20060385 Ver 1_Fax_20060825

08-25-'06 08:40 FBOM-NCDENB ASHEVILLE BO 8282997043
T-354 PWI/ZW U-JJO
1?4
9l9- 7 3-

cv. C-
6693
AUG-25-2086 FRI 07:27 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS P. 1
08-25-'06 08:40 FROM-NCDENR ASHEVILLE RO 8282997043
United States Department of the
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
July 27, 2006
T-354 1'Id'Z/ Z0 U-TJO

Mr. David Baker
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
U.S. An ny Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Dear Mr. Baker:
Subject: Proposed Development and Construction of Dann SSNORWAft, on Sutton
Creek Road, East of Brevard, Transylvania County, North Carolina
This is the report of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of the Interior on the
proposed project revisions submitted 6n June 15, 2006, by Fletcher Management Company,
LLC, (applicant) represented by Ms. Jennifer Robertson of Wetland and Natural Resource
Consultants, Inc. (WNRC). Information for this report is based on a review of the individual
permit application submitted by WNRC; a pre-application meeting held at your office on
September 7, 2005; a4d your March 28, 2006, public notice. This report is submitted in
accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
Project Description - In the March 28, 2006, public notice, the applicant proposed to develop a
424-acre residential subdivision that would include a. 27-acre amenity lake. The project site
consists of mountainous wooded land and is adjacent to the Pisgah National Forest. The site
contains several streams, including Osborne Branch, Long Branch, and multiple unnamed
tributaries. In their June 15, 2006, project revision letter, the applicant. stated that they would
reduce the size of the amenity lake to 15.67 acres and would construct a rolled concrete dam.
The reduction in size would decrease the aquatic impacts by about 1900 linear feet.
Fish and ?'Vildlife Resources -
}• rTobhe To! trout is the only.native
sa monid species iinal n the Southern ppa ac Ian otans. During the last 100 years, over 95
percent of the orihabitat for the Southern Appalachian brook trout has been destroyed. 411ood „, .
AUG-25-2886 FRI 07:27 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS P. 2
08-25-'06 08;40 FROM-NCDENR ASHEVILLE RO 8282997043 T-354 P03/20 U-yye
gage 5 e project revision letter states that, "the brook trout occur in a range such that no
reasonable reconfiguration could avoid their range." We agree, however, the first factor for
mitigating project impacts (avoidance of impacts altogether) has not been adequately addressed
for this project. According to the guidelines set forth in 40 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations)
Section 230.45, riffle and pool complexes are considered special aquatic sites'. 40 CFR Section
230.45 (b) covers the possible loss of values that can occur from the discharge of fill material
into special aquatic sites such as the riffle-pool complexes in Osborne Branch. It states that the
discharge of fill material can adversely impact and/or eliminate riffle and pool areas by reducing
the aeration and.filtration capabilities at the discharge site and downstream, reduce stream habitat
diversity, and may retard repopulation of the discharge site through excessive sedimentation and
creation of unsuitable habitat. The applicant has yet to provide any evidence that the
construction of a dam and lake will not cause water quality degradation and potential harm to the
Southem Appalachian brook trout population within Osborne Branch. Given that Osborne
Branch is a special aquatic site (as described in the CFR) and contains the Southern Appalachian
brook trout population, we reeornmend that stringent measures be taken to completely avoid
impacting the streams on this property.
Also on Page 2 of the applicant's letter, it was stated that "the `no build' alternative was
considered but after economic evaluation, it was determined that the development was not cost-
effective without the lake. Water-front lots and lots with a water body in their view shed can
provide double or triple the revenue...." We believe there is a vast difference between the
project being cost effective and the applicant being able to double or triple their revenue.
Though the economic feasibility of alternatives has to be assessed, if an alternative (in this case
"no build") can be accomplished with consideration of the cost of the alternative to the applicant,
then the alternative is practicable (40 CFR Section 230.10 (2)). Within the CFR, there is no
consideration for increased/decreased revenue margins from project alternatives. The fact that
the applicant can make more money by having the lake is not a measure as to the practicability of
the alternative. Therefore, the increased revenue that the project would provide with the amenity
lake should not be considered when assessing the "build" or "no build" alternatives.
The applicant has stated on page 4 that, "hakes have ecological and environmental value," by
moderating water temperature and positively affecting the microclimate of the surrounding area.
We do not disagree that lakes provide aquatic habitat but we have not found documentation that
an impoundment will provide the specific benefits stated by the applicant. As we pointed out in
our previous correspondence, lakes are not a naturally occurring feature in the Southern
140 CFR. Section 230.3 (q-1) Special aquatic sites are geographic areas, large or small, possessing special ecological
characteristics of productivity, habitat, wildlife protection, or other important and easily disrupted ecological values.
These areas are generally recognized as significantly influencing or positively contributing to the general overall
environmental health or vitality of the entire ecosystem of a region.
2
AUG-25-2006 FRI 07:27 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS P. 3
08-25-'06 08:40 FROM-NCDENR ASHEVILLE RO 8282997043
T-354 P04120 U-?W
Appalachian mountains. Because lakes are not natural, we believe that lakes provide aquatic
habitat to non-native and invasive species that could completely destroy the natural aquatic flora
and fauna of the area. From our experience, non-native plant and fish species (including brown
trout and rainbow trout) will undoubtedly be introduced into the lake. As the North Carolina',
Wildlife Commission pointed out in their previous comments, the introduction of non-native,
competing fish species is one of the major factors (along with development) that can cause a
decline and/or the elimination of native brook trout populations.
