20061203 Ver 1_WRC Comments_20060705

~ North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Richard B. Hamilton, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Monte Matthews, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
U. Armyp~Co~s of Engineers
S ari~S ant Pte t Re ion Coordinator
FROM• ry g
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: 29 June 2006
o ~c~~ad~ D
JUL 0 5 2006
~j~p5 qND STORM~NA~ SOH
SUBJECT: Public Notice for Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Project
Partners, Western Wake Wastewater Management Facilities, Chatham and Wake
Counties, North Carolina.. Action ID No. 200620159
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; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d), and North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113-131
et seq.).
The applicant proposes to temporarily impact an estimated 22.4 acres of forested wetlands, 4,300
linear feet of stream channel, and a 60-foot by 400-foot area within the Cape Fear River and to
permanently impact an estimated 12.9 acres of wetlands, 1,4351inear feet of perennial stream channel,
and a 18-foot by 400-foot area within the Cape Fear River for construction of the Western Wake Regional
Wastewater Management Facilities. There are five main portions to the project: the water reclamation
facility (WRF), West Cary Pump Station; Beaver Creek Pump Station; outfall structure, and several miles
of efftuent/raw water force main and gravity lines. The purpose of the project is to provide wastewater
service for planned growth and development and to comply with conditions of an interbasin transfer
certificate to withdraw water from B.E. Jordan Reservoir. The applicant proposes to mitigate for
permanent impacts to 12.9 acres of wetland and 1,435 linear feet of stream by payment into the North
Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program at a 2:1 ratio.
There are historical records for the federal and state endangered Cape Fear shiner (Notropis
mekistocholas) in the Cape Fear River. Other listed species in the Cape Fear River include the federal
species of concern and state endangered Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni); the federal species of
concern and state special concern yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis cariosa); the federal species of concern
and state significantly rare Carolina redhorse (Moxostoma sp.); the state threatened creeper (Strophitus
undulates), triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata), and Roanoke slabshell (Elliptio roanokensis); and the
state special concern pod lance (Elliptio folliculata) and notched rainbow (Villosa constricta).
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] Faz: [phone]

Page 2
29 June 2006
Western Wake WItF
Action ID No. 200620159
The Cape Fear River supports a diverse fishery including largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides), crappie (Pomoxis spp.), sunfish (Lepomis spp.) and catfish (Ictalurus spp). There is a
considerable hook-and-line recreational fishery for blue catfish (Ictalurus furcatus) and flathead catfish
(Pylodictis olivaris) with most of the effort concentrated from Buckhorn Dam at Carthage downstream to
Fayetteville. Striped bass hybrids (Morone saxatilis x M. chrysops) or Bodie bass, which were stocked in
B.E. Jordan Reservoir unti12001, have migrated downstream and been a populaz species for anglers in
this section of the river. Currently, striped bass (M. saxatilis) are stocked in B.E. Jordan Reservoir and
are frequently caught in the river below the reservoir and may provide recreational fishing opportunities
below Buckhorn dam. In addition, the Cape Fear River from Lock 8c Dam #1 upstream to Buckhorn
Dam (Chatham, Lee, Harnett, Cumberland and Bladen counties) is designated as a Primary Nursery Area.
Anadromous species including striped bass (Morone saxatilis), American shad (Alosa sapidissima),
hickory shad (Alosa mediocris), blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), and alewife (Atosa pseudoharengus)
migrate into the freshwater reaches of the Cape Fear River in spring to spawn.
Direct impacts to wetlands and streams would result from construction of the WRF, effluent/raw
water force main and gravity lines, and outfall structure. The applicant proposes to install force mains
within existing road or utility rights-of--way and to install gravity sewer lines within the FEMA 100-year
floodplain. The applicant is considering trenchless technology for stream crossings at White Oak Greek,
Beaver Creek and Little Beaver Creek and other unnamed perennial streams. The applicant indicates
blasting within the Cape Fear River may be necessary to install the outfall structure.
In our comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), we expressed concerns
regarding direct, secondary and cumulative impacts of the proposed project on aquatic and terrestrial
wildlife resources. While we are concerned about direct impact to wetlands and streams resulting from
each of the project's components (i.e., WRF, force main and gravity sewer lines, and outfall structure), we
are particularly concerned about direct impacts to Cape Fear River resulting from construction of the
outfall structure. Detailed information on direct impacts to wetlands, streams, and the Cape Fear River
was not included in the DEIS. In meetings with the applicant, it was our understanding that detailed
information regarding the direct impacts of each of the project's components on wetlands, streams and the
Cape Fear River would be determined during final design and permitting.
In the permit application, impacts to wetlands and streams are estimated using National Wetland
Inventory Maps and GIS. Without detailed information of the project's impacts to wetlands and streams,
we are unable to determine whether the applicant has avoided or minimized impacts to these natural
resources. In addition, the DEIS indicates abank-side dischazge and discharge through a diffuser will be
evaluated during the final design phase. The bank side alternative is not discussed in the permit
application. Use of a bank-side discharge would significantly reduce direct impacts to the Cape Fear
River.
The information included in the permit application is not sufficient for us to complete our review
of the proposed impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources. For us to complete our review of this
permit application, we kindly request the following information:
• For the force main: detailed maps showing the proposed alignment with the location of wetlands
and stream crossings.
• For the gravity sewer: detailed maps showing the proposed alignment with the location of
wetlands, stream crossings, and the 100-year floodplain. Setback from the stream for
construction and maintenance corridors should be included For gravity sewer lines: we
recommend a minimum 100 foot setback for perennial streams and a 50-foot setback for

