The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20061203 Ver 1_Application_20060623~~ ~,~~~ .. , ~ ~, 'ti.>~ ~~ ~~~~ __ °~ a~: .- ~~~~~; i ? ~ ~ _~ ~,~., ~~i ~ ~_ f ,~~~ ~ ~.. t._ i " ~ ' _ ` r - }-- R.r 3. . N e~„S ~~-~ ll 1v• c:. ~ qt9 - 3L ~_ "790, `~ ..Z - j + ~. •_ . E ,.... i .. ~ _. ,~ - ~ _ -~ - +"~ Railroad Depot - ca 19~~ ~L~= F ~ y,: ~~ ~ _ .~ _ ~ ~ ~ New Hill Community Association, Inc. Response To The Department of Environment and Natural Resources Review Of The Western Wake Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility EIS Volume 1 of 2 New Hill Community Association, Inc. PO Box 68 New Hill, NC 27562 New Hill, Not Just A Zip Code Z DENR Response.lwp Page 1 f~,`~~ ~~.~ c.. ~,:i - ~\ ~i ~,, r ~~ ~! r y~-' i~ `~ i n, _" ~,, :; f ,-; _ ~' f t ._ . ~ -+_ 4 ` 4- a ~ _ S t '. ~~ _ r~~[w i ~ _ New Hill Community Association, Inc. Response To The N Department of Environment and Natural Resources Review Of The Western Wake Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility EIS Volume 2 of 2 New Hitl Community Association, Inc. PO Box 68 New Hill, NC 27562 New Nill, Not Jest A Zip Code -„~~~~- y ~., ... .. ~ _ _, ,- _ - ;. ~ ~ fl-` DENR Kesponse.lwp Page I "~ Railroad Depot - ca 190Q Date: June 22, 2006 ~~ 5A S~ r e ~ ~~~" t~ ? Z1G6 ~~ ~~~ ~, ~_~ Ms. Cyndi Karoly ~ ~ ~ v North Carolina Division of Water Qualil'' ~r,~,~,~~. ~~~~~~`~ '~~`~``''"~~~ y+lE~:i °,:, I650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-I650 ~ :~ tr :~` ~,'- ~. ~ ~~ , -- ~'~ -- . ~'~ Railroad Depot - to 1900 Dear Ms. Karoly a~ , The Ncw Hill Community Association, Inc. is submitting the attached binders to express our concerns regarding the proposal to site the Western Wake Kegional sewage plant in the center of our community. The binders are organized by two (2) major sections: Volume I of 2: Environmental Justice, and Cost Considerations Volume 2 of 2: Site Selection Process We are committed to acting as a group with neighboring communities to resist condemnation of property for facilities that will not benefit our community or that hinder the advancement of our common interests. While we understand the need for a regional sewage plant, we oppose the siting of this plant in any of the three (3) New Hill locations contained in the Draft ELS. To date, we have had neither a vote nor a voice in the site selection process for a facility that negatively impacts this rural community and our way of life. In a spirit of cooperation, we have attempted to engage both elected officials and public sereants associated with the Western Wake Para~ers regarding our concerns and to explore alternative sites for this facility. Unfortunately, we have continually been rebuffed and referred to DENR. Should y>ou have questions about the material provided, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Pte- ~~--~ Paul Barth President, New Hill Community Association, Inc. • Issues of Environmental Justice TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page What is environmental justice? 2 Selection of a low income, predominantly minority location for the Western 3 Wake Partners sewage treatment plant Unnecessary environmental danger of selected sewage treatment solution 7 Previous projects impacting the citizens of New Hill 8 I. Nuclear Power plant 8 Psychological concerns Light pollution II. Proposed Radioactive Waste Storage Facility 9 III. High Level Radioactive Waste (spent fuel rod) Storage at the Harris 10 Plant Potential Radioactive Waste Fire Radiation leaks Susceptibility of transport vehicles to attack Psychological factors • IV. High voltage power lines 11 Electromagnetic fields V. Gas Lines 11 New projects 11 I. Sewage treatment plant 11 II. Additional reactor(s) at Shearon Harris plant 11 Impact of Multiple Projects on the New Hill Community 11 Unequal application and misapplication of the law 12 I. Progress Energy vs. other landowners in southwest Wake County 12 II. Avoiding the law: Secondary and Cumulative Impacts 12 III. Avoiding the law: Impact on Historical Sites 13 Recommendations 13 • Environmental Justice 1 WHAT IS ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE? Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meanin ful involvement of all eo le g P p regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental and commercial operations or policies. Meaningful involvement means that: (1) people have an opportunity to participate in decisions about activities that may affect their environment andJor health; (2) the public's contribution can influence the regulatory agency's decision; (3) their concerns will be considered in the decision making process; and (4) the decision makers seek out and facilitate the involvement of those potentially affected. • • Environmental Justice 2 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE: SELECTION OF A LOW INCOME, PREDOMINANTLY MINORITY LOCATION FOR THE WESTERN WAKE PARTNERS SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT The methodology used by the Western Wake Partners (WWPs) to address Environmental Justice impacts associated with the proposed site is flawed. In the Environmental Justice analysis, the WWPs used data for an entire census node(node number 534.03) to justify their conclusion that construction of a sewage treatment plant at the proposed site does not adversely impact individuals of minority races. As reflected in Map 1, the western edge of this census node follows the Wake -Chatham County line from its intersection with highway US # 1 north until the county line intersects Yates Store Rd. The northern edge follows the Yates Store and Carpenter Fire Station Roads. The eastern edge follows NC 55 to High House Rd, then to Old US 1, then to Friendship Rd. The southern edge extends from Friendship Rd to the Wake -Chatham County line along US #1. This census node encompasses approximately 48 square miles and includes people of significantly more wealth and with a much higher percentage of whites than the population that lives in close proximity to the proposed project. The WWP's methodology is flawed because it includes a large population that will not experience any impact from the construction and operation of the sewage treatment plant. • • Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 1, Matrix P1. ~ --Denotes approximate location of proposed sewage plant Environmental Justice 3 Map 1: Census tract map of tract 534.03 • The proposed sewage treatment site crosses US Hwy 1 at the middle of the southernmost portion of this census node. ~. Map 2:Higher magnification of the southernmost portion of census node 534.03. The approximate borders of the proposed sewage plant site have been outlined in black. The land condemned for the proposed site lies within the borders of New Hill Holleman Road, St Rd 1011 (Old US 1), and Shearon Harris Rd and extends across the southernmost portion of the census node (crossing new US 1) into census node 532. Thus it is easily seen that the census node chosen by the WWP does not include some of the proposed plants closest neighbors, and includes many that will only experience further growth as a negative consequence of the plant. Instead of data for an entire census node, the WWP should use data provided by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at their Environmental Justice web site (http://www.epa. ovg /compliance/environmentaljustice~ which is based upon 2000 US Census data. One category of data available at the referenced EPA web site is the percentage of minorities living within specified boundaries. This data is divided into 5 categories: 0-10%, 10-20%, 20-30%, 30-40% and 40-100%. Using information provided by the EPA Environmental Justice web site and as reflected in Map 3, the percentage of minorities living directly around the proposed sewage treatment plant site falls within the highest category, 40-100%. Map 3, on the following Environmental Justice 4 page, was produced on the EPA environmental justice web site. Note that the sewage plant is centered in the minority community. Also note that the portion of the property condemned for the sewage plant that extends south of the US 1 Highway, which is not included in census node 534.03, also has a high percentage of minorities. The data obtained from the EPA Environmental Justice web site was verified via two methods. First, the New Hill Community Association undertook adoor-to-door survey of people living within the block bound by New Hill Holleman Road, Old US 1 highway, Shearon Harris Road, and the new US 1 Highway. The survey's results are as follows: Race/ethnicit Percenta e African American 49.3 His anic white) 11.6 Native American 5.8 Caucasian 33.3 Over 65 ears old 17.4 The Association also verified the ethnicity of the population living in the immediate area by searching the Wake County Board of Elections web site (http://msweb03.co.wake.nc.us/bordelec/Waves/WavesSearch.asp). The following addresses were i ncluded in the anal sis: Address (ran e) Church Rd (all addresses Stewart Rd (all addresses) Garris Rd (all addresses) Old Us 1 (36xx-39xx) New Hill Holleman (28xx-31xx Shearon Harris Rd (42xx-43xx) The results of the ethnicity analysis were as follows: African American 52.0% White 41.3% Native American 2.7% Unknown and other 5.4% Note that the Wake County Board of Elections has only recently begun collecting information on ethnicity, and originally entered all registered voters asnon-Hispanic. This information will only be corrected over time as individuals correct their registrations, thus the percentage of registered voters indicated above that are Hispanic is unknown. • Environmental Justice • C h~r~a~ ~ '$' ~' .., Last updated on Sunday, February 12th, 2006 ~~r~c~t ~i~ior`s4~ fey Black ~~;J • 1~~ 1J~~~ ~~ ~~ tee; ~ 1~?~:1 ~~E~S ~$~~~~5 hl~aj~r reads L+acal str~e~ts ~~~~ ~CFC1~5 ~•~.f ~F~:,~Fi75 Q ~ ~1~:) i~~~~a Environmental Justice ~fi. ,~ .:~r~ ~i ~ }ytsk~f~ ~Fq~~ • .r ~ ~.. j ~ >~ fl~ 4 6 G ,; ~~ ~,~: . _'~-~ z \1k v T ~ , 1 S~ +i ~. .., X < ^,.__ - ...~ .. • .7 By contrast, the partnering towns indicate the following ethnicities: Town C A ex Morrisville Holly Sprin s White 82.17 85.1 76.5 77.1 African American 6.15 7.5 11.0 18.6 Asian 8.08 4.3 9.1 1.2 Other 3.33 3.2 3.5 2.9 His anic (an race) 4.28 3.2 3.3 3.0 Percent over 65 5.36 4.0 4.0 2.8 Sources Cary: http://carync.areaconnect.com/statistics.htm Apex: http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/popInfo.php?locIndex=19067 Morrisville: http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/popInfo.php?locIndex=19496 Holly Springs: http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/popInfo.php?locIndex=19381 Economic status No convenient source of data was found on the mean or median incomes of individuals living in the New Hill. As an alternative, relative wealth was estimated based on data on home values obtained using http://www.zillow.com/. Town Avera a Home Value % of New Hill home value C $225,000 167% Apex $205,000 152% Morrisville $180,000 133% Holly Springs $173,000 128% New Hill $135,000 Conclusion: The selection of the proposed site in New Hill is the selection of an economically disadvantaged, predominantly minority location by a wealthy, predominantly white group of towns. Because the WWP's did not consult the people of New Hill before selecting the proposed sewage treatment plant site, they violated both the "fair treatment" and "meaningful involvement" doctrines of the EPA environmental justice policies. UNNECESSARY ENVIRONMENTAL DANGER OF SELECTED SEWAGE TREATMENT SITE Life has inherent risks, and many have to be accepted. However the courts have little tolerance for those who put populations at risk unnecessarily. The selected location of a sewage plant a large distance from the municipalities that will be using it creates an • unnecessary risk of leakage of raw sewage in proximity to people who use wells as their only source of drinking water. The towns in the Western Wake Partners have a history of Environmental Justice 7 raw sewage leaks (see Section III). While these leaks are an environmental hazard, at least when they occur within the towns their citizens can still count on safe drinking water. This will not be the case if a leak occurs in the New Hill area. A leak in New Hill will endanger the drinking water supplies. Furthermore, if the path of the pipeline is not readily observable (for example, if it follows a Progress Energy power), it is possible that raw sewage could leak for a long time undetected. This risk could be completely avoided by locating treatment plants closer to the source of the sewage or by expanding the capacity of existing plants within the towns. The towns could still meet the inter-basin transfer requirements by pumping treated sewage, which carries much less risk if a leak occurs, through New Hill to the Cape Feaz River basin. PAST AND ONGOING PROJECTS IMPACTING THE NEW HILL COMMUI~TITY Environmental Justice is also concerned with the impact of multiple projects on a population. Unfortunately, New Hill has been tazgeted for numerous undesirable projects in the past. A summary of previous, current, and planned projects for the New Hill community follows. I. Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant The Sheazon Harris Nuclear Power plant dominates the New Hill environment. Progress . Energy located this plant on 25,000 acres in southwest Wake County. Having taken 25,000 acres of land from previous residents, often using bullying tactics to do so, it now uses approximately 11,000 of those acres for the power plant. It has plans to develop the land that was not used for the plant, further profiting at the expense of those that originally owned the land. A. Psychological factors: The numerous safety problems at the Harris plant cause heightened concern and anxiety to its residential neighbors. A short summary of those safety concerns follow: 1. SCRAMS: The power plant has had numerous "scrams" or emergency shut downs - faz above the industry average (at one point reported to be as high as 10 times the industry average). These scrams aze reported on-line by NC WARN and in the local press (see addenda). The unsettling frequency of these emergency shutdowns is a source of continuing anxiety to local residents. The frequency of problems is of particular concern, given the on-site storage of nuclear waste from three different plants (see below). 2. Radioactive leaks at other plants operated by Progress Energy make local citizens concerned about the potential of undetected leaks at the Hams Plant. The Virginian Pilot reported a radioactive water leak at the • Brunswick Nuclear plant in 1994. That leak had gone undetected, "possibly for the past seven years" according to the news article. That a Environmental Justice 8 . leak could have gone undetected for that period of time undermines any sense of security for those around that plant and others operated by Progress Energy. 3. Armed trespassers were caught at the Shearon Harris facility in January 2006. While the sheriff's office believed these people were hunting, the occurrence of armed trespassers a quarter mile (440 yards!) from the plant in the post 9/11 environment is terrifying. 4.Other security breaches: In September, 2003, Department of Labor administrative law appellate judges found that Richard Kester, the former superintendent of corporate access to the Harris facility was improperly fired "after his supervisor asked him to lie about how three contract employees had gained falsified clearances in January 1999" (The Independent Weekly, March 3, 2004). The breaches occurred during refueling operations. This was NOT the first time workers were allowed to enter the plant without proper background checks, and, unfortunately, it wasn't the last. On January 11, 2006, The Independent reported the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was to visit the plant to investigate "anonymous guards' charges of lax security and reprisals against those reporting vulnerabilities such as broken doors to vital areas, inoperable plant gates, falsified security records and widespread cheating on security certification exams." B. Light Pollution: There are warning lights on the cooling tower as required for structures of great height. These lights result in a pulsating glow in the night sky, particularly on days of relatively high humidity. A direct line of sight to the cooling tower is not necessary to see this pulsating glow. Not only does it destroy the normal darkness of the night sky, it also serves as a constant reminder to all residents of their dangerous neighbor. II. Proposed Radioactive Waste Storage Facility: The New HillBonsal area were targeted as a potential site of a low-level radioactive waste storage facility in the 1990's, despite the fact that geologic subterranean fractures would make tracing of radioactive leaks difficult, if not impossible. Avery disturbing part of this process was the unethical manner in which public relations firms recommended targeting of the area and "selling" of the project to the population. The following is quoted from Rachel's Environment & Health Weekly #262 27 Nov 1991. "The Epley report recommended that state authorities announce in August, 1991, that 12 or 13 sites were being evaluated and not just the "[5] to 7 real sites" because the 12 or 13 sites "are geographically spread around the state and therefore public opposition is likely to be more dispersed and not clustered in one area. It may be more difficult for • Environmental Justice 9 environmental and citizens groups to gain strength if their activities have to be spread • over a wider area of the state." Those closest to the proposed site can not help but wonder if the Western Wake Partners haven't taken the same "divide and conquer" strategy. The three "final" sites, all in New Hill, are in three diverse and geographically separated areas. Residents in each area want to protect their homes and land from being used for this facility. When the original 29 sites were narrowed to 12, one of the three New Hill sites was ranked quite low, and the other was eliminated from consideration. Yet both these sites appeared on the "final three" list. Re-introducing a site that was previously eliminated can serve no purpose other than to intentionally attempt to divide the community. None of these three sites is appropriate for the facility. III. On-site HIGH LEVEL radioactive waste storage: Harris facility Because the federal government has not developed a national high level radioactive waste storage facility, spent fuel rods are being stored at the Harris plant. Not only does this plant store its own radioactive waste, it imports waste from two other nuclear plants operated by Progress Energy. Harris is the ONLY plant that imports high level radioactive waste. A. Potential radioactive waste fire effects: Researchers at the School of Public • Health at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, reported that a fire in the waste pools would have a different impact on the community than a reactor meltdown, impacting potentially 2 million people. Obviously these effects would extend far beyond New Hill, but its citizens would be the first to feel the effects and lose their homes and belongings. Potential release of Cesium 137 would not be affected by ingestion of the iodine pills distributed under direction of Governor Mike Easley. B. Radiation leaks from radioactive waste transport: Shearon Harris nuclear plant is not only a power generator, it also serves as the largest storage site of highly radioactive waste -spent fuel rods from both the Harris facility and two other plants operated by Progress Energy. The radioactive waste is shipped to the plant creating risks in transport. On August 7, 2003, WRAL reported that a contaminated (radioactive) shipment of nuclear waste arrived at the plant. "The ONLY nuclear waste shipped commercially in the United States comes to Wake County from Brunswick County and from Hartsville, SC." (Emphasis added). Progress Energy would not elaborate on the leak, siting "security reasons". C. Susceptibility of transport vehicles to attack: In 2002, two prison escapes jumped aboard one of Progress Energy's rail transports. (See News and Observer article, Jan 15, 2006, and NC Warn article, May 10, 2002) While they hopefully were not exposed to radiation and were, in fact, caught by the authorities, the fact • Environmental Justice 10 • that two unauthorized people were able to board the train indicates the lack of security for transportation of dangerous radioactive material. D. Psychological effects: Hopefully, a waste pool fire will never occur, but the potential of such a devastating emergency in close proximity to New Hill is unsettling at best. Progress Energy's secretive approach to radiation leaks leaves local residents wondering how many leaks have occurred that never resulted in notification of the public, and how extensive they may have been. The security breaches that have occurred to shipment vehicles and on the Harris site itself indicate a very poor level of performance by the company -and many potential scary scenarios for those who live in its shadow. IV. High Voltage Power Lines Accompanying a nuclear power plant are the wires to conduct the generated power to other parts of the country. Similar to spokes on a wheel, the closer one is to the center, the higher the concentration of the wires. New Hill citizens have had to endure sequential condemnations of their property as more and more power lines are erected. The power lines not only conduct electricity, but also generate electromagnetic fields. The health risks of electromagnetic fields continue to be debated. Studies supporting and refuting their effects can be found. However, the fear of electromagnetic field effects is real and has been justified in court as a reason for diminished property values after power line construction. In addition to fear of electromagnetic fields, property owners have had to deal with trespassers, destruction of personal property, and increased transmission of road and other noises down the power line corridors. V. Gas transmission lines PROPOSED NEW PROJECTS I. Western Wake Partners Sewage Treatment Plant II. Proposed additional reactors at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant The addition of two new reactors at the Harris Plant will magnify the dangers already existing at the plant. Radiation leaks, transport of fuel, poor security have already been documented. In addition, the new reactors are planned to be built using a new, and as yet untested, design. IMPACT OF REPEATED PROJECTS ON THE NEW HILL COMMi1NITY Each project has had its unique environmental and psychological impact on the New Hill • community. In addition, each time a new project is announced, it acts as a deterrent to economic development in the area. People are reluctant to buy property in the area or Environmental Justice 11 develop property they already own until they find out what the decision will be regarding • the proposed project. UNEQUAL APPLICATION AND MISAPPLICATION OF THE LAW I. Progress Energy vs. other landowners in southwest Wake County North Carolina's laws with regard to eminent domain are clear. General Statutes Chapter 40 A -5 "Condemnation of property owned by other condemnors." ,section (b) States: Unless otherwise provided by statute a condemnor listed in G.S. 40A-3(a), (b) or (c) may condemn the property of a private condemnor if such property is not in actual public use or not necessary to the operation of the business of the owner. Unless otherwise provided by statute a condemnor listed in G.S. 40A-3(b) or (c) may condemn the property of a condemnor listed in G.S. 40A-3(b) or (c) if the property proposed to be taken is not being used or held for future use for any governmental or proprietary purpose. (1981, c. 919, s. 1; 2000-146, s. 9.) Thus, the Western Wake Partners had the ability to condemn land owned by Progress Energy just as they could have condemned land owned by a private citizen. However, they showed great deference to Progress Energy. In fact, Draft meeting Summary Memorandum No. 015 (see tab) states that "Progress Energy staff indicated that in order to support the Western Wake WRF outfall structure between the Buckhorn Dam and the Chatham County/Harnett County line, they would need reassurance that the Cape Fear River's assimilative capacity is sufficient to accept the additional wastewater effluent that would be generated by development of approximately 25,000 acres of property owned by Progress Energy". This same memorandum also records that "Town of Cary staff agreed to consider performing additional modeling to determine whether Progress Energy's proposed additional flow can be accommodated by the river", and, as an Action Item" that "the Town of Cary will use the information (about Progress Energy land development plans) to estimate projected wastewater flow rates and that will be used to conduct additional water quality modeling for the Cape Fear River." The fact that the Western Wake Partners decided to condemn land in the center of another town, when a selection of Progress Energy land would have minimized human impact of their project, is bad enough. That they would use taxpayer dollars to conduct studies to assist a private corporation with development of land they condemned in excess of their power generating needs is unconscionable. This is a clear demonstration of unequal application of the law in a public works project. II. Avoiding the law: Secondary and Cumulative Impacts (SCIs) The WWP's address SCI's by referring to their towns' Master Mitigation Plans. These documents address secondary and cumulative impacts within the towns. They do NOT address these factors for the communities that are outside their extraterritorial Environmental Justice 12 jurisdictions but will be impacted by the proposed sewage treatment plant. The WWP's have said citizens in New Hill could "hook up" to the WRF, however the pipelines being installed are pressurized pipes. After further questiomng they admitted the New Hill residents could only "hook up" after they were annexed by one of the WWP's. As part of their EIS, the WWP's should be required to address secondary and cumulative impacts of this facility on the town of New Hill and other unincorporated parts of the county that will be impacted by the project. III. Avoiding the law: Impact on Historical Sites A serious flaw in the site selection process was the failure to consider historic sites in close proximity to the proposed facility. By only considering if historic sites were ON the proposed sites, the WWP's have created a situation of potentially having adverse effects on historic sites, when selection of an alternative site would have avoided any such negative impact. By not considering potential impact of the site on nearby historic sites, the WWP's have avoided the spirit of historic preservation regulations. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. DENR should require the WWP to select a site that does not target a predominantly minority, economically disadvantaged population. The WWP currently selected site is in direct opposition to the most basic concepts of environmental justice. 2. DENR should require the WWP to "meaningfully involve" people potentially impacted by any plant. By definition, meaningful involvement means that: (1) people have an opportunity to participate in decisions about activities that may affect their environment and/or health; (2) the public's contribution can influence the regulatory agency's decision; (3) their concerns will be considered in the decision making process; and (4) the decision makers seek out and facilitate the involvement of those potentially affected. 3. The WWP should be directed to treat waste locally and pump the treated waste to the Cape Fear River basin. This recommendation would replace miles of pipe full of contaminated sewage running through neighborhoods and farms with pipes containing effluent, which is by definition treated to an acceptable level of safety. Any leak from the effluent pipes would have much less of a negative environmental impact than a leak from pipes full of sewage. 4. The WWP must address secondary and cumulative impacts of the proposed sewage facility on the local region in whatever site is finally selected. Referencing master mitigation plans is only acceptable for projects whose impact is limited to the jurisdiction of the towns whose staff authored the master mitigation plan: • Environmental Justice 13 • COMPARING THE SEYMOUR FARM (SITE C) WITH OTHER POTENTIAL SITES The following document will address reasons the Western Wake Partners (WWP) are using to eliminate potential sites for the Western Wake Sewage Plant (WWSP). Specifically, as stated in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the partners are considering cost factors as the only justification to eliminate sites south of US-1. This justification is flawed. The costs were derived as a justification for a site selection decision already made. The decision does not include the factors originally considered in selecting the WWSP site. The cost information provided is incomplete. The cost information does not include potential cost savings items. The cost information is proceeding from an incorrect assumption that Holly Springs will not participate in the use of the facility. Finally, the site used to justify the decision (Site 20) is not the most cost-effective site south of US-1 to compare to the Seymour Farm (Site 14, later designated as Site C). During the Site Selection process, the Town of Holly Springs decided to continue to use their i own wastewater treatment facilities. The WWP used this justification to eliminate all sites south of US-1 (Tab 1:TM05, page 5-18). This justification raises major questions, which will require a close, detailed examination by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) before the Environmental Impact Statement can be finalized. In fact, the evidence will lead to the conclusion that the decision to eliminate sites south of US-1 is arbitrary, is not supported by the data provided, and should not be accepted. COST INFORMATION The first issue deals with the cost information provided by the WWP. This cost estimate (Tab 1: TM O5, Appendix B) was created to rationalize the elimination of sites south of US-l . Ultimately, Appendix B was used to justify the selection of the Seymour Farm as the site of the sewage facility. Most of the sites south of US-1 are ranked higher than the Seymour Farm by the WWP in their Phase II Site Selection (Tab l:TM05, page 5-17). • Page 1 of 8 This cost estimate was created AFTER the site selection had been made (Tab 1:TM05, page 5- 18). The site selection was made in 2002 (Tab 1:TM05, page 5-7), and the condemnation was initiated June 23, 2005. The Appendix B estimate was not prepared until July 2005. In other words, the decision had been made, and evidence was then prepared to support that decision. This does not necessarily mean that the cost estimate is incorrect. However, the evidence to judge whether the estimate is correct or not has not been provided. This cost information is the only justification provided in the entire Environmental Impact Statement to support the selection of the Seymour Farm. All other information provided throughout the cost estimate, including the analyses from Phase I and Phase II, supports choosing sites south of US-1 on Shearon Harris property (Tab 1:TM05, pages 5-1 through 5-18). Additionally, the Appendix B cost comparison was for Site 20, which ranked third after the Phase II analysis. The other sites that ranked higher than the Seymour Farm were not evaluated. Until this evaluation is done, it is not possible to know whether the decision to eliminate sites south of US-1 was truly the correct decision. • Note that Site 25 is actually closer to the service areas than the Seymour Farm (Tab 1: TMOS, Table 5-6, page 5-17). In fact, there are many sites significantly closer to the service areas than the Seymour Farm, including Sites 3, 6, 9, 11/12, 14, 16, 25, and 26. Based on Appendix B, if the WWP were to treat their sewage in their own municipalities, they would realize significant savings. As the pipe distance is the overriding concern for the WWP in the Appendix B estimate, it seems logical that these Sites should be compared similarly. They were not. When New Hill Community Association (NHCA) members asked for information to justify Appendix B, the NHCA received a cost estimating template with material information (Tab 2: Cost Estimating Worksheets), pump data (Tab 3: Effluent Pumping Station Worksheets), and maps (Tab 4:Influent Force Main and Water Mains, Tab 5: Effluent Transmission Mains, and Tab 6:Site Development). The NHCA did not receive cost information regarding specific material, equipment, or labor cost. This raised many more questions than it answered. For example: • Page 2 of 8 Why is the WWP insisting on ductile iron or steel pipe? Would 250 psi-rated PVC work? (Tab 2) The WWP lists over $2.6 million for site issues such as road access, but the road into Site 14 from Shearon Harris road will be just as long or longer than the road into Site 20 (Tab 7:TM30, Figure 30-1, Overall Site Plan). Furthermore, the WWP do not own property or have access to a road that would provide an entrance into the Seymour Farm. How was the additional the $2.1 million for the pump station derived? Does the actual facility need to be larger, or just the pumps themselves (Tab 1: TM O5, Appendix B)? Why does the WWP include the cost of the waterline in the estimate, since Holly Springs intends to build a waterline to Site 20 (Tab 8:Holly Springs Long Range Water Capital Improvement Plan)? What power rate is the WWP using to determine the additional power cost? • How did the WWP justify a $41.4K per year cost for additional operation and maintenance? Does this justification make sense? What contingencies are included? Did the partners compare similar contingency costs between each Site? A more fundamental question is, "Why does the cost estimate not include any cost saving items?" Siting the plant on Site 20 (and most other locations south of US-1) will generate some savings items, but these were not included. Some examples are: Holly Springs will save on the equivalent pipe length. Holly Springs can eliminate one pump station from their long-range plans (Tab 9: Holly Springs Long Range Wastewater Capital Improvement Plan). Piping to and from Site 20 will require fewer pipe bore or tunnel crossings of US-1 and the railroad than piping to and from the Seymour Farm site (Tab 10). • Page 3 of 8 • Travel times from Apex and Cary will be quicker, as access to Site 20 is approximately 3 miles closer than Site 14. Related fuel costs are less due to the shorter distance. Truck traffic would also save approximately 10 miles by not having to access US-1 via Merry Oaks. Considering that Appendix B is being used to justify ignoring all comparative analysis up to this point, a thorough review of Appendix B by the permitting authorities is in order. JUSTIFICATION BASED ON HOLLY SPRINGS PARTIAL PARTICIPATION The second issue deals with the rationale that Holly Springs' decision to continue to treat their own sewage for the time being provides justification to eliminate sites south of US-1. The WWP have stated, "Given that Holly Springs will not use the regional WRF for wastewater treatment, . all potential WRF sites south of US 1, as well as Site 16, were deemed less favorable due to service factor considerations" (Tab 1:TM05, page 5-18). Why is Holly Springs a partner if they are pumping raw sewage, but they aren't a partner if they're pumping treated effluent? Holly Springs will be using the facility. Holly Springs will be discharging to the same location as the other partners. The permitting review process covers Holly Springs. The Secondary & Cumulative Impact Statement, and the EIS under review, both include Holly Springs. Is there the potential for Holly Springs to send raw sewage to the WWP facility in the future? The WWP are not in agreement among each other as to how the decision by Holly Springs affected the site selection. In an a-mail dated August 16, 2005, the Mayor of Holly Springs, • Dick Sears, stated that the Town of Holly Springs does not accept that their decision to treat their Page 4 of 8 • own sewage is the reason sites south of US-1 were eliminated. "...unless someone knows something that our Town does not know, we do not accept this as fact." (Tab 11:Correspondencebettyeen Vickie Gardner, Dick Sears, and Paul Barth) The timing and result of Holly Springs' decision also casts doubt on the integrity of the elimination of all sites south of US-1. Records as far back as 2002 indicate that the Seymour Farm was the preferred site for the sewage plant. Progress Energy was the other large landowner under consideration. Since Progress Energy (CP&L) forcibly acquired more than twice as much land for utility uses than was required for the Shearon Harris facility, most of this excess land is now vacant. Unlike Progress Energy, the Seymours do not have practically limitless access to legal representation. Unlike Progress Energy, the Seymours do not intend to develop their land soon. And, finally, unlike Progress Energy and the Town of Holly Springs, the Seymours and the entire New Hill Community cannot use the new sewage plant to facilitate growth or maximize value . from their properties. On the face of it, it seems that the selection of the Seymour Farm certainly benefits Holly Springs and Progress Energy, and in ways which cannot and should not factor into a site selection. REALISTIC AND COMPLETE SITE COMPARISONS The third issue deals with site evaluation and comparison criteria. When New Hill residents began questioning the site selection, the WWP prepared the Site 20 comparison (Tab 1, TMOS, Appendix B) to justify the Seymour Farm selection. Site 20 is a landlocked parcel approximately 1 mile south of US-1 east of White Oak Creek, a designated AE Flood-Hazard Zone on the latest Flood Insurance Rate Map (Tab 6:Site Development, and Tab 12:Flood Insurance Rate Map Pane10608 for Wake County, NC). This brings up a significant point. Both Site 20 and the Seymour Farm are located in a FEMA • Flood-Hazard Area (Tab 12). Considering permitting requirements to place a sewage facility in Page 5 of 8 • a FEMA Flood-Hazard Area, as well as the mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery infrastructure required to protect against spills in aflood-hazard area, why was Site 25, or any other non-hazardous site south of US-1, not included in the comparison? Considering the poor track record of the WWP with regards to sewage spills (see Section III of the NHCA Documentation), would not Site 25 provide a safer and less expensive alternative than either the Seymour Farm or Site 20? Site 20 is neither the best site to compare with the Seymour Farm, nor the most cost-effective. TM5.0, page 5-11: "Only two sites do not have road access, Site 20 and Site 26." Why is site 25, which does have road access, not considered? In fact, the Seymour Farm does not have adequate road access, either. Access to the site will be from a new road to be constructed off Shearon Harris Road (Tab 13:Overall Site Plan). The Seymour Farm is not adjacent to Shearon Harris Road. An easement or right-of--way agreement must be made through this property in order to access the Seymour Farm. How does the topography of the other sites south of US-1 compare with Site 20? Site 20 may have topographic issues, owing to its proximity to a large creek. If that is the case, and if the partners truly want an effective cost comparison, why did they not use for comparison sites with more practical topography? Furthermore, if the actual site development only requires 50 acres, why were other areas within the Shearon Harris tract that would have more favorable topography discarded? Any 50-acre site within the entire Shearon Harris tract of excess land would meet the requirements of the WWP. Why was the driving distance from Cary not considered in the comparison? Site 20 is three miles closer to all of the partners, byroad, than the Seymour Farm. How is access proposed to the other sites in comparison? How would potential access for Sites 25, 28, and 22 compare with access to the Seymour Farm? Another significant error in the site selection criteria concerns the "Area Ratio" listed under the • Phase II selection criteria (Tab 1: TMOS, Table 5-6, page 5-17, and Tab). The error is outlined Page 6 of 8 • very well in an a-mail dated June 19, 2005 from Randel Sink to the Wake County Commissioners and County Manager David Cook (Tab 13: a-mail from Randel Sink and Technical Memorandum 8.0). In summary, there is a significant error in the Area Ratio listed for Site 20 (as well as for Sites 21, 25, and 26). These areas, all part of a much larger tract owned by Progress Energy, were arbitrarily delineated. Because of the arbitrary delineation, the sites received a much worse rating on the Area Ratio factor than they should have. If any of these sites had been rated correctly, they would have rated significantly lower than the Seymour Farm. Additionally, the distance from the proposed WWTF site to the serviced communities is factored twice: Once under "Impact on Project Costs" (Tab 13, TM 8.0, page 13) and again under "Distance To Proposed Site" (Tab 13, TM 8.0; page 14). In part because of this correspondence, the Wake County Commissioners requested that the Town of Cary take time to evaluate this discrepancy (Tab 14:Wake County Commission Highlights June 20, 2005). The Town of Cary ignored this request. The reasons for ignoring this request, and the attitude displayed by the Town Staff and the Town Council to the concerns • raised, are further explored in Section III of the NHCA Documentation. The decision to site the WWTF on the Seymour Farm is shortsighted and is not in keeping with current land use planning for Wake County. The Southwest Wake Area Land Use Plan indicates Forestry /Light Industry usage in the area of Site 20. A Wastewater Treatment Facility would fit that description. Development of the sewage plant in this area, with its access and associated facilities, would promote the industrial development as planned for this area. Because this conforms to existing long-range land use planning, and the Seymour Farm site does not, DENR should reject the proposed site as incompatible with future use. Finally, in justifying the elimination of sites south of US-1, the partners have significantly left out the other criteria used in their own Phase II evaluation. Considering Holly Springs will still use the facility for effluent discharge, why were these factors not considered: Number of Property Owners • Number of Adj acent Residents Page 7 of 8 • Existing Land Use Adjacent Land Use County Location Environmental (including Environmental Justice criteria) Area Ratio Distance to Proposed Site Unless and until all of the selection criteria are examined, based on the criteria set forth by the Partners themselves when Wake County was still a partner, then the Environmental Impact Statement must be considered incomplete. Lacking further evidence, this siting decision must be considered arbitrary, and without technical merit. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The site selection criteria of the Seymour Farm has not been properly considered. It does not meet the original criteria for the best site as defined by the Phase I and Phase II criteria outlined in TMOS. It should be rejected by DENR as a part of this Environmental Impact Statement. 2. Approximately 50 acres are required for the facility. Progress Energy has over 14,000 unused acres that was forcibly acquired but not needed for the Shearon Harris facility. The WWP should work with Progress Energy to acquire land south of US-1 for the sewage plant. 3. There are substantial issues and unresolved questions raised as a part of this analysis. DENR should require the WWP to properly address and respond to all issues raised herein. 4. The proposed site does not conform to current long-range land use planning. DENR should reject this plan as inconsistent with current planning, and require an evaluation from the Wake • County Planning Department with regard to the appropriate placement of the facility. Page 8 of 8 ~ '''~`~ PER TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM No. OS /HAZENANDSAI~'~'FR ~~~ PREPARED FOR: Western Wake Partners FROM: CDM/Hazen and Sawyer PREPARED BY: Thomas C. Esqueda DATE: July 22, 2005 January 13, 2006 April 14, 2006 SUBJECT: Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Western Wake Water Reclamation Facility PER Technical Memorandum No. 05-Water Reclamation Facility Site Selection • 1.U INTRODUCTION This technical memorandum (TM) is one of a series of TMs being prepared for the Preliminary Engineering Report for the Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Project. The purpose of this TM is to summarize the site selection process that was conducted to identify a preferred site for the water reclamation facility (WRF). 1.1 BACKGROUND The Western Wake Partners (Project Partners) are the Towns of Apex, Cary, Morrisville, and Holly Springs. The proposed project has been designated the Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Project (Project). The Project is comprised of the facilities listed below, which are schematically represented on Figure 5-1: • West Cary Pump Station (PS) • West Cary Force Main (FM) to Reedy Branch Gravity Sewer • Reedy Branch Gravity Sewer from West Cary FM to Beaver Creek PS • Beaver Creek PS • Beaver Creek Force Main to Western Wake WRF • Western Wake WRF • Effluent Pump Station (EPS), Pipeline, and Outfall DRAFT PER Technical Memorandum No. 05 Water Reclamation Facility Site Selection Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Wastewater flows from Cary, Morrisville, and RTP South will enter the system at the West Cary PS. Wastewater flow from Apex will enter the system at two points along the alignment of the Reedy Branch Gravity Sewer from the West Cary FM to the Beaver Creek PS. The two points of entry for Apex will be along Reedy Branch and Beaver Creek. Treated effluent from the Holly Springs' Utley Creek WWTP will enter the system at the EPS located at the Western Wake WRF. The combined effluent from the Project Partners will be discharged to the Cape Fear River downstream of Buckhorn Dam. The Project is being implemented by the Project Partners to provide wastewater service for planned growth and development and to comply with regulatory mandates issued by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission (EMC) and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR). In accordance with the regulatory mandates, the proposed Project must be operational and discharging effluent to the Cape Fear River by January 1, 2011. 1.2 OVERVIEW OF WRF SITE SELECTION PROCESS • The WRF site selection process has been conducted in three phases, and it has been conducted concurrently with the regional wastewater study to evaluate alternative wastewater management options. 