Attachment_E4_revised

AVA NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
Pat McCrory
Governor
Thomas A. Reeder
Director
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
John E. Skvarla, Ill
Secretary
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE CHARLOTIE MECKLENBURG UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
MODIFICATION OF INTERBASIN TRANSFER CERTIFICATE
Pursuant to the requirements of the Surface Water Transfers Act [G.S. 143-215.221] and the State
Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A), the Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities Department (CMUD) has
prepared an environmental assessment (EA). This EA has been prepared to support CMUD's request to
eliminate Condition 3 from its lnterbasin Transfer (IBT) Certificate, issued by the Environmental
Management Commission (EMC) on March 14, 2002 under the provisions of G.S. 143-215.221.
The IBT Certificate issued by the EMC allows CMUD to transfer 33 million gallons per day (MGD) from
the Catawba River Basin to the Rocky River Basin. Due to concerns that impacts to the Carolina
heelsplitter, a federally-listed endangered species, had not been sufficiently evaluated, the EMC created
a condition to exclude Goose Creek from the area to be served by the interbasin transfer:
Condition 3 of the certificate states:
The Goose Creek subbasin in Mecklenburg County is removed from the area to be served by the
IBT. A moratorium on the installation of new interbasin transfer water lines (water lines crossing
the ridgeline) into Goose Creek subbasin is in effect until the impacts of additional urban growth
on the endangered species are fully evaluated.
At the time the certificate was issued, it was assumed that Goose Creek Watershed protection measures
would be addressed in an environmental study developed for a new wastewater plant under
consideration by Union, Cabarrus, and Mecklenburg Counties. The wastewater treatment plant effort
has since been abandoned and watershed protection needs within Goose Creek have been addressed
through separate local and state level initiatives, most specifically the Town of Mint Hill's 2010 Post-
Construction Ordinance (PCO). The Town of Mint Hill's PCO addresses the action items listed in the NC
Department of Environment and Natural Resources Site Specific Water Quality Management Plan for the
Goose Creek Watershed 15A NCAC 2B .0600-.0609, approved by the EMC in 2008.
As stated in 15A NCAC 02B .0601, "The purpose of the actions required by this site-specific management
strategy is for the maintenance and recovery of the water quality conditions required to sustain and
recover the federally endangered Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) species. Management of
the streamside zones to stabilize stream banks and prevent sedimentation are critical measures to
restore water quality to sustain and enable recovery of the federally endangered Carolina heelsplitter."
Some of the mitigation and protection measures specifically required by the PCO and currently being
implemented by the Town of Mint Hill include:
1611 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1611
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone]\ FAX: [phone]
Internet: www.ncwater.org
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer
E452
Environmental Assessment Finding of No Signifi~ant Impact
Charlotte Mecklenburg Utilities
Modification of lnterbasin Transfer Certificate
I. The control of storm water for projects disturbing 1 acre or more of land
• Requires Storm Water Management Permit for new development activities that disturb
1 acre or more and result in increased impervious area.
• Controls and treats difference in runoff from pre-to post-development conditions for 1-
year, 24-hour storm.
• Removes 85% of total suspended solids.
• Exceeds runoff volume requirement of EMC rule by requiring that storm water
treatment systems be installed to control the volume leaving the project site at post-
development for the 1-year, 24-hour storm.
• Town of Mint Hill accepts maintenance and operational responsibility so as to preserve
and continue a BMP's design functions.
II. The control of wastewater discharges and toxicity for streams supporting the Carolina
heelsplitter
• No new NPDES wastewater discharges or expansions to existing discharges
• No new onsite sanitary sewage systems within riparian buffers
• No activity that would result in direct or indirect discharge is allowed if it causes toxicity
to Carolina heelsplitter
• When possible, action shall be taken to reduce ammonia to achieve 0.5 mg/L or less of
total ammonia.
Ill. The establishment and maintenance of riparian buffers
• Exceeds EMC requirement by requiring buffers on all intermittent and perennial streams
as well as ponds, lakes, and reservoirs based on NC DWQ's Identification Methods for
the Origins of Intermittent and Perennial Streams.
• Requires undisturbed riparian buffers within 200 feet of waterbodies within the 100-
year floodplain and 100 feet of waterbodies not within the 100-yr floodplain.
• Direct discharges of runoff to streams are not allowed.
