20061203 Ver 2_Alternative Sites_20100222

Army Corps
of Engineers
Wilmington District
REVISED DRAFT
Western Wake Regional
Wastewater Management Facilities
Identification of Water Reclamation Facility Site Alternatives
1. Introduction
The Western Wake Partners (the Towns of Apex, Cary, Holly Springs, and Morrisville)
selected a wastewater management option that included construction of a regional
water reclamation facility (WRF) known as the Western Wake WRF. The WRF will
provide wastewater treatment service for the Towns of Apex, Cary, and Morrisville
and RTP South and the Town of Holly Springs will treat its wastewater at its Utley
Creek WWTP and then convey it to the Western Wake WRF for disposal via a common
outfall to the Cape Fear River below Buckhorn dam. Initially, the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) informed the Partners that it would not permit a
discharge location upstream of Buckhorn Dam for the proposed WRF; therefore, below
the dam was deemed to be the only feasible discharge location (see Alternative
Wastewater Discharge Locations document). The Partners are currently discussing
with Progress Energy and DWQ the possibility of discharging the treated Western
Wake effluent into Harris Lake so that Progress Energy can reuse the effluent in its
Harris Plant cooling system.
The Partners' proposed project identified a site for the Western Wake Water
Reclamation Facility (WRF). The purpose of this document is to summarize the process
conducted as part of the EIS preparation to identify reasonable alternatives to the
Partners' proposed WRF location based on the selected wastewater management
option and discharge location. Candidate WRF sites were screened using the following
three-tiered approach:
¦ Initial Screening Analysis - 30 WRF sites that were previously considered as
part of the Partners' earlier planning study were evaluated during the Initial
Screening Analysis using single elimination factors (i.e., a site is eliminated if it
does not meet one of the screening factors) to determine those sites suitable for
additional assessment as reasonable alternatives to the Partners' proposed
project site.
Intermediate Screening Analysis - The WRF sites remaining after the Initial
Screening Analysis were evaluated using the Intermediate Screening
Methodology, which employed a scoring methodology to identify reasonable
alternatives to the Partners' preferred WRF site. A qualitative scoring
methodology was also used to identify reasonable alternatives.
¦ Detailed Alternatives Analysis - Sites remaining after the intermediate
screening will be analyzed in detail as alternatives to the Partners' preferred
WRF site taking into consideration required pumping and conveyance, site
layout, field surveys for wetlands, etc.
II. Site Identification History
The Western Wake Partners conducted preliminary investigations to identify areas in
western Wake County that may be suitable for construction of a new WRF. The
Partners defined the land area requirements for the new facility, including a 200-foot
forested buffer around the site perimeter to minimize potential impacts to neighboring
properties from odor, visual appearance, noise, and light. The Partners identified areas
that could be suitable sites for a new WRF, considering physical feature data such as
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Draft Identification of WRF Site Alternatives
March 27, 2008
Page 2
location of 100-year floodplain, location of wetland areas, location of perennial and
intermittent streams, allowance for 100-foot buffers for streams, allowance for a 200-
foot buffer around site, and topographic features. In addition to consideration of
physical feature data, the Partners considered the information and data from
previously prepared reports. As a result of the preliminary investigations, 30 areas
were identified as potentially suitable sites for a new WRF. The 30 sites are depicted on
Figure 1. Additional detail on the site identification history can be found in Appendix
A.
During the screening process, Sites 11 and 12 were combined into one site - Site 11/12.
These sites were combined because they are adjacent to each other and the combined
site boundary resulted in a more viable potential site based on size and location
between an existing road and Jordan Lake. Because Sites 11 and 12 were combined, 29
sites rather than 30 sites were evaluated in the initial screening analysis.
III. Initial Screening Analysis
The purpose of the initial screening analysis was to identify those WRF sites to be
eliminated based on a single factor. Seven factors were identified and applied to the 29
candidate WRF sites to determine which sites would be eliminated during the initial
screening and dismissed from further consideration as a reasonable alternative to the
Partners' proposed WRF site. Those seven factors are: (1) Site Development, (2)
Wastewater Management Option, (3) Shearon Harris Lake Level, (4) Sites Not Located
in Wake County, (5) Floodplain, (6) Presence of Threatened and Endangered Species,
and (7) Presence of Sensitive Land Uses on Site.
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Draft Identification of WRF Site Alternatives
March 27, 2008
Page 3
2 4
1
3
r
64
6
5
7
10
_ 9
8
WTP
13
11/12
w
}
16 17
i
15 26
55
25
27
30 19 2 20
24 28
21
Y Miles
Shearon Harris 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2
Nuclear Power Plant 2$
Partners' Preferred Site
29
22 Initial Screening Sites
County Boundary
Lake or River
Stream or River
Road
Interstate /Highway

During the initial screening analysis, the amount of land required for the Western
Wake WRF was further refined. The Partners determined that 160 acres were needed
to accommodate the site facilities with a 200-foot perimeter buffer and to provide space
for avoiding site-specific features such as streams and wetlands on site. Sites that did
not contain at least 160 acres after consideration of the seven screening factors in the
initial screening analysis were eliminated.
The seven factors used in the initial screening analysis are described below.
A. Site Development
Between identification of the candidate WRF sites in the preliminary investigation
phase in 2002-2003 and commencement of the initial screening process in 2007, several
candidate WRF sites were developed or obtained site-specific development approvals
by local towns or counties. These sites were no longer considered to be practicable sites
for the WRF, because the cost to acquire such sites was expected to be much higher
than similar undeveloped or sparsely developed property.
When the developed or approved-for-development areas of the sites are removed from
the overall site acreage, less than 160 acres of land remained for five of the candidate
WRF sites - Sites 2, 4, 5, 10, and 27. One site that was developed, Site 9, still contained
adequate area (170 acres) after elimination of the developed area. Details on
development for the sites are described in Table 1 and in Attachment 1. Sites that were
eliminated based on development are depicted in Figure 2 at the end of the Initial
Screening Analysis section.
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Draft Identification of WRF Site Alternatives
March 27, 2008
Page 5
Table 1
Site Development on Candidate WRF Sites
WRF Site Nature of Development Area Remaining Site to be
Eliminated?
Site 2 Beckwith Farms subdivision 108.9 acres Yes
Site 4 Beckwith Farms subdivision 127.8 acres Yes
Site 5 Heritage Pointe subdivision 70.8 acres Yes
Site 9 Apex Nature Park 170.4 acres No
Site 10 Apex Nature Park; Bella Sera
subdivision 66.0 acres Yes
Site 27 Twelve Oaks subdivision 0.0 acres Yes
B. Wastewater Management Option
A second screening factor for the Initial Screening Analysis was consideration of the
selected wastewater management option and discharge location for the project. During
the Partners' earlier planning studies, the candidate WRF sites were developed before a
wastewater management option was selected and before DWQ indicated that the
effluent discharge should be below Buckhorn Dam (see Alternative Wastewater
Discharge Locations and Wastewater Management Options documents). This large
number of sites was identified based on the premise that several sites would be
applicable to each wastewater management option being considered. The sites were
generally identified based on their locations near the lowest elevations in the service
area for each wastewater management option. Siting a WRF in the lowest elevation of
a service area facilitates gravity sewer flow rather than pumping, and it reduces the
length of raw wastewater pipelines that must be constructed, which reduces energy
use, costs, and environmental impacts. In addition, sites nearest the discharge location
would require the least length of pipeline, resulting in lower energy use, costs, and
environmental impacts. As part of this initial screening, several of the candidate WRF
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Draft Identification of WRF Site Alternatives
March 27, 2008
Page 6
sites could be eliminated from further consideration based on the preferred wastewater
management option selected (Wastewater Management Option 2, Regional System,
Strategy D (Apex, Cary, and Holly Springs collaboration with expansion of Holly
Springs' Utley Creek WWTP) - see Wastewater Management Options document),
based on DWQ's indication that the discharge location would be the Cape Fear River
below Buckhorn Dam, and based on the sites' locations in relation to the service area
and discharge location for the project.
To accommodate the various wastewater management options that were under
consideration when the Partners' earlier planning studies identified the candidate WRF
sites, the site identification process focused on the following three general areas:
¦ Sites 1, 2, and 4 were considered to provide wastewater service for Cary,
Morrisville and RTP South only. These sites could best serve the Cary, Morrisville
and RTP South service area portion of Wastewater Management Option 2 (Regional
System Strategy A) and Option 3 (Independent Systems).
¦ Sites 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10,11/12, and 13 were considered to provide wastewater
service for Cary, Morrisville, RTP South, and the northern portion of Apex. These
sites could best serve these areas' portion of Wastewater Management Option 2
(Regional System Strategy B).
¦ Sites 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30 were considered
to provide wastewater service for Apex and Holly Springs only. These sites could
best serve the Apex and Holly Springs portions of Wastewater Management Option
2 (Regional System Strategy A and Strategy B) and the Apex portion of Option 3
(Independent Systems).
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Draft Identification of WRF Site Alternatives
March 27, 2008
Page 7
¦ Sites 8, 9,10,11/12,13,14,15,16,17, and 30 were considered to provide wastewater
service for Apex, Cary, Morrisville, and RTP South. These sites could best serve the
service areas for Wastewater Management Option 2 (Regional System Strategy D).
(Wastewater Management Option 2, Regional System Strategy D was the selected
wastewater management option - see Wastewater Management Options
document.)
WRF sites in the most northern areas of the selected wastewater management option's
service area and sites that are the farthest south of the service area are not compatible
with the selected wastewater management option. They are the farthest sites from the
bottom of the service area and discharge location. They would require additional
influent and effluent pipelines, which would result in increased costs, energy needs,
and impacts to wetlands and streams. Sites 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in the north and Sites
27, 28, and 29 in the south are the farthest sites from the bottom of the project service
area; therefore, these sites are the most incompatible with the selected wastewater
management option (Wastewater Management Option 2, Regional System, Strategy D)
and were eliminated. Sites that were eliminated based on incompatibility with the
selected wastewater management option are depicted in Figure 3 at the end of the
Initial Screening Analysis section.
C. Shearon Harris Lake Level
On September 18, 2007, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) held a public
hearing in Apex to discuss how the agency will review the combined operating license
(COL) application it expects to receive from Progress Energy for the Harris Nuclear
Plant (see Attachment 2).
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Draft Identification of WRF Site Alternatives
March 27, 2008
Page 8
The current site for the Harris Nuclear Plant was originally planned for four nuclear
reactors. Currently, the Harris Nuclear Plant is a single-reactor, 900-megawatt facility.
The NRC expects Progress Energy to request to build and operate two additional
reactors at the plant. The current cooling water supply source for the Harris Nuclear
Plant is Harris Lake. Harris Lake covers an area of approximately 4,000 acres and has
an average depth of approximately 18 feet. The water surface elevation of Harris Lake
would need to be raised approximately 20 feet (to elevation 240 feet) to support the two
additional reactors at the Harris Nuclear Plant. In addition to the increased inundation,
Progress Energy expects that a 50-foot buffer will be needed around the new lake
footprint. Additional land will also be needed for mitigation for stream and wetland
losses, loss of terrestrial habitat, and loss of Gamelands, although the extent and
location of such mitigation is unknown at this time. Progress Energy may also need to
mitigate areas that were previously used for mitigation for the original project. The
lake may also need to be raised further to accommodate a fourth reactor in the future.
Progress Energy has indicated to the Partners that the final determination of the water
surface elevation requirements for Harris Lake will be deferred until detailed technical
and environmental analyses are complete. Pending completion of those analyses,
however, Progress Energy has communicated to local governments that it will not
grant utility easements in the vicinity of Harris Lake below an elevation of 260 feet.
The most recent communication to this effect was issued by Progress Energy to the
Town of Holly Springs in 2006 in response to a request by the Town for a water and
sewer utility easement (see Attachment 3).
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Draft Identification of WRF Site Alternatives
March 27, 2008
Page 9
Because of the uncertainties with respect to the future elevation of Harris Lake,
constructing wastewater treatment facilities adjacent to Harris Lake below 260 feet is
not recommended. Therefore, sites that did not contain adequate area (160 acres) after
removal of land below 260 feet were eliminated. These sites are Sites 18, 22, 23, 24, and
29. Because Site 23 does contain some land above 260 feet and is adjacent to Site 21
(which also loses some of its area to lake flooding), the remainder of Site 21 was
combined with part of Site 23 to preserve the area as a viable site. This site was called
Site 21/23.
Sites that were eliminated due to potential increase in Harris Lake level are depicted in
Figure 4 at the end of the Initial Screening Analysis section.
D. Sites Not Located in Wake County
The fourth factor for the Initial Screening Analysis was identification of the county in
which each candidate WRF site is located. Because the Project Partners' service areas
are located primarily in Wake County, it is appropriate that the wastewater treatment
facility be located in Wake County. The Partner towns will also have more control over
property acquisition, annexation, and development for a site located in Wake County.
Sites 1, 5, 6, and 11/12 are located in Chatham County. Site 6 is located partly in
Chatham and partly in Wake; however, elimination of the portion of the site in
Chatham County leaves only 104 acres remaining in Wake County. Sites that were
eliminated based on their location in a county other than Wake County are depicted on
Figure 5 at the end of the Initial Screening Analysis section.
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Draft Identification of WRF Site Alternatives
March 27, 2008
Page 10
E. Floodplain
Several sites contain land located in the 100-year floodplain. The North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) discourages the
construction of wastewater treatment facilities in floodplains. Therefore, sites without
at least 160 acres remaining after removal of area within the 100-year floodplain were
eliminated. As shown on Table 2 at the end of the Initial Screening Analysis section,
Sites 2, 4, and 10 contain less than 160 acres when floodplain areas are removed. Site 9
contains approximately 170 acres when the floodplain area is removed; however,
removal of the floodplain in addition to the developed area (see Section A of the Initial
Screening Factors) results in less than 160 acres of available area for the site.
Sites eliminated from further consideration because of 100- year floodplains on the site
are depicted in Figure 6.
F. Presence of Threatened and Endangered Species on Site
The known presence of a threatened or endangered plant or animal species that would
be adversely impacted by a WRF was also determined to be a reasonable criterion for
eliminating a WRF site in the Initial Screening. NCDENR recommends avoiding
impacts to these species when possible, and minimizing or mitigating impacts when
avoiding is not possible. Natural Heritage Element Occurrence data was compared to
site locations to determine whether the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program has
known records of threatened or endangered species on the candidate WRF sites. As
shown on Figure 7, no WRF sites contain a known threatened or endangered species;
therefore, no sites were eliminated based on this factor.
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Draft Identification of WRF Site Alternatives
March 27, 2008
Page 11
G. Presence of Sensitive Land Uses on Site
The known presence of a sensitive land use on a WRF was determined to be another
reasonable factor for eliminating a WRF site in the Initial Screening. Sensitive land uses
were defined as cemeteries, daycare facilities, retirement facilities, schools, hospitals,
and churches. Type and Use data from the Wake County tax parcel database and Wake
County GIS shapefiles were used to identify the locations of sensitive land uses. As
shown on Figure 8, no WRF sites contain a known sensitive land use on site; therefore,
no sites were eliminated based on this criterion.
Table 2 summarizes the results of the Initial Screening Analysis. As indicated in Table
2, the sites identified for further analysis as potential alternatives to the Partners'
proposed site are Sites 8, 13,15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 21/23, 25, 26, and 30. Figure 9 depicts
these sites. The sites are color-coded by the number of reasons for their elimination
during the Initial Screening process.
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Draft Identification of WRF Site Alternatives
March 27, 2008
Page 12
Table 2
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Initial Screening for Water Reclamation Facility Candidate Sites
Partners'
Preferred
Initial Screening Criteria Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Site 8 Site 9 Site 10 Site 11112 Site 13 Site 15 Site 16
Site
Site 14
Already developed or approved for development x X X
* X
(108.91 ac.) (127.8 ac.) (70.8 ac.) (170.42 ac.) (65.97 ac.)
Inconsistent with selected wastewater management option x X X X X X X
Inadequate area (less than 160 ac.) if Harris Lake is raised to elev. 260
Located in a county other than Wake County x X X X
Inadequate area (less than 160 ac.) after floodplain is removed x X X X
(155.64) (117.03 ac.) (170.33 ac.)* (145.25 ac.)
Known occurrence of threatened and endangered species on site
Known sensitive land use (cemeteries, daycare facilities, retirement
facilities, schools, hospitals, and churches) on site
Number of Reasons Eliminated 0 2 3 1 3 3 2 1 0 1 3 1 0 0 0
Initial Screening Criteria Site 17 Site 18 Site 19 Site 20 Site 21 Site 22 Site 23 Site 21123 Site 24 Site 25 Site 26 Site 27 Site 28 Site 29 7 Site 30
Already developed or approved for development x
(0 ac.)
Inconsistent with selected wastewater management option x X X
Inadequate area (less than 160 ac.) if Harris Lake is raised to elev. 260 X
(135.91) X
(103.32) X
(122.14) X
(151.04) X
(151.42)
Located in a county other than Wake County
Inadequate area (less than 160 ac.) after floodplain is removed
Known occurrence of threatened and endangered species on site
Known sensitive land use (cemeteries, daycare facilities, retirement
facilities, schools, hospitals, and churches) on site
Number of Reasons Eliminated 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 2 0
X = site eliminated
* For Site 9, only 126 acres remain after elimination of development and flood plain
2 4
1
Sites Eliminated
due to Development
3
Sites Remaining
~ ~ Miles
0 025 0.5 1 1.5 2
6 64
5
7
9 10
8
Wi
13
11/12
16
15 26 55
14
25
27
30 19 2~
20
24 28
21
WTP
Shearon Harris 21/23
Nuclear Power Plant 23 29
22

