20020672 Ver 1_Complete File_20051102

\o?oY ?qIQ
4 ~C
November 2, 2005
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1548
Re: Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act,
Modification to the Construction of US 74 (Monroe Bypass) from west of US 601 to existing US 74,
Union County, TIP No. R-2559 B and C, Federal Aid Project No. NHF-74(8), WQC Project No.
20020672, WBS Element 34464.1.3 and 34464.1.6.
WQC No. 3395
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Attached hereto is a modification to Certification No. 3395 issued to the North Carolina Department of
Transportation on November 2, 2005. The attached modification authorizes the extension of the Water
Quality Certification for an additional three years or until the 404 permit issued by the Army Corps of
Engineers expires which ever is sooner. This modification is applicable only to the extension of the 401
Water Quality Certification. All the authorized activities and conditions of certification associated with
the original Water Quality Certification dated October 2, 2002 and all other corresponding modifications
still apply except where superceded by this certification.
If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
Director
Attachments
Modifications to WQC No. 3395
cc: Steve Lund, US Army Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Christopher Militscher, US Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV
Polly Lespinasse, NC DWQ Mooresville Regional Office
Central Files
File Copy
One
i thCarolina
Transportation Permitting Unit Naturally
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: httr)://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer-50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

APPROVAL OF 401 Water Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401 Public Laws 92-
500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to.the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
Regulations in 15 NCAC.2H, Section .0500, and 15 NCAC 2B .0233. This certification authorizes the
extension of the Water Quality Certification for an additional three years from the date of the cover letter
or until the 404 permit issued by the Army Corps of Engineers expires, which ever is sooner. The project
shall be constructed pursuant to the original application dated on April 19, 2002 (received April 29,
2002). The application provides adequate assurance that the discharge of fill material into the waters of
the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin in conjunction with the proposed development will not result in a
violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the State of North
Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate the applicable portions of Sections 301, 302, 303, 306,
307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the application and conditions
hereinafter set forth.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you submitted in your application, as described
in the Public Notice. Should your project change, you are required to notify the DWQ and submit a new
application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval
letter, and is thereby responsible for complying with all the conditions. If additional wetland impacts, or
stream impacts, for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre or 150 linear feet, respectively,
additional compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h) (6) and (7).
For this approval to remain valid, you are required to comply with all the conditions listed below. In
addition, you should obtain all other federal, state or local permits before proceeding with your project
including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-discharge and
Water Supply watershed regulations. This Certification shall expire three years from the date of the cover
letter from DWQ or on the same day as the expiration date of the corresponding Corps of Engineers
Permit, whichever is sooner.
1. All the authorized activities and conditions of the certification associated with the original Water
Quality Certification dated October 2, 2002 and all other corresponding modifications still apply
except where superceded by this certification.
Violations of any condition herein set forth may result in revocation of this Certification and may result in
criminal and/or civil penalties. This Certification shall become null and void unless the above conditions
are made conditions of the Federal 404 and/or Coastal Area Management Act Permit. This Certification
shall expire upon the expiration of the 404 or CAMA permit.
If this Certification is unacceptable to you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon written request
within sixty (60) days following receipt of this Certification. This request must be in the form of a
written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes and filed with the
Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. If modifications are
made to an original Certification, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing on the modifications upon
written request within sixty (60) days following receipt of the Certification. Unless such demands are
made, this Certification shall be final and binding.

2
a .
This the 2na day of October 2005
DIV OF WATER QUALITY
G -Alan W. Klimek, P. .
Director
WQC No. 3395
3

WAIF Michael F. Easley, Governor
R
Q? QG William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
?
r? Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
j Division of Water Quality

October 2, 2002
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
NCDOT Planning and Environmental Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC, 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Re: Water Quality Certification Pursuant to §401 of the Federal Clean Water Act, Monroe Bypass
from US 601 to existing US 74; Union County.
TIP Project Nos. R-2559B and R-2559C.
DWQ Project No. 020692
Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. 3395 issued to The North Carolina Department of
Transportation dated October 2, 2002.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
Attachments
cc: Steve Lund, USACE Asheville Field Office
Samar Bou-Ghazale, NCDWQ Mooresville Regional Office
Christy Putnam, Union County Stormwater
Jim Loyd, City of Monroe
Brian Matthews, Town of Stallings
Shannon Deaton, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Robert Deaton, NCDOT Project Development & Environmental Analysis
Scott Anderson
Central Files
File Copy
ICU
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands/
Sincerely,
1
NORTH CAROLINA 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401 Public Laws 92-
500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
Regulations in 15 NCAC 211, Section .0500. This certification authorizes the NCDOT to incur the
following permanent impacts in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin:
¦ 4.26 acres of jurisdictional riverine wetlands;
¦ 6,771 linear feet of jurisdicational stream channels
in Union County, as described in the Application dated 19 April 2002.
The project shall be constructed pursuant to the application dated April 19, 2002 filed to construct
Monroe Bypass from US 601 to existing US 74 (TIP Project Nos. R-2559B and R-2559C).
The application provides adequate assurance that the discharge of fill material into the waters of the state
with the proposed development will not result in a violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and
discharge guidelines. Therefore, the State of North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate the
applicable portions of Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in
accordance with the application and conditions hereinafter set forth.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you submitted in your application. Should
your project change, you are required to notify the DWQ in writing, and you may be required to submit a
new application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and
approval letter, and is thereby responsible for complying with all the conditions. If this project incurs
additional wetland or stream impacts, additional compensatory mitigation may be required as described in
15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to remain valid, you are required to. comply with
all the conditions listed below. In addition, you should obtain all other federal, state or local permits
before proceeding with your project including'(but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-
discharge and Water Supply watershed regulations. This Certification shall expire three (3) years from
the date of the cover letter from DWQ or on the same day as the expiration date of the corresponding
Corps of Engineers Permit, whichever is sooner.
Condition(s) of Certification:
1. The applicant must follow the appropriate sediment and erosion control practices which equal or
exceed those outlined in the most recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control
Planning and Design Manual or the North Carolina Surface Mining Manual, whichever is more
appropriate (available from the Division of Land Resources (DLR) in the DENR Regional or Central
Offices) and shall be in full compliance with all specifications governing the proper design,
installation and operation and maintenance of such Best Management Practices in order to assure
compliance with the appropriate turbidity water quality standard (50 NTUs in all fresh water streams
and rivers not designated as trout waters and 25 NTUs in all lakes and reservoirs);
2. NCDOT shall use Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters (NCDOT March
1997), specifically using all applicable preventive and control measures during the design,
construction and maintenance of this project. These measures shall be implemented prior to any
ground-disturbing activities to minimize impacts to downstream aquatic resources.
3. During the construction of the project, the applicant shall strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations
entitled, Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds [ 15A NCAC 4B .0 124], within the entire project
corridor.
4. NCDOT shall adhere to the requirements for WS-III Waters [15A NCAC 2B.0215(3)(b)] and WS-IV
Waters [ 15A NCAC 2B .0216(3)(b)].
5. Storm water shall be directed to flow as diffuse flow at non-erosive velocities across the stream
buffers or to retention basins or pre-formed scour holes and shall not be routed directly into streams.
Existing stream buffers shall not be mowed in order to allow them to be used for storm water diffuse
flow.
6. Stream and Wetland Impact Sites
¦ Site 1 (plan sheet 6 of 25)
The plans for Site l shall be revised to include the removal of the ditch from the flood plain and
the addition of a pre-formed scour hole at the termination of the ditch. The ditch and scour hole
shall be constructed according to the revised plans.
¦ Site 2 (Wetland Impact)
NCDOT shall install a type "A" basin with a riser above the wetlands to ensure better
sedimentation and erosion control.
Sites 3, 10, and 15+15A (plan sheets 8, 17, and 22 of 25)
Step pools and vegetated side slopes or similar stream design techniques must.be provided for the
relocated stream channels shown on these site plans. The plans shall include typical cross
sections and plan views that indicate the appropriate pool-to-pool spacing. The plans must be
approved in writing by the NC Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Unit before the stream
and wetland impacts approved by this Certification occur. The channels must be constructed,
planted and maintained in accordance with the approved plans before the Monroe Bypass is
opened to traffic.
Site 4 (plan sheets 9 and 10 of 25)
Before any of the impacts approved by this Certification occur, an intensive, on-site evaluation
must be conducted by NCDOT and NCDWQ to review the efficacy of using natural channel
design techniques. Additionally, plans shall be developed based on this evaluation and must be
approved in writing by the NC Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Unit before the stream
and wetland impacts approved by this Certification occur. The channels must be constructed,
planted and maintained in accordance with the approved plans before the Monroe Bypass is
opened to traffic.
7. The Meadow Branch Bridge shall be designed according to Best Management Practices for the
Protection of Surface Waters (NCDOT March 1997). Specifically, the bridge decking shall not
discharge storm water directly into the receiving water.
8. Prior to any construction activities, the NCDOT shall submit a maintenance plan for all storm water
management facilities and hazardous spill catch basins associated with the project. The NCDOT shall
be required to implement the maintenance plan for the life of this road. Sediment and erosion control
devices shall not be placed in wetlands or waters to the maximum extent practicable. If placement of
sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is unavoidable, they shall be removed
and the natural grade restored after the Division of Land Resources has released the project.
9. Live or fresh concrete shall not come into contact with waters of the state until the concrete has
hardened.
10. There shall be no excavation from or waste disposal into jurisdictional wetlands or waters associated
with this permit without appropriate modification of this Certification. If this occurs, compensatory
mitigation will be required since it is a direct impact from road construction activities.
11. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be placed below the
elevation of the streambed to allow low flow passage of water and aquatic life unless it can be shown
to DWQ that providing passage would be impractical. Design and placement of culverts and other
structures including temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may.
result in dis-equilibrium of wetlands or stream beds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down
stream of the above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium shall
be maintained if requested in writing by DWQ.
12. Mitigation: Compensatory mitigation. shall be the same as that approved by the US Army Corps of
Engineers as long as the mitigation required equals a ratio of 1:1 restoration or creation of lost
wetland acres as described in 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(6). A report must be submitted to the NC
Division of Water Quality that describes the final approved stream and buffer mitigation for this
project within two (2) months of the issuance of the 404 permit issued by the Army Corps of
Engineers.
a. Wetland impacts of 4.26 acres of riverine wetlands in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin
(Hydrologic Unit 03040105). Compensatory mitigation will be provided at a ratio of 2:1 via
in-lieu payments to WRP.
b. Stream impacts total 6,771 linear feet in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin (Hydrologic Unit
03040105).
Compensatory mitigation consists of the following:
¦ 279 linear feet of on-site mitigation (using a 1:1 ratio).
¦ 13, 712 linear feet of off-site mitigation. (using a 2:1 ratio) via in-lieu payments to WRP.
The stream restoration shall be performed and maintained according to approved plans before
any mitigation credit is given. If this Office determines that the stream restoration or
associated riparian area has become unstable, the stream shall be repaired or stabilized using
only natural channel design techniques if possible. Additionally, the vegetation in the
riparian shall be maintained and/or replaced according to the approved plans. Rip-rap and
other hard structures may only be used if required by the Division of Land Resources or a
Delegated Local Program. Additionally, all repair designs must be submitted to and receive
written approval from this Office before the repair work is performed.
Since the restored stream is proposed as compensatory mitigation for stream impacts, the
restored portion and associated riparian buffer area shall be preserved in perpetuity through a
preservation easement or some other legally binding mechanism or agreement. The above
easement or other legally binding mechanism or agreement must be in place before any
mitigation credit shall be given. Additionally, the stream physical and biological monitoring
plan shall be followed and reports shall be submitted to this Office after the first year and
every other year afterwards for a total of five (5) years.
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2R.0500, this contribution will satisfy our compensatory
mitigation requirements under 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h). Until plans are received and approved
for the stream relocation using natural channel design, wetland or stream fill shall not occur.

13. In accordance with the findings of Indirect and Cumulative Analysis Nutrient Study for Monroe
Bypass (September 2002) prepared by EcoScience Corporation and Indirect and Cumulative Analysis
Land Use Analysis (September 2002) prepared by HNTB, the anticipated cumulative impacts from
the Monroe Bypass shall be addressed via written agreements between NC Division of Water Quality
and relevant Union County local governments concerning local land use. These agreements shall
address the implementation of
a. Riparian buffers;
b. On-site storm water control measures for new development; and
c. Enhanced sediment and erosion control best management practices (BMPs).
NCDOT shall assist in the development and implementation of these measures as appropriate.
14. Upon completion of the project, the NCDOT shall complete and return the enclosed "Certification of
Completion Form" to notify DWQ when all work included in the 401 Certification has been
completed. The responsible party shall complete the attached form and return it to the 401/Wedands
Unit of the Division of Water Quality upon completion of the project.
15. The Applicant shall require its contractors (and/or agents) to comply with all of the terms of this
Certification, and shall provide each of its contractors (and/or agents) a copy of this Certification.
Violations of any condition herein set forth shall result in revocation of this Certification and may result
in criminal and/or civil penalties. This Certification shall become null and void unless the above
conditions are made conditions of the Federal Permit.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing.
You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written
petition that conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of
Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its
conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This the 2nd day of October 2002
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
WQC No. 3395
020&7?40W
?d Y'm"n
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
October 12, 2005
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
401 Wetland Certification Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
k[Rr-"RqW[2I
OCT 1 2 2005 -
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
ATTN: Mr. John Hennessy
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Request for Renewal of Water Quality Certification No. 3395, US 74
(Monroe Bypass) from west of US 601 to existing US 74, Union County; State
Project No. 8.T690401; Federal Aid Project No. NHF-74(8); WBS Element
No. 34464.1.3 & 34464.1.6, $475.00 Debit work order; TIP Project Nos. R-
2559 B and C
This request is to renew Water Quality Certification No. 3395 (WQC), pursuant to
section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act, issued for the Monroe Bypass, TIP Project Nos.
R-2559 B and C. Construction of the referenced project has not started and is not scheduled
until 2006. Therefore, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is
requesting that the WQC No. 3395 be renewed.
NCDOT agrees to adhere to the conditions listed in the certification with the
following exceptions. On October 31, 2003, NCDOT submitted a letter requesting changes
to stipulations under conditions 6 and 8 of the certification. The letter contained revised
hydraulic information and permit drawings. Subsequently, your office sent NCDOT a letter
dated December 3, 2003 acknowledging these changes. NCDOT will follow the stipulations
for conditions 6 and 8 as outlined in the December 3, 2003 correspondence and provide the
requested information prior to the pre-construction meeting.
Since the Wetlands Restoration Program (WRP) is now the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP), in-lieu payments required under condition 12 will be made to the EEP
rather than WRP.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DON.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
Lastly, condition 13 required buffer and stormwater ordinances to be enacted by
Union County. These ordinances have yet to be enacted, but they have been drafted.
NCDOT contacted Ms. Christie Putnum with Union County on August 4, 2005 for an
update on the pending ordinance.
According to Ms. Putnum, the draft ordinance was submitted to the Union County
Board of County Commissioners on August 1, 2005. From that meeting, County staff
incorporated comments received from the Commissioners and included further definition to
the ordinance. The updated ordinance was submitted back to the Board of County
Commissioners and Union County is in the process of developing a time line for final
adoption.
In compliance with Section 143-215.3D(e) of the NCAC, we will provide $475 to
act as payment for processing the modification of the existing Section 401 WQC. At
your earliest convenience, please provide NCDOT with a letter indicating renewal of the
certification. In the meantime, if you have any questions or need additional information,
please contact Mr. Chris Manley at 919-715-1487.
Sincerely,
Greg WhtalrXMZnagement Ph.
Envi Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
The "cc" List:
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (7 Copies)
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Ms. Becky Fox, USEPA - Whittier, NC
Mr. Ronald Mikulak, USEPA - Atlanta, GA
Mr. Clarence W. Coleman, P.E., FHWA
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. B. G. Payne, P.E. (Div. 10), Division Engineer
Mr. Larry Thompson (Div. 10), DEO
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Carl Goode, PE, Human Environment Unit Head
Mr. John Conforti, Project Engineer
Mr. Michael Wood, LSS, Catena Group
y
T
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
December 3, 2003
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
RE: Compliance with Conditions 6 and 8 of Water Quality Certification No. 3395,
Monroe Bypass from US 601 to existing US 74; Union County.
TIP Project Nos. R-2559B and R-2559C.
DWQ Project No. 020692
The NC Division of Water Quality has reviewed your letter of October 31, 2003 in regard to the conditions
in the above-referenced project. Specifically, NCDOT is addressing how they will comply with the
requirements contained Conditions 6 and 8.
Condition 6 requires site-specific measures to reduce the impacts of stormwater runoff for sites 1, 3, 4, 10,
15 and 15A. NCDOT Hydraulics Unit revised the plan drawings to reflect compliance. DWQ understands
that NCDOT will be using step pools and bioengineering for Sites 3, 10, 15 and 15A due to topographic
constraints. However, when the valley slope is less than 2%, benches will be created. NCDOT is reminded
that Condition 6 for Site 4 requires an intensive, on-site evaluation to review the efficacy of using natural
channel design techniques prior to incurring stream and wetland impacts for the Monroe Bypass project
(R-2559B & C).
Condition 8 requires a maintenance plan for storm water management facilities and hazardous spill catch
basins. This was submitted by NCDOT in Appendix C in the October 31, 2003 correspondence. DWQ has
reviewed the plan. Maintenance of storm water management facilities was not addressed. In regard to the
development of a hazardous spill catch basin maintenance plan, DWQ advises that the following issues be
addressed:
Operation and Maintenance Recommendations
¦ Maintenance plans for constructed basins should be developed in accordance with Best
Management Practices (BMPs) and good engineering practices. Additional guidance for properly
maintaining containment basins can be found at 40 CFR Part 112, § 112.7, et al. (Spill Prevention
Control and Countermeasures).
¦ Inspections of the hazardous spill catch basin and opening/shuttirig of the gate should be
performed annually at a minimum, and within six (6) months after a spill incident to ensure
integrity of the catch basin.
¦ Repairs should occur in a timely manner.
¦ Tracking: NCDOT should provide annually, a site location map of all hazardous spill catch
basins and similar devices to Federal (USEPA, USCG), DENR, State Emergency Response
Coordinator, and all applicable county and urban center response groups. Each NCDOT Division
should have a map indicating locations of hazardous spill catch basins.
¦ Signage indicating the presence of a hazardous spill catch basin (or similar device) should be
provided.

N. C. Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
[phone] (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), (htto://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands)
Customer Service #: 1-877-623-6748
WATFA
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
-1-norpe Fage 2
December 3, 2003
Compliance with Conditions of Monroe Bypass
R-2559B and C
¦ Please provide information as to the parties responsible for performing maintenance on the
devices.
NCDOT shall provide NCDWQ with two (2) two copies of the final construction drawings prior to the
pre-construction meeting. Written verification shall be provided that the final construction drawings
comply with the permit drawings contained in the Application dated April 19, 2002 and the hydraulic
design revisions in the October 31, 2003 letter (Appendix A and B). If you have any questions, please
contact Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele at 919.733.5715.
Cc: David Chang, NCDOT Hydraulics Design Unit
Raleigh Field Office US Army Corps of Engineers
DWQ Winston-Salem Regional Office
Marshall Clawson, NCDOT Hydraulic Design Unit
Phillip Todd, NCDOT PDEA
Coleen Sullins
Cynthia Van Der Wiele, DWQ
File copy
Central files
yjy ? ?F o
N rb?
??Q •n
01MM+??
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
September 22, 1999
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., Manager
Highway Design Branch
C) 20Cr`7
Vl 1 U!/?
DAVID MCCOY
. SECRETARY
FROM: G William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager C • ??
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS FOR R-2559, MONROE
BYPASS, UNION COUNTY.
On September 14, a pre-application field meeting was held for the subject project. In
attendance were representatives of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and NCDOT personnel.
The wetland and stream impacts were reviewed. The following is a list of concerns and
comments that were voiced at the meeting followed by the stream jurisdictional listing.
R-2559 B
209+80: The drained pond is not to be considered a wetland. Eliminate impacts from plans.
R-2559 C
90+00 to 94+00: This is a high quality headwater system. The agencies requested DOT shift the
alignment to minimize or avoid the stream impacts.
49+00 to 50+20: There appears to be some inaccuracies on the eastern wetland boundary that
needs to be clarified. Also, can DOT investigate the costs and feasibility of increasing
the bridge length and decreasing the wetland impacts? At a minimum, a safe wildlife
crossing (bridged floodplain or culvert) needs to be provided.
-Y2- 16+00 to 17+00: The ditching through wetland needs to be deleted.
-Y6-REV 23+40 to 23+60: The full extent of the wetland has not been delineated. This needs to
be completed and incorporated into the plans.
2
Miscellaneous Issues
The final impact summary sheet should also include impacts from detours and Y
lines.
All proposed channel relocations throughout the project area should make every effort
to minimize piping and maximize channel relocations. All relocations should be
designed to replicate natural dimensions, pattern and profile, include natural
substrates and riparian vegetation by using WRC Stream Relocation Guidelines.
Complete relocation plans need to be provided with the permit application if DOT
expects to obtain any onsite credit for stream restoration.
Jurisdictional Streams
The following lists the jurisdictional streams that will be impacted for each section.
While all linear feet of channel being impacted must be reported on the summary sheet,
only those channels where the impacts exceed 150 feet must have drawings prepared.
R-2559 B
169+40
181+00 Within groin of Ramp 2D
196+60
209+20
211+80 to 212+40 (only the 2 western streams)
219+60
227+60 and 227+80 (2 stream)
231+00
R-2559 C
15+00
19+00
21+50
24+00 to 28+20
-Y2- 16+00 to 17+00
44+80
44+80 outside Ramp A
49+20
-Y4- Rev 14+40
54+80
65+60
80+60 to 82+00
83+20
-LI-REV B 23+40
In order to help expedite the permitting process, a statement will be needed which
explains why any of these avoidance/minimization measures cannot be taken. Michael
Wood of the Natural Systems Unit is the contact person for-this project. If you need
additional information, please contact him at [phone]. 1 appreciate your attention
to this matter.
cc: Jean Manuelle, ACOE Raleigh
John Hennessy, DWQ
David Cox, WRC
Scott Blevins, Design Services
Jenny Summerlin, Hydraulics

JAMES B., HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
September 22, 1999
MEMORANDUM TO
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., Manager
Highway Design Branch
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Q z c:
Ct VA i ?Vl
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
d?'a',
WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS FOR R-2559, MONROE
BYPASS, UNION COUNTY.
On September 14, a pre-application field meeting was held for the subject project. In
attendance were representatives of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and NCDOT personnel.
The wetland and stream impacts were reviewed. The following is a list of concerns and
comments that were voiced at the meeting followed by the stream jurisdictional listing.
R-2559 B
209+80: The drained pond is not to be considered a wetland. Eliminate impacts from plans.
R-2559 C
90+00 to 94+00: This is a high quality headwater system. The agencies requested DOT shift the
alignment to minimize or avoid the stream impacts.
49+00 to 50+20: There appears to be some inaccuracies on the eastern wetland boundary that
needs to be clarified. Also, can DOT investigate the costs and feasibility of increasing
the bridge length and decreasing the wetland impacts? At a minimum, a safe wildlife
crossing (bridged floodplain or culvert) needs to be provided.
-Y2- 16+00 to 17+00: The ditching through wetland needs to be deleted.
-Y6-REV 23+40 to 23+60: The full extent of the wetland has not been delineated. This needs to
be completed and incorporated into the plans.
2
Miscellaneous Issues
• The final impact summary sheet should also include impacts from detours and Y
lines.
• All proposed channel relocations throughout the project area should make every effort
to minimize piping and maximize channel relocations. All relocations should be
designed to replicate natural dimensions, pattern and profile, include natural
substrates and riparian vegetation by using WRC Stream Relocation Guidelines.
Complete relocation plans need to be provided with the permit application if DOT
expects to obtain any onsite credit for stream restoration.
Jurisdictional Streams
The following lists the jurisdictional streams that will be impacted for each section.
While all linear feet of channel being impacted must be reported on the summary sheet,
only those channels where the impacts exceed 150 feet must have drawings prepared.
R-2559 B
169+40
181+00 Within groin of Ramp 2D
196+60
209+20
211+80 to 212+40 (only the 2 western streams)
219+60
227+60 and 227+80 (2 stream)
231+00
R-2559 C
15+00
19+00
21+50
24+00 to 28+20
-Y2- 16+00 to 17+00
44+80
44+80 outside Ramp A
49+20
-Y4- Rev 14+40
54+80
65+60
80+60 to 82+00
83+20
-L 1-REV B 23+40
In order to help expedite the permitting process, a statement will be needed which
explains why any of these avoidance/minimization measures cannot be taken. Michael
Wood of the Natural Systems Unit is the contact person for-this project. If you need
additional information, please contact him at [phone]. I appreciate your attention
to this matter.
cc: Jean Manuelle, ACOE Raleigh
John Hennessy, DWQ
David Cox, WRC
Scott Blevins, Design Services
Jenny Summerlin, Hydraulics
v
?DrY? ?/ o??s ? ???/aZ
_ ?/ ?O"
n?
? ?1

rA? -- WIA- -
- ------C
m i°
r?-stir c Sses `

inns dln 110E lM MAA
0

_ I'V
v
- Z LL- - - - --= . -- -- - -------- -- -- -- - -
v

1 kv cpc'
0
C& (k (6tt
_- _._._ ? _?___._ __. __M?_?_..? _w_.?A ? ?___._.. _..__..__?_._?___.._._.__.__?__ ._____._a____.v?___._?.

ZIP-
re
aTwi
wvJ

S.
o/lo
of /4w-e4 ZitsTtca ?,llI??ts__ ?? ? (Y?Aen! G?'i1
PAT o
???' ? .C21? A w
t W Q
?O cg
X1(.1 ?T r? ? ? ? o ? iD ? ? 1. ` e c ®.?c?n kJ s ?.? ? _ ? "? N?O?, mn (' rn?.?? I °
L _.

,,

?A syvye- " S5
C-
rr_l

.
.
..
...
.. .
.

Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: R-2559 (Monroe Bypass) Meeting Details]]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: R-2559 (Monroe Bypass) Meeting Details]]
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 14:16:41 -0500
From: Coleen Sullins <Coleen. Sullins@ ncmai l.net>
Organization: NC DENR DWQ
To: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
CC: Dennis Ramsey <[e-mail]>,
"john.hennessy" <[e-mail]>,
Cynthia Van Der Wiele <[e-mail]>
I agree that we need to go to the meeting (the royal we, that would be you, glad to hear Cynthia is
recovering). I also agree that we should use the concept that we have discussed with Robin and will this
Friday with DOT. It appears that once the 2000 census is officially "released" (by the Census Bureau, not
us), that Monroe will become subject to the Phase H program. There may also be other programs that are
effective in that area (WS, ...). Union County also falls into the program, so development in areas
surrounding are going to become subject to the program as well. Coleen
John Dorney wrote:
i said yes to this meeting next Monday but need your advise.
apparently the DOT Board member and County COmmissioners/City
Comissioners (Union County and Monroe, respectively) have had this
meeting planned for some time. Larry Thompson (DOT) had emailed cynthia
about the meeting but she was out of the country (and then sick [but
getting better!]) so he did not hear from her. according to larry
thompson, the city/county folks (and board member) want to know what
they need to do from a land use/stormwater management perspective to
address cumulative impact issues for the monroe bypass. i told him that
i (we) could not say anything definitive but that we (DOT, DWQ) were
making a similar presentation to Knightdale tonite and that I was going
to talk to the DOT/DENR Senior Management about a draft cumulative
impact policy this fiday. I could then go to Monroe next Monday
morning to bring them up to speed as to where we are heading but could
not say exactly what they (Monroe and Union County) need to do until we
have a change to finalize the policy and determine how it would affect
this project.
there is obviously danger in attending this meeting but equal danger in
not attending. cynthia cannot go with me (of course pete is gone!)
since she has a doctor's appointment. john h could go with me to help
take some questions esp in relation to the knightdale situation your
thoughts?
Subject: [Fwd: R-2559 (Monroe Bypass) Meeting Details]
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 09:15:50 -0500
From: Larry Thompson <[e-mail]>
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: [e-mail]
John,
1 of 3 4/6/02 1:34 PM
Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: R-2559 (Monroe Bypass) Meeting Details]]
As per my voice mail message, here is the last e-mail that I sent out regarding the R-2559 meeting.
Again, I realize this is very short notice. I wish I had known that Cynthia was not well, I could have
copied you in on this from the beginning...
Any help you could offer would be appreciated!
Thanks,
Larry Thompson
Division Environmental Officer
10th Highway Division
704-982-0101
Larry Thompson wrote:
Dear Participant:
The R-2559 (Monroe Bypass) follow up meeting has been scheduled to be held in Monroe on April
8th, beginning at 11:00 a.m.
We will be meeting in the Jefferson Room of the Union County Public Works Building which is
located at 400 N. Church Street, downtown Monroe. Lunch will be provided.
We would like to begin by summarizing the December 19th meeting before lunch and beginning
discussions as to how we can address potential indirect and cumulative impacts associated with this
project afterwards.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions that you may have regarding this e-mail. I can be
reached at [phone]. Directions to follow.
Larry Thompson
Division Environmental Officer
10th Highway Division
Directions:
If you are traveling east on US-74 from Charlotte, you will exit right onto the US 601-N. / NC-200 S.
ramp and turn right onto NC-200 S. (Skyway Drive). Turn left onto Church Street and the Public
Works Building will be on your left. If you are traveling west on US-74 from Wadesboro, the off
ramp will be on the right directly underneath the US-601 N. / NC-200 S. overpass. You will bear right
onto NC-200 S. (Skyway Drive).
If traveling in on US-601 from Concord, US-601 will become NC-200 S. (Skyway Drive). Turn left
onto Church Street and the Public Works Building will be on your left.
The following is a link to a navigable map with 400 N. Church Street highlighted:
400 N. Church Street
2 of 3 4/6/02 1:34 PM
Re: [Fwd: [Fwd: R-2559 (Monroe Bypass) Meeting Details]]
Larry Thompson wrote:
Dear Recipient:
Joe Lesch, Union County Assistant Manager, has informed me that
the majority of those who responded to his March 6th e-mail
requesting a follow up meeting concerning the R-2559 (Monroe
Bypass) project would not be able to attend on March 25th, due to
a scheduling conflict.
The next available meeting date will be April 8th. I need your
help in confirming this date and I would appreciate hearing from
each of you regarding your availability. The exact time and
location of this meeting will be decided once we know that this
date is suitable.
At our next meeting, we would like to summarize the December 19th
discussions and then begin to formulate a plan to minimize
potential indirect and cumulative impacts that may be associated
with the Monroe Bypass.
I look forward to seeing you on the 8th!
Regards,
Larry Thompson
Division Environmental Officer
10th Highway Division
[phone]
3 of 3 4/6/02 1:34 PM
DRAFT Internal Policy
Cumulative impacts and the 401 Water Quality Certification and
Isolated Wetland Programs
NC Division of Water Quality
April 4, 2002
Version 1.2
Background
Existing rules for the 401 Water Quality Certification Program (15A NCAC 2H .0506(b)(4) and (c)(4)) as
well at those for the Isolated Wetland Permit Program (15A NCAC 2H..1300) require that DWQ determine that a
project "does not result in cumulative impacts, based upon past or reasonably anticipated future impacts, that cause
or will cause a violation of downstream water quality standards." This internal policy is meant to give direction to
DWQ Central and Regional Office staff on how to implement this rule.
It is important to note that the rule requires an examination of cumulative impacts in terms of their impact
on downstream water quality standards. This is a relatively narrow provision that requires DWQ staff to focus on
downstream standards (narrative and numeric) rather than (for instance) the effect of the development on wildlife
habitat. Therefore, only if that impact may (or will) cause a violation of downstream water quality standards is the
project of concern in the context of cumulative impact. However, water quality standards form the basis of all water
quality regulation and permitting programs. This rule (although narrow in its scope since in focuses on downstream
water quality) provides an essential tool for DWQ to use to manage cumulative impact.
Policy
1. DOT (and other public transportation) projects
The major types of DOT projects and their need for different levels of cumulative analysis are
outlined below:
A. Wideninjz solely on existing location and bridge replacements - These projects normally have a low
potential for cumulative impact since little new impervious surface is added and the projects
generally do not encourage growth. Therefore a narrative cumulative impact analysis similar to that
outlined in the DOT/DENR SEPA document (Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative
Impacts of Transportation Projects in North Carolina. Volumes I and II. 2000, State of North
Carolina Department of Transportation and Environmental and Natural Resources. prepared by
The Louis Berger Group, Inc., Cary, N.C.) should suffice for the 401 Certification and Isolated
Wetland permitting programs.
B. Widening with new locations: Most of these projects have a low potential for cumulative impacts
and the narrative analysis discussed above should suffice. If DWQ staff determines that a project
which proposes widening with new location may have growth-stimulating effects and downstream
impacts, then a quantitative analysis should be required of the applicant (see below).
C. New location projects: Many of these projects will have growth-stimulating effects and therefore
may result in cumulative impacts to water quality. The overall process to deal with new location
projects is to address these three questions in sequence.
1 Is growth likely to be induced by the project?
2 Are existing uses of the water (as reflected in the classification of the waters) likely to be
impacted by the growth?
3 Are additional regulatory measures needed? (i.e., are there existing regulatory programs
which can address these impacts?).
If the answers to all three questions of these questions are yes, then a quantitative analysis of
cumulative impact would be needed for the 401 Water Quality Certification. The following
information describes this process in more detail
a) Water Supply, HQW and ORW classifications - Projects have the greatest potential for
cumulative impacts since they often provide improved access to previously inaccessible sites.
DWQ has several existing regulatory programs that address cumulative impacts.
Specifically, the Water Supply Protection Program as well as the watershed-specific
management plans for ORW and HQW watersheds provide considerable protection from
cumulative impact on downstream water quality. In addition, DWQ often relies on other
state permitting programs such as the High Quality Waters Best Management Practices
developed by the Division of Land Resources for protection of water quality. DOT reports
for these projects should describe and analyze these existing programs for a particular project
to determine if they sufficiently protect these sensitive waters. In most cases, a narrative
analysis based on the DOT/DENR SEPA report with clear reference to these existing DWQ
permitting program as well as a description of the effectiveness of these programs in
protecting water quality, should be sufficient. However, if DWQ staff determines that a
project appears to have growth-stimulating effects and downstream impacts that are not
addressed by existing regulatory programs, then a quantitative analysis may be required.
b) Class C, B, SC and SB classifications - The potential for cumulative analysis from these
projects should be discussed utilizing the narrative analysis described above for these stream
classifications. If significant potential for cumulative impact is identified (for instance due to
the presence of endangered aquatic species), then a quantitative analysis may be required.
c) Impaired Waters (303 (d) listed Water)s and Trout classification - These waters warrant
special attention with respect to cumulative impact analysis since there are often no existing
regulatory programs of which adequately address pollution sources for these waters. With
respect to the impaired waters, the reported parameter of concern and source (point versus
non point) of the contaminant should be examined to determine if the new location road and
any induced development are likely to further impact these waters. For instance, if the
impaired water is listed as impaired for dioxin from point sources, it is very unlikely that a
new road and its associated development would exacerbate the situation. In this case, a
narrative analysis of cumulative impacts will usually suffice. However, for Trout waters and
impaired waters which are impaired by pollutants likely increased by development (such as
nutrients or sedimentation), then a detailed, quantitative analysis should be conducted by
DOT to determine 1) if cumulative impacts are likely and then 2) what pollution control
measures will be needed and how they are to be implemented. This analysis will often
require watershed-level modeling using export coefficients, levels of treatment for BMP's
and comparison to numerical water quality standards or numeric water quality goals. With
respect to implementation, discussion with and commitment from local governments may be
needed to address these cumulative impacts.
II. Other publicly-funded development projects
Other publicly funded development projects may or may not result in cumulative impacts. For instance,
the development of a regional, public park or a new library is unlikely to result in cumulative impacts.
For these projects, a narrative analysis similar to that described in the DOT/DENR SEPA document
should suffice. However, other projects will likely result in cumulative impacts and therefore, should
require quantitative analysis similar to that outlined for DOT projects on new location (see Section I.C.
above). Examples of projects in this category would be projects targeted to encourage development such
as the Global TransPark and a county-funded industrial park. DWQ staff should use their professional
judgment to determine if a publicly funded project is likely to result in cumulative impacts and would
then need a quantitative analysis of this impact.
2
III. Private development projects
Privately funded development projects are normally not subject to SEPA or NEPA and therefore, only
rarely require formal environmental documentation. However, if these projects require 401 Water
Quality Certification, then the cumulative impact provisions of these rules are applicable.
Many private development projects are unlikely to cause cumulative impacts, including projects such as
urban in-fill, most residential subdivisions, and small commercial developments as well as agricultural
and silvicultural operations. However, these projects may cause significant direct impacts on water
quality. Therefore if a 401 Water Quality Certification is required, then either a numeric or narrative
analysis of cumulative impact would be needed.
Some private development projects can clearly result in cumulative impact. Recent examples of this
effect include the Streets at South Point Mall in Durham and the Landfall development in Wilmington.
Often these developments are 1) relatively large, 2) involve commercial development, and 3) occur in
otherwise relatively undeveloped landscapes with an impact on regional growth patterns. When these or
similar characteristics are present with a private development project, then DWQ staff should use the
guidance outlined in Section I.C. above to determine if a quantitative analysis of cumulative impacts is
needed or whether a narrative analysis will be sufficient.
3
MAR 0 2002
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA f?CtEl,,,
'TV
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION -
MICHAEL F. EASLEY 1501 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, N.C. 27699-1501 LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
March 6, 2002
MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Debbie Barbour, Manager
Highway Design Branch
FROM: William D. Gilmore, P.E.; Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
SUBJECT: WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS FOR R-2559 B
and C, MONROE BYPASS, UNION COUNTY.
On March 5, 2002, a pre-application field meeting was held for the subject
project. In attendance were representatives from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
North Carolina Division of Water (duality (DWQ), and North Carolina Wildlife Resource
Commission. The wetland and stream impacts were reviewed. The following is a list of
concerns and comments that were voiced at the meeting. Each site is referenced by the
number that was assigned to that site in the permit drawings provided during the February
21, 2002 hydraulic review meeting for the subject project.
R-2559 B
Location Map: Why is the proposed road shown beginning as a stub west of US 601?
This pre-determines the end/start point for a future project, which would have
to be considered under the NEPA process.'
Site 2: This headwater wetland received the second highest DWQ wetland rating of all
the wetlands on the project. It also is the second highest in acres of impact
(0.76). Can NCDOT shift the road slightly to the west and thus avoid
impacting this high quality site?
Secondly, the half-sized planning sheets show further wetland impacts due to
construction of Service Road No. 5. However, this additional impact is not
shown on the permit drawing. Can NCDOT clarify this discrepancy?
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
Site 13: The impact summary table lists a site 13 with wetland and pond impacts
However, there is no site 13 shown on the Location Map nor is there a permit
drawing of this site. Can NCDOT clarify this discrepancy?
R-2559 C
Site 1: The stream at this site runs parallel to SR 1751. Can NCDOT lengthen the
proposed bridge over this road and thus avoid filling this channel?
Site 2: As proposed, this will be the longest surface water impact on the project. Is
there anyway for'NCDOT to shift the roadway out of the valley and avoid this
quality headwater stream? The agencies are aware that NCDOT has previously
addressed this issue and noted that the shift north would result in additional
stream impacts due to -Y- Line adjustments. However, given the quality of the
current stream, can a quantitative and qualitative comparison be performed that
compares the different impacts. Also, it appears on the provided USGS
topographic maps, that a slight shift to the south may allow NCDOT enough
room to construct along the ridge between the two streams. It would be
appreciated if NCDOT could provide further explanations regarding this site.
Site 4: While the., agencies appreciate the efforts to maintain Spring Branch in its
existing channel wherever possible under this interchange, considering the
amount of impact that will occur to the surrounding area, NCDOT should
consider the entire length of stream within the project limits as impacted.
Site 5: This is the highest rated wetland on the project and also constitutes 37% of the
total impacts for this project. Considering these two facts and given the
commitment of NCDOT to bridge high quality wetlands in the state (which
was issued after NCDOT previously addressed avoidance, and minimization for
this project), the agencies believe NCDOT should bridge the entire wetland.
Site 13: The wetland impacts at this site need to be itemized by wetland and the
wetlands need to be given separate site numbers.
Site 14: The larger of the two wetlands that are collectively grouped as Site 14 is
attenuating much of the surface run-off from the road and parking lot across the
street. Can NCDOT design some structures that will help replace these
wetland functions that will be lost as a result of the project as opposed to
ditching the run-off straight to the creek? Also, the wetland impacts at this site
need to be itemized by wetland and the wetlands need to be given separate site
numbers.
Miscellaneous Issues
• It appears there has been little consideration given to incorporating specific on-site
measures into the design that will help replace some of the wetland and stream
functions that will be lost as a result of this project. Can NCDOT review the plans
and consider some "out-of-the box" measures to minimize jurisdictional impacts?
• The resource agencies are aware that many of the issues that resulted from this field
review should have been raised at the field review conducted September 14, 1999.
However, eacH of the individuals representing the agencies have changed since that
time as have some of the rules, regulations, and policies governing jurisdictional
impacts and the NEPA process, for both the agencies and NCDOT.. There also is a
lack of any minimization efforts from NCDOT anywhere on this project. Taking all
this into account, the agencies believe NCDOT needs to review the project design,
especially the areas noted above, and incorporate further avoidance and minimization
measures.
In order to help expedite the permitting process, a statement will be needed which
explains why any of these avoidance/minimization measures cannot be taken. Michael
Wood of The Catena Group is the contact person for this project. If you need additional
information, please contact him at [phone]. I appreciate your attention to this
matter.
cc: Steve Lund, USACE Asheville
Marella Buncick, USFWS Asheville
Cynthia Van De Weile, DWQ
Pete Colwell, DWQ
MaryEllen Haggard, WRC
Scott Blevins, Design Services
Marshall Clawson, Hydraulics
Larry Thompson, Division 10 DEO
Charles Bruton, PWA
Randy Turner, PDEA.\
Bruce Ellis, PDEA
Michael Wood, The Catena Group
„a SPATE
IIIvnJ 3 '{ j ?7 in
tl
DEC 2 ` 1QDo
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
December 9, 1999
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of Neuse Road
Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
ATTN: Ms. Jean Manuelle
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Madarn :
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: AVOIDANCE & MINIMIZATION MEASURES FOR THE MONROE
BYPASS, UNION COUNTY. TIP R-2559.
On September 14, a pre-application field meeting was held for the subject project. As a
result of that meeting, a memo listing the high quality areas that required further avoidance and
minimization investigations, mainly at two sites, was submitted to the NCDOT designers. The
following are the results of the investigations.
R-2559 C
Headwater Stream. There was a high quality headwater system from station 90+00 to 94+00.
NCDOT examined shifting the alignment either in order to avoid or minimize the impacts. Any
shift to the north would result in an increase the amount of construction required on the -Y- lines
in the relocated area because the mainline is in a valley. The northerly shift would force the
mainline grade to be higher to reduce earthwork which in turn would extend -Y- line
construction to the north. This would impact streams currently outside the construction limits
and therefore reduce the overall benefit of the shift. In addition, any shift would require reverse
curves that are not desirable for this type of facility. A shift south would impact larger streams.
Therefore, NCDOT proposes to leave the design as is.
NCDOT also examined possible ways to relocate the channel as a natural stream design.
However, due to the steep topography on either side of the road, it is not feasible to design a
natural channel. Therefore, the impacts will be mitigated for off-site.
2
2. Meadow Branch. The wetland boundary was extended to the interface between the
toe of slope of the agricultural fields and the vegetated floodplain, as determined
during the field review. The current proposed bridge length is 164 ft, which would
leave approximately 10 feet of floodplain for wildlife and hydrologic passage on the
west bank and 60 feet on the east bank.
NCDOT evaluated the reduction in wetland impacts for extended bridge lengths.
Table 1 shows the results of this investigation. Considering the increase in costs
versus the acres of wetlands saved, NCDOT believes the current design is appropriate
for this site. However, two equalization pipes will be installed along the eastern
floodplain to facilitate the passage of water throughout the floodplain.
Table 1 - Meadow Branch Bridge Alternatives
Alternative Bridge Length (ft) Wetland Impacts (ac) Cost (millions)
Current 164 1.5 13
Alt. 1 541 0 4.4
NCDOT proposes to continue with the current design at both of these areas.
NCDOT requests concurrence from the resource agencies on these points. Please sent
your comments or address any questions to Mr. Michael Wood of the Natural Systems
Unit at [phone].
Sincerely,
YC
William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
WDG/mgw
cc: David Franklin, USACE
John Hennessy, DWQ
David Cox, WRC
Mark Cantrell, USFWS
Scott Blevins, Design Services
Abdul Rahmani, Hydraulics
Jenny Summerlin, Hydraulics
Leigh Lane, PDEA
Charles Bruton, PDEA
Phil Harris, PDEA
CWs
30+)
n ( i
-emu"
t ,t 4
TI_
hb/5 AW
?ta °Z /-4vN u om\k& QV'- I ks q4- r ?

CVY? u IC.
uM V? ? \V4 VV, v llLtn ??( S4.
Lin
&"? + v 61
-- , V.
ti 4 R J,
61 V
pp

CALkD
'A %I L Jt \ 1

91 O
IL.

1
?17

-4-

0
n
D
r
m

O
C-
?? e
A - - - - -
I I r
I I
N I
m '
m ?
A
001YI/L gy 30 Z .L33HS
SSddAH HOUNOW YL-Sfl
(U6999-N) IOY069.L'8 :.L33f0Xd
A.LN1100 NOINfl
SAVMHJIH 90 NOISIAIQ
NOI.LV LXOdSNVU L d0'.LdHa'O'N
33dj8nS 831VM - _.._.. Q _.._
A8VONn08 1Nd3d
0383ONVON3 '1SIX3 --8d3.-
AHdONn08 3dWINd
03H39NVON3 '1SIX3 --8d3 -
NISd8 801ddISSI0
A9H3N3 dVd did
dV8 did
3NdA
OCMl00H
13-INI 39VNIV80
0-
iN3W3SV3
39VNIV80 1N3NVW83d - 30d -
1N3W3Sd3
39VNIVHO 'dW31 -301-
(02,

3 N I 3 S 00 O M
3381 330NIS _V
(S38n13n81S ONISIX3
310N30 S3NI3 03HSVO)
183A3n3 3dId 03SOdOHd
183A3n3 X08 03SOd08d
390188 03SOdOHd

838WnN 333HVd 80
83NMO A183dO8d 1N33df'OV
S3308 838I3 8103 ---
H303no8
S3AVIS 3AI-1
XXXXX
3NI-1 A183dO8d - ?d --
ONn08o 3dHn1dN ---ON --
AdM 30 1H9I8 'd08d
-11Id 30 lIWI3 'd08d --? --
ln3 30 lIWI3 'dO8d --d--
831VM JO 3003 - -3M -• _
ANVO 30 d01 Z-
81
N0I133HIO M033 -? -?
ONIHd333 • • • •• • •
03ZINVH33H S310N30 .
831dM dW31 nS NI 33I3
AHd80dW3 S310N30
ONb313M NI
NOIldAVOX3 S31ON30
0Nd313M NI 33I3
A8dH0dW31 S31ON30®
(ONOd)
831VM 33b38nS
NI 33I3 S31ON30
831VM 33d3HnS
NI 33I3 S310N30
ONd313M
NI 33Id S31ON30
:Tzll
ONd313M ABdONn08 0NV_l13M 83M--

UN303'1
? i t' X I
O R I I
S I 1
I I
2 I
1 ?. I
1 4 ,
N I I
O ? 1 I
I ? I
? r I
I ?
1 1
I ?. \R??1 I
I
I
1 tt
I I A
f '; Iti I
? ? co
I I
I ? ' ?. 1 I
O ` I
1 O ::
I ,
I ti I
?1 I
mo
m m r r- m
1 j
- 0 mZ 1 ,
r ao I ,
n 375 > 375 '.
zm Zm
? ?
Ln e
F m 1 t' y? . ? 1
I
Z Z I m
m 1 ac ?' ?c 1
a I
i 7 N N,
O .Z7 I
LA
• Na Na
1 0 'y r' o I
m }?¦ a n I ", yZ ?o I
W;o
s a 1 .. c m> _c m ? I
.. I ? I
I ,
I ,
I ? I
?I
OD .1
"j 'C f7 I O ?. 1
O A C7 D 0 I
UJ
p a O J3,
z O
-' C ao C z 'O i I
Z;q Z I
O I I
(71
O Y I # * i
?. z `. 1
0 MATCHLINE -L-STA. 188+40
v, c?„ Y -3
V ?\ >
O
z
IN
s
0
0
N
0
It
r

1
?v f7v
mm rm
?z rnz
r0 DO
D ? X --1
zm Zm
CD N (A
VI
r-
r m
m
r n
x
z zz
N
m
v
*
m *
*
*
TI •
*
* *
` nn
S
z

?z v d
Cl]
?C) z

I c o °z
? z? z 0
z
O."o
o
a
d m
?
?" z ?o
N y
r
V ?7
v
`
.. rr
0
z
s
ON o:

i
1

I
'
I

?

1l
I
1
1
450
1 t
I ?I
n n
I
I I
I
I '
d.

?
1-o
I~
1
I ?
I
I Q
.
I?

m
y
1 \ n c
N

1 N
N d

F.` 0
0
x z
j
t
{ co 0
C,
z
'
t
f_

C) I

f
t I
?: .

-L-STA. 188+40
r 11:
I I-- -r.1.1,\
-0C
CA
N
N r
za
O.K
:0 o
i z
xA
0° O
O m
C
z
v

* 1
1
i
* I
I
1
1
f
r
1
1

\
\
. ? 1
\
? A

a
? n
\1 (e>
i
i
Ct)

\ ,c

* CO

* a
?II
I

*
*
K i
BIM -
?

