Monroe Connector/Bypass
Administrative Action
Final Environmental Impact Statement
May 2010
Submitted Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
23 CFR 771.119 and 42 USC 4332(2)(c)
Lead Agencies: US Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
North Carolina Turnpike Authority
Cooperating Agency: US Army Corps of Engineers
Volume 3
Appendices G-I
MAY 2010 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FEIS
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................... i
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................. iv
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................ v
LIST OF EXHIBITS .............................................................................. vi
APPENDICES ..................................................................................... vi
P PREFACE ................................................................................ P-1
P.1 LEAD AGENCIES, COOPERATING AGENCIES, AND PARTICIPATING
AGENICES ....................................................................................... P-1
P.2 HOW THIS FINAL EIS WILL BE USED ................................................... P-2
P.3 ORGANIZATION OF THIS FINAL EIS .................................................... P-2
P.4 HISTORY OF PROJECT ....................................................................... P-3
P.4.1 PREVIOUS STUDIES OF MONROE BYPASS ....................................................... P-4
P.4.2 PREVIOUS STUDIES OF MONROE CONNECTOR ................................................. P-4
P.4.3 MONROE BYPASS AND MONROE CONNECTOR COMBINED ..................................... P-5
P.4.4 ACTIVITIES SINCE THE DRAFT EIS .............................................................. P-5
PC SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITMENTS ....................................... PC-1
1 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY AND UPDATES ..................................... 1-1
1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ....................................................... 1-1
1.1.1 PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................................ 1-1
1.1.2 SUMMARY OF NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION ................................................... 1-2
1.1.3 PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................. 1-3
1.1.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY ........................................................... 1-3
1.1.5 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ...................................................................... 1-4
1.1.6 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ........................................................... 1-4
1.1.7 TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE PLANS ....................................................... 1-4
1.1.8 ROADWAY CONDITIONS AND OPERATIONS ..................................................... 1-5
1.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ............................................................. 1-6
1.2.1 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING ................................................ 1-6
1.2.2 ALTERNATIVES SCREENING RESULTS ............................................................ 1-7
1.2.2.1 Qualitative First Screening of Alternative Concepts 1-7
1.2.2.2 Qualitative Second Screening and Quantitative Third Screening 1-9
1.2.3 DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES ............................................................... 1-10
1.2.4 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE ................................................................... 1-12
1.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........ 1-15
1.3.1 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................... 1-15
1.3.1.1 Socio-Economic Characteristics 1-15
1.3.1.2 Community Resources 1-16
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MAY 2010 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FEIS
ii
1.3.1.3 Land Use and Transportation Planning 1-17
1.3.1.4 Right-of-Way Acquisitions and Relocations 1-18
1.3.1.5 Environmental Justice 1-18
1.3.2 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................ 1-19
1.3.2.1 Noise 1-19
1.3.2.2 Air Quality 1-20
1.3.2.3 Farmland 1-23
1.3.2.4 Utilities and Infrastructure 1-26
1.3.2.5 Visual Resources 1-27
1.3.2.6 Hazardous Materials 1-27
1.3.2.7 Floodplains and Floodways 1-28
1.3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES .......................................................................... 1-29
1.3.3.1 Historic Architectural Resources 1-29
1.3.3.2 Archaeological Resources 1-29
1.3.3.3 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 1-30
1.3.4 NATURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................ 1-31
1.3.4.1 Soils, Geology, and Mineral Resources 1-31
1.3.4.2 Water Resources 1-33
1.3.4.3 Natural Communities and Wildlife 1-35
1.3.4.4 Water Resources in Federal Jurisdiction 1-36
1.3.4.5 Protected Species 1-38
1.3.5 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS .......................................................... 1-39
1.3.6 OTHER IMPACTS .................................................................................. 1-40
1.3.6.1 Irretrievable and Irreversible Commitment of Resources 1-40
1.3.6.2 Relationship between Short-Term and Long-Term Impacts 1-41
1.4 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION PRIOR TO THE
DRAFT EIS ..................................................................................... 1-41
1.4.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................................................................ 1-41
1.4.1.1 Citizens Informational Workshops 1-41
1.4.1.2 Local Officials Meeting 1-42
1.4.1.3 Open Houses 1-42
1.4.1.4 Small Group Meetings 1-42
1.4.1.5 Other Outreach Efforts 1-42
1.4.2 AGENCY COORDINATION ......................................................................... 1-43
1.4.2.1 Scoping Letter 1-43
1.4.2.2 Notice of Intent 1-43
1.4.2.3 Section 6002 Project Coordination Plan 1-43
1.4.2.4 Coordination with MUMPO 1-44
1.4.2.5 Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination Meetings 1-44
1.5 UNRESOLVED ISSUES IN THE DRAFT EIS ........................................... 1-44
2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE .................................................... 2-1
2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE .................................. 2-1
2.1.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION ........................................................................... 2-1
2.1.2 DESIGN CRITERIA ................................................................................. 2-1
2.1.3 TOLLING INFORMATION ........................................................................... 2-2
2.2 REASONS FOR SELECTING DSA D AS THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ....... 2-3
2.3 DESIGN REFINEMENTS TO THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ..................... 2-6
2.3.1 DESIGN REFINEMENTS ............................................................................ 2-6
2.3.1.1 Forest Park Subdivision 2-6
2.3.1.2 Beverly Drive 2-7
2.3.1.3 Bonterra Village 2-7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MAY 2010 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FEIS
iii
2.3.1.4 Unionville – Indian Trail Road Interchange 2-8
2.3.1.5 Maple Hill Road 2-8
2.3.1.6 Austin Chaney Road Interchange / McIntyre Road 2-8
2.3.2 SERVICE ROADS ................................................................................... 2-9
2.3.2.1 Service Road Evaluation Methodology and Design Assumptions 2-9
2.3.2.2 Proposed Service Roads 2-10
2.3.3 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION OF IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE US ..................... 2-11
2.3.4 COST ESTIMATES FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ........................................ 2-13
2.3.5 UPDATED TRAFFIC FORECASTS AND OPERATIONS ANALYSIS ................................ 2-13
2.4 ADDITIONAL STUDIES OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE .................... 2-15
2.5 IMPACTS OF THE PREFFERED ALTERNATIVE ....................................... 2-16
2.5.1 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................... 2-16
2.5.1.1 Socio-Economic Resources 2-16
2.5.1.2 Community Resources 2-16
2.5.1.3 Land Use and Transportation Planning 2-19
2.5.1.4 Right-of-Way Acquisition and Relocations 2-20
2.5.1.5 Environmental Justice 2-20
2.5.2 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ......................................................................... 2-20
2.5.2.1 Noise 2-20
2.5.2.2 Air Quality 2-23
2.5.2.3 Farmland 2-24
2.5.2.4 Utilities and Infrastructure 2-25
2.5.2.5 Visual Resources 2-26
2.5.2.6 Hazardous Materials 2-27
2.5.2.7 Floodplains and Floodways 2-28
2.5.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES AND SECTION 4(f) AND SECTION 6(f) RESOURCES .............. 2-29
2.5.3.1 Historic Architectural Resources 2-29
2.5.3.2 Archaeological Resources 2-30
2.5.3.3 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Resources 2-31
2.5.4 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ......................................................................... 2-31
2.5.4.1 Soils and Mineral Resources 2-31
2.5.4.2 Water Resources 2-31
2.5.4.3 Natural Communities and Wildlife 2-32
2.5.4.4 Water Resources in Federal Jurisdiction 2-33
2.5.4.5 Protected Species 2-35
2.5.5 INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS .......................................................... 2-38
2.5.5.1 Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment 2-38
2.5.5.2 Water Quality Modeling 2-49
3 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION .......................................... 3-1
3.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...................................................................... 3-1
3.1.1 AVAILABILITY OF DRAFT EIS FOR REVIEW ..................................................... 3-1
3.1.2 PRE-HEARING OPEN HOUSES AND PUBLIC HEARINGS ........................................ 3-1
3.1.2.1 Advertisement of Pre-Hearing Open Houses and Public Hearings 3-1
3.1.2.2 Pre-Hearing Open Houses and Local Officials Meeting 3-1
3.1.2.3 Public Hearings 3-2
3.1.2.4 Public Comment Period 3-2
3.1.3 AESTHETICS COMMITTEE ......................................................................... 3-3
3.2 AGENCY COORDINATION ................................................................... 3-3
3.2.1 TEAC MEETINGS................................................................................... 3-3
3.2.2 SELECTION OF DSA D AS THE LEAST ENVIRONMENTALLY DAMAGING PRACTICABLE
ALTERNATIVE ....................................................................................... 3-4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MAY 2010 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FEIS
iv
3.2.3 COORDINATION WITH MUMPO .................................................................. 3-5
3.3 SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS AND RESPONSES ............. 3-6
3.3.1 RESPONSES TO GENERALIZED COMMENTS ON PURPOSE AND NEED ......................... 3-7
3.3.2 RESPONSES TO GENERALIZED COMMENTS ON RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES ................... 3-8
3.3.3 RESPONSES TO GENERALIZED COMMENTS ON AIR QUALITY ................................. 3-18
3.3.4 RESPONSES TO GENERALIZED COMMENTS ON INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ..... 3-20
3.3.5 RESPONSES TO GENERALIZED COMMENTS ON PROTECTED SPECIES ....................... 3-23
4 LIST OF PREPARERS .............................................................. 4-1
4.1 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ................................................. 4-1
4.2 NORTH CAROLINA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY (A DIVISION OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION) ................................... 4-1
4.3 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ......................... 4-1
4.4 PRIVATE CONSULTING FIRMS ............................................................. 4-2
5 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO
WHOM COPIES OF THE STATEMENT ARE SENT ...................... 5-1
5.1 FEDERAL AGENCIES .......................................................................... 5-1
5.2 REGIONAL OFFICES OF FEDERAL AGENCIES ......................................... 5-1
5.3 STATE AGENCIES ............................................................................. 5-1
5.4 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND AGENCIES ................................................ 5-2
5.5 PUBLIC REVIEW LOCATIONS .............................................................. 5-2
6 REFERENCES .......................................................................... 6-1
6.1 REFERENCES .................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 SUPPORTING PROJECT DOCUMENTATION ............................................ 6-5
6.2.1 SUPPORTING PROJECT DOCUMENTATION PRIOR TO PUBLICATION OF THE DRAFT EIS .... 6-5
6.2.2 SUPPORTING PROJECT DOCUMENTATION AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE DRAFT EIS ........ 6-6
6.3 LIST OF ACRONYMS .......................................................................... 6-7
LIST OF TABLES
Special Project Commitments
PC-1 Special Project Commitments .......................................................................PC-1
Section 1
1-1 Qualitative First Screening – Ability of Alternative Concepts to Meet Purpose
and Need ................................................................................................... 1-8
1-2 Detailed Study Alternatives ......................................................................... 1-10
1-3 Prime and Important Farmland Soils in the Detailed Study Alternatives ............. 1-24
1-4 Impacts to Prime and Important Farmland Soils ............................................ 1-25
1-5 Summary of Major Drainage Structures and Floodway and Floodplain Crossings . 1-29
1-6 Soils Within the Detailed Study Alternatives .................................................. 1-31
1-7 Active NPDES Permits with Discharges to Streams in Project Study Area ............ 1-34
1-8 Impacts to Waters of the US ........................................................................ 1-37
1-9 Federally-Protected Species in Union and Mecklenburg Counties ....................... 1-38
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MAY 2010 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FEIS
v
Section 2
2-1 Service Road Recommendations ................................................................... 2-10
2-2 Changes in Jurisdictional Resource Impacts Due to Design Refinements ............. 2-12
2-3 Changes in Jurisdictional Resource Impacts Since the Draft EIS ........................ 2-12
2-4 Cost Estimates for Preferred Alternative ........................................................ 2-13
2-5 Potential Neighborhood Impacts for the Preferred Alternative ........................... 2-17
2-6 Impacts to Churches for the Preferred Alternative ........................................... 2-18
2-7 2035 Noise Contours and Impact Summary for the Preferred Alternative ............ 2-21
2-8 Preliminary Feasible and Reasonable Noise Barriers for the Preferred Alternative . 2-22
2-9 Impacts to Prime and Important Farmland Soils for the Preferred Alternative ...... 2-25
2-10 Potential Impacts from the Preferred Alternative to Terrestrial Communities ....... 2-32
2-11 Potential Impacts from the Preferred Alternative to Waters of the US ................. 2-33
2-12 Scenarios Considered in the Quantitative ICE Analysis ..................................... 2-39
2-13 Growth in the Study Area, 1990 to 2008 ....................................................... 2-39
2-14 List of Interviews Completed in August 2009 .................................................. 2-40
2-15 Percent Impervious Surface ......................................................................... 2-43
2-16 Changes in Land Use Comparison ................................................................. 2-44
2-17 Comparison of Percent of Impervious Cover ................................................... 2-46
Section 3
3-1 TEAC Meeting Summaries ............................................................................. 3-3
3-2 MUMPO Meeting Summaries ......................................................................... 3-5
3-3 MUMPO Technical Coordinating Committee Meeting Summaries ......................... 3-5
3-4 Desirable Average Travel Speeds During Peak Traffic Conditions ....................... 3-10
3-5 TSM Alternative – Concept 2 ........................................................................ 3-13
Section 6
6-1 List of Acronyms ......................................................................................... 6-7
LIST OF FIGURES (Figures located at the end of each chapter)
Section P
P-1 Monroe Bypass Detailed Study Alternatives and Preferred Alternative
P-2 Monroe Connector Preliminary Corridors and Detailed Study Alternatives
Section 1
1-1 Project Study Area
1-2 (a-c) Detailed Study Alternatives
1-3 (a-c) Neighborhoods
Section 2
2-1 Preferred Alternative DSA D
2-2 New Location Alternative Typical Cross Section
2-3 (a-t) Preferred Alternative Functional Designs
2-4 (a-h) Service Road Functional Designs
2-5 (a-f) Toll Collection Plan
2-6 Barrier Evaluation Area – Barrier N4-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MAY 2010 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FEIS
vi
2-7 (a-c) Noise Impact Assessment Information
2-8 Study Area for the Quantitative ICE
2-9 Study Area Watersheds
2-10 Baseline (2007) to 2030 No Build Land Use
2-11 Comparison of Land Use: 2030 Preferred Alternative to 2030 No Build
Section 3
3-1 Aesthetic Design Concept A
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Section 1
1-1 National MSAT Emission Trends 1999 – 2050 For Vehicles Operating On Roadways
Using USEPA MOBILE6.2 Model
APPENDICES
A. Draft EIS Errata
B. Response to Comments on the Draft EIS
C. Summary of Impacts
D. Resolutions and Correspondence
E. Mobile Source Air Toxics – Discussion of Impacts
F. Jurisdictional Resource Attribute and Impact Tables
G. Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
H. Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis – Land Use
I. Quantitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis – Water Quality
NOTE: A CD of the approved Draft EIS is included inside the front cover of Volume #2 of
this Final EIS. It can also be viewed at www.ncturnpike.org/projects/monroe/deis.asp.
