NC0024937_Environmental Assessment_20090226

NPDES DOCUMENT SCANNING COVER SHEET
NC0024937
Sugar Creek WWTP
NPDES Permit:
Document Type:
Permit Issuance
Wasteload Allocation
Authorization to Construct (AtC)
Permit Modification
Complete File - Historical
Engineering Alternatives (EAA)
Correspondence
Owner Name Change
201 Facilities Plan
Instream Assessment (67b)
Speculative Limits
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Document Date:
February 26, 2009
Thies document is printed on reuse paper -ignore any
Content on the reiterose aide

?DES Sugarreek/Mallard/McDowell
Subjec
From: Tom Belnick <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:45:40 -0500
To "Jarrell, Jackie" <[e-mail]>, "Padgett, Dawn" <[e-mail]>
CC: jackie nowell <[e-mail]>, Julie Grzyb <[e-mail]>, Samar
Bou-Ghazale <[e-mail]>
afriU
//,161 6-0-grnsilityl/Aicdwa/
vuro
Jackie/Dawn- just a few items:
Sugar Creek Expansion (NC0024937). As I discussed with Dawn today, DWQ is ok with
putting in separate outfalls (001, 002) to accomodate the proposed expansion. Each
outfall would have to meet the same limits (BOD, TSS, NH3, aquatic tox, etc) ance-ch
mild have a sea --- :^ imit. Dawn i ='e. a in uen would e e same. The
current permit includes the typical monthly average/weekly average limit for fecal,
as well as a daily max fecal limit of 1,000 orgs/100 ml based on a fecal TMDL, but
I'm not sure if EPA will require any modification of this TMDL-based limit when they
review the draft permit. As far as schedule goes, the current permit expires
5/31/2010, and if we remain on schedule we would be sending out a draft permit to
public notice sometime in March 2010'with a final permit issued in April/May. CG&L
cannot issue an ATC permit for the expansion until you have a permit with limits for
the expanded flow. So if there is a strong need to secure an ATC permit at an
earlier date,you would have to submit a package (Major Mod?) at an earlier date.
Just let me know how you see this proceeding down the road. PS- Jackie Nowell
(919-807-6386) is the permit writer for this permit.
Mallard Creek Renewal (NC0030210). Permit expired 11/30/08, and CMU keeps operating
under old permit until a new permit is issued. This renewal has been assignedjto
Julie Grzyb (919-807-6389, a new addition to our Unit), and she has just started the
permit.
:1.
McDowell Creek Renewal (NC0036277). Permit expired 12/31/08, and CMU keeps oPerating
under old permit until new permit is issued. This renewal has also been assigned to
Julie Grzyb. -.
Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina
Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
Tom Belnick
Supervisor, Western NPDES Program
N.C. Division of Water Quality
919-807-6390
919-807-6495 (fax)
[e-mail]
-�f 1 ')/gym/'lnno '2.A2 DM

ect: FW: Sugar Creek WWTP
row: "Mosteller, Kevin" <[e-mail]>
ate: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:26:28 -0600
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Tom -
Good talking with you....see below and attached....
Thanks
Kevin Mosteller.
704-577-3747
ex�l,r�
Mal NCr 3otr ►,/�/as
JV Ado, ,vcco31,2-77 i?/3110$
� C�21437 S�tl�'o00
�W �3O$3
Original Message
From: Samar Bou-Ghazale [mailto:Samar [e-mail])
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 12:20 PM
To: Mosteller, Kevin
Cc: Rob Krebs
Subject: Re: Sugar Creek WWTP
Kevin,
We informed the Central Office that we have no problems with
permit as per your request. However, The Central Office
resolve some other issues before approving this permit. Please
Tom Belnick at 919-807-6390 for additional information.
Please let me know if you have any questions for me or if
assistance regarding this matter.
Thanks
Samar
Mosteller, Kevin wrote:
Samar
PA3r zb ►°
. ,o
C cp 1r bf I �
er1t 1 i2r�IQ
issuing the
still needs to
contact
you need any
Thanks again for your update last week. Sorry to hear about your
accident. Let me know if there is anything we can do to assist DWQ in
your review of our situation. Thanks again for your consideration.
**L. Kevin Mosteller, PE, SVP**
**HDR Engineering Inc. of the Carolinas**
**128 S. Tryon Street, Suite 1400**
**Charlotte****, NC 28202**
**704-338-6802**
Samar Bou-Ghazale - [e-mail]
Environmental Engineer II
North Carolina Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources
f2
•-)h Plnnn 1.cn TA A

ONE COMPANY 1 Many Solutions
February 2, 2009
Mr. Samar Bou-Ghazale
Environmental. Engineer
NC-DENR
Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
601 East. Center Avenue, Suite 301
Mooresville, NC 28115
Re: Sugar Creek WWTE.— Expansion Project
Request to Review the Concept of Dual Outfalls'
Dear Mr.. Bou-Ghazale
On behalf of Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities (CMU), -I wanted. to thank you, Mr. Rob Krebs,
and Ms. Marcia Allocco for meeting with us on January 22, 2009 to discuss the Sugar Creek
WWTP Expansion Project We found the meeting very helpful. As you requested, we are
submitting this letter outlining our proposed actions and seeking input from the Division of
Water Quality.
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities is in the process of expanding the Sugar Creek WWTP from
k'20 mgd to 28 mgd. To date, we have completed the planning phase of this expansion,
received a Finding of No Significant Impact for the project, and held. numerous project
stakeholder meetings. Inaddition, speculative limits have also .been established for. the
41ta ett: We are now ready to move forward with final design and'additional permitting.
As we discussed last week, the planning effort for this expansion has led our project team to
recommend the addition of new facilities on the west side of Little Sugar Creek. This design
approach has -significant environmental benefits, minimizes disruption to existing processes'
during construction, and has lower capital and operations costs as compared to expansion on
the east side of Little Sugar Creek. The Sugar Creek WWTP will continue to operate as.one
plant, with some common facilities on both sidesof the creek, including the influent pumping .
station and the new grit and flow equalization facilities.
Expansion to the west side. of Little Sugar Creek,however, necessitates either a..second
effluent discharge location, or extensive piping, to tie into the existing discharge location.
The second discharge location would be approximately 800-feet upstream of the existing
discharge, on the west bank of Little Sugar Creek. •
Our team has determined that a second effluent discharge location offers extensive benefits,
including;
•
■ Additional process control.forthe treatrnentfacility fromadditional sampling.
■ Ability for treatment plant personnel to react to imbalances more quickly. and:efficiently.
• Less constructionin the existing floodplain. •: • . •
• Elimination ofa major creek crossingthat would create extensive disturbance inand
adjacent to Little Sugar Creek. - • .
■ Reduction in the amount of rock blasting that will likely be required for this construction.
• Preservation of stream bank and tree buffers.

Mr. Samar Bou-Ghazale.
February 2, 2009
Page 2of2:
Lower capital costs.
• Reducedoperations issues.associatedwith More complex hydraulics, reducing the risk of
spills or other permit violations.
• An educational opportunity for the public who will be utilizing the. Little Sugar Creek
greenway that is being coordinated with this expansion project.
We respectfully request that the Division. of Water Quality '(DWQ) review this design
approach as it relates to NPDES permitting. In particular, we are requesting that this second
effluent discharge point be combined into the existing facility's permit as a second outfall
(i.e. not a separate NPDES permit). Key pollutant parameters measured in concentration
(e.g. CBOD5, TSS) would be sampled, analyzed, and reported at both effluent discharge
locations. Other parameters (e.g. flow, and total effluent phosphorus mass loading) would be-40
integrated from both outfalls and reported.
As the Sugar Creek WWTP will continue to operate as one plant, we request that-the-NPDES
permit focus primarily on czbined effluent limits in order to provide operational flexibility
to the plant operators.
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities is ready -to submit the permit application.. As you may recall
from our meeting, your recommended next step is for your office to contact the appropriate
Raleigh DWQ staff to -explain and discuss ,ffie two outfall approacliri, regards to: NPDES
permitting. It is important for us at this 'stage of the permitting and design .process that .we
• receive feedback from DWQ regarding our. proposed approach. We would greatly appreciate
comments prior to submitting the permit application.
•
As always, Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities is committed to continuous compliance with all
NPDES. permits: We welcome the opportunity to meet with your staff, or the .Raleigh DWQ
'staff to further review the permit and scope of the project; Contacts for this project are as
follows: •
Dawn Padgett (CMU),— questions on NPDES permitting — 704-336-4448;
■ Julie McLelland (CMU) — questions on expansion project = 704-391-5126;
■ Kevin Mosteller (HDR) — questions on expansion project - 704-338-6802.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best regards,
HDR Engineering Inca of the Carolinas
• L: Kevin Mosteller, PE, SVP
Project Manager
cc: - Julie McLelland, PE - CMU
Jackie Jarrell, PE CMU
Dawn Padgett CMU

[Fwd: FW: Sugar Creek Expansion and Creek Crossing]
Subject: [Fwd: FW: Sugar Creek Expansion and Creek Crossing]
From: Tom Belnick <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 09:23:49 -0500
To: jackie nowell <[e-mail]>
Jackie- looks like you are assigned to this one. I'll discuss with you.
Tom Belnick
Supervisor, Western NPDES Program
N.C. Division of Water Quality
919-807-6390
919-807-6495 (fax)
[e-mail]
Subject: FW: Sugar Creek Expansion and Creek Crossing
From: "Jarrell, Jackie" <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:12:44 -0500
To: "'[e-mail]"' <[e-mail]>
CC: "Padgett, Dawn" <[e-mail]>
Hi Tom, Happy New Year! When we met about the Long Creek Project modeling in December, I mentioned the
Sugar Creek project and the issue with the effluent pipe. Below are the email exchanges we had with Susan
Wilson before she left. Please let me know if you have any issues with us having two effluent outlets. We plan
to meet with Mooresville as well (based on Susan's comments). Thanks. Jackie Jarrell
Jacqueline A. Jarrell, P.E. Supt.
Environmental Management Division
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities
4222 Westmont Drive
Charlotte, NC 28217
Ph: 704/336-4460
F: 704/336-5081
"I am a proud member of the North Carolina AWWA-WEA, the Water
Environment Federation's Outstanding Member Association 2008!
N Ask me about the benefits of being a member! www.ncsafewater.orq <http://www.ncsafewater.orq> "
From: Susan Wilson [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 1:36 PM
To: Jarrell, Jackie
Cc: Padgett, Dawn
Subject: Re: Sugar Creek Expansion and Creek Crossing
Well - I did read this when I received it! Hope you had a great vacation Jackie. And I'm really glad you
took the plunge into mtn. bike riding. Let me know when you guys are ready to rent a house out in
1 of 2 2/5/2009 3:24 PM

