Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20061203 Ver 2_Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary (2-28-2008)_20080228Meeting Summary To: Western Wake Project Delivery Team Prepared By: CDM Date: February 28, 2008 Subject: Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Project Delivery Team Meeting No. 8 — February 28, 2008 A Project Delivery Team (PDT) Meeting was held on Thursday, February 28, 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: Tim Bailey, Town of Cary David Hughes, Chatham County (Public Works) Paul Barth, New Hill Community Association Bill Kreutzberger, CH2M HILL Jason Beck, CDM George Lucier, Chatham County Commissioner Chris Belk, H&S Melba McGee, NCDENR Kelly Boone, CDM Sheila Morrison, New Hill Steve Brown, Town of Cary David Nailor, H&S Ken Bruce, Brown and Caldwell Jamie Revels, Town of Cary Shari Bryant, NC Wildlife Res. Commission John Roberson, Wake County Buzz Bryson, Progress Energy Seth Robertson, NCDENR DWQ CG&L Bob DiFiore, H&S Randel Sink, New Hill Community Association Tim Donnelly, Town of Apex Stephanie Sudano, Town of Holly Springs Frances Ferrell, USACE-Operations Tim Sullivan, Poyner and Spruill Tim Gauss, Town of Morrisville Ruth Swanek, CH2M HILL Leila Goodwin, Town of Cary Fred Tarver, NCDENR DWR Jennifer Haynie, NCDENR DWQ CG&L Jeffrey Weiler, e2M 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. An updated draft of the Identification of WRF Site Alternatives document, a summary of comments on the November 2007 draft Identification of WRF Site Alternatives me e, USSy Corps Wilmington District Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary February 28, 2008 Page 2 document and a PDT meeting summary from November 29, 2007 were included in the handouts. 2) WRF Site Selection Presentation of WRF sites recommended for final site evaluations Mr. Kreutzberger gave a presentation that covered the following topics: review of the Nov. 29 PDT meeting recommendations, review of comments on previous draft document, revised site screening results, and discussion of the next steps in the process. Review of comments received All numbered comments are in reference to the comment summary table included in the handouts. Comment No. Discussion 4 Mr. Sink expressed concern with using the distance to a highway as a screening metric. Mr. Wicker stated that the reason for the metric is for the safety of the residents along the secondary roads between a highway and the proposed facilities. Ms. Goodwin stated that this metric was used for the initial screening, but will be changed to include more detail for the final evaluations. Mr. Sink stated that adding in the "type of traffic" and "weight of traffic" for the final evaluations is changing the parameter in the middle of the process, not adding more detail for the final evaluations. Mr. Kreutzberger stated that the length of pipe relates to other impacts and is used to represent those impacts. Mr. Barth suggested to "agree to disagree". Mr. Wicker stated that the metric is not just for the traffic that the road can handle, but it is also for the safety of the residents (as discussed at the previous PDT meeting). 7 Mr. Sink stated that the SNHA is located in a small portion of the buffer zone of Site 19 and should therefore be removed from the Site 19 area. Ms. Goodwin stated that the screening process will start over with the final site evaluations. Mr. Wicker said that the Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) is concerned with SNHA and that is why it is included as a screening metric. Mr. Barth stated that he doesn't want a threatened and endangered species to come up during the final evaluations and eliminate a site. Mr. Kreutzberger stated that SNHA could be preserved in a buffer. Mr. Barth said that he does not object to the inclusion of SNHA in the evaluations; he just doesn't think it should be included because it is in a buffer area. Mr. Wicker stated that the me e, USSy Corps Wilmington District Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary February 28, 2008 Page 3 SNHA will be included for consistency, and impacts will be eliminated if possible during the final evaluations. 9 Mr. Sink said that there is a cemetery located on site 14. Mr. Sink said that it was located by some residents that visit on occasion. The cemetery is marked by deteriorating wooden markers and is several hundred years old. Information will be requested from the State Historic Preservation Office during the detailed site evaluations. 10 Mr. Barth stated that there are discrepancies in the Wake County Land Use Plan with regard to structures within a half mile of the site. Revised Intermediate Screening with the Holly Springs Effluent Pipe Length Included Mr. Wicker stated that the group of best -scoring sites did change when the Holly Springs effluent pipe length was added as a screening measure. Mr. Kreutzberger stated that the top sites are now 19, 21/23, and 30 in addition to the Partners' preferred site. Sites 20 and 26 are the third-best sites that would be used as backup sites. Mr. Kreutzberger stated that if a Progress Energy site cannot be acquired, then Site 21/23 would be eliminated. Site 20 is also owned by Progress Energy and would not be an option. Therefore, Site 26 would be the backup site. Mr. Wicker said that USACE has sent a letter to Progress Energy to inquire about land acquisition but has not received a response. He stated that the Project Partners have been tasked to determine whether they could legally acquire land owned by Progress Energy. Current Project Status Letters were sent to property owners in early January 2008. Letters were sent to the owners of parcels included in Site 17, but