Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
Appendix A.
April 2004
BMP Opportunities Identified
A-1
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
SITE NUMBER: 1 Site Location: Behind the track and field at Reidsville High School Contributing Drainage Area: Approximately 7.5 acres Drainage Area Landuse: Institutional Drainage Area Imperviousness: High Potential Area for Proposed Practice: Approximately 0.5 acres Tier I Subwatershed: LT4 Cons:
Pros: •
Rockingham County Owns Property
•
Cleared Site
•
Previously Used as a Sediment Basin
•
No Infrastructure Constraints
•
Offline Facility
•
Potential to be Integrated into Greenway
•
Treats Portion of the School Parking Lot
•
Existing Grass Swale Between Parking Lot and Site
•
Potential Education Component Tied to High School
•
Good Site Access for Construction and Maintenance Purposes
•
Located on School Property
Recommended Practice: Constructed Stormwater Wetland Recommended Size of Practice: 0.2 Acres Estimated Cost: $ 12,022 Comments: This is a good site. Provided that appropriate agreements can be negotiated with Rockingham County Public Schools for use of the land, no costs for land acquisition will be incurred. The City of Reidsville has plans on the drawing board for a greenway running along the back of the school property that will connect to the Jaycee Park facilities. Any educational components at this site could be easily integrated into the greenway design to maximize public exposure and awareness. A collaborative effort between staff from PTCOG, the City of Reidsville and N.C. State University Cooperative Extension is already under way toward implementation of a stormwater wetland at this site.
A-2
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
Map of Site 1 at Reidsville High School:
K PAR
DR
Contributing Watershed
Reidsville High School Property Proposed BMP Site
B
UT to Little Troublesome Cr.
INE EL G RID
LEGEND Street Centerlines Sewer Lines Water Lines USGS 1:24,000 Streams intermittent perennial Parcels NWI Waterbodies NWI Wetlands BMP Contributing Watershed Proposed BMP Site
N W
E S
SCALE 200
0
200
400 Feet
A-3
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
SITE NUMBER: 2 Site Location: Lower Section of Courtland Park Contributing Drainage Area: Approximately 52 acres Drainage Area Landuse: Residential Drainage Area Imperviousness: Moderate Potential Area for Proposed Practice: Approximately 2.5 acres Tier I Subwatershed: LT2 Pros: •
City of Reidsville Owns Property
•
Cleared Site
•
Few Infrastructure Constraints
•
Treats an Established Residential Area
•
Potential Public Education Opportunities
•
Site Located in the Headwaters
•
Natural Topography Supports a Detention Facility
•
Offline Facility
•
Good Access for Construction and Maintenance Purposes
Cons: •
Implementation will require 404 Permit and 401 Water Quality Certification
Recommended Practice: Constructed Stormwater Wetland Recommended Size of Practice: 1.2 Acres Estimated Cost: $ 72,135 Comments: This is a great site. It offers the potential to treat a large area of urban/suburban residential land with significant imperviousness. Provided that the City of Reidsville Parks Department allows this use of an otherwise unused section of the park, no costs for land acquisition will be incurred. Given that this site is located in a highly used city park, a strong potential for public education could be realized. A collaborative effort between staff from PTCOG, the City of Reidsville and N.C. State University Cooperative Extension is already under way toward implementation of a stormwater wetland at this site.
A-4
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
Map of Site 2 at Courtland Park:
H EI G DL O WO
oubles ome Cr . SPRING
UT to L ittle Tr
MAGNO LIA
UMMIT
Courtland Park Property Proposed BMP Site
LE DA
Contributing Watershed
N EE GR
CO AC H G
LEGENDMOR
AN
Street Centerlines Sewer Lines Water Lines USGS 1:24,000 Streams intermittent perennial Parcels NWI Waterbodies NWI Wetlands BMP Contributing Watershed Proposed BMP Site
N W
E S
SCALE 200
0
200
400 Feet
H
A-5
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
SITE NUMBER: 3 Site Location: Between the Jaycee Park and Scales Street Contributing Drainage Area: Approximately 27 acres Drainage Area Landuse: Residential Drainage Area Imperviousness: Moderate Potential Area for Proposed Practice: Approximately 2.5 acres Tier I Subwatershed: LT4 Cons:
Pros: •
City of Reidsville Owns Property
•
Mostly Wooded Site
•
No Infrastructure Constraints
•
•
Offline Facility
Site May Require Considerable Earthwork due to Topography
•
Could be Integrated with the Greenway and Jaycee Park
•
Treats an Established Residential Neighborhood
•
Located in the Headwaters of the Subwatershed
•
Good Access for Construction and Maintenance Purposes
•
Could be Implemented in Conjunction with Proposed Stream Restoration Project
Recommended Practice: Constructed Stormwater Wetland Recommended Size of Practice: 0.6 Acres Estimated Cost: $ 36,068 Comments: Site offers the potential to treat an area of urban/suburban residential land with significant imperviousness. Provided that the City of Reidsville Parks Department allows this use of an otherwise unused section of the park, no costs for land acquisition will be incurred. Given that this site is located in a highly used city park, a strong potential for public education could be realized. At this time the site is predominantly forested and the idea of significant disturbance may be undesirable to the Parks Department and/or citizens. The section of Little Troublesome Creek immediately adjacent to this site is recommended for restoration and this area of land is included in the City’s planned greenway. If the BMP project, the restoration and the greenway were implemented in conjunction, an integrated design approach could be utilized to minimize the design and construction costs and maximize the aesthetic and functional interactions of all three.
A-6
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
Map of Site 3 at Jaycee Park:
Cr .
UT
to
Li tt
le
Tr ou bl es om
e
T. SS ALE SC
Cr .
Lit tle Tro ub les om e
JA YC EE PA RK
Proposed BMP Site DR. ER V STO WE
Jaycee Park Property
Contributing Watershed
LEGEND Street Centerlines Sewer Lines Water Lines USGS 1:24,000 Streams intermittent perennial Parcels NWI Waterbodies NWI Wetlands BMP Contributing Watershed Proposed BMP Site
N W
E S
SCALE 100
0
100
200
300 Feet
A-7
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
SITE NUMBER: 4 Site Location: Adjacent to Reidsville Cemetery North of Forsyth Street Contributing Drainage Area: Approximately 25 acres Drainage Area Landuse: Managed Grass Drainage Area Imperviousness: Low Potential Area for Proposed Practice: Approximately 2 acres Tier I Subwatershed: LT3 Cons:
Pros: •
City of Reidsville Owns Property
•
No Infrastructure Constraints
•
Offline Facility
•
Treats the Runoff from the City Cemetery
•
Existing Grass Swale Between Cemetery and Site
•
Natural Topography Would Require Minimal Earthwork
•
Cleared Site
•
Could Potentially Serve as an Offline Facility for the Mainstem of the Tributary
•
Good Access for Construction and Maintenance Purposes
•
Contributing Drainage Area May Not Produce Excessive Runoff Volume
Recommended Practice: Constructed Stormwater Wetland Recommended Size of Practice: 0.4 Acres Estimated Cost: $ 24,045 Comments: Provided that the City of Reidsville can dedicate this otherwise unused parcel, no costs for land acquisition will be incurred. Drainage area contributing to site has low imperviousness, so it may not exhibit the greatest need for treatment application, but implementation is logistically easy at this site.
A-8
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
Map of Site 4 at Reidsville Cemetery:
N W
E S
SCALE 100
0
100
200
300 Feet
Cemetery Contributing Watershed
TRIPLETT
Proposed BMP Site . D ST ROA RAIL
T. TH S Y S FOR
R. ON D S D R A RICH
LEGEND Street Centerlines Sewer Lines Water Lines USGS 1:24,000 Streams intermittent perennial Parcels NWI Waterbodies NWI Wetlands BMP Contributing Watershed Proposed BMP Site
A-9
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
SITE NUMBER: 5 Site Location: Existing Pond Between Freeway Drive and Sherwood Drive Contributing Drainage Area: Approximately 120 acres Drainage Area Landuse: Residential/Commercial Drainage Area Imperviousness: High Potential Area for Proposed Practice: Approximately 4.0 acres Tier I Subwatershed: LT1 Pros:
Cons:
•
One Private Landowner
•
Land Acquisition may be Required
•
Zoned as Commercial Land
•
•
Currently Vacant
Impoundment Area Currently Wooded
•
Minimal Infrastructure Influence
•
Retrofit Existing Pond
•
Located in the Headwaters
•
Treats Residential and Commercial Lands
•
Offline Facility
•
Head Cut Located on Mainstem Downstream of Site
•
Could Enhance Proposed Stream Restoration Project
Recommended Practice: Retrofit Existing Pond to Increase Storage Recommended Size of Practice: Variable Estimated Cost: Unknown Comments: Determining a reasonable cost estimate for this effort would require a detailed engineering analysis of the existing facility. Implementation of this BMP opportunity is logistically easy and would achieve treatment of a large area of residential and commercial land with fairly high imperviousness. Commercial zoning may increase cost of land acquisition. The section of Little Troublesome Creek downstream of this site is recommended for restoration, and if both projects were implemented in conjunction, design and construction efforts could be integrated for maximum benefit.
A-10
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
Map of Site 5, the Existing Pond at Sherwood Drive:
N W S
Private Property 100
E
SCALE 0
100
200
300 Feet
SHERW OOD DR.
