Environmental_Assessment04_01

P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC II
Contents
Acronym List................................................................................................................................iv
Executive Summary...............................................................................................................ES-1
1. Background and Project Description..............................................................................1-1
1.1 Background..........................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Project Description..............................................................................................1-2
2. Purpose and Need..............................................................................................................2-1
2.1 Population Growth.............................................................................................2-1
2.2 Water Demand Projections................................................................................2-1
2.3 WWTP Capacities and Flow Projections .........................................................2-3
2.4 IBT Calculation....................................................................................................2-4
3. Existing Environment and Environmental Consequences.........................................3-1
3.1 Source Basin.........................................................................................................3-1
3.1.1 Wetlands..............................................................................................3-1
3.1.2 Land Use..............................................................................................3-3
3.1.3 Fish and Wildlife Resources............................................................3-11
3.1.4 Water Resources / Water Quality..................................................3-14
3.1.5 Air Quality.........................................................................................3-19
3.1.6 Groundwater Resources..................................................................3-20
3.1.7 Noise Level........................................................................................3-21
3.1.8 Toxic Substances/Hazardous Wastes............................................3-22
3.2 Receiving Basin .................................................................................................3-22
3.2.1 Wetlands............................................................................................3-23
3.2.2 Land Use............................................................................................3-24
3.2.3 Fish and Wildlife Resources............................................................3-28
3.2.4 Water Quality / Water Resources..................................................3-30
3.2.5 Air Quality.........................................................................................3-32
3.2.6 Groundwater Resources..................................................................3-33
3.2.7 Noise Level........................................................................................3-34
3.2.8 Toxic Substances/Hazardous Wastes............................................3-34
4. Secondary and Cumulative Impacts in the Receiving Basin.....................................4-1
4.1 Secondary Impacts..............................................................................................4-1
4.1.1 Installation of Water and Sewer Lines.............................................4-1
4.1.2 Build-out of the Receiving Basin ......................................................4-2
4.2 Cumulative Impacts ...........................................................................................4-7
5. Alternatives Analysis ........................................................................................................5-1
5.1 No Action Alternative........................................................................................5-1
5.2 Obtain Water from Rocky River Subbasin Alternative.................................5-2
5.3 Discharge Water to Catawba River Subbasin Alternative............................5-2
6. Mitigation of Adverse Impacts........................................................................................6-1
6.1 Summary of Federal and State Regulations and Programs..........................6-1
6.1.1 Federal Regulations............................................................................6-2
6.1.2 State Regulations.................................................................................6-4
6.2 Evaluation of Local Regulations and Programs.............................................6-8
6.2.1 Mecklenburg County .........................................................................6-8
6.2.2 North Mecklenburg Towns.............................................................6-27
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC III
6.2.3 Town of Mint Hill.............................................................................6-30
6.3 Proposed Mitigation Measures.......................................................................6-32
6.3.1 Water and Sewer Line EA/EIS Conditions...................................6-32
6.3.2 Enhancing and Strengthening Local Government Regulations
& Programs........................................................................................6-33
7. Agency Involvement..........................................................................................................7-1
8. References............................................................................................................................8-1
Figures
1 Project Study Area Map...............................................................................................1-3
2 Water Supply Service Area..........................................................................................1-5
3 Wastewater Service Area.............................................................................................1-6
4 Land Cover Map/Land Use Map...............................................................................3-6
5 Water Quality/Water Resources Map.....................................................................3-16
Tables
1 Areas of Potential Impacts to be Addressed by Permitting & NCEPA
Processes for Identified Projects in the Source and Receiving Basins................ ES-2
2 Characteristics of Lake Norman, Mountain Island Lake, and Lake Wylie...........1-1
3 Projected Mecklenburg County Population and Population Served by
CMUD ............................................................................................................................2-1
4 CMUD Raw Water Demand Projections...................................................................2-2
5 WWTP Capacities and Loadings................................................................................2-3
6 WWTP Average Daily Flow Projections (mgd)........................................................2-3
7 Interbasin Transfer Water Balance Table (Maximum Day Basis)..........................2-5
8 Maximum Day Water Use, Discharge, and Interbasin Transfer (mgd) for
CMUD Alternatives in 2030........................................................................................5-1
9 Summary of Staff Resources Committed to the Voices and Choices
Process..........................................................................................................................6-13
10 Key Elements for the City of Charlotte Stormwater Program..............................6-21
11 County Stormwater Program Elements ..................................................................6-23
12 County Surface Water Program Elements ..............................................................6-23
13 SWIM Phase I Elements.............................................................................................6-23
14 Summary of Existing Programs from Section 6.2 and the Environmental
Resources They Protect..............................................................................................6-31
15 Impact Proposed IBT Conditions on Environmental Secondary Impacts..........6-34
16 Mitigation Monitoring Plan.......................................................................................6-35
Appendices
A Supporting Tables
B Resource Agencies Consultation
C Proposed Land Use Maps
D Charlotte-Mecklenburg Environmental Programs Supporting Documentation
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC IV
Acronym List
ACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
ADD average daily demand
AQI Air Quality Index
BFE base flood elevation
BMP best management practice
CGIA North Carolina Center for Geographical Information and Analysis
CMUD Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Department
COG Council of Government
CWMTF North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund
DENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DWQ North Carolina Division of Water Quality
DWR North Carolina Division of Water Resources
EA environmental assessment
EIS environmental impact statement
EMC North Carolina Environmental Management Commission
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FONSI finding of no significant impact
fps feet per second
FY fiscal year
GIS geographic information system
gpcd gallons per capita day
HHW household hazardous waste
IBT interbasin transfer
MCDEP Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection
MDD maximum daily demand
mgd million gallons per day
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
MPL Mecklenburg Priority List
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC V
MS4 municipal separate storm sewer system
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard
NCDOT North Carolina Department of Transportation
NCEPA North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NHP Natural Heritage Program
NOx nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
RRR Rocky River Regional
SC DHEC South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
SNHA Significant Natural Heritage Area
SSO sanitary sewer overflow
SWAC North Carolina Storm Water Advisory Committee
SWIM Surface Water Improvement Management Program
TMDL total maximum daily load
TPL Trust for Public Land
TSD treatment, storage, or disposal
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
VOC volatile organic compound
WQI water quality index
WRC North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
WRP North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program
WSACC Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County
WTP water treatment plant
WWTP wastewater treatment plant
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC ES-1
Executive Summary
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Department (CMUD) is requesting an interbasin
transfer (IBT) certificate from the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission
(EMC) for an increase in their IBT from 16.1 million gallons per day (mgd) to 33 mgd. The
proposed IBT is based on expansion of the existing water withdrawals from the source basin
(Lake Norman and Mountain Island Lake within the Catawba River Subbasin), and transfer
of the water to the receiving basin (Eastern Mecklenburg County within the Rocky River
Subbasin) via consumptive use and existing discharges in the receiving basin (Mallard
Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant [WWTP] and Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus
County’s [WSACC] Rocky River Regional WWTP). The IBT will not lead to expansions to
either of these existing WWTP discharges in the receiving basin. This Environmental
Assessment (EA) provides supporting documentation for the IBT certificate application.
The project area for the EA consists of the following areas:
• Catawba River Subbasin (source basin): Lake Norman, Mountain Island Lake, Lake
Wylie, and the Catawba River from Lake Norman to the Wylie Dam.
• Rocky River Subbasin (receiving basin): The Mecklenburg County portion east of the
ridge line with the exception of the Goose Creek watershed. The study area includes
Mallard Creek from the WWTP discharge point downstream to the confluence of the
Rocky River proceeding along the Rocky River to the intersection with NC 205.
The IBT associated with future water service into the Goose Creek watershed in
Mecklenburg County is being addressed in a separate State Environmental Policy Act
(NCEPA) document and is not addressed in this EA. Thus, no portion of Goose Creek is
within the study area. The requested IBT of 33 mgd does not include transfers associated
with the Goose Creek watershed. Removing Goose Creek from the study area was done in
order to address comments received on the project (Appendix B).
The purpose of the EA is to evaluate the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the
proposed IBT on both the source and receiving basins. Included is an analysis of potential
impacts on: wetlands, urban lands, prime agricultural lands, forestry resources, public and
recreational lands, archaeological and historical resources, fish and wildlife resources,
sensitive aquatic and terrestrial species and habitats, water quality and water resources, air
quality, groundwater, noise, and toxic substances.
The report concludes that the direct impacts of the IBT on both the source and receiving
basins would be insignificant. The project will not significantly change lake elevations,
minimum dam releases, surface water hydrology, or water quality in the source or receiving
basins.
Secondary and cumulative environmental impacts of future buildout of the portion of the
receiving basin in the project area are evaluated in this EA. Although these impacts may be
potentially significant (due to the possibility that the IBT will facilitate growth and
development in eastern Mecklenburg County through the eventual provision of water and
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC ES-2
sewer services to the region), the implementation of the various mitigation measures
presented in the EA reduces these impacts to a level of insignificance.
The EA for the proposed IBT focuses on the movement of water from one basin to another.
Although the EA recognizes potential indirect impacts of the proposed action, the document
does not evaluate specific water treatment, wastewater treatment, and pipeline facilities.
These future facilities will be evaluated under the NCEPA when they are planned and
designed (see Table 1).
TABLE 1Areas of Potential Impacts to be Addressed by Permitting & NCEPA Processes for Identified Projects in the Source and Receiving
Basins
Source Basin Receiving Basin
Environmental Resource
Proposed
CMUD IBT
Future WTP
Expansions
Water Line
Extensions
Proposed
CMUD IBT
Sewer Line
Extensions
Water Line
Extensions
Wetlands PI LI PI LI PI PI
Urban / Developed Land LI PI PI LI PI PI
Public Land / Recreation Uses PI PI PI LI PI PI
Prime Agricultural Land LI LI PI LI PI PI
Forestry Land LI PI PI LI PI PI
Archaeological / Historical Areas LI PI PI LI PI PI
Wildlife Habitat PI PI PI LI PI PI
Fisheries and Aquatic Resources PI PI PI LI PI PI
Sensitive and Threatened Species
& Habitat
PI PI PI LI PI PI
Water Resources PI PI PI LI PI PI
Water Quality PI PI PI LI PI PI
Air Quality LI PI PI LI PI PI
Groundwater LI LI LI LI PI LI
Noise LI PI PI LI PI PI
Toxic & Hazardous Substances LI PI LI LI PI LI
Secondary Growth (with impacts to
environmental resources)
LI PI PI PI PI PI
Notes:
CMUD IBT = Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Department Interbasin Transfer
NCEPA = North Carolina Environmental Policy Act
PI = Areas of Potential Impact (major relevance in NCEPA documents and permitting applications)
LI = Areas of Limited Impact (minor relevance in NCEPA documents and permitting applications)
This table is meant to show the relevance of each of the environmental issues for each particular project. “PI”indicates areas where there is a potential for impacts to occur as a direct consequence of the project.
This table is not meant to conclude the significance of the impacts of each project on these environmental
resources. The individual NCEPA documents prepared for each of these projects will address whether or not
these impacts will be significant. Rocky River Regional and Mallard Creek WWTPs will not require expansions
to their NPDES permits as a result of the IBT.
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 1-1
SECTION 1
Background and Project Description
1.1 Background
Lake Norman, Mountain Island Lake, and Lake Wylie, which are part of the Catawba River
basin and are located partially in Mecklenburg County, are the final three lakes in a series of
seven hydropower impoundments along the Catawba River in North Carolina. The
impoundments are owned by Duke Power. Mountain Island Lake and Lake Wylie were
built between 1904 and 1928, and Lake Norman was completed in 1967. All three lakes are
extensively used for power generation and recreation, as well as water supply. Table 2
summarizes the lake characteristics.
TABLE 2Characteristics of Lake Norman, Mountain Island Lake, and Lake Wylie
Characteristic Lake Norman Mountain Island Lake Lake Wylie
Year Completed 1967 1923 1904-1928
Drainage Area (sq. miles) 1793 1860 3020
Average Depth (feet) 34 16 23
Maximum Depth (feet) 120 30 92
Shoreline Length (miles) 520 61 330
Surface Area (sq. miles) 51 5 19
Volume (billion gallons) 356.1 18.7 90.5
Lake Norman is the largest and most upstream of three reservoirs on the Catawba River in
Mecklenburg County and was used as the water supply source for the towns of Davidson,
Huntersville, and Mooresville. It recently became a source for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Utilities Department (CMUD—a City of Charlotte Department), which supplies the City of
Charlotte and most of Mecklenburg County.
Mountain Island Lake is the smallest of the three reservoirs and is fed by releases from Lake
Norman. It was the only water supply source for the City of Charlotte through CMUD until
the recent completion of the intake from Lake Norman; however, Mountain Island Lake is
still the main CMUD water supply source. Lake Wylie is the southernmost lake in
Mecklenburg County, forming the boundary to York County, South Carolina, and is the
water supply source for the City of Rock Hill, South Carolina.
There are three water treatment plants (WTPs) that supply Mecklenburg County with
potable water: Franklin, Vest, and North Mecklenburg. Due to continued growth and new
facilities (i.e., the new intake and North Mecklenburg WTP and the expansion of the
Franklin WTP), water withdrawal has or will increase from Lake Norman and Mountain
Island Lake in the Catawba River Basin.
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 1-2
Four out of five of CMUD’s wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) discharge back into the
Catawba River Basin. The fifth, CMUD’s Mallard Creek WWTP, is located in northeast
Mecklenburg County and discharges to Mallard Creek in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin.
Additional CMUD wastewater is treated at the Cabarrus County’s Rocky River Regional
(RRR) WWTP, which discharges to the Rocky River. Both of these WWTPs discharge into
the Rocky River Subbasin in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. The locations of the WWTPs
are shown on the map of the study area (see Figure 1).
Water use in CMUD’s service area, including the portion in the Rocky River Subbasin, is
increasing. As water use in the Rocky River Subbasin increases, CMUD has recently
increased its use of wastewater treatment facilities in that basin by transferring flows to the
RRR WWTP and expanding the Mallard Creek WWTP. The additional use and discharge of
water in the Rocky River Subbasin (through existing permitted capacities) will result in an
increase in CMUD’s interbasin transfer (IBT) from the Catawba River Subbasin to the Rocky
River Subbasin.
1.2 Project Description
An IBT certificate from the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC)
is required once the amount of water transferred from one subbasin to another reaches the
full capacity of the transfer facilities that were existing or under construction as of July 1,
1993 (referred to as the grandfathered capacity). Since CMUD has exceeded 80 percent of its
grandfathered IBT capacity of 16.1 million gallons per day (mgd), CMUD has begun the
application process to increase its IBT to 33 mgd (based on 2030 needs) by obtaining an IBT
certificate. This Environmental Assessment (EA) provides supporting documentation for the
IBT certificate application for the study area designated as the following “source” and
“receiving” basins as shown in Figure 1:
• Catawba River Subbasin (source basin): Lake Norman, Mountain Island Lake, Lake
Wylie, and the Catawba River from Lake Norman to the Wylie Dam.
• Rocky River Subbasin (receiving basin): The Mecklenburg County portion east of the
ridge line with the exception of the Goose Creek watershed. The study area includes
Mallard Creek from the WWTP discharge point downstream to the confluence of the
Rocky River proceeding along the Rocky River to the intersection with NC 205.
The boundary of the study area around water bodies is offset 0.5 mile from the shoreline to
incorporate flood plain areas as shown on digital Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) flood zone maps.
The IBT associated with future water service into the Goose Creek watershed in
Mecklenburg County is being addressed in a separate NCEPA document and is not
addressed in this EA. Thus, the entire Goose Creek watershed is outside the study area of
this project. The requested IBT of 33 mgd does not include transfers associated with the
Goose Creek watershed. Removing Goose Creek from the study area was done in order to
address comments received on the project (Appendix B).
CMUD’s current water supply system serves approximately 95 percent of Mecklenburg
County with plans to supply 100 percent by 2020. There are connections to Union, Cabarrus,
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 1-3
INSERT FIGURE 1
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 1-4
and York (South Carolina) Counties; however, these connections are currently used for
emergency supply only. The distribution system is divided into three service areas, referred
to by the water pressure in each area (i.e. 882 feet = area 882). The Franklin and Vest WTPs
treat raw water from Mountain Island Lake and supply areas 882 and 960. The North
Mecklenburg WTP treats raw water from Lake Norman, and is the primary supply for area
978. Approximately 70 percent of Mecklenburg County is in the Catawba Basin, while the
remaining 30 percent is in the Yadkin-Pee Dee Basin; therefore, a portion of the water that is
withdrawn from the Catawba Basin is actually supplied to residents of Mecklenburg
County in the Yadkin-Pee Dee Basin as shown in Figure 2.
Some of the water that is supplied from the Catawba Basin to the Yadkin-Pee Dee Basin in
Mecklenburg County remains in the Yadkin-Pee Dee Basin due to consumptive uses such as
irrigation and septic systems. The remainder of this water is directly discharged to the
Rocky River Subbasin as treated wastewater from the Mallard Creek WWTP and the RRR
WWTP, and eventually may be returned to the Catawba Basin via the McAlpine WWTP
unless a proposed facility is built in the Rocky River Subbasin. The Rocky River Regional
WWTP primarily serves Cabarrus County but also receives some Mecklenburg County
flows under a contractual agreement with the Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus
County (WSACC). The Mallard Creek WWTP serves only Mecklenburg County customers.
The Mecklenburg County portion of the service areas for these plants in the receiving basin
can be seen in Figure 3.
The greater Charlotte metropolitan region has enjoyed a healthy economy for most of this
century, resulting in steady population growth and economic development. Based on land
use projections, it is predicted that similar growth patterns will continue and will increase
the demand for water and wastewater services. Population, water demand, and wastewater
flow projections are presented in Section 2. The IBT associated with the increased
withdrawal from the Catawba River Subbasin and the increasing flows to the Rocky River
Subbasin is expected to be 32.8 mgd maximum day in 2030. This IBT amount does not
include transfers associated with the Goose Creek watershed. The requested amount of 33
mgd allows some contingency to account for uncertainty in population growth and water
demand projections.
The existing conditions and environmental consequences of the proposed IBT are presented
in Section 3. Secondary impacts for the receiving basin are contained in Section 4. The
alternatives are discussed in Section 5, and the mitigation of any areas of concern is
discussed in Section 6.
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 1-5
Figure 2
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 1-6
Figure 3
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 2-1
SECTION 2
Purpose and Need
2.1 Population Growth
The Mecklenburg County population projections presented in Table 3 are based largely on
Charlotte Chamber of Commerce projections through 2010. While these projections are
slightly higher than projections by others, past Chamber estimates have most accurately
matched recent population levels. Projections beyond 2010 more closely match long-term
projections by the Mecklenburg County Planning Commission. Starting with 1997 U.S.
Census data, the projections represent about a 2.6 percent annual increase through 2010,
decreasing to 1.3 percent in 2030. It is also assumed that 100 percent of the County
population will be served by CMUD by 2020 (the population within the Goose Creek
watershed is included in these projections even though IBT associated with this area is not
the subject of this EA).
TABLE 3
Projected Mecklenburg County Population and Population Served by CMUD
Year
Projected Mecklenburg
County Population Percent Served Population Served
1997 613,310 95% 584,000
2000 662,000 96% 636,000
2010 830,000 98% 813,000
2020 968,000 100% 968,000
2030 1,101,000 100% 1,101,000
Source: Charlotte Chamber of Commerce projections through 2010, transitioned to Mecklenburg County
Planning Commission projections in 2030.
Completion of the I-485 loop around Charlotte is expected to spur growth in the northeast
region of Mecklenburg County. This will increase the percentage of CMUD customers in the
Rocky River Subbasin from the current 16 percent to about 28 percent in 2030.
2.2 Water Demand Projections
The CMUD raw water demand projections presented in Table 4 are based on population
projections. The projections take into account added residential and nonresidential
customers, as well as regular bulk sales to the Carowinds amusement park. The following
assumptions were used in calculating demand projections:
• Existing users are assumed to continue using water at their current rate.
• A rate of 115 gallons per capita day (gpcd) was used for future residential and small
commercial customers. Water use for the largest 50 water users was estimated
separately. Based on the preliminary report for the Pitometer Water Distribution Study
(1999), this is 8.5% higher than 1997 billing records (106 gpcd), but lower than
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 2-2
production records (146 gpcd). The reduction in usage rate for future residential and
small commercial customers should account for a combination of existing system leak
detection, and lower losses in the portions of the system serving new customers.
• The existing use of large customers will continue at 9.14 mgd.
• New industry use will increase from 0 in 1997 to 7 mgd by 2030.
• The only new wholesale customer anticipated by CMUD is Carowinds, with a demand
of 0.50 mgd starting in 2000.
• Future maximum day to average annual demand ratio is 1.5. Raw water needs include
1.4 percent losses at water treatment plants based on historical averages.
TABLE 4
CMUD Raw Water Demand Projections
Year ADD (mgd) MDD (mgd)
2000 102.8 154.1
2010 125.9 188.8
2020 146.0 219.1
2030 163.5 245.2
Source: Based on population estimates from Table 3.
ADD = Average Daily Demand
MDD = Maximum Daily Demand
mgd = million gallons per day
The current capacity of the North Mecklenburg WTP is 18 mgd; however, the intake facility
is permitted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for a maximum
instantaneous withdrawal rate of 108 mgd from Lake Norman. There is no raw water
storage at this facility. Franklin and Vest have capacities of 144 and 24 mgd, respectively,
and the Mountain Island Lake intake facility has a FERC-permitted instantaneous
withdrawal rate of 165 mgd. Raw water storage for these two plants totals 350 mgd. Taking
into account pumping practices and raw water storage, the current combined FERC
withdrawal permits for Lake Norman and Mountain Island Lake would allow CMUD to
meet average annual demands of 145 mgd. CMUD has requested an increase from FERC in
the Mountain Island Lake withdrawal from 165 mgd to 330 mgd (instantaneous maximum),
primarily to add reliability and pumping flexibility, and to meet projected demands through
2030.
During a drought situation CMUD would follow its Water Shortage Response Plan, which
includes either voluntary or mandatory conservation measures depending on the severity of
the drought. This would reduce peak demands and the associated interbasin transfer; this
reduction is not reflected in Table 4 above or in further analysis in this EA.
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 2-3
2.3 WWTP Capacities and Flow Projections
Table 5 lists the permitted capacities, average annual discharge, daily loading rates for
specific pollutants, and proposed expanded capacities of pertinent wastewater treatment
plants.
TABLE 5WWTP Capacities and Loadings
WWTP Name
Discharge
Subbasin
Permitted
Capacity
(mgd)
1998 Average
Annual
Discharge
(mgd)
1998 Daily
Average
Loading
Rate for BOD5
(lbs/d)
1998 Daily
Average
Loading Rate
for NH3-N
(lbs/d)
Expected
2030
Capacity:
Maximum
Month
(mgd)
Source Basin
Irwin Creek Catawba 15.0 8.88 446.0 21.5 15.0
Sugar Creek Catawba 20.0 14.64 326.0 80.6 20.0
McAlpine Creek Catawba 64.0 40.48 942.0
1 195.8 128.0
McDowell Creek Catawba 6.0 2.89 64.0 5.3 12.0
Receiving Basin
Mallard Creek Rocky River 12.0 5.09 121.0 30.3 12.0
Rocky River Regional 2 Rocky River 0.0 0.0 - - 6.0
Notes:
1 CBOD
2 CMUD contracted amount is currently at 3.0 mgd, to begin in 2000, with an option to expand to 6 mgd.
The wastewater flow projections shown in Table 6 were used to calculate the proposed IBT
amount. These projections do not include wastewater flows for the Goose Creek watershed.
The calculation analysis assumes that no increase in the permitted wastewater capacities in
the receiving basin will result due to the IBT.
TABLE 6
WWTP Average Daily Flow Projections (mgd)1
Year Irwin
Creek
Sugar
Creek
McAlpine
Creek
McDowell
Creek
Mallard
Creek
Rocky River
Regional1 Total WWTP
Flow
2000 10.5 14.7 45.8 4.5 6.2 0 81.70
2010 12.0 16.0 56.0 8.0 7.7 3.3 103.0
2020 12.0 16.0 70.0 10.0 9.6 3.9 121.5
2030 12.0 16.0 78.0 14.0 9.6 4.5 134.4
Note:
1 Proposed CMUD portion of flows that will be sent to the WWTP
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 2-4
In an effort to minimize discharges to surface water, decrease use of potable water for non-
potable uses, and to use treated wastewater as a valuable resource, CMUD has been
aggressively pursuing opportunities for water reuse. At the Mallard Creek water
reclamation facility, CMUD is permitted to reuse up to 3 mgd of reclaimed water (treated
wastewater) for irrigation purposes. This was the first facility permitted for conjunctive use
(i.e., both discharge and reuse) of reclaimed water under revised rules for water reclamation
developed by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) in 1996. CMUD is
continuing to promote opportunities for reuse, which reduce peak demands for potable
water and reduce discharge to surface waters.
In addition to water reuse, CMUD has instituted water conservation measures and a full
Water Conservation Plan that will be put into effect in the spring of 2000. Potential elements
of the plan include:
• Use of water conservation devices in new buildings
• Limits on irrigation (number of days per week)
The plan will focus more on education and incentives rather than enforcement of
ordinances. The plan envisions that the financial benefits to both commercial and private
users for conserving water may become more attractive.
2.4 IBT Calculation
Based on the water demand projections for the Catawba River Subbasin and the estimated
wastewater discharge to the Rocky River Subbasin, the IBT calculation is presented in Table
7. The following assumptions apply:
• Customer consumptive use includes in-basin water uses such as irrigation and septic
systems and is assumed to be 22 percent of raw water withdrawal based on discussions
with North Carolina Division of Water Resources (DWR) staff. WTP losses of 1.4 percent
are included in total consumptive use estimates.
• In 2000, 85 percent of CMUD’s water supply goes to users within the Catawba River
Subbasin; this falls to 75 percent in 2030. The remaining water is supplied only to CMUD
customers in the Mecklenburg County portion of the Rocky River Subbasin.
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 2-5
TABLE 7
Interbasin Transfer Water Balance Table (Maximum Day Basis)
Consumption
Estimated Wastewater
Discharge1
Year
Water Withdrawal
From Catawba
Basin
Catawba
River
Basin
Rocky
River
Basin
Catawba
River
Basin
Rocky
River
Basin
Total Return
to Catawba
River
Subbasin2 Interbasin
Transfer3
2000 152.9 30.2 5.1 108.7 8.9 138.9 14.0
2010 184.3 34.4 8.1 126.5 15.2 161.0 23.3
2020 213.9 38.2 11.3 146.2 18.3 184.3 29.5
2030 239.4 42.2 13.1 164.4 19.7 206.6 32.8
Notes:
1 Estimated wastewater discharge represents the amount of water withdrawal that is discharged as wastewater.
It does not include the impacts of inflow and infiltration on actual wastewater discharge amounts.
2 Total Return to Catawba River Subbasin = Catawba River Consumption + Catawba River Wastewater
Discharge
3 Interbasin Transfer = Water Withdrawal from Catawba – Total Return to Catawba
In order to allow some contingency for uncertainty in projected population growth or water
demands, the requested IBT is 33 mgd, an increase of about 1 percent over the calculated
amount of 32.8 mgd. In order to minimize the transfer of water from one basin to another,
the IBT calculation is based on the assumption that the permitted treatment capacity of
existing wastewater treatment facilities in the receiving basin is not increased. As indicated
previously, this IBT does not include transfers associated with water or wastewater service
provided to the Goose Creek watershed in Mecklenburg County.
