19920563 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19921028

STATF °
_ A
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor November 3, 1992 A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Acting Director
Mr. Donald Carmichael
City of Gastonia
Post Office Box 1748
Gastonia, North Carolina 28053-1748
Dear Mr. Carmichael:
Subject: Proposed Fill in Headwaters or Isolated Wetlands
Gaston County
DEM Project # 92563, COE # 1992033653
Upon review of your request for Water Quality Certification
to place fill material in 1.4 acres of wetlands for sewer line
installation along Brandar Creek located between Forbes Road and
Neal Hawkins Road at Gastonia in Gaston County, we have
determined that the proposed fill can be covered by General Water
Quality Certification No. 2664 issued January 21, 1992. A copy
of the General Certification is attached. This Certification may
be used in qualifying for coverage under Corps of Engineers'
Nationwide Permit No. 12.
If you have any questions, please contact John Dorney at
919/733-1786 or 919/733-1787.
Sincerely,
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Regional Office
Mooresville DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
reston Howard, J P.E.
APH:JD
s REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/571-4700 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 919/896-7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
r
DEM ID: L? ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #): 12
JOINT FORM FOR
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
WILMINGTON DISTRICT--ENGINEER
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NC 28402-1890
ATTN: CESAW-CO-E
Telephone [phone]
WATER QUALITY PLANNING
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRON PNT- 81.TN.
AND NATURAL RESOURC
P.O. BOX 29535 ??
RALEIGH, NC 27626-0535±
ATTN: MR. JOHN DORNEY SEP 9 1992
Telephone [phone]
ONE (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION SHOULD BE SENT TO E CCV
ENGINEERS. SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT. PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: City of Gastonia
2. OWNERS ADDRESS: Post Office Box 1748
Gastonia, North Carolina 28053-1748
3. OWNERS PHONE NUMBER (HOME): N/A (WORK): [phone]
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL, ADDRESS,
PHONE NUMBER: Mr. Donald Carmichael
City of Gastonia
Post Office Box 1748
Gastonia, North Carolina 28053-1748 [phone]
5. LOCATION OF WORK (MUST ATTACH MAP). COUNTY: Gaston
NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Gastonia
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.): following in a
general way, Brandon Creek from S.R. 2420 (Forbes Road) in the south to SR
2400 (Neal Hawkins Road) in the north.
6. NAME OF CLOSEST STREAM/RIVER:
Brandon Creek
7. RIVER BASIN: Catawba
8. IS THIS PROJECT LOCATED IN A WATERSHED CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, SA, HQW, ORW,
WS I, OR WS II? YES [ ] NO (X]
9. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON THIS
PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [X]
IF YES, EXPLAIN.
10. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WATERS OF THE U.S., INCLUDING
WETLANDS, LOCATED ON PROJECT SITE: 1.4 Acres
6/10/92

,}?i1, ,
S
?Y
-2-
11. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WATERS OF THE U.S., INCLUDING WETLANDS, IMPACTED BY
THE PROPOSED PROJECT:
FILLED:
DRAINED:
FLOODED: *Sewer line is first
EXCAVATED: excavated, then backfilled
TOTAL IMPACTED: 1.4 Acres* to original contours.
12. DESCRIPTION OF--PROPOSED WORK (ATTACH PLANS): Total 1.9,000 LF t of both 12" and
18" gravity sewer along the upper portion of Brandon Creek. This project is part of
a 201 Grant Amendment for the Crowders Creek WWTP.
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: to serve an area of relatively high population
density which has a high percentage of failing septic systems.
14. STATE REASONS WHY THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE
CARRIED OUT IN WETLANDS. ALSO, NOTE MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS. Because this is a gravity sewer outfall, it needs to be as low as possible
within a basin and it must have enough "fall" or grade to flow. Creeks and rivers
provide for both situations. We have avoided wetlands where feasible; Erosion Control
measures (approved by NC DEM Land Quality) will be implemented; we will cross the (OVER,
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
(USFWS) AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE.(NMFS) REGARDING THE PRESENCE
OR ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED
SPECIES•OR CRITICAL HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE
PROPOSED PROJECT. HAVE YOU DONE SO? YES [X] NO ( )
RESPONSES FROM THE USFWS AND/OR NMFS SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH
MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT?
HAVE YOU DONE S07 YES (X) NO ( )
RESPONSE FROM THE SHPO SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
17. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED BY DEM:
A. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, AND LAKES ON
THE PROPERTY. See Environmental Section of 201.
B. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE IMPACTED BY
PROJECT. None
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA SHEETS
RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
D. IF A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IS REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT, ATTACH
COPY. N/A
E. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Residential/Industrial
F. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
During construction, the Contractor will provide a Portajohn. The final
project is a gravity sewer outfall.
OWNER'S SIGNATURE PATE
i
h
I
li
creek as close as possible to right angles; and we will maint'in preexisting
grades after construction. Other measures as part of our res'onses to State
DEM comments will also be incorporated.
ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SLIP Date ?12319 Z_
TO: (Name, office symbol, room number,
building, AgencylPost)
?. YO 14A) Initials Date
2.
3. u
i
4. a

5. UU1
Action File No d
Approval For Clearance
As Requested For Correction Prepare Reply
Circulate or Your Information. See Me
Comment Investigate signature
Coordination Justify
REMARKS
3-()14A ,
?-
A PPa9,"T-z-?l T"j -F-tAj?? ?o
J IE-_S rg A) A?-rOAJ L•cJr 1)
f2, ,
DO NOT use this form as a RECORD of approvals, concurrences, disposals,
clearances, and similar actions
FROM: (Name, org. symbol, Agency/Post) Room No.-Bldg.
J? 1f ?VA1 Phone No.
U SACS 7o4/- 2_59-o hrS"7
8041-102 OPTIONAL FORM 41 (Rev. 7-76)
Prescribed by GSA
GPO : 1987 0 - 192-783 FPMR(41 CFR)101.11.206

MEMORANDUM
I
TO: Dorney
' Planning Branch
INITIALS:
Reviewer : }???
WQ Supv:
Date : v ld ?2-
SUBJECT: WETLAND STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
***EACH ITEM MUST BE ANSWERED (N/A-NOT APPLICABLE)***
PERMIT_YR: 92 PERMIT _NO: 0000553 COUNTY: GASTON
APPLICANT NAME: CITY OF GASTONIA - BRANDON CK. OUTFALL
PROJECT-TYPE: SEWER LINE PERMIT-TYPE: NW12
COE_#: DOT-#:
RCD_FROM CDA: APP DATE _FRM CDA: 09/29/92
REG_OFFICE: MRO RIVER-AND-SUB-BASIN-#:
?? q b
STREAM CLASS: C\o.ss C.
STR_INDEX_NO : \- 13 5
WL_IMPACT?:?N
WL_REQUESTED : 1? 4 Cic, Y t s
HYDRO_CNECT?: Y/N NIA
MITIGATION?: Y19
MITIGATION-SIZE: RA
p3-p$-3`?
WL TYPE: S??eG.7 C(-?G-,ne
WL_ACREST? : ON
WL_SCORE(#): "A
MITIGATION TYPE: N/A
IS WETLAND RATING SHEET ATTACHED?: Y?
RECOMMENDATION (Circle One): ISSUE ISSUE/COND DENY
COMMENTS:
ohn
cc: Regional Office
Central Files OCT 1610

L7 V ? ll IJ l7 / '*AI
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890"r
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
WEILANDS GROUP
IN REPLY REFER TO September 28, 1992 WATER QUALITY SECT!
Regulatory Branch
Action ID. 199203653 and Nationwide Permit No. 12 (Utility Line Backfill and
Bedding)
Mr. Donald Carmichael
City of Gastonia
Post Office Box 1748
Gastonia, North Carolina 28053-1748
Dear Mr. Carmichael:
Reference your application of August 19, 1992, for Department of the Army
authorization to construct 19,000 linear feet of gravity sewer line along the
upper portion of Brandon Creek between Forbes Road and Neal Hawkins Road at
Gastonia, Gaston County, North Carolina. Approximately 1500 linear feet of
this proposed sewer line would cross forested wetlands affecting a total of
approximately 1.4 acres.
For the purposes of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program,
Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6, published in the
Federal Register on November 22, 1991, lists nationwide permits.
Authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, was provided
for the discharge of material for backfill or bedding for utility lines,
including outfall and intake structures, provided 1) there is no change in
pre-construction contours, 2) in wetlands the top 6" to 12" of the trench is
backfilled with topsoil, 3) excess material is removed to upland areas, and 4)
any exposed slopes and streambanks are stabilized immediately upon completion
of the utility line.
Your work is authorized by this nationwide permit provided it is
accomplished in strict accordance with the enclosed conditions. This
nationwide permit does not relieve you of the responsibility to obtain any
required State or local approval. You should contact Mr. John Dorney, NC
Division on Environmental Management, at telephone [phone] regarding
the need for a state water quality certification.
a?
-2-
This verification will be valid for 2 years from the date of this letter
unless the nationwide authorization is modified, reissued, or revoked. Also,
this verification will remain valid for the 2 years if, during that period,
the nationwide permit authorization is reissued without modification or the
activity complies with any subsequent modification of the nationwide permit
authorization. If during the 2 years, the nationwide permit authorization
expires or is suspended or revoked, or is modified, such that the activity
would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit,
activities which have commenced (i.e., are under construction) or are under
contract to commence in reliance upon the nationwide permit will remain
authorized provided the activity is completed within 12 months of the date of
the nationwide permit's expiration, modification or revocation, unless
discretionary authority has been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify,
suspend, or revoke the authorization.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Steven Lund, Asheville Field
Office, Regulatory Branch, telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
G. Wayne-Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. John Parker
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Mr. John W. McLaughlin
J.N. Pease Associates
Post Office Box 18725
Charlotte, North Carolina 28218

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin. Gmemor
Mam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
November 8, 1991
George T. Everett. Ph.D.
Director
D 5 L9 IS U u u
Mr. - Samuel L. Wilkins
Director of Public Works SEP 9 1992
City of Gastonia
Post Office Box 1748 ??;
WEI LANDS GRG'U'
Gastonia, North Carolina 28053-1748 WATERIsXUTY
SLM.7ECr: Gaston County 201 Facility Plan
Brandon Creek Outfall Amendment
Project No. C370378-01
Dear Mr. Wilkins:
The Construction Grants and Loans Section has completed its review of
the subject aunt to the Czowders Greek portion of the Gaston County 201
Facility Plan and has the enclosed oaaTnents. Leon receipt of your response
to these tents, we will continue our review of the project.
if there are any questions concerning these carments, please contact rre
or Rob Brown of my staff at [phone].
Sincerely,
d ? -
Daniel M. Blaisdell, Acting Supervisor
Facilities .Valuation Unlit
RB:mn:
Enclosure
cc: J. N. Pease Associates - w/enclosure
Mooresville Regional Office
FEU
GPF
ii
ftbom reventloa rays

4b
GASTUN C 1Y
wr -.??B/+T T ?..c?C+?7?L+? Q?aLL
1. Please provide a breakdown of projected flow within the
extension of the Brandon Creek outfall. Included should bproposed
e anttzcipated
domestic, cannercial, industrial and infiltration/inflow flow.
2. Contingent upon the response to Camient 1 above, eligibility for this
project is in question. our participation in the cost of an outfall
does not include "(1) cost of interceptor or collector sewers
constructed exclusively, or almost exclusively, to serve industrial
users; " { (40 CFR 35.2125 (b) (1) 1.
3. Will the existing industries tie into this line?
4. Justification of the project should be provided. This would include
docm"-nted envir=nental or public health problems.
5. It should be noted that funding for this project W3-11 cone from
existing grant funds and will not result in an increase in the overall
grant.
6. A public hearing regarding the 201 Facilities Plan is required.
days notice of the hearing is also required. The selected alternative
and expected user charges should be discussed and a transcript or
detailed rdnutes of the public hearing must be provided. An affidavit
of publication should also be provided.
7. Please discuss the potential open space and recreational opportunities
associated with this project.
8. Please be advised that all real property associated with the proposed
project must be acquired in aceordanCe with the Uniform Relocation and
Acqaisition Policies Act of 1970. The following costs
are unallowable under that Act.
a. The costs acquisition of se:: r,g::tsvf-cry (i.e. legal,
administrative, engineering). -
b. Any mnount paid by the recipient for Eligible land in excess
of just ompensation based on appraised value, Degotiati.on or
condemnation Proceedings.
C. Removal, relocation of replacement of utilities located on
land by privilege.
9. Based on the data proved in response to Ccnment 1, design criteria for
the proposed interceptor should be provided. Included should be pipe
size, slope, capacity at 1/2 full, etc.
t-

ENVIRONMENTAL COD=S (Z-?'
AN M4MT FOR THE CITY OF GASTONIA PORTION OF THE
GASTON COUN'T'Y 201 FACILITIES PLAN
October 24, 1991
1. The size and length of the proposed interceptor should be identified on
the 8 1/2 x 11 topographical map. The size of the existing line and
the Crowders Creek WWTP must be listed on the figure.
2. Information should be provided about the water supply that is currently
serving the area %:-here 1 e proposed line is to be ccnstructed.
3. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers must evaluate the project to
determine if any permits will be required.
4. Will the proposed line impact any recreational site, floodplain, or
private water supply? What specific secondary coopacts are anticipated
from the proposed project?
5. The review conrents from the Water Quality Planning Branch and the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission must be addressed.
Attachment
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 Worth Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
s G. Martin, Governor 71 7? ?
am W. Cobey, jr., Secretary September 20, 1991 ?Q??- George T. Everett, Ph.D.
Director
SF =3
MEMORANDUM r - A ?Q97
AZ: -
'o: Melba M_-Gee
ems, `"?yz T
rom: Alan Clark AC--
ubject: EA/FONST for Brandons Creek outf all, City of Gastonia,
No. 91032-00
Gaston County
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The
ivision of Environmental Management is responsible for the
ssuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for
ctivities which may impact waters of the state including
atlands. The following comments are offered in response to the
A prepared for this project which will impact 1.4 acres of
atland.
1. The total width of the access corridor, excavation, and
temporary fill area should be restricted to a maximum
width of 40 feet within areas designated as
jurisdictional wetlands.
2. Wetland areas impacted should be returned to natural
grade and replanted with appropriate vegetation as soon
as practical.
3. Permanent access corridors must be restricted +-c }mac
ininimum width practicable and may not exceed 10 feet in
width.
4. As stated above, a 401 Water Quality Certification will
be required for this project.
5. Endorsement of the EA by DEM does not preclude the denial
of the 401 Certification upon application if wetland
impacts have not been avoided_ and minimized to the
maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the.401 Certification should be directed
Ron Ferrell in DEM's Water R? Planning Branch.
sseweiia)9e$V'eREF1 Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
420Ron 9E)azwkll 704663-1699 919/733-2314 919/9466481 919/395-3900 919/761-2351
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
i
i
?I
.. 1
?. c
i
l?
'I .
'i

