20020672 Ver 1_Information Letter_20040203

15/2005 10:00 FAX [phone] City of Monroe-Permits 19001!002
d2CZ9Za

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONERS AND MANAGER
500 N. Main St., Room 921 • Monroe, NC 29112 . Phone [phone] • Fix (704) 2$2-0121
February 3, 2004
Jahn Dorney
NC Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Blvd
Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re: 401 Certificate for US 74 Bypass
Dear John,
4v'1
?- asst
wanted to briefly summar¢e our December 2"d meeting to ensure we are all in agreement of
discussions and resultant actions, The discussion was broken Into 4 subjects: suffers,
Stormwater, Sediment and Erosion Control and Impact Area.
Suffers:
All parties agreed to a 50-foot forested buffer on all intermittent and perennial streams. Initially
these will be based upon streams identified by either the USCS maps and/or the Soil Survey,
Union County will supply the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) with our existing GIs streams
coverage. DWQ will field verify the accuracy of this coverage. Following verification, DWQ will
recommend switching to GIS coverage for basis of buffer application-
These buffers will apply to new construction only, as this can be attributed to the eQnstruction-of
the Bypass. DDtalls to incorporate in the local ordinances include diffuse flow and erosion control
measures located outside buffers, natural revegitation, and variance and appeals processes. The
Director of DWQ will approve ordinances. Ordinances will be adopted by June 2004.
Action Items: County will send streams coverage to DWQ
Local governments will develop ordinances for DWQ reylew.
Stormwater:
DWQ requested we revisit the design storm event requlrement (proposed one-year 24-hour
event). There was discussion of design manuals to review and variou$_UMP's to include in local
Stormwater design manual-
Action item: DWQ will submit to local Jurisdictions requested design storm event(s)
Sediment and Erosion Control:
DWQ presented more stringent requirements for consideration. Locally enforced erosion control
programs will include Measures agreed upon by local jurisdictions and DWQ for the impact area.
Jurisdictions without local program will be enforced through DWQ by issuance of 401 permits,
where applicable. There was discussion if the Department of Land Resources (DLR) can enforce
increased measures in impact area-
Action Items: DWQ will work with DLR to determine possibility of enforcing increased
requirements.
The City of Monroe staff and D WO will review requested requirements and
determine appllcability to this area.
1
1•01 izio esg -ooL R%uno3 uoturl 4DEZE0 t+0 9T qei
FEB-15-2005 TUE 08:33 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS P. 1
02/15/2005 10:00 FAX [phone] City of Monroe-Permits 4Q02/0Q2
Q
a
Impact Area:
All parties agreed map provided as approximate secondary impact area. DWQ requested local
jurisdictions revisit map to determine if more definitive boundaries (i.e. roadways) are appropriate
for Impact area dellneation.
It was agreed Indian Trail and Stallings will have required measures In place 6 months after the
issuance of a 401 permit for the western leg of the US 74 Bypass.
Action Item: Union County and localiurisdlctlons to revisit Impact Area delineation map
I appreciate your efforts and asslstance In working through these issues and look forward to
finalizing this pracess. As always, all proposals are subject to approval by the County Board of
Commissioners and applicable City Councils. If you have any questions please feel free to
contact me.
Sincerely,
Christie Putnam, PE
Assistant to the County Manager
cc: Jim Loyd, City of Monroe
Brian Matthews, Town of Stallings,
Lee Bailey, Town of Indian Trail
Carl Weber, Town of Marshville
Dryw Blanchard, Town of Wingate
2
a-d 1210 282 *OL F-4uno3 uotun d02:20 frD 81 qa:.i
FEB-15-2885 TUE 08:33 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWO-WETLANDS P. 2
WAlF
QG
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
Coleen H. Sullins, Deputy Director
Division of Water Quality
July 16, 2003
Ms. Christie Putnam
Department of Planning
Union County
P.O. Box 1398
Monroe, NC 28111
Dear Ms. Putnam:
RE: DWQ review comments on proposed water quality measures to address cumulative impacts from
the Monroe Bypass
Union County
DWQ # 02-0672
Thank you for your February 28, 2003 letter concerning proposed water quality measures from Union
County, Stallings, Indian Trail, Monroe, Wingate and Marshville to address the water quality-related impacts from
the Monroe Bypass. DWQ staff have reviewed your suggestions and have the following comments. Once staff
of the respective local governments have had a chance to review our comments, I believe that it would be
appropriate to meet in Monroe to finalize these plans.
1. Buffers:
A 30 foot wide wooded buffer should provide sufficient protection in most cases from sediment-
related impacts to waters downstream of the Monroe bypass. This buffer should apply to at least
all intermittent and perennial streams in the study area rather than just be, restricted to watersheds
of 50 acres or larger. A GIS map of stream origins in this study area would probably be the most
efficient method to implement the rules. However, field verification prior to site planning will be
required in many cases unless the map has been field-truthed for each channel. As I stated
before, DWQ would be willing to assist you and the other local governments in preparing this map
for eventual DWQ approval. A similar map was prepared and approved for use by the N.C.
Environmental Management Commission for the City of Greensboro. The other provisions of your
February letter concerning buffers are acceptable except that 1) sediment and erosion control
measures will need to be located outside of the protected buffers, 2) diffuse flow at non-erosive
velocities will need to be provided or equivalent on-site stormwater management, 3) a detailed,
explicit variance procedure for hardship cases (similar to that in the Neuse, Catawba and Tar-
Pamlico buffer rules) would be acceptable and 4) an on-site determination for stream origins (and
an appeal process) will be needed. We suggest that DWQ be identified as the agency to handle
appeals but are open to discussion as needed.
II. On-site Stormwater Management: Phase II Requirements:
The provisions in your proposal are acceptable as long as the stormwater BMPs are designed to
achieve 85% TSS removal. We suggest that your ordinances refer to DWQ's stormwater design
manual (or another manual approved by DWQ) for this purpose. We will also need to discuss
whether post-construction discharge will need to be matched for storms greater than the one-year
frequency. Recent work we have done in the FedEx project and other sites has shown that'a
control of more frequent storms will likely be needed to control stream bank erosion. Again, we
are open to discuss this issue and determine which storm frequency needs to be managed.
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), (htty://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlan
ds)
Customer Service #: 1-877-623-6748

III. Sediment and Erosion Control during Construction:
In addition to your proposal, we believe that the local governments will need to address and
implement sediment and erosion control measures that are more effective than those traditionally
used. We will be glad to discuss the specifics of these measures with you and provide examples
of where and how they are being implemented at other locations in North Carolina (mostly as
conditions of 401 Certifications).
IV. Impact area:
We have discussed your request to not include Indian Trail and Stallings in the impact area of the
Monroe Bypass. We believe that this issue can be best addressed at the above-mentioned
meeting. At that meeting, please provide maps showing the land use control jurisdiction of these
municipalities so we can determine the implications of this approach.
Thank you again for your work to date on this issue. We look forward to completing the work on this
important issue and especially welcome your past cooperation. Please call me at 919-733-9646 to schedule a
meeting in Monroe once you and the other local government staff have had a chance to review this letter.
C:
Alan Johnson, DWQ Mooresville
File copy
Central files
Coleen Sullins
Greg Thorpe, DOT
US Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Field Office
Shannon Deaton, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Cynthia Van Der Wiele, DWQ

Sincerely yours,
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
September 10, 2002
MEMO
TO: Christie Putnam, Union County
C. J. O'Neill, City of Monroe
Jim Lloyd, City of Monroe
Dick Black, Union County
Joe Lesch, Union County
FROM: John Dorn
RE: Monroe Bypass projects d 401
Water Quality Certifications
As you know, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) must issue a 401 Water Quality Certification for the
Monroe Bypass projects before the US Army Corps of Engineers can issue the 404 Permit for these projects.
Also as you know from our meeting on September 3, 2002, DWQ's rules (15A NCAC 2H .0506 (b)(4) and
(c)(4)) require us to consider "...cumulative impacts, based on past or reasonably anticipated future impacts,
that cause or will cause a violation of downstream water quality standards". Based on the large amount of
growth which will be stimulated by these projects and the sensitive nature of the waters impacted by the
projects, the Division has concluded that additional water quality protection measures will need to be agreed
upon before we can issue the 401 Certification. DWQ will continue to work with the local governments, state
and federal agencies with respect to stream buffers and related land use measures in the watersheds of
Goose, Duck and Waxhaw Creeks in order to protect the Carolina Heelsplitter. The measures described below
are focused on sediment-related issues in the immediate area of the bypass projects and should not conflict
with the measures needed to protect the endangered mussel species.
DWQ believes that the following three measures will need to be agreed upon by the responsible local
governments before we can issue the 401 Certification. All of these measures are directed at protecting the
downstream waters from sediment which is the identified pollutant of concern for streams affected by the
bypass projects. As discussed in our meeting, the geographic scope and exact language of these measures
will be subject to discussions between the responsible local governments and DWQ within the context of the
rule language cited above. However in general, the geographic area of interest lies north of the existing US 74
corridor within Union County. Bob Deaton from DOT will send you maps depicting the approximate boundaries
of our study areas for our discussion on Friday.
1. Stream buffers: The purpose of these buffers is to protect the stream channels from erosion
and provide a location for sediment removal for sediment originating from adjacent landscapes
after development. In this regard, DWQ believes that fifty-foot wide, wooded buffers will need to
be protected along all intermittent and perennial streams as well as lakes and ponds within the
geographic area of interest. Streams should either be based on 1) a local stream survey using
DWQ-approved methodology or 2) streams shown on the 1:24,000 USGS topographic maps or
Union County soil survey. In the latter case, local staff trained by DWQ would be able to
determine that the maps are in error and that the buffer rules would not apply. We expect that
the uses allowed in the rules would be patterned after the Neuse, Tar-Pamlico and Catawba
buffer rules such that crossings of roads and utilities would be allowed but all other development
would have to occur outside the.buffer. Vesting (i.e. grandfathering) and variances would have
to be addressed as well. Finally, we expect that a reporting mechanism for the implementation
of the buffer rules to DWQ will be needed so we can be certain that downstream uses are
protected.
MMR
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 [phone] Customer Service
1 800 623-7748
II. On-site stormwater management: The purpose of this management is to ensure adequate
collection and removal of sediment from stormwater before it enters the stream channels.
Diffuse flow of stormwater would be required across all protected stream buffers unless site
constraints make this not feasible. In the later case, on-site stormwater management measures
will be needed which are designed to remove 85% Total Suspended Solids based on the DWQ
Stormwater Design Manual. The rate of runoff will also need to be controlled to help ensure that
streambank stability is not threatened from the increased runoff. We welcome your suggestions
as to how to manage the rate of runoff.
Ill. Sediment and erosion control during construction: The purpose of these measures is to
ensure that excessive amounts of sediment do not enter stream channels during and
immediately following construction activities. DWQ believes that several additional measures in
addition to those routinely implemented by the Sedimentation and Erosion Control Act will be
needed including 1) establish application thresholds for sites which impact less than one acre,
2) develop stricter maintenance and inspection of Best Management Practices (BMPs), 3)
identify and require BMPs that are designed to more adequately protect downstream water
quality and 4) prohibit installation of these facilities in intermittent or perennial stream channels
and 5) limit the installation of these facilities in the protected buffer zone. We will be glad to
work with the responsible local governments and the Division of Land Resources on specific
measures to implement the above measures.
Finally, DWQ will need resolutions from the governing bodies of the local responsible
governments which expresses their willingness to work with DWQ to develop and formally adopt these
measures within a certain time frame (perhaps six months). This commitment is needed before we can
issue the 401 Certification (projected issuance is at the end of September 2002) in order to provide
DWQ with the legal certainty that these measures will be in place before the road is constructed in
order to protect downstream water quality. We look forward to working with you on the specific wording
of these resolutions as well as the specific language for the above-mentioned water quality measures.
look forward to our meeting on Friday September 13th in Monroe to continue our discussions of these
important matters. I can be reached at 919-733-9646 if you have any questions.
Cc: Samar. Bou-Ghazale, Mooresville DWQ Regional Office
Milt Rhodes, DWQ
Bob Deaton, DOT
Cynthia Van Der Wiele, DWQ
Coleen Sullins, DWQ
Dennis Ramsey, DWQ
The HNTB Companies
To: Meeting Attendees
File
From: Anne Lenart-Redmond
Subject: 08/023/02 Monroe Bypass Coordination Meeting
R-2559 Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
1:30 - 3:00 p.m.
HNTB Conference Room
343 E. Six Forks Road, Suite 200, Raleigh
Attendees:
John Dorney
Bob Deaton
Cynthia VanderWiele
Matt Cusack
Jerry McCrain
Matt Rubino
Suzanna Rea
Laura Kaminski
Kevin Hall
Carl Furney
Whit Webb
Anne Lenart-Redmond
NC Division of Water Quality
NCDOT
NC Division of Water Quality
EcoScience
EcoScience
EcoScience
PBS&J
HNTB, Charlotte
HNTB, Charlotte
HNTB, Raleigh (later)
HNTB, Raleigh
HNTB, Raleigh
Memorandum
Date: August 27, 2002
HNTB Job Number 34780
Meeting Minutes from the previous 7/03/02 coordination.meeting were distributed for review and
comment. As requested, references to HNTB's assumptions in their Indirect and Cumulative Impact
analysis development impact area and the 10-year post construction study horizon time frame were
distributed to the meeting attendees (attached).
Matt Cusak of EcoScience provided mapping of the study area's existing land use conditions derived by
CGIA land use data and parcel data (1995 structure information). The existing land use was divided into
land use classifications corresponding to their nutrient export coefficients to be used in their analysis and
quantified by total areas (hectares):
• Forest/Wetland
• Managed Herb/Pasture/Undeveloped
• Cultivated Crops
• Industrial/Commercial
• Low Density Urban
• Medium/High Density Urban/Institutional
• General Residential
• Open Water
Kevin Hall of HNTB presented HNTB's methodology for Household and Employment growth within the
Monroe Bypass and Monroe Connector's development impact area (see attachment). Laura Kaminski
presented HNTB's methodology of determining the developable land within the projects' development
impact area (see attachment). HNTB provided mapping of the Monroe Bypass / Monroe Connector
developable land within the development impact area. Approximately 93,000 acres of developable land
was identified within the development impact area, and are broken down by watershed basin as follows:
CATEMP\082302 EcoScience DWO mtg.doc
I
B
i
as
n
Duck (Acres)
3,000
Crooked 13,800
Goose 6,800
Richardson 32,500
Lake Twitt 13,200
East Twelve Mile 900
Grass 900
Brown 30
Lanes 22,000
EcoScience and HNTB Coordination Issues:
HNTB's quantified the developable land within the Monroe Bypass/Connector development impact area
as was defined within their scope of work with NCDOT. EcoScience requires developable land and future
growth projections for entire watershed study area as defined in 7/03/02 coordination meeting. HNTB will
provide EcoScience the land available for future development in acres broken down by land use
categories corresponding to EcoScience's nutrient export coefficients for the remainder of the watershed
study area.
HNTB, and EcoScience will address the following scenarios in their Indirect and Cumulative Analysis:
• Baseline/No Build - no proposed improvements with existing land use controls
• Monroe Bypass/Connector improvements with existing land use controls
• Monroe Bypass/Connector improvements with proposed Union County Watershed Protection controls
(including streamside buffers, R-80 zoning).
Schedule.
The letting date for the Monroe Bypass/Connector project is currently scheduled for November 19th. The
permit must be issued by September 1St in order to meet the letting deadline (the permit application is
currently on hold). To let the project within this year, the permit must be issued by October 1.
EcoScience's contractual deadline for the nutrient analysis is September 16. HNTB's development
scenario building will not occur until September 10-11. An interim analysis to be updated at a later date is
not acceptable to DWQ.
The group agreed to the following schedule:
• HNTB to provide EcoScience the future developable land by land use categories (acres) for the
remainder of the watershed study area by September 16.
• NCDOT will submit full report to DWQ by September 27. John Dorney and Cynthia VanDerWeile will
prioritize schedules to provide comments by September 29.
DWQ plans to attend upcoming Union County Proposed Watershed Protection planning meeting on
September 3. According to John Dorney, Union County must issue a formal action prior to the 401 permit
being issued.
Action Items:
• John Dorney agreed to appraise Alice Gordon of NCDOT schedule changes.
• HNTB will continue to work closely with EcoScience to provide updated parcel structure information and
provide future land use areas for the remainder of the watershed study area in an agreed upon format
by September 16.
• NCDOT and HNTB to address expanded study area contractually to accommodate additional services.
Development Impact Area and Time Frame
The HNTB Companies
Memorandum
To: Meeting Attendees
File
From: Anne Lenart-Redmond
Subject: 08/023/02 Monroe Bypass Coordination Meeting
R-2559 Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
1:30 - 3:00 p.m.
HNTB Conference Room
343 E. Six Forks Road, Suite 200, Raleigh
Attendees:
John Dorney
Bob Deaton
Cynthia VanderWiele
Matt Cusack
Jerry McCrain
Matt Rubino
Suzanna Rea
Laura Kaminski
Kevin Hall
Carl Furney
Whit Webb
Anne Lenart-Redmond
NO Division of Water Quality
NCDOT
NO Division of Water Quality
EcoScience
EcoScience
EcoScience
PBS&J
HNTB, Charlotte
HNTB, Charlotte
HNTB, Raleigh (later)
HNTB, Raleigh
HNTB, Raleigh
Date: August 27, 2002
HNTB Job Number 34780
Meeting Minutes from the previous 7/03/02 coordination.meeting were distributed for review and
comment. As requested, references to HNTB's assumptions in their Indirect and Cumulative Impact
analysis development impact area and the 10-year post construction study horizon time frame were
distributed to the meeting attendees (attached).
Matt Cusak of EcoScience provided mapping of the study area's existing land use conditions derived by
CGIA land use data and parcel data (1995 structure information). The existing land use was divided into
land use classifications corresponding to their nutrient export coefficients to be used in their analysis and
quantified by total areas (hectares):
• Forest/Wetland
• Managed Herb/Pasture/Undeveloped
• Cultivated Crops
• Industrial/Commercial
• Low Density Urban
• Medium/High Density Urban/Institutional
• General Residential
• Open Water
Kevin Hall of HNTB presented HNTB's methodology for Household and Employment growth within the
Monroe Bypass and Monroe Connector's development impact area (see attachment). Laura Kaminski
presented HNTB's methodology of determining the developable land within the projects' development
impact area (see attachment). HNTB provided mapping of the Monroe Bypass / Monroe Connector
developable land within the development impact area. Approximately 93,000 acres of developable land
was identified within the development impact area, and are broken down by watershed basin as follows:
CATEMP\082302 EcoScience DWQ mtg.doc
According to the North Carolina DOT "Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative
Impacts of Transportation Projects in North Carolina," the development effects of a new
highway facility are most often found:
• Up to one mile around a freeway interchange; and
• Up to two to five miles along major feeder roadways to the interchange
(Berger 2001, p. 7-14)
Several other sources, including the Oregon DOT "Guidebook for Evaluating the Indirect Land
Use and Growth Impacts of Highway Improvements," were consulted to provide comparison to
the NCDOT "Guidance" document. The Oregon DOT "Guidebook" suggests a study area of 1/2-
mile around an improvement as the primary area of potential effect, with a larger area of impact
possible for large projects on routes with a lot of through trips (ECONorthwest 2001, p. 17-18).
Literature regarding land markets also provide some help in determining areas of effect.
Studies have revealed that the land-value premium associated with proximity to urban highways
erodes. quickly beyond several miles. This may suggest that the impacts of new or improved
highway facilities would extend out several miles as well (Grigg and Ford 1983; Landis and
others 1994; and Ryan 1999, 412-440).
Others have researched land use changes around suburban, exurban and rural interchanges
throughout the country. These researchers evaluated impacts within one to three miles of the
interchanges, and discovered that a two-mile area of effect gives them the best statistical fit
(Hartgen and Curley 1999). Robert Cervero applied a two-mile (from centerline) area of effect
in his article about road expansion, urban growth and induced travel, but suggested that the area
of effect may extend up to ten to fifteen miles in those cases when new or improved highway
facilities offer considerably improved accessibility. The majority of impacts will still occur
within several miles of the improvements (Cervero forthcoming). In addition, several Texas
A&M studies from the 1950s and 1960s employed fifteen-mile areas of effect to evaluate
building activity and land value gains (Gillen 1996, 39-62; Giuliano 1995, 305-341).
The Transportation Research -Board "Guidance for Estimating the Indirect Effects of Proposed
Transportation Projects" suggests defining the area of effect by using the travel forecasting
model. This would mean that impacts may be felt throughout an area 15 to 30 minutes
(approximately 71/z to 15 miles at average speed of 30mph) from the highway improvement.
As a matter of practicality, they also recommend using political or U.S. Census Bureau
boundaries in defining the area of effect (Berger 1998, 65).
According to the NCDOT "Guidance", development beyond areas delineated in long-range
infrastructure or growth management plans is limited or restricted. This document suggests
that, in these circumstances, it may be appropriate to confine consideration of
indirect/cumulative effects to a study area coincident with accepted growth boundaries (Berger,
p. 3-16). The NCDOT "Guidance" also suggests that complementary land development, such
as highway-oriented businesses (gas stations, rest stops, motels, etc.), is more likely near
interchanges in rural areas (Berger, p. 7-13).
In evaluating the timeframe for which impacts may occur as a result of highway improvements,
Mark Hanson and Robert Cervero have found that models which measure impacts within four
to five years of road improvements best capture variation in travel demand (Cervero and
Hansen 2002).
3
Robert Cervero is more conservative in his article for the Journal of the American Planning
Association. Studies completed in California allowed Cervero to measure associations between
road building and land development beyond ten years. Nevertheless, lagged model structures
and autocorrelations suggest that these associations are best expressed in eight-year timeframes
(Cervero forthcoming).
A statistically sound study of land use impacts around freeways in Cook County, Illinois used a
ten-year lag time and lead to determine impacts of highways on the decentralization of cities
(Transportation Center 1999).
Since there is no commonly accepted methodology for estimating potential impact area, the
following methodology has been used in this analysis:
1. Use an analysis or potential impact of a 15-minute driving time from new
interchanges/intersections along intersecting arterials. This corresponds to
approximately 7 miles, assuming 35mph speed limits plus stop signs or signals at some
cross streets.
2. The demographic analysis for existing and forecasted populations is then based on the
U.S. Census tracts and blocks most closely matching this impact area.
3. The estimated impact is based on projected growth within the assumed impact analysis
area, distributed into physical locations which take into account actual arterial
alignments, natural feature limitations, local land use policies, regulatory restrictions,
and availability or supporting utility infrastructure.
Reference List
Cervero, R. and M. Hansen. 2002 (forthcoming). Induced Travel Demand and Induced Road Investment: A Simultaneous-
Equation Analysis. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy.
Cervero, R. 2002 (forthcoming). Road Expansion, Urban Growth, and Induced Travel: A Path Analysis. Journal of the
American Planning Association.
ECONorthwest and Portland State University for Oregon Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration.
2001. A Guidebook for Evaluating the Indirect Land Use and Growth Impacts of Highway Improvements. SPR Project 327.
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 Geography of Urban
Transportation, ed. by S. Hanson. 2nd 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 Interstate Exits. Transportation 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.
According to the North Carolina DOT "Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative
Impacts of Transportation Projects in North Carolina," the development effects of a new
highway facility are most often found:
• Up to one mile around a freeway interchange; and
• Up to two to five miles along major feeder roadways to the interchange
(Berger 2001, p. 7-14)
Several other sources, including the Oregon DOT "Guidebook for Evaluating the Indirect Land
Use and Growth Impacts of Highway Improvements," were consulted to provide comparison to
the NCDOT "Guidance" document. The Oregon DOT "Guidebook" suggests a study area of '/2-
mile around an improvement as the primary area of potential effect, with a larger area of impact
possible for large projects on routes with a lot of through trips (ECONorthwest 2001, p. 17-18).
Literature regarding land markets also provide some help in determining areas of effect.
Studies have revealed that the land-value premium associated with proximity to urban highways
erodes quickly beyond several miles. This may suggest that the impacts of new or improved
highway facilities would extend out several miles as well (Grigg and Ford 1983; Landis and
others 1994; and Ryan 1999, 412-440).
Others have researched land use changes around suburban, exurban and rural interchanges
throughout the country. These researchers evaluated impacts within one to three miles of the
interchanges, and discovered that a two-mile area of effect gives them the best statistical fit
(Hartgen and Curley 1999). Robert Cervero applied a two-mile (from centerline) area of effect
in his article about road expansion, urban growth and induced travel, but suggested that the area
of effect may extend up to ten to fifteen miles in those cases when new or improved highway
facilities offer considerably improved accessibility. The majority of impacts will still occur
within several miles of the improvements (Cervero forthcoming). In addition, several Texas
A&M studies from the 1950s and 1960s employed fifteen-mile areas of effect to evaluate
building activity and land value gains (Gillen 1996, 39-62; Giuliano 1995, 305-341).
The Transportation Research Board "Guidance for Estimating the Indirect Effects of Proposed
Transportation Projects" suggests defining the area of effect by using the travel forecasting
model. This would mean that impacts may be felt throughout an area 15 to 30 minutes
(approximately 7'/z to 15 miles at average speed of 30mph) from the highway improvement.
As a matter of practicality, they also recommend using political or U.S. Census Bureau
boundaries in defining the area of effect (Berger 1998, 65).
According to the NCDOT "Guidance", development beyond areas delineated in long-range
infrastructure or growth management plans is limited or restricted. This document suggests
that, in these circumstances, it may be appropriate to confine consideration of
indirect/cumulative effects to a study area coincident with accepted growth boundaries (Berger,
p. 3-16). The NCDOT "Guidance" also suggests that complementary land development, such
as highway-oriented businesses (gas stations, rest stops, motels, etc.), is more likely near
interchanges in rural areas (Berger, p. 7-13).
In evaluating the timeframe for which impacts may occur as a result of highway improvements,
Mark Hanson and Robert Cervero have found that models which measure impacts within four
to five years of road improvements best capture variation in travel demand (Cervero and
Hansen 2002).
3
Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. for the National Cooperative Highway Research Program. 1998. Guidance for Estimating the
Indirect Effects of Proposed Transportation Projects. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board. Report 403.
Ryan, S. 1999. Property Values and Transportation Facilities: Finding the Transportation and Land Use Connection. Journal
of Planning Literature, 13(4), 412-440.
The Louis Berger Group for State of North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2001. Guidance for Assessing Indirect and
Cumulative Impacts of Transportation Projects in North Carolina, Volume 11: Practitioner's
Handbook. Project Number 81777722.
Urban Transportation Center. 1999. Highways and Urban Decentralization. Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago, Urban
Transportation Center. Research Report.
Methodology For Household Growth Forecast
1, Calculated 1990 to 2000 population in households growth for Union County and for Census
Tracts/Block Groups within impact area
2, Repeated Step 1 to calculate household growth between 1990 and 2000
5