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 3-1
SECTION 3
Existing Environment and Environmental
Consequences
This section pertaining to the existing environment for the IBT study area is divided into
two sections:
• Section 3.1 - Source Basin, which describes the portion of the study area from which raw
water is withdrawn, and
• Section 3.2 - Receiving Basin, which describes the portion of the study area where
wastewater is discharged.
Each basin is further divided and described by the following potentially affected areas:
wetlands, land use, fish and wildlife resources, water resources/water quality, air quality,
groundwater resources, noise level, and toxic substances/hazardous waste. Environmental
documents may be required to be prepared under the North Carolina Environmental Policy
Act (NCEPA) if these areas are impacted due to a proposed action; therefore, these topics
will require further discussion.
For Section 3.1 (Source Basin), the existing environment is described for each area studied,
followed by a discussion of the primary and secondary/cumulative consequences, if any, on
the area.
For Section 3.2 (Receiving Basin), the existing environment is described for each area
studied, followed by a discussion of the primary consequences, if any, for the area.
Secondary and cumulative impacts in the receiving basin are discussed in Section 4.
The data for both sections were gathered through literature reviews, internet searches,
geographic information system (GIS) queries, phone conversations, letters, and meetings
with various resource agencies.
3.1 Source Basin
The "source basin" is considered to be the portion of the study area that is within the
Catawba River Subbasin. The source basin study area includes Lake Norman, Mountain
Island Lake, Lake Wylie, and the Catawba River from Lake Norman to the Wylie Dam.
The boundary of the study area around water bodies is offset 0.5 mile from the shoreline to
incorporate flood plain areas as shown on FEMA flood zone maps.
3.1.1 Wetlands
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), wetlands are lands in
transition between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near
the surface or the land is covered by shallow water at least part of the year. For regulatory
purposes under the Clean Water Act, the term wetlands means "those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 3-2
support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps,
marshes, bogs and similar areas." In general, wetlands share three key characteristics:
wetland hydrology, wetland soils, and wetland plants. Wetlands and vegetated riparian
areas are valuable because they are biologically productive natural ecosystems in the world,
protect wildlife and provide natural open spaces, protect water quality, control erosion, and
prevent flooding damage.
3.1.1.1 Existing Environment
The source basin project area extends southward along the Catawba River from Lake
Norman to Mountain Island Lake, and continues along the Catawba River to the Wylie
Dam. The study area boundary extends 0.5 mile from the shoreline of the water bodies (see
Figure 1). This western Piedmont physiographic province of the state is characterized by
gently sloping to strongly sloping, well drained and moderately well drained soils that have
a clayey or loamy subsoil (U.S. Department of Agriculture ([USDA], 1980). Soils in the Lake
Norman to Lake Wylie region consist of an association of Cecil-Hiwassee-Goldston-Badin
series. Slope of the terrain averages 10 percent, with a range of 2 to 25 percent (South
Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control [SC DHEC], 1996).
Within the 132,498-acre source basin study area, 45,954 total acres of various types of
wetlands have been identified by the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (as published by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], 1999) and shown on the Land Cover table in
Appendix A (Table A-2). According to the GIS analysis of NWI maps for the service area,
322 acres of L2US3Gh wetlands were identified. These wetlands are present in a special
“exposed draw down zone” around large impoundments. The GIS maps also identified
44,172 acres of L1UB3Hh special case wetlands, which occur around hydroelectric and
water supply impoundments in the Piedmont. A wetland field delineation was not
performed for the source basin due to the large study area.
The majority of the wetlands within the source basin project area identified on the NWI
maps are of bottomland hardwood forests of the Palustrine Piedmont/ Low Alluvial Forest
type (see North Carolina Natural Heritage Program [NHP] letter dated April 1999 in
Appendix B). Other types of wetlands that are known to occur in the source basin are listed
in the Wetland Types in the Source Basin table, located in Appendix A (Table A-1).
A few Significant Natural Heritage Areas (SNHAs) containing wetland natural communities
have been identified by NHP to exist in proximity to the source basin within North
Carolina. It is unknown if any SNHAs may exist in the South Carolina portion of the source
basin (correspondence from SC only included listings of sensitive species, not SNHAs). A
list of NC SNHA wetland sites that were identified as being within the adjacent U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangles that compose the North Carolina portion of the
source basin project area is presented on page A-2 in Appendix A. In addition to those
communities listed by NHP for the source basin, the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (WRP) lists the Southern Appalachian Bog, Swamp-Forest Bog Complex, Spray
Cliff, Rocky Bar and Shore, Montane Alluvial Forest, High Elevation Seep, and Upland Pool
wetland community types as existing in the Catawba River Basin (WRP, 1998A).
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 3-3
3.1.1.2 Primary Impacts
As discussed in Section 3.1.4 of this EA, the proposed transfer does not require the
construction of additional water intake structures in Mountain Island Lake. Any proposed
pumping stations and conveyance lines associated with the transfer will be permitted
separately under appropriate state and federal programs and their wetland and
environmental impacts evaluated under a separate NCEPA or National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) process.
As discussed further in the aquatic resources section of this EA, many of the rare plants in
the Catawba River Basin grow in the wet soils of bogs and can be indirectly affected by
water quality and quantity changes. Section 3.1.4 summarizes an analysis by Duke Power
that indicated there will be no changes in the surface water elevations of Lake Norman,
Mountain Island Lake, and Lake Wylie under normal and drought conditions due to the
proposed increased interbasin transfer. Under extreme drought conditions (when Duke
manages the lakes only to meet minimum release requirements) the surface water elevations
upstream of the Mountain Island Dam are expected to decrease moderately, by
approximately 0.3 inch per week. This moderate effect is not anticipated to be significant.
With no significant changes to lake elevation, basin hydrology, or water quality, the
interbasin transfer project will not have any significant direct impact on wetlands or SNHA
with wetland components within the source basin.
3.1.1.3 Secondary and Cumulative Consequences
“Cumulative Effects” are defined as “resulting from the incremental impact of the proposed
activity when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities
regardless of what entities undertake such other activities.”1 “Indirect Effects” are “caused
by and result from the proposed activity although they are later in time or further removed
in distance, but they are still reasonably foreseeable.” 2
The IBT will not affect the provision of water or sewer services in the source basin around
Lake Norman, Mountain Island Lake, or Lake Wylie. The IBT will not change the existing
pattern or rate of growth expected in the source basin. The IBT will therefore not have any
secondary or cumulative impacts to wetlands in the source basin.
3.1.2 Land Use
3.1.2.1 Existing Environment
Urban / Developed Lands
Future planned land uses for the source basin are provided on the Proposed Land Use Maps
in Appendix C. These maps were taken from each of the District Plans for Mecklenburg
County. Since these land use maps are not available in GIS format, a GIS analysis of
projected land uses in the source basin was not possible. The analysis of land uses as
follows was therefore achieved through the use of land cover GIS, which show only existing
land uses for the project area in 1996 for North Carolina and 1989-1990 for South Carolina.

1 15A NCAC 1C .0101(d)(2)
2 15A NCAC 1C .0101(d)(4)
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 3-4
All three of the lakes in the project area (Lake Norman, Mountain Island Lake, and Lake
Wylie) are used for hydropower generation and as water supplies, and all are owned by
Duke Power. All the lakes are heavily used for fishing, recreation, open space, and nature
preserves. Table 2 (in Section 1) summarizes characteristics of the three lakes.
Since portions of all three lakes are classified as water supplies with a WS-IV classification,
the majority of the 0.5-mile-wide area surrounding the lakes in the source basin project area
is protected from non-point source pollution by local land use ordinances that limit
development type and density, as required under the Water Supply Watershed Protection
Act (G.S. 143-214.5). The only area that is not protected is a small area in North Carolina on
the eastern edge of Lake Wylie, below the Paw Creek arm to the state line. This area is
classified as WS-V, which does not require land use density or use restrictions. The WS-IV
requirements limit development density to 2 dwelling units per acre (or 24 percent built-
upon area) for areas closest to the water intakes (called the Critical Area) and either 3
dwelling units per acre (or 36 percent built-upon area) for developments without curb and
gutter or 2 dwelling units per acre (or 24 percent built-upon area) for developments outside
of the Critical Area with curb and gutter.
The County has gone beyond the requirements of the WS-IV classification in adopting
watershed ordinances applicable to the entire Mountain Island Lake and Lake Norman
watersheds within the County. These ordinances include provisions for stream buffers,
development density, stormwater best management practices, and land use restrictions. The
County has also protected major areas of Mountain Island Lake through acquisition of lands
for use as natural areas and parks (Mecklenburg County, 1998A).
Lake Norman. Lake Norman, located within Subbasin 03-08-32 of the Catawba River Basin, is
the power source for the Cowans Ford Hydroelectric Station and provides cooling water for
the condensers at the Marshall Steam Station and the McGuire Nuclear Station
(Mecklenburg County, 1992).
As shown on Figure 1, the northwest shoreline of Lake Norman is located in Catawba
County, the southwestern shoreline is located in Lincoln County, the northeast is in Iredell
County, and the southeast is located in Mecklenburg County. As shown on the Land Cover
table in Appendix A (Table A-2) and Figure 4, the most prevalent land cover type around
Lake Norman in the project area was forests as of 1996. At that time, there was a total of
2,233 acres of high and low intensity urban development, 36,724 acres of forest, 12,614 acres
of open land, and 1,026 acres of agricultural land uses in the 0.5-mile-wide project area
around the lake. The project area around Lake Norman totals 83,683 acres, of which 37
percent (31,086 acres) is the surface of the lake itself.
As shown on the Population Growth and Density table in Appendix A (Table A-3), Subbasin
03-08-32, which contains the Lake Norman portion of the project source basin area and
includes portions of Catawba, Alexander, and Caldwell Counties, including the Town of
Hickory, has experienced a slightly declining annual rate of population growth between
1970 and 1990 (averaging around 2 percent), with a steadily increasing amount of
population density. Total population and density for this subbasin in 1990 was second
highest among the other subbasins with 151,979 people, and 234 persons per square mile
(DWQ, 1995).
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 3-5
Although somewhat rural since the lake’s construction, the area around Lake Norman has
recently experienced an increased rate of residential and non-residential development
primarily as a result of freeway improvements (I-77 interchange) and redirection of growth
from policies adopted with the 2005 Generalized Land Plan for Mecklenburg County (which
calls for the entire county to be fully developed sometime in the next century). Such policies
have contributed to several zone changes in recent years, bringing a major business park on
680 acres and major residential subdivision projects (one of 640 acres) to Mecklenburg’s
North District, west of I-77.
The Mecklenburg County North District Plan (which covers the historic communities of
Cornelius, Huntersville, and Davidson) calls for a 61 percent population increase between
1990 and 2005 for the District (from 18,871 to 30,407 persons), and a 72 percent increase in
the number of jobs provided in the District (from 7,443 to 10,307 jobs).
The main policies adopted by the County to guide growth in the North Mecklenburg
District are as follows:
• Preserve and enhance the small town character
• Provide diverse opportunities for new, quality development
• Maintain sensitivity toward rural and historic features
• Protect the water quality of Lake Norman and Mountain Island Lake
Mountain Island Lake. Mountain Island Lake, the middle lake in the source basin project area,
is located within Subbasin 03-08-33 of the Catawba River Basin (DWQ, 1995). The shoreline
of the upper portions of the lake is mostly undeveloped and abundant with wildlife. In
1998, the Clean Water Management Trust Fund authorized the purchase of 8 miles of
shoreline along the western side of the lake (encompassing a total of 1,100 acres in Gaston
County and 200 acres in Lincoln County in NC) by the Trust for Public Land (TPL). This
area extends from Riverbend Steam Station to south of Highway 73 and will eventually be
transferred to the counties with the provision that it becomes a public park. On the
Mecklenburg County side of the lake (the eastern shore), Cowans Ford Wildlife Refuge and
Latta Plantation Park provide nature-oriented recreation and protect more than 2,500 acres
of land in a natural setting. With the recent TPL purchase, development is prohibited on
more than 50 percent of the shoreline of Mountain Island Lake. Shoreline development on
the southern end of the lake consists mostly of large size scattered residential lots. Recently,
however, several planned residential communities have been constructed along the lake –
from 1990 to 1996 about 4,200 homes have been built in two census tracts that border the
lake (USGS, 1998).
As shown on Figure 1, the western edge of the Catawba River south of Lake Norman Dam
to the beginning of Mountain Island Lake is located in Lincoln and Gaston Counties, while
the eastern edge of the river in this same stretch is located in Mecklenburg County. The
western shoreline of Mountain Island Lake is located in Gaston County, while the eastern
edge of Mountain Island Lake is located in Mecklenburg County.
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 3-6
Figure 4
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 3-7
As shown on the Land Cover table in Appendix A (Table A-2) and Figure 4, the most
prevalent land cover type around Mountain Island Lake in the project area was forest as of
1996. At that time, there was a total of 227 acres of high and low intensity urban
development, 5,181 acres of forest, 566 acres of open land, and 54 acres of agricultural land
uses in the 0.5-mile project area around the lake. The project area around Mountain Island
Lake totals 8,128 acres, including 2,099 acres of water.
As shown on the Population Growth and Density for Subbasins table in Appendix A (Table
A-3), Subbasin 03-08-33 (which contains the project source basin area and includes only
small rural portions of Gaston, Lincoln, and Mecklenburg Counties), has, like Subbasin 32,
experienced a slightly declining annual rate of population growth between 1970 and 1990
(averaging around 2 percent), with a steadily increasing population density. Total
population and density for this subbasin in 1990 was lowest among the other subbasins with
only 47,301 people, and 218 persons per square mile (DWQ, 1995).
The eastern shore of Mountain Island Lake is located in Mecklenburg County’s “Northwest
District” planning area (which extends west of I-77 and north of I-85). According to this
plan, the District’s historical industrial image, coupled with the construction of I-85
fragmenting local neighborhoods and the lack of water and sewer services, have impeded
the suburban residential growth experienced in other areas of the county. Overall, growth
has been slow in the District; however, the 2005 Generalized Land Plan recognized the need
to redistribute projected growth to all areas of the county. This plan established policies to
encourage employment and residential growth into the District. The County is therefore
recommending the extension of water and sewer services as “incentives for growth.” The
planned land uses around Mountain Island Lake are very low density, in keeping with the
goal of the plan to protect the water quality of the City’s main drinking water source
(Mecklenburg County, 1990B).
The Mecklenburg County Northwest District Plan calls for a 27 percent population increase
between 1985 and 2005 for the District (from 34,615 to 44,000 persons), a 45 percent increase
in households (from 13,079 to 19,000), and a 68 percent increase in the number of jobs
provided in the District (from 24,989 to 42,000 jobs).
The main policies adopted by the County to guide growth in the Northwest Mecklenburg
District are as follows:
• Preserve and protect existing neighborhoods
• Revitalize declining areas
• Establish a balanced land use pattern that allows a variety of developed and open space
land uses to retain some of the rural character of the area
• Restrict new industrial development to infilling existing industrial areas
Lake Wylie. The most downstream lake in the source basin project area is Lake Wylie,
located within Subbasin 03-08-34 of the Catawba River Basin. As shown on Figure 1, the
western edge of the Catawba River south of the Mountain Island Lake Dam to the beginning
of Lake Wylie is located in Gaston County, while the eastern edge of the river in this same
stretch is located in Mecklenburg County. The western shoreline of Lake Wylie is located in
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 3-8
Gaston County in North Carolina and York County in South Carolina. The eastern edge of
Lake Wylie is located in Mecklenburg County.
As shown on the Land Cover table in Appendix A (Table A-2) and Figure 4, the most
prevalent land cover type around Lake Wylie in the North Carolina project area was forest
as of 1989-90. At that time, there was a total of 1,518 acres of high and low intensity urban
development, 12,871 acres of forest, 1,738 acres of open land, and 10 acres of agricultural
land uses in the 0.5-mile project area around the North Carolina side of the lake. The project
area around Lake Wylie in North Carolina totals 29,722 acres. For the portion of Lake Wylie
within South Carolina, the most prevalent land cover type as of 1996 was also forests. A
total of 353 acres of urban uses, 12,715 acres of forested land, 117 acres of scrub/barren land,
and 399 acres of agricultural uses are within the South Carolina portion of the Lake Wylie
project area. The project area around Lake Wylie within South Carolina totals 13,584 acres
(not including water).
As shown on the Population Growth and Density for Subbasins table in Appendix A (Table
A-3), Subbasin 03-08-34 (which contains the project source basin area and includes the
majority of the City of Charlotte and all of western Mecklenburg County and extends into
Union County), has experienced an increasing annual rate of population growth between
1970 and 1990, with an exceptionally high amount of population density (seven times
greater than the other two subbasins). Total population and population density for this
subbasin in 1990 were the highest among the other subbasins, with 435,725 people and 1,372
persons per square mile, respectively (DWQ, 1995).
The Southwest Mecklenburg District Plan covers the source basin project area within
Mecklenburg County and extends south of I-85, west of the City of Charlotte, east to Lake
Wylie, and south to the South Carolina border. According to this land use plan, the District
has retained a predominantly rural character while experiencing rapid urban growth in
recent years. Lake Wylie and the Catawba River are unique resources that attract residents.
In addition, a number of large industrial and office concentrations exist in the area, which,
along with the Charlotte/Douglas International Airport, have been catalysts for growth.
The Mecklenburg County Southwest District Plan calls for a 12 percent population increase
between 1995 and 2005 for the District (from 42,041 to 47,048 persons), a 16 percent increase
in households (from 16,495 to 19,169 homes), and a 26 percent increase in the number of jobs
provided in the District (from 55,238 to 69,508 jobs).
The main policies adopted by the County to guide growth in the Southwest Mecklenburg
District are as follows:
• Preserve, protect, and enhance existing neighborhoods
• Establish a balanced land use pattern offering a diverse mixture of commercial,
employment, residential, and open space uses
• Provide for the continuing positive economic impacts of the airport while mitigating
airport impacts on residential uses
• Encourage and support residential growth in rural and waterfront areas through the
extension of water and sewer services while protecting the environment
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 3-9
• Protect residential areas from encroaching nonresidential uses
• Maintain balance between growth and infrastructure needs that will provide an efficient
and acceptable level of services and facilities
• Maintain balance between growth and environmental issues, including establishing
environmental planning policies to protect the water quality of Lake Wylie and the
Catawba River
Public Lands (Parks / Recreation Areas and Greenways)
The three lakes and a portion of the Catawba River that make up the project source basin
provide many benefits to the public, including recreational boating, fishing, hiking,
camping, wildlife preservation, and aesthetic enjoyment.
According to the North District Plan for Mecklenburg County, no state or federal parks exist
in the entire County–the closest state park is 20 miles from Charlotte. However, the North
District is planning the development of a large (800- to 1000-acre) park in its planning area.
As shown on the Land Cover table in Appendix A (Table A-2), there are a total of 10
Mecklenburg County parks, 1,440 acres of NC State Park Lands, and 0 acres of South
Carolina public lands in the source basin project area.
There are no nature preserves in the North District of Mecklenburg County, but there are
two existing lake-access parks and two more planned:
• Ramsey Creek Park - 46 acre (existing)
• Brown Cove - 25 acre (existing, recreation/water access/nature trail)
• Jetton Road Park - 106 acre (planned, water access)
• McDowell Basin Park (planned 400 to 500 acre recreational park)
The Northwest District Plan for Mecklenburg County lists the following parks and nature
preserves as currently existing or planned for the District near Mountain Island Lake:
• Latta Plantation Park – 763 acre (existing nature preserve, on shore of Mountain Island
Lake, expansion planned)
• Neck Road Waterfowl Refuge – 1,000 acre (existing, leased nature preserve on edge of
river)
• Mountain Island Waterfowl Refuge – planned nature preserve
• Mountain Island Water Intake District Park – planned smaller recreational park
• Nevin Park (under construction, 340-acre recreational and botanical garden park)
• Sugar Creek Park (existing recreational park)
According to the Southwest District Plan for Mecklenburg County, the following parks,
greenways, and nature preserves currently exist or are planned for the District near Lake
Wylie or the Catawba River:
• McDowell’s Nature Preserve – 894 acres (multiple use park/nature area/water access
area on Lake Wylie)
• Berryhill Park – 100 acres (proposed community park on shore of Lake Wylie)
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 3-10
• Gateway Park – 100 to 150 acres (proposed water access, marina, and neighborhood
park on the Catawba River)
• Buster Boyd Bridge – proposed large boat ramp on Lake Wylie
• Greenway – proposed system along portions of shore of Lake Wylie and Catawba River
The East District Plan for Mecklenburg County lists the following parks and greenways as
currently existing or planned for the District
• McAlpine Creek Greenway Park
• Albemarle Road Park (proposed 150-acre recreational park)
• Eastway District Park (proposed 100-acre recreational park)
Prime Agricultural and Forestry Land
Prime farmland is one of several kinds of important farmland defined by the USDA. It is of
major importance in meeting the nation’s short- and long-range needs for food and fiber.
These soils are best suited for producing high yields of food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed
crops with minimal input of energy and economic resources and the least damage to other
environmental resources. Soils that have a high water table and are frequently flooded have
severe limitations to manage and use for agriculture even if those soils qualify as prime
agricultural land. These limitations would exclude almost all of the soils in the floodplains
of the waterbodies in the source basin study area from being considered of significant
importance as prime agricultural land.
Most of Mecklenburg County was originally a forest composed of hardwoods and
communities of shortleaf, loblolly, and Virginia pine and eastern red cedar (USDA, 1980).
This forest community has been progressively cleared out for wood products, crop
production, and residential and industrial development. Natural reseeding of abandoned
tracts of land has resulted in a mixture of pine and second growth hardwoods (USDA,
1980). Common trees found today in these forest lands are loblolly pine, shortleaf pine,
scarlet oak, southern red oak, Virginia pine, white oak, yellow-poplar, and sweetgum
(USDA, 1980). Forest land occupies approximately 67,491 acres or about 51 percent of the
study area in the source basin. The composition of the forest land in the source basin is
shown in the Land Cover table in Appendix A (Table A-2), and the distribution of forest
land is presented in Figure 4.
Archaeological and Historic Areas
NCEPA requires the conservation and protection of the state’s natural resources and
preservation of "the important historic and cultural elements of our common inheritance."
Archaeological sites are important since they contain the only material remains of extinct
Native American cultures dating back 12,000 years throughout North Carolina. Historic
structures are significant since they preserve North Carolina history. Historic districts
consist of whole blocks of downtown areas including many structures that are culturally
and historically significant. The Archaeological and Historic Resources by County table
presented in Appendix A (Table A-4) summarizes the archeological and historical resources
known to occur in the North Carolina counties that compose the project’s source and
receiving basins.
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 3-11
The Catawba River Basin and the Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin contain many archeological
sites that have been surveyed and several sites where significant archeological resources
have been found from many native groups that lived in the region up until 200 years ago.
Due to the size of the project’s source and receiving basins, and the fact that no construction
will occur with the project, no archeological survey was prepared for the project.
The Upper Piedmont has enjoyed a rich history since being settled by Europeans in the early
1700s. Several important historic sites and architecturally significant buildings have been
identified and protected in the area also.
3.1.2.2 Primary Consequences
The IBT will not have any direct impacts on urban/developed land, public lands, prime
agricultural land, forest land, or archeological or historic resources in the source basin. The
expansion of raw water transmission lines, water treatment plants, and the finished
distribution system in Mecklenburg County that will implement the IBT may have a direct
impact on these land uses; however, the projects associated with the transfer of water will be
permitted separately under appropriate state and federal programs and their environmental
impacts evaluated under separate NCEPA documents. Many of the infrastructure
improvements that transfer finished drinking water to the Rocky River Subbasin are already
in place.
3.1.2.3 Secondary and Cumulative Consequences
As discussed in Section 3.1.4, the interbasin transfer will not affect the provision of water or
sewer services in the source basin around Lake Norman, Mountain Island Lake, or Lake
Wylie. The IBT will not significantly alter the availability of water to the source basin to
serve existing and projected land uses and long-term water demand in the source basin. The
interbasin transfer will not, when considered with other water withdrawal projected from
the reservoir system, cause significant cumulative elevation changes in any of the project
lakes, nor will water quality in any of the water bodies change substantially. Minimum
releases of water from the various reservoirs in the chain will not change, even under severe
drought conditions.
The project will therefore not change the existing pattern or rate of growth, use of land or
water, or change in land uses from what is currently expected in the source basin. No land
uses, private properties, public areas, recreational sites, archeological sites, historic
structures, or water dependent structures will be flooded or drained with the transfer. The
project will not induce, impede, or alter growth from what is currently planned. The IBT
will not have any secondary or cumulative impacts to land uses or land resources in the
source basin.
3.1.3 Fish and Wildlife Resources
3.1.3.1 Existing Environment
Wildlife Habitat and Resources
The Natural Communities in the Source Basin table presented in Appendix A (Table A-5)
lists the types of Natural Communities that are predicted to occur in each of the counties
that are present in the source basin project area. Since this list is based on County-wide data,
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 3-12
not all of these communities are likely to be present in the 0.5-mile lake perimeter source
basin project area. Field studies were not undertaken as part of this EA.
A listing of SNHAs that are found in the counties that make up the source basin is found on
page A-10 in Appendix A. This listing is provided by the NHP (see NHP April 1999 letter in
Appendix B).
Fishery Habitat and Aquatic Resources
Lake Norman, Mountain Island Lake, and Lake Wylie contain important fisheries, aquatic
resources and recreational values. The reservoirs that compose the source basin are
particularly known for their catfish, striped bass, white bass, sunfish, crappie, largemouth
bass, and carp fisheries. These lakes also support high recreational use by boaters, water
skiers, and swimmers (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission [WRC] Scoping
Letter, April 1999, Appendix B).
According to WRC records, the Catawba River Basin contains 88 fishery species, not
including hybrids. Two species, highfin carpsucker and Carolina darter, are listed as Special
Concern by the State. One fourth of the species (22) are considered game species by the
WRC. Other popular sport fish include several catfish and sucker species. Most fishing
effort by anglers is targeted at a limited number of species including trout, largemouth and
smallmouth bass, striped bass, white bass, walleye, crappie, and sunfish. Excellent
largemouth bass fisheries are found in Lake Wylie. Lake Norman is managed to provide
high catches of striped bass (WRC, April 1998)
Fisheries management activities within the Catawba River Basin by the WRC include
monitoring the abundance of fish populations, establishing harvest and size limit
regulations, stocking fish, and manipulating habitat. Largemouth bass and smallmouth bass
in the basin are managed under the WRC's Black Bass Management Plan. Striped bass are
maintained in Lakes Norman and Mountain Island through annual stockings of fingerling
fish. Occasionally, threadfin shad are collected in the spring and stocked in the upper four
lakes to boost forage fish densities (WRC, April 1998).
