20061203 Ver 1_Other Agency Comments_20060920 (2)

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P. O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO September 18, 2006
Regulatory Division
Action ID. 200620159
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management
Facilities Project Partners
Attn: Mr. Kim Fisher
Town of Cary
420 James Jackson Avenue
Cary, North Carolina 27513
Dear Mr. Fisher:
Reference our June 7, 2006, Public Notice for the proposed impacts associated with the
construction of the Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities. The proposed
project site is located from the Cape Fear River below Buckhorn Dam, in Chatham County, North
Carolina to the West Cary Pump Station on Green Level West Road, in Wake County, North
Carolina, and includes a 235-acre site at New Hill, North Carolina, for a proposed water reclamation
facility. Impacts associated with the project include permanent impacts to approximately 1,435
linear feet of stream, 12.9 acres of wetlands, and an 18-foot by 400-foot area within the Cape Fear
River and temporary impacts to an estimated 4,300 linear feet of streams, 22.4 acres of wetlands,
and a 60-foot by 400-foot area within the Cape Fear River. The impacts are proposed to wetlands
and streams within the Cape Fear River Basin (8-Digit Cataloging Unit 03030002).
After review of your proposal, several .letters were received from members of the public
and the resource agencies which contain comments/concerns requiring additional information,
additional analysis, or changes to the project proposal. All letters have been attached for your
review and consideration, with a brief summary of the main items provided below.
Many comments were received concerning the methods used during your review of the
alternatives analysis for the water reclamation facility at New Hill, North Carolina. Pertinent items
include, but are not limited to:
(1) Justification for the elimination of sites. The sites were ranked via a
weighted method on several different factors throughout the evaluation period. This
method soon becomes confusing with little data supporting the various weights given to
each factor. For example, project cost comparisons were used at different times during the
evaluation process. This gives an appearance that various aspects of cost were used to
eliminate particular sites, rather than utilizing an overall cost parameter once during the

evaluation. The process of site elimination should be a clear and defensible process.
Based on the information provided, we are unable to justify these particular weights and
we are unable to clearly outline the elimination process in a permit document.
Accordingly, clarification will need to be provided regarding elimination of alternatives.
(2) In addition, environmental considerations are not assigned a weight during
the Phase II evaluation of the remaining twelve sites. Later in the process, environmental
considerations were not used at all during the selection of the final three sites, nor when the
preferred site was selected. The comment letter issued from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency states that this selection process does not appear to meet the Clean
Water Act's 404(b)(1) guidelines. Meeting these guidelines is a requirement of the 404
permit. Please reassess the elimination of sites and the selection of a least damaging
practicable alternative utilizing environmental data, primarily streams and wetland
impacts.
(3) Misleading statements within the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) that state that the water reclamation facilities would be placed outside of wetlands,
stream buffers, etc. Since the Public Notice shows aquatic impacts for this facility, these
statements are contradictory. Please clarify this situation.
(4) Preliminary studies conducted by the Corps of Engineers indicate that
Environmental Justice is a concern with the site selection of the Water Reclamation
Facility at New Hill, North Carolina. This concern also appears in many of the comment
letters. As discussed in recent meetings and phone conversations, the Environmental
Justice analysis provided within the DEIS does not appear to be adequate. Please conduct
a proper analysis as outlined in the Executive Order 12898 that was directed through the
Environmental Protection Agency.
(5) Potential impacts to listed, or structures eligible for listing, Historical
structures and/or a Historical District. Please continue to work with the State Historical
Preservation Office on issues pertaining to historical items and provide information to the
Corps on their protection.
(6) The sites located on Progress Energy property were mentioned several
times, each as a potential site that may have been improperly evaluated in areas such as the
Area Ratio parameter, cost, and other factors. Additional information clarifying the
evaluation of these sites is necessary.
2

Comments were also received concerning secondary and cumulative effects stemming
from this proposal. The Secondary and Cumulative Impacts Master Mitigation Plan from each of
the Project Partners has been referenced as the primary control for these impacts. In letters dated
January 17, and March 21, 2006, the Corps of Engineers commented on several areas of the DEIS
including secondary and cumulative effects. These letters state that the measures mentioned by the
Partners within their SCIMMP documents are no more restrictive that the restrictions imposed by
the regulatory agencies. Since a stated purpose of this proposal is to allow for growth within the
service area, the Partners should attempt to control secondary and cumulative aquatic impacts
through the implementation of stronger, and more restrictive, control measures. Several Public
Notice comment letters mentioned concerns with this type of growth and the lack of an adequate
secondary and cumulative control system. Other comment letters indicate a concern that areas
outside the jurisdiction of each municipality, such as the community of New Hill, is not included
within any of the SCIMMP documents. Please provide further information on these topics.
In addition, impacts from other projects inherently tied to sewer lines have not been
addressed. For example, water line expansion is expected as this project allows for additional
growth. Since growth has been identified as project purpose, the secondary and cumulative effects
of these types of additional impacts should be addressed during this project proposal.
The proposed location of the outfall structure is within the Cape Fear River, just below
Buckhorn Dam in Chatham County, North Carolina. It appears that this location was chosen in
cooperation with the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) as an area where
expected flow amounts could handle apoint-source discharge. Other sites were analyzed but
rejected due mainly to their listing, or potential listing, to the state's 303(d) impaired waters list.
Comment letters from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources (NCDENR), and the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) express
concern with the proposed location of the outfall structure. These agencies listed a number of
species found within this reach of the Cape Fear River and stated that this particular reach is
distinctive when evaluating potential habitat and water quality. In addition, concerns for degrading
any recreational opportunities were expressed as a potential impact. Please clarify the site selection
process for the outfall structure, and forward past letters from NCDWQ indicating the unfeasibility
of utilizing the other study outfall locations. Also, please provide information concerning the
protection of recreation opportunities, and the expected impacts to native aquatic species, as well as,
any protective measures that could be implemented for these species.
The NCWRC and NCDENR also cites the evaluation of a bank-side discharge vs. the
proposed in-stream diffuser as mentioned in the DEIS. No data appears to be available resulting
from this evaluation, including detailed channel profile information. Please provide this data for
3

their review. In addition, they have several concerns with the use of explosives within the Cape
Fear River for installation of the outfall structure. If the use of explosives is expected, provide the
additional information as requested within their comment letter.
Stream and wetland delineations will be conducted at all impact areas using design
standards which show accurate impact amounts. These delineations will be verified by Corps
personnel and surveyed maps showing expected impacts will be provided to the resource agencies.
Also of concern is the possible decline in the quality of life for the residents of New Hill.
Since New Hill is the preferred location of the water reclamation facility, but will not be serviced by
this facility, several public interest factors must be evaluated and found to be minimal in nature
when compared to the overall need of the project. Such factors include: environmental hazards
from a sewage spill including impacts to farm ponds, drinking wells, and the protection of Jordan
Lake; changes to aesthetics within the New Hill area, including possible odors; possible changes to
property values; and the apparent lack of representation for New Hill during the planning stages of
this proposal.
Please note that these were not all the comments received on this proposal. As stated
above, copies of all letters and correspondence have been attached for your review and
consideration. If possible, please provide a response to these issues within 60 days. If you have any
questions or concerns, please contact Mr. Monte Matthews at [phone] x30 or at the
letterhead address.
Sincerely,
~a.~~S
Jean B. Manuele
Chief, Raleigh Regulatory
Field Office
Attachments
4

CF: w/o attachments
Ms. Cyndi Karoly
North Carolina Department of Water Quality
16750 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Mr. Dan Blaisdell, P.E.
Construction Grants and Loans Section
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
1633 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1633
Mr. Thomas C. Esqueda, P.E.
CDM
5400 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27612
5