Attachment_E2

North Carolina Division of Water Resources II - 1 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COMMISSION

Certificate Authorizing the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
to Increase Their Transfer of Water
from the Catawba River basin to the Rocky River basin
under the Provisions of G.S. 143-215.22I

In August 2001, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities (CMU) petitioned the Environmental
Management Commission (EMC) for an increase in interbasin transfer (IBT) from the Catawba
River Basin to the Rocky River Basin. CMU requested an increase from the grandfathered IBT
of 16.1 million gallons per day (mgd) to 33 mgd (maximum day basis). The proposed IBT is
based on additional water withdrawals from Lake Norman and Mountain Island Lake in the
source basin (Catawba River Basin). The IBT will increase due to transfer of the water to the
receiving basin (Rocky River Basin) via consumptive use in eastern Mecklenburg County and
existing discharges at Mallard Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant [WWTP] and Water and
Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County’s [WSACC] Rocky River Regional (RRR) WWTP. CMU
requested an increase to 33 mgd, will allow CMUD to meet projected water supply demands
through the year 2030 in eastern Mecklenburg County. This IBT does not include transfers
associated with water or wastewater service provided to the Goose Creek watershed in the Town
of Mint Hill in Mecklenburg County. Public hearings on the proposed transfer increase were held
in Huntersville on December 11, 2001 pursuant to G.S. 143-215.22I.

The EMC considered the petitioner’s request at its regular meeting on March 14, 2002.
According to G.S. 143-215.22I (g), the EMC shall issue a transfer certificate only if the benefits
of the proposed transfer outweigh the detriments of the proposed transfer, and the detriments
have been or will be mitigated to a reasonable degree.

The EMC may grant the petition in whole or in part, or deny it, and may require mitigation
measures to minimize detrimental effects. In making this determination, the EMC shall
specifically consider:

1. The necessity, reasonableness, and beneficial effects of the transfer.
2. Detrimental effects on the source river basin.
2a. The cumulative effect on the source major river basin of any water transfer or
consumptive water use.
3. Detrimental effects on the receiving basin.
4. Reasonable alternatives to the proposed transfer.
5. Use of impounded storage.
6. Purposes and water storage allocations in a US Army Corps of Engineers multi-
purpose reservoir.
7. Any other facts or circumstances necessary to carry out the law.

In addition, the certificate may require a drought management plan. The plan will describe the
actions a certificate holder will take to protect the source basin during drought conditions.
E40

North Carolina Division of Water Resources II - 2 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

The members of the EMC reviewed and considered the complete record which included the
hearing officer’s report, staff recommendations, the applicant’s petition, the Final Environmental
Assessment, the public comments relating to the proposed interbasin transfer, and all of the
criteria specified above. Based on that record, the Commission makes the following findings of
fact.

Finding of Fact

THE COMMISSION FINDS:

(1) Necessity, Reasonableness, and Benefits of the Transfer
The proposed transfer will provide water to Mecklenburg County, City of Charlotte, and
other communities in the county. The current population served is about 636,000 with a
maximum day water use of about 154 million gallons per day (mgd). Projections assume
a 2.6 percent annual increase through 2010 decreasing to 1.3 percent by 2030. The
projected 2030 serve population is 1,101,000 with a maximum day water use of about
245 mgd.

The western boundary of Mecklenburg county includes Lake Norman and Mountain
Island Lake which are CMU’s two water sources. CMU’s current combined withdrawal
capacity from both lakes is adequate to meet average day demands until about 2020.
CMU has requested an increase from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) to increase their Mountain Island Lake withdrawal capacity. The requested
increase from 165 mgd to 330 mgd (instantaneous maximum) will meet projected 2030
demands and add pumping flexibility.

The transfer of water will benefit the Mecklenburg County region by guaranteeing water
to support the economic development and associated population growth that has occurred
and projected to occur in this region of the State.

Based on the record the Commission finds the transfer is necessary to supply water to the
growing communities of this area. Water from the source basin is readily available and
within a short distance from the service area. Therefore the transfer is a reasonable
allocation to these communities. The transfer will greatly benefit these communities by
providing raw water of high quality for residential and industrial purposes.

E41

North Carolina Division of Water Resources II - 3 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

(2) Detrimental Effects on the Source Basin
In order to assess the direct impacts of the proposed transfer on the source basin,
the petitioners utilized Duke Energy’s Hydro-Electric Operations and Planning
Model of the Catawba-Wateree Project. The Catawba-Wateree model simulates
reservoir operations and withdrawals from Lake James in North Carolina to Lake
Wateree in South Carolina (see the following figure the Catawba-Wateree River
System). Details of the modeling analysis are included in this report Part V
Applicant Supplemental Information.

As required under G.S. 143-215.22I(f)(2), local water supply plans were
considered in developing the model. In addition, industrial and agricultural
withdrawals were model inputs. Model runs were evaluated for present
conditions, 2030 CMU water demands, and cumulative 2030 water demands.

E42

North Carolina Division of Water Resources II - 4 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

As seen in the following table, a summary of daily releases from Lake Wylie, the
transfer will have minimal impact on low flows. Similarly the model results show
minimal impacts to both lake levels and hydropower generation.

Percent of Time that Daily Flow Releases from Lake Wylie Would Equal or Exceed Selected Average Daily Flow Thresholds During the
Entire Year
400
cfs
500
cfs
700
cfs
1,000
cfs
1,250
cfs
1,500
cfs
2,00
cfs
Average Year
Existing
2000
100% 100% 97% 87% 82% 82% 79%
CMU
2030
100% 100% 96% 87% 82% 82% 78%
Cumulative
2030
100% 100% 96% 87% 82% 82% 79%
Dry Year
Existing
2000
100% 95% 88% 81% 76% 73% 61%
CMU
2030
100% 95% 88% 81% 76% 72% 60%
Cumulative 2030 100% 95% 88% 81% 75% 70% 59%
Drought Year
Existing
2000
100% 85% 82% 70% 52% 39% 29%
CMU
2030
100% 84% 82% 62% 44% 35% 28%
Cumulative
2030
100% 84% 79% 55% 41% 32% 26%

Based on the modeling results the Commission finds that the detrimental effects
on the source basin described in G.S. §143-215.22I(f)(2) will be insignificant.

(2a) Cumulative effect on Source Basin of any transfers or consumptive water use
projected in local water supply plans
Local water supply plan data, including current and projected water use and water
transfers, were used to develop the input data sets for the model discussed in
Finding Number 2. The model was used to evaluate current and future scenarios
of basin water use.

The safe yield of the reservoir system has not been determined. Duke Power does
not have a policy on reallocation of power pool storage to water supply, for
example unlike the Corps of Engineers. However, based on two 2030 model
scenarios and current drought operations, the safe yield is at least as large or
larger than the cumulative 2030 scenario of 624 mgd.

Based on the modeling discussed in Finding No. 2, the Commission finds the
cumulative effects of this and other future water transfers or consumptive uses as
described in G.S. §143-215.22I(f)(2a) will be insignificant.

E43

North Carolina Division of Water Resources II - 5 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

(3) Detrimental Effects on the Receiving Basin
The proposed transfer will utilize existing permitted wastewater discharges to the Rocky
River basins; therefore no additional permitted capacities will be required. Previous
studies for the existing plant indicated no significant direct water quality or wastewater
assimilation on the receiving stream. Additional growth and development in the receiving
basin may impact water quality, stormwater runoff, frequency and intensity of flooding,
and land use.

The Goose Creek watershed in Mecklenburg County was removed from the area to be
served by this transfer certificate until the impacts of additional urban growth on
Federally listed endangered mussel specifies are fully evaluated.

Based on the record the Commission finds the transfer will support continued population
growth and the attendant impacts of that growth. These impacts include effects on
wastewater assimilation, fish and wildlife habitat, and water quality. However, these
impacts will be minimal. Reasonable mitigation includes:
1. Require the County to evaluate the feasibility of each element of the Surface
Water Improvement and Management Program (SWIM) on an annual basis.
2. Require the County and the Town of Mint Hill to consider the conclusions of
Wildlife Resources Commission’s Goose Creek watershed study when complete.
3. Require Mecklenburg County and the City of Charlotte to continue the
stakeholder process to investigate water quantity control from single-family
development and water quality control for all development.
4. The Goose Creek subbasin in Mecklenburg County is removed from the area to be
served by the IBT. A moratorium on the installation of new IBT water lines into
Goose Creek subbasin is in effect until the impacts of additional growth urban
growth on the endangered specifies are fully evaluated.

E44

North Carolina Division of Water Resources II - 6 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Environmental Management Commission Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer
Hearing Officer’s Report – February 2002

(4) Alternatives to Proposed Transfer
The petitioners evaluated three alternatives to the proposed transfer. The alternatives
considered included:
1. No Action – Growth would be served by individual wells and septic tanks. The
region is already experiencing water quality problems related septic tanks and
package sewage plants. Also, a number of individual wells in this region have
both low yields and poor water quality.
2. Obtain Water from the Rocky River – New reservoir project. Development of
new impoundments for water supply in rapidly developing urban area face
significant regulatory requirements and considerable public controversy.
3. Return wastewater discharge to the Catawba – Return wastewater to the
McAlpine WWTP. Returning water to the Catawba would increase McApline’s
discharge by 17 mgd. SC DHEC considers the McAlpine plant to be a significant
contributor to phosphorus in the Catawba basin already at it’s current discharge
level.
4. Proposed Action. The proposed action of using the Mallard Creek WTTP and the
Rocky Regional WTTP increases the existing discharge of 8 mgd to 18 mgd by
2030 into the Rocky River.

Based on the information provided in the EA and the petition, the Commission finds that
the proposed alternative is the most feasible means of meeting the petitioners’ long-term
water supply needs while minimizing overall impacts and cost.

(5) Impoundment Storage
This criterion is not applicable, as the petitioners do not have an impoundment.

(6) The water to be withdrawn or transferred is stored in a multipurpose reservoir
constructed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers
This criterion is not applicable, as the petitioners are using storage in Duke Power
reservoirs.

(7) Other Considerations
The Commission finds that to protect the source basin during drought conditions, to
mitigate the future need for allocations of the limited resources of this basin, and as
authorized by G.S. § 143-215.22I(h), a drought management plan is appropriate. The
plan should describe the actions that the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities will take to
protect the Catawba River Basin during drought conditions.

The Commission notes that future developments may prove the projections and
predictions in the EIS to be incorrect and new information may become available that
shows that there are substantial environmental impacts associated with this transfer.
Therefore, to protect water quality and availability and associated benefits, modification
of the terms and conditions of the certificate may be necessary at a later date.
E45
E46
E47
Stev
e
n
s

C
r
e
e
k
Goose

C
r
e
e
k
Duck

C
r
e
e
k
BRIEF
LAWYERS
HW
Y

2
1
8
CO
N
C
O
R
D
MILL G
R
O
V
E
UN
I
O
N
V
I
L
L
E

B
R
I
E
F
IND
I
A
N

T
R
A
I
L

F
A
I
R
V
I
E
W
STEV
E
N
S

M
I
L
L
STAL
L
I
N
G
S
DUN
C
A
N
R
I
D
G
E
IDL
E
W
I
L
D
CLONTZ

L
O
N
G
UNION
OLD D
U
T
C
H
K
A
T
E
SIK
E
S

M
I
L
L
UNIO
N
V
I
L
L
E
RO
C
K
Y

R
I
V
E
R
POPLIN
CLONTZ
HO
P
E
W
E
L
L

C
H
U
R
C
H
PRICE
MACH
A
D
O
OLD FISH
REID
B
L
A
C
K
TESH
SIMPS
O
N
HO
W
E
Y

B
O
T
T
O
M
S
C
R
I
S
M
A
R
K
FAIRVI
E
W
NOAH

H
E
L
M
S
OLD FER
R
Y
CPCC
HER
I
T
A
G
E
RUSSELL
GARRETT
CUNN
I
N
G
H
A
M
O
A
K

S
P
R
I
N
G
STI
N
S
O
N

H
A
R
T
I
S
RU
S
H
I
N
G

B
E
N
T
O
N
HAW
T
H
O
R
N
E
KILL
I
A
N
J
O
H
N
VICKIE
KIDW
E
L
L
Y
BL
U
E

R
O
C
K
DIVID
E
P
R
I
C
E

T
U
C
K
E
R
FAITH
RED
W
O
O
D
S
E
C
R
E
S
T

S
H
O
R
T

C
U
T
SHERIN
GOL
D

C
R
E
S
T
WRIGHT
PHILL
I
P
S
IVY
R
U
N
TARA
O
A
K
S
COV
E
Y
FLOW
E
ST
A
T
I
O
N
BLUE

S
T
R
E
A
M
KE
R
R
PERSIMMON CREEK
SHEPHERDS
RANCH
M
I
L
L

H
O
U
S
E
BE
A
C
O
N

H
I
L
L
S
MAR
T
I
N

T
U
C
K
E
R
HE
R
I
T
A
G
E

V
I
E
W
AL
L
E
N

B
L
A
C
K
CONIFER
THI
C
K
E
T
T
Y
MA
K
I
N
TOM HELMS
CUPPED OA
K
BETH
E
L

A
V
E
N
U
E
SCAR
L
E
T
GEORGE GU
I
N
FOXGLOVE
ALLEY
W
e
l
l

R
d
Bel
t

R
d
Mcma
n
u
s

R
d
Uni
o
n

R
d
Fe
r
g
u
s
o
n

R
d
Con
n
e
l
l

R
d
Peggy Ln
Q
u
a
i
l

P
a
r
k

D
r
W
i
l
l
i
a
m
s

R
d
Ce
d
a
r
b
r
o
o
k

D
r
Pine Cr
Viola Dr
Davis

R
d
Wh
i
t
m
i
r
e

L
n
Hooks Rd
B
a
l
e
s

L
n
Bartlett

R
d
A
l
a
m
a
n
c
e

D
r
E I-485 O
u
t
e
r

H
y
Sunway

D
r
S
a
l
l
y

L
n
Swaim
D
r
Bain

F
a
r
m

R
d
Keziah
R
d
C
r
e
s
t
h
i
l
l

D
r
D
o
o
l
e
y

D
r
Ke
r
r

R
d
P
a
t
r
i
o
t

D
r
Carde
n

D
r
Brief Rd
La
w
y
e
r
s

R
d
Davi
d

D
r
Willhill Rd
Grie
r

P
l
Oscar Dr
30
F
o
o
t

S
t
Still
w
e
l
l

R
d
Windy

K
n
o
l
l

L
n
Orrvie
w

D
r
Happy H
o
l
l
o
w

D
r
No
r
w
i
c
h

R
d
Hig
h
l
a
n
d

A
v
Su
r
r
e
y

R
d
Bo
y
d

D
r
G
o
l
d

W
a
g
o
n

L
n
Jomac Dr
Winding Tl
Surface

H
i
l
l

R
d
Big Oak Ln Clear Creek Dr
Lar
g
e

O
a
k

L
n
Lightwoo
d

D
r
M
e
a
d
o
w

L
n
Bric
k
s
t
o
n
e

D
r
Golfv
i
e
w

C
t
Di
o
n

D
r
Le
y
t
o
n

P
l
Pence R
d
Albemarle R
d
Graymis
t

D
r
K
u
c
k

R
d
Lake Rd
Rice R
d
L
e
b
a
n
o
n

R
d
Cabarru
s

R
d
B
a
i
n

S
c
h
o
o
l

R
d
Marglyn Dr
Blair

R
d
M
o
o
r
e

R
d
C
o
b
l
e

R
d
Sharpe Rd
C
e
n
t
r
a
l

D
r
Thom
p
s
o
n

R
d
Sa
m

N
e
w
e
l
l

R
d
S I
-
4
8
5

I
n
n
e
r

H
y
Idle
w
i
l
d

R
d
N

I
-
4
8
5

O
u
t
e
r

H
y
Stevens
M
i
l
l

R
d
Tuc
k
a
l
a
k
e

D
r
Fairview Rd
E
J
o
h
n

S
t
Harr
i
s
b
u
r
g

R
d
Quarters

L
n
Lo
c
h
i
n
v
a
r

D
r
E C
h
a
r
l
e
s

S
t
I-4
8
5

R
a
I-4
8
5

R
a
Blair

R
d
Brief Rd
Bartlett R
d
Brief Rd
Albemarle Rd
Le
b
a
n
o
n

R
d
I-485 Ra
Brief Rd
Albemarle Rd
Blair

R
d
Cabarrus Rd
Id
l
e
w
i
l
d

R
d
I
-
4
8
5

R
a
Albemarle Rd
Goose, Duck, and Stevens Creek
Surrounding Streams
Streets
Goose Creek Watershed Boundary
Mint Hill ETJ
Stanley County
Cabarrus County
Mecklenburg CountyUnion County Townships
Goose Creek
Vance
Goose Creek Watershed ²
0 1 2 3 40.5 Miles
E48
Fairview Rd
M atth e w s-M int H ill R d
Bri e f R dBlair R
d
I
n
d
i
a
n

T
r
a
i
l

R
d
§¨¦485
L
a
w
y
e
r
s

R
d
Idlewild Rd ¯
CMU Water Mains within the Goose Creek Watershed E49
E50

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
& NATURAL RESOURCES
Site Specific Water Quality Management Plan for the
Goose Creek Watershed
Environmental Management Commission - Raleigh, North Carolina
Last Amended: February 1, 2009 http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/GooseCreek.html

Reprint from North Carolina
Administrative Code:
15A NCAC 2B .0600-.0609
Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin
E51

E52
ENR – ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT T15A: 02B .0600

NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Eff. January 1, 2009 Page 1

SECTION .0600 - WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANS

15A NCAC 02B .0601 SITE SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE GOOSE CREEK
WATERSHED (YADKIN PEE-DEE RIVER BASIN): PURPOSE
The Goose Creek watershed in the Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin provides habitat for an aquatic animal species that is listed as federally
endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544.
Maintenance and recovery of the water quality conditions required to sustain and recover the federally-listed endangered species
thereby protects the biological integrity of the waters. The Goose Creek watershed, which includes Goose Creek (Index # 13-17-18),
Stevens Creek (Index # 13-17-18-1), Paddle Branch (Index # 13-17-18-2), Duck Creek (Index # 13-17-18-3) and all tributaries, shall
be protected by the site-specific management strategy described in Rules .0601 through .0609 of this Section.
The purpose of the actions required by this site-specific management strategy is for the maintenance and recovery of the water quality
conditions required to sustain and recover the federally endangered Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) species. Management
of the streamside zones to stabilize streambanks and prevent sedimentation are critical measures to restore water quality to sustain and
enable recovery of the federally endangered Carolina heelsplitter. Site-specific management strategies shall be implemented to:
(1) control stormwater for projects disturbing one acre or more of land as described in Rule .0602,
(2) control wastewater discharges as described in Rule .0603,
(3) control toxicity to streams supporting the Carolina heelsplitter as described in Rule .0604, and
(4) maintain riparian buffers as described in Rules .0605 through .0609.

History Note: Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.8A;
Eff. January 1, 2009.

E53
ENR – ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ____ T15A: 02B .0600

NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Eff. February 1, 2009 Page 2
15A NCAC 02B .0602 SITE SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE GOOSE CREEK
WATERSHED (YADKIN PEE-DEE RIVER BASIN): STORMWATER CONTROL
REQUIREMENTS
(a) Any new development activity that disturbs one acre or more of land within the Goose Creek watershed and will result in addition
of impervious surface shall control and treat the difference in the stormwater runoff from the predevelopment and post-development
conditions for the one-year, 24-hour storm, with structural stormwater controls, with the exception of NC Department of Transportation
and NC Turnpike Authority activities that shall be regulated in accordance with provisions of that agency's NPDES Stormwater Permit.
Development and redevelopment shall implement stormwater management measures that promote infiltration of flows and groundwater
recharge for the purpose of maintaining stream base flow or the delegated local government shall maintain a written explanation when it
is not practical to use infiltration methods.
(b) Structural stormwater controls shall meet the following requirements:
(1) Remove an 85 percent average annual amount of Total Suspended Solids;
(2) Draw down the treatment volume no faster than 48 hours, but no slower than 120 hours, for detention ponds;
(3) Discharge the storage volume at a rate equal or less than the pre-development discharge rate for the one-year, 24-
hour storm; and
(4) Meet Design of Stormwater Management Measures set forth in 15A NCAC 02H .1008.
(c) Local governments may submit a written request to the Commission for authority to implement and enforce the state's stormwater
protection requirements of G.S. 143-214.7 and S.L. 2006-246 within their jurisdiction. The written request shall be accompanied by
information that shows:
(1) The local government has land use jurisdiction for the riparian buffer demonstrated by delineating the local land use
jurisdictional boundary on USGS 1:24,000 topographical map(s) or other finer scale map(s);
(2) The local government has the administrative organization, staff, legal authority, financial and other resources
necessary to implement and enforce the state's stormwater requirements based on its size and projected amount of
development;
(3) The local government has adopted ordinances, resolutions, or regulations necessary to establish and maintain the
state's stormwater requirements; and
(4) The local government has provided a plan to address violations with civil or criminal remedies and actions as well as
remedies that shall restore buffer functions on violation sites and provide a deterrent against the occurrence of future
violations.
(d) Within 90 days after the Commission has received the request for delegation, the Commission shall notify the local government
based on standards as set out in Paragraph (c) of this Rule whether it has been approved, approved with modifications, or denied.
(e) The Commission, upon determination that a delegated local authority is failing to implement or enforce the requirements in keeping
with a delegation, shall notify the delegated local authority in writing of the local program's inadequacies. If the delegated local
authority has not corrected the deficiencies within 90 days of receipt of the written notification, then the Commission shall rescind the
delegation of authority to the local government and shall implement and enforce the state's stormwater requirements.
(f) Limits of delegated local authority are as follows: The Commission shall have jurisdiction to the exclusion of local governments to
implement the state's stormwater protection requirements for the following types of activities:
(1) Activities undertaken by the State;
(2) Activities undertaken by the United States;
(3) Activities undertaken by multiple jurisdictions; and
(4) Activities undertaken by local units of government.
(g) Recordkeeping requirements are as follows: Delegated local authorities shall maintain on-site records for a minimum of five years.
Delegated local authorities must furnish a copy of these records to the Director within 30 days of receipt of a written request for the
records. The Division of Water Quality shall inspect local stormwater programs to ensure that the programs are being implemented and
enforced in keeping with an approved delegation.

History Note: Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.8A;143-214.7, S.L. 2006-246;
Eff. February 1, 2009.

E54
ENR – ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT T15A: 02B .0600

NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Eff. January 1, 2009 Page 3
15A NCAC 02B .0603 SITE SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE GOOSE CREEK
WATERSHED (YADKIN PEE-DEE RIVER BASIN): WASTEWATER CONTROL
REQUIREMENTS
No new National Pollution Discharge Elimination System "NPDES" wastewater discharges or expansions to existing discharges shall
be permitted.

History Note: Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.8A;
Eff. January 1, 2009.

E55
ENR – ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ____ T15A: 02B .0600

NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Eff. February 1, 2009 Page 4
15A NCAC 02B .0604 SITE SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE GOOSE CREEK
WATERSHED (YADKIN PEE-DEE RIVER BASIN): CONTROL TOXICITY INCLUDING
AMMONIA
No activity that results in direct or indirect discharge is allowed if it causes toxicity to the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata)
endangered mussel. For any direct or indirect discharge that may cause ammonia toxicity to the Carolina heelsplitter freshwater
mussel, action shall be taken to reduce ammonia (NH3-N) inputs to achieve 0.5 milligrams per liter or less of total ammonia based on
chronic toxicity defined in 15A NCAC 02B .0202. This level of total ammonia is based on ambient water temperature equal to or
greater than 25 degrees Celsius.

History Note: Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.8A;
Eff. February 1, 2009.

E56
ENR – ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT T15A: 02B .0600

NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Eff. January 1, 2009 Page 5
15A NCAC 02B .0605 SITE SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE GOOSE CREEK
WATERSHED (YADKIN PEE-DEE RIVER BASIN): RIPARIAN BUFFER WIDTHS
In this watershed, undisturbed riparian buffers are required within 200 feet of waterbodies within the 100-Year Floodplain and within
100 feet of waterbodies that are not within the 100-Year Floodplain. The 100-Year Floodplain is the one percent Annual Chance
Floodplain as delineated by the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program in the Division of Emergency Management. Within the
buffer areas that are regulated by this Rule, redevelopment is allowed for residential structures and redevelopment of non-residential
structures is allowed provided that less than an additional half acre is disturbed during the redevelopment activity for non-residential
structures. Redevelopment is defined in 15A NCAC 02H .1002(14). Exceptions to undisturbed forested riparian buffer requirements
are set forth in Rule .0607 of this Section. Activities shall require stormwater control as required by Rule .0602 of this Section.

History Note: Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.8A;
Eff. January 1, 2009.

E57
ENR – ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT __ __ T15A: 02B .0600

NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Eff. February 1, 2009 Page 6
15A NCAC 02B .0606 SITE SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE GOOSE CREEK
WATERSHED (YADKIN PEE-DEE RIVER BASIN): VARIANCE FOR ACTIVITIES WITHIN
RIPARIAN BUFFERS
Persons who wish to undertake uses designated as prohibited within the protected riparian buffer area may pursue a variance. Persons
who wish to undertake forest harvesting beyond the requirements set forth in 15A NCAC 02B .0608 may pursue a variance. The
variance request procedure shall be as follows:
(1) For any variance request, the Division of Water Quality shall make a finding of fact as to whether the following
requirements have been met:
(a) There are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships that prevent compliance with the strict letter of the
riparian buffer protection requirements. Practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships shall be evaluated in
accordance with the following:
(i) If the applicant complies with the provisions of the buffer requirements, he/she can secure no
reasonable return from, nor make reasonable use of, his/her property. Merely proving that the
variance would permit a greater profit from the property is not adequate justification for a
variance. Moreover, the Division of Water Quality shall consider whether the variance is the
minimum possible deviation from the terms of the buffer requirements that will make reasonable
use of the property possible.
(ii) The hardship results from application of the buffer requirements to the property rather than from
other factors such as deed restrictions or other hardship.
(iii) The hardship is due to the physical nature of the applicant's property and is unique to the
applicant's property, such as its size, shape, or topography, such that compliance with provision of
this Rule would not allow reasonable use of the property.
(iv) The applicant did not cause the hardship by knowingly or unknowingly violating the buffer
requirements.
(v) The applicant did not purchase the property after the effective date of this Rule, and then request a
variance.
(b) The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the State's riparian buffer protection
requirements and preserves its spirit; and
(c) In granting the variance, the public safety and welfare have been assured, water quality has been protected,
and substantial justice has been done.
(2) A variance request pertains to any activity that is proposed to impact any portion of the riparian buffer. If the
Division of Water Quality has determined that a major variance request meets the requirements in Item (1) of this
Rule, then it shall prepare a preliminary finding and submit it to the Environmental Management Commission.
Preliminary findings on variance requests shall be reviewed by the Commission within 90 days after receipt by the
Director. Requests for appeals of determinations that the requirements of Item (1) of this Rule have not been met
shall be made to the Office of Administrative Hearings for determinations made by the Division of Water Quality or
the appropriate Board of Adjustments under G.S. 160A-388 or G.S. 153A-345 for determinations made by the
delegated local authority. The purpose of the Commission's review is to determine if it agrees that the requirements
in Item (1) of this Rule have been met. Requests for appeals of decisions made by the Commission shall be made to
the Office of Administrative Hearings. The following actions shall be taken depending on the Commission's
decision on the major variance request:
(a) Upon the Commission's approval, the Division of Water Quality shall issue a final decision granting the
variance.
(b) Upon the Commission's approval with conditions or stipulations, the Division of Water Quality shall issue a
final decision, which includes these conditions or stipulations.
(c) Upon the Commission's denial, the Division of Water Quality shall issue a final decision denying the
variance.

History Note: Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.8A;
Eff. February 1, 2009.

E58
ENR – ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ____ T15A: 02B .0600

NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Eff. February 1, 2009 Page 7
15A NCAC 02B .0607 SITE SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE GOOSE CREEK
WATERSHED (YADKIN PEE-DEE RIVER BASIN): BUFFER TYPES AND MANAGING
ACTIVITIES WITHIN RIPARIAN BUFFERS
(a) RIPARIAN BUFFER. The protected riparian buffer shall consist of an area that is undisturbed except for uses provided for in the
table in this Rule. A waterbody shall be considered to be present if the feature is shown as described in the applicability paragraph of
15A NCAC 02B .0233 (3) and 02B .0233(3)(a)(i)-(iii). The location of the riparian buffer shall be as follows:
(1) For streams, the riparian buffer shall begin at the most landward limit of the top of bank or the rooted herbaceous
vegetation and extend landward on all sides of the surface water, measured horizontally on a line perpendicular to
the surface water.
(2) For ponds, lakes and reservoirs located within a natural drainage way, the riparian buffer shall begin at the most
landward limit of the normal water level or the rooted herbaceous vegetation and extend landward, measured
horizontally on a line perpendicular to the surface water.
(b) EXEMPTION WHEN USES ARE PRESENT AND ONGOING. The buffer requirements in this Rule do not apply to portions of
the riparian buffer where a use is existing and ongoing. Only the portion of the riparian buffer that contains the footprint of the existing
and ongoing use is exempt. The determination of whether a use is existing and ongoing shall be made by the Division of Water
Quality. A use is existing and ongoing when it is a completed and maintained activity, an activity with appropriate valid permits, or an
activity with documentation for unexpired vested rights, as described below:
(1) A use that was present within the riparian buffer as of the effective date of this Rule and has continued since that
time. Existing uses shall include agriculture, buildings, industrial facilities, commercial areas, transportation
facilities, maintained lawns, utility lines and on-site sanitary sewage systems. Change of ownership through
purchase or inheritance is not a change of use. Activities necessary to maintain uses are allowed provided that the
site remains similarly vegetated, no impervious surface is added within the buffer area where it did not exist as of the
effective date of this Rule and existing diffuse flow is maintained.
(2) A use that can be documented to the Division of Water Quality that meets at least one of the following criteria:
(A) Project requires a 401 Certification/404 Permit, issued prior to the effective date of this Rule and are still
valid;
(B) Project requires a state permit, such as a landfill, NPDES wastewater discharge, land application residuals
and road construction activities, and has begun construction or is under contract to begin construction and
has received all required state permits prior to the effective date of this Rule;
(C) Project is being reviewed through the Clean Water Act Section 404/National Environmental Policy Act
Merger 01 Process or Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act; a Legacy for Users
(published by the US Army Corps of Engineers and Federal Highway Administration, 2003) or its
immediate successor and that have reached agreement with Department of Environment and Natural
Resources on avoidance and minimization by the effective date of this Rule; or
(D) Project is not required to be reviewed by the Clean Water Act Section 404/National Environmental Policy
Act Merger 01 Process or Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act; a Legacy for
Users (published by the US Army Corps of Engineers and Federal Highway Administration, 2003) or its
immediate successor if a Finding of No Significant Impact has been issued for the project and the project
has the written approval of the Division of Water Quality prior to the effective date of this Rule.
(3) At the time an existing use is changed to another use, the buffer requirement of this Rule shall apply. Change of use
includes the following:
(A) To add impervious surface within the riparian buffer;
(B) An agricultural operation within the riparian buffer is converted to a non-agricultural; or
(C) a lawn within the riparian buffer ceases to be maintained.
(c) DIFFUSE FLOW REQUIREMENT. Diffuse flow of runoff shall be maintained in the riparian buffer by dispersing concentrated
flow and reestablishing vegetation, as follows:
(1) Concentrated runoff from new ditches or manmade conveyances shall be converted to diffuse flow before the runoff
enters the riparian buffer; and
(2) Periodic corrective action to restore diffuse flow shall be taken if necessary to impede the formation of erosion
gullies.
(d) REQUIREMENTS FOR CATEGORIES OF USES AND MITIGATION. Uses designated as exempt, potentially allowable, and
prohibited location in the chart of uses in this Rule shall have the following requirements:
(1) EXEMPT. Uses designated as exempt are allowed within the riparian buffer. Exempt uses shall be designed,
constructed and maintained to minimize soil disturbance and to provide the maximum water quality protection
practicable. In addition, exempt uses shall meet requirements listed in the table of this Rule for the specific use.
(2) POTENTIALLY ALLOWABLE. Uses designated as potentially allowable may proceed within the riparian buffer
provided that there are no practical alternatives to the requested use pursuant to this Rule. These uses require written
authorization from the Division of Water Quality. Some of these uses require mitigation, as indicated in the chart in
this Rule.
E59
ENR – ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ____ T15A: 02B .0600

NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Eff. February 1, 2009 Page 8
(3) PROHIBITED. Uses designated as prohibited or not included in this table may not proceed within the riparian
buffer unless a variance is granted pursuant to Rule .0606. Site-specific mitigation may be required as one condition
of a variance approval.
(4) MITIGATION. Persons who wish to undertake uses designated as allowable with mitigation shall obtain approval
for a mitigation proposal pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0609.
(e) DETERMINATION OF "NO PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVES." Persons who wish to undertake uses designated as potentially
allowable shall submit a request for a "no practical alternatives" determination to the Division of Water Quality. The applicant shall
certify that the criteria identified in Subparagraph (e)(1) of this Rule are met. The Division shall grant an Authorization Certificate
upon a "no practical alternatives" determination. The procedure for making an Authorization Certificate shall be as follows:
(1) For any request for an Authorization Certificate, the Division shall review the entire project and make a finding of
fact as to whether the following requirements have been met in support of a "no practical alternatives" determination:
(A) The basic project purpose cannot be practically accomplished in a manner that would better minimize
disturbance, preserve aquatic life and habitat, and protect water quality.
(B) The use cannot practically be reduced in size or density, reconfigured or redesigned to better minimize
disturbance, preserve aquatic life and habitat, and protect water quality.
(C) Plans for practices shall be used if necessary to minimize disturbance, preserve aquatic life and habitat,
and protect water quality.
(D) The Division of Water Quality must consider the impacts that may affect conditions required to sustain and
recover the federally endangered Carolin heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata).
(2) Requests for an Authorization Certificate shall be either approved or denied within 60 days of receipt of a complete
submission based on the criteria in Subparagraph (e)(1) of this Rule by the Division. Failure to issue an approval or
denial within 60 days shall constitute that the applicant has demonstrated "no practical alternatives." The Division of
Water Quality may attach conditions to the Authorization Certificate that support the purpose, spirit and intent of the
riparian buffer protection program. Complete submissions shall include the following:
(A) The name, address and phone number of the applicant;
(B) The nature of the activity to be conducted by the applicant;
(C) The location of the activity, including the jurisdiction;
(D) A map of sufficient detail to accurately delineate the boundaries of the land to be utilized in carrying out
the activity, the location and dimensions of any disturbance in riparian buffers associated with the activity,
and the extent of riparian buffers on the land;
(E) An explanation of why this plan for the activity cannot be practically accomplished, reduced or
reconfigured to better minimize disturbance to the riparian buffer, preserve aquatic life and habitat and
protect water quality; and
(F) Plans for any practices proposed to be used to control the impacts associated with the activity.
(3) Any disputes over determinations regarding Authorization Certificates shall be referred to the Director for a
decision. The Director's decision is subject to review as provided in Articles 3 and 4 of G.S. 150B.
(f) DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY FOR THE PROTECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING RIPARIAN BUFFERS.
The Commission shall grant and rescind local government delegation of the Riparian Buffer Protection requirements according to the
following procedures:
(1) Local governments within the Goose Creek Watershed may submit a written request to the Commission for authority
to implement and enforce the State's riparian buffer protection requirements within their jurisdiction. The written
request shall be accompanied by information that shows:
(A) The local government has land use jurisdiction for the riparian buffer demonstrated by delineating the local
land use jurisdictional boundary on USGS 1:24,000 topographical map(s) or other finer scale map(s);
(B) The local government has the administrative organization, staff, legal authority, financial and other
resources necessary to implement and enforce the State's riparian buffer protection requirements based on
its size and projected amount of development;
(C) The local government has adopted ordinances, resolutions, or regulations necessary to establish and
maintain the State's riparian buffer protection requirements; and
(D) The local government has provided a plan to address violations with civil or criminal remedies and actions
as well as remedies that shall restore buffer functions on violation sites and provide a deterrent against the
occurrence of future violations.
(2) Within 90 days after the Commission has received the request for delegation, the Commission shall approve the
request if the local government has complied with all of Subparagraph (f)(1) of this Rule and notify the local
government whether it has been approved, approved with modifications, or denied.
(3) The Commission, upon determination that a delegated local authority is failing to implement or enforce the riparian
buffer protection requirements in keeping with an approved delegation, shall notify the delegated local authority in
writing of the local program's inadequacies. If the delegated local authority has not corrected the deficiencies within
90 days of receipt of the written notification, then the Commission shall rescind the delegation of authority to the
local government and shall implement and enforce the State's riparian buffer protection requirements.
E60
ENR – ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ____ T15A: 02B .0600

NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Eff. February 1, 2009 Page 9
(g) APPOINTMENT OF A RIPARIAN BUFFER PROTECTION ADMINISTRATOR. Upon receiving delegation, local governments
shall appoint a Riparian Buffer Protection Administrator who shall coordinate the implementation and enforcement of the program.
The Administrator shall attend an initial training session by the Division of Water Quality and subsequent annual training sessions. The
Administrator shall ensure that local government staffs working directly with the program receive training to understand, implement
and enforce the program.
(h) PROCEDURES FOR USES WITHIN RIPARIAN BUFFERS THAT ARE ALLOWABLE AND ALLOWABLE WITH
MITIGATION.
(1) Upon receiving delegation, local authorities shall review proposed uses within the riparian buffer and issue approvals
if the uses meet the riparian buffer protection requirements.
(2) Delegated local authorities shall issue an Authorization Certificate for uses if the proposed use meets the
requirements including provisions for mitigation set forth in Rule .0609.
(3) The Division of Water Quality may challenge a decision made by a delegated local authority for a period of 30 days
after the Authorization Certificate is issued. If the Division of Water Quality does not challenge an Authorization
Certificate within 30 days of issuance, then the delegated local authority's decision shall stand.
(i) VARIANCES. After receiving delegation, local governments shall review variance requests and make recommendations to the
Commission for approval.
(j) LIMITS OF DELEGATED LOCAL AUTHORITY. The Commission has jurisdiction to the exclusion of local governments to
implement the requirements of this Rule for the following types of activities:
(1) Activities undertaken by the State;
(2) Activities undertaken by the United States;
(3) Activities undertaken by multiple jurisdictions; and
(4) Activities undertaken by local units of government.
(k) RECORD-KEEPING REQUIREMENTS. Delegated local authorities shall maintain on-site records for a minimum of five years.
Delegated local authorities must furnish a copy of these records to the Director within 30 days of receipt of a written request for the
records. The Division of the Water Quality shall inspect local riparian buffer protection programs to ensure that the programs are being
implemented and enforced. Each delegated local authority's records shall include the following:
(1) A copy of variance requests;
(2) The variance request's finding of fact;
(3) The result of the variance proceedings;
(4) A record of complaints and action taken as a result of the complaint;
(5) Records for stream origin calls and stream ratings; and
(6) Copies of request for authorization, records approving authorization and Authorization Certificates.
(l) Riparian buffers along surface waters in this watershed shall be maintained. Some uses within riparian buffers are exempt and some
uses are potentially allowable. Any exempt or potentially allowed use shall require stormwater control as outlined in Rule .0602 if the
one acre threshold is met. The following chart sets out the uses and their designation under this Rule as exempt, potentially allowable
requiring DWQ approval or potentially allowable requiring both DWQ approval and mitigation, or prohibited as described above. The
United States Environmental Protection Agency Endangered Species Protection Program at www.epa.gov/espp and NC Pesticide
Board regulates pesticide application (see rules at 02 NCAC 09L .2201 through .2203).

Exempt
Potentially allowable
requiring DWQ
approval or Potentially
allowable requiring
both DWQ approval
and mitigation*
Note: the asterisk (X*)
identifies those uses
that require both
DWQ approval and
mitigation.

Prohibited
Airport facilities that impact equal to or less than 150 linear feet
or one-third of an acre of riparian buffer
Airport facilities that impact greater than 150 linear feet or one-
third of an acre of riparian buffer

X
X*

Archaeological activities X
Bridges X
Dam maintenance activities X
Drainage ditches, roadside ditches and stormwater outfalls
E61
ENR – ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ____ T15A: 02B .0600

NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Eff. February 1, 2009 Page 10
through riparian buffers:
· Existing drainage ditches, roadside ditches, and
stormwater outfalls provided that they are managed
to minimize the sediment, nutrients including
ammonia and other pollution that convey to
waterbodies
· New drainage ditches, roadside ditches and
stormwater outfalls provided that a stormwater
management facility is installed to minimize the
sediment, nutrients including ammonia and other
pollution and attenuate flow before the conveyance
discharges through the riparian buffer
· New drainage ditches, roadside ditches and
stormwater outfalls that do not minimize the
sediment, nutrients including ammonia and other
pollution and attenuate flow before discharging
through the riparian buffer
· Excavation of the streambed in order to bring it to the
same elevation as the invert of a ditch

X

X

X

X

Drainage of a pond in a natural drainage way provided that a
new riparian buffer that meets the diffuse flow requirements of
this Rule is established adjacent to the new channel

X
Driveway crossings of streams and other surface waters subject
to this Rule:
· Driveway crossings on single family residential lots
that disturb equal to or less than 25 linear feet in width
and are perpendicular 3
· Driveway crossings on single family residential lots
that disturb greater than 25 linear feet in width and are
perpendicular3
· In a subdivision that cumulatively disturbs equal to or
less than 150 linear feet in width and are perpendicular
· In a subdivision that cumulatively disturbs greater than
150 linear feet in width and are perpendicular

X

X

X

X*

Fences provided that disturbance is minimized and installation
does not result in removal of forest vegetation
X
Forest harvesting – see Rule .0608
Fertilizer application:
· One-time fertilizer application at agronomic rates to
establish replanted vegetation
· Ongoing fertilizer application

X

X
Greenway/hiking trails X
Historic preservation X
Landfills as defined by G.S. 130A-290 X
Mining activities:
· Mining activities that are covered by the Mining Act
provided that new riparian buffers that meet the diffuse
flow requirements of this Rule are established adjacent
to the relocated channels
· Mining activities that are not covered by the Mining
Act OR where new riparian buffers that meet the
diffuse flow requirements of this Rule are not
established adjacent to the relocated channels
· Wastewater or mining dewatering wells with approved
NPDES permit

X

X*

X
Non-electric utility lines with impacts other than perpendicular
crossings3

E62
ENR – ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ____ T15A: 02B .0600

NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Eff. February 1, 2009 Page 11
· If activity is within 50 feet of the stream
· If activity is outside of the inner 50 feet nearest the
stream
· Wastewater collection system utility lines and lift
station lines may impact the riparian zone if both
gravity and force main collections systems are made of
ductile iron and 50% of the collection system is
cleaned annually.
· Lift Stations require Supervisory Control and Data
Acquisition System (SCADA), telemetry, audio and
visual alarms, signage with emergency contact, daily
visitation (365 days/year), and documentation must be
maintained for 3 years of all of the above and available
upon request [note: this requirement also applies to
collection system perpendicular crossings, detailed
below.]
X*
X

X*

X*

Non-electric utility line perpendicular crossing of streams and
other surface waters subject to this Rule that are not collection
systems3:
· Perpendicular crossings that disturb equal to or less
than 40 linear feet of riparian buffer with a
maintenance corridor equal to or less than 10 feet in
width
· Perpendicular crossings that disturb equal to or less
than 40 linear feet of riparian buffer with a
maintenance corridor greater than 10 feet in width
· Perpendicular crossings that disturb greater than 40
linear feet but equal to or less than 150 linear feet of
riparian buffer with a maintenance corridor equal to or
less than 10 feet in width
· Perpendicular crossings that disturb greater than 40
linear feet but equal to or less than 150 linear feet of
riparian buffer with a maintenance corridor greater than
10 feet in width
· Perpendicular crossings that disturb greater than 150
linear feet of riparian buffer
Non-electric perpendicular utility line crossings that are
collections systems as defined in Rule 15A NCAC 02T .0300
(note: must follow constraints listed under wastewater collection
system utility lines and lift stations, above):
· That use any of the following installation methods to
minimize the sediment, nutrient and other pollution
through the riparian buffer: underground directional
boring methods, bore-and-jack techniques or another
appropriate microtunnelling method.
· That does not minimize the sediment, nutrient and
other pollution through the riparian buffer by the most
appropriate exempt method.

X

X

X

X*

X*

X

X

On-site sanitary sewage systems - new ones that use ground
absorption
X

Overhead electric utility lines1,2,3:
· Stream crossings that disturb equal to or less than 150
linear feet of riparian buffer
· Stream crossings that disturb greater than 150 linear
feet of riparian buffer

X

X*

Periodic maintenance of modified natural streams such as canals
and a grassed travelway on one side of the surface water when
alternative forms of maintenance access are not practical.
X
E63
ENR – ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ____ T15A: 02B .0600

NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Eff. February 1, 2009 Page 12
Playground equipment:
· Playground equipment on single family lots provided
that installation and use does not result in removal of
vegetation
· Playground equipment installed on lands other than
single-family lots or that requires removal of
vegetation

X

X

Ponds in natural drainage ways, excluding dry ponds:
· New ponds provided that a riparian buffer that meets
the diffuse flow requirements of this Rule is established
adjacent to the pond
· New ponds where a riparian buffer that meets the
diffuse flow requirements of this Rule is NOT
established adjacent to the pond

X

X
Protection of existing structures, facilities and streambanks when
this requires additional disturbance of the riparian buffer or the
stream channel
X
Railroad impacts other than crossings of streams and other
surface waters subject to this Rule
X
Railroad crossings of streams and other surface waters subject to
this Rule:
· Railroad crossings that impact equal to or less than 40
linear feet of riparian buffer
· Railroad crossings that impact greater than 40 linear
feet but equal to or less than 150 linear feet of riparian
buffer
· Railroad crossings that impact greater than 150 linear
feet of riparian buffer

X

X

X
Removal of previous fill or debris provided that diffuse flow is
maintained and any vegetation removed is restored
X
Road impacts other than crossings of streams and other surface
waters subject to this Rule
X*
Road crossings of streams and other surface waters subject to
this Rule:
· Road crossings that impact equal to or less than 40
linear feet of riparian buffer and is perpendicular
· Road crossings that impact greater than 40 linear feet
but equal to or less than 150 linear feet and is
perpendicular
· Road crossings that impact greater than 150 linear feet
of riparian buffer

X

X

X*

Scientific studies and stream gauging X
Stormwater management ponds excluding dry ponds:
· New stormwater management ponds provided that a
riparian buffer that meets the diffuse flow requirements
of this Rule is established adjacent to the pond
· New stormwater management ponds where a riparian
buffer that meets the diffuse flow requirements of this
Rule is NOT established adjacent to the pond

X

X
Stream restoration X
Streambank stabilization X
Temporary roads:
· Temporary roads that disturb less than or equal to
2,500 square feet provided that vegetation is restored
within six months of initial disturbance
· Temporary roads that disturb greater than 2,500 square
feet provided that vegetation is restored within six
months of initial disturbance

X

X

E64
ENR – ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ____ T15A: 02B .0600

NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Eff. February 1, 2009 Page 13
· Temporary roads used for bridge construction or
replacement provided that restoration activities, such as
soil stabilization and revegetation, are conducted
immediately after construction
X
Temporary sediment and erosion control devices:
· To control impacts associated with uses approved by
the Division or that have received a variance provided
that sediment and erosion control for upland areas is
addressed to the maximum extent practical outside the
buffer
· In-stream temporary erosion and sediment control
measures for work within a stream channel

X

X

Underground electric utility lines:
· Impacts other than perpendicular crossings 3,4

X

Underground electric utility line perpendicular crossings of
streams and other surface waters subject to this Rule:
· Perpendicular crossings that disturb less than or equal
to 40 linear feet of riparian buffer3,4
· Perpendicular crossings that disturb greater than 40
linear feet of riparian buffer3,4

X

X

Vegetation management:
· Emergency fire control measures provided that
topography is restored
· Planting vegetation to enhance the riparian buffer
· Pruning forest vegetation provided that the health and
function of the forest vegetation is not compromised
· Removal of individual trees which are in danger of
causing damage to dwellings, other structures or human
life
· Removal of poison ivy
· Removal of understory nuisance vegetation as defined
in: Smith, Cherri L. 1998. Exotic Plant Guidelines.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Division of Parks and Recreation. Raleigh, NC.
Guideline #30

X

X
X

X

X

X

Water dependent structures as defined in 15A NCAC 02B .0202 X
Water wells X
Wetland restoration X

1 Provided that all of the following BMPs for overhead utility lines are used. If all of these BMPs are not used, then the
overhead utility lines shall require a no practical alternatives evaluation by the Division of Water Quality.
· A minimum zone of 10 feet wide immediately adjacent to the water body shall be managed such that only vegetation that
poses a hazard or has the potential to grow tall enough to interfere with the line is removed.
· Woody vegetation shall be cleared by hand. No land grubbing or grading is allowed.
· Vegetative root systems shall be left intact to maintain the integrity of the soil. Stumps shall remain where trees are cut.
· Rip rap shall not be used unless it is necessary to stabilize a tower.
· No fertilizer shall be used other than a one-time application to re-establish vegetation.
· Construction activities shall minimize the removal of woody vegetation, the extent of the disturbed area, and the time in which
areas remain in a disturbed state.
· Active measures shall be taken after construction and during routine maintenance to ensure diffuse flow of stormwater through
the buffer.
· In wetlands, mats shall be utilized to minimize soil disturbance.
2 Provided that poles or towers shall not be installed within 10 feet of a water body unless the Division of Water Quality
completes a no practical alternatives evaluation.
3 Perpendicular crossings are those that intersect the surface water at an angle between 75 degrees and 105 degrees.
4 Provided that all of the following BMPs for underground utility lines are used.
If all of these BMPs are not used, then the underground utility line shall require a no practical alternatives evaluation by the
Division of Water Quality.
E65
ENR – ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ____ T15A: 02B .0600

NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Eff. February 1, 2009 Page 14
· Woody vegetation shall be cleared by hand. No land grubbing or grading is allowed.
· Vegetative root systems shall be left intact to maintain the integrity of the soil. Stumps shall remain, except in the trench,
where trees are cut.
· Underground cables shall be installed by vibratory plow or trenching.
· The trench shall be backfilled with the excavated soil material immediately following cable installation.
· No fertilizer shall be used other than a one-time application to re-establish vegetation.
· Construction activities shall minimize the removal of woody vegetation, the extent of the disturbed area, and the time in which
areas remain in a disturbed state.
· Active measures shall be taken after construction and during routine maintenance to ensure diffuse flow of stormwater through
the buffer.
· In wetlands, mats shall be utilized to minimize soil disturbance.

History Note: Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-215.8A; 143-214.7;
Eff. February 1, 2009.

E66
ENR – ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT T15A: 02B .0600

NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Eff. February 1, 2009 Page 15
15A NCAC 02B .0608 SITE SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE GOOSE CREEK
WATERSHED (YADKIN PEE-DEE RIVER BASIN): MANAGE ACTIVITIES WITHIN
RIPARIAN BUFFERS: FOREST HARVESTING REQUIREMENTS
(a) The following requirements shall apply for forest harvesting operations and practices in the riparian areas.
(1) Logging decks and sawmill sites shall not be placed in the riparian buffer.
(2) Access roads and skid trails are prohibited except for temporary and permanent stream crossings established in
accordance with 15A NCAC 01I .0203. Temporary stream crossings shall be permanently stabilized after any site
disturbing activity is completed.
(3) Timber felling shall be directed away from the stream or water body.
(4) Skidding shall be directed away from the stream or water body and shall be done in a manner that minimizes soil
disturbance and prevents the creation of channels or ruts.
(5) Individual trees may be treated to maintain or improve their health, form or vigor.
(6) Harvesting of dead or infected trees or application of pesticides necessary to prevent or control extensive tree pest
and disease infestation is allowed, when approved by the Division of Forest Resources for a specific site in
accordance with G.S. 113-60.4. A copy of the Division of Forest Resources approval must be provided to the
Division of Water Quality in accordance with Session Law 2001-404.
(7) Removal of individual trees that are in danger of causing damage to structures or human life is allowed.
(8) Natural regeneration of forest vegetation and planting of trees, shrubs, or ground cover plants to enhance the riparian
buffer is allowed provided that soil disturbance is minimized. Plantings shall consist primarily of native species.
(9) High intensity prescribed burns shall not be allowed.
(10) Application of fertilizer is not allowed except as necessary for permanent stabilization. Broadcast application of
fertilizer or herbicides to the adjacent forest stand shall be conducted so that the chemicals are not applied directly to
or allowed to drift into the riparian buffer.
(b) In the riparian buffer, forest vegetation shall be protected and maintained. Selective harvest as provided for below is allowed on
forest lands that have a deferment for use value under forestry in accordance with G.S. 105-277.2 through G.S. 277.6 or on forest lands
that have a forest management plan prepared or approved by a registered professional forester. Copies of either the approval of the
deferment for use value under forestry or the forest management plan shall be produced upon request. For such forest lands, selective
harvest is allowed in accordance with the following:
(1) Tracked or wheeled vehicles are not permitted within the first 50 feet the riparian buffer top of bank landward except
at stream crossings designed, constructed and maintained in accordance with 15A NCAC 01I .0203.
(2) Soil disturbing site preparation activities are not allowed.
(3) Trees shall be removed with the minimum disturbance to the soil and residual vegetation.
(4) The first 10 feet of the riparian buffer directly adjacent to the stream or waterbody shall be undisturbed.
(5) In the zone from 10 feet to 50 feet of the riparian buffer, a maximum of 50 percent of the trees greater than five
inches diameter breast height (dbh) may be cut and removed. The reentry time for harvest shall be no more frequent
than every 15 years, except on forest plantations as defined in 15A NCAC 02B .0233(e) where the reentry time shall
be no more frequent than every five years. In either case, the trees remaining after harvest shall be as evenly spaced
as possible.
(6) In the outer riparian buffer (landward of 50 feet), harvesting and regeneration of the forest stand is allowed provided
that sufficient ground cover is maintained to provide for diffusion and infiltration of surface runoff.

History Note: Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.8A;
Eff. February 1, 2009.