APPENDIX G APPENDICES
MAY 2010 MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS FEIS
APPENDIX G
QUALITATIVE INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE
EFFECTS ASSESSMENT
This page was intentionally left blank.
INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT
MONROE CONNECTOR/BYPASS
Mecklenburg & Union Counties
STIP Project Nos. R-3329 and R-2559
January 2009
This page was intentionally left blank.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ 1
2. INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT BACKGROUND................................................ 8
2.1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 8
2.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND .......................................................................................... 9
2.3 PROJECT PURPOSE.................................................................................................. 11
2.4 QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS SCENARIOS ................................................................... 11
3. STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES (STEP 1)..................................................................... 14
3.1 FUTURE LAND USE STUDY AREA ......................................................................... 14
3.2 DEMOGRAPHIC AREA............................................................................................ 15
3.3 TIMEFRAME FOR ANALYSIS................................................................................... 16
4. STUDY AREA DIRECTION AND GOALS (STEP 2)............................................... 17
4.1 REGIONAL LOCATION INFLUENCES AND IMPLICATIONS.................................... 17
4.2 DEMOGRAPHIC AND EMPLOYMENT TRENDS....................................................... 18
4.3 EXISTING LAND USE PATTERNS............................................................................ 23
4.4 LOCAL LAND USE PLANS AND ZONING ORDINANCES ...................................... 23
4.5 TRANSPORTATION PLANS AND PROPOSED PROJECTS......................................... 32
4.6 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS......................................................................... 35
5. INVENTORY OF NOTABLE FEATURES (STEP 3).................................................. 40
5.1 FEDERALLY‐PROTECTED SPECIES ......................................................................... 40
5.2 WATER RESOURCES ............................................................................................... 41
5.3 ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES AND HISTORIC PLACES.......................................... 42
5.4 PARKS AND RECREATIONAL RESOURCES............................................................. 43
5.5 PRIME FARMLAND SOILS....................................................................................... 44
6. IDENTIFICATION OF IMPORTANT IMPACT‐CAUSING ACTIVITIES
(STEP 4)............................................................................................................................. 45
6.1 IMPACT‐CAUSING ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT ...................... 45
6.2 RECENT AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY AND TRANSPORTATION
PROJECTS............................................................................................................................ 45
6.3 WATER AND SEWER AVAILABILITY AND ALLOCATION...................................... 49
7. IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL INDIRECT IMPACTS
(STEP 5)............................................................................................................................. 51
7.1 NO‐BUILD ALTERNATIVE...................................................................................... 51
7.2 NEW LOCATION ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................... 53
7.3 UPGRADE EXISTING US 74 ALTERNATIVE ........................................................... 56
7.4 ANALYSIS OF INDIRECT IMPACTS TO NOTABLE FEATURES................................. 58
8. IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE
EFFECTS (STEP 5) ........................................................................................................... 65
8.1 WATER QUALITY AND AQUATIC HABITAT.......................................................... 65
8.2 CAROLINA HEELSPLITTER HABITAT (GOOSE CREEK WATERSHED)................... 67
8.3 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES AND HABITAT........................................................ 69
9. ICE CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................... 71
REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 74
Monroe Connector/Bypass (R‐3329/R‐2559)
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
January 2009
1
1. SUMMARY
The North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) is currently preparing a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for State Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP) Project R‐3329/R‐2559. This project is commonly referred to as the Monroe
Connector/Bypass. The proposed action includes capacity improvements in the US 74
corridor from near I‐485 in Mecklenburg County to between the towns of Wingate and
Marshville in Union County, a distance of approximately 21 miles (see Figure 1). The
purpose of the proposed action is to improve mobility and capacity within the project
study area by providing a facility in the US 74 corridor that allows for high‐speed
regional travel consistent with the designations of the North Carolina Strategic Highway
Corridor system and the North Carolina Intrastate System, while maintaining access to
properties along existing US 74.
Planning and design is currently being conducted by the NCTA. Construction is
expected to begin in 2010, and it is anticipated that the facility would be open to traffic in
2013.
Study Methodology
The purpose of this Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment is to qualitatively
evaluate potential indirect and cumulative effects associated with implementation of the
Monroe Connector/Bypass project. A study area, referred to as the Future Land Use
Study Area (FLUSA), was established as the area within which the analysis scenarios
have the potential to induce land use changes to determine the data collection and
analysis area. An approximate radius of 5 miles around the analysis scenarios was
determined to be appropriate for the FLUSA. Additionally, five zones were delineated
within the FLUSA to better discuss specific areas that are most likely to experience land
use changes. The boundaries of the zones follow major roadway features and political
boundaries and are described in Section 3.1. The timeframe for analysis was established
to be 1980 through 2030. Three primary analysis scenarios are qualitatively evaluated in
this report: the No‐Build Alternative, New Location Alternatives, and Upgrade Existing
US 74 Alternative.
Scoping meetings were held with environmental resource and regulatory agencies and
with local government representatives prior to the start of this study. The purpose of
these meetings was to collaboratively identify the sensitive resources for evaluation,
identify the study methodologies, define the study area boundaries, and confirm the
timeframe for the assessment. Based on these meetings, the following resources were
identified as notable resources to be evaluated for potential indirect impacts:
􀂃􈍦 federally‐protected species
􀂃􈍷 water resources
Monroe Connector/Bypass (R‐3329/R‐2559)
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
January 2009
2
􀂃􈍡 architectural features and historic places
􀂃􈍰 parks and recreational resources
􀂃􈍰 prime farmland soils
In addition, the following resources were identified to be evaluated from a cumulative
effects perspective:
􀂃􈍷 water quality and aquatic habitat
􀂃􈍃 Carolina heelsplitter habitat (Goose Creek watershed)
􀂃􈍴 terrestrial communities and habitat
Other resources may be directly impacted by the proposed project; however, this
assessment will focus on these resources identified during scoping. Potential direct
impacts to other resources, including air quality, noise impacts, community resources,
and neighborhoods will be evaluated in the Draft EIS.
Existing Conditions
Demographic and Employment Trends
o Union County is one of seven counties included in the Charlotte‐Gastonia‐Rock
Hill NC‐SC Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). According to the US Census
Bureau, the total population of the MSA was 1,499,293 in 2000, and there was a
29.0% increase in population between 1990 and 2000.
o Union County and Mecklenburg County experienced rapid population growth
between 1990 and 2000 (46.9%, and 36.0%, respectively). The Union County
towns of Weddington (76.1%), Indian Trail (513.0%) Stallings (49.6%), and
Monroe (62.6%) experienced growth even more rapid growth than in Union
County as a whole. The same holds true for Matthews (62.1%) in Mecklenburg
County.
o The Demographic Area grew less quickly (36.2%) than Union County (46.9%)
during the same period of time, and approximately the same as Mecklenburg
County (36.0%); however, it grew more rapidly than North Carolina as a whole
(21.4%).
o Close proximity to Charlotte, a regional employment center, has likely spurred
much of the population growth in Union County. Local planners confirm that
another important factor influencing growth patterns over the last couple of
decades has been the construction of I‐485 in Mecklenburg County. Because of
the improved access and mobility it provides, families and employers have been
able to locate further from downtown Charlotte, where land is more readily
available and less expensive.
Monroe Connector/Bypass (R‐3329/R‐2559)
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
January 2009
3
o According to the North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management, Union
County would continue to grow at a rate at least two times that of the State over
the next couple of decades. Mecklenburg County growth rates are expected to be
lower than Union County’s, but still greater than those in North Carolina.
o The Mecklenburg County portion of the FLUSA is almost completely developed,
with commercial and industrial uses concentrated along Independence
Boulevard (US 74) and Old Monroe Road/Old Charlotte Highway (SR 1009), and
residential uses elsewhere.
Existing Land Use Patterns
o In the Union County portion of the FLUSA, residential uses tend to be
concentrated in the towns adjacent to the Mecklenburg County border
(Weddington, Indian Trail, Stallings, Hemby Bridge and Lake Park), and in the
vicinity of the New Location Alternatives between Mecklenburg County and
US 601. Land uses along existing US 74 between I‐485 and Marshville chiefly
include commercial and industrial businesses. Commercial and industrial uses
are also concentrated around the Monroe Regional Airport (off of Old Monroe
Road/Old Charlotte Highway (SR 1009)).
o The unincorporated area east of US 601 is generally undeveloped, with scattered
residential and institutional uses throughout. Local planners also indicate that
the eastern part of Union County remains very active agriculturally.
o The incorporated areas along US 74 are currently provided with water and sewer
service. The water service coverage area in Union County includes virtually all
of the FLUSA west of US 601, the US 74 corridor, NC 200 north of US 74, and
areas surrounding the towns of Wingate and Marshville. Service is not available
along NC 205 (north of Marshville and US 74) and east of NC 207 (south of US
74). The sewer service coverage area includes virtually all of the US 74 corridor,
and the municipalities along US 74. Service is not available between NC 200 and
US 601 (south of US 74), along NC 200 north of the planned New Location
Alternatives, or in the extreme eastern part of the FLUSA, other than in the
municipalities. Local staff also indicates that Unionville and Fairview do not
have sewer service except for at some institutional uses.
Environmental Regulations
o According to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality (NCDENR‐DWQ) website, the City of
Charlotte is identified by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as a
Phase I storm water permittee. As required by National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) regulations, Charlotte must develop and
Monroe Connector/Bypass (R‐3329/R‐2559)
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
January 2009
4
implement a storm water program including public education, illicit discharge
detection and elimination, storm sewer system and land use mapping, and
analytical monitoring.
o According to the NCDENR‐DWQ website, the towns of Matthews, Mint Hill,
Weddington, Wesley Chapel, Indian Trail, Stallings, Hemby Bridge, Lake Park
and Monroe, and both Mecklenburg and Union Counties are identified by the
USEPA as Phase II storm water permittees. Consequently, as required by
NPDES regulations, they must, at a minimum, develop, implement, and enforce
a storm water program designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants from the
municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4).
o Construction or land development activities that disturb one acre of land or more
require an erosion and sediment control plan under the state’s Sedimentation
Pollution Control Act (SPCA) administered by the NC Division of Land
Resources. Site disturbances of less than one acre require the use of NCDOT’s
Best Management Practices (BMPs), but a site plan is not required.
o Development is regulated through density restrictions and buffers in the
Stewarts Creek/Lake Twitty watershed and the Richardson Creek watershed.
o The Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) initiative established
buffer zones along creeks in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County and Matthews and
Mint Hill. No construction or development is allowed in the buffer zones. SWIM
is an on‐going, strategic, long‐range effort that includes pollution reduction,
erosion control, water quality monitoring, watershed planning and stream
restoration and enhancement projects.
o Union County regulates development in Goose, Duck, Sixmile and Waxhaw
Creek through enforcing stream buffers of 100 feet on both sides of intermittent
streams and 200 feet on both sides of perennial streams. NCDENR is proposing
two new rule “options” to protect the Carolina heelsplitter in Goose Creek
watershed (which also includes Duck Creek). Both options have site‐specific
management strategies for controlling stormwater, wastewater discharges and
ammonia toxicity. The options vary in the amount of buffer required on streams.
o Union County requires thirty foot buffers on all intermittent streams throughout
the county. An additional 20‐foot buffer is necessary for perennial streams (for a
total of 50 feet), and for those perennial streams with drainage areas greater than
640 acres, the total buffer should be 100 feet. Municipalities in the FLUSA
typically require buffers ranging from 20 feet to 200 feet on intermittent and
perennial streams.
Monroe Connector/Bypass (R‐3329/R‐2559)
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
January 2009
5
o The Union County Policy for Allocating Wastewater Treatment Capacity establishes
guidelines for allocating limited wastewater capacity in three identified
Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs). The specific guidelines within the
Policy are intended to: fulfill outstanding legal obligations of Union County;
reserve capacity to serve public school facilities, county projects, and other
government facilities; promote non‐residential development projects in Union
County. The Policy sets up three project priority categories and outlines specific
requirements that need to be met prior to issuance of new wastewater capacity
for treatment at the identified WWTPs. Union County will not accept any new
engineering plans for projects within the service areas that are not specifically
designated within one of the priority project categories until sufficient additional
wastewater treatment capacity becomes available.
