Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20061203 Ver 2_Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary (10-25-07)_20071025of Engineer-s° ti"?,'irnintor? D- r Meeting Summary To: Western Wake Project Delivery Team Prepared By: CDM Date: October 25, 2007 Subject: Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Project Delivery Team Meeting No. 6 - October 25, 2007 A Project Delivery Team (PDT) Meeting was held on Thursday, October 25, 2007 at the Apex Town Hall to discuss the Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities (WWMF) project. The following were in attendance: Tim Bailey, Town of Cary Jennifer Haynie, NCDENR DWQ CG&L Commissioner Patrick Barnes, Chatham County Michael Hosey, USACE Paul Barth, New Hill Community Association David Hughes, Chatham County Kelly Boone, CDM Bill Kreutzberger, CH2M HILL Ken Bruce, Brown and Caldwell Commissioner George Lucier, Chatham County Shari Bryant, NC Wildlife Resources Comm. Scott McLendon, USACE Buzz Bryson, Progress Energy Scott Smart, NCDENR DWQ CG&L Brenan Buckley, CDM Stephanie Sudano, Town of Holly Springs Tim Donnelly, Town of Apex Tim Sullivan, Poyner and Spruill Shearin Dramby, Brown and Caldwell Ruth Swanek, CH2M HILL Glenn Dunn, Poyner and Spruill Fred Tarver, NCDENR DWR Katie Gard, CDM Jeffrey Weiler, e2M Leila Goodwin, Town of Cary Henry Wicker, USACE James Harris, New Hill The following briefly summarizes the meeting and is organized per the meeting agenda (attached). 1) Introductions and Handout Distribution Mr. Wicker stated that several handouts have been distributed, as listed on the agenda. Ms. Boone reviewed the summary of comments received on the previous PDT meeting materials. ii5 sio [tV COr1]Li Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary October 25, 2007 Page 2 2) WRF Candidate Site Screening to Identify Alternatives Mr. Wicker stated that a revised draft document describing the process for Identification of WRF Site Alternatives has been distributed. Comments on this document should be submitted to USACE by November 2, 2007. Mr. Kreutzberger presented an overview of the intermediate WRF site screening process. The purpose of the screening process is to identify 2 to 5 WRF sites that can be used for detailed development of the alternatives to the proposed project. The process involves developing the initial and intermediate screening criteria, compiling the data for the initial screening, performing the initial screening, compiling the data for intermediate screening, performing the intermediate screening, and finally determining the group of WRF sites for alternatives development. The initial screening process was addressed at the last PDT meeting. The intermediate screening results are being presented at this meeting. The sites considered for the intermediate screening are Sites 8, 13, 15,16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 21/23, 25, 26, and 30. Data for Site 14 is also presented. This group of sites represents the area north of Old Highway 1, the area between Old Highway 1 and US 1, and the area south of US 1. Mr. Kreutzberger reviewed the intermediate screening criteria that were identified at the last PDT meeting and asked if anyone had comments on these criteria. No comments were noted. Mr. Kreutzberger reviewed the table of intermediate screening data that was distributed to the PDT. He stated that the consultants sent this table to the PDT last week and continued to make modifications to the table as data was finalized. For example, the data was improved so that churches with cemeteries were not double-counted as churches and cemeteries in the Sensitive Land Use category. The Site Access category was defined as distance to major roads, including interstates, US highways, NC highways, and Old Highway 1. For the Threatened and Endangered Species category, the data was revised to not include occurrences that are noted as "known to be destroyed" in the element occurrence data table. Wetlands and lakes/ponds were grouped to avoid double-counting these often overlapping data sets. Intermittent and perennial streams were combined because these are regulated together. The consultants considered various scoring methods for evaluating the data. The goal of this process is to identify 2 to 5 sites for development as alternatives to the Partners' preferred site. He stated that a description of the intermediate screening process would be added to the draft document describing the process for Identification of WRF Site Alternatives for PDT review in November. The consultants will conduct final site evaluations beginning in December. Mr. Kreutzberger described the approach for the intermediate screening process. He stated that the consultants calculated the mean, median, first quartile, and third quartile ii5 sio [tV COr1]Li Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary October 25, 2007 Page 3 statistics for each data category. They looked at data for the full site, the site minus the 200-foot perimeter buffer, and the practicable area. They considered various