20090463 Ver 1_401 Application_20090409

Letter of Transmittal
S&ME, Inc.
9751 Southern Pine Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28273
[phone] S&ME
(704) 525-395`3 fax
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
ATTN: MS. CYNDI KAROLY
WE ARE SENDING U: ® Attached
? Shop drawings ? Prints
? Copy of letter ? Report
DATE: 4122/2009 JOB NO: 1357-03-424A
ATTENTION: Ms. Cyndi Karoly
RE: McKee Creek Interceptor Project, Cabarrus County
09-0463

APR 2 3 2009
IDENR-WATER MKITY
? Under separate cover via VVUM'1V'Mthe fro II owing items:
? Plans ? Samples ? Specifications
® Pre-Construction Notification
COPIES DATE NO DESCRIPTION
5 4122/2009 1 Application for Section 404/Nationwide Permit No 12 Submittal Package
1 4110/2009 2 Check for $570.00
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW:
? For your records ® For your use and approval
? As requested
? FORBIDS DUE: _/
? For review and comment ?
? PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS: Ms. Karoly - Please find the enclosed Information identified above Please contact Lisa Beckstrom at
COPY TO: USACE: FILE: CMU: WSACC. Woolaert SIGNED:
IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED, PLEASE NOTIFY US AT ONCE.
This Letter of Transmittal and the documents accompanying this Letter of Transmittal contain information from S&ME, Inc., which is confidential and legally
privileged. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named on this Letter of Transmittal. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on these documents is strictly prohibited.
S&ME SFG-001
(Rev. 04/04)
? ItS&ME
1
April 22, 2009
! U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
1 Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
1 Attention: Mr. Steve Lund
N.C. Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-2260
1
Attention: Ms. Cyndi Karoly
1 Reference: Nationwide Permit No. 12
McKee Creek Interceptor
Cabarrus County, North Carolina
S&ME Project No. 1357-03-424A
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2008-3346
Dear Mr. Lund and Ms. Karoly:
S&ME, Inc. (S&ME) is submitting this application for impacts to waters of the U.S.,
1 including wetlands, in accordance with Department of the Army Nationwide Permit
(NWP) No. 12. S&ME has been retained by Woolpert, Inc. (Woolpert), the planner and
designer for the proposed project, to provide services related to acquisition of the NWP
' and the corresponding North Carolina Water Quality Certification (WQC) pursuant to the
Clean Water Act. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities (CMU), on behalf of the City of
Charlotte, and in cooperation with the Water and Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County
(WSACC) will be considered the applicant for the McKee Creek Interceptor project. The
project will involve construction of approximately 12,800 linear feet (If) of gravity sewer
in Cabarrus County, North Carolina.
In support of this NWP No. 12 application please find enclosed the following:
' • Appendix I - A completed Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) and Agent
Authorization Form;
1 * Appendix II - Notification of Jurisdictional Determination;
S&ME, INC. / 9751 Southern Pine Boulevard / Charlotte, NC 28273-5560 / p 704.523.4726 f 704.525.3953 / www.smeinc.com
' Nationwide Permit No. 12 SWE Project No. 1357-03-424A
McKee Creek Interceptor April 22, 2009

• Appendix III - Site Vicinity Map (Figure 1); USGS Topographic Map (Figure 2);
2005 Aerial Photographs (Figures 3A and 313); USDA Soil Survey Map (Figure
' 4); Approximate Waters of the U.S. Maps (Figures 5A through 5E); Typical
Wetland Involvement Details (Figures 6A and 613); Typical Temporary Stream
Crossing Details (Figures 7A and 713); Permanent Stream Crossing Details
' (Figures 8A through 8D);
' • Appendix IV - November 15, 2006 Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI);
• Appendix V - Site Photographs;
' • Appendix VI - Representative Data Forms;
' • Appendix VII - Agency Correspondence;
• Appendix VIII - Justification for Not Utilizing Directional Drilling; and
• Appendix IX - Restoration Plan.
PROJECT SUMM
ARY
The proposed McKee Creek Interceptor project will result in jurisdictional impacts to
2.96 acres of wetland and 2701f of stream. Of the 2.96 acres of wetland impact, 2.91
acres will be temporary and 0.05 acre will be permanent impacts. Permanent wetland
impacts are those impacts resulting in vegetation type conversion (forested to emergent
' wetland) in the 10-foot maintained sewer corridor. Of the 2701f of stream impact, 2501f
will be temporary and 20 if (0.01 acre) will be permanent impacts. Permanent stream
impacts entail two stream crossings of McKee Creek (Streams 3 and 5) which will
include 10 feet of riprap below the ordinary high water mark to allow utility personnel
vehicular access for future pipeline maintenance. Total impacts to waters of the U.S.,
including wetlands will be 0.06 acre, significantly less than the 0.5-acre threshold for
NWP No. 12. This project meets all the NWP No. 12 and WQC No. 3699 conditions
except the construction corridor will exceed 40 feet in jurisdictional areas. A 60-foot
' construction corridor is necessary due to the following reasons:
• Larger pipe diameter and corresponding trench width
• Necessary use of trench boxes
• Size of construction equipment
• Diameter of manholes
' • Limited availability of construction access roads
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) issued a Notification of Jurisdictional
Determination (USACE Action ID No. SAW-2008-3346) for the proposed project on
March 13, 2009 (Appendix II).
' Nationwide Permit No. 12 SWE Project No. 1357-03-424A
McKee Creek Interceptor April 22, 2009

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The McKee Creek Interceptor begins near the Mecklenburg County/Cabarrus County line
(35.25798°N, 80.64664°W) and extends northeast (paralleling McKee Creek) to its tie
' into the Reedy Creek Interceptor (35.28776°N, 80. 62907°W). The McKee Creek
Interceptor project involves installation of approximately 12,800 if of gravity sewer in
Cabarrus County, North Carolina. The proposed pipe size is 24 inches in diameter.
' Permanent utility easements will be 60 feet, of which 10 feet will be maintained. The
project will provide new sanitary sewer service in the McKee Creek Basin and is
' designed to accommodate predicted flows through the 2050 design year in Cabarrus
County. The proposed project will convey wastewater to the Reedy Creek Interceptor
(USACE Action ID No. SAW-2008-01353-360), from there the wastewater will travel
' through the Lower Rocky River Influent Pump Station and ultimately be conveyed to and
treated at the Rocky River Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant located in Cabarrus
County.
Th
l
e
ocation of the project corridor is depicted on the Site Vicinity Map (Figure 1), 1993
Harrisburg N.C. USGS Topographic Map (Figure 2), 2005 Aerial Photographs (Figures
' 3A and 313), USDA Soil Survey Map (Figure 4), and Approximate Waters of the U.S.
Maps (Figures 5A through 5E) in Appendix III.
S&ME prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Reedy/McKee Creeks
Interceptor Project which included the McKee Creek Interceptor. A FONSI was received
on November 15, 2006 (State Clearinghouse [SCH] File # 07-E-4300-0109). A copy of
' the FONSI is included in Appendix IV.
' EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
' The project will extend largely through agricultural fields and some wooded areas.
Canopy and subcanopy vegetation within the proposed sewer corridor included sweet
gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), river birch (Betula nigra), sycamore (Platanus
' occidentalis), tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), flowering dogwood (Corpus florida),
sugar maple (Acer saccharum), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), box elder (A.
negundo), and hackberry (Celtis occidentalis). Shrubs observed in the corridor included
' silky dogwood (Corpus amomum), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense), and strawberry bush (Euonymus americanus). The herbaceous layer
included common rush (Juncus effusus), bulrush (Scirpus validus), smartweed
(Polygonum punctatum), greenbrier (Smilax sp.), river oats (Chasmanthium latifolium),
Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), wild ginger (Asarum canadense), bamboo
grass (Microstegium viminea), and jewelweed (Impatiens capensis). Representative
' photographs of the project area are included in Appendix V.
Nationwide Permit No. 12 SWE Project No. 1357-03-424A
McKee Creek Interceptor Aprll 22, 2009
' Soils mapped within the project corridor are illustrated in Appendix III Figure 4 and
' include:
Chewacla sandy loam, frequently flooded (Ch) - this series consists of somewhat poorly-
drained soils with moderate permeability and high water capacity.
Enon sandy loam, two to 15 percent slopes (EnB, EnD) - this series consists of well-
drained soils with slow permeability, high shrink-swell potential, moderate water
capacity, and rapid runoff potential.
Poindexter loam, 8 to 45 percent slopes (PoD, PoF) - this series consists of well-drained
' soils with moderate permeability, low water capacity, and a high erosion potential in
exposed areas.
'
Sedgefield sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes (SfB) - this series consists of somewhat
poorly-drained soils with slow permeability, high water capacity, and high shrink-swell
' potential.
JURISDICTIONAL AREAS
In 2003, S&ME wetland professionals conducted a jurisdictional delineation of the
project corridor to determine the location of waters of the U.S. The delineation was
conducted utilizing currently accepted methods for wetland determination, as set forth in
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, which states that under
normal circumstances, an area must demonstrate the presence of three components to be
considered jurisdictional: 1) hydrophytic vegetation, 2) hydric soils, and 3) wetland
' hydrology. Furthermore, stream assessments were conducted when necessary in
accordance with the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) and USACE guidelines.
' Due to project delays, the delineation exceeded five years and was not verified by the
USACE. In November 2008, S&ME wetland professionals visited the project corridor to
' verify the previously delineated jurisdictional boundaries. In those instances where the
jurisdictional boundaries changed, the revised boundaries were field-located using at least
a sub-meter Global Positioning System (GPS) and the data was post-processed using
' survey-grade software. In those cases where the boundaries did not appear significantly
different from the previous delineation, the surveyed boundaries were used in mapping
and calculating impacts. The results of this delineation effort determined the presence of
' eight jurisdictional wetlands (Wetlands A through H) and five jurisdictional streams
(Streams 1 through 5) within the project corridor (Appendix III, Figures 5A through 5E).
Approved Jurisdictional Determination forms and appropriate data forms for delineated
areas in the project corridor were prepared and submitted to the USACE separately on
December 8, 2008 as part of the Request for Jurisdictional Determination package. The
' USACE issued a Notification of Jurisdictional Determination (USACE Action ID No.
SAW-2008-3346) for the proposed project on March 13, 2009 (Appendix II). Routine
Wetland Determination Data forms, DWQ Stream Identification forms, USACE Stream
' 4
Nationwide Permit No. 12 SWE Project No. 1357-03-424A
McKee Creek Interceptor Aprll 22 2009
' Quality forms and Approved Jurisdictional Determination forms are included in
' Appendix VI.
PROTECTED SPECIES
' Potential for federally listed protected species within the project corridor was previously
addressed during preparation of the EA for this project. S&ME conducted a protected
species review and vegetative communities assessment of the project corridor to
' determine if current site conditions were suitable for those protected terrestrial species
(plants and animals occurring on land) whose presence may be currently or historically
documented in Cabarrus County. S&ME retained The Catena Group (TCG) to conduct
f
' surveys
or freshwater mussels along the McKee Creek project corridor.
Terrestrial Species
As part of the EA process, scoping letters were submitted to the N.C. Natural Heritage
Program (NCNHP) and to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) requesting their
' comments on the project. During the commenting period, S&ME addressed comments
and concerns of these agencies. S&ME periodically consulted with the USFWS list of
federally protected species and the NCNHP webpage for a listing of protected species
' documented within Cabarrus County throughout the course of the project.
S&ME's review of potential protected terrestrial species habitat entailed a literature
review of existing records obtained from federal and state sources to identify documented
' records of protected species known to occur in Cabarrus County and consultation with
the USFWS and NCNHP.
' S&ME conducted a protected species review along the project corridor for Schweinitz's
sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), a federally-listed plant known to occur in Cabarrus
' County. No Schweinitz's sunflowers were observed during field review.
Aquatic Species
The portion of McKee Creek in which the McKee Creek Interceptor parallels was
surveyed for freshwater mussels by TCG on April 15, 2004 (from its confluence with
' Reedy Creek upstream to the Mecklenburg/Cabarrus County Line). The survey revealed
that this portion of McKee Creek contained marginal quality for mussels due to
streambank instability and streambed scour. A chlorinated effluent odor was noted
' during this survey in the upstream portion of McKee Creek and assumed to be associated
with a wastewater treatment discharge point near the county line. No live mussel species
were found and one shell fragment of an eastern elliptio (Elliptio complanata) was found
' below Peach Orchard Road. Other aquatic species found in this portion of McKee Creek
included the Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea) and Carolina darter (Etheostoma collis).
The Asian clam was common in the lower reach of the creek and was increasingly rare
' upstream until it was absent from above Peach Orchard Road. The Carolina darter was
observed in portions of McKee Creek.
Nationwide Permit No. 12 SWE Project No. 1357-03-424A
McKee Creek Interceptor April 22, 2009
The Carolina heelsplitter was not found during the survey. According to the North
Carolina Mussel Atlas website, the Carolina heelsplitter is known from two streams in the
Pee Dee River Basin: Duck Creek and Goose Creek in Mecklenburg and Union Counties.
The project corridor does not drain into Duck or Goose Creeks or their headwaters.
Based on literature reviews, habitat assessments, and pedestrian field reviews, the
USFWS concurred that the proposed McKee Creek Interceptor project will not impact
federally protected species known to occur within Cabarrus County. The USFWS' June
3, 2005 letter, stating that requirements under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
are fulfilled, is attached (Appendix VII). Note that no new species have been federally-
listed in Cabarrus County since the USFWS' 2005 approval letter.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potential for cultural resources within the project corridor was also previously addressed
during preparation of the EA for this project. A cultural resources survey was conducted
by Coastal Carolina Research, and their efforts identified three prehistoric sites
(31 CA252, 31 CA253, and 31 CA254) in Cabarrus County. The reports were submitted tc
SHPO for their review who concluded the sites were not significant and were determined
not eligible for listing the National Register of Historic Places. Correspondence from
SHPO indicated they have no further comments with regards to the project corridor,
therefore, completion of the proposed project is not anticipated to have an adverse impact
to archaeological sites or resources (Appendix VII).
PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS
The proposed project will result in the loss of 0.06 acre of waters of the U.S. Table 1,
below outlines temporary and permanent impacts to wetlands associated with the
proposed project. The proposed project will require temporary impacts to eight wetlands.
Temporary impacts will be necessary to excavate a trench for placement of the sewer
pipe in wetlands. These areas will be restored to pre-construction grade and contours and
will be planted with a native seed mix after construction (Appendix IX) and allowed to
re-vegetate naturally.
The proposed project will require permanent impacts to two forested wetlands (Wetlands
B and D). Permanent wetland impacts will be necessary due to maintenance of 10 feet of
the permanent sewer easement and the subsequent conversion of forested wetlands to
emergent wetlands.
Table 1: Wetland Impacts and TvDe
Wetland
Latitude
Longitude Permanent
impact Temporary
Impact Vegetation Figure
ID
Ac.'
Ac.)'
Coverage 3
No.
A 35.2845°N 80.6301 °W 0 1.964 Emergent 5E
B 35.2824°N 80.6317°W 0.021 0.037 Forested 5E
C 35.2707°N 80.6380°W 0 0.219 Scrub/Shrub 5D
D 35.2805°N 80.6318°W 0.028 0.197 Forested/Emer ent 5C
Nationwide Permit No. 12 SWE Project No. 1357-03-424A
McKee Creek Interceptor April 22 2009
E 35.2670°N 80.6389°W 0 0.190 Frnerapnt 5B
F 35.2606°N 80.6436°W 0 0.172 Emer ent 5A
G 35.2586°N 80.6455°W 0 0.015 Emer ent 5A
H 35.2583°N 80.6459°W 0 0.113 Emergent 5A
Totals: 0.05 2.91
conversion or forested wetland to emergent wetland in the 10-foot maintenance corridor.
2 Land disturbance and temporary placement of fill in wetlands in the construction corridor. Wetland areas will
be planted with a native seed mix after construction and allowed to re-vegetate naturally. Wetlands will be restored to
pre-construction contours once construction is completed.
3 See indicated figure number in Appendix III for wetland locations and impacts.
Table 2, below outlines temporary and permanent impacts to streams associated with the
proposed project. Temporary impacts to five jurisdictional streams and permanent
impacts to two of the five jurisdictional streams are anticipated. Of the 2701f of stream
impact, 2501f will be temporary and 201f (0.01 acre) will be permanent impacts.
Following construction, temporary stream crossings will be restored to original grade and
elevation. Stream banks will be stabilized with jute netting and a native seed mix
(Appendix III, Figure 7C). Permanent stream impacts entail two stream crossings of
McKee Creek (Streams 3 and 5) which will include 10 feet of riprap below the ordinary
high water mark to allow utility personnel vehicular access for future pipeline
maintenance.
Table 2: Stream Imaacts and Tvoe
Stream
ID Latitude Longitude Permanent ,
Impact ff/ac Temporary
Impact If/ac Z Figure No 3
1 35.28077°E 80.63180°W 0 60 / 0.001 5D
2 35.27570°E 80.63463°W 0 30 / 0.006 5D
3 35.27569°E 80.63456°W 10 / 0.007 50 / 0.036 5D
4 35.26847°E 80.63856°W 0 60 / 0.022 5C
5 35.26552°E 80.64060°W 10 / 0.004 50 / 0.022 5B
Totals: 20 / 0.01 250 / 0.09
V V1111miein 1111pdct due to permanent placement or nprap below the ordinary high water.
2Temporary impact due to vegetation clearing, bank disturbance, temporary trenching for pipe installation and installation
of bank stabilizing matting.
3 See indicated figure number in Appendix III for stream locations and impacts.
Temporary and permanent impacts are depicted on the attached Waters of the U.S. Maps
(Figures 5A through 5E), Typical Wetland Involvement Details (Figures 6A and 613),
Typical Temporary Stream Crossing Details (Figures 7A and 713), and Permanent Stream
Crossing Details (Figures 8A through 8D) in Appendix III. Site photographs are included
as an attachment to the PCN (Appendix V).
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
Various alignments along McKee Creek were evaluated. An Environmental Constraints
Map (ECM) was prepared to identify environmental and cultural resources constraints to
be considered during the preliminary route-selection process. Constraints identified in
each ECM were largely based on a literature review, with some ground-truthing of areas
7
' Nationwide Permit No. 12 SWE Project No. 1357-03-424A
McKee Creek Interceptor April 22, 2009
identified as wetlands by National Wetlands Inventory mapping. Each E
y ry CM identified
' significant natural resources, including wetlands, Natural Heritage Areas, and Treasure or
Champion Trees, in addition to potential cultural resources.
The primary goal of Woolpert's design efforts was to develop an alignment that would
' avoid/minimize potential impacts to wetlands, watercourses, steep slopes, cultural
resources, riparian buffers (specifically, the Cabarrus County River/Stream Overlay
Zone), and other identified environmental constraints, to an extent practicable, without
' compromising engineering requirements. The recommended alignment, developed by
Woolpert in cooperation with CMU, WSACC, and S&ME, was created from the best
' avoidance and minimization attributes of the alternatives.
Most of the wetlands within the proposed project corridor are emergent and located
' within fields or agricultural pastures. The largest wetland impact associated with the
proposed project involves Wetland A which is located within an active pasture and is
impacted by cattle. This impact is unavoidable and the proposed sewer alignment was
' located in the driest portion of the wetland away from areas of inundation, a treeline that
borders the wetland, and an adjacent natural gas pipeline. A majority of wetland impacts
are temporary and a limited, maintenance corridor width of 10 feet will keep permanent
' impacts to forested wetlands to a minimal.
Stream impacts have been minimized to the extent practicable. Directional bore was not a
feasible option for this project and justification for not employing this technique is
provided by the design engineer and attached (Appendix VIII). The project was designed
so that only two stream crossings (Streams 3 and 5) will require permanent impacts to
allow utility personnel vehicular access for future pipeline maintenance. Additionally,
Stream crossings were designed to limit impacts by crossing at a near perpendicular angle
(75 to 105 degrees).
1
Appropriate sediment and erosion control methods will be implemented prior to initiation
of ground disturbance activities to reduce potential impacts to water quality. Potential
di
i
se
mentat
on of streams adjacent to the sewer interceptor during and following the
construction phase of the project will be minimized by implementation of a State-
approved sediment and erosion control plan. This plan will employ a network of
' sediment traps, rock dam basins, diversion ditches, and/or silt fencing to control the
export of sediment from the construction corridor to adjacent undisturbed areas.
' Sediment and erosion control devices will be observed for compliance with construction
contract documents during and after construction, as well as following major storm
events, to identify needed repair, maintenance, or redesign.
REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
' This project meets all of the NWP No. 12 and WQC No. 3699 conditions except the
construction corridor will exceed 40 feet in wetlands.
Nationwide Permit No. 12 SWE Project No. 1357-03-424A
McKee Creek Interceptor April 22, 2009
The width of the project corridor will exceed 40 feet in wetlands
p ? and streams due to a
' combination of physical constraints. A 60-foot construction corridor is necessary due to
the following reasons:
• Larger pipe diameter and corresponding trench width
• Necessary use of trench boxes
• Size of construction equipment
• Diameter of manholes
• Limited availability of construction access roads
' The pipe diameter for the proposed project is 24 inches. Installation of this size pipe
diameter requires a wider trench. In addition, the depth of the pipe installation may
require the use of a trench box to protect workers. The width of the trench will be wider
to accommodate the large pipe and the trench box.
Other than the construction corridor width exceeding 40 feet, the project was designed to
1 meet WQC No. 3699 and NWP No. 12 conditions, including but not limited to:
• Temporary stream crossings associated with the proposed project will not result in
' permanent changes in pre-construction elevation contours or stream dimension,
pattern or profile.
• The edge of the construction corridor will not be located closer than 10 feet to a
' stream.
• The sewer will cross streams at a near perpendicular angle (75 to 105 degrees).
• An anti-seep collar will be placed at the downstream wetland boundary and every
150 feet up-gradient until the sewer exits the wetland.
• The permanent, maintained corridor will be 10 feet in width.
' • A native, restoration seed mix will be used to restore disturbed wetlands and
stream banks.
• When the sewer crosses streams shown on either a USGS topo or soil survey map,
' it will be installed with properly bedded and supported ductile iron pipe.
• Sediment and erosion control measures placed in waters of the U.S. will be
removed and the original grade restored within two months after the Division of
Land Resources has released the project.
Permanent impacts associated with stream crossings and wetland type conversions are
0.06 acre, significantly below the 0.5-acre threshold for NWP No. 12. This project meets
all of NWP No. 12 and WQC No. 3699 conditions except the construction corridor will
exceed 40 feet in wetlands. Accordingly, this PCN for NWP No. 12 is being submitted to
the USACE and DWQ for approval.
MITIGATION
' Based on conversations with the USACE for similar projects, we anticipate that
appropriate mitigation for the proposed project will be satisfied by the avoidance and
minimization procedures implemented during the design phase of the proposed project.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Nationwide Permit No. 12 SWE Project No. 1357-03-424A
McKee Creek Interceptor April 22, 2009
A majority of the impacts resulting from the proposed project are temporary. Original
grades and contours will be restored in disturbed wetland areas and at temporary stream
crossings. The maintained corridor will be limited to 10 feet of the alignment. Cleared
areas will be stabilized with a restoration seed mix in accordance with the seed mix
specified in the attached Restoration Plan (Appendix IX).
CLOSING
By copy of this correspondence and completed PCN, we are requesting your written
concurrence with this NWP No. 12 permit application. If we can provide additional
information or answer questions you may have, please feel free to contact Lisa
Beckstrom at 704.608.9408.
Sincerely,
7 S&
David Homans
Natural Resources Staff Professional
Attachments
cc: Mr. Paul Watson, P.E., Woolpert
Mr. Dennis Gwaltney, P.E., CMU
Mr. Tom Bach, P.E., WSACC
t
a J. Be st m, C.W.B., C.E., LEED AP
Senior Project Manager
Senior Reviewer
DDH/LJB/Ijb S:\1357\PROJECTS\2003\03-424A Reedy McKee Creeks Sewer\PCN
10

