WSMU_CARY_WSWP Other Info_20230629

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF WAKE
SWIFT CREEK LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN AND AMONG
TOWN OF APEX
TOWN OF CARY
TOWN OF GARNER
CITY OF RALEIGH
AND
WAKE COUNTY

This Interlocal Agreement (the "Agreement"), entered into this the 2°d day of
January, 2018, by, between, and among APEX, NORTH CAROLINA (hereinafter
"Apex"), CARY, NORTH CAROLINA (hereinafter "Cary"), GARNER, NORTH
CAROLINA (hereinafter "Garner"), RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA (hereinafter
"Raleigh"); all of the above being municipal corporations and public bodies politic of the
State of North Carolina; and WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA (hereinafter
"County" or"Wake"), a public body politic and corporate of the State of North Carolina;
all of which may be individually referred to as "Party" and collectively referred to herein
as"the Parties";
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the territorial and extraterritorial jurisdiction of each Party to this
Agreement includes a portion of the area within the jurisdiction of the Swift Creek Water
Supply Watershed ("Watershed")as defined herein; and
WHEREAS, through mutual resolutions, in the late 1980's and early 1990's, the
Parties recognized that the Watershed would be a critical drinking water supply resource
in future years for several Parties and desired to protect the surface water supply in the
Watershed by controlling the type and intensity of development; and
WHEREAS, the Parties conducted a joint planning effort to establish land use
regulations and standards that guide the type and intensity of development in the
Watershed,resulting in the"Swift Creek Management Plan"or"Plan," a copy of which is
attached to this Agreement as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Watershed area was delineated, and proposed regulations and
standards were approved,by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission
on August 3, 1992, establishing Watershed as a WS III watershed; and
WHEREAS, North Carolina Session Law 1998-192, placed various responsibilities
and obligations upon the Parties, inter alia, to neither adopt ordinances nor grant any
permits or approvals that would be inconsistent with the standards and provisions of the
Swift Creek Management Plan, except that Parties may modify ordinances to further meet
or exceed Plan requirements. Session Law 1998-192 permits Plan modification in
accordance with its terms; and
WHEREAS, North Carolina Session Law 2005-89 modified and readopted North
Carolina Session Law 1998-192 by repealing the referendum clause and by establishing a
cause of action in any person who resides in the Watershed to challenge actions by a local
government with lands subject to the Plan when the actions are believed to be inconsistent
with the standards and provisions of the Plan; and
2

WHEREAS,the Swift Creek Management Plan has been in place for over two
decades and has been incorporated into the respective land use planning documents of
each Party; and
WHEREAS,the City of Raleigh resumed its use of the water supply protected by the
Swift Creek Management Plan in 2010; and
WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina in 1988 adopted a Total Maximum Daily
Load for the Neuse Estuary with implementing state rules which apply to the Swift Creek
Water Supply Watershed; and
WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina in 2010 adopted a Total Maximum Daily
Load for the Upper Swift Creek Watershed to address its status as impaired waters not
meeting the Water Quality Standards; and
WHEREAS, the United States Environmental Protection Agency in 2017 designated
Lake Benson, a water source of the Swift Creek Water Supply Watershed, as impaired
waters not meeting the Water Quality Standards; and
WHEREAS, the Parties, by and through this Agreement, desire to formalize their
commitment to the Plan by establishing uniform procedures and policies that will serve as
the framework for each Parties' role in the future governance of the Plan, including a
process to amend Plan and for making ongoing land use decisions within the area subject
to the Swift Creek Management Plan("Plan Area"); and
WHEREAS, the Parties pursuant to the authority of N.C.G.S. 160A-460 et seq. are
authorized to enter into this Agreement and joint planning and implementation efforts in
order to pursue the above stated goals.
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the promises and covenants
contained in this Agreement and the mutual benefits derived therefrom, the sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged,the Parties agree as follows:
ARTICLE I
PURPOSE and SCOPE
1.01 Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to (i) provide a strategy for joint
oversight of the Swift Creek Management Plan; (ii) to formalize the process for
amendments and updates to the Plan.
3

ARTICLE II
DEFINITIONS
2.01 "DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS" shall mean the recommended Minimum
Critical Area Width and recommended Minimum Vegetative Buffer Width designated as
"Development Regulations" and set forth in the Plan.
2.02 "PERFORMANCE STANDARDS" shall mean the Performance Standards set
forth in the Plan and those identified as "RECOMMENDED PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS SWIFT CREEK WATERSHED" in Table 1 of Plan.
2.03 "SWIFT CREEK MANAGEMENT PLAN" or"PLAN" shall mean the version of
the Swift Creek Management Plan as it was referenced and incorporated into North
Carolina Session Laws 1998-192 and 2005-89. A copy of Plan,with all its attachments, is
attached hereto as Exhibit A.
2.04 "SWIFT CREEK WATER SUPPLY WATERSHED" or "WATERSHED" shall
mean the land area designated and classified by the North Carolina Environmental
Management Commission on August 3, 1992 as the Swift Creek Water Supply Watershed,
which is depicted on Map D of Exhibit A.
2.05 "ZONING REGULATION" shall mean any regulation or ordinance authorized by
NCGS Chapter 160A, Article 19, or NCGS Chapter 153A, Article 18, or any state laws
that may supersede or replace such legislation,including zoning map amendments and text
amendments, and modifications to same.
ARTICLE III
SWIFT CREEK MANAGEMENT PLAN
3.01 Territorial Jurisdiction. The Plan Area is comprised of more than 40,000 acres
and includes two primary bodies of water, Lake Benson and Lake Wheeler. Each of the
Parties to this Agreement has territorial jurisdiction within the Watershed as shown on
Exhibit B, inclusive of the territorial changes effectuated in 2015 and 2017 by the City of
Raleigh and the Town of Garner's relinquishment and expansion of their extraterritorial
jurisdictions (ETJ). All Parties understand and agree that future changes to the territorial
jurisdiction of any Party do not require an amendment to this Agreement.
3.02 Land Use Classifications. The Swift Creek Management Plan designates land use
classifications ("Land Use Classifications") within each Party's territorial jurisdiction in
the Watershed. Land Use Classifications are identified on Map D of the Plan. The Parties
agree that amendments to the Land Use Classifications and the Land Use section of the
Plan shall require a Plan Amendment executed in accordance with paragraph 3.05.
3.03 Utilities. The Parties may unilaterally extend utilities, including municipal water
and sewer utility service and extensions, to any portion of their respective territorial
4