E67
ENR – ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT T15A: 02B .0600

NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Eff. February 1, 2009 Page 16
15A NCAC 02B .0609 SITE SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE GOOSE CREEK
WATERSHED (YADKIN PEE-DEE RIVER BASIN): MANAGE ACTIVITIES WITHIN
RIPARIAN BUFFERS: MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS FOR BUFFER IMPACTS
(a) PURPOSE. The purpose of this Rule is to set forth the mitigation requirements that apply to the Goose Creek Watershed existing
riparian buffer protection program, as described in 15A NCAC 02B .0605, .0606, and .0607.
(b) APPLICABILITY. This Rule applies to persons who wish to impact a riparian buffer in the Goose Creek Watershed when one of
the following applies:
(1) A person has received an Authorization Certificate pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0607 for a proposed use that is
designated as potentially allowable requiring both DWQ approval and mitigation.
(2) A person has received a variance pursuant to 15A NCAC 02B .0606 and is required to perform mitigation as a
condition of a variance approval.
(c) THE AREA OF MITIGATION. The required area of mitigation shall be determined by either the Division of Water Quality or the
delegated local authority according to the following:
(1) The impacts in square feet to the riparian buffer shall be determined by the Division of Water Quality or the
delegated local authority by adding the following:
(A) The area of the footprint of the use causing the impact to the riparian buffer.
(B) The area of the boundary of any clearing and grading activities within the riparian buffer necessary to
accommodate the use.
(C) The area of any ongoing maintenance corridors within the riparian buffer associated with the use.
(2) The required area of mitigation shall be determined by applying the following multipliers to the impacts determined
in Subparagraph (c)(1) of this Rule to each zone of the riparian buffer:
(A) Impacts to the riparian buffer shall be multiplied by three.
(B) Impacts to wetlands within the riparian buffer that are subject to mitigation under 15A NCAC 02H .0506
shall comply with the mitigation ratios in 15A NCAC 02H .0506.
(d) THE LOCATION OF MITIGATION. The mitigation effort shall be within the Goose Creek Watershed, as close to the location of
the impact as feasible.
(e) ISSUANCE OF THE MITIGATION DETERMINATION. The Division of Water Quality or the delegated local authority shall
issue a mitigation determination that specifies the required area and location of mitigation pursuant to Paragraph (c) of this Rule.
(f) OPTIONS FOR MEETING THE MITIGATION DETERMINATION. The mitigation determination made pursuant to Paragraph
(e) of this Rule may be met through one of the following options:
(1) Payment of a compensatory mitigation fee to the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund pursuant to Paragraph (g) of this
Rule.
(2) Donation of real property or of an interest in real property pursuant to Paragraph (h) of this Rule.
(3) Restoration or enhancement of a non-forested riparian buffer. This shall be accomplished by the applicant after
submittal and approval of a restoration plan pursuant to Paragraph (i) of this Rule.
(g) PAYMENT TO THE RIPARIAN BUFFER RESTORATION FUND. Persons who choose to satisfy their mitigation
determination by paying a compensatory mitigation fee to the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund shall meet the following requirements:
(1) SCHEDULE OF FEES: The amount of payment into the Fund shall be determined by multiplying the acres or
square feet of mitigation determination made pursuant to Paragraph (e) of this Rule by ninety-six cents ($.96) per
square foot or forty-one thousand, six hundred and twenty-five dollars ($41,625) per acre.
(2) The required fee shall be submitted to the [North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652] prior to any activity that results in the removal or degradation of the protected
riparian buffer for which a "no practical alternatives" determination has been made.
(3) The payment of a compensatory mitigation fee may be fully or partially satisfied by donation of real property
interests pursuant to Paragraph (h) of this Rule.
(4) The Division of Water Quality shall review the fee outlined in Subparagraph (g)(1) of this Rule every two years and
compare it to the actual cost of restoration activities conducted by the Department, including site identification,
planning, implementation, monitoring and maintenance costs. Based upon this biennial review, the Division of
Water Quality shall recommend revisions to Subparagraph (g)(1) of this Rule when adjustments to this Schedule of
Fees are deemed necessary.
(h) DONATION OF PROPERTY. Persons who choose to satisfy their mitigation determination by donating real property or an
interest in real property shall meet the following requirements:
(1) The donation of real property interests may be used to either partially or fully satisfy the payment of a compensatory
mitigation fee to the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund pursuant to Paragraph (g) of this Rule. The value of the
property interest shall be determined by an appraisal performed in accordance with Part (h)(4)(D) of this Rule. The
donation shall satisfy the mitigation determination if the appraised value of the donated property interest is equal to
or greater than the required fee. If the appraised value of the donated property interest is less than the required fee
calculated pursuant to Subparagraph (g)(1) of this Rule, the applicant shall pay the remaining balance due.
(2) The donation of conservation easements to satisfy compensatory mitigation requirements shall be accepted only if
the conservation easement is granted in perpetuity.
E68
ENR – ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT T15A: 02B .0600

NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Eff. February 1, 2009 Page 17
(3) Donation of real property interests to satisfy the mitigation determination shall be accepted only if such property
meets all of the following requirements:
(A) The property shall be located within an area that is identified as a priority for restoration in the Basinwide
Wetlands and Riparian Restoration Plan developed by the Department pursuant to G.S. 143-214.10 or shall
be located at a site that is otherwise consistent with the goals outlined in the Basinwide Wetlands and
Riparian Restoration Plan;
(B) The property shall contain riparian areas for restoration, defined in 15A NCAC 02B .0243, not currently
protected by the State's riparian buffer protection program that merit restoration;
(C) The size of the restorable riparian buffer on the property to be donated shall equal or exceed the acreage of
riparian buffer required to be mitigated under the mitigation responsibility determined pursuant to
Paragraph (c) of this Rule;
(D) The property shall not require excessive measures for successful restoration, such as removal of structures
or infrastructure. Restoration of the property shall be capable of fully offsetting the adverse impacts of the
requested use;
(E) The property shall be suitable to be successfully restored, based on existing hydrology, soils, and
vegetation;
(F) The estimated cost of restoring and maintaining the property shall not exceed the value of the property
minus site identification and land acquisition costs;
(G) The property shall not contain any building, structure, object, site, or district that is listed in the National
Register of Historic Places established pursuant to Public Law 89-665, 16 U.S.C. 470 as amended;
(H) The property shall not contain any hazardous substance or solid waste;
(I) The property shall not contain structures or materials that present health or safety problems to the general
public. If wells, septic, water or sewer connections exist, they shall be filled, remediated or closed at
owner's expense in accordance with state and local health and safety regulations;
(J) The property and adjacent properties shall not have prior, current, and known future land use that would
inhibit the function of the restoration effort;
(K) The property shall not have any encumbrances or conditions on the transfer of the property interests.
(4) At the expense of the applicant or donor, the following information shall be submitted to the Division of Water
Quality with any proposal for donations or dedications of interest in real property:
(A) Documentation that the property meets the requirements laid out in Subparagraph (h)(3) of this Rule.
(B) US Geological Survey 1:24,000 (7.5 minute) scale topographic map, county tax map, USDA Natural
Resource Conservation Service County Soil Survey Map, and county road map showing the location of the
property to be donated along with information on existing site conditions, vegetation types, presence of
existing structures and easements.
(C) A current property survey performed in accordance with the procedures of the North Carolina Department
of Administration, State Property Office as identified by the State Board of Registration for Professional
Engineers and Land Surveyors in "Standards of Practice for Land Surveying in North Carolina." Copies
may be obtained from the North Carolina State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Land
Surveyors, 3620 Six Forks Road, Suite 300, Raleigh, North Carolina 27609.
(D) A current appraisal of the value of the property performed in accordance with the procedures of the North
Carolina Department of Administration, State Property Office as identified by the Appraisal Board in the
"Uniform Standards of Professional North Carolina Appraisal Practice." Copies may be obtained from the
Appraisal Foundation, Publications Department, P.O. Box 96734, Washington, D.C. 20090-6734.
(E) A title certificate.
(i) RIPARIAN BUFFER RESTORATION OR ENHANCEMENT. Persons who choose to meet their mitigation requirement through
riparian buffer restoration or enhancement shall meet the following requirements:
(1) The applicant may restore or enhance riparian buffer defined in 15A NCAC 02B .0243 if either of the following
applies:
(A) The area of riparian buffer restoration is equal to the required area of mitigation determined pursuant to
Paragraph (c) of this Rule; or
(B) The area of riparian buffer enhancement is three times larger than the required area of mitigation
determined pursuant to Paragraph (c) of this Rule.
(2) The location of the riparian buffer restoration or enhancement shall comply with the requirements in Paragraph (d)
of this Rule.
(3) The riparian buffer restoration or enhancement site shall have a minimum width of 50 feet as measured horizontally
on a line perpendicular to the surface water and may include the following:
(A) Restoration/enhancement of existing riparian areas.
(B) Restoration/enhancement and respective preservation of streamside areas when the stream is not depicted
on USGS map or Soil Survey.
(C) Preservation of streamside areas when the stream is not depicted on USGS map or Soil Survey.
E69
ENR – ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT T15A: 02B .0600

NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Eff. February 1, 2009 Page 18
(D) Restoration/enhancement and respective preservation of streamside areas along first order ephemeral
streams that discharge/outlet into intermittent or perennial streams.
(E) Preservation of the streamside area along first order ephemeral streams that discharge/outlet intermittent or
perennial stream.
(4) Other individual/innovative mitigation projects may be approved by the Division of Water Quality that meet the
purpose of this Rule.
(5) The applicant shall first receive an Authorization Certificate for the proposed use according to the requirements of
15A NCAC 02B .0607. After receiving this determination, the applicant shall submit a restoration or enhancement
plan for approval by the Division of Water Quality. The Division of Water Quality shall approve plans that meet the
requirements of this Rule. The restoration or enhancement plan shall contain the following.
(A) A map of the proposed restoration or enhancement site.
(B) A vegetation plan. The vegetation plan shall include a minimum of two native hardwood tree species
planted at a density sufficient to provide 320 trees per acre at maturity.
(C) A grading plan. The site shall be graded in a manner to ensure diffuse flow through the riparian buffer.
(D) A fertilization plan.
(E) A schedule for implementation.
(6) Within one year after the Division of Water Quality has approved the restoration or enhancement plan, the applicant
shall present proof to the Division of Water Quality that the riparian buffer has been restored or enhanced. If proof
is not presented within this timeframe, then the person shall be in violation of the State's or the delegated local
authority's riparian buffer protection program.
(7) The mitigation area shall be placed under a perpetual conservation easement that will provide for protection of the
property's nutrient removal functions.
(8) The applicant shall submit annual reports for a period of five years after the restoration or enhancement showing that
the trees planted have survived and that diffuse flow through the riparian buffer has been maintained. The applicant
shall replace trees that do not survive and restore diffuse flow if needed during that five-year period.

History Note: Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-215.3(a)(1); 143-215.8A;
Eff. February 1, 2009.

E70

PEOPLE • PRIDE • PROGRESS • PARTNERSHIPS
700 N. Tryon Street • Suite 205 • Charlotte, NC 28202-2236 • [phone] • FAX [phone]
www.co.mecklenburg.nc.us/coenv

MECKLENBURG COUNTY

Land Use and Environmental Services Agency
Water Quality Program

MEMORANDUM

TO: Bill Duiguid, North Carolina Division of Water Quality – Storm Water Unit
Amy Chapman, North Carolina Division of Water Quality – 401 Permitting Unit
FROM: Rusty Rozzelle, Mecklenburg County Water Quality Program

DATE: April 13, 2009

SUBJECT: Submittal of the Draft Post Construction and Goose Creek Management
Ordinance for the Town of Mint Hill

Mecklenburg County Water Quality Program (MCWQP) is submitting this draft ordinance for your
review on behalf of the Town of Mint Hill with the intent of ultimately requesting delegation of
authority to implement the Site Specific Water Quality Management Plan for the Goose Creek
Watershed (SSWQMP) in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0602(c) and 15A NCAC 2B.0607(f).
Attached is a draft ordinance (which is a modification of the Mint Hill Post Construction Storm
Water Ordinance) that includes provisions to implement the SSWQMP. The majority of the
SSWQMP provisions are included in Section 3.5 of the attached draft ordinance.

Because the ordinance is used to meet multiple goals, several elements of the draft ordinance are a
departure from the requirements of our permit. MCWQP believes these departures, on the whole,
exceed the minimum storm water management and water quality protection requirements of the
SSWQMP. MCWQP requests that NCDWQ review this draft ordinance and provide preliminary
input that the ordinance meets or exceeds the storm water management and water quality protection
provided in SSWQMP. To assist with NCDWQ’s review of the draft ordinance, the following list
highlights and discusses these departures:

1. Applicability
The applicability requirements in the draft ordinance are somewhat unusual due to our
decision to combine the SSWMP into the post-construction ordinance for the Town of Mint
Hill. A lot of this language is not contained in the SSWMP.

2. Delegation of Authority
It is our intent to obtain local delegation to apply the SSWMP; however, the ordinance must
E71
Bill Duiguid and Amy Chapman
Submittal of the Draft Post Construction and Goose Creek Management Ordinance for the Town of Mint Hill
Page 2 of 3

be written so that it applies whether or not local delegation is awarded. The wording in
Sections 305(A)(1) and 305(C)(1) attempt to describe this requirement.

3. Volume Control from Structural BMPs
The SSWMP requires that structural BMPs be designed to control the difference between the
pre-development and post-development volume for a 1-yr 24-hr storm and requires the
drawdown time to be a minimum of 48 hours, but not more than 120 hours. The draft
ordinance specifies control of the full post-development volume for the 1-yr 24-hr storm with
the drawdown requirements of a minimum of 24 hours, but not more than 120 hours, which
is consistent with our Phase II Permit and Charlotte-Mecklenburg BMP Design Manual
(which has been approved by NCDWQ). This draft ordinance requirement exceeds the storm
water protection required by the SSWQMP because the full post-development volume for the
1-yr 24-hr storm will always be greater than the difference between the pre-development and
post development volume. Thus control of a larger volume of storm water will further
increase water quality benefit by protecting the downstream channel stability of streams from
larger erosive flows.

4. Peak Control
The SSWQMP requires peak control for the 1-yr 24-hr storm. The attached draft ordinance
includes this requirement; however, control requirements for development exceeding ten
percent built-upon area were added for peak control of the 10-yr 6-hr and the 25-yr 6-hr
storms to be consistent with the current Mint Hill Post Construction Storm Water Ordinance.
5. Wastewater Control Requirements
MCWQP has not included the wastewater control requirements of 15A NCAC 2B.0603 as
part of the draft ordinance and does not request delegation of this regulation. Since MCWQP
does not have the authority to issue NPDES permits, MCWQP does not request delegation of
this regulation.

6. Riparian Buffer Protection Administrator
Under 15A NCAC 2B.0607(g), the SSWQMP requires the appointment of a Riparian Buffer
Protection Administrator. Mint Hill already has designated a Storm Water Administrator to
implement the Post Construction Storm Water Ordinance and proposes that the Storm Water
Administrator serve as the Riparian Buffer Protection Administrator as well; therefore this
title has been changed to Storm Water Administrator in the draft ordinance.

7. Variances to Riparian Buffer Requirements
The SSWQMP uses the term “major variance” under 15A NCAC 02B.0606(2), but does not
define the term. We assume that the State’s intent is to require all buffer variances to go
through the EMC; therefore, this is the way the draft ordinance was written.
8. Local Mitigation Program
Under 15A NCAC 02B.0609, the SSWQMP requires that mitigation fees and / or property
donations be managed by the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. In the
attached draft ordinance, the Town of Mint Hill will manage mitigation activities locally.

It is our desire to obtain your comments by May 15, 2009. Your can provide your comments by
E72
Bill Duiguid and Amy Chapman
Submittal of the Draft Post Construction and Goose Creek Management Ordinance for the Town of Mint Hill
Page 3 of 3

giving me a call at 704-336-5449 or sending me an email at
[e-mail] . If you would like a Word version of the document
for “Tracking” your changes, please let me know and I will gladly make it available to you. After
you provide your preliminary comments on the draft ordinance, this ordinance will be modified
accordingly and presented to the Mint Hill Town Council for consideration for adoption. The
adopted ordinance, as well the other information required for formal delegation will be submitted
to your Office for formal review and approval.

Please contact me at [phone] if you have any questions.

Thank you very much for agreeing to review this draft ordinance.

Enclosures: Town of Mint Hill Draft Post Construction and Goose Creek Management
Ordinance
E73
E74
E75
Mint Hill, North Carolina
May, 2011
Lawyers Road And i-485
Small Area Plan
E76
E77
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: Introduction
Context
Purpose Of The Small Area Plan
Geography And Study Area
CHAPTER 2: Public Participation
CHAPTER 3: Existing Conditions
Natural Environment
Land Use
Transportation
Utilities
Market Analysis
CHAPTER 4: Process and Analysis
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Traffic Impact Analysis
Land Use Impact Analysis
Summary
CHAPTER 5: Small Area Plan
Goals
Plan Description
CHAPTER 6: Recommendations
Business Recruitment Recommendations
Natural Environment Recommendations
Land Use Recommendations
Urban Design Recommendations
Transportation Recommendations
Utilities Recommendations

APPENDIX A: Demographic Market Analysis
APPENDIX B: Real Estate Market Analysis
APPENDIX C: Demand Potential Market Analysis
APPENDIX D: Fiscal Impact Analysis
APPENDIX E: Traffic Impact Analysis
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
E78
E79
Figure Index
CHAPTER 1: Introduction
Figure 1: Study Area Boundary
Figure 2: Aerial Map of Study Area
CHAPTER 2: Public Participation
CHAPTER 3: Existing Conditions
Figure 3: Environmental Features Map
Figure 4: Existing Land Use Map
Figure 5: Existing Zoning Map
Figure 6: Transportation Base Map
Figure 7: Major River Basins Map
CHAPTER 4: Process and Analysis
Figure 8: Charrette Option 1 Sketch
Figure 9: Charrette Option 2 Sketch
Figure 10: Charrette Option 3 Sketch
Figure 11: Charrette Preferred Concept Master Plan
Figure 12: Charrette Preferred Land Use Map
Figure 13: Impacts on Tax Base Graph
Figure 14: Annual Net Fiscal Impact Graph
Figure 15: Traffic Impact Graph
CHAPTER 5: Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 6: Recommendations
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
...................................page 14
..............................................page 16
.................................................page 17
.........................................page 23
...........................................page 27
........................................page 50
........................................page 50
......................................page 50
..............page 52
........................page 53
....................................page 54
.............................page 54
...............................................page 55
................................................page 5
..........................................page 6
E80
E81
Acknowledgements
Town of Mint Hill - Board of
Commissioners
Ted H. Biggers, Mayor
Lloyd Austin, Mayor Pro-Tem
Carl M. Ellington
Brenda McRae
Katrina “Tina” Ross
Town of Mint Hill - Planning Board
Members
William A. “Tony” Long, Chairman
Roy Fielding
Joseph Earl (Jef) Freeman
Richard Newton
Donnie Walters
ETJ Member:
Thomas (Tom) Gatz
Roger Hendrix
Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area
Plan Advisory Committee Members
Robert Brisley
Brenda Frazier Dills
Kenny Draffen
Dixie Helms
Kenneth Horn
Richard Newton
Dwarkadas V. Shah
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
Town of Mint Hill – Planning Staff
Brian L. Welch, Town Manager
Lee Bailey, Deputy Town Manager & Planning Director
Dana Clukey, Planner
John Hoard, Planner
Consultant Team
Padam Singh, HNTB
Donal Simpson
Kevin Walsh, HNTB
Greg Boulanger, HNTB
Susan Paschal, HNTB
Ed Delara, HNTB
Mac Nichols, AECOM
Alisa Cohen, AECOM
Emily Henke
E82
E83
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
E84
2
E85
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
3
CONTEXT
The Town of Mint Hill is one of the fastest growing
towns in the burgeoning metropolitan area of
Charlotte and prides itself on its small town feel.
Located in the eastern portion of Mecklenburg
County, Mint Hill is roughly 15 miles east of downtown
Charlotte. The Lawyers Road and I-485 Interchange
Small Area Plan (SAP) study area is located in the
southeastern portion of the Town of Mint Hill. This
portion of the town is relatively less developed than
the northeastern part of Mint Hill, with large portions
of the area owned by a few land owners. The study
area is conveniently linked to other municipalities in
the region via I-485, which is a major interstate facility
that connects to the Town of Matthews and Town of
Pineville in the south, and the University City Area
and City of Concord in the north . With the planned
completion of the I-485 loop, which will connect I-85
to I-77 in the north, Mint Hill and the study area will
be further connected to the northern Mecklenburg
Towns of Cornelius, Huntersville, and Davidson. The
study area also borders Union County to the east,
which was the seventh (7th) fastest growing county
in the United States according to the U.S. Census
Bureau News in 2008.
PURPOSE OF THE SMALL AREA PLAN
Due to its attractive location, availability of land, and
regional connectivity, the interchange of Lawyers
Road with I-485 has long been seen as a potential
location for a regional destination. In 2003, General
Growth Properties (GGP) partnered with Childress
Klein Properties to propose a regional mall – The
Bridges at Mint Hill - that will cater to the eastern
portion of Mecklenburg County, southern Cabarrus
County, and the western portion of growing Union
County. The mall is expected to also draw shoppers
from the University City area in Mecklenburg County
and from Lancaster County, South Carolina. Although
a good location for a regional shopping center, this
development prompted town residents and town
leadership to think about the area surrounding the
potential mall. They want to be proactive in deciding
what development could occur around the mall. The
initial timeline for the opening of the mall was in
U.S. Census Bureau News, released March 20, 2008 (http://
www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/
population/011635.html)
Chapter 1: Introduction
Map: Mint Hill is located near Charlotte, North Carolina and
has excellent regional connections to University City, Concord,
Matthews, and Pineville.
IN
T
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
E86
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 1 Introduction
4
2009, but with the downturn in the real estate market
and overall economy, the plans to build the mall have
been shelved until 2013-2014. The commitment
from tenants is still strong, and although it is hard
to predict the length of this downturn, the need
for a regional mall in this area has not disappeared.
This delay gives the Town the necessary time to
plan the area around the mall, and to maximize
the opportunity presented by the development
of this scale without letting the area develop with
undesirable uses. The Town hired a national urban
planning and engineering consulting firm, HNTB, to
assist it in developing a Small Area Plan for the study
area. HNTB’s team is comprised of professionals with
various expertise ranging from land use planning,
urban design, architecture, natural environment,
market analysis, traffic, and transportation.
GEOGRAPHY AND STUDY AREA
The study area is centered around the Bridges at
Mint Hill mall. During the first advisory committee
meeting, the project team drafted a study area
boundary that extended from Hwy 218 (Fairview
Road) in the north, to east of Allen Black Road in the
east, to the future Stevens Creek Nature Preserve
in the south, and to Stevens Creek Tributary in the
west. Please see the study area boundary in Fig 1.
The study area is 1,992 acres, of which roughly 300
acres is in transportation right-of-way. This leaves
1,694 acres of land to be planned.

Although most of the study area falls within
Mint Hill’s town limits, some portion of it is in the
unincorporated portion of Mecklenburg County as
well. Additionally, a very small portion of the study
area falls inside Union County. Downtown Mint Hill
is roughly 1.5 miles from the intersection of Lawyers
Road and Bain School Road, which is basically the
center of the study area. Most of the study area is
relatively undeveloped, but there are a few single
family residential neighborhoods and a few civic uses
such as churches and an elementary school.
For a general understanding of the study area, please
see Figure 2: Aerial map on page 6.
GE
O
G
R
A
P
H
Y

A
N
D

S
T
U
D
Y

A
R
E
A
E87
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 1 Introduction
5
XY
n
n
n
n
n
n
nn
M E C K L E N B U R G C O U N T Y
U N I O N C O U N T Y
!(24
MECKLENBUR
G

COU
NTY
CABA
R

R
US COUNTY
!(51
§¨¦485
!(218
§¨¦485
!(51
!(27
C.T. MYERS GOLF COURSE
REEDY CREEK NATURE PRESERVE
MATTHEWS/I-485 REGIONAL PARK
STEVENS CREEK NATURE PRESERVE
SHERMAN BRANCH REGIONAL PARK
IDLEWILD ROAD REGIONAL PARK
HARRISBURG ROAD REGIONAL PARK
EZELL FARM COMMUNITY PARK
REEDY CREEK GREENWAY
MCALPINE CREEK GREENWAY
HICKORY GROVE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
INDEPENDENCE POINTE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
HARRISBURG ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
MAYERLING DRIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK
FAIRVIEW PARK
I-485 Hy
L
a
w
y
e
r
s

R
d
Albemarl
e

R
d
Brief R
d
Idle
w
i
l
d

R
d
Blair

R
d
Harri
s
b
u
r
g

R
d
Cabarrus Rd
Leb
a
n
o
n

R
d
Pence Rd
Matt
h
e
w
s
-
M
i
n
t

H
i
l
l

R
d
E I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
c
e

B
v
Arlin
g
t
o
n

C
h
u
r
c
h

R
d
Robinson C
h
u
r
c
h

R
d
Ho
o
d

R
d
Plaza Rd

E
x
t
Fairview Rd
Wil
g
r
o
v
e
-
M
i
n
t

H
i
l
l

R
d
E
J
o
h
n

S
t
Camp Stewart Rd
Wilson

G
r
o
v
e

R
d
Margar
e
t

W
a
l
l
a
c
e

R
d
CPCC Ln
Matthe
w
s

T
o
w
n
s
h
i
p

P
y
Roc
k
y

R
i
v
e
r

C
h
u
r
c
h

R
d
NC 218
In
d
i
a
n

T
r
a
i
l

R
d
Sa
m

N
e
w
e
l
l

R
d
Lineview Dr
No
r
t
h
e
a
s
t

P
y
Circ
u
m
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l

R
d
Northeast P
y
Fairview Rd
I-4
8
5

H
y
Fairvi
e
w

R
d
NC 2
1
8
Matthews-M
i
n
t

H
i
l
l

R
d
Plaza Rd Ext
Mint Hill Library
Town Square
MINT HILL HIGH
BAIN ELEMENTARY
MINT HILL MIDDLE
NORTHEAST MIDDLE
INDEPENDENCE HIGH
LEBANON ROAD ELEM
QUEEN'S GRANT HIGH
QUEEN'S GRANT COMMUNITY
L a w y e r s R o a d & I - 4 8 5
S m a l l A r e a P l a n
T O W N O F M I N T H I L LN O R T H C A R O L I N A
121 W Tr ad e Stre etSui te 2050Cha rlotte , N C 28202
Ph: 704.372.8020Fa x: 704.372.7097
0 21
Miles
Source: Mecklenburg County GIS, Union County GIS, Town of Mint Hill, Mecklenburg Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO), North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Disclaimer: This GIS data is deemed reliable but provided "as is" without warranty of any representation of accuracy, timeliness, reliability or completeness. This map document does not represent a legal survey of the land and is for graphical purposes only. Use of this data for any purpose should be with acknowledgement of the limitations of the data, including the fact that the data is dynamic and is in a constant state of maintenance, correction, and update.
n Mint Hill Schools
SAP Study Area
Downtown Mint Hill
County Boundary
Thoroughfares
Freeway
Major Thoroughfare
Minor Thoroughfare
Local
Parks
Town Limits
Planning Area
N
Context Map
Fig:
CO
N
T
E
X
T

M
A
P
Figure 1: Study Area Boundary.
E88
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 1 Introduction
6
n
M E C K L E N B U R G C O U N T Y
U N I O N C O U N T Y
§¨¦I-485
STEVENS CREEK NATURE PRESERVE
FAIRVIEW PARK
Law
y
e
r
s

R
d
Fairvie
w

R
d
S I
-
4
8
5

I
n
n
e
r

H
W
Y
N I-
4
8
5

O
u
t
e
r

H
W
Y
Alle
n

B
l
a
c
k

R
d
Brief Rd
Ba
i
n

S
c
h
o
o
l

R
d
Uni
o
n

R
d
Thompson Rd
Qua
i
l

P
a
r
k

D
r
Joli Cheval Ln
I-485 Ram
p
Long
R
d
Ranburne Rd
Mc
W
h
i
r
t
e
r

R
d
Ju
m
p
e
r

D
r
Alexis Dr
Whi
t
m
i
r
e

L
n
Unk
n
o
w
n
Ste
v
e
n
s

M
i
l
l

R
d
Hea
t
h

L
a
k
e

D
r
Hea
t
h

G
l
e
n

D
r
Matthew
s
-
M
i
n
t

H
i
l
l

R
d
Bain F
a
r
m

R
d
Cre
s
t
h
i
l
l

D
r
Yarm
o
u
t
h

R
d
Old
e

S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e

D
r
Linev
i
e
w

D
r
Willowbrook Dr
Fo
x

H
o
l
l
o
w

R
d
Can
t
e
r

L
n
Millhouse Ln
Fieldlark Ln
McGre
g
o
r

D
r
Bexley Pl
Four W
o
o
d

D
r
Sha
-
N
e
l
l
e

L
n
She
l
b
u
r
n
e

P
l
Ro
t
h
w
e
l
l

D
r
Cas
t
l
e
f
o
r
d

D
r
Hollow Oak Dr
Oxer R
d
Country Woo
d
s

D
r
Lei
s
u
r
e

G
a
r
d
e
n

L
n
Su
n
s
e
t

D
r
Milb
r
o
o
k

L
n
Ech
o

L
n
Shadow Lake Ln
Ben
t

O
a
k

D
r
Filly Rd
Da
r
t
f
o
r
d

L
n
Silas Ed Ln
Pinewoo
d

C
r
k
Milwrigh
t

L
n
Cas
t
l
e
s
t
o
n
e

D
r
Larg
e

O
a
k

L
n
Rut
h

H
a
v
e
n

D
r
Stoney Mead
o
w

D
r
Blair

R
d
Cag
l
e

D
r
Tenby Ln
Bartlett
R
d
Hill
s
i
d
e

D
r
Hel
e
n
a

C
r
k
Phila
d
e
l
p
h
i
a

C
h
u
r
c
h

R
d
Hunley Ridge Rd
Gree
n

A
s
h

L
n
Ashbourne Ln
Maple Hollow Ln
Sunrise Dr
Mini
M
a
c

D
r
Tenill
e

P
l
Sha
d
y

G
r
o
v
e

L
n
Persimmon Creek Dr
Wea
t
h
e
r
s
f
o
r
d

R
d
Gait Dr
Oak
w
o
o
d

A
v
e
Foal
C
t
Talc
o
t
t

D
r
Bascale

L
n
Will Hollow Ln
Beech

M
i
n
t

D
r
McEw
e
n

L
a
k
e

L
n
War
e
h
o
u
s
e

R
d
Dove
t
a
i
l

C
t
Turkey O
a
k

D
r
Clover Bo
t
t
o
m

D
r
Sha
d
y

O
a
k

C
t
Old
P
e
r
s
i
m
m
o
n

D
r
Penny Place Ln
Winter Heath
W
a
y
Lym
i
n
g
t
o
n

C
t
Mulb
e
r
r
y

C
t
Club Field Ct
Dress
a
g
e

B
l
v
d
Chin
a
b
e
r
r
y

C
t
Flo
u
r
m
i
l
l

C
t
Prairie Hill Way
Redfox Ridg
e

L
n
Old
h
a
m

P
l
Early Meadow Way
Tw
i
n
l
e
a
f

C
t
Fairview Rd
Un
k
n
o
w
n
I-48
5

R
a
m
p
I-485

R
a
m
p
I-48
5

R
a
m
p
Unk
n
o
w
n
I-4
8
5

H
y
La
w
y
e
r
s

R
d
Brief Rd
I-485 Ra
Fairview Rd
NC 218
Lineview D
r
Matthe
w
s
-
M
i
n
t

H
i
l
l

R
d
I-
4
8
5

R
a
NC 2
1
8
Fairv
i
e
w

R
d
I-485 Hy
Fairview Rd
I-
4
8
5

R
a
NC
2
1
8
NC
2
1
8
I-48
5

R
a
I-4
8
5

R
a
Fairvi
e
w

R
d
Goo
s
e

C
r
e
e
k
Stevens
C
r
e
e
k
Ste
v
e
n
s

C
r
e
e
k

T
r
i
b
St
e
v
e
n
s

C
r
e
e
k

T
r
i
b
BAIN ELEMENTARY
L a w y e r s R o a d & I - 4 8 5
S m a l l A r e a P l a n
T O W N O F M I N T H I L L
N O R T H C A R O L I N A
121 W Trad e S tre etSuite 2050Char lotte , NC 28202
Ph: 704.372.8020Fa x: 704.372.7097
0 1,600 3,200800
Feet
Source: Mecklenburg County GIS, Union County GIS, Town of Mint Hill, Mecklenburg Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO), North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Disclaimer: This GIS data is deemed reliable but provided "as is" without warranty of any representation of accuracy, timeliness, reliability or completeness. This map document does not represent a legal survey of the land and is for graphical purposes only. Use of this data for any purpose should be with acknowledgement of the limitations of the data, including the fact that the data is dynamic and is in a constant state of maintenance, correction, and update.
n Mint Hill Schools
Building Footprint
SAP Study Area
Downtown Mint Hill
Streams
County Boundary
Thoroughfares
Freeway
Major Thoroughfare
Minor Thoroughfare
Local
Parks
Parcels
N
Aerial Base Map
Fig:
AE
R
I
A
L

B
A
S
E

M
A
P
Figure 2: Aerial Map of Study Area.
E89
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
7
Chapter 2: Public Participation
E90
8
E91
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
9
Chapter 2: Public Participation
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Public involvement is extremely important to ensure
that all community members – those who live within
the study area, those who live in the town, and those
who will be visiting this area – have an opportunity
to voice their concerns and opinions during the Small
Area Plan development process. The Town appointed
seven (7) advisory committee members to provide
guidance to the project team and direction for this
plan. In addition, elected officials, planning board
members, and town staff were an integral part of
plan development.
In order to gain wider community support, a three-
day design charrette was organized in the Assembly
Room of the Town Hall on Feb 2-4, 2010. This all-
day three-day event was open to the public on all
three days, and there was a public meeting at the
end of each day. Many residents, stakeholders, and
interested citizens came during the three day event
and provided valuable input.
In addition to the three-day public charrette,
three public meetings were also organized to seek
additional input at various stages as the plan was
refined and shaped into a final document.
The Town also created other ways for the public
to provide feedback into the process. A Facebook
page was created to not only share the progress
made on the plan, but also to provide comments and
feedback, and engage the community in online dialog
regarding the plan. The page was available at www.
facebook.com after searching for Lawyers Road and
Interstate 485 Small Area Plan (SAP) under groups.
The Town also created a link on the Town’s website –
www.minthill.com – for the Small Area Plan.
Traditional means of public outreach such as
newsletters, postcards for meeting invitations,
and newspaper announcements were also used to
engage the public.
Photo: Town’s elected officials picked seven members from
the community to serve on the Advisory Committee and
guide the planning process.
Photo: A three-day public charrette was organized in
February of 2010, and three additional public meetings were
organized to seek community input at various stages of plan
development.
PU
B
L
I
C

P
A
R
T
I
C
I
P
A
T
I
O
N
E92
10
E93
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
11
Chapter 3: Existing Conditions
E94
12
E95
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
13
Chapter 3: Existing Conditions
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
One of the striking aspects of the study area is the
presence of an environmentally sensitive system of
creeks and streams. Figure 3 on page 14 shows all
the environmental features within the study area.
Goose Creek, along with its tributaries, is one of the
major streams that runs north-south through the
entire study area. Stevens Creek is another major
creek that flows south of the study area along with
its tributaries. Floodplains along Goose Creek and
Stevens Creek cover roughly 170 acres of the study
area.
The entire study area falls within the Goose Creek
watershed, which contains federal, state, and local
development restrictions aimed at protecting the
environmentally sensitive habitat of the endangered
Carolina Heelsplitter mussel. Although there are
some restrictions on development in this watershed,
development is not entirely prohibited. As long as
buffer requirements are maintained (as described
previously) and a sufficient amount of a proposed
development is preserved as open space, parts of
this watershed could be developed. According to
Mecklenburg County Land Use & Environmental
Services (LUESA), which oversees the environmental
permitting process for the Town of Mint Hill, if the
Built- Upon- Area (BUA) is less than 20%, then no
open space requirements are necessary. If the BUA
is between 20% and 50%, then 15% of open space is
required. If the BUA is greater than 50%, then 10%
of open space is required.
Post Construction Ordinance buffer requirements
limit the area that can be developed. The buffer
requirement on perennial streams in the Goose Creek
watershed is 200 feet on either side of the stream
Photo: Floodplains along Goose Creek and Stevens Creek
cover roughly 170 acres of the study area. Post construction
ordinance requires 200 feet un-disturbed buffer on each side
of the perrinial streams.
Photo: Site of the planned mall - Bridges at Mint Hill.
NA
T
U
R
A
L

E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
E96
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 3 Existing Conditions
14
n
M E C K L E N B U R G C O U N T Y
U N I O N C O U N T Y
§¨¦I-485
STEVENS CREEK NATURE PRESERVE
FAIRVIEW PARK
Law
y
e
r
s

R
d
Fairview Rd
S I-4
8
5

I
n
n
e
r

H
W
Y
N I-
4
8
5

O
u
t
e
r

H
W
Y
Allen

B
l
a
c
k

R
d
Brief Rd
Ba
i
n

S
c
h
o
o
l

R
d
Unio
n

R
d
Thompson Rd
Qu
a
i
l

P
a
r
k

D
r
Joli Cheval Ln
I-485 Ramp
Long R
d
Ranburne Rd
Mc
W
h
i
r
t
e
r

R
d
Ju
m
p
e
r

D
r
Alexis Dr
Wh
i
t
m
i
r
e

L
n
Unk
n
o
w
n
Stev
e
n
s

M
i
l
l

R
d
He
a
t
h

L
a
k
e

D
r
Hea
t
h

G
l
e
n

D
r
Matthe
w
s
-
M
i
n
t

H
i
l
l

R
d
Bain F
a
r
m

R
d
Cre
s
t
h
i
l
l

D
r
Yarm
o
u
t
h

R
d
Linev
i
e
w

D
r
Old
e

S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e

D
r
Willowbroo
k

D
r
Ca
n
t
e
r

L
n
Fo
x

H
o
l
l
o
w

R
d
Millhouse Ln
Fieldlark Ln
McGreg
o
r

D
r
Bexley Pl
Sha
-
N
e
l
l
e

L
n
Four
W
o
o
d

D
r
She
l
b
u
r
n
e

P
l
Ro
t
h
w
e
l
l

D
r
Cas
t
l
e
f
o
r
d

D
r
Oxer Rd
Hollow Oak Dr
Country Wo
o
d
s

D
r
Lei
s
u
r
e

G
a
r
d
e
n

L
n
Su
n
s
e
t

D
r
Milbr
o
o
k

L
n
Echo

L
n
Shadow Lake Ln
Ben
t

O
a
k

D
r
Filly R
d
Dar
t
f
o
r
d

L
n
Silas Ed Ln
Pinewoo
d

C
r
k
Milwrigh
t

L
n
Cas
t
l
e
s
t
o
n
e

D
r
Larg
e

O
a
k

L
n
Rut
h

H
a
v
e
n

D
r
Stoney Me
a
d
o
w

D
r
Blair

R
d
Cag
l
e

D
r
Tenby Ln
Bartlett R
d
Hill
s
i
d
e

D
r
He
l
e
n
a

C
r
k
Phila
d
e
l
p
h
i
a

C
h
u
r
c
h

R
d
Hunley Ridge Rd
Gree
n

A
s
h

L
n
Ashbourne Ln
Sunrise Dr
Maple Hollow Ln
Mini
M
a
c

D
r
Tenille

P
l
Sha
d
y

G
r
o
v
e

L
n
Persimmon Creek Dr
Wea
t
h
e
r
s
f
o
r
d

R
d
Gait Dr
Foal C
t
Oak
w
o
o
d

A
v
e
Talco
t
t

D
r
Bascal
e

L
n
Will Hollow Ln
McEw
e
n

L
a
k
e

L
n
Beech
M
i
n
t

D
r
War
e
h
o
u
s
e

R
d
Dovet
a
i
l

C
t
Clover Bott
o
m

D
r
Old
P
e
r
s
i
m
m
o
n

D
r
Sha
d
y

O
a
k

C
t
Penny Place Ln
Winter Heat
h

W
a
y
Ly
m
i
n
g
t
o
n

C
t
Mulbe
r
r
y

C
t
Club Field Ct
Dres
s
a
g
e

B
l
v
d
White

L
o
c
u
s
t

C
t
Chin
a
b
e
r
r
y

C
t
Flo
u
r
m
i
l
l

C
t
Prairie Hill Way
Redfox Ridg
e

L
n
Oldh
a
m

P
l
Early Meadow Way
Tw
i
n
l
e
a
f

C
t
Fairview Rd
Unk
n
o
w
n
I-48
5

R
a
m
p
I-48
5

R
a
m
p
I-48
5

R
a
m
p
Unkn
o
w
n
I-4
8
5

H
y
L
a
w
y
e
r
s

R
d
Brief Rd
Fairview Rd
NC 218
Lineview D
r
Matthe
w
s
-
M
i
n
t

H
i
l
l

R
d
Fairv
i
e
w

R
d
Fair
v
i
e
w

R
d
I-485 H
y
NC 2
1
8
NC 2
1
8
NC
2
1
8
I-485

H
y
Fairview Rd
Goo
s
e

C
r
e
e
k
Ste
v
e
n
s

C
r
e
e
k
St
e
v
e
n
s

C
r
e
e
k

T
r
i
b
St
e
v
e
n
s

C
r
e
e
k

T
r
i
b
710
730
690
750
770
670
650
630
790
730
710
75
0
670
750
710
710
710
730
750
730
750
750
770
750
73
0
710
750
650
750
670
690
65
0
750
670
75
0
670
630
630
710
730
630
770
670
730
690
710
770
670
690
690
650
670
730
730
650
73
0
71
0
770
710
710
690
690
770
690
69
0
670
710
BAIN ELEMENTARY
L a w y e r s R o a d & I - 4 8 5
S m a l l A r e a P l a n
T O W N O F M I N T H I L L
N O R T H C A R O L I N A
1 2 1 W Tra d e S t re e tS u i t e 2 0 5 0Ch a r l o t t e , N C 2 8 2 0 2
Ph : 7 0 4 . 3 7 2 . 8 0 2 0Fa x : 7 0 4 . 3 7 2 . 7 0 9 7
0 1,600 3,200800
Feet
Source: Mecklenburg County GIS, Union County GIS, Town of Mint Hill, Mecklenburg Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO), North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Disclaimer: This GIS data is deemed reliable but provided "as is" without warranty of any representation of accuracy, timeliness, reliability or completeness. This map document does not represent a legal survey of the land and is for graphical purposes only. Use of this data for any purpose should be with acknowledgement of the limitations of the data, including the fact that the data is dynamic and is in a constant state of maintenance, correction, and update.
nMint Hill Schools
SAP Study Area
10 Foot Topo
5 Foot Topo
Downtown Mint Hill
Streams
<VALUE>
0 - 5%
5 - 10%
10 - 15%
Greater than 15%
County Boundary
Water Bodies
Thoroughfares
Freeway
Major Thoroughfare
Minor Thoroughfare
Local
Final Post Construction Buffer
Future 100 Yr Floodplain
Parcels
Parks
Mecklenburg Basin Boundary
N
Environmental
Features Map
Fig:
EN
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L

F
E
A
T
U
R
E
S

M
A
P
Figure 3: Environmental Features Map.
E97
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 3 Existing Conditions
15
centerline or 400 feet total. On intermittent streams,
these requirements are 100 feet on either side of
the stream centerline or 200 feet total. Both Goose
Creek and Stevens Creek are perennial streams and
therefore are subject to higher buffer requirements.
These buffers cover 244 acres of the study area.
Since most of the floodplain area falls within the
post construction buffer area, the area impacted
by the floodplain and the post-construction buffer
requirements is still around 250 acres. This means
that roughly 12% of the study area is impacted by the
floodplain and post-construction buffer requirements
combined.
In addition to creeks and streams, there are a few
small ponds and wetlands within the study area. Post
construction buffer requirements also cover 100 feet
of area around these ponds and wetlands, and are
included in the area calculations shown on page 19.
The overall landscape of the study area is
characterized by gentle rolling hills with some steep
slopes along major creeks and streams. Fig 3 shows
areas of steep slopes. The area with slopes between
0% and 5% is generally considered very suitable for
development. The area with slopes between 5% and
10% is generally considered suitable for development,
while the area with slopes between 10% and 15% is
considered moderately suitable for development.
Even though the area with slopes above 15% can be
developed, the cost of development starts to go up
with an increase in slope. The distribution of slope
acres within the study area is shown below:
The table suggests that 88% of the study area is
within the slope percentage that lends itself for
development, and only 3.6% of the study area could
be considered constrained for development because
of slopes. After reviewing the Environmental Features
Map, it is also observed that the vast majority of
areas with slopes greater than 15% are adjacent to
major creeks and streams, and within floodplains or
the post construction buffer limits. Major roads such
as Lawyers Road, Bain School Road, Highway 218,
and Allen Black Road are along the ridge lines for the
most part.

Summary of Issues and Opportunities:
• The presence of creeks and streams provides
opportunities for open space preservation,
greenways, and trails.
• The buffer requirements along perennial and
intermittent streams provide opportunities to
preserve habitat that is unique to this area, but
also pose challenges for stream crossings and
development potential.
• Floodplains along Goose Creek and Stevens Creek
provide opportunities for preservation of open
space, but also limit the development potential of
the study area.
• The availability of land with relatively gentle
topography provides opportunities for a variety of
development.
• Open space requirements within the Goose
Creek watershed provide opportunities for open
space preservation, but also limit the amount of
development.

NA
T
U
R
A
L

E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
E98
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 3 Existing Conditions
16
XY
n
M E C K L E N B U R G C O U N T Y
U N I O N C O U N T Y
§¨¦I-485
Philadelphia PresbyterianChurch
STEVENS CREEK NATURE PRESERVE
FAIRVIEW PARK
Law
y
e
r
s

R
d
Fairview Rd
S I-
4
8
5

I
n
n
e
r

H
W
Y
N I-
4
8
5

O
u
t
e
r

H
W
Y
Alle
n

B
l
a
c
k

R
d
Brief Rd
Bai
n

S
c
h
o
o
l

R
d
Uni
o
n

R
d
Thompson Rd
Qua
i
l

P
a
r
k

D
r
Joli Cheval Ln
I-485 Ram
p
Long R
d
Ranburne Rd
Mc
W
h
i
r
t
e
r

R
d
Ju
m
p
e
r

D
r
Alexis Dr
Wh
i
t
m
i
r
e

L
n
Unk
n
o
w
n
Ste
v
e
n
s

M
i
l
l

R
d
He
a
t
h

L
a
k
e

D
r
Hea
t
h

G
l
e
n

D
r
Matthew
s
-
M
i
n
t

H
i
l
l

R
d
Bain
F
a
r
m

R
d
Cre
s
t
h
i
l
l

D
r
Yarm
o
u
t
h

R
d
Line
v
i
e
w

D
r
Old
e

S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e

D
r
Willowbroo
k

D
r
Ca
n
t
e
r

L
n
Fo
x

H
o
l
l
o
w

R
d
Millhouse Ln
Fieldlark Ln
McGre
g
o
r

D
r
Bexley Pl
Sha
-
N
e
l
l
e

L
n
Four

W
o
o
d

D
r
She
l
b
u
r
n
e

P
l
Ro
t
h
w
e
l
l

D
r
Cas
t
l
e
f
o
r
d

D
r
Oxer R
d
Hollow Oak Dr
Country Wo
o
d
s

D
r
Leis
u
r
e

G
a
r
d
e
n

L
n
Sun
s
e
t

D
r
Milb
r
o
o
k

L
n
Ech
o

L
n
Shadow Lake Ln
Ben
t

O
a
k

D
r
Filly R
d
Dar
t
f
o
r
d

L
n
Silas Ed Ln
Pinewo
o
d

C
r
k
Milwright
L
n
Ca
s
t
l
e
s
t
o
n
e

D
r
Larg
e

O
a
k

L
n
Ru
t
h

H
a
v
e
n

D
r
Stoney Mea
d
o
w

D
r
Blair R
d
Cag
l
e

D
r
Tenby L
n
Bartlett

R
d
Hills
i
d
e

D
r
He
l
e
n
a

C
r
k
Phila
d
e
l
p
h
i
a

C
h
u
r
c
h

R
d
Hunley Ridge Rd
Gree
n

A
s
h

L
n
Ashbourne Ln
Sunrise Dr
Maple Hollow Ln
Mini

M
a
c

D
r
Tenill
e

P
l
Sha
d
y

G
r
o
v
e

L
n
Persimmon Creek Dr
Wea
t
h
e
r
s
f
o
r
d

R
d
Gait Dr
Foal
C
t
Oakw
o
o
d

A
v
e
Talc
o
t
t

D
r
Bascal
e

L
n
Will Hollow Ln
McEwe
n

L
a
k
e

L
n
Beech
M
i
n
t

D
r
War
e
h
o
u
s
e

R
d
Dove
t
a
i
l

C
t
Clover Bo
t
t
o
m

D
r
Old
P
e
r
s
i
m
m
o
n

D
r
Sha
d
y

O
a
k

C
t
Penny Place Ln
Winter Heath
W
a
y
Lym
i
n
g
t
o
n

C
t
Mulb
e
r
r
y

C
t
Club Field Ct
Dress
a
g
e

B
l
v
d
Whit
e

L
o
c
u
s
t

C
t
Chin
a
b
e
r
r
y

C
t
Flo
u
r
m
i
l
l

C
t
Prairie Hill Way
Redfox Rid
g
e

L
n
Old
h
a
m

P
l
Early Meadow Way
Tw
i
n
l
e
a
f

C
t
Fairview R
d
Un
k
n
o
w
n
I-48
5

R
a
m
p
I-485

R
a
m
p
I-48
5

R
a
m
p
Unk
n
o
w
n
I-4
8
5

H
y
L
a
w
y
e
r
s

R
d
Brief Rd
Fairview Rd
NC 218
Lineview D
r
Matthe
w
s
-
M
i
n
t

H
i
l
l

R
d
Fairv
i
e
w

R
d
Fair
v
i
e
w

R
d
I-485 H
y
NC 2
1
8
NC 2
1
8
NC 2
1
8
I-48
5

H
y
Fairview Rd
Goo
s
e

C
r
e
e
k
Stev
e
n
s

C
r
e
e
k
St
e
v
e
n
s

C
r
e
e
k

T
r
i
b
St
e
v
e
n
s

C
r
e
e
k

T
r
i
b
Town Square
BAIN ELEMENTARY
L a w y e r s R o a d & I - 4 8 5
S m a l l A r e a P l a n
T O W N O F M I N T H I L LN O R T H C A R O L I N A
121 W Trade S tree tSuit e 20 50Charl ot te , NC 282 02
Ph : 70 4.37 2.8 020Fax : [phone]
0 1,600 3,200800
Feet
Source: Mecklenburg County GIS, Union County GIS, Town of Mint Hill, Mecklenburg Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO), North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Disclaimer: This GIS data is deemed reliable but provided "as is" without warranty of any representation of accuracy, timeliness, reliability or completeness. This map document does not represent a legal survey of the land and is for graphical purposes only. Use of this data for any purpose should be with acknowledgement of the limitations of the data, including the fact that the data is dynamic and is in a constant state of maintenance, correction, and update.
n Mint Hill Schools
Streams
Building Footprint
SAP Study Area
Downtown Mint Hill
County Boundary
Thoroughfares
Freeway
Major Thoroughfare
Minor Thoroughfare
Local
Existing Land Use
Rural / Agricultural
Golf Course
Rural Residential
Single Family Residential
Civic / Institutional
Office
Commercial
Industrial
Parks
N
Existing Land Use Map
Fig:
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G

L
A
N
D

U
S
E

M
A
P
Figure 4: Existing Land Use Map.
E99
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 3 Existing Conditions
17
XY
n
M E C K L E N B U R G C O U N T Y
U N I O N C O U N T Y
§¨¦I-485
Philadelphia PresbyterianChurch
STEVENS CREEK NATURE PRESERVE
FAIRVIEW PARK
Law
y
e
r
s

R
d
Fairview Rd
S I-
4
8
5

I
n
n
e
r

H
W
Y
N I
-
4
8
5

O
u
t
e
r

H
W
Y
Alle
n

B
l
a
c
k

R
d
Brief Rd
Bai
n

S
c
h
o
o
l

R
d
Unio
n

R
d
Thompson Rd
Qua
i
l

P
a
r
k

D
r
Joli Cheval Ln
I-485 Ra
m
p
Long R
d
Ranburne Rd
Mc
W
h
i
r
t
e
r

R
d
Ju
m
p
e
r

D
r
Alexis Dr
Whi
t
m
i
r
e

L
n
Unk
n
o
w
n
Stev
e
n
s

M
i
l
l

R
d
Hea
t
h

L
a
k
e

D
r
Hea
t
h

G
l
e
n

D
r
Matthe
w
s
-
M
i
n
t

H
i
l
l

R
d
Bain
F
a
r
m

R
d
Cre
s
t
h
i
l
l

D
r
Yarm
o
u
t
h

R
d
Line
v
i
e
w

D
r
Old
e

S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e

D
r
Willowbrook
D
r
Ca
n
t
e
r

L
n
Fo
x

H
o
l
l
o
w

R
d
Millhouse Ln
Fieldlark Ln
McGre
g
o
r

D
r
Bexley Pl
Sha
-
N
e
l
l
e

L
n
Four W
o
o
d

D
r
She
l
b
u
r
n
e

P
l
Ro
t
h
w
e
l
l

D
r
Ca
s
t
l
e
f
o
r
d

D
r
Oxer R
d
Hollow Oak Dr
Country W
o
o
d
s

D
r
Lei
s
u
r
e

G
a
r
d
e
n

L
n
Sun
s
e
t

D
r
Milb
r
o
o
k

L
n
Ech
o

L
n
Shadow Lake Ln
Ben
t

O
a
k

D
r
Filly R
d
Dar
t
f
o
r
d

L
n
Silas Ed Ln
Pinewo
o
d

C
r
k
Milwright

L
n
Ca
s
t
l
e
s
t
o
n
e

D
r
Larg
e

O
a
k

L
n
Ru
t
h

H
a
v
e
n

D
r
Stoney Me
a
d
o
w

D
r
Blair
R
d
Cag
l
e

D
r
Tenby Ln
Bartlett

R
d
Hil
l
s
i
d
e

D
r
Hel
e
n
a

C
r
k
Phila
d
e
l
p
h
i
a

C
h
u
r
c
h

R
d
Hunley Ridge Rd
Gree
n

A
s
h

L
n
Ashbourne Ln
Sunrise Dr
Maple Hollow Ln
Mini

M
a
c

D
r
Tenill
e

P
l
Sha
d
y

G
r
o
v
e

L
n
Persimmon Creek Dr
Wea
t
h
e
r
s
f
o
r
d

R
d
Gait Dr
Foal
C
t
Oakw
o
o
d

A
v
e
Talco
t
t

D
r
Basca
l
e

L
n
Will Hollow Ln
McEwe
n

L
a
k
e

L
n
Beech
M
i
n
t

D
r
War
e
h
o
u
s
e

R
d
Dove
t
a
i
l

C
t
Clover Botto
m

D
r
Old

P
e
r
s
i
m
m
o
n

D
r
Sha
d
y

O
a
k

C
t
Penny Place Ln
Winter Hea
t
h

W
a
y
Ly
m
i
n
g
t
o
n

C
t
Mulb
e
r
r
y

C
t
Club Field Ct
Dress
a
g
e

B
l
v
d
Whit
e

L
o
c
u
s
t

C
t
Chin
a
b
e
r
r
y

C
t
Flo
u
r
m
i
l
l

C
t
Prairie Hill Way
Redfox Rid
g
e

L
n
Oldh
a
m

P
l
Early Meadow Way
Tw
i
n
l
e
a
f

C
t
Fairview Rd
Unk
n
o
w
n
I-48
5

R
a
m
p
I-485

R
a
m
p
I-48
5

R
a
m
p
Unkn
o
w
n
I-4
8
5

H
y
La
w
y
e
r
s

R
d
Brief Rd
Fairview Rd
NC 218
Lineview D
r
Matthe
w
s
-
M
i
n
t

H
i
l
l

R
d
Fairv
i
e
w

R
d
Fair
v
i
e
w

R
d
I-485 H
y
NC 2
1
8
NC 2
1
8
NC 2
1
8
I-48
5

H
y
Fairview Rd
Goo
s
e

C
r
e
e
k
Stev
e
n
s

C
r
e
e
k
St
e
v
e
n
s

C
r
e
e
k

T
r
i
b
St
e
v
e
n
s

C
r
e
e
k

T
r
i
b
Town Square
BAIN ELEMENTARY
L a w y e r s R o a d & I - 4 8 5
S m a l l A r e a P l a n
T O W N O F M I N T H I L LN O R T H C A R O L I N A
121 W Trade S tree tSuit e 20 50Charl ot te , NC 282 02
Ph : 70 4.37 2.8 020Fax : [phone]
0 1,600 3,200800
Feet
Source: Mecklenburg County GIS, Union County GIS, Town of Mint Hill, Mecklenburg Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO), North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Disclaimer: This GIS data is deemed reliable but provided "as is" without warranty of any representation of accuracy, timeliness, reliability or completeness. This map document does not represent a legal survey of the land and is for graphical purposes only. Use of this data for any purpose should be with acknowledgement of the limitations of the data, including the fact that the data is dynamic and is in a constant state of maintenance, correction, and update.
n Mint Hill Schools
Building Footprint
SAP Study Area
Downtown Mint Hill
Streams
County Boundary
Thoroughfares
Freeway
Major Thoroughfare
Minor Thoroughfare
Local
Parks
Zoning
Residential District (R)
Institutional (I)
Office and Apartment (O-A)
General Business (B-G)
Planned Business (B-P)
Distributive Business (B-D)
Planned Unit Development (PUD)
General Industrial (I-G)
N
Existing Zoning Map
Fig:
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G

Z
O
N
I
N
G

M
A
P
Figure 5: Existing Zoning Map.
E100
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 3 Existing Conditions
18
LAND USE
Land use is perhaps the one common element
that impacts all other major components - such
as transportation, economic development,
environmental features, and utilities - of any plan.
Land use also addresses some of the larger issues
in a community such as quality of life and future
vision for growth. With the arrival of the Bridges at
Mint Hill mall, there will be substantial pressure on
surrounding areas for land use change. The adjoining
Fig. 4 details existing land uses.
Currently, a considerable part of the study area is
undeveloped, with about 32% being either rural/
agriculture or open space. This is evident along Bain
School Road and Allen Black Road, where one can
see active farms. Rural residential uses, which make
up over 50% of the study area, are predominant.
Some large parcels of property are currently used
as rural residential; in fact, Mecklenburg County
tax data shows all of the Bridges at Mint Hill Mall
parcels as rural residential. There are a few single-
family residential neighborhoods in the study area;
Country Woods subdivision at the southwest corner
of Lawyers Road interchange is one of the largest
neighborhoods. A few smaller neighborhoods
exist along the periphery of the study area – along
Thompson Road, Lawyers Road, and Allen Black
Road.
There are a few civic uses, such as churches, within
the study area. St. Luke’s Catholic Church is on
Lawyers Road and Church of God is on Bain School
Road. Although Bain School Elementary School and
Philadelphia Presbyterian Church are two of the
oldest civic institutions in the Town, both of them
being on the Town’s seal, they are just outside
the study area. The Park at Fairview, one of the
recreational facilities that is owned and maintained
by the Town of Mint Hill, is located in the northern
Photo: SAP study area is primarily rural.
Photo: Some local landmarks, such as Philadelphia
Presbyterian Church, are also in close proximity of the study
area .
Photo: New residential development, such as equestrian
themed Cheval, provides variety in the study area.
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G

L
A
N
D

U
S
E
E101
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 3 Existing Conditions
19
Photo: Park on Fairview Road provides numerous
recreational opportunities such as nature trails, ball
fields, picnic areas, kids’ playground area etc.
Photo: New subdivisions, such as Meadows of Mint Hill along
Bain School Road, are recent addition to the study area.
portion of the study area. A major Mecklenburg
County park facility, Stevens Creek Nature Preserve,
is being planned on the southern edge of the study
area, southwest of Country Woods subdivision. Its
planned entrance is on Thompson Road.
Currently, the land uses in the study area are low-
density, which does not lend itself for a walkable
environment. However, this could change with the
arrival of the planned mall. A detailed breakdown of
various land uses in the study area is shown in the
table below.
Although the study area is primarily rural with
some residential and civic uses, the zoning is mostly
Residential (R). The Bridges at Mint Hill Mall site is
zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD), which
is a type of zoning district “that is established to
accommodate, in areas outside of the downtown,
commercial projects of innovative design and layout
that would not be otherwise be permitted under the
Town’s ordinance because of the strict application of
zoning district or general development standards” .
Please see the adjoining zoning map for detail.
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G

L
A
N
D

U
S
E
E102
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 3 Existing Conditions
20
Summary of Land Use Issues and
Opportunities:
• The presence of recreational facilities, both existing
and planned, provides tremendous opportunities to
link the study area with surrounding neighborhoods
and destinations.
• The planned mall provides tremendous
opportunities to create a destination in the Town of
Mint Hill that currently does not exist.
• Existing rural and agricultural uses present
opportunities for non-residential uses that are
compatible with surrounding neighborhoods.
• The planned mall will create development and
redevelopment pressure on neighboring properties.
It will also affect some of the low-density residential
uses around it.

