20061203 Ver 2_Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary (3-27-2008)_20080327

of Engineer-s°
ti"?,'irnintor? D- r
Meeting Summary
To: Western Wake Project Delivery Team
Prepared By: CDM
Date: March 27, 2008
Subject: Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Project Delivery Team Meeting No. 9 - March 27, 2008
A Project Delivery Team (PDT) Meeting was held on Thursday, March 27, 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 Bob Kelly, New Hill Community Association
Paul Barth, New Hill Community Association Bill Kreutzberger, CH2M HILL
Jason Beck, CDM George Lucier, Chatham County Commissioner
Chris Belk, Hazen and Sawyer Melba McGee, NCDENR
Kelly Boone, CDM Sheila Morrison, New Hill
Steve Brown, Town of Cary David Nailor, Hazen and Sawyer
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
Tim Donnelly, Town of Apex Tim Sullivan, Poyner and Spruill
Larry Elmore, New Hill Community Association Ruth Swanek, CH2M HILL
Tim Gauss, Town of Morrisville Marshall Taylor, Brown and Caldwell
Leila Goodwin, Town of Cary Henry Wicker, USACE
Jennifer Haynie, NCDENR DWQ CG&L
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.
A summary of the February 28, 2008 PDT meeting, revised draft description of process
for identification of WRF site alternatives (page 28), slide handouts for a pipeline
presentation, alternative WRF site pipeline maps, draft description of criteria to be used
o?
Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary
March 27, 2008
Page 2
for final evaluations, slide handouts from an EJ presentation, and environmental justice
data and figures were included in the handouts.
2) Agenda Item #4. Progress Energy (PE)
A letter was sent from PE to USACE that stated the following: Sites 19, 21/23, and 30 do
not contain PE mitigation areas for current PE facilities and there is no reason for the
Partners not to use these sites. However, PE may want to use them in the future as
mitigation for raising the lake in conjunction with new reactors that PE has applied for.
Mr. Barth requested a copy of the letter from PE, and Mr. Wicker handed one to him.
Mr. Bryson stated that one utility cannot condemn another per the letter. But, if the land
is not used as mitigation by PE, and has not been identified for a specific purpose, they
PE presumes that the Partners could use the land for the WRF. Mr. Kelly said that the
New Hill Community Association came to that conclusion two years ago.
3) Agenda item #2. Revised draft description of the process
for identification of WRF site alternatives (page 28)
Mr. Wicker stated that page 28 of the WRF sit e screening document was re-worded to
include safety issues. He also said that the final four sites will go through a more
detailed review process where 20 public interest factors, including traffic, must be
addressed. The process will now be addressing the distance to roads, weight limits, and
traffic patterns. Comments can be submitted if needed.
4) Agenda item #3. Harris Lake Modeling
Mr. Kreutzberger said that the model is being completed. After discussions with DWQ,
the consultants submitted an addendum to the modeling approach. Ms. Haynie stated
that she had copies of the addendum and Mr. Barth requested one.
5) Final Site Evaluations
a) Field Work: Mr. Wicker stated that the wetlands delineations for the final sites have
been completed, verified by USACE, and several changes made. The sites are fairly
similar in terms of wetlands. Ms. Boone stated that the Partners' engineers are working
on the site layouts. Ms. Boone also stated that the Partners' engineers came up with
alternative pipeline routes for the Beaver Creek Force Main, Holly Springs Effluent
Force Main, and the Western Wake Effluent Force Main for each site.
b) Alternative site pipeline routes: Ms. Boone gave a presentation on the alternative
pipeline routes for each site. Mr. Barth asked why the effluent force main now follows
the south side of US 1 (in the area west of Site 14) when it used to follow the north side.
Mr. Bailey stated that the pipeline is further south of US 1 than what appears on the
of
Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary
March 27, 2008
Page 3
map. It is south of the railroad tracks and a gas line. Ms. Boone commented that the
route shown in the figure is the Partners' preferred route.
