Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20061203 Ver 2_Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary (6-28-07)_20070628of Engineer-s° ti"?,'irnintor? D- r Meeting Summary To: Western Wake Project Delivery Team Prepared By: CDM Date: June 28, 2007 Subject: Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Project Delivery Team Meeting No. 2 - June 28, 2007 A Project Delivery Team (PDT) Meeting was held on Thursday, June 28, 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 Michael Hosey, USACE John Roberson, Wake County Jean Manuele, USACE Tim Donnelly, Town of Apex Dan Blaisdell, NCDENR DWQ CG&L Tim Bailey, Town of Cary Scott Smart, NCDENR DWQ CG&L Mike Bajorek, Town of Cary Melba McGee, NCDENR Steve Brown, Town of Cary Cyndi Karoly, NCDENR DWQ 401 Unit Leila Goodwin, Town of Cary Fred Tarver, NCDENR DWR Kendra Stephenson, Town of Holly Springs Shari Bryant, NC Wildlife Resources Commission Tim Gauss, Town of Morrisville Sarah McRae, NCDENR Natural Heritage Prog. Ken Bruce, Brown and Caldwell Justin Bullock, NCDOT Shearin Dramby, Brown and Caldwell Renee Gledhill-Earley, State Historic Preservation Bob Esenwein, Brown and Caldwell Paul Barth, New Hill Community Association Marshall Taylor, Brown and Caldwell Sheila Morrison, New Hill resident Glenn Dunn, Poyner and Spruill Buzz Bryson, Progress Energy Tim Sullivan, Poyner and Spruill Commissioner Patrick Barnes, Chatham County Scott Freeman, CH2M HILL David Hughes, Chatham County Kelly Boone, CDM Bill Sommers, Chatham County Brenan Buckley, CDM Mayor Randy Voller, Town of Pittsboro The following briefly summarizes the meeting and is organized per the meeting agenda (attached). ii5 sio ?[tV COr1]Li Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary June 28, 2007 Page 2 1) Introductions Mr. Wicker stated that several handouts have been distributed, including a summary of the May 31, 2007 PDT Meeting and a summary of comments received on the Purpose and Need statement and the Plan of Study document. 2) Purpose and Need Mr. Wicker stated that the draft Purpose and Need statement has been revised to address comments received from PDT members, and the revised draft document has been provided as a handout. Mr. Wicker allowed PDT members time to review the revised draft document. Mr. Wicker asked the Project Partners to describe the revisions that were made to the document. Mr. Esenwein stated that the Purpose and Need sections were separated, the requirements of the regulatory mandates were clarified, and a Goals and Objectives section was added to the document to be consistent with a Federal working group's finding on developing Purpose and Need statements. Mr. Wicker stated that the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) will consider whether this section should remain or be moved to another section. In addition to the Partners' revisions, more details on regulatory mandates and growth projections were added to explain the need for the project. Mr. Sommers requested that the statement include a more detailed definition of the project service area. He stated that the State is contributing to the project, and new growth could include parts of Chatham County through voluntary or involuntary annexation, especially in the second phase of the project. He questioned whether the service area for the project definitely ends at the Wake County/Chatham County border. Mr. Wicker stated that the question relates to defining the direct service area versus the secondary and cumulative impact area and asked the Project Partners to comment on the direct service area. He asked whether Chatham County currently had any wastewater treatment facilities, and Mr. Sommers confirmed that the County does not. Ms. Goodwin stated that the Partners' water reclamation facility (WRF) service area (shown in green on maps) is defined by the Towns' extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) and short-range and long-range urban service areas (USA). The WRF capacity and service area is based on wastewater capacities expected from the current WRF service area. She stated that changes to the service area boundary such as extending the service area into Chatham County are determined through a political process and that future Boards and Councils may decide to change the service area; however, this capacity would need to be offset by removing service area elsewhere. ii5 sio [tV COr1]Li Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary June 28, 2007 Page 3 Ken Bruce suggested adding a map showing the WRF service area to the Purpose and Need statement. Ms. Gledhill-Earley agreed that adding this map may help alleviate Chatham County's concerns about defining the service area. This will also help define the area of analysis for secondary and cumulative impacts. Mr. Sommers agreed that adding the map would resolve Chatham County's concerns as long as the service area does not change over the course of the project. Commissioner Barnes stated that one of Chatham County's main concerns is that Chatham County is totally opposed to annexation by Cary. He stated that the more wastewater treatment capacity that is given to the Project Partners (including Cary), the more Cary will want to annex portions of Chatham County. Mr. Barth stated that the WRF service area still includes the New Hill area. He stated that he is not sure that New Hill would ever be in the