IV. Other requirements
• Sewer lines and associated structures must be a minimum of 50 feet from jurisdictional
wetlands associated with the floodplain.
• Undisturbed Open Space is required for new development.
The Division of Water Resources has determined that the analysis of the potential environmental
impacts set forth in the EA and mitigative measures set forth in the PCO support a Finding of No
Significant Impact such that preparation of an environmental impact statement will not be required.
This decision is based upon the requirements of 15A NCAC 2B .0600-.0609, information in the attached
EA, and review by governmental agencies. This FONSI completes the environmental review record,
which is available for inspection and comment for 30 days at the State Clearinghouse.
. \ 1--/Jq//'2,
~
Page 2 of2
E453
FOR LEAD STATE AGENCY USE ONLY
Conclusion Statement (Must be completed and signed by responsible state agency and submitted with
the EA document to the State Clearinghouse.)
Select th_7"opriate statement below:
--l,L._ After preparation/review of this EA, the responsible state agency has concluded there is a Finding ofNo
Significant Impact (FONSI) and will not be preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). (Attach any
additional information regarding this conclusion that you deem important to this finding.)
____ The agency has completed this EA and is hereby submitting it for review and comment. After a
consideration of the comments received, the agency will proceed with a FONSI or prepare anEIS.
liJL b frvR /J;:i<J R ''•••d -~d_a~
Agency /
Submission Instructions
Note to non-state agency document preparer:
Documents completed for state agencies must first be sent to the appropriate agency for
approval and completion of the Conclusion Statement prior to State Clearinghouse
submission. Contact the appropriate agency for its submission procedures. Documents
prepared for the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources will be subject to
departmental review prior to submission to the State Clearinghouse.
An EA should not exceed 25 pages in length, excluding exhibit materials. Sixteen (16) copies of this
document with the cover letter and Conclusion Statement should be submitted to the State
Clearinghouse, N.C. Department of Administration, Room 51 06c, 116 West Jones Street, Raleigh,
North Carolina 27603. Mailed copies need to be sent to State Clearinghouse, 1301 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27 699-1301. For the review schedule and submission deadline dates, call the
State Clearinghouse at [phone].
8
E454
E455
E456
E457
E458
E459
E460
E461
E462
E463
E464
E465
E466
E467
E468
E469
E470
E471
E472
E473
E474
E475
E476
E477
E478
MEETING SUMMARY
Update: Environmental Assessment for the Addition of the Goose Creek Watershed to CMUD's 2002 IBT Certificate
Mark Cantrell/USFWS
John Fridell/USFWS
Alan Ratzcliff/USFWS
Shari Bryant/WRC (phone)
Ron Weathers/CMUD
Barry Shearin/CMUD
Rusty Rozzelle/Mecklenburg
County
Bill Kreutzberger/CH2M HILL
Jaime Robinson/CH2M HILL
NC Division of Water Resources
file
PREPARED BY: CH2M HILL
DATE: February 4, 2013

The purpose of this meeting was to discuss Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Department’s (CMUD) preparation of
an environmental document to remove the condition in their IBT Certificate limiting transfer of water to the
Goose Creek watershed within Mecklenburg County.
1) Who: Introductions and Roles and Responsibilities Overview
Note: Shari Bryant joined us by conference call
2) Where: Review of Mapping
a) Goose Creek Watershed boundaries within Mecklenburg County and the Town of Mint Hill
i) Discussion regarding private individual wells in the watershed. Mark asked if they are low yield or if
other water quality problems are present.
Yields are sufficient. Some residents complain of brown water but this is not a health concern.
Another concern is that private water providers are more expensive than public utilities
b) Development patterns in the watershed
i) Mark asked what land use changes are expected in the watershed.
The Bridges shopping mall, on hold for a while, seems to be ready to move forward. Some commercial
development is expected around the mall; most development in the watershed should be residential.
Zoning currently reflects a majority of residential land uses.
ii) Barry stated that developers are asking CMUD if service is available in the watershed.
iii) Shari asked about the presence of CMUD water and sewer service.
Right now public sewer is not available. A private collection system run by Aqua pumps wastewater
out of the basin before discharge.