k=? North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 92
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391 "
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Environment, Health;-, & Natural Resources
FROM: Z?- Dennis S'cewart, Manager
i Habitat Conservation Section
DATE: September 20, 1991
SUBJECT: Review of Amendment to the Gaston County 201 Amendment,
Environmental Assessment for Brandon Creek Outfall,
City of Gastonia, Gaston County.
This correspondence responds to your request for our review
and comments for the Amendment to the Gaston County 201 Amendment
and the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Brandon Creek
Outfall. These comments are provided in accordance with the
provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S.
113A-1 through 113A-10; 1 NCAC 25).
This Amendment to the original Gaston County 201 Amendment
covers the extension of a gravity outfall up Brandon Creek
starting at the end of the existing outfall near SR 2420 and
continuing northerly up the creek to the vicinity of SR 2400.
This project is part of the City of Gastoria's 20-year wastewater
management plan. The work proposed under this Amendment would
tie into and extend the existing Brandon Creek outfall. The
sewer construction corridor for 15-inch seiaerline is 3.35 miles
long and 40 feet wide, with a centerline at least 50 feet west of
Brandon Creek: ?approximately 9 acres of existing forest will be
cleared for this project, and 1.4 acres of vatlands adjacent to
the creek will be impacted.
Staff field biologists of the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed information supplied
by the applicant and are familiar with fish and wildlife values
of the project area. In general, streams in this area are
somewhat degraded from sedimentation, channelization, and point-
source discharges originating from municipal wastewater treatment
plants and industry. Brandon Creek is too small to provide
significant fishing for gamefish, but it does provide habitat for
nongame fish such as chubs, shiners, and darters. Riparian
age 2
Sept. per 20, 1991
vegetation provides a travel corridor and food source for
wildlife, along with shade and nutrient inputs to Brandon Creek.
This vegetation also provides bank stabilization and limits
sedimentation into the creek.
The NCWRC is concerned over impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the project area. We will not object to the
project, provided the following conditions are met by the
applicant:
1) As stated in the EA, sewerlines should cross the creek at
right angles to minimize impacts to the creek and associated
wetlands. Sewerlines should also be buried or placed at
grade with the creek to allow passage of fish and also
people involved with recreation and prevent debris from
being caught and forming a barrier that may cause a
hydrologic change in the creek.
2) The NCWRC is pleased that the centerline of the 40-foot
construction corridor will be at least 50 feet from Brandon
Creek. We infer that riparian vegetation in the 30-foot
zone closest to the creek will not be removed or damaged,
except at crossings. In addition, we encourage limiting
construction impacts to the central 20 feet of the 40-foot
construction corridor and maintaining the right-of-way to
allow a dense shrub layer to persist (page 32 in EA).
3) Disturbed wetland areas should be returned to original
soils and contours. Plant communities should be
reestablished which would result in plant community
succession into habitat of equal or greater value than that
which was destroyed.
4) Stringent erosion control measures should be implemented
where soil ig disturbed and maintained until project
completion.
5) Temporary ground cover should be placed on bare surfaces,
::lading -poi' piles, as soon as construction is complete.
Permanent vegetation in these same areas must be established
within 15 days of project completion to provide long term
erosion control.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
project. If we can be of further assistance, please advise.
DLS/lp
cc: Ms. Stephanie Goudreau, Mt. Region Habitat Biologist
Mr. Chris Goudreau, District 8 Fisheries Biologist
Mr. Jack. Mason, District 8 Wildlife Biologist
t -
J
GASTONIA BRANDON CREEK OUTFALL
RESPONSES TO TECHNICAL COMMENTS
1. Based on comparison with Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ's), there
are approximately 0.8 persons/acre within the sewer service area
of 2,920 acres. Multiply this by 70 gallons/person/day gives
164,000 gallons per day of domestic flow.
The industrial flow is based on the expected allocations to the
following industries:
PRESENT
INDUSTRY ATIMATTON
A. B. Carter .......................................... 20,000 GPD
Circular-Precision Seals .............................. 90,000 GPD
Homelite ..............................................160,000 GPD
Rauch Industries ..................................... 20,000 GPD
TOTAL .................................................290,000 GPD
Commercial flow in this area will be minimal. We will estimate
10 percent of domestic flow.
164,000 GPD X 10% = 16,400 GPD; Use 17,000 GPD
The maximum I/I allowed is 100 gallons/day/inch diameter/mile.
This would produce approximately 6,000 gallons/day. Because this
will be a new sewer line, we would not expect to see even this
much flow.
The following table summarizes the flows:
SOURCE PRESENT FLOW PERCENT OF TOTAL
Domestic 164,000 GPD 34%
Industrial 290,000 GPD 61%
Commercial 17,000 GPD 4%
I/I 6,000 GPD 1%
TOTAL ...................477,000 GPD................... 100%
1
J
2. See No. 1 above.
3. Those industries shown in the answer to No. 1 above are currently
scheduled to be tied into this line.
4. Information provided by Mr. H. G. Welborn, of the Gaston County
Environmental Health Department, indicate areas of documented
septic system failures and major repairs in neighborhoods
to the south and west of this outfall. Mr. Welborn's telephone
number is [phone].
In addition to this, the major industries along this outfall
currently have individual treatment works and NPDES permits which
could be eliminated upon connection to the Crowders Creek
Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Our survey crews also noted other unidentified pipes emptying
directly into the creek. These lines could be identified and
connected.
5. We acknowledge that funding for this project will come from
existing grant funds and will not result in an increase in the
overall grant.
6. A public hearing will be held with proper advertisement and
notice. A transcript will be provided along with information on
the selected alternative and expected user charges.
7. At least 20 feet-of the 40-foot-wide sewer line right-of-way will
be cleared and maintained. This area could eventually be used as
a green-way park, bicycle/jogging path, etc.
8. We are aware of the need to follow the Uniform Relocation and
Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 and that the
listed costs are not allowed under the Act.
9. The Average Daily flow is multiplied by a peaking factor of 2.5
for all outfall lines.
All gravity lines were designed to flow half full for a design
period of 20 years.
The minimum velocity for the gravity outfall lines is 2.0 FPS.
For a 12-inch-diameter RCP, this gives a minimum slope of 0.22%,
and a capacity - flowing half full - of approximately 1,000,000
gallons/day.
2
For an 18-inch-diameter RCP, this gives a minimum slope of 0.12%,
and a capacity - flowing half full - of approximately 2,300,000
gallons/day.
The actual flow is as follows:
477,000 GPD (ADF) X 2.5 (Peak Factor) X 1.486 (Growth
Factor, 20 Years at 2%/Year) = 1,772,000 GPD
The 18-inch-diameter RCP will carry the entire basin flow, while
the 12-inch-diameter RCP will carry the flow from the upper end
of the basin.
3
0

GASTONIA BRANDON CREEK OUTFALL
RESPONSES TO ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
1. The revised figure showing the size and length of the proposed
interceptor, the existing line size, and the size of the
Crowders Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant is attached.
2. According to information obtained from City of Gastonia
maintenance maps there is a network of 8-inch to 24-inch-
diameter water lines surrounding the proposed route of the
Brandon Creek outfall. These lines extend in to the
neighborhoods that the outfall passes through.
A map showing a partial listing of these lines and their sizes is
included. Note the pipe diameters are circled.
3. A copy of the letter being sent to the Corps of Engineers is
included with this package.
4. No recreational sites will be impacted.
The outfall will be primarily in the 100 year floodplain. Again,
a copy of the letter sent to the Corps of Engineers requesting a
formal determination of the status of this project, is included.
The survey of this proposed outfall was changed in several places
to specifically avoid being within the protective zone of any
private water supplies.
The only specific negative secondary impact will be with respect
to air quality. This issue is discussed, in detail, in Section
4.4, Page 29 of the Environmental Assessment. No other secondary
impacts are anticipated.
5. The review comments from the Water Quality Branch and the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission will be addressed.
4
41
1
S

GASTONIA BRANDON CREEK OUTFALL
RESPONSES TO DEM WATER QUALITY COMMENTS
1. A 40-foot right-of-way will be obtained throughout the project to
complete construction and allow future access to the line.
2. We will be following the rules and requirements of the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Land Quality Section, throughout the project. These
requirements include prompt restoration of disturbed areas.
3. Permanent access corridors will not exceed ten feet in width.
4. A copy of the letter being sent to Mr. Ron Ferrell with DEM's
Water Quality Planning Branch requesting 401 Water Quality
Certification will be transmitted upon receipt of Corps of
Engineers approval.
5. We will minimize impacts on wetlands by crossing streams as close
to 901 as possible, maintaining adequate buffers and adequate
erosion-control measures. These measures will be taken at a
minimum.
5
1
GASTONIA BRANDON CREEK OUTFALL
RESPONSES TO THE NORTH CAROLINA
WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION COMMENTS
1. Creek crossings will be kept as close to 901 as possible. Sewer
lines which cross the creek will be either buried or placed at
grade through the creek.
?. Riparian vegetation in the zoi
removed or damaged, except
efforts to control clearing
required for construction.
maintenance will be limited -
necessary for access and line
ze closest to the creek will not be
at creek crossings. We will make
of the right-of-way to only that
After construction, right-of-way
as much as possible - to only that
maintenance.
All disturbed areas along the right-of-way will be returned to
original soils and contours as part of our normal procedures and
State erosion-control requirements. Temporary seeding for
erosion control will be required throughout the project. This
seeding will provide initial stabilization of the ground while
other local vegetation reestablishes itself.
The entire project will be governed by regulations of the State
of North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources, Division of Land Resources, Land Quality
Section. These regulations are comprehensive and strictly
enforced by State field inspectors and our own construction
observers.
5. We will provide temporary ground cover on bare surfaces as soon
as practical during construction. The Division of Environmental
Management, Land Quality Section, requires temporary ground cover
within 30 days if an area is disturbed and not being actively
worked. We will, however, require permanent ground cover within
15 days of the completion of the project.
6
P.02
MMI-191991 17:00 FROM J. N. PEASE ASSOC. TO 17046546654 P.02
RIPI
a
r
:,o( /1 c=

It

TIA

I teel
0

1%

AMENDMENT TO THE
GASTON COUNTY 201 AMENDMENT
CITY OF GASTONIA, NORTH CAROLINA
BRANDON CREEK OUTFALL
AUGUST 23, 1991

Commission No. 91032-00

•
A
AMENDMENT TO THE
GASTON COUNTY 201 AMENDMENT
CITY OF GASTONIA, NORTH CAROLINA
BRANDON CREEK OUTFALL
AUGUST 23, 1991
Prepared by
J. N. Pease Associates
Architects-Engineers-Planners
Charlotte, North Carolina
4.
.1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION TITLE PAGE
I Introduction ................................1
II Existing Facilities .........................2
III Environmental Considerations ................3
Environmental Assessment by
Robert J. Goldstein & Associates ...... 1-36
IV Alternative Discussion ......................4
V Inflow/Infiltration Analysis ................5
VI Cost Effective Evaluation ................6-10

It
LIST OF FIGURES
SECTION TITLE
AFTER PAGE NUMBER`
1 Brandon Creek Outfall Schematic ...............IV-1
2 Brandon Creek Outfall Map .....................IV-1
It

I. INTRODUCTION
This Amendment to the original Gaston County 201 Facilities Plan
Amendment covers the extension of a gravity outfall up Brandon
Creek starting at the end of the existing outfall near SR 2420
and continuing up the creek to the Hawkins Road vicinity.
This Amendment to the original Amendment pertains only to the
extension of the gravity outfall line along Brandon Creek. For
any additional information which may be required, please consult
the original 201 Facilities Plan and Amendment.
13.0 22-Aug-91 Gaston County 201 Amendment JWMI9.RPT - 1
4
II. EXISTING FACILITIES
Currently, there is only one outfall in this area which serves as
a sewer collector. That is the existing Brandon Creek Outfall
put in as part of the Crowders Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
and Outfalls. The work proposed under this Amendment would tie
into and extend this existing outfall.
There are at least nine different Industries which discharge into
this portion of the basin through individual NPDES Permits.
These Industries could, in the future, be connected to this
system thereby regionalizing existing flows.
13.0 22-Aug-91 Gaston County 201 Amendment JWMI9.RPT - 2
4
III. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
The following Environmental Assessment with sections relating to
Wildlife, Fishes and General Water Quality, and Archaeology
represent the environmental requirements for this Amendment.
13.0 22-Aug-91 Gaston County 201 Amendment JWMI9.RPT - 3
i
14
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
BRANDONS CREEK SEWERLINE
GASTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
REPORT TO:
MR. ALAN CLARK, WATER QUALITY SECTION
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
512 NORTH SALISBURY STREET
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 2761 1-7683
PROJECT #
Robert J. Goldstein & Associates
8480 Garvey Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
August 15, 1991
It

1.0. PROJECT NEED AND DESCRIPTION ............................... 5
2.0. ALTERNATIVES ............................................. 9
3.0. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ..................................... 12
3.1. Project location ........................................ 12
3.2. Geology and soils ....................................... 12
3.3. Land use ............................................. 14
3.4. Archaeological and historical resources ........................ 18
3.5. Air quality ............................................ 18
3.6. Noise levels ........................................... 20
3.7. Surface water resources .................................. 20
3.8. Surface water quality .................................... 22
3.9. Groundwater resources ................................... 23
3.10. Fish and aquatic habitats ................................. 23
3.11. Jurisdictional wetlands .................................. 24
3.12. Terrestrial plant and animal habitats ......................... 25
3.13. Protected species and natural areas ......................... 26
4.0. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .............................. 28
4.1. Introduction ........................................... 28
4.2. Land use ............................................. 28
4.3. Archaeological resources .................................. 28
4.4. Air quality ............................................ 29
4.5. Noise levels ........................................... 29
4.6. Surface water resources .................................. 30
4.7. Groundwater .......................................... 31
4.8. Aquatic habitats ........................................ 31
4.9. Jurisdictional wetlands ................................... 31
4.10. Terrestrial habitats ..................................... 32
4.11. Protected species and natural areas ......................... 32
5.0. MITIGATION ............................................... 33
5.1. Legal and requlatory framework ............................. 33
5.2. Recommendations to mitigate impacts ........................ :i4
6.0. REFERENCES ............................................... 35
10