[Fwd: FW: Sugar Creek Expansion and Creek Crossing]
Brevard - as it is the perfect place for the entire family to ride! your husband would love it.
Re. the two discharge points - please check in with the Mooresville regional office about that. I have to
talk to Rob today, so I'll also mention it to him. (he's in a much better position to talk to his
permitting, compliance, and 401 folks about that - which would be the best idea on what option we
would like to see - and all need to be weighed). We also received your document on Sugar Creek a
couple of days ago - fyi.
Jarrell, Jackie wrote:
Hi, The problem we are having is that we will have to disturb a lot of land along the creek (cutting down trees
etc.) and then somehow cross under the creek or over the creek to create one effluent. The sampling expense
was not that bad. We calculated back in January. I forget what it was but it was less than I thought it would
be. the main problem is that it would cause a lot of disturbance to the existing wooded area and the
environment around it. that is why we were looking at how maybe there could be two outfalls. My opinion, but I
think eventually, because the old plant is SO old (eighty years old) that it will be phased out in next ten to twenty
years. I think that eventually the plant on the new side (west) will be THE plant someday. I could be wrong and
that has not been decided, it just makes sense to me. So if we bring a pipe across to the old side to connect in
to the old plant (plus pumping - which is an energy operating cost), it will not be permanent.
By the way, I have been trying to be good. I have not looked at email in a few days. Susan, I finally took up
mountain biking. you were right, it is fun. I am still a beginner but I like it. My husband is crazy and not a
beginner. Hope both of you are having a good week. Thanks. Jackie
From: Padgett, Dawn
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 11:18 AM
To: Jarrell, Jackie
Cc: '[e-mail]'
Subject: Sugar Creek Expansion and Creek Crossing
Hi Jackie - I just talked to Susan, and I am copying her here also - in case she disagrees with anything I'm saying.
Susan's first reaction was Please do not do that. She stated that they used to have a few facilities with two
discharge points but they just about have everyone to one discharge pipe. The reason for this, is that two
discahrges are a compliance nightmare, we would be required to sample each site as if they were separate
NPDES discharges, and potentially have two NPDES Permits one for each side. She asked us to look at the cost
of monitoring both sides, and if there would really be a cost savings to having two discharge points.
Also, if possible, could there be a way to install a junction box where both discharges would mix before
discharging to the Creek?? That way we could at least sample - she wasn't sure how you could do this without the
creek crossing though.
Susan also stated, that the permittee's that used to have two discharges found this VERY cumbersome, would it
help if we contacted some of these municipalities to see what the issues were?
Let me know if you need anything else on this. And don't forget you are SUPPOSED to be on vacation.
Have a good time,
Dawn Padgett
704/336-4448
704/201-9144 (cell)
Susan A. Wilson, P.E.
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
(919) 807 - 6389
FW: Sugar Creek Expansion and Creek Crossing
Content -Type: message/rfc822
1
2 of 2 2/5/2009 3:24 PM

Total Phosphorus reductions necessary at CMUD WWTPs to abide by the NC-'
DWQ/CMUD/SC DHEC settlement agreement
Permitted Flow under current conditions (as per settlement agreement)
Units
McAlpine
(NC0024970)
Sugar
(NC0024937)
Irwin
(NC0024945)
Permitted monthly ave flow
MGD
64 •
20
15
12-month rolling average
lbs/day
534
292
Average concentration
mg/L
1.00
1.00
Monthly average (mass cap)**
lbs/day
1067
334
250
Average concentration**
mg/L
2.00
2.00
2.00
** At the Sugar and Irwin Creek plants, the mass caps only come into effect if construction
activates are pursued at each plant
Scenario 1 Expansions: McAlpine Creek from 64 to 80 MGD, Sugar from 20 to 25 MGD,
Irwin from 15 to 20 MGD
.Units
McAlpine
(NC0024970)
Sugar
(NC0024937)
Irwin
(NC0024945)
Permitted monthly ave flow
MGD
80
--25
20
12-month rolling average
lbs/day
534
292
Average concentration
mg/L
0.80
0.78 .
Monthly average (mass cap)**
lbs/day
1067
334
250
Average concentration**
mg/L
1.60
1.60
1.50
Scenario 2 Expansions: McAlpine Creek from 64 to 80 MGD, Sugar from 20 to 30 MGD
Units
McAlpine
(NC0024970)
Sugar
(NC0024937)
Irwin
(NC0024945)
Permitted monthly ave flow
MGD
80
30
15
12-month rolling average
lbs/day
534
292
Average concentration
mg/L
0.80
0.78
Monthly average (mass cap.)**
lbs/day
1067
334
250
Average concentration**
mg/L
1.60
1.33
2.00
Scenario 3 Expansions: McAlpine Creek from 64 to 80 MGD, Irwin from 15 to 25 MGD
Units
McAlpine
(NC0024970)
Sugar
(NC0024937)
Irwin
(NC0024945).
Permitted monthly ave flow
MGD
80
20 -
25
12-month rolling average -
lbs/day
534
292
Average concentration
mg/L
0.80
0.78
Monthly average (mass cap)**
lbs/day
1067
334
250
Average concentration** .
mg/L .
1.60
2.00
1.20

C/ti.4 uWT/'
6u. Gi//!a 05,v riccic
Qoi 2) 464
a 06
4/y3
Jo
s7/2
fit des 7/-A1;71
,= .3• Y
s �d c/4
w7 /d c;rc6
1619 Z : f7c
/5 fl.l (t. V-)
Ct'- CA/ /t/i ei)
Soo 79rL#»1
sz
U)c-vi. .� �.
ct.M
L�JYZ r
v/1/J v" r ter
Lieg
Asti
/Udo
28 ye (1-A-, ntooc)
ri cv4
`tom,
:174(27:404641
yov,,4t /c/Y-ii-t ;1a-
ct e:-74
;rind 57k./.0,,t
---?dicvn)
1/0r// 4,0 am'
Ic
*411 /1"6171/1
str ,�D £I � j /tom
Gi
/fv� EcJ Y
k‘-(4,1/4)
4443
ck-11/4
td4i gi-194 I:0(4k
61/0s - cm_ r

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
October 30, 2008
To: Hannah Stallings
SEPA Coordinator
DWQ Planning Section
From: Agyeman Adu-Poku
Environmental Engineer
Western NPDES Program
Re: Environmental Assessment Report
NPDES Permit Number: NC0024937
The NPDES-West has reviewed the Sugar Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant's revised Environmental
Assessment Report dated October 1, 2008. The NPDES Unit has no objections to the approval of the
project.
Please feel free to call Tom Belnick at [phone] with all your questions. Thanks.
cc: Permit File
Central Files
Nor hCarolina
„Naturally
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: www.ncwaterqualitv.oru Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

October 30, 2008
Ms. Hannah Stallings
SEPA Coordinator - Planning Section
North Carolina — Division of Water Quality (NC-DWQ)
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Re: Sugar Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Expansion Project
Environmental Assessment (EA)
#1465, Mecklenburg County
Responses to EA Review Comments
Dear Ms. Stallings:
Thank you for coordinating the EA review process for the Sugar Creek WWTP Expansion Project
(the Project). We have considered the comments from the various agencies that were provided to
us in your September 11, 2008 correspondence, and we are submitting herewith a revised
Environmental Assessment (EA) that addresses these comments. For further clarification specific
responses to the review comments are outlined below:
NC-DWQ Review Comments
1. Provide justification for the non -industrial unit flow factor of 143.4 gpd/person.
In 2001, Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities (Utilities) completed a study of their McAlpine
Creek, Sugar Creek, and Irwin Creek wastewater service areas to assess future flow
projections. In that study, the McAlpine Creek WWMF and Sugar Creek WWTP service
areas were considered together. Non -industrial (i.e. residential and commercial) wastewater
flows were compared relative to actual population served and a unit flow factor for the
combined McAlpine Creek WWMF and Sugar Creek WWTP service areas was computed as
123.3 gpd/person.
The 2007 Wastewater Evaluation Study (CH2M Hill, 2007) completed for Utilities used this
information and updated census tract data to refine these unit flow factors. In addition,
individual unit flow factors for the McAlpine Creek WWMF and Sugar Creek WWTP service
areas were also developed. Using this approach, the Sugar Creek WWTP service area unit
flow factor for non -industrial flow was computed as 143.4 gpd/person.
Please note, excerpts from both of these studies have been transmitted to Mr. Agyeman
Adupoku.
HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas
128 S Tryon Street
Suite 1400
Charlotte, NC 28202-5004
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
www.hdrinc.com

Ms. Hannah Stallings
October 30, 2008,
Page 2 of 4
In addition, it should be noted that the Sugar Creek WWTP receives flow from much of the
central business district for the City of Charlotte, and as such, receives significant wastewater
flow from daily commuters who do not live in the service area. As such, the unit flow factor
in this service area may be expected to be slightly higher than others.
2. Compliance with the settlement agreement between NC-DWQ, Utilities, and the South
Carolina — Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC-DHEC).
As stated in the EA, Utilities remains firmly committed to all current effluent limits including
the effluent phosphorus mass limit for the combined McAlpine Creek, Sugar Creek, and Irwin
Creek wastewater treatment facilities. The current design plans under consideration for the
Sugar Creek WWTP Expansion Project includes the addition of treatment facilities to reduce
effluent phosphorus concentrations. By incorporating phosphorus removal into the Project, it
is estimated that the overall effluent phosphorus mass loading of the expanded Sugar Creek
WWTP will be lower than the current loadings. Incorporation of phosphorus removal
facilities into the Sugar Creek WWTP Expansion Project will enhance Utilities continued
compliance with current limits.
The settlement agreement has now been included as an attachment to the EA. Again, Utilities
remains firmly committed to compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement.
3. Enhance Section 4.10 Water Resources to address the settlement agreement, fecal coliform
impairment, turbidity impairment, and an update of the South Carolina TMDL for Lake
Wateree.
Section 4.10 has been updated to address each of these areas.
4. Expand Section 5.10 Predicted Water Resources to include information relative to the
phosphorus settlement agreement and continued compliance with the phosphorus limits, the
impact of the South Carolina phosphorus TMDL when it is complete, and the cumulative
impacts of the expansion as they relate to biological integrity for fecal coliform loading and
turbidity.
Section 5.10 has been updated to address these issues. Throughout Utilities Expansion Study
(CH2M Hill, 2007) and the stakeholder process that has been completed during the planning
phase of the Sugar Creek WWTP Expansion Project, close coordination has been maintained
with SC-DHEC. It is our understanding that SC-DHEC is still in the early stages of
developing the phosphorus TMDL for Lake Wateree, and waiting on a determination of water
quality standards. Utilities efforts to incorporate phosphorus removal facilities at the Sugar
Creek WWTP, and to provide flexibility in the design of other process units are evidence of
their further commitment to comply with water quality requirements.
HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas

Ms. Hannah Stallings
October 30, 2008
Page 3 of 4
Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC)
5. Comments provided by WRC state no objection to the Project provided that the wastewater
flow increases indicated do not directly or indirectly serve the Duck, Goose, and Six Mile
Creek basins.
As noted in the EA, the Sugar Creek WWTP routinely diverts a portion of their flow to the
McAlpine Creek WWMF. The purpose of the Sugar Creek WWTP Expansion Project is to
allow this facility to treat current flows and future flow increases from the Sugar Creek
WWTP Service Area as indicated in Figure 1B (included with the EA).
Also, WRC offered helpful input into opportunities to protect ecosystems and stream habitats
from developmental impacts. As presented in the EA, the Mitigation Measures outlined in
Section 6.0, including Mecklenburg County and the City of Charlotte ordinances will help
protect ecosystems and stream habitats both at the Project site and within the service area.
US dish and Wildlife
6. Comments provided by US Fish and Wildlife state concurrence with the EA's conclusion that
the proposed Project is not likely to have significant impacts on natural resources in the
service area.
US Fish and Wildlife also encouraged Utilities to incorporate sustainability action items
identified in the EA. As we move through the design phase of the Project we will continue to
evaluate sustainability concepts for incorporation into the Project as outlined in the EA
Additionally, US Fish and Wildlife offered helpful input into opportunities to incorporate
other actions into project area planning to protect the area's natural resources. As presented
in the EA, the Mitigation Measures outlined in Section 6.0, including Mecklenburg County
and the City of Charlotte ordinances will help protect ecosystems and stream habitats both at
the Project site and within the service area.
In closing, we want to again express our appreciation for the thoughtful consideration of the
Environmental Assessment completed for the Sugar Creek WWTP Expansion Project. We are re-
submitting the EA along with this letter and respectfully request your review and consideration.
During your review, should you, or any of the agency reviewers, have any questions or
comments, please do not hesitate to call me at 704-577-3747.
Best regards,
HDR Engineering Inc. of the Carolinas
HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas

s
v
Ms. Hannah Stallings
October 30, 2008
Page 4 of 4
L. Kevin Mosteller, PE, SVP
Project Manager
HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas

