Community Overview
Who We Are
The Save Mink Livsey Coalition represents over 450 directly affected households in six bordering subdivisions and four adjacent lots, along with downstream residents. Many families have lived here for decades and understand firsthand the history of flooding and erosion in the No Business/Do Little Creeks valley.
Location Context
The proposed subdivision sits in a land-locked parcel in between Do Little and No Business Creeks, which empty into the Yellow River headwaters. (See Appendix B.) The topography is a mixture of semi-mountainous and floodplain within the Upper Ocmulgee Watershed. Do Little and No Business Creeks border the parcel on either side and then join to flow downstream into three residential lakes before reaching the Yellow River. According to First Street Data (See Appendix C.) This parcel represents a 10/10 flood risk with a (likely) 9.4-foot average depth of flooding at the parcel center in its current state.
Community Stake
Our community understands that growth in Gwinnett County is inevitable. We also know that protecting our wetlands (See Appendix E.), waterways (See Appendix D.), habitats, and history is critical to ensuring the long-term stability of our homes for both new and existing residents alike. The Falls at Mink Livsey project, in its current design, presents risks that are not fully addressed in the variance request, including erosion, storm water runoff, habitat disruption, and long-term harm to surrounding communities and personal property.
Image 1. Backyard erosion documented by neighbors of Camaron Springs.
Appendix Video 1. Backyard flooding documented by neighbors of Wynterset Lakes
See Appendix Video 1 and Image 1 for additional submissions of current property damage.
Survey Findings
Summary
Our committee conducted a survey to better understand the current-state in regards to flooding/erosion in our area. These results illustrate the community’s evidence of lived impacts which also align with EPA/Gwinnett studies.
Many respondents have deep roots in the community, with most living here over a decade and a large portion established for 30+ years. (Appendix Figure 2)
Nearly 88% of residents reported being impacted by flooding, erosion, or both. Over half (53%) reported experiencing both flooding and erosion on their property, while only a small minority (12%) reported no impact. (See Appendix Figure 3)
Over half of surveyed households reported spending over $1,000 on flooding and erosion preventative or repairs with the highest reported cost reaching $80,000. (See Appendix Figure 4)
Alarmingly, 13 households reported 5 or more flood events, demonstrating that flooding is not a rare occurrence but a recurring and escalating problem.
While 9 households have not experienced flooding, a majority of respondents have experienced flooding at least once. (See Appendix Figure 5)
Residents who have not experienced either flooding or erosion have expressed that this could change, once development resumes.
Detailed charts and maps illustrating these survey findings are provided in the appendix for reference. (See Appendix Figure 1)
Category | Survey Results |
Average Years of Residency | 17 Years (10 - 20 Yr Range) |
% of Residents Reporting Flooding and/or Erosion | 88% |
Highest Number of Flooding Event Experienced | Over 10x |
Median Cost for Reported Damages | $3,625 |
Highest Reported Damages | $80,000 |
Resident Testimonies
“... Our area already suffers from flooding and erosion and we’ve encountered several occurrences over the last 12 years where we’ve had to spend thousands of dollars to mitigate these issues. Additional development such as proposed could only lead to more issues. ” — Grahams Port resident
“... The development will put pre-existing homes in a vulnerable place of no repair due to flood and erosion. “ — Camaron Springs resident
“... The developer has repeatedly disturbed the creek without proper environmental permits. Flooding and sedimentation from Do Little Creek have already caused damage in our area - Mink Livsey Road was shut down for months in 2019 due to flooding. I am concerned about potential flood risks.” — Wynterset Lakes resident
“Yes, I fear it would create flooding that doesn’t exist today.” — Graycliff resident
“While not against positive growth and development for our community, there are a number of concerns about proceeding with this project without carefully, completely addressing issues that were raised during public comment with the 2019 rezoning case. The area has only become more built up so it seems that impervious surfaces, disturbing creeks and watershed management, etc., should be explored with the most up-to-date information… At present, the big concern is that things will be done that can’t be undone due to lack of effective oversight and accountability… At one time, Mink Livsey was closed on our end to repair the culvert that was constantly flooding...” — Inns Brook West resident
Evidence of Existing Environmental Stress
These pressure points represent areas of known rapid water accumulation or erosion (or both) by existing homes:
#1 | #2 | #3 |
4320 Camaron Way | 3565 Rock Falls Drive | 4154 Lake Mist Lane |
This home sits above the proposed Pond1H. This home, like many on this side of Camaron Way, experiences erosion during rainfall - high-velocity water flowing down hill from Camaron Way into the proposed development site.
| Pond 1H could increase flooding, storm water runoff risks and erosion concerns for this property. | This resident experiences an increase in water flow and velocity in the flood plain near his home on Do Little Creek each year. This video taken between Jan.- Feb 2025 shows the rapid waterflow, levels and silt flowing downstream toward the Yellow River. |
See Images: | See Report: | See Videos: |
Figure 6: Flood risk map from First Street Data lists flood levels at 9.4ft on this parcel as a probable event (1% likely) with an overall 10/10 flood risk at the center of the parcel.