Photo:Some older houses on large lots, such as this one on
Bain School Road, dot the rural landscape of the study area.
Photo: Bain Elementary School is one of the oldest schools in
the CMS system and is a local landmark.
Photo: Rural Area West of Lawyers Road.
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G

L
A
N
D

U
S
E
E103
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 3 Existing Conditions
21
Table: LOS (Level of service) analysis for SAP area roads.
Photo: Allen Black Road is a two-lane country road that
provides north-south access between Hwy 218 and Lawyers
Road.
Photo: Intersection of Lawyers Road and Bain School Road is
the location of the planned roundabout with the mall.
TRANSPORTATION
The Small Area Plan (SAP) study area is located
within a transportation infrastructure that consists
of an interstate freeway, arterials, collectors, and
local roadways making up the transportation
network. One of the most important elements of the
network is the Charlotte Outer Loop (I-485). I-485
is an interstate freeway that provides high speed
access around Charlotte’s perimeter to neighboring
communities and counties, as well as to other
interstates. Conveniently, two access points to I-485
are located within the SAP study area. These are
the Lawyers Road and Fairview Road (Highway 218)
interchanges. These interchanges are also the only
locations that bridge the east and west sides of the
SAP study area over I-485. As a result, both Lawyers
Road and Fairview Road arterials provide east-west
regional connectivity for the community. Bain School
Road and Thompson Road provide north-south
connectivity west of I-485, while Allen Black Road
provides north-south connectivity east of I-485.
Since Union Road terminates at Allen Black Road, its
east-west connection is limited to the east side of
I-485 into Union County. For a detailed map of the
transportation network please see Fig 6 on page 23.
Traffic operations are generally described by “Level
of Service” (LOS) measures. In accordance with the
most recent Transportation Research Board Highway
Capacity Manual 2000, LOS describes the quality of
traffic flow and is defined as a measure describing
operational conditions on a given freeway, arterial, or
intersection. LOS is a function of delay. LOS measures
are reported using letter designations from A through
F. As described in the Highway Capacity Manual
2000, LOS A represents the best operating condition
(free traffic flow), and LOS F designates the worst
operating condition. LOS A through D is considered
to be operating at an acceptable condition, while a
facility operating at an LOS E or F is considered to
be operating at a deficient LOS. The LOS for major
roadways in Mint Hill was determined in the Mint
Hill Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP),
developed in 2008. It should be noted that the LOS
cited in the CTP represents conditions experienced in
the year 2000.
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G

T
R
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
E104
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 3 Existing Conditions
22
39
0
0
0
50
0
0
0
44
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
17
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
85
0
0
87
0
0
86
0
0
13
0
0
0
14
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
400 510 410
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
2004 2006 2008
Nu
m
b
e
r

o
f

D
a
i
l
y

T
r
i
p
s
Years Surveyed
Annual Average Daily Trips for Years 2004, 2006, and 2008
on select roads near Mint Hill, NC
I-485
Lawyers Road E of I-485
Lawyers Road W of I-485
Fairview Road E of I-485
Fairview Road W of I-485
Union Road
39
0
0
0
50
0
0
0
44
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
17
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
85
0
0
87
0
0
86
0
0
13
0
0
0
14
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
400 510 410
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
2004 2006 2008
Nu
m
b
e
r

o
f

D
a
i
l
y

T
r
i
p
s
Years Surveyed
Annual Average Daily Trips for Years 2004, 2006, and 2008
on select roads near Mint Hill, NC
I-485
Lawyers Road E of I-485
Lawyers Road W of I-485
Fairview Road E of I-485
Fairview Road W of I-485
Union Road
39
0
0
0
50
0
0
0
44
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
17
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
85
0
0
87
0
0
86
0
0
13
0
0
0
14
0
0
0
16
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
400 510 410
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
2004 2006 2008
Nu
m
b
e
r

o
f

D
a
i
l
y

T
r
i
p
s
Years Surveyed
Annual Average Daily Trips for Years 2004, 2006, and 2008
on select roads near Mint Hill, NC
I-485
Lawyers Road E of I-485
Lawyers Road W of I-485
Fairview Road E of I-485
Fairview Road W of I-485
Union Road
Graph and Map: Graph of Annual Average Daily Trips (AADT)
for six locations in the Study Area. Traffic counts show a
daily average throughout each year identified. Locations are
identified in the map below.
Fairview
Road East
I-485 Union Road
Fairview
Road West
Lawyers
Road West Lawyers
Road East
The CTP illustrated 2000 LOS for all major roadways
within the town. However, the LOS for roadways
within the SAP study area ranged from A through D,
which is considered acceptable, and thus provided
sufficient capacity for the traffic demand at that
time. It should be noted that I-485 did not exist in
the SAP study area in the year 2000. The addition of
I-485 had a great effect on the traffic patterns in the
area and thus affected the LOS in future years.
The CTP also summarized the crash data provided
by the NCDOT for segments of facilities with a
classification higher than a collector street from
January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2006. Of the eleven
locations analyzed, two were located within the SAP
study area. These locations were the intersection
of Fairview Road and I-485, which experienced
20 crashes during the three year study, and the
intersection of Lawyers Road and Bain School Road,
which experienced 10 crashes.
Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes
determined by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) in 2004, 2006, and 2008
for roadways within the SAP study area are shown
below. These years are shown to demonstrate traffic
volume trends after the completion of I-485 within
the SAP study area.
As is evident from the graph and map to the right,
daily traffic has been trending upward despite the
peak that occurred in 2006 on all but one of the
roadways shown. Therefore, it can be expected that
traffic will increase over the next 10 years.
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G

T
R
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
E105
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 3 Existing Conditions
23
XY
n
M E C K L E N B U R G C O U N T Y
U N I O N C O U N T Y
§¨¦I-485
STEVENS CREEK NATURE PRESERVE
FAIRVIEW PARK
La
w
y
e
r
s

R
d
Fairview Rd
S I-4
8
5

I
n
n
e
r

H
W
Y
N I-4
8
5

O
u
t
e
r

H
W
Y
Alle
n

B
l
a
c
k

R
d
Brief Rd
Ba
i
n

S
c
h
o
o
l

R
d
Unio
n

R
d
Thompson Rd
Qu
a
i
l

P
a
r
k

D
r
Joli Cheval Ln
I-485 Ram
p
Long R
d
Ranburne Rd
Mc
W
h
i
r
t
e
r

R
d
Ju
m
p
e
r

D
r
Alexis Dr
Wh
i
t
m
i
r
e

L
n
Unk
n
o
w
n
Stev
e
n
s

M
i
l
l

R
d
He
a
t
h

L
a
k
e

D
r
Hea
t
h

G
l
e
n

D
r
Matthew
s
-
M
i
n
t

H
i
l
l

R
d
Bain
F
a
r
m

R
d
Cre
s
t
h
i
l
l

D
r
Yarm
o
u
t
h

R
d
Line
v
i
e
w

D
r
Old
e

S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e

D
r
Willowbrook
D
r
Ca
n
t
e
r

L
n
Fox

H
o
l
l
o
w

R
d
Millhouse Ln
Fieldlark Ln
McGre
g
o
r

D
r
Bexley Pl
Sha-
N
e
l
l
e

L
n
Four W
o
o
d

D
r
She
l
b
u
r
n
e

P
l
Rot
h
w
e
l
l

D
r
Ca
s
t
l
e
f
o
r
d

D
r
Oxer R
d
Hollow Oak Dr
Country Wo
o
d
s

D
r
Lei
s
u
r
e

G
a
r
d
e
n

L
n
Su
n
s
e
t

D
r
Milbr
o
o
k

L
n
Echo

L
n
Shadow Lake Ln
Ben
t

O
a
k

D
r
Filly R
d
Da
r
t
f
o
r
d

L
n
Silas Ed Ln
Pinewoo
d

C
r
k
Milwrigh
t

L
n
Cas
t
l
e
s
t
o
n
e

D
r
Lar
g
e

O
a
k

L
n
Rut
h

H
a
v
e
n

D
r
Stoney Mead
o
w

D
r
Blair

R
d
Tenby Ln
Cag
l
e

D
r
Bartlett
R
d
Hill
s
i
d
e

D
r
Hele
n
a

C
r
k
Phil
a
d
e
l
p
h
i
a

C
h
u
r
c
h

R
d
Hunley Ridge Rd
Gree
n

A
s
h

L
n
Ashbourne Ln
Sunrise D
r
Maple Hollow Ln
Min
i

M
a
c

D
r
Tenil
l
e

P
l
Sha
d
y

G
r
o
v
e

L
n
Persimmon Creek Dr
Wea
t
h
e
r
s
f
o
r
d

R
d
Gait Dr
Foal
C
t
Oak
w
o
o
d

A
v
e
Talc
o
t
t

D
r
Bascal
e

L
n
Will Hollow Ln
McEw
e
n

L
a
k
e

L
n
Beec
h

M
i
n
t

D
r
Wa
r
e
h
o
u
s
e

R
d
Dove
t
a
i
l

C
t
Clover Bott
o
m

D
r
Old
P
e
r
s
i
m
m
o
n

D
r
Sha
d
y

O
a
k

C
t
Penny Place Ln
Winter Hea
t
h

W
a
y
Ly
m
i
n
g
t
o
n

C
t
Mulbe
r
r
y

C
t
Club Field Ct
Dres
s
a
g
e

B
l
v
d
Whit
e

L
o
c
u
s
t

C
t
Chin
a
b
e
r
r
y

C
t
Flo
u
r
m
i
l
l

C
t
Prairie Hill Way
Redfox Ridg
e

L
n
Oldh
a
m

P
l
Early Meadow Way
Tw
i
n
l
e
a
f

C
t
Fairview Rd
Un
k
n
o
w
n
I-48
5

R
a
m
p
I-48
5

R
a
m
p
I-48
5

R
a
m
p
Unk
n
o
w
n
Goo
s
e

C
r
e
e
k
Ste
v
e
n
s

C
r
e
e
k
St
e
v
e
n
s

C
r
e
e
k

T
r
i
b
St
e
v
e
n
s

C
r
e
e
k

T
r
i
b
Town Square
BAIN ELEMENTARY
L a w y e r s R o a d & I - 4 8 5
S m a l l A r e a P l a n
T O W N O F M I N T H I L LN O R T H C A R O L I N A
121 W Trade S tree tSuit e 20 50Charl ot te , NC 282 02
Ph : 70 4.37 2.8 020Fax : [phone]
0 1,600 3,200800
Feet
Source: Mecklenburg County GIS, Union County GIS, Town of Mint Hill, Mecklenburg Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO), North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Disclaimer: This GIS data is deemed reliable but provided "as is" without warranty of any representation of accuracy, timeliness, reliability or completeness. This map document does not represent a legal survey of the land and is for graphical purposes only. Use of this data for any purpose should be with acknowledgement of the limitations of the data, including the fact that the data is dynamic and is in a constant state of maintenance, correction, and update.
n Mint Hill Schools
SAP Study Area
Streams
County Boundary
Parks
Downtown Mint Hill
Town Limits
Unincorporated Area
CTP Recommendations
Freeway-Needs Impv
Boulevards-Needs Impv
Minor Thoroughfare-Needs Impv
Existing Collector
Proposed Collector
!(!(!(!(Proposed Bicycle Lanes
!(!(!(!(Proposed Sidewalks
!(!(!(!(!(Proposed Greenways
N
Transportation Base Map
Fig:
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N

B
A
S
E

M
A
P
Figure 6: Transportation Base Map.
E106
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 3 Existing Conditions
24
Further reason to assume that traffic will increase in
the SAP study is due to the planned construction of
“The Bridges at Mint Hill”. A traffic study finalized
in 2006, prepared by Kubilins Transportation Group,
anticipates that the full build-out of the shopping
mall will generate approximately 34,000 additional
daily trips to the SAP study area. As a result of
the projected increase in traffic, improvements to
Lawyers Road are required prior to the shopping
mall’s planned completion. These improvements
consist of roadway widening, adding traffic signals
at intersections, constructing a roundabout, and
dividing the roadway with a raised center median.
This raised center median will control access along
the roadway, which will change travel patterns for
those who typically use Lawyers Road for access to
neighborhoods and developments whose driveways
are not controlled by traffic signals or will not have
breaks in the median.
Although no transit services are currently available
in the SAP study area, Charlotte Area Transit System
(CATS) plans for a bus stop at the future shopping mall
location. This bus service is expected to marginally
reduce the traffic volume in the SAP study area.
Similarly, while there are currently no pedestrian
and bicycle connections that exist in the study area,
the CTP recommends future bike and pedestrian
connections throughout the SAP study area. The
plan also recommends vehicular improvements to
existing roadways such as Lawyers Road, Bain School
Road, and Allen Black Road.
Photo: Traffic on Bain School Road becomes
congested during school hours.
Photo: Thompson Road near Lawyers Road.
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G

T
R
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
E107
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 3 Existing Conditions
25
Summary of Transportation Issues and
Opportunities:
• Residents have noted concerns about the increase
in traffic that the planned mall is anticipated to
generate in the area.
• Residents currently living in neighborhoods and
developments along Lawyers Road, such as Country
Woods, are concerned about future access to their
development.
• The planned mall will provide an opportunity
to connect surrounding land uses via a network
of bikeways and greenways, allowing for more
transportation choices.
• The planned mall will provide additional transit
opportunities that will be served by Charlotte Area
Transit System.
• The CTP prioritized two intersections that
experienced accidents in the study area. There
may be opportunities to potentially improve these
intersections.
• The planned improvements on Lawyers Road will
provide more roadway capacity opportunity for the
SAP study area.
• The planned improvements to bike, pedestrian,
and transit amenities coinciding with the mall
development will provide more opportunities for
transportation choices within the SAP study area.

EX
I
S
T
I
N
G

T
R
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
E108
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 3 Existing Conditions
26
UTILITIES
The Town of Mint Hill has a unique location related
to the major river basins. It is located on the ridgeline
of two major river basins – the Catawba River basin
and the Yadkin-Pee Dee River basin. The SAP study
area falls within the Goose Creek basin, which is
part of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River basin. Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Utilities Department (CMUD) provides
water and sewer services to the Town of Mint Hill,
but not all areas in the Town are currently served by
CMUD for their water and sewer needs. In fact, in the
Goose Creek basin very few areas are served by public
water and sewer infrastructure. CMUD can only
serve those properties within the Goose Creek basin
that were grandfathered before the North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources (NCDNR) adopted
more stringent rules for this basin. The Bridges at
Mint Hill mall site is one of those grandfathered
properties that is scheduled to be served by CMUD
with water and sewer. The Mall will have to provide
its own private lift station to pump sewer into the
Catawba River basin. This lift station will be allowed
to serve the Mall site only.
Most of the existing low-density development within
the SAP study area is currently served by private
wells and septic systems. This type of development
can continue to be served in future by private wells
and septic systems without the extension of water
and sanitary sewer lines as long as groundwater
levels and water quality remains constant. However,
recent development proposals such as The Bridges
at Mint Hill mall will put more pressure on this area
to become more than low-density development.
Moreover, many new residents will desire public
water and sewer services because of its reliability,
convenience, and reasonable cost. Another benefit
of installation of public water mains and fire hydrants
would be lower insurance costs due to improved fire
protection.
To accommodate the increasing demand for water
and sewer in additional areas of the Goose Creek
basin, an Inter Basin Transfer (IBT) agreement
between the two affected basins is currently under
review by the North Carolina Department of Water
Quality as part of an Environmental Assessment.
Inter Basin Transfer agreements allow the transfer
of water from one river basin to another; water that
falls as rain on one watershed is transferred to an
adjacent watershed to be used or treated. Currently,
water transfer from the Yadkin to the Catawba
River basin is allowed, but the Goose Creek basin
Map: Location of endangered native species Carolina
Heelsplitter Mussel habitat in dark blue. Past distribution
could have been as large as the light blue Catawba and Yadkin
Watersheds. Image from www.NCWildlife.org.
Photo: Image of endangered native species Carolina
Heelsplitter Mussel. Image from Town of Indian Trail website.
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G

U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
E109
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 3 Existing Conditions
27
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G

U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
Figure 7: Major River Basins Map.
E110
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 3 Existing Conditions
28
in excluded from the current IBT ruling due to the
presence of the Carolina Heelsplitter Mussel habitat
in Union County. This means that CMUD cannot pump
any wastewater from the Goose Creek basin into the
Catawba basin for its treatment at the McAlpine
Wastewater treatment plant near Pineville, NC, nor
can they pump any water into the Goose Creek basin
from the Catawba basin. If the exclusion of Goose
Creek basin from the IBT ruling is lifted, CMUD could
serve areas other than just the mall site with water
and sewer. This water would be discharged into
the Catawba River; ultimately reaching the Atlantic
Ocean from the Catawba/Santee River system
instead of the Yadkin/Pee Dee River system.

Another issue that may impact future growth and
development, not only for the Small Area Plan study
area but also for the entire Town, is a bottleneck
in the sewer line along Irvin Creek near the US-74
highway. The pipe size of the sewer line through the
US-74 highway and north of US-74 is smaller than the
pipe size in the southern side. This means that even
though McAlpine Creek Waste Water Treatment
Plant (WWTP) has sufficient capacity, the pipe size on
the northern side could become a restrictive factor.
To overcome this, CMUD is planning to upgrade the
pipe size through the US-74 highway. This planned
improvement is in the Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP) of CMUD, and is planned to be completed in
the 2013 to 2015 timeframe.
Currently, the mall site is grandfathered from the
exclusion of Goose Creek basin from the Inter Basin
Transfer agreement. The mall developer, therefore,
is allowed to build a lift station to serve the mall
development. However, should the Goose Creek
basin exclusion be lifted, CMUD would need their own
lift station at, or near close vicinity of, Stevens Creek
Nature Preserve. To avoid potential redundancy in
infrastructure, CMUD’s lift station could be built
instead of a lift station at the mall site. This new lift
station could then serve the Goose Creek basin by
connecting to the east side of I-485 along Stevens
Creek to the mall site or along an existing sleeve
between Allen Black Road and the mall site.
Once the US-74 bottleneck is fixed, and the exclusion
of Goose Creek from the IBT process is lifted, the
Small Area Plan study area will be open for future
development that could be served by public water
and sewer.
Summary of Utilities Issues and Opportunities
• The Bridges at Mint Hill Mall has the water and
sewer capacity for its operations; grandfathered in
before the adoption of more stringent rules for the
Goose Creek watershed by the NCDNR.
• Most of the area surrounding the mall site is not
serviced by CMUD water and sewer because the
Goose Creek basin is currently excluded from the
Inter Basin Transfer (IBT) certificate. It currently
handles its water via private wells and septic systems.
• There will be increased desirability for a public
water and sewer system due to its convenience,
reliability, reasonable cost, and benefits related to
lower insurance cost.
• There is a sewer line bottleneck along Irwin Creek;
the creek flows north to south and the pipe size on
the north side of US-74 is larger than the pipe size
on the south side. CMUD has plans to upgrade the
south side pipe in its Capital Improvement Plan, and
will occur around 2013-2015.
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G

U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
E111
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 3 Existing Conditions
29
MARKET ANALYSIS
ERA, a division of AECOM, is part of HNTB team
that assisted the Town in analyzing, evaluating, and
projecting the economic and market potential for this
Small Area Plan. HNTB team, along with ERA, is also
assisting the Town of Mint Hill with the development
of the Town’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP)
and market analysis for both the projects are done
simultaneously. This joint effort has helped in data
collection effort, its analysis and understanding key
trends that will affect the SAP study area and CLUP
study area.
Two levels of analysis are conducted during the
Issues and Opportunities phase of the SAP process -
Demographic and Economic Analysis, and Real Estate
Market Analysis.
Demographic and Economic Analysis
(Appendix A Tables 1-23 and Figures 1-15)
Demographic and Economic Analysis is conducted
to understand the long-term drivers of growth such
as population and household projections, current
and future employment projections, retail spending
and household income, and presence of various
industries in Mint Hill. This analysis will partly inform
the future demand for various types of uses within
the SAP study area. ERA examined demographic
and economic conditions across a range of indices,
focusing on those factors that fuel demand for real
estate. To better understand these demographic
and economic conditions, ERA utilized a number
of public and private data sources in their research,
including the US Census Bureau; the US Bureau of
Labor Statistics; Woods and Poole; Claritas; the
Employment Security Commission of North Carolina;
ESRI Business Analyst; Charlotte Regional Visitors
Authority; and Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MUMPO).
The Demographic and Economic Profile analyzes four
geographic areas as shown in the graphic below:
• SAP Study Area
• Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP Study
Area – Town’s jurisdiction and Extra Territorial
Jurisdiction (ETJ) combined
• Mecklenburg County
• Charlotte Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)
Key findings from the Demographic and Economic
market analysis are summarized in the following
pages and relevant data is detailed in the tables in
Appendix A.
Appendix A Figure 1. Market Sectors analyzed in the
Demographic and Economic Market Analysis performed by
ERA, a division of AECOM.
MA
R
K
E
T

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
E112
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 3 Existing Conditions
30
Population & Households
(Appendix A Tables 1-5 and Figures 1-10)
• According to the MPO, the Small Area Plan study
area’s current population is almost 1,480 residents.
ESRI Business Analyst estimates the SAP study area’s
population to be lower at almost 1,180 residents.
Between 2009 and 2030, the MPO estimates that
the SAP study area’s population will increase by
over 2,100 residents, which is a compounded annual
growth rate of over four percent. The SAP study
area’s population is projected to grow at a faster
rate than the CLUP study area and the County, with a
projected annual growth rate of 3.3 percent and 1.6
percent, respectively, during this same time period.
• The SAP study area’s population accounts for 5.4
percent of the CLUP study area’s total population;
this is considered the “fair share.” Notably, the SAP
study area’s share of CLUP study area’s population is
projected to increase, and is likely to increase to 6.6
percent by 2030.
• Within the CLUP study area, the number of owner-
occupied housing units is expected to increase almost
13 percent over the next five years. Within the
SAP study area, owner-occupied housing units are
expected to increase much more quickly at over 19
percent during this same time period. The increase
in rental-occupied housing units in the CLUP study
area is consistent with the rate of increase within the
County and the MSA, averaging approximately 14
percent over the next five years.
• Almost 21 percent of residents within the SAP study
area are under 14 years old. Demographic forecasts
suggest that within the SAP study area, those aged
65-74 years will increase over 44 percent over the
next five years, which is consistent with projected
demographic forecasts throughout the County.
• Within the SAP study area, almost 26 percent of
residents have either a Bachelor’s or Graduate/
Professional Degree. Comparatively, 39 percent of
residents in the County and 30 percent of residents
in the MSA and hold one of these two degrees.
This data indicates that the SAP study area has
the potential for more dense development than
it currently contains. With appropriate design
guidelines and managed through a planned-unit
development (PUD) process, the CLUP study area
may benefit from the forecasted population increases
in the SAP study area by implementing guidelines
that urge development in a well-planned manner.
With an increase of owner-occupied housing units
and large increase in residents age 65-74 years old,
these forecasts suggest opportunities for potential
market support for new housing oriented to new,
high-quality residential development and age-target
housing.
MA
R
K
E
T

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
E113
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 3 Existing Conditions
31
Retail Spending & Household Incomes
(Appendix A Tables 6-8)
• The SAP study area’s median household income—a
key measure in understanding disposable income
available for discretionary retail spending—is
expected to increase over the next five years to
over $84,500. In the CLUP study area, the median
household income is expected to grow almost eight
percent over the next five years to over $75,000.
• Within the SAP study area, over the next five
years, the number of households earning between
$75,000 and $99,999 will increase over 59 percent
(51 households). In the CLUP study area, the number
of households earning over $100,000 is expected to
jump by over 13 percent (368 additional households),
which could be expected to enhance retail goods and
services spending potentials.
• SAP study area households spend on average over
$85,000 per year on household expenditures, which
is approximately $10,000 more than annual average
household expenditures in the CLUP study area. The
highest expenditure category for households is retail
goods, which accounts for over 37 percent of total
household expenditures.
• Sales among CLUP study area retailers in 2009
totaled $181.5 million across various retail categories.
CLUP study area residents spent $214.8 million in
2009 on the same retail categories. This suggests
CLUP study area residents are leaving the CLUP study
area to shop, indicating a loss of approximately $33.3
million in retail sales.
• The five retail sectors in the CLUP study area that
are experiencing leakage (i.e., household spending
is being spent at retailers outside the study area)
are Apparel & Accessories (i.e., clothing, footwear,
jewelry, etc), Furniture and Home Furnishings
(i.e., furniture, home furnishings, home centers,
etc), Food & Beverage (i.e., eating places, drinking
places), Leisure and Entertainment (i.e., books,
sporting goods, toys), and General Merchandise
(i.e., department stores, etc). This suggests that
household spending (demand) by CLUP study area
households is greater than sales (supply) in these
sectors. CLUP study area residents are underserved
in these core retail categories.
This data indicates that per household retail support
within the SAP study area is greater than in the CLUP
study area, with a forecasted median household
income in the SAP study area almost 13 percent
greater than within the CLUP study area. Throughout
the CLUP study area, household spending patterns
indicate that there is a lack of retail establishments,
with CLUP study area household spending leaking
to neighboring areas. This information implies that
there is a demand for additional retail within the
CLUP study area.
These data do not include projected retail sales from
planned, but not constructed or completed, retail
spaces such as the Bridges project.
MA
R
K
E
T

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
E114
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 3 Existing Conditions
32
Employment
(Appendix A Tables 9-12 and Figures 11-15)
Another critical factor informing demand for
commercial “workplace” real estate such as office
buildings, retail centers and industrial parks, is
employment growth. Key findings are highlighted
below.
• According to the Mecklenburg-Union MPO, the
CLUP study area has a current job base of over
6,800. Forecasts suggest that the CLUP study area
will add over 2,650 new jobs by 2015 and over 7,800
additional new jobs between 2015 and 2030. The
SAP study area is expected to add almost 1,200 new
jobs by 2030.
• The CLUP study area jobs-to-household ratio is 0.64.
This ratio is expected to increase to 0.68 by 2015.
Based on data provided by the Mecklenburg-Union
MPO, the jobs-to-household ratios in neighboring
areas in 2015 are expected to be significantly higher,
with a ratio of 1.78 in Davidson, 1.83 in Matthews,
and 3.46 in Pineville.
• Countywide, the largest gains in employment are
expected in Services, which includes occupations
in lodging/hospitality, education, medical, and
professional and business services such as legal
and engineering; State and Local Government; and
Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate.
• According to ESRI Business Analyst, the
unemployment rate in the SAP study area is 10.7
percent, up from 2.3 percent in 2000. This percentage
is expected to decrease by 2014 to 7.3 percent. This
spike in unemployment from 2000 is consistent with
the unemployment increases countrywide.
This data indicates that with an increase in an
employment, there is demand for additional office
space within the CLUP study area. A portion of this
demand may be met in the SAP study area.
Location Quotient
(Appendix A Tables 13-15)
A location quotient is an economic indicator that
indicates the relative concentration, based on
employment, of an “industry cluster” in a particular
geography. Location quotients greater than one
suggest that the industry is more highly concentrated
in the area as compared to national averages. This
analysis compares the relative strengths of specific
sectors in Mecklenburg County, Charlotte MSA, and
the State of North Carolina against the national
averages.
• On average, industries in Mecklenburg County vary
in their performance versus industries nationwide
and statewide, with a low of 0.14 in Natural
Resources and Mining to a high of 1.76 in Financial
Activities. Mecklenburg County also exhibited
strength in Professional and Business Services (1.40),
Information (1.38), and Construction (1.06) in 2008.
• Between 2001 and 2008, Mecklenburg County
strengthened its competitive position in a number of
industries, most notably Financial Activities (+0.40),
Leisure and Hospitality (+0.07), and Education and
Health Services (+0.05). By contrast, its competitive
position declined in Professional and Business
Services (-0.15), Manufacturing (-0.08), and Trade,
Transportation, and Utilities (-0.06).
MA
R
K
E
T

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
E115
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 3 Existing Conditions
33
Visitor Trends
(Appendix A Tables 16-23)
The Charlotte Regional Visitors Authority tracks
visitor data and behavior/spending patterns for the
Charlotte MSA. Relevant findings are summarized
below.
• In 2008, the Charlotte MSA welcomed 18.05 million
visitors, of which almost 39 percent stayed in a hotel/
motel. Though the number of visitors has increased
since 2001, the number of visitors declined by almost
four percent between 2007 and 2008, with visitor
spending during this same time period declining by
over nine percent.
• In 2008, almost 6.6 million roomnights were
occupied by visitors, of which almost 47 percent were
occupied by business travelers and 29 percent were
occupied by leisure travelers. However, 53 percent
of total visitor spending was from leisure travelers,
with only 18 percent from business travelers.
• In 2008, 77 percent of visitors stated “leisure” as
the primary purpose of their trip while 18 percent of
visitors stated business meeting. An additional five
percent of visitors stated “conference/convention”
as the purpose of the trip.
• Visitors to the Charlotte MSA in 2008 spent $3.4
billion on expenditures. The average visitor spending
was $463. Almost one-third of visitor spending was
on lodging and approximately one-quarter was on
eating and drinking.
• Almost 23 percent of visitors to the Charlotte MSA
are from North Carolina. Approximately 12 percent
and nine percent, respectively, are from South
Carolina and Florida.
• Visitors to the Charlotte MSA participate in a variety
of activities. Most popular are visiting relatives (26
percent of visitors), visiting friends (23 percent of
visitors), and shopping (19 percent of visitors).
Visitor data suggests that the CLUP study area may
have potential for lodging in the future. Hotel
development may be concentrated at interstate
interchanges to appeal to highway-oriented business
travelers and families.MA
R
K
E
T

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
E116
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 3 Existing Conditions
34
Real Estate Market Analysis
(Appendix B Tables 1-17 and Figures 1-7)
Real Estate Market Analysis includes a review of
recent and current market conditions across a range
of real estate sectors. This analysis examines market
characteristics across for-sale and for-rent housing,
office, retail, industrial, and hotel uses to understand
recent and current market conditions and trends.
This analysis will also inform the future demand for
various types of uses within the SAP study area.
ERA analyzed various indices, such as building permit
activity, for-sale and for-rent residential comparables,
commercial leasing/absorption activity and rents,
and other appropriate market characteristics and
supply and demand factors as they affect the SAP
study area, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP)
study area, and countywide development potentials
for various uses as a means of guiding specific
initiatives and strategies for the SAP.
Real Estate Market Characteristics
To estimate the depth of market support for specific
sectors in the SAP study area, ERA examined recent
and current market conditions, focusing on those
factors that fuel demand for real estate.
Current real estate conditions may seem to be in
conflict with long term demographic and economic
trends in the area. The reader should take into
account that the data collected reflects recent real
estate market conditions and that the demographic
and economic trends reflect growth over a longer
period of time. Current local, regional and national
real estate conditions have been negatively impacted
by the economic downturn (which was, in a large
part, real estate-driven) and have resulted in reduced
absorption of spaces for a variety of land uses.
These conditions should be considered short-term.
Longer term demographic and economic projections
suggest that Mint Hill’s real estate surplus will be
absorbed early in the planning time horizon as the
economic recovery builds. As conditions return to
“normal” and local growth patterns resume, Mint
Hill should continue to be positioned for real estate
development and redevelopment opportunities.
ERA utilized a number of public and private
data sources in our research, including the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development;
ESRI Business Analyst; Town of Mint Hill Planning and
Zoning; CoStar Property; and Smith Travel Research.
The Real Estate Market Overview analyzes four
geographic areas:
• SAP study area
• CLUP study area
• Mecklenburg County
• Charlotte MSA
Note that CoStar Property does not track any
reporting office, retail, or industrial uses within the
SAP study area. Therefore, the analysis of these land
uses will primarily focus on the CLUP study area.
Key findings are summarized in the following pages
and relevant data is detailed in Appendix B.
Appendix B Figure 1. Market Sectors analyzed in the Real
Estate Market Analysis performed by ERA, a division of
AECOM.
MA
R
K
E
T

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
E117
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 3 Existing Conditions
35
Housing Overview
(Appendix B Tables 1-5 and Figures 1-3)
• Reported building permits indicate that
Mecklenburg County issues an average, since 2000,
of over 8,550 single-family and almost 4,200 urban-
residential permits annually.
• In 2008, 64 percent of Countywide permits were
issued for urban-residential units. Between 2000
and 2007 however, only 31 percent of permits
in Mecklenburg County were issued for urban-
residential units. There has been a general decline in
single-family permits issued since 2006.
• The number of building permits issued countywide
has decreased almost 50 percent since peaking in
2006.
• In 2000, over 97 percent of housing units in the SAP
study area were single-family detached structures.
Within the CLUP study area, more than 84 percent of
housing units were single-family detached structures.
• Based on 12 selected comparables, the average
asking sale prices for single-family units within the
CLUP study area is $224,000, with an average cost of
$82.20 per square foot.
• Based on seven selected comparables, average
asking for-sale prices for urban-residential units
within the CLUP study area is $183,000, with an
average cost of $102.78 per square foot, over 25
percent more than the single-family per square foot
cost. This may be attributed to the fact that several
of the urban-residential units in the sample were
delivered in 2009, and therefore have a higher per
square foot cost than some of the older properties.
Based on selected comparables, the average rent for
a one-bedroom unit ranges from $490 per month to
$750 per month, resulting in an average of a $0.70 per
square foot to $1.05 per square foot rent. Average
rent for a two-bedroom ranges from $695 per month
to $820 per month, resulting in an average of a
$0.70 per square foot to $1.20 per square foot rent.
Average rent for a unit larger than two-bedrooms
range from $865 per month to $1,030 per month,
resulting in an average of $0.65 per square foot to
$1.10 per square foot rent. The selected urban-
residential rental comparables are located outside
the CLUP study area boundaries.
Based on these available data, it may be assumed that
there is a shortage of new urban-residential housing
units available within the CLUP and SAP study area.
With the countywide shift in the increase in urban-
residential permits issued, this could indicate a
demand for smaller, less expensive units.
Data from the Demographic and Economic Profile
indicates that the SAP study area has the potential
for more dense development than it currently
contains. With appropriate design guidelines and
managed through a planned-unit development
(PUD) process, the Town of Mint Hill may benefit
from the forecasted population increases in the
SAP study area by implementing guidelines that
urge development in a well-planned manner. With
an increase of owner-occupied housing units and
large increase in residents age 65-74 years old, these
forecasts suggest opportunities for potential market
support for new housing oriented to new, high-
quality residential development and age-restricted
housing.
MA
R
K
E
T

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
E118
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 3 Existing Conditions
36
Commercial Overview
(Appendix B Table 6)
The Commercial Overview includes office, retail, and
industrial/flex uses within the CLUP study area.
• The CLUP study area contains over 370,000 square
feet of office space, 847,000 square feet of retail
space, and 431,000 square feet of industrial/flex
space.
• Within the CLUP study area, absorption has been
positive in 2009, with over 16,500 square feet for
office space, 8,400 square feet for retail space,
and 1,700 square feet for industrial/flex space.
Absorption is defined as the integration of space
into the market, with space that has been leased or
occupied “absorbed.” A positive absorption indicates
positive leasing activity.
• Current vacancy rates for office, retail, and
industrial/flex space within the CLUP study area are
10.3 percent vacancy in office space, 11 percent
vacancy in retail space, and a 6.7 percent vacancy in
industrial/flex space.
• Current rental rates for office space average $25.56
per square foot, significantly decreasing to $10.52
per square foot for retail space and $8.73 per square
foot for industrial/flex space.
Data in the Demographic and Economic Profile
indicate that retail support within the SAP study
area is greater than within the CLUP study area on
a per household basis, with a forecasted median
household income in the SAP study area almost 13
percent greater than within the CLUP study area.
Throughout the CLUP study area, household
spending patterns indicate that there is a lack
of retail establishments, with CLUP study area
household spending leaking to neighboring areas.
This information implies that there is a demand for
additional retail within the SAP study area. Based on
the large amount of existing retail space and current
high retail vacancy rates within the CLUP study area,
this appears that the available space is not being
utilized to its highest and best use and may provide a
good redevelopment opportunity.
This data does not include projected retail sales from
planned, but not constructed or completed, retail
spaces such as the Bridges project.
Office Overview
(Appendix B Tables 7-8 and Figures 4-5)
• The CLUP study area contains 370,000 square feet
of office space in 36 office buildings—comprising less
than one percent of the county total of 72.9 million
square feet of office space.
• CLUP study area office leasing activity (“net
absorption”)—a barometer of the overall health of
an office market—has averaged 11,300 square feet
per year since 2004. Leasing activity countywide has
averaged 1.4 million square feet per year.
• Average annual office vacancy rates since 2004 in
the CLUP study area (13.7 percent) are higher than
average annual vacancy rates during this same period
countywide and in the MSA, where vacancy rates
averaged 11.6 percent and 10.8 percent, respectively.
• Average office rents in the CLUP study area ($22.03
per square foot) are higher than rents countywide
and in the MSA, where rental rates averaged $18.80
MA
R
K
E
T

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
E119
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 3 Existing Conditions
37
and $18.54, respectively, since 2004. Office rents in
the CLUP study area have increased $6.81 per square
foot since 2004.
• Based on seven selected comparables, the average
rental price for office space within the CLUP study
area is $11 per square foot, with an average vacancy
rate of nine percent. The difference in rental prices
for the selected comparables and CoStar Property
data could be attributed to the class of office space
and the year of delivery of the properties surveyed
for the comparable properties. Almost 20 percent
of properties surveyed by CoStar Property were
delivered in the last two years, therefore resulting in
a higher rent.
The small amount of office space inventory and the
high office vacancy rate within the CLUP study area
may indicate that under current conditions there is
limited office demand. With an increase in density
and development of the areas surrounding the
interchanges, there may be an increase in future
office demand within the SAP study area.
Retail Overview
(Appendix B Tables 9-10 and Figures 6-7)
• The CLUP study area contains 847,000 square feet
of retail space in 89 properties—comprising 1.4
percent of the county total of 61.4 million square
feet of retail space.
• CLUP study area retail leasing activity (“net
absorption”) has averaged 7,400 square feet per
year since 2004. Leasing activity countywide has
averaged 1.1 million square feet per year.
• Average annual retail vacancy rates since 2004 in
the CLUP study area (9.9 percent) are higher than
average annual vacancy rates during this same period
countywide and in the MSA, where vacancy rates
averaged 6.9 percent and 5.6 percent, respectively.
• Average retail rents in the CLUP study area ($11.33
per square foot) are lower than rents countywide
and in the MSA, where rental rates averaged $13.90
and $13.51, respectively, since 2004. Retail rents in
the CLUP study area have increased $2.51 per square
foot since 2006.
• Based on seven selected comparables, the average
rental price for retail space is $15 per square foot.
This average includes Mint Hill Village, where retail
rents average $20 per square foot.
Based on the large amount of retail space and high
retail vacancy rates within the CLUP study area, this
appears that the available space is not being utilized
to its highest and best use and may provide a good
redevelopment opportunity.
MA
R
K
E
T

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
E120
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 3 Existing Conditions
38
Industrial/Flex Overview
(Appendix B Table 11)
• The CLUP study area contains 431,000 square feet
of industrial/flex space in 22 properties—comprising
0.3 percent of the county total of 144.1 million
square feet of industrial/flex space.
• CLUP study area industrial/flex leasing activity
(“net absorption”) has averaged only 310 square feet
per year since 2004. Leasing activity countywide has
averaged 1.2 million square feet per year.
• Average annual industrial/flex vacancy rates
since 2004 in the CLUP study area (7.4 percent) are
lower than average annual vacancy rates during this
same period countywide and in the MSA, where
vacancy rates averaged 8.8 percent and ten percent,
respectively.
• In 2009, the only reported year, industrial/flex rents
in the CLUP study area ($8.73 per square foot) are
lower than rents countywide and in the MSA, where
rental rates averaged $4.68 and $4.27, respectively,
since 2004
Hotel Overview
(Appendix B Tables 12-17)
ERA examined trends in the hotel/lodging market
for selected properties near the CLUP study area
in Mecklenburg, York County, and Union County
by analyzing market performance data provided
by Smith Travel Research (STR), which tracks hotel
market trends across the United States.
ERA analyzed market performance for 33 properties
containing 3,440 hotel rooms within Mecklenburg,
York, and Union County. Note that not all hotel
properties within these counties were included in
the study, rather just the properties in areas that are
comparable to the CLUP study area.
Relevant findings are summarized below.
• Market performance of selected properties has
fluctuated over the last six years. While supply (i.e.,
number of rooms) has increased because of new
construction, occupancy has been uneven—ranging
from a low of 58 percent in 2003 to a high of 69
percent in 2007.
• Current annual occupancies of 62.7 percent
are below the threshold to support new hotel
development, as the capital markets seek minimum
sustained annual occupancies of 70 to 72 percent
before providing financing for new hotel construction.
(Financing agreements for recent new construction
were secured several years ago when the market was
stronger).
• Other key barometers of market performance
include average daily rate (ADR) and revenue per
available room (REVPAR). ADRs have increased at an
average pace of 6.6 percent per year, and revenue per
MA
R
K
E
T

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
E121
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 3 Existing Conditions
39
available room, which is the best measure of year-
to-year growth because it considers simultaneous
changes in both room rate and annual occupancy
levels, has increased 8.4 percent per year since 2003.
As noted previously in the visitor section of the
Demographic and Economic Profile, visitor data
suggests that Mint Hill may have potential for lodging
in the future if tourism increases. Hotel development
may be concentrated at interstate interchanges to
appeal to highway-oriented business travelers and
families. New hotel development financing may be
contingent on improved sustained occupancy levels
or large-scale development, such as a regional mall
or large office development that would serve as a
driver of room demand to the hotel market. Area
hotel occupancies were rising prior to the recent
economic downtown and, upon recovery, may be
able to continue to increase. Timing of any new hotel
development will likely be influenced by improved
business conditions in the area and national hotel
trends.
Summary of Issues and Opportunities:
• Small Area Plan (SAP) study area forecasts suggest
opportunities for potential market support for new
housing oriented to new, high-quality residential
development and age-restricted housing.
• Per household retail support within the SAP study
area is greater than the CLUP study area. In the CLUP
study area, household spending patterns indicate
that there is a lack of retail establishments, with
CLUP study area household spending leaking to
neighboring areas. This information implies that
there is a demand for additional retail within the
CLUP study area.
• Among all Mecklenburg County small towns, Mint
Hill has the lowest jobs-to-household ratio. However,
future demand for employment appears to be strong
with an additional 10,450 jobs projected for the CLUP
study area. A portion of this demand may be met in
the SAP study area.
• Visitor data suggests that the CLUP study area
may have potential for lodging in the future. Hotel
development may be concentrated at interstate
interchanges to appeal to highway-oriented business
travelers and families.
MA
R
K
E
T

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
E122
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 3 Existing Conditions
40
Demand Potential Market Analysis
(Appendix C Tables 1-16 and Figure 1)
The Demand Potentials Memo incorporates data
gathered in the Demographic and Economic Profile
and the Real Estate Market Overview. This section
examines demand potentials for for-sale and for-
rent housing, office, retail, and industrial uses to
understand absorption potential and supportable
square footage. The focus of the Demand Potentials
analysis is to determine the depth of market support
for a mix of additional real estate development in the
SAP Study Area.
Demand Potentials
Current real estate conditions may seem to be in
conflict with long term demographic and economic
trends in the area. The reader should take into
account that the data collected reflects recent real
estate market conditions and that the demographic
and economic trends reflect growth over a longer
period of time. Current local, regional and national
real estate conditions have been negatively impacted
by the economic downturn (which was, in a large
part, real estate-driven) and have resulted in reduced
absorption of spaces for a variety of land uses.
These conditions should be considered short-term.
Longer term demographic and economic projections
suggest that Mint Hill’s real estate surplus will be
absorbed early in the planning time horizon as the
economic recovery builds. As conditions return to
“normal” and local growth patterns resume, Mint
Hill should continue to be positioned for real estate
development and redevelopment opportunities.
Based on our analysis of demographics and market
conditions, these findings and recommendations
indicate what may reasonably occur in the SAP Study
Area. Demand forecasts are intended as reasonable,
third-party estimates of the overall redevelopment
potential in light of current and forecast market
conditions as well as AECOM’s experience in
redevelopment projects.
AECOM utilized a number of public and private data
sources in our research, including the ESRI Business
Analyst; Town of Mint Hill Planning and Zoning;
Woods & Poole; Claritas; Mecklenburg-Union MPO;
and CoStar Property.
Key findings are summarized in the following pages
and relevant data is detailed in Appendix C.
MA
R
K
E
T

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
E123
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 3 Existing Conditions
41
Residential
(Appendix C Tables 1-3)
The residential analysis presents market potentials
for three types of housing—for-sale single-family,
for-sale urban residential (condominiums and
townhomes), and for-rent urban residential. From
a developer’s perspective, adding a mix of housing
(potentially over multiple phases) serves to distribute
investment risks across more than one product type.
The planning horizon for the residential analysis is to
2015.
For-Sale (Single-Family and Urban Residential)
To calculate for-sale residential demand potentials,
three segments were identified: demand from
new households, demand from converting renter
households, and turnover from existing owner-
occupied households. AECOM defines target-
market, income-qualified households as those
earning more than $75,000 per year for single-family
and $50,000 for urban residential, indicating an
affordability range of roughly $225,000-$300,000
per unit for single-family and $150,000-$200,000 for
urban residential. AECOM measured demand from
households in two target trade areas: the CLUP Study
Area and remaining areas of Mecklenburg County.
This methodology is detailed below:
1. New Household Demand
A key source of potential demand for residential
is generated by new or relocating households. To
determine this factor, annual new households (as
forecasted by ESRI Business Analyst for 2009-2014)
were qualified by three factors: 1) income; 2) lifestyle
characteristics that indicate a preference for this
type of housing, and 3) a propensity/preference to
purchase a home.
2. Conversion of Existing Renter Households
Each year, a certain proportion of renter households
will move and, of those, some will decide to purchase.
To evaluate demand potentials from converting
renter households, a similar approach was used
with slight modification. First, total households in
the two geographies were qualified by income and
renter status. Second, an estimated annual turnover
rate of ten percent for single-family and 20 percent
for urban-residential was applied to those renter
households. Third, a household’s propensity to buy
(estimated at ten percent) served as an additional
qualifier in this analysis.
3. Turnover of Existing Owner-Occupied HHs
Similar qualifiers of income, tenure and propensity
to purchase an urban-residential or single-family
home were applied to this segment. The additional
qualifier includes turnover of existing households
in the two geographies. An estimated five percent
of owner-occupied households will turnover their
current home and buy a new home in a given year.
AECOM estimates approximately 6,100 households
qualify for single-family for-sale units and
approximately 5,000 households qualify for urban-
residential for-sale units on an annual basis from
these trade areas. The next step in this analysis is
to identify the SAP Study Area’s capture of these
target households. AECOM estimates that the SAP
Study Area could capture up to eight percent for
single-family and 33 percent for urban-residential
of the CLUP Study Area’s target market total annual
demand and 0.25 percent for single-family and urban-
residential for the rest of Mecklenburg County’s
target market total annual demand, indicating a
potential SAP Study Area annual absorption of 30-
45 single-family for-sale units and 30-45 urban-
residential for-sale units.
MA
R
K
E
T

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
E124
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 3 Existing Conditions
42
For-Rent (urban-residential)
Another means of enhancing housing market
potentials (and to reduce the risk of participating
developers), is to introduce a variety of both for-sale
as well as rental product into the development mix.
The following examines market potentials for rental
housing in the SAP Study Area.
AECOM defines target-market, income-qualified
households for rental residential product as those
earning more than $35,000 per year. These
households include young working professionals as
well as households seeking an alternative housing
product, including those that are downsizing.
Similar to the for-sale analysis, AECOM measured
demand from two trade area geographies—the CLUP
Study Area and the remaining area in Mecklenburg
County. Two general renter groups were identified
to estimate demand potentials: 1) demand
generated from new households in each of these
geographies and 2) demand generated by existing
renter households (i.e., turnover). The following
methodology was used to identify potential target
demand:
1. New Household Demand
A key source of potential demand for rental units
is generated by new or relocating households. To
determine this demand, annual new households
as forecast by ESRI Business Analyst for 2009 to
2014 were qualified by three factors: 1) income; 2)
propensity to rent as determined by tenure data from
ESRI Business Analyst; and 3) lifestyle preference.
In combination, these qualifying factors identified
potential market support from new households in
both target geographies.
2. Relocations of Existing Renter Households
Similar qualifiers of income, tenure, and lifestyle were
applied to this segment. The fourth qualifier includes
the annual turnover rate of existing households,
identified as 20 percent. This would include, for
example, empty nester households in the study area
considering downsizing and making a conscious
decision to rent in a more upscale property.
AECOM estimates almost 13,300 households from
these two trade areas would quality on an annual
basis. The next step in this analysis is to identify the
SAP Study Area’s capture of these target households.
If the SAP Study Area successfully captures 20
percent of households within the CLUP Study Area
and 0.20 percent of households within the rest of
Mecklenburg County, AECOM estimates that target
households could generate annual absorption in the
range of 30 to 45 rental units per year or two to three
units per month.
MA
R
K
E
T

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
E125
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 3 Existing Conditions
43
Retail
(Appendix C Tables 4-13 and Figure 1)
Retail uses require a concentration of disposable
income (from nearby residents, employees), strong
visibility and extensive frontage, adequate parking,
a clear competitive role, and market identity.
Moreover, supporting tenants oftentimes require
an anchor tenant—such as a grocery store—to
generate traffic. The most successful urban lifestyle/
mixed-use retail projects across the U.S. contain a
mix of merchandise categories—including apparel
& accessories, home furnishings, food & beverage,
leisure & entertainment, and general merchandise.
As part of the retail demand potentials, AECOM
examined two retail scenarios:
• Retail demand generated from the CLUP
Study Area residents and employees
• Retail demand generated by a larger study
area that AECOM estimates is in a reasonable
drive time from the proposed Mall site
and consistent with industry standards for
regional retail centers. This study area is
referred to as the Mall Study Area.
The CLUP Study Area is experiencing an outflow of
retail spending, i.e. current household spending
on consumer goods by residents within the CLUP
Study Area is greater than sales receipts of these
same goods from stores within the CLUP Study Area.
This indicates that CLUP Study Area residents are
leaving the CLUP Study Area to shop, and that the
CLUP Study Area can benefit from additional retail
establishments.
Current demand from households in the CLUP Study
Area is for almost 846,000 square feet of retail space,
but only the equivalent of 480,000 square feet in
Appendix C Figure 1. Mall Study Area analyzed in the Demand
Potential Market Analysis performed by ERA, a division of
AECOM.
sales is being captured within the CLUP Study Area.
As a result, CLUP Study Area residents could support
approximately 350,000 square feet of additional
retail space if all spending that occurs outside the
CLUP Study Area is recaptured. Current CLUP Study
Area retail leakage could support the following
amounts:
Apparel & Accessories: 36,000 Square Feet
Furniture & Home Furnishings:
169,000 Square Feet
Food & Beverage: 54,000 Square Feet
Leisure and Entertainment:
47,000 Square Feet
General Merchandise (Dept. Stores):
193,000 Square Feet
MA
R
K
E
T

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
E126
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 3 Existing Conditions
44
AECOM estimates that the SAP Study Area could
capture five percent of CLUP retail leakage. As
a result, SAP Study Area residents could support
approximately 18,200 square feet of additional retail
space if all spending that occurs outside the SAP
Study Area is recaptured.
Based on current household spending patterns and
forecasted growth in average household income,
AECOM estimates that by 2015, SAP Study Area
resident household spending will support over
30,000 square feet of retail space. By 2020, SAP
Study Area household spending could support an
additional 2,600 square feet of new retail space and
by 2030, SAP Study Area household spending could
support an additional 2,500 square feet of new retail
space. In addition, employees working within the
CLUP Study Area provide additional spending to
support retail space. In total, between 2009 and
2030, resident and employee spending in the SAP
Study Area can support an additional 17,300 square
feet of net new retail space. Based on household and
employee spending, the SAP Study Area can support
approximately a total of 43,000 sq. ft. of retail by
2030.
Current demand from households in the Mall Study
Area is for 16.5 million square feet of retail space,
but only the equivalent of 13.7 million square feet in
sales is being captured within the Mall Study Area.
As a result, Mall Study Area residents could support
approximately 2.8 million square feet of additional
retail space if all spending that occurs outside the
Mall Study Area is recaptured. Mall Study Area retail
leakage could support the following amounts:
Apparel & Accessories: 315,000 Square Feet
Furniture & Home Furnishings:
647,000 Square Feet
Food & Beverage: 709,000 Square Feet
Groceries: 128,000 Square Feet
Leisure and Entertainment:
398,000 Square Feet
Convenience & Service: 58,000 Square Feet
General Merchandise (Dept. Stores):
543,000 Square Feet
Based on current household spending patterns and
forecasted growth in average household income,
AECOM estimates that between 2009 and 2030, Mall
Study Area household spending will support over 2.2
million square feet of additional retail space.
MA
R
K
E
T