• Lakes, Rivers, and Streams
• Steep slopes of 8 percent or greater
• Parks and land conservancy areas
The land that had physical constraints was subtracted from the potentially developed land in category a.
The remaining land was considered developable
The process of how the developable land was derived through GIS
4. GIS data was obtained from the County containing
a. Parcel data
a. Structures
5. A query was done removing all parcels that were under 5 acres with a structure on them
6. Those parcels remaining were zoomed in on in order to visually look closer at the lots
a. A column in the attribute table of the parcel layer was created called "Delete"
• Parcels eliminated
• If a large structure using most of the land or deemed to make the lot undevelopable for future use
was found, the parcel was highlighted and marked in the attribute table with an x
• When in question the owner of the lot was looked at to help determine the use of the parcel
• Schools, churches, large commercial and industrial owners were usually eliminated
b. Once all of these parcels were marked in the attribute table column "delete" as an x, a query was done to
delete all those with an x in them
c. Parcels kept as developable
• If a small house or structure that did not take up a large portion of the lot was located there and it was
decided that the land was still developable it was to remain
7. Since the `Structures" layer from the County was from 1995 further elimination was necessary
a. All major subdivisions that were visible were eliminated
b. A query was done to select and eliminate all lots that
• Contained structures built after 1995 (since we had already eliminated those prior to 1995)
• Were less than or equal to 5 acres in size
d. Another query was done to select all lots that
• Contained structures built after 1995
• Were greater than 5 acres
• By looking at the attribute table and comparing the square feet of the building and the acreage of the
lot, as well as the owner, a determination was made as to whether the lot could be further subdivided
or not
8. A union was performed that removed any of the non-developable land from category 1b.
9. From this map the study area of the 7-mile radius around the new interchanges of the Monroe Bypass and
Corridor was "clipped" or extracted, so those areas outside of the radius were no longer included
10. A final study map showing only those developable lands within our study area was the result

tom
`C
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/shutting 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.
4%
CFA
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
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), (htta://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands)
Customer Service #: 1-877-623-6748
Thorpe Page 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.
etlands Unit
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
imap://cynthia.vanderwiele%40dwq.denr.nemail.net@a c...
Subject: [Fwd: Union County dumps sewer plant plan]
From: John Dorney <john.dorney @ ncmail. net>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 21:53:40 -0500
To: "Cynthia.Vanderwiele" <Cynthia.Vanderwiele @ ncmail. net>, Michael Parker
<Michael.Parker@ ncmail.net>
fyi
------- Original Message --------
Subject:Union County dumps sewer plant plan
Date:Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:10:34 -0500
From:Susan Massengale <[e-mail]>
Organization:NC DENR DWQ
To:DWQ Clips <[e-mail]>
Posted on Thu, Nov. 20, 2003
oc(Cfta lau r obstrw
Union County dumps sewer plant plan
Commissioners respond to New Salem residents' fears over new growth
SAMANTHA PETERSON
Staff Writer
MONROE - County commissioners have backed off a plan to build a sewer plant in New
Salem after residents in the rural area complained about the growth it would bring.
Commissioners voted unanimously Monday night to no longer consider building a plant
along the Rocky River, which forms Union County's border with Stanly County. They also
voted unanimously to have county staff consider other wastewater treatment options,
including partnering with Anson County.
Hundreds of New Salem residents had protested proposed changes to the county's
land-use plan, which called for a sewer plant along Grassy Creek and higher density
residential development nearby. Residents worried the changes would destroy the area's
rural nature by bringing growth to the county's relatively undeveloped northeast corner.
Rick Greene, who had led a push to incorporate the area as a town, said after Monday's
meeting that he's glad the commissioners listened to residents' concerns. He said he no
longer believes the area needs to incorporate but said it's clear residents still need to keep
an eye on decisions that could affect them.
"I just think we need to be constantly informed of everything that is happening in the
wholesome area we have here," Greene said.
Commissioners discussed the issue little before voting to scrap the northern Union County
sewer plant plans until further notice. Commissioner Clayton Loflin said he believes all
commissioners knew the staff-generated land-use plan was not what New Salem residents
wanted.
"The first time I saw it, I knew we were going to have a problem," Loflin said.
1 of 2 12/3/2003 2:25 PM
imap.//cynthia.vanderwiele%4Odwq.denr.nemail.net@c...
The proposed changes came about because commissioners asked county staff to suggest
changes to the county's land-use plan, last updated in 1998. The land-use plan is not
binding but instead serves as a roadmap for how the county should grow.
Commissioners first began looking at how the northern part of the county should develop
primarily because of concerns over the endangered Carolina heelsplitter mussel, found in
Goose and Duck creeks.
As part of ongoing negotiations with wildlife agencies concerned about development's
impact on the mussel, the county has offered not to build a regional sewer treatment plant
initially planned for along Goose Creek.
The county still was considering a treatment plant north of U.S. 74, which led the county to
consider placing it along Crooked Creek, outside the heelsplitter's habitat. Consultants,
however, determined Crooked Creek's geography would make putting a plant there too
expensive. They suggested Grassy Creek, farther east and in the New Salem area.
County Manager Mike Shalati had said that if commissioners wanted to allow higher density
development in the northern part of the county, the area near Grassy Creek would be one of
the few places it would be possible.
Commissioners' Chairman Paul Standridge said the county staff should be complimented
on their efforts to update the land-use plan. The proposed changes focused only on the
northern half of the county; county staff members are still working on suggested changes for
the rest of the county.
2 of 2 12/3/2003 2:25 PM
Re: DWQ Agreement-again
Subject: Re: DWQ Agreement-again
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 16:55:35 -0400
From: "Jim Loyd" <[e-mail]>
Organization: City of Monroe
To: "John Dorney" <[e-mail]>
The City of Monroe Water Resources Committee reviewed on Tuesday and recommended for City Council approval.
The earliest I can get on the Council Agenda is October 1.
----- Original Message -----
From: John Dorney
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail] ; [e-mail] ; [e-mail] ; [e-mail] ;
[e-mail] ; [e-mail] ; [e-mail] ; [e-mail] ;
[e-mail] ; [e-mail] ; [e-mail] ; [e-mail]
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: DWQ Agreement-again
okay - any update from county or city action this week? please advise. thankx
[e-mail] wrote:
I thought I would attach the agreement this time, sorry.
Christie
1 of 1 9/23/02 8:25 AM
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers J' 5 2U02
Post Office Box 1890
}
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1810 WETLANDS GROUP
WATER QUALITY SECTION 4
Action ID No. 200230845 July 12, 2002
PUBLIC NOTICE
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, ATTN: Mr. William D. Gilmore,
Manager, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, 1548 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548 has applied for a Department of the Army (DA)
permit 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 NOS. 8.T690401).
The following description of the work is taken from data provided by the applicant and from
observations made during an onsite visit by a representative of the Corps of Engineers. Plans
submitted with the application show the proposed construction of a four-lane road with a 45-foot
divided median on new location connecting US 601 just south of SR 1504 (Baucom-Deese Road) to
existing US 74 approximately halfway between the towns of Wingate and Marshville, a distance of
approximately 9.1 miles. Full control of access will be maintained. The applicant has identified two
sections of this project designated B and C. Section B is 3.5 miles long, begins at US 601 and ends
just prior to crossing Richardson Creek. This section of roadway crosses Stewarts Creek and four
unnamed tributaries, three unnamed tributaries to Richardson Creek and six small farm ponds. A
total of 2220 linear feet of stream channel would be impacted by pipe and culvert installation at the
stream crossings on Section B. Streams are both intermittent and perennial. Individual pipe/culvert
lengths range from 117 feet at an unnamed tributary to Stewarts Creek (Site 1) to 367 feet on an
unnamed tributary to Richardson Creek (Site 11). Stewarts Creek would be spanned with a bridge.
The proposed construction of Section B would also impact a total of 3.51 acres of wetland at 15
separate sites including pond fringe marsh/scrub shrub and headwater forest. Six small farm ponds,
totaling 3.14 acres, would also be impacted by Section B.
Section C is 5.6 miles long and extends from the proposed Richardson Creek bridge to the
interchange with existing US 74 just east of SR 1754 (Forest Hills Road). As stated, this section of
roadway crosses Richardson Creek, Rays Fork, Spring Branch, Meadow Branch, Salem Branch and
8 unnamed tributaries. A total of 4915 linear feet of stream channel would be impacted by pipe and
2
culvert installation at these stream crossings on Section C. Streams are both intermittent and
perennial. Individual channel pipe/culvert lengths range from 128 feet at Site3 on an unnamed
tributary to Rays Fork to 711 feet at Site 6 on Spring Branch at the proposed intersection with SR
1758 (Austin-Chaney Road). It is proposed to span Richardson Creek, Rays Fork and Meadow
Branch with bridges. A temporary work bridge would also be employed during construction at the
crossing of Meadow Branch in order to minimize impacts to the adjacent bottomland hardwood
wetlands. A total of 0.75 acres of forested wetlands would be filled at 11 sites on Section C. One
small farm pond totaling 0.58 acres would also be filled on Section C.
The wetlands being impacted by this project are generally characterized as pond fringe
wetlands or headwater forest wetlands. The pond fringe wetlands are vegetated with soft rush and
various sedges and include scattered shrub species such as willow, tag alder, silky dogwood. The
headwater forests are vegetated with box elder, green ash, sweet gum, red maple, sycamore, tulip
poplar, ironwood, Chinese privet, silky dogwood, elderberry, Virginia creeper, blackberries and
poison ivy. The project as a whole would eliminate 4.26 acres of wetland, 6771 linear feet of stream
channel and 3.72 acres of ponds. The applicant is proposing to mitigate for stream losses by
contributing to the North Carolina Wetland Restoration Program (WRP). The total mitigable stream
amount would be 13,712 linear feet. Wetland losses would be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio also by
contributing to the WRP. All mitigation would occur in the Yadkin River Basin, Hydrologic Unit
03040105. An Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed work was approved by the Federal
Highway Administration on March 14, 1996. A Federal Finding of No Significant Impact was
signed on June 20, 1997. The purpose of the proposed work is to provide a safe, efficient road
facility to accommodate current and projected traffic volumes and to complete a portion of a planned
US 74 Bypass around Monroe. Plans showing the proposed work are included with this public
notice.
The State of North Carolina will review this public notice do determine the need for the
applicant to obtain any required State authorization. No Department of the Army (DA) permit will
be issued until the coordinated State viewpoint on the proposal has been received and reviewed by
this agency, nor will a DA permit be issued until the North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (NCDENR) has determined the applicability of a Water Quality Certificate as
required by PL 92-500.
This application is being considered pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344). Any person may request, in writing within the comment period specified in this
notice, that a public hearing be held to consider this application. Requests for public hearing shall
state, with particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing.
. The District Engineer has consulted the latest published version of the National Register of
Historic Places for the presence or absence of registered properties, or properties listed as being
eligible for inclusion therein, and this worksite is not registered property or property listed as being
eligible for inclusion in the Register. Consultation of the National Register constitutes the extent of
cultural resource investigations by the District Engineer, and he is otherwise unaware of the presence
of such resources. Presently, unknown archeological, scientific, prehistorical, or historical data may
be lost or destroyed by work under the requested permit.
3
The District Engineer, based on available information, is not aware that the proposed activity
will affect species, or their critical habitat, designated as endangered or threatened pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act of 1973.
The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impacts,
including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity and its intended use on the public interest.
Evaluation of the probable impacts which the proposed activity may have on the public interest
requires a careful weighing of all those factors which become relevant in each particular case. The
benefits which reasonably maybe expected to accrue from the proposal must be balanced against its
reasonably foreseeable detriments. The decision whether to authorize a proposal, and if so the
conditions under which it will be allowed to occur, are therefore determined by the outcome of the
general balancing process. That decision should reflect the national concern for both protection and
utilization of important resources. All factors which may be relevant to the proposal must be
considered including the cumulative effects thereof. Among those are conservation, economics,
aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values, flood
hazards and flood plain values (in accordance with Executive Order 11988), land use, navigation,
shore erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs,
safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership, and, in
general, the needs and welfare of the people. For activities involving the placement of dredged or fill
materials in waters of the United States, a permit will be denied if the discharge that would be
authorized by such permit would not comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's 404(b)(1)
guidelines. Subj ect to the preceding sentence and any other applicable guidelines or criteria, a permit
will be granted unless the District Engineer determines that it would be contrary to the public
interest.
The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State and local
agencies and officials; Indian Tribes and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the
impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps of
Engineers to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this proposal. To
make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties,
water quality, general environmental effects and the other public interest factors listed above.
Comments are used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the overall
public interest of the proposed activity.
Generally, the decision whether to issue this Department of the Army (DA) permit will not be
made until the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) issues, denies, or waives State
certification required by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The NCDWQ considers whether or
not the proposed activity will comply with Sections 301, 302, 306 and 307 of the Clean Water Act.
The application and this public notice for the DA permit serves as application to the NCDWQ for
certification.
Additional information regarding the Clean Water Act certification may be reviewed at the
offices of the 401 Wetlands Certification Unit, North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ),
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, North Carolina 27604. Copies of such materials will be furnished to
any person requesting copies upon payment of reproduction costs.
4
All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application for Clean Water Act
certification should do so in writing delivered to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
Wetlands Section, 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0621, on or before
July 26, 2002, Attention: Mr. John Dorney.
Written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, will be received in this
office, Attention: Mr. Steven Lund, until 4:15 p.m., August 12, 2002, or telephone [phone].
Ul cn
- w
z
n
717'
Al.
i o Q
?z 3 o
O o ` , z
C') f:' 0 3
i O1
CA m
Ctrl
to
Tnr' O z > ??------
O ao O •,q O
Z $
? z
90 /T /f ht Rio Z .LSHHS
SSVdA$ SONNOW rL-Sa
(96"9-Ill TW691:0 U.0groxd
Almfioa NoiNa
SAVMH9IH SO MOISIAIa
AIOI.LV.LuodsNvv.L ao'.Ldaa'O'AI
3Q -Z s??rs Nd
33VjunS 831VM - _.._.. 0 _.._
AUVONn08 1NVId
03d39NVON3 '1SIX3 --8d3•-
AUVONn08 IVWINV
0383ONVON3 '1SIX3 --BV3,-
1N3W3Sd3
30VNIV80 1N3NVW83d -30d-
NISdB dOlVdISSIO 1N3W3Sti3
i?Ja3N3 dtia dIa 39VNIV80 'dW31 -301-
dVd dI8 3NII A183dOHd --3d --
ONnOaJ iv8niVN.---ON --
3NdA AVM 30 1HO18 'dO8d ?-
III3 30 lIWII 'dOUd -- --
OtiM100a ln3 30 IIWII 'dOMd -- --
3
13INI 30VNIV80 ¦ H31VM 30 3003
ANV8 30 d01

3NII SOOOM 81
N01133HIO MOI3 -? -?
3381 3lJNIS
JNI2iti313

*
*
03ZINVH33W S31ON30 *
*
* **
(S38n13n8is _ ONlSIX3 831VM 33Vj8nS NI Ilia
31ON36 S3NII 03HSVO) A2iti UW31 S31ON30
183Aln3 3dId 03SOdO8d ?. ONVI13M NI
NOIIVAVOX3 S31ON30
183Aln3. X08 03SOdOHd ONVI13M NI III3
A2iti UW31 S31ON30®

300IUS 03SOdO8d (ONOd)
831VM 33d32inS
NI III3 S31ON30

U31VM 33d38nS
838WdN 1308Vd 80 NI III3 S31ON30
83NMO A183dUd 1N3 3Vf0V O
ONtil13M
S1108 838I3 8103 --- NI III3 S310N30

830 In08 ONtiI13M

S3AViS
3AII XXX
X X
A8VONn08 aNVl13M -- ---BIM---
aN393'1
co
• a
a z
E-E o E3hf)?5 23 E 0-- E E
WW cta?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
__=====/=I s°o ?---=----------- -
/ lhw o?07/Va7 109 sn - -
c II ? ?a -
l??7 n DOS mo 00?°
------------------
--- ,.• -Ti
(A° ZO ?O (7m 1 ?
Cm m mm r I -$v?
/ !.
nO An 0- r' -0 m z
;a z
rn (A >. CA o CA C) (A
Z r, (A
rr • I m
N z Z Z ` I `?` 1 1 Te DI tB? j% Q I n
N
I /
•
m-4 \\ // /f
03 4 C4
03 -ri
?s o„ o z ?, z 1 .y, . - -
0.0 C? CD S z
1.4 rA
rA C*
fA as / /
w
O
O
N
O
CO 1
mm
n C
mm rm
-4z mz
r d n o Z- rn
C) cmn CA
N
m
r
r =
z n
Z
N
'a -oc
m
0
4A CA
m r r
r
r r
r
r r
s
m r r
rrr
00
WM
-?
v L
I? ?? v v
° e ?' u?
If
o ?? z c c z
s Zy Z p
0 z .r
MATCLME LSTA. 188
fin' ? ? > 4` •
\ p
.. z
\
e
I }

1 ?:
I
I 1
I

1
1 .1
I
I
I _ I
I
I
I
1 ?y _ I

I t
1

O 1
?
1 I
I

O
1 ,
?
I Q
I I
1 ?? I

n, k
i 37 375'• I

s c> I r; ?o ?o -1
+?- cm
m

••
Z _ 1

00
?
I
`3
I I

m
?

H - - + 40
0
0
MATC LINE -L-ST .188+40
1 "; r
tt
r ,
1 S - r 1
i 450 450 - i
1 \
II \ ? 1
00
ro 1 ?/ i
J O 'f O
1 m
:. H J
N - T? r -??
N a
mm r- m o; S m ; f
-4 o no mz __
a4 _?-4 o z
to v z IF
,n I 1 ?
z a ?. r F .
All
T rrr ? 2-.I
rrr R C ? ? ? /
rrr w A `'j 1 f r /
r 1 ?
tea / ??_? / R
z
4" OAJ.
?tv
N z
O ao 1 a
w
O'D
C?
00
S z
?'-] an 1 /
1
z / R
N 1 I i w
'n
O I m 1
1 vsi? NH t
1 ? I
Q I N a N a 1
1 O C o I
z o i
t CO
\ s A s A 1
\ m o' m o I
1 c m c m` 1
1 v v 1
1 1
N 1 I
Q \ 1
1 1
1 1
O 1 1
1 1
I SO I
s I 0- I
? 1 s
N 1 c ? O
m TI
1 0 I
C`\ 8q? i
375 /
? \\\ ??gocq'? /
p$` /
'60 %Q
oe
"?? ? e oe 0
0 0% -0
00
\••\ eeey,,°gg°
0.0.
r??$0 00 ?• \ ? \\ opO.°? e
no. ?! e"p" g° ?°o oe°pe e
A QrO`v 0$ a°o a? 8°C?O o \ \\
epo °00 0 °Oe
go
d Oly o_Oee T;2*'b \ ,\\
i
'P'te $O? O p o 0
o??.pp 8?pe \
.? o9g 04 e° •1
rn,
T ? .
Z /? \
110,
I ? ?; 7d O d Z ? ? ai ?'\
t1a
y z 00
,
090 o ,
Z
Is Z x
Oc A , O
?.
11 tt
? I
O 1
1 m ?
4A . N N a ,
0 0 0;
_
i
0
1 C ?- crn 1
CO A co m
1 p N p 1
N i o 1
O 1
----- ??_ _ _ --- -- --- - ------ ----
375
r^lrn'? 1 1
z 1 I 1-x-max x_._.-
r? m 1 x x X-
?OJ m X 1
?1 ? -x x? ion x_--x-rx 1
? ?I I
?: 1 1
?v no ?..? '?1 1
mm rm TB I
-4 Z m Z .`.. RO I
n ° ° ``` = If TB, _ SEO 2 : 1.5 9 1
TB
o cmi? C) N
Ln -n
R14
r, C') LB
z n ; i re IF K-
z
O A C '\ 1 1
A
f i (.A
itt m `\ 1 ?'
'Tl iii
• 1 ,
1 I O
1 \ 1
z I •\, I
1
03
z n c? .\
tt4i (J,
I ?? C n H 1? ? O \
n o o I + ,\ -n I
N c? c z? -.? 1 I
L= z z 11
r? o , 00
z , 600
I
w , 1 \,\
I 7501L ti
/
I :I
o \\ 0 /+ ? i I
4A =
.40
or- cl
z co 0
l r' ?i I 4
r4 f
C81 \ + m\ I
?. ? o l b ., I I .: 1£
spy \ 1n
\ ? x s? o
1 `JiP fn t \? p
cn 0 v o n v 11 t t
CST ?z miz mz co-)? x?
n0 O r0 a0
°a-+ ? -? a -+ 2? -4
(A rn
?m zm
rn
ar NX r m ° x x
-4 r,
n r n
m a = ?O I •-? x
mZ Ga Z Z - / } r
1 N ? / j ? ' ?x SLfi ':
i my o i ? x ?,
in i I x
• « ?;A / / yew
m « O? / x
-n 0
n I
/N I 1 ? x
.000
S
/ CME i •;/
to x z ? ?\
Iaq C'? Cy C Z ? \ v o m
03
03 c:
?0 Z p p Z' ? ,/i b-d
Coal YL

o . ,t ,

O `
Q
0 ? \

til
I`

Q
I
1 1 .?
Z Q ?
ip
o I ,
X 1
N m 1 O
D I
m r ' ,' t
, 1
can Z ? I Q I
'

1 ? I
1

.D 1
E3 1 1
i
a
I I

? 1 p5? ?,
Q
1
1 ,
1 ?
I

a
'0 r?
?N
a
I I ?
I '
II O
1
d
?? w€3
,
I r
II II k ? ?
pp a °

O

?JC' ?Tx
?., TO
1 ?

I 1 `.

I V
1
1 I `?
1 ?
I I
I I
\ 1 I
I l Q
I ?
I O
II ,
I I ,
ON
???? I 1 y
I ?
1

,
I
I
Q i
ICY
N ': 1 1
i 1 O E> f c"i 1 1
t
1 -` O E„? : 1 I
I -_ 1
1 - C3 It
1 c<
. I
I _ c ? /?
a 1 ?3 __,
It
m /
rn-q
1 \ ? /
(? I ;- Q ? - 900 ??: \\ rn /
I ?? \ I
ftzz
I ( /
1 :;;:TQ N 1
1 - N r
1 ? I 1
1 •?: F 1
\' y+
cm zm mm rm t-,r ?sll
n°a m-4 a° z°t 1 0 " I i ,
mN r-N prn 2tm/f ?n
r) -n
Z a z z
N
1 O In p m 375
(A -n
a r 1
? aaa 1 I ? I ? a
N a l ? ?
r r 1
sc sin \. I /
t3j
c o •. go
14 w 0 C 03 .a' z z
03 C:
? ?. x ? w it `•:: N : `` 1 ? / ?
W G?i? ' '? v + 11 / s n
402 U CAA Q -n /
O \ 1 1 1 `
1 1 ? _ I
1 1 1 N I/
1 I I
11 1 I ? 1
1 I/
? N
ctl
0
N i (A /
p v, 14-4 .: /
f1c
\ 1 0 ; Q
rno m o o •?' ; m
m-+ ~ O , / O
° G s IA
r. ol
?? N c0
mom:
-n °c°'
/'
NJ,
CDC)
OCA
\?J a r g +
`Y N T T T•
D f1
,1
CA -n
-n -n IIN -n
?r r n
(A Z Z Z
o
1
• s?s 1 I N a 1
r r O ?? i ?• ??. I ?? ?I ? 7D
3T5 H
fA ,' 1
03 x L A OSL i i
0O a n z :A /F /0 + = i
Z :00
s m 1
?a? o F I CA) I ,
O a
o I
I I"
l?
0
04? 4? :tttI
I
Lit
O o

N p
< z
°
z
N
C') O
D z
r -r
D
N r

r A

m D
r
m
N
O
O
9
A
ER
(A0 :e v
cm mm
n0 r0
D -4 D -,
n m z m
m (A v t/,
:* r (A n
Dr r
-a r r
m
Nz z
N ?
Co.
0 11
Na
C)
O

?r
U
T $
IV
N O
? O
'11
r
T(---141
!

,
,

/
!
!
!
!

i
1

,

1
i
1
!

!
/
!
/

!
!
!
A
!
!

I
m
N
-i z
Z
'
m m
70
-n -n
O
C ,
Z '
v
r
Z ?
rn ?
yc
O
r
7v
Q
'77
r
rn
7O
v
rn
r_
Z
rn
J
Ul
0 0
J J
O O
_
m
m O

N
C7 O
D Z
r --r
a
N r
n
D N
r n
m D
r
m
1?1
?-1
Cn
O
O
W
O
N
O
tin o cil
mZ
D -i
O N
N -n
z
O
0
a
N
0
L4
? o

Ul
0

z

m

o (3 0
rn
N
N
O
O
I
r
rE?
-v
w
v
0
O
N
O
It
tm4
1

-II Z
r O
vCA
?-n
r
Z
v
a
z
z
-? ro n
V
I?
03 s
C
Z c

-?
OD

z c

z
z
;q ?
X C
V
C , ...:
P E 4
w z c?

fA ,gyp .4 > Q,-
(A -j
O
z

oy
oy?
Q
\j 1
I,
/
it
r
1
1 •.
1
1
?I
1
I
1
1 O.
1 +
A10
Oa ,? 00
01
10
o ?
F ? , \ \
\?'\ ;
?Fj of Q ? ,
?F f3 ?I'
rV;
?u
? II
o /' \ I
\I
/ I \
_ I
/ 1 1
II ,
,iju
m
N N
VI J
N a
C ;
1 Z
x?
Co
O
0M
c
z
0
W
o-
O

s
0
i •\
O / / I \
Q / / I
GO
1 ;
r \;
N ?\ I I 1 / /
O `\ 1 1 0 / 7/
1 I 0
d1 4 90
\ 1
I FE a /? / 1
,.. L
Q //?// ? co
l
`? `? O ?c 1 j j 1 N tCi? N N
\ 1 / / 1 z (n
?sao \\ 1 1 // d , O Z N a a to .:
I I 1 ?// ; s0 0 a= N ? c
/ ;r I
mz ? m o O m z
03, d? z Z'^ N
C, V
J/P rn
OEM& -n
IS,
OCCZ mZ
M CA (A
=E -n
n1 \ /
00
\ d
NIC
n 9S . \os..... \d
? (n NBC \\ ,\ //
s I i \\-\ \ \' m(A
03 (:!O' e 107 ?' i ,\ \\\? \
IN.
\
Is O O
Z y '\
z 1 '.
> am
? \ 1 In
Q x x. 01 4o
t~ x 0 1 /? I zm /
1-4
1
rA to
A. v H 1 I m6, . -40
m
O /'/' 1 I I
x ./' 1 I 1 M-
O ? I I
I I I
1 1
1
O T In I
Q I
I
I I
I
I 1
I I
I I
O 1 1
"I I
I 1
1 s n I
1 1 ? z
1 1
I I
I 1 I a ?
I I 1
f .
r m_, 1
I-n
_ $ ?x
66
C4
O VOW
O i
c r
c m c m 0 ?p p W
mm rn m to
nz -nz -IZ i.. o
-
TIO X70 r0 DO P -
D
omw cam Z
C-) rn rn Dm Zm ?m
Zvl M0
vcn ?cn o
vim ?? Nm ?
DF Dr r m
mr_ m?
MLAZ vii Z z z ?
m
T/
r r r
iii ?
'U 4A i+wi O
• r
r
It w
-? o
m \
z \
?. \
:0 0
I? W? m
OM Wo
z c c ;+
9D 9)
z O0 m i0 0
-C z?
O `? n
?p ? ? 7i 0 ? I 1 sn
to
?` 'z ro 1 I 1
"'C 1 1
M ? Ti T IT
? V? O I 1
w
1.
r
/I

- 1

- - 1

i 1

w' \

1

r ;•
, r

I
375 _? 375 :
Np1T

_ r?l
oN l
•
1
N
9
?I
I
1
i
1
. ? 1
; N NN

1
60 ? I
_ e
l

•; O I
I

? I I 1
- I
O 1 I I - I
?1
I D P I 1
I 1 I
I
O 1
I I I
I 1 -- h
1
I
1 I I?
I 1
1 1

s/
I 1 I 1
I 1 I 1

N I
1 1 I
h I
-
' 1
I
O I ? I I . - „ I E 3
I
1
? 1 I
I I 1
I

1 **-4
3
/
1
1 1 1
I :: Q I /?? :- O

I
I

I 1
1 _
r4
<

t t

! /
0 r_
?j
i? I I '
'• in
Z I 1 1 ? M o
I I 1 r I ^
? I I 1 ? I o
O-A - :
r I 1 .? 1
I I •3 -: r I
1 1 1 ? "?1
1
?1

? _ 1
I
n
a1 I ? ?? I
r
O
W
M-4
tno ?o no

°
` N .
cm mm rm 1 ? V `"tX
AZ -rZ M0

=
n -4
m
D
d
N°O

1
_
--q _
-4 O
M (A 0 (A 00 CA
(A z
1 ^

- .
m
V

d
- s
;o
viZ Z Z 1
4-
I

N
di
N, 00
'?I
IV
m
0 gy yl N

OD 1
N. 00
1

Cl)a,
m

• x?
•
I
?"
?- rn -+
I O
i
y
• . I
*?# L 1
I
1
D
Cf

0 I
NO I = .
I
m #"f POE
i rc
a
to •
¦
O I

I

?
N
? "y I
I II 3T5 375 -; - I Oa
I 11 ?_
1 II 1
1
1 II
T ,
?
to z 1 I
? 1 1
r] ro (? T I 1 1 -n
c? gvU
II
1
va
O.
J ? ?
C
V 1
1 I I
I I " :? ?
,
ry z
0
?
1
o z id 1 I I HN
(A -ft z jhb
X

p z
_J.
11
am ;o
pm
1
to z

Cn
Y

z

O
O
O

?
r
r
r
r
r
/

m ?
A
I
N R
Z I
P
Cc My pm
cm mm v
xz 'z m z
n, ?...?.
OM ro Z3.0
m
a n -+ m -+ -
mN OL4 ON
:* m Nm r.
rn c m 's
m_ _ x
CA z z
m n
v
E(A •
• •
O

r T
V
? z
y 'ti f1
?2
IW C
A ??
.? 0 TDE
°
z
0
0
X
°o 0 0
z?
0
I
Y
a
A.