3aaw" •te"?r !1";' an StanTrcli-1979; Tyus 1990; Yeager 1993; Ligon el at.
1997; Benstead et al. 1999; Pringle et al. 2000; Slough et al. 2004).
The applicant, also stated on page 4.that a large boulder or tree could become dislodged by a high
flow event creating a complete barrier comparable to what will be created by the construction of
the dam. We remind you and the applicant that the Southern Appalachian brook trout are a
remnant species that remained here after the recession of glaciers at the end of the. Pleistocene
epoch around 14,000 years ago. Over the last 14,000 years, logs and boulders have certainly
fallen into the stream, but during these occurrences, the stream simply reroutes around the
obstruction and continues flowing. These obstructions are temporary, whereas, the dam is
permanent and will always be a barrier.
In summary
believe the only acceptable alternative for this project is to remove the lake from project designs.
If this alternative requires the number of lots to be increased, requiring additional stream
crossings, impacts can be minimized by using spanning structures (e.g., bridges and/or
bottomless culverts). We also believe that the costs of additional bridges could be offset by the
elimination of the cost of a rolled concrete dam. We agree with the applicant that a higher-
density development will increase storm-water runoff, but these impacts could also be minimized
by the preservation of vegetated riparian buffers and storm-water detention facilities (please refer
to our previous correspondence regarding these issues.) If the Corps of Engineers finds
justification in issuing a permit for the project as currently proposed, we would appreciate the
opportunity to provide further comments regarding secondary and cumulative impacts of the
impoundment, construction of the dam (including constructing a fish passage, etc.), minimum
flow release from the dam, and compensatory mitigation.
3

AUG-25-2806 FRI 87:28 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS P. 4
Running waters (such as Osborne Branch) are complex physical, chemical, and biological
08-25-'06 08:40 FROM-NCDENR ASHEVILLE RO 8282997043 T-354 P05/20 U-990
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 at 828/258-39391
Ext. 240. In any future correspondence concerning this project, please reference our Log
Number 4-2-06-185. .
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
1?Sx;.Kevin Barnett,` . firth 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
Literature Cited
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.
bttp://www.fisheries.or
g
Ligon, F.K., W.E. Dietrich, and W.J. Trush. 1995. Downstream ecological effects of dams, a
geomorphic perspective. Bioscience 45:183-192
Pringle, C.M. 1997. Exploring how disturbance is transmitted upstream: going against the flow.
Journal of the North American Benthological Society 16:425438.
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)1820
4
AUG-25-2006 FRI 07:28 TEL:[phone]e93 NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS P. 5
08-25-'06 08:41 FROM-NCDENR ASHEVILLE RO 8282997043 T-354 P06I20 U-990
Ward, IV., and J.A. Stanford, editors. 1979. The tcology of Regulated Streams. Plenum Press,
New York.
Yeager, B.L. 1993. Dams. Pages 57-114. Impacts on warmwater streams: Guidelines for
evaluation. Southern Division, American Fisheries Society, Little Rock, Arkansas.
x
5
AUG-25-2086 FRI 87:28 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWO-WETLANDS P. 6
08-25-'06 08;41 FROM-NCDENR ASHEVILLE RO 8282997043 T-354 P07/20 U-990
Cl North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Richard B. Hamilton, Executive Director
July 31; 2006
Mr. David Baker
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, Forth Carolina 28801-5006
Mr. Kevin Barnett
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
2090 U.S. Highway 70
Swannanoa, NC 28778
SUBJECT: Mr. Robert Johnson, Fletcher Management Company
mwzov e-600
County
Action 10D 200630708
D'WQ Project No. 06-0385
Dear Mr. Baker and Mr. Barnett-
Additional information about Fletcher Management Company's Forge Cove fake proposal was
transmitted to you on June 15, 2006 and July 13, 2006 by Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants.
This information is untended to address comments on the March 28, 2006 public notice, the discussioll
during a May 23, 2006 interagency meeting, and a June 26, 2006 request for more information from the
N.C. Division of Water Quality. Comments from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(Commission) on potential effects of the project on fish and wildlife resources 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 proposed lake on Osborne Branch has been reduced in size from 27 acres to 15.6 acres. This would leave
an additional 715 feet of occupied brook trout habitat in Osborne Branch free-flowing for a total of about
1,215 feet. A project alternative fora nine-hole golf course also has been developed to help justify the lake
proposal.
With this additional project "` '
information minimization and alternative analYsisa
. '°.YJ:`?'C F i, '"tlvi''?`•. •'^oktr,:Ci?^.
IN
?+' ,.''K
,A
K
1.. Assessment of harm to Osborne Bra.nch's brook trout population
111???a'o:?k.?t.?Op?al?tir?? ?;a'i?ti??? ??8?n? .
Marling Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
AUG-25-2006 FRI 07:28 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS P. 7
08-25-'06 08:42 FROM-NCDENR ASHEVILLE RO 8282997043 T-354 P08/20 U-990
Johnson Page 2 July 31, 2006
Transylvania County
It1:JG1-y"L19i?? ..... _.._...,.,...z...,.,--.-'- - ._....,..._............•.--?v?}rnvaaVl11-3??7YlGiL'i?1"v,?Qs?:1??
dam
?1?3?: 0#i1 k I?193hati@J tL `il7< 5?pi SF?i 3ed'ir#iet}t t115 1 'g?' 1.
