20011729 Ver 1_Report_20040902

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Summary and Recommendations
Summary S-1
Proposed Reclassification (Class WS-III CA) S-1
Map of the Area Proposed for Reclassification S-2
Proposed Amendment to Cape Fear River Basin S-3
Schedule of Classifications
Implications of the Proposed Reclassification S-4
Public Hearing Process and Comments Received S-5
Major Issues Raised and Responses S-7
Recommendations S-13
Request for Reclassification (includes Resolution of Support) 1
Public Announcement 18
Hearing Officer Designation 20
List of Public Hearing Attendees 21
Written Comments Received:
Supporting the Reclassification 24
Against the Reclassification 69
Appendix
NCDEH PWS Section Evaluation of Field Observations and Sampling Results A-1
DWQ Analysis of Field Observations A-4
15A NCAC 2B .0104 Considerations/Assigning/ Implementing Water Supply A-5
Classifications
15A NCAC 2B .0215 Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class A-10
WS-III Waters
Cover Letter and Public Notice Sent to Newspapers A-14
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SUMMARY
Proposed Reclassification (Class WS-III CA)
In 2002, the Town of Siler City requested that two Rocky River segments in Chatham
County (Cape Fear River Basin) be reclassified (reclassification request attached as
pages 1-17) to WS-III CA (Critical Area). Chatham County and the Town of Siler
City are the only local governments with jurisdiction in the reclassification area.
Chatham County provided written support for this reclassification (in the
reclassification request).
A Critical Area (CA) is the area adjacent to a water supply intake or reservoir where
risk associated with pollution is greater than from the remaining portions of the
watershed. The standards for Class WS-III waters, including standards for the CA, are
outlined in Rule 15A NCAC 2B .0215, Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for
Class WS-III Waters.
The proposed CA would extend along the current river from the proposed dam, which
is to be placed approximately 65 feet downstream of the existing dam, to a point
approximately 3.6 miles upstream of the proposed dam (map of the area to be affected
by the proposed reclassification on page S-2, and recommended amendment to the
Cape Fear River Basin Schedule of Classifications, which lists the existing and
recommended classifications of the waters proposed for reclassification, is on page S-
3). This proposal also includes several tributaries to the above-mentioned main stem
portion of Rocky River; some of these tributaries, which are presently classified WS-
HI, are proposed to be reclassified to WS-III CA. The new WS-III CA will be the area
(land and waters including any portions of tributary streams and rivers) measured 0.5
miles from the proposed reservoir normal pool elevation of approximately 540 feet.
The new dam will raise the normal water level above the spillway of the existing dam,
and as a result, approximately 140 acres of land will be impounded in the new CA.
The proposed CA, which is approximately 2,207 acres, includes all of the current CA,
which is approximately 168 acres; thus, the current CA will stay intact. Nearly 4.3
miles of named surface waters are proposed to be reclassified.
The waters proposed to be reclassified do meet water supply water standards
according to DWQ and DEH staff. The DEH Public Water Supply (PWS) Section
staff conducted a field survey and sampling of waters proposed to be reclassified and
concluded that they supported the reclassification (DEH PWS Section Written)
Evaluation of Field Observations and Sampling Results attached as pages A-1 through
A-3 in Appendix). DWQ staff conducted a reconnaissance within the area proposed to
be reclassified, and they "...recommend[ed] goingforward with the reclassification
without further sampling" (DWQ.Analysis of Field Observations attached as page A-4
in Appendix). Thus, the review by DWQ staff of their field observations, as well as the
S-1

V-4
1.?
d
N
d
04
y
w c
w
V P?
C.Laa
co
V >.
,..
_,a
. -a
a
w ?
?.o
...., ca
}y
I?
r?
cc
V c.a
O .?
?F+
1.'
V
b
a?
N
0
O
w
V !
'O
C
b
k 0.S
y C ?
70 -9
.T1 •Y }
•$ V o
a P3
.2 , a P-' •cd'

q i
r d
K
V O
^ I' ? O
aS O
N
a o
U q 4
CCII]] N?
u u
y.?
q,q
y a
0 0. d
m
o,o
m co
T?
A ?
O 7?
•t1. O
V N
A O
'O Tim
b S
u TJ c. 0
N ? C N
yE';v
lpn??o
_T
-' o
q
7 O ? c
i OAT
t.r U a
3z?° ?'e
as ? cs. p,
8
p C al.