Table 1. Prime farmland soils in Gaston County .......................... 14
Table 2. Population and growth rates of Gaston County .................... 14
Table 3. Habitat types and land use of segments in Figure 4 .................. 15
Table 4. Air emission data, Gaston County, 1985, in tons/year ............... 19
Figure 1. Wastewater collection and treatment facilities in the Gastonia area ....... 7
Figure 2. Brandons Creek Outfall project study corridor 8
Figure 3. Prime farmland soils in the project area ......................... 13
Figure 4. Habitat types and land use along the project corridor ................ 16
Figure 5. Land use planning map of the Gastonia area ...................... 17
Figure 6. Surface water resources in the project area ...................... 21
Figure 7(a-e). Topographic Maps ..................................... 37
1
l
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
An environmental assessment was conducted of a proposed sewerline expansion
project along the west side of Brandons Creek, extending from SR 2420 to SR 2400 near
South Gastonia in Gaston County, North Carolina. Jurisdictional wetlands were delineated,
and a search conducted for protected animal and plant species. Impacts on terrestrial
habitats, aquatic habitats, water quality, air quality, and land use were evaluated.
The sewer construction corridor is approximately 3.35 miles long and 40 feet wide,
with a centerline at least 50 feet west of Brandons Creek. The corridor is presently about
two-thirds forested and one-third residential, urban, and utility right-of-way.
Jurisdictional wetlands are present within 8.5% of the corridor. The spring survey of
habitats did not reveal the presence of protected species. The North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program (NHP) element occurrence maps do not indicate any protected species within the
project area.
Direct impacts will include removal of wetland and riparian vegetation along Brandons
Creek. Secondary impacts will include increased commercial and residential development in
the area served by the project. Sewer extensions through jurisdictional wetlands may be
covered under nationwide permit number 49 issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Several privately owned community wells may be impacted by the project.
4
1.0. PROJECT NEED AND DESCRIPTION.
A wastewater master plan for Gastonia and surrounding Gaston County (J.N. Pease
Associates, 1990) projected population growth and wastewater collection and treatment
needs for the area through the year 2010. The service area of the master plan consists of the
Long Creek, Duharts Creek, Catawba Creek, and Crowders Creek basins, including the
municipalities of Gastonia, Dallas, Bessemer City, and Ranlo. The towns of Cramerton and
Lowell have their own wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), and were not included in the
master plan.
Gaston County grew 7.7% from a population of 162,568 in 1980 to 175,093 in 1990.
Growth projections for the next two decades are 188,089 by 2000 and 195,517 by 2010
(North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management, 1988). Population in the service
area is expected to reach 140,180 by 2010. Projected wastewater flows for 2010 are 17.5
million gallons per day (MGD) in the Long Creek basin, 13.1 MGD in the Catawba Creek basin,
5.0 MGD in the Duharts Creek basin, and 7.9 MGD in the Crowders Creek basin U.N. Pease
Associates, 1990).
Current treatment facilities include a 9 MGD plant on Catawba Creek, an 8 MGD plant
on Long Creek, and a 6 MGD plant under construction on Crowders Creek. The three
receiving streams are tributaries of Lake Wylie, an impoundment on the Catawba River (Figure
1).
The wastewater master plan outlined capital improvements to be implemented in three
phases scheduled for 1990-1995, 1995-2000, and 2000-2010 U.N. Pease Associates,
1990). Facilities evaluated for improvements were major gravity sewer interceptors, force
mains and pump stations, wastewater treatment plants, and sludge disposal facilities. Eight
alternatives were developed and compared on the basis of capital costs, present worth
analysis, effectiveness of service, and system flexibility. Section 2.0 summarizes the eight
alternatives.
Alternative 2 was selected as the preferred alternative based on costs, present worth
analysis, and system flexibility (Figure 1). Facility improvements included in the preferred
alternative include expansion of the Long Creek WWPT to 24 MGD, addition of nutrient
removal facilities at the Catawba Creek WWTP, and expansion of the Crowders Creek WWTP
from 6 to 9 MGD. New gravity outfalls will be installed along Long Creek, Kaglor Branch,
Burton Branch, Little Long Creek, Duharts Creek, South Crowders Creek, Brandons Creek, and
Catawba Creek. The Beaty Road pump station on Catawba Creek will be expanded to 5
MGD, and three new pump stations and associated force mains will be built along the
Catawba Creek arm of Lake Wylie. The Duharts Creek pump station will be expanded to 10
MGD, and a force main constructed to transfer the wastewater to the Long Creek basin and
WWTP.
Phase 1 of the preferred alternative, scheduled for 1990-1995, consists of WWTP and
pump station expansions and new sewerline construction in the Long Creek basin. Phase 2,
scheduled for 1995-2000, includes additional improvements to the Long Creek and Catawba
Creek WWTPs, expansion of the Crowders Creek WWTP, and construction of 51,900 feet of
sewerline along Crowders Creek and its tributaries, including Brandons Creek.
5
1)
ti
This Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses impacts of approximately 18,000 feet
of 15-inch gravity sewerline along Brandons Creek in South Gastonia, from Hawkins Road (SR
2400) to Forbes Road (SR 2420). The project study area is illustrated in Figure 2. Impacts
are compared with those of the no-build alternative, pursuant to North Carolina General
Statute 1 13-A, the State Environmental Policy Act.
6
s
I - ?
I I ??
/ I T y
I ? ? J
p "
1 1 ,
I ?/ ?Ivl `1? ?i? W
awn ? ?
JAL
v `
m' o m Co
?
anrmi ? ,1 ? ) O
n e• y m /' ' '?-
m m 7 m N ? ? ? Y ` ?`' i I
N
?mmm ? I y ?• /s f.
m O M 0 O • 5? ? Kj
p m .Omi P 0 / 1 J --_- (A)
m O • 1P / & 1 1 ? (fl
Wm; o c $ o- q2 n. ?.
I . n
0\7 V
00
O 0017 f ` c - -
so 60
;D 00 Z
m OA I 'o Sol i Blackwood Creek 1 j 9ti
go 0
A F-
r ?+ i qo
I to V.,
800
} 1\ Q A ?1 e
zio
01° t
w
o
s 36' ?
60 n ry I g a?9 .. .
? \ ? I ? \ 3 x? • 'off p ? c? C ? ? -? • ?' `-'r??.s%J- ? f
a t
(n V V %
rn GI R8
HIM
t •?../'-? j .J pit
rtl
c
rri
m O ?M?p tz, An
4
"h Ln
fri
rol
N o € >oT
rtl
¦,I
®log.
• ¦ I I I I a ANDS
WT " < ==
G0111 'C-0 S I
Park
\?. /I Irk?\. 4 ?? ?iq/•'.?/i/ ?\? 11
D\h
? i •' :ISO?7 > ? ? ?\ ice. ?? i T e
nej?? • Fl i?/ f%
7- 1
8 - 1 . ,SO
?SUb tdtio A
?•/ '1 ,•. 0' 2,000' 4,000' 6,000'
? i? •: rte= . ,. i
0
It ,
O
(n
0

Figure 2. Brandons Creek oufall project
study corridor.
-jpO- Robert J. Goldstein & Associates
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS

_
'

--- 8480 Garvey Drive
Raleigh, NC 27604
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
11
?l

2.0. ALTERNATIVES.
Eight alternative expansion schemes for a twenty year service period were compared
by Gaston County's consulting engineers, J.N. Pease Associates (1990). Each alternative is
briefly described below.
Alternative No. 1.
Alternative No. 1 requires expansion of all existing WWTPs. The Long Creek WWTP
would expand from 8 to 20 MGD. Additional sewerlines include a 54" outfall from the plant
to the South Fork, a 48" outfall parallel to the two existing 30" outfalls along Long Creek, and
a new 24" outfall parallel to the existing 24" line on the east side of Rankin Lake. These
outfalls would serve Area 1. Serving Area 2 would require sections of new 36", 30", 24",
and 15" outfall. Serving Area 3 would require sections of new 18" and 15" outfall along
Little Long Creek.
The Catawba Creek WWTP would expand from 9 to 15 MGD and require a major
expansion of the Duharts Creek pump station, including a new section of 24" outfall. The
Lake Wylie system in the southeastern portion of the county would extend into Area 2 and
involve a system of outfalls, pump stations, and force mains on both sides of Catawba Creek
and Lake Wylie. The east side development would include 18" and 15" gravity sewerline
discharging into a 2 MGD pump station. A force main subaqueous crossing would discharge
to a second pump station on the west side of Lake Wylie. The west side pump station would
be served by new 18" and 15" outfalls. The west side pump station would pump to a future
pump station on State Road 2435 via a 16" force main that would deliver waste to the
existing Beaty Road pump station, to be expanded from 1.5 to 5 MGD.
The Crowders Creek WWTP would expand from 6 to 9 MGD. Associated with
expansion would be extension of existing systems due west to serve new areas and possible
extension to South Carolina, including new 30", 18", and 15" outfalls. Also included would
be a 15" outfall for northerly expansion of the Brandon Creek outfall, and a 24" extension to
serve the area north of 1-85.
Alternative No. 2 (the preferred alternative).
Alternative No. 2 would reduce loading on the Catawba Creek WWTP by transferring
the loads from the Duharts Creek basin to the Long Creek WWTP. This would require
expansion of the Long Creek WWTP from 8 to 24 MGD over the 20-year design period. The
major new outfalls serving Long Creek would be similar to Alternative No. 1 with the added
need of a new 36" outfall and 24" force main from the expanded Duharts Creek pump station.
The Catawba Creek WWTP would remain at present capacity of 9 MGD but require
upgrading to meet future permit requirements for phosphorus removal. The Lake Wylie
system could be added to serve Area 2 as with Alternative No. 1. The Crowder Creek basin
plans would be identical to Alternative No. 1, including the northerly extension of the Brandon
Creek outfall addressed in this EA.
9
Alternative No. 3.
Alternative No. 3 is a greater transfer of wastewater loads from the Catawba Creek
basin to the Long Creek basin. In this alternative, the Catawba WWTP will be abandoned and
all Catawba basin loads, including the future Lake Wylie system, are transferred with the aid
of pump stations to Long Creek. The Long Creek WWTP will be expanded from 8 to 32 MGD.
The major additional outfall facilities will be similar to those of Alternative No. 1 with
the substitution of a 60" outfall from the Long Creek WWTP to the South Fork, plus a new
36" outfall and 24" force main from Duharts Creek pump station, which will expand from 6.5
to 28 MGD. At the Catawba Creek WWTP site, a new pump station with an 18 MGD
capacity will deliver wastewater from the Catawba Creek basin to the new Duharts Creek
pump station through a 30" force main and 42" outfall. The Lake Wylie system will be the
same as in Alternative No. 1. The Crowder Creek system expansion will be identical to that
described in Alternative No. 1.
Alternative No. 4.
Alternative No. 4 transfers all wastewater to a single facility at Crowders Creek,
requiring expansion of the Crowders Creek WWTP from 6 to 42 MGD and the construction
of new pump stations at the Long Creek and Catawba Creek WWTPs. At the Long Creek
WWTP, a new 20 MGD pump station would deliver Long Creek basin flows via a 42" force
main and 54" outfall to the Duharts Creek pump station, which would expand from 6.5 to 44
MGD. The Duharts Creek pump station would deliver waste to a new pump station at the
Catawba Creek WWTP site. This 62 MGD pump station would deliver waste via a 48" force
main and 66" outfall to the expanded Crowders Creek WWTP. The Long Creek and Catawba
Creek WWTPs would be phased out. The Lake Wylie system and Crowders Creek extensions
to the west would remain the same as described in Alternative No. 1.
Alternative No. 5.
Alternative No. 5 is similar to Alternative No. 4. However, by holding the Catawba
Creek and Long Creek WWTPs at their existing 9 and 8 MGD capacities, and adding nutrient
removal, the wastewater treatment plant size required at Crowders Creek need only be 24
MGD. New pump stations will be required at the Long Creek WWTP, Duharts Creek pump
stations, and the Catawba Creek WWTP. At Long Creek, a 19 MGD pump station is required
with 42" force main and 24" parallel outfall. The Duharts Creek pump station would expand
from 6.5 to 29 MGD, with a 24" force main and 36" outfall to the Catawba Creek WWTP,
which would expand in capacity to 36 MGD. This station would deliver wastewater to
Crowders Creek WWTP via a new 42" force main and 54" outfall. The Lake Wylie system
and other outfalls would be similar to those described in Alternatives No. 1 and No. 4.
10
I
w
Alternative No. 6.
The Long Creek basin would initially develop similarly to Alternative No. 1. The Long
Creek WWTP would expand from 8 to 20 MGD and outfalls would be the same as in
Alternative No. 1. The Catawba Creek WWTP would remain at its present capacity of 9
MGD, but excess flows in the Catawba basin would be delivered to the Crowders Creek
WWTP, which would expand from 6 to 15 MGD. A new 12 MGD pump station would be
required at the Catawba Creek WWTP. Associated with this station would be a 36" force
main and 48" outfall to deliver wastewater to the expanded Crowder Creek WWTP. At the
Catawba Creek WWTP, facilities would be upgraded to incorporate tertiary treatment including
nutrient removal. The Lake Wylie system and Crowders Creek westerly outfall would be the
same as described in Alternative No. 1.
Alternative No. 7.
Alternative No. 7 is a variation of Alternative No. 6, but the Catawba Creek WWTP is
eventually phased out and wastes from the Catawba basin are transferred to the Crowders
Creek WWTP. This requires expansion of the Crowders Creek WWTP from 6 to 24 MGD.
The pump station at the Catawba Creek WWTP site would have a capacity of 30 MGD.
Associated with this pump station would be 48" force mains and a 54" outfall to transfer
wastewater to the Crowders Creek WWTP. All other systems for treatment and delivery
would be the same as described in Alternative No. 1.
Alternative No. 8.
Alternative No. 8 differs from all other alternatives in that the Duharts Creek pump
station is abandoned and all wastewater discharged from the Duharts Creek basin is delivered
via a new 36" outfall to a new 6 MGD WWTP located on the existing Cramerton WWTP site.
The Catawba Creek WWTP will remain at its existing capacity of 9 MGD but add
tertiary treatment facilities with nutrient removal. The Long Creek WWTP would be expanded
from 8 to 20 MGD and the Crowders Creek WWTP would be expanded from 6 to 9 MGD.
All other outfalls, pump stations, and force mains would be similar to those described in
Alternative No. 1.
1% 11
t
w
3.0. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT.
3.1. Project location.
The proposed outfall project lies along Brandons Creek in the Crowders Creek basin,
near South Gastonia, N.C. (Figures 1 and 2). The entire project area is in the Piedmont
physiographic province of North Carolina. The Piedmont province is characterized by gently
rolling hills underlain by complex igneous and metamorphic rocks, and elevations ranging from
1,000-1,500 feet above sea level in the west to 200-500 feet above sea level in the east
(Martof et al., 1980). Elevations range from 670 to 770 feet above sea level in the project
area. The U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute topographic quad of Gastonia South illustrates the topography
and land use of the area.
3.2. Geology and soils.
The project area is underlain by intrusive rocks of the Kings Mountain Belt, primarily
foliated to massive granitic rocks (North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development, 1985).
Upland areas are dominated by the Cecil and Pacolet soil series on slopes of 2 to 20%.
Stream floodplains and lowland areas are dominated by the Chewacla soil series (Woody,
1989).
Hydric soils are those which are saturated for sufficiently long and frequent periods
that they become at least seasonally anaerobic, promoting growth of hydrophytic vegetation.
Hydric soils cannot support populations of plants that lack structural or physiological
adaptations to low oxygen around their roots. Chewacla, a non-hydric soil, typically has
unmapped hydric inclusions (Willie Spruill, U.S. Soil Conservation Service, pers. comm.) and
was considered as a potentially hydric soil for identifying locations of probable wetlands.
Prime farmland is recognized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as important for
the nation's short- and long- range needs for food and fiber. Crop production on prime
farmlands requires minimal soil alteration, and is less chemical-intensive than farming on other
soil types (Woody, 1989).
In Gaston County, 94,100 acres are designated prime farmlands, and are comprised
of the soils listed in Table 1. No prime farmlands will be intercepted by the sewerline, but
areas of Cecil sandy clay loam are adjacent to the project corridor along much of its length.
Prime farmlands near the project area are mapped in Figure 3.
12
- .•k
t tg Paf 's` CHr??
<0' 2,000' 4,000' 6,000' _ ' `fe Figure 3. Prime farmland soils in and
cfo f around the project area.
t w .a sn. e7?-. Ctu at. •', '? •, F,
CeB2' , c
Legend:
fD , A' CfB A 'r
Ham' `CeB2 ..... Prime Farmland
w ?.
8
` ,"CfD `L ii: '' •\Y' va8 ti• lApB
'e e$ .i .?,0 :AOe N ,?anr CeB2 C-B2
rB
C ` v
s eD' ~` • ` f 8 t
fqe Qi+ A B r./W eD
C B
10 .. ?; >, vie : • f C f 8
C 1 -?
ire i rg' D •.4?Ap 8
,•s.: i . ~ 9 ?/?' _ U 2 - ?+ J M IC.', - ?"y. APBa
pp' CfD..''?P • / ! F n :M Q PO , ?? CeB? !ft
?'1r C?eD Ct8 :df Cf8 O D_ Q ' VaD 2 ra?li 1
CtU i ••CeB2::?:?::•:• .yr, `?, '?pg. C '•`AfYB'i; _,'.
"? ti V£. j I-' rvG\0 •.? :?. 'r eD ???' -2100 cam-
`?_O s Cf8 CfBr' s
South.
C16, 'Gastonia ceaz
';,.? QPO? ,. Ge02•' Cti)
r ,- C i 8 i ? .? :: ???.,,; ee 2 } r s o.-??: -
kiuDad' 0` z "? PaE`g Ud
PIE",
}' 7 .?? + CeB2 Y ?•? ,?x.e0e82:,?,•c '?" .?
?• '" a 't't8 , . e02 ?:': ? Cep '? y ;' Cf
eDZ
e82 ,?, Cf8 s, •? ? Ce82
CeD2 •?r x, oe
• w CIB
e0 P? Cg ? PaE'' P t , r
r y a}.. pe '4 ?, a •$ 'CeB. _ S, 9 Ar i '" f ; ••..
Jac
h1aD2.' C62
' Q?U, r '.;t.r .?. +;:;t •.? CeB2 ApB r r ?,;•?
`,_ ?• 1103 ''Y •,. ? .. .•' •Vag.• >kH d '? ? ,
.'"' a Y v '} 4 t}' Cfe +:. • : , ` 'f < 11`
i ' J?1 D2 • • Gl C f8 1i
CfD ? ? `• ? ??
LN ?^- ` ?? i* +y; •. 'Ce82
.1? " .
Ct8 .
•r c
POW =a ''' t e82 0` ^ '? .
..... rr
MaD2 ? ter: ••Ce82: ?t`? 'r. '. ?? ?'? :?! ?/ ?? ? a ?, •.
MaD2' es• J?.CeBJIti• a ?y.<'>. y ?4 / `'eB2
N` O2 CtB x x , f'
a ?'t? -?`? Cf CeD2• . Zc:.•. ! '.t y< ;. v. C
(02 Ur
GaB
o 5Z' ` Ws,. y d? _ ? .s .•...: ? ? R ? ?? CeB 2 }
L .MaD2:*+ `' d •'..`` ? .':•:'>"':':• ;a ':'= CeB ac: ..? •
MaD2 Ce t - 3 .?,. r' ;4
?-? 'T?,a CT+o; ers _ •??`. FBI= x '•.. - '` `? i'' a a
e02
' ME Ma Ma82 :iffc: a?Q o: .! •:? i aE'% ' ' ?? <S. CeB2
?3i',3?•' ' ? t11aD2 ? :? ?' '?r.i< - '4r? ?. CtB
2.^0La e62 Ce02 ` Oti. -J CeB2.!p
a .:t t?t Ta8 CeB2
` Q d ir:''? r. v ti x s
\ ??1 . 4 a ?? u' •P .rx '? l ' 7
It
w
Table 1. Prime farmland soils in Gaston County.
AmB Alamance gravelly loam 2 to 8 % slopes
ApB Appling sandy loam 1 to 6 % slopes
CeB2 Cecil sandy clay loam 2 to 8 % slopes
Co Congaree loam, occasionally flooded
GaB2 Gaston sandy clay loam 2 to 8 % slopes
HeB Helena sandy loam 1 to 6 % slopes
LgB Lignum silt loam 1 to 6 % slopes
MaB2 Madison sandy clay loam 2 to 8 % slopes
TaB Tatum gravelly loam 2 to 8 % slopes
VaB Vance sandy loam 2 to 8 % slopes
WnB Winnsboro loam 2 to 8 % slopes
3.3. Land use.
The 1-85 corridor from Durham, North Carolina, to Atlanta, Georgia, has developed
rapidly over the past two decades. Gastonia lies in the middle of this corridor, and Gaston
County's population has grown an average of 9% per decade during this period. Local
planning and development officals expect population growth to continue at a slower rate over
the next two decades (Table 2). Most of the anticipated growth will be urban, and will
depend on available water and wastewater facilities to serve industrial and commercial users
U.N. Pease Associates, 1986; 1990). Residential development will proceed as a consequence
of industrial and commercial growth.
Table 2. Population and growth rates of Gaston County.
Population Year Percent growth
148,415 1970 census -
162,568 1980 census 9.5
176,505 1990 projected 8.6
188,089 2000 projected 6.6
195,517 2010 projected 3.9
14