Site 17 is now not included in the final sites. Mr. Wicker stated that wetlands were delineated on three sites, are in the revision process, and will be sent to the design teams during the week of March 3, 2008. Wetlands will be delineated for influent and effluent pipelines in early March. Mr. Wicker stated that the consultants will now start over with evaluations of the final sites. The consultants will evaluate impacts based on NEPA criteria and individual WRF layouts. All final sites will be on a level playing field. Mr. Wicker reported that the site visits to the final sites revealed that the sites were well chosen. Generally the sites have a few streams but not many wetlands, and they are located mostly around the perimeter of the sites. me e, USSy Corps Wilmington District Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary February 28, 2008 Page 4 3) Harris Lake Discharge Mr. Kreutzberger stated that in the past DWQ has discouraged the Project Partners from locating the Western Wake discharge at Harris Lake. However, this option has reemerged because of the current drought, proposed expansion of the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, need for additional water from the Cape Fear River at the plant during a drought. Since the November PDT meeting, the Partners and Progress Energy have met and discussed options regarding the Harris Lake Discharge. Both see potential benefits to a lake discharge including: reduced length of effluent lines, potential reduced pumping for Progress Energy in the future, and more options for water management. DWQ has indicated that it would evaluate a lake discharge if a calibrated lake nutrient response model was developed. The consultants have developed a modeling approach technical memo, DWQ has submitted comments, and discussions are ongoing to address those comments. Mr. Sink asked if the modeling approach and comments were available to the PDT (Mr. Lucier also requested access to this information). Ms. Haynie (CG&L) will check on making that information available. Mr. Bryson stated that Progress Energy is remaining neutral on the Harris Lake discharge option. Progress Energy and DWQ are satisfied with the water quality in Harris Lake based on monitoring over the years. Progress Energy agrees that it makes sense to look at the available data, but they will remain neutral until they see the modeling results. Mr. Lucier asked whether there will be an opportunity to make formal comments on the modeling efforts. The modeling will be included in the EIS. Mr. Barth asked how the modeling efforts will affect the overall schedule. Mr. Wicker stated that the modeling work will be done parallel to work on the EIS. The scheduling effects are to be determined. If the Harris Lake discharge is not an alternative, then it will not affect the schedule. However, if it does become an alternative, scheduling changes will have to be reassessed at that time. Ms. Goodwin said that a part of determining the schedule depends on whether it meets the Partners' stated purpose and need for the project, including the timing and feasibility. Mr. Kreutzberger presented the following anticipated schedule for the Harris Lake discharge model: • Modeling approach - January / February 2008 • Modification of monitoring program - February 2008 • Development of watershed and lake models - February / March 2008 • Model calibration - April 2008 • Model sensitivity to discharge - May 2008 me e, USSy Corps Wilmington District Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary February 28, 2008 Page 5 • Preliminary model report - June 2008 • Updated model analyses and reports - January 2009 Mr. Donnelly questioned whether Progress Energy's plan to use Cape Fear River water in Harris Lake would consider the nutrients added to the lake from the Cape Fear River water. Mr. Bailey stated that the water in the Cape Fear River is cleaner than the lake, but this will need to be re-evaluated based on raw water and discharge data. Mr. Kreutzberger added that model sensitivitiy and other parameters would need to be considered. He stated that DWQ is cautious on making a decision on a potential discharge at Harris Lake because of water quality issues. Mr. Sink questioned whether the EIS will include a parallel evaluation of adding Cape Fear River water to Harris Lake. Mr. Wicker stated that this evaluation will not be included in the EIS. It will be investigated during the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's evaluation of the Shearon Harris plant expansion. Mr. Bryson stated that Progress Energy is moving forward with these evaluations including modeling on a separate schedule. Mr. Barth stated that Progress Energy is also looking at installing wells to supplement the lake. He in concerned with the impacts to groundwater levels. Mr. Bryson stated that he had no information on this issue. Mr. Wicker stated that the well issue would be addressed in Progress Energy's EIS for the Shearon Harris expansion. 