WRF service area or the Partners' USA. He stated that Wake County does not want development to occur within 5 miles of the Harris Nuclear Plant because of concerns with traffic near the plant, so this area should not be included in the service area. Mr. Donnelly stated that Apex's portion of the WRF service area includes New Hill and areas that are unresolved between Apex and Holly Springs. He stated that there may be constraints with development in several parts of the service area, including around Jordan Lake, the Harris Nuclear Plant, etc., but the Towns must plan for wastewater treatment capacity in these areas. The Town of Apex is investing in wastewater capacity for service area where the Town projects development to occur. How this development occurs is not completely known. Apex plans to serve the New Hill area in the future but cannot afford to extend infrastructure to serve the entire service area during the initial phase. Ms. Morrison questioned whether the provision for water and sewer infrastructure is included for those who live in New Hill. Mr. Donnelly confirmed that the Apex Council has officially stated that if the currently selected WRF site is chosen, the Town will invest in some infrastructure in the area immediately surrounding the wastewater plant site. Mr. Barth stated that this policy applies only to a subset of homes in New Hill and not to the community as a whole. Ms. Morrison stated that she represents the subset of homes, and this group is favorable to the WRF being located at the Partners' currently proposed site. She stated that this group consists of the owners of property that adjoins the WRF site. She stated that this group of owners within 1/z mile of the WRF site would be the most affected by noise, traffic, and odor at the WRF. Mr. Wicker suggested that this discussion be deferred to a later time since it does not directly pertain to the Purpose and Need statement. Mayor Voller suggested that cooperation between local governments was needed on issues such as transfer of development rights and increasing the density of development within 5 to 10 miles of the Harris Nuclear Plant. He questioned whether Cary plans to ii5 sio [tV COr1]Li Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary June 28, 2007 Page 4 go vertical with development. Ms. Goodwin stated that land use planning is a Council process, and land use would be considered during secondary and cumulative impact discussions. Mr. Barth questioned whether the PDT would discuss conflicts between the Wake County Land Use Plan and municipal land use plans. Mr. Wicker confirmed that land use plans will be discussed in the EIS, but the depth of these discussions is still to be determined. Mr. Wicker stated that these land use issues can be addressed later and questioned whether Mayor Voller objected to the Purpose and Need statement. Mayor Voller confirmed that he does not object to the Purpose and Need statement. Ms. Gledhill-Earley stated that the Purpose and Need statement should not preclude alternatives. She questioned whether compliance with regulatory mandates would happen by the stated date of January 1, 2011. Mr. Wicker confirmed that the NEPA EIS will not be held to the stated timeframe. He stated that the USACE will follow procedural mandates. Mr. Wicker asked the PDT to declare by show of hands whether they agree with the Purpose and Need statement. All PDT members with the exception of Mayor Voller and Mr. Barth agreed. Mr. Wicker stated that he would discuss the issues of development/ annexation in Chatham County and the project service area with Mr. McCorcle. 3) Plan of Study Mr. Wicker stated that the draft Plan of Study document has been revised to address comments received from PDT members, and the revised draft document has been provided as a handout. Revisions are shown in bold print. Mr. Wicker allowed PDT members time to review the revised draft document. The Plan of Study discusses how project alternatives will be reviewed and is a living document that can be modified as the project proceeds. Mr. Wicker referred PDT members to the Comment Summary for responses to specific comments that were submitted after the May 31, 2007 PDT Meeting. Ms. Goodwin stated that the Partners propose to combine Wastewater Management Options (2) and (3). Both describe a regional system, and they differ only in discharge location. Because discharge location alternatives are already included in Component 2 (Alternative Discharge Locations), these do not need to be considered under the Wastewater Management Option Component. Mr. Barth asked the Partners to define the Independent Systems Wastewater Management Option. Ms. Goodwin stated that this refers to each Town acting separately to address wastewater capacity needs. ii5 sio [tV COr1]Li Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary June 28, 2007 Page 5 Ms. Bryant asked the Partners whether water reuse will be considered in some of the other wastewater management options or only as a stand-alone option. Ms. Goodwin stated that the Town of Cary does have a reclaimed water system and plans to use reclaimed water. However, reclaimed water is used primarily for irrigation, so its use is seasonal. Implementing a reuse system will not change the maximum permitted discharge limit, because the Towns will still need to be able to discharge the entire discharge flow during periods of wet