Rare and Protected Species or Habitats
The Catawba River Basin contains over 175 rare plant and animal species. Within the
Catawba River Basin, there are a total of seven endangered, threatened, or special concern
animal species. In addition, the Catawba River Basin has over thirty rare plant species,
including one listed as federally threatened. Many of the rare plants in the Catawba River
Basin grow in the wet soils of bogs and are indirectly affected by water quality and quantity
(WRP, April 1998).
A list of threatened, endangered, and sensitive species potentially occurring in the source
basin is provided in Appendix A (Table A-6). This table lists the species of plants and
animals known, suspected, or potentially occurring in the source basin project area that are
listed by the state or federal governments as being threatened, endangered, rare, or
sensitive. Specific regulations exist at the state and federal levels to protect endangered and
threatened species and their habitats from impacts due to public or private projects and
land-disturbing activities. The primary law that protects sensitive wildlife species is the
Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973. Some of these species may or may not be present
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 3-13
in the specific 0.5-mile project area around Lake Norman, Mountain Island Lake, and Lake
Wylie, since no field survey was performed to substantiate NHP records.
Of all the species potentially existing in the source basin, the one known to be present in the
source basin (and the one that is the most endangered) is Schweinitz’s sunflower (Helianthus
schweinitzii). Schweinitz’s sunflower is a federally listed endangered plant species that is
endemic to the upper Piedmont area of North Carolina. Thirty-five populations are known –
nineteen are centered around Charlotte, and the others are around Rock Hill, South
Carolina. This species occurs in relatively open habitats – early successional fields, forest
ecotonal margins, or forest clearings. It thrives in full sun but also grows in the light shade
of open stands of oak-pine-hickory. Schweinitz’s sunflower generally occurs in moist to dry
clay soils or soils that are clay-loams or sandy-clay loams with high gravel content.
Formerly, the species probably occurred in prairie-like habitats or oak savanna maintained
by fires set by lightning or Native Americans.
Loss of this open habitat to fire suppression and urbanization has resulted in the decline of
the species and its reduction to marginal and vulnerable sites such as roadsides, power line
easements, and old pastures (USFWS, 1994). (Also see USFWS Scoping Letter for the Three-
County EA in Appendix B).
Schweinitz’s sunflower has been identified at three locations within 1 mile of Lake Wylie in
York County, South Carolina (see letter from South Carolina Department of Natural
Resources dated May 7, 1999 in Appendix B). Other populations of the species are known to
exist within NC SNHAs in Mecklenburg County–Winget Road Rare Plant Site; Mt. Island
Lake Dam Rare Plant Site SNHA; Shuffletown Powerline Rare Plant Site SNHA; Gar Creek
Rare Plant Site SNHA; and McCoy Road Sunflower Park SNHA.
3.1.3.2 Primary Consequences
In total, there are 20 SNHAs, 2 rare natural communities, 1 Wildlife Refuge, 6 sensitive
invertebrate species (including 3 Special Concern mussel species), 5 rare vertebrate animal
species, and 10 sensitive vascular plant species potentially existing in the source basin. In
addition, there is a substantial number of recreational fishery species that exist in the lakes
that compose the source basin.
Both aquatic and terrestrial resources that inhabit lake or stream-side habitat, including
aquatic and wetland plants, freshwater mussels, and fisheries in the source basin, could be
directly affected by water quality and quantity changes from transfers of water out of the
basin, if lake elevations or the volume or rate of flow between reservoirs change
dramatically. Such changes could lead to either flooding or draining of sensitive species or
habitat areas, or shifts in water quality, depending on how the hydrology in the system
changes.
As discussed in Section 3.1.4, an analysis conducted by Duke Power under normal and
drought conditions has indicated that there will be no changes in the surface water
elevations of Lake Norman, Mountain Island Lake, or Lake Wylie due to the proposed IBT.
The FERC application for the additional withdrawal from Mountain Island Lake as part of
this IBT concluded that changes in Catawba River flow and lake elevations due to the
increase in average annual withdrawals would be insignificant (CMUD, 1999). No
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 3-14
significant changes to river flows, lake elevations, or system hydrology will occur in the
three lakes.
Therefore, the IBT is not expected to significantly impact fish, wildlife, or aquatic species in
the source basin. Only under more pronounced drought conditions will the surface water
elevations upstream of the Mountain Island Dam decrease moderately; however, this
moderate effect is not anticipated to be significant in terms of impacts on wildlife or aquatic
resources in the source basin (see Water Quality/Water Resources, Section 3.1.4).
As discussed in the FERC application for the increased withdrawal from Mountain Island
Lake associated with the IBT (subject to a separate EA), there has been some wildlife
concerns in the past regarding fishery resources being subject to entrainment and
impingement on intake screens. The concern is that resident fish eggs not attached to rock
substrata or vegetation would float with the currents and be susceptible to entrainment. In
addition, larval fish have only limited swimming abilities, and larval fish emerging along
the reservoir shoreline in the proximity of the intake may be subject to entrainment also. The
FERC application concludes that during normal operations, water will be withdrawn from
the lake through a combination of four cells, up to the maximum requested rate of 330 mgd,
at intake velocities below 0.5 feet per second (fps), which is the maximum velocity preferred
by NC Wildlife Resources. The FERC application concludes that even under drought
conditions, the approach velocities for all four cells will be below 0.5 fps (CMUD, 1999).
The proposed IBT does not require the construction of additional water intake structures in
Mountain Island Lake. Any proposed pumping stations and conveyance lines associated
with implementing the transfer will be permitted separately under appropriate state and
federal programs and their fish, wildlife, and sensitive species impacts evaluated under a
separate NCEPA or NEPA process.
With no significant changes to lake elevation, lake and basin hydrology, or water quality in
the source basin, the interbasin transfer project will not have any significant direct impact
on fish, aquatic, wildlife, or sensitive resources within the source basin.
3.1.3.3 Secondary and Cumulative Consequences
As discussed in Section 3.1.4, the interbasin transfer will not affect the provision of water or
sewer services or other infrastructure in the source basin around Lake Norman, Mountain
Island Lake, or Lake Wylie. The project will not change the existing pattern or rate of
growth expected in the source basin. The interbasin transfer will not, when considered with
other water withdrawal projected from the reservoir system, cause significant cumulative
lake elevation changes or water quality impacts. The project will therefore not have any
secondary or cumulative impacts to fish, aquatic or terrestrial wildlife resources, or sensitive
species in the source basin.
3.1.4 Water Resources / Water Quality
3.1.4.1 Existing Environment
The study area of the source basin includes the water resources of Lake Norman, Mountain
Island Lake, Lake Wylie, and the sections of the Catawba River connecting these reservoirs.
In addition, numerous tributaries to the Catawba River in Mecklenburg County also form
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 3-15
part of the water resources in the source basin. These surface waters are contained in
subbasins 030832, 030833, and 030834 (Figure 5). The Characteristics of Lake Norman,
Mountain Island Lake, and Lake Wylie table provided in Appendix A (Table A-7)
summarizes major features of the three lakes, which are all owned by Duke Power and used
for power generation, water supply, and recreation.
Figure 5 delineates the Water Supply Watershed Areas in the study area. In North Carolina,
all waterbodies used for public water supply are given a “WS” classification. The largest
waterbodies in the study area of the source basin have been classified “WS” waters.
Minimum statewide water supply protection standards (certain watershed development
and wastewater discharge restrictions) apply to the Water Supply Watershed Areas.
Lake Norman
The waters of Lake Norman are classified WS-IV CA from Lookout Shoals Dam to Lyle
Creek and WS-IV, B CA from Lyle Creek to Cowans Ford Dam (Figure 5). WS-IV waters
have moderately to highly developed watersheds and the water requires a high degree of
treatment. Municipal and industrial point sources are allowed in WS-IV waters.
The DWQ ambient monitoring stations for the surface waters are also shown in Figure 5.
According to the DWQ (DENR, 1998), Lake Norman is oligotrophic and fish tissue samples
analyzed from the lake have not exceeded U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or
EPA criteria. In addition, other water quality parameters sampled in the lake indicate that
the lake water quality is good.
CMUD is permitted by FERC to withdraw water from Lake Norman at a maximum
instantaneous rate of 108 mgd, for treatment at the North Mecklenburg Water Treatment
Plant which has a current treatment capacity of 18 mgd.
Mountain Island Lake
Mountain Island Lake is classified as WS-IV from Cowans Ford Dam to the water intake at
the River Bend Steam Station and as WS-IV and Class B water from the water intake to the
Mountain Island Dam. The major tributaries to Mountain Island Lake are Gar Creek and
McDowell Creek.
Mountain Island Lake has been classified as oligotrophic and fish tissue samples analyzed
from the lake have not exceeded the EPA criteria for metals or pesticides (DENR, 1998).
Elevated nutrient concentrations have been found in the McDowell Creek arm of the lake
due to discharge from the McDowell Creek WWTP. However, problematic algal bloom
conditions have not been documented (DENR, 1998). According to DENR (1998), there are
no significant water quality problems in the lake.
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 3-16
Figure 5
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 3-17
Water from Mountain Island Lake is withdrawn by CMUD through their Catawba River
Raw Water Pump Station and sent to the Hoskins reservoirs, which supply water to two
water treatment plants – Franklin WTP and Vest WTP. CMUD is currently applying to
FERC to increase the maximum instantaneous withdrawal rate from the Catawba River Raw
Water Pump Station from 165 mgd to 330 mgd. The increased withdrawal rate will provide
CMUD with reliability and operational flexibility, and increase capacity to meet demands
through 2030.
Lake Wylie
Lake Wylie (in subbasin 030834) is formed by the drainage of the Catawba River, the South
Fork of the Catawba River, and various tributaries. Lake Wylie is classified as WS-IV CA
from Mountain Island Dam to I-85, WS-IV B CA from I-85 to the upstream side of the Paw
Creek arm, and WS-V B from the Paw Creek arm to the State Line (Figure 5). WS-V waters
are intended for future water supplies and have water quality standards similar to other WS
waters. A WS-V classification, however, is not intended for waters currently used as a water
supply. WS-V waters have no categorical restrictions on watershed development or
wastewater discharges. The South Carolina portion of Lake Wylie has been classified as FW
(similar to a WS-V classification in North Carolina).
The DWQ has classified Lake Wylie as eutrophic. A similar classification was made by the
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC, 1996). Algal
blooms and fish kills have been observed in embayments and tributary arms of the lake
(DWQ, 1995). DWQ has reported that total phosphorus, total organic nitrogen, and
chlorophyll a concentrations are the highest in the Crowders Creek arm of the lake (DENR,
1998). Nutrient loading into the lake has been linked to both point and non-point sources
(DWQ, 1995). Fish tissue samples analyzed from the lake have not exceeded FDA and EPA
criteria for metals or pesticides (DENR, 1998).
According to SC DHEC, Lake Wylie supports its recreational uses. However, aquatic life
uses are impaired above the Mill Creek arm, and are threatened in the Crowders Creek
embayment due to metals and low dissolved oxygen originating in North Carolina (SC
DHEC, 1996). SC DHEC has reported high concentrations of chromium, zinc, copper, and
nickel in lake sediments. In addition, the same agency also detected PCB-1254 and several
pesticides in sediment samples.
303 (d) Listed Streams
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires that states develop a list of waters not
meeting water quality standards or which have impaired uses. The State must prioritize
these waterbodies and prepare a management strategy or total maximum daily load
(TMDL). Lake Norman, Mountain Island Lake, and Lake Wylie are not included in North
Carolina’s 303 (d) list for the Catawba River Basin. However, McDowell Creek, a tributary
of Mountain Island Lake, has been listed as impaired mainly due to urban run-off and land
development. DWQ has assigned a low priority to these streams. In South Carolina, the Mill
Creek arm of Lake Wylie has been included as medium priority by SC DHEC due to copper.
Currently, based on a joint effort by the governments of North Carolina and South Carolina,
no new discharges to the lake system are allowed unless it is found to be the most
environmentally sound alternative; existing dischargers should be removed as alternatives
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 3-18
become available; and expansions should not increase the existing nutrient load from
existing facilities (SC DHEC, 1996).
3.1.4.2 Primary Consequences
Duke Energy has stated that, as CMUD’s withdrawals and interbasin transfers increase,
they expect to operate the reservoirs of the Catawba-Wateree Project within the same
elevation ranges that they have been historically operated within. This limits the potential
impacts of the proposed increase in interbasin transfer to the cumulative reservoir outflows
and power generation.
An analysis conducted by Duke Energy under normal and dry conditions has indicated that
there will be no changes in the surface water elevations of Lake Norman, Mountain Island
Lake, or Lake Wylie due to the proposed increased interbasin transfer. Under normal inflow
conditions the additional withdrawal would reduce power generation by about one percent,
and the cumulative outflows from Mountain Island Lake and Lake Wylie would be
decreased three to four percent. A similar analysis using the lowest average annual inflow
observed from 1955 to 1996 indicated that the cumulative outflow from Mountain Island
Lake would be reduced by about 10 percent. Minimum release requirements and operating
lake surface elevations for all the reservoirs were maintained under all conditions analyzed.
Under more extreme drought conditions, Duke Power would reduce power generation and
manage all lakes in order to meet minimum release requirements established in the existing
FERC license (personal communication with Mr. Steve Gaffney of Duke Energy). Assuming
an average weekly inflow of 496 cfs to Mountain Island Lake, which has historically been
exceeded 90 percent of the time (representing the 7Q10 flow), the lakes upstream of the
Mountain Island Dam would need to be drawn down by about 0.3 inch per week to
maintain the minimum release at the Dam.
During a drought situation CMUD would be following its Water Shortage Response Plan,
which includes either voluntary or mandatory conservation measures depending on the
severity of the drought. The results of the evaluations previously discussed do not consider
conservation measures customarily implemented in a drought period which tend to reduce
water use rates below the average. Therefore, the expected impacts on lake surface
elevations and cumulative reservoir outflows during a drought would be less severe than
those previously presented.
There are no expected significant direct impacts in water quality in the source basin as the
result of the transfer of water from Mountain Island Lake. Direct impacts in the water
quality of surface waters in the source basin are not expected because there will not be any
major changes in the hydrology of the system due to the increased withdrawal. Since the
hydrology of the system will not be affected in any major manner due to the proposed
transfer, water quality is not expected to be affected in Lake Norman, Mountain Island Lake,
Lake Wylie, nor in the other surface waters of the study area in the source basin. Therefore,
the assimilative capacity of the surface waters in the source basin is not expected to change
due to the proposed transfer of water. In addition, DWQ discourages lake dischargers.
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 3-19
3.1.4.3 Secondary and Cumulative Consequences
The proposed transfer does not require the construction of additional water intake
structures in Mountain Island Lake. Indirect impacts associated with expanding pumping
facilities, existing wastewater treatment plants, raw water transmission lines, water
treatment plants, and the finished distribution system will be permitted separately under
appropriate state and federal programs. Their environmental impacts will therefore be
evaluated under a parallel NCEPA process.
The proposed interbasin transfer will allow CMUD to meet increased average annual
demands through 2030 in response to increased population in its service area, which
includes all of Mecklenburg County. The 2005 Generalized Land Plan for Mecklenburg
County indicates that the area around Charlotte in the source basin will continue to be
urbanized as metropolitan bedroom communities with or without the proposed transfer of
water. The interbasin transfer will not affect the provision of water or sewer services in the
source basin around Lake Norman, Mountain Island Lake, or Lake Wylie. The project will
therefore not change the existing pattern or rate of growth expected in the source basin.
The proposed transfer amount of 33 mgd represents 20 percent of CMUD’s future average
annual water use. In addition, based on estimated withdrawals provided by Duke Power
and water supply plans, the proposed transfer is only 5 percent of the potential future
average annual withdrawal by all non-power users from Duke Power’s Catawba-Wateree
Project. Therefore, the potential cumulative impact of the proposed water transfer on the
Catawba-Wateree lake system is considered minor. The proposed transfer will not result in
significant adverse impacts related with water availability for other existing and future
users of water in the source basin.
There are no secondary impacts on water quality or water supply related to growth due to
the transfer of water from the source basin. There are no significant cumulative impacts in
the source basin directly related to the transfer of water.
3.1.5 Air Quality
3.1.5.1 Existing Environment
According to the 1998 State of the Environment Report: Mecklenburg County, NC (MCDEP,
1998A), the overall ambient air quality has steadily improved since 1980. An Air Quality
Index (AQI) is used to report ambient air conditions, and the AQI ranges from good,
moderate, unhealthful, very unhealthful, to hazardous. Through 1998 Mecklenburg County
index levels had not exceeded the unhealthful range, with most reports indicating the air
quality is good or moderate. The county had been a non-attainment area for ozone and
carbon monoxide but was redesignated in 1995 as an attainment area.
A new, more stringent National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone was
established by EPA in 1997, and the greater Charlotte-Mecklenburg region has been
struggling to meet this new standard. The new 0.08 ppm eight-hour average standard took
effect in 1997; however, on May 14, 1999, a federal appeals court blocked the EPA from
imposing the new standard. The three monitoring sites in Mecklenburg County have been
in violation of the new standard for the first two years of data collection (1997 and 1998). If
the old standard 0.12 ppm one-hour average is considered, two Mecklenburg County sites
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 3-20
are currently in violation of this standard. Regardless of the court battle, Mecklenburg
County and the surrounding areas will likely be classified as a non-attainment area for
ozone. Once the attainment level is determined, the non-attainment contingency plan will
be reviewed and implemented over an anticipated two to five year time frame.
Ozone is not directly emitted, but is formed when sunlight reacts with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). According to the NC Air Awareness
program, NOx is the limiting factor on the formation of ozone in North Carolina because of
the abundance of naturally occurring VOCs from trees, which cannot be controlled. In NC
urban areas, more than 60 percent of NOx emissions are from automobiles.
3.1.5.2 Primary Consequences
There is no construction associated with the IBT, and the increased withdrawal of water will
not affect air quality. Therefore, there are no primary air quality impacts in the source basin.
3.1.5.3 Secondary and Cumulative Consequences
Any change in lake elevations due to the IBT will not affect air quality. The IBT will also not
affect the provision of water, sewer, or other infrastructure elements in the project source
basin; therefore, there are no secondary or cumulative air quality impacts in the source
basin.
3.1.6 Groundwater Resources
3.1.6.1 Existing Environment
Mecklenburg County is located in the physiographic region described as the Piedmont
region, which is between the Blue Ridge and the Coastal Plain regions. According to the
North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, the crystalline bedrock aquifer in the
Piedmont region has relatively little storage capacity, and the well yields tend to be low
(around 5 to 35 gal/min). The USGS indicates that the major groundwater related issues in
North Carolina are (1) declining water levels (especially in the Coastal Plain region); (2)
contamination from hazardous wastes and landfill leachate; and (3) effects of land use on
water quality (especially the effects of urbanization). While groundwater is used by
individuals and some community systems in Mecklenburg County, it is not an appropriate
source for centralized use by CMUD because of insufficient yield and the costs associated
with combining surface and groundwater resources.
According to the 1998 State of the Environment Report for Mecklenburg County (MCDEP,
1998A) most of the wells used for water supply are located in rural areas; however, there are
private and community wells located within CMUD’s water supply service area. Based on
the ambient groundwater sampling network for Mecklenburg County, the 1997 average
values are within the suggested EPA drinking water levels except manganese and iron.
Manganese is not known to have a toxicological effect, and the recommended limit is based
largely on aesthetic and taste considerations. The recommended limit on iron is also based
on aesthetic and taste considerations and not physiological effects.
In 1997 there were more than 700 known or potential sources of groundwater contamination
in Mecklenburg County (the Mecklenburg Priority List [MPL]). As of December 1997, the
Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection (MCDEP) had evaluated 225
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 3-21
sites with 146 of the sites identified in areas where groundwater is accessed as a potable
source. The western portion of the county has the highest number of MPL sites, while the
southern and eastern portions have the least. The highest concentration of sites is located in
Uptown Charlotte; however, groundwater is not used as a drinking water source. The 28214
zip code, directly west of Uptown to the Catawba River, has the highest number of MPL
sites per given zip code and is the area of greatest concern because many residents use
groundwater as a drinking water source.
3.1.6.2 Primary Consequences
There is no construction associated with the IBT, and the increased withdrawal of water will
not affect groundwater resources. According to Basic Elements of Ground-Water Hydrology
with References to Conditions in North Carolina (Heath, 1980), groundwater recharge occurs by
precipitation in all inter-stream areas (areas except along streams and their adjoining flood
plains) (Heath, 1980). Streams and flood plains are, under most conditions, discharge areas
for groundwater; therefore, there are no primary impacts to groundwater resources due to
the project.
3.1.6.3 Secondary and Cumulative Consequences
As described in the Primary Consequences section above, any change in lake elevations
(which would only occur during extreme droughts) due to the IBT will not affect
groundwater resources; therefore, there will be no significant secondary or cumulative
impacts expected on groundwater resources as a result of the project.
3.1.7 Noise Level
3.1.7.1 Existing Environment
Quiet is conducive to psychological and physiological well-being for humans. Just as
excessive noise has been documented to negatively affect human health and welfare,
elevated noise levels from human activities can disrupt the normal behavior patterns of
wildlife, interfering with migration, breeding, hunting, and predator avoidance.
The source basin currently exhibits the day-to-day normal noise conditions representative of
mainly forested and open land cover areas surrounding the three lakes. Seasonal use of the
lakes for recreational purposes contributes to increased mobile sources, as well as
watercraft, noise during the warmer months. Lake-front living continues to be popular;
therefore, construction of new subdivisions, homes, and commercial development
surrounding the lakes results in increased noise.
3.1.7.2 Primary Consequences
There is no construction associated with the IBT, and, therefore, no increase in noise levels
from the IBT. The increased withdrawal of water will not affect noise levels in the source
basin; therefore, there are no primary noise impacts in the source basin.
3.1.7.3 Secondary and Cumulative Consequences
The IBT will not facilitate growth or recreational use in the source basin, therefore, no
secondary or cumulative noise impacts will result from the proposed project.
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 3-22
3.1.8 Toxic Substances/Hazardous Wastes
3.1.8.1 Existing Environment
There are no operating hazardous waste disposal sites in Mecklenburg County; however,
the 1998 State of the Environment Report: Mecklenburg County, NC (MCDEP, 1998A) reports
that there were 14 treatment, storage, or disposal facilities (TSDs) and 12 transporters of
hazardous waste in 1997. Approximately 19.0 million pounds of hazardous waste was
generated in 1997 by 59 large generators and 313 small generators. There were 442
conditionally exempt generators that reported to the State of North Carolina in 1997
(MCDEP, 1998A).
Potential sources for toxic substances present in the source basin study area are agricultural-
related substances such as fertilizers, weed control chemicals, and pesticides. Other common
toxic substances are employed in the construction of homes and commercial buildings such
as glues, solvents, and paints. Typical household hazardous wastes would include oils,
cleaners, solvents, paints, herbicides, and fertilizers.
3.1.8.2 Primary Consequences
There is no construction associated with the IBT. Although it is difficult to track the ultimate
disposal of non-regulated waste disposal, it is expected that most materials are properly
disposed of at collection sites throughout the county. Expansions to the North Mecklenburg,
Vest and Franklin water treatment plants will occur because of the increased water
withdrawals associated with the IBT. Although these expansions may involve increases in
the amount or types of toxic or hazardous substances used to treat the water for public
consumption, the potential environmental and health impacts of the use and disposal of
such chemicals is beyond the scope of this EA. Such impacts are more appropriately
addressed within the EA or EIS document that will be required under NCEPA before each
water treatment plant is permitted to expand. The Division of Water Resources and Division
of Water Quality will only permit expansions to water treatment plants if it will not involve
releases of toxic substances or hazardous waste. There are, therefore, no potentially
significant impacts to the environment from releases of toxic substances or hazardous
wastes associated with the proposed IBT.
3.1.8.3 Secondary and Cumulative Consequences
Any change in lake elevations due to the IBT will not affect the potential release of toxic
substances or hazardous wastes; therefore, there are no secondary or cumulative impacts
expected.
3.2 Receiving Basin
The "receiving basin" is considered to be the portion of the study area that is within the
Rocky River Subbasin. The receiving basin study area includes the Mecklenburg County
portion of the receiving basin east of the ridge line with the exception of the Goose Creek
watershed. It also includes Mallard Creek from the WWTP discharge point along the Rocky
River to the intersection with NC 205.
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 3-23
The boundary of the study area around water bodies is offset 0.5 mile from the shoreline to
incorporate flood plain areas as shown on FEMA flood zone maps (See Figure 1).
This section describes the existing environment for each area studied, followed by a
discussion of the primary consequences of the proposed IBT, if any, for the area. Secondary
and cumulative impacts in the receiving basin are discussed in Section 4.
3.2.1 Wetlands
3.2.1.1 Existing Environment
The receiving basin consists of:
• The eastern 30 percent of Mecklenburg County that is located within the Rocky River
Subbasin of the Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin with the exception of the Goose Creek
watershed,
• Mallard Creek from the Mallard Creek WWTP downstream to the Rocky River, and
• The Rocky River continuing to its intersection with NC 205.
This western Piedmont physiographic province of the state is characterized by gently
sloping to strongly sloping, well drained and moderately well drained soils that have a
clayey or loamy subsoil (USDA, 1980).
Within the 114,046-acre receiving basin study area, 2,710 total acres of various types of
wetlands have been identified by the NWI (as published by the USFWS). Of those total acres
of wetlands, 1,723 acres are within the Mecklenburg County portion of the receiving basin,
while 987 acres are located along Mallard Creek and the Rocky River within Cabarrus,
Union, and Stanly Counties. These figures are presented in the Land Cover table presented
in Appendix A. A wetlands field delineation was not performed for the receiving basin due
to the large study area.
The majority of the wetlands within the receiving basin project area identified on the NWI
maps are bottomland hardwood forests of the Palustrine Piedmont/ Low Alluvial Forest
type. Other types of wetlands that are known to occur in the receiving basin are listed in the
Wetland Types Predicted in the Receiving Basin Table in Appendix A (Table A-8).
The following SNHAs containing wetland natural communities have been listed by NHP
and were identified as being within the USGS quadrangles that compose the receiving basin
project area:
• Back Creek Swamp, Cabarrus and Mecklenburg Counties, Harrisburg Quad, Swamp
Forest
• Rocky River/Harrisburg Bottomland, Cabarrus and Mecklenburg Counties,
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
In addition to those communities listed by NHP for the receiving basin, WRP lists the
Piedmont/Mountain Swamp Forest, Hillside Seepage Bog, and Upland Pool wetland
community types as existing in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin (WRP, 1998B).
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 3-24
3.2.1.2 Primary Consequences
There is no construction proposed, and therefore no direct impacts to wetlands possible, as a
result of the IBT. In addition, existing wastewater treatment plants in the receiving basin
(CMUD’s Mallard Creek in Mecklenburg County and the Rocky River Regional WWTP in
Cabarrus County) will not require expanded or amended National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits to process the increased wastewater expected in the
basin as a result of the IBT. Current NPDES permits for these facilities have complied with
NCEPA requirements. The IBT will therefore not significantly impact water quality or
quantity (including temperature, nutrients, toxics, stream flow, erosion or flood levels) in
Mallard Creek or the Rocky River. Overall, the potential direct impacts of the IBT on
wetlands in the receiving basin are considered insignificant.
