20071505 Ver 2_Other Agency Comments_20080102 (2)

INLAND FISH Fax:[phone]
Dec 18 2007 1210 P.01
FQ North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
December 18, 2007
Ms. Liz Hair
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208 © 1?
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
JAN 2 208
Mr. Ian McMillan NCDENR, Division of Water Quality, 401 Unit Sty a ftil1
1628 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1628
SUBJECT; Mountain Development Company, Mr. Keith Vinson Individual Permit Application
Seven Falls Golf and River Club, Henderson County
Action ID 2007-3367, DWQ No. 07- 1505 v.2
Dear Ms. Hair and Mr. McMillan:
Mr. Keith Vinson of Mountain Development Company requested an Individual Permit from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (ACOE) for development of a golf course and subdivision on 1,400 acres near Etowah.
About 7,900 feet of stream, 2.17 acre of wetlands, and 0.57 acre of open water fills are proposed for road,
utility, and fairway construction. Also proposed is about 12,700 feet of stream bank stabilization with bank
grading and rock armoring. Comments from the Commission are provided under provisions of the Clean
Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 ot. seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
Riparian vegetation is sparse along streams on the northern part of the property, particularly where removed
for site development. Nonetheless, the riparian areas still have value as wildlife habitat. Some streams and
wetlands in this region of Henderson County are important gravel corridors and habitat for bog turtles (State
Threatened). They have been observed at one site within 1 mile of the Seven Falls property and three other
sites within 4-5 miles. The bog (site G-D) that would be filled on fairway number 10 is excellent habitat for
bog turtles; the herbaceous plants and sphagnum. moss, mucky soils, and diffuse inflow from the stream are
typical of bog turtle habitat. The wetlands along the French Broad River should be corridors for bog turtle
movements and provide habitat for birds, amphibians, and other wildlife.
Little Willow Creek supports rainbow trout above the falls and could support trout further downstream if
habitat was improved. Fishery data are not available for Folly Creek; sampling was attempted on December
6, 2007, but was unsuccessful due to equipment failure. However, because of the watershed's elevation,
forested condition and the historic trout farming operation, Folly Creek may also support rainbow trout. Any
culvert work in the Folly Creek watershed upstream of Big Falls Drive should be avoided during the rainbow
trout spawning season (January I to April 15) of any year unless there is sampling to show they are not
present in the watershed.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] - Fax: [phone]
INLAND FISH Fax:[phone] Dec 18 2007 12:11 P.02
Mountain Development Company Page 2 December 18, 2007
Henderson
Appalachian elktoe mussels (State and Federal Endangered) may occur in the French Broad River near and
downstream of the property. Therefore, stormwater runoff from the development and reductions in water
quality in Little Willow Creek and the French Broad River could harm mussel habitat.
Avoidance and minimization of impacts to streams and wetlands have not been demonstrated with the
proposed development plan. The following are specific examples:
1. There is no explanation of why a single, contiguous storm water pond cannot be constructed with the
same combined capacity as the three proposed ponds, avoiding wetland fills and fragmentation-
Alternatively, why the westernmost pond cannot be divided to minimize wetland fill was not
demonstrated. As proposed, this 7-acre pond will have about 30 times the capacity necessary to handle a
1-year storm event in the 22-acre drainage area. The other ponds would have excess capacity as well.
Therefore, there is ample opportunity to reconfigure the dimensions and/or orientation of the storm water
ponds.
2. Stream and wetland fills are proposed on fairways where it appears possible to leave these areas open as
features. This is particularly true on fairway number 10 where the tee and green for this par three are
elevated well above the wetland (G-D) and stream (G-9). This wetland also would not appreciably
impede play on fairway number 9 if left unfilled. Similarly, the upper section of wetland G-B, the part of
this wetland with the best hydrology, could probably be left in an open herbaceous condition with a dog-
leg left, rather than right, fairway. Other areas where justification for wetland or stream fill is lacking
include, in part: R-A, G-1, 0-3, G-4, G-5, and G-6.
3. Many of the road alignments could be shifted to reduce or avoid stream impacts at sites 15, 17, 22, 23, 32,
and possibly others. Regarding; sites, 15 and 32, it appears that a shortening of road "r" could eliminate
245 feet of stream fills without affecting lot access.
4. While Little Willow Creek is in need of restoration or enhancement, it is unnecessary to armor the entire
2+ miles of channel as proposed. This armoring would reduce bank erosion, but also reduce stream
channel complexity and cause stream warming because of the loss of shading vegetation and heat
absorption by the installed rock. The application does not demonstrate why a natural stream design
approach, which typically involves rock and log structures, bank sloping and benching, and riparian
vegetation planting, will not work as a less ecologically damaging alternative to the proposal. Stream
channel cross sections and profiles were not provided to demonstrate reasons this approach would be
prohibitive.
The compensatory mitigation plan would not adequately off-set the proposed project impacts. The following
are specific issues:
1. It is not demonstrated why a natural stream design approach could not be undertaken for the bank
stabilization. to help or entirely meet the stream mitigation requirements for the development. As
indicated by ACOE Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) 02-2, on-site mitigation should be required
adjacent or contiguous with the discharge sites whenever practical. However, all compensatory
mitigation for this development, except for stream channel preservation/avoidance, has been proposed
off-site. The Commission recommends evaluating enhancement and/or restorative work on Little Willow
Creek because this watershed is where permanent losses would occur and because it can and may already
be locally important habitat for bog turtles and other wildlife. Jt would also involve improvements to a
stream that, aside from a few bridges, is contiguous to the French Broad River. Two of the off-site
mitigation areas are essentially isolated from the river. Habitat improvement in and along Little Willow
Creek would better off-set project impacts than the off-site opportunities that are being considered. This
option should be practical as well.
2. As with stream mitigation, on-site wetland improvements should be, considered before defaulting to off-
site work. For example, the possibility of doing wetland enhancement (e.g. over story vegetation control
and hydrology restoration) near and within the westernmost pond is a possibility. This also could include
wetland restoration or creation, instead of pond construction.
INLAND FISH Fax:[phone] Dec 18 2007 12:13 P.03
Mountain Development Company Page 3 December 18, 2007
Henderson
3. Preservation of unfilled stream channels is important since it formally protects the avoided areas from
direct impacts in the future. However, it often does not preserve the aquatic and riparian habitat quality
and functions because of narrow width buffers, sedimentation and hydrologic modification from road and
home construction, and fragmentation associated with road crossings. Therefore, in these cases, it should
receive little credit towards satisfying compensatory mitigation requirements.
The Commission believes that adverse effects of development on streams and wetlands should be avoided and
minimized as much as possible. The Commission also believes there should be adequate compensation when
this is not possible. As described above, the proposed project is inconsistent with these guidelines. Therefore,
the Commission recommends that a permit for this project not be issued until the applicant adequately
addresses avoidance, minimization and then compensatory requirements for impacts to waters.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. The Commission looks forward to
providing a more through review of the project should the additional requested information be provided.
If there are any questions regarding these comments, please contact Dave McHenry at [phone]
extension 24.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Curry, "Chief of Inland Fisheries
cc: Mr. Clement Riddle, Clearwater Environmental Consultants
Mr. Kevin Barnett, NC Division of Water Quality
Mr. Bryan Tompkins, US Fish and Wildlife Service
Ms. Becky Fox, USEPA