 acres;
General Residential (GR)
2 units per -acre
SFRw _...' _ _ _..�
min lot size of 20,000 sq
Neighborhood Residential (NR)
n/a
_
SFR and F
��
greater than 3 acres can have up to 30 /� as MF
Neighborhood Mixed Use (NMX)
n/a
commercial & residential _.._
commercial can main roads and interior as residential or
mixed use bldgs, up to 5,000 sq ft of non-res, greater
allowed up to 15,000 sq ft with 2 du per 1,000 sq ft of non-
res for over 5,000 sq ft
Village Center (VC)
n/a
commercial & residential
commercial tip to 15,000 sq ft of non-res, greater allowed
up to 30,000 sq ft with 2 du per 1,000 sq ft of non-res for
over 15,000 sq ft
Town Center (TC)
n/a
commercial & residential
radiating 1/4 mile from "main -main" intersection
Highway Commercial (NC)
n/a
commercial
commercial up to 30,000 sq ft
Traditional Neighborhood
REPEALED
Industrial Campus
n/a
loffice and industrial
`4 lV 6# HUNTERSVILLE
inn rt Districts
D n ity_
Permitted U s
Other Provisions
?pen Space (OPS)
2.5 to 3.75 du per acre
SFR
min 1;5% open space, incentives for greater amounts
General Residential (GR)
units per acres
_..
SFR
min lot size 20,000 q ft p
Neighborhood Residential (NR)
n/a
commercial &; residential
residential 1/2 mile from village; up to 0% of res as MF
Neighborhood Center (NC)
n/a
commercial & residential
__. _ .
—id
1/4 mile radius, up to 30% res as MF
. ....
Town Center (TC)
n/a
commercial &;.resential
up toµ30% of res as_MF w m
_ _
Highway Commercial (HC)
n/a
1commercial & residential
11st floor up to 55,000 of major & 15,000 on minor street
EDAW Inc
3/27/00

TOWN OF CORNELIUS
Mountain Island take
Watershed District
Density
Comments
Buffer
Single Family - low density
2 unite per acre
50' or regulatory floodplain (or watershed; area basis)
tither Fees/N'on -res - law density
24°I, built -upon arearegulatory
floodplain (or watershed area basis)
All development - high density
70% built -upon area
100'-or-regulatory floodplain (or watershed area basis)
Lake Norman Watershed
District
Single Family - low density
2 units per acre
50' or regulatory floodplain (or watershed; areabasis) 6
t 3ther Res/Non-res -'low density
24% built -upon area
50' or regulatory floodplain (or watershed area bans)
All dou la rr ont -high Gin ty
50% built -upon area
100, or regulatory floodplain (or watershed area basis)
T ` E SVILL
(Mountain Island Lake
Watershed District
Density
Comments
Buffer
CAI
6% built -upon area
100' or 100 yr floodplain
CA2
1 % built -upon area
100' or 100 yr fioodplain
CA3
12% built -upon area
100' or 100 yr floodplain
CA4
24% built -upon area `
100,
PA1 2 - low density
4% built -upon area
with curb & gutter
0A1 50', PA2 - 0"
% built -upon area
without curb & gutter
PA1 2 - high density
70% built -upon area
with bmp
100,
Lake Norman Watershed
District
CA - low density
built -upon area
_
'
CA - high density
50°lo built -upon area'
100"
EDAW, Inc.
3/27/0

McDowell Creek Basin
DRAFT
Land Use Scenarios
The purpose of preparing and assessing growth scenarios is to provide stakeholders and
decision -makers in North Mecklenburg County an informed set of options about how the
area might grow over the next 30 years and to guide the infrastructure investmentsin the
study area. These scenarios represent a range of potential outcomes that will allow the
study team to test how growth management and development patterns interact and
influence the size and location of future infrastructure. It will also provide a basis for
further discussion of the role of key infrastructure decisions in a concerted growth
management strategy.
Scenario One: Open sace and Cluster Plan
A network of mixed -use, mixed density urban villages 11 mile in radios located in areas
best served by infrastructure and separated by green belts. Light rail line developed in
existing railroad corridor with well-defined transit-orientedmixed-use development in
walking distance of each station. Feeder routes serve urban village clusters throughout the
study area. There is a wide diversity of housing types and prices and a healthy balance
between jobs and housing. Regulations and incentives preserve 200-300 ft. wide stream
buffers. No further encroachment on wetlands or floodplain. Transfer of development
program in place. This scenario has the lowest population and employment at build -out.
Scenario Two: Variable levelo meat Patterns
This is a mid -growth scenario that is a combination of Scenario One and conventional
suburban development patterns. About 30 percent of new development consists o
compact, mired -use development organized in well-defined villages with interconnected
open space. The remainder of new development consists of conventional suburban
development, including low -density subdivisions and strip development along major
highways. Regulation protects most floodplains and provides required buffers in stream
corridors. Density incentives under the zoning code conserve open space in some
individual subdivisions.
Scenario Three: Conventional Land Covera e
This is a "high -growth" scenario with extensive land coverage of better -designed and
connected individual subdivisions with open space set asides, but no major open space
network other than the basic creek buffers.' Transit service is auto -oriented and less
integrated with walkable land uses. The area develops more housing than employment
opportunities, and most commercial services are in strip developments.
EDAW 1 03/27/00