Contributing Watershed
Proposed BMP Site
Street Centerlines Sewer Lines Water Lines USGS 1:24,000 Streams intermittent perennial Parcels NWI Waterbodies NWI Wetlands BMP Contributing Watershed Proposed BMP Site
Cr. lesome .Troub UT to L
LEGEND
L.T rou ble so me
Cr
A-11
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
SITE NUMBER: 6 Site Location: Parking Lot at the Equity Foods Plant Contributing Drainage Area: Approximately 10 acres Drainage Area Landuse: Industrial Drainage Area Imperviousness: High Potential Area for Proposed Practice: Approximately 0.5 acres Tier I Subwatershed: LT5 Cons:
Pros: •
One Landowner
•
Minimal Infrastructure Influence
•
Offline Facility
•
Treats an Industrial Site
•
Downstream Channel Severely Degraded
•
Cleared Site
•
Natural Topography Supports a Stormwater BMP
•
Good Access for Construction and Maintenance Purposes
•
Could be Implemented in Conjunction with Proposed Stream Restoration Project
•
Not in the Headwaters
Recommended Practice: Constructed Stormwater Wetland Recommended Size of Practice: 0.33 Acres Estimated Cost: $ 20,018 Comments: While this site does not have the benefit of being in the watershed headwaters, the contributing drainage area is highly impervious, so a significant localized source of stormwater runoff could be mitigated. This site feeds an intermittent tributary to Little Troublesome Creek that is completely blown out from high velocity storm drain outflows from this drainage area. The segment of Little Troublesome Creek below this site is recommended for restoration. Implementation of this BMP could be done in conjunction with restoration of the UT and Little Troublesome proper. Contributions of land or capital by Equity Foods could lower costs.
A-12
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
Map of Site 6 at Equity Foods:
NC AR /B 87 S NE . ST
Equity Foods Property Contributing Watershed Air Products & Chemicals Property
Proposed BMP Site
e Cr. m o s e oubl r T e l t o Lit UT t
Y IT U EQ
DR
.
LEGEND Street Centerlines Sewer Lines Water Lines USGS 1:24,000 Streams intermittent perennial Parcels NWI Waterbodies NWI Wetlands BMP Contributing Watershed Proposed BMP Site
N W
E S
SCALE 100
0
100
200
300 Feet
A-13
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
SITE NUMBER: 7 Site Location: Near the Air Products & Chemicals Facility Contributing Drainage Area: Approximately 37 acres Drainage Area Landuse: Industrial Drainage Area Imperviousness: High Potential Area for Proposed Practice: Approximately 2 acres Tier I Subwatershed: LT4 Pros: •
No Infrastructure Influence
•
Offline Facility
•
Treats Two Industrial Sites
•
Existing Channel is Severely Degraded
•
Natural Topography Supports a Stormwater BMP
•
Good Access for Construction and Maintenance Purposes
•
Could Enhance Proposed Stream Restoration Project
Cons: •
Two Landowners: Air Products and Possibly Wachovia Bank
•
Wooded Site
Recommended Practice: Constructed Stormwater Wetland Recommended Size of Practice: 1.20 Acres Estimated Cost: $ 72,135 Comments: While this site does not have the benefit of being in the watershed headwaters, the contributing drainage area is highly impervious, so a significant localized source of stormwater runoff could be mitigated. This site feeds an intermittent tributary to Little Troublesome Creek that is completely blown out from high velocity storm drain outflows from this drainage area. The segment of Little Troublesome Creek below this site is recommended for restoration. Implementation of this BMP could be done in conjunction with restoration of the UT and Little Troublesome proper. Contributions of land or capital by Air Products could lower costs. Implementation at this site may eliminate the need for a BMP upstream at Equity Foods.
A-14
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
Map of Site 7 at Air Products & Chemicals:
N W
E S
SCALE 100
0
100
200
300 Feet
Equity Foods Property Contributing Watershed Air Products & Chemicals Property Proposed BMP Site
e Cr. m o s e oubl r T e l t o Lit UT t
Private Property
LEGEND Street Centerlines Sewer Lines Water Lines USGS 1:24,000 Streams intermittent perennial Parcels NWI Waterbodies NWI Wetlands BMP Contributing Watershed Proposed BMP Site
A-15
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
SITE NUMBER: 8 Site Location: Parking Lot at the Advanced Metallurgy Facility Contributing Drainage Area: Approximately 15 acres Drainage Area Landuse: Industrial Drainage Area Imperviousness: Very High Potential Area for Proposed Practice: Approximately 3 acres Tier I Subwatershed: LT5 Pros: •
One Industrial Landowner
•
No Infrastructure Influence
•
Offline Facility
•
Cleared Site
•
Treats the Industrial Parking Lot
•
Good Access for Construction and Maintenance Purposes
•
Could Enhance Proposed Stream Restoration Project
Cons: •
Possibly Need to Split into Two Facilities
•
Second Site is Forested
Recommended Practice: Constructed Stormwater Wetland Recommended Size of Practice: 1 Acre Estimated Cost: $ 60,113 Comments: This is a great site. It has the benefit of being in the watershed headwaters, and the contributing drainage area is almost entirely impervious, so a significant localized source of stormwater runoff could be mitigated. This site feeds an intermittent tributary to Little Troublesome Creek, and the segment of Little Troublesome Creek at the downstream end of the UT is recommended for restoration. Implementation of this BMP could be done in conjunction with restoration of the UT and Little Troublesome proper. Contributions of land or capital by Advanced Metallurgy could lower costs.
A-16
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
Map of Site 8 at Advanced Metallurgy:
TURNER S T.
N W
E S
SCALE 100
0
100
200
300 Feet
NC 87/BARNES ST.
Contributing Watershed
Advanced Metallurgy Property
LEGEND Street Centerlines Sewer Lines Water Lines USGS 1:24,000 Streams intermittent perennial Parcels NWI Waterbodies NWI Wetlands BMP Contributing Watershed Proposed BMP Site
Proposed BMP Site
A-17
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
SITE NUMBER: 9 Site Location: Near Intersection of Reid School Road and Sunnycrest Drive Contributing Drainage Area: Approximately 29 acres Drainage Area Landuse: Residential Drainage Area Imperviousness: Low Potential Area for Proposed Practice: Approximately 2 acres Tier I Subwatershed: LT1 Pros: •
Located in the Headwaters
•
No Infrastructure Influence
•
Partially Cleared Site
•
Offline Facility
•
Contributing Watershed Residential and Agricultural
•
Natural Topography Supports a Stormwater BMP
Cons: •
Two Private Landowners (possibly three) Impacted by BMP
•
Development Potential in the Contributing Watershed
•
Site Access is Limited and May Require a Temporary Road
Recommended Practice: Constructed Stormwater Wetland Recommended Size of Practice: 0.50 Acre Estimated Cost: $ 30,056 Comments: Any BMP at this site would have to be designed to account for the fact that significant development potential still exists within the contributing drainage area. However, this site has the benefit of being situated in the headwaters and offers the potential to treat a significant area of suburban land.
A-18
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
Map of Site 9 at Reid School Road and Sunnycrest Drive:
REID SCHOOL RD.
Contributing Watershed
TD CRES Y N N SU
R.
Private Prop Proposed BMP Site Private Property LEGEND Street Centerlines Sewer Lines Water Lines USGS 1:24,000 Streams intermittent perennial Parcels NWI Waterbodies NWI Wetlands BMP Contributing Watershed Proposed BMP Site
UT to
me Cr. o s le b L.Trou N
W
E S
SCALE 100
0
100
200
300 Feet
A-19
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
SITE NUMBER: 10 Site Location: Northeast Corner of Richardson Drive and US-29 Business Contributing Drainage Area: Approximately 27 acres Drainage Area Landuse: Residential/Commercial Drainage Area Imperviousness: Moderate Potential Area for Proposed Practice: Approximately 2 acres Tier I Subwatershed: LT1 Pros:
Cons:
•
One Private Landowner
•
Wooded Site
•
Limited Infrastructure Influence
•
•
Offline Facility
Zoned as Commercial Land (currently vacant)
•
Treats Commercial and Residential Drainage Area
•
Existing Topography May Require Considerable Earthwork
•
Located in Headwaters
•
Good Access for Construction and Maintenance Purposes
Recommended Practice: Constructed Stormwater Wetland Recommended Size of Practice: 0.60 Acre Estimated Cost: $ 36,068 Comments: This site has the benefit of being situated in the headwaters and offers the potential to treat a significant area of suburban land and capture runoff from a significant portion of a large roadway interchange with fairly high imperviousness. The commercial zoning and high visible location would likely increase the cost of land acquisition at this site.
A-20
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
WO D ND LA OD R.
US BUSINESS 29 (FREEWAY DR.)
UT to L.Troublesome Cr.
Map of Site 10 at Richardson Drive and US 29 Business:
Contributing Watershed ID RE OL HO SC
Proposed BMP Site
. RD
Private Property . ON DR S D R RICHA
LEGEND
N W
E S
SCALE 100
0
100
200
300 Feet
T ON FR
Street Centerlines Sewer Lines Water Lines USGS 1:24,000 Streams intermittent perennial Parcels NWI Waterbodies NWI Wetlands BMP Contributing Watershed Proposed BMP Site
A-21
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
SITE NUMBER: 11 Site Location: Parking Lot at the K-Mart Shopping Center Contributing Drainage Area: Approximately 1.5 acres Drainage Area Landuse: Commercial Drainage Area Imperviousness: Very High Potential Area for Proposed Practice: Approximately 0.5 acres Tier I Subwatershed: LT5 Cons:
Pros: •
One Commercial Landowner
•
No Infrastructure Influence
•
Offline Facility
•
Cleared Site
•
Treats a Portion of the Shopping Center Roof and Parking Lot
•
Existing Grass Swale Between Parking Lot and Site
•
Existing Topography Supports a Stormwater BMP
•
Underlain by Hydric Soils
•
Good Access for Construction and Maintenance Purposes
•
Could Enhance Proposed Stream Restoration Project
•
Contributing Drainage Area Too Small to Support a Wet Pond or Wetland
Recommended Practice: Bioretention Cell(s) Recommended Size of Practice: 0.10 Acre Estimated Cost: $ 6,011 Comments: The topography of the K-Mart parking lot is such that a significant portion of the upper end drains back north toward the area where the large UT to Little Troublesome Creek enters the big box culvert to go under the lot. Unlike the lower end of the parking lot, which is bordered by Turner St., the upper end is adjacent to a considerable area of open and unused land where a bioretention cell could be developed to disconnect a decent portion of the lot’s impervious surface. If the option to sacrifice some parking spaces could be considered, more of the parking lot could potentially be retrofitted with bioretention cells.
