20080880 Ver 1_WRC Comments_20080808

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
August 8, 2008
Ms. Loretta Beckwith
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality, 401 Unit
1628 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1628
SUBJECT: The Cliffs Communities, Mr. Don Nickell Individual 404 Permit Application
The Cliffs at High Carolina, Buncombe County
Action ID SAW-200701619
DWQ No. 08-0880
Dear Ms. Beckwith and Ms. Karoly:
Wetland and Natural Resource and Consultants requested an Individual 404 Permit for Mr. Don Nickell
of The Cliffs Communities. Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(Commission) visited the project area on several occasions and are familiar with the fish and wildlife
resources in the region. Comments from the Commission are provided under provisions of the Clean
Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et. seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The project involves developing the 2,780 acre Cliffs at High Carolina subdivision and golf course near
Swannanoa in Buncombe County. There would be 6,149 feet of stream channel and 0.22 acre of wetland
fills for road crossings and fairway construction. Most of the stream impacts would involve golf course
construction in the Rocky Fork Creek watershed. Compensatory mitigation is proposed by: (1)
preserving 30-foot wide vegetated buffers along the 6,149 feet of the 100,000 feet of streams on the
property, (2) restoring or enhancing 588 feet of stream channel on the property, (3) restoring 2,500 feet of
stream channel off-site, (4) purchasing 3,163 feet of stream credits through the Ecosystem Enhancement
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
The Cliffs at High Carolina Page 2 August 8, 2008
Buncombe County
Program (EEP), and (5) preserving or restoring 1.32 acre of wetlands and wetland buffers on the property
and off-site.
Rocky Fork Creek above the lake on the property supports wild brook trout and rainbow trout are found
downstream. This stream and others on the south side of the property drain to Cane Creek, which is stocked
with trout and supports some wild trout. Streams on the north side of the property drain to the Swannanoa
River which also is stocked with trout, though habitat is poor.
The Commission emphasizes the conservation of wild brook trout populations (NCWRC 1989). This fish is
the only native trout in the eastern United States and is particularly sensitive to sedimentation and temperature
increases. It currently occupies only a fraction of its estimated historic range in North Carolina and
populations are jeopardized by habitat loss and degradation and displacement by introduced species (Bivens
1984; Habera and Strange 1993). The Commission has identified about 550 populations of wild brook trout
in North Carolina from sampling initiated in the mid-1990's. Since that time, about 11% have been
extirpated; all of those were in watersheds on or flowing through private land (Besler, NCWRC unpublished
data).
The project as currently proposed would have undue adverse effects on fish and wildlife resources.
Therefore, in accordance with the statutory charge to conserve the wildlife resources and inland fisheries
in North Carolina (G.S. 113-132), the Commission recommends that a 404 Permit and 401 Water Quality
Certification for the project not be issued for the following specific reasons:
1. Avoidable stream impacts
Brook trout habitat would not be directly affected by the golf course construction, except perhaps near
site 29 which may serve as a spawning/nursery area in years with high precipitation. However, the small
tributaries are important sources of organic material and invertebrate drift to the trout-supporting reaches.
Also, the dense rhododendron-dominated buffers along these streams effectively slow run-off, thereby
preventing channel erosion farther downstream during floods. For these reasons, it is important that
impacts to these streams be avoided as much as possible.
It appears that stream impacts can be reduced further for golf course construction. For example, the
master plan does not show grading work in the vicinity of site 39, yet 330 feet of stream would be placed
in culvert only a short distance in front of the tees. This reach could presumably be left open and buffered
with low growing vegetation without obstructing golfers. Similarly, short realignments of the practice
green, practice tee, and hole number 1 tees away from site 28 may avoid this 375 feet of impact altogether
and placement of the short game area near the clubhouse or just a couple hundred feet north, where no
development is depicted, would avoid several hundred feet of culvert at site 29.
2. Loss of brook trout population
The brook trout population in the Rocky Fork Creek watershed is small and highly susceptible to
extirpation if its habitat deteriorates. This project will likely cause sedimentation, increased run-off, and
stream channel instability because of steep topography, soil disturbance and unstable fills for fairway
construction, no or minimal riparian buffer protection, and the limited effectiveness of erosion control
practices in these situations. Commission staff has observed this scenario recently in similar development
The Cliffs at High Carolina Page 3 August 8, 2008
Buncombe County
projects in the region. Moreover, staff has documented declines, and in some cases extirpation, of trout
populations under these circumstances (Brown 1982; Mickey 1993; Besler, NCWRC unpublished data
2002; McHenry, NCWRC unpublished data 2007).