APPENDIX A
Wastewater Flow Projections

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 3-1 CH2MHILL
Wastewater Flow Projections Update
PREPARED FOR: Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
PREPARED BY: CH2M HILL
COPIES: Julie McLelland/CMU
Barry Gullett/CMU
Jackie Jarrell/CMU
Dawn Padgett/CMU
DATE: October 11, 2005; Updated December 22, 2005
This Technical Memorandum (TM) presents information for the development of updated
wastewater flow projections for the service areas of Irwin Creek Wastewater Treatment
Plant(WWTP), Sugar Creek WWTP, and McAlpine Creek Wastewater Management Facilities
(WWMF). These updated wastewater flow projections are necessary to support environmental
documentation and permitting requests for future infrastructure improvements.
These flow projection updates are based extensively on the current Traffic Area Zone (TAZ)
population projections for the area. TAZ data are officially sanctioned by the Metrolina
Regional Model planning team and are a good source of population projections for small areas
for the years 2000, 2010, 2020, and 2030. Supplementing the TAZ data, the 2001 McKim & Creed
TM - Wastewater System Management Study, information provided by Charlotte -Mecklenburg
Utilities (CMU), the LandDesign 2004 (updated 2005) Preliminary Engineering Report - Steele
Creek Service Area Sewer Study, and the LandDesign 2003 Preliminary Engineering Report for
Clear Creek/Irvin Creek were also used to update the wastewater flow projections.
Contents
Executive Summary 2
Background 2
Population Projections 6
Methodology 6
Population Projections Analysis through 2030 6
Wastewater Flow Projections 11
Commercial and Industrial Wastewater 11
Population -based Flow Projections 12
Other Sources of Wastewater Flow Projections 13
Wastewater Flow Projections Including Industrial Flows 18
Required WWMF Capacity 21
References 22
CLTIFINAL TM 3-1 WWPROJECTIONS_12222005.DOC 1

WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS UPDATE
Executive Summary
The purpose of this Technical Memorandum (TM) is to update wastewater flow projections for
the service areas of Irwin Creek, Sugar Creek, and McAlpine Creek Wastewater Management
Facilities (WWMFs). This update is based on current Traffic Area Zone (TAZ) population
projections for the area, as well as the 2001 McKim & Creed TM - Wastewater System
Management Study and information gathered from other sources for specific basins.
First, the service areas for the three facilities were updated. TAZ data and percent served values
were then used to update population projections (2005) for the service areas. These population
numbers project faster growth than previously predicted. In 2010, the population is predicted to
be 685,000 while in 2020, the population is expected to grow to 810,000. By 2030, more than
923,000 people are expected to reside within the service areas for the three WWMFs . The fastest
growing basins are those in the western portions of the County near Lake Wylie.
To calculate future wastewater flows, the relationship between the non -industrial wastewater
flows and per capita uses were established for each of the three service areas. To convert
average annual flow to maximum monthly flow, a peaking factor for each of the WWMFs was
also determined. Industrial flows were also predicted for each of the service areas.
In addition to analyzing TAZ data, other data for three specific areas were considered and are
presented. LandDesign studies of Steele Creek and Clear/Irvin Creeks were reviewed and
communications with Union County were made in reference to the Six Mile Creek basin. TAZ
data were ultimately used for flow projections for this analysis.
In summary, the projected maximum monthly flows to the CMU Irwin Creek, Sugar Creek, and
McAlpine Creek WWMFs will be near the current combined permitted capacity of 99 mgd in
the year 2010. In 2020 it is estimated that these flows will be 115 mgd and by 2030 the projected
flows are 144 mgd. The required increase in capacity at each WWMF will be determined
through a separate alternative analysis. The facilities may continue to function together by
bypassing and transferring flow when needed. These flow projections are based on the most
current population predictions for the area and industrial flow predictions based on actual
discharge values with considerations for modest growth in industrial flows.
Background
McKim & Creed prepared a Wastewater System Management Study (Study) for Charlotte -
Mecklenburg Utilities in 2001. The service area used for their study is shown in Figure 1. This
Study is being revisited by CH2M HILL as part of the CMU Wastewater Treatment Alternatives
Analysis project because, since 2001, changes have occurred that may alter recommendations
made in the Study. The service area has been updated and more recent population projections
have been used. For the purposes of this TM, only those data from basins being considered to be
served by the Irwin, Sugar, and McAlpine Creek WWMFs are presented from the 2001 McKim
& Creed Study.
Service area changes were discussed with CMU staff at the June 23, 2005 and September 6, 2005
project status meetings. These changes include the additions of Clear, Goose, and Crooked
Creeks to the service area. Past plans, including those discussed in the 2001 McKim & Creed
CLTIFINAL TM 3-1WWPROJECTIONS_12222005.DOC 2

WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS UPDATE
Study, for a regional three -county facility are no longer an option; therefore, these basins will be
provided service by McAlpine WWMF. Other basins included are Gar Creek, Six Mile Creek
and the Lake Wylie tributaries. The Six Mile Creek basin also includes a small portion of Union
County, as seen in Figure 2. CMU also currently has an agreement with Union County to treat
flow from Union County's portion of the Six Mile Creek basin. This flow may increase over time
and will be considered as part of the analysis.
Back Creek, currently going to Mallard Creek WWMF, is included in this analysis due to the
possibility of redirecting the flow to this service area. Redirecting this flow may reduce
interbasin transfer (IBT) which is restricted to a total maximum day transfer from the Catawba
to the Rocky River subbasin of 33 mgd. The Back Creek basin was not included in flows for the
Irwin, Sugar, or McAlpine Creek WWMFs in the 2001 McKim & Creed Study.
It was also verified that flows from the Reedy and McKee Creek basins are still planned to be
served by the Rocky River Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (RRR WWTP) of the Water
and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County (WSACC). These basins are not included in this
analysis.
There is a potential to provide service to portion of Lancaster and York Counties in South
Carolina in the future. However, no flows from these areas have been included in this analysis
as discussed in the September 6, 2005 project review meeting.
CLTIFINAL TM 3-1_WWPROJECTIONS_12222005.DOC 3

WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS UPDATE
YORK
Catawba Raver
N
CH2MHILL40.
n
Legend
® VWVM F
Interstate
Major Road
Hydrology
Lakes
McKim & Creed
Service Area
Vlbtersheds
County Boundary
Figure 1
2001 McKim & Creek Study Service Area
Irwin, Sugar & McAlpine WWMFs
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
CLTIFINALTM3•i WWPROJECTIONS_12222005.DOC
4

WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS UPDATE
N
CH21VIHILL n
ILE
Legend
® WWMF
Interstate
— Major Road
— Hydrology
1f tersheds
County Boundary
McKim & Creed
Service Area
Irwin Creek
Sugar Creek
McAlpine Creek
Figure 2
2005 Updated Future Service Area
Irwin, Sugar & McAlpine WWMFs
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
CLT/FINAL TM 3-1WWPROJECTIONS 12222005.DOC 5

WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS UPDATE
Population Projections
Methodology
Once the service area for the three WWMFs was re-evaluated, TAZ data were used to update
population projections (2005). TAZ data are officially sanctioned by the planning board and are
a good source of population projections for small areas for the years 2000, 2010, 2020, and 2030.
These data were developed by the Metrolina Regional Model planning team, which includes
Charlotte Department of Transportation (CDOT), Charlotte -Mecklenburg Planning Commission
(CMPC), North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), South Carolina Department
of Transportation (SCDOT), Gaston, Cabarrus, and York Metropolitan Planning Organizations
(MPOs), Centralina and Catawba Council of Governments (COGs), University of North
Carolina at Charlotte (UNCC), and others.
TAZ units have been defined for the Metrolina Regional Model. Most are based on Census
tracts. In future transit station areas and other parts of Mecklenburg County, new TAZ
boundaries were drawn distinct from Census tracts. Each transit station area is defined as a
single TAZ. The TAZ units are relatively small with a total of 1,350 units in the Study Area.
TAZ population projections are available for all of Mecklenburg, Cabarrus, Gaston, Lincoln,
Rowan, Stanly, Union, York and parts of Cleveland, Iredell and Lancaster Counties. For the
purposes of this study, TAZ data falling only within the study area were selected. In some
cases, populations were estimated in part if only a portion of a TAZ data polygon intersected
with the study area by apportioning the population according to percent of the polygon within
the study area.
Population Projections Analysis through 2030
Using the methodology described above, population projections through 2030 for the service
area are presented in Table 1. For comparison, this table presents TAZ data and the results of
the 2001 McKim & Creed Study.
It is apparent that the population within the service areas is now projected to grow faster than
predicted in the 2001 McKim & Creed Study. By 2030, more than 923,000 people are expected to
reside within the service areas for the three WWMFs. The fastest growing basins are those along
Lake Wylie. Other areas, such as those closer to uptown Charlotte, are experiencing in -fill
development and may be closer to build -out. A smaller growth rate is projected for those
basins.
Relationship between Population Projections and Population Served
The most recent TAZ data present higher population projections than 2000 TAZ data used in
the McKim & Creed Study, as shown in Figure 3. As shown in Table 1, by 2030 more than
920,000 residents are predicted within the study area. It is assumed that over time, the
percentage of residents served by sewer will increase to close to 100 percent. As new
developments are constructed, sewer service will be provided in areas where it was not present
before. It is assumed that all future growth in these basins would be served. In other areas
where mostly in -fill development is occurring, it is assumed that the percentage of population
served will remain close to constant. Using McKim & Creed's 2001 assumptions for 2010 and
2020 and assuming 100 percent of the population will be served in 2030, the change in percent
CLT/FINAL TM 3-1 WWPROJECTIONS 12222005.DOC 6

WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS UPDATE
of population served over time per basin is shown in Table 2. For areas outside of McKim &
Creed's 2001 study area, percent served values were determined by CMU.
Table 3 presents population served in 2010, 2020, and 2030 in each of the sewer basins while
Table 4 summarizes this data. In summary, the population is expected to increase by 64 percent
during the next 25 years.
1,000,000
900,000
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
04
2000 2010
2020 2030
355
p TAZ Pop.
TAZ Pop. Served
❑ McKim & Creed
Pop.
McKim & Creed
Pop.Served
Figure 3: Population Projections for the period 2010 to 2030
CLT/FINALTM3-1 WWPROJECTIONS 12222005.DOC 7

WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS UPDATE
TABLE 1
Population Projections through 2030
Drainage Basin
2000
McKim &
TAZ Creed
2010
McKim &
TAZ Creed
2020
McKim &
TAZ Creed
2030
McKim &
TAZ Creed
Back Creek
6,397
N/A
10,436
N/A
14,563
NIA
17,857
N/A
Beaver Dam Creek
1,032
6,449
2,445
7,134
5,027
7,820
7,174
8,505
Catawba Creek
1,649
1,397
3,616
1,653
5,954
1,909
7,853
2,164
Clear Creek
5,634
6,701
10,423
10,239
16,680
13,777
23,260
17,314
Clem Creek
2,893
2,504
4,361
3,396
5,703
4,289
6,841
5,181
Crooked Creek
3,316
3,640
4,865
4,532
5,979
5,425
7,167
6,317
Four Mile Creek
33,843
31,998
37,568
37,149
41,284
42,300
44,340
47,451
Gar Creek
1,932
2,649
2,886
3,994
4,257
5,338
5,381
6,683
Goose Creek
4,251
4,280
8,352
6,658
13,720
9,036
18,503
11,413
Irwin Creek
61,770
58,919
77,093
66,017
94,096
73,115
110,788
80,212
Briar Creek
76,395
73,059
80,294
74,960
84,619
76,862
88,739
78,763
Upper Little Sugar
58,481
58,262
69,759
63,100
84,730
67,937
100,206
72,775
Lake Wylie
3,797
4,356
8,084
5,865
12,838
7,374
16,802
8,883
Long Creek
22,926
25,211
36,414
31,876
49,939
38,542
61,233
45,207
Lower Little Sugar Creek
29,146
28,400
30,584
29,235
32,948
30,069
35,011
30,904
Lower Mountain Island Lake
2,023
3,954
3,736
4,727
6,279
5,501
8,346
6,274
McAlpine Creek
135,406
135,719
144,203
142,227
152,941
148,736
160,096
155,244
McMullen Creek
41,751
39,471
42,882
40,597
43,953
41,724
44,809
42,850
Paw Creek
16,418
14,639
21,208
17,814
27,584
20,989
32,767
24,164
Six Mile Creek -
Mecklenburg Co.
12,512
13,539
17,269
16,063
21,702
18,586
25,249
21,110
Six Mile Creek - Union Co.
5,404
2,353
7,262
6,079
9,331
9,805
12,338
13,532
Steele Creek
13,661
10,022
20,384
12,169
25,939
14,316
30,486
16,463
Sugar Creek
31,783
39,216
39,388
47,945
48,432
56,674
55,850
65,403
Twelve Mile Creek
502
446
1,063
653
1,536
860
1,940
1,068
Total
572,923
567,184
684,576
634,082
810,035
700,984
923,035
767,880
CLT/FINAL TM 3-1 WWPROJECTIONS_ 2222005.D0C
8