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
E127
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 3 Existing Conditions
45
Office
(Appendix C Table 14)
Demand for commercial office development is
driven by employment patterns and growth in
those job sectors that occupy office space. Office
workers use a variety of space depending on local
market characteristics and the type of business. For
example, some office tenants are small and choose
to locate in retail centers that command more foot
traffic; others telecommute from home or work in
industrial settings as part of “flex-tech” buildings that
provide front-end office and back-end warehouse or
light industrial.
To determine market demand for commercial office
development in the SAP Study Area, long-term trends
in employment were measured to estimate how
growth in office-using jobs is most likely to translate
into new office buildings.
AECOM examined two office demand potentials:
• Office demand generated from forecasted
employment growth in Mecklenburg County
based on the growth of specific industries.
• Office demand growth based on total
employment growth forecasted for the CLUP
Study Area.
Mecklenburg County is forecast to add 351,200
new jobs between 2009 and 2030. The increase in
employment may translate into Countywide demand
for over 32.6 million square feet of office space
between 2009 and 2030. AECOM notes that this may
not necessarily require all new office construction,
as some office-using jobs can be accommodated in
existing (viable) vacant space across Mecklenburg
County (currently estimated at 9.7 million square
feet).
Using the CLUP Study Area’s fair share of 0.5 percent
(the CLUP Study Area’s current capture rate), this
analysis suggests that demand for new office space
in the CLUP Study Area will total approximately
163,000 square feet by 2030. AECOM estimates that
the SAP Study Area could capture up to 50 percent of
the CLUP office demand, resulting in a total demand
of 81,500 square feet of new office space by 2030 in
the SAP Study Area.
The Mecklenburg-Union MPO estimates that there will
be 10,496 new jobs in the CLUP Study Area between
2009 and 2030. This translates into over 3,300 new
office-using employees by 2030, which would require
almost 672,000 square feet of additional office space
in the CLUP study area. AECOM notes that this may
not necessarily require all new office construction,
as some office-using jobs can be accommodated in
existing (viable) vacant space across the CLUP Study
Area (currently estimated at 38,000 square feet).
AECOM estimates that the SAP Study Area could
capture up to 33 percent of the CLUP office demand,
resulting in a total demand of 222,000 square feet of
new office space by 2030 in the SAP Study Area.
MA
R
K
E
T

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
E128
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 3 Existing Conditions
46
Variations on office demand potential occur due
to the methodology used and potential capture
geographies and percentage of capture applied.
In most growth scenarios for the CLUP Study Area,
672,000 is likely to be an over-aggressive projection.
Due to land area limitations, current restricted
access to sufficient water and sewer capacity,
height restrictions and density limitations and traffic
circulation needs, it is doubtful that the CLUP Study
Area could accommodate, let alone absorb, so much
space. To capture a greater amount of square feet,
zoning would have to be relaxed, a more complex
traffic grid would be needed, and one or more major
economic drivers will need to be in place. A major
corporate, educational, government or institutional
office space user located in Mint Hill could create
demand for additional office space than would
normally locate in the town. As there are two primary
areas that could receive large office campuses, the
downtown and SAP Study Area are the likely locations
for office expansion. By setting the SAP Study Area
capture of total office demand at 33 percent, AECOM
has conservatively estimated 222,000 square feet.
The lower numbers of 163,000 square feet by
2030 for the CLUP Study Area and 81,500 square
feet of new office space by 2030 in the SAP Study
Area should be easily accommodated within a low
growth scenario that does not expand office zoning
or encourage much additional growth beyond what
would naturally occur. These smaller office space
amounts should be achieved within current zoning
and economic trends.
Industrial/Flex
(Appendix C Table 16)
Demand for industrial development is driven by
employment patterns and growth in those job sectors
that occupy industrial/flex space. To determine
market demand for industrial/flex development in the
CLUP Study Area, long-term trends in employment
were measured to estimate how growth in jobs
needing industrial space are most likely to translate
into new industrial space.
Mecklenburg County is forecast to add 351,200
new jobs between 2009 and 2030. The increase in
employment may translate into Countywide demand
for almost 26.2 million square feet of industrial/
flex space between 2009 and 2030. AECOM notes
that this may not necessarily require all new
construction, as some industrial/flex-using jobs can
be accommodated in existing (viable) vacant space
across Mecklenburg County (currently estimated at
13.2 million square feet).
Using the CLUP Study Area’s fair share of 0.3 percent
(the CLUP Study Area’s current capture rate), this
analysis suggests that demand for new industrial/flex
space in the CLUP Study Area will total approximately
78,500 square feet by 2030.
AECOM estimates that the SAP Study Area could
capture up to one percent of the CLUP industrial/flex
demand, resulting in a total demand of almost 1,000
square feet of new industrial/flex space by 2030 in
the SAP Study Area.
MA
R
K
E
T

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
E129
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
47
Chapter 4: Process and Analysis
E130
48
E131
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
49
CHARRETTE
As mentioned in the Public Participation section,
an intense three-day design workshop called a
“charrette” was organized at the beginning of the
planning process after initial data about the study
area was collected, analyzed, and mapped. The
purpose of this charrette was to engage the public
in the planning process and create a plan with them.
Getting the buy-in from town-residents, especially
those living within the study area, right from the
beginning of the process was critical for the overall
success of the plan.
To initiate discussions, and to have a meaningful
dialog at the start of the design charrette, three
distinct framework ideas were deliberated. These
framework ideas evolved into three distinct scenarios
(see next page for graphics) ranging from –
• Primarily low-density residential development
around the planned mall
• Mix of civic and institutional uses, with some
residential development, around the planned
mall
• Mix of major employment (primarily office),
civic, mix of residential (ranging from urban to
single family residential) around the planned mall
Over 200 residents, who participated in the three-
day charrette, created more scenarios, which were
different renditions of those discussed above. They
finally settled on the one that had a set of intense
uses, in the form of office, civic, institutional, more
retail, and mix of residential, around the planned
mall. There was an extraordinary level of consensus
behind this ‘preferred concept’, and almost
everybody supported it.
Chapter 4: Process and Analysis
Photo: The three day charrette began with the presentation of
three different scenarios to the project advisory committee
Photo: These scenarios were then discussed, altered, and
refined in a public workshop setting with the Town residents
CH
A
R
R
E
T
T
E
E132
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 4 Process and Analysis
50
Figure 9: Option 2 Graphic: Mix of civic and institutional uses,
with some residential development, around the planned mall
Figure 10: Option 3 Graphic: Mix of major employment
(primarily office), civic, mix of residential (ranging from urban
to single family residential) around the planned mall
Figure 8: Option 1 Graphic: Primarily low-density residential
development around the planned mall
CH
A
R
R
E
T
T
E

C
O
N
C
E
P
T
S
E133
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 4 Process and Analysis
51
Photo: Three consecutive public workshops were conducted
on the evening each day to discuss progress and seek input
from the public
Photo: Hands on exercises were conducted where town
residents voiced their opinions about nature, scale, and design
of growth and development
Figure 11 on page 52 shows the preferred concept
that came out of the 3-day charrette. Figure 12 on
page 53 shows the arrangement of land uses for this
concept.
Having a clear and well supported vision is important
for any plan, but it needs to be appraised against
the reality of market demand and the desire of
the community to work towards its realization. To
understand the demand over the next 20 years for
the various types of uses, a detailed market analysis
was conducted. A detailed description of this market
demand is located in the preceding section and
in Appendix C. The results of this market demand
analysis were assessed against the preferred concept
plan that emerged from the three-day design
charrette. It became clear that the SAP study area
can reasonably expect to receive some residential,
some additional retail, and some employment
based on past trends. However, to realize the vision
created in the preferred concept, the Town will
need to take a proactive approach in marketing
and recruiting a major employer. This choice – to
accommodate moderate growth as espoused by the
market demand versus proactively recruiting a major
employer into the study area - was presented to the
Town leadership and the advisory committee.
After getting agreement from the advisory committee
and town leadership, and providing a rational basis
for decision making, a detailed set of analyses was
conducted to understand the impact of the preferred
concept on various aspects such as fiscal, traffic, and
land use. The preferred concept was also refined to
ensure the accuracy of the above mentioned analysis.
CH
A
R
R
E
T
T
E
E134
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 4 Process and Analysis
52
Figure 11: After three public workshops on each day of charrette and constant refinement of initial scenarios, a
preferred concept emerged
PR
E
F
E
R
R
E
D

C
O
N
C
E
P
T

M
A
S
T
E
R

P
L
A
N
XY
n
M E C K L E N B U R G C O U N T Y
U NI O N C O U N T Y
§¨¦I-485
STEVENS CREEK NATURE PRESERVE
FAIRVIEW PARK
Law
y
e
r
s

R
d
Fairview Rd
S I-
4
8
5

I
n
n
e
r

H
W
Y
N I-
4
8
5

O
u
t
e
r

H
W
Y
Alle
n

B
l
a
c
k

R
d
Brief Rd
Bai
n

S
c
h
o
o
l

R
d
Unio
n

R
d
Thompson Rd
Qu
a
i
l

P
a
r
k

D
r
Joli Cheval Ln
I-485 Ramp
Long Rd
Ranburne Rd
McW
h
i
r
t
e
r

R
d
Jum
p
e
r

D
r
Alexis Dr
Whi
t
m
i
r
e

L
n
Unk
n
o
w
n
Stev
e
n
s

M
i
l
l

R
d
Hea
t
h

L
a
k
e

D
r
Hea
t
h

G
l
e
n

D
r
Matthew
s
-
M
i
n
t

H
i
l
l

R
d
Bain F
a
r
m

R
d
Cre
s
t
h
i
l
l

D
r
Yarm
o
u
t
h

R
d
Linev
i
e
w

D
r
Old
e

S
y
c
a
m
o
r
e

D
r
Willowbro
o
k

D
r
Can
t
e
r

L
n
Fox

H
o
l
l
o
w

R
d
Millhouse Ln
Fieldlark Ln
McGre
g
o
r

D
r
Bexley Pl
Sha
-
N
e
l
l
e

L
n
Four W
o
o
d

D
r
She
l
b
u
r
n
e

P
l
Ro
t
h
w
e
l
l

D
r
Ca
s
t
l
e
f
o
r
d

D
r
Oxer R
d
Hollow Oak Dr
Country Wo
o
d
s

D
r
Lei
s
u
r
e

G
a
r
d
e
n

L
n
Su
n
s
e
t

D
r
Milbr
o
o
k

L
n
Echo

L
n
Shadow Lake Ln Ben
t

O
a
k

D
r
Filly R
d
Dar
t
f
o
r
d

L
n
Silas Ed Ln
Pinewoo
d

C
r
k
Milwright

L
n
Cas
t
l
e
s
t
o
n
e

D
r
Larg
e

O
a
k

L
n
Rut
h

H
a
v
e
n

D
r
Stoney Mead
o
w

D
r
Blair R
d
Cag
l
e

D
r
Tenby Ln
Bartlett
R
d
Hill
s
i
d
e

D
r
Hel
e
n
a

C
r
k
Phila
d
e
l
p
h
i
a

C
h
u
r
c
h

R
d
Hunley Ridge Rd
Gree
n

A
s
h

L
n
Ashbourne Ln
Sunrise Dr
Maple Hollow Ln
Mini

M
a
c

D
r
Tenill
e

P
l
Sha
d
y

G
r
o
v
e

L
n
Persimmon Creek Dr
Wea
t
h
e
r
s
f
o
r
d

R
d
Gait Dr
Foal C
t
Oak
w
o
o
d

A
v
e
Talco
t
t

D
r
Basca
l
e

L
n
Will Hollow Ln
McEwen

L
a
k
e

L
n
Beech
M
i
n
t

D
r
War
e
h
o
u
s
e

R
d
Dove
t
a
i
l

C
t
Clover Bott
o
m

D
r
Old
P
e
r
s
i
m
m
o
n

D
r
Sha
d
y

O
a
k

C
t
Penny Place Ln
Winter Heat
h

W
a
y
Ly
m
i
n
g
t
o
n

C
t
Mulbe
r
r
y

C
t
Club Field Ct
Dress
a
g
e

B
l
v
d
Whi
t
e

L
o
c
u
s
t

C
t
China
b
e
r
r
y

C
t
Flo
u
r
m
i
l
l

C
t
Prairie Hill Way
Redfox Ridg
e

L
n
Old
h
a
m

P
l
Early Meadow Way
Twi
n
l
e
a
f

C
t
Fairview Rd
Un
k
n
o
w
n
I-48
5

R
a
m
p
I-485

R
a
m
p
I-485

R
a
m
p
Unkn
o
w
n
I-4
8
5

H
y
La
w
y
e
r
s

R
d
Brief Rd
Fairview Rd
NC 218
Lineview D
r
Matthe
w
s
-
M
i
n
t

H
i
l
l

R
d
Fairv
i
e
w

R
d
Fair
v
i
e
w

R
d
I-485 H
y
NC 2
1
8
NC 2
1
8
NC 2
1
8
I-485

H
y
Fairview Rd
Goo
s
e

C
r
e
e
k
Stev
e
n
s

C
r
e
e
k
Ste
v
e
n
s

C
r
e
e
k

T
r
i
b
St
e
v
e
n
s

C
r
e
e
k

T
r
i
b
Town Square
BAIN ELEMENTARY
L a w y e r s R o a d & I - 4 8 5
S m a l l A r e a P l a n
T O W N O F M I N T H I L LN O R T H C A R O L I N A
121 W Trade S tree tSuit e 20 50Charl ot te , NC 282 02
Ph : 70 4.37 2.8 020Fax : [phone]
0 1,600 3,200800
Feet
Source: Mecklenburg County GIS, Union County GIS, Town of Mint Hill, Mecklenburg Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO), North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Disclaimer: This GIS data is deemed reliable but provided "as is" without warranty of any representation of accuracy, timeliness, reliability or completeness. This map document does not represent a legal survey of the land and is for graphical purposes only. Use of this data for any purpose should be with acknowledgement of the limitations of the data, including the fact that the data is dynamic and is in a constant state of maintenance, correction, and update.N
Preferred Concept
Fig:
Legend
n Mint Hill Schools
SAP Study Area
Streams
Parks
County Boundary
Thoroughfares
Freeway
Major Thoroughfare
Minor Thoroughfare
Local
E135
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 4 Process and Analysis
53
Figure 12: Land Use distribution of the preferred concept.
PR
E
F
E
R
R
E
D

C
O
N
C
E
P
T

L
A
N
D

U
S
E

P
L
A
N
§¨¦I-485
L a w y e r s R o a d & I - 4 8 5
S m a l l A r e a P l a n
T O W N O F M I N T H I L L
N O R T H C A R O L I N A
121 W Trade S tree tSuit e 20 50Charl ot te , NC 282 02
Ph : 70 4.37 2.8 020Fax : [phone]
0 1,600 3,200800
Feet
Source: Mecklenburg County GIS, Union County GIS, Town of Mint Hill, Mecklenburg Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO), North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Disclaimer: This GIS data is deemed reliable but provided "as is" without warranty of any representation of accuracy, timeliness, reliability or completeness. This map document does not represent a legal survey of the land and is for graphical purposes only. Use of this data for any purpose should be with acknowledgement of the limitations of the data, including the fact that the data is dynamic and is in a constant state of maintenance, correction, and update.N
Legend
Open Space
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Urban Residential
Civic and Institutional
Employment
Retail
E136
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 4 Process and Analysis
54
Furthermore, in order to compare the fiscal, traffic,
and land use impact of the preferred concept on the
SAP study area, two other profiles were considered.
It is important to note that the public support and
consensus was behind the preferred concept, and
that use of other profiles was purely to provide
rational basis for comparison. All three profiles,
including the preferred concept, were –
• Current state – This scenario assumed roughly
770 residential units
• Market Demand - This scenario assumed
roughly 1500 residential units, the planned mall,
roughly 43,000 sq ft of additional retail, and
roughly 82,000 sq ft of office
• Employment Center (Preferred Concept) – This
scenario assumed roughly 1500 residential units,
planned mall, roughly 200,000 sq ft of additional
retail, and 1,250,000 sq ft of office
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
The purpose of conducting a detailed Fiscal Impact
Analysis was to understand how much facilities
and growth patterns in the preferred concept plan
will affect the cost of public facilities and personnel
and impact the Town revenues. The fiscal impact
assessment addressed the cost of public facilities to
serve current and projected demands, analyze costs
associated with staffing and operating new facilities,
and analyze the revenue generating potential from
development of planned uses under a build-out
scenario. A detailed description of the Fiscal Impact
Analysis can be found in Appendix D. A summary of
this analysis is outlined in this section.
In 2010, approximately 91% of the town’s real
property tax base is residential. Increasing commercial
and office properties eases the town’s dependence
on residential property taxes. As shown in Figure 13,
the Employment Center profile (Preferred Concept)
provides the greatest diversification of the tax base
and decreases the residential portion from 91% to
76%.
The Employment Center (Preferred Concept) also
creates the most significant net annual fiscal benefit.
Whereas the Current State produces a breakeven net
annual impact, the Market Demand profile generates
an annual net positive impact of $91,000 while the
Employment Center (Preferred Concept) generates
an annual net positive impact of $596,000.
Figure 13: This graph shows expected percentage of
residential portion of Mint Hill’s tax base for the three
scenarios. The green bar shows percent residential tax base
of all three profiles in 2030. As per the graph, tax burden on
residential uses is least for “employment center” profile.
Figure 14: A comparison of annual net fiscal impact for the
three profiles. As per the graph, the Town will have slightly
negative net fiscal impact for the “current state”, and roughly
$600,000 of positive net fiscal impact for the “employment
center” profile. Net fiscal is the difference between the
revenue generated by the proposed uses and the expenses
incurred to serve those uses.
FI
S
C
A
L

I
M
P
A
C
T

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
E137
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 4 Process and Analysis
55
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
The purpose of the traffic impact analysis was to
understand the impact on future traffic patterns due
to the set of uses proposed in the preferred concept.
It is important to keep in mind that growth and
development is expected to happen within the SAP
study area and beyond. This expectation is supported
by the Regional Travel Demand model, which is
created and maintained by Mecklenburg Union
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO).
This Regional Travel Demand Model assigns future
vehicular trips based on recent trends, zoning and
land use regulations, upcoming developments that
are in the pipeline, modal-splits, and long term
growth based on census trends.
Since the SAP study area borders one of the fastest
growing counties in the state, and is part of a
growing area itself, the traffic through the study area
is expected to increase due to the overall growth
of the area surrounding the SAP study area. This
growth means that the existing roadway system will
be burdened with additional trips in the future, even
without any significant development around the
planned mall site. The preferred concept will add
more trips on the existing roads, but these additional
trips will be only slightly more than the additional
trips on these roadways due to the natural growth in
the surrounding areas. This is illustrated in the two
graphs for the two major roads in the study area –
Lawyers Road and Fairview Road (Hwy 218).
Figure 15 shows the projected traffic on the two
roads for different profiles discussed before. Number
of vehicles per hour for Current State is shown in
blue. Increase in number of vehicles per hour for
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Lawyers road Fairview Road (NC 218)
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
s

p
e
r

h
o
u
r
Expected Traffic increases for Lawyers Road and Fairview Road
Employment Center
Market Demand
Current State (low
density development
only)
Figure 15. Expected traffic increases at two locations for each
of the three scenarios.
Market Demand profile is shown in red, and, increase
in vehicles per hour due to Employment Center
profile is shown in green. This figure illustrates that
even though the Employment Center profile will
increase the number of vehicles on both of these
major thoroughfares, it is only marginally more than
increase in traffic due to the overall growth in the
SAP study area.
For a detailed description of the Traffic Impact
Analysis, please see Appendix E.
TR
A
F
F
I
C

I
M
P
A
C
T

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
E138
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 4 Process and Analysis
56
LAND USE IMPACT ANALYSIS
As discussed before, proposed land uses for all
three profiles were markedly different. The Current
State profile assumed roughly 770 residential units
around the planned mall. The Market Demand
profile assumed 1,500 residential units, 43,000 sq
ft of retail in addition to the planned mall area, and
office space of roughly 82,000 sq ft. The Employment
Center profile, which is also the preferred concept,
assumed 1,500 residential units, 200,000 sq ft of
retail in addition to the planned mall area, and 1.25
million sq ft of office space. Clearly, the intensity of
uses will increase from the Current State profile to
the Employment Center profile.
This increase in intensity will have an impact on
the fiscal make up of the Town and future traffic
conditions, as discussed above. However, it will also
shape quality of life for current and future town
residents. Having primarily residential development
around the planned mall, as assumed in the Current
State profile, will not provide opportunities for future
employment, any mix of uses, civic amenities, nor
an ability to live, work, and play in close proximity
to each other. On the other hand, a mix of uses,
especially employment opportunities close to the
mall, as discussed in the Employment Center profile,
will provide opportunities to live and work in close
proximity and enjoy the shopping experience offered
by the planned mall.
One of the concerns expressed by many during the
SAP planning process was how the preferred concept
(Employment Center profile) will affect the growth
and development of downtown Mint Hill. Many
viewed downtown Mint Hill as being in its infancy,
but growing in the right direction. The Town, during
the entitlement process of approving the planned
mall, made sure that none of the uses proposed in
the mall will directly compete with future uses that
could come to the downtown. This was done to
protect the vibrancy and viability of downtown Mint
Hill. The layout of the Preferred Concept is based on
the same premise that downtown Mint Hill should
not be adversely affected by any new development
in the Town. To ensure such balance is maintained,
proposed uses in the Preferred Concept are selected
that will typically not come to downtown settings.
Office parks, public schools, a conference center,
and a YMCA type facility are all suited for the area
adjacent to the planned mall and should not affect
the growth of downtown Mint Hill. In many ways,
having a significant regional destination near
downtown Mint Hill can provide more exposure to
the town center.
LA
N
D

U
S
E

I
M
P
A
C
T

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
E139
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 4 Process and Analysis
57
PROCESS AND ANALYSIS SUMMARY
After analyzing the impacts on fiscal composition,
traffic conditions, and land use, the advisory
committee and residents of the Town decided
to move ahead with the Preferred Concept. The
Preferred Concept provided the balance between
attracting jobs and employment to the Town without
attracting the excessive retail development that
typically follows a major retail destination such as a
regional mall.
The Preferred Concept also provided an opportunity
to diversify the Town’s tax base by taking some
of the tax burden from residential development
and distributing it over proposed office and non-
residential development.
The next section will describe the Final Small Area Plan
that emerged from the Preferred Concept along with
the specific recommendations and implementation
strategies to bring the plan to fruition.
PR
O
C
E
S
S

A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S

A
N
D

S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
E140
58
E141
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
59
Chapter 5: Small Area Plan
E142
60
E143
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
61
Chapter 5: Small Area Plan
GOALS
Based on the input received during stakeholder
interviews, advisory committee meetings, the three-
day charrette, and a detailed investigation of issues
and opportunities following goals were developed
for the Lawyers Road & I-485 Small Area Plan:
• Integrate the Mall with surrounding uses -
do not let it become an island
• The development in the SAP study area
should complement downtown and should
not compete with it
• Retail uses in the Small Area Plan study area
should not be designed as strip malls, with
large parking lots in the front and buildings
in the back
• Development along Hwy 218 should be
managed to complement the future vision
for the Small Area Plan
• Recognize environmental barriers and
challenges and work within the framework
of existing regulations to protect these
resources
• Manage uses around the mall to reduce
the impact on the environment
• Connect the Mall to parks via bike trails and
greenways, connect to the Carolina Thread
Trail (CTT)
• Separate destination traffic from local
traffic
SMALL AREA PLAN DESCRIPTION
The initial premise of the Small Area Plan was to
anticipate future development patterns around
the proposed mall and to manage this growth so
that it does not get out of control. This reaction
was understandable. It has happened in many
municipalities, especially small towns, that when a
big regional attraction such as a retail mall is planned,
other retail uses are attracted to the area and flood
the landscape.
However, as the planning process went through a
series of public involvement steps, including 3-day
design workshops, public meetings, and a series of
advisory committee meeting, a different vision started
to emerge for the study area. The planning process of
the plan development, as described in the previous
section, was truly collaborative and informed the
final outcome of the plan. Many residents started to
see the potential of this area beyond just a regional
retail center. There was an extraordinary level of
consensus about the vision of the SAP study area,
which led to the final plan discussed in this section.
The following pages describe major components of
the SAP in words and pictures.
Photo: Low Density Residential is integrated with the
surrounding development through appropriate transition of
use and form.
SM
A
L
L

A
R
E
A

P
L
A
N

D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
E144
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 5 Small Area Plan
62
Bird’s eye view rendering of the Small Area Plan
Photo: Greenways are heavily used when they connect
destinations - whether residential, retail, or civil land uses
- and when they connect to regional networks. They can
help reduce habitat fragmentation when designed inside the
required environmental buffers and corridors.
Photo: Open Spaces can come in variety of form. These
spaces can be a neighborhood park, a urban plaza, a trailhead,
etc, and provide a safe gathering spot along car, bike, and
pedestrian transportation corridors.
SM
A
L
L

A
R
E
A

P
L
A
N

I
M
A
G
E
S
E145
E146
I-485
Bain School Road
Quail Park Drive
Thompson Road
Allen Black Road
Lawyers Road
Fairvi
e
w

R
o
a
d
/
H
w
y

2
1
8
Union Road
Lawyers Road
Mix
e
d

U
s
e

A
r
e
a

-

A
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e

U
s
e
s
:
Drug
S
t
o
r
e
,

D
r
y
-
c
l
e
a
n
e
r
s
,

S
m
a
l
l

o
f
f
i
c
e
,

P
a
Ɵ
o

Hom
e
s
,

T
o
w
n
h
o
u
s
e
s
.

M
a
x
i
m
u
m

B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g

footp
r
i
n
t

ϭ
ϱ
,
0
0
0

s
q

Ō

p
e
r

b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
.
Mix
e
d

U
s
e

A
r
e
a

-

Appropr
i
a
t
e

U
s
e
s
:
Hotel
,

D
r
u
g

S
t
o
r
e
,

S
m
a
l
l

of
f
i
c
e
,

R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
s
,

Dry-
C
l
e
a
n
e
r
s
E147
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 5 Small Area Plan
63
Photo: Employment Center such as Coliseum Center in
Charlotte could be appropriate for the location of office use
shown east of I-485 and connected to the mall through Union
Road extension
Photo: Employment Center such as Morrocroft Village in
South Park area of Charlotte could be appropriate for the
location of office use shown west of I-485 and north of the
Mall
A STRONG REGIONAL CENTER
Strategically located between two major suburban
employment centers – Ballantyne in south Charlotte
and University City in northeast Charlotte – the SAP
study area also adjoins the fastest growing County
in the state – Union County. Most of the residents
of Mint Hill and Union County currently commute to
one of the many employment centers in Mecklenburg
County – Ballantyne, South Park area, University
City area, or Charlotte Center City. It is therefore no
surprise that a regional retail mall is proposed for this
area because an increase in retail opportunities will
be the foundation for another employment center
for the residents of Mint Hill and Union County to
the east.
Good regional access through the I-485 beltway
and availability of land, coupled with the arrival of
a regional mall and major employment center will
position the SAP study area to become a mixed use
center that will be unique in the region. It will place
Mint Hill as one of the major destinations in the
Charlotte region. By creating a regional mixed use
center, rather than just a regional retail use center,
this plan addresses one of the goals of the study –
integrate the planned mall with its surrounding uses,
and not let it become an island.
It is therefore envisioned that the SAP study area
could complement the future retail mall with a
major employment center that fills the gap for such
use between Ballantyne and the University City area,
enjoys good connectivity to the regional interstate
system, and is mindful of available land resources.
Since the SAP study area is envisioned as a regional
mixed use center, it will complement downtown Mint
Hill, which is envisioned as the Town Center. This will
address another goal of the study - development in
the SAP study area should complement downtown
and should not compete with it.
However, for it to become a true regional center, it
demands careful thought about the form and design
of future development. Future retail in the form of
strip development (parking in the front, with isolated
buildings at the back) should be discouraged, and
development should be integrated with surrounding
uses through continuity of form, scale, and design
features.
A
S
T
R
O
N
G

R
E
G
I
O
N
A
L

C
E
N
T
E
R
E148
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 5 Small Area Plan
64
PRESERVATION OF NATURAL
RESOURCES USING STORMWATER
UTILITES
The SAP study area falls within one of the most
environmentally sensitive basins in the region –
Goose Creek basin. Preservation of natural resources
that will sustain the life forms within the network of
creeks and streams is therefore important. All creeks
and streams within the study area are protected
with a Mecklenburg County mandated buffer of 200
feet on either side of perennial streams and 100
feet on either side of intermittent streams. Open
space is further protected in the form of parks and
greenways. One of the goals identified during the
plan process was to connect the planned mall to
parks, downtown, and other destination uses via a
network of greenways and trails. The plan identifies
such connections and creates more opportunities
for recreational uses by providing for additional
neighborhood and community parks.
However, buffers and open space alone may not be
enough to control stormwater runoff to the creek.
Goose Creek is already a very flashy creek, rising
quickly during storm events in the vicinity of 8-9 feet
above normal flow (as measured downstream of the
study area by the USGS gauging station 02124692
at Fairview - see “Surface Water, Daily Data, Search
by Site Number” at http://waterdata.usgs.gov). This
sharp rise and fast decline of river levels indicate
that most of the stormwater from rain events is
running off directly into creeks and streams (instead
of filtering into the ground), taking with it pollutants
in the form of phosphorus, nitrogen, heavy metals,
etc. The addition of impervious area associated
with urban development will adversely affect the
discharge during storm events, increasing the volume
and degrading the quality of stormwater running off
from the impervious areas in the study area.
Diagram: Bioretention cells can either filter or filter and
capture stormwater runoff. They use plants and layers of
porous media to reduce quantity and improve the quality of
stormwater runoff; connecting directly to existing stormwater
structures. Low Impact Development Center, Inc., Beltsville,
MD.
Photo: Bioretention cells look like simple, aesthetically
pleasing plantings from the casual observer, however, they are
only the visible topping of a 2-3 foot porous medium installed
directly below. The exact size and capacity of these structures
are engineered based on the intensity and duration of rain
events in the study area. Low Impact Development Center, Inc.
LO
W

I
M
P
A
C
T

D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T

S
T
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R

U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
E149
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 5 Small Area Plan
65
To mitigate the effects of urban development, Low-
Impact Development should be encouraged. LID
is a term used to refer to the use of on-site, small
scale natural features to manage stormwater runoff.
When water quality or quantity standards are not
met, these structures are used in conjunction with
traditional Stormwater Best Management Practices
(BMPs) like detention ponds. LIDs are engineered to
capture and store volumes of water using clusters of
water-tolerant plants. The collected water improves
infiltration and permeability of the existing soil and
augments storage capacity of a rain event. Plants
use the water detained in these structures to grow,
thereby reducing the volume of stormwater and
pre-treating it before it is discharged into traditional
stormwater infrastructure. Since plants can be
selected in various heights, colors and textures, and
additional plantings can be used to disguise necessary
concrete structures, the LIDs improve urban design
aesthetics when they are integrated into the areas
reserved for required shade trees and around streets,
sidewalks, bike lanes, and parking lots.
Typical structures include bioretention cells or “rain
gardens”; bioswales, green roofs, and pervious
concrete. Bioretention cells simply retain water in
strategic locations around a building or in low lying
areas that would have standing water. Bioswales can
be grassed or planted with a variety of shrubs and
trees and slow water traveling in a linear direction
towards drain inlets. Bioswales can function well
along streets, bike lanes, sidewalks, and between
rows of parking. Green roofs can capture an
enormous amount of stormwater simply because
flat roofs take up a lot of area. They can provide
additional open space to building occupants and
are most successfully accomplished by planning for
additional soil weight during building design and
construction. Pervious pavement can be used
for parking lots to cut down on the high volume of
stormwater generated during a rain event.
Green roof diagram: green roofs can capture and treat a large
amount of stormwater in an area, especially on flat roofs on
commercial buildings that take up a lot of real estate. Green
roofs are most successful when they are specified early in a
building’s construction, to make sure the additional weight
from soil and plant material is accounted for in building
loads. Square footage in a green roof can be added to open
space requirements for LEED certified projects. Low Impact
Development Center, Inc.
Photo: Pervious concrete can infiltrate large amounts of water.
Parking lot in Charlotte, NC, first of its kind in the Piedmont
of North Carolina. Designed by Estes Design, Inc., researched
and monitored jointly by Estes Design Inc. and UNC Charlotte.
LO
W

I
M
P
A
C
T

D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T

S
T
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R

U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
E150
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 5 Small Area Plan
66
INTERCONNECTED TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM
The SAP envisions multiple means of study area
ingress and egress for all modes of transportation.
The plan suggests two major connections to the
proposed mall site:
1. Extension of Union Road from Union
County to the mall, connecting the two sides
of I-485 via a vehicular bridge over I-485
2. Extension of Quail Park Drive, connecting
Hwy 218 to the mall and to Lawyers Road
These two major connections, in addition to access
from Lawyers Road, will provide alternate regional
access to the proposed mall from other directions.
Other small connections will help distribute local
traffic and provide alternate ways to access future
uses in the SAP study area. These include extension
of one of the mall entrances from Lawyers Road
to Thompson Road, re-alignment of Allen Black
Road, and extension of Stevens Mill Road from
Lawyers Road to Fairview Road/Hwy 218. Other
transportation improvements proposed for the SAP
are the interconnected systems of streets that form
a grid, and a network of greenways, which will allow
travelling through the SAP study area conveniently
for non-motorists.
VIBRANT RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOODS
According to the Demographic and Economic
Profile, the SAP study area has the potential for
more dense development than it currently contains.
These forecasts suggest that an increase in owner-
occupied housing units, along with the increase in
residents between ages 65-74 years old, will provide
opportunities for potential market support for new
housing oriented to new, high-quality residential
development and age-restricted housing. This mixed
housing type will not only provide easy access to
amenities such as shopping, parks, and open space
for aging and young residents living in close proximity,
but also provide great access to employment
opportunities for working residents.
This influx of various types of residential households
(retired, young, singles, and families with kids)
within and surrounding the SAP study area is critical
to creating vibrant residential neighborhoods. Such
increase in population demands a careful thought
about the form and character of new residential
neighborhoods. Future residential neighborhoods
therefore need to respond to the concept of total
livability, where residential units are woven with
parks and public spaces; are within walking distance
from shopping and employment destinations; are
diverse and accommodate various demographic
groups; and are connected with each other instead
of isolated pods of development.
Drawing: The area around proposed roundabout at Lawyers
Road and Bain School Road could develop into a mix of
residential (townhomes), live work units, and small scale offices
IN
T
E
R
C
O
N
N
E
C
T
E
D

T
R
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N

S
Y
S
T
E
M
E151
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 5 Small Area Plan
67
Photo: Providing variety of housing choices such as
townhomes and patio homes at key locations will provide
good transition between non-residential uses such as
planned mall and low density single-family residential.
Photo: Residential development that provides ample open
space create amenities for its residents and preserve
environmentally sensitive areas.
Drawing: Design of residential uses in the Small Area Plan will be important to reinforce a true mixed-use
destination. Mixed residential units should be promoted within residential uses, connected to surrounding uses via a
network of sidewalks and greenways.
VI
B
R
A
N
T

R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L

N
E
I
G
H
B
O
R
H
O
O
D
S
E152
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 5 Small Area Plan
68
FISCAL DIVERSITY
As discussed under the Process section, one of the
considerations in developing a detailed SAP was to
understand the fiscal impact of the proposed plan.
After a detailed estimate of cost of services (fire,
police, schools, etc) and public facilities to serve
current and projected demand, and analysis of
revenue generation from proposed development, it
was observed that the Town will have a net income of
roughly $600,000/yr (in 2010 dollars). This diversity
in tax base will not only help Town’s budget, but also
provide employment opportunities to the Town’s
residents. Many older and younger residents voiced a
concern that they have to leave the Town due to lack
of opportunities that will allow them to stay close to
their families. Creating a regional mixed use center
will boost Town’s Jobs-to-Housing ratio and bring it
more in line with other small towns in Mecklenburg
County.
FI
S
C
A
L

D
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
E153
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
69
Chapter 6: Recommendations and
Implementation Strategies
E154
70
E155
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
71
Chapter 6: Recommendations and
Implementation Strategies
Creating a plan is the first step towards
implementation, but a longer commitment is needed
to bring this plan to fruition. Moreover, this plan, like
all other plans, needs constant monitoring. Since
demographic, economic, and physical conditions are
constantly changing, this plan should adapt to such
changes and position this area to fulfill the aspirations
of the community. This section will outline specific
recommendations and associated implementation
strategies, which will be the vehicle to move this plan
forward.
BUSINESS RECRUITMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1: Create an Economic
Development department in the Town of Mint Hill to
seek a major employer for the SAP study area
Recommendations 2: Partner with regional agencies
such as Charlotte Regional Partnership to promote
the study area as a future location of a major
corporate employer
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1: Continue to enforce mandatory
buffer requirements along perennial and intermittent
creeks and streams
Recommendation 2: Continue to adhere to
Mecklenburg County Land Use and Environmental
Services (LUESA) requirements of open space based
on Built Upon Area (BUA)
Recommendation 3: Encourage private development
to adopt Best Management Practices (BMPs) and
promote Low Impact Developments (LIDs) to
protect the environmentally sensitive Goose Creek
watershed. Encourage the integration of these
structures with stormwater utilities and also with
desirable urban design aesthetics.
LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1: Use the Small Area Plan’s future
land use designations to respond to zoning change
requests
Recommendation 2: Keep residential zoning around
the mall where indicated in the Small Area Plan
Recommendation 3: Promote cluster residential
development as an alternate to traditional subdivision
development
Implementation Strategy 1: Provide incentives in
the form of density bonuses to promote cluster
residential development
Recommendation 4: Promote mixed residential
development
Implementation Strategy 1: Provide flexibility in
residential uses by allowing a mix of residential
types by varying lot sizes etc.
Recommendation 5: Future land uses should account
for public and civic uses, such as parks, churches,
schools and other recreational facilities, such as a
YMCA
Recommendation 6: Update the plan every five years
to respond to changing economic conditions
RE
C
O
M
M
E
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
S

A
N
D

I
M
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
T
I
O
N

S
T
R
A
T
E
G
I
E
S
E156
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 6 Recommendations and Implementation Strategies
72
URBAN DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1: Identify opportunities for aesthetic enhancements
Implementation Strategy 1: The following locations are identified for aesthetic improvements. These
locations are either potential gateways into the Small Area Plan study area, or places within the study area
that require emphasis on placemaking.
• Lawyers Road interchange with I-485
• Fairview Road interchange with I-485
• Intersection of re-aligned Allen Black Road and Union Road
Drawing: Landscaping improvements, such as shown for Greenville Interchange on I-30, will help define
Lawyers Road interchange area as a gateway to the community.
Photo: Architectural improvements to the bridge at Lawyers Road
interchange will also help define it as a gateway to the community.
UR
B
A
N

D
E
S
I
G
N

R
E
C
O
M
M
E
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
S
E157
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 6 Recommendations and Implementation Strategies
73
Diagram: Boulevards - typical plan and section.
Example roads: Lawyers Road, Fairview Road
A boulevard’s primary function is to maintain vehicular movement, connecting to key destinations in an area, and
providing access to lower level streets. Development and Land Use along these streets can be mixed and should be set
back from the street. There are two lanes in each direction which are 11 feet wide. Bike lanes, medians, bus lanes,
and turn lanes are recommended. Sidewalk minimum width is 6 feet. On street parking, sidewalk amenity zone,
shoulders, and curb extensions are all inappropriate in this context. Green infrastructure is encouraged in the median
and on the roadside.
Recommendation 2: Coordinate with private developers, NCDOT, and MUMPO to build
roadways with enhanced streetscape (refer to suggested street cross-sections)

UR
B
A
N

D
E
S
I
G
N

R
E
C
O
M
M
E
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
S
11’11’11’11’
11’11’11’11’
E158
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 6 Recommendations and Implementation Strategies
74
Diagram: Minor Collector - typical plan and section.
Example roads: New Collector Road proposed at east of Allen Black Road
The primary function of a minor collector is to collect residential traffic. These streets are the primary access to
neighborhoods. Development is oriented along adjacent street types. Land Use is single or urban residential.
These streets post 25 miles per hour speed limits and utilize traffic calming elements. There are typically two
11 foot lanes in a minor collector, one in each direction, and also a minimum four foot wide bike lane on each
side. Medians can also be used to separate travel lanes; Colony Road in Charlotte is an example. Outside of the
bike lane there can be 8 foot parallel parking lane and a minimum 5 foot sidewalk on at least one side. Transit
routes like bus stops are encouraged. Shoulders are inappropriate in this context. Green infrastructure is
recommended in the roadside and as pervious pavement in the parallel parking area.
11’11’
11’11’
UR
B
A
N

D
E
S
I
G
N

R
E
C
O
M
M
E
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
S
E159
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 6 Recommendations and Implementation Strategies
75
Diagram: Neighborhood Yield Street - typical plan and section.
Example roads: Residential Development east of Allen Black Road.
A Neighborhood Yield street is appropriate for local roads within a neighborhood where less than
50 houses front the street. These streets provide neighborhood circulation and are appropriate for
subdivision type development. Land Use on a neighborhood yield street is single or urban residential.
One lane at 12 feet wide and two 8 foot wide lanes of parallel, on-street parking is recommended.
Sidewalks should be a minimum of 5 feet on both sides and a 5 feet minimum landscape buffer.
Traffic calming elements such as pedestrian activities spilling over into the street will keep this road
at the posted 25 miles per hour. Inappropriate elements include mass transit, pedestrian refuge, curb
extensions, shoulders, bicycle lanes, mid block pedestrian crossings, or medians. Green infrastructure
can include pervious pavement in the parking zone or sidewalks, private yard or development-wide
bioretention cells and landscaping.
UR
B
A
N

D
E
S
I
G
N

R
E
C
O
M
M
E
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
S
E160
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 6 Recommendations and Implementation Strategies
76
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N

R
E
C
O
M
M
E
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
S
Diagram: Local Road - typical plan and section.
Example roads: Residential Development east of Allen Black Road.
A Local Road is an alternate for the Neighborhood Yield Street, appropriate for roads within a
neighborhood where less than 50 houses front the street. These streets provide neighborhood
circulation and are appropriate for subdivision type development. Land Use on a neighborhood yield
street is single or urban residential. Two lanes at 11 feet wide is recommended. Sidewalks should be a
minimum of 5 feet on both sides and a 5 feet minimum landscape buffer. Traffic calming elements such
as pedestrian activities spilling over into the street will keep this road at the posted 25 miles per hour.
Inappropriate elements include mass transit, pedestrian refuge, curb extensions, shoulders, bicycle
lanes, mid block pedestrian crossings, or medians. Green infrastructure can include pervious pavement
in the driveways or sidewalks, private yard or development-wide bioretention cells and landscaping.
E161
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 6 Recommendations and Implementation Strategies
77
TRANSPORTATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1: Enhance connectivity by
providing multiple points of ingress and egress for
the study area.
Implementation Strategy 1: The following
roadway connections will assist in regional
connectivity to the planned mall:
• An extension of Union Road over I-485 via a
bridge into the planned mall will allow traffic
from Union County to take an alternate route
to Lawyers Road
o Note: Extension of Union Road over I-485
and into the planned mall will require
coordination with MUMPO, NCDOT, FHWA,
property owners, and the mall developer.
• An extension of Quail Park Drive that will
connect Hwy 218 to the planned mall will
allow traffic from north of Mint Hill and
Cabarrus County to take the Fairview Road
exit from I-485
Implementation Strategy 2: The following
roadway connections will assist local connectivity
within the study area:
• Realignment of Allen Black Road will not only
create better parcel depth for development,
but also allow other local connections, which
could be further enhanced through the
extension of Stevens Mill Road
• A new road parallel to I-485, east of Allen
Black Road, will connect Lawyers Road and
Fairview Road and relieve traffic pressure at
the intersection of Allen Black Road and 218
• An alternate connection to Countrywood
Subdivision from Thompson Road and the
subsequent closure of the entrance to the
Subdivision from Lawyers Road will provide
more convenient access for subdivision
traffic.
• A new roadway connection between
Thompson Road and Lawyers Road will
relieve traffic pressure on the proposed
roundabout at Lawyers and Bain School Road,
and will provide more convenient access for
Thompson Road traffic.
Recommendation 2: Promote alternative modes of
transportation
Implementation Strategy 1: Connect Fairview
Park to the proposed Stevens Creek Nature
Preserve via a greenway along Goose Creek.
This greenway will connect parks, residential
neighborhoods, offices, mall and shopping
destinations, and civic uses.
Implementation Strategy 2: Coordinate with
Carolina Thread Trail (CTT) to provide an
additional greenway connection - from the mall
entrance at Lawyers Road near Goose Creek and
along a Goose Creek Tributary to downtown Mint
Hill.
Implementation Strategy 3: Provide sidewalks,
bike lanes, and multiuse paths along realigned
Allen Black Road to promote bike and pedestrian
connectivity between employment, residential,
civic, and retail uses.
Recommendation 3: Coordinate with MUMPO and
NCDOT regarding improvements to some of the key
Hwy 218 and Lawyers Road corridors to accommodate
additional traffic generated by new uses proposed in
the SAP Study area.
UT
I
L
I
T
I
E
S

R
E
C
O
M
M
E
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
S
E162
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 6 Recommendations and Implementation Strategies
78
UTILITIES RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1: Coordinate with Charlotte
Mecklenburg Utilities Department (CMUD) on a
potential Stevens Creek pump station
Recommendation 2: Encourage the mall developer’s
participation in a regional solution to the wastewater
pump station issue
Recommendation 3: Investigate the location of
water/sewer line sleeve under I-485 between Hwy
218 and Lawyers Road to allow for the possibility of a
regional lift station at Stevens Creek Nature Preserve
instead of a lift station that will service the mall site
only; pending the inclusion of Goose Creek basin on
the IBT certificate
Recommendation 4: Continue to support the
inclusion of the Goose Creek basin in the Inter Basin
Transfer (IBT) Act by coordinating with CMUD. This
will enable the Town to use McAlpine Wastewater
Treatment plant’s (WWTP) capacity.
Recommendation 5: Encourage future development
and re-development to include Low Impact
Development strategies for stormwater management.
E163
Mint Hill: Lawyers Road and I-485 Small Area Plan
CHAPTER 6 Recommendations and Implementation Strategies
79
E164
E165
I
-
4
8
5
Bai
n

S
c
h
o
o
l

R
o
a
d
Quai
l

P
a
r
k

D
r
i
v
e
Thompson Road
All
e
n

B
l
a
c
k

R
o
a
d
Lawyers Road
Fairvi
e
w

R
o
a
d
/
H
w
y

2
1
8
Union Road
Law
y
e
r
s

R
o
a
d
Mixed Use Area - Appropriate Uses:
Drug Store, Dry-cleaners, Small office, PaƟo
Homes, Townhouses. Maximum Building
footprint ϭϱ,000 sq Ō per building.
Mixed Use Area -
Appropriate Uses:
Hotel, Drug Store, Small
office, Restaurants,
Dry-Cleaners
E166
Goose Creek Watershed
Management Plan
Completed by: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services
Version 1
October 31, 2009
Sediment entering Mountain Island Lake from Goose Creek Cove
E167

Goose Creek Watershed
Management Plan
Version 1

Completed by:
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services
Water Quality Program Staff

Date Completed:
October 31, 2009
E168
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
i
Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................1

Section 1 Introduction ................................................................................................2
1.1 Purpose .........................................................................................................2
1.2 Background ..................................................................................................2

Section 2 Current and Historical Conditions...........................................................8
2.1 Previous Work .............................................................................................8
2.1.1 Fecal Coliform TMDL .................................................................................9
2.1.2 Water Quality Recovery Program ................................................................9
2.1.3 NC DOT .......................................................................................................9
2.1.4 Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities ..................................................................9
2.1.5 North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program ....................................10
2.2 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................11
2.2.1 Water Chemistry ........................................................................................10
2.2.2 Biological ...................................................................................................11
2.2.3 Physical ......................................................................................................14
2.2.4 Stream Flow ...............................................................................................13
2.2.5 Land Use/Land Cover ................................................................................13
2.2.6 Soils............................................................................................................15
2.3 Current Watershed Protection Efforts ........................................................16
2.3.1 S.W.I.M. Buffer Ordinance........................................................................16
2.3.2 Post Construction Buffers ..........................................................................17
2.3.3 Goose Creek Watershed Site Specific Management Plan .........................18
2.3.4 BMP Retrofits and Land Acquisition ........................................................19
2.3.5 Existing NPDES Permitted WWTPs .........................................................20

Section 3 Watershed Indicators and Goals ............................................................21
3.1 Upland ........................................................................................................21
3.1.1 Upland Water Quality Indicators ...............................................................21
3.1.2 Upland Water Quality Goals ......................................................................21
3.2 In-Stream....................................................................................................22
3.2.1 In-Stream Water Quality Indicators ...........................................................22
3.2.2 In-Stream Water Quality Goals .................................................................22
3.3 Channel ......................................................................................................28
3.3.1 Stream Channel Indicators .........................................................................29
3.3.2 Stream Channel Goals................................................................................30

Section 4 Watershed Assessment ............................................................................24
4.1 Upland Characterization ............................................................................24
4.1.1 Methodology ..............................................................................................24
4.1.2 Results ........................................................................................................29
4.2 Stream Channel Characterization ..............................................................36
4.2.1 Methodology ..............................................................................................36
4.2.2 Results ........................................................................................................39
E169
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
ii
4.3 Fecal Coliform Assessment .......................................................................41

Section 5 Candidate Restoration, Retrofit & Preservation Sites .........................42
5.1 Upland BMP Retrofit Sites ........................................................................42
5.1.1 Priority Basins ............................................................................................42
5.1.2 Public Parcels .............................................................................................45
5.2 Stream Channel Management Opportunities .............................................52
5.3 Stream Buffer Restoration Areas ...............................................................51
5.4 Master Planning for Restoration, Retrofit and Preservation Projects ........61

Section 6 Measuring Success and Adaptive Management ....................................62
6.1 Establishing an Ongoing Water Quality Monitoring Program ..................62
6.2 Annual Status Report .................................................................................62
6.3 Adaptive Management ...............................................................................62

Section 7 Conclusion ................................................................................................63

List of Tables:

Table 1 General Goose Creek Watershed Statistics .....................................................1
Table 2 Goose Creek Stream Class Descriptions .........................................................7
Table 3 Goose Creek Water Quality Standards ...........................................................8
Table 4 Baseflow Water Chemistry Statistics ............................................................10
Table 5 NCDENR Macroinvertebrate Sample Results ..............................................12
Table 6 Goose Creek Land Use Categories ...............................................................14
Table 7 Hydrologic Soil Groups Found Within Goose Creek Watershed .................15
Table 8 S.W.I.M. Buffer Requirements for the Goose Creek Watershed..................17
Table 9 NPDES Permitted Dischargers in the Goose Creek Watershed ...................20
Table 10 Upland Pollutant Loading Rate Goals ..........................................................21
Table 11 In-Stream Water Quality Goals ....................................................................23
Table 12 Goose Creek Land Use Categories and Abbreviations .................................25
Table 13 Upland Pollutant Loading Rates by Land Use ..............................................27
Table 14 Catchment Loading Rates .............................................................................27
Table 15 Catchment Area, Impervious Area and Impervious Percentages .................28
Table 16 Results of the Upland Characterization ........................................................29
Table 17 Results of Stream Channel Characterization ................................................40
Table 18 Public Parcels Meeting BMP Criteria and Priority .......................................49
Table 19 Highest Priority Goose Creek Stream Reaches ............................................53
Table 20 Results of the Stream Buffer Tree Canopy Analysis ....................................60

List of Figures:

Figure 1 Mecklenburg County Watershed and Jurisdictional Boundaries ....................3
Figure 2 Special Features within the Goose Creek Watershed .....................................4
Figure 3 Typical Residential Development in the Goose Creek Watershed .................5
Figure 4 Typical New Residential Development in the Goose Creek Watershed ........6
Figure 5 Percent Exceeding Graph for Goose Creek Samples ....................................11
E170
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
iii
Figure 6 Historical SUSI Scores for Goose Creek ......................................................11
Figure 7 Goose Creek Benthic Macroinvertebrate Scores ..........................................12
Figure 8 Distribution of Land Uses in the Goose Creek Watershed ...........................15
Figure 9 Distribution of Hydrologic Soil Groups in the Goose Creek Watershed......16
Figure 10 Approximate Extent of the Goose Creek Watershed S.W.I.M. Buffers .......17
Figure 11 Approximate Extent of the Goose Creek Post Construction Buffers ...........18
Figure 12 Public Property in the Goose Creek Watershed ............................................19
Figure 13 Goose Creek Watershed Catchments ............................................................26
Figure 14 Distribution of Buffers in the Goose Creek Watershed ................................28
Figure 15 Fecal Coliform Rank .....................................................................................30
Figure 16 TN Ranking ...................................................................................................31
Figure 17 TP Ranking ...................................................................................................32
Figure 18 TSS Ranking .................................................................................................33
Figure 19 NH4 Ranking ................................................................................................34
Figure 20 Cu Ranking ...................................................................................................35
Figure 21 Overall Impairment .......................................................................................36
Figure 22 Goose Creek Stream Channel Characterization Reaches .............................39
Figure 23 Focus Basins with the Goose Creek Watershed ...........................................42
Figure 24 Focus Basin 11 ..............................................................................................43
Figure 25 Focus Basin 2 ................................................................................................44
Figure 26 Focus Basin 5 ................................................................................................45
Figure 27 Focus Basin 4 ................................................................................................46
Figure 28 Focus Basin 6 ................................................................................................47
Figure 29 Goose Creek Watershed Public Parcels ........................................................49
Figure 30 Aerial Photo of Parcels 19514219, 19514129 and 19514208 .......................50
Figure 31 Aerial Photo of Parcel 19701146 ..................................................................51
Figure 32 Aerial Photo of Parcels 19720111 and 19720106 .........................................52
Figure 33 Reach DSTOUS296 Area Map .....................................................................54
Figure 34 Reach DSTOUS329 Area Map .....................................................................55
Figure 35 Reach DSTOUS357 Area Map .....................................................................56
Figure 36 Reach DSTOUS299 Area Map .....................................................................57
Figure 37 Reach DSTOUS142 Area Map .....................................................................58
Figure 38 Reach DSTOUS184 Area Map .....................................................................59
Figure 39 Results of the Tree Canopy Analysis ............................................................60

Appendices

Appendix A: References ...................................................................................................64

E171
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
1
Executive Summary

The Goose Creek Watershed is located in southeastern Mecklenburg County and is
almost entirely within the town limits or extraterritorial jurisdiction of Mint Hill. The
watershed has been designated as habitat for the federally listed endangered Carolina
Heelsplitter Mussel. This designation has brought about the implementation of a Site
Specific Management Plan for new development in the watershed. In addition to the
issues surrounding the Carolina Heelsplitter, the municipalities within the Watershed
were required to develop a Water Quality Recovery Program for Fecal Coliform, which
was the result of a Fecal Coliform TMDL. In addition to Fecal Coliform, the watershed
is also identified on the NC 303(d) list for impaired biological integrity, likely a result of
hydro-modification of the stream channel. Table 1 presents general statistics for the
Goose Creek Watershed.