2 4
1
Sites Eliminated due
to Management Option
3
Sites Remaining
Sites Previously
6 64 Eliminated
5
Miles
7 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2
9 10
8
Wi
13
11/12
C~
16
15 26 55
14
25
27
30 19 2~
20
24 28
21
WTP
Shearon Harris 21/23
Nuclear Power Plant 23 29
22

8
13
Sites Eliminated due
to Harris Lake Level
Sites Remaining
Sites Previously
Eliminated
Miles
0 02 0.4 0.8 12
16
15 26
'_6
14
25
27
18 19
20
24
28
21
21/23
23
29
22
Shearon Harris
Nuclear Power Plant

2 4
1
Sites Eliminated
in Chatham County
3
Sites Remaining
Sites Previously
6 64
Eliminated
5
Miles
7 0 025 0.5 1 1.5 2
9 10
8
Wi
13
11/12
fl
16
15 26 55
14
25
27
30 19 2~
20
24 28
21
WTP
Shearon Harris 21/23
Nuclear Power Plant 23 29
22

2 4
1
Sites Eliminated due
to Floodplain Level
3
Sites Remaining
Sites Previously
6 64
Eliminated
5
Miles
7 0 025 0.5 1 1.5 2
9 10
8
* S i
*With floodplain area removed,
Site 9 has 17~ acres remainina_
'J
H 13 W 11/12 d re a 16 However, because 58 acres
were already removed due to
development, site acreage
remaining is approximately 126
acres, which is less than the
~ 1 15 26 160-acre minimum.
55
14
25
27
30 19 2~
20
24 28
21
WTP
Shearon Harris 21/23
Nuclear Power Plant 23 29
22

2 4
1
3 *NoS o Sites Eliminated due to
Threa 6 64 eatened & Endangered Species
Sites Remaining
Sites Previously
5
Eliminated
7
Miles
0 0 025 0.5 1 1.5 2
9 10
8
Wi
13
11/12
C~
16
15 26 55
14
25
27
30 19 2~

20
24 28
21
WTP
Shearon Harris 2~~23
Nuclear Power Plant 23 29
22

_Q u
a
2 4
1
ttt * No Sites Eliminated due
to Sensitive Land Use
3 6 64
Sites Remaining
Sites Previously
Eliminated
5
Miles
7 0 025 0.5 1 1.5 2
t r
a ~ ~ ~
t~
r r
9 10 r
8
Wi

13 ~ ttt
11/12
C~
16
tt
55
~ 5 26
14
25
27
i~ 30 18 ~ g ~ 27
Symbol Legend
ttt 20
ttt Cemetery
ttt 24
28 ~ Retirement or
Nursing Home
21
p Child Care Facility
Shearon Harris 21/23
Nuclear Power Plant 23 29
Church
22
Hospital
r S~hoo~

.~--r I
,r'+~
~ l
,.~,`'r y
/ ~
f I +r''~
~ 1 ~ ~'1
1 ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ r 4
~ ~ 1 ~ I' ~
4
i m i i
I i
! ~ ~ I

d t~ R t`` .1

ri-~-'-~-~-i-s 1
I I
1 I
® .a ¦
r 't. i
~ '
i ~ i ~
~~-'1 i ~
~ ~`t
/
~~-~-~-~-'-'ti i ~
r
f~ ~ + ~ I i ~
m
I
1 i ~
~ y¦ I 1~- h~~- R i !
~ ~ y~e , ~ I
~ ~ ~ J ~ _ _
1 ' 4+ I
E ~-~-~i ~ ~ 1 i ~ i ~
`rtR,r..f~~+ 1 i ~
t~
~ I ~.F' i ~
1 I
1
ti
~ i i i
i i ~
i ~
i ~
~1 Miles
1
_ _ ! 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2
i ~
i ~ _ _ _ I'~~~4 I I ~
~ 'r t ~ j I
~ I ~ i i i
r~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ I i ! i ~ ~ i
! i i ~ ~ ~ i t • ~
~ i ~
! I
~ ~ ~,_,~,_,_,_,_,i

~
_.4 - mm mm 1, I WTP
y
m I~ I-I~ 4 1 1
~ j I~~ L j j
~Irt1-'
1 ~ ~ 1 ~
~ ~ ~ 1
l ~ 1 ~ ~ ±
~ 'r, ~ r ~I-~~` r ~ ~ ` t r
~ ~14i-n f ~ ~r 1 ~ R
~ I~ I ~
i j
1 ~~~.r4/
r~ ~ ~ 1
i.~
.~i
~R~ Y ~4 ~I
~4 ' ~4r
~4

t4
l4 ~ I y ~I_ ~ 1~ 1_I r
~ t;
- I I 'f
j .I I
r 1- I ,a 1 j I
r ~
,,4 ~ I ~ . ~ f {-1-I-I-I-~
} I ~ I 4~ ~ ~ i-I- '-ICI-I ~ i 4~ 1 i ~
~4I I I ~
1 ~ I fey' 1
I i~1~ ~Irs -,-I-~~f-I~ 1{ I ~~I S I
1, ~ ;
,,1
1 1 i i ~ 55
~ i ~ -I-~!
` ~ ~ ~ I
1 I I
1 j 1 '1
4~
-•-•-I~ I -I- 4alLN! ~~I ti j t ~
~ 1 -I-I-1-I-I
1
4 fi
4~ - - ~.~~.__y tit , I ¦I~~-I-I-I-~-I-I~
i ~ ~4~ 1 1 ~ 1 i
~ ~ I * 1 ~ I j l r~
1 l I I~ 1 ~ I ~ j ~ ~ ~i
I j
I I I 1 ~ ~ l I 1 i
j ~ r1-,~ ~ I i I 1
e ~ r ~ 1
f 1-I~ ~ f1-4~ft yr~ I ! 1 I i~i
J ~ I ~ I j LI-I-I-I-~-I-I~
~ ~ I
I ~ ~ ~
! ~ t
4~ -I-1-I- ~ + fe' ¦ ~
~-ICI - I-4 ~ ~ f I 1111- Iy14 I ~ 1
Y f x14 I ~ ~i+k 1 1
~ I I 1 ~ j 1
~ r I 4 ~ 1 , 1
j j R . 7 f 1 4 1 1
1 ~ ! 1 1 t' ~ ~ ~ ! 1
1
'
j ~ ,L I . l I ~ ~ ~
WTP
R R 1
¦ g I I I
~
~ 4~rw
~ I 'uwaawu~a ~ 1
~ ~
~ 1
~ ~ ~
~
4 ~4