z
WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS UPDATE
TABLE 2
Percent Served by Basin, 2000 to 2030
Drainage Basin
Percent Served
2000 .2010 2020 2030
Back Creek
Beaver Dam Creek
Catawba Creek
Clear Creek
Clem Creek
Crooked Creek
Four Mile Creek
Gar Creek
Goose Creek
Irwin Creek
Briar Creek
Upper Little Sugar Creek
Lake Wylie
Long Creek
Lower Little Sugar Creek
Lower Mountain Island Lake
McAlpine Creek
McMullen Creek
Paw Creek
Six Mile Creek — Mecklenburg Co.
Six Mile Creek — Union Co.
Steele Creek
Sugar Creek
Twelve Mile Creek
10 20 75 100
10 39 69 100
0 30 60 100
30 50 74 100
10 39 69 100
30 50 74 100
80 86 92 100
20 43 67 100
30 50 74 100
98 98 98 100
98 98 98 100
98 98 98 100
10 39 69 100
40 58 77 100
98 98 98 100
30 50 70 100
98 98 98 100
98 98 98 100
80 85 90 100
70 78 87 100
90 92 93 100
70 78 87 100
98 98 98 100
10 39 69 100
Sources: 2001 McKim & Creed Study; CMU
CLT!FINALTM 3-1 WWPROJECTIONS_12222005.DOC
9

WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS UPDATE
TABLE 3
Population Served in Study Area
Drainage Basin
2000
McKim &
TAZ Creed
# served
2010
McKim &
TAZ Creed
# served
2020
McKim &
TAZ Creed
# served
2030
McKim &
TAZ Creed
# served
Back Creek
640
-
2,087
-
10,922
-
17,857
-
Beaver Dam Creek
103
645
954
2,782
3,469
5,396
7,174
8,335
Catawba Creek
0
0
1,085
496
3,572
1,145
7,853
1,948
Clear Creek*
1,690
0
5,212
0
12,343
0
23,260
0
Clem Creek
289
250
1,701
1,324
3,935
2,959
6,841
5,077
Crooked Creek*
995
0
2,432
0
4,424
0
7,167
0
Four Mile Creek
27,074
25,598
32,308
31,948
37,981
38,916
44,340
46,502
Gar Creek
386
530
1,241
1,717
2,852
3,576
5,381
6,015
Goose Creek*
1,275
0
4,176
0
10,153
0
18,503
0
Irwin Creek
60,535
57,741
75,551
64,697
92,214
71,653
110,788
78,608
Briar Creek
74,867
71,598
78,688
73,461
82,927
75,324325
88,739
77,188
Upper Little Sugar Creek
57,311
57,097
68,364
61,838
83,036
66,578
100,206
71,320
Lake Wylie
380
436
3,153
2,287
8,858
5,088
16,802
8,705
Long Creek
9,627
10,084
21,120
18,488
38,453
29,677
61,233
42,947
Lower Little Sugar Creek
28,563
27,832
29,972
28,650
32,289
29,468
35,011
30,286
Lower Mountain Island Lake
607
1,186
1,868
2,364
4,395
3,851
8,346
5,647
McAlpine Creek
132,698
133,005
141,319
139,382
149,882
145,761
160,096
152,139
McMullen Creek
40,916
38,682
42,025
39,785
43,074
40,890
44,809
41,993
Paw Creek
13,134
11,711
18,027
15,142
24,826
18,890
32,767
22,956
Six Mile Creek -
Mecklenburg Co.
8,758
9,477
13,470
12,529
18,881
16,170
25,249
20,055
Six Mile Creek - Union Co.
4,864
2,118
6,681
5,593
8,678
9,119
12,338
12,855
Steele Creek
9,563
7,015
15,900
9,492
22,567
12,455
30,486
15,640
Sugar Creek
31,147
38,432
38,600
46,986
47,463
55,541
55,850
64,095
Twelve Mile Creek
50
45
414
255
1,060
593
1,940
1,047
Total
505,017
493,481
606,348
559,217
748,255
633,051
923,035
713,355
*Clear, Crooked, and Goose Creeks not included in study area of 2001 McKim & Creed Study
CLTIFINALTM 31 WWPROJECTIONS_12222005.00C
10

WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS UPDATE
TABLE 4
Summary - Population Served
Year
TAZ Population Served McKim & Creed Population Served
2010
2020
2030
606,348
748,255
923,035
559,217
633,051
713,355
Wastewater Flow Projections
Commercial and Industrial Wastewater
According to CMU records, commercial and industrial wastewater contributions have
decreased substantially over time as facilities have closed or new technologies are used. Current
industrial records for the time period from January 2003 through May 2005, obtained from
CMU in July 2005, were summarized by WWMF and are presented in Table 5.
TABLE 5
Average Industrial Flows (mgd) in Service Area
WWMF 20001 2003 2004 2005 2 Average 3
Irwin Creek 1.07 0.57 0.53 0.49 0.55
Sugar Creek 1.14 1.27 1.30 0.99 1.28
McAlpine Creek 1.99 1.94 1.83 1.74 1.89
Totals 4.20 3.78 3.66 3.22
1. From McKim and Creed (2001)
2. Flows through May 2005
3. Average includes monthly flow from 2003 through May 2005
In summary, the 2003 and 2004 average industrial flow to Irwin Creek WWTP was 0.55 million
gallons per day (mgd) during this time period. At Sugar Creek WWTP and McAlpine WWMF,
the averages were 1.28 mgd and 1.89 mgd, respectively. Of the three facilities, Irwin Creek
WWTP receives the least amount of industrial wastewater flow. These average industrial flows
for 2003 and 2004 will be used as the basis for wastewater flow projections.
While in recent years there has been a reduction in industrial wastewater flows, we believe at
some point the mix of low water use industries will stabilize and then begin to grow. For this
study, we have updated the baseline industrial flows and then conservatively assumed that
over time, the industrial flow component will increase in proportion to the population (Table 6).
CLTIFINALTM3.i WWPROJECTIONS_12222005.DOC 11

WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS UPDATE
This is consistent with the assumptions and methodology of the 2001 McKim & Creed study;
however, we are starting with lower baseline industrial flows. Overall, the industrial flow
contribution to these facilities is small compared to the residential flow component regardless of
the methodology selected. These industrial flows will be added to the population -based non-
industrial flow calculations to achieve overall wastewater flow projections for each of the three
WWMFs.
TABLE 6
Average Industrial Flows (mgd) in Service Area for 2010, 2020, and 2030
WWMF 2010 2020 2030
Irwin Creek 0.55 mgd 0.62 mgd 0.71 mgd
Sugar Creek 1.28 mgd 1.46 mgd 1.67 mgd
McAlpine Creek 1.88 mgd 2.15 mgd 2.45 mgd
Totals 3.7 mgd 4.2 mgd 4.8 mgd
Population -based Flow Projections
For the purposes of this study, the 2001 McKim & Creed unit flow figures were validated using
2000 Census data and then used. To calculate average annual flow (AAF) for each of the
WWMFs, the relationship between the non -industrial wastewater flows and per capita use
produced a unit flow of:
• 150.8 gpd/person for Irwin Creek WWTP,
• 143.36 gpd/person for Sugar Creek WWTP, and
• 118.27 gpd/person for McAlpine Creek WWMF.
For the purposes of the 2001 McKim & Creed Study and this one, these unit flows were
multiplied by population projections and the appropriate peaking factor to estimate future
maximum month wastewater flow (MMF). To convert average annual flow to maximum
monthly flow, a peaking factor for each of the WWMFs was determined using data from the
period 1989 to 2004. The following values were used:
• 1.15 for Irwin Creek WWTP,
• 1.14 for Sugar Creek WWTP, and
• 1.21 for McAlpine Creek WWMF.
A summary of predicted non -industrial wastewater flows is presented in Table 7. A breakdown
of non -industrial wastewater flows by basin is provided in the Appendix.
CLT/FINALTM 3-1 WWPROJECTIONS_12222005.DOC 12

WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS UPDATE
TABLE 7
Non -industrial Maximum Monthly Wastewater Flow Projections using 2005 TAZ Data
Year
Irwin Creek Sugar Creek McAlpine Creek Total
MMF (mgd) MMF (mgd) MMF (mgd) MMF (mgd)
2010 13.10 24.03 54.92 92.05
2020 15.99 27.12 70.13 113.25
2030 19.21 30.88 89.20 139.29
Other Sources of Wastewater Flow Projections
Steele Creek Study
A recent in-depth study was conducted in the Steele Creek area (LandDesign, 2004). A different
approach to calculating wastewater flow projections was used for this study. Time steps such as
those used in the TAZ data were not developed for the Steele Creek Sewer Study. Unit flows
were assigned for all land use types within the study area (Attachment A) and a unit flow of 250
gallons per day (gpd) was used for single-family residential dwellings. This approach provides
a build -out estimate of wastewater flows. Data analysis was conducted at the parcel level using
existing land use and zoning information. This methodology was tested against existing flow
data and was determined to be sufficient to predict future flows.
For the Steele Creek study area served by the Steele Creek pump station, total ADF at build -out
is expected to be 15.75 mgd. Using a peaking (day) factor of 2.5, a peak day of 39.39 mgd is
projected at build -out (Table 8). The original 2001 McKim & Creed Study predicted a 5.24 mgd
ADF and a MMF of 6.13 mgd in 2030.
TABLE 8
Steele Creek Pump Station Projections Summary
Total Flows
Current (mgd) Projected (mgd) Total (mgd)
Average Peak Average Peak Average Peak
Steele Creek Pump Station 4.56 11.39 11.2 28 15.75 39.39
Source: LandDesign (2004)
CLT!FINALTM 3-1 WWPROJECTIONS_12222005.000 13

WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS UPDATE
YORK
Cat
River
N
CH2MHILL
Legend
A VWVMF
Interstate
Major Road
Hydrology
Lakes
Steele Creek
' 1 Service Area
Updated Future
Service Area
VVatersheds
County Boundary
Figure 3
Steele Creek Service Area
Irwin, Sugar & McAlpine WWMFs
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
CLT/FINAL TM 3-1_WWPROJECTIONS_12222005.DOC
14

WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS UPDATE
Comparison of TAZ Data and Steele Creek Report
Figure 3 shows an overlay of the Steele Creek service area and basin boundaries. The Steele
Creek service area includes the basins of Steele Creek and the southern most Lake Wylie basin.
Table 9 presents a comparison of the projected ADF wastewater flows achieved by two different
methods, using TAZ data and using the methodology presented in the LandDesign study.
TABLE 9
Steele Creek Study Area — Average Daily Row
2010 2020 2030
2004 Steele Creek Study 15.75 mgd (Build -out)
TAZ 2.73 mgd 4.50 mgd 6.76 mgd
2001 McKim & Creed Study 2.86 mgd 3.96 mgd 6.13 mgd
The Steele Creek Study shows more than double the amount of ADF than the 2030 TAZ data
and the 2001 McKim & Creed Study, which are comparable. The Steele Creek Study also does
not predict when build -out would occur. The significant difference in these methodologies is
not unexpected since the recent Steele Creek Study was using a build -out basis for predicting
flows. It is also appropriate for sizing interceptor sewers. However, the TAZ-based flow
estimates are used for estimating required wastewater treatment capacity in this study.
Clear Creekllrvin Creek Study
In 2003, a study was conducted by LandDesign in the Clear Creek and Irvin Creek wastewater
basins. This study was commissioned by CMU because of new development that increased
sewer infrastructure needs. The study area included Irvin, Clear, Beard's, Crooked, Goose,
Stevens, and Duck Creeks and Long Branch. Clear Creek flows to the Rocky River while Irvin
Creek is a tributary to McAlpine Creek. Therefore, a pump station is required to pump
wastewater from the Clear Creek basin to the Irvin Creek basin, ultimately delivering
wastewater to McAlpine WWMF.
A similar methodology to the Steele Creek Sewer Study (LandDesign 2004) using parcel data
and land use types was followed. For residential flow units, unit flows of 190 gpd/du for
existing conditions were used, while both 190 gpd/ du and 250 gpd/du were used for future
build -out conditions. The study found that 250 gpd/du was a more conservative approach
when compared with existing observed flow and favored the use of this value. An assumption
was made that existing residential lots with 4 acres or less in land area would not be
redeveloped to higher density use. This is a more conservative assumption than what was used
in the Steele Creek Sewer Study, but was chosen because the Town of Mint Hill is favoring less
dense development with its land use planning.
For the Clear Creek/Irvin Creek study area, total ADF at build -out is expected to be 12.7 mgd.
Using a peaking (day) factor of 2.5, a peak day of 31.8 mgd is projected at build -out (Table 10).
CLTIFINAL TM 3-1 VWYPROJECTIONS_12222005.DOC 15

WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS UPDATE
TABLE 10
Clear Creek & Irvin Creek Study Area Projections Summary
Projected 190 gpd/du Projected 250 gpd/du
(mgd)* (mgd)*
Total Flows
Clear Creek/Irvin Creek area
Average Peak Average Peak
10.9 27.2 12.7 31.8
*At build -out
Source: LandDesign (2003)
Comparison of TAZ Data and Clear Creekllrvin Creek Report
Figure 4 shows an overlay of the Clear Creek/Irvin Creek study area and basin boundaries.
Table 11 presents a comparison of the projected ADF wastewater flows achieved by two
different methods, using TAZ data and using the methodology presented in the LandDesign
study. McKim & Creed's 2001 Study did not analyze this area.
TABLE 11
Clear Creek & Irvin Creek Study Area Comparison
Average Daily Flow
2010 2020 2030
2003 Clear Creek/Irvin Creek Study 12.7 mgd (Build -out)*
TAZ 3.80 mgd • 5.95 mgd
8.86 mgd
*Using 250 god/du
The Clear Creek/Irvin Creek Study shows 4 mgd more flow than the amount of ADF with 2030
TAZ data. As with the Steele Creek Study, this analysis also does not predict when build -out
would occur. The significant difference in these methodologies is not unexpected since the
recent Clear Creek/Irvin Creek Study was using a build -out basis for predicting flows. It is also
appropriate for sizing interceptor sewers. However, the TAZ-based flow estimates are used for
estimating required wastewater treatment capacity in this study.
CLT/FINAL TM 3-1 WWPROJECTIONS_12222005.DOC 16

YORK
Catawba River
n
N
CH2MHILL
A
.rs
Union
Legend
A vwVM F
- Interstate
- Major Road
Hydrology
Lakes
Clear & Irvin Creeks
Service Area
Updated Future
Service Area
Watersheds
►0ii
*A*A
County Boundary
Figure 4
Clear Creek & Irvin Creek Service Areas
Irwin, Sugar & McAlpine WWMFs
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
CLT/FINAL TM 3-1_WWPROJECTIONS_12222005.DOC
17

WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS UPDATE
Union County Contributions
Wastewater flow from the Six Mile Creek basin is directed to McAlpine WWMF and this is
expected to continue into the future (Figure 2). The Union County Public Works Department
was contacted to determine if flow. contributions from this basin are expected to increase over
time. In 2004, Union County contributed less than 1 mgd to the McAlpine WWMF. At the
direction of Union County (pers. comm. Christie Putnam, August 2005), TAZ data was
analyzed to compare projected wastewater flow to that predicted in the 2000 Union County
Master Plan (HDR).
The Union County Master Plan projects a slightly higher population for this basin in 2030 than
the TAZ data and the 2001 McKim & Creed Study (Table 12). However, the TAZ data
projections are higher for earlier time steps. For the purpose of this study, TAZ data was used.
TABLE 12
Six Mile Creek Watershed - Union County Population Projection Comparison
Year TAZ 2000 Master Plan' McKim & Creed Study
2000 5,404 2,353 2,118
2010 7,262 6,079 5,593
2020 9,331 9,805 9,119
2030 12,338 13,532 12,855
1. HDR (2000)
Wastewater Flow Projections Including Industrial Flows
Using industrial flow and non -industrial population -based flow predictions, total wastewater
flow projections were calculated for each basin and each service area. Details by basin are
provided in Table 13.
CLT/FINAL TM 3-1 WWPROJECTIONS_12222005.DOC 18

TABLE 13
Wastewater Flow Projections - Maximum Month Flows by Basin (mgd)
2010 2020 2030
Drainage Basin Non Industrial Total Non Industrial Total Non Industrial Total
Irwin Creek 13.10 0.54 13.65 15.99 0.62 16.61 19.21 0.71 19.92
Briar Creek 12.86 0.00 12.86 13.55 0.00 13.55 14.50 0.00 14.50
Upper Little Sugar Creek 11.17 1.28 12.45 13.57 1.46 15.03 16.38 1.67 18.05
Total for Sugar Creek WWTP 24.03 1.28 25.31 27.12 1.46 28.58 30.88 1.67 32.55
Back Creek 0.30 0.00 0.30 1.56 0.00 1.56 2.56 0.00 2.56
Beaver Dam Creek 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.50 0.00 0.50 1.03 0.00 1.03
Catawba Creek 0.16 0.00 0.16 0.51 0.00 0.51 1.12 0.00 1.12
Clear Creek 0.75 0.00 0.75 1.77 0.00 1.77 3.33 0.00 3.33
Clem Creek 0.24 0.00 0.24 0.56 0.00 0.56 0.98 0.00 0.98
Crooked Creek 0.35 0.00 0.35 0.63 0.00 0.63 1.03 0.00 1.03
Four Mile Creek 4.62 0.00 4.62 5.44 0.00 5.44 6.35 0.00 6.35
Gar Creek 0.18 0.00 0.18 0.41 0.00 0.41 0.77 0.00 0.77
Goose Creek 0.60 0.00 0.60 1.45 0.00 1.45 2.65 0.00 2.65
Lake Wylie 0.45 0.00 0.45 1.27 0.00 1.27 2.40 0.00 2.40
Long Creek 3.02 0.08 3.10 5.50 0.09 5.59 8.76 0.10 8.86
Lower Little Sugar Creek 4.29 0.17 4.46 4.62 0.20 4.82 5.01 0.23 5.24
Lower Mountain Island Lake 0.27 0.00 0.27 0.63 0.00 0.63 1.19 0.00 1.19
McAlpine Creek 17.84 0.09 17.93 18.70 0.10 18.80 22.91 0.12 23.03
McMullen Creek 6.01 0.00 6.01 6.16 0.00 6.16 6.41 0.00 6.41
Paw Creek 2.58 0.20 2.78 3.55 0.23 3.78 4.69 0.26 4.95
CLTIFINAL TM 3-1 WWPROJECTIONS_12222005.DOC 19

WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS UPDATE
TABLE 13
Wastewater Flow Projections - Maximum Month Flows by Basin (mgd)
2010 2020 2030
Drainage Basin Non Industrial Total Non Industrial Total Non Industrial Total
Six Mile Creek - Mecklenburg Co. 1.93 0.04 1.97 2.70 0.04 2.75 3.61 0.05 3.66
Six Mile Creek - Union Co. 0.96 0.00 0.96 1.24 0.00 1.24 1.77 0.00 1.77
Steele Creek 2.28 1.14 3.41 3.23 1.30 4.53 4.36 1.48 5.84
Sugar Creek 5.52 0.34 5.86 6.79 0.38 7.17 7.99 ' 0.21 8.20
Twelve Mile Creek 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.28 0.00 0.28
Total for McAlpine Creek WWMF 52.53 2.06 54.59 67.39 2.34 69.73 89.20 2.45 91.64
Total 89.67 3.88 93.55 110.50 4.42 114.92 139.29 4.82 144.11
Developed November 2005; Updated December 2005
Assumptions:
Back Creek flows are in the McAlpine flows.
Industrial flows were increased by the same percentage as population growth.
Industrial increases were applied to the basins where flow currently occurs.
2005 TAZ data was used for population increases. These values have been approved by various regional govemmental entities.
Further details can be found in a tech memo developed by CH2M HILL for the WWTP Expansion Project. See Julie McLelland.
Only basins draining to Irwin, McAlpine, and Sugar WVVTPs were considered in this analysis.
CLTIFINAL TM 3-1 WWPROJECTIONS_12222005.DOC 20

Required WWMF Capacity
In summary, the projected maximum monthly flows to the CMU Irwin Creek, Sugar Creek, and
McAlpine Creek WWMFs, as shown in Table 14, will be near the current combined permitted
capacity of 99 mgd in the year 2010. In 2020 it is estimated that these flows will be approaching
120 mgd and by 2030 the projected flows are 144 mgd. The required increase in capacity at each
WWMF will be determined through a separate alternative analysis. The facilities may continue
to function together by bypassing and transferring flow when needed. These flow projections
are based on the most current population predictions for the area and industrial flow
predictions based on actual discharge values with considerations for modest growth in
industrial flows.
TABLE 14
Maximum Month Wastewater Flow Projections for 2010, 2020, and 2030
Year
TAZ (2005)
Irwin Sugar McAlpine
Creek Creek Creek
TOTALS
(MMF (MMF (MMF (MMF
mgd) mgd) mgd) mgd)
McKim & Creed Study (2001)
Irwin Sugar McAlpine
Creek Creek Creek
(MMF (MMF (MMF (MMF
mgd) mgd) mgd) mgd)
12.77 24.01 52.29 89.07
14.14 25.18 61.04 100.36
15.51 26.35 70.88 112.74
2010
2020
2030
13.65 25.32 56.80 95.77
16.61 28.59 72.28 117.48
19.92 32.55 91.65 144.12
TOTALS
CLTIFINAL TM 3-1 WWPROJECTIONS 12222005.DOC 21

WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS UPDATE
References
HDR. 2000. Union County Water and Sewer Master Plans.
LandDesign. 2004. Preliminary Engineering Report - Steele Creek Service Area Sewer Study.
Prepared for Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities. Updated 2005.
LandDesign. 2003. Preliminary Engineering Report for Clear Creek/Irvin Creek Basin Study.
Prepared for Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities. Charlotte, North Carolina.
McKim & Creed. 2001. Technical Memorandum - Wastewater System Management Study,
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities.
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Metrolina Regional Model Planning Team. 2005.
Metrolina Regional Model.
CLTIFINAL TM 3-1 WWPROJECTIONS_12222005.DOC 22

Michael F. Easley, Governor
OFWATF9
QG
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
To: Hannah Stallings
SEPA Coordinator
DWQ Planning Section
From: Agyeman Adu-Poku A-0-r
Environmental Engineer
Western NPDES Program
August 18, 2008
Re: Environmental Assessment Report
NPDES Permit Number: NC0O24937
Western NPDES Program staff has reviewed the Sugar Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant expansion
Environmental Assessment Report. The NPDES-West recommends that the Charlotte -Mecklenburg
Utilities provides detailed justification for the flow projections. It must address how a unit flow factor of
143.4 gpd/person was developed.
Please feel free to call me at [phone] with all your questions. Thanks.
cc: Permit File
Central Files
NorehCarolina
atiirally
North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet: www.ncaaterqualitv.org Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 Fax [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recyded110% Post Consumer Paper

uno
in cfs/mile
s.
CN -
5tAj4° e'-
f • y/-7-‘,1-
(A-4ar .4,,,a0 zo /460
/71#
0
6� pip)
4Ve/ e AffID-
if," a: 71'4 64-
fr
r 2B��
(/Y"
Add, �. fAipti tk- who
&,/
,,,
creic,a-/'
TD
Zo f1Crd —7� Zco, %Ic-05 Aj Zo / L
O
� 'Z8i't� � 3 Y�1Grl � zo7.6
r �j`t sae.
7-44.4,6 te.,k4 ine.tr
32. L •efrO
x
rs7c/p,---
z8 OlAde Y-2
�, 3 Y /goo' Vb"-
Ex
c-
,tit5
)(iA V7v4i7c (trAir/-
ch-fre;r3
4' a to/
--)(Amitif -"cid&
6044,74 00 /14(11•1 isr"
6i/ct d;
ucitYc
,,(—/e4J/4o,
/26 /k/c/
,fie
(//#40-Cn�f
7*-1, ro-7/-/
7 #
/2- ivy 71,6-1-11
�ENrh/o./
-11-eivtita2r1;fiffE.,-4
Le4 j �4if
4//////;d-
;‘,--
- 7 iV1vN /r1

ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions
5ugar Creek WWTP Expansion Project
DEN R/DWQ.Environmental Assessment
5coping Meeting
Agenda (1 0:50 -- Noon)
November 19, 2007
1. Introductions — Agenda Overview
2. Sugar Creek WWTP Expansion Capacity — 28 mgd vs. 34 mgd; Phased Speculative
Limits Request
J 3. Impact of Sugar Creek WWTP Expansion on flow diversion to the McAlpine Creek
WWMF *mkt
✓ 4. Status of SC Lower Catawba TMDL development
5.
Addressing Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
J6. Modeling efforts evaluating increased effluent discharge to Little Sugar Creek as it
relates to current TMDL For turbidity and fecal coliform
17. Sustainable design concepts under consideration
8. Other issues —� S0(''�h�t Z+(� -Ili `+4pi�,.xv�rt� �'�"`'�t
UV I f her
G�

FiR
Sugar Creek WWTP Site
Property Boundary
ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions, -
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities 1 Sugar Creek WWTP Expansion Project Aerial Site

s
iff4
Irwin Creek WWTP
Current Permit: 15 mgdT\*/
#4111‘1
144
�e\`�a
p01(
Legend
swidityls
McAlpine Creek WWMF Service Area
Sugar Creek WWTP Service Area
Catawba River r
0 1.25 2.5 5 7.5 10 Irwin Creek WWTP Service Area
Miles 11
Utilities Wastewater Facilities - Sugar Creek Watershed
Figure 1
V 1 v
Z
ONE COMPANY 'Many Solutions
Sugar Creek WWTP
Current Permit: 20 mgd
McAlpine Creek WWMF
Current Permit: 64 mgd
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities I Sugar Creek WWTP Expansion Project j Watershed

H-CkA,AalS-hL11+. c
hja I ONE COMPANY
j� jj�� Many Solutions"
Project:
Subject:
Task:
Job #:
Computed:
Checked:
Page:
Date:
Date:
of:
\X IV% 1 0 7
No:
1) i
- C_� ��� -� HEe:.1_ . L,rtrriaS
5u. A. \,AJ,$01j
DtAll) (vsecoe-42-4 t3`P-oe5 ti-cr-
1 rvte,O•o:
`` \/� LoL-L [� - C�% ,�1.0 �'��C . LkT�LtnaS
cAct E 4YZ 2tu. - C I-t 0 0
PCL.:. � �wQ �,,.e..n�J,-/gN-6tf-
DiG.n2 v7xq}�
k Ak/k- eAr
-Dtia CMaiMeeick4.6z/i-
Ka,44\-y+ecker
A)mbaj
Jam! J Q /fldei/nockedilyT 21--
4ti4-,-
n /G,k5N N1706-s
r
' G T� �•�1'�'_� �,' i..%`� ' Jar=

lo4y.<72,477
wid
pvilv
Mc aai.
evr 3 UillirP s ,e r w 1;&Leel 16,0
114;ilze filit:,7E-A). (0/ (1404-4.1 ,--1441/11.4 - 4-1- (0): Cvc.c.et.
ft ei- 6ti WC .° vteu b a•ltAliAs i--fitc/4 fiat Cailt,
I li "47 ite,4.4-- iiill 14 A).
-11-0 saviket Awe- tiv./0-4)-- to/ GA
ON - co(41,ii,,,.17 . ;Dlit4t,. Lit/ _,44.1, civ4w
lo))/4 t fur Cry hrlS ei ,b(c At /sl[ d a T o N r (,1.
67-7 No - Akita I?, /kkii/A1)‹. C 116,-;bt)
2b7: AL1A - � “J____, 4s 3�i' /4G� Zo- 7i8frtC+� 2$ � 34 AC-0
0-
x 3Y AO
C`11)
4 1106u, 4/%44: A L. ww-e, Pa ivt-047,,i- e- gdvi-sti,
1 I, Yr, evielc ,
°10011- Pcc. 4,01
f)i cat, '1'1 N✓'1 4 dt (14n/ ! -PM feu. I Hldi gow E(, 6471.,; •+. 4cc-
/%f.PA- — tu.,.. N. ' . /him 4 iti,t SRio L / 1c//,�tiC
I 101 /N V
teg i'it 0 0 t lb 14(- lit 1 t;) 0 • NAWri- /142141411ir A /Pfc.d/ / c
OM t , 04 d- filiev _
D (� mils 4+, tY�laviehw:- 01)-field d,uvt,, - bf j-fv)w 14,ciag,P.

. .
�7�
bv A.p^' ifr„ r7 4 av InvolL rjra
-(s tt Ac.ii//,v E
rw`�,�
1.7.so
0
fitk, hi c 4 7 Attar ii,Ad. ied.
-->.
44 /116644 i s'y Li - xo , my ' A...44c,
31 At /Ars/ C464-
af
illio a /6,A, , zo - zs e - 3f ,I.140
jyy.flari e SG /fIoEJ
frec. /;e, .b cr 3 fistca wi// t"), yC 3Y.L(Ge
loteive-----
0 Ifia; c,h) rAti26/A-1-. 4a. othicj A-, ,7----,.,,,,,
iitrk''
, ,r;--f,tec.. ct,:i ,41-7 /.‘(.;. ),..c:c. .
i Ai
ivonvic: *-444.1-4 4045 iS emadvz R. 0..*,__ ..i.
fm,t, 4 • 4.41,
Ffz,, (-1‘- lie- a 4. sT.3/e-&
t)
id ./..4,4,t, 7-1° g,1/444) 4 4-c- (...,/,/,../e/f.dic
II;
CAU—E—Iker:7 cf-C rel.. • AA- lidiVE.. LtA4 14;—
,rAim- el -It. Mi/weitrait) iur cle (V
l- 47 ktil
(bitD A
/
46
A b+A f(n eittlw..- — fetz.a 4l-m i ,city,rid, G.i! ht.,.-
Am-.
Nrice An n.erk4, vicat oa..--- — 4.,/-.1....e_f 4-G�aC�ii

._____7
oil o h. At 44 - &air, /ow ii,,,ei-. 4 .
0/ ,41.4.-t_ Ifrd MAX bAe-e-/-: ,ripteo:A.,
---,,
i,;,41.6-
671/fte)--
Jlifsf,44:- Arz.v,..,i-- tok ,:c_elx i ) ,--IA-#z
i'lirt;11'5 tt-Atie I ,iim v
..1
64),...442.0c :rifreb—
fr.4.
1-;41 1-41426— c‘,.___,4 4,, uch,.:_. xio-r-i,ve,c.fif,-7/<>
/j» Uf.s4t J r 9
(.dttGfy,J
0)111
- tyy,, G . 2%1'/4af % y oCwl.-kv.2%. #Sove vi410, ir,Q,,,,44.i o a.---'
;
ifrvio, 1 •C
64.: 4423 r‘,.,_, 0_3 .1644 j.
1..'' it [
Ed /LJI
ift,.....
Z-; cw.dwi(....
Colt) -
--,
well ill iO4/irtjT/f/tpe., , isi-1 if zmia. 7b,4 -
id.. g-fi "7?).
___,
coo post cady/4,6 x iw4cts „se..., , cAto d.ch <coyel
6„,,,,,t fy Z4i174 1, ----:_:—...-r-v— 16 7/e/71-7/
4______,
,, 4.h.I 64s 2 foi/4ftir t et goilgt 6a4inot ,
VU
fcv,ntL}�,0//CJ ZolO. ��llG,p/„" ,/7w7--- - Z4-LJ y7i Lg
0/4 7 y
1-1
t-

Winn ti ! Lll b
f4/C
44.t% w 3 6 .44,
4l' 4.1 d
l,,‘f,.4 kw ,
.44f
,,,;,. aft, 10,4 .
7 6 lEU! ( d 4,
7)
4 - f SaklE
I
„,,, __. __-. #0(.(4 /Nilikii A .0-171?....t
Id 1 1/01/ / Scii.o. 4
1 /
--29
. ' ftf ,/4Z du • ;,vet +.L acdad
iht-wht,...-is c""
S1i/N/* j4hu rimi.44:-.. /) aif -ffarc--
;A), ; 4 , IN ,4__ 7t l r�-
i1Y14/C1 A A Cesvhii;v de a.
itiiittikl/A) f, Au; cr
spi
Mic,C5 Li/ sit.. - car 14tc rat." -C/
/4)„„til. ehd*✓fZ-s7
7uWi — ce.41 4i1r Ce4•44 ALei, -A 4
+I
_____ r/4 44,70r774,‘,
. LI' AK id,
prAt_,)
pfclo
eff,te4,1 r Ctio " 14 - 6 10 1.114,-ch , !iv
i d`G—. �Y kr/,i d /f Z.0
<J 11/4 4
lrs✓t' - 1/i� Luc a " tea i-t imi elf/,
----A /4- aic,j, .
l `',,,,^,p rivkwv Lt

( ? afdt-frytel.4d° ?
Ci'
b�
—
/.N -/ / iwfZ�-- oKtx
;/ .
/to cr3Zrt 4,..sie—,ww
lv let ; . 7w u'R 4`�'c�rJ
b.,
' (41t- a . FtLeil "1,14
f
(1-114t4.4"-0 , s
f ? .___ `dektn Off
Citil,)--
4
V
4 kdLLJ w I.- 6A-A

MEMORANDUM
TO:
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
Point Source Branch
NPDES Program
Hannah Stallings
September 19, 2007
THROUGH: Susan A. Wilson, Supervisor
Western NPDES Program
FROM:
Jacquelyn M. Nowell, Environmental Specialist III
Western NPDES Program
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Document for Environmental Impact Statement for the
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities — Sugar Creek Wastewater Treatment
Plant
The subject document has been reviewed and the NPDES Program offers the
following comments on Charlotte's planned expansion. The expansion of the CMU-
Sugar Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) is scheduled for completion in two
phases with a projected maximum wasteflow of 34 MGD. It is recommended that the
State of South Carolina/ Department of Health and Environmental Control and
surrounding municipalities be informed on all actions with this proposed expansion (the
Division has already received inquiries from the City of Rock Hill). In the past, South
Carolina has shown particular interest in the CMU treatment plants and will probably
have pertinent comments regarding any expansion of the discharge. Due to the plant's
proximity to the NC/SC state line, South Carolina state regulations must be addressed.
It should be noted that the receiving stream for the Sugar Creek WWTP, Little
Sugar Creek, is listed on the North Carolina 303d list for impaired streams. There is
currently a total maximum daily load (TMDL) in place for fecal coliform. As a tributary
to the Catawba River, downstream waterbodies in the South Carolina portion of the
Catawba River are listed as impaired for total phosphorus (TP). A model is being
developed to support a nutrient TMDL for the lower Catawba River Basin. This could
potentially affect North Carolina dischargers with very stringent nutrient limitations. In
addition, with the last permit renewal, effluent limitations for copper and zinc were
included for the protection of South Carolina waters. Any expansion will require a
reevaluation of these limits.
As with any proposed expansion, alternatives to discharge should be thoroughly
investigated (especially with regard to reuse of treated wastewater, which would
subsequently reduce pollutant loadings).