The Norris Lake headwaters continue to rise - indicating an upward trend in watershed stress. These issues align with well documented findings from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Gwinnett County Department of Water Resources, which note that increased impervious surfaces directly contribute to localized flooding and strain on stormwater systems (EPA, “Stormwater to Street Trees,” 2013; Gwinnett County Department of Water Resources, “Stormwater Management Program Annual Report”, 2024). Adding further impervious coverage in the Yellow River Watershed could intensify these problems.
Figure 7: Photo of the Norris Lake spillway taken by Mark Wilson of Yellow River Water Trails, August 2025. Volume grows year over year due to environmental changes and increased impacts of development.
With heavy annual rainfalls in Gwinnett County steep slopes such as those at the proposed site amplify both flooding and erosion risks. These risks are not short-term. Key concerns:
Temporary buffers or detention ponds cannot adequately replace the function of long-term natural stormwater management provided by intact tree canopy and vegetative buffers. Without these natural defenses, downstream neighborhoods are left more vulnerable to chronic flooding, erosion, and infrastructure strain.
The combination of steep slope, high annual rainfall, and significant canopy removal makes this parcel uniquely unsuitable for buffer variances of the scale requested. The removal of trees - which currently help stabilize soil and absorb excess rainwater - will dramatically increase impervious surfaces and stormwater runoff.
Even with the four proposed detention ponds, the question remains: how will flooding be mitigated without the natural buffer provided by mature trees? What will hold the soil in place once the trees are removed?
With the majority of the tree canopy removed, how will this development reduce the likelihood of an Urban Heat Island effect - which could result in overall temperature increase of state waters, and the resulting impacts that could have on wildlife that depend on the waterways for survival. An additional impact may include increased utility bills for residents in the adjacent neighborhoods due to the sudden removal of the tree canopy and the addition of more heat-absorbing, impervious surfaces. Buffer variance approval that allows canopy removal undermines the statutory intent of stream buffers, which is to protect state waters from temperature shifts, sedimentation, and erosion
Environmental Harms from Proposed Design
The proposed buffer variance (BV-067-25-03) (See Appendix A.) will result in permanent destruction of a natural stream and its protective buffer, creating environmental harms that cannot be mitigated on-site. These concerns are supported by both the applicant’s materials and EPD’s own review comments:
Loss of Natural Buffer Functions
The application (Cover Sheet and Mitigation Plan, submitted July 2025) shows the stream will be placed in a 48-inch pipe, not merely crossed by a roadway. In her response, EPD reviewer Sam DeLucca specifically rejected the applicant’s attempt to classify this work under the “Roadway Drainage Structure Exemption (RDSE),” noting that the stream is being enclosed and relocated, not simply crossed. Once buried, the buffer can no longer provide shade, erosion control, floodwater storage, pollutant filtering, or habitat.Stormwater Volume and Quality Risks
The applicant admits in their July 3, 2025 response letter that “runoff reduction is not practicable due to shallow rock and hydrologic soil limitations.” This means all stormwater is discharged downstream, increasing both the volume and speed of runoff. The four proposed detention ponds are presented as meeting pollutant removal goals (80% TSS, 60% hydrocarbons), but these figures may not be drawn from site-specific testing.Cumulative Impacts to an Impaired Waterway
According to the Buffer Mitigation Plan, all runoff will enter Do Little Creek and ultimately No Business Creek. Since No Business Creek is on the 303(d) impaired waters list, federal/state law requires no further degradation of impaired waters. Destroying this buffer directly undermines state and federal water quality goals.Inadequate Local Mitigation
The applicant proposes to purchase credits at an off-site mitigation bank (Cover Sheet, Mitigation Plan). As EPD clarified on July 3, 2025, credits purchased for the Corps do not automatically satisfy EPD’s requirements, and additional credits will be needed. However, even with credits purchased elsewhere, will mitigation occur within the Mink Livsey/Do Little Creek corridor? The local community could experience flooding, erosion, degraded stream health, while mitigation benefits are displaced elsewhere. Off-site mitigation, by definition, cannot replace lost buffer functions at the Mink Livsey site.Risks to Public Health and Infrastructure
The project narrative acknowledges an exposed potable water line within the stream corridor. The stated justification for piping the stream is to protect this line and other existing utilities on site. However, piping creates long-term vulnerabilities: clogging, back-ups, and failures that shift flooding and erosion downstream. Instead of stabilizing the natural channel, the project relies on artificial conveyance, placing infrastructure and neighborhoods at risk.Confirmed Major Impact
EPD has already determined that this project constitutes a major buffer impact, not minor. In correspondence related to the Buffer Variance, the EPD directed the applicant to revise their variance cover sheet to reflect the larger disturbance area and to submit a complete Buffer Mitigation Plan. This project crosses the jurisdictions of county (Gwinnett), State (EPD) and federal (USACE) in addition to requiring a Section 106 historic review. This reinforces that the application involves large-scale, permanent alteration of state waters and the local wetlands ecology.