'1
~ ~ ~
~
i
r 1
IRII-I~
I4 4*

Table 5
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Raw Data for Intermediate Screening of Water Reclamation Facility Candidate Sites
Partners' Candiate WRF Sites
St
ti
ti

Screening Criteria Preferred
Sit
Site a
s
cs
e
(Site 14)' Site 8 Site 13 Site 15 Site 16 Site 17 Site 19 Site 20 Site 21
21123 Site 25 Site 28 Site 30
Mean
Median
25th %
75th %
Site Data
Size of WRF Site (acres) 236.6 228.9 223.5 230.6 306.9 214.3 237.4 251.8 211.7 197.6 226.1 235.7 252.1
Size of WRF Site minus 200-foot Perimeter Buffer (acres) 167.1 168.0 163.9 171.8 240.6 148.4 165.0 179.1 140.4 140.5 160.4 170.7 182.6
Size of Site Practicable area (acres) 52.5 69.8 59.7 49.5 64.0 55.7 78.9 56.5 52.5 76.4 56.1 63.6 50.7
A. Physical Environment
1) Displacements on site
a. Number of dwelling units on site 0 8 21 14 4 6 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 4.3 1 0 6
b. Number of individual property owners on site 2 1 15 39 28 13 13 5 1 1 3 4 9 3 10.4 5 3 13
2) Site access, transportation, and other services
a. Distance from site practicable area to nearest US/NC highway or interstate (feet) 196 14,370 11,977 2,714 272 4,919 4,819 7,358 9,564 10,867 8,653 14,707 130 6,965 7,358 2,714 10,867
3) Length of influent and effluent pipelines required to reach WRF site boundary 4 236,348 276,200 277,151 239,758 248,894 251,289 243,959 262,647 261,746 260,881 244,492 258,966 246,179 254,501 251,289 244,492 261,746
a. Influent pipelines (feet) 53,408 32,712 42,695 47,926 44,230 48,039 55,945 61,511 62,190 62,715 55,522 53,464 58,841 52,246 53,464 47,926 58,841
b. Effluent pipelines (feet) 91,470 121,744 117,228 95,916 102,332 101,625 94,007 100,568 99,778 99,083 94,485 102,751 93,669 101,127 99,778 94,485 102,332
Western Wake effluent pipeline (feet) 59,904 83,211 73,358 65,264 73,827 74,291 71,599 78,241 78,905 78,210 75,791 80,974 55,011 72,968 74,291 71,599 78,241
Holly Springs' effluent pipeline from Utley CreekWNIFP (feet) 31,566 38,533 43,870 30,652 28,505 27,334 22,408 22,327 20,873 20,873 18,694 21,777 38,658 28,159 27,334 21,777 31,566
Wetlands and Waters of the US/State:
4) Total Wetlands and Lakes/Ponds 5
a) Total Wetlands and Lakes/Ponds on site (acres) 35.4 39.0 38.5 17.7 70.6 52.9 22.4 7.9 4.9 2.9 28.7 20.7 26.1 28.3 26.1 17.7 38.5
Lakes/ponds on site (acres) 2.66 4.28 2.87 2.65 0.00 4.36 3.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.32 3.28 0.00
Total Wetlands on site (joined features of hydric soils and NW) (acres) 32.74 34.71 35.59 15.08 70.62 48.56 18.91 7.90 4.87 2.89 23.35 17.46 26.08
b) Total Wetlands and Lakes/Ponds on site minus 200 ft. buffer (acres) 20.0 24.3 31.7 16.3 58.1 36.0 12.0 4.2 1.7 1.6 24.3 13.4 17.2 20.1 17.2 12.0 24.3
Lakes/ponds on site minus 200 ft. buffer (length, feet) 2.44 4.26 2.87 2.23 0.00 4.12 3.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.32 2.61 0.00
Total Wetlands on site minus 200 ft. buffer (joined features of hydric soils/NUUI) (acres) 17.51 20.06 28.85 14.02 58.10 31.90 8.73 4.25 1.69 1.57 18.98 10.81 17.19
Table 5
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Raw Data for Intermediate Screening of Water Reclamation Facility Candidate Sites
Partners' Candiate WRF Sites
St
ti
ti

Screening Criteria Preferred
Sit
Site a
s
cs
e
(Site 14)' Site 8 Site 13 Site 15 Site 16 Site 17 Site 19 Site 20 Site 21
21123 Site 25 Site 28 Site 30
Mean
Median
25th %
75th %
c) Total Wetlands and Lakes/Ponds within practicable area (acres) 0.0 14.3 3.9 0.0 0.0 7.9 4.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.0 2.4 0.1 0.0 3.9
Lakes/ponds within practicable area (acres) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total wetlands within practicable area (joined features of hydric soils and NW) (acres) 0.00 14.28 3.88 0.00 0.00 7.94 0.95 0.13 0.14 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.98
5) Perennial and Intermittent Streams
a) Perennial and Intermittent Streams on site (length) 18,430 12,357 15,426 17,797 28,018 18,985 21,153 20,582 20,759 19,367 20,829 16,526 18,102 19,102 18,985 17,797 20,759
Perennial streams on site (length, feet) 9,179 8,540 5,634 6,255 6,215 7,943 7,971 5,654 2,238 1,796 9,527 4,126 8,025
Intermittent streams on site (length, feet) 9,251 3,817 9,792 11,542 21,803 11,042 13,182 14,928 18,521 17,571 11,302 12,400 10,077
b) Perennial and Intermittent Streams on site minus 200 ft. buffer (length) 11,932 10,560 12,133 14,801 21,837 13,916 13,837 14,715 8,636 12,231 15,867 12,092 14,149 13,593 13,837 12,092 14,715
Perennial streams on site minus 200 ft. buffer (length, feet) 5,181 7,440 5,032 5,241 4,880 5,375 4,311 3,564 95 1,312 8,248 2,028 5,518
Intermittent streams on site minus 200 ft. buffer (length, feet) 6,751 3,120 7,101 9,560 16,957 8,541 9,526 11,151 8,541 10,919 7,619 10,064 8,631
c) Perennial and Intermittent Streams within practicable area (length) 1,134 259 2,561 1,289 997 3,194 4,705 3,181 2,991 5,805 2,880 2,429 363 2,445 2,561 1,134 3,181
Perennial streams within practicable area (length, feet) 0 259 1,005 0 0 0 1,780 65 95 1,312 635 0 0
Intermittent streams within practicable area (length, feet) 1,134 0 1,556 1,289 997 3,194 2,925 3,116 2,896 4,493 2,245 2,429 363
B. Biological Environment
6) Significant Natural Heritage Areas on site (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.46 0.3 0.01 0 0.2 0 0 0.7 0 0 0.01
7) Gamelands on site (acres) 0 0.15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.59 6.42 123.05 10.6 0 0 0.15
8) Public lands on site 0 3.43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0
a. Federal land (acres) 0 3.43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
b. State-owned land (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9) Known occurrences of T&E/species of special concern Min 112 mile of site boundary 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 0 2 0 1 0.8 0 0 2
Table 5
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Raw Data for Intermediate Screening of Water Reclamation Facility Candidate Sites
Partners' Candiate WRF Sites
St
ti
ti