jurisdictional area within the Plan Area in accordance with the Nan provisions, as such
may be amended from time to time in accordance with paragraph 3.05.
3.04 Development Regulations; Performance Standards. The Swift Creek
Management Plan recommends a variety of Development Regulations and Performance
Standards. The Parties agree that amendments to the recommended Development
Regulations and Performance Standards require a Plan Amendment in accordance with
paragraph 3.05.
3.05 Amendments to the Swift Creek Management Plan. North Carolina Session
Law 1998-192 authorizes the Parties to make amendments to the Plan. S.L. 1998-192 also
authorizes the Parties to modify their Zoning Regulations to further meet or exceed the
requirements of the Plan.
(a) A Party may request an amendment to any portion of the Swift Creek Land
Management Plan (collectively, "Plan Amendments"). All requested Plan
Amendments shall be made in writing setting forth with particularity the
amendment desired and the reason for such amendment. All such requests shall
be delivered to each of the Parties in accordance with the Notice provisions set
forth herein.
(b) Unless other applicable statutes require approval of a proposed Plan
Amendment to be made by the governing body,the governing body of each of
the Parties may delegate authorization for requests for Plan Amendments and
approvals of Plan Amendments to designated staff of the Party. A copy of the
delegation authority shall accompany each Plan Amendment request or
approval. A denial of a proposed Plan Amendment must be made by the
governing body of a Party.
(c) Any approval of a Plan Amendment must be by unanimous consent of all the
Parties.
3.06 Recognition of Need for Modeling and other Studies. The Parties' recognize
that the Plan is more than 30 years old, and was established before the implementation of
the Water Supply Watershed regulations, geographical information systems (GIS), and
watershed evaluation and modeling technologies that exist today.The Parties acknowledge
their desire to undertake water quality monitoring and modeling and other studies for the
Watershed to verify,calibrate, and update the Plan and to cooperate in good faith and with
all due diligence to provide for and carry out the purposes of this Agreement. The Parties
also agree to consider, as appropriate,supplemental measures to address any determination
that the Swift Creek Watershed needs to implement additional measures to restore water
quality to meet the minimum requirements applicable in the basin.
5

ARTICLE IV
TERM,TERMINATION,AMENDMENT
4.01 Term.
a. Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective upon the date it is
properly authorized and executed by the last of all the Parties named in the introductory
clause of this Agreement. This Agreement is conditioned upon authorization and
execution by all of the Parties.
b. This Agreement shall continue from the Effective Date until the earlier of twenty
(20) years or repeal of SL 1998-192 and SL 2005-89 ("Term").This Agreement shall
automatically renew for additional five (5) year terms ("Renewal Terms") unless a Party
provides written notice of termination at least six months prior to the end of the then-current
Term or Renewal Term.
c. Any amendment, termination, or renewal of the Term must be in the form of a
written instrument properly authorized and executed by, or on behalf of, the governing
board of each Party.
4.02 Termination; Remedies; Notice.
a. In the event that the territorial jurisdiction of any Party to this Agreement is entirely
removed from the Watershed, this Agreement and all provisions set forth herein shall
automatically terminate with respect to that Party. Notwithstanding the above, this
Agreement shall continue in full force and effect as to the remaining Parties.
b. Non-Exclusive Remedies. No remedy provided in this Agreement shall be
considered exclusive of any other remedy in law or in equity.
c. Notice. Any written notice required by this section shall be delivered to the Parties
at the following addresses:
For Town of Apex: Town Manager
Town of Apex
PO Box 250
Apex,NC 27502
With a copy to:
For Town of Cary: Town Manager
Town of Cary
6

PO Box 8005
Cary, NC 27512
With a copy to: Town Attorney
Town of Cary
PO Box 8005
Cary, NC 27512
For Town of Garner Town Manager .
Town of Garner
900 7th Ave.
Garner,NC 27529
With a copy to:
For City of Raleigh: City Manager
City of Raleigh
PO Box 590
Raleigh,NC 27602
With a copy to:
For Wake County: Wake County Manager
Wake County Justice Center
301 S. McDowell St.
Raleigh,NC 27601
With a copy to: Wake County Attorney
Wake County Attorney's Office
P.O. Box 550
Raleigh,NC 27602
4.03 Amendment of Interlocal Agreement.
This Agreement may only be amended in a writing signed by all of the Parties. A
Party may request an amendment to this Agreement by providing written notice of the
proposed amendment and the reasons for the proposed amendment to each of the other
Parties in accordance with the Notice provisions in paragraph 4.02.
7

