20051321 Ver 1_Other Agency Comments_20050627

~S~I~C~
®North Carolina Wildlife Resources Cor~~mission
Richard B. l:l[amiltan, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
~~~~
TO: Mr. Todd Tugwell, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office D
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ~ JUN 2 ~ 2005
~ ~
FROM: S i L. Bryant,`Piedmont Region Coordinator WA.~ERau~--~n c~
Habitat Conservation Program p~~ ~p STpRMWAjER B~
WEi~
DATE: 22 June 2005
SUBJECT: Public Notice for Sandler at Amberly, LLC for Cor~truction of Parcel AR, Amberly
Planned Unit Development, Wake 8t Chatham Counties, North Carolina. Action ID No.
200520319
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
subject document and we are familiar with the habitat values of the area. Our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (as amended), Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; l6 U.S.C. 661-667d), and North Carolina General Statutes {G.S. 113-131
et seq.}.
The applicant proposes to place fill material, culverts andlor riprap into 304 linear feet of
perennial stream channel and 9651inear feet of nrtermittent stream channel and to place fill material into
0.18 acre of wetland. The site is primarily abandoned agricultural fields and forestland. Tributaries to
Nancy Branch and Morris Branch are located on the site and include approximately 13,000 linear feet of
perennial stream and 5,(100 linear feet of irrtermittent stream. Additionally, a small pond and recently
constructed 14-acre impoundment are located on the site. The proposed development is part of Amberly
Planned Unit Development (PUD) and consists of single family and multi-family residential units and
commercial center. A sewer pump station and sanitary sewer trunklines have been constructed on the
site. Development plans far an additional parcel of Amberly PUD {Amberly MF-2 & MF-2A) are
proposed under a separate public notice. The applicant proposes to mitigate for stream impacts and
wetlands with the creation of approximately 73 acres of riparian buffers and 17 acres of upland buffers
along the perimeter of the property. It appears the applicant is proposing I00-foot riparian buffers on at
least some streams within the project area and that a bottomless culvert is proposed for at least one stream
crossing. We are encouraged that some measures to minimize impacts to fish and wildlife resources
appear to already have been incorporated into the proposed project.
Nancy Branch and Morris Branch are headwater tributaries to the upper New Hope Creek arm of
B.E. Jordan Reservoir in the Cape Fear River basin. The upper New Hope Creek arm of B.E. Jordan
Reservoir is on the State's 303(d) list of impaired waters. There are records for the federal and state
threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) near the project site. Additionally, B.E. Jordan
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries 1 127 Mail Service Centex • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Faa: [phone]

Page 2
22 Jerre 2005
Sandler at Amberly
Action ID No. 200520319
Reservoir supports a diverse fishery including largemouth bass {Micropterus salmoides}, crappie
(Pomoxis spp.), sunfish (Lepomis spp.), catfish (Ictalurus spp.) and striped bass (Morone saxatilis). The
proposed project is adjacent to Jordan Lake Project Lands administered by the U.S. Army Carps of
Engineers and managed by the NCWRC as game lands.
We hesitate to concur with the piping of stream channels due to the potential for long-term and
cumulafive impacts. Stream piping and placing fill in aquatic resources can resuh in significant negative
impacts to downstream azeas and eliminate fish and wildlife habitat. Stream piping reduces the
infiltration of stormwater and associated pollutants, as well as the dissipation of stream energy. Piping a
stream and placing it underground removes both aquatic and terrestrial habitat. Piping a stream channel
and filling the wetlands will alter the hydrology of the existing channel and eliminate beneficial functions.
Likewise we hesitate to concur with the filling of wetlands due to their wildlife habitat value and the well-
known beneficial functions that they provide for flood control and water quality protection. Changes in
land use from a primarily forested area to an urban landscape may exacerbate channel degradation and
sediment impacts to stream ecosystems due to increased stormwater runoff. Multiple studies have shown
that stream degradation occurs at 14% impervious (Schueler 1994; Arnold and Gibbons 1996; Doll et al.
2000; Mallin et al. 2000; May and Horner 2000; Stewart et al. 2000; Paul and Meyer 2001).
The NC WRC expressed concerns regarding the proposed development and its impacts to game
lands in our comments on the Environmental Assessment (EA) for installation of sewer infrastructure for
Amberly PUD. White-tailed deer populations are thriving on the game lands and there are no natural
predators that exert any significant mortality on this species other than man. A loss of hunting could
result in increases in the dear population which could increase the frequency of deer-auto collisions and
residents may see increased depredation on flowers, ornamental shrubs and native plants on their
property. In our comments on the EA, we suggested a proactive progam be implemented to inform
residents of the purpose and importance of these game lands to wildlife and as recreational hunting areas.
Additionally, we suggested that schools, parks and other community areas be located in areas that are not
directly adjacent to game lands. We are concerned about direct impacts to the game lands and the
potential loss of recreational hunting opportunities for North Carolina citizens. According to the
information provided with the public notice, it appears that the project may overlap segments of the game
lands. Please clarify what impacts, if arty, are proposed to the game lands.
It is our understanding that compensatory mitigation for wetlands is 2:1 for restoration, 3:1 for
creation, 4:1 for enhancement and 10:1 for preservation (in combination with appropriate restoration,
creation and enhancement). The proposed mitigation plan includes the creation of 73 acres of riparian
buffer and 17 acres of upland buffer. Please clarify what the creation of riparian and upland buffers
entails (e.g., will plantings take place to improve the habitat quality of these buffers). If plantings are
proposed, the NCWRC would be happy to work with the applicant in developing a species Iist that would
improve the habitat quality of these buffers for fish and wildlife resources. While it appears that riparian
buffers are delineated in the public notice, information on upland buffers, other than these will be located
around the perimeter, is not included Please clarify the upland buffer location (e.g., will these buffer be
located around the entire perimeter or only in certain areas) and width.
