20061203 Ver 2_Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary (5-31-07)_20070531

tJ n-nor Corps
of Digneers
Meeting Summary
To: Western Wake Project Delivery Team
Prepared By: CDM
Date: May 31, 2007
Subject: Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Project Delivery Team Meeting No. 1 - May 31, 2007
A Project Delivery Team (PDT) Meeting was held on Thursday, May 31, 2007 at the Apex
Town Hall to discuss the Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
(WWMF) project. The following were in attendance:
Henry Wicker, USACE Kevin Whiteheart, Chatham County
Justin McCorcle, USACE Bill Sommers, Chatham County
Michael Hosey, USACE John Roberson, Wake County
Jean Manuele, USACE Mayor Keith Weatherly, Town of Apex
Jamie Shern, USACE Mike Deaton, Town of Apex
Dan Blaisdell, NCDENR DWQ CG&L Tim Donnelly, Town of Apex
Jennifer Haynie, NCDENR DWQ CG&L Mayor Ernie McAlister, Town of Cary
Melba McGee, NCDENR Tim Bailey, Town of Cary
Michael Douglas, NCDENR DEH PWSS RRO Mike Bajorek, Town of Cary
Cyndi Karoly, NCDENR DWQ 401 Unit Steve Brown, Town of Cary
Emily Parisher, NC State Parks Resource Mgmt. Leila Goodwin, Town of Cary
Fred Tarver, NCDENR DWR Jamie Revels, Town of Cary
Shari Bryant, NC Wildlife Resources Commission Mayor Jan Faulkner, Town of Morrisville
Sarah McRae, NCDENR Natural Heritage Prog. Tim Gauss, Town of Morrisville
Reuben Blakely, NCDOT Glenn Dunn, Poyner and Spruill
Justin Bullock, NCDOT Tim Sullivan, Poyner and Spruill
Becky Fox, USEPA (by conference call) Bill Kreutzberger, CH2M HILL
Paul Barth, New Hill Community Association Ruth Swanek, CH2M HILL
Sheila Morrison, New Hill resident Chris Belk, Hazen and Sawyer
Buzz Bryson, Progress Energy Bob Berndt, Hazen and Sawyer
Commissioner Patrick Barnes, Chatham County Kelly Boone, CDM
Commissioner George Lucier, Chatham County Tommy Esqueda, CDM
US Al my Corp,
of Enconee+s
Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary
May 31, 2007
Page 2
The following briefly summarizes the meeting and is organized per the meeting agenda
(attached).
1) Introductions
All meeting attendees introduced themselves and stated the organization, agency, or
group with which they are affiliated. The mayors from the Towns of Apex, Cary, and
Morrisville made opening comments.
2) National Environmental Policy Act
a) Clean Water Act Requirements
Mr. Wicker provided an overview of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). NEPA was enacted in 1969 to require the Federal government to address
impacts projects requiring Federal government action have on the environment.
All Federal actions are subject to NEPA.
b) Jurisdiction of United States Army Corps of Engineers
Because the Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities (WWMF)
project will impact wetlands and streams, a Section 404 permit will be needed
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The Section 404 permit is a
Federal action; therefore, the project is subject to NEPA.
Mr. Wicker stated that the USACE began the NEPA process for the Western Wake
Regional WWMF project by conducting a Scoping Meeting on April 19, 2007 to
receive public input on issues that should be addressed in the NEPA EIS
document.
Mr. Wicker described the differences between the NEPA process and the Section
404 permit process:
NEPA Process. The NEPA process involves identifying a reasonable range of
alternatives to the project. The NEPA document must consider public interest
factors, including conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental
concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards,
floodplain values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation,
water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and
fiber production, mineral resources, considerations of property ownership and,
in general, the needs and welfare of the people. The USACE will also try to
address concerns identified during the Scoping process.
¦ Section 404 Permit Process. The Section 404 permit process has similar
requirements for alternatives as the NEPA process except that the selected
alternative must be the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative.
US Al my Corp,
of Enconee+s
Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary
May 31, 2007
Page 3
Wetland and stream impacts must be avoided and minimized as much as
possible.
c) Environmental Impact Statement
i) Purpose
Mr. Wicker stated that the purpose of the Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) is to allow for full disclosure of all comments and concerns about the
proposed project. The USACE will seek to obtain PDT members' buy-in at
each step of the process.
ii) Preparation process
The NEPA document (EIS) will contain a table of contents, a description of
the purpose of and need for the project, an evaluation of alternatives to the
proposed project, a description of the affected environment, and an analysis
of the environmental impacts of the project.