In summary, the application materials and EPD’s own review show that this project eliminates a functioning stream buffer, worsens flooding and water quality, exacerbates impairment in No Business Creek, and offers no local mitigation.
Community Recommendations
The current design develops 100+ homes within the wetlands. The function of wetlands is to naturally filter water, reduce flooding, and provide habitat for species that regulate and sustain healthy environments in both rural and urban landscapes. The current design effectively removes the natural means for erosion control and replaces it with impermeable surfaces and minimal infrastructure – This, in an area that sees considerable storm water runoff and erosion. The four retention ponds and the piping of one portion of the creek are barely preventative measures for erosion control and flooding in the current state. Will this infrastructure effectively regulate stream flow and velocity, water temperatures and sediment removal once the existing trees and wetland ecology are removed?
We respectfully ask that the current application be revised or denied unless the following conditions are incorporated.
Review the buffer requirements for this parcel in regards to Rule 391-3-16-.01 Criteria for Water Supply Watersheds - Building within a 7 mile radius of a water-supply reservoir
Require a full hydrologic and ecological impact assessment and publish the study for public comment.
Authority: O.C.G.A. § 12-7-6(b)(15); EPD Buffer Variance Guidance (2019). These provisions require consideration of flooding, siltation, and water quality impacts. A site-specific hydrologic/ecological assessment is necessary to evaluate impacts on Do Little Creek and the Yellow River watershed.
Hydrology study should incorporate observations during a storm event. Conduct on-site inspections during rain events.
Authority: (O.C.G.A. §§ 12-7-1 to -22)
Preserve old-growth and mature trees, as well as wetlands flora, within and around natural floodplains.
Tree canopy retention is recognized as a BMP for infiltration, water cooling, and erosion control. Preservation of canopy directly reduces downstream flood and erosion risk and is a cost-effective way of erosion and stormwater runoff.
Require native replacement flora for soil stabilization.
Authority: E&S Rules 391-3-7-.05. Permanent vegetative cover with non-invasive species is required for stabilization. Native vegetation has superior soil retention value compared to seasonal or decorative planting.
Evaluate cumulative watershed impacts from recent and ongoing growth in the Yellow River Basin.
Authority: Federal Clean Water Act § 303(d); EPD Buffer Variance Guidance. No Business Creek is an impaired waterway; cumulative impacts must be considered in variance review.
Require the applicant to employ wetlands-credentialed (GSWCC) contractors.
Developers must use “qualified personnel” for erosion and sediment control. Wetlands expertise ensures compliance in sensitive headwater zones.
Require reduction of impervious surfaces through alternatives such as permeable/pervious concrete or pavers.
Permeable pavements are an accepted BMP for runoff reduction. Since the applicant admits runoff reduction is “not practicable,” EPD can lawfully require alternatives.
Use Bioswales with native plants rather than detention ponds. Require the HOA to bond the inspection and maintenance of all bioswales and/or detention ponds.
Authority: O.C.G.A. § 12-7-6(b)(14); Blue Book Vol. 3, Ch. 4.2.4. Long-term stormwater infrastructure maintenance is a legal requirement. HOA responsibility ensures facilities are not abandoned and remain functional.
Conclusion
This buffer variance is not a technical formality. It involves permanent destruction of a functioning stream buffer in a flood-prone watershed already under stress. The applicant’s own materials - and EPD’s review - confirm:
The disturbance of 15,639 sq. ft. of buffer.
The permanent degradation of habitat and filtration functions by piping 318 ft. of stream.
Removal of ~60% of tree canopy, weakening soil stability and flood resilience.
The stream will be buried, not crossed.
Runoff reduction is not achievable on-site due to poor soil conditions and native rock.