GV pa "' O
O.. 7B
MV)POSED AMENDMENT TO THE CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN
SCHEDULE OF CLASSIFICATIONS AS REFERENCED IN TITLE 15A
NORTH CAROLINA ADKMSTRATIVE CODE 2B .0311
Name of Stxeam Description Class
-------------- ----------- ------
Rocky River From source to a point O'.3 mile WS-III
downstream of Lacy Creek
r
r
Mud Lick Creek From source to Rocky River WS-III
Lacy Creek From source to Rocky River WS-III
Rocky River
From dam at lower water supply C
reservoir for Siler City
to Deep River
Proposed Segment Class
From source to a WS-III
point approximately
0.3 mile upstream
of Town of Siler City
upper reservoir dam
From a point approxi- ws-III CA
mately 0•.3 mile up-
stream of Town of Siler
City upper reservoir dam
to a point approximate-
ly 0.3 mile downstream
of Lacy Creek
From source to a WS-III
point approximately
0.4 mile upstream of
Chatham County SR 1355
From a point approxi- WS-III CA
mately 0.4 mile up-
stream of Chatham
County SR 1355 to
Town of Siler City
lower water supply
reservoir
From source to a WS-III
point approximately
0.6 mile downstream
of Chatham County
SR 1362
From a point approximate- WS-III CA
ly 0.6 mile downstream of
Chatham Co. SR 1362 to
Town of Siler City lower
water supply reservoir
From dam at lower water WS-III CA
supply reservoir for
Town of Siler City to a
point approximately 65
feet below dam (site of
proposed dam)
From a point 65 feet C
below present dam to
Deep' River
S-3
NCDEH PWS Section's staff review of their field survey and sampling results,
indicated that these waters meet the criteria for the WS-III CA designation. The
criteria and standards that must be met before waters can be classified to WS-III CA
are outlined in Rule 15A NCAC 2B .0104, Considerations/Assigning/Implementing
Water Supply Classifications, and in Rule 15A NCAC 2B .0215, Fresh Surface Water
Quality Standards for WS-III Waters (rules attached as pages A-5 through A-13 in
Appendix). These criteria include several water supply standards as well as the
requirement that water supply waters must be suitable for drinking, culinary, or food
processing purposes.
There are no current or planned dischargers and no planned development in the entire
proposed reclassification area according to DWQ and local government staff. The
affected area is rural in character, with a mixture of primarily pastureland with
livestock, agricultural land, wooded/forested land, and scattered residences. However,
there is notable development occurring downstream of the proposed dam, such as in
the vicinity of Highway 64.
In summary, the waters proposed for reclassification are as follows: two Rocky River
segments currently classified as C and WS-III are proposed to be reclassified to WS-
III CA. Portions of tributaries to the main stem of the Rocky River within the proposed
CA, which are presently classified WS-III, are also proposed to be reclassified to WS-
III CA.
Implications of the Proposed Reclassification
WS-III CA protective management strategies are outlined in the following rules:
- 15A NCAC 2B .0104 Considerations/Assigning/Implementing Water Supply
Classifications
- 15A NCAC 2B ,0215 Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for WS-III Waters
(Rules attached as pages A-5 through A-13 in Appendix)
Rule 15A NCAC 2B .0 104, Considerations/Assigning/Implementing Water Supply
Classifications, describes regulations mainly pertaining to the responsibilities of local
governments with jurisdiction in water supply watersheds, and these responsibilities
involve actions concerning ordinances, engineered stormwater controls, normal pool
elevation, Agricultural Cost Share Program, etc. This regulation also addresses new,
low density, high density, expanding, existing, and cluster development,
redevelopment and variances pertaining to development in water supply watersheds.
One of the most important aspects of the rule is that local government/s that have land
use jurisdiction within the water supply watershed are responsible for developing and
implementing water supply watershed ordinances. Designated local government/s
have 270 days after the effective date of the proposed rule to develop and/or modify
their watershed protection land use ordinances to at least meet the state's minimum
requirements (15A NCAC 2B .0100 and .0200). The result of the proposed
reclassification will be that the Town of Siler City and Chatham County would be
S-4
required to modify their water supply watershed protection (WSWP) ordinances
within 270 days following the effective date of the proposed rule. Please note that the
Town of Siler City has already has modified their WSWP ordinance to meet the state's
minimum requirements for the proposed waters and Chatham County is in the process
of doing so.