DRAFT - Land Use Protollpes
24% Impervious,: A4, PA 1PA2- Low Densi
Prototype
Land Uses
Land Use
Isity
©pen Space
Gross Density;
Impervious
Mi
Cover
tt Space Residential
SF residential
100%
5.3 units / acre
39%
3.25 Units/acre
24%
General Residential
SF residential'
106%
2.1 unit / acre
0%
2.0 units/ acre
4%
Neighborhood Residential ;
SF residential
89%
3.4 units / acre
24%
3 units/acre
24%
MF residential
9% '
14 units/ acre
1.3 units/acre
Commercial
2%
11,000 s . ft,/acre
220 s A./acre
t Neig rhood Center
SF residential
94%
4.2 units / acre
4%
3.5 units/ acre
4%
MF residential
800
18.4 units / acre
1.5 units/acre
Commercial `
6%, -
16,300 s .ft./acre
1,000 NA/acre
Town Center
SF residential
77%
5.2 writs / acre
28%
4.0 units/acre
28°f0
XT residential
°10
19.0 units / acre
1.7 units/acre
Commercial
12% <
30,800 s .ft./acre
3,700 NA/acre
Highway ommerc l
Commercial
100%
14,600 sq. fi/acre
76%
3,400 sq.fUacre
24%
Residential
NA
NA
NA
70 iere ' r vious� AI & PA2 - I i h nsil
prototype
Land Uses
Land Use
Net tensity
Open space
Grass Density
Impervious
Mix
Caner,
n S cc Residential
SF residential
1000/0
5.3 units/acre
3 %
3.4 Units/acre
28%
General Residential
SF residential
1000/0
2.2 unit / acre
0%
2.0 units/ acre
29%
Neighborhood Residential
SF residential
80/'0
4.1 units / acre
2A°l0
3.5 unitslacre ;
1%
MF residential
11%
21.4 its/ acre
1.5 units/acre
Commercial
3%
10,000 a., ft./acre
300 s .ft./acre
Neighborhood Center
SF residential
65%
6,2 units / acre
14%
4.0 its/ acre
60%
MF residential
13%
13.1 units / acre
1.7 units/acre
Commercial
%
11,400 s .ft./acre
2,500 .ft./acre'
Town Center
SF residential'
50%
8.0 units / acre
7%
4.0 units/acre
60%
MF residential
10%
17.0 units / acre
1.7 unitslacre
Commercial
40%
12,500 NA/acre
5,000 s . ./acre
Highway Commercial
Commercial
7 %
10,400 sq, ft/acre
261%
7,500 sq.fVacre
70%
Residential >
28%
8.6 units/acre
2.4 units/acre
E AW, [tic.
03/26/00

•f
R 9
i f•
I III i!
R f s
#. yyy:
• f
TT
I
f
5611.1irl."',lindplally f Sensitive
6 'IM Buffers
!FlRr.
1� WO Ion
E=DAW Inc.:. 3/ 7/00 LU summary.xis

