HomeMy WebLinkAbout20061203 Ver 2_Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary (7-26-07)_20070726of Engineer-s°
ti"?,'irnintor? D- r
Meeting Summary
To: Western Wake Project Delivery Team
Prepared By: CDM
Date: July 26, 2007
Subject: Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Project Delivery Team Meeting No. 3 - July 26, 2007
A Project Delivery Team (PDT) Meeting was held on Thursday, July 26, 2007 at the Herb
Young Community Center in Cary to discuss the Western Wake Regional Wastewater
Management Facilities (WWMF) project. The following were in attendance:
Henry Wicker, USACE David Hughes, Chatham County
Justin McCorcle, USACE Bill Sommers, Chatham County
Michael Hosey, USACE Kevin Whiteheart, Chatham County
Craig Shoe, USACE John Roberson, Wake County
Jennifer Haynie, NCDENR DWQ CG&L Tim Donnelly, Town of Apex
Scott Smart, NCDENR DWQ CG&L Tim Bailey, Town of Cary
Melba McGee, NCDENR Mike Bajorek, Town of Cary
Cyndi Karoly, NCDENR DWQ 401 Unit Steve Brown, Town of Cary
Dave Goodrich, NCDENR DWQ Leila Goodwin, Town of Cary
Fred Tarver, NCDENR DWR Stephanie Sudano, Town of Holly Springs
Shari Bryant, NC Wildlife Resources Commission Ken Bruce, Brown and Caldwell
Renee Gledhill-Earley, State Historic Preservation Bob Esenwein, Brown and Caldwell
Paul Barth, New Hill Community Association Tim Sullivan, Poyner and Spruill
Larry Elmore, New Hill Bill Kreutzberger, CH2M HILL
Bob Kelly, New Hill Ruth Swanek, CH2M HILL
Sheila Morrison, New Hill Kelly Boone, CDM
Commissioner Patrick Barnes, Chatham County Brenan Buckley, CDM
The following briefly summarizes the meeting and is organized per the meeting agenda
(attached).
ii5 sio ?[tV COr1]Li
Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary
July 26, 2007
Page 2
1) Introductions
Mr. Wicker stated that several handouts have been distributed, including a summary of
the June 28, 2007 PDT Meeting and a summary of comments received on the Purpose
and Need statement, Plan of Study document, and Scope of Analysis table.
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. Revisions are shown in bold print. Mr. Wicker asked the
PDT members if anyone had questions or comments on the revised Purpose and Need
statement. No questions or comments were noted. Mr. Wicker asked the PDT members
whether there were any problems with the document, disregarding the Goals and
Objectives. Mr. Barth stated that New Hill should not be included in the service area.
Mr. Wicker noted this objection and stated that the PDT would continue to work
through this issue.
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 asked the PDT
members if anyone had questions or comments on the revised Plan of Study document.
Mr. Sommers questioned whether a description of the alternative discharge locations
would be included in the EIS. Mr. Wicker stated that the NEPA EIS will include a
description of the alternative discharge locations.
Ms. Goodwin clarified that the EIS will not identify impacts for all 30 alternative WRF
sites at the same level of analysis. This will be discussed in further detail at the next
PDT meeting. Mr. Wicker agreed and clarified that the first step in the WRF site
evaluation process will be to eliminate sites that are not practicable. Detailed
evaluations of the practicable alternatives will follow.
Mr. Barth questioned whether another discharge location such as Harnett County
would be included in the Alternative Discharge Locations section. Ms. Goodwin stated
that this would be covered under Option 4 of the Wastewater Management Options
evaluation, because it involves working with another utility contractually.
Mr. Elmore stated that if Harnett County would need to increase its wastewater
treatment capacity for the Harnett County wastewater management option, then this
should be considered a new discharge location. Ms. Goodwin clarified that the
alternative discharge location section describes new discharge locations, and the Harnett
ii5 sio [tV COr1]Li
Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary
July 26, 2007
Page 3
County option involves purchasing capacity from another system, which is covered
under Option 4 of the Wastewater Management Options. Mr. Elmore requested that the
Plan of Study heading be revised to clarify that the alternative discharge locations refer
only to new locations.