DWQ Environmental Review Tracking Sheet
DENR4 08-0065
DWQ# 13889
Date: 8/27/2007
Environmental Sciences Section
Trish MacPherson - Biological Assessment Unit
_Jay Sauber - Ecosystems Unit
_Cindy Moore - Aquatic Toxicology Unit
)(Dianne Reid - Intensive Survey Unit
Wetlands and Stormwater Branch
Bradley Bennett - Stormwater Unit
_John Hennessy - DOT
Cyndi Karoly - 401 Unit
_Boyd DeVane - Water Supply
Point Source Branch
Matt Matthews - NPDES Unit
Gil Vinzani (EAST)
_XSusan Wilson (WEST)
Jeff Poupart - PERCS Unit
TYPE: EA SCOPING
Planning Section
0 Darlene Kucken — Basinwide Planning Unit
��
_Jeff Manning - Classification and Standards Unit
_Rich Gannon - Non -Point Source Planning Unit
�C Kathy Stecker - Modeling and TMDL Unit
r4c.0o2 937
lam" . ;(•- f fL
Aquifer Protection Section
Todd Bennett - Animal Feeding Operations Unit
Kim Colson - Land Application Unit
_Groundwater Planning Unit
Debra Watts - Groundwater Protection Unit
Groundwater Investigation Unit
62e i
Others
A copy of the environmental document for the project described below is attached. Subject to the requirements of
SEPA, you are being asked to review the document for potential significant impacts to the environment that are
pertinent to your jurisdiction, level of expertise, or permitting authority. Please return this completed form along with
any written comments by the date indicated. Thanks for your help.
If an extension is needed, contact Hannah Stallings prior to the response deadline.
Project Description:
Response Deadline
Oct
Scoping for upgrade/expansion of the Sugar Creek WWTP to keep pace with growth from
inf ill and high -density development from Charlotte.
No comment
Comments attached and emailed
Signature
Date
Return To:
Hannah Stallings: voice: [phone], ext. 555; fax: [phone]; [e-mail]
DWQ Planning Section, 1617 MSC, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Office 625i Archdale Building
Notes:

Ne.a02.9-93-1
August 22, 2007
Re: Scoping Document for Environmental Assessment
Sugar Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Expansion Project
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities
To All Interested Parties:
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities (Utilities) has retained HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas (HDR) to
complete the planning and Environmental Assessment (EA) for the upgrade/expansion of the Sugar Creek
WWTP (the Project). The EA will be completed in accordance with the North Carolina Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA). The purpose of this scoping letter is to gather relevant comments from applicable
agencies on the proposed action, so these comments may be considered in the planning efforts, evaluation
of alternative designs, and environmental analyses for the Project.
1.0 Background
Continued economic development and population growth within the Charlotte metropolitan area is
projected to require additional wastewater treatment capacity for Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities. In
May 2007, Utilities completed a Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion Study (Expansion Study - CH2M
Hill, May 2007) that evaluated future capacity needs for three of their facilities — the McAlpine Creek,
Sugar Creek, and Irwin Creek treatment facilities — all of which are located in the Sugar Creek watershed
(see Figure 1). These three facilities were considered collectively since they are all located within the
same watershed and they are all inter -connected - that is the Sugar Creek and Irwin Creek facilities have
the ability to transfer flow to the McAlpine Creek facility for treatment.
The alternative preferred in the Expansion Study included an upgrade and expansion of the Sugar Creek
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) to keep pace with the rapid growth occurring within the Sugar
Creek service area, including infill and high density development that spans out from the central business
district of the City of Charlotte. The Sugar Creek WWTP Expansion Project is currently expected to be
completed in two phases — Phase I expansion is expected to increase the rated capacity from 20 to 28
million gallons per day (mgd) by 2012, and Phase II is scheduled to increase the rated capacity from 28 to
34 mgd by 2016. The Expansion Study also evaluated influent wastewater characteristics, historical plant
performance, and potential, future regulatory requirements for the Sugar Creek WWTP. The Expansion
Study did not include detailed facility layouts, descriptions, or process facility designs at the Sugar Creek
WWTP site.
HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas (HDR) is now in the process of completing expansion planning
and the EA for Phase I. The planning effort for this Project includes long-term master planning of the
Sugar Creek WWTP site and the integration of sustainable design concepts into the Project.
2.0 Purpose and Need
The Sugar Creek WWTP is currently rated at 20 mgd and treats wastewater primarily from the Upper
Little Sugar Creek and the Briar Creek drainage basins (see Figure 2). This area includes approximately
half of the central business district for the City of Charlotte and densely populated, urbanized areas that
are currently experiencing infill development and higher density re -development. Flow projections
developed in the Expansion Study were derived from population projections for Traffic Analysis Zone
(TAZ) data, percent population served from Utilities, per capita use values, and industrial flow
projections. TAZ population data was used since it is considered the most reliable and widely accepted
Sugar Creek WWTP — Expansion Project
Environmental Assessment Scoping — Rev. 1
Page 1 of 9 August 22, 2007

planning data for the metro -Charlotte region. Table 1 below summarizes future population and flow
projections for the Sugar Creek WWTP service area.
Table 1— Historical / Projected Future Maximum Monthly Total Influent Flows to Sugar Creek WWTP
Year Population Served
Max. Month Projected
Wastewater Flows (mgd)
2000
2010
2020
2030
134,876
150,053
169,349
188,945
25.3
28.6
32.6
Population and wastewater flow projections for the Sugar Creek WWTP service area support the need for
additional wastewater treatment and disposal capacity. Currently, the Sugar Creek WWTP experiences
average daily flows of approximately 20.5 mgd; and in 2003, a maximum month flow of 27.6 mgd was
recorded. A portion of these total influent flows are routinely diverted diverted to the McAlpine Creek
WWMF for treatment.
By Years 2020 and 2030, it is projected that the Sugar Creek WWTP will experience influent maximum
monthly flows of 28.6 mgd and 32.6 mgd, respectively. These future flow projections are illustrated in
Figure 1 below.
40 -
35 -
30 -
.a 25 -
0
-20
"15-
10-
5-
0
0
0
0
N
20 mgd (rated
Phase I - 28 mgd
2d.3
* 1
Phase II - 34 mgd
28.6
32.6
— — — Sugar Creek WWTP Rated Capacity
Historic Max -Month Total Influent Flows
Projected Future Max Month Flows (from Evaluation Study)
Co
Co
N
0
Co
N
0
0
N
Year
Co
N
Co
N
N
0
N
0
M
O
N
. Figure 1— Historical and Projected Future Maximum Monthly Total Influent Flows
*A portion of the historical/current influent flows are diverted to the McAlpine Creek WWMF for treatment
3.0 Proposed Action
To provide the necessary wastewater treatment capacity, it is proposed that the Sugar Creek WWTP be
immediately expanded from 20 to 28 mgd (Phase I), and then 28 to 34 mgd (Phase II). The current
Project and EA will be focused on the Phase I Expansion from 20 to 28 mgd.
Sugar Creek WWTP — Expansion Project Page 2 of 9 August 22, 2007
Environmental Assessment Scoping — Rev. 1

The Sugar Creek WWTP has an excellent track record of environmental compliance. The facility
currently sits on approximately 185 acres, including land area on both sides of Little Sugar Creek (see
Figure 3). The majority of the process units for the Sugar Creek WWTP are located on the east side of
Little Sugar Creek. ,:During the planning efforts,:the following issues will be addressed:
• Process technology to be implemented.
• Process unit facilities to be upgraded and/or expanded.
• Recommendation for location of new process facilities (i.e. east side/west side of Little Sugar
Creek — or a combination of both).
• Flood protection of critical assets.
In addition, Utilities is evaluating sustainability concepts such as:
• Incorporation of the Little Sugar Creek greenway into the Project site;
• LEED certification for buildings;
• Adaptive reuse of existing facilities;
• Vegetative buffers;
• Land conservation;
• Public environmental education;
• Community use features;
• Stormwater management.
4.0 Project Alternatives
Various alternatives were considered in the development of the Expansion Study to provide additional
treatment capacity for the Sugar Creek WWTP service area. The preliminary alternative selected from
this Expansion Study included a proposed immediate expansion of the Sugar Creek WWTP from 20 to 28
mgd to meet the needs of the Upper Little Sugar Creek and Briar Creek watersheds. This
recommendation was based on minimizing environmental impacts and maximizing cost effectiveness.
These alternatives, and others, will now be further evaluated in the completion of the EA.
Alternatives likely to be considered in the EA, include:
• Alternative #1 — Expand the Sugar Creek WWTP from 20 to 28 mgd with continued effluent
disposal to Little Sugar Creek.
• Alternative #2 — Expand the Sugar Creek WWTP from 20 to 28 mgd using non -discharge options
(e.g. spray irrigation, water reuse).
• Alternative #3 — Expand wastewater conveyance infrastructure and the McAlpine Creek WWMF
to allow additional flow to bypass the Sugar Creek WWTP and be treated at the McAlpine Creek
WWMF.
• Alternative #4 — No action.
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities currently has a `bubble' permit limit for Total Phosphorus of 826 lbs/day
(based on a 12-month rolling average) from the McAlpine, Sugar, and Irwin Creek facilities. To date,
Utilities has elected to implement phosphorus removal only at the McAlpine Creek WWMF to achieve
compliance. The Project Team for the Sugar Creek WWTP Expansion Project will be evaluating
alternatives for implementing phosphorus removal for continued compliance with this `bubble' permit.
Sugar Creek WWTP — Expansion Project Page 3 of 9 August 22, 2007
Environmental Assessment Scoping — Rev. 1

5.0 Environmental Analysis
The environmental impact analysis will include both direct and secondary and cumulative impacts (SCI).
The analysis will include site -specific surveys, review of existing data and ordinances, consultation with
agencies, and other reviews.
The Expansion Study included the following work items related to regulatory permitting:
• Review of current NPDES permit limits.
• Review of effluent nutrient issues related to Utilities' `bubble' permit for phosphorus at the
McAlpine Creek WWMF, Sugar Creek WWTP, and Irwin Creek WWTP.
• Summary of historical water quality modeling efforts for the Sugar Creek watershed.
• Evaluation of assimilative capacity issues for oxygen -consuming wastes in the Sugar Creek
watershed.
• Review of SC-DHEC's development of a Lower Catawba Nutrient Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL), and Utilities' response to this work effort during public comment periods.
• Completion of an updated Sugar Creek watershed QUAL2E water quality model.
• Review of water quality assessment information including a review of 303(d) listed impaired
waterbodies in both NC and SC.
• Determination of speculative limits received from NC-DWQ on June 21, 2006, for the Sugar
Creek WWTP and other Utilities facilities.
I{ey conclusions of the Expansion Study are summarized as follows:
• Preliminary modeling results using the Watershed Analysis Risk Management Framework
(WARMF) model provided to NC-DWQ by SC-DHEC indicated that the chlorophyll -a
standard could be met in Fishing Creek and downstream reservoirs with control of only Total
Phosphorus (TP).
• QUAL2E modeling efforts with the Sugar Creek WWTP rated at 35 mgd indicate that low
dissolved oxygen (DO) levels are not an issue in the watershed and that existing permit limits
adequately protect instream DO levels. Specifically, existing permit limitations for BOD and
ammonia adequately protect DO levels in the Sugar Creek watershed.
• Future TP limits are likely to be based upon the results of the Lower Catawba Nutrient
TMDL.
Table 2 outlines speculative permit limits for key parameters received from NC-DWQ for the Sugar
Creek WWTP.
Sugar Creek WWTP — Expansion Project Page 4 of 9 August 22, 2007
Environmental Assessment Scoping — Rev. 1