Mr. Kelly expressed concern about an area of the proposed route that is approximately
100 feet away from a power easement and that leaves the property owner with a very
small tract of land between the two easements. Mr. Belk said that that section of pipe
was routed away from the power line easement to avoid impacts to a wetland area. Mr.
Bailey mentioned that the pipelines were laid out with the intention of staying as close
to the power line easement as possible without impacting wetland areas. Mr. Kelly
asked if the property owner would get a chance to discuss the proposed pipe line route.
Mr. Bailey stated that owners of property through which the pipelines are routed would
have an opportunity to meet with the Partners to understand the routing.
c) Final site evaluation criteria: Mr. Wicker said that the USACE must include
intermediate screening items and public review factors as final site evaluation criteria.
Mr. Elmore asked about the highlighted items in the "Criteria for Evaluating Impacts in
EIS" table. Mr. Kreutzberger said that all items listed will be discussed in the EIS, but
that the items highlighted in yellow are the same as the USACE public interest factors.
Mr. Wicker said that all pipeline routes will go through this review process. He also
stated that NEPA identifies and discloses impacts but does not determine the best
alternative. During the Section 404 permit review, USACE will make the least
environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA) determination based on the
information from the EIS. Ms. Haynie said that the NEPA and SEPA documents are
similar, but that the SEPA concedes to the NEPA. Therefore, the NEPA EIS will also
serve as the SEPA EIS. Mr. Elmore requested that the SEPA categories be highlighted to
distinguish between NEPA and SEPA items.
Comments on these criteria were requested by Friday, April 4th
6) Environmental Justice Data
Ms. Boone gave a presentation of the data that will be used for environmental justice.
Mr. Barth asked if the data being presented was the same as the data presented in the
SEPA document. Ms. Boone said that the source of the data was from the US Census
Bureau and is the same data that was used in the SEPA document. However, the data
presented in the SEPA document was analyzed whereas the data presented during the
PDT meeting was just the raw data and had not been analyzed.
Mr. Kelly asked if any conclusions had been drawn from the process. Mr. Wicker said
that there have not been any conclusions drawn and that only the raw data was being
presented.
o?
Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary
March 27, 2008
Page 4
Mr. Kelly expressed concern about the half mile radius drawn around each site and how
that radius intersects only a small portion of a census block and yet the entire block is
included in the analysis. Ms. Boone stated that only the data was being presented
(income and minority) with no analysis. Mr. Kreutzberger said that analysis of the data
has not been completed yet.
Mr. Kelly said that he was concerned about the half mile buffer and how accounting for
the entire area skews the Site 14 immediate impacts. Mr. Wicker said that these issues
will be taken into consideration during the data analysis.
Mr. Elmore acknowledged that they realize that only the data was being presented, and
not an analysis at this point.
Mr. Lucier asked why there is a total population difference between the data for income
levels and the data for minority populations (i.e. total population for Chatham County is
listed as 48,566 on Figure 1 (income data) and 49,329 on Figure 2 (minority data)). Ms.
Boone explained that the total population values are not the total population of
Chatham County but rather are given for the population for whom income data was
determined.
Mr. Lucier asked about why census block data did not include the area to the Cape Fear
River on Figures 1 and 2. Ms. Boone said that Figures 1 and 2 showed the pipelines that
were common to all of the sites and that the tables accompanying the figures for each
site included census data for all influent and effluent pipelines, including those common
to other sites.
Mr. Lucier commented that the population data has drastically changed since 2000
when the latest census data was collected and will change further by the time the WRF
is actually constructed. He mentioned that he understands that this is the latest data
that we have to work with, but wanted to make sure the issue was noted and asked how
this issue would be dealt with. Mr. Wicker said that this would be disclosed as an issue
in the document and would be dealt with in the most appropriate manner. Mr. Wicker
also mentioned that he had worked with other similar situations where the most current
data available was used regardless of the timeframe between when it was collected and
the current date.