Notable Features
o Two federally endangered species have been identified in the USGS quads
encompassing the FLUSA. These are the Carolina heelsplitter, a freshwater
mussel, and Schweinitz’s sunflower. There has been particular concern about the
Carolina heelsplitter population in the Goose Creek watershed. Local planners
also indicate that the Savannah lilliput is a species of concern. It is listed as a
federal species of concern.
o Prime farmland soils are located in the Mecklenburg County portion of the
FLUSA, just west of the City of Monroe, and scattered along US 601 and NC 200
north of US 74. Union County planners also indicate that soils are not the most
suitable for development near Fairview, in the extreme northwestern part of
Union County.
o A search of the NCDENR‐DWQ 2006 303(d) List reveals the presence of nine
303(d) impaired water bodies within the FLUSA. These impaired waters are
McAlpine Creek, Sixmile Creek, Goose Creek, Crooked Creek, South Fork
Crooked Creek, North Fork Crooked Creek, Richardson Creek, Lanes Creek, and
Waxhaw Branch. McAlpine Creek, Crooked Creek and Waxhaw Branch are no
longer impaired, and have been removed from the NCDENR‐DWQ Draft 2008
303(d) List. Little Richardson Creek, Stewarts Creek and Beaverdam Creek have
been added to the Draft 2008 List.
Potential Indirect Effects
o If the Monroe Connector/Bypass is not constructed, land use patterns would
likely continue as they are currently, with development concentrated in the
southeastern part of Mecklenburg County and northwestern part of Union
County. The eastern part of Union County would experience little growth in
residential, commercial or industrial uses, but the City of Monroe and Union
County are promoting commercial and industrial growth.
Monroe Connector/Bypass (R‐3329/R‐2559)
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
January 2009
6
o If a New Location Alternative is constructed, residential development patterns
are expected to continue at relatively the same pace and intensity as the No‐Build
Alternative in the western and northwestern part of the FLUSA (Zones 1, 2, and
4). These areas tend to be more influenced by proximity to Charlotte and I‐485.
The New Location Alternatives may influence residential development in the
central and eastern part of the FLUSA and Union County in general (Zones 3 and
5), because the project would improve travel time from those areas to Charlotte.
o Variations in New Location Alternative corridors are so small that indirect
impacts are not expected to vary by alternative. The slight variations in the
interchange locations by alternative are not anticipated to affect the location of
residential development. Commercial and industrial development may shift
somewhat due to the variations in interchange locations; however, these
variations should not affect the quantity or type of development that occurs.
o The Upgrade Existing US 74 Alternative would have similar impacts on
residential development as the New Location Alternatives as it would also
provide high‐speed freeway access to I‐485 and the Charlotte‐Mecklenburg
County metropolitan area. It could induce moderate growth in Zone 3 and high
growth in Zone 5. Commercial and industrial uses would remain concentrated
along US 74 and near the Monroe Regional Airport.
o In addition, the Upgrade Existing US 74 Alternative would displace more than
500 existing businesses along US 74. It is assumed that many of these would
choose to relocate within the FLUSA, along the US 74 corridor or other roadways
including Old Monroe Road/Old Charlotte Highway (SR 1009), Rocky River
Road (SR 1514), US 601, Secrest Shortcut Road (SR 1501), or other local roads. In
some cases, these relocatees may make use of existing buildings; however, in
others, they may choose to construct new facilities, which would be an indirect
effect of this alternative.
o Given the already strong residential growth in the area, the New Location
Alternative and Upgrade Existing US 74 Alternative would not cause major
shifts in population to the FLUSA, but could increase the pace of development in
some parts of the FLUSA, particularly in Zones 3 and 5. Because these
alternatives provide increased accessibility, and in some areas new accessibility,
they have the potential to encourage residential development occur along the
feeder roads to the interchange locations, as well as increased residential
densities as compared to current plans. There is moderate potential for
additional infill residential development in Zone 3, which has experienced high
levels of residential growth in past years, and as well as high potential for new
residential growth in Zone 5 where these build alternatives would improve
Monroe Connector/Bypass (R‐3329/R‐2559)
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
January 2009
7
access and allow for easier and faster commutes to the Charlotte‐Mecklenburg
urban area.
o It is expected that growth will remain strong in the FLUSA with or without the
construction of the Monroe Connector/Bypass project. With the New Location
Alternative or the Upgrade Existing US 74 Alternative, it is also expected that
some development will shift to land parcels in the vicinity of project interchanges
as opposed to locating elsewhere in the FLUSA, depending on the provision of
sewer service, which is one of the limiting growth factors in the area. The shift
would occur to take advantage of the improved access and visibility that these
parcels will have to the new freeway and the reduced commute times to the
major employment center in the region.
o Neither the New Location Alternatives nor the Upgrade Existing US 74
Alternative would be expected to induce substantial land use changes or growth
in Zone 2, which includes habitat for the federally endangered Carolina
heelsplitter. These alternatives would also have low (Zone 3) to moderate (Zone
5) potential for indirect impacts to other sensitive resources including water
resources, farmland, and terrestrial communities.
Potential Cumulative Effects
o Cumulative effects are evaluated for water quality and aquatic habitat, Carolina
heelsplitter mussel habitat and Goose Creek watershed, and terrestrial habitat.
Past, present and future development and infrastructure actions considered in
this analysis are described in Section 6.
o The New Location Alternatives would contribute minimally to cumulative
effects on water quality and terrestrial habitat, as development is already
occurring and expected to continue to occur that is affecting these resources.
Local plans are in place that will help minimize cumulative impacts to water
quality.
o The New Location Alternatives are not expected to contribute to cumulative
effects on the Carolina heelsplitter and Goose Creek watershed.
o The Upgrade Existing US 74 Alternative would potentially have moderate
cumulative effects on water quality and terrestrial communities as a result of
relocation nearly 500 businesses within the FLUSA, in addition to the induced
residential growth expected to occur as a result of the alternative in Zones 3 and
5.
Monroe Connector/Bypass (R‐3329/R‐2559)
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
January 2009
8
2. INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT BACKGROUND
The purpose of this document is to qualitatively evaluate potential indirect and
cumulative effects associated with implementation of the Monroe Connector/Bypass
project.
2.1 Introduction
This indirect and cumulative effects (ICE) assessment evaluates the potential land use
changes and environmental effects associated with the proposed Monroe
Connector/Bypass project. The qualitative approach taken to evaluate ICEs associated
with the proposed project follows the process adopted by North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) in 2001. This report has been formatted into five sections
based on the NCDOT process, including:
􀂃􈍄 Definition of the Future Land Use Study Area (FLUSA) (Step 1)
􀂃􈍉 Identification of the FLUSA’s Direction and Goals (Step 2)
􀂃􈍉 Inventory of Notable Features (Step 3)
􀂃􈍉 Identification of Important Impact‐Causing Activities (Step 4)
􀂃􈍉 Identification and Analysis of Potential Indirect/Cumulative Effects (Step 5)
Steps 6‐8 (a quantitative assessment) of NCDOT’s 8‐step process would be conducted on
the Preferred Alternative following the approval of the Draft EIS if it is determined by
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the NCTA that such analysis is
needed.
For the purposes of this document, the following is a listing of definitions used.
Direct Effect. Direct effects are caused by the proposed action and generally occur at the
same time and place as the project. Direct effects of the proposed action will be
discussed in the Draft EIS and other subject‐specific technical memoranda.
Indirect Effect. Indirect effects “. . . are caused by the action and are later in time and
farther removed in distance, but must be reasonably foreseeable.” Indirect effects “may
include growth‐inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the
pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and
water and other natural systems, including ecosystems” (CEQ 1986, 40 CFR 1508). The
terms effect and effects are used synonymously in the CEQ regulations (see 40 CFR
1508.8(b)). It is important to emphasize that indirect effects considered during the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process must be reasonably foreseeable; not
every conceivable scenario should be evaluated.
Monroe Connector/Bypass (R‐3329/R‐2559)
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
January 2009
9
Cumulative Effect. Cumulative effects are “environmental effects resulting from the
incremental effects of an activity when added to other past, present and reasonably
foreseeable future activities regardless of what entities undertake such actions.
Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant
activities taking place over time and over a broad geographic scale, and can include both
direct and indirect effects” (40 CFR 1500 to 1508).
It is important to emphasize that indirect effects considered during the NEPA process
must be reasonably foreseeable; not every conceivable scenario should be evaluated
(Dubois v. US Department of Agriculture, 102 F.3d 1273, 1286 (1st Circuit 1996)).
Indirect effects may occur in three forms: alteration of the environment relating to land
use change; development related to the accessibility changes from a proposed
transportation project; and effects relating to land use change that may occur with or
without the action or project. The focus of this assessment is on the latter two of the
three indirect effect forms.
2.2 Project Background
This study is a combination of two projects, the Monroe Connector (R‐3329) and the
Monroe Bypass (R‐2559), previously analyzed by NCDOT. A Monroe Connector study
addressed improvements in the US 74 corridor from I‐485 to US 601 in the City of
Monroe, where it ended at the proposed Monroe Bypass. A Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) for this project was issued in November 2003; however, a public
hearing was never held.
A Monroe Bypass study addressed the US 74 corridor from just west of the City of
Monroe to just west of the Town of Marshville. An Environmental Assessment for this
project was approved in March 1996, and a Finding of No Significant Impact was issued
in June 1997.
In February 2005, the NCTA adopted the Monroe Connector as a toll candidate facility,
and in January 2006, the Notice of Intent for the Monroe Connector DEIS was rescinded.
In October 2006, NCTA adopted the Monroe Bypass project as a toll candidate facility.
The Monroe Connector and Monroe Bypass projects have been combined into a single
project. In January 2007, FHWA issued a Notice of Intent to prepare a new EIS for the
combined Monroe Connector/Bypass project.
The existing US 74 corridor has statewide, regional, and local importance. It is the major
east‐west route connecting the Charlotte region, a major population center and freight
distribution point, to the North Carolina coast and the State’s largest port at
Wilmington. In addition, US 74 is the primary transportation connection between Union
County and the City of Charlotte in Mecklenburg County. According to the US Census
Bureau (http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/CO‐EST2006‐08.html), Union County is
Monroe Connector/Bypass (R‐3329/R‐2559)
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
January 2009
10
the fastest growing county in North Carolina based on percent growth from 2000 to
2006. Mecklenburg County and the City of Charlotte serve as the economic hub of the
region. Union County is the only county surrounding Mecklenburg County that does
not have a controlled‐access facility connecting it to Mecklenburg County.
US 74 also serves as an important commercial corridor for Union County residents and
businesses, with many retail, commercial, and employment centers having direct access
to/from US 74. In Union County, most employment is concentrated in the City of
Monroe and along existing US 74.
Currently, the portion of US 74 that is being studied is a four‐to‐six lane arterial
roadway with 26 at‐grade signalized intersections, many unsignalized intersections, and
numerous commercial and residential driveway connections. The posted speed limits
within the study area range from 45 to 55 miles per hour (mph), except for those sections
in Wingate and Marshville where the posted speed limit is 35 mph. The average travel
speeds range from approximately 20 to 30 mph during the peak morning and evening
hours, and are expected to decline to less than 20 mph by 2030. Congestion is high, with
one‐third of the intersections operating at an unacceptable level of service (LOS) (LOS E
or F) during the peak morning and evening hours under existing conditions. LOS is a
measure of how efficiently a roadway is operating. Additional information on existing
and projected operations of US 74 is included in the Final Statement of Purpose and Need
(February 2008).
Because of its statewide and regional importance, US 74 has been designated as a
Strategic Highway Corridor (SHC) by the NCDOT, and has also been identified in State
law as part of the North Carolina Intrastate System (GS§136‐178). Both designations
specify that this corridor serve high‐speed regional travel. The SHC designation
specifically identifies the facility as a freeway. The Intrastate System legislation
indicates that US 74 should be a multi‐lane facility with access control, and grade
separations should be provided when warranted by traffic volumes. As explained
above, existing US 74 currently does not allow for high‐speed regional travel and does
not include access control and grade separations, which are warranted by current and
projected 2030 traffic volumes. Therefore, existing US 74 is not consistent with the
visions of the SHC and Intrastate System.
The Mecklenburg‐Union Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MUMPO) Long Range
Transportation Plan (LRTP) identifies improvements to the US 74 corridor as a high
priority. The LRTP includes plans for a new location freeway from US 74 at I‐485 to
US 74 west of Marshville with interchanges proposed at the following locations:
􀂃􈍉 Indian Trail ‐ Fairview Road (SR 1520)
􀂃􈍕 Unionville ‐ Indian Trail Road (SR 1537)
􀂃􈍒 Rocky River Road (SR 1514)
Monroe Connector/Bypass (R‐3329/R‐2559)
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
January 2009
11
􀂃􈍕 US 601
􀂃􈍎 NC 200 (Morgan Mill Road)
􀂃􈍁 Austin Chaney Road (SR 1758)
􀂃􈍆 Forest Hills School Road (SR 1754)
2.3 Project Purpose
The purpose of the proposed action is to improve mobility and capacity within the
project study area by providing a facility in the US 74 corridor that allows for high‐speed
regional travel consistent with the designations of the North Carolina Strategic Highway
Corridor system and the North Carolina Intrastate System, while maintaining access to
properties along existing US 74.
2.4 Qualitative Analysis Scenarios
The No‐Build Alternative, the Upgrade Existing US 74 Alternative, and two closely
spaced New Location Alternatives (which together include 16 end‐to‐end new location
Detailed Study Alternatives) will be evaluated in this document. The Upgrade Existing
US 74 Alternative has been eliminated from detailed study as part of the alternatives
screening process and therefore is not a Detailed Study Alternative; however, it has been
included in this indirect and cumulative effects analysis for informational purposes, at
the request of environmental resource and regulatory agencies. Descriptions of the
alternatives follow:
No‐Build Alternative
The No‐Build Alternative is the baseline comparative alternative. The No‐Build
Alternative assumes that the transportation systems for Union and Mecklenburg
counties would evolve as currently planned in the MUMPO LRTP and NCDOT STIP
(see Section 4.5), but without major improvements to the existing US 74 corridor from
near I‐485 to between the towns of Wingate and Marshville.