ARTICLE V
NON-ASSIGNMENT
DELEGATION OF DUTY
5.01 No Party shall assign any portion of this Agreement or the rights and
responsibilities hereunder to another person or entity who is not a party to this Agreement
without the prior written consent of the other Parties.
5.02 Except as expressly stated herein, this Agreement shall not change the delegation
of any duty previously delegated to a Party by federal law, state statute, local ordinance or
resolution, and shall not create any new duty which does not exist under federal law, state
statute, local ordinance or resolution.
ARTICLE VI
OTHER PROVISIONS
6.01 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is not intended for the benefit of
any third party. The rights and obligations contained herein belong exclusively to the
Parties hereto, and shall not confer any rights or remedies upon any person or entity other
than the Parties hereto.
6.02 No Waiver of Sovereign or Governmental Immunity. Nothing in this
Agreement shall be construed to mandate purchase of insurance by any Party to this
Agreement; or to be inconsistent with Wake County's "Resolution Regarding Limited
Waiver of Sovereign Immunity" enacted October 6, 2003; or to in any other way waive
any Parry's defense of sovereign or governmental immunity to any cause of action alleged
or brought against a Party if otherwise available as a matter of law.
6.03 No Waiver of Qualified Immunity. No officer, agent or employee of any Party
shall be subject to any personal liability by reason of the execution or implementation of
this Agreement or any other documents related to the transactions contemplated hereby.
Such officers, agents, or employees shall be deemed to execute this Agreement in their
official capacities only,and not in their individual capacities. This section shall not relieve
any such officer,agent or employee from the performance of any official duty provided by
law.
6.04 Ethics Provision. The Parties acknowledge and shall adhere to the requirements
of N.C.G.S. 133-32, which prohibits the offer to, or acceptance by any state or local
employee of any gift from anyone with a contract with the governmental entity or from a
person seeking to do business with the governmental entity.
6.05 Governing Law, Venue. The Parties acknowledge that this Agreement shall be
governed by the laws of the State of North Carolina. Venue for any disputes arising under
this Agreement shall be exclusively in the courts of Wake County,North Carolina.
8

6.06 Entire Agreement. The terms and provisions herein contained constitute the entire
agreement by and between the Parties hereto and shall supersede all previous
communications, representations or agreements, either oral or written between the Parties
hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof.
6.07 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement shall be determined to be
unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such determination will not affect any
other provision of this Agreement.
6.08 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of
which shall be deemed an original.
6.09 Verification of Work Authorization.To the extent applicable,all Parties,and any
subcontractors hired for purposes of fulfilling any obligations under this Agreement,will
comply with the requirements of Article 2 of Chapter 64 of the North Carolina General
Statutes, "Verification of Work Authorization," and will provide documentation or sign
affidavits or any other documents requested by either party demonstrating such
compliance.
6.10 Iran Divestment Act Exemption. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §147-86.61(a),this
Agreement is valued at less than one thousand dollars($1,000.00),and is therefore exempt
from the Iran Divestment Act certification requirement.
6.11 Dispute Resolution. In the event of conflict or default that might arise for matters
associated with this Agreement,the Parties agree to informally communicate to resolve the
conflict. If any such dispute cannot be informally resolved,then such dispute, or any other
matter arising under this Agreement, shall be subject to resolution in a court of competent
jurisdiction.
6.12 Complete Agreement; Exhibits. This Agreement represents the entire agreement
among the Parties. Specifically referenced in this Agreement are the following Exhibits:
1. Exhibit A, Swift Creek Management Plan; and
2. Exhibit B, Map depicting jurisdictional areas of responsibility.
In cases of conflict between this Agreement and any of the above attachments, the terms
of this Agreement shall prevail.
[Signature pages follow this page]
9

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed in
their corporate names by their duly authorized officers, all by the Resolution of their
governing board, spread across their minutes, as of the date first above written.
APEX, NORTH CAI OLINA This instrument has been preaudited in the
manner required by The Local Government
4 ill
Budget and Fiscal Control Act.
avens, Town Manager
N P Finance Officer
a 1973 ® Town of Apex,North Carolina
err This inst rent is ap ove s to form and legal
�\�jy , = suffici cy
By 1JONA Town ttorney!
Clerk
CARY, NORTH CAROLINA This instrument has been preaudited in the
manner required by The Local Government
Budget and Fiscal Control Act.
By:
Sean R. Stegall, Town Manager
Finance Officer
Town of Cary,North Carolina
[Seal]
ATTEST:
By
Clerk
10

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed in
their corporate names by their duly authorized officers, all by the Resolution of their
governing board, spread across their minutes, as of the date first above written.
APEX,NORTH CAROLINA This instrument has been preaudited in the
manner required by The Local Government
Budget and Fiscal Control Act.
By:
Drew Havens, Town Manager
Finance Officer
Town of Apex,North Carolina
[Seal]
This instrument is approved as to form and legal
ATTEST: sufficiency.
By Town Attorney
Clerk
CARY, NORTH CAROLINA This instrument has been preaudited in the
manner required by The Local Government
B �� Budget and Fiscal Control Act.
} Se R. Stegall,Town ager
Fin ce Officer
Town of Cary,North Carolina
[Seal]
ATTEST: 1/
gritx-
By
�er�
Cler
10

GARNER, NORTH CAROLINA This instrument has been preaudited in the
manner required by The Local Government
Budget and Fiscal Control Act.
By:
Rodney Dickerson, Town Manager
Finance Officer
Town of Garner,North Carolina
[Seal]
This instrument is approved as to form and legal
ATTEST: sufficiency.
By Town Attorney
Clerk
CITY OF RALEIGH, This instrument has been preaudited in the
NORTH CAROLINA manner required by The Local Government
Bud_- a►,� Fiscal Conxol ct.
f!
Finance Officer
By: City of Raleigh,North Carolina
Ruffsy roger
7 ,:"...i.... .1<,.' Aii/eRAZ—
ATTES r h (;) This instrument is approved as to form and legal
.. sufficiency.
By:
i i " k
o t;‘:-:‘P' City Attorney
[Seal]
11

GARNER, NORTH CAROLINA This instrument has been preaudited in the
manner required by The Local Government
Budget and Fiscal Control Act.
By:
Rodney Dickerson, Town Manager
Finance Officer
Town of Garner,North Carolina
[Seal]
This instrument is approved as to form and legal
ATTEST: sufficiency.
By Vt.L.G: loSon Town Attorney
Clerk
dam ..... 'Q f: •\°„
�' '
12

WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA This instrument has been preaudited in the
manner required by The Local Government
/l Budget and Fiscal Control Act.
By: (:- ri �l 4/- L 1111 1 IsioJessi N. Holme/s .'`` �'1 .. OF ..V..:i0��4'inance Director
Cl} nr, Board of Commissio a z`, r��� 4 '.ke County, North Carolina
11 (j- 1� `lt^ ..
[Seal] = " r,. •~ .- i
' ,. q.►; s instrument is approved as to form and legal
ATTEST: '-V-p�''' I III e Oti~}4 efficiency.
V.U44,. 4 AO�,N11111111�' '
br .,
'hi'
By County Attorney
Clerk ejLaitie.
13

