20040165 Ver 2_Other Agency Comments_20050614

0y - ol(, s
U?tt
0-\D- I kA--0L
aT i=
9 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 0
Richard B. Hamilton, Executive Director V
MEMORANDUM 0 15 @ D
TO: Ms. Andrea Wade, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office JUN 1 4 2005
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
,? e• WETLANDS AND S TTOWWA E (BRANCH
FROM: hari L. Bryant, P mont Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: 10 June 2005
SUBJECT: Public Notice for PS/SE Ballentine, LLC for Construction of Ballentine Subdivision -
Phases 5, 6 and 7, Wake County, North Carolina. Action ID No. 200520702
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 impact 139 linear feet of an unnamed tributary to Terrible Creek and
0.175 acre of wetlands (bottomland hardwood forest) for installation of culverts for a road crossing. The
impacts are associated with the construction of a 156 single-family residential subdivision that is part of
Ballentine subdivision which includes four previous phases of residential development. Impacts from
previous construction total 0.705 acre of streams and wetlands. The mitigation plan includes payment
into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) to restore up to 278 linear feet of
perennial channel and 0.26 acre of riparian wetlands.
The unnamed tributary flows to Terrible Creek upstream of Johnson's pond, an impoundment of
Terrible Creek. Terrible Creek is a tributary to Middle Creek in the Neuse River basin. Although there
are no records for federal or state listed species in Terrible Creek, there are records for the federal and
state endangered dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon); the federal species of concern and state
significantly rare pinewoods shiner (Lythrurus matutinus); the state threatened creeper (Strophitus
undulatus), triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata), eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata radiata);
Roanoke slabshell (Elliptio roanokensis), and least brook lamprey (Lampetra aepyptera); and the state
special concern notched rainbow (Villosa constricta) in Middle Creek.
We hesitate to concur with the piping of stream channels due to the potential for long-term and
cumulative impacts. Piping a stream channel and filling the wetlands will alter the hydrology of the
existing channel and eliminate beneficial functions. Changes in land use from a primarily forested area to
an urban landscape may exacerbate channel degradation and sediment impacts to stream ecosystems due
Mailing Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
Page 2
10 dune 2005
Ballentine Subdivision
Action ID No. 200520702
to increased stormwater runoff. Multiple studies have shown that stream degradation occurs at 10%
impervious (Schueler 1994; Arnold and Gibbons 1996; Doll et al. 2000; Mallin et al. 2000; May and
Horner 2000; Stewart et al. 2000; Paul and Meyer 2001).
It is our understanding that compensatory mitigation for wetlands is 2:1 for restoration, 3:1 for
creation, 4:1 for enhancement and 10:1 for preservation (in combination with appropriate restoration,
creation and enhancement). Therefore, we feel that compensatory mitigation should include payment into
NCEEP for restoration of 0.35 acre riparian wetland unless other mitigation measures (e.g., preservation
of remaining wetlands within the development) are proposed. It is unclear whether mitigation has been
proposed or performed for previous stream and wetland impacts (0.705 acre). We feel that mitigation for
previous impacts should be included in the mitigation plan if these are not already included and mitigation
for these previous impacts has not been performed.
Should it be determined that an adequate mitigation plan is provided and the permit is issued, we
recommend the following conditions be incorporated into the permit to reduce impacts to fish and wildlife
resources.
1. To minimize additional stream impacts, while retaining some measure of wildlife habitat, we
recommend that a 100-foot undisturbed, native, forested buffer along perennial streams, and a 50-
foot buffer along intermittent streams and wetlands. Maintaining undisturbed, forested buffers
along these areas will minimize impacts to fish and wildlife resources, water quality, and aquatic
habitat both within and downstream of the project area. In addition, wide riparian buffers are
helpful in maintaining stability of stream banks and for treatment of pollutants associated with
stormwater runoff. Whereas, a grassed buffer, particularly fescue, is a vegetated buffer but will
not provide the necessary and highly valuable functions as discussed for forested buffers.
2. We recommend that all remaining wetlands and streams on the site should be protected from
additional impacts by placing them in a permanent conservation easement to prohibit filling,
draining, flooding, and excavation.