?
.,
o
? o

1 v

r
/
1 c,
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
?n
i
1
1
1
1
1
1 n
i
I
O
6
1
1
I
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
0
O
N
O
It
?j
0-4 r

:*o c)v
m m rr m
-i z m z
r0 D0
D -+ ;7 -4
ON C) CAA
N -n -M
P m
r n
m
z n
z
IV
m
0
i r
?1 #
# a
#
a a
•
-1 i #
a s
W
y.
C
Z 9D
o?
?o
b,
C?
r?
0
w
z
vv?
C
?r `
Z 007
z z-4 0-3
A ;
C: z
0
z

L

0

0
O
N
O
It

:9 (A0 ZE O
mz -4z
z,no ro
°a-+ a-+
nm zm
mN pN
m N m
m r
m_ _
m Z z
v ?
I I

i i
t I I
i
?? I
I I C I an
? I
A
f TII . I I ? ? ?`
rnx? ? i Q F\F

r x
?
.
r I
/ c
\r
`
r
I 1

x < I 1 rri
I m I 1

,? o ?? o d U
I
o CA o C?!
z So
z
r ? z O
a
+
O 5.
X
DI 0 Z
O

rA? y
all.
c
z

..
.. .. .. V
o
m
I
? I ?
cc
I
i
X : I
x
I
I :4
?
j r
m 1
?A
s s xl O
•°
1 x
1 I
V7
I
I
V o / ; I .
I
x H 0,
1
1
n a
z
z Q x
/ M

m
I
Ix l? ? I r

q , I

13
n1]1
\
I

I I x
x ? '
" ve
x -n I

Cl)

0
v
m
z
3D
30
;,u 33
T
0
m co I
v
;u
;u

Z_
Z
G)
O
-n
o
O CA
CA
?
Z v r-
n
v
D

0
-i

CL

CD =r

CL

21
L
X
m

z
z

-n g m
v
<
o
Mu
o
m

q
j o
0
9 N
z
z
:
o cn-o 1
n
o z = °
?
o 1
z00 TI
-1 _ v
3
Z° to D
p
4W
W -4 -4
0 G (D O
Z
O
O
O
O
N

? ?
- O (n A W
N
?
0
D
r
N V

? W
W W
n
_ W
n
p
j N
O
? _
m
V
tD
}
?
OD N
O N
'?
W V
? N
Q N
0
w
?
W _I
0?

? o
w

A
o r
It 3
x w
3 P(7 A
v N ?
m
^ co
v 3 3
n
w
cD
4
7 CD
n ? ? 3
w
3
m m

o
W
°
C
°
•
,
0 o
V
I o
O °
O
°
O -n
N O)
W co 1
,
7
W pp
??
A t0 V 7
7
a
w
r
D
.? z

= Z m
v ?
? X 3
0 ?? D
0 0
° ° J
A O
i o
0 v N ? -
7 O 1 _
y
°' 7
N

0 0 0 0 0 0 ??
W ° N ° N 0
N 0)
Q)
7
t
0 (
11 t
71 (
71

C
_
Z
O
C O
O
? j
A A ? C
r

?
D
n
m
?

tw71 ? N
N .yo
•

c ? y. ? C

El
v
m
z
Q

v ;d ;o ;D CD

z
z
G)
0
0
ra
co
0 0 0 0
O
Z
v_

It

It

11

It

n

u

n

,c
D

n

?
CL

CL o m

CO)

m

M
L
ca
>

z

z
co
w
iN
S O
z t
o
vc
i av
o
a v
1
n "
4
m 7
Om
Z-4? Oz°

r

o m
Viz: -on -1
? N

Z T

G

p
Z
OD
?
Z
0 CO
a

Zo J e D M
0
W 01
to

z
Z
O
O
O
Cc 01 ?
O
N

m
?

A

w

ro

o

m

ro
Z
? v O
?
O
D
r
N W r CA
-T
_ N N N
. N ? N ? j ?
' D i
O
01
+ ? ? v .
to +1
? +
N +
V }
O +
? }
O ?
N N m
? .
..
? 3
.Zl r O v W . ?
W

n
0
0

go
Q n O
A A
A
N
?
NO r r r r r r r ,?
p v 'm
A O N 'p) ? O O fD
3 3 3 3 3 3 3

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N 'r1
? w w ? rn o ? C) O j
y r
n

z
o N

o M

3m 3
0 0 ? ? D

n N
?
W

n?
pO O
O O
O O
O O
? O O ? Sll Cl `
+
O]
(31 N tT O W N
IV ?
V O '• 7 ?

d

C

O O O O O O O ? ?

W
W
O p
N o
o
O
m _
? 7
O
D

?
m
Q o 0 0 p'

?
a
n
?

b

w ? ? c m ?° V 3 N j y y
W Oo is W O. 5 3
Q (p ffl
?
o ? 0 (
D C
N
O ?

O

v
m
z
0
m
Cf) to ?
v

z
z
0
0
-n

0
Z

v CD
CD
v
D
n

SID (D :3

0 ;v

L) CD >

CID
m

U
z
z
o (n
m -00 vv
pv <MO
2o 8, m
O
?
-n
? i g
z
z
z? 0?
?0•

ZF.? ?Z O

Z N ?2 0
al
T
° W ch D
at 0)

ca
CL ?

0
0
0 :3 3
0
N

z cn
? o
O D
D
r r
A A T (A

A O N
N w :4 ?
O

N ,..
(D ?
? O
G O
`

N m
o O T
?
a r
D
.? z
0 0
?
sm 3 m

°o
°o v
?
r
7 T
°• = Z
rn

m

O
O x
? ?
D _
° 3
rn o ? m d
7 p -1
t/1

O.
y :3

0
0 n
N
A O
O N ? O

v
?
d Cl)

C
T
O O ? ?
S
0 0 ?

0 0 =?
O co
?
v Q
C
n

n
m
?
0 0 ?

5?
V _ .?
X n

?
°?
0 0

T/
f4

? V
. T T: _

? 1'triv ,
l.. - Ihl Y \___
ISS(i ? Ih?l? `}x?? ?)
. ?. BE IN
r:
END` P ECr
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
VICINITY UNION COUNTY
PROJECT:8.TG90401 (R-25590)
MAPS US 74 FROM WEST OF RICHARDSO
CREEP TO EXISTING US 74
SHEET 1 OF ZS 4/20/ 02
MATE-UU
SITE
SITE 7
~Vj rq,?
SITE 15 AND 15A
2
Utfa
-)?- A(/ST/M-,WANEY RD
ISR !75W
SITE 6
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 2 OF 2S 4 / 20 / 02
SITE 14
?r
SITE 2
RR's FM CREEK
SITE 5
`-SITE 13
s
SITE 4
NlfE aR
Y! 89
SITE 3
SITE I
9'M1
Ty?
W ?? t BEGIN PROJECT R -2559C
. t"7 e- IL t.? A Y '7 .1
}

PA -,4r-lr-r 09 416
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
SITE
UNION COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.T6"401 (R-2559C)
MAP 2 US 74 FROM WEST OF RICHARDSO
CREEK TO EXISTING US 74
SHEET 3 OF 2 5 4 / 20 / 02
-A! END PROJECT R-2559C
LEGEND
--WL8 WETLAND BOUNDARY
C"'7> WETLAND
DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
DENOTES TEMPORARY
Cl1J FILL IN WETLAND
?j DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE WATER
• DENOTES MECHANIZED
••? •'• CLEARING
y LIVE STAKES
BOULDER
COIR FIBER ROLLS
O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
04 PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
(DASHED LINES DENOTE
EXISTNG STRUCTURES)
SINGLE TREE
-?- FLOW DIRECTION WOODS LINE
TB
_
TOP OF BANK
WE DRAINAGE INLET
--- EDGE OF WATER
---
- - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT ROOTWAD
- -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
PROP. RIGHT OF WAY VANE
- - NG - - NATURAL GROUND
- ?? - - PROPERTY LINE RIP RAP
- TDE - TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT RIP RAP ENERGY
DISSIPATOR BASIN
-POE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
. EASEMENT
-EAB - EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
-EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
P13
-_,NaF_r ?.-7 o F
WATER SURFACE _
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
UNION COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.T690401 (R-2559C)
S 74 FROM WEST OF RICHARDSON
CREEK TO EXISTING US 74
SHEET -j- OF ZS 4 / 20 / 02

1-6
L6
6
06
m 7
O

w U
M
N
O
O
?
?
co _
H
0 N
7FD 0 Q
d
? O
zV
N
)
t

?"- F- u
OOU

? ee1 u
0zZdo

a
co
'X
0
0
M
d
co
d
?
? 0
O = a
W

'IT

?
U W. I ?-

Cl) LL
'
Q Q
fn

N C\1

0)
m c
z co

cc ? O N
f0

F-

m d d ?- N O O r .- CO CO

LL j O O O O O O O O O O O

(D 0- CL
CL
0-

CIO m 0 co X m X ? X N C+M O

C4 CO O ? O O O O O N O ?
°
0 } d
? c O
} c 0
}
c) + + , + w N J d a
0 '

M
(mn ? N
04 N

T

°
o ? ? o `c? ? o o ° °o

U
?
v c
Q ? L
?
a U
0 0 0
o O ° o o °o
W ? c U) oo °o,
a o ° v°> c°D, on ° ° n
O Co
W LO M co LO

W
U
? ^

W C
L N N
Q
'
O

? Co =
o r-_ to
' M .
- O O CO .-

C
L ?
0 (O
0 U
)
O _
O N
0 O
0 S
0 O
O O
1
co
Z 0 Co O O 0 0 0 O O
LL `-'

N CM M
C ?- O CO
L O L L r'
O O
Co O
O ?
O
?U? o co o 0

a?

o.?.c

Q
y c
-
5
` ~

Q N
o '0

d L O O O
0 >
X
>
O
O O
Z W C
Q
J N
} LL C
?
(II
d
d L

c
N
c c
O
O
CO
O
O
CL7
00
O
O
CO
to
?
? O O O O O O Co 0 0 0 N
>

U

W

W

U

U m

U

W m

U

a' co

U

U
?-
N

U

U
? ? ? Q Q' it X Q w Q Q Q Q
V N
(n ' 0 _ ? O Z aO Q LA O ? O ? ° Z Z Z Z
?. R d t
n - N u
-)
r ? ? .-
d N
J J W
W
W
W
O ? J J N J J J J J Q I1 ?
W } M
. W
c. ,
}

CO N oJ I-
+
O
(n
LL
U.) O ? O ? d ('i d <' O M
?
? Co C)
to C)

r - N ? M d d ? CO ? c?p + ? a
- + +
d O Cl)

O N M d t!') ? CO
?Z LCO ?

md
Oz(1) o
-??000
9z 0 N2
H

r
1 N
i
1 °m
1 WC
9/
t ai i
i
iiia; i i
iii t
t i
S/
1 IN
t t
a s t i • i
} t t t a
?tstiaas
rti it i t't
s a s ?
I
i f=..
3
Z
i M
I
i
1
1
1
1
1.
1
N
VI m
U ? ?
U F'
°; i
1
1
?
I
1
r
t 1
tti r
tat,
?f it i i ?
to 1
t ; t i a
t a i t t?1
t t a t a i%
\ t't t a it a ??
t
s s ')
0
?o 0

+? H x x
-A a
0-o
4
.Z
?z ? o w H

H U ?
w
? O z H W w
lp z o ? o
O

,Za u o
0.w > o x w ?,

?
a r?
U w
U ? x
r4 rn ?

z
C?
P.
sass ass '\
aot i aiti
t a a
OX
s a ,'\
Mf a t t i i s
a
? Ott a!
? s i s!
n N it ?
sail
r
I
I.
W
U
N
O
E
O
z o °
0

? a x z P a z

oe
/
? woo
-

j ° o z H H °
I

O ?
I W~ O ?+ ? W
U A L1. U W

I
? n W
I
I
f
I ?
I ?"

,
IC

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

I I ?
I I ? ?
I i
I I
I i.

i

?
? I N
I
1
? ?
I
? I
81 ?
? ? O
I

z 0 e
Ey ,? v x ?
b ? o a x E" c4 a' t7 ?
c?
_ z z o
wOH
x o ? . cn w
? Gov ; ?w ?n
Cfl? +? O z `r (? E+ O
O z
c70
A ? O ? W
'? U A a h U w
-l- 00+ZZ 'V1S z x
I
oN / 1 H
0 1? /
w ~a 3 /?
fD 1" ix N (
O ? 1 ? sic / 1 ?
a
/ a 1 d
\` s
\ \ \ / U 1 H
-w 31c
31 A
i
1
?\ l
1 SL£ C4 SL£ l
1 Vf I
-l- 017+0Z 'V1S
O
O

% z
° 0
A o
o
-17 311S -l- 00+9Z "D1S 3NIIH31VW ?Q ? m o• ?
? ? \
O O H a
It
I

Z e5 ? W
o?"

l
i
H

p

U 0

C!)W

a

t
1-
cTq

o

z
ZO H
ad
W
?
o

IZ-A
w
t 3

N I O
r-? E'' O

?-
? i
? a H
a a O
w w
? { ? W
??
g ? ?
°
a U a .r V
; . i z Cl)
o

Q i Z:
?
~ ?
{ <m I .
I a

{
1

I H

N
m
v

`\

?

i'
?
( Q .
Y-- ( C ` Q OJ

I x {

SL£

I
I !
I
i j .
I
f
' 1 ? ¦
I
I
I
i
I
( i
i
I Y
I
a
?
U

i
i
N

ii
O o
z
09
' ' F U
y , sx F 1 ? ?
,? ? J ? L! a x E-? ? w z w
rj)
x O O W
4 ? 44
1 ? O z E-! W w
Z 1-4
y ` O z H o
t i 1? A> O ?; W F
/ ? i U A a r) w
? w
? I
? I
? I
0 ? 1
1 ,
I LO '
F®
t
I 1 ? b
I ?
I t
I ?
tz I A .
1 ?
I ?
I I
I
O I t
N I trl
N ?5o E?eows I ??
aoa ?
¢? I osr H stt y I
I wtn L& V, }_ I
i
I N
?- I
I ?
I i
1 i
1 I ?
I ?
td 311S l- 00+9Z "V1S 3NIlHOlVW O
z o 0

? o
I ? E' oo H
'

Z °
° so

? A
v A a
a. ? W
U W
x
w
?
t
?
?
I

? h
95
i
t
I

I

<N 4?

ist
LL V/ i
t
I

I
?
-
a
C '
co
MO 13 /M <
dW3 09? ?a osY

1£ I

j'
I
I
9£
t
?
I I
1
I I
I
t
t I
I
. I I
I
I
? I
t

t
,
I
t t
i
I
I

,
W
1
, ?

j U

Sz

?
?
?
N
?
I
- I $ ? p
? ? E
LO
0
MATCHL P O p p o 04
l
\ \ 0 x z e5 a z W
?? ?' x U c p W
?Ll 00
E4 0
? 0. ,.., ti p D4
+ 4 Z
•? a
h ? s ca
I9-z n U ?j
ass ?! h d z a
o
,?o O
\ S L? \ \
?' / z z z
? a? a a
CIO
X
v
lvq)
------------ N
Oy ?.
1?1 O
1.4
o ? o
F4 W
F? ?0
z E"• ?O N
F ® o-z o
? z
C?U ? w o ax w ow o
A. A a ? ? Ey
1? '2 U ? i1. ? U cW
fj" J e
-----------------
'- Q
c?
r
x a ,
W
9 311S 3NIIH91dW
O
O
Q669
OS
-N
1 -N
60
Fl
_'

J
a
U
E
N
O
E
o
0
z0
Cl)
,?? a x H E7 1 Z w
E.
H
O z E'' E" O
W y ti W
?' A a a w l w
Z U a ? U x
o .? Z
m
Y
K
O
3
F
z F w
m
v' O
O
IL
W
H

M

?

e? bl

Q
-l- 08 +SS 'V 1S
-? I
IJ I
? I
yr.
77
1
1
i
1
t
O I
t
I
i
t
1
i
i
i
j
1 0.
1
1 0
1 ?o
1 '.
1
1
t
I
1
t
I
i '
I
I
1
i
t
1
W i
? I
I
x W (
F S
N N
v;
t
1
> i
z
1
I
-l- Ob+K Wis
W
E-4
13 ?
U
? a
y
a ?
A A
W

U
?
E
N
O

z o
0

? a x H aJ' c~?' z a
.
w

? ? o z ? w w x
w o
N

'\ ? ? ?-? A a a w a w
1 r
ED

41 cu Olral+Z9 Sl -7-

99

' ••

?
aJa
009

Le)(L ?
F
? .
\
tod ?
r a
1 { R
'
1 - W 1 vvv
???
t A

u3
1
E D
d ? ` 1 '

s I
rte,
ov??
S
1
1
? F?

b

r
N
I I \ u
19
1
r

?
w
a
1 r .

91
?,
1
N ?
t I
?
O

O
o o

u
i?
x
?
a
z x
H1
w
z a
? wooo 0
U ?

?

, O z:rE, W c.
a

\ \ I N d0a
J

d3a 0

N SM0813 /M
O 1-
0 Z V
O
SIC
Z9 t? c SIC
/ dVO 001,
a .
W
D4 O
r

' ti

-

' i U a
U
W

I
z
a CO)
ov-

1

'

1 H
_
,
\
®
U

h
1 N /
1 \ I b

1 _
11
M Xx\
\\ = 1
N
n '
/p 41
1 dOa
SIC
'1
W

?n .
a?a sI 1
o 1

c 1
a
i
1 ?
a
?- 0 1
1?

i \ I

1
1
1
?

I
? H
.

1 d ? W

r ? U
1
1 r ?

i I
r
1
O

O
z o 0
LO
axz ? ?z vAwi
a rh
v rl H H
U
oz o
?? ? ? ? a?? w ?c4 -?
c '? ? o a W H
c? ? A? a A a w a w
00"
-l- 09+£9 'V1S
t
0000
C9 00
W
-l- 09±Z8 'V1S U
N .
O
O?
I
1 1 _ ?-
1 ?-
1
I t
z
1,//°

?
m
'
r.
=

I o
?

r

? I
1 1
?
°
y7? 1
ys

I
1?, I
r

I
Rye 0 I
1
` t

1
1

II
:' 1 l
1
1
z o
0
li ? axF ? ?o w
0
0
? H w ? ? w w
iii ? o z H w ?
1-4
0 o z H o
I-z
o ? Z ? cn
----------
----------
h
x
- - - - _-
rzXr z o z
I?-Z 1 doa 5!£
nz 103iraoi 39 ioNNra 1371(WI,,, /3? /7 ?
p-Z a t O
1 , N
--------i--?-? _. _. Q ?i
3Noo fZ X VZ - Z , N A
aeoa rzxb•zoz F
SAO"
?
`te'a oo*
a
O
- O

z - z
o
0

o

T
t-

'Z ?

H
o

U x

o

z.
o z
U
?

o
z ?
?
?
00

H
a' x

W

?

? z

W

o
?"
U w
W
w

w
x
a z
0
Z/
F-3a1
-- W
00,

H
?a
F
>m
__ .a U Q
o A A? Q
Au

Q
X oa
U F
Z cD
Q
co
O
O
Q
w
2
O / \
F" \
IS Vj
1 0)
Q
O
tD
Q
N
11 -
A
z
y
?i
E

?
= w
U

(D
E y

Z+
o
s

a
?
y
W

-M

w
a
U
N
O
O

o 0
0
1
E5 xz w
o U
p o 3 C
4L , a)I ?i .t, a 0 '?) W N
o N
\ 1\ 8 V a V U ?' AG W
g a
loll e
t; A E"
z z z
,n ax a a
00010
00 >
rr \ \ ' a
1 E
o? \ 1 N
? 00
0 F-
,? 1 ,1 1
/
!
z
a
a0. x F'?`a
m
x 040
U
a
w S
F a z
oz°F
0 Z
04
A A If)a
U
z a
o
a_? o
x?
U ?
xz w
w
0 ? W
3 ?' o
O W
w+
J I
c

W
H
?
Z

J
?
N
eOO.
1uu? 1 A
N p

H
O
! a
U `? a
\?
Ln

0
s
f 71) Lt)

f

u rev
_ o
i
r
CL

v .6y W(
lug

AMPIPPIm

E

a

k

` a
a0 ?
c?
CD
a ?, o
CA
cs
o o.
J ? O
a;
UQ
O
o
y K
dQ ¢'
(D
J ?
5
G

? ?--• ? ? Do J 01 t1i •(? W N ?
N ? O

> y9 C/1 V1 C/? L/? V1 U1 C/? C/?

r z
• y z b a.r ? rn r? co '? z ? z4 z
0
`?
•
?- c°i r
??
CD C? A? C
no cD
n Sy CA ? O
?i P, °O
?+. O
Q. C
0
CD !
fD

° ?
+. CD i
-1 C
CD OQ
0 o• CCD CD

? Oh

:
a

°
N
y
BCD
?
?
n+?
Q,+
A
CD
y
{?
r* N . :r . CD o
$0
•
0 r*
? °
?
?
r?
C
o
aq ID RO o ?
CD
10 :? 0 CD 0
CD
CD MA M 0
j-.
M CD
O n CD o- Z `? CD 0 ` CD
r-L CD in. w

.00 im.
CD CIO
ts'
O
t
CD 1 , .°?
c 0 p P.i' 0'
° C
C 'C3 O? C
D j C
CD 5 O N
O r
-y
W p
Ea v?
0 CD CD tz? CD CD
y (D ° CD
?'
cD o /O CD al
=
' t K CD CD O $
n
''• "' •
p w O n CD
„3
R
C
CD r? y
0 CD. CD

C

` y t
7r

O C1+
? p
CD
CD
CCD
O
O
O
O
? ?!
C
CD p O CD
CAD 0 -P ¢• p
' ¢•
,ter cD cD cta CL .+• '.

t?
b
N O p y -d
O rn zn
C? ?
? ? b
(DD
O C4 yp 8 ?b
C° O C
C CD CD • CD CD

° N CD

Q
h ? °
CD °
(D
° N a
Q ?cD o ' o
o
g(=) o
C

?

a
?0 ?
F- 0 5!? CD

?•
?
GQ CD
? ? o o

qQ CD CD
.
cD
0
D R- C K
D r C ?,,-- A
O p
t OQ O
CD [D ( p O O
Pill
0 n? p a CD CD o
a C7' CD
a

cD ? 0

` ' -n ° CD

CL °
Q.
a-
r-L
?? a tt
q r' G CL 0

?+• °
CL ID 0 ran CD
CD Q,,
?!
CD ?"D

' CD o n <?
c CD ???
CD N
C3+ rfl ?
?+. 0
o ?Y
C CIl
O
CD 5.
A
00 a
C

0 0 D
0
a
Cs
c
g
°
O `C

A
0
1
t

fi

W ?
l?7?m
0 Pd
?-n
w ?
..?' K
CD
CD
a ? o
?CD
o' v C
n?.01
og?,fD
J
v
a?
a?
a
O v
O
O
co p"
v
as
a\
u.
a.
a
N
O
O
0
N
N
01 N
C!? N
A N
w N
N N
? N
O ? rr
00 ?
J ?-'
01 ?'
v? ?--' ?-'
w
C

a W o ro CK CA ? d p ? ?i' 0
C
?!!

O
?-
K
CD
p
At
p!
i' CD
CD ft
CD
p O "? CD M n A7 v'
C?h CD CD CD
4

? CD

' "
CL
A
CAD ?r v
O `n O
? .-
•? ."
~ [
?. "?
cz.
CD
n O
E
(IQ
° n ,
.b
o,

(D

CD

D C
D
CD
N
Cal

0 CD
CF,
rA
A,

EA
1% W CD

`?
N C1
H
C = A N

CD

CD O
CD
I=

0
cr, ? t

1 pill CD CL
O

C7

0' ,

? CD

?5fl
CD

U? 'm

"?
CD
0 CD W
o ° y. °
I G 0 N
CD Q TJ
g
'
O cD O w N CD CD b
N p
CD
C1
°
N Q. r
?

0 W
0"" O

O

ro° CD

AD
\A CD CAD
O
C
D
n CD 0 CD
?•

- (D
rL
(D
CD
CD
CD

O
CD
C
D
O

CD CZ
~ C
D
CD
O
O
0

CD O O
a, O

O
0 O

A

C-D v

® > Gr
c
U CD
rv) Q. i
Q p R„ R ^ D CL
q?

O

-
r-L
CD

•

O (
D
(D al
O O ° v'tii R

dR
O
(D CL
CD CL
CD
N ` ?nt v? ,
;
? ? ?t
0 CD ?
CD CD m
S: OQ CD
'
cu cD
CD

?
?• CD
F ' ' ?
r
.L p
CD O CD
?. CD
+ x a
a ?. c
D
9= ?. -{- ?'
I o CD
CD CD ;
"'? (D .
Cp "? r O O ?
F+
(JQ

? Qr
0

CD cD
o-•!
• CD n
CD
0
? O

tzi ' • cu * * ?
w o CD ? .

?7y CD n
O A
m
Ov ?

O a C CD

`D
o o

a a
2-
W
R
d ?
q
cn
v
O
y

O

IA M

dQ ?
C
J ?

BPI

Y

QQ
CD
a,

w

A

A
c vs CN

O

o ?.

? Q
-
UQ.

P-t

N N r- ?
O O O
O •*
A
A
(D

# #
eD
A
CDD
O O
eo
+ A

1 1 )I
° A7
'
eCD`r ?
#
#
?
T t
V

0
L7
A

C!1
O 00
V1
N O
? a
? N
0

?. o
0
0

0

c?
0
0
0
A
T
C
O
l 1
O
A
A
O
C?
Cr
O
O+
w?y
O.
O ?
OO
N
v
h
v o

oo c
il
w
n p (?
D O N 0 N O a
• ?
O m O A O
(D Cl. CD
' O
cI ,?
o
CD

O A
p O C

o CD

?d
..
•
A CD
In.
a
o
Q
G
CD .

O (7

• Q.
`Y
? O ;s
O n
la, 0
'
CD
G1

CL
R. 0 Q' v

A
Q. O CrJ cn Ci7 `? 'rJ

A A
i"' •
A C/]
0 0
0

Q O O
CCDD CL
CD
N ?
A O '71
0
C
D CD
y ? F•i CA

CD
A

UQ

o M
m o
? -cs c
? w

o
o u o
o cd N N

oy?,
o
o
N ? U? ? O ? N N?
C;3
.t1 :Z
U r^?J 6 'C3 "cl
?, N N N
+

0
'G rn
?? -m -0
U •?
C ?L
N N
t; ?
-O ??, ?'
U
O
U
0 C)
00
O
?
0
N
O
O

"CS
bA

R1

b
???
toy
ca
U W
i CA . Q)

• '"

¢
b
0 U N ¢, 'v

N U 'y N

U p U Q.

O

p O N ?r

N
ti a,U 2 t?
65 61 Q
a v? V1 Uz•? v) U
QI

r+ b
? to ?" ?+ ? i-i ?i•i
o O o
A
0

"
U

N
'? cd

O

U
O U
4N •? cd ? 0. O
4-4
°? u. ?j

40.
P.

O A • c U .? O N s." rUn c? .?."
•a?.. o 3 °'? o o

i W o-o c m°

U ?•

U
o
?
b 0 v + O ?• b to 0
ch 0
PC -p"
I
7L M

o C
L
"-o
0- O "o
C5
t o ?$ i i o
7 o?, .?
z °,-
z o
F=i ? N z a z 3 z w ?o C ? ? a -j a a,• a

C',
2
1 '- i -4 M

•--?
N
M
l?
00
d1 O
.-4 '--?

.-? N

,--?
r,
O
o
?n y
?Q
o?
o ?
N y ?
? aN3i .oJ
? o
vaU
? o
U ou W
w 3 ;?
a) a)
N ?
0 to

bA Cd O
N
20
O U
N x O
1.4
40.
O
0
--.
N
Q,
N d" N H
U ,.p N
bU
-0 ,
•?-?
a
2
4--4 a) ?

O

O N
O * U Q"
cn
p 'C 'C 0 4:4 p
O te
S'
O O
O O 0 A ? U O
164
?
0 O N U •+
"
4-4

O O
0

•

'. O ,8 p+ c^,

&n o " O0
c?t+3
U
?'
y O N N
.-,

(D

0 Ca U
g
a) U
,
cd O N
vi vi v? r? ri v1
0
r?
ra
4-4
-S 1?
42 "o
rA o
?
,

4 o
3
o
o a? o Q
O N U
+ ? +r Q. - ?,

CA 0 1-4
' CT
} o
ti

p
cC
y
c? Y?f?
to
3 ?
N s U c'?
U 'b O O CA
O
m

O rn
?; N
?
ca
p
; C p ?' C)
y
O
. bA
U U
rA
40,

"

bA

vpi

U

ti

U

N
O +rn
u U p 0 4,
y,
4-4
4-4
r.
O

O N `O ran 2
C
p
0

(7 -0 0 1-4 6-4
0
4)

? v'
?i
9
2
,

as

y
O

;
G?

