HomeMy WebLinkAbout20061203 Ver 2_Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary (11-29-2007)_20071129of Engineer-s°
ti"?,'irnintor? D- r
Meeting Summary
To: Western Wake Project Delivery Team
Prepared By: CDM
Date: November 29, 2007
Subject: Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Project Delivery Team Meeting No. 7 - November 29, 2007
A Project Delivery Team (PDT) Meeting was held on Thursday, November 29, 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 Cyndi Karoly, NCDENR DWQ 401 Unit
Mike Bajorek, Town of Cary Bob Kelly, New Hill Community Association
Commissioner Patrick Barnes, Chatham County Inga Kennedy, PEQ
Paul Barth, New Hill Community Association Bill Kreutzberger, CH2M HILL
Dan Blaisdell, NCDENR DWQ CG&L Commissioner George Lucier, Chatham County
Kelly Boone, CDM Melba McGee, NCDENR
Steve Brown, Town of Cary Sheila Morrison, New Hill
Ken Bruce, Brown and Caldwell Tara Novakowski, USACE
Buzz Bryson, Progress Energy Jamie Revels, Town of Cary
Justin Bullock, NCDOT Randel Sink, New Hill Community Association
Tim Donnelly, Town of Apex Scott Smart, NCDENR DWQ CG&L
Ina Evans, New Hill Stephanie Sudano, Town of Holly Springs
Katie Gard, CDM Tim Sullivan, Poyner and Spruill
Tim Gauss, Town of Morrisville Ruth Swanek, CH2M HILL
Leila Goodwin, Town of Cary Fred Tarver, NCDENR DWR
James Harris, New Hill Jeffrey Weiler, e2M
Jennifer Haynie, NCDENR DWQ CG&L Henry Wicker, USACE
Michael Hosey, USACE
The following briefly summarizes the meeting and is organized per the meeting agenda
(attached).
ii5 sio ?[tV COr1]Li
Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary
November 29, 2007
Page 2
1) Introductions and Handout Distribution
Mr. Wicker stated that several handouts have been distributed, as listed on the agenda.
A summary of comments on the draft Identification of WRF Site Alternatives document
was provided in the handout package.
2) Identification of WRF Site Alternatives
WRF sites recommended for final site evaluations
Mr. Kreutzberger presented a review of the process to identify the WRF site alternatives.
The goal of the screening process is to identify 2 to 5 WRF sites through the initial
screening and intermediate screening process that can be used for detailed development
of the alternatives to the proposed project. After the initial and intermediate screening,
Sites 19, 21/23, and 30 emerged as the best sites to be considered as alternatives to the
preferred WRF site. Site 17 scored next-highest in the intermediate screening. It did not
score as high as Sites 19, 21/23, and 30 because it includes numerous property owners.
Because of this reason, and because it is located in the same corridor as Site 30 and the
preferred site, Site 17 will not be included in the detailed site evaluations unless it is
later determined that the other higher-scoring alternative WRF sites are infeasible.
Mr. Wicker stated that USACE has sent a letter to Progress Energy requesting a
discussion regarding the use of treated effluent by Progress Energy. USACE has also
requested information on the potential use of property owned by Progress Energy and
additional details on the 260-foot elevation issue. USACE is working with Progress
Energy to answer these questions. USACE will also discuss the use of treated effluent
by Progress Energy with representatives of NCDWQ. USACE will try to schedule
meetings in the next few weeks to resolve these issues.
Mr. Sink questioned why the Site Access row on Table 3 refers to US highways or
interstates. He suggested this be changed to weight limit. Mr. Bruce stated that this
criterion was also meant to measure the impacts to residents along the secondary roads.
Mr. Wicker clarified that the criterion is a measure of road improvements that would
have to be made for each site. Mr. Sink stated that as an example, New Hill-Holleman
Road is not weight-limited road. Trucks would be able to use that road without
improvements. Mr. Bailey stated that this criterion could be more specifically
determined during the final site evaluations. The impacts to be evaluated include
impacts to residents from traffic such as trucks hauling solids. Mr. Kreutzberger stated
that the best readily available data was used for this level of the screening process. Mr.
Sink stated that construction traffic shouldn't be used as metric, because it is only
temporary. Ms. Goodwin suggested that the table be amended to include a more
detailed description of the criterion and its intent in a footnote. Ms. Haynie stated that
the purpose of the intermediate screening is to provide a broader evaluation. Mr.
Bullock offered to provide weight limit data. Ms. Morrison stated that she lives on New
ii5 sio [tV COr1]Li
Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary
November 29, 2007
Page 3
Hill-Holleman Road and would not want to see it used as a major access road. Mr.
Wicker stated that USACE will look into this criterion and will investigate weight limits.
Mr. Barth stated that the effluent pipe from Holly Springs is not included in the
intermediate screening and suggested that this be included. Mr. Wicker stated that the
Holly Springs pipeline would be included in the final evaluations. Ms. Swanek added
that the Western Wake project is not dependent on the Holly Springs pipeline. Mr.