A-22
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
Map of Site 11 at the K-Mart Parking Lot:
Private Property
Proposed BMP Site
r. sme C oubleo ittle Tr UT to L
T. YS WA
LEGEND
Contributing Watershed
Street Centerlines Sewer Lines Water Lines USGS 1:24,000 Streams intermittent perennial Parcels NWI Waterbodies NWI Wetlands BMP Contributing Watershed Proposed BMP Site
K-Mart Property
N W
E S
SCALE 100
0
100
200
300 Feet
A-23
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
SITE NUMBER: 12 Site Location: Parking Lot at Plastic Revolutions Inc. Contributing Drainage Area: Approximately 1 acre Drainage Area Landuse: Industrial Drainage Area Imperviousness: Very High Potential Area for Proposed Practice: Approximately 0.2 acres Tier I Subwatershed: LT5 Pros: •
One Industrial Landowner
•
Offline Facility
•
Treats the Industrial Parking Lot
•
Located in the Headwaters
•
Good Access for Construction and Maintenance Purposes
Cons: •
Sanitary Sewer Line Runs Through Site
•
Contributing Drainage Area Too Small to Support a Wet Pond or Wetland
•
Site May be Wooded
Recommended Practice: Bioretention Cell(s) Recommended Size of Practice: 0.10 Acre Estimated Cost: $ 6,011 Comments: The topography of the Plastic Revolutions parking lot is such that the entire lot drains toward the large UT to Little Troublesome Creek, and the topography land between the lot and the UT is ideally suited to development of bioretention cells to capture and treat the runoff from this large impervious area. Design efforts would have to account for the sewer line bisecting the site area.
A-24
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
Map of Site 12 at Plastic Revolutions:
W AY ST.
ON BURT
Plastic Revolutions Property Contributing Watershed Proposed BMP Site
Morrisette Paper Property
W OODR OW ST.
Street Centerlines Sewer Lines Water Lines USGS 1:24,000 Streams intermittent perennial Parcels NWI Waterbodies NWI Wetlands BMP Contributing Watershed Proposed BMP Site
r. ome C oubles ittle Tr UT to L
DALTON ST.
LEGEND
N W S
RANSOM
100
E
SCALE 0
100
200
300 Feet
A-25
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
SITE NUMBER: 13 Site Location: Between Beech Street and Pinedale Drive Contributing Drainage Area: Approximately 83 acres Drainage Area Landuse: Residential Drainage Area Imperviousness: Moderate Potential Area for Proposed Practice: Approximately 3 acres Tier I Subwatershed: LT2 Cons:
Pros: •
One Private Landowner
•
•
Online Facility on Intermittent Reach
Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure May Affect Siting of BMP
•
Wooded Site
•
Contributing Drainage Area is Established Residential Neighborhood
•
Located in the Headwaters
•
Natural Topography Supports a Stormwater BMP
•
Good Access for Construction and Maintenance Purposes
Recommended Practice: Constructed Stormwater Wetland or Wet Detention Pond Recommended Size of Practice: 0.75 – 1.5 Acres Estimated Cost: $ 75,141 – 150,000 Comments: Site offers the potential to treat an area of urban/suburban residential land with significant imperviousness. Acquisition of private property would be required at this site. At this time the site is predominantly forested and the idea of significant disturbance may be undesirable to citizens in the surrounding community. The drainage area for this site is on the higher end of what is suitable for a constructed wetland, but the site s about 3 acres, so size constraints are not a big factor. Significant storage volume and peak flow reduction could be achieved through a BMP application such as a wet detention pond with a wetland forebay at this site. The range of cost estimates presented above reflects consideration of this sort of application. Design efforts associated with any application at this site would have to account for the sanitary sewer line running along the eastern border.
A-26
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
VAN CE
Map of Site 13 at Beech Street:
NC 65 AND
Private Property
CAMORE
Street Centerlines Sewer Lines Water Lines USGS 1:24,000 Streams intermittent perennial Parcels NWI Waterbodies NWI Wetlands BMP Contributing Watershed Proposed BMP Site
RUSS ELL AV E
PINED
LEGEND
UT to Little Troublesome Cr.
Proposed BMP Site
ALE D R.
BEE
CH S T.
Contributing Watershed
.
N W
E S
SCALE 100
0
100
200
300 Feet
A-27
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
SITE NUMBER: 14 Site Location: Downstream of Richardson Drive and Upstream of K-Mart Contributing Drainage Area: Approximately 360 acres Drainage Area Landuse: Mixed Urban Drainage Area Imperviousness: High Potential Area for Proposed Practice: Approximately 6.5 acres Tier I Subwatershed: LT5 Cons:
Pros: •
No Infrastructure Influence
•
Offline Facility
•
Contributing Drainage Area Highly Developed, Including Industry
•
Area Previously Identified as Wetland
•
Site Located on Soils Previously Identified as Hydric
•
Natural Topography Supports a Stormwater BMP
•
Good Access for Construction and Maintenance Purposes
•
Sanitary Sewer Could be Impacted if Site Expanded
•
Two, Possibly Three, Private Landowners
•
Surface Area of Site May Be Too Small to Accommodate a BMP
•
Wooded Site
Recommended Practice: Construction of Off-Channel Storage Recommended Size of Practice: Variable Estimated Cost: Unknown Comments: Determining a reasonable cost estimate for this effort would require a detailed engineering analysis of the existing site and some preliminary design work. Implementation of this BMP opportunity would achieve treatment of a large area of mixed urban land with very high imperviousness. NWI data indicates that this area was classified as a wetland at one time, but site evaluations have indicated that most, if not all, of the wetland no longer exists. Innovative design of off-channel peak flow storage might re-establish some wetland functions at this location.
A-28
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
Map of Site 14 above K-Mart:
T.
. D ST ROA
HS SYT R O F
ARD RICH
S ON
DR.
Contributing Watershed Private Property
Proposed BMP Site
K-Mart Property
LEGEND Street Centerlines Sewer Lines Water Lines USGS 1:24,000 Streams intermittent perennial Parcels NWI Waterbodies NWI Wetlands BMP Contributing Watershed Proposed BMP Site
N W
E S
SCALE 200
0
200
400 Feet
A-29
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
(This page left intentionally blank.)
A-30
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
Appendix B.
April 2004
Attachments for Section 3
A. Sedimentation and Erosion Control Workshop – Draft Agenda B. Soil Watch Workshop – Draft Agenda C. Checklist: Opportunities for Low-Impact Development Design Techniques D. Example Programs to Control Sources of Fecal Coliform
B-1
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
(This page left intentionally blank.)
B-2
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
Attachment A
SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL WORKSHOP EXAMPLE AGENDA Day 1
Day 2 8:00-10:45
Erosion Control Practices and Measures
8:00-8:30
Introductions
8:30-8:45
Pre-Test
8:45-9:00
Terminology
10:45-11:30 Sediment Control Practices and Measures
9:00-9:15
Break
11:30-12:45 Lunch
9:15-9:45
Overview
12:45-1:45
Sediment Control Practices and Measures
9:45-10:00
Break
1:45-2:00
Summary of Control Practices
2:00-2:15
Break
2:15-2:45
Stormwater BMPs and PostConstruction
11:30-12:45 Lunch
2:45-3:30
Review of Example
12:45-1:15
E&SC Regulations
3:30-4:00
Summary, Conclusions, Post-Test
1:15-1:45
E&SC Basics
1:45-2:00
Break
2:00-2:30
Hydrology and Hydraulics Basics
2:30-3:40
Erosion Control Practices and Measures
3:40-4:00
Review and Plan for the Next Day
10:00-11:00 Opening Exercises (teams look at plans and determine where E&S measures should be installed) 11:00-11:30 Developing an E&SC Plan
B-3
Draft Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
(This page left intentionally blank.)
B-4
Draft Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
Attachment B Citizen Soil Watch Workshop Training Course: How to Select, Install and Inspect Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Best Management Practices for NPDES Stormwater Permit Compliance
Technical Level of Course Materials: Beginner Learning Objectives: •
Learn the regulatory basis for erosion and sediment control, including the requirements for a comprehensive Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
•
Master a systems approach to erosion and sediment control planning, implementation and operation.
•
Discover a 10-step process for designing an effective erosion and sediment control plan.
•
Learn the proper procedures for obtaining coverage under an NPDES construction permit.
•
Walk away with the current menu of best management practices (BMPs). Learn where to use them and how they work.
•
Get information on the typical costs for materials, methods, installation and maintenance of current BMPs.
•
Discover a method for selecting which BMP, or system of BMPs, is appropriate for your site conditions.
•
Incorporate operation and maintenance of all BMPs as part of your erosion and sediment control planning and implementation.
•
Learn what to look for as an inspector, in both planning documents and field implementation of erosion and sediment control plans.