If reclassified, certain development density (stormwater control) regulations will be
required in the proposed (expanded) critical area (CA). In general, a low-density
option and a high-density option are available according to the state's regulations. The
low-density option permits development at up to 12% built upon area or 1 dwelling
unit per acre in the CA, and requires thirty-foot stream set-backs. The state's high
density option for the WS-III CA is not allowed in this watershed because the Town of
Siler City and Chatham County have no high density development provision in their
water supply watershed protection ordinances; in fact, the ordinances for these two
local governments have at least the same and often stricter requirements for low
density development and buffers iri the proposed CA than the state's regulations for a
WS-III CA.
In a WS-III CA, only new wastewater discharging facilities that qualify for a general
permit will be allowed although no discharges are existing or proposed in the new CA.
The table below summarizes and compares the state requirements of the existing and
proposed classifications.
Classification Area Low Density Allowable DOT Landfills
Affected Development Wastewater BMPs Allowed
Option Discharges mandated
WS-III '/z mile from 1 DU / 1 acre or 12% General Permits Yes No New
Critical Area reservoir NPE BUA and 30' Buffers Landfills
(Proposed)
WS-III Rest of Water 1 DU / 0.5 acre or 24% Domestic and Yes No New
(Etisting) Supply BUA and 30' Buffers Non-Process Discharging
Watershed Industrial Landfills
C (Existing) Receiving No Restrictions Domestic and No Specific No Specific
Stream Industrial BMPs Restrictions
required
DU = Dwelling Unit; BUA = Built Upon Area, NPE = Normal Pool Elevation
Public Hearing Process and Comments Received
In accordance with North Carolina General Statutes, a public hearing was held on
November 6, 2003, in Siler City, North Carolina (Chatham County). Notice of the
hearing was published in the October 1, 2003, North Carolina Register (Volume 18,
Issue 7). Public announcements (announcement attached as pages 18 and 19) were sent
to those people who have requested to be placed on the Water Quality Rule-Making
Announcements mailing list and Water Quality Standards e-mail list; to local
governments with jurisdiction over land affected by the proposed reclassification; and
to all owners of land affected by the proposed reclassification. Ms. Marion Deerhake,
Ms. Anne Barnes, and Mr. Kevin Martin, Environmental Management Commission
members, served as hearing officers (hearing officer designation letter attached as page
S-5
20).. In addition, printed notices' of this hearing were requested to appear in local
newspapers: The Chatham News, The Greensboro News and Record, and The News
and Observer (cover letter and public notice sent to newspapers attached as pages A-
14 and A-15 in Appendix).
Because a State 401 Water Quality Certification would be needed before the Town
could be given a Federal 404 (Dredge and Fill) permit to build the dam, a "duel
purpose" hearing was held. The hearing received comments on the water supply
reclassification and on the 401 Certification. The report on the 401 Certification issue
is being prepared by the Division of Water Quality staff and the Division Director will
determine whether a 401 Certification will be issued. That information will be passed
on to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to use in their decision on whether to issue a
404 (Dredge and Fill) permit.
One hundred fifteen people registered at the public hearing (list of attendees attached
as pages 21 through 23). Seven attendees did not register for the hearing. Of those 115
people who registered, 75 provided the organization/s they were representing. Several
people belonged to environmental or conservation groups and others identified
themselves as representing citizens, landowners, and/or representatives on behalf of
other specific people. In addition, four consulting companies, three unidentifiable
entities, two local governments (Chatham County and the Town of Siler City), two
farms, two industries, one trucking company, a local newspaper, a hydroelectric firm,
a hospital, and one law firm were represented. Opening comments and slides were
presented by DWQ staff to provide a brief overview of the DWQ classification
program and detailed information about the proposed reclassification. A session in
which the public was given the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed
reclassification followed.
Thirty-six individuals registered to make comments at the hearing about the proposed
reclassification. However, four people were not able to stay long enough at the hearing
to provide verbal comments, decided not to speak, or did not respond when called
upon to comment. Four people spoke after the registered speakers provided their
comments, and all four of these individuals had already provided verbal comments
once. Of the 32 individuals who spoke, seven spoke in favor of the proposed
reclassification, two spoke neither for nor against the reclassification, and 23 voiced
sentiments against the proposed reclassification. People who spoke in support of the
reclassification represented industries, a school, the town and the county. People who
commented against the reclassification represented a hydroelectric firm, environmental
groups, landowners, citizens, and/or provided no affiliation.
