20061203 Ver 2_Western Wake Comment Summary on 11-29-07 PDT materials (2-28-08)_20080228

Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
NEPA EIS
Comment Summary - Comments on Materials Presented at November 29, 2007 PDT Meeting No. 7

Paul Barth -New Hill Community Association
Site 26 did not score as well in the Intermediate Screening as three other
ID of WRF Site sites. Therefore, those three sites were recommended for final evaluations.
1 Alternatives Tables 5, 61 7, 8 After reviewing the site details again, I would like to have site 26 Site 26 is the next best scoring site and will be added to the final evaluations
document added to the final list of alternative sites. if it is determined that the Partners do not have the legal ability to acquire
land owned by Progress Energy (even by condemnation). See revised (Feb.
2008) Identification of WRF Alternatives document.
ID of WRF Site We would like to know and understand what "weighting" if any, was
2 Alternatives Tables 5, 61 7, 8 used to determine importance of any single criteria. If no weighting Per previous discussions with the PDT and as requested specifically by
document was used, then this needs to be done. Each criterion should not CG&L, weighting was discouraged and not used.
have the same weight.
Providing a list of property owners in a public document is not appropriate
due to potential confidentiality issues for the property owner. In light of
Need a list of the property owners. USACE's determination that USACE cannot grant citizens access to visit the
'
sites under USACE
s permission letter, property owners and addresses for
any parcel in Wake County can be accessed via Wake County's Maps
ID of WRF Site online mapping service (http://imaps.co.wake.nc.us/imaps/).
3 Alternatives Tables Section
5
6
7
8 A - 1 b Parcels intersecting site refers to all parcels or parts of parcels that are
document ,
,
, contained within the WRF site boundary (i.e., the total number of parcels that
What does "parcels intersecting site" mean and who are the are part of the site). This was provided for information only. Because this

owners? criterion was not actually used in the site scoring, it has been deleted from
the table. Per the previous comment, providing a list of property owners in a
public document is not appropriate due to potential confidentiality issues for
the property owner.
This criterion needs to address the distance to a major road that trucks
would use to bring materials to the site or transport materials from the site.
For this reason, distance to an NCDOT Primary Road or Old Highway 1 was
used as the criterion. If we use the proposed revised wording, we will be
measuring distance to a non-posted (not weight-limited) NCDOT Secondary
ID of WRF Site Need to reword to "Distance from site practical area to a roadway Road, but there may be roads between the non-posted road and the NCDOT

4
Alternatives Tables Section
that is
approved
N
to carry the the
amount and
type
of traffic Primary Road that are weight-limited and would not be included.
document
5, 6, 7, 8
A- 2a
m
necessary
to
support the he m
and
operation of
the
WRF".
Additionally, the criterion was also meant to address the impact of traffic to
residents and travelers of these roads.
It is anticipated that the final site evaluations will include more detailed
information on roads that are approved by NCDOT to carry WRF related
construction and operation traffic and the cost or environmental implications
of having to improve roads as part of the WRF project.
Page 1
2/28/08
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
NEPA EIS
Comment Summary - Comments on Materials Presented at November 29, 2007 PDT Meeting No. 7
Need to include Holly Springs effluent pipeline into the figures. This
will more accurately reflect total pipe line footage. Additional piping Holly Springs' effluent force main lengths have been added to the effluent
to alternative sites from Apex will be offset by shorter pipe line pipeline row of the Intermediate Screening tables.
coming from Holly Springs.
ID of WRF Site Tables Section
Alternatives 5, 6, 7, 8 A - 3b
document Need to add the estimate distance using a pipe line route south and
east side of Harris Lake. Route would enable water to be available
for Harris Lake if needed during drought conditions.
Need better understanding of what this criterion is and how data was
obtained.
ID of WRF Site Tables Section What weight do these criteria have?
Alternatives
document 5, 6, 7, 8 A-5
If not part of practicable area, what value does this have?
The Partners are currently discussing the option of discharging treated
effluent to Harris Lake. Water quality modeling data is needed for DWQ to
determine whether this dischage location is acceptable. Routes to Harris
Lake will be evaluated if this discharge location is deemed to be acceptable
by NCDWQ.
The pipeline route west of Harris Lake to Buckhorn Dam minimizes
environmental impacts while the route east and south of Harris Lake will
greatly increase environmental impacts as a result of stream and wetland
crossings.
Perennial and intermittent streams are included as a measure of each
alternative's impact to Waters of the US, which are regulated by the US
Army Corps of Engineers and NCDWQ. The data was obtained from Wake
County's GIS data web site. The "perennial" and "intermittent" designations
in the Wake County GIS data are based on whether a stream is shown as a
solid or broken blue line on USGS maps and Wake County Soil Survey
maps.
Per discussions with the PDT, no weighting was assigned to any of the
criteria.
Because the intermediate analysis is not a detailed analysis as the final
analysis will be, the entire site as well as the area minus the 200-foot
perimeter buffer was analyzed. This allowed for a characterization of the
environmental features on the entire site. During final site evaluations, WRF
facility layouts will be completed, and this will enable more detailed
determinations of impacts to be made. The "practicable area" is an estimate
of the most constructable area on the site with the least impacts. Streams
on the site outside the WRF facility footprint are still important, because
access roads and pipeline corridors will be required to cross streams to
reach the WRF facilities.
Page 2
2/28/08
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
NEPA EIS
Comment Summary - Comments on Materials Presented at November 29, 2007 PDT Meeting No. 7
lo ll
SNHAs should not be excluded from Site 19 or any of the sites because
For site 19, reduce site acres by excluding 8.64 acres for Natural determining the area of the SNHAs is a part of the intermediate screening
Heritage Area. analysis. Also, though the USACE is considering SNHAs as part of the
intermediate screening analysis, SNHAs are not protected like threatened