•
Find where to go for additional and more detailed information, such as plant materials, soil testing, etc.
B-5
Draft Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
Course Outline: I.
Introduction – 8:00 - 8:10 a.m. A. Instructor Introductions B. Course Organization and Schedule
II. Rules and Regulations – 8:10 - 9:10 a.m. A. Why is Erosion a Problem? B. Federal Regulations • Clean Water Act (Sections 401, 402, 404) • NPDES Program (Phase I and II) • Definitions (stormwater, waters of the U.S., beneficial uses, etc) • CZARA • TMDL Program (water quality standards, beneficial uses, 303(d) lists, TMDL process, waste load allocations) C. State Regulations • Types of Stormwater Permits (individual and general) • Types of Permitting Authority • Permit Application Requirements • State-specific Requirements D. Permit Application Requirements for Construction Sites • What is a SWPPP? • Construction Permit Applications • NOIs • Deadlines • Certification and Notification • Enforcement and Penalties (administrative orders, civil actions, criminal prosecutions, citizen suits) E. Local Regulations (municipal SWMP, ordinances) III. Site Planning and Management 9:10 - 9:40 a.m. A. Erosion and Sediment Hazards in Urban Development B. Factors that Influence Erosion C. The Planning Process D. Considerations in Construction Sequencing E. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Checklist Break 9:40 - 9:55 a.m. IV. Runoff Control 9:55 - 10:40 a.m. A. Hydrologic Cycle and Site Drainage Patterns B. Runoff Considerations C. Surface Runoff Predictions D. Factors Affecting Runoff E. Runoff Management Practices B-6
Draft Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
V. Erosion Control – 10:40 - 11:40 a.m. A. Definition of Erosion Control B. Slopes - Strengthen Subsurface Structural (retaining walls, land grading, surface roughening, etc) Biotechnical (wattling, matting, brush layering, etc) C. Graded Areas - Protect Surface Vegetative Measures (seeding, topsoiling, sodding, protecting vegetation, vegetative buffers, etc.) Non-Vegetative Measures (wood chips, mulching, rolled erosion control products, bonded fiber matrices, soil stabilizers, rip-rap, etc.) D. Proper Installation E. Proper Maintenance Questions and Answers – 11:40 - 11:55 a.m. Lunch – 11:55 - 12:55 p.m. VI. Sediment Control 12:55 - 1:55 p.m. A. Definition of Sediment Control B. Sediment Control Measures (sediment traps and basins, barriers, stabilized construction entrances, inlet filters, slope interrupter devices, turbidity curtains, cofferdams, etc.) C. Proper Installation D. Proper Maintenance VII. Erosion Control Planning Process 1:55 - 2:45 p.m. A. 10-Step Planning Process Step 1. Identify Issues and Concerns Step 2. Develop Goals and Objectives Step 3. Collect and Analyze Data Step 4. Develop Best Management Practice Selection Criteria Step 5. Nominate Candidate Best Management Practices Step 6. Screen and Select Best Management Practices Step 7. Develop Erosion Control Plan Step 8. Implement the Erosion Control Plan Step 9. Operate, Monitor, and Maintain the System Step 10. Update the Plan B. Common Installation Mistakes C. Inspection Tips Break – 2:45 - 3:00 p.m. VIII.
Class Exercise/Sample Problems – 3:00 - 3:30 p.m.
IX.
Why We Care – 3:30 - 3:45 p.m. A. Economic Advantages of Compliance B. Environmental Advantages of Compliance
Questions and Answers – 3:45 - 4:00 p.m.
B-7
Draft Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
(This page left intentionally blank.)
B-8
Draft Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
Attachment C Checklist: Opportunities for Low-Impact Development Design Techniques* Clearing and Grading • Is disturbance of vegetated areas and riparian areas minimized? • Do the building envelopes avoid sensitive environmental areas such as riparian areas, wetlands, high infiltration soils, steep slopes, etc.? • Is total site disturbance minimized? Minimizing Impervious or Built Upon Area Streets • If this is a residential development, are the street pavement widths between 18 to 22 feet? • Does the design promote the most efficient street layout to reduce overall street length? • If there are cul-de-sacs, is the radius 35 feet or less? • If there are cul-de-sacs, is there a landscaped island or bioretention island? • Are grass swales or bioretention swales used instead of curb and gutter where slopes allow? Parking/Driveways/Sidewalks • If this is an office building, is the parking ratio 3.0 spaces per 1000 sq.ft. of gross floor area or less? • If this is a commercial center, is the parking ratio 2 to 4.5 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. of gross floor area or less? • Is a mass transit stop provided or nearby (if applicable)? • Does the proposed development take advantage of opportunities for shared parking? • Is the minimum stall width for a standard parking space 9 feet or less? • Do the parking medians (if required) have bioretention cells where feasible? • Are driveways 9 feet or less in width? • Are shared driveways used? • Is on-street parking considered and imperviousness minimized (no on-street or single-side parking where allowed)? • Are sidewalks (if required) designed to the narrowest allowable width? • Are sidewalks on one side of street only? Clustering Development • To encourage clustering and open space design, are setbacks minimized (e.g., for residential lots that are ½ acre or less in size is the front setback 20 feet or less, the rear setback 25 feet or less, and the side setback 8 feet or less) • Does the design focus development on areas of lesser slopes and farther from watercourses?
B-9
Draft Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
Preserving Sensitive Areas Wetlands • Are existing wetlands preserved? • Will the site design minimize hydrologic alteration to existing wetlands? Steep Slopes • Is building footprint concentrated on slopes 10 percent or less? • Is disturbance minimized on slopes 15 percent to 25 percent and revegetation proposed where disturbance occurs? • Are areas with 25 percent or greater slope preserved? Soils • Do the building footprints avoid highly erodible soils (Roanoke Silt Loam, Cartecay and Chewacla soils, Cecil Sandy Loam, Cecil-Urban Land Complex, Gwinnett Sandy Loam, Hiwassee Sandy Loam, and Madison Sandy Loam)? Revise per Troublesome Creek • Do the building footprints avoid soils with high permeability (e.g., Hydrologic Soil Group A and B)? Stream Buffer • Is a 50 to 75 foot stream buffer provided? • Will the stream buffer remain in a natural state? Managing Stormwater • Are efforts made to retain/infiltrate stormwater on-site (through bioretention, natural areas, and swale infiltration)? • Are stormwater management practices designed and sized correctly to provide sufficient storage volume? • Are outfalls stabilized to reduce erosion? • Has a BMP maintenance plan been submitted? Managing Open Space • Is open space available for preservation? • Will the preserved open space be managed in a natural condition? • Will there be a Homeowners Association or other association that can effectively manage the open space? * Adapted from Low-Impact Development Design Strategies, Prince George’s County MD. 1999; Better Site Design: A Handbook for Changing Development Rules in Your Community, Center for Watershed Protection, 1998; State of North Carolina Model Ordinance for Water Supply Watershed Protection.
B-10
Draft Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
Attachment D Example Programs for Controlling Sources of Fecal Coliform Programs Recommended for Consideration by County Jurisdictions Requirements for Individual Septic Systems: Adopt some or all of the following recommendations: 1. Establish an inspections and maintenance program. Three alternatives are offered: a) Inspect septic systems every five years to ensure that they are functioning properly. On average, this would mean inspecting 20 percent of all septic systems in the county annually. Require that homeowners repair or replace failing systems. (Local Health Code may need to be revised to require this inspection and maintenance program). b) Alternatively, use the results of Wake County’s pilot onsite wastewater conditions assessment to develop risk-based management strategies for septic systems. Risk-based strategies could be based on any of the following: system type, system location, system age, or system maintenance history. c) Alternatively, inspect septic systems at the time of new home sale or home resale (new system inspections could be delayed by 6-9 months). 2. Implement a GIS database of existing septic tank and well owners. 3. Develop a certification program for people who install and inspect septic systems, and require that a licensed person install all septic systems. (Note: the General Assembly is now considering the adoption of a state-wide certification program.) 4. Provide operation and maintenance information packages to all homeowners who have septic systems by mail or at time of property purchase.
Programs Recommended for Consideration by Municipal Jurisdictions Point Source Controls: Where practical, eliminate old WWTPs and consolidate capacity of the older plants into regional WWTPs. Sanitary Sewer Overflow Inspections: Inspect sewage conveyance systems (e.g., pipes, pump stations, manholes, etc.) to ensure their proper functioning. When sanitary sewer systems overflow, untreated or partially treated sewage may flow into streams, rivers and lakes within the watershed. Repairs to overflowing systems may include detecting and disconnecting storm drain connections, replacing conveyance pipes to allow larger volumes of flow or to replace older pipes, and upgrading or repairing pump stations, including installation of automatically-actuated standby power generators. Inspection and Maintenance Program for Leaking Sewer Pipes and Illegal Connections to Storm Drainage System: Inspect sewage conveyance systems to detect and repair leaks of untreated sewage. When sanitary sewer systems leak, untreated or partially treated sewage may flow into streams, rivers and lakes in the watershed. Also, when water that should be conveyed through the sanitary sewer system to the treatment plant is instead connected to the stormwater drainage system, untreated sewage may flow into rivers and lakes. It is important to detect and remove these illegal connections. Citizen Education Program for Pet Waste Control
B-11
Draft Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
(This page left intentionally blank.)
B-12
Draft Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
Appendix C.
April 2004
Maps
•
Troublesome Creek Habitat Preservation Priorities Subwatersheds T7, T8 and T9
•
Troublesome and Little Troublesome Creeks Habitat Preservation Priorities Subwatersheds T19, LT7
C-1
Draft Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
(This page left intentionally blank.)
C-2
Appendix A.