w
The City of Gastonia has planning jurisdiction over the northern 8,500 feet of the
project corridor and its service area, which is zoned general industrial, multi-family residential,
and single-family residential. Existing development includes all of these uses. The remainder
of the project corridor and service area to the south is under Gaston County jurisdiction and
is predominantly rural residential. However, a study by the UNC-Charlotte Urban Institute
recognized this area along U.S. 321 as a potential industrial development area (J.N. Pease
Associates, 1986). Existing land use along the project corridor is illustrated in Figure 4 and
summarized in Table 3. A generalized land use planning map of Gastonia and surrounding
portions of Gaston County is presented in Figure 5. (J.N. Pease Associates, 1986)
Forest resources are valuable for soil enrichment and stabilization, and for watershed
protection. None of the project area is in active forest management. Most forests in the
project area were damaged by Hurricane Hugo in September, 1989, or were recently partially
logged, and have lost much of their economic value. Farmland in the project area is limited
to small backyard gardens.
Table 3. Habitat types and land use of segments in Figure 4. Acreages are based on a 40-
foot construction corridor.
Line Length Cover Acres Comments
Segment (ft) Type
A-B 4,600 Residential 4.22
B-C 800 Disturbed alluvial forest 0.73
C-D 500 Mesic mixed forest 0.46
D-E
E-F
F-G
G-H
H-1
I -J
J-K
K-L
L-M
M-N
Totals
800 Cutover mesic mixed hardwood 0.73
800 Alluvial forest 0.73
200 Powerline ROW 0.18
2,500 Alluvial forest 2.30
200 Powerline ROW 0.18
2,200 Mesic mixed hardwoods 2.02
1,100 Urban 1.01
1,600 Alluvial forest 1.47
500 Mesic mixed and alluvial forest 0.46
1,900 Alluvial forest 1.74
17,700 16.25
Gardens and yards
Gardens
Hurricane damage
and pine
Oaks
Hurricane damage
and exotics
Grassy
Hurricane damage,
logging and exotics
Grassy
Hurricane damage
Heavily disturbed
with large piles of
waste
Hurricane damage
Ecotone
15
Park
I'
1 C 750
ff? ney
S
?Jl
?? /. /,-? ya p \ r e10 /
\ 4'
12
O ^? r ?
rrc--? j
r
n 750
{
90- ? ( \\ / ;y
0 2,000 4,000' 6,000'
1 ?
Figure 4. Habitat types and land use along the Robert J. Goldstein & Associates
Brandons Creek project corridor. See
Table 3 for segment descriptions. ENVIRONMENTAL 8480 Garvey Drive
L CONSULTANTS Raleigh, NC 27604
w
3.4. Archaeological and historical resources.
The N.C. Division of Archives and History has not commented on the project to date.
Should an archaeological investigation be recommended by that agency under Sect. 106 of
the Historic Preservation Act, additional information will be gathered.
3.5. Air quality.
The principal air quality pollutants in the United States are particulates, sulfur oxides,
nitrogen oxides, reactive volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide and lead; the major
sources of these emissions are transportation, fuel consumption, industrial processes, solid
waste disposal, forest fires, burning, and nonindustrial solvent use (Environmental Protection
Agency, 1990).
Air quality by region is subject to compliance with the Clean Air of Act of 1963 and
amendments (42 U.S.C. 1857 et. seq.), which require the Governors of the states to
recommend to EPA areas of non-attainment for ozone standards, and plans to bring the areas
into compliance. Elevated ozone concentrations are, in part, related to automobile emission
of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides.
Pollutant emissions in tons per year (by county) were provided by the National Air Data
Branch of the Environmental Protection Agency (1988). As of 1988, Gaston County emitted
more than 11,000 tons of particulates, with transportation sources accounting for
approximately 25% (Table 4). The county produced more than 30,000 tons of sulphur
oxides, almost all from fossil-fueled power plants. Nitrogen oxides amounted to 17,000 tons,
of which a third were from transportation sources, and half were from fossil-fueled power
plants. Reactive volatile organic compounds reached almost 13,000 tons, with 40% from
transportation. Carbon monoxide emissions amounted to over 40,000 tons, almost all from
transportation.
The N.C. Division of Environmental Management operates a total suspended particulate
monitor in Gastonia. The Governor of North Carolina has written to EPA (Raleigh News and
Observer, March 16, 1991) recommending that Gaston County be designated a
non-attainment area for ozone and carbon monoxide in 1991.
18
s
00
00
rn
L
U
C
t0
co
co
4.
m
O
a
C
0
co
z
Q
D_
w
ci
U
O
N
`co
N
A
N
C
O
C
LO
00
A
c
O
U
c
0
c?
0
co
co
c
O
fA
E
Q
d'
a?
co
I-
a)
- O? O? M I• NN LO O O
O
0
C 'X N 1?
O 00
- - r? .
N N O
N
CO
O M 00 ' r- C
? C ? M d•
o
U

c
?•U O It d'O 00 n? d (D
,O C
M M
) a

E N .-
to O
It O
It O
(? O
M rn
00

a
O
O
r
cn
LO
N
>O U ?-
c
N N
LO N -t N
O
M
'-
LO
LO
O
0)N
O - ON M00 d ?t M
O
p r (D N U)
t x LO I?
Z O
N
O(D •-M rn 00 MM a) O
X
75 M V- 00 co LO 00 N M M
O
w o `- O (D 00 C
In N
N M
Q 0D co CD r- CD N M (D
41 V- It It (D LO N O
r- n
I- (D N N M N O M
75
U
•- 1
M
?'-
-
41 .
co
IL
C6
c
0

W N In
C
U 0 C
7 1 U
a
- L)
i
ru
C .- C U U) N
N a
N
0
O C O O c6 C_

O6 O O O 0

0N(A
C
O Q)
N
2
O a a

Q O

0
a) CO
4' O

+ 7
0
N U
N a) 'a O _ 0) _
N L O N
C
occw u ?Qn- o ca

U N ? ? Q
7 c N F-

L y N F O
H
L
O
3.6. Noise levels.
Noise is subject to the federal Noise Control Act of 1972 (PL 92-574) and Quiet
Communities Act of 1978 (PL-95-6009) which require standards of compliance and
recommend approaches to abatement for stationary sources such as airports, highways, and
industrial facilities.
North Carolina has no state noise standards. Local governments may establish and
exercise regulatory authority. Neither the City of Gastonia nor Gaston County has established
local noise ordinances pursuant to zoning of utilities (Henry M. Whitesides, city attorney, and
Gaynelle Hussey, asst. city attorney, Gastonia, pers. comm.).
3.7. Surface water resources.
The project lies in the Catawba River Basin, in a sub-basin designated 03-08-37 by the
N.C. Division of Environmental Management for purposes of water quality monitoring and
discharge permitting. Brandons Creek is a tributary of Crowders Creek, which drains into Lake
Wylie approximately 10 miles downstream from the confluence of Crowders Creek and
Brandons Creek. Surface water resources in and around the project area are mapped in Figure
6.
The N.C. Division of Environmental Management (DEM) currently classifies all waters
of the state based on "existing or contemplated best usage." Class C uses are defined as
propagation of aquatic life, fishing, wildlife habitat, secondary recreation (limited body
contact), and agriculture. Class B waters are those used for primary recreation (swimming)
and all Class C uses. Class WS-III refers to segments used for municipal water supply with
no categorical restrictions on watershed development or discharges, and for all Class C uses.
New water supply regulations adopted by DEM in December, 1990, require reclassification
of water supply watersheds, and adoption and enforcement of local watershed protection
ordinances by January, 1992.
Brandons Creek is not named on the U.S.G.S. Gastonia South quadrangle or in the
schedule of stream classifications published by the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management. As an unnamed
stream, Brandons Creek carries the classification applied to the stream segment of which it
is a tributary. Crowders Creek and its tributaries are classified C, and have not been proposed
for reclassification under the new water supply watershed regulations.
Lake Wylie is used for water supply and recreation by several municipalities, and is
classified WS-III and B.
North Carolina is initiating a basinwide water quality management approach. All
NPDES permits in the Catawba River basin will be reconsidered for renewal during 1995 and
1996. By 1994, DEM should complete a basin management plan for the Catawba River. The
basin approach will allow DEM to evaluate interactions between point and non-point sources
of pollutants. This broader perspective may further affect Gastonia's wasteload allocation.
20
o
Q
r:?
U)
cv •
v Z
Q7 C

C N o

j J
N
cy co ~ °
? ? co
a. L
. N
C ' Z
C) .C
0
C
a) o C
o ] O
U o co
_ Q c?
-o C7 c cn I- 0 ?
m
L ai aoi
m _0
c O
1 w 0 0
Z
+
J . oC r
?
?J 00
ZOOL

if; m a>
N Z Z
6n w ? w

,` River

Fork j ,
r

w
0

w

J
Z ,
'
Q
CC
uolin8
E
N
E
00
N

.C
0
?r
Q
J
O J
N
M
rn
;
Z
t- '
oc l •
m
U ..
40/6e?
.? ., ..

0

v
,l

- ?•.'' :
?:•
r•:•::•:•:•:•:•::•::•:•:.
r.;.;.;.•.;.;.;.;.;.•.•: •:.;•;

m

w :::::•:•:::•::•:: .•>:

?.-- -- .... ......
'r- ................................... „....,
1

0
O
O
(
0
O
O

D
D
N
O
O
O
O
N

; w C-6 v?
? i
.
i
r
C4 CO)
•?
10

i
N
I
i
.• o
'o
a

4)

