20161045 Ver 1_USFWS Comments_20161130

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
November 30, 2016
Amanda Jones
Wetlands and Environmental Planning Group
1070 Tunnel Road, Building 1
Suite 10, PMB 283
Asheville, North Carolina 28805
Dear Ms. Jones:
I
Subject: West Branch Site Residential Development Project; Mecklenburg County, North
Carolina
Log No. 4-2-17-056
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the information provided in your
correspondence dated October 27, 2016 (received October 31, 2016). The Service submits the
following comments in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e); the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. §4321
et seq.); and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543) (Act).
Project Description
According to the information provided, you are seeking NWP's 929 and 914 associated with the
construction of a residential development (including roads, utility lines, and other appurtenant
structures) on an 87.9 acre tract in Davidson, North Carolina. You indicated that the site is
currently composed of row crops, and some forested areas. Approximately 0.4 acres of wetland
and 9,300 linear feet of intermittent and perennial streams occur on the site. The proposed
project would result in a total of 140 linear feet of permanent impacts to streams (two tributaries
to the South Prong West Branch Rocky River) and 0.097 acre of headwater wetland. Impacts to
streams are associated with the installation of 2 box culvert road crossings, and impacts to
wetlands are associated with the installation of a sewer line. A diversion and pump -around
system would be utilized to conduct instream work in the dry.
Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Species
According to your Threatened and Endangered Species Report, you surveyed all potential
habitats for federally protected plant species known to occur in Mecklenburg County and
determined that none of those species were present at the site. The Report also indicates that
suitable habitat is not present on site for Carolina heelsplitter (Lasinigona decorata), or bald
eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus).
According to Service records, suitable summer roosting habitat may be present in the project
area for the federally threatened northern long-eared bat. However, the final 4(d) rule (effective

as of February 16, 2016), exempts incidental take of northern long-eared bat associated with
activities that occur greater than 0.25 miles from a known hibernation site, and greater than 150
feet from a known, occupied maternity roost during the pup season (June 1 — July 31). Based on
the information provided, the project (which may require tree clearing) would occur at a location
where any incidental take that may result from associated activities is exempt under the 4(d) rule.
Therefore, we consider the requirements under the Act to be complete and require no further
action at this time. Please be aware that obligations under section 7 of the Act must be
reconsidered if. (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is
subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review, or (3) a new species is
listed or critical habitat is determined that may be affected by the identified action.
In the interest of conserving fish and wildlife resources, we offer the following
recommendations:
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Construction activities near streams, rivers, and lakes have the potential to cause water pollution
and stream degradation if measures to control site runoff are not properly installed and
maintained. In order to effectively reduce erosion and sedimentation impacts, Best Management
Practices specific to the extent and type of construction should be designed and installed during
land -disturbing activities and maintained until the project is complete and appropriate storm
water conveyances and vegetation are re-established on-site.
A complete design manual, which provides extensive details and procedures for developing
site-specific plans to control erosion and sediment and is consistent with the requirements of the
North Carolina Sedimentation and Pollution Control Act and Administrative Rules, is available
athtt):// sortal.ncdenr.oro/wpb/lr/ sublicatioras.
For maximum benefits to water quality and bank stabilization, riparian areas should be forested
but if maintained in grass, should not be mowed. We recommend planting disturbed areas with
native riparian species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can provide information on potential
sources of plant material upon request.
Development in Floodplains
Executive Order 11988 requires federal agencies (and their designated nonfederal
representatives) to consider and protect floodplain functions. We believe the examples of
flooding in this area of North Carolina highlight the importance of avoiding the long- and
short-term impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and that we
should avoid any direct or indirect support of floodplain development. Therefore, we do not
believe the subject project should be built in the 100 -year floodplain or in any way result in the
alteration of the 100 -year floodplain.
Impervious Surfaces/Low Impact Development (LID)
Increased development outside the floodplain will also affect the quantity and quality of storm
water entering project area waterways. The overall percent impervious for this project is 22.7%.