3) What & When: Review of CMU’s IBT Certificate, EMC Plan for Goose Creek Watershed, and Town of Mint Hill Ordinance
These documents and how they were developed were discussed.
a) 2002 IBT Certificate
b) 2009 EMC Site Specific Water Quality Plan for Goose Creek Watershed Plan endorsed
c) 2010 EMC Delegation of Authority to Implement Site Specific Water Quality Plan to Mecklenburg County
ATTENDEES:
COPY TO:
E479
d) 2010 Town of Mint Hill updated post construction ordinance
i) The ordinance is available at:
ftp://ftp1.co.mecklenburg.nc.us/WaterQuality/PCO%20Ordinances/MintHillPCOFinal.pdf
ii) Zoning and future land use mapping (as of August 2011) are available at:
http://www.minthill.com/documents/7/Zoning-2011-08-24x36.PDF
http://www.minthill.com/documents/7/2010%20CLUP%20Map%20-%20Adopted.PDF
iii) In the review of Table 7 which compares the 2009 EMC Plan and the 2010 development ordinance,
Mark asked what if anything in the ordinance went above and beyond that outlined in the 2009 plan.
-More control of peak runoff
-Local administration of PCO (by Mecklenburg County, not the Town of Mint Hill) has its benefits
(a) BMP inspection and maintenance program is stronger than anything the state could do with
its limited resources. Stormwater fee funding supports the program (consistent funding
source).
(b) BMPs inspected a minimum of every 5 years (more often in recent years) and maintenance is
conducted
(c) PCO is tied into the NPDES Phase II stormwater permit for the Town, so any change to the
PCO would have to go back to the state for approval. This is unique to Mecklenburg County.
(d) Discussion regarding lessons learned from BMP maintenance program. Rusty stated that LID
measures such as rain gardens tend to be clogged by fine particles and need maintenance.
Something to watch in Goose Creek watershed as similar BMPs would be used in the
watershed as development occurs.
iv) Review of buffer program
Rusty stated that mapping of streams that would qualify for buffers has been conducted using NC
Division of Water Quality methodology so that the County is not reliant on developers to do their own
mapping.
v) John asked about floodplain protection in the watershed. Mecklenburg County has a strong program
and has fairly recently updated mapping. Below is a link to the program and a map is being provided
for reference.
http://charmeck.org/stormwater/StormWaterAgencies/Pages/FloodplainMapping.aspx
vi) Brief review of septic tank inspection program in the watershed.
vii) John asked about variances to the PCO. Rusty stated that the variances are verbatim wording of the
EMC Site Specific Plan.
viii) Rusty mentioned the Creek ReLeaf program in the County and how the goal was to restore buffers. He
hopes to expand the program into the Goose Creek watershed.
http://charmeck.org/stormwater/VolunteerGetInvolved/Pages/CreekReLeafProgram.aspx

4) Why: Provide CMUD & Town of Mint Hill with ability to plan and make service decisions
a) The Town of Mint Hill has met the intent of the Site Specific Water Quality Plan by implementing and
enforcing its updated development ordinance.
i) John asked about forestry activities in the watershed.
Rusty was not aware of any specifically in the watershed.
E480
ii) One component of the Plan is limiting ammonia. Rusty stated that ammonia is being monitored at the
monitoring stations in the watershed and that no exceedences had been recorded to date. He stated
how BMPs can reduce ammonia.
iii) John mentioned how USFWS had requests for the Site Specific Plan that were not incorporated into
the final document. These include:
(a) Limiting water line construction through buffers
(b) Limiting land development activities within the floodplain
(c) Limiting water line construction through floodplains and stream crossings by boring lines
beginning outside the floodplain
(d) Believes 1 acre of development is too large of a trigger for ordinance enforcement
b) Now mitigation is in place within the watershed, a key concern when Condition 3 was written into the IBT
Certificate.
c) Development plans within the watershed emerging with water needs met by private utility service or
wells.
i) Mark asked if any “where” information is available regarding where future water lines would go.
While development patterns cannot be predicted, it is assumed that over time water lines would be
extended down all the major roads in the watershed.
5) Other Discussion
Discussion of the American eel. USFWS hopes that American eel can return to Goose Creek. It is a good host
fish for mussels and USFWS would like to see it listed for protection.