3.2.2 Land Use
3.2.2.1 Existing Environment
Urban/Developed Lands
Future planned land uses for the receiving basin are provided on the Proposed Land Use
Maps in Appendix C. These maps were taken from each of the District Plans for
Mecklenburg County. Since these land use maps are not available in GIS format, a GIS
analysis of projected land uses in the receiving basin was not possible. The analysis of land
uses as follows was therefore achieved through the use of land cover GIS data layers from
the North Carolina Center for Geographical Information and Analysis (CGIA), which show
only existing land uses for the project area in 1996.
Mecklenburg County The study area of the receiving basin contains small portions of the
Towns of Davidson, Cornelius, Huntersville, Mint Hill, Matthews, and Stallings. The
majority of the Mecklenburg portion of the receiving basin, however, is located in
unincorporated Mecklenburg County.
As shown on the Land Cover table in Appendix A (Table A-2) and Figure 4, the most
prevalent land cover type in the Mecklenburg County portion of the receiving basin was
forest as of 1996. At that time, there was a total of 7,662 acres of high and low intensity
urban development, 57,948 acres of forest, 1,883 acres of agricultural cropland and pasture,
and 21,705 acres of vacant shrubland in this area. No federal lands were identified in the
area. The entire Mecklenburg County portion of the receiving basin totals 89,530 acres,
including 332 acres of water.
The majority of the Mecklenburg County portion of the receiving basin is contained in
Subbasin 03-07-11, which also includes portions of Cabarrus, Iredell, and Rowan Counties,
and portions of the Towns of Harrisburg, Concord, Kannapolis, and Hickory, which are
outside of the project area. As shown on the Population Growth and Density for Subbasins
11 & 12 table in Appendix A (Table A-9), even though Subbasin 11 experienced a decline in
population and density between 1970 and 1980, it experienced an increased annual rate of
population growth between 1980 and 1990 (of 1.9 percent). Total population for Subbasin 11
in 1990 was 78,047, with a density of 282 persons per square mile (DWQ, 1997).
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 3-25
A small portion of the southern end of the Mecklenburg portion of the receiving basin is
contained within Subbasin 03-07-12. This subbasin also includes the Towns of Indian Trail,
Locust, Stanfield, Mt. Pleasant, Concord, and Kannapolis, which are also outside of the
project area. As shown on the Population Growth and Density for Subbasins 11 & 12 table in
Appendix A (Table A-9), even though Subbasin 12 experienced a slightly declined
population and density growth rate between 1970 and 1980, it experienced an increased
annual rate of population growth between 1980 and 1990 of 1.5 percent. Total population
and density for Subbasin 12 in 1990 was substantially higher than Subbasin 11 (with 125,021
persons and a density of 288 persons per square mile) (DWQ, 1997).
Many activities are occurring in eastern Mecklenburg County that will continue to
encourage growth and development in the IBT receiving basin area:
• Construction of the Outer Loop (I-485) and interchanges to local roads (anticipated to be
completed by 2015)
• Expansion of the Huntersville Business Park
• Expansion of UNC Charlotte
• Addition of a large K-12 educational campus near IBM
• New employers along I-77 and expanded research district areas
• Continued retail and multi-family development along US 74
• Continued suburban residential growth throughout the region
Overall, the policies adopted for the three planning Districts in the Mecklenburg County IBT
receiving basin are to accommodate and encourage growth and full urbanization of the
region through the next century (Mecklenburg County, 1990A, 1990B, 1991, 1992, 1996). The
Northeast District Plan predicts development in eastern Mecklenburg County will join
development in Cabarrus County, creating a “continuous urban suburban mass extending
from Uptown Charlotte to the center of Concord.” The only non-developed areas of the
District appear to be within the “park/greenway” land use category.
All three plans recognize that package treatment plants and individual well and septic tanks
in the eastern drainage basins of their County are negatively affecting the environment.
These plans also recognize that lack of public water and sewer are inhibiting full build-out
of the region. Thus, all of the plans have included clear goals to provide water and sewer
services to the eastern portion of the County, including the construction of additional
wastewater treatment facilities in the Rocky River Drainage Basin. The eventual provision of
water and sewer to this area is clearly assumed in future land use and population
projections for the districts. The proposed IBT and the resulting water and sewer services it
will initiate are therefore consistent with the County’s land use and growth plans for the
receiving basin.
Mallard Creek and Rocky River Corridor The second portion of the receiving basin project area
for the IBT is located along Mallard Creek at the Mallard Creek Water Reclamation Facility
discharge, down to the confluence with the Lower Rocky River, and then down the main
stem of the Rocky River to its intersection with SR 205 in Union County. The project area
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 3-26
includes the main stem of the water body, and extends 0.5 mile out from the streambank
(see Figure 1). This portion of the receiving basin encompasses portions of the Towns of
Mallard Creek and Harrisburg, and the Counties of Mecklenburg, Cabarrus, Stanly, and
Union.
As shown on the Land Cover table presented in Appendix A (Table A-2) and Figure 4, the
most prevalent land cover type in the Stream Corridor portion of the receiving basin was
forest as of 1996. At that time, there were a total of 191 acres of high and low intensity urban
development, 15,202 acres of forest, 3,134 acres of agricultural cropland and pasture, and
5,892 acres of vacant shrubland in this area. No federal lands were identified in the area.
This portion of the receiving basin totals 24,420 acres, including 97 acres in lake waters.
Public Lands (Parks / Recreation Areas and Greenways)
According to the North District Plan for Mecklenburg County, no state or federal parks exist
in the entire County - the closest state park is 20 miles from Charlotte. However, the North
District is planning the development of a large (800 to 1,000 acre) park in its planning area.
In addition, a Greenway Master Plan was adopted for the County in 1980 that calls for
greenways along major creeks, rivers, and lakes; however, little land had been purchased
and few greenways developed as of 1992 (Mecklenburg County, 1992). Noteworthy creeks
planned for County Greenways include:
• Reedy Creek
• McAlpine Creek
As shown on the Land Cover table in Appendix A (Table A-2), there are a total of 11 parks
and 435 acres of greenways in the Mecklenburg County portion of the receiving basin. This
table also shows that the receiving basin river corridor contains no state and county parks or
greenways.
There are no nature preserves in the North District of Mecklenburg County, but there are
two parks existing or planned in the area (in addition to many neighborhood parks owned
and managed by the local towns):
• Holbrooks Road Park (existing 75 acres, planned for expansion by 25 acres)
• Rocky River Park (proposed 100+ acre park)
The Northeast District Plan for Mecklenburg County lists the following parks and nature
preserves as currently existing or planned for the District in the receiving basin:
• Reedy Creek Nature Preserve and Park (700-acre existing nature preserve, trail and
park; proposed for 300-acre expansion)
• Mallard Creek Park (under construction, 500-acre recreational park)
• Mallard Creek Greenway (two-mile existing greenway and trails, more greenway
planned)
• Back Creek Park (proposed recreational park, 20 to 400 acres)
• University District Park (proposed recreational park)
• Newell Park (proposed greenway park)
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 3-27
According to the East District Plan for Mecklenburg County, the following parks,
greenways, and nature preserves currently exist or are planned for the District:
• Harrisburg Road Park (existing recreational park, planned expansion by 200 acres)
• Mint Hill Park (proposed 100-acre recreational park)
Prime Agricultural and Forestry Land
According to the Soil and Water Conservation District for Mecklenburg, 11 percent of the
total soils in Mecklenburg County are considered suitable for prime farmland. This
translates into a small proportion (approximately 3 percent) of the total soils in the
Mecklenburg County portion of the receiving basin considered suitable prime land if it is
assumed that there is an even distribution of the soils throughout the county.
The original forest communities of Mecklenburg, Cabarrus, Union, and Stanly Counties are
being progressively cleared out for wood products, crop production, and residential and
industrial development. The Forest Natural Communities in the Receiving Basin Table in
Appendix A (Table A-10) lists the known types of terrestrial or upland forest Natural
Communities that occur in the receiving basin counties. Wetland forests known to exist in
the receiving basin are listed in the Wetlands Section.
Common trees found today in these forest lands are beech, red maple, tuliptree, scarlet oak,
chestnut oak, white oak, loblolly pine, shortleaf pine, southern red oak, Spanish oak, post
oak, mockernut hickory, pignut hickory, Carolina shagbark hickory, red hickory, Virginia
pine, yellow-poplar, and sweetgum (Schafale and Weakley, 1990; USDA, 1980).
Undeveloped forest land currently occupies a total of approximately 73,000 acres or about
64 percent of the receiving basin study area. The distribution of forest land is presented in
Figure 4.
Archeological and Historic Areas
Table A-4 in Appendix A summarizes the archeological and historical resources known to
occur in the North Carolina counties that compose the project’s receiving basins.
The Catawba River Basin and the Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin contain many archeological
sites that have been surveyed and several sites where significant archeological resources
have been found from many native groups that lived in the region up until 200 years ago.
Due to the size of the project’s source and receiving basins, and the fact that no construction
will occur with the project, no archeological survey was prepared for the project.
The Upper Piedmont has enjoyed a rich history since being settled by Europeans in the early
1700s. Several important historic sites and architecturally significant buildings have been
identified and protected in the area also.
The three District Plans in place for the Mecklenburg County portion of the receiving basin
have included Historic Resource Protection elements that call for the identification and
preservation of historic properties and districts within the County.
3.2.2.2 Primary Consequences
The IBT will not have any direct impacts on urban/developed land, public lands, prime
agricultural land, forest land, or archeological or historic resources in the receiving basin
since no construction related to the IBT is planned.
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 3-28
3.2.3 Fish and Wildlife Resources
3.2.3.1 Existing Environment
Wildlife Habitat and Resources
The natural communities predicted to occur in the counties that compose the receiving basin
project area, according to the NHP, are listed in Appendix A (Table A-12). Not all of these
communities are likely to be present in the receiving basin project area (within eastern
Mecklenburg County and along a 0.5-mile boundary around Mallard Creek and the Rocky
River). Field studies were not undertaken as part of this EA.
According to the NHP (see NHP April 1999 letter in Appendix B), several SNHAs are found
in the counties that make up the receiving basin. These SNHAs are listed on page A-18 in
Appendix A and may or may not be within the defined receiving basin for the project.
Fishery Habitat and Aquatic Resources
Rocky River supports an important recreational fishery and is known for its flathead catfish
fishery. Other fish species caught include sunfish, carp, crappie, and largemouth bass. Both
hook and line fishing and grabbling (taking fish by hand) are popular. Rocky River
grabblers have reported catching flathead catfish in the range of 30 to 60 pounds. Grabbling
exposes citizens to prolonged contact with the waters of the Rocky River.
The NC Wildlife Resources Commission, in their Fisheries Management Plan for the Basin,
identified fish species in the four basic stream habitats in the watershed: coldwater,
coolwater, warmwater of the Piedmont, and warmwater of the Coastal Plain. The
warmwater streams of the Piedmont, which are more turbid and generally support fewer
game fish than the coolwaters of the foothills, contain various sunfish, catfish, minnows,
and suckers.
Although seven mainstream reservoirs are located on the mainstem of the Yadkin-Pee Dee
River, none are located within the project receiving basin area. Many small lakes and
thousands of ponds are scattered throughout the basin. Impounded waters generally
provide a warmwater fishery consisting of largemouth bass, crappie, other sunfish, catfish,
and miscellaneous species (WRC, March 1998).
The unimpounded lower 16-mile section of the Pee Dee River in North Carolina supports an
anadromous fishery for species including American shad, striped mullet, striped bass, and
an occasional sturgeon (both the Atlantic sturgeon and the federally endangered shortnose
sturgeon). Anadromous fish from the Atlantic Ocean ascend the Pee Dee River for a
distance of 195 miles to spawn in the large rocky shoals downstream of Blewett Falls Dam.
This dam limits the access of anadromous fish to the Rocky River. One catadromous species,
the American eel, is abundant in the lower Pee Dee River (WRC, March 1998).
Fishing pressure and angler utilization of the fishery resource varies within the basin. Very
heavy fishing pressure and harvest occurs on mainstream reservoirs. Stream fishing
pressure is moderate to heavy on cold and coolwater streams. Fishing pressure is light on
most of the warmwater streams where low populations of game fish occur due to persistent
water turbidity (WRC, March 1998). Non-point source pollution is a major contributor to
water quality problems in the Rocky River (DWQ, 1997).
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 3-29
Rare and Protected Species or Habitats
A total of 14 endangered, threatened, special concern, or significantly rare aquatic species
(fishes and mussels) occur in waters within the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin, and several
other non-aquatic threatened and endangered amphibians, mammals, and plants occur
along stream banks in the Basin. There are several additional rare animal species that exist
in the basin that require pools or ponds in floodplains for all or part of their lifecycles,
including rare amphibians like the mole salamander, four-toed salamander, and bog turtle
(WRC, March 1998; DWQ, 1997).
A review of NHP and USFWS records (see Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species
in Receiving Basin Table in Appendix A [Table A-12]) indicates a total of 17 sensitive plant
and animal species potentially occurring within the receiving basin project area. Specific
locations and species types within the precise boundaries of the receiving basin cannot be
determined without a field survey.
Species in these categories, as well as protected habitats in the area, are described below.
Schweinitz’s sunflower. As mentioned in Section 3.1.3.1, Schweinitz’s sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzii) is a federally listed endangered plant species that is endemic to the
upper Piedmont area of North Carolina. There are several known locations of this species
within the eastern Mecklenburg County receiving basin project area. Even though there are
other populations of this species along several tributaries to the Rocky River, none are
located within the 0.5-mile project area surrounding the Rocky River (NHP, 1999).
Schweinitz’s sunflower occurs in relatively open habitats – early successional fields, forest
ecotonal margins, or forest clearings. It thrives in full sun but also grows in the light shade
of open stands of oak-pine-hickory. Schweinitz’s sunflower generally occurs in moist to dry
clay soils or soils that are clay-loams or sandy-clay loams with high gravel content.
Formerly, the species probably occurred in prairie-like habitats or oak savanna maintained
by fires set by lightning or Native Americans. Loss of this open habitat to fire suppression
and urbanization has resulted in the decline of the species and its reduction to marginal and
vulnerable sites such as roadsides, power line easements, and old pastures. Rapid urban
growth in the Charlotte metropolitan area is continuing to convert Schweinitz’s sunflower
habitat to urban and suburban uses. Several populations have been bulldozed in recent
years for road improvements, pasture development and clearing for urban land uses
(USFWS, 1994).
Although listed as endangered by the USFWS and the NC Department of Agriculture’s
Plant Conservation Program, such listing provides only limited protection since neither law
protects the species from destruction by the landowner. In addition, Schweinitz’s sunflower
requires active management to maintain optimal habitat and cannot be “left alone” in a
static habitat (USFWS, 1994).
Savannah lilliput. The Savannah lilliput (Toxolasma pullus) is a freshwater mussel that is
listed as a species of concern by the federal government. It is found in both the North and
South Forks of Crooked Creek. Only a very small segment of the headwaters to the North
Fork are within the project receiving basin. Besides the Crooked Creek population, the
lilliput exists in only two other locations within the Yadkin-Pee Dee Basin. This species, like
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 3-30
the other mussels listed for the project area, is in decline (see WRC 3/99 letter in Appendix
B).
Kinea Slate & Rock Hole Creek Natural Areas. The Kinea Slate & Rock Hole Creek
Natural Areas are SNHAs, as classified by the NHP. These sites are located on the north side
of the Rocky River, below the Town of Stanfield, in Stanly County (NHP, 1999). As shown
on the Sensitive Species table in Appendix A (Table A-12), this natural area contains five
rare and endangered plant species.
In total, there are 5 known SNHAs and wildlife sanctuaries, one rare natural community, 17
sensitive animal and plant species (including the endangered Schweinitz’s sunflower), and
important recreational fishery species in the receiving basin.
3.2.3.2 Primary Consequences
The IBT itself will not have any direct impacts on natural communities, SNHAs, fisheries, or
sensitive species and their habitats in the receiving basin since no construction is planned
with the IBT.
3.2.4 Water Quality / Water Resources
3.2.4.1 Existing Environment
The surface waters of the receiving basin include the Mecklenburg County portion of the
Yadkin River in Subbasin 030711, including a segment of Mallard Creek below the
CMUD/Mallard Creek WWTP, and a section of the Rocky River in the Yadkin-Pee Dee
River Basin (from the confluence of Mallard Creek to NC 205, near Oakboro). These surface
waters are part of subbasins 030711, 030712, and 030713 (Figure 5).
Upper Rocky River
DWQ ambient monitoring stations for the surface waters in the study area are shown in
Figure 5. The upper reach of the Rocky River and its tributaries in subbasin 030711,
including Mallard Creek, drain the populous area of eastern Mecklenburg County. Mallard
Creek is an urban stream that receives the discharge of CMUD/Mallard Creek WWTP.
There are no ambient monitoring stations on Mallard Creek. However, Good/Fair (in 1985)
and Good (in 1996) biological ratings were given to Mallard Creek below the
CMUD/Mallard Creek WWTP (DEHNR, 1997).
Middle and Lower Rocky River
The Rocky River, below the confluence of Mallard Creek, follows a Z shape in subbasin
030712 (Figure 5). This segment of the Rocky River drains the watersheds of Irish Buffalo
Creek, Dutch Buffalo Creek, Anderson Creek, Muddy Creek, Clear Creek, Goose Creek, and
Crooked Creek. This section of the Rocky River receives the discharge of the Rocky River
Regional WWTP.
There is an ambient monitoring station (at US 601) in this section of the Rocky River, near
Concord. This ambient station monitors water quality conditions in this middle section of
the river. There are no additional monitoring stations in the remainder of the segment of the
Rocky River in our study area. The ambient data indicate concentrations above the NC
action levels for copper, iron, and zinc. The same parameters have been reported in similar
concentrations upstream, in the Rocky River at NCSR 2420 near Davidson. These
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 3-31
parameters are included as action levels versus standards in the State rules because total
recoverable measurements for these parameters are not necessarily indicative of toxicity
related problems associated with bioavailable fractions of the metals. Good-Fair water
quality conditions were given to this section of the Rocky River (DEHNR, 1997).
CMUD, the Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County, and the Union County Public
Works Department are currently exploring the possibility of locating a regional water
reclamation facility (Three-County Water Reclamation Facility) in the Rocky River.
Although the location of the facility has not been determined yet, possible locations extend
from near Muddy Creek (Cabarrus County) to downstream of Crooked Creek (Union
County). Further downstream from NC 205, the Rocky River at Norwood has consistently
received high Good-Fair (borderline Good) or Good ratings.
Currently, there are no flow gage stations located within the study area of the receiving
basin. However, two new flow gage stations are planned to start operation within the next
twelve months within the study area. The USGS operates a gage near the mouth of the
Rocky River at Norwood (USGS Station 02126000). According to the DWR, the following
flow statistics have been provided at this site: Drainage Area = 1,372 square miles; 7Q10 = 42
cfs; and Average Flow = 1,333 cfs. Based on this information and in consultation with USGS
and DWR (personal communication with Mr. Curtis Weaver and Mr. James Mead), the
following flow statistics were estimated in the Rocky River, downstream of Crooked Creek
at NCSR 1001 (UGGS Site 0212476775): Drainage Area = 683 square miles; 7Q10 = 21 cfs; and
Average Flow = 663 cfs.
303 (d) Listed Streams
According to the NC 303 (d) list, North Fork Crooked Creek is the only stream listed as
impaired in the study area. The stream was included on the 303(d) list based on biological
data, and a chemical parameter has not been identified. Several tributaries adjacent to our
study area have also been listed as impaired. Relevant 303 (d) listed streams are: Coddle
Creek, Goose Creek, Crooked Creek, , and South Fork Crooked Creek. These streams are
listed as being impaired by a combination of point and non-point sources.
3.2.4.2 Primary Consequences
The transfer of water will result in additional wastewater being discharged into the
receiving basin through the CMUD/Mallard Creek WWTP (existing) and the Rocky River
Regional WWTP (existing). It is estimated that approximately 26 cfs (or 17 mgd), including
a portion of the grandfathered amount, will be added cumulatively to the Rocky River from
these point sources (at existing permitted capacity).
Based on consultations with USGS, DWQ, and DWR, the additional flow will result in a
total stream flow of approximately 47 cfs in the Rocky River (below the confluence with
Crooked Creek) under 7Q10 flow conditions. Current 7Q10 stream flow at this point of the
Rocky River is estimated to be 21 cfs. The additional flow will bring the stream flow in the
Rocky River closer to desirable stream flows designed to maintain aquatic habitat. Based on
a regression equation developed by DWR to determine the minimum flow for a stream in
the Piedmont which exhibits moderate aquatic habitat, and for which no continuous gage
record exists, the recommended minimum stream flow to maintain aquatic habitat in the
Rocky River (below Crooked Creek) is 58 cfs. According to guidance provided by DWR and
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 3-32
consultations with Mr. Mead of DWR, the Rocky River near Crooked Creek is considered
within the piedmont region for application of the equation. Cursory visual inspection of
this section of the Rocky River by CH2M HILL staff indicated that the stream provides
moderate aquatic habitat. As previously discussed, the middle and lower sections of the
Rocky River have received Good-Fair to Good biological ratings (DEHNR, 1997).
Primary impacts to water quality from the IBT originate from the operation of wastewater
treatment facilities. However, these facilities have been already permitted and the IBT will
not result in additional permitted capacities. Existing NPDES permits were issued to
protect instream water quality. The permitting process for each of these facilities has
complied with the NCEPA requirements. DWQ’s antidegradation policy requires that only
the alternative that causes the least amount of environmental damage can be permitted
under the NPDES program.
Current efforts to develop a water quality model for the mainstem of the Rocky River from
Mallard Creek to Norwood are being pursued by cooperative effort between WSACC,
CMUD, Union County, and DWQ. The water quality model will allow the assessment of the
interaction in the Rocky River among existing discharges and proposed facilities not related
to this IBT permitting process.
Direct impacts related to flooding and streambank erosion due to an increase in stream flow
are not expected to be significant. Again, the permitted NPDES flows will handle the
proposed IBT flow amounts. Average annual stream flow in the Rocky River, downstream
from Crooked Creek, is expected to increase from 663 cfs to approximately 690 cfs at
permitted flows, or about 4 percent. The expected increase is minor and well within the
historical stream flow variability based on a flow duration analysis conducted in
conjunction with the Raleigh Office of USGS. For this analysis, stream flow variability for
the Rocky River below Crooked Creek is assumed to be similar to that at the Norwood gage
station. The analysis estimated that flows in the Rocky River, below Crooked Creek,
historically exceed 690 cfs twenty percent of the time and 1,500 cfs ten percent of the time.
The one-year flow event in the Rocky River was estimated at about 6,000 cfs ; therefore, the
potential flow increase is less than 0.5 percent of the one-year flow event.
Finally, the ratio of the additional wastewater (26 cfs) to the drainage area of the Rocky
River (683 mi2), below Crooked Creek, is less than 0.4. DWR has asserted, based on studies
conducted in Piedmont streams (DWR, 1987), that floodwater carrying capacity, streambank
erosion, and fish habitat need not be considered in detail for NCEPA documentation or for
NPDES permit decisions when the aforementioned ratio is less than 0.40. In light of the
above, the proposed additional flow is not expected to result in significant flooding and/or
additional streambank erosion from current levels. Therefore, further analyses, such as
stream flow modeling or estimates of streambank erosion, were not deemed necessary.
3.2.5 Air Quality
3.2.5.1 Existing Environment
According to the 1998 State of the Environment Report: Mecklenburg County, NC (MCDEP,
1998A), the overall ambient air quality has steadily improved since 1980. An AQI is used to
report ambient air conditions, and the AQI categories include good, moderate, unhealthful,
very unhealthful, and hazardous. Through 1998, Mecklenburg County index levels had not
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 3-33
exceeded the unhealthful range, with most reports indicating the air quality is good or
moderate. The county had been a non-attainment area for ozone and carbon monoxide but
was redesignated in 1995 as an attainment area.
A new, more stringent NAAQS for ozone was established by the EPA in 1997, and the
greater Charlotte-Mecklenburg region has been struggling to meet this new standard. The
new 0.08 ppm eight-hour average standard took effect in 1997; however, on May 14, 1999, a
federal appeals court blocked the EPA from imposing the new standard. The three
monitoring sites in Mecklenburg County have been in violation of the new standard for the
first two years of data collection (1997 and 1998). If the old standard 0.12 ppm one-hour
average is considered, two Mecklenburg County sites are currently in violation of this
standard. Regardless of the court battle, Mecklenburg County and the surrounding areas
will likely be classified as a non-attainment area for ozone. Once the attainment level is
determined, the non-attainment contingency plan will be reviewed and implemented over
an anticipated two to five year time frame.
Ozone is not directly emitted, but is formed when sunlight reacts with VOCs and NOx.
According to the NC Air Awareness program, NOx is the limiting factor on the formation of
ozone in North Carolina because of the abundance of naturally occurring VOCs from trees,
which cannot be controlled. In North Carolina urban areas, more than 60 percent of NOx
emissions are from automobiles.
3.2.5.2 Primary Consequences
There is no construction associated with the IBT, and the additional discharge to the Rocky
River Subbasin due to the IBT will not affect air quality. Therefore, there are no primary air
quality impacts.
3.2.6 Groundwater Resources
3.2.6.1 Existing Environment
Mecklenburg County is located in the physiographic region described as the Piedmont
region, which is between the Blue Ridge and the Coastal Plain regions. According to the
North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, the crystalline bedrock aquifer in the
Piedmont region has relatively little storage capacity, and the well yields tend to be low
(around 5 to 35 gal/min). The USGS indicates that the major groundwater related issues in
North Carolina are (1) declining water levels (especially in the Coastal Plain region); (2)
contamination from hazardous wastes and landfill leachate; and (3) effects of land use on
water quality (especially the effects of urbanization). While groundwater is used by
individuals and some community systems in Mecklenburg County, it is not an appropriate
source for centralized use by CMUD because of insufficient yield and the costs associated
with combining surface and groundwater resources.
According to the 1998 State of the Environment Report for Mecklenburg County (MCDEP,
1998A), most of the wells used for water supply are located in rural areas; however, there
are private and community wells located within CMUD’s water supply service area. Based
on the ambient groundwater sampling network for Mecklenburg County, the 1997 average
values are within the suggested EPA drinking water levels except manganese and iron.
Manganese is not known to have a toxicological effect, and the recommended limit is based
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 3-34
largely on aesthetic and taste considerations. The recommended limit on iron is also based
on aesthetic and taste considerations and not physiological effects.
In 1997 there were more than 700 known or potential sources of groundwater contamination
in Mecklenburg County (according to the MPL). As of December 1997, MCDEP had
evaluated 225 sites with 146 of the sites identified in areas where groundwater is accessed as
a potable source. The western portion of the county has the highest number of MPL sites,
while the southern and eastern portions have the least. The highest concentration of sites is
located in Uptown Charlotte; however, groundwater is not used as a drinking water source.
The 28214 zip code, directly west of Uptown to the Catawba River, has the highest number
of MPL sites per given zip code and is the area of greatest concern because many residents
use groundwater as a drinking water source.