3. Use bridges for all permanent roadway crossings of streams and associated wetlands to eliminate
the need to fill and culvert, where practicable. If culverts must be used, the culvert should be
designed to allow passage of aquatic organisms. Generally, this means that the culvert or pipe
invert is buried at least one foot below the natural streambed. If multiple cells are required, the
second and/or third cells should be placed so that their bottoms are at stream bankfull stage. This
will allow sufficient water depth in the culvert or pipe during normal flows to accommodate
movements of aquatic organisms. If culverts are long and sufficient slope exists, baffle systems
are recommended to trap gravel and provide resting areas for fish and other aquatic organisms. If
multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to remain dry during
normal flows to allow for wildlife passage. In addition, culverts or pipes should be situated so
that no channel realignment or widening is required. Widening of the stream channel at the inlet
or outlet of structures usually causes a decrease in water velocity causing sediment deposition that
will require future maintenance. Finally, riprap should not be placed on the streambed.
4. To adequately protect streams, it is suggested that impervious surface is limited to less than 10%.
Suggested examples to accomplish the <10% impervious goal are using conventional designs at a
level of <10% imperviousness or using conservation clusters with higher densities, with dedicated
open space and other stormwater control measures to mimic the hydrograph consistent with an
impervious coverage of less than IO%.
Page 3
10 June 2005
Ballentine Subdivision
Action ID No. 200520702
Locate sewers and other utilities as far away from creeks as functionally possible and minimize
stream crossings. It is preferable that sewers be located outside the riparian buffers.
6. We recommend that landscaping consist of non-invasive native species and LID technology.
Using native species instead of ornamentals should provide benefits by reducing the need for
fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. Additionally, native species should require less water.
Using LID technology in landscaping will not only help maintain the predevelopment hydrologic
regime, but also enhance the aesthetic and habitat value of the site.
7. Specialized efforts and techniques are implemented to reduce sediment runoff from construction
activities. Excessive silt and sediment loads can have numerous detrimental effects on aquatic
resources including destruction of spawning habitat, suffocation of eggs, and clogging of gills of
aquatic species.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can provide further assistance,
please contact our office at (336) 449--7625.
Literature cited
Arnold, C. L., and C. J. Gibbons. 1996. Impervious surface coverage-the emergence of a key
environmental indicator. Journal of the American Planning Association 62:243-258.
Doll, B. A., D. E. Wise-Frederick, C. M. Buckner, S. D. Wilkerson, W. A. Harman, and R. E. Smith.
2000. Hydraulic geometry relationships for urban streams throughout the piedmont of North
Carolina. Pages 299-304 in P. J. Wigington, Jr. and R. L. Beschta, eds. Proceedings of the
American Water Resources Association International Conference on riparian ecology and
management in multi-land use watersheds, Portland, Oregon.
Mallin, M. A., K. E. Williams, E. C. Esham, and R. P. Lowe. 2000. Effect of human development on
bacteriological water quality in coastal watersheds. Ecological Applications 10(4):1047--1056.
May, C. W. and R. R. Horner. 2000. The cumulative impacts of watershed urbanization on stream-
riparian ecosystems. Pages 281-286 in P. J. Wigington, Jr. and R. L. Beschta, eds. Proceedings
of the American Water Resources Association International Conference on riparian ecology and
management in multi-land use watersheds, Portland, Oregon.
Paul, M. J., and J. L. Meyer. 2001. Streams in the urban landscape. Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics 32:333-365.
Schueler, T. 1994. The importance of imperviousness. Watershed Protection Techniques. 1(3):100-
Ill.
Stewart, J. S,, D. M. Downes, L. Wang, J. A. Wierl, and R. Bannerman. 2000. Influences of riparian
corridors on aquatic biota in agricultural watersheds. Pages 209-214 in P. J. Wigington, Jr. and
R. L. Beschta, eds. Proceedings of the American Water Resources Association International
Conference on riparian ecology and management in multi-land use watersheds, Portland, Oregon.
cc: Cyndi Karoly, DWQ
(e-mail): Sarah McRae, NHP
Angie Rodgers, WRC