OSR
650
225
3
2625 6,0%
24000
675 24675
18885
43560
434%
55A%
0.0%
0.0%
15%
56,6%
43.4% 100V/4 3,0 8.4
0.0
GanRes
4000
1200
05
2600 6.0o/.
42360
1200 43560
0
43560
0.0%
97,2%
0,0%
0,0%
281%
100,0%
0.0% 100,01/6 03 14
0,0
NRes
650
225
2.6
165
169
15
150
2624 6V/
20800
600 21400
22160
43560
50,9%
47,8l.
00%
0.0%
1,4%
49.1%
50.9'/. 100,0% 2.6 71
0.3
NConter
650
225
2
825
Sits
15
141
15
i50
2628 6,01/.
16000
884 156
465 17505
26055
43560
59,8%
36.7%
2,0%
0.4%
1,1%
40,2%
59,8/. 100,0% 2.9 8,0
0.3
Ticenter
650
225
2
668
0.86
25
234
25
250
2607 6,0%
16000
716 259
475 17450
26110
43560
59,9%
36.7%
1,6%
06%
11%
40.1%
59.9% 100,0% 19 8D
Os
Hicom
875
1491
240
795
2606 6,0%
121/. Imp
House
Street RDans
MFUnit MI'Dons,
Comm Parking Street ComDens
TotAIMP %IMP SFLwd MFLand CLand Streets ToIWO
Open
Told '/.Open '/.SFLand !MFLand %CLand
1/4treets */.TotwO '/.Open '/.Told HH Pop Empl
OSR
1140
250
3,2
4448 10,2%
25600
250 2$850
17710
43560
40,7%
58,81/6
0.0%
0.0%
0,6%
59.3%
40.7% iOO0'/. 12 9D
0,0
Gen Res
4000
1500
1
5500 12,6%
42060
1500 43560
0
43560
0,01/6
96,6%
0.0%
0.0%
14%
l00.0%
0,0% 100.0% 1,0 2.8
0.0
NRes,
1100
225
3,6
1485
1.54
220
225
24
200
5239 12.0%
28800
2864 445
249 32358
11202
43560
25,7%
66,1%
6,6%
1.09".
0,6%
74.3%
251% 1000% 51 14A
0.4
NCenter
675
225
3
1238
1.29
440
450
48
400
5229 12,0%
24000
1989 890
273 27152
16408
43560
37,7%
55,1%
4.6%
2.0 l.
0,6%
62.3%
37.7% 100.0% 4,3 12,0
0.7
Tcantor
675
225
3
1002
1,29
110
1031
110
1100
5239 12.0%
18000
1610 1141
335 21086
22474
43560
51,61/6
41.3%
3.7%
2,6%
0.8%
48.4%
51.6% 100,01/6 43 12,0
2,0
HiCom
1850
3153
240
1682
5243 12,0%
5003
240 5243
38317
43560
88,0%
0.0%
0,0*/.
113%
0,6%
12.01
$8.0% 100.0% 0,0 0'0
3.1
241/. Imp
House
Street FIDens
MFUnl MFDens
Comm Parking Street Con Dena
TotAIMP %IMP SFL.,nd MFLand CLand Streets TolaID
Open
Total */.Open I/ SFLand %MFLand %CLand
%Streets, '/.TotWD '/.Open '/.Total HH Pop Empl
OSR
2700
500
3.25
10400 23.9%
26000
500 MOO
17060
43560
39,21/6
59.7%
0,0%
0.0%
1,1%
60,8%
39.2*/. 100.0% 3.3 9.1
0.0
GenRes
4000
1200
2
10400 23,9%
42360
1200 43560
0
43560
0,0%
972%
0.0%
0,0*/.
2,8%
100.0%
0.0% 100,0% ZO 5.6
0.0
Was
2300
500
3
1238
1.29
220
225
24
200
10460 24.0%
30000
1989 445
524 32958
10602
43560
24.3%
68,9*/.
4,61/.
1,0%
12%
75,7%
24:31/6 100,0% 4,3 120
0.4
NCentor
1400
300
35
1444
160
1100
938
120
1000
10273 216%
28000
2707 2038
420 33165
10395
43560
23,9%
64,3/.
6,21
41%
1,0%
76.1%
23,9% 1WO% 5.0 14,0
1,8
Tcerver
750
240
4
1336
1.71
370
3469
370
3700
10459 24,0%
24000
2862 3839
610 31311
12249
43560
28.1%
55.1%
6,61/6
8,8%
1,4%
71,9%
28.1% 100,0% 5,7 16.0
6,7
ROOM
NA
3740
6375
240
3400
10355 23,8%
10115
240 10355
33205
43560
76.2%
0,0%
0,0%
23.2%
0.6%
218%
76.2% 100.0% 0.0 0,0
6,2
36I. trip
House
Street RDens;
MFUnit MFDens
Comm Parking Street GomDans
TotelIMP %IMP SFLwd MFLand CLand Streets TotaID
Open
Told '/.Open */ZFLand %MFLand '/.CLand
%fteets '/.TotWD Open '/Total HH Pop Empl
OSR
3700
725
3.5
15488 35.fi%
28000
725 28725
14835
43560
34A %
64.3%
0,0%
0.0%
1.7%
65.9%
34.1% 100.0% 3.5 9.6
0,0
GenFres
5000
1400
2
12800 29A%
42160
1400 43560
0
43560
0.0%
96,8%
0.0%
0.0%
32%
100.0%
0.0% 100,0% ZO 5.6
0.0
NRes,
2800
600
3rs
1600
1.50
330
563
36
300
15229 35.0%
35000
3000 893
636 39529
4032
43560
9,3%
80�3%
6-9%
2.0%
1.5%
90.7%
9,3% 100,0% 5.0 140
0,6
NConlar
1600
300
4
16510
1.71
1000
3750
200
2000
15379 353%
32000
3536 4750
500 40786
2774
43560
6.4%
73.5%
8,1%
10.9%
1,1%,
93.6%
64% 100.0% 5,7 16.0
16
Tcenter
750
240
4
1336
1.71
1850
6938
370
3700
15407 35,4%
24000
2862 8788
610 36260
7300
43560
16,8%
55.1%
6,6*/.
20,2%
1,41/.
83,21/.
16,a*/ 100.0% 57 16.0
6.7
Hicoin
NA
5610
9563
240
5100
15413 35.4%
15173
240 15413
28148
43560
64,6%
0.01/6
0.0%
34.8%
0,6%
35,4%
640Y. 100.0% 0.0 0.0
9,3
50% Inip
House
Street RDens
MFUnit MFDens
Comm Parking Street CoutDons,
TotailIMP %IMP SFLand MFLand CLand Streets TotaID
Open
Total */.Open 1WFLand %MFLand */.CLand
%Streets */.TotalD '/.Open '/.TotW HH Pop EMPI
OSR
4800
800
3'6
20160 463%
28800
800 29600
13960
43560
32,0%
66,1%
0.0%
0.0%
1,8%
6&0'/.
32,0% 100,01/6 3.6 10.1
0.0
GenRas,
5000
1500
2
13000 29,8%
42060
1500 43560
0
43560
0.01/6
96.6%
0.0%
0,0*/.
3,4%
100,0%
0.0% 100,0% 2.0 5.6
0,0
NRes
4000
750
4
2000
1,7
825
1547
90
750
21462 493%
32000
4286 2372
840 39498
4062
43560
9.3%
715%
9.8%
5.4%
1.9%
901%
9,3% 100.0% 5.7 1&0
1A
NCentar
2400
600
4
2000
1,3
2200
4125
240
2000
21165 48,6%
24000
3250 6325
$40 34415
9145
43560
21,0*/
55A%
T5%
14,5%
1.9%
79,0%
21.0%. 100,01/6 6,3 14.8
3.6
Tcenter
1000
300
5
2000
1,2
4180
7838
456
3800
21374 491 %
25000
3000 12018
756 40774
2787
43560
6.4%
$7.4%
6.9%
27,61/.
1 .7%
93A%
6A% 100.0% 6,2 17A
6,9
Hicom
2400
2,6
5500
9375
600
5000
21715 49 9'/.
7800 14875
600 23275
20285
43560
46.6%
0,0%
17,9%
34,1%
1.4%
53A%
46,6% 100.0% 2,6 TO
9.1
701/. k"P
House
Street HD.ns
MFUrot MFDens
Comm Parking Street Con Dons
ToWIMP %IMP SFLwd MFLand GLand Streets TolaID
Open
Total '/.Open '/.SFLand %MFLand %CLand
*/.Streets '/.TotwD %optin '/.Told HH pop Empt
OSR
3000
600
3.4
12240 281%
27200
600 27800
15760
43560
362%
62,4%
0.0%
0. V/6
1,4%
63.8%
36,2% 100,0% 3A 9,5
0.0
GanRes
5000
1400
2
12800 29,4%
42160
1400 43560
0
43560
0.01/6
Wit%
0.0%
0,0%
3,2%
1000%
0.0% 100,0% 2,0 5.6
0,0
NRes
3000
600
35
1834
1,5
330
619
36
300
13585 31,2%
28000
3438 949
636 33023
10537
43560
24.2%
64.31/6
7.9%
2.2%
1.5%
75.8%
24,2% 100,0% 5.0 14,0
0-5
NConter
2400
600
4
2096
11
2750
5156
300
2500
23799 $4.6%
24000
4491 7906
900 37297
6263
43560
14A%
55A%
10.3*/.
18,2%
2.1%
85,6%
14,4% 100.0'/ 5,7 16.0
4,5
Tconter
1400
300
4
1719
1.7
5500
10313
600
5000
26159 601%
20000
3683 15813
900 40395
3165
43560
7,3%
45.9%
8,5%
36.3%
2,1%
92.7%
7,3% 1 00.0% 51 16-0
9,1
Hicom
2934
2A
8250
14063
900
7500
30254 69.5%
8802 22313
900 32015
11546
43560
263%
0.0%
20,21/.
51,2%
21%
73-5%
26,5% 100,0%2.4 _6.7
13,15
t DAVV rr, ImP0(Viois2.XK- 812VO0