'1?1Y't 'b'?i3V'i?'ilpii?v,
lnfonnatron about the susceptibility of brook trout to major habitat changes is referenced in our corntnents of
April 26, 2006. Based on that information and our experience with trout distribution monitoring and
management in the mountains of North Carolina, tbeX-d9.fA icAv.e n > Nt, ',h ,
??.$.l?af?cr?rr?a?iit3?^ii`i?51!`dt'titaitr?slf??ratt?i lairel?tts??cpa?n.??f ?tia=?br?auk::?'?ut
W pl
2. Predictable introduction of brown or rainbow trout, and, other competing fisli species into Osborne
Branch
Another concern that is not addressed is the eventual introduction of brown trout, rainbow trout or other
competing fish species into a lake on Osborne Branch. As described in previous comments, brook trout
populations often decline and are sometimes eliminated when competing species are introduced to their range.
This predictability is why, in accordance with our Trout Management Plan, the Commission does not stock
rainbow and brown trout in waters that support wild brook trout populations. Even if sufficient spawning
habitat for brook trout did remain above the lake, it is highly likely that competing fish would be introduced
and cause the collapse of the brook trout population. A possible example of this scenario is Dog Creek,
which is similar to Osborne Branch and the next named stream to the east of the Osborne Branch watershed.
Recent sampling by the Commission found only rainbow trout upstream of the small impoundment on this
stream.
3. Degradation of river wester quality due to lalee
Iactazn`?ai3',1"ied't?iat'#?ralh ?a?+cndd ?,ab'gra ratejuaiay. Water temperature
moderation, stream flow regulation, groundwater recharge, and "drought moderation" are purported, but
unsupported, benefits of the lake. g?i?n;.>tnessedig,;
''lb ?Kerr?iiwn ';I'?as?:iutpa
l?p?:e+tttar?t?°?vw:d ?di?oi?dr+nx,?n?andvhr?ort^+ rat?rc. 7?7
4. Compensatory mitigation ratio
Compensatory mitigation proposed for this project would neither off-set the project impacts nor be consistent
with the April 2003 Stream Mitigation guidelines. The streams in the Osborne Branch are high quality
special aquatic sites as outlined in Clean Water Act guidelines. Flooding impacts should be considered equal
to fill impacts, particularly in high quality, trout supporting systems. The stream mitigation guidelines specify
minimum mitigation ratios of 2:1 and 3:1 for good and excellent quality streams; respectively. Therefore, the
Commission does not support an overall ratio of 1.25:1 proposed for the combined fill and flooding impacts. .
5. Amount and type of mitigation
The amount and type of mitigation proposed should be reconsidered as well. Approximately half of the
mitigation is preservation of stream channels and riparian buffers. If preservation is accepted, minimal credit
should be granted since it involves streams and riparian areas that are currently undisturbed but that will be.
fragmented by a darn and roads and likely experience sedimentation from future land disturbance its the
development. Moreover, about 20% of the proposed mitigation is a lake buffer that would not functionally
off-set impacts to the free-flowing streams. Also, the acceptance letter from the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program specifies cool waters, which is not acceptable for any impacts to cold water streams on the property.
The Commission appreciates the applicant's efforts to address concerns about a lake on Osborne Branch.
Rx d?at?Erle?, aratut: 'l ool trt:n d lter e}r ticrresc estin t V61 iiw& Though not publicly accessible,
Osborne Branch, Boylston Branch and their watersheds support fish and wildlife resources that the
AUG-25-2006 FRI 07:29 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS P. 8
08-25-'06 08;42 FROM-NCDENR ASHEVILLE RO 8282957043
Johnson
Tyansylvanla County
Page 3
T-354 P09/20 U-990
July 31, 2006
Commission is statutorily charged to oonserve. Therefore, thAotassirr?rt[?
The Commission appreciates tine opportunity to assist the U.S. Army Corps.of Engineers and the N.C.
Division of 'W'ater Quality in their evaluation of the project. If there are any questions regarding these
comments, please contact me at [phone] extension 24.
Sincerely,
Shannon L. Deaton, Program Manager
Division of rnland Fisheries
cc: Mr. David Baker, US Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville
Mrs. Becky Fox, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. B. Tompkins, U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville
Ms. J. Robertson, Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants, Tie.
AUG-25-2006 FRI 07:29 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS P. 9
08-25-'06 08:42 FROM-NCDENR ASHEVILLE RO 8282997043 T-354 P10/20 U-990
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Comm,ission [
Richard B. Hamilton, Executive Director
April 26, 2006
Mr. David Baker
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
Mr. Kevin Barnett
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
2090 U.S. Highway 70
Swannanoa, NC 28778
SUBJECT: Mr. Robert Johnson, Fletcher Management Company
Individual 404 Permit Application
Transylvania County
Action ID No. 200630708
Dear Mr. Baker and Mr. Barnett:
Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants, hic, requested an Individual 404 Permit on behalf of Mr.
Robert Johnson of Fletcher Management Company. Comments from the North Carolina Wildlife .
Resources Commission (Commission) are provided in accordance with 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).
Mr. Johnson is proposing to construct a lake for the Forge Cove Lake development that would fill and flood
71055 feet of Osborne Branch and several of its tributaries. The development would enopmpass
approximately 420 acres of primarily forested land near Brevard in Transylvania County. The proposed
compensatory mitigation is 8,635 feet of mostly buffer preservation on the remaining stream channels and
shoreline of the lake. Buffers would be a minimum of 25 feet in width.