J R r

` sue.
Y\ ?' T;Ck
O -114 Ff ?I
I
' I 3 '? f 1 i
p O C3
? 1 I
1 - I 1 I
I
' ,? 3 tii3 I i 1
I I ?
J C t7 I `y / Q
l11 J?? ? I V L \\ / ?i.r"
I T
I '
?i -ell I /
rd ? 1 ????TB N? ?' I
I
1 I ' ?
f- "
/ B T
?z -.iz mz
?O DO DSO
ern zrn zm
n(A ON L7(/? nI + ?.\ 1? / 1 j"Jj
rn -n
z o 375 + -n /
/
I'
M -n
m -n * . I 1 1
-<
v C: (AT v V1 \ I /
'b xp xA .. I ?.
CO 0
I? ?O v C=f Cm
v o I I Gl ,"
O J C, C/A
y o °z0
00 ?a 11 tt t. O
o
o ? ? Z 1
z b N I i /'
rA N Y -}
v W rA
O '
O 1 1 1 ? , /
1 1, ? 1 1/
m T I T\? "O 1/
O ? I O I,
1 CO f /
< A j
p z 1 nc
1 N in .. /
a
? 1 z
b a m mA \ / w
\ \ CN N to v J /
m
T
z
° o
elm
r. ? mo t
\ m GCB \ 1_' ti? 1
E CA
.N N ? 1 n
0
b?
N O O n p
cm mm rm \ m '?
MZ -4Z mm D° D O > O j \
nm zm Zm
mV1 0V1 C) (4 N D?
oP A
M T Dy
Dr r- m / o m
-4 r- r n /
m m o
?Z Z D / t' ? m
N
CD `i. 1 I 1
1 I
1 I 1
Na I
to
Hn /
IN,
1
'1375 11
a
n
p ao p
Z;q
po n 0 Y W ;
Iv,
CA Y r. I 1
? ? s I
V to ?>'? 4 ?? I
.. O .i .
z i
J VI Co
Cn O Ul
N
0 0
o j
o
,
O + ?
o
r4
O j
D Z
N ,
n +
r n o
m
n
m
,
,
,
Ch ?
,
,
,
?Z
,
C? N V1 N
v - ?
I I
® ? r
I
qj N T
ND ?D
cm mm b
O ro
> - O
r.) rn rn nm O N
Zm
M (A ;
M to p to
*-n LA N -n - C) r
DP F Z rn
4 r r
m
?z z '
0
G) D
O
N T rn
+ C I
Z m
g rn
O ?0 y
z? z O -j
00 0 ?
mA? O `
mz O
O O
.. O
? z ? o v o
8
Ul tr
Cl c) ul
0 0
1.Tl
0
0 0 ,
<
M
C
C-)
D O
Z
1
to r
r n
m n
r m
m \
i
Ul
O '*l

1

O
m
I

1
O m
OA
m o ®®
D m
Z

rF)
C) (A
N ?
-n T
n N
I

a ' N
,

-n I

1
' O
? O
ro
o I
,

1 I
,
r

z ,
rn

ICA ? c 0.4 ?
z o

o o
z
?
op.
z -3

z

o
05

m Q 0
o 1
,
,. ro
0

a? a

V 14 1"
CA 10
to
-4 >
?+ Q
z
03
s o Ul o
? .LJ 1 1 I

° SS 1

I I
I
I ? •I
?I

1 I I
I I N :' •i I

1 I I
*10 I

I I 1 ? A
I
I
I I
I
? I
I
a n
O 1 / / 1

4
?

/
m Im

"I a a, Q
- m p50\ ti
? r'
C c m m m o ?I rn Q .,,.,L ., f?-r. 1
x z ;u z -{ Z m z
-n O -n O ?-- O D O i I
???
'*7
r r 1
D? D? D? ?7? _ T - Z/
OmN mN
? I N r Z
S p /
C) (A cc) N
Z i -n
-
N

-4
r -1 r rr- n a
m
m
:
m
_
_ _
N Z N Z Z D
Z

_
.-
Q
'
m D

? N s • .___8 \\L I
375 375

O

h
01 -?
m
. . w
§
/?
N
I -
N •
• . ? O
?
? O
n
O ? mc?l

ON
ZE -0

I tn??j
1

1

t

1

?

t

'!`
= (A
I
\ I
:
:: o

m '
Cr7 '01

). V, _ m
_0
N H
I
d d
A ?"? (n? Zd I
_
,f
Cn? C c
m
nl
yZ
A O Z
.:^
f n
W
z o
m , wo
m
°°
0 ;? IQ ti;? o
z 'Q 0 f
o? °, I

I
I
I
60& I
r?
? M ?
b? Al
a
A

I
ay
I
_
AI I Q I

O I I I ,
I I I ,
SS I
1 I 1 ,
O
I
I
I
I I I
I I
I I ?
I I
I I
'n
,?

,
e
1 I I ,
? I I I ,

N r I
I I I
In I ,
? ? I ? I I ???? ? „ I D n
I
I
? 1 I
1 I
I
I
I I I
I I N
N `
; .
??
I I 1 ?
1 /

.,
I? I I 1 O '. 1 /? j
r4 I J _- I ;...1VV
<
J
1 I 1 ?
i

I
I 1 I
'
1
I I i
I 1 r
? I
?
5, I

F 1r- 1 It^ I -

1 I I ?.? -nl

N° m° n0
;Dz --j z mz e?? 1
NOI °
i 8 '.
z _
mO r0 DO z
/
F
m VI o V1 cn i m? * '? rn
N
w wy
b I I I
I I
N z. -
_
?m
n y
D m
m
`
m

r
j _

`
-
-I r- c
i
- D i
Ln I
1 >
o
V
Nk 005 ?` ?
\ a.,.
..
N Z r' did
m _ ,FO I e
'?, N ?'I z
w ..? _j _:.• I m

VX V\
!*Mr 0 ?

,
I

' 00

O

1

m=1
¦ • D f
)
O ` Na I
FOE
N + . Pp I
I

II
II :' 375 375

?
.? I
? I IT 1
z , I 1
'C ? T I 1 I ?
T
d I I I ,
IO wo C I
I I I
I I 1 ?
, ?

90
O y
y I I o' ' /
Q
+ ' z

ri)
Q -0
Z /

..
cm

z

1
41

CA
o Y
?I
u,
,

z

O i I I
N 1
1
I
I I I
I 1 1
O I
1 1 I
I 1 ??? Q
1 I I O
1 1 I I ? ?
I I I /
?? I I I /
N ? I
1 1 I
I I - /
/

r z;

a ?
to m "' '? rte: 1
? ? i I I 1 r"?'
i y m
6 I 1 1 J""'?

1 1 1 f? . 1

1

o w 1
m
m a n ??
I

W

y I
V) M C) n C;
mm rm T
1

1

.
m
I r

mz ?z mz \

n°
n? A? _
?

-'m F
nm zm 2m --

- - _
-
m(A ON NN _ \ m rBl
-?
r-m m
? r r c I
cnm a \?
'?
/
Nz Z Z I t
1

b
N m .se ?p N ?` ? hb ?I
I 1
I 1
g
i ?" ?
y m ? ? dS g
it
y o?ii
I
I

-

?

? 1
I
1
' N 1 aIIA _
aA ._ 1
I I 1 ?'
IA t/1 I
in 1

` (n z
A nl
IN
I
I
- Off
co ' O?
Xz° I
I?
m I? I mo
or"

.? (?
'? °1 lO
I I
1

?. c z d?
( ? z
-? ° e
O VJ i - _ i a n
z o 0 TDE I 1
Z °D Z z '?7 1 _ .' w
O
0 0 ? '? y T I I ?? + '• I

al f"' z G? b I I n .. - O 1

N 1-3 I S 1 I
1
? 1 375 I
1
7 :
v ..1 I
0 T T 1
1

o
m
z
0
m
W
0
Cl)

D_
Z
Z --I N
^
^
o W
C
m
O

T
-n
?

O D
z
co

D O

C7 o 0 0
-1

"
V

:3 -
-

m
Cl)

O

C

'
v

CD

I N ? ( I I O w
Cl) C
71 N (OJt N ( O

CL

2
m

z
n
_
?z o0
0
o°

C) M

?
0 cn?

41

ca

=T X -j

m
Om
O
O
Z?-? Z E cc
z,a O
C
,
T
Z D
OT Z m o O

Orn70 =?
Zcp O

>? CD
o W C3 >
CL

O
Z

co

co

0)
-1 n
0

J
CL

CO W J
O
Ut
? W N W
Z
O

m ? N
?
?
f N
+'rn N?
N_. W W
DD
W N N
? ? W
Wm (.
1 W
nn N N
?O ? _.
?
rn ?
OD ??
00 V
O
T

O

W

7T
C
V A

?-Oj
C

?

t0
W (n

A W w

O
N O ? p

?f+T
O N Wtp

0
C CD

m

rf

W
+0 0
t

>

W
A A

W
0+0 V

O
5;
?
N V ?
? O

_ N C7 N ?
O
I
?

O
V1
I
?
I
I
OD

1
_
? C
?
o ® ?, 00 3 ?
c
N
O
1 O O O O O O O O O O <
(? T
O
O 1
N O
W
W
? I I O O IV O O O S
O O A 00 (D W A CO ? ? W
d
a
N

O 3 ?
< N
o
° I I I I I I I i I I I I w ?
-
o o
,a C

r
?
? m z ?
o O ??
v
?
° I I I o I I g I I I I
°o
`
°?' w
?
D

rn N 0) ao
m
?

? N

I I I I I I I I
0
?
I
I
I
???w
a ?
o
.

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m n ?
0 0 0
0 0 ?• ? m
Jl ? Q ?
N•

-
T
J I g g I I I I I I ?

CD
O
N
O
J ?
?

T1 N
w ° ? I I I I I I I I w ? T
? o a? D
? m

n

CD I N) co
N ? I I I I I ? I ??

D
n? ?
N
o I I I I I I I I I I I I ???
m

co m
? o o I I I I I 1 3? o
O (D

0
m
z
O
I
m
W
0
D_
_Z
z
m

CD

N ? -O
o
rn w

?

o
C/)
O
O
m
O D
z
0

D
n
CD

C) C>

o
I
I
I
I
w
0) r
0

0 CD
C)

CD

0
CD =r

W
2
m
m

)

c
i
Z

n
T z
.r o0

<
0 ?
0

0) ?

N

i

o, C7 ?m

D..?
O m 00 cn -1
O
? I
Z
Oz

-I Z Lo O
-I
7o
O Z T
= D
O
ip

?
D
n
Z
??
'o
O 05
O (DD N C
A
cn ?
O
co
O Z
.41
IQ
::r Z)
0
J
v

z
?
W N p p

O m A A r r"
-I ?? N TI

o ?
O --1
?

r ?

I
O ?
0 O
0 ? N ?
CD c

1 0 0 0 0 o m m
N
V N
V
O
co 1

A

(O -

??
J O O W W a 7

I
O O I I I N ?, 'D
?

? m Z
0 o x
? w ? D

0 0 ? ? m
I ??
A C) I I I w
su
W
a Q.
?

m
?
0 0 0 m n
?'

I O O

N w
?
A W N Ut O) CL = N.

Q
O O p O Z?
° I I
m v ?
N
C
"1'I ?

0
0
o I I I ?

?
° M

-n
O V V ?
C
< n
m

J Y1

m CO
O
i
I O
? co
v, .
??j.?-.
?7
O O W Q
o
NC

0 0
0 o I I I I ?? w
(D p
-
a
nm
I I
A
? J 0
IV CJ
J

00111T/L a.40 -fl- LaaHs
SSVdAH HO2INOW YL-Sfl
(96M-2I) IOY069.L'9 ',LOHfOUd
A.LNf100 NOINfI
SXVM140IH 30 NOISIAI4
NOI.L` IX0dSNVM.L 40'.LdHa'O'N
(panuTluoo)
OLL83 'O'N `aouuoW £39 6d V69 9O 'ld 08+LL3 -1-
'PH TTTW us6uoW LZ9Z ,H Apus>f a.LTM
d I /CaupoH
aoua O o? '?H O?+ILZ -?- L
z
V
OL M 'O'N `aouuoW £39 6d 881 90 'l1 0£+£ -b'£dH-
'PH TTTN us6uoW S M M Aijo a}zM O off. 'la 98+3 -d£da-
v poomiapun 'H wsTTTTM
OLL8Z 'O'N `aouuoW £39 6d b£9 90 'IH 98+3 -`d£dH-•
'PH TTTW us6uoW LZ93 'H APua)I aJLiM
d • 1 AGupoH
V aoua O 01 'lH LL+Z -d£dd- 9
z
OLL82; 'O'N `aouuoW £39 6d 88b 90 b9+60Z -1-
'PH TTTW us6uoW MZ OjLTM
r O o} '4H 6£+60Z
•H wazTTTM
poonnaapu0
OLL8Z 'O'N `aouuoW 60£ 6d 963 90 'IH £9+£ -9£dH-
£06 X09 £ 'lH '1 sauoT80 a:LzM
V uoTAsl • a AaMOT8 - off. 'l1 39+Z -9£dd- 9
OLL8Z 'O'N `aouuoW LLL 6d Z9V 90 '18 09+L -O£dH-
'PH TTTW us6uoW L£9Z 'H Auua4S OITM - off. ';d 88+0 -O£dH-
V 4lTwS •3 UT
.TO

i?
OLL8Z 'O'N `aouuoW 60£ 6d 96Z 80 'IH Z£+L -O£dH-
£06 X09 £ ';H 1. sauoTaa 9?qm
V uoTABI •O ABMOTH - off. 'ZH L9+0 -O£dH-
OLL8Z 'O'N `aouuoW £89 6d Z9b 9O 'I1 Z£+LOZ -1-

609L xo9 '0'd
uoTlsuoduo0 snob
off. 'l1 88+003 -1- £
OLL8Z 'O'N `aouuoW 0V£ 6d 69L 90 11 L8+68L -1-
;noliogS ZsauoaS ZZ9 L A9TlsH • 3 allauan3 O 0l ' l1 L9+98 L -1- Z
OLl8Z 'O'N `aouuoW 8L9 6d LVZ 90 'ZH 08+£ -OZdH-
"AmH puoouoO V£LZ 'W UATousO 4TM
-
A - o1 ld 69+£ -OZdH-
uus9
V SWTaH
d

l
aTgsTisny ;ON 9L£-3280 - 11 96+£ -OZdH-
(sutaH) swTaH '0 ujnH 01 Id L£+£ -OZdH-
6d Pus ea 'ON 'ON
ssauppy awsN Taousd UOTIelS GITS
ZITS PUBTIOM u3Ie3
JO:
jsi-j Jaumo AljadOJd
(86593-8) [OtO691' 8 'ON IOa [OJd
001rI/L ;t d0 i F ISHHS
SSVdAU 302INOW PL-Sfl
(86939-M) I0r069.L'8 '.I.03MUd
A.LNfIOO NOINfl
SAVAIHJIH dO MOISIAIQ
NOI.LV.L'dOdSNVN.L d0
01183 'O'N `aouuoW OVC 6d 69L 80 'la 6Z+gL -VA-
0no8jo4S ISaJoeS ZZ9L A8TIeH '3 aTTaJaA3 O off. '18 96+VL -VA- EL
£018Z 'O'N `OTTTAUsJeW 089 6d L09 80 'lu LO+LL -I-

62 x08 '0'd
•ouI 'oO jagmTJ spJeMP3
01 11 99+0L -l- ZL
fiL 6d 39E 80
LOZ8Z 'O'N `alTOTueyO uoSTJJOW -H•8 V LZ+LEZ - 1-
'PH UdTOPUuH 9LEZ ;ieMa;S 'f OTTaMO O 0; ';1 L8+0E3 -I- LL
V '1'H
6L 6d 390 80
LOZ8Z 'O"N `allOTJeyO uosTJJOW •H•H 'T8 10+8ZZ -?-
' PH UdTOPUea 9 LSZ ;iemaTS 'r OTTaMO O 01 ' Tl 69+LZZ -I-
V '1"H

OL
99V 6d 90L 80 ';H 08+LZZ -I-
OTgeTTeAV ;ON '8 TazeH a..TM O
Off. ' ll l I+LZZ -I-
-Q sjeAW •0 ljago8
991 6d 90L 80 ^ ';U 60+0ZZ -I -
aTgeTTeA`d ;ON "S TazeH a..TM L? )
*

V sjaAW • O Tjagoa

J 01
;1 09+LLZ -I-

6
VOL 6d VOL 80 'IH 8L+62 -I-
OTgeTTeAV ;ON MOTS SAPUTO a=?TM O
9 '

V uOTTy oT
;1 LV+62 -I-
OLL8Z 'O'N `OOJUOW 6LZ 6d 6L6 80 •;d v8+92 -I-
'pa gOUBJ8 eATTO LL93 woone8 -0 OTTTTM
V •W ATTTB -
01 'TH ZL+9LZ -?- 8

OLL83 'O'N `OOJUOw 6LV 6d 90E 80 'Ta LL+ZLZ -l-
'PH uoueJ8 OATTO L09Z woone8 uoTunp pTOJBH
' O o
"Id 99+LLZ -I-
'S
H TTeusueW

- L
OLL8Z 'O'N `OOJuOW ELV 6d 9LL 80 .1H v8+L2 -I-
spueMp3 sniAO LLOL UsTLIM 'O AglOW- l O o:. •;u 99+L2 -I-
V TTePUON •y STTTAgd
6d PUe 80 'ON 'ON
ssaippy OWEN TaoJed uoT;ujs aTTS
OITS PUVTIGM 40V3
JoZI
IS'L1 jeumo Ajjed0Jd
(86552 - d ) G 0V0691 " 8 -0N' x.0010J d
1615 • 1cce 1632 '

'/• `
/ Ina
Ciro- 1750
J, 1755 , sch.
1751
'
,i / ,
7 ea
1002 1 9
1769
1 1751
• 1751
/
' 1751
, /?-
1758
c-
S I 1
'
?
10-02 1778 I?
1 ? i
17
1?
y
? 11 1]B6
1753 5
175
3
C - ,755 3 -
/
f.=. _ 1754 r'
. an

LLE
IN ND Ems, ?
_

?.
1903 I
m
? ? erdo
VICINITY
MAPS
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
UNION COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.T690401 (R-2559C)
US 74 FROM WEST OF RICHARDS(
CREEK TO EXISTING US 74
SHEET OF 11/19/"
MAP 2
SITE 13
SITE 6
SITE 5

SITE,
MAP I
aft cpla
MEIN
0 0611
(SR /7M)
s94 /?`

-SITE 3
?o
IFf` 441
?`
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
UNION COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.T690401 (R-2559C)
US 74 FROM WEST OF RICHARDSO
CREEK TO EXISTING US 74
SHEET OF 11/19/
99
END PROJECT R -2559C
x F
W
3
? W
N
om
s
SITE 9
J
SITE 8 SITE 10

'.S ys

Y?'lop

0
e
QG e ? W sg
? ? ?'
x

?e
SITE 14
SITE 7

9
r
MATCHLINE SITE MAP I
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
SITE UNION COUNTY
MAP 2 PROJECT: 8.T690401 (R-2559C)
US 74 FROM WEST OF RICHARDSO
CREEK TO EXISTING US 74
SHEET OF 11/19/99
LEGEND
-WLB-- WETLAND BOUNDARY
WETLAND
C7-L
® DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
® DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE WATER
* • * * DENOTES MECHANIZED
• * •* • * * CLEARING
- FLOW DIRECTION
TB
?- TOP OF BANK
---WE --- EDGE OF WATER
- C - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- -E- - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
-- L_ PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG - - NATURAL GROUND
- P-- - PROPERTY LINE
- TDE - TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- PDE - PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
-EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
7
____
-- --- WATER SURFACE
x x x LIVE STAKES
x x
BOULDER
COIR FIBER ROLLS
6 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER

PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
(DASHED LINES DENOTE
EXISTNG STRUCTURES)
SINGLE TREE
WOODS LINE
()mam
0

DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
VANE
RIP RAP
RIP RAP ENERGY
DISSIPATOR BASIN
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
UNION COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.T690401 (R-2559C)
74 FROM WEST OF RICHARD
CREEK TO EXISTING US 74
SHEET OF
r
z o
U a
o-? a x
. ? ?' Hoz ? FW
0
v x
-I- oo+zz •Vls ?
a / I H
m lI ?
N /I
s; a I I z
N
0541
??= s / / I I a
\ m I
lxw
N II
3c i
?y mco
0 all
s;I
I ?.
= i
I m
I
I
I SL£ a ` 3c d3a \ 1 m
sL£ \ E
I
am N I N
I ?
-l- 0b+Oz •V1S
O
E
O
z o
H a
Z 311S -3- 00+9Z 'V1S 3NIlH3lVY4
?
I I c1: ? ?y., ? U \
I I ? x 0 a O cFn
I cl; rs, U o°, F ryC
F O p ?? w O
? I g O
I o c z H ?
?# i w?? ti ? w F
I a o w w
co
04
U
I I ?7
I I
I z I
O I I
of ? I
I U? 1 O I-a _6r?
I
I
sz I I ? ? w
I
> I E=4 a?
CO Q?
! ?W I z
of)
I I
1 d3V I a
9C£
aoN a I
?
ig
I H?
10
I ± a
I
I 1
I 1
I I
I
I I
I I
1 I a
1
! E
? ! N
LILL
\? O
O
II
t
z 0
it ! ?t z ? ? c ? Ey
t ?
I 11 i=. ° ? ?"• W w O
8Z i y ? ° p z H a H
w
? I
t I
? I
? I
? I
t
I
t I a
? I W
t I ?
t I ??l
I I k? U
I t b ? ? `'
t t
I (
?` I I w z z
I I F H
1 t f-a ? ? .a
I I
I 1
t 1
d t '
I ? q
I ?
t 1
I ?
1 ?
1 '
?, \ I I
Bows 41 dOa
cIOU 1 056 ya S!£ a
N V
I 4.N LLN 1
a 1 1 IL:Z
Z 311S -l- 00+9Z 'diS 3NI?H31M
\\ ? ?xo 0 0?
a U a,
co
{z, ° O ? W W O
\\\ ?y X ooz U a?,
a w
% \ \\ - ? Ca A a ?+ W W
\ s?
a
d \ \ \\ o°? °?? F
deb ,q ? ?- \ ?? s w
-oss X d
- -- -------- ?? \ z H
0
1 \ \ v $ a .a
` O O
z z z
? ? Az A A
U
/// Vl O
/ Q
a.
}
Q ?
0-
c r
a - - - - ------
' oy
;,aid O
//
z o
axE-, a 0
e z v z
o?
wz oz w w
44
&H 0 o °
0 Z E:; E-
w
? ? a x w ? w
z
a
M
a1
ti z
as
2
k - -
C -
/ W
6 311S 3NIIHOiVh
JEZ-
C)
z o
?F U a
/ I sL£ an- dOa £ c? U ??•
/ LL I °xE.*
zI'D OH
.4 0 VA r-) C>
W
.{ O Zi co a O
M LL
C"
' E-4
? I `I w? ti ?w
I I U a ? U ?
1 ?
I ?
I I
05 I .I
I• . I ?
-)I I I v,
? I a
I
I I Zb
?i• __• a a
' - ;? -- - ® li -r
g of
6b 4? ig
1
I O
Z.5 I •, ao
4 1
a I - •? N
? M I •' / W
-- L I N
y ?,? I 1
,
O
O
z O
0 (n q,
?0? v O ro)
b fs' O o0 ? O
CAa ° oz H ?"
w j ti w
A a? w w
4 U a ? U w
z
-l- 08+55 'dls
? 1 a
? 1 aJc
1 0
? 1 W
L;
? ?`? ? W I C`yq
\\111, I mZ ? O V
/` Ol
u?
. ? xF
JC5 cJ V I
d\
f
? r
' J
-l- 0b+bs Ibis qJ
O
O
z o

H x az
z ??D
x o

£

SL
13
N S
L£

w

M0913 /M

z

,
, drio oo U
\ I w ?-4 w
w
Zz. I v 04

i ?

I O

F
r

I

1 n r
t r
1
1 1
`\
I
f a
N
?`
N ?

? r
?
r W
0
Z
?8 1

I SL£
I

W CL d0a SL
N i
p?
!2 A
!moo

? J
IED
? .n
gyp, I
I
1

1
I ?
\ ` I
I

1 \ I
I
1
1 ? I

1 ? I
,? I
I
I
I b? ;? ? ,.Wa
I r \?. U
1 ? ? `n
i
r
`z N
r
I
I
I r
1
r
0

0
z o
A ?
z_ z a?• F?
.a a F e z ?' ? W O
zz zz a o w w
r
z r,
-l- 09+£8 'h1S
I I f .?
I I I !?
1 ? sl
I
j SLrW+£8 Sl 7- I
O \ i '?I
I
? I
I?I
I ?` I
I ?? I
GvPSS I
O ?Ge ? I
I
I
?\ 1
I W
4 I I a
-I- 09+Z8 'd1S U
CIO
N
O
O
z o
a?
blo
e z
\1 ? x O o O vii
l\ O z 0 ao W W O
\\ a. E-
,1?11
?3C71 q y O ?: W E"
A C? ? W
???' ? U tg. .P U x
o Z ? v,
oa _
?Ix
19-Z d3V 9L£ U
LLI
Mz (031VX-l 39 lONNY 1311no1,
----- -u?- a ®a
ow3 rzxrz - z
JBJa I'Zx?'ZaZ
Z
b
ti
SMpe? /1,
00 8
W
% ?\ to
O
E
O
z o
F U ? ? a
O ? Ei tx '-' t7 •-?
z ? 7 c w0 E?
? U c
E-+ ?C
H o o H W w w
w O
w ? ti ? w
A a ? x w ?"
w w
z
cn
t
'I I
? I I
? , r Az
Ali I I a v,
ti i` I I t ?" z A?
I o w?
\ 301 ? I I r ? N?
_ a
-- I w w
? I I ? A A AU
I ?
I I r
441-
I . I I t •
I ? 91 91 ? 1 I \ ? e
I
t
r I I '
r
si I I I ± `?
- I I I I ? o ?
I I i N
I I I I
? 1 1
?? I I I 1
I I
I '
O
O
z o
o ri)
rqs A- + - -
{ ? a x E" a d z
Q I I ,- z?? o ?H
II { _ , o 14
`' I w5? ti °w F
II A ? o ?w w
II II vQ a ?" x
Iq z
{I II '"
? ?`?, I II l
? ? I a
? I
II II ? ? s
1 it Ii go
y
a
111
co
l\X
?`, III { ? i
? ( ? b U
ri)
b ?
C? O
E
0
z o
0 421,
? a x
m I z H o
Ed I pzo °o go
.?`' ,` 8 a A O w W
ool
;? 8 ?? v A a ?v w
`. I z z z
I
sp?
\ \
I
\ I
w
i I
I O ri)
00
LI l I
,? 1 1 1 I o

U) C CD
O C
O ) C
O )
c
)
c
) C)
Z
L6 6 IT 06 O
I-
<
U
}
a

CL

?L LO LL
Z U' Z N

CD I- U- O
W O U > o
co C) C) O Z Z m o
.T F-00r?co
a co Z u) I-
W j??oo
fl

co
m U
w F-
Z
It

Q

c
G

fu 0) C) 0

tO LO cm (a ?

04 ?5

C *
+ O C t9 +

u)
1 1 1 11

O
O c t N t0 0 0 o p o ?
(0
W U ° w
N in
r?

Q (II c
O N ?

g U
?
w c
? o ° o ° 0 ° (D 0 0
CD o
CD
p
C) 0
?
Vrj O
X 0
L CO O (
r ?
0) (D
W
U
Q
1L' co v
c O .a.

0
t
(o
IG f-
CO
tf) M .-
N O
O O CO
O
QNj
- - O O O 0 0 0 ?
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

v ^
N OM
C 'a
_ - O c0 O
0 r
? (O

°
rn
s 2 ca LL o o 0 0
o 0 o p

a?

m

rte-. N
C
?

Q C ?
O ?

W ?
° 0
o
Q

c
?
d
t0

N
C ?

'

O

M

O

O

O

o0

W
- lQ
l0 M d
O _
O
O
0 0 0 O O O r
1
5 O O O O O O O O O ?
U
° m m U ca
o ai a a
Q+f
? Of of
`co O
O
Z
Co
d
to
O
t1?
O
O
Z
Z
fo O
r co
.- X
V+ ? :3 X
B °
O X
N M O
O

O i N
J
J
J r o ? W N C7 ato > W
O ? J
O +
M
0
0
0 J
0 J
0 +
N J a.
+ }
I } -
I q- O
' ?
• O - a CO
O

? t O

t t

o +

V- f

01 t t- O

° t

M J

° V'

+ co

r p
?t
+
O

N O C O I T I t t o ( O
C O CO ' V' C O
t i . O
r r r M
N

O

f O
o •-
o
O W
-
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES
ADDRESSES
1 RACHEL W. MCLEAN
2 RICHARD P. BAXTER
3 BILLY & DONALD WILLIAMS
4 VIVIAN A. CHANEY
5 JOHN & NELL WATSON
6 BETTY H. GRIFFIN
7 T. NORMAN BARBEE
8 PEARL L. WATSON
9 . FUN HOMES, INC.
10 JACK T. COLEY
11 THOMAS E. TRAYWICK, JR.
12 ONA LEE HAIGLER(HEIRS)
PO BOX 68
CLINTON NC 28328
PO BOX 2046
MONROE NC 28110
613 SUMNER AVE.
KANNAPOLIS NC 28081
PO BOX 624
WINGATE NC 28174
PO BOX 224
WINGATE NC 28174
PO BOX 151
WINGATE NC 28174
1010 ALSTON-CHANEY RD
WINGATE NC 28174
PO BOX 294
WINGATE NC 28174
711 SUNBLEST BLVD.
FISHER IN 46038
4605 MARSHVILLE-OLIVE RD
MARSHVILLE NC 28103
4114 PHIFER RD
MARSHWILLE NC28103
3215 WISEMAN DR
CHARLOTTE NC 28233
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
UNION COUNTY
PROJECT:8.TG90401 (RM90
US 74 FROM WEST OF RICHARDSO
CREEK TO EXISTING US 74
SHEET OF
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES
ADDRESSES
716 MAIN ST.
13 NCDOT ALBEMARLE NC 28001
14 PATTIE HELMS (HEIRS) 4912 HERMITAGE DR
RALEIGH NC 27612
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
w55
w5'0l
w0'f wZ'L wz'/
ZI 133NS 33S
rA
uj
r
H
`mil
d
V1
O
-W55
w5'0/
'S'C( s-d
cuz-/ cuz-L w0-f
094-5f b1S 3Nnl401dn
I
1
I
I
1
i ?•
1 4-
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
l
1
1
1
1
l
i
1
1
1
I
I
I
1
1
i
1
I
I
I
I
a 1
I
i
1
1
I
1
1
Oll

J

?. J
= O
U N

Iij +
° c0 O

' a
mpQ E
w55 i
a + t-
W w5'Ol tIJS'Ol
ir a

c? 'Sd 'S'G(
sd
< F-- w (n w0'£ wov
w
co ° J to cn w
o N ° 61 J23HS -3.3S 08-f-19
p0E
,
,
"Q
?-
1 1
0
LIJ
(n LLI

w

Z co V b
?J -?o a
L
-

Z D
OS >
",4-

o?
Nw
I
Cd 0-
Q)
I-Zt o w? N 1
CO
00
tL Q
1
L`- s i o
ELI ac m ct: i 0 .
t? U
< w
U
_j 1

CD W

I
OH
F- E Jw
° 1
1 , k
E N N

° + p

c
-
,
I
1
? _
-
? o
= 1
?
?
e
LL
to w w F^- C3 _j ,; i t ?.
CS.L ?yt- Io/%z
INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACT STUDY
NUTRIENT ANALYSIS
MONROE BYPASS
(&ZA'09 AND R-3329)
UNION & ANSON COUNTIES
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
D
?g
r
m.s tM r'
?rro
SEPTEMBER 2002
Monroe Bypass/Connector Project - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis 09/27/00
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
HNTB North Carolina, P.C. was requested by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) to review available information related to the R-2559 (Monroe
Bypass) and R-3329 (Monroe Connector) Transportation Improvement Projects (TIPs)
for creating a new roadway that would bypass the towns of Wingate, Monroe, Indian
Trail and possibly Stallings, North Carolina. There were three purposes for this review:
1. Provide information requested by the North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR), Division of Water Quality (DWQ) in support of a
Section 401 water quality certification application by NCDOT for the R-2559 Monroe
Bypass project;
2. Provide projected land use analysis for support of the preparation of a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), by others, for the R-3329 Monroe Connector
project; and
3. Provide projected land use analysis for support of the analysis of potential water
quality effects on a Federally designated endangered species, the Carolina Heel Splitter
Mussel, in three creeks nearby the two projects.
The review consisted basically of a two-part process:
Estimate the land use change that might occur as a result of constructing R-2559 and
R- 3329
• Calculate the change in surface water flow in the 260 square mile watershed that
could potentially be affected by the land use change
Several authoritative references were used as a basis of the methodology used in this
process:
The Louis Berger Group: "Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Impacts
of Transportation Projects in North Carolina, Volume II: Practitioner's Handbook"
prepared for State of North Carolina, Department of Transportation/Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina, November 2001
(Berger);
• ECONorthwest and Portland State University: "A Guidebook for evaluating the
Indirect Land use and Growth Impacts of highway Improvements, Final Report," for
Oregon Department of Transportation, Salem, Oregon, and Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, D.C., March 2001 (ECONorthwest)
• National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 456: "Guidebook
for Assessing the Social and Economic Effects of Transportation Projects,"
Transportation Research Board - National Research Council, National Academy
Press, Washington, D.C., 2001.
Monroe Bypass/Connector Project - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis 09/27/00
• Cervero, R. and M. Hansen. 2002 (forthcoming). Induced Travel Demand and
?° e Induced Road Investment: A Simultaneous-Equation Analysis. Journal of Transport
Economics and Policy.
ooh Fw?? • Cervero, R. 2002 (forthcoming). Road Expansion, Urban Growth, and Induced
Travel: A Path Analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association.
Gillen, D. 1996. Transportation Infrastructure and Economic Development: A
Review of Recent Literature Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 32, No. 1,
39-62.
• Giuliano, G. 1995. Land Use Impacts of Transportation Investments: Highway and
Transit. The Geogrrgphy of Urban Transportation, ed. by S. Hanson. 2°d Edition,
Guilford Press: 305-341.
• Grigg, A. and W. Ford. 1983. Review of Some Effects of Major Roads on Urban
Communities. Transport and Road Research Supplemental Report 778. Washington,
D.C.: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council.
• Hartgen, D. and D. Curley. 1999. Beltways: Boon, Bane, or Blip? Factors
Influencing Changes in Urbanized Area Traffic, 1990-1997. Charlotte: University of
North Carolina at Charlotte, Center for Interdisciplinary Transportation Studies.
Transportation Publication Number 190.
;,+ • Hartgen, D. and J. Kim. 1998. Commercial Development at Rural and Small-Town
y S(k Interstate Exits. Transvortation Research Record 1649, 95-104.
• Landis, J., S. Guhathakurta, and M. Zhang. 1994. Capitalization of Transit
Investments into Single-Family Home Prices: A Comparative Analysis of Five
California Rail Transit Systems. Berkeley: Institute of Urban and Regional
Development. Working Paper 619.
• Ryan, S. 1999. Property Values and Transportation Facilities: Finding the
Transportation and Land Use Connection. Journal of Planning Literature, 13(4), 412-
440.
• Urban Transportation Center. 1999. Highways and Urban Decentralization.
Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago, Urban Transportation Center. Research
Report.
This Report summarizes the information we have been able to determine related to this
issue, in four sections:
1. Project Descriptions
2. Project Area Description
3. Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
2 L=J.k:.k.LJ
Monroe Bypass/Connector Project - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis 09/27/00
4. Hydrological Analysis
The kev conclusions of the analysis are:
1. The two projects would have the potential to influence land development within
an area roughly 7 miles to the east and south of the two projects. This area includes
portions of six creek basins, with a total land area of approximately 260 square miles.
Existing development in the potentially affected area accounts for approximately 12.6
square miles of built-upon area (impervious cover), or approximately 4.9% of the
affected basins.
2. The Carolina Heel Splitter Mussel is present in two creek basins within the
potentially affected area: Goose Creek and Duck Creek.
Goose Creek is approximately 23 square miles, with existing development accounting for
approximately 0.37 square miles of built-upon area (impervious cover), or approximately
1.6% of the creek basin. Existing surface water peak discharge run-off in a 25 year storm
event is approximately 13,629 cubic feet per second, with a runoff volume of
approximately 4,223 acre-feet.
Duck Creek is approximately 11 square miles, with existing development accounting for
approximately 0.04 square miles of built-upon area (impervious cover), or approximately
0.4% of the creek basin. Existing surface water peak discharge run-off in a 25 year storm
event is approximately 5,797 cubic feet per second, with a runoff volume of
approximately 1,854 acre-feet.
3. One creek basin within the potentially affected area, Lake Twitty, is a Class III
Water Supply Watershed. The Lake Twitty basin is approximately 32 square miles, with
existing development accounting for approximately 0.96 square miles of built-upon area
(impervious cover), or approximately 3.0% of the creek basin. Existing surface water
peak discharge run-off in a 25 year storm event is approximately 17,284 cubic feet per
second, with a runoff volume of approximately 20,040 acre-feet.
4. If neither project is built, growth in the affected area would increase the built-
upon area (impervious cover) to approximately 32.9 square miles, or 12.7 % of the area.
This would increase surface water peak discharge run-off by approximately 34,230 cubic
feet per second in a 25 year storm event, or approximately 24.9% over existing
conditions.
For the "no-build" conditions, in the two creek basins where the Carolina Heel Splitter
Mussel is present, impervious cover would increase as follows:
Goose Creek impervious cover would increase to 1.38 square miles, or 6.0% of the basin.
Peak discharge would increase to 19,374 cubic feet per second, a 42.2 % increase over
existing conditions.
Monroe Bypass/Connector Project - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis 09/27/00
Duck Creek impervious cover would increase to 0.36 square miles, or 3.3% of the basin.
Peak discharge would increase to 9,189 cubic feet per second, a 58.5 % increase over
existing conditions.
For the "no-build" conditions, in the Lake Twitty WS-III basin, impervious cover would
increase as follows:
Impervious cover would increase to 2.72 square miles, or 8.5% of the basin. Peak
discharge would increase to 23,524 cubic feet per second, a 36.2% increase over existing
conditions.
If both projects are built, with no change in development controls in the Goose Creek
basin, the impervious cover would increase to 6.7%, compared to 1.6% existing and 6.0%
for the no build scenario. The additional 0.7% increase in impervious cover would be
attributable to the influence of the R-3329 Monroe Connector project. Peak discharge
would increase to 19,908 cubic feet per second, a 46.1% increase over existing
conditions, and a 3.9% increase over the no build scenario. Runoff volume would
increase to 5,250 acre-feet, a 24.3% increase over existing conditions, and a-2.8%
increase over the no lzu' scenario.
If both projects are built, with no change in development controls in the Duck Creek
basin, the impervious cover would increase to 3.0%, compared to 0.4% existing and 3.3%
for the no build scenario. The 0.3% decrease in impervious cover compared to the no
build scenario is attributable to the influence of the R-3329 Monroe Connector project in
attracting development away from the influence of I-485 in the Duck Creek basin. Peak
discharge would increase to 9,022 cubic feet per second, a 55.6% increase over existing
conditions, but a 2.9% decrease from the no build scenario. Runoff volume would
increase to 2,460 acre-feet, a 32.7% increase over existing conditions, but a 2.7%
decrease from the no build scenario.
If both projects are built, with the Department of Fish and Wildlife recommended
development controls in the Goose Creek basin, the impervious cover would increase to
5.3%, compared to 1.6% existing and 6.0% for the no build scenario. The 0.77% decrease
in impervious cover compared to the no build scenario is attributable to the influence of
the proposed development controls. Peak discharge would increase to 18,957 cubic feet
per second, a 39.1% increase over existing conditions, but a 3.1% decrease from the no
build scenario. Runoff volume would increase to 4,985 acre-feet, an 18.0% increase over
existing conditions, but a 3% decrease from the no build scenario.
If both projects are built, with the Department of Fish and Wildlife recommended
development controls in the Duck Creek basin, the impervious cover would increase to
2.3%, compared to 0.4% existing and 3.3% for the no build scenario. The 1.0% decrease
in impervious cover compared to the no build scenario is attributable to the influence of
the R-3329 Monroe Connector project in attracting development away from the influence
of I-485 in the Duck Creek basin combined with the effect of the proposed development
controls.. Peak discharge would increase to 8,516 cubic feet per second, a 46.9%
4
Monroe Bypass/Connector Project - Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis 09/27/00
increase over existing conditions, but an 11.6% decrease from the no build scenario.
Runoff volume would increase to 2,319 acre-feet, a 25.1 % increase over existing
conditions, but a 10.3% decrease from the no build scenario.
If both projects are built, regardless of development controls in the Goose Creek and
Duck Creek basins, the Lake Twitty WS-III assn will experience in impervious cover
increase to 12J.%, compared to 3.0% existing and 8.5% for the no build scenario. The
additional 3.6% increase in impervious cover would be attributable to the combined
influence of the R-2559 Monroe Bypass and R-3329 Monroe Connector projects. Peak
discharge would increase to 26,471 cubic feet per second, a 53.2% increase over existing
conditions, and a 17.0% increase over the no build scenario. Runoff volume would
increase to 7,844 acre-feet, a 33.4% increase over existing conditions and a 16.1%
increase over the no build scenario.
INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACT STUDY
NUTRIENT ANALYSIS
MONROE BYPASS
(R-2559 AND R-3329)
UNION & ANSON COUNTIES
NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED BY:

ECOSCIENCE CORPORATION
1101 HAYNES STREET, SUITE 101
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27604
SEPTEMBER 2002
p
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A nutrient-analysis study was performed to compute indirect and cumulative nutrient-
loading impacts for a region of land expected to receive additional developmental
pressure from the construction of the Monroe Bypass (Bypass). As requested by the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, this analysis was completed using the Nutrient
Export Coefficient Method (Dodd et al. 1992, DWQ 1998) to compare three future
scenarios: 1) Year 2020 land use without the construction of the Bypass, 2) Year 2020
land use with construction of the Bypass using current Union County ordinances and
land-use controls, and 3) Year 2020 land use with construction of the Bypass employing
additional measures aimed at maintaining or improving water quality standards within
the county.
Nutrient modeling results suggest a 5-12ercent increase in total nitrogen (TN) and a Z,
percent reduction in total phosphorus TP) directly attributable to development generated
by the construction oo the Bypass. If more progressive land-use policies are instituted )
nion County, nutrient modelin results suggest that a 20- and 22-percent reduction o
TH and TP, respectively, could occur as high-loading agricultural land converts into more,
develot?ed but less loading land-use categories These findings suggest that increased
re ulg ation of development and watershed protection measures have the potential to
reduce Bypass-induced nutrient loading through application of best management
pra tices BMP) and mitigation activities. Such applications may include development of
a regional land-use plan that may incorporate expanded use of wetland and stream
mitigation sites, regional storm water structures, expanded streamside buffers, additional
open space, and limitations on impervious coverage for future development.
Cooperation between Union County, North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT), and all municipalities within Union County is recommended to provide a
working land-use template to guide in the reduction of nutrient loading through
implementation of various land-use practices.
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
;.. ........................
Executive Summary
:. .......................................................................................
1. Introduction
II. DWQ Study Area, HNTB Impact Area, and Information Sources.......
III. Current and Future Land-Use Determinations ................................
Current conditions .................................................................................
Scenario 1: Year 2020 without the Bypass ............................................
Scenarios 2 and 3: Year 2020 with the Bypass .....................................
IV. Nutrient Analysis results .................................................................
Scenario 1 .............................................................................................
Scenario 2 .............................................................................................
Scenario 3 .............................................................................................
Sediment
V. Summary VI. References ....................................................................................
LIST OF FIGURES
........................ i
...................... 1
...................... 3
...................... 5
...................... 5
...................... 7
...................... 7
.....................14
.....................14
.....................14
.....................15
.....................18
.....................20
.....................22
Figure 1. Study Boundaries ........................................................................................... 4
Figure 2. Existing Conditions ........................................................................................10
Figure 3. Scenario 1: Year 2020 without the Bypass ....................................................
Figure 4. Scenario 2: Year 2020 with the Bypass and Current Land-Use Policies ........12
Figure 5. Scenario 3: Year 2020 with the Bypass and Progressive Land-Use Policies.13
LIST OF TABLES
Tables la-d. Predicted nutrient export for current conditions and Year 2020 Scenarios
1-3 within the DWQ Study Area ............................................................................... 8
Tables 2a-d. Predicted nutrient export for current conditions and Year 2020 Scenarios
1-3 within the Impact Area ......................................................................................17
Appendix A: Synopsis of HNTB methodology for predicting Year 2020 land use
INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACT STUDY
NUTRIENT ANALYSIS
MONROE BYPASS
NCDOT TIP # R-2559 AND R-3329
1. INTRODUCTION
EcoScience Corporation (ESC) has been retained to perform a nutrient analysis as part
of an Indirect and Cumulative Impact Study for the proposed Monroe Bypass (the
Bypass) in Union County, North Carolina. The Bypass is part of Transportation
Improvement Projects (TIP) R-2559 and R-3329. Tke analysis includes current and
future predictions of total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) loading within a
defined study area that includes the region proposed to be affected by secondary
development instigated by construction of the Bypass. Results of the nutrient analysis
will attempt to quantify loading rates and percentage increases between three future
scenarios: 1) Year 2020 without the Bypass, 2) Year with the Bypass, and 3) Year 2020
with the Bypass usin progressive land-use controls and development ordinances aimed
at reducing nutrient export and maintaining or improving water quality within the region.
In order to estimate loading-rate changes for each scenario, long-term, time-series
measurements of stream flow and nutrient concentrations for various stream stages in
the growing and non-growing seasons would be required. A detailed field study is
prohibitive for the current effort due to temporal constraints; therefore, predictive
modeling efforts have been employed to determine future nutrient-load trends.
Currently, very few models compute non-point source nutrient loads. Existing
approaches (SWAT, NLEWP, RIMDESS, BASINS, FLUX, and MODMON) were either
unavailable for the current effort, could not be undertaken within existing time
constraints, or would be more applicable for specific land-cover types, broader spatial
scales, or gaged stream systems.
One suitable technique, the eort?co?f#icient method_ (ExCo method), does allow for
preliminary estimates of current and future non-point source loads for the study area.
The ExCo method, which was developed by Dodd et aL (1992), computes a spatially
veraged nutrient-load v e (ExCo values) from surface contributions (runoff) for the
cultivated, forest/wetland, develo ed, and o ep n-Water components of a watershed.
Nutrient values are reported for total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) in
kilograms per year. Subsequent revisions to the ExCo method (DWO 1998) further
refine the original land-cover categories (ExCo land-use categories) by zoning and
satellite-imagery analysis to include a total of ei ht=cl_aasss_ifications. The ExCo land-use
categories used in this analysis are four non-developed (Cultivated, Forested/Wetland,
Pasture/Maintained Herbaceous, and Open Water) and four developed (General
Residential, Low-Density Urban, Medium/High-Density Urban, and Industrial
Commercial) categories.
1

An advantage of performing nutrient analysis by the ExCo method is the limited amount
of required model-input parameters. The ExCo method only requires hectarages of
specific ExCo land-use categories within a defined study area. Land-use categories for
all scenarios were calculated using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology
and multiple sources of digital land-use data. With these data available, simple
j calculations are used to model nutrient export associated with runoff from a region.
Furthermore, the median ExCo value for each ExCo land-cover category reflects
conditions based on characteristic coverage that may incorporate a range of land-use
practices on any given site, including the possible implementation of Best Management
Practices (BMP). However, it is unclear what land-use controls have been considered in
the derivation of these ExCo values (Dodd et al. 1992).
The difficulty of applying the ExCo method to the current effort is arriving at accurate
estimates of future land-cover hectarages to be used in loading calculations. Predicting
rates of development within the defined study area poses a challenging, yet necessary
task. Area estimates of current ExCo land-use categories (existing conditions) were
computed by standard, straightforward techniques. However, many assumptions were
needed in order to arrive at similar estimates for future land-cover scenarios with and
without construction of the Bypass. Projected future land use was compiled by HNTB
based on building trends and available developable land. All necessary assumptions
were reached through a cooperative discussion between the North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT), the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ), HNTB
North Carolina (HNTB), and ESC. HNTB is developing the cumulative impact
discussion for the Monroe Bypass Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and provided
land-use data to ESC for use in ExCo method nutrient modeling.
2
II. DWQ STUDY AREA, IMPACT AREA, AND INFORMATION SOURCES
The multi-lane Bypass is comprised of two TIP projects (R-2559 and R-3329) and
ranges from approximately 20.2 miles to approximately 21.1 miles in length depending
on which of three alternatives is selected for the proposed Monroe Connector (R-3329).
The Bypass will redirect traffic north of the City of Monroe and is designed to be a
limited-access roadway including nine interchanges. The Bypass will relieve congestion
along US-74 for commuters traveling from Union County into more heavily developed
and urban Mecklenburg County.
j Two study areas were considered in this analysis. The DWQ proposed a study area
defined by waters a emits (DWQ Study Area). A second, more restrictive study area
has been proposed as part of the EIS investigation that is essentially limited to a 5-7 mile
done radiating around the Bypass. The 5-7 mile wide zone was applied to the entire
corridor based on HNTB research correlating land-use changes from secondary
development impacts resulting to roadway construction.
The DWQ Study Area (Figure 1) incorporates 116 845 hectares of developed and
undeveloped land, which drains out of the DWQ Study Area through 75 named stream
systems. Land use is characterized by predominantly rural, forested, and suburban
areas, with heavily developed areas occurring along the US-74 corridor and within the
City of Monroe and Towns of Marshville, Wingate, Indian Trail, and Stallings. The DWQ
Study Area is bounded to the west by the divide between the Yadkin and Catawba River
=-= basins, to the northwest and north by the Union County line and the Rocky River, to the
east by the Richland Creek basin divide and the Union County line, and to the south by
the Lane and Richland Creeks basin divides.
The Impact Area incorporates 61,188 hectares of land (Figure 1). The Impact Area has
been defined by HNTB as the outer amit of influence on secondary deveLonmsnL
instigated by the Bypass. The Impact Area is proposed to experience different rates and
categories of development than the remainder of the DWQ Study Area. The Impact
Area has been considered a central influence of the development of 'with Bypass"
Scenarios 2 and 3.
The digital information used in this analysis includes materials provided by NCDOT, the
Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (CGIA), Union County Geographical
Information Systems (Union County), Anson County Geographical Information Sytstems,
HNTB, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Digital data provided by
NCDOT include aerial orthophotography, U.S. Geographical Survey (USGS)
quadrangles, the Bypass alignments, and major roads. CGIA provided land cover,
Yadkin River hydrology, county lines, 14-digit hydrologic unit boundaries, and river basin
and sub-basin boundaries. Union and Anson Counties provided aerial
orthophotography, parcel data, future land use, and zoning classifications. Digital data
provided by HNTB include projected zoning and land-use data for Year 2020 scenarios.
Digital data distributed by EPA includes land-use data extracted from the "BASINS"
watershed management software.
3