Written comments were accepted through December 8, 2003, and 426 letters were
received during the comment period. Nine letters were received in favor of the
proposed reclassification (letters supporting proposed reclassification attached as
pages 24-68; please note that a copy of the "Chatham County Watershed Protection
Ordinance" effective January 1, 1994, and a copy of "Amendments to the UDO"
printed from the internet on December 3, 2003, were attached to the 10 page letter in
S-6
support of the reclassification from Joel Brower; due to the length of these documents,
they are not included in this Report of Proceedings but are available upon request).
Four hundred seventeen letters were submitted against the proposed reclassification
(letters against proposed reclassification attached as pages 69-250 and in order as
described in this paragraph). Fourteen letters against the proposed reclassification were
identical, and thus, copies of one template letter. Another 347 letters against the
proposed reclassification were identical to another template (only one copy of each
template is included in this document). Twenty-eight letters were various versions of
the two templates. Only 28 letters against the reclassification were unique, meaning
they did not share the same language with either of the templates. The two templates
comprise the majority of comments received, and cited several reasons opposing the
proposal, which DWQ staff subsequently investigated thoroughly.
Please note that some people provided more than one letter and/or commented
verbally. Of all the letters., all received in support of the reclassification were written
by people representing the town, three industries, a school, a hospital and the county.
However, only some of the letters against the reclassification provided the authors'
affiliations, and these affiliations included a downstream discharger, hydroelectric
firm, church, heavy duty truck/equipment services, farms, landowners, environmental
groups, university, residents, citizens, automobile body shop, trailer park, and three
unknown organizations.
Major Issues Raised and Responses
Listed below are the major issues raised and the DWQ staff responses to those issues..
Issue: Many commenters indicated their belief that there are much better solutions for
meeting Siler City's water needs than this proposed plan to build a new dam.
Response: DWQ staff checked with Division of Water Resources (DWR) personnel
on the main alternative most highly discussed in the template comment letters: getting
water from Chatham County via an additional allocation from Jordan Lake. The
Division staff (Woody Yonts, P.E., memo dated 3/16/2004) provided the following
comments regarding the availability of water supplies to meet the needs of Siler City.
"The available water supply for Siler City is 4 mgd. The projected maximum daily
demands for Siler City will reach 6 mgd before 2020. The monthly maximum daily
demand average was 3.6 MGD or about 97 percent of the available supply in 2002, a
time when customers were asked to reduce demand for 6 months; 3-months voluntary
and 3-months mandatory. The sources of emergency supply for the Town during the
1998-2002 were raw water from a nearby private pond pumped through temporary
piping placed in the median of US Highway 421 and water tanker trucks carrying raw
water from the Deep River to the Town's Upper Reservoir. Five alternatives in
addition to the preferred alternative, Lower Reservoir Expansion, were considered in
detail as a part of the EA process."
S-7
"We do not know of any assurance that Chatham County will get additional allocation
anytime in the foreseeable future or any guarantee an interbasin transfer (IBT) certificate
will be issued to transfer more surface water from the Haw River Basin to another river
basin."
"The projected maximum daily demand in 2020 for the County's three service areas
would reach 8.3 mgd. The projected maximum daily demand in 2020 for Siler City would
exceed 6 mgd. It appears that the County would need more than 8 mgd to serve its own
needs at the year 2020 and not have water to supply 2 mgd to Siler City. "
It is important to note that for many who objected to the reclassification, the need for
more drinking water was not the point of contention; several commenters simply
disagreed on the best way for the Town to get additional drinking water. As one of the
people at the hearing stated "I don't believe anyone in this room denies the fact that
there is a water problem in Siler City, we only argue with the solution that has been
found."
Issue: Many commenters stated their belief that the Siler City Wastewater Treatment
Plant (WWTP) "...has a long history of violations that needs to be addressed before
further demands are put on the plant by a larger reservoir." One statement was
received indicating that the plant was out of compliance over 50% during certain
months.