Osborne Branch supports a viable population of brook trout. A survey by Western Carolina University
(WCU) conservatively estimated a density of. 0.041 fish/m2 of wetted stream area (LaVoie and Lawson 2006).
Juvenile brook trout were also collected and the report concluded that the population is robust and presently
self-sustaining. Their range in Osborne Branch is about 200 feet upstream of the,proposed lake and an.
unspecified distance downstream of the property line, which is about 400 feet downstream of the proposed
dam. No brook trout were found in the tributaries.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries 1721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
AUG-25-2006 FRI 07:29 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS P. 10
08-25-'06 08:42 FROCK-NCDENR ASHEVILLE RO 8282997043 T-354 P11120 U-990
`Johnson., Norge Cove Lake Page 2 April 27, 2006
Transylvania County
Boylston Creek downstream of Osborne Branch also supports trout. Sampling by the N.C. Departrnentof
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality found brown and rainbow trout in 1997, but
no trout were collected in 2003. However, in March 2006 Commission biologists found rainbow trout
ranging in size from 2 to 6 inches.
The Commission emphasizes the conservation of wild brook trout populations (NCWRC 1989). Brook trout
are the only native trout in the region and they are particularly sensitive to habitat deterioration. Brook trout
currently occupy only 20 to 30% of their estimated historic range in Tennessee (Givens 1984) though their
distribution seems to have since stabilized in part from restoration efforts (Habera et al. 2001). A comparable
range reduction occurred in North Carolina and they are at risk regionally because of habitat loss and
degradation and displacement by introduced species (Bivens 1984; Habera and Strange 1993).
The negative 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). The proposed amenity lake would likely
have these same effects on Osborne Branch and could eliminate a valuable brook trout fishery. 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 proposed lake construction and recommends that a 401 Permit
and 401 Certification not be issued for the project as proposed for the following specific reasons;
1. Loss of wild brook trout population
The applicant claims that the proposed lake would have cold water and allow brook trout to reproduce.
Grandmother Lake in Grandfather Mountain and Hurricane Lake near Cashiers are cited as examples
where brook trout successfully reproduce. Several other lakes that have rainbow or brown trout that
purportedly reproduce and temperature data from several lakes are described to support this assertion.
However, even though brook trout are found in these lakes, it is highly unlikely that they reproduce there
and are probably only present because of source populations in tributary streams.
The applicants claim that the proposed lake will have sufficiently cold water to support brook trout and
cites the water temperatures of several nearby impoundments as evidence. klowever, this cannot be
known with any degree of certainty because water temperatures are products of multiple influencing
factors (ag, inflow water temperature, water quality, depth, retention time,...) that vary among
impoundments.
Even if the proposed lake could have suitable water temperatures for trout survival, the applicant's claim
that brook trout could reproduce'in the lake are unfounded and highly improbable. Again the applicant
makes an assertion based on a regional generalization and a misoharacterization of available information.
The assertion that brook trout reproduce in other area lakes is baseless. Brook trout are stream spawners
and require flowing, oxygenated water that percolates through gravel (Raleigh and Duff 1980, and
references therein). Reproduction by brook trout has been documented only in a few lakes in the
Adirondacks and Canada that have upwelling springs and clean gravel bottoms. However, Commission
biologists are not aware of natural reproduction occurring in any lake in the southeastern United States.
Trout in North Carolina lakes are either stocked or move out of tributary streams. Trout are routinely
stocked in Grandmother Lake, Bear Lake, the Tuckasegee River upstream of Dillsboro, and likely many
of the other impoundments cited in the application. Moreover, most if not all of the lakes cited have
tributaries that support wild trout. For example, brook trout were found by Commission biologists in
Hurricane Creek upstream of Hurricane Lake and wild trout have been documented in; among others,
Norton and pine creeks upstream of Lake Glenville and Wolf Creek upstream of Wolf, Bear, and Cedar
Cliff lakes. Tributaries, rather than the impoundments themselves, are the source of wild trout found in
the lakes listed in the application. Laurel Bed Lake in Virginia is managed exclusively for brook trout,
AUG-25-2006 FRI 07:30 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS P. 11
08-25-'06 08;43 FROM-NCDENR ASHEVILLE RO 8282997043 T-354 P12/20 U-990
Johnson, Forge Cove take page 3 April ?7, 2006
Transylvania County
but it must be stocked annually (Wollitz 1975; K. Hning, N'CWRC, email communication March 14,
2006).
Trout cannot persist in some headwater streams, like the tributaries to Osborne Branch, where flow or
other habitat conditions are unsuitable on a permanent or frequent basis. Brook trout population variation
was highest and near total year class failure was observed in small streams in western Maryland because
of drought and watershed disturbances (Hilderbrand and Morgan 1995). The standing crop of rainbow
trout in Georgia headwater streams showed similar responses to low and variable stream flow (Durniak
and England 1986). LaRoche and Pardue (1980) observed considerable brook trout population. declines in
the Tye River, in Virginia following two consecutive years of drought and heavy winter ice. They
concluded that brook trout in the southeast are highly vulnerable to environmental extremes.