Barth stated that because the Holly Springs pipeline depends on the Western Wake
project, it should be included. Mr. Blaisdell stated that because the Holly Springs
pipeline will be included in the EIS, it should be included in the final WRF site
evaluations.
Data to be considered for final site evaluations
The group discussed the table of data to be included in the final detailed site
evaluations. Mr. Wicker stated that wetlands on all the final sites will be delineated and
approved by USACE. USACE will request comments from state and federal agencies.
Field work will be conducted to identify any unknown problems.
Mr. Bryson stated that the threatened and endangered species criterion should be an on-
site evaluation for the final evaluations. He noted that some of the land included in the
Gamelands and Public Lands categories is gameland that is required as mitigation for
Progress Energy. He suggested that these lands should be distinguished from the other
gamelands, because mitigation would be required to use them. Some lands are
voluntary mitigation, and others are required. Progress Energy should be consulted to
distinguish the types. He also suggested adding NCEEP easements and sites. Mr.
Wicker stated that USACE will coordinate with Progress Energy on gamelands and will
complete protected species surveys as required by the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission.
Mr. Bryson questioned whether the pipelines will be drilled or trenched. Mr. Bailey
stated that permanent impacts are necessary to maintain access to all manholes in
accordance with the Partners' NCDWQ collection system permit, but this access is
usually not vehicular access such as a gravel road; it is usually for an all terrain vehicle.
Vehicular access may be needed for cleaning and flushing of pipelines. This will be
determined in more detail at a later date.
Mr. Wicker stated that NEPA requires disclosure of impacts. USACE will weigh
impacts later during the permit phase.
Mr. Bryson asked about the width of easements. Mr. Bailey stated that generally
easements are 40 to 50 feet wide unless the pipeline is deep, in which case more
easement may be needed. The maintenance width is generally 10 feet on each side of
the pipe, except in wetlands where the maintenance width is limited to 10 feet total.
ii5 sio [tV COr1]Li
Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary
November 29, 2007
Page 4
This will also be determined in more detail at a later date. Mr. Kelly questioned
whether a pasture could still be used by a landowner and whether the Partners will
access the pipelines by walking or using vehicles. Mr. Bailey stated that gates can be
installed with a double lock. Access via walking vs. vehicles depends on the pipeline
and location.
Mr. Wicker requested that the PDT provide comments on these materials or make
suggestions for locations of better sources of information if applicable. Comments
should be provided to USACE by December 14, 2007.
Mr. Barth asked when environmental justice would be included in the evaluations. Mr.
Wicker stated that he knew Mr. Barth had requested that USACE discuss environmental
issues with his group and that he would remind Justin McCorcle to contact Mr. Barth to
discuss these issues. USACE does plan to meet with Mr. Barth's group per their request.
Mr. Wicker stated that he would attend the meeting, and Justin McCorcle and a
representative from EPA might attend. The environmental justice process is ongoing.
Mr. Barth stated that he does not want environmental justice evaluations to be done
without his knowledge. Mr. Kreutzberger stated that environmental justice is included
in the EIS outline.
Mr. Sink asked if citizens can attend the site surveys. Mr. Wicker stated that he would
look into this. The town of Cary is requesting access to the sites. Mr. Bailey added that
citizens may need to sign a waiver of responsibility. Mr. Wicker stated that USACE will
verify the wetland delineations when they are complete. He will check with USACE's
legal group on whether citizens can visit the sites. Ms. Haynie stated that USACE may
also need to check with the Natural Heritage Program regarding protected species.
Ms. Karoly questioned whether the Wetland Assessment Method would be used. Ms.
Swanek stated that this will be done with the delineations. Mr. Wicker clarified that for
any project, the process for wetland delineations is as follows: wetlands are delineated
by a consultant, the consultant submits the delineation to USACE, USACE checks the
delineation, the consultant surveys the delineation, and USACE signs the delineation.
Mr. Kelly asked whether the pipelines along Progress Energy easements will be directly
adjacent to the easements or separated by a buffer. He asked if the pipeline right-of-way
will include the "danger tree" area, which is an additional 30 feet past the 70-foot right-
of-way. Mr. Bailey stated that the pipelines will be installed in this area as much as
possible. The Partners are coordinating this with Progress Energy, and their intent is
not to skip over that area. Mr. Kelly asked if the two pipes will be installed at one time.
Mr. Bailey stated that the Phase 1 pipe will be installed initially. The Phase 2 pipe may
be installed at the same time or later. The Partners are looking into this and have not
made a final decision. Mr. Kelly asked if a reclaimed water line is planned as a third
pipe in the corridor. Mr. Bailey stated that this is not planned immediately. Reclaimed
ii5 sio ?[tV COr1]Li
Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary
November 29, 2007
Page 5
water will be used only on the WRF site initially. In the future, new pipes would be
needed for a reclaimed water system. These are usually installed along roads,
depending on the service area and where customers are located. Mr. Donnelly added
that these pipes are smaller and would not necessarily follow the same route as the
other pipelines.