New Location Alternatives
Sixteen Detailed Study Alternatives are being evaluated in the Draft EIS. All Detailed
Study Alternatives begin near I‐485 in Mecklenburg County, run northwest of and
parallel to the existing US 74 corridor, and end at US 74 between the towns of Wingate
and Marshville in Union County. The 16 Detailed Study Alternatives, known as A, B, C,
D, A1, B1, C1, D1, A2, B2, C2, D2, A3, B3, C3, and D3, are comprised of combinations of
corridor segments to form end‐to‐end alternative alignments (see Table 1), and are
depicted in Figure 1. All 16 Detailed Study Alternatives are encompassed in two
parallel corridors.
For the alignments on new location, a four‐lane, median‐divided, controlled‐access
highway was assumed (see Appendix B for the cross section). The proposed design
Monroe Connector/Bypass (R‐3329/R‐2559)
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
January 2009
12
speed is 70 mph for the main lines of the New Location Alternatives. Two 12‐foot lanes
are proposed for each direction of travel, separated by a 70‐foot median. This median
width would allow for a future widening to provide three 12‐foot travel lanes in each
direction without having to purchase additional right of way. The total right of way is
proposed to be a minimum of 300 feet, but would be greater around interchanges. All
New Location Alternatives are assumed to be tolled.
Table 1. Detailed Study Alternatives Summary
DSA DSA Segments Length (miles)
A 18A 21 22A 31 36 36A 40 20.6
B 18A 21 30 31 36 36A 40 20.5
C 2 21 22A 31 36 36A 40 19.7
D 2 21 30 31 36 36A 40 19.7
A1 18A 21 22A 31 34 34B 40 20.5
B1 18A 21 30 31 34 34B 40 20.5
C1 2 21 22A 31 34 34B 40 19.6
D1 2 21 30 31 34 34B 40 19.6
A2 18A 21 22A 31 36 36B 41 20.6
B2 18A 21 30 31 36 36B 41 20.5
C2 2 21 22A 31 36 36B 41 19.7
D2 2 21 30 31 36 36B 41 19.6
A3 18A 21 22A 31 34 34A 41 20.5
B3 18A 21 30 31 34 34A 41 20.5
C3 2 21 22A 31 34 34A 41 19.6
D3 2 21 30 31 34 34A 41 19.6
Interchanges are proposed at the following locations:
􀂃􈍉 I‐485 at US 74/Stallings Road (SR 1365) with Detailed Study Alternatives A, B,
A1, B1, A2, B2, A3, B3
􀂃􈍕 US 74 east of Stallings Road (SR 1365) with Detailed Study Alternatives C, D, C1,
D1, C2, D2, C3, D3
􀂃􈍉 Indian Trail ‐ Fairview Road (SR 1520)
􀂃􈍕 Unionville ‐ Indian Trail Road (SR 1367)
􀂃􈍒 Rocky River Road (SR 1514)
􀂃􈍕 US 601
􀂃􈍎 NC 200
􀂃􈍁 Austin Chaney Road (SR 1758)
􀂃􈍆 Forest Hills School Road ‐ partial interchange
􀂃􈍕 US 74 ‐ partial interchange
Upgrade Existing US 74 Alternative
The Upgrade Existing US 74 Alternative would improve existing US 74 within the
project limits. This alternative would include conversion of existing US 74 to a
Monroe Connector/Bypass (R‐3329/R‐2559)
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
January 2009
13
controlled‐access toll highway (freeway‐type facility). There would be no new location
component to this alternative. A frontage road system would be needed in addition to
the main travel lanes to provide access to adjacent properties and to serve as the free
alternate route to the toll facility. Interchanges were assumed at the same locations as
the New Location Alternatives:
􀂃􈍓 Stallings Road (SR 1365)
􀂃􈍉 Indian Trail‐Fairview Road (SR 1520)
􀂃􈍕 Unionville‐Indian Trail Road (SR 1367)
􀂃􈍒 Rocky River Road (SR 1514)
􀂃􈍕 US 601/NC 200
􀂃􈍎 NC 200 (Morgan Mill Road)
􀂃􈍕 US 601 (Metro Medical Center Campus)
􀂃􈍁 Austin Chaney Road (SR 1758)
􀂃􈍆 Forest Hills School Road
Other major cross‐streets would be bridged over or cross under the controlled‐access
travel lanes. These major cross‐streets would have a signalized intersection with each
frontage road direction. A dedicated U‐turn lane (sometimes referred to as a Texas U‐Turn)
would be provided for alignments on existing US 74 at each major cross‐street to
allow frontage road traffic to change direction without traveling through the signalized
intersection. Improvements along existing US 74 were assumed to include six lanes for
the toll facility and two‐lane, one‐way frontage roads on either side, for a total of ten
lanes. Six lanes were assumed to be needed for the toll facility on existing US 74 (as
opposed to four lanes for the new location toll alternatives) based on the fact that a
facility constructed along existing US 74 would be carrying through traffic and some
local traffic. The total right of way required for the alternative would be approximately
400 feet.
Monroe Connector/Bypass (R‐3329/R‐2559)
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
January 2009
14
3. STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES (STEP 1)
Spatial and temporal study areas were established as a basis from which to gather and
analyze specific demographic, socioeconomic, land use, and environmental data and to
further identify any potential indirect and cumulative impacts of the construction of the
proposed project.
3.1 Future Land Use Study Area
The NCDOT’s and North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources’
(NCDENR’s) Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Impacts of Transportation
Projects in North Carolina (ICI Guidance) indicates that the development effects of a new
or improved roadway facility are most often found up to one mile around an
interchange, and up to two to five miles along major feeder roadways to the interchange.
Using the ICI Guidance, it was determined that the potential for indirect and cumulative
effects would be felt within about five miles of the various project alignments (see
Figure 1). This approximate five‐mile radius, referred to as the Future Land Use Study
Area (FLUSA), is the area within which the New Location Alternatives and Upgrade
Existing US 74 Alternative have the potential to induce land use changes and will
determine the data collection and analysis area.
Based on the field survey of local conditions, interviews with local officials, and
professional judgment, this area was determined large enough to encompass potential
indirect and cumulative effects resulting from the planned Monroe Connector/Bypass.
In order to better discuss specific areas within the FLUSA that are most likely to
experience land use changes as a result of the new location facility, the FLUSA was
broken into five Zones. The Zone boundaries follow major roadway features as well as
political boundaries to account for differentiations in existing and planned land uses and
among policies of the various governments in the FLUSA.
􀂃􈍚 Zone 1: Portion of the FLUSA within Mecklenburg County including the towns
of Mint Hill and Matthews.
􀂃􈍚 Zone 2: North central areas of the FLUSA roughly north of Idlewild Road
(SR 1501), including the Union County portion of Goose Creek Watershed
(excluding areas within the Town of Stallings jurisdiction) northern portions of
the towns of Hemby Bridge and Indian Trail, and incorporated areas of the
towns of Fairview and Unionville within the FLUSA.
􀂃􈍚 Zone 3: Areas of the FLUSA in Union County along US 74 bounded by Idlewild
Road (SR 1501) to the north and Old Monroe Road/Old Charlotte Highway
Monroe Connector/Bypass (R‐3329/R‐2559)
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
January 2009
15
(SR 1009) to the south within the towns of Stallings and Indian Trail, and all
areas of the FLUSA within the City of Monroe.
􀂃􈍚 Zone 4: Southwest area of the FLUSA in Union County including portions of the
towns of Stallings, Indian Trail, Weddington, and Wesley Chapel south of Old
Monroe Road/Old Charlotte Highway (SR 1009) and west of Monroe Regional
Airport.
􀂃􈍚 Zone 5: Eastern portion of the FLUSA including areas east of NC 200 and the
City of Monroe boundary, including unincorporated portions of Union County
and the towns of Wingate and Marshville.
3.2 Demographic Area
The Demographic Area for the Monroe Connector/Bypass was developed in order to
analyze the population growth trends for the area encompassing the FLUSA. Census
data was used in determining the population growth trends, so the boundaries of the
Demographic Area follow Census Tract lines. As a result, the boundaries of the
Demographic Area extend beyond the FLUSA. Figure 2 shows this Demographic Area
is generally bounded by the following: the Union County/Stanly County line, Union
County/Cabarrus County line and NC 27 to the north; McMullen Creek, McAlpine
Creek, and NC 16 to the west; New Town Road (SR 1315), Macedonia Church Road
(SR 2106), US 601 and White Store Road (SR 1003) to the south; and, the Union
County/Anson County line to the east.
The following US Census Bureau Census Tracts (2000) are included in the Demographic
Area for the Monroe Connector/Bypass:
􀂃􈍍 Mecklenburg County Census Tracts 19.03, and 19.07 – 19.11
􀂃􈍍 Mecklenburg County Census Tracts 20.03 and 20.04
􀂃􈍍 Mecklenburg County Census Tract 29.04
􀂃􈍍 Mecklenburg County Census Tract 30.07, and 30.13 – 30.16
􀂃􈍍 Mecklenburg County Census Tracts 57.06 – 57.13
􀂃􈍍 Mecklenburg County Census Tracts 58.11 – 58.17, 58.22 and 58.33
􀂃􈍕 Union County Census Tract 201
􀂃􈍕 Union County Census Tracts 202.01and 202.02
􀂃􈍕 Union County Census Tracts 203.02 – 203.04
􀂃􈍕 Union County Census Tracts 204.01and 204.02
􀂃􈍕 Union County Census Tract 205
􀂃􈍕 Union County Census Tract 206
􀂃􈍕 Union County Census Tract 207
􀂃􈍕 Union County Census Tract 208
Monroe Connector/Bypass (R‐3329/R‐2559)
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
January 2009
16
3.3 Timeframe for Analysis
According to the NCDOT/NCDENR ICI Guidance, the timeframe for analysis should be
short enough in duration to anticipate reasonably foreseeable events, but should be long
enough in duration to capture the development and relocation effects that may only
transpire over the course of several business cycles. The planning design life of a project
(from conception to completion) is usually around 20 years. This is also the time
horizon used in most metropolitan planning organization and county‐level planning
forecasts, including MUMPO’s 2030 LRTP, which is currently being updated for year
2035. In addition, population projections from the Office of State Budget and
Management are available through 2030. Although the design year for the Monroe
Connector/Bypass is 2035, effects related to land use change as a result of the Monroe
Connector/Bypass will be qualitatively evaluated through 2030, since the current LRTP
and population projections are based on year 2030. For purposes of the cumulative
impacts analysis, which includes consideration of past actions, the timeframe includes
trends from 1980 through the present, in addition to projections through 2030.
Monroe Connector/Bypass (R‐3329/R‐2559)
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
January 2009
17
4. STUDY AREA DIRECTION AND GOALS (STEP 2)
4.1 Regional Location Influences and Implications
US 74 is the primary route between Charlotte, Union County, and North Carolina’s
largest port at Wilmington. The majority of the FLUSA is within Union County, with a
small portion extending into Mecklenburg County near I‐485. Anson County borders
Union County to the east, Stanly and Cabarrus counties to the north, Mecklenburg
County to the west, and the State of South Carolina borders Union County to the south.
At least a portion of the following cities or towns are within the FLUSA:
􀂃􈍃 Charlotte (Mecklenburg County)
􀂃􈍍 Matthews (Mecklenburg County)
􀂃􈍍 Mint Hill (Mecklenburg County)
􀂃􈍗 Weddington (Union County)
􀂃􈍗 Wesley Chapel (Union County)
􀂃􈍉 Indian Trail (Union County)
􀂃􈍓 Stallings (Union County)
􀂃􈍈 Hemby Bridge (Union County)
􀂃􈍌 Lake Park (Union County)
􀂃􈍆 Fairview (Union County)
􀂃􈍕 Unionville (Union County)
􀂃􈍍 Monroe (Union County)
􀂃􈍗 Wingate (Union County)
􀂃􈍍 Marshville (Union County)
According to the US Census Bureau, Union County was the fastest growing county in
North Carolina between 2000 and 2006. Close proximity to Charlotte, a regional
employment center, has spurred much of this growth. Local planners confirm that
another important factor influencing growth patterns over the last couple of decades has
been the construction of I‐485 in Mecklenburg County. Because of the improved access
and mobility it provides, families and employers have been able to locate further from
downtown Charlotte, where land is more readily available and less expensive.
Other factors influencing growth include:
• The proposed mass transit corridor along Independence Boulevard (US 74)
from downtown Charlotte to the Mecklenburg/Union County line – a 2020
horizon year project in MUMPO’s 2030 LRTP;
• The development of the Bridges at Mint Hill (a large retail and entertainment
center) – currently in planning and permitting;
Monroe Connector/Bypass (R‐3329/R‐2559)
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
January 2009
18
• The expansion of Monroe Regional Airport runway, and continued growth in
aerospace‐oriented businesses surrounding the airport; and
• The continued growth of Central Piedmont Community College (Levine
Campus) and Wingate University.
4.2 Demographic and Employment Trends
Union County is one of seven counties included in the Charlotte‐Gastonia‐Rock Hill NC‐SC
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). According to the US Census Bureau, the total
population of the MSA was 1,499,293 in 2000, and there was a 29.0% increase in
population between 1990 and 2000. Union County and Mecklenburg County
experienced rapid population growth between 1990 and 2000 (46.9%, and 36.0%,
respectively), and between 2000 and 2007 (47.4% and 24.1%, respectively). The Union
County towns of Weddington (76.1%), Indian Trail (513.0%) Stallings (49.6%), and
Monroe (62.6%) experienced growth even more rapid growth than in Union County as a
whole. The same holds true for Matthews (62.1%) in Mecklenburg County. The
Demographic Area grew less quickly (36.2%) than Union County (46.9%) during the
same period of time, and approximately the same as Mecklenburg County (36.0%);
however, it grew more rapidly than North Carolina as a whole (21.4%).