++
1,0
, 4
•
;..4
a?

a?
? p
sr
a?
-?
ca 4
O
`` o e?K 4 o 0 0 o 3 ? ? ?
a
i vi ;M4
a U a
i
v? v?
kf)
?-- N M
M 1 -4 00 ? ?C, N N N N N N N
N
/'\
b?A
a ?
3
^o
?n
? •O
b
c?
o?
A ^
N y ?
Ts o
a?
b? o
? a U
? o
U co w
i
f? rri rWi?

0 ?

ti
0 +C4

N
r. O

U U ? O

14

?7 N v?
d
C

N ?
,
cd
? CC
'd N

S3, s0?-
U bD +-
(U
rA v Cd

O

bA ?
U

U
?
?'' ?
s
.?
. v U O U U
w °,?3 w rA W ov an

U
O
Gn bb

? .? ? O Ts o
_

O !3
p ? N
f , O N
C6 C6 N

.5 N
a U

4 m
O U U
ct3 rU,
U , U
t
4-4 O
0 -IS N 0

Cd
1-4
O

o .
O

U
o ? O

U
1-4
b o ?o? o? wO

U
U on U
U 3
Q, w?
Of)
n 00 01 0 •-?
N N N M M
b
O
?V
U
U
0
0
?o
m
0
0
u
"Cl
O
U
O
o .0 0
'? cd
3
M
o?i0
cd
3
N ?
a
?n y
fade id
O
o ?
a?
X30
0
o
U ? tzd
o
fH 3
P4 0 ?
Y
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
DRAFT Goose Creek Watershed Plan
July 22, 2002
From the Goose Creek Watershed Advisory Committee (GCWAC)
Prepared by Watershed Education for Communities and Local Officials (W ECO)
EXPLANATION OF THE WATERSHED PLANNING PROCESS
In December, 2000, the Goose Creek Watershed Advisory Committee was convened with the charge "to
make recommendations to local governments, state agencies, and other appropriate organizations that
will protect and improve water quality and wildlife habitat in the Goose Creek Watershed."
The Goose Creek Watershed Advisory Committee (GCWAC) is comprised of stakeholders who represent
interests found within the watershed, including: farmers, developers, the N.C. Wildlife Federation, Union
County Department of Planning, the Town of Mint Hill, Mecklenberg County Department of Environmental
Protection, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, and the Catawba Land Conservancy. The N.C.
Wildlife Resources Commission obtained funding for the planning process from the N.C. Clean Water
Management Trust Fund, and hired Watershed Education for Communities and Local Officials (WECO), a
N.C. Cooperative Extension Program at N.C. State University, to convene and facilitate a watershed
planning process.
Committee members participated in,exercises to develop a vision of how they would like the watershed to
look in the future. Based on this vision, they developed the following goals for their watershed plan:
Protect Goose Creek from stormwater runoff and other impacts associated with urbanization
Maintain and improve the integrity of the stream system
Achieve a use support rating of "fully supporting" for Goose Creek (off the N.C. 303(d) list);
13 Protect open space;
13 Develop a plan for farmland preservation; and
Include methods to communicate the Watershed Plan to voters and politicians.
The GCWAC spent considerable time learning about problems in the watershed from various
professionals in state resource agencies, N.C. State University, consultanting firms, Centralina Council of
Governments, and non-profits organizations. They shared their own interests with each other, and made
attempts to consider the interests of other affected parties who were unable to participate in the
watershed planning process. WECO provided summaries of current regulations in the watershed, and a
document called Watershed Management Options. A Tool/dt for Water Resource Protection and
Improvement to help the committee identify appropriate options to consider for their plan. Various options
for addressing their goals were considered and discussed using criteria that they developed and weighted
according to their interests. These criteria included (with their corresponding weights assigned out of a
total 100 points):
c Scientifically Credible (24.3)
Long-term effect (22.9)
Economically feasible (20.7)
13 Politically feasible (20.0)
93 Quick result (12.1)
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOSE CREEK WATERSHED PLAN
The Committee focused their investigations on three problem sources in the watershed: urban stormwater
runoff, wastewater treatment, and agriculture. Due to time limitations, the GCWAC prioritized their goals,
and decided to focus their remaining time on developing recommendations to protect the creek from
increased runoff and urbanization impacts. Some of their recommendations also address their other
goals. Additional time would have been required for them to discuss and potentially develop
recommendations addressing wastewater treatment and agriculture. The Committee did not dismiss
these problem sources as unimportant; rather they ran out of time to address them. More information
about these other sources can be found in the Goose Creek Watershed Plan.
A. Recommendations to protect the creek from runoff and impacts associated with
urbanization
1) Protection of riparian buffers is recommended (see complete recommendation in Appendix
A) .
a) The GCWAC recommends that local governments enact a riparian buffer ordinance within
the watershed. The ordinance would apply when land undergoes development. The buffer
should be comprised of three zones as shown in the following table:

stream Drainage
U Zone
p
Area Streamside Managed Upland
Greater that 640 acres 100 feet None None"*
From 300 to 640 acres 20 feet 20 feet 10 feet
From 50 to 300 acree' 20 feet None 15 feet
**plus 85% of flood fringe area in aooition to the iuu Tt.
***and streams classified as "important" by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
b) The GCWAC recommends that local governments and other organizations adopt and
promote incentives to conserve riparian buffers which are larger than those required by a
buffer ordinance.
c) The GCWAC recommends that local governments research and consider options for
compensating landowners for land loss to buffers (i.e. property tax relief).
2) New Developments that exceed 6% imperviousness should require stonnwater Best
Management Practices (BMPs), including low impact design techniques, (LID), designed to
minimize impacts to the hydrograph2. Recommended practices include:
a) On-site infiltration practices should be emphasized over detention ponds.
The North Carolina Wildlife Federation (NCWF) dissents with the GCWAC's buffer ordinance recommendation.
The NCWF believes that the minimum width should be 200 feet on perennial streams and 100 feet on intermittent
streams in order to provide adequate protection for the endangered Carolina heelsplitter and the watershed
z The North Carolina Wildlife Federation (NCWF) dissents with the recommendation to use engineered controls and
infiltration to exceed a 6% imperviousness limit, and believes that maintaining the natural hydrograph of the stream
is necessary to prevent taking of the Carolina heelsplitter.
2
b) Low-impact development, including open space design, should be encouraged and
facilitated by local governments and state agencies. Local governments should remove
impediments to low impact development, for example, by modifying ordinances and
providing education to elected officials and planning board members to ensure LID designs
receive fair and expedient reviews.
c) Direct discharge of stormwater should not be allowed into streams, and effective energy
dissipation at pipe outlet is strongly recommended to prevent scouring and damage to the
buffer.
d) Grassy swales should be required instead of curb and gutter when practical. Local
governments should determine and codify situations where grassy swales are appropriate to
use in lieu of curb and gutter.
3) Local governments and state resource agencies should better ensure the compliance and
enforcement of applicable environmental regulations. Specific recommendations include:
a) A locally enforced erosion and sedimentation control program should be developed and
implemented that meets or exceeds state minimum requirements.
b) The NCWRC or appropriate state agency should create and administer a stormwater and
sediment erosion control education program for developers and builders, including land-
clearing operators.
c) Local governments should provide an environmental check-off list that a developer must
complete before the issuance of development approvals.
4) No fill or building should be allowed in the 100-year flood plain.
B. Recommendations to achieve a use support rating of "fully supporting" for
Goose Creek (to remove from N.C. 303(d) list)
1) A comprehensive study should be implemented within a year (begun by September 2003) to
identify and target sources of impairment in the watershed. The study could include:
• monitoring of fecal coliform bacteria, nutrients, and sediment upstream and downstream
of potential sources;
• bacteria source tracking;
• land use/land cover assessment and analysis;
• water quality and fecal coliform modeling to estimate likely sources from various land-
uses; and
• long-terra monitoring to track changes in the watershed.
2) A public education program should target watershed residents to raise awareness of the
importance of water resources, how individual actions impact water resources, and to teach
actions that can protect and improve water resources.
C. Recommendations to Ensure Consistent and Comprehensive Watershed
Planning and Management
1) A Watershed board should be established consisting of local citizens to coordinate conservation
efforts within the ufAtershed and seek funding for conservation initiatives.
4
Appendix A: The Goose Creek Watershed Advisory Committee's
Riparian Buffer Recommendation
a) The GCWAC recommends that local governments enact a riparian buffer ordinance within
the watershed:
The GCWAC reviewed the current science behind riparian buffers, and considered scientific criteria
as well as local landowner objectives to develop a recommendation for an ordinance. The GCWAC
supports Union County's proposed buffer ordinance with two additional improvements based on
factors unique to the Goose Creek. Watershed. The two improvements include requiring utilities to be
located outside of the 100 foot buffers, and restricting activities within the 100 foot buffer so the entire
100 ft. becomes a streamside zone in areas that drain at least 640 acres. The buffer ordinance would
be applied when land becomes developed and would require developers/landowners to allow the
vegetation in the buffer to remain natural Additional planting in the buffer would not be required, no
discouraged.
Recommended Buffer Ordinance
Riparian buffer zones: The riparian buffer width would consist of three zones on each side of water
body or channel drained.
a@_Strearr?side zone: This zone immediately adjacent to the streambank remains undisturbed
as forest land except for activities associated with street crossings, utility crossings municipal
sanitary sewers, and installation of stormwater management facilities where no practicable
alternative exists. For buffers located next to water bodies that drain >640 acres, the
GCWAC recommends that utilities remain outside the buffer area, if possible, and
stream crossings by utilities be minimized. This is to minimize impacts on aquatic
species in the watershed.
a:ii Managed Use zone: The only development activities permitted within the managed use
zone are limited to stormwater best management practices (BMPs), greenway trails, and bike
paths.
b:iii Upland zone: The upland zone is maintained free from permanent structures and sanitary
sewage treatment ground absorption systems with the exception of street crossings and
railroads. Grading is allowed if performed in a manner as not to damage the roots of trees
located in the adjacent buffer zone.

stream Drainage
U Zone
p
Area
Streamside Managed
Use
Upland
Greater that 640 acres 100 feet None None*
From 300 to 640 acres 20 feet 20 feet 10 feet
From 50 to 300 acres** 20 feet None 15 feet
*plus 85% of flood fringe area in addition to the 100 R.
and streams classified as "important" by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
` The North Carolina Wildlife Federation (NCWF) dissents with the minimum required buffer width recommended
bythe GCWAC. The NCWF believes that the minimum width should be at least 50 ft. with 35 feet in natural
vegetation in order to provide adequate protection for the Carolina heelsplitter and the watershed.

b) The GCWAC recommends that local governments and other organizations adopt and
promote incentives to conserve riparian buffers which are larger than those required by a
buffer ordinance.
The GCWAC recognizes that a level of uncertainty exists concerning the exact measures that are
needed to maintain the population of the endangered mussel, the Carolina heelsplitter. Wider
buffers than those recommended for an ordinance would provide a lower level of risk for
extirpation of the species. In order to further reduce risk to this and other threatened mussel
species within the watershed, the GCWAC recommends that local governments, agencies, and
interested non-profit organizations work together to provide incentives and education to
landowners so that they may provide wider buffers voluntarily. (The North Carolina Wildlife
Commission recommends a minimum of 200 foot wide undisturbed buffers on perennial streams
and 100 foot wide buffers on intermittent streams to provide a comfortable level of safety for
maintaining current populations of the Carolina heelsplitter.)
c) The GCWAC recommends that local governments research and consider options for
compensating landowners for land loss to buffers (i.e. property tax relief).

6,
Meeting on Goose, Duck and Waxhaw Creek Basins
Subject: Meeting on Goose, Duck and Waxhaw Creek
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 11:34:40 -0400
From: [e-mail]
rya
To: [e-mail], aella_Bun ' fws.gov, [e-mail],
[e-mail], cyr>tkti?[e-mail], [e-mail],
mark [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
CC: [e-mail]
This is to confirm the meeting scheduled for July 31, 2002 to discuss secondary and cumulative impacts for subject
basins. The meeting will be in the Jefferson Room of our public works building, 400 N. Church Street, Monroe, from
10:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m..
We will provide lunch so please let me know if you will not be attending.
Attached is a draft agenda for the meeting. Our goal is to begin to reach consensus on measures to address the
issues that we have discussed at our previous meetings such as streamside buffers, future land use and zoning,
sedimentation and erosion control, stormwater regulations and additional issues that have been surfaced by the
various environmental agencies. We have had productive discussions so far, now it's time to begin to resolve these
issues.
Feel free to call me at 704-292-2591, or email me if you have any questions.
Joe Lesch
Assistant County Manager
Name: draftagenda.doc
r7as draftaenda.doc Type: Microsoft Word Document (application/msword)
Encoding: base64
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
1 of 1 7/29/02 11:19 AM

Cumulative and Secondary Impacts Mitigation for the
Goose, Duck and Waxhaw Creek Basins
July 31, 2002
10:00 A.M.
AGENDA
L Introductions
2. Goal of Meeting
3. Ground Rules
4. Proposed Mitigation Guidelines
- Streamside Buffers
- Future Land Use and Zoning
- Sedimentation and Erosion Control
- Stormwater
- Additional Issues
5. Next Steps
6. Adjourn 2:00 P.M.
Goose Creek Watershed Committee Exec. Summary
Subject: Goose Creek Watershed Committee Exec. Summary
Dater Tue, 30 Jul 2002 16:32:22 -0400
Fr 'm: "Christy Perrin " <[e-mail]>
Reply-to;--cM§[e-mail]
To: [e-mail],
"sherry Ashley" <[e-mail]>,
"Tim Gestwicki" <ncwf [e-mail]>,
"Wayne Huneycutt" <[e-mail]>, "Sonia Perillo" <[e-mail]>,
"Charlie Burdick" <[e-mail]>, "Todd Lamb" <[e-mail]>,
"Leon Danielson" <[e-mail]>,
"Tonya Moore" <mooretl @mindspring.com>, "Jason Jolley" <jason,[e-mail]>,
"Rusty Rozelle" <[e-mail]>,
"Christie Putnam" <[e-mail]>, "Patrick Beggs" <[e-mail]>,
"Mark Fowlkes" <[e-mail]>, "Betsy Albright" <betsy. albright @ ncmail.net>,
"Mark Cantrell "<[e-mail]>, "Kat Oury"<[e-mail]>,
"Laura Fogo"<[e-mail]>, "Callie Dobson "<Callie.Dobson @ncmail.net>,
"Jerry Simpson "<[e-mail]>,
"Deborah Crandall "<[e-mail]>,
"Hal Bryson" <Hal.Bryson @ ncmail.net>, 'Phil Loudermilk"<[e-mail]>,
"Jon Dyer" <j ondyer@ co.union.nc.us>, "Christy Perrin" <[e-mail]>,,
"Jason Jolley" <[e-mail]>, "Steve Smutko" <[e-mail]>,
"leon Danielson" <[e-mail]>, "patrick Beggs" <patrick [e-mail]>,
"Greg Jennings" <[e-mail]>,
"Brian Watson" <watsonbtl @mindspring.com>
To parties interested in the Goose Creek Watershed,
Attached is an Executive Summary of the Goose Creek Watershed Advisory
Committee's Watershed Plan as it exists today. The Committee is wrapping up their
watershed planning process, and we will finalize their plan in the next month. The
Committee decided it was timely to provide the Executive Summary to you now in light
of the meeting between local governments and resource agencies that is scheduled to
occur on Wednesday.
Please keep in mind that there may be minor changes made to the Plan before it is
finalized by the Committee. We anticipate having a final document ready for distribut.
within the next 2 months.
The Executive Summary is attached in PDF form, which requires Adobe Acrobat
Reader. This may be downloaded for free at:
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep.html
For more information about the Goose Creek Watershed Advisory Committee, see our
website at www.ces.ncsu.edu/WECO and click on the watershed projects link.
Regards,
Christy Perrin
The following section of this message contains a file attachment
prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format.
If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any another MIME-compliant system,
you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer.
If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance.
- -- File information -----------
1 of 2 7/30/02 4:34 Ph
Goose Creek Watershed Committee Exec. Summary
File: FINALExec.pdf
Date: 30 Jul 2002, 16:10
Size: 48886 bytes.
Type: Acrobat
Name: FINALExec.pdf
CFINALExec.pd Type: Acrobat,(application/pdf)
Encoding: BASE64
Download Status: Not downloaded with message.
2 of 2 7/30/02 4:34 PM
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
DRAFT Goose Creek Watershed Plan
July 22, 2002
From the Goose Creek Watershed Advisory Committee (GCWAC)
Prepared by Watershed Education for Communities and Local Officials (WECO)
EXPLANATION OF THE WATERSHED PLANNING PROCESS
In December, 2000, the Goose Creek Watershed Advisory Committee was convened with the charge to
make recommendations to local governments, state agencies, and other appropriate organizations that
will protect and improve water quality and wildlife habitat in the Goose Creek Watershed."
The Goose Creek Watershed Advisory Committee (GCWAC) is comprised of stakeholders who represent
interests found within the watershed, including: farmers, developers, the N.C. Wildlife Federation, Union
County Department of Planning, the Town of Mint Hill, Mecklenberg County Department of Environmental
Protection, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, and the Catawba Land Conservancy. The N.C.
Wildlife Resources Commission obtained funding for the planning process from the N.C. Clean Water
Management Trust Fund, and hired Watershed Education for Communities and Local Officials (WECO), a
N.C. Cooperative Extension Program at N.C. State University, to convene and facilitate a watershed
planning process.
Committee members participated in exercises to develop a vision of how they would like the watershed to
look in the future. Based on this vision, they developed the following goals for their watershed plan:
Protect Goose Creek from stormwater runoff and other impacts associated with urbanization
o Maintain and improve the integrity of the stream system
Achieve a use support rating of fully supporting"for Goose Creek (off the N.C. 303(d) list);
a Protect open space;
13 Develop a plan for farmland preservation; and
U Include methods to communicate the Watershed Plan to voters and politicians.
The GCWAC spent considerable time learning about problems in the watershed from various
professionals in state resource agencies, N.C. State University, consultanting firms, Centralina Council of
Governments, and non-profits organizations. They shared their own interests with each other, and made
attempts to consider the interests of other affected parties who were unable to participate in the
watershed planning process. WECO provided summaries of current regulations in the watershed, and a
document called Watershed Management Options: A Toolkit for Water Resource Protection and
Improvement to help the committee identify appropriate options to consider for their plan. Various options
for addressing their goals were considered and discussed using criteria that they developed and weighted
according to their interests. These criteria included (with their corresponding weights assigned outof a
total 100 points):
Scientifically Credible (24.3)
Long-term effect (22.9)
Economically feasible (20.7)
Politically feasible (20.0)
13 Quick result (12.1)
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOSE CREEK WATERSHED PLAN
The Committee focused their investigations on three problem sources in the watershed: urban stormwater
runoff, wastewater treatment, and agriculture. Due to time limitations, the GCWAC prioritized their goals,
and decided to focus their remaining time on developing recommendations to protect the creek from
increased runoff and urbanization impacts. Some of their recommendations also address their other
goals. Additional time would have been required for them to discuss and potentially develop
recommendations addressing wastewater treatment and agriculture. The Committee did not dismiss
these problem sources as unimportant; rather they ran out of time to address them. More information
about these other sources can be found in the Goose Creek Watershed Plan.
A. Recommendations to protect the creek from runoff and impacts associated with
urbanization
1) Protection of riparian buffers is recommended (see complete recommendation in Appendix
A)'.
a) The GCWAC recommends that local governments enact a riparian buffer ordinance within
the watershed. The ordinance would apply when land undergoes development. The buffer
should be comprised of three zones as shown in the following table: ,

Upstream Drainage Zone
Area Streamside Managed
M Upland
Greater that 640 acres 100 feet None None**
From 30 to 640 acres 20 feet 20 feet 10 feet
Fo 300 acres*** 20 feet None 15 feet

l?

b)
tr-, WtT e 0
2)
**plus 85% of flood fringe area in addition to the 100 ft.
***and streams classified as Important"by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The GCWAC recommends that local governments and other organizations adopt and
promote incentives to conserve riparian buffers which are largerthan those required by a
buffer ordinance.
c) The GCWAC recommends that local governments research and consider options for
compensating landowners for land loss to buffers (i.e. property tax relief).
New Developments that excee 6% ' perviousness should require stormwater Best
Management Practices (BMPs), ' uding low-impact design techniques, (LID), designed to
minimize impacts to the hydrograph2. Recommended practices include: ` 1?
a) On-site infiltration practices should be emphasized over detention ponds. a-
Tel'3' o'? W
F41?1
1 The North Carolina Wildlife Federation (NCWF) dissents with the GCWAC§ buffer ordinance recommendation.
The NCWF believes that the minimum width should be 200 feet on perennial streams and 100 feet on intermittent
streams in order to provide adequate protection for the endangered Carolina heelsplitter and the watershed.
2 The North Carolina Wildlife Federation (NCWF) dissents with the recommendation to use engineered controls and
infiltration to exceed a 6% imperviousness limit, and believes that maintaining the natural hydrograph of the stream
is necessary to prevent taking of the Carolina heelsplitter.
b) Low-impact development, including open space design, should be encouraged and
facilitated by local governments and state agencies. Local governments should remove
impediments to low-impact development, for example, by modifying ordinances and
providing education to elected officials and planning board members to ensure LID designs
receive fair and expedient reviews.
c) Direct discharge of stormwater should not be allowed into streams, and effective energy
dissipationn at pipe outlet is strongly recommended to prevent scouring and d mage to the
buffer. (??re_lj. 6"r '(5 §* OK-5 k
d) Grassy swales should be required instead of curb and gutter when practical. Local j
governments should determine and codify situations where grassyswales are appropriate to
use in lieu of curb and gutter.
3) Local governments and state resource agencies should better ensure the compliance and
enforcement of applicable environmental regulations. Specific recommendations include:
a) A locally enforced erosion and sedimentation control program should be developed and
implemented that meets or exceeds state minimum requirements.
b) The NCWRC or appropriate state agency should create and administer a stormwater and
sediment erosion control education program for developers and builders, including land-
clearing operators.
c) Local governments should provide an environmental check-off list that a developer must
complete before the issuance of development approvals.
4) No fill or building should be allowed in the 100-year flood plain.
B. Recommendations to achieve a use support rating of "fully supporting" for
Goose Creek (to remove from N.C. 303(d) list)
1) A comprehensive study should be implemented within a year (begun by September 2003) to
identify and target sources of impairment in the watershed. The study could include:
• monitoring of fecal coliform bacteria, nutrients, and sediment upstream and downstream
of potential sources;
• bacteria source tracking;
• land use/land cover assessment and analysis;
• water quality and fecal coliform modeling to estimate likely sources from various land-
uses; and
• long-term monitoring to track changes in the watershed.
2) A public education program should target watershed residents to raise awareness of the
importance of water resources, how individual actions impact water resources, and to teach
actions that can protect and improve water resources.
C. Recommendations to Ensure Consistent and Comprehensive Watershed
Planning and Management
1) A Watershed Board should be established consisting of local citizens to coordinate conservation
efforts within the watershed and seek funding for conservation initiatives.
Appendix A: The Goose Creek Watershed Advisory Committee§
Riparian Buffer Recommendation
a) The GCWAC recommends that local governments enact a riparian buffer ordinance within
the watershed!
The GCWAC reviewed the current science behind riparian buffers, and considered scientific criteria
as well as local landowner objectives to develop a recommendation for an ordinance. The GCWAC
supports Union County proposed buffer ordinance with two additional improvements based on
factors unique to the Goose Creek Watershed. The two improvements include requiring utilities to be
located outside of the 100 foot buffers, and restricting activities within the 100 foot buffer so the entire
100 ft. becomes a streamside zone in areas that drain at least 640 acres. The buffer ordinance would
be applied when land becomes developed, and would require developers/landowners to allow the
vegetation in the buffer to remain natural. Additional planting in the buffer would not be required, nor
discouraged. YYLtr? ..'t , A'
Q 9 Recommended Buffer rdinance &- W/
Riparian buffer zones: The riparian buffer width would consist of three zones on each sid of water
body or channel drained.
,a-.i _Streamside zone. This zone immediately adjacent to the streambank remains undisturbed
as forest land except for activities associated with street crossings, utility crossings municipal
sanitary sewers, and installation of stormwater management facilities where no practicable
alternative exists. For buffers located next to water bodies that drain >640 acres, the
GCWAC recommends that utilities remain outside the buffer area, if possible, and
stream crossings by utilities be minimized. This is to minimize impacts on aquatic
species in the watershed.
a-. Managed Use zone. The only development activities permitted within the managed use
zone are limited to stormwater best management practices (BMPs), greenway trails, and bike
paths.
b- ii Upland zone. The upland zone is maintained free from permanent structures and sanitary
sewage treatment ground absorption systems with the exception of street crossings and
railroads. Grading is allowed if performed in a manner as not to damage the roots of trees
located in the adjacent buffer zone.