3) Project Delivery Team
a) Participants
Mr. Wicker discussed the role of the PDT. He stated that if several people from
one organization or group attend the PDT meetings, they should select one person
to represent the group. He stated that the PDT meetings are the time to voice
concerns and deal with issues, but he requested that participants in voicing their
concerns be civil and keep emotional issues out of the process.
b) Roles and Responsibilities
Mr. Wicker stated that the purpose of the PDT meetings is to provide a way to
address all issues during the NEPA process. The PDT will identify and try to
resolve issues, and members should focus on the issues rather than trying to derail
or advocate for the project.
c) Decision-Making Process
Mr. Wicker stated that at the end of each meeting, he will give PDT members
"homework" involving review of documents and responding with comments by a
specified date. He will give the comments to the Project Partners for their
response, and will meet with them to address the comments. PDT members must
respond and participate in reviews of the documents in order for their input to be
considered.
Mr. Barth questioned whether the USACE can accept emailed documents. Mr.
McCorcle confirmed that the USACE can accept documents via email (Word and
PDF formats). Mr. Wicker asked whether all PDT members were able to receive
US Al my Corp,
of Enconee+s
Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary
May 31, 2007
Page 4
documents and submit comments via email. No objections were raised. Mr.
Wicker proposed that documents and comments be transmitted by email so that
the USACE will have time to get revised documents to the PDT in advance of
future meetings. The USACE will allow time for review based on the length of the
document.
Mr. Blaisdell asked whether it would be too late to submit comments on a
document if the USACE-stated deadline for comments has passed. Mr. McCorcle
and Mr. Wicker stated that once comments are received, they will be incorporated
into a revised document, which will be discussed during a future meeting prior to
taking a consensus vote. Therefore, additional comments will be considered if
they are submitted in time for response by the Partners or could be made during
discussion of the revised document. However, the USACE intends to not revisit
an issue if the PDT has made a decision and moved on past that issue. Mr. Wicker
stated that comments can also be submitted during the formal public comment
periods or public hearing for the project.
It was suggested that PDT members send comments via email to the USACE, who
would then forward them to the Partners and the consultant. Mr. Wicker
distributed business cards with his contact information and email address.
Mr. Wicker stated that the next PDT meeting is scheduled for June 28, 2007
beginning at 10:00 AM.
4) Project History and Background
Mr. Esqueda presented an overview of the history and background of the project.
a) Project Participants
The Project Partners are the Towns of Apex, Cary, Holly Springs, and Morrisville.
b) Project Drivers
The purpose of the project is based on the following factors:
Interbasin Transfer (IBT) Certificate Conditions - The NC Environmental
Management Commission (EMC) issued an IBT Certificate allowing Cary,
Apex, Morrisville and Wake County (RTP South) to withdraw water from
the Cape Fear River basin. The Certificate limited the maximum day IBT to
24 mgd and required the municipalities to return wastewater to the Cape
Fear River by January 1, 2011.
¦ Nutrient Impairment at Harris Lake - At the same time the IBT Certificate
was issued, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (NCDENR) requested that the Town of Holly Springs remove its
US Al my Corp,
of Enconee+s
Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary
May 31, 2007
Page 5
discharge from Harris Lake as soon as practicable, with the main stem of
the Cape Fear River being the preferred location for the discharge.
¦ Planned Growth and Development
The Project Partners decided to collaborate on a regional project based on
NCDENR's encouragement for regional planning, consistency with previously
completed regional water and sewer studies, the Partners' favorable experience
with regional cooperation, reduced environmental impacts, and reduced costs
(capital and O&M) versus independent approaches. In November 2002, the
Project Partners initiated a regional wastewater study.