Screening Criteria Preferred
Sit
Site a
s
cs
e
(Site 14)' Site 8 Site 13 Site 15 Site 16 Site 17 Site 19 Site 20 Site 21
21123 Site 25 Site 28 Site 30
Mean
Median
25th %
75th %
C. Social Parameters
10) Population within 1/2 mile of site boundary 265 225 209 264 276 209 63 53 32 28 57 73 98 142 98 57 225
11) Number of known occurrences of sensitive land uses within 1/2 mile of site boundary 7 4 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 2
a. Cemeteries 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
b. Daycare facilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
c. Retirement facilities 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
d. Schools 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
e. Hospitals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
f. Churches and Churches with Cemeteries 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
12) Parks, greenway, open space on site (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
D. Cultural Resources
13) Number of known cultural resources found on site
a. Historic Study List and National Register Districts (acres) 0 0 0 3.03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0
b. Historic Study List and National Register Structures (number) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
14) Number of known cultural resources within 1/2 mile of site boundary
a. Historic Study List and National Register Districts (acres) 25.13 0 0 20.91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5 0 0 0.0
b. Historic Study List and National Register Structures (number) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0.0
Notes:
Does not include side parcel adjacent to Shearon Harris Road, because this was not part of site until detailed design.
2 One owner was counted for parcels owned by a company. Besides the owner name, one additional owner was counted for those parcels that included "et al." or "trust" in the owner record.
3 In addition to NC highways, US highways, and interstates, this criterion also includes Old Highway 1. Distance measured from site boundary at practicable area access.
4 Pipeline length includes length of pipeline needed to reach site boundary but does not include pipeline length on site itself.
5 Wetlands as measured by joining hydric soils and National Wetland Inventory mapping
6 Does not include T&E species classified as "known to be destroyed" in Element Occurrence file.
7 Sensitive land uses are cemeteries, churches and churches with cemeteries, daycare facilities, retirement facilities, schools, and hospitals.
Table 6
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Data and Scoring Based on Median Value
I Impacts Calculated Based on Entire WRF Site Area
Partners' Candiate WRF Sites
St
ti
ti
Screening Criteria Preferred
r
Site 8
Site 13
Site 15
Site 16
Site 17
Site 19
Site 20
Site 21
Site
Site 25
Site 26
Site 30 a
s
cs
Site
(Site 4) 21123 Mean Median 25th % 75th %
Site Data
Size of WRF Site (acres) 236.6 228.9 223.5 230.6 306.9 214.3 237.4 251.8 211.7 197.6 226.1 235.7 252.1
A. Physical Environment
1) Displacements on site
a. Number of dwelling units on site 0 8 21 14 4 6 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 4.3 1 0 6
b. Number of individual property owners on site 1 15 39 28 13 13 5 1 1 3 4 9 3 10.4 5 3 13
2) Site access, transportation, and other services
a. Distance from site practicable area to nearest US/NC highway or interstate (feet) 196 14,370 11,977 2,714 272 4,919 4,819 7,358 9,564 10,867 8,653 14,707 130 6,965 7,358 2,714 10,867
3) Length of influent and effluent pipelines required to reach WRF site boundary 236,348 276,200 277,151 239,758 248,894 251,289 243,959 262,647 261,746 260,881 244,492 258,966 246,179 254,501 251,289 244,492 261,746
a. Influent pipelines (feet) 53,408 32,712 42,695 47,926 44,230 48,039 55,945 61,511 62,190 62,715 55,522 53,464 58,841 52,246 53,464 47,926 58,841
b. Effluent pipelines (feet) 91,470 121,744 117,228 95,916 102,332 101,625 94,007 100,568 99,778 99,083 94,485 102,751 93,669 101,127 99,778 94,485 102,332
Wetlands and Waters of the US/State:
4) Total Wetlands and Lakes/Ponds on site (acres) 35.4 39.0 38.5 17.7 70.6 52.9 22.4 7.9 4.9 2.9 28.7 20.7 26.1 28.3 26.1 17.7 38.5
5) Perennial and Intermittent Streams on site (length) 18,430 12,357 15,426 17,797 28,018 18,985 21,153 20,582 20,759 19,367 20,829 16,526 18,102 19,102 18,985 17,797 20,759
B. Biological Environment
6) Significant Natural Heritage Areas on site (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.5 0.3 0.0 0 0.2 0 0 0.7 0 0 0.01
7) Gamelands on site (acres) 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.6 6.4 123.1 10.6 0 0 0.2
8) Public lands on site 0 3.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0.0
9) Known occurrences of T&E/species of special concern Min 1 /2 mile of site boundary 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 0 2 0 1 0.8 0 0 2
C. Social Parameters
10) Population within 112 mile of site boundary 265 225 209 264 276 209 63 53 32 28 57 73 98 142 98 57 225
11) Number of known occurrences of sensitive land uses within 1/2 mile of site boundary 4 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 2
12) Parks, greenway, open space on site (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
D. Cultural Resources
13) Number of known cultural resources found on site
a. Historic Study List and National Register Districts (acres) 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0
b. Historic Study List and National Register Structures (number) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
14) Number of known cultural resources within 112 mile of site boundary
a. Historic Study List and National Register Districts (acres) 25.1 0 0 20.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 3.5 0 0 0.0
b. Historic Study List and National Register Structures (number) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0.0
Total Score 4 10 6 6 6 5 4 5 5 3 8 5 4
Rank 2 13 9 9 9 5 2 5 5 1 12 5 2
Table 7
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Data and Scoring Based on Median Value
I Impacts Calculated Based on WRF Site Minus 200-foot Perimeter Buffer
Partners' Candiate WRF Sites
St
ti
ti
Screening Criteria Preferred
r
Site 8
Site 13
Site 15
Site 16
Site 17
Site 19
Site 20
Site 21
Site
Site 25
Site 26
Site 30 a
s
cs
Site
(Site 4) 21123 Mean Median 25th % 75th %
Site Data
Size of WRF Site minus 200-foot Perimeter Buffer (acres) 167.1 168.0 163.9 171.8 240.6 148.4 165.0 179.1 140.4 140.5 160.4 170.7 182.6
A. Physical Environment
1) Displacements on site
a. Number of dwelling units on site 0 8 21 14 4 6 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 4.3 1 0 6
b. Number of individual property owners on site 1 15 39 28 13 13 5 1 1 3 4 9 3 10.4 5 3 13
2) Site access, transportation, and other services
a. Distance from site practicable area to nearest US or NC highway or interstate (feet) 196 14,370 11,977 2,714 272 4,919 4,819 7,358 9,564 10,867 8,653 14,707 130 6,965 7,358 2,714 10,867
3) Length of influent and effluent pipelines required to reach WRF site boundary 236,348 276,200 277,151 239,758 248,894 251,289 243,959 262,647 261,746 260,881 244,492 258,966 246,179 254,501 251,289 244,492 261,746
a. Influent pipelines (feet) 53,408 32,712 42,695 47,926 44,230 48,039 55,945 61,511 62,190 62,715 55,522 53,464 58,841 52,246 53,464 47,926 58,841
b. Effluent pipelines (feet) 91,470 121,744 117,228 95,916 102,332 101,625 94,007 100,568 99,778 99,083 94,485 102,751 93,669 101,127 99,778 94,485 102,332
Wetlands and Waters of the US/State:
4) Total Wetlands and Lakes/Ponds on site minus 200 ft. buffer (acres) 20.0 24.3 31.7 16.3 58.1 36.0 12.0 4.2 1.7 1.6 24.3 13.4 17.2 20.1 17.2 12.0 24.3
5) Perennial and Intermittent Streams on site minus 200 ft. buffer (length) 11,932 10,560 12,133 14,801 21,837 13,916 13,837 14,715 8,636 12,231 15,867 12,092 14,149 13,593 13,837 12,092 14,715
B. Biological Environment
6) Significant Natural Heritage Areas on site (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.5 0.3 0.0 0 0.2 0 0 0.7 0 0 0.01
7) Gamelands on site (acres) 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.6 6.4 123.1 10.6 0 0 0.2
8) Public lands on site 0 3.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0.0
9) Known occurrences of T&E/species of special concern Win 112 mile of site boundary 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 0 2 0 1 0.8 0 0 2
C. Social Parameters
10) Population within 112 mile of site boundary 265 225 209 264 276 209 63 53 32 28 57 73 98 142 98 57 225
11) Number of known occurrences of sensitive land uses within 1/2 mile of site boundary 4 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 2
12) Parks, greenway, open space on site (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
D. Cultural Resources
13) Number of known cultural resources found on site
a. Historic Study List and National Register Districts (acres) 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0
b. Historic Study List and National Register Structures (number) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
14) Number of known cultural resources within 1/2 mile of site boundary
a. Historic Study List and National Register Districts (acres) 25.1 0 0 20.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 3.5 0 0 0.0
b. Historic Study List and National Register Structures (number) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0.0
Total Score 4 10 6 7 6 6 3 5 4 2 8 5 5
Rank 3 13 8 11 8 8 2 5 3 1 12 5 5
Table 8
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Data and Scoring Based on Median Value
I Impacts Calculated Based on Practicable Area
Partners' Candiate WRF Sites
St
ti
ti
Screening Criteria Preferred
Preferred
Site 8
Site 13
Site 15
Site 16
Site 17
Site 19
Site 20
Site 21
Site
Site 25
Site 26
Site 30 a
s
cs
Site
(Site 4) 21123 Mean Median 25th % 75th %
Site Data
Size of Site Practicable area (acres) 52.5 69.8 59.7 49.5 64.0 55.7 78.9 56.5 52.5 76.4 56.1 63.6 50.7
A. Physical Environment
1) Displacements on site
a. Number of dwelling units on site 0 8 21 14 4 6 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 4.3 1 0 6
b. Number of individual property owners on site 1 15 39 28 13 13 5 1 1 3 4 9 3 10.4 5 3 13
2) Site access, transportation, and other services
a. Distance from site practicable area to nearest US or NC highway or interstate (feet) 196 14,370 11,977 2,714 272 4,919 4,819 7,358 9,564 10,867 8,653 14,707 130 6,965 7,358 2,714 10,867
3) Length of influent and effluent pipelines required to reach WRF site boundary 236,348 276,200 277,151 239,758 248,894 251,289 243,959 262,647 261,746 260,881 244,492 258,966 246,179 254,501 251,289 244,492 261,746
a. Influent pipelines (feet) 53,408 32,712 42,695 47,926 44,230 48,039 55,945 61,511 62,190 62,715 55,522 53,464 58,841 52,246 53,464 47,926 58,841
b.Effluent pipelines (feet) 91,470 121,744 117,228 95,916 102,332 101,625 94,007 100,568 99,778 99,083 94,485 102,751 93,669 101,127 99,778 94,485 102,332
Wetlands and Waters of the US/State:
4) Total Wetlands and Lakes/Ponds within practicable area (acres) 0.0 14.3 3.9 0.0 0.0 7.9 4.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.0 2.4 0.1 0.0 3.9
5) Perennial and Intermittent Streams within practicable area (length) 1,134 259 2,561 1,289 997 3,194 4,705 3,181 2,991 5,805 2,880 2,429 363 2,445 2,561 1,134 3,181
B. Biological Environment
6) Significant Natural Heritage Areas on site (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.5 0.3 0.0 0 0.2 0 0 0.7 0 0 0.01
7) Gamelands on site (acres) 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.6 6.4 123.1 10.6 0 0 0.2
8) Public lands on site 0 3.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0.0
9) Known occurrences of T&E/species of special concern Win 1/2 mile of site boundary 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 0 2 0 1 0.8 0 0 2
C. Social Parameters
10) Population within 112 mile of site boundary 265 225 209 264 276 209 63 53 32 28 57 73 98 142 98 57 225
11) Number of known occurrences of sensitive land uses within 112 mile of site boundary 4 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 2
12) Parks, greenway, open space on site (acres) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
D. Cultural Resources
13) Number of known cultural resources found on site
a. Historic Study List and National Register Districts (acres) 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0
b. Historic Study List and National Register Structures (number) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0
14) Number of known cultural resources within 1/2 mile of site boundary
a. Historic Study List and National Register Districts (acres) 25.1 0 0 20.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 3.5 0 0 0.0
b. Historic Study List and National Register Structures (number) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0.0
Total Score 3 10 6 6 4 6 5 5 6 3 7 5 5
Rank 1 13 8 8 3 8 4 4 8 1 12 4 4
IV. Intermediate Screening Analysis
The intermediate screening analysis was performed to select several potential WRF
sites for detailed analysis as alternatives to the Partners' proposed WRF site. This
intermediate screening involved analysis of the sites remaining after the initial
screening (Table 2 above). Data for the Partners' preferred site (Site 14) is also
included.
The intermediate screening process involved establishment of criteria, compilation of
data for each site, development of a simplified scoring methodology for each site,
scoring the sites, and evaluation of results to select sites for further analysis.
A. Intermediate Screening Criteria
The screening criteria were developed based on several categories including:
¦ Physical Environment, including Wetlands and Waters of the US and State
¦ Biological Environment, including occurrences of threatened and endangered
species
¦ Social Parameters
¦ Cultural Resources
¦ Site Development Factors
Table 3 presents the data elements that were collected under each of these categories.
B. Data Collection
Available information sources were used to develop the data for each of the remaining
12 sites being evaluated as alternatives to the Partners' preferred WRF site. Table 4 is a
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Draft Identification of WRF Site Alternatives
March 27, 2008
Page 22
Table 3
Data Collected for Intermediate Screening Analysis
Data Definition and Measurement
Physical Environment
1) Displacements on site Measured as number of dwelling units and number of unique
(individual) property owners on WRF site.
Site access, transportation, and other Distance measured from site boundary at practicable area
2) access to nearest current or former US/NC highway or
services interstate (feet)
3) Length of influent and effluent pipelines Length of influent and effluent pipelines to WRF site
required boundary includes Holly Springs effluent pipeline) feet
Wetlands and Waters of the US/State:
4) Wetlands Joined features of hydric soils and National Wetland
Inventory maps (acres)
5) Perennial streams Length of perennial streams (feet)
6) Intermittent streams Length of intermittent streams (feet)
7) Lakes/ponds Lakes/ponds (acres)
Biologi cal Environment
Habitat Quality:
8) Significant Natural Heritage Areas on site Significant Natural Heritage Areas on WRF site (number)
9) Gamelands on site Gamelands on WRF site (acres)
100) Public lands on site Public lands on WRF site (acres)
Known occurrences of T&E species or Known occurrences of T&E species or species of special
11) species of special concern within 1/2 mile of concern within 1/2 mile of site boundary, not including
"
"
site boundary species classified as
known to be destroyed
in Element
Occurrence file number
Social Parameters
12) Population within 1/2 mile of site boundary Population within 1/2 mile of WRF site boundary
Known occurrences of sensitive land uses Sensitive land uses (defined as cemeteries, daycare
13) within 1/2 mile of site boundary facilities, retirement facilities, schools, hospitals, and
churches) within 1/2 mile of site boundary (number)
Cultural Resources
14) Known cultural resources found on site National Register and Historic Study List districts and sites
found on WRF site acres/number
15) Known cultural resources within 1/2 mile of National Register or Historic Study List districts/sites found
site boundary within 1/2 mile of WRF site boundary (acres/number)
WRF development factors
Practicable area (the area identified by eliminating the
perimeter buffer and stream buffers to the extent practicable
16) Constructability and then drawn to achieve an area of approximately 50 acres
of contiguous area of a reasonable shape while avoiding
environmental impacts to the
extent practicable)
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Draft Identification of WRF Site Alternatives
March 27, 2008 Page 23
Table 4
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Source Data Used for Intermediate Screening for Water Reclamation Facility Candidate Sites
Data Sources
Screening Criteria Data Download
Source Filename
Date
Date
Site Data
Size of WRF Site (acres) CDM
Size of WRF Site minus 200-foot Perimeter Buffer CDM
(acres)
Size of Site Practicable area (acres) Project Partners/Brown and Caldwell
A. Physical Environment
1) Displacements on site
a. Number of dwelling units on site Wake County tax parcel database propertysw.shp 10/1/07 10/17/07
(wakegov.com)
b. Number of individual property owners on site Wake County tax parcel database propertysw.shp 10/1/07 10/17/07
(wakegov.com)
2 Site access, transportation, and other
services
Distance from site practicable area to nearest
a NCDOT primary roads (and secondary dotprimrds.shp (and
N/A
N/A
' US/NC highway or interstate (feet) roads file for Old Hwy 1) (ncdot.org) dotsecrds.shp for Old Highway 1)
3 Length of influent and effluent pipelines
required to reach WRF site boundary
a. Influent pipelines (feet) Drawn along major roads and N/A N/A N/A
easements (CDM)
b. Effluent pipelines (feet)
Effluent pipeline from Western Wake WRF to
Cape Fear River including Holly Springs' Drawn along major roads and N/A N/A N/A
effluent pipeline from Utley Creek WWTP easements (CDM)
feet
Wetlands and Waters of the US/State:
4) Total Wetlands and Lakes/Ponds
a. Lakes/ponds (acres) Wake County (wakegov.com) wakecounty_hp.shp 7/19/07 9/28/07
b Total Wetlands (joined features of hydric soils Joined features of hydric soils and NWI
and NWI) (acres) wetlands
Hydric A & B soils within practicable area Wake County (wakegov.com) Hydric Soils from soils.shp 7/19/07 9/28/07
(acres)
National Wetland Inventory wetlands within US Fish and Wildlife Service 48
polygons.shp
lower
wetlands 7/2007 9/19/07
practicable area (acres) (wetlandswms.er.usgs.gov) _
_
_
5) Perennial and Intermittent Streams
Length of perennial streams (feet) Wake County (wakegov.com) wakecounty_hl.shp 7/19/07 9/28/07
Length of intermittent streams (feet) Wake County (wakegov.com) wakecounty_hl.shp 7/19/07 9/28/07
Table 4
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Source Data Used for Intermediate Screening for Water Reclamation Facility Candidate Sites
Data Sources
Screening Criteria
Source
Filename Data