1

1
1
1

1 1

0 9- 0 4 6 3
04 W A TF9
Office Use Only:
`0? oG {?
PAI-D
Corps action ID no.
DWQ project no.
Form Version 1.0 November 2008
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit El Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: 12 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verified by the Corps? FN Yes ? No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ? Riparian Buffer Authorization
1 e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
? Yes ® No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes ® No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ? Yes ® No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1h
below. ? Yes ® No
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: McKee Creek Interceptor
2b. County: Cabarrus
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Charlotte
2d. Subdivision name: N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: N/A
3. Owner Information
3a. Name on Recorded Deed: N/A- Linear corridor project with multiple landowners
3b. Deed Book and Page No. N/A
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): N/A
3d. Street address: N/A
3e. City, state, zip: N/A
3f. Telephone no.: N/A
3g. Fax no.: N/A
3h. Email address: N/A
Page 1 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.0 November 2008 Version

1
1
1

1
n
1

Section A. Applicant Information, continued
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ® Other, specify: Property easement owner
4b. Name: Mr. Dennis Gwaltney, P.E.
4c. Business name
(if applicable): Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
4d. Street address: 5100 Brookshire Boulevard
4e. City, state, zip: Charlotte, North Carolina, 28216
4f. Telephone no.: 704-391-5080
4g. Fax no.: 704-398-9180
4h. Email address: [e-mail]
S. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: Lisa J. Beckstrom, C.W.B., C.E., LEED AP
5b. Business name
(if applicable): S&ME, Inc.
5c. Street address: 9751 Southern Pine Boulevard
5d. City, state, zip: Charlotte, North Carolina 28273
5e. Telephone no.: 704-608-9408
5f. Fax no.: 704-525-3953
5g. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 2 of 13
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
G
l

L'

A

i

1
1
1

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): N/A
Origin: 35.25798°N - 80.64664°W
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Terimus: 35.28776'N - 80. 62907'W
1c. Property size: Within the construction easement: 17.83 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to McKee Creek (13-17-8-4)
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: C
2c. River basin: Rocky River Sub-Basin / Upper Yadkin Basin (03040105)
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
The project corridor originates near a residential subdivsion, and then extends through wooded areas, agricultural fields,
and pastures.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
Approximately 2.96 acres within the construction easement
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
Approximately 270 linear feet.
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The project will provide new sanitary sewer service in the McKee Creek Basin and is designed to accommodate predicted
flows through the 2050 design year.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The McKee Creek Interceptor project entails installation of approximately 12,800 If of gravity sewer in Cabarrus County.
The proposed section of sewer will be 24 inches in diameter and will convey wastewater parallel to McKee Creek from the
Cabarrus / Mecklenburg County line to the Reedy Creek Interceptor near the confluence of Reedy and McKee Creeks.
Construction will take place in a 60-foot wide cleared construction easement. Equipment to be used on the job includes
trackhoes, dozers, trucks, sidebooms, welding rigs and boring machines. Upon completion of the project, a 10-foot wide
corridor over the pipeline will be permanently maintained.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property / ® Yes ? No ? Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
? Preliminary ®Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company: S&ME
Name (if known): Lisa Beckstrom / Suzanne Knudsen Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
Notification of Jurisdictional Determination issued by Steve Lund on March 13, 2009 (USACE Action ID No. SAW-2008-
3346)
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ? Yes ® No ? Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
Page 3 of 13
I PCN Form - Version 1.0 November 2008 Version
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ® Yes ? No
6b. If yes, explain.
The McKee Creek Interceptor is divided into two phases. The downstream phase includes the portion of the McKee
Creek Interceptor in Cabarrus County. The Cabarrus County phase of the project is scheduled for construction in 2010 in
support of the incorporation of several private utility systems into the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities public sewer system.
The upstream phase of the McKee Creek Interceptor includes the portion of the McKee Creek Interceptor in Mecklenburg
County. The City of Charlotte has tentative plans to annex additional areas within the McKee Creek Basin in Mecklenburg
County in 2011 or later. As the annexation process proceeds, additional private systems will be impacted by the proposed
annexation of new areas and the private utility systems serving these areas are expected to be incorporated into the
Charlotte-Mecklenburg utility system. The construction of the Mecklenburg County phase of the McKee Creek Interceptor
is proposed at that time.
Page 4 of 13
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
it

1
1
1

1
1

1

1

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
H Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ? Buffers
? Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or impact (if known) DWQ - non-404, other)
Temporary T
W1 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No ? Corps
? DWQ
W2 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No ? Corps
? DWQ
W3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No ? Corps
? DWQ
W4 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No ? Corps
? DWQ
W5 ? P ? T
? Yes ? No ? Corps
? DWQ
W6 ? P ? T ? Yes ? No ? Corps
? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts 0.05 Permanent
2.91 Temporary
2h. Comments: SEE ATTACHED TABLE 1.
All wetlands are Corps 404 jurisdictional. Wetland impacts will be to limited to temporary impacts to eight wetlands, two of
which will also undergo additional permanent impacts. Temporary wetland imacts will be due to land disturbance and
temporary placement of excavated fill in wetlands in the 60-foot wide construction easement. Permanent impacts will be due
to the conversion of forested wetland to emergent wetland in the 10-foot maintenance corridor centered over the pipeline.
Wetlands will be restored to pre-construction contours once construction is completed.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f.
Stream impact Type of Stream name Perennial (PER) or Average stream width (feet) Impact
number - impact intermittent (INT)? length
Permanent (P) or (linear feet)
Temporary (T)
S1 ? P H T 1, 2* UT1 to McKee
Creek ? PER HINT 1 60
S2 ? P H T 1* UT2 to McKee ? PER HINT 3 30
Creek
S3 H P ? T 1,2,3' McKee Creek H PER ? INT 30 10 (perm.)
50 (temp.)
S4 ? P H T 1, 2* UT3 to McKee
Creek ? PER H INT 10 60
S5 H P ? T 1, 2, 3* McKee Creek H PER ? INT 20 10 (perm.)
50 (temp.)
S6 ?P?T ?PER ?INT
3g. Total stream and tributary impacts 20 (perm.)
Page 5 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.0 November 2008 Version

C'
C?