Table 1: General Goose Creek Watershed Statistics (portion of Goose Creek within
Mecklenburg County).
Estimated Goose Creek Watershed
Population
5616
Goose Creek Watershed Area 6975 acres
Stream Miles (Draining > 50 acres) 28 miles

Dominant Land Uses
Rural Residential 34%
Vacant 31%
Low Density Residential 11%
Medium/Low Density
Residential 9%
Transportation 8%
Major Political Jurisdictions Town of Mint Hill
Major Streams in the Goose Creek
Watershed
Goose Creek
Duck Creek
Stevens Creek
Sediment entering Mountain Island Lake from Goose Creek Cove
E172
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
2

SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

The purpose of this Watershed Management Plan is to guide restoration, retrofit and
preservation efforts aimed at achieving specific goals for improving water quality
conditions in the Goose Creek Watershed in Mecklenburg County such that these waters
meet or exceed their State designated uses and are no longer rated as impaired on 303(d)
lists. Moreover, the plan seeks to restore the population of Lasmigona Decorata
(Carolina Heelsplitter), a federally endangered freshwater mussel, in the watershed.

This Watershed Management Plan seeks to:
1. Summarize important information regarding the Goose Creek Watershed relative to
water quality.
2. Describe current and historical water quality conditions in the watershed.
3. Describe current and previous efforts in the watershed to protect and restore water
quality.
4. Describe water quality goals for the watershed.
5. Prioritize areas for restoration, retrofit and preservation efforts aimed at achieving
water quality goals.
6. Describe the process forward for implementing water quality efforts.

The ultimate goal after complete implementation of this Watershed Management Plan is a
fully functioning and supporting stream ecosystem in Goose Creek.

1.2 Background

The headwaters of the Goose Creek Watershed (including Goose, Duck and Stevens
Creeks) are located in the southeastern portion of Mecklenburg County and lies within
Mint Hill’s jurisdiction. The creek flows from Mecklenburg County to the southeast into
Union County and subsequently enters the Yadkin River in Union County. Figure 1
shows the location of the Goose Creek Watershed in Mecklenburg County along with its
jurisdictional boundaries. Figure 2 presents a close up view of the Goose Creek
Watershed.

E173
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
3

BriarSugar Irvins
Long
Mallard
Lake Wylie
Clarke
Paw
Clear
McDowell
Up Irwin
Steele
Gar
Reedy
Four Mile
Up L Sugar
Lake Norman
Mid McAlpine
Six Mile
McMullen
Coffey
Back
Stewart
W Br Rocky
L Sugar
Torrence
Goose
Taggart
McAlpine
McKee
Campbell
Kings
Up McAlpine
Duck
Low Mtn Island
Up Mtn Island
Caldwell
Goose Creek Watershed
Legend
Charlotte
Cornelius
Davidson
Huntersville
Matthews
Mecklenburg
Mint Hill
Pineville
Stallings
Figure 1: Mecklenburg County Watersheds and Jurisdictional Boundaries.

E174
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
4

Figure 2: Special Features within the Goose Creek Watershed. Note: MY9, MY9A,
MY9B denote Mecklenburg County water quality monitoring sites.

Historically, land in the Goose Creek Watershed was used for agriculture. However,
within the past 20-30 years the population of the watershed has increased. Figure 3
shows a typical older residential development in the Watershed and Figure 4 shows more
recent development. In addition to agricultural land-use, large lot residential and some
commercial/institutional centered around Highway 51 and Lawyers Road are now
notable. The relatively recent construction of 485 is expected to attract dense
development at the Idlewild Road, Lawyers Road and Fairview Road exits. In fact, at the
northeast corner of Lawyers Road and 485 a new mall (The Bridges) is under
construction (currently on hold). In addition to the recent changes brought about by
urbanization, drastic changes to the stream system have occurred in the last century. At
some point in the past, the portions of Goose Creek were straightened either to prevent
flooding or to improve the land for agricultural uses (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm
Water Services, 1997).

Figure 3: Typical Residential Development in the Goose Creek Watershed.
E175
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
5

Figure 4: Typical New Residential Development in the Goose Creek Watershed.

Goose Creek is listed in the 2006 North Carolina 303(d) list (North Carolina, 2004) as
being impaired for fecal coliform . A total of 16.3 miles of Goose Creek are identified in
the list, which includes the entire stream from its source to the Rocky River. Typically
streams are listed on the 303(d) list dependant upon their intended uses. Intended uses
are generally determined through the stream class. Goose Creek is a Class C Stream (see
Table 2). In North Carolina, surface water quality regulations are defined for particular
classes of use support. For instance, Class C waters must support aquatic life and
secondary recreation (infrequent human body contact), while Class B waters must
support aquatic life and primary recreation (frequent human body contact or swimming).
Individual streams, lakes, and reservoirs (or portions of each) are assigned one or more
classes. All of the contributing streams to a body of water receive the same designation
when they are not specifically defined. Each class has a set of regulations, including
water quality standards associated with it. If chemical/physical water quality monitoring
reveals that a stream is not meeting a water quality standard, then it is considered
“Impaired.” If biological monitoring indicates a lack of abundance and/or diversity of
aquatic life in a stream, then it is considered as having “Impaired biological integrity.”
Impaired streams are placed on the 303(d) list and a restoration method is specified such
as the development of a total maximum daily load or TMDL.

THOMPSON
LAWYERS
HEATH GLEN
HEATH LAKE
JOLI CHEVAL
HELENA
OXER
BAIN
SCHOOL
WINTER HEATH
PRAIRIE HILL
FOX HOLLOW
EARLY MEADOW
TWINLEAF
JOLI CHEVAL
E176
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
6
A TMDL was written by the Mecklenburg County Water Quality Program (now know as
Charlotte/Mecklenburg Storm Water Services (CMSWS)) in April 2005 and
subsequently approved by the USEPA on July 8, 2005. The TMDL will be discussed at
length in the next section of this document (Section 2).

Table 2: Goose Creek Stream Class Descriptions.
Stream
Class
Description
C Freshwaters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life
including propagation and survival, and wildlife. All freshwaters shall
be classified to protect these uses at a minimum.
E177
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
7
SECTION 2. CURRENT AND HISTORICAL CONDITIONS

2.1 Previous Work

Approximate Event Timeline for the Goose Creek Watershed

June 30, 1993: Carolina Heelsplitter included on the Endangered Species list. Goose
Creek named as habitat for a small population.

January 17, 1997: Completion of the Recovery Plan for the Carolina Heelsplitter.

August 20, 2001: Mitigated Finding of No Significant Impact – Charlotte- Mecklenburg
Utilities Proposed Increase in Interbasin Transfer from the Catawba River Basin
to the Rocky River Basin.

March 14, 2000: EMC decision to approve the IBT with conditions. Condition #3
placed a “…moratorium on the installation of new interbasin transfer water
lines… into the Goose Creek subbasin…until the impacts of additional urban
growth on the (Carolina heelsplitter) are fully evaluated." This ruling effectively
halted expansion of the supply of public water in the Goose Creek Watershed.

April, 2005: Final Goose Creek TMDL Submitted to USEPA

July 8, 2005: USEPA Approval of Goose Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL

August 10, 2006: Letter from NCDENR to Mecklenburg County, Mint Hill, Stallings
and Indian Trail requiring the development of a Water Quality Recovery Program
for implementation of the Goose Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL.

September 15, 2006: NC Court Decision (Filed October 13, 2006) requiring, among
other things, that the NPDES permits for Stallings, Indian Trail, Mint Hill and
Mecklenburg County be reopened and amended to include measures to protect the
Carolina Heelsplitter. Among these are water quality standards for ammonia,
copper, nitrate-nitrite and phosphorus. The document identifies standards
presented in Table 3.

Table 3: Goose Creek Water Quality Standards
Constituent Chronic Standard Acute Standard
Phosphorus 0.1 mg/L
Nitrate-nitrite 0.4 mg/L
Copper 2.2 ug/L 3.6 ug/L
Ammonia 0.5 mg/L 1.75 mg/L

June 30, 2007: Implementation of Mint Hill’s Post Construction Ordinances, which
currently guide land development in the Goose Creek Watershed.
E178
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
8

February 1, 2009: Implementation of the Site Specific Management Plan for the Goose
Creek Watershed. This Plan guides all development in the watershed, eliminating
the Mint Hill Post Construction Ordinance.

2.1.1 Goose Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL

In April 2005, Mecklenburg County, under contract with the State of North Carolina,
completed a TMDL for fecal coliform for Goose Creek, North Carolina. The TMDL was
subsequently approved by the USEPA on July 8, 2005. A copy of the TMDL is available
at the following website:

http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/documents/GooseCk.FCTMDLApprovedbyEPAJuly0805.
pdf

The TMDL specified fecal coliform load reductions to both permitted MS4s in the
watershed and non-point sources of pollution. Essentially, the TMDL specifies load
reductions of 92.5% for all sources of fecal coliform with the exception of WWTPs,
whose allocation remained unchanged at permitted levels (200 c.f.u./100 ml).

2.1.2 Water Quality Recovery Program

On August 10, 2006 NC DENR submitted a letter to the permitted MS4s in the Goose
Creek Watershed requiring them to develop a Water Quality Program (WQRP) for Fecal
Coliform in the Goose Creek Watershed. Mecklenburg County partnered with the towns
of Mint Hill, NC, Stallings, NC and Indian Trail, NC to develop the WQRP. The WQRP
document, which describes each of the components of the program is included with this
document as Appendix XX.

2.1.3 NC DOT

In September, 2004 Craig Allan (Department of Geography and Earth Sciences, UNC
Charlotte) completed a report entitled Water Quality and Stream Stability Monitoring for
Goose Creek Mecklenburg and Union Counties, North Carolina 2001-2003. The study
was funded by the United States Department of Transportation to study the impacts of the
construction of I-485 through the Goose Creek Watershed in Mecklenburg County.
Allan cites hydromodification of the stream channel itself as a primary source of elevated
TSS and turbidity levels measured during storm events. Similarly, Allan (2004) cited
increased levels of phosphorus and nitrogen in storm flow.

2.1.4 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities

Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities initiated a study with the goal of establishing a Finding
of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the construction of a regional WWTP in the Goose
Creek Watershed. The study was never completed because of the requirements put in
E179
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
9
place to protect the Carolina Heelsplitter Mussel essentially prohibited construction of the
plant.

2.1.5 North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program

The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) is currently conducting a
study in the Goose Creek Watershed to establish a Local Area Watershed Plan (LAWP)
to identify mitigation opportunities in the Watershed. In the past, EEP LAWPs have not
met the needs of local governments in Mecklenburg County however the process has
been modified and may provide useful information. No completion date was available at
the time of preparation of this document. EEP has established a stakeholder group of
technical resources that is participating in their process. They intend for the stakeholder
group to assume the role of implementing the findings of the LAWP that are not pertinent
to EEP goals. These findings may include ordinance modification, BMP construction,
stream enhancement or restoration and education efforts.

2.2.1 Water Chemistry

Goose Creek baseflow samples are collected from MY9A, MY9B and MY9 (Figure 2).
Table 4 presents a condensed set of information from the historical data collected at these
sites. TN exceedances were detected 27% of the time and TP exceedences were detected
8% of the time. Fecal coliform concentrations in excess of 200 c.f.u./100 ml were
detected approximately 82% of the time. Additionally, copper exceedences were
recorded in 68% of the samples and ammonia in 7% of the samples. Figure 5 shows the
percentages of these exceedances. Stream Use Support Index (SUSI) values have tended
to oscillate since 2007 but have remained below threshold values, which is a strong
indicator of a non-supporting watershed (Figure 6). The most notable reason for the
lowest values is the extreme drought that has occurred in the piedmont of North Carolina
in the past several years.

Table 4: Baseflow Water Chemistry Statistics.
All Goose Creek Monitoring
Sites Total N Total P TSS Fecal
Coliform Copper Ammonia
Action Level: 1.5 ppm 0.4 ppm 50 200
cfu/100Ml
2.2 ug/L 0.5
Sample size 186 202 48 463 121 204
MIN 0.35 0.02 2 1 2 0.05
MAX 10.5 2.1 43 58000 36 2.5
MEAN 1.5 0.2 5.2 2398 6.2 0.22
MEDIAN 1.1 0.13 2.8 500 3.6 0.10
% samples over Action Level 27% 8% 0% 82% 68% 7%

E180
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
10

Figure 5: Percent Exceeding Graph for Goose Creek Samples.

Figure 6: Historical SUSI Scores for Goose Creek

2.2.2 Biological

Currently, the benthic macroinvertebrate community in Goose Creek is monitored
annually by Mecklenburg County at Stevens Mill Road in Union County (site MY9).
Previously, samples were collected at MY9A and MY9B, which are just upstream of I-
Goose Creek % Exceeding Graph
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Total N Total P TSS Fecal
Coliform
Copper Ammonia
Analyte
%
E
x
c
e
e
d
i
n
g

A
c
t
i
o
n

L
e
v
e
l
MY9 vs. SUSI
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
6/
1
3
/
0
7
7/
1
8
/
0
7
8/
8
/
0
7
9/
1
9
/
0
7
10
/
1
7
/
0
7
11
/
1
4
/
0
7
12
/
1
9
/
0
7
1/
1
6
/
0
8
2/
2
0
/
0
8
3/
1
2
/
0
8
4/
1
6
/
0
8
5/
2
2
/
0
8
6/
1
8
/
0
8
7/
1
6
/
0
8
8/
2
0
/
0
8
9/
1
7
/
0
8
10
/
1
5
/
0
8
11
/
1
9
/
0
8
12
/
1
6
/
0
8
1/
2
2
/
0
9
SUSI Threshold Successful Exemplary MY9
E181
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
11
485 on Goose and Stevens Creeks respectively (Figure 2). The EPT taxa richness was
generally below 10 species for all samples taken since 1999 in Goose Creek. Figure 7
presents the benthic macrinvertebrate scores for Goose Creek since 1995. As can be
discerned from the graph, Goose Creek has exhibited a general decline in its
macroinvertebrate population. However, it is important to note that the
macroinvertebrate populations in Goose Creek are very sensitive to drought as Goose
Creek tends to dry up more readily than other creeks with a similar drainage area. This is
likely due to the drainage area being partially within the Carolina Slate Belt

Figure 7: Goose Creek Benthic Macroinvertebrate Scores.

The N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) performs
monitoring for macroinvertebrates and the Carolina Heelsplitter in Goose Creek. The
macroinvertebrate sample results are presented in Table 5.

Table 5: NCDENR Macroinvertebrate Sample Results
Site Stream County Road Bioclassification
SSB-3 Goose Creek Mecklenburg SR 1004 Good
SSB-4 Goose Creek Union Glamorgan Rd. Good
SSB-5 Goose Creek Union SR 1524 Good
SSB-6 Goose Creek Union Below Fairfield Fair
SSB-7 Goose Creek Union SR 1525 Poor
SSB-8 Goose Creek Union SR 1533 Fair
B-5 Goose Creek Union US 601 Poor
SSB-9 Goose Creek Union SR 1547 Fair
SSB-1 Stevens Creek Mecklenburg Maple Hollow Rd. Good
SSB-2 Stevens Creek Mecklenburg Thompson Rd Not Impaired
SSB-10 Duck Creek Union US 601 Fair

The distribution of the population with the watershed is currently unknown; however it is
likely that no supporting populations of the mussel are in Mecklenburg County because
0
5
10
15
20
25
July
1995
May
1998
July
1999
June
2000
June
2001
July
2002
July
2003
June
2004
July
2005
July
2006
July
2007
Date
EP
T

T
a
x
a

R
i
c
h
n
e
s
s
MY9A
MY9B
MY9 Fully Supporting
Partially Supporting
Not Supporting
E182
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
12
of the high likelihood of Goose Creek going dry within the County. Specific information
about the Carolina Heelsplitter can be found at the following website:

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Lasmigona+deco
rata

2.2.4 Stream Flow

A watershed will generate larger volumes of storm water runoff and discharge this runoff
at higher rates as the amount of imperviousness increases as a result of development. The
stream channels that receive the additional runoff are exposed to increased hydraulic
forces that can lead to morphologic instabilities through erosion – a process that reduces
the availability and quality of aquatic habitat. Aquatic species are dependent upon the
channel boundary for shelter, foraging, reproduction, and rest. When boundary materials
regularly erode, the aquatic habitat is impacted and unlikely to support a diverse, healthy
aquatic community. Therefore, addressing the source of the habitat degradation,
additional storm water runoff in this case, will help reduce impairment to in-stream
biological communities (Tetra Tech, 2004)

2.2.5 Land Use/Land Cover

The land-use/land-cover data set used for this Watershed Management Plan was
developed by Tetra Tech Inc. (2004) for the Post Construction Ordinance development
process. The data set was developed through interpretation of a combination of parcel
information, aerial photographs, and tree canopy data. The process is more thoroughly
described in Tetra Tech Inc. (2004). The land-use data set provides a distribution and
classification of all land-uses in the Goose Creek Watershed. The land-use categories
represented in the Goose Creek Watershed are presented in Table 6 and the distribution
of the land-uses for the Goose Creek Watershed is shown in Figure 8.

E183
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
13
Table 6: Goose Creek Land Use Categories.
Land Use Class Abbreviation
Agriculture AG
Heavy Commercial COMM-H
Light Commercial COMM-L
Forest FRST
Golf Course GC
High Density Residential HDR
High Density Multifamily Residential HMFR
High Density Mixed Urban HMX
Heavy Industrial IND
Institutional INS
Interstate Corridor INTERSTATE
Low Density Residential LDR
Medium Density Residential MDR
Meadow MEADOW
Multi Family Residential MFR
Medium Low Density Residential MLDR
Mixed Urban MX
Office/Industrial OI-H
Light Office/Light Industrial OI-L
Park PARK
Rural Residential RR
Ultra High Density Mixed Urban UHMX

E184
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
14

Figure 8: Distribution of Land Uses in the Goose Creek Watershed.

2.2.6 Soils

The distribution of soils within the Goose Creek Watershed was determined through the
Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County (USDOA – SCS, 1980). The hydrologic soil types
found in the Goose Creek Watershed are B and C. A description of each soil type and
distribution within the watershed are shown in Table 7. Figure 9 shows the location of
the hydrologic soil groups in the Goose Creek Watershed.

Table 7: Hydrologic Soil Groups Found Within the Goose Creek Watershed.
Hydrologic
Soil Group
Description (USDOA –SCS, 1980) Distribution with
Goose Creek
Watershed
B Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet.
These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately
well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine
texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a
moderate rate of water transmission
6314 Acres (88% of
watershed)
C Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet.
These consist chiefly of soils that have a layer that impedes the
downward movement of water of soils that have moderately fine
texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water
transmission.
856 acres (12% of
watershed)
I-485 INNER
I-485 OUTER
LA
W
Y
E
R
S
THOMPSON
W
E
L
L
FAIRVIEW
ALLEN BLACK
I-48 5
BRIEF
B
AIN
S
CHO
O
L
U
NIO
N
JOLI CHEVAL
QUAIL PARK
LONG
MINT
W
O
O
D
PEGGY
D
AVID
R
A
N
B
U
R
N
E
J
U
M
P
E
R
MATTHEWS-MINT HILL
ALEXIS
M
C
W
HIR
T
E
R WHITMIRE
T A R A O A K S
PIAFFE
KID W ELLY
BEECH MINT
HANGING MOSS
IDLEFIE
LD
Q U A RTE R S
INDIA
N TRAIL
YA R M O U T H
F
OX
HOLL
OW
PERSIMMON CREEK
H
O
O
D
RID
G
E
FIELDLARK
CRESTHILL
DAVIS
TRACE
FOUR OAKS
BLACKJACK
SIL AS ED
BRIEF
I-485
I-485
B RIE F
B RIE F
FAIRVIEW
B RIE F
BRIEF
BRIEF
Legend
existing-landuse-by-catchment
EXISTINGLU
GC
TRANS
COMM-H
COMM-L
FRST
GC
HDR
INS
LDR
MDR
MFR
MLDR
OI-H
OI-L
RR
TRANS
VCNT
E185
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
15

Figure 9: Distribution of Hydrologic Soil Groups in the Goose Creek Watershed.

2.3 Current Watershed Protection Efforts

2.3.1 S.W.I.M. Buffer Ordinance

A countywide stream buffer system was established in 1999 as part of the Surface Water
Improvement and Management (S.W.I.M.) strategy, otherwise known as S.W.I.M.
buffers. According to S.W.I.M., streams have the primary natural function of conveying
storm and ground water, storing floodwaters and supporting aquatic and other wildlife.
The buffer is the vegetated land adjacent to the stream channel, which functions to
protect water quality by filtering pollutants and to provide both storage for floodwaters
and suitable habitat for wildlife. The ordinance was in effect until Mint Hill’s Post
Construction ordinance took effect on June 30, 2007. However, property developed
under the S.W.I.M. buffer ordinance will remain subject to it.

Required stream buffer widths vary from 35 to 100 feet or the entire 100 year floodplain,
whichever is greater, based on the size of the upstream drainage basin. In Mint Hill,
S.W.I.M. buffer requirements begin at a point where the stream drains 50 acres. Table 8
presents the S.W.I.M. buffer requirements for Mint Hill. Figure 10 shows the extent of
the S.W.I.M. buffers in the Goose Creek Watershed.
0 3,800 7,600 11,400 15,2001,900 Feet
Legend
goose-soils
<all other values>
HYDRIC
B
C
E186
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
16
Table 8: S.W.I.M. Buffer Requirements for the Goose Creek Watershed.
Jurisdiction
Date
Ordinance
Adopted
Total Buffer Widths
> 640 acres > 300 acres > 50 acres
Mint Hill

October,
1999
total = floodway +
100% of floodfringe
but no less than 100 ft
streamside = 30ft
managed use = 45 ft
upland = remainder
total = 50 feet
streamside = 20ft
managed use = 20ft.
upland = 10ft
total = 35 ft
streamside = 20ft
managed = none
upland = 15ft
All buffers are measure horizontally on a line perpendicular to the surface water, landward from
the top of the bank on each side of the stream.

Figure10: Approximate Extent of the Goose Creek Watershed S.W.I.M. Buffers.

2.3.2 Post Construction Buffers

On June 30, 2007, Mint Hill implemented the Post Construction Ordinance that required
100-foot buffers on all dashed streams on USGS topographic maps and 200-foot buffers
on all solid streams on USGS topographic maps. The Post Construction Ordinance was
replaced by the Site Specific Management Plan (developed by NCDENR) for the Goose
E187
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
17
Creek Watershed on February 1, 2009. Both ordinances apply but the more stringent
requirement must be met. Properties developed from June 30, 2007 through February 1,
2009 are required to conform to the Post Construction Buffers. Figure 11 shows the
approximate extent of the Goose Creek Watershed Post Construction Buffers.

Figure 11: Approximate Extent of the Goose Creek Watershed Post Construction
Buffers.

2.3.3 Goose Creek Watershed Site Specific Management Plan.

The Goose Creek Site Specific Management Plan was adopted on February 1, 2009 and
applies to the entire Goose Creek Watershed. The expressed purpose of the ordinance is
to protect the endangered Carolina Heelsplitter Mussel. The ordinance places specific
controls on all new development in the watershed including the following:

1. Controls stormwater for all projects disturbing more than one acre. These
requirements include the removal of 85% TSS and control and release of the 1 year
24 hour storm at pre-development rates.
2. Controls discharges from WWTPs. No new WWTP discharges will be permitted.
3. Controls toxicity to streams for specific parameters. Ammonia is to be reduced to 0.5
mg/L from all discharges to Goose Creek.
4. Maintains riparian buffers. All waterbodies within the 100-Year Floodplain will have
E188
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
18
a 200 foot buffer, other waterbodies will have a 100 foot buffer. These buffers are
essentially the same as the Post Construction Buffers.

For the purpose of this Watershed Management Plan, it is assumed that the Site Specific
Management Plan for the Goose Creek Watershed will mitigate future impacts to water
quality from new development. For this reason, the remainder of the Plan and the
recommendations listed are focused upon reducing pollution sources from existing
development where limited or no water quality mitigation efforts have been required.

2.3.4 BMP Retrofits and Land Acquisition

Public property in the Goose Creek Watershed is limited. Figure 12 shows the
distribution of these properties.

Figure 12: Public Property in the Goose Creek Watershed.

Goose Creek Raingarden Project

A grant was obtained by CMSWS with the goal of reducing the discharge of non-point
source pollutants from land development activities and improving water quality
conditions in Goose Creek. Specifically, the grant seeks to protect habitat for the
Carolina heelsplitter through the completion of retrofitting LID structures into existing
I-485 INNER
I-485 OUTER
L
AW
Y
E
R
S
THOMPSON
W
E
L
L
FAIRVIEW
ALLEN BLACK
I-48 5
BRIEF
B
AIN SCHO
OL
U
NIO
N
JOLI CHEVAL
QUAIL PAR
K
LONG
MINT
W
O
OD
PEGGY
D
AVID
R
A
N
B
U
R
N
E
J
U
M
P
E
R
MATTHEWS-MINT HILL
ALEXIS
M
C
W
HIR
T
E
R WHITMIRE
T A R A O A K S
PIAFFE
KID W ELLY
BEECH MINT
HANGING MOSS
ID
LEFIE
LD
Q U A RTE R S
INDIAN TRAIL
YA R M O U T H
FO
X
HO
LL
OW
PERSIMMON CREEK
H
O
O
D
RID
G
E
FIELDLARK
CRESTHILL
DAVIS
TRACE
FOUR OAKS
BLACKJACK
SIL AS ED
BRIEF
I-485
I-485
B RIE F
B RIE F
FAIRVIEW
B RIE F
BRIEF
BRIEF
Legend
goose-public-parcels
E189
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
19
developments within the Goose Creek watershed in Mint Hill. These structures also
serve as demonstration projects for the use of LID techniques. Educational signage was
incorporated into the demonstration projects to promote the proper implementation of
LID.

The first of the project sites is located at the Mint Hill Park on Fairview Road. The 52-
acre park located in the headwaters of the Goose Creek watershed has approximately 3
acres of impervious surface, including a large parking area. It has soccer and baseball
fields, tennis and handball courts, a playground, and nature trails. Prior to the project, a
curb and gutter system conveyed storm water from parking lots, trails and outbuildings to
a detention basin before discharging into Goose Creek. The project re-routed storm water
from 4.9 acres through LID BMPs. The other LID demonstration project is located at the
Bain Elementary School in the Goose Creek watershed within the Town of Mint Hill.
This project treated previously untreated runoff from approximately 1 acre of parking lot
with a raingarden.

2.3.5 Existing NPDES Permitted WWTPs

At the time of writing of the Goose Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL there were six
permitted WWTPs. Since that time the Hunley Creek and Fairview Elementary facilities
have been taken off line. Table 9 presents the remaining permitted dischargers.

Table 9: NPDES Permitted Dischargers in the Goose Creek Watershed
Facility Name Address NPDES ID Permitted Flow
(cfs)
Oxford Glen 15349 Bexley Place NC0063584 0.075
Ashe Plantation Quarters Lane NC0065749 0.154
Country Woods Country Woods Dr NC0065684 1.036
Fairfield Plantation Stoney Ridge Rd NC0034762 0.108
E190
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
20
SECTION 3. WATERSHED INDICATORS AND GOALS

3.1 Upland

3.1.1 Upland Water Quality Indicators

Upland water quality is associated with pollutants in storm water runoff from the
watershed draining to Goose Creek. The upland water quality indicators selected for this
Watershed Management Plan are Total Suspended Sediment (TSS), Total Phosphorus
(TP) and Total Nitrogen (TN). These pollutants are indicative of the impact that
contaminated storm water runoff has on water quality. Moreover, they are capable of
being accurately simulated with relatively simple methods (unlike temperature or fecal
coliform) and are indicators of other parameters of concern.

3.1.2 Upland Water Quality Goals

Tetra Tech (2004) conducted an analysis of watershed scale upland loading rates for
existing conditions for all watersheds in Mecklenburg County for TSS, TN and TP. They
correlated the loading rates back to biological health and scored each watershed based
upon the results. They were able to determine that watersheds capable of sustaining a
fully supporting biological community displayed very similar upland pollutant loading
rates for TSS, TN and TP. Similarly, the Goose Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL (MCWQP
and NCDENR, 2005) presented a necessary reduction in upland fecal coliform of 92.5%
to attain the in-stream standard. Upland fecal coliform reductions of 92.5% are
essentially unattainable using currently available technology and techniques. Treatment
for fecal coliform will be optimized to the maximum extent practicable using existing
technology and techniques and working with site specific constraints. The upland goals
for ammonia and copper were developed through the estimated loading rates from the
rural residential land uses. The upland loading rate goals and percent reductions are
presented in Table 10.

Table 10: Upland Pollutant Loading Rate Goals.
Upland Pollutant Loading Rate Goals
1. TN < 4 lbs/ac/year
2. Ammonia < 0.2 lbs/ac/year and End of Pipe concentrations < 0.5 mg/lt
3. TP < 0.6 lbs/ac/year
4. TSS < 0.22 tons/ac/year
5. Fecal Coliform: 92.5% reduction in upland fecal coliform.
6. Copper < 0.01 lbs/ac/year

In addition to the loading rate goals, a specific concentration goal for ammonia of 0.5
mg/L has been adopted for new development. It is estimated that attaining the TN goal
listed in Table 10 for existing development will result in attainment of the 0.5 mg/L goal
listed in the Site Specific Management Plan as well. The TN goal of < 4 lbs/ac/year
equates to a loading rate of a forested tract. Forested tracts have proven to be the most
sustainable land-cover for the Carolina Heelsplitter, indicating this goal will be effective.
E191
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
21
Similarly, a 92.5% reduction in fecal coliform bacteria in the watershed was established
in the TMDL. To attain this goal, all stormwater originating from built upon areas will
need to be treated using either a bioretention cell or infiltration trench. These BMPs are
the only ones capable of removing 90% of fecal coliform from stormwater runoff.

The goals presented in Table 10 are appropriate to be applied to retrofit BMP projects as
a catchment wide design standard. In other words, retrofit BMP projects in a particular
catchment should strive to meet the goals in Table 10; however, it is recognized that each
individual project may not meet the goals.

3.2 In-Stream

3.2.1 In-Stream Water Quality Indicators

In-stream water quality is associated with pollutants in the stream channel. The in-stream
water quality indicator selected for this Watershed Management Plan is TSS. This
indicator will provide an indication of the TSS pollutant load conveyed by the channel.

3.2.2 In-Stream Water Quality Goals

Tetra Tech, Inc. (2002) summarized several reports pertaining to sediment production
and biological health. Simmons (1993) summarized sediment characteristics of 152
North Carolina streams and rivers (including 100 within the Piedmont region) from data
taken during the 1970s. Crawford and Lenat (1989) provide estimates of annual sediment
yield from three (3) Piedmont watersheds near Raleigh, N.C., including 0.13 ton/acre for
a predominantly forested watershed, 0.31 ton/acre from an agricultural watershed, and
0.59 ton/acre from an urban watershed. In both studies, sediment yield was estimated
from in-stream suspended sediment concentrations, so the annual areal sediment yields
reflect not only sediment from the land surface but also in-stream sediment transport and
sediment from bank erosion/collapse. Crawford and Lenat (1989) performed extensive
biological sampling in the three watersheds they studied and calculated metrics for taxa
richness, abundance, and pollution tolerance for invertebrates and fish. In summarizing
their biological data, they rated the forested watershed as having high measures of biotic
characteristics, the agricultural watershed as having medium to high measures, and the
urban watershed as having low measures. Under North Carolina water quality
regulations, streams and lakes must be able to support aquatic life. A rating of Fair or
Poor for Benthic Invertebrate Bioclassification or Fish Community Structure prevents a
water body from being rated as “fully supporting” under Section 305(b) of the Clean
Water Act. Based on the two studies investigated by Tetra Tech, Inc., an approximate in-
stream sediment load goal of 0.30 ton/acre/year is recommended as a goal.

Currently, in-stream data allowing assessment of the sediment load goal of 0.30
tons/acre/year is not available in the Goose Creek Watershed. In order to determine
progress toward the goal, it is proposed that two (2) long term sediment monitoring
stations be installed in the Goose Creek Watershed. These sites should coincide with
long term monitoring sites established for assessing channel properties (permanent cross
E192
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
22
sections, etc.). One site should be established on Duck Creek near Tara Oaks and the
other site should be established upstream of The Bridges Mall Site. Data collected at
these sites will allow the development of an annual sediment versus time flow curve.
Each year will be compared against previous years to determine if the sediment carrying
characteristics of Goose Creek (and hence the sediment loads) are improving. Also, the
data collected will be used to estimate progress toward attaining the overall goal of 0.30
tons/acre/year. Table 11 presents the in-stream water quality goals.

Table 11: In-Stream Water Quality Goals.
In-Stream Water Quality Goals
1. TSS < 0.3 tons/ac/year
2. Benthic Macroinvertebrates = Fully Supporting
3. Fish = Fully Supporting
4. Attainment of fecal coliform standard (200 c.f.u./100 ml)
5. Attainment of ammonia end of pipe goal of 0.5 mg/L

Monitoring to determine compliance with these goals is presented in Appendix A.
E193
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
23
SECTION 4. WATERSHED ASSESSMENT

4.1 Upland Characterization

In order to prioritize areas of the Goose Creek Watershed, an upland characterization
methodology was developed based upon work completed by Tetra Tech, Inc. (2004) for
the Post Construction Ordinance Stakeholder Group. The resulting prioritization will be
used to guide property acquisition for installation of water quality BMPs and to focus
efforts on voluntary retrofitting of existing upland sources of pollution.

The upland characterization was completed through an evaluation of existing levels of
pollutant loading, impervious cover and buffer impacts. Specifically, the indicators used
were Total Phosphorus (TP), Total Nitrogen (TN), Total Suspended Sediment (TSS),
Fecal Coliform, ammonia, Copper and percent of the stream buffer currently un-forested.
The information presented in this Section of the Watershed Management Plan deals only
with existing sources of pollution in the Goose Creek Watershed. For the purpose of this
document, it was assumed that future sources of pollution will be attenuated through
implementation of the Site Specific Management Plan, which is presented in Section
2.3.3.

4.1.1 Methodology

The basis for the upland characterization presented herein is an updated existing land-use
dataset developed by Tetra Tech Inc. (2004). The land-use data set was developed
through interpretation of a combination of parcel information, aerial photographs, and
tree canopy data. The process is more thoroughly described in Tetra Tech Inc. (2004).
Development in the watershed that has occurred since 2004 was manually entered into
the data set. The land-use data set provides a distribution and classification of all land-
uses in the Goose Creek Watershed. The land-use categories, along with abbreviations
and typical impervious percentages seen in the Goose Creek watershed are presented in
Table 12.
E194
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
24
Table 12: Goose Creek Land Use Categories and Abbreviations.
Land Use Class Typical Lot
Size
Percent
Impervious Abbreviation
Heavy Commercial Variable 85 COMM-H
Light Commercial Variable 45 COMM-L
Forest NA 0 FRST
Golf Course NA 8 GC
High Density Residential 0.125 – 0.25 ac 41 HDR
High Density Multifamily Residential Variable 70 HMFR
High Density Mixed Urban Variable 70 HMX
Heavy Industrial Variable 66 IND
Institutional Variable 40 INS
Interstate Corridor NA 36 INTERSTATE
Low Density Residential 2 – 5 ac 9 LDR
Medium Density Residential 0.25 – 0.5 ac 30 MDR
Meadow NA 0 MEADOW
Multi Family Residential <0.125 60 MFR
Medium Low Density Residential 0.5 – 2 ac 19 MLDR
Mixed Urban Variable 60 MX
Office/Industrial Variable 72 OI-H
Light Office/Light Industrial Variable 30 OI-L
Park NA 9 PARK
Rural Residential >5 ac 4 RR
Ultra High Density Mixed Urban Variable 90 UHMX

The distribution of the land-uses for the Goose Creek watershed is shown in Figure 8.

The land-use data for the Goose Creek Watershed was sub-divided into catchments using
GIS software. The catchments were delineated using the Watershed Information System
(WISe) with an approximate drainage area of 1 square mile per catchment. Catchments
with very small drainage areas were merged into nearby catchments to reduce the number
of reporting units. A total of 14 catchments were delineated for the Goose Creek
Watershed. Figure 13 shows the distribution of the catchments in the Goose Creek
Watershed.
E195
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
25

Figure 13: Goose Creek Watershed Catchments.

The upland pollutant loading rates by land-use for TP, TN and TSS were adopted from
Tetra Tech Inc. (2004) and are listed in Table 13. Loading rates for ammonia and fecal
coliform were calculated using annual runoff estimates and concentrations within the Site
Evaluation Tool (Tetra Tech, Inc., 2005). Catchment loading rates were determined by
multiplying the area of each land-use in the catchment by the appropriate loading rate and
summing the total for all land-uses within the catchment. Catchment scale loading rates
for the Goose Creek Basins are provided in Table 14.
BASIN12
BASIN3
BASIN4BASIN8
BASIN6
BASIN1
BASIN11
BASIN14
BASIN9
BASIN7
BASIN5
BASIN10
BASIN13
BASIN2
0 3,800 7,600 11,400 15,2001,900 Feet
E196
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
26
Table 13: Upland Pollutant Loading Rates by Land-Use.
LAND-USE TN
(lbs/ac/year)
TP
(lbs/ac/year)
TSS
(tons/ac/year)
Ammonia
(lbs/ac/year)
Fecal
Coliform
(c.f.u./year
x 1010)
Copper
(lbs/ac/year)
COMM-H 19.44 2.85 0.76 4.38 38 0.124
COMM-L 12.44 1.88 0.69 2.05 20 0.070
GC 5.17 0.83 0.47 0.22 4 0.012
HDR 8.73 1.4 0.47 1.14 18 0.064
INS 8.63 1.39 0.48 1.15 18 0.063
INTERSTATE 7.81 1.25 0.4 3.65 16 0.118
LDR 4.1 0.66 0.28 0.39 4 0.016
MDR 7.61 1.24 0.52 0.87 13 0.035
MEADOW 2.39 0.38 0.13 0.11 0.3 0.006
MFR 10.65 1.68 0.39 2.65 27 0.090
MLDR 6.5 1.07 0.57 0.61 9 0.024
OI-H 11.87 1.86 0.34 1.94 32 0.106
OI-L 7.61 1.24 0.52 0.90 13 0.035
RR 3.59 0.59 0.3 0.16 2 0.009
Note: See Table 12 for abbreviation descriptions.

Table 14: Catchment Loading Rates
Basin ID Fecal
Coliform
(cfu/year)
TN
(lbs/year)
TP
(lbs/year)
TSS
(tons/year)
Ammonia
(lbs/year)
Copper
(lbs/year)
BASIN1 3.0E+13 2762 444 191 405 15.4
BASIN2 8.6E+12 663 107 46 122 4.5
BASIN3 3.1E+13 3030 490 216 374 14.5
BASIN4 4.6E+13 3637 585 252 468 18.3
BASIN5 1.7E+13 1250 201 80 308 10.6
BASIN6 3.8E+13 3194 513 221 426 16.3
BASIN7 7.6E+12 1055 170 77 92 3.9
BASIN8 3.1E+13 2974 481 215 338 13.5
BASIN9 1.1E+13 1338 216 98 128 5.4
BASIN10 6.1E+12 783 126 58 75 3.1
BASIN11 3.9E+13 2952 459 168 573 18.9
BASIN12 4.5E+13 4723 763 346 503 20.3
BASIN13 5.8E+12 713 114 46 106 4.0
BASIN14 1.6E+13 1718 279 134 166 6.8

The percent of impacted buffer in the Goose Creek Watershed was also characterized.
The characterization was completed using tree canopy data for Mecklenburg County
intersected with the FEMA floodplain delineation and the S.W.I.M. and Watershed buffer
coverages. The resulting GIS dataset, which depicts the presence or absence of tree
canopy within stream buffers, was intersected with the catchment coverage to determine
the percent of un-forested buffer within each catchment. Figure 14 shows the distribution
of forested and un-forested buffer within the Goose Creek Watershed.
E197
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
27

Figure 14: Distribution of Forested and Un-forested Stream Buffers within the
Goose Creek Watershed.

Levels of impervious area, which are indicative of level of development, for the Goose
Creek Watershed were characterized by catchment. Impervious percentages by
catchment were determined by multiplying the area of each land-use within the
catchment by the appropriate impervious percentage (Table 12) and summing the
resulting impervious areas for the entire catchment. Catchment area, impervious area and
impervious percentage information is presented in Table 15.

Table 15: Catchment Area, Impervious Area and Impervious Percentages
Basin ID
Total Area
(ac)
Impervious
Area (ac)
Impervious
Percentage
BASIN1 637.5 70.2 11%
BASIN2 127.9 20.0 16%
BASIN3 726.0 76.6 11%
BASIN4 713.5 106.6 15%
BASIN5 254.9 40.3 16%
BASIN6 681.7 85.8 13%
BASIN7 297.5 19.3 6%
BASIN8 694.0 73.1 11%
BASIN9 341.2 29.3 9%
BASIN10 210.7 15.6 7%
BASIN11 523.6 92.8 18%
BASIN12 1137.9 111.2 10%
BASIN13 201.8 16.9 8%
BASIN14 403.6 36.4 9%
0 3,800 7,600 11,400 15,2001,900 Feet
Legend
Forested Buffer
Unforested Buffer
catchments
E198
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
28

4.1.2 Results

Results for each of the basins for each indicator evaluated were ranked to determine the
basins with the highest level of impairment. Table 16 presents the ranks for all 14 Goose
Creek Basins.

Table 16: Results of Upland Impairment Characterization. Note: Higher rank
indicates increasing level of impairment (Basin 11 most impaired).
Basin ID
Fecal
Rank
TN
Rank
TP
Rank
TSS
Rank
NH4
Rank
Cu
Rank
Average
Rank
Overall
Rank
BASIN11 1 1 1 5 2 2 2 1
BASIN2 2 2 2 1 3 3 2 2
BASIN5 3 4 4 6 1 1 3 3
BASIN4 4 3 3 2 4 4 3 4
BASIN6 5 5 5 4 6 6 5 5
BASIN1 6 6 6 9 5 5 6 6
BASIN8 7 7 7 7 9 9 8 7
BASIN14 9 8 8 3 11 11 8 8
BASIN3 8 9 9 10 8 7 9 9
BASIN12 10 10 10 8 10 10 10 10
BASIN9 11 11 11 11 12 12 11 11
BASIN13 13 14 14 14 7 8 12 12
BASIN10 12 12 12 12 13 13 12 13
BASIN7 14 13 13 13 14 14 14 14

Figures 15 – 21 present the overall ranking based upon the results of the upland
characterization for Fecal Coliform, TN, TP, TSS, NH4, Cu and Overall Impairment
respectively. Note that darker colors indicate increased levels of impairment.

E199
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
29

Figure 15: Fecal Coliform Rank.

BASIN12
BASIN3
BASIN4BASIN8
BASIN6
BASIN1
BASIN11
BASIN14
BASIN9
BASIN7
BASIN5
BASIN10
BASIN13
BASIN2
E200
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
30

Figure 16: TN Ranking.

BASIN12
BASIN3
BASIN4BASIN8
BASIN6
BASIN1
BASIN11
BASIN14
BASIN9
BASIN7
BASIN5
BASIN10
BASIN13
BASIN2
E201
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
31

Figure 17: TP Ranking.
BASIN12
BASIN3
BASIN4BASIN8
BASIN6
BASIN1
BASIN11
BASIN14
BASIN9
BASIN7
BASIN5
BASIN10
BASIN13
BASIN2
E202
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
32

Figure 18: TSS Ranking.
BASIN12
BASIN3
BASIN4BASIN8
BASIN6
BASIN1
BASIN11
BASIN14
BASIN9
BASIN7
BASIN5
BASIN10
BASIN13
BASIN2
E203
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
33

Figure 19: NH4 Ranking.

BASIN12
BASIN3
BASIN4BASIN8
BASIN6
BASIN1
BASIN11
BASIN14
BASIN9
BASIN7
BASIN5
BASIN10
BASIN13
BASIN2
E204
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
34

Figure 20: Cu Ranking.

BASIN12
BASIN3
BASIN4BASIN8
BASIN6
BASIN1
BASIN11
BASIN14
BASIN9
BASIN7
BASIN5
BASIN10
BASIN13
BASIN2
E205
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
35

Figure 21: Overall Impairment (based upon upland pollutant load).

4.2 Stream Channel Characterization

In order to prioritize areas of the Goose Creek Watershed for stream channel restoration,
enhancement and preservation, a characterization methodology was developed by
MCSWS. The characterization was completed through an evaluation of existing stream
channel conditions that allowed reach-level prioritization based on biological integrity
and geomorphic stability, as well as predicted bank erosion rates.

4.2.1 Methodology

MCSWS utilized base data in GIS format, including recent aerial photography, stream
locations, roads and parcel boundaries. Using GIS, the Goose Creek Watershed was
divided into 30 separate reaches (Figure 22). For the purposes of this study, Buck defines
a reach as a discrete segment of stream that consistently exhibits a set of physical features
that appear to be significantly different from its contiguous upstream and downstream
segments. Twelve basins were chosen for assessment that appeared to represent a range
of stream conditions and land uses found throughout the watershed. Because perennial
streams were to be assessed, only streams receiving 100 acres or greater of drainage were
BASIN12
BASIN3
BASIN4BASIN8
BASIN6
BASIN1
BASIN11
BASIN14
BASIN9
BASIN7
BASIN5
BASIN10
BASIN13
BASIN2
E206
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
36
chosen, which resulted in 30 individual reaches approximating 30 miles of stream for
direct assessment.

Stream Classification
Each reach was visually classified according to the Rosgen classification system (Rosgen,
1994). This heirarchial methodology categorizes streams based on geomorphic features
that describe channel geometry in the three dimensions of planform, cross-section and
longitudinal profile. Most of these parameters are expressed as dimensionless ratios such
as width/depth. The use of dimensionless ratios allows categorization and comparison of
streams of varying sizes.

Bank Erosion
Streambank erosion rates were determined by measuring the Bank Erosion Hazard Index
(BEHI) and Near Bank Stress (NBS) (Rosgen, 2001) throughout each study reach. This
semi-quantitative method is widely used in North Carolina and is based on measured
values and visual estimates made at discrete sections of streambank. BEHI provides
results in adjective ratings, ranging from very low to extreme. BEHI is based on the
following:

• bank height/bankfull height
• root depth/bank height
• root density (%)
• bank angle
• surface protection (%)
• bank materials and stratification

NBS provides a measurement of the distribution of flow through a cross section. The
near bank region is that third of stream cross section nearest a bank being studied.
Rosgen (1996) correlated the ratio of shear stress in the near bank region to mean shear
stress and developed an adjective rating system for reporting. Reasonably accurate
estimates of NBS can be made quickly using professional judgment.

Erosion rates have been associated with the adjective ratings for bank erodibility and
near-bank stress based on data collected from Colorado. Data collected at the Mitchell
River in North Carolina supports the use of the Colorado data (Rosgen, 2001). The
erosion rate was then multiplied by the height and length of the streambank. Rates are
expressed as cubic feet of sediment eroded annually per linear foot of streambank. Total
tons per year were also calculated for each study reach.

Channel Evolution
Simon’s Channel Evolution Model (1989) was used to assign one of the six stages listed
below to each reach based on field observations.
• Stage I: The waterway is a stable, undisturbed natural channel.
• Stage II: The channel is disturbed by some drastic change such as forest clearing,
urbanization, dam construction, or channel dredging.
E207
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
37
• Stage III: Instability sets in with scouring of the bed.
• Stage IV: Destructive bank erosion and channel widening occur by collapse of
bank sections.
• Stage V: The banks continue to cave into the stream, widening the channel. The
stream also begins to aggrade, or fill in, with sediment from eroding channel
sections upstream.
• Stage VI: Aggradation continues to fill the channel, re-equilibrium occurs, and
bank erosion ceases. Riparian vegetation once again becomes established.
Habitat Assessment

Mecklenburg County Habitat Assessment Protocol forms were completed by field staff
and assigned a score per parameter with a total possible score of 200 being the best. The
parameters of the habitat assessment are broken into primary, secondary, and tertiary
categories. Primary parameters describe those instream physical characteristics that
directly affect the biological community. Primary conditions evaluate substrate and
available cover, embeddedness, epifaunal substrate, velocity and depth regimes, and pool
variability. Secondary parameters (channel alteration, bottom scouring and deposition,
channel shape, and channel sinuosity) relate to channel morphology, which controls the
behavior of stream flow and the sediment deposits the stream collects. The tertiary
parameters in the habitat assessment matrix include bank stability, bank vegetative
protection, and the riparian vegetative zone. Each stream reach was photographed using a
digital camera so that all aspects of the study area were photo-documented.

E208
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
38

Figure 22: Goose Creek Stream Characterization Reaches.

4.2.2 Results

A total of 30 study reaches were delineated and assessed. Reach lengths varied from
several hundred feet to over 7000 feet. The number of reaches per basin ranged from
three to seventeen. Once in the field the predetermined reach lengths (based on drainage)
were sometimes broken into smaller reaches or combined into larger reaches based on
field observations. For example, if the land use adjacent to the stream channel changed
significantly (e.g., forest to industrial) a new reach would begin. Due to the large number
of study reaches, data was also compiled and presented per basin (Table 17) to aid in
management efforts.

USTODS394
US T O DS333
DSTOU
S2
13
DSTOUS211
DSTOUS
296
DST
OU
S129
D
S
T
OU
S
3
2
6
DSTOUS329
DSTOUS142
DSTOUS294
DSTOUS186D
STO
U
S
1
84
DSTOUS179
DSTOUS215
DSTOU
S436
U STOD S13 5DSTOUS127
DSTOUS299
DSTOUS328
DSTOUS261
DSTOUS357
DST
O
US210
DSTOUS130
DSTOUS134
D STO US214
U S T OD S 3 3 1
D S T OUS 2 97
DSTOUS1 32
D
ST
O
US358
DSTOUS187
E209
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
39
Table 17: Results of Stream Channel Characterization.

Reach

Erosion Rate
(ft3/year/ft)
Sediment
Production
(Tons/Year)

MHAP Score Rank
DSTOUS127 0.13 16 144 16
DSTOUS129 0.55 158 143 25
DSTOUS130 0.66 0.03 157 21
DSTOUS132 0.53 54 149 19
DSTOUS134 0.57 49 138 15
DSTOUS142 1.0030 214 121 5
DSTOUS179 0.10 15 144 27
DSTOUS184 1.85 335 122 6
DSTOUS186 1.12 221 130 8
DSTOUS187 0.80 55 137 13
DSTOUS210 1.22 136 125 7
DSTOUS211 0.62 172 131 30
DSTOUS213 0.59 189 132 24
DSTOUS214 0.19 15 146 17
DSTOUS215 0.60 83 134 10
DSTOUS261 1.02 106 146 18
DSTOUS294 0.60 123 115 23
DSTOUS296 0.55 135 95 1
DSTOUS297 0.55 61 136 12
DSTOUS299 1.48 162 109 4
DSTOUS326 0.78 179 111 22
DSTOUS328 0.39 39 136 11
DSTOUS329 0.85 212 108 2
DSTOUS357 0.42 40 109 3
DSTOUS358 1.14 91 92 14
DSTOUS436 0.690 102 131 9
USTODS135 1.45 210 124 29
USTODS331 0.21 46 108 26
USTODS333 1.19 450 117 28
USTODS394 0.86 339 154 20
Note: Decreasing MHAP score indicates greater impact.

A single erosion rate was calculated for each of the 30 reaches based on BEHI/NBS.
Based on correspondence with D. Rosgen (2008), categories of erosion rates are best
assigned adjectives by orders of magnitude; therefore, rates of 0.01 feet/year are assigned
the adjective ‘Low”, 0.1 feet/year are “Moderate”, and greater than or equal to 1.0
feet/year are “High.”
E210
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
40

4.3 Fecal Coliform Assessment

As described earlier in this document, a WQRP for the Goose Creek Watershed was
initiated after receipt of the August 10, 2006 letter from NC DENR. A part of the WQRP
was to catalog the storm water outfalls in the watershed. In order to satisfy the
requirements of this inventory, all streams draining more than 50 acres were walked by
MCWQP personnel. A part of the walk was to visually inspect the channel and buffer
areas for evidence of fecal coliform discharges and to collect stream and end of pipe
samples to be analyzed for fecal coliform. The results of the stream walks can be found
in the MCWQP, 2007. In addition to the stream walks, the WQRP requires monitoring of
storm drain outfalls, in stream monitoring and associated follow-up activities. These
activities are outlined in MCWQP, 2009. Currently, the MCWQP has teamed with the
Mecklenburg County Ground Water and Waste Water Program to evaluate septic systems
in the watershed. At the time of writing of this plan a pilot study had been completed on
a small area of the watershed. Approximately 180 inspections were conducted and 5
systems were found to be failing. Based upon these results the pilot study will be
expanded throughout the Goose Creek Watershed in Mecklenburg County and is
expected to be completed by the end of FY2011.

E211
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
41
SECTION 5. CANDIDATE RESTORATION, RETROFIT AND
PRESERVATION SITES

5.1 Upland BMP Retrofit Sites

The intent of this section is two fold:
1. Identify publicly owned parcels that are significant sources of pollution that would
benefit from BMP retrofit.
2. Identify catchments for detailed field investigation to identify privately owned parcels
that are significant sources of pollution and appropriate for BMP retrofit.

All retrofit BMPs installed in the Goose Creek Watershed should be designed with the
Upland Pollutant Loading Rate Goals (Table 11) as a design standard.

5.1.1 Priority Basins

Based upon the upland pollutant load analysis, BMP retrofit efforts should be
concentrated on or downstream of the most impacted basins. The 6 most impacted basins
were focused upon for this plan. Figure 23 shows the extent of these focus basins within
the Goose Creek Watershed. The following Section discusses each focus basin in detail.

Figure 23: Focus Basins within the Goose Creek Watershed.

BASIN12
BASIN3
BASIN4BASIN8
BASIN6
BASIN1
BASIN11
BASIN14
BASIN9
BASIN7
BASIN5
BASIN10
BASIN13
BASIN2
E212
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
42
Focus Basin 11 (The Bridges)

Focus Basin 11 has the highest estimated pollutant loads in the entire Goose Creek
Watershed. Figure 24 shows the extent of the Basin. The primary reason for Basin 11
receiving the highest ranking is The Bridges mall site. Although the mall has not yet
been built, grading permits have been issued and land clearing begun. Moreover, this
basin contains much of the I-485 Lawyers Road interchange and a significant portion of
I-485 north of the interchange. A limited amount of single family residential is also
present in the basin. It is very likely that after the mall is constructed storm water volume
and velocity as well as pollutant runoff will increase. Currently NCDOT owns one small
parcel in the northeast portion of the basin on the drainage divide. This parcel may be
suitable to treat a small portion of I-485.

Figure 24: Focus Basin 11

Focus Basin 2 (Shannamara)

Focus Basin 2 has the second highest estimated pollutant loads (normalized by area) in
the entire Goose Creek Watershed. Figure 25 shows the extent of Focus Basin 2. The
BASIN4
BASIN11
BASIN1
BASIN9
BASIN12
BASIN5
BASIN10
BASIN13
BASIN8
BASIN8
E213
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
43
combination of I-485 road surface, golf course and medium density residential combines
to cause the high pollutant loads. There appears to be minimal opportunity for land
acquisition in Focus Area 1, however NC DOT has indicated their desire to partner with
MCSWS within road ROW. There is very limited retrofit opportunity within the
Shannamara neighborhood.

Figure 25: Focus Basin 2

Focus Basin 5 (Lawyers Road and I-485)

Figure 26 shows the extent of Focus Basin 5. It is comprised of I-485 with limited large
lot residential. The key to this basin is capturing and treating runoff from I-485. NC
DOT owns property where runoff from I-485 enters Goose Creek. During the site
evaluation there appeared to be an impoundment on this property that may partially treat
the runoff. Additional measures will need to be constructed to provide additional
treatment to meet the goals outlined previously, particularly for NH4 and fecal coliform.