:....III

R-3329 Potential Alignments N
R2559 Alignment 4 0 4 8 Miles
® Municipal Boundary
Study Boundaries DATE: ESC #
Sep 2002 00-046.24
Monroe Bypass (R-2559/R-3329) SCALE: DWN BY: MTC
Indirect and Cumulative Impact Study As Shown CKDBY: GR
® Nutrient Analysis
FIGURE
EcoScience Union and Anson Counties, North Carolina 1
,
III. CURRENT AND FUTURE LAND-USE DETERMINATIONS
Based on the consensus of project participants, the analysis began by calculating the
current nutrient loads exported from the DWQ Study Area to serve as a baseline. After
baseline nutrient loads were calculated, conditions in the Year 2020 were predicted for
three scenarios using data provided by HNTB: 1) without the road using an extrapolation
of current baseline building trends, 2) with the road while accounting for incidental and
cumulative development impacts under current land-use policies CLUIRs), and 3) with
the road while accounting for incidental and cumulative development impacts with
progressive land-use policies PLUPs) proposed for adoption by Union County and local
municipalities to update existing zoning. For the purpose of this analysis, PLUPs are
considered to be the result of current negotiations between Union County officials and
natural resource agencies and may include buffers on all perennial and intermittent,
streams, regional storm water controls and implementation of erosiont and sediment_
control features on all new construction.
The DWQ Study Area is divided among the jurisdictions of Union County, the City of
Monroe, and the Towns of Marshville, Wingate, Indian Trail, and Stallings. Each
government has unique zoning classifications and regulations. Through interpretation of
zoning regulations, ESC personnel collapsed the existing zoning classifications into the
eight ExCo land-use categories using the allowable build-out percentage, amount of
required open space, and maximum area of impervious surfaces allowed for each
zoning classification. ESC used the collapsed zoning created by NCDOT planning
personnel for the similar Knightdale Bypass Nutrient Study (ESC 2002) to mimic ExCo
land-use categories used in the previous analysis. ESC personnel multiplied the
hectarage of each ExCo land-use category by the median ExCo value associated with
- that category to predict nutrient export for current and future scenarios.
The HNTB data provided a unique opportunity to anticipate future zoning and land-use
changes within the DWQ Study Area and for comparing Year 2020 with and without
Bypass scenarios. A short synopsis of the HNTB methodology for predicting Year 2020
land-use within the Impact Area can be found in Appendix A, but for a full description of
the methodology and assumptions used by HNTB, the full technical document should be
consulted (HNTB 2002). ESC personnel used the HNTB data to update existing land
use within the Impact Area to predict future ExCo land-use categories for Scenarios 2
and 3. The hectarage contained within each ExCo land-use category in Scenarios 2 and
3 were used to calculate nutrient export. The nutrient export loadings from Scenarios 2
and 3 were compared to Scenario 1 (without the Bypass) to predict what the impact of
the Bypass will be, both with current and updated progressive land-use policies.
CURRENT CONDITIONS
An analysis of current land use/land cover was performed using GIS. A variety of digital
data layers were used to develop a map that depicts current (circa Year 2000) land-use
5
conditions within the DWO Study Area. The ultimate goal was to determine the
hectarage of each ExCo land-use category for use in nutrient export calculations.
Spatial analysis using GIS allowed for summarization of data into eight land-use
categories in accordance with Dodd et al. (1992). The eight categories include open
::...t water, natural/managed vegetation, and multiple categories of developed areas.
Developed areas can be difficult to categorize accurately with single data sources. As a
result, a variety of data types were utilized to more accurately reflect current extent and
usage type of urban and residential development. These data include EPA land-use
classifications, CGIA land cover data, and Union and Anson County digital aerial
photography, structure, and parcel data.
The CGIA land cover data were created using Landsat remotely sensed satellite imagery
captured between 1993 and 1995 (CGIA 1996). The dataset contains two classes for
developed areas, low-intensity developed and high-intensity developed. These two
classes were used to define the Low- and Medium/High-Density Urban ExCo land-use
categories described in Dodd et al. (1992).
The EPA BASINS program was developed for use in watershed planning throughout the
United States (EPA 2002). The land-use dataset packaged with BASINS includes an
Anderson Level II type classification (Anderson et al. 1976) for Region 4, the southeast
geographic region. These data include eight separate classes to define urban or
developed areas. In conjunction with CGIA land cover, these classes were condensed
into four analogous development categories described by Dodd et al. (1992).
NCDOT provided data on road locations for Union and Anson counties. A 50-foot buffer
(25 feet on either side of centerlines) was placed on these roads to account for the right-
of-way and associated paved area. This road buffer was classified as
Industrial/Commercial during compilation with re.-classified land use data. Because the
road data is more accurate than other data sources, in instances where data coverage
overlapped, the road buffer was assigned preference over any other land cover type.
Upon close examination of digital aerial photography, the EPA BASINS, CGIA land
cover, and 50-foot road buffer combined data did not accurately represent developed
areas within the DWO Study Area. To account for the additional developed hectarage,
Union County parcel and structures data were utilized. By examining the digital aerial
photography, it was apparent that small, tightly grouped parcels tend to be located in
communities associated with new residential growth. To account for this new
development, parcels that contain structures and are less than 1.5 hectares in size were
categorized as General Residential.
Areas not currently developed were categorized as Forest/Wetland, Managed
Herbaceous/Pasture/Undeveloped, Cultivated, or Open Water. The CGIA land cover
data was reclassified to coincide with one of the first three cover categories. Union
County GIS has a data layer of all lakes, ponds and open water bodies. This
hydrological data appears to be the most accurate representation of open water for the
study area and was used for the Open Water category.
6
IV. NUTRIENT ANALYSIS RESULTS
DWQ STUDY AREA
Loading rates of nitrogen and phosphorus will vary as land-use patterns change within
the study boundary watersheds. Ina c arios, regardless of Bypass construction, two-
main factors are expected to cause an increase in loading estimates by the ExCo
method: localized addition of nutrients (fertilizers, pesticides, and/or herbicides -
generally associated with the Cultivated land use category) and increased coverage b
impervious aces (as seen in the urban, residential and industrial/commercial land
use categories).
In order to quantify nutrient export current conditions, nutrien export rates were
calculated by multiplying land-use dories by ExCo coefficient values for TN and TP
(Table 1). Under Current Conditions (Table 1 a), nutrient loading is controlled by outputs
generated from the Cultivated land-use category (435,777 kilograms per year [kg/yr] for
TN and 69,094 kg/yr TP), even though Forest/Wetland is the dominant land-use
category coverage. The lack of stabilizing ground cover, soil disturbance, and frequent
use of organic products (fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides) generally result in
Cultivated land having the highest ExCo value of all land-use categories. Cultivated land
accounts for more than 50-percent of the nutrients exported from the DWQ Study Area.
Scenario 1
Since land development in the area will occur irrespective of highway construction,
loading rates for Scenario 1 were generated to reflect expected development within the
DWQ Study Area (Table 1 b). All three scenarios account for predicted development to
occur on lands that are currently wooded, farmed, or managed herbaceous coverage.
Loading rates for Scenario 1 were calculated assuming that development within the
DWQ Study Area will increase steadily. The amount of potential land development is
expected to occur based upon the amount of developable land that is in proximity to 1-
485 or US-74. Developable land is currently defined as lands that are 4? projected to
receive water and sewer from a local municipality, ,?'projected to be annexed by a local
municipality, &based in a region with soils that are compliant with septic systems, orb"
offering reasonable commuting times on the existing roadway network (HNTB 2002). A
5-percent increase in expQ ed TN and 6-percent decrease in exported TP over current
conditions have been predicted for anticipated development in Scenario 2 (Table 1b).
The predicted decrease in exported TP results from a conversion of high-loading
Cultivated ExCo land-use category to more developed, but less loading categories of
land use.
Scenario 2
A 5-percent increase in exported TN and a 6-percent decrease in exported TP have
been predicted for Scenario 2 when compared to current conditions (Table 1c). This
increase in TN is primarily a result of a conversion of undeveloped land to urban,
residential, and industrial/commercial uses. This increased is tempered somewhat by
14

the fact that development will be concentrated around the Bypass corridor, with outlying
`.! areas of the DWQ Study Area remaining largely undeveloped or in the General
Residential category
When compared to Scenario 1, Bypass construction (Scenario 2) appears to have a
negligible effect (less than or equal to 1-percent) on nutrient export from the area. This
lack of measurable change is largely attributed to the size of the DWQ Study Area.
Growth will occur with or without the road. Building trends remain relatively unchanged
between the two scenarios. However, land use distribution patterns are different with
urban development slightly elevated as a result of the Bypass construction.
Scenario 3
A 4-percent increase in exported TN and an 11-percent decrease in exported TP have
been predicted for Scenario 3 relative to current conditions (Table 1c). Relative to
Scenario 1, Scenario 3 results in a reduction of 9-percent exported TN and 6-percent
exported. This reduction in loading can be interpreted as being indirectly attributable to
the more stringent land-use policies that could be adopted to minimize secondary
impacts associated with Bypass construction. Although buffer acreage will increase with
new land use controls, the amount of Forest/Wetland land coverage decreases slightly
under Scenario 3 when compared to Scenarios 1 and 2, primarily due to the fact that
development is expected to shift into upland wooded areas and away from riparian
zones. Storm water controls appear to be critical in nutrient reduction with obvious
decreases in TN and TP export when capture and treatment is applied to new
development under the urban, residential, and industrial/commercial land use categories
(Table 1 d). Synergistic effects are anticipated from application of a multifaceted strategy
of land use controls to benefit water quality.
IMPACT AREA
Data analyses of nutrient modeling techniques led ESC personnel to consider evaluation
of a smaller subset of the overall DWQ Study Area in an effort to attribute shifts in
nutrient export more directly to the Bypass. The Impact Area evaluated under the HNTB
study was chosen for further analysis reducing the area for evaluation by approximately
50-percent from 116,845 hectares to 61,138 hectares. The large size of the entire DWQ
= Study Area, coupled with the primarily agricultural land use away from the highway
corridor, obscure clear trends in nutrient export data.
Data generated for the DWQ Study Area suggests that ambient growth and agricultural
practices not attributed to the Bypass (i.e. outside of the Impact Area) counteracted the
nutrient export trends that were occurring within the Impact Area. Therefore, the Impact
Area may provide a better representation of nutrient impacts directly attributed to
roadway development. Subsequently, hectarages were re-calculated for various land
use categories within the Impact Area and nutrient export values were generated for
current conditions and for Scenarios 1-3 (Table 2).
Nutrient trends under Current Conditions (Table 2a) and Scenario 1 (Year 2020 without
the Bypass - Table 2b) are essentially the same as occurred in the DWQ Study Area
evaluation. Cultivated land use continues to be the primary generator of nutrients.
15
General Residential land use and urban development is expected to increase
dramatically in 2020 without the Bypass as homeowners move into underdeveloped
areas around Monroe.
Although Cultivated land will be converted to support some of this development, urban
expansion is the primary cause for the 5-percent increase in TN under Scenario 1 (Table
j 2b). Again, TP reductions are attributed to significant reductions in undeveloped land
through the Impact Area.
Scenario 2
Within the Impact Area, a 10-percent increase in exported TN and an 11-percent
decrease in exported TP have been predicted as a result of Bypass Construction in Year
2020 (Scenario 2) relative to current conditions. This trend is not unexpected. Bypass
development can be expected to spur growth of urban and resident development in and
around roadway access points. Again, this growth is at the expense of the undeveloped
land categories with relatively lower nutrient export values.
Relative to Scenario 1 (without Bypass), Scenario 2 (Year 2020 with the Bypass) results
in a 5-percent increase in exported TN and a 7-percent decrease in exported TP. This
5-percent increase in TN export is attributable to secondary development instigated by
construction of the Bypass. Continuing trends in TP reduction can be attributed to a
continuing conversion of the high-loading Cultivated ExCo land-use category to more
developed, but less loading categories of land use.
Scenario 3
The implementation of land use controls result in reductions in nutrient export for TN and
TP with road construction (Scenario 3, Table 2d) that are slightly more pronounced in
the Study Area as compared to the DWQ Impact area. A reduction in 5-percent TN and
22-percent exported TP was modeled between Scenario 3 and current conditions. If the
Bypass is constructed, a 15-percent decrease in TN and 11-percent decrease in TP can
be realized with land use controls in place. However, when the actual TN and TP
loading rates for the urban, residential and industrial/commercial land use categories are
compared between Scenario 2 and 3 (299,037 kg/yr versus 241,698 kg/yr for TN and
26,909 kg/yr versus 21,089 kg/yr for TP), land-use policies considered in Scenario 3
could result in an overall 20-percent decrease in exported TN and 22-percent decrease
in exported TP from existing land-use policies (Scenario 2), even with the construction of
the Bypass. These trends could possibly be even more pronounced, except that
agriculture makes up such a large component of regional land use.
SEDIMENT
Sediment runoff anri rP owere not considered in this anal,s. However, sediment
;. impacts can largely be negated through land use changes, implementation of buffers
and storm water catchment (basins and treatment wetlands), and effective use of best
;. management practices during construction.
First, changes in land use can greatly affect non-point source pollution loads, including
sedimentation. Agricultural land has been shown to be responsible for 57-percent to 64-
percent of the non-point source pollution (38-percent of the sediment load is attributable
to crop land and 26-percent to pasture erosion) affecting area waterways as compared
to 5-12-percent attributed to urban runoff (Welsch 1991). In the DWQ Study Area, a 25-
percent reduction in agricultural land and conversion to other uses is expected over the
20 year planning period, potentially reducing sediment loads and other non point
sources of pollution as a result of this shift.
Land use controls have been proposed under Scenario 3 including the use of riparian
buffers, regional storm water basins, and employment of erosion and sediment control
measures during construction (primarily focused on "new development"). Riparian
vegetative buffers have been shown to trap as much as 80-90-percent of sediment from
surface water runoff (Gilliam 1994; Johnston 1991). Data from agricultural research in
North Carolina have shown that riparian buffers used in conjunction with level spreaders
account for an 80-percent total suspended solids removal capacity (North Carolina State
University 2002). Research has shown that it is not the width of the buffer but the length
through which runoff may flow that is critical to sediment and pollutant removal (Brinson
1993). By have long linear stretches of riparian buffer in place as proposed under
Scenario 3, significant capture and removal of non-point source pollutants, particularly
sediments, can be realized.
The use of regional storm water controls (primarily wet ponds and treatment wetlands)
has been shown to have significant impacts on removal of pollutant sources. Removal
rates of 70-80-percent of total suspended solids and 30-percent or more of nitrogen and
phosphorus are often achieved (North Carolina State University 2002; NCDENR 1998).
Storm water treatment wetlands have proven to be the most effective storm water device
currently employed and the benefits of these devices can be enhanced when utilized
with grassy swales and level spreaders.
Site-specific erosion and sediment control measures on construction sites such as silt
fences, infiltration trenches, sediment traps, and rapid re-seeding of the site, can also be
utilized to enhance the removal of pollutants. These devices result in relatively minor
rates of capture and absorption of nutrients, but can have a significant impact on the
amount of sediment removed from a site (as much as 70-percent sediment removal). In
addition, the removal contribution is additive, resulting in cumulative benefits when
applied with other treatment methods.
In summary, land use controls proposed for Scenario 3 have been shown to result in a
reduction in nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus). Although sediment reduction has not
18
been quantified as part of this analysis, available data suggests that significant amounts,
of sediment (80-percent or greater) can be removed by implementation of proposed land
use controls. In addition, the benefits of employing multiple methods are additive,
resulting in cumulative removal benefits.
19
V. SUMMARY
• The 116,845 hectare DWQ Study Area currently supports a mixture of forest,
agriculture, rural-residential, sub-urban, and urban development along sections
adjacent to the existing US-74, and within the municipal limits of Monroe,
Marshville, Wingate, Indian Trail, and Stallings. Approximately 71,303 hectares
of developable land currently exists within the DWQ Study Area. The HNTB
Impact Area is a subset of the DWQ Study Area, and incorporates 61,188
hectares of land. The Impact Area is proposed to experience different rates and
categories of development than the remainder of the DWQ Study Area
• The Nutrient Export Coefficient Method (Dodd et al. 1992, DWQ 1998) was
utilized to calculate surface nutrient loading associated for current conditions and
three Year 2020 scenarios.
• Current and future land-cover composition were computed within the DWQ Study
Area for with and without Bypass scenarios. Eight ExCo land-use categories
were generated based on an analysis of digital data and collapsed zoning land-
use classifications.
• Within the DWQ Study Area, extrapolation of development trends was used to
predict land use in Year 2020 without the Bypass. An increase of 5-percent
exported TN and a decrease of 6-percent exported TP from current conditions
was predicted for Scenario 1. The reduction of TP from current conditions is
attributable to conversion of agriculture to other, more developed (but less
nutrient loading) land-use categories.
• Within the DWQ Study Area, two Scenarios were considered for the Year 2020
with the Bypass,. The difference between the two "with Bypass" Scenarios is
implementation of current or proposed, more progressive land-use policies.
Progressive land-use policies considered in this analysis include riparian buffers,
regional storm water facilities on all new development, and more stringent
sediment and erosion control measures (modeled after the Neuse River Basin
Riparian Area Rules).
• The large proportion of agriculture that currently exists within the DWQ Study
Area (accounting for >50-percent of all current nutrient export) reduced the
influence of development instigated by the construction of the Bypass.
Conversion of cultivated areas into more heavily developed land uses that export
a smaller amount of nutrients minimizes the increased nutrient and sediment
export impact of new development. If progressive land-use controls are in place,
this conversion of agriculture into new development can potentially improve
regional water quality over existing conditions.
20
Nutrient modeling within the DWQ Study Area found that the data indicated that
ambient growth and agricultural practices not influenced by the Bypass (outside
of the Impact Area) counteracted the nutrient export trends that were occurring
within the Impact Area. Scenarios 2 and 3 (with the Bypass) were subsequently
restricted to the Impact Area boundary defined as the limit of growth instigated by
. the Bypass. Current Conditions and Year 2020 without the Bypass (Scenario 1)
l were also evaluated based on Impact Area limits.
• The indirect and cumulative nutrient load attributable to Bypass construction
(compared to Scenario 1 within the Impact Area) is an increase of 5-percent TN
and a reduction of 7-percent TP for Scenario 2, and a decrease of 10-percent TN
and 19-percent TP for Scenario 3. Due to the proposed progressive land-use
policies, new development (after Year 2000) occurring within the Impact Area in
Scenario 3 will export 20-percent less TN and 22-percent less TP than Scenario
2.
. - It is recommended that case studies of existing and similar highway alignments
be utilized for future indirect and cumulative impact studies. Changes in land-use
patterns can be predicted from these projects that more accurately reflect
roadway dependent zoning changes.
21
VI. REFERENCES
Anderson, J.R., E.E. Hardy, J.T. Roach, and R.E. Witmer. 1976. A Land Use and Land
Cover Classification System for use with Remote Sensor Data. U.S. Geological
Survey Professional Paper 964, 28 p.
Brinson, Mark M. 1993. Changes in the Functioning of Wetlands along Environmental
Gradients. Wetlands Volume B N2:65-74
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1998. Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality
Management Plan. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Water Quality Section, Raleigh, NC.
Dodd, R.C., G. McMahon, and S. Stichter. 1992. Watershed Planning in the Albemarle-
Pamlico Estuarine System: Annual Average Nutrient Budgets. North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources Report No. 92-10.
_ EcoScience Corporation (ESC). 2002. Indirect and Cumulative Impact Study: Nutrient
Analysis, US-64 Knightdale Bypass. EcoScience Corporation, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Gilliam, J.W. 1994. Riparian wetlands and water quality. J. Environ. Q. Vol. 23:896-
900.
HNTB North Carolina (HNTB). 2002. Monroe Bypass/Connector: Indirect and
Cumulative Impact Analysis. HNTB North Carolina, Charlotte, North Carolina.
Johnston, C.A. 1991. Sediment and nutrient retention by freshwater wetlands: effects
on surface water quality. Critical Reviews in Environmental Control Vol 21
(5,6):491-565.
NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (CGIA). 1996. Comprehensive
Land Cover Mapping for the State of North Carolina. URL--
http://www.cgia.state.nc.us/cgdb/refdocs/lc96/index.htm1, visited 2002 August 26.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resource (NCDENR). 1998.
Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual. Division of Land
Resources, Raleigh, NC September 1998.
North Carolina State University. 2002. Stormwater BMP Academy. June 12-13, 2002.
Raleigh, N.C. N.C. Cooperative Extension.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2002. About BASINS 3.0. URL--
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/basins/basinsv3.htm, visited 2002 August 26.
22
Welsch, David, J. 1991 Riparian Forest Buffers. Function and Design for Protection and
Enhancement of Water Resources. NA-PR-0791. USDA, Forest Service,
Radnor, PA.
23
tl
Appendix A
Synopsis of HNTB methodology for predicting Year 2020 land use
22
1.1 Scenario Development
In order to determine the potential induced development impacts of the Monroe
Bypass/Connector roadway project, three different land use scenarios were analyzed:
No-Build Scenario:
1. Household and employment growth (2000-2020) distribution within the
watershed study area (both outside and inside the potential impact area) without
the proposed roadway and without additional environmental regulations in both
the Duck and Goose Creek basins.
Build Scenario:
2. Household and employment growth (2000-2020) distribution within the
watershed study area (both outside and inside the potential impact area) with the
proposed roadway and without additional environmental regulations in both the
Duck and Goose Creek basins.
Build Scenario w/ Development Controls:
3. Household and employment growth (2000-2020) distribution within the
watershed study area (both outside and inside the potential impact area) with the
proposed roadway and with additional environmental regulations (1 unit per 2
acres & additional stream buffers) in both the Duck and Goose Creek basins.
1.2 Scenario Writing
In order to determine the amount of induced growth as a result of the Monroe
Bypass/Connector project, a transportation/land use model, developed by Servano (first
name?), was used to convert the change in average daily traffic volumes (ADTs) along
the new roadway during a time period into the amount of additional households from
which the traffic volumes would originate. The following are the assumptions made
within the model:
• Of the forecasted change in ADT between 2000 and 2020, 50% is attributable to new
capacity, or new vehicles on the road as a result of general growth conditions.
• Of the forecasted change in ADT between 2000 and 2020, 37.5% is attributable to
behavioral shifts in existing traffic from other roadways (route shifts, transit users,
carpoolers, etc.).
• Of the forecasted change in ADT between 2000 and 2020, 12.5% is attributable to
induced growth because of the new roadway.
1.3 Growth Assumptions for Potentially Affected Area
1.3.1 Quantity of Assumed Growth
Based on the evaluation of the potential for land use change (see HNTB Final
Document), area characteristics indicate a strong potential for induced growth as a result
of the proposed project. Because of the findings of this evaluation, we have made
adjustments to the model to take into consideration this strong potential. Instead of
assuming that only 12.5% of the change in ADT between 2000 and 2020 would be
attributable to induced growth, we applied a 25% share. The resulting share attributable
to behavioral shifts was reduced from 37.5% to 25% to take this into account.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation forecasted a change in ADT of an
average of 30,000 vehicles per day between 2000 and 2020 along the 13-mile Monroe
Bypass/Connector project. Since the induced growth factor equals one-third of the new
capacity and behavioral shift total (22,500 vehicles per,day), we added an additional
33.3%, or 10,000 vehicles per day, to this forecast because of induced growth, making
the total 40,000 vehicles per day.
Based on these model assumptions, the following calculations were completed to come
up with the amount of induced households as a result of the forecasted 40,000 ADT
volume on the Monroe Bypass/Connector project between 2000 and 2020:
Step 1: 40,000 ADT x 25% (induced growth share) = 10,000 ADT as a result of
induced growth
Step 2: 10,000 ADT x 1.1 persons per vehicle = 11,000 trips from new
households
Step 3: Average of 3 trips per household per day on Monroe Bypass/Connector
3,666 new households (11,000 divided by 3)
To determine the induced jobs as a result of the proposed project, we applied the jobs per
household ratio (1.105) from the 2000 to 2020 forecasted increase in households and jobs
in the impact area (see HNTB Final Document) to this new induced household total:
3,666 induced households x 1.105 jobs/household = 4,051 induced jobs
These additional households and jobs were added to the Scenario 1 estimates (see HNTB
Final Document) to come up with the total amount of forecasted households and jobs to
be added to the watershed study area between 2000 and 2020. The table below
summarizes the amount of forecasted growth by area and scenario:

A
Scenario 1
-Im act Area
-Watershed Area
Impact Area
% of Watershed
Scenario 2
-Impact Area
-Watershed Area
Impact Area
% of Watershed
Scenario 3
-Impact Area
-Watershed Area
impact Are
% of Watershed
Table 1. Forecasted Growth
Residential
Households Acres
13,690 10,454
25,403 23,614
54% 44%
17,356 21,22c
29,069 34,38
60%
17,356
29,069
60%
62%
22,027
35,187
63%
-2020
Commercial
Jobs Ac
20,388
26,662
76%
24,439
30,713
80%'
24,439
30,713
80%
834
934
89%
1,001
1,101
91%
1,001
1,101
91%
As can be seen in Table 1, the impact area's share of the entire watershed study area
household and job growth increases in Scenario 2 and Scenario 3, which include the
Monroe Bypass/Connector project. The project itself is forecasted to induce
approximately 26% more households and 20% more jobs than would have originally
occurred within the impact area over the next 18 years.
1.3.2 Location of Assumed Growth
Upon completing the forecast of future growth for each of the three scenarios, as noted in
Table 1, households and jobs were then distributed throughout the watershed study area
based on a number of different factors including:
• Discussions with local planners
• Proximity to I-485 and US-74
• Existing and future water/sewer lines
• Development controls/guidance (water supply watersheds, proposed land use, zoning)
• Annexation policies
• Municipality jurisdictions
Higher weights were allocated to physical location of the land area and future public
utility locations. The 3,666 induced households and 4,051 induced jobs estimates were
only to be distributed within the impact area, since land development outside of the
impact area is assumed not to be influenced by the proposed roadway project.
Scenario 1 (Residential):
Using the factors above, a of 13 subareas were created
an evaluation of the potential for land useechange in y
area (Figure 1 and Table 2).
3
each of these subareas, see HNTB Final Document. Growth within the impact area was
,.l
distributed separately from growth outside the impact area. It should be noted that each
of the five alternative alignments (G, D-2, D-3, E-2, E-3) for the Monroe Connector
portion of the project was treated equally in their impact on residential development.
?. ^lnnn'Vn'ln AAA.+:nnol n-1nnPd Land
I
Watcrshed'
tinidv Area we L. Jcelial lu 1: ?uuv-? v? v ?uuiuv,awa Yom...
GRes LDUTrban AFfIDUrban
(0-1 DU:';?C') j1-3-.5 DU/.1C1 (>=2.5 DU/.a(') ---
Total
Developed Land Total
Area* available
Ladd
1 265 796 308 1,369 6,487 5,118
la outside impact area 468 468 1,522 1,05
la 29 299 493 821 4,838 4,017
lb outside impact area 586 586 1,356 770
lb 1,643 1,643 5,167 3,52
2 356 356 2,311 1,955
2a 685 685 4,949 4,26
2b outside impact area 303 704 1,007 6,626 5,619
3 outside impact area 2,342 2,342 6,292 3,95
3 2,003 26 24 2,053 14,949 12,896
3a outside impact area 881 378 1,259 3,878 2,61
3a 72 168 240 995 755
4 15 470 62 547 9,144 8,59
4a 274 274 1,856 1,58
5 outside impact area 2,836 10 200 3,046 16,830 13,78
6a outside impact area 2,578 2,578 27,006 24,428
6a 1,330 40 1,370 17,534 16,16
6b outside impact area 1,874 1,874 21,090 19,216
6b 1,096 1,096 20,561 19,465
T6tal: ti l0,943 31470 31201 23,614 173,391 149,77
*Proposed for residential
Densities were determined by what was proposed within Union County land use plans as
well as municipal plans. A total of 23,614 acres of residential development is forecasted
to be developed within the entire watershed study area between 2000 and 2020. This
number only represents 13.6% of the total area available for residential development.
Most of the future developed land is considered general residential (71.7%), with low
density urban and medium-high density urban only representing 14.7% and 13.6%,
respectively.
Subarea 3 is forecasted to have 4,395 acres of residential development take place between
2000 and 2020, the most of any subarea. One of the reasons for this trend is because of
the geographic size of Subarea 3, which has 21,241 acres of residential land available for
development, third highest of the watershed study area. Another reason is because of its
relatively close proximity to both I-485 and US-74, as well as the fact that its entire area
is scheduled for sewer services to be in place by 2020.
Scenario 1 (Commercial):
A total of 17 commercial subareas were created within the watershed study area, 12 of
which are located within the impact area. Most of these subarea boundaries were
designated by following county and municipality proposed land use boundaries. The
Secrest Short Cut Road corridor (m), just east of the Mecklenburg County border, and the
US-601 corridor north of US-74 (a) were the only areas designated for future commercial
development that were not already done so by Union County or the municipalities.
Table 3. Scenario 1: Luuu-Iu4u t,kuuiiiuIIaJL
INVatershed Industrial/ Total Total' Available
Studv-krea Commercial Developed Land Area* Land
60 60 530 470
a
b 100 100 1,911 1,811
26 26 663 637
c
d 15 15 165 150
16 16 790 774
e
f outside impact area 50 50 508 458
50 50 133 83
9 55 55 447 392
h 135 135 1,424 1,289
1
k 109 109 975 866
60 60 94 34
m 38 38 53 15
n
o outside impact area 20 20 178 158
170 170 602 432
p
q outside impact area 5 5 34 29
r outside impact area 20 20 76 56
s outside impact area 5 5 9 4
Total;, , 934 934 7,o58
Note: In addition to the 934 acres total, 169 acres to be distributed randomly throughout
area outside impact area
*Proposed for commercial
103 acres of commercial land is forecasted to be built upon within the
A total of 1
,
watershed study area between 2000 and 2020. Of that total, 934 acres are located in the
whereas 169 acres are to be
subareas distribut ed randomly throughout the area outside
,
the impact area. The 934-acre total only repre sents 10.9% of the total area proposed for
commercial development within the 1 7 subare as of the watershed study area. Of the
estimated 934 commercially-developed acres, 834 acres (89.3%) are forecasted within the
impact area.
To more accurately forecast the distribution of the forecasted commercial acreage, it was
divided into industrial, office, and retail categories. Each subarea was then evaluated
5
based on its ability to attract specific types of commercial development. The areas closer
to I-485 and Mecklenburg County were assumed to attract more office development,
while areas along the US-74 corridor were more attractive for retail development.
Industrial development was mainly focused in areas near the Monroe Airport and
northeast of Monroe, where existing facilities are located.
Subareas p and I have by far the most developed acres allocated to them. Subarea p is the
closest subarea to I-485 and straddles both sides of US-74, making it an ideal location for
spillover growth from Mecklenburg County. Subarea I, near the Monroe Airport, already
includes an employment cluster of existing industrial facilities that could be further
expanded. Most of the commercial subareas outside of the impact area received the least
amount of future growth, except for subareas c,d, and e, which are all east of Monroe
along US-74 near the Anson County border.
Scenario 2 (Residential):
As mentioned before, the proposed roadway project will only have an influence on
development inside the identified impact area. Table 4 below shows the distribution of
the 10,775 acres of residential growth between 2000 and 2020 within residential subareas
1 through 13. These subareas have different boundaries than those in Scenario 1 because
of the proposed roadway dynamics. For an evaluation of the potential for land use
change in each of these subareas, see HNTB Final Document. The Monroe
Bypass/Connector project would not only add an estimated 3,666 households at various
densities within the impact area over the next 18 years, to some extent it would also
redistribute and change the densities of some of the future growth that would occur
without the roadway being built (Scenario 1).
GKcs
ImpactArea' _ (0-t Dti!.1(')
1 359
275
137
2,256
347
8,531
10,218
411
4,13(
1,01E
2,73E
16,18(
1,22"
1,07
6,41'
1,16!
Total AN AI-ablc
Land
9,659
11,313
1,275
5,181
1,153
3,078
18,498
1,401
1,426
7 568
anario 2: ZUUU-Loco AUUMou41 ,
LDGrb;ni NI [IL Omn
DC,AC) (%-2.5 Dl'%AC
410 35
328 49
85
1,051
342
22 4
174
Dotal
DeN clopcd Landl
1,128
1,095
858
1,051
137
342
2,318
174
347
10 1,153 1,153 >
574 574 1,743
11
483 4,751
12 483 1,115 15,949
13
` 1,115
072 3,150
1 L 32 3 1(1,77) SZ.y9?
.
total:
*These numbers would be added to the area outside the impact area in
Scenario 1 to determine total for entire watershed
study area
-Proposed for residential
72,'_20
6
1
Although not as low density as Scenario 1, most of the 10,775 total acres to be developed
by 2020 will be low density in character, with 8,452 acres (78.4%) forecasted to be
developed at a density between 0 and 2.5 units per acre. The majority of that low density
development will be located in subareas 7 and 13, located in extreme northeastern and
southeastern Union County, where sewer service and growth momentum is at a
= .a minimum.
Higher density development is forecasted in subareas 1, 2, and 3, which are all either
adjacent to Mecklenburg County or straddle the US-74 corridor west of Monroe. Subarea
11, located along US-74 between Monroe and Wingate, also should develop at a higher
density. Mainly because of travel time savings and planned sewer services, future
residential development in subarea 10, which straddles US-74 east of Monroe and west of
Marshville, should also increase. As was the case in Scenario 1, only 13% of the total
residential land available for development is forecasted to be developed upon by 2020.
Scenario 2 (Commercial):
With the addition of the Monroe Bypass/Connector project, there are employment areas
that would be generated in addition to those designated in Scenario 1. Most of these
additional subareas would be focused around the proposed interchanges of the new
roadway, as well as supplement the already developing US-74 corridor between Monroe
and Mecklenburg County. Table 5 below shows the forecasted distribution of
commercial acreage by designated subarea.

-kl l (Vier TotIj Tot,-,I l??k?le Total Avail, hle
rc<i* Corridor ,G C?x?idots .vest"" Luul'- C?)rriiioi G I.uid - ?11(xher
1 25 51 1,527 1,502 1,47
2 g 25 734 726 709
3 43 17 212 169 195
4 17 25 1,224 1,207 1,199
5 33 8 271 238 263
6 8 g 403 395 395
7 g 8 328 320 32
8 g 8 388 380 38
9 17 17 499 482 482
TOU:
167
16
S.SWi
5.419
5.419
*In addition to the 1,103 acres in Scenario I
**Proposed for con racial
There are five alternative alignments proposed for the Monroe Connector project.
Corridor G is located along existing US-74, connecting to the Monroe Bypass near Rocky
River Road. Because of only slight variations in interchange locations, the other four
alternative alignments, D-2, D-3, E-2, and E-3, all include the same amount of acreage by
subarea.
7
As a result of the proposed roadway being built, an additional 167 acres of commercial
development is forecasted within the entire watershed area, all of which would occur in
the impact area. This total is added to the 1,103 acres in Scenario 1 for the total amount
of forecasted commercial development between 2000 and 2020 in this scenario. The
distribution of the 1,103 acres of commercial development in Scenario 1 would remain
the same even when the Monroe Connector/Bypass is built. Therefore, only the induced
commercial acreage as a result of the roadway is shown in Table 5 above.
As was the case in Scenario 1, we divided the total 167 acres into retail, office, and
industrial categories to more accurately distribute the induced growth. The share of the
total for each category (retail=92 acres, office=40 acres, industrial=35 acres) was
determined by what the share in Scenario 1 was forecasted to be between 2000 and 2020.
Most of the induced commercial development surrounds the interchanges closer to
Mecklenburg County, feeding off the Monroe Bypass/Connector, US-74, and I-485. It
was determined that most of the interchanges closer to Mecklenburg County would have
a combination of office, retail, and industrial uses, while interchanges further east would
tend to be predominantly retail-oriented, with a certain amount of industrial uses as well.
Scenario 3 (Residential):
With the environmental development controls in place within the Duck and Goose Creek
basins (represented by Subarea 1), only 4%, or 548 households of the total 13,690
forecasted households within the impact area were allocated to Subarea 1. In Scenario 2,
without the development controls, Subarea 1 comprised 20.6%, or 2,820 households.
The density at which these households are developed also changes between Scenario 2
and Scenario 3. Whereas the Subarea 1 households in Scenario 2 were fairly equally
distributed among the three different density levels, all of the Subarea 1 households in
Scenario 3 are forecasted to be developed as GRes (0-1 DU/AC). Because of this, the
amount of developed acreage is similar between the two scenarios for Subarea 1.
Table G_ Crenarin 3c 2000-2020 Additional Develoned Land (Acreage)

1rnpactArea..,,' GRes
-(0-t DI/AC) I-M rbvr
(I-2.; DU/AC) iN1 11DLr1a?
1?=2.5 DIYAC) 'total
Developed Eaml 't'otal
Area" AvaiLrble'
Land
1 1,096 1,096 9,659 8,563
2 1,472 1,472 11,313 9,841
3 968 968 1,275 307
4 1,188 1,188 5,181 3,993
5 274 274 1,153 879
6 411 411 3,078 2,667
7 2,256 22 40 2,318 18,498 16,180
8 174 174 1,401 1,227
9 347 347 1,426 1,079
10 1,153 1,153 7,568 6,415
11 574 574 1,743 1,169
12 483 483 4,751 4,268
13 1,115 1,115 15,949 14,834
1 otol: 5.571 2,948 3,054 11.573 82,995 71,4221
*Only in impact area
**Proposed for residential
:I An indirect effect of implementing the environmental development controls in Subarea 1
is that the growth that would have occurred there is now distributed in neighboring
{ subareas, particularly in Subarea 2, whose boundaries match that of the Crooked Creek
=i basin. Whereas in Scenario 2 this subarea comprised 18.1%, or 2,480 households of the
total 13,690 forecasted households within the impact area, in Scenario 3, it comprised
25%, or 3,423 households (nearly 1,000 more households). Because of the high-density
(2.5 DU/AC) development nature within Subarea 2, the resulting acreage total of 1,472
acres is only 377 acres higher than the 1,095-acre total in Scenario 2.
The distribution of the 3,666 induced households because of the proposed roadway
remains the same as it was in Scenario 2, with the Duck and Goose Creek basins
(Subarea 1) receiving no additional development as a result of the Monroe
Bypass/Connector in either scenario. Of these induced households, Subarea 10, located
in eastern Union County where the Monroe Bypass connects with US-74, is forecasted to
comprise 33%, or 1,210 households representing 605 acres (2 DU/AC). This high
percentage allocation is mostly due to a substantial travel time savings of nearly 30
minutes for commuters to Mecklenburg County, making Subarea 10 more attractive for
residential development.
Scenario 3 (Commercial):
Same as Scenario 2.
.I
Reference data were combined to create a single land-use layer utilizing eight
categories reported by Dodd et al. (2002). Figure 2 depicts the current land-use
conditions within the DWQ Study Area. The existing area of category was calculated,
and median ExCo values were multiplied by the area for each category to obtain total
estimated nutrient export for current land-use conditions (Table 1 a).
SCENARIO 1: YEAR 2020 WITHOUT THE BYPASS
HNTB provided ESC with GIS data depicting anticipated development assuming that the
Bypass is not constructed by Year 2020. These data are based on current zoning, the
Union County future land use plan, developable land, and best professional judgment.
Developable land is all land currently available for development after existing
development and constraining factors (poor soils for septic, floodplains, and steep
slopes) have been removed. HNTB also provided ESC with the total hectarage of
predicted development for the four developed land-use categories
(Industrial/Commercial, Low Density Urban, Medium/High Density Urban, and General
Residential). ESC used these data to derive future land-use within the DWQ Study
Area. Future development was predicted along road corridors, adjacent to similar land
uses, and away from constraining factors such as floodplains. Future development
within the four developed land-use categories were derived separately in accordance
with HNTB guidance. During the process, some current land uses were converted to
different land use categories (example: Forest/Wetland may have been converted to
Low Density Urban). Predicted nutrient export for Scenario 1 is provided in Table 1 b.
The land use predicted for Year 2020 without the Bypass is provided in Figure 3.
SCENARIOS 2 AND 3: YEAR 2020 WITH THE BYPASS
The indirect and cumulative impacts resulting from Bypass construction have been
determined by HNTB to be restricted to the Impact Area. Additional lands outside the
Impact Area (but within the DWQ Study Area) are expected to experience growth similar
to conditions without the road. After calculating Bypass-related land-use changes within
the Impact Area, ESC personnel combined future development derived for Scenario 1
(without the Bypass) to future development with the Bypass (Scenario 2 or 3). The
cumulative, predicted future development was used to update current land-use
conditions through the use of GIS spatial analysis.
For Scenario 3, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), DWQ, and N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission (WRC) have been negotiating additional land-use policies and
controls aimed at reducing nutrient and sediment run-off from future development in
order to prevent further degradation of 303d-listed (impaired) streams and protect critical
habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata). The heelsplitter is a federally
Endangered mussel endemic to the region. Two of three stream systems within North
Carolina that contain existing population of the species, Goose and Duck Creeks, are
located within both the DWQ Study Area and the Impact Area. For this reason,
additional land-use policies are considered imperative by the resource agencies in order
to protect water quality important to aquatic resources.
7
/lG067 - Li 5'71 Individual Permit QA/QC data collection sheet
10d- oe G .-r - a ss? (3 fie,
Project Name ?? Project # ??? ?? County ?i
1. Original Application (format fo data: month/day/year)
Date of Public Notice // -7 I d
Date Put on Hold (if any) -5- 7 d-5?
Date Info Received (if any) at 0a
Date Put on Hold again (if any) 45 f
Date Info Received again (if any) 8-/ 31U?
Date Put on Hold again (if any) ?9 C)
Date Info Received again (if an )
Date 401 Issued ?r? ?'? cJ a
II. First Modification
Date modification request received
Date Put on Hold (if any)
Date Info Received (if any)
Date Put on Hold again (if any)
Date Info Received again (if any)
Date Put on Hold again (if any)
Date Info Received again (if any)
Date modified 401 Issued
III.. Second Modification
Date modification request received
Date Put on Hold (if any)
Date Info Received (if any)
Date Put on Hold again (if any)
Date Info Received again (if any)
Date Put on Hold again (if any)
Date Info Received again (if any)
Date modified 401 Issued
IV. Third Modification
Date modification request received
Date Put on Hold (if any)
Date Info Received (if any)
Date Put on Hold again (if any)
Date Info Received again (if any)
Date Put on Hold again (if any)
Date Info Received again (if any)
Date modified 401 Issued
V. Fourth Modification
Date modification request received
Date Put on Hold (if any)
Date Info Received (if any)
Date Put on Hold again (if any)
Date Info Received again (if any)
Date Put on Hold again (if any)
Date Info Received again (if any)
Date modified 401 Issued
Indvidual Permit QA/QC data collection sheet
Project Name [V47r,0-6iA!V-,- Project # C County
IV.
V.
Original Application (format f r d a: month/day/year)
Date of Public Notice
Date Put on Hold (if any)
Date Info Received (if any) 3
Date Put on Hold again (if any) V
Date Info Received again (if any)
Date Put on Hold again (if any)
Date Info Received again (if any) °
Date 401 Issued
First Modification
Date modification request received
Date Put on Hold (if any)
Date Info Received (if any)
Date Put on Hold again (if any)
Date Info Received again (if any)
Date Put on Hold again (if any)
Date Info Received again (if any)
Date modified 401 Issued
Second Modification
bate modification request received
Date Put on Hold (if any)
Date Info Received (if any)
Date Put on Hold again (if any)
Date Info Received again (if any)
Date Put on Hold again (if any)
Date Info Received again (if any)
Date modified 401 Issued
Third Modification
Date modification request received
Date Put on Hold (if any)
Date Info Received (if any)
Date Put on Hold again (if any)
Date Info Received again (if any)
Date Put on Hold again (if any)
Date Info Received again (if any)
Date modified 401 Issued
Fourth Modification
Date modification request received
Date Put on Hold (if any)
Date Info Received (if any)
Date Put on Hold again (if any)
Date Info Received again (if any)
Date Put on Hold again (if any)
Date Info Received again (if any)
Date modified 401 Issued
6-14 /O"-7,
??
??

M SfA7E°
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
October 31, 2003
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
401 Wetland Certification Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
ATTN: Mr. John Dorney

Dear Sir:
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
WETLANDS/ 401 GROUP
0 C T 3 1 2003
WATER QUALITY SECTION
SUBJECT: WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION NO. 3395, MONROE BYPASS, TIP
PROJECT NOS R-2559 B AND C
On October 5, 2002, Water Quality Certification No. 3395 (WQC), pursuant to
section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act, was issued for the Monroe Bypass, TIP Project
Nos. R-2559 B and C. The NCDOT Hydraulics Unit obiectcd to inulations in Condition 6
Lin the WOE_regarding,?itesl,3,?,1Q,15.and 15A. Personnel frorri ti2e`Hydraulics'Unit met :r
with Mr. TaM, St. John of your staff on A?.ig tst 28,2003 An agreement was reached on the
modifications of these sites. The modified drawings are included in Appendix A for your
approval.
2003. A copy of the design is included in Appendix B.
Site 2 was also addressed in Condition 6. NCDOT has already changed the design to
include a type "A" basin to ensure better sedimentation and erosion control. This design
was sent to DWQ in a letter addressed to Mr. Steve Lund of the USACE dated February 24,
Additionally, Condition 8 requires NCDOT to submit a maintenance plan for all
storm water management facilities and hazardous spill catch basins associated with the
project. The Hazardous Spill Basin Maintenance Commitments, which are being
provided to comply with this condition, are included in Appendix C.
2, 2003
A `1" t
cw?duw
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
44- A's

wv- r

C n? , (o) I'VL-a cam-
U
w Y-4

TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

The North Carolina Department of Transportation requests a letter verifying your
acceptance and if appropriate, your approval of these issues. If you have any questions or
need additional information, please contact Mr. Lindsey Riddick at 919-715-1459.
Sincerely,
u ,
Grego J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: Mr. Steve Lund, USACE Asheville Field Office
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, NCDOT Coordinator
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Mr. Chris Militscher, USEPA
Mr. John Sullivan, III, FHWA
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Dave Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. B. G. Payne, P.E., Division 10 Engineer
Mr. Larry Thompson, Division 10 DEO
Mr. Michael Wood, LSS, Catena Group

APPENDIX A
Section R-2559 C Modified Drawings

z 0
H a ?
? ?
1 p" g p,,, U O

t `s F rT U
91

ig
4
W

O
z 0
? H F
1 E,; o Z v ?
A a ? a w

ss s { ?
a

?
`' • I
?
? sus ss
'
•? as of not
r
l
e r
r
•

\
?
\ ar
`
• a a
s
oil a wl >?
'? ?, vt?esyr? I ?,

a A
iiaa i
oil b
i `,
l i i i i i rr i• ? ???.?
1 sass aar• ''? ;??5

{ ?? sr
e s
I 3 ? •

I C146. a
1 ? s r
r? ?
! r s a
a a sy
o: sy
{
I r ry ?

1 N
1
1 1
1
I
{ t
t
I
I
i
O

O

s

M
O
H
;?
x o o
U O
o c z H
U o
U A c 0. aH
H
W
-I- 00+ZZ 'V1S w w
z
/ 0 a
1\1 0``
O m
1 ?\ sef j U
? i .
\ 1 z pace
\ \ ? cad 1
? \ vs! U o
2 !
1
i /
1 \ z ? /
1 z i /
I w /
t m
I d
I U
1 vs s?
1 ; I
1 ?? I N
-l- Otr+OZ 'V1S
C)
f
z o 0
b 311S -l- 00+9Z 'd1S 3NIIH01VY4 E+
I 1 F U W
0: I ' a z ?
rT.
I 1 c C w
E" O z F, ? W ?
` i O 0 z E" ? E"' O
U
1 W C M a-
? W Ey
" ?d i U A a ? U m
1 1 ?
I ?
I H Y I
O I I °?
o
1
r e? ?
1
I I ?
sz '
di 1 ,\
_\ y 1
I
I
1 I ? mV
I ? I ? t'
I" s? a 1 W z
I03
I I
I
1 I
1
1
I 1
I ?
( I
1 1
1 ' to
1 ?
>fZ ? ?
1 Ez:
1 \?
1 O
II Q
I

0
d3a a f o O o
g H
U.IA
m
IYi ? ? U
1 ?? ? 00, ? E'" a 4 z W
11 ? Z 0.4"
U "" W
I t F 0 H W lr
Ozo °' go w
y o z H H o
'1 / sa A ? w ? w
1 CU o, U
' z
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
I Y ?
I
? I
' o I ? W
' E
j r I *--4
1 cc I ??J B
I ? 1 ? f-d
I ? 1
EA
I I
I I ? Z•i
I
LZ II ?, z
1 1
1
A
1 ,
I
cr- Ilk
IL ? \?.v ? I W N
} I+w ° Fi?ws ? a
OSIF
cc la
0 I I V?
f- ' I C
D r N
I
I 1
I
i ,
O
I
6 311S -l- 00+9Z 'd1S 3NIlHOiVN p
f
z q0 o

O
a
x H
P a z
a

0 w
W

\ i a
i F I E
O z
w Zo E~ ?c
w
`?

N dDu dOa
stc N sU
t (s,
N SMO9l3 iM
drtO OOf E.; Q
C Z cd
E4
t X
G
\
Z8
-
It ,.4 44 G W
w i-
E.
'_- `. ! v
I a a
a
? V

'
t rA

t \

I ` ?
I -\
I
I O
I ,
t I a
w

t
I M
I
?
?
H
z
t \ ? ?
[13 a
t N N
l8 j

dOa S i
V r
N m ?
: >
°'?
a a3
Or
Fy
l si£
t `
i
0 I? c
i a

4. 0 1

? ?
I I
t
t I
I

I
t
1
?+. I
I
1 ?
1 ,
., 1

t r ?
I 1 ?
N
I
I r
r
I
I r
?
O
O

0
M
0 A
?1 I o v?
?? ? ? x z S a o ca
Cl)
I z p o C
fig o
I _.. _ O O?' c-S
\ ,'?` 1 col W Cj C r6
w a w
a U W
?a ? o H
95
U
to \ j • I U y J 04
\ \ I 11 I /1?' W W
in c z a a
W
H •
0 000(o
l I
1 I ? U
1 I F F E
1
.. 1
' o
r- '
'?? i i O

z
A o
?

F ?" x

O ? U
E
.,

02d be ?7")
w

CL U
0-4
a w F, ?
W
W
O
?

CL ? Z H
0
J
zz?
W
1.4 o
a
A
U 1^4 U M

a
D
CI 6
R

j
LL.

?a
to
® O
a ~ r ^

F1 v
U-
cc

?
r
V/
LL.

a

C.D

11
N M ?
Z N N ;
in 0
F- t + M N Ifl O

z
U

N ? ?
? ?
M
Q N P

33
OO I
t1 Ill
-?J J PM } } } } }
a
a vy ? w
x i
V
v y

N
N
tD Q O 1L1
O lf) I[1 ? {
O N 1[f t0 If
m

^ V V? V n n V v

F F 4 4 Y}- Y-
w M I+f n M M
_0 o 0 o a o

W
v E E E E E
0 0 0 0 0

LL ul O v co ?