fJ

t
7

1

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory, continued
250 (temp.)
3h. Comments: "IMPACT TYPES: 1) Vegetation clearing and bank disturbance, 2)Temporary trenching for pipe installation,
3) Riprap placed (permanently) below the ordinary high water mark.
Stream impacts are limited to five crossings, three of which will involve only temporary impacts. Stream banks impacted by
construction of the proposed project will be restored to original grades and contours upon completion of the project.
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individual) list all o en water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of
impact number waterbody Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
- Permanent (if
(P) or applicable)
Temporary T
01 ?P?T
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
0. Total open water impacts N/A
4g. Comments:
Page 6 of 13
PCN Form - November 2008 Version

t
11

1

1
1
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory, continued
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction pro osed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or (acres)
number purpose of pond
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ? No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require mitigation, then ou MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
? Neuse ? Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number - Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact (square Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) for impact Stream name mitigation feet) (square feet)
or Temporary required?
T
B1 ?P?T ?Yes ?No
B2 ?P?T ?Yes ?No
B3 ?P?T ?Yes ?No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 7 of 13
PCN Form - November 2008 Version

1

1

1
1

1

D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Various alignments along McKee Creek were evaluated. Environmental Constraints Maps (ECM) were prepared to
identify environmental and cultural resources constraints to be considered during the preliminary route-selection process.
Constraints identified in each ECM were largely based on a literature review, with some ground-truthing of areas
identified as wetlands by National Wetlands Inventory mapping. Each ECM identified significant natural resources,
including wetlands, Natural Heritage Areas, and Treasure or Champion Trees, in addition to potential cultural resources.
The final alignment, developed by Woolpert in cooperation with CMU, WSACC, and S&ME, was designed to
avoid/minimize potential impacts to wetlands, watercourses, steep slopes, cultural resources, riparian buffers, and other
identified environmental constraints, to all extents practicable, without compromising engineering requirements.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Appropriate sediment and erosion control methods will be implemented prior to initiation of ground disturbance activities
to reduce potential impacts to water quality. Potential sedimentation of streams adjacent to the sewer interceptor during
and following the construction phase of the project will be minimized by implementation of a State-approved sediment and
erosion control plan. This plan will employ a network of sediment traps, rock dam basins, diversion ditches, and/or silt
fencing to control the export of sediment from the construction corridor to adjacent undisturbed areas. Sediment and
erosion control devices will be observed for compliance with construction contract documents during and after
construction, as well as following major storm events, to identify needed repair, maintenance, or redesign.
Cleared wetland areas will be stabilized with a restoration seed mix in accordance with the seed mix specified in the
attached Restoration Plan (Appendix IX). Stream banks will be stabilized with jute netting and a native seed mix.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for ? Yes ® No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps
? Mitigation bank
2c. If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
? Payment to in-lieu fee program
project?
? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: warm, cool, cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
Page 8 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.0 November 2008 Version
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation, continued
4h.. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.
Zone Reason for impact Total impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
Total buffer mitigation required:
6c. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
6d. Comments:
Page 9 of 13
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ? Yes ® No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? ? Yes ? No
2. Determination if the Project Requires a Stormwater Management Plan
2a. Does the project require a Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit? ? Yes ® No
2b. Is the project subject to General Certification 3704 or 3705? ? Yes ® No
3. Determination of Stormwater Review Jurisdiction
3a. Is this project subject to any of the following state-implemented stormwater ? Coastal counties
management programs (check all that apply)? ? HQW

If so, attach one copy of the approval letter from the DWQ and one copy of the ? ORW
? Session Law 2006-246
approved stormwater management plan. ? Other:
3b. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? Cabarrus County
3c. Is this local government certified to implement a state stormwater program? ? Yes ® No
If so, attach one copy of the approval letter from the local government and one copy
of the approved stormwater management plan (or one copy of the approved
Stormwater management plan stamped as approved).
4. Information Required for DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
4a. What is the overall percent imperviousness according to the most current site plan? 0%
4b. Does this project contain any areas that meet the criteria for "high density" per ? Yes ® No
General Certifications 3704 and 3705?
4c. If the site is over 24% impervious and/or contains high density areas, then provide a brief narrative description of the
stormwater management plan.
4d. Has a completed BMP Supplement Form with all required items been submitted
f
? Yes
® No
or each stormwater BMP?
Page 10 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.0 November 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ® Yes ? No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ® Yes ? No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.)
Comments: S&ME prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the ® Yes ? No
Reedy/McKee Creeks Interceptor Project which included the McKee Creek
Interceptor. A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was received on November
15, 2006 (State Clearinghouse File # 07-E-4300-0109), Appendix IV.
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes ® No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ® Yes ? No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
While the McKee Creek Interceptor project provides sanitary sewer that supports future development, local and county
ordinances are in place to mitigate secondary and cumulative impacts. Cumulative impacts associated with the McKee
Creek Interceptor project were satisfactorily addressed with appropriate regulatory agencies, including DWQ, during the
EA process. A copy of the FONSI is included as Appendix IV.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
The proposed McKee Creek Interceptor project will transport flow to Reedy Creek Interceptor which then transports flow
to the Lower Rocky River Influent Pump Station and be treated at the Rocky River Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Page 11 of 13
PCN Form - Version 1.0 November 2008 Version
t

F. Supplementary Information, continued
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ? Yes
No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ® Yes
? No
impacts?

5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted. ?
Raleigh
® Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
S&ME conducted a protected species review and vegetative communities assessment of the project corridor to determine
if current site conditions were suitable for those protected terrestrial species (plants and animals occurring on land) whose
presence may be currently or historically documented in Cabarrus County. S&ME retained The Catena Group (TCG) to
conduct surveys for freshwater mussels along the McKee Creek project corridor.
Based on these protected species reviews, the USFWS concurred that the proposed McKee Creek Interceptor project will
not impact federally protected species known to occur within Cabarrus County.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
The project is not located in a coastal or marine area.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation
t ? Yes ® No
s
atus (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
Potential for cultural resources within the project corridor was also previously addressed during preparation of the EA for
this project. A scoping letter was submitted to SHPO during the EA process requesting their comments on the proposed
project. SHPO responded that they are not aware of cultural resources affected by the proposed project, and
accordingly, had no comment on the project. Additionally, Coastal Carolina Research conducted an archaeological
survey of the project corridor in August of 2003. Their survey report was submitted to SHPO for review who concluded
that the project would not affect any cultural resources eigible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ® Yes ? No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements: Project area will be restored to it original contours with no
additional aboveground structures outside from manholes, therefore the proposed project will not impact flood elevations.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program GIS
layers.
Lisa J
Beckstrom
CWB
CE
.
,
,
,
Page 12 of 13
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information, continued
LEED AP
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name (Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
Page 13 of 13
PCN Form - November 2008 Version
1
1
1
1

t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
Date: 12.10.08
Project Information
?S&ME
S&ME Project Name: McKee Creek Interceptor
Type of Project: Jurisdictional Delineation/Permitting
Location: Cabarrus County, North Carolina
Property Owner/Representative Information
Business Name:
Mailing Address:
City, State, Zip Code:
Telephone No.
Contact:
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
5100 Brookshire Blvd
Charlotte, NC 28216
704-399-2551
Mr. Dennis Gwaltney, P.E.
Agent Information
Business Name:
Street Address:
City, State, Zip Code:
Telephone No.
Contact:
Authorization:
S&ME, Inc.
9751 Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273
704-608-9408
Ms. Lisa J. Beckstrom, C.W.B., C.E.
(Contact Signature)
L?)2?P _Xff ft4'q Ml7k_5 hereby authorize
(Name of Landowner or Project Sponsor)
S&ME to act as agent with the USACE in connection with the
above-mentioned project.
I J 41 on behalf of
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW-2008-3346 County: Cabarrus U.S.G.S. Quad: Harrisburg
' NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner/Agent:
Address: Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities, Attn: Dennis Gwaltney
' 5100 Brookshire Blvd.
Charlotte, NC 28216
Telephone No.: 704-399-2551
' Property description:
Size (acres) 13000 LF approx. Nearest Town Harrisburg
Nearest Waterway McKee Creek River Basin Yadkin
' USGS HUC 03040105 Coordinates N 35.2580 W 80.6460
Location description McKee Creek Sewer Interceptor
' Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
_ Based on preliminary information, there may be wetlands on the above described property. We strongly suggest you have
this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction. To be considered final, a
jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action
' under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
B. Approved Determination
_ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
' notification.
X There are waters and wetlands on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
' determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
The waters on your property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the Corps. We strongly
suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps.
Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property
which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed
' five years.
X The surface waters and/or wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the maps and
forms provided by your consultant/agent dated December 18, 2008. Unless there is a change in the law or our published
' regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described property which are subject to the
' permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
_ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Washington, NC, at [phone] to determine
their requirements.
Page 1 of 2
' Action ID:
SAW-2008-3346
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or'the Corps regulatory program, please contact Steven Lund at 828-271-7980.
C. Basis For Determination
Wetland Data Forms Stream ID Forms and Jurisdictional Determination Forms included with submittal of December
18, 2008 b S&ME Inc. McKee Creek and intermittent tributaries onsite are RPWs flowin to Reed Creek and the
Rocky River, a traditionally navigable water (TNW)Wetlands are abutting the RPWs on the site.
' D. Remarks
E. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
' B. above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
' determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form If you request to appeal this
determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
Attn: Steven Lund, Project Manager,
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
' 151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for
appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the District Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP.
Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address within 60 days of the date of this
verification.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the District Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence.**
' Corps Regulatory Official: Steven W. Lund
Date: March 13, 2009 Expiration Date: _March 13, 2014
' The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue to
do so, please complete the attached customer Satisfaction Survey or visit
bq://www.saw.usace army mil/WETLANDS/index html to complete the survey online.
Copy furnished: Lisa Beckstrom, S&ME, Inc., 9751 Southern Pine Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28273
Page 2 of 2

1
G
i
1
1
1

1

I

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant: Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities File Number: 2008-3346 Date: March 13, 2009
At tached is: See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of
permission) A
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B
PEIT DENIAL C
rX APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E
SECTION I -The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above
decision. Additional information may be found at http://www.usace.army.aiillinet/functions/cw/ceewo/rep, or
Corps regulations at 33 Cl'R Part 3 1.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you-may request that the
pemut be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your
objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal
the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the
permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit
having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer
will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you
may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form
and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of
this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer
within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or
provide new information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of
this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form must be received by
the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.
f
J
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps
regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved
JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new
information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.
SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your
objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to
this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps
memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the
review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps
may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify
the location of information that is already in the administrative record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INF ORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you
and/or the appeal process you may contact: may also contact:
Steven W. Lund, Project Manager
CESAW-RG-A
US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
151 Patton Ave., Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any
government consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You
will be provided a 15 day notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site
investigations.
Date: Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this
form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: Steven Lund, Project Manager, Asheville
Regulatory Field Office, 151 Patton Avenue, Room 208, Asheville, North Carolina 288-1-5006
For Permit denials and Proffered Permits send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Mike Bell,
Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD-ET-CO-R, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15, Atlanta,
Georgia 30303-8801
NOTE: WETLANDS AND STREAMS WITHIN THE PROJECT CORRIDOR WERE DELINEATED IN 2003 BY S&ME PERSONNEL
AND SURVEYED BY WOOLPERT. IN OCTOBER 2008, S&ME RE-VISITED THESE JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES AND
USED GPS TO LOCATE BOUNDARIES THAT CHANGED SINCE THE 2003 DELINEATION. THESE BOUNDARIES HAVE BEEN
VERIFIED BY THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS UNDER ACTION ID NO. SAW-2008-3346.
r I,
?i O
O
I r 0 ?•
S ? ? \?! ea yG,pC? sf ?, R i p ? .i\?K ` ,? ` ?y , Y 4f r r•'^J ?-
rte.' ?`ProtectTerminus?
)t -???; tl Wetland A (Emergent) 1
Abutting RPW i
Review Area 1 I 1
, W-pR? -11-111
?r ?SO
`? ?/ ?ERj, DGE
Rp_
°BETrH LN t ?? 1 r f ; ( ? : t
\? 71 I Wetland C (Scrub/Shrub) - I
?N t, rye Wetland B (Forested)
w Abutting RPW +l
Adjacent to RPW
=M DR . ` r Review Area 3
??= Review Area 2
F _ f 0,_-Z4_
-
OAK HOLLOW-LN?O Stream 1---'?
DA?tD?N? Seasonal RPW' `1r
Stream 3 (McKee Creek) Review Area 3 ] x
?a
Year round RPW
Review Area 1 j
r t (' \ RITL-4
Stream 2 /.
Seasonal RPW .f _K
\? ?!r .7
Review Area 4
Stream 4 s, ?` ?t ° y r
I? ?' r t 1 ` +r- ??t _GEDAR=COVE
DR _
fSeasonal RPW ?It r
Review Area 5 Wetland D (Emeroent/Forested) t .°
? ; v A Adjacent to RPW 9t ° I?
F FqO Review Area 1
Stream 5 (McKee Creek) q? t I
p_
Year-round RPW
Review Area 1
Wetland E (Emergent) ( ( -^f
S ,•? ' ``-> +?t? Abutting RPW x'
y,r' a Review Area 1
APPq
jl. _O0 t`'`?',C• ?yy( 1`i ve 5 ,lj.+` r I :.
NDR ry' 1
Wetland F (Emergent) ?Adjacent to RPW
Review Area 1 Wetlands
Wetland H (Emerge
nt)
Wetland Abutting RPW
Adjacent to RPW Wetland G (Emergent
Review Area 1 Adjacent to RPW Wetland Adjacent to RPW
Review Area 1
Streams
Protect Or it 1 N y 7 l ?? v Year-round Stream
i a Egg ?} i?r tr ?1?'r\ ?` J 7+ s ; ??\ \
t/t ..iJohnBostarLN tt ® Seasonal Stream
McKee Creek Interceptor
Reedy Creek Interceptor*
NOTE: THE REEDY CREEK INTERCEPTOR WAS PERMITTED
rr I s + , (?, ? + `r ? ^ UNDER THE USACE ACTION ID NO. SAW-2008-1353-360.
REFERENCE: USGS 1993 HARRISBURG [NC] QUAD SHEET 'i ` ?, `.k,
THE ABOVE INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM THE CABARRUS COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS) ? t "-ti _
DEPARTMENT WEB SITE. PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR 0 1,000 ,._\` 2,000 13,000 DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. S&ME, INC. ASSUMES NO
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DECISION MADE OR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION. ; Feet
:ALE: 1" = 2,000. FIGURE
kTE: USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP NO.
4-9-2009 McKee Creek Interceptor
LAWN BY: DDH S&ME Cabarrus County, North Carolina 2
IECKED BY: LJB PROJECT NO: 1357-03-424A
I
� I
� I
NOTE: WETLANDS AND STREAMS WITHIN THE PROJECT CORRIDOR WERE DELINEATED IN 2003 BY S&ME PERSONNEL
AND SURVEYED BY WOOLPERT. IN OCTOBER 2008, S&ME RE -VISITED THESE JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES AND
USED GPS TO LOCATE BOUNDARIES THAT CHANGED SINCE THE 2003 DELINEATION. THESE BOUNDARIES HAVE BEEN
VERIFIED BY THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS UNDERACTION ID NO. SAW -2008-3346.
. - _.
'f:
�4 17r;.:• rt .
'CROZ�E
J. a.
A ,.
AW
r(
GN
Fi { Stream 4 "' G
�N Seasonal RPW o
L Review Area 5
OVE CT
Stream 5 (kKee Creek)
: Year-ro end RPW
Review Area 1
Wetland E (Emergent)
Abutting RPW
Review Area 1
y 6 1
o� x •' �'"i Wetland F (Emer ent) Y y'
Adjacent t0 R W r e
Review Area 1" "` k ..A
-. .. . ... ter' � r'.
Wetland H (Emergent).,^"Re.
ASI
Adjacent to RPW Wetland G (Emergent) r , , «, ! �' •` r
s r" Review Area 1 ,, Adjacent to RPW ++ ,'' a'
Review Area 1 °
w ao.
+ r•
' Project Origin ti \
-DR DR
V '1
s�
.y
"^
® Year-round Stream
1
,„=John BostacLN� _
®
Seasonal Stream
Wetland Abutting RPW
\
,J
Wetland Adjacent to RPW
fl^
/*
McKee McKee Creek Interceptor
0
500, 41,000 1,500
Feet
REFERENCE:
THE ABOVE INFORMATION
DEPARTMENT WEB SITE.
DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY
RESPONSIBILITY FOR
WAS OBTAINED FROM THE CABARRUS COUNTY
PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL
OTHER USES. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES
ANY DECISION MADE OR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS)
PURPOSES ONLY. ITIS NOT MEANT FOR
ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. S&ME, INC. ASSUMES NO
BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION.
SCALE: 1" = 1,000' FIGURE
DATE: 2005 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH NO.
4-9-2009 S&ME
McKee Creek Interceptor
DRAWN BY: DDH Cabarrus County, North Carolina 3
CHECKED BY: LAB I PROJECT NO:
1357-03-424A