N
ti co? aa)
U > Z

o C C7
t
O
'b U '
00 d

1-4 0?
CO

o Z Z

ZO J
N

? O
• ? w U

i
3.8. Surface water quality.
Water quality is degraded in Brandons Creek by direct discharges, urban runoff, and
other non-point sources. At least 6 NPDES permit holders, including five industrial sites and
one residence, discharge wastewater into Brandons Creek or its tributaries (Levi et al., 1990).
The Crowders Creek system may be at or beyond its waste assimilation capacity during
low flow. Local problems are common in this watershed because of the large number of
dischargers, many with 'no dilution or assimilative capacity where they discharge (Levi et al.,
1990).
Levi et al. (1990) characterized non-point source (NPS) loading to several creeks in the
Crowders Creek watershed, including Crowders Creek, Lower Crowders Creek, South
Crowders Creek, and Blackwood Creek. Urban and residential contributions dominate NPS
loading overall, but agriculture is a dominant component in the South Crowders Creek basin.
Of the 44,000 acres studied in this basin, 54 % of the area is urban and residential, 34% is
agricultural, and 12% is undeveloped. Annual sediment loading to streams in the Crowders
Creek watershed was estimated at 17,416 metric tons. Urban and residential areas
contributed 44%, agricultural areas contributed 49%, and undeveloped areas contributed 7%.
Of the annual 24.23 metric tons of phosphorus, urban and residential areas contributed 82%,
agricultural areas contributed 16%, and undeveloped areas contributed 2%. Of the annual
14.04 metric tons of nitrogen, urban and residential areas contributed 69%, agricultural areas
contributed 26%, and undeveloped areas contributed 5%. Of the annual 2.18 metric tons of
copper, 9.27 metric tons of lead, and 10.3 metric tons of zinc, urban and residential areas
contributed 100%.
DEM samples benthic macroinvertebrates to assess stream quality throughout the state
(North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, 1988; North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, 1989). These are called
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network collections (BMAN). Invertebrate communities
are indicators of long-term trends rather than of instantaneous water quality. DEM presents
data on total species richness and EPT richness (Ephemeroptera + Plecoptera + Trichoptera,
three pollution-sensitive insect orders.), and assigns biological quality rankings to each
collection. "Excellent" quality streams in the Piedmont are those that support 31 or more EPT
species.
Crowders Creek upstream of Brandons Creek was investigated in 1985. Ten EPT
species were collected, and no total species count was recorded. A collection downstream
of Brandons Creek yielded 43 total species and 4 EPT species. The biological ranking at the
upstream Crowders Creek site was "good-fair." The downstream site was ranked "poor".
Lake Wylie is eutrophic, experiences algal blooms in some portions of the lake during
most years, and has conductivity values more than twice those of the upstream Catawba
River impoundments. Effluents, urban runoff, and agricultural runoff contribute to water
quality degradation in the lake (Weiss et al., 1975).
On May 13, 1991 , ecologists measured pH, conductivity, and temperature at three
locations on Brandons Creek (Figure 6). The pH values ranged from 6.3 to 6.4. Conductivity
22
fu_
ranged from 120 to 180 (umhos/cm). Temperature ranged from 16.5 to 18 degrees
Centigrade. Brandons Creek was slightly turbid in the upper portions and increasingly turbid
downstream.
3.9. Groundwater resources.
The eastern two-thirds of Gaston County, including the project area, is in the granite-
diorite hydrogeologic unit, and the western third in the gneiss-schist unit. In these areas,
groundwater occurs in the fractures of the consolidated rocks, in the residual weathered rock
(saprolite), and in the alluvium where water occurs in the intergranular pore spaces (North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental
Management, 1990).
Private wells in the project area are undocumented except for those drilled after 1989,
when permits were required by a county well water ordinance ("Doc" Thompson, Gaston
County Health Department, pers. comm.). Wells in the Gastonia area are likely in the
subdivisions on the perimeter of the city (such as South Gastonia and the project area), built
prior to annexation and provision of city water (Martha Burris, N.C. Agricultural Extension
Service, Gaston County, pers. comm.).
There are five privately owned community wells in the project area (Levi et al., 1990).
Community wells are those with fifteen or more connections, serving 25 or more people at
least ninety days per year. Monitoring is the responsibility of the owner and data are
forwarded to the state Division of Health Resources, Water Supply Branch. Currently, 36
inorganics must be monitored every three years, radiological monitoring must be done every
four years, and bacteriological monitoring must be conducted monthy. Owners are required
to have control over a 100-foot radius around the well head to prevent contamination, a
relatively recent requirement.
3.10. Fish and aquatic habitats.
In the northern half of the project area, Brandons Creek is two to six feet wide with
banks two to five feet above the water. At the southern end of the project, Brandons Creek
is four to eight feet wide with banks four to six feet above the water. Brandons Creek
throughout the project area has a sandy substratum and low gradient; riffle habitat is sparse.
The stream was low and contained moderately silty water during the field survey of May 13,
1991.
Brandons Creek is covered by a shrub-vine canopy, including Chinese privet (Ligustrum
sinense) and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) in disturbed areas. In relatively
undisturbed areas the canopy consists of yellow poplar (Liriodendron tuiipifera), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styracifiua), green ash (Fraxinus pennsyivanica), and red maple (Acer rubrum).
Maintenance of a forested canopy is critical to the stream for temperature and erosion control.
In addition, deciduous leaf litter provides the base of the food web in small streams (Barnes
and Minshall, 1983).
23

Fishes typical of the small streams in the Lake Wylie watershed include bluehead chub
(Nocomisleptocephalus), creekchub (Semotilusatromaculatus), tesselated darter (Etheostoma
olmstedi), rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides), and bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus)
(Louder, 1964). This segment of Brandons Creek is too small to be important for sport
fishing.
Several salamanders (Eurycea and Desmognathus species) only maintain viable
populations in small streams with few or no fishes. Some fish species are endemic to small
streams, including the rare Carolina darter (Etheostoma collis), known from Catawba River
tributaries near the North Carolina/South Carolina state line (Lee et al., 1980).
Portions of Brandons Creek and other streams in the area have been channelized or
piped through culverts and storm sewers to accommodate development, altering channel
morphology and hydrology and eliminating much of the habitat important to aquatic life.
Several nearby streams have been impounded. Impoundments in the western Piedmont are
usually dominated by mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides), sunfish (Lepomis spp.), and catfish (lctalurus spp.).
Forested vernal pools supporting breeding amphibians were found in alluvial forests
along the floodplains of Brandons Creek in the central and southern portions of the project
corridor.
3.11. Jurisdictional wetlands.
Wetlands are areas saturated with sufficient frequency and duration to produce
anaerobic soil conditions that normally support plants tolerant of low oxygen around their
roots. The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has jurisdiction to enforce federal water and
wetland protection under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, in cooperation with the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and state and local
resource agencies. Jurisdictional wetlands criteria exist for three parameters: hydrology,
hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation. The Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland
Delineation (1989) has developed methods to recognize these parameters. Guidelines in the
federal manual also define atypical jurisdictional wetlands altered or created by man.
Wetlands are protected because they provide habitat for plant and animal species,
storage for floodwaters, and filter sediments, contaminants, and excess nutrients from runoff,
thereby protecting municipal water supplies. Wetlands may be filled for public purposes only
under limited circumstances, of which the most important is the absence of non-wetland
alternatives.
24
Ecologists used the project development map, Gaston County soil map (Woody, 1989)
and the U.S.G.S. topographic quadrangle to determine potential areas of wetlands for field
investigation. The entire project corridor was examined on foot, and jurisdictional wetlands
were delineated by the Federal Interagency method. Reed 0 988), and U.S. Soil Conservation
Service 0 989) provided wetland plant and hydric soil classifications, respectively.
An area 50 feet to either side of the proposed sewerline route was examined for
wetlands. Sampling stations were established at intervals of 50 to 200 feet along each
potential wetland edge, based on visible topographic, hydrologic, and vegetational indicators.
Soil cores were taken with an 18-inch soil auger, and soil color (hue, value, and chroma)
determined using Munsell soil color charts. Predominant tree, shrub, woody vine, and ground
cover vegetation were identified, and percentage cover recorded on the wetland and non-
wetland sides of each station. Hydrologic indicators (e.g., water marks, surface saturation,
oxidized root channels, water-stained leaves) were recorded. The wetland edge at each
station was marked with a numbered flag, and distance and direction to each wetland flag
was measured from a previous wetland flag, basepoint flag, or recognizable landmark. Pink
survey tape was tied near each flag to facilitate location by surveyors and agency personnel.
Eight wetland areas were located, and are mapped as linear distances along the project
corridor from north to south (Figures 7a-e). Three large wetland areas occur in floodplains in
association with Chewacla soils. Five small bank-to-bank wetlands occur where the proposed
sewerline corridor crosses perennial or intermittent streams. The total wetland area within
the 40-foot construction corridor is 1.4 acres. Wetlands adjacent to the project corridor are
also indicated in Figures 7a-e.
3.12. Terrestrial plant and animal habitats.
The project area contains urban areas, mesic mixed hardwood forest, and alluvial
forest. Terrestrial habitats in the project corridor are mapped in Figures 7a-e.
Urban and residential areas contain large expanses of cultivated grass, widely spaced
trees and patches of brush. They are likely to support abundant domestic predators and
introduced species. The reptile and amphibian species are probably limited to a few small,
secretive snakes (Virginia and Storeria spp.), ground skinks (Scincella lateralis), toads (Bufo
spp.), and gray treefrogs (Hyla chrysoscelis). The predominant urban birds would include non-
native species such as the house sparrow (Passerdomesticus), starling (Sturnus vulgaris), and
rock dove (pigeon) (Columba livia), and native species including the cardinal (Cardinalis
cardinalis), robin (Turdus migratorius), chimney swift (Chaetura pelagica), white throated
sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis), and mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos). Gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), house mouse (Mus musculus), Norway rat (Rattusnorvegicus), raccoon (Procyon
lotor), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and bats (Chiroptera) are typical urban mammals in this
area.
The plant communities are described following the classification of Schafale and
Weakley (1990) where applicable. Areas of mesic mixed hardwood forest were found on the
toes of moist slopes adjacent to Brandons Creek. The mesic mixed hardwood forests are
dominated by yellow poplar, red oak, and beech (Fagus grandifolia). The common understory
25
Y
trees include flowering dogwood (Corpus florida), eastern hophornbeam (Ostrya virginiana),
red maple (Acer rubrum), American holly (Ilex opaca), and umbrella magnolia (Magnolia
tripetala). The groundcover includes poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Japanese
honeysuckle, false Solomon's seal (Smilacina racemosa), Solomon's seal (Polygonatum
biflorum), and seedlings of canopy species.
Upland hardwood forests, such as mesic mixed hardwood forests, support diverse
animal communities. The reptiles and amphibians of upland hardwood forests include
terrestrial salamanders (Ambystoma and Plethodon spp.), arboreal frogs (Hyla and Pseudacris
spp.), toads, box turtle (Terrapene carolina), and all of the Piedmont's lizard and non-aquatic
snake species. Upland hardwood forest birds and mammals include virtually all of the
Piedmont species except those requiring aquatic habitats. Some mammal species common
to these forests are opossum, short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis), eastern mole (Scalopus
aquaticus), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginianus),
and gray squirrel (Lee et al., 1982). Many reptiles, birds, and mammals require edge habitats
(ecotones) at the borders of upland hardwood forests with adjacent fields.
Alluvial forests occur along intermittently flooded river and stream floodplains without
well-developed levees. Alluvial forests may or may not be wetlands, depending on the
presence of hydric soils, vegetation type, and hydrology (see Section 3.10). The alluvial
forests within the project area are dominated by sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), river birch
(Betula nigra), and cottonwood (Populus deltoides). The associated understory species include
red maple, boxelder (Acer negundo), musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana), spicebush (Lindera
benzoin), and hazelnut (Corylus spp.). Japanese honeysuckle, poison ivy, jewelweed
(Impatiens capensis) and seedlings of canopy species comprise the groundcover. Arrow arum
(Peltandra virginica) is common beneath canopy gaps in wet areas.
Bottomland hardwood forests, including alluvial forests, are species-rich, productive
habitats. Amphibian larvae requiring fish-free vernal pools depend on forested bottomlands.
Many game species such as wood duck (Aix sponsa), woodcock (Scolopax minor), and turkey
(Meleagris gallopavo) depend on forested bottomlands. Bottomland hardwood forest
mammals include most of the upland species plus, beaver (Castor canadensis), mink (Mustela
vison), and southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris).
3.13. Protected species and natural areas.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP)
have no records of species federally endangered, threatened, or proposed for federal listing
within the project area. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) has no records
within the project area of species listed by the state as endangered, threatened, or of special
concern. No species federally endangered, threatened or proposed for federal listing, nor
species state listed as endangered, threatened, or of special concern were encountered during
the field survey of May 6-10, 1991.
In Gaston County, one plant species, nestronia (Nestronia umbellula), is under federal
status review and is state-listed as threatened (Sutter, 1990). Nestronia is a rare shrub
associated with upland forests. Its presence has not been documented in the project area.
26

NHP has records of two state-protected species of millipedes from Gaston County: Croatania
catawba is threatened, and Pachydesmus crassicutus incursus is endangered. Neither has
been collected in the immediate project area.
Natural areas are localities of unusual geology or areas supporting unusually diverse
plant and animal communities, often including rare species or disjunct populations. Crowders
Mountain State Park, five miles from the project area, contains a 315-acre natural area.
According to NHP, a natural community of granitic flatrock occurs south of Blackwood Creek
near Crowders Creek. This is not in the project area, and no occurrences of granitic flat rock
or other significant natural areas were found in the project area.
27

4.0. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.
4.1. Introduction.
Eight alternative sewer system expansion plans were considered by J.N. Pease for
economic feasibility, (section 2.0). This section describes the environmental impacts of the
Brandons Creek sewerline portion of the preferred alternative, with mitigation, in comparison
with the no-build alternative. Acreage calculations of the impacts are based on a 40-foot
construction corridor.
4.2. Land use.
The no-build alternative will have little impact on land use in the project area. Urban
growth will be slower than if the project is built, but current residential and commercial uses
should continue. No woodland acres along the project route are actively managed for timber
production. Timber production will be unaffected by the no-build alternative. The build
alternative will remove approximately nine acres of existing forest from natural production,
including 5.6 acres of alluvial forest, 3.0 acres of mesic mixed hardwood forest, and 0.5 acre
of transitional forest between alluvial and mesic mixed hardwood forests.
Adjacent land use impacts of the project will be secondary and cumulative from
increased urbanization. High-density residential, commercial, and industrial development may
displace rural, residential, agricultural, and forest uses. Pressure on remaining undeveloped
land for recreation, watershed protection, and other uses will increase, and zoning will play
an important role in limiting and directing impacts. Recreational use of Crowders Mountain
State Park may increase.
Wastewater treatment plant construction, expansion, and new sewerline service to
previously unserved areas will have both positive and negative secondary impacts. A principal
secondary positive socioeconomic impact of sewer systems is the attraction of industrial and
commercial parks and facilities and planned residential developments to sites not amenable
to other types of wastewater disposal systems, increasing land values and the tax base.
Positive cumulative socioeconomic impacts may also accrue when officials and planning staffs
exercise careful zoning toward more intensive localized use provided by wastewater treatment
facilities. These activities improve regional groundwater quality protection by elimination of
septic systems and promote better land use, increased population growth and tax revenues,
and an enhanced quality of life for all citizens in the region, and should be weighed against
negative effects of growth.
4.3. Archaeological resources.
The N.C. Division of Archives and History has not commented on the project to date.
Should an archaeological investigation be recommended by that agency under Sect. 106 of
the Historic Preservation Act, additional information will be gathered.
28
i
w
4.4. Air quality.
No direct negative impacts on air quality are associated with the operation of
wastewater treatment systems. During construction, short term impacts on air quality,
primarily an increase in dust, will result from clearing and grading activities at facility sites.
Wind-blown dust from the small acreage of cleared land can be reduced by rapid grassing.
Short-term effects on air quality from carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic
compounds emitted by engine exhausts of construction equipment will be negligible. Impacts
on air quality from electric pumps are non-existent; impacts from back-up diesel-driven pumps
will be intermittent during testing or emergency use and in all cases negligible.
Negative secondary impacts on air quality may result when increased population results
in more emissions of pollutants from industrial, users and transportation. The contribution to
lead emissions from transportation was 80.3% in 1970, 84.1 % in 1980, and estimated as
only 34.2% in 1988, the last year for which estimates are available, and due to the phasing
out of leaded gasolines. On the other hand, nitrogen oxide and volatile organic compound
emissions from motor vehicles have changed little from 1970 through 1988, as benefits from
fuel efficiency and pollution control technology were offset by the increase in vehicles. No
such benefits are seen with respect to carbon monoxide emissions from motor vehicles, which
remain a major contributor to the total. These secondary and cumulative negative impacts
on air quality may be reduced in the future by improved fuel efficiency and engine design. In
addition, certification of the region as a non-attainment area will result in increased emission
inspections and monitoring of automobiles, and other requirements not applicable to
attainment areas.
Cumulative impacts of wastewater treatment facility improvements will be complicated
by induced growth that leads to demand for improved highways and other infrastructures that
increase vehicular traffic and residential growth, with their associated negative and positive
impacts on the human environment.
Wastewater collection systems and treatment plants are sometimes perceived as
potential generators of noxious odors, but this is an aesthetic concern rather than one of air
quality. Odors associated with sewage are generally related to improper operation or siting
of lift (pump) stations. Siting of lift stations away from residences and minimizing the number
of stations can reduce potential impacts of objectionable odors.
4.5. Noise levels.
Short-term negative impacts of noise will be associated with construction activity, but
will be mitigated by distances from residences and restriction of construction to daylight
hours. There is no evidence of negative health effects from noise due to operation of
wastewater treatment plants and pump stations; thus, long-term direct negative impacts are
insignificant.
29