Short -Term st a ter
Management t rnatives
• Diversion of wastewater from McDowell Creek
Basin
-- Upper Rocky River Interceptor will connect to Rocky
Riven Regional WWTP ('4 aACC)
— Anticipated completion 4th quarter 2000
-- Diverts 50,000 gpd ftorn McDowell Creek Basin
- Other opportunities to divert flaw
McDowell Creek Basin study
Why Consider Reclaimed Water
• Reduces pollutant; load to creeks
• Reduces potable water for irrigation
• Potable water demand increases by ry 50 in
summer
• Better steward of water resource
• Lower overall treatment cost
McDowell Creek.6asln ,Study
2

Reclaimed Wter Use
Can be used for irrigation
Lawns — Roadway medians
— Golf courses — Industrial process or
-- Gemetaries cooling
Parks — Fire fighting
-- school grounds — street sweeping
Landscape — Dust control
— Toilet flushin
McDowell Creek Basin Study ` a
a
Reclaimed Water Use
• Can not be used for
— Irrigation for direct food chain crops
- swimming pools
- Hot tubs/spas
- Raw potable water supply
McDowell Creek Basln Study ��

Reclaimed ter Permitting Process
• environmental • All reclaimed water
Assessment ' infrastructure colored
• Application rate purple
Site specific by sail • Existing irrigation
scientist systemmodifications
Dependent on sail type . S gnag
and vegetation uptake
rate • Completely seperted
from potable sy l
McDowell Creek Basin Study'_
NC ENR Spray Irrigation Land
Application Requirements
• Property must be controlled by generator or
contractual agreement
• 10-ft. buffer for grater classified as SA
— -ft buffer for all other surface water
• 00-ft. buffer for water supply wells
• No buffer required for property lines
McDowell Creek Basin Study
4

Reclaimedat r Permit Requirements
5py.., y.�yy��y}.�yyt
f ar4i+tlXY4f Y 4 "Y 1 R4F �iIIF[.f Aft ilit✓ ' q �'
t �t� IUic►ntC?�� ilrt' i.
MFl
�ss"�4'.,,�k?"r:z
bA 6 u s 4 r}
C�a�ly43fr?��
moi nthly total suspended reaidue
Daily total upsended r�€clue 1 Irt
tonthly # y a c
�y r
y
McDowell Creek Basin Study � + u�
Reclaimed Water 'Alternatives
• Long- and short-term Birkdale Golf Course & North
alternatives Mecklenburg WTP
Reclaimed rater pump station & pipeline
• Reclaimed water _ Design underway
available to — 30,000 ft, of pipe along McDowell Creek
properties along route — Installed in existing easement
— In operation by Ist quarter 200
McDowell Creek Basin Study �

McDowell owell reek Basin Study
Watershed Protection Issues
u
y
Stakeholders Group
March 27, 2000
McDowell Creek WWTP Is Regulated By.
North Carolina DENR
- Authority from Federal Clean Water Act
- National pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NP ES) Permit
Town of Huntorsville
11
N.C. Water Supply Watershed Classification and
Protection Act (G.. 14 -214. )
- Implemented through Mountain Island Labe Watershed
Overlay District (Huntersville zoning ordinance)
- Standards are more stringent than.. "state minimums"
McDowell Creek BasIn Study
Vt I
6
1
1

Watershed Zoning Overlay rov sions
Exceptions to Applicability:
Existing public utilities may expand without
being subject to the restrictions ... provided
that:
• — exp sign complies with ... laws of the state ...
• .. ; the pollutant load shall not be increased beyond
presently permitted levels
\l"E�+Pta
McDowell Creek Basin Study
t g3�
3ry
Zoning Ordinance Definitions
• Total Pollutant Load Der Facilit "The sure of
the Total Pollutant Loads per parameter
discharged to a water body (typically expressed i
pounds per day)."
• Total Pollutant Load per Parameter -- " The total
mass of an individual water quality pollutant
discharged to a water body (typically expressed in
pounds per day),"
• Undefined - ".Pollutant Load" -- Utilities has
assumed this refers to the Total Pollutant Load per
Facility and that increases in one parameter could
be offset by decreases in another and/or limits for
previously unrestricted parameters
McDowell creek Basin ,Study
. :..

Watershed Zoning Overlay Provisions
• Uses pertnitted with conditions (Critical Area and
Protected Area)
"Essential services I and 2, provided that there shall be
no new industrial process or domestic discharges into .
any stream or lake in the Mountain Island .Lake
Watershed, but existing wastewater treatment plant(s)
may expand so long as the total pollutant load per
parameter is not increased beyond the effluent limits
permitted as ofOctober 1, 1993 ..."
a
MCDowell Creek Sasin Study
x
Watershed Zoning Overlay Provisions
• Prohibited Uses (Critical Area)
— New or expanded domestic and industrial
discharges
- Residual applications
z
McDowell Creek Basin Study �
x
3

Zoning Ordinance Definitions
• Industrial Dischar e — "... wastewater discharged
from a municipal wastewater treatment plant
requiring a pretreatment program."
• Undefined — "Domestic (discharge) "-- Utilities
assumes this refers to private package -type
treatment plants and individual on -site treatment
systems since other provisions allow public plant
expansion
• Undefined - "Residuals Utilities has assumed
ed
this refers to biosolids or ether solid or semi -solid'
residuals (not to reclaimed treated effluent)
McDowell Creek Basin study
PDES Permit History
• Utilities always sensitive to Mountain
Island Labe discharge
• Requested original permit (1979 ±) to be
"as tight as any in state"
• Subsequent permits based on original - not
assimilative capacity of water body
McDowell Creek Basin Study
4

Measurement
• Milligram per liter (mg/1)
--; equal to 1part per million?(ppm) by weight
— 1 bad apple in 2000 barrels
• Microgram per liter (�tg/l)
-- equal to 1 part per billion (ppb) by weight
- i drop vermouth in 500 barrels of gin
McDowell Creek Basin Study
Current NPDES Permit
Parameter Limit Measurement Typical Values
(monthly avg) Limit
Flow 6.0 MGD NIA: U MGD
BODI , 5.0 mg/I 2.0 mg;/I < 10 — 3.0 mg/l
Total suspended 30.0 mg/l 1.0 mg/l < I.0 — 2.0 mg/I
Residue
NH, as N 2.0 mg/l 0.2 mg/l <0„2 —1.0 mg/l
Fecal coliform 200 cfu/100 nil N/A <1 —100
'Costal Nitrogen 10,0 mg/I4O — 8.0 mg/l
Total Phosphorus I.O mg/l 0.1 mg/l 0.`I —0.8 mg/l
Cadmium 2A ggll I.0 µgll <I.O l.sg/l
Cyanide 5.9 µg/l 2.0 µg/l (10 File/l) <2.0 µglI
Lead 30.0 pg/l 2.0 µfill < 2. cgli 12
u � .
,o ,r
McDowell Creek Basin Study
yl