LNNOTE: WETLANDS AND STREAMS WITHIN THE PROJECT CORRIDOR WERE DELINEATED IN 2003 BY S&ME PERSONNEL
SURVEYED BY WOOLPERT. IN OCTOBER 2008, S&ME RE-VISITED THESE JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES AND
D CPS TO LOCATE BOUNDARIES THAT CHANGED SINCE THE 2003 DELINEATION. THESE BOUNDARIES HAVE BEEN
FIED BY THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS UNDERACTION ID NO. SAW-2008-3346.
,
f M
v , 70
oy?0 Project Terminus `
a r x,.
.
q W
Wetland A (Emergent)}
Abutting RPW
Review Area 1 'mot:
,
+` uts^
M
! ? ,?, ? _. ?? s': ?„`?'•;,e? ,+ Yin
*` ra Wetland B (Forested) 0
Wetland C (Scrub/Shrub) Adjacent to RPW N
Abutting RPW`
Review Area 2
Review Area 3
c?
Stream 1
?.
=Seasonal RPW '?;;:.? •.?,?,??„ ' ? ?
Ho" N-LN - Q
OA + Review Area 3
? K
d
4
rH
' Stream 2
Seasonal RPW;
Review Area 4r:*
& AN
Str
eam 3 (McKee CreekYear round RPW °w*^ ^ r era "
Review Area
p`? > '• r Pi ,?t?u " ?' r, ° "" ? '? ?'.
r• S H 3 '`n ,M.X. Fb r Y ?' Y ?'A# R 1] •. e..p
' P' ;• Year-round Stream
+Ak u' r ? Sn i ?,
Y?
n Wetland D (Emer -gent/Forested) a P'Y ® Seasonal Stream
' ?' Adjacent to RPW ;
Review Area 1 #+ rr, Wetland Abutting RPW
t>; t s w+ Wetland Adjacent to RPW
McKee Creek Interceptor
oa Gf'' Reedy Creek Interceptor*
;t
? - a
kvaj *NOTE: THE REEDY CREEK INTERCEPTOR WAS PERMITTED
UNDER THE USACE ACTION ID NO. SAW-2008-1353-360.
REFERENCE: n
THE ABOVE INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM THE CABARRUS COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS)
DEPARTMENT WEB SITE. PLEASE NOTE THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR Q 500
,?00' ?j??
DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES. THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. S&ME, INC. ASSUMES NO
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DECISION MADE OR ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION. Feet
SCALE: 1" = 1,000' FIGURE
)ATE: 4-9-2009 2005 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH NO.
r
McKee Creek Interceptor
BRAWN BY: Cabarrus County, North Carolina
DDH S&ME
;NECKED BY: LJB PROJECT NO:
1357-03-424A
IdB
EnB &,MeB
MeB \
1 ir
IdA '-, Ar
uB, PaF"N Z? c
PcE3 EnD Wetland A (Emergent) MeB
D ??VA f Abutting RPW IdA
uD PaF Review Area 1
CSC BET ' \R CuB _
nD EnD Me ?nB pER=RIDG
'LN I I C Q??? E-RD_ e6
?l ' Wetland C (Scrub/Shrub) Wetland B (Forested)
C 2 Abutting RPW w
Adjacent to RPW
VaB PaF Review Area 3
CcB2???, l Ch Review Area 2
(v1eB a MeB D CU62 2 p' MeB
?I
?? _ _GUB2- q?? Stream 1
M Seasonal RPW Ch e
uB u EnB Review Area 3
_ u 2 Stream 3 (McKee Creek) MeD
Year-round RPW MeB
VaB PaF BRITS Review Area 1 Stream 2 EnB 0
aF Me Seasonal RPW \ EnD
CcD2 MeB Review Area 4
n
a6 B % D f6
EnB D SfB IdB EnB
CcB2 e En
MeD Stream 4 0 EnB - -CEDAR COVED?' /
Me 'Seasonal RPW n?
EnD' I -
Review Area 5 Wetland D (Emergent/Forested) PoD
C 18?p Adjacent to RPW EnB Ch
01c Review Area 1 0
y0 PaB
V B B RCy. n
Stream 5 (McKee Creek) 0
Year-round RPW Rp?, nD Po EnB
MeD
Review Area 1 ? Wetland E (Emergent)
a EnB 1 n\ Abutting RPW e
APPALO Review Area 1 EnB
n
J,
m? MkBOSq? AG?? R ON DR D B EnD EnD I c i
v? G" Wetland F (Emergent) I/ EnD
moo? Cc62 Adjacent to RPW
Review Area 1
0D? n6 ® Year-round Stream
Wetland IS (Emergent) EnD
Wetland H (Emergent) 1 Adjacent to RPW ® Seasonal Stream
_1!- Review Area 1
Adjacent to RPW IdB A? ® Wetland Abutting RPW
Review Area 1 P E3 D
4?F POB h
hD ® Wetland Adjacent to RPW
cuB2 McKee Alignment
n
Project Origin cD r Reedy Creek Interceptor*
C.,p *NOTE: THE REEDY CREEK INTERCEPTOR WAS PERMITTED
FgCyo \ UNDER THE USACE ACTION ID NO. SAW-2008-1353-360
REFERENCE: SOIL SURVEY GEOGRAPHIC (SSURGO) DATASET FOR CABARRUS COUNTY I? 2
THE ABOVE INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM THE USDA GEOSPATIAL DATA GATEWAY WEB SITE. PLEASE NOTE THIS
MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR DESIGN, LEGAL, OR ANY OTHER USES. THERE 0 1000,1322,000 3,000
ARE NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ITS ACCURACY. S&ME, INC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DECISION MADE OR \We
ANY ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE USER BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION. Feet
SCALE: 1" = 2,000' FIGURE
DATE: USDA SOIL SURVEY MAP NO.
12-15-2008 A S&ME McKee Creek Interceptor
DRAWN BY DDH Cabarrus County, North Carolina 4
CHECKED BY
PROJECT NO:
1357-03-424A
9f, 1.9 a3N03HO
Haa b!tlZti-£0-L5£ L 3WWS #
1.9 NMH2!0 ON 103f02id
600Z-6-b :Alva ,00 L = L :31VOs
eUllOJ8O u?JON `Alunoo snjjege0
jo;daoaa}ul jaajo aa>{oW o
w
dVW "s,n 3H1 :10 Ln
SH31VM 31VWIXOMddV LL
o
+ ..
C C) aOo o
+ ac
U ?
o c o
a?i E °) o U
/ti c Y U
e t?'` O ? U w
77u,- "I Lu
6 g o
t° +
w p v ,
z
t Oo 3 co
> + s fn
C) co
V, 0 C) C- m
+ E N a
°4 a
« E E E
ammorm.
.« (0 co (9
L s t. N j a)
4 Matctiline (n (n
C)
+
M U co is
O
co
v s? f x a " ?
E L)
m r`? / C k o
CL .77 E
c
,..w'. U d f" .r *:?.:. w.` * b i '" is .,? l •r
O h z a '1
^ Ml ?, ?i
3: z
R ' i• '
4 1 co
iCil
r o Y /
W n N L, i w
1
a 'a o r o w
M L) F r Q s xq x, o_ ?? ..
g
:4/ 4z
" Eon Z?z
a? ?a is ?
C) LD
LL m
70 E
hx o"
All
OCA
LLI
?kl 1
g. ti +
co *4 uu J)
a ; r
F
n
u p'
W
Q z F
COUr w
r Y
Cabal ruS
U 2 m
?? County
W
Necklenht4l', n L Y
LI)
o f o -cn
Z ¢i s LL Z
z W a C?" tl o ?t Z O
zwl U) u' O U) Q
U) D ZO }
LU w 0- (If
(if 0
a- Z
?wZ? Sao
co U) ZO
z p ¢ O
w+ 0
r
LL) 0
91
a?z_o t° a S app
w C,
wUw !# a 4^-'
O Z W a x? S s,'?' v ) .t $ "?1 • , ? = 1 " W. W Q J
Al 1u U- m w = Z t4 ( N m
=aw r Via:.' O W o
0 C) 7
o0a- oho
."..
1- (3 woo 8 w w
1 «,
,,Z z
p Wm w
O O
w -
?QU o
U ? ., , .m 4 l O K w O
x °r x
C14 OAIW?, N w
00
cn ff w 00
a z L) fr I- W o
W a?°o
W 7:)
?a?az
oww?,,? QjU) z F?
i. m
?wm
z O
0 3 m a fi x t o ew O w z 0 F
z ?z 3 + r Qo w co cr
o
'o C, W
U) 2 Lo
Q LL, w>QZ ?" S fly. ?' OF z
??az a
C) w
CD LU
eA -i w
r
TTPP#
LL, s
, , It , t i Y?le

8f? -AS CAN03HO euilaeO WON `Alunoo snjjegeo \
joldooaajul i aajo aa}{on o
H44 V-VZ-V-£0-L5£ 6 W
l9 NMVbO ON103f02id
dV W ?s,n 3H1 :10
6002-6-b 31da 100 31dos 3wvs
SH31VM 31VWIXOHddV
E
/3 h??n 'A4 O
?s Mat?hliney Ma<6? (n
w Q? L
?} M D O
n o a) a) q C)
+ : x.
N N ? U
a
b D W CV
y die O+ ' y l uM rP„ 1? s` 5Fr 1 I I
a iE 5
CO co N 1 f i'T y4} ?y ..
LY *?r ?" Y E1Ya`a ix q S In
Y? 3' dr?e A i V V
C) 0
0 CL
;'k CD
-0 -0
Ale Co co m m
(D U)
t ° a) c c c
$ 4 \\
a5'i ray'} ?,'S µ^C .1 s? \ K ,? N (Q N O (O O
v
CO%
"
5
e o
C°
E co
i a
.y? 1 a
L .^ k. LLJ
t`
C
.' z CD
v
N
>>N
> 0) z
? # a
F * w
' as t - ), O p
e, ?+
y!g a
C) z y•. ` _ crO
w F-
'At c ,:,R. .. 4 j 1a}.. Q= Q
t ?T/ ,,may A., n
.3 W r
" CN pRCF1AR? RD ° o U)
PEP 00
a =
J F
p Q Z
0
+
(D 0
w a
F Z °
r ?wa
q#? ' ? p°K
+ (r w
O p
of LL
wr IY F W
Q Z =
CD co Q
< W
w Z Lf) F a C) On W
Y
'R f
l Y F
Q m ; ?F r LL} p
W Z
? CL wOW° ° S Zpa
Z°LU ! + o a a W Z
° Y) m
woO° - G a o ., 5" wwaaf
az? $? $p o
w w
LIJ
Qa
(n?Jp "'.
C) r
Cl) (D
z?=U OO°
Lij w
z ? °o a?z
°z
a?o r ^ app
a
w
Iowa
wWZZ WP°
C:) 0
ce)
F- U)
OpOFLL cm)
CL H W m + ?' L 5d ,? ¢ ?xeA'. p Z W'
00
(If Ln E 0,
'o zo
u W< U)
Z q Z J W
a> m a U)
a m `` °+ E E o? a
Lr) C) CL
O
W, Q 0)
--ow CD ip W F C)
(3) Lu
=w°Y rnF ?c o m
t?`vt gx=' ,, N azp.
O m `` ° i zi ''' yet i ap Q O
w o LL a _ m F d ^ O p p p
W z v w a t f" z? 3, mi O 4a It 3: Li
rnOO n O ?OmOH
g co LL cn ` , ?-` '+!d 1 a p O w m
C) 0 LL,
LLI
Q C U o
0NUm + o -3 wOw<
. 4 + Nlatchline ?- W N g Z)
u'a O
LL
W Z
r _ m m _ m _ m m m m m m m mm m m _ I
On :1.9 a37103HO euilaeO ulJoN `Alunoo snaaegeo
jo}daOaalul ?aaao aa>{OW z
H4a VtZV-CO-LSE L w
lBNMHb4 ONlO3f02id dYW 'S'ft 3H1 :10 0 Ln
600Z-6--V 31da 10N=13 :31dos 3wws* LL
SH3JVM 3JVWIXOHddV
00
70
. AN d Mat t} O
$ t
t e U 00
- - r sr
Cc:
4. °
+ 0-4
' + vLO
A+ }k d „ -
Y
s
r` c a
0 0- co
gyp, ,
t p C
-0 -0
rr
t 2 a) a)
$#? f ^" .#, its (n
,
a
E
4. U C C
64 ",?# N
,ter Y c
Go- C)
L
t
41
C) _ r
.- !g gyp` "s? 4
w
y8 , - N U . ? l ? Z
` 1 t
F s•
b
!,;t
r y
r• L C %
?.
(D E
t y
SIR
* *fl
C) LLJ
is €. ,, ?`? a$'? ` 't`!, -:5„ i ,.t °°
+.
4 ?
"x U)
(9 0
LLI
x
a:
i > o
D
.a CEO
.i
C
it•? a ?.
s •
T. fit 0
,
77-
yy .Y
'N. CD cr
y` =ow
d"
Z O (q
^9 , t` Z
W (D W co w oz
OTA
Ozw? C? 1 , a n Q
z + 00 U) Z
C)
a . O Q
w O
Cy . S: 1 , e ° t w a
?wzv S
w W ¢ ??• ?t .,. aw.H ? A,. -, y,„ k- k-, a Q
U<wO
MZOO P s 1t' f t t r ?S gg 1 r , ' ? 1i " a a- z
o p_ J 44,
co C It (D
O.z
LL,
lhv S,;
p % AA a ', a z
s O
z Al
CY)
Co w U)
w 4-
oaeZw LL, <
'x
w a
C) LL V)
?uz?QZ O moo
0 , *m- ? w ,,0,-0- CD
CO U)
w 0-
C) z
F w 0 - +' + , `? r s t t.??"'R s f _. r •- e OU Q ,n
???> co wad
- s .?. =..
? Oaui
Jk; + Z 02
q ° A Q
opo N Pr '0 R
?OgLL LLI Pa.. U U a ' 114,•''`.00 {,i .t..M }.., .s F ,i OOH}
¢zv? 5 CL Co , i 6$$iii r I-w?lQ
w w n
U
w U
°zawm E? c`?a 2f? k ?UZ<
0 a
CD
E °„r ?. wz O ,
???Q
z = ?m E., ° i f2 Q wo
gomw0w-"` +" d? a? ?," e4 c^o oOwm
tL r' f at?hlin o
LL -4
a
w E
M ,? Na <
If 3
ui CO
CD W
w>QZ co + i3? U ?
zmom a LU Z
N
LL
:I ' F e ui
?wo
00
«,