c) Regional Wastewater Study
i) Alternative Wastewater Management Options
In September 2003, the Partners identified four wastewater management
alternatives for final study:
¦ Option 1- Each local government constructs an independent treatment
facility (three treatment facilities)
¦ Option 5 - Two new treatment facilities constructed, serving
- Apex and Holly Springs, and
- Cary (portion), Morrisville and RTP South
¦ Option 9 - Two new treatment facilities constructed, serving
- Apex (portion) and Holly Springs, and
- Apex (portion), Cary (portion), Morrisville and RTP South
¦ Option 10D - One new treatment facility constructed, serving
- Apex, Cary (portion), Morrisville and RTP South
and separate treatment, including
- Holly Springs (portion) to Harnett County through Fuquay-Varina, and
- Holly Springs (portion) to SCWRF
In January 2004, the Partners initiated three concurrent studies:
¦ Selection of a preferred wastewater management option
¦ Identification of a preferred wastewater discharge location
Selection of a preferred water reclamation (wastewater treatment) facility
site
US Al my Cor{)s
of Enconee+s
Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary
May 31, 2007
Page 6
ii) Alternative Wastewater Discharge Location Options
The Partners considered several alternative wastewater discharge locations:
¦ New Hope Arm of Jordan Lake - above US 64
¦ New Hope Arm of Jordan Lake - below US 64
¦ Haw River Arm of Jordan Lake
¦ Harris Lake
o Direct discharge to main body of lake
o Cooling tower reservoir for Harris Nuclear Plant
¦ Main stem of Cape Fear River - upstream of Buckhorn Dam
¦ Main stem of Cape Fear River - downstream of Buckhorn Dam
The Partners' preferred discharge locations were to Jordan Lake. In April
2004, NCDENR identified the preferred discharge location, which was the
main stem of the Cape Fear River downstream of Buckhorn Dam.
iii) Alternative WRF Site Options
The Partners identified 30 possible sites for the water reclamation facility
(WRF). Thirty sites were identified so that all four of the final wastewater
management options could be accommodated. Sites north of US 64 were
identified to accommodate the Cary service area. Sites in the middle of the
group were identified to accommodate the Apex area, and sites toward the
southern end of the group were identified to accommodate flows from the
Apex and Holly Springs service areas.
Final sites were selected for further evaluations once the final discharge
location was identified by the State and the wastewater management option
was selected by the Partners.
d) Selection of Preferred Alternative
In July 2004, the Partners selected their preferred wastewater management option,
Option 10D, which includes construction of a single WRF to serve Apex, Cary,
Morrisville, and RTP South with an outfall to the Cape Fear River. In addition,
this option includes Holly Springs expanding its Utley Creek WWTP, with the
effluent discharged with the WRF effluent through a regional outfall system to the
Cape Fear River.
In October 2004, the Partners identified a preferred WRF Site (Site 14) based on the
final discharge location identified by the State and the wastewater management
option selected by the Partners. Also in October 2004, the Partners initiated the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) EIS process with NCDENR.
US Al my Cor{)s
of Enconee+s
Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary
May 31, 2007
Page 7
The proposed project includes the following components:
¦ West Cary Pump Station (PS)
¦ West Cary Force Main (FM) - West Cary PS to Reedy Branch Gravity
Sewer
¦ Reedy Branch Gravity Sewer - West Cary FM to Beaver Creek PS
¦ Beaver Creek PS
¦ Beaver Creek Force Main - Beaver Creek PS to Western Wake WRF
¦ Western Wake WRF
¦ Effluent PS, Pipeline, and Outfall to the Cape Fear River
The project includes two major raw wastewater pump stations, 8.5 miles of
raw wastewater pipelines, an 18-mgd (expandable to 30 mgd) WRF, an effluent
pump station, and 13.4 miles of effluent pipeline.
Permits required for the project include a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the NPDES Unit of the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ), a Section 404 Permit from the
USACE, a 401 Water Quality Certification from DWQ's 401 Unit,
Authorizations to Construct from DWQ's Construction Grants and Loans
(CG&L) Section, a Sediment and Erosion Control permit from the Land Quality
Section of the NC Division of Land Resources (NCDLR), and a site
development permit from the Town of Apex.
e) Environmental Documentation Process
The Partners submitted editions of the SEPA EIS to NCDENR in July 2005, August
2005, January 2006, and April 2006. A public hearing for the SEPA EIS was held in
June 2006. In April 2007, NCDENR and the USACE agreed to cooperate on a joint
SEPA/NEPA EIS document. A Scoping Meeting for the joint document was held
on April 19, 2007. This meeting is the first PDT Meeting, and the second PDT
Meeting is scheduled for June 28, 2007.
Several meeting attendees asked questions about the history and background of the
project.