Monitored Parameters
• Temperature • Chromium
• p • Copper
• COD • Molybdenum
• Arsenic • Nickel
• Silver • Selenium
• Zinc • Effluent toxicity ;
McDowell Creek Basin study
Summary
• Plant expansion probably allowed. by DEN
- Based on assimilative capacity of stream
Subject to input from Huntersville & Meck} Co.
• Plant expansion might be allowed by zoning;
— Ambiguous language needs interpretation
Reduction in Total Pollutant Load per Parameter
proportional to flow increase could be an issue
- Zoning variance may be required
v:
McDowell Creek Basin Study
y

Charlotte -Mee klen burg Utilities
McDowell Creek Basin Flow Study
Stakeholders Group Meeting
AGENDA
May 1, 2000
6:00 p.m., North Mecklenburg Water Treatment Plant
Visit to McDowell` Wastewater' Treatment Plant at 5:00 pm.
Land Use
• Current Land Use Situation
Future Land Use Scenarios
Wastewater Management and Alternatives
Screening Criteria
• Short Term
Long Term
Other Items
Next Meeting

11 Creek
April 14,1999
kter Treatment Expansion Options
k
Charlotte - Mecklenburg Utilities
McDowell
Wastewater Planning Options
Stakeholders Meeting
May 2, 2040
WWTP flows may exceed CaPacitY in 18 months
c
� 4 ♦ r
��'�\+,Avrtrx ditOw MGES '""`"wCYa[a Excuamahcm R¢ ktn{un """"' FW
,\.+��.".., tsd�.nul AWSia cFtow
.
�••
McDowell Creek Sash Studv
Kastewater1fanaSement Plan
Charlotte -Mecklenburg
BLACK & VEATCH
Utility Department
CHARLOTTE, B', C

Creek April 1,1999
�r Treatment Expansion Options
astewater Management AtternatiVes
Short Term
Interim
Long Term
exl &D awellCreek Basin .Stuely
1FaastewaterM anugentent Plan
Wastewater Management Alternatives Sefeening Critefla
♦ Cast
♦ Permitting
4 Environmental Impact
♦ Land Acquisition/Easements
♦ Construction Impact
4 Schedule
X&D w it Creek Basin StuaXy
Wa stewcater1f anaagement Plan
Charlotte -Mecklenburg BLACK & VEATCH
Utility Department CHARLOTTE, NC

Creek April 14, 1999
�r Treatment Expansion Options
Short Term Alternatives
Modify permit to 7.6 mgd
• No construction required
• Short term benefit
McDowell Creek Basin Stu4
W astewater lianagentent Plan
Short Terms Alternatives
4 Reuse at Birkdale and North Mecklenburg WTP
• Design underway
• On-line in 24 months
• Additional customers may be identified
a4deDowell Creek Basin Study
Wastewater1lanagement Plan
Charlotte -Mecklenburg BLACK & VATCH
Utility Department CHARLQ

McDowell Creek April 1 , 1999
Wastewater Treatment Expansion Options
Short Term Alternatives
4 Spray Irrigation
• 200 Acres of CountylCity owned property near plant'
Soil testing underway
325 acresdmg'd required
McDowell Creek Basin Stualy
Wastewaterlianagentent Plan
Short Term Alternatives
Expand plant using Advanced Water Treatment
• Membrane technology
• 'Very high quality water produced
• Higher cost than existing treatment technology
McDowell Creek Basin Study
Wastewatterhfanaagement Plaan
Charlotte -Mecklenburg BLACK & V ATCH
Utility Department
CHANT', NC

McDowell Creek April 14, 1999
Wastewater Treatment Expansion Options
IntedmAllemative
Maximize capacity of existing plant
• Minimal construction
• Buys some time for other alternatives to be
implemented
• Implemented within 18 months
'-1cDowell Creek Basin S"t ut y
W aste"terlVemagentent Plan
Long Term Altematives
Modify zoning ordinance (watershed regulation)
• Requires local government approval
• Would likely take significant time
McDowell Creek Basin Sttuty
ii'."waterAlanage entPlan
Charlotte -Mecklenburg BLACK &VEATCH
r Utility Department CHARLOTTE, , NC

McDowell Creek April 14,1999
Wastewater Treatment Expansion Options
tono Termt rnatiu S
♦ New Advanced Water Treatment train
• 3-5 years to design and construct
Membrane technology
Very high quality water
&Dowell Creek Masan Snuiv
WavewaterManagen ent Flan
Long Term Altematives
Pump raw wastewater to Long Creek Pump
Station
• Would require Long Creek Pump Station and Irwin
Greek WWTP to be expanded
• Would; require property acquisition and easements:
McDowell Creek Basin Study '
Wastewater)%tanagement Ptah
Charlotte -Mecklenburg BLACK & V ATCH
'` ` Utility Department CHARLOTTE, IBC

McDowell Creek April 14, 1 Jg
Wastewater Treatment Expansion Options
Long Term Altematives
New regional WWTP outside of McDowell Creek
Basin
• Time required for siting/land acquisition of new plant
• Higher cast than expanding McDowell
• Zoning ordinance may apply
McDowell Greek Basin Studp
Wastewater anagentenr Plan
Limp Term Altematives
Pump raw wastewater out of McDowell Basin t
Mallard Creek`'WRF or Rocky River Regional
TP
• Pipeline required to connect to those systems
• Mallard Creek and Rocky River plants would need to be
expanded
• Interbsin transfer
McDowell Creek Basin Shads,
ki'astewaterlkLmagement Plan
a`
Charlotte -Mecklenburg BLACK& VEATCH
Utility Department CHARLOTTE, N

