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)