20070168 Ver 2_WRC Comments_20100212

Mcmillan, Ian
From: Deaton, Shannon L.
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 5:14 PM
To: Mcmillan, Ian
Cc: McHenry, David G.; Cox, David R.
Subject: WRC Comments: Fall Creek Land Company, McDowell County
Attachments: Fall Creek Land COmpany_IP_McDowell_021210.pdf
Please find attached official comments from WRC on the Fall Creek Land Company project in McDowell County for
Grandview Peaks Development.
Shannon L. Deaton
Habitat Conservation Program
Division of Inland Fisheries
1721 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
[e-mail]
919-707-0222
919-707-0028 (fax)
www.ncwildlife.org
Get NC Wildlife Update -- news including season dates, bag limits, legislative updates and more -- delivered to your Inbox from the
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission.
the N r,_ Rectsrd, Law and pie ??sc'o,e;d to third parties.
1
0 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
February 12, 2010
Mr. Scott Jones
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Mr. Ian McMillan
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality, 401 Unit
1628 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1628
SUBJECT: Mr. Todd Black, Fall Creek Land Company
Individual 404 Permit Application
Propose lakes at Grandview Peaks Development
McDowell County
Action ID No. 2007-200-359
DWQ No. 07-0168v2
Dear Mr. Jones and Mr. McMillan:
Clearwater Environmental Consultants requested an Individual 404 Permit and 401 Water Quality
Certification on behalf of Mr. Todd Black of Fall Creek Land Company. Comments from the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (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).
In 2007, Mr. Todd Black proposed construction of three lakes in the Grandview Peaks residential development
near Dysartsville in McDowell County. Permits were not issued for that proposed design. The new design
proposes two lakes of 9 and 25 acres that would fill or flood about 6,675 feet of tributaries and 0.73 acre of
wetlands in the South Muddy Creek and Hoppers Creek watersheds. Compensatory mitigation for streams
would include purchase of 695 feet of credits from the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
and on-site preservation of 62,000 feet of stream channels. Compensatory mitigation for wetlands would
include 0.5 acre of EEP credit and 1.55 acre of on-site preservation.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
Black Page 2 February 2010
The project proposal notes that the primary purpose of the lakes is to provide recreational opportunities for the
subdivision's residents. Within 18 miles there are four.tremendous recreational sites, including South
Mountain State Park, Lake James, Lake James State Park, and Lake Lure. These sites provide opportunities for
fishing, hiking, wildlife viewing, picnicking, biking, and boating. The applicant should consider these current
local amenities when evaluating the cost of impacting wildlife resources and the mitigation.
The adverse environmental effects of impoundments are well documented and include blocking aquatic life
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). The proposed lakes
would result in many of these effects. Therefore, in accordance with the statutory charge to conserve the
wildlife resources and inland fisheries in North Carolina (G.S. 113-132), the Commission objects to the lake
construction as proposed and recommends that a 404 Permit and 401 Certification not be issued for the
following reasons:
1. Reduced stream quality and quantity
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. Impoundments can reduce stream flow,
which in turn reduces downstream habitat quantity and quality. Use of impoundments for irrigation can
appreciably reduce downstream flow, particularly during droughts when irrigation use is typically highest.
At the November 11, 2009 pre-application meeting for the project, Commission staff expressed concern
that the lakes would markedly diminish stream flows below the lakes, particularly during drought. This
concern was not addressed in the application other than a notation that a minimum 7Q10 flow would be
maintained at all times. Dam and spillway designs and flow monitoring along with lake management
protocols were not presented to explain how this flow would be accomplished in perpetuity.
Sediment from construction of the lakes and routine dredging operations would likely degrade aquatic
habitat. The harmful effects of sedimentation on aquatic systems are well-documented (Waters 1995). A
considerable amount of earthwork would be required to construct the proposed dams and the potential for
erosion and sedimentation downstream of the site would be high. Lake dredging occurs periodically on
many small lakes and often causes considerable sedimentation.
2. Elimination and fragmentation of habitat
The lakes would eliminate quality stream habitats and create blockages or impediments to aquatic life
movements. Riparian areas and wetlands are some of the most productive habitats for many neotropical
birds, woodcock, and a variety of salamanders and reptiles. Woodcock are a wetland and riparian area
dwelling species that has declined significantly in the eastern United States since the 1960's because of
habitat loss. Riparian areas also are primary travel corridors for many species of wildlife that are impeded
by or unable to pass impoundments. Contiguous habitat areas are fragmented when impoundments are
constructed. Often the smaller, isolated habitat patches that are created when these habitats are fragmented
can no longer support some species.