weather and during winter months and are required to seek this amount of permitted discharge by NCDWQ. Mr. Bryson suggested that reusing the effluent during the summer months may impact the Cape Fear River by reducing the amount of water returned to the river during the summer low flow period. Ms. Goodwin stated that the Towns experience their highest flows during the winter, but the effluent limits are set based on summer low flows in the river. Mayor Voller suggested that the Partners consider using reclaimed water in the winter months to irrigate switchgrass, which can be used as a biofuel. NC State is currently studying this concept. Mr. Wicker stated that one of the purposes of the project is to return water to the Cape Fear River. Mr. Hughes noted that a Regional Land Application System is already listed as one of the wastewater management options to be considered. Mr. Wicker requested that Mayor Voller email him additional comments on the Plan of Study document. Mr. Hosey noted that under the Project Costs section of the Plan of Study document, mitigation costs for stream and wetland impacts are to be estimated based on the Ecosystem Enhancement Programs schedule of fees. He pointed out that the Partners currently plan to directionally drill pipelines across federal lands to avoid direct impacts to these areas. Mitigation for impacts to federal lands may be required if the Partners do not avoid the impacts as currently planned. Mr. Sommers asked the Partners to identify the study that was conducted regarding returning effluent to the Cape Fear Basin. He stated that the State's Water Quality Plan of 2005 contained strategies for managing water quality in various parts of the Cape Fear Basin but did not mention the proposed project. He requested information regarding the new Middle Cape Fear management strategy that allows discharge from the proposed project. Mr. Wicker stated that Mr. Blaisdell will present an explanation of NCDWQ's decisions regarding discharge location at the next PDT Meeting. Mr. Wicker stated that the Partners are currently conducting water quality modeling of the Cape Fear River to determine whether additional flows can be added to the river. Ms. Goodwin and Mr. Blaisdell stated that this will be presented at the next PDT Meeting. Ms. Gledhill-Earley noted that the Plan of Study document refers to the mitigation plans the Partners have already developed. She questioned whether the EIS will identify the secondary and cumulative impacts or will reference the Partners' mitigation plans. Mr. Wicker and Ms. Goodwin confirmed that although the Partners' mitigation plans ii5 sio [tV COr1]Li Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary June 28, 2007 Page 6 address mitigation of secondary and cumulative impacts, the EIS will also identify these impacts. Ms. Gledhill-Earley asked whether secondary and cumulative impacts would be identified for all 30 alternative WRF sites or just for the preferred alternative. Mr. Wicker stated that secondary and cumulative impacts would be identified for three to five reasonable alternatives. These three to five alternatives will be identified based on limiting factors such as discharge location and wastewater management option. Mr. Whiteheart asked whether the discharge location was determined based on NCDWQ limitations. Mr. Wicker confirmed that the discharge location is a limiting factor. 4) Scope of Analysis for Resource Impacts Mr. Wicker asked PDT members to review Table 1, which describes the Scope of Analysis for resource impacts. He stated that this table was originally created by representatives of the NCDWQ Construction Grants and Loans Section and has been modified by the Project Partners. Mr. Wicker requested that PDT members provide comments on the table to Kelly Boone by July 11, 2007. Mr. Wicker clarified that the EIS will address the service area plus areas affected by secondary and cumulative impacts. He also stated that there are other public interest review factors that apply to the project. This table will be used for detailed evaluations after the number of WRF sites is reduced to a reasonable number. Ms. Goodwin explained the acronyms on the table: WRF refers to the water reclamation facility, and WWRWMF refers to the Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities (includes WRF, influent and effluent pipelines, and outfall at river). Ms. Manuele questioned the definition of "downstream' in the table and noted that there could also be secondary and cumulative impacts such as roads upstream of the WRF. Mr. Blaisdell clarified that "downstream" refers to the effluent force main. Commissioner Barnes asked which areas are included in the Southwest Area Land Use Plan. Mr. Barth clarified that the area includes portions of Apex, Cary, Holly Springs, New Hill, Friendship, and Bonsal. Mr. Barth stated that the draft plan will be considered for approval by the Wake County Commissioners in July 2007. Mr. Bryson suggested that a map showing the geographic extent of where the resource impacts will be addressed would be helpful. Ms. Goodwin agreed that maps for the Partners' proposed alterative will be provided as an example at the next PDT meeting. Mayor Voller noted that the table does not address the secondary and cumulative impacts associated with transportation and energy needs. Mr. Wicker stated that the Corps' public interest factors, which include transportation and energy, are not included on the table, because it was based on the list of resources considered during the SEPA ii5 sio ?