8fl euiloaeO 4l ON `Alunoo snjaegeo
1 9 03Ji03H0 joldeojejul Naaj:D aa>{ow o
H4a V-VZ-V-CO-LSC L w Q
AU NMVbO ON 103rONd
3WIRSO ddW 'S'?l 3H1 JO 2
60OZ-6-b 31da OM _ „? 31VOS SU31VM 31VWIXOUddd LL
NS`s N
tt w _
V e
? -i ? sc$ tl? rely i " ?L } f x ?_ -?? m U b
Q Anxny i '+h a i' 1 ba " f Q L
h. 1 s. 1= Ma
tch line E n ' Y U) L
aEC Ain p 1 >
C,j
?A (D
(D (D C
-?6 76
r" p 1 m c o °' C O
° m ° x T a) E o C?
mo Y U
?? s' a?i E* c c a)
o
+ 4 d 1 , s x?t , ? SyMr [ 'f « TC? (J) LL d W (V
v CD i x fy- i r•,? lM?r $?^,? F. „x b z '° ' r li
y E . co Z
?+ ? ?.?' '?"> • N ? ? 111
,,_ _,? > °k ? a?'w aw` e?' tea, ,a" ? ? ? a •?.. ffi ,? ? ?{. l`" t co
CD CL,) L)
0 Cl CL CZ CU
44 P, X
' 4 k° x r" " ( , R+ e ? ` i Par - -
t +
-
i U m t3
_ {r g 4
N901111 A
> p Fn ( 5
} f $ } ?.t' x # 5:: ter a • v. 'tr.' ' fi , ' y •., >, >
x` s, A
C:l
p
' • ?'C s y` .Y _a?i ", '§ ,'!, 1' it \? F Y?' N C C
E E cl
•P
Y " %t
? -^ x sr
i
M .
{ O q • t Yf
pyyy p? +rc, x '? r??yy ,'qy?J , R b « . d m y > - • "t. y??q
"? )t3 it ¢ '` •.., It / _ - o. a *+ - # .gay
It,
fit' y?` P
a e •: A # r' k r f •? a 7? A r `p E
r t?^ `5s+g [
00
J : as ?
n
vY o a ?i + ' .t-''•^" y {`$ , 'ter (o C b? 'a
firt. ,
do
2} d° g y `1 ?iati I e,#., ; U I- * m t T
M?' . t j fJ
a
21
? t • ?f ! ? , ?i ?° .1 t ?"+ `.? 'VI`s ,,dr "[ '? ,'? 4? y : ?s?;' ? •'? ? }?. ? ?
p c? * } r t ?.t
yr
w
W
P.,« r ¢
° =
i q
u C)
All +
f t
M
" 3f ?? '1p 35' !.s.yr?r A. .+[ •, s x # - ? M ,' w O
V
S
r
s '
QZ
U
O
i
p13"t + to s, Ti T'• ?• t ir.^41^•^ xi? ?:y (if
(D 0 (D o
C: 'Al
L rya. + - r e -t Fr t H C7 W
p
m .r
}4 * tY N ? ?, I t tea " x: + j o LU
00 -J 0 W
w"
Y
co F Z
Z^..i-,+_',' ?. ,7"".. ,:as• R# ...{ 3€ `'qty } O
j i LL
T I
W ,o O
O Q
U` W
f
W F M
Dz. 4
croo. C)
w a
0- z
10
3 r , a z
%
m :Z:) CO
z co = U O ° i«n"x z' ..??y '` F,, :.%.' .>.b' 9 ?+•..r •. rwi ?O O
O i L = LL
gF !d
I- ) 1wr C) :5 o (r
U Z sx 1y.. *1R!T".. ,' Of LL O
W U
,
o?Zw m o t? t!' i. ,H g' st mow; N Fa
w ?
Y w .... „9 ?.. ,,
wW=z m v v CO m
co m c O LL m n
UUCP Q O w=o
?oj
oo?O
. « s, fit' o 'z?
O-wa U0 co (1)
O CO T
a 2 O £ m
AN, g o ai z
+ < "
"3 g J A Zaw
Z0 0 0 co
J
p?m?}LL O_ , 4• _ ''hj' 4 ?'. '?h'.* FUto
5 .'
co ¢ " O 41? t - - H m LL
O
i o 7 n LL w
w
ZXOP
a. z
C) 0
CO m CD
O w ?.. Q
N * ? + s 3 v7
CY) 00
W z U O j
¢> x3 0 U
U) Io
,tF'+ , ,.' ' ,l' O O F
Z J w fD
toO?> T ,"' " h ' w is O W0O O F
a
A j p !? O
z 71
m LL U r" 00 ,. ., CS W m
Cl 3#* g o a # ? W NaaW
wmo „ v eli .,o Q F
y
O ¢ O t to quit y?7e .? 0 z O? Q
Q A! w o w ?
z nUm !
te LL W `+? 2 O
is n^? J.? 'r W °o a o
z ° ''.. ..
O k 'S , .C'4 j O ?'N W Z
+

aP-1 :AU a3N03HO eugoJeZ) u)JoN `Alunoo snjjegeo \
aoldoojejul Neajo aa}{ow o
Haa ` tZt-£0-L5£ M W
l9 NMd2i4 ON 1O3f02id 3WWS41 d V W "s,n 3 H1 .4O
600Z-6-ti :31va '001 =J 3,dos SH31VM 31VWIXOUddd
(n O-
N ? III ?i :?::...:?.::.;., ,? ? ? O
j 6 0u1143lB O 7 O o
/?l ©? l i oo N N U O p U
'''' 1 1 L t
Q) F= o c)
p
j
1
1
J.q' 7 i b 1 1 N ZJ
t =. '1 1 1 .. w >s + m
U) >O U)
cu CU
0 0 -0 0- co
1?? 1 1 1 ~ Q N E a
IV -0
'pit L) -O ? N
q U ' F 1 1 s:.t ' d N Co (0
U) U)
a +.
rp aa) a) M
Y a E E o
1 E E 0- C:
!r
?! >
Z ?,1 // /r '• 1 ?
ih;
i J I L i t`e °
Jr
1.r'•:'.'•':'.'•'?; 1 i 1 f s F ' got
y , s
cc,
rE
1 $
I CD
x
ui
r z =
1+ ••
r
LL, Cl)
s
" I ..m:Y r r z z
J 1P7
p $•
I f ( : 1 T V j 1 a F
0 ir
/ t0
t+
1 ,?S
I
of U)
J; i J ''' •! ;1
r
s
y a
r ? ?'?? ? -. f^ 1 •y •? ? i` ?'Lt Jd. !?? J _ Ale ui a-
s f F C? W
s ''?` ?a .'•£ ,x 11T r !i `•`??r J {? Jam, .,, Z vJ <
t ,i ( JJ ! J " G? w
1A
< F
jig
+ CD
a* Jp J W ~ z
CL cf)
16 If
O W F M w}
Uu) \ \ 1fF co w
?7.1 zo +r. j 4 M?' \ \ OO¢
W O N W a
05WZ'o f? 3 0
r
w '
CL z
co OZ
a z
w z w a s .? ;t 1, ?A ?' a? Z
a) w LL
50 w ° v 1 \ m c?Ua 'a??r# fu ,? \ \ W c +,., a }
CL CL co a.
to <
m
W wxz .$+. .-. )>'r+ y - '? 1 ', e I,.:,. •, I c U)
3 w z i m aci t4? 1, L r m tl O LL = z
Of '-Fa w '. O c "w '. r ?? 1•' 11 , MQ o w
O WHO
OpFw LL am ?vz M n?o
-wa:?Tv an d d.F x 1: 1 z Of
O U S + -o F- d ?;.' 1 'or 1 O w O
FO- ,? ¢p O N N d` $,?,,. 9, ?' a` !' 1 •. •rr•L 1 1 p0 a co
U W .i. Q Q 1 4i*?4 , i 1 •," w a
W
p E m
12,
` s 'w, - e 1 x U)
'elk CL oo $ ce!. * ° 1 1 F ?z<
C) af LL
Fo
.7 y T ,: 1. L I
O w 77 of z LLI U) 30 -6
cli
W Zvw C) w a<
- „yr 1 1 W p
(n z
zJwm
UO7 a g> - , 'S..' rte?. " ? rt .i ` '?() f" 2- 1 L ! 0.'O m ~
p> A' bAr T 1 .. d 1 1 W Z F
g }> U x t i + J t{ k:`t + F I L/ Q O w
m'
co U) CN C) W ED
. ' • , 1 N ¢ of
.? y {.
Iw-?az a• e8 lld, r` a?, 6aulM31 eW OF ?
z of m . a? Matc z x c / A?} I 1 L, . 16 w O w
z " rte" r s ?`; 4 ?' t' # e1 it .:1• 'F,•:'',' r
LL ?
o
O
1 N W Z
C\l
! , W

¦

---- -- -----------

'f-f Lo 9-L

1 6 -
L
=
-

y

-
-- - -t

W
--

__ _ .__ ...._... ....

n

»= A
V . .

WSACC

WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY
OF CABARRUS COUNTY

CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG
- .....-- .._.... .._ UTILITY DEPARTMENT

ENGINEERING D
IVISION

CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA

_ .. ...-
- ... - -- - - -- - McKEE CREEK
--_. x,- -- -- -- INTERCEPTOR Gulujorm

--_-- ..... _ _-
TYPICAL WETLAND
SCALE
: INVOLVEMENT FIG.
1"
40
__. - = PROFILE 68

? ?. v i rl r r v v. r /
s7 ROP. M NHOL #ll?l?? 3
EUGENE A. DIVINE VE TED
)515-05-7372 SOLID LID &`S LED
RIM EL&. - 589.7 _--
_ _ (5' DIA. MH)
TEMPORARY STREAM STIR -5
RELATI ELY PERMANENT
CROSSING OPTION #2 WATER YEAR ROUND FL
E DETAIL SHEET 23
i
60'

R.S.O.Z. BUFFER
TOP OF BANK
= TBM #MK-23
SPIKE IN 24" GUM
ELEV. = 588.56
3 9
8 . 00 5 Z?? .
TBM #MK-22
; SP-.L E lN-8"--O K L 1 M C E C R
ELEV. = 587.35 ?? 50 \ \ K.
WSACC
WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY
OF CABARRUS COUNTY
STA. 92+68.19 CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG
PROP. MANHOLE K-22 UTILITY DEPARTMENT
ENGINEERING DIVISION
L-ID-LID & ?EMALED CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
RIM ELEV. `?89.4
(5' DIA. MH) McKEE CREEK
MAR[HtM
-m 7 INTERCEPTOR
Imm
SCALE: TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING FIG.
1"=40' (DURING CONSTRUCTION) 7A
PLAN VIEW
McKEE CREEK (6
?y???. INTERCEPTOR cttmui'r?
wom2w
SCALE: TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING FIG.
1"-40' (DURING CONSTRUCTION) 7B
PROFILE
NOTE: ALL NOTES, DIMENSION, AND
DETAILS ARE TYPICAL FOR BOTH
SIDES OF STREAM.
S? S??O
0t?,o? TOP OF BANK -
?O?p? BACKFILL TOP OF BANK
SECTION OF MATTING
v WITH MIN. 6" TOPSOIL
X-0"
NORTH AMERICAN -
GREEN BLANKET
C125BN OR EQUAL
STREAM LEVEL
6"
CV
`L-INSTALL ANCHORS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH NET
MANUFACTURER'S
SPECIFICATIONS.
ANCHORS SHALL BE
NORTH AMERICAN GREEN
WOODEN ECOSTAKE
(18") OR EQUAL.
STREAMBED
STREAM BANK STABILIZATION
KTIL
WSACC
WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY
OF CABARRUS COUNTY
CHARLOTTE-M ECKLENBU RG
UTILITY DEPARTMENT
ENGINEERING DIVISION
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
McKEE CREEK
INTERCEPTOR
woamr
SCALE:I STREAM BANK
N.T.S. STABILIZATION DETAIL
cads
FIG.
7C
S IM. 8+3 .13
?ROP.l MAN OL12
OLI LID & S LED'
IM LEV. 580.
(5' IA. H)
- 2" PIEDMONT NATURA' CAS STE
c?
0' IEDMONT MATURE} ?AS EAS
GAS MAIN
i
1 92
IRIS" CARO INE MARETT ALEXANDER.
FAMILY IMITED PARTNERSHIP
515-39-4446
G'/ f I
1 ` S407 0 33"W
OP OF
AN STREAM 2 /
1 RELATIVELY-PERMANENT
! 1 WATER SEASONAL FLOW l
o X /_
G
v- I X11 /
le,
\ O \/ ' / I HLAM S
ELATIVELY PERMANEN
WATER
( EAR ROUND FLOW
p? ----,?
r b` ?
oo,

_ S
?s
PIKE N 18" BIRCH sssb
ELEV. = 573.98i
/ PERMANENT 0 & II
WSACC
/"l \ STREAM CROSSING '
\ WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY
(NCDOT CLASS B OF CABARRUS COUNTY
RIP RAP - 3 FT. MIN CHARLOTTE- MECKLENBURG
ICKNESS OVER NCD? UTILITY DEPARTMENT
TY 2 ENGINEERING FAB 4C)
` ENGINEERING DIVISION
-? CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA

McKEE CREEK
INTERCEPTOR

PERMANENT 0 & M
FOSS M?.--,AN-N-ABtE--&'"
TOP,-o- F BANK SCALE:
"
' STREAM CROSSING FIG.
_ CFlELLE_M..--AN-NABtE- 1
=40 STREAM 3 8A
PLAN VIEW

5
f IV
-
4 -

i

.. a - a row, nom:. ema ...u? . ? aeuwr nu

x

( ?
4 -

- - ,. ? E
Fi-f-- t- L1G-
quo-:
_ -_ _ i.. -
- -
a- N EDO T

K' Rf
-
--- ME -m*
-
N1

t

ER

-- - - - -

- - -
---------

- WSACC

---
- -
--
--
--
_--_---------
-_.._
...- WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY
OF CABARRUS COUNTY
- - CHARLOTTE-M ECKLENBURG
_.............
UTILITY DEPARTMENT
- -- --- - -- ENGINEERING DIVISION
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
K
-- - - McKEE CREE
-_ _......_.... ..._..-....._._. ...
INTERCEPTOR
aLnfu?r?°>?
liffm
- ... _ _ ...__._ _ woo[?r .