McDowell Creek April 1, 1999
Wastewater'' Treatment Expansion Options
Long Term Alternatives
Pump treated effluent out of McDowell Basin
•'Plant required to be expanded
• Pipeline and pump station required
• 'Interbasin transfer
McDowell Creek Basin Studs,
WastewaterNianageient Plan
Over Wastewater Management Alternatives
tifcDowell Creek Basin Studs
WastewaterAlanagententPlan '
r
%
'7 Charlotte -Mecklenburg BLACK & V AT H
ram' Utility Department CHARLOTTE, N

McDowell Creek Basin Flow
DRAFT
ouixiiiiiaij i 1.' tLjLjL i.., A-jcsiiaa i / ►7L * xxaas i sa
and Conceptual rec sts
Buck &. Veatch International Company
E A , Incorporated
David Walters
St eholder's Meeting
May 1, 2000

1" rti-c^r YET 1 IkT ti 1 ! rY i T A XT

DRAFT
to Area Characteristics
Land Area in Study Area
LMcDowell Creek Basin PIS 1 27,908 acres
Land Use in Study Area
Land Use
MUM
Source: Charlotte -Mecklenburg Tax Assessor's Office. Not field verified.
Estimates by EDAW, Inc.
Ponulation and Emnloment in Study Area
P
717
os
INWAIM
Source: Charlotte Dept. of Transportation traffic analysis zone data (2000). EDAW calculations.

iMIS.
",Z'I'l O.
m M
4
Percent Change
-7°
57%
44°%
-22°!
- %
109°%
-83°-
52 r"0
-23%
Total Permits in 1990s
F° 844
Permits By Housing Type°
101
409 347
440
585
501
51
658
503
772
622
10
1 13 _
8-
124
11
0
0
78
75
104
0 0
0
0
0
_ 0
0
0
10
0 0 _ 208
_ _ _ ._ .r. _ _. _.
200
. _
0
. _
81
128
0
18ti
0
114
0 0
0
11
_ _
38 87 _.:_..
_.._ 1
85
39
81'
78 — _ _.._.7'
15 _
_ 7
24
+
Total
4 7 2i
5 O
5t3
7"54
6 t
�2 54
2
1155
3*
Housing Type by Mode
*
value thru 3rd quarter 1999
101=one family houses detached,
value for
entire 1099,
102=one family houses attached
including
estimate for 4th
quarter "
10-two family buildings
104=34 family buildings
105.115=5 or more family
buildings

well Creek Basin Approved Developments
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - ..ate#..
�.
d. �.
#
# •
� �
9 R #
Ic. 4/28/00 committed develc

TOWN OF CO NE'LIUS
Zanin f0istricts
Density
Permitted Uses
Other Provisions
RuralPreservation (RP)
1 unit per 5 acres
SFR
1 du/5 acres
General 'Re identEol {GR)
2 units per a r
_ __
SFR_ _w
�._
"
min Eat size of 20,000 sq fit
Neighborhood Residential (NR}�
a
n/_
FR and MF -
`
greater than 3 acres can have up to 30% as MF
Neighborhood Mixed Use (NM)
cn/a commercial &residential
commercial on main roads and inferior as residential or
mixed use bldgs; up to 5,00 sq ft of non-res, greater
allowed up to 15,000 sq ft with 2 du per 1,000 sq ft of non-
.
res for over 5,000 sq ft
Village Center (V )
n/a
commercial & residential
commercial up to 15,000 sq ft of non-res, greater allowed
up to 30,000 sq ft with 2 du per 1,000 sq ft of non-res for
_
over 15,000 sq ft
Town darner (TC)
n/a
commercial &presidential
radiating 1/4 mile from "mein -main" intersection
Highway Commercial (HC)
n/a
commercial
commercial up to 30,000 sq ft
Traditional Neighborhood:
REPEALEa
Industrial Campus
n/a
office and industrial
TOWN OIE NU ' TERSVILL
Zqqjiqg_Qj9ricts
DengtA
Permitted Uses
Other Provisions
Open Space (OPS)
2.5 to 3.75 du per acre
SFR
min 1 % open space; incentives for greater amounts
General Residential (R)
2 units per acres
SFR
min lot size 20,000 sq ft
Neighborhood Residential (NR)
n/a
commercial & residential
residential 1/2 mile from village; up to 0% of res as MF
Neighborhood Center (NC)
n/a
commercial & residential
1/4 mile radius; up to 0% res as MF
Town Center (TC)
n/a
commercial &-residential
up to 30°1s of res as MF
Highway Commercial (HC)
n/a
commercial & residential
1st floor up to 65,000 of major & 1,000 on minor street
DAW, Inc.
3/27/0

Mountain island Lake
Watershed District Density Land Use Comments Buffer
<
I �Id�l�6� ��� "�� �:
• * � : � • « � :
u « � o « «. «
N*
.• ««
i
>. w�
r s
e,
w
d �, w Norman Watershed
District
y•
I
yy
DAW, Inc. 41 f(lQ

McDowell Creek Basin
Land Use Scenarios
------------ ........... ----------
Lcenario Three: Conventional Land Covera Se
This is a "high-growtV scenario with extensive land coverage of better -designed and
connected individual subdivisions with open space set asides, but no major open space
network other than the basic creek buffers. Transit service is auto -oriented and less
integrated with walkable land uses. The area develops more housing than employment
opportunities, and most commercial services are in strip developments.
EDAW 1 04/30/00

DRAFT - Land U4.
6-24%-,Iraq ervious: CA -Low Density,_ CA CA
Ml�
Prototype Ipervious
Land Uses
I
Land Use
I
Net Densit
Open
Mix
I
I
Cover
Open ace Residential
SF residential
100%
5.3 units acre
35-45%
3.25 Units/acre
6-12%
General Residential
SF residential
100%
11 unit acre
0
2.0 units/ acre
24-36%
Neighborhood Residential
SF residential
89%
3.4 units 1 acre
24-50%
3 units/acre
12-36%
MF residential
9%
14 units/ acre
1.3 units/acre
Commercial
2%
1 1,000,!S. ft./acre
220 ESA/acre
Neighborhood Center
SF residential i
84%
4.2 units / acre
3,5 units/ acre
50-70%
MF residential
8%
18.4 units / acre
1,5 units/acre
Commercial
6%
16,300 sq.ft./acre
1,000 sq.ft./acre
50-70% Impervious: CA,
PAI & PA2 - High
Density
-
Prototype
Land Uses
Land Use
Net Density
Open space
Gross Density
T I
Impervious
Mix
Cover
Neighborhood Center
SF residential
65%
6.2 units / acre
15-20%
4.0 units/ acre
50-7011/o
MF residential
13%
13.1 units / acre
1.7 units/acre
Commercial
22%
11,400 sq,ft./acre
2,500 sq,ft./acre
Town Center
SF residential
50%
8.0 units acre
5-10%
4.0 units/acre
50-70%
MF residential
1010/0
17.0 its acre
1.7 units/acre
Commercial
40%
12,500 sq.ft./acre
5Z000 S&A./acre
Highway Commercial
Commercial
72%
10,400 sq. ft/acre
5-10%
7,500 sq.ft/acre
50-70%
Residential
28%
8.6 units/acre
2.4 units/acre
EDAW, Inc.
04/30/00