EXHIBIT A
¢WIET CREEK LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN •
COMPETING OBJECTIVES
it is believed that there are two competing objectives which affect land
use patterns and development standards within the Swift Creek watershed;
the protection of water quality, and the logical extension of urban
development.
LEVEL Or RATER QUALITY PROTECTION
A request has been made by the City of Raleigh to NRCD-DEM to designate
the-Swift Creek Watershed as a WS-II watershed. The practical result of
this designation would be that the State would prohibit industrial
wastewater discharges into the watershed. In order to attain the WS-II
designation, each local government involved would need to adopt a
appropriate water quality,protection measures through a land management
plan and implementing ordinances.
URBAN DENSITIES
pelipeation of the Watershed
The Swift Creek watershed, located in southern Wake County, is comprised
of approximately 40,174 acres. Lakes Benson and Wheeler are the primary
bodies of water within the watershed. Local governments have
jurisdiction in the watershed as follows (refer to Map A, Jurisdictions
within Swift Creek Watershed):
Apex . 1,976 acres 5%
Cary 11,126 acres 28%
Garner 7,071 acres 18%
Raleigh 3,290 acres 8%
Wake County 16,771 acres 41%
TOTAL 40,174 acres 100%
Approximately 59% of the watershed is within municipal jurisdictions.
In addition, expansion within the watershed is planned by
municipalities. Cary and Garner plan to extend their jurisdictional
boundaries southward through the Swift Creek watershed. Cary is
constructing a wastewater treatment plant in the Middle Creek watershed,
and will run wastewater lines from their Middle Creek treatment plant
through the swift Creek watershed to provide service to Cary. Garner
also plans to run wastewater trunk lines through the Swift Creek
watershed critical area (defined below) in order to provide services to
an area in the non-critical portion (defined below) of the watershed on
the south side of Swift Creek.
Given municipal interest in the area, the committee studied whether
residential development greater than one dwelling unit per acre, with
greater than 12% impervious surface area, and non-residential
development should be recommended in the non-critical area of the
P9. 1

•
watershed, subject to land use regulations designed to protect the
quality of the water.
DEVELOPMENT REGULATI0
pefinition of Critical Area and Cream Suffer$
For a water supply watershed WS-II classification, the following minimum
critical areas and stream buffers are proposed for the Swift Creek
watershed (refer to Nap D):
MIN= MUM
AREA OF WATERSHED CRITICAL AREA WIDTH VEGETATIVE SUPPER HIM
Lake Benson North aide 2000 feet, south 100 feet measured from
side 2640 feet measured from lake conservation pool
lake conservation pool level level
Swift Creek 500 ft from the center of 100 ft measured from
between Lakes creek along both sides of creek bank
Benson and creek
Wheeler
Lake Wheeler 1000 ft measured from lake 100 ft measured from
conservation pool level lake conservation pool
level
Swift Creak 500 ft from the center of 50 ft measured from
upstream of creek along both sides of creek bank
Lake Wheeler creek above Lake Wheeler to
Holly Springs Rd. (S.R 1152)
Little Swift none 100 ft measured from
Creek (LSC) and creek bank, measured to
Yates Mill Creek Yates Mill Pond Dam for
(INC) YMC, and measured to
the dam located
southeast of S.R. 1371
and S.R. 1152 for LSC
Drainageways none 0 ft if area drained is
less than 5 acres,25 ft
if 5 to less than 25
acres, 50 ft if 25 or
more acres; measured
from creek hank or
center of a drainageway
pg. 2

performance Standards
Table 1, on page 0, summarizes minimum performance standards which could
be applied to the entire watershed and are designed, with appropriate
development densities and stream and vegetative buffers, to attain a
WS-II classification. These standards are recommended to be applied to
new development throughout the watershed. They are not proposed to
affect existing or already approved development. T e proposed
impervious surface limit is 6* in the critical area and 12% in the
non-critical area for areas without storawater control measures. The
proposed maximum impervious surface limit is 30% except for those areas
designated as: (a) critical: urban limited residential, or (b)
non-critical: new urban residential and non-residential, or existing
urban (refer to Table 1). ,, It should be noted that stormwater
impoundments are required when proposed impervious surface limits exceed
6% in the critical area and 12% in the non-critical area, and that as
the amount of impervious surface increases, the size of the proposed
impoundment must also increase. All impoundments are proposed to be
constructed according to DEM standards. It is believed that private
maintenance of impoundments is sufficient to maintain water quality
protection, but that periodic public inspection according to DEM
guidelines should be required to monitor impoundment effectiveness, and
that public maintenance should be required when private maintenance
fails.
As a further enhancement of water quality protection, it is also
proposed that point source discharges be prohibited within the
watershed. A WS-II classification would prohibit industrial discharges
within the watershed. The performance standards in Table 1 would also
require domestic dischargers, such as public and community sewer
systems, to pump their effluent out of the watershed. It should also be
noted that in the critical portion of the watershed public sewer is
required for limited residential uses which exceed an impervious surface
ratio of 6%. In addition, in the non-critical portion of the watershed
public sewer is proposed to be required for residential and
non-residential uses which exceed an impervious surface ratio of 12%.
These requirements for public sewer would need to be implemented and
enforced by local governments through local ordinances.
LAND USES
Existing Sand Use Patterns
The existing land use patterns were identified and mapped for each local
government jurisdiction in the watershed (refer to Map C, Existing Land
Use Patterns, Swift Creek Watershed). In general it was found that the
highest intensity of land use in the watershed is north of Lake Benson,
within Garner's jurisdiction, and in areas west of Holly Springs Road
within Apex's and Cary's jurisdictions. These areas were developed
primarily for small lot residential uses, but also have some business
pg. 3

