20061203 Ver 2_Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary (5-29-2008)_20080529

S Army
of ngg? sc?s
Wi minT! ic*
Meeting Summary
To: Western Wake Project Delivery Team
Prepared By: CDM
Date: May 29, 2008
Subject: Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Project Delivery Team Meeting No. 11 - May 29, 2008
A Project Delivery Team (PDT) Meeting was held on Thursday, May 29, 2008 at the Herb Young
Community Center in Cary to discuss the Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management
Facilities (WWMF) project. The following were in attendance:
Patrick Barnes, Chatham County Heather Keefer, Town of Holly Springs
Paul Barth, New Hill Community Association Bob Kelly, New Hill Community Association
Jason Beck, CDM Bill Kreutzberger, CH2M HILL
Chris Belk, Hazen and Sawyer Melba McGee, NCDENR
Kelly Boone, CDM Randy McMillan, New Hill
Steve Brown, Town of Cary Joe Moore, Town of Cary
Ken Bruce, Brown and Caldwell Sheila Morrison, New Hill
Shari Bryant, NC Wildlife Resources Comm. John Roberson, Wake County
Buzz Bryson, Progress Energy Seth Robertson, NCDENR DWQ CG&L
Tim Gauss, Town of Morrisville Randel Sink, New Hill Community Association
Leila Goodwin, Town of Cary Tim Sullivan, Poyner and Spruill
James Harris, New Hill Ruth Swanek, CH2M HILL
Jennifer Haynie, NCDENR DWQ CG&L Fred Tarver, NCDENR
Kevin Irby, CDM Jeffrey Weiler, Engineering, e2M
Cyndi Karoly, NCDENR / DWQ 401 Unit -
Stormwater and Wetlands
Henry Wicker, USACE
The following briefly summarizes the meeting and is organized per the meeting agenda (attached).
1) Handout Distribution
Mr. Wicker stated that several handouts have been distributed, as listed on the agenda
(attached). The handouts included a summary of the April 24, 2008 PDT meeting, summary
of comments on the April 24, 2008 meeting materials, final site evaluation data, revised draft
MEETING AGENDA
NEPA EIS Project Delivery Team
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Project
May 29, 2008
secondary and cumulative impacts analysis and a revised draft of the environmental justice
analysis.
2) Harris Lake Modeling
Mr. Kreutzberger gave a presentation on the updates to the Harris Lake Discharge modeling
efforts that included information on the schedule, watershed model, lake model, and the next
steps in the modeling effort. The schedule for the modeling is as follows:
• Development of watershed and lake models - March/April 08
• Model calibration - April/ May 08
• Model sensitivity to discharge - June 08
• Preliminary model report - June 08
• Updated model analyses and reports - January 09
The following were discussed during the presentation:
The Utley Creek Generalized Watershed Loading Function (GWLF) model was
adapted to estimate nonpoint source loading to Harris Lake.
Lake model updates: 1) Processed detailed bathymetric data to provide
representation in CE-QUAL-W2 model; 2) Processed GWLF and point source
nutrient loadings; 3) Compiled and reviewed available Harris Lake water quality
data to provide calibration targets for various water quality parameters; 4)
Calibrated the CE-QUAL-W2 model for temperature, nutrients, DO and chlorophyll a
using 2006 data; 5) Validated CE-QUAL-W2 model for temperature, nutrients, DO,
and chlorophyll a using 2007 data.
Next steps: 1) Review model calibration results with planning group; 2) Prepare
model development and calibration Technical Memorandum; 3) Obtain agreement
on modeling scenarios; 4) Determine sensitivity to discharges for scenarios; 5)
Provide documentation and review with DWQ; 6) Determine path forward.
Mr. Sink asked about the difference between validating and calibrating the model. Mr.
Kreutzberger said that a model is calibrated by adjusting coefficients to match data collected
in the previous year, whereas validating a model compares the model predicted results with
one year of measured future data. Mr. Barth asked when the modeling efforts would be
completed. Mr. Kreutzberger said that the modeling will be completed in June or July of 2008.
Mr. Tarver asked if the model was based on the reservoir's current elevation and if it could be
modified for future elevation projections. Mr. Kreutzberger said that modeling based on
future, higher lake levels is possible but that the model is the most sensitive to lower
elevations. Therefore, the current lake depth was used in the analysis.
MEETING AGENDA
NEPA EIS Project Delivery Team
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Project
May 29, 2008
3) Final Site Evaluations
Ms. Boone gave a presentation about the final site evaluations that included the following
main points: 1) Final site evaluation criteria; 2) Data category divisions; 3) EIS sections to
which data correspond; 4) Data tables showing quantitative data (qualitative analysis will be
included in the EIS); 5) Next steps in the process.
Mr. Wicker said that the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) will look for mitigation
options for permanent impacts to streams and wetlands. He also said that temporary impacts
may or may not require mitigation. Each situation is different.
Mr. Tarver asked why the Site 14 boundary extended across US 1. Ms. Boone said that while
the boundary does extend across US 1 to match the parcel boundary, nothing will be built
south of US 1. Mr. Barnes asked if parcels could be shown on the pipeline maps. Ms. Boone
said that it depends on the scale of the maps.