1.2.1 Regional Wastewater Study The regional wastewater study was conducted from November 2002 to July 2004. The focus of the study was to identify and evaluate alternative wastewater management options to provide wastewater service for planned growth and development and to comply with regulatory mandates issued by the EMC and NC DENR (discharge to the Cape Fear River by January 1, 2011). At the outset, the Project Partners identified 24 wastewater management options for consideration, and then used a combination of economic and non-economic criteria to select four options for more detailed technical and economic analyses. At the conclusion of the detailed analyses (June 2004), a recommended wastewater management option was selected by the Project Partners for implementation. The recommended option was designated modified Option 10D. During the course of the regional wastewater study, the location of wastewater pumping stations, pipelines and water reclamation facilities were shown for illustrative purposes only and were not intended to represent proposed or recommended sites. In February 2004, with four wastewater management options under consideration, the Project Partners initiated the site selection process for the Western Wake Water Reclamation Facility. • 1.2.2 Phase I WRF Site Selection Process 5-2 DRAFT PER Technical Memorandum No. 05 Water Reclamation Facility Site Selection Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Phase I (February 2004) of the site selection process was conducted using broad evaluation criteria and previous reports to identify 29 general areas that could possibly support a new WRF. During Phase I of the WRF site selection process, the Project Partners were concurrently evaluating four alternative wastewater management options: Option 1, Option 5, Option 9, and Option 10D. The four wastewater management options under consideration proposed to construct either one or two new water reclamation facilities to serve the wastewater treatment service needs of all four Project Partners. To accommodate the service area demands and wastewater treatment service needs (service factors) of the Project Partners, the WRF site selection process focused on four drainage sub- basins located in western Wake County. The four drainage subbasins were White Oak Creek at Jordan Lake, Beaver Creek (tributary to Jordan Lake), Little White Oak Creek (tributary to Harris Lake), and White Oak Creek at Harris Lake. All of these drainage subbasins are located north and west of the Holly Springs' service area, which was used to define the southernmost boundary for the site selection process. The identification of 29 sites was completed prior to the selection of a preferred wastewater • management option. Once the 29 general areas were identified, the Project Partners conducted general visual inspections from the public right-of-way for each area. Using broad evaluation criteria and general visual inspections, the Project Partners selected 12 sites for additional data collection and analysis. 1.2.3 Phase II WRF Site Selection Process Phase II (July 2004) was conducted using site-specific information and data (technical factors) to compare the 12 shortlisted sites against one another. The technical factors included such features as number of property owners, number of residences, wetland area, site slope conditions, number of streams, and other features and characteristics that could be quantified using readily available information and data. Using the technical factors as well as weighting factors, a technical score was calculated for each of the 12 sites. Once the technical scores were calculated, each site was ranked based on its respective technical score. Concurrent with completing the scoring for Phase II of the site selection process, the Project Partners completed the regional wastewater study and selected a modified Option 10D as the preferred wastewater management solution. Each of the four options (Options 1, 5, 9, and 10D) selected for additional evaluation were determined to be equal with respect to level of service, quality of service, regulatory review and approval requirements, and technical complexity. With each of these factors judged to be relatively equal, Option 10D was selected because it represented the lowest present worth cost (including capital and 0&M cost) for the Project Partners. Under the • 5-3 DRAFT PER Technical Memorandum No. 05 Water Reclamation Facility Site Selection Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities modified Option 10D, a single regional WRF will be constructed to provide wastewatertreatment for the Towns of Apex, Cary, Morrisville, and the Wake County portion of Research Triangle Park (RTP South). Holly Springs will not use the regional WRF for wastewater treatment. With technical scores and rankings established for each of the 12 shortlisted sites and a preferred wastewater management option selected, the Project Partners then considered service factors to select three sites for final review and study. Under the modified Option 10D, the Apex service area limits defined the southernmost boundary for the site selection process. 1.2.4 Phase 111 WRF Site Selection Process Phase III (November 2004) was conducted using the site-specific information and data collected during Phase II to prepare facility site plans and conduct engineering analyses for the three alternative sites. These facility site plans and engineering analyses were based on the implementation of the modified Option 10D as the preferred wastewater management solution. The site-specific facility site plans and engineering analyses were used to prepare capital cost estimates for each site. Once the capital cost estimates were completed, a weighted score was calculated for each of the three sites. Each site was ranked based on its weighted score and a preferred site for field investigations was selected. 7.3 SITE SELECTION TECHNICAL AND SERVICE FACTORS The Project Partners have conducted the WRF site selection process considering both technical factors and service factors to identify a preferred water reclamation facility site. The Project Partners used technical factors to directly compare the features and characteristics of the alternative sites. Technical factors allow for an objective evaluation of site features and characteristics using information and data that is well-documented and quantifiable. Technical factors include data such as land area, number of property owners, number of residences, wetland area, site slope conditions, number of streams, and other features and characteristics that can be quantified and compared directly from site to site. While the use of technical factors is important for comparing the quantifiable features and characteristics of the alternative sites, the Project Partners have also considered service factors as part of the WRF site selection process. Service factors considered for the WRF site select process include the location of (a) the service area demands, (b) the wastewater treatment service needs, and (c) the wastewater discharge. The Project Partners have considered service factors as part of the WRF site selection process to ensure that the selected sites are financially, technically, and environmentally feasible with regard to service area demands and needs - in addition to having • favorable technical features and characteristics. 5-4 • DRAFT PER Technical Memorandum No. 05 Water Reclamation Facility Site Selection Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities 2.O PHASE I -WRF SITE SELECTION PROCESS To initiate Phase 1 of the WRFsite selection process, it was necessary to identify the land area requirements for the proposed WRF(s). The land area requirement for new treatment facilities was estimated at 100 acres plus 5 acres per mgd of capacity in excess of 10 mgd for a treatment facility with more than 10 mgd ultimate design capacity. The land area requirements are large to account for the fact that only a portion of each site will be suitable for development, and a minimum 200-foot buffer will be provided around the perimeter of the site. The 200-foot buffer was selected by the Project Partners to minimize impacts to neighboring properties from odor, visual impacts, noise, and light. 2.1 IDENTIFICATION OF AREAS SUITABLE FOR WRF SITE To identify general areas that could possibly support a new WRF, the Project Partners reviewed previous reports and considered the following broad criteria: 1) Location of 100-year flood plain 2) Location of wetland areas • 3) Location of perennial and intermittent streams, and allowance for 100-foot buffers for streams 4) 200-foot buffer around site 5) Topographic features (slope conditions) The Project Partners applied the selected broad criteria across the four drainage subbasins: White Oak Creek at Jordan Lake, Beaver Creek, Little White Oak Creek, and White Oak Creek at Harris Lake. Using this approach, no sites located south of Harris Lake or Holly Springs were considered. With regard to the application of the broad criteria, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) were reviewed to determine the areas within the 100- year flood plain. Potential areas of wetlands were identified using National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps for the project area from the U.S. Department of Interior, Fish, and Wildlife Service. Locations of perennial and intermittent streams were determined based on USGS maps. Topographic data was also obtained from USGS maps. With regard to previous reports, the Project Partners considered the following: • "West Cary/West Apex Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study", ARCADIS, October 1997 • "Lona-Ranae Wastewater Facilities Plan for the Town of Apex, North Carolina'; Wooten, December 1999 i • "DRAFT -Environmental Assessment for a New Reclaimed Water Discharae to Cape Fear 5-5 • DRAFT PER Technical Memorandum No. 05 Water Reclamation Facility Site Selection Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Rive", ARCADIS, December 2001 • "Western Wake Regional WRF and South Cary WRF Expansion Analysis", ARCADIS, March 2002 Using the selected criteria, as well as information and data from previous reports, 29 sites that could possibly support a new WRF were identified. A map presenting the general location of the 29 sites is shown on Figure 5-2. 2.2 SHORTLIST TO 72 WRF SITE OPTIONS After the 29 sites were identified, general visual inspections from the public right-of-way were conducted for each site. The visual inspections were conducted by atwo-person team. The observations from the visual inspections are presented in Table 5-1. The results of the visual inspections revealed that some of the sites did not have adequate contiguous land area for the proposed WRF because of site slope conditions, stream locations, and roadway and utility locations. Those sites lacking sufficient contiguous area are noted in Table 5-1. • • 5-6 • DRAFT PER Technical Memorandum No. 05 Water Reclamation Facility Site Selection Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Table 5.1 Prpliminarv Slte Investiaatien Data • • Site Drainage Subbasin Required Estimated Remarks No. Area, acres Area, acres 1 White Oak Creek-Jordan Lake 180 200 Insufficient contiguous land area. Site bisected by road. In Chatham County. 2 White Oak Creek-Jordan Lake 180 120 Insufficient land area. Next to American Tobacco Trail. 3 White Oak Creek-Jordan Lake 180 230 Relatively steep site. Opposite CarylApex WiP. Site bisected by gas pipeline 4 White Oak Creek-Jordan Lake 180 90 Insuffiaent land area. Arcadis site (1997). Developer has option on property. 5 White Oak Creek-Jordan Lake 180 180 New development on site (Heritage Point). In Chatham County. Near Jordan Lake. 6 White Oak Creek-Jordan Lake t80 250 Partin Chatham County. 7 Beaver Creek 180 150 Arcadis site (1997). Insufficient land area because of relatively steep site and intermittent stream crossings. 8 Beaver Creek 180 85 Insufficient land area. Wooten site (1999). Intermittent stream crosses site. 9 Beaver Creek 180 135 Established residences. 10 Beaver Creek 180 110 Insufficient land area. Established, moderately developed residenti~ area. 11 Beaver Creek 180 140 Mostly undeveloped; some modest residences. In Chatham County. Adjacent to Site 12. 12 Beaver Creek 180 150 Mostly undeveloped; some modest residences. In Chatham County. Adjacent to Site 11. 13 Beaver Creek 180 105 Insufficient land area. New subdivision with large houses and lots. 14 Little White Oak Creek 180 200 Arcadis site (2002). Adjacent to residences. 15 Little White Oak Creek 180 85 Insufficient land area. Developed, with large tracts/horse farms. 16 Little White Oak Creek 180 155 Mostly undeveloped; some residences. Horse farm on opposite side of road. Insufficient land area. Horse farmsllarge residences on east side of 17 Little White Oak Creek 180 120 site. Difficult access to rest of site, which is believed to be owned by hunt club. 18 Little White Oak Creek 180 110 Insufficient land area. Residences and Wake county recycling site along road. Historic church on site. 19 Little White Oak Creek 180 135 Insufficient contguous land area. Undeveloped. Relatively difficult access. Adjacent to Site 20. 20 Little White Oak Creek 180 170 Undeveloped. Difficult access. Adjacent to Sites 19 and 21. 21 Little White Oak Creek 180 165 Undeveloped. Adjacent to Sites 20, 22, and 23. Site bisected by electrical transmission line. 22 White Oak Creek-Harris Lake 180 200 Undeveloped. Intermittent stream crosses site. Adjacent to Sites 21 and 23. 23 White Oak Creek-Hams Lake 180 105 Insufficient contiguous land area. Undeveloped. Relativey steep site. ' acent to Sites 21 and 22. Difficult access. Ad 24 White Oak Creek-Hams Lake 180 150 Undeveloped. Relatively steep site. Relatively difficult access. Pipeline aosses site. 25 White Oak Creek-Harris Lake 180 150 Undevelo ed. Adjacent to Site 26. 26 White Oak Creek-Hams Lake 180 170 Undeveloped. Adjacent to residences. Relativey difficult access. Adjacent to Site 25. 27 White Oak Creek-Hams Lake 180 160 Undeveloped. Near residences. Site of planned unit development within Holly Springs Town Limits. 28 White Oak Creek-Harris Lake 180 200 Undeveloped. Near residences. Relativey steep site. 29 White Oak Creek-Harris lake 180 160 Undeveloped. Relatively steep site. Difficult access. 5-7 • DRAFT PER Technical Memorandum No. 05 Water Reclamation Facility Site Selection Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities The Project Partners used the information presented in Table 5-1 to conduct a qualitative evaluation of the 29 sites, and then select a shortlist of 12 sites for additional investigation. Because the evaluation of the four wastewater management options had not yet been completed, a minimum of two WRF sites for each target subbasin were selected. The areas selected for additional investigation are summarized in Table 5-2 and shown on Figure 5-3. These included two sites in the White Oak Creek-Jordan Lake subbasin (Sites 3 and 6), two sites in the Beaver Creek subbasin (Sites 9 and 11 /12), four sites in the Little White Oak Creek subbasin (Sites 14, 16, 20, and 21), and four sites in the White Oak Creek-Harris Lake subbasin (Sites 22, 25, 26, and 28). The Project Partners decided to evaluate Sites 11 and 12 as one site since they were adjacent, making the site suitable for a single WRF as a variation of the wastewater management Option 10D. • 5-8 • DRAFT PER Technical Memorandum No. 05 Water Reclamation Facility Site Selection Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Table 5-2 Sites Selected for Detailed Evaluation • • Site No. Drainage Subbasin Estimated Area, Remarks acres 3 White Oak Creek -Jordan Lake 230 Relatively steep site. Opposite CarylApex WTP. Site bisected by gas pipeline 6 White Oak Creek -Jordan Lake 250 Part in Chatham County. 9 Beaver Creek 135 Established residences. 11/12 Beaver Creek 290 Mostly undeveloped; some modest residences. In Chatham County. Adjacent to Site 12. 14 Little White Oak Creek 200 Arcadis site (2002). Adjacent to residences. 16 Little White Oak Creek 155 Mostly undeveloped; some residences. Horse farm on opposite side of road. 20 Little White Oak Creek 170 Undeveloped. Difficult access. Adjacent to Sites 19 and 21. 21 Little White Oak Creek 165 Undeveloped. Adjacent to Sites 20, 22, and 23. Site bisected by electrical transmission line. 22 White Oak Creek-Harris Lake 200 Undeveloped. Intermittent stream crosses site. Adjacent to Sites 21 and 23. 25 White Oak Creek-Harris Lake 150 Undeveloped. Adjacent to Site 26. 26 White Oak Creek-Harris Lake 170 Undeveloped. Adjacent to residences. Relatively difficult access. Adjacent to Site 25. 28 White Oak Creek-Harris Lake 200 Undeveloped. Near residences. Relatively steep site. Number of White Oak Creek at Jordan Lake Sites 2 Number of Beaver Creek Sites 2 Number of Little White Oak Creek Sites 4 Number of White Oak Creek at Harris Lake Sites 4 Total Number of Sites Selected for Detailed Evaluation 12 5-9 • DRAFT PER Technical Memorandum No. 05 Water Reclamation Facility Site Selection Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities 3.O PHASE II -WRF SITE SELECTION PROCESS Once Phase I ofthe WRF site selection process was complete, the Project Partners used technical and service factors to evaluate the 12 shortlisted sites and select three sites for final study. 3.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA The eight technical factors used to compare the 12 shortlisted sites against one another are listed in Table 5-3. 3.1.1 Number of Property Owners The numbers of parcels and numbers of property owners for the sites located in Wake County were obtained using parcel data from the Wake County Geographic Information Services (GIS) using ARCVIEW 8.1. Parcel data from Chatham County was not available online; so, scaled maps of the area of interest were printed from Chatham County's GIS and the site boundaries were drawn on the map. All properties and portions of properties that were within the site boundaries were • counted. A list of the owners of each parcel was generated, and the total number of separate owners was counted. For this criterion, the Number of Parcels was not scored, but the Number of Property Owners was scored. This determination was made after reviewing information and data from the parcel database which revealed that for several site locations a single individual could own multiple parcels within the target area. In such instances, land acquisition for multiple parcels could be accomplished through negotiations with a single individual. It was determined that the more critical factor for this criterion was the number of property owners that would be impacted by the Project, rather than the number of parcels, and therefore, only the number of property owners was scored. 3.1.2 Existing Land Use Information about each parcel was obtained from the Wake County and Chatham County GIS data. This data included the current land use i.e., residential, agricultural, undeveloped, commercial/governmental. No other land uses were encountered in the areas of interest. Using aerial photographs of each area, this use was confirmed, and the acreage of each type land use within the area boundary was summed and divided by the total site area to determine the percentage for each type land use within each site. Residential parcels greater than 10 acres were counted as 10 acres of residential land use, with the rest of the parcel being counted as undeveloped. This information was provided for completeness only, and was not used to generate a technical factor score. • 5-10 DRAFT PER Technical Memorandum No. 05 Water Reclamation Facility Site Selection Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Table 5.3 • Phase II Site Evaluation Fa ~. 1. Number of Pro a Owners ctors and Source Reference ~ . a. Number of Parcels Wake Coun and Chatham Coun GIS b. Number of Pro a Owners Wake Count and Chatham Coun GIS 2. Existin Land Use a. Number of Residences Wake Coun and Chatham Coun GIS b. % Residential Wake Coun and Chatham Coun GIS c. % A ricultural Wake Coun and Chatham Coun GIS d. % Undevelo ed Wake Coun and Chatham Coun GIS E % Governmental and/or Commercial Wake Coun and Chatham Coun GIS 3. Ad'acent Land Use a. Residences within 500 feet Wake Count and Chatham Coun GIS b. Residences within 1,000 feet Wake Count and Chatham Coun GIS c. Distance to Town or ETJ Limits Wake Coun and Chatham Coun GIS 4. Coun Location Wake or Chatham 5. Im act on Project Costs a. Road Access Wake Coun and Chatham Count GIS b. Hydric Soils (%) Wake County GIS and U.S. Dept of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Soils Surveys (Wake County and Chatham Coun c. Avera a Site Sloe % Wake Coun and Chatham Count GIS e. Depth to groundwater table U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Soils Surve s Wake Coun and Chatham Coun f. Depth to rock U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Soils Surve s Wake Count and Chatham Coun 6. Area Ratio (ratio of the actual site area to the area re wired Project Documents/Maps 7. Environmental Considerations a. Rare/Endan eyed S ecies N.C. Natural Herita a Pro ram Ma s b. Historical/Archaeological Sites N.C. Department of Cultural Resources N.C. Office of State Archaeolo c. Wetlands % of Site USFWS National Wetlands Invento Ma s d. Intermittent and Perennial Streams (% of Site Im acted USGS Quad Maps e. Game Lands % of Site Im acted N.C. CGIA Ma Services 8. OthedMiscellaneous Site Visit Observations, Town Staff Observations, and Wake Coun GIS 5-11 • DRAFT PER Technical Memorandum No. 05 Water Reclamation Facility Site Selection Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities The number of residences within each site's land area, similar to the number of property owners, is one of the key factors in selecting a site. Sites that impact fewer residences are preferred. Number of Residences is the only criterion that was scored for the Existing Land Use technical factor. The number of residences within an area was determined using the parcel data (which identified the existing land use as residential and/or noted the value of any improvements on the property), and aerial photography. Only residences that were physically located within the site boundary as determined from the aerial photography were counted. 3.1.3 Adjacent Land Use Another key factor in selecting a site is the number of nearby residences and potential future residences that will be impacted by the new WRF. The number of residences located within 500 feet, and within between 500 and 1000 feet, of the site boundary were counted and scored using the same methodology used to count residences within the site boundary. An additional adjacent land use criterion considered was the distance to Town/ETJ limits. This criterion reflects the potential for new growth and developmentwithin Town and Town Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) limits that could be impacted by the new WRF. The distance from the site to the Town/ETJ boundary was measured as the straight line distance from the site boundary to the nearest Town/ETJ boundary. Sites further away from the Town/ETJ limits were given a lower (more favorable) score than those closer to Town/ETJ limits. 3.1.4 County Location The complexity of involving another local government is an important factor to consider when selecting a site. Sites wholly within Wake County received a more favorable score, while sites wholly within Chatham County received a less favorable score. Sites partially in Chatham County and partially in Wake County received an intermediate score. 3.1.5 Impact on Project Costs The criteria for this factor were selected to reflect the difficulties and resultant cost impacts related to construction of the WRF at each site. Two of the criteria were eliminated from consideration due to the lack of specificity. These were Depth to Groundwater Table, and Depth to Rock. During data collection, limited data could be found to accurately determine the groundwater and rock elevations at each site. Therefore, it was determined that these items were not relevant to the site selection process. The criteria for this factor that were scored include: Road Access, Hydric Soils (%), Average Site Slope (%), and Distance to Proposed Infrastructure. Each site received either the highest or lowest score for road access. Only two sites did not have good road access: Site 20 and Site 26. Site 20 is approximately 1,500 feet from the nearest road and would require a bridge across a stream. Site 26 is more than 2,500 feet from the nearest road • 5-12 • DRAFT PER Technical Memorandum No. 05 Water Reclamation Facility Site Selection Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities and would also require a bridge(s) to cross streams. The hydric soils that were located on each site were determined using the Wake County GIS soils data. Type A hydric soils are defined as those soils that are all hydric soils or have hydric soils as a major component. Type B hydric soils, are defined as soils with inclusions of hydric soils orwhich have wet spots, and were not included. GIS soils data was not available for the sites in Chatham County; so, the hydric soils were reported based on the typical percent of hydric soils given by the USDA Soil Survey for Chatham County. The average site slope for each area was determined by taking the average of six slope measurements, measured over a 1000-foot distance. Each group of measurements included both the flattest and steepest parts of each site. Overall, the difference in average site slopes was small, varying from as low as 2.68 percent for Site 22 to as high as 5.38 percent for Site 26 (refer to the spreadsheets in Appendix A for actual percentages). The Impact on Project Costs factor is difficult to determine accurately without doing more detailed cost analyses. This category attempts to capture the major items that relate to each site that could • impact project costs. 3.1.6 Area Ratio (Actual/Required) Three of the four wastewater management options evaluated (Options 1, 5 and 9) assumed two separate WRFs would be constructed, while Option 10D assumed one new WRF. This category was designed to penalize sites with an area smaller than that required. For example, Option 10D required a minimum area of 180 acres for a single WRF to serve western Wake County. Sites with areas greater than 180 acres included Sites 3, 6, 11/12, 14, 22, and 28. Sites with areas smaller than 180 acres received a higher (less favorab-e) score than these sites. The smallest site, Site 9, received the highest score. The size of the site is critical in order to ensure sufficient buffer, room for expansion, and room for the treatment facilities. 3.1.7 Environmental Considerations Each site was investigated for any environmental issues that could develop from development of the site. Specific criteria that were researched included the presence of rare and/or endangered species, the presence of historical or archaeological sites (including cemeteries), the presence of wetlands, and the presence of intermittent and perennial streams. In addition to these criteria, the following databases were searched to determine if there was any information that could impact site selection: Presence of Controlled Chemicals: • Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 5-13 • DRAFT PER Technical Memorandum No. 05 Water Reclamation Facility Site Selection Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/rcris/rcris queryJava.html Reported Toxic Releases: Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/tris/tris guery.html Presence of Rare and Endangered Species: North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Quad List (New Hill, Green Level, Farrington, and Merry Oaks) http://www.ncsparks.net/nhp/search.html Presence of Endangered Species: US Fish and Wildlife Service -North Carolina Ecological Services Endangered Species List http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/cou ntvfr. html Registered Heritage Areas and Dedicated Nature Preserves: North Carolina Natural Heritage Program • http://ils.unc.edu/parkproiect/nhp/DEDREG.htm The offices of the North Carolina Division of Waste Management were visited and their quad maps reviewed. Various staff were also interviewed to determine if any Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) sites, landfill sites, or known abandoned dumps were, or had been, located in the vicinity of any of the selected sites. None were found or reported. The North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program office was visited and their USGS quad maps were reviewed to determine if any natural areas and/or rare or endangered species were located on any of the sites. None were found. The area to the east of Site 14 did have a historical observance of the rare red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), and a rare salamander (Hemidactylium scutatum) has been observed southwest of Site 28. The office of the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History was visited and the documented cemeteries were reviewed to see if any existed on any of the selected sites. None were found. The North Carolina Office of State Archaeology was visited and the sites were reviewed for the presence of any historic/archaeological sites. None were found. USGS quad maps were reviewed for the presence of intermittent and perennial streams. When a n 5-14 DRAFT PER Technical Memorandum No. 05 Water Reclamation Facility Site Selection Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities stream was identified, an estimate of the area around the stream that would be unusable for the site was made based on the assumption of 100-foot buffers, and the assumption that the plant layout would not cross a stream. This total area was divided by the site area to determine the percent of site area impacted. All of the streams identified were intermittent. The USFWS National Wetlands Inventory maps were used to determine the total area of each site impacted by wetlands. This total area impacted by wetlands, which included the wetlands and the land determined to be unusable due to the presence of the wetlands, was divided by the site area to determine the percent ofthe site area impacted. The site with the most area impacted was Site 3, at 7.1 percent. Data from the North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis was used to view a game lands layer for Wake and Chatham Counties. Scaled maps were printed and the approximate location of game lands for each site was sketched. An approximation of the percent of the total area of each site that was impacted by game lands was determined. The sites impacted by game lands include Sites 6, 11/12, 14, and 26. The area impacted by game lands appears to generally coincide with the 500-year flood plain boundary. • 3.1.8 Other/Miscellaneous This category is for any other observations made about an area that could impact its development. Only two areas were impacted by this category, Site 3, which is bisected by a natural gas pipeline, and Site 21, which is bisected by electrical power lines. After the data was collected, several evaluation factors were eliminated from consideration. These evaluation factors and the reasons for their elimination are summarized in Table 5-4 below: C] 5-15 DRAFT PER Technical Memorandum No. 05 Water Reclamation Facility Site Selection Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Table 5.4 Phase II Site Evaluation Factors Eliminated •• ~ ~ ~• ~ • 1.a. Number of Parcels Redundant with property owners 2.b. % Residential, No added value to evaluation and requires more 2.c. % Agricultural, detailed evaluation for proper accuracy 2.d. % Undeveloped, 2.e. % Commercial/Governmental 5.e. Depth to Groundwater Table Soil conservation maps too general, requires detailed site evaluation, varies across the site 5.f. Depth to Rock Soil conservation maps too general, requires detailed site evaluation, varies across the site 8.a. Rare/Endangered Species None located on any site 8.b. Historical/Archaeological Sites None located on any site 3.2 PHASE ll SITE SELECTION SCORING METHODOLOGY Once the information and data were collected and analyzed, scores were calculated for each factor for each site. For the scoring, a value of 5 was assigned to the least favorable site for a given factor and a value of 1 was assigned to the most favorable site for a given factor. Scores for sites with values between those for the most favorable and least favorable sites were determined by interpolation (See Appendix A). When a factor included multiple items, such as adjacent land use (See Appendix A), the score for each item was determined and the scores were totaled before assigning the value for that factor so that each site would receive a maximum value of 5 (least favorable site) and minimum value of 1 (most favorable site) for each factor. Not all of the factors are of equal importance to the site selection process. Consequently, the Project Partners used apair-wise comparison process to develop and assign weights to the evaluation factors. The weighting factors for the Phase II site selection process are presented in Table 5-5. Higherweights (1.5) were given to the Property Owners and Existing Land Use technical factors as these two factors reflect the number of people that would be involved in a land purchase (Property Owners) and residents that would be displaced (Existing Land Use). Minimizing the • number of people directly impacted was an important criterion for the Project Partners. The impact 5-16 . DRAFT PER Technical Memorandum No. 05 Water Reclamation Facility Site Selection Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities on project cost criteria was difficult to accurately measure without more detailed analysis and was consequently assigned a lower weight of 0.5. Given that no major environmental issues were identified for any of the areas, and the impacts for each area could not adequately be assessed without more detailed analysis (i.e., site layouts), the Environmental Considerations factor was not weighted by assigning a weight of 1.0. Other factors that were not weighted are shown in Table 5- 5. The Area Ratio factor was given a higher weight (1.5) to assign higher scores to sites with areas smaller than that required for each wastewater management option. A total weighted score was calculated for each area based on the sum of the scores for the eight evaluation factors. Each site was then ranked from 1 to 12 with the lowest-scored (most favorable) site receiving a rank of 1 and the highest-scored (least favorable) site receiving a rank of 12. Table 5-5 Weighting Factors ICJ Phase II WRF Site Pro ert Owners Selection Process 1.5 Existin Land Use 1,5 Ad'acent Land Use 1.0 Count Location Wake or Chatham 1.0 Im act on Pro'ect Costs 0.5 Environmental Considerations 1.0 Other/Miscellaneous 1.0 Area Ratio 1.5 3.3 PHASE ll SITE SELECTION SCORING RESULTS The weighted scores and overall rankings for the 12 shortlisted sites for wastewater management Option 10D are shown in Table 5-6. Additional details for the scoring are provided in Appendix A. The scoring and ranking data reveal that sites located north of US 64 -such as Sites 3 and 6 - havehigh scores (least favorable). These areas rank as least favorable because they would impact a greater number of residences and require a greater number of property owners in order to assemble approximately 180 acres. The scoring and ranking data also revealed that sites located south of US 1 -such as Sites 20, 22, 25, and 28 -have low scores (most favorable). These areas rank as most favorable because the parcels in this part of the County are larger, which impacts fewer residences and requires fewer property owners in order to assemble approximately 180 acres. 5-17 • DRAFT PER Technical Memorandum No. 05 Water Reclamation Facility Site Selection Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Table 5.6 Weighted Scores and Ranking for Phase II Site Selection • Property Owners 7.5 5.1 6.3 3.5 2.3 3.5 1.5 1.9 1.9 2.5 2.1 2.9 Existing Land Use 7,5 6.4 3.8 4.1 1.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.5 1.8 2.6 Adjacent Land Use 5.0 2.9 2.9 1.5 3.1 2.7 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.7 1.8 2.1 County Location 1.0 3.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1,0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1,0 Impact on Project Costs 1.7 1.3 1.2 0.7 1.2 1.3 1.7 1.3 0.9 0.5 2.5 1.1 Environmental 5,0 3.7 1.3 2.5 3.7 1.8 1.0 1.0 3.5 1.0 3.2 1,0 OtherlMiscellaneous 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Area Ratio 1.5 1.5 7.5 1.5 1.5 5.0 5.2 4.4 1.5 4.6 4.4 1.5 Total Weighted Score 34.2 ` 24.9 25.0 19.8 15.4 19.7 13.9 ` 17,2 12.8 13.7 17.8 13.2 Rank 12 10 11 9 5 8 4 6 1 3 7 2 5-18 . DRAFT PER Technical Memorandum No. 05 Water Reclamation Facility Site Selection Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities 4.0 REGIONAL WASTEWATER STUDY Phase I and Phase I I of the WRF site selection process was conducted from February 2004 to July 2004, which was concurrent with the completion of the regional wastewater study. At the outset of the regional wastewater study, the Project Partners identified 24 wastewater management options for consideration. In September 2003, the Project Partners used a combination of cost and non- cost criteria to select four options for more detailed technical and economic analyses. The four alternative wastewater management options were designated as Option 1, Option 5, Option 9, and Option 10D. The four options required the construction of either one or two new water reclamation facilities in the White Oak Creek at Jordan Lake subbasin, the Beaver Creek (tributary to Jordan Lake) subbasin, the Little White Oak Creek (tributary to Harris Lake) subbasin, and the White Oak Creek at Harris Lake subbasin, as summarized below: • Option 1 - 2 WRFs, one in White Oak Creek-Jordan Lake subbasin @ 19 mgd, one in White Oak Creek-Harris Lake subbasin @ 12 mgd. • Option 5-2 WRFs, one in White Oak Creek-Jordan Lake subbasin @ 16 mgd, one in Little White Oak Creek subbasin @ 20 mgd. • Option 9 - 2 WRFs, one in Beaver Creek subbasin @ 18 mgd, one in White Oak Creek- Harris Lake subbasin @ 20 mgd. • Option 10D - 1 WRF in White Oak Creek-Jordan Lake subbasin @ 27 mgd*. * The size of the Option 10D WRF was subsequently increased to 30 mgd based on revised wastewater flow projections for the Project Partners. The technical and economic analysis of the four options was conducted from September 2004 to July 2004. 4.1 MODIFIED OPTION 10D SELECTION FOR IMPLEMENTATION At the conclusion of the Phase II WRF site selection process in July 2004, the Project Partners also completed their evaluation of the four wastewater management options and selected a modified version of Option 10D as the preferred wastewater management solution. In the original Option 10D, it was anticipated that Holly Springs would not expand the Utley Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), and the Town of Holly Springs would convey excess wastewater flows to the south from the Utley Creek WWTP to the North Harnett Regional WWTP in Harnett County. During the Phase II site selection process, Holly Springs commissioned an independent study which indicated that cost savings could be realized if the Town continued to treat wastewater at the Utley Creek WWTP and discharged treated effluent to the outfall serving the Western Wake WRF. Once it was r1 U 5-19 • DRAFT PER Technical Memorandum No. 05 Water Reclamation Facility Site Selection Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities determined that such a modification could be made to Option 10D without creating undue financial burdens for the remaining Project Partners, Option 10D was modified to include Holly Springs as a participant in the effluent discharge system, but not in the WRF. Under the modified Option 10D, a single regional WRF will be constructed to provide wastewater treatment for the Towns of Apex, Cary, Morrisville, and the Wake County portion of Research Triangle Park (RTP South). Holly Springs will continue to treat wastewater at the Utley Creek WWTP, and the entire discharge from the Utley Creek WWTP (8.3 mgd) will be conveyed northwest to a common effluent disposal system that will serve the Western Wake WRF and the Utley Creek WWTP. The common effluent disposal system will discharge treated effluent to the Cape Fear River downstream of Buckhorn Dam. 4.2 SERVICE FACTOR CONSIDERATIONS The Project Partners used technical factors during the Phase II site selection process to directly compare the features and characteristics of the 12 alternative sites selected for additional evaluation. The results of the technical analysis are presented in Table 5-6. Once the preferred wastewater management solution was selected (modified Option 10D), the Project Partners then considered a series of service factors to select sites for final study. The service factors included the location of (a) the service area demands, (b) the wastewater treatment service needs, and (c) the wastewater discharge. Given that Holly Springs will not use the regional WRF for wastewater treatment, all potential WRF sites located south of US 1, as well as Site 16, were deemed less favorable due to service factor considerations. Although detailed cost estimates were not prepared during Phase II of the WRF site selection process, it has since been concluded that project costs would increase due to the increased distance that raw wastewater and treated effluent would have to be conveyed to accommodate sites located south of US 1 and Site 16. In addition, the longer pipeline lengths will increase the environmental and community impacts associated with additional pipeline construction. Service factor considerations also eliminated Site 3 and Site 6 from further consideration because the cost to deliver raw wastewater from the Town of Apex service area to Site 3 and Site 6 would increase program costs beyond the costs expected for other possible sites (Sites 9, 11 /12 and 14). In addition, the number of impacted property owners and residents requiring relocation at Site 3 and Site 6 was deemed to be unacceptable. 4.3 SITES SELECTED FOR FINAL STUDY Based on the consideration of technical factors and service factors, the Project Partners identified three sites for additional study. The three sites selected were Site 8, Site 11/12, and Site 14. The • 5-20 DRAFT PER Technical Memorandum No. 05 Water Reclamation Facility Site Selection Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Project Partners elected to evaluate Site 8, which was not one of the original 12 shortlisted sites, because of its close proximity to Site 9, which was one of the sites selected for detailed evaluation. Site 8 was also being considered as a possible site for the Beaver Creek PS. By selecting Site 8 for final study, the Project Partners could determine ifcost-savings for the Project could be realized by locating the Western Wake WRF at the proposed site for the Beaver Creek PS, thereby potentially eliminating the need -and costs -for the PS. 5-21 DRAFT PER Technical Memorandum No. 05 Water Reclamation Facility Site Selection Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities 5.O PHASE III -WRF SITE SELECTION PROCESS The Phase III site selection process was initiated in July 2004 after the conclusion of the Phase II site selection process and the final selection of the preferred wastewater management solution (modified Option 10D). The Phase III site selection process was completed in November 2004. The three sites selected for additional study are shown in Figure 5-4. Site boundaries for Sites 8, 11 /12 and 14 were modified from their Phase II boundaries to follow existing parcel boundaries, and to more closely match site boundaries to the required land area based on treatmentfacilitylayouts. Site 8 was expanded to create a site large enough for a single WRF. Site 11/12 was reduced in size to fit the site layout and to minimize the number of property owners affected. The resulting areas for the three sites were as follows: • Site 8 - 178 acres • Site 11/12 - 141 acres • Site 14 - 212 acres • The three final sites were evaluated using the six factors presented in Table 5-7. Table 5.7 1. Phase III WRF Site Number of Property Owners Evaluation Criteria Wake County and Chatham County GIS 2. Existing Land Use a. Number of Residences Wake County and Chatham County GIS 3. Adjacent Land Use a. Residences within 500 feet Wake County and Chatham County GIS b. Residences within 1,000 feet Wake County and Chatham County GIS c. Distance to Town or ETJ Limits Wake County and Chatham County GIS 4. County Location (Wake or Chatham) 5. Project Cost Engineering Cost Estimates & Hydraulic Analyses 6. Expansion Potential Wake County and Chatham County GIS 5-22 DRAFT PER Technical Memorandum No. 05 Water Reclamation Facility Site Selection Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities 5.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA Technical Factors 1 through 4 in Table 5-7 above are identical to Factors 1 through 4 (See Table 5- 3) used in the Phase I I evaluation. Because the Phase III evaluation (1) is specific to the selected wastewater management Option 10D, (2) included site layouts for the proposed WRF on each site, and (3) included an evaluation of costs for force mains and gravity sewers to and from each site, Factors 5 through 8 from the Phase II evaluation were no longer applicable. Factor 7, Environmental Considerations, was not included since detailed site layouts were prepared with the facilities placed outside of wetlands, gamelands, and stream buffers and no other environmental considerations were identified on these three sites. Factor 8 was not included because the three sites scored equally on the Other/Miscellaneous Factor in the Phase II evaluation (assuming the same score for Sites 8 and 9). Factor 5, Impact on Project Costs, was replaced by the Project Cost factor because detailed costs for each site were developed, and Factor 6, Area Ratio, was replaced by the Expansion Potential factor since detailed site layouts were prepared. These last two technical factors are described below. 5.1.1 Project Cost . A facility site plan was prepared for each site to determine how the WRF could be placed on the site given the location of streams and wetland areas, site slope conditions, and access road requirements. In addition, a hydraulic analysis was conducted to determine scope and scale of raw wastewater conveyance facilities required to deliver raw wastewater to each of the three sites, and' to convey treated effluent from each site to the Cape Fear River. These engineering efforts were used to prepare preliminary capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) cost estimates for each site. The infrastructure associated with Sites 8, 11/12 and 14 are shown on Figures 5-5, 5-6, and 5- 7, respectively. A summary of the present worth costs for the required facilities at buildout, or 2030, flow capacity for each site is provided in Table 5-8. Table 5-8 Present Worth Costs for Alternative WRF Sites Millions of Dollars (2005 Dollarsl Site 8 $53 $389 $65 $16 $523 Site 11112 $55 $389 $64 $16 $524 Site 14 $63 $389 $48 $16 $516 There are significant cost differences forthe raw and treated wastewater conveyance facilities (i.e., pump stations, force mains, and gravity sewers). Sites 8 and 11/12 have less cost for raw wastewater conveyance facilities compared to Site 14. This is a result of their shorter raw 5-23 • DRAFT PER Technical Memorandum No. 05 Water Reclamation Facility Site Selection Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities wastewater pipelines. Conversely, Site 14 has less cost for treated effluent conveyance. This is a result of a significantly reduced length for the treated effluent pipeline between the WRF and the discharge point on the Cape Fear River. The effluent pipelines are the largest (and most expensive) pipelines because they convey the flow from all of the participating municipalities. A review of Figures 5-5, 5-6, and 5-7 also illustrates that Site 14 has the least overlap of pipelines compared to Sites 8 and 11/12, which pump raw wastewater north only to have the treated effluent re-pumped south to the Cape Fear River discharge. 