20040385 Ver 1_Other Agency Comments_20050405

(A -o3es
ENT OF
a
H O
?a
19CH 3 18?
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
March 29, 2005
Mr. Brad Shaver
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890

J;
Subject: Action ID #200401197, Town of Swansboro, Reclaimed Water Sprayfield, Onslow County, NC''
Dear Mr. Shaver:
This letter provides the comments of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the information
provided to this office by letter dated February 23, 2005, from Green Engineering on the subject PN,
dated December 20, 2004. The information. addresses the preliminary site selection process for the
reclaimed water irrigation sprayfield proposed by the Town of Swansboro. The information is in
response to Service comments to you, dated January 25, 2005, on the proposed work. These comments as
well as our earlier letter are submitted in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
(FWCA) (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d). Comments related to the FWCA are to be used
in your determination of compliance with 404(b)(1) guidelines (40 CFR 230) and in your public interest
review (33 CFR 320.4) in relation to the protection of fish and wildlife resources.
The Town of Swansboro applied for a Department of the Army (DA) permit to impact 1.01 acres of
jurisdictional wetlands and 1.65 acres of isolated, non jurisdictional wetlands to construct water
sprayfield for treated effluent. The proposed site is located off Parkertown Road and contains a portion of
Pasture Branch which is tributary to Queen Creek. The proposed work would impact headwater wetlands
of Pasture Branch. The wetland impacts are associated with the construction of a 10-acre water holding
pond. Sprinklers and the pumping station would be constructed in non-wetlands.
The Service expressed concern that a reclaimed water holding pond is not a water-dependent structure.
Such a diked, holding pond could be constructed in uplands. Your letter of December 17, 2004, informed
the applicant that permits for work within wetlands or other aquatic sites are available only if the
proposed work is the least environmentally damaging, practicable alternative. You requested information
regarding any other alternatives, including upland alternatives, for the proposed disposal site and
sprayfield. The Service supported your efforts to ensure the consideration of upland sites for this work.
In regard to the avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts, the Service considered two aspects of
the project. These aspects are: (1) the selection of the site; and, (2) the placement of facilities within the
selected site. The letter from Green Engineering addresses the first aspect. Our review of this
information indicates that the Parkertown Road Site, the third of three sites considered and the one
preferred by the applicant, appears to be the least environmental damaging location. We support the
efforts to locate the sprayfield as far as possible from surface waters which flow into Queen Creek.
2
Regarding the placement of facilities within the 218-acre site, the Service is pleased that encroachment on
the surface waterways appears to have been minimized. Similarly, the placement of the sprayfields
appears to have avoided wetlands. The impacts to wetlands, both jurisdictional and isolated, are
associated with the 10-acre water holding pond. A reduction in the size of the storage pond and/or
changes in the shape of the dike could reduce wetland impacts. However, the Service does not have the
engineering expertise or knowledge of any design constraints necessary to made specific
recommendations on the size, shape, or location of the holding pond.
The Service continues to recommend that compensatory wetland mitigation should consist of in-kind
restoration in the immediate vicinity of the unavoidable wetland losses. Compensation by payment to the
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) does not allow an evaluation of the type or
location of the mitigation wetlands. The Service continues to encourage the applicant to look for
restoration or enhancement opportunities along Queen Creek or some of the tributaries to this creek.
After adequate restoration or enhancement, preservation could be considered as part of the overall
mitigation effort.
Based on the information provided by Green Engineering, we find that the applicant has demonstrated
that alternative sites were evaluated and that the Parkertown Road Site, selected by the applicant, is the
least damaging site. Regarding the placement of facilities within this site, project plans indicate
avoidance and minimization in the siting of the sprayfield zones and pumping station. Based on this
information and a presumed desire to reduce the cost of compensatory mitigation, we have no reason to
conclude that the size or design of the water holding pond could be changed to reduce wetland impacts.
Therefore, we would concur that the wetland impacts specified in the PN are unavoidable.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this permit application. If you have questions
regarding these comments, please contact Howard Hall at 919-856-4520, ext. 27 or by e-mail at <
[e-mail] >.
S nice , y',
Pete BVmin
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Ronald Mikulak US EPA, Atlanta, GA
Bennett Wynne, NCWRC, Kinston, NC
John Dorney, NC Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC
Ted Tyndall, NC Division of Coastal Management, Morehead City, NC