Response: The EMC hearing officers asked the DWQ staff to look into the statements
made on the compliance of Siler City's Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The
staff selected four nearby municipal wastewater treatment plants for comparison. The
number of months where some permit violations occurred was compiled for each of
the four facilities during the past four years (48 months). The Town of Siler City
showed some type of permit violation in 35% of the months during that period. The
other municipalities showed permit violations occurring in 8%, 15%, 6% and 4% of
the months during that period. Although this analysis was very simplistic, it does seem
to indicate that compliance problems do exist at the Siler City facility. However, it
should be noted that Siler City has very stringent effluent limitations, more stringent
than most of those facilities, and continual compliance is more of a challenge.
Discussions with DWQ regional field staff provided an opinion that Siler City had
significant problems in the past but that the Town had made considerable
improvements in their record.
The Hearing Officers have requested that during the upcoming permit renewal (permit
expires 10/31/06), that the DWQ staff give serious consideration to the compliance
issues of the Siler City treatment facility and evaluate what action should be taken to
minimize the impact on water quality. It is the intent of the Hearing Officers that any
wastewater discharge permit expansions that might be enabled by development of this
enlarged reservoir do not result in any degradation of the receiving waters of Loves
Creek or the Rocky River.
&8
Issue: "...expanding the reservoir will adversely impact both terrestrial and aquatic
species in the areas inundated." "The proposed reservoir expansion will also adversely
impact water quality by disturbing wetlands."
Response: The expansion of the reservoir and inundation of additional acres will have
an adverse impact on some aquatic species and wetlands. These issues are a critical
component of the 401 Certification that must be issued before the US Army Corps of
Engineers can issue their 404 Permit that is needed to construct the dam. The Hearing
Officers have been informed of many of the conditions that will be required for 401
Certification approval. They believe that the 401 Certification's conditions to
minimize adverse impacts and to mitigate for impacts that do occur are an appropriate
mechanism to address those concerns.
Issue: Concerns were expressed about how the larger reservoir will exacerbate
existing problems seen in the present reservoir and downstream.
Response: There are some indications that excessive nutrients do adversely impact
the quality of the existing reservoirs. Livestock have been observed adjacent to the
reservoirs and some streams in the watershed. Some pasture and row crop activities
certainly contribute nutrients to the reservoirs. There is no evidence that just having a
larger reservoir will exacerbate the nutrient problems in the proposed reservoir or
downstream. However, the desire to minimize problems in a new reservoir and
downstream has been a focal point of the reclassification and the 401 Certification.
The Town has agreed to take several steps to minimize future problems. Some of
those steps include:
• The Town expanded its Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ), which gives them
control of both sides of the Rocky River for a distance totaling approximately
18 miles. Prior to the ETJ expansion, the Town had jurisdiction of only 6.28
miles along only one side of the Rocky River.
• The Town modified its Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) as suggested
by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. The most important
modifications relating to. water quality include:
• Increasing the minimum buffer requirements along the Rocky River, perennial
tributaries and intermittent tributaries within the Town's ETJ to between 50
and 200 feet. A 200-foot buffer will be imposed along the entire reach of the
Rocky River within the Town's planning area and along all perennial and
intermittent streams within 2,500 feet of the Rocky River. Beyond 2,500 feet,
the buffer requirement will be 100 feet for perennial streams and 50 feet for
intermittent streams within the Town's jurisdiction. (Areas within the Town's
jurisdiction but outside of the Rocky River subbasin are required to have 100-
foot buffers on perennial streams and 50-foot buffers on intermittent streams.)
• Requiring that new developments limit impervious surfaces by
limiting/discouraging the use of curb and gutter and requiring grassed swales
where the slope is less than 5%.
• Requiring stormwater controls for any new development exceeding 7 percent
impervious surface area. (It should be noted that most existing General 401
S-9
Water Quality Certificati6ns only require stormwater management for
development that exceeds 30% impervious surface area.)
• Prohibiting the direct discharge of stormwater via ditches or pipes in or
through buffer areas. Alternate stormwater discharge methods, such as
infiltration practices, will be encouraged over the use of detention ponds.
• A fenced 100-foot vegetative buffer (117.3 acres) will be maintained around
the expanded reservoir. All wetlands (0.31 acres) and stream channels (773
linear feet) within this buffer will be preserved, enhanced or restored, as
appropriate. Additionally, approximately 34 other wetland sites (17.89 acres)
will be created.