Date Download

Date
B. Biological Environment
6) Significant Natural Heritage Areas on site
(acres) NC OneMap (nconemap.com) snha.shp 2/27/07 10/7/07
7) Gamelands on site (acres) NC OneMap (nconemap.com) gml.shp 7/1/07 10/1/07
8) Public lands on site
a. Federal land (acres) NC OneMap (nconemap.com) flo.shp 3/29/06 10/2/07
b. State-owned land (acres) NC OneMap (nconemap.com) sol.shp 1/8/07 10/2/07
Known occurrences of T&E/species of special
9) concern Win 1/2 mile of site boundary
number
NC OneMap (nconemap.com)
nheo.shp
2/27/07
10/7/07
C. Social Parameters
10) Population within 1/2 mile of site boundary NC OneMap (nconemap.com) censusblocks2000.shp 4/17/02 10/2/07
11) Number of known occurrences of sensitive
land uses within 1/2 mile of site boundary
a. Cemeteries
b. Daycare facilities
c. Retirement facilities - Wake Co. tax parcel database - propertysw.shp 10/01/07 10/17/07
d. Schools - ADC map - ADC map
e. Hospitals
f. Churches and Churches with Cemeteries
12) Parks, greenway, open space on site (acres) Wake County (wakegov.com) new_os.shp 9/7/07
D. Cultural Resources
13 Number of known cultural resources found on
site
Historic Study List and National Register
a. Districts (acres)
National Register of Historic Places / NC
Historic Study List and National Register
b. Structures (number) Dept. of Cultural Resources
14 Number of known cultural resources within
1/2 mile of site boundary
Historic Study List and National Register
a. Districts (acres)
National Register of Historic Places / NC
Historic Study List and National Register
b. Structures (number) Dept. of Cultural Resources
summary of the information sources for each criterion within the five information
categories.
Site boundaries were generally based on parcels that were combined to provide the
desired area for a WRF location and with a typical size of at least 200 acres. In addition,
all sites were evaluated based on an "initial" site identification perspective. For
example, Site 30 was identified later than other sites when some additional evaluation
of Site 14 had been conducted for WRF development. Therefore, an additional parcel
was added to Site 30 to provide an alternative access to the site. Because this level of
analysis has not been performed on each of the sites, Site 30 was analyzed without this
additional parcel for the purpose of the intermediate screening analysis.
Table 5 at the end of the Intermediate Screening Analysis section shows the data
compiled for each of the criteria for each of the 12 candidate sites and the Partners'
preferred site. This includes the component data for some of the criteria such as
number of churches within one-half mile of the site, which is one of several
components to sensitive land uses. There were several professional judgments
involved in compiling this information that are documented in footnotes to Table 5.
In addition to compiling data for the entirety of each site, information on wetlands and
waters of the US/State was also compiled for each site excluding the planned 200-foot
perimeter buffer and excluding all but the practicable building area of each site.
Collecting the wetlands and waters of the US/State data for these areas was envisioned
to provide an alternate way to score sites based on a focused site analysis if needed to
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Draft Identification of WRF Site Alternatives
March 27, 2008
Page 26
differentiate several sites that score similarly. Maps showing the characteristics of each
site are included in Attachment 4.
When the criteria were originally developed, there were four individual criteria under
the category Wetlands and Waters of the US/State - wetlands, lakes/ponds, perennial
streams, and intermittent streams. Based on the analysis of data, these were condensed
to two criteria as discussed below.
In conducting the GIS analysis, it was noted that the majority of ponds overlapped with
either hydric soils or NWI information used to identify wetlands. Therefore, these sites
were included as wetlands and were not double counted also as lakes/ponds. In
considering the regulatory significance of ponds, they could be regulated as wetlands
depending on the characteristics such as being located on-line within a jurisdictional
stream. If they were upland ponds, they have little regulatory significance. Since the
areas of these ponds were typically small (about 5 acres or less), it was decided to add
these to the wetlands as a worst case measure of wetlands impacts.
For perennial and intermittent streams, Wake County maintains a GIS data layer for
County streams that bases the perennial and intermittent stream type on USGS blue
lines and county soil survey information. This information was developed for use with
the Neuse River buffer requirements developed by DWQ (Neuse River buffer
requirements are identical for intermittent and perennial streams) but the County and
local governments, including the Partner towns, have also used these as the basis of
buffers in the Cape Fear River Basin. Field studies have indicated that this information
is not reliable for differentiating intermittent and perennial streams. While the local
governments may have additional (in comparison with the Neuse rules) buffer
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Draft Identification of WRF Site Alternatives
March 27, 2008
Page 27
requirements that differ between intermittent and perennial streams, each of the
jurisdictions with potential sites has slightly different requirements. In addition, due to
recent changes in jurisdictional determination procedures, USACE does not
differentiate streams on the classifications of perennial and intermittent. Based on the
inability to distinguish between perennial and intermittent streams using GIS data, and
given that USACE and DWQ treat them similarly from a regulatory standpoint,
perennial and intermittent streams were combined as a single criterion for the purpose
of the intermediate screening analysis.
The "Site Access, Transportation, and Other Services" criterion was intended to
represent several factors related to transportation. During construction and operation
of the WRF, heavy trucks must access the site. Roads to the WRF site must be designed
so that trucks can travel safely, and if they are not capable of safely accommodating
truck loads, they must be improved. These road improvements will add cost and
environmental and community impacts to the project. Sites with less road
improvements required would be more desirable than sites requiring significant road
improvements. The transportation criterion was also intended to represent the impact
of truck traffic during construction and operation of the WRF on property owners who
live along roads near the WRF site. Sites closer to primary highways or interstates
would be more desirable than sites farther away, because fewer property owners will
be affected by increased truck traffic along roads they use often. For the intermediate
screening, this transportation criterion was represented by the distance from the WRF
site practicable area to the nearest current or former US or NC highway or interstate.
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Draft Identification of WRF Site Alternatives
March 27, 2008
Page 28
C. Screening Methodology
In addition to the data for each of the criteria, Table 5 includes basic statistics for each
of the criteria including the mean, median, lower quartile and upper quartile value for
each of the criteria. The goal of the scoring methodology was to compare the sites and
select the 2 to 5 most suitable sites to consider as alternatives to Site 14, the Partners'
preferred WRF location. A simplified scoring was developed that would score a site
for each criterion based on whether the criterion for that site was better than or worse
than a given statistic. If it was better, the site was given a value of "0" for that criterion
and if it was worse it was given a value of "1". This was done for each of the
intermediate screening criteria. The values were totaled for each of the sites and sites
with the lowest scores were considered the best alternative sites to analyze as
alternatives to the Partners' preferred site.
It was envisioned that all of the sites would first be scored based on data for the entire
site using the median values as the statistic for evaluating scores. If 2 to 5 sites clearly
stood out as the best alternatives, the intermediate screening data evaluation would
stop here. If there were still more than 5 alternatives, the scoring would be repeated
using alternative scoring methodologies such as the first quartile value. Another
scoring methodology that was considered was scoring the sites based on a focused site
analysis such as the site excluding the 200-foot perimeter buffer or scoring only the
practicable area to see how this affected the scoring. For this analysis, the sites were
scored based on all three categories: full site, site excluding perimeter buffer, and
practicable area. The scoring based on the full site data was used to identify the final
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Draft Identification of WRF Site Alternatives
March 27, 2008
Page 29
sites, and the other two categories were used to differentiate among sites or to consider
a second group of sites. This is described in more detail in the next two sections.
D. Intermediate Screening Results
Results of the screening based on the median criteria statistics for the entire site are
shown in Table 6 at the end of the Intermediate Screening Analysis section. Based on
this evaluation, the best scoring alternative site was Site 21/23. The next best scoring
alternative sites, which scored equal to the Partners' preferred site, were Sites 19 and
30. Therefore, the scoring based on the entire site suggests those three sites that are the
best candidates for more detailed analysis as alternatives to the Partners' preferred site
(Site 14).
Tables 7 and 8 at the end of the Intermediate Screening Analysis section show the same
results except the criteria for the Wetlands and Waters of the State/ US are based on the
alternative methodologies of scoring the sites when excluding the 200-foot perimeter
buffer and when considering only the site practicable area for construction of a WRF,
respectively. For the scoring based on the site minus the perimeter buffer, Site 21/23
scored the highest followed by Site 19 scoring the second highest. For the scoring
based on the practicable area, Site 21/23 scored the highest followed by Site 16. Maps
depicting the practicable area and site minus the perimeter buffer are included in
Attachment 4.
Table 9 is a summary of the scores for these three areas of analysis. Site 21/23 scores
highest for all three cases (full site, site minus perimeter buffer, and practicable area).
Sites 19 and 30 scored second-best for the full site data and reasonably well
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Draft Identification of WRF Site Alternatives
March 27, 2008
Page 30
for the other two cases. These three sites should be considered for detailed analysis as
alternatives to the Partners' preferred site. While Site 16 scored well for the practicable
area, it received relatively low rankings of "9" for the full site data and "8" for the site
minus perimeter buffer data. The practicable area boundary is highly likely to change
during detailed evaluations. The practicable area boundary serves as a preliminary
representation of the area where the wastewater treatment facilities are most likely to
be constructed. It is based on an area of approximately 50 contiguous acres of
reasonable shape that avoids environmental impacts to the extent practicable. The
practicable area will be defined in much greater detail after wetland and stream
delineations are completed. Because Site 16 scored well only in this category, it is not
recommended for further evaluations.
Because only three sites were identified as the best scoring alternatives to Site 14 when
the alternative scoring methodologies were used, scoring based on another statistic
such as the first quartile was not considered necessary.
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Draft Identification of WRF Site Alternatives
March 27, 2008
Page 31
Table 9
Summary of Intermediate Screening Results
Rank Based on Median Scoring
Site Partners' Candidate WRF Sites
Comparison Preferred
Site
Site
Site
Site
Site
Site
Site
Site
Site
Site
Site
Site
(Site 14) 8 13 15 16 17 19 20 21 21/23 25 26 30
Full Site 2 13 9 9 9 5 2 5 5 1 12 5 2
Site Minus
3 13 8 11 8 8 2 5 3 1 12 5 5
200-ft. Buffer
Practicable
1 13 8 8 3 8 4 4 8 1 12 4 4
Area
E. Qualitative Factors for Intermediate Screening
As noted above, Sites 19, 21/23, and 30 score better than or equal to Site 14 based on
median scoring for the entire site. Because this methodology reasonably narrows the
range of sites to 4 (the three alternative sites and the Partners' preferred site) for
detailed alternatives analysis, the analysis does not need to consider alternative scoring
methodologies. However, the results of the focused site analysis (scoring based on the
site minus perimeter buffer and site practicable area) presented in Tables 7 and 8 do
provide a different way to consider the data and allow for a "checking" of data to
confirm whether or not the results would be dramatically different if these
methodologies are used.
As noted in the previous section, Sites 19, 21/23, and 30 scored the highest for the full
site data. Sites 21/23 and Site 19 are both located south of US 1 and include land
owned by Progress Energy. There is some question regarding the legal ability of the
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Draft Identification of WRF Site Alternatives
March 27, 2008
Page 32
Partners to acquire a site owned by Progress Energy. If the Partners cannot acquire
Progress Energy land, Site 19 would still contain enough land (100 acres) to be used as
a WRF site. Site 21/23, however, is located entirely on land owned by Progress Energy
and would be infeasible. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider an alternate site that
could replace Site 21/23 in case it is determined to be infeasible.
The next highest scoring sites for the full site data are Sites 17, 20, 21, and 26. Sites 17,
20, 21, and 26 were all ranked "Y based on the full site data. However, like Site 21/23,
Sites 20 and 21 are located entirely on land owned by Progress Energy. Therefore, they
would not be good candidates for replacement of Site 21/23. Site 26 received a rank of
"Y for the site minus perimeter buffer and "4" for the practicable area. Site 17 received
a lower rank of "8" for both the site minus perimeter buffer and practicable area.
Because Site 26 received higher rankings than Site 17 for these categories, it is
reasonable to consider this site the most favorable site to replace Site 21/23 in case it is
determined that Site 21/23 cannot be used.
The fact that the highest-scoring sites based on median scoring for the entire site (Sites
19, 21/23, and 30) also score high when the focused site analysis (site minus perimeter
buffer and site practicable area) is used reinforces the conclusion that those three sites
constitute reasonable alternative sites to analyze in depth as potential alternatives to
the Partners' preferred site. Based on the previous discussion, it is also reasonable to
consider Site 26 as an alternate site to be added to the analysis in case Site 21/23 is
determined to be infeasible.
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Draft Identification of WRF Site Alternatives
March 27, 2008
Page 33
F. Recommendation
Based on the intermediate screening, it is recommended that Sites 19, 21/23, and 30 be
carried forward for alternatives analysis. During the course of the evaluations, if it is
determined that the Partners do not have the ability to acquire land owned by Progress
Energy (even by condemnation), and if an additional alternative becomes necessary,
Site 26 would be the next best site for inclusion in the analysis. USACE and the
Partners have contacted Progress Energy to discuss the ability to purchase or condemn
land owned by Progress Energy.
The sites recommended for further evaluations are depicted on Figure 10 at the end of
this section.
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Draft Identification of WRF Site Alternatives
March 27, 2008
Page 34
r
Partners'
Preferred Site
Recommended Sites
V
Alternate Site
Other Sites
Miles
13 0 025 0.5 1 1.5
w
1E~ I/
i
15
26
14
, 30 19
25
20
21
Shearon Harris 21 /23
Nuclear Power Plant

