Loading...
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