- PERMANENT 0 & M
- -" --- - SCALE:
STREAM CROSSING
FIG.
1"=40' STREAM 3 8B
PROFILE
\., S?k'
\94`-1/'
/91\7 OF'.',--MANHOLE- -23 EUGENE A. DIVINE VENT 'IQ EXIST. 60' PER AN T
515-05-7372 SOLID L!-D' SEALED,-, _ EASEM NT
RIM EL V. 589.7.__
_ (5' DIA. ktf)
PERMANENT 0 & M STREAM-5
STREAM CROSSING RELATIVE PERMANENT 19
(NCDOT CLASS B WATER Y ROUND FLOW
GINEERI?- 3FT.MIN. HIKNESS OVER
r 7-,-U,CDOT'-'TYP-E--
RIC)
R.S.O.Z. BUFFER
TOP OF BANK TBM K-23
SPIKE IN 24'0 GUM
ELEV. = 588.56
8?• °° 53?Z?19 -
_ TBM #MK-22 1 ? M
C E C ?Ep K.
--- ELEV. = 587.35
WSACC
WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY
OF CABARRUS COUNTY
STA. 92+68.19 CHARLOTTE- MECKLENBURG
PROP. MANHOLE MK-22 UTILITY DEPARTMENT
ENGINEERING DIVISION
$OLl©??lD & SEALED CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA
RIM ELEV. -- 9.4
(5' DIA. MH) McKEE CREEK
INTERCEPTOR CHABLOn°FF-
PERMANENT 0 & M
SCALE: STREAM CROSSING FIG.
1 "=40' STREAM 5 8C
?? PLAN VIEW

--
F _ Lf.

T

n _

J

u

7--G ?GL IND
....
- - - - - -- - ---- - - -- ------------

-
- N?

._ _

-- -- - -- -----

r, T W-

..... - -- =- - -- __
WSACC
-- -` WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY
OF CABARRUS COUNTY
__ ...... _ - _
-
- - CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG

.
...
ty _
_

-- - - ----------
?_

TILITY DEPARTMENT

• ENGINEERING DIVISION

.- CHARLOTTE NORTH CAROLINA
.
K
McKEE CREE
....._.__ _ .. ........... __." INTERCEPTOR CUAMffr F-
.__. ....... _..
1Yommu

_...... . .. -
PERMANENT 0 & M
SCALE: STREAM CROSSING FIG.
__ 1 »=40' STREAM 5 SD
PROFILE
U1 V U11'1 I CN UlUr1L1 1 1 I- dX • !If 1JJUJ f INU V l f UO y • lU
r. VL
s'?9Wta
North Carolina
D,-"artment of Administration
Michael F. Easley, Governor Britt Cobb, Secretary
November 15, 2006
Ms. Hannah Stallings
NCAENR, Water Quality Division
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
' Dear Ms. Stallings:
Re: _.._SCH File # 07-E-4300-0109; EA/FONSI; Charlotte :Meeklei
Sewer Project to Collect & Convey Reedy Creek Basin IX1a,
& Eliminate Small Private Facilities & Minimize Overflows
I
1
ii
Utilities - Reedy/McKee Creels
................ .
er to a Sing
le
Retrinnat Fae;lit?r
The above referenced environmental impact information has been reviewed through the State
Clearinghouse under the provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies in the course of this review. Because of the
nature of the comments, it has been determined that no further State Clearinghouse review action on
your part is needed for compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act. The attached
comments should be taken into consideration in project development.
Best regards.
Attachments
cc: Region F
Sincerely,
-&ff
gto
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
1NaXh8Ad&%ess: Telephone [phone]
1301 Mall Sovim Center Fax [phone]
Rateigk NC 27699-1301 State Courier 1151-01-00
e-mall [e-mail]
An Egua1 Opportunity/.lff.-mative Action Employer
Locadon Adiftas.
116 West JoneS Strecr
Raleigh. North Carolina
IJIV WHILK WUHLIIY rdX:ylyf155bJf NOV 1f 'Ub J:1U I'.UJ
i
O? Michael F. 8sslcy, Goy=m
Wil3iem G. Ross Jr., secretary
I- Nortlt Carolina Depamnt nt of Environment acrd Nitro nI Amour=
' Alan W Klimek, P. E.13irwor
Q Y Division of Water Quality
September 27, 2006
' To: ChrYs Baggett, State Clearinghouse
From: Hannah Stallings, NCDENX2/Division of Water Quality JGI
Subject: EAIFONSI: CMUD - Reedy/McKee Creeks Interceptor Project
' DENR#1264, DWQ#13377
The-Division-of-Water Quality-is-submitting-for- State -..Clearinghouse rey*ew_the enclosed six
_
...........
copies of the Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for the subject
project,
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has reviewed the EA.. Please publish
this project in the Environmental Bulletin and circulate the environmental documents as
appropriate.
Contact me at 919.733.5083 ext. 555 if you have any questions.
Thank You
N. C. Avision of Water Quality 1617 Mail SeMce Ccntcr Raleigh, North Crsollns 27699-1617 [phone]
Customer Stivicc
1.877-623-6748
' VIV WHILK WUHL11T rdX yly(1JJOJf NUV I( UO 7.1U r.V4
FOR LEAD STATE AGENCY USE ONLY

' C'onchislon Statement (Must be completed and signed by responsible state agency and submitted Wirh
the EA document to thg State Clearinghouse)
Select the pxopriate statement below:
After preparation/review of this LA,, the responsible state agency has concluded there is a Finding afNo
Sign ificantImpact (FONSI) and wi11 not be preparing an En vironm enta I Impact Statement (EIS). (Attach any..
additional information regarding this conclusion that you decor important to Us ftx?ding.)
The agency has completed this EA and is hereby submitting it for review and comment. After a
consideration of the comments received, the agency will proceed with a FONSI or prepare an EIS
.....r
Signed A J?A -Dt=? alC Agepcy
y
1

H.
a i1 I
- .., s 4x3.' ? f
E Photo 1: Facing north in Wetland A (10-21-08).
?s
147 7

9A

Photo 4: Facing downstream of Stream 2 (10-21-08).

01

1 4?

Photo 5: Emergent portion of Wetland D (10-28-08). Photo 6: Forested portion of Wetland D (10-28-08).
Taken by: SLK/LJB SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Checked by: LJB McKee Creek Interceptor
-
Cabarrus County, North Carolina
ME
Date: October 2008 Project No.: 1357-03-424A Photo Page 1

f
'? 't
i
4 a+? r
' d
'•
K
4
f
?
a
Y
I-V

Photo 8: Facing north at Wetland E (10-28-08)
M
e ? t r
res+f? "ter a: , , qe
00
.. k
Photo 11: Facing southeast in Wetland H (10-28-08)
Taken by: SLK/LJB
Checked by: LJB
Date: October 2008

N Y

.K,k ?. '. Ft ne7 f3'?•?'
a
}}yy, F ,y

Photo 12: Facing abandoned stormwater pond adjacent to
Wetland H (10-28-08).
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
ME McKee Creek Interceptor
Cabarrus County, North Carolina
Project No.: 1357-03-424A Photo Page 2
Photo 7: Facing upstream along Stream 4 (10-28-08).
Photo 9: Facing east in Wetland F (10-28-08).
Photo 10: Facing northeast in Wetland G (10-28-08).
1

0

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 USACE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project Site: McKee Creek Interceptor Date: 10/21/2008
Applicant/Owner: CMU County: Cabarrus
Investigator: S&ME (L. Beckstrom) State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes® No[-] Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes® No? Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes? Nog
(if needed, explain on reverse) Plot ID: A
Lat:35.28377°N Lon: 80.63038°W
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
I Juncus e, fusus H FACW+ 9.
2. Scirrtus validus y BL 10.
3 Polyeonum punctatum H FACW+ 11.
4. Ranuculus sp. H 12.
5. Rubus sn. H 13.
6• Mentha Xninerita H FA W 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: (except FAC-): 3 / 3 - 100
Remarks:Hydrophytic vegetation is dominant.
HYDROLOGY
? Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
? Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
? Aerial Photograph
E- Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
PRIMARY
? Inundated
® Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
? Water Marks
? Drift Lines
Field Observations: ? Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) SECONDARY
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 6 (in.) ? Water-Stained Leaves
? Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: I (in.) ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Wetland hydrology is evident.
r
I so,Ls
i
i
i
Map Unit Name Chewacla sandy loam, frequently flooded Drainage Class: Somewhat poorly
Series and Phase): drained
Field Observations ?
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) Texture. Concretions.
Inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) and Abundance / Contrast Rhizospheres, etc.
0-12+ Al IOYR 4/1 2.5YR 4/6 many/distinct clay
Hydric Soil Indicators:
? Histosol ? Concretions
? Histic Epipedon ? High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
? Sulfidic Odor ? Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
? Aquic Moisture Regime ? Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
? Reducing Conditions ? Listed on National Hydric Soils List
® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Soil is hydric.
WETLAND DETERMINATION

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes® No? Wetland Hydrology Present? YesO No[-]
Hydric Soils Present? Yes[ No? Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes® No?
Remarks: Data point is located within an emergent wetland.

1

1

1

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 USACE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project Site: McKee Creek Interceptor Date: 10/21/2008
Applicant/Owner: CMU County: Cabarrus
Investigator: S&ME (L. Beckstrom) State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? YesM No? Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes? No X? Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes? No®
(if needed, explain on reverse) Plot ID: C
Lat:35.28047°N Lon: 80.63178°W
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
I • Cornus amomum S/S FACW+ 9. Salix niera S/S OBL
2. Alisma subcordatum H L 10.
3. Acer nenundo S/S FACW 11.
4. - Fraxinus pennsylvanica S/S FACW 12.
5. Carex sty. H 13.
6. _ Juncus effusus H FACW+ 14.
7• Rosa nalustris H BL 15.
g• _Sambucus canadensis S/S FACW- 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: (except FAC-): 8 / 8 = 100
Remarks:Hydrophytic vegetation is dominant.
HYDROLOGY
? Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
? Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
? Aerial Photograph
? Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
PRIMARY
® Inundated
® Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
? Water Marks
El Drift Lines
Field Observations: ? Sediment Deposits
? Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 2 (in.) SECONDARY
? Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0 (in.) ? Water-Stained Leaves
? Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: n (in.) ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Wetland hydrology is evident.

1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
SOILS
Map Unit Name Chewacla sandy loam, frequently flooded Drainage Class: Somewhat poorly
Series and Phase): drained
Field Observations ? ?
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) Texture. Concretions.
Inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) and Abundance / Contrast Rhizospheres. etc.
0-3 A G1 3/10Y none sand loam
3-12+ B GI 4/10Y 5YR 4/6 uncommon, distinct sand loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
? Histosol ® Concretions
? Histic Epipedon ? High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
® Sulfidic Odor ? Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
? Aquic Moisture Regime ? Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
? Reducing Conditions ? Listed on National Hydric Soils L ist
® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Hydric soils are present.
I WETLAND DETERMINATION
r
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes? No® Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes[:] No?X
Hydric Soils Present? Yes? No® Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes® No?
Remarks: Data point is located in a wetland. Data point was taken in a powerline right-of-way.
1

L

1
1

1
1
1

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 USACE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project Site: McKee Creek Interceptor Date: 10/28/2008
Applicant/Owner: CMU County: Cabarrus
Investigator: S&ME (L. Beckstrom) State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes® No[] Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes® No? Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes? No®
(if needed, explain on reverse) Plot ID: D
Lat:35.27092°N Lon: 80.6375°W
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 • Carex sp. H -- 9.
2. Arundinaria gigantea H FA W 10.
3• Acer rubrum T FAC 11.
4• Ludwipia alternijolia H OBL 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: (except FAC-): 3 / 3 = 100
Remarks:Hydrophytic vegetation is dominant.
HYDROLOGY
? Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
? Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
? Aerial Photograph
? Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
PRIMARY
? Inundated
® Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
? Water Marks
® Drift Lines
Field Observations: ? Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.) SECONDARY
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) ] Water-Stained Leaves
? Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: t (in.) ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Wetland hydrology is evident.
I so,Ls
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Map Unit Name Chewacla sandy loam, frequently flooded Drainage Class: Somewhat poorly
Series and Phase): drained
Field Observations ? ?
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystru depts Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) Texture. Concretions.
Inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) and Abundance / Contrast Rhizosoheres, etc.
0-6 Al 2.5Y 6/1 2.5YR 4/6 common/distinct clay
6-12+ B1 2.5Y 6/2 2.5YR 4/6 many/distinct clay
Hydric Soil Indicators:
? Histosol ? Concretions
? Histic Epipedon ? High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
? Sulfidic Odor ? Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
? Aquic Moisture Regime ? Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
? Reducing Conditions ? Listed on National Hydric Soils List
® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Soil is hydric.
WETLAND DETERMINATION

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes® No? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes?X No?
Hydric Soils Present? Yes[ No? Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes® No[:]
Remarks: Adjacent to newly construct sewer. Data point taken in emergent portion of wetland.

1
11

1
1

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 USACE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project Site: McKee Creek Interceptor Date: 10/28/2008
Applicant/Owner: CMU County: Cabarrus
Investigator: S&ME (L. Beckstrom) State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes® No? Community ID: Upland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes? No X? Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes? NoM
(if needed, explain on reverse) Plot ID: D
Lat:35.27099°N Lon: 80.63759°W
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
I. Ar n 'n ria 0rantea H FACW 9.
2. Carninus caroliniana T FA 10.
3• Platanus occidentalis T FA W- 11.
4• Lonicera ianonica H FAC- 12.
5. Acer rubrum T FAC 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: (except FAC-): 4 / 5 = 80
Remarks:Hydrophytic vegetation is dominant.
HYDROLOGY
? Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
? Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
? Aerial Photograph
? Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
PRIMARY
? Inundated
? Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
? Water Marks
? Drift Lines
Field Observations: ? Sediment Deposits
? Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) SECONDARY
? Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 12+ (in.) ? Water-Stained Leaves
? Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 19+ (in.) ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Wetland hydrology is absent.

Il

1
1
1
1
WETLAND DETERMINATION

SOILS
Map Unit Name Enon sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Drainage Class: Well drained
Series and Phase):
Field Observations ?
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Ultic Hapludalfs Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) Texture. Concretions.
Inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) and Abundance / Contrast Rhizospheres, etc.
0-12+ Al 7.5Y 4/4 none clay
Hydric Soil Indicators:
? Histosol ? Concretions
? Histic Epipedon ? High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
? Sulfidic Odor ? Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
? Aquic Moisture Regime ? Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
? Reducing Conditions ? Listed on National Hydric Soils List
? Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Soil is not hydric.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes? NOR] Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present? Yes? NON Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland?
Remarks: Data point is not located in a wetland.
Yes? No[S]
Yes? No[S]

1
f
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 USACE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project Site: McKee Creek Interceptor Date: 10/28/2008
Applicant/Owner: CMU County: Cabarrus
Investigator: S&ME (L. Beckstrom) State: NC

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes? No® Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes® No? Transect ID:
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes[:] No®
(if needed, explain on reverse) Plot ID: E
Lat:35.26703°N Lon: 80.63892°W
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
I • Ranuculus sv. H 9.
2. g 10.
3• Sagittaria sp. H 11.
4• Rosa W. H 12.
5. Salix ninra S/S OBL 13-
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC: (except FAC-): 1 / 1 = 100
Remarks:Hydrophytic vegetation is dominant.
HYDROLOGY

? Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
? Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
? Aerial Photograph
? Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
PRIMARY
? Inundated
® Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
? Water Marks
? Drift Lines
Field Observations: ? Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) SECONDARY
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: g (in.) [? Water-Stained Leaves
? Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 6 (in.) ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Adjacent to ponded area. Wetland hydrology is present.

