20061203 Ver 2_Western Wake Comment Summary on 062807 PDT Materials (7-26-07)_20070726

Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
NEPA EIS
Comment Summary - Purpose and Need, Plan of Study, and Scope of Analysis Table
[Comments on Materials Presented at June 28, 2007 PDT Meeting]
a w aro
a
Commissioner George Lucier, Commissioner Patrick Barnes, and William Sommers - Chatham County
As you know the construction plans for the proposed effluent force
main have changed from their original depiction in the Corp's PUBLIC
NOTICE of June 6, 2007. A full 64" pipeline is now being planned
running through an 8.2 mile course within Chatham County to the
effluent discharge structure and diffuser just below the Buckhorn dam.
Scope of Impacts to the resources listed in the Scope of Analysis table will be
1
Analysis Table This will require a substantial deeper placement than the initially
" applied to all components of the project, including the effluent force main
proposed 48
force main proposed for Phase I. and discharge structure.
From our perspective it is absolutely essential that the current 15
categories be applied to the full distance of new 64" pipeline since it
is deeper and contains a new configuration that needs to be carefully
examined within Table I.
As you know, the Chatham County representatives on the Project
Delivery Team are very conscious of the long term effects of this
project, particularly its potential influence on extended annexation into
Chatham County especially in the land area between the eastern
shore of Jordan Lake and Wake County border. Thus we believe it is
of great importance to define the "project service area" with more

Purpose and concision than currently included in the paragraph under "Project

"
Map has been added to revised Purpose and Need statement. A
2 Need Purpose. reference to the map has been added.
Our proposed rewriting of the phrase beginning after "forecast
demand" in the second line of the Project Purpose paragraph is as
follows:
"...the project service area as identified in the official map
accompanying this project as approved by the US Corps of Engineers
and DENR?DWQ which may is titled "Western Wake Service Area."
Dan Blaisdell - NCDWQ Construction Grants and Loans Section
The fifth sentence of the Harris Lake Regulatory Mandate should be
replaced with the following sentence, verbatim: The NCDENR has
stated in a Finding of No Significant Impact and Environmental
Assessment, dated February 16, 2007 that "Any Authorizations to
Purpose and Construct or other necessary permits (orders, etc.) for expansion of
3 Need the Utley Creek WWTP will include a condition stating that the treated Concur
effluent must be removed from Utley Creek by the date established in
the Certificate Authorizing the Towns of Cary, Apex, and Morrisville
and Wake County to Increase Their Transfer of Water from the Haw
River basin to the Neuse River basin under the Provisions of G.S. 143
215.221."

4 Purpose and In the sixth sentence of the Harris Lake Regulatory Mandate, please
Concur
Need consider changing the words "...are needed to ..." to "... will ...".
Purpose and If the sentence contained in comment No. 1, above, is incorporated
5 Need into the Purpose and Need the last paragraph of the Harris Lake Concur
Regulatory Mandate can be eliminated.
Page 1
7/26/07
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
NEPA EIS
Comment Summary - Purpose and Need, Plan of Study, and Scope of Analysis Table
[Comments on Materials Presented at June 28, 2007 PDT Meeting]
a w aro
The revised statement now includes a new section entitled Project
Goals and Objectives. My understanding is that this section is

6 Purpose and suggested for inclusion based on previous NEPA Environmental
Concur
Need Impact Statements. We have no objection to leaving this Section in
the Purpose and Need statement, if the Corps determines it is
appropriate.
Michael Hosey - US Army Corps of Engineers, Operation Support Section
Page 4 - Secondary and Cumulative Environmental Impacts:
Paragraph references Secondary and Cumulative Impacts Plan. Any
mitigation plan would need to address measures that will be taken to
avoid, minimize, and mitigate for adverse cumulative and secondary Secondary and Cumulative Master Mitigation Plans have been prepared
7 Plan of Study impacts to public lands at Jordan Lake. Suggest that measures may to address mitigation for secondary and cumulative impacts. Additional
include restrictions or requirements in areas adjacent to public lands analyses will be conducted as directed by USACE and the PDT in the
implemented as part of the planning and approval process for N EPA EIS.
residential and commercial development and associated
infrastructure facilitated by this project. See discussion of potential
impacts in comments on Table 1 below.
Page 5 - Project costs:
Last sentence references cost of mitigation for wetlands. Suggest
that statement be broadened to address cost of
mitigation/compensation for adverse impacts to federal property at Understand that Operations Division will make determination on use of
Jordan Lake and/or other public lands. Understand based on government property only after written request is submitted. Because
previous discussions that the Partners may be able to avoid and Partners' current alignment avoids or minimizes impacts to public lands
8 Plan of Study minimize impacts to public lands at Jordan lake and their designated at Jordan Lake, project costs already include costs for collocation and
uses by methods such as directional drilling and collocation with directional drilling or similar type technology. Separate mitigation costs
existing cleared rights of way. The Corps Operations Division will not will not be included at this time, but Partners recognize that mitigation
be able to make any determination on the approval or denial of use of may be needed if impacts to public lands at Jordan Lake are changed.
government property or what mitigation/compensation may be
required until we have received a written request detailing the footprin
and the impacts of the proposed use.
Table does not appear to fully capture areas where impacts would
occur. Information in the row labeled "public lands" under the column
"immediate and cumulative secondary impacts" implies that
secondary impacts to public lands will only be considered within the
"WRF service area" . Suggest that public lands, specifically Jordan
Lake and associated facilities, outside the service area as depicted on
service area maps shown during the meeting will be affected by this
project. Based on our preliminary review the preferred alternatives as
currently proposed the location of facilities and pipelines would have a
relatively small footprint on public lands at Jordan Lake. Secondary and Cumulative Master Mitigation Plans have been prepared
9 Scope of If the preferred alternative or an alternative that completely avoids to address mitigation for secondary and cumulative impacts. Additional
Analysis Table public lands at Jordan Lake is chosen the greatest impact to public analyses will be conducted as directed by USACE and the PDT in the
lands would come from the development of residential and NEPA EIS.
commercial properties and associated infrastructure facilitated by this
waste water facility. Impacts may include expansion of existing and
location of new infrastructure such as roads and utilities on
government property; loss and degradation of wildlife habitat;
increases in illegal encroachment onto public lands; pressure for
change or elimination of existing public use and management
practices such as prescribed fire, timber harvest, hunting, etc.;
increases in recreational use and strain on public facilities; further
degradation of water quality in the reservoir and tributaries due to
sedimentation and nutrient run off.
Page 2
7/26/07
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
NEPA EIS
Comment Summary - Purpose and Need, Plan of Study, and Scope of Analysis Table
[Comments on Materials Presented at June 28, 2007 PDT Meeting]
NiiM
OM:
Paul Barth - New Hill Community Association
Under Land Use, the second column reads: Location of WWRWMF
" Cumulative direct impacts (2nd column) address location of WWRWMF
Scope of and associated facilities. After the word facilities, add
and areas
" and associated facilities. Land Use impacts for areas adjacent to these
10 Analysis Table adjacent to WWRWMF and associated facilities
. The comment facilities will be addressed in secondary and cumulative impact analysis
should now read: Location of WWRWMF and associated facilities (3rd column).
and areas adjacent to WWRWMF and associated facilities.
Under Wetlands, the third columns reads: Subbasins/watersheds Scoping description for Wetlands category has been rewritten to clarify