Page 3
29 June 2006
Western Wake WRF
Action ID No. 200620159
intermittent streams, lakes, and wetlands. In circumstances where minimum setbacks cannot be
attained, sewer lines shall be constructed of ductile iron or other substance of equal durability.
Further, pesticides (including insecticides and herbicides) should not be used for maintenance of
rights-of--way within 100 feet of perennial streams and 50 feet of intermittent streams, or within
floodplains and wetlands associated with these streams. Trenchless technology should be used
for stream crossings wherever practicable, and the open cut stream crossing method should only
be used when water level is low and stream flow is minimal.
• For the WRF: a detailed map showing the site layout and location of wetlands and streams within
the site boundaries. TM OS in the DEIS shows a site layout, but it is unclear whether this is the
final site layout and it does not detail the location of wetlands and streams within the site
boundaries.
• Clarify the permanent impacts to wetlands for the force main and gravity sewer.
• Provide an evaluation of a bank-side discharge and discharge through a diffuser. The evaluation
should include direct impacts to water quality and aquatic resources both during construction and
operation.
• If the preferred alternative is to install the outfall in the Cape Fear River, please provide the
following:
o A description of the installation method. We are particularly interested in the evaluation of
trenchless technology. If trenchless technology is not feasible, please include the reason(s).
o If the open cut method is to be used indicate whether it will be done in the dry or in the wet.
o If done in the wet, describe the sediment and erosion control measures to be implemented to
prevent direct impacts to water quality and aquatic resources.
o For any instream work, include the time of year and expected duration of construction
activities. For the Cape Fear River, we will recommend an in-water work moratorium from
15 February to at least 30 June.
• The applicant states blasting may be necessary to install the outfall structure. Explosives can
have significant adverse effects on aquatic life and may cause a fish kill. If blasting is proposed,
please provide the following information:
o A detailed description of the type and amount of explosives to be used, approximate size and
number of charges to be detonated and detonation delays between each charge.
o An estirnated start and completion date. Again, for the Cape Fear River, we will recommend
an in-water work moratorium from 15 February to at least 30 June.
o If any material, construction debris, or runoff will enter the Cape Fear River describe the
type of discharge
o Will blasting be done directly in the water or will the charge be encased in drill holes in
concrete or rock
o Provide the water depths where the charges will be detonated
o Describe the estimated distance of impact and area affected by the proposed blasting
o Describe aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat within the affected area and predicted effects
of the blasting on these habitats
o Describe measures to be used before and after construction to prevent injury to aquatic and
terrestrial wildlife resources and their habitat.

Page 4
29 June 2006
Western Wake WRF
Action ID No. 200620159
We coninue to have concerns regarding the secondary and cumulative impacts that will result
from the proposed project. We recognize that secondary and cumulative impacts are addressed in the
Secondary and Cumulative Lnpacts Master Mitigation Plans for the Towns of Apex, Cary, Holly Springs,
and Morrisville and these plans have been approved by the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. However, in our fmal comments on each these plans, which were detailed in our comments
on the DEIS (Bryant, 16 September 2005), we stated that continued degradation in area streams may be
expected without the implementation of more extensive measures.
While we are encouraged by the proactive measures each of the Town's has taken to minimize
secondary and cumulative impacts, we continue to believe that more protective measures aze needed to
protect water quality and aquatic habitats within each Town's jurisdiction. We feel strongly that the
Towns of Holly Springs and Cary should implement the measures outlined under the section Specific
Mitigation Measwes for Waters Containing Federally Listed Species in NCWRC's Guidance
Memorandum to Address and Mitigate Secondary and Cumulative Impacts to Aquatic and Terrestrial
Wildlife Resources and Water Quality (August 2002) for those portions of their jurisdiction within the
Middle Creek watershed below Sunset Lake. We believe these more protective measures are needed to
protect water quality and aquatic habitats in the Middle Creek watershed due to the presence of the dwarf
wedgemussel. In addition, we encourage the Town of Holly Springs to adopt ordinances similar to or
more protective than the Neuse River Buffer Rules as related to riparian buffer, floodplain protection and
stormwater control for those portions of their jurisdiction within the Cape Fear River watershed.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this permit application. We look forward to
reviewing the additional information. If we can provide further assistance, please contact our office at
[phone].
cc: Cyndi Karoly, DWQ
Melba McGee, OLIA
ec: Dale Suiter, USFWS
David Rabon, USFWS
Sarah McRae, NHP
Fred Tarver, DWR
Brian McRae, WRC
Corey Oakley, WRC
Keith Ashley, WRC
Ryan Heise, WRC
Isaac Harrold, WRC
Anna Smith, WRC