1
1
1
1
1
SOILS
I WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes? No® Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes? No[S]
Hydric Soils Present? Yes? No® Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes® No?
Remarks: Data point is located in a wetland. In an agricultural field.
Map Unit Name Chewacla sandy loam, frequently flooded Drainage Class: Somewhat poorly
Series and Phase): drained
Field Observations ? ?
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors (Munsell Moistl Texture. Concretions.
Inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) and Abundance / Contrast Rhizosnheres, etc.
0-5 Ag 10YR 4/1 10YR 5/6 many, distinct loam
5-9 B 10YR 4/2 10YR 5/6 many, distinct sand loam
9-12+ B2 IOYR 5/4 5YR 2/1 few, indistinct sand
Hydric Soil Indicators:
? Histosol ? Concretions
? Histic Epipedon ? High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
? Sulfidic Odor ® Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
? Aquic Moisture Regime ? Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions ? Listed on National Hydric Soils L ist
® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ? Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: Redox dark surface. Soils are hydric.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 10/21/2008 Project McKee Creek Interceptor Latitude: 35.28076N
Evaluator: S&ME (Suzanne Knudsen) Site: Stream 1 Longitude: 80.63181W
Total Points 22
Stream is at least intermittent
ifs 19 or perennial if Z 30 County: Cabarrus Other

e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 7 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1 a. Continuous bed and bank 3
2. Sinuosity
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0
Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0
Active/relic oo p aln 2
Depositional bars or benches 0
Braided channel 0
Recent alluvial deposits 0
a. Natural levees 0
10. Head cuts 0
11. Grade controls 0
12. Natural valley or drainageway
13. Second or greater order on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
a. man-made ancnes are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 8.5 )
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 2
16. Leaflitter 1
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0.5
18. Organic debris lines or pies (Wrack lines) 0.5
19. y ric soi s (recloximorphic features) present? Yes 1.5
C. Bloloav (Subtotal = R S )
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3
21 b. Rooted plants in channel 3
22. Crayfish 0
23. Bivalves 0
24. Fish 0
25. Amphibians 0
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0
28. Iron bacteria/fun us 0
29b. Wetland plants in streambed None = 0
«1110 - 011U ? I IVUu, vn UIC pICSCrICC ul uptanu plants. Item za focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes)
In Duke Powerline Easement. Thick veg. RPW seasonal
flow, aquatically important.
Sketch:
1
1
1
1
t
t
1
t
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 10/21/2008 Project McKee Creek Interceptor Latitude: 35-27567N
Evaluator: S&ME (Suzanne Knudsen) Site: Stream 2 Longitude: 80.63458W
Total Points
Stream is at least intermittent 29.5
if a 19 or perennial if;! 30 County:Cabarrus Other

e. g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= 14 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1 a. Continuous bed and bank 3
2. Sinuosity
- 2
-in-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence
3 2
Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
Active/relic oo p aln 2
Depositional bars or benches
Braided channel 0
Recent alluvial deposits 2
a. Natural levees 0
10. Head cuts 0
11. Grade controls 0
12. Natural valley or drainageway
13. econ or greater or er on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
a. man-mane ancnes are not rates; see aiscusslons in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 10 )
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 3
16. Leaflitter
17. Sediment on plants or debris
18. Organic debris Ines or piles (Wrack Ines 0.5
19. y ric soliS re oxlmorp IC ea ureS present? Yes = 1.5
C. Bloloav (Subtotal = R S
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 2
21b. Rooted plants in channel 3
22. Crayfish 0
23. Bivalves 0
24. Fish 0
25. Amphibians 0
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0
28. Iron bacteria/fun us 0
29b. Wetland plants in streambed None = 0
Oily I iucus v„ Ulu presence al uplano plants. Item za focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes)
Sketch:
1
1
1
1

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 10/28/2008 Project McKee Creek Interceptor Latitude: 35.2685N
Evaluator: S&ME (Suzanne Knudsen) Site: Stream 4 Longitude: 80.63856'N
Total Points 25
Stream is at least intermittent
if z 19 or perennial if z 30 County: Cabarrus Other

e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 15 ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1a. Continuous bed and bank 3
2. Sinuosity 2
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 2
Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 2
Active/relic oo pain
Depositional bars or benches
Braided channel 0
Recent alluvial deposits 2
a. Natural levees 0
10. Head cuts 0
11. Grade controls 1
12. Natural valley or drainageway 1
13. econ or greater order on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No= o
a. man-mane ancnes are not rates; see alscusslons in manual
B. Wdroloov (Subtotal = 4 )
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0
15. Water in channel and > 48 hours since rain or
Water in channel -- dry or growing season 0
16. Leaflitter 1
17. Sediment on plants or debris 1
18. Organic debris lines or pies (Wrack lines) 0.5
y nc soils re oximorp is ea ures presen . Yes = 1.5
C. Bloloav (Subtotal = R )
20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3
21 b. Rooted plants in channel 3
22. Cra ish o
23. Bivalves 0
24. Fish 0
25. Amphibians 0
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0
28. Iron bacteria/fun us o
29b. Wetland plants in streambed None = 0
v. nCrrrs /v dnu c i iocus on me presence of uplana plants. Item za focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes) Sketch:
Intermittent, unimportant stream seasonal RPW.

USACOE Aid #
[?1
Provide the fo
DWQ # Site #
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
information for the stream reach under assessment:
(indicate on attached
_AQV
1. Applicant's name: CMU 2. Evaluator's name: S&ME (Suzanne Knudsen)
3. Date of Evaluation: 10/21/2008 4. Time of Evaluation: 10:00
5. Name of stream: Stream 1 6. River basin: Rocky
7. Approximate drainage area: 52 acres 8. Stream order: 1
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 feet 10. County: Cabarrus
11.Site coordinate(if known): prefer in decimal degrees 11. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. - 34.872312) 35.280769 Longitude (ex. - 77.55661) 80.63181'W
Method location determined ? GPS ? Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial Photo/GIS) Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note the nearby roads and landmarks and attach a map identifying stream's location):
Duke Powerline Easement.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): Utility Crossing
15. Recent weather conditions: sunny cool
16. Site conditions at time of visit: sunny cool
17.Identify any special waterway classification known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation reach? NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does the channel appear on a USGS quad map? YES 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey: Yes
0 % Residential 0 % Commercial 0 % Industrial 0 % Agricultural
21. Estimated watershed land use: 60 % Forested 40 % Cleared/Logged 0 % Other
22. Bankfull width: 1 23. Bankfull height (from bed to top of bank): 1
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0-2%) X Gentle (2-4%) Moderate (4-10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight X Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instruction for completion of worksheet (located on page 2):
Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the
same ecoregion. Assign points to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under
review (e.g., the stream flows from the pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to
evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 49 Comments: In Duke Powerline Easement. Thick veg. RPW seasonal flow,
aquatically important.
Evaluators Signature: Date: 10/21/2008
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering
the data required by the United States Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score
resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or requirement.
Form subject to change - version 06/03. To comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26
1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
w
# C
AR
CTERISTICS ECORE GION POINT RANGE
H
A SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain

1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
1
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)

3 Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
3
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 04 0-4 4
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
.?
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4 2
V no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
04
04
0-2
3
y, no flood lain= 0; extensive flood lain = max oints
a Entrenchment / floodplain access 0.5 0-4 0-2 3
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 04 0-2 2
no wetlands = 0; large ad
acent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 04 0-3 2
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input
extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points) 0-5 04 0-4 2
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate *

fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points) NA 04 0-5 0
1 Z Evidence of channel incision or widening

?
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
13 Presence of major bank failures
a
(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max oints 0-5 0-5 0-5 4
14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
04
0-5
3
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production

substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points) 0
-5
0 4
0-5 1
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes

(no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points) 0-3 0-5 0-6 1
1 Habitat complexity
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points) 0-6 0-6 0-6 3

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5 5
x 19 Substrate embeddedness *

(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure= max NA 0 4 0-4 3
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)

no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) 04 0-5 0-5 1
>? 21 Presence of amphibians

(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) 04 011 0-4 0

4 22 Presence of fish
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
04
04
04
0
23 Evidence of wildlife use

no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points) 0-6 _0-5 0-5 1
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 49
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams
2
' USACOE Aid # DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
y -AW
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: CMU
3
Date of Evaluation: 10121/2008 2. Evaluator's name: SBME (Suzanne Knudsen)
4
Ti
f E
l
ti
01
23
55
. .
me o
va
ua
:
on:
:
pm
5. Name of stream: Stream 2 6. River basin: Rocky
' 7. Approximate drainage area: LINK 8. Stream order: 1
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 feet 10. County: Cabarrus
11.Site coordinate(if known): prefer in decimal degrees 11. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. - 34.872312) 35.2756771 Longitude (ex. - 77.55661) 80.63458W
Method location determined ? GPS ? Topo Sheet ? Ortho (Aerial Photo/GIS) ? Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note the nearby roads and lan dmarks and attach a map identifying stream's location):
Adjacent to McKee Creek.

14. Proposed channel work (if any): utility
15. Recent weather conditions: sunny cool
16. Site conditions at time of visit: sunny cool
17.Identify any special waterway classification known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation reach? NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does the channel appear on a USGS quad map? NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey: No
0 % Residential 0 % Commercial 0 % Industrial 0 % Agricultural
' 21. Estimated watershed land use: 90 % Forested 10 % Cleared/Logged 0 % Other
22. Bankfull width: 3-4 23. Bankfull height (from bed to top of bank): 1
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0-2%) Gentle (24%) X Moderate (4-10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends X Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instruction for completion of worksheet (located on page 2):
Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the
same ecoregion. Assign points to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under
review (e.g., the stream flows from the pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to
evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 61 Comments:
I J. "at__
Evaluators Signature: Date: 10/21/2008
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering
the data required by the United States Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score
resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or requirement.
Form subject to change - version 06/03. To comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26
1

1
11
1
1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTICS ECORE GION POINT RANGE
SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain

1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
0 4
0-5
3
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)

2 Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5
3
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max oints

3 Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
4
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges 0-5 04 0-4 3
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)

5 Groundwater discharge
0-3
04
04
3
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. =max points)

6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
04
0-2
2
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
a Entrenchment / floodplain access

(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points) 0
-5
0-4
0-2
4
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 04 0-2 0
no wetlands = 0; large ad
acent wetlands = max points)
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 04 0-3 3
extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 04 0-4 3
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate *

fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points) NA 04 0-5 2
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening

?
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-5 3
13 Presence of major bank failures

(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks= max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5 4
14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
04
0-5
3
no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production

substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points) 0

-5

0-4

0-5
3
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes

(no riffles/riles or pools = 0; well-developed = max points) 0-3 0-5 0-6 3
17 Habitat complexity
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points) 0-6 0-6 0-6 3

18 Canopy coverage over streambed

(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5 4
I9° Substrate embeddedness *

deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max NA 0-4 0-4 3
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)

no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) 04 0-5 0-5 2
2L Presence of amphibians

(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) 04 0 0-4 0
G
04 22 Presence of fish
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
04
04
04
0
pq 23 Evidence of wildlife use
no evidence = 0; abundant' evidence = max points) 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 61
*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams
USACOE Aid # DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
?STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
tr:.9 _AW
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: CMU 2. Evaluator's name: SBME (Suzanne Knudsen)
3. Date of Evaluation: 10/28/2008 4. Time of Evaluation: 1 0:03:59am
5. Name of stream: Stream 4 6. River basin: Rocky
' 7. Approximate drainage area: 67 acres 8. Stream order: 1
9. Length of reach evaluated: 100 feet 10. County: Cabarrus
' 11.Site coordinate(if known): prefer in decimal degrees 11. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. - 34.872312) 35.268541 Longitude (ex. - 77.55661) 80.63856W
Method location determined ? GPS ? Topo Sheet ? Ortho (Aerial Photo/GIS) ? Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note the nearby roads and landmarks and attach a map identifying stream's location):
Devine property.
14. Proposed channel work (if any): utility crossing
15. Recent weather conditions: sunny mild
16. Site conditions at time of visit: sunny, cold, breezy
17.Identify any special waterway classification known: Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation reach? NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does the channel appear on a USGS quad map? NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey: Yes
0 % Residential 0 % Commercial 0 % Industrial 40 % Agricultural
21. Estimated watershed land use: 20 % Forested 40 % Cleared/Logged 0 % Other
22. Bankfull width: 4 23. Bankfull height (from bed to top of bank): 4
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0-2%) Gentle (2-4%) X Moderate (4-10%) Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight X Occasional bends Frequent meander Very sinuous Braided channel
Instruction for completion of worksheet (located on page 2):
Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the
same ecoregion. Assign points to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the characteristics
identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or
weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under
review (e.g., the stream flows from the pasture into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to
evaluate each reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the highest quality.
' Total Score (from reverse): 41 Comments: Intermittent, unimportant stream seasonal RPW.
Eval Q( ,,L_ "4t I -
' uators Signature: ?? J. Date: 10/28/2008
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in gathering
the data required by the United States Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream quality. The total score
resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a particular mitigation ratio or requirement.
' Form subject to change - version 06/03. To comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26
1
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

t

r

t

*These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams
ECORE GION POINT RANGE
# CHARACTERIS
ICS
T SCORE
Coastal Piedmont Mountain`
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 04 0-5 0
no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow = max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5 2
extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points)

3 Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5
2
no buffer = 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
,.a
5 Groundwater discharge
0-3
04
04
1
U no discharge =0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc. = max points)

6 Presence' of adjacent floodplain
04
04
0-2
1
no flood lain = 0; extensive flood lain = max points)
a Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
04
0-2
2
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 04 0
-2 0
no wetlands = 0; large ad
acent wetlands = max points)

9 Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
2
(extensive channelization = 0; natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 04 0-4 2
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)

11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
N
fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points) A 0-4 0-5 3
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening

>4
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points) 0-5 04 0-5 2
" 13 Presence of major bank failures

(severe erosion = 0; no erosion, stable banks = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5 3
14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
04
0-5
3
H no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points)
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production

substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points) 0-5 04 0-5 2
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes -

(no riffles/riles or pools = 0; well-developed = max points) 0-3 0
5 0-6 3
E* 17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6 2
little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats = max points)

8 Canopy coverage; over streambed

0 1
no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canopy = max points) 0-5 0-5 0-5 3
19 Substrate embeddedness *

(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max NA 04 04 3
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)

no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) 04 0-5 0-5 0
21 Presence of amphibians

no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) 04 04 0-4 0
22 Presence of fish
no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points) 0? 0-4 0-4 0
pq 23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5 3
no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) 41
2
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
June 3, 2005
Ms. Catherine McRae
Ms. Lisa J. Beckstrom
S&ME, Inc.
9751 Southern Pine Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28273-5560
Dear Ms. McRae and Ms. Beckstrom:
' Subject: Reedy and McKee Creeks Interceptor Project, Mecklenburg and Cabamis Counties,
North Carolina (S&ME Project No. 1357-03-424)
The following comments are based on a review of an Environmental Assessment dated
February 26, 2004, and your response letter of April 28, 2005. These comments are provided in
accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 661667e), and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
' (16 U.S.C. 15311543) (Act).
Project Description -- According to the information provided, Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities
Department and the Water and Sewer Authority of Cabamas County (WSACC) are proposing to
install a gravity sewer interceptor to serve the Reedy Creek and McKee Creek subbasin areas.
The project will consist of the installation of approximately 122,000 linear feet N of sewer
lines, the elimination of two existing pump stations and aerial sewer lines, the installation of
800 If of force main, and the construction of a pump station.
Federally Listed Species - After a review of the information you provided, we concur with your
determination that no listed species or their habitats occur on the site and that the proposed
project will not affect endangered or threatened species or their habitats. Therefore, we believe
the requirements under section 7 of the Act are fulfilled. However, obligationihnder section 7
of the Act must be reconsidered if. (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action
that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this
action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new
species is listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the identified action.