Mr. Barth asked if there is only one larger pipe to the river planned. Mr. Bailey stated
that the Partners are leaning toward two pipes for the influent lines but one for the
effluent.
3) EIS Outline
Mr. Wicker stated that a draft outline has been prepared and is included in the handout
package. He reviewed the main headings of the outline and stated that the outline
format is based on NEPA requirements. Mr. Wicker requested that the PDT review the
outline and provide comments to USACE by December 14, 2007.
4) Future PDT Meeting Dates
Future PDT Meeting dates are as follows:
a) No PDT Meeting in December 2007
b) Jan. 31, 2008 -10:00 AM to 12:00 PM, Apex Town Hall 3rd Floor Training Room
[meeting was later postponed to Feb. 28]
c) Feb. 28, 2008 -10:00 AM to 12:00 PM, Herb Young Community Center in Cary,
Room A
d) Mar. 27, 2008 -10:00 AM to 12:00 PM, Herb Young Community Center in Cary,
Room A
5) Review Proposed Meeting Objectives for Next Meeting
At the next meeting the PDT will discuss the EIS outline, secondary and cumulative
impacts, and other topics that do not require the results of the final site evaluations. The
next meeting is scheduled for January 31, 2008 [meeting was later postponed to Feb. 28].
6) Other Business
Mr. Wicker stated that the Work Plan has been revised and provides a rough schedule
for the project. During December, the consultants will begin collecting data to be used
for the final site evaluations. Mr. Kreutzberger stated that publication of the Draft EIS
begins the public process; therefore, PDT meetings after that milestone are considered
"to be determined" by USACE and the group as they are needed.
ii5 sio [tV COr1]Li
Western Wake PDT Meeting Summary
November 29, 2007
Page 6
Mr. Wicker stated that USACE is currently working on a public involvement plan,
which includes door-to-door notification around and on the alternative WRF sites and
pipelines. This is being conducted to disclose information to these affected groups.
Mr. Wicker reminded the PDT to review the proposed data to be used for the final site
evaluations and NEPA EIS outline and submit comments to USACE by December 14,
2007.
Mr. Wicker asked the PDT if they had any objections to the intermediate screening,
other that the comments that were noted during the meeting. No additional comments
or objections to the group of alternative WRF sites were noted.
Mr. Sink asked if the PDT would discuss the intermediate screening. Mr. Kreutzberger
stated that this was discussed at the last PDT meeting and is summarized in the
Identification of WRF Site Alternatives document. This document will be a part of the
EIS as an appendix.
Mr. Lucier stated that Chatham County has requested a meeting with the Partners'
Councils/Boards to discuss the pipeline in Chatham County. He stated that Chatham
County is trying to schedule this meeting for the third week of January 2008. Mr. Bailey
confirmed that the Town of Cary has received the letter. Mr. Gauss stated that he has
not seen the letter but will check on it.
No PDT meeting will be held in December due to the Holidays
Army Corp.
Engineers MEETING AGENDA
Wilmington District
NEPA EIS Project Delivery Team
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Project
PDT Meeting No. 7
November 29, 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 October 25, 2007 PDT Meeting No. 6
b) Summary of comments on October 25 Meeting materials
c) Draft description of process for Identification of WRF Site Alternatives
d) Updated NEPA work plan
e) Draft NEPA EIS outline
f) Draft list of data to be considered for final site evaluations
2) Identification of WRF Site Alternatives
a) Review WRF sites recommended for final site evaluations
b) Discuss list of data to be considered for final site evaluations
c) Present draft document describing process for Identification of WRF Site Alternatives
d) Submit comments to USACE by December 14, 2007
3) EIS Outline
a) Discuss draft NEPA EIS outline
b) Submit comments to USACE by December 14, 2007
4) Future PDT Meeting Dates
a) No PDT Meeting in December 2007
b) Jan. 31, 2008- 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM, Apex Town Hall 3rd Floor Training Room
MEETING AGENDA
NEPA EIS Project Delivery Team
Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Project
November 29, 2008
Page 2 of 2
c) Feb. 28,2008- 10:OOAM to 12:00 PM, Herb Young Community Center in Cary, Room A
d) Mar. 27,2008- 10:OOAM to 12:00 PM, Herb Young Community Center in Cary, Room A
5) Review Proposed Meeting Objectives for January 24, 2008 Meeting
a) EIS Outline
b) Secondary and Cumulative Impact Analysis
c) Alternative Outfall Configurations
6) Other Business
7) Adjourn
NEXT MEETING
January 24, 2008
10:00 am to 12:00 pm
Apex Town Hall (3rd Floor Training Room)
73 Hunter Street, Apex, NC 27502
Project Website (through US Army Corps of Engineers' website):
http://www.saw. usace. army. m i I/wetl ands/Pro jects/WW-WTP/i ndex. htm I