Black Page 3 February 2010
3. Inadequate CompensatoryMitigation
The streams on the property have forested watersheds and range in quality from poor to excellent. On-site
preservation accounts for the majority of the mitigation and lies within the proposed area to be impacted by
this project. Currently, the proposed preservation area has contiguous and vegetated riparian buffers which
are not proposed to be protected under their preservation status. The remaining on-site stream habitat
values will likely decrease due to 1) fragmentation by the lakes and road crossings and 2) sedimentation
and increased stormwater discharge as the watersheds are developed. We believe that more of the
mitigation should entail enhancement or restoration work that would have tangible and long-term habitat
improvements outside of the area of proposed impact. This could be accomplished by restoring and
enhancing degraded streams on the property with buffer preservation or purchasing additional stream
mitigation credits from a mitigation bank or EEP. We would like to see a minimum of 1 to 1 restoration or
enhancement provided for each linear foot of stream loss.
4. Other alternatives
The possibility of building small watershed ponds that fill with run-off instead of impoundments on
perennial or intermittent streams was not adequately considered. According to the application, watershed
ponds in ephemeral drains were evaluated in four unspecified locations. However, the analyses were
apparently conducted by determining a desired pond size at each location rather than first considering the
acreage of the watershed at each location and sizing the ponds accordingly. About 20-40 acres of wooded
drainage area, less if the area is grass, is needed for each 1 acre of pond (North Carolina Cooperative
Extension Service and North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 1999). Impervious surfaces from
roads and homes in developments can reduce the drainages area needed for ponds. Based on this
information, construction of 0.5 to 2 acre ponds with smaller and relatively inexpensive dams should be
possible at the chosen locations as well as several other sites on the property. There are numerous
watershed ponds on farms and residential properties throughout much of McDowell County and the upper
piedmont of North Carolina.
Maintenance of a permanently full pool is usually desirable with ponds and lakes, but for the purpose of
this project, we question whether it is necessary or even feasible. Specifically, ponds built in watersheds
too small to maintain a full pool year-round would nonetheless be filled most years from late fall to
summer. These "three season" ponds would provide most of the desired benefits of the proposed lakes
(e.g. aesthetics, fishing, swimming, boating,..). When water levels recede from late summer to fall there
would be wet soil habitat in dewatered fringes of the ponds. This habitat would attract wildlife and support
wildlife viewing, which is another project objective. If built, the proposed lakes would also experience
water level fluctuations, particularly during droughts, if a downstream minimum flow is required and
maintained. Therefore, ponds that may not remain full year-round should be considered as project
alternatives.
As with watershed ponds, off-line ponds supplied with gravity fed or pumped water from streams were
dismissed largely based on predetermined pond sizes. Again, to be effective, this evaluation should first
consider what size pond is appropriate based on terrain and other landscape conditions. The southern part
of the largest proposed lake appears to be a possible location for an off-line pond, yet it was not evaluated
in the application.

Black Page 4 February 2010
There are many potential locations on the property where watershed or off-line ponds could be constructed
with no or considerably less impacts to streams than large impoundments. Thorough evaluation of less
damaging alternatives is necessary for the project to be consistent with 401 b guidelines.
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,
Shannon L. Deaton, 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. Todd Black, Fall Creek Land Company
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:i/wyvw.fisheries.or?4.
Cooper, T.R., and K. Parker. 2009. American woodcock population status, 2009. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Laurel, Maryland, 15 pp.
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
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.tislieries.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.