20061203 Ver 1_EPA Comments_20060713

UNITED 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 [phone] 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
. __` .