• The Town has agreed to install a continuous monitoring gage in cooperation
with the United States Geological Survey (USGS) at a location to be approved
by the Department in the vicinity of the U.S.. Highway 64 crossing of the
Rocky River. The public can easily monitor this information through the USGS
website where flow readings will be made available every 15 minutes. The
Division will continue to evaluate the impact on the stream's quality and, if
needed, will seek modifications in the reservoir's operation strategy to improve
downstream quality.
Issue: Because many citizens have seen undeniable evidence of poor water quality in
areas downstream of the existing reservoir for many years, a major concern voiced in
letters and at the public hearing was the potential for reductions in downstream flow
during dry, summer climatological events or droughts.
Response: This issue has been a serious concern of the hearing officers and the
Division of Water Quality staff. The investigation of this issue has been the focus of
major expenditures of time and resources by the staffs of the Division of Water
Quality and the Division of Water Resources. Siler City also funded a hydrology
consultant to prepare analyses of various operating procedure options, such as
increasing release rates and frequencies. In order to address these issues of river
quality, staff in both Divisions in coordination with the N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service have recommended some changes in
the required operating procedures of the proposed reservoir. The goal of these
procedures would be that the Town would increase the minimum release of water
during normal and low flow conditions and would also be required to provide "pulse
releases" that would better mimic conditions as they might be without a reservoir.
After months of evaluation of the potential for adverse impacts on the Rocky River,
the Division of Water Quality has concluded that certain actions must be taken by the
Town. The Town has agreed to meet the following conditions:
• The minimum release regime for the proposed reservoir will provide
for significantly higher flows than the current minimum release regime
during several months. In many cases the flows will be higher than
would have occurred absent the dams.
• The minimum release regime for the proposed reservoir would be
significantly higher in months that are important for fish reproduction.
S-10
The proposed minimum release flows are based on a field study and
modeling of downstream flows and aquatic habitat, and incorporate
several differences in flow needs.
• The minimum releases would be higher in 15 of 36 conditions (one for
each month for each of 3 tiers [defined below]) and are never lower
than the present regime. At build-out (water supply withdrawal of six
mgd, which is not projected to occur until well after the year 2025), for
days when the current reservoir is below full (and minimum releases
are made), flows from the new reservoir will be higher than those from
the current reservoir about 60 percent of the time. At no time will the
release be less than that which would occur from the current reservoir.
• During the worst two-three weeks of major droughts, flows from the
new reservoir will be higher than those that would have occurred if
there were no dams on the River.
• The Town has agreed to re-design the outlet works of the proposed
reservoir to allow releases of up to 20 cubic feet per second (cfs) to
allow for pulse releases.
• The Town will ensure there is a pulse release of 20 cfs for a 12-hour
period every 30 days whenever the aggregate storage remaining in the
two reservoirs is greater than 40 percent (Tiers 1 and 2.) (Tier 1 is less
than full but more than 70 percent storage remaining; Tier 2 is less than
70 percent storage remaining but more than 40 percent storage
remaining; Tier 3 is less than 40 percent storage remaining.) In the
early years, the system will be in Tier 3 less than 2 percent of the time;
even at full build-out, the reservoir will be in Tier 3 only 5 percent of
the time. During drought years, the pulse release regime will provide
twice as many pulses during the critical -months of July through
September as the current reservoir and 25 percent more than would
occur if there were no reservoirs.
Issue: The proposed dam will negatively impact endangered aquatic species
downstream.
Response: Freshwater fish sampling in the affected area was conducted at several
locations within the proposed site and downstream of the proposed dam in July and
August of 2000. A total of 26 species were collected and fully delineated in the
Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared for this proposal. Most of the fish captured
were typical of those found in Piedmont streams with good water quality. In addition,
records from the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NC WRC) were
reviewed to determine if there were any fish species of concern in the proposed site or
immediately downstream of the proposed dam. No state or federally-listed endangered
or threatened fish species were found in the site sampling or the WRC records.
The Cape Fear Shiner (Notropis mekistocholas) is a federally endangered
species known to exist in four populations in the lower reaches of the Cape Fear
drainage in Randolph, Moore, Lee, Chatham, and Harnett Counties. Accordingly, US
S-11
Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) critical habitats have been designated for the Cape
Fear Shiner. According to the project EA, the nearest Cape Fear Shiner critical habitat
in the Rocky River is approximately 15 miles downstream of the project site.