7/8) Plans for Distribution of Preliminary Draft EIS and PDT
Activities/ Future PDT Meeting Dates
There will be PDT meetings in both April and May 2008. The results of the final site
evaluations will be presented at the May meeting. Mr. Kreutzberger stated that the
Preliminary Draft EIS would be completed by late June/early July 2008 but that the
timeline was subject to change. The document will be distributed to PDT members and
o?
Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary
March 27, 2008
Page 5
state/federal agencies. There will be no July PDT meeting. Mr. Kreutzberger said that
there will probably be an August meeting to receive comments on the Preliminary Draft
EIS. These comments will be incorporated into the Draft EIS.
Mr. Elmore asked how the Harris Lake modeling efforts affected the schedule. Ms.
Goodwin said that it is unknown at this point because it is dependent on the state's
requirements. For example, if the state said that two years of data was required, then
the Harris Lake discharge would not be a viable option due to the time mandate. Mr.
Kreutzberger added that getting the data was only the first of many hurdles to the
modeling efforts. Mr. Wicker stated that USACE cannot require the Partners to
discharge the effluent at any particular location.
Mr. Wicker said that there is no need for the PDT after the Draft EIS is published and
that there will be a public notice around September 2008, which will be followed by a
public hearing around October 2008. After the Draft EIS is published, the PDT can
continue to participate in the public review of the document.
Mr. Kelly asked about the timeline of the environmental justice timeline. Mr. Wicker
stated that it is an ongoing process and that he would have to meet with Mr. McCorcle
to discuss the data. Mr. Wicker said that he expects that the EJ will be completed within
the timeframe of the next two meetings. Mr. Wicker requested that any additional
information and comments on the data be submitted by Friday, April 4, 2008.
9) Review Proposed Meeting Objectives for April 24, 2008
Meeting
A) Secondary and cumulative impact draft for reviews
B) Final evaluations updates - comments on the evaluation criteria
C) Environmental justice data
10) Other Business
Mr. Wicker requested that PDT members let USACE or CDM know if comments cannot
be submitted by the requested date.
Corps
?'Eiiguieers MEETING AGENDA
Wilmington District NEPA EIS Project Delivery Team
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Project
PDT Meeting No. 9
March 27, 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 February 28, 2008 PDT Meeting No. 8
b) Revised draft description of process for Identification of WRF Site Alternatives (page 28)
c) Handout slides from pipeline route presentation
d) Alternative WRF site pipeline maps
e) Draft description of criteria to be used for final evaluations
0 Handout slides from EJ presentation
g) Environmental justice data and figures
2) Identification of WRF Site Alternatives
a) Review revised page 28 of Identification of WRF Site Alternatives document
3) Harris Lake Discharge
a) Update PDT on potential discharge of effluent at Harris Lake
4) Progress Energy
a) Update PDT on determination of feasibility of use of Progress Energy property
5) Final Site Evaluations
a) Discuss status of final site evaluation field work and evaluations
b) Present alternative site pipeline routes - Beaver Creek Force Main, Western Wake Effluent Force Main,
Holly Springs Effluent Force Main
c) Discuss draft criteria to be used for final evaluations
6) Environmental Justice Data
a) Describe steps for addressing environmental justice
b) Present environmental justice data and figures (Step 1)
7) Plan for Distribution of Preliminary Draft EIS & PDT Activities
8) Future PDT Meeting Dates
a) Apr. 24, 2008- 10:OOAM to 12:00 PM, Herb Young Community Center in Cary, Room A
b) May 29, 2008- 10:OOAM to 12:00 PM, Herb Young Community Center in Cary, Room A
c) June 26, 2008 -10:00 AM to 12:00 PM, Page Walker Arts and History Center (tentative)
9) Review Proposed Meeting Objectives for April 24, 2008 Meeting
a) Secondary and cumulative impact analysis
b) Update on final site evaluations
c) Environmental justice
10) Other Business
a) Provide comments on PDT meeting materials to USACE by Friday, April 4, 2008
11) Adjourn
NEXT MEETING
April 24, 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. m i I/wetl ands/Pro jects/WW-WTP/i ndex. htm I