Because the footprint of the proposed lake nearly covers the distribution of brook trout in the watershed,
the proposed lake would likely eliminate the all suitable spawning and rearing habitat for brook trout in
the Osborne Branch watershed. Isolated fish populations may become extirpated when reproduction fails
or high mortality cannot be compensated by immigration (Pringle et at. 2000). Therefore, the lake .
construction would increase the susceptibility of any of the remaining portion of brook trout population to
environmental fl uctuations and probably cause its extirpation.- This would be certain if most of the
available spawning habitat is eliminated in the creek, which appears to be the case from the fish survey
data.
Brook trout populations in streams and lakes decline when some fish species, usually rainbow trout, are
introduced or immigrate into a watershed. Unauthorized introductions of rock bass in Laurel Bed Lake in
Virginia substantially reduced the brook trout population and repeated efforts to eradicate rock bass have
proven unsuccessful ('Wollitz 1975). Slower growth has been documented in brook trout populations that
are sympatric with rainbow trout (Whitworth and Strange 1983). Brook trout in the southern
Appalachians are less abundant when found with rainbow trout (King 1942) or with rainbow and brown
trout (1~ Tebbe 1994). The historical range reduction and a lack of appreciable recovery in the southern
Appalachians appears to be partly from rainbow trout (Bivens 1984, and references therein; Moore and
parson 1989; Habera and Strange 1993, and references therein) though rainbow trout encroachment does
not appear to further reduce the brook trout range in Tennessee (Habera and Strange 2001). Sampling by
Commission biologists often finds allopatric brook trout populations upstream of natural or artificial
barriers that prevent other fish immigration.
2. Reduced stream quality
The applicant suggests that the lake would improve stream habitat for trout downstream of the dam by
keeping water temperatures colder than normal during the warm seasons. Also, there purportedly would
be "...beneficial oxygenated water downstream during periods of drought" and any decrease in lake
size"... will exponentially decrease the water volume" and "...decrease the downstream benefi&'.. The
assertions are counter to our understanding of lakes and data or references supporting these assertions
were not provided.
Evaporative losses from lakes reduce stream flow, which can reduce habitat quantity and quality,
particularly during droughts. Declines in rainbow trout abundance in Georgia (Durniak and England
1986) and brook trout in 'V'irginia (LaRoche and Pardue 1980) have been attributed to diminished stream
flow from droughts and other atypical flow variations. The proposed lake would reduce the amount of
stream habitat and possibly exacerbate trout population fluctuations in Osborne Branch, and possibly
Boylston Creek, downstream of the dam during periods of drought.
The ability to maintain or further reduce low stream temperatures and thereby improve trout. habitat in
Osborne Branch downstream of the dam, as suggested, is uncertain. Impoundments detain flow and
experience higher convective and solar warming than streams that have canopy vegetation. This can
make streams downstream of lakes unsuitable for cold water species such as trout. Brook trout have an
AUG-25-2006 FRI 07:30 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS P. 12
08-25-'06 08:43 FROG-NCDENR ASHEVILLE RO 8282997043 T-354 P13/20 U-990
Johnson, Forge Cove Lake Page 4 April 27, 2006
Transylvania County
tipper tolerance threshold of 25.30C (Harshbarger 1975, and references therein) and optimal growth
occurs at 12-160C (Baldwin 1956, Cormick et al. 1972). Trout streams in Nortb Carolina are typically
20.0°C or less with an upper maximum of 22.2°C (Ratledge and Louder 1967). The WCU survey of
Osborne Branch recorded stream temperatures of near 14°C in early October (LaVoie and Lawson 2006).
Low dissolved oxygen levels could seasonally occur in Osborne Branch and degrade trout habitat if the
lake is constructed. Deep water or hypolimnetic releases from dams can reduce warming effects, but trout
also require relatively high oxygen levels. Brook trout require near folly oxygen saturated water
(I' larshbarger 1975, and references therein) and Burdick et al. (1954) reported lethal thresholds of about
1.6 and 2.5 parts per million (pprn) at 55 and 700F, respectively. Because oxygen levels are highest at the
surface and-decline with depth, low oxygen or hypoxia in streams can occur downstream of lakes with hypolimnetic (e.g., deep water layer) discharges if the lakes are prone to seasonal stratification. This is a
common problem below dams and has occurred in the Catawba River below Lake James (Goudreau
1994) and below some Tennessee Valley Authority reservoirs (Austin et al. 1975, Axon 1975). Low
dissolved oxygen (2 ppm) has been documented near the bottom of Lake Tahoma in McDowell County,
North Carolina (Brown, NCWRC, unpublished data).
Dams 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, which is the basis for production in trout
streams in the mountains of North Carolina. Although trapping of fine sediments can improve trout
spawning habitat, elimination of sand, gravel, and cobble transport often causes channel erosion and
habitat deterioration in "sediment-starved" streams. Large woody debris is an important habitat
component in trout streams.
Sediment from construction of the lake and routine dredging operations would likely degrade habitat for
trout and other aquatic, resources. The harmful effects of sedimentation on aquatic systems are well-
documented (Waters 1995). Trout, particularly their eggs and larvae, are susceptible to sedimentation
(Cordone and Kelley 1961; Peters 1962) and declines in wild trout populations have been documented in
the mountains of North Carolina following sedimentation (Brown 1982; Mickey 1993; Besler, NCWRC
unpublished data 2002). A considerable amount of earthwork would likely be required to construct the
proposed darn and the potential for erosion and sedimentation downstream of the site would be high,
particularly given the high annual rainfall in the region. Lake dredging occurs periodically on many small
lakes and often causes considerable sedimentation.