1. Mr. Barth asked what were the top five WRF sites that were selected. Mr.
Esqueda responded that all 30 sites were scored without regard to the selected
wastewater management option or discharge point, and he stated that no
US Al my Cor{)s
of Enconee+s
Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary
May 31, 2007
Page 8
selection was made until after these decisions had been made. Mr. Wicker
clarified that the NEPA EIS process will go through the site selection process
again. Mr. Wicker asked the Partners to present criteria for site selection, and
stated that there will be opportunity to comment on the site selection criteria
during the process.
2. Chatham County Commissioner Barnes stated that in February 2007, Chatham
County was told by NCDENR that it would not be able to obtain a discharge to
the Cape Fear River and that the entire discharge allocation for the river (38 mgd)
had been given to the Western Wake Partners. He stated that Chatham County
wants to build a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), because the available
capacity for Pittsboro and Siler City has been reached, and Goldston also has no
capacity. He noted that Cary wants to run a discharge line through Chatham
County, and that this would be blocked by Chatham County. He stated that the
County is willing to be a test case in court to fight any condemnation. He further
stated that no one had ever discussed this with Chatham County.
Mr. Wicker stated that the purpose of the PDT meeting is to get all comments,
and he thanked Commissioner Barnes for attending the meeting to provide his
input. Mr. Wicker asked Commissioner Barnes whether he saw a resolution to
this issue. Commissioner Barnes stated that he spoke with the full support of all
five Chatham County Commissioners and requested that the County be given
half of the Partners' 38-mgd discharge capacity in the Cape Fear River. The
County would then agree to discuss the line across Chatham County. He stated
that the Commissioners want the County to grow, and they need a WWTP. Mr.
Wicker stated that he has Chatham County's comments and will discuss these
with the Partners.
4. Mr. Whiteheart, the attorney for Chatham County, expressed concern that the
County was not involved in the planning process for the Western Wake project.
He stated that it appears that Chatham County is the critical path for the project
since it crosses into the County. He stated that the County needs to be in
partnership with the Western Wake Partners; otherwise, the County will take an
adverse path. He requested that the County be involved in every meeting and
email regarding the project.
Mayor McAlister and Mayor Weatherly spoke about earlier invitations to
Chatham County to participate in the Western Wake Project. Mayor Weatherly
stated that the Partners originally wanted the project to be a true regional
partnership and hoped that Chatham County would be a partner. He stated that
Chatham County declined to participate after these invitations. The Towns of
Sanford and Fuquay-Varina were also involved in these early invitations to
participate in the partnership.
Mr. Wicker stated that the purpose of the PDT meetings is to offer full
participation in the project and full disclosure of comments. He stated that there
US Al my Corp,
of Enconee+s
Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary
May 31, 2007
Page 9
is a long history for this project, but now the USACE is beginning the NEPA
process and will be moving forward to get input. He stated that he will discuss
the comments with the Partners and will meet with the Partners and Chatham
County to further discuss these issues.
7. Mr. Sommers stated that no permission has been asked of Chatham County to
construct the pipeline through the County. He stated that the County already is
part of Cary's wastewater treatment program, because Cary has contracts for 600
acres of land in Chatham County for biosolids application.
Mr. McCorcle provided a summary of the NEPA process and the USACE's role in
the project. The USACE normally gets involved in projects at the beginning, but
for this project they are getting involved in the middle of the project. From the
USACE's perspective, this is the start of the project, and no decisions have been
made, even though the Partners have identified a preferred alternative. Although
the NEPA process is at the beginning, USACE is starting with fairly good
information that will help the process move forward. He stated that the USACE
will give no property rights or permits other than the Section 404 permit.
However, the document should also serve as a basis for the State's permits. He
clarified that obtaining consensus on aspects of the project during the review
process does not mean that unanimity of opinions will be achieved. The process
allows for concerns to be identified and worked on, but the process will then
move forward, even if agreement from all parties is not achieved.
Mr. McCorcle also noted that the role of the project consultants is changing. They
will now be working for and at the direction of the USACE rather than the Project
Partners. They will be helping the USACE to collect and evaluate information so
the USACE can make a decision on the project.