Best management practices that exceed conventional approaches can reduce the aquatic habitat
degradation from projects like this. Erosion control design standards for sensitive watersheds (15A
NCAC 04B .0124) and staged construction where only a few acres are disturbed/unstable at any one time
can reduce stream sedimentation. Any in-stream construction and bank disturbance should be avoided
from October 15 to April 15 when brook trout will be spawning in this watershed. Drainage from
relatively short road segments via inside ditches causes most of the increased peak discharge and resulting
channel degradation of high elevation mountain streams. Therefore, a post construction stormwater
management plan should be required and stormwater conveyances should discharge diffusely to vegetated
filters, rather than directly to streams.
However, these practices alone would not conserve the brook trout habitat. Thick, shading riparian
vegetation is needed to maintain the thermal regime of the streams. However, essentially no buffer
protection is proposed along the south branch of Rocky Fork Creek and only about half of the north
branch would have buffers measuring 30 feet in width. A study of headwater trout streams of Georgia
estimated that 100-foot wide forested buffers would protect 19% of high quality trout habitats from
sedimentation and warming while only about 1% would persist if the buffer width was reduced to 50 feet
(Meyer et al. 2005). The Commission predicts that the brook trout in the Rocky Fork Creek watershed
will not persist without adequate maintenance of the undisturbed buffers that currently exist on the
property.
3. Insufficient compensatormitigation
As a wild brook trout supporting watershed, impacts to Rocky Fork Creek should be mitigated at a 3:1
ratio rather than the 2:1 proposed (see April 2003 Stream Mitigation Guidelines). Moreover, as proposed,
only about one-half of the mitigation requirements would involve actual habitat improvement to off-set
the permanent losses. The other half would constitute leaving existing 30-foot wide buffers along streams
and wetlands in a watershed that is now (or was recently) nearly completely forested.
The mitigation proposal would not maintain the stream functions in the remainder of the watershed.
Brook trout in the Rocky Fork Creek watershed are highly vulnerable to extirpation because of small
population size, limited amount of available habitat, and the watershed's southern aspect, which makes its
streams particularly susceptible to warming after vegetation removal. Only about one-third of the streams
above the lake would be preserved with buffers, which would only be 30 feet in width. Moreover, only
about one-half of the stream reaches that support brook trout would be formally protected.
The Commission supports the use of preservation as a component of compensatory mitigation proposals
when the integrity and functions of the streams or wetlands are vulnerable to future impacts and when
those functions will be preserved. The likelihood of the brook trout population surviving in the watershed
with this development would be improved if the existing riparian buffers were maintained, on average,
out to 100 feet, but not less then 60 feet. Similar protection of riparian buffers along Rocky Fork
downstream of the dam and in the Licklog Branch watershed is recommended to protect rainbow trout
habitat. This may augment the compensatory mitigation proposal. Incorporation of the preserved areas
The Cliffs at High Carolina Page 4 August 8, 2008
Buncombe County
as community space is preferable to having them part of deeded lots. However, in either case,
restrictions, as well as any necessary infringements (e.g., walking trails, foot bridges,...), would need to be
clearly articulated in any protective instruments.
The Commission would provide a more favorable review of this project if impacts to aquatic habitats are
minimized by incorporating best management practices, minor plan changes, and an augmented compensatory
mitigation proposal as described. Further, the Commission requests additional opportunity to assist the Corps
and Division of Water Quality with their review of additional project information and plans, should they
become available. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this permit action. If there are
any questions regarding these comments, please contact Dave McHenry at [phone] extension 24.
Sincerely,
50A*"44JVV4XM
Shannon L. Deaton, Program Manager
Division of Inland Fisheries
cc: Mrs. Becky Fox, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. B. Tompkins, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville
Mr. Kevin Barnett, NC Division of Water Quality, Asheville
Clearwater Environmental Consultants
Citations
Bivens, R.D. 1984. History and distribution of brook trout in the Appalachian Region of Tennessee.
M.S. Thesis. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Brown, R.J. 1984. The decline of wild trout populations resulting from accelerated erosion caused by
mountain development on the Elk River. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Project F-24-9, 8 p.
Habera, J. W., and R. J. Strange. 1993. Wild trout resources and management in the Southern
Appalachian Mountains. Fisheries 18(1):6-13.
LaVoie, M. and C. Lawson. 2006. Osborne Branch brook trout survey. Study report by Western
Carolina University, Department of Biology for Mr. Robert Johnson.
Meyer, J.L., K.L. Jones, G.C. Poole, C.R. Jackson, J.E. Kundell, B.L. Rivenbark, E.L. Kramer, and W.
Bumback. 2005. Implications of Changes in Riparian Buffer Protection for Georgia Trout
Streams. The University of Georgia, Institute of Ecology. 86 p.
Mickey, J.H. 1993. Monitoring of wild trout populations in the upper Mitchell River impacted by
accelerated sedimentation caused by the "Old Beau" development, Alleghany County. Summary
Report, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh, 8 p.
The Cliffs at High Carolina Page 5 August 8, 2008
Buncombe County
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). 1989. Casting the future of trout in North
Carolina: A plan for management of North Carolina's trout resources. Division of Boating and
Inland Fisheries, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.