20080675 Ver 2_WRC Comments_20080919

02 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 0
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
September 19, 2008
Mr. David Baker
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: Mr. Judd Ammons, Ammons Mountain Properties, Inc Individual 404 Permit Application
Traditions subdivision, Madison County
Action ID SAW-2008-2246
DWQ No. 08-0675 v2
Dear Mr. Baker and Ms. Karoly:
Clearwater Environmental Consultants requested an Individual 404 Permit and Water Quality
Certification for Mr. Judd Ammons of Ammons Mountain Properties, Inc. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (Commission) Biologists visited the project site on February 6, 2008 and are
familiar with the fish and wildlife resources in the region. Comments 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 a 400-acre subdivision near Mars Hill in Madison County.
Approximately 415 feet of stream channel would be filled and flooded for an amenity pond.
Compensatory mitigation is proposed by preserving 30-foot wide vegetated buffers along 1,775 feet of
stream channels and by purchasing 120 feet of stream credits through the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program. The streams on the property are unnamed tributaries to Paint Fork and Crooked Creek, which
are classified as WS-II, HQW by the Environmental Management Commission.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries - 1721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] - Fax: [phone]
Ammons Page 2 September 19, 2008
Madison
The adverse environmental effects of impoundments are well documented and include blocking migration
routes, habitat fragmentation, alteration of natural hydrologic and geomorphic regimes, degradation of water
quality, declines in biodiversity, alteration of natural food webs, and disruption of riparian plant communities
(Baxter 1977; Ward and Stanford 1979, and references therein; Tyus 1990; Yeager 1993; Ligon et al. 1995;
Pringle 1997; Benstead et al. 1999; Pringle et al. 2000; Blough et al. 2004). In accordance with the statutory
charge to conserve the wildlife resources and inland fisheries in North Carolina (G.S. 113-132), the
Commission must recommend that a 404 Permit and 401 Certification for the proposed project not be issued
for the following specific reasons:
1. Reduced stream quality
Impoundments trap sediments, nutrients, and large woody debris, prevent their normal processing by
rivers, and cut off transport to larger downstream water bodies (Yeager 1993; Tyus 1999; Blough et
al. 2004). They also interrupt invertebrate drift and organic material transport. Although trapping of
fine sediments can prevent downstream habitat deterioration, elimination of sand, gravel, and cobble
transport often causes channel erosion and instability in "sediment-starved" streams. Channel erosion
from this and increased stormwater input from the development should be avoided in this watershed
because of its WS-II, HQW classification. Impoundments can reduce stream flow, which in turn
reduces downstream habitat quantity and quality. The applicant maintains that the pond would not
affect the downstream hydrological regime (Section 8.2.5), but no information is provided to
demonstrate how a permanent base flow would be maintained.
Sediment from construction of the impoundment and periodic dredging would likely degrade habitat.
The harmful effects of sedimentation on aquatic systems are well-documented (Waters 1995). A
considerable amount of earthwork would likely be necessary to construct the dam and the potential
for erosion and sedimentation downstream would be high.
2. Elimination and fragmentation of habitat
The impoundment would eliminate stream habitats and create blockages or impediments to aquatic
life movements. Riparian areas and wetlands are some of the most productive habitats for many
mammals, neotropical birds, woodcock, and a variety of salamanders and reptiles. They also are
primary travel corridors for many species of wildlife that are impeded by or unable to pass
impoundments. Contiguous habitat areas become fragmented by impoundments. Often the smaller,
isolated habitat patches that are created can no longer support some species.
3. Avoidable impacts
We believe that the construction of a new pond is not necessary. At least three pond alternatives are
available that would not require additional filling and impounding of streams. First, there is an existing,
inline pond on the property that could be repaired and dredged or restored to a natural stream channel.
The project's stated purpose is "... to develop a viable, upscale, residential, community with a small pond
amenity..." Regardless of whether a pond is deemed a legitimate purpose under regulatory guidance,
repair of the existing structure should satisfy the project purpose of a "...small pond amenity." A second
option discussed at the onsite project meeting is an off-line pond along Crooked Creek. There is gentle
topography along the creek that is typically well suited for ponds; however the applicant maintains that
Ammons
Madison
Page 3 September 19, 2008
one there would require excavation 12-15 feet below grade and require a mechanical pump to withdraw
water from the creek. Data were not provided to substantiate this assertion and the Crooked Creek
channel does not appear so incised as to require significant excavation. In fact, there is a small pond
adjacent to Crooked Creek just a few hundred feet downstream of the applicant's property. There also is
no discussion of obtaining water for an off-line pond from the Crooked Creek tributary, which has
considerable hydraulic head for gravity feed if a pond was constructed adjacent to Crooked Creek. A
third alternative also discussed at the meeting, but neglected in the application, is an appropriately-sized
watershed pond in the draw and ephemeral channel where lots 9 and 10 are proposed. Watershed ponds
can fill with stormwater provided they have about 20-40 acres of wooded drainage area for each acre of
pond surface, less if the watershed is grass (North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service and North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 1999). During the site meeting, a preliminary site plan was
posted in the development office showing one or more off-line ponds in the proposed common area along
Crooked Creek, but this plan was not presented for permitting purposes.
A more favorable review of this project would be provided if impacts to aquatic habitats are avoided. The
Commission appreciates 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,
iWL$/?Y j
Robert L. Curry, Chief
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
Baxter, R. M. 1977. Environmental effects of dams and impoundments. Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics 8:255-283.
Benstead, J. P., J. G. March, C. M. Pringle., and F. N. Scatena. 1999. Effects of a low-head dam and
water abstraction on migratory tropical stream biota. Ecological Applications 9:656-668.
Blough, H., T. Bigford, and J. Haynes. 2004. AFS Policy Statement on Dam Removal.
http: //www. fi s he rie s. org.
Ligon, F. K., W. E. Dietrich, and W. J. Trush. 1995. Downstream ecological effects of dams, a
geomorphic perspective. Bioscience 45:183-192.
North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service and North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
1999). Pond Management Guide.
http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg03_Fishing/images/PONDMAN5.PDF
Ammons Page 4 September 19, 2008
Madison
Pringle, C. M. 1997. Exploring how disturbance is transmitted upstream: going against the flow. Journal
of the North American Benthological Society 16:425-438.
Pringle, C. M., M. C. Freeman, and B. J. Freeman. 2000. Regional effects of hydrologic alterations on
riverine macrobiota in the new world: tropical-temperate comparisons. Bioscience 50:807-823.
Tyus, H. M. 1990. Effects of altered stream flows on fishery resources. Fisheries 15(3)18-20.
Tyus, H. M. 1999. AFS Policy Statement on Effects of Altered Stream Flows on Fishery Resources.
http//www.fisheries.org.
Ward, J. V., and J. A. Stanford, editors. 1979. The Ecology of Regulated Streams. Plenum Press, New
York.
Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects, and control. American Fisheries
Society Monograph 7, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 251 p.
Yeager, B. L. 1993. Dams. Pages 57-114. In C. F. Bryan and D. A. Rutherford, editors. Impacts on
warmwater streams: Guidelines for evaluation. Southern Division, American Fisheries Society,
Little Rock, Arkansas.