3. Elimination and fragmentation of riparian habitat
The applicant notes that the proposed lake would provide beneficial habitat for fish and wildlife.
However, it would replace natural stream habitat with unnatural lake habitat and eliminate a considerable
amount of productive and natural stream and riparian habitat that already exists on the property, Riparian
areas are primary travel corridors for numerous species of wildlife. The movements of small mammals,
reptiles, amphibians, macroitnvertebrates, fish, and other life along Osborne Branch would be impeded or
blocked entirely by the dam and lake. The value of the remaining stream and riparian habitats in the
watershed would be reduced by this isolation.
The applicant also suggests that stormwater management practices proposed for the development would
improve water quality protection in 6e Boylston Creek watershed. However, the property is almost
entirely forested with wide stream buffers and the streams currently show little evidence of.active
degradation. The undisturbed watershed in this area already functions to, protect water quality, and the
proposed stormwater measures would do little to improve natural functions.
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.
AUG-25-2006 FP,I 87:30 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS P. 13
08-25-'06 08:43 FROM-NCDENR ASHEVILLE HO 8282997043 T-354 P14/20 U-990
Johnson, Forge Cove Lake
Transylvania County
Sincerely,
iwetll ?
Robert L. Curry, Chief
Division of inland Fisheries
Page 5
cc: Mrs. Becky Fox, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. B. Tompkins, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville
Ms. J. Robertson, Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants, inc.
April 27, 2046
Citations
Austin R.S.,-E.L. Morgan, and J.T. Browning. 1975. Effects of hypolinmetic discharges on two-story
reservoirs. Pages 76-871n: Southeastern Trout Resource: Ecology mid Management Symposium
Proceedings. October 24-25, 1975, Blacksburg, Virginia,
Axon, J.R. 1975, Limiting factors encountered in the management of trout in tailwaters. In USDA
Forest Service Symposium on Trout Habitat and Research Proceedings, Asheville, North
Carolina, 110 p,
Baldwin, N.S. 1956. Food consumption and growth of brook trout at different temperatures,
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 86:323-328,
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. X. Scatena. 1999. Effects of a low-head dam and
water abstraction on migratory tropical stream biota. Ecological Applications 9:656-668,
Bivens, R.D. 1984. History and distribution of brook trout in the Appalachian Region of Tennessee,
M.S. Thesis. University of Temiessee, Knoxville.
Blough, H., T. Bigford, and J. Haynes. 2004. AFS Policy Statement on Danz Removal.
http:1/www_fisheries.or9.
Brown, R.J. 1984. The decline of wild trout populations resulting from accelerated erosion caused by
mountain development on the Elk River. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Project F-24-9, 8 p.
Burdick, G.E., M. Lipshultz, H.J. Dean., and J. Harris. 1954. Lethal oxygen concentrations for trout and
smallrnouth bass. New York Fish and Game Journal (1):1.
Cori-nick, J.H., K.E.F. Hokansen, B.R. Jones. 1972. Effects of temperature on growth and survival of
young trout. Journal of Fisheries Research Board of Canada 29(s):1107-1120,
Cordone, A.J. and D.W. Kelley. 1961. hifluence of inorganic sediment on the aquatic life in streams,
California Fish and Game 47(2): 189-228.
Durniak, J.P. and R.H. England. 1986. Dynamics of rainbow trout populations in small headwater
streams. Georgia Department of Natural Resources Game and Fish Division, Federal Aid in
Sport Fish Restoration, Dingell-Johnson Project F-25-13, Final Report, Georgia..
Flebbe, P.A. 1994. A regional view of the margin: Sahnonid abundance and distribution in the southern
Appalachian mountains of North Carolina and Virginia. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 123:657667.
Goudreau, C.J. 1994. Bridgwater tailrace survey -1993, N_C. Wildlife Resources Commission,
Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration, F-24-20, Final Report, Raleigh.
AUG-25-2006 FRI 07:31 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS P. 14
08-25-'06 08:44 FROM-NCDENR ASHEVILLE RO 8282997043 T-354 P15/20 U-990
Johnson, Forge Cove Lake Page 6 April 27, 2006
Transylvania County
Habera, J. W,, and R. J. Strange. 1993. Wild trout resources and management in the Southern
Appalachian Mountains. Fisheries 18(1):6-13.
Habera, J.W., R.J. Strange, and R.D. Givens. 2001. A revised outlook for Tennessee brook trout. .
Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science 76(3):68-73.
liarshbarger, T.J_ 1975. Factors affecting regional trout stream productivity. Pages 11-27 In:
Southeastern Trout Resource: Ecology and Management Symposium Proceedings. October 24-
25, 1975, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Hildebrand, R.H. and R.P. Morgan, III. 1995. Environmental disturbance and within-basin population
dynamics of brook trout,under different land use conditions. In: Proceedings of the East Coast
Trout Culture and Management Workshop, If. American Fisheries Society Northeastern Division
and Southern Division.
King, W. 1942. Trout management studies at Great Smoky Mountains National Park. The Journal of
Wildlife Management 6(2).
LaRoche, A.L. and G.B. Pardue. 1980. Environmental extremes and native brook trout populations in
the southeastern ;United States. In: Wild Trout 1:1, Proceedings of the Symposium. Trout
Unlimited and the Federation of Fly Fishermen.