•
I
0 13.
a~\ em O u$ "i3
Ul
m� oNa fit. 1
ti M w0 i El- 11 w
\ hi
ii ;'m '' /14 I" 1
,fit' ` iii:1 15
' � leg 5 1 1 M
__ _ N
1_ I:
ti . aa 2 t ralq III
1 � 1
��r OGO1 (111
`y .11 r�..y C,1! U
N J i=� N
film aH 8, 1" k 1 4 o. ! 5 I-et -g Am 1;4 1' §
1 . WI 11 11 nilbg I g
ii i w..i �a : m r I
. a ' - imiAm m 1 itln . ,
i i
01 1 H
1 4 1p" p
4 'V? - 112
1 - " Oil i 1 .T.PNglaa M
Ille:g g
M
2 /0.441 !
ed
r.t" 4 1 iliai im 1 50,Ngge ;
e' ii au al 1
e e e ii V!
is 1
ii is .+M""NGW i a
ilea
'f
ai FNMHF q .a}M i "2m H
ii w3 M i Y !II FA? LN iWWW wNM.� . * r y

and commercial uses. The lowest intensity of land use in the watershed
surrounds Lake Wheeler and the south side of Lake Benson, and is in Wake
County's jurisdiction. This area is zoned by wake County to allow about
one dwelling unit per two acres in the critical area (defined by the
County as the area within 1,200 feet of Lakes Benson and wheeler,
measured from the lake conservation pool level, and within 600 feet of
Swift Creek between the two lakes and upstream of Lake Wheeler, measured
from the floodway center), and about one dwelling unit per acre in the
non-critical area. Much of this area is undeveloped. most of the
remainder of the watershed, the areas north and west of Holly Springs
Road, are developed at a residential density averaging 2.5 dwelling
units per acre, and at an impervious surface area of approximately 30%.
The exceptions are those central portions of Cary which exceed 2.5
dwelling units per acre and have no impervious surface limit. Although
some existing development has been constructed to a 30% or greater
impervious surface level, Cary staff estimates that existing
impoundments and lakes meet the size requirements for collecting
etormwater runoff as recommended by DEM. Therefore, Cary staff
estimates that these areas were developed in a manner which could meet
recommended water quality protection measures.
Potential Futurg Japd Qpe Patterns
The scenario outlined below represents the potential future land use
pattern of the Swift Creek watershed as municipal jurisdictions expand.
Differences among land use patterns reflect the extent of planned water
and sewer line extensions into the watershed. • In general, Apex, Cary
and Garner plan to extend sewer trunk lines in the watershed, which
could create the potential for urban development. Raleigh and Wake
County do not plan to extend sewer trunk lines in the watershed.
The general land use patterns in the scenario, and the recommended
performance standards described in Table 1, are designed to enable the
Swift Creek watershed to attain a WS-II classification. It should be
noted that the checkered areas on Map D represent areas which were
developed prior to the establishment of water quality protection
standards, and may not meet the standards proposed in Table 1.
The performance standards discussed in Table ! above, are recommended to
• be applied to the scenario discussed below.
Land use Scenario
Vegetative Suffers
Vegetative buffers would be maintained along all streams which drain
into Swift Creek, and Lakes Wheeler and Benson. DEM requires that
vegetative buffers be maintained for water quality protection to attain
pg. 5

a WS-II classification. These buffers would remain undisturbed so that
they could function to filter stormwater runoff.
Critical Area
Limited residential development would be permitted within the critical
area of the watershed. Limited residential development would prohibit
institutional uses such as colleges, places of worship, schools, public
libraries and museums, and art galleries. In order to curb the
potential for future urban development in the critical portion of the
watershed, public sewer trunk line tap-ons also would be prohibited in
the critical area.
Garner and Wake County are the only local governments which maintain
jurisdiction in the critical area of the swift Creek watershed as
defined in this report. A portion of Garner's jurisdiction within the
critical area of the watershed is already developed to urban residential
densities, and part of this area was developed prior to the
establishment of water quality protection standards. For the
undeveloped remainder of the critical area within Garner's jurisdiction,
Garner allows only limited residential, agricultural, recreational and
public uses, and enforces watershed protection standards which fall
within DFSS's guidelines for adequate water quality protection. rn order
to allow development patterns in the undeveloped portion of Garner's
jurisdiction within the critical area to be consistent with previous
development in that area, limited residential uses at a maximum density
of 2.5 dwelling units per acre with an impervious surface ratio of over
6% but no greater than 35% would be allowed provided the first 1 inch of
runoff is captured and public sewer is provided.
The portion of the critical area located within Wake County's
jurisdiction is partially developed to a maximum density of 0.5 dwelling
units per acre with limited residential uses (prohibiting all commercial
and institutional uses other than recreational uses). Because Wake
County's, like Garner's, portion of the critical area is adjacent to the
water take-out point, but unlike Garner's remains largely undeveloped,
this area would be maintained at a maximum residential density of 0.5
dwelling units per acre, yielding an impervious surface ratio of about
6%.
Non-Critical Area: Current Jurisdictions
The area east of Lake Wheeler Road is within Garner's, Raleigh's and
Wake County's jurisdictions. Much of the area within Garner's
jurisdiction was developed prior to the establishment of water quality
protection measures. However, Garner requires that water quality
protection measures be met for all new development in the watershed.
For a portion of those undeveloped areas in the watershed at the
intersection of S.R. 1010 and O.S. 401, and at the intersection of O.S.
401 and the proposed Vandora Springs Road extension, Garner plans to
allow residential development densities of up to 6 dwelling units per
pg. 6