Mr. Wicker stated that Table 1, which describes the Scope of Analysis for resource
impacts, has also been revised. Maps have been prepared to depict the areas that will be
evaluated for each resource category, and Table 1 lists the maps that correspond to the
various resource categories. Ms. Boone reviewed the revised Scope of Analysis table
and draft Scope of Analysis maps. Maps A-1 through A-4 describe the areas that will be
evaluated for direct impacts in the EIS. Maps C-1 and C-2 describe the areas that will be
evaluated for secondary and cumulative impacts. It was noted that the pipelines and
sites shown on the map are intended only to show an example of the facilities that will
be evaluated and can change if different alternatives are selected.
4) Alternative Discharge Locations
Mr. Wicker introduced Dave Goodrich from NCDWQ, who presented a summary of the
process by which the Western Wake discharge location was selected.
Mr. Goodrich stated that he is the Assistant Director for NCDWQ Business Operations,
but previously he worked in the NPDES Program of the NCDWQ Point Source Branch
and is familiar with the Western Wake Partners' request for a Cape Fear River Basin
discharge location.
Mr. Goodrich stated that he discussed potential wastewater discharge locations with
Cary (and possibly other Partner) staff in 1997. One option that was discussed was the
New Hope Arm of Jordan Lake. NCDWQ was concerned about allowing a wastewater
discharge to Jordan Lake because of eutrophication of the lake. NCDWQ was
concerned that Jordan Lake is very sensitive to high loadings of nutrients, particularly
nitrogen and phosphorus. NCDWQ classified Jordan Lake as "impaired" in 2000, which
means that it is not supporting of its intended uses. Mr. Goodrich stated that NCDWQ's
concerns about Jordan Lake made it impractical to allow a new wastewater discharge
into the lake.
Mr. Goodrich stated that Holly Springs' wastewater treatment plant currently
discharges into a low-flow stream upstream of Harris Lake. NCDWQ worked with
Holly Springs to make sure that Harris Lake is not a long term wastewater discharge
location for the town.
Mr. Goodrich stated that at low river flows, the Buckhorn Dam at the Cape Fear River
causes enough water to be retained behind the dam that eutrophic conditions can occur.
Therefore, NCDWQ concluded that allowing a new wastewater discharge above
ii5 sio [tV COr1]Li
Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary
July 26, 2007
Page 4
Buckhorn Dam would be impractical. Mr. Goodrich noted that these conclusions were
drawn based on existing conditions rather than predicted conditions.
Mr. Goodrich stated that NCDWQ determined that with sufficient pretreatment, a
wastewater discharge downstream of Buckhorn Dam would be assimilated adequately
for toxics and dissolved oxygen. He stated that the Cape Fear River does have some
nutrient problems behind some of the locks, but the problems are not as bad as they are
at the other discharge locations that were considered.
Mr. Kreutzberger stated that the NCDWQ's model of the Cape Fear River was updated.
Mr. Barth asked whether NCDWQ assumed only primary and secondary treatment for
the alternative discharge locations. Mr. Goodrich stated that state-of-the-art technology
was assumed for all potential discharge locations. Mr. Barth asked why NCDWQ was
concerned about a new wastewater discharge into the lakes if clean water was being
discharged. Mr. Goodrich clarified that the limits of wastewater treatment technology
do not allow wastewater to be treated to the levels that would be considered "clean" for
the lakes. Mr. Kreutzberger clarified that nutrient loading for Jordan Lake is currently
over-allocated. Even with the best treatment available, there would still be an increase
in nutrient loading to the lake if additional wastewater flow is allowed. Therefore, the
only option for a Jordan Lake discharge would be to acquire load allocation from other
municipalities.
Mr. Barth questioned whether recycled wastewater could be used. Mr. Kreutzberger
stated that reuse water has relatively low levels of phosphorus and low levels of
nitrogen, but the Western Wake facility will treat wastewater to even lower levels. Ms.
Goodwin clarified that based on the Jordan Lake TMDL, there is already too much
nutrient load allocated for Jordan Lake. Therefore, even if the Western Wake facility
could discharge wastewater with zero nitrogen and phosphorus, the nutrient loading in
the lake would still be over-allocated.
Mr. Sommers stated that he wanted to clarify that both Cary and Chatham County
withdraw water from Jordan Lake. He also stated that Progress Energy recirculates 10
mgd of water, which is a third of the Western Wake Partners' desired discharge of 30
mgd, so the Harris Lake discharge alternative should not be dismissed.