•
Table 2. NPDES Speculative Permit Limits for the Sugar Creek WWTP
(received from NC-DWQ, June 21, 2006)
Effluent Characteristics
Monthly Average Weekly Average
Flow (mgd)
CBOD5 (Apr 1 - Oct 31)
CBOD5 (Nov 1 - Mar 31)
TSS
NH3 as N (Apr 1 - Oct 31)
NH3 as N (Nov 1 - Mar 31)
Dissolved Oxygen'
Fecal Coliform2 (geometric mean)
pH
TRC3
Chronic Toxicity (effluent concentration)
35 mgd
5.0 mg/L
10.0 mg/L
30.0 mg/L
1.0 mg/L
2.0 mg/L
7.5 mg/L
15.0 mg/L
45.0 mg/L
3.0 mg/L
6.0 mg/L
200/100 mL 400/100 mL
Between 6.0 and 9.0 s.u.
18 pg/L
90%
'The daily average dissolved oxygen effluent concentrations shall not be less than 6.0 mg/L.
2The daily maximum limit for fecal colifomi shall be 1000/100 mL.
3The daily average limit for total residual chlorine shall be 28 pglL.
These results are based, in part, on the Sugar Creek watershed QUAL2E modeling efforts completed as
part of the Expansion Study. The speculative limits response also noted that the future TP limit is
contingent upon the TMDL results.
6.0 Draft EA Outline
The following general outline will be used in development of the Environmental Assessment
Outline
Executive Summary
Section 1.0 - Proposed Project Description
Section 2.0 — Project Purpose and Need
Section 3.0 - Alternatives Evaluation including No Action
Section 4.0 — Proposed Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Section 5.0 - Existing Environment/Characteristics of Project Area
• Topography
• Soils
• Land Use
• Wetlands
• Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands
• Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and State Natural Areas
• Areas of Archaeological or Historical Value
• Air Quality
• Noise Levels
• Water Resources (Surface Water and Groundwater)
• Forest Resources
• Shellfish or Fish and Their Habitats
Sugar Creek WWTP — Expansion Project Page 5 of 9 August 22, 2007
Environmental Assessment Scoping - Rev. 1

• Wildlife and Natural Vegetation
Section 6.0 - Predicted Environmental Effects of Project
Section 7.0 — Mitigative Measures
Section 8.0 - References
Section 9.0 - Appendices
• Appendix A. Supporting Documents
• Appendix B. Agency Involvement
• Appendix C. Local Ordinances and Information
• Appendix D. Federal, State and Local Permits to be Permitted
7.0 Public Involvement
As part of the Environmental Assessment process, Utilities plans to hold at Least one public meeting to
discuss the Project and EA with interested parties. This meeting will provide a forum for the public to
provide comments on the Project, alternatives considered, environmental issues including water quality,
sustainable design initiatives, and other community issues.
In addition to the public meeting to be completed for the EA, Utilities has assembled a 15-member
stakeholder group to provide input and insight into the planning and design of the Sugar Creek WWTP
Expansion Project. This stakeholder group include representation from North and Sout Carolina
regulatory agencies, local business interests, individuals with sustainability and public education
backgrounds, environmental interest groups, and neighborhood homeowners associations. The
stakeholder group is charged with providing input during the planning and preliminary design phase, in
particular, for the sustainable design and community integration issues.
8.0 Local, State, and Federal Permits Required
It is recognized that several local, state, and federal permits are, or may be, required prior to construction
of the Project, including 404/401 wetlands permits, air quality permits (for emergency generators),
erosion control, and local building permits. Coordination with these agencies will be completed prior to
and through issuance of the appropriate permits. It is not anticipated that any federally -protected species
will be affected by this Project; however, the National Heritage Program and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service will be notified in regards to future protected species investigations to satisfy Section 7
consultation requirements.
9.0 References
CH2M Hill. May 2007. Draft Final Report, Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion Study.
Sugar Creek WWTP — Expansion Project Page 6 of 9 August 22, 2007
Environmental Assessment Scoping — Rev. 1

0 1.25 2.5
V
Catawba River
7.5 10
Miles
Sugar Creek WWTP
Current Permit: 20 mgd
McAlpine Creek WWMF
Current Permit: 64 mgd
Legend
McAlpine Creek WWMF Service Area
Sugar Creek WWTP Service Area
Irwin Creek WWTP Service Area
ONE CZOMPANY I Many Solutionsw
Utilities Wastewater Facilities - Sugar Creek Watershed
Figure 1
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities l Sugar Creek WWTP Expansion Project I Watershed

Cree Bran
2
Z
Mallard Creek
Upper
Little
Sugar
Creep
Sugar Creek WWTP
Current Permit: 20 mgd
Briar
Creek
Sugar Creek WWTP Service Area
Figure 2
ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities I Sugar Creek WWTP Expansion Project I Watershed

Z
ONE COMPANY I Many Solutions
Sugar Creek WWTP Site
Figure 3
Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities Sugar Creek WWTP Expansion Project Aerial Site

[Fwd: Re: CMUDanew plant and Sugar Creek Expansion]
Subject: [Fwd: Re: CMUD new plant and Sugar Creek Expansion]
From: Susan Wilson <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 11: 3 8 : 3 8 -0400
To: Jackie Nowell <[e-mail]>
just make sure you tell them to keep SC properly informed (and surrounding muni's).
Susan A. Wilson, P.E.
Supervisor, Western NPDES Program
(919) 733 - 5083, ext. 510
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Subject: Re: CMUD new plant and Sugar Creek Expansion
From: Coleen Sullins <Coleen.Sullins @ ncmail.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:06:01 -0400
To: [e-mail]
CC: John Morris <[e-mail]>, Matt Matthews <[e-mail]>, Susan
Wilson <[e-mail]>, Rob Krebs <[e-mail]>, Hannah Stallings
<[e-mail]>, Alan Clark <[e-mail]>
Mr. Stegall - I am forwarding your message to a number of staff that may have
interaction in the permitting process associated with the proposed wastewater
discharge. There will be a State Environmental Policy Act document required
(Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Assessment) as the initial
document. The notice process associated with that document will be through the State
Clearinghouse. Hannah Stallings is our staff member who handles the document
management for this process. Susan Wilson is the Western National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Permit supervisor who will manage the permitting
process. Rob Krebs is our Mooresville Regional Supervisor, the regional office that
will be involved in this process locally. The above staff will be the most
knowledgeable and able to inform you of the process. Sincerely, Coleen Sullins
John Morris wrote:
Nick,
Permitting of WWTPs is under the Division of Water Quality. I am forwarding your
request to Coleen Sullins so she can get it to the proper staff member.
I hope all is well with you and look forward to following the progress of the
Water Management Group.
John Morris
[e-mail] wrote:
John
I think you are the right person for me to contact. I would.like to
receive all public notices related to CMUD's proposed new plant on Lake
Wylie and proposals to enlarge the Sugar Creek WWTP.
Thank you for your help with this matter.
Nick
Nick W. Stegall, P.E.
1 of 2 9/14/2007 1 1:43 AM

[Fwd: Re: CMUD new plant and Sugar Creek Expansion]
Public Services Administrator
City of Rock Hill
PO Box 11706
Rock Hill, SC 29731-1706
Work Phone - 803-329-5519
Fax - 803-329-5616
Re: CMUD new plant and Sugar Creek Expansion Content -Type: message/rfc822
Content -Encoding: 7bit
2of2
9/14/2007 11:43 AM

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
January 7, 2009
L. Kevin Mosteller, PE, SVP
HDR Engineering Inc. of the Carolinas
128 S. Tryon Street, Suite 1400
Charlotte, NC 28202
RE: EAIFONSI for CMU — Sugar Creek WWTP Expansion
DWQ#14012
Dear Mr. Mosteller:
On January 6, 2009, the State Clearinghouse deemed the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
review on the above project complete (see attached letter from the Clearinghouse). It is now acceptable to
proceed with your permit applications through the Division of Water Quality for the proposed project.
No further actions on the Environmental Assessment are required.
If there is anything I can assist you with, please do not hesitate to give me a call at 807-6434.
Sincerely,
Hannah Stallings
SEPA Coordinator
Attachments: (SCH Sign Off Letter, FONSI)
Cc: Rob Krebs — MRO
Mailing Address
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, Iv— 27699-1617
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Location NorthCarolina
512 N. Salisbury St. Natllr<!l if
Raleigh, NC 27604
Inter
cwatergnnlitv.org Customer Service 1-877-623-6748
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CHARLOTTE-MEKCLENBURG UTILITIES — SUGAR CREEK WWTP EXPANSION
Pursuant to the requirements of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. § 113A-1, et seq.), an environmental
assessment (EA) has been prepared for the proposed expansion of Charlotte -Mecklenburg Utilities' (CMU) Sugar Creek
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) in two phases. The first phase of construction will expand the WWTP from 20 million
gallons per day (MGD) to 28 MGD and from 28 MGD to 34 MGD in the second phase. Expansion to this capacity will include
additional primary clarification; aeration basins and blower facilities; secondary clarification; effluent filtration; UV disinfection
and modifications to associated facilities such as the odor control system, piping, and cascade aerator. The expanded Sugar
Creek WWTP will continue to transfer biosolids to the McAlpine Creek WWTP for processing and CMU will continue to
operate and maintain the Lower Sugar Creek outfall that interconnects the Sugar Creek and McAlpine Creek WWTPs to provide
operational flexibility during maintenance activities, high flow events, and emergency situations.
Four alternatives for the treatment and discharge of the increased wastewater flows are considered in the EA: no action;
expansion using non -discharge options (spray irrigation or reuse); expansion of conveyance facilities to and an expansion of the
McAlpine Creek WWTP; and expansion of the Sugar Creek WWTP with continued discharge to Little Sugar Creek. Upon
consideration and evaluation of each alternative, the fourth alternative was found to be the most viable.
While construction of the new facilities at the Sugar Creek WWTP may result in temporary increases in sedimentation and
erosion, noise levels, and dust in the immediate vicinity of the construction area, these and other direct impacts have been
avoided and minimized to the extent practicable during project planning and design. Local topography will be altered around the
new facilities to facilitate operations and maintence and the management of stormwater. CMU will utilize best management
practices (BMPs) required by North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Regulations to limit soil loss, erosion, and the
possbility of contamination during construction and to prevent future erosion to disturbed soils. Direct impacts to fish and their
aquatic habitat will be minimized by these erosion control measures. A maximum of 35 acres of forest may be disturbed on the
existing WWTP site to allow for construction of the expanded facilities. Increased noise levels associated with construction
equipment would be limited to daytime business hours to minimize adverse impacts on adjacent property owners. The expanded
Sugar Creek WWTP will incorporate odor control processes to minimize the migration of nuisance odors offsite. Installation of
facilities associated with expansion of the WWTP will require minor stream crossings. These crossings will be made as close to
perpendicular as possible and will employ BMPs such as silt fencing and temporary sediment traps to reduce direct impacts of
construction on water quality. While the volume of effluent introduced into the Little Creek watershed will increase, the
discharge limits for the WWTP will allow for the assimilation of the treated effluent without detrimental environmental impact.
CMU is committed to meeting the January 2002 agreement regarding effluent phosphorus limits between SC-DEHC, NC-DWQ,
and CMU in the expanded Sugar Creek WWTP; design plans for the expanded facility allow flexibility to adapt to future
regulatory requirements, such as a pending TMDL for the Lower Catawba River in South Carolina. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service concurred that the proposed project should not impact federally listed species. The proposed project should not result in
significant negative direct impacts on local land use; jurisdictional wetlands; prime or unique agricultural lands; public lands and
scenic, recreation and state natural areas; known areas of archaeological or historic value; or groundwater. Also, the proposed
project should not result in the introduction of any toxic substances during either the construction or operation of the facility.
Secondary and cumulative impacts (SCI) may result from the expansion of the Sugar Creek WWTP and are outlined in detail
within the EA. State and local programs to mitigate impacts in the project area are described in detail within the EA and include
local land use planning; stormwater management initiatives; and local watershed protection ordinances, including the Surface
Water Improvement and Management Ordinance. Because the majority of the service area is currently developed, SCI resulting
from this expansion project are expected to be minimal.
Based on the findings of the EA, the impact avoidance/mitigation measures contained therein, and reviewed by governmental
agencies, the Division of Water Quality has concluded that the proposed project will not result in significant impacts to the
environment. This EA and Finding of No Significant Impact are prerequisites for the issuance of Division of Water Quality
permits necessary for the project's construction. An Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared for this project. This
FONSI completes the environmental review record, which is available for inspection at the State Clearinghouse. "
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
20 November 2008