IEc v to O
N M ? M M
O

m c! O
N O
N O
v ?
O Q .
tD .
tED tE0 IA
? OO O C C O
2
I-

J

m n IEn O E E
X N M Q M N
W
J } v}• w w w
Y N N r v m
.
.

X v m in 1 w!
W c 0 0 0 0
W 1 J K F
? W
a'
J> 1 1
Z
0
1
}
? + + N m m O

O
~ ~ O r
O
Q QY
(MIN O O N
VI li
N ?
N o
co

?
> X X

W W W W W

!n
N
y
!n a w W
N

c'

A?A
H
W
a
U
N
0,
Z
177

1
cl:
W
a
two
V
0
1-/)
E o
o L `i--

x m 0
Y E E

C E
:3
=E
vc E
L0
IZ4
0+-6
L.-
3x
E
h
U
c
mE -0 OLm
a- c a m
?Ewrm?

m
-
0FEa m
0 a E0 70ELRr-C
?-N
L-0 X to N? OOEmmmt }-

C Q
Do °'-°o
U
O O
L E pN
O E Vm
0 p
Cm
o
7+ m
V
v
0c am _C
E = .
C
°
o
mcy N
m
p,
r oL
E
(D+- .
v+
+
ID--
o
E0 3

Ili
w
?c (a
vv
CjmO >o
p 4
3 CLCO
EwV cm?
m
nm : a>,V a
>
$ OE°-°
.0 C) rE
V-
t m
n(D 7C rm
7LrO0V`? N
ON
m
+ OX 0 V-C C0C.OL'E'O U
0
7000E
E t 7jN
0 fAILp.000.0 w
rL-
0
C N
- }
- L
COpC O-comp,Lm
LL
7Vr N
+
000 L
0 L
'
p ' 2 mV
jLC0
mW Oma 0
0 O YO
4'0 ,Lj
-
o
V E
p
OTEp 0
r0 O
y 0
LrE +'LO
M
n
+rVOm00 t
i
i
?c tnoOL mC y mm+ 0OWrVEO i
? a° CE 0 0 0 m o noc? a u

s zo a3 J'0 (r U..C 0 CD ) O' DttoOu- _
0
,a
-oa m
a°> a
9
X71
i
b
?O J V
W
O
A
D
00
w
m 3
m _T

O ?
3
M
W

3
a0 0
o
a8

0 0
a ?o g
7
00+981'ViS-1- 3NI1HO.LVA
e I co 9 ?w
?S 1 Z W
0E E CL * I a1 0 F, 0
Omn \ "•1 ) F V FZ
goo ?. ? - 1 z ?, o ?
005 r-+ I 00
z F w
1 i (~ W O
IS on
5? I Q ? C
U 1-.
I ?? -? I 2 w
t?A
00
' 00 l u
I 1 I s a
1 p p I •a
I '.
• W 0 w I # a l.L
1 Z= } cQ
r I aia
I
a? 1 v=? Qom' 1
m I s INN N N I m; O
w a
aCt: m m ' I Z
rw 1 I ¢ ?
No
WZ wZ
1 1£ 3 •: SL€ I f- m r- a
I _ I O Q O J
i I ZW Zt-
w J W w
1 I
N ?? I
O 1 1
I 0
1 I •, 1 O
I ? I
rat ,
?? 1
r I ,
,. I N_ ..
1 ,
I 1 0
1 ? I
x
M / 1
zx
" z
1:1'.•x..,. \ 0 F rn
L O a ,?-
Him-
• LL ' to
E
? NEl
W o
O O V V 1
W O 7'1 7l 1 ti
a N n \ !? i ? I j '?,
\
Lj
LLI
eLY
20
?.? • y VI N 1 .t
CL o
f ?I I > - a
m to
"
co ;
1
c'I! co.
. :
1 - I
1 ? ? 1
? • . I t
LL
11? ; v a
1 ? I
' LL r 1
iO uEi 4 . .. y F_ :%_ I N-I
°w J o..o M 05h 056
0 1 . ` I
0 ¢ I
o n of LL y S ..... 1
CL t t. ,
I I
:"•? f
06+881 3N.11WIdW
O
N
0
0
r
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
t
1
I
I
I
U
• LL W
s
? f
a«s LL W

W O
N H
2 ? ?

W
J Q
XN
? LL W Z
N O N
N O N Q
!-K
O Q HQ
O J H~
O W
ZW Zf- Z?
W J
Oc.> W W
p3 W
O?

a

Z

a?

f
4 .
APPENDIX C
Hazardous Spill Basin Maintenance Commitments

Hazardous Spill Basin Maintenance Commitments
• Annual Inspection for structural integrity
(cut slope stability, embankment erosion or scour)
• Annual Inspection of control structure
(sandbag replacement, Tube & maintenance of mechanical devices)
• Annual Inspection for vegetation control
(woody vegetation removal, etc.)
• Hazardous Spill Removal & Cleanup
Immediate action will be taken to coniain spill and prevent discharge into
receiving waters.
Spill removal and cleanup by contractual service provider or responsible parties
will proceed ASAP.
I
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Division of Water Quality
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
Wetlands/401 Unit
Street Address: 2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Mailing Address: 1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Contact Information: Phone #: [phone]
Fax #: [phone]
Fax To: [Atc LIJ Fag #: 04 Company: Date: 10 ?2a? Z
.umber of pages including cover sheet:
votes or special instructions:
.4

C. Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
-50 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
21 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
19) 733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwedands
FW: Counter Proposal to Wildlife Agencies
Subject: FW: Counter Proposal to Wildlife Agencies
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 14:40:23 -0600
From: <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
You will get this eventually. Go Packers!
Y
-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [ma ilto:ch risp@co. union. nc. us]
Sent: October 01, 2002 4:21 PM
To: Deaton, Shannon L.
Cc: MShalati@co. union. nc. us; 3 Lesch@co. union. nc. us; RBlack@co. union. nc. us; ][e-mail]. nc.us;
David [e-mail]. us; Kreutzberger, Bill/CLT; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Counter Proposal to Wildlife Agencies
On behalf of Union County and the towns of Stallings, Indian Trail, and Mint Hill, I am pleased to transmit the
attached counterproposal for riparian buffer requirements to protect the Carolina Heelsplitter mussel and its habitat
in Union County.* While the buffers we are proposing are not as extensive as you have requested, we believe they
substantially exceed anything that has been implemented in North Carolina and will provide the necessary protection
to the mussel, particularly when implemented in conjunction with the other proposed management strategies. We
have maintained 200 foot buffers in large portions of the affected watersheds, have a minimum of 100 foot buffer in
all designated critical habitat areas, and a minimum of 50 feet in all other areas. Undisturbed forested buffers would
be required over major portions of these areas. Please keep in mind that these buffers are a last line of defense and
that we have already committed to significant other land use controls, including density restrictions and advanced
stormwater management requirements.
We believe that we have reached a critical juncture in this process. We have an opportunity to work together to put
in place a very aggressive, far-reaching program of endangered species and water quality protection that can serve
as a model for the state and the country. This would be a true "win-win, allowing our needed infrastructure
developments to move forward, while ensuring that the environment is protected from cumulative and secondary
impacts. However, it will not be easy to get this program adopted and there is no guarantee that the governing
bodies of our jurisdictions will approve it. We expect considerable opposition from affected parties, but given the
importance of what is at stake, we are prepared to work hard to make this happen. We believe that the sooner we
act, the better our chances of success. In addition, the longer we wait, the greater the risk to the mussel. We
therefore hope that we can move quickly to reach a final agreement and begin the process of working to get the
proposed management strategies adopted.
Once you have had a chance to review this proposal, please let me know what you think about next steps. Thanks
very much for your assistance.
*Please be advised that Mint Hill is prepared to adopt the proposed buffers and other management strategies in
connection with the construction of the proposed regional wastewater treatment plant or authorization of an
interbasin transfer, but does not see the necessity to do so in connection with construction of the Highway.74 bypass.
1 of 2 10/2/02 5:12 PM
FW: Counter Proposal to Wildlife Agencies
Name: CounterProposal.doc
Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword)
CounterProposal.doc Encoding: base64
Description: CounterProposal.doc
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
Name: Attachmentl.pdf
Type: Acrobat (application/pdf)
Encoding: base64
Description: Attachmentl.pdf
Download Status: Not downloaded with me
2 of 2 10/2/02 5:12 PM
Counter Proposal on Goose, Duck and Waxhaw Creek Basins
Subject: Counter Proposal on Goose, Duck and Waxhaw Creek Basins
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 17:11:37 -0400
From: "Deaton, Shannon L." <[e-mail]>
To: "Alderman, John M." <[e-mail]>,
"'[e-mail]"' <[e-mail]>,
"Chambers, Marla J." <[e-mail]>,
"Cox, David R." <[e-mail]>,
"' [e-mail]"' <[e-mail]?-
"Fowlkes, Mark D." <[e-mail]>,
"Johnson Ratcliffe, Judith" <johnsonj5 @mindspring.com>,
"'[e-mail]"' <[e-mail]?-
"John [e-mail]"' <[e-mail]?- "Linville, Ron" <[e-mail]>,
"'lthompson@dot. state.nc.us"' <[e-mail]>
"'[e-mail]"' <[e-mail]?-
"' [e-mail]"' <[e-mail]?-
"McBride, Frank" <[e-mail]>,
"'[e-mail]"' <[e-mail]?
"'[e-mail]"' <[e-mail]?
"Pender, Danielle R." <[e-mail]>,
"'[e-mail]"' <[e-mail].=?
"'[e-mail]"' <[e-mail]?-
"'[e-mail]"' <[e-mail]. mil>
CC: "Harris, Frederick" <[e-mail]>,
"Borawa, James C." <[e-mail]>,
"Van Horn, Scott L." <[e-mail]>,
"Fraley, Stephen J." <fraleysj @charter.net>
I have received a counter proposal from Union County and Mint Hill in
response to WRC's 2nd buffer proposal. For your convenience, I have also
attached a chart including the contents of WRC's 2nd buffer proposal for
your reference. Christy Putnam did not technically give me a deadline that
we should work with on responding to this proposal but expressed its urgency
due to several outside factors. Please plan on sending me written comments
via email by Tuesday, October 8. I do not think there are plans to have
another meeting but we should let them know if we feel there is a need.
If you have questions, feel free to send them to Christy Putnam
([e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> ) or through me to
Christy, whichever works best.
I just received this information and have not had a chance to fully review
it. I wanted to make sure I forwarded it out ASAP.
Shannon Deaton
Habitat Conservation Section
NCWRC Division of Inland Fisheries
1721 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1721
919/733-3633 x 283 phone
919/715-7643 fax
-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
[SMTP:[e-mail]. nc.usI <mailto:[SMTP:[e-mail]. nc.usI>
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 4:21 PM
To: Deaton, Shannon L.
Cc: [e-mail]; <mailto:[e-mail];>
I of 3 10/2/02 7:21 AM
Counter Proposal on Goose, Duck and Waxhaw Creek Basins
[e-mail]. nc.us; <mailto:[e-mail]. nc.us;>
[e-mail]. nc.us; <mailto:[e-mail]. nc.us;>
JonDyer@co. union. nc. us; <mailto:[e-mail]. nc.us;>
DavidPowell@co. union. nc. us; <mailto:[e-mail]. nc.us;>
[e-mail]; <mailto:[e-mail];>
[e-mail]; <mailto:[e-mail];>
[e-mail]; <mailto:[e-mail];>
[e-mail]; <mailto:[e-mail];> jcm@indiantrail:org;
<mailto:[e-mail];> [e-mail];
<mailto:[e-mail]. nc.us;> [e-mail];
<mailto:[e-mail];> [e-mail];
<mailto:[e-mail];> [e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Counter Proposal to Wildlife Agencies
On behalf of Union County and the towns of Stallings, Indian Trail, and Mint
Hill, I am pleased to transmit the attached counterproposal for riparian
buffer requirements to protect the Carolina Heelsplitter mussel and its
habitat in Union County.* While the buffers we are proposing are not as
extensive as you have requested, we believe they substantially exceed
anything that has been implemented in North Carolina and will provide the
necessary protection to the mussel, particularly when implemented in
conjunction with the other proposed management strategies. We have
maintained 200 foot buffers in large portions of the affected watersheds,
have a minimum of 100 foot buffer in all designated critical habitat areas,
and a minimum of 50 feet in all other areas. Undisturbed forested buffers
would be required over major portions of these areas. Please keep in mind
that these buffers are a last line of defense and that we have already
committed to significant other land use controls, including density
restrictions and advanced stormwater management requirements.
We believe that we have reached a critical juncture in this process. We
have an opportunity to work together to put in place a very aggressive,
far-reaching program of endangered species and water quality protection that
can serve as a model for the state and the country. This would be a true
"win-win, allowing our needed infrastructure developments to move forward,
while ensuring that the environment is protected from cumulative and
secondary impacts. However, it will not be easy to get this program adopted
and there is no guarantee that the governing bodies of our jurisdictions
will approve it. We expect considerable opposition from affected parties,
but given the importance of what is at stake, we are prepared to work hard
to make this happen. We believe that the sooner we act, the better our
chances of success. In addition, the longer we wait, the greater the risk
to the mussel. We therefore hope that we can move quickly to reach a final
agreement and begin the process of working to get the proposed management
strategies adopted.
Once you have had a chance to review this proposal, please let me know what
you think about next steps. Thanks very much for your assistance.
*Please be advised that Mint Hill is prepared to adopt the proposed buffers
and other management strategies in connection with the construction of the
proposed regional wastewater treatment plant or authorization of an
interbasin transfer, but does not see the necessity to do so in connection
with construction of the Highway 74 bypass.
<<CounterProposal.doc>> <<Attachmentl.pdf>>
-----Original Message-----
From: Deaton, Shannon L.
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 6:03 PM
To: '[e-mail]'
Subject: WRC 2nd Buffer Proposal on Goose, Duck and Waxhaw Creek
2 of 3 10!2!02 7:21 AM
Counter Proposal on Goose, Duck and Waxhaw Creek Basins
Basins
Importance: High
I have attached it and copy pasted it. I am sorry for the delay on this. Let
me know if you need for me to fax it to you somewhere else.
<<WRC2ndBufferProposalUnion.xls>>
Proposed Local Jurisdiction Buffer Widths
in Goose Creek Watershed
Upstream Drainage Area Critically Designated or Occupied Habitat
Streamside Zone (Zone 1) Upland Zone (Zone 2)
> 300 acres Y 200
N 100 flood fringe
50 - 300 acres Y 150 50
N 75 25
< 50 acres * * Y 50 50
N 30 20
* Utilities remain outside the buffer and stream crossings minimized.
Utilities allowed in certain circumstances as allowed by state and federal
agencies.
* * To include streams shown on County Soil Survey, USGS, and detailed
stream mapping, whichever is more restrictive and complete.
Name: CounterProposal.doc
M--?-__--. CounterProposal.doc Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword)
Encoding: base64
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
Name: Attachmentl.pdf
?Attachmentl.pdf Type: Acrobat (application/pdf)
Encoding: quoted-printable
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
T Name: WRC2ndBufferProposalUnion.xls
Type: Microsoft Excel Worksheet
M'--_'-M?_---_ WRC2ndBufferProposalUnion.xls (application/vnd.ms-excel)
Encoding: base64
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
3 of 3 10/2/02 7:21 AM
UNION COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TO: Shannon Deaton, NC Wildlife Resources
FROM: Christie Putnam, Union County Stormwater
SUBJECT: Counter Buffer Proposal
DATE: 10/02/02
The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to the proposal put forth by the wildlife
agencies (the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service) for riparian stream buffers in the Goose, Duck and Waxhaw Creek
watersheds in Union and Mecklenburg County at a meeting on September 3, 2002. This
proposal was prepared in consultation with staff from the Division of Water Quality and
Division of Land Quality. The following table summarizes the resource agencies' buffer
proposal.
September 3, 2002
Drafted by Wildlife Agencies
Upstream
Drainage
Area Critical/Occupied
Habitat
Design tion Streamside Zone
(Zone 1) Upland Zone
(Zone 2)
>300 acres Yes 200'
No 100' Flood fringe
50-300 acres Yes 150' 50'*
No 75' 25'
<50 acres** Yes 50' 50'
No 30' 20'
'Utilities remain outside buffer and stream crossings minimized. Utilities allowed in certain
circumstances as allowed by state agencies and federal agencies
**To include streams shown on County Soil Survey and USGS and detailed stream mapping;
whichever is greater
This memorandum will attempt to clarify the areas of the watershed for which the critical
habitat protection requirements apply and to present a counter proposal for the buffer
requirements based on local government issues and the functional requirements of the
buffers.
Critical Habitat Requirements
After the wildlife agencies developed the above proposal, there was some discussion
about the definition of critical habitat areas for the Goose and Duck Creek watershed
areas. The local jurisdictions were referred to the final critical habitat designations
included in the July 2, 2002 Federal Register. Based on the map included in the Federal
Register, a map was prepared showing the watershed areas where the critical habitat
requirements would apply. This is included as Attachment 1.
Buffer Requirements
The local governments evaluated the proposed buffers as they would be applied within
the jurisdictions in the Goose and Duck Creek watersheds. It was assumed that the
entire Waxhaw Creek watershed would be considered critical habitat. Several points
were raised regarding the buffers as follows:
• The agencies have extensively increased the size of buffers required for small
streams versus the jurisdiction's proposal by redefining the upstream drainage area
requirements. Previously, the local governments proposed one category <300 acres
with a total buffer width of 35 feet.
• When wider buffers are proposed with Streamside (forested) zones of 50 feet or
greater, the need for an upland zone is reduced or eliminated. For sediment control,
a dual zone buffer is valuable when smaller buffers are applied but is not necessary
for buffers where the forested zone exceeds 50 feet especially when there are
separate requirements to prevent stormwater discharges from short-circuiting buffers
(such as level spreaders, etc. which would be employed outside the buffers). Union
County is committing to the development of a local sediment and erosion control
program that should significantly reduce the demand on buffers to protect area
streams.
• The main justification for the wider buffers proposed by the resource agencies are
the energy requirements of the stream ecosystem (such as organic material from leaf
litter) to support the endangered organisms. While the local governments do not fully
concur with this justification, an additional upland zone beyond the forested buffers
cannot be justified based on the "energy" rationale.
• The resource agencies' proposal will extensively impact small watershed areas. GIS
analyses will soon be available to determine the exact areas impacted by the buffers.
Preliminary analyses of the critical area within the Duck Creek portion of the
watershed indicate that the resource agencies' proposal will impact as much as 35%
of the watershed.
• The buffer proposals are only a last line of defense for control of runoff from these
watersheds since stormwater management controls for Phase 2 NPDES Stormwater
will be required even for low density development within the watershed with more
extensive stormwater controls for any higher density development.
• Other mechanisms may be available to increase open space within the watersheds
rather than by achieving open space requirements through imposition of wide buffers
for small streams.
2
With these points in mind, the local governments developed a counter proposal to the
resources agencies buffer requirements as follows:
October 1, 2002
Drafted by Local Jurisdictions to
Upstream
Drainage
Area Critical/Occupied
Habitat
Design tion Streamside Zone
(Zone 1) Upland Zone
(Zone 2)
>300 acres Yes 200'
No 100' Flood fringe
50-300 acres Yes 1001*
No 50' --
<50 acres** Yes 50'
No 30' 20'
'Utilities remain outside buffer and stream crossings minimized. Utilities allowed in certain
circumstances as allowed by state agencies and federal agencies
**To include streams shown on County Soil Survey and USGS and detailed stream mapping;
whichever is greater
Summary
The local governments have attempted to define the area for which the critical
habitat requirements apply and present a counter proposal for the buffers based
on several factors.
The local governments have to implement the proposed buffers through a local
ordinance development process. Public pressure is already developing opposing
extensive buffers even though requirements are not yet known to the general
public. Local government staff will begin the process of informing their elected
officials as soon as requirements for the buffers are agreed upon. Time is of the
essence to begin this information process before opponents have time to wage
an extensive misinformation campaign.
v
411,
21r
IM
IYO
Ve
3

S 0 ?0- 0
v S 00 CD CD
N 7 N (p
N Co N
O_ O O
Q
W O ()
C N
a
v
CN
11,31,
G7 0 0 0
O n ' -'
(n r. n 0
(D 0 0 N
n m 2 2
CD (D v N
(D T 6
F ? v v
N D W
N cn C
(CD CD N
Q 2
O
ZD
N
CD

°
o

m
n

,' ? _rt
N 0
?
.
w
7
=
i
C7 O c
o c a ;
C: 0
_ n?
r nCM

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

% \
°o
n

2nd STATE/FEDERAL AGENCY Proposed Local Jurisdiction
Buffer Widths in Goose Creek Watershed

Critically Designated or Streamside Zone Upland Zone
Upstream Drainage Area OCCU ied Habitat Zone 1) Zone 2
> 300 acres Y 200
N 100 flood fringe
50 - 300 acres Y 150 50
N 75 25
< 50 acres * * Y 50 50
N 30 20
* Utilities remain outside the buffer and stream crossings minimized. Utilities allowed in certain
circumstances as allowed by state and federal agencies.
* * To include streams shown on County Soil Survey, USGS, and detailed stream mapping,
whichever is more restrictive and complete.
. .
Monroe Bypass 401 certification
Subject: Monroe Bypass 401 certification
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 15:37:18 -0400
From: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail]
CC: "Bou-Ghazale, Samar" <[e-mail]>,
"Todd St. John" <[e-mail]>, Bev Strickland <[e-mail]>,
Cynthia Van Der Wiele <[e-mail]>,
Coleen Sullins <Coleen. Sullins@ ncmail.net>, Dennis Ramsey <[e-mail]>,
Jerry Mccrain <[e-mail]>, Milt Rhodes <[e-mail]>,
Robert Deaton <[e-mail]>, [e-mail],
Milt Rhodes <[e-mail]>, bellis @dot. state.nc.us,
[e-mail]
the 401 certification for the monroe bypass has been issued and will be
mailed tomorrow. if anyone really needs (as opposed to just "wants"!) a
copy faxed to them, please call bev strickland at 919-733-1786 and she
will do so tomorrow.
i really appreciate all the hard work that samar and cynthia did on this
one to address various issues as well as the hard work that DOT,
consultants (esp Matt Cusack of Ecoscience - Jerry please forward this
email to Matt), the City of Monroe, Union County and the Town of
Stallings did to help pull various pieces together. we look forward to
continuing to work with all the local municipalities in the area to
complete the land use management package.
1 of 1 10/3/02 10:45 AN
? AT ?RpG
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
October 1, 2002
Memorandum To: Cynthia Van der Weile
Through: John Dorn
From: Todd St. John
Subject: Monroe Bypass
Union County
DWQ# R-2559C
Potential Conditions:
$$) Site 1 (plan sheet 6 of 25)
The plans for Site 1 shall be revised to include the removal of the ditch from the flood plain and
the addition of a pre-form scour hole at the termination of the ditch. The ditch and scour hole
shall be constructed according to the revised plans.
$$) Sites 3, 10, and 15+15A (plan sheets 8, 17, 22 of 25, respectively)
Step-pools and vegetated side slopes or similar stream design techniques must be provided
for the relocated stream channels shown on these site plans. The typical plans 41wt shall
include typical cross sections and plan views that indicates the appropriate pool-to-pool
spacing must be approved by the Division of Water Quality's Wetlands Unit before the impacts
approved in this Certification occur. The channels must be constructed, planted, and
maintained per the approved plans before the highway is opened to traffic.
$$) Site 4 (sheets 9 and 10 of 25)
Before any of the impacts approved in this Certification occur, an intensive, on site evaluation
must be conducted by NC DOT and DWQ to review the potential of the use of natural channel
design techniques. Additionally, plans shall be developed based on the evaluation and
approved in writing by the Division of Water Quality's Wetlands Unit before the impacts
approved in this Certification occur. The channels must be constructed, planted, and
maintained per the approved plans before the highway is opened to traffic.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands/
/4 - ??
1 I
1 f
i I
I
i {
i
N / I ~T
1t? (
? pip F G? N I i?
??\ 'va p p p « « ?_ I
a r ?
`,\ eipF i iFF (? ? V
i F «
?_, `,\ E • e i «« Bete t ?
e e
ee
t q Z
-,\ e p i e YM
15
{rip ' p 1 \
t? « p « e
4• t s a F Via. ?$? \ as
1 f F F `\
1 F «
1 « i
t2i 1 FFp pa p't ,-? `-?
CA y { wit' ? --\
??"i n a• b (? { ? a
Ci7 d { ?'
d ,CA., y `
L3 p y?y --
I%j
Pal
,y f
a x
z ' z o

1
1??y1

o z

< N 1 ^ 1 _
1 V
R
?Q .A CSC
IV
C?
a

y
O
L

1
J ? +
I
s
0
N
r
cr-
O
H
E-

44
z O C4
1 O .. 4 a
I F+ U cL' ? a°?
I H 44 U p .r
a
z G=,?
i ?+ x O ° O w
I ? a ?„ v o E» aC a
1? F" ? H w ?
N
cin
0-4 4
? ?' W > x w H
11 ?" i A A a W? W
? I U a v U
1 ! I ? vxi
11 ? ? z
? ? I
? I
1 I
1
I I
CA
1 I F
1
I o
I U- I r?? V
I k? C
1 ? I b ? e
wz z
I I ?j ?I
I
I I
1
I 1
1 Qti.
I I ?---
I {
i {
I {
I I ? Tai
I ? I g
I 93 I /
I ° 3 I
15p CUP
E180W5 I
d32 doa I
I M N SLf Np, I
I LL? LL? I
I I (V
I
I I
I f
I I
I I ?
I I
I I
E
?' 311S --1- 00+93'V1S 3NI-IHOIVW Q
O ?\ ?
'; ` ? ! 24
tra a I ?i
I ?
s I i
I I
I
..I I
I I
I I
gal
C> `o I
I mr-n l
a a 375 ti I
I - RCP I
a ,f 1 ? I
y 1
i _ = I
rA tv \'----
z I /?/
?j C' I 25
I
I
f? 1 Adz I
I O I
0 I ma I O
i H I
I '? Z I
I I
I i
C/? ? .7' I O ?$ I
d d I N i
1
O z
O Go O z Oil i
o c7 I I
C i I
c cn MATCHLINE STA. 26+00 -L- SITE 24•
14 PO
O
0 z
1.
3?
S

0
3
0
JLNZ3
M It
a

0
a
COO
C ?
r
y .`
CA
a
,
,
,
i
i
I ?
i
I O
i
I
1
? 2
,
?
r
1
1
,
?
,
I
O
\
\

%
CB I

Cr1 '?9 .? y' d d I
I
t2i ;d O ?

o z I w% E BOWS ?*'?'
z o I n
N o oo o 'rJ I
M cn z o a

z

? Y o Y
c v,

v
?14 °z z
I
I
. I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
a
1
I
I
I
1
. I
I
Cr I
vm 375 I
RCP I
N N 1 8/
I
l
I
I
w
S i
1
I
I
i
i
I
I
1
s I
?j 82
37S 375
RCP Q RCP
i

1
O
0
N U) It
CA b
r ?
r?
.
.
.
0 o z?
z z x
c
r A r ,?'
y ° * ?•'\

\ 1 \

I
os?,

OCT-01-2002 08:27 NCDOT 919 250 4108 P.01/06
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
HYDRAULICS UNIT
FACSIMILIE TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET
DATE: 0 ! Z.
Please deliver the following pages to:
Name: p 61 104k]
Of.
This facsimilie is being sent by:
Name: a
Fax Number Called: In - L $J3
REMARKS:
M1 AlLtTES 10 IF U.-Tuti-4

JILCAV4 F. 16 E Vt Coy NTR.
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES CLEARLY, CALL BACK AS SOON AS POSSIBLE
Our Telephone Number is, [phone] Our FAX No. is: (919) 250 - 4108
PLEASE COUNT PACES, (INCLWING COVER SHEET) TOTAL NUMBER -
PAGES
OCT-01-2002 08:27 NCDOT 919 250 4108 P.02/06
Subject:
Team Members:
Final Minutes from the Permit Review for
R-2559BIR-25590 Union County held on 2/21/02
Steve Lund
Marella Buncick
Michael Wood
Maryellen Haggard
Marshall Clawson
Dan Duffield
USACE
USFWS
The Catena Group
NCWRC
NCDOT-Hydraulics Unit
NCDOT-Hydraulics Unit
Because her out-of-country trip, Cynthia was not able to attend the Feb. 21, 2002 meeting.
On Feb 14, 2002, DOT staff had arranged a separate meeting for her at the Location &
Survey Conference Room of the Century Center to discuss the subject projects and R-
6091A. In the meeting Marshall Clawson presented Cynthia with a copy of the permit
drawings. With the help of the full size roadway plans Marshall went over the drawings of
each site with Cynthia. Cynthia offered no comments on the drawings except that she
would check with John Hennessey if a permit drawing is needed for wetland impact area
that is less than 0.1 acre.
The rest of the team metnbers met on Feb 21, 2002, at the Photogrammetry Conference
Room. Marshall presented each agency with a copy of the permit drawings. He used a set
of full size plans to go over each drawing with the agencies. The following summarizes
agencies' general or specific comments and questions:
General
Marella inquired about the geotechnical information. She further explained how
it would help review the permits.
• Steve noted that all the streams needed to labeled, even if there is no name use
`unnamed tributary to ?????'°
• All wetland site will be added to the permit.
• Marella and Maryellen asked about adding pipe length to summary this would
help us in knowing the pipe length vs. impacted channel.
• There was a group discussion about the old enclosed channel and adding pipe
length.
• Steve further added a comment about adding the inverts to the permits also.
There was a group discussion about adding inverts and pipe lengths. Some on the
Team want inverts and pipe lengths. Some just want a slope. Marshall explained
that the inverts, pipe/culvert lengths and pipe slopes are really discussion for a
OCT-01-2002 08:28 NCDOT
REVIEW OF R-2559B
_Site 6
919 250 4108 P.06i06
Marella and Steve asked if the abandoned channel was included in the summary.
Site 7
Marella asked if the pipe'shown was in the correct location?
REVIEW OF R-2559C
Sn
Marella asked about the stream impacts of 119 m is this correct?
She also asked if this was a Natural Stream Design??
Michael Wood replied that there was no room here. As the fill and Mountain come
together and create a valley.
Site 4
Steve mentioned that the unlabeled ramp needs to be labeled "Damp C"
Marella wanted the summary check to see if the stream impacts included the small
area at the end of the culverts as this area is lost also.
Si?
Steve wants a cross section at this site as it would help with the permit process.
Site
Marella and Maryellen noted that the channel bottom needs to be re-established
through pond which is being drained and it needs to be shown on permit also.
TOTAL P.06
OCT-01-2002 08:28 NCDOT
919 250 4108 P.05i06
Draft Minutes from the Permit Review for
R-25 59B/R 2559C Union County held on 2/21/02
Partcipants
Steve Lund
Marella Buncick
Michael Wood
Maryellen Haggard
Marshall Clawson
Dan Duffield
USACE
USFW S
The Catena Group
NCWRC
NCDOT-Hydraulics Unit
NCDOT-Hydraulics Unit
General
Marella inquired about the GEOTECH information. She further explained how it
would help in the permit process to know this information early on.
• Steve noted that all the streams needed to labeled, even if there is no name use
`unnamed tributary to ?????"
All wetland site will be added to the permit.
Marella and Maryellen asked about adding pipe length to summary this would
help us in knowing the pipe length vs impacted channel
There was a group discussion about the old enclosed channel and adding pipe
length.
Steve further added a comment about adding the inverts to the permits also.
There was a group discussion about adding inverts and pipe lengths. Some on the
Team want inverts and pipe lengths. Some just want a slope. Marshall explained
that the inverts, pipe/culvert lengths, and pipe slopes are really discussion for a
`°rEAM MEETING" and we'll look into it as everyone needs to being doing the
same thing.
+ Team Members has a general discussion about the location map and further
explained that they would like to see some local roads on the map.
• Marella Wanted the Bridge on Plan Sheet 5 for no-impacts and the Bridge on Plan
Sheet 6 for no-impacts added to the permit anyway, new sites.
Steve wanted flow arrows on the plan views.
« Steve wanted SR numbers of roads add to the permits where possible.
OCT-01-2002 08:28 NCDOT 919 250 4108 P.04i06
site
Marella and Maryellen noted drained and it needs to be showno on permit also re-established
through pond which is being
Channel re-established through drained pond.
OCT-01-2002 08:28 NCDOT 919 250 4108 P.03i06
"TEAM MEETING" and we'll look into it as everyone needs to being doing the
same thing.
Team Members has a general discussion about the location map and fiuther
explained that they would like to see some local roads on the map.
« Marella wanted the Bridge on Plan Sheet 5 for no-impacts and the Bridge on Plan
Sheet 6 for no-impacts added to the permit anyway, new sites.
• Steve wanted flow arrows on the plan views.
• Steve wanted SR numbers of roads add to the permits where possible.
REVIEW OF R-2559B
Site 6
Marella and Steve asked if the abandoned channel was included in the summary.
Abandoned channel will be included in the impacts.
Site 7
Marella asked if the pipe shown was in the correct location?
Stream location corrected.
REVIEW OF R-25590
%L el
Marella asked if the stream impact of 119 m is correct?
She also asked if this was a Natural Stream Design?
Michael Wood replied that there was no room here. As the fill and Mountain come
together and create a valley.
Site 4
Steve mentioned that the unlabeled ramp needs to be labeled "Ramp C".
Marella wanted the summary check to see if the stream impacts included the small
area at the end of the culverts as this area is lost also.
Ramp labeled. Impacts include area between bog culverts.
Site 5
Steve wants a cross section at this site as it would help with the permit process.
Bridge lengthened.
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Division of Water Quality
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
Wetlands/401 Unit
Street Address: 2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Mailing Address: 1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Contact Information: Phone #: [phone]
.Fax #: [phone]
.x To: fflor; A Ck u5? 1
?mpany: /V l.. 4*1e-qu k.
ember of pages including cover sheet:
Fax #: 50 ' 7I0O
Date: 22,/02,
41 .
? , 1. -- (a4
sew,

O
f4tf 914uap
Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
vlail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address) t
?rabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), (http://h2o.enr.state.nt.u§/newetiands
rtes or special instructions: -- (
• PON (a c?? ? h? 14"V- 731.95 M
rim
V?)
iAa STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
` v DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GO"
June 5, 2002
U.S. Army s of Engineers
Asheville R gulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
ATTN: Mr. Steve Lund
Dear Sir:
?j
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
1?;?Er ?A
?,LITy??IP
C? rll?P,I
SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR MONROE BYPASS, TIP NOS. R-2559 B
AND C
Please find enclosed the additional information you requested in a letter dated May 8, 2002 for the
Subject project. If you need additional information, please contact Mr. Michael G. Wood at 919-
732-1300.
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, NCDOT Coordinator
,Xr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. MaryEllen Haggard, NCWRC
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. Dave Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Timothy V. Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
Ms. Susan Cauley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. B. G. Payne, P.E., Division 10 Engineer
Mr. Larry Thompson, Division 10 DEO
Mr. Michael G. Wood, The Catena Group
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WESSITE. WWW.DON.DOT. STATE. NC. US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
Project No. 8.T690401 (R-2559B) %.
Property Owner List
For
Each Wetland Site
Site Parcel NAME Address
NO. NO. DB and Pg
1 O Ruth 0. Helms (Heirs) Mr. Barry Helms, Executive
DB 82E Pg 376 3020 Rochester Ave
Monroe, NC 28110
2 O Everette E. Hatley 1622 Secrest Shortcut
DB 159 Pg 340 Monroe, NC 28110
O Helms Family Limited Partnership 3301 Neal Boyce Rd.
DB 1341 Pg 384 Monroe, NC 28110
Joseph W. Barbee, Sr.

3
_°•
& Selma Funderburk High P.O. Box 1213

i DB 469 Pg 190 Swansboro, NC 28584
Bova Corporation P.O. Box 1609
DB 452 Pg 683 Monroe, NC 28110
4 O Bova Corporation P.O. Box 1609
DB 452 Pg 683 Monroe, NC 28110
Rickey D. Taylor &

O6
Wife Delores T. Rt. 3 Box 903

DB 296 Pg 309 Monroe, NC 28110
5

O Jeffrey Scott Rollins 32613 Morgan Mill Rd.
DB 635 Pg 651 Monroe, NC 28110
Rickey D. Taylor &

6
O
Wife Delores T. Rt. 3 Box 903

DB 296 Pg 309 Monroe, NC 28110

7
O Rodney L. Pierce &
Wife Kandy R. 2527 Morgan Mill Rd.

DB 634 Pg 523 Monroe, NC 28110

O8 Rodney L. Pierce &
Wife Kandy R. 2527 Morgan Mill Rd.

DB 634 Pg 523 Monroe, NC 28110
Phyllis A. Kendall &

8
O 1017 Cyrus Edwards
Timothy C. Walsh
Monroe, NC 28110
DB 715 Pg 473

/0 i -?-- _ '_
John R. Baucom i 33024 Helms Pond Rd.
Monroe
NC 28110
,

N.C. DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISIOkN OF HIGHWAYS
UNION COUNTY
PROJECT: 87690401 (R-2559B)
US-74 NIONROE BYPASS
SHEET OF_ 47 t / 02
Project No. 8.T690401 (R-2559B)
Property Owner List
For
Each Wetland S ite
Site Parcel NAME Address i
NO. NO. DB and Pg
i
j 9
0/0
John R. Baucom 33024 Helms Pond Rd.
I Monroe, NC 28110
i
?
10

'J
Willie D. Baucom r
2617 Olive Branch Rd.

1 ? ! DB 919 Pg 279 Monroe, NC 28110
-? Allen &
Wife Gladys Bigham
2705 Olive Branch Rd.
DB 104 Pg 104 Monroe, NC 28110
11 I

i Hazel B. McCollum, et al. 3016 Helms Pond Rd.

T DB 105 Pg 456 Monroe, NC 28110
f ................__........_...-
-.._ ............... ........................ _._............
_._.._._._..._.__.
.......__ .......... .._.._.._._............_..........................._...._........
Hazel B. McCallum, et al.

3016 Helms Pond Rd -
DB 105 Pg 456 Monroe, NC 28110
? 12 f
?? H.T.
& Dwelle J. Stewart 2316 Randolph Rd.
\?J & R.H. Morrison
DB 362 Pg 19 Charlotte, NC 28207
?
?? H.T. & Dwelle J. Stewart 2316 Randolph Rd
?
i
13
& R.H. Morrison .
DB 362 Pg 19 Charlotte, NC 28207
j 14 t `>> i Edwards Timber Co., Inc. P.O. Box 219 I
DB 607 Pg 680 Marshville, NC 28103
15 Everette E. Hatley 1622 Secrest Shortcut
DB 159 Pg 340
i
i
i Monroe, NC 28110
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
UNION COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.T69001 (R-2559B)
US-74 ?IN1ONROE BYPASS
SHEET-- OF ---- 4 / 1 / 02

N
O
d'

Z

0) m a?i O
0
N rn Z

z= 000
z
z
F-
?0 a
z LL z
00 ?w0
U
? O
~
.D
n
.
> O
LL
00
?
-
0
z n
U
Z

F-
W
W

2
0

CL
ig -a
`?

U
Q
d

Z
CL

O
0
_Z
Z

?
co V
W

Z
W
0
B

C
.
7
? E
d O

Z

m E
• ? M
a U ?_
W
a

a ? ?? o

W
Q .-
?

? ?c
m o
o
`g

M O

C L

o
c
0

0
a

C

` f0
L
O
?
5

V/ O
? O O O O O O
U
Q f6
U S2
U v O o G O O O
a ?
.
C N
U1 O C
? ?
r ? ?
? ? O C C
Q
?
W O

W
$
0 W
amr
v
?
c

H C C
m m
?
C
O
N
O
O
M
W o 0 0 0 0 0 0

E
M
N U
E
N a ? E a
a=+ ?' J N "? ? t- Ix
? to v
N ?. N E J
(n N
00 C

Rl
Q' O ` V ? 17 J A ?'
? r J
? N N ? C,
M
O ?
.?
O +
M
? +
? M
? M
? ?
a ?
O
N co
?
co +
?
rn + +
O
O
N t
G
N +
O
U
X r
U
M M
?,
M m'
M
CL
N a. CL a. Q. CL
?
J
Q

F
w 0
Cn Z N M d' ? t0 W
W
2
O
O
y

l*--,
s

'fZ 311S
1
I VI
1 ?o
I c, m
1 g#
1
1
1
0 t
I
I ?
i
1
I
I
i
I
I
SZ.
r
r
r
r
I
I
1
1
i
C
I ?
I CL
oom o
Iva
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
r
r
r
r
fZ r
-l- 00+9Z 'V1S 3NIIHOiVYV
N I
1 I
i
oil I
? I
a I
vNi Y I
m
i O
?g 1
?e ;
1
1
1
I
i
I
it
V) --
N -t
c I \
1
i
d38 c?
scuts N '
J ?
I
I ?
I ..

b
? Cfl?
?z
as
ac
U
z
A ?.

I ?
I ?
p
r
• ?? N
s o
ii
!,

Z9
/9
V?
f °Os
I
o.. I
d I
s I
G+ I
N
I
f
f-
I
I
I a
I
i
?
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
1
I
o ° C
d
axe' ? xz A
Z4' x O ° ° W
N
° o z
`u ti J
? A o4 w W
U A a ? U ?
? z
?
?
? 71ra/+Z9 Sl -7-
a? C
NF?
dOU ?
009 w a v
Jm
14i N 1
Q
I
S
006 It
1 b
I
I E cn
U ?
tax:
t i N
' I
I
I
I
I o
E
0

`` ?
t

j

N

3a

5L£

?

N

08

SL£

?? I
t

SM0813
/M?

dW0 OOb V 0 1?1
Ch E.
N Q z ? ? W
-Q H

Q

? Q Z ?
M
?:)
a
\
28 I
0)
Q
w
-- -- ` ! t A Q tx
i A a a
? t U a ? U

kv.

t
I ?

t
co
1 I
1 ? F

1 ? E3
1 ® U
1 =
J
, z ? 1 m
1n
1
1 ?\ 1 C
1
1 r ar?
1 1 F
I N N. \\ N//? a I W
doll W daa sL , a
1 SLf J? 1
1 U.0 1
1 ? ? 1 b
I ? 1
I I ??
1 \ I
I r '?? N
I r
I ? r
I r
, r
r
O
O

z o
o a ?
/ r C' v F:i A
CT?
61 z x o O cn
U FCC
?/ Foz ? wW
o z U o
/
OF z
/ j
i
i - lT
6
t0
W
H
N
J
V1
CZO
1 Uo
°
? z
U ? a
O N

Dr. Ar.
O z z
az a a
NN INN
b
? w
a
N
O
E
O

v

i

I

I 44
z 0 °
0
_I o
r ? a x H ? w z
.44 V)

U
I

oe E-+ p W W
? z

o z o
o o
i
?
i I W , 0 a, W

A
W
! i
A a ?, v w
I
? I
Ol

'
C
I

si

I I
I I

I
I I
I
I I
I

?
? ? N
I
? I
?
? I
? O
I
i
/ I

z 7

C4
t,
Ey U

m
9 H
?
1
L
r ? m
<
J

, x O ° cn ??
0-4
91 U
o ° z F ° o
/ f o z H
?

\
i w
Q

\ ? t U
C>r ? U x
c i v?

•• ••
a
li
_ 1
\ a
k
\ ? !s
tea. s t ?

•
•\ ? is I
•\ ••\ ? a s a ai
as t 1
•
`• a a s a a!1
\ ?
• \?•\ as ! as t s !? f?
\ \ a a s a

s 'a
?
r ``\ ••\
??
a
i
k f k f
i
•?
`
i f i a
M f
i
i \ `
ili
= !a
a
i
i
I d
? ! a+
s
a
••\
?
NW M 4H a?
a i `•\•`\
`
I ?
? a
a a a i ? ! ?
? a • a `\?•\
W
I v ?'a?w3atal?
U
1
r--
' N
"

a al
CIO
I aaa/

? I

CE
O
' z

0
o
co

? z w
LC ° oV)
?

o
? z
Oz H
H w
?F v,
o
Z w
0-4
? ti ow. _
-
I

i

A
o
a
x w
H
i
W v ? U x
N
I z W co
I

y
W
a? aN
J7F I
f
o I
o
-" LLw
I
m
IM0913 /M Z5 d0
a a
dYVO OSti \a OSb
at!

,` I
oa E5
t£
N

I
I a
? NF
I I
I
I
9f I
I
? I
I
I
?
A
I
I

I
I I
?
I
I
I I
1
I I
I
I I
i

I

I
I ?
I
I
I
I
I

I E

\ 3

W
r.?
?
I
U
ri)
I
W N

!9 i

, (n
?

I
?

M
O o

O _
?-`!
\ I I / ,? Ilk
l/ / t Z c w
O
1, ?S o o z ?.
Q \ °?H m a ? O
I
LO i p U CL W
I?? ? z w
/ S
I ?a ? \ i d
\ \ I \ ?Q
\ 1? IL
\I \ \ \? inw
I\ \ \ W U
I \6?\ d ?\ OL?Z
\ ?+\ oy \.(^' . W Z O
CD kn CL
CL IL
a
I ?p d b
U /
?o
+ I
o
O rn
?O a
J U
M I .w?rrr
o mx I N
ay 11
I Ill ? ? O
t 1l \
tt i 1?
.... C..? ` J r le?-a5 - IlIlY2 IFi1.,. `•'
(`IfIC
l r f, ?vC Il'Y) )
1J51 1
\jN?1.coP, I it IW:/ IJJN 'IOC4 _1156
? 1 c!
r?".c y
IN E `EJNO P 1 ECT %`
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
VICINITY UNION COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.T690401 (R-2559C)
MAPS US 74 FROM WEST OF RICHARDS1
CREEP TO EXISTING US 74
SHEET 1 OF ZS 4 / 20 / 02
2
SITE 15 AND 15A
s°
SITE 5
RD
- SITE 4
-y7- S"H1TE CR
(SR 9651
`- SITE 3
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
S I T 'j"Ll, UNION COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.T690401 (R-25590
MAP I US 74 FROM WEST OF RICHARDSO
CREEK TO EXISTING US 74
SHEET 2 OF 2S 4 / 20 / 02
SITE 8
SITE 7
SITE 14

SITE 2
Rp'S FOWX CREEK
Cftf?
i
tss
-YJ- *l5r1N-afAVEY RO
(SR 9561
mss' F
?F
/? ST

N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
S I T E I UNION COUNTY
PROJECT:8.T690401 (R-2559C)
MAP 2 US 74 FROM WEST OF RICHARI
CREEK TO EXISTING US 74
SHEET ;3 OF 2 S 4 / 20 / 02
?? END PROJECT R -2559C
LEGEND
- -WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY

LIVE STAKES
L
L WETLAND
® DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
DENOTES FILL IN
® SURFACE WATER
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE WATER
• DENOTES MECHANIZED
+' •' • CLEARING
---- FLOW DIRECTION
TB TOP OF BANK
---WE --- EDGE OF WATER
- - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- -F- - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
A PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
ANK
- - NG - - NATURAL GROUND
- ??- - PROPERTY LINE
-TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-POE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
-EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
----------- WATER SURFACE
DISSIPATOR BASIN
N. C. DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
UNION COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.T690401 (R-2559C)
3 74 FROM WEST OF RICHARD
CREEK TO EXISTING US 74
SHEET Lj- OF 25 4 / 20 / 02
BOULDER
COIR FIBER ROLLS
5 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
(DASHED LINES DENOTE
EXISTNG STRUCTURES)
SINGLE TREE
WOODS LINE
¦ DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
VANE
Ana. RIP RAP
RIP RAP ENERGY
'0 O
a) O O O O O O O O
U) C C) CD O O C O O O
O C O t n O O O O O t o
U c
C: C rn
Cl) 6
CO Sri
00 d
N W
Ln
W U N cfl

a)
c
U u
Q O
0) Co
0. U

W
? 0
o 0
° 0
°
O
o
0
°
0
m
0
o
0 0

I-
~ c o o
o o, o O
N co H
c 0
X (Z
0 r
0 O
Cl) to
co
d
rn L6 CD
? U
r
Ln
Cl) co CD

r
to

W
U
Cl) Cl)
C p t N N
? 4. O O
W

U) O M O O 0 r
O
?,L
0 CO
0 LO
O
O N
0 O
0 _
0 O
O a)
Z O O O O O O O O O

N CD M
C . N d t?
co L •? _
O
0 0 0 O
U 0 0 0
a>
U

(D
0)-
ca °3 C
N
o W L
u
.
Q
? C
c
G
c
G Q O
0- C:
j _m (0
co

N
- L O O O
N

X
O O

O
Q
Z W C
Q
J

F- v7
70
W
Q ca
>d L
C
N
C C C> ?o 0 0 00 co 0 .0 0 A

-_0 = M

O d

O d

O

O

O
N

O
O

O
O

O
-

O
- c
to
O
C
D
N
U- N O O O O O O O O O O O

U
CD m CO 7 a a

W
W
U
U
U
W
U
n..
U
U
N -
U _
U
(D (D f X (D C? U (Y-
X
U N ? ? [I
0
0 Q
Z 00 ? L LO
O Q
Z Q
Z Q
Z Q
Z
R E Lo U-) O O N Lo
U) m m O (D X m X pOj X 04 (g M O
d ? O N
J J W W W W
O
C J J J
N J J J J J O
O ?1 >
W
Q? N
} M
} Ly LL
O N 0 O OO O 00 N 00 O N N O

O >7
d
}
CD
}
CD
}
O O t t N + + t t + 0 + J d 0

(n `'

?-
+

LO
0)
?-
0

O
Lc)

-
d
rn

-
d

U)
r-

CD
O
co

O
+

?
+ 0
(D

0

0
CD

0
- N
+ C
) d q ? I .- +

co }

`' +
d O C'7 <
)
?- N CO
N

J
N
z N CO d LO CO r- CO M O N M d CO (?D a
(n p
f-
O
Ln
---------------
\ +
N u,
-v
D /
/
;++ to /
a ?
X
co l
C!J ? App ?0p 4_`
a ,
------ -----
F - ? 9s0
C1 2-GI ca RCp
tv
rA z +
V ?
C t? -
q O x
O \
O oo O Z A \
C y 0 °? x z ---- \.
?7 ''" ? ?' G? to \.
?C --
ccn
c
9 HIS 3N] IHJ
?' o z
O
O
MATCHLINE SITE 6

i

- a
- Q
,- w
p x
ti
m

-
- --
- -_------ ----

r r i I ?o?
- ,
o
f
? jGE
w

8 ;/ O
H
t=f

? o
o
N y y z z °

z P `Z
tjl

°
0
z

?

- 08+77 'V1S

?

4
C0? z
°

0-4
Eby

a

O
a

U
z

'"

x
w

Z
?

A

o

v

~
?

?

?