LaVoie, M. and C. Lawson. 2006. Osborne Branch brook trout survey. Study reort by Western Carolina
University, Department of Biology for Mr_ Robert Johnson.
Ligon, F. K., W. E. Dietrich, and W. J. Trush. 1995. Downstream ecological effects of dams, a
geomorphic perspective. Bioscience 45:183-192.
Mickey, J.H. 1993. Monitoring of wild trout populations in the upper Mitchell River impacted by
accelerated sedimentation caused by the "Old Beau" development, Alleghany County. Summary
Report, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh, 8 p.
Moore, S.E. and G.L. Larson. 1989. Native brook trout restoration program in Great Smoky Mountains
National Park. In: Wild Trout IV, Proceedings of the Symposium. Yellowstone National Park,
September 18-19,1989.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). 1989. Casting the future of trout in North
Carolina. A plan for management of North Carolina's trout resources. Division of Boating and
Inland Fisheries, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
Peters, T.C. 1962. The effects of stream sediment on trout embryo survival. In Biological Problems in
Water Pollution, P Seminar: 275-287.
Pringle, C. M. 1997. Exploring how disturbances is transmitted upstream: going against the flow. Journal
of the North American Benthologieal 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-te;nperate comparisons. Bioscience 50:807-823.
Raleigh, R.F. and D.A. Duff. 1980. Trout stream habitat improvement: ecology and hydrology. In: Wild
Trout 11, Proceedings of the Symposium. Trout Unlimited and the Federation of. Fly Fishermen.
Ratledge, I.M. and D.E. Louder. 1967. Cold-water stream studies: Federal Aid in Fish Restoration F-
13-R. 48 p. N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, Division of Inland Fisheries, Raleigh.
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.
hqp://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.
AUG-25-2006 FRI 07:31 TEL:919733Ge93 NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS P. 15
08-25-'06 08:44 FROM-NCDENR ASHEVILLE RO 8282997043 T-354 P16/20 U-990
Johnson, Forge Cove Lake Page 7 April 27, 2006
Transylvania County
Whitworth, W.E, and RJ, Strange. 1983. Growth and production of sympatric brook trout and rainbow
trout in an Appalachian stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 112:469-475.
Wollitz, R.E. 1975. Trout management in Virginia. Pages 88-951n: Southeastern Trout Resource;
Ecology and Management Symposium Proceedings. October 24-25, 1975, Blacksburg, Virginia.
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.
AUG-25-2006 FRI 07:31 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWO-WETLANDS P. 16
08-25-'06 08:44 FROM-NCDENR ASHEVILLE RO
1U 0? WAS 9?G
r
>_ y
D -?
8282997043 T-354 P17/20 U-990
Michael r. Easley, Covemor
William G, Ross Jr.. Secretary
North Carolina Deparnncnt of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Kliriiek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
August 10, 2006
MEMORANDUM
To, Jimmie Overton
Through Trish Finn MacPherson-x...
From: Bryn H, Tracy $<"T
Jeff DeBerardinis >
Subject: Review of Documents Regarding the; .. (Lake Osborne) Project
Mr. Kevin Barnett (DWQ, Asheville Regional Office) requested our review of two documents related to the Forge
Cove Lake (Lake Osborne Project):
1, Letter from Mr. Robert Curry, Chief, Division of Inland Fisheries, to Mr. David Baker (US COE) and Mr.
Kevin Barnett (DWQ, Asheville Regional Office), dated April 26, 2006; and
2. Letter from Ms, Jennifer Robertson (Wetland and Natural Resource Consultants, Inc.) to Mr. Kevin
Barnett, dated July 13, 2006.
We received these two documents on July 17, 2006 and because of other work commitments have not had the
opportunity to comment upon them until today. This memorandum summarizes our comments.
We have not seen nor reviewed the original application for this development nor comments from other state of
federal agencies. The original project (impoundment of Osborne Creek and its tributaries and construction of
Forge Cove Lake) was to have eliminated 7,055 linear ft of Osborne Branch as viable Brook Trout habitat, (i,e.,
loss of the entire Brook Trout spawning and rearing habitat within the watershed). This loss would be mitigated
with 8,535 linear ft. of stream with 25 ft_ buffers (the minimum for streams supplementally classified as Trout
Waters). It is our understanding that the revised project will now eliminate only 6,340 linear ft. Of Brook Trout
habitat leaving 1,215 linear ft. above the reservoir as potential viable Brook Trout Habitat.
'tfA?F?d?ik?IKliF?iTtd9?pl'?I??gII''?1?'?f•IIkIPAoF?6Gb?iii "' ir.?,,.,,s.....,
rvrp*sSlat - MA
In conclusion, we are in support of the recommendation by the Asheville Regional Office Staff for the denial of
issuance of a 401 certificate for this project. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
cc: Kevin Bamett (Asheville Regional Office)
WMCarolina
?aturully
Noah Carolina Division of Water Quality 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699.1621 Phone [phone]
tntetnet, gww.ncwamercl alu itv.arg Location: 4401 Roedy Creek Rd Raleigh, NC 27697 Pax [phone]
An Equal Oppw4mitWAffirmadve Action Empbyer - 50% Recyded/10% PostConsurner Paper
Customer Service
1-877-623-6748
AUG-25-2006 FRI 07:31 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWO-WETLANDS P. 17
08-25-'06 08,44 FROM-NCDENR ASHEVILLE RO
40m.4%
August 3, 2006
8282997043
T-354 P18/20 U-990
UNITED STATES ENVIRONM ENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Geolrgia 30303 - 8960
Colonel John E. Pulliam
District Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
ATTN: Mr. David Baker
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
SUBJ: ForgeebWJ&*" ;
Action ID: 200630708
Dear Colonel Pulliam:
%
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) originalIy provided comments on the Forge
Cove Lake project when the Public Notice (PN) was released on March 28, 2006. We have
subsequently reviewed the June 15, 2006, information packet prepared by the applicant which
addresses agency comments and provides revised project information. The applicant has
reduced the size of the proposed amenity lake from 27 acres to 15.6 acres. The original plan
proposse? to place fill into 500 linear feet of stream for the dam footprint and to flood an
additional 6,555 linear feet of stream. The revised plans would reduce the flooding impacts by
approximately 2,000 linear feet, including a reduction of 715 linear feet on Osborne Branch.