Secondary and cumulative negative impacts may accrue from induced growth requiring
expanded and additional transportation corridors. Highway design away from residences, the
inclusion of buffers of earth mounds or forest stands where impacts are unavoidable, and
methods of the Federal Highway Administration are available for mitigating noise impacts, and
may be required in studies of those projects.
4.6. Surface water resources.
The no-build alternative has no direct impact on water resources, but may have
important secondary and cumulative effects unless local governments enforce stringent water
protection controls. If sewer demands increase at projected rates U.N. Pease Associates,
1990), current sewer capacities will be exceeded and septic systems or package wastewater
treatment plants installed on new residential developments. Package wastewater treatment
plants and septic systems are less reliable than municipal wastewater treatment plants, and
may adversely impact groundwater and surface water resources if they fail (Alan Clark, DEM,
pers. comm.).
Direct impacts of the build alternative during construction will include soil disturbance
and vegetation removal in the 40-foot construction corridor. Erosion and sedimentation can
be minimized using best management practices during construction, and revegetating
disturbed areas promptly. Direct impacts after construction will be minimal except for
maintenance of the permanent right-of-way. Increased wastewater flow from the project to
Crowders Creek. WWTP will impact Crowders Creek below the discharge point. Expansion
of Crowders Creek WWTP from 6.0 to 9.0 MGD will provide adequate treatment capacity for
the increased flow. Effluent quality is not expected to change. Impacts to Brandons Creek
may include changes in thermal and nutrient regimes resulting from loss of canopy cover and
replacement of forest litter with herbaceous groundcover. Invertebrate and fish communities
may subsequently change. The centerline of the proposed construction corridor is at least 50
feet away from the creek bank, as recommended by the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission.
The 50-foot distance will slow sedimentation, protect the roots of riparian trees, and the area
between the sewerline and the creek will be less developable because of the permanent
sewerline easement.
Lake Wylie will be affected by urban growth under both the build and no-build
alternatives. The no-build alternative, resulting in slower development, will have less impact
if septic systems and package wastewater treatment plants are propertly operated and
monitored. Impacts of the build alternative will depend on the quality of the effluent
discharged into Crowders Creek.
The build alternative will promote development at greater density than the no-build
alternative, with secondary and cumulative environmental consequences. Increased
impervious surfaces from urbanization decreases rainwater infiltration to the soil, leading to
increased peak stormflow in streams. Flood damage, soil erosion, streambank destabilization,
and stormwater contamination of water supplies may result. The reduced soil water capacity
creates lower low-flow conditions, and perennial streams may become intermittent (Hewlett,
1982).
30

•
Long-term stormwater impacts are addressed by a recent extension of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program issued by EPA in November, 1990,
under authority of the Clean Water Act. Stormwater discharges from municipalities serving
100,000 or more persons, and industrial stormwater discharges, are required to submit
stormwater management plans developed specifically to control contamination sources in the
area to be permitted. The new program is delegated to the state by EPA, and administered
by the N.C. Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section. The North
Carolina regulatory code regarding wastewater discharges to surface waters 0 5A NCAC
2H.0100) was amended to adopt the new EPA regulations. Gastonia and Gaston County are
not currently on the list of municipalities required to submit stormwater management plans,
but will be in the future. Industries must have submitted initial stormwater information to the
city or county by May 15, 1991.
4.7. Groundwater.
Retirement of existing septic systems and reduced demand for new installations will
reduce a major source of potential groundwater contamination. Local governments can
enforce groundwater protection strategies through careful planning and adherence to
guidelines established by DEM (North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources, 1990).
Several community wells in the project area may be impacted by construction and
operation of the Brandons Creek outfall. Land use activities within a half-mile of a well are
considered potential pollution sources to the well's recharge zone. Thus, secondary and
cumulative impacts may accrue from growth stimulated by the sewerline.
4.8. Aquatic habitats.
Impacts of the build alternative on stream habitats, and strategies for minimizing
impacts, are the same as described for surface water resources (Section 4.6). Streams in the
project area have been degraded by urban and agricultural land uses, and additional
urbanization in this area will have less biological impact than it would on streams in
undeveloped areas. Siltation, substratum disturbance, and changes in flow, thermal, and
nutrient regimes may alter the biological community. No ponds will be affected by the
project. Vernal pools may be inadvertently created by the sewerline if topographic
depressions exist up-slope of the sewerline and the compacted soil slows soil water
percolation toward the streams. These created vernal pools may become high-quality
amphibian habitat if a forested canopy is preserved.
4.9. Jurisdictional wetlands.
Wetland dimensions were approximated as shown in Figures 7a-e, and acreages
estimated within 40 foot corridors. The no-build alternative has no wetland impacts. The
build alternative will impact approximately 1.4 acres of wetlands, of which all is alluvial forest
except for 0.1 acre of grassed utility right-of-way and 0.01 acre of mesic mixed hardwood
forest.
31
4
Two wetlands (flags 7-8 and 13-14) in the project area occur in alluvial forests recently
disturbed by logging and hurricane damage and subsequent invasion by exotic privet and
honeysuckle. In these areas, wetland impacts will be less severe than in the third alluvial
wetland (flags 15-16) where native species predominate. Impacts on bank-to bank wetlands
can be minimized by crossing streams at right angles. Impacts on berms and wetlands
adjacent to the project area and impacts on stream water quality will be least if construction
impacts can be limited to the central 20 feet of the 40-foot construction corridor, and
temporary storage of excavated soil is confined to the up-slope side of the trench.
4.10. Terrestrial habitats.
Terrestrial habitats (forests, fields, and urban areas) were mapped as distances along
the centerline of the proposed sewerline (Figures 7a-e). The no-build alternative has no impact
on terrestrial habitats. The build alternative affects approximately 5.6 acres of alluvial forests,
3.0 acres of mesic mixed hardwood forests, and 0.5 acre of ecotone habitat between mesic
mixed hardwood and alluvial forest. In areas marked as fields, powerline, residential or
disturbed forest, disturbance or right-of-way maintenance has reduced habitat quality, and
impacts from sewerline expansion will be minimal.
Alluvial hardwood forests are important wildlife habitat and migration corridors.
Removal of forest cover for sewerline rights-of-way in these forests will increase edge effect
and allow colonization by species than exploit forest edges. The right-of-way is not large
enough to cause habitat fragmentation for most mammals and birds, but may be a significant
barrier to small, heat-intolerant animals such as salamanders that travel between streams and
adjacent forests. The right-of-way will encourage pedestrians and domestic cats and dogs
that may adversely affect native wildlife. These impacts can be minimized if the right-of-way
maintenance regime allows a dense shrub layer to persist.
Higher density development induced by the build alternative will impact upland
communities, and increased runoff from developed uplands will impact bottomland
communities.
4.11. Protected species and natural areas.
No impacts upon protected species or natural areas are expected from this project
based on FWS and NHP records, and on our field survey (May 6-10, 1991).
32
4
M
5.0. MITIGATION.
5.1. Legal and regulatory framework.
The public perception of mitigation is compensation. In the legal sense, mitigation has
two meanings, viz., avoidance and compensation, with avoidance having supremacy.
Mitigation (avoidance followed by compensation) of adverse impacts of construction projects
may take various forms under federal and state laws, and local (county, etc.) decisions cannot
preempt the requirement for compliance.
N.C. Gen. Statute 113A, the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), established
standards for environmental documents (EA, EA/FONSI, EIS) when projects meet minimum
criteria, based on disturbed acreage and cost in public dollars. These environmental
documents must include mitigation measures proposed to minimize adverse impacts. The
measures recommended by most state agencies closely follow good management practices
and federal guidelines.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act and amendments (Clean Water Act) contain
sections pertinent to environmental document preparation. Section 401, administered by the
state in North Carolina, requires certification that discharges of fill material will not
unacceptably degrade water quality. Mitigation for potential water quality impacts during
construction is normally met by good management practices such as rapid grassing of
disturbed slopes, silt fences, and temporary detention ponds. Section 401 certification is
required before a Section 404 permit can be obtained (see below).
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is administered by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE), which issues individual and general dredge and fill permits for projects
affecting waters, including wetlands, of the United States under its jurisdiction. It coordinates
jurisdiction and permit issuance with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National
Marine Fisheries Service, among other agencies. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has ultimate authority for interpretation of the Act, and may overrule both COE and
FWS in deciding contested jurisdictional decisions.
Because wastewater lines typically require placement in wetlands or equally low
locations, and because these lines are public utilities, sewer projects may qualify for COE
General Permit SAWC081-N-000-0049 under the Section 404 program. The version of
General Permit 49 now in effect expires December 31, 1993, and contains general and special
conditions. These include, in part, prior certification by the state for Section 401 compliance;
compliance with other statutes and acts including the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C.
1631) and National Historic Preservation Act and amendments; avoidance of channels in
navigable waters and of submerged beds of aquatic vegetation; restriction of temporary
roadway spans to half or less of the waters or wetlands at any one time; construction of
temporary roadways by non-erodible materials; a maximum construction corridor width of 20
feet; avoidance of anadromous fish streams between November 15 and March 1 of the
following year; avoidance of public water supply intakes; minimization of adverse impacts on
33
r?
fish, wildlife, and natural environment values; and minimization of degradation of water
quality, including no increase in turbidity beyond 50 NTUs. Other conditions of General Permit
49 are pertinent to coastal projects, or to other types of utilities.
5.2. Recommendations to mitigate impacts of the build alternative, and to comply with
General Permit 49.
Mitigation for impacts to waters of the United States may include stream
reconstruction by creation of a new channel; placement of velocity reducing structures such
as rip-rap on the slopes and bottom of streams; habitat enhancement using felled trees and
placement of boulders for benthic invertebrate colonization; the establishment, replacement
or maintenance of riparian buffers; and other practices recommended by the N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission. Public water supplies should be avoided. Designs should place
sewerlines no closer than 100 feet from any well head. Other measures to protect water
quality include avoiding high quality aquatic habitats, minimizing the number of stream
crossings, and maximizing the distance between stream and sewerline, generally 50 feet or
more, to allow for stormwater infiltration and deposition of pollutants associated with
construction. This distance also protects high habitat quality trees typically associated with
stream banks, levees, and berms. Stream crossings should be sited at low quality segments
(sandy or silty bottoms rather than vegetated or riffle bottoms) to the extent practicable.
Construction practices should include protection of stream bottom habitat from siltation
by sedimentation control measures such as silt fences and seeding, and retention of riparian
vegetation. Compensatory mitigation should include restoration of linear feet of stream
bottom habitat taken by construction, and replacement of riparian vegetation.
Wetlands are a special class of waters of the United States. Section 404(b)(1)
guidelines promulgated under the Act require a sequential approach to mitigating impacts of
dredge and fill activities. The initial stage in the sequence is avoidance of impacts by
considering to what extent the project can be moved to a practicable, available, upland
(non-wetland) alternative. Only after avoidance has been satisfactorily addressed may
compensatory forms of mitigation be considered. These may take the form of restoration of
degraded wetlands, enhancement of extant wetlands, or creation of replacement wetlands
(last resort), on or as close to the adversely affected project site as feasible.
Wetlands should be avoided to the extent practicable. General Permit 49 requires that
construction corridors in wetlands not exceed 20 feet. Disturbed areas should be graded to
restore contours after construction. Disturbed areas on slopes should be promptly grassed
for temporary erosion control. The utility maintenance corridor should not be herbicide treated
or mowed, but allowed to develop a shrub layer, and subsequently maintained by hand-cutting
or bush-hogging at two- or three-year intervals.
The project will have no effects on protected species, and no protective measures are
required.
34
a
W
6.0. REFERENCES.
Barnes, J.R. and G.W. Minshall. 1983. Stream ecology. Plenum Press, New York.
399 p.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. 1985 National emission summary, by
county, 9-88. Microfiche.
Environmental Protectional Agency. 1990. National air pollutant emission estimates,
1940-1988. EPA-450/4-90-001. 68 p.
Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal manual for
identifying and delineating jurisdictional wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A. Soil
Conservation Service, Cooperative technical publication. Washington, D.C. 107 p. and
appendices.
Hewlett, J.D. 1982. Principles of Forest Hydrology. University of Georgia Press,
Athens, Georgia. 183 pp.
J.N. Pease Associates. 1986. Raw water supply study for the City of Gastonia, North
Carolina. J.N. Pease Associates, Charlotte, N.C., unpaginated.
J.N. Pease Associates. 1990. City of Gastonia wastewater master plan 1990-2010.
J.N. Pease Associates, Charlotte, N.C., unpaginated.
Lee, D.S., C.R. Gilbert, C.H. Hocutt, R.E. Jenkins, D.E. McAllister, and J.R. Stauffer,
Jr. 1980. Atlas of North American freshwater fishes. North Carolina Biological Survey Pub.
No. 1980-12, North Carolina Museum of Natural Science. Raleigh, N.C. 854 p.
Levi, M., D. Adams, V.P. Aneja, L. Danielson, H. Devine, T.J. Hoban, and M. Smolen.
1990. Natural resource quality in Gaston County. Phase 1: Characterization of air, surface
water, and groundwater quality. North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service. N.C. State
University. Raleigh, N.C., unpaginated.
Louder, D.E. 1964. Survey and classification of the Catawba River and tributaries,
North Carolina. N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission. Raleigh, N.C.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and
reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, N.C.
264 p.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 1989.
Benthic macroinvertebrate ambient network (BMAN) water quality review 1983-88. Division
of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section,Report No. 89-08. Raleigh, N.C. 193
p-
35

Wil . .
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. 1990.
Draft North Carolina groundwater protection strategy. Division of Environmental
Management, Groundwater Section. Raleigh, N.C. 49 p.
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development. 1985.
Geologic map of North Carolina. Division of Land Resources, North Carolina Geological
Survey. Raleigh, N.C.
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development. 1988.
Benthic macroinvertebrate ambient network (BMAN) water quality review 1983-86. Division
of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section, Report No. 88-03. Raleigh, N.C. 274
p•
North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management. 1988. North Carolina
population projections: 1988-2010. Management and Information Services. Raleigh, N.C.
31 p.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. University
of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, N.C. 408 p.
Reed, Porter B. Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: North
Carolina. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, St. Petersburg FL. (NERC-88/18.33)
Sutter, R.D. 1990. List of North Carolina's endangered, threatened, and candidate
plant species. N.C. Department of Agriculture, Plant Conservation Program. Raleigh, N.C.
18 p.
U.S. Soil Conservation Service. 1989. Hydric Soils of North Carolina. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, SCS, Raleigh, N.C., unpaginated.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N.C. 255 p.
Weiss, C.M., P.H. Campbell, T.P. Anderson, and S.L. Pfaender. 1975. The lower
Catawba lakes: characterization of phyto- and zooplankton communities and their relationships
to environmental factors. Duke Power Company and University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering. 396 p.
Woody, W.E. 1989. Soil survey of Gaston County, North Carolina. U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Gastonia, N.C. 127 pp.
36
_ ? • ?:'r UV( „ ? .. .. ` • 4? 1'?\??_ ) " ?'11 •'\ 1 ? ? ? /? I I U IOII 1
O / ? I
.'o ?, iii II ?:??/tiY?,? e/? '? " \
T e ter`.
dub taho
^, vp _?' X50 r/ \
1900
n
u .
u _ o I I
l / ^ •111 ?/ \?
` II n\ i \ l_/ ? ? O
. II•V /
11 750
11 •
j / it
(? l
O ^ ? ` ' 100 ../I • /? 11' 1?\ _\ .?? 1 ? •? 1? ? ab
I I 1 1 ?\
2,000' 4,000' 6,000'
un ?? == M \ t _ u 1 11 L?
Figure 7a. Index to topographic maps (Figure 1 b't e).
0700 ? e / v
Robert J. Goldstein & Associates
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
8480 Garvey Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 ?
l? Tel [phone]
Fax [phone] ,?