7 ID of WRF Site
Alt
ti Tables Section and endangered species. The definition provided by NHP for SHNAs is as
f
ll
"A
f l
d
d/
t
id
tifi
d b
th
NCNHP
h
erna
ves 5
6
7
8 B - 6 o
ows:
n area o
an
an
or wa
er
en
e
y
e
w
ose
'
document ,
,
, conservation is important for the preservation of the State
s biodiversity.
SNHAs contain one or more element occurrences (i.e., high-quality or rare
Need to breakdown data using the same (3) colors approach as was natural communities, rare species, and important animal assemblages).
done for Section A SNHAs are assigned a Site significance rating based on the value of the
elements they contain."
Population within 1/2 mile of the WRF site boundaries is included in Item 10.
The data collected for this phase of the analysis regarding population
ID of WRF Site
Tables
Section Need population and income demographics. Refer to data provided numbers is more extensive in that it incorporates the population within 1/2
8 Alternatives
5
6
7
8
C-10 by WWP to DENR for site 14. Should include comparison to the mile of the site boundary, while the data compiled for DENR is 1/2 mile from
document ,
,
, demographics for the WWP towns. the centroid of the site. As previously determined by USACE and discussed
in the PDT meetings, it is not appropriate to screen WRF sites based on
income or demographic data.
Number of cemeteries is based on Wake County's tax parcel database and
ID of WRF Site Tables Section Total for site 14 should be 5
. Need to add cemetery that is located ADC mapping. During final site evaluations, the field survey team will note
9 Alternatives
5
6
7
8
C-11
on site 14. additional cemeteries on the sites. If there is a known cemetery on Site 14,
document ,
,
, please provide documentation (such as photos and a map) of this cemetery
to be consistent with other evaluations.
For site 14 (within Y2 mile), value should be at least 20 structures:
1. New Hill Historic District contains: Table includes 25.1 acres of property on Historic Study List and National
ID of WRF Site
Tables
Section 10 structures on National Register Register Districts. This includes AIIie Lawrence Farm, New Hill Missionary
10 Alternatives
5
6
7
8
D - 14b 1 structure on National Register Study List Baptist Church, and New Hill Historic District. Specific data for final site
document ,
,
, 7 structures on Architectural Survey evaluations is being requested from the NC State Historic Preservation
2. AIIie Lawrence Farm on National Register Study List Office. This information will be considered in the EIS.
3. Welch-Hearn House on Architectural Survey
Page 3
2/28/08