Upstream Drainage Zone
Area Streamside Man
Use aged Upland
Greater that 640 acres 100 feet None None*
From 300 to 640 acres 20 feet 20 feet 10 feet
From 50 to 300 acres** 20 feet None 15 feet
*plus 85% of flood fringe area in addition to the 100 ft.
**and streams classified as important"by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
" The North Carolina Wildlife Federation (NCWF) dissents with the minimum required buffer width recommended
by the GCWAC. The NCWF believes that the minimum width should be at least 50 ft. with 35 feet in natural
vegetation in order to provide adequate protection for the Carolina heelsplitter and the watershed.
b) The GCWAC recommends that local governments and other organizations adopt and
promote incentives to conserve riparian buffers which are larger than those required by a
buffer ordinance.
The GCWAC recognizes that a level of uncertainty exists concerning the exact measures that are
needed to maintain the population of the endangered mussel, the Carolina heelsplitter. Wider
buffers than those recommended for an ordinance would provide a lower level of risk for
extirpation of the species. In order to further reduce risk to this and other threatened mussel
species within the watershed, the GCWAC recommends that local governments, agencies, and
interested non-profit organizations work together to provide incentives and education to
landowners so that they may provide wider buffers voluntarily. (The North Carolina Wildlife
Commission recommends a minimum of 200 foot wide undisturbed buffers on perennial streams
and 100 foot wide buffers on intermittent streams to provide a comfortable level of safety for
maintaining current populations of the Carolina heelsplitter.)
c) The GCWAC recommends that local governments research and consider options for
compensating landowners for land loss to buffers (i.e. property tax relief).
6
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF UNION
AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made and entered into as of the day of ,
2002, by and between UNION COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of North Carolina
hereinafter referred to as "Union," and the NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY, an
agency of the State of North Carolina, hereinafter referred to as "DWQ."
WHEREAS, Union and DWQ desire to work together in good faith to resolve
environmental issues related to the Monroe Bypass and Extension (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to reduce their understanding to writing.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements
hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto do each contract and agree with the other as follows:
Union shall work with DWQ in an effort to define the impact area of the Project and to
develop mechanisms to address, to the satisfaction of the Director of DWQ (the
"Director"), each of the following: (i) stream buffers; (ii) on-site stormwater
management; and (iii) enhanced sedimentation and erosion control from construction.
Union shall adopt and implement any such mechanisms agreed upon within six (6)
months of receipt of notice of the Director's approval.
DWQ agrees that cumulative impact issues relative to the Project have been adequately
addressed upon occurrence of the following: (i) execution of this Agreement; and (ii)
approval by the following municipalities of language, in whatever format, substantially
similar to that stated herein: Monroe, Indian Trail, Stallings,
Immediately upon approval by the last municipality to take such action, DWQ shall issue
the required 401 Water Quality Certifications for the Project.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto, acting under authority of their respective
governing bodies, have caused this contract to be duly executed, this the day and year first above
written.
ATTEST: UNION COUNTY
By: BY:
Clerk to the Board County Manager
ATTEST:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES, DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
By: BY:
Director
Approved As To Legal Form
Fw: DWQ Agreement-again
Subject: Fw: DWQ Agreement-again
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 17:24:36 -0400
From: "Jim Loyd" <[e-mail]>
Organization: City of Monroe
To: <[e-mail]>
please see below in response to your phone call. If anything changes, I will give you a call. I feel the biggest plus is
that Phase II Stormwater already has council thinking in that direction.
----- Original Message -----
From: Douq Spell
To: Jim Loyd
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: DWQ Agreement-again
I really don't think it is critical that they be here based on the discussion at E& WR Committee mtg. I feel that you,
Wayne and Russ can handle - so only if you feel it is essential would i recommend it. Thanks!!
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Loyd
To: Doug Spell
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 4:04 PM
Subject: Fw: DWQ Agreement-again
John Dorney called to see if the City thought there would be a problem approving the DWQ resolution
on Tuesday night. He advised that if he was needed or someone from DOT, that they would be there
for the meeting. If not, he would not plan to come since he is located in Raleigh. I advised that I would
ask you for your thoughts.
Please advise if you think the Division of Water Quality needs to be in attendance. thanks
----- Original Message -----
From: John Dorsey
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail] ; [e-mail] ; [e-mail] ; [e-mail] ;
[e-mail] ; [e-mail] ; [e-mail] ; [e-mail] ;
[e-mail] ; [e-mail] ; [e-mail] ; [e-mail] ;
Samar Bou-Ghazale ; Cynthia Van Der Wiele
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: DWQ Agreement-again
looks fine. please be aware (for those who were not able to attend the meeting) that the exact
language of the resolution is not real important - what is important is a formal committment
from the local government to work with DWQ to develop mechanisms (along the lines of
those in the memo) to protect water quality from development encouraged by the bypasses.
please feel free to call me at 919-733-9646 if you need to discuss anything. i'll be in next
week (but have lots of meetings as usual!).
[e-mail] wrote:
I thought I would attach the agreement this time, sorry.
Christie
I of 2 9/28/02 11:44 AM
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF UNION
AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made and entered into as of the day of ,
2002, by and between UNION COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of North Carolina
hereinafter referred to as "Union," and the NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY, an
agency of the State of North Carolina, hereinafter referred to as "DWQ."
WHEREAS, Union and DWQ desire to work together in good faith to resolve
environmental issues related to the following project or projects, hereinafter referred to as the
"Project": Monroe Bypass, ; and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to reduce their understanding to writing.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements
hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto do each contract and agree with the other as follows:
1. Union shall work with DWQ in an effort to define the impact area of the Project and to
develop mechanisms to address, to the satisfaction of the Director of DWQ (the
"Director"), each of the following: (i) stream buffers; (ii) on-site stormwater
management; and (iii) enhanced sedimentation and erosion control from construction.
Union shall adopt and implement any such mechanisms agreed upon within six (6)
months of receipt of notice of the Director's approval.
2. By entering this Agreement, DWQ agrees that cumulative impact issues relative to the
Project have been adequately addressed, and DWQ shall issue the required 401 Water
Quality Certifications for the Project within ten (10) days of execution [ Fail A-1
Unio o adopt dim ent a hanis s agreed n. sul in evocati by
EOOO o ate uali ertifications for e Pr 'ect.l
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto, acting under authority f their respective
governing bodies, have caused this contract to be duly executed, this the da and year first above
written.
ATTEST: UNION COUNTY
By: BY:
Clerk to the Board County Manager
ATTEST: NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES, DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
By: BY:
Director
Re: DWQ Agreement-again
Subject: Re: DWQ Agreement-again
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 16:56:26 -0400
From: "Brian Matthews" <[e-mail]>
To: "John Dorney" <[e-mail]>
John,
The Town of Stallings agreed on the draft version of the agreement. I am waiting to hear if there any changes to the
wording or if we use the drafted version. They have authorized the Mayor to sign it once the final version is ready.
Just let me know and l will have the Mayor sign it ASAP!
Brian Matthews
Town of Stallings
[phone] voice [phone] fax
----- Original Message -----
From: John Dorney
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail] ; [e-mail] ; [e-mail] ; [e-mail] ;
[e-mail] ; [e-mail] ; [e-mail] ; [e-mail] ;
[e-mail] ; [e-mail] ; [e-mail] ; [e-mail]
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: DWQ Agreement-again
okay - any update from county or city action this week? please advise. thankx
[e-mail] wrote:
thought I would attach the agreement this time, sorry.
Christie
1 of 1 9/20/02 4:52 PM
Re: DWQ Agreement-again
Subject: Re: DWQ Agreement-again
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 16:43:07 -0400
From: [e-mail]
To: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
Hello,
The County Commissioners Agreed, I'll get you a signed copy next week. 1 haven't heard anything from the towns.
Sorry 1 dropped the ball, but I'll pick it up Monday! Have a great weekend.
Christie
1 of 1 9/20/02 4:52 PM
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]
Fag To: Gl C(_ Fag #: V l
Company: Date:
number of pages including cover sheet:
votes or special instructions:
O?n C. Division of Water 401 Wetlands Certification Quality, 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
gA T?9P
>_ li I.J_wN/e --I

MEMO
September 10, 2002
TO: Christie Putnam, Union County
C. J. O'Neill, City of Monroe
Jim Lloyd, City of Monroe
Dick Black, Union County
Joe Lesch, Union County
FROM: John Dorn
RE: Monroe Bypass projeclad 401
Water Quality Certifications
As you know, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) must issue a 401 Water Quality Certification for the
Monroe Bypass projects before the US Army Corps of Engineers can issue the 404 Permit for these projects.
Also as you know from our meeting on September 3, 2002, DWQ's rules (15A NCAC 2H .0506 (b)(4) and
(c)(4)) require us to consider "...cumulative impacts, based on past or reasonably anticipated future impacts,
that cause or will cause a violation of downstream water quality standards". Based on the large amount of
growth which will be stimulated by these projects and the sensitive nature of the waters impacted by the
projects, the Division has concluded that additional water quality protection measures will need to be agreed
upon before we can issue the 401 Certification. DWQ will continue to work with the local governments, state
and federal agencies with respect to stream buffers and related land use measures in the watersheds of
Goose, Duck and Waxhaw Creeks in order to protect the Carolina Heelsplitter. The measures described below
are focused on sediment-related issues in the immediate area of the bypass projects and should not conflict
with the measures needed to protect the endangered mussel species.
DWQ believes that the following three measures will need to be agreed upon by the responsible local
governments before we can issue the 401 Certification. All of these measures are directed at protecting the
downstream waters from sediment which is the identified pollutant of concern for streams affected by the
bypass projects. As discussed in our meeting, the geographic scope and exact language of these measures
will be subject to discussions between the responsible local governments and DWQ within the context of the
rule language cited above. However in general, the geographic area of interest lies north of the existing US 74
corridor within Union County. Bob Deaton from DOT will send you maps depicting the approximate boundaries
of our study areas for our discussion on Friday.
Ie Stream buffers: The purpose of these buffers is to protect the stream channels from erosion
and provide a location for sediment removal for sediment originating from adjacent landscapes
after development. In this regard, DWQ believes that fifty-foot wide, wooded buffers will need to
be protected along all intermittent and perennial streams as well as lakes and ponds within the
geographic area of interest. Streams should either be based on 1) a local stream survey using
DWQ-approved methodology or 2) streams shown on the 1:24,000 USGS topographic maps or
Union County soil survey. In the latter case, local staff trained by DWQ would be able to
determine that the maps are in error and that the buffer rules would not apply. We expect that
the uses allowed in the rules would be patterned after the Neuse, Tar-Pamlico and Catawba
buffer rules such that crossings of roads and utilities would be allowed but all other development
would have to occur outside the buffer. Vesting (i.e. grandfathering) and variances would have
to be addressed as well. Finally, we expect that a reporting mechanism for the implementation
of the buffer rules to DWQ will be needed so we can be certain that downstream uses are
protected.
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
ism
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 [phone] Customer Service
1 800 623-7748
O!°ST- (-6gjr'4_Cj) UYI
II. On-site stormwater management: The purpose of this management is to ensure adequate
collection and removal of sediment from stormwater before it enters the stream channels.
-,/ Diffuse flow of stormwater would be required across all protected stream buffers unless site
constraints make this not feasible. In the later case, on-site stormwater management measures
will be needed which are designed to remove 85% Total Suspended Solids based on the DWQ
Stormwater Design Manua The rate of runoff will also need to be controlled to help ensure that
streambank stabili 't threatened from the increased runoff. We welcome your suggestions
as to how t anage the rate of runoff.
III. ediment and erosion control during construction: The purpose of these measures is to
ensure that excessive amounts of sediment do not enter stream channels during and
immediately following construction activities. DWQ believes that several additional measures in
addition to those routinely implemented by the Sedimentation and Erosion Control Act will be
?-- needed including 1) establish application thresholds for sites which impact less than one acre,
2) develop stricter maintenance and inspection of Best Management Practices (BMPs), 3)
identify and re ire BMPs that are designed to more adequately protect downstream water
quality ? 4 prohibi stal.lation of these facilities in intermittent or perennial stream channels
and 5) limit the i s alla ' n of these facilities in the protected buffer zone. We will be glad to
work with the responsibl local governments and the Division of Land Resources on specific
measures to implement th above measures.
Finally, DWQ will need res lutions from the governing bodies of the local responsible
governments which expresses thei willingness to work with DWQ to develop and formally adopt these
measures within a certain time fra a (perhaps six months). This commitment is needed before we can
issue the 401 Certification (projecte issuance is at the end of September 2002) in order to provide
DWQ with the legal certainty that th se measures will be in place before the road is constructed in
order to protect downstream water q ality. We look forward to working with you on the specific wording
of these resolutions as well as the spe ific language for the above-mentioned water quality measures.
look forward to our meeting on Friday S tember 13th in Monroe to continue our discussions of these
important matters. I can be reached at 91'Q,-733-9646 if you have any questions.
a'
Cc: Samar. Bou-Ghazale, Mooresville DWQ gional Office
Milt Rhodes, DWQ
Bob Deaton, DOT
Cynthia Van Der Wiele, DWQ
Coleen Sullins, DWQ
Dennis Ramsey, DWQ
"J'D , 'W%d)
DA,
MEMORANDUM
CH2MHLl_
Discussions Regarding Goose Creek Watershed Buffer
Requirements
TO: Christy Putnam/Union County
FROM: Bill Kreutzberger
DATE: September 12, 2002
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 and Duck 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
Designation 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
CLT/BUFFER COUNTERPROPOSAL 091202
DISCUSSIONS REGARDING GOOSE CREEK WATERSHED BUFFER REQUIREMENTS
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.
With these points in mind, the local governments developed a counter proposal to the resources
agencies buffer requirements as follows:
CLTBUFFER COUNTERPROPOSAL 091202
DISCUSSIONS REGARDING GOOSE CREEK WATERSHED BUFFER REQUIREMENTS
September 9, 2002
Drafted by Local Jurisdictions
Upstream
Drainage
Area Critical/Occupied
Habitat
Designation 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.
CLT/BUFFER COUNTERPROPOSAL 091202
pG
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:
Company:
Date: Y,/I' ,9 a
Number of pages including cover sheet:
Notes or special instructions:
5
fo- A
Fax #: S?(U
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/ncwetiands
Re: monroe bypass - update
w ?
Subject: Re: monroe bypass - update
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 11:40:52 -0400
From: Milt Rhodes <[e-mail]>
To: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
CC: Coleen Sullins <Coleen.Sullins 9ncmail.net>,
Cynthia Van Der Wiele <[e-mail]>,
Dennis Ramsey <[e-mail]>,
Samar Bou-Ghazale <[e-mail]>,
"john.hennessy" <[e-mail]>, Robert Deaton <[e-mail]>,
"Todd St. John" <[e-mail]>, Bob Zarzecki <Bob.Zarzecki @ncmail.net>,
Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
Thanks John. I agree, that all parties have exemplified "cooperative
spirit" in this challenging issue. Lets keep it up.
I have a few concerns. They are:
1. The By-pass project goes through one water supply watershed (Lake
Twitty). This area has a required water supply watershed buffer of a
hundred foot mininum for perennial streams where the projects exceed the low,\A
density threshold. In the Lake Twitty case (WS III) 24% BUA (in balance of
watershed) and 12% BUA (in critical area). A hundred foot buffer would be
required for all projects built that exceed either the density or the built
upon area in this jurisdiction. This includes projects developed utilizing
10/70 (or 5/70) development options.
2. In addition, I think that the area (affected by the zone of influence)
within the Goose Creek and Duck Creek watershed should be explicitedly
referred to in this zone of influence (depending on area agreed to). As I ?pQ
understood the last Goose/Duck Creek meeting, proposed buffers were much J?
larger than 35 feet. WRC and USF&W maintain a recommendation of a buffer
range between 50 and 200 feet depending on position in the watershed and
maintaining a larger natural and undisturbed zone as well.
The 401 that is to be issued should not interfere or bias the outcome of
that negotiation, therefore, I propose agreements for the Goose and Duck
Creek watersheds affected by the zone of influence, be left open to allow 1A
for future agreements for those specific territories. The resolution
language offered by Cristie, does to a degree keep that door open, however,
I think if the Goose and Duck creek watersheds were explicitly referenced in
the resolution, and language was added addressing a more intensive approach
to riparian area management and use, the resolution could be improved.
At our last meeting, on September 3, 2002, a buffer application strategy for
the Goose and Duck creek watersheds was presented. There were concerns. We
discussed ways of focusing the strategy to reduce resource and permit agency
concerns, and presented it back to the county. These "rules of the game"
regarding buffers have not been completely defined or agreed to yet, and as
such, if we move forward with an agreement that covers any part of this area
without determining where the strategy, as described and presented in that
September 3rd meeting, is, we will be biasing a future negotiation. We
should leave that door open. Lets figure out how to keep that door open.
I noticed that no one from US F&W or WRC is on this email list. It may be
appropriate to circulate this notice to them, prior to moving forward with
the 401 issuance.
Thanks.
Milt
1 of 2 9/16/02 1:26 PM
Re: monroe bypass - update

John Dorney wrote:
> the meeting with monroe, union county and stallings today regarding
> cumulative impact and the monroe bypass projects went very well. staff
> (DWQ and local governments) agreed on the concepts to manage cumulative
> impacts from the bypasses within a geographic area (buffers, on-site
> stormwater management and enhanced sediment and erosion control) and
> also agreed to work on the details (important details!) over the next
> several months. monroe and union county staff will try to have
> resolutions passed by their elected officials next week committing them
> to working with DWQ on the process and then implementing the final
> process (subject to public hearings on their part and public input
> thereby) wiithin 6 months of the director's decision on a management
> strategy. i am very pleased with the spirit of cooperation with the
> local governments and am optimistic about the process. i again
> committed to issuing the 401 certification by the end of this month if
> the local elected bodies formally agree to follow the above outlined
> process. obviously this process takes some faith on both sides that the
> other side will negotiate in good faith but i think this is a real
> opportunity to make significant progress on this issue (at least in this
> case).
> the remaining substantive issues to resolve (after this month!) include
> 1) the geographic scope of the regulations [DOT's consulting firm
> predicts a 7 mile zone of influence while the local government staff
> believe that a two mile zone is more realistic - i said we would all
> talk and decide], 2) the width of buffers [DWQ suggested 50 feet and the
> local government staff suggested 35 feet - again i said we would all
> talk and decide], and 3) on-site stormwater management (DWQ suggested
> use of our stormwater design manual and the local government staff
> wanted the option to develop their own manual - i said fine as long as
> we approved it. DWQ suggested that sheet flow (or on-site stormwater
> management) had to occur on all new development within the as
> yet-undefined geographic area and the local government staff wondered
> how that would work if someone wanted to attach to an existing
> stormwater conveyance - i said we would discuss that issue and decide
> maybe with stormwater management trading?). i believe (again) that
> these important details can be worked out between DWQ and the local
> governments. 401 unit staff will need help from other DWQ staff
> (primarily in planning and the ARO) to work through these issues over
> the next few months.
> christie (from union county) or samar - please add/correct anything you
> would like to.
> thankx again to everyone on their hard work so far.
2 of 2 9/16/02 1:26 PM
Municipality hereby agrees to work with the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) to develop
and implement mechanisms within the impact area of those projects which address to the satisfaction of the
Director of DWQ the following items:
1. Stream Buffers
II. On-site Stormwater Management
III. Enhanced Sedimentation and Erosion Control from Construction
Munici . ality agrees to work with DWQ to properly adopt these mechanisms within six (6) months of
written approval by the Director of DWQ of the final mechanisms.
Municipality understands that in return, DWQ agrees that cumulative impact issues concerning these
projects are adequately addressed and that DWQ will then issue the required 401 Water Quality
Certifications for the Monroe Bypass and extension projects.
11 "1
Lo "Q

WOM

fi

a

Alm-
ro ? ? a ?/?3`vaJ

J ? G? ??S?CQs7L)?s2_
- ------- ----- - -------- -- - -- -
e ?
- --- -- - -------- -- ' - -- - - 1---us-- - u?- -
IA-l
------ e-14
--- - - --------- 1= -- - - `?-
- -_ __ --- -- --__ ------- -------- -- - - -- -- _ _- - mss- _ _ _? _-? ?°m-- -- - - ------- - -- ---- -_--_ ---- -

r _y1W
M
01
17
Monroe By-Pass Meeting
Subject: Monroe By-Pass Meeting
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:27:49 -0400
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], bellis @dot. state.nc.us, [e-mail],
j ohn.dorney @ncmail.net
Hello,
I had to reschedule the next meeting regarding the Monroe By-pass cumulative impacts mediation. It will be Friday,
September 13th at 10:30 in the Jefferson Room (same room). Any that need directions or have questions, please
feel free to contact me.
Thank you,
Christie Putnam
Union County Stormwater
704.292.2592
?h¢rl??If ??'2 ?YI?M?1?F ICOm?)
We?+
nom,
vdw.
?SU ?

(o I.a?r?P,?r???k Hwy

I of 1 9/12/02 3:55 PM
City of Monroe
Post Office Box 69
Monroe, NC 28111-0069
n t17
N
w
CD
y•
;?yx?yy
t?wp3.
C?
04
d
CD
o ?
r
w
n
cD
d
b
p
t7l
11
f?
O
p
0
?d
c"'D
c~D
0
W
F+
N
l?
C
a
N??31..
i
a
a
0
0
a
P7
n
cD

00 ?l C N
N
P
W
N
?-•
Cr1 W "'' N ?, ,p, N 7d
r-+
a W
CD
c W
A

Q
n a\
o
O
CD W

`7
O CD

O
O
C

C
W vi .. • ,
. A CD C C

A. CD
CD
N
0
10

A°

o

°,
CD

C
y o ,
r-
9
r
?
a
CD
Im.
VJ CD
?i
° 1"I
•r y
N p o?

O
VJ
jZA 0 C - C
D
6 V
?¢ rc??
FS ?' ? "? O N
C??D C O
?
q CD f?D

yo
a C
D
'

=
t
?3
CA CD
C
D
Cp CD W v? CD ?••'' ?..i

I
o

r-A t;O Cy W ?C ?J
CD W En 0 0 lg?
p? v w
O
CD CD CCQ
0 (p ('D CD n (p 0
CD fCD DEC CD
o
y y,
o
al (:r gz D
V.- C
8 a
co
0 ?
p n A. CCD C??D a O
0

0 c", 0 CD 0
OA
o 00
? ?
?'c^'? p•o
o
P ?'
'D CA CD
00
5-
a
1
?
o c0a??? o
='p
CDC "
'o
?'
?
.
0
°
CD
c O N
o n
•
?r CD ?t O
O

\ C O
10

O ?' a CD p

C
?°? 10
CD N ? o"a? p CCDD
,
0 .
o ? a' ? 8 bd?CD cr
bc o ?

?,
0.
C r ?,
?.

(D CD CL
'?
0

0
n
CD CD
"C O
O O
? M?
!
CD C C?.

a r r r td d to

O
0
a
a
ro
0
A
O
C
Q
CD
W
0
O
0
W
m
C"
A
C
G.
w
N
O
N

O
O
M
w'
0
W
M
tt1
0
0
M
?n
a

N
N
A
(D
O
M
w
ti
ram
CD
c
F.
co
a
0
0
0!
w
p
co
N
00 -Q O? t11 W N' ~ O
~ ~ N a' 00 W y

a
~ N -. V' CaD ?`J ! rJ:
ey? • A CD 1? ,~r O 0 CD CD ° Cep CI CD ?., ?? {3'

a
°a cr
c F.
t
=
'

?•
... co b c ?cu;° 4.a
t
-p cR a
C
90

1 CO! (1. (D . .Q1",

co, A C",
S 0
CA 0 CD
0 CD lo
?"{ ? CD cal •

ti
a ti --
o
a y ?..
y
6?
o . ?-
In

CA ry+.

0 rA

C CD

?.'

°
CD
Q c

0
0 I=,
CAD

y
cD 439
n
O
O ;
CD
!*
?.
C40
C

Q
y
p
to
.

C
D cD

E

o
CD

?? ?.
p. .
I
b n
CD
?,
CD
?'
O
cQD 1:3
O
?' ?
O

i. OQ
Cn C/? V] G 1 cn w C!? C/n O ?? ' * '- LI

~'1
cD ?? ° A•

a , p,
I?
rjQ y y G

?. -+t 0
A O
CD P O` cD;
O'
COD 0:
CIA,
,
c~ o; o ° o y
O CD
O
(IQ
CD (D

? cD ; C
D cD
O o : CD

n 'CD
CA

0' rA CD

CD
c
°

oQ ?,.
yI
y
d d b a d ?; r 'r ? r'
j t?
w
N
O
N

() M
0
o
a?
o
tri?
A
P ?.
d?
td
CD
p
1 9
g?
o ?
?CD
A
a
r
r
a
W
O
G
cAD
O
d
C
.y
p
CTj
O

M
0
M
a
O
o
7d
N
N
A
c?
0
n
I CA
a
E
N
0
N
w
M
a
C
rA
M
W
CD
a
O
G
0
q
w
w
N
?p N
oo N
J N
CT N
Cn N N
W N
N N tJ
O ?-+
?O

LA V1 (A
~On b a 4? cv'u ob o? c?'u cn
CD '
0
UQ
CD
CD
a

CD 01.
n° 0
CD ...
?o
CD 0 Q.
ca
`

~

C

N CL CD

y c? cD

?y
,
CD cD ?n O 7C .nr O ? n Q
CD O n
y t
c n O
O 0 .
0
va p m
CCD in
p; cD
r
CD CL O y ? 1 C
or
E, c
9 D O'?
11
co
o

cD
01
0 .

ti
CL .
0
2

O
tA ,
CA
0
fA CA
f.

°
?'•{

? CL
. C
?.3
''
nr
''? O
o
°
"t
p
j O d n `D CD a D ?+
Id- 0 :01 W 0 C:0 a

CD
?.
a
n a ,.o

o ?
a as

(D G ?p?1 „
?Tv ?`S ?t
CD ?0 1??++
' 1?
O •s
y d - CD
CD
CD
?0:+.
?
'
y
??r
CAD ? 5 O O O CD i-L gip
ca , y 0 : 0 cD
(
r p' CD
cr
1 ; R
o ,
?3 CD
C '

D m E7 O N
a `Cn+
0 (D to O
0 :-0
CO A!
A. 0 o
'CD CD CCD i Cy
nil O
c? C
CD
j l
D O 0 C) O CD A on CA A
00;

` c
CD

A °
`D

tD

O 0
CD

yam.
'
a CD CD >! 9`
M. , c
C
(IQ
o o 'mss ,, A+
?d ° CD
CD
0
f D

p

C
AD la

C(p/~1 ('1
O

8

co
CD

r-t
CD ?

O
O
-)
M
?

O
?
.0 lcrQ -0 -0 A O ?
n,,? o 5
0 .CZ
0 C) 0 3 5
CD
oo CD o .. a
w P,
c' a .0
x
o ? CD c
t
-? C ps
00
R
O
p CD
q c?
r' a a ? ? ? d d d ? d t=1

w
N
O
N

C? l?7
c o
?cy
w'
a -?
A0
7
(D
0 ?
0 A
iRE N
N g.
~ ?y
a
A
0
d
9
19
C
T
p
M
P
O
'o
A
w c
> 14
Y
A
W
N
Ai
C
M
'J
n
..'•
O W
o
0
.?'r CD
y
41
Q7
O
H
A
. ?U
0
a
-'0
ap,

-Tl\
C7
I
w O O ?
o 0 0 ? ? ?

C? ,1 ?? d
rmn

Q.. 'mss .•s ?
CD y
y
CD
CD
CD A7

Vt

F+ CD •..CO --fir
z
o
~
M
r.
0 0 0
0 0
CDC `?_
K , df `O'r '?•? V?
O O O
CD
D CD
?`
a a a

O

t!i O W p !O
?
C b
O ,cD
r. CD ` A
'
O a

4k V)
A t.
w
w
N .w
? w
O

O
?
CD C) • ,
.? C
vi ? ? ? ? A7

a c!?
?'t ? ? c
CD
y

COD-
CD

rl CD
A
?
a a
?

CD 0 W .'
,;
a' ° CD rA
CD
;
CL
CD
co 4? 00
A? O'O . O O
o`
C ?. Cr: ?
N .. C
CD
A

a; a C
D
N
c
CD
a`° .
c? CD?C°D ?

cD a

:ors°? ?'•':;?
y °?
D
ti
O Cr
? CD
?
a
o

e
'0 A
'CD
C

y
a?
CA 0,
a? c

t" a a
w
N
O
N
d
r ^
Q?
The HNTB Companies
R-2559 and R-3329 Monroe Bypass and Connector
Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
Coordination Meeting
August 23, 2002
1:30 - 2:30 p.m.
I. Review of Agenda
II. Old Business
• 7/03/02 EcoScience Meeting Minutes
• Development influence area documentation
III. Existing Conditions (EcoScience)
IV. Projected Growth in Study Area
IV. Developable Land within Study Area
• Methodology
• Goose, Duck, Crooked Creek Implications
• Analysis by Basin
V. Future Land Use Assumptions
• Union County Planning Effort Status
VI. Schedule
VII. Action Items
The HNTB Companies
DRAFT
Memorandum
To: Meeting Attendees
File
From: Anne Lenart-Redmond
Subject: 7/03/02 Monroe Bypass Coordination Meeting
Offices of EcoScience
R-2559 Indirect and Cumulative Impact Analysis
Attendees:
Alice Gordon
Bruce Ellis
Matt Cusack
Jerry McCrain
Cynthia VanderWiele
John Dorney
Bob Deaton
Donal Simpson
Whit Webb
Kristofer Baker
Anne Lenart-Redmond
NCDOT PDEA
NCDOT PDEA
EcoScience
EcoScience
NC Division of Water Quality
NC Division of Water Quality
NCDOT
HNTB
HNTB
HNTB
HNTB
Date: July 10, 2002
HNTB Job Number 34780
The purpose of the meeting was to define the project study area and to coordinate the study approachs
of EcoScience's nutrient analysis to satisfy USFWS concerns regarding the Carolina Heelsplitter Mussel
in the Goose and Waxhall watersheds with HNTB's indirect and cumulative impact analysis of R-2559 /
Monroe Bypass.
• Study Area Boundaries: EcoScience study area boundaries were based on topographical features
(ridgelines, creeks, etc.). HNTB study area limits included topographical features as well as future
development influence area due to proposed roadway improvements (within 7 miles of proposed
interchanges / 10-15 minute drive time). These assumptions were documented in previous studies.
Through consensus, the group modified the project limits by reducing HNTB's project area eastern
and northwestern limits to follow the county lines, and by extending EcoScience's southern boundary
to the county/state line (see attachment). The group agreed to a 10-year study horizon (Per Alice
Gordon's request, HNTB will provide documentation to EcoScience).
• John Dorney requested that analysis use some type of sediment indicator to address water quality
(turbidity). Nutrient analysis will be accepted as a surrogate for sediment in this study if HEC RAS
hydrologic analysis cannot not address turbidity (i.e., use of a sediment factor / coefficient). Scott
Yarley is HNTB contact conducting the HEC HMS / TR-55 analysis.
• Due to schedule constraints, EcoScience cannot wait for HNTB to develop the future land use
development scenarios prior to conducting their nutrient analysis. John Dorney suggested a phased
approach: EcoScience to evaluate current conditions (assume best BMP conditions), and then
proceed with their nutrient analysis based on a projected total buildout scenario. If results are found
to be unacceptable, the study team can re-evaluate using HNTB's future land use scenarios at a later
date.
• Alice Gordon recommended documenting the land use/zoning/buffer changes that need to be in place
but are not yet adopted by local officials for the analysis to be valid. Bruce Ellis provided Union
County Planning Contact: Joe Lesch [phone] for EcoScience and HNTB to coordinate
directly.
PA34780 CIA\PL 021 - R-2559\070302 EcoScience mtg.doc
Action Items;
EcoScience and HNTB to coordinate and revise study area limits.
EcoScience to Proceed with evaluating current conditions and assume full build out scenarios with
and without BMPs in place. EcoScience and HNTB to coordinate existing to assure consistency in
study assumptions. '
HNTB to provide documentation to EcoScience regarding 10-year study horizon and development
influence of proposed interchanges.
Next Monroe Bypass ICI coordination meeting is scheduled for August 16, 2002 at 10:00 am.
Interoffice Correspondence Page: 2 of 2

."-7'
/'- ??r?. Ste.. ; •Jf ! ? v ( `?' _ r`i. J'ti } ? mot- ? ?? ,?.. ;? f ??.,
t .? r, c ?a r ,?• y ,. ..1 _
117 f"
I f?` - ±, r a
, too
r?
-Cv, I e4A U-
Associated with each export coefficient in the Dodd and McMahon (1992) database is a
description of the type of land cover present when the study was conducted. First, the data
were sorted by land cover based on five classes: crops, forests, residential (low and high
density), industrial/ commercial, and pasture/managed herbaceous. The median export
coefficient value for each class was determined and used in load estimate calculations (Table
5.2).
Table 5.2 Land Use and Nutrient Export Coefficients