3.2.6.2 Primary Consequences
There is no construction associated with the IBT, and the additional discharges of water will
not affect groundwater resources. According to Basic Elements of Ground-Water Hydrology
with References to Conditions in North Carolina (Heath, 1980), groundwater recharge occurs by
precipitation in all inter-stream areas (areas except along streams and their adjoining flood
plains). Streams and flood plains are, under most conditions, discharge areas for
groundwater; therefore, there are no primary impacts to groundwater resources due to the
project.
3.2.7 Noise Level
3.2.7.1 Existing Environment
Quiet is conducive to psychological and physiological well-being for humans. Just as
excessive noise has been documented to negatively affect human health and welfare,
elevated noise levels from human activities can disrupt the normal behavior patterns of
wildlife, interfering with migration, breeding, hunting, and predator avoidance.
The receiving basin currently exhibits the day-to-day normal noise conditions representative
of forested and open land cover areas. With the growth that is anticipated in the area, the
noise level will increase temporarily during construction of new subdivisions, homes, and
commercial development. A long-term increase in noise levels can be expected due to
increasing mobile source traffic.
3.2.7.2 Primary Consequences
There is no construction associated with the IBT, and the additional discharge to the Rocky
River Subbasin due to the IBT will not affect noise levels. Therefore, there are no primary
impacts expected due to noise.
3.2.8 Toxic Substances/Hazardous Wastes
3.2.8.1 Existing Environment
There are no operating hazardous waste disposal sites in Mecklenburg County; however,
the 1998 State of the Environment Report: Mecklenburg County, NC (MCDEP, 1998A) reports
that there were 14 TSDs and 12 transporters of hazardous waste in 1997. Approximately 19.0
million pounds of hazardous waste was generated in 1997 by 59 large generators and 313
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 3-35
small generators. There were 442 conditionally exempt generators that reported to the State
of North Carolina in 1997.
Potential sources for toxic substances present in the source basin study area are agricultural-
related substances such as fertilizers, weed control chemicals, and pesticides. Other common
toxic substances are employed in the construction of homes and commercial buildings such
as glues, solvents, and paints. Typical household hazardous wastes would include oils,
cleaners, solvents, paints, herbicides, and fertilizers.
3.2.8.2 Primary Consequences
There is no construction associated with the IBT. The additional discharge to the Rocky
River Subbasin due to the IBT could affect the release of toxic substances and hazardous
wastes through the operation of the proposed Three-County, Rocky River Regional, and
Mallard Creek WWTPs; however, these impacts will be addressed individually with
separate EA or EIS documentation before the plants are permitted under the NPDES
program. Potential toxic impacts from these plants are expected to be insignificant.
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 4-1
SECTION 4
Secondary and Cumulative Impacts in the
Receiving Basin
This section provides a broad evaluation of the potential secondary3 and cumulative4
impacts that may result from development facilitated by the proposed action. Secondary
and cumulative impacts are only expected to occur in the receiving basin portion of the
study area. This section contains a general overview of the potential indirect impacts and is
not site-specific to the receiving basin. This broad evaluation considers the potential general
impacts of growth, on a large scale, associated with full buildout of eastern Mecklenburg
County, including the development of water and sewer lines, other public infrastructure
projects, and private development. A build out scenario is being considered as a
conservative assumption representing a “worst case” scenario. The secondary and
cumulative impacts of buildout are discussed because the IBT approval is an important step
in facilitating development. It must be emphasized that the IBT is one of several projects
being implemented to accommodate growth. Other related projects include construction of
the Outer Loop (I-485), and the expansion of Huntersville Park and UNC Charlotte.
The discussion provided in the following section reflects a general analysis of the potential
for urbanization to impact specific resources in the receiving basin, given current trends and
literature records. This analysis is broad and may reflect a “worst-case” scenario that does
not take into consideration current regulations or proposed programs that are attempting to
mitigate the impacts. An evaluation of existing federal, state and local regulations is
therefore provided in Section 6 to identify areas where improvements may be made to
better address the identified potential secondary and cumulative impacts discussed below.
4.1 Secondary Impacts
4.1.1 Installation of Water and Sewer Lines
Growth that will be facilitated by the proposed IBT will necessitate the approval,
construction, and operation of a variety of additional water and sewer projects in the
receiving basin portion of eastern Mecklenburg County. Although many major water lines
are in place, the provision of water may induce demands for additional water distribution
and municipal wastewater collection systems in the receiving basin, given the following:
• Regional soils are often unable to handle on-site septic systems.
• Many existing package treatment plants in the area are contributing to declines in water
quality due to improper operation and limited treatment.

3 “Indirect Effects” (secondary impacts) are “caused by and result from the proposed activity although they are later in time or
further removed in distance, but they are still reasonably foreseeable.” (15A NCAC 1C .0101(d)(4))
4 “Cumulative Effects” are defined as “resulting from the incremental impact of the proposed activity when added to other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities regardless of what entities undertake such other activities.” (15A NCAC
1C .0101(d)(2))
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 4-2
• Mecklenburg County discourages the construction of additional package wastewater
treatment plants in the region (Mecklenburg, 1990A, 1992, 1996).
• The provision of public water and sewer to eastern Mecklenburg County is a high
priority goal for the County, one which must be provided to serve planned full
development of the area.
• DWQ may not permit additional package treatment plants in the receiving basin due to
low flow conditions in many streams of the receiving basin.
Although new water and sewer lines will occur as a result of the IBT, existing wastewater
treatment plants in the receiving basin (CMUD’s Mallard Creek in Mecklenburg County and
the Rocky River Regional WWTP in Cabarrus County) will not require expansions in order
to process the increased wastewater flows. Potential environmental impacts from these
additional permitted flows were previously evaluated prior to DWQ issuing the original
NPDES permits for the facilities. Additional environmental review of these additional
discharges are therefore not necessary.
Constructing and operating water and sewer lines in the receiving basin (considered a
secondary impact of the IBT) may have direct environmental impacts. However, due to a
lack of specific details regarding these potential future projects at this time (including their
type, size, location, design, operational details and information on the potential
environmental resources they may impact), this EA cannot adequately address the potential
direct impacts of these future infrastructure projects. These impacts may or may not be
found to be significant, once adequate details are known. The direct impacts will be assessed
during the planning and environmental review phase of specific projects. Secondary and
cumulative impacts are being assessed in this document.
To ensure the full evaluation of the potential direct effects of these future projects, Section 6
contains specific recommended elements that should be discussed in future EA and EIS
documents for these projects. These conditions recognize the sensitive environmental
resources present in the receiving basin and will remind state agencies, the project applicant
and their consultant of the areas where special attention is needed to adequately address the
potential primary impacts of these subsequent projects.
4.1.2 Buildout of the Receiving Basin
Mecklenburg County’s existing policies accommodate urban growth over the entire County
(see Section 3.2.2). The regional transportation improvements planned for the receiving
basin, including the new I-485 outer loop, the new I-74 Bypass and local thoroughfare
improvements, have been collectively planned to accommodate growth. The availability of
municipal water or sewer services in the project area is a component of the planning for
growth.
The absence of an IBT in eastern Mecklenburg County by itself will not remove the
impediment to growth in the receiving basin. However, the subsequent installation and
operation of the water and sewer lines as a secondary effect of the IBT, in combination with
other infrastructure projects, may change the pattern and rate of growth. Although some
urban development has occurred in the receiving basin without public water and sewer
services (through the installation of private or community wells and septic tanks or package
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 4-3
treatment plants), the provision of water and sewer systems may lead to more intense land
use types and densities than currently possible on limited capacity private systems.
Changes in land uses facilitated by the proposed IBT, combined with the cumulative effects
of road construction and development of other urban infrastructure and public services,
could create potentially significant direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on
environmental and human resources in the receiving basin, as discussed in detail below and
in Section 4.2.
Therefore, the most significant indirect impact of the proposed IBT is predicted to be growth
and development in the rural parts of eastern Mecklenburg County composing the project’s
receiving basin. Growth will not be facilitated in the river corridor portions of the receiving
basin within Cabarrus, Union and Stanly County, since those areas will not receive any of
the transferred water from the IBT.
4.1.2.1 Wetlands
As discussed in Section 3.2.1, wetland habitat found in the eastern Mecklenburg portion of
the receiving basin includes 1,723 acres of Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest and
Upland Depression Swamp Forest. Dense urban development in eastern Mecklenburg
County, as possible through full build-out of the area, could have significant impacts on
these wetlands. Impacts could be direct, in terms of filling or draining of wetlands for
construction of roads, building sites, or utilities. Urban development could also have
significant indirect impacts to wetlands, in terms of increased levels of silt and sediment
from grading activities and the increasing amount of non-point source pollutants entering
into the wetlands over the long term from upland development activities and urban land
uses.
Typical urban stormwater pollutants include sediment, nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus),
bacteria (fecal coliform as indicators), and potential toxicants (metals, oil and grease,
hydrocarbons, pesticides). It is widely accepted that in general, increased amounts of
stormwater runoff from elevated impervious surfaces in developed areas could cause
erosion and collapse of streambanks, leading to loss of riparian canopy trees and degraded
stream habitat.
The NC Wetland Restoration Program showed that in subbasins 11 and 12 of the Yadkin-
Pee Dee River, there were 19 acres of wetlands drained or filled due to development
activities during 1996 and 1997 (WRP, 1998B). The acreage of wetlands impacted by growth
may increase as the level and intensity of land use changes increase in the basin.
4.1.2.2 Land Use
As discussed in Section 3.2.2.1, the most prevalent land cover type in this area was forest as
of 1996. At that time, there were a total of 7,662 acres of high and low intensity urban
development, 57,948 acres of forest, 1,883 acres of agricultural cropland and pasture, and
21,705 acres of vacant shrubland in this area. Approximately 10,000 acres of the
Mecklenburg County portion of the receiving basin contains prime agricultural soils. In
addition, this area contains many important archaeological sites with significant native
resources.
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 4-4
Mecklenburg County’s development policies for the receiving basin involve accommodating
growth and full urbanization of the region through the next century. This growth and
urbanization, including land use changes and other effects of land development, could
cause significant secondary impacts to rare forest resources, prime agricultural land, and
archeological resources in the receiving basin.
Impacts of land use changes could include the loss of the resource to conversion of the land
to urban uses. For example, the loss of forest land and open shrub land not only means a
loss of timber resources, but means the loss of wildlife habitat, which can have significant
impacts to various sensitive species in the area (see Section 4.1.2.3 for a discussion of this
impact on fish and wildlife species). Impacts of land use changes could also include a
degradation of the resource through the introduction of incompatible urban land uses
adjacent to the resource. For example, the loss of viable farm income can occur when
subdivisions are built adjacent to farmland and new residential growth forces the farmer to
stop using chemicals, vandalism of crops begins to occur, associated farming businesses
move away, and the use of farm equipment on public roads in the area becomes more
dangerous with increased traffic. In addition, because the value of the farmland rises as
urbanization of the area occurs, farmers can be forced out of the business due to increased
property taxes.
4.1.2.3 Fish and Wildlife Resources
As detailed in Section 3.2.3, a total of 17 sensitive plant and animal species, many fish
species, and several Significant Natural Heritage Areas may exist in the receiving basin
project area. Urban growth in the Mecklenburg County area in the past has been shown to
negatively affect wildlife resources, fisheries resources, and sensitive species through direct
habitat loss and water degradation from point and non-point source pollution sources.
Further urbanization of the region may have significant impacts on fish and wildlife
resources through the continued:
• loss, fragmentation or degradation of sensitive and non-sensitive aquatic and terrestrial
species and their habitats through conversion of land and wetland areas and filling or
piping of streams and creeks for residential, business or public facility uses;
• degradation of water quality and negative impacts on aquatic resources, fisheries and
wetlands through increasing erosion and sedimentation from construction activities, as
well as increased stormwater runoff containing high levels of non-point source
pollutants;
• degradation of air resources through increased automobile usage and traffic congestion
related to urban sprawl; and
• loss of species diversity through the combined impacts listed above.
As discussed by the USFWS in their restoration plans for sensitive species in the project
area, both the water quality and sensitive species aquatic habitat in the receiving subbasins
may be significantly impacted through the increase in stormwater, increased sedimentation
and erosion, loss of streambanks, and increased amount of non-point source pollutants
entering into the surface waters as urban land uses replace rural land uses in the project
area. Further loss of terrestrial natural communities to urban development is a concern,
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 4-5
since many of the threatened or endangered species in the basin are vascular plant species
living on marginal habitats (such as the Schweinitz’s sunflower) (USFWS, 1994, 1997).
4.1.2.4 Water Quality / Water Resources
According to the Mecklenburg County State of the Environment Report on water quality (see
Appendix D), the streams in the project receiving basin show a declining trend in water
quality due to point and non-point source pollutants from urban development. As discussed
in earlier sections, the Crooked Creek watershed, whose the headwaters are located in the
project receiving basin) have a substantial portion of its streams classified as impaired
specifically due to the impacts of urbanization (WRP, 1998A).
Dense urban development from full buildout of the receiving basin may continue this
downward trend for water quality in the receiving basin. Potentially significant indirect or
secondary impacts on water quality and aquatic habitat in areas adjacent to and
downstream of the receiving basin area may occur with full urbanization. North Fork
Crooked Creek in the receiving basin has already demonstrated water quality impairment
due to the secondary impacts of current urban growth in the project area.
Short-term declines in water quality from installation of sewer and water lines, public
facility construction projects, and long-term declines in water quality from land use changes
may have significant impacts on water quality and subsequent impacts on aquatic habitat,
wetlands, and sensitive aquatic and amphibian species in eastern Mecklenburg County. The
source and impact of water quality degradation was previously discussed in Sections 4.1.2.1.
through 4.1.2.3.
Changes in land use have a major effect on both the quantity and quality of stormwater
runoff. Urbanization and land use development, if not properly planned and managed, can
dramatically alter the natural hydrology of an area. Impervious surfaces increase the
volume and rate of stormwater runoff. These changes lead to more frequent and severe
flooding and also lead to degradation of water quality from the various stormwater
pollutants that wash off impervious areas during rain events (e.g. sediments, nutrients,
bacteria, etc.). As imperviousness increases, the more impacted surface waters become from
pollution and flooding. The cumulative effects of stormwater runoff are evident in the
frequent correlation between the location of a stream and its water quality, where urban
streams overall have poorer water quality than rural streams.
One major positive secondary impact of the IBT and the construction of regional public
water and wastewater collection systems in the receiving basin will be the eventual
elimination of privately owned package treatment plants, potential reductions of discharges
into low flow streams from existing public WWTPs, adequate maintenance of sewer lines to
prevent overflows, and public enforcement actions on failing septic systems that will
together protect surface waters from discharges of wastewater in the project area.
4.1.2.5 Air Quality
Ozone is the primary pollutant of concern in the study area, and the levels of ozone in the
study area will likely be affected by the projected increasing growth. Since NOx is the
limiting factor in ozone formation, and an estimated 60 percent of NOx is emitted by
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 4-6
automobiles, the additional vehicle miles traveled due to increased population will likely
result in higher concentrations of ozone formed during the hot summer months.
4.1.2.6 Groundwater
Development of most urban areas has followed major roads. These roads facilitate the
installation of water supply systems from municipal sources. This is expected to be the case
during development of the receiving basin. CMUD plans to supply water to 100 percent of
Mecklenburg County in 2020; however, until then, a small number of dwellings in the
periphery of urban areas and in isolated subdivisions will continue to depend on individual
groundwater wells for water supply.
A potentially negative impact to groundwater availability is the reduced infiltration
capacity due to increase of impervious areas as a cumulative impact of full build-out of the
project area–thus affecting the recharge capacity of the groundwater storage.
Land use activities and growth in the receiving basin could potentially impact groundwater
quality by introducing toxic contaminants into or onto the soil, where it can seep into the
groundwater aquifer. Such contamination can ruin drinking water wells for communities
and individual homes. Potential sources of groundwater contamination include wastewater
lagoons, solid waste disposal sites, storage or use of hazardous substances, poorly designed
or maintained septic systems, accidental spills, and leaking underground storage tanks.
The proposed regional wastewater collection services will capture a significant number of
residences presently using septic tanks. This will result in a beneficial impact to
groundwater in the study area by reducing the public health risk of groundwater
contamination in the service area from leaking or failing septic tanks.
4.1.2.7 Noise
The predicted full urbanization and build-out of the project service area will produce
greater amounts of noise from greater density of land uses, more people living in the study
area, more businesses and industries operating in the area, and a significant increase in
number of vehicles using local roads and highways. As development occurs with the
provision of sewers in the project area, existing residential developments, once isolated in
the countryside, will be joined by additional subdivision developments next to them. The
cumulative effect of lawn mowers, leaf blowers, barking dogs, etc. will rise accordingly.
Businesses and industries will move into the area also, potentially bringing elevated noise
levels to existing residential areas. The continued growth and development of the study area
will significantly impact the community noise levels through the introduction of additional
domestic and commercial traffic and intensification of industry. Overall, the project study
area will evolve from a fairly quiet, rural area to an urban and suburban area, with greater
numbers of noise sources combining cumulatively to raise the base exterior noise level in
the area.
4.1.2.8 Toxic Substances / Hazardous Wastes
As urbanization continues in the receiving basin, the potential for release of toxic substances
from residential and commercial sources increases. The improper disposal of these
substances could have adverse impacts on the environment by entering the groundwater
system through landfill leachate or entering the sewer system and reaching the WWTPs.
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 4-7
The Mecklenburg County Engineering Department provides three household hazardous
waste (HHW) collection centers at three of the super recycling centers. HHW can properly
be disposed of at the North Mecklenburg Collection Center, the Hickory Grove Recycling
Center, and the Compost Central Recycling Center.
As the amount of traffic and urban uses in the receiving basin increase, stormwater runoff
will contain increasing levels of water pollutants, some of them toxic. Typical urban
stormwater pollutants include sediment and silt, nitrogen and phosphorus, oils and greases,
rubber deposits, toxic chemicals, pesticides and herbicides, and road salts. Unless contained
and treated before entering into surface waters, this urban stormwater could significantly
impact the water quality and sensitive species living within the receiving basin.
The long-term impact of new toxic discharges to the surface and groundwaters from urban
stormwater, landfill leachate, and accidental and/or intentional spill of household and
industrial chemicals in the receiving basin will likely lead to declines in water quality, the
potential loss of wildlife, and potentially the elimination of the existing endangered species
in the subbasin.
4.2 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts, related to growth, are expected to be essentially the same as those
identified as secondary impacts in the previous section. Full urbanization of eastern
Mecklenburg County may cumulatively cause degradation and loss of certain wetlands,
forest resources, prime agricultural land, sensitive wildlife habitat, and archeological
resources. Conversion of these land uses and the resultant urban development activities
that normally accompany these changes in the receiving basin may cumulatively impact
water quality and aquatic habitat adjacent to and downstream of this urbanizing area.
Streams, lakes, and other surface waters in eastern Mecklenburg County may be impacted
by the cumulative effect of urban non-point source pollutants and hydrologic modification.
Increased levels of silt and sediment and the increasing amount of non-point source
pollutants entering surface waters in the project area from development activities and urban
land uses pose a threat to the natural system in the long term.
Long-term declines in water quality from ongoing non-point pollution and stormwater from
urban land uses can have significant impacts on aquatic habitat, wetlands and sensitive
aquatic and amphibian species in urbanizing areas. According to USFWS studies, such
impacts have historically occurred in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg area as a result of
urbanization, and may have led to the decline of sensitive aquatic species in the receiving
basin (USFWS, 1997; Keferl and Shelley, 1988). In general, unless stormwater is properly
managed, and wetlands and stream buffers are protected, erosion and urban stormwater
could cause significant cumulative impacts to the water quality and/or the sensitive species
living within the project area and in downstream environments (USFWS, 1997; Keferl and
Shelley, 1988).
As land uses change and open spaces are developed and cut off from other open areas, fish
and wildlife habitat will be lost and fragmented, and species diversity potentially
diminished. Loss of terrestrial natural communities to urban development is a particular
concern for the sensitive vascular plant species living on marginal habitats (such as the
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 4-8
Schweinitz’s sunflower) in the receiving basin (USFWS, 1994). Sensitive terrestrial and
aquatic species and their habitats may be lost to development or may be degraded over time
by the negative impacts of urban uses in close proximity, especially as a result of
degradation of water and air resources. Both the water quality and sensitive species habitat
in the receiving subbasins may be significantly impacted through the increase in
stormwater, increased sedimentation and erosion, loss of streambanks, and increased
amount of non-point source pollutants entering into the surface waters from urban land
uses (USFWS, 1997).
Public and recreational lands and waters could receive additional use from an increased
population, creating stress on wildlife that are trying to occupy the few natural areas
remaining. Urbanization will also increase the base level of noise in the receiving basin,
potentially impacting wildlife behavior.
Urbanization of the area will result in a loss of acres of prime agricultural and forest land.
Stormwater runoff may increase, causing streambank erosion and increased amount and
severity of flooding damage to public and private properties. Archeological and historical
sites may be lost to development activities. The additional vehicle miles traveled due to
increased population growth will likely result in higher concentrations of ozone formed
during the hot summer months. Urbanization in Charlotte has in the past contributed to a
decrease in air quality, and this trend is likely to continue as a result of the proposed project.
A potential impact to groundwater availability is the reduced infiltration capacity due to
increase of impervious areas as growth continues, thus affecting the recharge capacity of the
groundwater storage. Land use activities and growth could also potentially impact
groundwater quality by introducing toxic contaminants in recharge areas. The long-term,
cumulative impact of new toxic discharges to the surface and ground waters from urban
stormwater, landfill leachate, and accidental and/or intentional spills of household and
industrial chemicals in the receiving basin could lead to declines in water quality, the
potential loss of wildlife, and potentially the elimination of the existing endangered species
in the subbasin.
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 5-1
SECTION 5
Alternatives Analysis
Alternatives to the proposed interbasin transfer are discussed below. The three alternatives
considered for this EA are:
1. No action
2. Obtain water from the Rocky River Subbasin
3. Discharge water to the Catawba River Subbasin
Table 8 summarizes maximum day water use, wastewater discharge, and interbasin transfer
amounts for the proposed and alternative scenarios in 2030. These estimates do not include
future growth in the Goose Creek watershed.
TABLE 8Maximum Day Water Use, Discharge, and Interbasin Transfer (mgd) for CMUD Alternatives in 2030
Alternative
Catawba Water
Use
Rocky River
Water Use
Catawba WW
Discharge 1 Rocky River
WW Discharge 1 Interbasin
Transfer 2
Proposed
Action
240 0 165 20 33
No Action 223 0 165 9 16
Obtain Water
from Rocky
River
223 17 165 20 16
Discharge more
to Catawba
240 0 182 3 16
Notes:
1 Discharge represents the portion of the water used that is discharged to the wastewater system, and is not
necessarily the same as actual WWTP discharges.
2 Interbasin Transfer includes a consumptive use portion in the receiving basin.
5.1 No Action Alternative
Under the no action alternative, CMUD will not provide additional water/sewer services or
increase bulk water sales to customers within the Rocky River Subbasin. Therefore, as
shown in Table 8, CMUD’s water use and wastewater discharge would decrease compared
to the preferred alternative. This alternative would cost less, but revenue from water sales
would also decrease. While development in the area would potentially slow because of the
lack of centralized water/sewer service, additional growth would still occur. Growth areas
would likely be served by individual wells and septic tanks, or by community water
systems and package sewer plants. This sustained proliferation of septic tanks and small
package plants will pose a detriment to water quality in many streams. Septic tank failure
can cross-contaminate groundwater. Bacterial contamination from septic tank effluent has
been found to be a common occurrence in suburban and rural areas served by groundwater
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 5-2
because the subsurface water is being used both as a source of drinking water and as a
disposal medium for wastewater.
5.2 Obtain Water from Rocky River Subbasin Alternative
One option for CMUD is to develop a water supply source in the Rocky River Subbasin so
that the interbasin transfer amount does not increase from the grandfathered amount of 16.1
mgd. This would require development of a water source to supply 17 mgd on an average
annual basis. The site considered for this analysis is just upstream of the Rocky River
Regional WWTP with a drainage area of approximately 100 square miles. Planning level
costs for constructing a similar-sized reservoir, the Little River Reservoir in Wake County, to
supply 18 mgd are about $54 million. If this cost were prorated for the 17 mgd Rocky River
Reservoir, the total costs for a Rocky River Reservoir could be expected to be about $51
million (reservoir only, pumping and transmission costs depend upon length of pipeline).
The Rocky River and its tributaries are not classified as water supply waters, so water
supply watershed protection measures are not in place and there are numerous point source
discharges upstream of the potential reservoir site. Development of a new water treatment
plant would be more expensive than expanding the existing WTPs in the Catawba River
Subbasin, and treatment costs would be higher since the Catawba River lakes are very high
quality and are protected as water supply sources. The regulatory requirements for
developing this source would be substantial.
Proposals for development of new impoundments for water supply in rapidly urbanizing
watersheds have faced significant regulatory requirements and created considerable public
controversy. The Randleman Lake project in the Deep River portion of the Cape Fear River
Basin has faced significant regulatory and public hurdles. Concerns have focused around
adequate protection of public health with an urban/urbanizing watershed to loss of rural
land. These issues are exacerbated by the fact that this area has never been identified as a
potential water supply watershed and there has been no effort to protect the watershed for
this purpose. In contrast, the Little River Watershed in Wake County (mentioned above) has
been protected through local ordinances and state stream classification as a water supply
source since the mid-1980s. The Little River reservoir is not planned to be developed until
after 2010.
5.3 Discharge Water to Catawba River Subbasin Alternative
For comparison purposes it is assumed that CMUD would substantially expand the
McAlpine WWTP as an alternative to using WWTPs in the receiving basin, and a new
regional facility is not constructed in the Rocky River. WWTP expansion costs would be
about the same and perhaps more expensive due to the many generations of existing
facilities at McAlpine WWTP. Transmission and pump station costs for 17 mgd (estimated
required maximum month capacity under this alternative) would be about $10.5 million. SC
DHEC has expressed concerns with DENR about nutrient levels in the Catawba Basin,
specifically the levels of phosphorus from dischargers in the Sugar Creek Basin. Point source
loading estimates indicate that the phosphorus load from CMUD’s McAlpine Creek plant is
approximately 900 lbs/day at current capacity. The total phosphorus load from all South
Carolina discharges in the Catawba Basin is approximately 900 lbs/day as well. SC DHEC
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 5-3
considers the CMUD McAlpine Creek plant to be a significant end of pipe contributor to
phosphorus in the basin. SC DHEC has indicated that they would be very concerned if the
phosphorus loading from McAlpine Creek is increased substantially. SC DHEC has written
correspondence with DENR requesting phosphorus limits on this discharge. SC DHEC is in
the process of developing a TMDL for the Catawba River Basin and has requested DENR’s
cooperation in this effort.
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 6-1
SECTION 6
Mitigation of Adverse Impacts
The proposed maximum day IBT of 33 mgd of water from the Catawba River Basin to the
Rocky River Subbasin will not have the potential to cause significant direct impacts to the
environment, as discussed in Section 3. The IBT, however, may have the potential to
significantly impact the environment through secondary and cumulative impacts as a result
of facilitating growth in the receiving basin, as discussed in Section 4.
In order to evaluate the significance of the impacts listed in Section 4, we have reviewed
existing regulations and programs at the federal, state and local levels to determine if these
existing programs may mitigate the anticipated impacts of urbanization of the project area.