Catecm,
Scenar"IQ1
Scenario2
'Scenarla3
GENERAL RESIDENTIAL
2,916
_ ,101.
OPEN SPACE RESIDENTIAL —
2,258
2,867
2,956
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL;
2,183
3,214
3,873
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
1,336
663
879
TOWN CENTER
333
33
340
HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL
592
585
590
PUBLIC LANDS AND PRESERVES
4,755
3,847
2,636
HISTORIC SITES
383
383
383
PLANNED USES
14,756
14,756
W._ 14,758
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
7,352
7_, 352
7,352
APPROVED DEVELOPMENT
3,488
_ 3,488
3,488
ENVIRONMENTALLY-
2,312
2,312
2,1
SENSITIVE AREAS
(SEE BELOW FOR MORE DETAIL)
TOTAL ACRES _ ._
_
27,907
27,908
27,910
....„.„..mu.�..:we.....v.__-.__..».ve..w....... ».....::.._........
ENVIRONMENTALLY-SENSITIVE
ALLY-SENSITIVE AREAS
._...._,._............._......e....,e...«................::...tea.®..._.gym
«.......m...
WLANDS __. ..�. ...—� _.
_
_:20_Jsl~I2
__.__w
SWIM BUFFERS
_ . 1,6_ 1.0
nW
FLOODPLAIN _
1,467.76
BEATTIES FORD ROAD BUFFER
125.09
TOTAL ACRES (INCL. OVERLAP)
3,493.75
TOTAL ACRES EXCLUSIVE
2,311.86

McDowell Creek Basin Study Land Use Data for Scenarios By Critical Watershed Areas
Existing orb 1tion8
Category
CA CA•1
CA»2 dA-3 CA-4
PA
PA-1
PA-
PA-3 OUT 1©E
TOTALS
-dE-NERAL RESIDENTIAL
0.00
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL
0•00
OPEN SPACE RESIDENTIAL
0•00
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
0.00
TOWN CENTER
000
HiHWY COMMERCIAL
000
BUSINESS PARK
000
PUBLIC PRESERVES AND PARKS_
- ...-________.w
0.00
HISTORIC SITES
0•00
.m m.__ .... .....__._.
PLANNED USES
.__ ..w_ _.
2,76129 30.10
. __. _ ..__._m
217,02 385.71 702x96
270.33
2,309.01
1,903,86
1,774,64 _ 537.31
10,892 23
EiISTING ANI3 APPRtVEI USES
1,374.33 15.0
216.95 1,Oa2.93 2,512x97
753.39
4,502.8
2,285.20
1,862.19 128.08
14,703.94
SUBTOTAL. ACRES
4,136.62 46.15 433.97 1,438.64 3,216.93
1,023.72
6,811.86
4,189.06
3,636.83 665.39
26,696.17
ENVIRONMENTALLY-
16.66 0.86
M84 195.93 211.09
76.77
1,047.88
407.21
168.64 168.00
2,311.88
SENSITIVE AREAS
TOTAL. ACRES
4,151.28 46.01
464.81 1,634.57 3,427.02
1,099.49
7,869.74 4,696.27
3,806.47 823.39
27,90806
TOTAL. ACRES CHECK
27,908.06

•
! E
l Yy.
yf
qM y0
gg' t
• •
t 1
.! i
t i « •l i" l
1
• <m
1 : «f
1L
1
««
1!
V1ALH4K i3 va«ua «rv«raa •�c..-r«.ry +a-ramr.v«. .�..«,.,«.. .�....«.««.. �.p,.,..�.-.�...._, ______ __,______
TOTAL ACRES CHECK

McDowell girl Study Land Use Data for Scenarios By Critical Wate
S narlc� : Vadif-ie Development Pattern
A_
p -1
A-
A -
+t iJ i1 E
TOTALS
�4.'�2
':1
NECdN-dikH60-D RESIIOSNTIAI_
_..w. - 157 003
_.. 0.00
60.18 .___.._.
0.00
___ 0.00
-349.59
1,0 66.08
553. 88
, 866.38
41.08
; 3,213.62
'N SI«'AE RESILNTIAI�
79.93
15.05
156.75
534.29
410.{37
0.00
1,633.0
0.00
0.0040.36
2,86965
-.__ _ _
NEIt�NEtOR_.Ct�® ENTS12 -_�_...-
_-. 49,54
0,00
0.00
0.00
` _ _ O.CIO
119.98
148.39
149.05
161.49
35.02
663.47
- T WN &t-WfER
71.00
0.00
0.00
_- 0.00
UO
45.31
0.00
209.25
6.52
0.00
332.08
INWY C?MRIAl.
1437
0.00
0,00
` 0.00
0.00
0.82
O.QO
302.75
197.3
9.82
58549
BUSINESS DARK
0.00
O.Oi3
0.00
- 0.00
0.00
0.00
0. 8
263.69
185.94
0.00
460.61
_
I�UBI_I 'I -RESERVES AN_[- PARK a___.
33 7.18
.0.{-O
O: IO
4 2 44
_
1,97 .34
1 33.12
11. 7
.73
82.
-0.00
0.00
3,847.12
ISTt R t SITES _._
_ O.00 23.95
37.63
_.__-62.95
97.85
0,00
1 00.56
OM
0.24
383.18
_
.
179,39
_w_
320.07
605.10
270.33
__.
2,148,45
1,882.73
1,697.91
536.48
10,387.90
E ISTIN ANCi AI PRC71 E C SES
1,374.3
15.05 216.95
1,052.93
21512.97
753.39
4,502.85
2,285.20
1,862.19
1 8.08
14,703.94
Su TOTAL A ES
4,135.63
4 .16 433.97
1,438.63
,3,215.91
1,023.72
6,911.87
4,189.06
3,636.83
666.38
26,696.14
ENVIRONMENTALLY-
6.66
0.8
_ 30.84
196.93
211.09
76.77
1,047.88
407.21
168.64
168.00
2,311.88
SENSITI�IE AREAS
_
_
_
TC3!TAL At;RS
4,151 29 46 01
464 1
1,634,56
3,42700
1,099.49
`,859.75
4,596.26
3,805.47
823.38
27,908.02
2TAL ACRES CHECK
�
27,908.05