Mr. Goodrich stated that NCDWQ encourages reuse, but the Western Wake discharge is
a lot of water to reuse. He stated that NCDWQ encourages the Partners to consider
reuse, but NCDWQ cannot force Progress Energy to accept reuse water. Even if
Progress Energy accepted the reuse water, this would not address the nutrient loading
to Harris Lake. Mr. Sommers asked whether the Harris Lake discharge alternative
would be discussed in the EIS. Mr. Kreutzberger stated that it would be included.
Mr. Elmore stated that emissions trading is used for air emissions and could be
considered for water as well. Costs for nutrient trading should be included. He asked
ii5 sio [tV COr1]Li
Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary
July 26, 2007
Page 5
whether this was considered. Mr. Kreutzberger stated that it was not, because NCDWQ
would not consider a lake discharge as an option. Mr. Goodrich stated that there is a
nutrient trading program for the Neuse River Basin, but unlike the Neuse River Basin,
most Jordan Lake dischargers are already treating wastewater to state-of-the-art levels.
A nutrient trading program would require a decrease in an existing allocated discharge
in order for the Partners to discharge to the lake. Mr. Elmore stated that the emissions
limits of the other wastewater facilities should be added to the EIS. Ms. Goodwin stated
that the EIS would summarize the Jordan Lake TMDL and NCDWQ's proposed
reductions. She stated that a Jordan Lake discharge is not feasible, because other
municipalities are fighting the TMDL.
Mr. Sommers asked for a description of the process NCDWQ used to identify the
location below Buckhorn Dam as the proposed discharge location. He stated that the
Cape Fear River Basin study did not include the Middle Cape Fear Basin strategy that
was promulgated in 2006. There was no public process for the Middle Cape Fear
strategy as there was for the Cape Fear River Basin study process. He stated that he has
a September 25, 2006 memo describing four sections for the Cape Fear River Basin plan,
but this was not included in the Cape Fear River Basin study. Mr. Kreutzberger stated
that the Middle Cape Fear strategy was developed concurrently with the Draft Cape
Fear River Basin study and is outlined in the Final Basinwide plan. He also noted that
the current modeling analysis will address the assimilative capacity of the Cape Fear
River. Mr. Goodrich stated that NCDWQ is open to suggestions on ways to make the
process more transparent.
Mr. Tarver questioned the process used to determine whether the discharge should be a
cross-channel diffuser or a bank discharge. Mr. Kreutzberger stated that additional
work has been done with NCDWQ, and a bank discharge is currently proposed. This
will be discussed with the PDT in the future, and the discussion will be included in the
EIS.
Mr. Whiteheart questioned whether alternative discharge locations 2, 3, and 4 in the
Plan of Study document can be considered or has the discharge location already been
set by NCDWQ. Mr. Goodrich stated that from NCDWQ's perspective, the discharge
location has been set, and the only option is the Cape Fear River below Buckhorn Dam.
He clarified that NCDWQ requires the discharge to be downstream of Buckhorn Dam,
but the specific location downstream of the dam is not mandated by NCDWQ. Mr.
McCorcle stated that some elements of the EIS are not within USACE's realm of
expertise, and USACE depends on other agencies such as NCDWQ for these decisions.
Mr. Whiteheart questioned whether the EIS will include a defined location for the
discharge or a range such as 1 to 2 miles. Mr. McCorcle stated that a location must be
identified in the EIS with alternatives considered.
ii5 sio [tV COr1]Li
Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary
July 26, 2007
Page 6
5) Wastewater Management Options
Mr. Wicker stated that a draft discussion of the Western Wake Wastewater Management
Options has been distributed and asked the PDT members if anyone had questions or
comments on the document. Ms. Boone summarized the wastewater management
options, including which options were not considered feasible.
Mr. Barth submitted written comments on the draft document and summarized the
comments. Ms. Goodwin noted that the "hybrid Option" suggested under Option 3
would actually be part of Option 2, the Regional System. Ms. Goodwin stated that
Durham County's permitted discharge limit is 12 mgd. She also stated that Durham
County is not interested in selling wastewater treatment capacity to the Partners. She
stated that additional flow at the facility would not be allowed, because Durham County
already treats wastewater to the limits of technology, and additional nutrient loading
will not be allowed.
Mr. Elmore stated that all wastewater management options should be evaluated on a
consistent basis, and all should be based on a phased approach as the selected option
was. He stated that the Partners may be able to purchase capacity from Harnett County
on an incremental basis, and the facility could be upgraded by 2030. Mr. Wicker asked
that Mr. Elmore submit his comments on the document for further consideration.