5.1.2 Expansion Potential Each site was evaluated for its expansion potential, or its land area available for additional treatment facilities, if required. The expansion potential criterion refers to the potential of the site to allow expansion from 18 mgd to 30 mgd (Phase 2 of Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities project, scheduled for 2020). This criterion is similar to the Area Ratio criterion discussed for Phase II. A proposed layout of the process units for each site was developed, and these layouts are shown in Figures 5-8, 5-9, and 5-10 for Sites 8, 11/12, and 14, respectively. Site observations such as topography, streams, and potential wetlands, and aerial • photographs of each site from Wake County and Chatham County GIS data, were used to make an evaluation of each site's potential for expansion. 5.2 PHASE 111 SITE SELECTION SCORING METHODOLOGYAND RESULTS Based on the data collected and engineering analyses conducted, scores were calculated for each factor listed below using the same scoring methodology conducted for Phase II of the WRF site selection process (See Phase II Site Selection Scoring Methodology above). The weighting factors are the same as for the Phase I I evaluation except for the two new factors. The Project Cost factor, though very important in terms of its effects on rate payers in each municipality, was given a lower weight (0.5) because the cost estimates were similar for the three sites based on planning level estimates. No weighting factor (1.0) was applied to the Expansion Potential factor because the site layouts were based on the facility size required to meet the projected 2030 wastewater flows. The weighting factors used, the combined site scores, and the site rankings are shown in Table 5-9. • 5-24 DRAFT PER Technical Memorandum No. 05 Water Reclamation Facility Site Selection Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Table 5-9 WRF Si te Wei htin Factors, Wei hted Sco res, and RanKs .~. No. of Pro ert Owners 1,5 3.50 7.50 1.50 Existin Land Use 1.5 3.50 7.50 1.50 Ad'acent Land Use 1.0 1.00 2.07 5.00 Count Location 1,0 1.00 5.00 1.00 Pro'ect Cost 0.5 2.25 2.5 0.5 Ex ansion Potential 1.0 5.00 1.00 1.00 Combined Score ' 16.25 25.57 10.50 RANK 2 3 1 5.3 RECOMMENDED WRF SITE The results of the WRF site evaluation showed that Site 14 has potential for expansion, the lowest total project cost, the lowest number of on-site property owners and residents, and the lowest (most favorable) score of the three sites. Based on these investigations, Site 14 is the recommended site • for the Western Wake WRF. 6.O SUPPLEMENTAL SITE SELECTION ANALYSES The original site selection process was completed during calendar year 2004 (November 2004) for the 29 sites referenced in this technical memorandum. After site selection process was completed, supplemental site selection analyses were conducted on two occasions. The first analysis was conducted for Site 20 and the second analysis was conducted for a new site designated as Site 30. 6.1 SITE 20 ANALYSES In response to inquiries from the public, the Project Partners commissioned an engineering and cost analysis to evaluate the capital cost impacts associated with moving the WRF from Site 14 (located north of US 1) to Site 20 (located south of US 1). Site 20 was selected for consideration because it is the northernmost site of the four sites located south of US 1. The results of this analysis indicated that locating the proposed WRF at Site 20 would result in a total capital cost increase compared to Site 14 of approximately $27 million. Of the total cost increase, the greatest cost component would be the additional length of force mains and gravity sewers, which alone account for $21.5 million of the total cost increase. These costs are preliminary level estimates only (Accuracy = +20% to -15%) and the allocation of costs is presented in Appendix B. 6.2 SITE 30 ANALYSES • In August 2005, elected officials from the Town of Apex identified an additional site for review and 5-25 • DRAFT PER Technical Memorandum No. 05 Water Reclamation Facility Site Selection Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities evaluation. For review and consistency purposes, the additional site has been designated as Site No. 30. The general location of Site No. 30 is generally bounded by Shearon Harris Road to the east; Bonsal Road to the west; Old US 1 to the north, and US 1 to the south. Based on the data review and analysis conducted for Site 30, elected officials from the Town of Cary, Town of Apex, Town of Morrisville and Wake County affirm that Site 14 remains the preferred site for the Proposed Project. To ensure that the EIS document and the overall process provides a full accounting of all alternatives considered forthe Proposed Project, the Partners have provided information and data related to Site 30 in Appendix C of this technical memorandum. • • 5-26 • • "~ i /~ i /- 1~ ,~ ~ r ; ~ ~~1~; ~~ (~% ,.:~ -, l I ~~,I '` ~ ~ 4 1 1~ West Cary Pump Station ~~. !~ ~2. _r ~~ ,, - , ' ,r ~- II~% .~i ~~ ~ I -~Ild i~ ~ = I ~ =fir _, ~ ~ Ip;-~L-~ ~ `~ Ili'' % ~ West Cary Force Marn ;- - ~'~ Jordan ~~~ ~ '~ ~ 9t Lf q ~ Lak+< s-' ~~ -~ i I~~_ ~ 64 ~~ - ~ ~ , -=Jr-~-~?I ~~ 'ice ~ -~ \ Reedy Branch Gravity Sewe ~ d r II' ~~ I l~ ~=. tYP ~ ._ ~~ i i ~ ~ y 'IR- a I~, r - ~ r I J_ i Beaver Creek Pump Station ~~ +~ ~ , ~~ ? ~ ~,r ~~ ,,, t ~i ~-~ ~ ~ ~ Bea r ~ ~ 1;~ ~ - - r7 ) « ~ '~ ~ l ~: I ,~ ~ 1 I1'~/J Beaver Creek Force Main ~ i" ~ )'I%~~~ J~~' ~'~ ~, ~ ~ , ~~ _ ~ ~~, J yer Cre~~J ~ ~// '~_. fir-- ' t I „~ 1 n ~~ ri _ , ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~; ~ ; ~ i ~ j~ ~ _. / I ~~;~ ~~ ., 1ti ~~~\ i~r l~ Effluent Pum Station , , L - Western Wake WRF ~1`i~J~%r~ L ~ iL ~1 ~ ~C n 1 ~ ~~.~~ ;~~ %'Ji ~ - ~~ ~____ 1 / ~j ~~ ~n~ l~~~J~ ~ . / ~_ '1 ~l 11 , 7 ~ ., ; - / ~~J ~~- ~ y `~~ ~ ~~ ' ;~ ~ ~, ll ~ ~.~~ ~ _ ,i A \. I~'~ ~ %~ Hares ,- ~r -~ ~~ ~ f w / ~ ~ __ -Lake ° - ~`~ ~ 1t ~- ~~~ j~ ~ _ ' // ;~.~ ,I, , _ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ';, ~, ~f ~- ~~ ~ ~` i~ -~, ~~,~~~~ _ _; EfFluent Pipeline and Outfall ; %' ~ ; ~ / \~ I~ \,1 I~ \,,5 Qar Riv~r° ~~~~T ~ JJ< ~~~ ~ ~ u 11 ~~l / _ ~ ~ ~ , i ll Buckhorn Dam = ~~ 1~~` 'I'I\ Middle Creek 55 .; ~~~`1 r I ~ ~~ ~ ~1~ , ` ~~ ~ i , ~ ~ ~ ~~ :-; ~ Jl i„ ~ i , ~, ~~ rl ~ ,1 ~ ` ~ ~~ ililey pp Creek &~ - ~~ ~ V ~. 'i~ ~ ~) Ii . ~ - `I ~ : ~~' Utley d ~r~yd ~ SHEAROIY HARRIS Nd lCLEAR ; -- PLANT ~n~ - _ ~J ~' y y= ~ ~~~~ ~ i? ~\ I ~ '' ~If'~ ~.. ~~~~~ S> n N ~ I _ ~~~ s ~ ~ e FIGL7RE 5-1 -"~- -J~ rr ~ Miles 0 0.5 5 2 3 ; ~~ P$ Pump Station , r Water Reclamation Facility ~ fi , ~.~ j ®6cisting Wastewater Treatment Plant locations Nuclear Power PIaM Roatl T,', ~ Interstate /Highway -~J ~ Buckhom Dam --- Rivers and Streams =~~ i Lake or River it __ ~~~ Western Wake WRF Property Boundary -- l. _ I One Mile Buffer of Nuclear Power Plant C • • i ~ .. 1 1 ' 0'~ 7~ 1 ~ i ~ ..~i` .. 1 I I ' i ~ ~ _ I _'~.- I ~ ~ryek ~ ; 1 ~, -' as .._ ~ a~ r w~~y ge -~ ~', r ' - ~o - ~ 1 ~~ ~.~ ~ ~ 1 , ~~ ~ ~= '~~ ~ ~ ~' ~ I - ~ ~ ~ I . s , ~~ 14 15 I, t `26 ~ ~ -~~~ - __~- _ ,~~ _~ , - 25~ ss --.~ ,I ', ~ ; ~ ~ -~~1~ 19 ~~f~;' 27 1 ' i ~ 2U - r _. ~.~' 28 r e:~ ® == - ~' I _ ~ \ ' I . ~ ~ 222 ~~ - ~~ --,.~ ~'~ > ~ E~ t ~ '; c' y , , Harris -+a~' ~<~ f , l ( . - - ~ ~ _ _ . ~ ~ ~ I ~~{~ ~~ ~ I ~ ~~ ~ ~i '~ Lake ~~i Jp`hCj __5,_J- r-~ ' I - I ~ ~~I 1 1~ ~~~ ~i ` J ~ l,/ r,.r' _ I~ ~ ~; -l - ~ FIGURE 5-2 ~ e~ _ ~ - , ~ - °arRiver - ~ _ ~ ~,~ ,, - r .,, ® Emting treatment PWrM1 keCBtlunS _ __ - - ~ - R02a ~,1 - __ ~ InieSwle I FG9M1~veY I ~~ --Steam ar RNer -- r= <. __._ ~- ..~..2.e.A.~,n~e...m.~ ...~..-_,.. .~,_.. lake ar River -.. _,~ Western Wake WRF Posside Stles COIN H.wtN.~~oS.swtiea 14.1~~~'-~,/S' _= V __ _ ~5 ' ~~ _ ', -_i ` -_.-. _ ~- _ ~' - t tom{ _ _ !-, ~, i _. ~ - r _ ~ ~I '..~ .-~ 1. -I `- .r ~ ~ _4 _ Ja~~ ~ ~ ~ f C _: r ti ~,~ _ ~~ ~~ :: ~ -~wc- _ to '. ~ ;,~-'13J 1 r r _~ -~ i as ~.~ ~,--/~ t 1 `-- ~°""1 7 ' , Rye 1 ~ ~ ii ! ~ ' ~ ~ a' i ~~--- - - ~ ~_ ~ ~ it - i ' ~ ,r t ~, ~t. - ,~.~ I ' ' I _ _ j'~ _ !_ • • REGIONAL, WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITII:~ tr~..~ Wastam Weke WRF Passmle Stns-FINAL 12 COIUI H~Eaenns.a~rtea • ~~ REGIONAL WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES r ._ .__~. _ ,_ _- _ _ Oa ~~ / -" ~. ~ ~ - ~ ~ ' - 1__ 1 f i =~ ~,..~., _ - r , ~ ~~ i`~ ~ ~~ ~ 8 ~° ~i ~ ~ ~~ J , _ ~' ~'~ I ~ _- _ ~~~ _ ~/ ~sa?'~ -- i I: 1~ ~ ~ `~ ,'r.i t` ~ a~~~ _~~ ~ __ ~ I~~ c~ ~ ~ ~J~ - ~~Fr ~ - ~ ~, /r~. ~ ~ ~, ' i I ,'. P.~'- ` ;;III ~ '~ ~ _~ `~ 'j ;~_ '~ ~~~ (f s ~ , .. ~ ==-I fir' 'S „' ~ , r I, i t l A Q~k' 11 -~ ~ i= ~ ~ ~ Greek ~~~~e Bea r i ~~/ (ter-ins ~.~',', {, i _ , i ~y.~ ~' --- _.: ~, ~~~ j i a'N. r ~~ i ~ - e~ ®- ~ ~, ~ - f • ~: ' f .- ~~ • ., ~ - ~ U I z West Cary Region Pump Station 4,~ Figure 5-5 ,`'Vi'a, \~p 0 ..'x'''~ ~ _, VS ~ __ ___ _~_ a_- -~.w -_ Apex (Neuse) s~,;~ C~°?k ~,.:" Middle Creek WWTP o ~' Influent Vii; 0 m Pump Station ~ %m rm / ~ GI~`° ~~ Western ~ ~` Wake ~ _ WRF ~~,, ~~,,~ ~ ~ LittJe Beaver Creek ~ ~ Pult•np Station , r >~ :. ~°` e, ~ ~ LittleWhite Oak Creek ~ ~:~ = ~ Pump Station ~ ~, 0 -. ~ i~ ~; n Holly Springs ~+-~- __ ~~~ 1 ~) --~_. _,. ~_. __ i , ~ JC'~~. 1 G~% .c: Cary (South) 1I /rt ~_ i ~_~ a South Cary WRF ~ J~~ y~ Utley Creek WWTP M;~~ t ~ _ v- __ -.._w- Fuquay Varina (Neuse) ' ~J~ ~ Terrible Creek WWTP `' ~~ vi~ ~~, . ~\ ~~~~ ~? ,/ Fu / quay-Varina (Cape Fear) ~ ,Ken _ _ ~.:: __- _ _g -~,~,\` - `~~ .~ ` Legend -~ ~`--_ • BUCICIlOI~`~~` Raw Wa slewater PS Dam ~ ,\ WRF / .IBT PS ~ / GcJC~! r Parallel Raw Wastewater Force Mains 1 2 ~ ~e / °°~Gravity Sewer j s IBT Force Main % ~ Parallel EfrluentForce Mains -American TobaccoTrail =River Basin Boundary Miles 0 0.5 1 2 0 v ~~ Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Site 8 R:1308411ARCVIEW1Wake_GIS_Data1EIS Fig 4-5 small.mxd • • • i West Cary RegioS Pump Station i i lrf-. r i ~ ~~_ InTlUeni ~~~ Vo Pump Station .gym; .~ ~`° ~~, Western ~~ ~ ~~ Wake '~ r' Little Beaver Creek WRF ; ~ ~ Pump Station I ,' y~ty r LittleWhite Oak Creek ~,~- Pump Station r~~'~ ~~ , "i ~ ~ '~ . r y ~ 1' k% White Oak Creek ~ " ~ - Pump Station 4' °,~ ~; :, €_V Holly Springs ~ - , ,.. u, . '~- ~ ~, Harris Lake •~ 1 ~~ t r ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,_._-V_. .aTY- --. /' Figure 5-6 _ - \r J~.1\~ / ~s ~ Apex (Neuse) ~~ Sw~~ ' CrEek ~'~ ~ Middle Creek WWTP ~,~ _ iii Cary (South) ry ~i ~~ ~- ~ ~~ South Cary WRF~ ~~° i Utley Creek WWTP M'aa~ j e ~~ Fuquay-Varina (Neuse) ,'~ Terrible Creek WWTP ~, `~. ~ i ~ --~~~ ~\ ~ ~~$ _A___;,._, , ~ ,--._ :" iFuquay-Varina (Cape Fear: _ ~ _. 1 ,-..,..g i ~ _.-__ _.- - _.._~_ _-.._._ -.. __-.. --1 - ..,~ 1 Oi WWTP Bucldiom ~ `~' Dam ~ Legend ~~ -, ~ ~.`_ +' Raw Wastewater PS `~~~ ' ~ ~ 'i°v ~ ~ ~ j. OJ~~~~ ~ Nff2F ~ ~~ ~ ~ •IBT PS e G% ~'; Parallel Raw Wastewater Force Mains ~ Gravity Sewer i / IBT Force Main Parallel E8luentForce Mains _ _AmericanTobaccoTrail rR~~~r " Western Wake Regional =°River Basin Boundary Wastewater Management Facilities Niles 0 o.s , z Site 11!12 R:\308411ARCVIEVNWake_GIS_Data\EIS Fig 4-6 small.mxd • • ~.,.~ ~'" I t Z ~~~ i >> West Cary Region ~~ ~ Pump Station i ~ ~~ 1/ 1, c ~, ~- V° ~ "'~ IS JC o >: l ~~V v ;~_: 1`` v ~~ ' i~ ~ ~~ 1 r ~ Little Beaver Creek 1Nestern Pump Station Wake ~ LittleWhite Oak Creek ~,"WRF s.q-~ Pump Station e~ White Oak Creek ~ . ~ ~~ _.,~ P Pump Station Holly Springs ; err - _ _ ~--Y_ >' ;Figure 5-7 it ~~ ~y~1 ~ i~ e' i` r' (/~64 Apex (Neuse) «,.,' Middle Creek WWTP Lake ~~ ) Cary_(South)P 1~ ~~' South Cary WRF~ ii 1~ %~ Utley Creek WWTP tiiaa~e , Fuquay-Varina (Neuse) i Terrible Creek WWTP `~, .~~~ ~~~ a~ !Fuquay-Varina (Cape Fear --~_ ~ ~_ -.~ Kenne~,i_Branch WWTP ~~ ~~ - ~~ ,,~ ~ ~ - ~~c'`~,' ~ ~~, df1 ' ~~ fr. --- ~ a~ Go~c ,~,` ,_ U~ __~ Buckhom Dam ee v. G / tC Legend a:;,~ Raw Wastewater PS V ~WRF • IBT 1 °^ Parallel Raw Wastewater Force Mains -'`Gravity Se vee r IBT Force Main -Parallel Effluent Force Mains _AmericanTobaccoTrail ~~~~ + =River Basin Boundary MI les 0 0.5 1 2 ._` ` ~~ ~~ ~. ~4^ ~ ~~- "'~l i o ~-~~, 1 4~ ,l, t r..._.. _. - _ --°_ __. _~_ Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Site 14 Ra306411ARCVIE W1 Wake_GIS_Data1EIS Fig 4-7 small.mxd i~ • ` '~ `; "'~~ Figure 5-8 '~~ '" ~f'; i 1 ~/ a ~ ~.',) - ~'~, i Ate. ,~, + ,~' _ d ~. r ~ I +• ! f , . .. :. ~,r ,_ ,. R ~ 1 t ' ~ -... .. ,. '^ ~ i ~~ .~~''~ ~ .r1 ` EFFLUENT ~ - i, i ~ r~ ' x' - - 1 pUNP STATION F`•-~ X . 1. i ,. W DISINFECTION r~* ~ - S ~ r( ~ ~ Y. _- i EFFWENT 11 '~ - FILTERS _ ~~ i ~ ~., ~; E y ~ 5 y]j '~-,.t gm ~ •~ 1 ft -~-~ y~ ~ I ` ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ SECON RY ~""R' ~ I ~ i + 0 0 ~ ~#-~~ /T - ~ ELECTRICAL t ~ ~ : t ~ .r ' - 18UILDING t ~ '~ ~' `'~' 3` ~ ~6 ; i ( kw ~~__ ~ ~ - ~ { BNR 6LOW~ ' L .. ~ b {~ ~. ,~ „_ - ~ TANK5 UILDING ~ i fi -: _ - -' :. ' ,~~ ~2e `~ ~ ~ .AID GRIT, , ~ ~ .. _ ~ ~. ~ ~' ( - a ` ~ _. FACILOmES 'PRIfi~ARY ~ d <• t ~ s, ~~~y,. ~+~r ~ ~ .a` nx \ A4 __ - ~t ~ CLARIFIERS _ _..- __.__ _, •', 9 fl ~~~ ~~,` ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i .. ~' n ^- ~ ~~ FLOW ., ~ '~ IR r ~. .~ QUALVATI 'y a ~ . ~ _ n. ,. t r ~ ~, , ' ' - ~ ~ ,.~` '. c-,: ~ ~~ k 1~? - ESTERS ~ ` r- 4 ~ ~fx THICKENING/ ~`IS ?} "~-. ""•. ~ ' - ` OEWATEWNGt ~ L ~~ ~! ~~Ns _~ ~'. -t I ,', •..` DRYER BUILDING ~~ ~ ~:s s< _ .- OPERATIdGSI ~. - •4 ~ ~ f~+~1 'I. t-: • ADMINISTRAT~N `4 - '• ~ .. r ~ T o BUILDING .~,t .. T , w _. (( -:. Z ~,. _ _ _ II ~. ~€ ~ -i ~t:~ Legend: 1 `~ i ` d ~ + ~ r.- *_ ~ :~., ' Site Boundary ~ 'I II ~ e ., - ~ ~ ' Q Parcel Boundary i, }~.. ~~ ~Mr _. ` . ;. • / .~ ,` „ts ~• ~'~ ,~ i~ 100' Stream Buffer - ___ - _~y.-` .~; '~ - -'1~~--~. ( _~~ r. t -~ '~`~ ` ~3 _~: ~"~._ _ - 200' Property Buffer I _ ~~~ } ~ ~t~ ~ I `~ ' I --~^_-^~..y .,._~_..~ __._ •VVY / }r *~ 500' From Property Line ~ ~ ~ 77~ ! ~~. 1000' From Property Line ~ f _ ,`-1 Lakes and Ponds ~~ ~ _ - ----.L. _ Western Wake Regional _,. ~"'- ~ ~ '~ Wastewater Management Facilities Streams and Rivers ,~., - :' Site 8 Layout ~ ~ t ~°' ~ ` Western Wake WRF 3084 f-014-SP-PERS201.cdr i• i• i• ~. ~ ~~ Figure 5-9 #° ~ ? ~ ~ #~ a ~ , ~~~' ~` ~. ~ ~ ~, ~ ` < +' l .~ s as 1 ~' ? ~,~ F~ t b { ~ ~ ~ ~ ~4 :,. 4 y., In Es+uf~ ~§- ~ 4 +~.. n ~' 4\ ~ - , ~;, ~. ' ~~ ~ ~ ~ ro ` ~ I ~~ `. 'r ~~ n' ; 4 j ~ x~a.u$ t~~\ ~~~, St\y~./~~ _t. ~ -~~5. ~-T"-.-..LAS... ~~e~ '~ ~ ~~ ~ ~$ 4 `~ kt<A ~ rt~ h tt~ , ~ ~' 17 ~ ~ w se~corwnRr ~ . ~ i ~ 4 is a~uat ~ ~~~_ ~ 1 - w z5 ~tUtliYE'u /F F' {y-,~~'4 .`"e'Y,~! J•~ ~~~- F„ Y ~ _ nlOY1ER~ jf .f y,i .., *wi ~~ ~iy V { ~, *~=d. ~5- ~.p.., \~r Yee. A~ i.F4[1MCA1. ...... ( j ~ ~~_: ~'_ ~u X ~u 4. ~ , n ~F r ~1 dX ~' .9 x ~, s *.ecrc Tana ~'d" pY ~ ~s -'--c,.""-- a eta ~ s~ `vtawrnuc, .~w n ~b'~ 1 ,* s ~ i ~'> J ~ ~•. s '~ < '~.~ ~ ~ - w ~ ~ & ~ ~x~. (,ice r.o E ~ ~~~' -~"s....- c~c,E .~cas ' ¢q~, ~,, Y{ ~ i. c ~ - Tr- • F. -, wnnalnaTmn ~ T ~ ~ Y 8 7 ~ BUILWIIG ~, .tee! -M1-.,,' - ~Q. ': ~, d t 8 =:. F~ ~~ . fT'T- a .yy_ K-~ -2.. ~_ .~ P ~, ~F ` ~ Y .~ ~. a t'. a ~~ M fir- 'W / a 3' N fh. !J .~i "'~.~ ~ .~ e ~jp~, '1~ .` _ ' Legend: . YF' +~a( + -""^-.~..__ kkk''' ~ ~ ` !Site Boundary ~ e ' » ~' s i , ~ may- t y ~ Parcel Boundary ,;K~ "~ ' _x~ - ~ ~ ~ ~~ t~'rJ ' ,~ ~ a' e.~, 1 ' x" f - r' ~ 100' Stream Buffer .., r ~ ,. t ., ~ _;,{ ~ t ^.` ~ ` ~ ~ r ~ .. ( ~ ~'~r 200' Property Buffer ~ ~~ 4a ~ x £ ~ e .,. a r, k .w" ^vz,..l~. ` ~. o ~ a . , ti . f f ; , > 4 , - X47 •, E.; x .E e~ ~ ~`~e~.,~,y ~,.- +~ ~ re 1 {4' ~, 500' From Property Line ~ a ~' ~ r .r „, ., ro 'fit 1000' From Property Line ~' `'~ ° -- ' r ~ +' ~ ' ~ r z~'= ~' * '~ _ ~ ~*; Western Wake Regional Lakes and Ponds ~ ~ ~ o ° ' ~ ~ ~x =~~~ ~ , ~ Wastewater Management Facilities Streams and Rivers ~~~'~, -`°!,_ k ~, ~'_ Site 11!12 Layout ~~~ ~ UVeszern V11ake WRF 30841-014-SP-PER5-202.cdr i ~ i• i• 41-014-SP-PERS-203.cd r PER TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM No. 05 ~~A~ZEIVANDSAf~VYF.R ~~~~~ 1 APPENDIX A PHASE II AND PHASE III $ITE INVESTIGATION DATA • • ~~ LJ • y C~ G ~ d L d _~ d ~ N ~ ~ ~"~ Q ~ ~ x a~ ca c ~ ~ .O ~ d _ •R ~ ~ 0 U ~ Y d ~ N 'L ~' L d i+ N d ::1 MI L 0 v A ~I~ 01 ~ CIO ~ n V .- ~ ~ M (0 aD 00 M O ~ O] r ~ n n ~ n N (~ (O N (O O n N 0 I fV O I r- h i O I N ~ ~ ~ M I M i tD I N i O O i N ~ M '~N M r n N V O tl i n rn n'. n M r N N N N N d' N O r; N t• N M M n M Q C 11 u ,~ W d E d (F T A 3 A c 0 .~ c 0 V Y 3 C N d 3 R D c 0 .~ .~ d y v m '~ m D w N t a 8.'~. N e d ^ m m u~ ~o ~ $ N n n S 8 ^ n n lV S i m 3~ o ^ e r N o ^ p ^ 0 0 o E€ ~~-~.. ~ N ^ m ^ ry ^ o ^ b ^ O O W ~~ O s Z N ~ `~i ~ ~ 8 ^ 8 ^ ^ ^ 5 r w ~g U rv ^ a ^ ^ m o ^ o N ^ ~n '~ Q K~ $ - ^ ~ K • ^ ~ C ~ 8 ^ 8 g ^ 8 ~~ d o N ~ ^ N ^ Z ~ N % m W U ~ N <o ~ s ~ a >~`°g.~u 8 ~ N N 8 ^ ~ 8 ^ S ^ 8 ^ i;,~N=rc ^ z°. tt r ^ m a o ~ o o ~ o ^ e pp o~ U ~ o " ~ r ~< ^ ~ o 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 ~ ~, ~ ~, N ~ ~, o o ~ N w ~ e N ^ ^ o 0 0 ,~ a ~o W ~ ^ ~ _ ^ ^ ^ W ;~~ o ~ a Z i~ ~ ^ N .- N ~ .~ m N e < m a ~ a° N u C Q m rv N ^ n v1 ^ ~ .- ^ ^ N r„ E Q u m ,°~_. r rv ^ r ^ ^ ^ ^ n ^ ~ H ¢ a ~ a ^ .- ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ ^ ^ ^ ^ n° y ~ y ~ ~ Y~ ° v y v O o O a O u O u o Y ~ o a ~ m Y~ o x ~ O o O v ~ ~ E u FF S U F S U EE S U O: O-E O ~E O 'e E~ F~ m m $ E € ~ J L= = L= _ 0 5 3 ~ 3 ~ Z ~ N rt b a ~ ^ ^ h N H N h h Y Y d A '~ ~ ~ F ~ C w O 3 d '++ w y N N N ' Q ' C N N C (n F ~ ~ d N ~ '~ ~. d 7 ~ O U m d `~ Y ~ ~ L 3 °' c :: d 3 • `s N ~ _ ~ ~ $ ~ _ _ m S Xa m ~ 0 o X K O O O o o x O ' ~ ^ m y°u a 1~i ~ ~ m C! m ~ ~ .. g ~ m g a :R ~ m n e '~^ ~ m a o '~~' a ~ o u ry e o ~ ^ r o o ^ 0 0 0 y E s H s ^ ~ ~ ~ g s a s ~ s 'd. o g V ~ ~ o o ~' o o ~ o 0 0 3 3 m m m ~ p, is ~ O ~ ~ C _ p ~ c z ~ u C 4 s v a° U q~ y I Q z d u ~u ~ ag c a .2 p ti O w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z v ~ an S v_ ¢ ~ Z ~ w a rc °~ a . ~ E _ y ~ ~ .- o ~ ~ ~ ~ a a N 3 B e ao~«o d m k~ S ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ 8 8 ga V 4 y t Q C! Cl ~ , [~ t~l ~- N f~. y ` gym aus m m m n m ~ ~ R ~ N v E ~ a ~ 0 ~ rv e ~ .- n ~ ~ m ^ N ~ ¢'a ^ d ^ ^ ^ ~ ^ f N ^ m v s m ~ ~ ^ m N N m rya 2 " ~ m m m m ~ ra n ~ o e m N ~ .- ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~- r r .- + a ° i toy r' ° ~° i 2 n ~ ° ~ °m K > > r > > u Q Z U" r r a 2 Z N > ~0 8 s ~ 8 z 0 P y~ S ~ n ~ ui ~ ~ ~ ~ .- ~ .- U O in ~ ^ g m ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ .. .- `o E y5~ 3 3 3 ~ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ~U 3UU to 3N 8 n ~ ~ ^ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ r '»x 8 N a N S S = y ~< v. n ~ ~n .- ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ O O O O o °m u Y y U A o ° U -i o " U U 66 5 ` ~b X5 ` ~u U ~ oe U ~ of U ~ o'~t U ~ Oe c o` v ~' o ~~ m m u ~ > 0 j 3 ~x ~x Fx 5 ~x i u N ^ iO ° a ~ ~ ~ rv rv n n n iv • .. fA G cm G A ~ r ~ ~ o 3 i° N y N ' > Q 7 C d ~ d N O H r 'a, v ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ o ~ N Y ~ R = 3 a E m N 3 ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ b . m ~ M Q ` t o E N N ~Ti N p N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .- US 9. ~ ~ r ~ pi S $ ~~ ~ .. a s a s s s ~ ~ ~ s s ~ ~ ~~ _ ~ o ~ .. o o a a o a ~ a~ a 0 r ~ ~ ~m ~~ ~~ ~~ b ~~ ~~ ~g ~~ ~g ~~ ~$ ~m rc y 3~ o YI o gi, °q q °o, °o, o a g ~ _ .- - - ~ $ 8 a $ 8 2 i0 `2 $ m = q y1 y w u~ ¢ 6 m~ J'n a.. m~ ~ ~ ~ o a a~ xp3 u g ~oQ z as 8 ~ ~ n ~ ~ 8 8 M 8 3y ~ 5 `o 4 W m $ v. .- n n .- ~ ~ ~ ~ n .- e 5 .5 N Ip S S ~ S S F 3 c U3 W ~ m n m v n a s N R$ y ~ B° Y' o U u U O m O ® O o O m o Y ~ m 0 Y~ s U~ E y y ~ o°a c Oa ~c5 ~cS ~G ~G o~ o~ a"E o°` 6 ~~ ~~ m° m ~ ~ ~ :~ ~°x x °x x z° N r u w tl " ~ ~ n n ~ n ~i r ~~ u • a Vl c u u ~' o a W 3 • N a j "' 3 c a a c N ~" w u c ._ p,' LL C N O U L s C 3 u u 3 • ~s s s s s #" f ~ S 8 S Q E t i ~ Z >° d A ~~ ~~ ~ $ o `s w ~ s g O V ~ U U n M n @~ O S2 8 8 8 g 8 8 8 o E o ~~~ u 3 ~ ; ~' 3 #m 8 $ ~ 8 8 9~ N s~ 8 8 Yl 8 8 8 E€~i r N ~~ o N N 8 - 8 ~~ o~ a • n rv N 8 8 8 5 w $~ $ ~ 0 O ~ a .- ~ o, #a ~ $ $ F o a~$ g p N 8 8 q q kJZ N U 4$4 O 6 3 2'd G ~ ^~ a .- ~N 9i, u~ ~l, ~ $ N 8 g O w ~~€ O Zd r r 0 C a ~ ~ ~ b -"a - - -- s °s3 o u~'~ :E m~ :S n~ Yy°y: ~~~ W r V/ 1~ r rv N N N~ o O ~ rl n r ~ N ~ 3 ° C v 9 ~~E$~_ 3 ~ ~ ~ a PER TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM No. 05 ~HAZENANDSA~~'YEK ~~~ APPENDIX B • • In response to inquiries from the public, the Project Partners commissioned an engineering and cost analysis to evaluate the capital cost impacts associated with moving the WRF from Site 14 (located north of US 1) to Site 20 (located south of US 1). Site 20 was selected for consideration because it is the northernmost site of the four sites located south of US 1. The results of this analysis indicated that locating the proposed WRF at Site 20 would result in a total capital cost increase compared to Site 14 of approximately $27 million. Of the total cost increase, the greatest cost component would be the additional length of force mains and gravity sewers, which alone account for $21.5 million of the total cost increase. These costs are preliminary level estimates only (Accuracy = +20% to -15%) and allocation of costs is presented below: ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR FACILITIES TO BE BUILT BY 2011 (PHASE 1); • Beaver Creek Force Main: $6,784,000 (additional 11,555 feet of 48-inch force main) • Western Wake Water Reclamation Facility: $2,656,500 (site development such as road access, stream protection, site grading, etc.) • Effluent Pump Station: $2,072,100 (larger pumping and electrical equipment) • Effluent Pipeline: $5,329,300 (additional 10,275 feet of 48-inch force main) • Water Line to Site: $1,032,800 (additional 10,800 feet of 12-inch water line) • Additional Annual Power Costs: $60,000/year Additional Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs: $41,400/year ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR FACILITIES TO BE BUILT BY 2020 (PHASE 2): • Beaver Creek Force Main: $4,770,200 (additional 11,555 feet of 36-inch force main) • Effluent Pipeline: $4,663,200 (additional 10,275 feet of 42-inch force main) Additional Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs: $27,700/year TOTAL ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR PHASE I AND PHASE II FACILITIES (ZOOS DOLLARS): $27 308100 B-1 PER TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM No. 05 APPENDIX C SITE 30 INFORMATION AND DATA C • ~/ ~HAZENANDSAWYER C-1 I~Ai~~ AND S~~V'YER c~~~n~~~.L • Eeviroan,entat En=Eaeers i Sdsntists ""' March 6, 2006 Mr. Daui Blaisdell Assistan# Chief, Engineering Branch Construction Grants & Loam Division of Water Quality 1633 Mail Service_Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1633 Subject: VV'estern Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Project Dear Mr. Blaisdell: In accordance with discussions during the week of February 27, 2006, I have enclosed nineteen {19) copies of information and data related to an additional water reclamation facility site that. was reviewed and considered by the Western Wake Project Partners (Partners) far the Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Project (Prt~posed Project), The original site selection process was completed during calendar year 20Q4 for 29 sites, and this additianal site was identified by elected officials from the Town of Apex in August 2005. 'T'his additional site is herein referred. to as Site 30 to be consistent with earlier-site selection process. Based. on the data review and analysis conducted. for Site 30, • elected officials from the Town of.Cary, Town of Apex, Town vf.Morrisville and Wake County affirmed that Site 14 remains the preferred. site for the Proposed Project. To ensure. that the EIS document and. process provides a full accounting of all alternatives considered for the Proposed Project, the Partners hereby' submit this additional information and data far Site 30 to CG&L for review and consideration. If you have any questions, please contact me as the Project Manager at 9191875-4311, ext. 1b, or 'T'ommy Esqueda as the Project Director at 919 /325-3554. Sincerely, Ruth C. Swanek Project Manager Cc: Robert K (Kim} Fisher, P.E., Town of Cary Tim Dannelly, i'.E, Tawn of Apex Stephanie Sudanr~, P.E., Town of Holly Springs Blake Mills, P.E., Town of Morrisville Thomas C. Esqueda, P.E., CDivi, Project Director • Robert Berndt, Hazen and Sawyer Glenn Dunn, Poyner and Spruill LLP • • Site 30 Data Evaluation Criteria Value Area Required (acres) 180 Actual Area (acres) 277 Area Ratio 1.54 No. of Parcels 4 No. of Property Owners 4 Active Structures/Residences 1 Existing Land Use' Residential 0.00 Agricultural 50.30 Undeveloped 0.00 Commercial/Government 49.70 Existing Zoning R-30 50.30 R-80 49.70 Adjacent Residences Within 500 feet 5 Within 1, 000 feet 4 Distance to ETJ (miles) 4,22 County Jurisdiction Wake Access Road Requires construction of new road. Physical Features Average Site Slope, % 7.44 Hydric Soils, acres 2 18.60 Wetlands, acres s 3.00 Streams, acres 4 33.00 WRC Game Lands, acres s 137.00 Endangered Species None recorded by USFWS Cultural Resources None recorded by Department of Cultural Resources Conveyance Facility Requirements, linear feet 120,760 RCRA, CERCLA, TRI Sites No listed sites in vicinity Other/Miscellaneous No additional potential impacts identified ' Existing land use values calculated based on classifications from Wake County GIS Tax Parcels layer. z Hydric Soils derived from Wake County GIS Soils layer. s Wetlands derived from National Wetlands Inventory maps downloadable at • http://www.nccoastalmanagement.net/Vlletlands/download.htm a Streams derived from Wake County GIS data (WakeCounty_hl)avd USGS maps. Only streams that appear as intermittent or perennial on USGS quad maps are included. e Game Lands derived from Wake County GIS Parcel Boundary layer and correlated with Harris Game Land map. N -- . /14 S /7 a . .' r 1 // a �'•. / Y 4 \/ N OD �F N 4- tt } Active farm operations structures =--- 500' Residence 1 Active farm operations structures a; V 6 Legend Site 30 Boundary EJParcel Boundary - Streams and Rivers -- � Roads �— ,, Railroad ( �.^ s Major Easement 0 335 670 1,340 2,010 2,680 - Feet Figure 1 a 1 inch equals -90 Western Wake Regional Wastewater Facilities // 11 . �\ `�,�� \�. P= Site30 - Aerial View N 1000' Residence 1 WE r=-N 1000' Residence 2 ALL S 1000' Residence 3 500' Residence 2 500' Residence 4 �:. `'� �' t 1 �1� 500' Residence 3 - i 500' Residence 5 O r %ice Active farm operations �. structures � 1 x 500' Re sidence 1 � ? Active farm operations 1000' Residence 4 structures Legend y Site 30 Boundary --------- Site 30 Facilities aParcel Boundary - - Streams and Rivers Roads Railroad Major Easement 500 ft Buffer 1000 ft Buffer �--_. Influent FM Route Effluent FM Route j Hydric Soils A B Wetlands PUBHh 0 335 670 1,340 2,010 2,680 --- --- - Feet Figure 2 Western Wake Regional Wastewater Facilities \ 1 inch equals 900 feet _ ti \\ Site30 - Aerial View with Plant Facilities _ _- ___ N 31U 30U 3uu 3zv 5lV 10 v 320 330 '~ sw 300 ! 300 320 3 ~ ~ ~ 290 300 290 310 320 0 300 ~W ~ E 33o ao ~ ~b 1' 320 310 ~ 300 270 290 300 290 300 20 330 ~~ ~ ~~ 260 280 290 ~ 320 1 300 ;30 270 1 290 X290 tPU S28d' %~,. -..0270 .._- _.._. 270 10 32 3w i0 320 320 310 320 °29 d\ 290 I 280 280' ~ 3[l~`310 ° -.310 31 \~'4,RR(~~,j ~' 280 ~; _ 290 0 "~ 300. j` 2'I. ~ 270 270 a ~ ~ ° ~'~'. _..._320 320 290 1 10 1, 280 2T0~ 2g ° 300 300 -300 ~ 31D~'- - 5320 310 , 28 i 260 '`, ...290 300 _ 29D ~ 310 p ~ 310 , 300 290 280 ~--±. 320 /~ 320 320 32 ~ 280 ,, ~4 a 31 app 300 310300 290 - p 310 'gyp ,290 '310 290 280' 300 300 3 300 310 310 ~ 310 300 / ~7 10 \ ` ~ ~ 290 310 300 ~ I 29f7 320 ~Y ~ 300 /,P' 20 310 320 310 310 (3t0 300 320 -;~"'.7 300 310 ~~ ~ 290 2 -280N..a-' 32° 320 3 0~ ~, ,'~ 290 ~0 310 310 ~l 0 •..~ y q:~ 300 310 3~ -' / ° 310 330 20310 310 300 ") . 0 ~2 260 app 310 - / 310 \ 280 300 290288t~ 20 1V ° ~. 280 ! 290 300 320 31 300 300 ~~, __~280..J. ~Q ~~ 320. ..~00 270 290 280 310 2 l 300 i ., ~. ~; \ 10 310 300 28 .:: 310 ^, ~ y/ ~ 310 ~ 31'8.•,3D 10 ~.\ 300 i 270 ~70 3 300 32P 320 ~ 290 70 ! 290 ° 300 )~ -~~~ 310 ~ /~0°310 310 310 30 300 ~, 300 320 V^j( 330 260 320 290. ~ 9:...,~. 310 330320 300 320 ;300 270 ~90 320 3 • ~ a :-y~ 330 320 290 10 310 ~ 290 ~'° 300 310 330 j( 310 310 300 ~._ .: 300 -- ~ 320 310 < 300 app ~ 300 300 0 290 260 280 ~0 % ~ 310 310 ~qp, ~ 300 ~ 290 320 300 ~ 290 290 '2801 / 10 290 2900 _ '$70 2900 ~° i~ ~~~ ``~--~.~ 280 j ` 320 2yD J 290 290 300 300 l ~~, ~~ 290 280 264 20280 t ~p ,..,._r,. ~.~ '_\ '~ 270 ~ 300 300 30029p' .. Il 290 300 ) 3001290 ,~~0 280 ~D ....-- ....310 ~ ` 300 28Q__.~~-... 270....260 310 310 31 300 `.. 270 27 260. 290 300290 300 290 i 290300 300 290 ~ 27 280 300 310 290 ~ ~~310 300 '^~ ~z,-.._,.' 260 29D 27U 4 290 Legend 280 X80 270 c.~,. 280270 280 ~° 250',; 290 ~ \^ 270 300 -290 300 _ - ~ 280 290 ~~ 2~_ , ao_ zso 300 290--, -'_ ~ z zaD Site 30 Boundary - --`zsa- p zso ° p 2ro280 I app 290 28270 zso 260270 zso zB° Site 30 Facilities .zao ~'~'9'6' ~.i 270 2s'~ ~2so ~~°2 70 -~°"~" ~° 27 a Parcel Boundary z7o 0 2~o zso z7o zao v zso 2ao ,E ~ zao 2so z ° zso zsD ~ zeD o z6o I ; , ~0i7D, 2 ft Contour (0619) ~ z7o aso ~ 290 ;~ z7o 2so z7o p !40 ~' ~= ~ ~~~~'\~0 27p 28' ~0 ~?60 ~ ~ ----- Streams and Rivers 280,. J-:: 250250 260 ~ ~~. 280 290 280 ~ ~~ 27D ~ , ~.'.~-290 27 260 27D 29D 25 ~a 2 °~-~/~~ 290 Roads zso ~ z7o ~gp z7o zso ` 2& zao zso 26o zao zso p zso o zso ~- Rallfoad ~~ 29026 250 25 ~ 27"' p 280 270 2 J .270 270 ", ,~ 2ao ep ~A 2ao zso - - - Major Easement 2gp zso zaD 27o I o z7o2sD ,. z ° zao „. ~ o 26p X40 2a 240 ~0 270 Zap Influent FM Route ---. __. 300 2__ 250 260 270 2go274 260 t~ 250 `", 29 280 27 '"~~° 240 27 2 280 - `4~~ 2 0 , 2ao. ." 2 U~ EfFlUent FM Route 300 2ao z7o~~ ~ ~ ~ { o 270 '' 2 Hydric Soils 30 ~ ~ ~ - - _ 27D 27D zso ° 7 ~ '~-~ zso 250 ,.. ~60 50240,. 240 260 27 2 300 27026 P40 y. A 29 280 p 25 270 ~ 260 230 '~ p -- I ~ _ ~~ , ' _ ~._ ,., 240 _. 260 ~ B l ; 2 (~70 /2ao ,' zoo zsozaD~l_ 2~D zso ° ~° 2so _ ' ° 29 ~°~° ~b~ 2 Z30 27 Wetlands 2~, ,: t \ 240 250 ta23QJ230 240 2°D270 28° zao zao ~~..-2Z° z6o s6~'244 `~ zso ;~a~~' PUBHh _... 230 250 270 - ;zsoZ30Q - 600 zao 1, 0 ~\,1,800 22,400'; ° z6o 27o zs zso ,~ ~, 270 , F~~ 2ao _ _. Figure 3 270 j 260 260 __ .230 ~ ._ 240 ~~ _. 250. t ~gr " -~-~; 250 'inch equals 8QQfeet ~ 23p Western Wake Regional Wastewater Facilities za6% l D -~26D~, Il 2gp 27 x~ $3p r` 230 250 Site30 -Topography with Plant Facilities rE S ~~a ~v 0 o ~ a~ ~:; r: ~ 1,200 `.,1,800 f equals 800 feet , o'` ~~ .~ _, ~--,_~ ~ ~~ ~' \ ~.~ %" ~- ~~_ ~ ~? ~~~ ~- f,. '}~~~' Legend ~' =~~ . Site 30 Boundary - ,a ` Site 30 Facilities Parcel Boundary - Streams and Rivers ~'-~~ Roads -~-- Railroad - - Major Easement Influent FM Route `-Effluent FM Route ,Harris Game Lands Figure 4 '' Western Wake Regional Wastewater Facilities Site 30 -Plant Facilities & Game Lands 6 REGIONAL WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITlI. • • • i ~ ~ ~ 1 ~~ I __ ~ -~ -~, - s~'_ ~ ~ , ~ ~ _ I ~ ~i f 2 '~"~` - 't6 ~__ ='~dp _ -fy 3tir_~. ~ ~ - e to - _ ~ - _ 1 ~; ~,~; ~ r l ~I_ ~I ~ i j ~y~Fi~ ~ i `, ~~ - ~. ~, ~ r ~- Jordan `; , ~. ; , i ~ ~ ~ i ~ I _ 1 L .~ ~' a 1-, ..m=om-~ >_ _ ~ ` ~ ~ ~~ ~ , (' ~~ , / `III / '~ I _ _ ~ i i r yam; 7 4ti.; I ~`_~ I I i ~l M I ~~ . -m,~ 1" _ ~ I ~.-i - - I I ' 12 - - r ~ I, i~ ; 11 _ ~ _ ~ rreek .~ . ~ _ - ~' ~jttie Bet ~ i ~~ ~ ~ - " e F ~ -- I `b f ~i -1 ~ `.i rti; ~ ti ~ ~ '~ ~., ~ ; _- 14~ ~ ' _ - _ _ m -_ ~ . 30 ,~' j'-~ ~ '~ ~ ' ~ ~ "~ I --.._ - -_ ~ ' ~ C] of v'1~ar~~ ,'`r •^- - Slicttael E tiastcy. Guvemc~r wiiliam G. Ruts Jr.. Secretary ~orttt Carolina pcpaantcnt of Envimnrn~n[ anJ Natural Resources April 6, 2006 Alan tV. Klitnc{;. P.E. pirc:r[ar pivision oP ws[cr Quality D k:=~~ 1 ~ ?ODS CDIVI I iZ;~L ~J~=1=1CE iirlr. Robert K. Fisher, P.E. Director of Public Works and Utilities Town of Cary Post office Box 3005 Cary, North Carolina ?7512-8005 SUBJECT: The Western Wake Partners Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Western. Wake. Regional Wastewater iVtanagement Facilities Project Project No. CS370616-03 • Dear ~Ir. Fisher: Information related to an additional water reclamation facility site has been reviewed by resource agencies. Comments that were received from the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission are enclosed for your reference, along with a 1~tarch ?2, 2006 cover memorandum from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). As noted in the DENR memorandum, the Department finds Site 14 to have the least overall environmental impacts when. compared to the additional site. Comments that were received from Cultural Resources are also enclosed for your information. These comments aJ•e also being sent. directly to the consulting engineers involved with the Western Wake Regional Wastewater it%tanagement. Facilities project, by copy of this letter. Information concerning the additional site should be added in appropriate sections of both the Draft Environmental. Impact Statement (DEISj and the Preliminary Engineering Report, which is Appendix B of the DEIS. ~- Constructicn Grants and Loans Section 1633 tvtail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699.1633 North C Phone:9t9.733-69Ct1iFAX:919.715-6229;tnternet:wwev.nccgl.net 1`i ~r ya+ro/Mina An Equal Opportunit'/IAKirmative Aclion Employer - 50°a Recycledit0°~ Post Consumer Paper ~~~`~` ~` `~ NIr. Robert K. Fisher, P.E. Page 2 April 6, 2006 If you or your engineer have any questions or need assistance, please call Nis. Hannah Stallings at (919) 715-6209 or contact me at (9l9) 715-6225. Sincerely, l K. Lawrence E~arton, III, P.E., Supervisor Facilities Euatuation Unit KLH/dr Enclosures cc: CH2M Hill - RuthSwanek Camp Dresser & NicKee -Thomas Esqueda, P.E. Hazen & Sawyer -Robert A. Berndt, P.E. Davis, Ntartin, & Powell -Michael L. Slasher, P.E. Daniel NI. Blaisdell.. P.E. Hannah Stallings FEU/SRF ~~v~ ~~n ,~~~,. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office °.ter3 Sand6e~k..tmmas,su,i- Michael F. Easley, Gavemor Lisbeth C. E~nn>. Secretary Jeffrey J Cro~+. Depnt~• Secretan~ z~iarch 31, 2Ut)6 iVI Ei41 Q RANDUZbt To: [-[annah Stallings Construction Grants & Leans Ditisian of \~'ater ~ualitt, DEtR Froth: Renee Gledhill-varlet ~L.-7 Entironmi'nta! Ret-iett Coarc[inator Re: :llternate Site ~-3(~, ~~G'estern ~~;'al:e Rzgional Treatment Facilin.'~e\t- Hill, l~'ake Counts, CI-10~-L=}' . Office of Archnes and Hutar} DiF•isian aYHistoricat Resaurcrs David Brook. Direcwr Tlz:~nk t~-~u for tour \larch I U, ?(i~.il>, rnemc~r<~ndum transmitting a trap snpte~in~, an airerrtarit-e site scar the ~\`esrern ~~'akc: Re7ior:al Treatment C~acilirt-. ~~'e hate chzcked our maps ,tnd tiles and rleter:nined rh:tr the sire is :Jn1i.l:elt to cr~nrain archaeological .esaurces that \t-auld be eligible .far listing in the \atic}na[ Register <~t Flistaric Places. (_~ttr maps also indicate that the :~1ie Lawrence Farm ~t~'.-l It79"} is lr;cared northeast cat the sire across th.: railroad tracks and t ~S I ar th:: int~rectictn tc,irh SR 1 1-4i}. The Farm is on the tit:ttc: Stuclt List :utei mat• be eligible for listing in the tiatirinal. Register. L7epending an the lot=ourof the facilin- at the ne\t alternatit•c site, there mar be some effect upon the rarm, f~ut it is n,,t likei; tt:~ bz ,tci~,•ers~. The abate comments ~tre made purst_tanr rr, Secti~~n liil~ :;,f t?~~ ~atitin_~i E[ist>>ric Presen-atit~n .1cr and th:: .\cl~•tsort Ctauncil vn Historic 1'reser~-ation's Rerulatiar.~ r'or Crxnlauance ttith J~ctic,n [()6 coditied :tt 3G (.:E~R Part Sil{). I`hank you for tour caaPeration and cat~sideration. If sou ha~-e questions concerning the abate cc>mtiicni, contact me at 919-'~3--l-(.ii. In ail future communieatian cancerni.ng this project, please cite the aix~~-e referenced tracking number. cc: Ruch Sttanek, C[-I'~[ Paul Barth, ~ e~c Hill _-~COF. Raleigh \ " Lncattan -v \Lritin;:\ddrets T.teplmnciFa~ -- tD Iil1.5Tittl!l •• 36.t ~r:.a- -. ,s, .. t.• ~.l+.:f ie^ ,r.u. ... _a _ .~?- >;~ -, ?.t-~:- ...2fi;- RESTOR.~TU\ ~ ~ ~:,t.n. ~..__ ^cai. _ ...-'.12 lane.. s,. Bx~. ~ ~ _ _ '> .. ~t.„- . .,: ,- -t,__4R; Jl R1 tl' ~ PL:1\\1\i: 3!. >.. _.. wit - ._ _ - -. _ .. ._.- ::u. ~_. .._ _n._.. ia.a._5 ~ ~ _ tc.-tc+St)~ _ -- __ _ _ ~F ir~ ~ N~CDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources t4lichael F. Easley, Governor ~tEVtOR ~ ti D [IVI TO: FROtiI [2E U.~TE Hannah Stallings Construction Grants and Loan t,r,:x ,, ~" . 1~telba tilcGee ~~ F.nytronmental Regrew b'lilliam G. Ross Jr.; Secretary Site 30 for the Western Wake Regional `Wastewater iVlana~ement Facilities in Wake County titarch ??. ?006 • The Department of Environment and ttttural Resources has re~ie«ed the intormaron regarding the additional. water reclamation. facility site referred to in the material as site 30. The attached comments from the `.C. tt~`ildlife Resources Commission raises concerns with the impacts of this project on carne lands and habitat fraatri~ntation. In comparing site l~ with site 3D, the department finds site 1-t to have the least o±er-al1 environmental impacts. The department continues to encourage the 1Vesterrt ~~-ak;, P~u-tners to take all practicable measures to further avoid and minimtz, emiror,mLntal impacts prior [o finalizing project plans. Thank you for the opportunity to respond. Thz Division 4~f t~'at~r Resources and the Division of \aturul Heritage had no addition,( comments. attachments t ~0~ 11'lail S°~~ice ~2r:rr. R~leig~. !!er'~ Ca,' ; ~a 2 .,yg-1o~.t° r~i<.C~f?. Jj~-7?3-'~~~~ -. ?• ~ ~ ~~~'! 15 ~• rte ~ lr~f~ 1•'~~'i ?'?r ... ,. ~.~C~ ~~^,. ~o e hCarolina at~r~~~ • ~'+~.~, ,. r f ~ ~ t - Rw .: `~ I~Tar~h Cara~ina t~'1dli~e Resources Commission ~° Richard B. Hamilton, Executive Director MEMORANDUM T0: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator 0 ce of Legislative Intergovernmental. Affairs a.u. FROM: Shari L. Bryant, P edmont Region Coordinator Habitat Conservation Program DATE: 21 March 2006 SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities, Site 30, Wake County, North Carolina. DENR Project No. E 336. • Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWR.C) have reviewed the subject document and we are familiar with the habitat values of the area. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat, 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 66t et seq..}, North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 through 113A-10; l NCAC 25), North Carolina General Statutes (G.S. 113-1.31 et seq.),. and North Carolina Administrative Code ISANCAC IOL0102. The Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities Project Partners which includes the Towns of Apex, Cary, Holly Springs and Morrisville. propose to construct a new water reclamation facility (WRF) with a wastewater discharge to the Cape Fear River below Buckhorn dam. Phase I would provide a treatment capacity of 18 mgd and a discharge capacity of 24 mgd and will meet the Towns' needs anti! 2020. Phase t[ would provide a treatment capacity of 30 mgd and a discharge capacity of 38 mgd and wilt meet the Towns' needs until 2030. The Towrrs are required to return wastewater to the Cape Fear River basin by Januaty 2011 as a condition of an interbasin transfer certificate to withdraw water from B.E. Jordan Reservoir. An additional site (Site 30) for the WRF has been submitted for review. The site is located adjacent to U.S. Highway 1, southwest of the preferred alternative site (Site 14}. Site 30 includes 137 acres of NCWRC's Harris game lands within the site boundaries. Figure 4 shows conshuction of the WRF +vould directly impact these game Eands. Site 14 also impacts approximately 4 acres of the Harris game Eands. While both sites impact game lands, construction at Site 30 will lead to greater habitat fragmentation and disruption of habitat connectivity for wildlife populations traveling between B.E. Jordan Reservoir and Harris Lake than would construction at Site 14. WhiEe both sites will impact terrestrial wildlife habitats, Site I4 has the lesser impact and is preferred over Site 30. As detailed in our previous comments regarding Site i4 (Bryant, I6 September 2003), we recommend the WRF structures be cEustered to the maximum extent possible and located . iVlaiiiug Address: Division of Inland Fisheries ~~ 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721 Telephone: (919} 707-OZ?0 • Fax: (9I9} 707-0023 Z'd SZ9L-Ebb-9I:E ~uefi~g •~~g dTb~ZT 90 iZ JeW Page 2 21 March 2006 1)EIS Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities -Site 30 Project No. 1336 near areas that are already impacted (e.g., roads or open fields), In addition, we encourage the Project Partners to place undeveloped portions of the site into a permanent. conservation easement. Implementing these meaSUleS wOUId further minitniZe Impacts tO terrestrial wiidiife habitats. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the planning stages for this project. if we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (336) 449-7625. ec: Dale Suiter, USFWS David Raton, USfWS Sarah McRae, IV1-[P Fred Tarver, UWR Brian McRae, WRC Keith Ashley, WRC Ryan Heise, WRC Isaac Harrold, WRC Anna Smith, WRC • • E`d SZ9L-6bfr-9EE auefiJS '~'S dtfr~Zl 90 T'~ JeW • COST ESTIMATING 1NORKSHEETS C. • Western Wake Cost Estimate Pipeline Cast Increase far Site 20 versus Site 14 Cost Item pipe Diameter Length Installed Unit Cost Cost Extension (inches} {linear feet} ($llinear foot) (S) Seaver Creek Force Main Phase I Pipeline 48 Phase II Pipeline 36 Subtotal -Beaver Creek Force Main Note: At a minimum, "installed unit cost" to include pipe material, shipping, installation (excavation, backfill}; roadway restoration; private property restoration; and easement acquisition. Pipe material options include ductile iron, steel, or concrete pressure pipe -all pipe to be rated for 300 psi working pressure. Cost Item Pipe Diameter (inches) Length (Ilnear feet) Installed Unit Cost {Sllinear foot) Cost Extension (~} Effluent Transmission Main Phase I Pipeline 48 Phase II Pipeline 42 Subtotal -Effluent Transmission Main Note: At a minimum, "installed unit cost" to include pipe material, shipping, installation (excavation, backfill}; roadway restoration; private property restoration; and easement acquisition. Pipe material options include ductile iron, steel, or concrete pressure pipe -all pipe to be rated for 300 psi working pressure. Cost Item Pipe Diameter Length installed Unit Cost Cost Extension (inches) {linear feet) ($~linear foot) (~) Potable Water Line Phase !Pipeline 12 No Phase II far water line Subtotal -Water Line Note: At a minimum, "installed unit cost" to include pipe material, shipping, installation (excavation, backfill}; roadway restoration; private property restoration; and easement acquisition. Pipe material shall be ductile iron rated for 204 psi working pressure. Western Wake Cost Estimate Site Development Cost Increase far Site 20 versus Site 14 Cost ltern Unit Measure Number of Units Unit Cast Cost Extension ~~) Site Development Access Roadway {fl linear feet • Site Grading/Preparation tZ} cubic yards Subtotal -Site Development Notes: {1}Access roadway design must accommodate lwo influent farce mains; two effluent transmission mains; a water line; electrical power and communications. Roadway must also accommodate two-lanes of tractor•trailertrafftc. Cost difference between Site 14 and Site 20 is access road must bridge across Little White Oak Creek with minimal disturbance to wetlands. {2} Average slope conditions for Site t4 is 7.d percent and average slope conditions for Siie 20 is 8.5 percent (22% increase for Site 20 versus Site 14). Once grading is complete, graded areas must be prepared for installation of structures to minimize settlement. • • Western Wake Cost Estimate Effluent Pumping Station Cost Increase for Site 24 versus Site 14 Cost Item Unit Measure Number of Units Unit Cost Cost Extension ~$) Effluent Pumping Station 400-hp pumps versus 500-hp pumps each 2 400-hp VFD versus 500-hp VFD each 2 1,500-hp pumps versus 2,000-ttp pumps t1f each 5 1,500-hp VFD versus 2,000-hp VFD each 2 t_arger MCCs amps/breakers/starters Larger Electrical Building square feet Larger HVAC for Electrical Building heat load Subtotal -Effluent Pumping Station Notes: (1} Four pumps installed for Phase I, and one pump installed for Phase it s • • Western Wake Cast Estimate Summa of Cost Increase for Site 20 versus Site 14 Cost Item Cost Extension ($} Subtotal -Beaver Creek Force Main Subtotal -Effluent Transmission Main Subtotal -Water Line Subtotal -Site Development Subtotal -Effluent Pumping Station Subtotal -All Components Contingency ~ 15 percent of Subtotal -All Components Subtotal -All Components with Contingency Engineering ~ 10 percent of Subtotal -with Contingency Subtotal -All Components with Contingency and Engineering Legal, Financial and Admin ~ 5 percent of Subtotal -with Engineering Total Capital Cost lncrease r'i U • EFFLUENT PUMPING STATION WORKSHEETS Nate: These worksheets have been submitted to engineers with two pump manufacturers to independently confirm that larger pumps and larger electrical equipment is required for Site 20 versus Site 14) • • r1 i~_J C Effluent Pumping Station Design Criteria _ Phase 1 Design Requirement _ Site 14 Site 20 Firm Pumping Capacity, mgd 62.50 62.50 Maximum Total Dynamic Head (TDH), feet 286.00 340.00 Minimum Monthly Flow, mgd B.00 8.00 Minimum TDH, feet 23.00 23.00 Maximum Monthly Flow, mgd 24.00 24.00 Average Annual Fiow, 20 20.00 20.00 Note: Phase I{ Firm Pumping Capacity = 98 mgd; Maximum Monthly Flow = 38 mgd . ti: r a~ {{~~. ~~ . _. .. .:. K1ti1R1.".:: es:.. Phase I Facility Requirements for Site 14 Six verpcai turbine pumps total far pumping station 2 pumps =400-hp vertical turbine pumps with variable frequency drives (VFD) on both pumps 4 pumps = 1,500-hp vertical turbine pumps. Two pumps with constant speed drives and two pumps with variable frequency drives Note: For Phase ll add one, t,500-hp pump W: Phase 1 Facility Requirements far Site 20 Six vertical turbine pumps total for pumping station 2 pumps = 500-hp vertical turbine pumps with variable frequency drives 4 pumps = 2,000-hp vertical turbine pumps. Two pumps with constant speed drives and two pumps with variable frequency drives Additional Cost Items Lor Site 20 Power demand is greater for increased pump horsepower Motor contrd center is larger for increased power demand Variable-frequency drives are lager for increased power demand Electrical building is larger to accommodate increased size of motor control centers and VFDs Heating, ventilating and air-conditioning system is larger for larger electrical building, larger motor control center and larger VFDs Note: For Phase II add one, 2,000-hp pump `! Possible Pump Vendors Flowserve Corporation Fairbanks-Morse Estimated Time-of-Delivery {from placement of ortler tp delivery at site) ~~ri~.~ 40-weeks • Western Wake Water Reclamation Facility Effluent Pump Station tem HeaC Curve- 14 ffluent Flow Head Loss (ft}~ Head Loss {ft) Site 14 C= 120 Max Static Head Min Static (tt) Head {tt) gpm mgd 48 -inch 36 • inch Forcemain STA LOS 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.75 21.00 1,000 1.44 0.21 0.01 25.75 21.00 2,000 2.88 0.76 0.04 25,75 21.00 3,OOD 4,32 1.60 0.09 25.75 21,00 4,000 5.76 2.73 0.15 25.75 21.00 5,000 720 4.12 0.23 25.75 21.00 6,000 8.64 5.77 0.32 25.75 21.00 7,000 10.08 7.68 0.42 25.75 21.00 8.000 11.52 9.83 0.54 25.75 21.00 9,000 12.96 12.22 0.67 25.75 21.00 10,000 14.40 14.85 O.Bf 25.75 21.00 11.000 15.84 17.72 0.97 25.75 21.00 12.000 17.28 20.81 1.14 25.75 21.00 13,000 18.72 24.13 1.32 25.75 21.00 14,000 20.16 27.68 1.52 25.75 21,00 15,000 21.60 31.45 1.72 25.75 21.00 16.000 23.04 35.43 1.94 25.75 21.00 17,000 24.48 39.64 2.17 25.75 21.00 18,000 25.92 44.06 2.41 25.75 21.00 19,000 27.36 48.70 2.67 25.75 21.00 20,000 28.80 53.54 2.93 25.75 21.00 21,000 30.24 58.60 3.21 25.75 21.00 22,000 31.68 63.87 3.50 25.75 21.00 23,000 33.12 69.34 3.80 25.75 21.00 24,000 34.56 75.02 4.1 t 25.75 21.00 25,000 38.00 80.91 4.43 25.75 21.00 26,OOD 37.44 87.00 4.77 25.75 21.00 27,000 36.88 2 PUMPS 93.29 1.42 25.75 21.00 ~ 000 40.32 99.78 1.52 25.75 21.00 000 41.76 106.47 1.62 25.75 21.00 U,000 43.20 113.37 1.72 25.75 21.00 31,000 44.64 120.46 1.83 25.75 21.00 32,000 46.08 127.74 1.94 25.75 21.00 33,000 47.52 135.23 2.05 25.75 21.00 34,000 48.96 142.90 2.17 25.75 21.00 35,000 50.40 150.78 2.29 25.75 21.00 36,000 51.84 158.84 2.41 25.75 21.00 37,000 53.28 167.10 2.54 25.75 21.00 38,000 54.72 3 PUMPS 175,55 1.26 25.75 21.00 39.000 56.16 184.19 1.32 25.75 21.00 40,000 57.60 193.03 1.39 25.75 21.00 41,000 59.04 202.05 1.45 25.75 21.00 42,000 60.48 4 PUMPS 211.26 0.89 25.75 21.00 43,000 61.92 220.66 0.93 25.75 21.00 44,000 63.36 230.25 0.97 25.75 21.00 45,000 64.80 240.02 1.01 25.75 21.00 46,000 66.24 249.98 1.05 25.75 21.00 47,000 67.68 260.13 1.10 25.75 2t.00 48,000 69.12 270.46 1.14 25.75 21.00 49,000 70.56 280.98 1.18 25.75 21.00 ' HL=L(7Q01C}r'°b(Q'r_~daaesst.,~2083 Pipe length from TM = 80,212 ft Lr<a•i 60,212 Forcemain Length L~~•1 813.5 Equivalent Length inside pump station (valves, appurtenances, etc.) Wet Well Level 296.25 Low 4 fee[ deeper, without cascade aerator 301 Nigh MH Discharge Invert 322 25.75 Static Head Max {ft) 21 Static Heatl Min (ft} ~..rvalent Length Losses if!) (Values per Cameron Hydraulic Data) 4"x6" Suct Reducer : 0 assumed Discharge 36" Check Valve 132 estimated 36° Butterfly Valve 68 estimated 48" T•tbw thru (5) 383.5 48" T-branch 230 Total 813.5 Page 1 TnTnr S stem Head ft Max S stem Min S tem 25.75.,.. 