20070168 Ver 2_USFWS Comments_20070315

,PAM TO TN
o?P ?y
9gCH ?0??
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zilhcoa Street -
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
March 15, 2007
Y Ar 1
Ms. Amanda D. Jones
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Dear Ms. Jones:

Subject: Site Assessment for the Proposed Construction of Three Lakes at the Grandview Peaks
Subdivision located on Joe Branch Road, southeast of Dysartsville, McDowell County,
• North Carolina (Action ID 2007-2007359) ;
This is the report of the .U.S..Fish and Wildlife Service. and the Department of the Interior on the
U.S. Army Corps of Lngineers' (Coips)IPublic N6tice of an Individual Permit Application (IPA)
submitted by Fall Creek Laud Company, represented by MACTEC Engineering and Consulting,
Inc. Information for this report is based on a review of the Corps' Public Notice and the IPA
submitted by MACTEC. This report is submitted in accordance with the provisions of the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e); the National Environmental
Protection Act; and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543) (Act).
Project Description - According to the information provided, Fall Creek Land Company is
proposing to construct three earthen dams for the creation of three lakes (6.125 acres, 25.191
acres, and 9.661 acres in size) within a 1,830-acre residential development known as Grandview
Peaks. The proposed purpose for the lakes is to provide water supply points for fire suppression,
open-water recreational opportunities, and water for an optional irrigation system for
homeowners. 'The project site is primarily mountainous and wooded, with areas of early
successional forest from previous clear-cutting activities. The headwaters of Hoppers Creek,
Weaver Branch, Shoal Creek, Kelly Branch, South Muddy. Creek, and Big Camp Creek are on
the site. The site contains about 2.16 acres of wetlands and. about 54,392 lineaf feet (If) of .
stream channel. To construct the lakes, the applicant is proposing to impact about 8,0231f of
stream channel and about 0.63 acre of wetlands.. Of the impacts to on-site stream channels,
986 if are rated as being of "poor" quality, 2,026 if are rated as "fair" quality, 4,611 if are rated
• as "good" quality, and 400 If are rated as "excellent' 'quality.' There are no other proposed
impacts to wetlands or stream channels associated with road crossings, utility line installations,
and/or lot fill.
Federally Listed Species - Based on the information provided in the Habitat Assessment and
Endangered Species Review, we agree that no listed species or their habitats occur on the site
and that the proposed project will not affect endangered or threatened species or their habitats.
Therefore, we believe the requirements under section 7 of the Act are fulfilled. However,
obligations under section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if. (1) new information reveals
impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not
previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not
considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is determined that may
be affected by the identified action.
Fish and Wildlife Resources - We oppose the construction of in-line structures such as the
proposed lakes because they significantly alter both aquatic and terrestrial habitat. The
conversion of a free-flowing stream to. a lake results in the loss of natural stream functions, alters
the hydrology, and affects native ecosystem processes within and downstream of the reservoir
site. The majority of native aquatic species are adapted to stream conditions (flowing, highly
oxygenated water.and coarse sand, gravel, and rocky bottoms). The impoundments created by
the construction of dams eliminate spawning and foraging habitat. Water depth increases, flow
decreases, and silt accumulates on the bottom. Impoundments not only destroy riverine habitat
• within the impounded portion of the stream but also alter the quality and stability of the upstream
and downstream reaches by adversely affecting water flow regimes, velocities, temperature,
chemistry, and nutrient cycles. The effects of impoundments result in changes in fish and
macromvertebrate communities, often favoring nonindigenous species; species that require clean
gravel and sand substrates are lost. In addition, dams result in the fragmentation and isolation of
populations of species, acting as effective barriers to the natural upstream and downstream
expansion or recruitment of fish species. This reduction in range and isolation of populations
greatly increases the vulnerability of a species to extirpation. It reduces a species' ability to
respond to changes (natural or manmade) within its environment and to recover from impacts
(large or repeated small-scale impacts) to its numbers that a species with widely dispersed, .
interconnected healthy populations would likely be able to overcome. Although the habitat will
remain in an aquatio state, the fauna and ecosystem functions associated with streams are not
alike and cannot be replaced with associated fauna and functions from a reservoir.