April 2004
BMP Opportunities Identified
A-1
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
SITE NUMBER: 1 Site Location: Behind the track and field at Reidsville High School Contributing Drainage Area: Approximately 7.5 acres Drainage Area Landuse: Institutional Drainage Area Imperviousness: High Potential Area for Proposed Practice: Approximately 0.5 acres Tier I Subwatershed: LT4 Cons:
Pros: •
Rockingham County Owns Property
•
Cleared Site
•
Previously Used as a Sediment Basin
•
No Infrastructure Constraints
•
Offline Facility
•
Potential to be Integrated into Greenway
•
Treats Portion of the School Parking Lot
•
Existing Grass Swale Between Parking Lot and Site
•
Potential Education Component Tied to High School
•
Good Site Access for Construction and Maintenance Purposes
•
Located on School Property
Recommended Practice: Constructed Stormwater Wetland Recommended Size of Practice: 0.2 Acres Estimated Cost: $ 12,022 Comments: This is a good site. Provided that appropriate agreements can be negotiated with Rockingham County Public Schools for use of the land, no costs for land acquisition will be incurred. The City of Reidsville has plans on the drawing board for a greenway running along the back of the school property that will connect to the Jaycee Park facilities. Any educational components at this site could be easily integrated into the greenway design to maximize public exposure and awareness. A collaborative effort between staff from PTCOG, the City of Reidsville and N.C. State University Cooperative Extension is already under way toward implementation of a stormwater wetland at this site.
A-2
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
Map of Site 1 at Reidsville High School:
K PAR
DR
Contributing Watershed
Reidsville High School Property Proposed BMP Site
B
UT to Little Troublesome Cr.
INE EL G RID
LEGEND Street Centerlines Sewer Lines Water Lines USGS 1:24,000 Streams intermittent perennial Parcels NWI Waterbodies NWI Wetlands BMP Contributing Watershed Proposed BMP Site
N W
E S
SCALE 200
0
200
400 Feet
A-3
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
SITE NUMBER: 2 Site Location: Lower Section of Courtland Park Contributing Drainage Area: Approximately 52 acres Drainage Area Landuse: Residential Drainage Area Imperviousness: Moderate Potential Area for Proposed Practice: Approximately 2.5 acres Tier I Subwatershed: LT2 Pros: •
City of Reidsville Owns Property
•
Cleared Site
•
Few Infrastructure Constraints
•
Treats an Established Residential Area
•
Potential Public Education Opportunities
•
Site Located in the Headwaters
•
Natural Topography Supports a Detention Facility
•
Offline Facility
•
Good Access for Construction and Maintenance Purposes
Cons: •
Implementation will require 404 Permit and 401 Water Quality Certification
Recommended Practice: Constructed Stormwater Wetland Recommended Size of Practice: 1.2 Acres Estimated Cost: $ 72,135 Comments: This is a great site. It offers the potential to treat a large area of urban/suburban residential land with significant imperviousness. Provided that the City of Reidsville Parks Department allows this use of an otherwise unused section of the park, no costs for land acquisition will be incurred. Given that this site is located in a highly used city park, a strong potential for public education could be realized. A collaborative effort between staff from PTCOG, the City of Reidsville and N.C. State University Cooperative Extension is already under way toward implementation of a stormwater wetland at this site.
A-4
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
Map of Site 2 at Courtland Park:
H EI G DL O WO
oubles ome Cr . SPRING
UT to L ittle Tr
MAGNO LIA
UMMIT
Courtland Park Property Proposed BMP Site
LE DA
Contributing Watershed
N EE GR
CO AC H G
LEGENDMOR
AN
Street Centerlines Sewer Lines Water Lines USGS 1:24,000 Streams intermittent perennial Parcels NWI Waterbodies NWI Wetlands BMP Contributing Watershed Proposed BMP Site
N W
E S
SCALE 200
0
200
400 Feet
H
A-5
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
SITE NUMBER: 3 Site Location: Between the Jaycee Park and Scales Street Contributing Drainage Area: Approximately 27 acres Drainage Area Landuse: Residential Drainage Area Imperviousness: Moderate Potential Area for Proposed Practice: Approximately 2.5 acres Tier I Subwatershed: LT4 Cons:
Pros: •
City of Reidsville Owns Property
•
Mostly Wooded Site
•
No Infrastructure Constraints
•
•
Offline Facility
Site May Require Considerable Earthwork due to Topography
•
Could be Integrated with the Greenway and Jaycee Park
•
Treats an Established Residential Neighborhood
•
Located in the Headwaters of the Subwatershed
•
Good Access for Construction and Maintenance Purposes
•
Could be Implemented in Conjunction with Proposed Stream Restoration Project
Recommended Practice: Constructed Stormwater Wetland Recommended Size of Practice: 0.6 Acres Estimated Cost: $ 36,068 Comments: Site offers the potential to treat an area of urban/suburban residential land with significant imperviousness. Provided that the City of Reidsville Parks Department allows this use of an otherwise unused section of the park, no costs for land acquisition will be incurred. Given that this site is located in a highly used city park, a strong potential for public education could be realized. At this time the site is predominantly forested and the idea of significant disturbance may be undesirable to the Parks Department and/or citizens. The section of Little Troublesome Creek immediately adjacent to this site is recommended for restoration and this area of land is included in the City’s planned greenway. If the BMP project, the restoration and the greenway were implemented in conjunction, an integrated design approach could be utilized to minimize the design and construction costs and maximize the aesthetic and functional interactions of all three.
A-6
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
Map of Site 3 at Jaycee Park:
Cr .
UT
to
Li tt
le
Tr ou bl es om
e
T. SS ALE SC
Cr .
Lit tle Tro ub les om e
JA YC EE PA RK
Proposed BMP Site DR. ER V STO WE
Jaycee Park Property
Contributing Watershed
LEGEND Street Centerlines Sewer Lines Water Lines USGS 1:24,000 Streams intermittent perennial Parcels NWI Waterbodies NWI Wetlands BMP Contributing Watershed Proposed BMP Site
N W
E S
SCALE 100
0
100
200
300 Feet
A-7
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
SITE NUMBER: 4 Site Location: Adjacent to Reidsville Cemetery North of Forsyth Street Contributing Drainage Area: Approximately 25 acres Drainage Area Landuse: Managed Grass Drainage Area Imperviousness: Low Potential Area for Proposed Practice: Approximately 2 acres Tier I Subwatershed: LT3 Cons:
Pros: •
City of Reidsville Owns Property
•
No Infrastructure Constraints
•
Offline Facility
•
Treats the Runoff from the City Cemetery
•
Existing Grass Swale Between Cemetery and Site
•
Natural Topography Would Require Minimal Earthwork
•
Cleared Site
•
Could Potentially Serve as an Offline Facility for the Mainstem of the Tributary
•
Good Access for Construction and Maintenance Purposes
•
Contributing Drainage Area May Not Produce Excessive Runoff Volume
Recommended Practice: Constructed Stormwater Wetland Recommended Size of Practice: 0.4 Acres Estimated Cost: $ 24,045 Comments: Provided that the City of Reidsville can dedicate this otherwise unused parcel, no costs for land acquisition will be incurred. Drainage area contributing to site has low imperviousness, so it may not exhibit the greatest need for treatment application, but implementation is logistically easy at this site.
A-8
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
Map of Site 4 at Reidsville Cemetery:
N W
E S
SCALE 100
0
100
200
300 Feet
Cemetery Contributing Watershed
TRIPLETT
Proposed BMP Site . D ST ROA RAIL
T. TH S Y S FOR
R. ON D S D R A RICH
LEGEND Street Centerlines Sewer Lines Water Lines USGS 1:24,000 Streams intermittent perennial Parcels NWI Waterbodies NWI Wetlands BMP Contributing Watershed Proposed BMP Site
A-9
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
SITE NUMBER: 5 Site Location: Existing Pond Between Freeway Drive and Sherwood Drive Contributing Drainage Area: Approximately 120 acres Drainage Area Landuse: Residential/Commercial Drainage Area Imperviousness: High Potential Area for Proposed Practice: Approximately 4.0 acres Tier I Subwatershed: LT1 Pros:
Cons:
•
One Private Landowner
•
Land Acquisition may be Required
•
Zoned as Commercial Land
•
•
Currently Vacant
Impoundment Area Currently Wooded
•
Minimal Infrastructure Influence
•
Retrofit Existing Pond
•
Located in the Headwaters
•
Treats Residential and Commercial Lands
•
Offline Facility
•
Head Cut Located on Mainstem Downstream of Site
•
Could Enhance Proposed Stream Restoration Project
Recommended Practice: Retrofit Existing Pond to Increase Storage Recommended Size of Practice: Variable Estimated Cost: Unknown Comments: Determining a reasonable cost estimate for this effort would require a detailed engineering analysis of the existing facility. Implementation of this BMP opportunity is logistically easy and would achieve treatment of a large area of residential and commercial land with fairly high imperviousness. Commercial zoning may increase cost of land acquisition. The section of Little Troublesome Creek downstream of this site is recommended for restoration, and if both projects were implemented in conjunction, design and construction efforts could be integrated for maximum benefit.
A-10
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
Map of Site 5, the Existing Pond at Sherwood Drive:
N W S
Private Property 100
E
SCALE 0
100
200
300 Feet
SHERW OOD DR.