21.00 25.97 _ 26.55 ~ - 27.44 _ _ _ ~~ 28.63 30.10 - ~ 3t.84 _ 21.22--- -- ~ 21.80 22.69 23.88 ~- 25.35 27.09 ~ _ 33.85 36.12 . -36.64 __ 41.42 ~ ~ _ 29.10 _31.37 33.69 _ 36.67 _ 4d.4d 47.70 51.20 39.69 42.95 _ 46.4b 54.94 58.92 63.13 _ 50.19_ _54.17 68.38 87.56 _ 62.81 -~ _ 72.23 - - - 77.11 8223 _ 87.56^~ 67.48 _ 72.36 77.48 82,81 93.12 '~~ R88.37 _ 98.89 104.88 ~ _ 94.14 100.13 111.09 _ 106.34 117,51 112.76 _ _ 120.46 115.71 127.05 ......_. _ 122.30 _ 133.84 140.84 129.09 136.09 148.04 143.29 155.43 150.68 163.03 158.26 170.83 166.08 178.82 174.07 187.01 182.28 195.39 t9a.6a 20256 197.81 211.27 206.5 220.16 215.41 22925 224.50 237.90 233.15 247.34 242.59 255.97 252.22 266.78 262.03 275.79 272.04 286.98 282.23 297.35 292.60 307.91 303.16 r: N t a L N ~ 3 ~V N ~ 7+ N a ' N ~ O S_` N A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ti' }C C V CD ro ~ ~ v rI> I 1 i ~ i ~ ~ L- t ' I C I I a s ~~~~ ~. ~ _ I ~ I ~ M ~~ i ~ .~ ~~, • ~~ I I i,~ I~ i ~'~~ ~ I I I 1 ` ' j-~-. .. ~_.. ~ . I - I ~: ~. ---I--.. ~ _T i 1 I ' ~I t ~ ~ I _~_!_~ i I j -r-.... I fir-, . , ~ ~ _ . f.~..: . f i~ I ; ~_ I ~ T-. _I _~- .~. ! I f ' . , I ~ ~. .~.. I ~ -I ~ ~ I (~ I j . I ~ ,~ . ~ ~ ~ c~O t~ ~ C~0 N Q ~ i I ~ .. _ ~ .~~ 44 i i I i ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ ' . ; I i .._.~ .._~- ~ ~ I a . T- I N ~ ~ ' ~ ~ I . I I i ~ ~ i a N r 0 O 0 T 0 I ~ O ~ Q '' 01 i ~' ~ E I--~ ''- j I N S O i I ~ u. ~ •- ~ a i I ~ ~ v a ; ~ a T• I I ~ . I I ~ a J ~ ~ Q .. - ~ T I m ' ~ Q i i N r.. ~... , ~ o T-; -: ~d 0 Site 20 Western Wake Water Ftec lamati0n Facility Effluent P ump Statio-s tem Head Curve ~20 C- 120 Max Static Head Min Static trtluenl Flow Head Loss (ft} Head Loss (ft) {n) Head (ft) gpm mgd 48 -inch 36 -inch Forcemain STA LOS 0 0.04 o_DO a.oo 57 s2,4o 1,000 1.44 0.25 0.01 57 52.00 2,000 2.88 0.89 0.64 57 52.00 3,D00 4.32 1.87 0.69 57 5200 4.000 5.76 3.i9 0.15 57 52.00 5,000 7.26 4.82 0.23 57 52.40 6,000 8.64 6.76 D.32 5T 52.00 7,DD0 11].08 8.99 0.42 57 52.00 8.000 11.52 11.51 0.54 57 52.00 9,000 12.98 14,31 6.67 57 52.00 10,000 14.40 17.39 4.81 57 52.00 11.000 15.84 20.74 0.97 57 52.04 12.000 17.28 24.36 1.14 57 52.00 13,000 18.72 28.25 1.32 57 52.00 14,600 20.16 32.40 1.52 57 52.60 15,000 21.60 36.81 1.72 57 52.D0 16,000 23.04 41.48 1.94 57 52.04 17,000 24.48 46.40 2.17 57 52.00 18,000 25.92 51.58 2.41 57 52.00 19,000 27.36 57.01 2.67 57 52.00 20,000 28.80 62.68 2.93 57 52.04 21,D06 3D.24 68.60 3.21 57 52.00 22,060 31.68 74.77 3.50 57 52.00 23,000 33.12 81.18 3.80 57 52.00 2a,000 34.56 87.83 4.11 57 52.40 25.000 36.00 94.72 a 43 57 52.00 26.000 37.44 101.84 4.77 57 5200 27.000 38.88 2 PUMPS 109.21 1.42 57 62.00 - ^04 40.32 116.8 t 1.52 57 52.00 A 41.76 124.64 1.62 57 52.00 ,000 43.20 132.71 1.72 57 52.00 31,000 44.64 141.D1 1.83 57 52.00 32,000 46.08 149.54 1.94 57 52.00 33,000 47.52 158.30 205 57 52.60 34,OD0 48.96 167.29 2.17 57 52.00 35,000 50.44 176.51 2.29 57 52.04 36,000 51.84 185.95 2.41 57 52.00 37,006 53.28 195.62 2.54 57 52.00 38.000 54.72 3 PUMPS 205.51 1.26 57 52.00 39,000 56.16 215.63 1.32 57 52.60 40,000 57.60 225,97 1.39 57 52.D0 41,000 59.04 236.53 1.45 57 52.00 42,000 60.48 4 PUMPS 2a7.31 0.89 57 52.00 43,000 61.92 258.32 0.93 57 52.00 44.000 63.36 269.54 0.97 57 52.00 45,DOD 64.80 284.98 1.01 57 52.00 46,060 66.24 292.64 1.05 57 52.00 47,000 67.88 304.52 1.10 57 62.00 48,000 69.12 316.61 1.14 57 52.00 49,000 70.56 328.92 1.18 57 52.00 HL = L (100/C}~'e'(O' gsld°~~'.002083 Lt~.l 70,487 Forcemain Length (includes 90, and 45) 4~1 813.5 Equivalent Length inside pump statipn (valves, appurtenances,etc.) Wet Well Level 265 Low 4 feet deeper. without cascade aerator 270 High MH Discharge InveA 322 57 Static Head Max {ri) 52 Static Head Min (}t} ~valent Length Losses (ft) (Values per Cameron Hydraulic Data) 4'x6' Suct Reducer 0 assumed Discharge 36"Chock Valve 132 estimated 36" Butterlh/ Valve 68 estimated a8" T-flow thru (5) 383.5 48' T-branch 230 Total 813.5 Page 1 TOTAL S Stem Head tt Max S stem Min S stem 57.00 _ 62.00 57.26 _ 52.26 ~ 57.98 5293 _ _ 68.96 53.96 _ _ fi0.34 _ 55,34 _ 62.05_ __57.05 _ 64.07 59.07 66.41 _ 6'1.41 69.05 64.05 71.98 _ _66.98 _ 7520 70.20 713.71 73.71 _ __ 8250 _ 77.50 86.57 _ 8157 90.92 85.92 95.54 _ 90.54 100.42 95.42 105.58 100.58 110.99 105.99 116.67 111.67 122.61 117.61 128.81 123.81 135,27 13027 141.97_ __ 136.97 __ 148.94 143.94 156.15 ~ 151.16 163.61 _ 758.61 167.63 162.63 _. . __ _.. 175.32 _ 170.32 183.26 ~ 178.26 191.43 188.43 199.84 194.84 208.48 243.48 217.36 212.36 226,46 221-46 235.80 230.80 245.36 240.36 255.16 250.16 263.77 258.77 273.9b 268.95 284.35 279.36 294.98 289.98 305.20 300.20 318.25 311.25 327.51 322.51 33s.ss 333.ss 35D.69 345.69 362.62 367.62 374.75 369.76 387.11 382.11 • N ca t a 0 H i O ~ N U a~ ~ N ar N 7+ c ~. a ~ ~ O O ~ ~ ~ O r- N c~7 a ~ Y ~2 ~ ~ c_au..wu~w~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~t M N N Ni I I I I ' i Q i ~ Q Q , ~ I ~ ~ ' I .. _. t ~ ~ ~ i ~ .. _. i N `j.. iiiiili ; a i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ >IT-~ ; =~--r~- I ; I ~ f N :i ; Iii I li ` ~ Ii lii II iil' I'I ~~~ j ~; ~; I i I i _i '~ i _~~I I I ~ i I~ l i ' i I I I' i' ~ ~ i I ~ i~ I I I Q. ~' I !~i T~ i ;'ia j I ~ j ! ~ ' i ~ i I .. ~ ..i .. . a a. i U r lil II ii LL ~I j a ii I ' E I ,1:. I , d ' I I , Ili I .l T-1I _ ( i i _. _ i I , i' I =1 I I ' x i ~. ~r}-' r I~. I; i. ~ j~ l i l s °o °o °o o °o °o o °a ao r- co u~ v m N •- (3sa}) P~H IE~al N r O r d O rn C7 d ti ,~, 9 E cep O +~+ r° 0 O O M O N C r o 0 • • ~ -- ~A~ .~ ~~~~ P6092410b.JPG 6/9/2006 6:12:20 PM 1NF[~UENT FORCE AIIAINS ANI) WATER MAlN °` 3, t v x ~- • • ~~r~u~~aTZ~~sM~ssioN Mains ,~,R ~~~ P6092412b.JPG 6/9/2006 6:12:35 PM • • ~; P6092414b.JPG ti! i'f C)t ~`~=l.C)1'!~iE~~N~i' ~: x:, .z; t~. u A ~~ 20 I '• LLv ~ i ~_ ~. ; C I ~ O LL. E ~ LFJ ~_- ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ W ~ ~ Z J ,~ ; I ' ~ ~ ''. `~ rj Z ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ .. ~ e* , at % ~ ~ I ~ tL ~ Q `i` ~ ` . ate' / ~ ', i 7 lLl 1 ' ~~.i `~5 i ` ~ ~ ,~ i I r` ~ I .~ ~ ~/ ~ • V f ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~~ T V ~ ~ ~` ~ ' I _ 11! r ~ o Q _ / ~ ~O ~ U _ ~ r~ ~~ i i o o I ~ I i _ _ - ~ i ~ ^ ~ ~ i ' ~.J ~ 1 - _ r ~ 3 .. H i z ' L- ~ ~ I I ` ~` ~ = ~ . ~ ! ~ f 1 i i i~ ,\ \.` ~~\ , l T `\~` C C v ' I J~ / • 1 ` ~\ 3 ~ . / ,,\ ~,\ ,\ ~ ~r\ / \ ~ \ I ; ~ \ W ` g> \ \ ~ . ~ ~ R ~ ~ ' _~ wl rl ri ;i: a ~I i ~ I) `I i r. 1 / f ~I ~~ ~ ~ '~, ~ f ~\ ~ s _ .. a .. =f ~, `~ s t`e ~ ~~~ r *o~~a§ >_, ~~ID~~t ~, _sy°~~ t ~~r ~k~ 1 z `. ~: -~-~ ~, ,i i~. •.t r~ ~ - . (' ~ a ~;. ~°~ ~ ` ~' d, 'I. t~ ~ f e :., .u _ Z rD~ ADZ ya ~ ~±£ m ~ mm r Zzm t7~G Oz c ~s rrtr ~nZ ~m 3 `r ZZ3 '~ ap c a~_ ~m ez N ~ R r Z L ,u 9 y ti m ~ Z 9 - 1`±x ~ c. 2~~ ~C N a ~ ~ r 4m<!n bm ~ ,_- y ~ t? D -f 2 y ~ • ~ ~...-. Zw FD 2~ _ S l ZM1 •A S~ m .. ~ ~~.:~ ~ ~ N '. ill - L: i a: ty it ~'.'. r-25~ y' C st,: y <7 :'~ j ~ J :~ ~ x S . ~ ~ ~ ~ V Ad ., ./ ~ '~ _ F f r f ~ ~ /~ .. •` sI ~./ ~ ~ v ~ f. ~ f' ._.. • • • • ~y \/ '-~ _: ~ 'J v e~,' ~ U f ~ ~ ~ ~ r. ~_ ~ ,r J 2~ ~ ~ ,~ -o ~- d i ,`s o E c~ ~ E ~ ~ ~ O c ~ ~ _' Q ~' ~ a c ~ c ~- ~ 0 3 ~ d uNi N ~ ~ .e W ~ vi ~ ~ C w~ a ~. ~; r- a 5' 6 a ~ ^ ! ~ ~C~ 1 a O ~" ~ - y ~ - - z O_ w ~- w ° ~ p~ wy ~ a zKLL ga20 S • ~ :l.,.'. - '. _ yy '7~. i '• ~ aye Om p ~ ~ W ~U= vSdw~ K Z w K W N W WWOt (922 i~ + q yy ~ •: ~ •• ~ W F a ~ W~~ ao~ ~a~c3w JQ J ~.7 - T e • 5 ~~'' ? ~ O,xW +SJOSi arc NO~vS • • ,. . N W ~ 6!/ W 2Vh Z?2?2 a J<A O'JJ O - ss i ^ • • JO F~iN171 WmF„'ut~ a .2 = O ~• y ~WNm ~~/yUi~~f/l2 aQK~ SOa~F g 3 ~o Q g=O~ ~2KU'N z ~ ., ~~~ ~ ~6~s OaW C9 za F Z~WO zrc?Za ~ ~ ®c~S 2 ~ a ; 2~ ~ V .- N - ~. %' s ~ -- __ ~ ~ . .. e r . T ^ c ~ ~ r c ° \ 1 • ~ ~. ~• 4 • •4~ t ._. _ a4 .. ~ _ ago: a'-S 3s. _ • NE µrE 3~ss ~~''`S nS g• ' __ w n ~ +~ Z € ~ d~pV m~~ `u ; i s ~~~ • e 6 i 3 o$~i Y 4Se ~ i., • OPTION 1: Piping to the Seymour Farm will require three bore crossings of the CSX mainline: once to enter the facility, once to exit the facility at either New Hill (Option lA) or Merry Oaks (Option 1B), and once to cross below the US-1 Merry Oaks bridge. Additionally, a bore crossing will be required below either the New Hope Valley Railroad or the Shearon Harris Spur track in Bonsal. OPTION 2: In lieu of this, the effluent line will need to cross US-1 between New Hill and Merry Oaks and the Shearon Harris Spur. This means that the Western Wake Partners must complete two bore crossings of US-1 (including the effluent pipeline from Holly Springs) and two railroad bore crossings, or one US-1 crossing and four railroad crossings in order to use the Seymour Farm. OPTION 3: In order to use site 20, the Western Wake Partners will need to complete one crossing of US-1 and two railroad crossings (one for the raw wastewater pipes to the site and one crossing of the Shearon Harris spur). These additional costs for the Seymour Farm were not factored in the TMOS, Appendix B analysis. Neither was the permitting and approval required for the crossings considered. i~,. r.,~:~ts Bore Locations F,~~~,,i;r„~ :°~ Seymour Farm ~. kr - _ - -. Option lA Bore Locations for Influent and Effluent Pipelines • Page 1 of 3 • I r.. r; ~_.;;t #z. asy ~ i. ,' ; ~ __ _ _.: f ._- --..__ Option l B Bore Locations for Influent and Effluent Pipelines t,_~_) Irer~at~ • fy s _r - - - Option 2 Bore Locations for Influent and Effluent Pipelines Page 2 of 3 • Irtl'n73t~ Option 3 Bore Locations for Influent and Effluent Pipelines • Page 3 of 3 Agrmnt for Ownrshp & Oper of VWVRVVMF (PWUT06-01); Response from Mayor Sears 8/20/2005 3:05 PM Dear Honorable Mayor Sears, Thank you for responding to one of our New Hill Community Association members. You might remember me and my wife Sue from our appearance at a Town of Holly Springs meetings where I supported your fight against siting a Land Fill in Holly Springs. I asked that you consider the fight you are pursuing as being similar to the one New Hill is fighting -- Sewage Plant in center of our community. I have replied below in RED to your comments. Please do not think I used RED because I'm yelling. Only wanted to make it easier to see my response :-). Paul Barth, President New Hill Community Association 2108 New Hill -Olive Chapel Rd New Hill, NC 27562 919-362-7905 -----Original Message----- From: Dick Sears Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 5:25 PM To: 'GARDNERNewHill@aol.com' Cc: 'Bassgawgbc@aol.com'; 'wwakecitizens@theotts.org'; Carl Dean; Charles Simmons; Joni Powell; John Schifano; Jce Bryan ;Peter Atwell; Chet VanFossen ;Hank Dickson Work ; Parrish Womble; Emie Pearson Work; Hank Dickson Subject: RE: Subject: Re: Agreement for Ownership & Operation of WWRWMF (PWUT06-01) Vickie, t have reviewed your email with great interest. 1 must tell you that there is apparently a tot of misinformation out there. Please allow me to attempt to set the record straight from what I have learned after counseling with several on our staff. Please see below: Dick Sears Mayor of Holly Springs 919.557.3901(office) 9i9.62i.99o6 (mobile) please note new email address dick.searsC~hollvsnrin~snc. us rgsearsCa)aol.com visit our website at www.townofho~soringsnc.net • i -----0riginal Message----- From: GARDNERNewHill@aol.com [mailto:GARDNERNewHlll@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 11:41 AM To: Dick Sears Subject: Subject: Re: Agreement for Ownership & Operation of WWRWMF (PWUT06-01) Honorable Dick Sears: I am a bordering property owner of the proposed waste treatment facility. The Gardner families have lived in New Hill for five generations. We live in historical homes within the historical district. We attend the historical church of our forefathers. And never have we felt so native, so vulnerable and so violated by the legal system. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THIS IS IN THE COUNTY OF WAKE'S ETJ AND JURISDICTION. Response: You are correct. However, Wake County did not fairly represent the interests of the New Hill community during the siting process. New Hill community was never involved in any of the projects proceedings. This lack of vote and lack of voice in the process was not only unfair, it was wrong. Personally, I am of the opinion that if Holly Springs had lived up to their original commitment with the Westem Wake Partners, this site would never have moved from option 10D (Progress Energy land) to #i4 (the New Hill Community). • 1 HAVE BEEN INFORMED BY OUR MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE AND OUR ATTORNEY THAT THIS IS NOT THE CASE. Multiple municipal partners were involved in the selection of the wrf and went through a logical, defensible process for site selection. AS FAR AS WE KNOW, THE COUNTY AND THE CONSULTANT PICKED THE SITE WITH LITTLE OR NO CONCURRENCE OR INVOLVEMENT FROM ANYONE ELSE. INFORMAL DISCUSSIONS AFTER THE FACT WITH PROGRESS ENERGY DID NOT IMPLY THAT THEY HAD ANY INTEREST IN HOUSING THIS FACILITY. Response: TM 8.0 clearly showed (3) PE sites as being preferred aver (3) New Hill sites. It was not until Holly Springs decided not to participate in the WRF except for effluent water processing that TM 8.1 was created. Cary has told us that because Holly Springs "backed out" there was no longer a reason to site the facility South and East of US 1. Cary picked the site, not Wake County or any of the other (3) WWP's. However, by you signing the letter dated June 7, 2005, -- Selected Sites for Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities" Holly Springs agreed to the New Hill site. The letter you signed states in part -- "Holly Springs agrees with and concurs in the selection of the sites". 1 have personally spoken with PE officials, They told me that Cary has never asked PE for land. Cary told PE that their land was not being considered because they had already selected the New Hill site. Continually, it is referenced in "Westem Wake Partners Frequently Asked Questions": • Question #5 "Why did the Partners modify the alternative for the Option 10D that was selected?" Answer: "Original 10D was initially selected as the preferred altemative because HOLLY SPRINGS was thinking of using the water reclamation facility. Holly Springs ultimately decided not to participate in the plant itself but only in other parts of the system, which made original 10D no longer fhe best fit. THIS WAS A BUSINESS DECISION ON OUR PART AND I AM CONVINCED THAT OUR DECISION HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FINAL LOCATION RECOMMENDATION. HOWEVER, 1 AM TOLD THAT SOMEONE DID MAKE THAT COMMENT AT A COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S MEETING AND UNLESS SOMEONE KNOWS SOMETHING THAT OUR TOWN DOES NOT KNOW, WE DO NOT ACCEPT THIS AS FACT. Response: We understand the business decision Holly Springs made. However, it does not alter the fact that the decision did alter the site selected. The comment came from Cary, not the County Commissioner's. The above FAQ's published by Cary on the WWP website confirms this. During the Phase II studies, engineering and cost analyses were conducted to evaluate the feasibility of Holly Springs' sharing in the effluent pumping and transmission system with Apex, Cary, and Morrisville. The findings indicated that the proposed modification to Option 10D could be accomolished technically and would be financially favorable for the citjzens of Apex, Cary, and Morrisville. Based on these analyses, the Project Partners agreed to move forward with the • implementation of the modified Option 10D." Question #10. When and why were sites south and east of US 1 (20, 22, 25, 28) eliminated from consideration? Answer: "Sites south and east of US 1 were eliminated when the current partners (Apex, Cary, Holly Springs and Morrisville) began the final level of the site selection process, after TM 8.0 was completed and after Holly Springs chose not to participate in use of the WRF. WE ARE PART OF THE DISCHARGE BUT NOT PART OF THE PLANT ITSELF AND AGAIN 1 WOULD OFFER THAT ONE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER. Response: With all due respect, it had everything to do with site selection. Again, in the FAQ above -- Cary states "and after Holly Springs chose not to participate in use of the WRF". tt seems to me that Holly Springs does not completely understand what Cary is doing or saying. When Apex, Cary, Fuquay-Varina, Holly Springs, Morrisville, and Wake County originally identified 29 potential sites for consideration, several of the options for meeting regional wastewater treatment needs included Holly Springs sending raw wastewater to the WRF for treatment. Therefore, the 29 sites were all located north and west of HOLLY SPRINGS since HOLLY SPRINGS was the southernmost partner. After those sites were further screened to a group of 12 sites, TM 8.0 was completed in August 2004. • Before the current partners (Apex, Cary, Holly Springs and Morrisville) began the next level of the site selection process, Holly Springs decided to continue treating its own wastewater and not send raw wastewater fo the VVRF. Instead, Holly Springs would now send raw wastewater to the site for discharge to the Cape Fear River. With this change, it no longer made sense to consider sites soufh and east of US 1. PLEASE ADVISE THE SOURCH OF THE LAST SENTENCE IF POSSIBLE. AGAIN, I THINK THIS IS NOT THE CASE BUT WOULD BE HAPPY TO RESEARCH. Response: The source is from the FAQs posted to your WWP website. We are NOT making this stuff up. The facts are --Cary says Holly Springs backed out of the WRF thus causing a change in site location. If you doubt these statements then I recommend you meet with Mayor McAlister. I have been thinking that Holly Springs is the culprit here. Now Holly Springs wants to expand their ETJ by 4,363 acres, roughly 8.6 miles. What is that going to cost Holly Springs in the long run? Wouldn't that cost Holly Springs more than the $27 million that the partners claim would cost them to move from Option 10D to the proposed preferred site (#14 New Hill) before Holly Springs pulled out? AGAIN, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I DO NOT THINK THIS IS RELEVANT. Response: Sorry but it is relevant to the New Hill community. If Holly Springs did use the WRF to treat their wastewater then site location would have stayed on PE land. The point is, we know you made a business decision but that decision also impacted New Hill. As a WWP partner, we would like to have your Town's support in working with Cary to revisit the site selected. And how much is it going to cost Holly Springs for the 4,353 acres? And how long is an expansion going to meet their needs? And how long before Holly Springs decides to tie into the proposed waste treatment facility planned for New Hill versus Harnett County? And how much more money is that going to cost the citizens of Holly Springs and/or the state? How long before the growth of Holly Springs requires them to send raw waste water to New Hill? WE ARE SPENDING MONEY TO UPGRADE OUR EXISTING FACILITY TO HANDLE THOSE NEEDS WHICH WE FEEL ARE IN OUR BEST INTERESTS. Response: Yes, this we understand. As a neighboring community to your ETJ expansion plans we would like Holly Springs support in doing the right thing. After all, it is the WWP's wastewater not New Hill's. We have not had a vote. We have not had a voice. We have not had any official forum for Public comments. We can not use this system so there is no benefit to New Hill. This is a lose lose situation for New Hill. I just can't believe that if t, a common citizen of the commonwealth, can see the writing on the wall, that the state and other elected officials cannot, or will not. They or DENR or we need to hold Holly Springs' feet to the fire and make Holly Springs live up to their original commitment. AGAIN, THE LOCATION DECISION HAD VERY LITTLE OR ANY EFFECT FROM ANYTHING HOLLY SPRINGS DID TO MY KNOWLEDGE. I APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERN BUT I THINK YOUR EFFORTS ARE MISGUIDED AS IT RELATES TO HOLLY SPRINGS DEGREE OF INVOLVEMENT. IF YOU HAVE FURTHER INFORMATION THAT I DO NOT HAVE, 1 WILL BE HAPPY TO REVIEW. AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR SHARING YOUR CONCERNS. • Response: You keep saying your decision had nothing to do with New Hill selection. I have now provided you with facts to the contrary. You can look away like Apex and Morrisville is doing and just point to Cary but Holly Springs is a partner in this project so that makes Hotly Springs jointly responsible for all consequences to New Hill. I understand and respect your business decision not to completely use the WRF but the decision has had far reaching affects beyond Holly Springs interests. Our community needs a sponsor to help us revisit the site location and we hope that sponsor will be Holly Springs. ORIGINAL 10D IS THE BEST FIT. And I will continue to FIGHT FOR IT, and encourage all others to do the same. Best regards, Vickie Gardner 2904 New Hill-Holleman Road New Hill, North Carolina 27562 New Hill Community Association, Secretary New Hill Baptist Church, Chair, Building and Grounds • 919-362-5049 r~ ~J Flaad Insurance Rata Mai L-.:.isr3~ - u =! .. _ yy~~~, - ~ ~ __..i li. FENUg!]"•e;. PFr.~T11~f:_NW Ju FArSNEE. OES-Liae MappNy AppRutlon Prodded 6g th NartA Carolina fModplaln Mapping Program C~i: claimer. Tta:-+ i rrrt a te~all~=; birdir~g [FIRtr.2a Fln:,:f In~urdr,re kat? FRa~ ar,7 shnuld nM t=e u:?~i a~ =w.h. ~..c ..+y : 3 •'.S f • -------- Original Message -------- Subject:Fw: Error in WW Regional Wastewater Study Date:Sun, 19 Jun 200518:03:33 -0400 (EDT) From:Randel Sink <randelsink@earthlink.net> Reply-To:wwakecifizens@theotts.org To:wwakecitizens@theotts.org I just went to the westernwakepartners.org website and found the Technical Memo 8.0 and discovered a grave error. I detail this info to the county commissioners in the below attached letter. R -----Forwarded Message----- From: Randel Sink <randelsinkc~earthlink.net> Sent: Jun 19, 2005 5:58 PM To: joe.bryan~co.wake.nc.us, pjeffreys@nc.rr.com, tgurley@nclegalsolutions.com, citizens4kenn@aol.com, harold.webbc~co.wake.nc.us, herbcouncil~councilfinancial.com, dcooke@co.wake.nc.us Subject: Error in WW Regional Wastewater Study • June 19, 2005 Dear Honorable Commissioners and County Manager, David Cook My name is Randel Sink. I am a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of North Carolina. I have just received the "Final - Technical Memorandum 8.0" as issued by Hazen and Sawyer Environmental Engineers and Scientists for the Western Wake County Regional Wastewater Treatment Studies Project dated August 31, 2004. On page 18 of this document, Table 8-7 "Weighted Scores and Ranking for Option lOD" shows in error the Area Ration for Site 20 to be 5.2. This weighted score should be 1.5 as shown for Sites 3, ,6, 11/12, 14, 22, and 28. This error, when corrected would bring the "Total Weighted Score" to 16.2 vs. 19.9 which would clearly rank Site 20 as the Number One site. I discovered this error by reviewing the "Site Investigation Data" in Appendix A of the "Final - Technical Memorandum 8.0. The table on page 5 of 18 for the Appendix shows the Total Site Area as 151 acres. I have personally walked this land and know that over 1000 acres of land that belongs to Progress Energy completely encircle this site (reference Wake County GIS info). The listing of only 151 acres (being available) for this site is absurdly inaccurate. This site could be any • • size (at least greater than 180 acres) since all the land surrounding it, on all sides, is owned by Progress Energy as well. I would suggest that Wake County engage an independent engineering analysis and review of the information being presented in these reports in order to insure that indeed the best possible site is selected for the residents of Wake County. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Respectfully submitted, Randel T. Sink, PE 2301 New Hill Olive Chapel Rd. New Hill, NC 27562 919-362-9696 • • • HAZENAND SAVf~YER Environmental Engineers & Scientists FINAL Technical Memorandum 8.0 TO: Wake County Project Technical Management Team From: CDM/Hazen and Sawyer Date: August 31, 2004 SUbJeCt: Initial Site Investigations Western Wake County Regional Wastewater Treatment Studies Project The purpose of this technical memorandum is to present the findings of the CDM/Hazen and Sawyer Team from the initial site investigations of alternative water reclamation facility (WRF) sites for the four wastewater management options selected by the Technical Management Team (TMT) for detailed engineering review and analysis in Phase II of this project. This TM is organized as follows: 1) Introduction 2) Site Identification Process 3) Selection of Sites for Detailed Evaluation 4) Detailed Evaluation of Alternative Sites 8.1 Introduction The four wastewater management options for detailed evaluation, Options 1, 5, 9 and lOD, were selected by the Technical Management Team in a process summarized in the Phase I Final Report. Phase II of the project included (1) evaluation of alternative institutional and ownership options, and (2) conducting financial and economic evaluations for the four wastewater • management options. FINAL -Technical Memorandum 8.0 • Western Wake County Regional Wastewater Treatment Studies Project August 31, 2004 Page 2 In addition, based on the meetings held with the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), an environmental impact statement (EIS) will be required to implement the recommended facilities for the Western Wake County Regional Wastewater Treatment Studies Project. As part of the EIS preparation process, the Project Partners will be required to address environmental impacts at each site identified for construction of new facilities. For the Phase I and Phase II Final Reports, facility locations were identified on maps for illustrative purposes only, and the Phase I Final Report further indicated that site locations could change as a result of preliminary and/or final siting of proposed facilities for each option. Therefore, prior to the preparation of the draft EIS for the proposed project, the Project Partners authorized the CDM/Hazen and Sawyer Team to conduct preliminary site investigations to identify potential sites for the required wastewater management facilities. The results of these investigations are summarized in this memorandum. 8.2 Site Identification Process The four wastewater management options selected for detailed evaluation each included one or two new water reclamation facilities, and the four drainage subbasins in which these . treatment plants would be located included White Oak Creek at Jordan Lake, Beaver Creek, Little White Oak Creek, and White Oak Creek at Harris Lake. The four target locations for new WRFs in these drainage subbasins are shown on Figure 8-1. The land area requirements for each WRF location were based on the proposed treatment plant size(s) for each location, and the estimated land area requirements for the size of each treatment facility, as developed in Technical Memorandum (TM) 3.0. The land area requirements for each target WRF location for the four wastewater management options, Options 1, 5, 9 and 10D, are summarized in Table 8-1. The area requirements for each potential WRF site range from 140 to 180 acres for the four wastewater management options. Based on the area requirements in Table 8-1, alternative WRF sites were selected based on previous reports and USGS topographic maps and other information. The previous reports reviewed were prepared for the Towns of Apex and Cary and included the following: 1) "West Cary/West Apex Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study" prepared for the Towns of Apex and Cary by Arcadis Geraghty & Miller, October 1997. 2) "Long Range Wastewater Facilities Plan for the Town of Apex, North Carolina", prepared by The Wooten Company, December 1999. 3) "Western Wake Regional WRF and South Cary WRF Expansion Analysis", prepared for the Town of Cary by Arcadis, March 2002. r: REPORTS4't0841-012 WakeCounry.dac 2 FINAL -Technical Memorandum 8.0 Western Wake County Regional Wastewater Treatment Studies Project August 31, 2004 Page 3 Table 8-1 WRF Area Requirements for Wastewater Management Oytions for Each Drainage Subbasin 1) White Oak Creek at Jordan Lake: O tion Treatment Capacity, m d Land Area, acres 1 19 145 5 16 130 10D 24* 180 2) Beaver Creek: • Treatment Land Capacity, Area, O tion m d acres 9 18 140 3) Little White Oak Creek: Treatment Land Capacity, Area, O tion m d acres 5 20 150 4) White Oak Creek at Harris Lake: Treatment Land Capacity, Area, O tion m d acres 1 12 110 9 20 150 The size of this WRF was subsequently increased to 27 mgd. • REPORTS13 084 1-0 1 2 WakeOounty.doc FINAL -Technical Memorandum 8.0 Western Wake County Regional Wastewater Treatment Studies Project August 31, 2004 Page 4 Four sites were identified in these reports and are shown on Figure 8-1 above. These sites were included in the investigation of alternative sites for this TM. Additional sites to be investigated were selected based on a map review of potential sites with adequate land area based on the following considerations: a) Outside of 100-year flood plain. b) Not in wetlands. c) Minimum number of perennial or intermittent streams on the site and not within the 100-foot buffer for streams. d) 200-foot buffer around site. To evaluate the sites in terms of these considerations, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) were reviewed to determine the areas within the 100-year flood plain. Potential areas of wetlands were identified using National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps for the project area from the U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Locations of perennial and intermittent streams were determined based on USGS maps. Topography information was also obtained from USGS maps. • Adequate land area to provide a 200-foot buffer was assumed to be included in the area requirements shown in Table 8-1. Based on the above information, 25 additional sites were selected in addition to the four sites identified in the earlier reports. Pertinent information on the 29_ sites are summarized in Table 8-2. A map of the 29 sites is shown on Figure 8-2. After selection of the 29 alternative sites, a general sight investigation from public rights-of- way was conducted for each site. The sight investigation was conducted with two persons, including one with familiarity of the general project area over an extended time period. The observations from the sight reconnaissance are included in Table 8-2. As can be seen from the table, some of the sites do not have adequate land area for some or all of the wastewater management options based on the projected area requirements for each of the four target drainage subbasins. The feasible options based on the estimated land area available for each site are noted in the table. 8.3 Selection of Sites for Detailed Evaluation The information from the preliminary site investigation shown in Table 8-2 was presented to the TMT for selection of 12 sites for detailed evaluation, as specified in the project scope of services. This information, and additional comments and observations of the TMT, were discussed at the meeting of the TMT. Based on this discussion, Sites 11 and 12 were combined into a single site, and the combined site 11/12 and 11 other sites were selected for detailed evaluation. A minimum of two sites for each target drainage subbasin were selected. The sites • selected for detailed evaluation are summarized in Table 8-3 and shown on Figure 8-3. REPORTS~30841-012 WakeOounty.doc 4 • u • ~ v ~O GJ '~ ~. 4J CJ H Yr GJ .u v O y ~ ~ "C~ ~ ~ O O v ~~ ~ ~ u o ,x °o ~ ~ N ~3~ a ~ ~' v y ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ w3¢~, N 00 v H ~ ~, ~. ~ ~ ~; ~ ~i ° U ~ ~ a o ~ ~ ~ ~ o U ~ a ° ~. v ~ A. v ~ ~ :~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ v t~ t6 ~ ~ iii +v+ °' ~ ; ~ x y ~ ~ N ~ o ^" ~ U ~ o ~ o a~ o ; v ~'~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ C7 ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ G ~ ~, ~ , ~ ~ ~ G ~. U ~ v v ~ ~,~ ~ vz .~ ~o ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v u ~ V [ ~ y " X ~ .n ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ .a z ~~ ¢ zu ~ ¢ y ~ w w Q o Q wo~¢¢ ~ z ~ z ~ ~ z z ~. ¢ H ~ O N N e-i M N O ~ o00 H ~ N ~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ c-+ H "t~ v y ~" i" ~ O 00 O GO O o0 O 00 O 00 O Op O ~ O d~ O d~ O ~M ~ ~ ,~, }" N H i--~ H N H ~ N '-+ '--~ v ~~ ~' O O O O O O ' .~ Cn r-+ '--~ ~--1 N N ~--~ ~ O~ O~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ U N sue.. ~ U ~ N ~ . 4 v ~:.k v sue. ~ ~ N sv.. L a~i a~i N a~i ~ a U ~ j U~ U U ~ a a, }. }. s. v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v a a v ~ O .~ O .~ O .~ O .~ O .o O .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ +J o y o ~ o ~ o ~ o ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 2 ~ N ('~ ~r ~ ~p [~ co ~ O ea A a 0 e~ :~ r~"i .~+ .,.~ .,:y ~n s `~ 3 4 0 • CJ • v O ~. ~' •i h .~ '~ ~i v v i. H ~. m v o ''-' ~ ~ ~ o -°. 'bn ~ ~ v ~ o V U p~ O v ~ N F"' r-+ a ~ ~' v ~ ~ Q +' ~ v zv~~ w~QP.-~ N i GO G1 .C E"~ G o v ~ ° G 0 ~ G ~ ~`" ~ G O vi vi ' ' '~ c~ ' ' MM N C. ~. *~ y O x O N v N ~ Q O ~ ~~ ~ ~ N ~ r ~ w v ~ ~ ~ ~ A N ~ 4; ~ 41 , ~ aJ y G y u u , • O ~ , "b Cn y • 'd Cn '~ ~ O ;~ .~ G ~ ,~ ~' ¢ h ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O 3 ~ v y v °1 y v v bo u u ~ G y ~ ~ v O .b N" O ~ O ~ .r ~_ 'd ~ .~+" O v w "L7 O .-r ~ , ~ fn y ~ O u O . . ....., ~ O ~ O ~+ ~i O .•. p~ ~A O V ~ O v ~ D Tf Q • ~ ~ , N ~ .~ t~ ~ ~ N O ,~ y ~ y ~ ~ V ~ ~ U ~U ~ ~~ ~ `v'im °' ~ ~ v R, O ~ ~ * .~ ~'~ ~ u 0 0 0 ~i . 3 ~ ~ U ~ ~ U Z Q Q ~ o x Q o ~~ ~ v ~~ ~ ~ '~" ~ ° ~ ~ O~ Q~ rn rn Z ~n Z 'r' z Z z ~ ~ w cn ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ t1~ N ~ M n ~ Q ~ ~ '-+ ~-r c~ ~-+ e~ r+ e~ ~ ~ 'Ly v •~ ~ ~ O d~ O ~ O d~ O In O Ln O L!7 O L!") O In O Ln O In O t.() p + d1 N ~ e--~ N i--~ c1 N N ~ N N N ~ Q v ~ ~ • ~ ~ rn rn rn ~ u~ ~n ~n ~n ~n ~n ~n O 0 Q v ~ v v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ .~ U U U U U U V U ~ d v v ~ U U U O O O O O O O O v ~ y v v ~ v v v °J v v v v ~ ~ Q as ca cn ~ ~, v v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y :a a s a ~ ~ a a 0 z y ,-~ ~ N .-+ m ~ d+ ~ ~n .-+ ~o ~ t~ ~ oo ~ rn '-+ o N ~ N Q 0 ... ~r H v .~ ...., v CO 0 U Y 3 4 0 a • u .~ O • C1 .., '~ v v ~. H ~, v o '-' ~ _ ~ ~ a ~~ v ~ ~ v ~ ~U~, ~Oo V ~ N OJ N3~ a ~~~v • y ~ ~ w3d~, '~ v .., O v N N H ~ °~ V V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ y 'y_ 'J ~ ~ •~~ y ~ 1. y v 0 I "-1 y ~ 4-.~I V II N v V v ~ ~ y ~ y y N :p ~ ~ v a~i ~ y ~ Cn v V ~ V v y ~ j N ~ j ~ Q; m ~ ~ ~ v v ~ n y K N n N ~ . ~ ~ p +' p a-' 'C7 'C3 ~ ~ ~ 't3 ~ t.. cG fit'. ;~ cC ~ m jy y N U ~ u V c~ -~r ~ ~ ;p v ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ %~ d y~ R cad ~ ~v ~~ ~~ ~ Q z z v ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p. ~ v v v o o o ~" o o~ 0 0 0 a~ ~ v v ~ v ~ Vj v v~ v v v V (d U fC y N V V G1 N U1 G "p G '~ G ~ ~ ~ `~ ~ G ~ ~ d ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ 'C3 ~ ~ ~ -°~ ~ o ^' :-~ ~ .~ ~~ rn rn rn rn rn rn ~ ~ w0~ v Q ~ ~ N O~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ '~ ,~ ~ ~d ~ O .fl '*~ `° ~ a, v rn rn rn rn rn ~ ~ rn ,-+ r N r+ r+ '-+ ~ ~ d0 ~..~ .--a a ~ .a a a ~a ~,~ y . ~ ,~ y ~ y .~ m .~ y .~ .~ ~ x x x x x x x x ~ ~ .~ .x .~ .~ x .~ .~i x ~ v v ~ v v v ~ ~ U U U V U U U V O O O O O O O O Q ~ ~ +~+ as i av+ ~ ap+ ~ p ~z N N N N N N N N i~ A bA '~ y a~ ~. 4+ .~ ...~ v 0 a C 3 (A 0 FINAL -Technical Memorandum 8.0 • Western Wake County Regional Wastewater Treatment Studies Project August 31, 2004 Page 8 Table 8-3 Sites Selected for Detailed Evaluation • • Site No. Drainage Subbasin Preliminary Site Area, acres 3 White Oak Creek -Jordan Lake 230 6 White Oak Creek -Jordan Lake 250 9 Beaver Creek 135 11/12 Beaver Creek 290 14 Little White Oak Creek 160 16 Little White Oak Creek 155 20 Little White Oak Creek 170 21 Little White Oak Creek 165 22 White Oak Creek -Harris Lake 200 25 White Oak Creek -Harris Lake 150 26 White Oak Creek -Harris Lake 170 28 White Oak Creek -Harris Lake 200 Number of White Oak Creek -Jordan Lake Sites 2 Number of Beaver Creek Sites 2 Number of Little White Oak Creek Sites 4 Number of White Oak Creek -Harris Lake Sites 4 Total Number of Sites for Detailed Evaluation 12 REPORTS130841-012 WakeOounty.doc FINAL -Technical Memorandum 8.0 Western Wake County Regional Wastewater Treatment Studies Project August 31, 2004 Page 9 8.4 Detailed Evaluation of Alternative Sites Evaluation Criteria The 12 Sites selected for detailed elevation shown in Table 8-3 were evaluated and compared based on the criteria listed in Table 8-4, and in relation to the four wastewater management options, Options 1, 5, 9, and lOD. As shown in Table 8-4, the criteria were divided into rune categories, with some categories having multiple criteria, i.e., environmental considerations (see Table 8-4). A description of how the data for each category was derived is included below. 1. Number of Property Owners The numbers of parcels and property owners for the sites located in Wake County were obtained using parcel data from the Wake County Geographic Information Services (GIS) using ARCVIEW 8.1. Parcel data from Chatham County was not available online; so, scaled maps of the area of interest were printed from Chatham County's GIS and the site boundaries were drawn on the map. All properties and portions of properties that were within the site • boundaries were counted. A list of the owners of each parcel was generated, and the total number of separate owners was counted. The Number of Parcels criteria was not scored for this category (See Table 8-5). The key criteria for selecting a site is the number of property owners that would be involved in a land purchase for the WRF site. 2. Existing; Land Use Information about each parcel was obtained from the Wake County and Chatham County GIS data. This data included the current land use i.e., residential, agricultural, undeveloped, commercial/ governmental. No other land uses were encountered in the areas of interest. Using aerial photographs of each area, this use was confirmed, and the area of each type within the site boundary was summed and divided by the total site area to determine the percentage for each type land use within each site. Residential parcels greater than 10 acres were counted as 10 acres of residential land use, with the rest of the parcel being counted as undeveloped. This information was provided for completeness only, and was not used to generate a category score. The number of residences within each site, similar to the number of property owners, is one of the key factors in selecting a site. The fewer residences that are impacted the better. Number of Residences is the only criterion that was scored in this category. The number of residences within a site was determined using the parcel data (which identified the existing land use as residential and/or noted the value of any improvements on the property), and aerial photography. Only residences that were physically located within the site boundary as determined from the aerial photograph were counted. • REPORTS130841-012 WakeCounry.doc 9 FINAL -Technical Memorandum 8.0 Western Wake County Regional Wastewater Treatment Studies Project August 31, 2004 Page 10 Table 8-4 Site Evaluation Criteria and Source Reference • • CRITERIA SOURCE 1. Number of Property Owners a. Number of Parcels Wake County and Chatham County GIS b. Number of Property Owners Wake County and Chatham County GIS 2. Existing Land Use a. Number of Residences Wake County and Chatham County GIS b. % Residential Wake County and Chatham County GIS c. °/d Agricultural Wake County and Chatham County GIS d. % Undeveloped Wake County and Chatham County GIS e. % Governmental and/or Commercial Wake County and Chatham County GIS 3. Adjacent Land Use a. Residences within 500 feet Wake County and Chatham County GIS b. Residences within 1000 feet Wake County and Chatham County GIS c. Distance to Town or ETJ Limits Wake County and Chatham County GIS 4. County Location (Wake or Chatham) REPORTS~30841-012 WakeCounty.doc ~ 0 FINAL -Technical Memorandum 8.0 Western Wake County Regional Wastewater Treatment Studies Project August 31, 2004 Page 11 Table 8-4 (continued) Site Evaluation Criteria and Source Reference • • CRITERIA SOURCE 5. Impact on Project Costs a. Road Access Wake County and Chatham County GIS b. Hydric Soils (%) Wake County GIS and U.S. Dept of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Soils Surveys (Wake County and Chatham County) c. Average Site Slope (%) Wake County and Chatham County GIS d. Distance to Proposed Project Documents/Maps Infrastructure e. Depth to groundwater table U.S. Dept of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Soils Surveys (Wake County and Chatham County) f. Depth to rock U.S. Dept of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Soils Surveys (Wake County and Chatham County) 6. Area Ratio (ratio of the actual site Project Documents/Maps area to the area required) 7. Distance to Proposed Site vs. Actual Project Documents/Maps Site Location 8. Environmental Considerations a. Rare/Endangered Species N.C. Natural Heritage Program Maps b. Historical/Archaeological N.C. Department of Cultural Resources Sites N.C. Office of State Archaeology REPORTS~30841-012 WakeCounty.doc 11 FINAL -Technical Memorandum 8.0 Western Wake County Regional Wastewater Treatment Studies Project August 31, 2004 Page 12 Table 8-4 (continued) Site Evaluation Criteria and Source Reference CRITERIA SOURCE c. Wetlands (% of Site) USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Maps d. Intermittent and Perennial Streams (% of Site Impacted) USGS Quad Maps e. Game Lands (°/d of Site Impacted) N.C. CGIA Map Services 9. Other/ Miscellaneous Site Visit Observations, Town Staff Observations, and Wake County GIS 3. Adjacent Land Use • Another key factor in selecting a site is the number of nearby residences and potential future residences that will be impacted by the new WRF. The number of residences located within 500 feet and between 500 and 1000 feet of the site boundary were counted and scored using the same methodology used to count residences within the site boundary. An additional adjacent land use criterion was considered, i.e., Distance to Town/ETJ limits. This criterion reflects the potential for new growth and development within Town limits and Town Extraterritorial Jurisdictions (ETJs) that could be impacted by the new WRF. The distance from the site to the Town/ETJ boundary was measured as the straight line distance from the site boundary to the nearest Town/ETJ boundary. Sites further away from the Town/ETJ limits were given a lower (better) score than those close to Town/ETJ limits. County Location The complexity of adding another local government is an important factor to consider when selecting a site. Sites wholly within Wake County received the best score, while sites wholly in Chatham County received the worst score. Site 6, which is partially in Chatham County and partially in Wake County, received an intermediate score. 5. Impact on Project Costs The criteria in this category were selected to reflect the difficulties and resultant cost impacts related to construction of the WRF on each site. Two of the criteria were eliminated from consideration due to the lack of specificity. These were Depth to Groundwater Table, and • REPORTS~30841-012 WakeCounty.doc ~ `L FINAL -Technical Memorandum 8.0 Western Wake County Regional Wastewater Treatment Studies Project August 31, 2004 Page 13 Depth to Rock. During data collection, limited data could be accurately determined about the groundwater and rock elevations at each site. Therefore, it was determined that these items did not add value to the site selection process. The remaining criteria in this category that were scored include: Road Access, Hydric Soils (%), Average Site Slope (%), and Distance to Proposed Infrastructure. Each site received either the highest or lowest score for road access. Only two sites did not have good road access: Site 20 and Site 26. Site 20 is approximately 1,500 feet from the nearest road and would require a bridge across a stream. Site 26 is more than 2,500 feet from the nearest road and would also require a bridge(s) to cross streams. The hydric soils that were located on each site were determined using the Wake County GIS soils data. Type A hydric soils are defined as those soils that are all hydric soils or have hydric soils as a major component. Type B hydric soils, or soils with inclusions of hydric soils or which have wet spots, were not included. GIS soils data was not available for the sites in Chatham County; so, the hydric soils were reported based on the typical percent of hydric soils given by the USDA Soil Survey for Chatham County for the soils found at these sites. The average site slope for each site was determined by taking the average of six slope measurements, measured over a 1000-foot distance. Each group of measurements included both the flattest and steepest part of each site. Overall, the difference in average site slopes was small, varying from as low as 2.68 percent for Site 22 to as high as 5.38 percent for Site 26 (refer to the spreadsheets in the Appendix for actual percentages). Distance to proposed infrastructure was based on the distance from the proposed WRF site boundary to the nearest point, along the most reasonable route, of the proposed project force main, as identified in the Phase I Final Report. All project costs were based on locating pump stations, force mains and gravity sewers in the specific locations shown in the Phase I Final Report. The further a site is located from these proposed locations, the greater the impact on project costs. The site closest to the proposed infrastructure is Site 28, and the site furthest from the proposed infrastructure is Site 22. The Impact on Project Costs category is difficult to determine accurately without doing more detailed cost analyses. This category attempts to capture some of the major items that relate to each site that could impact project costs. 6. Area Ratio (Actual/Re uired) Three of the four wastewater management options evaluated (Options 1, 5 and 9) assumed two separate WRFs would be constructed, while Option 10D assumed one new WRF. The land area requirements for each are summarized in Table 8-1. This category was designed to penalize sites with an area smaller than that required. For example, Option lOD required a • minimum area of 180 acres for one 27 mgd plant to serve western Wake County. Sites with REPORTS130 6 4 7-01 2 WakeCounty.doc 13 FINAL -Technical Memorandum 8.0 Western Wake County Regional Wastewater Treatment Studies Project August 31, 2004 Page 14 areas greater than 180 acres included Sites 3, 6,11/12,14, 22, and 28. Sites with areas smaller than 180 acres received a higher (worse) score than these sites. The smallest site, Site 9, received the highest score. The size of the site is critical in order to ensure sufficient buffer, room for expansion, and room for the treatment facilities. 