Appendix A
Site Identification History
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Draft Identification of WRF Site Alternatives
February 28, 2008
The Western Wake Partners conducted preliminary investigations to identify areas in
western Wake County that may be suitable for construction of a new WRF. To initiate
the preliminary investigations, the Partners first defined the land area requirements for
the new facility. The land area requirement was established at approximately 200 acres
to provide the Partners with sufficient flexibility to avoid or minimize impacts to
environmental resources such as streams and wetlands during facility planning and to
provide for a minimum 200-foot forested buffer around the site perimeter. The
purpose of the 200-foot perimeter buffer is to minimize potential impacts to
neighboring properties from odor, visual appearance, noise, and light. The Water
Environment Federation (WEF)'s Manual of Practice No. 8 titled Design of Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Plants, Volume I (1992) recommends that "the amount of isolation
and buffer area needed between plant processes and other property owners ...in
residential areas should be at least 150 to 250 feet." A 200-foot perimeter buffer was
selected for the Western Wake facility based on this guidance and the Project Partners'
experience with their existing wastewater facilities.
To identify areas that could be suitable sites for a new WRF, the Partners considered
the following physical feature data:
1) Location of 100-year floodplain
2) Location of wetland areas
3) Location of perennial and intermittent streams, and allowance for 100-foot
buffers for streams
4) 200-foot buffer around site
5) Topographic features (slope conditions)
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Draft Identification of WRF Site Alternatives A-1
February 28, 2008
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs)
were reviewed to determine the geographic extent of the 100-year floodplain. Potential
areas of wetlands were identified using National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps as
issued by the US Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Topographic
characteristics, as well as the locations of perennial and intermittent streams, were
determined using US Geological Survey (USGS) maps. In addition to consideration of
this physical feature data, the Partners considered the information and data from the
following reports that had been prepared previously:
¦ "West Cary/West Apex Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study," ARCADIS,
October 1997
¦ "Long-Range Wastewater Facilities Plan for the Town of Apex, North
Carolina," Wooten, December 1999
¦ "DRAFT Environmental Assessment for a New Reclaimed Water Discharge to
Cape Fear River," ARCADIS, December 2001
¦ "Western Wake Regional WRF and South Cary WRF Expansion Analysis,"
ARCADIS, March 2002
As a result of the preliminary investigations, 30 areas were identified that could be
suitable as the site of a new WRF. The 30 sites are depicted on Figure 1.
The 30 sites were identified while various wastewater management options and
discharge locations were still being considered. Because the task of identifying
potential WRF sites was undertaken concurrent with studying wastewater
management options and discharge locations, it was necessary to initially identify a
large number of potential sites in order to ensure that at least some of them would be
suitable as reasonable WRF locations regardless of which wastewater management
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Draft Identification of WRF Site Alternatives A-2
February 28, 2008
option and discharge location was eventually selected (see Alternative Wastewater
Discharge Locations and Wastewater Management Options documents).
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Draft Identification of WRF Site Alternatives A-3
February 28, 2008
Attachment 1
Details on Development of Candidate WRF Sites
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Draft Identification of WRF Site Alternatives A-4
February 28, 2008
?i
,
1
,? I r Y a? I t
.. F1 f 1 fi 7'":' . l v
I r -?"-.x as - ? c. r'
i r
.J q/'' t , ;? III
_r C.y?r _ lI I 1 ? Y t I
t-
C
Ue -Y,
l:
' ??? °rn? y s'C w I f t ? t? t
!- f i t r I f ?f
I - ? r. r I r
?'? ?° `? ? ? off, ,•?. ? ;? ? .,; r
tom- ?' ?
77-
r k r!
.,,/ ? 4 ? ? ? ? r r I
?Ypt r r _.
t
! ? I mac` h f ,? ? ? r
r? R? t ; } t j ,I
? ? a a r
tl
r. ? ft I ' j ?I'
f ; t" rr
d r ) _ I
Ir

u
I f p?-,

114, !1 !

r7 co
CC7 f ? ?
?5 f}
C?
C7
f?
(11;"
Co.
r)
i)
'CJ
Cp
n?
=-z
Cl)
t ?L:3

g3?g ? { 1 f
5
I_
tli39flff
l}li! [
mow
If}i?li
Il I: ?Ir
pr
} li
i
,

h fit:
?
F N,
???

? ylf 4;j; f E t
)
?ll;
y
?
'
I
f
l PA
l;
?.
g?
t p `
?
E
^
??
?_
• r ?, . . ???
I-?
? , ;
F{I?t
? e
,
4 ?
i
? ?,;
; ? _
,?
F
11-.• I ?i? ?
ii F
??1 ??I. ? ?? . .
f . .......r..
S
?; ,
, ? ?

? ? s,}} ? i?lpll

r '
{
'-trllN g rfI r 1 fr? 1i? t'.' 1 7 !? i if 7 1 f ?r,
f

0 (i
I
E
??i
' ?
'
(
?? f? 1 k
g
?
a
!
?`•
l
Yr
F
??? p, I?f.r 17 p1C` ?rf ? i r ,-S 1 l I t'• { S. i, } i, ?.l S! ?i

p
AN!
M
;
ttt
'
' ? e c ' ?,?'
s
rFC 14
!N. y. Fps: _.
? i

- d E ?Y? pt ' .??
'1 1 ' ?Spf
i
r •.

a s fD?
r ? I
gg ri
i.
.E R
44

too

r
MUM
p1

t
lob, y it

sit l
: t. , - tt .'L
I p 1
3
e
,
z

TWO
-
`
1

g i
E ?
i p
Ilf(2 GA,,E i0liVlE
V?

. k
v
c
i
f,
?iltr??ia=

r I It i?°f 1 f d
li @ t
@i ! S!
i £ ?E
i

I dip ,I?l . i,

@
!
3 @`c p r
???1 ? !

ti I ! 1 i

i 3

it ? yt o:i fr ,,t Z If s a S_
'

, l
, I( 1
x
?
C ?z.. ._ p
15` ? r? ? a?i

t

e

.
I

i
'
i i k

tf'.
ri
J
c;l

'
r /F3!t ? , . ? I

l
f

"`111
I((
I i
_ Ir <. 1
, E
?,
.
??
F'l
?j
p
Y f
1
E7 ' ? ;, ? E3}I r
`
P
t
e lE
'
1
? !.; 1
f l
;e

,
r s

4

f I
I ' I? 5 r ? .t 5I I? I}} ? J
' i
I yy
;
luid
t
s a
.
f
E (? t
,f ? E t f I?E3

r 1 (
;

q
r

J
f lIy ??
7
/! `! ?'' .y?lrl
A
i
E
n
r
:i
i c

s-'s

.
z r'
it
r
t
E7 1
1
t

- ' t3 ' f i
,1
,
r: Ds t'?} 1 {r f

{ r ' i a ? s = ctr

%_r1 , a 4° s ii r re. x k
3
?
i F k? r
i s 3 tt t
F-
f i r
? 1 r €
?
i? r t? t t ? p S ?
? ?
` .