Land Use Total P (kg/ha/yr)
Median
Range Total N (kg/ha/yr)
Median Range
Forest/Wetland 0.13 0.01-0.50 1.90 0.67-2.6
Mngd. HerbJPasJUndev. 0.80 0.14-4.9 4.90 2.91-6.12
Cultivated (Crops) 2.41 0.26-18.6 15.2 9.65-21.30
Industrial/Commercial 1.57 1.46-1.79 14.60 12.55 -14.79
Low Dens. Urban 0.62 0.28-1.01 6.39 4.0-7.74
Med/High Dens. Urb/lnst 1.12 1.01-1.91 9.63 6.95-9.86
Residential (general) 0.62 0.28-1.01 8.30 5.0-9.64
Open Water (atmospheric) 0.65 9.80
The 1993-95 land cover type data does not have urban areas within the corporate boundaries
fully classified. They have been blocked out as unclassified municipal areas. As an interim
approach, these municipal areas were classified based on data available through city planning
offices. Planners from sixteen municipalities in the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico basins with
populations greater than 5000 were surveyed (by telephone) for land use information within
their city's corporate boundaries. Nine municipalities were able to provide estimates of land
use within their corporate boundaries. Using averages from the nine municipalities, the percent
area covered by three broad land classes in municipalities: Industrial/Commercial, Residential
and Undeveloped, was estimated (Table 5.3).
Table 5.3 Estimated Average Percent Land Cover within Municipal Corporate Boundaries
Based on Three Cover Classes
Land Cover Average %
Commercial/Industrial 29%
Residential 43%
Undeveloped 28%
The Commercial/Industrial class is based on commercial, light and heavy industrial,
office/institutional, multifamily, and half of the transportation/utilities acreage. Residential is
a combination of all forms of residential. (except multifamily) and half of the
transportation/ utilities acreage. Undeveloped includes vacant land, forest/agricultural land,
and parks/recreation land. Since the undeveloped area may represent a combination of several
land types under a variety of land uses the pasture/managed herbaceous export coefficient was
used.
Determination of the open water export coefficient was based on measured deposition data
from the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP). There are two NADP sites in
eastern NC (Bertie and Sampson Counties) that have wet nitrate, nitrite and ammonium
deposition data. DWQ calculated an average wet deposition estimate for four years of data
from the two sites. To estimate dry deposition it was assumed that dry is equal to wet (i.e.,
Section A: Chapter 5 - Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy 106
Methodology For Household Growth Forecast
1. Calculated 1990 to 2000 population in households growth for Union County and for
Census Tracts/Block Groups within impact area
2. Repeated Step 1 to calculate household growth between 1990 and 2000
3. Calculated 2000 to 2010 population growth forecast for Union County by retrieving
2010 population estimate from the Office of State Planning
• Subtracted Group Quarters population because it is not used as part of the average
household size calculation performed by the US Census)
4. Estimated population in households growth between 2000 and 2010 for impact area
by applying the same share of Union County growth it represented between 1990 and
2000
5. Calculated average household size in 2000 for Union County using US Census Data
6. Using the 2000 average household size figure, calculated the forecasted households
for Union County in 2010
7. Calculated household growth between 2000 and 2010 for impact area by applying the
same share of Union County growth it represented between 1990 and 2000
8. Applied same process to calculate 2020 forecasted households within the impact area
Methodology For Employment Growth Forecast
1. Retrieved employment by industry data for Union County in 1990 and 2000;
calculated growth
2. Applied same overall employment growth rate from 1990 to 2000 for 2000 to 2010
and 2010 to 2020; applied same shares of overall growth (1990-2000) to each
industry sector
3. Converted jobs into retail, office, and industrial categories by assuming percentages
for each industry sector (i.e. services includes 75% retail jobs, 25% office jobs, 0%
industrial jobs)
4. Converted jobs by retail, office, and industrial categories into square footage and
acreage estimates using estimated jobs per sgft ratios (i.e. 1 retail job = 500 sqft)
5. Applied an impact area capture rate of Union County employment growth by industry
category
o X30 : D
m
C: -0
n o ?'
m c ??
C
C7
C m
0)
GJ s V
C4 i ?
CJ,
O CO
9
4 -1?-
fJ W
Cl) 0?T 0
o c >
CD m
n o
0 :3 :3
CD c w
C o
.
cn p
w 3
n
CD
=T -a
m

y
c N
CD 0
..
N
W
C CD
C 3 C
?. O Z
o 0.
O o n
O
A
CD
.1h,
N
OD

O
-
-0
co N
0 -r, C5

3 N
CD
a =
.o* '? 7 CO L V
a N = co
J

N

co
j
O
C
C =
7. O
O Q,
7
O -t
C n
< W
?O
3 co
a a'
a
ao
O
Q
Z co co Z co 'mil
D ? III D o
V
V?
ti
7 N Z Cl
CL p 0
N
Ai > cD
Fr CD
O
? w a
CD (D
`o. cn
O
O
Q
o (DD
0
N
O
CD
? O
Q
7 N Z Cl,
CL cno 0
o ? c
N A
> m
CD CD
O
a
?D. fDa
0 0,
P, a
O
O. M
14 Ln "D
O m
y ?
(D
1 0
7
0 O ?7 N 0
a-,
Vl cD _ p N
4, ?,.

0) N V W

rn a7 V!
O
?l cn
.A W O
O
1 ro co
ra j v CO
-?
V 00 O O

O OD N CO O
_ ? Co ?
.A O
d
N
v
o

Q? cn IN. V
O 1 0) 1. :
-v1

: E O m
CL . ?

2)
CO) CD - W p

0
100

r

N N Cn .1?

O ?I O cn
O CO U7 -4
V? 1 1 N ,may...
A O) W ,P = O

W CO 1 CO
j
O
W
'o"
O
O O V
O
...
\ cTl U1 0 0
``
,o,
r
Ln -4
7 N z cn `
O. (n O O
C p O
of A }
m E=
Z. ?a CD
,
o -+

y.
- 0 O 70
O_ - (D f0
C ...
.. CD O O m
? m
U
c V

A
(D
?
D
?
fD
. n
„ ? N (J1 cJt y _ ? f
D
O.O. F, a k O rt
W?
O
3 0) O (
n D coo
co ? 0) . 3
0 O G.? U -+1 N_ 0 O
'
CD 6 v v V'p S
3 O
o
C V

N 00 OD V

G
0 CD O
W v N
N ; ? 1 N U7 O
? CD
a ?
i _rr
•* y
rt
3 N Z CO
w (D a r-

3 m :3
(D
0 ?-t p cn
0
0 O)
m
'
c
C a
O 3 O
A a 0°
0
a a 3
i
c
y '" n O n 00

N .*
?I co
O O (00) N n
a O a -0 .? O
1 1 1

rD "
m :r O N " CD
W con co *
co co 0-- 0) Z
y

, <0 00
CO W O) O
.O ' (m co 1 cn

A
(D
U)
N
f
r
7

G) v v .n
o c Z), ^@
y 0 N
(D.,
?
CD C.0 CD C.0 -4 00 C)
O A CA) N) (Wo `
- ch N-

O

"D
of cn °o

° o
a o w rn ro
0' N
0
C c o o 0)
O
f r
f (DD
m O.
o-
_ n
z N C:
O O
I FI..'
D
W
0' O

0
W IV
.fJ .A W V7 ° Vf> 1
0
Nh
,

N a7 O1

N N
O b) W O
C 0 0 0 s- `
.l
1
-I O
W W 0
N -I CA)
0 0
10
2
O
c
N
O
Q
Q
0
m
O
CD
W
W
W
C1
N
O

Methodology Used to Determine Developable land
Land was divided into two categories
a. Can be developed without physical constraint
• Vacant parcels
• Parcels larger than 5 acres that could not be farther divided
• They contained churches, schools, industrial, commercial, or large farm productions where the
land is being used to capacity
b. Contain physical constraints that do not allow development
• Wetlands ,- ix?, ( M& Q;K I
`'_
• Lakes, Rivers, and Streams -(LXA-%A e5 Mtn) • Steep slopes of 8 percent or greater
• Parks and land conservancy areas
2. The land that had physical constraints was subtracted from the potentially developed land in category a.
3. The remaining land was considered developable r----
The process of how the developable land was derived through GIS !L ? ct C Y-e
?l J
4. GIS data was obtained from the County containing ?
a. Parcel data
a. Structures
5. A query was done removing all parcels that were under 5 acres with a structure on them
6. Those parcels remaining were zoomed in on in order to visually look closer at the lots
a. A column in the attribute table of the parcel layer was created called "Delete"
• Parcels eliminated
• If a large structure using most of the land or deemed to make the lot undevelopable for future use
was found, the parcel was highlighted and marked in the attribute table with an x
• When in question the owner of the lot was looked at to help determine the use of the parcel
• Schools, churches, large commercial and industrial owners were usually eliminated
b. Once all of these parcels were marked in the attribute table column "delete" as an x, a query was done to
delete all those with an x in them
c. Parcels kept as developable
• If a small house or structure that did not take up a large portion of the lot was located there and it was
decided that the land was still developable it was to remain
7. Since the `Structures" layer from the County was from 1995 further elimination was necessary
a. All major subdivisions that were visible were eliminated
b. A query was done to select and eliminate all lots that
• Contained structures built after 1995 (since we had already eliminated those prior to 1995)
• Were less than or equal to 5 acres in size
d. Another query was done to select all lots that
• Contained structures built after 1995
• Were greater than 5 acres
• By looking at the attribute table and comparing the square feet of the building and the acreage of the
lot, as well as the owner, a determination was made as to whether the lot could be further subdivided or
not
8. A union was performed that removed any of the non-developable land from category lb.
9. From this map the study area of the 7-mile radius around the new interchanges of the Monroe Bypass and
Corridor was "clipped" or extracted, so those areas outside of the radius were no longer included
10. A fmal study map showing only those developable lands within our study area was the result
ate, d,27V Q `"
w, 1 5
tj_l ac
Development Impact Area and Time Frame
According to the North Carolina DOT "Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative
Impacts of Transportation Projects in North Carolina," the development effects of a new
highway facility are most often found:
• Up to one mile around a freeway interchange; and
• Up to two to five miles along major feeder roadways to the interchange
(Berger 2001, p. 7-14)
Several other sources, including the Oregon DOT "Guidebook for Evaluating the Indirect
Land Use and Growth Impacts of Highway Improvements," were consulted to provide
comparison to the NCDOT "Guidance" document. The Oregon DOT "Guidebook"
suggests a study area of %2-mile around an improvement as the primary area of potential
effect, with a larger area of impact possible for large projects on routes with a lot of
through trips (ECONorthwest 2001, p. 17-18).
Literature regarding land markets also provide some help in determining areas of effect.
Studies have revealed that the land-value premium associated with proximity to urban
highways erodes quickly beyond several miles. This may suggest that the impacts of new
or improved highway facilities would extend out several miles as well (Grigg and Ford
1983; Landis and others 1994; and Ryan 1999, 412-440).
Others have researched land use changes around suburban, exurban and rural
interchanges throughout the country. These researchers evaluated impacts within one to
three miles of the interchanges, and discovered that a two-mile area of effect gives them
the best statistical fit (Hartgen and Curley 1999). Robert Cervero applied a two-mile
(from centerline) area of effect in his article about road expansion, urban growth and
induced travel, but suggested that the area of effect may extend up to ten to fifteen miles
in those cases when new or improved highway facilities offer considerably improved
accessibility. The majority of impacts will still occur within several miles of the
improvements (Cervero forthcoming). In addition, several Texas A&M studies from the
1950s and 1960s employed fifteen-mile areas of effect to evaluate building activity and
land value gains (Gillen 1996, 39-62; Giuliano 1995, 305-341).
The Transportation Research Board "Guidance for Estimating the Indirect Effects of
Proposed Transportation Projects" suggests defining the area of effect by using the travel
forecasting model. This would mean that impacts may be felt throughout an area 15 to
30 minutes (approximately 7 %2 to 15 miles at average speed of 30mph) from the highway
improvement. As a matter of practicality, they also recommend using political or U.S.
Census Bureau boundaries in defining the area of effect (Berger 1998, 65).
According to the NCDOT "Guidance", development beyond areas delineated in long-
range infrastructure or growth management plans is limited or restricted. This document
suggests that, in these circumstances, it may be appropriate to confine consideration of
indirect/cumulative effects to a study area coincident with accepted growth boundaries
(Berger, p. 3-16). The NCDOT "Guidance" also suggests that complementary land
development, such as highway-oriented businesses (gas stations, rest stops, motels, etc.),
is more likely near interchanges in rural areas (Berger, p. 7-13).
In evaluating the timeframe for which impacts may occur as a result of highway
improvements, Mark Hanson and Robert Cervero have found that models which measure
impacts within four to five years of road improvements best capture variation in travel
demand (Cervero and Hansen 2002).
Robert Cervero is more conservative in his article for the Journal of the American
Planning Association. Studies completed in California allowed Cervero to measure
associations between road building and land development beyond ten years.
Nevertheless, lagged model structures and autocorrelations suggest that these associations
are best expressed in eight-year timeframes (Cervero forthcoming).
A statistically sound study of land use impacts around freeways in Cook County, Illinois
used a ten-year lag time and lead to determine impacts of highways on the
decentralization of cities (Transportation Center 1999).
Since there is no commonly accepted methodology for estimating potential impact area,
the following methodology has been used in this analysis:
1. Use an analysis or potential impact of a 15-minute driving time from new
interchanges/intersections along intersecting arterials. This corresponds to
approximately 7 miles, assuming 35mph speed limits plus stop signs or signals at
some cross streets.
2. The demographic analysis for existing and forecasted populations is then based on
the U.S. Census tracts and blocks most closely matching this impact area.
3. The estimated impact is based on projected growth within the assumed impact
analysis area, distributed into physical locations which take into account actual
arterial alignments, natural feature limitations, local land use policies, regulatory
restrictions, and availability or supporting utility infrastructure.
Reference List
Cervero, R. and M. Hansen. 2002 (forthcoming). Induced Travel Demand and Induced Road Investment: A
Simultaneous-Equation Analysis. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy.
Cervero, R. 2002 (forthcoming). Road Expansion, Urban Growth, and Induced Travel: A Path Analysis. Journal of
the American Planning Association.
ECONorthwest and Portland State University for Oregon Department of Transportation and Federal Highway
Administration. 2001. A Guidebook for Evaluating the Indirect Land Use and Growth Impacts of Highway
Improvements. SPR Project 327.
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 Geography of Urban
Transportation, ed. by S. Hanson. 2nd 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 Interstate Exits. Transportation
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.
Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. for the National Cooperative Highway Research Program. 1998. Guidance for
Estimating the Indirect Effects of Proposed Transportation Projects. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research
Board. Report 403.
Ryan, S. 1999. Property Values and Transportation Facilities: Finding the Transportation and Land Use Connection.
Journal of Planning Literature, 13(4), 412-440.
The Louis Berger Group for State of North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2001. Guidance for Assessing
Indirect and Cumulative Impacts of Transportation Projects in North Carolina, Volume II: Practitioner's
Handbook. Project Number 81777722.
Urban Transportation Center. 1999. Highways and Urban Decentralization. Chicago: University of Illinois at
Chicago, Urban Transportation Center. Research Report.
CHARACTERISTICS OF HIGHWAY PROPOSED
PROJECT
Please describe the proposed highway construction below:
1. Project Number: TIP No. _
2. Type of Construction
a. Bridge Replacement Project yes no
b. Intersection Improvement Projects yes no
c. Widening on Existing Location yes no
d. Widening with Minor New Location yes no
3. Roadway Description:
a. Name (US, NC, SR):
b. Functional Classification of Roadway:
c. Begin Terminus:
d. End Terminus:
e. Existing Number of Lanes:
f. Existing Traffic Volumes:
g. Existing Level of Service:
h. Number of Proposed Lanes:
i. Future Traffic Volumes:
j. Future Level of Service:
k. Length of Segment:
4. Type of Access Control: None Partial Full
5. Area Type: Rural Sm all Urban Urban
6. Development Potential in the Area:
High Growth Medium Growth Low Growth
Please answer the following questions concerning the proposed highway
construction project.
7. Is the purpose of the road to serve regional and/or local growth and
development objectives and opportunities?
yes no
8. Is the roadway anticipated to accelerate existing or induce new development
in the region and/or local area?
yes no
If the answers to the above questions (Questions 4 and 5) are no, the
following language is appropriate for documenting the potential for indirect
effects to existing resources and/or for contributing to the cumulative
effects to existing resources.
Bridge Replacement Projects
The proposed project involves the replacement of an existing structure, which
was determined by the NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit to be structurally
deficient and functionally obsolete. The proposed replacement structure will not
increase the capacity of the roadway system or change the existing patterns of
traffic along the roadway. Changes in the patterns of developing and or land
uses in the vicinity of the bridge are not anticipated. Therefore, this project is not
anticipated to result in any indirect effects or to contribute to the cumulative
effects on existing resources.
Intersection Improvement Projects
The proposed project involves the improvement of an existing intersection
between and in . These improvements include
. The proposed
improvement will increase the vehicle processing capacity and functional level of
service of the intersection, but will not increase either the capacities or levels of
service of the intersecting roadways, or the existing traffic patterns. The
improvements are not anticipated to alter the existing land uses or to enhance
accessibility to the adjacent parcels. Therefore, this project is not anticipated to
result in any indirect effects or to contribute to the cumulative effects on existing
resources.
Widening on Existing Location without Bypasses
The proposed project involves the widening of existing from
to . As indicated on the report entitled
"Characteristic of Proposed Highway Project", the existing roadway is
substandard and is operating at an undesirable level of service. The operations
of the roadway are anticipated to degrade further by the year . A complete
explanation of the purpose of and need for this improvement is detailed in
Chapter of this Environmental Assessment (Categorical Exclusion).
The proposed improvement will increase the capacity and level of service of the
roadway, but will not change the existing traffic patterns on or the function of the
roadway. The improvements are not anticipated to alter the existing land uses
within the project area or to enhance accessibility to the adjacent undeveloped
parcels. The proposed facility primarily will accommodate the existing and future
traffic demand associated with past, current and future population growth in the
vicinity. Therefore, this project is not anticipated to result in any indirect effects
or to contribute to the cumulative effects on existing resources.
Widening on Existing Location with Bypasses
The proposed project involves the widening of existing from
to with a short bypass of
As indicated on the report entitled "Characteristic of Proposed Highway Project",
the existing roadway is substandard and is operating at an undesirable level of
service. The operations of the roadway are anticipated to degrade further by the
year . The purpose of the bypass is to A
complete explanation of the purpose of and need for this improvement is detailed
in Chapter of this Environmental Assessment (Categorical Exclusion).
The proposed improvement will increase the capacity and level of service of the
roadway, but will not change the existing traffic patterns on or the function of the
roadway through the widening portion of the project. The proposed widening is
not anticipated to alter the existing land uses within the project area or to
enhance accessibility to the adjacent undeveloped parcels. The proposed facility
primarily will accommodate the existing and future traffic demand associated with
past, current and future population growth in the vicinity.
However, the proposed improvement is anticipated to change the existing traffic
patterns in the vicinity of the bypass. This change in traffic patterns is anticipated
to precipitate some minor changes in the patterns of development and/or land
uses in the interchange areas along the bypass due to the interaction of local
businesses with nonresident, long distance traffic. In rural settings, this
development typically originates in the vicinity of the interchange and progresses
outward. In urbanized areas, the development in interchange areas is generally
an extension of growth from the existing community. Therefore, it is reasonably
foreseeable that the proposed project could generate an increase in commercial
and/or industrial land use; the former to provide service for travelers and the
latter to benefit from the improved transportation system. The extent to which
this development could occur would depend largely on the type and extent of
access and infrastructure that are provided at interchange locations. However,
this change in land use would be restricted to the immediate interchange areas
due to the control of access proposed along the bypass portion of the project.
Based on the above considerations, the proposed project is not anticipated to
result in any significant indirect effects or to significantly contribute to the
cumulative effects on existing resources.
(Some project specific discussions may be required regarding potential indirect
effects of bypass to water resources and protected species in the zone of
influences for the interchange area, and for bypassed existing business along
existing road.)
UNION COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 8c
00
P.O. Bog 1398, Monroe, North Carolina 28111 Zo *
Phone [phone] Fag [phone] 9ih c
PLANNED PROGRESS
July 10, 2002

Mr. John Dorney
NC Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Blvd.
Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
Dear Mr. Dorney,
. `'_ I 1 2J0?_
Enclosed please find copies of the Ordinances and Stormwater Regulations (both existing
and proposed) that apply in Union County, Indian Trail and Stallings. If you need any
additional copies or information, please contact me at 704-292-2592 or my e-mail
address is [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Christie Putnam, P.E.
Stormwater Engineer
Union County Planning Department
NC WILDLIFE COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, September 3, 2002
NAME REPRESENTING

rV d}*v l? Ull t ww
o? ?7Z

cu pal
14

I??lI? N L . G
skt.vloo QCWR C l
?- h? c e C t2 c.

i W r.??!? F6?l?Q?g C?L??2 ....
M, ArP-r g-
A td1 U rr- Sv-vicg -
a, 6 ck. .
S L/i t a 1 ?.
mar/ / l GlN ? ?? d /= _.•?i?? /?? ? /? .

SAA44 bo

/ c-
e.w i o?'-,V-,,.-E'Q..I i

,-ll zct z by . ?? H w

12?? ?`

r
?;,;
_?.-
r.
b
a ?
maa m1??3 ?o?' ?
ro o
°3 0 ip? ??mn X _ _ -
_?? nP nmm?
B?Sp? m m
`nogg o ? - - -
o$ n H a Z.
m - S =
" ? ?
8
3
Y
6
3
1
,, V^- .
v
a
0
w
m
n
O
0
0
m
a
C
A
W
W
N
n
<?
G
m
m
iP
3
m
C
m
b

Wit

0
M
bd
0
0
c?
t0
??8x I_lJ1®L70
yR
C
R
S
R
3
i
S
a

?w?n ,_ I 4 i 4 rt+
I
;
?$
o$ m cam, 3 mc" o
c
cWm
q$o
a -
?
a
m z

qg c $
- j
m ; z

8
R
3 y
?R
t

S

3

-fill:

a
0
W
m
a
0
0
W
W
0
m
W
w

l7vf
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 Commissioner
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
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