Contributing Watershed
Proposed BMP Site
Street Centerlines Sewer Lines Water Lines USGS 1:24,000 Streams intermittent perennial Parcels NWI Waterbodies NWI Wetlands BMP Contributing Watershed Proposed BMP Site
Cr. lesome .Troub UT to L
LEGEND
L.T rou ble so me
Cr
A-11
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
SITE NUMBER: 6 Site Location: Parking Lot at the Equity Foods Plant Contributing Drainage Area: Approximately 10 acres Drainage Area Landuse: Industrial Drainage Area Imperviousness: High Potential Area for Proposed Practice: Approximately 0.5 acres Tier I Subwatershed: LT5 Cons:
Pros: •
One Landowner
•
Minimal Infrastructure Influence
•
Offline Facility
•
Treats an Industrial Site
•
Downstream Channel Severely Degraded
•
Cleared Site
•
Natural Topography Supports a Stormwater BMP
•
Good Access for Construction and Maintenance Purposes
•
Could be Implemented in Conjunction with Proposed Stream Restoration Project
•
Not in the Headwaters
Recommended Practice: Constructed Stormwater Wetland Recommended Size of Practice: 0.33 Acres Estimated Cost: $ 20,018 Comments: While this site does not have the benefit of being in the watershed headwaters, the contributing drainage area is highly impervious, so a significant localized source of stormwater runoff could be mitigated. This site feeds an intermittent tributary to Little Troublesome Creek that is completely blown out from high velocity storm drain outflows from this drainage area. The segment of Little Troublesome Creek below this site is recommended for restoration. Implementation of this BMP could be done in conjunction with restoration of the UT and Little Troublesome proper. Contributions of land or capital by Equity Foods could lower costs.
A-12
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
Map of Site 6 at Equity Foods:
NC AR /B 87 S NE . ST
Equity Foods Property Contributing Watershed Air Products & Chemicals Property
Proposed BMP Site
e Cr. m o s e oubl r T e l t o Lit UT t
Y IT U EQ
DR
.
LEGEND Street Centerlines Sewer Lines Water Lines USGS 1:24,000 Streams intermittent perennial Parcels NWI Waterbodies NWI Wetlands BMP Contributing Watershed Proposed BMP Site
N W
E S
SCALE 100
0
100
200
300 Feet
A-13
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
SITE NUMBER: 7 Site Location: Near the Air Products & Chemicals Facility Contributing Drainage Area: Approximately 37 acres Drainage Area Landuse: Industrial Drainage Area Imperviousness: High Potential Area for Proposed Practice: Approximately 2 acres Tier I Subwatershed: LT4 Pros: •
No Infrastructure Influence
•
Offline Facility
•
Treats Two Industrial Sites
•
Existing Channel is Severely Degraded
•
Natural Topography Supports a Stormwater BMP
•
Good Access for Construction and Maintenance Purposes
•
Could Enhance Proposed Stream Restoration Project
Cons: •
Two Landowners: Air Products and Possibly Wachovia Bank
•
Wooded Site
Recommended Practice: Constructed Stormwater Wetland Recommended Size of Practice: 1.20 Acres Estimated Cost: $ 72,135 Comments: While this site does not have the benefit of being in the watershed headwaters, the contributing drainage area is highly impervious, so a significant localized source of stormwater runoff could be mitigated. This site feeds an intermittent tributary to Little Troublesome Creek that is completely blown out from high velocity storm drain outflows from this drainage area. The segment of Little Troublesome Creek below this site is recommended for restoration. Implementation of this BMP could be done in conjunction with restoration of the UT and Little Troublesome proper. Contributions of land or capital by Air Products could lower costs. Implementation at this site may eliminate the need for a BMP upstream at Equity Foods.
A-14
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
Map of Site 7 at Air Products & Chemicals:
N W
E S
SCALE 100
0
100
200
300 Feet
Equity Foods Property Contributing Watershed Air Products & Chemicals Property Proposed BMP Site
e Cr. m o s e oubl r T e l t o Lit UT t
Private Property
LEGEND Street Centerlines Sewer Lines Water Lines USGS 1:24,000 Streams intermittent perennial Parcels NWI Waterbodies NWI Wetlands BMP Contributing Watershed Proposed BMP Site
A-15
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
SITE NUMBER: 8 Site Location: Parking Lot at the Advanced Metallurgy Facility Contributing Drainage Area: Approximately 15 acres Drainage Area Landuse: Industrial Drainage Area Imperviousness: Very High Potential Area for Proposed Practice: Approximately 3 acres Tier I Subwatershed: LT5 Pros: •
One Industrial Landowner
•
No Infrastructure Influence
•
Offline Facility
•
Cleared Site
•
Treats the Industrial Parking Lot
•
Good Access for Construction and Maintenance Purposes
•
Could Enhance Proposed Stream Restoration Project
Cons: •
Possibly Need to Split into Two Facilities
•
Second Site is Forested
Recommended Practice: Constructed Stormwater Wetland Recommended Size of Practice: 1 Acre Estimated Cost: $ 60,113 Comments: This is a great site. It has the benefit of being in the watershed headwaters, and the contributing drainage area is almost entirely impervious, so a significant localized source of stormwater runoff could be mitigated. This site feeds an intermittent tributary to Little Troublesome Creek, and the segment of Little Troublesome Creek at the downstream end of the UT is recommended for restoration. Implementation of this BMP could be done in conjunction with restoration of the UT and Little Troublesome proper. Contributions of land or capital by Advanced Metallurgy could lower costs.
A-16
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
Map of Site 8 at Advanced Metallurgy:
TURNER S T.
N W
E S
SCALE 100
0
100
200
300 Feet
NC 87/BARNES ST.
Contributing Watershed
Advanced Metallurgy Property
LEGEND Street Centerlines Sewer Lines Water Lines USGS 1:24,000 Streams intermittent perennial Parcels NWI Waterbodies NWI Wetlands BMP Contributing Watershed Proposed BMP Site
Proposed BMP Site
A-17
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
SITE NUMBER: 9 Site Location: Near Intersection of Reid School Road and Sunnycrest Drive Contributing Drainage Area: Approximately 29 acres Drainage Area Landuse: Residential Drainage Area Imperviousness: Low Potential Area for Proposed Practice: Approximately 2 acres Tier I Subwatershed: LT1 Pros: •
Located in the Headwaters
•
No Infrastructure Influence
•
Partially Cleared Site
•
Offline Facility
•
Contributing Watershed Residential and Agricultural
•
Natural Topography Supports a Stormwater BMP
Cons: •
Two Private Landowners (possibly three) Impacted by BMP
•
Development Potential in the Contributing Watershed
•
Site Access is Limited and May Require a Temporary Road
Recommended Practice: Constructed Stormwater Wetland Recommended Size of Practice: 0.50 Acre Estimated Cost: $ 30,056 Comments: Any BMP at this site would have to be designed to account for the fact that significant development potential still exists within the contributing drainage area. However, this site has the benefit of being situated in the headwaters and offers the potential to treat a significant area of suburban land.
A-18
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
Map of Site 9 at Reid School Road and Sunnycrest Drive:
REID SCHOOL RD.
Contributing Watershed
TD CRES Y N N SU
R.
Private Prop Proposed BMP Site Private Property LEGEND Street Centerlines Sewer Lines Water Lines USGS 1:24,000 Streams intermittent perennial Parcels NWI Waterbodies NWI Wetlands BMP Contributing Watershed Proposed BMP Site
UT to
me Cr. o s le b L.Trou N
W
E S
SCALE 100
0
100
200
300 Feet
A-19
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
SITE NUMBER: 10 Site Location: Northeast Corner of Richardson Drive and US-29 Business Contributing Drainage Area: Approximately 27 acres Drainage Area Landuse: Residential/Commercial Drainage Area Imperviousness: Moderate Potential Area for Proposed Practice: Approximately 2 acres Tier I Subwatershed: LT1 Pros:
Cons:
•
One Private Landowner
•
Wooded Site
•
Limited Infrastructure Influence
•
•
Offline Facility
Zoned as Commercial Land (currently vacant)
•
Treats Commercial and Residential Drainage Area
•
Existing Topography May Require Considerable Earthwork
•
Located in Headwaters
•
Good Access for Construction and Maintenance Purposes
Recommended Practice: Constructed Stormwater Wetland Recommended Size of Practice: 0.60 Acre Estimated Cost: $ 36,068 Comments: This site has the benefit of being situated in the headwaters and offers the potential to treat a significant area of suburban land and capture runoff from a significant portion of a large roadway interchange with fairly high imperviousness. The commercial zoning and high visible location would likely increase the cost of land acquisition at this site.
A-20
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
WO D ND LA OD R.
US BUSINESS 29 (FREEWAY DR.)
UT to L.Troublesome Cr.
Map of Site 10 at Richardson Drive and US 29 Business:
Contributing Watershed ID RE OL HO SC
Proposed BMP Site
. RD
Private Property . ON DR S D R RICHA
LEGEND
N W
E S
SCALE 100
0
100
200
300 Feet
T ON FR
Street Centerlines Sewer Lines Water Lines USGS 1:24,000 Streams intermittent perennial Parcels NWI Waterbodies NWI Wetlands BMP Contributing Watershed Proposed BMP Site
A-21
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
SITE NUMBER: 11 Site Location: Parking Lot at the K-Mart Shopping Center Contributing Drainage Area: Approximately 1.5 acres Drainage Area Landuse: Commercial Drainage Area Imperviousness: Very High Potential Area for Proposed Practice: Approximately 0.5 acres Tier I Subwatershed: LT5 Cons:
Pros: •
One Commercial Landowner
•
No Infrastructure Influence
•
Offline Facility
•
Cleared Site
•
Treats a Portion of the Shopping Center Roof and Parking Lot
•
Existing Grass Swale Between Parking Lot and Site
•
Existing Topography Supports a Stormwater BMP
•
Underlain by Hydric Soils
•
Good Access for Construction and Maintenance Purposes
•
Could Enhance Proposed Stream Restoration Project
•
Contributing Drainage Area Too Small to Support a Wet Pond or Wetland
Recommended Practice: Bioretention Cell(s) Recommended Size of Practice: 0.10 Acre Estimated Cost: $ 6,011 Comments: The topography of the K-Mart parking lot is such that a significant portion of the upper end drains back north toward the area where the large UT to Little Troublesome Creek enters the big box culvert to go under the lot. Unlike the lower end of the parking lot, which is bordered by Turner St., the upper end is adjacent to a considerable area of open and unused land where a bioretention cell could be developed to disconnect a decent portion of the lot’s impervious surface. If the option to sacrifice some parking spaces could be considered, more of the parking lot could potentially be retrofitted with bioretention cells.