Table 2. Population Growth Trends and Projections, 1980‐2030
Demographic
Area
Mecklenburg
County
Union
County
North
Carolina
Population:
April 1980* N/A 404,270 70,436 5,880,095
1990 184,379 511,433 84,211 6,628,637
Percentage Growth 1980‐1990 N/A 26.5% 19.6% 12.7%
2000 251,189 695,454 123,677 8,049,313
Percentage Growth 1990‐2000 36.2% 36.0% 46.9% 21.4%
2007^ N/A 863,147 182,344 9,069,398
Percentage Growth 2000‐2007^ N/A 24.1% 47.4% 12.7%
Population Projections*:
2010 N/A 925,084 203,527 9,450,494
Percentage Growth 2000‐2010 N/A 33.0% 64.6% 17.4%
2020 N/A 1,151,640 274,147 10,850,228
Percentage Growth 2010‐2020 N/A 24.5% 34.7% 14.8%
2030 N/A 1,391,703 350,928 12,274,433
Percentage Growth 2020‐2030 N/A 20.8% 28.0% 13.1%
Sources: US Census Bureau, ^NC State Date Center, 2007 Certified County Population Estimates *Office
of State Budget and Management, May 2008
Monroe Connector/Bypass (R‐3329/R‐2559)
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
January 2009
19
According to the North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management, population in
Union County is expected to grow even more rapidly (64.6%) between 2000 and 2010,
with growth rates decreasing from 2010 to 2020 (34.7%) and from 2020 to 2030 (28.0%).
The comparable growth rates for North Carolina are much lower (see Table 2). Despite
the fact that the growth rates are declining, Union County is likely to continue to grow at
a rate at least two times that of the State over the next couple of decades. Mecklenburg
County growth rates are expected to be lower than Union County’s, but still greater than
those in North Carolina. This is supported by data from 2000 to 2007, which show 47.4%
growth in Union County.
According to the NC Employment Security Commission (NCESC), the five largest
employers in Mecklenburg County (as of 3rd Quarter 2007) are Charlotte Mecklenburg
Board of Education, Carolinas Health Care Systems, Wachovia Bank, Bank of America
and the City of Charlotte, all with more than 1,000 employees. The five largest
employers in Union County (as of 3rd Quarter 2007) are Union County Schools, Tyson
Farms (manufacturing), Union Memorial Medical Center, McGee Brothers Company
(construction), and Ati Allvac (manufacturing). These companies all employed more
than 1,000 people as well.
The NCESC indicates that Mecklenburg County experienced an overall increase in
employment of 152,663 jobs (42.1%) between 1990 and 2000, and another 24,077 jobs
(4.7%) between 2000 and 2006 (see Table 3). This is primarily due to an increase in the
number of management and administrative & waste jobs. Each industry sector added
over 20,000 jobs between 1990 and 2000, and both experienced gains of over 100%.
Employment in these sectors decreased between 2000 and 2006, but the finance &
insurance sector added almost 20,000 jobs (55.8%) during this time period. The
manufacturing sector was the sector with the most employees in 1990, but job losses
have occurred since then. Retail trade had the most employees in 2000, while the
government sector had the most employees in 2006.
The NCESC indicates that Union County experienced an overall increase in employment
of 10,540 jobs (30.2%) between 1990 and 2000, and another 8,672 jobs (19.1%) between
2000 and 2006 (see Table 4). The increase in employment is primarily due to an increase
in the number of construction jobs (over 3,000 or 77.9%). The number (and percentage)
of construction jobs continued to increase between 2000 and 2006, but administrative &
waste services had the greatest increase (1,386 jobs and 88.3%). The manufacturing
sector in Union County suffered a reduction in the number of jobs, yet remained the
sector with the most employees.
Monroe Connector/Bypass (R‐3329/R‐2559)
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
January 2009
20
Table 3. Employment By Industry Sector & Growth, Mecklenburg County
Employment
Change, 1990‐
2000 Employment
Change, 2000‐
2006
Sector 1990 2000 # % 2000 2006 # %
Agriculture, Forestry,
Fishing & Hunting 268 508 240 89.6% 508 799 291 57.3%
Mining 179 154 ‐25 ‐14.0% 154 199 45 29.2%
Utilities * * N/A N/A * * N/A N/A
Construction 22,140 31,654 9,514 43.0% 31,654 34,669 3,015 9.5%
Manufacturing 48,021 46,477 ‐1,544 ‐3.2% 46,477 34,834 ‐11,643 ‐25.1%
Wholesale Trade 31,844 40,366 8,522 26.8% 40,366 34,888 ‐5,478 ‐13.6%
Retail Trade 41,930 53,891 11,961 28.5% 53,891 55,853 1,962 3.6%
Transportation and
Warehousing 15,453 26,582 11,129 72.0% 26,582 25,326 ‐1,256 ‐4.7%
Information 13,986 22,359 8,373 59.9% 22,359 18,756 ‐3,603 ‐16.1%
Finance and Insurance 24,841 34,886 10,045 40.4% 34,886 54,342 19,456 55.8%
Real Estate and Rental and
Leasing 6,754 9,526 2,772 41.0% 9,526 10,256 730 7.7%
Professional and Technical
Services 22,123 31,187 9,064 41.0% 31,187 33,791 2,604 8.3%
Management of
Companies and Enterprises 7,787 28,691 20,904 268.4% 28,691 21,683 ‐7,008 ‐24.4%
Administrative and Waste
Services 21,276 44,494 23,218 109.1% 44,494 43,146 ‐1,348 ‐3.0%
Educational Services 2,980 4,236 1,256 42.1% 4,236 6,458 2,222 52.5%
Health Care and Social
Assistance 19,032 27,389 8,357 43.9% 27,389 35,245 7,856 28.7%
Arts, Entertainment, and
Recreation 4,186 7,124 2,938 70.2% 7,124 7,415 291 4.1%
Accommodation and Food
Services 23,228 38,311 15,083 64.9% 38,311 43,706 5,395 14.1%
Other Services, Ex. Public
Administration 11,209 14,388 3,179 28.4% 14,388 15,642 1,254 8.7%
Public Administration N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Unclassified N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,926 N/A N/A
Government 36,673 51,280 14,607 39.8% 51,280 58,961 7,681 15.0%
Total** 362,937 515,600 152,663 42.1% 515,600 539,677 24,077 4.7%
Source: North Carolina Employment Security Commission, accessed 6/3/08
N/A ‐ not applicable/available; * disclosure suppression; ** total all industries including undisclosed
Monroe Connector/Bypass (R‐3329/R‐2559)
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
January 2009
21
Table 4. Employment By Industry Sector & Growth, Union County
Employment
Change, 1990‐
2000 Employment
Change, 2000‐
2006
Sector 1990 2000 # % 2000 2006 # %
Agriculture, Forestry,
Fishing & Hunting 215 593 378 175.8% 593 782 189 31.9%
Mining * * N/A N/A * * N/A N/A
Utilities * * N/A N/A * 165 N/A N/A
Construction 4,090 7,276 3,186 77.9% 7,276 8,917 1,641 22.6%
Manufacturing 14,212 13,125 ‐1,087 ‐7.6% 13,125 11,515 ‐1,610 ‐12.3%
Wholesale Trade 1,147 2,082 935 81.5% 2,082 2,797 715 34.3%
Retail Trade 4,248 5,040 792 18.6% 5,040 5,154 114 2.3%
Transportation and
Warehousing 498 1,350 852 171.1% 1,350 1,103 ‐247 ‐18.3%
Information 364 403 39 10.7% 403 300 ‐103 ‐25.6%
Finance and Insurance 940 554 ‐386 ‐41.1% 554 930 376 67.9%
Real Estate and Rental and
Leasing 226 301 75 33.2% 301 405 104 34.6%
Professional and Technical
Services 508 1,150 642 126.4% 1,150 1,455 305 26.5%
Management of
Companies and Enterprises 74 74 0 0.0% 74 75 1 1.4%
Administrative and Waste
Services 674 1,569 895 132.8% 1,569 2,955 1,386 88.3%
Educational Services * 377 N/A N/A 377 623 246 65.3%
Health Care and Social
Assistance 989 1,629 640 64.7% 1,629 2,567 938 57.6%
Arts, Entertainment, and
Recreation 109 191 82 75.2% 191 460 269 140.8%
Accommodation and Food
Services 1,442 2,342 900 62.4% 2,342 3,300 958 40.9%
Other Services, Ex. Public
Administration 637 1,060 423 66.4% 1,060 1,241 181 17.1%
Public Administration N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Unclassified N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 367 N/A N/A
Government 4,170 6,227 2,057 49.3% 6,227 9,005 2,778 44.6%
Total** 34,925 45,465 10,540 30.2% 45,465 54,137 8,672 19.1%
Source: North Carolina Employment Security Commission
N/A ‐ not applicable/available
* ‐ disclosure suppression
Monroe Connector/Bypass (R‐3329/R‐2559)
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
January 2009
22
Table 5. Employment By Industry Sector & Growth, North Carolina
Employment
Change, 1990‐
2000 Employment
Change, 2000‐
2006
Sector 1990 2000 # % 2000 2006 # %
Agriculture, Forestry,
Fishing & Hunting 21,827 31,372 9,545 43.7% 31,372 29,514 ‐1,858 ‐5.9%
Mining 3,993 4,262 269 6.7% 4,262 3,704 ‐558
‐
13.1%
Utilities 26,626 15,090 ‐11,536 ‐43.3% 15,090 13,168 ‐1,922
‐
12.7%
Construction 166,733 231,439 64,706 38.8% 231,439 243,445 12,006 5.2%
Manufacturing 820,239 759,014 ‐61,225 ‐7.5% 759,014 552,940 ‐206,074
‐
27.2%
Wholesale Trade 139,697 166,194 26,497 19.0% 166,194 176,603 10,409 6.3%
Retail Trade 377,026 454,098 77,072 20.4% 454,098 451,080 ‐3,018 ‐0.7%
Transportation and
Warehousing 82,772 120,862 38,090 46.0% 120,862 114,362 ‐6,500 ‐5.4%
Information 57,615 84,040 26,425 45.9% 84,040 73,100 ‐10,940
‐
13.0%
Finance and Insurance 102,412 126,121 23,709 23.2% 126,121 148,943 22,822 18.1%
Real Estate and Rental and
Leasing 32,488 47,948 15,460 47.6% 47,948 51,902 3,954 8.2%
Professional and Technical
Services 89,618 145,404 55,786 62.2% 145,404 171,111 25,707 17.7%
Management of
Companies and Enterprises 35,104 68,392 33,288 94.8% 68,392 69,094 702 1.0%
Administrative and Waste
Services 108,590 228,792 120,202 110.7% 228,792 234,723 5,931 2.6%
Educational Services 22,091 40,262 18,171 82.3% 40,262 53,531 13,269 33.0%
Health Care and Social
Assistance 203,641 321,754 118,113 58.0% 321,754 412,251 90,497 28.1%
Arts, Entertainment, and
Recreation 27,952 45,751 17,799 63.7% 45,751 48,423 2,672 5.8%
Accommodation and Food
Services 205,943 279,329 73,386 35.6% 279,329 325,685 46,356 16.6%
Other Services, Ex. Public
Administration 77,172 97,914 20,742 26.9% 97,914 98,619 705 0.7%
Public Administration * N/A N/A N/A N/A * N/A N/A
Unclassified * * N/A N/A * 24,233 N/A N/A
Government 476,906 603,170 126,264 26.5% 603,170 660,259 57,089 9.5%
Total** 3,079,017 3,871,209 792,192 25.7% 3,871,209 3,956,688 85,479 2.2%
Source: North Carolina Employment Security Commission
N/A ‐ not applicable/available; * ‐ disclosure suppression; ** ‐ total all industries including undisclosed
Monroe Connector/Bypass (R‐3329/R‐2559)
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
January 2009
23
By comparison, North Carolina experienced an overall increase in employment of
792,192 jobs (25.7%) between 1990 and 2000, and 85,479 jobs (2.2%) between 2000 and
2006 (see Table 5). The manufacturing sector lost approximately 267,000 jobs between
1990 and 2006. This is likely due to the closing of numerous textile mills across the state.
Administrative & waste services and health care & social assistance both added more
than 100,000 employees and experienced gains of 110.7% and 58.0%, respectively
(between 1990 and 2000). Both sectors continued to gain employment between 2000 and
2006, but health care & social assistance gained the most jobs (90,497 and 28.1%) of any
sector. While manufacturing had historically been the industry sector with the most
employees, the government sector had the most employees in 2006.
4.3 Existing Land Use Patterns
Overall, the portion of the FLUSA west of US 601 is more developed than the portion
east of US 601. The Mecklenburg County portion of the FLUSA is almost completely
developed, with commercial and industrial uses concentrated along Independence
Boulevard (US 74) and Monroe Road (SR 1009), and residential uses elsewhere. The
Levine Campus of Central Piedmont Community College is located in the southwest
quadrant of the interchange at I‐485 and US 74.
In the Union County portion of the FLUSA, residential uses tend to be concentrated in
the towns adjacent to the Mecklenburg County border (Weddington, Indian Trail,
Stallings, Hemby Bridge and Lake Park), and in the vicinity of the New Location
Alternatives between Mecklenburg County and US 601. Several new subdivisions were
observed in the northwestern part of Union County, particularly in and around
Unionville and Indian Trail. The unincorporated area east of US 601 is generally
undeveloped, with scattered low‐density residential and institutional uses throughout.