W

a o

p
E
° F-4
H ?C
w
F

mow
?' U 04

CO

\

w

O
-
W
I
I 1 a
I
I
I 1 °o
I ?
I I a
I I H

1
I I
O z z
\ 1
,
,1 I m '

7 I La
?a 0
x
04 V)
I
O ?
-; I
I
I

I =
Z
I ?

I ? r
I ? r U
I
i I
r ? m

-l- I ti
Ob+bS 'd1S
N
O

O
o ° o
dU W d3v sis Q,' U ? ?n
SLE -A
/ WO ?? a x N b"4 z w
??1
I i
x O °rr
pr4 a H w
H p z w W x
off 0
O Z U F" O
(Je; 69 ,b .4 E
Cs. ? ti p D4
D -? cAiA a wa w
?r W U 9)
05 3
W
r
z w
m
)I o -
04
r
-N J
60 co)
617
Q ?
I '
At
CL I v,
Ez:
\ J
Fj N
i
too
L w n
18? i' 400 C
1:s a r W/ EL OWS
I w I O
i
O
O
O
N
C1 STA.82+60 -L-
C" I I ?1
C=7 I I //,
I I ,
I
I ppA, \
SS
1 ?' I
?I
.00000
1 r
0000 I d??
i tsss` I \
I I O
-L- TS 83t26I79
I ti'?r o I `1?
I o I i
I= o
I
I
I
i' 1 I
?I 1 \
STA.83+60 -L-
It
pC n A, ?° n ? ?
'? d d z z
'? to ? ? C t? ? ? Cf 1
O y z O ?, ?
O Oo O
O z 0 y 11
va ~ O
d O 0 z tin
c! x
0
? .. p
0 z
0
r
W/ ELBOWS
tsD -I
iA
r
r
UTL
?a
n
C?
a
rj
- -- - -- - -- - -- - - - - -- - -- - -- - - - -
C?
M
z
x
? V
y ? 0 C
X11
O oo O z
CD
C v' o x '? m
O O
vJ y
d 4J
'
??
® x
C!
?
co O
O- z

? Rtry B 400 CMP - - -' - -

-GI
H
202.4x2.1 RCBC
1 2 - 2.1 X 2J CONC

,1

2-GI 2-GI

NNOT BE LOCATED)
_ - U REV 1(WTLET CA
?N

w ,
375 RCP 2-GI
------ 2o2.4x2.IR --- --

r
0

o?
T(? N
N
O
m
O Cl? t==4
- - +
i
C?7 1 I I 1
I 1
11 I 1
, I 1
1 I
? I! I 1
O , 1
I 1
D
z _°- .. / -- TOE I I ? m
? I m
? o
C' r t l m
o w m
z 3 I ?I <
s
fA '
C m I I I /???
0 /
> i
I I '
II
z I •-? 1
d
I ??
I' I o
z I I m
X'a
a Q'
o
C1 0) z'
N O oc O Z 'O=1
o
? ?o oxY ?? ? I a
C?17 'y' •? r0 C?
> Zo in ;0.
0 z
o
o ?
I ?
rv ; ? i I
It
? I 1s
I I
1 ? I
, I
? I I
i'
I I ?
?z $z z r /" i tea'-==___
r ra ? I
C
\
H y I I /? TDE-J
r? c ? r I / N
?d z r ? I I ,?
? I I/ r
r
i r
z
V
a
-.4 d
it o
o ? O
o ?'? ,? z o
° o z
J, ? z°
a
C ? H ? 0 x ?
C ? ? ? x b
o z°

PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO.
NAMES
ADDRESSES
i RACHEL W. MCLEAN
2 RICHARD P. BAXTER
3 BILLY & DONALD WILLIAMS
4 VIVIAN A. CHANEY
5 JOHN & NELL WATSON
6 BETTY H. GRIFFIN
7 T. NORMAN BARBEE
8 PEARL L. WATSON
9 FUN HOMES, INC.
10 JACK T. COLEY
I I THOMAS E. TRAYWICK, JR.
12 ONA LEE HAIGLER(HEIRS)
PO BOX 68
CLINTON NC 28328
PO BOX 2046
MONROE NC 281 10
613 SUMNER AVE.
KANNAPOLIS NC 28081
PO BOX 624
WINGATE NC 28174
PO BOX 224
WINGATE NC 28174
PO BOX 151
WINGATE NC 28174
1010 ALSTON-CHANEY RD
WINGATE NC 28174
PO BOX 294
WINGATE NC 28174
711 SUNBLEST BLVD.
FISHER IN 46038
4605 MARS HVILLE-OLIVE RD
MARSHVILLE NC 28 103
4114 PHIFER RD
MARSHWILLE NC28103
3215 WISEMAN DR
CHARLOTTE NC 28233
s
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
716 MAIN ST.
13 NCDOT ALBEMARLE NC 28001
14 PATTIE HELMS (HEIRS) 49 12 . HERMITAGE DR
RALEIGH NC 27612

Re: Mr. Anderson's complaint & monroe bypass
Subject: Re: Mr. Anderson's complaint & monroe bypass
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 16:28:53 -0400
From: Samar Bou-Ghazale <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR - Mooresville Regional Office
To: John Dorney <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
John,
I met with Mr. Anderson and some 18 people from DOT on Mr. Anderson's site on Friday
27, 2002. On-site mitigation is not a feasible alternative according to Mike Wood
(DOT Consultant) due to topo and hydrology. During the meeting, Mr. Anderson raised
some concern regarding sedimentation from road construction, trees clearing, and
impact to his pond from sedimentation and oil spill accident etc... I explained to
him the "Oil Spill Act"
and responsibilities etc..Also, DOT showed him,a skecth of an erosion and
sedimentation control plan and told him that they are going to install a type "A" (I
worked with DOT on that) basin with a riser above the wetlands. Also, DOT showed Mr.
Anderson that the flow of water after construction will be greater than the existing
flow that is draining to wetlands and ponds. The remaining items are A) the amount
of trees to be removed near
the wetlands and B) the proximity of the by-pass to his pond (near his driveway).
These two items will be discussed with DOT in his next trip to Raleigh (per telephone
conversation on 9-30-2002). We have no issue with these remaining items..
John Dorney wrote:
> if it is a suitable site and mr. anderson is willing to let them do mitigation
there, then we would prefer mitigation on-site. cynthia - any thoughts?
> Samar Bou-Ghazale wrote:
> > John,
> > I am working on Mr. Scott Anderson complaint regarding the bypass and his
wetlands and pond. I am gathering information regarding proposed erosion and
sedimentation control measures, limits of construction, drainage features, pipes,
ditches etc... in that location. We have a meeting on September 27 with Mr. Anderson
and several people from D.O.T. and I would like to ask you whether it is possible for
us to ask D.O.T to do part of
> > the wetlands mitigation at Mr. Anderson's property ? Who decides on mitigation
locations etc.?? and who from D.O.T. is qualified to answer and make those decisions.
> > Samar Bou-Ghazale - [e-mail]
> > %TITLE$
> > North Carolina Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources
> > Div. of Water Quality
> > 919 N. Main St.
> > Mooresville, NC 28115
> > Ph: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Samar Bou-Ghazale - [e-mail]
%TITLE%
North Carolina Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources
Div. of Water Quality
919 N. Main St.
Mooresville, NC 28115
Ph: [phone] Fax: [phone]
t
1 of 2 10/3/02 10:45 AN
Re: Mr. Anderson's complaint & monroe bypass
Samar Bou-Ghazale <[e-mail]>
Environmental Engineer I
NC DENR - Mooresville
Div. of Water Quality
2 of 2 10/3/02 10:45 AM
Dove/ Lak-el Farm*
521 ?ee?ei 2oa d? Mo-nrovl NC 28110 (704) 225 -0405
September 10, 2002
John Dorney
Department of Water Quality
NCDWQ 401 Wetlands Certification Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
k SEP'
2 2002
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Dear John,
Again, thanks for coming to our home to see the lake and the site of impact on the
wetlands.
Per my e-mail, I am attaching a topography map superimposed on the Monroe
Bypass plan. This may help provide some additional perspective. I am hoping your
department, prior to issuing the 401 Certification, can review the impact the current plan
will have on the wetlands and lake as well as possible best solutions.
The attached map shows the extent that the bypass cuts into the wetlands, the
water flow into the wetland and lake as well as you can visually see impact on the wet
area. A consultant who reviewed these plans advised me that the wetlands would
disappear because the tree cover was being removed and the additional exposure to the
full sun will dry the area up. The rate of water absorption would skyrocket and the flow
of water into the lake would be reduced by well over 70%.
The other concern is that the contaminant flow from watershed off the bypass
would increase and over time, the ground would become saturated with contaminants and
will cause irrevocable damage to the lake. The wetlands will disappear and I need your
assistance in insisting that better options to the placement and design of this area be
addressed. Your 401 Certification is the key to our efforts. Your expertise is needed.
I would appreciate your thoughts and direction in this area. What do you advise as
our next steps? Please advise me at your earliest opportunity. Thank-You for your
assistance.
Warmest Personal Regards,
Scott Anderson
521 Deese Road
Monroe, NC 28110
[phone]
/ e1 0 "I J ?1 i !° ?,t \ o Boa/o? ; "O RA,
¢ -c nom,
!i
',:. / ? \ ?:. ,? q? ? ? \ \ ?, 11 1\, a •0
1? ? ` f fir" 1 II 1 V N
14
% is ? f l , , l t
%
?' 1 I r
Cb,
1
CID
f l 1 W
+` , ; :,• `? \? . \?? •. ?'.. .??? Sl N W N I I? m '? /? , m 3 ? it ., -''? q I I / / /''
ul.
?. ?+ (?- :: \ \ ?.:? - ••._. ? rte, I ? / i? %
-/3 »r J
- '`•\ ? /'.•.. \ i ??C?°t F/ ;rte; e ? ? ? // ?,??? ?`??i ?--' -O ? ????``\
RE: Follow Up
Subject: RE: Follow Up
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 08:06:15 -0400
From: "Scott Anderson" <[e-mail]>
To: "John Dorney" <[e-mail]>
CC: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
John - thanks for your input. I will call some of the people that have
advised me and discuss this. Thanks for the thoughts.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Dorney (mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 7:44 AM
To: Scott Anderson
Cc: Cynthia. [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Follow Up
i have not yet talked to cynthia or samar in detail yet so we have not
made
any decisions. however be aware that cutting trees in wetlands
generally
makes them wetter (assuming one can then keep the trees out) due to the
severe reduction in evapotranspiration. i have seen lots and lots of
fairly
dry wetlands become extremely wet once the trees are cut and are no
longer
pulling water from the soil. don't feel bad - yours is a common
perception.
Scott Anderson wrote:
> I do appreciate you and Samar being able to come out to our home and
> review the site. Hopefully this will help you to visualize the size of
> the lake and the proximity of the wetlands to the bypass.
> I will forward a copy of a topo map superimposed over the road design
> plan. This is something new I just received and this, coupled with
your
> site visit may give you a valuable perception. In short, this
> perspective will show the extent that the bypass cuts into the
wetlands.
> What wetlands that remains between the bypass and the lake will dry up
> due to the loss of the forest cover as well as exposure to the full
sun.
> This will be further impacted by the change in quantity of water flow
to
> the area.
> I will send this to you for your review. As I discussed, I am hoping
you
> can help work with me and the DOT, before you approve 401
certification,
> to improve the design of the bypass through this area.
> You should receive this map in a few days. Hope all is well and thank
> you for your assistance.
1 of 1 1013102 1P
D&ve/ La k,& Farww
521 Deese, Roac, M&nrovv NC 28110 (704) 225 -0405
September 10, 2002
Ms. Cynthia Vanderwiele
Department of Water Quality
NCDWQ 401 Wetlands Certification Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Dear Cynthia,
SEP 12 2002 j '
_-•,_._..._.,
"._' t; '"?nS CROUP
v
Again, thanks for coming to our home to see the lake and the site of impact on the
wetlands.
Per my e-mail, I am attaching a topography map superimposed on the Monroe
Bypass plan. This may help provide some additional perspective. I am hoping your
department, prior to issuing the 401 Certification, can review the impact the current plan
will have on the wetlands and lake as well as possible best solutions.
The attached map shows the extent that the bypass cuts into the wetlands, the
water flow into the wetland and lake as well as you can visually see impact on the wet
area. A consultant who reviewed these plans advised me that the wetlands would
disappear because the tree cover was being removed and the additional exposure to the
full sun will dry the area up. The rate of water absorption would skyrocket and the flow
of water into the lake would be reduced by well over 70%.
The other concern is that the contaminant flow from watershed off the bypass
would increase and over time, the ground would become saturated with contaminants and
will cause irrevocable damage to the lake. The wetlands will disappear and I need your
assistance in insisting that better options to the placement and design of this area be
addressed. Your 401 Certification is the key to our efforts. Your expertise is needed.
I would appreciate your thoughts and direction in this area. What do you advise as
our next steps? Please advise me at your earliest opportunity. Thank-You for your
assistance.
Warmest Personal Regards,
Scott Anderson
521 Deese Road
Monroe, NC 28110
[phone]

c
.

r" I

r

<i
t' ? /
li 1 i
f4l-
OD
N (S1 41 /
C?l
ii r
O 1 ?
1 o?Na o
1 ° y nea :?

v
? ?
sy ?
? o

I/it
?? •::. + ` may` ?.s'YJlS .Gx s ? ? 'F ??

,
'
1 \. O:
'

i t
.
CD

i! I tD m \
n .
I
I
1 ! \ 00
i!

o
i
/s
"/ 1,4

r
NC WILDLIFE COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, September 3, 2002
NAME REPRESENTING

k

N yl,
U. t ww
U 14 4-

N co
ANN JN

d
?• Nh . T&A
M IL H
skanO.01.4 I`JC.(,cJ1? G
c

? 6 1 c4W72
M. Agr 44- (jr err- Sv- Jaen

IVC
? ? ®??-?? ?-?' -all , n
a -- l )IJ
ll
, 'Ham l? ?l
'?
-i

a o pq? ?
n
? o
F3 ? ?
A
?t/yD V.?eJ
Via 'G
a
cl,
M
1
C
o
d p
? a
? o
p O'
o
a
6

l*

00 J O? Cn W N
tr1 W ? ? ?+ ? ? N

o
, O.
14
a
r
"
?
°
?.
a

?
DlO
O O.
cn o cD C
MA

CD C>
0' R
CD

Gs
" N
O O O
R p (CD v?
? caD
O R.
?
p CD
f1 O
?
j
to ?? y N 0

c o a
a O
o

CD "
0 y
(D
SIP N
a?
,
(D
o
0
?• (D
0
w
CD
a
a4 2^
p' n ti °
. CD
Q cD Q. ° O
O
on
C
~'g 8D
:k?
...? 0.
(D O
(
(A
(IQ
n P. ' 00
(9
o
8 << 0 A7 cr ?C
'A rn CD r' go

in
Ck.
?' rr CD gyp. o Cr a
co o $D
0
0 0
" 0
? N
O 0
o a?
' CD c

0 0
o
" a a?" ?--
? a• a
"y ? °
"
.
1 a r ?r
. g
a
fD 0'
?:4 co
o
A
a C/I' q a° ?C1N
O
C
°•
r'
d
co 0 0
CCD
C
O °
cD a

r r r td d t
a
w
N
O
N

C) C17
o°
R O
II
art. M
?-n
o CD
CD .
W
1
10
a
A
N
O
d
b
co
c?
w'
rti
0
M
0 1
Y
w?.
M
cno
wRa
rin
w
w
M
ti
a.
N
p
a
0
0
04
w
0
CD
N
00 --a LA
U a
00

A
CD
CD
? C
CD ?

?

? G

`
? "?'"' ? ? Al O '?7` v' ? cD G ? ? ' A? iOS ?
? ? "O ? ; C?1D , Q

N " a o c? CRD va ' o o
,
CA CD,

0 CD
•°
C/I
v, N ?. C ts. 0 ti a O.;
ra P4
C
t

.0 O y

p y

c?

.
03

co d

cc

cD
R
?S O P- t
cD
9
•-?
O
CD
coo,
CD CA
IV

o ,
N

CA
V `I

co R
CD r^i
CD C i "'' r
C p CD
CD .
CD
CD CD
'
C

0
o
CD
cD
°;

? .
ci vic ...
A °
A C" C
D ! eM
C 03 ? , OG cD cfl
Q+` O
CD
c
y
° CU 0
a
O
? CD CA
UQ C3 CD (p ! ??.

O .
?; sy
CD c126D a
CD
cD
° o cD ;
j D
W o
?. CD
a
a
,
CD
QQ ? '

d d t7 a d bd r r r'! t?
w
N
O
N
Cl
C 1 C17
O 0
a -?
o
um
C?.
a?
0
G?
dtz
o
V?

v?
C ?
a
r
r
a
coo
0
d
tri
0
OG
O
M
O
M
?e
VVJ
a
7d
PO
N
D
n
0
4
a
N
O
N
w
M
a
,,.A
c
co
a
a
0
°o
0
a
c
w
N
?O N
00 N
J N
CT N
LA N
.A N
w N
N N
C--? N
O
?O
to N N
N ?A (JA

CD 0 " ?O C?
CD
" ?d y y
CD ? A ?d
: CD ?t W W 10 Cr1 Oil
y
??
C-D A? A Q. A ??. O
CD 0, A
C P'?t 0
0
CD A O q D I?
`???
O 0° CD 0 A-
te
''
~ y o n a
'
C• CD
- V] , CDCD "? N
W CAD
CA CD
CD Cif ,?
rC N .?
? p'?i

9
In.
Co 0. 0 j3
-<99
CD 6a C?b

P.
?o
C'
o?
b a ?.; o v,
cD ? t , ? O A tn
CL
0,0 0
CL
o0
o
p p

o ?.

o
.
o o
a'
CIL G o,
CD
¢•
y
c ,?

cD
c
0 O

3" O

0 o

O
?, ?_. O •

ED.
a; ora
A
CD o ??
p
O
; CD

i

0 2 to

R g.0 A 0, p ?..,

4? .sue Cn Cn

5y

0 LI

C
o
?
p

?"3 `C3 R
'
•
,

O '`L?
c
n N

0 A ° CD

p„ O CD

3 0 ` ? ?
'

0 CD

CA 0

n
...
t?
! .t F
C3
CS
?
i °
o
CO) . CD
?+ £ a (:,
a 1
CD (A t
:
,
A
?'
18,

N c

N
iqQ
riQ A.
C) COD o!n y A
O 0 (D
N a'
0 CH
D?. C
'
R
A+ aCp 0
A CD A
OO Cp O A
?-' CD CD ?`' m CA
+ , ;
3 .'
° ? m
B

0
CD CD
i
0
'

D

O

0

O? (or

(D

p

+
w

?

In, CD
A
-, a
?
CD
C ?
`o
, ? a C?D
o
' .
?•
C .
p''
cD
p

C•? 0 0
O w f ?t
rS
A? ? C
°
¢ CD '? y o;.
O O C

*i
O
1 o 03 ! CD

O cD

1
O o

p
no 'oo
O, < s
? A
?. , y
;?• cD *+
w D
C? C
? , oa
0
a' CD ? .4.
CD o
00
0' Q

°
'
4

A
CA

a CD CD

A
W
CD 0 '
CD C
D O
=
CD
0 CD

0 C
D
: ~ a
CD
?y
u???
?.
C? CD C O CD A

w
N
O
N
d

C) M 0 7d
ao?
O
.7 0G C3
~ G N
cD
? O
?t-A ,
I ? hJ
M
a?
v?
r a
C
II
c
Q
o ?
d
a
R o
O
?• o
r3l
l?

4
cD
M
O
?+ N
d

0
d
a
O
a
9' w Wo 'WO W

a ?? ?, ?;

y
(D
CA
j:
I

h
? ?c z ?c z
a w IO °
Z
O

0
0
0
°
00
0
o

??

cD ,
c?
O e
o

iF '"r •K• ""r '"r H
eD

Q
'a a a A

eD p

9I
* CD
a
y

"O
0 'C>
Im,
CD'. D

ara p ? N
o ° a 13

Oa.

va
W
N W
? W
O

W 'd ?rJ
fD C) CD Q'
NQ a
s CD CD Q.

co M
P?
O .;

CD
g v
CD
CD
CD

o'
a
i
?. CD
a
a
?

0 :
4 0 ''d C

RM c
D
IM, CD 0 .0

v ?? ti
n
O O O O
CD Imo
a.. 5 , O
?pa °
?
C1. p Cis
CD . ?? CD CD
p

`9
n
y
C p O a'
D .
CCD

?-.
rh 0,
CD
CD
<
CD
aW0 ate
a:ara O
' •
kc
r a te
w
N
0
N

RE: Aug. 23rd meeting regarding Monroe Bypass
Subject: RE: Aug. 23rd meeting regarding Monroe Bypass
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 15:11:20 -0400
From: "Scott Anderson" <[e-mail]>
To: "Cynthia Van Der Wiele" <[e-mail]>
I will follow up with the DOT.
Will the runoff not being filtered and natural buffers/wetlands feeding
directly into a 7.3 acre lake not degrade water quality?? This is 1.5
miles upstream from the county water source. I believe you are extremely
important to being part of the solution. The fact is, the DOT will
listen to your department and correct the design. If you say NO permit
until this runoff and wetlands is designed to protect the water quality,
then they will.
Cynthia - I am very thankful for the Wildlife Department. The mussel
issue is one thing, but I am not trying to stop the project, I am trying
to have design improvements in this 1/4 mile site. You are the key and
your taking a stance now will get the design personnel in motion and we
can all get this resolved.
The other HUGE concern is that I am hearing NO ONE has done any kind of
study on this 7.3 acre lake that ADJOINS the wetlands that the bypass
runs through. This is the largest body of water impacted by the project.
You are waiting on cumulative and secondary impact studies, DOES THIS
LAKE NOT QUALIFY FOR A STUDY? I bet is not part of it. I believe this
lake is such a HUGE issue, the DOT is hiding and avoiding it.
Again - I believe this is the largest body of water and NO ONE has
looked at it and the impact. Can you not drive attention to this now?
-----Original Message-----
From: Cynthia Van Der Wiele [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 2:22 PM
To: Scott Anderson
Subject: Re: Aug. 23rd meeting regarding Monroe Bypass
Hi Scott,
The Division of Water Quality 401 Wetlands Section has 60 days to
process an
application for a permit to impact streams, wetland and/or buffers.
NCDOT
applied for an Individual Permit for the Monroe Bypass. We put it on
hold
citing incomplete information. This stopped the 60-day clock. We are
waiting for a cumulative and secondary impacts study. They have 2
consulting firms performing this work.
Additionally, there is a federally listed species that stands to be
impacted
by this project (the Carolina heelsplitter mussel). The US Fish &
Wildlife
Service and NC Wildlife Resources Commission are in discussion with DOT
and
Union Co. Planning Department about this. I have been in multi-agency
meetings with the county-- the next one is on September 3rd from 10-2.
So
basically, it means that this permit will not be issued anytime soon and
that there are many issues to be resolved.
When a permit is issued, it means that the DWQ Director is satisfied
1 of 3 9/16/0211
RE: Aug. 23rd meeting regarding Monroe Bypass
that
the project will not result in the degradation of water quality.
If you are concerned about their designs for handling storm water
runoff, I
would ask that the DOT folks supply you with the hydraulic design plans.
That shows how they will handle runoff.
I hope this clears things up.
Cynthia
Scott Anderson wrote:
> Cynthia - I certainly understand and appreciate trying to combine
trips.
> I have sent request to Bob Deaton, Bruce Ellis, Alice Gordon, Matt
> Cusack for studies they may have. I hope to get responses from them.
> Cynthia - please explain what you mean by the 60 day clock?
> I have been working on this for 9 months and progress is slow. So, 60
> days seems like a flash.
> What I am trying to accomplish is for the design team to re-design and
> incorporate prudent measures to protect the wetlands as well as my
> adjoining lake. The current design has runoff going directly into the
> wetlands and lake without any buffers or filters. The are ripping out
> tree's and disturbing the natural buffers and wetlands when there are
> options. I would like to think you and your department are the key to
> getting the design team to the sight so they can see the issue. I am
> completely convinced they are naive to the sensitivity of this area
and
> the size of the watershed and lake.
> Are you saying you will not approve any permit until you visit the
site
> with me and we get someone in design to address the buffers and
> watershed? If that's your direction, then I am on your schedule. They
> are trying to let this project in December and that is just around the
> corner. What can you do on your end?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cynthia Van Der Wiele (mail to:[e-mail]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 11:50 AM
> To: Scott Anderson
> Cc: John Dorney; Samar Bou-Ghazale
> Subject: Re: Aug. 23rd meeting regarding Monroe Bypass
> Scott,
> I wanted to let you know that we will need to reschedule Friday's
> meeting
> for September 3rd at 3 pm. Our meeting in Monroe this Friday was
> cancelled. The project is currently on hold which means that the
60-day
> clock is not running. Since NC has a budget crisis, we are trying to
> combine meetings and trips to save money. I hope that this is
agreeable
> with your schedule.
> I did not find anything in the Environmental Impact Statement
addressing
> your pond or nearby wetlands. I hope that staff within the Natural
2 of 3 9116/02 11:40 AM
RE: Aug. 23rd meeting regarding Monroe Bypass
> Systems
> Unit of NCDOT Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch were
> able
> to provide you some detail.
> Please let me know if this will work for you; otherwise we will have
to
> figure something else out.
> Thanks,
> Cynthia
> Scott Anderson wrote:
> > Cynthia - that would be great as I want to review this ASAP. To make
> > your trip productive, can you provide any studies that have been
done?
> > Also, do you have you developed recommendations to protect this area
> > that you are going to put forth to the DOT?
> > I have consultants working on my end and at some point in time we
will
> > want to meet and we will have a firm proposal to your department of
> what
> > we think is needed to protect the lake and wetlands, but I need to
see
> > what measures you recommend first. I would not have the consultants
> > there at our initial meeting unless we had your recommendations
prior.
> > Simply a cost factor on my end. So, we may meet on the 23rd and then
> > need to meet again.
> > Thanks for your interest and follow up.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cynthia Van Der Wiele [mail to:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 3:11 PM
> > To: Scott Anderson
> > Cc: John Dorney; Samar Bou-Ghazale
> > Subject: meeting regarding Monroe Bypass
> > Dear Scott,
> > I am the person in Division of Water Quality at the central office
for
> > reviewing NCDOT's application for a water quality certification in
> order
> > to construct the Monroe Bypass. This project is currently on hold
by
> > our office until NCDOT performs a study of the anticipated
cumulative
> > and secondary impacts from the project.
> > Would you be available for a meeting at your property in Monroe to
> > discuss your issues of concern on Friday, August 23rd at around 3
pm?
> > Mr. Samar Bou-Ghazale of the DWQ Mooresville Regional Office will
also
> > be in attendance.
> > Cynthia Van Der Wiele
3 of 3 9/16/02 11:40 AN
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
TO: Steve Lund, MS, PWS
Asheville Regulatory Field Office, USACE FILE COPY
FROM: Marla Chambers, Highway Projects Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program, NCWRC
DATE: August 16, 2002
SUBJECT: Review of Public Notice regarding a Section 404 permit application by
NCDOT to impact wetlands and streams in the construction of the US
Highway 74, Monroe Bypass, Union County. TIP No. R-2559 B/C, State
Project No. 8.T690401
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has submitted an
application to obtain a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE). Staff biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) have reviewed the information provided in the public notice. These
comments are provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and the Clean Water
Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.).
The NCDOT proposes to construct a four-lane road with a 45-foot divided median
on new location connecting US 601 north of Monroe to existing US 74 between Wingate
and Marshville, NC, a distance of approximately 9.1 miles. Impacts include 4.26 acres of
wetlands, 6,771 linear feet of stream channel and 3.72 acres of ponds. The project is
divided in two sections, B and C. The original section A, which would connect to US 74
northwest of Monroe for a complete US 74 Bypass, was eliminated in March 2000.
NCDOT indicated in the permit application document dated April 19, 2002 that this was
because changes in growth patterns since the completion of the Environmental
Assessment (EA) and Federal Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and other road
studies led to question whether the alignment of section A could better suit the purpose
US Highway 74, Monroe Bypass
TIP No. R-2559 B/C 2
and need of the project by tying in elsewhere. US 74 is the main roadway connecting
Charlotte and Monroe, and serves as the main thoroughfare for motorists traveling from
Charlotte and other cities west, to the coast.
The proposed project will directly impact waters within the Richardson Creek
watershed. The eastern creekshell (Villosa delumbus), a state listed significantly rare
mussel species, has been observed in Richardson Creek 2-3 miles upstream of a project
crossing of Richardson Creek. Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), a
federally listed endangered plant species, has been observed near the end of the project
along US 601. The portion of Richardson Creek that runs through the project area has
been on the 303 (d) impaired streams list (NCDWQ 2002). The North Carolina Division
of Water Quality (NCDWQ) sampled the creek in 2001 at a site near SR 1006 to
determine if that segment should remain on the impaired streams list after the Monroe
wastewater treatment plant, upstream, had undergone significant upgrades.
Second4rty,And cumulative impacts, including development facilitated by this
?1tav;the jovntial to be much more significant than direct impacts. Monroe lies
;within 1:-20 rrte's d'f Charlotte and is likely experiencing accelerated growth from the
expanding Charlotte metropolitan area. Secondary growth is expected to occur along the
main roads connecting to the bypass, such as US 601. US 601 to the north leaves the
Richardson Creek watershed and crosses Crooked Creek and Goose Creek in Union
County before connecting to the Concord/Kannapolis area in Cabarrus County. NC 218
and NC 24/27, which connect to Charlotte, intersect US 601 in these counties.
Goose Creek is inhabited by the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata), a
federally endangered freshwater mussel. Goose Creek supports one of only six
populations of this species in the world. The known range of this population was recently
expanded (1999 or 2000) when the Carolina heelsplitter was discovered in Duck Creek, a
tributary of Goose Creek. Each of these populations is considered essential to the
continued existence of the species. The Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), a federal
species of concern, is also found in Goose Creek. This is one of only a few populations
of this species remaining in the Yadkin-Pee Dee system. All populations of the Atlantic
pigtoe within this system appear to be in decline. A second federal species of concern,
the Savannah lilliput (Toxolasma pullus), is found in both the North and South Forks of
Crooked Creek. The Crooked Creek population is one of only three populations of the
Savannah lilliput within the Yadkin-Pee Dee basin. Each of these populations is in
decline. Several other watersheds in Union County, such as Waxhaw, Twelvemile and
Lanes Creeks, are inhabited by federal and state listed species, including the Carolina
heelsplitter, Carolina darter (Etheostoma collis collis), federal species of concern;
Carolina creekshell (Villosa vaughanianna), federal species of concern; and notched
rainbow (Villosa constricta), significantly rare, Natural Heritage Program.
During NCDWQ's 2001 basinwide assessment, water quality problems in the
middle and lower segments of Goose Creek were more severe than any other streams in
its subbasin (NCDWQ 2002). At the sample site near US 601, a habitat score of 79
reflected extremely unstable stream banks and infrequent pool habitat. EPT taxa richness
US Highway 74, Monroe Bypass
TIP No. R-2559 B/C 5
Palik, B. J., J. C. Zasada, and C. W. Hedman. 2000. Ecological principles for riparian
silviculture. Pages 233-254 in E. S. Verry, J. W. Hornbeck, and C. A. Dolloff,
eds. Riparian management in forests of the continental eastern United States.
Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.
Paul, M. J., and J. L. Meyer. 2001. Streams in the urban landscape. Annual Review of
Ecology and Systematics 32:333-365.
Richards, C., and B. Hollingsworth. 2000. Managing riparian areas for fish. Pages 157-
168 in E. S. Verry, J. W. Hornbeck, and C. A. Dolloff, eds. Riparian management
in forests of the continental eastern United States, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton,
Florida.
Schueler, T. 1994. The importance of imperviousness. Watershed Protection
Techniques. 1(3):100-111.
Stewart, J. S., D. M. Downes, L.Wang, J. A. Wierl, and R. Bannerman. 2000. Influences
of riparian corridors on aquatic biota in agricultural watersheds. Pages 209-214
in P. J. Wigington, Jr. and R. L. Beschta, eds. Proceedings of the American
Water Resources Association International Conference on riparian ecology and
management in multi-land use watersheds, Portland, Oregon.
cc: Melba McGee, OLIA
Cynthia Van Der Wiele, DWQ
Marella Buncick, USFWS
US Highway 74, Monroe Bypass
TIP No. R-2559 B/C 3
was very low, suggesting upstream water quality problems and the site was given a Poor
bioclassification in 1996, 1998 and 2001. Crooked Creek received a Fair
bioclassification in 1996 and a Good-Fair rating in 2001. Additional sampling was
conducted on the North Fork Crooked Creek in 2000 to identify impaired watersheds for
a special study. Richardson, Goose and Crooked Creeks flow to the Rocky River. Rocky
River, which supports a locally important recreational fishery and is particularly known
for its flathead catfish, also has documented water quality problems.
Our greater concerns with this project are the secondary and cumulative impacts
from development facilitated by the bypass. Industrial, commercial, and residential
development in the area is likely to increase. Increases in impervious surfaces can result
in stream degradation without the implementation of appropriate stormwater quantity and
quality control measures. In addition, the pollutants (e.g., sediment, heavy metals,
herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers) washed from roads and urban landscapes can
adversely affect and extirpate species downstream of developed areas. Additional
impervious surface associated with residential, commercial, and industrial development
and highway infrastructure results in increase stormwater runoff that can exert significant
impacts on stream morphology. This will cause further degradation of aquatic habitats
through accelerated stream bank erosion, channel changes, bedload changes, altered
substrates, and scouring of the stream channel. Secondary development that follows
infrastructure projects causes the loss, degradation, and fragmentation of terrestrial
habitats as well.
Local ordinances should be passed to require stormwater management plans,
approved by the NCDWQ, for all new development projects, and provide protective
buffers to waterways by requiring setbacks for houses and buildings. The 100-year
floodplain should always be protected, not only for environmental reasons, but also for
public safety and property protection.
The original project objective was to connect US 601 north of Monroe to existing
US 74 between Wingate and Marshville, NC. Although NCWRC supports project
segmentation during construction in order to ensure reduced offsite sedimentaiton, our
agency continues to consider the entire project and its objectives when evaluating project
impacts. Our agency understands that many changes have occurred since the completion
of the project EA and FONSI, including our understanding of the impacts from
uncontrolled growth and development. Numerous studies in recent years have
contributed new information on water quality impacts from increased impervious
surfaces (Schueler 1994; Arnold and Gibbons 1996; Doll et al. 2000; Mallin et al. 2000;
May and Horner 2000; Stewart et al. 2000; Paul and Meyer 2001) and the importance of
wide contiguous buffers to waterways and wetlands (Knutson and Naef 1997; May and
Horner 2000; Martin et al. 2000; Palik et al. 2000; Richards and Hollingsworth 2000;
Stewart et al. 2000).
Based on the precarious state of protected species within the Goose Creek
watershed, water quality problems, and the likelihood of rapid uncontrolled secondary
development, we believe the project can have significant adverse impacts to aquatic
US Highway 74, Monroe Bypass
TIP No. R-2559 B/C 4
habitats and their inhabitants, including the potential extirpation of the imperiled Carolina
heelsplitter. We recommend plans for a complete bypass project, which connects US 74
northwest of Monroe to US 74 east of Monroe, be submitted with updated environmental
documents, including direct and indirect impacts. Aquatic surveys should be conducted
by qualified biologists in streams directly impacted by the road construction. Mitigation
efforts should be directed toward protecting and improving water quality and aquatic
habitats in the county or the Rocky River watershed in and around Union County. A
draft "Guidance Memorandum to Address and Mitigate Secondary and Cumulative
Impacts to Aquatic and Terrestrial Wildlife Resources and Water Quality" is available to
facilitate these efforts.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have
any questions regarding these comments or would like a copy of the "Guidance
Memorandum", please contact me at [phone].
Literature Cited:
Arnold, C. L., and C. J. Gibbons. 1996. Impervious surface coverage-the emergence of
a key environmental indicator. Journal of the American Planning Association
62:243-258.
Doll, B. A., D. E. Wise-Frederick, C. M. Buckner, S. D. Wilkerson, W. A. Harman, and
R. E. Smith. 2000. Hydraulic geometry relationships for urban streams
throughout the piedmont of North Carolina. Pages 299-304 in P.J. Wigington, Jr.
and R.L. Beschta, eds. Proceedings of the American Water Resources
Association International Conference on riparian ecology and management in
multi-land use watersheds, Portland, Oregon.
Knutson, K. L., and V. L. Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington's
priority habitats: riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Olympia.
Mallin, M. A., K. E. Williams, E. C. Esham, and R. P. Lowe. 2000. Effect of human
development on bacteriological water quality in coastal watersheds. Ecological
Applications 10:1047-1056.
Martin, C. O., R. A. Fischer, and H. H. Allen. 2000. Riparian issues on Corps of
Engineers and DOD Military Lands. Pages 317-322 in P. J. Wigington, Jr. and R.
L. Beschta, eds. Proceedings of the American Water Resources Association
International Conference on riparian ecology and management in multi-land use
watersheds, Portland, Oregon.
May, C. W., and R. R. Horner. 2000. The cumulative impacts of watershed urbanization
on stream-riparian ecosystems. Pages 281-286 in P. J. Wigington, Jr. and R. L.
Beschta, eds. Proceedings of the American Water Resources Association
International Conference on riparian ecology and management in multi-land use
watersheds, Portland, Oregon.
NC Division of Water Quality. 2002. Basinwide Assessment Report - Yadkin River
Basin.
Dovel LaxlF"m*
521 Dee.4v2&a&, M&nr&e, NC 28110 [phone]
8/2/02
Cynthia Van Der Wiele
Wetlands Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd.
Raleigh, NC 27604
Dear Cynthia,
AUG-6M

Please find the attached copy of a letter I sent to Mr. Dorney. I understand from
my conversation with him today, you will be in charge of this project.
I would like the opportunity to meet with you on site prior to you approving any
401 Water Certification for the Monroe Bypass. Some of the attachments should help
underscore some of the area's we need to review. In addition, the current design does not
address the watershed issues into the wetlands or my 7.3 acre lake. This is a very
substantial area and is within 1.5 miles upstream of the county water source.
I would appreciate your helping me obtain copies of any and all studies on the
wetlands and my 7.3 acre lake. I am also interested in your recommendations on how to
protect the wetlands and lake. I am asking for a personal meeting at your convenience.
My contact number and information is below.
Thank You for your time and interest.
Warmest Personal Regards,
Scott Anderson
521 Deese Road
Monroe, NC 28110
[phone]
Dave Lac& Farm*
521 Dee?,ei Roa&, Mavurov NC 28110 [phone]
7/22/02
Mr. John Domey
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Wetlands Section
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0621
Dear John,
I am in receipt of a Public Notice from Mr. Steve Lund of the USACE dated July 12th,
2002. The Notice is further described as:
• Action ID No. 200230845
• TIP NO. R-2559 B?C, State Project NOS. 8.T690401
• Monroe Bypass
On pages three and four (pg. 3 & 4) of the document your name and department are
listed. In accordance, I placed a call to you late this afternoon and you are in meetings. I am a
private resident and I have a 7.3 acre lake on my property at the above address that derives a
very large percentage of it's water from the wetlands area that are further described as Plan
View - Site 2. Over the past 8 months, I have directly requested from the DOT Department
of Right of Way any studies pertaining to this wetlands area as well as the 7.3 acre lake. I
have not seen any assessment or study of this site and the impact on my lake.
I have had enough conversation and discovery to think that at this point, any study
completed was only as it relates to the actual wetland area. I have heard of nothing that
indicates what degree of impact this wetlands would have on the larger 7.3 acre wetlands.
This area touches the wetlands area described. If something has been done, please advise
and share these results. Given that I have not seen these studies/reports and based on my
inclination no study has been performed as it impacts the 7.3 acre wetlands and down stream,
anv permitting at this stage would be premature. Please reiect anv hermits until we
review this site and design together.
Per the direction of the Deadline of July 26, `2002, I would implore you and your
department to reject the application until current studies can be reviewed with me and I have
adequate time to consult with my experts in this field. I will pay for reproduction costs.
Please advise me of the amount and I will send you a check immediately to cover the cost.
Based on the constriction plans, no reasonable provisions have been taken to assure the
continued healthy environment of the wetlands and 7.3 acre lake. In addition, this does feed
the county water source within 1.5 miles downstream.
I am anxious to have prudent measures taken and written into the design plans so we
can move forward. But, to this point in time, concern for the water environment has not y
seemed to be part of the design. In fact, I believe your department, as well as others,
specifically advised that this particular site was recommended not to construct through. We
must make certain we address the environmental issues in the design before you approve any
permit.
Please call me to discuss at your earliest convenience. Please forward any reports you
may have at this time. I will review these reports and be able to write specific comments as
directed in your request. Without this information, which I have asked for several times via
the DOT, I cannot appropriately scope out the specific impacts. Thanks for your time and
interest.
Best Personal Regards,
Scott Anderson
521 Deese Road
Monroe, NC 28110
[phone]
CC: Mr. Aaron Plyler
Mr. Steve Lund - USACE
41
Davey Lak& Farm*
521 Dees& Roa&,, Mcvwov NC 28110 (704) 225 -0405
7/11/02
Mr. Doug Taylor
State of North Carolina
Department of Transportation
1591 Mails Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1591
Dear Doug,
I am in receipt of a faxed copy of two (2) pipe data sheets that you sent to Bill
Wilhelm in the Right of Way department. Thanks for your help. I was not able to read the
document's which probably was a result of faxing and photocopying. So, can you please
send me a copy from the original. In addition, your cover letter indicated that is all you
have on my property. As you know, I am trying to sort out how we can best proceed in a
timely manner and so that I can be confident all prudent measures have been addressed to
protect the 7.3 acre lake on my property.
I am writing this letter to you in hopes to better explain what studies, which you
have already done or should have done in developing the project within the proximity of
my lake. I have attached a current plan and I will reference this as a point of clarity. So,
with this said, I hope you can help me so we can all bring closure to this area of concern..
General Needs: - I need all studies on the drainage and watershed that
contributes to the lake and the high quality wetlands that currently exist on the western
border of my property as well the adjoining property of Everette Hatley. This would also
include any studies performed on my 7.3 acre lake.
Specific Needs:
• Reports prepared for or by the DOT Environmental Consultant. This
reporttypically includes: a description of existing environmental
conditions ( i.e., presence of state or federally listed
endangered/threatened species of flora or fauna; delineation of
jurisdictional wetlands and streams; presence of
historical/archeological resources, assessment of the stream "habitat",
and any other noteworthy environmental, ecological or natural
resource conditions, including representative photo documentation and
other field documentation.
• Soils data from the United States Soil Conservation Service.
• Rainfall Data
• High water mark data
• Modeling efforts
• Mapping to include water, orthophotography, planimetrics
• Hydrologic analysis - given the size and quality of the wetlands as
well as the lake, copies of studies utilizing SCS Unit Hydrograph using
HEC-1 or HEC-HMS or any other computer model.
In regards to the design plans, do you have more specific plans or how have you
further addressed buffers, littoral shelves, wetland planting, oil/grit separators?
Based on the current plan, Toe protection is all that is noted.
Request based on attached map:
• Elevation plan of the bypass within the proximity of my property. I have the
elevations for Deese Road, but not for the bypass.
• Pipe Data Sheet for pipes I indicated on the map as A, B, C, D, E and more
legible copies of the 2 your faxed.
• The plan indicates berms on the southern side of my property (across Deese
Road) on both sides of the bypass. Currently the Harkey/Broome and Helms
Heir properties. Please provide more detail to include any elevations and
water hold or absorption impacts.
• Prior and post watershed impact of the bypass cutting through area's 2A and
2B.
• Detailed prior map of the wetlands that was no doubt marked and recorded on
the west side of my lake.
Doug, you may already have more detailed landscape plans that may help all of us better
understand all the protective measures that are prudent in a highly sensitive habitat. I am
looking for a plan that shows plantings, protected tress and habitats, etc.. This would truly
answer some questions that we must all address to move forward. This would be a great
time to share that information. I do appreciate your assistance and understand that this is
not a typical situation given the sensitive habitat we are dealing with.
Thanks for all you do.
Warmest Personal Regards,
Scott Anderson
521 Deese Road
Monroe, NC 28110
[phone]
CC: Bill Wilhelm - DOT
Mr. Aaron W. Plyler
Mr. Larry Helms

Dawel Lakes Fowm*
521 7evWRca ,, Movuros NC 28110 [phone]
June 20, 2002
Sent via e-mail and U.S. Postage
Mr. William M. Wilhelm, Jr.
Division of Right Of Way Agent
NC - Department of Transportation
206 Charter Street
Albemarle, NC 28001
Dear Bill,
I am in receipt of the changes to the Bypass proposal as it effects my property. Leanna
Rogers sent this to me some 3 weeks ago and I have met with the appraiser to move the
process forward.
To date, I have not been contacted by the USACE, but expect to be in the near future.
In preparation to do the due diligence needed for me to proceed, I need your help with the
following:
• Stake my property for the permanent and temporary right of way. The area is very
"tight" and given the position of the lake, the wetlands and the buffers, having this
marked is needed so that I can work with the USACE and your department to
address any precautions for the future of the lake.
• I am requesting a grading plan for the area that surrounds my property. This would
be for Deese Road as well as the Bypass. Please include the Bridge and the grading
plans through the wetlands.
• Hydrology Study/report - can you please forward to me this study for the wetlands
as well as my lake. Additionally, if there is a separate water runoff study, please
provide.
• Plan-o-metric GIS plot imposed over an aerial photograph for the area near my
property to include Deese Road as well as the Bypass.
Bill, I greatly appreciate your assistance in the above. I met will the appraiser 11 days ago and
did not hear back from him as expected last Friday, but perhaps he is busy. By your providing
the above information, it will help best work with USACE so that I can respond to needs and
concerns in regards to the lake and wetlands.
In the event you cannot provide any of the above items, please inform me and I would
appreciate you advising me on who in the Department of Highways can. Thanks for all you
do.
Warmest Personal Regards,
Scott Anderson
521 Deese Road
Monroe, NC 28110
[phone]
Cc: M. Wood, S. Lund, A. Plyler

Dove/ Lam Farv?wr
521 (Dees&Rcad/, Mo-nroei NC 28110 [phone]
8/2/02
V`
Mr. John Dorney 1 ?`4
Wetlands Unit ?.? : A " 6
2321 Crabtree Blvd.
.._??
Raleigh, NC 27604 NIETLANDS GROUP
Vif;T(t U'.L 1TY S?-CTI P
Dear John,
Thanks for the return phone call and our discussion this morning. I understand
that you have not yet received the letter we sent via the state mailbox. So, I have enclosed
it for your review.
Under separate copy, to Cynthia Van Der Wiele, I am requesting the opportunity
to meet with Cynthia on site prior to you approving any 401 Water Certification for the
Monroe Bypass. Some of the attachments should help underscore some of the area's we
need to review. In addition, the current design does not address the watershed issues into
the wetlands or my 7.3 acre lake. This is a very substantial area and is within 1.5 miles
upstream of the county water source.
I would appreciate your helping me obtain copies of any and all studies on the
wetlands and my 7.3 acre lake. I am also interested in your recommendations on how to
protect the wetlands and lake. I am asking for a personal meeting at your convenience.
My contact number and information is below.
Thank You for your time and interest. 1 Q
Warmest Personal Regards,
Scott Anderson
521 Deese Road
Monroe, NC 28110
[phone]

?V-9-

x
Dave/ Lam Farm*
521 Deese/2oacu Mo-ywoel' NC 28110 [phone]
7/22/02
Mr. John Dorney
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Wetlands Section
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0621
Dear John,
I am in receipt of a Public Notice from Mr. Steve Lund of the USACE dated July 12`h,
2002. The Notice is further described as:
• Action ID No. 200230845
• TIP NO. R-2559 B?C, State Project NOS. 8.T690401
• Monroe Bypass
On pages three and four (pg. 3 & 4) of the document your name and department are
.listed. In accordance, I placed a call to you late this afternoon and you are in meetings. I am a
private resident and I have a 7.3 acre lake on my property at the above address that derives a
very large percentage of it's water from the wetlands area that are further described as Plan
View - Site 2. Over the past 8 months, I have directly requested from the DOT Department
of Right of Way any studies pertaining to this wetlands area as well as the 7.3 acre lake. I
have not seen any assessment or study of this site and the impact on my lake.
I have had enough conversation and discovery to think that at this point, any study
completed was only as it relates to the actual wetland area. I have heard of nothing that
indicates what degree of impact this wetlands would have on the larger 7.3 acre wetlands.
This area touches the wetlands area described. If something has been done, please advise
and share these results. Given that I have not seen these studies/reports and based on my
inclination no study has been performed as it impacts the 7.3 acre wetlands and down stream,
any permitting at this stage would be premature. Please reiect anv permits until we
review this site and design together.
Per the direction of the Deadline of July 26, `2002, I would implore you and your
department to reject the application until current studies can be reviewed with me and I have
adequate time to consult with my experts in this field. I will pay for reproduction costs.
Please advise me of the amount and I will send you a check immediately to cover the cost.
Based on the constriction plans, no reasonable provisions have been taken to assure the
continued healthy environment of the wetlands and 7.3 acre lake. In addition, this does feed
the county water source within 1.5 miles downstream.
I am anxious to have prudent measures taken and written into the design plans so we
can move forward. But, to this point in time, concern for the water environment has not
seemed to be part of the design. In fact, I believe your department, as well as others,
specifically advised that this particular site was recommended not to construct through. We
must make certain we address the environmental issues in the design before you approve any
permit.
Please call me to discuss at your earliest convenience. Please forward any reports you
may have at this time. I will review these reports .and be able to write specific comments as
directed in your request. Without this information, which I have asked for several times via
the DOT, I cannot appropriately scope out the specific impacts. Thanks for your time and
interest.
Best Personal Regards,
Scott Anderson
521 Deese Road
Monroe, NC 28110
[phone]
CC: Mr. Aaron Plyler
Mr. Steve Lund - USACE