A discussion of state and federal programs is provided in Section 6.1. A discussion of local
programs is provided in Section 6.2.
For those resource impacts where existing programs and regulations could be improved to
better mitigate the anticipated secondary and cumulative impacts from the proposed action,
additional local government mitigation measures are provided in Section 6.3. To ensure the
full evaluation of the potential direct effects of future water and sewer line projects as a
secondary effect of the IBT, specific conditions are also included in the list of proposed
mitigation measures in Section 6.3. The mitigation items listed in Section 6.3 along with
existing regulatory and non-regulatory environmental protection programs support an
overall EA and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) under NCEPA for the proposed
action.
6.1 Summary of Federal and State Regulations and Programs
The following is a brief description of existing regulations and programs at the federal and
state levels in the project receiving basin. The discussion emphasizes the extent to which
existing programs may adequately mitigate the anticipated impacts of urbanization of the
project area.
This analysis does not attempt to measure the performance of these programs to improve
specific environmental conditions in the field. Such an “efficiency” analysis of each of these
regulations and programs could determine the exact level of benefit received from the
programs. However, an “efficiency” analysis is beyond the scope of this discussion.
Therefore, the following discussion addresses relevant regulations and programs from an
environmental management and land use policy analysis perspective. The discussion
provides a general overview of the existing regulatory and non-regulatory mitigation
framework that protects natural resources from the effects of urbanization. The evaluation is
used to identify opportunities for local governments in the study area to enhance
environmental protection.
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 6-2
6.1.1 Federal Regulations
6.1.1.1 Endangered Species Act
The 1973 Endangered Species Act conserves ecosystems upon which threatened and
endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants depend, through Federal action and State
programs (USFWS, 1992). The Act:
• Authorizes the determination and listing of species as endangered and threatened;
• Prohibits unauthorized taking, possession, sale, and transport of endangered species;
• Provides authority to acquire land for the conservation of listed species, using land and
water conservation funds;
• Authorizes establishment of cooperative agreements and grants-in-aid to States that
establish and maintain active and adequate programs for endangered and threatened
wildlife and plants;
• Authorizes the assessment of civil and criminal penalties for violating the Act or
regulations; and
• Authorizes the payment of rewards to anyone furnishing information leading to arrest
and conviction for any violation of the Act of any regulation issued thereunder.
• Requires Federal agencies to insure that any action authorized, funded or carried out by
them is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or modify their
critical habitat.
6.1.1.2 Sections 404/ 401 of the Clean Water Act
There are currently two main regulatory programs that control the filling or draining of
wetlands in the project area, both of which originate from the Federal Clean Water Act –
Section 404, regulation of dredged and fill activities (which is enforced by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers [ACOE]), and Section 401, certification that a project does not violate the
state’s water quality standards (which is enforced by DWQ). All private and public
construction activities over a specific acreage that affect jurisdictional wetlands are required
to obtain required wetlands permits as necessary from DWQ (Section 401 WQ Certification)
and from the ACOE (Section 404 Permits).
Although the State’s 401 Water Quality Certification Program and the Federal 404 Wetlands
Protection Programs afford some protection for wetlands by requiring avoidance and
mitigation for wetlands across the state, it is possible for permits to be issued under both the
state and federal programs that allow small areas of wetlands to be lost. The NC Wetland
Restoration Program showed that in subbasins 11 and 12 of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River
(which encompasses the receiving basin project area), there were 19 acres of wetlands
drained or filled due to development activities during 1996 and 1997 (WRP, 1998B). The
acreage of wetlands impacted by growth may increase as the level and intensity of land use
changes increase in the basin.
Inadequate personnel at the state and federal level to enforce the regulations is a common
problem in its adequate protection of wetlands. Effective March 1999, DWQ stepped up the
enforcement of regulations for wetlands protection, particularly those related to hydrologic
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 6-3
conditions necessary to support wetlands function (15A NCAC 2B.0231(b)(5)), and
biological integrity (15A NCAC 2B.0231(b)(6)). DWQ is joined in this initiative by the NC
Division of Land Resources which will also be looking at possible violations of the State
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.
6.1.1.3 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
A federal non-regulatory program that may afford some protection to stream riparian areas
and wetlands, and also protect water quality by restricting floodplain development, is the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). NFIP, which is managed by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), was created in the 1960’s in response to the rising
cost of taxpayer funded disaster relief for flood victims and the increasing amount of
damage caused by floods. The NFIP makes federally-backed flood insurance available in
communities that agree to adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances to reduce
future flood damage. The NFIP, through partnerships with communities, the insurance
industry, and the lending industry, helps reduce flood damage by nearly $800 million a
year.
Floodplain management under the NFIP is an overall program of corrective and
preventative measures for reducing flood damage. It includes but is not limited to
emergency preparedness plans, flood control works, and floodplain management
regulations, and generally covers zoning, subdivision, or building requirements and special-
purpose floodplain ordinances. Examples include mapping communities to identify flood-
prone areas, elevating buildings above the base flood, and relocating structures out of the
floodplain.
An important element in making flood insurance available to home and business owners is
a community's agreement to adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances,
particularly with respect to new construction. It is up to local governments to adopt and
enforce ordinances that meet or exceed the minimum floodplain management requirements
of NFIP (FEMA, NFIP).
All local governments in the receiving basin project area (including Mecklenburg County,
Mint Hill, Cornelius, Huntersville, and Davidson) are participating in the FEMA Flood
Insurance Program. This program prohibits filling in the floodways. It also limits
construction of buildings in the floodplain fringe area unless an engineer certifies that the
bottom floor of the structure is at least 5.7 feet above the 100 year flood elevation. The
minimum distance is 5.7 feet temporarily because the county is re-mapping its floodplains.
Pending the outcome of each basin’s re-mapping, in which many of the base flood (100 yr.)
elevations are expected to increase, the freeboard above the current base flood elevation
(BFE) has been temporarily increased from one foot to 5.7 feet except in the Mallard Creek
Basin. Mallard Creek Basin re-mapping is complete; therefore, the freeboard required above
the BFE is the normal one foot. Matthews and Cornelius require additional elevation (two
feet) above the BFE in their local flood ordinances.
Because of this provision for raising structures, a substantial amount of development (and
potentially loss of wetlands) could occur in the floodplain fringe areas, including
subdivisions with lot lines extending into the floodway. Recent passage of the Surface Water
Improvement Management (SWIM) Program buffer regulations will limit fringe
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 6-4
development. The buffer regulations require that for all FEMA regulated streams (one
square mile drainage area and greater), one-half of the fringe area must be preserved for a
three-zone buffer. No impervious surfaces may be placed in any of the three buffer zones.
Also, the flood fringe area will be effectively reduced by 25% after the re-mapping because
the allowable rise in the floodway will be reduced from one foot to 0.1 foot.
6.1.2 State Regulations
6.1.2.1 North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (WRP)
This non-regulatory program was created within DWQ to protect and mitigate wetland
losses. However, WRP is primarily involved with finding and preserving specimen
wetlands of good quality to mitigate specific project impacts (especially as mitigation for
North Carolina Department of Transportation [NCDOT] projects) and also restoring
existing impaired wetlands. It does not specifically provide a mechanism to protect
wetlands on a regional basis from widespread urban development impacts (WRP, 1998A).
The Wetlands Restoration Program has targeted two hydrologic units,11 and 12, within the
project receiving basin for wetland restoration actions. The Goose Creek and Crooked Creek
hydrologic units (the headwaters for both of which are located in the project receiving basin)
have a substantial portion of their streams classified as impaired due to heavy impacts of
urbanization, the presence of package treatment plants, and the presence of sensitive species
(WRP, 1998A).
6.1.2.2 Archaeological Protection
Archaeological resources are protected on private and public lands through the NC
Archaeological Resources Protection Act, the Unmarked Human Burial and Human Skeletal
Remains Protection Act, the NC Archaeological Record Program, the NC Environmental
Policy Act and various federal laws. Unfortunately, these laws are only applicable to
projects that are state or federally approved, permitted or funded, or exist on state or federal
lands. Although this often exempts many private development projects, the ACOE often
catches some of these projects since they require archaeological reviews for any project that
needs a Section 404 (federal wetlands) permit.
6.1.2.3 Stormwater Regulations
NPDES stormwater discharges are controlled by the federal NPDES regulations, as enforced
by DWQ. The program regulates all major discharges of stormwater to surface waters.
NPDES permits are designed to reduce or eliminate pollutants in stormwater runoff from
certain municipal storm sewer systems and industrial activities by requiring the
development and implementation of stormwater management measures.
The NPDES stormwater permitting system is being implemented in two phases. Phase 1
was implemented in 1991 and applied to 6 municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s)
in NC with greater than 100,000 people. This Phase 1 also applied to eleven industrial
categories including construction activities (sites greater than 5 acres). An NPDES permit
was issued to each of the 6 municipalities. In addition, the majority of industrial activity
sites were covered using General NPDES permits. Currently there are approximately 3,000
sites in NC covered by individual or General NPDES permits. No local governments in the
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 6-5
receiving basin portion of the project area are subject to Phase 1 NPDES Stormwater
requirements, although there are probably several industrial sites.
Phase 2 rules were finalized on October 29, 1999 and published in the Federal Register on
December 8, 1999. Final rules are still being reviewed; however, the rules are expected to
impact between 60 to 100 MS4s in “urbanizing areas” of NC, as well as expanding the
coverage for construction activities to sites over one acre. Those subject to the Phase 2 Rule
would be required to apply for NPDES permit coverage and to implement stormwater
management programs (i.e., best management practices [BMPs]). Small MS4s will be
required to develop and implement a stormwater management program designed to reduce
the discharge of pollutants to the “maximum extent practicable”, to include six minimum
control measures, and include their selection of BMPs and measurable goals for each
minimum measure in their permit application. Construction activities requirements will be
established by DWQ and will likely be similar to existing State sediment and erosion control
plan requirements.
DWQ will evaluate EPA rules when final and establish guidelines and schedules for local
government compliance. DWQ will be the enforcement agency for these rules. Applicable
local governments will have three years from the date of publication of the final rule to
submit the permit application to DWQ for approval. Mecklenburg County will be required
to develop and implement stormwater management programs under Phase 2.
6.1.2.4 Erosion and Sedimentation Control
NC Division of Land Resources administers programs to control erosion and sedimentation
caused by land disturbing activities on one or more acres of land. Control measures must be
planned, designed and constructed to provide protection from the calculated peak rate of
runoff from a 10-year storm, except for projects in HQW (High Quality Water) zones, which
require control of 25-year storms. Enforcement of the program is at the state level, but can
be delegated to local governments (usually counties or large municipalities) with certified
erosion control programs. Mecklenburg County enforces its own erosion and sedimentation
control program based on state requirements. In early 2000, the Mecklenburg County
erosion control program received an award of excellence from the NC Sedimentation
Control Commission.
6.1.2.5 Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs)
State regulations (15A NCAC 2B.05.06) require municipalities and other wastewater
treatment operators to report wastewater spills from discharges of raw sewage from broken
sewer lines and malfunctioning pump stations within 24 hours. DWQ has adopted the
following policies, effective July 1, 1998:
Municipalities and other wastewater treatment operators will be fined a minimum of $ 4,000
if they do not comply with the reporting requirement within 24 hours for all spills exceeding
1,000 gallons that reach surface waters or the ground, regardless of whether they are
contained or reach waters. A point system is used to determine whether to assess fines for
reported spills.
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 6-6
Wastewater collection system operators were required to prepare a Spill Response Plan
Evaluation by July 1, 1998, and an Operation and Maintenance Evaluation of their systems
by July 1, 1999. Operators must develop a plan including a schedule to deal with any
maintenance and operational deficiencies uncovered. For spills occurring after July 1, 1999
related to maintenance or operational problems covered in the plan, the penalty will be
increased.
When a serious spill occurs, wastewater collection system operators could face not only
higher fines but also requirements to publish public notices in local media, undergo
training, or submit to an injunctive action and/or a moratorium on new connections to the
system.
The NC Clean Water Bill of 1999 provides for the development of permits for collection
systems that would include requirements for inspections, sewer maintenance and other
operational items. DWQ has developed a "shell" Wastewater Collection System Permit and
is expected to issue them after July 1, 2000.
In addition, EPA is currently drafting regulations that will address sanitary sewer
overflows. EPA has prepared five documents that provide draft language for proposed
regulations to establish guidance and/or standard NPDES permit conditions for the
following:
• Record keeping, reporting and public notification requirements for SSOs
• Capacity assurance, management, operation and maintenance requirements for
municipal sanitary sewer collection systems
• Prohibitions on SSO discharges to waters of the United States
• NPDES permit coverage for satellite municipal sewer collection systems
EPA expects the proposed regulations to be published in the Federal Register in May, 2000
and promulgated by October, 2000.
In addition to the above regulations dealing with SSOs, the following performance
standards apply to proposed sewer collection system and pump station permits issued by
DWQ:
1. The wastewater collection system shall be effectively maintained and operated at all
times so that there is no discharge to land or surface waters, nor any contamination of
groundwater.
2. The Permittee must maintain a contingency plan for pump failure at each pump station.
3. The Permittee shall maintain on hand at least one fully-operational spare pump capable
of pumping the design flow rate at the appropriate total dynamic head for each simplex
pump station that serves more than one building.
4. Each pump station shall be clearly and conspicuously posted with a pump station
identifier and an emergency contact telephone number which is able to get to an
individual that can initiate or perform emergency service for the collection system 24
hours per day, seven days per week.
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 6-7
5. An infiltration/exfiltration test shall be performed on all newly constructed sewer lines
to ensure that the infiltration/exfiltration rate is less than 100 gallons per day per inch of
pipe diameter per mile of pipe.
6. At a minimum, an emergency power source or plugged emergency pumping connection
shall be provided along with an approved contingency plan for all newly-constructed or
modified pump stations.
6.1.2.6 North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF)
The CWMTF was created by the 1996 Legislature to help finance projects that specifically
address water pollution problems. It controls a non-regulatory program that focuses its
efforts on upgrading surface waters in distress, eliminating pollution, protecting and
conserving unpolluted surface waters, and establishing a network of riparian buffers and
greenways for environmental, educational and recreational benefits. According to the
enabling legislation, 6.5% of the unreserved credit balance remaining in the state’s General
Fund at the end of each fiscal year is allocated to the CWMTF for disbursement. The
minimum amount available must be $30 million.
Possible use of CWMTF monies could be for wetland and/or riparian corridor identification
and preservation (through acquisition and easement techniques) in the receiving basin
portion of the study area to allow comprehensive protection of wetlands and riparian
buffers in the project area to protect water quality and sensitive aquatic species.
6.1.2.7 Groundwater Protection
Several regulations and programs exist at the state and local levels that protect groundwater
from urban growth:
• Wellhead Protection Program
• Regulation of potential contamination sources
• Management of groundwater contamination incidents
• Ambient groundwater monitoring
• Regulation of well construction
These programs may afford some protection to groundwater wells from the most common
forms of groundwater pollution – point sources such as chemical manufacturing facilities,
underground storage tanks and accidental spills. However, more diffuse and evasive
groundwater pollutants from agricultural uses (livestock facilities and chemical application
on crops) and urban land uses (over-application of fertilizers and improper use of toxic
household chemicals) may not be well managed under these programs.
6.1.2.8 Miscellaneous Incentive Programs
Other, voluntary strategies exist at the federal and state levels that provide incentives to
protect natural lands, wetlands, agricultural lands, sensitive species habitat and forest lands
from development. These non-regulatory approaches include providing tax credits for
donating lands to specific organizations (usually land trusts) and providing funding for
various grants and trust funds to purchase or protect undeveloped lands.
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 6-8
6.2 Evaluation of Local Regulations and Programs
The following is a brief description of existing regulations and programs at the local
government level in the project receiving basin, with specific effort given to determining if
these existing programs may, when combined with existing federal and state regulations,
adequately mitigate the anticipated impacts of urbanization of the project area.
As in Section 6.1, the following analysis addresses relevant regulations and programs from
an environmental management and land use policy analysis perspective. The evaluation is
used to identify opportunities where local governments could improve environmental
protection.
6.2.1 Mecklenburg County
6.2.1.1 Voices and Choices
In November 1998, over 800 people attended the Central
Carolinas Regional Environmental Summit in Rock Hill, South
Carolina to bring focus and emphasis to regional environmental
issues in a 14-county area in North and South Carolina
encompassing the Charlotte-Mecklenburg metropolitan region
(including Cabarrus, Stanly, Union and Mecklenburg Counties
and local governments within them). In the spring of 1999, the ongoing Summit process was
renamed “Voices and Choices.” This section of the report has been compiled from personal
communications with Mr. Rusty Rozzelle and Mr. Craig Miller of Mecklenburg County,
Ms. Betty Chafin-Rash and Bill Toole of Voices and Choices, and from information provided
at the Voices and Choices website.
The 1998 Summit brought together communities, businesses, environmental and economic
growth interest groups and individuals to identify common goals, gain support for
sustainable solutions, and determine options and choices for the future. Prominent
stakeholders included Mecklenburg County, the City of Charlotte and the Sierra Club.
Participants at the Summit discussed priorities for the region and evaluated various future
scenarios or visions for how the area should grow. Several goals were met during the
Summit:
• Increase awareness and understanding of environmental issues affecting the region and
options for addressing them.
• Develop a broad base of support for sustainable solutions.
• Generate open dialogue among governments, leaders and citizens, and encourage them
to work together to achieve desired outcomes.
• Examine alternatives, identify future growth choices and come to consensus on a
common vision for the region.
• Develop a regional environmental agenda and create momentum for establishing a post-
summit follow through process.
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 6-9
In the spring of 1999, the renamed Voices and Choices formed five Action Teams:
1. Air Quality / Transportation
2. Water Quality
3. Land Use
4. Open Space Protection
5. Recycling / Resource Recovery
The common goals of these Action Teams include:
• Build consensus around the vision of a sustainable, livable and healthy region that
protects its natural heritage.
• Educate citizens across the region on environmental assets, issues and risks, with
emphasis on the interdependence of a strong economy and environmental protection.
• Identify aligned interests and build partnerships with business, environmental,
government, non-profit, educational, and religious institutions and individual citizens.
• Provide a well-organized, adequately financed process for dialogue that enables
sometimes disparate interests in the region to find common ground for progress.
• Advocate policies and practices which will make the 1998 Regional Environmental
Summit vision a reality.
The focus for each of these Action Teams is presented below.
Air Quality and Transportation Action Team
The goals for the Air Quality and Transportation Action Team include:
• To attain or exceed EPA air quality standards to work towards zero days of non-
attainment status
• To develop a regionally planned, efficient and effective regional mass transit system that
is multi-modal and has alternative forms of transportation including greenways, bike
paths and alternative fuel vehicles.
The Team proposed the establishment of a regional transportation authority to coordinate
the four regional metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). They also proposed to
integrate land use planning and transit planning, protect rail corridors as future mass transit
system corridors, encourage use of alternative fuels to reduce auto emissions, use more high
occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and implement incentives for using mass transit options,
while discouraging use of single occupancy automobiles. They would build bike and
pedestrian paths and lanes throughout the region, establish a public relations and
educational campaign on the links between air quality and mass transit, and develop
partnerships with business and industry to develop efficient transit systems and encourage
employee use of mass transit options.
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 6-10
Water Quality Action Team
The Water Quality Action Team is composed of individuals from the following groups and
agencies:
• (MCDEP, Stormwater Services, CMUD, Solid Waste Reduction, Cooperative Extension,
and Centralina Council of Government (COG)
• Duke Power Company/Duke Energy
• Mountain Island Lake Association (citizen-based lake conservation group)
• Lake Wylie Marine Commission
• Catawba River Keeper
• DENR (Mooresville Regional Office)
• Town of Stanly Manager
• Gaston County Quality of Natural Resources
• Gaston County Cooperative Extension
• Keep Iredell Clean/Keep America Beautiful
• SC DHEC
• Two local environmental lawyers
• Crescent Resources (Development Division of Duke Power Co.)
• Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition (REBIC)
• University of North Carolina at Charlotte
• Trust for Public Land
• Lake Wateree Home Owners Association
• The Sierra Club
• Unaffiliated concerned citizens
The Water Quality Action Team recognizes that sediment levels are too high in many lakes
and streams, reducing quality of water and ability for life to be sustained. Fish kills and
algae blooms are a frequent result. They also realized that unplanned growth and inefficient
land use adversely affect water quality; that the environmental impacts of land use changes
are not considered adequately; and that pollution, runoff and toxic pollutants threaten lakes
and streams. There are too many wastewater treatment systems, with little coordination of
available processing capacities in bordering municipalities. Industrial and municipal waste
discharge levels are too high and not uniformly enforced. Incidents of acidic rain are also
increasing.
The Water Quality Action Team’s goals include the following:
• Rivers, lakes and streams will be suitable for healthy ecosystems, and will be safe for
drinking and recreational uses
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 6-11
• Pollution standards will be tighter and enforced better, while waste discharges will be
reduced
• The impact of growth and development will be assessed before new construction begins
• Water quality will be set by region-wide standards and will be the focus of regional
monitoring and action when needed
• A regional mass transit system will be developed that includes greenway buffer zones,
pedestrian walkways, bike paths, and other forms of waterway protection
Specific areas where the Water Quality Action Team will be making recommendations
include point and non-point source pollution sources, color and toxicant impacts, nutrient
sources and issues, sedimentation and erosion controls, groundwater issues, and controlling
urban stormwater. The team did not address the environmental consequences of interbasin
transfers or agricultural runoff.
The Water Quality Action Team is working on recommendations for local governments in
the region, including Mecklenburg County, to implement the following steps for change:
1. Improve land use decision-making and enforce pollution regulations. Educate
businesses, landowners and the public on impact of runoff, discharge and dumping.
2. Create more buffer zones around key water bodies, with local government enforcement
of higher sediment controls. Upgrade stormwater management systems; include on-site
“Best Management Practices" to control peak run-off volumes.
3. Reduce number of wastewater treatment centers; centralize into larger shared systems.
Coordinate new growth with infrastructure before development begins.
Land Use Action Team
The Land Use Action Team recognizes that currently there is a lack of coordination across
the region for wise land use, growth and planning. Planning and zoning are reactionary,
local planning is haphazard and there is a lack of coordinated zoning. Adjacent
communities do not plan together adequately. They also determined that conflicting
priorities driven by tremendous growth often means that land use is dictated by immediate
needs rather than long-term considerations. Land is used without regard to connectivity and
sustainability. They also recognized that housing options are mostly limited to low density,
single family options and there is a lack of public input into land use decisions.
The goal of the Land Use Action Team is to create recommendations to achieve
comprehensive regional planning that considers environmental, economic, transportation,
and infrastructure needs together. They realized that land use recognizes and protects
ecological systems. They want a future where multi-use zoning, mixed density housing
options and increased education and public input are provided in decision-making
processes. They are favoring the use of visual preference surveys and design standards and
the development of incentives for mixed-use and more clustered, pedestrian friendly
communities.
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 6-12
The Land Use Action Team is suggesting steps for change that include:
1. Developing a plan using small working groups drawn from across the region; using
multi-county collaborative teams, planning boards and citizens advisory groups.
2. Amending zoning ordinances to balance incentives and requirements to encourage
mixed-density housing and open space protection
3. Establishing a clearinghouse entity that coordinates neighboring jurisdictions and can
mediate among competing needs; working to establish a regional land use plan
endorsed by local jurisdictions and states.
4. Educating the public on land use issues, using "status quo" vs. "smart growth" scenarios,
as well as techniques like visual preference surveys and community meetings.
Open Space Protection Action Team
The Open Space Protection Action Team recognizes that open space and farmland are
disappearing at an unacceptable and accelerating rate. There is no inventory or plan in place
to protect what remains and there is little political will or incentive to do so. There is also an
apparent limited awareness and understanding of the economic, social and environmental
value of open space among the communities.
The Open Space Team’s vision for the future is one where preservation of an inter-
connected open space system can occur including forests, parks, prime farmland,
unique/environmentally sensitive areas, walking and bike trails and buffer zones along
waterways. It is also where open space acreage protected is based on population. They also
envision a cooperative regional approach to land use planning, with an emphasis on
preserving open space, including economic incentives, zoning, public funding, and tax
incentives, etc. The team supports the idea of an education and awareness program for
leadership and the public, enabling a shared vision of the value of open spaces.
Recommended steps for change by the Open Space Team include:
1. Develop and implement an awareness/education program and actively market open
space preservation. Provide teaching modules on open space benefits for clubs. Include
church, town meetings, and schools to engage government leaders, children and adults
and farmers about the value of open spaces and preservation options. Include in school
curricula and add to college requirements.
2. Establish plan and benchmarks for connected open space acquisition and preservation
including environmentally sensitive areas, water way buffers, flood plains, habitat areas,
natural areas, natural heritage, fertile farmland and recreation. Redevelop brownfields
and abandoned urban areas into urban parks.
3. Enact comprehensive state and local legislation for open space preservation and regional
land use planning.
4. Generate or identify funding source and expand support for public and private
organizations and trust funds to acquire or reclaim critical open spaces.
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 6-13
5. Create incentives for open space preservation including transfer/purchase of
development rights, tax incentives especially for farming and timber, reverse mortgages,
zoning, easement laws and such things as incentives for farmers to allow bike trails
through their property.
6. The open space strategy groups listed over 50 specific actions, most of which fall into the
above categories. Other suggestions included implementation of impact fees, urban
redevelopment, and limitations on urban service expansions and tree-cutting
ordinances.
After a year of meeting two or three times per month, the Action Teams produced final
recommendations for local governments in the region in January 2000 (Appendix D). Once
the Voices & Choices Steering Committee has signed off on them, these reports will be
presented to decision-makers across the region. Subsequent steps include following up and
monitoring progress of initiatives with local governments between the Summer and Fall of
2000. A follow-up Summit is planned for November 2000 to compare real change with the
vision of the process.
Voices and Choices Commitment
Mecklenburg County has been very committed to the Voices and Choices process from its
inception, through the various ongoing Action Team efforts. As shown on the Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Government Involvement table (provided by MCDEP) in Appendix D,
Mecklenburg County, the City of Charlotte, CMUD, and the local Centralina COG have
invested substantial man-hours to the process and are actively involved with all the Action
Teams. Table 9 presents a summary of resources the County and City of Charlotte have
contributed to the Voices and Choices areas of concern.
TABLE 9
Summary of Staff Resources Committed to the Voices and Choices Process
Committee/ Action Team # County Staff Committed Total # Hours / Month
Steering Committee 1 6.0
Water Quality 7 46.5
Air Quality 5 29.0
Land Use 6 25.0
Open Space 5 21.0
Resource Recovery 6 38.0
TOTALS 30 165.5
6.2.1.2 Surface Water Improvement Management Program
On October 15, 1996, the Mecklenburg County Board of County Commissioners took a stand
in support of clean, useable creeks in Mecklenburg County through the adoption of a "Creek
Use Policy" calling for all Mecklenburg County surface waters to be suitable for prolonged
human contact and supportive of aquatic life. This effort in Mecklenburg County is being
referred to as Surface Water Improvement and Management, or SWIM. The SWIM Program
is a monumental effort to create a proactive, workable strategy to protect and remediate the
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 6-14
quality of surface waters in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg region. With the SWIM program,
Mecklenburg County has recognized the significant impacts urban growth and
development have historically had on local water quality and stream health in the region.