7. Distance to Proposed Site vs. Actual Site Location Each of the wastewater management options assumed the WRF(s) would be located in a specific drainage basin. The costs for each option were generated assuming the WRF would be built in a specific location. To help reflect the impact on cost and on operating strategy, the distance from each site's boundary to the point where the originally proposed site was located (as determined in the Phase I Final Report) was measured. For example, for Option 10D the closest site (Site 3) received the lowest (best) score, and the furthest site (Site 28) received the highest (worst) score. The difference in operating strategy, force main sizes, and pump station sizing is a significant factor. It is also important to note that for Option 10D the proposed site location was in the White Oak Creek -Jordan Lake drainage basin; therefore, sites south of US 1 ranked higher for this option (See Figure 8-3). 8. Environmental Considerations Each site was investigated for any environmental issue that could develop from development of the site. Specific criteria that were researched included the presence of rare and/or endangered species, the presence of historical or archaeological sites (including cemeteries), presence of wetlands, and the presence of intermittent and perennial streams. In addition to these criteria, the following databases were searched to determine if there was any information that could impact site selection: Presence of Controlled Chemicals Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRAinfo) http://www.epa.gov/env.iro/html/rcris/rcris query Java html Past Toxic and Nearby Reported Releases Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/tris/tris query html Presence of Rare and Endangered Species North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Quad List (New Hill, Green Level, Farrington, and Merry Oaks) http: / /www.ncsparks.net/ nhpJ search.html • REPORTS130941-012 WakeCounry.doc 14 FINAL -Technical Memorandum 8.0 • Western Wake County Regional Wastewater Treatment Studies Project August 31, 2004 Page 15 Presence of Endangered Species US Fish and Wildlife Service -North Carolina Ecological Services Endangered Species List htip://nc-es.f~nrs.gov/es/coun , ftti r htmi List of Registered Heritage Areas and Dedicated Nature Preserves North Carolina Natural Heritage Program http://ils.unc.edu/parkproject~nhp/DEDREG htm The offices of the North Carolina Division of Waste Management were visited and their quad maps reviewed. Various staff were also interviewed to determine if any Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) sites, landfill sites, or known abandoned dumps were, or had been, located at any of the selected sites. None were found or reported. The North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation, Natural Heritage Program office was • visited and their USGS quad maps were reviewed to determine if any natural areas and/or rare or endangered species were located on any of the sites. None were found. The area to the east of Site 14 did have a historical observance of the rare red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), and a rare salamander (Hemidacftflium scutatum) has been sited southwest of Site 28. The office of the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History was visited and the documented cemeteries were reviewed to see if any existed on any of the selected sites. None were found. The North Carolina Office of State Archaeology was visited and the sites were reviewed for the presence of any historic/archaeological sites. None were found. USGS quad maps were reviewed for the presence of intermittent and perennial streams. When a stream was identified, an estimate of the area around the stream that would be unusable for the site was made primarily based on the assumption of 100-foot buffers, and the assumption that the plant layout would not cross a stream. This total area was divided by the site area to determine the percent of site area impacted. All of the streams identified were intermittent. The USFWS National Wetlands Inventory maps were used to determine the total area of each site impacted by wetlands. This total area impacted by wetlands, which included the wetlands and land determined to be unusable due to the presence of the wetlands was divided by the site area to determine the percent of the site area impacted. The site with the most area impacted was Site 3, with 7.1 percent. • REPORTS130841-072 WakeCounty.doc 15 FINAL -Technical Memorandum 8.0 • Western Wake County Regional Wastewater Treatment Studies Project August 31, 2004 Page 16 LJ • Data from the North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis was used to view a game lands layer for Wake and Chatham County. Scaled maps were printed and the approximate location of game lands for each site was sketched. An approximation of the percent of the total area of each site that was impacted by game lands was determined. The sites impacted by game lands include Site 6, Site 11/12, Site 14, and Site 26. The area impacted by game lands appears to generally coincide with the 500-year flood plain boundary. 9. Other/ Miscellaneous This category is for any other observations made about the site that could impact a site's development. Only two sites were impacted by this category, Site 3, which is bisected by a natural gas pipeline, and Site 21, which is bisected by electrical power lines. An additional variable in the site selection process that was not captured by the categories is the cost impact for individual municipalities in relation to each site. After the data was collected, several criteria were eliminated from consideration. These evaluation criteria and the reasons for their elimination are summarized in Table 8-5 below: Table 8-5 Elimination of Certain Evaluation Criteria CRITERIA REASON FOR ELIMINATION 1.a. Number of Parcels Redundant with property owners 2.b. % Residential, No added value to evaluation and requires 2.c. % Agricultural, more detailed evaluation for proper accuracy 2.d. % Undeveloped, 2.e. % Commercial/Governmental 5.e. Depth to Groundwater Table Soil conservation maps too general, requires detailed site evaluation, varies across the site 5.f. Depth to Rock Soil conservation maps too general, requires detailed site evaluation, varies across the site 8.a. Rare/Endangered Species None located on any site 8.b. Historical/Archaeological Sites None located on any site REPORTS130841-012 WakeCounry.doc 16 FINAL -Technical Memorandum 8.0 Western Wake County Regional Wastewater Treatment Studies Project August 31, 2004 Page 17 Evaluation Results Once the data was collected, scores were generated for each criterion. For the scoring, a value of 5 indicated the worst site and a value of 1 indicated the best site for each category. Scores for sites with values between those for the best and worst sites were determined by interpolation. When a category included multiple criteria, the scoring was adjusted so that each site would receive a maximum value of 5 (worst site) and minimum value of 1 (best site) for each category. Each site was then ranked from 1 to 12 with the lowest scored (best) site receiving a rank of 1 and the highest scored (worst) site receiving a rank of 12. Two of the nine categories, Distance to Proposed Site and Area Ratio, are specific to the selected wastewater management option (1, 5, 9, or 10D). Therefore, different scores and rankings were developed for the four options. Not all of the categories are of equal importance to the site selection. Consequently, a weighting system was derived to increase the value of scores for categories deemed to have a greater impact on the site selection. A combined score was then calculated for each site based on the sum of the scores for the nine categories. These weighting factors, site scores, and site rankings for one of the four wastewater management options, Option 10D, are shown in Table 8-6 and Table 8-7 below. The site ranking spreadsheets for all of the options, as well as • scoring/ranking for each site without the option-specific categories (Distance to Proposed Site, Area Ratio), and without the weighting factors, is included in the Appendix. Table 8-6 Weighting Factors Property Owners 1.5 Existing Land Use 1.5 Adjacent Land Use 1.0 County Location 1.0 Impact on Project Costs o.5 Environmental 0.5 Other/Misc. 1.0 Area Ratio 1.5 Distance to Proposed Site 1.5 • REPORTS~30841-012 WakeCounty.doc ~ 7 FINAL -Technical Memorandum 8.0 . Western Wake County Regional Wastewater Treatment Studies Project August 31, 2004 Page 18 Table 8-7 Weighted Scores and Ranking for Option 10D • Site No. 3 6 9 11/12 14 16 20 21 22 25 26 28 Property Owners 7.5 5.1 6.3 3.5 2.3 3.5 1.5 1.9 1.9 2.5 2.1 2.9 Existing Land Use 7.5 6.4 3.8 4.1 1.5 3.5 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.5 1.8 2.6 Adjacent Land Use 5.0 2.9 2.9 1.5 3.1 2.7 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.7 1.8 2.1 County Location 1.0 3.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Impact on Project Costs 1.4 1.5 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.3 0.5 2.5 0.5 Environmental 2.5 1.9 0.7 1.2 1.9 0.9 0.5 0.5 1.8 0.5 1.6 0.5 Other/Misc. 5.0 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Area Ratio 1.5 1.5 7.5 1.5 1.5 5.0 5.2 4.4 1.5 4.6 4.4 1.5 Distance to Proposed Site 1.5 2.5 4.9 3.6 5.9 5.0 6.7 7.1 7.5 5.8 5.8 7.0 Total Weighted Score 32.9 25.7 29.0 22.5 19.3 23.7 19.9 23.8 19.0 19.0 22.0 19.1 Rank 12 10 11 7 4 8 5 9 1 2 6 3 REPORT5~30841-012 WakeCounry.doc FINAL -Technical Memorandum 8.0 • Western Wake County Regional Wastewater Treatment Studies Project August 31, 2004 Page 19 The site scoring/ranking data revealed that sites located south of US 1, or in the less populated southeast portion of Wake County ranked the lowest (most favorable). This is primarily because the parcels in this part of the County are larger, meaning less property owners and less residences on and/ or adjacent to these sites. The site scoring/ ranking data also revealed that sites located north of US 64, Sites 3 and 6, always ranked highest (least favorable) for all wastewater management options (See Appendix). These sites impacted the greatest number of residences and had the greatest number of property owners. Based on these investigations, and discussions with the Technical Management Team, three possible sites were selected for the new water reclamation facility. For planning purposes, Site 14 was selected for use in developing facility cost estimates for raw wastewater conveyance, wastewater treatment, sludge management and disposal, and effluent discharge to the Cape Fear River. The selection of a preferred site for a new water reclamation facility is scheduled to be completed by October 2004. A layout of the process units fora 27 mgd water reclamation facility was developed for Site 14. This layout is for representative purposes only and is shown on Figure 8-4. The topography, road access, and location in relation to the proposed infrastructure will vary • from site to site, and the water reclamation facility layout would vary accordingly. • REPORTS~3o841-012 WakeCounty.doc 19 • • APPENDIX :7 Close Response Highlights of Commissioners' Meeting of June 20, 2005 Pe~by 'bi Reeves on 0fi.%21x20(15 at (14:16 P~1 Cate Tar ~: Board Hi ~hliehts • Approved minutes of the Commissioners' meetings for June 6, 2005, and June 13, 2005. • Recognized the following five properties as historic landmarks: • Falls of the Neuse Manufacturing Company • Jesse Penny House and Outbuildings • Hartsfield-Perry House • Edenwood . Bennett Bunn Plantation Approved by consent all agenda items as follows: • Budget revisions to the FY05 General Fund, Special Revenue Fund, Debt Service Fund and Risk Management Fund budgets, as described below. • A revision to the Workforce Development Project Ordinance. • Project Closure and Reallocation for Wake Technical Community College Capital Projects. The 1993 Holding Hall project will be closed and the unexpended balance of $33,788 transferred to the • new Holding Hall project being established as part of the 2006 Capital Improvement Program. . Multi-Year contracts for convenience center operations and multi-material solid waste recycling facilities. • . A grant from the US Department of the Interior for the Completion of Phase I of an updated survey of Wake County's Historic Resources. The survey, an inventory of over 2,200 properties, serves as the foundation for all preservation planning activity in Wake County. . A $3,934,574 Federal Aviation Administration grant offer for relocating a segment of existing Taxiway D several hundred feet to the north so that the Terminal C apron can be expanded, which in turn will provide a site to expand terminal facilities to the north of the existing Terminal C site. • A construction contract for the Morrisville/RTP Sanitary Sewer System, Phase lA, in the amount of $931,130.90 to Ralph Hodge Construction of Wilson, N.C. • Appointment of Julie and Will Walls of the United States Equine Rescue League, Inc., as Animal Cruelty Investigators as established in 19A-45 of the N.C. General Statutes. • A State Library Grant of $45,000 for Internet access support. No County matching funds are required. Acted on these items under the regular agenda: • Adopted the FY 2006 budget ordinances to implement the fiscal year 2005 operating and capital budgets as amended on June 13 2005 The totals of each fu d re: n a General Fund $ 808,796,000 Debt Service 123,826,000 Revaluation Reserve 1,045,262 911 Fund 1,232,400 Risk Management 26,958,800 Solid Waste Management ( 121,085,249 1 Fire Tax District Fund 17,603,178 Ma'or Facilities Fund 24,929,000 Affordable Housing Fund 3,883,463 Capital Improvement Fund 125,582,481 • Approved the Home and Community Care Block Grant and plans submitted by Wake County Human Services, Meals on Wheels and Resources for Seniors. • Approved an operating budget for the Greater Raleigh Convention and Visitors Bureau for fiscal year 2006 in the amount of $3,320,000. • Authorized the issuance of an emergency medical transportation franchise for operation of emergency ambulance service by Eastern Wake EMS, Inc., and retirement of emergency medical transportation franchises for Knightdale EMS, Inc., Wendell EMS, Inc., and Zebulon EMS, Inc. • Approved contracts with Knightdale EMS, Inc., Wendell EMS, Inc., and Zebulon EMS, Inc., for delivery of emergency medical services in Wake County. By mutual consent, Knightdale EMS, Inc., Wendell EMS, Inc., and Zebulon EMS, Inc., are merging into a single, new squad, Eastern Wake EMS, Inc. • Held a public hearing and adopted a resolution naming the road beginning at Humie Olive Road and extending north approximately 7001inear feet as Cross Country Lane. • Approved aone-time funding request from the Tammy Lynn Center for Developmental Disabilities in the amount of $100,000, with the funding to come from the Board of Commissioners contingency fund. . Approved the agreement with Town of Cary and SAS Institute, Inc., for athree-year naming • agreement for SAS Soccer Park. The new agreement provides for an additional three-year commitment, with a continuation of the annual payment of $150,000. In return, the facility will continue to be named the SAS Soccer Center. Proceeds from the agreement will be used to support the ongoing maintenance and operation of the facility. • Approved Ordinance Amendment OA OS/O1 amending the Wake County Zoning Ordinance to establish provisions for residential density bonuses. The ordinance amendment will create a variety of options to allow residential density bonuses as incentives for providing one or more of the following developments: • Coordinated development of adjacent parcels • Workforce housing • Mixed-use developments • Substantial amounts of open space • Received information from the Board of Education on a reallocations and re-appropriation of Plan 2004 funds. This item will be placed on the July 11 agenda for approval. • Approved amendments to the Emergency Medical Services agreements between Wake County and Cary EMS, Inc:, and Six Forks Rescue, Inc., to provide for response to RDU. Upon approval and execution of these amendments, RDU and Wake EMS staff will submit to the Board of Commissioners a revised agreement for delivery of emergency medical services at RDU. Adoption of these amendments does not require any new funding on the part of Wake County. . Approved a motion requesting the Town of Cary to delay for 30 days any condemnation on property proposed for the Western Wake regional wastewater treatment plant site, to re-examine criteria used to .select the site, to hold additional public meetings on the issue, and to request from the State of North Carolina additional time to place the plant in service. • Authorized staff to proceed with the following acquisition to support the development of the Little River Reservoir Project: approximately 63.85 acres owned by Jimmy W. Perry and Sonny M. Perry, Jr., at a purchase price of $400,000. As a part of the consideration for this purchase, the property will be leased back to the Seller for agricultural purposes for a period of five years for $1 per year. • Authorized staff to proceed with the following acquisitions to support the development of the Neuse River Open Space Project: a conservation/greenway easement on approximately 15 acres owned by River ridge of Raleigh, LLC, at a purchase price of approximately $38,000 as per actual survey. As a part of the consideration for the purchase of this property, the County agrees to assist Seller in the administrative process of recombining the remainder of four residential lots into two residential lots. • C7 - ---- -------~--- -- '--+t - -- -- o ~ R-I~ ,E ~ Q --- y ~ w ___ Land Use Types 1 > Q- N ~ Activity Center ~ Neighborhood or Community uu o ° r , rJrJ G y p' ~ U .n_ wa.°, •°°AS~ ~°i~atl0, na m~~~°°„~~*°~N, bites 'N _ Q~y~ ~v = ~ ~ Fllstoric Existing Jordan Lake is ReseNn,„property ~ ~ ~ HIG HODS w ~ Z a -0 FLI ~ °eaar+iam.°°~ in" ~~ ~ " ~~GS~ ~O Y .~, fro 9.a ~~. ~ ..;~ :' "fi,aN EV ~. - ~ ~ CARY MAYNAR RD W rn oRp Gµ~c~ - j r .~ ~O o° ~ mnr ~ w~~o ~ ~- p ~~ l ~ °e Resitlential C ] ~J~r ,r.~.-~. d ~O Q CARY p ~:~ ~° °,~~~ ~< o `~ , ~ ^~ 1 . JET SW ° , , Employment Center ~~ ' 'li ~~ r - t ° e Community Activity Cen ve aiw~re mmo:o -/ i '~`P.. ~ m°~°o ,p~,° ~~ ~ , ~ , `°° 64 ~ ~ ~p y CHAPEL D r~ ~° mood Activity canter i 9 ~t ~ Ne 9hbc ~ b °m~N ! 1 w ~ Y A C CEN G TFR ST ql • W1. anawaamre / ~ ,,.,wY~„=,„„ ~ "''.° APES ~ mrv s NV Ro 1\• 1 I ,- Main Stream or Lake Area ~ , 1 \ , ~~ ~ ~T. y ~ PRN t_ ...~.~, i / O ,„sue , ~'~ y ~ ~ rl' ~F „ r~N.~,n~~w~m°~.~~m. s° . 1 ~~ Park or ~ ~ •~. ~ ~ ~. ~f ~ ~ . ~~ 1 J - F RQ ~~,, Recreatbn Facility .._.. •-~ 1,_ ~ r ~ ~- (_ d ' ° N~ _ ' ~ ~ ~'~~~^ \ ~ ~~ j ~ Cnhcal Watershe 0 ~ ' ~ Area ,A ° a ° _ ~~ 1 -- J ~ ~ i Y „~° 3 ~ --- ~ f r . °~ Public Schools _ V ols T, r. .~"" r 11 SG~ "'y + J y~ Proposed Scho ~ ~ s _ ~, _ ~ ~'.~ ~, Elementary / / ~ -%-~(. , ' ~~ ~ 1 i, ~ Middle ,~ :>~ T _-~ r 'K _ j J i J BgSS ' ' LJ- ~ ~,~.r ~kF J . _ - - O.RP ~ R. ~ ~ 1 i J ~ l~ ~ ~~ ~ 2 III " `~ _ ~~~ ~_, ~ -~ r.i ' ~- -.L ~ g ~, ` ~ rr_ ~ ~• .~_.'l._.~.. Q' 7 i,~~--o~ m ~• ~ P ~ 1 / ^-- C O Z _J - ~ ,, 7 .. 70 _ ~ ° ' FUQUA ~ E CADEMY 7 1 9y Outsiee study Area ~ C/ ~~ Existing Landfill ~` il ,p ~ QI Q Industrial proposed TTA Ra al ~°° ~ ~ , 42 `.--- Greenways ~~1 pffice and InsGWtion L J ,~__ _```\ proposed Landfill proposed Mapr ® Highways ~~ ®Waler Bolles ° - .. tia° M >r.°°,° ° r w°~°s;;°" ~ °~ °~ oAKE Southwest Wake ~ 2 l Land Use Plan: 0 p~ es Mi Area ~„~ Land Use Classification Map Introduction This section of the New Hill Community Association, Inc. Response to the Deparhnent of Environment and Natural Resources Review Of The Western Wake Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility EIS has to do with many errors that were made during the site selection process. Questions or comments about this section should be directed to: Paul Barth President, New Hill Community Association, Inc. PO Box 68 New Hill, NC 27562 (919) 362-7905 Bob Kelly PO Box 68 New Hill, NC 27562 (919) 880-6181 ~~b lj J ~.~ I~~ ~ :~ ZSJG~ ~,,, ~ ~; ; t ~ ~ b "~ r ~., is t ~~s,~y~y ::?. t ~, ~~~~~u ~,,? i R . , . _ .. . Table of Contents L~ • • I. Procedural Issues. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Page 1 A. Public Notification. ................................................... . Pagel 1. Communications plan not followed . ........................................ . Page 1 2. Interlocal Agreement . ................................................... . Page 2 3. Minimize public input . ...................................... ........... . Page 4 B. Lack of Local Government Representation. ......................... . Page 5 1. Wake County Commissioners abdicated their responsibility . ................... . Page 5 2. Wake County Commissioners minimize their involvement . .................... . Page 5 3. Cary Town Council and Cary Mayor make misleading statements . ............. . Page 6 4. New Hill is only a zip code . ............................................... . Page 7 C. Withholding /Misleading Information. ....... . ....................... . Page 7 1. New Hill request for documents . .......................................... . Page 7 2. Mayor McAlister issues a "gag order" . ..................................... . Page 8 3. More misleading statements . .............................................. . Page 8 4. Putting the blame on DENR . .............................................. . Page 8 5. New Hill will be served . .................................................. . Page 9 6. Progress Energy land . ................................................... Page 10 D. Social /Cultural Issues. .............................................. Page 11 1. Historical or societal issues not considered . ................................. Page 11 2. Green Level Historic District . ............................................. Page 11 3.DCR Statements . ....................................................... Page 12 4. New Hill Baptist Church Proclamation . .................................... Page 13 S. Cary Stench . ........................................................... Page 13 E. Site Selection. ........................................................ Page13~' 1. The engineering study, funded by tax payer dollars, was not used . .............. Page 13 2. Twenty nine sites were reduced to twelve sites.. .............................. Page 13' 3. Town employees make final site selection . .................................. Page 13 4. Progress Energy given preferential treatment . .............................. Page 14 5. Using tax dollars to support private companies . ............................. Page 16 6. The site selection was not handled as our forefathers envisioned . ............... Page 16 I1. Sewage Spills. ....................................................... Page 17 I11. Department of Environment and Natural Resources Review. ............................................................... Page 21 A. DENR not receiving proper information. ........................... Page 21 B. Previous impacts on New Hill residents. .............. . . . . ........ Page 21 C. New Hill Community Association Petition. ........................ Page 21 IV. Summary. ............................................................ Page 22 1. Procedural Issues. .................................................. Page 22 11. Sewage Spills. ...................................................... Page 23 111. DENR Review. ...................................................... Page 23 V. Recommendations. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Page 24 Recommendationsforfuture projects. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, page 24 hments ............................................................. Page 1~F,NR Resn~nse.lwn New Hill Community Association, Inc. Response 1. Procedural Issues. A. Public Notification. The Western Wake Partnership failed to adhere to both public notification and approval procedures that have been approved by their respective governing bodies (e.g., Town Boards, Councils or Commissions) 1. Communications plan not followed. a. The communication plan (Tab 1) calls for at least 30-day notification prior to each public meeting. However, notification of a June 14, 2005 meeting was not mailed until June 2, 2005. (Tab 21 Cary reports that 158 people living within 3/4 mile of the Seymour Farm (Site C) were notified. - People living within 3/4 mile of the other two sites were not notified. T( ab 3) - At the June 14, 2005 meeting the consultants stated many times that a final decision has not been made as to the site selection. However, based on the following, we believe the site selection had been finalized: 1. Residents living near the other two sites located in the New Hill area were not notified of the meeting. • 2. Cary required the other partners (Apex, Holly Springs and Morrisville) to submit a letter stating they agreed with the "preferred" New Hill site. The letter requesting the partners to approve the "preferred" New Hill site was sent in early June, prior to the June 14, 2005 meeting. Reference I.A.2 below. b. The Town of Cary did not notify New Hill residents that property in the center of the New Hill community was being considered for a sewage plant, other than the family who owned the selected property. As a result of a New Hill community meeting held May 31, 2005, Cary hastily scheduled the June 14, 2005 information session. Cary had planned to condemn the property at their June 9, 2005 council meeting, however, because of the large public outcry, Cary decided to wait until after the June 14, 2005 public meeting. (Tab 91 c. The communications plan also calls for a minimum of two public meetings. To date, only one has been scheduled, and it did not meet the 30 day notification requirement. • d. The plan states the information vehicles most communication of information include: • Utility bills, bill inserts, and newsletters; • Cary TV 11; • Paycheck stuffers; • Employee newsletters; • Employee staff meetings. likely to be utilized in the DENR Response.lwp Page 1 of 24 New Hill Community Association, Inc. Response • None of the above methods of communication were intended to reach the people of New Hill. e. Another method of communication was to use the Internet, including a special Web section with new URL linked to by all Partners and an Electronic Mailing List Subscription Service. Cary failed to realize that many of the residences whose homes border the selected site do not have Internet access. f. While the communication plan stated an open house was scheduled for January 2005, in fact no meeting occurred until after a local resident discovered the plan to place the sewage plant in New Hill. Then Cary hastily arranged a meeting for June 14. Not only did this meeting take place after the site was chosen, it also took place after the bond referendum was passed by the towns that make up the Western Wake Partners. 2. Interlocal Agreement. • • The Interlocal Agreement for Land Acquisition for the Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities, dated January 26, 2005 called for each of the towns to provide written approval to the lead agency (Cary) for the land parcels identified for acquisition. Cary provided a letter for each of the towns to sign and return to Cary. The intent of the letter was to inform Cary that the towns agree with and concur with the selection of the site of the sewage plant. T( ab 16) Apex Mayor Weatherly exceeded his authority and signed the letter, at the urging of Bruce Radford, Apex Town Manager, without the Apex Board of Commissioners discussing or voting on the site selection. Section 2-23 of the Code of Ordinances for the Town of Apex httn:.;l~brarvtest.mu~licode.co~nimec/home.htm'?infobase=1389:~c~,doc mzthod=cleardt>c require the Mayor to sign all written instruments authorized [emphasis added] by the board. Documentation supporting our position follows: a. Apex Town Commissioner Bill Jensen writes in a June 24, 2005 email to Apex Town Manager Bruce Radford, "Well, Cary made the decision on the waste water site selection that I certainly hoped they would not. I my opinion, you had a good part in that decision by having Weatherly sign a letter that went around any decision making process by the Apex Board of Commissioners. This town is supposed to be run by the commissioners, not the staff, and it appears too often that it is the other way around." (Tab 171 b. Commissioner Jensen then writes to Apex Town Commissioner Mike Jones in a July 1, 2005 email, "I would like to discuss if and how we might rescind the letter Keith accidentally sent to Cary ... " Ta( b 17) DENR Response.lwp Page 2 of 24 New Hill Community Association, Inc. Response c. The minutes of the December 20, 2005 Apex Board of Commissioners meeting state the Board has never voted on the site. Ta( b 17) d. Once it was known the letter was sent in error, Mayors McAlister and Weatherly attempt to cover up or hide the mistake. Kim Fisher writes in a September 13, 2005 mail to Leila Goodwin, "It seems that Mayor McAlister has been working behind the scenes with Mike Jones and Keith Weatherly to keep from reopening the site selection process. To accomplish this, Mayor McAlister has agreed to have Mike Jones and Keith Weatherly, as well as the Mayor and one other elected official from each of the other project partners meet with Tommy Esqueda and Bob DiFiore (my suggestion) to ask them questions about sites that Mike Jones is interested in and any other sites of concern." (Tab 181 Kim Fisher writes an email dated September 14, 2005 to Bill Coleman confirming who will attend the meeting mentioned above. Tab 18) e. On September 20, 2005 a closed meeting was secretly held. Even though members of the New Hill community had attended many Apex Cary, and Wake County Council Meetings expressing our dismay at the secretive methods used so far, no one from New Hill was invited to the meeting nor were we notified about the meeting until a November 19, 2005 article in the News and Observer. Ta( b 19) The new site has been referred to as Site 30. Excerpts form the article: Mayor McAlister stated he agreed to the meeting "as an accommodation" to a fellow elected official who had found a piece of land the towns had not considered before". McAlister went on to state, "There was never any serious consideration" given to moving the plant." It is interesting to note the results of the discussions on Site 30 estimated it will cost $3 million additional dollars to utilize Site 30 than the Seymour Farm (Site C). This is less than one percent of the expected cost of the sewage plant, plus this site does not ruin a historic district and disrupt two churches, four rest homes, and many residences. To put this cost into prospective, note that Cary is spending $1.4 million to construct a pedestrian bridge over US 1 to connect two portions of their greenway, yet refuses to spend money to move the sewage plant from the center New Hill and protect it's historic district. • DENR Response.lwp Page 3 of 24 New Hill Community Association, Inc. Response • 3. Minimize public input. Western Wake Partners have tried to minimize public participation in and inquiry about the site selection process. a. Carl Dean, Holly Springs Town Manager stated in a December 16, 2004 email, "We need to develop a method to handle these utility projects without the public hearing requirement" . T( ab 6) b. Susan Moran, Cary Public Information Officer, stated in an 11/30/2004 email to Sharon Brown, Wake County Public Information Officer, "..the partners have agreed that we want to avoid publicity for as long as possible..." T( ab 4) • • c. Other evidence that suggests the WWP was not interested in open and honest communication is evidenced by an email written by Leila Goodwin, Water Resources Manager for the Town of Cary. In her May 27, 2005 email to many of the Western Wake Partner staff members, she writes, "If you get questions from the media, direct them to Susan Moran. If you get questions from citizens direct them to the web site." Tab 5 d. The Western Wake Partners have ignored the large outcry from the media (Tab G) and from New Hill residents. These articles may be read in their entirety at: ~~~w~.Ne~~~I-1i11C::~.or~ T( ab 30) shows the large number of meetings New Hill residents have attended to inform the towns of the impact to our community. e. Because New Hill residents have not been allowed a forum with the Western Wake Partners, we were forced to place ahalf--page ad in the Cary News to inform the public on the issues we have faced, and the deceitful methods by which the site selection process took place. T( ab .n f. Following our ad in The Cary News, WLFL-TV, Channel 22, had a segment about the sewage plant. Following the segment, an online opinion poll was generated and viewers were asked to access the WLFL web site to vote on the question: Do you think New Hill residents have a legitimate complaint? The results of the poll were: 96% Yes, 4% No 41 people chose to submit comments along with their vote. T( ab H) While this is not a scientific poll, it clearly shows the overwhelming majority of those participating in the poll think the residents of New Hill have a legitimate complaint. The comments were from the following cities: DENR Response.lwp Page 4 of 24 New Hill Community Association, Inc. Response • Cit ,State Number of Comments A ex, NC 13 Beaumont, Texas 1 Ca , NC 1 Hillsborou h, NC 1 Holl S rin s, NC 1 Morrisville, NC 1 New Hill, NC 14 Pittsboro, NC 1 Ralei h, NC 4 West Chester, PA 1 Willow S rin , NC 1 Youn sville, NC 1 Undetermined 1 As shown by the above examples, the Western Wake Partners have failed the citizens of their towns and the County by their treatment of New Hill residents. B. Lack of Local Government Representation. 1. Wake County Commissioners abdicated their responsibility. • It is the opinion of the New Hill Community Association that the Wake County Commissioners abdicated their responsibility to represent New Hill residents and protect the New Hill Historic District by withdrawing from the Western Wake Partnership. The first interlocal agreement dated July 28, 2004 included Wake County as one of the partners. However, the interlocal agreement was amended on Jan 26, 2005, at which time Wake County withdrew from the partnership. New Hill is an unincorporated community. Thus, the Wake County Commissioners are our elected representation, and are charged with the responsibility of this Community's welfare. 2. Wake County Commissioners minimize their involvement. Also, Wake County Commissioners and their staff have endeavored to minimize the Commissioners involvement this project. For example, a. In a June 1, 2005 email from Wake County Manager David Cooke to Apex Town Manager Bruce Radford, Mr. Cooke states, "My goal is to help keep us on track without the Board of Commissioners from having to get involved or being dragged in". T( ab9) b. In a July 9, 2004 email from Phil Stout, a Wake Co. employee, to Kim Fisher, Cary Director of Public Works and Utilities, Mr. Stout states, "Actually, it is absolutely our preference to not be part of the land acquisition.." Ta( b10) • DENR Response.lwp Page 5 of 24 New Hill Community Association, Inc. Response • Further evidence of the Wake County Commissioners not representing the residents of New Hill is the fact that someone representing the Wake County Commissioners attended the secret 9/20/2005 meeting where Site 30 was discussed. Reference I.A.2.e above. No one from the Wake County Commissioner's office notified New Hill residents about the meeting. 3. Cary Town Council and Cary Mayor make misleading statements. The Cary Town Council voted to condemn the site in New Hill at their June 23, 2005 Meeting. During this meeting, the Council demonstrated their lack of respect for the residents of New Hill. a. During this meeting, Council Member Jennifer Robinson publicly scolded the New Hill residents. Her statements are not reflected in the Meeting Minutes. Ta( b 11), however, the audio transcript of the meeting reflects her statements. hats:/iwww.tawnof'ca~•y.os•Pfnnedlaudic~lauclial.htrr~ The N&O Article, "No laughing matter" describes Ms. Robinson's unprofessional behavior. Ta( b 12) b. Mayor McAlister told the Cary Town Council, "As recently as yesterday, Ms. Dorrel and myself met with a representative group from New Hill and answered their questions." Ta( b 11) • The Mayor is correct that he did meet with four people from New Hill. The Mayor gave the impression that he had answered all questions, although he knew that he and Ms. Dorrel had not done so. The New Hill group had many unanswered questions, particularly about cost analysis. Mayor McAlister's statements are not reflected in the printed Meeting Minutes, Ta( b 11) however, they are recorded in the audio transcript: iitt~pa/r~°~sr~e~.t~~w~~ofcare~.org/rnediaudial'audiol .hhn c. During this meeting there was a discussion as to whether to grant a 30 day delay to allow the residents of New Hill to become more familiar with the plans for the sewage plant. Previously the Wake County Commissioners passed a resolution that stated Cary should honor New Hill's request. Apex agreed to have Mayor Weatherly contact Mayor McAlister to discuss delaying the project for 30 days. Mayor McAlister addressed the 31 "..a vote to delay ultimately a vote stressed that the risk with this decision." Ta( b 11) )day delay during the meeting by stating, the condemnation action is to delay the project. He council cannot take this critical infrastructure The July 28, 2004 Interlocal Agreement between the Western Wake Partners, • Paragraph 2.04 states, DENR Response.lwp Page 6 of 24 New Hill Community Association, Inc. Response • "In the event that any of the parcels must be acquired by the exercise of the power of eminent domain, the County will make best efforts to institute such an action in its name on behalf of the Municipal Parties no later than June 30, 2006." (Tab 13 Since land acquisition did not need to occur until June 30, 2006, how can delaying the June 23, 2005 condemnation by 30 days cause the project to slip? 4. New Hill is only a zip code. The following exemplifies the feelings of all the towns towards the residents of New Hill. Kim Fisher, Cary's Director of Public Works, writes in a July 18, 2005 email to Leila Goodwin, "Seems to me New Hill is a zip code, not a community". Tab 15 The attitude expressed my Mr. Fisher exemplifies the lack of concern that the town staff has shown toward the historic and cultural concerns of the citizens of New Hill. Had the town staff taken those concerns seriously, the town council would have been more receptive to receiving and reviewing our concerns. • C. Withholding /Misleading Information. 1. New Hill request for documents. The New Hill Community Association has written many letters and emails to each of the towns requesting copies of all documentation pertaining to the sewage plant. Our letters to the partners were very specific in that they requested copies of ALL documents pertaining to the sewage plant. This documentation was requested pursuant to the Public Records Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 132-1 to 132-10. The first letter was sent in early August, 2005. At first Cary stated our request was not specific, so they only provided documents from September 2005. Additional follow-up letters resulted in Cary and Apex staff members providing information for which they were the custodian during October 2005. T( ab 7) However, Mayor McAlister and the Town of Cary Council Members have not provided the requested information. Cary Town Manager Bill Coleman, in an attempt to manipulate the press and the public, stated in his letter to the editor of the September 30, 2005 News and Observer, "Cary is Complying" T( ab 8). Morrisville has ignored all requests for information. Holly Springs provided the requested documents during December 2005. C As shown by the above examples, .the Western Wake Partners did not effectively communicate to New Hill residents information about the sewage plant, nor have they fully complied with the NC open records law. Given the lack of response from elected officials, it is not surprising State Attorney General DENR Response.lwp Page 7 of 24 New Hill Community Association, Inc. Response • Roy Cooper has recently make it a priority to provide instructions to municipalities on how to comply with the state open records law. A March 14, 2006 article in The News & Observer, (Tab M) states his office and the N.C. Press Association are putting together a sunshine manual for government officials. 2. Mayor McAlister issues a "gag order". Even though Mayor McAlister told the Cary Town Council he and they will continue to work with the residents of New Hill, a few weeks later he issued a "gag order". In a July 5, 2005 email Holly Springs Town Manager Carl Dean wrote to Holly Springs employees, it is clearly stated Mayor Weatherly has issued a "gag order". A portion of the email states, "Representatives of Cary should be the only ones responding to inquiries about this project". "Cary is the lead agency in this project and any comments should come from representatives of that town. Period. Nothing more." T( ab14) 3. More misleading statements. • On the August 7, 2005 NBC 17 television program, At Issue, Susan Moran, Public Information Officer for Cary, made a statement about using one of the Progress Energy sites, "You're talking about pumping raw sewage - twice as much as you need to." When asked to supply supporting data to this assertion, no reply was received from Ms. Moran. Ta( b 221 4. Putting the blame on DENR. a. At the October 11, 2005 meeting of the Southwest Wake Area Land Use Plan Advisory Committee meeting, Mr. Kim Fisher, Cary Director of Public Works and Utilities, stated that DENR is requiring a single facility for wastewater treatment in the area. However, the Phase 1 Study Executive Summary, Section 5.0, page ES-6 states, "The representatives from DENR indicated that it was not their expectation, nor their requirement, that this planning study result in a wastewater management solution that proposed one large water reclamation facility to serve all the local governments in western Wake County. " ~vti~~.~.~~~stcr~n«-~lc~t~ari~~ers.o~-~iu[~aselstud~,,,~adl' When asked about the conflict between the statement he had just made and the statement in the Phase 1 Study, Mr. Fisher stated that he was "not familiar" with the statement in the Executive Summary. To date, no evidence has been provided that DENR did, in fact, require a single facility. b. Leila Goodwin, water resources manager, made the same statement at the Clean Water Management Trust Fund Meeting on July 11, 2005. Again, there is no documentation to support this statement. wwr~a~.c«~mtf.r~etl~ulutl5min.doc DENR Response.lwp Page 8 of 24 New Hill Community Association, Inc. Response • 5. New Hill will be served. Although Cary's Communication Plan states that they will work with the media to disseminate accurate information and correct misinformation in a timely fashion, they and other Western Wake Partners have distributed incorrect and misleading information. The following are examples of incorrect and misleading information as to whether New Hill residents will have access to water and sewer services as a result of the proposed waste treatment facility: a. In a May 25, 2005 email, Susan Moran, Cary Public Information Officer, writes, "New Hill man is calling media saying that there "WILL" be a meeting next to uncover our "SECRET" wastewater project plans. One incorrect complaint he's throwing out is that New Hill will not be served." (Tab 20) b. The Western Wake Partner's Web Site: ~;~~~~~~.westen~u-akepartners.or~T~`fac~.httr~ indicates water and sewer service will be available to properties in the New Hill area from either the Town of Apex or the Town of Holly Springs. This web site directs questions regarding -the policies and procedures for water and sewer service connections, as well as the schedule for water and sewer service extensions, to Tim Donnelly at the Town of Apex or Stephanie Sudano at the Town of Holly Springs. c. As recently as February 16, 2006, Susan Moran, Cary Public Information Officer, is quoted in a News 14 Carolina article as saying, "She also said New Hill residents, who currently have septic tanks, will be able to benefit from the plant" Ta( b21) Although these comments have a basis in fact, they are at a minimum misleading. These responses leave the impression that New Hill residents will have ready and immediate access to both water and sewer services, when in fact, that is not the case. None of these statements address either the time frame or costs associated to New Hill residents with receiving water and/or sewer service. Information provided by Tim Donnelly, Apex Public Works Director, indicates New Hill residents will NOT be served by the sewage plant unless, and until New Hill is annexed by Apex. Currently there is no timeline for providing this service to New Hill residents and the costs to New Hill residents associated with subscribing to these services are tremendous. • For example: We understand Apex charges a connection fee in the range of $4,000 - $6,000 per residence. Assume the home is 100 feet from the street, and the cost per linear foot of water and sewer pipe is $35 ($70 per linear foot) then this adds $7,000 to the cost connection cost, which brings the total fee above $10,000 per residence. 