Osborne Branch supports a breeding population of Southern Appalachian brook trout. A rolled
concrete dam is being proposed instead of the originally proposed earthen fill dam. This would
reduce hard impacts for the dam footprint to 125 linear of permanent impacts and 75 linear feet
of temporary impacts. We have the following comments on the ,revised project plans.
Although we. appreciate the applicant's attem is t u '
.......
brook trout ffim, ' o fl „wing waters and
_ mow. w.w.».cra A-^+31?F?.?cs..r-?xav
K We support the information and-positions stated in
the original and follow-up letters
"Oe wildlife resource agencies (the U.S. Fish-and Wildlife Service and the North Carolina
(NC) Wildlife Resources Commission) concerning the potential impacts the proposed lake would
have on the breeding brook trout population. As we stated in our original letter, we believe the
proposed impoundment will likely have a severe detrimental effect on the brook trout population
in this aquatic habitat.
We have also reviewed the financial information provided by the applicant.' According to
the revenue estimates provided, the development would produce approximately $46 million in
revenue without the amenity lake and $60 million with the lake. It.is EPA's opinion that the
AUG-25-2006 FRI 07:32 TEL:919733Ge93 NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS P. 18
08-25-'06 08;45 FROM-NCDENR ASHEVILLE RO 8282997043 T-354 P19/20 U-990

2
residential development is not a water dependent activity. As we stated in our PN April 27,
2006, comment letter, we believe the project purpose ("to provide an approximate 27-acre lake
.gas a recreational amenity to the subdivision ") is too narrowly defined... We.maintain our position
thAtAke basic project purpose should be broadly defined to reflect the generic function of the
activity and not so narrow as to eliminate any other alternatives. The 404 (b) (1) Guidelines
"...prohibit discharges where there is a practicable less damaging alternative. _." The Guidelines
go on to state, "these waters form a priceless mosaic. Thus, if the destruction of an area of
waters of the U.S. may reasonably be avoided, it should be avoided.". Although cost is an
important consideration in determining practicability, it is our opinion there is a "no action"
alternative for the proposed project which will generate an approximate $46 million revenue
intake in lot sales, We do not agree with the applicant's stated position that the project is not
cost-effective without the amenity lake. The Guidelines do not state or infer that a project
alternative is not practicable if there is another alternative which would result in increased profit
margins. The,Guidelines do state that the selected project alternative should be the one that is
the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEPDA). It therefore appears that
the LEPDA for this project is the residential development without the construction of the
amenity lake. The financial estimates do not provide information to support the applicant"s
position that the project without the lake is not practicable. It should also be noted, that the profit
estimates for the project with the lake do not consider the construction costs of the dam/lake and
mitigation costs or the profits that could be generated by the additional lots on the 15+ acres
where the lake is proposed.
Eased on the above discussion, we believe the project, as proposed is not approvable at
this time. We also have concerns about the proposed mitigation and believe it will be difficult to
mitt ate for the loss of Southern Appalachian brook trout habitat. We noted the correspondence
from the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program which specifies they will provide 929 linear feet
of cool water mitigation. Mitigation for the proposed project in waters supporting a trout
population would require cold water mitigation, not cool water mitigation, We are not providing
a detailed discussion of the proposed miti gation, at this time, because it is uncertain what
impacts, if any, will be permitted. We would like to be involved in further mitigation
discussions depending on how Wilmington District decides to proceed with this project,
EPA appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. As stated above, due to the
significant impact this project will have on the native brook trout population in Osborne Branch
and the lack of adequate and appropriate mitigation, we believe the project, as proposed, is not
approvable. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Becky Fox at
[phone] or fox.rebecca(a epa.gov.
Sincerely,
cc: See Enclosed List
AUr-25-2806 FRI 87:32 TEL:[phone]
Ronald J. Iku ak, Chief
wetlands ke?Aatory section
NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS
P. 19
08-25-'06 08:45 FROM-NCDENR ASHEVILLE BO 8382997043 T-354 P20/20 U-990
3
cc List:
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
NC Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 77699-1650
Mr. Kevin Barnett .
NC Division of Water' Quality
2090 OS Highway 70 _
Swannanoa, North Carolina 28778
Mr. Brian Cole
U. S. Fish, and 'W'ildlife Service
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-1082
Mr. Dave McHenry
Mountain Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
20830 Great Smoky Mountain Expressway
Wa esville, NC 28786
AUG-25-2006 FRI 07:32 TEL:[phone] NAME:DWQ-WETLANDS P. 20