Although this is a considerable distance from the proposed dam and reservoir, Cape
Fear Shiner data was incorporated into the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology
(IFIM), which was utilized to evaluate minimum release alternatives for the Rocky
River Lower Reservoir. As detailed in the EA, this analysis showed that the flow
regime within the approved minimum releases to be acceptable for the Cape Fear
Shiner; however, it should be highlighted that no Cape Fear Shiners were found in the
surveys associated with this proposal and this project is not within any Cape Fear
Shiner critical habitat.
Freshwater mussel surveys were also conducted in the proposed project area.
According to the Environmental Assessment, freshwater mussel species appear to be
fairly diverse and abundant within the project site. The following mussel species were
observed in the project area during?these surveys: Eastern Floater, Paper Pondshell,
Carolina Lance, Eastern Elliptio, Carolina Slabshell, Variable Spike, and Eastern
Creekshell. Of these, only the Eastern Creekshell carries any federal or state
designation. The Eastern Creekshell is currently State-listed as a "Significantly-Rare"
(SR) species. However, NC WRC records indicate the occurrence of the following
freshwater mussel species in the area of the Rocky River below SR 1314 to the
confluence of the Rock River and Bear Creek (approximately 23 miles): Brook
Floater, which is a Federal Species of Concern (FSC) and a State Endangered Species;
Atlantic Pigtoe, a FSC and State Endangered Species; Notched Rainbow, a State
Species of Concern; the Creeper, a State Threatened Species; and the Carolina
Creekshell, a FSC and State Endangered Species. Of these, the Carolina Creekshell is
perhaps the most significant because in 1995 WRC Staff found one Carolina
Creekshell above the US Highway 64 Bridge, south of the project site.
However, the new minimum and pulse release schedule that would be
contained in the operating procedures of the proposed new dam, which was detailed in
the previous response, will improve the instream flow conditions that are currently
experienced with the existing dam. As a result of this improvement, it is the opinion
of DWQ Staff that the proposed dam's new flow regime will actually have a beneficial
impact on the mussel habitat below the new Lower Reservoir.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is the recommendation of the Hearing Officers that the reclassification of Rocky
River, as proposed herein, be approved by the Environmental Management
Commission. This recommendation is based on the understanding that the Town of
Siler City will take the mitigative measures specified in the Summary and
Recommendations portion of this document. It is recommended that the 401
Certification also include these provisions.
S-12
In making this recommendation on reclassification, the Hearing Officers have
considered the requirements of General Statutes and Commission Rules. In particular,
concerns that the project would adversely affect the already-stressed waters
downstream of the proposed dam and that other, better alternative solutions might
exist, were of critical importance to the Hearing Officers. The Hearing Officers'
recommendation specifically directs the staff of the Division of Water Quality to give
careful consideration to the potential impact the nutrients in Siler City's wastewater
treatment plant effluent may be having on the water quality problems experienced in
the main channel of the river. At the next NPDES permit renewal for the Siler City
facility (expires 10/31/06), the staff should evaluate the facility's compliance record
and the impact that nutrient discharges are having on the River's water quality.
In taking this action, Rule 15A NCAC 2B .0311, which references the Schedule of
Classifications for the Cape Fear River Basin, will show that the Environmental
Management Commission has revised the schedule for four segments of surface
waters, more specifically: (1) a portion of Rocky River [Index Number 17-43-(1)]
from a point approximately 0.3 mile upstream of Town of Siler City upper reservoir
dam to a point approximately 0.3 mile downstream of Lacy Creek from WS-III to WS-
III CA, (2) a portion of Rocky River [Index Number 17-43-(8)] from dam at lower
water supply reservoir for Town of Siler City to a point approximately 65 feet below
dam (site of proposed dam) from C to WS-III CA, (3) a portion of Mud Lick Creek
(Index No. 17-43-6) from a point approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Chatham
County SR 1355 to Town of Siler City lower water supply reservoir from WS-III to
WS-III CA, and (4) a portion of Lacy Creek (17-43-7) from a point approximately 0.6
mile downstream of Chatham County SR 1362 to Town of Siler City lower water
supply reservoir from WS-III to WS-III CA.
If this reclassification is approved by the EMC at its September meeting, then
approved in October by the Rules Review Commission without any objections per
G.S. 150B, the proposed effective date of the reclassification will be November 1,
2004. If any objections are received in accordance with G.S. 150B, the rule could be
delayed to a later effective date.
S-13