We cannot complete our review of the proposed project due to the informational needs regarding
game lands and the mitigation plan. Should the permit be issued, we recommend that the following
conditions be incorporated into the permit to further minimize impacts to fish and wildlife resources.
1. To minimize additional stream impacts, while retaining some measure of wildlife habitat, we
recommend that a 100-foot undisturbed, native, forested buffer along perennial streams, and a 50-
foot buffer along intermittent streams and wetlands. Maintaining undisturbed, forested buffers

Page 3
22 June 2005
Sandier at Amberly
Action ID No. 200520319
along these areas will minimize impacts to fish and wildlife resources, water quality, and aquatic
habitat both within and downstream of the project area. In addition, wide riparian buffers are
helpful in maintaining stability of stream banks and fnr treatment of pollutants associated with
stormwater runoff. Whereas, a grassed buffer, particularly fescue, is a vegetated buffer but will
not provide the necessary and highly valuable functions as discussed for forested buffers.
2. We recommend that all remaining wetlands and streams on the site should be protected from
additional impacts by placing them in a permanent conservation easement to prohibit filling,
draining, flooding, and excavation.
3. Use bridges for all permanent roadway crossings of streams and associated wetlands to eliminate
the need to fill and culvert, where practicable. If culverts must be used, the culvert should be
designed to allow passage of aquatic organisms. Generally, this means that the culvert or pipe
invert is buried at least one foot below the natural streambed. If multiple cells are required, the
second and/or third cells should be placed so that their bottoms are at stream bankfull stage. This
will allow sufficient water depth in the culvert or pipe during normal flows to accommodate
movemerns of aquatic organisms. If culverts are long and sufficient slope exists, baffle systems
are recommended to trap gravel and provide resting areas for fish and other aquatic organisms. If
multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to remain dry during
normal flows to allow for wildlife passage. In addition, culverts or pipes should be situated so
that no channel realignment or widening is required. Widening of the stream channel at the inlet
or outlet of structures usually causes a decrease in water velocity causing sediment deposition that
wilt require future maintenance. Finally, riprap should not be placed on the streambed.
4. To adequately protect streams, it is suggested that impervious surface is limited to less than 10%.
Suggested examples to accomplish the <I O% impervious goal are using conventional designs at a
level of <10% imperviousness or using conservation clusters with higher densities, with dedicated
open space and other stormwater control measures to mimic the hydrograph consistent with an
impervious coverage of less than 10%.
5. Locate sewers and other utilities as far away from creeks as functionally possible and minimize
stream crossings. It is preferable that sewers be located outside the riparian buffers.
6. We recommend that landscaping consist of non-invasive native species and LID technology.
Using native species instead of ornamentals should provide benefits by reducing the need for
fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. Additionally, native species should require less water.
Using LID technology in landscaping will not only help maintain the predevelopment hydrologic
regime, but also enhance the aesthetic and habitat value of the site.
7. Specialized efforts and techniques are implemented to reduce sediment runoff from construction
activities. Excessive silt and sediment loads can have numerous detrimental effects on aquatic
resources including destruction of spawting habitat, suffocation of eggs, and clogging of gills of
aquatic species.
8. A detailed mitigation plan should be submitted and approved before impacts occur.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can provide further assistance,
please contact our office at (33b) 449--7625.

Page 4
22 June 2005
Sandler at Amberly
Action ID No. 200520319
Literature cited
Arnold, C. L., and C. 3. Gibbons. 1996. Impervious surface coverage---the emergence of a key
environmental indicator. Journal of the American Planning Association 62:243-258.
Dolt, B. A., D. E. Wise-Frederick, C. M. Buckner, S. D. Wilkerson, W. A. Harman, and R. E. Smith.
2000. Hydraulic geometry relationships for urban streams throughout the piedmont of North
Carolina. Pages 299-304 in P. J. Wigington, Jr. and R. L. Beschta, eds. Proceedings of the
American Water Resources Association Irnernational Conference on riparian ecology and
management in multi-land use watersheds, Portland, Oregon.
Mallin, M. A., K. E. Williams, E. C. Esham, and R. P. Lowe. 2000. Effect of human development on
bacteriological water quality in coastal watersheds. Ecological Applications 10(4}:1047-1056.
May, C. W. and R. R. Horner. 2000. The cumulative impacts of watershed urbanization on stream-
riparian ecosystems. Pages 281-286 in P. J. Wigington, Jr. and R. L. Beschta, eds. Proceedings
of the American Water Resources Association lrnernational Conference on riparian ecology and
management in multi-land use watersheds, Portland, Oregon.
Paul, M. J., and J. L. Meyer. 2001. Streams in the urban landscape. Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics 32:333-365.
Schueler, T. 1994. The importance of imperviousness. Watershed Protection Techniques. 1(3):100-
111.
Stewart, J. S., D. M. Downes, L. Wang, J. A. Wierl, and R. Banne-rman. 2000. Influences of riparian
corridors on aquatic biota in agricultural watersheds. Pages 209-214 in P. J. Wigington, Jr. and
R. L. Beschta, eds. Proceedings of the American Water Resources Association International
Conference on riparian ecology and management in multi-land use watersheds, Portland, Oregon.
cc: Cyndi Karoly, DWQ