20090156 Ver 1_WRC Comments_20090223

::-I North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission P1
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM ?- ?M
TO: Amanda Jones, USACOE
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
FEB 2 3' 2009
FROM: Ron Linville, Regional Coordinator / DE14R-WA1ERQQAL11 BRAry?N
Habitat Conservation Program WETLODS AND sTOR )
DATE: February 20, 2009
SUBJECT: Jeanne Seaver - Cove Creek Restoration and Stabilization Project, Cove Creek (C-Trout),
DWQ No. 2009-0156, Watauga County
The applicant proposes to restore and stabilize a creek known to support trout. Biologists with the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission are familiar with habitat values in the area. These comments
are provided in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 through
113A-10; NCAC 25).
The project is indicated to use natural channel design methodologies to stabilize an undercut bank. A
total of 700 linear feet of stream work is indicated. Cove Creek is not known to support any threatened or
endangered species; however, Brown and Rainbow trout are known from the area.
Based on our review of the submittal, we will not object to the project as proposed providing the
following recommended conditions are followed to the extent practicable:
1. The stream should not be straightened unless this activity is necessary to conform to state-of-
the-art natural channel design calculations and techniques that establish natural stream
dimension, pattern and profile. Appropriate natural channel calculations and procedures
should help prevent instability and erosion to other stream segments.
2. In stream work and land disturbance within the 25-foot wide buffer zone are prohibited
during the brown and brook trout spawning season of October 15 through April 15 to protect
the egg and fry stages of trout from off-site sedimentation during construction.
3. Remaining jurisdictional waters and wetlands should be buffered, either through protection or
provision of undisturbed forested buffer zones. Buffers should be permanently preserved as
common contiguous forest areas instead of being subdivided. For streams that do not
support federally listed threatened or endangered aquatic species, we recommend 50'
intermittent and 100' perennial stream buffers. Maximum available buffers should be
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries - 1721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] - Fax: [phone]
Jeanne Seaver - Cove Creek Page 2
February 20, 2009
provided; however, the twenty-five (25) foot trout buffer should remain undisturbed to the
maximum extent practicable.
4. Sediment and erosion control measures should adhere to the design standards for sensitive
watersheds (15A NCAC 4B .0124).
If any concrete will be used, work must be accomplished so that wet concrete does not
contact stream water.
6. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in the stream channel in order
to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into the
stream.
7. Spill containment equipment should be readily available (24/7) to contain any accidental
petroleum spillage.
8. Only native plant species and live stakes should be used for streambank stabilization and
stream shading. Temporary or permanent native herbaceous vegetation should be established
on all bare soil within five (5) days of ground disturbing activities in the twenty-five (25) foot
trout buffer to provide long-term erosion control. Natural fiber matting is recommended over
plastic matting that can impinge and entrap small animals.
We believe that permanently protecting forested stream buffers is essential to the maintenance of wild
trout and their aquatic habitats. According to US Army Corps policy, the establishment and maintenance
of riparian areas can be required by the district engineer as compensatory mitigation, to help ensure that
the NWP activity results in minimal individual and cumulative adverse effects on the aquatic
environment. Such a requirement does not make non-wetland riparian areas subject to Clean Water Act
jurisdiction. Since non-wetland riparian areas are not jurisdictional, legal protection should be provided to
the riparian areas, for their protection and maintenance. In many areas, riparian areas will be wetlands
subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction. In other areas riparian areas will not meet the criteria in the
Corps wetland definition at 33 CFR 328.3(b)... Compensatory mitigation projects can include areas that
are not waters of the United States, as long as the mitigation is directly related to the impacts of the
proposed work on such waters and appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts. Riparian areas
are integral components of streams and other open waters, and are essential for their ecological integrity
and functioning. The establishment and maintenance of riparian areas as compensatory mitigation for
activities authorized by NWPs and other types of permits also helps advance the objective of the Clean
Water Act, which is to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
Nation's waters."
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project during the early planning stages. If
you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at 336-769-9453.
E-copy: Sue Homewood, DWQ-WSRO