Mr. McCorcle summarized the timeline for the NEPA process. The USACE has
received comments from the Scoping process and will receive additional
comments during the PDT meetings. A Purpose and Need statement has been
developed. The PDT meetings will review various aspects of the project. The
PDT will consider how resources are impacted, including secondary and
cumulative impacts, etc. The USACE will issue a permit for the main project and
perhaps one or two of its connecting branches, but future impacts will also be
disclosed in the document. The Consultants will develop a Draft EIS for USACE
review, and the PDT will be able to review this document. A Draft EIS will then
be released to the public, and a public notice period will follow. A public hearing
will be held during the Draft or Final EIS stage. A Final EIS will incorporate
changes, and the final document will again be issued for public comment. The
Record of Decision (ROD) will be issued after the comment period for the Final
EIS. The State SEPA process will occur concurrently. Permits will be issued after
the ROD is issued. There will be many opportunities for input during the
process.
US Amy Corp,
of ?cElC;!ee+-s
Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary
May 31, 2007
Page 10
5) Review and Discuss Notice-of-Intent Publication
a) Project Purpose and Need
The PDT reviewed and discussed the draft Purpose and Need statement. This
statement should answer the following: why do the project, why do it now, and
why do it this way. Mr. Wicker stated that defining the purpose and need for the
project is the role of the applicant. The USACE's responsibility is to make certain
that the purpose and need is appropriate (i.e., not too broad and not too narrow).
No Action must also be considered as an alternative.
Mr. Wicker stated that PDT members should submit comments on the draft
Purpose and Need statement to him by email by Friday, June 8, 2007.
b) Proposed Scope of Analysis
The PDT reviewed and discussed the draft Scope of Analysis statement. Mr.
Wicker noted that this document should be renamed the "Plan of Study"
document. Mr. Wicker stated that PDT members should also provide comments to
him on this document by Friday, June 8, 2007.
Mr. Sommers asked Mr. Wicker what the USACE considers to be secondary
impacts. He stated that Chatham County considers the larger allocation and
removal of water from Jordan Lake to be a secondary impact to Chatham County.
He stated that if this project causes NCDENR to consider increased use of
Chatham County as a spray irrigation area for biosolids, this would also be a
secondary impact to the County. If the Western Wake Project enables the Partners
to annex into Chatham County, this would cause secondary impacts to Chatham
County. Growth in the region is also a secondary impact. He requested that these
aspects be evaluated in the Draft EIS. Mr. Wicker confirmed that they will be
evaluated.
Mr. McCorcle stated that the Purpose and Need and Scope of Analysis documents
will be living documents and can change. He requested that PDT members point
out any disagreements they have with the documents.
Mr. Blasidell questioned whether these documents were part of the Notice of
Intent (NOI). Mr. McCorcle confirmed that they were part of the NOI published in
the Federal Register.
Mr. Wicker stated that USACE normally refers to the Scope of Analysis for a
definition of the "geographic" scope of the project. Because the outfall line is
outside the WRF service area for this project, the Scope of Analysis includes the
WRF service area plus the area surrounding the outfall line. Mr. Barth stated that
the WRF service area is shown incorrectly on the map, because New Hill is not
US Al my Corp,
of Enconee+s
Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary
May 31, 2007
Page 11
within the WRF service area. Mr. Donnelly clarified that the Town of Apex has
Master Plans to serve areas that may not currently have water/ sewer lines and
may not currently be within the Town's extra-territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) or water
and sewer service area. It was suggested that the area shown as the WRF service
area be called the "Planning Area" or "Long-Range Urban Services Area" to be
more accurate.
Mr. Sommers questioned whether the fact that the WRF service area does not
extend into Chatham County (except for the portion in the north where Cary has
already annexed land) provides an assurance that there will be no further
encroachment into Chatham County. Ms. Goodwin stated that Cary has been
asked not to plan for extension of its service area into Chatham County except for
those areas which have already been annexed; therefore, the proposed service area
for Cary ends at the County line. Mr. Donnelly stated that because Chatham
County chose not to join the Western Wake Partnership, Apex also ended its
Master Planning efforts at the County line. He stated that over the years, Chatham
County has made several requests that Apex provide water and sewer service, and
Apex will continue to consider those requests. However, these areas are not
included in Apex's Master Planning.
Commissioner Lucier stated that Charlie Horne, the Chatham County Manager,
does not have any records of any meetings with the Project Partners.
Mr. Wicker requested that participants provide him with comments on this matter.