B A S I N 3B A S I N 3
B A S I N 2B A S I N 2
B A S I N 1 3B A S I N 1 3
B A S I N 5B A S I N 5
E214
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
44

Figure 26: Focus Basin 5 (Note: Publicly owned property shown in yellow).

Focus Basin 4 (Lawyers Road)

Figure 27 displays the extent of Focus Basin 4. It is essentially bisected by Lawyers
Road from north to south. There is a substantial impoundment located in the center of
the basin that could be retrofitted to provide detention and additional water quality
treatment. The pond is currently poorly maintained and possibly a source of sediment.
The headwaters of the basin are located at NC 51 and dominated by Queens Grant
School. Bain Elementary School has an existing rain garden that treats a portion of a
parking lot. Additional infiltration features should be retrofitted into the site. The basin
is typified by agricultural plots with large lot residential and less medium density
residential.

B A S I N 5B A S I N 5
B A S I N 4B A S I N 4
B A S I N 1 3B A S I N 1 3
B A S I N 11B A S I N 11
B A S I N 9B A S I N 9
B A S I N 2B A S I N 2B A S I N 2B A S I N 2
B A S I N 1 0B A S I N 1 0
19524101
19514196
1951412919514219
19517156
19514208
19514183
19706218
19514211
E215
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
45

Figure 27: Focus Basin 4.

Focus Basin 6 (Well Road)

Figure 28 shows the distribution of Focus Basin 6, which is dominated by McWhirter
Lake. It is essential for this catchment that McWhirter Lake remain intact and enhanced
if possible. It provides significant treatment for several medium density residential
developments and commercial areas.

B A S I N 4B A S I N 4
B A S I N 8B A S I N 8
B A S I N 1B A S I N 1
B A S I N 11B A S I N 11
B A S I N 1 2B A S I N 1 2
B A S I N 3B A S I N 3
B A S I N 1 0B A S I N 1 0 B A S I N 5B A S I N 5
B A S I N 6B A S I N 6
B A S I N 9B A S I N 9
B A S I N 1 3B A S I N 1 3
E216
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
46

Figure 28: Focus Basin 6 (Public Parcels in Yellow).

B A S I N 6B A S I N 6
B A S I N 3B A S I N 3
B A S I N 8B A S I N 8
B A S I N 1 0B A S I N 1 0
19503106
19503104
E217
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
47
Public Parcels

The intent of this Section is to identify publicly owned parcels for BMP retrofit.
Specifically, publicly owned parcels that are significant sources of pollution and are
located in one of the “Focus” areas have been assigned the highest priority.

There are currently 20 parcels in public ownership in the Goose Creek Watershed. These
parcels are located throughout the watershed, but are mainly focused in areas around I-
485 and Lawyers Road. Where beneficial to water quality, these properties should be
further investigated to determine the final suitability for BMP installation using this
report as a guide. Figure 29 shows the distribution of the parcels in public ownership in
the Goose Creek Watershed. The parcels were evaluated and prioritized using the
following criteria:

1. Position either on or downstream of a basin with a high or moderately high overall
rank for upland pollutant loading.
2. Proximity to the stream. Parcels directly adjacent to the stream were ranked higher.
3. Parcels with adequate space for installation of reasonably sized BMPs were ranked
higher. If there did not appear to be enough space for a BMP, the parcel was
disqualified.
4. Parcels receiving runoff from more than two square miles were disqualified.
5. Parcels able to treat high concentrations of impervious area, regardless of size were
ranked higher.

Of the 20 public parcels in the Goose Creek Watershed, 4 meet the criteria listed above.
The Priority Parcels are presented in Table 18. Figures 30 – 32 are aerial photos of the
High Priority Parcels.

E218
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
48

Figure 29: Goose Creek Watershed Public Parcels.

Table 18: Public Parcels Meeting BMP Criteria and Priority.
Parcel Owner Info. Priority
19701146 CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG SCHOOLS Medium
19514129 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION High
19514183 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION Low
19514196 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION Low
19514208 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION Low
19514211 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION Medium
19514219 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION High
19523107 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION Low
19523204 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION Low
19704137 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION Low
19704138 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION Low
19706218 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION Low
19720106 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION Low
19720111 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION Low
19720199 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION Low
19503104 MECKLENBURG COUNTY Low
19503106 MECKLENBURG COUNTY Low
19517156 MECKLENBURG COUNTY Low
19523106 MECKLENBURG COUNTY Low
19524101 MECKLENBURG COUNTY Low
BASIN12
BASIN3
BASIN4BASIN8
BASIN6
BASIN1
BASIN11
BASIN14
BASIN9
BASIN7
BASIN5
BASIN10
BASIN13
BASIN2
E219
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
49

Figure 30: Aerial Photo of Parcels 19514219 (High Priority), 19514129 (High
Priority) and 19514208 (Low Priority).

19514129
19514219
19514208
E220
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
50

Figure 31: Aerial Photo of Parcel 19701146 (Medium Priority).
1970114619701146
19701146
E221
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
51

Figure 32: Aerial Photo of Parcels 19720111(Low Priority) and 19720106 (Low
Priority).

5.2 Stream Channel Management Opportunities

The management opportunities outlined in this plan are based on numerous
considerations. The analysis of collected data easily allows a ranked hierarchy based on
need; however, project feasibility is of equal importance and takes in account additional
factors. For example, the location of utility right-of-ways can constrain design parameters
or could be costly to relocate. The number of private property owners within the
proposed project area plays a crucial role in determining scope and size. The procurement
of easements can be challenging and time consuming, as a result, the lower number of
adjacent land owners is considered more favorable. The presence and condition of a
riparian buffer can also be a deciding factor during the prioritization process. A stream
with little to no buffer is often highly prioritized. An intact buffer can hasten the lateral
instability commonly found in the streams of Goose Creek Watershed. Also, riparian
buffers with large mature trees increase cost and may limit restoration and enhancement
techniques available. Table 19 identifies the highest priority stream reaches in the Goose
Creek Watershed.

19720111
19720106
19720199
E222
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
52
For the purposes of mitigation credit, the US Army Corps of Engineers defines
restoration and enhancement as follows (USACE, 2003):

Restoration – the process of converting an unstable altered or degraded stream corridor,
including adjacent buffers and flood prone areas, to its natural stable condition. Restoration
is based on reference conditions and includes restoring the appropriate channel dimension,
pattern and profile. For impacts to fair or poor quality waters, the mitigation credit ratio is
generally 1.0 (i.e. for every 100 feet of stream impact, 100 feet of stream restoration would
be required for mitigation).

Enhancement Level I – mitigation category that includes improvements to the stream
channel and riparian zone that restore dimension and profile, but do not address pattern.
required for every 100 feet of impact).

Enhancement Level II – mitigation category for measures that improve channel stability,
water quality and habitat, but fall short of restoring both dimension and profile.
Examples include bank stabilization, vegetating riparian buffers and using in-stream
structures to enhance stability and habitat.

Table 19: Highest Priority Goose Creek Stream Reaches
Reach Rank
DSTOUS296 1
DSTOUS329 2
DSTOUS357 3
DSTOUS299 4
DSTOUS142 5
DSTOUS184 6

Reach DSTOUS296

Reach DSTOUS296 is located in Basin 14 upstream of an impoundment (see Figure 33).
There is rip-rap on the upstream portion of the reach and the trees have good root depth.
Gravel riffles, and a beaver dam are present. 300 ft of stream has been denuded from
beaver dam breach. Woody debris and root mats form habitat. Some mid-channel bars
exist. Bedrock nick-points present. Recommendation is Enhancement Level 1.

Recommendation: Enhancement Level 1
Estimated Cost: $844,735
System: Minor

E223
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
53

Figure 33: Reach DSTOUS296 Area Map.

Reach DSTOUS329

Reach DSTOUS329 is located in Basin 12 and flows through a relatively undeveloped
stream corridor (see Figure 34). There is a well-vegetated buffer, except the downstream
left bank is pasture. Banks are vegetated thoroughly with shrub and trees. Bed is
composed of silt and sand. Several beaver dams are present. Downstream area has
extreme bank erosion from cattle.

Recommendation: Enhancement Level 1
Estimated Cost: $851,879
System: Minor

D
S
T
O
U
S
2
9
6
D
S
T
O
U
S
3
2
6
DS
TOU
S
294
D
S
T
O
U
S
3
5
8
E224
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
54

Figure 34: Reach DSTOUS329 Area Map.

Reach DSTOUS357

Reach DSTOUS357 is located in Basin 1 and flows through a relatively undeveloped
stream corridor (see Figure 35). A significant head-cut is present and the stream has a
sandy bottom. Several bedrock nick-points were noted. Numerous deep pools below
blockages have formed. Poor riffle pool sequence was noted. Numerous vegetated point
bars and bank full benches present. Reach receives significant concentrated runoff from
I-485.

Recommendation: Restoration
Estimated Cost: $349,193
System: Minor

DSTOUS329
U
S
T
O
D
S
3
3
1
E225
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
55

Figure 35: Reach DSTOUS357 Area Map.

Reach DSTOUS299

Reach DSTOUS299 is located in Basin 1 and flows through a relatively undeveloped
stream corridor downstream of DSTOUS357 (see Figure 36). It may be beneficial to
combine these two projects into a single effort. Livestock have access to the stream
causing significant localized erosion and cows were noted in-stream at the time of
assessment. Fencing of the livestock out of the creek should be a part of any restoration
or enhancement effort. Notable bedrock and cobble are present. Pools are actively filling
with sand and silt. Most of the entire stream reach is severely impacted by cattle. High
BEHI with low NBS was noted. Good ripple pool sequence, very long riffles with
cobbles and boulders.

Recommendation: Restoration
Estimated Cost: $397,271
System: Major

DS
T
O
U
S
3
5
7
D
S
T
O
U
S
3
5
8
DSTOUS
328
DST
O
U
S326
E226
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
56

Figure 36: Reach DSTOUS299 Area Map.

Reach DSTOUS142

Reach DSTOUS142 is located in Basin 13 and flows through a relatively undeveloped
stream corridor that is almost entirely in public ownership (see Figure 37). Good riffle
pool frequency; pools shallow; riffles embedded with course sand. Mid-channel bars
present. Bed is fully shaded with mature vegetation. Habitat consists of large cobble and
boulders. Banks are raw due to little surface coverage, good root depth from hardwoods
at top of bank. Bedrock nick-points throughout the reach were noted.

Recommendation: Restoration
Estimated Cost: $774,953
System: Major

DS
T
O
U
S
2
9
9
D S T O U S 2 9 7
D
ST
O
U
S
326
DS
T
O
U
S
3
2
8
DSTOUS215
E227
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
57

Figure 37: Reach DSTOUS142 Area Map.

Reach DSTOUS184

Reach DSTOUS184 is located in Basin 10 and flows through a developed stream corridor
just upstream of DSTOUS142 (see Figure 38). These 2 reaches should be combined into
a single project if possible. Stream is vertically stable, and actively aggrading with
coarse sediment from upstream bank erosion. Stream is over-widening. Left bank buffer
protection is inadequate and a good candidate for reforestation. Gravel and small boulder
riffles present with poor frequency. Good pool depth variation bed is partially shaded.
Banks are partially vegetated with grass and shrubs. Deep pools are limited to meanders
and are actively filling with sand. Mid-channel bars of gravel were noted. Log jams were
observed within the lower portion of the bank. Good surface protection. Invasive plant
species are present throughout. Several transverse bars present. Habitat consists of
undercut banks and large cobble.

Recommendation: Restoration
Estimated Cost: $660,333
System: Major

DSTOUS142
DS
T
O
U
S
1
8
6
USTODS135
D
S
T
O
U
S
1
8
4
E228
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
58

Figure 38: Reach DSTOUS184 Area Map.

5.3 Stream Buffer Restoration Areas

The intent of this section is to identify basins with the highest percentage of impacted
(un-forested) stream buffer. Table 20 and Figure 39 present the results of the tree canopy
analysis. All of the basins had more that 74% of the buffer forested which is significant.
Also, the data utilized to prepare the estimates is almost 10 years old and a grant has been
applied for to update the information. At this time, it is recommended that prior to the
initiation of any projects the analysis be redone with the anticipated updated information.
D
S
T
O
U
S
1
8
4
DSTOUS142
D
S
T
O
U
S211
D
S
T
OU
S
2
1
3
U S T O D S135
DS
T
O
U
S
2
1
0
E229
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
59
Table 20: Results of the Stream Buffer Tree Canopy Analysis
Basin
Percent of Buffer
Intact Rank
BASIN6 74% 1
BASIN5 81% 2
BASIN4 87% 3
BASIN12 89% 4
BASIN2 89% 5
BASIN3 89% 6
BASIN11 91% 7
BASIN13 91% 8
BASIN1 91% 9
BASIN9 93% 10
BASIN8 95% 11
BASIN10 95% 12
BASIN14 96% 13
BASIN7 98% 14

Figure 39: Results of the Tree Canopy Analysis (priority basins are outlined in red).

B A S I N 1 2B A S I N 1 2
B A S I N 3B A S I N 3
B A S I N 8B A S I N 8
B A S I N 6B A S I N 6
B A S I N 1B A S I N 1
B A S I N 7B A S I N 7
B A S I N 4B A S I N 4
B A S I N 11B A S I N 11
B A S I N 1 4B A S I N 1 4
B A S I N 9B A S I N 9
B A S I N 5B A S I N 5
B A S I N 1 0B A S I N 1 0
B A S I N 1 3B A S I N 1 3
B A S I N 2B A S I N 2
E230
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
60
5.4 Master Planning for Restoration, Retrofit and Preservation Projects

A minimum of two (2) detailed Master Plans will be developed to guide restoration,
retrofit and preservation projects in the Goose Creek Watershed. The goal of these
Master Plans is to restore Goose Creek to a fully functioning and supporting stream
ecosystem. The Master Planning process will start in the Focus Basins identified in
Section 5.1.1 where the most impaired catchments are located. The planning process will
begin with a thorough evaluation of all properties (including public and private) located
in these Focus Basins to identify specific opportunities for restoration, retrofit and
preservation projects, including properties to be recommended for acquisition by the
County due to their water quality benefit. After the tree canopy data set is updated
(expected in January 2010) specific recommendations will be made regarding buffer
reforestation projects. The highest priority will be given to potential projects (including
BMP retrofits, buffer reforestations and stream channel restorations) located on publicly
owned properties. However, public property in the watershed is limited. Consideration
will be given to the initiation of these projects as soon as possible. Once potential
projects have been identified, a draft budget will be developed and funding sources
specified. If grants will be included as a funding source, the grants and funding cycles
will be specified as well as the necessary local match. At a minimum, the Master Plans
will include the following:

• Specific location of all recommended projects (include on map).
• Detailed description of the projects, including type, size, etc. (include preliminary
design sketches of the projects)
• Water quality benefit of the projects, including an estimate of pollutant removal
capabilities.
• Budgets and funding sources for the projects.
• Individual project prioritization.
• Major or minor system.

An important component of maintaining water quality conditions in Goose Creek is
ensuring the proper operation and maintenance of BMPs and septic systems installed to
date to mitigate impacts from existing development as well as retrofit BMPs installed
through the implementation of the Master Plans. This effort will begin in April of 2009
and continue through December 2009 and will include the identification and inspection of
all existing BMPs and at least 200 septic systems in the watershed. Deficiencies detected
will be reported to responsible parties for correction. A regular schedule of BMP
inspections in the watershed will be developed and implemented for both public and
private BMPs.

E231
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
61
SECTION 6. MEASURING SUCCESS AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

6.1 Establishing an Ongoing Water Quality Monitoring Program

As discussed in Section 2.2, Mecklenburg County has historically collected water and
macroinvertebrate samples from Goose Creek at monitoring site MY9, which is located
at Stevens Mill Road in Union County approximately 4000 feet downstream of the
Mecklenburg County and Union County line (see Figure 2). There is a USGS stream
gage at Goose Creek and Mill Grove Road in Union County. A thorough evaluation has
been completed of the historical chemical, physical and biological monitoring activities
in the watershed and routine monitoring is being conducted to provide baseline data to
measure the effectiveness of restoration measures as they are implemented

6.2 Annual Status Report

By December 31 of every year beginning in 2009 and continuing through the completion
of the Watershed Management Plan (anticipated for December 31, 2024), the
Mecklenburg County Water Quality Program will complete a Goose Creek Watershed
Management Plan Annual Status Report to at a minimum include the following
information:

• Status of compliance with goals identified in Table 12.
• Status of all projects underway in the watershed.
• Recommended changes to Watershed Management Plan.

This report will be made available to all the key players involved in the implementation
of the Watershed Management Plan, including the Director of Water & Land Resources,
Manager of Storm Water Engineering, Manager of the Water Quality Program,
Supervisor of the Yadkin Section and a representative from the Town of Mint Hill. This
group will serve as the “Watershed Management Evaluation Team.”

6.3 Adaptive Management

The Watershed Management Evaluation Team will meet at least annually following the
completion of each Watershed Management Plan Annual Status Report to evaluate the
effectiveness of the Plan at meeting the goals reported as outlined in Section 6.2. This
evaluation will be based on the data and information contained in the Annual Report as
well as other pertinent facts and information provided regarding the effectiveness of the
Plan at meeting established goals. During these meetings, consideration will also be
given as to the effectiveness of the goals at measuring the effectiveness of the Plan. It
may be necessary that goals be changed or that changes be made to the Plan. These
changes will be reflected in the Watershed Management Plan and will become effective
immediately.
E232
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
62
SECTION 7. CONCLUSION

The Goose Creek Watershed has been designated critical habitat for the federally
endangered Carolina Heelsplittter mussel and a Water Quality Recovery Program for
fecal coliform has been developed for the watershed. Implementation of the Site Specific
Management Plan is expected to prevent continued degradation of stream water quality
from new development; however, pre-existing sources of pollution remain partially or
completely un-mitigated. In order to restore the water quality in Goose Creek, pre-
existing sources of pollution will need to be mitigated and in-stream stressors to benthic
macroinvertebrate life removed. In this way Mecklenburg County can achieve its
ultimate goal for Goose Creek of improving water quality conditions such that designated
uses are met and the creek is no longer impaired. The effective implementation of this
Watershed Management Plan will enable this to be accomplished but it will take time. It
is currently anticipated that this process will take a minimum of 15 years between 2009
and 2024.

E233
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
63
Appendix A
References

Alan, C.J., 2004. Water Quality and Stream Stability Monitoring for Goose Creek
Mecklenburg and Union Counties, North Carolina 2001 - 2003. US Department
of Transportation, Research and Special Programs Administration, 400 7th Street,
SW, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Report number 2004-06.

Bales, J.D., J.C. Weaver, and J.B. Robinson. 1999. Relation of Land Use to Streamflow
and Water Quality at Selected Sites in the City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina, 1993-98. USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report
99-4180. Raleigh, NC.

CH2MHill, 2003, Charlotte Area Local Watershed Plan. Prepared for North Carolina
Wetlands Restoration Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services, 1997, Mecklenburg County Floodplain
Management Guidance Document. Charlotte, NC

U.S. Department of Agriculture – Soil Conservation Service, 1980, Soil Survey of
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. U.S. Government Printing Office: 1979—
273-222/11.

Ferrell, G.M., 2001, Effects of Land Use on Water Quality and Transport of Selected
Constituents in Streams in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, 1994-98. USGS
Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4118. Raleigh, North Carolina.

Fridell, J.A., 1997, Recovery Plan for Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorate) Lea.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region. Atlanta Georgia.

Mecklenburg County Water Quality Program and NC Department of Environment and
Natural Resources Division of Water Quality, 2005, Total Maximum Daily Loads
for Fecal Coliform for Goose Creek, North Carolina [Waterbody ID NC_13-17-
18A and 13-17-18b). 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617.

Mecklenburg County Water Quality Program, 2007, Goose Creek Recovery Program for
Fecal Coliform Bacteria - Stream Walk Final Report. 700 North Tryon Street,
Charlotte, NC.

Mecklenburg County Water Quality Program, 2009, Water Quality Monitoring Plan for
Goose Creek Watershed Water Quality Recovery Program for Fecal Coliform
Bacteria. 700 North Tryon Street, Charlotte, NC.

North Carolina, 2004, North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters
List (2004 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report) – Public Review Draft, accessed
August 15, 2005, at URL http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdl/documents/
E234
Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan Version 1...………………...October 31, 2009
64
2004IntegratedReporttext_001.pdf

North Carolina, 2003, Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, March
2003, at URL
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/yadkin/Yadkin%20final%202003%20BP/Yad
kin%20final%20complete%20plan%204103.pdf

Robinson, J.B., W.F. Hazell, and R.G. Garrett. 1996. Precipitation, Streamflow, and
Water-Quality Data from Selected Sites in the City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina, 1993-95. USGS Open-File Report 96-150. Raleigh, NC.

Robinson, J.B., W.F. Hazell, and R.G. Garrett. 1998. Precipitation, Streamflow, and
Water-Quality Data from Selected Sites in the City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina, 1995-97. USGS Open-File Report 98-67. Raleigh, NC.

Rosgen, D. 2008. Personal communication with Brian Sikes, Mecklenburg County
Storm Water Services.

Sarver, K.M. and B.C. Steiner. 1998. Hydrologic and Water-Quality Data from Mountain
Island Lake, North Carolina, 1994-97. USGS Open-File Report 98-549. Raleigh,
NC.

Sarver, K.M., W.F. Hazell, and J.B. Robinson. 1999. Precipitation, Atmospheric
Deposition, Streamflow, and Water-Quality Data from Selected Sites in the City
of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, 1997-98. USGS Open-File
Report 99-273. Raleigh, NC.

Tetra Tech, Inc., 2004, Post Construction Ordinance Development Phase I Report –
Draft. Prepared for Mecklenburg County Water Quality Program and Charlotte
Storm Water Services, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.

Tetra Tech, Inc., 2005, Mecklenburg County Site Evaluation Tool Model Documentation.
Prepared for Mecklenburg County Water Quality Program, Mecklenburg County,
North Carolina.

E235

Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program Plan
for the Fecal Coliform TMDL

Prepared for:

Mecklenburg County
Mint Hill
Stallings
Indian Trail

Prepared by:

Mecklenburg County Storm Water Services
Version 2: November 12, 2009
Goose Creek in Mint Hill
E236
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1.0 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................... 1 
SECTION 2.0 PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT ............................................................... 6 
2.1 Components of the Water Quality Recovery Program (WQRP) for Goose Creek ......... 6 
2.2 Pollutant of Concern Addressed by the Water Quality Recovery Program .................... 6 
2.3 Purpose of the Water Quality Recovery Program ........................................................... 7 
2.4 Purpose of the Water Quality Recovery Program (WQRP) Plan ................................... 8 
2.5 Water Quality Recovery Program Advisory Group ........................................................ 8 
2.6 Water Quality Recovery Program Website ..................................................................... 9 
2.7 Water Quality Recovery Program Monitoring Plan ....................................................... 9 
2.7.1 Purpose ...................................................................................................................... 9 
2.7.2 Water Quality Monitoring Strategy .......................................................................... 9 
2.7.3 Stream Walks ............................................................................................................ 9 
2.7.4 Land-Use Monitoring .............................................................................................. 11 
2.7.5 In-Stream Monitoring ............................................................................................. 13 
2.7.6 Continuous Monitoring and Alert Notification Network (CMANN) ..................... 16 
2.7.7 USGS Monitoring ................................................................................................... 17 
2.7.8 Monitoring for Identification and Elimination of Pollution Sources ...................... 17 
2.7.9 Quality Assurance / Quality Control....................................................................... 20 
2.7.10 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................... 20 
2.8 Plan and Schedule for Identification of Storm Water Outfalls ..................................... 21 
SECTION 3.0 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION ...................................................... 23 
3.1 Structural Best Management Practices ......................................................................... 23 
3.1.1 Purpose .................................................................................................................... 23 
3.1.2 Structural BMP Analysis ........................................................................................ 23 
3.1.2.1 Review of Fecal Coliform TMDL Implementation Plans ................................... 23 
3.1.2.2 Fecal Coliform Removal Efficiencies for BMPs ................................................ 24 
3.1.2.3 Fecal Coliform Data from Local Pilot BMP Monitoring Program ..................... 27 
3.1.2.4 Observations from BMP Data Analysis .............................................................. 28 
3.1.2.5 Recommendations ............................................................................................... 28 
3.1.3 Existing and Proposed Structural BMPs in the Goose Creek Watershed ............... 29 
3.2 Septic System Inspections (Non-Structural BMP) ....................................................... 31 
3.3 Public and Staff Participation and Outreach (Non-Structural BMP) ............................ 31 
3.3.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................... 31 
3.3.2 Public Workshop ..................................................................................................... 32 
3.3.3 Staff Development .................................................................................................. 32 
3.3.4 Newsletters .............................................................................................................. 32 
3.3.5 Dog Waste ............................................................................................................... 32 
3.4 Documenting Removal Efficiencies for Structural and Non-Structural BMPs ............ 35 
3.5 BMP Implementation Schedule for FY10 .................................................................... 35 
SECTION 4.0 DATA COLLECTION AND DOCUMENTATION ........................... 37 
4.1 Data Collection ............................................................................................................. 37 
4.1.1 Monitoring Data ...................................................................................................... 37 
4.1.2 Storm Drain Inventory Data .................................................................................... 37 
4.1.3 Documentation of WQRP Activities ...................................................................... 38 
E237
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

ii

4.2 Reports .......................................................................................................................... 39 
SECTION 5.0 PROGRAM EVALUATION ................................................................. 40 
5.1 Assessing the Effectiveness of BMPs and WQRP ....................................................... 40 
5.2 Cost-Benefit Analysis ................................................................................................... 40 
SECTION 6.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT .............................................................. 42 
6.1 Assessing the Need for Change .................................................................................... 42 
6.2 WQRP Plan Updates ..................................................................................................... 42 
6.3 Program Analysis and Adaptive Management Schedule .............................................. 42 
SECTION 7.0 SCHEDULE ............................................................................................ 44 
SECTION 8.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................ 46 

Figures:

Figure 1: Location of the Goose Creek Watershed in Mecklenburg and Union Counties ............ 1 
Figure 2: Goose Creek Watershed Area ........................................................................................ 2 
Figure 3: Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program (WQRP) ............................................. 6 
Figure 4: Distribution of Stream Walks by Jurisdiction .............................................................. 11 
Figure 5: Land-Use Distribution in the Goose Creek Watershed ................................................ 13 
Figure 6: Location of WQRP Monitoring Sites for FY10 ........................................................... 15 
Figure 7: Specialized IDDE Monitoring Sites ............................................................................. 18 
Figure 8: Livestock Impact Monitoring Sites .............................................................................. 19 
Figure 9: Locations of BMPs Completed or Proposed in the Goose Creek Watershed .............. 30 
Figure 10: Pet Waste Postcard (front) .......................................................................................... 34 
Figure 11: Bags on Board Containing Pet Waste Disposal Bags ................................................ 35 
Figure 12: Storm Drain Inlets and Outlets in EDMS ................................................................... 38 
Figure 13: Work Order Template in EDMS ................................................................................ 39 

Tables:

Table 1: MS4 Jurisdictions in the Goose Creek Watershed .......................................................... 1 
Table 2: General Information Regarding the Goose Creek Watershed ......................................... 3 
Table 3: Miles of Streams Walked or Waded by Jurisdiction ..................................................... 11 
Table 4: Jurisdictions and Land-Use Types to be Sampled ......................................................... 12 
Table 5: Land-Use Monitoring Sites in the Goose Creek Watershed .......................................... 12 
Table 6: Description of Land-Use Monitoring in the Goose Creek Watershed .......................... 13 
Table 7: In-Stream Monitoring Sites in the Goose Creek Watershed ......................................... 14 
Table 8: Description of In-Stream Monitoring in the Goose Creek Watershed .......................... 16 
Table 9: Description of CMANN Monitoring in the Goose Creek Watershed ........................... 16 
Table 10: Estimated Enhanced Monitoring Costs ....................................................................... 20 
Table 11: BMP Data from TMDL Implementation Plan, Four Mile Run, Virginia .................... 24 
Table 12: BMP Data from TMDL Implementation Plan, Blacks Run & Cooks Creek, Virginia 24 
Table 13: Fecal Coliform Removal Efficiency for BMP Treatment Train in Littleton, CO ....... 25 
Table 14: Data from Bioretention Study by the State University of New Jersey ........................ 25 
Table 15: Data Summarized in the State University of New Jersey Report ................................ 25 
Table 16: Data from 6th Biennial Storm Water Research & Watershed Conference ................. 26 
Table 17: Data Obtained from the International Storm Water Database for BMPs .................... 26 
E238
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

iii

Table 18: Data from BMP Monitoring in Mecklenburg County ................................................. 27 
Table 19: Summary of all Data Collected .................................................................................... 27 
Table 20: Recommended BMP Removal Efficiencies for Retro-Fitted BMPs ........................... 29 
Table 21: Locations & Types of BMPs Completed or Proposed in the Goose Creek Watershed29 
Table 22: WQRP Schedule .......................................................................................................... 44 

Appendices:

Appendix 1: Goose Creek TMDL Notification from N.C. Division of Water Quality ............... 48 
Appendix 2: Water Quality Recovery Program Guidance Document ......................................... 50 
Appendix 3: Septic System Inspection Form Used in the Goose Creek Watershed ................... 54 
Appendix 4: Septic System Educational Material Distributed During Goose Creek Inspections 56 
Appendix 5: Prioritization Scheme for Septic System Inspections ............................................. 58 

Common Acronyms:

BMP: Best Management Practice
DWQ: N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality
EDMS: Environmental Data Management System
FY: Fiscal Year running from July 1 through June 30 of the following year with the
FY number based on this last year (Example: FY10 runs from July 1, 2009
through June 30, 2010)
HOA: Homeowners’ Association
MCWQP: Mecklenburg County Water Quality Program which is a component of Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Storm Water Services
MS4: Municipally Separate Storm Sewer System
TMDL: Total Maximum Daily Load
WQRP: Water Quality Recovery Program

E239
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

1

SECTION 1.0 BACKGROUND

The Goose Creek Watershed is located in the Yadkin/Pee Dee River Basin in southeastern
Mecklenburg County and northeastern Union County in the southern piedmont region of North
Carolina (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Location of the Goose Creek Watershed in Mecklenburg and Union Counties
The headwaters of the Goose Creek Watershed originate in Mecklenburg County and flow to
Union County where the creek discharges to the Rocky River. The main channel of Goose
Creek has a length of approximately 16.3 miles. Stevens and Duck Creeks, which originate in
Mecklenburg County, are both tributaries to Goose Creek. Stevens Creek flows to Goose Creek
at the Mecklenburg-Union County line west of Stevens Mill Road while Duck Creek joins Goose
Creek just upstream of Brief Road in Union County. The Goose Creek Watershed contains four
(4) jurisdictions that have been issued NPDES Phase II Storm Water Permits for their
municipally separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), including Mecklenburg County and the
Towns of Mint Hill, Stallings and Indian Trail. Table 1 below describes the area within the
Goose Creek Watershed contained in these jurisdictions. Table 2 below contains general
information regarding the Goose Creek Watershed.

Table 1: MS4 Jurisdictions in the Goose Creek Watershed
MS4 Jurisdiction Area in Watershed % of Watershed
Mint Hill/Mecklenburg County(1) 7,195 acres 26%
Stallings 1,400 acres 5%
Indian Trail 855 acres 3%
(1) Mecklenburg County includes the Town of Mint Hill
E240
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

2

Figure 2: Goose Creek Watershed Area
G O O S E C R E E K
GOOSE CR
EEK
STE
VENS CREEK
P
A
D
D
L
E

B
R
A
N
C
H
D U C K C R EE K
DUCK CREEK
I-485 INNER
I-485 O UTER
L
A
W
Y
E
R
S
THOMPSON
W
E
L
L
FAIRVIEW
ALLEN BLACK
I-4
8
5
B R I E F
B
A
I
N

S
C
H
O
O
L
U
NIO
NJOLI CHEVAL
LON
G
MINT
W
O
O
D
P EG G Y
DAVID
R
A
N
B
U
R
N
E
MATTHEWS-MINT HILL
T A R A O A K S
SHANNAMARA
ID
L
E
F
I
E
L
D
OXER
B R IE F
BRIEF
B R I E F
B R I E F
FAIRVIEW
H
W
Y 218
M IL L G R O V E R D
B
RIE
F
R
D
LAWYERS RD
HWY 601
INDIAN TRAIL FAIRVIE W RD
WEST DUNCAN RD
UNIONVILLE BRIEF RD
M A C H A D O DR
CLONTZ RD
STEVENS MILL RD
PRICE

T
U
C
KE
R
RD
N OA H HELM S R D
W E S T O LD D U T C H R D
C U N NIN G H A M L N
R U S S E L L R D
U
N
IO
N
R
D
HERITAG
E RD
SHEPHERDS COVE
C
R
O
W
E
LL D
AIR
Y R
D
REDWOOD DR
HAWTHORNE DR
SECLUSIVE DR
GOLD CREST DR
ROCK
Y RIV
ER
ROA
D
MARTIN TUCKER RD
COVEY TR
E
A
R
L D
U
N
C
A
N R
D
SHA-NELLE LN
SURRY LN
F
A
I
R
F
I
E
L
D
BRIEF RD
H
W
Y
6
0
1
HWY 218
HWY 601
Legend
Streams
Roads
Indian Trail
Stallings
Goose Creek Watershed
Mecklenburg County
Mint Hill
E241
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

3

Table 2: General Information Regarding the Goose Creek Watershed
Watershed Area 42 square miles or 27,720 acres in the Yadkin/Pee Dee River Basin
Stream Length Approximately 16.3 main channel miles
Stream Classification Class C: Protected for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life, including propagation
and survival, and wildlife.
Predominant Land-uses Forest = 12,828 acres @ 46%
Agricultural = 6,461 acres @ 23%
>2 Acre Residential = 3,946 acres @ 14%
0.5 – 2 Acre Residential = 1,592 acres @ 6%
Topography Highest elevation = 754 ft m.s.l. Lowest Elevation = 494 ft m.s.l.
Generally the topography is rolling hills with moderate slopes of 2-4%.
Vegetation Vegetation is a mix of hardwood forested areas, agriculture (row crops and hay) and
grasses and shrubs associated with suburban development.
Climate The climate is temperate with approximately 43" of rain per year.
Hydrology Hydrology follows a typical dendridic drainage pattern typified by most piedmont areas.
Geology Piedmont soils and occasional bedrock outcrops. This gives way to Carolina Slate Belt
deposits that begin at the Mecklenburg and Union County line and extend east to where
Goose Creek enters the Rocky River.
NPDES Permitted
Dischargers
Oxford Glen: 15349 Bexley Place (0.075 mgd)
Ashe Plantation: Quarters Lane (0.154 mgd)
Country Woods: Country Woods Dr (1.036 mgd)
Fairfield Plantation: Stoney Ridge Rd (0.108 mgd)
NPDES Phase II Storm
Water Permits
Mint Hill and Mecklenburg County
Stallings
Indian Trail
Soils Approximately 88% of the watershed is made up of Class B soils and 12% is Class C
soils.
Population The approximate population of the Goose Creek Watershed is 10,000 residents.
Aquatic Species Typical piedmont aquatic species including several varieties of caddisflies, mayflies and
stoneflies, terrestrial insects, fish, amphibians, mussels, snails and other species.

In 1998, North Carolina’s 303(d) list of impaired waters identified Goose Creek from its source
to the Rocky River as impaired due to elevated fecal coliform concentrations. This impairment
triggered the development of a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for the watershed that was
subsequently submitted and approved by EPA on July 8, 2005. The TMDL encompasses all the
stream segments contained in the 303(d) list for the watershed. Goose Creek is also listed as
impaired due to a lack of aquatic life; however, a TMDL has not been developed for this listing.
Another issue in Goose Creek is that it provides critical habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter
(Lasmigona decorate), a species of freshwater mussel that is listed as federally endangered by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. The
document contained herein addresses only the fecal coliform TMDL and does not address the
biological impairment or the preservation of the Carolina heelsplitter.

The Town of Mint Hill and Mecklenburg County as well as the Towns of Stallings and Indian
Trail in Union County are located in the Goose Creek Watershed and have been issued NPDES
E242
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

4

Phase II Storm Water Permits. Part II, Final Limitations and Controls for Permitted Discharges,
Section A, Program Implementation, Paragraph 11 of these Phase II Permits specifies the
following: “If the permitted MS4 becomes subject to an approved TMDL, and following notice
of such by the Division, the permittee shall implement a TMDL Water Quality Recovery
Program.” Parts (a) through (e) of Paragraph 11 contain additional requirements relating to the
development and implementation of this Water Quality Recovery Program (WQRP) as follows:
(a) Within two years after receiving the Division’s notice that the permittee is subject to a
TMDL, the permittee shall establish a TMDL Water Quality Recovery Program and shall
identify the locations of all currently known MS4 outfalls within its jurisdictional area with
the potential of discharging the pollutant(s) of concern: to the impaired segments, to their
tributaries, and to segments and tributaries within the watershed contributing to the
impaired segments. The permittee shall also develop a schedule to discover and locate all
other MS4 outfalls within its jurisdictional area that may be discharging the pollutant(s) of
concern: to the impaired stream segments, to their tributaries, and to segments and
tributaries within the watershed contributing to the impaired segments.
(b) Within two years after receiving the Division’s notice that the permittee is subject to a
TMDL, the permittee shall develop a monitoring plan for each pollutant of concern. The
monitoring plan shall include the sample location by verbal description and latitude and
longitude coordinates, sample type, frequency, any seasonal considerations, and a
monitoring implementation schedule for each pollutant of concern. Where appropriate, the
permittee may reduce the monitoring burden by proposing to monitor outfalls that the
Division would consider substantially similar to other outfalls. The permittee may also
propose in-stream monitoring where it would complement the overall monitoring plan. The
monitoring plan shall be adjusted as additional outfalls are identified in accordance with the
schedule required in (a) above and as accumulating data may suggest.
(c) The permittee shall include the location of all currently known MS4 outfalls with the
potential of discharging the pollutant(s) of concern, the schedule for discovering and
locating currently unknown MS4 outfalls with the potential of discharging the pollutant(s) of
concern, and the monitoring plan, (all as required in (a) and (b) above, and all part of the
TMDL Water Quality Recovery Program) in the first Storm Water Management Plan annual
report due no earlier than two years after the Division’s initial notification of the
applicability of a TMDL.
(d) The next and each subsequent Storm Water Management Plan annual report shall include an
assessment of the available data for each pollutant of concern, and an assessment of the
effectiveness of the BMPs employed, to determine what, if any, additional BMP measures
may be necessary to return the impaired segments to compliance with state water quality
standards. The permittee shall implement appropriate BMPs to control the pollutant(s) of
concern to the maximum extent practicable. Implementation of the appropriate best
management practices constitutes compliance with the standard of reducing pollutants to the
maximum extent practicable.
(e) Following any review and comment by the Division on the TMDL Water Quality Recovery
Program, the permittee shall incorporate any necessary changes into the program. The
permittee shall incorporate the revised TMDL Water Quality Recovery Program into the
Storm Water Management Plan.

E243
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

5

On August 10, 2006, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) initiated Paragraph 11 of the Phase II Permits by issuing
written notification to Mecklenburg County and the Towns of Mint Hill, Stallings and Indian
Trail that they were subject to the Goose Creek TMDL for fecal coliform bacteria. The letter
specified that requirement (a) through (e) of Paragraph 11 be fulfilled within a specific time
frame (see Appendix 1). On October 12, 2007, DWQ provided the Phase II jurisdictions in the
Goose Creek Watershed with the “Goose Creek TMDL Water Quality Recovery Program
(WQRP) Guidance Document” (see Appendix 2). This document was used as a guide by the
Phase II jurisdictions to develop the “Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program” which was
submitted as part of the annual report dated July 9, 2008. The document contained herein is the
Water Quality Recovery Program Plan (WQRP Plan), which serves as a guide in the
implementation of the WQRP.

E244
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

6

SECTION 2.0 PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

2.1 Components of the Water Quality Recovery Program (WQRP) for Goose Creek

The WQRP developed for the Goose Creek Watershed includes the following five (5) major
components
1. Program Development
2. Program Implementation
3. Data Collection and Documentation
4. Program Evaluation
5. Adaptive Management
These five (5) components include a total of 17 program activities that combine to form the
WQRP as described in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program (WQRP)
2.2 Pollutant of Concern Addressed by the Water Quality Recovery Program

The pollutant of concern addressed in the WQRP for the Goose Creek Watershed is fecal
coliform bacteria as identified in the approved TMDL. Fecal coliform bacteria are found in the
fecal material of humans and animals and can enter surface waters through direct discharges of
waste from mammals and birds as well as from agriculture, storm water runoff and
malfunctioning sewage collection and treatment systems. Fecal coliform bacteria do not cause
diseases but rather serve as an indicator of a variety of microorganism in feces that are known to
E245
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

7

be pathogenic. Fecal coliform bacteria is used as an indicator of these pathogens in surface
waters because testing for its presence is cheap, reliable and fast particularly in comparison to
tests for known pathogens. Water quality monitoring performed by DWQ in the Goose Creek
Watershed has revealed elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria, which is the reason for
concern.

2.3 Purpose of the Water Quality Recovery Program

The purpose of the WQRP is to reduce fecal coliform bacteria levels, to the maximum extent
practicable, in accordance with the assigned MS4 NPDES regulated Waste Load Allocation
(WLA) identified in the approved TMDL for the Goose Creek Watershed, which is represented
as a 92.5% reduction in the existing fecal coliform load from the MS4. There are four (4)
NPDES regulated MS4s in the Goose Creek Watershed, including Mecklenburg County and the
Towns of Mint Hill, Stallings and Indian Trail. The TMDL further identifies a 92.5% reduction
in the fecal coliform load associated with nonpoint sources that do not originate from the MS4s.
The TMDL indicates that these combined reductions will restore water quality conditions in the
Goose Creek Watershed in compliance with the North Carolina fresh water quality standard for
fecal coliform in Class C waters (T15A:02B.0211) that states:
“Organisms of the coliform group: fecal coliforms shall not exceed a geometric mean of
200/100 ml (membrane filter count) based upon at least five consecutive samples examined
during any 30-day period, nor exceed 400/100 ml in more than 20 percent of the samples
examined during such period; violations of the fecal coliform standard are expected during
rainfall events and, in some cases, this violation is expected to be caused by uncontrollable
nonpoint source pollution; all coliform concentrations are to be analyzed using the
membrane filter technique unless high turbidity or other adverse conditions necessitate the
tube dilution method; in case of controversy over results, the MPN 5-tube dilution technique
will be used as the reference method.”

The WQRP specifically addresses the 92.5% reduction in fecal coliform loading assigned to the
MS4s in the TMDL and does not cover the 92.5% reduction that is not associated with the MS4s.
The biggest source of this non-MS4 related fecal coliform bacteria load is agricultural activity,
which encompasses approximately 23% of the Goose Creek Watershed (see Table 2). Other
than forests, this is the predominant land-use in the watershed. Based on the TMDL, in the
absence of control of these non-MS4 sources the water quality standard will not be achieved;
therefore, the achievement of this standard is not a specific goal of the WQRP.

The WQRP endpoint of a 92.5% reduction in fecal coliform loading from MS4s will be achieved
through the implementation of structural and non-structural BMPs as described in the WQRP
Plan (see Section 3.0). The implementation of these BMPs in accordance with the WQRP Plan
will constitute compliance with the standard of reducing pollutants to the maximum extent
practicable as specified in the Part II, Section A, Paragraph 11 (d) of the Phase II Permits. For
each BMP utilized, a fecal coliform removal efficiency will be assigned in future versions of the
WQRP Plan, including non-structural BMPs such as education and septic system inspections.
The combined removal efficiencies of BMPs employed to treat the runoff from an MS4 area will
need to total at least 92.5% for the area to be considered compliant with the assigned TMDL
WLA. Once this has been achieved for all MS4 areas within the Goose Creek Watershed the
E246
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

8

WQRP Plan will consider the MS4 areas to be compliant with the TMDL and the WQRP will
have reached its endpoint. Section 3.4 contains additional information regarding this process.

To ensure the effective and efficient implementation of the WQRP in accordance with Phase II
Permit requirements, the WQRP Plan contained herein has been incorporated into the Storm
Water Management Program Plans for Mecklenburg County and the Towns of Mint Hill,
Stallings and Indian Trail.

2.4 Purpose of the Water Quality Recovery Program (WQRP) Plan

The document contained herein is referred to as the WQRP Plan. The purpose of this Plan is to
guide the implementation of the WQRP. It includes the monitoring plan, plan and schedule for
identification of municipally separate storm sewer system (MS4) outfalls, description of best
management practices (BMPs) to be employed to meet the TMDL, and other necessary TMDL
compliance measures. This Plan will not include the assessment of the available data or an
assessment of the effectiveness of the BMPs employed as required by Part II, Section A,
Paragraph 11 (d) of the Phase II Permits. These assessments will be included in the annual
reports developed for the WQRP by July 15th of each year. These annual reports will also
include a determination regarding additional BMPs or other measures necessary to return the
impaired segments to compliance with State water quality standards. These additional BMP
measures as well as additions and/or modifications to any other compliance measures or plans
will be incorporated into annual updates to the WQRP Plan that will be completed by August
30th of each year. These updates to the WQRP Plan are necessary to ensure its continued
effectiveness as a guide to the implementation of the WQRP. Section 6 describes this process in
more detail.

2.5 Water Quality Recovery Program Advisory Group

The first step in the development of the Goose Creek WQRP was the establishment of the TMDL
Advisory Group consisting of representatives from the following:
¾ Mecklenburg County Water Quality Program
¾ Town of Mint Hill
¾ Town of Stallings
¾ Town of Indian Trail
¾ Union County
¾ DWQ

Initial TMDL Advisory Group meetings focused on the development of the Goose Creek WQRP
and resulted in a request to DWQ for a more detailed outline of the requirements of the WQRP.
DWQ provided the group with the Draft “Goose Creek TMDL Water Quality Recovery Program
Guidance Document” on October 12, 2007 (see Appendix 2), which formed the basis for the
development of the WQRP for Goose Creek. Subsequent meetings of the group led to
development and implementation of the WQRP by July 2008. The 17 program activities
identified in the WQRP Plan (see Figure 3) are implemented by the Mecklenburg County Water
Quality Program (MCWQP) under Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services for
Mecklenburg County and the Towns of Mint Hill, Stallings and Indian Trail. The TMDL
E247
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

9

Advisory Group meets at least annually to review program activities and successes and to modify
the WQRP Plan as necessary to improve its overall effectiveness.

2.6 Water Quality Recovery Program Website

A page was developed off Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services’ website as follows:
http://stormwater.charmeck.org (select “Storm Water Professionals”, select “Water Quality”, and
select “TMDLs-Mecklenburg County”). This website serves to document and disseminate
information and results regarding the Goose Creek WQRP. The WQRP Plan along with annual
reports and water quality monitoring data are maintained on this website.

2.7 Water Quality Recovery Program Monitoring Plan

2.7.1 Purpose

The purpose of the water quality monitoring plan developed for the Goose Creek WQRP is to
present a strategy for the collection of information to support the implementation of the WQRP
for the Goose Creek Watershed and to monitor its effectiveness. The monitoring plan also serves
to identify pollution sources that are subsequently eliminated if found to be in noncompliance
with water quality regulations. Some sources such as livestock in the stream are not in violation
and therefore will not be eliminated unless voluntarily done so by the property owner. The
monitoring plan outlines a strategy for sampling individual land-use sources from select MS4
outfalls as well as in-stream fecal coliform concentrations. The plan describes the sampling
strategy for Mecklenburg County and the three (3) incorporated areas of the watershed, including
the Towns of Mint Hill, Indian Trail and Stallings.

2.7.2 Water Quality Monitoring Strategy

The goals of the Goose Creek Water Quality Monitoring Plan are as follows:
1. Obtain watershed data and information for the successful development and
implementation of BMPs as part of the WQRP.
2. Identify and eliminate pollution sources.
3. Evaluate Goose Creek for compliance with the State’s fecal coliform standard for Class C
waters as described in Section 2.2 above.

The monitoring strategy developed to achieve these goals consists of the following components
that are described in detail in the following Sections:
1. Stream Walks
2. Land-Use Monitoring
3. In-Stream Monitoring
4. Continuous Monitoring and Alert Notification Network (CMANN)
5. USGS Monitoring

2.7.3 Stream Walks

Between May and July 2007, MCWQP walked and/or waded all the perennial and intermittent
streams in the Goose Creek Watershed and its tributaries within the boundaries of Mecklenburg
E248
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

10

County and the Towns of Mint Hill, Stallings and Indian Trail. It is anticipated that these
streams will be walked again in 2012 to document changes. The purpose of the stream walks is
three (3) fold as follows:
1. Identify and eliminate potential sources of fecal coliform bacteria.
2. Identify land-use monitoring sites.
3. Identify MS4 Outfalls for each jurisdiction.

In addition to those streams within each jurisdiction, streams flowing into a jurisdiction or those
streams likely to be annexed by a jurisdiction are also identified for stream walks. The
distribution of streams to be walked by jurisdiction is shown in Figure 4. The following
information is collected during stream walks:
1. Samples are collected at tributaries upstream of the confluence of tributary mid-points
and 50-acre drainage terminus points if stream flow is present. Samples are analyzed for
fecal coliform and temperature.
2. Samples are collected of observed dry weather flows and laboratory analyses are
performed for fecal coliform, temperature, specific conductance, chlorine, nutrients,
fluoride, surfactant, NO2, and estimated flow (gpm).
3. A record is obtained of the locations of all storm water outfalls, pipe material and pipe
diameter as well as any maintenance issues with the outfalls.
4. A record is obtained of the location of all Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities critical assets
(aerials, stream crossings, etc.).
5. A record is obtained of the location of all stream blockages that could potentially cause
flooding.
6. A record is obtained of potential sources of fecal coliform. These include dog kennels,
active domestic animal operations, potential septic system problems and industrial
outfalls, etc. Follow up investigations are conducted as necessary to eliminate pollution
sources.
7. A record is obtained of areas of excessive erosion.
8. Future land-use sampling sites as described in Section 2.6.2 are identified.

More detailed information regarding the procedures followed in the performance of stream walk
activities is contained in the Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) Policies and
Procedures Manual (Mecklenburg County Water Quality Program, 2009).

E249
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

11

Figure 4: Distribution of Stream Walks by Jurisdiction
Legend
Indian Trail
Stallings
Streams
Mint-hill-goose.shp
Indian Trail Streams to Walk
Stallings Streams to WalkMint Streams to Walk
Goose Creek Watershed

Table 3 presents the miles of stream walked or waded by jurisdiction in the Goose Creek
Watershed.

Table 3: Miles of Streams Walked or Waded by Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction Miles Perennial Stream Miles Intermittent Stream Total Miles to Walk
Mint Hill 32.8 13.9 46.7
Indian Trail 16.9 6.4 23.3
Stallings 9.3 4.4 13.7

2.7.4 Land-Use Monitoring

MCWQP personnel are performing monthly sampling at select MS4 outfalls located downstream
of each of the land-use types in the jurisdictions described in Table 4. The physical locations of
the monitoring sites as identified in Table 5 and Figure 6 were identified during the stream walks
conducted between May and July 2007 (see Section 2.6.3). This land-use monitoring began in
October 2007 and is planned to continue through June 2010. The purpose of this monitoring is
to categorize fecal coliform levels originating from individual land-uses in each of the
jurisdictions. This monitoring data will be used identify specific land-uses for BMP retrofits to
decrease fecal coliform levels in Goose Creek in compliance with the TMDL. As outlined in the
Goose Creek TMDL Water Quality Recovery Program Guidance Document provided by DWQ,
E250
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

12

permit holders may sample “substantially similar outfalls” to reduce the monitoring and analysis
burden. Therefore, a minimum of one (1) site is sampled monthly downstream of each of the
major land-use types found in Mint Hill, Stallings and Indian Trail. Figure 5 shows the general
distribution of land-uses within the Goose Creek Watershed. Monitoring sites will be evaluated
annually and new sites selected as necessary to ensure representativeness of the watershed as a
whole. The following changes have occurred to site locations since monitoring began in October
2007:
¾ Site B moved from 6400 Matthews Mint Hill Road (longitude -80.662952, latitude
35.169341) to 3501 Matthews Mint Hill Road (Site B1) on October 5, 2009 (see Table 5).
¾ Site I moved from 2002 Centerview Drive (longitude -80.63122, latitude 35.118041) to
5004 Centerview Drive on September 18, 2008 due to 2002 Centerview Drive being
discontinued as an active construction site (see Table 5).

Table 4: Jurisdictions and Land-Use Types to be Sampled
Jurisdiction Land-Use Types
Mint Hill 0.25 – 0.5 ac
Residential
Commercial Institutional
(school)
Medium Density
Residential (0.5 – 1 ac)
I-485
Stallings 0.25 – 0.5 ac
Residential
Commercial
Indian Trail 0.25 – 0.5 ac
Residential
Active
Development

Table 5: Land-Use Monitoring Sites in the Goose Creek Watershed
Jurisdiction Monitoring Type ID Location Longitude Latitude
Meck. Co. Runoff (0.25-0.5acre res.) A 15130 Yarmouth Rd. -80.655236 35.139909
Meck. Co. Runoff (Commercial) B1 3501 Matthews Mint Hill Rd. -80.683341 35.138450
Meck. Co. Runoff (Institutional) C 11524 Bain School Road -80.647348 35.174619
Meck. Co. Runoff (0.5 - 1 acre res.) D 5221 Turkey Oak Drive -80.660474 35.146612
Meck. Co. Runoff (I-485) E I-485 -80.629102 35.163096
Stallings Runoff (0.25-0.5 acre res.) F 9108 Tenby Lane -80.637598 35.138339
Stallings Runoff (Commercial) G 7800 Stevens Mill Road -80.622643 35.140097
Indian Trail Runoff (0.25-0.5 acre res.) H 7006 Joyful Noise Lane -80.629475 35.117090
Indian Trail Runoff (Active Const.) I 5004Centerview Dr. -80.629790 35.117733
Table Notes: Meck. Co. includes the Town of Mint Hill. Latitude and Longitude in Decimal Degrees.

E251
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

13

Figure 5: Land-Use Distribution in the Goose Creek Watershed
Land-Uses0.25 - 0.5 ac res0.25 ac res0.5 - 2 ac res>2 ac resAg
Commercial
Forest
Golf
Industrial
Institutional
Transportation
Streams
MS4 Jurisdiction

Table 6 provides a description of the land-use monitoring performed in Mecklenburg County and
the Towns of Mint Hill, Stallings and Indian Trail as part of the Goose Creek WQRP.

Table 6: Description of Land-Use Monitoring in the Goose Creek Watershed
Sample Type Grab sample collected at MS4 outfalls at the locations described in Table 5
above.
Frequency Monthly during runoff events.
Seasonal
Considerations
Sampling is performed without seasonal variation.
Implementation
Schedule
Begin in October 2007 and continue through June 2010.
Parameters
Analyzed
Fecal coliform bacteria, E coli, nitrite + nitrate, ammonia, total kjeldahl
nitrogen, total phosphorus and copper.

2.7.5 In-Stream Monitoring

MCWQP personnel are performing monthly in-stream sampling at the six (6) sites identified in
Table 7 and Figure 6. Monitoring began in June 2007 at the in-stream monitoring sites located at
Goose Creek and Stevens Mill Road in Union County (MY9) and at 10801 Tara Oaks Drive in
E252
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

14

Mecklenburg County (MY14). Plans are to continue in-stream monitoring at these two (2) sites
indefinitely. These sites are sampled on the third Wednesday of every month unless flow
conditions are determined to be unsafe in which case sampling is performed immediately upon
the return of safe conditions. This is referred to as fixed interval monitoring. Sampling began at
the other four (4) in-stream sites identified in Table 7 in October 2009. Plans are to discontinue
this monitoring in June 2010 along with the land-use monitoring described in the previous
Section. These four (4) in-stream sites are sampled during runoff conditions along with the land-
use monitoring sites. The purpose of in-stream monitoring is as follows:
¾ Identify and eliminate pollution problems.
¾ Measure watershed scale fecal coliform levels.
¾ Assess the overall effectiveness of the WQRP at attaining the water quality standard for
fecal coliform.