Studies' show that areas of 10- to 20 -percent impervious surface (such as roofs, roads, and
parking lots) double the amount of storm -water runoff compared to natural cover and decrease
deep infiltration (groundwater recharge) by 16 percent. At 35- to 50 -percent impervious surface,
runoff triples, and deep infiltration is decreased by 40 percent. Additionally, these impervious
surfaces collect pathogens, metals, sediment, and chemical pollutants and quickly transmit them
(via storm -water runoff) to receiving waters. According to the Environmental Protection
Agency, this nonpoint-source pollution is one of the major threats to water quality in the United
States, posing one of the greatest threats to aquatic life, and is also linked to chronic and acute
illnesses in human populations from exposure through drinking water and contact recreation.
Increased storm -water runoff also directly damages aquatic and riparian habitat, causing
stream -bank and stream -channel scouring. In addition, impervious surfaces reduce groundwater
recharge, resulting in even lower than expected stream flows during drought periods, which can
induce potentially catastrophic effects for fish, mussels, and other aquatic life. Accordingly, we
recommend that all new developments, regardless of the percentage of impervious surface area
they will create, implement storm -water -retention and -treatment measures designed to replicate
and maintain the hydrograph at the preconstruction condition in order to avoid any additional
impacts to habitat quality within the watershed.
Where detention ponds are used, storm -water outlets should drain through a vegetated area prior
to reaching any natural stream or wetland area. Detention structures should be designed to allow
for the slow discharge of storm water, attenuating the potential adverse effects of storm -water
surges; thermal spikes; and sediment, nutrient, and chemical discharges. Also, because the
purpose of storm -water -control measures is to protect streams and wetlands, no
storm -water -control measures or best management practices should be installed within any
stream (perennial or intermittent) or wetland.
We recommend the use of low -impact -development techniques 2 such as reduced road widths,
grassed swales in place of curb and gutter, rain gardens, and wetland retention areas, for
retaining and treating storm -water runoff rather than the more traditional measures, such as large
retention ponds, etc. These designs often cost less to install and significantly reduce
environmental impacts from residential development.
We also recommend that consideration be given to the use of pervious materials (i.e., pervious
concrete, interlocking/open paving blocks, etc.) for the construction of roads, driveways,
sidewalks, etc. Pervious surfaces minimize changes to the hydrology of the watershed and can
be used to facilitate groundwater recharge. Pervious materials are also less likely to absorb and
store heat and allow the cooler soil below to cool the pavement. Additionally, pervious concrete
requires less maintenance and is less susceptible to freeze/thaw cracking due to large voids
within the concrete.
'Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (15 federal agencies of the United States Government).
Published October 1998, Revised August 2001. Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices.
GPO Item No. 0120-A; SuDocs No. A 57.6/2:EN 3/PT.653. ISBN -0-934213-59-3.
2 W recommend visiting the Environmental Protection Agency's Web site e�wa. "av/�olluted-rillno
raafor additional information and fact sheets
regarding the implementation of low -impact -development techniques.

Invasive Exotic Sbecies
According to the information provided, invasive plant species are present on the site. Without
active management, including the revegetation of disturbed areas with native species, project
corridors will likely be sources of (and corridors for) the movement of invasive exotic plant
species. Exotic species are major contributors to species depletion and extinction, second only to
habitat loss. Exotics are a factor contributing to the endangered or threatened status of more than
40 percent of the animals and plants on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants.3 It is estimated that at least 4,000 exotic plant species and 2,300 exotic animal
species are now established in the United States, costing more than $130 billion a year to
control .4 Additionally, the U.S. Government has many programs and laws in place to combat
invasive species (see www.invasivespecies.gov). Specifically, Section 2(a)(3) of Executive Order
13112 - Invasive Species (February 3, 1999) directs federal agencies to "not authorize, fund, or
carry out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of
invasive species in the United States or elsewhere." Despite their short-term erosion -control
benefits, many exotic species used in soil stabilization seed mixes are persistent once they are
established, thereby preventing the reestablishment of native vegetation. Many of these exotic
plants= are also aggressive invaders of nearby natural areas, where they are capable of displacing
already -established native species. Therefore, we strongly recommend that only species native
to the natural communities within the project area be used in association with all aspects of this
project.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. Please contact Mr. Byron
Hamstead of our staff at 828/258-3939, Ext. 225, if you have any questions. In any future
correspondence concerning this project, please reference our Log Number 4-2-17-056.
Sincerely,
- - Originalsigned - -
Janet A. Mizzi
Field Supervisor
e.c. David Schaeffer, USACE
Alan Johnson, NCDEQ
Karen Higgins, NCDEQ
Vann Stancil, NCWRC
3D.S. Wilcove, D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, and E. Losos. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in
the United States. BioScience 48:607-615.
4D. Pimentel, L. Lach, R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2000. Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous
species in the United States. BioScience 50:53-65.
=Lists of invasive exotic plants can be found at http://www.tneppc.org/and http://www.invasive.org/eastern/srs/
(exotic wildlife links) on the Internet.
0