D&ve/ Lam Farm*
521'Dee4,e/IIZca , Mo-nro?i NC 28110 [phone]
7/11/02
Mr. Doug Taylor
State of North Carolina
Department of Transportation
1591 Mails Service Center
Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1591
Dear Doug,
I am in receipt of a faxed copy of two (2) pipe data sheets that you sent to Bill
Wilhelm in the Right of Way department. Thanks for your help. I was not able to read the
document's which probably was a result of faxing and photocopying. So, can you please
send me a copy from the original. In addition, your cover letter indicated that is all you
have on my property. As you know, I am trying to sort out how we can best proceed in a
timely manner and so that I can be confident all prudent measures have been addressed to
protect the 7.3 acre lake on my property.
I am writing this letter to you in hopes to better explain what studies, which you
have already done or should have done in developing the project within the proximity of
my lake. I have attached a current plan and I will reference this as a point of clarity. So,
with this said, I hope you can help me so we can all bring closure to this area of concern.
General Needs: - I need all studies on the drainage and watershed that
contributes to the lake and the high quality wetlands that currently exist on the western
border of my property as well the adjoining property of Everette Hatley. This would also
include any studies performed on my 7.3 acre lake.
Specific Needs:
• Reports prepared for or by the DOT Environmental Consultant. This
report typically includes: a description of existing environmental
conditions ( i.e., presence of state or federally listed
endangered/threatened species of flora or fauna; delineation of
jurisdictional wetlands and streams; presence of
historical/archeological resources, assessment of the stream "habitat",
and any other noteworthy environmental, ecological or natural
resource conditions, including representative photo documentation and
other field documentation.
• Soils data from the United States Soil Conservation Service.
• Rainfall Data
• High watermark data
• Modeling efforts
• Mapping to include water, orthophotography, planimetrics
• Hydrologic analysis given the size and quality of the wetlands as
well as the lake, copies of studies utilizing SCS Unit Hydrograph using
HEC-1 or HEC-HMS or-any other computer model.
In regards to the design plans, do you have more specific plans or how have you
further addressed buffers, littoral shelves, wetland planting, oil/grit separators?
Based on the current plan, Toe protection is all that is noted.
Request based on attached map:
• Elevation plan of the bypass within the proximity of my property. I have the.
elevations for Deese Road, but not for the bypass.
• Pipe Data Sheet for pipes I indicated on the map as A, B, C, D, E and more
legible copies of the 2 your faxed.
• The plan indicates berms on the southern side of my property (across Deese
Road) on both sides of the bypass. Currently the Harkey/Broome and Helms
Heir properties. Please provide more detail to include any elevations and
water hold or absorption impacts.
• Prior and post watershed impact of the bypass cutting through area's 2A and
2B.
• Detailed prior map of the wetlands that was no doubt marked and recorded on
the west side of my lake.
Doug, you may already have more detailed landscape plans that may help all of us better
understand all the protective measures that are prudent in a highly sensitive habitat. I am
looking for a plan that shows plantings, protected tress and habitats, etc. This would truly
answer some questions that we must all address to move forward. This would be a great
time to share that information. I do appreciate your assistance and understand that this is
not a typical situation given the sensitive habitat we are dealing with.
Thanks for all you do.
Warmest Personal Regards,
Scott Anderson
521 Deese Road
Monroe, NC 28110
[phone]
CC: Bill Wilhelm - DOT
Mr. Aaron W. Plyler
Mr. Larry Helms
Dove/ LakerFarmk
521 Dee-w'1Ro &,, Mo- rael NC 28110 [phone]
June 20, 2002
Sent via e-mail and U.S. Postage
Mr. William M. Wilhelm, Jr.
Division of Right Of Way Agent
NC - Department of Transportation
206 Charter Street
Albemarle, NC 28001
Dear Bill,
I am in receipt of the changes to the Bypass proposal as it effects my property. Leanna
Rogers sent this to me some 3 weeks ago and I have met with the appraiser to move the
process forward.
To date, I have not been contacted by the USACE, but expect to be in the near future.
In preparation to do the due diligence needed for me to proceed, I need your help with the
following:
• Stake my property for the permanent and temporary right of way. The area is very
"tight" and given the position of the lake, the wetlands and the buffers, having this
marked is needed so that I can work with the USACE and your department to
address any precautions for the future of the lake.
• I am requesting a grading plan for the area that surrounds my property. This would
be for Deese Road as well as the Bypass. Please include the Bridge and the grading
plans through the wetlands.
• Hydrology Study/report - can you please forward to me this study for the wetlands
as well as my lake. Additionally, if there is a separate water runoff study, please
provide.
• Plan-o-metric GIS plot imposed over an aerial photograph for the area near my
property to include Deese Road as well as the Bypass.
Bill, I greatly appreciate your assistance in the above. I met will the appraiser 11 days ago and
did not hear back from him as expected last Friday, but perhaps he is busy. By your providing
the above information, it will help best work with USACE so that I can respond to needs and
concerns in regards to the lake and wetlands.
In the event you cannot provide any of the above items, please inform me and I would
appreciate you advising me on who in the Department of Highways can. Thanks for all you
do.
Warmest Personal Regards,
i
Cc: M. Wood, S. Lund, A. Plyler
Scott Anderson
521 Deese Road
Monroe, NC 28110
[phone]
Y
NC Wildlife Commission Meeting
Wednesday, July 31, 2002
ATTENDING
Mark Fowlkes
Judith Ratcliffe
Milt Rhodes
Danielle Pender
Shannon Deaton
Marella Buncick
Mark A. Cantrell
John Fridell
Cynthia Van Der Wiele
John Darney
Jerry Simpson
Kevin Hall
Jeff Crook
Dick Black
Mike Simpson
Brian Matthews
R. Todd Lamb
Van Rowell
Larry Helms
Mitchell Wood
Bruce Ellis
Christie Putnan
Mike Shalati
Bill Kreutzberger
John Alderman
John Munn
Joe Lesch
David Powell
Ron Weathers
Rusty Rozzelle
Amy Helms
REPRESENTING
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
NC Division of Water Quality
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
US FWS
US FWS
US FWS
NC Division of Water Quality
NC Division of Water Quality
NC Cooperative Extension
HNTB (Land Use Consultant for NCDOT)
Union County Staff Attorney
Union County Planning
Town of Waxhaw
Town of Stallings
Town of Mint Hill
Water & Sewer Authority of Cabarrus County
Union County Commissionevwl 8,.A.PD
The Catena Group
NCDOT/PDEA
Union County Stormwater
Union County Manager
CHZMHill
NC Department of Transportation
Town of Indian Trail
Union County Assistant Manager
Union County Assistant Manager
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities
Mecklenburg County
Union County Central Administration
The NC Wildlife Commission Meeting was held in the Jefferson Room on Wednesday,
July 31, 2002, beginning at 10:00 a.m. Mike Shalati, Union County Manager welcomed
everyone and asked that each member introduce themselves.
Mike Shalati gave a review of the discussions that had taken place and where the
committee was headed. He said that this was an informal discussion and in no way a
formal commitment on Union County's part. The expectations that are hoped to be
accomplished is to explore the issues, discuss the issues and translate the issues into
an agreed upon action plan.
Mr. Shalati stated that Union County would like to partner with the NCWRC to preserve
the species. Entities that would be impacted from the future decisions to be made
would be the northwestern part of Union County, Mecklenburg County, the Town of Mint
Hill, the Town of Indian Trail, the Town of Stallings, and the Town of Waxhaw.
Christie Putnam, Union County Stormwater and a member of the Goose Creek
Watershed Advisory Committee, shared with the group information on Streamside
Buffers. The Goose Creek Watershed Advisory Committee proposed buffers that are
based on 3 zones. The Streamside Zone is a fully wooded forest area, the Managed
Used Zone would have a certain amount of trees that would allow bike paths and the
Upland Zone would be grass with no structures. Ms. Putnam said that Union County
had accepted the recommendation from the Goose Creek Watershed Advisory
Committee.
One suggestion that was made was to add streams classified by the Army Core of
Engineers as "important" and also the streams that show up on soil surveys. Mr. Shalati
noted that every available mechanism to identify these streams would be made. Ms.
Putnam said that most of the buffers that are proposed would be more than 200 feet in
the FEMA regulated areas. With some buffers being more than what is required by the
NCWRC, Mr. Shalati said that even if there was a difference in some places, Union
County had already gone beyond this measure to ensure enforceability.
The NCWRC requested a copy of the Arcview layers to overlay with their existing field
data in order to identify critical areas. It would also provide the identification of certain
areas that may not be covered in the flood plains area. Information on perennials, based
on the proposal, is also needed in GIS form. A map showing the drainage acreage
cutoffs (existing land uses and infrastructures) and a review of the existing
impoundment areas were requested. Mr. Shalati assured the NCWRC that all of the
information Union County had to offer would be made available to the NCWRC for their
disposal.
Union County Commissioner Larry Helms noted that Union County did not want to go
through all the effort and expense and not preserve the species. Commissioner Helms
reiterated that this process would be painful for many residents in Union County and
that there needed to be a compromise between the NCWRC and Union County for the
results to come out positively.
Actions to be accomplished for the next meeting:
• Soil Survey Maps
S2 Map Drainage Acreage (cutoffs, existing land uses infrastructures)
• Prove within Waxhaw or the Goose Creek area that the soil surveys were adequate
(long term goal)
• Water shed coverage
• Land uses within flood fringe element, existing developments (farms, building,
parking lots, etc.); Included on the existing Land Use Map
• Information from the Wildlife Commission for habitat areas
2
• Information from the Wildlife Commission on scientific sources or a reference list
• Review existing impoundment areas
• Most recent CSI letter
• S1 R-80 Zoning - if greater than 7% impervious (or R-80), stormwater BMP's are
required
• A revised statement in the buffer proposal (where to locate the drainage area at the
lowest point down stream of the development); something to look at before
implementation
• Would like to see a translation of R-80 with the numbers
• Would like to see a Primary Implementation Mechanism as the 3rd column for the
next meeting
SUGGESTIONS AND THOUGHTS ON THE RECOMMENDED MATRIX
(** = Possible Recommendations)
Streamside Buffers
S4 No direct stormwater discharge to streams
**'Where sheet flow is not possible, then on site storm water management is
required.
MI Pesticides not used within 200' of streams, wetlands or floodplain
**Possible educational training to discourage landowners.
M2 Native plants maintained within 200' of streams, flood, wetlands, emphasis
on trimming trees
**An obstacle would be that a portion of the buffer is privatized in an individual's
backyard regardless of size. One way to implement and enforce this is to take
every effort not to privatize that zone but to make it a public, connected zone.
Instead of having a buffer in the backyard put the front yard adjacent to the
stream that is outside the buffer zone away from the stream. Clustering is one
way for this process and any other common areas that have lots away from the
protected area. Another issue is that Kudzo is choking out the other plants. Bio
pesticides do not work on Kudzo.
SE2 No fill in the flood plain
**Both parties are agreeable
Future Lane Use and Zonin_g
S1 6% impervious or maintain hydrograph
**7% impervious is good. Seven percent to maintain hydrograph and manage it
side by side; an area that is not already permitted with be considered R-80.
S3 Grassed swales, not curb and gutter (unless density > 4 units per acre
**Both parties are agreeable
3
Sediment and Erosion Control
SE1 Stringent S&E control requirements. Coordinate development with state
and fed agencies involved in aquatic endangered species protection
**Let the state review the plans; local enforcement is not there and let Union
County step in.
SE1 Local ordinances to prevent forestry exemptions becoming development
opportunity
**This is done through the state; other counties have implemented similar
ordinances.
Plan Review
SE3 NC Wildlife, US fish and wildlife, DWQ will assist in assessment and
implementation of BMPS, erosion control, etc.
**Obtain agency input into development of design criteria.
A2 New developments required to present alternative development plan
utilizing low impact development for stormwater. Identify impervious
surface amounts.
** Will encourage low impact development techniques; Union County encourages
identifying impervious surface amounts.
A6 Local government shall adopt environmental check off with redundant
controls
**Checklist provided to ensure the accountability of the developer.
A9 Recommend use of Conservation Easements, Public Ownership or deed
restrictions to ensure conservation of buffers
**A buffer will be required to be on the deed.
A4 Inflitration practices emphaszied
**All parties are agreeable.
GIs
Al GIS future utilities, including sewer and water. Provide to state upon
request
**Union County and CMUD provides this service at the present time.
Water and Utility Infrastructure
WU1 Water and utilities shall follow roads or requirements of sewer line
placement
**All parties are agreeable.
WU2 Minimal number of stream crossings, combine utilities in same right-of-way
**Union County agrees to this recommendation. Will look into relaxing
requirements for road connecting.
4
WU3 Water and utility crossings shall be near perpendicular to stream
**All parties are agreeable.
Wastewater Infrastructure
W1 Encourage force mains, sewer lines follow floodplain when possible
**Force mains are not good, there are more problems with pump stations and are
not recommended; require sewer lines outside of floodplain to the extent
practicable.
W2 Sewer lines outside of buffer
**Union County will recommend in an ordinance to have the sewer lines outside
of the buffer to the extent practicable.
W3 Sewer lines/structures 50' from wetlands
**All parties are agreeable.
W4 Pretreatment systems not in 10-year flood area, electrical components
above 100-year flood line
**All parties are agreeable.
W5 Sewer lines along streams ductile iron or equal
**If for some reason the sewer lines are within the buffer area, it would require a
liner or other substance that equals this ability.
W6 Aerial or directional boring stream crossings only, at major stream or creek
confluences
**Union County feels that directional boring on every stream crossing is a huge
expense with open pits on each sides; a storm would cause the dirt to go into the
streams. Other parties were asked to reconsider this decision.
W6 Stream crossings monitored once a quarter
**Union County, required by the state, monitor their right-of--ways twice a year.
W6 Manholes not in buffer area
**Proposed that manholes be sealed in the buffers.
Additional
S5 Containment of fire fighting runoff and hazardous spills
**City of Monroe Fire Department has preventable measures. Monroe also has a
hazardous unit trained to respond anywhere in the county. It was proposed that
personnel be made aware that this endangered habitat, not only for fires but for
spills, bridge, road, and any streams crossings. Have a specific plan for those
that are responsible. Communicate to the Wildlife Commission and the DWQ.
5
A3 Certification recommended and participation required in local governments
stormwater education program for all land clearing operations
**Union County recommends to educate inspectors to prevent any future
problems.
A5 Conservation Reserve Program lands and restoration of wetlands
encouraged
**All parties are agreeable.
A7 Watershed impact evaluation board established and review projects within
watershed
**One example would be to explain the issues once a quarter with the Goose
Creek Advisory Committee.
A8 Encourage County to consider retrofit options including abandonment for
chronic problem areas
**All parties are agreeable.
An additional item was proposed to be added:
"Since more landscaping will be developed and more driveways and roads will
cross streams, is a buffer a buffer?"
Shannon Deaton was named the liasion for the NCWRC and Christie Putnam is the
liasion for Union County. It is hoped that communication between all parties will take
place one week after the NCWRC receives the necessary maps from Union County, but
all should respond to the remaining 30 issues at hand.
It was asked if there were mechanisms that would be put in place to make these
ordinance permanent. Mike Shalati said there will be a signed agreement with the
NCWRC since ordinances can be changed.
The next meeting for the NC Wildlife Commission will be Friday, August 23, 2002, in the
Jefferson Room, from 10:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m.
County Manager Mike Shalati thanked everyone for their time and patience during the
meeting. The meeting ended at 2:26 p.m.
MS:ah
6
RE: Please Review and Reject Permit
Subject: RE: Please Review and Reject Permit
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 09:40:15 -0400
From: "Scott Anderson" <[e-mail]>
To: "John Dorney" <[e-mail]>
CC: <[e-mail]>
John, I understand and can appreciate.
I have mailed a copy to your attention. Went out today.
I just received the Public Notice and this Friday is your deadline. So,
please reject the permit for the Monroe Bypass. There are issues that
need to be addressed. I have been working on this for 7 months and the
DOT in simple words has been hiding from the lack in their design of the
"sensitive" wetlands and watershed into the 7.3 acre lake.
In fact, your department has real concerns about the area and does not
believe there should be any contraction in the area. Then the DOT does
not even have any prudent design measures to protect the wetlands,
watershed, wildlife and environment.
We need to review the studies and sit down and resolve these real
concerns.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Dorney [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 6:57 AM
To: Scott Anderson
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Please Review and Reject Permit
please mail a copy to John Dorney, WEtlands Unit, 2321 Crabtree Blvd.,
Raleigh, NC
27604.
i do not open attachements to email unless i am sure that no virus is
attached.
sorry
Scott Anderson wrote:
> Please review *my attached letter as I respond to the Public Notice.
> Perhaps you have enough information on hand so we can review and
discuss
> design needs.
> <<NCDWQ072202.doc>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Name: NCDWQ072202.doc
> Type: Microsoft Word Document
(application/msword)
> NCDWQ072202.doc Encoding: base64
> Description: NCDWQ072202.doc
> Download Status: Not downloaded with message
1 of 1 8/2/02 11:50 AM
Dave/ Lam Fcwm*
521 De.4R&a&, Movw'o-ei NC 28110 (704)
7/22/02
Mr. John Dorney
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Wetlands Section
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0621
22 5 4
?i 2 5 200
. ,
WETLANDS GROUP
-.i.f bra ,? rTY SECTIQ?" -
Dear John,
I am in receipt of a Public Notice from Mr. Steve Lund of the USACE dated July 121",
2002. The Notice is further described as:
• Action ID No. 200230845
• TIP NO. R-2559 B?C, State Project NOS. 8.T690401
• Monroe Bypass
On pages three and four (pg. 3 & 4) of the document your name and department are
listed. In accordance, I placed a call to you late this afternoon and you. are in meetings. I am a
private resident and I have a 7.3 acre lake on my property at the above address that derives a
very large percentage of it's water from the wetlands area that are further described as Plan
View - Site 2. Over the past 8 months, I have directly requested from the DOT Department
of Right of Way any studies pertaining to this wetlands area as well as the 7.3 acre lake. I
have not seen any assessment or study of this site and the impact on my lake.
I have had enough conversation and discovery to think that at this point, any study
completed was only as it relates to the actual wetland area. I have heard of nothing that
indicates what degree of impact this. wetlands would have on the larger 7.3 acre wetlands.
This area touches the wetlands area described. If something has been done, please advise
and share these results. Given that I have not seen these studies/reports and based on my
inclination no study has been performed as it impacts the 7.3 acre wetlands and down stream,
any permitting at this stage would be premature. Please reject anv hermits until we
review this site and design together.
Per the direction of the Deadline of July 26, 2002, I would implore you and your
department to reject the application until current studies can be reviewed with me and I have
adequate time to consult with my experts in this field. I will pay for reproduction costs.
Please advise me of the amount and I will send you a check immediately to cover the cost.
Based on the construction plans, no reasonable provisions have been taken to assure the
continued healthy environment of the wetlands and 7.3 acre lake. In addition, this does feed
the county water source within 1.5 miles downstream.
I am anxious to have prudent measures taken and written into the design plans so we
can move forward. But, to this point in time, concern for the water environment has not
seemed to be part of the design. In fact, I believe your department, as well as others,
specifically advised that this particular site was recommended not to construct through. We
must make certain we address the environmental issues in the design before you approve any
permit.
Please call me to discuss at your earliest convenience. Please forward any reports you
may have at this time. I will review these reports and be able to write specific comments as
directed in your request. Without this information, which I have asked for several times via
the DOT, I cannot appropriately scope out the specific impacts. Thanks for your time and
interest.
Best Personal Regards,
Scott Anderson
521 Deese Road
Monroe, NC 28110
[phone]
CC: Mr. Aaron Plyler
Mr. Steve Lund - USACE

RE: Please Review and Reject Permit
Subject: RE: Please Review and Reject Permit
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 09:40:15 -0400
From: "Scott Anderson" <[e-mail]>
To: "John Dorney" <[e-mail]> ?
CC: <[e-mail]> 5
John, I understand and can appreciate.
I have mailed a copy to your attention. Went out today.
I just received the Public Notice and this Friday is your deadline. So,
please reject the permit for the Monroe Bypass. There are issues that
need to be addressed. I have been working on this for 7 months and the
DOT in simple words has been hiding from the lack in their design of th
"sensitive" wetlands and watershed into the 7.3 acre lake.
In fact, your department has real concerns about the area and does not
believe there should be any contraction in the area. Then the DOT does
not even have any prudent design measures to protect the wetlands,
watershed, wildlife and environment.
We need to review the studies and sit down and resolve these real
concerns.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Dorney [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 6:57 AM
To: Scott Anderson
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Please Review and Reject Permit
please mail a copy to John Dorney, WEtlands Unit, 2321 Crabtree Blvd.,
Raleigh, NC
27604.
i do not open attachements to email unless i am sure that no virus is
attached.
sorry
Scott Anderson wrote:
> Please review my attached letter as I respond to the Public Notice.
> Perhaps you have enough information on hand so we can review and
discuss
> design needs.
> <<NCDWQ072202. doc»
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Name: NCDWQ072202.doc
> Type: Microsoft Word Document
(application/msword)
> 1VCDWQ072202.doc Encoding: base64
> Description: NCDWQ072202.doc
> Download Status: Npt downloaded with message
I of 1 7/23/02 10:37 Alv
RE: Please Review and Reject Permit
Subject: RE: Please Review and Reject Permit
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 10:51:17 -0400
From: "Scott Anderson" <[e-mail]>
To: "John Dorney" <[e-mail]>
CC: <[e-mail]>,
"Cynthia Van Der Wiele" <[e-mail]>
John - I have substantial documentation where I have been requesting
copies of studies on the area and the impact. The DOT has been avoiding
the request, so, if you reject the permit until the parties can have
disclosure and discussion, then the right course of action can be taken.
Do you have any studies you can forward. I will pay for the reproduction
cost?
What studies do you have on the wetlands, runoff and the lake?
I would like to invite you to do a site visit so you can see first hand
the risk and you can see how good precautions can be designed.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Dorney [mailto: john. dorney@ncmail. net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 10:37 AM
To: Scott Anderson
Cc: [e-mail]; Cynthia Van Der Wiele
Subject: Re: Please Review and Reject Permit
thankx. i'll take a careful look at the application.
Scott Anderson wrote:
> John, I understand and can appreciate.
> I have mailed a copy to your attention. Went out today.
> I just received the Public Notice and this Friday is your deadline.
So,
> please reject the permit for the Monroe Bypass. There are issues that
> need to be addressed. I have been working on this for 7 months and the
> DOT in simple words has been hiding from the lack in their design of
the
> "sensitive" wetlands and watershed into the 7.3 acre lake.
> In fact, your department has real concerns about the area and does not
> believe there should be any contraction in the area. Then the DOT does
> not even have any prudent design measures to protect the wetlands,
> watershed, wildlife and environment.
> We need to review the studies and sit down and resolve these real
> concerns.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Dorney [mail to:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 6:57 AM
> To: Scott Anderson
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Please Review and Reject Permit
I of 2 7/23/02 10:58 AM
RE: Please Review and Reject Permit
> please mail a copy to John Dorney, WEtlands Unit, 2321 Crabtree Blvd.,
> Raleigh, NC
> 27604.
> i do not open attachements to email unless i am sure that no virus is
> attached.
> sorry
> Scott Anderson wrote:
> > Please review my attached letter as I respond to the Public Notice.
> > Perhaps you have enough information on hand so we can review and
> discuss
> > design needs.
> > <<NCDWQ072202.doc>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Name: NCDWQ072202.doc
> > Type: Microsoft Word Document
> (application/msword)
> > NCDWQ072202.doc Encoding: base64
> > Description: NCDWQ072202.doc
> > Download Status: Not downloaded with message
2 of 2 7/23/02 10:58 AM

U J
Dow, Lc k& Farm St
521 De s& 1Rca&,, Mo-nroiai NC 28110 [phone] \ __A00 Itp-H
7/22/02
Ace-
'704,1503 . 1030
Mr. John Dorney
North Carolina Division of Water Quality Wetlands Section
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0621
Dear John,
C
Aix
JUL 3 0 2002
I am in receipt of a Public Notice from Mr. Steve Lund of the USACE dated July 121H,
2002. The Notice is further described as:
• Action ID No. 200230845
TIP NO. R-2559 B?C, State Project NOS. 8.T690401
Monroe Bypass
On pages three and four (pg. 3 & 4) of the document your name and department are
listed. In accordance, I placed a call to you late this afternoon and you are in meetings. I am a
private resident and I have a 7.3 acre lake on my property at the above address that derives a
very large percentage of it's water from the wetlands area that are further described as Plan
View - Site 2. Over the past 8 months, I have directly requested from the DOT Department
of Right of Way any studies pertaining to this wetlands area as well as the 7.3 acre lake. I
have not seen any assessment or study of this site and the impact on my lake.
I have had enough conversation and discovery to think that at this point, any study
completed was only as it relates to the actual wetland area. I have heard of nothing that
indicates what degree of impact this wetlands would have on the larger 7.3 acre wetlands.
This area touches the wetlands area described. If something has been done, please advise
and share these results. Given that I have not seen these studies/reports and based on my
inclination no study has been performed as it impacts the 7.3 acre wetlands and down stream,
any permitting at this stage would be premature. Please reject any permits until we
review this site and design together.
Per the direction of the Deadline of July 26, 2002, I would implore you and your
department to reject the application until current studies can be reviewed with me and I have
adequate time to consult with my experts in this field. I will pay for reproduction costs.
Please advise me of the amount and I will send you a check immediately to cover the cost.
Based on the construction plans, no reasonable provisions have been taken to assure the
continued healthy environment of the wetlands and 7.3 acre lake. In addition, this does feed
the county water source within 1.5 miles downstream.
I am anxious to have prudent measures taken and written into the design plans so we
can move forward. But, to this point in time, concern for the water environment has not
seemed to be part of the design. In fact, I believe your department, as well as others,
specifically advised that this particular site was recommended not to construct through. We
L ? .
must make certain we address the environmental issues in the design before you approve any
permit.
Please call me to discuss at your earliest convenience. Please forward any reports you
may have at this time. I will review these reports and be able to write specific comments as
directed in your request. Without this information, which I have asked for several times via
the DOT, I cannot appropriately scope out the specific impacts. Thanks for your time and
interest.
Best Personal Regards,

Scott Anderson
521 Deese Road
Monroe, NC 28110
[phone]
CC: Mr. Aaron Plyler
Mr. Steve Lund - USACE
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO July 12, 2002
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. 200230845

Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
NC Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-1621
Dear Mr. Dorney:
Enclosed is the application of the North Carolina Department of Transportation for
Department of the Army authorization and a State Water Quality Certification to discharge
dredged or fill material into 4.26 acres of wetland, 6771 linear feet of stream channel and 3.72
acres of ponds in the waters and adjacent wetlands of Stewarts Creek, Richardson Creek, Rays
Fork, Spring Branch, Meadow Branch, Salem Creek and unnamed tributaries to facilitate the
construction of approximately 9.1 miles of the US Highway 74, Monroe Bypass between US
Highway 601 and existing US 74 west of Marshville, Union County, North Carolina (TIP No. R-
2559 B/C, State Project No. 8.T690401). Your receipt of this letter verifies your acceptance of a
valid request for certification in accordance with Section 325.2(b)(ii) of our administrative
regulations.
We are considering authorizing the proposed activity pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act, and we have determined that a water quality certification is required under the
provisions of Section 401 of the same law. A Department of the Army permit will not be granted
until the certification has been obtained or waived.
In accordance with our administrative regulations, in most cases, 60 days after receipt of a
request for certification is a reasonable time for State action. Therefore, if you have not acted on
the request, or asked for an extension of time, by September 12, 2002, the District Engineer will
deem that waiver has occurred.
is t
2
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Steven Lund, in our Asheville Regulatory
Field Office, at [phone].
Sincerely,
Enclosure
Copy Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. Doug Huggett
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638

E. David Franklin
Chief, NCDOT Team
es SWFo
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY 1501 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, N.C. 27699-1501 LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
April 19, 2002 RECEIVED
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers APR 2 4 2002
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143
Asheville, NC 28801-5006 CESAW-CO-RA
ATTN: Mr. Steve Lund
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: INDIVIDUAL PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE MONROE BYPASS IN
UNION COUNTY, TIP NOS. R-2559 B, AND C
Please find enclosed the permit application and drawings for the subject project.
The proposed roadway, US 74 Monroe Bypass, is a four lane facility with a 45-foot
divided median on new location connecting US 601, just south of.the intersection with
SR 1504 (Baucom-Deese Road) at Fowler Crossroads, to existing US 74, approximately
half way between the towns of Wingate and Marshville, a distance of approximately
9.169 miles (14.756 km). Full control of access will be-maintained. An-analysis of
various alternatives and the explanation of the preferred is detailed in the Environmental
Assessment (EA) signed in March 1996 and the Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) signed June 1997. The state project number is 8.T690401 and the Federal Aid
Project number is NHF-74(8).
Section R-2259 B is 3.538 miles long (5.694 km) and begins at US 601 and ends
just before the crossing of Richardson Creek. It scheduled to be let in September 2002.
Section R-2559 C is 5.631 miles long (9.06 km) and begins connects with Section B and
ties back into US 74 just east of the intersection of US 74 and SR 1754 (Forest Hills
Road). It is scheduled to be let in September 2002.
INDEPENDENT UTILITY
The original EA for this project included a section, R-2559 A, that tied R-2559
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
B from the US 601 interchange back to US 74 west of Monroe, hence bypassing the city # ;
However, due to changes in growth patterns since the completion of the EA and FONSI
and in conjunction with other road building studies, questions were raised as to whether
the alignment of R-2559 A could better suit the purpose and need of the project by tying
in elsewhere. So in March 2000, the decision was made to eliminate section R-2559 A
and once again examine the best alternatives to meet the purpose and need of the project.
This proposed roadway study has been renamed TIP R-3329.
While the question still remains as to where the Monroe Bypass will ultimately
connect, sections'R 2559 B and C alone represent a viable project that is needed to
alleviate the traffic congestion on US 74 that is experienced daily within Monroe. This
project, coupled with the proposed upgrading of US 601 from the proposed intersection
with US,601 to Monroe (TIP U4024), will provide an alternative route to motorists that
will avoid a large segment of US 74 and create safer driving conditions.
Therefore,`NCDOT believes that Section R-2559 B and C meet all the criteria
required to exhibit independent utility as a stand-alone project. They are addressed
below.
The project connects logical termini. The justification for both termini was presented
in the EA. While ending the road at US 601 was not discussed in the document, it
never-the-less is a logical terminus for the reasons outlined in the EA.
• The project is of sufficient length that environmental matters have been addressed on
a broad scope. The EA and FONSI address all environmental matters with respect to
NEPA requirements. In addition, since the original scope of the project examined the
potential corridor that would be utilized if a connector road were tied to the bypass
beyond the termini with US 601, there is documented evidence.that there are no
environmentally sensitive sites within the immediate area of potential effect.
• The project has independent significance such that it is usable and of reasonable
expenditure even if no other improvements are made in the area. US 74 through
Monroe experiences congestion and delays Monday through Friday beginning from
approximately 2:00 pm until 7:00 pm. In addition, this road serves as the main
thoroughfare for motorists traveling from Charlotte and other cities west, to the coast.
Therefore, delays also frequently occur on weekends. Construction of this project
will remove all traffic accessing US 601 north of Monroe and US 74 east as well as
providing an alternative route for through traffic, thereby alleviating some of the
congestion and resulting in safer driving conditions.
The project does not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonable
foreseeable transportation improvements. The interception of the traffic east of the
town of Wingate, which is before the more built-up areas, and keeping full control of
access aids in maintaining a smooth traffic flow. The terminus with US 601 allows a
s ' connection with the main artery for traffic traveling accessing US 601 from the north.
• While it is probable that eventually a connector road will seek to tie to the terminus of
this project at US 601, it does not necessitate that it will. However, as
aforementioned, since the original study considered the environmental impacts to the
area beyond the US 601 terminus and found no environmentally sensitive sites, it
would make a connection here an attractive alternative.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Wetlands: The proposed project will impact twenty-five jurisdictional wetlands.
Wetlands were delineated using the criteria specified in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual. Wetlands were verified by Mr. Steve Lund of the United
States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Asheville Regulatory Field Office.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) rating system was performed on each
wetland site. Each wetland was also classified according to the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service Wetland Classification (Cowardin, 1979) system and the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental
Management: Field Guide to North Carolina Wetlands (Report No. 96-01, 1996). Table
Al in Appendix A reflects the wetland communities, quality analysis, and acres of impact
for each section of the project.
The "Acres Impacted" column in Table Al reflects permanent fill, excavation,
and mechanized clearing in wetlands and are further itemized in the summary sheets in
Appendix B. Appendix B also contains the permit drawings for each section. Method III
mechanized clearing will be used throughout the project.
A general description of each wetland type, as listed in the Field Guide to North
Carolina Wetlands, and the dominant vegetation found in each is described below:
Headwater Forests - These wetlands are found at the headwaters or adjacent to
intermittent streams. The primary source of hydrology is groundwater. Typical
vegetation includes box elder (Acer negundo), red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styracijlua), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), winged elm (Ulmus alata), green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), Chinese privet (Ligustrum
sinense), silky dogwood (Corpus amomum), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis),
Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), blackberries (Rubus spp.), poison
ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
mountain mint (Pychanthemum sp.), greenbrier (Smilax sp.) and microstegium
(Microstgium viminea).
Bottomland Hardwoods - Only the wetland in the flood plain of Meadow Branch was W f
classified as a bottomland hardwood. The hydrology is derived from a combination
of overland flooding and groundwater. Typical vegetation includes black willow
(Salix nigra), red maple, sweetgum, green ash, black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), tulip
poplar, tag alder (Alnus serrulata), elderberry, silky dogwood, greenbrier,
jewelweed (Imaptiens campensis), false-nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), poison ivy,
broad-leaf cattail (Typha latifolia), arrow-leaf tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum)
and rushes (Juncus spp).
Pond Fringe - Areas around the edges of ponds that have rooted, persistent vegetation
have been classified as pond fringe wetlands. These areas are usually saturated for
the entire year. Typical vegetation includes black willow, tag alder, silky dogwood,
rushes, and sedges.
Ephemeral Wetland - Site 6 on Section B is an old pond that has been breached though
seasonally retains water in a small area below the invert of the breach. Its main
source of hydrology is groundwater. The dominant vegetation is early successional
grasses,.sedges, and rushes. The second site, Section C - Site 13A, is within the
floodplain of Meadow Branch and retains water for short periods of the year.
Young trees, such as sweet gum and tulip poplar, with little herbaceous vegetation,
dominate the area.
Surface Waters: Table A2 in Appendix A lists the acres of impact and the linear
feet of channel loss for each site. The "Acres Impacted" column includes permanent fill
in, excavation of, and permanent draining of ponds and totals 3.72 acres. The total
channel loss for the project is 6771 linear feet. The station number for each site is listed
on the summary sheets in the permit drawings (Appendix B) as is the hectare amount for
each jurisdictional stream lost.
Threatened And Endangered Species: There are two federally endangered species
in Union County; Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) and Carolina
Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata). Areas of potential habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower
exist throughout the project corridor. These areas were surveyed by consulting biologist
on September 24-26, 1996 and the findings were included in the EA and FONSI. No
populations or individuals were identified which lead to determination that the proposed
project is not likely to adversely impact the Schweinitz's sunflower. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife service (USFWS) concurred with this finding in a letter dated May 17, 1996 and
included in the FONSI. Additional surveys were conducted by NCDOT biologists in
October 1999 and also failed to identify any individuals. Since two years have past and
there are areas of suitable habitat on the project and known populations in the vicinity,
NCDOT biologists will conduct another survey in the fall of 2002 and will provide the
results of the survey to the USFWS.
Consulting biologist performed surveys for the Carolina Heelsplitter by
conducting bank surveys for relic shells in 1996, during which only relic shells of Asiatic
clam (Corbicula fluminea) were noted. Therefore, the determination was made that the
'proposed action is not likely to adversely effect the Carolina heelsplitter, which was
concurred with by the USFWS in the May 17, 1996 letter. NCDOT biologists performed
additional surveys in Stewarts Creek, Richardson Creek, and Rays Fork at various times
from 1999-2000. A few individuals of Elliptio sp. were discovered upstream of the
proposed crossing of Stewarts Creek. No relic shells or live individuals were identified in
Rays Fork.
On June 2, 1999, a shell of Carolina creekshell (Villosa vaughaniana) and two
Elliptio sp. shells were discovered at the crossing of Richardson Creek. Richardson
Creek also has a known population of Savannah lilliput (Toxolasma pullus), which
together with Carolina creekshell are Federal species of concern. Two additional surveys
were performed at the proposed crossing where a few more relic shells were discovered,
however no live individuals were identified. While good habitat exists in the project area
for mussels, the crossing is just downstream of a wastewater outfall for the town of
Monroe and a strong chlorine smell is evident at this site. So therefore, it is unlikely that
any mussels exist within the immediate project area.
Since the concurrence letter from the USFWS in 1996, there has been a significant
change in the circumstances surrounding the Carolina heelsplitter. The known range of
the Carolina heelsplitter has decreased while the development of land within the
subbasins that support the mussel has increased at a much faster rate than predicted.
Coupled with this development are proposed infrastructure improvements, specifically to
roadways and utilities. As a result of these changes and new information regarding the
species, the USFWS has stated that the 1996 concurrence that the proposed action is not
likely to adversely effect the Carolina heelsplitter is no longer valid. An informal Section
7 consultation is currently underway with representatives of the USFWS, North Carolina
Wildlife Resource Commission (WRC), NCDOT and Union County. It is anticipated
that particular measures proposed by the USFWS and WRC to ensure that the proposed
action will not lead to indirect take of any individuals of the species, will be implemented
by Union County and NCDOT prior to letting of this project.
Cultural Resources: In a letter dated January 24, 1996, State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) concurred with the findings listed in the EA that the construction corridor
contains no properties currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places. After
an intensive archaeological survey of the construction corridor that concluded in 1997,
the SHPO concurred that no assessed sites were eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places.
MITIGATION OPTIONS
The ACOE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a
wetland mitigation policy that embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. Mitigation of jurisdictional impacts, or sequencing, has been defined by the
CEQ to include avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts, and compensating for impacts.
Avoidance & Minimization: The NCDOT has employed many avoidance and '
minimization strategies during the planning phases of the EA and the FONSI, such as
reduced medians in wetlands. In addition, as a result of various field reviews (September
14, 1999, March 5, 2000) and in-house meetings (February 21, 2002) with the resource
agencies, the following were deemed high quality natural areas and required further
consideration for avoidance and/or minimization.
R-2259 B
Site 2: This wetland was going to be impacted by the mainline as well as a service road
to access properties that are being landlocked as a result of the proposed bypass.
NCDOT considered a shift of the mainline to avoid the wetlands. However, this
would require a major shift to bring both the mainline and service road out of the
wetlands. Not only would such a shift increase jurisdictional impacts at the
intersection with US 601, but would still leave large portions of land that would
be landlocked and require an access. Instead, NCDOT is proposing to leave the
mainline on its current alignment, but eliminate the service road and purchase the
properties that will no longer have access. In addition, NCDOT is currently
investigating ways to utilize these landlocked parcels to create on-site stormwater
retention areas. These may include specially designed drainage ditches that
provide stormwater attenuation and treatment or possibly creating wetlands that
tie into the existing wetlands to provide the same benefits. Once the design is
complete, the plans will be forwarded to the agencies.
R-2259 C
Site 1: The original design called for piping this unnamed tributary (UT) to Rays Fork
under the mainline. After further investigations, NCDOT was able to increase the
bridge over SR 1751 and avoid any piping of the channel. However, 180 feet (55
meters) of the existing channel will be abandoned and 197 feet (60 meters) of
channel created as a result of this design. In addition, 92 feet (28 meters) of
channel will be day lighted by removal of the existing SR 1786 road crossing.
Finally, the relocation of SR 1758 will fill 131 feet (40 meters) of channel. In
summary, the new design creates 279 feet of new channel while filling or
abandoning 311 feet of channel for a total impact of 32 linear feet. This reduces
impacts by 316 linear feet.
Site 2: This intermittent UT to Rays Fork is a high quality surface water. NCDOT
examined shifting the mainline to avoid the significant impact to this system in
1999 and again in 2002. In the 1999 assessment, it was believed that a shift to the
south would result in impacts to a larger stream. A more detailed examination in
2002 indicated that it would be possible to avoid direct impacts to either stream,
but would have indirect impacts on both. In addition, the required alignment shift
would impact would have alignment repercussions for almost half of this project.
This shift would cause a more skewed crossing and often increased impacts to
r surface waters, including the crossing of Richardson Creek, Rays Fork, and the
UT to Rays Fork detailed above (R-2259 C - Site 1).
As stated in the 1999 assessment, any shift to the north would result in an increase
the amount of construction required on the -Y- lines in the relocated area because
the mainline is in a valley. The northerly shift would force the mainline grade to
be higher to reduce earthwork which in turn would extend -Y- line construction to
the north. This would impact streams currently outside the construction limits
and therefore reduce the overall benefit of the shift. In addition, any shift would
require reverse curves that are not desirable for this type of facility. Therefore,
NCDOT proposes to leave the design as is.
Site 5: Meadow Branch. The floodplain adjacent to Meadow Branch at the mainline
crossing is the highest quality wetland on the site and also represents over 1/3 the
total wetland impacts resulting from the project. NCDOT has redesigned the
bridge such that the only permanent fill in the wetland will be the bridge bents.
This initiative will reduce wetland impacts by 2.47 acres.
In order to construct the bridge, two temporary haul roads will placed in the
wetlands as detailed in the permit drawing. The haul roads will be of earthen fill
and will be placed on fabric filter. They will cover approximately 0.60 acres and
total approximately 5055 cubic yards. They are expected to remain in place for
approximately two years. Once the bridge is completed, the area will be restored
to its pre-construction elevation. It is expected to revegetate naturally.
Site 14: This wetland is currently providing substantial water quality benefits by
attenuating and treating the stormwater runoff from the road.and business across
the street (SR 1754). In order to help preserve these functions on-site, NCDOT is
designing a special roadside ditch that-will attenuate much of the runoff from the
road and parking lot before it enters the UT to Salem Branch. The details of the
special ditch will be transmitted to the agencies upon completion.
MITIGATION
Compensation - wetlands. The project will impact 4.26 acres of jurisdictional
wetlands in the Yadkin River Basin, Cataloging Unit 03040105. All 4.26 acres are
riverine wetlands. The NCDOT proposes to provide mitigation via in-lieu payments to
the Wetlands Restoration Program (WRP) at a 2:1 ratio in the amount of $204,480.00
($24,000.00 / acre). A copy of the WRP acceptance letter is included in Appendix C.
Compensation - surface waters. The project will impact 6,771 linear feet of
jurisdictional streams. These streams are in the Yadkin River Basin, Cataloging Unit
03040105. NCDOT proposes to mitigate for these impacts on-site at a 1:1 ratio and off-
site at a 2:1 ratio. The end result, as detailed in Table A2, is 13,712 linear feet of stream
that will need to be mitigated for off-site. NCDOT proposes to provide this mitigation
via in-lieu payments to the WRP in the amount of $1,714,000.00 ($125.00 / linear foot). r
A copy of the WRP acceptance letter is included in Appendix C.
It is anticipated that these activities will be authorized through a Section 404
Individual Permit. By copy of this application, the NCDOT requests that the NC
Division of Water Quality review the proposal for authorization by a 401 Water Quality
Certification. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please
contact Mr. Michael Wood of The Catena Group at [phone].
Sincerely,
41
William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, NCDOT Coordinator
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Pete Colwell, Division of Water Quality
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. MaryEllen Haggard, NCWRC
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. Dave Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Timothy V. Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
Ms. Susan Cauley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. B. G. Payne, P.E., Division 10 Engineer
Mr. Larry Thompson, Division 10 DEO
Mr. Michael Wood, LSS, Catena Group
APPENDIX A
Stream and Wetland Impact Tables
TABLE Al. Monroe Bypass (R-2559 B and C) Wetland Communities, Quality Analysis,
and Total Impacts
Site Cowardin Schafale & Weakley DWQ Acres
Classification Classification Rating Impacted
Section B
IA PFOIC Headwater Forest 23 0.03
I B PFO 1 C Headwater Forest 23 0.02
1 C PFO 1 C Headwater Forest 23 0.06
2 PFOI E Headwater Forest 63 0.76
4 PFOIC Headwater Forest 39 0.09
5 PEM 1 F Pond Fringe 25 0.06
7 PEM2F Ephemeral Wetland 42 0.22
8 PFOIC Headwater Forest 39 1.13
10 PEM 1 F Pond Fringe 15 0.07
11 PFO 1 C Headwater Forest 43 0.34
12 PFO1 C Headwater Forest 28 0.24
13 PFOIC Headwater Forest 31 0.37
14 PFO 1 C Headwater Forest 21 0.09
15 PEM 1 F Pond Fringe 25 0.02
SUBTOTAL 3.51
Section C
3 PFO 1 C Headwater Forest 15 0.10
4 PFOI C Headwater Forest 15 0.14
5 PFOIE Bottomland Hardwood 76 0.00
6 PFO1 C Headwater Forest 24 0.11
7 PFO 1 C Headwater Forest 17 0.03
9 PFO1 C Headwater Forest 24 0.05
11 PFO1 C Headwater Forest 19 0.07
13 PFO1 C Headwater Forest 23 0.02
13A PFO1 C Ephemeral Wetland 20 0.04
14A PFO1 E Headwater Forest 15 0.04
14B PFO 1 C Headwater Forest 46 0.16
SUBTOTAL 0.75
TOTAL 4.26
PFOIC - Palustrine Forested Broad-leaved Deciduous Seasonally Flooded
PFOIE - Palustrine Forested Broad-leaved Deciduous Seasonally Flooded / Saturated
PEMIE - Palustrine Emergent Persistent Semipermanently Flooded
PEM2F - Palustrine Emergent Non-Persistent Semipermanently Flooded

IA13LE Al. monroe Bypass (x- 559 B and L) - Stream Impacts
Site Water Body Channel
Impact
(linear feet) Channel
Replaced
(linear feet) Proposed
Mitigation*
(linear feet) Acres
Impacted
Section B
1 UT to Stewarts Creek 117 0 234
5 Farm Pond 0.05
6 Farm Pond 1.15
7 UT to Stewarts Creek 553 0 410
8 UT to Stewarts Creek 588 0 1176
9 Farm Pond 0.64
10 Farm Pond 0.95
11 UT to Richardson Creek 133 0 266 0.11
12 UT to Richardson Creek 610 0 1220
13 UT to Richardson Creek 343 0 686
15 Farm Pond 0.24
SUBTOTAL 2220 0 4440 3.14
Section C
1 UT to Rays Fork 311 279 64
2 UT to Rays Fork 1646 0 3292
4 Spring Branch 1082 0 2164
6 UT to Meadow Branch 276 0 552
8 UT to Negro Head Creek 608 0 1216
9 UT to Negro Head Creek 465 0 930
10 Negro Head Creek 314 0 628
12 Farm Pond 0 0 0 0.58
14 UT to Salem Branch 213 0 426
SUBTOTAL 4915 0 9272 0.58
TOTALS. 6771 0 13712 3.72
O?O? W AT k;qQG
7
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
April 17, 2002
Mr. Phil Harris
NC Department of Transportation
P D and E A Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Subject: Project: US 74 Monroe Bypass
TIP #: R-2559 B and C
County: Union
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program
(NCWRP) is willing to accept payment for stream and wetland impacts associated with the subject project.
Please note that the decision by the NCWRP to accept the mitigation requirements of this project does not
assure that this payment will be approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the N.C. Division of
Water Quality Wetlands/401 Unit. It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact these agencies to
determine if payment to the NCWRP for impacts associated with this project is appropriate.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter. If we have not received a copy of
the issued 404 Permit and 401 Certification within this time frame, this acceptance will expire.
Based on the information supplied by you, the stream restoration that is necessary to satisfy the
compensatory mitigation requirements for this project is summarized in the following table. The maximum
amount of mitigation that the NCWRP will accept for this project is also indicated in this table.
Stream
linear feet Wetland
(acres) Riparian Buffer
(ft2)
Impact 7,375 6.75
Mitigation Maximum 14,750 13.50
The stream and wetland mitigation will be provided as specified in the 401 Water Quality
Certification and/or Section 404 Permit for impacts associated with the subject project in Cataloging Unit
03040105 of the Yadkin River Basin. The mitigation will be performed in accordance with the
Memorandum of Understanding between the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dated November 4, 1998.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Crystal Braswell at (919)
733-5208.
Sincerely,
M w
Ronald E. Fe ell,
Program Manager
cc: Rob Ridings, Wetlands/401 Unit
Steve Lund, USACOE
Rex Gleason, MRO
f-?%r ?T`14-
file
Wetlands Restoration Program 1619 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1619 [phone] Customer Service ??
320 West Jones Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Fax: [phone] 623-7748

rn Gj
40
.A`
it

O G7
W

14

1? a
•/ O Q
,

.1
.
?
t y y
?-?

I? Z O o -------

MX. 0 ?cz
to z o z '` a

N z
>
° fA
0
\ z a
w
-O
'O
?o
11
v
cn CA0 Zv ?v no

Cm m mm rm
no ?o no Ao
fn+mtm/1 >(A 000 00
:* -n om (nm
aP tnx r m
?r A r n
m a x
;a Z < z a
N Z
N
z my
N m ? i r
•
i r
t
• r
N 'TI r i r
i i
? f;? / fi/ ' Air Jt/
I Q •/ / cn f
/ / 1 a
r
/'3
•1?
11
?Il
O ? w \v
CD o
/ Z I I o ?? T@ f
E-345 E3 -- E 0 E -I'?-- E
UIW Owl
-----------------
_/O°o
/ II
o
0
onld-- 1

\?•
AV?l
ON00
i
r)c
M -d
m
m-4
?O
N
m
0
a
I
a
F ?
I ?
I
TB
? ? 1
1
1
1
I
1
o I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
1
I
1
I
1
MN•l 06lOONOO /09 SN - ?+-' -

I I

? I
i
fs,
+? Ai ; v

T6??
0 ? I
091
0 j n
N

1 I Z /?
1 /

C4 N

I ` .

O
O
N
O
It
1-
I #14a
3" V
LA 1,^ s
?v no
mm rm
-Iz rnz
ro ao
a -? z -?
Z -Li
N N y
m
r rn
x
z n
z 10 ?,S
N
m
0
48-
rrr
-n
rrr R
C
rrr W A ?
r
r r
a?
M-
40
? n <
oz v v
I
?? z
1J o o zz
s z
0
o
z
to z b
y
v 1.4
O
z R
W
M ATCH LINE -L-STA. 188 + 40
1
f
r
1
,
I

1
f r 1
? 450 •'. 450 - t
1 ?
r
I
1 \
1 \
-

1 1 ?^
t
y n
I •' \ ? r ?

