Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20061203 Ver 1_EPA Comments_20060713UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY . ~~ S"TFS REGION 4 . A • ~~~ ~ Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center ~~ ~~~~ 61 Forsyth Street, S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 - 8960 ~~\ ._. July 7, 2006 ,J~[_ j ~ '" 2006 Colonel John E. Pulliam, Jr. - °~~~ _ ;,,,A~,=~ c~u~„"~ rv V!'~Tl ~,n,~n~ e~,~, . ~~ ~:, a~r~. r;c!a ~rn~df~H District Engineer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ATTN: Mr. Monte Matthews 6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120 Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 SUBJ: Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Public 1`Totice Action ID: 200620159 Dear Colonel Pulliam: / This letter is in reference to the application by Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Project Partners, described in the above referenced Public Notice (PN), dated June 7, 2006. The applicant is proposing to constrpct wastewater management facilities to provide treatment of wastewater as required by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission inter-basin transfer certificate for the communities of Apex, Cary and Morrisville. The project consists of five main portions: the Western Wake Water Reclamation Facility, West ~ary~ump Station, Beaver Creek Pump Station, the outfall structure and several miles of effluent/raw water force main and gravity fed transmission routes. The proposed impacts are temporary impacts to approximately 22.4 acres of forested wetlands; 4,3001inear feet of streams and a 60 foot by 400 foot area within the Cape Fear River and permanent impacts to approximately 12.9 acres of wetlands; 1,4351inear feet of perennial streams and an 18 foot by 400 foot area within the Cape Fear River. The applicant proposes to mitigate for the permanent impacts by utilizing the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the following comments on the proposed project. Our major concern with the project information, we have reviewed to date, is the use of the alternative analysis data to select the applicant's preferred alternative. From our review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Technical Memorandum No. O5, it appears environmental considerations were-not included as a criterion in making the selection. This is stated several times in the above referenced documents. The DEIS states that the environmental considerations were not used since "... the facilities (were) placed outside of wetlands, gamelands and stream buffers." We are not sure how to interpret this statement since the preferred alternative has substantial temporary and permanent impacts to both wetlands and streams. Technical Memorandum No. OS states that, "(G)iven that no major environmental issues were identified for any of the areas, and the impacts for each area could not adequately be assessed without more detailed analysis (i.e., site layouts) the Environmental Considerations factor was not weighted..." 2 From the information we have reviewed, it is our opinion, the applicant is not in compliance with the alternatives analysis requirement of the Clean Water Act's 404 (b)(1) Guidelines that a project shall not be permitted if there is a practicable alternative with less ~`e~vironmentally damaging impacts on the aquatic ecosystem. The applicant has taken into consideration the "practicability" factors of this requirement, in their weighting of alternatives .for costs and logistics, but not the environmental factors. By leaving out this very important part _ of the weighting consideration it makes it very difficult for us to determine if the preferred alternative is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA). This is especially problematic since the applicant's preferred alternative sitel4 is the second highest scoring alternative in the environmental impacts category in the ranking table (DEIS figure 4-6) for the 12 short listed sites. We also have concerns with the high level of wetland impacts associated with the transmission lines and recommend the routes be closely evaluated to determine if additional reduction in impacts maybe achieved by a realignment of routes in areas where feasible. We also are concerned about the potential secondary and cumulative impacts associated with the construction of a regional wastewater treatment plant. This issue has not been adequately addressed in the information we have reviewed. / EPA appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. We believe the project is ~ not approvable until an alternatives analysis is completed that thoroughly evaluates the environmental as well as the practicability factors, so a determination can be made as to which is the LEDPA as required by the 404(b)(1) Guidelines. We welcome the opportunity to review any additional information submitted by the applicant. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Becky Fox at (828) 497-3531 or fox.rebecca~ epa.gov. --~. Sincerely, !111 ~ Ronald J. Mikulak, Chie€-- Wetlands Regulatory Section cc: USFWS, Raleigh NCDWQ, Raleigh NCDWQ, Raleigh NCWRC, Kernersville 3 cc List: _ -. \~ ~~ Ms. Cyndi Karoly NC Division of Water Quality _ 1650 Mail Service Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650 - " Mr. Daryl Lamb NC Division of Water Quality 585 Waughtown Street Winston Salem, North Carolina 27107 Mr. Pete Banjamin US Fish and Wildlife Service PO Box 33726 Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726 / Ms. Shari L. Bryant NC Wildlife Resources Commission ~ PO Box 129 ~ . Sedalia, NC 27342-0129 . __` .