6. Progress Energy land. DENR Response.lwp Page 9 of 24 New Hill Community Association, Inc. Response • Cary has provided incorrect information regarding discussions with Progress Energy to locate the proposed waste treatment facility on Shearon Harris property. a. When asked if Cary had approached Progress Energy about placing the sewage plant on the Shearon Harris property, Bill Coleman, Cary Town Manager, stated in a June 20, 2005 email, "We had a meeting with Progress Energy today. The gist of the meeting .was that Progress Energy does not want the wastewater plant on their site even if it could work economically . " Ta( b 23) b. An email from Stephanie Sudano, Holly Springs Director of Engineering, dated July 5, 2005 indicates Progress Energy was not contacted about locating the proposed facility on their property. In Ms. Sudano's email she states, "Was PGN property evaluated? Yes it was. Was PGN contacted for their property? No." (Tab 23) • c. When representatives of the New Hill Community Association (President Paul Barth and Vice-president David Bristol) met with Progress Energy representatives (Marty Clayton, Manager -Community Relations Northern Region, and Tom Trocheck, Director, Land Management), on July 8, 2005, Messrs. Barth and Bristol were informed that Progress Energy had not been asked by Cary for property to site a sewage plant. Ta( b 23) d. Further indication that Cary and the Western Wake Partners are providing false and misleading information is reflected in an article printed in the July 11, 2005 edition of The News and Observer, "The partnership says it can't build a treatment plant on the Harris land because no land is available. Progress Energy is keeping some in case it wants to expand the power plant, said Kim Fisher, head of Cary's public works and utilities . " (Tab 23) e. Assume for a minute that Bill Coleman's statement listed above is true; Why does Progress Energy get to choose whether the sewage plant is constructed on their property while the Seymour family (owners of the condemned property in New Hill) and the New Hill community have no such choice? When multiple sources were asked the same question, different answers were given. The above are clear examples of Cary, the lead agent for the WWP, deliberately making false and misleading statements to the media and the general public in order to cover up the injustices inflicted upon the residents of New Hill. • I D. Social /Cultural Issues. DENR Response.lwp Page 10 of 24 New Hill Community Association, Inc. Response C~ 1. Historical or societal issues not considered. The Western Wake Partners web site states, "The proposed facility must be located on a site that protects citizens' quality of life. This means keeping the facility footprint as far away as possible from homes, parks, churches, playgrounds, and other areas important to citizens. The residences directly affected by a location as well as those nearby are taken into account." This same statement was repeated in a June 9, 2005 email from Leila Goodwin, Water Resources Manager, to a resident of New Hill. T( ab 27) The preferred site for the proposed Western Wake Treatment Facility is across the street from the New Hill Baptist Church and playground; and the First Baptist Church of New Hill is within '/4 mile, as are four rest homes and many residences; and the proposed site is adjacent to the historical district. The New Hill Historic District was listed with The National Register Apri125, 2001. Tab L In the many letters we have written and in our pleas at the town council meetings, we mentioned many times the impact the sewage plant will have on the community and the historic district. Unfortunately, our efforts were ignored as Cary proceeded to condemn the property in New Hill. Some of the meetings we attended are shown in (Tab 30). Some of our letters are shown in (Tab 31) Unfortunately, as the next information shows, Social and Cultural factors were excluded when the site selection took place. In a June 26, 2005 email, Cary Council Member Jennifer Robinson writes, "First, historical or societal issues were not considered when the site selection process was undertaken. For that, I am very sorry. I was disappointed when I learned that the preferred site impacted the community as it does. It should have been a factor as important as meeting the standards of the Interbasin Transfer. Had that been a factor and only sites on the other side of U.S. 1 been considered, the towns involved would have floated bond referendums for larger amounts." (Tab 28) Had the partners worked with New Hill residents to select a site, a correct bond could have been floated. The Environmental Impact Statement must be disapproved so that proper, informed consideration can be made by all parties. 2. Green Level Historic District. • At the January 24, 2006 SW Wake Planning Meeting held at the CC Jones Building in Apex, Scott Ramage, Cary's Planning Department, made numerous statements about how the Town of Cary worked with the residents of Green Level for more than two DENR Response.lwp Page 1 ] of 24 New Hill Community Association, Inc. Response r: years on ways to protect the Green Level Historic District. This effort has resulted in the protection for both the Green Level Historic District, and the surrounding property which can only be used for residential or open spaces. Industrial uses are not permitted in and around the Green Level Historic District. Tab 29 The Western Wake Partnership should be commended for recognizing the importance of historical and cultural issue. The fact that Cary has worked with Green Level, another unincorporated community, to protect its historic district highlights the value placed on these factors. However, the Western Wake Partnership failed to extended these same safeguards to the unincorporated community of New Hill. 3. DCR Statements. In the December 2005 Agency Comments on the Preliminary Draft EIS/PER, NC DCR Peter Sandbeck writes, "We believe that the proposed facility may adversely affect the New Hill Historic District, a property listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Without additional information to the contrary, there appears to be potential for the introduction of atmospheric elements such as light and odor as well as noise from the increased traffic and operations. These all will adversely affect the rural character and setting of the historic district . " (Tab A) • • Previously Mr. Sandbeck wrote to Dan Blaisdell, Assistant Chief Construction Grants & Loans, concerning the Western Wake Partners plans to condemn land in New Hill that is immediately adjacent to a National Register-listed property. In the letter dated June 10, 2005, Mr. Sandbeck states, "We received our first notification of the proposed project from the State Clearinghouse in December 2004" . (Tab A) Mr. Sandbeck goes on to state, "Given that the scoping document implies that property acquisition may take place prior to completion of the environmental studies that will be included in the EIS and that we' have had numerous calls from concerned property owners in New Hill .about the possible corrdemnat'on of property for the. WRF, we feel that we need to provide a strong-word of caution to the Division of Water Quality and to'the projectpartners. To proceed with the condemnation_;of property that is immediately adjacent to a National'-.Register-listed property prior to completing the environmental studies and Section 106 process seems to-us to_be ill advised .and could result in a waste of public funds as well as time and goodwill. Further, steps to secure a site that forecloses adequate consideration of the effects of the proposed facility on the historic district could possibly DENR Response.lwp Page 12 of 24 New Hill Community Association, Inc. Response • jeopardize the use of EPA funds for this project" Tab A We recognize this site was selected without regard to social and cultural factors; Cary Town Council Member Jennifer Robinson realizes it Ta( b 281; DCR Peter Sandbeck realizes it and has notified Mr. Blaisdale and others T( ab A); And we hope the rest of the personnel within DENR will agree with us and deny the request for this sewage plant in New Hill. 4. New Hill Baptist Church Proclamation. On July 10, 2005 the New Hill Baptist Church passed a Proclamation regarding the sewage plant. Responses to the proclamation were received from NC Representative Paul Stam and Apex Mayor Keith Weatherly. (Tab B). 5. Cary Stench. Several news articles have been written about the stench around Cary's current sewage plant(s). T( ab C) Given Cary's history of unacceptable operation of it's North Harrison sewage plant, what assurances do the residents surrounding the proposed site in New Hill have that odor will not be a major problem to the community? Considering their current track record of operating sewage plants, the WWP should not be given authorization to build a sewage treatment facility outside of their own city limits. E. Site Selection. 1. The engineering study, funded by tax payer dollars, was not used. The Hazen .and Sawyer consultants produced several studies that ranked 29 potential locations for the sewage plant. T( ab 24) These maps and charts are taken from Technical Memorandum 8.0, August 31, 2004, which can be found at: ~avr~~w.~~estern~~al:epa~•tners.~er~ 1 2. Twenty nine sites were reduced to twelve sites. All of this was done with absolutely no input from anyone in New Hill. The twelve sites were ranked as follows: Ta( b 25) Site No. 3 6 9 11/12 14 16 20 21 22 25 26 28 Rankin 12 10 11 7 4 8 5 9 1 2 6 3 3. Town employees make final site selection. Now that the list of sites had been narrowed to twelve, TM 8.0 provides information that instead of using the results of the engineering study to select the best sites for the sewage plant, town employees selected the final three sites. Ta( b 25) The New Hill Community Association requested the names of the individuals who selected the three sites for detailed analysis. This is the response we received: The names of that you have requested are: Tim • Donnelly for the Town of Apex, myself for the Town of Cary, Blake Mills for the Town of Morrisville, DENR Response.lwp Page 13 of 24 New Hill Community Association, Inc. Response • Stephanie Sudano for the Town of Holly Springs, all of whom were designated by their respective town managers as their town representatives to the Technical Advisory Committee for the Western Wake Partners. Robert K. (Kim) Fisher, P.E. Director of Public Works and Utilities Ta( b26) The January 26, 2005 Interlocal Agreement, Paragraph 2.03. Parcel Identification. states, "Apex, Cary and Morrisville must unanimously agree on the sites to be acquired for the WRF Land and the RWPS Land." Why did Holly Springs participate in selecting the site for the WRF? Town staff members ended up making the fmal selection even though hundreds of thousands of dollars were paid to an engineering firm to determine the best sites for the sewage plant. The sites that were chosen are sites 8, 11/12, and 14. In choosing these sites, the partners also renamed the sites as follows: Previous Site New Site Number Name Rankin Location Richardson 8 A Never ranked Road Chatham 11 / 12 B 9 Coun 14 C 5 New Hill These rankings taken from Technical Memorandum 5.0 dated July 22, 2005, January 13, 2006, and April 14, 2006 Changing the names of the sites has made it much harder to correlate information and more confusing for the citizens. Now that we have shown you that the engineering study was discarded, the question has to be asked as to why Progress Energy sites were not considered, even though they were ranked highest by the consultants. 4. Progress Energy given preferential treatment. Could it be the Progress Energy sites were not selected because Progress Energy wants to develop the excessive land taken from New Hill citizens during the 1960s and 1970s? CP&L took this land in anticipation of building four nuclear reactors. CP&L used only a small portion of the thousands of acres they forcibly acquired to build one reactor. Rather than give the thousands of excess acres back to the people it was taken from, Progress Energy wants to develop that land as commercial, industrial and residential property. (Tab D) • In order to develop their thousands of surplus acres, Progress Energy will need a sewage plant and a place to discharge the effluent. One of the documents turned over DENR Response.lwp Page 14 of 24 New Hill Community Association, Inc. Response to us clearly shows Cary and Progress Energy have been working behind the scenes to allow Progress Energy to utilize the new sewage plant. (Tab E) This was also documented in Meeting Summary Memorandum No. 15, Western Wake WRF Meeting with Progress Energy. (Tab E) Tom Trocheck, Progress Energy Tim Bailey, Town of Cary Marty Clayton, Progress Energy Tommy Esqueda, DCM Kim Fisher, Town of Cary Kelly Boone, CDM To: Technical Advisory Committee From: CDM/Hazen and Sawyer/CH2M HILL Date: August 4, 2005 Subject: Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management As if this was not enough, the Partners plan to swap or give some of the property they condemned .in New Hill to Progress Energy so they can get an access road. Memorandum Action Items 1) Progress Energy will provide Town of Cary with an estimated amount of land to be developed and proposed land uses by acreage for the area to be used in projecting wastewater flows for the purpose of modeling Progress Energy's additional Cape Fear River discharge. 4) .... It is understood that Progress Energy may construct its own wastewater treatment facility and independent discharge or Progress Energy could share in the discharge structure and outfall to be constructed by the Western Wake Partners. (emphasis added] Facilities TAC Meeting Minutes - August 4, 2005 iii)Kim Fisher reported that during the July 18, 2005 meeting with Progress Energy, Progress Energy staff agreed to consider the Project Partners' request to swap the 18-acre triangle of land south of US 1 (emphasis added] for land east of the WRF site to be used for the WRF site access road. Progress Energy advised the Project Partners to make a proposal on the land swap. Surveys and appraisals of the properties are being conducted. It is the belief of the New Hill Community Association that: - Progress Energy should not be able to condemn more land than they need for a power plant, then develop that excess land for profit. This land was condemned for use as a utility, and should continue to be used for utility purposes. Since eminent domain has already been used to condemn property in New Hill for utility purposes (Shearon Harris), and since ample acreage still exists as part of the earlier condemnation, additional property should not have been condemned for the sewage plant. Instead a portion of the previously condemned property should be utilized. As shown in Paragraph I.E above, sites 22, 25, and DENR Response.lwp Page 15 of 24 New Hill Community Association, Inc. Response • 28 ranked first, second, and third. All of these sites are owned by Progress Energy and are sites that were previously condemned for utility purposes. - The desires of Progress Energy to develop their land is the real reason Cary and Apex did not choose a Progress Energy site for the sewage plant. - The Western Wake Partners should not be subsidizing Progress Energy by performing studies for them, and allowing them to connect to the sewage plant. - Based on the above information, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources is encouraged to deny the use of the property in New Hill for the proposed sewage treatment facility. 5. Using tax dollars to support private companies. Why is the Town of Cary performing modeling studies for Progress Energy? Should not Progress Energy perform their own modeling studies? It is inconceivable that tax dollars are being used to subsidize Progress Energy. Tom) 6. The site selection was not handled as our forefathers envisioned. a. Even Cary Town Council Member Jennifer Robinson admits this decision was not one, "Of the People, By the People, and For the People" . Ta( b 28) • • b. The residents of New Hill ask that you place yourselves in our positions and ask yourself if the way we have been treated is above board; is fair; is morally correct; is ethical; lawful; and is the way you would treat your neighbor? DENR Response.lwp Page 16 of 24 New Hill Community Association, Inc. Response • 11. Sewage Spills. Quite often there are stories in the media about thousands /millions of gallons of raw sewage flooding the ground, creeks and rivers. Table 1 in reflects some sewage spills that have occurred in the Triangle area over the past few years. The data in Table 1 was compiled from the news articles shown in (Tab K). Recent Sewage Spills In The Triangle Gallons Time to Date Spilled discover Apex June 1, 2005 25,000 Apri123, 2003 2500 February 4, 2003 150 Cary Apri129, 2006 18 - 36,000 April 21, 2006 1900 Apri16, 2006 > 1,000 February 4, 2006 11,048. January 28, 2006 > 1,000 January 11, 2006 1,500 January 8, 2006 > 1,000 November 12, 2005 2,235 August 18, 2005 94,000 2 days June 8, 2005 18,000 Apri12005 40 March 2005 1,056 February 26, 2005 1,556 December 2004 1,000 August 15, 2004 15,559 July 13, 2004 1,372 March 16, 2004 25,000 March 1, 2004 15,978 February 13, 2004 1,532 January 14, 2004 2,311 April 15, 2003 346 May 13, 2003 6,040 May 2, 2003 600 March 6, 2003 18,850 March 5, 2003 297 February 22, 2003 1,500 - 1,800 Feburary 17, 3002 1,626 February 2, 2003 3,546 January 28, 2003 4,812 January 26, 2003 3,546 December 5, 2002 5,850 November 29, 2002 420 October 15, 2002 1,000 - 2,500 October 11, 2002 2,930 DENR Response.lwp Page 17 of 24 n LJ • Recent Sewage Spills In The Triangle Gallons Time to Date. Spilled discover October 11, 2002 6,480 September 16, 2002 360 March 6, 2000 7,350 Carrboro July 26, 2000 2 - 3 million Durham August 15, 1997 20,000 July 30, 1997 30,000 July 27, 1997 1.6 million Garner August 22, 1997 500,000 Holly March 8, 2003 4,500 Springs November 5, 2002 1,500 November 4, 2002 5,000 Raleigh May 4, 2005 3 million 35 days September 3, 2004 67,200 March 31, 2004 9,600 September 16, 1999 1.2 million August 16, 1999 151,200 June 24, 1999 200,000 March 3, 1999 165,000 ', Zebulon September 15, 1999 126,000 August 16, 1999 157,500 Sources' Draft EIS for Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facility NBC 17 News 14 Carolina The News & Observer N.C. Division of Water Qu ality Town of Cary 2004 - 2005 Annual Wastewater Report Town of Cary Web Site: Table 1 In several of the examples, the spills have gone undetected for many hours /days, allowing thousands to millions of gallons of raw sewage to be spilled. Notice that Cary has the highest number of sewage spills. Cary's latest sewage spill occurred during April of 2006. Also note that their spill on August 2005 took two days to discover. C New Hill Community Association, Inc. Response DENR Response.lwp Page 18 of 24 New Hill Community Association, Inc. Response If a sewage spill occurs on the selected site in New Hill, or on one of the many sewage lines running through the New Hill community, it will be catastrophic as every residence in New Hill, and the surrounding community, is serviced by a private well. Also, in the rural community of New Hill, there are many farms that utilize farm ponds for drinking water for livestock and irrigation. See the map shown in (Tab N) for a representation of how many ponds there are in New Hill and how many ponds are in the vicinity of the pipelines leading to the sewage plant. Remember, even a small hole in a large sewage line that has 300 psi will contaminate a lot of land and ponds prior to the leak being discovered and repaired. Cary has been chosen by the partner towns to manage the sewage plant. Given Cary's abysmal track record of preventing and managing sewage spills; and given that a sewage spill is inevitable (reference again the data in Table 1); the request to construct the sewage plant in New Hill should be rejected. 1. To our knowledge, there is no budget allowance to rectify contamination of wells and property in New Hill. 2. There are no contingency plans to return land, wells, and farm ponds to their original condition prior to a sewage spill. 3. Many residences and farms in the New Hill community have horses, cows, sheep, goats, pigs, and other animals. To our knowledge, contingency plans have not been developed to include getting fresh water to these animals, as well as humans. • 4. Many land owners in the New Hill community raise vegetable crops for profit. In order to raise these crops, we have constructed farm ponds to provide irrigation. To our knowledge, contingency plans have not been developed to provide a source of fresh water for crop irrigation. Additional reasons to reject the EIS are: It is our understanding the Western Wake Partners will run high pressure sewage lines from many places into New Hill. It is also our understanding the Western Wake Partners are seriously considering following the path of the Progress Energy transmission lines that were installed a few years ago. Since the transmission lines are in some very remote areas where humans rarely visit; and since these transmission lines are installed across pastures where horses, cows, bulls, sheep, pigs, and other animals graze; access to these areas will be difficult at best; thereby making these areas unsuitable for sewage lines. 6. The sewage lines should not be placed in remote areas, but should follow public roadway rights-of--way. This will allow for easier monitoring of the lines; and will allow motorists to quickly detect and report a sewage spill. Installing the sewage lines along roadway rights-of--way will allow easier access for repair personnel and equipment to reach the spill site. 7. It is our understanding that Cary intends to use the reclaimed water from the sewage plant for irrigation purposes within Cary. Building the sewage plant within the Cary Town Limits will make it easier to reclaim the water as less piping will be required. • For all of the above reasons, the sewage plant should not be built in New Hill. Treatment of raw sewage should occur within each of the towns; then treated effluent pumped to a central collection site on Progress Energy property; to be merged into a single effluent line leading to the discharge facility on Deep River. This is how Holly Springs intends to use the planned facility in New Hill. DENR Response.lwp Page 19 of 24 New Hill Community Association, Inc. Response • By treating the raw sewage within each of the towns, a sewage spill in the New Hill community will only spill treated effluent and not raw sewage; therefore, contingency plans for wells, farm ponds, and water for farm animals will be less expensive. A sewage spill in the partner towns (like those described in Table 1) will not contaminate water wells; farm ponds; will not affect livestock; and will be easier to monitor. In addition to having more sewage spills than any other town in the area, there is documentation that Cary supports blending. In a January 4, 2005 News & Observer article, titled, Sewage bypass proposal debated, (Tab F) Cary public utilities director Rob Bonne states he wrote to the EPA last year supporting blending. (Blending will allow sewage plants to release a mixture of fully treated and partly treated sewage during peak flows.) The opinion of the New Hill Community Association is that blending should never be allowed. Blending is one more example of a town that can not properly manage sewage plants. Once blending is allowed the first time, each subsequent release of partially treated sewage will be easier to justify. • • DENR Response.lwp Page 20 of 24 New Hill Community Association, Inc. Response • 111. Department of Environment and Natural Resources Review . A. DENR not receiving proper information. As members of the New Hill Community Association have continued to talk with many of the employees and elected officials of the Partner Towns, we keep hearing over and over that the time for public comment is during the review by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Only three sites will be submitted for review by DENR, even though there were 29 sites studied. The 3 sites are the targeted site, as well as two other sites, one that was originally removed from consideration, and the other site is in Chatham County, which, if selected, will require additional intergovernmental agreements. Since the Western Wake Partners will only be submitting three sites to DENR for review, of course the site in New Hill will look much more favorable than the other two. However, if a1129 sites were included, or if just the higher ranked sites on Progress Energy property were included along with the site in New Hill, then the site in New Hill would not be logically chosen. B. Previous impacts on New Hill residents. • As part of the EIS review, the Western Wake Partners claim the residents of New Hill have not been impacted by large projects in the past. The Partners forget the residents of New Hill have been impacted by: • the construction of US 1 from Apex to Sanford; • the Dixie Pipeline that runs through many of our properties; • the land that was taken for the Shearon Harris Nuclear facility; • the construction of Jordan Lake; and • most recently Progress Energy condemned a lot of property in New Hill to run their transmission lines from the Shearon Harris Nuclear facility to Green Level in order to support Cary and Apex growth, not New Hill. • Also, many property owners will be further impacted when the sewage lines are run to the site in New Hill by being forced to give easements for the sewage lines. It is outrageous and appalling the Partners can say New Hill has not been impacted in the past. By only submitting a small number of sites for review; and by not being truthful regarding past impacts to the New Hill Community, the Western Wake Partners are not giving DENR complete information to make an informed decision. C. New Hill Community Association Petition. • To demonstrate to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources the unpopularity of selecting the site in New Hill, the New Hill Community Association developed a petition. As shown by the attached petition, not only are the residents of New Hill upset about the site selection process, but residents from around the triangle, as well as residents of other cities and states are equally upset. (Reference Volume 3 of the New Hill Community, Inc. Response to the EIS Review.) The petition substantiates the information shown in the WLFL-TV poll referenced in I.A.3.f above. DENR Response.lwp Page 21 of 24 New Hill Community Association, Inc. Response 111. Department of Environment and Natural Resources Review. A. DENR not receiving proper information. As members of the New Hill Community Association have continued to talk with many of the employees and elected officials of the Partner Towns, we keep hearing over and over that the time for public comment is during the review by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Only three sites will be submitted for review by DENR, even though there were 29 sites studied. The 3 sites are the targeted site, as well as two other sites, one that was originally removed from consideration, and the other site is in Chatham County, which, if selected, will require additional intergovernmental agreements. Since the Western Wake Partners will only be submitting three sites to DENR for review, of course the site in New Hill will look much more favorable than the other two. However, if all 29 sites were included, or if just the higher ranked sites on Progress Energy property were included along with the site in New Hill, then the site in New Hill would not be logically chosen. B. Previous impacts on New Hill residents. • As part of the EIS review, the Western Wake Partners claim the residents of New Hill have not been impacted by large projects in the past. The Partners forget the residents of New Hill have been impacted by (Tab I): • the construction of US 1 from Apex to Sanford; • the Dixie Pipeline that runs through many of our properties; • the land that was taken for the Shearon Harris Nuclear facility; • the construction of Jordan Lake; and • most recently Progress Energy condemned a lot of property in New Hill to run their transmission lines from the Shearon Harris Nuclear facility to Green Level in order to support Cary and Apex growth, not New Hill. • Also, many property owners will be further impacted when the sewage lines are run to the site in New Hill by being forced to give easements for the sewage lines. It is outrageous and appalling the Partners can say New Hill has not been impacted in the past. By only submitting a small number of sites for review; and by not being truthful regarding past impacts to the New Hill Community, the Western Wake Partners are not giving DENR complete information to make an informed decision. C. New Hill Community Association Petition. • To demonstrate to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources the unpopularity of selecting the site in New Hill, the New Hill Community Association developed a petition. As shown by the attached petition, not only are the residents of New Hill upset about the site selection process, but residents from around the triangle, as well as residents of other cities and states are equally upset. (Reference Volume 3 of the New Hill Community, Inc. Response to the EIS Review.) The petition substantiates the information shown in the WLFL-TV poll referenced in I.A.3.f above. DENR Response.lwp Page 21 of 24 New Hill Community Association, Inc. Response • 3. Inaccurate statements made to the media. 4. Putting the blame on DENR. 5. Communication plan says work with media to disseminate accurate information. a. Susan Moran: incorrect statements that New Hill will be served by the facility. b. WWP Web site indicates water and sewer service will be available to New Hill. c. Susan Moran 2/16/06 statement to News 14: residents who have septic tanks will be able to benefit from the plant. 6. Progress Energy land fiasco. D. Social /Cultural Issues. 1. Cary Council Member Jennifer Robinson: historical or societal issues not considered. 2. Scott Ramage: Cary worked with Green Level for more than 2 years to protect the Green Level Historic District. 3. DCR Peter Sandbeck: facility may adversely affect the New Hill Historic District. 4. New Hill Baptist Church Proclamation. 5. Cary can't control the stench around their North Harrison sewage plant. • E. Site Selection. 1. Engineering study not used. 2. 29 sites reduced to 12, then ranked. 3. Town employees make the final decision on site selection and change the names of the sites to make it harder to follow. 4. Progress Energy is given preferential treatment. - Because of their desires to develop their land - Eminent domain used for PE to gain excess acres for utility purposes - Cary will swap land they condemned to Progress Energy 5. Tax dollars should not be used to benefit for profit companies (PE). 6. Cary Council Member Jennifer Robinson: this decision not one of the people, by the people and for the people. 11. Sewage Spills. 1, Cary has the highest number of sewage spills in Wake County. 2, 3~ If a raw sewage occurs in New Hill, wells, farm ponds, livestock, etc. will be severely 4 impacted. 5. Plans to run high pressure sewage lines along the Progress Energy Transmission Line rights of way should not be allowed . 6. Plans to place high pressure sewage lines in remote locations should not be allowed. 7. Sewage should be treated closer to the towns. - Eliminates the chance of contaminating wells and farm ponds in New Hill - Easier to use reclaimed water 8. Blending should not be allowed. • 111. DENR Review. A. Cary is only submitting 3 sites for review. B. Cary claims New Hill has not been impacted by large projects in the past. C. New Hill Community Association Petition shows a large public outcry. DENR Response.lwp Page 23 of 24 New Hill Community Association, Inc. Response V. Recommendations. A. Considering all the problems outlined above, DENR should reject the EIS submitted by the Western Wake Partners to construct a sewage treatment facility in New Hill. B. DENR should require the Western Wake Partners to construct sewage treatment facilities within each of their town limits, then only allow treated effluent to be piped to a central collection site on Progress Energy property where it can be merged into a single effluent line leading to the discharge facility on the Cape Fear River. -OR- C. Move the sewage treatment plant to Progress Energy land which was already taken for utility purposes (some by eminent domain and some by intimidation) . Recommendations for future projects. D. Should future utility projects such as this impact unincorporated areas, DENR should require the requesting towns to: • 1. Work with the residents of the unincorporated areas to ensure minimal impacts to the unincorporated areas. 2. Treat the residents of the unincorporated areas as equal partners. 3. Provide adequate communications to all of the residents of the unincorporated community. 4. Answer all communications whether they be written, electronic, or oral. 5. Provide all documents when requested. 6. Provide adequate information to DENR for a thorough and honest review. DENR should also: 7. Penalize the lead agencies /towns for false and misleading statements. 8. Not allow any secret or closed meetings. All discussions must be held in the sunshine. 9. Not allow towns to use tax dollars to subsidize for profit companies. E. Prior to allowing the use of eminent domain to acquire land for utility purposes, DENR should ensure: 1. Other land in the area that has been acquired by eminent domain for utility purposes must undergo a rigorous and honest examination to determine if that land is suitable. 2. Thoroughly review the request for eminent domain to ensure that only the needed amount of acreage is being acquired. 3. If a town or utility acquires land by eminent domain, and it is later determined more land was taken than needed, the town or utility should be required to give the excess land back to the original owner. 4. Eminent domain may not be exercised until public hearings have been held. 5. Eminent domain may not be exercised until a thorough EIS process has been submitted and reviewed. • DENR Response.lwp Page 24 of 24 • SUMMARY What we have presented here tonight is athree-pronged response to the draft EIS submitted by the Western Wake Partners (WWP). The citizens of New Hill have spent hours researching this project and have found inconsistencies, misinformation, and errors in information provided by the WWP in the areas of Environmental Justice, Cost Analysis, and the Site Selection Process. We believe that these errors are egregious enough that this draft EIS should be rejected. The Western Wake Partners used faulty and misleading data to justify the selection of the site in New Hill. While the WWP claim that the population affected by this project will be neither disproportionately minority nor low-income, data available at the EPA Environmental Justice Website, through voter registration records, and via adoor-to-door census show that 40% or more of the population directly affected by this project are African-American. Furthermore, a comparison of housing values demonstrates that the income levels for New Hill residents are markedly lower than that of residents in any of the four towns making up the WWP. The WWP also claim that the New Hill area has not been impacted by previous projects, a claim that would be laughable if it were not so damaging. Long-time residents of New Hill can recite a litany of previous projects that have forced them to give up land for the public good, among them the construction of the • Shearon-Harris nuclear power plant, US ],Jordan Lake, the Dixie Pipeline, and, most recently, power transmission lines. The threat of sewage spills from pipes transporting raw sewage to the proposed site is real and great. New Hill residents rely on wells for drinking water for themselves and their livestock and to irrigate crops. If wells and ponds become contaminated, how will we be provided ample fresh water? With regard to the Cost Analysis issues, there are several major problems, the first being that ONLY cost was used to justify the selection of the site in New Hill, and that cost was generated AFTER the site was selected. Cost analyses performed by the WWP do not include cost savings measures that would be realized by using certain sites south of US l; flawed data were used to rank sites that are located on Progress Energy property; the decision by Holly Springs not to use the plant to treat sewage remains in question and is in dispute among the Partners as to whether or not this decision impacted the site selection; and finally, there are a multitude of factors that were not considered in comparing alternate sites. As far as the Site Selection Process, forget for just a moment the lack of respect shown to New Hill residents by the Western Wake Partners. Forget that we have been made to feel as if our concerns are unimportant. But remember that this process is not about our feelings. Serious wrongs have been committed against this community and it is time to correct them. The WWP violated the open meetings laws. They deliberately conducted • this process in secret and documented their intent to do so for as long as possible. The • mayors of Apex, Morrisville and Holly Springs overstepped their authority be acceding to the site selection without putting the matter before their respective town boards. When they pulled out of the Interlocal Agreement, the Wake County Commissioners abandoned New Hill residents, Ieaving us with no representation. If that is not illegal, it should be. The Partners not only sought to hide information, they also put out misleading information and continue to do so. Until about the 1 S~ of June 2005, any rational, reasonable person watching this process would have logically concluded, based on data provide on the WWP website, that the preferred sites were located on Progress Energy property. To date, no rationale for how the three New Hill sites rose to the top has been provided other than the flawed cost analysis. Unfortunately, the citizens of New Hill have been excluded from this process and have not been afforded the same preferential treatment that has been. extended both to Progress Energy and to citizens who live in the Green Level community. The New Hill Community Association respectfully requests that this Draft EIS be rejected and that this project not be permitted as it presently exists. We understand that the role of DENR is to permit projects for public use while protecting citizens and the environment from harm. That this is a difficult line to walk is without question. However, if this project is allowed to move forward as currently proposed, DENR will be remiss in fulfilling its responsibility to protect both the public it serves and the environment in which they live. Therefore, we respectfully make the following recommendations: 1. The WWP should be required to select a site that does not target a predominately minority, economically disadvantaged population. 2. The WWP should be required to either: a. Treat sewage within their towns and discharge the treated effluent to the Cape Fear River. b. Site the sewage treatment plant on one of several sites located on Progress Energy property. 3. The W WP should be required to meet the criteria set forth for site selection as outlined in their own Phase I and Phase II studies. The proposed site should be rejected on this basis alone. 4. The selected site must conform to long-range land use plans put forth by Wake County. The proposed site in New Hill does not. 5. The Secondary and Cumulative impacts for the affected region must be addressed. Using the master mitigation plans is only acceptable for projects whose impact is limited to the jurisdiction of the towns whose staff authored the plans. In closing, the NHCA and its members appreciate the opportunity to voice our concerns and provide our recommendations. We also would welcome the opportunity to engage in meaningful and sincere dialogue about this project with. both the WWP and DENR. Supporting Documentation Tab 1 September 13, 2004 WESTERN WAKE REGIONAL WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES COMMUNICATIONS PLAN PURPOSE To articulate the processes and activities required to ensure that all legal requirements for the project's public information and public notice are met. GOALS ^ Plan, design and construct facilities in accordance with the regulatory requirements mandated by the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission. Support the orderly, planned, and necessary extension of infrastructure to better serve existing as well as future citizens and businesses in the service area. Give potentially affected property owners ample notice of the likelihood of infrastructure extension on and near their property. Raise awareness and understanding of the facts of the project by anticipating and addressing communications issues in advance of misleading or inaccurate information being disseminated. SITUATION ANALYSIS Six Wake County local governments worked together from May 2002 to July 2004 to evaluate options for providing long-term wastewater management services for western Wake County. As a result of the evaluation effort, four local governments have elected to proceed with the construction • of regional wastewater management facilities to serve wastewater needs of western Wake County to the year 2030. These "Partners" include the Towns of Apex, Cary, Holly Springs, and Morrisville. The period of time required to study, locate, design, permit, and construct the new facilities will span from 2004 to 2011 and include several points during which the Partners must meet specific public information and notification requirements. This communications plan articulates the communications approach to be taken by the Partners. KEY PUBLICS Specific groups that will be targeted by this communications plan include but may not be limited to: ^ Water and sewer rate payers for each Partner ^ Owners of property being considered for infrastructure location ^ Neighboring property owners ^ Partner staffs, elected officials, and consultants ^ Wake, Chatham, and Harnett County Commissioners, State Legislators, and Congressional Members ^ Cape Fear Basin residents, staffs, and elected officials ^ DENR Staff ^ NC EMC ^ US EPA ^ US Army Corps of Engineers ^ Environmental organizations ^ Regional media KEY TOPICS Information most likely to be presented to groups at some point in the public information process • includes: DENR Response.lwp Tab ] Supporting Documentation Tab 1 ^ History of Wake County wastewater services relevant to this project and the service area • to be served by the new facilities ^ How wastewater treatment works ^ How wastewater services are regulated in NC ^ Partners' performance in wastewater management to date, including NPDES permit compliance and sanitary sewer overflows ^ Regulatory requirements leading to the necessity of the project ^ Alternatives that have been evaluated ^ Costs, savings, and benefits of the project, including grants and loans and utility rate impacts for typical customers ^ Discussion of any required inter-local agreements ^ Growth and development projections used to plan the infrastructure needs ^ Legal process of and schedule for the project-local, state, and federal ^ Environmental protection requirements for new project ^ Water conservation measures and water reuse measures ^ Governmental roles in the project, including project evaluation and review, permitting, right of way acquisition ^ How to get involved RESEARCH Conduct secondary data analysis-such as a review of Frequently Asked Questions, Email, media coverage--from previous and related Partner projects-such as Cary's 2000 proposed western plant-to anticipate and address communications issues in advance of misleading or inaccurate information being disseminated. STRATEGY Utilize a mix of publicity and advertising tailored to each group with the appropriate messages in accordance with state and federal public information/public notice requirements. TACTICS Information vehicles most likely to be utilized in the communication of information to groups include: ^ Public meetings ^ Small group meetings ^ Utility bills, bill inserts, and newsletters-such as the Town of Cary's BUD ^ Cary TV 11, including Bud-TV, Matrox spots, and bulletin board messages ^ Media relations, including news releases, news conferences, public service announcements, advertising, letters to the editor, and talking points ^ Internet, including special Web section with new URL linked to by all Partners and an Electronic Mailing List Subscription Service ^ Partner staff, elected officials, and consultants ^ Recorded telephone messages, such as 24-Hour Town Hall telephone message lines ^ Paycheck stuffers ^ Employee newsletters ^ Emails ^ Direct mail ^ Employee staff meetings ^ Speakers Bureau • DENR Response.lwp Tab 1 Supporting Documentation Tab 1 PRIMARY ACTIVITIES • In addition to the local, state, and federal publicity and advertising requirements relative to siting and operating new wastewater management facilities in North Carolina's Cape Fear Basin (such as newspaper ads and letters to property owners), the Partners will use the following activities to help achieve the project's communication goals. Unless otherwise specified, these activities will fall to the Town of Cary as the project's lead agency. PUBLIC MEETINGS Conduct a minimum of two public meetings for the project with at least 30-day notification. The first public meeting will be convened as an open house or public information event that will be made available to the general public and all interested parties. The purpose of the first public forum will be to present an overview of the proposed project and announce that an EIS process is being initiated for the project. The second public forum will be convened as a formal public hearing to receive comments from the general public and all interest parties on the Draft EIS and 201 Facilities Plan. A copy of the Draft EIS and 201 Facilities Plan will be available for review by the public at least 15 days prior to the second public forum. REGIONAL WASTEWATER PROGRAM EMAIL SERVICE Develop and implement a free subscription-based service to which anyone can register on the project's Web site to be notified of any issues, meetings, milestones, or other relevant information. WEB SECTION Develop and maintain a detailed Web section about the project that includes but may not be limited to the following sections: Overview, Schedule, Frequently Asked Questions, Reports & Publications, Video, Email Subscription, History, and Contacts. As this new Web section will serve as the official and primary depository for project information, all partners will link their Web sites to the project Web site. • CARY TV 11 BULLETIN BOARD Because of its reach into Western Wake County, place on Cary TV 11 notices of all public meetings and milestone announcements. MEDIA RELATIONS Work with the media to disseminate accurate information and correct misinformation in a timely fashion. Since most citizens get their information from regional television and newspapers, it will be efficient and cost-effective to issue news releases to all regional media about all public meetings and project milestones. These releases, along with information on the special Web site, will enable the media to write and fact check articles produce stories. SPEAKERS BUREAU Develop "canned" presentations surrounding certain project milestones to be given by the Project Team as needed to interested community groups. VIDEO Consider creating a short video detailing the project to be loaded onto the project's Web site as well as played regularly on Cary TV 11 and used during public presentations. DENR Response.lwp Tab 1 Supporting Documentation TIMELINE • 2004------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AUG Web section development begins, including researching new URL Cary begins drafting proposed communications plan for project SEP Draft plan reviewed by Partners Final plan developed and approved by Partners Web section activated Partners link their Web site to new section NOV Publicity created for January Information Open House DEC Publicity rolled out for January Information Open House 2 00 5------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JAN Open House (Jan 31 target) FEB Results of open house posted on Web JUN Publicity created for August Public Hearing JUL Publicity rolled out for August Public Hearing AUG Public Hearing for EIS/201 Facilities (Aug 19 target) SEP Results of public hearing posted on Web Tab 1 BUDGET Estimated "hard" costs for the proposed activities are detailed as follows. Please note that these costs do not reflect the additional staff time necessary to conduct such activities. • Communications Plans, Email $-0- Service, Enhanced Web Section, Cary TV Bulletin Board, Media Relations Legal notices in newspapers $1,000 annually westernwakepartners.org URL $40 annually Direct Mail $250 annually Video $2,000 COMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES FOR SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE IMPACT MITIGATION PLANS The Partners are currently working with DENR to develop individual Secondary and Cumulative Impact Mitigation Plans which will be referenced by the EIS for the regional wastewater facilities. The Mitigation Plans, along with Memoranda of Understanding between DENR and each Partner, will fulfill environmental documentation requirements for secondary and cumulative impacts related. to planned water, sewer and transportation infrastructure projects which may facilitate growth. The primary interested parties for this process are regulatory agencies and, potentially, environmental groups. Regulatory agency comments are being handled through DENR with a process similar to that for an EIS but approximately 6 months ahead of the EIS process for the wastewater facilities. DENR Response.lwp Tab 1 Supporting Documentation Tab 1 Communication activities for the Mitigation Plan process are: • NOV `04 Environmental Interest Group meetings NOV `04 Publicity created for January, 2005, Public Hearing(s) DEC `04 Publicity rolled out for January, 2005, Public Hearing(s) JAN `05 Public Hearing(s) for Secondary and Cumulative Impact Mitigation Plans (Jan 21 target) The environmental group meetings and public hearing(s) for the Mitigation Plans will be led by DENR with support from each partner as needed for their individual Mitigation Plan. • • DENR Response.lwp Tab 1 • Supporting Documentation 3tmtc 2.20x5 Dear Sir err Madam. We're sated+ng; 3roat this kttet~ t~ nuke 3 know have ad pct wt ta+i ?