No local mitigation will occur.
Impacts will worsen flooding, erosion, and water quality for downstream residents
The Save Mink Livsey Coalition
Appendix
Figures
Figure 1. ArcGIS Map of Proposed Development and Survey Respondent Homes
This ArcGIS map illustrates both the proximity of the “Falls at Mink Livsey” development to established neighborhoods and the widespread impacts already being experienced by residents. Red markers indicate the homes of residents who responded to the community survey on flooding and erosion, the reported cost of repairs or prevention measures, and additional resident comments. ArcGIS Map of Proposed Development
Figure 2. Years of Residency Among Respondents
This figure illustrates how long respondents have lived in the community - with most residents living in the community for over a decade and a significant portion established for 30+ years.
Figure 3. Resident Impacts From Flooding and Erosion
This figure shows that nearly 94% of residents reported being impacted by flooding, erosion, or both, with only 12% reporting no impact.
Figure 4. Costs to Repair Prevent Flooding and Erosion
This figure highlights the financial burden of flooding and erosion. Nearly half of surveyed residents reported spending more than $1,000 on flooding and erosion repairs, with 9 households exceeding $10,000 and one $80,000.
Figure 5. Frequency of Flooding Events Experienced
This figure demonstrates flooding is not a rare occurrence. 30% of respondents have not experienced flooding since living in their home, while 70% have experienced varying degrees of flooding during their residency
Documents
Appendix A. Public Notice – BV-067-25-03 (Gwinnett County)
Official Georgia EPD Public Notice announcing the stream buffer variance request, project description, mitigation measures, and details for submitting public comments. Stream Buffer Variance Notice
Appendix B. Gwinnett County Assessor Property Detail - Parcel R6003 164
This document is the official property assessment detail for the Mink Livsey parcel (Parcel ID: R6003 164, Address: 4077 Mink Livsey Rd), obtained from the Gwinnett County Assessor's online database Gwinnett County Assessor Property Detail - Parcel R6003 164
Appendix C. Flood Factor 10/10 - Property Flood Risk Assessment
This First Street Foundation map indicates that the subject property has a Flood Factor score of 10 out of 10, denoting extreme flood risk. This high-risk classification underscores the immediate and long-term vulnerability of the property to flooding events.First Street/FEMA/Flood Mapping
Appendix D. No Business Creek at Lee Road - USGS Water Monitoring Station
According to Georgia’s most recent 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report, No Business Creek is not currently listed as impaired for its designated use. However, nearby waterbodies within the same watershed have been listed for impairments such as fecal coliform bacteria This website provides the statistics and continuous measurements of streamflow, gage height, water temperature, specific conductance, and turbidity, with coverage dating back to 2001 of No Business Creek. This station provides key hydrological data essential for assessing baseline flow conditions, flood frequency, and water quality trends in downstream areas impacted by development. USGS Water Monitoring Station
Appendix E. No Business Creek at Lee Road - Water Quality Monitoring Site
This website displays metadata for the Georgia DNR EPD - maintained monitoring location at No Business Creek (site ID 21GAEPD_WQX-4207501), situated near Lee Road in Snellville, GA. This site forms part of the Water Quality Portal’s STORET/WQX data network and serves as a key reference point for monitoring water quality conditions in this tributary. Water Quality Monitoring Site
Appendix F. Overview of Georgia EPD’s Total Maximum Daily Loadings (TMDL) Program
This website documents Georgia’s watershed protection strategy under the TMDL framework, illustrating how pollutant loads are managed to meet water quality standards. The flowchart also outlines the procedural steps, from identifying impaired waters under the Clean Water Act, developing load allocations using modeling and public input, to final submission and adoption of TMDL plans by the EPA. Georgia EPD’s Total Maximum Daily Loadings
Appendix G. GSWCC Onsite inspection for 3565 Rock Falls Drive
This report lists potential damage to property due to the proximity of Pond1H to this specific property. 3565 Rock Falls Drive - GSWCC Concerns
Images/ Videos
Appendix Video 1. Do Little Creek Flooding After Heavy Rainfall
Video taken by a homeowner living near No Business Creek in unincorporated Centerville, documenting flooding of the creek during periods of heavy rainfall. No Business Creek Flooding After Heavy Rainfall
Appendix Video 2. Lake Mist Lane
Image 1. Community Flooding and Erosion Photo & Video Collection
Dropbox link containing photos and videos submitted by neighbors surrounding Parcel R6003 164. These files document current flooding, erosion, and related property damage across multiple affected households. Community Dropbox Collection
Image 2. Camaron Way
Image 3. Rock Falls