Ms. Goodwin stated that in response to the comment that the "inter-basin transfer needs
to be thoroughly analyzed," the EIS can include a discussion of the interbasin transfer,
but management of the transfer has been mandated by the EMC.
Ms. Goodwin agreed with the comment that DWQ's recommendation that the Partners
work on a regional wastewater solution did not mandate a single water reclamation
facility. She stated that the Project Partners were responsible for developing the way in
which the solution would be regional. She stated that this will be clarified in the
document.
Ms. Morrison asked Mr. Barth to clarify his comment that purchasing capacity from
Harnett County would address the environmental justice issue. She stated that some of
the individuals in the environmental justice community near the currently-proposed site
support the treatment facility at that location.
Mr. Wicker stated that additional comments on the Wastewater Management Options
discussion should be submitted to him by Friday, August 3, 2007.
ii5 sio ?[tV COr1]Li
Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary
July 26, 2007
Page 7
6) Preliminary WRF Site Selection Criteria
Mr. Wicker stated that preliminary WRF site selection criteria will be submitted to PDT
members before the next meeting for review. These criteria will be discussed at the
August 23, 2007 PDT Meeting.
Mr. Wicker stated that the same standard will be applied to all 30 WRF sites, but some
will be eliminated quickly. Mr. McCorcle clarified that this will be a culling process for
WRF sites that do not meet the Purpose and Need for the project and will enable the
group of alternative WRF sites to be reduced to a reasonable number for further
evaluations. Mr. Elmore questioned whether this includes alternative wastewater
management options. Mr. McCorcle stated that it does not, because this is a tiered
process. USACE needs concurrence on five questions (discharge location, wastewater
management option, WRF site, pumping/ conveyance, and outfall configuration). All
five elements will be addressed. Mr. Wicker stated that because of the history with the
SEPA document, the PDT will continue discussing the wastewater management options
but will also begin discussing WRF sites.
7) Future PDT Meeting Dates
Future PDT Meeting dates are as follows:
a) August 23, 2007 -10:00 AM to 12:00 PM, Apex Town Hall 3,d Floor Training Room
8) Review Proposed Meeting Objectives for August 23, 2007
Meeting
Mr. Wicker noted that meeting objectives for the August 23, 2007 PDT Meeting will
include discussions of preliminary WRF site selection criteria.
8) Information and Data Requests from PDT Participants
N/A
9) Other Business
N/A
The next PDT meeting will be held on
Thursday, August 23, 2007 from 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM
Apex Town Hall
73 Hunter Street
Apex, NC 27502
Army Corp,-'
Engineers
Wilmington District MEETING AGENDA
NEPA EIS Project Delivery Team
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Project
PDT Meeting No. 3
July 26, 2007
10:00 am to 12:00 pm
Herb Young Community Center, Cary, North Carolina
101 Wilkinson Avenue, Cary, NC 27513
1) Introductions
a) Distribute summary of June 28, 2007 PDT Meeting No. 2
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 Final 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
c) Review and discuss draft maps showing area described in Scope of Analysis table for resource
impacts
4) Alternative Discharge Locations
a) Present summary of process for determining discharge location (NCDWQ)
5) Wastewater Management Options
a) Present summary of alternative wastewater management options
b) Discuss alternative wastewater management options - provide additional comments to US Army
Corps of Engineers
MEETING AGENDA
NEPA EIS Project Delivery Team
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Project
June 28, 2007
Page 2 of 2
6) Preliminary WRF Site Selection Criteria
a) Present preliminary criteria for reducing number of alternative WRF sites (Project Partners)
b) Discuss preliminary criteria for reducing number of WRF sites - provide additional comments to US
Army Corps of Engineers
7) Future PDT Meeting Dates
a) August 23, 2007 -10:00 AM to 2:00 PM, Apex Town Hall 3rd Floor Training Room
8) Review Proposed Meeting Objectives for August 23, 2007 Meeting
a) Obtain consensus on wastewater management options
b) Discuss reduction of 30 WRF sites to a reasonable number of sites for further evaluation
c) Discuss Partners' proposed criteria to be used for detailed evaluations of WRF sites
9) Information and Data Requests from PDT Participants
10) Other Business
11) Adjourn
NEXT MEETING
August 23, 2007
10:00 am to 12:00 pm
Apex Town Hall (3rd Floor Training Room)
73 Hunter Street, Apex, NC 27502