()IIZQ-
r'o1
oe
n'
C 8
C .
N ^
x
N j r
J
r
r
4
a
x^?w
? N4^
?r

r
f:
0
c
7y
i
r,
i
b
3
v

N
0
c
A
t9
H
O" •
0

moor
MW •

0
r^T
l 1
s
Re: Sept.3: Meeting on Goose, Duck and Waxhaw Creek Basins
Iof I
Subject: Re: Sept.3: Meeting on Goose, Duck and Waxhaw Creek Basins
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 09:01:31 -0400
From: [e-mail]
To: John Domey <[e-mail]>
Hello,
I have contacted the following people about this extended meeting, all are available except the Marshville
representative:
Joe Lesch, Assistant County Manager, Union County: [e-mail] _
CJ O'Neill, City of Monroe Enigneering: [e-mail]
Jim Loyd, City of Monroe: [e-mail]
Russ Colbath: City of Monroe, water resources: [e-mail]
Dryw Blanchard: Town of Wingate, Administrator: [e-mail]
Carl Webber: Town of Marshville, Administrator: [e-mail] \
am including their e-mail addresses in case you want to contact them dir tly. All others and myself will plan to,
meet (continue to meet) in the Jefferson Room at 3 pm on Sept 3rd.
Christie /
71
-?-
s
n4
? r
b 5 It" 8/30
Draft
UNION COUNTY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
(This Ordinance repeals Article XVI, Part H of the Union County Land Use Ordinance)
ARTICLE 1
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 1. Short Title.
This ordinance shall be known as the Union County Stormwater Management Ordinance, and
may be cited as the Stormwater Management Ordinance, hereinafter ("Ordinance").
Section 2. Objectives
(a) to provide for the enforcement of the Ordinance
(b) to provide for the inspection and proper maintenance of stormwater management
facilities
Section 3. Authority
This Ordinance is adopted pursuant to the following authorities in the NC General Statutes:
( Need to get the County Attorney to help fill in here)
Section 4. Effective Date.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect on and after
Section 5. Definitions
(a) Best Management Practice (BNfP): A structural or nonstructural management-based
practice used singularly or in combination to reduce non-point source inputs of pollution to
receiving waters in order to achieve water quality protection goals.
(b) Built-upon area: That portion of a development project that is covered by impervious
or partially impervious cover, including buildings, pavement, gravel (for pedestrian or vehicular
use), recreation facilities (e.g., tennis courts), etc. (Note: neither wooden slatted decks nor the
water area of a swimming pool are considered built-upon areas.)
(c) Connection: Any ditch, pipe, or other device for the diversion or transmission of storm
drainage which will in any way affect the operation or maintenance of a storm sewer.
(d) Conveyance: Any feature of the landscape or earth, manmade or natural, that carries
water in a concentrated flow.
(e) County: The Union County Manager, his designee, the Union County Stormwater
Engineer, or authorized agent of the Stormwater Engineer's office.
Draft Page 1 of 17
Ordinance: 07/10/2002
Draft
(f) Design Manual: A manual of technical design requirements for stormwater
management facilities published by Union County.
(g) Developer: A person engaged in land, site, or building development.
(h) Developer's Guide to Obtaining a Building Permit in Union County: A publication of
Union County
(i) Discharge: Additions of pollutants into waters of the United States from 1) surface
runoff which is collected or channeled by man; 2) discharges through pipes, sewers, or other
conveyance owned by a State, municipality, or other person which does not lead to a treatment
works; and 3) discharges through pipes, sewers, or other conveyance, leading into privately
owned treatment works. (Ref: 40 CFR § 122.2).
0) Ditch/Swale: Open channel that infiltrates and/or transports runoff waters.
(k) Drainage: The flow of stormwater runoff into a conveyance.
(1) Drainage Easement. An easement that grants to Union County the right of access for
the purposes of maintaining conveyances or drainage structures.
(m) Easement. A grant of one or more of the property rights by the property owner, to or
for use by, the public, a corporation, or other entity.
(n) Erosion: The wearing away of soil from the land surface by the action of wind, water,
gravity, or any combination thereof.
(o) Garbage: Animal and vegetable refuse resulting from the handling, preparation,
cooking, and consumption of food, including a minimum amount of liquid necessary incident
thereto.
(p) Person having control over: Shall mean, but not be limited to, any person using,
transferring, storing, or transporting a hazardous material (as defined in the CFR) immediately
prior to release of such hazardous material on to the land or into the air or the waters of the city.
(q) Hazardous material: Any substance which, when discharged in any quantity may
present an imminent and substantial danger to the public health or welfare or to the
environment.
(r) Hazardous material response: The sending of fire department (or any other duly
authorized governmental agency's) equipment to abate the effects of hazardous materials,
which endanger the health or safety of persons or the environment.
(s) Illicit discharge: Any discharge to a municipal separate storm sewer system that is not
composed entirely of storm water, except discharges pursuant to a NPDES permit (other than
the NPDES permit for discharges from the municipal separate storm sewer) and discharges
resulting from fire fighting activities (Ref. 40 CFR 122.26 (b) (2).
(t) Impervious surface: An area composed of any material that impedes or prevents natural
infiltration of water into the soil. A list of impervious areas includes but is not limited to roofs,
decks, driveways, patios, sidewalks, parking areas, tennis courts, concrete or asphalt streets,
crushed stone and gravel surfaces.
(u) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer: A conveyance or system of conveyances (including
roads with drainage systems, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man-made channels, or storm
drains). (Ref. 40 CFR 122.26 (b) (8).
(v) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): A permitting system
established by Section 402 of the Federal Clean Water Act for discharges directly to the surface
Draft Page 2 of 17
Ordinance: 07/10/2002
Draft
waters of the United States. The State of North Carolina issues NPDES permits under authority
of the US Environmental Protection Agency.
(w) New development: Any activity for which a building permit is required (e.g.,
construction of buildings and other structures), or any of the following without regard to a
permit requirement: clearing, stripping, grubbing, dredging, grading, paving, gravel placement,
excavating, transporting and filling of land.
(x) Non Point Source: A source of drainage into waterways that enters the waterway
relatively in even quantity all along the edge of the waterway, as opposed to entering the
waterway at an identifiable point such as a pipe or ditch outlet.
(y) Non-structural Stormwater Management Facility: A stormwater management device
or approach that does not involve the alteration of the land surface nor construction of a facility.
(y) Outfall: A point source at the point where a municipal separate storm sewer discharges
to waters of the United States, and does not include open conveyances connecting two
municipal separate storm sewers, pipes, tunnels, or other conveyances which connect segments
of the same stream or other waters of the United States and are used to convey waters of the
United States. (Ref. 40 CFR 122.26 (b) (9).
(z) Owner: A property owner, his heirs, successors or assigns; a legal entity with control
over the management of a property; or any other person or corporation that occupies a position
that controls the operation, maintenance and/or repair to a property.
(aa) Person: Any individual, partnership, co-partnership, firm, company, corporation,
association, joint stock company, trust estate, governmental entity, or their legal
representatives, agents or assigns.
(bb) Preliminary plat: A map indicating the proposed layout of the subdivision showing
lots, streets, water, sewer, storm drainage, and any other information required by the County.
(cc) Refuse: Solid waste, including but not limited to garbage, rubbish, discarded plant
material, and ashes.
(dd) Sheet Flow: The even flow of water across the land surface so that there is no
discernable `stream, of water.
(ee) Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan: The graphic plan including narrative
where appropriate, required by the State of North Carolina as a prerequisite for a construction
permit. The purpose of this plan is to explain existing conditions and proposed grading of land
including any development and to describe the activities and measure to be undertaken to
control accelerated soil erosion and sedimentation.
(f 1) Stream Buffers: A width of land immediately adjacent to a watercourse within which
development is limited or restricted.
(gg) Structural Stormwater Management Improvement: A constructed facility for the
purpose of managing stormwater flow and quality.
(hh) Substantial redevelopment. Reserved
(ii) Stormwater: Storm water runoff, snow melt runoff, and surface runoff and drainage.
(Ref. 40 CFR 122.26 (b) (13).
(jj) Water Supply Watershed Overlay District: An area of land within Union County
established by the Union County Board of Commissioners for the protection of watersheds, as
more fully defined and described in Article XXI of the Union County Land Use Ordinance.
Draft Page 3 of 17
Ordinance: 07/10/2002
Draft
Section 6. Acronyms
BMP - Best Management Practice
CFR - Code of Federal Regulations
CWA - US Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1251 et sea.
DENR - NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DWQ - NC Division of Water Quality
GWA - General Watershed Areas
NCGS - North Carolina General Statutes
NPDES - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
SWPPP - Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans
SWQMP - Storm Water Quality Management Program
WCA - Watershed Critical Area
WSWOD - Water Supply Watershed Overlay District
ARTICLE II
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DEFINED
Section 8 Stormwater Management Program Requirements
(a) Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to provide for the protection,
maintenance, and enhancement the public health, safety, and general welfare by establishing
minimum requirements and procedures to control the adverse effects of increased stormwater
runoff associated with new development or redevelopment within Union County.
(b) Applicability. This Ordinance applies to all sites within Union County containing
new development that disturbs more than one (1) acre or results in a collective impervious
surface area greater than 20,000 square feet, except the following:
(1) Activity on a working, bona fide farm,
(2) Activities on forested land for the production and harvesting of timber and timber
products.
Draft Page 4 of 17
Ordinance: 07/10/2002
Draft
(c) Prohibited Activities.
(1) Watercourses: It shall be unlawful to use any stream or watercourse to carry
off water from any kitchen sink, lavatory, bathtub, privy, or any other building drain, or
to carry off hazardous material. No water or refuse from any industrial, commercial or
institutional process, including uncontaminated water used for heating or cooling, shall
be discharged in any stream or watercourse by any person until such person has
obtained the appropriate local, state and federal permits.
(2) Non-Approved Construction: No construction of any stormwater
management improvements shall be initiated until the plans for such improvements
have been reviewed and approved by the County.
(3) Harming County-Owned Property: It shall be unlawful to willfully or
negligently injure, deface, mutilate, destroy, tamper or interfere with any County-
owned property or any property used in the County's water or sanitary sewer system.
(4) Discharge of Non-Stormwater: It shall be unlawful for any person to
discharge non-storm water to any storm water conveyance with the exception of the
following:
a. water line flushing
b. diverted stream flows
c. rising ground waters
d. uncontained groundwater infiltration (as defined at CFR 35.2005[20]) to
separate storm sewers
e. uncontaminated pumped ground water discharge from potable water
sources
£ foundation drains
g. air conditioning condensations
h. irrigation water
i. springs
j. water from crawl space pumps
k. lawn watering
1. car washing at one's residence, not for hire
m. flows from riparian habitats and wetlands
n. discharges from fire fighting.
(5) Litter and Refuse:
a. It shall be unlawful to throw, place or deposit any refuse in any stormwater
management facility.
b. In the case that refuse has been thrown, placed or deposited in a stormwater
management facility the Owner will remove and properly dispose of that
refuse.
Draft Page 5 of 17
Ordinance: 07/10/2002
Draft
c. In the case of an Owner's failure to remove and properly dispose of
unlawfully thrown, placed or deposited refuse within ten (10) working days
after notice to do so by the County, the County may do so and recover the costs
of doing so from the Owner.
(d) Participation in a Regional Stormwater Management Facility. Reserved
(e) General Drainage Requirements.
(1) Approval Required. No person shall divert or transmit stormwater drainage to
cause any effect on an adjacent property owner without approval by the County.
(2) Conform to Natural Contours. To the extent practicable, all development shall
conform to the pre-development, natural contours of the land.
(3) Lot Boundaries and Drainage Ways: To the extent practicable, lot boundaries
within subdivisions shall coincide with natural and pre-existing man-made drainage
ways. No lot within a subdivision shall be laid out such that building on it requires the
alteration of natural drainage ways.
(4) Approved Plan Prerequisite for Construction: No construction will begin until
the Owner has secured approval by the County of his Stormwater Management Plan.
(5) Connection to Existing Stormwater Stems: The Owner shall be responsible
for establishing proper connections with any existing storm sewer lines, and said
Owner shall bear ultimate responsibility for the correction of any problems associated
with that connection.
(6) Best Management Practice (BMP) Guidance Manual: Reserved
(7) Drainage Easements: Permanent drainage easements shall be established and
recorded for storm drainage pipes and channels. Permanent drainage channels include,
but are not limited to any channel carrying runoff from a street. These drainage
easements shall also be recorded on each lot affected by the easement with the Register
of Deeds. The width of drainage easements shall conform to the current requirements
of the County.
(8) Responsibility of property Owner. It shall be the responsibility of the property
Owner to install stormwater management improvements on individual properties that
have not been constructed according to said Owner's Plan (discussed below) and to
correct those that have been installed and that do not function properly.
(f) Stormwater Runoff Control Requirements.
(1) Control Runoff to Predevelopment Rates. Stormwater management
requirements for all new development and redevelopment shall consist of, as a
minimum, runoff control measures necessary to control the postdevelopment runoff
rate to be equal to predevelopment runoff rates at the property boundary for the design
storm event.
(2) Runoff to be Separate from Sari Sewerage. No stormwater runoff may be
channeled or otherwise directed into a sanitary sewer.
Draft Page 6 of 17
Ordinance: 07/10/2002
Draft
(3) Design Storm Event Defined. The developer shall submit a certification by a
currently licensed professional in accordance with NC law that the proposed
development will not cause increased peak runoff rates for storm events including the 2
and 10-year rainfall event. All design will assume build out conditions for the
drainage basin based on the Union County Land Use Plan at the time of development.
(4) Plan Required. The developer must submit a Stormwater Management Plan as
defined below demonstrating what stormwater management improvements are being
provided to control the peak runoff from the design storm event to be no greater than
the pre-development peak runoff rate for this event. These improvements may consist
of non-structural approaches such as natural swales, depressions in the land and other
natural approaches; or structural approaches such as detention structures (wet and dry
basins), extended detention facilities, and alternative Best Management Practices with
provisions for stormwater quantity control. A combination of non-structural and
structural approaches is encouraged.
(9) Hydrologic-Hydraulic Analysis Required. For all stormwater management
improvements, a hydrologic-hydraulic analysis of the site drainage system in the pre-
development condition and the post-development condition shall be submitted to the
County. The analysis will demonstrate that the stormwater management requirements
stated in this section will be achieved by the proposed facilities. The analysis will be
subject to the review and approval of the County. All areas that drain more than 50 cfs
during a 100-year storm are required to perform an anyalysis and show the 100-year
floodline on all recorded plats.
(10) Exempt Activities. The following single family residential development
activities are exempt from the requirement for a Plan submission, but must adhere to all
of the other requirements of this Ordinance.
a. Constructing or relocating individual single family housing on an
individual lot when the land disturbing activity is less than one (1.0) acre total.
b. Adding impervious surface to a property so that the resulting total
impervious surface of the property after the addition does not exceed 20,000 square feet
or 25% of the property area.
C. A single family detached subdivision is required to analyze the effects
of the increased runoff up to the point where the post construction discharge is 10% of
the receiving stream flow. Efforts will be taken to midigate any adverse effects on
downstream structures, culverst and other potentially harmful effects.
(11) Multi-Parcel Developments. A development that meets the requirements for
being an Integrated Multi-use Development, Planned Urban Development, phased
development or group development can meet the requirements of this section at the
point or points the stormwater runoff leaves the overall property.
(12) Runoff control facilities, including energy dissipation facilities, must be located
outside of stream buffer zones unless this will not provide for the intention of sheet
flow across the buffer area. These exceptions will be delt with on an individual basis.
D r a Lt Page 7 of 17
Ordinance: 07/10/2002
Draft
(g) Stormwater Management Plan.
(1) Plan Required. Prior to beginning construction activity on new development, a
Stormwater Management Plan, hereinafter ("Plan"), in accordance with the
requirements of this Ordinance shall be submitted to the County and shall include:
a. A Location Map
b. A Site Plan showing lots, streets and roads. Site plans shall be dated, indicate
the scale of the drawing and indicate the direction of North.
Note: When the development includes street and utility construction, plans for
public andprivate streets andplans for water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer
facilities shall be submitted to the County following approval by NC DOT of
plans for street and roads. For each phase of the proposed construction, street
and utility construction plans shall include all improvements lying within or
adjacent to thatphase and all water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer lines
lying outside that phase and being required to serve that phase.
c. Required stream buffers with zones identified
d. Drainage easements, where required
e. Proposed stormwater management facilities designed in accordance with
standards included herein, and in the Design Manual, showing contours, and
showing all impervious areas.
f. Stormwater management facilities design data including:
(i) Engineering calculations
(ii) Total area of proposed impervious surfaces, in square feet
(iii) Total disturbed land area, in square feet
(iv) Total drainage area upstream of each facility, in acres
g. A statement as to whether the site is located in within a WSWOD
h. A description of any potential effects of stormwater runoff quantity and/or
quality from the developed property on any downstream or upstream properties
Note: See also the County's Stormwater Control Design Manual for additional
formatting requirements
(2) Plan Approval. The County is authorized to approve a Plan that is in
accordance with this Ordinance.
(3) Approval of Plan is a Prerequisite to Construction. No permit for development
of any land can be issued unless and until a Plan, in compliance with the requirements
of this Article, has been approved.
(4) Plan Certification Requirements. In cases in which a structural stormwater
management improvement is proposed for a development to meet the requirements of
this Ordinance, a currently licensed professional authorized under NC law shall sign
Draft Page 8 of 17
Ordinance: 07/10/2002
Draft
and seal a certification on the Plan which states that the Plan meets all stormwater
management requirements of this Ordinance.
(h) Stormwater Facilities Maintenance Program
(1) Program Required. It shall be the duty of the Owner, in order to abate and
prevent nuisances resulting from improperly maintained stormwater improvements, to
obtain an approval of a Stormwater Management Facility Maintenance Program
("Program") prior to issuance of any permit. The approved Program will be recorded
with the Union County Register of Deeds.
a. Prior to initiating construction on any stormwater management facility or
structure, a Program shall be submitted by the Owner for approval of the County. The
proposed Program shall include at a minimum:
(i) a description and a schedule of the maintenance activities necessary to keep
the facilities of the Plan in proper working order and operating at design
capacity
(ii) a cost analysis of the necessary maintenance activities for twenty years
after construction
(iii) a map of the property showing the facilities, the areas of ponded water, and
easements for inspection and maintenance
(iv) granting of access to the County for inspection and potential maintenance
activities
(v) an acknowledgement and agreement 1) that the County has the right and
authority to inspect stormwater management improvements and to notify the
Owner when maintenance or repairs are required; 2) that all required
maintenance and repairs will be initiated within fifteen (15) days and
completed within sixty (60) days of such notice; and 3) that in the case of
failure by the Owner to perform the required maintenance or repairs within the
stated period, the County may perform such required maintenance or repairs
and recover all attendant costs from the Owner.
(2) Program Annroval. The County is authorized to approve a Maintenance
program that is in accordance with this Ordinance.
(3) Annroval of Program is a Prerequisite. No development of any land can begin
unless and until a Program, in compliance with the requirements of this Ordinance, has
been approved and recorded.
(4) Recordation of AWroved Pro rg_. Upon approval of his program, the Owner
shall record the Program with the Union County Register of Deeds.
(i) Stormwater Management Improvements
(1) Design of improvements
a. Design of improvements shall:
(i) be performed by a registered professional authorized under NC law to
perform the design
Draft Page 9 of 17
Ordinance: 07/10/2002
Draft
(ii) be subject to approval by the County
(iii) meet or exceed the requirements of the stormwater Design Manual.
(2) Construction of Improvements
a. The construction of all structural stormwater management improvements as
shown on the approved Plan shall be substantially completed prior to final plat
recordation or issuance of any building Certificate of Occupancy.
b. Certified As-Built drawings will be submitted to the County before the
issuance of any building permits.
c. Final approval of the Plan is required prior to the issuance of a Building Permit
for any structure in the development. If a Building Permit is not required for a
site, then the installation of the required structural stormwater management
improvements shall be complete (or a surety for completion must be obtained)
prior to installation of any built-upon area on the site. An engineer's
certification of completion of the form below shall be required prior to final
County approval.
PROFESSIONAL'S CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION
I certify that the stormwater management improvements shown on this plat (or, on `name of plat')
as recorded in Deed Book , Pg. in the office of the Union County Register of Deeds has
been completed in conformance with the plans and specifications approved on and
their full design capability is available. I further certify that an Approved Maintenance Program
has been recorded in Deed Book , Pg. _ in the office of the Union County Register of
Deeds.
Seal
Signature
Date
d. Recordation of Permanent Improvements. All permanent stormwater management
improvements and associated access and/or maintenance easements shall be
recorded on the Final Plat, and a maintenance Program shall be established
concurrent with, or prior to, plat recordation.
e. Maintenance Responsibility.
a. The Owner shall perform required maintenance of stormwater management
improvements at such time as the designated sediment storage volume of the
improvement has been reduced by sediment to fifty percent (50%) of its design
capacity, or when a part of the installation is not functioning as originally designed.
b. The County has the authority to inspect stormwater management improvements
Dra t Page 10 of 17
Ordinance : 07/10/2002
Draft
and to notify the Owner when maintenance or repairs are required. All required
repairs and maintenance shall be initiated within fifteen (15) day of such notice and
completed within sixty (60) days after such notice. In case of failure by the Owner
to perform the required maintenance or repairs within the stated period, the County
may perform such maintenance or repairs and recover all costs attendant thereto
from the Owner.
0) Stream Buffer Requirements
(1) Riparian Buffers.
a. Riparian buffers with minimum widths as specified below shall be main tai d
along all ponds, lakes, perennial streams and natural drainage channels (wet
weather streams).
b. Ponds and lakes created for animal watering, irrigation, or other agricultural
uses and which are not part of a natural drainage way are exempted from these
buffer requirements.
c. Where stricter stream buffer requirements exist, such as in `Water Supply
Watershed Overlay Districts", the stricter stream buffer requirements will apply.
d. Placing of fill material in the riparian buffers is strictly prohibited.
(2) Riparian Buffer Defined. The riparian buffer width shall consist of three zones on
each side of the water body or drainage channel.
a. The Streamside Zone shall consist of a strip of land measured horizontally
away from the top of the stream (channel) bank and perpendicular to the stream
centerline [or from the edge of contiguous sensitive areas, e.g., wetlands]. The
Streamside Zone is to remain undisturbed except those activities associated with
street crossings, utility crossings, municipal sanitary sewers, and installation of
stormwater management facilities where no practicable alternative exists as
approved by the County. (In these cases structures shall be designed, located,
constructed and maintained to cause the minimum land disturbance possible,
provide maximum nutrient removal, cause the least possible detrimental effects on
aquatic life and habitat, and protect water quality to the maximum extent
achievable under current capabilities using County-approved mitigation
techniques.)
b. The Managed Use Zone shall consist of a strip of land measured horizontally
away from the edge of the Streamside Zone and perpendicular to the stream
centerline. The only development activities permitted in the Managed Use Zone
are limited to stormwater best management practices (BMPs), greenway trails, and
bike paths.
c. The Upland Zone consists of a strip of land beginning at the outer edge of the
Managed Use Zone measured horizontally away from the edge of the Managed
Use Zone and perpendicular to the stream centerline. The Upland Zone is to be
maintained free from permanent structures (unoccupied storage buildings less than
Dra t Page 11 of 17
Ordinance: 07/10/2002
Draft
150 square feet in area excepted) and sanitary sewage treatment ground absorption
systems with the exception of street crossings and railroads. Grading is allowed if
performed in a manner as not to damage the roots of trees located in the adjacent
buffer zone.
d. The Required Riparian Buffer Widths on each side of the water course shall be
in accordance with the Table below:
Zone:
d
Upstream Drainage Area Streamside Managed Use Uplan
Greater than 640 acres 30 feet 45 feet 25 feeP
From 300 to 640 acres 20 feet 20 feet 10 feet
From 50 to 300 acres [21 20 feet none 15 feet
['] plus 85% of the remaining flood fringe area
[2] and streams classified as "important" by the Army Corp of Engineers
(3) Construction Requirements. The outside buffer boundary must be clearly marked
by orange fabric fencing prior to any land disturbing activities at the site and this
fencing must be noted on all plans.
(4) Recordation as Easements. Riparian buffer areas will be shown on recorded
property plats and labeled as "Area Not To Be Disturbed", and the recorded plat
will be included in the Stormwater Management Plan. These easements will
distinguish each zone buffer boundaries.
(5) Maintenance. Buffer zones will be maintained by the owner or legally responsible
entity to maintain "sheet flow" of stormwater in order to provide for diffusion and
infiltration of runoff plus the filtering out of pollutants before they reach the
stream.
(6) Buffer Disturbances. Disturbance of the buffer zones not approved by the County
will require mitigation using County approved techniques
(k) Water Supply Watershed Overlay Districts
(1) Referral. Any person developing property in a water-supply watershed
overlay district shall refer to Article XXI of the Land Use Ordinance, Water Supply
Watershed Overlay Districts, and follow its requirements.
(2) Coverage. Article XXI, Water Supply Watershed Overlay Districts
("WSWOD"), applies to all sites containing new development or major redevelopment
in the WSWOD, including grading, paving, gravel placement, and construction of
buildings and other structures.
(k) Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control. Reserved
Draft Page 12 of 17
Ordinance: 07/10/2002
Draft
Section 9. Right of Entry
(a) Entry and Access: The County shall have right of entry on or upon the property of any
Owner subject to this Ordinance and properties for which any permit/document is issued
hereunder. The County shall be provided ready access to all parts of the premises for the
purposes of inspection, monitoring, sampling, inventory, records examination and copying, and
the performance of any other duties necessary to determine compliance with this ordinance.
(b) Security Clearance: In cases in which an Owner has security measures in force which
require identification and clearance of personnel before entry into his premises, that Owner
shall make necessary arrangements with his security guards so that, upon presentation of
suitable identification, the County will be permitted to enter for the purposes of performing
stormwater management responsibilities without delay.
(c) Sampling/Monitoring: The County shall have the right to set up on the Owner's
property such devices as are necessary to conduct sampling and/or metering of the Owner's
operations.
(d) Clearing Obstructions: Any temporary or permanent obstruction to safe and easy
access to the areas to be inspected and/or monitored shall be removed promptly by the Owner at
the written or verbal request of the County. The costs of clearing such access shall be born by
the Owner.
(e) Inspections: The County may inspect the property and facilities of any Owner in
order to ensure compliance with this ordinance. Such inspection shall be made with the consent
of the Owner, manager, or signatory official. If such consent is refused, the County may seek
issuance of an administrative search warrant.
Section 10. Spill Response. Reserved
Sections 11 through 14. Reserved
ARTICLE III
INDUSTRIAL AND RELATED FACILITIES
Section 15. Review of Industrial Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans. Reserved
Sections 16 through 19. Reserved
ARTICLE IV
CONSTRUCTION SITE STORMWATER RUNOFF PROGRAM
Section 20 Review of Self Inspection Records.
The County may review on its request the self-inspection records required for sites with land-
disturbing activity. Owners who do not supply the requested information shall be reported to DWQ for
Dra t Page 13 of 17
Ordinance: 07/10/2002
Draft
permit noncompliance.
Section 21. Runoff Control Structures.
Runoff control structures shall be constructed and maintained according to the specifications
herein and in the North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual. Where
there may be conflict between referenced specifications, the more stringent specification shall apply.
Sections 22 through 24. Reserved
ARTICLE V
ENFORCEMENT
Section 25. Violations. Violations of this Ordinance and shall be subject to the enforcement
remedies and penalties provided herein and by State law.
Section 26. Civil Penalties
(a) Illicit Connections. Reserved
(b) Improper Disposal. Reserved
Section 27. Public Nuisances
(a) Nuisances Enumerated
The following enumerated and described conditions are found, deemed and declared to
constitute a detriment, danger and hazard to the health, safety, and general welfare of
the inhabitants of the County, and are found, deemed, and declared to be public
nuisances wherever the same may exist and the creation, maintenance, or failure to
abate any nuisances is hereby declared unlawful:
(1). Any condition which blocks, hinders, or obstructs in any way the natural flow
of branches, streams, creeks, surface waters, ditches, or drains, to the extent that the
property is not free from standing water, except for those particular structural
stormwater management facilities called for in the Owner's approved Plan.
(2). Any condition which hinders the operation of a stormwater management
improvement.
(b) Notice to Abate; Emergency Abatement by County.
If any person violates any provisions of this section, the County will give notice to the
Owner of the subject property, directing that all unlawful conditions existing thereupon
be abated within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of such notice; provided that if,
in the opinion of the County, the unlawful condition is such that it is of imminent
danger or peril to the public, then the County may, without notice, proceed to abate the
same, and the cost thereof shall be charged against the Owner.
Dra t Page 14 of 17
Ordinance: 07/10/2002
Draft
(c) Abatement by County when Owner Fails to Abate.
Upon the failure of the Owner of any premises to abate any unlawful condition existing
thereupon with the time prescribed, it shall be the duty of the County to cause the
removal and abatement of such unlawful therefrom, and the cost thereof shall be
charged against the Owner.
Section 28. Remedies.
Any or all of the following procedures may be used to enforce the provisions of his Ordinance.
(a) Injunction
Any violation of this Ordinance or of any condition, order, requirement, or remedy
adopted pursuant hereto may be restrained, corrected, abated, mandated, or enjoined by
other appropriate proceedings pursuant to State law.
(b) Civil Penalties. Reserved
(c) Denial of Permit
The County shall withhold or deny any permit, certificate, or other authorization on any
land, building, structure, or use in which there is an uncorrected violation of any
provision of this Ordinance, or of a condition or qualification of permit, certificate, or
other authorization previously granted.
(d) Conditional Permit or Temporary Certificate
The County may condition the authorization of any permit or certificate upon the
correction of the deficiency, payment of civil penalties within a specified time, or the
posting of a compliance security approved by appropriate governmental authority.
(e) Revocation of Permit
The County may revoke and require the return of a permit or certificate by notifying the
permit holder in writing, stating the reason for the revocation. Permits or certificates
shall be revoked for any substantial departure from the approved application plans, or
specifications; refusal or failure to comply with the requirements of State or local laws;
or for false statements or misrepresentations made in securing the permit or certificate.
Any permit or certificate mistakenly issued in violation of an applicable State or local
law may also be revoked.
(f) Criminal Penalties
Any violation of this Ordinance shall be a misdemeanor or infraction as provided by
NCGS 14-4. Each violation shall be subject to a fine not to exceed $
(g). Notification of State Enforcement Officials
M.
(2)•
Draft
Ordinance: 07/10/2002
Industrial and related facilities. Reserved
Construction sites. Reserved
Page 15 of 17
Draft
(3). Abatement. Reserved
(h). Judicial Enforcement
When any person is in violation of the provisions of this ordinance, the County,
through the County Attorney, may petition the Superior Court of Justice for the
issuance of a restraining order or a preliminary and permanent injunction which
restrains or compels the activities in question.
Sections 29 through 34. Reserved
ARTICLE VI
APPEALS
Section 35. Appeal Hearing
(a) Any person assessed a civil penalty under this Ordinance shall have the right to a
hearing before the Board of County Commissioners upon making a written demand to the
County specifying the issues to be contested, within thirty (30) days following receipt of the
assessment.
(b) Unless such written demand is made within the time specified herein, the action shall
be final and binding.
(c) The Board of County Commissioners shall make a final decision on the contested
penalty within sixty (60) days of the receipt of the written demand for a hearing.
(d) The County Attorney shall transmit a copy of the decision by registered or certified
mail.
(e) The decision of the Board of County Commissioners shall be considered the final
administrative action for the purposes of judicial review.
Section 36. Judicial Review
Any person may seek judicial review of a final administrative decision by the Board of County
Commissioners by filing a petition for writ of certiorari within thirty (30) days after receipt of
notice by registered or certified mail, but not thereafter, with the Superior Court of Union
County, and with a copy to Union County.
Sections 37 through 39. Reserved
Dra t Page 16 of 17
Ordinance: 07/10/2002
w
r
Draft
ARTICLE VII
FEES, SERVICE CHARGES AND RATES
Section 40. Plan Review Fees
There will be a separate administrative fee assessed to an applicant for the review and approval of each
Stormwater Management Plan and Maintenance Program. These fees shall be in accordance with a
schedule of fees established by the County, which may be adjusted from time to time.
At the sole judgement of the County, this fee shall be assessed each time a Plan or Program is returned
for re-review after major revisions have been made.
Sections 4Ithrough 49. Reserved
ARTICLE VIII
SEVERABILITY AND CONTRADICTIONS
Section 50. Severability. If any section, clause, provision or portion of this Ordinance shall be held
to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not affect
any other section, clause, provision, or portion of this Ordinance.
Section 51. Contradictions. All other ordinances and regulations and parts of other ordinances and
regulations inconsistent or conflicting with any part of this Ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent
of such inconsistency or conflict.
Dra t Page 17 of 17
Ordinance: 07/10/2002