A-22
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
Map of Site 11 at the K-Mart Parking Lot:
Private Property
Proposed BMP Site
r. sme C oubleo ittle Tr UT to L
T. YS WA
LEGEND
Contributing Watershed
Street Centerlines Sewer Lines Water Lines USGS 1:24,000 Streams intermittent perennial Parcels NWI Waterbodies NWI Wetlands BMP Contributing Watershed Proposed BMP Site
K-Mart Property
N W
E S
SCALE 100
0
100
200
300 Feet
A-23
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
SITE NUMBER: 12 Site Location: Parking Lot at Plastic Revolutions Inc. Contributing Drainage Area: Approximately 1 acre Drainage Area Landuse: Industrial Drainage Area Imperviousness: Very High Potential Area for Proposed Practice: Approximately 0.2 acres Tier I Subwatershed: LT5 Pros: •
One Industrial Landowner
•
Offline Facility
•
Treats the Industrial Parking Lot
•
Located in the Headwaters
•
Good Access for Construction and Maintenance Purposes
Cons: •
Sanitary Sewer Line Runs Through Site
•
Contributing Drainage Area Too Small to Support a Wet Pond or Wetland
•
Site May be Wooded
Recommended Practice: Bioretention Cell(s) Recommended Size of Practice: 0.10 Acre Estimated Cost: $ 6,011 Comments: The topography of the Plastic Revolutions parking lot is such that the entire lot drains toward the large UT to Little Troublesome Creek, and the topography land between the lot and the UT is ideally suited to development of bioretention cells to capture and treat the runoff from this large impervious area. Design efforts would have to account for the sewer line bisecting the site area.
A-24
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
Map of Site 12 at Plastic Revolutions:
W AY ST.
ON BURT
Plastic Revolutions Property Contributing Watershed Proposed BMP Site
Morrisette Paper Property
W OODR OW ST.
Street Centerlines Sewer Lines Water Lines USGS 1:24,000 Streams intermittent perennial Parcels NWI Waterbodies NWI Wetlands BMP Contributing Watershed Proposed BMP Site
r. ome C oubles ittle Tr UT to L
DALTON ST.
LEGEND
N W S
RANSOM
100
E
SCALE 0
100
200
300 Feet
A-25
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
SITE NUMBER: 13 Site Location: Between Beech Street and Pinedale Drive Contributing Drainage Area: Approximately 83 acres Drainage Area Landuse: Residential Drainage Area Imperviousness: Moderate Potential Area for Proposed Practice: Approximately 3 acres Tier I Subwatershed: LT2 Cons:
Pros: •
One Private Landowner
•
•
Online Facility on Intermittent Reach
Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure May Affect Siting of BMP
•
Wooded Site
•
Contributing Drainage Area is Established Residential Neighborhood
•
Located in the Headwaters
•
Natural Topography Supports a Stormwater BMP
•
Good Access for Construction and Maintenance Purposes
Recommended Practice: Constructed Stormwater Wetland or Wet Detention Pond Recommended Size of Practice: 0.75 – 1.5 Acres Estimated Cost: $ 75,141 – 150,000 Comments: Site offers the potential to treat an area of urban/suburban residential land with significant imperviousness. Acquisition of private property would be required at this site. At this time the site is predominantly forested and the idea of significant disturbance may be undesirable to citizens in the surrounding community. The drainage area for this site is on the higher end of what is suitable for a constructed wetland, but the site s about 3 acres, so size constraints are not a big factor. Significant storage volume and peak flow reduction could be achieved through a BMP application such as a wet detention pond with a wetland forebay at this site. The range of cost estimates presented above reflects consideration of this sort of application. Design efforts associated with any application at this site would have to account for the sanitary sewer line running along the eastern border.
A-26
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
VAN CE
Map of Site 13 at Beech Street:
NC 65 AND
Private Property
CAMORE
Street Centerlines Sewer Lines Water Lines USGS 1:24,000 Streams intermittent perennial Parcels NWI Waterbodies NWI Wetlands BMP Contributing Watershed Proposed BMP Site
RUSS ELL AV E
PINED
LEGEND
UT to Little Troublesome Cr.
Proposed BMP Site
ALE D R.
BEE
CH S T.
Contributing Watershed
.
N W
E S
SCALE 100
0
100
200
300 Feet
A-27
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
SITE NUMBER: 14 Site Location: Downstream of Richardson Drive and Upstream of K-Mart Contributing Drainage Area: Approximately 360 acres Drainage Area Landuse: Mixed Urban Drainage Area Imperviousness: High Potential Area for Proposed Practice: Approximately 6.5 acres Tier I Subwatershed: LT5 Cons:
Pros: •
No Infrastructure Influence
•
Offline Facility
•
Contributing Drainage Area Highly Developed, Including Industry
•
Area Previously Identified as Wetland
•
Site Located on Soils Previously Identified as Hydric
•
Natural Topography Supports a Stormwater BMP
•
Good Access for Construction and Maintenance Purposes
•
Sanitary Sewer Could be Impacted if Site Expanded
•
Two, Possibly Three, Private Landowners
•
Surface Area of Site May Be Too Small to Accommodate a BMP
•
Wooded Site
Recommended Practice: Construction of Off-Channel Storage Recommended Size of Practice: Variable Estimated Cost: Unknown Comments: Determining a reasonable cost estimate for this effort would require a detailed engineering analysis of the existing site and some preliminary design work. Implementation of this BMP opportunity would achieve treatment of a large area of mixed urban land with very high imperviousness. NWI data indicates that this area was classified as a wetland at one time, but site evaluations have indicated that most, if not all, of the wetland no longer exists. Innovative design of off-channel peak flow storage might re-establish some wetland functions at this location.
A-28
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
Map of Site 14 above K-Mart:
T.
. D ST ROA
HS SYT R O F
ARD RICH
S ON
DR.
Contributing Watershed Private Property
Proposed BMP Site
K-Mart Property
LEGEND Street Centerlines Sewer Lines Water Lines USGS 1:24,000 Streams intermittent perennial Parcels NWI Waterbodies NWI Wetlands BMP Contributing Watershed Proposed BMP Site
N W
E S
SCALE 200
0
200
400 Feet
A-29
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
(This page left intentionally blank.)
A-30
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
Appendix B.
April 2004
Attachments for Section 3
A. Sedimentation and Erosion Control Workshop – Draft Agenda B. Soil Watch Workshop – Draft Agenda C. Checklist: Opportunities for Low-Impact Development Design Techniques D. Example Programs to Control Sources of Fecal Coliform
B-1
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
(This page left intentionally blank.)
B-2
Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
Attachment A
SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL WORKSHOP EXAMPLE AGENDA Day 1
Day 2 8:00-10:45
Erosion Control Practices and Measures
8:00-8:30
Introductions
8:30-8:45
Pre-Test
8:45-9:00
Terminology
10:45-11:30 Sediment Control Practices and Measures
9:00-9:15
Break
11:30-12:45 Lunch
9:15-9:45
Overview
12:45-1:45
Sediment Control Practices and Measures
9:45-10:00
Break
1:45-2:00
Summary of Control Practices
2:00-2:15
Break
2:15-2:45
Stormwater BMPs and PostConstruction
11:30-12:45 Lunch
2:45-3:30
Review of Example
12:45-1:15
E&SC Regulations
3:30-4:00
Summary, Conclusions, Post-Test
1:15-1:45
E&SC Basics
1:45-2:00
Break
2:00-2:30
Hydrology and Hydraulics Basics
2:30-3:40
Erosion Control Practices and Measures
3:40-4:00
Review and Plan for the Next Day
10:00-11:00 Opening Exercises (teams look at plans and determine where E&S measures should be installed) 11:00-11:30 Developing an E&SC Plan
B-3
Draft Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
(This page left intentionally blank.)
B-4
Draft Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
Attachment B Citizen Soil Watch Workshop Training Course: How to Select, Install and Inspect Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Best Management Practices for NPDES Stormwater Permit Compliance
Technical Level of Course Materials: Beginner Learning Objectives: •
Learn the regulatory basis for erosion and sediment control, including the requirements for a comprehensive Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
•
Master a systems approach to erosion and sediment control planning, implementation and operation.
•
Discover a 10-step process for designing an effective erosion and sediment control plan.
•
Learn the proper procedures for obtaining coverage under an NPDES construction permit.
•
Walk away with the current menu of best management practices (BMPs). Learn where to use them and how they work.
•
Get information on the typical costs for materials, methods, installation and maintenance of current BMPs.
•
Discover a method for selecting which BMP, or system of BMPs, is appropriate for your site conditions.
•
Incorporate operation and maintenance of all BMPs as part of your erosion and sediment control planning and implementation.
•
Learn what to look for as an inspector, in both planning documents and field implementation of erosion and sediment control plans.
•
Find where to go for additional and more detailed information, such as plant materials, soil testing, etc.