Ms. Boone requested comments on this data by June 6th, 2008 if possible.
4) Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
Ms. Swanek gave a presentation on secondary and cumulative impacts in which she
presented the changes that were made to this section since the previous PDT meeting (April
2008). She gave a description of past, current, and future conditions. She requested
comments on this section by June 6th, 2008 if possible.
Mr. Barth asked whether the residential displacements due to Jordan and Harris Lake would
be included in the description of past conditions. Ms. Swanek said that a qualitative analysis
would be included. Mr. Barth asked if the description of past conditions included the nuclear
plant, Dixie pipeline, and the US 1 widening. Ms. Swanek said that they were included. Mr.
Barth asked if the two new reactors at the nuclear plant were included. Mr. Kreutzberger and
Ms. Swanek said that they were not positive, but that they thought the reactors were included
and will check to confirm this.
5) Environmental Justice Data
Mr. Wicker gave a summary of the meeting that was put on by the New Hill Community
Association in New Hill on May 21St, 2008. The meeting was attended by the USACE (Henry
Wicker and Justin McCorcle), EPA (Sheryl Good), and DENR (Melba McGee, Seth Robertson,
and Jennifer Haynie). At the meeting, the public had a chance to express their concerns to the
both the EPA and USACE. Mr. Wicker said that the meeting was well attended (an estimated
150 people were in attendance). Several concerns were brought up at the meeting and were
discussed in further detail at the May 2008 PDT meeting:
MEETING AGENDA
NEPA EIS Project Delivery Team
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Project
May 29, 2008
1) Possible leaks and spills at the plant: Mr. Wicker said that this topic will be discussed in
more detail in the EIS.
2) Operation and maintenance of the WRF: Topic will be discussed in more detail in the EIS.
3) Water line to the Apex fire station: Mr. Wicker read a letter from Tim Donnelly with the
Town of Apex regarding the waterline. Mr. Kreutzberger explained that water lines for
fire stations are sized for the fire flows of the area to be served. Mr. Kreutzberger also said
that an environmental document is not required for water lines less than five miles in
length. Mr. Sink asked if a permit had been issued for the water line. Mr. Wicker stated
that he did not know if USACE issued a permit.
Mr. Barth asked if Sheryl Good was getting the documents from the meeting. Mr. Wicker said
that Becky Fox with EPA is on the PDT and has been receiving the documents but USACE
will work on getting Sheryl Good the handouts as well.
Mr. Barth asked what the term "collaborative process" meant and how that would be
accomplished. Mr. Wicker said that it refers to community involvement where the
community can voice their concerns about the plant operations. Mr. Brown said that the other
two Cary WRFs have a close relationship with their neighbors and have regular
contact/ meetings with them. Mr. Wicker said that he will follow up with Ms. Good to discuss
the term "collaborative process" including environmental justice and the process for resolving
concerns. Ms. Morrison asked if the collaborative effort includes residents who are for and
against the WRF. Mr. Wicker stated that the process involves everyone living around the
plant in order to address all issues. Mr. Barth said that the collaborative process should
involve everyone before the WRF location is selected.
Mr. Barth asked if the meeting materials from the meeting in New Hill on May 21, 2008 would
be included in the EIS. Mr. Wicker said that they would be included. However, by the
USACE's standards, the meeting in New Hill was not considered a public meeting because
sufficient public invitation was not involved. Ms. Boone said that the meeting will be
included in the public involvement section of the EIS. Ms. Morrison asked if she could submit
additional information, and Mr. Wicker stated that she could send it to him. Mr. Kelly asked
if minutes of the meeting will be included in the EIS, and Mr. Wicker stated that they will.
Ms. Boone gave a presentation on the EJ evaluations that outlined the following points: 1)
Process for EJ; 2) The identification of low-income and minority populations; 3) Organization
of EJ in the EIS (Section 3); 4) Potential direct, adverse impacts to the community; 5)
Visual/ aesthetic, noise, light-spill, odor, traffic, property devaluation, surface and ground
water contamination impacts; 6) Design features to minimize impacts/ mitigation measures;
7) Potential benefits to community including elimination of septic systems/ access to water
and sewer service, employment opportunities, future source of reclaimed water, and
increased property values.
MEETING AGENDA
NEPA EIS Project Delivery Team
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Project
May 29, 2008
Mr. Sink said that the "elimination of septic systems/ access to water and sewer service" will
not be available to the community of New Hill for 30-40 years. Additionally, Mr. Barth said
that homes within a 5 mile radius of the nuclear plant will not be developed and cannot be
annexed by any municipality per the Wake County Board of Commissioners and Planning
Department. Mr. Sink stated that the benefit is for new developers, and not the existing
residents of New Hill. Mr. Sink requested that the statement "free of charge" be removed
from the document. Ms. Morrison said that water and sewer service is proposed for residents
within a 0.5 mile radius of the plant. Mr. Sink also requested that a description of where the
connection will occur at each residence be included in the EIS document. Ms. Goodwin said
that the description of the connection location was not included in the document because it
was too detailed but can be added.
