GooseCreekEA_AppendixC2

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
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
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
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