Mr. Tarver questioned whether the Scope of Analysis will end at the point of
discharge or extend some distance downstream in the Cape Fear River. Mr.
McCorcle stated that impacts downstream will be considered in the secondary
impacts analysis. The USACE will look to the agencies for assistance in
determining the stopping point for consideration of impacts. It was noted that
Fayetteville is supportive of water being returned to the Cape Fear River.
6) Future PDT Meeting Dates
The next PDT meeting is scheduled for June 28, 2007 from 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM at the
Apex Town Hall 3rd Floor Training Room.
7) Review Proposed Meeting Objectives for June 28, 2007
Meeting
Mr. Wicker stated that at the June 28, 2007 meeting, the revised Purpose and Need and
Plan of Study documents will be presented. The PDT will seek consensus on these
documents. The PDT will also discuss the resources that need to be addressed for the
US Al my Corp,
of Enconee+s
Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary
May 31, 2007
Page 12
alternatives analysis, including any additional resources besides those that have been
mentioned.
Mr. Wicker requested that the Project Partners present a clear statement of what
facilities are to be permitted as part of this project. The Project Partners should also
present their proposed criteria for reducing the number of WRF sites to a workable
number.
Mr. Blaisdell asked whether the Partners' statement of the facilities to be permitted
applied only to the Federal permits (e.g., Section 404 permit). Mr. Wicker stated that
the Partners should specify which Federal and state permits the EIS will address.
8) Information and Data Requests from PDT Participants
N/A
9) Other Business
Mr. Blaisdell disclosed to the PDT that DWQ has allocated $60 million of funding to
this project and will also be responsible for issuing many permits. He stated that
DWQ will be involved more closely than as just a PDT member. He stated that DWQ
intends that the NEPA document will meet the needs of a SEPA document. Mr.
Wicker confirmed that he will involve DWQ's CG&L Section in meetings with the
Partners.
Mr. Barth stated that he wanted to confirm that the State will not just go along with
the USACE's decisions, but that decisions will be joint decisions between the State and
the USACE. He wanted to confirm that the State would still be making a
recommendation on a preferred WRF site. Mr. Wicker confirmed that both the
USACE and the State will make recommendations. Mr. McCorcle stated that in order
to issue a Section 404 permit, the USACE must be able to agree that the preferred
alternative is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. Mr. Wicker
stated that the USACE cannot issue a 404 permit without a State 401 Water Quality
Certification.
The next PDT meeting will be held on
Thursday, June 28, 2007 from 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM
Apex Town Hall
(3rd Floor Training Room)
73 Hunter Street
Apex, NC 27502
Army Carps
Engineers MEETING AGENDA
Wilmirigtori District
NEPA EIS Project Delivery Team
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Project
May 31, 2007
10:00 am to 2:00 pm
Apex Town Hall, Apex North Carolina
73 Hunter Street, Apex, NC, 27502
1) Introductions
2) National Environmental Policy Act
a) Clean Water Act Requirements
b) Jurisdiction of United States Army Corps of Engineers
c) Environmental Impact Statement
i) Purpose
ii) Preparation process
3) Project Delivery Team
a) Participants
b) Roles and Responsibilities
c) Decision-Making Process
4) Project History and Background
a) Project Participants
b) Project Drivers
i) Planned Growth and Development
ii) Regulatory Requirements
(1) InterbasinTransfer- EMC
(2) Harris Lake Nutrient Enrichment- NC DENR
(3) Regional Cooperation - NC DENR
c) Regional Wastewater Study
i) Alternative Wastewater Management Options
ii) Alternative Wastewater Discharge Location Options
iii) Alternative WRF Site Options
d) Selection of Preferred Alternative
e) Environmental Documentation Process
MEETING AGENDA
NEPA EIS Project Delivery Team
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Project
us a; May 31, 2007
f=, Page 2 of 2
i) SEPA EIS
ii) NEPA EIS
5) Review and Discuss Notice-of-Intent Publication
a) Project Purpose and Need
b) Proposed Scope of Analysis
6) Future PDT Meeting Dates
7) Review Proposed Meeting Objectives for June 28, 2007 Meeting
8) Information and Data Requests from PDT Participants
9) Other Business
10) Adjourn
NEXT MEETING
June 28, 2007
10:00 am to 2:00 pm
Apex Town Hall, Apex North Carolina
73 Hunter Street, Apex, NC, 27502