acre. The areas which are planned to be maintained at a maximum density
of 1 dwelling unit per acre are the portion of the NCSU Research Farm
designated as major open space, and those areas east of and adjacent to
the NCSU Research Farm, and between Lake Benson and N.C. 50.
For the portion of Raleigh's jurisdiction within the watershed east of
Lake Wheeler Road, residential use densities of up to 6 dwelling units
per acre are proposed. New urban areas are proposed in the area south
of Tryon Road and east of the NCSU Research Farm adjacent to existing
developed urban areas where public utilities exist or can be easily
extended. The remainder of this area is planned to be maintained as
major open space or to be developed to a maximum residential density of
1 dwelling unit per acre. It should be noted that some of the area east
of Lake wheeler Road within Raleigh's jurisdiction was developed prior
to watershed protection standards.
The majority of the area east of Lake Wheeler Road within wake County's
jurisdiction is designated as rural residential which allows for a
maximum density of up to 1 dwelling unit per acre. However, a portion
of this area north of Swift Creek was developed with non-residential
uses prior to the establishment of water quality protection standards.
Within the non-critical portion of the watershed east of Holly Springs
and Jones Franklin Roads, and west of Lake Wheeler Road, residential
development and a limited amount of non-residential development would be
permitted. This area is largely within Wake County's jurisdiction
except for smaller areas in Cary►s and Raleigh's jurisdictions. The
majority of this area within Wake County's jurisdiction is rural
residential, with an average density of one dwelling unit per acre. The
exceptions are those portions which are developed to allow
non-residential uses necessary to serve the daily needs of area
residents, such as convenience stores and elementary schools. The area
within Wake County would be maintained at a maximum residential density
of 1.0 dwelling unit per acre with a limited number of non-residential
uses allowed, and would not be sewered because of the increased
potential, once developed, to adversely affect the water quality of
Lakes Benson and Wheeler. This type of development would yield an
impervious surface area of about 12%, and would be able to maintain an
adequate level of water quality protection without structural devices.
For the area within Cary's jurisdiction east of Holly Springs Road and
west of Campbell Road, residential development would be allowed at a
density of up to 6.0 dwelling units per acre. Municipal sewer
extensions are planned for this area which is designated by Cary on Map
D for new urban development. Cary proposes to restrict their impervious
surface limits to a maximum of 30% in this area.
For the area within Raleigh's jurisdiction east of Jones Franklin and
Holly Springs Roads, and north of the NCSU Research Farm, residential
development would be allowed at a density of up to 6.0 dwelling units
per acre. Although Raleigh does not plan to extend sewer trunk lines
pg. 7

into this portion of the Swift Creek watershed, Raleigh could extend
sewer trunk lines into this area, but would restrict their impervious
surface limits to a maximum of 30%.
Because these areas within Cary's and Raleigh's jurisdictions are at the
periphery of the watershed, it is not believed that a limited amount of
residential development at a maximum density of 6.0 dwelling units per
acre would significantly increase the potential to adversely affect
water quality. (As specified in Table 1, impervious surface limit may
be increased to 30%, and 70%, provided that the the first one-half inch
or one inch of rainfall run--off is retained, respectively.)
The remainder of the watershed, the area west of Holly Springs and Jones
Franklin Roads, lies within Apex's, Cary's and Wake County's
jurisdictions. Much of the area within Apex's and Cary's jurisdictions
is developed or has site plans which have already been approved at a
residential density averaging 2.5 dwelling units per acre and result in
impervious surfaces of approximately 30%. The exceptions are those
residential portions of Apex and Cary which exceed 2.5 dwelling units
per acre, and those non-residential portions which have no impervious
surface limit. Since these areas are located at the periphery of the
watershed, and because the recommended performance standards are not
proposed to affect existing or approved development, these areas would
be allowed to develop at these densities.
The area within Wake County's jurisdiction west of Holly Springs Road
remains largely undeveloped, but has some large lot single family
subdivisions. Residential uses with a maximum density of 1 dwelling
unit per acre would be allowed for the undeveloped portion.
Pon-Critical Area: tNn pinpl Jurisdiction Expansion
The potential future land use patterns (described, below) would be
applied as municipal jurisdictions expand in the watershed. As proposed
above, vegetative buffers would remain undisturbed, and proposed
critical areas would be maintained according to the recommended
performance standards in Table 1.
Within the non-critical portion of the watershed, new suburban areas
with a maximum average density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre and
non-residential uses with a maximum impervious surface limit of up to
30% would be allowed in municipal jurisdictions. Portions of these
areas, which are currently in Wake County's jurisdiction, are proposed
to be developed to suburban densities by municipalities.
In the non-critical portion of the watershed east of Holly Springs and
Jones Franklin Roads, residential uses with an average density of 6
dwelling units per acre also would be allowed in municipal
jurisdictions. Existing areas within Cary's and Raleigh's jurisdictions
are already proposed to be developed at an average of 6 dwelling units
per acre in this area. Other new urban areas proposed to allow up to 6
pg. 8

dwelling units per acre, and non-residential uses with a maximum
impervious surface of up to 70% would be located along the north shore
of Lake Benson and along U.S. 401 in Garner's jurisdiction.
In the non-critical portion of the watershed west of Jones Franklin and
Holly Springs Roads, residential uses with a density exceeding 6
dwelling units per acre and non-residential uses wih a maximum
impervious surface of up to 70% also would be allowed in municipal
jurisdictions. New urban areas proposed to allow greater than 6
dwelling units per acre are proposed to be located adjacent to existing
central business districts in Apex and Cary, and on portions of other
sites within Cary's jurisdiction.
ISSUES FOR ADDITIONAL STUDY
During discussions, several issues were brought up which could have an
effect on the implementation of future land use regulations in the
watershed. No conclusions were reached for these issues. However, it
is believed that these issues should be considered as the land
management plan for the Swift Creek watershed is refined.
Impoundments Serving multiple Properties: Impoundments serving multiple
properties are proposed to be allowed. This method is used within
individual Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) built within Cary's
jurisdiction and should be expanded to apply to a runoff impoundment
serving more than one development. It is believed that large
impoundments serving multiple properties are more effective and easier
to maintain than small impoundments serving individual properties.
Removal of Existing Point Source Discharges ip the Watershed: The
ability to attain a WS-II classification for the watershed may be
improved if public sewer improvements or land use controls can be
utilized to remove existing point source discharges from the Swift Creek
watershed. There are approximately 7 existing discharges within the
watershed.
newer Lines Passing Through Critical Areas: The proposed regulations
specify that the critical area of a water supply watershed (except for
areas already urban) should not be served with public sewer. Garner's
future growth patterns include the area around and to the south of Lake
Benson. In order to provide sewer service, which is required by State
law for areas within corporate limits, it would be most economical to
run main sewer lines through the critical area rather than around the
critical area. Garner staff believes that the Town could successfully
prohibit trunk line tap-ons in the critical area. There is a concern,
however, that if sewer mains were allowed to run through the critical
area, Garner could be pressured into allowing trunk line tap-ons to
provide service to those properties in the immediate area of the lines.
general Enabling Legislation: General enabling legislation is needed to
allow municipalities to annex within water supply watersheds without the
pg. 9