4) Effluent Discharge Structure Mr. Kreutzberger presented a review of the discharge location, the SEPA document history, design analyses, and current structure recommendations. Discharge Location Review The only discharge location currently authorized by DWQ is in the Cape Fear River below Buckhorn Dam. Mr. Kreutzberger presented pictures and a description of the proposed discharge location. SEPA Document DWQ initially indicated a preference for a submerged diffuser (versus a bank discharge) in the river to provide rapid dilution. Both the SEPA EIS and PER included a diffuser that was approximately 500 feet long, contained 100 ports and was approximately 22" above the river bed. However, DENR agencies indicated concerns about the structure during the SEPA EIS review. They suggested that the structure would have potential problems with debris and would be an obstruction to boaters. The SEPA document determined that the issue would be resolved during the design phase. me e, USSy Corps Wilmington District Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary February 28, 2008 Page 6 Design Analyses The river width and the number of channels changes frequently beginning about 200 feet downstream of the dam. The discharge location was chosen to be approximately 1,800 feet downstream of the dam where the river is one channel. Rapid mixing would occur in the river rapids downstream of the discharge location. Two structural alternatives were evaluated: a single point discharge and a multi -point diffuser. Mr. Kreutzberger presented a comparison of the two discharge structure options. The final recommendation was a bank discharge because it has less environmental impacts and maintenance as well as a lower cost. It does have less dilution benefits compared to a multiport diffuser, but the dilution from a bank discharge was determined to be sufficient. Mr. Sink asked if DWQ has a minimum dilution metric. Mr. Kreutzberger responded by saying that there are water quality standards, but no minimum requirements. Mr. Sink asked what type of discharge structure would be used at Harris Lake. Mr. Bailey said that it depends on the location of the discharge. If the discharge is near the upper reaches of the lake, the discharge structure would be a bank discharge. On the other hand, the discharge structure would be a pipe and diffuser if the location was in the center of the lake. 5) Other Business (comments/ questions) Mr. Wicker stated that Mr. Barth has requested a meeting with USACE and USEPA regarding environmental justice. Mr. Wicker stated that he has talked to Becky Fox (who is on the PDT) and Cheryl Goode of USEPA. He requested that Mr. Barth discuss dates and potential meeting locations with him after the PDT meeting. USACE will try to schedule this meeting within the next month. USACE, USEPA, and CG&L will attend. Mr. Barth asked about water and electricity lines from Apex to the WRF site. Mr. Donnelly responded by saying that Apex is constructing a water line to the fire station on New Hill -Holleman Road. The water line will be completed in December 2008. Apex is simultaneously obtaining an easement for a power line, but its estimated construction is two years from now. These projects are not related to the Western Wake project. Mr. Wicker further clarified that any additional water lines or power lines that will be constructed as part of, or as a result of, the Western Wake project will be included in the EIS. Mr. Barth asked why Progress Energy was not building the power lines, and Mr. Donnelly stated that Apex and Progress Energy are competitors in providing electricity. me e, USSy Corps Wilmington District Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary February 28, 2008 Page 7 Mr. Sink requested a clarification on the Little Beaver Creek force main. Mr. Donnelly clarified that this force main is not part of the Western Wake EIS, other than as a secondary and cumulative impact, and it will not be built for years. Mr. Lucier stated that Chatham County has received speculative effluent limits for a Cape Fear discharge from DWQ. Chatham County is also working with Orange County and Durham County on a Jordan Lake intake. He stated that Chatham County and the Partners have not come to a final agreement on the portion of the effluent force main that is within Chatham County. Chatham County and Cary are still discussing the annexation issue. Chatham is working with the Partners on these issues. US Army Corps of Engineers. Wilmington District MEETING AGENDA NEPA EIS Project Delivery Team Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Project PDT Meeting No. 8 February 28, 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 November 29, 2007 PDT Meeting No. 7 b) Summary of comments on November 29 Meeting materials c) Revised draft description of process for Identification of WRF Site Alternatives d) Handout slides from presentation on WRF site screening e) Handout slides from presentation on effluent discharge structure alternatives 2) Identification of WRF Site Alternatives a) Discuss of comments on site selection b) Review revisions to Identification of WRF Site Alternatives document and WRF sites recommended for final site evaluations (Sites 19, 21/23, and 30) c) Discuss status of final site evaluations i) WRF on-site field work ii) Pipelines iii) Public outreach d) Submit comments on revised Identification of WRF Site Alternatives document to USACE by Friday, March 7, 2008 3) Harris Lake Discharge a) Report on recent discussions with Progress Energy and DWQ regarding potential discharge of effluent at Harris Lake 4) Effluent Discharge Structure Alternatives a) Present summary of selection of effluent discharge structure 5) Future PDT Meeting Dates a) Mar. 27, 2008 —10:00 AM to 12:00 PM, Herb Young Community Center in Cary, Room A b) No PDT Meeting in April —final site evaluation work ongoing c) May 29, 2008 —10:00 AM to 12:00 PM 6) Review Proposed Meeting Objectives for March 27, 2008 Meeting a) Secondary and cumulative impact analysis b) Update on Harris Lake discharge option c) Update on final site evaluations d) Environmental justice data evaluation 7) Other Business 8) Adjourn NEXT MEETING March 27, 2008 10:00 am to 12:00 pm Herb Young Community Center (Room A) 101 Wilkinson Avenue, Cary, NC 27513 Project Website (through US Army Corps of Engineers' website): http://www.saw.usace.army.miI/wetlands/Projects/WW-WTP/index.htmi