F,
s'
Fe ' i s
oil
s
}
? a
t 7
q
1 d ,
+ 3

I p
i
i S
.F
i
JA
' >" ? t.l ??? ,. ' ? ,, li r?R? ?• P. F E. .fir ??..., ,.?.. v.
t-
Attachment 2
NRC Press Release regarding Harris Nuclear Plant Expansion
(September 5, 2007)
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Draft Identification of WRF Site Alternatives A-5
February 28, 2008
..? 4.; .
NRC NEWS
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs Telephone: [phone]
Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 E-mail: [e-mail]
Web Site: http://www,nrc.gov
No. 07-114
September 5, 2007
NRC MEETING SEPTEMBER 18 IN APEX, N.C., TO DISCUSS REVIEW
PROCESS FOR EXPECTED NEW REACTOR APPLICATION
Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will conduct a public meeting in Apex, N.C., on
Tuesday, Sept. 18, to discuss how the agency will review an expected Combined License (COL)
application for new reactors at the Shearon Harris site, about 20 miles southwest of Raleigh. The
prospective applicant, Progess Energy, has told the NRC it intends to apply in a few months for a
license to build and operate two AP 1000 reactors at Harris.
"The NRC's expecting several applications before the end of this year, and as we review them
we'll be looking for valuable input from nearby communities," said William Borchardt, Director of the
NRC's Office of New Reactors. "This meeting will help residents understand and contribute to the
process."
The meeting will be held at New Horizons Fellowship, 820 E. Williams St. in Apex, from 7
p.m. until 9 p.m. NRC staff presentations will describe the overall Combined License review process,
which includes safety and environmental assessments, as well as how the public can participate in the
process. The NRC will host an open house for an hour prior to the meeting so members of the public
have the opportunity to talk informally with agency staff.
A COL, if issued, is authorization from the NRC to construct and, with conditions, operate a
nuclear power plant at a specific site and in accordance with laws and regulations. More information on
the NRC's new reactor licensing process is available on the agency's Web site here:
, vww.nrc. govlreactors/new-reactor-licensing,htm1 .
The AP 1000 is one of four NRC-certified reactor designs that can be referenced in a COL. It is
a 1,000 MWe advanced pressurized water reactor that incorporates passive safety systems and
simplified system designs. The AP 1000 is similar to another certified design, the AP600, but uses a
taller reactor vessel to accommodate longer fuel rods, and also includes larger steam generators and a
larger pressurizer.

News releases are available through a free list serve subscription at the following Web address:
http '/www.nrc.r in] . The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE link. E-
mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site.
Attachment 3
Correspondence from Progress Energy to the Town of Holly Springs Regarding
Utility Easements Near Harris Lake
(February 3, 2006)
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Draft Identification of WRF Site Alternatives
February 28, 2008
Twelve Oaks
Stephanie Sudano
From: Cochran, Steve [[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 2:48 PM
To: Stephanie Sudano
Cc: Francis, Hortense
Subject: Twelve Oaks
Page 1 of 1
Stephanie, Here is an update on the Twelve Oaks process. I have started putting together the report. I do need to
get the survey back with the transmission towers located on it as soon as possible. once we receive the revised
survey, then the location of the access road will have to be approved by Transmission. We will expedite that
process as quickly as possible. Assuming that there are no routing changes, we will then get the letter agreement
signed. My goal is to have the report ready to go once we get approval from Transmission, and have the letter
ready to execute as well.
Your assistant, Debbie sent me an e-mail stating that you wanted to meet next week. I think we can handle the
situation through e-mail and phone calls. Let me know when you receive the revised survey.
As you may have heard, Progress Energy is considering expanding the operations at the Hams Nuclear Plant.
Due to that announcement, any projects that require easements below the 260 foot contour line will not be
considered until further notice.
Look forward to hearing from you. Thanks, Steve
4/27/2006
Attachment 4
Intermediate Screening Maps Showing Site Characteristics
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Draft Identification of WRF Site Alternatives
February 28, 2008
Western Wake Regional Wastewater
Management Facilities
Site Maps used for
Intermediate Screening Evaluations of
Candidate WRF Sites
February 28, 2008
Western Wake Regional Wastewater
Management Facilities
Site 8
8
m 13
w ?V
15
14
-
?
16 17
26
25

! .
1 , ,

{
l
bk
rv.. 1
t

j
t
yY

t a
5

? a 1

r c
I
II Yro # # 3 I
1

? ? I
I

Feet -`: _rFKr?- t 1
0 225 450 900 1,350 t
{
Perennial Stream Practicable Area
Intermittent Stream
Lake or Pond
100 ft. Stream
& Pond buffer
?_.._.. ! Site Boundary
200 ft. Perimeter
Buffer
Property Lines
1 Significant Natural
-----? Heritage Area
Floodplain
Gamelands
Wetlands

.Zn P
?' aye
z

8
13
16 17
15 26
14
25
30 19
20
Feet
0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000
Lake or Pond
Ch a rc h
-00 ft Perimeter Buffer
Property Lines
t t Cemetery - 1 Sit, BoundaP,
U5 Mile Site Buffer
El Historic Study List Structure

L
, Histori. Study List Bisttict Floodpla in
J
M Gain elands
Significant llatural Heritage Area
? vvetlands
Perennial Stream
Intermittent Stream
5?

Buckhorn Da?n
F3
8
F
s3

13
5_3
WT?
F3 amp station
® E l, r,zatn t I-t Lncacnn,
"tz H Infl uznt pip-
'At- 8 Efflluznt Pipe
Holly ,rings Effluent F, f_lain
lludza, Pn:e-z, Plant
Road
Inte,?tate / High:-,
-Pa,knnm Dan,
s,zan, n, R
Lake or Ri
-7t
-
_- ft Cnntnu, Linz
_nz f_lilz Paiffz, of fluclzar Po--,Plant
401
Western Wake Regional Wastewater
Management Facilities
Site 13
8
13
9
16 17
;.. w
- 15 26
14
25
.... ..:...
30
19
20
21
21 /23

J

it
,e
II z l
i

G

j

- _ o.

m S„

G
y ?

V

?O
r&?
Feet
0 250 500 1,000 1,500
P _
Perennial Stream 200 ft. Perimeter -
Buffer
Intermittent Stream Practicable Area
m
,
Lake or Pond Property Lines
100 ft. Stream Floodplain
& Pond buffer -
Site Boundary Gamelands

Wetlands
8
13

Fe et
__A 1 -.300 x.300
200 ft. Perimeter Buffer
T & E Species
Property Lines
?_ - Historic Study List District -
- - Site Boundary

National Register District -
0.5 Mile Site Buffer
Perennial Stream Floodplain
Intermittent Stream Gamelands
Lake or Pond Wetlands
15
14
16 17
26
25
19
20
21
21/23
i
Buckhorn Da?n
13
F3
F
s3

D3
5_3
WT?
F3 amp station
® E l, r,-atn t R,nt Lncacnn,
fit- 13 Influent Pip-
'At- 13 Efflu-nt Rp
H-11, ,rings Effluent F, f_lain
llud-a, Pn:e-e, Plant
Road
Inte,?tate / High:-,
-PAicknnm Dan,
s,-an, n, R
Lake or Riv-,
37t
13
-
_- ft Cnntnu, Lin-
n- f_liI- aiff-, of f lucl-ar Po--, Plant
401
Western Wake Regional Wastewater
Management Facilities
Site 14
8
13

16 1

,' .m v. ..-., .. .. -
r 1 5
26
14
25
: ' ,..
30

19
20
21
21 23

Vz, . .
.
,
vz

& ?
o
ttild -
ry
a
I

I
i
i

Feet 1
I
0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 i,.
Church Site Boundary
200 ft. Perimeter Buffer
ttt Cemetery
Practicable Area
Retirement Property Lines
{ T & E Species 260 ft. Contour
Perennial Stream Floodplain
Ga mela nds
Intermittent Stream
Lake or Pond wetlands
100 ft. Stream & Pond Buffer - Historic Study List District
8
13

Feet
0 600 1,200 2,400 3,600
Perennial Stream
Church
Intermittent Stream

t t t Cemeter Lake or Pond
y
Property Lines
Retirement 200ft. Perimeter Buffer
L -; Site Boundary
T& E Species 0.5 Mile Site Buffer
- Floodplain

J Historic Study List District
7
-_ Game lands
260 ft. Contour
Wetlands
16 17
15 26
14
25
30 19
20
21
21/23

Buckhorn Da?n
14
F3
F
s3

s-3
5_3
WT?
F3 amp station
tea, ck hom Dam
in4533n 5
Holly Se ii ng , Effluent Ford 31ain
® E
ili
T
t
t R
t L
ti
t
n,
rea
m en
an
oca
ons
[Judea, Po::-er Plant
Road
Intestate f Higl-a,
Lake or Ri-,
_60 ft Contour Line
9ream or R, -,
_ - f lila B,ffei f 11-1-a, P er Plant
mite 14
401
Western Wake Regional Wastewater
Management Facilities
Site 15
8
13

16 17
15 26
14
25
30 19

20
ale;

. 21
21 /23

J:
?.. dR.
rv

n 1

J,

m a $ L...

..
n

' ttid : `.
M
-
g

Feet M1
0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 m
a. '
Church Site Boundary -

t 200 ft. Perimeter Buffer ~

t Cemetery
t r
Practicable Area d
T & E Species
Property Lines
.
.
Perennial Stream 260 ft. Contour
Intermittent Stream Floodplain
Lake or Pond Gamelands
100 ft. Stream & Wetlands
Pond Buffer
l_-_- I Historic Study List District
8
13
16 17
15 26
14
25
30 19
20
21
21/23

I
Feet
0 600 1,200 2,400 3,600
Perennial Stream
Church
Intermittent Stream
Lake or Pond
t t Cemetery Property Lines

R
ti
tF
-ilit 7J ft Perim t rBuffer
e
remen
a-
y That and_b ak OFeet
?lI \ _ Site Boundary

I T a E SI ecie-,
h r l,l ik Site Buffer

L _1 wsmric stun, List L? tiia oodl'ain
Fl

SgnificantIlatural H iitageArea Gamelands
ridctland

Buckhorn Da?n
F3
15
F
s3

s-3
5_3
WT?
F3 amp station
® E l, r,-atn t R,nt Lncacnn,
fit- 15 Influent Pip-
'At- 1, Efflu-nt Rp
H-11, ,rings Effluent F, f_lain
llud-a, Pn:e-e, Plant
Road
Inte,?tate / High:-,
-Pa,knnm Dan,
s,-an, n, R
Lake or Riv-,
-7t
-
_- ft Cnntnu, Lin-
n- f_liI- aiff-, of f lucl-ar Po--, Plant
401
Western Wake Regional Wastewater
Management Facilities
Site 16
8

K' 13
n

' S
>.
5
s
ry
;..
w:
16 1
& 15 26
a 14
,a :r r 25
30 19

20
rr
)

21
,... 21 /23

,
.....::..
...' ' l ?
fi
.
r:.

i

S I

r n.
s
w ?

r

,
r.