\ sm

??? Q yc "f O
ro
_ tv

I
I
m
m fE- IE

. j

-
1
1 -

I
_

I

1
I - 1
1

?
o I '
1 ?
m? mj I
I
I
H? N 4A 24
a a I
c ; ° °? 0 I
-4 _ ° ?_ 1
1 000 + mo I
c m c m 1
O 11 ? N c 1
__ _
I_- - -- - r-------
1 /
1 375:
1
<n s
1 I
x
r x-
?J m? I x x x x
xp I x 1
1?1 f 71 -x x N x--xT I
(? L IM i i
m I 1 `
® N I 1 ??
AN, 1-4
i' 1 1
zE 0 AO
r0 DO TB 1 I
> -4 OF
mi Z H T9 - R SED ?: 1.5 T j
(Am
o
8
.? - -
r, m
r c? 1
Tg ? ?? LB- - -
C wL ?-
zCi
rn I j
• • 1
a ? rn `? 1
?l r*• /
0i• '\ , PA
to 1I' 1
1 \
1
1 I O
1
CA 1 I
t0 'r. s? , '? ? ?a
y y n I 1
?r 1
N I
Ir C 4? C x -,-
Z ¦ t I
'
z? 0 11:0 \
o , o '° ° ?;
C z I 1 IQO
W ?- z Q „?? n I 600
to rA 1? '\
o s
r
\ ?O \ 11
° O \` ``\ 9O ``` 1 i o
o \ ?
110
\\
t ' 1 \
F 7I ? `\ i %
\ t37
\?` \ ?` 1 ?? \?? 6O
1
Iii it ` ? \ i ..`?`
1 1 `
v c m 1 m G3 ? \° I V
:0 z
o i ?? W i ??
°zzm
o rr*m ?( 1 \ \ \
1 1 1 ??
MCA
1 \
NZ
1 Q 1 ,
1 1 1 \ a
? 1 \ 05 1 \
1 i
o x 1 >' \
y n L•?' \
rn0
14 q
i
Z .j z O
ov a.- O'D
z
rJ2
to \ /
1 1 N: l i
o ? 1` 1 1 :: _, I r
1 I :?, ? I
1 I C-) I ,
0 1 : , O ; 1!r
1 m i ?? /
1 a c /
o i N to .;•':• /
1 Ha 0 /
rno O
? b to s c c m° •:, ,': Y /
A, b z !
o O
T? a to a ?i' J
1 p O t
tl ? N 1 O ??-'?
Z
,n
In !
Nft
(c MC 1
CDO
W CB rn 1
°p ? I n ..
O P L ? -n ?I -n - '!
?A nor 8 T ? .
rn-
(A ` •
-4
m
p \ a ?
CM rnm rm '^ O ? m r
-nZ --Z 1*IZ /
Flo ro np Q 1
n-4 a-+
mvmi Zm Om r
O V1 N ` 1 •
N-n -n
0 1? ?7
m n
N Z Z Z / i'' - I I r
r-4 •^ 1 1
p 1 1
1 - 1
1 _ ? 1
N • + 1 m 1
'n
• I
a •
"n arr T ( ( !
O ( C, /
N aaa a ?. 1 ' ` I Cv n /
C•. I
3'S. • T a c?
00 ,
q 7i A< r m OSL 1
I yO y? '' s • 1 O
O a C ao H ?01M' r?+ 4- i ?,
50 ?0 Z CO ? ; G 4A 1
??' C o z ?a 1
z;? z c ,,? `. I J
CA)
52 0
o z - -n I + I
to t 1t
w
i f.{ 1
In
to rA
v -n ? ; l l
o U
(j, C
3l o
0 0
O
0 0 ?
m
z o
M
3' O
O ,

r r
n
m n
r -n
m
O

O
-
\OJ

O -n

in °m
o >
z
>-4
O
O N
V1 ' ^T
n
'
N
Z -+

O ?
I
.. N

T 1
1
I
'
1
O
' O
N
o ?
?
I

1

1 ?

r
1
s o '
rn

W O C 03 I
V
~
o 1
0 Z
o z
IL z? z C? W
Off ?° > o
W O 1
°
P
0
-
3
q
to
v ?r
N zz rn --4 --4 co
N Ul O to O
O ti 1 __ ?1 1 1 .. •.
50 r /' 1 I I
o
?Nb. 11
y ? T
0 >
11
1 , ,I
?? 1 f3 / / 1
? . O I N ; ; 1 v aN ac .
o / 11 // I c= N Na ?
x .
1 1 I I// I cry r co zp
io -4
M. IM ;a
M?1 7 /, / I p s z c
"1 Am c p °?
m O o
/ t Cl)
-n 4
M
M
Zl?
? ? ' ?'
OXZ mZ '00,
D0 \ 1
2D-4
-4 -4
M (A o z N
:* -n N -n
NZ Z ? \ ? ?
-n N,
N. ol
? t
jh.
N?s
C+7 1 I T \?\ \ \ .. rN
b in p 1 I I \ \
I C37 ??q C va \,\ .. \\\\ \
O v fj r-A
IS O x '? It to OIA **4
Cr1 G ? ? Z ? ? 1 1 ?rp `
~ `i i /' 1 Sao ./
W CA
t7 N
W CA /• I?1 m "/' mP
r+ O /' 1 1 ?? ?/' :um
?
O I
? 1 I
I I I
I
1 I i I
O • 1
I I 1
I 1 - I
n
1
I
1 I 1?
I 1
1 I -
-

el
I I I - 1
I 1 I 1
? z 1 I I I ? z

N
O I
I

? I I
1? I

-
- 1
I
I I I TI s n
I
I
? I I
I I ?
,

1 i v f / ko

1 I ,

I O_

Z 1
1
% I
I I
11 rn
j ?o
I
I . I 1
1 1
1 L
?
p.n1 ?1 I ? I ? ?'
I o
I 1 1 -
I
1 1 Z T
I
I ,
rn I
w
xo O
cn v
I
- I

C
1
).
m im m-4 o ?°
n
m to v <n to c
(A
c N
V I ,
1 I
I I .
N
• ?,1?6
?'

z
?-l
-n
n F r m r.
t

T
` .
Y
- r r m I 005\ = ' ?°
N 1 ? N

v
b

?Y
^

r

to
t?
.
' '

N
00
I
I
.F?
# i ?._ 8i r m-4
to m i I
i i I
### L
PDE 1
1
D
n
O
O I ?
NA i ff
?n m i*# 1 r0 1 A
o
im
# #
O I , , ,
v
9
I
Z
I 11
II :' 375 375 .. ?
O
1 a
I -? I
"rri
l=!
z I
I 1 L?
1 1 ?
I
? 11
c.- ;ti 1 I 1 1
63
IJ
?
C
?

7
? Q 1 1 1 <

N CO

y
/
s

ty
+
I
s
90
Z I
1 1 1
1 I _
H ,
N
H /
Zy
C
V% j

I I
Na _
o
y
za

.:::

/
C
ca m

b-I I-L :: 00 M
0,0,

J
I o o ,
_

to I 1 ?\ ',
M
1 1.

? ? I 1
? ? I 1
p ? 1 1
? ? I 1
I 1?
? 1 1
.? I 1
N / 1
p 1 1
I 1
I I
I ? I
I I
I 0 I
1 ? I
1 0 I
1 I
I 0 ?
n1 In
I /
1 /
i
`dam 1 /
1 / s n
11 tt -
s n 1 1
1 1
1 I
1
1 ?, I
`T
rn O c7 rn I n., Y
?z mz 1 O
r0 s0 oc I
M-1 ?
X
m Zm M I
Z
0 EA C) (A rn_j
CA ;K0
m O x
1
r n I -n
= x 1 ? 1
Z Z s
n 1 r 1
IV O 1 ? 1
m N 1
aia ?•' ?P`?{ 0 I
a sL 1 0 i
??- I I
a a ??? ? I I
i ul tea
:
I Cn°' o I
"1 t °;: zo: I
_
z 1 i=
WO.
cm. i^' '
I? C."O_ v ? •.? t ? o I
?i a. C ••?• I I
Co Cy. rA FJ !•. 1_ I
14 0 z
Ito o o I 375
c c z ?, 1 3,5 1
Z 90 01
-n,
O+ "?17 400
°'a
o > 8 ...... '~
o O z
o
"d ? K ? 7d
>N Y
?a w W3
+ .?
O
z
0
w

O
v
m
z
v
O
-I
m
v

z
z
G1
O

T CD
Cl)
O x M N
?
Z
v 3 3
D
?
-
I

CA)

Sr CD

m

0. 0)
O
N
CL

L) CD
CD n
co

CL

CD
m CD

-4

z

c7
O
T CD
"' 00
0o
p
v <M
0
m
0 m
z0
Z I.
O?
OZ CD ?
2
C:wp
Z
C)
-
_
?
v
CO ?O
z
c
o
°c
ai
W -?
C.)
O a fQ
Z d
O
A

N
-co
O
N

m
m
-I

T

tT

A

W

N

C
z Vi
_
O
?
O
D
r
,

W
ca
n
?
?
°p

+
to
co
ao
°°

to N N ?

N
O

NO N
p N

? ?

O N

..
+

N °

O to ?

A N

r to
O
r N

r j
O
77 co rn

r to p +

A w
+
A co +
v ?
7

O
?7 r ? r i
O
O
z
W
_

r
3
CPS
?
_
n in w
v n 3 n ? -,
3 rn
W
n ? 3
3
N

0 0 °

°
o
0
0
o

°

T
=
N

117
1,1
to w ? ? o o N
? >

W
°-
r
n

v 7
T

y
=
Z

n
O

O 3 ?

0
0
?
?
D _
? o
i

N :3

O o o O O O
toll N N N V°i .0.. ?' O
? N
O N

VI
C
T
0
o o
c N
? 3
_
A N
A ?

T
O
pA O
A O
C ?
3 O j
(/1
p
A p
?
O O ?..' d C

?
5
`z
? v ?
.? ? T
A

3
S
w W _?
X
n
V v
3 O 7y"
d
.
v 1
7 7

pZ
p
o ?p N
? C
? D
.

El
v
m
z
O
33
C)
m C

v

z
z
0
0
m 0
v
O
'a
'0
N
Z
O

D
n

-v
CL 5

CL

'?.
to
O

m p)
m

z W O

c7
o
m a
co
? O vv
pv Zm
?
m
o
0
1 zO
m
Z
-
? O-1
Z
?
O
Z
=
Cep Z
Z :. G) Co
°
zc
oN ?o

.41 ? a iD
°
N

O O

Z .
O
A
0
N
O
O
N

m
?

f0

OD
Z
? A W N O V O
fD
0
D
r
?
-' 'O N N ? t! t! N ? t! N WD D N ?
N
? V O O + + N ?
? +
? N + + W O
:LI r O V pO,t
.Z) V O p? O N
co tWli ? Q O
r ?
W
0

? ?
0

? o
?

0
o

0
X
co
0
0
;u

0

'•?
? n n n n
W
o
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
? n
II 11 II II 11 II 11 ? C
O 0 +? O tW0 W CD

A N
OD CD
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
N rn
0 0 0 0 0 0 o O ?
N W W ? N
O W
O W
A ? .0
. j
.
3
a
r

z

v?
?
=
Z
rn

X
N N
o c S D
N N v ? ? ?
O M
O N ?
t
?
o

?? ?
O

O O

O O

O O

O O

O O O

p

N //
\?

(?) N
(n
O
?
W N
N
V A
N
7
? N
O. ''AA
V/
C
T
0 0 0 0 Z
N W N O o c o 7
01 p N CD f00 v C
v ?
<

0 o O o ?
ppp
? IJ ? (n
f0 ? O v C
o ? n

n

?
o 7

V O OD 1''
C V O O
y ?
OD
41 A
? U1
CD
A t0
CJ V ? 7 '
".
? ? ?
, 7 7
LO
N

'D
;u Cl)
X

0 CD
El
v
m
z
i
m E;

z
z
0
O
T cn
CD
O
N
z
v

-o
a

=r at

C2. Z rn

0 CD o N .0. <
o

CD

m
m ?

z
O
T ?0 0 -4 4
vo
ov <m D
0C- 0 tn
l
-
Z m
? ZO
0

? -,n
?p CO _0
m
Zoo O ?Z

Zto ?O
D
?
c
n
CO
O
a
Z

O
P
0

N
O
O
N

O
D
-? r
D
r
A A Cl)
' O
w to O ?
Z
.1

m
m

N
o T
v °m m N ?
?
a r
a

z
?
0 0 ?
? m

? T
v
?
3m 3
0 0 ? n
rn
3
o
N
n?

0 o C7 n ^
?'

A o
N ?, 7
CC CD
d
C
O O T
Z
A
O O
O tU C O

?
?
0 0 ?
?-n!n c
?

n

0
0 0
0 CD
?? 3
D
0 0 °=
T
?

D
?
A O
C v
(D ?

° v
0
0 0
0 ? t/7 (D ?

v
o ??
' I I
.4-7 a
t-j
// I 1
?///'. 1? I I 1 a
II : I I I ? ? n
? y"x I I , O ?F
1 x
„/, I =s
/1 I w
c
con?
in
m ,
co- Inv ?° ` 1 I I T D
O?z ?z
Z-no r0 c
°a--4 a-4 m
n m zrn 1
m cn v <n \ '? 1 I I . xi PpE
N
1 -n
-i r r
zz z m I .II.? ? i
N X I I 1
I ? ? - I . ?I 1 I
1
nz % 1 x I :' I
z0 in a I I I 1
m
x 1
I'x I: I I 1? z
T
?
t?f ? II I: I ?\
z k ,
I,? o o v f
o rA o' 1-4
z o o a I?l I I ?1?
r Zz z o x -x_x?
0 o n ?° Y a I I I ?? _ !' 1?
C?J a o 1
o S z I I I??
z o X?? ,P` I
?
o I
, I I
i 1
.:`
N I
1

I 1

? W 1
,
1 I , O

? a 1
1 I I
1 1
i'
O
- /
/
1 I I - /
I I /
I 1 1 /
N 1 I 1 J
C "I ? ?T
O

1 f .,rVN?.+"
i+ti .'. 1
r.,
^?.'?
".': ?.r?u!?.
F.
1 y
.
.. 1
• . •,,..
- r_4 r+.
,i?/ `c?
:.. ,yam
' ?y ?
? ??.,11 ?? ' a

?O?' 7
! N;l
r ?r
' ,,
...
., r
?
1 r
1 I `?' I J

ICI O

s
a
_O
s n 1
z I
z

-
n .
(A C) C) Q 0
cm rn
Z
r
z
--
mm --,
r
n
?..?•-.?.
'n r0 DO /
/
n?
m
mN oN
?,
/1
(A
I
-,
/
aP ,m-- m m
r n
m
r
CA Z z I
`\ ,?
'
i t s
= t t
, ,
m
D
O

(A
f+f \
?\
\

? 1 1 I
I
1

l7 ?I \
\
\
1

1?
f f I 1 1
m f+i 1 i :' 1
to m 1
I
1 1
I
^..
s,ci,
NT
1
1
I I
1
N a
N a 1
1
IA z
a0 °zo
1 I :: mp m
a
fA Jul Cm o
cm :. 1
M z 1+ G o -
1 1
C 0
..
COD 03
I?
C.. f~A 11 _ a i s m
x O O TDE
;?

Q z
0 OD
Ir
W
_
1
Zq z ` N

Q b
~ xi n 1 •:: O
z
? ?
I
W
C" a 1 5 I ,
T I '. 375 :
'
I
? Q I - 1
z \ ?
? ..
N ?n III I . 1
? L 1 I - 1
o ? 1 1 i%
I 1 1
1 I - I
I %1
T I ' I
I I " ? I
I 1 I
C 1 1 % -?. I
I 1 c. O - 1
I a n I - 1
1 1 1
I I 1
I I 1 ? - 1
I I I % I a c?
O 1 1 / \ ?n
I \? 1
I 1 1 „?r,".r
! ,.r f cDc O
/ m0 1 N
/ "O 1
' a
In
Z k:
' 'LLk
/ w
TI m /
v+v cno -E v c?v r /
c m c m m m r m-?- , (A* MZ =Z -IZ mz
n o CIO ro so
s? s-+ 3-1 m I
0 rri r) rm z m Z rn
Z rn (A In (A v of C) In o /
v?Z! ZE -n c^,l M m O /
s r, s r- r m
mr -rr r n
(A N Z Z Z :;. O I
m he "\ O I
\ 375 375
N m •' m?
r • / room
•i• 1 mol
/ mn I
to *af O - Nyl
I
1 t 1 l t t
,O
CA -I 1 I
m
03
z 1 - sc s? 1
(A V,
^7_ ?/ \ Na , Za 1
IT
?y z z 1 X:v
I? V? e m T? =z -^
ca coo
a m m I
Fy O O I z z
r Off, z z a
Z °m O 0 t >. , f z
60 '. I a n
0-4 rA
to z 1 1 1
1 I to
I
41
(A(A
N-
.\ (A
4z
X ;a
O I _?--------'??7f 'n' Z°m
o
I , CA)
I ? - +
/ I O.
I W O
? v
I
O .
' +
?\ I
,goy.. ? '•\ 1
/ n
? ? . goy ? \\
In
\•\ .. a T
? \ r
--4 Z
N N / \ro \ \\\` \l £7
10
.Ti dy 4
til z sF / ,, N
9.1 y '? n , 1 cn
C 7d_ v v 1 1 +
CA 0
??pp ' 11 s
Il ? C n y T??s` C
y x p o y°6sF ?,` . Q
o z "
Oy ^ z '1y / a n/ I 1 s
y o0 r /? I
¦C i i i a
iCo
M
O n 4'
0
N
0 0
o
o ;
o '
< z
c
? N
cl O !
D z I
r ? !
N r I
n I
I
r r)
m D !
r I
m ?
,
,
,
,
,
n=
,
,
N N V1
? m -n
I
I-A
® r
I
N "n
i
C°m m°m ?n ~ rn X
O
M Z -I Z W t O X , -n -n
n0 r O
cairn Zm O z T
mV1 0(A
:E -n N -n - ?? r
nF r Z m
m r r
m
;a _ _
0
(A z Z I\j
O m m
'° I -n -01 v
to n O m
+ C I r
„ $
N o `y z
Z
m `
W z
y oz v in
?o' a'a
o ? to c
?s z ? z°
o N
~? 03 ,%a% W
t? o ?Z Z O
o C y
'ty ? K ? x0 I?
? o
w z Cn O Ul O
1,', IT
°? 1
O 1 ?:: Q t c;; `4?: 1
1 ? ! 1
m0 // f?
o
I \\ N /
d (A 49 \\
ftzz
rn f
1 /
V ? i I f
1 1 f ``
ti r, s l
-n0 m0 -4 O a0 I tic O ?, /
a-+ rn a-a ern }yS
rn (A 3:,. CA V (A 0 CA
1 r^l
r"
1,4 375
z /
1 ?.
• 1 r i
N
1
31 ZA
(A -4 W24 M;o
Orn
z
IN 0 C Z '0
-? z
11 tt ;?
to ,? o !
mz t
w~ Z G1 b N t i /
0 yl // n
I L/ • 1 I 750
/
\ a n I I
\ s
•wL
00 °cm t_
+\ -CD I I x
ostF
\ •. \ O ? \`N I x
?- I
\ I N? x ?? 4 0
x' 1
1 S \
16 IA Cl Z- 0 *0 nO
11 tt
Cl x
zoo ?o mo ao ; ?fn ?'} '•? Cmx ?s
-4 m
-? \
rn Z- rn -4 -n
ZZm (A-n
ar (Ax r rn 1 ?`
M r- D r = i x x
rn
N Z D Z Z
a N / I \ ?x SL£
0 -4
, I x S
In / I x
/ / yew
rn -n
pf
• • F
i
01- Y,
i' /
CSI ? ? t \
z ?
I
H C? D C a" ; \ ?o s
I vJ O '"' CrJ I y O
r ,'?, z O ?' \ ?\ \ . N
Ir
0%0 C)
z b;' \ +
y K ?? \ \ O
m0% Y \
rij Cot
a G7 I ; x \ \ 0.,4
o

O •

N

O

?

C7 I
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
O 1
I
1A I
m I
s I
? I
to I
m 1
? 1
C \? m
4A ..
? a
0;:.
x z
om
i
v

a

?

\

?
O
O m
(A H
N a
A;
x
oc°,,
z"
v

5 ,

1

1
I
1
I
i
I
` I
?
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
1 a
I O
1
1
1

n

0.0
. C .o° ACf °
04 Fri \ \'? .

• .
?'O_
p po
eoo e`
E
•\ \

, °eg6S
{(b `b
s O 0
a°Oe°e O°ee
Q
0?

\ \

??\. o a?eQ
°up
g4°
ee ?
"0
°eeeYa
°
?
a°. e ,
9804 oe
o
90
.

?,d eCe- 0%S
'f ? 4g?p peOo$Oe°?
e q \ \

a e
°O
Ct Qoee g20
o`b
°°
?O?
°p
\
?
g
o ?O
o?p
, o 0S
c-
- • \ \\

0o c
;
s a
H $b
o?p\?
o°O-.
•\
'?
q a°
o ?°e
° ,\
ga e
e
oe
o e a \ :\

N
$ ?
0
o0adj°e0e oepa
e° Q?oe?
\•

2
7e?q?S
(bp`°oe
oo °0
o Ooe a \
j
ja ^

CID
e$ oO?Oo
O e°e°O `
t g
c '4 ° gb
c ?e'p'S owl •\ ? ••
m
°
000 0 \
y n / 4ea
\
tv
C ?p CA t ' \
w
f6t
m !
o °
?
N c c z
Lt Z
m
Z
I
to z
/
y ? O / I
>
CA
? v ree
/
1

o z i

1 ? X '• 1
O I },1 r I„
I c. I
I I
1 1
I I
I ,
1 I
I `? I
1 ,
N 1 I
O I y
1 r ,
I Y I
1 r' I
I t, I
i '-n
11
I 1
I ? ? I
c;
1
Oll:
I O .
I ,
td' H
Cj I 1
I - ? I
1 ,
mm rm 1
-4 z m z
375 375
zm Zm _
Ln C) N I e i1 1
m ? I S _ 1
t 1
m Jr.
o I H'^
(A° zL 1
r • I ;. a
DO
a. i = ?m mA '• I
Crrn 1
TI • a :; v , 0 1
1 ? I
?I 00
1
CA I oo I .. 1
03
z +
y , O t;
I-C
C C 1
CA 0
fAll
N Z O O I ] ` I
IS O go O z 1 f -+ `?
zy z
X a O i ?:...
0 ,b I
to c 0
?• Z, I ff 1
?v MATCHLINE -L-STA. 188+40
?
r
%0 y
O
z
0
so/l/k hL Ao Z sHaHS
SSVdAS HOUNOW 1,L-Sfl
(86M-2I) TOf069.L'8 :.L33 fO'Hd
M '
A.LNlloo NOINII
SAVMHJIH AO NOISIAIG
NOI.LV.L'IOdSNVN.L d0 '.Ld3i4
33V-idnS 831VM - - - ? - -
NISV8 HOlVdISSI0
AJM3N3 dVd dIU
dVU dIM
3NVA
0vm 100M
13INI 30VNIVUO

3NIl S000M -.4;
3381 310NIS 0
(S32in13n2I1S ONISIX3
310N30 S3NII 03HSV(D
i83A1n3 3dId 03SOd08d
ld3A1n3 X08 03SOd0dd
300IUG 03SOdO8d

d38WnN 1338Vd 80
83NMO A183dUd 1N33VrOV /
S1108 838I3 8103 ---
830In08
SDIViS 3AIl
XXXXX
AdVONn08 1NVId
032I30NVON3 '1SIX3 --8d3•-
A8VONn08 IVWINV
03U30NVON3 '1SIX3 --8V3•-
1N3W3SV3
30VNIV80 1N3NVW83d -30d-
1N3W3SV3
30VNIV80 'dW31 -301-
3NII A12i3d0Ud ---id --
ONn02IJ ivwlON ---ON --
AVM 30 1HO18 'd0Ud
III3 30 IIWII 'd0ad --? --
ln3 j0 IIWII 'd02id --? --
U31VM 30 3003 - -3M - -
ANVG 30 d01 ?-
81
N0I133HIO MO-l3 -30 - 0
ONI8V313
03ZINVH33W S310N30
2I31tiM 33ti3MnS NI IIId
A2Iti2I0dW31 S310N30
ONVI13M NI
NOI1dAd3X3 S310N30
ONdI13M NI TH A
AdV80dW31 S310N30®
(ONOd)
H31VM 33vi8nS
NI III3 S310N30
H31VM 33Vj8nS
NI 11I3 S310N30
ONdl13M
NI III3 S310N30
-81 M- -.
ONVI13M
' -.alw
AUVONn08 ONVI13M -----BIM---
CIN393-1
1*
r .,5, -- f. • j , l
-, n3 r..
. it
1
1 /a?! ` I y)/? 1rraiS? l
1 ?•?i ? :? Mim
VICINITY
MAPS
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
UNION COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.T690401 (R-2559C)
US 74 FROM WEST OF RICHARDS(
CREEP TO EXISTING US 74
SHEET 1 OF ZS 4/20/02

SITE 8-
SITE 7
AP 2
?' £8 QdN
f#v+? C 4"
f/El
P1
rt
-y3- NZT1#-WWEY RD
(SR /f 58)
SITE 6
y? a
SITE 15 AND 15A
Alr
SITE 14
SITE 5
d9?
-SITE 13
1
Y SITE 4
-w- WWHIrE 08
\\ ? !SR O8W
SITE 2
SITE 3
Wp S FC K CREEK
SITE I
S
ZP?
BEGIN PROJECT R -2559C
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
S I T ELd, UNION COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.T690401 (R-2559C)
MAP
I US 74 FROM WEST OF RICHARDSO
CREEK TO EXISTING US 74
'SHEET 'Z OF 2 S 4 / 20 / 02
rrq

SITIE,
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
UNION COUNTY
2 US 74 FROM PROJECT: WESTT OF RICHAR 8.T690401 (R-2559C)
MAP
CREEK TO EXISTING US 74
?A END PROJECT R -2559C
LEGEND
I WLB- WETLAND BOUNDARY
O
LIVE STAKES
C7_> WETLAND
® DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
® DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE WATER
• • DENOTES MECHANIZED
•'•' •' • CLEARING
--- ---- FLOW DIRECTION
TB TOP OF BANK
---WE --- EDGE OF WATER
- C - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- ?- - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
?- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG - - NATURAL GROUND
- ??- - PROPERTY LINE
-TOE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-POE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
-EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
----------- WATER SURFACE
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
UNION COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.T690401 (R-2559C)
74 FROM WEST OF RICHARD
CREEK TO EXISTING US 74
BOULDER
..-•-- COIR FIBER ROLLS
5 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
(DASHED LINES DENOTE
EXISTNG STRUCTURES)
SINGLE TREE
WOODS LINE
¦ DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
VANE
RIP RAP
RIP RAP ENERGY
DISSIPATOR BASIN
°

a) o o ° O O
C) °
°
O C O o O O O °. O O
c
C 6j _
T T U7

co L6

co R C6

`n CA

CY)
W U N T O

}- io c
Q 0 Co
a a) ?

0 0 0
° 0 0
O
O
O

F
W C C N

N
N O
0 O
00 O
O Cl O
U') O

(O CD CD r*-:
> m
W U O
° T
O O
?
co
In O T
L6
O L6
CD
O
y T

W
U
c M
U- m
C O L
N M
N
= o
v O O
U)
m
U) O ? LO M - 0) 0 CO T
m
C L
cu T
O (D
O I
LO
O _
O N
O O
O
O O
O m

'7
- Z 0 0 O O O O CD O Cl
LL

O CM M
N C 'd T N R f?
O` O m
co cc L L T
O 0
O 0
O
O
U 0 0 0 0
? v
m

°?
ca
m m

y" L m L
i O N

C
? C
-
C
c
C
Q N
O

d c
m
co
co
U) >
m t O O O
Q >
X> O O O
Z W C
Q
J
F- cn
w LL c
m
m
a-
E N -

c

c c rn o co o o co co O co co cn
M R _ N O O T co co
L Co O O O O O 0 0 0 0 N
U- j O O O O O O O O O O O

h m M
W T
a, a s v Ij a v a a CL

N
v p p ? 0? Q cp p cn ? LO W of w Q Q Q Q
•
` CO ? (O O Z T ? T O T C) CV V O U')
a
co m Cp
T tfl
T X c 0) X N
T (O
T O
T
r- O N
j W W W
C O
I- -i J J °N J J J J J J >
w } }
O
-
E C V C O O CO O O O O O N O _
C)
0 R R C.0 O

O T T N R co N 00 rl- J r
co
(n
LL- + 0
T .+
N O
O t+A
M ?
R Of
R V
to .
(0 O
(.0 Cj
00 O
R
O
T 0
CO 0
^ 0
(O 0
T t
R +
O }
M T T +
M +
co +
N +
N

Cn

N
O

O

T

N

M

R

O J

Z T N M R CD 1? 00 CT L
T CDD
T O
H

O
H U ? ?

`?
? o?H x ?o
04
(n 0
lob
O
CM ) QQ 1 x?
,.<

9/ l
r CL

--
o
Lz,
E-4
%

/

f s I
W
O Z O e
o ?t o 0
H r~
; o
1 4 V U
Q W
\ x$ i U a ? U x

?
. a r
r
\
'? ! it
1C\
\
'? '•\
`` f ? f
? t
? a+"
s s t+
s
? t
a 1

+ t t, t+1

'•\ \ asst
1
s a?

f ,
?
f ••\ ••

! f ,
FIy y
\ iL
! y t t ! ! ¦
i f
1
•
f t ! i •\

I ?
X x + '
f •'\
N M Ion + t t ??
s t\ \
'\•
1 ^ s f y t! i t?
f ••\
I
I \
d ?? t
i ,?
?`;
! f ! ! W
r?
I PC e
?a,tf u ?
I u, ?,

n a • 141
U
? ?
I ¦ttf
I
1
I 1
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I

O

b/

O
I
I
1
I z o
I
? a
I xz ??z
?
/
I i z
1 ? x o o°? a
1 p; U

oz H o z
H
w w
°0
/
i z H H o
i 04
o aw
U Q a ? U W
n

I 1 Z ? x
1
1
1 I

1 ?.
1

61

1
1 ,
I
1
I
I 1 ? ?
1

i I ?
1
I 1 ?
I
I
'
a

?
? 1 N
I
I

/ I
I
I
I
I 1 O
1
81 ? ? O
/ I
Q
U A ? ?
?? a x H a? U ?
? z
? x o o ? w
° z
Go W W c?1
0 ;T.
° o z
W Dd c?
? '7
Ci A a Ix
rr U W
-l- OO+ZZ 'V1S Z ?` W
?,;\ / I / t?j vxj
i
LIL
N 1 F-Q
O I'=)Cc
co N ?I
E? I I ? S?F ? I V
C I ?
J'a
?aa+? 1 N ? I
`? r?F I y
J3 \
\ i
/ N f a
fA F
\ \\ ? ? ca?iml O
I
ol?
w 31C
?\ I
? I
2
/
1 am
?W ` O
N,
dOH # d3a 1
SL£ N SL£ 1
i # I N
OLO
2m N
I .
-l- Ob+OZ 'V1S
O
E
O
z C4
z 0 o
O A N
?Z 311S -l- 00+9Z 'V1S 3NI-IHDIVW v? 0
I I E-" ? ? x O ?
I
I I a x ?' ? w z cQWn
.? w
? i ?? U o 0? W
I s? O O ao ? O ?`'
p z ?., ?.
t o I A? O w W W
j ?d ? i U A a 'P U ?
I g } ? I z ? v?
I I ?
I
I ? I
O I y I
I to
I
I
I
14
I = ? I
I ~
1 0 1 i
e
I did I
I ; SL£ N
Ism
10
?+ J ? 1
10
Iva ?V'f I ¦
I I i
I I i
I.
I I ¦
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
r I
rr ? e W
r r ~
r r U
? I
i ? N
jj O
z
o o 0
?

1 H P
i
? a x
z a z
-4 w
' ?? ao z ? ? W a
I
I 1
' y w
p o O ?
z g p
H ?

?
a o
O

'? . ?' ?
A a o
x a
w w
a H
w
I Ci a ?. U W
I z
I
I
I ,
I I
I I
o 1
I Y
I ? ?
I ? 1
I °
I z
1 I

1 I F?

d 1 I
i I
?
w
I ?
t
I 1
I I a

moo. ? I
I ?
1 I
1
1 I

? 1 I
7 N
? c3 1
I "? 1
P a
50
W
M E B
?W? OWS dad ddb 1
SL£
M
w 1
N
?
F-
? I

• I I
, I
I I

I I O
311S -l- 00+9Z 'ViS 3NIIH01VW O
1

1

I
z o 0

A
• I ? ?
N V ? ?
I ?
z
?
? li ? z
?
? x U o Q? W

1 a? ?i+ Q GO ? Q N
0
' Z a
p
q ?
? w E"
a
a
A
1

1
w
N
O
. (
j
CU
Z
?
?
I
I ?
99 I
1 y 1
I
,
WCL
W

CL

N

I

i
I
4.N I
O I I ?+
to

IM0913 /!A >
I dV43 M \c4

OSa
OS`

<
?a

LE

I
c14

a
I
I I z
1 I
I \ 1
1
I
I
I
? 1 b
I
I 1
1 ?
I 1 C?
1
I .
.
I
I ? I

I
I
I
I
I E ll)

W
a
?
I I
I
I
W i
1 N
I
I

I
y
I O C)

0
\ a x F e5 z W
U c ?' W
H' O `?° vFi W a
U
c(? m F -n
0 0
z
a
,?? ?` _ \ 5 d?aa ? p ? A
did oss J Ar- a I?-Z r\ a
---- - - - - - - - It' \ z
o p0? p F, ti
\.
r~
ti w zz
? a ? ca a
"
" U
U
in
d
a ti W
LO W
Q ------------ --- ? N
Oy
O ??1 ? ?
o ° o
>4
o
A. z z xz w
40 1-4
o
o
wz H
® w. O O °d 3 O
O .-4 o U O
O -,
U A a cL4 H
z
rAra
a
?x!
o?.
------------------
-' ti z
U
co
-
9 311S 3NIIHOIM
O
E
O
z _0 o
H U ?
s 93£ via d3a S!£ c?i V
-im
LL V)
46'65 - /
W ? ? ti O W
0.4
V ? A Q a? W W
U a ? U x
LAI
/ m .`?
/ Y
/ ?I O
OS 3
W
F
-N
W
z u
O
K
O
co
le
W
F
.H
- i - -ws-
W
6b
I
? I
I 1 N
1 \ I
I J
? I to
?
1 m° ' on
.? ? a
4000P
W/ EL OWS
N
• I I fb I
C3
I "
o ° o
a ? o
t? a x a
F4 Hoz H Ww a
b ? z p °° y
z H H a
? x y o W o
W o
?+ A a a? a w
U a ? U c?
z
-l- 08+SS WIS
I 1 v
I l a
I 1 °o
I 1 ?
I I ?
i 1 w
I 1 ?
I I ?
I I U
IJ ? I I
I I y
? I I
cow z z
?a I A O
i _a I
1 xW I
r' g t
? N N
a \ I
-; I
I
I
I i
I \
I =
i U
Z
I
I ; I ``\\
t ? I
I F-
I = I U
-l- Ob+bS 'd1S N
O
O

l

Z9
O
19
N
e?
E-? U c?

a°°xH v4 a? A

U ?
F
? a
?
? oz ? w
o z o H e E N
w
? o
ro
? W
1 q ? O Qi W H
q
! U
a U x
? z
? x
?
? i Z/£Z/+Z9 Sl -?-

,? NF?
d0a a
Hd 009 J?
J
t
iN
11
?
1 a
d
1 ?
W I

i
I
? I ?

.9,. I
I q
1
°0s 66
1
? ? I
°0s 1 b

N ?
`
?
?

? U

CL
U r
r Ci)
E
K I
?
N
Ii
1

O

E
O
I
I
I
I
r
I
1
I
1
i
1
1
?
?
?
?
I
?
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
o
(? U RA' n o
C/)
a x H ? ? ? A
?oz z w
I
x w ?.
?? ; '? ? H o z H w W ?
N SLC 16 SM0813 /M
' i U a w a w
;? I z
I e?? 4!V.
I
I `\ I O
1 I a
I 1 ct
I ? ® U
I \ I b
Z
1 N N ?d N m f
?9 I d08 d08 SL #0 1 A
1 sLC V) o t
I
1 U. V)
o
1 \`? 1
I I
I \ I
I \ i
1 •\ I
1 W (? . W
1 b ?i
It I ? E cn
I I •\
I I ?•' N
I 1 •'?
I ? 1
I I
1
i 1
O
E
O
z o 0
H F - U a
v-4 oan
U
? ? ? O z ? W W tx
a ? ? ? O z ? ? ° c=,
a ? ? W ? p,4 O
U Ei
A> 0 w W w
a a U A Q" ? U x
-l- 09+£8 'ViS
I 1 ?
I I ?
I = I
I I a ,?'
1 1 `° s 1
I c /
I Ul
1 c y6'' I
\ j 6LW4-f8 Sl -7- ?-
\ I jr0'„ ' - 1
. \ 1 z* I
O \ I ,?` I
1 1
J I
1 a° I
I G?'Pc,S I
1
'% I I
14
4
-l- 09+38 'V1S
U
N
O
E
O
z o
0

ii a x F a Z w
=0
N
? x o ? oM ?
H o z H ?W ?,

??1
A
A
fl. 0
W ?
W
W
z

-- to

l0-z 1 d3a sc£ as

OIL
n¢ f031V301 38 1 OWn3 1311I1W1 `` /??/-/7- - -
c ra

19-Z
q-? - -
- -- -

tD
O

N A
3N03 R % Y'Z - Z
?e?a rzXb•zoz
F
b

SM0813 /M
----_?-dlyi 006
ra

J/ Z
N

0
r
0
z o 0
F v
°axE" ? xz w
`n C7 z
x O IT V
0
Foz F wW ,n
o z o o
w
0
w > ti
a Q o w
a9 a w
U a ? U ?
ri)
z
+
u
Sal
I >
o _ I , ?-- ? UZ U?
5
z W
---f 1 o Z4
/ ~ A A AU
?! I I
-1-
I
II ?
91
r
i II N
I '
I ,
1 0
0
o ° o

A. 12+W
oa
r
?
°
Ch
? I I `---. x w
H o
z H H
w ?
w w
x
I
o
= o I I
U w
° o o ,;
z H
a
H in
CT.
W O W °
0 (
I Q a
.
LL) U U W
o I ?

? I
1 I
I

I y
Dad
?

f I I
?
\ Z
a
U
I I
I z
I ?
I
a I I ?Ol ? ,. "? a

i l
I. I +
w
I \

+ r:z
C\j
Z

b
I
l
A EZ:
O
M 4
F U
?' ' a x F ? ? Z
0
t
o ? Foz ?, Wra
t_n • - ?? W
n Jia a? ?'" A a E.
1• x y
F a z a a
W
•
\\ I
I
I
t
' O
o I I
z o N
? o
?5? `o Qr ,?i ? ? ? z W
•//// 61 x o p o
/ o a o
- ? / / w ? •, o D4 N
/ / /q Ea z ? ?
- Hw
,o
W
r
in
, J
< , am yV
03
..1 d S `J
z
U ? a
O N ?
V
o?o? war?RP?
r
> -q
0 -c
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
NCDOT
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
RE: Monroe Bypass; R-2559 B&C
Union County
DWQ# 02-0672
May 7, 2002
DWQ received the application for the above mentioned project on April 29, 2002. We will begin our
review and processing of this application. However please be aware that DWQ cannot complete processing of
this application until we receive a copy of the Public Notice issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers and 2)
the issues relating to cumulative impacts are adequately addressed as discussed in our meeting on April 9, 2002.
DWQ is committed to working with you, the City of Monroe, Union County and your consultants to
address the cumulative impact issue. As agreed in our April 8 meeting, we will need copies of all relevant local
existing stormwater and related land use management programs. To date we have not received these materials.
Please send three (3) copies of this information to me so we can accelerate this process.
I can be reached at 919-733-9464 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
John Dorney
Water Quality Certification Program
cc: Mike Parker, DWQ Mooresville Regional Office
Milt Rhodes, WQ Planning
Steve Lund, Asheville Corps of Engineers
Cynthia Van Der Wiele, DWQ
Central Files
File Copy
MONOR
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
N. C. Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
[phone] (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nawetiands
ti

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY 1501 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, N.C. 27699-1501
GOVERNOR
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
020672
April 19, 2002
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 143
Asheville, NC 28801-:5006
ATTN: Mr. Steve Lund
Dear Sir:
0W
9 20[1? p
SUBJECT: INDIVIDUAL PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE MONROE BYPASS IN
UNION COUNTY, TIP NOS. R-2559 B, AND C
Please find enclosed the permit application and drawings for the subject project.
The proposed roadway, US 74 Monroe Bypass, is a four lane facility with a 45-foot
divided median on new location connecting US 601, just south of the intersection with,
SR 1504 (Baucom-Deese Road) at Fowler Crossroads, to existing US 74, approximately
half way between the towns of Wingate and Marshville, a distance of approximately
9.169 miles (14.756 km). Full control of faccess-will be maintained. An-analysis of
various alternatives and the explanation of the preferred is detailed in the Environmental
Assessment (EA) signed in March 1996 and the Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) signed June 1997. The state project number is 8.T690401 and the Federal Aid
Project number is NHF-74(8).
Section R-2259 B is 3.538 miles long (5.694 km) and begins at US 601 and ends
just before the crossing of Richardson Creek. It scheduled to be let in September 2002.
Section R-2559 C is 5.631 miles long (9.06 km) and begins connects with Section B and
ties back into US 74 just east of the intersection of US 74 and SR 1754 (Forest Hills
Road). It is scheduled to be let in September 2002.
INDEPENDENT UTILITY
The original EA for this project included a section, R-2559 A, that tied R-2559
PA ? r ?!T
fl- R, i
p _` 11-D
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone] V ` l L U
10
B from the US 601 interchange back to US 74 west of Monroe, hence bypassing the city.
However, due to changes in growth patterns since the completion of the EA and FONSI
and in conjunction with other road building studies, questions were raised as to whether
the alignment of R-2559 A could better suit the purpose and need of the project by tying
in elsewhere. So in March 2000, the decision was made to eliminate section R-2559 A
and once again examine the best alternatives to meet the purpose and need of the project.
This proposed roadway study has been renamed TIP R-3329.
While the question still remains as to where the Monroe Bypass will ultimately
connect, sections R-2559 B and C alone represent a viable project that is needed to
alleviate the traffic congestion on US 74 that is experienced daily within Monroe. This
project, coupled with the proposed upgrading of US 601 from the proposed intersection
with US 601 to Monroe (TIP U-4024), will provide an alternative route to motorists that
will avoid a large segment of US 74 and create safer driving conditions.
Therefore, NCDOT believes that Section R-2559 B and C meet all the criteria
required to exhibit independent utility as a stand-alone project. They are addressed
below.
The project connects logical termini. The justification for both termini was presented
in the EA. While ending the road at US 601 was not discussed in the document, it
never-the-less is a logical terminus for the reasons outlined in the EA.
The project is of sufficient length that environmental matters have been addressed on
a broad scope. The EA and FONSI address all environmental matters with respect to
NEPA requirements. In addition, since the original scope of the project examined the
potential corridor that would be utilized if a connector road were tied to the bypass
beyond the termini with US 601, there is documented evidence that there are no
environmentally sensitive sites within the immediate area of potential effect.
• The project has independent significance such that it is usable and of reasonable
expenditure even if no other improvements are made in the area. US 74 through
Monroe experiences congestion and delays Monday through Friday beginning from
approximately 2:00 pm until 7:00 pm. In addition, this road serves as the main
thoroughfare for motorists traveling from Charlotte and other cities west, to the coast.
Therefore, delays also frequently occur on weekends. Construction of this project
will remove all traffic accessing US 601 north of Monroe and US 74 east as well as
providing an alternative route for through traffic, thereby alleviating some of the
congestion and resulting in safer driving conditions.
• The project does not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonable
foreseeable transportation improvements. The interception of the traffic east of the
town of Wingate, which is before the more built-up areas, and keeping full control of
access aids in maintaining a smooth traffic flow. The terminus with US 601 allows a
connection with the main artery for traffic traveling accessing US 601 from the north.
• While it is probable that eventually a connector road will seek to tie to the terminus of
this project at US 601, it does not necessitate that it will. However, as
aforementioned, since the original study considered the environmental impacts to the
area beyond the US 601 terminus and found no environmentally sensitive sites, it
would make a connection here an attractive alternative.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Wetlands: The proposed project will impact twenty-five jurisdictional wetlands.
Wetlands were delineated using the criteria specified in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual. Wetlands were verified by Mr. Steve Lund of the United
States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Asheville Regulatory Field Office.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) rating system was performed on each
wetland site. Each wetland was also classified according to the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service Wetland Classification (Cowardin, 1979) system and the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental
Management: Field Guide to North Carolina Wetlands (Report No. 96-01, 1996). Table
Al in Appendix A reflects the wetland communities, quality analysis, and acres of impact
for each section of the project.
The "Acres Impacted" column in Table A 1 reflects permanent fill, excavation,
and mechanized clearing in wetlands and are further itemized in the summary sheets in
Appendix B. Appendix B also contains the permit drawings for each section. Method III
mechanized clearing will be used throughout the project.
A general description of each wetland type, as listed in the Field Guide to North
Carolina Wetlands, and the dominant vegetation found in each is described below:
Headwater Forests - These wetlands are found at the headwaters or adjacent to
intermittent streams. The primary source of hydrology is groundwater. Typical
vegetation includes box elder (Acer negundo), red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), winged elm (Ulmus alata), green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), Chinese privet (Ligustrum
sinense), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis),
Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), blackberries (Rubus spp.), poison
ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
mountain mint (Pychanthemum sp.), greenbrier (Smilax sp.) and microstegium
(Microstgium viminea).
Bottomland Hardwoods - Only the wetland in the flood plain of Meadow Branch was
classified as a bottomland hardwood. The hydrology is derived from a combination
of overland flooding and groundwater. Typical vegetation includes black willow
(Salix nigra), red maple, sweetgum, green ash, black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), tulip
poplar, tag alder (Alnus serrulata), elderberry, silky dogwood, greenbrier,
jewelweed (Imaptiens campensis), false-nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), poison ivy,
broad-leaf cattail (Typha latifolia), arrow-leaf tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum)
and rushes (Juncus spp).
Pond Fringe - Areas around the edges of ponds that have rooted, persistent vegetation
have been classified as pond fringe wetlands. These areas are usually saturated for
the entire year. Typical vegetation includes black willow, tag alder, silky dogwood,
rushes, and sedges.
Ephemeral Wetland - Site 6 on Section B is an old pond that has been breached though
seasonally retains water in a small area below the invert of the breach. Its main
source of hydrology is groundwater. The dominant vegetation is early successional
grasses, sedges, and rushes. The second site, Section C - Site 13A, is within the
floodplain of Meadow Branch and retains water for short periods of the year.
Young trees, such as sweet gum and tulip poplar, with little herbaceous vegetation,
dominate the area.
Surface Waters: Table A2 in Appendix A lists the acres of impact and the linear
feet of channel loss for each site. The "Acres Impacted" column includes permanent fill
in, excavation of, and permanent draining of ponds and totals 3.72 acres. The total
channel loss for the project is 6771 linear feet. The station number for each site is listed
on the summary sheets in the permit drawings (Appendix B) as is the hectare amount for
each jurisdictional stream lost.
Threatened And Endanerg ed Species: There-are two-federally endangered species
in Union County; Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) and Carolina
Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata). Areas of potential habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower
exist throughout the project corridor. These areas were surveyed by consulting biologist
on September 24-26, 1996 and the findings were included in the EA and FONSI. No
populations or individuals were identified which lead to determination that the proposed
project is not likely to adversely impact the Schweinitz's sunflower. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife service (USFWS) concurred with this finding in a letter dated May 17, 1996 and
included in the FONSI. Additional surveys were conducted by NCDOT biologists in
October 1999 and also failed to identify any individuals. Since two years have past and
there are areas of suitable habitat on the project and known populations in the vicinity,
NCDOT biologists will conduct another survey in the fall of 2002 and will provide the
results of the survey to the USFWS.
Consulting biologist performed surveys for the Carolina Heelsplitter by
conducting bank surveys for relic shells in 1996, during which only relic shells of Asiatic
clam (Corbicula fluminea) were noted. Therefore, the determination was made that the
proposed action is not likely to adversely effect the Carolina heelsplitter, which was
concurred with by the USFWS in the May 17, 1996 letter. NCDOT biologists performed
additional surveys in Stewarts Creek, Richardson Creek, and Rays Fork at various times
from 1999-2000. A few individuals of Elliptio sp. were discovered upstream of the
proposed crossing of Stewarts Creek. No relic shells or live individuals were identified in
Rays Fork.
On June 2, 1999, a shell of Carolina creekshell (Villosa vaughaniana) and two
Elliptio sp. shells were discovered at the crossing of Richardson Creek. Richardson
Creek also has a known population of Savannah lilliput (Toxolasma pullus), which
together with Carolina creekshell are Federal species of concern. Two additional surveys
were performed at the proposed crossing where a few more relic shells were discovered,
however no live individuals were identified. While good habitat exists in the project area
for mussels, the crossing is just downstream of a wastewater outfall for the town of
Monroe and a strong chlorine smell is evident at this site. So therefore, it is unlikely that
any mussels exist within the immediate project area.
Since the concurrence letter from the USFWS in 1996, there has been a significant
change in the circumstances surrounding the Carolina heelsplitter. The known range of
the Carolina heelsplitter has decreased while the development of land within the
subbasins that support the mussel has increased at a much faster rate than predicted.
Coupled with this development are proposed infrastructure improvements, specifically to
roadways and utilities. As a result of these changes and new information regarding the
species, the USFWS has stated that the 1996 concurrence that the proposed action is not
likely to adversely effect the Carolina heelsplitter is no longer valid. An informal Section
7 consultation is currently underway with representatives of the USFWS, North Carolina
Wildlife Resource Commission (WRC), NCDOT and Union County. It is anticipated
that particular measures proposed by the USFWS and WRC to ensure that the proposed
action-vial not lead to indirect take of any individuals-of the-species, will be implemented
by Union County and NCDOT prior to letting of this project.
Cultural Resources: In a letter dated January 24, 1996, State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) concurred with the findings listed in the EA that the construction corridor
contains no properties currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places. After
an intensive archaeological survey of the construction corridor that concluded in 1997,
the SHPO concurred that no assessed sites were eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places.
MITIGATION OPTIONS
The ACOE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a
wetland mitigation policy that embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. Mitigation of jurisdictional impacts, or sequencing, has been defined by the
CEQ to include avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts, and compensating for impacts.
Avoidance & Minimization: The NCDOT has employed many avoidance and
minimization strategies during the planning phases of the EA and the FONSI, such as
reduced medians in wetlands. In addition, as a result of various field reviews (September
14, 1999, March 5, 2000) and in-house meetings (February 21, 2002) with the resource
agencies, the following were deemed high quality natural areas and required further
consideration for avoidance and/or minimization.
R-2259 B
Site 2: This wetland was going to be impacted by the mainline as well as a service road
to access properties that are being landlocked as a result of the proposed bypass.
NCDOT considered a shift of the mainline to avoid the wetlands. However, this
would require a major shift to bring both the mainline and service road out of the
wetlands. Not only would such a shift increase jurisdictional impacts at the
intersection with US 601, but would still leave large portions of land that would
be landlocked and require an access. Instead, NCDOT is proposing to leave the
mainline on its current alignment, but eliminate the service road and purchase the
properties that will no longer have access. In addition, NCDOT is currently
investigating ways to utilize these landlocked parcels to create on-site stormwater
retention areas. These may includes ecia y designed drainage ditches a
provide stormwater attenuation and treatment or posse y creating wetlands that
tle same ene i s. nce a esign i
tie into the existing wetlan s to prove i
complete, the plans will be forwar a tot a agencies.
R-2259 C
Site 1: The original design called for piping this unnamed tributary (UT) to Rays Fork
under the mainline. After further investigations, NCDOT was able to increase the
bridge over SR 1751 and avoid any piping of the channel. However, 180 feet (55
meters) of the existing channel will be abandoned and 197 feet (60 meters) of
channel created as a result of this design. In addition, 92 feet (28 meters) of
channel will be day lighted by removal of the existing SR 1786 road crossing.
Finally, the relocation of SR 1758 will fill 131 feet (40 meters) of channel. In
summary, the new design creates 279 feet of new channel while filling or
abandoning 311 feet of channel for a total impact of 32 linear feet. This reduces
impacts by 316 linear feet.
Site 2: This intermittent UT to Rays Fork is a high quality surface water. NCDOT
examined shifting the mainline to avoid the significant impact to this system in
1999 and again in 2002. In the 1999 assessment, it was believed that a shift to the
south would result in impacts to a larger stream. A more detailed examination in
2002 indicated that it would be possible to avoid direct impacts to either stream,
but would have indirect impacts on both. In addition, the required alignment shift
would impact would have alignment repercussions for almost half of this project.
This shift would cause a more skewed crossing and often increased impacts to

surface waters, including the crossing of Richardson Creek, Rays Fork, and the
UT to Rays Fork detailed above (R-2259 C - Site 1).
As stated in the 1999 assessment, any shift to the north would result in an increase
the amount of construction required on the -Y- lines in the relocated area because
the mainline is in a valley. The northerly shift would force the mainline grade to
be higher to reduce earthwork which in turn would extend -Y- line construction to
the north. This would impact streams currently outside the construction limits
and therefore reduce the overall benefit of the shift. In addition, any shift would
require reverse curves that are not desirable for this type of facility. Therefore,
NCDOT proposes to leave the design as is.
Site 5: Meadow Branch. The floodplain adjacent to Meadow Branch at the mainline
crossing is the highest quality wetland on the site and also represents over 1/3 the
total wetland impacts resulting from the project. NCDOT has redesigned the
bridge such that the o ermanent fill in the wetland will be the bridge bents
This initiative will reduce wean impacts by 2.47 acres.
In order to construct the bridge, two temporary haul roads will placed in the
wetlands as detailed in the permit drawing. The haul roads will be of earthen fill
and will be placed on fabric filter. They will cover approximately 0.60 acres and
total approximately 5055 cubic yards. They are expected to remain in place for
approximately two years. Once the bridge is completed, the area will be restored
to its pre-construction elevation. It is expected to revegetate naturally.
Site 14: This wetland is currently providing substantial water quality benefits by
attenuating and treating the stormwater runoff from the road and business across
the street (SR 1754). In order to help preserve these functions on-site, NCDOT is
designing a special roadside ditch that will attenuate much of the-runoff from-the
road and parking lot before it enters the UT to Salem Branch. T'he details of the
special ditch will be transmitted to the agencies upon completion.
MITIGATION
Compensation - wetlands. The project will impact 4.26 acres of jurisdictional
wetlands in the Yadkin River Basin, Cataloging Unit 03040105. All 4.26 acres are
riverine wetlands. The NCDOT proposes to provide mitigation via in-lieu payments to
the Wetlands Restoration Program (WRP) at a 2:1 ratio in the amount of $204,480.00
($24,000.00 / acre). A copy of the WRP acceptance letter is included in Appendix C.
Compensation - surface waters. The project will impact 6,771 linear feet of
jurisdictional streams. These streams are in the Yadkin River Basin, Cataloging Unit
03040105. NCDOT proposes to mitigate for these impacts on-site at a 1:1 ratio and off-
site at a 2:1 ratio. The end result, as detailed in Table A2, is 13,712 linear feet of stream
that will need to be mitigated for off--site. NCDOT proposes to provide this mitigation
via in-lieu payments to the WRP in the amount of $1,714,000.00 ($125.00 / linear foot).
A copy of the WRP acceptance letter is included in Appendix C.
It is anticipated that these activities will be authorized through a Section 404
Individual Permit. By copy of this application, the NCDOT requests that the NC
Division of Water Quality review the proposal for authorization by a 401 Water Quality
Certification. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please
contact Mr. Michael Wood, of The Catena Group at [phone].
Sincerely,
of X? y? <'eG
William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, NCDOT Coordinator
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Pete Colwell, Division of Water Quality
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. MaryEllen Haggard, NCWRC
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. Dave Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Timothy V. Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
Ms. Susan Cauley, Roadside- Environmental
Mr. B. G. Payne, P.E., Division 10 Engineer
Mr. Larry Thompson, Division 10 DEO
Mr. Michael Wood, LSS, Catena Group
TABLE Al. Monroe Bypass (R-2559 B and C) Wetland Communities, Quality Analysis,
and Total Impacts
Site Cowardin
Classification Schafale & Weakley
Classification DWQ
Rating Acres
Impacted
Section B
IA PFO1C Headwater Forest 23 0.03
113 PFO 1 C Headwater Forest 23 0.02
1 C PFO 1 C Headwater Forest 23 0.06
2 PFO 1 E Headwater Forest 63 0.76
4 PFO1C Headwater Forest 39 0.09
5 PEM1F Pond Fringe 25 0.06
7 PEM2F Ephemeral Wetland 42 0.22
8 PFOI C Headwater Forest 39 1.13
10 PEM 1 F Pond Fringe 15 0.07
11 PFO1C Headwater Forest 43 0.34
12 PFO 1 C Headwater Forest 28 0.24
13 PFO1C Headwater Forest 31 0.37
14 PFO 1 C Headwater Forest 21 0.09
15 PEM1F Pond Fringe 25 0.02
SUBTOTAL 3.51
Section C
3 PFO 1 C Headwater Forest 15 0.10
4 PFOIC Headwater Forest 15 0.14
5 PFOIE Bottomland Hardwood 76 0.00
6 PFO 1 C Headwater Forest 24 0.11.
7 PFO 1 C Headwater Forest 17 0.03
9 PFOIC Headwater Forest 24 0.05
11 PFO 1 C Headwater Forest 19 0.07
13 PFO 1 C Headwater Forest 23 0.02
13A PFO1 C Ephemeral Wetland 20 0.04
14A PFO 1 E Headwater Forest 15 0.04
14B -PFOi C Headwater Forest 46 0.16
SUBTOTAL 0.75
TOTAL 4.26
PFO1C - Palustrine Forested Broad-leaved Deciduous Seasonally Flooded
PFOIE - Palustrine Forested Broad-leaved Deciduous Seasonally Flooded / Saturated
PEM1E - Palustrine Emergent Persistent Semipermanently Flooded
PEM2F - Palustrine Emergent Non-Persistent Semipermanently Flooded