E481
Stand Alone Water and Wasterwater
Stand Alone Wastewater System
Stand Alone Water and Wasterwater
Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom, Intermap, iPC, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), and the GIS User Community
Goose Creek Watershed
Goose Creek Watershed
Private Systems
FEMA 100 year Floodplain
Water Mains
Distribution
HydrantService
Transmission
0 0.75 1.5 2.25 30.375 Miles
I
Mecklenburg County, NC
Goose Creek Watershed
E482
APPENDIX 3
Agency Comments
Environmental Assessment - Addition of the Goose Creek Watershed to IBT Certificate
Comment Author Comment Response EA Section
1 Natural Heritage Program,
Andrea Leslie Applaud Mint Hill for enacting the Post-Construction Storm Water Ordinance but there will be
more certainty of protecting the Carolina heelsplitter and other sensitive species if buffers are
strengthened to (1) 200 feet on perennial streams and 100 feet on intermittent streams, (2)
minimize the variances allowed from the buffer protection regulations, especially those allowing
utility lines within the buffer and utility crossings over streams, and (3) widen the undisturbed
buffer width for forestry activities and ensure that developers cannot use the forestry exemption
to clear riparian vegetation before development.No action necessary.Sect 6.2
Remain concerned that SCI associated with higher density development could result in further
degradation and possible extirpation of listed species in the Goose Creek watershed.
Mitigation proposed aligns with Site Specific Water Quality Managment Plan. See
Table Sect 6
Correction: Atlantic pigtoe is described in the EA as state threatened, but it is state endangered.
As is Carolina creekshell. Correction made.Sect 3.3.3
See most recent description of Goose Creek Aquatic Habitat in the Union County Inventory.
Reference added. Note that this project pertains only to the Mecklenburg County
portion of the Goose Creek watershed. Sect 3.3.3
Referenced support of more detailed stormwater protection measures described in Wildlife
Resources Commission comments See Comment 2.Sect 6.2
2 Wildlife Resources Commission,
Shari Bryant
WRC continues to remain concerned, as they commented during the review period for the Site
Specific Plan in 2008, that some of the measures in the Site Specific Plan are not sufficient to
protect the Carolina heelsplitter.
We acknowledge this history associated with the Site Specific Plan. The Site
Specific Plan was adopted by the Environmental Management Commission, after
consideration of input through a formal rule-making process, for the purposes of
maintenance and recovery of the water quality conditions required to sustain
and recover the Carolina heelsplitter species. The Town of Mint Hill's Post
Construction Ordinance meets the requirements of the Plan included in EMC
rules. See Table 7.Sect 6.1, 6.2
More protective if developments that exceed a 6% built-upon area required control of
stormwater than the current 10% built-upon area. At 6%, at minimum stormwater controls
should treat 2-year, 24-hr storm or bankful event and provide adequate infiltration of
stormwater.
The Site Specific Plan was adopted by the Environmental Management
Commission, after consideration of input through a formal rule-making process,
for the purposes of maintenance and recovery of the water quality conditions
required to sustain and recover the Carolina heelsplitter species. The Town of
Mint Hill's Post Construction Ordinance meets the requirements of the Plan
included in EMC rules. See Table 7.Sect 6.2
It is unclear whether removal of Condition 3 would allow not only water lines, but sewer lines as
well. Significant concerns regarding the addition of sewer because significantly higher density
development could occur than with water lines only.
The focus of this EA is on the removal of Condition 3 which only addresses water
service. Condition 3 does not limit sewer lines. General
100-year floodplain: Utility infrastructure should be kept out of the buffers and 100-year
floodplain. No new fill or development in the 100-year floodplain.
To the extent practical, CMUD's water utility infrastructure, if installed, would be
kept ouf of the buffers and 100-year floodplain. Mecklenburg County has in place
a strong flooplain protection program and fill and/or development within the
100-year floodplain are strictly limited. Sect 6.3
Page 1 of 4
E483
If condition 3 is removed, please understand that WRC will revisit issues concerning SCI on any
future water or sewer projects in the watershed.
We acknowledge that any future water or sewer line projects would be
independently permitted. General
3 Division of Water Quality ,
Hannah Headrick
SCI will negatively affect water quality.
The Site Specific Plan was adopted by the Environmental Management
Commission, after consideration of input through a formal rule-making process,
for the purposes of maintenance and recovery of the water quality conditions
required to sustain and recover the Carolina heelsplitter species. The Town of
Mint Hill's Post Construction Ordinance meets the requirements of the Plan
included in EMC rules. See Table 7.Sect 4
Yet to be proven if PCO will protect water quality. Existing water quality data have not shown
improvements.