Mr. McMillan asked if a map showing the New Hill Community was available. Mr. Barth
said that the general community boundary is located within a two mile radius of the
intersection of old US 1 and New Hill-Olive Chapel Road. Mr. Harris asked if the benefits to
each citizen could be more clearly defined in the EIS document because some people may
change their positions about the WRF project if they knew exactly what was included as a
benefit. Mr. Wicker asked that everyone submit their concerns in writing so that they can be
addressed properly.
Mr. Barnes asked if pipelines could be included in Table 26.
Mr. Sink said that the operations manager at the South Cary WRF keeps some lights on at all
times for security purposes and asked how often the lights would be on at the proposed WRF.
Mr. Sink asked if more detail could be added in the EIS about how many lights will be on at
all times at the WRF. Mr. Brown said that some lights need to be on at all times for security
purposes but others are for specific tasks.
Mr. Barth said that a letter from an attorney with Progress Energy (PE) stated that PE
property can be condemned for the Western Wake WRF. Ms. Morrison said that the letter
was not definite either for condemnation or against it. Mr. Kreutzberger said that the letter
was not definitive enough to defend condemnation. Mr. Bryson said that the letter was not
absolute.
The PE letter was distributed at the March 27th, 2008 PDT meeting (PDT meeting #9) and
stated the following:
"Progress Energy's understanding of the North Carolina laws of eminent domain is that
current use notwithstanding, a public condemnor cannot condemn utility property that is
needed for the provision of utility service. The land within those three sites is not currently
being used as mitigation. However, until completion of the COLA review and Environmental
Impact Study, there is no way to be certain of the extent of magnitude of the mitigation that
will be required. It is Progress Energy's recommendation that the Western Wake Partners
MEETING AGENDA
NEPA EIS Project Delivery Team
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Project
May 29, 2008
proceed with appropriate due diligence and analysis as required. Recognizing the critical
nature of the Western Wake wastewater treatment facility, we will assist to the extent
feasible."
Mr. Kelly asked about the odor comments on pg. 38 of the environmental justice analysis. The
comment in the document is as follows: "The Town currently strives for at least 99.9 percent
effectiveness of odor control measures at its existing WRFs, and it is expected this goal can be
achieved at the Western Wake WRF." Mr. Kelly asked that the word "strive" be removed
from the statement. He also asked about how often samples are taken. Mr. Brown said that
99.9 percent effectiveness refers to 10 hours per year that any odors are detectable at the plant
boundary. Mr. Brown said that this is a new plant with new designs and odor control
technology such that odors should be minimal. Mr. Kelly asked if there was a regular
schedule for odor sampling (number of samples/time of samples) in order to meet the 99.9
percent effectiveness. Ms. Goodwin said that monitoring is based on an as-needed basis and
the 10 hours per year reference is based on modeling. Mr. Kelly requested that the statement
be removed. Mr. Brown stated that the new facility will have odor controls built in. Cary's
other WRFs are 20-25 years old and were built when odor was not addressed as much. He
said that there are no requirements for odor but that the plant will be in Apex and will
develop according to Town of Apex development standards.
Mr. Wicker requested comments by June 6, 2008 or notification that PDT members need more
time to review the materials.
'rr Corps
Engineers
Wilmington District
MEETING AGENDA
NEPA EIS Project Delivery Team
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Project
PDT Meeting No. 11
May 29, 2008
10:00 am to 12:00 pm
Herb Young Community Center (Room A)
101 Wilkinson Avenue, Cary, NC 27513
1) Introductions and Handout Distribution
a) Summary of April 24, 2008 PDT Meeting No. 10
b) Summary of comments on April 24, 2008 PDT meeting materials
c) Final site evaluation data
d) Revised draft secondary and cumulative impacts analysis
e) Revised draft environmental justice analysis
2) Harris Lake Discharge
a) Update PDT on status of investigation of potential discharge of effluent at Harris Lake
3) Final Site Evaluations
a) Present final site evaluation data for existing conditions, temporary impacts, and permanent impacts
b) Submit comments by June 6, 2008
4) Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
a) Review revised draft secondary and cumulative impacts analysis
b) Submit comments by June 6, 2008
5) Environmental Justice
a) Report on USACE/USEPA meeting with New Hill Community on May 21, 2008
b) Review revised draft environmental justice analysis
c) Submit comments by June 6, 2008
6) Future PDT Meeting Dates
a) June 26, 2008 -10:00 AM to 12:00 PM, Page Walker Arts and History Center
7) Review Proposed Meeting Objectives for June 26, 2008 Meeting
a) Discuss comments on revised draft secondary and cumulative impacts analysis
b) Discuss comments on revised draft environmental justice analysis
c) Discuss comments on final site evaluations data
8) Other Business
a) Provide comments on PDT meeting materials to USACE by Friday, June 6, 2008
9) Adjourn
NEXT MEETING
June 26, 2008
10:00 am to 12:00 pm
Page Walker Arts and History Center
119 Ambassador Loop, Cary, NC 27513
Project Website (through US Army Corps of Engineers' website):
http://www.saw. usace.army. m i I/wetl ands/Pro jects/WW-WTP/i ndex. htm I