B-5
Draft Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
Course Outline: I.
Introduction – 8:00 - 8:10 a.m. A. Instructor Introductions B. Course Organization and Schedule
II. Rules and Regulations – 8:10 - 9:10 a.m. A. Why is Erosion a Problem? B. Federal Regulations • Clean Water Act (Sections 401, 402, 404) • NPDES Program (Phase I and II) • Definitions (stormwater, waters of the U.S., beneficial uses, etc) • CZARA • TMDL Program (water quality standards, beneficial uses, 303(d) lists, TMDL process, waste load allocations) C. State Regulations • Types of Stormwater Permits (individual and general) • Types of Permitting Authority • Permit Application Requirements • State-specific Requirements D. Permit Application Requirements for Construction Sites • What is a SWPPP? • Construction Permit Applications • NOIs • Deadlines • Certification and Notification • Enforcement and Penalties (administrative orders, civil actions, criminal prosecutions, citizen suits) E. Local Regulations (municipal SWMP, ordinances) III. Site Planning and Management 9:10 - 9:40 a.m. A. Erosion and Sediment Hazards in Urban Development B. Factors that Influence Erosion C. The Planning Process D. Considerations in Construction Sequencing E. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Checklist Break 9:40 - 9:55 a.m. IV. Runoff Control 9:55 - 10:40 a.m. A. Hydrologic Cycle and Site Drainage Patterns B. Runoff Considerations C. Surface Runoff Predictions D. Factors Affecting Runoff E. Runoff Management Practices B-6
Draft Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
V. Erosion Control – 10:40 - 11:40 a.m. A. Definition of Erosion Control B. Slopes - Strengthen Subsurface Structural (retaining walls, land grading, surface roughening, etc) Biotechnical (wattling, matting, brush layering, etc) C. Graded Areas - Protect Surface Vegetative Measures (seeding, topsoiling, sodding, protecting vegetation, vegetative buffers, etc.) Non-Vegetative Measures (wood chips, mulching, rolled erosion control products, bonded fiber matrices, soil stabilizers, rip-rap, etc.) D. Proper Installation E. Proper Maintenance Questions and Answers – 11:40 - 11:55 a.m. Lunch – 11:55 - 12:55 p.m. VI. Sediment Control 12:55 - 1:55 p.m. A. Definition of Sediment Control B. Sediment Control Measures (sediment traps and basins, barriers, stabilized construction entrances, inlet filters, slope interrupter devices, turbidity curtains, cofferdams, etc.) C. Proper Installation D. Proper Maintenance VII. Erosion Control Planning Process 1:55 - 2:45 p.m. A. 10-Step Planning Process Step 1. Identify Issues and Concerns Step 2. Develop Goals and Objectives Step 3. Collect and Analyze Data Step 4. Develop Best Management Practice Selection Criteria Step 5. Nominate Candidate Best Management Practices Step 6. Screen and Select Best Management Practices Step 7. Develop Erosion Control Plan Step 8. Implement the Erosion Control Plan Step 9. Operate, Monitor, and Maintain the System Step 10. Update the Plan B. Common Installation Mistakes C. Inspection Tips Break – 2:45 - 3:00 p.m. VIII.
Class Exercise/Sample Problems – 3:00 - 3:30 p.m.
IX.
Why We Care – 3:30 - 3:45 p.m. A. Economic Advantages of Compliance B. Environmental Advantages of Compliance
Questions and Answers – 3:45 - 4:00 p.m.
B-7
Draft Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
(This page left intentionally blank.)
B-8
Draft Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
Attachment C Checklist: Opportunities for Low-Impact Development Design Techniques* Clearing and Grading • Is disturbance of vegetated areas and riparian areas minimized? • Do the building envelopes avoid sensitive environmental areas such as riparian areas, wetlands, high infiltration soils, steep slopes, etc.? • Is total site disturbance minimized? Minimizing Impervious or Built Upon Area Streets • If this is a residential development, are the street pavement widths between 18 to 22 feet? • Does the design promote the most efficient street layout to reduce overall street length? • If there are cul-de-sacs, is the radius 35 feet or less? • If there are cul-de-sacs, is there a landscaped island or bioretention island? • Are grass swales or bioretention swales used instead of curb and gutter where slopes allow? Parking/Driveways/Sidewalks • If this is an office building, is the parking ratio 3.0 spaces per 1000 sq.ft. of gross floor area or less? • If this is a commercial center, is the parking ratio 2 to 4.5 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. of gross floor area or less? • Is a mass transit stop provided or nearby (if applicable)? • Does the proposed development take advantage of opportunities for shared parking? • Is the minimum stall width for a standard parking space 9 feet or less? • Do the parking medians (if required) have bioretention cells where feasible? • Are driveways 9 feet or less in width? • Are shared driveways used? • Is on-street parking considered and imperviousness minimized (no on-street or single-side parking where allowed)? • Are sidewalks (if required) designed to the narrowest allowable width? • Are sidewalks on one side of street only? Clustering Development • To encourage clustering and open space design, are setbacks minimized (e.g., for residential lots that are ½ acre or less in size is the front setback 20 feet or less, the rear setback 25 feet or less, and the side setback 8 feet or less) • Does the design focus development on areas of lesser slopes and farther from watercourses?
B-9
Draft Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
Preserving Sensitive Areas Wetlands • Are existing wetlands preserved? • Will the site design minimize hydrologic alteration to existing wetlands? Steep Slopes • Is building footprint concentrated on slopes 10 percent or less? • Is disturbance minimized on slopes 15 percent to 25 percent and revegetation proposed where disturbance occurs? • Are areas with 25 percent or greater slope preserved? Soils • Do the building footprints avoid highly erodible soils (Roanoke Silt Loam, Cartecay and Chewacla soils, Cecil Sandy Loam, Cecil-Urban Land Complex, Gwinnett Sandy Loam, Hiwassee Sandy Loam, and Madison Sandy Loam)? Revise per Troublesome Creek • Do the building footprints avoid soils with high permeability (e.g., Hydrologic Soil Group A and B)? Stream Buffer • Is a 50 to 75 foot stream buffer provided? • Will the stream buffer remain in a natural state? Managing Stormwater • Are efforts made to retain/infiltrate stormwater on-site (through bioretention, natural areas, and swale infiltration)? • Are stormwater management practices designed and sized correctly to provide sufficient storage volume? • Are outfalls stabilized to reduce erosion? • Has a BMP maintenance plan been submitted? Managing Open Space • Is open space available for preservation? • Will the preserved open space be managed in a natural condition? • Will there be a Homeowners Association or other association that can effectively manage the open space? * Adapted from Low-Impact Development Design Strategies, Prince George’s County MD. 1999; Better Site Design: A Handbook for Changing Development Rules in Your Community, Center for Watershed Protection, 1998; State of North Carolina Model Ordinance for Water Supply Watershed Protection.
B-10
Draft Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
Attachment D Example Programs for Controlling Sources of Fecal Coliform Programs Recommended for Consideration by County Jurisdictions Requirements for Individual Septic Systems: Adopt some or all of the following recommendations: 1. Establish an inspections and maintenance program. Three alternatives are offered: a) Inspect septic systems every five years to ensure that they are functioning properly. On average, this would mean inspecting 20 percent of all septic systems in the county annually. Require that homeowners repair or replace failing systems. (Local Health Code may need to be revised to require this inspection and maintenance program). b) Alternatively, use the results of Wake County’s pilot onsite wastewater conditions assessment to develop risk-based management strategies for septic systems. Risk-based strategies could be based on any of the following: system type, system location, system age, or system maintenance history. c) Alternatively, inspect septic systems at the time of new home sale or home resale (new system inspections could be delayed by 6-9 months). 2. Implement a GIS database of existing septic tank and well owners. 3. Develop a certification program for people who install and inspect septic systems, and require that a licensed person install all septic systems. (Note: the General Assembly is now considering the adoption of a state-wide certification program.) 4. Provide operation and maintenance information packages to all homeowners who have septic systems by mail or at time of property purchase.
Programs Recommended for Consideration by Municipal Jurisdictions Point Source Controls: Where practical, eliminate old WWTPs and consolidate capacity of the older plants into regional WWTPs. Sanitary Sewer Overflow Inspections: Inspect sewage conveyance systems (e.g., pipes, pump stations, manholes, etc.) to ensure their proper functioning. When sanitary sewer systems overflow, untreated or partially treated sewage may flow into streams, rivers and lakes within the watershed. Repairs to overflowing systems may include detecting and disconnecting storm drain connections, replacing conveyance pipes to allow larger volumes of flow or to replace older pipes, and upgrading or repairing pump stations, including installation of automatically-actuated standby power generators. Inspection and Maintenance Program for Leaking Sewer Pipes and Illegal Connections to Storm Drainage System: Inspect sewage conveyance systems to detect and repair leaks of untreated sewage. When sanitary sewer systems leak, untreated or partially treated sewage may flow into streams, rivers and lakes in the watershed. Also, when water that should be conveyed through the sanitary sewer system to the treatment plant is instead connected to the stormwater drainage system, untreated sewage may flow into rivers and lakes. It is important to detect and remove these illegal connections. Citizen Education Program for Pet Waste Control
B-11
Draft Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
(This page left intentionally blank.)
B-12
Draft Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
Appendix C.
April 2004
Maps
•
Troublesome Creek Habitat Preservation Priorities Subwatersheds T7, T8 and T9
•
Troublesome and Little Troublesome Creeks Habitat Preservation Priorities Subwatersheds T19, LT7
C-1
Draft Upper Cape Fear Basin Targeting of Management Report
April 2004
(This page left intentionally blank.)
C-2