As a result of the economic downturn, little development has occurred in the
Town of Mint Hill since the Post Construction Ordinance was adopted.
Mecklenburg County will continue its monitoring program and continue annual
reporting.Sect 6.2
DWQ prefers that CMUD provide annual monitoring reports to show what it has been doing
towards meeting the PCO plan goals. Include annual reports for past few years as part of
document.
Mecklenburg County conducts monitoring within the watershed. Annual
reporting is conducted as part of the Goose Creek Fecal Coliform Recovery
Program and data is included in Appendix A-1. Other water quality data are
located in Appendix A-2, Mecklenburg County Water Quality Data.Sect 6.2
Document does not speak much to the rest of the Goose Creek watershed outside of Mint Hill
that will experience growth because of increased water availability.
This project is specific to the service area of CMUD and is entirely within
Mecklenburg County. The entire Goose Creek watershed within Mecklenburg
County is within the planning jurisdiction of the Town of Mint Hill. Figure 2
depicts these boundaries. This project does not include the portion of the
watershed within Union County.General
4 Division of Water Quality
Removal of Condition 3 is not a prudent course of action considering there is endangered species
in the watershed.
The Site Specific Plan was adopted by the Environmental Management
Commission, after consideration of input through a formal rule-making process,
for the purposes of maintenance and recovery of the water quality conditions
required to sustain and recover the Carolina heelsplitter species. The Town of
Mint Hill's Post Construction Ordinance meets the requirements of the Plan
included in EMC rules. See Table 7.General
Mooresville Regional Office
5 Aquifer Protection Section No Comment No action necessary.
Mooresville Regional Office
6 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Brian Cole
The EA concludes that the effects of increased growth and development made possible by
removal of Condition 3 will not be significant to the Carolina heelsplitter. We cannot agree with
this conclusion.
The Site Specific Plan was adopted by the Environmental Management
Commission, after consideration of input through a formal rule-making process,
for the purposes of maintenance and recovery of the water quality conditions
required to sustain and recover the Carolina heelsplitter species. The Town of
Mint Hill's Post Construction Ordinance meets the requirements of the Plan
included in EMC rules. See Table 7.General
Brian Cole
Provided summary of recent surveys for the Carolina heelsplitter to document population decline
and habitat degradation. USFWS conclusion: As a result of aquatic habitat degradation in the
watershed, this population of Carolina heelsplitter is rapidly declining and is likely to become
extirpated in the near future without implementation of adequate measures to prevent further
aquatic habitat degradation and to restore the species' habitat.
By inclusion of these comments in the complete final EA document, these survey
results are acknowledged.Sect 3.3.3
Page 2 of 4
E484
We do not believe the Site Specific Plan (and hence the PCO) goes far enough to be protective of
the Carolina heelsplitter.
The Site Specific Plan was adopted by the Environmental Management
Commission, after consideration of input through a formal rule-making process,
for the purposes of maintenance and recovery of the water quality conditions
required to sustain and recover the Carolina heelsplitter species. The Town of
Mint Hill's Post Construction Ordinance meets the requirements of the Plan
included in EMC rules. See Table 7.Sect 6
Land disturbance: We belive that requirements of the PCO should apply to any new clearing
activity regardless of the size or type of disturbance (current rules apply for disturbances greater
than or equal to 1 acre). Recommended requirements include (1) measures designed to replicate
and maintain the pre-construction hydrograph and (2) measures to promote infiltration. Any
stormwater measures should include a monitoring and maintenance plan.
The Town of Mint Hill's Post Construction Ordinance is consistent with the Site
Specific Plan regarding the 1-acre trigger and includes references to its Storm
Water Design Manual, which includes requirements for operation and maintence
of BMPs. The Town of Mint Hill accepts maintence responsibility following a 2-
year warranty period. See Table 7. Sect 6.2
Buffers: We continue to recommend the requirement for maintenance or establishment and
protection of undisturbed, forested buffers on each side of streams that are naturally vegetated
that extend a minimum of 200 feet from the top of the banks of all perennial streams and a
minimum of 100 feet from the top of the banks of all intermittent streams, or the full extent of
the 100-year floodplain, whichever is greater.