requirement that they extend water and sewer lines (G.S. 160A-35 (3) b.
and G.S. 16QA-47 (3) b.), thereby allowing municipal expansion while
also protecting the water quality.
):.ow Pressure Wastewater Disposal Systems: Because of the recent failure
of a low pressure wastewater disposal system in the Swift Creek
watershed, it was discussed whether or not these systems should continue
to be allowed in a water supply watershed, and, if so, whether public
maintenance should be required if they fail.
Road Construction Standards: Road construction standards were discussed
briefly.
Amount of Kon-Resiglential DeveJo scent to be Allowed: The land use plans
represented in this report (Hap D) concentrate on residential uses as
the predominant use. The amount and nature of proposed non-residential
use areas needs to be further refined. The non-residential areas are
not intended to be major commercial or employment areas. The intensity
of non-residential development could be allowed to increase as the
distance from the critical area increases.
coNCLpSioN
• It is believed that good water quality management practices can be
enforced by limiting the types and densities of future growth,
controlling point source discharges, and applying water quality
regulations which meet or exceed those recommended by DE4 staff to
maintain a WS-TI classification. The performance standards outlined in
• Table 1 and the watershed critical areas and buffers defined above are
proposed to meet these water quality management objectives, while
permitting municipal growth. The scenario attempts to present land use
patterns which could be applied to the watershed to attain a WS-II
classification.
•
b:scplan
• pg. 10

• •
E y ti { �.
1 . 1 ... ' ',...fraill -_,,,,,...- f , i
filif 4 .' ''--- (1- .r----77
1 _____ .
.i.„4„..;4 ,,,_ ..:, .- __., , ,. .) ;_,
, __. so- i4, . ,- , b ' 1
o P
Ap
riii- - -.4.- -4000.-.. - , , /
4 J ' I b.- 4,-,-. s ,, k . 1 7;y'
,......
41,11 or -.1
W L.
i •
5W tek d, 1
. ,
. . ..,,.. .
, ... ....._
,,,.
..., s ) ,, . _ -
F . 411111N
MI • .ill
1/ P
M gro • t.- N ro
0
AN \ ..ijitimp
. ... MP.' INN( -...'-__ III .-, _-71 LW:, .4.11.1. - -',
\ , _ .___41, ''I-I'''..7'- I* .,
gi
.et de
so yam■ 4
MEW ilk ;
\ „.._____
\ . ,. ) . ,.( iiir
: '1
.. ,7 _I
l ter; •:
oppyA . . -----__ i
il 1

Ir" + -
0.40440P
IL
4 ..,_.,.ram' L . , ._
i.
OZ I1 i
U s.
i �� ` !".1
Q t t G
i — T- ._ •
•— „.
8 '
114: 1 la BA :11 ..4,- . : o„.„-. ,k) )frr.
Al„,. .. ,v.
-43
Wir \ ,,
r Tc'àk ` 1, i I IRO .,' .
i
,
I 401It ....404-.%11---•\,.. ; AIN.... .
A ion ,..„„),, s...oltio:,
, .
, .A . , ,
i \;1111F.-- AN - V .!4 is .\____,
ivid Wiilt?' ' il
! 11( i - ' .
Watt A. 1 0 ir
i i II 1
. \ 'Nsp,,.. ,„ 1011 .-74,411, - 4 ,. .,„_,...:,,
,,, ......., ,i,,,,
,. $7
"it-
1 I
I
Gl...
` I i
141, k *114' A
.3
a ; 1 —,.mom m �
f
i

.____
ll....
• pi
f \Z\41
Al
IL`f.� �yt ` A \
z 1 r
AMP" ir , P. VOI* (L
. I P- ii . It; • 'r ‘,/' ,N
[ J 1
U I� - � .rP 4 �.
rT' T
7
L' Yj� vkl;
latt, ,, 1 iii*6, ,_
,. . / .„ 4 'I 41W, _ ,
.... , rilkod -',IV,, ' tal.141, - -- '-
ti. _ �
iOiimitHi ;
MI Ni,ii' .1
ie
•
rr�r r „w• ��� � Q+
ii.
IL'FItt_
}
-�� 1 11111111
11
$ fi,L":7-' lilt:
0 R
dill&

. •
I- !I
tit
i .. . -----Irmat \ • . Apr
r • , i . .
1 • ) •'
\ '
' II
1.
/ %. •
, . • .
.ItP• :
a I 1 -'•,,
-4( .
g I i
Lie : 1
4
r....--- .
i
4:.
-
0 2 -
1_........._ ' I .
../(144 '.ihijilOr J . - t.
.1 411)
--.) .',. 41,7';-:,:•...-.
— . :: . r•-e! :- • .
ii lb" .: ----- . I. :e• I,• .•
,...,,,,,..,-11-11.','...•-'! .' I:: , •AlVir:.: '. '''• ::' -.-----113ri.
i
..:,1-rio - •-.5 •'/
1 1 Er,al , ,,---_-. , -. -
,..,,. -.._,....., „. . Acr--,....,
4 - -' • -::. .!.. ' ;:`r.C...- •-1., 'ii itt:::•_.kii•.:,i.-',._" -. ' .: • ill
1 lialk .:• :,..:-._?:41 I .0,-, 1 . • At 1 11111i. 4„.
...
.,,,,,,,..,„,....: :,,,,. . jolt : ' ammo'r,--.,: -,;:i0-:-;•
,,,..:).I,..J i.144Fitgr# '1,49 iii. 4414 1
,ii • 1: p 111' 1 . ,, ..iiii ril;'•••il. it lirif,
WI sq- ir h
, • i1.4,t.,.. :,.). I .1..`*L. .111,,.1 . ‘ I
1 , ,,,,,• ...er -_..:..".. !
• 41. . ":.—,.—J. I li •
,,:,,...._ •,te.01- amp ..d.It.
ANN
'. -..
Li..
.
t-i? .t -
. )4
. , . , 1! 1,r - •,!
I• .• •
s_.s. s t •1 '::
1 ....:r. 11'. ........., 1
i 1
1
1 .
. ,
• :-, •
7 .. i,,.
, .
•
' :. - .....4.• ?"444:, :).: :. -"I'' I 1 1 ; 1 5
I -
i • j
_mi,• lb, ou 1 1
WO PPIPAIL,,d/
s , ,...1 IF
I I I I I 11
11Pr ' iiiiHrj,,,fizsimk
Igijk
p
I i 1 1
•
. .
. , .