Section 404 (b)(1) guidelines prohibit.the filling of wetlands or streams for nonwater-dependent
activities when practicable alternatives exist. We do not believe the on-line amenity lakes are
water-dependent activities because practicable alternatives exist (i.e., construction of off-line
lakes, use of nearby Lake Lure and Lake James, etc.) that would avoid impacts to aquatic
resources.
• IThe quality of on-site stream channels was scored using the Corps' Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet.
• Purpose and Need - We do not believe the "Purpose and Need" statement in the IPA justifies
the aquatic impacts associated with this project. Section 2 (Page 1) of the IPA states the
following:
The most significant issue of the proposed impoundment is to create three lakes
within the Grandview Peaks Subdivision. These lakes are to be constricted in
order to provide water supply points for fire suppression, provide open water
recreational opportunity, fulfill the need for an aesthetically-pleasing and
functional environment in order to develop the desired improvements to the
proposed development (residences, dry hydrants, boat houses and docks, fishing,
swimming, and boating), and provide water to an optional irrigation system. The
creation of the proposed impoundments is essential to the success of the proposed
development.
Though fire safety is important for any community, fire suppression is not to be considered when
evaluating the purpose or need of a project. The importance of fire safety should have been
evaluated when plans were being developed for the community, and the chance that the lake
project may not be permitted (if the amenity lakes were considered at the time ofpioject
planning) should also have been considered. The applicant also states that the lakes could be
used for aerial extraction to combat forest fires; however, no evidence was included in the
application to demonstrate the need for open-water areas for this purpose.
• We do not believe that the stated need for the lakes to provide recreational opportunities should
be used to evaluate the purpose and need for the lakes. While reviewing the advertising web site
for Grandview Peaks (http:/fwww.fallcreek-land. com/area.htnu), we noticed that a large portion
of the lots within the development, have already been sold or are under contract. We also found
the following statements:
The natural beauty of the area can be enjoyed year-round making it an
outdoorsman's paradise. Lake Lure and Lake James are nearby lakes where you
can enjoy swimming, boating, fishing, )fig, and much more. The nearby Green
River is ideal for canoeing and is state stocked, providing excellent fishing.
Golf is plentiful in the area. Cleghorn Plantation, Silver Creek Plantation,
Meadow Brook, and Fairfield Mountains, are a few of the premier public courses.
Within an hour's drive we have a dozen trout streams, and two major lakes.
Some of the best hiking in the east including the Daniel Boone Trail (which
traverses over Grandfather Mountain), the Appalachian Trail, and Linville Gorge
(one of only three federal wilderness areas east of the Rocky Mountains). Just to
our east is the South Mountain State Park, North Carolina's largest state park,
with over thirty thousand acres open to the public. Hiking, mountain biking,
fishing, swimming, and horseback riding are just a few things the park offers. To
our north there is excellent skiing at Sugar Mountain and Beech Mountain.
0
• According to the web site listed above, numerous open-water and other recreational
opportunities exist within a short distance of the development. The web site contradicts the IPA
with regard to the need for the proposed lakes for recreation and an aesthetically pleasing and
functioning environment. The web site further states that the development offers "a wide variety
of home sites available offering beautiful mature hardwoods, small streams, seclusion, and
breathtaking mountain views," but the proposed lakes are not mentioned anywhere on the web
site. For these reasons, we do not believe that the creation of the impoundments is essential to
the success of the development; therefore, the creation of the impoundments should not be
permitted.
Mitigation - We commend the applicant for minimizing the aquatic impacts of the project by
using spanning structures at all stream crossings and by installing all utilities in road
rights-of-way. However, as proposed, we do not believe the mitigation plan will adequately
compensate for the impacts this project will have on aquatic resources. The applicant is
proposing to mitigate the 9861f of impacts to "poor" quality streams by preserving 986 If of
on-site stream channel; mitigation for the 2,026 if of impacts to "fair" quality sfiv= s will be the
preservation of.3,039 if of "good" and "excellent" quality stream channels; mitigation for the
4,611 If of impacts to "good" quality streams will be the preservation of 9,222 If of "good"
stream channels and 1,9001f of on-site stream enhancement; and mitigation for the 400 if of
impacts to "excellent" quality streams will consist of purchasing about 400 credits from the
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). Proposed mitigation for the
0.63 acre or wetland impacts will be consist of purchasing 0.75 acre of wetland credits from the
• NCEEP.