Table 7: In-Stream Monitoring Sites in the Goose Creek Watershed
Jurisdiction Monitoring Type Location ID Longitude Latitude
Meck. Co. Runoff 14805 Bridgewater Ln MY9A -80.657647 35.141011
Meck. Co. Runoff 4216 Crump Hill Ct SCT -80.652128 35.146806
Meck. Co. Runoff 16100 Thompson Rd GT1 -80641504 35.150959
Meck. Co. Runoff 13186 Lawyers Rd GC1 -80.639121 35157171
Stallings Fixed Interval Goose Creek at Stevens Mill Rd MY9 -80.631719 35.130114
Mint Hill Fixed Interval 10801 Tara Oaks Dr. MY14 -80.587390 35.180144
Table Notes: Meck. Co. includes the Town of Mint Hill. Latitude and Longitude in Decimal Degrees.

Monitoring sites will be evaluated annually and new sites selected as necessary to ensure
representativeness of the watershed as a whole. The following changes have occurred to site
locations since in-stream monitoring began in June 2007:
¾ Sample site located at the DWQ compliance point on Mill Grove Road at Goose Creek
moved to 10801 Tara Oaks Drive in July 2008.
¾ Four (4) runoff sample sites added in October 2009.

Table 8 provides a description of the in-stream monitoring performed as part of the Goose Creek
WQRP.
E253
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

15

Figure 6: Location of WQRP Monitoring Sites for FY10
E254
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

16

Table 8: Description of In-Stream Monitoring in the Goose Creek Watershed
Sample Type Grab sample collected in the main flow of the stream channel.
Frequency
1. Two (2) sites sampled monthly on a fixed interval, which is the third
Wednesday of every month unless flow conditions are determined to be
unsafe in which case sampling is performed immediately upon the return
of safe conditions. These sites are identified in Table 7 above as the
“Fixed Interval” monitoring type.
2. Four (4) sites sampled monthly during runoff events at the same time that
land-use monitoring is performed. These sites are identified in Table 7
above as the “Runoff” monitoring type.
Seasonal
Considerations
Sampling is performed without seasonal variation.
Implementation
Schedule
Fixed interval monitoring began in June 2007 and will continue indefinitely.
Runoff monitoring began in October 2009 and will continue through June
2010.
Parameters
Analyzed
1. Fixed Interval Monitoring Sites (2): USGS flow rate, temperature,
dissolved oxygen, conductivity, pH, fecal coliform bacteria, E-coli
bacteria, enterococcus bacteria, ammonia nitrogen, nitrate + nitrite, total
kjeldahl nitrogen, total phosphorus, suspended solids, suspended
sediment, turbidity, copper, zinc, chromium, and lead
2. Runoff Monitoring Sites (4): Fecal coliform bacteria.

2.7.6 Continuous Monitoring and Alert Notification Network (CMANN)

In July 2009, MCWQP personnel installed a Continuous Monitoring and Alert Notification
Network (CMANN) monitoring site at the in-stream monitoring site at MY9 (see Table 7 and
Figure 6). CMANN monitoring began in June 2007 and is ongoing. The purpose of this
monitoring is as follows:
¾ Identify pollution problems for implementation of corrective actions.
¾ Identify the relationship between turbidity (an indicator of suspended sediment) and fecal
coliform levels.
Monitoring sites will be evaluated annually and new sites selected as necessary to ensure
representativeness of the watershed as a whole. The following changes will occur to CMANN
site locations:
¾ By January 1, 2010, two (2) additional CMANN sites will be added, including one at
MY14 (see Table 7 and Figure 6) and another at 12809 Bain School Road.

Table 9 provides a description of the CMANN monitoring performed as part of the Goose Creek
WQRP.

Table 9: Description of CMANN Monitoring in the Goose Creek Watershed
Sample Type Automated sampling using a YSI multi probe sonde which transmits data to
a data logger that downloads to a website via an automated dial out system.
Frequency Hourly.
Seasonal
Considerations
Sampling is performed without seasonal variation.
E255
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

17

Implementation
Schedule
Begin in June 2007 and continue indefinitely.
Parameters
Analyzed
Turbidity, temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity.

2.7.7 USGS Monitoring

The USGS maintains a flow gauge at Goose Creek at Mill Grove Road (USGS Site 0212467595)
and a rainfall gauge at the Thompson Farm site off Lawyers Road in Mint Hill, NC (USGS Site
350857080383245) as indicated in Figure 6. Data from these sites will be incorporated into the
WQRP.

2.7.8 Monitoring for Identification and Elimination of Pollution Sources

Identification and elimination of sources of fecal coliform in the Goose Creek Watershed is an
essential element in the overall strategy for reducing in-stream fecal coliform concentrations in
Goose Creek. To accomplish this goal, MCWQP will utilize the same techniques outlined in its
Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) Policies and Procedures Manual
(Mecklenburg County Water Quality Program, 2009). In addition, stream walks will be initiated
as necessary to more thoroughly evaluate larger catchments. These procedures are identified in
the monitoring plan described in Section 2.5.3 above. Over and above the IDDE Manual and
monitoring plan, several specialized procedures have been developed for the identification of
sources of fecal coliform in the Goose Creek Watershed as described below.

Specialized IDDE Monitoring:
An enhanced monitoring strategy was developed for the identification and elimination of
pollution sources in the Goose Creek Watershed. This strategy involved the collection of
samples every Thursday that were analyzed for temperature, fecal coliform and E coli. On the
second Tuesday of each month, samples were collected and analyzed for temperature, fecal
coliform, E coli, ammonia nitrogen (NH3), total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), nitrite + nitrate (NOx)
and total phosphorus (TP). The monitoring consisted of at least five (5) consecutive samples
collected during a 30 day period to determine if the fecal coliform levels exceeded the State
standard (referred to 5/30 monitoring). Data from this sampling was used to identify sites for
more source specific monitoring, including DNA analyses. This specialized monitoring was
initiated every Thursday beginning on May 8, 2008 as well as the second Tuesday of each month
beginning on May 13, 2008. The monitoring was conducted at the State compliance point
located at Stevens Mill Road (Site MY9) and at six (6) locations upstream of MY9 as well as the
compliance point located on Mill Grove Road (Site GC4) and the in-stream monitoring site at
GC4. The monitoring sites are shown in Figure 7. All the sites were found to be in compliance
with the State’s 5/30 standard except GC2A and GC3, which had fecal coliform counts at 878
c.f.u. and 810 c.f.u., respectively. Both of these sites are located on a tributary of Goose Creek.
DNA analyses were performed on samples collected from this tributary confirming that the
source was human. The area draining to this tributary was targeted for septic system inspections
resulting in the identification of two (2) system malfunctions that were subsequently repaired.
The 5/30 monitoring was discontinued on September 4, 2008. Sampling is planned at site GC2A
E256
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

18

during FY10 to determine if the elimination of the septic system discharges will result in
compliance with the standard.

Livestock Impact Monitoring:
In August and September 2009, samples were collected and analyzed for fecal coliform bacteria
on three (3) separate occasions upstream and downstream of an area where cows have direct
access to Goose Creek. The three (3) monitoring points are shown if Figure 8. This monitoring
confirmed that the cows had a significant impact on fecal coliform levels in the creek. The
property owner has been contacted and negotiations will occur in FY10 to attempt to eliminate
livestock access to the creek.

Figure 7: Specialized IDDE Monitoring Sites

Reporting & Adaptive Management

At the end of each fiscal year (June 30th), all monitoring data collected throughout the watershed
will be reviewed and compiled into an annual report. The report will summarize all data and
assess progress toward meeting the standard for fecal coliform. This report will be made
available to the Towns of Mint Hill, Stallings and Indian Trail as well as NC DWQ. The report
will also be posted on the Charlotte Mecklenburg Storm Water Services Website
(www.charmeck.org)

Adaptive management meetings will be held as needed and at least annually for the purpose of
reviewing program activities, progress and data and assessing the need for change. All changes
will be communicated to the agencies responsible for the implementation of the TMDL. Results
of the water quality monitoring program will be posted on the web (www.charmeck.org) and
made available to the appropriate agencies for comment and input
MY9A
SCT
GT1 GC1
MY9
Comp. Pt.
GC4
Comp. Pt.
GC2A
GC3 MY14
E257
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

19

Figure 8: Livestock Impact Monitoring Sites

DNA Analysis:
DNA analysis can determine the presence, identify the source and quantify fecal contamination
in water samples. One method used targets bacteroidetes that are present in warm blooded
animals. Bacteroidetes are predominately found in humans, cattle, swine, horses and dogs.
These tests are effective for determining recent forms of fecal pollution.

GC3
GC2A
GC2
E258
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

20

The phylum Bacteroidetes is composed of three (3) groups of bacteria with the best-known
category being Bacteroidaceae. This family of bacteria is found primarily in the intestinal tracts
and mucous membranes of warm-blooded animals and is sometimes considered pathogenic.

Fecal Bacteroidetes are considered an alternative to more traditional indicator organisms such as
E. coli and Enterococci. Since they are strict anaerobes, they are indicative of recent fecal
contamination when found in water systems. This is a particularly strong reference point when
trying to determine recent outbreaks in fecal pollution. They are also more abundant in feces of
warm-blooded animals than E. coli and Enterococci. Furthermore, these latter two (2) organisms
are facultative anaerobes and as such they can be problematic for monitoring purposes since it
has been shown that they are able to proliferate in soil, sand and sediments, which is not the case
for Bacteroidetes.

Costs:
The estimated costs for implementing the enhanced monitoring effort are outlined in Table 10.
Costs shown are for each 30 day period.

Table 10: Estimated Enhanced Monitoring Costs
Task Description Cost per 30 day period
Fecal Coliform Sample Analysis ( 8 sites x $34.00/sample x
5 samples)
$1,360.00
Nutrient Sample Analysis (8 sites x $62.75 x 1 sample) $502.00
Sample Collection, prep and sample turn in (4 hrs. x $42.80
x 5 events)
$856.00
Total Cost per 30 Day Period $2,718.00

2.7.9 Quality Assurance / Quality Control

All data discussed above will be collected by MCWQP staff, with the exception of flow and
rainfall data which is collected by USGS. All sampling performed and data collected by
MCWQP staff is in strict adherence to the following documents:
¾ Charlotte-Mecklenburg Surface Water Quality Sampling Procedures Manual, 2005
¾ Continuous Monitoring Policy and Procedure Manual, 2005
¾ Mecklenburg County Water Quality Program QA/QC Data Tracking, 2006
¾ Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP),
2007
Mecklenburg County holds the following certifications associated with monitoring:
¾ NC Division of Water Quality Laboratory Certification Program – 5235: This
certification is associated with the collection of samples, field parameters and
instrumentation.

2.7.10 Data Analysis

Data collected under this plan is subject to analysis on several levels as follows:
1. Stream Walks: Information collected from the stream walks will be categorized and
converted to GIS format. The locations of sampling sites, storm water outfalls and
E259
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

21

potential pollution sources will be identified. Sample results indicating the presence of
high levels of fecal coliform (>1,000 c.f.u.) will be assigned for follow-up activities by
the appropriate jurisdiction. The purpose of these follow up activities will be to identify
and eliminate pollution sources. Identified land-use sampling sites will be established
and sampled.
2. Land-Use Monitoring: The results from the land-use samples will be analyzed on a site
by site basis. Basic descriptive statistics will be calculated for the data collected at each
site, each group of like sites (e.g. residential), each jurisdiction and the data set as a
whole. The land-use fecal coliform data set will be compared to rainfall and flow
records, which are collected by the USGS, to develop a better understanding of fecal
coliform build-up and wash-off for each of the land-uses. The number of dry days prior
to sample collection, time since start of rainfall, rainfall intensity and other parameters
will be assessed and compared to the fecal coliform dataset. It is anticipated that trends
will be detected in the data which will help guide watershed restoration and retrofit
efforts.
3. In-Stream Monitoring: The results from the in-stream fecal coliform sampling will be
analyzed on a site by site basis to assess compliance with the fecal colifom standard.
Sample results indicating the presence of high levels of fecal coliform (>1,000 c.f.u.) will
be assigned to MCWQP staff for the initiation of immediate follow-up activities. The
purpose of these follow up activities will be to identify and eliminate pollution sources.
Basic descriptive statistics will be calculated for the data collected for each site and the
dataset as a whole. Sample date and time will be used to identify the rainfall and flow
regime in Goose Creek at the time of sample collection. The primary purpose of
evaluating a flow or rainfall versus fecal coliform level is to determine if a reproducible
relationship between the two exists. If a strong correlation does exist, USGS flow data
may be used as a surrogate for fecal coliform.
4. CMANN: The results from the CMANN automated monitoring will be analyzed using
basic descriptive statistics. The results will be compared to the USGS dataset to
determine if a turbidity versus flow relationship exists. Monitoring results indicating
potential water quality problems (action level exceedances) will be assigned for follow-
up activities by MCWQP. The purpose of these follow up activities will be to identify
and eliminate pollution sources.
5. USGS Monitoring: The USGS flow and rainfall dataset will be downloaded and
analyzed to determine basic flow and rainfall distribution for the Goose Creek
Watershed. USGS monitoring data will be used in conjunction with other data to
determine if relationships between flow and or rainfall and fecal coliform or turbidity
exist.
6. Pollution Sources: Records will be maintained of all pollution sources identified and
eliminated, including source location and description, pollutant type, date detected and
corrected, responsible staff, and any other relevant information.

2.8 Plan and Schedule for Identification of Storm Water Outfalls

During the performance of stream walk activities for the water quality monitoring program,
MCWQP staff collected data regarding the location of all storm water outfalls, pipe material and
pipe diameter as well as any maintenance issues with the outfalls. This work was performed in
E260
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

22

Mecklenburg County as well as the Towns of Mint Hill, Stallings and Indian Trail. Stream walk
activities are discussed in more detail in Section 2.5.3 above. All spatial data was geocoded and
stored in hand-held computers while in the field. Upon returning to the office, the data was
downloaded into GIS and made available to staff for implementation of the WQRP. All outfall
data was compiled and provided to DWQ in June 2007. It is anticipated that streams will be
walked again in 2012 and the storm water outfall data updated.
E261
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

23

SECTION 3.0 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

MCWQP anticipates that new sources of fecal coliform bacteria will be effectively controlled by
the restrictions on future land development activities and wastewater treatment plant expansions
imposed by the N.C. Site Specific Water Quality Management Plan for the Goose Creek
Watershed that went into effect in February 2009. Therefore, the focus of MCWQP’s water
quality recovery efforts in the Goose Creek Watershed will be on the control of existing sources
of fecal coliform bacteria. This will be accomplished through the implementation of structural
and non-structural best management practices (BMPs) designed to restore water quality
conditions in the Goose Creek Watershed in compliance with the approved fecal coliform
TMDL. The following Sections describe these BMPs.

3.1 Structural Best Management Practices

3.1.1 Purpose

Retro-fitting existing land uses with structural BMPs to treat fecal coliform bacteria is one tool
that can be implemented to reduce fecal coliform loading in the Goose Creek Watershed. The
purpose of this Section is to identify structural BMPs that are effective at removing fecal
coliform bacteria based on available research and to identify existing and proposed structural
BMPs in the Goose Creek Watershed. Information regarding nonstructural BMPs for the control
of fecal coliform bacteria in the Goose Creek Watershed is provided in Sections 3.2 and 3.3.

3.1.2 Structural BMP Analysis

To evaluate the fecal coliform removal capabilities of various BMPs, MCWQP performed the
following activities:
¾ Review of Fecal Coliform TMDL Implementation Plans from other jurisdictions.
¾ Research literature values for fecal coliform removal efficiencies for BMPs.
¾ Summarize and analyze local fecal coliform removal rates from MCWQP’s Pilot BMP
Monitoring Program.

3.1.2.1 Review of Fecal Coliform TMDL Implementation Plans

MCWQP reviewed 20 published plans to evaluate the structural BMPs other jurisdictions
propose to use or are using as part of their Fecal Coliform TMDL Implementation Plan, The
plans typically included lists of non-structural controls that were going to be implemented to
reduce fecal coliform loadings. In addition, most plans indicated that structural BMPs may be
used for control, but provided no data on the level of control or treatment that would be provided
by the BMPs. MCWQP reviewed three (3) plans in detail and the results are provided below.

Plan 1: The Moore’s Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL Implementation Plan (Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission, 2005) noted that regional storm water treatment BMPs were not
feasible for achieving the required fecal coliform reduction from existing urban lands and that
non-structural measures, such as sanitary sewer and septic system improvements, would be used
in these areas.
E262
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

24

Plan 2: A few plans did mention structural storm water BMPs that were proposed for reducing
fecal coliform loads and indicated levels of treatment for several BMPs. The Implementation
Plan for the Fecal Coliform TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) for Four Mile Run, Virginia
(Northern Virginia Regional Commission, 2004) included a graph of BMPs and approximate
removal efficiencies from the Metropolitan Washington Council of Government’s Presentation
Materials dated September 26, 2004. Table 11 provides a summary of the data contained in this
graph. The plan concludes that BMPs with biological and chemical treatment processes (wet
ponds, wetlands, and bioretention facilities are more effective at removing fecal coliform
bacteria.

Table 11: BMP Data from TMDL Implementation Plan, Four Mile Run, Virginia
Structural BMP Bacteria Removal Efficiency (%)
Bioretention 85
Infiltration Trench 85
Sand Filter 70
Wetlands 72
Wet Ponds 65
Note: Removal efficiency is concentration based.

Plan 3: The Water Quality Implementation Plan for Blacks Run and Cooks Creek (Fecal
Coliform and Aquatic Life TMDLs) (Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, 2006)
identified the BMPs indicated in Table 12 as appropriate for implementation as part of their
TMDL.

Table 12: BMP Data from TMDL Implementation Plan, Blacks Run & Cooks Creek, Virginia
Structural BMP Bacteria Removal Efficiency (%)
Bioretention Filter 85
Rain Garden 85
Wet Retention Pond 80
Vegetated Buffer 50
Note: Removal efficiency is concentration based.

This plan referenced that the removal efficiencies for the bioretention filter, rain garden, and wet
retention pond BMPs were estimated based upon total suspended solid (TSS) removal
efficiencies. Additionally, the vegetated buffer BMP efficiency was for buffers that treat twice
the buffer area upstream of the buffer.

3.1.2.2 Fecal Coliform Removal Efficiencies for BMPs

MCWQP reviewed several publications that contained BMP performance data for fecal coliform.
In addition, the International Storm Water Database (Water Environment Research Foundation et
al, 1999 - 2007) was used to search for performance data for various BMPs. One article entitled
Grant Ranch Stormwater-Quality Management Program published in Storm Water Magazine
(Jones et al, 2004) featured an evaluation of the performance of BMPs for a residential sub-
division (Grant Ranch) in Littleton, CO. The 77-acre subdivision was designed with three (3)
extended dry detention basins that discharge into a single wetland, thus creating a BMP
E263
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

25

treatment train system. Three (3) years of influent and effluent data was collected on the BMP
system. Table 13 summarizes the fecal coliform results from the BMP system.

Table 13: Fecal Coliform Removal Efficiency for BMP Treatment Train in Littleton, CO
Structural BMP Minimum Fecal
Coliform
Removal
Efficiency (%)
Maximum Fecal
Coliform
Removal
Efficiency (%)
Mean Fecal
Coliform
Removal
Efficiency (%)
Dry Detention with Wetland 81 99 91
Note: Removal efficiency is concentration based.

The above BMPs were reportedly constructed in accordance with the 1992 Urban Drainage and
Flood Control District Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual for Colorado (Urban Drainage and
Flood Control District, 1992).

A publication by Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey entitled Efficiency of Bioretention
Systems to Reduce Fecal Coliform Counts in Storm Water (Rusciano et al, 2005) studied the
effects various media depths of soil media, sand, and gravel had on the fecal coliform removal
efficiency of bioretention systems. The pilot study was conducted in a laboratory using
bioretention tubes. The results provided in Table 14 were provided by this study.

Table 14: Data from Bioretention Study by the State University of New Jersey
Structural BMP Minimum Fecal
Coliform
Removal
Efficiency (%)
Maximum Fecal
Coliform
Removal
Efficiency (%)
Mean Fecal
Coliform
Removal
Efficiency (%)
Bioretention (varying depths of
soil media, sand, and gravel
54.7 99.7 87.8
Note: Removal efficiency is concentration based.

The same study also quoted literature values reported by other studies as summarized in Table
15.

Table 15: Data Summarized in the State University of New Jersey Report
Structural BMP Reference Fecal Coliform Removal
Efficiency (%)
Wetland Birch et al., 2004 76
Wetland Kadlec and Knight, 1996 90
Wetland Davies and Bavor, 2000 79
Note: Removal efficiency is concentration based.

The Rutgers’ study indicated that fecal coliform removal in BMPs was increased with:
¾ Removal of particle sizes of 2 micron and greater because fecal coliform has an affinity
for adsorbing to particle sizes greater than 2 microns.
¾ Increased vegetation.
E264
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

26

¾ BMPs that have periods of wetness and dryness (such as bioretention) that stimulate
increased anaerobic and aerobic microbes that are predatory to bacteria.
¾ Increased temperature.

A publication entitled Removal of Microbial Indicators From Storm Water Using Sand
Filtration, Wet Detention, and Alum Treatment Best Management Practices presented at the
Sixth Biennial Storm Water Research & Watershed Management Conference September 14-17,
1999 (Southwest Florida Water Management District, 1999) studied three (3) BMPs under
simulated storm conditions produced by flowing storm water (previously collected in a holding
tank) of known fecal concentration into the BMP and collecting effluent samples at various time
periods. Table 16 provides the results of this study.

Table 16: Data from 6th Biennial Storm Water Research & Watershed Conference (Southwest
Florida Water Management District, 1999)
Structural
BMP
BMP Condition 1

BMP Condition 2

Fecal Coliform Removal
Efficiency (%)
Wet Pond 3.3-ft water depth 5-day detention 98.2
Wet Pond 9.0-ft water depth 5-day detention 88.5
Wet Pond 3.3-ft water depth 14-day detention 76.4
Wet Pond 9.0-ft water depth 14-day detention 69.2
Sand Filter -- -- 65.4
Alum Settling
(jar test)
-- -- 99.9
Note: Removal efficiency is load based.

The above BMPs were reportedly constructed in accordance with Chapter 40D-4 of the Florida
Administrative Code (Southwest Florida Water Management District, 1999). The study noted
that shallower wet ponds were more effective at removing fecal coliform because of increased
exposure to sunlight or UV radiation, which is known to eliminate fecal coliform.

In addition to reviewing articles, MCWQP conducted searches on the International Storm Water
Database for BMPs (Water Environment Research Foundation et al, 1999 - 2007) that have fecal
coliform data. Neither the sampling protocols used nor the construction specifications for these
BMPs were available for review. Table 17 presents the data obtained from searches on the
International Storm Water Database for BMPs (Water Environment Research Foundation et al,
1999 - 2007).

Table 17: Data Obtained from the International Storm Water Database for BMPs
Structural BMP BMP Name Fecal Coliform Removal Efficiency (%)
Wet Pond La Costa WB 99
Sand Filter La Costa PR 99.8
Sand Filter Foothill SF 71.5
Wet Pond DUST Marsh Debris 90
Peat/Sand Filter Via Verde 40
Note: Removal efficiency is concentration based.

E265
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

27

3.1.2.3 Fecal Coliform Data from Local Pilot BMP Monitoring Program

MCWQP has been monitoring several BMPs locally for the past four (4) years. The data has
been tracked by MCWQP in cooperation with the City of Charlotte and North Carolina State
University (NCSU). A summary of the monitoring data was provided by NCSU in a series of
reports dated January 2007 (North Carolina State University, 2007). The reports included
estimates of the efficiency ratios for each BMP based upon influent and effluent concentrations.
Since influent and effluent flow data was also monitored for each BMP, MCWQP was able to
calculate load efficiencies for certain BMPs. A summary of the monitoring data is provided in
Table 18.

Table 18: Data from BMP Monitoring in Mecklenburg County
Structural BMP NCSU Fecal Coliform
Removal Efficiency (%)
MCWQP Fecal Coliform
Removal Efficiency (%)
Hal Marshall Rain Garden 69 94
Bruns Rain Garden -- 36
Bruns Wetland 70 --
Edwards Branch Wetland 99 --
West Brandywine Wetland -- 51
Pierson Wet Pond 57 --
Morehead Place Dry Detention < - 21 > < - 49 >
University Executive Park Dry
Detention
< - 3 > < - 160 >
Note: Removal efficiency is concentration based.

It should be noted that the sampling protocol for fecal coliform grab sampling did not specify at
which point during the rain event (runoff hydrograph) the influent and effluent samples were to
be collected; therefore, the grab samples were collected at various periods during the rain event.

Table 19 provides a summary of the BMPs studied and evaluated as part of the WQRP for Goose
Creek.

Table 19: Summary of all Data Collected
Structural BMP Reported Fecal
Coliform Removal
Efficiency (%)
Average Fecal Coliform
Efficiencies from Studied
BMPs (%)
Hal Marshall Rain Garden 94
78 Bruns Rain Garden 36
VA 4-mile Rain Garden 85
VA Blacks Run Rain Garden 85 78 Rutgers Rain Garden 88

E266
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

28

Structural BMP Reported Fecal
Coliform Removal
Efficiency (%)
Average Fecal Coliform
Efficiencies from Studied
BMPs (%)
Bruns Wetland 70

79
Edwards Branch Wetland 99
West Brandywine Wetland 51
VA 4-mile Wetland 72
Grant Ranch Dry Detention /Wetland 91
Birch Wetland 76
Kadlec Wetland 90
Davies Wetland 79
Note: Removal efficiency is concentration based.

3.1.2.4 Observations from BMP Data Analysis

Based upon review of the various fecal coliform TMDL Implementation Plans, literature
publications, laboratory and field monitoring data, MCWQP makes the following observations:
¾ Other jurisdictions are using structural storm water BMPs as one tool for meeting their
fecal coliform TMDL limitations.
¾ There is variability in the design criteria proposed for optimizing fecal coliform removal
in BMPs.
¾ Dry detention ponds were not found to be effective at removing fecal coliform and in
some instances increased loads of fecal coliform.
¾ Bioretention gardens, wet ponds, wetlands, sand filters, and infiltration BMPs show
removal of fecal coliform from storm water runoff. It should be noted that all studied
BMPs were designed according to different specifications.
¾ The depths of soil media, gravel, and sand layer in a bioretention cell do not affect the
fecal coliform removal capability of the bioretention cell.
¾ Wet ponds with shallower permanent pool depths are more effective at removing fecal
coliform than deeper wet ponds.
¾ Wet Ponds with 5-day detention time are more effective at removing fecal coliform than
wet ponds with 14-day detention times.
¾ Comparison of the “tested” BMPs indicates variability of fecal coliform removal rates for
various BMP types, but general trends were noted.

3.1.2.5 Recommendations

MCWQP recommends that structural storm water BMPs be used as one tool for reducing fecal
coliform concentrations in the Goose Creek Watershed. For BMP selection and use, the
following additional recommendations are provided:
¾ Dry Detention BMPs should not be used to remove fecal coliform loads.
¾ Bioretention cells, wetlands, wet ponds, infiltration BMPs, and sand filters can be used to
effectively remove fecal coliform loads.
¾ Since BMPs designed according to different standards showed fairly consistent removal
of fecal coliform, MCWQP believes that there is no need to provide specific design
E267
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

29

standards for BMPs used to remove fecal coliform. MCWQP recommends the use of
existing design standards contained in the Mecklenburg County BMP Design Manual.
¾ In the absence of test data for a site-specific BMP, MCWQP recommends the use of the
fecal coliform removal rates contained in Table 20 for estimating removal for retro-fitted
BMPs.

Table 20: Recommended BMP Removal Efficiencies for Retro-Fitted BMPs
Structural BMP Reported Fecal Coliform Removal Efficiency (%)
Bioretention Cells 80
Wetlands 80
Wet Ponds 80
Sand Filters 80
Note: Removal efficiency is concentration based.

3.1.3 Existing and Proposed Structural BMPs in the Goose Creek Watershed

Table 21 provides the locations and types of BMPs either currently in operation in the Goose
Creek Watershed and those proposed for installation by June 30, 2010. A map showing the
locations of these BMPs in the watershed is provided in Figure 9.

Table 21: Locations & Types of BMPs Completed or Proposed in the Goose Creek Watershed
BMP-ID Location Status BMP Type Longitude Latitude
97 Bain School Completed Bioretention -80.6497 35.17484
87 Mint Hill Park Completed Bioretention -80.6343 35.1795
88 Mint Hill Park Completed Bioretention -80.6345 35.17919
89 Mint Hill Park Completed Bioretention -80.6338 35.17948
90 Mint Hill Park Completed Bioretention -80.6341 35.17912
91 Mint Hill Park Completed Bioretention -80.634 35.17857
92 Mint Hill Park Completed Bioretention -80.6341 35.17823
93 Mint Hill Park Completed Bioretention -80.6336 35.17805
94 Mint Hill Park Completed Bioretention -80.6342 35.17722
95 Mint Hill Park Completed Bioretention -80.6324 35.17973
534 Trinity Episcopal Church Completed Wet Pond -80.6814 35.13748
389 Bain School Completed Bioretention -80.6486 35.17508
511 Byrd & Ropas Doctor’s Off. Completed Bioretention -80.6646 35.16752
535 Trinity Episcopal Church Completed Wet Pond -80.6811 35.13768
544 CMC Medical Building Completed Dry Detention -80.6811 35.14706
G-1 Yarmouth Road Completed Bioretention -80.6497 35.14305
G-2 Oxford Glen Sub-division Proposed Bioretention -80.651 35.14633
G-3 Queens Grant School Completed Dry Detention -80.6627 35.16575
G-4 Country Woods Completed Linear Wetland -80.6336 35.14531
G-5 Bain School Road Proposed Livestock Fencing -80.6352 35.16246
Note: Latitude and Longitude in Decimal Degrees.

E268
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

30

As indicated in Table 21, the two (2) new BMPs planned for implementation in the Goose Creek
Watershed in FY10 include the installation of a structural BMP with a culvert improvement in
the 15400 block of Thompson Road in Mint Hill and the installation of a fence to exclude
livestock from the creek at 12601 Bain School Road also in Mint Hill. Figure 9 shows these
sites as G2 and G5, respectively.

Figure 9: Locations of BMPs Completed or Proposed in the Goose Creek Watershed

G-4
G-5
38997
9589
94

93
92 91
87 90
88
G-3511
G-2
G-1
544
535534
gp

E269
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

31

3.2 Septic System Inspections (Non-Structural BMP)

The primary sewage disposal method in the Goose Creek Watershed is the on-site septic system.
It is estimated that over 1,300 of these systems are in operation on single-family residential lots
dispersed throughout the watershed in Mecklenburg County. Municipal sewer collection is very
sparse in the Goose Creek Watershed and there are only five (5) private wastewater treatment
plants with two (2) in Mecklenburg County and three (3) in Union County. Due to the
proliferation of septic systems in the watershed, it is expected that failing or malfunctioning
systems are a source of fecal coliform bacteria from humans. The primary reasons for failing
systems are improper maintenance by the system owner and poor installation. A pilot study for
the inspection of individual septic systems was implemented from April through June of 2009 in
the Goose Creek Watershed in Mecklenburg County. Septic systems in Mecklenburg County are
regulated by Ground Water and Waste Water Services (GWWS); therefore, MCWQP worked
with the inspectors employed by GWWS in the completion of this pilot study. The purpose of
these inspections was to inform residents regarding the proper maintenance of their septic
systems and to inspect the system to ensure proper operation. The inspection form used is
provided Appendix 3. A copy of the educational information distributed during these inspections
is provided in Appendix 4. All septic systems in Mecklenburg County are planned to be
inspected by July 2011. The prioritization scheme to be following in scheduling these
inspections is provided in Appendix 5. Stallings and Indian Trail are considering the
implementation of a similar septic system inspection program within their jurisdictions.

3.3 Public and Staff Participation and Outreach (Non-Structural BMP)

3.3.1 Methodology

The goals of the public participation and outreach efforts to be conducted in the Goose Creek
Watershed are as follows:
¾ Increase awareness of the WQRP on the part of citizens and public employees in the
watershed and inform them of the actions they can take to lower fecal coliform
concentrations in the creek.
¾ Increase participation among residents in the watershed in existing volunteer programs
offered by Mecklenburg County, including Adopt-A-Stream and Storm Drain Marking.
¾ Inform citizens of the proper disposal of dog waste.

These goals will be achieved by completing the following actions at least once during each fiscal
year beginning in FY10. The following Sections provide additional detail regarding these
actions.
¾ Conduct a minimum of one (1) public workshop in the watershed.
¾ Conduct a minimum of one (1) workshop targeted toward public employees within the
watershed, particularly employees with the Mecklenburg and Union Counties as well as
the Towns of Mint Hill, Stallings and Indian Trail.
¾ Place a minimum of one article in the newsletters distributed by the Towns of Mint Hill,
Stallings and Indian Trail.
¾ Distribute postcards, fliers and other written educational materials by mail, at event
displays, etc.
E270
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

32

3.3.2 Public Workshop

Beginning in FY2010, MCWQP will conduct annual workshops for staff and the general public
in the Goose Creek Watershed to inform them of the WQRP in Goose Creek and the actions they
can take to assist in our efforts to reduce fecal coliform bacteria levels. Brochures and various
other educational materials will be distributed during these workshops. Attendees will be
solicited for participation in volunteer activities to restore water quality conditions in Goose
Creek, including Storm Drain Marking and Adopt-A-Stream.

3.3.3 Staff Development

Beginning in November 2009, MCWQP will host annual workshops for the staff of Mecklenburg
and Union Counties as well as the Towns of Mint Hill, Stallings, Fairview and Indian Trail. The
workshops will include the use of PowerPoint presentations, handouts and other information to
cover the following topics:
¾ Why efforts to protect and restore water quality conditions in Goose Creek were initiated,
how have these efforts evolved over time and why, and what is our measure of the
success of these efforts.
¾ Overview of the Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program, including a description
of each component and time frame for implementation.
¾ Overview of the Goose Creek Site Specific Management Plan.
¾ Detailed description of how staff will be involved in the implementation of the programs
described in numbers 2 and 3 above.
¾ Description of educational materials available to residents.

3.3.4 Newsletters

Beginning in January 2010 and occurring annually thereafter, MCWQP will provide the Towns
of Mint Hill, Stallings and Indian Trail with articles for inclusion in their newsletters to inform
residents of the WQRP in Goose Creek and the actions they can take to assist in our efforts to
reduce fecal coliform bacteria levels. Participation in the volunteer programs will also be
solicited in the articles and dates for future workshops will be announced.

3.3.5 Dog Waste

Dog waste is a potential contributor of elevated fecal coliform bacteria levels. Dog waste left on
trails, sidewalks, streets, and grassy areas are carried by rainwater into storm drains to nearby
rivers, lakes and streams, including Goose Creek. Like human waste, animal waste may contain
parasites, viruses, intestinal worms and bacteria, particularly fecal coliform. A single gram of pet
waste contains an average of 23 million colonies of fecal coliform bacteria.

Some of the suggested behaviors for pet owners to adopt to reduce fecal coliform bacteria levels
in surface waters are as follows:
¾ Pick up after your pet every single time they defecate.
¾ Check with your pet store for products that make picking up dog waste easy.
¾ Throw away pet waste in the garbage; never wash it into the gutter or storm drain.
E271
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

33

¾ Never dispose of waste in or leave it near creeks and lakes.
¾ Carry extra bags in your car, so you are prepared when you travel with your pet.
¾ Get involved in a pet group and remind others to pick up after their pets.
¾ Educate neighbors.

MCWQP believes that by educating pet owners in the Goose Creek Watershed regarding the
above behaviors an increased amount of pet waste will be properly disposed of and not end up in
the creek thus reducing in-stream fecal coliform bacteria levels. The target of this educational
campaign will be pet owners. Typically, active dog walkers pick up after their pets; therefore,
the educational campaign will focus on residents in the Goose Creek Watershed that leave their
dogs in the yard. In the Goose Creek Watershed, the addresses of pet owners that reside adjacent
to the creek have been obtained. During November and December of 2009, MCWQP will mail
these pet owners a postcard with information regarding the proper disposal of pet waste (see
Figure 10). Homeowner Association (HOA) presidents in the Goose Creek Watershed will also
receive this information as well as an article for inclusion in the HOA newsletter.

The next step in the educational campaign for proper pet waste disposal will be to partner with
veterinarians and dog related businesses to get the message out where dog owners shop. Each
veterinarian and pet store within the Goose Creek Watershed will receive posters to hang up in
their business and information to hand out to customers. This will occur in February and March
of 2010.

The final approach will be to reach dog owners where they take their pets. This will occur in
May and June of 2010. MCWQP will partner with Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation to
establish protocol for dog waste removal at its numerous dog parks. Their mutt-mitt stations will
be labeled with a message to promote cleaning up after pets. A traveling exhibit will also be
created to take to dog related events, such as Bark in the Park, Pet Parade and Earth Day.

Some of the products of the campaign have already been created; others will be designed around
the focus group results. In preliminary discussions the following are being considered:
¾ Postcards for distribution in mail or at businesses (see Figure 10).
¾ Posters at veterinarians’ offices.
¾ Signs in pet store waste removal aisles.

Incentives have also been considered to help dog owners establish correct pet waste disposal
methods. In order for the avid dog walker to always be prepared when taking walks with their
pet, MCWQP will provide bags on board product (see Figure 11) to pet owners in the Goose
Creek Watershed that attend a dog event.

The major baseline for program evaluation is water quality. We have sampling sites in all of the
target watersheds. Fecal numbers will be recorded before the marketing campaign begins,
during the campaign, as well as to be determined intervals after the message goes out.
Other methods of evaluation are the number of pledge cards received, to be counted by staff.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services will work with pet stores to determine the number
of pet waste disposal products sold in their stores. Veterinarians will tally the number of
materials handed out in their offices.
E272
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

34

Figure 10: Pet Waste Postcard (front)

(back)
E273
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

35

Figure 11: Bags on Board Containing Pet Waste Disposal Bags

3.4 Documenting Removal Efficiencies for Structural and Non-Structural BMPs

As described in Section 2.2, fecal coliform removal efficiencies will be assigned to each BMP
utilized in the Goose Creek Watershed as part of the WQRP, including both structural and non-
structural varieties. Section 3.1.2 contains sufficient documentation for the establishment of the
removal efficiencies for structural BMPs but research needs to be completed to establish the
removal efficiencies for the non-structural variety, including septic system surveys, public
education and involvement, etc. It is believed that such removal efficiencies have been
documented elsewhere in the country. During FY09-10, MCWQP will research this
documentation and establish removal efficiencies for non-structural BMPs using the best
available data and information. This research and established removal efficiencies will be
documented in the FY10 revisions to Section 3 of the WQRP Plan, which will be completed and
submitted to DWQ for review and consideration by August 31, 2010. Following approval of by
DWQ, MCWQP will track and total the removal efficiencies for all the BMPs completed in the
watershed. Once sufficient BMPs have been employed to achieve a 92.5% removal efficiency in
all the MS4 areas in the Goose Creek Watershed the WQRP Plan will consider the MS4 areas to
be compliant with the TMDL and the WQRP will have reached its endpoint.

3.5 BMP Implementation Schedule for FY10

Provided below is the schedule for the development and implementation of the BMPs planned
for FY10:
1. July 2009 through June 30, 2010: Continuation of the septic system survey in the
watershed.
2. October 2009: Initiate efforts toward the installation of fencing at 12601 Bain School
Road in Mint Hill to exclude livestock from the creek.
3. November 2009: Conduct annual workshop for staff and the general public.
4. December of 2009: Mail pet waste postcard.
E274
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

36

5. January 2010: Initiate efforts toward the installation of BMPs with the culvert project
planned for the 15400 block of Thompson Road in Mint Hill.
6. January 2010: Distribute articles in the Towns’ newsletter.
7. February and March of 2010: Partner with veterinarians and pet related businesses to
distribute pet waste information.
8. May and June of 2010: Reach owners where they take their pets (dog parks, etc.).

E275
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

37

SECTION 4.0 DATA COLLECTION AND DOCUMENTATION

4.1 Data Collection

The data collected for the Goose Creek WQRP consists of water quality monitoring data,
locations of the storm drain inlets and outlets, and various data and information documenting the
activities performed and BMPs employed to restore water quality conditions in compliance with
State standards. The data in each of these three (3) categories differs with regard to how it is
collected, assessed and maintained as described below. All data is stored on a Mecklenburg
County server that is maintained by the IST Department.

4.1.1 Monitoring Data

All monitoring activities for the WQRP will be performed in strict accordance with MCWQP’s
QAPP. This QAPP is maintained on the following LAN site: G:\WQ_Xfer\WQ\Policies &
Procedures\11.QAPP. MCWQP’s Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) Officer will
be responsible for ensuring compliance with this QAPP. The majority of the samples collected
by MCWQP for the WQRP will be delivered for analysis to the laboratory operated by
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities (CMU) located at 4222 Westmont Drive in Charlotte, N.C.
(certification #192). On occasion, due to laboratory work load or in order for holding times to be
met, samples will be delivered for analysis to Prism Laboratory located at 449 Springbrook
Road in Charlotte, N.C. (certification #402). Analytical results will be transferred digitally and
via hard copy to the QA/QC Officer from the laboratory within 45 days of sample collection.
The only exception to this rule will be with the CMANN data, which will be reviewed and
quality assured by the CMANN Project Officer and submitted to the QA/QC Officer
electronically. Field staff will provide completed field data sheets and copies of Chain of
Custody forms to the QA/QC officer on the same day the samples and field measurements are
collected. The QA/QC Officer is responsible for the compilation, review, verification,
validation, and warehousing of all water quality monitoring data collected by MCWQP. As part
of this process, the QA/QC Officer will immediately forward all exceedances of State standards
or local Action Levels as well as any observed negative water quality conditions to the Water
Quality Supervisor for the initiation of immediate follow up activities to identify and eliminate
pollution source(s) in accordance with IDDE Procedures for MCWQP.

On at least a monthly basis, data will be compiled, quality assured and added to the Water
Quality Data Repository (WQDR), which is a component of the Environmental Data
Management System (EDMS) maintained for MCWQP. This data will be readily available to
staff through the use of SAS reports. In addition, data will be maintained on the website
described in Section 2.4 above.

4.1.2 Storm Drain Inventory Data

During the course of the stream walks conducted in the Goose Creek Watershed during the
summer of 2007, all storm drain inlets and outlets were identified in Mecklenburg County and
the Towns of Mint Hill, Stallings and Indian Trail. Data was collected in the field using ArcPad
software installed on GPS enabled hand-held computers called Trimble Units. Upon return to
E276
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

38

the office, data was downloaded from the Trimble Units into GIS and stored in EDMS, which is
accessible by all MCWQP staff for Mecklenburg County and Mint Hint Hill. Figure 12
illustrates how this data is represented in EDMS. For the Towns of Stallings and Indian Trail,
GIS data was downloaded onto a CD and provided to staff for their use.

Figure 12: Storm Drain Inlets and Outlets in EDMS

Storm drain inlets and outlets will be updated in EDMS as new development occurs based on
data submitted to Mecklenburg County by builders and developers. This is a requirement prior
to the final approval of construction activities.

4.1.3 Documentation of WQRP Activities

Written reports will be completed to document the activities performed and BMPs employed to
restore water quality conditions in compliance with State standards. These reports will be
entered into EDMS on Work Order forms contained in software called Cityworks. These Work
Orders include “Comment” fields and attachments to describe activities completed. Figure 13
illustrates a Work Order template in EDMS.

E277
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

39

Figure 13: Work Order Template in EDMS

4.2 Reports

An annual report summarizing the activities associated with the WQRP and its overall
effectiveness will be prepared and submitted to the WQRP Advisory Group described in Section
2.4 above by July 15th of each year, which is two (2) weeks following the end of the fiscal year.
These annual reports will include the following sections:
1. Water Quality Data Assessment: Assessment of data collected through the water quality
monitoring program established for the WQRP, including current status and trends
toward meeting the State standard for fecal coliform.
2. BMP Assessment: Description of the BMPs employed during the fiscal year and an
assessment of their effectiveness as well as BMP measures that will be implemented next
fiscal year to restore water quality conditions in compliance with State standards.
3. Cost-Benefit Analysis: Analysis of each BMPs cost relative to the amount of fecal
coliform bacteria removed.
4. Source Reduction: Description of the water quality problems identified and eliminated
and the estimated load reduction.
5. Adaptive Management: Recommended changes to the WQRP to improve compliance
with TMDL targets and the State water quality standard.
6. Public Participation and Outreach: Description of the activities performed to educate and
involve the public in efforts to restore water quality conditions in Goose Creek.
7. Staff Development: Description of the activities performed to educate and involve staff
in efforts to restore water quality conditions in Goose Creek.
E278
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

40

SECTION 5.0 PROGRAM EVALUATION

5.1 Assessing the Effectiveness of BMPs and WQRP

The WQRP Advisory Group described in Section 2.4 above was developed in November 2006
for the purpose of reviewing program activities and data and assessing the need for change. This
group consists of representatives from the following:
¾ Mecklenburg County Water Quality Program
¾ Town of Mint Hill
¾ Town of Stallings
¾ Town of Indian Trail
¾ Union County
¾ DWQ

In addition, representatives of other jurisdictions interested in the recovery program and private
citizens with an interest and knowledge of the TMDL program often participate in discussions
and meetings. The MCWQP representative will take the lead in setting up the meetings,
establishing agendas and providing all necessary background information. The WQRP Advisory
Group will meet at a minimum of annually before August 15th following the release of the
WQRP annual report by July 15th (see Section 4.2 above). Additional meetings will be held
during the year as deemed necessary by MCWQP or any other member of the WQRP Advisory
Group. The purpose of this meeting will be to assess the effectiveness of the BMPs employed
during the fiscal year and the overall effectiveness of the WQRP at meeting TMDL targets. The
group will also identify additional BMPs or changes in the WQRP needed to ensure the
fulfillment of all TMDL objectives. MCWQP staff will review the data presented in the annual
report during the meeting of the group after which a discussion will take place for evaluating the
overall effectiveness of the BMPs and associated cost-benefit analysis as well as the overall
WQRP.

5.2 Cost-Benefit Analysis

The cost-benefit analysis is an integral component of the process for evaluating the WQRP. The
costs associated with the completion of both structural and non-structural BMPs will be carefully
documented throughout the fiscal year. In addition, the removal efficiencies for these BMPs as
described in Section 3.4 will be tracked. At the end of each fiscal year, this data will be
compiled to identify the estimated cost associated with the removal of fecal coliform bacteria for
each BMP employed. This data will be summarized and included in the annual report completed
and submitted the WQRP Advisory Group and DWQ by July 15th of every year. This data will
be carefully evaluated during the annual meetings of the WQRP Advisory Group for
identification of the BMPs to be employed the next fiscal year.

For FY09, cost data was available for the retrofit BMP projects (bioretention systems) installed
at Mint Hill Park on Fairveiw Road and the non-structural BMP implemented through the septic
system survey. The total fecal coliform load removed as a result of theses BMPs was also
estimated to identify the benefit of these BMPs. The results of this analysis are as follows:

E279
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

41

BMP Cost vs. Benefit
¾ Estimated annual fecal coliform removal from the 2 rain gardens = 869 billion colonies
¾ The estimated cost of the 2 rain gardens = $249,000
¾ Cost per billion colonies removed = $286

Septic System Survey Cost vs. Benefit
¾ Estimated annual fecal coliform removal from septic system inspections = 135 billion
colonies
¾ The estimated cost of the septic system inspections = $8,989 (includes inspection costs
only and the cost to the owner of the repair)
¾ Cost per billion colonies removed = $67 (based on the assumption that all the fecal
bacteria from the failing system reaches the creek)

Based on the above cost-benefit analysis, septic system inspections are approximately four (4)
times more cost effective at the removal of fecal coliform bacteria than retrofitted-structural
BMPs in the Goose Creek Watershed. In other words, for every $1 spent on the septic system
inspection program at least $4 would have to be spent on structural BMP retrofits to achieve the
same pollutant removal load. Therefore, maximum effort should be focused on the completion
of the septic system survey and the implementation of the survey in Indian Trail and Stallings.

E280
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

42

SECTION 6.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

6.1 Assessing the Need for Change

During the annual meeting of the WQRP Advisory Group held in August of every year as
discussed in Section 5.1 above, MCWQP staff will explain the overall effectiveness of the BMPs
and WQRP at complying with the State water quality standard and lead a subsequent discussion
regarding the changes that are needed to maximize the cost-benefit ratio. The purpose of this
discussion will be to identify specific changes and/or additions to the BMPs and WQRP Plan that
are necessary in order to more effectively comply with the TMDL targets and State water quality
standard in a cost efficient manner.

6.2 WQRP Plan Updates

MCWQP will record comments and input received during the annual WQRP Advisory Group
meeting regarding the effectiveness of the BMPs and WQRP as well as the changes necessary to
improve compliance with the TMDL targets and State water quality standard. MCWQP staff
will carefully consider these comments and update the WQRP Plan accordingly. In addition, the
annual report will be modified if the WQRP Advisory Group believes that data and information
presented in the annual report is inaccurate or incomplete. The updated WQRP Plan and annual
report will be provided to DWQ no later than August 30th of every year. As required by Part II,
Section A, Paragraph 11 (e) of the Phase II Permit, following any review and comment by DWQ
regarding the WQRP, MCWQP will incorporate any necessary changes into the WQRP Plan.
The WQRP Plan will be incorporated into the Storm Water Management Program Plan by
August 30th of every year and implementation of the new Plan will begin immediately. The
revised WQRP Plan and Storm Water Management Program Plan will be placed on the website.
An email will be sent to the WQRP Advisory Group informing them that the revised WQRP Plan
has been finalized and making them aware of its location on the website.

As the WQRP Plan is changed, the version and date are to be changed on the front cover of the
document. Only the current version is to be located on the website under the name “Goose
Creek WQRP V_.doc.” The blank after WQRP Plan is to include the version number such as 1,
2, 3, 4, etc. The current version of this Plan is also to be maintained on the LAN in the following
folder: G:\WQ_Xfer\WQ\Goose Recovery Plan. Old versions of the WQRP Plan are to be
maintained on the LAN in the following folder: G:\WQ_Xfer\WQ\Goose Recovery
Plan\Archived WQRPs.

6.3 Program Analysis and Adaptive Management Schedule

Provided below is the schedule for program assessment and adaptive management as described
in Sections 5.1 and 6.1 above.
1. By July 15th of every year: MCWQP to complete annual report including a cost-benefit
analysis of BMPs and provide to members of the WQRP Advisory Group.
2. By August 15th of every year: MCWQP to hold a meeting of the WQRP Advisory Group to
review the annual report, assess the effectiveness of BMPs and modify and/or add to the
WQRP Plan and/or BMPs as deemed appropriate.
E281
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

43

3. By August 30th of every year: MCWQP to complete modifications to the WQRP Plan,
BMPs and annual reports and submit to DWQ.
4. By August 30th of every year: MCWQP to place revised WQRP Plan, Storm Water
Management Program Plan, annual report, and all monitoring data on the website and send
an email to the WQRP Advisory Group informing them that the revisions and making them
aware of its location on the website. All changes to the WQRP will become effective on
August 30th of each year.

E282
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

44

SECTION 7.0 SCHEDULE

Table 22 provides the WQRP activities to be performed and the associated schedule.

Table 22: WQRP Schedule
Activity Initiation Date Completion
Date
Measure of Success
Program Development
Develop a Water Quality
Recovery Plan (WQRP) for the
Goose Creek Fecal Coliform
TMDL
August 2006 April 2007 WQRP Plan developed,
implemented & incorporated into
Storm Water Management
Program Plan with updates
ongoing.
Develop WQRP Advisory Group November 2006 Ongoing Active group established and
ongoing with meetings at least
annually in August.
Develop WQRP Website April 2007 Ongoing with a
minimal of
annual updates
Website developed, including at a
minimum the WQRP Plan, Annual
Reports and Monitoring Data.
Develop WQRP Monitoring
Plan
April 2007 Ongoing Monitoring plan developed and
incorporated into WQRP Plan.
Develop a Plan & Schedule for
Identification of Storm Water
Outfalls
April 2007 April 2007 Plan and schedule developed and
incorporated into WQRP Plan.
Program Implementation
Identification of Storm Water
Outfalls
May 2007 July 2007 Outfalls identified and made
available to staff through GIS.
Updates to the database will be
provided by contractors/
developers as new development
occurs.
Implementation of Monitoring
Program
May 2007 Ongoing Monitoring conducted in
accordance with Plan in Section
2.6. Data evaluation & pollution
sources identified and eliminated
immediately upon receipt of data.
Identification & Implementation
of BMPs
April 2007 Ongoing BMP study completed to identify
BMPs some of which were
implemented in FY09 as discussed
in Section 3. BMPs to be
implemented during FY10 are
listed in Section 3.4.
Implementation of Public
Participation & Outreach Efforts
May 2009 Ongoing Brochures for proper maintenance
of septic systems. FY10 activities
and schedules included in Section
3.3.
E283
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

45

Activity Initiation Date Completion
Date
Measure of Success
Staff Development April 2007 Ongoing Staff training and updates on
WQRP during staff meetings.
FY10 activities and schedules
included in Section 3.3
Data Collection & Documentation
Data Collection May 2007 Ongoing Data collection occurs during
monitoring and BMP
implementation.
Reports July 9, 2008 Ongoing Data summarized and provided in
annual report submitted to WQRP
Advisory Group and DWQ by July
15th of every year. Also placed on
website.
Program Evaluation
Assessing the Effectiveness of
BMPs & WQRP
August 4, 2009 Ongoing Occurs at a minimum of annually
in accordance with Section 5.
Cost-Benefit Analysis August 4, 2009 Ongoing Occurs at a minimum of annually
in accordance with Section 5.
FY09 Program Evaluation May 2009 August 4,
2009
Occurs at a minimum of annually
in accordance with Section 5.
Adaptive Management
Assessing the Need for Change August 4, 2009 Ongoing Occurs at a minimum of annually
in accordance with Section 6.
WQRP Updates August 4, 2009 Ongoing Occurs at a minimum of annually
in accordance with Section 6.
E284
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

46

SECTION 8.0 REFERENCES

Mecklenburg County Water Quality Program, 2009, Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
(IDDE) Policies and Procedures. 700 North Tryon Street, Charlotte, N.C.

Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. 2005. Moore’s Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
Implementation Plan. 401 East Water Street, Charlottesville, VA.

Northern Virginia Regional Commission. 2004. Implementation Plan for the Fecal Coliform
TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) for Four Mile Run, Virginia. 7535 Little River Turnpike,
Suite 100, Annandale, VA.

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. 2006. Water Quality Implementation Plan
for Blacks Run and Cooks Creek (Fecal Coliform and Aquatic Life TMDLs). 44 Sanger Lane,
Suite 102, Staunton, VA.

Water Environment Research Foundation. 1999 – 2000. American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE) / Environmental and Water Resources Institute (EWRI), the American Public Works
Association (APWA), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), 1999 – 2007, International Storm Water Database,
www.bmpdatabase.org.
Jones, Jonathan E., Earles, Andrew, Fassman, Elizabeth A., Doerfer, John T. and Carroll, John
E.: 2004. Grant Ranch Stormwater-Quality Management Program, Stormwater Magazine.
Forester Media Inc., Santa Barbara, CA.
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. 1992. Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual,
Denver, CO.
Rusciano, G.M., C.C. Obropta. 2005. Rusciano, G.M. Efficiency of Bioretention Systems to
Reduce Fecal Coliform Counts in Stormwater. Proceedings of The North American Surface
Water Quality Conference and Exposition, Orlando, Florida, July 18-25, 2005. Forrester
Communications, Inc., Santa Barbara, CA.

Birch, G.F., C. Matthai, M.S. Fazeli, and J. Suh. 2004. Efficiency of a Constructed Wetland in
Removing Contaminants from Stormwater. Wetlands.