Local planners indicate, and field visit observations confirm, that the eastern part of
Union County remains very active agriculturally. Beans, hay, corn and chicken farms
were observed throughout the FLUSA. The existing land use map (Figure 3) shows
agricultural uses in the same category as residential uses, since some communities have
combined districts.
Land uses along existing US 74 between I‐485 and Marshville chiefly include commercial
and industrial businesses. Commercial and industrial uses are also concentrated in
Indian Trail’s Old Hickory Business Park along Indian Trail‐Fairview Road (SR 1520) on
the north side of US 74, and around the Monroe Regional Airport off of Old Monroe
Road/Old Charlotte Highway (SR 1009). Planned future land uses are shown on
Figure 4.
4.4 Local Land Use Plans and Zoning Ordinances
The level of planning varies among the jurisdictions in the FLUSA. For instance,
Charlotte‐Mecklenburg, Union County, and the City of Monroe all have adopted land
Monroe Connector/Bypass (R‐3329/R‐2559)
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
January 2009
24
use plans and zoning ordinances, as have the towns of Matthews, Mint Hill, Indian
Trail, Weddington, Stallings, and the Village of Wesley Chapel. On the other hand, the
towns of Unionville, Fairview, and Marshville have basic land use plans prepared by the
Centralina Council of Governments to establish goals for future land use decision‐making.
A summary of these plans follows:
Charlotte‐Mecklenburg
Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation 10 Year Master Plan
Mecklenburg County is in the process of planning, designing and constructing multiple
greenway trails throughout the County. These trails provide the citizens and visitors of
Mecklenburg County recreational and transportation opportunities. Of the many
greenway corridors identified throughout the county, Campbell and McAlpine
Greenways are located within the FLUSA. These are existing paved trails that cross the
US 74 corridor.
East District Adopted Future Land Use Map (July 6, 2007)
The East District of Charlotte‐Mecklenburg encompasses the area roughly from US 74 to
the Cabarrus County boundary in southeastern Mecklenburg County. The majority of
the land use in the East District located adjacent to Independence Boulevard (US 74) is
designated as retail, office or multi‐family residential. Just behind the Independence
corridor, the majority of the land uses are designated as single family residential at four
dwellings units per acre.
Southeast Corridor Proposed Transit Stations and Adopted Future Land Use Map
(April 19, 2007)
CATS has identified several corridors within Mecklenburg County that will receive
rapid transit which would improve the regionʹs public transit system. One of those
corridors is the Southeast Corridor, which would provide service to southeast
Mecklenburg County. This project is also known as the LYNX Silver Line. The
preferred alignment for the LYNX Silver Line would follow Independence Boulevard
(US 74) and would include ten transit stations. Of those ten stations, five are located
within the FLUSA; however, the easternmost station is located just east of I‐485 near the
Central Piedmont Community College campus – beyond the eastern terminus of the
Monroe Connector/Bypass project. There are no plans to extend the LYNX Silver Line
line past I‐485 into Union County. Therefore, this proposed transit line would not be
constructed on the portion of US 74 that is included in the Upgrade Existing US 74
Alternative.
As part of the study that identified the preferred alignment and the transit stations, a
future land use map was developed. The land uses correspond with the City’s East
Charlotte Future Land Use Plan, which recommends that the majority of the properties
adjacent to Independence Boulevard (US 74) be retail, office or multi‐family. Just behind
Monroe Connector/Bypass (R‐3329/R‐2559)
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
January 2009
25
Independence Boulevard (US 74), the majority of the land uses are designated as single
family residential (4 dwellings units per acre) with some institutional uses throughout.
Town of Matthews
Matthews Land Use Plan, A Guide for Growth 2002‐2012 (October 14, 2002)
The Matthews Land Use Plan was adopted by the Board of Commissioners in October of
2002 and provided land use and transportation recommendations for the future
development of the Town of Matthews. The plan references the future Monroe
Connector/Bypass and recommends that the Town monitor the development of the
alignment and to “actively resist” any alignment that would bring it near Idlewild Road
(SR 3174).
Town of Matthews Small Area Plan (October 10, 2007)
This small area plan proposes to extend the existing Independence Pointe Parkway to
south to I‐485. This proposed project is approximately ½ mile west of the intersection of
Highway 51 and Independence Boulevard (US 74).
Matthews Strategic Economic Development Plan (December 2007)
This plan identifies two areas for employment growth. These include the I‐485 corridor
and the downtown area. The three I‐485 interchanges at E. John Street (SR 1010),
Independence Boulevard (US 74) and Idlewild Road (SR 3174) were considered because
of their regional access and vacant land to accommodate business/office parks
potentially as part of mixed‐use developments.
Current Zoning Districts (April 2008)
The majority of the land along US 74 within Matthews is zoned B‐1 (Neighborhood
Business). However there are some properties that are zoned B‐3 (General Business);
B‐1SCD (Shopping Center District); I‐2 (Heavy Industrial); R‐12, R‐15, or R‐20 (Single
Family Residential); and C (Conditional). These categories promote high density
residential, general business and commercial uses.
Town of Mint Hill
Town of Mint Hill Land Use Map (January 2008)
The Land Use Map indicates that a majority of Mint Hill should be developed as single
family residential (20,000‐40,000 square feet per lot). Commercial uses and other more
intense uses, such as higher density residential, institutional and retail/office uses are
located along NC 51. These uses are concentrated around the downtown area, creating
am urban core for Mint Hill.
Downtown Mint Hill Master Plan (2002)
Approximately 50% of Mint Hill’s downtown is located within the FLUSA. Traveling
through the center of downtown is NC 51, a major east‐west thoroughfare that connects
several municipalities within Mecklenburg County. The Downtown Master Plan
Monroe Connector/Bypass (R‐3329/R‐2559)
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
January 2009
26
recommends that improvements be made to NC 51 that would enhance the pedestrian
environment in downtown. These improvements include pedestrian crosswalks across
NC 51 and streetscape improvements along the roadway.
Mint Hill Zoning Code (December 7, 2007)
The zoning code includes provisions for soil erosion and sedimentation control and
flood control (SWIM buffers). The intent of this provision is to control soil erosion and
sedimentation in order to protect the public health and welfare, as well as to reduce
pollution from future development. The SWIM buffer regulations are in placed to ensure
that streams and adjacent lands will fulfill their natural functions.
Mint Hill Zoning Map (January 2008)
Most of the Town is zoned as Residential District. This district is designed to encourage
the protection of the natural and manmade environment and resources and the retention
of existing farm lands, rural estates, forested and water areas and other types of open
spaces.
Union County
Union Vision 2020 – A Union County Long Range Plan (1999)
This plan identifies six key benchmarks for Union County determined by various
stakeholders and task force members. The six benchmarks are Education, Quality of
Life, Infrastructure, Economic Development, Government, and Private Sector
Leadership.
Union County Future Land Use Plan Map (April 26, 2006)
Areas within the FLUSA are mostly designated residential or industrial. More
specifically, areas along NC 84 just northwest from the City of Monroe are designated as
Industrial and Residential (2.5‐3.0 dwelling units per acre). Land uses around Wingate
and Marshville are designated as a combination of Commercial, Industrial,
Office/Institutional and Residential (1‐2 dwelling units per acre). The Future Land Use
Map also illustrates several different alignments of the proposed Monroe
Connector/Bypass.
Union County Land Use Ordinance (May 7, 2001) and Zoning Map (August 1, 2007)
Much of Union County, especially non‐urban areas that are not experiencing strong
growth pressures, are zoned RA‐40. This classification encourages agricultural uses,
manufactured housing and low density residential. In general these areas are not served
by public water and sewer. The area between the City of Monroe and Wesley Chapel
that is within the FLUSA is a comprised of several different zoning categories, including
RA‐20, R‐20, LI (Light Industrial), and HI (Heavy Industrial). The areas surrounding
Wingate and Marshville are zoned HC (Highway Corridor Mixed Use), RA‐40, RA‐20,
R‐20 and LI (Light Industrial).
Monroe Connector/Bypass (R‐3329/R‐2559)
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
January 2009
27
The areas along US 74 are zoned for HC (Highway Corridor Mixed Use), which allows
for a variety of Commercial and Light Industrial uses.
No building may be constructed and no substantial improvement of an existing building
may take place within any floodway. No new building may be constructed and no
substantial improvement of a residential building may take place within any 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. And in any area that is located
outside a designated floodplain but where a stream is present, no structure or fill can be
located within 20‐feet from the stream bank on either side.
Town of Weddington
Land Use Plan, Town of Weddington, NC (September 11, 2006)
The land use goals that are outlined in the plan focus on maintaining the Town’s strong
single family character, preserving open space and scenic views, limiting future
development in environmentally sensitive areas and retaining a mix of uses that
reinforces Weddington’s small town character. The FLUSA (Zone 4) intersects the
northeastern portion of the Town of Weddington. The land use within this area is
residential conservation and traditional residential.
Town of Weddington Zoning Map (March 2008)
The properties that are located within the FLUSA (Zone 4) are zoned R‐40, R‐60, and
RCD (Residential Conservation District).
Town of Weddington Temporary Development Ordinance (January 2008)
Weddington passed an 18‐month development moratorium ordinance in January 2008
to allow the Town to address traffic concerns while working on the Local Area Regional
Transportation Plan, land use regulations, zoning and subdivision ordinances.
Village of Wesley Chapel
Village of Wesley Chapel Land Use Plan (December 8, 2003)
Land use recommendations are made for the northeastern part of Wesley Chapel that is
within the FLUSA (Zone 4). The Future Land Use Map indicates that a combination of
low and medium density residential would be located within this area.
Village of Wesley Chapel Zoning Ordinance: Article 14, Floodplains, Drainage,
Stormwater & Wetland Protection (October 17, 2005)
The zoning code provides guidance for several environmental categories including
floodplains, drainage, stormwater and wetland protection. More specifically the
ordinance requires that a 20‐foot easement be established on all open channels and
streams less than 25 acres all the way to 50‐feet on properties that are less than 75 acres.
Monroe Connector/Bypass (R‐3329/R‐2559)
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
January 2009
28
Town of Indian Trail
The Villages of Indian Trail – A Plan for Managed Growth and Livability (November 8,
2005)
The Land Use Plan was adopted by Town Council in 2005 and provides guidance for
future growth throughout the Town for the next 20 years. The plan recognizes the
importance of the proposed Monroe Connector/Bypass and has planned for future
growth around the proposed alignment and its interchanges. The plan mentions that the
project would divert most through traffic from US 74, allowing it to become a more
effective regional commercial road in Indian Trail. The Land Use Plan also recommends
mostly medium density residential to be located around the proposed interchanges with
approximately 1.6 million square feet of commercial and retail.
Areas east of the proposed Monroe Connector/Bypass and south of the Goose Creek
watershed are mostly undeveloped. While this area is experiencing some growth
pressures, there are still many working farms and undeveloped land. There are two
factors that would limit future development within the Goose Creek watershed. The first
is that previous development did not provide adequate stormwater management;
therefore much of the area in this area is subject to flooding. The second factor is that the
federally‐endangered Carolina heelsplitter is located within the Goose Creek watershed.
This has led the US. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to propose density, stream
buffer and sewer restrictions in this watershed. Due to these important environmental
factors, the Land Use Plan proposes that future development in this area be limited to
low density residential with an emphasis on preserving open space and natural areas.
The transportation section of the Plan identifies the anticipated travel demand and the
number of lanes that would be needed for each of the Town’s major roadways. Four
lanes is recommended for the Monroe Connector/Bypass.
Defining the Vision for Downtown Indian Trail, NC (July 2003)
The Vision Plan was developed in 2003 and outlines several recommendations for
improving the downtown of Indian Trail. In summary, the plan identifies infill
opportunities, streetscape improvements, gateway opportunities, additional green
spaces and some transportation improvements. The plan recommends that a new bypass
be considered that would connect US 74 to Old Monroe Road (SR 1957); diverting
through traffic away from Indian Trail Road (SR 1008/SR 1367). In addition to this
facility, several other street connections are recommended that would create better
connectivity throughout the downtown area.
Old Hickory Business Park Master Plan (October 10, 2006)
The master plan was developed to describe the concept for Old Hickory as well as the
design principles that support the concept, and to provide a set of guidelines for
developing Old Hickory Business Park. The goals of the plan are to provide a good mix
Monroe Connector/Bypass (R‐3329/R‐2559)
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
January 2009
29
of uses and to provide vehicular and pedestrian linkages that would link the commercial
services located along Indian Trail Road (SR 1008/SR 1367).
Unified Development Ordinance (2007)
The majority of properties within the Town of Indian Trail are zoned for residential
uses. The areas located around the proposed Monroe Connector/Bypass are zoned R‐20,
R‐6, RA‐20, HC (Highway Commercial), B‐4 and LI (Light Industrial). The proposed
alignment also travels through the Old Hickory Planned Industrial District.
Town of Stallings
Stallings Land Use Plan Goals, Objectives and Strategies (April 12, 2006)
Several major objectives were identified for residential, commercial and industrial uses,
open space and environmental issues and downtown Stallings. The Monroe
Connector/Bypass project is identified in this plan.
Town of Stallings Land Use Map (March 19, 2007)
The entire Town of Stallings is within the FLUSA (Zone 3) and the Future Land Use Map
illustrates several types of land uses throughout. Along the US 74 corridor, the primary
uses include General Commercial, Mixed Use Class 3 (Destination Retail/Office/Mixed
Residential), Mixed Use Class 2 (Light Retail/Office/Residential) and Business Center.
Just beyond the corridor there are several properties that are zoned for Traditional
Residential. Single‐family residential can vary in density depending on location and
availability of utilities. Density levels may be as high as three units per acre.