ATTACHMENT 2
TABLE 1•PROMISEE)WA11rR.5HED P1ibTECTkSN R£GUTA11Of S
Y A. I .were. B - C ----I D .E
„2„./IROPOSEt URBAN SLUDGE HAZARDOUS
2 CLASS DEVELOPMENT APPLICAT(OJ MAJERIALS LANDFILLS
3
4 W61 • EXISTING: Uninhabited, undsyst4psd Ions tkw time
6 FUTURE: Unlnhsbhad, und.velopsd Nona Non 142n°
° 7 WSII EXISTING: Pwdom(irsntlY undivalopsd
0 FUTURE:
0 Crtrcal Ares (112 col. from aormai pool elevation Pixie IM:ro None
1 0_ or to lb* ►idnalins, whfohevtr Is Isar)
1 t _._ 1 house/2ams:6%1nurervbus sue an Iona J
k 1 2 no new commode'per tndusN Ial development
1 3 n **RV or luturs,Endusldal or municipal dlsciwoem blown( • ---,
1 4 Real Of Wstafihod Nara Local Inventory No row
1 S 1 1%440/2 sores:614 hnpendout furfsee.arcs 1 $ptbdabure discharging
1 S 1014 of area for ccernerdal and Industrial*ornament" . Plan requked
1 7 nO 5adstirq or halm kldustfat or muMdpal diseharrews allowed
16
1 9 WSIII EXISTING: Loft to moderately dsvelepad
2 0 FUTURE:
211 Cfhcal Ares 1112 ml. from normal pool elevation Now jNre None*
2 2 Or 40 the rldoslkti. whichever Is lees)
o 2 3 .. I harso/2 acres:A%Impervious surface area or _
2 4 6-30% impervious surface wee vskh stprmwas.r j ond(s) • �«
2 S_ no new conimardal or Initiate!development
2 6 no new industial or munidpaI dacha/olfs*bowed _
2 7 NPOES permit holders must adhere b anti d.oadatlon standards
2 a Rost of Watershed Allowed Local lneentmy Norte*
'2 0 t Iwusolt aaa:It%knOcrvlous surface area or S Sprit/aiure disoharOlno
3 0 12-30% Impervious surface area with stormwalsr ponder Pion resulted
3 1 1014 of eras for commercial and Industrial derslopmant••
3 2 fmunadpal end non-process disctarjsrs aibrwd
33 -1
3 43 4 WSIV EXISTING: Midstale to Jrfaldy_dsyeloped
3 5 FUTURE:
3 6 Crites! Ares (112 ml, from normal pool .lsvallon None Local Inventory Nonew
3 7 or to tM ►idoatae, whichever Is lass) i SptUAa9tm
3 a 1 fro coin earn!2%lnpsMous surface area or _ Plan reouired ,
3 Y 12-30% Imp.rvtous audios area with stormwalar pond(s)'
1 0 no limns on ooneneralal and Irrdaeliel devolopment
4 1 no now industrial dlsdargsrs allowed:municipal disgtrmklurs ,
t 2 allowed
4 3 NPOES permit holders must adhere b anwdspradaton sardards
4 4 Rost of Walershad or Protected Ares Loaf Inventory NO:NW
4 S. 2 heusielaan:24%Nlpervlous deface arsa or Allowed a Spitldalkmo discharging
''4 6 21.70% ImOOMoim suAaoe feu with slormwaar pond(sl ` Plat,resulted
4 7 no hails on mlMnrdat and kdusthl drvefopnnrnt
4 a 00 limits en ale types 01 diw:ha o.rs
111
i 0 Notes: •Sloimwatar D must control air fast 1'of runoff
,ads
S 1 •• 7014 knoiMous surface area brit
a2
S 3 Ve eWive buffer wta to oe maintained adian to atl perennial tributaries:width
S 4 will be 50 N.phis 4 limes the percent of slope.
i _
6
S O Criucul aria br died nomm Makes will be 1_nil. Oreurd
-S 7 Me intake Or b Nr ddoefn e,whichever is fees. `
I
•
•
1

_ __ _ _
I r-- - -- -
Ci C
1 F-1
i r.:, - :
ven
1 , .— cu E i
i s- L.
I .
.1
1E
' . •-„, (4 a
.2
v
, c
1 ,,----- , ,.-, , .. i• .
1
likzeoia .I
1 ,, -Y;
b
\VIIIT4.
I
iliaLiHr__,
1 .
,,,,,\4:).,,„
, po
44
1 , ..,„,,.
po i, : ,
....-\
i = , L A (:,
0
'.--77 P:t*' ...,;...., \
W4
S
I \ *
: I
79-j.1 t
N'% z
2
I •A A
, , ••
allii•4
D , _,viwil: If
i
latiti
1 '4170 e
. 'e
r
o. %a '•-, r4
-3'
I .. .1
I i
'..._ . .
@ ......
1 g
.0 -1
,,,,
_._
_____
____ _,,,
1