ways to review the data to see if the alternative scoring methodologies provided results that were dramatically different. Removing the 200-foot perimeter buffer or using only the practicable area changed the results for the categories of wetlands and lakes/ponds and streams. Gamelands are mostly consistent through the sites. No weighting of factors was considered for the analysis. Results in the table were color- coded based on whether the score for the category was above or below the median score for all sites. Data for Site 14 is included in the table. Based on the data for the full site, Sites 17, 19, 21/23, and 30 are the highest-ranking sites, as defined as better than or equal to the score for Site 14, the Partners' preferred site. Based on the data for the site minus the 200-foot perimeter buffer, Sites 19 and 21/23 are the highest-ranking sites. Site 30 would come in second. Based on the data for the practicable area, Site 16 is the highest-ranking site, with Sites 21/23 and 30 coming in second. Mr. Wicker stated that these various comparisons were made to determine how the sites rank based on various screening methods. This information is provided so that PDT members can make their own decision about the methods. Mr. Kreutzberger noted that the trend that appears when considering these various screening methods is that the same sites score well for several scenarios. Sites 19, 21/23, and 30 score highest consistently. Site 17 scores second-best, and Site 16 scores well for the practicable area but not the full site data. These sites provide a good representation of the locations: Site 30 is located between Old Highway 1 and US 1 near the Partners' preferred site; Site 21/23 is located on Progress Energy property; and Site 19 is located partly on Progress Energy property. Site 17 could be added if the PDT feels it is necessary. Mr. Barth questioned whether Site 19 is owned by Progress Energy. The consultants stated that there are 5 unique owners on the site. Progress Energy owns a portion, but not all, of the site. Mr. Barth questioned why Site 14 has zero dwelling units. There is one dwelling unit. The consultants stated that they updated the data tables with current Wake County tax parcel data, which shows no units. Mr. Barth asked why there were no scores of "2" on the data summary sheet. Mr. Kreutzberger explained that the scoring ranked the 13 sites from "1" to "13", but if two sites tied for the highest score ("1"), then no site was assigned a "2". Mr. Wicker stated that this data was a lot to take in and asked the PDT to provide comments to USACE and CDM if they would like to review the data in more detail later. ii5 sio [tV COr1]Li Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary October 25, 2007 Page 4 Mr. Kreutzberger presented slides of individual site maps, which were distributed to the PDT. Commissioner Barnes stated that all the site maps show pipelines in Chatham County. He stated that this will require the consent of the Chatham County Board of Commissioners. Mr. Kreutzberger stated that this point is understood. Mr. Wicker stated that his understanding is that the Partners are in the process of discussing this and other issues with Chatham County. Commissioner Barnes stated that the Partners have never discussed the effluent line with Chatham County's Manager or Board of Commissioners. Mr. Donnelly asked Commissioner Barnes if he recalled discussing Chatham County's interests with him after a previous meeting, and Commissioner Barnes stated that he did recall this discussion. Commission Lucier stated that he understands that Mayor McAlister (Cary) sent a letter to Chatham County requesting a meeting, but no meeting has been held. A meeting between the Partners, Managers, and Chairs of Boards or Councils needs to be held. Commissioner Barnes stated that Cary threatened to turn off Chatham s water, but no formal discussion has taken place. Mr. Wicker stated that Chatham County's points have been noted, and USACE will follow- up on these. Commissioner Barnes stated that Chatham's Board is unified on this issue. There are disagreements between Chatham and Cary on land use density. Commissioner Lucier stated that Chatham wants low density land use around Jordan Lake, and Cary wants a higher density. Commissioner Barnes stated that Chatham wants no annexation by Cary. The Partners are assuming their pipeline can go through Chatham County, but Chatham County has been ignored during the process. Mr. Wicker stated that these points would be considered and asked if Chatham County objected to the PDT continuing with the screening discussions. Commissioner Barnes agreed to this. Ms. Morrison stated that she believed that at the last PDT meeting, Cary said that research has showed that there is additional capacity and stated that the Partners were in discussion with Chatham to provide the results of this analysis. Mr. Kreutzberger confirmed that water quality modeling has been performed, and the Partners are waiting for comments from the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ). Chatham