YABLE A2. Monroe Bypass (K-2559 B and C) - Stream Impacts
Site Water Body Channel
Impact
(linear feet) Channel
Replaced
(linear feet) Proposed
Mitigation*
(linear feet) Acres
Impacted
Section B
1 UT to Stewarts Creek wS L? 117 0 234
5 Farm Pond 0.05
6 Farm Pond 1.15
7 UT to Stewarts Creek 7 WS,? 553 0 410
8 UT to Stewarts Creek J 588 0 1176
9 Farm Pond 0.64
10 Farm Pond 0.95
11 UT to Richardson Creek W5 133 0 266 0.11
12 l
UT to Richardson Creek 303/ 610 0 1220
13 UT to Richardson Creek 343 0 686
15 Farm Pond 0.24
SUBTOTAL 2220 0 4440 3.14
Section C
1 UT to Rays Fork
k 311 279 64
2 UT to Rays For 1646 0 3292
4 Spring Branch 1082 0 2164
6 UT to Meadow Branch C 276 0 552
8
9 UT to Negro Head Creek?
UT to Negro Head Creek) G 608
465 0
0 1216
930
10 Negro Head Creek •- L 314 0 628
12 Farm Pond 0 0 0 0.58
14 UT to Salem Branch VJS rp 213 0 426

I SUBTOTAL 4915 0 9272 0.58
TOTALS 6771 0 13712 3.72

0
z `
® E-
p z z c ??
po m
.' u Cs' U
° z O NI
J?
Z
U-i CI-
~ ? g
U
a
o ° ;Q
N
? Ly
m \? W W
V?1
UN 0
O
0-4
?nl `A
LEGEND
---WLB----- WETLAND BOUNDARY
WETLAND
`--WLB-'
® DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
® DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
DENOTES TEMPORARY
® FILL IN SURFACE WATER
» DENOTES MECHANIZED
•; •» »" • CLEARING
E-- F FLOW DIRECTION
TB TOP OF BANK
-••-•WE•-••- EDGE OF WATER
C-- PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
-- F-- PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
--?-- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
-- NG--- NATURAL GROUND
- - PL - PROPERTY LINE
-TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- PDE - PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-•EAB-- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
-•EPB-- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
-.•- 0 ••-••-••- WATER SURFACE
XXXXX LIVE STAKES
BOULDER
COIR FIBER ROLLS
O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
(DASHED LINES DENOTE
EXISTNG STRUCTURES)
0 SINGLE TREE
WOODS LINE
¦ DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
VANE
RIP RAP
RIP RAP ENERGY
DISSIPATOR BASIN
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
UNION COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.T690401 (R-2559B)
US-74 MONROE BYPASS
SHEET 2 OF ?y 4I1/02
\

cv)
41

/ o

/ O
U
11300
LLJ 0 /1 91
_ \\ C
40

LL_
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LL.
v, ----------- -----
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
1
t
1
I
I
1
I
1
1
1 ?
1
1
I
1 /
1
1
1
1
1
I 1 ?\
1 ?
1
/
i
a ?
N `
r
3 O
w
r
N
O Y
rw
rIr
:3 U
f e/ C'ONC
I \ \
-PLUG
_OS _0l CONCORD HWY
-- ---------------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
..
3 7L. 3 2?e3
r rZ ?
\30 ? i o ? ? o' m

?I
.1
1 cn / /? ? 1
• r
r to
r
s r
r
: r
rrr U- w N
0 z
w O
N r
z z Q z'^
U J L) Q
L11 J J
2 wN wZ %Bc
w ra rw-'J" wu
Q OJ O w 4
3
au 03 0? 0tn
1 rF?p4?
VJ
O
N
O
O

0
z `
?a
F e ?<
Ob+881 'V1S-l- 3NIIHOiVNI C E"
I , y C7 CD CO
a c ?a
z E-
` 'ALL 1 i ?? z ao ° NI
I I 0 0 Z F r?.
1 I ?? O
1 ?_?' AA ao I
I
i i •?. rx I Vl
I .. I 00 I
1 00 IU
- I
Z Z , • LL
I 1 ?*?
zori- zcr :. I UQ • •
I ?o :. ?p
1 QZ w I
I m' ? m `: I a z
1
1 1 ! I w
1 i LL N
ti.r `x, e 1 N N O
WZ _ W Z
S! I ZW Z?
I I } I W J W W
I ( I? OU 03
, s
I
0 I
I - I
, - r I
I F-1b?pp??
ILL.
U Q I ? { I ?1
? I
I ?
V -? 1 u
I ?? I
1 1
? S. 1 0
1 F 1 CV
I 1
I 1
I t': I
1
I I
1 I ?
I i? 1
I I
M / I
'' IU

\

\
-WLBf

M -

\

N I l
N"
N
It

O ' QI
1. 3
X71
/?
v a

? 1
a \
1 4 \

LL
1
1
fD
J
3
?y
1
1
1
W 7
?
O m
Z =
o~
O
vZ
?- V)
H N
:a
m
i
I
U
Ih \
LL
V\ '^.?1 1 1 ?-?
Ob+881 'dl

y

- I
?
.
t.
1

c
Z -- ? I
C
K CO

Z
C
p :; r
v IA
ti
N H
tea '
^ Is
r
m : 9
1

r
?- 1
I I
I
r I

? -
- 1
1
ys 1 ? B

OSV =,' 1
I
t t
a
O
z `
O
E-

R z o
z W O 0
? H o z
z ad s
00
C.
~ w ? O
Q Q ?? LI
v a ?

?Q
rN,
LL
• a
0
W
N
z z
a
x
u J
W J
LL
N
N U N O
W? WZ
H tr ~ Q
O Q O J
Z W Z ~
W J W W
DU o3
f?
Z
0
N
0
0
ILL
1
I
I
?
,
/
?
' 1l
/4
O /
/ H
;?

o•
LL
. W
H
r
V
1 ?
J m
1 m
m
v
x
N
0
eV
A-
/
/ I
/
I
I
I
1
I
I
O 1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
i
1
1
1
I
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
LL 1
5L£
0
No
o-
rl-
i
W ?
O O
K m
2 x
O~
?o
cz
1- N
N N
:) IL
a
m
k
O
z `
O
E-

r6
E 1
a
Z
Z c om
a w
° U $a
H
06 z z
0 Fz

°

SI
r4
00 z

A o -tea
v a ?
z ?
T

eq? \

t?
o
o 1?
?
p \

1 Y
W
I LL cmi
I N

1
I ;
W
1
I y
1
1
I O
?
1
1
1
1
c
W o 1
1
Om
Z x 1
1
2 1
L 1
1
v I
ti N I
? o.
> I
I
m I
ILL
O
N
O
r?
0
\ t I \
'\ ..
1 z
d; \'\ 1? i F m as ?
009 1 v y z ,..1 CC
0 I I Z. O
%Ogg
1 \ O I E+ O F
11: ° 1 t z o ?-I
o
•\; ° i > Wn
1 CV I c o a? rl
v a i '\.\ I v a Z-'i a ?
¢ w _
I I ?
O 1 1
'? 1 I
?\ 1
J c,
s e
w
1 ,\ F • r
N ?
SO #?• U-
Y
W
y/ 1 1 \ r_' p
LLI
.?? ? lM??r?^ I I '\ N
? 1 Q Z
LLJ
4 ??? N? ND
66
91
Z
lid W ? W Z
1 9 03S
i 57 0 e?? o a o
I a 91 'y z W z 1-
I 14 WJ W W
1 1 i 0L) 03
40, F-1
I
of
1 I N
N
? 1 I 3
IW W
1 N s
1 X?X-?X O X X MCI
I X I W *VQ/?
_-X X X I W
-X X-X I I I.- U F?
1 I ?
1 ?uy?
S O
Q _ _;-
---- --------J-- - - -- --- --- _ _ _-? _
---- -------J-- --- -- --- - 1
1 ° 1 N
° N 1
1 W:, W: 1
I O03 + Om 1
Z? Zr : t
?O ° ?O
Qz O ?N I
ti N N ~ N 1
,? a 1 O
O4
cL
m m
01
\ o
3 0 \ \ / \ f •\ F v? Gq
p `` ?? ? \ \i C 3 F a1G a
iLx/x/ z D ? o as
?? / 0 1 O o pq
Q d `?
U o+ 0
ra. %0
% , O O z E"? a4
\ /m O U? O
m o\ ? i r,Q A ? -O?p bol
U 0. Ey
\ ' z w
C /•/'" v'
J
.10014 11 ;;'o'
/ I i' W
V, I / O w O
375 ?'? \ I / i N
z Q ? 0
f + p
W 2 Z ¢ W
f, /f r1 w X' ?Q
C\ / W LL w z tl 3
t7 Q
w- wzz w Fao
N\jL fJ ??'y v> W w ww w3 W
0V aw 0? 00-
0 WO
w I f ,`I •P
`° Y ` o
J
37 ( j q j O \
450 ?? ' • \I \f \ s
mi ?.
°z m 0 W'1 i /? J f
.. WO KZ t u i.\
20 1 O
vZ J m
n 0
0 V,
a c
IA = co m I X ' 124h???`
I LCD
/
? I
I
i J
1 1 ?i
a
a

\
\

\
\
\
\
\ \r?
\
\ c
\
\
\
\
1 Q 1 ??
1 1 ? i
1 Q 1 ?
1 O 1
1
1 k
1 ,f1 1
1 f? • O?? 1
1
1 fl 1
I 1
1 1
1 v- © 1
1\ p 1
?\ 1
\ 1
\1
\1
r
Z N
K
J f-
J Q
N W
t-<a
OLL Z
Z- cr O
0 N d

O
N
O
O
r
\
11 \
\1
?? \\ -
0 11 1 11
b?? pkl?l
1 1
fJ iY
I
c, /
?j 6'
F v? RO ~
/ 4// 1 _ 4, ? p r' pry
" o
/ ? t? U
1 ':::11 tt E 0 z z s
_ o
O N
O , / I - O O z F? p4
/ ; 1 Z =
C) La
/ ?I o &m U F
d> % 1 o? °~ a p0
z v)
\ v a .?
17
N N?
/ 1 \\ Ica. Ana
m m 1
U
\ I U 1 _ , # # LL
? I 1 1
6 1
R. / t tc / L_ 1\? z 1 IL In w Z LL 3
Ind NO Ina NW
z
??LLLLJ
L ??}}-------- -1 LL 1 W
ZW z? Z3 Zcr
L'I .?aU o? o? oN
/ 1 I 3?
1 81:-..: - _ 1
I
' N
0676 E=4
1
/ r \\\
/ OX \\ .:' e.( I COI
~W \? ILL
1
I
I i 1
I ? 1 - I
1 I O 1
o
ffin N
M^ ? N
I `? ? F I r^ `:: V
1 ?
i '
' I ; C 3 E as
W 1111:. I ?• a s E
z? c
w
CV) %0 Ig
11 g N o „ z N
' I O O
z
0 0 z a.
14 t%
O I I r D,? ? ?, A p 0 0 -'
I
1 I ISO LL . , z
N; I \ LL ,
I ,
? QN I i v.. ?? •#! 4
? s
I I I "? •
1 I LL LL ., 1 u • LL N
I I - 1
1 O
1 I , 1
w
I LL ° =:.? Q z zV)
i +1 _ I o J / 2 W
o / U J JI-
\ W J J Q
Q LL LL V1 o ??, Q L6 N w 3
• 1 ,? C7
N N N W
W? z
W Z W U
\ J O q° oa o_j 0 1Q..
zw z?- zIr LLI -j LL LL% _ g N CU UJ3 ?N
/ V G 3
?;? \ LL \ O do ; oW
\ 8 ?¢
TL \\ N LL LL LL T O 7U k-'sJ
I L ?•. \' a
;o 8j?•` LL LL \
f i Uto LL \`
/ L`\\ fib
I i c F?1
; z o
I/ ^7? Wo m LL {?
z?'-
o?
tA IN
tip.. :.. oW o a 04 ?\
10 IL
Che cr.
Gil a, 03
Mu
1 \
O _
'
N I O
? N
as I N
I
/ 1
z
o
1
a
o z
°O z c o?
a c '?
F z F z ?-
N 0
ti o o z or.
o w? °
U 4
,
z ?
\ W
\ Z
? J
W y
Z ?? 0 H
J `I Z g LL
W
LL
LL
OGV
LL LL O ? ? V)
0 w
W , Z J J Q
J LL LL
_ 3
CD N
Z ;7- ,no ww
LL N O ?a ?a
O C) -1 OLL
LL LL 1 X O (? M 2 F- 2cr
i
W
' o 3 o =
N ?I W v
a
1 N
LL LL J ? py
LL LL ? ? *A
y, ?0I
N N Vf
/
I O
I LaJ
f J
U J
' ? N Q
' * V
J N
? Q
/ Z Q
O U
? N
F-
LLI
??
*? O N
/
/
/
O
' O
O O
N
N
CO
z
6-4
E• as
gg
o s !~ a»
.. .? m
Q i < T S oO
a?
M i E 0 z Fz
pl. z o °.°. I
CL 00
I ?;z C
? c c a o ?I
I V a ?
z
1
1
1
1
1
o
I N
1 LL
0 I
O I
1
I LL
I
I
N I o
i
z
1
N
LLv ? ? LL w
? WZ
LL O ? O J
` Z ~
lRT?7 ® LLj 3 LLI
U. o ?C.)
1
LL
N
LL
LL` ,
?! W
J
?y Q W
N U
a 0
LL
z .4
O U
N f.
S Q
O W
S >
I ? O
I ^ ?
Ln
co r\ ° ? ? Lo
/ / ? I I \ o
z
\ ?\
?\ I all I I \ ' E+ rn a4
I I I __ Oo p,
I I - E"
\ I / //O U 4 10. iLL E z E z
ado
O Z E
" pl;
o ' 0
+ '' ?I ?? 1 DO ?? S
LO
N
/ / I Q ?!\ dOr ? d
I s ?
CL
\ ?r
W W
I
o I
J
M I
N i j
Z I
20
At
..
a
m ?
1
0
F as
1 I xa ?„ ,e
F
Lb r6
S
\\ N ?. '? i i i ca; z ? ao O N
\ I I > O LO I
\ I , 1 0: s U 0. E.
/'o \ \ \ \ I 1 x ea
IL 133
UW ?\??' \ \ \?\\ la. I 1
ON /' '? , 1 t 1
v 3 / \':.:.. \\ Jib UI 1
?/ s \ 90\ '\ 4 a
IL IN
o a
` \ O Z Zcr
LAJ
1 ?`'•? \ li fA LL 3
/ •\ `\ IA O N W
W Z w u
a \ ?a I- Qo
a a 1 \ z?- zero
% ww w:3 a
h ?3 in N.
\a
W 11 ° tt
o
s o cwi?° I4 / / //
w ' + Oz J?
om o° Ir
Ell dLLJ
z= r, z= WO I / r r / / A
o N 0? o OOw ,? 1 I ? I
Z w w v=i ZO I // // t I' l\ ?0G
?n ti ,n Q= tA j a a
I j j 1 O \\\??
°
a
> a a I /&/
1 ? ? \
1 I / ti/ ¢ 3! 1 1 ?
/ 1 1
o0
t t .? N
/ / 1 vi I I
1 1 i
I _ / r O5
I I 1? ? 1 ? 0
s 1 11 I /? c.) Q /
\ \.I/ Z / r'
O
1 I 1
t 1 ..i
1 - O I i
F f»
LLi + I ILL ;? E ?rn
I I I I LL z a
I I I r„ C
09 I I I O R
I CR O
o pt 0 F O Z
I z z 1 I 0 0 z O
_o W o +.t
t` w
? w Co
Z
° O ?0
MCC mm
?, ti U 4 F
N ' N .. \
I :j<
z
m ?a \ o
I m \\ t7T?1
I
O I \
ll :tt !t ;
I 'Al ? Lo r## w N d
I uco = 1 O #
# #
J 1
IOW #
41 QN - Iw ### LL N IL
r #
1 \ LB---• o
I \ N
LLI
1 p `.? r
I a z zcr Zcr
O V J J 1-- J F
W J JQ JQ
f O ?N LL 3: 432
CL NZ NO NW NWO
0 L,
W J W W W M W M
/ J L? LL •C?.? DU OT ON ON
1 r
Ir p5p O
a a '? N
? CV) a
tL Y' =O /
0- o /
\ ? m / Z
`1 ?w I N?
O
N 1 ?-mw 1 r" *A
/ I
I % I I I
L) a I i I I I
I 1 I
1 I I
a 3 I O 1 I
I 1 v a I
I O .•;: I I
1 ? ?. ? 1 1
. N I
I I i
1
I I
1/ I I
I I C1l

U

z I

/

a /

3 ?
1
I
1
?

- _
0
zF
Mo.
r-
N
of a
m

- _

-
00
Z= .

?-

y N
t

°

•

-

- . 1 I

1 1

I I

I I
1 1
I 1
? I
, I
1 1
4'1 I
11

1

I

1
I
I
I
I
1

I z

o

S
z ad O
?, o
o Q? ?
m rl
A, C? r
z
Si
fA
v 1 ?
z O 1 .- St£ - S!£ ? - 11 1 O
0.;
H
t
1 NO
vm ,
? N
?
? LL
Q
Ilehl- , OW
0
O
-
,
?
30d
?
*
v 1
N U a , ?
• LL
N
W
1u-
nl
• '
?

C
\V P1P
r $ z z
Wiz. ?.

t,

- 1500

1b; •

- i,

G .

ti;r, .. 1

; ' w J J
a
3
_ . , t? LL N LL
M S I
LA z
?. ?/? - L
` LL s . 1 1
' ! OW
I
N a OQ OJ OLL
'w 8 IP V WJ WW WO

1
z..
_ 0

,
M ?W
p W

'oo :3 Ix
ILL _ ?? 1 1 1

N
\
O I
a I?
? - I I
1 1 ?
7 I
1
_`
? I- J 1 I I FIT=71
? z
W
?U : 1! t t I
I
t t
k : : '..

'J 1 I {
` 1
1
? 1 r A

ft / I r: :. I I
a

r 1 1 I
1 I I
U ,
a ILL - I I , t p
? I UI I N

z ?
? 1 I 1
1 I I
I z
3
? I I 1

?e i I
1 I I
I

?
? UI i
1 I
A 1 1
1
1
p
a IU

i
N
1 ! ?
1 - -- 1 I g I ?
1 , - 1 I ?" ? Er C?
R c? z
O ;;, 1 U 1 z ]C p c W
C)i + i i I D U E•a
IN F z aC z
1 M `• .; 1 I G4 z 0 f
0 IN 1 I aai z O
I I d c.r A A OC "?'
E a ; OI ci a F
14
I
1 i °z w
:3 :3
I 1++ 0 0 p 1 Lo' ?
1 03 m M.
UI ?O s'O I ( I"
1 v 2 K
c w 1 1 I
1 r; ti to I I I
1 as a 1 I
m co I I
1 , I #"# LL H
1 1 1 #
1 IU U ###
J _
\ \ O
I
l 1 1 \ N
11 `t t _ ?W
? LLI U J JF-
LLI
LL? IL
/ C LL ?v It W
U- V) ui
OQ OJ O'1
??,. -?•C- ZW Z ZD
7 ? n. GV 03 ON
/ice\\# LL.." •_ O ?•',:
1 Z
1 v Q LA
M
1 c.v
I
y / 1 } /
(V / Q
-?..> I t 1 M"Id
R 3 .f 1 - .•i?'n+...r''L.N1.,jr. A^?L. Lt .' I
,?) I I1., o
/ I ? 1 N
/ I I 1
- / 1 I 1
/ 1 1 1
/ O f ?'?' 1 I 1 z )w-
O I 1 1
/ (: I I I I 1
It
O :: I 1 1
! M I 1 1
t
' 64
1 ' ?. r
O
z `
o
R a?
z
m ? w
0
e
tea.. 000 r? O U $ a
ti E" z E-
06z -?
s[s s[c i O o z E: al
I 0 I > ?? ?I
I = W I \ ?? O
1 o°m ?m I U, a F
1 z? zz m I z
? o ? o I W
w z ° N 1
w I
I N-4 N a 1 /
M0. gyn.
m co
I 1 ? /
•
1 r N W
1 1 1 IV
1 J 1 a ZQ Z
1 1 = 2
1 a1 U_
O J
U W
11 1h? M I ro Y u N
O
11 J/ {- I ?w wZ `/1°
o u 0 Iw- a LLJ 1 i w J W W
0 U 0 3
-4000 1 , I
U
1
I 1
I 1 UQ
I 1
I 1
U
11 tt
tJ a / 1
¢ 3 / 1 ? p1
/ I
I
/ I
/ i
/ I
U/ ?U
? O I
I 1
I ? 1
1 ? I
I I
I O I
1 I
I ? I
1 I
I I
1 1
1 1 O
1 / N
1 1 /.
1 1 /
1 I / /
U? IU / /
1 I
1 1 / // 0
I 1 /
/ / 0
I I
X
x I
I
I

t s
I
r( I wI
I
I ? I
10 I
I ?
N

W I ?-:.

I: I

' / x I
W j I

W I
?? ?I
x.
?
I I
I I
' I I
II x k
x?
U _
I
I x
a I
I a
x N
x
-x-x-
a a
III

I;LL W
1 a
x1 a
'
I ' ?
7
1
1 N
a

1
i U
x 1
1
. a O
z N
r
,I 1 ?• p

Od
1
-
W ; I I 0
I
11 1
• ? I I

I I
I

1 ?

?Q
I r
I I I
?? I I
I I
I
? ? I
I I
I

m z
Q Q
o°
Z O
O r
a
Z W
O
O 0

E m ? ~

0 3 E as
M z ?m
z x c
u
to
o z 04
c O l
0 o ai
o

A A pr
I?"7 O
NI
U 0.
z

L a
li a
Z Z =
O • ?r "•P J J H
a J J Q
1 ? N LL 3
\ Ind NW
\ W Z W U
?-Q t-Q^
?• OJ O-z
ZH ZIr0
\.\ 03 0-V)- EL
I
I
I /Lo Z
I i i N,pNa OVNO
I ???? '? VS,?A ?V•?N6
(? ???? - i YPp59 5
-
i
s' V

I,' I t
O
N
0
O

N
O

Z
O
O
rn

Z
O? N
?~
z
z
6
a=
Z }
dZ

CL CO) l-
Z Z
o F- 0 Z)
?
O
v
(
aj O
0
p
W _
0 0 Z a LL
cU O
Z

N
W
W
2

LO Of w) a)

co

x

E?? o

U
a
a

CL
Z
a
LL
CV O
0
Z
Z
Q

+ CS

m

co W
O
z
w

?

C

m
Z ?

C C m
W
? ?_ c
41 Co Co
? n

co n

M
Q W
U ?

a

?
W LL O
L
3 m
`
°
~
W
V
Q

(n C O 7 co
V
O L o 0 0
LL

c ? co o 0
i6 0 0
Z
LL

N ?
r C

?
s

S

S

S

8

8

0
V co i
v N O
C
O
C
O
G
a U
a ?
?m
?
F
'
?

V ?
> c°
S m
S c
o
Q ?3L a
a
o
a

O
W Z _ M
V
I j LL ?
o
W
Z 3 `'
a
J
c ?
`? t p n
S rn
O ?
N M
O m
O m
W O
O C C O O O C
i TL j
E
N U
? E

N II N
Y ? J O
i\ m ? E x e
M E

Q
m

O [Y
N ¢
m ? O J ? ?
J J ?
? J ?
J J It p O N
O +
0 ? +1 ? O N a
O Cl) O + +
C,
YO O O 0 ON cm 6 D
C\l co ? rn m rl S N U U m m
? LL d a. ? Q d a. J J J J J J d CL ? CL
Q !t Q
J
Q
O
m
_r O
N
M
7
1[i
ID r

F
fn
Z
w
O

N
O
a

Z

} M r
O
Q
N rn Z
?~
'Z
ZC7

Z y}
F-
m U) O d Z 1-
Z
D
O
0
0
0
0?
0
w?
a
Inc
Z
n
. LL
C/) -0 Lj O
Z
"
I
W
w
0) co cli m

O 'D
cli

LL C
E? o

M y o 0 0 0 o c o 0

N
U
a
a

Z
O
a
LL
O
O
Z
Z
Q

III
O
Z
w
0
?r

O
_ N

O
Z N
Of
N ?
C C ? N ? N
F .y C O ? M
_ of
? R
? ui
N v
O co
n

X O-
wU? N
N

a

?
W LL °
L
3 ? ? o
~
W
U

(n
C C U o
N e
OD N
? rn
S
-aL
0
0
o
c
LL

C m S S 8 O O O N
m O O O O C O O
Z

V? a

H m ?

C
n

N

Cl)

co

U?
.
C
(O Co L O O O S S S t?pp
O
\/
G1
.C
2- O O C G C G C
a 0.
a
C N
N
U ? mr °
a X?-- o 0
? w c

p
Z

Q
- N
-a

W n m t $
Z

a
...? N
? (d S Cl) v M N 0I Cl) M N
W -
t O O O O O W

m
T ?

a? $ $ o 0 0 .n co ?
? N

O co
?
co
?
? fr

N
Cc
?

fMO
E>>

J
cr
O \ + + + T f
0
1 O

? p N
N N
Q' N
? r
N N
N +
Cl) ?

N +

N N

N Of

N N

N co

N +

? f

r
LL Ji d
R n-
¢
J J
J J
J J J J J J J
J
Q

Y
O

cA Z r ro 0)
°'
?
H
w
x
N
Project No. 8.T690401 (R-25596)
Property Owner List
For
Each Wetland Site
Site Parcel NAME Address
NO. NO. DB and Pg
1 O Ruth 0. Helms (Heirs) Not Available
082E-376
2 O Everette E. Hatley 1622 Secrest Shortcut
DB 159 Pg 340 Monroe, NC 28110
O Helms Family Limited Partnership Not Available
DB 1341 Pg 384
Joseph W. Barbee, Sr. P
Box 1213
O
3 O4 & Selma Funderburk High .
.
Swansboro
NC 28584
DB 469 Pg 190 ,
Bova Corporation P.O. Box 1609
O DB 452 Pg 683 Monroe, NC 28110
Bova Corporation P.O. Box 1609
4 O DB 452 Pg 683 Monroe, NC 28110
Rickey D. Taylor & Rt
3 Box 903
O Wife Delores T.
DB 296 Pg 309 .
Monroe, NC 28110
5
Jeffrey Scott Rollins 32613 Morgan Mill Rd.
O DB 635 Pg 651 Monroe, NC 28110
Rickey D. Taylor & Rt. 3 Box 903
6 O6 Wife Delores T. Monroe, NC 28110
DB 296 Pg 309
Rodney L. Pierce & 2527 Morgan Mill Rd.
7 O8 Wife Kandy R. Monroe, NC 28110
DB 634 Pg 523
Rodney L. Pierce & 2527 Morgan Mill Rd.
O Wife Kandy R. Monroe, NC 28110
DB 634 Pg 523
Phyllis A. Kendall & 1017 Cyrus Edwards
8 O9 Timothy C. Walsh Monroe, NC 28110
DB 715 Pg 473
/0 John R. Baucom 33024 Helms Pond Rd.
Monroe, NC 28110
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
UNION COUNTY
PROJECT: &T690401 (R-255911)
US-74 MONROE BYPASS
SHEET V OF?4 4/1/02
Project No. 8.T690401 (R-2559B)
Property Owner List
For
Each Wetland Site
Site Parcel NAME Address
NO. NO. DB and Pg
9 John R. Baucom 33024 Helms Pond Rd.
Monroe, NC 28110
10 Willie D. Baucom 2617 Olive Branch Rd.
DB 919 Pg 279 Monroe, NC 28110
Allen &
Wife Gladys Bigham Not Available
DB 104 Pg 104
11

Hazel B. McCollum, et al. Not Available
DB 105 Pg 456
Hazel B. McCollum, et al. Not Available
DB 105 Pg 456
12
H.T. & Dwelle J. Stewart 2316 Randolph Rd.
& R.H. Morrison Charlotte
NC 28207
DB 362 Pg 19 ,
H.T. & Dwelle J. Stewart 2316 Randolph Rd.
13 & R.H. Morrison
DB 362 Pg 19 Charlotte, NC 28207
14 Edwards Timber Co., Inc. P.O. Box 219
DB 607 Pg 680 Marshville, NC 28103
15 O Everette E. Hatley 1622 Secrest Shortcut
DB 159 Pg 340 Monroe, NC 28110

N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
UNION COUNTY
PROJECT. S.T690401 (R-2559B)
US-74 MO
NROE BYPASS
''
SHEET 2? OF?`i 4/1/02
t ?? ,s4sl ?'? ooz ?` ,u3z)

' ti ?1?a
17 ,

/ ?/
V g
gpp r C?OVB
7
1 1756 5 !t.
7
51
-
??
?
1793 .1 , 2 1 49
1749

'T1751
1759\%'I!
751
?{\
%aa" 11

1
Ric1, ? S t r
(
?
nab 7 1002
m8
1 1
l

l
`?
? h
7 (
L
1753 1753 -
(
175. - -

m
j 1

' r IN ?? ND ECT,'
?

\ 93
'
7
J54 A
-
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
VICINITY UNION COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.T690401 (R-2559C)
MAPS US 74 FROM WEST OF RICHARDS4
CREEK TO EXISTING US 74
SHEET I OF Z 1 11/19/"
2
SITE 13
SITE
MAP I

J WS FOW CREEK
?-? II
SITE 3
R?
- SITE 2
-Yl-MOWTE CIR
rsR new
SITE I
BEGIN PROJECT R -2559C
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
UNION COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.T690401 (R-25590)
US 74 FROM WEST OF RICHARDSO
CREEK TO EXISTING US 74
SHEET 2- OF a 1 11/19/
99
SITE 6
SITE 5
000
SITE 12 -
eR? c?
,3- MrM*CKANEY RO
(SR 958)
n END PROJECT R -2559C
E8
Od
_
m
? W
? A

SITE 9
SITE 8 SITE 10

1 ?p

?
m
y?p?? J5 R
? ?
Hi

?
m 4
ec c ? ??
x
T

?e
y SITE 14
SITE T

MATC14LINE SITE MAP I
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Sl TulL:i UNION COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.T690401 (R-2559C)
Q}?
2
MAP
US 74 FROM WEST OF RICHARDSO
CREEK TO EXISTING US 74

9 / 99
SHEET 3 OF A 1 11/1
LEGEND
--JLB- WETLAND BOUNDARY LIVE STAKES
C"'7> WETLAND C2? BOUL DER
COIR FIBER ROLLS
DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
®
O ADJAC ENT PROPERTY OWNER
® DENOTES FILL IN OR PARCEL NUMBER
SURFACE WATER

® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER PROPOSED BRIDGE
(POND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
FILL IN WETLAND
DENOTES EXCAVATION
?
IN WETLAND
® A PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
DENOTES TEMPORARY (DASHED LINES DENOTE
® FILL IN SURFACE WATER EXISTNG STRUCTURES)
• • • • DENOTES MECHANIZED
CLEARING SINGLE TREE
--- - FLOW DIRECTION WOODS LINE
TS
TOP OF BANK

wE ¦
DRAINAGE INLET
--- EDGE OF WATER
---
- - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT ROOTWAD
- -- - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
- ?- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY VANE
- - NG - - NATURAL GROUND
- P?- - PROPERTY LINE RIP RAP
- TDE - TEMP. DRAINAGE RIP RAP ENERGY
EASEMENT DISSIPATOR BASIN
-PDE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
-EPB EXIST.
PLANT BOUNDARY

WATER SURFACE
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
UNION COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.T690401 (R-25590
74 FROM WEST OF RICHARD
CREEK TO EXISTING US 74
SHEET 4 OFAI 11/19/
75-)
u0i O
O O
° O
0 0
O 0
O 0
0 0.
O O
U O ,
n 0 O O 0 p
m
L
M
co
M d
N
Lo O)
O)
C
W U • N O
p r CO

H V
w
C
Cp
Q
IL O M
U

W
cc m
o
Co
°o
c
°o
o
po
C, 0
•- C M
y
o O O O O CO 1? O
Q cc t
X L J
W U CO
O
.- e-
O
O O
M
M
co CO
CO r
d In
0 In O

V
'cr
N
N
c0 t
= d O O
U LL

? O CO LO r N O co (3)
C ..
., L O O O O O O O O
O
Z O O O O O O O O O
it `-
O M
c
N N d CO

L N L L
O O
0 O
0

O

V 0 0 0 0

a?
C: ° c
a?
L
i O d
Of O y 3:
Q
N c
C
G U

Q c ?
O
c
co

O

N
O
L O O
X 3 O O
Q
W C
Q

LL C
>

w C3
CL
>N L
c
N
'0
c
M 0
' CD
N
co

CO

CD

,*

COO

CD
- L O O O O O O O
I O
I O
I O
I N
Lt a) 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0
O

U
m U U

U 00
m d n-

U U U U U
U
U
U
W of im -:
Z
Z
Z
Z
Cp
tp
Z
CO
C
to
X
Lc)

c
O
CO
X
d
M
X
t?
N
X
O
N
-
N CS o
Cl) N M
J J
LLJ

?
>

W
>
?

W

W
C O J
+ J J J J J J u }
}

S
O
N
O
CO N
N ?
O
O }
} CO
? CO
E
2 N Co C
O f?- M J + O O O
Cut)

W p 0 d 0) d

O

CO p

CO p
(D +
-

+
t-
co 0
N p M d d CO +
M M N +
d O M N M

0
04
M J
O
Z N M d 0 CD Ih co 0 a
- cn - ? O
F-
z 64
O .. \
P? a
? a?? ? ?C7 w
? ??? o cE 5
Z
-I- 00+ZZ •v1S - Z
CR4
0
a ?
?Mir
1 ?
/ 04
y 8,1
2 /
1 s£ ? rs ? i \ l E
y ? ? N
-l- Ob+OZ •d1S 0
O
0 0
? o
Z 311S -l- 00+9Z 'VIS 3NIIHO1dY4
E a

04

? x

o

off v

5
I
l i
p; ? U ? C~ ? Ltd
a
I ;r" O O ad O
O O E., O
? 5 H
I o a

?
I
O I
i ? I
I
1?
co
tT ?
o
I
49
I

I

I
Z E*
?

,

I d3V

aT
Sze
a
I ?? I
•
Iva 4 i
I ,
I I ?
i
?
I
I ,
I
,
I
?
I
I
1 I
I
i !

1
' I
1
1 ?
$
>`a ? E
? i

i 1 X\
l

cs
? c
? O
I 1 Ey ? h
1 ? ? O
? H z H
r(s
y '? ?pZ ? ?F'' O
? ' ? a a a ? ? w
?
I ?
? I
? 1 F
LL.
cr I
o ?
I Z F..r
i. 1
1 ? '? z
? i
1 ?
I ?
w50 w5
N wi qg0 daa d?a
Q 09b SUL
0 1 old
~ ? ? N
? f I
f 1 ?
? I O
I i
Z 311S -l- 00+9Z 'd1S 3NIlHO1dW O

I 0
••
? tom. o
\

I W G ?" r
O
?. rA

I
z
0 0
H
co
F
?
0
E"
--
O
l
z
a
c
a w
cE
t U A a ?
i
W
a
Q
z

?

I h
I ,
!
I
I
1 I
I
I

IM0613 /M dOa <
1 dho OSb,,N 090 t£ i
I
I
I
I
s£ !
I
I
,
?
A

I ,
I ?
I - -
I 1
,
I ,
I
! ?
` I
I '?
I
I
1
I ?
i
i
I
I

,

?
?
t t U

1 1
I

5£ j $

I h
I 1

1
I

?''?
O

o _
O z ? o
.. t \
\\ axH ? x w
\ H O U $ E" ?
0 0
X
? -_\ ? ? U a ? U ?Ti
\ \\ + z GO
Key ^i Cb
a? a A
i
i
i Q
i
d
LO
o ----------- N
w oy €=4
? ?a? o
0 O
0
0
?0
? z Hod ? Hw ?
® 0 a o -s
c 0
Z 0-4
U ? U
vi
---------------
U
-? N
i
b 311S 3NIIHO1VW
O
E
O
o °
o
SL s iX d3m 4L£ a a3 U
I ! ? \ ?xH a°z w
00--100
o o
D 1 ?' V a ? U
i
09
I
I
Z E*
I I -?
I
.H ? I _ YFJDOM'
1 I,
6b +
I
1 I
I I N
? I
I ? I ? w I
" I j 8; ? ? w°i° ows
I ? I O
I
O
o ? o
E
H
E-4 rT4
cod ° o
W o W
U a' U
z y
-l- 09+99 IS
I 1 0?
1
1 1
1 I
1 0°?
j 1
I p?
?? I I U
i I
IJ ? I i ?
I I ?'
,? ( I an
? ? I I
I I
\? ?\i?, I I ? z z
? l3N
a; I
I
I
1 I
I
O I I `
I ? I
I ? I
1 I
-l- OY+67 'V1S N
O
O
0
0
e5 Ix z q
w? ° 5
44
1 o z 0 0
E E
V
? w5 a
I ? W
`? i I i v A a c v
?I 1
t
't t
yip 1 37031+39 Sl -7-
??\ cv 1
99
bit 009
du 1
I
14 U91
I \
OL09MM 10d "o
1
I /
' I
I I
I I
I ? I
I z
q,, t
., I
i
1 N !?
/9 I ``\
I / l
I / ?7
91 t ? / ?
1 Mf ? N
I I
N I t
I 1
i
i 1 O
E
O
z O 64
E .. ?-
0-4
z w
?x x
CINO
du ? doa sawoe? iM ? 0
Scc N SL£ / dwo OOrI V C
w? ow
? I U a ? U
I \ I
1
1 ?
1 `
I ,
1 r~n 1
1 !
1 \ i h?i
1
i
I
OIJ del SL a g i A
dSLE
II ? ? ? , Fwd
1
1 `: I
1 \ I
1
1 `.\ I
I
I
, ? Cd
i
1 ?
t ?
t I
I ?
O
O
H ? ? o
? E e5 w
8 o 5
o ? 9 E.
i
1/1 ? a s C Z p GO ? O
O ? U E O
coo
U ? U
-l- 09+£8 'd1S
I
1
1 ,
i ?
I 8
\ 16BW+£8 Sl -7- ?- t
O 1 1
I
J 1
1?. 1
I ?? I
GV?' 1
? I
I
? I
I
!?? I I
Ij
I I
-'I- 09+Z8 'V1S U
N
E
O
61

O 0

z
m

ti
---------
----
q-z 1 dM SL£ U
-
i? cmiraoi ae aotNro i3ura?\ ` `
/L??f-/7- >
? an
J
lo-Z
N
~
F-
N ? Q
.. 2w rzXYZ - Z
??arzxd•zoz

a-
SM08i3
"Al

a

O 1
`
\ O

O
0 v°? o
Eon 1
o z ° °
5
as a ?? ?
U a ? U ?
z
I ,
I ,
%I
I
I
I
?3a1 ? I I ? ?
-----?' I ? o z ? z as
?% I i 5 a a a?
I
I •
I
I I
I/ I I I ?
I ( I i ? ?
91
? I I I
I
I I I
i
I I O
. O
p \
Ro -y3-
? ? ? F e7 AG Z A
o II I oz° °•• eE _?
o
m ,? I W ? ? oW
o II II A o a°a ? `? ?
°a II 11 U a ? U
W II 11 z
° ? II II ?
1 ?I II ,------
1 \
' i
II ? s
II II ? ? ?
II II , e
I I?
?II -
II
.\ i I I I
III ? ' _„_
\ I 0
' I
III
' I ?
0
o
t H
41 ' c z ° °
00
•,°' c o ww N
t
z
\
ol?
A
g
I -H?: , //' la G7
\ \ 41 t
z
N\_ i us
t
r i N
8 \ % t
?r I I
?? t t O
\ \t t

0 o
P -. a

'? ??H ? a o a

/ O E; ? W

/

?- I
-
i

Q
N

i 5t
u

-
--- P-4

--

a

' O

L?
oF wArF94G
O `C
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
April 17, 2002
Mr. Phil Harris
NC Department of Transportation
P D and E A Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Subject: Project: US 74 Monroe Bypass
TIP #: R-2559 B and C
County: Union
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program
(NCWRP) is willing to accept payment for stream and wetland impacts associated with the subject project.
Please note that the decision by the NCWRP to accept the mitigation requirements of this project does not
assure that this payment will be approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the N.C. Division of
Water Quality Wetlands/401 Unit. It is the responsibility of the applicant to contact these agencies to
determine if payment to the NCWRP for impacts associated with this project is appropriate.
This acceptance is valid for six months from the date of this letter. If we have not received a copy of
the issued 404 Permit and 401 Certification within this time frame, this acceptance will expire.
Based on the information supplied by you, the stream restoration that is necessary to satisfy the
compensatory mitigation requirements for this project is summarized in the following table. The maximum
amount of mitigation that the NCWRP will accept for this project is also indicated in this table.
Stream
(linear feet) Wetland
(acres) Riparian Buffer
(ft2)
Impact 7,375 6.75
Mitigation Maximum 14,750 13.50
The stream and wetland mitigation will be provided as specified in the 401 Water Quality
Certification and/or Section 404 Permit for impacts associated with the subject project in Cataloging Unit
03040105 of the Yadkin River Basin. The mitigation will be performed in accordance with the
Memorandum of Understanding between the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dated November 4, 1998.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Crystal Braswell at (919)
733-5208.
Sincerely,
M w _
Ronald E. Fe ell,
Program Manager
cc: Rob Ridings, Wetlands/401 Unit
Steve Lund, USACOE
Rex Gleason, MRO
file
Wetlands Restoration Program 1619 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1619 [phone] Customer Service *A
320 West Jones Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Fax: [phone] 623-7748 . 0600
Re- Monroe Bypass
Subject: Re: Monroe Bypass
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 09:53:21 -0500
From: Peter Colwell <[e-mail]> FILE
Organization: NC DENR - Mooresville Regional Office
To: Michael G Wood <[e-mail]>
CC: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
Cynthia Van Der Wiele <[e-mail]>,
John Dorney <[e-mail]>
I just spoke with Mr. Scott Anderson, 521 Deese Road in Monroe about his
concerns with the section of Monroe Bypass that crosses the wetland near Deese
Road. Mr. Anderson owns the 7 acre lake immediately below the wetland. He
has some valid concerns about the potentail impacts to his lake from the
highway construction and long term stormwater runoff.
The wetland is is high quality, providing pollutant removal from adjacent
agricultural lands, water storage, and good aquatic life habitat (salamander
larvae were observed in the wetland). The wetland was rated a 63 in the DWQ
rating system.
The MRO strongly recommends that the impacts to the wetland be avoided or
minimized as much as possible and that all practicable BMP measures be used
during construction to prevent sediment and turbidity problems in the
remaining wetland and lake downstream. The MRO also recommends that permanent
catch basins be provided to protect the wetlands and lake from highway spills
and to treat stormwater coming from the highway.
> S
Pete Colwell - Peter.
%TITLE%
North Carolina Dept.
Div. of Water Quality
919 N. Main St.
Mooresville, NC 28115
Ph: 704.663.1699
[e-mail]
of Environment & Natural Resources
Fax: [phone]
Pete Colwell <[e-mail]>
j %TITLE%
NC DENR - Mooresville
Div. of Water Quality
}
1 of 2 5/9/02 5:06 PIv
Z
O
0
m
z
c
3
mm

o
N O
m
N N
o v
D
o ?
N m
oc
n
za
1
n
'q o
z
O
n
m

O
? c
o z
-I
o
CO)
n
c

'- m

m

? O

N C
z
O ?
O
G
v
N
Z
O
N
O
w
Ul
z
n
v
m
M
n
3z
m?
zM
-? z
0m
-n
-i m
Zc
zZ
?z
'9 0
O
4
v
N
0
N
i
N
O
O
N