Kadlec, R.H. and R.L. Knight. Pathogens. 1996. In Treatment Wetlands. CRC Press,
Inc.: Boca Raton, FL

Davies, C.M. and H.J. Bavor. 2000. The Fate of Stormwater-Associated Bacteria in Constructed
Wetland and Water Pollution Control Pond Systems. Journal of Applied Microbiology.

Southwest Florida Water Management District. 1999. Removal of Microbial Indicators From
Storm Water Using Sand Filtration, Wet Detention, and Alum Treatment Best Management
E285
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

47

Practices presented at the Sixth Biennial Storm Water Research & Watershed Management
Conference September 14-17, 1999. 2379 Broad Street, Brooksville, FL.

North Carolina State University. 2007. City of Charlotte Pilot BMP Monitoring Program Pierson
Pond Final Monitoring Report, City of Charlotte Pilot BMP Monitoring Program Shade Valley
Wet Pond Final Monitoring Report, City of Charlotte Pilot BMP Monitoring Program Edwards
Branch Wetland Final Monitoring Report, City of Charlotte Pilot BMP Monitoring Program
Bruns Ave. Elementary School Wetland Final Monitoring Report, City of Charlotte Pilot BMP
Monitoring Program Morehead Dry Detention Basin Final Monitoring Report, City of Charlotte
Pilot BMP Monitoring Program University Executive Park Dry Detention Basin Final
Monitoring Report, and City of Charlotte Pilot BMP Monitoring Program Hal Marshall
Bioretention Final Monitoring Report. Raleigh, NC.

E286
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

48

Appendix 1: Goose Creek TMDL Notification from N.C. Division of Water Quality

E287
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

49

E288
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

50

Appendix 2: Water Quality Recovery Program Guidance Document

Notification

Pursuant to the terms and conditions of their NPDES Permit, Part II, Final Limitations and
Controls for Permitted Discharges, Section A, Program Implementation, Paragraph 11 (a),
Mecklenburg County was notified that they are subject to an approved Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL).

Permit Requirements

Program Development

No later than September 1, 2008, Permittee shall:

¾ Establish a TMDL Water Quality Recovery Program (WQRP).
¾ Identify the locations of all currently known MS4 outfalls within its jurisdictional area
with the potential of discharging the pollutant(s) of concern to the impaired segments, to
their tributaries, and to segments and tributaries within the watershed contributing to the
impaired segments.
¾ Develop and submit a schedule to discover and locate all other MS4 outfalls within its
jurisdictional area that may be discharging the pollutant(s) of concern to the impaired
stream segments, to their tributaries, and to segments and tributaries within the watershed
contributing to the impaired segments.
¾ Develop a monitoring plan for each pollutant of concern and submit for DWQ review and
approval.

Annual Report (No later than September 1, 2008):

Include the location of all currently known MS4 outfalls with the potential of discharging the
pollutant(s) of concern, the schedule for discovering and locating currently unknown MS4
outfalls with the potential of discharging the pollutant(s) of concern, and the monitoring plan.

Annual Reports (No later than September 1, 2009 and thereafter):

¾ Include an assessment of data collected for each pollutant of concern.
¾ Include an assessment of the effectiveness of the BMPs employed and propose additional
BMP measures that may be necessary to return the impaired segments to compliance with
state water quality standards.

Implementation

¾ The permitee shall implement appropriate BMPs to control pollutants of concern to the
maximum extent practicable.
¾ Following any review and comment by the Division on the TMDL Water Quality
Recovery Program, the permitee shall incorporate any necessary changes into the
E289
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

51

program. The permittee shall incorporate the revised TMDL WQRP into the Storm
Water Management Plan.

Suggested Minimum Elements of a Water Quality Recovery Program

¾ Identify the purpose and goals of a TMDL WQRP.
¾ Establish a TMDL advisory group. group.
¾ Establish a website to document and disseminate information and results.
¾ Identify the location of all currently known MS4 outfalls with the potential of discharging
the pollutant(s) of concern.
¾ Develop a schedule for discovering and locating currently unknown MS4 outfalls with
the potential of discharging the pollutant(s) of concern.
¾ Develop and implement a monitoring plan.
¾ An assessment of the available data for pollutant of concern.
¾ Identify BMPs, time frames, and costs necessary to achieve reduction.
¾ An assessment of the effectiveness of the BMPs employed, to determine what, if any,
additional BMP measures may be necessary to return the impaired segments to
compliance with State water quality standards.
¾ Implement appropriate BMPs to control the pollutants of concern to the maximum extent
practicable.
¾ Incorporate the TMDL WQRP into the Permittee’s Storm Water Management Plan.
¾ Documentation.
¾ Public Participation and Outreach Activities.
¾ Staff Development
¾ Cost-Benefit Analysis.

Monitoring Plan

The monitoring plan shall include the sample location by verbal description and latitude and
longitude coordinates, sample type, frequency, any seasonal considerations, and a monitoring
implementation schedule for each pollutant of concern. Where appropriate, the permittee may
reduce the monitoring burden by proposing to monitor outfalls that the Division would consider
substantially similar to other outfalls. The permittee may also propose in-stream monitoring
where it would complement the overall monitoring plan. The monitoring plan shall be adjusted
as additional outfalls are identified in accordance with the schedule required above and as
accumulating data may suggest.

Documentation

Documentation of progress toward fulfilling the source reduction targets and the resulting water
quality improvements is extremely important at several levels including:
¾ The public/local citizens interested in water quality improvement.
¾ Local agencies responsible for components of the implementation
¾ State agencies responsible for assessing water quality and adjusting programs to address
concerns.
E290
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

52

¾ Federal agencies, primarily the USEPA, responsible for oversight of State programs and
ultimately responsible for TMDL implementation.

To ensure effective documentation and communication of results at all levels, data will be
collected and summarized and made available to the general public via the website and to
NCDENR and the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control 9SCDHEC) via written
reports. This reporting regimen will ensure adequate assessment of the TMDL WQRP and the
timely implementation of TMDL modifications for maximum effectiveness.

The following documentation methods and reporting will be used to measure TMDL
effectiveness and report results:

¾ “TMDL Monitoring Reports” including data collected from source and in-stream
compliance monitoring activities posted monthly on website.
¾ “Source Reduction Reports” for each of the major pollutant(s) of concern sources
included in the TMDLs. This information will be posted annually on the website and a
written copy will be made available to NCDENR and SCDHEC.
¾ “Water Quality Reports” that use the annual Source Reduction Reports to summarize
water quality information regarding compliance with the TMDLs for pollutant(s) of
concern. This information will be posted on the website and a written copy will be made
available to NCDENR and SCDENR.

Public Participation and Outreach Activities

Workshops for the general public, publicized through media releases, will be held for the
purpose of explaining efforts that are being undertaken to reduce pollutant(s) of concern.

Staff Development Phase

Staff will need to be adequately informed of the specific requirements of the WQRP. Staff will
also need to be informed of their specific duties and responsibilities toward fulfilling the WQRP.

Cost-Benefit Analysis

Using the data collected through stream monitoring and assessments, a cost-benefit analysis of
the elimination of the various sources for each pollutant of concern should be conducted. The
purpose of this analysis will be to determine the most cost effective method of eliminating
sources of the pollutant(s) of concern detected through direct stream evaluation. Established
loading rates for each pollutant of concern will be compared to the costs to eliminate sources,
which might include illicit discharges, septic system failures, sanitary sewer overflows, illicit
connections, domestic animals, and leaking sanitary sewer lines. The results of the analysis will
be used to prioritize limited funds for elimination of the greatest load for the least expenditure for
each pollutant(s) of concern.

Assessing the Need for Change

E291
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

53

¾ Incorporate the TMDL WQRP into the Storm
Water Management Plan
¾ Implement appropriate monitoring and BMPs
¾ Implement public participation and outreach
¾ Implement staff development
¾ Assess the effectiveness of the program at meeting
TMDL targets
¾ Assess program activities and data
¾Completeacost-benefit analysis

¾ Current and potential outfalls with the
potential of discharging the pollutant(s) of
concern
¾ Monitoring Data
¾ Data on structural and non-structural BMPs
¾ Data on public participation and outreach
activities
¾ Data on staff development
¾ Data on implementation and administration
cost

Adapt the program as necessary or appropriate
Establish a TMDL WQRP, identify
outfalls, develop a schedule for
identifying outfalls and develop a
monitoring plan.
Program Evaluation Data Collection and Documentation
Program Development
Implementation
Improvements
A TMDL work group will be developed for the purpose of reviewing program activities and
data and assessing the need for change and to assess the effectiveness of the program at meeting
TMDL targets and changing the strategy as necessary to ensure the fulfillment of all TMDL
objectives.

The TMDL work group will adapt the TMDL WQRP as necessary to ensure that source
reduction targets are effectively and efficiently fulfilled and that progress is being made toward
achieving the ultimate goal of compliance with the N.C. water quality standard for each
pollutant(s) of concern. All changes will be communicated to the agencies responsible for the
implementation of the TMDL in the form of an annual report. This report will be posted on the
web and made available to both NCDENR and SCDHEC for comment and input.

Water Quality Recovery Program Life Cycle

E292
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

54

Appendix 3: Septic System Inspection Form Used in the Goose Creek Watershed

Groundwater & Wastewater Services
700 N. Tryon St., Suite 211
Charlotte, NC 28202
Ph: 704-336-5103
Septic System Inspection Form

Inspection Date: _______________Inspection Completed By: ________________________________

Site Parcel Id #: _______________Site Address: __________________________________________

GWS File #: ____________Watershed: __________________ Catchment Id: ________

Septic System Information:

System Classification: II III IV V VI

a b c d e f g

System Description: ____________________________________
(Ex: pump to 25% reduction)

Year Operation Permit Issued: _______________ (If no permit record is available use built date year from
POLARIS.)

System Age: Years _______ Actual Estimated

Inspection Information: Comments

Site accessible for inspection: Yes No

Owner present: Yes No

Drain field probed: Yes No

System malfunction observed: Yes No

Notice of Violation required: Yes No

System located <200 ft. from Yes No
surface water body:

System located <50 ft. from Yes No
stormwater BMP or diversion:

Trees/vegetation in drain field: Yes No

Irrigation on drain field: Yes No

Well(s) located on property: Yes No

E293
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

55

General comments/observations:

# photos taken: _____ Dye Pack Left: Yes No Signature:

Checklist:

1. Perform file review for inspection site in the office (system type, age, location, etc.)
2. Conduct field inspection & complete inspection form before leaving the site
3. Take photos (2 minimum) of the drain field/tank(s) area from multiple locations
4. Leave project brochure & literature on door
5. Create a work order in Cityworks for each inspection completed
6. Attach each work order to a septic GIS feature (permitted or pre-existing layers). If a GIS
feature does not exist the system should be registered in WASPS as a pre-existing, active system
and then attached to the work order.
7. Complete all work order sections, including the required CUSTOM fields (remember to upload the
pictures taken as attachments!)
8. When finished submit the work order to Trevor Thomason for review & place the completed
inspection form in his mailbox.

*All scanned files and related photos should be saved to the following location on the network share
drive:

\\Hmcfs01\attachments\GWS\WorkOrders\SepticSystemInspections\

Make sure to save the files in the appropriate watershed folder (Ex: Goose Creek)

All wells identified during the inspection should be checked in GIS. If the wells are not
visible in GIS they must be registered in WASPS.

E294
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

56

Appendix 4: Septic System Educational Material Distributed During Goose Creek Inspections

E295
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

57

E296
Goose Creek Water Quality Recovery Program for the Approved Fecal Coliform TMDL

58

Appendix 5: Prioritization Scheme for Septic System Inspections
March 16, 2009

Factors used to determine the order (priority) that septic systems will be inspected:
1. Catchment basin (14 total)
2. Proximity to stream (200 ft. buffer)
3. Age of septic system (estimated from CAMA development data)

Catchments will be prioritized from 1 to 14 by the Water Quality (WQ) program and provided to
Groundwater & Wastewater Services (GWS). GWS will then develop an inspection schedule for
each catchment based on the following matrix:

Tier Proximity to stream Septic System Age (yrs.)
1 <= 200 ft. 29+ (Pre-1980)
2 <= 200 ft. 0-28 (1981-2009)
3 > 200 ft. 29+ (Pre-1980)
4 > 200 ft. 14-28 (1980-1995)
5 > 200 ft. 0-13 (1996-2009)

Time estimation per inspection:

Task Estimated Time (hrs.) Comments:
Inspection 0.50 Complete inspection form
Documentation 0.50 File review & CW data entry
*Travel Time 0.25 Inspections will be assigned in
clusters.
Total Time 1.25

Estimate of 1.25 hours for each inspection performed.

Travel time is estimated based on the following:
1. Inspections will be assigned in grouped clusters
2. Inspections will be completed in batches (5 or more inspections)
Example: Travel time to site from Hal Marshall = 30 minutes
Travel time from site to Hal Marshall = 30 minutes
Travel time between inspection sites = 5 minutes
10 inspections conducted during one trip = 50 minutes
110 minutes/10 inspections = 11 minutes/inspection

Total time analysis for 10 inspections:
1. 0.5 hrs. x 10 inspections = 5 hours for inspection
2. 0.5 hrs. x 10 inspections = 5 hours for file review & work order completion
3. 0.25 hrs. x 10 inspections = 2.5 hours of travel time

Field/travel = 7.5 hours
Office/documentation = 5 hours
E297
Matthews
Mint Hill
Pineville
South
485
85
77
485
485 485
PINEVILLE COMMUNITY PARK
REDDMAN COMMUNITY PARK
COPPERHEADISLAND
EVERGREENNATUREPRESERVE
FLAT BRANCHNATUREPRESERVE
MCDOWELL NATURE PRESERVE
BERRYHILLNATUREPRESERVE
BIG ROCK NATURE PRESERVE
GATEWAY NATURE PRESERVE
STEVENSCREEK NATUREPRESERVE
KILBORNE COMMUNITY PARK
ELON HOMES REGIONAL PARK
HARRISBURG ROADREGIONAL PARK
IDLEWILD ROADREGIONAL PARK
MECKLENBURG CO.REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX
MCALPINE CREEKREGIONAL PARK
RENAISSANCEREGIONALPARK
T.M. WINGETREGIONALPARK
BEREWICK REGIONAL PARK
WILLIAMR. DAVIEREGIONAL PARK
BALLANTYNECOMMUNITYPARK
CAMPBELL CREEKCOMMUNITY PARK
HUNTINGTOWNEFARMSCOMMUNITY PARK
JAMES BOYCECOMMUNITYPARK
MCKEE COMMUNITY PARK
MARION DIEHLCOMMUNITY PARK
MASON WALLACECOMMUNITY PARK
COLONEL FRANCISJ. BEATTYREGIONAL PARK
OLDE PROVIDENCECOMMUNITY PARK
PARK ROAD COMMUNITY PARK
RAMBLEWOODCOMMUNITYPARK
CAPPS COMMUNITY PARK
EZELL FARMCOMMUNITYPARK
GATEWAY COMMUNITY PARK
Providence
Rd
Matthews-Mint
Hill Rd
S Tryon St
E
W
T Harris Bv
Pineville-Matthews Rd
Wilkinson Bv
E Independence
Bv
E W T
Harris Bv
Albemarle Rd
Providen
ce
Rd
Pineville-Matthews Rd
Matthews-Mint Hill Rd
Billy
Graham
Py
Billy Graham Py
S Tryon St
E Independence Bv
South Park Region
MECKLENBURG COUNTY PARK AND RECREATION
Mecklenburg County GISJuly 23, 2010
Legend:
I n t e r s t a t e
M a j o r R o a d s
G r e e n w a y (D e v e l o p e d )
P a r k P r o p e r t y
Map Not to Scale
E299

Page 2 of 6

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Annual Report on Interbasin Transfer
Calendar Year 2008

The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) approved Charlotte
Mecklenburg Utilities’ (Utilities’) petition to increase the amount of water transferred from the
Catawba basin to the Rocky River basin and an interbasin transfer (IBT) Certificate was issued
on March 14, 2002. The Certificate authorizes Utilities to transfer up to 33 million gallons per
day (mgd) from the Catawba River basin to the Rocky River basin.

The IBT Certificate requires Utilities to report maximum daily IBT amounts annually to the
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NC DWR) until such time as the transfer amount
exceeds 80% of the authorized amount. Once that amount is exceeded, Utilities is required to
report monthly. To date, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities has not exceeded 80% of the
authorized IBT amount.

System Overview
The Utilities operates the water and wastewater systems that serve Charlotte, Cornelius,
Davidson, Huntersville, Mint Hill, Matthews, Pineville, and much of the unincorporated areas of
Mecklenburg County. This system is divided between two river basins designated by NC
General Statutes for regulation of IBT water. The western portion of the system is within the
Catawba River basin and the eastern portion is within the Rocky River basin. Water transferred
from the Catawba River basin to the Rocky River basin that is not returned to the Catawba is
regulated IBT.

Water for distribution to Utilities’ customers is withdrawn from the Catawba River basin at two
locations. An intake at Lake Norman sends water to the Lee S. Dukes Water Treatment Plant. A
second intake at Mountain Island Lake sends water to the Walter M. Franklin Water Treatment
Plant and to the Vest Water Treatment Plant. Potable water from these three plants is delivered
through an interconnected distribution system to retail customers throughout Utilities’ service
area in Mecklenburg County and in small areas of Iredell, Cabarrus, and Union Counties. The
Utilities also provides wholesale water to municipal systems for Resale including: City of
Concord (NC), Town of Harrisburg (NC), Union County (NC), York County Water & Sewer
Authority (SC), and Lancaster County Water and Sewer District (SC).

Utilities treats wastewater at five advanced wastewater treatment plants (WWTP’s) which
discharge into small streams in Mecklenburg County. Four of the streams are tributary to the
Catawba River basin and one (Mallard Creek) is tributary to the Rocky River basin. Utilities also
conveys wastewater generated in portions of Mecklenburg to the Rocky River Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant (RRRWWTP) operated by the Water and Sewer Authority of
Cabarrus County (WSACC). The RRRWWTP discharges treated effluent to the Rocky River.

E300

Page 3 of 6

IBT Monitoring
Water supplied to Utilities’ retail customers in the Rocky River Basin, that is not returned to the
Catawba basin is included in the reported IBT amounts. Water provided to municipalities with
service areas in the Rocky River basin include the City of Concord and the Town of Harrisburg.

Utilities can transfer treated potable water to the City of Concord through three metered
connections to their water system. All of Concord’s service area is within the Rocky River
basin, so any water purchased by them becomes an IBT. Water service is only provided as an
emergency back-up to Concord’s routine supply which is Lake Howell and several smaller
reservoirs. All of these reservoirs are within the Rocky River basin. Wastewater from Concord
is treated at the RRRWWTP. Utilities’ agreement with Concord is that water will be supplied to
them subject to availability and subject to regulatory constraints including IBT and Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) limitations.

Concord received an IBT Certificate in January 2007, for the transfer of up to 10 mgd from the
Catawba River basin to the Rocky River basin. NC DWR advised Utilities that water sold to
Concord should not be applied to Utilities’ IBT amount. Concord did not purchase any potable
water from Utilities in calendar year 2008, so the IBT amounts reported do not include sales to
Concord.

Utilities can transfer treated potable water to the Town of Harrisburg through two metered
connections to their water system. All of Harrisburg’s service area is within the Rocky River
basin and is included in the Utilities’ IBT amounts.

Table 1 below summarizes actual IBT amounts for calendar years 2002 through 2008 (all
calculated using the methodology approved by NC DWR in June of 2006). The table considers
the daily amounts of water transferred from the Catawba basin to customers within the Rocky
River basin that is not returned to the Catawba basin.

The data indicates that the maximum amount of IBT for year 2008 occurred in July, and was
17.42 mgd, less than 53% of the authorized maximum day value of 33 mgd. The average IBT for
2008 was 11.39 mgd, which is approximately 35% of the authorized maximum day value. In
addition to the amount of actual IBT reported in Table 1, Utilities has committed to provide
additional IBT to development that has been proposed but not yet activated in the Rocky River
basin. As of December 31, 2008, 1.42 mgd was committed to permitted donated projects
(subdivisions) that had not been activated and 0.81 mgd was committed to master meter
connections (generally commercial or multi-family developments) that had not been activated,
both based on maximum day estimates. This brings the total of the actual and outstanding IBT in
2008 to 19.66 mgd, or less than 60% of the authorized maximum day value.

E301

Page 4 of 6

Table 1. Actual IBT Summary
Calendar Year Avg. Annual IBT (mgd) Max. Day IBT (mgd)
2002 6.74 11.97
2003 6.91 9.82
2004 7.79 12.56
2005 8.66 13.79
2006 9.56 14.35
2007 9.96 17.22
2008 11.39 17.42

Compliance with Certificate Conditions
Condition 1 of Utilities’ IBT certificate requires Mecklenburg County to summarize progress in
implementation of watershed management approaches of the Surface Water Improvement and
Management Program (S.W.I.M. program). This summary follows:

The watershed management approaches of the Surface Water Improvement and Management
(SWIM) Program continued to be implemented in the McDowell and Goose Creek
Watersheds during calendar year 2008 resulting in the completion of the following activities:
a. Construction was completed on a
BMP retrofit project at the
following locations in the
McDowell Creek Watershed near
Interstate 77, Highway 73 (Sam
Furr Road) and US 21
(Statesville Road):
• Northcross Shopping Center
• Carolinas Medical Center-
Northcross
• Northcross Commons
• Monteith Park subdivision
Rain Garden at Northcross Shopping Center
These projects included
retrofitting rain gardens and
wetlands into existing
developments to collect and treat storm water runoff for pollutant removal as part of
efforts to restore water quality conditions in McDowell Creek. The total cost for the
projects was $1,900,000.
b. Planning and design was completed for a stream restoration project including over 7,500
feet in the McDowell Creek Watershed from Westmoreland Road in Cornelius to Sam
E302

Page 5 of 6

Furr Road in Huntersville. The objectives of this project are to return the stream channel
to a more natural pattern, stabilize eroding stream banks, revitalize surrounding
floodplains, improve overall water quality, and restore aquatic and terrestrial habitat
along the project corridor. The total cost for the project is estimated at $1,250,000.

c. Planning and design was completed for a stream restoration project including 1,700 feet
in the upper portion of the McDowell Creek Watershed near Danesway Lane in
Huntersville. The badly-eroded stream bed will be relocated. Wetlands and a rain
garden will also be added along the restored stream to filter out pollutants. The total cost
for the project is estimated at $742,000.

d. Planning and design was completed for a stream restoration and BMP retrofit project on
Caldwell Station Creek in the upper portion of the McDowell Creek Watershed in
Cornelius. No cost estimate is available.

e. The Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan was completed, including specific actions
aimed at reducing fecal coliform bacteria levels in the stream. Efforts were initiated for
the identification of specific projects for restoring overall water quality conditions.

f. Mecklenburg County continues to partner with the Sierra Club and local schools to plant
trees along the banks of McDowell Creek to restore the water quality buffer. During
2008, over 2,500 trees were planted in the McDowell Creek buffer including
participation by 350 volunteers.

Condition 2 of Utilities’ IBT certificate required a stakeholder process to investigate, develop,
adopt, and implement storm water ordinances that control water quantity from single-family
development and water quality for all development until completed. The requirements of
Condition 2 were completed in 2007.

Condition 3 of the IBT Certificate removes the Goose Creek subbasin from the area to be served
by the IBT, and imposes a moratorium on the installation of new IBT water lines (water lines
crossing the ridgeline) into Goose Creek subbasin until the impacts of additional growth on the
endangered species are fully evaluated.
The Utilities received proposals for performing an Environmental Assessment (EA) of
new development in the Goose Creek basin (Mint Hill area), impacts to water quality,
and measures required to protect the Carolina Heelsplitter. Due to budget and cost
considerations the Utilities has postponed plans for undertaking the study and has
requested the NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) to prepare the EA.

E303

Page 6 of 6

Condition 4 of the IBT Certificate provides that the Environmental Management Commission
may reopen the Certificate under certain circumstances. This did not occur in 2008.

Condition 5 of the IBT Certificate requires Utilities to develop a compliance and monitoring plan
for reporting maximum daily transfer amounts, compliance with certificate conditions, and
progress on mitigation measures, and drought management activities. Utilities’ monitoring plan
and reporting format were approved in June of 2006 by NCDWR and continued to be used for
2008.

The drought that gripped the Catawba River Basin in 2007 persisted throughout 2008,
requiring the continued implementation of drought management activities. The drought
response plan adopted by the utility members of the Catawba- Wateree Drought
Management Group contained specific triggers or measurements intended to guide the
activities to reduce overall consumption.
Restrictions prohibiting outdoor water use carried over into 2008, resulting in significant
reductions in withdrawals from the Catawba – Wateree basin. These measures helped the
basin realize savings of 20 – 30 % as compared to unrestricted use.
Outdoor water use restrictions were eased to allow outdoor watering two times a week
starting in September 2008. The result was a continued decline in consumption. The
improvements in water supply in the basin were slow and caused Charlotte Mecklenburg
Utilities to maintain water restrictions throughout all of 2008. Customer behaviors remained
conservative resulting in an overall reduction of 22% for the year.

Summary
The actual maximum day amount of water transferred from the Catawba River basin to the
Rocky River basin was 17.42 mgd, less than 53% of the authorized maximum day value of 33
mgd. The total of actual and outstanding IBT was 19.66 mgd, less than 60% of the authorized
maximum day value. Utilities is in full compliance with IBT authorizations and compliance
conditions for calendar year 2008.  
E304
E305

Page 2 of 6

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Annual Report on Interbasin Transfer
Calendar Year 2009

The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) approved Charlotte
Mecklenburg Utilities’ (Utilities’) petition to increase the amount of water transferred from the
Catawba basin to the Rocky River basin and an interbasin transfer (IBT) Certificate was issued
on March 14, 2002. The Certificate authorizes Utilities to transfer up to 33 million gallons per
day (mgd) from the Catawba River basin to the Rocky River basin.

The IBT Certificate requires Utilities to report maximum daily IBT amounts annually to the
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NC DWR) until such time as the transfer amount
exceeds 80% of the authorized amount. Once that amount is exceeded, Utilities is required to
report monthly. To date, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities has not exceeded 80% of the
authorized IBT amount.

System Overview
The Utilities operates the water and wastewater systems that serve Charlotte, Cornelius,
Davidson, Huntersville, Mint Hill, Matthews, Pineville, and much of the unincorporated areas of
Mecklenburg County. This system is divided between two river basins designated by NC
General Statutes for regulation of IBT water. The western portion of the system is within the
Catawba River basin and the eastern portion is within the Rocky River basin. Water transferred
from the Catawba River basin to the Rocky River basin that is not returned to the Catawba is
regulated IBT.

Water for distribution to Utilities’ customers is withdrawn from the Catawba River basin at two
locations. An intake at Lake Norman sends water to the Lee S. Dukes Water Treatment Plant. A
second intake at Mountain Island Lake sends water to the Walter M. Franklin Water Treatment
Plant and to the Vest Water Treatment Plant. Potable water from these three plants is delivered
through an interconnected distribution system to retail customers throughout Utilities’ service
area in Mecklenburg County and in small areas of Iredell, Cabarrus, and Union Counties. The
Utilities also provides wholesale water to municipal systems for Resale including: City of
Concord (NC), Town of Harrisburg (NC), Union County (NC), York County Water & Sewer
Authority (SC), and Lancaster County Water and Sewer District (SC).

Utilities treats wastewater at five advanced wastewater treatment plants (WWTP’s) which
discharge into small streams in Mecklenburg County. Four of the streams are tributary to the
Catawba River basin and one (Mallard Creek) is tributary to the Rocky River basin. Utilities also
conveys wastewater generated in portions of Mecklenburg County to the Rocky River Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant (RRRWWTP) operated by the Water and Sewer Authority of
Cabarrus County (WSACC). The RRRWWTP discharges treated effluent to the Rocky River.

E306

Page 3 of 6

IBT Monitoring
Water supplied to Utilities’ retail customers in the Rocky River Basin, that is not returned to the
Catawba basin, is included in the reported IBT amounts. Water provided to municipalities with
service areas in the Rocky River basin include the City of Concord and the Town of Harrisburg.

Utilities can transfer treated potable water to the City of Concord through three metered
connections to their water system. All of Concord’s service area is within the Rocky River
basin, so any water purchased by them becomes an IBT. Water service is only provided as an
emergency back-up to Concord’s routine supply which is Lake Howell and several smaller
reservoirs. All of these reservoirs are within the Rocky River basin. Wastewater from Concord
is treated at the RRRWWTP. Utilities’ agreement with Concord is that water will be supplied to
them subject to availability and subject to regulatory constraints including IBT and Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) limitations.

Concord received an IBT Certificate in January 2007, for the transfer of up to 10 mgd from the
Catawba River basin to the Rocky River basin. NC DWR advised Utilities that water sold to
Concord should not be applied to Utilities’ IBT amount. Concord did not purchase any potable
water from Utilities in calendar year 2009, so the IBT amounts reported do not include sales to
Concord.

Utilities can transfer treated potable water to the Town of Harrisburg through two metered
connections to their water system. All of Harrisburg’s service area is within the Rocky River
basin and is included in the Utilities’ IBT amounts.

Table 1 below summarizes actual IBT amounts for calendar years 2002 through 2009 (all
calculated using the methodology approved by NC DWR in June of 2006). The table considers
the daily amounts of water transferred from the Catawba basin to customers within the Rocky
River basin that is not returned to the Catawba basin.

The data indicates that the maximum amount of IBT for year 2009 occurred in August, and was
16.00 mgd, less than 49% of the authorized maximum day value of 33 mgd. The average IBT for
2009 was 12.04 mgd, which is approximately 36% of the authorized maximum day value. In
addition to the amount of actual IBT reported in Table 1, Utilities has committed to provide
additional IBT to development that has been proposed but not yet activated in the Rocky River
basin. As of December 31, 2009, 1.41 mgd was committed to permitted donated projects
(subdivisions) that had not been activated and 0.22 mgd was committed to master meter
connections (generally commercial or multi-family developments) that had not been activated,
both based on maximum day estimates. This brings the total of the actual and outstanding IBT in
2009 to 17.63 mgd, or less than 54% of the authorized maximum day value.

E307

Page 4 of 6

Table 1. Actual IBT Summary
Calendar Year Avg. Annual IBT (mgd) Max. Day IBT (mgd)
2002 6.74 11.97
2003 6.91 9.82
2004 7.79 12.56
2005 8.66 13.79
2006 9.56 14.35
2007 9.96 17.22
2008 11.39 17.42
2009 12.04 16.00

Compliance with Certificate Conditions
Condition 1 of Utilities’ IBT certificate requires Mecklenburg County to summarize progress in
implementation of watershed management approaches of the Surface Water Improvement and
Management Program (S.W.I.M. program). This summary follows:

The watershed management approaches of the Surface Water Improvement and Management
(SWIM) Program continued to be implemented during calendar year 2009. Efforts continued
to focus on McDowell and Goose Creeks as in 2007 and 2008 but were expanded to include
the South Prong and West Branch of the Rocky River in Davidson during 2009. During
calendar year 2009, the following work was completed in the three (3) watersheds:
a) Construction was completed for
the installation of three (3) large
rain gardens at the North
Mecklenburg Recycling Center
located in the Torrence Creek
Watershed, which is a tributary of
McDowell Creek in Huntersville.
These rain gardens collect and
treat 100% of the storm water
runoff from the facility resulting
in a reduction in the pollutant
load entering Torrence Creek.
The total cost for the project was
$307,000. Forebay and Rain Garden (grassed) at Recycling Center
b) Planning and design was completed for a stream restoration project including 7,700 feet
in the main stem of Torrence Creek starting at McCoy Road and 9,000 linear feet
E308

Page 5 of 6

of Torrence Creek Tributary #2 from I-77 to Bradford Hill Lane. Construction is to be
completed by December 2010. The total cost for the project is estimated at $2,000,000.

c) Planning and design is underway for the restoration of Upper McDowell Creek in
Cornellius, NC. The project will restore some of the most severely damaged sections of
McDowell Creek and install BMPs to treat urban runoff before it enters the creek. The
project is being funded by Cornelius, Mecklenburg County and the North Carolina 319
Grant Program. The total cost for the project is not available.

d) Mecklenburg County continues to partner with Creek ReLeaf, the Sierra Club and local
schools to plant trees along the banks of McDowell Creek to restore the water quality
buffer and floodplain. During 2009, over 2,500 trees were planted by approximately 400
volunteers along the floodplain in McDowell Creek.

e) The Goose Creek Watershed Management Plan was finalized and implementation
initiated. One of the primary implementation measures was the inspection of all of the
septic systems in the watershed to ensure that they are functioning properly and that all
problems are corrected to prevent the discharge of sewage. Plans are to inspect all the
septic systems in the watershed by June, 2011.

f) Efforts began toward the drafting of the Rocky River Watershed Management Plan.
Field work commenced during the second half of 2009. 

Condition 2 of Utilities’ IBT certificate required a stakeholder process to investigate, develop,
adopt, and implement storm water ordinances that control water quantity from single-family
development and water quality for all development until completed. The requirements of
Condition 2 were completed in 2007.

Condition 3 of the IBT Certificate removes the Goose Creek subbasin from the area to be served
by the IBT, and imposes a moratorium on the installation of new IBT water lines (water lines
crossing the ridgeline) into Goose Creek subbasin until the impacts of additional growth on the
endangered species are fully evaluated.
The Utilities has requested the NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) to prepare an
Environmental Assessment (EA) of new development in the Goose Creek basin (Mint Hill
area), impacts to water quality, and measures required to protect the Carolina
Heelsplitter.

E309

Page 6 of 6

Condition 4 of the IBT Certificate provides that the Environmental Management Commission
may reopen the Certificate under certain circumstances. This did not occur in 2009.

Condition 5 of the IBT Certificate requires Utilities to develop a compliance and monitoring plan
for reporting maximum daily transfer amounts, compliance with certificate conditions, and
progress on mitigation measures, and drought management activities. Utilities’ monitoring plan
and reporting format were approved in June of 2006 by NC DWR and continue to be used for
2009.

2009 showed slow, but steady improvement from the drought conditions that gripped our
state. The Catawba-Wateree Basin was slow to recover normal stream flows and the ground
water lagged well behind surface water recharge. Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities along
with the other utilities in the Catawba-Wateree Basin remained in level 2 water restrictions
until May 2009, in accordance with the Low Inflow Protocol adopted by the region’s drought
management group.
Customer consumption did not return to pre drought levels after the easing of restrictions in
2008 and did not rebound upward after the lifting of all restrictions in 2009. In fact, water
use continued to decline in the Charlotte region. Even without restrictions, per account
usage hit an all time low in 2009 for Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities customers.
Water use in the Catawba – Wateree River Basin continued to track below historic average
levels and closed out the year approximately 12 - 15% below normal.

Summary
The actual maximum day amount of water transferred from the Catawba River basin to the
Rocky River basin was 16.00 mgd, less than 49% of the authorized maximum day value of 33
mgd. The total of actual and outstanding IBT was 17.63 mgd, less than 54% of the authorized
maximum day value. Utilities is in full compliance with IBT authorizations and compliance
conditions for calendar year 2009.  
E310
E311

Page 2 of 6

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Annual Report on Interbasin Transfer
Calendar Year 2010

The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) approved Charlotte
Mecklenburg Utilities’ (Utilities’) petition to increase the amount of water transferred from the
Catawba basin to the Rocky River basin and an interbasin transfer (IBT) Certificate was issued
on March 14, 2002. The Certificate authorizes Utilities to transfer up to 33 million gallons per
day (mgd) from the Catawba River basin to the Rocky River basin.

The IBT Certificate requires Utilities to report maximum daily IBT amounts annually to the
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NC DWR) until such time as the transfer amount
exceeds 80% of the authorized amount. Once that amount is exceeded, Utilities is required to
report monthly. To date, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities has not exceeded 80% of the
authorized IBT amount.

System Overview
The Utilities operates the water and wastewater systems that serve Charlotte, Cornelius,
Davidson, Huntersville, Mint Hill, Matthews, Pineville, and much of the unincorporated areas of
Mecklenburg County. This system is divided between two river basins designated by NC
General Statutes for regulation of IBT water. The western portion of the system is within the
Catawba River basin and the eastern portion is within the Rocky River basin. Water transferred
from the Catawba River basin to the Rocky River basin that is not returned to the Catawba is
regulated IBT.

Water for distribution to Utilities’ customers is withdrawn from the Catawba River basin at two
locations. An intake at Lake Norman sends water to the Lee S. Dukes Water Treatment Plant. A
second intake at Mountain Island Lake sends water to the Walter M. Franklin Water Treatment
Plant and to the Vest Water Treatment Plant. Potable water from these three plants is delivered
through an interconnected distribution system to retail customers throughout Utilities’ service
area in Mecklenburg County and in small areas of Iredell, Cabarrus, and Union Counties. The
Utilities also provides wholesale water to municipal systems for Resale including: City of
Concord (NC), Town of Harrisburg (NC), Union County (NC), York County Water & Sewer
Authority (SC), and Lancaster County Water and Sewer District (SC).

Utilities treats wastewater at five advanced wastewater treatment plants (WWTP’s) which
discharge into small streams in Mecklenburg County. Four of the streams are tributary to the
Catawba River basin and one (Mallard Creek) is tributary to the Rocky River basin. Utilities also
conveys wastewater generated in portions of Mecklenburg County to the Rocky River Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant (RRRWWTP) operated by the Water and Sewer Authority of
Cabarrus County (WSACC). The RRRWWTP discharges treated effluent to the Rocky River.

E312

Page 3 of 6

IBT Monitoring
Water supplied to Utilities’ retail customers in the Rocky River Basin, that is not returned to the
Catawba basin, is included in the reported IBT amounts. Water provided to municipalities with
service areas in the Rocky River basin include the City of Concord and the Town of Harrisburg.

Utilities can transfer treated potable water to the City of Concord through three metered
connections to their water system. All of Concord’s service area is within the Rocky River
basin, so any water purchased by them becomes an IBT. Water service is only provided as an
emergency back-up to Concord’s routine supply which is Lake Howell and several smaller
reservoirs. All of these reservoirs are within the Rocky River basin. Wastewater from Concord
is treated at the RRRWWTP. Utilities’ agreement with Concord is that water will be supplied to
them subject to availability and subject to regulatory constraints including IBT and Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) limitations.

Concord received an IBT Certificate in January 2007, for the transfer of up to 10 mgd from the
Catawba River basin to the Rocky River basin. NC DWR advised Utilities that water sold to
Concord should not be applied to Utilities’ IBT amount. Concord did not purchase any potable
water from Utilities in calendar year 2010, so the IBT amounts reported do not include sales to
Concord.

Utilities can transfer treated potable water to the Town of Harrisburg through two metered
connections to their water system. All of Harrisburg’s service area is within the Rocky River
basin and is included in the Utilities’ IBT amounts.

Table 1 below summarizes actual IBT amounts for calendar years 2002 through 2010 (all
calculated using the methodology approved by NC DWR in June of 2006). The table considers
the daily amounts of water transferred from the Catawba basin to customers within the Rocky
River basin that is not returned to the Catawba basin.

The data indicates that the maximum amount of IBT for year 2010 occurred in August, and was
18.22 mgd, less than 56% of the authorized maximum day value of 33 mgd. The average IBT for
2010 was 13.45 mgd, which is approximately 41% of the authorized maximum day value. In
addition to the amount of actual IBT reported in Table 1, Utilities has committed to provide
additional IBT to development that has been proposed but not yet activated in the Rocky River
basin. As of December 31, 2010, 1.16 mgd was committed to permitted donated projects
(subdivisions) that had not been activated and 0.50 mgd was committed to master meter
connections (generally commercial or multi-family developments) that had not been activated,
both based on maximum day estimates. This brings the total of the actual and outstanding IBT in
2010 to 19.88 mgd, or less than 61% of the authorized maximum day value.

E313

Page 4 of 6

Table 1. Actual IBT Summary
Calendar Year Avg. Annual IBT (mgd) Max. Day IBT (mgd)
2002 6.74 11.97
2003 6.91 9.82
2004 7.79 12.56
2005 8.66 13.79
2006 9.56 14.35
2007 9.96 17.22
2008 11.39 17.42
2009 12.04 16.00
2010 13.45 18.22

Compliance with Certificate Conditions
Condition 1 of Utilities’ IBT certificate requires Mecklenburg County to summarize progress in
implementation of watershed management approaches of the Surface Water Improvement and
Management Program (S.W.I.M. program). This summary follows:

The watershed management approaches of the Surface Water Improvement and Management
(SWIM) Program continued to be implemented during calendar year 2010. Efforts continued
to focus on McDowell and Goose Creeks as in 2007, 2008 and 2009 as well as the South
Prong and West Branch of the Rocky River in Davidson as initiated in 2009. During
calendar year 2010, the following work was completed in the three (3) watersheds:
a) Survey and design were initiated on the restoration of 1,000 feet of stream and the
retrofit of 5 rain gardens within the North Mecklenburg Park Property in the McDowell
Creek watershed. In addition to the water quality benefits of the project, it will act as an
educational destination for property owners potentially affected by future stream
restoration and BMP retrofit projects.

b) Since 2002 Goose Creek has been listed by the N.C. Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (NCDENR) as impaired due to elevated levels of fecal coliform
bacteria. The predominant sewer treatment system in the watershed is private septic
systems; therefore, it was assumed that malfunctioning septic systems were a primary
source of the elevated bacteria levels. In 2008, Mecklenburg County initiated a program
to complete an inspection of all the septic systems in the watershed in order to identify
deficiencies and take the necessary actions to ensure correction. This effort was
completed in 2010 with the inspection of 1,422 septic systems resulting in the correction
of 13 deficiencies that could contribute to elevated bacteria levels in Goose Creek.
Following the completion of this project, NCDENR data documented a reduction in fecal
coliform bacteria levels and Goose Creek was removed from the list of impaired waters.
E314

Page 5 of 6

c) Mecklenburg County continues to partner with Creek ReLeaf, environmental
organizations and local schools to plant trees along the banks of streams in Mecklenburg
County. The purpose of this effort is to restore the water quality buffer and floodplain.
During 2010, over 2,200 trees were planted by more 400 volunteers along the floodplain
of Little Sugar Creek.

d) Construction of the restoration of 10,000 linear feet of Torrence and Torrence Tributary
#2 was nearly completed in 2010. This project is expected to reduce the overall sediment
load in the McDowell Creek watershed by as much as 7%.

e) In 2010, Mecklenburg County requested that the Army Corps of Engineers include the
Rocky River watershed in Mecklenburg County into their 206 Program for restoration.
As a result, the Corps selected the watershed for inclusion in Program. 

f) Mecklenburg County applied for two Clean Water Management Trust Fund Grants for
the restoration of an additional 10,000 feet of stream in the McDowell Creek Watershed. 

Condition 2 of Utilities’ IBT certificate required a stakeholder process to investigate, develop,
adopt, and implement storm water ordinances that control water quantity from single-family
development and water quality for all development until completed. The requirements of
Condition 2 were completed in 2007.

Condition 3 of the IBT Certificate removes the Goose Creek subbasin from the area to be served
by the IBT, and imposes a moratorium on the installation of new IBT water lines (water lines
crossing the ridgeline) into Goose Creek subbasin until the impacts of additional growth on the
endangered species are fully evaluated.
The Utilities has requested the NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) to prepare an
Environmental Assessment (EA) of new development in the Goose Creek basin (Mint Hill
area), impacts to water quality, and measures required to protect the Carolina
Heelsplitter.

Condition 4 of the IBT Certificate provides that the Environmental Management Commission
may reopen the Certificate under certain circumstances. This did not occur in 2010.

E315

Page 6 of 6

Condition 5 of the IBT Certificate requires Utilities to develop a compliance and monitoring plan
for reporting maximum daily transfer amounts, compliance with certificate conditions, and
progress on mitigation measures, and drought management activities. Utilities’ monitoring plan
and reporting format were approved in June of 2006 by NC DWR and continue to be used for
2010.

Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities monitored water treatment plant pump rates, streamflow
and lake storage indicators, the US Drought Monitor, and other factors in accordance
with the Utilities Water Shortage Response Plan. Measurements were assessed monthly
to identify designated triggers that could indicate developing drought conditions. All
appropriate planning, communication and preparation were in place to respond as
needed to changing conditions.
In coordination with 15 other utilities in the Catawba-Wateree river basin, Charlotte-
Mecklenburg participated in regional drought response planning and response activities
as directed by the FERC- approved Low Inflow Protocol.

Summary
The actual maximum day amount of water transferred from the Catawba River basin to the
Rocky River basin was 18.22 mgd, less than 56% of the authorized maximum day value of 33
mgd. The total of actual and outstanding IBT was 19.88 mgd, less than 61% of the authorized
maximum day value. Utilities is in full compliance with IBT authorizations and compliance
conditions for calendar year 2010.  
E316
Aug. 30,2012
Mr. Tom Reeder
N.C. Division of Water Resources
1611 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611
Subject: IBT Report for 2011
Dear Tom:
• ·l(l)) -
We are sending our calendar year 2011 IBT Annual Report. We are also transmitting this report
to you electronically. The report follows the format of earlier reports and includes a narrative
section with background and program progress reports along with spreadsheets detailing the IBT
amount calculation.
For calendar year 2011, we experienced an actual maximum day IBT of 18.82 mgd based on
September billing data. As of December 31, 2011, there were additional outstanding IBT
commitments of 2.08 mgd. The total amount of IBT for 2011 was 20.9 mgd, approximately 64%
of the authorized amount.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG UTILITIES
/d4~
David W. Czerr, PE
Program Manager -Planning Section
CC: Toya Ogallo r-vi~J
SEP 24 2012
E317
INTRODUCTION
• «DJ -CHARIOTfE ..
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Department
Annual Report on Interbasin Transfer
Calendar Year 2011
The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) approved Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Utilities Department's (CMUD's) petition to increase the amount of water
transferred from the Catawba basin to the Rocky River basin and an interbasin transfer (IBT)
Certificate was issued on March 14, 2002. The Certificate authorizes CMUD to transfer up to 33
million gallons per day (mgd) from thE;! Catawba River basin to the Rocky River basin.
The IBT Certificate requires CMUD to report maximum daily IBT amounts annually to the North
Carolina Division of Water Resources (NC DWR) until such time as the transfer amount exceeds
80% of the authorized amount. Once that amount is exceeded, CMUD is required to report
monthly. To date, The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Department has not exceeded 80%, of
the authorized IBT amount.
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
CMUD operates the water and wastewater systems that serve Charlotte, Cornelius, Davidson,
Huntersville, Mint Hill, Matthews, Pineville, and much of the unincorporated areas of
Mecklenburg County. This system is divided between two river basins designated by NC
General Statutes for regulation of IBT water. The western portion of the system is within the
Catawba River basin and the eastern portion is within the Rocky River basin. Water transferred
from the Catawba River basin to the Rocky River basin that is not returned to the Catawba river
basin is regulated IBT.
Water for distribution to CMUD's customers is withdrawn from the Catawba River basin at two
locations. An intake at Lake Norman sends water to the LeeS. Dukes Water Treatment Plant. A
second intake at Mountain Island Lake sends water to the Walter M. Franklin Water Treatment
Plant and to the Vest Water Treatment Plant. Potable water from these three plants is
delivered through an interconnected distribution system to retail customers throughout
CMUD's service area in Mecklenburg County and in small areas of Iredell, Cabarrus, and Union
Counties. CMUD also provides wholesale water to municipal systems for Resale including: City
of Concord (NC), Town of Harrisburg (NC), Union County (NC), York County Wat~r & Sewer
Authority (SC), and Lancaster County WJter and Sewer District (SC).
CMUD treats wastewater at five advanced wastewater treatment plants (WWTP's} that
discharge into small streams in Mecklenburg County. Four of the streams are tributary to the
Page 2 of6
E318
• \(()} -CfiARWITE ..
CIWII.OTTE.M!CKI.EliaURG
UTIUTlliS
Catawba River basin and one (Mallard Creek) is tributary to the Rocky River basin. CMUD also
conveys wastewater generated in portions of Mecklenburg County to the Rocky River Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant (RRRWWTP) operated by the Water and Sewer Authority of
Cabarrus County (WSACC). The RRRWWTP discharges treated effluent to the Rocky River.
IBT MONITORING
Water supplied to CMUD's retail customers in the Rocky River Basin, that is not returned to the
Catawba basin, is included in the reported IBT amounts. Water provided to municipalities with
service areas in the Rocky River basin includes the City of Concord and the Town of Harrisburg.
CMUD can transfer treated potable water to the City of Concord through three metered
connections to their water system. All of Concord's service area is within the Rocky River basin,
so any water purchased by them becomes an IBT. Water service is only provided as an
emergency back-up to Concord's routine supply which is Lake Howell and several smaller
reservoirs. All of these reservoirs are within the Rocky River basin. Wastewater from Concord
is treated at the RRRWWTP. CMUD's agreement with Concord is that water will be supplied to
them subject to availability and subject to regulatory constraints including IBT and Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) limitations.
Concord received an IBT Certificate in January 2007, for the transfer of up to 10 mgd from the
Catawba River basin to the Rocky River basin. NC DWR advised CMUD that water sold to
Concord should not be applied to CMUD's IBT amount. Concord did not purchase any potable
water from CMUD in calendar year 2011, so the IBT amounts reported do not include sales to
Concord.
CMUD can transfer treated potable water to the Town of Harrisburg through two metered
connections to their water system. All of Harrisburg's service area is within the Rocky River
basin and is included in CMUD's IBT amounts.
Table 1 summarizes actual IBT amounts for calendar years 2002 through 2011 (all calculated
using the methodology approved by NC DWR in June of 2006). The table considers the daily
amounts of water transferred from the Catawba basin to customers within the Rocky River
basin that is not returned to the Catawba basin.
The maximum monthly IBT for calendar year 2011 was 18.82 mgd in September, which was
approximately 57% of the authorized IBT of 33 mgd. The average IBT for 2011 was 13.11 mgd,
approximately 40% of the authorized IBT. In addition to the actual amount of IBT reported in
Table 1, CMUD has committed to provide IBT to development that has been proposed but has
not yet been activated in the Rocky River basin. As of December 31, 2011, 1.15 mgd was
committed to permitted donated projects (subdivisions) that had not been activated and 0.93
mgd was committed to master meter connections (generally commercial or multi-family
Page 3 of6
E319
• \0)} -
developments} that had not been activated, both based on maximum day estimates. The
combined actual plus promised IBT for 2011 was 20.9 mgd, approximately 64% of the
authorized IBT.
Table 1. Actua/IBT Summary
Calendar Year Avg. AnnuaiiBT (mgd) Max. Day IBT (mgd)
2002 6.74 11.97
2003 6.91 9.82
2004 7.79 12.56
2005 8.66 13.79
2006 9.56 14.35
2007 9.96 17.22
2008 11.39 17.42
2009 12.04 16.00
2010 13.33 18.33
2011 13.11 18.82
COMPLIANCE WITH CERTIFICATE CONDITIONS
Condition 1: S. W.J.M. Program Summary
Mecklenburg County is required to annually summarize progress in implementation of
watershed management approaches of the Surface Water Improvement and Management
Program (S.W.I.M. program}. The Division of Water Resources shall have the authority to
approve modifications to and need for continued reporting as necessary.
Surface Water Improvement and Management (S.W.I.M.) Program watershed management
approaches continued to be implemented during calendar year 2011. Efforts continued to
focus on McDowell and Goose Creeks, as initiated in 2007, as well as on the South Prong
and West Branch of the Rocky River in Davidson that began in 2009. During calendar year
2011, the following work was completed in the three (3) watersheds:
McDowell Creek Onc/udinq the Torrence Creek Tributary to McDowell Creek)
1. Initiated construction on the restoration of 1,000 feet of stream and the retrofit of 5
rain gardens and 2 water quality swales on the North Mecklenburg Park property in
Huntersville. In addition to the water quality benefits of the project, it will act as an
educational destination for property owners potentially affected by future stream
restoration and BMP retrofit projects.
Page 4 of6
E320
• «DJ -CHARWITE ..
2. Awarded a Clean Water Management Trust Fund Grant in the amount of $400,000 to
restore approximately 2 miles of stream along Torrence Creek. The total cost of the
project is estimated at $2,000,000. Design is underway and construction will begin in
2012.
3. Applied for a Clean Water Management Trust Fund Grant to restore approximately 1
mile of stream in The Park Huntersville Phase I, which is located in the upper portion of
Torrence Creek.
4. Initiated planning for the restoration of approximately 2 miles of stream along
McDowell Creek upstream ofthe confluence with Torrence Creek.
5. Initiated planning for a 2nd phase of The Park Huntersville project, including the
restoration of approximately 1 mile of stream along Torrence Creek.
6. Identified a stream restoration project in the McDowell Creek Watershed Management
Plan and worked with a private mitigation bank to move the project forward, which
includes BMP retrofits, the stream restoration along a 1 mile tributary of Torrence Creek
and wetland restoration within Monteith Park. Design is currently underway.
7. Identified a stream restoration project in the McDowell Creek Watershed Management
Plan and worked with a private mitigation bank to move the project forward, which
includes the stream restoration of approximately 2 miles along a tributary of McDowell
Creek and wetland restoration along Bud Henderson Road. Design is currently
underway.
Goose Creek (including the Stevens Creek Tributary to Goose Creek)
1. Initiated planning for the restoration of 2 miles of stream along Stevens Creek.
Rocky River
1. Coordinated with the U.S. Corps of l::ngmeers In an applicdliUII lu obtain 20G Program
Funding for the restoration of the Rocky River.
Condition 2: Stakeholder Process {Completed)
A stakeholder process is required to investigate, develop, adopt, and implement storm water
ordinanc~s that cunlrul wiltcr quantity from sinelc family dAvelopment ;Jnrl wr~ter quality for all
development until (;Ompleted. Thl"' rPquirPments of Condition 2 were completed in 2007.
Page 5 of6
E321
Condition 3: Goose Creek Subbasin
•
cHARLOTTE-MECKLENIIIJRG UTilmes
The IBT Certificate removes the Goose Creek subbasin from the area to be served by the IBT,
and imposes a moratorium on the installation of new IBT water lines (water lines crossing the
ridgeline) into Goose Creek subbasin until the impacts of additional growth on the endangered
species are fully evaluated.
CMUD submitted an Environmental Assessment of new development in the Goose Creek
basin (Mint Hill area) to the NC Division of Water Resources (DWR} on December 5,
2011. Subsequent comments by DWR were received by CMUD on February 17, 2012.
The revised report is anticipated to be completed by May 11, 2012 and submitted to
DWR thereafter.
Condition 4: Environmental Management Commission
The IBT Certificate provides that the Environmental Management Commission may reopen the
Certificate under certain circumstances. This did not occur in 2011.
Condition 5: Compliance and Monitoring Plan
The IBT Certificate requires CMUD to develop a compliance and monitoring plan for reporting
maximum daily transfer amounts, compliance with certificate conditions, and progress on
mitigation measures, and drought management activities. CMUD's monitoring plan and
reporting format were approved in June of 2006 by NC DWR and continue to be used for 2011.
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities monitored water treatment plant pump rates,
streamflow and lake storage indicators, the US Drought Monitor, and other factors in
accordance with the CMUD Water Shortage Response Plan. Measurements were
assessed monthly to identify designated triggers that could indicate developing drought
conditions. All appropriate planning, communication and preparation were in place to
respond as needed to changing conditions.
In coordination with 17 other utilities in the Catawba-Wateree river basin, Charlotte-
Mecklenburg participated in regional drought response planning and response activities
as directed by the FERC-approved Low Inflow Protocol.
SUMMARY
The actual maximum day amount of water transferred from the Catawba River basin to the
Rocky River basin was 18.82 mgd, less than 57% of the authorized maximum day value of 33
mgd. The total of actual and· outstanding IBT was 20.9 mgd, less than 64% of the authorized
maximum day value. CMUD is in full compliance with IBT authorizations and compliance
conditions for calendar year 2011.
Page 6 of6
E322