~ trmty ham about itr~ctrttutt weer facilit~a plrt-aaatJ 6nr westera Wake t,~omtuy. fis a prtaptnty owl in tht area. yott kaowr Welk tht ewx incrtxsiag chatbe~e of ~ good for ptvtecxing ota~ t~eg~iem`s en t whiMe prcaarvins, the rttwesarrrettt fattt-ilies harve made im the:ir ;hotaeb and busincases. The a are -amt! mo tmt pet~om ~ ~idn hex the right aaswcr or pafiect soltttiaga. • T~ to~rtttrr ~'ici`11~, Springs }tt)RTrt CAtt4t,lttx ~. ~~ ~ __ ;~'~ ' :, ~~~`~ ~. 1 ,' We know ?' may bare t~testiottx aho+>rt the facilities. and wet wamt to amswvx tireut. If y~+t hareat"'t dent sn already, we ht>pr ytxt'11 xisit 1'arttMrtt~ltip Web aiR, www.wawakgsartaeta;+x$. wbic~s want ottkimt is Sgttembcc 20ai utd imrlude.~ ar~wers ~, ~;tr ttnst fragoerttty ~. In addition. tfie Panrttts wiU hold as open bpust style inEnrmsatiao- stxsicm om Tuesday, ltttsc l d'°- Drop in ~tytimc 6etvtrot"at 4:t~D part. and 11:00 p~ at tht: Apcac. Fm~c Station 2 located at 3045 New Hitt tinikman Rand. !;'ot~rtal preaeatatit~s will hs made t:very thirty mimules. 1Nc'i3 ~avirdt ae tsrerriew ctf tht pt~mrt atrKi here twtf qer hand ~ air dwvrt with yuv and ttmswa' dtstaikd gtees4la~ bMwt yotrc imdividoai titrwiton. To txrrartz we have 1,ht: i»formsatioa yoo meed, wt wtlcotnc your qutaltans in advamac of the mtaatia~g. Phase etrtail your guestiartrs to afo~wnesttrn meas_ocg. If you can't atieMl qtr imfortttahon s~ston earl don't ford ytt~- gt>cstians amgwrcred ott Ute Web site.! htrpc that you'li t~ontact rtte directly sas drat the can diacnss the ptstyext. Tfianks for takrng flit lime fn get eluc facts tm this very ittgrnrtautt part of Wake Ctatnty°s future. Sirtarrly. Robert IC, (Kim) Fisher. C'.F:, Ptnje+ct Cr-ordrsator. Westeta WakePartner3 i?iarstar of Public Wcxks mtd IJtilit~s. 3'own of C.ery (419} 4b4~I09'. t?~ f ~,f~„~,~:cternti+~nke~t»~m~^•.a+re Tab 2 VYE&TIiR1r WAI[~ PARTtiBRS 40Q Jsex~s dastcsnn A ~'Car3', NC 2'T§L3•I9Q Rwt ilMl~'~•~+rry't t+CC 27317.15 aexttm ,exert r~ ~J DENR Response.lwp Tab 2 Supporting Documentation From: Susan.Moran@TownofCary.org • Date: 2006/02/06 Mon AM 09:04:27 EST To: <tpforbes@bellsouth.net> CC: dgbristol@bellsouth.net, j dbrubaker@yahoo. com, Leila.Goodwin@TownofCary.org, ncdeerhunter29@aol.com, randelsink@earthlink.net, tpforbes@bellsouth.net Subject: Re:notification about site Hello. Leila is out of the office until Feb 16. However, I can say that no other letters were sent. Susan Moran, APR Public Information Officer Town of Cary 919.460.4951 (voice) 919.393.4383 (pager) 919.218.5486 (cell) 919.460.4929 (fax) PO Box 8005 • Cary, NC 27512-8005 susan.moran@townofcary. org www.townofcary.org Please note that email sent to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. <tpforbes@bellsouth.net> 02/06/2006 08:24 AM To <Leila.Goodwin@TownofCary.org>, <Susan.Moran@TownofCary.org> cc <dgbristol@bellsouth.net>, <jdbrubaker@yahoo.com>, <ncdeerhunter29@aol.com>, <randelsink@earthlink.net>, <tpforbes@bellsouth.net> Subject Re:notification about site Dear Ms. Goodwin, thank you for your prompt reply. I do have one additional question. Were resident within 3/4 mile of the two alternate sites also notified by mail? • Thank you, Tab 3 DENR Response.lwp Tab 3 Supporting Documentation • Tonya Forbes From: Leila.Goodwin@TownofCary.org Date: 2006/02/03 Fri PM 03:38:24 EST To: Susan.Moran@TownofCary.org CC: dgbristol@bellsouth.net, j dbrubaker@yahoo. com, ncdeerhunter2 9 @aol. com, randelsink@earthlink.net, tpforbes@bellsouth.net Subject: Re: 158 letters were mailed, to owners of property within 3/4 mile of the WRF site property boundary. Leila R. Goodwin, PE Water Resources Manager Town of Cary 919-462-3846 > fax 919-380-6422 E mail sent to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina • Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. SUSAN MORAN/Gary 02/03/200610:24 AM To <tpforbes@bellsouth.net> cc dgbristol@bellsouth.net, j dbrubaker@yahoo. com, ncdeerhunter29@aol. com, randelsink@earthlink.net, Leila Goodwin/Cary@Cary Subject Re: (Document link: Leila Goodwin) Hello. Letters were mailed to property owners within a certain distance of the proposed facilities, and Leila Goodwin can provide you with those details since her group handled that. She's out of the office for most of today, so I'm copying her on this response so that she can reply upon her return. • Tab 3 DENR Response.lwp Tab 3 Supporting Documentation • Susan Moran, APR Public Information OfficerTown of Cary 919.460.4951 (voice) 919.393.4383 (pager) 919.218.5486 (cell) 919.460.4929 (fax) PO Box 8005 Cary, NC 27512-8005 susan.moran@townofcary.org www.townofcary.org Please note that email sent to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. <tpforbes@bellsouth.net> To <susan.moran@townofcary.org> 02/02/2006 03:04 PM cc <dgbristol@bellsouth.net>, <j dbrubaker@yahoo. com>, <randelsink@earthlink.net>, <ncdeerhunter29@aol.com> Subject Dear Ms. Moran, Can you provide information as to which New Hill residents received written notification via US Mail about the informational meeting regarding the Western Wake Regional Waste Water Treatment Facilty held on June 14, 2005 at the fire station in New Hill? I am not trying to locate specific residents, but to ascertain how many residents received this information and how the decision was made as to which residents should be notified directly (as opposed to simply via the media). For instance, did every resident within a certain distance of the proposed facility receive a letter, and if so, what was the determined distance? I thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, Tonya P. Forbes • Tab 3 DENR Response.lwp Tab 3 Supporting Documentation Tab 4 -----Original Message----- . From: sbrown@co.wake.nc.us [mailto:sbrown@co.wake.nc.us] Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 3:38 PM To: Susan.Moran@TownofCary.org Cc: Lowell, Bridget; Auman, Rose Subject: Re: PROPOSED NEWS CONFERENCE Hi, Susan: Will definitely send calls your way, though we would want to communicate the Commissioners' and the County's commitment to bringing about this collaboration as part of the message. too. Obviously, I haven't been privy to the communications plan, so would appreciate if you could send that to me. I totally understand the desire to wait while we get details ironed out, especially since we hope for future funding. I was responding to news articles about the spending bill, in which reporters are starting tc name line items. I think it's only a matter of time before our reporters ask us about funding for Wake County projects. I'll correct the Durham mistake with others here who gave me that information. Thanks for keeping me in the loop. Sharon Sharon Brown Public Information Director Wake County 919-856-7330; fax 919-856-6168 Web site: www.WakeGov.com Susan.Moran@TownofCary.org To: sbrown@co.wake.nc.us Cc: Bridget.Lowell@MAIL.HOUSE.GOV, Rose.Auman@MAIL.HOUSE.GOV • 11/30/2004 03:24 PM Subject: PROPOSED NEWS CONFERENCE Hi Sharon. Thanks so much for leaving me a voice mail about the idea of having a news conference for the 1.5M federal $$$ for the proposed Western Wake Wastewater Plant. As always, Cary is interested in helping folks know just how effective and helpful Congressman Price continues to be. That said, I agree with Bridget that we need to wait, for several months and for several reasons. A big one on .our end is that the Partners have agreed that. we want-to avoid publicity for as Iong as pdssble while we iron out 'details of interest to citizens, especially until we get a contract on the land. Selected by the Partners as lead agency for the project, Cary will coordinate all publicity, including the news conference, when the time is right and in accordance with the communications plan adopted by the Partners and filed with DENR. If you get a call from Ryan or another reporter, send them my way and our office will handle according to the plan. Also, you mentioned Durham in your message; they're not part of this project. Take care, and hope to see you soon! Susan Moran, AP • DENR Responselwp Tab 4 Supporting Documentation Tab 5 Principal: CN=Leila Goodwin/O=Cary0 • InetSendTo: .,.,.,Kim.Fisher@TownofCary.org,.,.,Rob.Bonne@TownofCary.org,stephanie.sudano@hollyspri ngsnc.us,Steve.Brown@TownofCary.org,tim.donnelly@apexnc.org InetCopyTo: Bi11.Coleman@TownofCary.org,.,jwhitson@ci.morrisville.nc.us,.,.,Susan.Moran@TownofCary. org,esquedatc@cdm.coml, RecipientGroupsExpanded: Regional WW Tech Advisory Committee $Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.0.1 February 07, 2003 $MessageID: u0F9C5A16D3.B7986998-ON8525700E.006B1319-8525700E.006F6838@LocalDomainC INetFrom: Leila.Goodwin@TownofCary.org PostedDate: 05/27/2005 04:16:20 PM Recipients: ~!Carl.Dean@hollyspringsnc.us~,bmills@ci.morrisville.nc.us,jmartinez@ci.morrisville.nc.u s, kendra.thompson@ncmail.net,CN=Kim Fisher/O=Cary@Cary,michael.deaton@apexnc.org,PStout@co.wake.nc.us,CN=Rob Bonne/O=Cary@Cary,"Sudano, Stephanie" fistephanie.sudano@hollyspringsnc.usJ,CN=Steve Brown/O=Cary@Cary,"Donnelly, Tim" Jtim.donnelly@apexnc.org~~,CN=Bill Coleman/O=Cary@Cary,bradford@apexnc.org,"Whitson, John" Cjwhitson@ci.morrisville.nc.us:~,dcooke@co.wake.nc.us,CN=SUSAN MORAN/O=Cary@Cary,"Esqueda, Tommy" 'i-iesquedatc@cdm.com~i MailOptions: 0 SaveOptions: 1 From: CN=Leila Goodwin/O=Cary A1tFrom: CN=Leila Goodwin/O=Cary SendTo: bmills@ci.morrisville.nc.us,jmartinez@ci.morrisville.nc.us,kendra.thompson@ncmail.net,C N=Kim Fisher/O=Cary@Cary,michael.deaton@apexnc.org,PStout@co.wake.nc.us,CN=Rob Bonne/O=Cary@Cary,"Sudano, Stephanie" ~stephanie.sudano@hollyspringsnc.uslJ,CN=Steve Brown/O=Cary@Cary,"Donnelly, Tim" ;7tim.donnelly@apexnc.org=i CopyTo: CN=Bill Coleman/O=Cary@Cary,bradford@apexnc.org,"Whitson, John" . Cjwhitson@ci.morrisville.nc.usC,Carl.Dean@hollyspringsnc_us,dcooke@co.wake.nc.us,CN=SUS AN MORAN/O=Cary@Cary,"Esqueda, Tommy" Gesquedatc@cdm.com~' BlindCopyTo: Subject: Public Information Meeting EnterSendTo: Regional WW Tech Advisory Committee EnterCopyTo: CN=Bill Coleman/O=Cary,Bruce Radford, John Whitson,Carl.Dean@hollyspringsnc.us,David Cooke,CN=SUSAN MORAN/O=Cary,Tommy Esqueda EnterBlindCopyTo: $UpdatedBy: CN=Leila Goodwin/O=Cary There is a public information meeting regarding the Western Wake Water Reclamation Facility scheduled for: June 14, 2005 7 p.m. Apex Fire Station 2 3045 New Hill Holleman Road Here is a copy of the notice that will be sent out to citizens near the WRF site (right now considering 0.5 mile radius but still TBD) This meeting has been added to the schedule on www.westernwakepartners.org In the past few days, we have also added the following documents to the Web site on the homepage under "Reports" (scroll down): TM 8.1 - Site Selection for the WRF TM 10.0 - Site Selection for the Beaver Creek PS I will also be adding 2 documents that comprise the site selection for West Cary PS shortly DENR Response.lwp Tab 5 • • Supporting Documentation TM xx - Site Selection for the West Cary PS (CDM) Chapter 2 from Preliminary Engineering Report (B&C) Tab 5 Some New Hill area citizens have scheduled a meeting for May 31, 2005 at 7 pm at the New Hill Baptist Church. David Cooke will be attending that meeting and conveying that we did not have time to prepare information for that date, but that we do have the June 14 meeting scheduled. We encourage citizens with specific questions to 1) check the website 2) feel free to contact Kim (see below) or 3) send us those questions so that we can make sure they are answered on June 14. If you get any questions from the media, please direct them to Susan Moran: 919.460.4951 (voice) 919.393.4383 (pager) 919.218.5486 (cell) If you get any questions from citizens, Www.westernwakepartners.org (919) 469-4092 info@westernwakepartners.org Leila R. Goodwin, PE Water Resources Manager Town of Cary 919-462-3846 fax 919-380-6422 DENR Response.lwp please direct them to the website: Tab 5 Supporting Documentation -----Original Message----- . From: Carl Dean Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 9:28 AM To: Gina Bobber; Stephanie Sudano; gina.bobber@ncmail.net; Jeff Jones; scott.hammerbacher@ncmail.net; Thomas.Tillage@ncmail.net; Amy.J. Moore@ncmail.net; Charles.Simmons@ncmail.net; Rodney Campbell; Elizabeth Goodson; Heather Keefer; kelli.mcneill-Wilhelm@ncmail.net; Kendra Stephenson Subject: RE: WRF comments from 11-30-04 meeting Gina We -need to develop amethod to'handle these. utility projects withoutthe public hearing requirement. It places the Council in a bad situation (Sunset Ridge Pump Station) because the site is most probably the best alternative for the pump station. Example would be where else are you going to expand the WWTP except at that site. Try to make this happen. Carl • • Tab 6 DENR Response.lwp Tab 6 Supporting Documentation n U NEW HILL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION September 21, 2005 Town of Cary Kim Fisher PO Box 8005 Cary, NC 27512-8005 Dear Mr. Fisher , Tab 7 Pursuant to the state open records law, N.C. Gen. Stat. sec. 132-1 to 132-10, I write to request access to and a copy of all Electronic mail (email) to persons or entities emanating from the Town of Cary and its employees relating in any way to the proposed Water Treatment Facility to be built by the Western Wake Partners in the unincorporated area of Wake County known as New Hill including but not limited to results of studies, site analysis, cost analysis, etc. whether such emails were in response to inquiries or initiated by the Town. We would like emails dating back from the inception of the project to the date of this letter. We are also requesting at this time all memorandums, reports, studies, meeting notes, correspondence, site analysis, cost analysis and any other documentation regarding the site selection and all other aspects of the aforementioned facility from the inception of the project to the date of this letter. We would ask that you include documents generated by the Town Of Cary, its attorney and staff, and the Western Wake Partners. We would also like those same documents provided to you by staff and employees of the Town Of Cary, the Western Wake Partners, any other municipality or government agency that has any involvement with the facility, and all third party contractors that were hired by the Town Of Cary, Western • Wake Partners. I agree to pay any reasonable copying and postage fees of not more than $100. If the cost would be greater than this amount, please notify me. Please provide a receipt indicating the charges for each document. We would prefer these documents be provided in CD format. I would request your response within ten (10) business days. If you choose to deny this request, please provide a written explanation for the denial including a reference to the specific statutory exemption(s) upon which you rely. Also, please provide all segregable portions of otherwise exempt material. Please be advised that I am prepared to pursue whatever legal remedy necessary to obtain access to the requested records. I would note that violation of the open records law can result in the award of reasonable attorney fees, for which you may be held personally liable. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Lisa M. Dahlquist NHCA Legal Chairperson C/O Law Offices of Kenneth R. Embree 6110 Falconbridge Road, Suite 200 Chapel Hill, NC 27517 (919) 489-1492 (815)301-8116 fax • Lisa@embreelaw.com DENR Response.lwp Tab 7 Supporting Documentation • Subject: Letters From: "Lisa M. Dahlquist" <lisa@embreelaw.com> Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 12:12:13 -0500 To: <bobkelly@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Requested Electronic Mail (email) documents From: <Sue.Rowland@TownofCary.org> Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 09:36:51 -0500 To: "Lisa M. Dahlquist" <lisa@embreelaw.com> Your documents are ready. Let me know if you plan to hand-deliver the check and pick them up (M-F, 8 a.m.-5 p.m.) or whether you plan to mail the check to me and I, in turn, will mail the documents to you. If your preference is mail, I'll need a mailing address. Sue Rowland Cary Town Clerk PO Box 8005 Cary, NC 27512-8005 sue. rowland@townofcary. org • Phone: (919)460-4941 Fax: (919)460-4910 Web site: www.townofcary.org Please note that a-mail sent to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. "Lisa M. Dahlquist" <lisa@embreelaw. Com> To Sue.Rowland@TownofCary.org cc 08/31/2005 08:43 PM Subject Re: Requested Electronic Mail (email) documents Ms. Rowland, Please proceed. Lisa M. Dahlquist NHCA Legal Committee Chairperson At 05:34 PM 8/31/2005, you wrote: »Dear Ms. Dahlquist, • » Tab 7 DENR Response.lwp Tab 7 Supporting Documentation »The total cost of your public records request for all records to/from the • »Cary Town Council, Cary Town Clerk and Cary Deputy Town Clerk regarding the »New Hill site is a total of $9.94. What I have electronically, I'll place »on a cd as a text file for you at a cost of $1 (for the cd). What I only »have in paper, I'll photocopy for you at a cost of $8.94 -- for a total »cost of $9.94. These fees are set out in our fee schedule that's part of »our adopted budget. »Would you like for me to proceed? Once you authorize me to proceed, let me »know if you want to personally pick up the records or if you prefer that I »mail them to you. If you prefer that I mail them to you, then please first »mail me a check for the $9.94 (to my attention please), payable to the Town »of Cary, P.O. Box 8005, Cary, NC 27512-8005. I'll be happy to mail the »information to you once I've received payment. »Sue Rowland »Cary Town Clerk »PO Box 8005 »Cary, NC 27512-8005 »sue.rowland@townofcary. org »Phone: (919)460-4941 »Fax: (919)460-4910 »Web site: www.townofcary.org • » »Please note that e-mail sent to and from this address is subject to the »North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. » "Lisa M. Dahlquist" <lisa@embreelaw.com> To <sue.rowland@townofcary.org> cc » 08/19/2005 06:08 PM Subject: Requested Electronic Mail (email) documents » Please respond to <lisa@embreelaw.com> »Dear Ms. Rowland: »I have received your letter dated August 15, 2005 regarding the request for »email. I did not specify a time frame due to the fact that we requested »all electronic mail. I would request that you provide us with all email • »correspondence as far back as the inception of this project. Tab 7 DENR Response.lwp Tab 7 Supporting Documentation • »If you have any questions, I may be contacted at 919-601-8935 or »lisa@embreelaw.com. »Thank you, »Lisa M. Dahlquist »NHCA Legal Committee Chairperson Subject: Re: Requested Electronic Mail (email) documents From: <Sue.Rowland@TownofCary.org> Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:34:52 -0500 To: <lisa@embreelaw.com> CC: <Sue.Rowland@TownofCary.org> Dear Ms. Dahlquist, The total cost of your public records request for all records to/from the Cary Town Council, Cary Town Clerk and Cary Deputy Town Clerk regarding the New Hill site is a total of $9.94. What I have electronically, I'll place on a cd as a text file for you at a cost of $1 (for the cd). What I only have in paper, I'll photocopy for you at a cost of $8.94 -- for a total cost of $9.94. These fees are set out in our fee schedule that's part of • our adopted budget. Would you like for me to proceed? Once you authorize me to proceed, let me know if you want to personally pick up the records or if you prefer that I mail them to you. If you prefer that I mail them to you, then please first mail me a check for the $9.94 (to my attention please), payable to the Town of Cary, P.O. Box 8005, Cary, NC 27512-8005. I'll be happy to mail the information to you once I've received payment. Sue Rowland Cary Town Clerk PO BOX BOOS Cary, NC 27512-8005 sue.rowland@townofcary.org Phone: (919)460-4941 Fax: (919)460-4910 Web site: www.townofcary.org Please note that e-mail sent to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. • Tab 7 DENR Response.lwp Tab 7 Supporting Documentation "Lisa M. Dahlquist" <lisa@embreelaw.com> • To: <sue.rowland@townofcary.org> cc 08/19/2005 06:08 PM Subject Requested Electronic Mail (email) documents Please respond to <lisa@embreelaw.com> Dear Ms. Rowland: I have received your letter dated August 15, 2005 regarding the request for email. I did not specify a time frame due to the fact that we requested all electronic mail. I would request that you provide us with all email correspondence as far back as the inception of this project. If you have any questions, I may be contacted at 919-601-8935 or Lisa@embreelaw.com. Thank you, Lisa M. Dahlquist NHCA Legal Committee Chairperson Subject: Re: Requested Electronic Mail (email) documents • From: <Sue.Rowland@TownofCary.org> Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 08:31:00 -0500 To: <lisa@embreelaw.com> Dear Ms. Dahlquist, I told you that I'd be in touch with you today regarding your public records request. I'm still in the process of going through all records -- a very time consuming process because I have to touch and often read portions of each piece of correspondence to ensure I'm providing you with everything I have. It is my top priority. Some I have electronically, but most I have in paper format only. I must finish compiling everything before I can give you the cost estimate to reproduce everything. I'll be in touch with you by the end of the week with this data. Sorry for the delay, but as I said, it is and has been my top priority, but it is a very time consuming task. Thank you for your patience. Sue Rowland Cary Town Clerk PO Box 8005 Cary, NC 27512-8005 • sue.rowland@townofcary.org Phone: (919)460-4941 DENR Response.lwp Tab 7 Tab 7 Supporting Documentation Fax: (919)460-4910 Web site: www.townofcary.org Please note that a-mail sent to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. "Lisa M. Dahlquist" <lisa@embreelaw. c om> To: <sue.rowland@townofcary.org> cc 08/19/2005 06:08 PM Subject: Requested Electronic Mail (email) documents Please respond to <lisa@embreelaw.com> Dear Ms. Rowland: I have received your letter dated August 15, 2005 regarding the request for email. I did not specify a time frame due to the fact that we requested all electronic mail. I would request that you provide us with all email correspondence as far back as the inception of this project. If you have any questions, I may be contacted at 919-601-8935 or • Lisa@embreelaw.com. Thank you, Lisa M. Dahlquist NHCA Legal Committee Chairperson C Tab 7 DENR Response.lwp Tab 7 Supporting Documentation Tab 8 Published: Sep 30, 2005 Modified: Sep 30, 2005 8:17 AM r Cary is complying Regarding the Sept. 27 People's Forum letter captioned "A document search," the Town of Cary has had numerous contacts with New Hill Association representative Lisa Dahlquist during the past several months in an attempt to clearly understand and completely fulfill what have often been vague and global requests for public information about the Western Wake Regional Wastewater Treatment Facilities. On Sept. 1, a New Hill representative came to Cary Town Hall and collected from our town clerk copies of all the a-mails in her possession -- including those of the Town Council. On Sept. 21, separate public records requests were made of other Cary staff by New Hill, and these staff are pulling together those materials at this time. In Cary, we take very seriously our responsibility to support the provisions of the state Public Records Law. We know the law, appreciate its tremendous importance in helping to ensure transparent government and follow the law to the letter -- every time. Despite continued false allegations questioning the integrity of our organization, the Town of Cary will continue vigorously supporting the law by providing all interested parties with access to and copies of public records as soon as possible on any topic. Bill Coleman Town Manager Cary © Copyright 2005, The News & Observer Publishing Company, a subsidiary of The McC{atcha< Compan}~ • DENR Response.lwp Tab 8 Supporting Documentation -----Original Message----- . From: dcooke@co.wake.nc.us [mailto:dcooke@co.wake.nc.us] Sent: Wednesday, June O1, 2005 5:32 PM To: bruce.radford@apexnc.org Subject: Wastewater Plant I missed something the first time. --- Forwarded by David C Cooke/MGR/Wake County on 06/01/2005 05:31 PM --- I---------+----------------------------> I I David C Cooke I 106/01/2005 05:29 PM I I To: bruceradford@apexnc.org, bill.coleman@townofcary.org I cc: Joe Durham/Wake County@Wake County I Subject: Wastewater Plant Bruce and Bill: Had a blast last night! Happy neighbors, friendly conversations. Tab 9 I will keep trying to connect via the phone, but wanted to put down some observations, reflections, comments based on last night's mob commentary and commentary made after the meeting. My .goal is to help keep us on track without the Board of Commissioners from having to get involved or being dragged in. The New Hill group is compiling the questions and issues and I expect we will get that by the end of this week. First, I think we will need a bigger venue for the 14th. I'd like to hear what you think and whether you think the visitor's center at Shearon Harris or another site will work or just keep it at the Fire Station. • Second, the process for the meeting should include a brief presentation (or 2presentations) about the background and the process which evaluated the alternatives and then the site selection process including the criteria and other sites which were evaluated. The key issue, I believe, is to explain how that site was chosen as the selected site. There will be questions about the consideration and evaluation of Progress Energy owned land. Tommy Esqueda would be my candidate for the presentations. Third, and I may be infringing on a process already in motion, but I would recommend that you do not finalize the condemnation, decisions until after the public meeting. This is for several reasons::. one, we may learn something at the publidc meeting that has not been considered yet; and, two, I think there is a different perception when one hears "why this site is the best site for a wastewater treatment plant" versus "we have already decided to condemn this site for the wastewater plant." Thanks. Talk to you soon. David DENR Response.lwp Tab 9 Supporting Documentation From: pstout@co.wake.nc.us [mailto:pstout@co.wake.nc.us] • Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 3:19 PM To: Kim.Fisher@TownofCary.org Cc: bmills@ci.morrisville.nc.us; Leila.Goodwin@TownofCary.org; Rob. Bonne@TownofCary.org; stephanie.sudano@ncmail.net; Steve.Brown@TownofCary. org; tdonnelly@apexnc.org Subject: Re: ILA Comments From Cary's Bond Attorneys Not unless you were expecting us to finance the land costs. Actually, it is absolutely our preference to not be part of the land acquisition or financing. We have only offered to do both because the partners asked us to consider such participation and we want to see the project move forward . We were clear on this back in March , 2004. On a related matter, Leila has recently indicated to me and others that Wake had changed our commitment relative to participation in funding land costs. That is absolutely untrue. We've consistently stated that we would be willing to acquire and finance the land so long as there was an interlocal agreement that assured Wake would be fully re-paid for the land costs, accrued interest and related financing charges. If you have all partners in agreement with an approach that assigns responsibility for acquiring land and funding all the cost to someone other than Wake we will be pleased to move on to other projects. I assure you we will be smiling as we head in that direction. Kim.Fisher@TownofCary.org To: pstout@co.wake.nc.us cc: Leila.Goodwin@TownofCary.org, 07/09/04 02:47 PM Steve.Brown@TownofCary.org, Rob.Bonne@TownofCary.org, tdonnelly@apexnc.org, bmills@ci.morrisville.nc.us, stephanie.sudano@ncmail.net Subject: Re: ILA Comments From Cary's Bond Attorneys Phil - Ifthe project partners, not including Wake County, decided to acquire the needed land and easements themselves, would Wake County still need to be a party to this ILA? Robert K. (Kim) Fisher, P.E. Director of Public Works and Utilities Town of Cary P. O. Box 8005 Cary, North Carolina 27512-8005 Phone: (919) 469-4092 FAX: (919) 469-4304 E Mail: kim.fisher@townofcary.org Tab l0 DENR Response.lwp Tab l0 Supporting Documentation Tab 11 Note: Only a portion of the June 23, 2005 Cary Town Council Meeting Minutes are shown here. All of the minutes may be read at: r~~~~~w~~.to~~~tofcarv.ors,la~eadalcnur~eiiminO5lcm0623{)S.Tttrr 2. Operations Committee, June 1, 2005 (Mrs. Robinson) a. Request to Initiate Condemnation Proceedings for the Western Wake Water Reclamation Facility (ENDS-137) The committee considered a request to initiate condemnation proceedings to secure property for the Western Wake Regional Water Reclamation Facility. Mr. Tommy Esqueda, of CH2MHi11, consultant to the regional partners, detailed the 36-month site selection process. Mr. Gerald Ramoin of 2700 Weaver Hill Drive and Mr. Bill Lutz of Weaver Crossing were invited to speak before the committee. Mr. Ramoin stated that he didn't think the staff and consultants took all factors into consideration when making their recommendation. Mr. Lutz stated that 1) input from the surrounding public was needed prior to making a site selection and 2) the site should be located at the Shearon Harris plant. Staff stated that a public meeting will be held on June 14, 2005. Committee voted 2-1 (Michael Joyce dissenting) to approve the Resolution Authorizing Condemnation. Committee voted 2-1 (Jennifer Robinson dissenting) to delay this item until the June 23, 2005 council meeting. Council may take final action. Staff has been working with the owner of the property selected for the proposed Western Wake Water Reclamation Facility in order to purchase the property. The owners have requested a lot of information about the selection of the property and are being kept apprised of developing reports on the site as they become available. Because of their reluctance to sell the property, Staff is requesting that the Town Council approve a Resolution Authorizing condemnation in order to secure title to the tract. • Staff will continue to work with the property owners in hopes of reaching an amicable settlement to this purchase. The principal owners of the property are Mr. A. T. Seymour, III and his sister, Mrs. Susan S. Mills and the property is located in the 3700 block of Old US Hwy. 1 in New Hill, NC. There are other family members who also own small interests in the overall property. An aerial photo is attached showing the property affected. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and requests that the committee forward this item to the Town Council for its approval and execution of the required Resolution Authorizing Condemnation. (NOTE: The aerial photo and resolution are included in the town clerk's office with the official minutes.) ACTION: Mrs. Robinson moved to remove this item from the table; Ms. Dorrel provided the second; council granted unanimous approval. Mrs. Robinson stated the council needs to make a decision to either approve the resolution or table the action for another 30 days. Ms. Dorrel stated she originally proposed to delay this item at the committee level in order to allow the June 14 public information session to be held. She stated this goal has been fulfilled. She stated this is a difficult issue, but she added the State provides the opportunity for the review of all information and two public hearings. She stated at this time people are getting information in a piecemeal fashion. She stated during the environmental impact study, all of the information will be provided, and anyone can see all the information DENR Response.lwp Tab 11 Supporting Documentation Tab 11 at one time. She stated some New Hill residents feel they are behind in the process, but instead she feels • everyone is ahead of the process, since there is a time and place set out for everyone to get all the information and have questions answered. Ms. Dorrel stated she has heard the following rationale for the 30 day delay: (1) To provide time to get more information about the Town?s analysis: Ms. Dorrel stated this will be done in the environmental impact analysis stage. (2) To allow more review about the potential utilization of the Progress Energy site: Ms. Dorrel stated a $27 or $28 million gap must be closed in order to address this. She stated this would be hard to accomplish in 30 days. (3) To allow review to see if the interbasin transfer requirement could be removed: Ms. Dorrel stated this is more than a 30 day consideration. Ms. Dorrel stated the Town?s moving forward with the condemnation does not in any way prejudice any kind of case that is made before the State. She will support moving forward with the resolution. ACTION: Ms. Dorrel made a motion to move forward and approve the request for condemnation. Mrs. Robinson provided the second. Mr. Roseland questioned the acreage. Mr. Joyce responded that it is 211 acres but the Town only needs 40 acres. Mr. Roseland is in favor of waiting an additiona130 days prior to taking action. He understands that • Progress Energy has more than 15,000 acres that they control, and he also understands that the Progress Energy site would result in increased costs. He thinks the cost could be decreased with less acreage on the Progress Energy site. He stated it makes sense to him to site a sewer plant next to a nuclear plant. He believes that State officials would be open to working with the Town on this 30-day delay. Mr. Joyce concurred with Mr. Roseland's comments. He stated he does not have as much faith in the process as Ms. Dorrel, and he stated once the condemnation process begins, he does not think there is any turning back. He stated Progress Energy took private property to build a large nuclear facility, which was never built. He stated Technical Bulletin 8.0 includes weighing factors, and the New Hill parcel is listed as #5. He stated over a year later Technical Bulletin 8.1 was published with New Hill being #1. He does not think enough time has been spent on the human aspect of this issue. He is in favor of the 30-day delay. He personally apologized to the New Hill residents for what is going on. Mrs. Robinson stated this is not an easy decision to make. She stated for future projects like this one, she would like the mayor of each municipality and the chair of the county commission to join together and make the decisions rather than putting the decision-making process on one single municipality to carry the entire weight. Mrs. Robinson stated the Town must comply with interbasin transfer requirements by a specified date, and the schedule is very aggressive and does not allow for an extra 30-day delay. She stated it is not feasible to expect to find $27 million in 30 days to pump the wastewater across to the Progress Energy site. Mrs. Robinson believes the large amount of land to serve as open space around the site is a benefit to the community. She stated if a person moving into the area has a choice of having the open space around the DENR Response.lwp Tab 11 Supporting Documentation Tab 11 facility or having development, she believes that person would want the open space to avoid having future • development. She will support the condemnation request. Mrs. Robison stated she has faith in the highly regulated, structured environmental impact statement process (EIS). She is concerned with making a decision on land acquisition prior to the EIS process. She stated ideally the EIS would occur before land acquisition. She understands that the EIS is underway and a report will be forthcoming in the next few weeks. Mayor McAlister asked staff to reply to Mrs. Robison's question and to advise of the need for the two processes to occur simultaneously. Mr. Kim Fisher, director of public works and utilities, stated the EIS will be completed during the month of July and submitted to the State. He stated the State is currently considering the secondary and cumulative impacts master mitigation plan (covers all of capital projects in the 10-year plan), and this must get to a certain point in the process before the Town can submit the EIS, and he thinks this will occur in late July. Mrs. Robison asked if the master mitigation plan is on the Partner?s Web site. Mr. Fisher responded negatively. He stated the master mitigation plan is for indirect impacts, and direct impacts will be a part of the EIS. Mrs. Robison asked for information on the public hearing process. Mr. Fisher stated there is no timeframe given on when they will occur. He stated the State first reviews the EIS and makes their comments; the Town responds to the comments; the State then sends the EIS to other agencies and interested parties for comments and the State receives their comments. After this time the State sets the date for the public hearing, and it is usually 6-9 months after the submission date. He stated the State will publish a notice to open the public comment period for 30-days prior to the public hearing and 30-days after the public hearing. Mrs. Robison questioned the need to move forward with condemnation now when the public hearings will not occur for some time. Mr. Tommy Esqueda, consultant for the project, clarified that the first public hearing will occur in October/November 2005, and a second public hearing will be in the timeframe indicated by Mr. Fisher above. He stated the State is aware of the course of action by the Town and that the two parallel items need to be handled concurrently. He stated the initial project construction in order to meet the 2011 deadline needs to begin 24 months from today?s date. He stated this will be for a program that spans from U.S. Highway 64 to the Cape Fear River ,including three counties. He stated to accomplish this in 42 months is very aggressive. He stated in order to meet this schedule, it is necessary to prepare the currently proposed site for the EIS so that a contractor can be available to prepare the site (access road, water line, grading, sedimentation and erosion control plans, etc.). He stated this preparation work will occur through about December of next year and provides a six month window to bid and award the contract with the contractor mobilizing on site 24 months from today. Mrs. Robison asked if the EIS reviews site alternatives. Mr. Esqueda stated multiple options will be reviewed (i.e., discharge to Jordan Lake, discharge to Harris Lake ,discharge to the Cape Fear River ). He stated alternative sites will also have to be presented along with the evaluation of each. He stated the Town must quantify, identify and present mitigation measures for the alternatives sites that are presented in the EIS. Mrs. Robison asked if the alternative sites are in any way limited to those outlined in Technical Memoranda 8.1. Mr. Esqueda stated the EIS will begin with the 29 sites (Technical Memoranda 8.0), go through the • alternatives process, and provide an analysis on the last three sites presented in Technical Memoranda 8.1. DENR Response.lwp Tab 11 Supporting Documentation Tab 11 Mr. Esqueda clarified that the three sites in Technical Memoranda 8.1 (A, B and C) will be the sites identified, quantified and mitigation measures presented for the EIS. He stated other sites will not be subject to the EIS. Mrs. Robison asked when to expect a more detailed cost analysis. Town Manager Coleman stated the EIS process will identify particular characteristics of the site to be remediated, and cost would be determined at that time. He stated one of the reasons that we need to acquire the property at this time is because we need to select the design engineer to begin designing the project. He stated capital costs will be identified through the design process. Mr. Fisher stated the EIS requires a preliminary engineering report that will detail the first construction cost estimates for selected alternatives, and this cost is evaluated in the EIS. Mrs. Robison stated this could be a $500,000,000 project at build-out. She stated she appreciates the need to make progress and she supported the bond referendum. She is willing to delay the condemntation decision for 30 days and she feels if there are other sites (other than the A, B, and C), then the Town needs to consider them at this time. She wants to see alternatives. She thinks if the Town moves ahead with condemnation, then it sends the message that the Town is not looking at other sites. Mayor Pro Tem Smith believes the Town has adequately explored alternative sites and has come up with the most optimal site. Mayor McAlister stated the Town of Cary serves as the lead agent for the Western Wake Partners, and as the lead agent the Town Council is making a critical infrastructure decision for Cary ,Apex, Morrisville, Holly Springs ,and portions of the Research Triangle Park . He would prefer to be able to purchase the site without • the condemnation process, but this is not an option at this time. He stated a vote to .delay the condemnation action is ultimately a vote to delay the project. He stressed that the council cannot take this risk with this critical infrastructure decision. Mayor McAlister stated the Operations Committee considered the condemnation resolution on June'1 and deferred it a meeting to allow the public information session to occur on June 14. He stated the council has continued discussions with New Hill residents, and he and Ms. DorreL met with representatives from New Hill on June 22. He stated counciLmembers will continue to dothis as information becomes available. He stated the appropriate forum to air many of the concerns is at the time of the State's-.:process (i.e. EIS, permitting process). He stressed thatthe Town's action tonight with the condemnation' is not the final approval. ACTION: Vote was called for on the motion to approve the condemnation. Mr. Roseland, Mr. Joyce, and Mrs. Robison voted ?no.? All others voted ?aye.? The motion carried by majority vote. (Resolution is also on file in the town clerk's office.) DENR Response.lwp Tab 11 Supporting Documentation News & Observer, The (Raleigh, NC) • June 25, 2005 Column: Triangle Politics Author: Josh Shaffer Toby Coleman T. Keung Hui Matt Dees; Staff Writers Edition: Final Section: News Page: B3 Article Text: Tab 12 NO LAUGHING MATTER: Don't laugh in Cary Town Hall, at least not when council member Jennifer Robinson is speaking. Robinson scolded some out-of-towners Thursday after they giggled while she spoke. "This is a professional meeting," she said. "Do not speak out." Robinson's lecture did not amuse the laughers. "I thought it was unprofessional," said Carolyn Sink, a New Hill resident who went to oppose the town's plan to condemn land for a sewage plant in her unincorporated village in southwestern Wake County. "It was completely arrogant and rude." What did Sink fmd so funny? Robinson's suggestion that New Hill residents could see "a benefit" from the sewage plant. Robinson later said that she was only talking about the plan to put the proposed sewage plant on more than 200 acres of land. "That land will help buffer," Robinson said. "I think it's a good thing, not a bad thing." She added that voting to condemn the land was a difficult decision. "I wish you guys would respect that," she told the gigglers. Copyright 2005 by The News & Observer Pub. Co. • DENR Response.lwp Tab 12 Supporting Documentation r: txtvirorn~rttasial caarrpna~t of the p~areeLs :and shaft, try crrtifi~a! trtaa7, prravidc 14ltsrrucipsd Parties vtrith writtrts rtsnlits ofthaawSe qs Utsless~ a~ithitt I~ bcsitaess drays of such rneiiing, Municipal. Partite ctajtxt.. in writing dtli-+erod to t;iaumty by rxrti#sotl rata. tc'thc ~ of cnvirorttt~tal rcpttrts, tha; ir+lwtocripal Parties -vtdi be dew to !save acaxptcd those ~s and cotascmcd to the p~achase of the parcel(s). AtI catstracts far tlac purchase of perccis shall cxastaia a aaonditicm sllow~g the C'oasnty, iii ac-k +disc-retit~ts, to ucrrrc the cc~rrtraet if :sgsy ctiviroanm~rtal prob{erns are idcxstificd hY an mvutenmental eacamtnation Tab 13 2.4ri.,F~ iinmt iham~;ui. In the. evc~tt that any of thr- p®acc~s srnssi be ac~ssired ~ the e~ercis~e raf the power caf c-rttisteatt , the Cnty will rrsaicc best ctl'orts tra irtstittrte such ties <__ action ~ hs ttaurie cxa behalf of the h+IwsiI P:~ties tto rater than hint 30« 2fltatr 7~se parties a~rce that. if, m tree opinions of the C,:ounty Attorn+cy, it ix ~~ that sting car aatl atthe Municipal Pauttia~ beccam~c tszrnted i in any crtuncrtit ~ active, tbes7 the: Msstsic~ai Parties will. Pmt in that satum ar.; nturied parties. 2105 Fat~te~t. Sub,4cact uo the iimitaxtians exprt~sed in 2,t?t. the Caatsrrty will fund land acquisition costs in cotmreckion with the pure of tltcc identif ed parch usciudirtg, tint aot ]irsutsaei tv, the putctsnsc price, fees, ~, saarvey+s, site , Cttiu1't costs stissociatc~d tirtith dr~maat prac~irr~s, if r-aary, all eat:. ~ clue dilig~sce a€~akyses, board is~eaot;c costs atttd aocrtted utentst [lM;arrrtef4cr r+efcrre~d tp 8~t the " land Acxluiraliots Casts"). in the cvcrrt the Courtly decides, in its colt dist~ztirn~ tcs firtanr~e the Lasnd Acakuisition C.x~sts, n will tie. its best etlarts tc finance flit !.aloe! Acysrr~itiratt +Ccast~ taws a yacriard ref tvvetsty (20) ycers asxci will uSC its beat cffertts to SirvCtttrc such fr<taticiri~ with kvrl da'krt service p~ynaerses Befiara the Coutsty enters any fatancirsg 8rrssrsgernent that rccluirra a rraortgage other lien cue tkse laird, test Ccauxrty~ wtii prxar~c the Muncipal Pstrt airs opprntuttty to rtvieoa~ the fira.~rieirsk; alacettsteatts artd wiU use its best efforts tea resvlvc any cemce:rn.S a ascxl iaa a tithe)}~ nrtmarer by the Mutseipal Parties retawd tea the. e'~ixR of such snorts; err !rest +~n the C•^inssicipal 1'aatics' future ffitatteutps #'car it-c Praiext. 2, Ufi "i'~ltle- Title to tlic parcels skull l'+e in tha nm'nc: cr€tisc C.taESysrv utfttil such timC as Esc ~'oumy ~ r all cads as pmvidr+d hr Sc~tiva ~.(Pt Iftitle is abtainecl laeart5uaint tc~ ass a~rtaatatt dotrr3,n mots ~ w}sie~ pr~rtia:s otFscr than the CUernty stf'e x~rtet9 emtdermters, tree parties a~•t'ee that, stpon vesting of'title csr wmpletion oi`the eminent ciurrwin aciican., at the [:aunty's scale diseaatic~n, the pat`tta~ will tt.u~fer tiltfe to the C'oux~ty Ltp~ri fuU rcpsvrlscnt. ,~r at stscit time z~ thr Cvutety uthcav:ise., tr, its sulc discae~tioes, r:lc~cts, title tea else parcels slssik be tt;tttsferred to the rlunicilzst 1'•at'Iia~ tx, if the Muriic.-ipai Parties utsaasirrtausly sstbr~oqueatily , to at- opraatin~C cattily ar errtititts ms exs~ish~i by further mitts of the patrties. Munietpal Parties agroc theft tltev wa7t auCexpt title W the parcels err rWaTl ra~uire tlsat msy t~pera~tin~ emit}~ or aastitiea wi[t, art. such tune ;~ the C'oarsty ebcts, accxpt traee5fer cif title by t he Corurny b}' a decd. cif st least equal rank sae the deead ~ try Cossnty fcrr the. ~cxi. ~4sac.f A{.,na~odrl kx AK•.