requested speculative effluent limits from DWQ in April 2007. Commissioner Barnes stated that the question boils down to whether DENR will give Chatham a permit. MR. Kreutzberger clarified that Chatham has not applied for a permit at this time. At this time, modeling has shown that the Cape Fear River has assimilative capacity for an additional 20 mgd of flow. Mr. Hughes stated that DWQ is considering Chathams speculative effluent limits request. Ms. Morrison asked if there has been formal communication between DWQ and Chatham County. Mr. Kreutzberger and Mr. Wicker clarified that there has been discussion at PDT meetings, but there may not have been formal discussions yet. Progress has been made on the technical issues, but political issues remain. ii5 sio ?[tV COr1]Li Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary October 25, 2007 Page 5 Mr. Kreutzberger stated that the sites recommended for final evaluations are Sites 19, 21/23, and 30. The consultants confirmed that Site 21/23 has 3 owners, one of which is Progress Energy, and Site 19 has 5 owners, one of which is Progress Energy. Mr. Kreutzberger stated that the next steps in the process will be for the PDT to submit comments on the intermediate screening tables by November 2, 2007. The consultants will add the intermediate screening description to the draft document describing the process for Identification of WRF Site Alternatives. He stated that because of the length of this document, the consultants will try to provide additional time for review prior to the next PDT meeting. He also stated that the consultants will address the PDT's comments in the next draft. Mr. Wicker requsted that the PDT submit comments and suggestions on the materials presented today to USACE and CDM by November 2, 2007. He stated that the next step will be detailed reviews of the final sites. He stated that he plans to visit the sites, and evaluations such as wetland delineations and public interest reviews will be completed. Mr. Wicker reminded that PDT that the NEPA process documents impacts, but USACE will make a permit decision based on the least environmentally damaging, practicable alternative (LEDPA). Mr. Barth questioned whether USACE will decide the final WRF site based on the LEDPA as he said Mr. McCorcle had indication at a previous meeting. Mr. Wicker stated that the EIS will identify alternatives and disclose impacts, but the permit and consideration of the LEDPA is a separate step. 3) Future PDT Meeting Dates Future PDT Meeting dates are as follows: a) November 29,2007- 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM, Apex Town Hall 3,d Floor Training Room 4) Review Proposed Meeting Objectives for November 29, 2007 Meeting Mr. Wicker requested that PDT members review the material presented at the meeting and provide comments to him and Kelly Boone by November 2, 2007. Prior to the November 29 meeting, the consultants will add the Intermediate Screening discussion to the Draft Identification of WRF Site Alternatives document. 5) Other Business Mr. Wicker stated that a Project Website is now available through the US Army Corps of Engineers' Wilmington District website. The address is: httpV/www.saw.usace.army.mil/wetlands/Proj ects/4VW-WTP/index.html ii5 sio [tV COr1]Li Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary October 25, 2007 Page 6 Comment summaries, meeting summaries, and other documentation will be added to this site. The next PDT meeting will be held on Thursday, November 29, 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. 6 October 25, 2007 10:00 am to 12:00 pm Apex Town Hall, Apex, North Carolina 73 Hunter Street, Apex, NC, 27502 1) Introductions and Handout Distribution a) Summary of September 27, 2007 PDT Meeting No. 5 b) Summary of comments on September 27 Meeting materials c) Draft description of process for Identification of WRF Site Alternatives d) Data tables showing results of intermediate WRF site screening 2) WRF Candidate Site Screening to Identify Alternatives a) Present draft document describing process for Identification of WRF Site Alternatives b) Present results of intermediate WRF site screening criteria c) Submit comments to USACE by November 2, 2007 3) Future PDT Meeting Dates a) Nov. 29, 2007 -10:00 AM to 12:00 PM, Apex Town Hall 3rd Floor Training Room 4) Review Proposed Meeting Objectives for November 29, 2007 Meeting a) Add intermediate WRF screening description to document describing process for Identification of WRF Site Alternatives b) Obtain consensus on results of intermediate WRF site screening c) Discuss final detailed WRF site evaluations 5) Other Business MEETING AGENDA NEPA EIS Project Delivery Team Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Project October 25, 2007 Page 2 of 2 a) Project Website (through US Army Corps of Engineers' website): http://www.saw. usace. army. m i I/wetlands/Pro jects/WW-WTP/i ndex. htm I 6) Adjourn NEXT MEETING November 29, 2007 10:00 am to 12:00 pm Apex Town Hall (3rd Floor Training Room) 73 Hunter Street, Apex, NC 27502