.
G3

I

r/
..
.. .,
.
?. .: .
a ___
3 :AZ ..
h

Feet „
0 250 500 1,000 1,500

Perennial Stream 200 ft. Perimeter
Butter
.
Intermittent Stream Practicable Area r
Lake or Pond Property Lines
100 ft. Stream Floodplain
& Pond buffer
Site Boundary
'
' Wetlands
,
,
8
d 13
+
I t+ 5,
16 17
10t 14 15 26
25
ttt 30 19
20
21
21/23
Feet
0 600 1,200 2,400 3,600
Lake or Pond
Church
200 ft. Perimeter Buffer
ttt Cemetery Property Lines
A Site Boundary
L
Significant Natural Heritage Area -_
0.5 Mile Site Buffer
260 ft. Contour
Floodplain
Perennial Stream
Gamelands
Intermittent Stream
Wetla nds

Buckhorn Da?n
F3
F
16
s3

s-3
5_3
WT?
F3 amp station
® E l, r,-atn ,M R,nt Lncacnn?
fit- 16 Influ-nt Pip-
St- 16 Efflu-nt Rp
Holly ,rings Effluent Ford f_lain
llud-a,Po:e--,Plant
Road
Inte,?tate / High:-,
-Pa,knom Dan,
s,-an, o, R
Lake or Riv-,
-7t
-
_- ft Contour Lin-
n- f_lil- aiff-, of f lucl-ar Po--, Plant
401
Western Wake Regional Wastewater
Management Facilities
Site 17
ttt
dttt
ttt
Feet
0 600 1,200 2,400 3,600
Lake or Pond
Church
200 ft. Perimeter Buffer
ttt Cemetery Property Lines
_
Site Boundary
J Significant Natural Heritage Area 0.5 Mile Site Buffer
260 ft. Contour Floodplain
Perennial Stream Gamelands
Intermittent Stream Wetlands
30
t?
8
13
15
14
10,
16 17
26
25
19
20
21
21/23

Buckhorn Da?n
F3
F
17
s3

s-3
5_3
WT?
F3 amp station
® E l, r,-atn ,M R,nt Lncacnn?
fit- 1' Influent Pip-
St- 1- Efflu-nt Rp
Ho11, ,rings Effluent Ford f_lain
llud-a, Po:e-e, Plant
Road
Inte,?tate / High:-,
-Pa,knom Dan,
s,-an, o, R
Lake or Riv-,
-7t
1
-
_- ft Contour Lin-
n- f_liI- aiff-, of f lucl-ar Po--, Plant
401
Western Wake Regional Wastewater
Management Facilities
Site 19
4

Mry

0 250 500
Perennial Stream
Intermittent Stream
Lake or Pond
100 ft. Stream
& Pond buffer
Site Boundary
200 ft. Perimeter
Buffer
8
13

16 17
15 26
?.,.
E 14
25
30 19
20
21
21/23

X
I
? I

t

_
- I

a
I
I

i

y .

Feet r:
r
a
1,000 1,500

Practicable Area
Property Lines
260 ft.Contour

Significant Natural
I
L--' Heritage Area
Floodplain
Wetlands
5?

8
13

Feet
0 600 1,200 2,400 3,600
''-00 ft. Contour
Church
Perennial Strea m
I n to mi itte nt S trey m
t tcemetery Late orPond
?00 ft. Penmeter Ei-fffer
Retirement Properti Lines

T& E Species Site Boundary
C Ilile Site Buffer

Significant Hatuial Heiit, ,e Area Floodplain
Gan,elands
__? Historic Study LRt District Wetlands
Buckhorn Da?n
F3
F
19
s3

s-3
5_3
WT?
F3 amp station
® E l, r,-atn ,M R,nt Lncacnn?
"t- 19 Infl a-nt Pip-
St- 19 Efflu-nt Rp
Holly ,rings Effluent Ford f_lain
llud-a,Po:e--,Plant
Road
Inte,?tate / High:-,
-Pa,knom Dan,
s,-an, o, R
Lake or Riv-,
-7t
15
-
_- ft Contour Lin-
n- f_lil- aiff-, of f lucl-ar Po--, Plant
401
Western Wake Regional Wastewater
Management Facilities
Site 20
8
13
Itf? . cus,
16 17
15 26
14
25
30 19
20
21
21/23
Ad
i
Feet -
0 600 1,200 2,400 3,600
Perennial Stream
Retirement
Intern ittent Stream
Church Lake or Pond
Property Lines
t t Cemetery L00 ft Perimeter Buffer
1 Sit Boundary
T & E Sjpecies Mile Site Buffer
Floodpla in
Significant Ilatural Heritage Area Camelands
'(')()ft Contour Wetlands
Buckhorn Da?n
F3
F
20
s3

s-3
5_3
WT?
F3 amp station

om Dam
"'Oh
® I ling T,atn-nt Rant Location.
St-?O lnflu-nt Pip-
,t- ?0 Efflu -nt R p-
Hu1I? Spring. Efflu-nt Force f_lain
f lud -a, P P la nt
Road
lnt-,,,tat- High ii a,
Lah- o, Ri.-,
_60 ft Contour Lin-
9rean or R, -i
_ -f lil-B,ff-i f11-1-a, P -r Plant
wit- ^0
401
Western Wake Regional Wastewater
Management Facilities
Site 21
'?^
?..
.:.?
;:

S1
Feet
0 600 1,200 2,400 3,600
Perennial Stream
Church
Intermittent Stream

t t t Cemetery Lake or Pond
200ft. Perimeter Buffer

Site Boundary
T& E Species
0.5 Mile Site Buffer
Significant NaturalHentageArea Floodplain
260 ft. Contour Gamelands
Property Lines Wetlands
8
13
10,
Buckhorn Da?n
F3
F
21
s3

s-3
5_3
WT?
F3 amp station

om Dam
"'Oh
® I ling T,atn-nt Rant Location.
St-?1 Influ-nt Pip-
,t- -l Efflu-n t Rp-
Hu11, Spring. Efflu-nt Force f_lain
f lud -a, P P la nt
Road
lnt-,,,tat- High ii a,
Lah- o, Ri.-,
_60 ft Contour Lin-
9rean or R, -i
_ -f lil-B,ff-i f11-1-a, P -r Plant
tt--1
401
Western Wake Regional Wastewater
Management Facilities
Site 21123

13
8
16 17
15 26
14
25
19
20
21
21/23

i
c
30

r.
..

is
I

f
I J.
.

Feet
0 250 500 1,000 1,500
Perennial Stream 260 ft.Contour
Intermittent Stream Practicable Area
I Significant Natural
Lake or Pond
L-
100 ft. Stream
Heritage Area
& Pond buffer Floodplain
l
Site Boundary Gamelands
_
200 ft. Perimeter
Wetlands
Buffer
Property Lines

e

p h

J
6
4

Feet
0 600 1,200 2,400 3,600
Retirement Perennial Stream
Intern ittent Stream
Ch urch Lake or Pond
Property Lines
t t Cemetery _1, Site Boundary
5 Mile Site Buffer
T P E S1;e.ies Flo oc9hlaIII
Gamcla nds
Significant Clatural Hentage Area V?etlands
_t?0 It Contour
Buckhorn Da?n
F3
F
2t23
s3

D3
5_3
WT?
F3 amp station
® E l, r,-atn ,M R,nt Lncacnn?
-7t- 211^3 Influ-nt Pip,
'it-1123 Efflu -nt R p-
Ho1Iy -'4, rings Effluent Ford f_lain
llud-a,Po:e--,Plant
Road
Inte,?tate / High:-,
-Pa,knom Dan,
s,-an, o, R
Lake o, Riv-,
37t
21 1-3
-
_- ft Contour Lin-
n- f_liI- aiff-, of f lucl-ar Po--, Plant
401
Western Wake Regional Wastewater
Management Facilities
Site 25
Site Boundary vvcuaiiua
200 ft. Perimeter
Buffer

8
13
16 17
ES 13
i
41
i
Feet
0 550 1,100 2,200 3,300
Perennial Stream
Church
Intermittent Stream
Lake or Pond
t t t Cemetery 200 ft. Perimeter Buffer
T& E Species Site Boundary
0.5 Mile Site Buffer
`- J Significant Natural Heritage Area Floodplain
260 ft. Contour Gamelands
Property Lines Wetlands
30
15
14
26
25
19
20
21
21/23

I
i
i
I

Buckhorn Da?n
F3
F
25
s3

s-3
5_3
WT?
F3 amp station
® E l, r,-atn t R,nt Lncacnn,
fit- 2s Influent Pip-
'At- Efflu-nt Rp
H-1Iy ,rings Effluent F, f_lain
llud-a, Pn:e-e, Plant
Road
Inte,?tate / High:-,
-Pa,knnm Dan,
s,-an, n, R
Lake or Riv-,
-7t
-
_- ft Cnntnu, Lin-
n- f_liI- aiff-, of f lucl-ar Po--, Plant
401
Western Wake Regional Wastewater
Management Facilities
Site 26
8
13

Feet
0 250 500 1,000 1,500
Perennial Stream Property Lines
Intermittent Stream 260 ft.Contour
Lake or Pond Significant Natural
?
--
Heritage Area
1
00 ft. Stream
Floodplain
& Pond buffer
Site Boundary Gamelands
200 ft. Perimeter Wetlands
Buffer
Practicable Area
16 17
15 26
14
25
30 19
20
21
21/23

8
13

Feet
0 550 1,100 2,200 3,300
Lake or Pond
Church
200 ft. Perimeter Buffer
ttt Cemetery Property Lines
Site Boundary
Significant Natural Heritage Area
, 0.5 Mile Site Buffer
260 ft. Contour Floodplain
Perennial Stream Gamelands
Intermittent Stream Vttlands
16 17
15 26
14
25
30 19
20
21
21/23

F3
F
26
Buckhorn Da?n
s3

s-3
5_3
WT?
F3 amp station

om Dam
"'Oh
® I ling T,atn-nt Rant Location.
St--6Influ-nt Pip-
, t-- Efflu -nt R p-
Hulls Spring. Efflu-nt Force f_lain
f lud -a, P P la nt
Road
lnt-,,,tat- High ii a,
Lah- o, Ri.-,
_60 ft Contour Lin-
9rean or R, -i
_ -f lil-B,ff-i f11-1-a, P -r Plant
wit-
401
Western Wake Regional Wastewater
Management Facilities
Site 30
8
13
16 17
15 26
14
25
30 19
20
21
21/23
tt?
i
ttt
Feet
0 750 1,500 3,000 4,500
Perennial Stream
Chu rc h
Intermittent Stream

t t t Cemetery Lake or Pond
200 ft. Perimeter Buffer

1
: Site Boundary
:
T & E Species ___-
_ _
0.5 Mile Site BL6fel"
L- Historic Study List District Floodplain
260 ft. C onto ur Ga me la nds
Propeity Lines Wetlands

0
A

Buckhorn Da?n
30
F3
F
s3

D3
5_3
WT?
F3 ainp staaon
Pa,ckhon Dam
® I,iling Treatment Rant Locations
Ste - Influznt Pipe
Ste 3C Effluznt Rpz
Ho11, firing. Effluent Ford f_lain
fludzar Po::-zr Plant
Roah
1', tate l Hlgl- a,
Lakz or Ri ,
A ft Contour Linz
9rzan or R, ,
_i-f lilz affzr f11iclzai P er Plant
?,7te Sri
401