The Site Specific Plan was adopted by the Environmental Management
Commission, after consideration of input through a formal rule-making process.
The Town of Mint Hill's Post Construction Ordinance meets the requirements of
the Plan included in EMC rules and exceeds the buffer delineation language of
the Site Specific Plan. This results in better definition of intermittent streams in
particular. See Table 7.Sect 6.2
Buffers: Disturbances which require maintained, cleared rights-of-way such as ditches or utility
lines should not occur within the buffers.
To the extent practical, CMUD's water utility infrastructure, if installed, would be
kept ouf of the buffers and 100-year floodplain. Mecklenburg County has in place
a strong flooplain protection program and fill and/or development within the
100-year floodplain are strictly limited. Sect 6.2
Buffers: The PCO should encourage the reestablishment of riparian buffers in areas where they
are currently lacking and require the establishment of riparian buffers when changes in land uses
occur.
While not described in the Post Construction Ordinance, Mecklenburg County
has begun a small buffer restoration program, planting trees within the defined
buffers which currently are not forested. Public education programs regarding
the benefits of buffers are also in place. Sect 6.2
Buffers: Too much potential for variances within the buffers. Recommend that no fill, no new
impervious surfaces, or no creation of semi-pervious surfaces be allowed within the floodplain or
the buffers and that the buffers remain undisturbed.
Potentially allowable activities with the buffer are reviewed by the Storm Water
Administrator and do require mitigation if approved. The Division of Water
Quality has the authority to challenge a decision for a period of 30 days after
issuance. Variance requests require a multi-level approval process including the
Storm Water Administrator (Mecklenburg County), the Storm Water Advisory
Committee, and the Director of the Division of Water Quality who then presents
it to the Environmental Management Commission. The Environmental
Management Commission ultimately makes a decision on a variance request,
which is consistent with their rule-making process for the Site Specific Plan. Sect 6.2
Buffers: Variances should require mitigative measures. We would be happy to meet with or
discuss buffer concerns in more detail.
Section 305C(11) of the Post Construction Ordinance details the mitigation
requirements for stream buffer impacts. Sect 6.2
Page 3 of 4
E485
Ammonia toxicity: Based on currently available information, we believe the achievement of 0.5
milligrams per liter or less of total ammonia on a chronic basis is reasonably likely to prevent
death, harm, or injury to the Carolina heelsplitter. We recommend that the PCO outline measures
that must be taken to ensure "toxicity to the Carolina heelsplitter" is likely to be prevented
(instead of more after-the-fact as currently written). This should include monitoring and
enforcement plans.
Ammonia is monitored as part of Mecklenburg County's water quality monitoring
program. The Post Construction Ordinance meets the requirements of the Site
Specific Plan. We also recognize that ammonia toxicity is less likely to originate
from stormwater sources and that it is an important component of Mecklenburg
County's overall water quality monitoring program in the watershed. Point
sources, the most likely source of elevated ammonia, are directly regulated by
the Division of Water Quality.Sect 6.2
Forestry activities within buffers: Site Specific Plan allows for forestry activities including
removing trees within the buffers. It is unclear if the PCO allows the same. This is inappropriate
within the Goose Creek watershed and should include rules that do not permit forestry
exemptions to be used for clearing prior to development activities.
The Post Construction Ordinance includes language regarding vegetation
management under Section 305(C)(9). Forestry activities including removing
trees is generally not permitted. For example, removal of individual trees which
are in danger of causing damage to dwellings, other structures or human life is
permitted. Pruning is also permitted. Sect 6.2
We continue to note the need for a restoration component in (or to compliment) the PCO so that
existing poor water quality is remediated.
Mecklenburg County is currently in the planning stages of a significant
restoration project within the watershed, partially within current County-owned
property, as part of the County's Watershed Management Plan implementation.Sect 6.2
We believe that removal of Condition 3 will contribute to already degraded conditions and
further compromised habitat in the Goose Creek system.
The Site Specific Plan was adopted by the Environmental Management
Commission, after consideration of input through a formal rule-making process,
for the purposes of maintenance and recovery of the water quality conditions
required to sustain and recover the Carolina heelsplitter species. The Town of
Mint Hill's Post Construction Ordinance meets the requirements of the Plan
included in EMC rules. See Table 7.General
Page 4 of 4
E486