Town of Stallings, NC Zoning and Street Map (July 2007)
The entire Town of Stallings is located within the FLUSA (Zone 3). Several land use
categories are identified throughout the Town and of those approximately 50% are
traditional residential uses. The area near the proposed Monroe Connector/Bypass is
recommended for Business Center, Office/Light Retail, Mixed Use, Office Center and
Traditional Residential because of easy access to US 74, Old Charlotte Highway
(SR 1009) and I‐485. In terms of zoning, the area near the proposed Monroe
Connector/Bypass is a combination of the R‐20, B‐6, LI and Conditional Zoning.
Stallings Land Use Ordinance (June 11, 2007)
The Land Use Ordinance includes a Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance which
regulates development in potential flood areas. New construction or substantial
improvement of any structure, including manufactured homes, shall have the lowest
floor, including the basement, elevated no lower than two feet above the base flood
elevation.
Monroe Connector/Bypass (R‐3329/R‐2559)
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
January 2009
30
Town of Unionville
Town of Unionville Land Use Plan (March 2006)
Prepared by the Centralina Council of Governments, the Land Use Plan indicates that
existing land use in Unionville is primarily agricultural and low‐density residential. The
goals for the Town guide development in the near future of 5‐10 years. Within the
timeframe of this plan, no major expansions of the public sewer system are expected,
and the Monroe Connector/Bypass (which would be located at the southern edge of
Town) will not yet be completed. In the near future, it is anticipated that new
development will continue at a moderate pace and at low densities similar to recent
years.
Town of Unionville Land Use Ordinance (October 1, 2003)
This ordinance implements the planning policies of the Land Use Plan. The Monroe
Connector/Bypass project is not mentioned in this ordinance.
Town of Fairview
Town of Fairview Land Development Plan (April 18, 2005)
Prepared by the Centralina Council of Governments, the Land Use Plan provides
guidance to ensure that the quality of life for Fairview is protected and that it represents
the foundation upon which future land use decisions would be based. Activity nodes are
indicated on the Future Land Use Map that are located within the FLUSA (Zone 2).
These areas shall consist of small scale office and retail developments. The majority of
the land use within the Town is designated as low density residential (0‐1 dwelling unit
per acre).
Town of Fairview Future Land Use Plan Map (June 2006)
The majority of the Town of Fairview is zoned RA‐40. The RA‐40 classification allows
agricultural uses, low density residential uses and manufactured homes in areas not
experiencing strong growth pressures and not served by public water or sewer.
City of Monroe
City of Monroe Land Development Plan (2000)
The purpose of the Land Development Plan is to establish guidelines for the
development of land within the City of Monroe until the year 2010. The plan describes a
series of goals, objectives, and strategies, and their plan for implementation. Low density
residential uses are designated in the far northern and southern ends of Monroe’s
extraterritorial jurisdiction, located largely within the water supply watersheds.
Maximum densities are two dwelling units per acre, and public utilities may or may not
be available. Moderate Density residential areas are located along the western edge of
Monroe, primarily between Old Charlotte Highway (SR 1009) and Waxhaw Road. Up to
three units per acre are allowed, and public utilities are either provided or technically
feasible.
Monroe Connector/Bypass (R‐3329/R‐2559)
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
January 2009
31
According to the Monroe Land Development Plan map, existing commercial areas
include the central business district, the entire US 74 corridor, and retail developments
along Old Charlotte Highway (SR 1009).
City of Monroe Downtown Master Plan (February 2008)
The Downtown Master Plan is currently being developed to create a vision for the future
and to return Monroe to its position as the focal point of commerce, arts and
employment in Union County. Within the Master Plan several improvements are
recommended that would enhance the multi‐modal transportation system.
The future land use for the downtown area along US 601, which links directly to the
proposed alignment for the Monroe Connector/Bypass, includes High Density
Residential, Office/Employment, Civic/Institutional, Mixed Use A (High Density
Residential/Office/Commercial) and Mixed Use B (High Density Residential / Office /
Commercial / Civic).
Proposed M.L. King Jr. Boulevard Future Land Use Plan Map (April 2004)
The plan contains proposed land use and zoning recommendations throughout the
proposed MLK Extension. The proposed extension begins at the intersection of the
existing MLK Boulevard (SR 1223) and Goldmine Road and extends south where it
intersects with Lancaster Avenue (NC 200).
Monroe Zoning Code (2006)
The City of Monroe has adopted a zoning code that includes environmental and
development regulations (including zoning, floodplain/floodway, and watershed).
The watershed ordinance identifies a WS‐III‐CA (Critical Area), WS‐III B W (Balance of
Watershed), WS‐IV CA (Critical Area), and WS‐IV‐PA (Protected Area). Development is
regulated in each of these districts. The proposed Monroe Connector/Bypass appears to
intersect at least one of these areas.
In addition to the watershed area restrictions, a 100‐foot vegetated buffer is required on
all perennial streams that are located in the city limits.
Official City of Monroe Zoning Map (May 2005)
Two major roads that connect to the proposed Monroe Connector/Bypass are Morgan
Mill Road (NC 200) and Skyway Drive (US 601). These two roadways extend north
through the northern portion of Union County and connect several municipalities. The
Zoning Map for the City of Monroe shows that land around the future Monroe
Connector/Bypass and between Highway 200 and 601 is zoned for R‐40 and R‐20.
According the zoning code R‐40 and R‐20 (Residential Low Density) districts are
designed to accommodate single‐family residential development in areas within the
cityʹs planning jurisdiction that are not served by public water or sewer facilities and
Monroe Connector/Bypass (R‐3329/R‐2559)
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
January 2009
32
that are not yet appropriate for development at higher densities. Areas closer to
downtown are zoned either G‐1 (General Industrial) or GB (General Business).
Town of Wingate
Town of Wingate Land Use Ordinance (February 7, 2006)
Planned Residential Developments are only allowed on tracts of land that are five acres
or greater located within R‐40 and R‐20 zoning categories. Floodplain and Floodway
Overlay Districts have been established. A Water Supply Watershed Overlay District
has also been established.
In any area that is located outside a designated floodplain but where a stream is present,
no structure or fill can be located within 20‐feet from the stream bank on either side.
Town of Marshville
Town of Marshville Land Use Plan (August 16, 2004)
The Land Use Plan for Marshville was prepared by the Centralina Council of
Governments and adopted in 2004. The Land Use Plan outlines long‐term growth and
development goals and serves as a general guide for future development. The plan
highlights several land use goals that would assist the Town in guiding future growth.
In particular, the plan identifies US 74 as an important commercial corridor that needs to
be aesthetically pleasing. Highway 74 is considered to be a gateway for the community.
4.5 Transportation Plans and Proposed Projects
The Monroe Connector and Monroe Bypass projects are both included in MUMPO’s
2030 LRTP as regionally significant projects. The LRTP indicates that the Monroe
Bypass is a 2010 horizon year project, and it would be a new four‐lane freeway,
classified as a principal arterial. The Monroe Connector is identified as a 2020 horizon
year project, and it would also be a new four‐lane freeway, classified as a principal
arterial; however, the funding source is shown as “toll” as opposed to “NCTIP.”
The 2004 MUMPO Thoroughfare Plan shows both the Monroe Connector and Bypass as
a proposed freeway‐expressway. Both the 2030 LRTP and the Thoroughfare Plan show
the Connector/Bypass projects in the same general alignment and with the same
interchanges as proposed by NCTA. As part of STIP Project U‐3619 (see below), an
interchange is anticipated at the proposed Secrest Avenue extension and the proposed
Monroe Bypass. This interchange is included in MUMPO’s plans.
North Carolina Department of Transportation 2009‐2015 STIP projects located in the
FLUSA include the projects below and are shown on Figure 1.
Monroe Connector/Bypass (R‐3329/R‐2559)
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
January 2009
33
• R‐211EC Mecklenburg County. I‐485/SR 3468 (Weddington Road), construct
interchange. Start right‐of‐way acquisition in 2009. Begin construction in 2011.
Strategic Highway Corridor and Intrastate Project.
• R‐2616 Union County. US 601 from South Carolina state line to US 74 in
Monroe, widen to multi‐lanes. Part complete – part under construction (design‐build).
Strategic Highway Corridor.
• R‐4441 Union County. Upgrade US 74 to freeway standards from Monroe
Bypass (R‐2559) to Rockingham Bypass (R‐512) with a bypass of Wadesboro.
Project is currently unfunded.
• U‐0213 Union County. Charlotte Avenue from Railroad to Concord Avenue,
widen to multi‐lanes. Right‐of‐way and construction are unfunded.
• U‐2509 Mecklenburg County. US 74 (Independence Boulevard) from Charlotte
Outer Loop to Idlewild Road, upgrade for additional capacity and safety.
Right‐of‐way and construction are unfunded. Feasibility study in progress.
Strategic Highway Corridor.
• U‐2547 Union County. SR 2188 (Charles Street) from SR 2181 (Sunset Drive) to
SR 2100 (Franklin Street), widen to multi‐lanes. Start right‐of‐way acquisition
and utilities in 2009. Begin construction in 2011. Planning and design in
progress.
• U‐2549 Union County. Monroe Northern Loop from US 74 to SR 1751 (Walkup
Avenue) at SR 1763 (Bivens Road), two lanes on four‐lane right‐of‐way. Right‐of‐
way and construction are unfunded.
• U‐3412 Union County. SR 1223 (Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard) from NC
200 (Lancaster Avenue) to SR 1009 (Charlotte Avenue), two lanes on multi‐lane
right‐of‐way, new location. Part complete – part under construction (design‐build).
Strategic Highway Corridor.
• U‐3619 Union County. Secrest Avenue Extension from SR 1751 (Walkup
Avenue) to SR 1006 (Olive Branch Road), multi‐lanes new location with
interchange at proposed Monroe Bypass. Right‐of‐way and construction are
unfunded.
• U‐3809 Union County. SR 1008 (Indian Trail Road) from SR 1009 (Old Charlotte
Highway) to US 74, widen to multi‐lanes. Start right‐of‐way acquisition in 2011.
Begin construction in 2012. Planning and design by Town of Indian Trail.
• U‐3825 Union County. SR 1365 (Stallings Road) from SR 1009 (Old Charlotte
Highway) to US 74, widen to multi‐lanes and coordinate with the proposed
Monroe Connector/Bypass (R‐3329/R‐2559)
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
January 2009
34
Monroe Connector. Start right‐of‐way acquisition in 2009, mitigation in 2010,
construction in 2011. Planning and design in progress.
• U‐4024 Union County. US 601 from US 74 to the proposed Monroe Bypass,
widen to multi‐lanes and construct improvements to the existing US 74/US 601
interchange. Begin right‐of‐way acquisition in 2012 and construction in 2014.
Part unfunded. Strategic Highway Corridor.
• U‐4713 Mecklenburg County. SR 3440 (McKee Road) extension from SR 3457
(Campus Ridge Road) to SR 3448 (Pleasant Plains Road), two lanes on multi‐lane
right‐of‐way on new location. Begin right‐of‐way acquisition in 2012 and
construction in 2013 for segment B, SR 3448 (Pleasant Plains Road) to SR 1009
(John Street). Planning and design of segment B by Town of Matthews. Right‐of‐
way and construction for segment A, SR 1009 (John Street) to SR 3457
(Campus Ridge Road), are unfunded.
• U‐4714 Mecklenburg and Union Counties. SR 1009 (John Street – Old Monroe
Road) from SR 3448 – SR 3474 (Trade Street) to SR 1377 (Wesley Chapel‐Stouts
Road) in Matthews and Stallings, widen to multi‐lanes. Right‐of‐way and
construction are unfunded. Programmed for planning and environmental
study only by municipalities.
• U‐4913 Mecklenburg and Union Counties. SR 3174/SR 1501 (Idlewild Road)
from I‐485 to SR 1524 (Stevens Mill Road), widen to multi‐lanes. Right‐of‐way
and construction are unfunded.
• U‐5007 Mecklenburg County. NC 51 from US 74 (Independence Boulevard) to
SR 3128 (Lawyers Road), widen to multi‐lanes. Right‐of‐way and construction
are unfunded.
• U‐5025 Mecklenburg County. Weddington Road from Trade Street to I‐485,
widen to multi‐lanes. Currently under construction and using “moving ahead”
funds. Construction is scheduled for completion in early 2009.
The Destination:2030 – Your Guide to the 2030 Transit Corridor System Plan (November 15,
2006) is an updated, long‐range plan that consists of multiple rapid transit investments
which include a series of Center City improvements and bus service and facility
enhancements throughout the region. Once such improvement includes the
development of the Southeast Corridor Rapid Transit Corridor also known as the LYNX
Silver Line. The LYNX Silver Line is a 14‐mile Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) alternative that
would extend from Center City Charlotte to the Town of Matthews. The Silver Line
would operate in an exclusive guideway for more than 90% of the line, in the median of
Independence Boulevard (US 74) and along Independence Pointe Parkway, resulting in
faster travel times and more reliable service.
Monroe Connector/Bypass (R‐3329/R‐2559)
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
January 2009
35
The easternmost station on the planned LYNX Silver Line is located just east of I‐485
near the Central Piedmont Community College campus – beyond the western terminus
of the Monroe Connector/Bypass project. There are no plans to extend the LYNX Silver
Line line past I‐485 into Union County. Therefore, this proposed transit line would not
be constructed on the portion of US 74 that is included in the Upgrade Existing US 74
Alternative.
4.6 Environmental Regulations
NPDES Regulations
In 1972, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program was
established under the authority of the Clean Water Act. Phase I of the NPDES storm
water program was established in 1990. It required NPDES permit coverage for large or
medium municipalities that had populations of 100,000 or more. In North Carolina,
there are six Phase I communities.
According to the NCDENR‐DWQ website, the City of Charlotte is identified by the US
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as a Phase I storm water permittee. As
required by NPDES regulations, Charlotte must develop and implement a storm water
program including public education, illicit discharge detection and elimination, storm
sewer system and land use mapping, and analytical monitoring.