According to your response letter, the Carolina creekshell (Villosa vaughaniana) was found in
sections of Lower Reedy Creek and at the confluence of Caldwell Creek and Lower Reedy Creek
in Cabarrus County during a mussel survey conducted by The Catena Group. The Carolina
' creekshell is listed as a federal species of concern and is listed as endangered by the State of
North Carolina. Federal species of concern are not legally protected under the Act and are not
' subject to any of its provisions, including section 7, unless they are formally proposed or listed as
endangered or threatened. Although there is no formal legal protection for federal species of
concern, measures taken to protect and conserve them may help to preclude the need to list these
' species. Therefore, we ask that all necessary measures be taken to prevent harm to the Carolina
creekshell. In areas where the Carolina creekshell was found, we recommend developing an
alternative that does not impact the mussels or their habitat, such as directional boring. If
' impacts to mussels cannot be avoided we recommend developing a relocation and monitoring
plan that consists of finding a suitable relocation site, tagging the mussels, handling and
transporting individuals, and monitoring survivability once a year for 2 to 3 years. If mussels are
' discovered and relocated, we would assist with the development of relocation and monitoring
plans and would want to approve the final plan. We recommend that you contact the North
Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission to obtain additional assistance in developing a
' relocation plan.
Fish and Wildlife Resources - On page 5 of your response letter states that "While the project
' team acknowledges the concerns of the USFWS regarding cumulative. and secondary impacts
(CSI), please note that it is beyond the scope of this project to fully address CSI issues." We
believe it is the responsibility of the federal agency or their nonfederal representative to address
' the indirect and cumulative impacts associated with an action that is funded, permitted, or
implemented by a federal agency. The National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) directs
federal agencies to examine the consequences of their proposed or permitted activities in an
overall goal to protect and enhance the human environment. NEPA (40 CFR 1508.9) requires an
evaluation of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of an action. When impacts from
development are deemed adverse to fish and wildlife resources, it is appropriate for the U.S. Fish
' and Wildlife Service to recommend measures to minimise those impacts pursuant to the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act and NEPA. We acknowledge that S&ME and Mecklenburg and
Cabarrus Counties have provided documentation of current land-use ordinances for the counties
' aimed at protecting fish and wildlife resources; however, as stated in our April 7, 2004, letter, we
do not believe the existing ordinances will adequately protect the aquatic ecosystem or
' compensate for impacts associated with this project. We remain concerned about the direct,
indirect, and cumulative impacts associated with the project. To adequately protect the aquatic
resources within the project area and to mitigate for secondary and cumulative impacts
' associated with the proposed project, we offer the following recommendations:
1. Forested Riparian Buffers - The installation of over 121,0001f of sewer line
' will most certainly facilitate growth and increase the density of development
and impervious surfaces within the Reedy Creek and McKee Creek basins.
The Environmental Assessment (page 57) states: "The most significant
' indirect impacts associated with the Reedy/McKee Creeks Interceptor Project
are likely to be those resulting from development and urbanization of areas
within the basin that are currently undeveloped or rural." While the
2

' Mecklenburg County ordinance will provide Reedy and McKee Creeks and a
tributary to Reedy Creek with a 20- to 30-foot undisturbed buffer (except for
utility installation and flood control devices) and an adjacent 70- to 80-foot
buffer that permits vegetation management, we assume that other creeks
within the project area will not be provided with buffer protection.
Furthermore, as stated on page 7 of your letter, utility lines will be kept
' outside the 20- to 30-foot undisturbed buffer "whenever possible." Sewer line
routes typically need to be free of vegetation, and the maintenance regime
' does not allow for trees or shrubs to grow within the sewer line routes. If the
sewer lines are placed within the 20- to 30-foot streamside buffer zone and the
routes are maintained only with grass, this could cause bank instability and
' erosion problems in the future. Rivers and streams. are dynamic systems that
migrate to seek stability while adjusting to changes in the watershed. Due to
the dynamic nature of rivers and streams, we believe it is crucial that sewer
lines and associated structures are sited outside the 100-year floodplain so that
natural stream functions and movement will not impact, or be impacted by,
utility infrastructure. In any future Environmental Assessment, we would like
' to review the proposal for minimum and average distances that sewer lines
will be placed from streams, the maintenance regime, and the width of the
sewer line construction corridor. As stated in our previous letter, we support
and encourage the use of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission's guidance document for addressing secondary and cumulative
impacts-"Guidance Memorandum to Address and Mitigate Secondary and
Cumulative Impacts to Aquatic and Terrestrial Wildlife Resources and Water
Quality." We continue to recommend that new residential and commercial
developments which use the proposed sewer system be required to implement
' 100-foot-wide buffers along perennial streams and 50-foot-wide buffers along
intermittent streams and wetlands. All streams should be delineated by
certified professionals (streams should not be delineated by the use of USGS
' quads only), and both perennial and intermittent streams and wetlands should
be buffered.
' 2. Fooodnlain Protection - We continue to recommend that no development in
the floodplain should result from the new sewer system. Executive
Order 11988 requires federal agencies to consider and protect floodplain
' functions. Construction in the floodplain increases the potential for flooding
adjacent properties and interferes with the natural hydrological process of the
waterways. Undeveloped floodplains provide the riparian vegetation that is
' used by aquatic and terrestrial wildlife, supply a rich food source to aquatic
communities, and trap sediment from entering aquatic systems.
' 3. Storm-water Plan - To offset indirect and cumulative impacts from this
project, we continue to recommend that an adequate plan for the control and
' treatment of storm water be implemented for each development that occurs as
a result of the new sewer system. We encourage the use of low-impact
development (LID) techniques to treat storm-water runoff in the new service

1

1

1

area. LID is a method of storm-water management that allows for
storm-water and environmental controls to be incorporated into the landscape
and infrastructure so that pollution is controlled at the source in small-scale
distributed facilities, such as green roofs and rain gardens.
4. Minimize Stream Crossings This project involves a significant number of
stream crossings, 60 in total. In our April 7, 2004, letter, we encouraged the
applicant to minimise the number of stream crossings. In your response letter
there was no statement that justified the number of stream crossings, and no
analysis was conducted to prove that the number of stream crossings could
not be minimized. When constructing new sewer lines, we typically
recommend aerial crossings (elevated sufficiently to reduce the risk of flood
damage) or directional boring under the streams to prevent stream impacts. In
areas of good-quality aquatic habitat and especially in areas that support state
and/or federally listed mussels, we strongly encourage the aerial-crossing or
the directional-boring method. We noticed that there will be a new pump
station constructed, and given that pump stations do not need gravity to
function, we recommend that the directional-boring or aerial-crossing method
be used for any stream crossing in the area of the new pump station. If these
methods cannot be used and trenching is determined to be the preferred
method, we would like to review a description of the methodology used for
installing the sewer lines. When trenching is used, there is a great likelihood
of future lateral movement of the streams, which could undercut or erode
around the sewer lines. We recommend the development of a stream-bank
monitoring and maintenance program to promptly stabilize stream banks near
the line crossings throughout the life of this project. Further, exposed pipe or
rock-check dams, which might potentially impede fish passage, should not be
installed within stream channels.
5. Erosion Control We are very pleased that the applicant is proposing to use a
native seed mix for erosion control. We also recommend the use of native
sedges, grasses, and rushes and native woody species to restore riparian
vegetation.
6. Ultraviolet M.) Treatment Technology at the Rocky River Wastewater
Treatment Plant - We are pleased that the WSACC is considering alternative
disinfection methods in the future and also is considering the implementation
of a reclaimed water program. We strongly recommend that the WSACC
consider using the UV disinfection method, and we will make this same
recommendation during themext 5-year National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permit review process. UV irradiation is an effective
disinfectant and, unlike chlorine, does not create byproducts, toxicity, or
hazardous materials concerns.
7. Construction Corridors - Efforts should be made to avoid the removal of large
trees at the edges of construction corridors. Where feasible, use woody debris
4

' and logs from corridor clearing to establish brush piles and downed logs at the
edges (just in the woods) of the cleared rights-of-way to improve habitat for
' wildlife. Allowing the corridor area to develop into a brush/scrub habitat
would maximize benefits to wildlife. Corridor maintenance should be
minimized, and mowing should be prohibited between April 1 and October 1
in order to reduce impacts to nesting wildlife. We suggest a maintenance
schedule that incorporates a portion of the area (e.g., one-third) each year
instead of the entire project every 2 or 3 years. Additionally, herbicides
should not be used in wetland areas or near streams.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions, please
contact Mr. Bryan Tompkins of our staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 240. In any future
correspondence concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-04-155.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
Mr. Ron Linville, Western Piedmont Region Reviewer, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 3855 Idlewild Road, Kernersville, NC 27284-9180
Ms. Becky Fox, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1349 Firefly Road, Whittier, NC 28789
Ms. Amanda Jones, Asheville Regulatory Field Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208, Asheville, NC 28801-5006
D
11

1
1

1

1
1
1
? STATE w
d
uo

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter 13. Sandbeck, Administrator
llt h.'( 1 F f 4 lcc, Governor
1. ueth C. E _? airs. Sec raarv
1, in-' I Cjow, Deputy '\'CCrmjr.v
l ?Cbruarv 13, 20(ttl
LorcYtta Latitzenheiser, RPA
Presidcnt and Principal Investigator
t:c,astal ( :arolin,t Research
I Si. Andrew Strect
'I'arb(lrv No)I-th Candina, 2?HS6
(hu c . . archi%c;. a u fl!,torc
Division of i fimoneal 1"L."mrc C4
D:M11 BP'Ok. D111 Ctol
Re: 1 Cultural Resources Survey of a Proposed Sewer Alignment and Pump Station Site, Reedy,/tilckec
(:reel, Interccptur Sewer Line, Cabarrt.ls County, CH 01-02-12
Dear Ms. Lautzenheiser:
' 'harrlc YOU for your January 16, 2008, transmittal of the archaeological surve.y report for tlac above l?ro}c ct
The report authors state that one prehistoric archaeological site !31(„ 128 was discovered d1,11_61 = the- .11uAve
noted invcstigation and that no further cultural resources investigations are necessary and/or warnmited. 1?or
lnlrposes of compliance: with Section 106 of the National H.isror-ic Preservation :let, eve concur with their
rcconimenciations. This propertt does not retain the level of integrity nor do they p(>ssess the pwo,nihil t?) tield
significant new information pertaining to the prehistory or history of North Carolina.
The above: coinrnents are made pursuant 10 SectI011 106 of the Nation d 1-11storic Preservation Act anti the
Advisor.V Council 01) Historic PreseArvatiolt's Rcgulalions for compliance with Section 106 coditicd at 36 (TR
Part 1100.
Thank ytn.l For tour cooperation and c(;nstclcrations. If text have any (juestions concerning the above
colnlncnt, please contact Renee Gledhill I at-lcy, environrnental review coordinator, at 919-80705-'9. In all
future aAttrnl:ln1C,111 11 cc.>nccrninl; this pr(.)jcct, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerdy,
Biel' Sandbeck.
..ocrnnn 109 1 ,ru ).mc: Sneer, Rarcigh V!.: 2',(7(11 Mailing Address i(t ' :Alai! Scarce (..enter, itaictglt \(-'' r; to k 1l : telephone/Fax 01, ,
Justification for Not Using Directional Drilling
McKee Creek Interceptor
The following is a discussion of the directional drilling method of pipe installation as it
relates to the proposed project and some of the concerns related to its use.
Proposed Types of Pipe Installation
The McKee Creek Interceptor Project consists of 12,8001f of 24-inch diameter of gravity
sewer pipe. Gravity sewer pipe must be installed on a constant horizontal and vertical
alignment between manholes. Any change in vertical and/or horizontal alignment must
occur at a manhole such that between any two manholes, the installed sewer is "gun
barrel" straight. The following are potential negative impacts on the project that could
result from the utilization of the directional drilling method of pipe installation:
Breakthrough of shallow overburden
At each of the proposed crossings of streams for the McKee Creek Interceptor
Project, the gravity sewer is proposed at a shallow depth below the stream bed. The
proposed sewer installation would be a minimum of two feet of distance between the
top of the proposed sewer pipe and the bottom of the stream. Due to the shallow
amount of cover or overburden over the pipe in the stream, with directional drilling,
there is a possibility that the overburden could break through and flood the drilling
operation.
2. Inconsistency of material encountered
The directional drilling method of installation can be used where the material being
drilled is of a relatively consistent nature. However, if there is a significant change in
material (i.e., from soil to solid rock) prior to completion of the drilling operation, the
cutting head of the drilling unit cannot be changed or removed without direct
excavation of the cutting head.
a. Should this occur within the stream banks, recovering the cutting head would
require open excavation of the stream at that location.
b. Changes in the hardness of the material can also deflect the drilling operation off
the intended alignment. Deflection of the alignment would compromise the design
of the sewer.
c. In order to confirm the consistency of the materials prior to drilling requires
borings along the alignment at intervals, which would include placing equipment
in the streams and boring within the stream banks.
For the reasons stated above, directional drilling is not recommended for installation of
the gravity sewer under stream crossings for the McKee Creek Interceptor project.

Restoration Plan
McKee Creek Interceptor
Cabarrus County, North Carolina
This restoration plan has been prepared for the proposed McKee Creek Interceptor
' project located in Cabarrus County, North Carolina. While a majority of mitigation for
the proposed project has been accomplished through avoidance and minimization of
impacts, the following plan shall be implemented to restore those stream crossings and
wetlands that are temporarily-impacted through an open-cut method to facilitate
installation of the new sewer line.
' Proposed restoration activities will include removal of placed fill material and restoration
of wetland areas and stream banks to original pre-disturbance contours. Excavated
material shall be returned to the trench to the extent possible, and remaining material
relocated and retained on an upland site. Substrate containing roots, rhizomes, seeds, etc.,
will be kept viable and replaced at the surface of the excavated site. A restoration seed
mix will be applied to disturbed areas associated with temporary wetland and stream
crossings
This seed mix (Table 1) will be applied with tem
orar
roundcover s
ecies
.
p
y g
p
to provide short-term stabilization of disturbed soil, and will cover the disturbed wetlands
' and stream banks from the jurisdictional boundary extending five feet landward.
t
1

TABLE 1: SEED MIX FOR RESTORATION*
Common Name Scientific Name Percentage of Mix
Black-eyed Susan Rudbeckia hirta 25
Deertongue 'Tioga' Dichanthelium clandestinum 5
Korean lespedeza Kummerowia (Lespedeza) stipulacea 15
Partridge pea Chamaecrista fasciculata 20
Pennsylvania smartweed Polygonum pennsylvanicum 10
Plains coreopsis Coreopsis tinctoria 15
River oats Chasmanthium latifolium 5
Switch grass Panicum virgatum 5
*Apply seed mix at a rate of 40 lbs./acre. Overseed with 20 Ibs/acre annual rye grain (Secale
cereale) and 10 Ibs/acre foxtail millet (Setaria italica). Overseeding is not optional.
1