According to the mitigation plan listed above, a total of 7,6231f of impacts will be mitigated
through the preservation of about 15,147 if of on-site stream channels. The "Stream Mitigation
Guidelines" (Guidelines) endorsed by the Corps require the use of a mitigation activity multiplier
of 2.5 to 5.0 to calculate the amount of preservation mitigation that will be required for project
impacts. Using the lowest mitigation activity multiplier of 2.5, we calculated about 19,0581f
(7,6231f [total impacts to be mitigated through preservation] times 2.5) of stream channel that
will need to be preserved in order to adequately mitigate the impacts of this project As
proposed, the applicant is preserving only about 15,000 if of stream channel as mitigation for the
impacts of this project.
The proposed purchase of 400 If of stream credits and 0.75 acre of wetland credits from the
NCEEP does not adequately compensate for the 400 If of "excellent" stream channel impacts and
the 0.63 acre of wetland impacts. The application states that mitigation for impacts to
"excellent" quality stream channel will be calculated using a ratio of 3:1. Using this ratio, a
purchase of about 1,200 If of stream credits will be needed to adequately compensate for the
impacts to the "excellent" quality stream channel. Also, we generally recommend that
mitigation for all impacts to wetland areas be calculated using a 2:1 ratio. Therefore, 1.2 acres of
wetland mitigation credits must be purchased to adequately mitigate the 0.63 acre of wetland
impacts.
We do not believe the altematives analysis presented with the IPA is complete nor does it justify
• the need for the on-site, on-line lake option. Also, because the purpose and need for the lake as

• shown in the IPA (additional recreational opportunities, fire suppression, irrigation, etc.) is not
valid, we do not believe that the lake as proposed is a water-dependent activity. Because a
portion of the development is already constructed and lots are already selling and because the
recreational needs of the residents can be met with the resources currently available, we believe
the no-build alternative is the most practicable. Therefore, we recommend that any permits for
the construction of these impoundments be denied.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments. If we can be of assistance or if you
have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Bryan Tompkins of our staff at
828/258-3939, Ext. 240. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference
our Log Number 4-2-06-200.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Cole
Field Supervisor
cc:
Mr. David McHenry, Mountain Region Reviewer, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 20830 Great Smoky Mtn. Expressway, Waynesville, NC 28786
Mr. Kevin Barnett, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division
• of Water Quality, 2090 US Hwy. 70, Swannanoa, NC 28778
Ms. Becky Fox, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1349 Firefly Road, Whittier, NC 28789
•
5.

NC Division of Water Quality
401 Oversight and Express Permitting Unit
December 18, 2009
Memorandum
To: Cyndi Karoly
Ian McMillan
File
From: Eric Kulz
Subject: DWQ # 20070168v3
Comments on Individual Permit Application - Grandview Peaks
McDowell County
Application prepared by Clearwater Environmental Consultants
Reviewing this made me furious. The consultant is not even trying to make viable excuses for the
lakes. They are total amenities. The application%says that. Sorry... venting.
Section 8.0, Page 13. Project Purpose - "..to provide residential housing". Clearly the property is
not inhabitable without the amenity lakes.
Page 17: "The proposed lakes will not be located in streams that contain migrating or spawning
fish...." Really? How do they know this? Did they inform the fish?
Page 17 - "............ if water quality parameters measurements are found to be unsatisfactory by
the DWQ, the applicant will submit a contingency plan to return water quality parameters to
satisfactory levels." How will they do this? That would be great to know, because then we can fix
all of the other lakes that are messed up,
Page 32 "Construction of the impoundments is the only option that meets the project purpose".
This is inconsistent with their stated project purpose in Section 8.0 " The basic project
purpose...,. is to provide residential housing".
Mitigation Issues:
Applicant proposes to do a combination of on-site preservation and paying into EEP.
The total mitigation need is 7,580 stream credits. They are proposing preservation of 62,000 LF
of stream at 9:1 to provide 6,885 stream credits, Rand paying the balance to EEP for 695 feet. The
2003 Interagency Stream Mitigation Gu delinTs indicate the ration for preservation is 10:1. At
10:1, preservation would yield 6,200 stream credits. Combined with the proposed purchase of
695 credits, they still have a deficit of 685 credits. The total credits obtained from EEP should be
1,380 credits.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality; 401 Oversight and Express Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center; Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260
Telephone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
http://ncwatdrqu6lity. orgtwetlands