The SWIM Program and related Stream Buffer requirements (see complete copies in
Appendix D) being implemented by Mecklenburg County are intended to mitigate the
potentially significant water quality impacts of future urbanization and buildout of the
County by the year 2030, with specific programs that preserve wetlands, create stream
buffers, and protect water quality and aquatic habitat. This section of the report was
developed from communications with Mr. Rusty Rozzelle of Mecklenburg County, and
from information contained in the Consensus Stream Buffer Plan (MCDEP, 1998B).
A panel of stakeholders including representatives from development and environmental
interest groups (SWIM Citizen Advisory Panel) has been working diligently with City and
County staff toward the fulfillment of the Board's policy statement since February 1997.
With guidance from a private consultant, this panel met numerous times during 1997 with
the goal of developing methods to fulfill the Board’s policy statement. In April 1998, the
Panel reached consensus on a nine-part stream restoration plan called the SWIM Phase I
Strategy. This Phase I Strategy was approved by the Mecklenburg County Board of
Commissioners and funded beginning in fiscal year (FY) 1998-1999. The annual cost for
Mecklenburg County to implement the SWIM Phase I Strategy is $400,000.
Benefits of the SWIM Phase I Strategy are evident in its nine individual parts, which are as
follows:
Part 1 - Enhance Enforcement Of Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinances
Responsible agencies include Mecklenburg County Engineering and Building Standards
and City of Charlotte Engineering and Property Management. Part 1 is intended to improve
the consistency in enforcement of erosion and sedimentation control ordinances through the
following activities:
• Increase inspection/ enforcement activities for both the City and County
• Monitor water quality to identify problem basins for more intensive
inspection/enforcement and to determine the effects of more consistent enforcement of
the ordinances
• Bring a water quality focus to this enforcement through the coordination and
consolidation discussed in Part 7 below
• Create a soil erosion and sediment control certification process that would require
companies or individuals involved in land-disturbing activity, such as designers,
grading contractors, general contractors, owners, and project managers, to become
trained and certified
• Determine appropriate actions for repeat erosion control violations
This part of the SWIM Strategy was completed as of June 30, 1999. A proactive erosion
control plan was developed and implemented which focuses on increased inspections and
prevention of erosion problems. An inspection program was implemented in August 1999
which focused on erosion control from single family construction. Over 2,000 inspections
were performed in August alone, and 12,406 inspections were performed through
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 6-15
September 30, 2000 with 703 NOVs issued. A certification program for land disturbers is
under development. As previously mentioned, the County’s erosion control program
earned an award in early 2000 from the NC Sedimentation Control Commission.
Part 2 - Enhance Enforcement of Current Buffers Required in Regulated Water Supply
Watersheds
The responsible agency is MCDEP. Part 2 is intended to improve the consistency in
enforcement of buffer requirements within the regulated water supply watersheds. Another
part of this component is the need to increase inspection/enforcement activities for both the
City and County. This part of the SWIM program was completed as of June 30, 1999.
Proactive efforts to enhance protection of water supply watersheds have been developed
and implemented. All jurisdictions within watershed protection areas have been involved in
the coordination of these efforts. A citizen’s handbook explaining watershed protection
techniques has been developed and distributed along with a mass mailing to all occupants
in watershed protection areas (over 25,000).
Part 3 - Establish And Maintain Vegetative Stream Buffers (“SWIM Stream Buffer Plan”)
The responsible group is SWIM Staff and Panel. Enforcement oversight is provided by an
eleven member Surface Water Improvement and Management Review (SWIMR)
Commission. Part 3 was intended to plan where and how to effectively use vegetative
buffers along streams beginning with (but not limited to) perennial streams to protect water
quality. Benefits of the SWIM stream buffers will include the filtering of pollutants, storage
of floodwater and provision of much needed green space to the community. This task was
coordinated with Storm Water Services and its work on floodplain management; Park and
Recreation and its work on the Greenway Master Plan, which will support expansion of the
greenway system; and City Engineering and its work on the Bikeway study.
A Consensus Stream Buffer Plan was approved for implementation by both the County and
City of Charlotte in April 1999. Mecklenburg County has developed the necessary County
Subdivision, Zoning and Floodway ordinance revisions to implement the SWIM Buffer
Plan. These ordinances were approved by the County Board of Commissioners and the
Charlotte City Council in November 1999. Each of the Towns within the County have also
adopted ordinances to implement the SWIM stream buffers. A copy of the ordinances is
found in Appendix D.
Details of the SWIM Stream Buffer Plan. The purpose of the proposed stream buffer
network in Mecklenburg County is to ensure that the stream and adjacent lands will fulfill
their natural functions. Stream systems are comprised of the stream and their drainage
basins. Streams have the primary natural functions of conveying storm and ground water,
storing floodwater and supporting aquatic and other wildlife. Vegetated lands adjacent to
the stream channel in the drainage basin serve as a "buffer" to protect the stream system's
ability to fulfill its natural functions. Primary natural functions of the buffer include:
• Protect water quality by filtering pollutants
• Provide storage for floodwaters
• Allow channels to meander naturally
• Provide suitable habitats for wildlife
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 6-16
Managed uses of the stream system are permitted but should be located outside of the
Stream Side Zone where practical. Under certain circumstances, sanitary and storm sewers
will need to be located within the buffer and sometimes within the Stream Side Zones.
These circumstances should be minimized whenever practical and will require specific
restoration as specified below under "Mitigation." CMUD will determine the appropriate
location for all sanitary sewer facilities. Buffer disturbances for managed uses should be
coordinated to ensure minimal disturbance of the buffer system. For example, if it is
necessary to install utilities in the Stream Side Zone, then any greenway trails built should
follow these cleared areas instead of causing additional clearing. Examples of managed
uses include:
• Construction of greenway trails
• Installation of utilities
• Installation of stormwater BMPs
• Near perpendicular crossings by roads, driveways and utilities
Unavoidable or requested buffer impacts (including filling, piping of waterways, clear-
cutting of streambanks and relocations of creeks) would require specific mitigation that
could include:
• Installation of structural stormwater BMPs
• Off-site stream restoration
• Off-site stream preservation
• Off-site wetlands preservation
• Off-site preservation of bottomland hardwoods
• Controlled impervious cover development
• Open space / clustered developments
• Purchase of mitigation credits
The approved Consensus SWIM Stream Buffer Plan can be found in Appendix D. It
requires protection of a three-zone urban stream buffer system throughout the County, with
increased land use restrictions closer to the stream bank. The plan requires protection of
natural vegetative and forested buffers around all perennial streams with drainage basins
greater than 100 acres. [Mint Hill, Cornelius and Huntersville begin the buffer requirement
with drainage areas greater than 50 acres] The number of miles of County streams that
would meet the SWIM buffer requirements (and therefore would require buffers to be
protected along their lengths) is 862 miles or approximately 70 % of all streams in the
county. The Stream Buffer provision of the SWIM program will specifically protect
approximately 250 stream miles or approximately 70% of all streams in the receiving basin
portion of Mecklenburg County.
In addition to the SWIM initiative, the Mecklenburg County Stormwater Advisory
Committee (SWAC) is pursuing additional protection of all perennial streams through an
administrative change to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Storm Water Design Manual.
SWAC’s initiative is intended to provide mechanisms for streambank stabilization and
streambank erosion control. The administrative change of the manual is expected to include
provisions for which riparian buffers would be an integral part of a number of options for
streambank stabilization. This initiative may potentially increase the number of buffered
stream miles in the county.
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 6-17
According to the SWIM Stream Buffer Plan, total buffer widths requiring protection vary
from 35 to 100+ feet, with wider buffers further downstream and increased use restrictions
closer to the stream bank. Grandfathering is clearly specified for certain properties.
Mecklenburg County has provided incentives for developers to comply with the buffer
requirements, including :
• Purchasing or accepting conservation easements and fee simple buffer lands
• Relaxing development standards to accommodate preservation of the buffers
• Providing density bonuses for developments that designate buffers beyond the
minimum requirements
Although the SWIM buffer requirements for Mecklenburg County do not specifically list
protection of wetlands as a goal of the program, the SWIM rules may effectively protect a
significant amount of bottomland hardwood wetlands and forests exist in the receiving
basin along protected streams, creeks and rivers. The SWIM program and buffer protection
requirements may partially mitigate the impacts on forest resources in the basin.
Part 4 - Address Elevated Levels of Fecal Coliform Bacteria
The responsible agency is MCDEP. SWIM staff worked closely with CMUD and other
agencies to complete this element by June 30, 1999. This element identified sources of
elevated levels of fecal coliform in surface waters in the county and incorporated that
information in the water quality modeling work and management strategies designed to
eliminate sources of fecal coliform.
MCDEP is currently working on developing and implementing a strategy for enhancing
efforts to identify and eliminate sources of fecal coliform bacteria through concentrated
water quality monitoring and follow-up efforts in identified problem areas. Beginning in
late 1999, MCDEP initiated efforts to develop a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for fecal
coliform for the Little Sugar Creek and McAlpine Creek watersheds. This effort was
initiated in cooperation with NC DWQ, South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control , CMUD, City and County Stormwater Services, and a group of
other Stakeholders. A detailed water quality model was developed for this effort and
several studies were initiated to determine significant sources of fecal coliform. Leaks from
CMUD sewer lines, storm sewers, failing septic systems, water fowl and other animals
(including agricultural operations) were all identified as major contributors of elevated fecal
coliform levels in the streams. A report documenting the TMDL studies and development is
planned for the first quarter of 2001 (Rozzelle, 2001).
MCDEP’s proposed method for dealing with the leaking sewer lines from CMUD include:
• Investigating CMUD’s reports of leaks to ensure that the leaks are corrected
• Monitoring and mapping sewer leaks and fecal coliform monitoring data to show
correlations and trends
• Recommending priority rehabilitation areas to CMUD
• Working with CMUD to initiate corrective actions
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 6-18
According to SWIM Activitys Report provided by MCDEP (dated June 30, 1999), Briar
Creek and Little Sugar Creek have shown a reduction in fecal coliform levels due to this
component of the SWIM program.
Part 5 - Implement Countywide Water Quality Modeling
The responsible agency is MCDEP. Although this component is ongoing, substantial
progress has been made. MCDEP has capability for county-wide modeling using a simple
GIS based program developed for Charlotte Storm Water Services. The County has also
developed a dynamic water quality model for the McDowell Creek watershed as a pilot
study. The modeling results will be used to develop a watershed management plan for the
watershed. This plan will be developed in cooperation with the Town of Huntersville, the
municipality with local planning jurisdiction in the watershed. This same dynamic model
(Hydrologic Simulation Program Fortran -HSPF) is being used for the fecal coliform TMDL
development discussed above. Additional modeling is planned on a watershed basis to
address needs for BMPs and to assist with land use planning efforts.
Part 6 - Enhance Water Quality Monitoring
The responsible agency is MCDEP. This task was completed as of June 30, 1999 and
required a total of 385 hours of MCDEP staff time. The completed water quality monitoring
program has been modified to support the water quality modeling initiative and also to
significantly improve MCDEP’s capabilities of identifying and eliminating sources of
pollution.
MCDEP performs comprehensive stream monitoring on a regular basis to identify short-
term water quality problems and eliminate pollution sources in the County, and to identify
long-term trends in water quality conditions and initiate efforts aimed at maintaining and
restoring water quality in Mecklenburg County. They are currently focusing their efforts
on:
• Monitoring 48 stream sites monthly, quarterly or annually for the following
parameters: alkalinity, total phosphorus, BOD5, TKN, NH3-N, NOx, total solids,
turbidity, fecal coliform, pH, dissolved oxygen, temperature, conductivity, VOCs,
and toxic and mineral metals.
• Monitoring 18 sites on Lake Norman, Mountain Island Lake and Lake Wylie monthly
for alkalinity, total phosphorus, orthophosphorus, TKN, NH3-N, NOx, total solids,
turbidity, chlorophyll a, fecal coliform, pH, dissolved oxygen, temperature,
conductivity, and secchi disk depth.
• Sampling 37 sites on Lake Norman, Mountain Island Lake and Lake Wylie monthly for
fecal coliform bacteria between May and September.
• Sampling 65 stream sites for benthic macroinvertebrates on an annual or 3-year
cycle.
• Performing a fish community analysis on a 5 year rotation at the 65 benthic sites
with fish tissue analyses.
• Entering chemical and physical data into a Water Quality Index (WQI) monthly and
generating a numerical value which indicates general water quality conditions at
each monitoring site. The monitoring sites are grouped by basins and the monthly
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 6-19
WQIs for each of the sites are averaged together to obtain an average WQI for the
basin. A biological index of water quality is established using the benthic data. The
WQIs are averaged with the current biological index rating for the basin calculated on
the same scale as the WQI. The average of the WQIs and the biological index produces
the Water Quality Rating for each basin. A color coded map is used to display this rating
by basin for the entire county.
Recent evaluation of the County’s monitoring program have proven that current monitoring
efforts are ineffective at identifying the short-term water quality trends which are used to
identify and eliminate pollution sources and restore water quality. The frequency of
sampling needs to be increased for select problem parameters at specific sites in order to
fulfill the short-term goals of the monitoring program. However, less frequent sampling is
needed to fulfill the long-term trend goals of the program. A review of past data reveals that
quarterly monitoring may be adequate to achieve these long-term goals.
MCDEP’s proposed enhancements to its current Water Quality Monitoring efforts include:
• Sampling 48 stream monitoring sites quarterly instead of monthly. The parameters
currently monitored will continue to be used. Sampling locations will remain the same.
Additional analyses will be performed for toxic and mineral metals quarterly. VOCs will
continue to be analyzed annually.
• Sampling 18 lake monitoring sites quarterly, except between May and September when
sampling will be performed monthly. The 37 bacteriological monitoring sites will also be
sampled monthly between May and September. The parameters currently monitored
will continue to be used. Sampling locations will remain the same.
• Flow measurements will be collected at all 48 stream monitoring sites at the time of
sampling.
• Group Leaders will identify sites for short-term trend analysis for the specific purpose of
identifying and eliminating sources of pollution. Every attempt will be made to use field
data collection in the identification of these pollution problems. When sampling is
required, analyses will be performed for a limited number of parameters which have a
quick lab turn-around to eliminate problems associated with waiting for lab results.
Intense sampling efforts will be conducted in specific areas over a short period of time.
When the pollution problems are corrected, new areas will be targeted.
• The current use of the Water Quality Rating system will continue. Efforts will be
initiated to publish Water Quality Rating maps in the newspaper and other publications
as a public education tool.
• The data from lake and stream monitoring will be used in conjunction with water
quality models under development.
• The environmental consulting firm CH2M HILL has been retained by Mecklenburg
County to assist MCDEP in developing procedures to review statistical relationships
between monitoring parameters in historical data and to develop a more comprehensive
Aquatic Integrity Index that would include stream habitat and benthic information.
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 6-20
Part 7 - Improve Coordination
The responsible group is MCDEP. Goals of this part included improving coordination and
cooperation between the Engineering, Environmental Protection, Storm Water Services,
Park and Recreation, CMUD and Planning Commission departments to address water
quality issues. For example, Engineering, Park and Recreation, Environmental Protection
and Storm Water Services departments have begun a number of overlapping initiatives
involving the streams and creeks. The SWIM staff is considering the consolidation of all
work regarding streams and creeks under a single advisory committee and reviewing the
stated purpose and organization of the Storm Water Advisory Committee, Environmental
Protection Commission and Greenway/Trails Advisory Council. Currently the Creek
Advisory Committee meets monthly to coordinate “Creek Activities” between County and
City agencies.
Part 8 - Conduct Stream Inventory and Assessment
The responsible agency is MCDEP. Part 8 involves the completion of an inventory and
assessment of Mecklenburg County's stream systems to map aquatic habitats and identify
the potential location for community scale BMPs (as opposed to BMPs that are small scale
and specific to individual properties). This task will lead to the identification of
environmentally sensitive areas that need protection. This component of the SWIM
Program has required 256 hours of MCDEP staff time and was still in progress as of June 30,
1999. A stream inventory protocol and an assessment strategy has been developed and is
being performed as part of biological monitoring efforts at the 65 sites discussed above. The
Mecklenburg Habitat Assessment Protocol (MHAP) was used at all of the MCDEP
monitoring sites in 2000 and a draft final report for the project is under review. The
environmental consulting firm CH2M HILL is assisting MCDEP with this effort.
Part 9 - Increase Public Education and Awareness
The responsible agency was MCDEP. This task was completed in June 1999 with a total of
521 hours of MCDEP staff time dedicated to increasing public awareness concerning water
quality issues. A new staff position was funded at the beginning of 1999 to do public
education. Radio, television, newspaper and local magazine ads were used to increase
public awareness and involvement toward improving water quality conditions. A similar
effort is planned for next year. This task is designed to determine the public's current
awareness of water quality issues at the beginning of the program and, on each of the three
anniversaries following the commencement of the program, the public's awareness will be
measured to gauge the effectiveness of the program and the specific methods that were used
to increase awareness.
6.2.1.3 Goals of MCDEP
The goal of MCDEP for FY 1999-2000 is “Clean Water.” To achieve this goal, the Water
Quality Program within MCDEP will focus its efforts on the following key areas:
1. Successfully fulfill all nine parts of SWIM Phase I.
2. Complete the Water Improvements Now (WIN) Initiative for the McDowell Creek
Basin as a pilot for possible implementation county-wide in future years as part of
SWIM Phase II.
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 6-21
3. Develop an active constituency within the community for improving water quality
through the efforts of SWIM and the expansion of the Adopt-a-Stream and Storm Drain
Stenciling programs as well as the possible development of a volunteer monitoring
effort.
4. Identify areas of poor water quality through the implementation of enhanced water
quality monitoring efforts and special short-term monitoring initiatives to identify and
eliminate sources of pollution and produce measurably improved water quality.
5. Increase enforcement of sediment and erosion control ordinances and reduce sediment
loading in surface waters through the implementation of an inspection program for
single family construction sites in cooperation with the Mecklenburg County Land
Development Program.
6. Identify problem stormwater pollutants and their sources and develop an Action Plan
for reducing these pollutants in Mecklenburg County surface waters through the use of
BMPs.
7. Incorporate water quality modeling into stream assessment efforts.
MCDEP’s commitment to achieve its goal is summarized in Tables 10, 11, 12 and 13. Table
10 contains key elements for the City of Charlotte Stormwater Program carried out by
MCDEP in fiscal year 1999-2000. These program elements are based on the City’s NPDES
stormwater permit and represent approximately 95 percent of the City of Charlotte
Stormwater Program. A description of the City of Charlotte Stormwater Program for 2000
can be found in Appendix D. Table 11 summarizes voluntary pre-Phase 2 stormwater
program activities for Mecklenburg County conducted by MCDEP. Table 12 summarizes
additional elements performed by MCDEP beyond the NPDES stormwater permit
requirements, and Table 13 summarizes MCDEP’s SWIM Phase 1 program elements.
TABLE 10
Key Elements for the City of Charlotte Stormwater Program
Program Element Program Description
CR-M(7)Complete standardization of inlet cleaning procedures/ Train
maintenance crews
CR-M(8) Remove litter from streams (Big Sweep-Fall, Inmate Labor-Year
Round, Hands on Charlotte-Spring)
CR-MP(1) Complete a feasibility analysis for BMPs in new
development/Modify ordinances to include water quality
requirements for new development
CR-MP(4)Enhance BMP design criteria/Perform BMP inspection &
monitoring
CR-MP(6) Coordinate water quality issues between different agencies
CR-MP(7) Conduct BMP pilot studies
CR-CF(3) Conduct biological monitoring/Coordinate flood control and
channel improvement with water quality
CR-FC(4)Coordinate greenway construction with water quality
enhancements
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 6-22
Program Element Program Description
CR-FP(1) Educate citizens/businesses concerning the proper handling of
pesticides & fertilizers to prevent water quality problems
CR-FP(2) Promote Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
CR-FP(4) Ensure proper pesticide/ fertilizer application by City & County
CR-FP(5)
Conduct water quality monitoring for pesticides annually through
ISM
IC-O(1) Distribute information to problem businesses/industries to improve
compliance
IC-S(3)Conduct field screening activities including ambient, short term
and storm water monitoring
IC-S(3) Enhance water quality assessment technology to identify &
reduce storm water pollution problems
IC-S(3) Ensure that water quality data is available to public
IC-S(4) Enhance Adopt-A-Stream & Storm Drain Stenciling Efforts
IC-S(5)Maintain GIS database & produce reports for identifying chronic
polluters
IC-F(3) Conduct follow-up investigations to identify and eliminate water
quality problems
IC-R(1) Coordinate emergency response activities
IC-U(1) Implement used oil inspection program
IC-I(1) Reduce discharges of sewage
IN-I(1) Coordinate inspection activities between agencies /CATIE
IN-I(3) Train inspectors
IN-I(4) Conduct industrial inspections
IN-I(5) Educate/inform industrial facilities to improve compliance
IN-M(1) Monitor industrial facilities
IN-M(2)Maintain database of industrial inspection & monitoring
results/Identify chronic polluters
CS-I(3) Train site inspectors/Develop & implement action plan for
proactive erosion control/Use water quality data to target problem
areas/ Implement licensing program
ED-P Coordinate with the City in the development & implementation of
the “Education Plan”
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 6-23
TABLE 11
County Stormwater Program Elements
Program Element Description
CS-I(3) Train county inspectors concerning water quality concerns
CR-M(5)Monitor the short- and long-term water quality impacts of working in the
stream channel
CR-MP(4) Quantify the pollutant removal rates of select BMPs for specific parameters
CR-FC(3)Assist in the development of ecologically sensitive channel project designs
(bioengineering) and monitor a select number to quantify water quality
benefits
TABLE 12
County Surface Water Program Elements
Program Element Description
Monitoring Conduct ambient monitoring activities for lakes and streams
MOA Execute a Memorandum of Agreement with the State
WWTP Inspections Conduct at least one inspection at all minor NPDES WWTPs
Watershed Management Protect the water quality in the drinking water supply watersheds
Respond to Service
Requests
Respond to all service requests within 3 working days of receipt
Respond to Emergencies Respond to all spills/emergencies within 2 hours of receipt
TABLE 13
SWIM Phase I Elements
Program Element Description
Part I Enhance enforcement of erosion and sediment control ordinances
Part 2 Enhance enforcement of current buffers required in the regulated water
supply watersheds
Part 3 Establish and maintain vegetated stream buffers
Part 4 Address elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria
Part 5 Implement county-wide water quality model
Part 6 Enhance water quality monitoring
Part 7 Improve coordination between agencies
Part 8 Conduct stream inventory and assessment
Part 9 Increase public involvement
WQ Improvements Document improvements in water quality as a result of SWIM
Presentation of Results Publish SWIM progress reports
BMP Develop and implement the WIN Initiative in the McDowell Creek Basin
Trust Fund Effectively fulfill the requirements of the N.C. Clean Water Management
Trust Fund Grant
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 6-24
6.2.1.4 Commercial pre- and post-development hydrograph
The zoning ordinance (Chapter 12, Part 6) for both Mecklenburg County and the City of
Charlotte include regulations regarding stormwater drainage. A drainage plan must be
submitted and approved prior to development or use of land that would create more than
20,000 square feet of impervious ground cover, except for land developed or used for
agricultural uses. The City of Charlotte directly states that the drainage plan will not be
approved “if the impervious ground cover would increase the peak level of stormwater
runoff, unless the drainage plan identifies measures to control and limit runoff to peak
levels no greater than would occur from the site if left in its natural, undeveloped
condition.”
Neither the City nor the County Engineer will approve the drainage plan unless it complies
with the standards contained in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Land Development Standards
Manual and the Charlotte Mecklenburg Storm Water Design Manual. So, by reference to the
Storm Water Design Manual, both the City and the County require “control structure
release rates to approximate pre-developed peak runoff rates for the two- and ten-year
storms, with emergency overflow capable of handling the 50-year discharge”.
The City Engineering and Property Management Land Development Division and the
County Engineering and Building Standards Land Development Services act as the City and
County Engineer, respectively. The drainage plans are reviewed and ultimately approved
prior to a building permit being issued. Inspections are conducted throughout the
construction phase, including a final inspection, which should show compliance with the
approved plan. Developers usually utilize bonds in order to occupy portions of the
development prior to completion. If the development does not pass the final inspection, the
bonds are held and no certificate of occupancy is issued.
The two most common means of complying with the release rates are detention ponds and
underground storage (either by increased pipe sizes or storage tanks). According to the
Storm Water Design Manual, the “storage volume shall be adequate to attenuate the post-
development peak discharge rates to pre-development discharge rates for the two- and ten-
year storms.”
Residential development is regulated under subdivision ordinances, and the City and
County are also considering ordinances to control stormwater flow for residential
development. They have started this effort, and it includes the participation of a
stakeholder group composed of City and County staff, neighborhood associations,
environmental groups, and developers. This group is examining a wide range of options
outlined in their workplan and are working to address the following issues:
• Detention requirements for single family subdivisions
• Detention options for commercial and multi-family developments
• Simplified detention calculation method for small sites
• Detention policy based on location in watershed
• Change to impervious surface area threshold for commercial and multi-family
development detention requirements
• Benefits and impacts of designing storm water detention basins and spillways for 100-
year storm event
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 6-25
• Water quality management/volume control
• Options for detention/retention design and implementation for improved channel
stabilization downstream of basins
It is anticipated that ordinances related to this issue will be adopted by 2002. Information
on the mission, tasks and schedule of the stakeholder group is found in Appendix D.
6.2.1.5 Parks and Open Space Program
Mecklenburg County adopted a Parks Master Plan in 1989 and a Greenway Master Plan in
1980 to balance land use patterns and enhance liveability throughout the county.
(Mecklenburg, 1990A). The Parks Master Plan proposed four main classifications of parks
throughout the county to be pursued:
• Nature Preserves
• Community Parks
• District Parks
• Neighborhood Parks
As discussed in Section 3.2.2., several community parks, district parks and neighborhood
parks are planned by Mecklenburg County in the receiving basin. These types of parks
typically include disturbance and development of the areas to create active recreational
settings for ball fields, golf courses, etc. Only one nature preserve (preserved land with
limited disturbance for parking facilities only and trails) exists in the receiving basin, the
Reedy Creek Nature Preserve and Park (700-acre existing nature preserve, trail and park
proposed for a 300-acre expansion in the Northeast District). No other nature preserves are
planned in the receiving basin (Mecklenburg, 1990A).
The Greenway Master Plan identifies stream corridors which are being considered for
inclusion in the greenway system. The implementation of the Greenway Master Plan will
create numerous opportunities for multi-objective projects which will serve to: mitigate
future flood losses by removing existing structures from the floodplain; protect existing
open space from future development; protect fish and wildlife resources; and protect water
quality by protecting riparian buffers.
6.2.1.6 Adopt-a-Stream Program
MCDEP has developed an Adopt-a-Stream Program for the purpose of locating and
eliminating sources of pollution in the streams of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County. The
sources of pollution in urban streams are often hard to detect through standard monthly
monitoring. MCDEP’s Water Quality Program has found that one of the best ways to find
these problems is to physically get into the stream channel and walk the stream in search of
pollution sources.