MATC
1 ?
00
SOO
JOB wvr-i?ii 77 V-
r1= 0 0 -
i
150
- -
RAILROAO
i0 N6pTG7WESTEfitJ
/ _ \ 1 I I '? r, i ?• 1'I -?/"? _ -_,,._?-=i" \ 1.
C? INS 0
- t• -- ? ? . `1 -?"-? . •?0 ? ??' .rte,. i ?, .? ., . ?? \ ? 'k t? ? v? ? .: \\ \ `. -''? -?,
lop
Oil
0 ?
1w
n ,11 ? 1 !? it ; ; ? I \ X ? r?• ? f
fD r.
1.
f/ q 'C .Y co O a)
ogn0
'
C a) 41 C co CD cc 41? En
t
c
U (n
me o f° m s •?~ 3
\ a °n m a Q) Z
3c -
S c vi colQ
--\ tV a; h J o
CO c z CD
CIO D 5. C)
a Cl) dd Q ;
CD U) - a n 0)
It
r-
1 'G E o m 'c m 3 N ? vi O Z OaNNCV
4 3 m CIO c °? „ vt • U tv ^ ^ •
M +J o C.) to v0, c c o co ±= co c 4) Z U co CO
°c
0 'r- co :3 0 0)
I rncu- m p rnrn
00 a)
0 4? CO t1 N' 0' N i
t2
V G Q
/ O co 7 7 O co vO- x 'O v z 00 O o ccd
LL u
> ?o n
%i '``' I' 1 1 co > o
co a) E
W
' ? ? ;?? ?` ? ;• ? ? ? ` ? ? `lam ?1 .
' r
1
O O ri '
'-II % n a
i Al
3
o i ? / ? i. I r 1
I
CD ci
'ca CID
b Cl
I \
1
d) - a -
1h r O R
\ v \ K
13381 yp ,y? - nn ?,? . p Q ° 1 / / `F• . /1
o
?' I ? , o o O O ?'"?•
Is> a 45W O n '
O ` O 1?ry ?? ? V
N?
D^ E ? d
0
0 0 cu (1)
0
o
c? CD o c
co 41
° Q O N c U y
CU a)
D U)
-2 c 0 M.
4? C)
-0 co
3381- ? L (11 '+ O Z
C3 CO CD W
?oQ '? 3mz C (co co in > >o?N
CL 7n (D
a O O C -C (D
C a) 3 c N O N N N
r, 0
U (p N N C co c0 (c0 U) C •01 J> V 00 CO
(moo= co U U m = cn Z 2,
R
oy O L- vO- a N 16 N (D (NC v W 00 a)
off O
CL 4? (LO 7 ? 7 w .? • x O Z co S O N +
0 CL E Q) LL
cu > :3 'co CO
0) co
p ' C7Q26 w
LLJ
-TT
O
N
O
O
d•
O
.. O0
J
a
U
0
O
0
a
n o
0
0

0
C

n
Z
?
m

o D
r
m
:U

D
r ?

N
0
O
\ y 4 L, i
1??00?0? a O
m
m
< -I,
M
0
-
n
X m M 00 Z
:.
D 00
C
c0 Co co O z 0
?

-i
D a
z?
00 OD 0
CD
NNN1< O
?.
`er
` Z
0) ??Vv
M. cf)
N
V O N C

D
Z

1
n
N.

olo.T 7
R4NOY •O Q Q
DRIVE
n•?DG? ¦ r
1 ' m
C ??
CC)
CD CD L_ L_
a? c o
0) CD
CL N (A A CL d O
(° °
? A a
• (D ? O O y
r+ 3 CD
CD
co
(A
C
(D (D
(C`D CAD
N (D
CL
?a ° o
r* 5' c
m a ° (D
=r d O
1 (D A
r•r O
d N 0 rF
o0)
°R
QJ'
0 =r -4
Q O
_ r+
G o
ti A ?:
r+ d A
2.0
o CC
CL
0 r+
ON
A- a
I?
i Q
? o
I14
a II I
n,
o ? o0
t
10
u
0.1 , 0 0l
T; o 0
'bl ° N:0i" ? ' p
o
Y P, /O
?o oA C-I ?o i L7 t ' / * L'? I I I ?`. 1.
cil oil
n I ? 1
i' ,? ? -",ter \\ ;!. +, o •?4 ??[?
0. I n
-CA
YORk ,_ SRE` Q
4ti
.a`
-
a 1s
J
] 81I .-_ '?-- CAROLINA
PINK ? II' o//?`a 0?L? a--OO O e I Q /r?r? .Q a
_ KEYS o Q o?o Q o
-_?==-,?r ^_ o o ? 040 0 0• D ao?
000 \\q, oq ti _ - -
Li I o? Q ?0 o ,? aa2• 0 • .0,
?.? ARMS .._- •??` ``W
O
° o 11 o ° ° 5 / SAIR 1 „ ` ?? O ° • Q Q C
° Q (\ O ° ; [? . Q NEIOH rS e Oo O \\ ?/\ 0 0 O (,? N
?/ ??? v oo C/ p R
O O
/
, o p \4 ;,oo
?E,b,
? 11 Q ??\` ° r,.. Oip 4flV /" ' \!'b^ • O p
Cad) L? \ " O ,x
0
o .0 ^, o/^?' d It
o
V o
O iao? rn Q ?OJ
/ ° 4 ??OQ p Oo. O as =gyp\?
o

`QW4 ,
rRAIVSMISs,r,,
i

} O

1 4%
?,
O <
a
NNINI
I 1
71
ITJ
m
l a o ??,
z? Mv?D0? v
?..
< 3 2
1 ` co o•• /
n -n -i O m co 3 -,, ° S -o c- L- -u o ::r -?
0) CD 00 Z In n. ? o m d o C c o ? 0°
21 D '• m ()o m a m m ° `m' cn' o'
rny, C: CL N <O
(O ? to m o
(o co O (n Z- .e.6..-
r 1+ F) F) CD 0)
cc I " C)
'Z 03 > r-l =r
(CD 0
o 2:
CD o co , r ° cu cu cn
0 co v n °) n
FD 0
_._ Iv N N cn O m m o
C6 -1 0 z CD
V c CD 2: '0
} (n , I CD rt
,p V (CD C y d C -% Z
CL :3 CL C-)
Q D (D CD a o ° ?-- - ,,
O m r* a m
C') CL 0
0 CD
Q CD 0 N a r1'^ -
7 r+ (A , Lr f
m m
ani Cl) lCO
C=D o d ?a ?'$ a 0000
_ oao
-co] ET
43,4 • ??` i O O? p O ?~ i •. 9 .?-?k (? OHO O`. _ •-'??Y=SjRE,??????/?,
42
AD 3
XlYey
cl- LIMITS C. ch-.ROao g `'t
1 t Y:
I! ,- r IF
-7 -Ljj
- = rya _ ? i a ` ?S ? _ `? T w -?•? 1` s???:.F k, , ?,, 1 ,?;` ?? ;?. ? ? ` ;.
.? ? I '*?.: t $ ?.,? 'ti.. ?! D?' d'.?? JM e ? ??:2 '?- ?'? r ChLRq?
r ? ('? ,x\11 ? '- -1 - (. ?1 .I .??' `?..,? W 1i (? ? ? . ? ?! •/ ;/ s ! r1'" ! ` . b' a
%
Duk L
lot
,? S .ti •• • aNS
SSION
? i
? ? s ? ? tlae
' ! •' fit, .? ? ?
o
u 1 I

IV. ALTERNATIVE DISCUSSION
The selected Alternative in the Amendment to the 201 Facilities
Plan Amendment called for laying approximately 4,000 linear feet
of 24-inch gravity sewer and 5,000 linear feet of 18-inch Gravity
Sewer. This outfall would begin at SR 2420 and Brandon Creek;
then follow the creek to its confluence with Crowders Creek; then
under the Highway 321 bridges and into a siphon under Crowders
Creek. From there, it goes to the Crowders Creek Wastewater
Treatment Plant.
This extension of the existing Brandon Creek Outfall will also
facilitate eliminating at least nine individual, Industrial NPDES
discharges.
Reference was made in the original Brandon Creek Amendment
(Alternative Discussion) to the possible future extension of the
outfall beyond the Homelite-Textron Plant. The extension
proposed in this Amendment would add approximately 18,000 linear
feet of new outfall and go approximately 9,000 linear feet beyond
the Homelite facility, allowing service to at least two more
Industries.
13.0 22-Aug-91 Gaston County 201 Amendment JWMI9.RPT - 4
?l
c
Rl
?I
I?
bIR.
S
1 \
C
u
II
II
II
II __
i 11??F

1
Park <.
I I •l I
S?
G •11 `? ?
n •

bdD
©, .r• '•
ems' ?// •`
- ! 60
D
b la i
(
412
' ?l 1
r
• )7
) _
01
'.
AS A
J
/
JI'l
:•I X
'pio
??\f II.O ?' ?' /lam? i \) ) TI' ?'' -- -?
? 32
?NT ?r_ -.. .
IOW Architecture BRANDON CREEK OUTFALL
Engineering AMENDMENT TO
J.N. Pease Associates Planning GASTON. C.OUbLT- Y 201. AMENDMENT
P.O. Box 18725 Charlotte. North Carolina 28218 SITE PLAN FIGURE 1
ICAN-YARNELL. INC.. CHARLOTTE 999 704-372-7796

lKINGS MOUNTAIN
30'
36' ATI O N
8373'
IZZ284-0
BESSEMER CITY
30*
MYRTLE CREEK
PUMP STATION
18'
...._. ..... 3367'
10,080
20,407' 36'
CROWDER CREEK 6760'
PUMP STATION
RITCHES
PUMP ST
9
7'
12 ??
50001-
PROPOSE[) BRANDON CREEK OUTFALL
18" -
42 149200-
98,700'
18'
5000'
EXISTING BRANDON CREEK OUTFALL
24
CROWDER CREEK 4000'
NEW 6 MGD W.W.T.P.
N.C.
S.C.
Architecture BRANDON CREEK -OUTFALL
Engineering AMENDMENT TO
J.N. Pease Associates Planning - GAST.ON COUNTY 201 AMENDMENT
F.O. Box 18725 Charlotte, North CcroAno 28218 SCHEMATIC . PLAN FIGURE 2
n..wn-rnnn a<L. Inv.. YnwnLVl la llama
3
V. INFLOW/INFILTRATION ANALYSIS
The I/I Section in the original 201 Amendment represents the
complete analysis of all the existing lines to be connected to
the new outfall.
This Amendment will involve the addition of only new outfall
lines. These new lines will be designed for no more than the
allowable Inflow/Infiltration.
13.0 22-Aug-91 Gaston County 201 Amendment JWMI9.RPT - 5
w
J
VI. COST-EFFECTIVE EVALUATION
This Cost-Effective Evaluation relates only to The Selected
Alternative in this Amendment to the original 201 Amendment.
Table VI-1 shows the Net Present Worth Analysis with the Brandon
Creek Outfall Extension and its associated Operation and
Maintenance costs. Table VI-2 gives a line item breakdown of the
estimated Brandon Creek Outfall Extension costs. Table VI-3
gives a breakdown of the Operation and Maintenance costs and
Salvage costs. These costs are for the Brandon Creek Outfall
Extension.
For any other information related to cost evaluations, refer to
the original Gaston County 201 Amendment.
13.0 22-Aug-91 Gaston County 201 Amendment JWMI9.RPT - 6

COST-EFFECTIVE EVALUATION
TABLE VI-1
NET PRESENT WORTH ANALYSIS
Crowders Creek WWTP (6 MGD), Outfall,
and Brandon Creek Outfall $27,410,946.00
Brandon Creek Outfall Extension 1,168,480.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $28,579,426.00
(Eligible and Non-Eligible)
Present Worth Outfall 0 & M $ 240,629.00
Present Worth Brandon Creek 0 & M 72,011.00
Present Worth WWTP 0 & M 7,077,330.00
Present Worth WWTP Salvage (-) 1,401,113.00
$33,321,590.00
13.0 26-Aug-91 Gaston County 201 Amendment JWMI9.RPT - 7
i
COST EFFECTIVE EVALUATION
TABLE VI-2
BRANDON CREEK OUTFALL EXTENSION
ITEMIZED BREAKDOWN
ESTIMATED
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT PRICE QUANTITY ESTIMATED COST

1 12" Gravity Sewer LF $ 28.00 5,000 $ 140,000.00
2 18" Gravity Sewer LF 44.00 14,200 624,800.00
3 4' Diameter Manhole EA 1,350.00 53 71,550.00
4 36" S.C.P. Bored LF 200.00 200 40,000.00
5 Seeding AC 800.00 18 14,400.00
6 Mobilization (3.7y) LS 31,100.00 1 32,950.00
Subtotal $ 923,700.00
Contingencies (10%) 92,370.00
Construction Costs 1,016,070.00
Engineering, Legal, Administrative (15%) 152,410.00
TOTAL ELIGIBLE COSTS $1,168,480.00
Land and Right-of-Way City
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS $1,168,480.00
13.0 23-Aug-91 Gaston County 201 Amendment JWMI9.RPT - 8

*Trunk Int./Interceptor
COST-EFFECTIVE EVALUATION
TABLE VI-3
BRANDON CREEK OUTFALL EXTENSION
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
ENR Cost Index 1Q, 1981 = 3400
ENR Cost Index 2Q, 1991 = 4770
4770/3400 = 1.403
$17,000 x 1.403 = 6,690
PRESENT WORTH 20 YEARS, 3% ESCALATION, 10%
PWA = 10.764
$6,690 x 10.764 = $72,011
* EPA Technical Report, 0 & M Costs for Municipal Wastewater Facility
9/1981
13.0 23-Aug-91 Gaston County 201 Amendment JWMI9.RPT - 9

AV SALVAGE COST
- No Salvage for Trunk Int./Interceptor/FM
- Full Salvage for Land Value
Land =
PRESENT WORTH 20 YRS., 10%
PWF = 0.148644
x 0.148644 $
13.0 22-Aug-91 Gaston County 201 Amendment JWMI9.RPT - 10
„` STArF o (f.?
Lr..
IS" ?..
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Mooresville Regional Office
James G. Martin, Governor Albert F. Hilton, Regional Manager
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
DIVISION OF LAND RESOURCES
LAND QUALITY SECTION
May 22, 1992
Mr. Donald Carmichael, P.E.
City of Gastonia
Post Office Box 1748
Gastonia, North Carolina 28053-1748
RE: LETTER OF APPROVAL WITH MODIFICATIONS
Project Name: Brandon Creek Outfall
Location: Forbes Road - Gaston County
Submitted By: J. N. Pease Associates
Date Received: April 30, 199'2
New Submittal X Revision
Dear Mr. Carmichael:

