20072227 Ver 1_WRC Comments_20080208

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
February 8, 2008
Ms. Amanda Jones
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: Burt Baine, Devin McCarthy Land Development, LLC Individual 404 Permit Application
Queens Gap golf course and subdivision
Rutherford and McDowell counties
Action ID No. 2007-33208-381
DWQ No. 07-2227
Dear Ms. Jones and Ms. Karoly:
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants requested an Individual 404 Permit for Mr. Burt Baine of
Devin McCarthy Land Development, LLC. Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (Commission) visited the project site on several occasions. 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 would require about 2,020 feet of stream and 0.16 acre of wetland fills to develop roads and a golf
course in the Queens Gap subdivision near Thermal City. The affected streams are in the Harris, Old Boney,
Lewis, Rock, and Morgan Creek watersheds. About 15,741 feet of stream enhancement will be undertaken
on the property. It appears that 8,518 feet of this would be used to compensate for the permanent stream
losses. Extra buffer width that is preserved on these streams is proposed as mitigation for the wetland fills.
Most of the streams in the project area support cool or warm water fishes. However, the upper reaches of Old
Boney and Morgan creeks, which are classified as trout streams, may support trout. Unless data show that
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries - 1721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] - Fax: [phone]
Baine, Devin McCarthy Land Development, LLC Page 2 February 8, 2008
Rutherford and McDowell counties
trout do not occur in these streams, any road culvert crossings in their watersheds should not be constructed
from January 1 to April 15 to protect from sedimentation possible rainbow trout spawning in downstream
areas.
Much of Harris Creek is incised, though it still has floodplain access in many areas. It also has spots of
undercut banks and scour. However, it and all of the streams that I have observed on the property have,
where not recently removed for construction, wooded riparian zones that provide bank stability and other
functions. They also have gravel riffle-pool sequences and woody debris that provide productive aquatic
habitat. Based on these conditions, the Commission agrees with the mitigation plan narrative that concludes
that Harris Creek is in an overall good condition.
Stream impacts for this project can likely be reduced further than proposed. For example, about one-quarter
of the impacts for the golf course are associated with the hole number 1 fairway where it appears the stream,
like the adjacent stream that will remain open, would not interfere with play. Moreover, the stream fill for the
driving range, which accounts for another half of the golf course impacts, could be avoided if it was placed in
another location on the 3,500 acre property, which at this time is mostly undeveloped. If this is not possible,
then impacts in the current location could be avoided if the stream and low growing riparian vegetation was
isolated from the range with netting. Nets are used at commercial driving ranges to deflect and control golf
balls. At the meeting I suggested considering this possibility, but it was dismissed without explanation.
In addition to the need for further evaluation of impact avoidance, the mitigation credit being requested for
the enhancement would exceed the functional benefits the work may attain. The riparian enhancement will
provide plants that are beneficial to wildlife and attempt to eliminate invasive species, but it will not
appreciably improve aquatic habitat function and stream channel stability. This is because the riparian zones
already are, or were before construction started, vegetated with a diversity of shrub vegetation and mature
trees. Moreover, the stream stabilization (root wads, vanes) will only alter the dimension and profile of the
channels in portions of the mitigation reaches. For example, on upper UT 2 there would be 1,800 feet of
stream enhancement, but the structural channel changes would only alter about 300 feet of the channel profile.
Because the mitigation reaches already have vegetated riparian zones and the stabilization work would only
affect portions of those reaches, the functional stream improvements, and corresponding mitigation credits
generated, should be less than reported.
Another reason for lower credit for the enhancement work is because some of the reaches would become
bisected by culverts, including, if permitted, some long culverts for the golf course and fairway. This
diminishes stream function by impeding or blocking aquatic life movements between fragmented stream
reaches. It also reduces the organic material inputs and invertebrate drift to reaches downstream of culverts.
Additional mitigation opportunities on or off the site should be pursued to fully off-set the project impacts.
However, with any on-site enhancement work, it is important that the ecological damage it causes not exceed
the anticipated long-term benefits. Small equipment (e.g. bobcats) and hand labor should be used wherever
possible for constructing in stream structures to minimize the removal of riparian vegetation. Maintenance of
existing and desirable vegetation is important because it promotes the stability of channel work and provides
seed sources for natural regeneration, organic material to the stream, and riparian habitat complexity until
planted vegetation matures. Also, where trees must be removed, their use in vanes or other structures should
be considered because woody debris is a common physical component of piedmont streams. This can also
reduce the need for bringing in rock with heavy equipment.
Baine, Devin McCarthy Land Development, LLC Page 3 February 8, 2008
Rutherford and McDowell counties
The Commission recommends that the concerns outlined above be considered before issuing a permit for
the project as proposed. 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,
Dave McHenry
Mountain Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
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
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants