20072227 Ver 1_Staff Comments_20080102

111C
NC Division of Water Quality
401 Oversight and Express Permitting Unit
January 2, 2008
Memorandum
To: Cyndi Karoly
Ian McMillan
File
From: Eric Kulz my Hill
Subject: DWQ 20072227
Comme (dual Permit Application and Mitigation Plan - Queens Gap Golf
Course and Residential Community
Rutherford and McDowell Counties
Application and Mitigation Plan prepared by WNR
Tammy and I visited the site on January 18, 2008, along with Kevin Barnett (DWQ-ARO) and
Amanda Jones (USACE - Asheville Office).
The applicant is proposing to construct an Arnold Palmer Signature Golf Course and 1,189
residential lots on approx. 3,472 acres of land.
The golf course and one phase of the subdivision are already under construction through under a
previously-approved NW 29; no info on this permit found in BIMS. The current plan is that the
project is to consist of at least 6 phases to be constructed over the next 6 - 10 years.
The eastern portion of the property contains the golf course. All streams in this portion are WS-V.
This is where most of the larger impacts are proposed. The western portion of the site has trout
streams. Impacts to this portion of the site are to primarily be for road crossings.
Our comments on the impacts:
In general, I asked on site for more detailed design sheets on the impacts. Road crossing sheets
in particular did not show fill slopes, head walls, dissipater pads, etc. We need to ask for this in
our comments. The response on site was that most of the detailed drawings have not been
completed due to the size of the site; the impacts listed were determined by the engineer to be
conservative estimates of the amount of impact required at each crossing. Jennifer Robertson
said they may be able to get us more detailed sheets on the portions under construction or areas
to be built soon. However, designs for other portions of the site may change over time. The
applicant needs to modify the IP as site changes occur, prior to impacts.
Impact #14 (road crossing) angle is not perpendicular. Redesign or reconfigure to cross
between 75 and 105 degrees.
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://ncwaterquality.org/wetlands
111C
NC Division of Water Quality
401 Oversight and Express Permitting Unit
Impacts 17 and 18 (road crossings) cross two streams approx 50 feet upstream of the
confluence of the two channels. Also, Impact 18 is approx. 45 degrees. Redesign this
area to cross at a more perpendicular angle. Ideally, they should push the road east and
downstream of the confluence to minimize impacts.
Impact 25 (road crossing) appears to pass beneath the road, presumably through a pipe,
and appears to be directed into a sharp meander bend. This will likely result in
streambank instability at this location. They should redesign or relocate this crossing to a
more straight reach of the stream.
Lot 1075 is bisected by a stream. They need to provide proof that the lot is buildable
without impacting the stream, or these impacts need to be included in this permit
application. Deed notification requiring mitigation by purchaser. Since mitigation
threshold has been exceeded for project?
Our comments on the mitigation plan:
Proposed and previously permitted impacts are listed at 2,166 If of stream, 0.178 acres of
wetlands, and 0.221 acres of open water. They are proposing to do a total of 15,741 If of stream
enhancement on the property. Of this total, 8,518 If will be available for mitigation (full 50-foot
buffers on each side of the stream).
The streams to be enhanced are located mostly within valleys that had previously been logged
and mined for feldspar. It appeared that several reaches of stream had been relocated in the
past. Some of the streams contained good macrobenthos populations and some nice riffle-pool
sequences. However, the streams showed areas of streambank instability such as undercutting
in meander beds, areas of bank failure, and in places the stream were overwidened. In addition,
moderate amounts of incision were observed along some reaches.
Enhancement activities proposed for the site include re-shaping unstable streambanks, adding
bankfull benches, and planting where buffers are sparse. Structures (vanes, rootwads and toe
armoring) are proposed to protect streambanks in bends. Removal of debris jams will also help
protect streambanks.
We felt that the streams looked like a good candidate for enhancement. We discussed with the
designer the importance of using a light touch due to the apparent good quality of the existing
stream bed in most areas. We looked at some undercut banks and agreed that because of the
trees holding the banks together and the good habitat provided by the undercut and root
materials, these areas would not be re-shaped.
WNR proposed to do the main reach of Harris Creek through the golf course in the first
phase of enhancement work. Since the impacts will occur in phases, the applicant asked
that they be able to do the enhancement work in phases, as long as the mitigation kept up
with the impacts. We thought this sounded reasonable; Kevin Barnett said he wanted all
the mitigation done up front.
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://ncwaterquality.org/wetlands
Queens Gap
Subject: Queens Gap
From: Eric Kulz <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:58:33 -0500
To: Kevin Barnett <[e-mail]>
CC: Ian McMillan <[e-mail]>
BCC: Cyndi Karoly <[e-mail]>
Kevin:
My comments on your proposed comments on Queens Gap:
1. The submitted application indicates that half of the golf course impacts will be for a practice facility.
As golf courses do not have to have a practice facility, please provide a complete and thorough
alternative analysis (including, but not limited to, electronic practice facilities, instructor based indoor
practice facilities, or virtual practice facilities) for this purpose.
I assume this is referring to putting greens and driving range. It is my experience that (not that I have a
lot of experience with golf, but I have visited a lot of golf courses/country clubs, and I have stayed in a
Holiday Inn Express one time) while public courses may not have these amenities, golf courses of this
caliber (Jack Nicklaus design) normally have these facilities.
2. The submitted application requests that 200 linear feet of stream be culverted for golf hole 1 while a
stream immediately adjacent to, and parallel, is proposed to not be impacted, you must provide a
complete and thorough analysis with respect to this impact.
It appears that leaving both streams alone may result in too wide of a playover. Go ahead and let them
tell us this.
3. The submitted application requests that 250 linear feet of stream be culverted for golf hole 2 and 7. As
the submitted plans do not show any impact for golf hole 2, this should be removed from the impacts
chart. For golf hole 7, the impact is proposed for approximately 2/3ds of the way down the fairway, a
perfect opportunity for a play over. You must provide a complete and thorough analysis with respect to
this impact.
Agreed on hole 2. Again, I don't play golf. Making that a playover may change the par, based on the
length of the hole. Go ahead and let them tell us this.
4. The submitted application shows that for the residential portion of this project, that 40, 50 and 60 foot
culverts are needed for a road network. As this portion of the project is for residential road network, for
nor more than a 2 lane road segment or for driveways, and the indicated topographic overlay does not
show significant slopes, these culverts should be minimized as mush as possible (potentially including
the use of headwalls and footwalls) to reduce impact lengths below the requested 1,160 linear feet of
impact.
Totally agreed. What is a footwall?
a. As a subset of the above comment, Crossing 21 should be evaluated for re-alignment above the
stream.
I of 3 2/15/2008 9:34 AM
Queens Gap
b. Crossing 27 and 28 should be moved downstream to below the confluence to eliminate one crossing.
c. Crossing 30 should be moved above the stream to eliminate this impact.
Agreed on all 3. I believe I made all these comment on-site to Jennifer, and told her they would be
included in the comments. They may have been in Ian's letter already (I have not seen a final copy of
that yet)..
d. Lots 1073, 1014, 827, 832, 834, 832, 525, 405, 406, 378, 419 are bisected by waters. You must clearly
show how these lots can be built without impacts to these waters and how the waters will be protected
from future impacts.
Agreed. I mentioned several of these lots during the site visit, and said we would need additional info.
Several may have been in Ian's letter.
5. In your Qualitative Analysis of Cumulative Impacts, Product Induced Growth, you state that "no
commercially directly associated with" the Queen's Gap Development. The intent and purpose of this
exercise is to determine if there will be impacts to waters not "directly associated" with, but as a result of
this development.
You may want to check with John D. or Cyndi on this one. We normally don't require a lot of
cumulative impact analysis for residential subdivisions.
6. In your Qualitative Analysis of Cumulative Impacts, Product Induced Growth, you also indicate that
the retail and restaurant establishments of the Rutherfordton community will absorb the needs of these
1,189 residential lots, yet have supplied no data to support this. Please provide data, from local
government agencies, tourism boards, etc. which would show the likely impact of this development in
relation to the resources available to support 1,100+ new homes.
Same as 5.
The submitted Enhancement Plan indicates 8,518 linear feet of enhancement on Harris Creek and its
un-named tributaries is proposed. On page 2 of the submitted plan, you state that "Harris Creek" is a
"moderate size stream of overall good quality." Based upon this, you may only apply mitigation credit
from the *Interagency Mitigation Guidelines* for the least credit multiplier. The onsite observations also
indicate that Harris Creek and its unnamed tributaries are of good condition. Your plan includes
photographs of un-vegetated stream banks, indicating instability. The agency observation of these
situations in the field indicate that the streams were previously impacted by the land use (timber for
paper manufacturing), but are at a level of transitional equilibrium. Should you desire to perform stream
work on these channels beyond buffer enhancement, you must show graphically the instability on a site
map, show both BEHI and calculate sediment delivery from hillslope processes along with calculations
for bedload and suspended bed-material load transport capacity (stream power) in order to calculate how
much material is actually being lost from these stream banks over time (sediment yield). Lastly, you
must re-calculate the mitigation credit for the proposed work and resubmit this data for review.
I thought the main creek looked like a good candidate for Enhancment II - bank stabilization in areas
needed, and additional planting in the buffers to increase density and diversity. However, your question
seems reasonable regarding the BEHI and sediment stuff. The credits do need verification, but as I said
2 of 3 2/15/2008 9:34 AM
Queens Gap
over the phone, that is up to USACE..
Hope this helps,
eric
Eric W. Kulz
Environmental Specialist
401 Oversight and Express Permitting Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
3 of 3 2/15/2008 9:34 AM