Scope of containing and downstream of the project WRF service area. Before
"
"
that the EIS will address the subbasin/watershed containing the project
11 Analysis Table upstream/
. The comment should now
the word downstream, add service area and downstream of the discharge. See maps for
read: Subbasins/watersheds containing and upstream/downstream of clarfication.
the project WRF service area.
Under Surface Water, the third columns reads:
Subbasins/watersheds containing and downstream of the project Scoping description for Surface Water category has been rewritten to
12 Scope of WRF service area (surface water). Before the word downstream, add clarify that the EIS will address the subbasin/watershed containing the
Analysis Table "upstream/". The comment should now read: Subbasins/watersheds project service area and downstream of the discharge. See maps for
containing and upstream/downstream of the project WRF service clarfication.
area (surface water).
Under Groundwater Resources, the second column reads: Location Cumulative direct impacts (2nd column) address location of WWRWMF

Scope of of WWRWMF and associated facilities. After the word facilities, add
"
"
and associated facilities. Groundwater resource impacts for areas
13 Analysis Table and areas adjacent to WWRWMF and associated facilities
. The adjacent to these facilities will be addressed in secondary and
comment should now read: Location of WWRWMF and associated cumulative impact analysis (3rd column).
facilities and areas adjacent to WWRWMF and associated facilities.
Under Forest Resources, the second column reads: Location of Cumulative direct impacts (2nd column) address location of WWRWMF

Scope of WWRWMF and associated facilities. After the word facilities, add
"
"
'
and associated facilities. Forest resource impacts for areas adjacent to
14 Analysis Table and areas adjacent to WWRWMF and associated facilities
.
The these facilities will be addressed in secondary and cumulative impact
comment should now read: Location of WWRWMF and associated analysis (3rd column).
facilities and areas adjacent to WWRWMF and associated facilities.
Under Shellfish or Fish and their Habitats, the second column reads:
Subbasin(s)/Watersheds(s) containing WWRWMF and associated
" Scoping description for Shellfish and Fish category has been rewritten to

Scope of facilities. After the word facilities, add
and areas adjacent to
"
clarify that the EIS will address the subbasin/watershed containing the
15 Analysis Table WWRWMF and associated facilities
. The comment should now project service area and downstream of the discharge. See maps for
read: Subbasin(s)/Watersheds(s) containing WWRWMF and
clarfication.
associated facilities and areas adjacent to WWRWMF and associated
facilities.
Under Shellfish or Fish and their Habitats, the third columns reads: Scoping description for Shellfish and Fish category has been rewritten to

Scope of Subbasins/watersheds containing and downstream of the project

"
clarify that the EIS will address the subbasin/watershed containing the
16 Analysis Table WRF service area. Before the word downstream, add
upstream/g project service area and downstream of the discharge. See maps for
The comment should now read: Subbasins/watersheds containing
clarfication.
and upstream/downstream of the project WRF service area.
Under Introduction of Toxic Substances, the second column reads:
Location of WWRWMF and associated facilities. After the word Cumulative direct impacts (2nd column) address location of WWRWMF
17 Scope of facilities, add "and areas adjacent to WWRWMF and associated and associated facilities. Toxic substances impacts for areas adjacent
Analysis Table facilities". The comment should now read: Location of WWRWMF to these facilities will be addressed in secondary and cumulative impact
and associated facilities and areas adjacent to WWRWMF and analysis (3rd column).
associated facilities.
Add another Resource - Community Churches, Playgrounds, and Cemeteries and churches will be covered under the cultural resources
18 Scope of Cemeteries. Second and Third columns should read: Location of category (Areas of Archaeological or Historic Value). Playgrounds will
Analysis Table WWRWMF and associated facilities and areas adjacent to be covered under the recreational resources category (Public Lands and
WWRWMF and associated facilities. Scenic, Recreational, and State Natural Areas).
Page 3
7/26/07