The Adopt-a-Stream Program allows groups to "adopt" stream segments with a minimum
one-mile length. The groups walk their stream segment twice a year, once in the spring and
once in the fall, to identify water quality problems. The groups also conduct one stream
clean-up per year along their assigned stream segment. This involves the physical removal
of trash and debris from the stream channel to a designated location for collection and
proper disposal. A sign is placed at a bridge along each adopted stream segment identifying
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 6-26
the adoption group. Detailed records will be kept by each group while performing all
Adopt-a-Stream activities. These records are turned into MCDEP within 72 hours of
completing stream walking activities. MCDEP will follow up on all identified pollution
problems to ensure that they are eliminated and water quality is restored.
All volunteers are trained by MCDEP before they partake in Adopt-a-Stream activities. This
training illustrates normal stream characteristics, common stream problems, proper stream
walking techniques, and necessary safety measures.
6.2.1.7 Water Reclamation
In an effort to minimize discharges to surface waters, decrease use of potable water (thereby
reducing the need for transferring water across basin boundaries), reduce peak demand for
potable water, and use treated wastewater as a valuable resource, CMUD has been
aggressively pursuing opportunities for water reuse. At their Mallard Creek water
reclamation facility, CMUD is permitted to reuse up to 3 mgd of reclaimed water (treated
wastewater) for irrigation purposes. This was the first facility permitted for conjunctive use
(i.e., both discharge and reuse) of reclaimed water under the revised rules for water
reclamation developed by the DWQ in 1996. CMUD is continuing to promote opportunities
for reuse in the IBT project area by proposing to construct the Three-County Water
Reclamation Facility with a substantial portion of the effluent reused rather than discharged
into the Rocky River.
6.2.1.8 Water Conservation / Drought Management
In 1986, the Charlotte City Council granted authority for the City Manager to invoke
mandatory water conservation, and CMUD developed a Water Shortage-Drought-
Emergency Response Plan. The plan consists of voluntary and mandatory procedures,
which are instituted when pumping and treatment demands exceed 120 mgd for five
(voluntary procedures) or ten (mandatory procedures) consecutive days with no weather
breaks predicted. According to DWR, voluntary and mandatory measures can be expected
to reduce water use by 5 to 15 percent and 15 to 30 percent, respectively.
The voluntary conservation procedure requests that non-essential watering be conducted by
residents only on an odd or even day of the week, which corresponds to the house number.
A six-step process is implemented to notify Mecklenburg County citizens of the voluntary
conservation procedure that should be followed, and a brochure with additional water
conservation tips is to be distributed. The Water Distribution Division will also begin
working water system priority leaks within 48 hours and emergency leaks immediately.
When CMUD recognizes that conditions requiring mandatory conservation procedures
exist, a Notice of Declared Water Distribution Crisis must be posted by the City Manager 12
hours in advance of the mandatory measures taking effect. The mandatory conservation
procedures include a system-wide ban on non-essential irrigation (excluding that essential
to businesses, golf courses, greenhouses, etc.). The same notification procedure applies;
however, violations will be issued for non-compliance. The first violation within 24 hours
will result in a warning, and the second violation will result in a penalty.
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 6-27
The County is currently taking the following measures to reduce water consumption rates:
• Although there are currently no mandatory codes specifying water conservation
devices, there are conservation rates in effect which dictate that high water use results in
higher cost as opposed to giving preference to high quantity residential and commercial
users.
• Although there is currently no plan in effect to establish conservation efforts, a plan is
being drafted, called the Water Conservation Plan, and is due out in the spring.
• A major element of the plan will be wastewater reclamation. A project is currently
underway to reclaim water at Mallard Creek WWTP.
• Other potential elements of the plan to be included at the discretion of the director of
CMUD include:
−−−− Use of water conservation devices in new buildings
−−−− Limits on irrigation (number of days per week)
−−−− Conservation rates may get more aggressive.
The strategy behind the County’s plan is to focus on incentives and education more than on
ordinances.
6.2.2 North Mecklenburg Towns
The Town of Cornelius is located between the Towns of Davidson to the north and
Huntersville to the south, with Lake Norman to the west and the Mecklenburg / Iredell
County line to the north, in the northeast section of Mecklenburg County. These
communities have jurisdictions that adjoin one another, and extend along the ridge line
between the Catawba and Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basins, with portions of their jurisdictions
split north to south by either I-77 or NC 115 highways that follow near the line that
separates the source and receiving basins for the project. Additional water from the
proposed IBT is planned to be delivered to all three of these communities by CMUD. The
provision of water from the IBT may facilitate growth in these communities, just as it may
do for unincorporated areas of Mecklenburg County. A summary of each town’s current
land use planning regulations and environmental protection programs is provided below.
6.2.2.1 Town of Cornelius
The general principles for growth as discussed in the Land Development Code for Cornelius
are patterned after the New Urbanism and Sustainable Development movements to combat
sprawl, protect downtown business districts, preserve the architectural integrity of
buildings, reduce traffic congestion, allow for a variety of housing types and prices, and
protect environmental resources. Specific provisions in the town’s ordinances that are in
addition to programs already required by state or county regulations and that are unique in
their protection of environmental resources include:
1. Sedimentation and erosion from land disturbance activities of less than one acre are
required to be controlled using silt fences or other measures approved by the Planning
Director to prevent siltation of surface waters.
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 6-28
2. Although not required to by state or federal regulations, Cornelius requires the
construction of stormwater control structures for any site of disturbed area over 1 acre
in size and located in a non-residential development or mixed use development that
exceeds 50% impervious coverage. Exceptions include areas already in a Water Supply
Watershed, or properties located adjacent to perennial streams where a determination
has been made that runoff from the site will not affect downstream properties.
3. Significant stands of trees, stream beds, and other valuable topographic features shall
be preserved “where practical.”
4. Greenways and greenbelts will be protected according to open space dedication
requirements of the plan.
5. Tree and landscaping survey will be performed prior to approval of development plans
so that existing vegetation may be preserved and unique topographical conditions are
considered.
6. Avoidance of stream channel and wetlands modifications and maintenance of
undisturbed, natural stream buffers of 30 feet along every perennial stream are
required.
Items that are missing from the ordinance that could enhance environmental protection in
the town:
1. Control of stormwater on sites with the goal of protecting water quality, in addition to
preventing flooding
2. Acknowledgement of the presence of SNHAs, sensitive species and habitats in the area
and adjustment of long-range land use plans accordingly
6.2.2.2 Town of Huntersville
The general principles for growth as discussed in the Town of Huntersville’s Zoning
Ordinance (Huntersville, 1996) and Strategic Community Plan (Huntersville, 1995) are
patterned after established patterns of New Urbanism in order to preserve its downtown
historic district, to combat sprawl and encourage pedestrian-oriented development. The
Zoning Code for Huntersville is performance-based, with strict urban design requirements,
so that there is great flexibility in housing and mixed use densities to ensure a variety of
housing options and encourage pedestrian-oriented developments. A primary focal point of
Huntersville’s ordinance is its establishment of land use patterns to support future rapid
transit along existing rail lines through downtown.
Specific provisions in the town’s ordinance that are in addition to programs already
required by state or county regulations and that are unique in their protection of
environmental resources include:
1. The creation of an edge (or “growth boundary”) between urban and rural land uses to
preserve the town’s rural heritage.
2. Open space preservation is promoted with incentives for compact development sited to
maintain rural vistas.
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 6-29
3. Huntersville has been a leader among local governments in pursuing additional
enabling legislation from the state to prevent sprawl, especially from large lot
subdivisions.
4. They have worked closely with surrounding communities and the county to develop an
integrated transit/land plan for rapid transit.
5. They have adopted, essentially word for word, Mecklenburg County’s SWIM Stream
Buffer requirements, with the exception that they require buffers in all areas that drain
50 or more acres (rather than the 100 acre exemption of the County program).
6. Cluster developments allow preservation of on-site environmental resources.
Items that are missing from the ordinance that could enhance environmental protection in
the town:
1. Control of stormwater on sites with the goal of protecting water quality, in addition to
preventing flooding
2. Acknowledgement of the presence of SNHAs, sensitive species and habitats in the area,
and adjustment of long-range land use plans accordingly
6.2.2.3 Town of Davidson
The general principles for growth as discussed in the Town of Davidson’s Land Plan,
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and other local codes, are designed to accommodate
growth while maintaining ecologically sound small town character. (The following is a
summary of all the sources listed under Davidson, 1995).
Specific provisions in the town’s ordinance that are in addition to programs already
required by state or county regulations and that are unique in their protection of
environmental resources include:
1. The creation of an edge (or “growth boundary”) between urban and rural land uses to
preserve the town’s rural heritage.
2. Open space preservation is promoted with the use of required dedications by
residential subdividers, often times consistent with the Parks Master Plan for the town.
3. The Land Plan sets out a sliding scale of density incentives to encourage more compact
site planning and to encourage the preservation of open landscapes for environmental
protection and community recreation
4. Davidson’s Subdivision Ordinance contains the provision whereby an environmental
impact statement may be required with preliminary subdivision plats if the
development exceeds two acres and the Board deems it is necessary due to the nature of
the land to be subdivided.
5. Subdividers are encouraged to protect existing trees on sites, but are not required to.
Items that are missing from the ordinance that could enhance environmental protection in
the town:
1. Require protection of trees and existing natural vegetation on sites
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 6-30
2. Require preservation of forested stream buffers from development impacts to protect
water quality
3. Require the control of stormwater on sites with the goal of protecting water quality, in
addition to preventing flooding
4. Acknowledgement of the presence of SNHAs, sensitive species and habitats in the area,
and adjustment of long-range land use plans accordingly
6.2.3 Town of Mint Hill
The Town of Mint Hill is a predominantly low density residential town located at the
southern end of the County, 2 miles from the Union County boundary, along the border
between the source and receiving basins.
The General Principles for growth, as discussed in the Town of Mint Hill’s Land Plan (Mint
Hill, 2000) are to: focus new growth on areas contiguous to the current town limits and
away from natural resource areas; preserve the small town character/atmosphere; and
maintain undeveloped land and open space. The principles for growth are achieved by
setting goals and recommendations to meet those goals.
Specific provisions present in the town’s ordinances that are in addition to programs
already required by state or county regulations and that are unique in their protection of
environmental resources include:
1. Policies of the land use plan discourage the development of subdivisions with wells and
package treatment systems, due to the potential environmental impacts of these systems
in the region.
2. Policies of the Land Plan also promote the protection of the unique rural and country
village character of the area.
3. Mint Hill’s Zoning Ordinance contains the provision whereby an environmental impact
statement is required for major commercial or residential developments greater than 2
acres.
4. Adoption of S.W.I.M. Stream Buffer Ordinance (July 20, 2000) – Same policies as
Mecklenburg County, with the exception that the buffer requirements begin at the point
where the stream drains 50 acres or greater: the Mecklenburg County buffer policy
begins at 100 acres. Also, there is no incentive program; Mecklenburg County offers
incentives to offset restrictions that buffer requirements place on development.
5. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Parks Master Plan (1989)
6. Support County Greenway Master Plan (1999-2009)
7. Policies of land use plan recommend concentration of commercial businesses along
existing thoroughfares to avoid traffic in subdivisions, which encourages strip
commercial development, sprawl and traffic congestion on arterials.
8. Requirements for protection of trees and existing natural vegetation on sites.
9. Requirements for preservation of forested stream buffers from development impacts to
protect water quality.
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 6-31
10. Control of stormwater on sites with the goal of protecting water quality, in addition to
preventing flooding.
Table 14 provides a comprehensive summary of the regulatory and non-regulatory
framework that provides mitigation to the growth effects of the development that is
facilitated by the proposed action.
TABLE 14Summary of Existing Programs from Section 6.2 and the Environmental Resources They Protect
Program or
Regulation Wetlands
Land
Use
Fish &
Wildlife
Sensitive
Species
Water
Quality
Air
Quality
Ground
-water Noise Toxics
Sect. 404 XXX X X
Sect. 401 XXX X X
NFIP XXX X X X
WRP XXXX
Archaeological
Protection X
Farmland
Preservation (X) (X)
Stormwater XXXX X
Erosion / sed.XXX X X
SSO Regs.XXX X X X X
CWMTF (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)
Groundwater XXX
Land Conserv.
Incentives (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)
Voices &
Choices (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)
SWIM (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)
Sec 319 (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)
Greenways (X) (X) (X) (X) (X)
Adopt-a-
Stream (X) (X) (X) (X)
Haz. Mitig.XXX X X X
Water
Reclamation XXXX XX
Drought
Management XXX X X X
Cornelius XXXX
Huntersville XXX X X
Davidson (X)
Mint Hill (X)
Note:
X = Demonstrates clear environmental benefits, (X) = Shows potential for environmental benefits (program not mandatory/ regulation not yet adopted)
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 6-32
6.3 Proposed Mitigation Measures
This section contains two parts:
• A list of factors to be included in the EA or EIS prepared for future water and sewer line
projects to ensure that the potential direct environmental effects of these projects are
fully evaluated and mitigated
• A list of local government mitigation measures proposed to adequately mitigate or
avoid the significant secondary and cumulative impacts from growth facilitated by the
proposed IBT project
The following mitigation measures are aimed to enhance existing and proposed
environmental protection regulations at the local level. The proposed measures were
developed based on the discussion presented in Sections 6.1 and 6.2 to complement the
existing environmental protection regulatory framework. The discussion of existing
regulatory and non-regulatory mitigation indicates that there are numerous rules and
programs that have been or are being adopted to protect the natural resources of the study
area from the effects of urbanization. This comprehensive suite of environmental
regulations and programs is found to be quite adequate overall in mitigating the secondary
impacts of the proposed action. A summary of these regulations and programs and the
environmental resources they protect is provided in Table 14. Therefore, only a limited
number of measures to complement this mitigation are provided. These measures, in
combination with existing and proposed regulations and programs, as identified in Sections
6.1 and 6.2, support an overall EA and FONSI under NCEPA for the project.
6.3.1 Water and Sewer Line EA/EIS Conditions
Subsequent EA and EIS documents for water and sewer conveyance systems in the
receiving basin should contain the following elements to adequately address potentially
significant primary/direct impacts:
1. Locations, types, extent, and importance of wetlands and SNHAs in the water or sewer
line alignment and proposed construction zone and analysis of projected impacts to
wetlands from proposed direct construction impacts.
2. If determined to be necessary, completion of a Wetlands Avoidance and Mitigation Plan
through the formation of a workgroup composed of local, state, and federal government
agencies and the project consultant. This plan should look at local regulatory and non-
regulatory actions that could be taken to supplement existing efforts and adequately
reduce the level of wetland impacts from the project.
3. Since projected land uses for the County were not available in GIS format at this time,
future EA and EIS documents for water and sewer line projects should contain this
information coupled with existing land uses or land cover data for each proposed utility
line project and its service area. This analysis should include a discussion of how the
project complies with local plans and zoning and is consistent with planned land uses
for the area. GIS data coverages of projected land use for Mecklenburg County is
currently in the process of being digitized.
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 6-33
4. Acreages and types of sensitive aquatic or terrestrial species or their habitats that may be
lost or degraded because of construction or operation of the water or sewer line, with
analysis of what can be done to avoid or offset these impacts. Alternative alignments
and utility designs should be proposed to mitigate significant impacts to sensitive
species or habitats. Particular attention should be given to the Crooked Creek
watershed, and suspected locations of other sensitive species that could be impacted by
construction of the utilities.
5. Specific design and operational guidance that will be used to avoid system failures and
toxic spills into surface waters should be provided, with specific attention given to
avoiding sewage releases, sewage overflows and leaks during power outages, storm
events and accidental breaks in the lines, equipment and pump stations. Specific
attention must be given to methods designed for any project activities in proximity to
Crooked Creek and other sensitive habitats identified to reduce the probability for spills
within those sensitive areas.
6.3.2 Enhancing and Strengthening Local Government Regulations & Programs
As shown in Table 14, the existing programs and regulations in place at the federal, state
and local levels mitigate to a great extent the impacts of land use on water quality, wetlands,
sensitive aquatic and terrestrial species, and fish and wildlife habitat. In addition, our
evaluation shows an exceptionally strong commitment from Mecklenburg County to
address many of the significant environmental impacts predicted from urbanization of the
project area. DWR is considering to enhance Mecklenburg County’s commitment by
recommending to the EMC the inclusion of a number of conditions in the IBT Certificate for
the implementation of long-term mitigation measures for secondary and cumulative
impacts. The following items are being considered by DWR for inclusion in the IBT
certificate:
• Requiring the County to evaluate the feasibility of each element of the SWIM program
on an annual basis. For those elements that are deemed feasible, the County should
continue to seek funding from its Board of County Commissioners to fund the SWIM
program to continue implementing the Phases outlined in Section 6.2.1.2.
• Requiring Mecklenburg County and the City of Charlotte to continue the stakeholder
process to investigate water quantity control from single-family development and water
quality control for all development. To accomplish this end, the stakeholder group
should consider evaluating the feasibility of single-family detention and recommending
ordinance revisions based on technical, political, long-term maintenance, cost, and
benefits related to the proposed ordinance changes.
These proposed conditions in the IBT certificate can potentially address several
environmental secondary and cumulative impacts as outlined in Table 15.
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 6-34
TABLE 15
Impact of Proposed IBT Conditions on Environmental Secondary Impacts
Environmental
Secondary Impact
SWIM Control Stormwater
Runoff
WQ Impacts X X
Wetland Impacts X
Impacts to Mussels X X
Fragmented Habitat (x)
Loss of Open Space (x)
X – Will address this impact; (X) – Has potential to address this impact
The County is working to improve water quality and protect open space and sensitive
species habitat in their region, as evidenced in Sections 6.1 and 6.2. In addition to the
potential IBT certificate conditions, Mecklenburg County has made other commitments to
address secondary impacts. These commitments, along with the proposed IBT conditions
and the local programs described in Section 6.2 will result in an insignificant impact on the
environmental resources in the receiving basin.
1. Mecklenburg County commits to consider incorporation of a number of
recommendations from the Voices and Choices initiative in the county’s environmental
protection programs, as appropriate.
2. Mecklenburg County commits to pursue its existing county-wide comprehensive
watershed management programs and work with Towns on land use planning. This
effort may include working with local land trusts and other natural preservation groups
along with large landowners to implement voluntary forest and agricultural
preservation plans. There are also a number of growth management tools that
Mecklenburg County could use to purchase farmland, forestland, and other open space.
Location of proposed parks, greenways and nature preserves should be oriented around
location of unique forest resources, sensitive species and their habitats. Mecklenburg
County will continue to evaluate the possibility of using other measures besides typical
BMPs to protect sensitive aquatic species, including land use controls, alternative land
use scenarios and land acquisition. Coordination of this effort with the existing Parks
Master Plan, Greenway Master Plan and SWIM Buffer Plan is critical. Also, local zoning
ordinances could be amended to create zoning districts that prohibit typical suburban
sprawl-type subdivisions, and encourage “smart growth.”
3. Mecklenburg County commits to pursue funding for watershed restoration. This effort
includes working with the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program to identify
potential stream restoration sites within Mecklenburg County and using wetland impact
fees generated from projects within Mecklenburg County on county stream restoration.
Table 16 provides a summary of the proposed additional mitigation efforts committed by
Mecklenburg County in this environmental assessment.
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 6-35
TABLE 16
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Mitigation
Measure Implementation Timing of Action
Lead Agency
Responsible
for
Completing
Measure
Agency to
Monitor
and
Enforce
Consider
adopting a
number of Voices
and Choices
recommendations
at the local level,
as appropriate
Mecklenburg County’s Board of
Commissioners holds a session to
hear presentations from the County
staff who where a part of the Voices
and Choices process. Board of
Commissioners recommends
feasibility analysis for the
implementation of a number of
recommendations.
Status: Proposed
Board of
Commissioner’s
session and
feasibility analysis
recommendation
may occur after
Voices and Choices
meetings in March
2001
Mecklenburg
County
NC
Division of
Water
Resources
Continue to
pursue watershed
county-wide
management
approach with
added emphasis
on land use
planning
Mecklenburg County SWIM staff
coordinates and improves
cooperation among Engineering,
MCDEP, Stormwater Services,
Parks and Recreation, CMUD and
Planning Commission to address
water quality issues; and explore the
revision of projected land uses with
the goal of incorporating “smart
growth” concepts and open space
preservation programs to protect
environmental resources.
Status: Ongoing
Specific “smart
growth” and open
space concepts are
prioritized in
discussions of
coordination and
cooperation efforts of
Part 7 of the SWIM
Phase 1 Strategy
during the first half of
2000.
Mecklenburg
County
NC
Division of
Water
Resources
Continue to
pursue watershed
county-wide
management
approach with
added emphasis
on stream
restoration
Mecklenburg County staff works with
North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program to identify restoration sites
in the County and use wetland
impact fees generated within
Mecklenburg County to restore
county streams
Status: Ongoing
Discussions with
Wetlands
Restoration Program
staff continue.
Potential restoration
sites are in the
process of
beingidentified and
progress should
occur during 2001.
Mecklenburg
County
NC
Division of
Water
Resources
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 7-1
SECTION 7
Agency Involvement
COMMENTS WERE REQUESTED FROM VARIOUS AGENCIES AS NOTED IN TABLE B-1 IN
APPENDIX B. THE CONCERNS THAT WERE SUBMITTED ARE ADDRESSED IN THE EA AS
NOTED IN THE TABLE.
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 8-1
SECTION 8
References
American Lung Association, 1996. Health Effects of Outdoor Air Pollution.
Chafin-Rash, Betty; Executive Director of Voices and Choices. Phone Conversation
10/1/99. [[phone]]
Charlotte’s Municipal NPDES Storm Water Permit. 1993.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Department (CMUD). 1999. FERC Application for Increase
in Withdrawal Rate from Mountain Island Lake. Prepared by CH2MHILL.
Cornelius, Town of. Land Development Code. Adopted Oct. 7, 1996 and last amended
June 7, 1999.
Danielson, Leon E. and Patte, David E.M. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service
web site, Publication Number: RE-6,
http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/publicat/wqwm/re6.html.
Davidson, Town of. 1995. Various Davidson documents: Land Plan; Zoning Ordinance;
Subdivision Ordinance; Noise Ordinance; and, Floodway Regulations.
DENR, Environmental Permit Information Center (EPIC). Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Plans web site: http://www.p2pays.org/ref/01/00487.htm
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). National Flood Insurance Program, web
site: http://www.fema.gov/nfip/
Heath, Ralph C., 1980. Basic Elements of Ground-Water Hydrology With Reference to
Conditions in North Carolina.
Huntersville, Town of. Zoning Ordinance. Adopted November 19, 1996 and amended
June 22, 1999.
Huntersville, Town of. Strategic Update to the Community Plan. Adopted September 5,
1995.
Keferl, Eugene P. and Shelley, Rowland M. 1988. The Final Report on a Status Survey of the
Carolina Heelsplitter, Lasmigona decorata and the Carolina Elktoe, Alasmidonta robusta,
prepared for the US Fish and Wildlife Service and NC State Museum of Natural Science.
Mecklenburg County. 1990A. East District Plan.
Mecklenburg County. 1990B. Northwest District Plan.
Mecklenburg County. 1991. Southwest District Plan.
Mecklenburg County. 1992. North District Plan.
Mecklenburg County. 1996. Northeast District Plan.
Mecklenburg County. April 1999. Consensus Stream Buffer Plan.
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 8-2
Mecklenburg County. October 1999. Hazard Mitigation web site:
http://engbs.co.mecklenburg.nc.us/storm/html/mitplans/plans.htm
Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection (MCDEP). 1998A. State of
the Environment Report.
Mecklenburg County Department of Environmental Protection (MCDEP). 1998B.
Mecklenburg County. Consensus Stream Buffer Plan
Miller, Craig; Water Quality Action Team Member and Environmental Specialist with the
Mecklenburg Department of Environmental Protection. Phone Conversations on 10/1/99,
10/17/99 and 10/21/99. [[phone]]
Mint Hill, Town of. 1986. Land Use Plan.
Mint Hill, Town of. 1998A. Subdivision Ordinance.
Mint Hill, Town of. 1998B. Zoning Ordinance.
Mint Hill, Town of. 2000. Future Land Use Plan.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR). 1997.
Basinwide Assessment Report Support Document: Yadkin River Basin. Raleigh, NC
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 1998.
Basinwide Assessment Report Support Document: Catawba River Basin. Raleigh, NC
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Clean Water
Management Trust Fund, Web site: http://www.cwmtf.net/North Carolina Division of
Water Quality (DWQ). 1995. Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan.
Raleigh, NC
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1997. Draft Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (DWR). 1987. Potential Effects of Proposed
Wastewater Discharges to Middle Creek on Flooding, Streambank Erosion, and Fish
Habitat. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP). February 19, 1999. “Review of Element
Occurrence in Proposed Goose Creek Consolidated Sewage System Project, Mecklenburg,
Cabarrus, Stanly and Union Counties”
North Carolina Office of State Planning. 1999. County Growth Projections – 2010 – 2020.
Web site: http://www.ospl.state.nc.us/demog/projbdm1.html
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, County Fact Sheets. 1996. Web site:
http://www.hpo.dcr.state.nc.us/facts/facts.htm
North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (WRP), Division of Water Quality. 1998A.
“Basinwide Wetlands and Riparian Restoration Plan for the Catawba River Basin”
North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (WRP), Division of Water Quality. 1998B.
“Basinwide Wetlands and Riparian Restoration Plan for the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin”
P:\CMUD IBT EA\FINAL\ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT04_01.DOC 8-3
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC). April 1998. Draft Fisheries
Management Direction for the Catawba River Basin.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission ( WRC). March 1998. Draft Fisheries
Management Plan for the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission ( WRC). 1999. Draft Application for 319
Grant. Part 1.
Rozzelle, Rusty. Personal correspondence to Jon Mangles dated October 6, 1999. Package
included Stream Monitoring Information, Fecal Coliform Monitoring Information, Stevens
Creek/Goose Creek 319 Information, and June 30, 1999 SWIM Activity Report.
Rozzelle, Rusty. Personal correspondence to Bill Kreutzberger dated February 1, 2001.
Information for Fecal coliform TMDL.
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC), 1996.
Watershed Water Quality Management Strategy: Catawba-Santee Basin. Technical Report
No. 002-96. Columbia, SC
Schafale, Michael P. and Alan S. Weakley. 1990. “Classification of the Natural Communities
of North Carolina”. Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation. DENR.
Toole, Bill; Environmental Attorney involved with Voices and Choices. Phone conversation
on 10/1/99. [[phone]].
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1980. Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, DC
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1999A. Air Data Web site:
http://www.epa.gov/airsdatat/
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1999B. Wetlands Trends Web site:
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/wetlands//vital/status.html
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1992. “Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). April 1994. “Recovery Plan for Schweinitz’s
sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii).”
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. January 1997 (USFWS). “Recovery Plan for Carolina
Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) Lea.”
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), US Department of the Interior. May 1999. “National
Wetlands Inventory.” NC Center for Geographical Information and Analysis (CGIA) Data
Layers.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 1998. “Hydrologic and Water-Quality Data from Mountain
Island Lake, NC, 1994-1997.” Open File Report 98-549.
Voices and Choices Web site: www.ccchoices.org/esummit