The Phase II program extends permit coverage to smaller (< 100,000 pop.) communities
and public entities that own or operate a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4).
The Phase II program builds on the existing Phase I program by requiring smaller
communities and public entities that own and operate an MS4 to apply and obtain an
NPDES permit for storm water discharges. Federal law requires communities and
public entities that own or operate an MS4 and that satisfy either of the following two
conditions to obtain an NPDES Phase II storm water permit:
1) The MS4 is located in an urbanized area as determined by the latest Decennial
Census of the Bureau of the Census. (If the MS4 is not located entirely within an
urbanized area, only the portion that is within the urbanized area is regulated).
2) The community or public entity is designated by the NPDES permitting
authority. In the State of North Carolina, the NPDES permitting authority is the
Environmental Management Commission (EMC).
According to the NCDENR‐DWQ website, the towns of Matthews, Mint Hill,
Weddington, Wesley Chapel, Indian Trail, Stallings, Hemby Bridge, Lake Park and
Monroe, and both Mecklenburg and Union Counties are identified by the USEPA as
Phase II storm water permittees. Consequently, as required by NPDES regulations, they
must, at a minimum, develop, implement, and enforce a storm water program designed
Monroe Connector/Bypass (R‐3329/R‐2559)
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
January 2009
36
to reduce the discharge of pollutants from the municipal separate storm sewer system
(MS4) to the maximum extent practicable using the six minimum control measures of
the Phase II program. Each of the six minimum controls requires the use of Best
Management Practices (BMPs) and measurable goals (i.e., narrative or numeric
standards used to gauge program effectiveness).
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Regulations
Construction or land development activities that disturb one acre of land or more
require an erosion and sediment control plan under the state’s Sedimentation Pollution
Control Act (SPCA) administered by the NC Division of Land Resources. Local
governments may review and enforce the erosion and sediment control plan within their
jurisdiction, but the program has to be as strict as the Division of Land Resources
program. Site disturbances of less than one acre require the use of NCDOT’s BMPs, but
a site plan is not required.
Watershed Regulations
The FLUSA is intersected by two major river basins, the Catawba (sub‐basins 03‐08‐34
and 03‐08‐38) and the Yadkin (sub‐basins 03‐07‐12 and 03‐07‐14). In addition, there are
two Water Supply Watersheds, the Stewarts Creek/Lake Twitty Water Supply
Watershed (Class III) and the Richardson Creek Water Supply Watershed (Class IV).
The NCDENR‐DWQ prepared a Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Plan in
September 2004. This plan indicates that although all NPDES point sources have been
removed from Sixmile Creek, NCDENR‐DWQ still recommends development of
management strategies to reduce runoff and implementation of agricultural BMPs.
The NCDENR‐DWQ prepared a Yadkin River Basinwide Water Quality Plan in March 2003
in an effort to create long‐term water quality management strategies for local and state
officials. This plan indicates that Goose Creek/Duck Creek watershed is a Nationally
Significant Aquatic Habitat because it is home to six rare mollusks, including the
federally endangered Carolina heelsplitter. The South Fork of Crooked Creek is
identified as a state significant site, and Lanes Creek is identified as a regionally
significant aquatic habitat. Recommendations are made to reduce non‐point source
pollution, particularly stormwater runoff.
Development in the protected area of Class III water supply watersheds (such as the
Stewarts Creek/Lake Twitty watershed shown on Figures 5 and 7) is limited to two
dwelling units per acre or 24% built‐upon area under the low‐density option. Thirty
foot stream buffers are required under the low density option. Under the high‐density
option, 24‐50% built‐upon area is permitted, and 100 foot stream buffers are required. In
the critical area, only one dwelling unit per acre or 12% built‐upon area is permitted
under the low density option. Under the high density option, 12‐30% built‐upon area is
allowed. The same stream buffers apply as in the protected area of the watershed.
Monroe Connector/Bypass (R‐3329/R‐2559)
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
January 2009
37
Standard sedimentation and erosion controls apply throughout the watershed, and
agriculture, forestry and transportation best management practices are mandated.
Development in the protected area of Class IV water supply watersheds (such as the
Richardson Creek watershed shown on Figures 5 and 7) is limited to two dwelling units
per acre or 24% built‐upon area under the low density option. Under the high density
option, 24‐70% built‐upon area is allowed. In the critical area, the low density option is
the same as it is in the protected area. The high density option allows 24‐50% built‐upon
area. The same stream buffers apply as for Class III water supply watersheds. Standard
sedimentation and erosion controls also apply, and agriculture, forestry and
transportation best management practices are mandated.
Post‐Construction and Storm Water Ordinances
The City of Charlotte Post‐Construction Controls Ordinance (July 1, 2008) provides measures
to “protect, maintain and enhance the health, safety, environment and general welfare
by establishing minimum requirements and procedures to control the adverse effects of
increased post construction storm water runoff and non‐point source pollution
associated with new development and redevelopment.”
There are three watershed districts that are defined in the ordinance, one of which is
located in the FLUSA. The Central Catawba Watershed District is the area that drains to
Sugar, Little Sugar and McAlpine Creeks, including all tributaries, except for Six Mile
Creek. Stream buffer regulations have been established for the Central Catawba
Watershed District for all intermittent and perennial streams within low density and
high density projects. The buffer regulations for low density and high density projects
vary slightly, but in general they both require a minimum of 30 feet to 100 feet of
vegetated buffer on all intermittent and perennial streams including a 10‐foot zone
adjacent to the bank. The size of the buffer depends on the size of the property.
The Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) initiative established buffer
zones along creeks in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County and Matthews and Mint Hill.
No construction or development is allowed in the buffer zones. SWIM is an on‐going,
strategic, long‐range effort that includes:
􀂃􈍰 pollution reduction
􀂃􈍥 erosion control
􀂃􈍷 water quality monitoring
􀂃􈍷 watershed planning
􀂃􈍳 stream restoration and enhancement projects.
The Town of Matthews Post‐Construction Storm Water Ordinance (June 30, 2007)
defines two specific districts ‐ the Central Catawba District and the Yadkin District. The
Central Catawba District is the area of land that drains to McAlpine and Four Mile
Monroe Connector/Bypass (R‐3329/R‐2559)
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
January 2009
38
Creeks in the Catawba River basin in the Town of Matthews, including all creeks
tributaries. The Yadkin District is the area of land that drains to the North Fork of
Crooked Creek in the Yadkin River basin in the Town of Matthews, including all creeks
and tributaries. Each district contains provisions for stream buffers and storm water
control measures. Another measure that is required as part of this ordinance is
“Undisturbed Open Space” provision. The undisturbed open space provision is required
for all development unless mitigated. The percentage of Open Space required depends
on a project’s built‐upon area. Undisturbed open space requirements can be met in
stream or lake buffers, designated common areas or on individual lots for residential
development (e.g., backyards, borders, etc.).
The Town of Mint Hill Post‐Construction Storm Water Ordinance (June 30, 2007) indicates
that areas within the Goose Creek watershed require 100‐foot undisturbed buffers on
intermittent streams and 200‐foot undisturbed buffers on perennial streams. Low
density and high density projects outside the Goose Creek watershed area are required
to maintain a 30‐foot buffer along intermittent and perennial streams.
The Union County Stormwater Discharge and Quality Control Ordinance requires
countywide riparian buffers on all intermittent and perennial streams as follows:
􀂃􈍃 Countywide buffer requirements for intermittent streams include a 30‐foot buffer
referenced as the Streamside Zone.
􀂃􈍃 Countywide buffer requirements for perennial streams include a 30‐foot buffer in
the Streamside Zone and a 20‐foot buffer in the Upland Zone for a total of a 50‐
foot buffer.
􀂃􈍃 Countywide buffer requirements for perennial streams of drainage areas greater
than 640 acres are 50‐foot buffers in the Streamside Zone and 50‐foot buffers in
the Upland Zone for a total buffer of 100‐feet.
The Stormwater Ordinance requires greater riparian buffers on all intermittent and
perennial streams in the Duck, Goose, and Waxhaw Creek watersheds. These buffers
include 100‐feet on all intermittent and 200‐feet on all perennial streams. All buffers
shall be measured from the top of bank.
NCDENR, on behalf of the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission, is
proposing two new rule “options” to protect the Carolina heelsplitter in Goose Creek
watershed (which also includes Duck Creek). Option A includes the following site‐specific
management strategies: controlling stormwater for projects disturbing half acre
of more of land, controlling wastewater discharges (no new NPDES wastewater
discharges), and controlling ammonia toxicity to streams supporting the species. No
new impervious or partially pervious surfaces shall be allowed within the 100‐year
floodplain within 100 feet of intermittent streams and 200 feet of perennial streams. The
riparian buffer shall extend a distance of 50 feet on all sides of intermittent and perennial
Monroe Connector/Bypass (R‐3329/R‐2559)
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
January 2009
39
streams, ponds lakes and reservoirs. Option B includes similar site‐specific management
strategies except that the riparian buffer shall extend a distance of 100 feet on all sides of
an intermittent stream, and 200 feet on all sides of perennial streams, ponds, lakes and
reservoirs.
Fairview, Unionville and Marshville staff indicated that they follow the Union County
Ordinance for buffer regulations. The City of Monroe requires a 100‐foot vegetated
buffer on all perennial streams in the city limits, and Wingate restricts development
within 20 feet of stream banks.
The Village of Wesley Chapel Zoning Ordinance: Article 14, Floodplains, Drainage, Stormwater
& Wetland Protection (October 17, 2005) provides guidance for several environmental
categories including floodplains, drainage, stormwater and wetland protection. More
specifically the ordinance requires that a 20‐foot easement be established on all open
channels and streams less than 25 acres all the way to 50‐feet on properties that are less
than 75 acres.
The Town of Indian Trail Post‐Construction Storm Water Ordinance (September 11, 2007)
provides measures to “protect, maintain and enhance the health, safety, environment
and general welfare by establishing minimum requirements and procedures to control
the adverse effects of increased post construction storm water runoff and non‐point
source pollution associated with new development and redevelopment.”
More specifically the ordinance requires that stream buffers are provided along all
perennial and intermittent streams. The buffer requirement on perennial streams is 200
feet on either side of the stream. The buffer requirement on intermittent streams is 100
feet on both sides of the stream.
The Town of Stallings Post‐Construction Storm Water Ordinance (May 3, 2007) indicates that
within the Town of Stallings are two watershed districts ‐ Twelve‐Mile Creek and
Crooked Creek. These two districts require low density and high density projects to
maintain a 30‐foot buffer along intermittent and perennial streams.
Monroe Connector/Bypass (R‐3329/R‐2559)
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
January 2009
40
5. INVENTORY OF NOTABLE FEATURES (STEP 3)
Based on NCDOT GIS shapefiles, NC One Map GIS shapefiles, and web‐based research,
an inventory of notable features was assembled. The notable features were cross‐referenced
with the following environmental documents: the Historic Architectural
Resources Reconnaissance Report (NCDOT, October 2007) and the Endangered Plant Survey
Update (ESI, November 2007). Figure 5 shows the USGS quads in which protected
species are located, National Register of Historic Places structures and districts, historic
study list structures and districts, water resources and 303(d) streams.
5.1 Federally‐Protected Species
Four species with federal protection (that is, species listed as threatened or endangered)
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 are considered by the US Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) to have ranges extending into Mecklenburg and Union
Counties. Section 7 of the ESA requires that any federal action likely to adversely affect a
species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA be subject to review by the
USFWS. As defined by the ESA, an endangered species is any plant or animal which is
in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the
foreseeable future. A threatened species is any species which is likely to become an
endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range. Table 6 lists ESA‐protected species. Other species may receive additional
protection under separate laws such as the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981, the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1999, or the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
Table 6. Federally‐Protected Species in Union and Mecklenburg Counties
Common Name Scientific Name County* Federal
Status^
Potential Habitat
Present in FLUSA
Invertebrate
Carolina heelsplitter Lasmigona decorata U/M E Yes
Plants
Schweinitz’s sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii U/M E Yes
Smooth coneflower Echinacea laevigata M E Yes
Michaux’s sumac Rhus michauxii M E Yes
* U – Union County; M – Mecklenburg County
^ E ‐ Endangered
Environmental Services, Inc. (ESI) conducted a protected species survey (Endangered
Plant Survey Update, November 15, 2007) for the federally endangered plant species with
habitat in the in the project study area. Surveys were completed for Schweinitz’s
sunflower, smooth coneflower, and Michaux’s sumac within the high and moderate
probability habitat areas located within the preliminary study corridors of the project.
Monroe Connector/Bypass (R‐3329/R‐2559)
Indirect and Cumulative Effects Assessment
January 2009
41
These species tend to grow in disturbed areas with little herbaceous competition and
abundant light, including hillsides, roadsides, and utility rights of way. The survey
identified two populations of Schweinitz’s sunflower within the project study area
(Zone 3). No specimens of Michaux’s sumac or smooth coneflower were identified
during the field studies. Habitat for these species is found throughout the FLUSA in all
zones.
The Carolina heelsplitter is a small, native freshwater mussel endemic to the study area.
Six populations of the species are currently known to exist, two of which are in Union
County – in the Waxhaw Creek watershed south of the FLUSA and in the Goose Creek
watershed within the FLUSA (Zone 2).
Local planners and environmental agencies have also indicated that the Carolina darter
fish (Etheostoma collis) and several other mussels, including Savannah lilliput (Toxolasma
pullus), Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) and Carolina creekshell (Villosa vaughaniana),
are federal species of concern that have been documented in South Fork Crooked Creek
and North Fork Crooked Creek within the FLUSA (Zone 3).
5.2 Water Resources
The FLUSA is intersected by two major river basins, the Catawba (sub‐basins 03‐08‐34
and 03‐08‐38) and the Yadkin (sub‐