3I
0
0
TRAIL
n?
\C
r
omm
)co
ZONING ORDINANCE
N
??9
ARTICLE XVIII
FLOODPLAINS, DRAINAGE, STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
Part L Floodways and Floodplains
Section 208 Definitions.
Unless otherwise specifically provided, or unless clearly required by the context, the words and
phrases defined in this section shall have the meaning indicated when used in this article.
(1) Base Flood. The flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any
given year. Also known as the 100-year flood.
(2) Basement. The lowest level or story which has its floor subgrade on all sides.
(3) Flood or Flooding. A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation
of normally dry land areas from:
(1) the overflow of inland or tidal waters; and
(2) the unusual and rapid accumulation of runoff of surface waters from any source.
(4) Floodplain. Any land area susceptible to being inundated by water from the base flood.
As used in this ordinance, the term refers to that area designated as subject to flooding
from the base flood (one hundred year flood) on the "Flood Boundary and Floodway
Map" prepared by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and dated
July 18, 1983, a copy of which is on file in the administrator's office. This area shall
comprise the floodplain overlay zoning district established in Section 139.
(5) Floodwav. The channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that
must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the
water surface elevation more than one foot. As used in this ordinance, the term refers to
that area designated as a floodway on the "Flood Boundary and Floodway Map"
prepared by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and dated July 18,
1983, a copy of which is on file in the administrator's office. This area shall comprise the
floodway overlay zoning district established in Section 139.
(6) Floor. The top surface of an enclosed area in a building (including basement), i.e., top of
slab in concrete slab construction or top of wood flooring in frame construction. The
term does not include the floor of a garage used solely for parking vehicles.
(7) Highest Adjacent Grade. The highest natural elevation of the ground surface, prior to
construction, next to the proposed walls of the structure.
t
154
(8) Lowest Floor. The lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). An
unfurnished or flood resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking vehicles, building
access or storage, in an area other than a basement area, is not considered a building's
lowest floor provided that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in
violation of the applicable non-elevation design requirements of this ordinance.
(9) Public Water Suvuly Svstem. Any water supply system furnishing potable water to ten
or more dwelling units or businesses or any combination thereof.
(10) Existing Mobile Home Park or Subdivision. A mobile home park or subdivision for
which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the mobile homes are
to be affixed (including, at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the construction of
streets, and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads) is completed before
the effective date of the floodplain management regulations adopted by a community.
(11) E ansion to an Existin Mobile Home Park or Subdivision. The preparation of
additional sites by the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the mobile
homes are to be affixed (including the installation of utilities, the construction of streets,
and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads).
(12) Historic Structure. Any structure that is:
(a) Listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places (a listing maintained
by the Department of Interior) or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as
meeting the requirements for individual listing on the National Register;
(b) Certified or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as contributing
to the historical significance of a registered historic district preliminarily determined by the
Secretary to qualify as a registered historic district;
(c) Individually listed on a state inventory of historic places in states with historic
preservation programs which have been approved by the Secretary of Interior; or
(d) Individually listed on a local inventory of historic places in communities with
historic preservation programs that have been certified either:
(1) By an approved state program as determined by the Secretary of
the Interior; or
(2) Directly by the Secretary of the Interior in states without approved
programs.
(13) Mobile Home (manufactured home). A structure, transportable in one or more sections,
which is built on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a
permanent foundation when attached to the required utilities. The term "mobile home"
does not include "recreational vehicle".
1 ns
(14) New Construction. For the purpose of determining insurance rates, structures for which
the start of construction commenced on or after the effective date of an initial Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) or after December 31, 1974, whichever is later, and
includes any subsequent improvements to such structures. For floodplain management
purposes, new construction" means structures for which the "start of construction"
commenced on or after the effective date of a floodplain management regulation adopted
by a community and includes any subsequent improvements to such structures.
(15) New Mobile Home Park or Subdivision. A mobile home park or subdivision for which
the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the mobile homes are to be
affixed (including at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the construction of streets,
and either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads) is completed on or after the
effective date of floodplain management regulations adopted by a community.
(16) Recreational Vehicle. A vehicle which is (1) built on a single chassis; (2) 400 square feet
or less when measured at the largest horizontal projections; (3) designed to be self-
propelled or permanently towable by a light duty truck; and (4) designed primarily not
for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters for recreational,
camping, travel, or seasonal use.
(17) Start of Construction. Includes substantial improvement, and means the date the
building permit was issued, provided the actual start of construction, repair,
reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, placement, or other improvement was within 180
days of the permit date. The actual start means either the first placement of permanent
construction of a structure on a site, such as the pouring of slab or footings, the
installation of piles, the construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of
excavation; or the placement of a mobile home on a foundation. Permanent construction
does not include land preparation, such as clearing, grading and filling; nor does it
include the installation of streets and/or walkways; nor does it include excavation for a
basement, footings, piers, or foundations or the erection of temporary forms; nor does it
include the installation on the property of accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds
not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main structure. For a substantial
improvement, the actual start of construction means the first alteration of any wall,
ceiling, floor, or other structural part of a building, whether or not that alteration affects
the external dimensions of the building.
(18) Substantial Damage. Damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of
restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent
of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred.
(19) Substantial Improvement. Any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other
improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the
market value of the structure before the "start of construction" of the improvement. This
} term includes structures which have incurred "substantial damage" regardless of the
actual repair work performed. The term does not, however, include either:
156
(1) Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations
of state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have
been identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the
minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions; or
(2) Any alteration of a "historic structure" provided that the alteration will
not preclude the structure's continued designation as a historic structure"•
Section 209 Artificial Obstructions Within Floodwavs Prohibited.
(a) No artificial obstruction may be located within any floodway, except as provided in Section
210.
(b) For purposes of this section, an artificial obstruction is any obstruction, other than a natural
obstruction, that is capable of reducing the flood carrying capacity of a stream or may accumulate debris
and thereby reduce the flood carrying capacity of a stream. A natural obstruction includes any rock,
tree, gravel, or analogous natural matter that is an obstruction and has been located within the floodway
by a nonhuman cause.
Section 210 Permissible Uses Within FloodwaYs.
(a) Notwithstanding Article X of this chapter (Table of Permissible Uses), no permit to make
use of land within a floodway may be issued unless the proposed use is listed as permissible both in the
Table of Permissible Uses and in the following list:
(1) General farming, pasture, outdoor plant nurseries, horticulture, forestry, wildlife
sanctuary, game farm, and other similar agricultural, wildlife and related uses.
(2) Ground level streets, roads, loading areas, parking areas, rotary aircraft ports, and other
similar ground level area uses.
(3) Lawns, gardens, play areas, and other similar uses.
(4) Golf courses, tennis courts, driving ranges, archery ranges, picnic grounds, parks, hiking
or horseback riding trails, open space and other similar private and public recreational
uses.
(b) The uses listed in subsection (a) are permissible only if and to the extent that they do not
cause any increase in base flood levels.
Section 211 Construction Within Floodwavs and Floodplains Restricted
(a) No zoning, special use or conditional use permit may be issued for any development within a
floodplain until the permit-issuing authority has reviewed the plans for any such development to assure
that:
157
(1) The proposed development is consistent with the need to minimize flood damage; and
(2) All public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems are
located and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage; and
(3) Adequate drainage is provided to minimize or reduce exposure to flood hazards; and
(4) All necessary permits have been received from those agencies from which approval is
required by federal or state law.
(b) No building may be constructed and no substantial improvement of an existing building may
take place within any floodway. With respect to mobile home parks that are nonconforming because
they are located within a floodway, mobile homes may be relocated in such parks only if they comply
with the provisions of subsection (i).
(c) No fill in the flood fringe is allowed. No new residential building may be constructed
and no substantial improvement of a residential building may take place within any adjacent to
Apj,floodplain unless the lowest floor (including basement) of the building or improvement is
elevated no lower than two (2) feet above the base flood level. Should solid foundation perimeter
walls be used to elevate a structure, openings sufficient to facilitate the unimpeded movements of
floodwaters shall be provided. Floodplains along streams are excellent greenwavs and should be
maintained in there natural state. No residential home or non-residential structure will be
allowed in a FEMS designated floodplain or fringe area.
(1) Residential accessory structures shall be allowed within floodplains provided they are
firmly anchored to prevent flotation, designed to have low flood potential and placed on
the building site so as to offer minimum resistance to the flow of floodwaters.
(2) Anchoring of any accessory buildings may be done by bolting the building to a concrete
slab or by over the top ties. When bolting to a concrete slab, one-half inch bolts six feet
on center with a minimum of two per side shall be required. If over the top ties are used
a minimum of two ties with a force adequate to secure the building is required.
(3) Service facilities such as electrical and heating equipment shall be elevated or
floodproofed.
(d) No new nonresidential building may be constructed and no substantial improvements of a
nonresidential building may take place within any floodplain unless the lowest floor (including
basement) of the building or improvement is elevated or floodproofed no lower than two (2) feet above
the base flood level. Structures located in A-zones may be floodproofed in lieu of elevation provided
that all areas of the structure below the required elevation are water tight with walls substantially
impermeable to the passage of water, using structural components having the capacity of resisting
hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and the effects of buoyancy. A registered professional engineer or
architect shall certify that standards of this section are satisfied.
158
(e) When base flood elevation data is not available from a federal, state or other source, the
lowest floor including basement, in subsection (c) or (d) above, shall be elevated at least two (2) feet
above the highest adjacent grade.
(f) No new construction and no substantial improvements of a structure may take place within
any floodplain unless fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are subject to flooding are
designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry
and exit of floodwaters. Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a registered
professional engineer or architect or meet or exceed the following minimum requirements:
(1) A minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for
every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be provided;
(2) The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade; and
(3) Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves, or other coverings or devices
provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters.
(g) For purposes of this section, "substantial improvement" means any repair, reconstruction, or
improvement of a building the cost of which equals or exceeds fifty percent of the market value of the
structure either (i) before the improvement or repair is restored, before the damage occurred.
"Substantial improvement" other structural part of the building commences, whether or not that
alteration affects the external dimensions of the building. The term does not, however, include either (i)
any project for improvement of a structure to comply with existing state or local health, sanitary or
safety code specifications that are solely necessary to insure safe living conditions, or (ii) any alteration
of a building listed on the National Register of Historic Places or a State Inventory of Historic Places.
(h) No zoning, special use or major development permit may be issued for any development
within a floodplain until the permit-issuing authority has reviewed the plans to assure that any new
construction or substantial improvements shall be:
(1) Designed (or modified) and adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or
lateral movement of the structure, resulting from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic
loads including the effects of buoyancy.
(2) Constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage.
(3) Constructed by methods and practices that minimize flood damage.
(4) Constructed with electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing and air conditioning
equipment and other service facilities that are designed and/or located so as to
prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during
conditions of flooding.

159
1 (i) Notwithstanding any other provision of this ordinance, no mobile home may be located or
} relocated within that portion of the floodplain outside of the floodway unless the following criteria are
met:
(1) Mobile homes are anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement.
For the purpose of this requirement, mobile homes must be anchored to resist
floatation, collapse, or lateral movement in accordance with the Regulations for
Mobile Homes and Modular Housine adopted by the Commissioner of Insurance
pursuant to NCGS 143.143.15. Additionally, when the elevation would be met
by an elevation of the chassis at least 36 inches or less above the grade at the site,
the chassis shall be supported by reinforced piers or other foundation elements of
at least equivalent strength. When the elevation of the chassis is above 36 inches
in height an engineering certification is required. Methods of anchoring may
include, but are not limited to, use of over-the-top or frame ties to ground
anchors. This standard shall be in addition to and consistent with applicable state
requirements for resisting wind forces.
(2) Lots or pads are elevated on compacted fill or by any other method approved by
the administrator so that the lowest floor of the mobile home is at or above the
base flood level.
(3) Adequate surface drainage and easy access for mobile home haulers is provided.
(4) Load-bearing foundation supports such as piers or pilings must be placed on
stable soil or concrete footings no more than ten feet apart, and if the support
height is greater than seventy-two inches, the support must contain steel
reinforcement.
(5) An evacuation plan must be developed for evacuation of all residents of all new,
substantially improved or substantially damaged mobile home parks or
subdivisions located within flood prone areas. This plan shall be filed with and
approved by the local administrator and the local Emergency Management
Coordinator.
6) Whenever any portion of a floodplain is filled in with fill dirt, slopes shall be adequately
stabilized to withstand the erosive force of the base flood.
(k) A recreational vehicle is ready for highway use if it is on wheels or jacking system, is
attached to the site only by quick-disconnect type utilities and security devices, and has no permanently .
attached additions. Recreational vehicles placed on sites with special flood hazard, zones Al-30, AIL
and AE on the community's FIRM, shall either:
(a) be on site for fewer than 180 consecutive days;
(b) be fully licensed and ready for highway use;
160
1 (c) meet the permit requirement and the elevation and anchoring requirements for
mobile homes in this Article, to satisfy compliance with paragraphs (b)(1) and
(c)(6) of the National Flood Insurance Program Regulations, 44 CFR 60.3.
Section 212 Water Supply and Sanitary Sewer Systems in Floodways and Floodnlains.
Whenever any portion of a proposed development is located within a floodway or floodplain, the
agency or agencies responsible for certifying to the TOWN the adequacy of the water supply and
sewage disposal systems for the development (as set forth in the Indian Trail Subdivision Regulations)
shall be informed by the developer that a specified area within the development lies within a floodway or
floodplain. Thereafter, approval of the proposed system by that agency shall constitute a certification
that:
(1) Such water supply system is designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of
flood waters into it.
(2) Such sanitary sewer system is designed to eliminate infiltration of flood waters
into it and discharges from it into flood waters.
(3) Any on-site sewage disposal system is located to avoid impairment to it or
contamination from it during flooding.
Section 213 Additional Duties of Administrator Related to Flood Insurance and Flood Control.
The administrator shall:
(1) Where base flood elevation data is available:
a. Verify the actual elevation (in relation to mean sea level) of the lowest
floor (including basement) of all new or substantially improved structures;
b. Verify, for all structures that have been floodproofed (whether or not
such structures contain a basement), the actual elevation (in relation to
mean sea level) to which the structure was floodproofed; and
c. Maintain a record of all such information.
(2) Where base flood elevation data has not been provided:
a. Obtain, review, and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation data
available from a federal, state or other source for enforcing the
requirements set forth in Part I of this article; and
b. Verify and record the actual elevation constituting the highest adjacent
grade, to which all new or substantially improved structures are elevated
or floodproofed.
161
(3) Notify, in riverine situations, adjacent communities and the N.C. Department of
Crime Control and Public Safety prior to any alteration or relocation of a
watercourse, and submit copies of such notification to the Federal Insurance
Administrator.
(4) Ensure that the flood carrying capacity within the altered or relocated portion of
any watercourse is maintained.
Section 214 Location of Boundaries of Floodulain and Floodwav Districts.
As used in this article, the terms floodplain and floodway refer in the first instance to certain
areas whose boundaries are determined and can be located on the ground by reference to the specific
fluvial characteristics set forth in the definitions of these terms. These terms also refer to overlay zoning
districts floodplains shown on the maps referenced in Subsections 208(2) and (3), which boundaries are
intended to correspond to the actual, physical location of floodways and floodplains. (These overlay
districts thus differ from other zoning districts whose boundaries are established solely according to
planning or policy, rather than physical, criteria.) Therefore, the administrator is authorized to make
necessary interpretations as to the exact location of the boundaries of floodways or floodplains if there
appears to be a conflict between a mapped boundary and actual field conditions. Such interpretations,
like other decisions of the administrator, may be appealed to the board of adjustment in accordance with
the applicable provisions of this ordinance.
Section 215 Setbacks from Streams Outside Designated Floodalains.
In any area that is located outside a designated floodplain but where a stream is located, no
building or fill may be located within a distance of the stream bank equal to twenty feet on each side.
Section 216 Reserved.

162
1 Section 217 Natural Drainage System Utilized to Extent Feasible.
(a) To the extent practicable, all development shall conform to the natural contours of the land
and natural and pre-existing man-made drainage ways shall remain undisturbed.
(b) To the extent practicable, lot boundaries shall be made to coincide with natural and pre-
existing man-made drainage ways within subdivisions to avoid the creation of lots that can be built upon
only by altering such drainage ways.
Section 218 Developments Must Drain Properly.
(a) All developments shall be provided with a drainage system that is adequate to prevent the
undue retention of surface water on the development site. Surface water shall not be regarded as
unduly retained if
(1) The retention results from a technique, practice or device deliberately installed as
part of an approved sedimentation or storm water runoff control plan; or
(2) The retention is not substantially different in location or degree than that
experienced by the development site in its pre-development stage, unless such
retention presents a danger to health or safety.
3 (b) No surface water may be channeled or directed into a sanitary sewer.
(c) Whenever practicable, the drainage system of a development shall coordinate with and
connect to the drainage systems or drainage ways on surrounding properties or streets.
(d) Private roads and access ways within unsubdivided developments shall utilize curb and
gutter and storm drains to provide adequate drainage if the grade of such roads or access ways is too
steep to provide drainage in another manner or if other sufficient reasons exist to require such
construction.
(e) Construction specifications for drainage swales, curbs and gutters, and storm drains are
contained in the Indian Trail Storm Water Manual. All systems shall be designed for a fully developed
basin upstream based on the adopted Indian Trail Land Use Plan.

163
Section 219 Storm Water Management.
All developments shall be constructed and maintained so that adjacent properties are not
unreasonably burdened with surface waters as a result of such developments. More specifically:
(1) No development may be constructed or maintained so that such development
unreasonably impedes the natural flow of water from higher adjacent properties across
such development, thereby unreasonably causing substantial damage to such higher
adjacent properties; and
(2) No development may be constructed or maintained so that surface waters from such
development are unreasonably collected and channeled onto lower adjacent properties at
such locations or at such volumes as to cause substantial damage to such lower adjacent
properties.
(3) Stormwater detention are required on any site with a post-developed impervious area
of greater than 20,000 square feet including PUD. PRD. Cluster development and
all single family district except for R-20. RA-20. R40 and RA40 Areas
adjacent to major floodways may be exempt from the detention requirement if
documentation sealed by a professional engineer is approved by the Town of Indian
Trail Professional Engineer. These requkemems are intended * flia? when
development eeeer-s ne addifie" steFfftwvAer- leaves the site wlieh is greater-
Detention facilities shall
be required to control the peak run off release rate for both the two year and ten year
storms with an emergency overflow capable of out letting the fifty year discharge.
Engineering calculations shall be provided to demonstrate that the post-developed
discharge rate is no greater than the pre-developed discharge rate. Routing
calculations must be used to demonstrate that this volume is adequate. Engineering
shall be provided to document that the post development discharge rate is no greater
than the pre-developed discharge rate. Storage volume shall be sufficient to
attenuate the post-development peak discharge rate to the pre-development
discharge. Routing calculations must be used to demonstrate if this volume is
adequate. The land use types utilized in engineering calculations shall be from the
adopted Town of Indian Land Use Map provided in this document. See the
Indian Trail Storm Water Manual for stormwater design standards including detail
drawings.
(44) As builts of all detention structures have to be surveyed with support calculation by
professional engineer (seal) prior to the release of the proiect by the Town of Indian Trail.
No performance bonds are accepted for detention for structures
(5) No part of any detention will be accepted in any right-of-way or easement.
(6) Indian Trail strongly incourans community pond to be amenities for commercial -
business park developments or residential homeowner associations. Where appropriate
and when accepted by the Town Engineer shared detention facilities maybe utilized
164
' . . Ft
Section 220 Sedimentation and Erosion Control.
(a) No zoning, special use, or major development permit may be issued with respect to any
development that would cause land disturbing activity requiring prior submission of an erosion and
sedimentation control plan to the N.C. Sedimentation Control Commission under G.S. 113A-57(4)
unless the commission has certified to the TOWN, either that:
(1) An erosion control plan has been submitted to and approved by the commission;
or
(2) The commission has examined the preliminary plans for the development and it
reasonably appears that an erosion control plan can be approved upon submission
by the developer of more detailed construction or design drawings. However, in
this case, construction of the development may not begin, no building permits
may be issued and final plat approval for subdivisions may not be given until the
commission approves the erosion control plan.
(b) For purposes of this section, "land disturbing activity" means any use of the land by any
person in residential, industrial, educational, institutional or commercial development, highway and road
construction and maintenance that results in a change in the natural cover or topography and that may
cause or contribute to sedimentation except activities that are exempt under G. S. 113A-52(6).
Sedimentation occurs whenever solid particulate matter, mineral or organic, is transported by water, air,
gravity, or ice from the site of its ori gin.

165
i
Y .
.r
Ca4v2MWA YTO ZVION COW

r

0 w E
STORMWATER MANUAL
OXWWO SAW"
A-41'-
[phone]
[phone] fax
Mar7mg addreea
Poet Office Box 4000
Sallmon NC 28106
Strad address
323 Stallings Road
etallinaa NC28105
May-
Lucy U Drake
Council:
D. Randall PriveHe
May- Pro Tern
J .C. Flowe
Caml}n M. Fzmderburk
Richard C. Tanner
Tammy B. Capps
Town
Administratoefflanaw
Anthony P. Roberts
Tows Clark &
Finance officer:
Marie K. Gams
Deputy Town Clark &
Tax Collector:
Deborah K. Wag®hausar
ABsistant Town Clerk:
Shirley R. Stallings
Town of Stallings
(Union County)
November 9, 1999
Dear Design Professional:
The Town of Stallings has adopted this design manual for the purpose of
establishing the guidelines by which designers should evaluate and design storm
water facilities within the jurisdiction of the Town of Stallings.
The atmosphere of growth and development which is spreading throughout this
county and the proximity to the Charlotte)Mecklenburg County, a decision has
been made by the Town of Stallings to adopt the Charlotte%bMenburg Storm
Water design manual, with minor revisions, for the design criteria to use within
their jurisdiction.
It will remain the responsibility of the designer to be aware of these requirements
and to use these in conjunction with good sound engineering judgment These
requirements are meant to provide the criteria by which design and development
should progress, but are not meant to stifle the designer from new engineering
concepts and materials. The designer should consult the Town Engineer for other
acceptable methods and materials prior to the plan submittal. The designer should
also familiarize themselves with the entire Land Use Ordinance of the Town of
Stallings for the various other requirements that will be necessary to plan and
design developments within the Town.
Sincerely,
Lucy U Drake
Mayor
#Monroe Bypass
O DO&-7?;)
Subject: Monroe Bypass C,C n,on
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 15:41:34 -0500
From: John Hennessy <[e-mail]>
To: Cynthia Van Der Wiele <[e-mail]>,
John Dorney <[e-mail]>, John Hennessy <[e-mail]>,
Beth Barnes <[e-mail]>
FYI. I had an interesting conversation yesterday with the USFWS and WRC
on this project. DOT and Union county have begun playing hardball. As
such, the USFWS is basically being pushed into a position where they
cannot compromise (they have reinitiated Section 7 consultation). In
addition, several environmental organizations have requested all the
project data relevant to the Heelsplitter from both agencies. They may
come here next.
In short, my bottom line opinion on this project was that it was about
to get very ugly, and that the ensuing lawsuits will likely tie this
project up in court for years.
1 of 1 1/24/2003 3:20 PM
• Re: Monroe Bypass
Subject: Re: Monroe Bypass
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 14:50:17 -0500
From: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
To: John Hennessy <[e-mail]>
CC: Cynthia Van Der Wiele <[e-mail]>,
Beth Barnes <[e-mail]>
the complete truth is (as usual) more complex. the other side of the truth
is that FWSand WRC cis unwilling to commit to a package of BMPs for this
project. the analogy of herding cats comes to mind.
John Hennessy wrote:
> FYI. I had an interesting conversation yesterday with the USFWS and WRC
> on this project. DOT and Union county have begun playing hardball. As
> such, the USFWS is basically being pushed into a position where they
> cannot compromise (they have reinitiated Section 7 consultation). In
> addition, several environmental organizations have requested all the
> project data relevant to the Heelsplitter from both agencies. They may
> come here next.
> in short, my bottom line opinion on this project was that it was about
> to get very ugly, and that the ensuing lawsuits will likely tie this
> project up in court for years.
1 of 1 1/24/2003 3:28 PM
,Re: Monroe Bypass
Subject: Re: Monroe Bypass
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 16:46:11 -0500
From: John Hennessy <[e-mail]>
To: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
CC: Cynthia Van Der Wiele <[e-mail]>,
Beth Barnes <[e-mail]>
It's not near as much fun when the full story is told. I like my version
better. DOT and Union County get to be the villain in my story. Yours
introduces too much moral ambiguity for my liking. What can I say, I watched a
lot of westerns growing up. You know, good guy always beats bad guy. No where
was there a morally ambiguous guy.
John Dorney wrote:
> the complete truth is (as usual) more complex. the other side of the truth
> is that FWSand WRC cis unwilling to commit to a package of BMPs for this
> project. the analogy of herding cats comes to mind.
> John Hennessy wrote:
> > FYI. I had an interesting conversation yesterday with the USFWS and WRC
> > on this project. DOT and Union county have begun playing hardball. As
> > such, the USFWS is basically being pushed into a position where they
> > cannot compromise (they have reinitiated Section 7 consultation). in
> > addition, several environmental organizations have requested all the
> > project data relevant to the Heelsplitter from both agencies. They may
> > come here next.
> > In short, my bottom line opinion on this project was that it was about
> > to get very ugly, and that the ensuing lawsuits will likely tie this
> > project up in court for years.
1 of 1 1/24/2003 3:30 PM
#Re: Monroe Bypass

Subject: Re: Monroe Bypass
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 07:47:18 -0500
From: John Dorney <[e-mail]>
To: John Hennessy <[e-mail]>
CC: Cynthia Van Der Wiele <[e-mail]>,
Beth Barnes <[e-mail]>
indeed - reality bites.
John Hennessy wrote:
> It's not near as much fun when the full story is told. I like my version
> better. DOT and Union County get to be the villain in my story. Yours
> introduces too much moral ambiguity for my liking. What can I say, I watched a
> lot of westerns growing up. You know, good guy always beats bad guy. No where
> was there a morally ambiguous guy.
> John Dorney wrote:
> > the complete truth is (as usual) more complex. the other side of the truth
> > is that FWSand WRC cis unwilling to commit to a package of BMPs for this
> > project. the analogy of herding cats comes to mind.
> > John Hennessy wrote:
> > > FYI. I had an interesting conversation yesterday with the USFWS and WRC
> > > on this project. DOT and Union county have begun playing hardball. As
> > > such, the USFWS is basically being pushed into a position where they
> > > cannot compromise (they have reinitiated Section 7 consultation). in
> > > addition, several environmental organizations have requested all the
> > > project data relevant to the Heelsplitter from both agencies. They may
> > > come here next.
> > > In short, my bottom line opinion on this project was that it was about
> > > to get very ugly, and that the ensuing lawsuits will likely tie this
> > > project up in court for years.
1 of 1 1/24/2003 3:30 PM
Re: draft monroe bypass letter
Subject: Re: draft monroe bypass letter
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 14:30:15 -0400
From: Milt Rhodes <[e-mail]>
To: John Domey <[e-mail]>
CC: Cynthia Van Der Wiele <[e-mail]>,
Robert Deaton <rdeaton @dot. state.nc.us>,
Samar Bou-Ghazale <[e-mail]>
John:
Thanks for sending this memo over.
My only concern is that this memo appears to "tie the hands" of other resouce agency concerns working in
the area.
I agree with the position that there is only so far that Water Quality can go, however, we should not issue
an agreement that will bias or otherwise affect the outcome of other agency efforts.
With this in mind, please considering adding this language in the memo....
Thanks.
Milt
1. Stream buffers: The purpose of these buffers is to protect the stream channels from erosion and provide
a location for sediment removal for sediment originating from adjacent landscapes after development
while maintaining essential habitat function of the aquatic and riparian area. The US Fish and
Wildlife Service and NC Wildlife Resource Commission has recommended that 100 foot buffers be
instituted in much of this area and an agreement is forthcoming. DWQ supports continuation of
this effort and desires a mutually beneficial outcome. At a minimum, a fifty-foot wide, wooded
buffers will be needed along all intermittent and perennial streams as well as lakes and ponds within the
geographic area. Stream crossings and encroachments into the wooded buffer area should be kept to
a minimum. Application of the above mentioned streams should either be based on a local stream
survey using DWQ-approved methodology or cite streams shown on the 1:24,000 USGS topo maps or
Union County soil survey. In the later case, local staff by DWQ would be able to determine that the maps
are in error and that the buffer rules would not apply. We expect that the uses allowed in the rules would
be patterned after the Neuse, Tar-Pamlico and Catawba buffer rules in that crossings of roads and utilities
would be allowed but all other development would have to occur outside the buffer. Vesting (i.e.
grandfathering) and variances would have to be addressed as well. Finally we expect that a reporting
mechanism for the buffer rules to DWQ will be needed so we can be certain that downstream uses are
protected.
II. On-site stormwater management: The purpose of this management is to ensure adequate collection
and deposition of sediment from stormwater so that it does not enter the stream channels. Diffuse flow
of stormwater will be necessary across all protected stream buffers. Exceptions can be made where site
constraints make diffuse flow infeasible. On-site stormwater mangement measures will be needed which
are designed to remove 85% Total Suspended Solids. The rate of runoff will also need to be controlled to
help ensure that streambank stability is not threatened from the increased runoff.
III. Sediment and erosion control during construction: The purpose of these measures is to ensure that
1 of 2 9/9/02 2:50 PM
Re: draft monroe bypass letter
excessive amounts of sediment do not enter stream channels during and immediately following
construction activities. DWQ believes that several additional measures in addition to those routinely
implemented by the Sedimentation and Erosion Control Act will be needed including 1) establish
application thresholds for sites which impact less than one acre, 2) develop stricter maintenance and
inspection of Best Management Practices (BMPs), 3) identify and require BMPs designed that more
adequately protect downstream water quality and 4) prohibit installation of these BMP facilities in
intermittent or perennial stream channels 5)Limit BMP installation into riparian buffer area, with the
exception of level spreaders to achieve diffuse flow. We will be glad to work with the responsible local
governments and the Division of Land Resources on specific measures to implement the above measures.
John Dorney wrote:
see attached. i need to send this asap so they can have it before our
meeting this week. thankx
Name: Monroe bypass cumulative impact needs.doc
Monroe bypass cumulative impact needs.doc Type: Microsoft Word Document
(application/msword)
Encoding: base64
Download Status: Not downloaded with message
2 of 2 9/9/02 2:50 PM

- - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
'' Y'IbV?Z.: ?!+ss
AoW
b,Vl
u5 vw
_ _tl wf ?Q?1? ! vu ?'? j P?Z
*.
?t07C>
L?>j
n, o • u l/
C ?1A L.)IEL &
F5',i a?
9 wt C ? iS
A i?7pv\aw.

?1 C?Y1,V1
(??r",
?-? ? 1'.?

Z
w
coo
k
now
?o
?a

e b..
I V V
N
N N N
0) 00
N Oo Cn Ca
?^p VM
a
a•
r
o ?p
H
/z I I
01
Oil
m
r
z
m