[tV COr1]Li Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary June 28, 2007 Page 7 process. Mr. Esenwein suggested that there may be mineral resources outside the study area or unknown resources such as cemeteries that need to be considered. Mr. Barth questioned why the Holly Springs effluent force main to the Western Wake WRF is not part of the service area. Ms. Goodwin stated that Holly Springs already has a permit for its wastewater plant, and the service area for Holly Springs' plant was included in that process. The service area for the discharge includes Holly Springs' effluent pipeline and will be shown on a different map. 5) Process for Developing Alternatives Analysis Mr. Wicker reviewed the process for developing the projects' alternatives analysis. i) Steps 1 and 2: Discuss various wastewater management options and alternative effluent discharge locations ii) Steps 3 and 4: Discuss WRF site selection and pumping/ conveyance facilities iii) Step 5: Discuss outfall configurations Mr. Wicker stated that the NEPA process requires that a reasonable number of alternatives be considered, and 30 sites have been identified. He asked if PDT members felt that any additional sites should be considered. Mr. Barth suggested that the sites on Progress Energy-owned land could be reduced to one site, because the Progress Energy sites are not parcel-specific. He proposed that Progress Energy and the Partners work together to identify a site. Mr. Bryson stated that he would need to refer this to other Progress Energy staff. Mr. Wicker asked for the PDT's consensus that the 30 currently identified WRF sites constitute a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project site for consideration. No objections were noted. 6) Future PDT Meeting Dates Future PDT Meeting dates are as follows: a) July 26, 2007 -10:00 AM to 2:00 PM, Herb Young Community Center, Cary b) August 23, 2007 -10:00 AM to 2:00 PM, Apex Town Hall 3,d Floor Training Room 7) Review Proposed Meeting Objectives for July 26, 2007 Meeting Mr. Wicker noted that the July 26, 2007 PDT Meeting will be held at the Herb Young Community Center in Cary. Directions to the meeting location will be emailed to PDT members. Meeting objectives for the July 26, 2007 PDT Meeting will include discussions ii5 sio ?[tV COr1]Li Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary June 28, 2007 Page 8 regarding wastewater management options and discharge locations. Revisions to the table describing the Scope of Analysis for Resource Impacts will also be discussed. In addition, the PDT will begin discussing criteria to reduce the 30 WRF sites to a reasonable number. 8) Information and Data Requests from PDT Participants N/A 9) Other Business N/A The next PDT meeting will be held on Thursday, July 26, 2007 from 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM Herb Young Community Center 101 Wilkinson Avenue Cary, NC 27513 Army Corp,-' Engineers Wilmington District MEETING AGENDA NEPA EIS Project Delivery Team Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Project PDT Meeting No. 2 June 28, 2007 10:00 am to 1:00 pm Apex Town Hall, Apex North Carolina 73 Hunter Street, Apex, NC, 27502 1) Introductions a) Distribute summary of May 31, 2007 PDT Meeting No. 1 b) Distribute summary of comments on draft Purpose and Need and Plan of Study 2) Purpose and Need Statement a) Review revisions made to Purpose and Need statement b) Obtain consensus on Purpose and Need statement 3) Plan of Study a) Review revisions made to Plan of Study b) Obtain consensus on current version of Plan of Study 4) Scope of Analysis for NEPA EIS a) Review and discuss draft table describing Scope of Analysis for resource impacts b) Additional comments on table to be emailed to USACE 5) Process for Developing Alternatives Analysis a) Discuss process for developing alternatives analysis: i) Steps 1 and 2: Discuss various wastewater management options and alternative effluent discharge locations (PDT Meeting No. 3 & 4) ii) Steps 3 and 4: Discuss WRF site selection and pumping/conveyance facilities (PDT Meeting No. 4 & 5) iii) Step 5: Discuss outfall configurations MEETING AGENDA L' 'Y Corp NEPA EIS Project Delivery Team of 3..sa3rs Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Project June 28, 2007 Page 2 of 2 b) WRF Site Selection: Obtain consensus that 30 currently identified WRF sites constitute a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project site for consideration. 6) Future PDT Meeting Dates a) July 26, 2007 -10:00 AM to 2:00 PM, Herb Young Community Center, Cary b) August 23, 2007 -10:00 AM to 2:00 PM, Apex Town Hall 3rd Floor Training Room 7) Review Proposed Meeting Objectives for July 26, 2007 Meeting a) Discuss wastewater management options b) Discuss alternative discharge locations c) Discuss criteria to reduce 30 WRF sites to a reasonable number of sites for further evaluation 8) Information and Data Requests from PDT Participants 9) Other Business 10) Adjourn NEXT MEETING July 26, 2007 10:00 am to 2:00 pm Herb Young Community Center 101 Wilkinson Avenue, Cary, NC 27513 (The Herb Young Community Center is located on Wilkinson Avenue at the corner of North Academy Street and Chapel Hill Road, adjacent to the Cary Town Hall Campus)