This office has reviewed the subject erosion and
sedimentation control plan and hereby issues this letter of
approval with modifications. A list of the modifications
required is attached. This approval is conditioned upon the
incorporation or addition of these modifications to the plan. If
these modifications are not included in the plan and implemented
on the construction site, the site will be in violation of.the
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973. (G.S. 113A-61(d).
Please be advised that Title 15 NCAC 4B .0017(a) requires
that a copy of the approved erosion control plan be on file at
the job site. Also, you should consider this letter to give the
Notice required by G.S. 113A-61(d) of our right of periodic
inspection to insure compliance with the approved plan.
P.O. Box 95o, 919 North Main Street, Mooresville, N.C. 28115-0950 • Telephone [phone] • FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Page Two
North Carolina's Sedimentation Pollution Control.Program is
performance oriented, requiring protection of the natural
resources and adjoining properties. If following the
commencement of this project it is determined that the erosion
and sedimentation control plan is inadequate to meet the Page Two
requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973
(North Carolina General Statute 113A-51 thru 66), this office may
require revisions to the plan and implementation of the revisions
to insure compliance with the Act.
Please note that this approval is based in part on the
accuracy of the information provided in the Financial
Responsibility Form which you have provided. You are requested
to file an amended form if there is any change in the information
included on the form. In addition, it would be helpful if you
notify this office of the proposed starting date for this
project.
Your cooperation is appreciated, and we look forward to
working with you on this project.
Sincerely,
-?-J, ?OL
Jerry W. Cook
Regional Engineer
cc: r. John W. McLaughlin, P.E.
MODIFICATIONS
1. Fill material will not be allowed as cover on each type "A"
stream crossing.
2. Additional erosion and sediment control measures may be
required if the proposed check dams are deemed to be
inadequate.
BKN/kr
ti V
a

J
c? O
Po
?....iyy
?.1
c? 0 F"
P-q
O
o
O Q.Z O ? ? ? ?
.?.
'O so = O •? ? 'O
•
?.?zE-4 p
P= o •o .? c
?o
CAR S"
0 PO
P= = PC
o S Z a
O e , N -0? ?.+ O ?, ces
en g:6 1
OP u PC z
? rl .L
G? 0
0 PC r- 0
r. 1.4
0= PC cl
0
?M"d v v^ o
v? O pz PC
1.4
O O r..^ O ,?> ? L ?
Piz
O p •? .p"
.... s..
c? opA
N u, W ?a u. V
O
z
m
r

0
r
A M
0
0
O
O
N
O
777 V. 0 Oo / (3 0 ?;?oq? o, c=ip,.o . tit ti:
o. ? 11 I,
O o Q QQ? 4. LL
;. \\\
DRIVE
a I Q.•.
CL ?DL? ¦ r d n},
1
' m it
O Z CD cgs 11'
? ' D 1 r?Fq i'?
m Q' a IN
¦ j
Z f0 p 'D
C4 F,
-n 0 cD cD 3 a) 3: -0 c- C- -u 0 =r
0) p?0() Z? Q?p? co
o? 0 ccr-o
00 m "' a.
r+ o
co c? ` O m ° n m = =* a p 010
D cD - = o' o 0
00 co < n<r"" ) °' CD> > m (n U) o 14mf? y <'
CD CD
0 CD CD 2
cr) M U) RID CD 0)
,rt (D CD r+
(D :3 ca
r- CL CL 0 -4 :r
z CD CD
c') CL 0
--? H, =r p
(n
m
? ,,o r
c 0 CD :1
(D (D 0 N d ? , '?
_ ? , o o.
cl)
n a r- -% r-t 0) (=D o d ? d T-/ °
"<jwfq / r
\ \}IIJ ' °-?? ' ? Cry p.. tl?? (n? 1 ,, \ "
ai o ii SJ p .? q \
v? , 1 0 1 H i,/1
ir i
\ I ,,I I II' ? i
ED fit
to L? f p_ _ I 1 Y - ° .?' 4
71c) C:30 0
i a III '1' i \?
U ?, ?1 ! Q°? I? a 8 Clio
'.
Z1
y '?, ?57`E£ O Q II J`?,.
41
3
.
r m 1
- CAROLINA
o =?8 ___ __ 1 V n 1 ..O
PINKNEY SO Ill / o //O `? ? ? I? Q a & O I ° 4 /rl TJ,,,p /
--
El El O p Q O J 11-11 '
S'fRn:
wows • ?q0 0 o p p o C7 1 R4iC
son
go too SARVIS
h CIO
0 0 /l S4gV, Q \, 0 9 C
e,
X12; o O ?// \ctif\b\ ; C?I .. o 4 ° O O?? JKO ?, ? MrERS 0 O`
11 o ,' ?r? ?i \•? ° O Q ° ?
/ o ,, o o 0 0 Q'o 00 „?
// o o \C\Q t;,,? Q \\\ ,? 0 0Q
Z; If
?-
D
°
a
a
O n
PI Iwo
NMI %m'j 11= NMI
it-,
71s
I Ott ° p,. ,
a
C?L
z 0) CD
3 E! C< cA
o '--4 CD CD 3 Z 0) c_ C-
0 ::r
00 Z a o -, 03 0 o \ A
'+ cr
a) CD T3
LD. D a° CD N.
m p a cn y o a a o 01 c°n
r °'
(O CD co O Z T-1 _,, r * r • ' n' CO)
n'
CD 0)
CD En In
=3 0)
=3 co 0)
Vv N 3
0 co co C) H. ca
'y o m a 0 7
11 N jO0 Z Cl) RIO ccn 0 C. zfA D ?.?
T
CD C ILl X
v :3 a O O n W
O -r-I y (D CD CL a O N
S! Z p ?. m r? a_
U) 0)
-4 CD 0 Car
0) cn CD 0)
CD o N 717CL a oo?a d X Cl o
? ?..
ro ?a 00
COD
O D
Q, Q '??.^ r'Y I 000 O D ?,o oh m o
O- _ amKNEY i"'1'[o f f
_?_ Q;! app r o \00 00 o ` o. o o
n p? a /? .. ?' O ,Y ? •` O O?D??Q? O ? ` .?_.._I ? .., o:L,?.,,,
Li Z' -L-i Q ° • E7 CNURpI_.ROA O g ( I????
a Q LIMITS G ° (,.J -`' •.. . •'{.
it II
f^' i y 1 Y
ifi .
I _ I I ; r'l? t? y_ 'Cr .. Y 1yrf i•?1? V q -`
r iJ!'
I 173 1 ° I !Il,?? ?i' M. ! f I... bO 7?... t ?r1.
LJ r €
(,r-i1I ?_ 1 f
I + .4 I
. IF,
• , ` Mi v.?
40
?1 1
? ?/ s I ''?\\ LINE
Z.
O
O
0
n
D
m
z
o
11
O
0
N
O
0
A c? ' m
z - _.../
o -
ZcQ' o DG)? ! a
N N '
m l; n -o \ c
Y -n 0DCCD30)? _ -0 C- L 0::r C)O a X 0) Z CL
CD O CD a O -1 CD a 0) 0
CL A F.
C-• C 0 r+ O \a?tio
cfl (O (n' o CO CD 0)
m cz) r°j n ° N co
-' G7 -Zi a ° o 0 m 0)
cD cfl ' ° D cn m
::r CD " o o'
03 0() 0 CD W 0) 0
CD co of m °
--4 0 N N ?? 0 ;:I m CD 3. 0 ?- i
Cfl -? V C Z Qp c -? C?D - N d
o) U) CD ?v0< C U' m Z ?•??? CD CL =r CD o
D C-1 N a _• p p oG
STREE. 00
o 'a m a m
CL 0 r+
::r 00 D cm
Y ?`? m m 0 n C o t Oo
O
W r+ ((D CD Z) o 0
m 0 d 77 a- 0 0 q CI Q 0 p ? 4
<f
r O °`L ? C2 0 z O C
U I `.? o <? c 0 0.
10
O °
\ ? _ 0 . . . 0? • RddJ. C? ? o q? • Q ? o b ? ? Q C7 n
ET
' O @/ ' ?O I Q O O ,<° .. GRlsspd STREET
cfi
o 0 0 0 \ o 0
0
13
CO CD.
I x' g -bo
TIC,
u
Y I I 1!I! ? ._
r
-- - d d
? on ? ? o
M
S 4
;.:
m
m Q" w 0 ?D0 ¦ 0 ?1. i
0 <N t ' /rill x.
o < ?cXn, LA um
-n O?" ?m3vc- L. i
X ((D co Z 0. X• O :Z p a: 0 :r
0 O C C_. O rOr O O
D .. CD " CD r+ CS I -
LD 00 Q CD 0) CD (A cl), c3
Cl)
' o m p
Z m 0 0: o. 0 d 0) Ca I
r (D CD CO
_ ?• p -,. ,? m
A m CO?
Z 0) ?D A' m ? s - Cl) o• o• a v CD Ck)
00
0 00 v CD n ?. ,0 r* :3 m m CD 1 ?. n
?' N N N •C O Cl) ((aD m 2.0 -4 Z (L C CCDD. N O
:3. U) CD
j 0 C rr y u 0 C.?
A (D r?? ;:v n :3 o cZi": l1 \
-1 CD CD CL 0"
a Cl)
O z p
T3 CD
CL O .*
U) Q C y, 0 CD' N 0 - 11
FD' CD 0 o- co
0
m N `+ 0 (CD N ° \~J' 11
D CD CD
.
CD O d 0
6 700
%
O ..
0.
1 0 d aI
.13
\ I' /' r ? - '• Jit. ??. .? /,i /?? _.111
f J '. i I l fp ?O? s ??. ?/ j i 11
D ???? r11 \
L11 :?11V/y
i
°"
1 r C 11 _ - \ ?, l
? \-- _ - --. T• Ntl3153MN1tlON ? - ??/ ?•? 1 ` ?\ ? / I i ! ` ? i?? ,/-1
O-i
II S \ f 1 i
'
< \\ ;,,-
11 $. oo
00
09
- ? , • , r gip.
?N \' o
ll /?
1 I H W LOW.. 30 s
.. S
!.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
Mr. Donald E. Carmichael, Director of Public Work/Utilities
City of Gastonia
n n, Box_ 1748
Gastonia, N.C. 28053-1748
Dear Mr. `Carmichael:
T: Everett, Ph.D
Director
June 10, 1992 I j SEP &2
WETLANDS GROUP,
hIAlER UALITY SECTI
Subject. Permit No. WQ0006538
City of Gastonia
Brandon Creek Outfall
Sewer Extension
Gaston County
in accordance with your application received May 26, 1992, we are forwarding herewith Permit
No. WQ0006538 dated June 10, 1992, to the City of Gastonia for the construction and operation of the
subject wastewater collection extension.
This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until rescinded and shall be subject to the
conditions and limitations as specified therein.
If any parts, requirements, or limitations contained in this permit are unacceptable to you, you have
the right to request an adjudicatory hearing upon written request within 30 days following receipt of this
permit. This request must be in the form of a written petition, conforming to Chapter 150B of North
Carolina General Statutes, and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Drawer 27447,
Raleigh, NC 27611-7447. Unless such demands are made this permit shall be final and binding.
r
Regional Offices>Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/733-2314 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 919/896.7007
Pollution Prevention Pays ,
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
One set of approved plans and specifications is being forwarded to you. If you need additional
information concerning this matter, please contact Mr. Michael Allen at 9191733-5083.
Sincerely,
0 &ItCaL;'-
George Everett
cc: Gaston County He4h Department
Mooresville Regional Office
J.N.. Pease Associates
J•
NORTH CAROLINA
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH AND NATURAL RESOURCES
RALEIGH
WASTEWATER COLLECTION PERMIT
In accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of Chapter 143, General Statutes of North Carolina as
amended, and other applicable Laws, Rules, and Regulations
PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO
City of Gastonia
Gaston County
FOR THE
construction and operation of approximately 4,778 linear feet of 12 inch gravity sewer, approximately
5,133 linear feet of 18 inch gravity sewer to serve Brandon Creek Outfall and the discharge of 477,000
GPD of collected domestic, commercial, and industrial wastewater into the City of Gastonia's existing
sewerage system, pursuant to the application received May 26, 1992, and in conformity with the project
plan, specifications, and other supporting data subsequently filed and approved by the Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources and considered a part of this permit.
This permit shall be effective from the date of issuance until rescinded and shall be subject to the
following specified conditions and limitations:
1. This permit shall become voidable unless the facilities are constructed in accordance with the
conditions of this permit, the approved plans and specifications, and other supporting data.
2. This permit is effective only with respect to the nature and volume of wastes described in the
application and other supporting data
3. The facilities must be properly maintained and operated at all times.
4. The sewage and wastewater collected by this system shall be treated in the Crowders Creek
Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility prior to being discharged into the receiving stream.
5. This permit is not transferable. In the event there is a desire for the facilities to change ownership,
or there is a name change of the Permittee, a formal permit request must be submitted to the
Division of Environmental Management accompanied by an application fee, documentation from
the parties involved, and other supporting materials as may be appropriate. The approval of this
request will be considered on its merits and may or may not be approved.
6. Construction of the sewers, pump station(s) and force main shall be scheduled so as not to
interrupt service by the existing utilities nor result in an overflow or bypass discharge of
wastewater to the surface waters of the State.
if
, 11
7. Upon completion of construction and prior to operation of this permitted facility, a certification
must be received from a professional engineer certifying that the permitted facility has been
installed in accordance with this permit and the approved plans and specifications. Mail the
Certification to the Permits and Engineering Unit, P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, NC 27626-0535.
8. A copy of the approved plans and specifications shall be maintained on file by the Permittee for a
minimum of five years from the date of the completion of construction.
9. Failure to abide by the conditions and limitations contained in this permit may subject the Permittee
w tux .,.u.,..,.,:... Lt action by the Division of Environmental Management in accordance with North
Carolina General Statute 143-215.6A to 143-215.6C.
10. The ' issuance of this permit does not preclude the Permittee from complying with any and all
statutes, rules, regulations, or ordinances which may be imposed by other government agencies
(local, state, and federal) which have jurisdiction.
11. In the event that the facilities fail to perform satisfactorily, including the creation of nuisance
conditions, the Permittee shall take immediate corrective action, including those as may be required
by this Division, such as the construction of addidrinal or replacement w; steivater collection
faculties.
12. Noncompliance Notification:
The Permittee shall report by telephone to the Mooresville Regional Office, telephone no. 704/663-
1699 as soon as possible, but in no case more than 24 hours or on the next worlang day following
the occurrence or first knowledge of the occurrence of either of the following:
a. Any process unit failure, due to known or unknown reasons, that render the facility
incapable of adequate wastewater transport such as mechanical or electrical failures of
pumps, line blockage or breakage, etc.
b. Any failure of a pumping station or sewer line resulting in a by-pass directly to receiving
waters without treatment of all or any portion of the influent to such station or facility.
Persons reporting such occurrences by telephone shall also file a written report in letter form within
15 days following first knowledge of the occurrence. This report must outline the actions taken or
proposed to be taken to ensure that the problem does not recur.
Permit issued this the 10th day of June, 1992
NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
George T. Ev rett, Director
Division of Environmental Management
By Authority of the Environmental Management Commission
Permit Number WQD006538
2
r'

Permit No. WQ0006538
June 10, 1992
F.Nr.TNEER's CERTIFICATION
I, . as a duly registered Professional Engineer in the State of North
Carolina, having been authorized to observe (periodically, weekly, full time) the construction of the
project, for the
Project Name Location
Permittee hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence was used in the observation
of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial compliance and
intent of the approved plans and specifications.
Signature
Date
Registration No.
3