McDowell Creek Basin Study Land Use Data for Scenarios
- �cenano!,,: oniventonaT -Lan
Category CA CA-1 CA-2 CA-3 CA-4 PA PA-1
GENERAL RESIDENTIAL
8%63
O,00
0.02
88.88,
130.5529,87
.05
157.58
0.00
0.00
525.26
1,479.13
587.05
866.38
41.08
3,873.39
OPEN SPACE RESIDENTIAL
95,31
0.00
59.34
539.42
656.01
0.00
1,565.18
0.00
0.00
40.36
2,966.62
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
21.88
O,00
0,00
0.00
0.00
84.25
361.05
215.23
161.49
35.02
878.92
T6W-NCENTER -------"'--6--7-,--0"1-"--O,-O-O---O.-O-0--o.o-o-O.00-57.-12
0.00
209.25
6.52
0.00
339.90
-0.00­0-00­5-6.89-0.00--
317.08
197.33
9.82
689.62
BUSINESS PARK
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.88
26169
185.94,
om
450.61
-
PUBLIC PRESERVES ANC} -PARRS
129.14
0.00
0.00
427.32
1,726.41
0.00
229.31
41.12
82.34
0.00-
2,636.64
HISTORIC SITES
0.00
23.95
37,63
62,95
97.85
0.00
160.56
000
0.00
0.24
383.18
P NNE© USES2,76129
6.15
179.39
320.07
605A0
270.33
2,148.45
1,862.73
1,697.91
536.48
10,387.90
6 A-P-P -RO- V E -DU S -E, S ------
-,--1,3-7-4.3-3--l-5.-0,5-,2-16.-95,1,052.93
2,512.97
75139
4,502.85
2,285.20
1,862.19
128.08
14,703.94
SUBTOTAL ACRES
4,136.62 46.16 433.96
1,438.64
3,216.92
1,023.72
6,811.87
4,189.06
3,636.83
665.38
26,696.14
ENVIRONMENTALLY-
15.66
0.86
30.84
196.93
211.09
75.77
1,047.88
- 407.21
168.64
168-00
2,311.88
SENSITIVE AREAS
(SEE BELOW FOR MORE DETAIL)
TOTAL ACRES
4,161.28 46.01
464.80
1,634.67
3,427.01
1,099.49
7,859.75
4,696.26
3,806.47
823.38
27,908.0
.TOTAL ACRES CHECK

Sin Study Area
narles
tlpen S ee and Cluster Plan
Variable Cteveio
ant Pattern
+Conventional
Ci�v
to meat
ove e
ores
F� H _
PO
E :
ter 2
Water 1F�2
Acres
tim
Po �.
ECM? I
Wate'C 1 .ter
Acres Hi $ PC>
ECn W t f 1
ter
General lesidentrat
2„916
57d0
14a92
0
1 70
d
?
5633
14645
0
1.67
1:4
31ti9
109
15884
4
1,89
1,4
qj " n c FZesidential
2�258
7�35
19,115
253 2 18
85
2 867
9,430
Q 518
251
2.80
2 8
q �25
18
2.88
,45
hbcsrgrc tF2esideratittl
2 183
9664
25i26
_
81
2 86
_ _____Ne
43
33 214
15 759
4400973
1691
4,67
3,97
873
19 004
' 49410
2 021
6
4,79
1336
6 881
1789ti
383 2 t34.73
663
35T1
9,284
2 812
1.06
C}
1?9
; d 813
12514
` 3 816To
n Center
333
1,67
465
2461
0.50,42
333
1932
5023
864
0.57 '
0 49
40
1975
5135
2 44459
125A3
7 02
i.7.
1
3
7 783
0.41
590
1
3 622
7
41
0,
Sub -Total New Develaa met
9 618
2,
84,M
6 001
9.65
8,21
10 525
37 709
98043
15400
1.18
9;50
11 7 9
43,Oti7
111 819
16 i366
12.T5
10.8d
Belstln elo meat
7 352
12 852
38,887
16,406
4,43
' 3,77
7 352
12 852
38,887
16 406
4,43
3,77
7 352
: 12 852
38 887
' 16 406
4.43
317
A `roved lopmnt
3 488
8 711
22 Q7
14 05
2.58
2.19
3 488
8 711
22 47
14 0
58
2. 9
3 488
8 711
22 647
14 0 9
19
Total Develo d l and
20,d58
54 3
14& 214
46 478
16.7
1d,2
136
9 271
1a9,577
45 865
18.2
15.5
22 579
64 70
173
47 331
19.8
= 16.8
Public land and Preserves
4 755
0
4
� 0
0.00
GOO
3 847
0
0
0
0.00
OM
2 636
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
Fllstorlo Sites:
383
0
0
0
0,00
0.00
383
0
0
0
O.00
Oi00
383
,' 0
O
' O
0.00
0.00
Environmentally sensitive
312
ti
}
l
O.00
O.00
2 312
0
0
0.00
0,
2
0
OO
Total Iulld out ___
_
2.9lilt
54.R32
6,Z14
7
96.7
14 2
27.907
59.279
i59,577
5,865
18.2
i .5
?»910
64.*iCl
'i73.353
? 331
19.8
16.8
Ncite;�
1. stlmated MGCi based on 114allons raerson c da
2. Estimated MGf1 based e n z Water Use,
FDAW, Inc
LOfinalt ble2
4Y30100