~„r~a hs.r.kwer P.obres „~. r~ U DENR Response.lwp Tab l 3 Supporting Documentation -----Original Message----- . From: Carl Dean Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 11:56 AM To: Charles Simmons; John Schifano; Joni Powell; Kendra Stephenson; Stephanie Sudano; Thomas Tillage Subject: FW: Waste Water Treatment Facility Tab 14 Folks- Just received this from Ernie, and I agree with his position. In the future please direct all inquiries to Cary as it relates to the site location of the Western Wake plant, and let me know if additional information is requested from the Council. Thanks- Ca r1 From: Jenn Randall (mailto:jrandall@shlf.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 10:39 AM To: 'rgsears'; Carl Dean; 'Chuck Simmons'; 'Chet VanFossen'; 'Hank Dickson'; 'hamwomble'; 'patwell' Subject: Waste Water Treatment Facility In regard to the recent exchange of emails regarding the New Hill site for the regional waste water treatment facility, I will repeat the comments I made at a recent Town Board meeting. Cary is the lead agency in this project. Representatives of Cary should be the only ones responding to inquiries about_this_project. It should be quite obvious by now that if representatives of our Town and other Towns involved in the project try to respond to questions about and make comments on this project, discrepancies between what we say and others say will be picked apart by the opposition and only be fuel to feed their fire, even if those discrepancies are minor. It has been my experience in handling a number of environmentally sensitive and inflammatory projects that it is best to have one source of information and comment. Questions regarding our sewer plant expansion and our waste water treatment Line are different matters. Those we should speak to as the lead agency. Each elected official can do whatever they want to. But I would respectfully submit and urge that there is only one appropriate response from representatives of Ho11y Springs regarding this project, which is, "Cary is the lead agency in this project and any comments should come from representatives of .that Town." Period. Nothing more. As a last point one should consider the obvious. Opponents are not looking for factual responses. They are looking for ways to stop the project. Carl, I would encourage you to direct the above. Elected officials do what into the middle of this is beyond me. all staff to have no response other than you want, but why one would want to get DENR Response.lwp Tab 14 Supporting Documentation Tab 15 In_Reply_To: <OF3E91AOD5.75B8062A-ON85257042.0059E454-85257042.0059AF71@LocalDomain> $$MessageID: <OF2E3D97BD.BE7F92E0-ON85257042.005D9838-85257042.005D96B4@LocalDomain> INetFrom: Kim.Fisher@TownofCary.org PostedDate: 07/18/2005 01:04:35 PM Recipients: CN=Leila Goodwin/O=Cary@Cary,CN=SUSAN MORAN/O=Cary@Cary InetCopyTo: Leila.Goodwin@TownofCary.org InetSendTo: Susan.Moran@TownofCary.org InheritedFrom: CN=SUSAN MORAN/O=Cary InheritedAltFrom: CN=SUSAN MORAN/O=Cary From: CN=Kim Fisher/O=Cary AltFrom: CN=Kim Fisher/O=Cary Principal: CN=Kim Fisher/O=Cary SendTo: CN=SUSAN MORAN/O=Cary@Cary CopyTo: CN=Leila Goodwin/O=Cary@Cary Subject: Re: Fw: draft letter EnterSendTo: CN=SUSAN MORAN/O=Cary EnterCopyTo: CN=Leila Goodwin/O=Cary@Cary EnterBlindCopyTo: $UpdatedBy: CN=Kim Fisher/O=Cary Looks like to me that you nailed the issues, except the charge that the Western Wake Partners are "targeting" the New Hill community. Seems to me New Hill is a zip code, not a community.. It gave up it identity as a "community" in the early 1900's when it gave up its "town government". Robert K. (Kim) Fisher, P.E. Director of Public Works and Utilities Town of Cary P. 0. Box 8005 Cary, North Carolina 27512-8005 Phone: (919) 469-4092 • FAX: (919) 469-4304 E Mail: kim.fisher@townofcary.org • DENR Response.lwp Tab 15 Supporting Documentation • r »~c rc~~ a~ coca Lew~c .~ ~ f ~~ P ~+';-X. kfl Fi7H CAr2 ^lt,.Itiq r F',y{7r~ *~A~~~ Jtlile , ~tlDS Won. Fmie McWister h9ayor Tdwr~ of Cary P. D. flax 80E?5 ~rY, -~arth Carolina 27512-~tlt35 5t3~.lf=CT: Seated Sits for Western ~Nake ~agiar~ t~liastr~ater Managerrarnt Far~'ities t]!ear Mayor Ma4wister. In ucet~rder~ with the Pravis~ans ~Amendrner~t Na 1 t~ lrtit~tlc~cal neerrtent For Regional Wastewater taianac„~mea~t Facititres land Acquion and Pre#irrrinary Work, dated Jan~ry 2+6, 2{45, we wig to natf~+ Cary, whic,~ acting as the lead a9errcY f{or 1~'atce Partners that,+4pex agrees w~, antl r,~ncurs m tt~e sek~Gtic~n of the sib far. • ~ VWest Cary Regional Waste~+ater Ptanp Station alts {as rscckrnmend~e~t in Se~ti©n ~ of the Brawn and Caldwell [~'ER} • waver Creek F~egic~af Wastevrat Pub Station slte t renmended in Technical ltorancium . 'tt?) • Regionst 'v~+atc r RecEamatann Facifly argil i=ftluont f~urnp Station ias n~r~me~~ded in Technical Memczt~dn Nc. 8.'f~ . TlYese sites are those situ which have E~-e.n recorrux~ended by the t+'~estem tr~~ake Partners ?eci~rti~t ~4dvisary Committee, ~nrtpr~ed of s#af tta.*,anbers from c~ch cf the parrtier tc~~~ns, ir.clUairrg Apex staff, and are tltvse sites which are the m€~t envh'or~maenr~i~}~ suitabEe, gave the least imQact on propurEy owners ~d are the most cost ef#ectve sites far this prof The TQVUn of A,~,~c heretyy rests that the ~otvn ~ Cary pr©~eed yvith aCtauisition of tl'te above-listed sites, Rospectiuli ~.. Kett V.~ #h,arly Mayor .~~~+'~~ ~~ ~ 4 )~~AQ ~r ~` C Tab 16 DENR Response.lwp Tab 16 Supporting Documentation • ~t~ r ~"'~ .,~~~~rfE r~w~ ~~ ~~ .~,~ a. R~sp~#fu~Y, Richard Mayor ~,~. Eax s • S: Idaic 5arec* • ~~s~ wT~ F«.c- ~ • f$!~a Si ;.jl e Tab 16 DENR Response.lwp Tab 16 Supporting Documentation • .tune ~. 2ttC5 '+~ ~ of 1-~,urrsvi iie 'v#arris~;ilic, Nnttli Ca-ea3ir~a Z?3 fax' ~~~9)s.,6Uli Han€xat~e irrn~ star Mayor Tcmm Hof Cary Post Ott3re BUx bE7i~5 Cary, hic'r Caro~rta ~?~92-~Clt}~ SWSJL"-CT~ ~eiectad Sites far Westaern iM1fake Rergionai Vltastewater M~ opt F=acilit~s Dr<rar hQayor ~: In aca:orrdarac~ v~tr tFre p~rcrv~ians o" Atner>t~r~ ~~, 1 to Irrterbca~i Agr~rerrrent For • gicma9 4l#fas~e}vates` ii~gement ~adli~ Land ~uisi'lvn and F'reliinary Wont, dated Jnrauary ~, tea. rash to notifir Carr, whrc~ is acting as the in~d agency. #~ar the Western Wake Piers, that f'J~arrisv~iile aare~s wi`h and o+anL~s in the seiiart of the rtes tor. • ~ ' Re~~rra! INastewa#er i'urrrp Staticxr site has re~crartrmended irk SeeG€u~- 2 e€ the ~r~rr and C.~ctwep P~~tj + BQ;sver• Creek, R f Wastewater Purrtt~ Statcan site has reca~mn~ended TeohnJEa# t4ifemtrrarsfum i~to.1b) ~2egicr~i Water Recia~atit~n Fa~fity arrd c#fEt~ent tamp Statiat~r {r~s re~rn ci in echnica f+Aearrr3rar~urrr 0, 8.1} se sites are these sites w~taieh f3ave +.,rr recorrrtr'rended try the Wesem Wake ~arner~ Tect~r€cat Advisory C~rF~rrait€e~, camped crf r€rsrn~rs from each of i#~e C~~~tner#~; kr~trkng lulCirrisvi"te s~ff, and are ttkrse site. wf'rich are the rxrast er:viror~rr~~ntaify seartaf~ie, have the fees.. par.# car prapartgr owners artd ere the mrsst c~ssf ef#L~tivc sites trrr this projeot. ~'Fa:'Cawrn of h~t7rtts~dle hereby rectu~sts That the Town cf Gary prcec! witl'tacquisitian ottn~ a~sve-tis?ed sites. Pes~cfu3ly~, r? ~~~~ ~~~~q~~. Gordc~rr CTtrmwe(I Mayer • Tab 16 DENR Response.lwp Tab 16 Supporting Documentation Tab 17 Action: Motion by Commissioner Jensen to adopt this Resolution as presented with Commissioner Sutton making a second to the • motion. Discussion followed: Commissioner Jones stated there had been discussion of one alternative site over the past months and he offered a substitute Resolution with the same basic intent, however re-worded slightly; one correction had been made changing the word sufficient to official in the 7th paragraph. It was not his intent to discuss the criteria that was used; it could be debated, the criteria that had been used in the process for the past two years, and adding tonight could add nauseam if we wanted to and for a long time too, but, he doesn't think that... what he's trying to accomplish is official consideration of an alternate site to the one that has already been selected. Action: Motion by Commissioner Jones to substitute this Resolution for the one presented, with a second to the motion made by Commissioner Gossage. Mayor Weatherly stated the debate recurs on the amendment by Commissioner Jones. Action: Motion by Commissioner Sutton to amend the amendment of Commissioner Jones, the last part of the last sentence which says..... or to proceed with Site C, which would allow that to be done. He would like to take out the ...or to and add ...and not proceed with Site C. He offered this as an amendment to Commissioner Jones amendment. To him iYs a crux of the matter, either they like Site C or don't like Site C. Mayor Weatherly asked if this was a motion, and Commissioner Sutton responded, it was a motion to amend the amendment. Mayor Weatherly stated this was a second degree amendment that would offer the addition of the wording in the last clause. Mayor Weatherly asked if there were a second. Commissioner Jensen asked Commissioner Sutton if this was all he wished to amend on this since he had one shot at it, with his concern, and asking Town Attorney Fordham if this is correct. Town Attorney Fordham asked Commissioner Jensen to restate his question. Commissioner Jensen asked if they voted to amend the amendment, if that is the end of line; the end amending the amended resolution, so there is not a chain of amendments to this item. Page 7 Minutes of 12/20/05 Old Business continued Attorney Fordham began to advise the Board, with Mayor Weatherly addressing the question, advising there couldn't be more than a second degree amendment pending at any time, so once the second degree amendment is disposed with then the floor would be open to amend the amendment, but there can't be more than an amendment to the amendment. Commissioner Jensen clarified the amendment to the amendment being what Commissioner Sutton had stated, with Mayor Weatherly responding exactly, and that until that amendment is disposed of, no further amendments would be in order. Commissioner Jensen questioned Commissioner Sutton, asking him if he had anything else to add to that. Commissioner Sutton responded that was the only part of Commissioner Jones' proposal that he objected to, which is the part he mentioned with the other being ok by him. Mayor Weatherly asked if there were a second to Commissioner Sutton's amendment, with Commissioner Jensen making a second to the amendment. Mayor Weatherly added the discussion is now on the second degree amendment to Commissioner Jones' amendment. Action: Commissioner Gossage called for the question. Mayor Weatherly stated there needed to be a majority vote to call the question, with Commissioner Gossage adding, they would now vote on the amendment to the amendment. Mayor Weatherly stated Commissioner Jensen had made a second and were now on the discussion of the second degree amendment, and the question would be called if another member of the Board also joined with him to call the question, and the majority that would like to cut off debate. Commissioner Gossage stated he calls for the previous question. Commissioner Sutton asked if Commissioner Jones stated he would comment on Commissioner Suttons' amendment to the amendment. Mayor Weatherly responded they were still in discussion until the majority ...with Commissioner Jensen interjecting, that he takes back his second on Commissioner Suttons so the call does not count. Mayor Weatherly then stated, the motion fails for a lack of a second, and the debate recurs on Commissioner Jones amendment. Commissioner Jones stated basically that his resolution asks the partners to declare its conclusion on whether or not the alternative site meets criteria which justify continued review or to proceed with Site C. He addressed Commissioner Sutton, stating the reason he did not say and not proceed is because they have already proceeded with Site C - "the horse is out of the barn" not that it couldn't be put back, but the process is already in place, • with Commissioner Sutton interjecting, ...lets put it back. Commissioner Jones asked if he were saying and not to proceed, with Commissioner Sutton interjecting, "lets put the horse back". Commissioner Jones continued that's what he's asking them to do, to DENR Response.lwp Tab 17 Supporting Documentation Tab 17 consider an alternate to see if it meets ... with Commissioner Sutton interjecting, that when he says or to proceed, you are albwing • them to proceed, saying either/or is fine with him. Commissioner Jones responded that he didn't say that, and that if he read the first half of the Whereas he would see that that is not how he feels about it. Commissioner Sutton asked how he did feel about it. Commissioner Jones responded if he read all of the Whereas he would know hat he thinks the siteselection is an inappropriate site. Commissioner Sutton asked if he felt Site C was an inappropriate site. Commissioner Jensen added thats what he said at the public forum, with Commissioner Jones adding that's what he's reading right here, .....that's it's in an area currently recognized as the New Hill community near the intersection of two major roadways where municipal planning might prescribe commercial development, and at lease one alternate site exists with characteristics that differ from Site C, meaning it's not near the New Hill community and not near two major roadways. Page 8 Minutes of 12/20/05 Old Business continued Commissioner Jensen stated the criteria this site was selected under did not consider whether it was at the intersection of two major roads or could be used to a better alternate use; as you well know you folks have been over to Cary and discussed this and the consultant took an evaluation of this next site that is down one mile and came up with a number that made it less desirable for the wastewater facility than Site C because it was based on criteria that in his opinion is highly flawed. It does not consider the ultimate use of the land and should not consider to the degree that it does the number of property owners, and if they don't have some sort of different criteria then they will go back to the same path and right down to Site C. One other thing, he asked, "who is driving the dog, is it the tail or the dog that's doing the driving?" The problem he has is the consultant comes up with the criteria, and they (the board) never voted on what criteria they are going to be talking about. They come up with the criteria and they do their own evaluation and say under this criteria, they came up with... with Mayor Weatherly asking, who is they and addressing Commissioner Jensen, with Commissioner Jensen responding the consultant ... with Mayor Weatherly responding ... that was not true at all, with Commissioner Jensen adding that he had never voted on the criteria. Mayor Weatherly stated they had empowered staff to be the'r representative at the technical management team; Bruce Radford he thinks was at every one of those meetings; Tim Donnelly Public Works Director represented Apex at every one of those meetings and never once did any member of this body say that was not sufficient representation -the technical aspects of this project being as it is and certainly unless someone wishes to say the incompetence of those staff members representing the board made for a flawed process, then they can entertain that suggestion. • Commissioner Jensen stated he believed that the number of criteria and the type of criteria were insufficient; he's not saying staff is incompetent, he's saying the criteria was insufficient; he feels incompetent and thinks they are all incompetent in not reviewing the criteria themselves because they were the folks representing all of these folks and the folks in Apex and the Cary Town Council is representing their folks. Every email he had gotten from anybody in Apex regarding this, the people we all represent, is negative on this site selection and thinks that they (the board) were remiss; he's not picking on anyone, with Mayor Weatherly adding, they had empowered staff to represent...... with Commissioner Jensen interjecting, they should have watched this more closely and had that come back to take a look at criteria. Mayor Weatherly stated hind-sight was a wonderful thing. Commissioner Jones stated, they may recall when this alternate site was unofficially scored; the resulting score was basically the same as Site C - a fraction and compared to the other sites it was pretty wide variance. Therefore, he didn't think it was the criteria that makes any difference in this process, and it was scored the very same score and he was asking the Partners make an official consideration of the site. Commissioner Schulze stated, he agreed with this and doesn't think Site C should be taken off the table -that is his opinion. He thinks as it stands now, Site C from everything they have been told is the best site. If there are other sites out there, he's open to listening if they are better than Site C, but he's opposed they remove Site C. Mayor Weatherly stated they should be honest here; what they are doing is an exercise in grandstanding because it has no substance. The legal status that Apex is in and the legal status of the site is that it has been selected by the Partnership -Apex is a part of that Partnership and until a majority vote of the Partnership, there will be no change in the site nor additional sites reviewed and he comes to them making a wager with anyone of them that there won't be any support on the Partnership, for no matter what the wording of this language is to suggest the criteria flawed or the other sites need to be reviewed; there will not be a single other member support any change in our stance until the State has had opportunity to speak, so we are dealing with an exercise in futility here that has no meaning and no substance. He suggests they move to the vote on Commissioner Jones amendment and will call the question. • DENR Response.lwp Tab 17 Supporting Documentation Tab 17 Commissioner Sutton asked Attorney Fordham that his understanding is that the Partners each had an equal say contractually in • site selection; it was not a majority of the Partners to say this or that, that it had to be a unanimous vote by the Partners, asking if that's what the contract called for. Attorney Fordham answered, that is correct. Commissioner Sutton, then stated, but we haven't voted on it yet, asking, have we? Attorney Fordham deferred to Mayor Weatherly for response to the question. Mayor Weatherly responded they have formally sent a letter communicating our support for that site before the property was acquired through eminent domain. Commissioner Sutton asked, but we haven't voted on it; he continued, Commissioner Jones told him they had not voted on it. MayorWeatherly responded, no;this body has not voted on it ,Mayor Weatherly stated the letter was communicated prior to that based on recommendation from staff. Commissioner Sutton stated he hoped they could vote on it, whether to approve the site or not approve the site; of course his vote would be not to approve Site C. Mayor Weatherly stated the motion is for the amendment offered by Commissioner Jones, to amend as a substitute for the underlying resolution. Mayor Weatherly asked for the vote of the amendment. Commissioner Jensen stated he had withdrawn his second, with Mayor Weatherly adding, and therefore we have been discussing Commissioner Jones amendment, now the vote is on Commissioner Jones amendment. He asked all in favor to vote eye. Voting eye were Commissioner Gossage, Commissioner Jones and Commissioner Schulze. Mayor Weatherly asked for those being opposed to vote no. Commissioner Sutton and Commissioner Jensen voted no. Mayor Weatherly stated the amendment is adopted 3 to 2. The Resolution was amended by a substitution. He then stated the debate is on the amended resolution. Commissioner Jensen asked if they were discussing the amended resolution, which is what Commissioner Jones made. Mayor Weatherly stated that is right, the underlying motion; pending motion is the adoption of the amended resolution. Commissioner Jensen asked if they could amend the amended resolution at this point. Attorney Fordham stated a motion to amend would be in order. Commissioner Jensen asked Commissioner Sutton if he wanted to make his motion one more time to amend the amended resolution. Commissioner Sutton asked if he meant the same one they had just voted down. Commissioner Jensen responded no; in order to amend this resolution to say what he had noted before. Commissioner Sutton asked if this were the amendment that was passed out here. Commissioner Jensen stated he wanted to say, and not select Site C, with Commissioner Sutton responding that's what he had asked. Commissioner Jensen asked if he would like to make that motion again. Commissioner Sutton responded he thought they had just voted on it. Mayor Weatherly responded no, it didn't have a second. Action: Commissioner Sutton then made a motion to strike in the last sentence, the words... or to and add the words ... and not; this means the not proceed with Site C. Commissioner Jensen then made a second. Mayor Weatherly stated the motion was made and seconded and the discussion is on the amendment. Commissioner Jones again stated Site C is currently- he doesn't like it, but is currently being reviewed by the State, so the process is proceeding. His basic intent is to get as he said before an official re-evaluation of alternate site. Mayor Weatherly stated the site has been acquired. Commissioner Sutton asked how they could re-evaluate then if it's already... with Commissioner Jensen saying been evaluated. Commissioner Sutton again asked how could they re-evaluate; you want them to re-evaluate, but he says they already evaluated Site C. Commissioner Jones responded he wanted them to do it officially as Western Wake Partnership; that hasn't happened previously. Commissioner Sutton stated he wanted officially the Western Wake Partnership to not proceed with Site C. Commissioner Jensen then stated and that's your motion. Mayor Weatherly stated that's the motion and a second, asking all in favor, the vote is on the amendment of Commissioner Sutton's amendment, asking all in favor signify by voting eye. Commissioner Jensen and Commissioner Sutton voted eye. Mayor Weatherly asked those opposed vote no, with Commissioner Jones, Commissioner Gossage and Commissioner Schulze voting no. Mayor Weatherly stated the amendment fails 3 to 2, and now the debate recurs on the underlying motion, Commissioner Jones. There was no debate so he called for the question on the underlying motion, asking all in favor of the resolution as amended signify by voting eye, with Commissioner Jones, Commissioner Gossage and Commissioner Schulze voting eye. Mayor Weatherly asked those opposed vote no, with Commssioner Sutton and Commissioner Jensen voting no. Mayor Weatherly stated the resolution was adopted 3 to 2. End of Old Business • DENR Response.lwp Tab 17 Supporting Documentation Tab 18 Principal: CN=Kim Fisher/O=Gary Subject: WWR Site Selection and Other Stuff SendTo: Leila Goodwin From: CN=Kim Fisher/O=Gary INetFromPostedDate: 09/13/2005 09:45:06 AM As we discussed at the TAC meting last week, the Apex Town Board, at their last meeting, entertained a motion from Comm. Jensen to revisit the site selection process for WWR WWMF, but it died for lack of a second after significant discussion. There is a page 2 to this story. Yesteday, Bill Coleman filled me in on that page 2. It,-seems that Mayor McAlister has been' working behind the'scenes with Mike.- Jones and Keith .Weatherly to keep-"from reopening the site selection ..process. To accomplish this, Mayor McAlister has agreed to have Mike Jones and ..Keith `Weatherly, as well as the Mayor and one .other elected official from each of the other project partners...meet with' Tommy Esqueda and Bob DiFiore (my suggestion)' td ask them questions about sites that Mike 'Jones is interested in ,and _ahy other sites of concern. Robert K. (Kim) Fisher, P.E. Principal: CN=Kim Fisher/O=Gary Subject: Meeting Next Tuesday Afternoon SendTo: Bi11 Coleman From: CN=Kim Fisher/O=Gary INetFromPostedDate: 09/14/2005 04:07:12 PM • I have confirmed with Tommy Esqueda that he and Bob Di Fiore from Hazen and Sawyer can be at the 3:30 PM meeting with Mayor McAlister, et al, to answer questions regarding WRF sites. I will be there, but Leila will take the meeting with DENR, along with other members of the consultant team, in order to keep that process on schedule. Robert K. (Kim) Fisher, P.E. • DENR Response.lwp Tab l 8 Supporting Documentation From the Western Wake Partners Web Site • http://www.westernwakepartners.org/sept20meeting.pdf Description of September 20, 2005 Meeting Meeting participants included elected official from the Town of Cary, Town of Apex, Town of Morrisville and Wake County. Also in attendance were staff representatives from Cary and Wake County, as well as CDM and Hazen and Sawyer (Project Consultants). Purpose: To review and discuss the results of an evaluation conducted for a new WRF site that had been identified by elected officials from the Town of Apex (referred to as Site 30 to be consistent with earlier site selection process). Site 30 is generally bounded by Shearon Harris Road to the east; Bonsal Road to the west; Old US 1 to the north, and US 1 to the south. Action: Based on an analysis of Site 30 conducted using the Phase III site selection criteria, support for Site 14 and the EIS process was confirmed. • • Tab 19 DENR Response.lwp Tab 19 Supporting Documentation Published: Nov 19, 2005 12:30 AM • Modified: Nov 19, 2005 05:19 AM More secluded site rejected for 4 towns' sewage plant Toby Coleman, Staff Writer Four Wake County towns could build a new sewage treatment plant in a more isolated area without significantly adding to the cost of the project, documents released by Cary officials Friday show. Tab 19 Apex, Cary, Holly Springs and Morrisville are pushing a plan to build the plant within 1,000 feet of 23 homes in New Hill, an unincorporated community near the Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant in southern Wake County. Earlier this fall, representatives of the towns met behind closed doors to discuss moving the proposed plant a couple of thousand feet west, so it would be within 1,000 feet of only one home, according to documents distributed at the meeting. But the officials ended up rejecting the idea after looking at a comparison of sites prepared by consultants. Among other things, the consultants wrote that moving the plant west would increase the project's price from $516 million to $519 million -- less than 1 percent -- and limit the towns' ability to expand the plant in the future. Although the vote to uphold the existing site in New Hill marked another defeat for opponents of the plant, the meeting showed that the project still lacks the complete support of the elected officials responsible for financing it. In particular, members of Apex's Board of Commissioners are uneasy about plans to build the plant in New Hill. Apex Commissioner Mike Jones found the more isolated land for the plant and asked Cary Mayor Ernie McAlister to call the meeting, which was held Sept. 20. "I won't say I was satisfied with the outcome," Jones said. "I still would prefer that it be built on one or another of the alternate sites." Jones has been lobbying against the towns' plans to build the plant in the middle of New Hill for months because he thinks it is too close to the community's churches, homes and now-vacant commercial hub. It was a quiet effort, especially compared with that of New Hill residents who picketed the Apex and Cary town halls and Apex Commissioner Bill Jensen, who publicly called on the towns to build the sewage plant elsewhere. Instead of rallying against the plan, Jones looked for an alternate site for the plant. Eventually, he found an isolated 197-acre stretch of land just west of the 212-acre farm now targeted for the plant. After he found the land, Jones said he approached McAlister at a meeting and asked him to get the towns' consultants to evaluate his proposal. McAlister said he agreed "as an accommodation" to a fellow elected official who had found a piece of land the towns had not considered before. • "There was never any serious consideration" .given to moving the plant, he said. Instead, the towns just agreed to evaluate Jones' site using the same criteria as the other 29 locations considered, McAlister said. DENR Response.lwp Tab 19 Supporting Documentation • Paul Barth, president of the New Hill Community Association, criticized the towns for rejecting Jones' proposal without holding a public meeting. "Again, it goes to the secretive nature that this whole process has taken," he said. "Why would they not involve the New Hill people in a process that involves their town? What are they so afraid of?" Staff writer Toby Coleman can be reached at 829-8937 or tcoleman@newsobserver.com. © Copyright 2005, The News & Observer Publishing Company A subsidiary of The McClatchy Company • Tab 19 DENR Response.lwp Tab 19 Supporting Documentation • To Rob Bonne/Gary@Cary, Leila Goodwin/Cary@Cary, Tim Bailey/Cary@Cary, Patrick Lee/Cary@Cary, Steve Brown/Cary@Cary, Lana Hygh/Cary@Cary Kim Fisher/Cary@Cary, Bill Coleman/Cary@Cary, Ben Shivar/Cary@Cary Su bj ect Tab 20 New Hill man is calling media saying that there "WILL" be a meting next to uncover our "SECRET" wastewater project plans. One incorrect compliant he's throwing out is that New Hiil will noYbe served. If you get a call from media, send it to me for now. Susan Moran, APR Public Information Officer Town of Cary 919.460.4951 (voice) 919.393.4383 (pager) 919.218.5486 (cell) 919.460.4929 (fax) PO Box 8005 Cary, NC 27512-8005 susan.moran@townofcary.org www.townofcary.org Please note that email sent to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. • DENR Response.lwp Tab 20 Supporting Documentation www.newsl4.com • New Hill wastewater plant hearing is postponed Updated: 2/16/2006 10:29:26 AM By: Gretchen Bartelt & Web Staff (NEW HILL) - A hearing over where to build a wastewater treatment plant in Wake County has been postponed. The hearing was scheduled for Thursday afternoon. It may be rescheduled in a couple of weeks. The delay comes after the attorney for New Hill asked to amend several items on the complaint. He also added a claim that the open meeting laws were violated. Tab 2l Mayors in Cary, Apex, Holly Springs, and Morrisville said this site in the New Hill community is the best place for the plant. The Wake County mayors approved a site without holding public hearings or consulting other town officials. A group of New Hill residents said the plans are invalid and will have their concerns heard this after noon in court. "There are other sites very, very near to here, some of them within a mile of the selected sites that would serve their needs just as well and will not impact this community the way that this site does," New Hill resident Tonya Forbes explained. Susan Moran with the town of Cary said the almost $200 million facility will look much like another one that is surrounded by trees. She also said New Hill residents, who currently have septic tanks, will be able to benefit from the plant. People that News 14 Carolina has talked to argue the process to convert will be too costly. Copyright ©2006 TWEAN d.b.a. News 14 Carolina • DENR Response.lwp Tab 21 Supporting Documentation Tab 22 Subject: NBC 17 At Issue Television Program NBC 17 At Issue Television Program From: Bob Kelly <bobkelly@mindspring.com> Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 20:17:02 -0400 To: susan.moran@townofcary.org Ms. Moran, I watched the program on NBC 17 this morning, August 7, 2005, where you talked about the sewage plant that is slated for New Hill. Based on the statements you made during this program I have some requests: 1. You stated: $27 million dollars more is what it will cost the people to buy that (PE) land, even if it is given to us, more than $20 million in one time costs. Please share the data with me that will substantiate the assertion that it will cost $27 million to use the Progress Energy land. Please don't point me to the Western Wake Partners web site because I have seen the explanation there and it in no way explains why using PE land will cost $27 million more. 2. Immediately following .the above statement, you stated: You're .talking about rpumping raw sewage. twice as much as you need to .(you said this abouf the Progress .Energy tes). Please share with me the data to back up this,statement that shows'twice as much raw sewage will have to be pumped by putting the sewage treatment facility one. mile further dawn the road on Progress Energy land. 3. I would like to see the minutes of the meeting where anyone from Cary talked with Progress Energy about putting the sewage plant on Progress Energy Property. I am more than willing to pay for any copying fees associated with producing these minutes. If the answers to these questions can not be sent via e-mail, please let me know where, and when I can pick up this information. Thanks. Bob Kelly DENR Response.lwp Tab 22 Supporting Documentation Tab 23 From: <Bill.Coleman@TownofCary.org> To: <jacksmith@ocsllc.com>; <mdorrel@nc.rr.com>; <robison@rti.org>; <Jennifer.robinson@TownofCary.org>; <nroseland@nc.rr.com>; <emcalister@nc.rr.com>; <mike.joyce@TownofCary.org> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 2:02 PM Subject: new hill plant site We had a meeting with Progress Energy today. The gist of the meeting was that Progress Energy does not want the wastewater plant on their site even if it could work economically. if you have questions about their position, please call marty Clayton 878-5300 or 616-3704. thanks, bill William B. Coleman, Jr. Town Manager Town of Cary • DENR Response.lwp Tab 23 Supporting Documentation Tab 23 Key Points from PE Meeting 7/8/2005 - (9:30 AM to 10:30 AM) • Attendees: Marty Clayton -Manager of Community Relations, Tom Trocheck -Director of Land Management, Dave Bristol (NHCA) and Paul Barth (NHCA) * Dave explained current situation and provided background information including history of New Hill condemnations and impact to our community * Dave also explained to Marty and Tom that in fact PE sites were the top 3 sites in TM 8.0, and would have been the top 4 if not for an error found by a New Hill resident * PE has'never been formerly asked by Cary for property to cite a sewage plant * Tom Trocheck was approached by Tommy Esquada (Cary project leader) earlier this year about a gaining access to PE property to plan for possible easement for running pipe lines through PE property to Haw River below Buckhorn Dam for treated water discharge. Tommy Esquada never asked about gaining access to PE property for possible sewage plant citing * on June 20, Marty Clayton had meeting with a person from Cary (didn't give a name). During meeting, Marty was told that PE property was not in top 3 sites so didn't need to ask PE if their land was available for purchase. * PE understands our concerns but would not voluntarily offer land. However, we were told that if Cary wanted PE property that PE would have told Cary that it was not for sale. Condemnation of PE property would need to occur but this happens all the time. PE would have worked with Cary to identify property of least impact to PE future growth plans. PE usually does not put up a legal battle in cases such as this due to potential negative image to PE. A legal battle by PE should not be a factor that Cary would need to be concerned over. * when talking again about PE land not being for sale they said it is being held for future power generation needs. Paul mentioned that the land condemned by PE was initially for 4 reactors with no cooling tower and only 1 reactor was built. Marry responded that rules have changed regarding how close one reactor can be to another (we should try to get verification on what those rules are). Also, while they are planning for future generational needs, they don't have any firm plans, and thus could not say where another reactor might be located or what the other land might be used for. Our perspective is the "future generational needs" is a convenient excuse and that if Cary moved forward with condemning PE land the PE folks would quickly find a site that didn't impact future generational needs. * PE understands that we will continue to push for citing of sewage plant on PE property Thanks... Paul Barth, President of New Hill Community Association • DENR Response.lwp Tab 23 Supporting Documentation From: Stephanie Sudano To: Kendra Stephenson; CC: Subject: RE: Regional WWTP Date: Tuesday, July O5, 2005 11:37:27 AM Attachments: Great update! PLEASE NOTE NEW EMAIL ADDRESS BELOW EFFECTIVE 11-11-2004: Stephanie L. Sudano, P.E., Director of Engineering Town of Holly Springs P.O. Box 8 Holly Springs, NC 27540 919.557.3938 Stephanie. Sudano @hollyspringsnc.us Visit our website at www.hollyspringsnc.us -----Original Message----- From: Kendra Stephenson Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 4:39 PM To: John Schifano Cc: Stephanie Sudano Subject: Regional WWTP • Today I met with Leila, Kim, and Steve (apparently everyone else had conflicts or either they were at the Commissioners meeting downtown). They briefed me on their meeting with Progress Energy this morning. The main questions that had been coming out of the New Hill residents were the following: Was PGN property evaluated? Yes it was. Was 'PGN contacted for their property? No, because their property was never a finalist in the site selection. Tommy evaluated that if we put on PGN property the cost would go up approximately $27,000 plus O&M. If PGN was contacted would they sell property? Cary met with Progress Energy this morning and PGN (Marty Clayton) indicated that they would not want to sell land. However, he prefaced with under apolitical climate this could be overridden.. . Yada,yada Cary is going to request that Apex serve water to the New Hill folks, despite their policy of annexation etc. Leila indicated that Tim Donnelly would not support this recommendation but Kim chimed Tab 23 DENR Response.lwp Tab 23 Supporting Documentation in that it would be up to Bruce. • I explained that I had that question from a few folks but that since we are only running a force main past their house they understood. Apex is running a water line past these folk' houses... little different. I can go into more detail if necessary. New Hill was meeting tonight to rally the forces. They may show up at Upcoming Town council Meetings (ours tomorrow night). However Kim asked that the Town Manager, Mayor and councilmen just receive comments. The questions would then be posted on the FAQS with their question addressed. Kendra Stephenson, PE Senior Engineer Engineering Department Town of Holly Springs Ph 919.557.3931 Fax 919.552.9881 Kendra. Stephenson@hollyspringsnc.us Please visit our web site at www.hollyspringsnc.us • ~. Tab 23 DENR Response.lwp Tab 23 Supporting Documentation newsobserver.com ~ New Hill residents cr fou I y Wake sewage plant unwelcome Staff Photo by John Rottet By TOBY COLEMAN, Staff Writer Tab 23 NEW HILL -- Once upon a time, Babe Ruth stopped at this crossroads settlement for a chicken dinner. Notorious bank robbers Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow bedded down here for a night. The way folks here tell it, all kinds of people used to stop in New Hill when U.S. 1 came through. Nowadays, U.S. 1 bypasses New Hill, and its restaurants and motor court are closed. Residents no longer talk about famous visitors. They talk about how their community has become the place for the stuff nobody else in Wake County wants. The Shearon Harris nuclear plant. Transmission lines. And now, a sewage treatment plant for Apex, Cary, Holly Springs and Morrisville. "We're pretty upset that we're the dumping ground of the county," said Wayne Womble, a New Hill native who runs a Corvette repair shop near the crossroads that mark the center of New Hill. But instead of shriveling up, residents say, New Hill has found new life as the townsfolk fight the treatment plant. The closed shops at the junction of Old U.S. 1 and New Hill-Olive Chapel Road are decorated with signs reading "Stop Cary" and "Preserve New Hill, Don't'Waste' It." The residents have created a virtual community center on the Internet to replace their old one, the now-closed Farmer's Supply Store. And, for the first time since the town dissolved in 1917, residents have organized a representative body, the New Hill Community Association. Paul Barth, the association's first president, is talking about printing New Hill car stickers and starting a museum to capitalize on his neighbors' growing sense of pride in their community. "That's really the only good thing to come out of this," he said. "People who typically live far apart and who saw each other in passing or at the convenience store, and didn't know each other really well, now know each other well." More crops than shops The dairy farmers and tobacco growers who used to work the hills around the New Hill crossroads have given way to horse farms and secluded homes for lawyers, engineers and others who work in the Triangle. Although the community of about 1,000 has grown some, it remains a rural place. Soybeans, corn and tobacco cover more land than parking lots and stores. New Hill residents were drawn together in May, after they learned that the four nearby towns planned to condemn more than 200 acres near the New Hill Baptist Church for a sewage treatment plant. A rare community meeting was called, and a crowd gathered at the church "like you've never seen before," said Max Horton, 74, a New Hill retiree. DENR Response.lwp Tab 23 Supporting Documentation Tab 23 • The response was exceptional, especially for a group that did not put up a big fight when the nuclear power plant was built a mile or so away about three decades ago. Inside the church, the area's residents agreed on one thing. They were not going to take anybody else's ... well, you know. A fight that unifies "I think it touched everybody the same way," said Johnnie Judd, 60, a retiree who has lived in New Hill for three decades. "It sort of catalyzed the community." Soon, a group of residents began to scrutinize the engineering documents of the four towns' partnership, trying to figure out why it wants to build the plant in New Hill. They learned that the town was chosen because it is near U.S. 1, has relatively cheap land and is still in Wake County, among other things. They began a campaign to urge the towns to build the treatment plant on the unused land around the Shearon Harris plant. At least that would be out of "smelling distance," said Bob Kelly, 62, an IBM retiree who has lived in New Hill for 35 years. So far, the campaign has not had much success. The partnership says it can't build a treatment plant on the Harris land because no and is available. Progress Energy is keeping some>~in case it wants to expand 'the power plant, said Kim Fisher, head of"Gary's public works and vtitities. • Other parcels may end up under water someday if the power company decides to expand Harris Lake, Fisher said. That has left some New Hill residents convinced that they will have to put up with a sewage treatment plant in a few years. "There isn't nothing we can do about it," said Richard Horton, 66. Historic heart at risk Others, though, won't give in. They say a sewage plant would foul the historic heart of their community, which still looks remarkably like the place the Babe drove through about 70 years ago. C.J. Bright's country store still stands near the spot where the trains used to stop, and the green-and-white cottages of W.T. Roundy's Motor Court remain behind the old heart of New Hill, the Farmer's Supply Store. But there is one difference. Except for the old-timers who occasionally gather outside the old stores, all three of those historic emblems are now abandoned. These days, New Hill residents go online to exchange information and vent their frustrations about the treatment plant. Barry Credle, for instance, recently used the New Hill a-mail group to show his neighbors the tongue-in-cheek letter he wrote to New York City's mayor. In it, he offered New York "the historic DENR Response.lwp Tab 23 Supporting Documentation Tab 23 downtown districts of Cary, Apex, Morrisville and Holly Springs for any future sewage plants." • "Certainly," he wrote, "it would follow that if they can dump on us, you would be more than justified to dump on them." Staff writer Toby Coleman can be reached at 829-8937 or Tco6eman~a newsobrserver.eorn@ ©Copyright 2005, The News & Observer Publishing Company, a subsidiary of The iVicCiatchy Company • • DENR Response.lwp Tab 23 • • • Supporting Documentation ' Figure 8-2 ."" ` Preliminary Site investigations ,.. '~ ~ ~ f t ~ ,'' ~/ ~ ~ _ _ ~_ -_ : ~j= `; ~ ~. ,~ 7 , , .t ~. ~'~. __ ,~ ~...r ~. ~ ~13 1 i ~ 1U13~ '~~-'1 ~ _~ ~ ' r / i / ~ tr '. , ~. 16 i ,~'"'~ f; ~ r i r ~ w...~. ~ ~/ s~ ° ;, ~ ~ j I~-.1 ; ~-~ 14 ! ~,/'~; ~ 25 , , C ~,, ~ .. w.f_~ •- ti 1 ~ ~ -- - - - r _. ~ _ ,, . -- ,,. ~ i . ~ - ~ .• ~ K s , . : ' ~ . ,. .< ,. ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~, ._--' .. ,, , u - ~`~ °~~ ~ ~ FAZE\AhDS9N5Ek ....__. _. -__ ~:. ~y -.._ _..._... .-..._. --- ...._ ...... _._ _ , ,... __i _.. DENR Response.lwp Tab 24 Tab 24 • • • Supporting Documentation ~° - ~'~-~ i)e~taila~ Side ; ,~n~ ~~.' ~~ .~..~: ~,, -- e ,,tip, r~ ~ ~. ^~{ .~,,~ ~µ fi ~w ~/~#> .. ~..°.n ~ ~ .. .u ~M i ~f ... ., 1 1 __ ' .~` ~~ ~~ ~ ~ .3 ~.~... ~ _ u' ~ 3 ~` ~ i ~ 11 arT ~_ ~,,,++ t r ~ ~,_ ~" yam. .~ '~B ~~ r r. ,. `"` ~,~ x ~ ~- a f !4 ~ ~ ~$ ,. .. w t: } E I r' 't j ,. _.,, _, ~ ~~ ~~~,..~_ e _ :,w ,; - . rbaAr ++.. 4 ,.. _,. ° i.~ _....._ ___ _ ~`'_ __ e_:._.._._ .. . _ _ _m______ _ DENR Response.lwp Tab 25 Tab 25 Supporting Documentation • F~lti AI~ - Tf~~Y)nic°al ~Ic>tnf7r~nslun~ ~a.~ '~•1 extern bV~l~e t:c~ux~h' ltc~;~,i~:-€al 6'~'zxsiewtiier lreatmeni ~t~die~ 1'resject .Vugxtst 31, 2C1L,~1 1'n~,e 1 Tab 25 Taks l+^ $-7 Wei ghted Scores and R anking for C3ptf~n IOl] Site Na. 3 ~ 9 71~ 74 1G 2t1 21 2? "~5 25 2ti I'nrtaertt' C7wrrsers ~.5 '~.1 tia.1 .~ ~.:~ .i.~ •.= .~1 1 ~ L^ t.l 2. Existing, Land Lae 5 t~:.t ii -4:x' _.~ 3_~ ..': ~.5 1.i? a " .1+ ?;~ ~l~taCf!nt Land t~tiE' 'a.11 ~.U ', ~.~ ..5 ...I ~.i c:t ..~ 1.? ,.1 ..''~ 7.. t_Oflnt{' LfiCatYOfl t Il Y.(1 ~.":) '1.1) ~..t) t,'i) ... (~' „) 1. ) ..~.' ..i} ~ ) Iti~paetfrnF'rftlectCt)st~ s:l ..~ L1,~ .tl <.1 1.~; :.1 :.~' 't.3 J.~ ~?.? i,i,;a Environmental ? 5 ; y 1_I ? _ ~ tL=a LI.R t).~ 1;K i).^ : i, El~ !C7Chep/~7ise. ~,i7 '~ 111 Li) ~.~~ 7.i1 r.ts !;.:a "~:? ~.i= : ~~ 1::1 ', Areal2atio _5 .; `_~ .5 ~~.~, 5.? y? : L.t 1.y •~.r t,} 7.~ T3isiance to Frfrptr+efl Sile '?." 2::-~ A.'~3 :~.ta 5.~? 5.e~J (a,f ~ .l r.''r y.h 5.~ t.tl Tfrta) Vlreiyhted Saxe ! 32.3 25.: 29.ti 22.5 79::i :?'3.7 79.9 3,fi ! 7.9.0 39.1) ! 22.0 39.3 R:~nk 7Z 7t} 77 > 4 €i 9 7 2 6 3 #tHt~i)£ttti::::;R iC"7 U"i~akr-,c:tmap.~oe ILJ DENR Response.lwp Tab 25 • • • DENR Response.lwp Supporting Documentation TecMiaal A1~rclot'andum 8.1 tNais:' Recl~nsdor: Sips Selecbor~ Wes>~ U~ake Ctx~nN ~I~ 1M1~a~ewsr~a Tr~'~nent Stu~es "rojeci Pass ~ pr 1 T :~24114ip~ _.e_ . __K .. ~ .... r .9~ ~. .. ~ r ~ ~~_ Figure 8,1.1 .Ar.. r i ~ ~; m ;~ i ;~~ ~. ~' ~` ~ `~ .. r ' _~~ 1 t ~~ 1> ..~.~d~ .,'~"F, ~Ib ~~Yr'°° ,. ,~' ~ ~~ s f~~ i ~' ~ $ f ~e _~.~~ s ~.. ~~~ + Sµ s T~ ~''~ .P l ~ ~ yA4, ~ ~ ,..~ y l ' + 4~ _ R~4g~t)d ~~ ~J I ~ ~ ~?~ :-.L~•nraa~ari Tah®wa Tan ~ t .~"^~~ ~, .a:x.:s'~ -~ .. ~ s~~or c_sz y .> i ACex Town umx ~ c..w T,~ ~i ~ w ~~I ~ -=k.,i~:~,~,~R~tiT~n~.~u 3.,;-..~, ass ,. - - `~ ~,,~.,.,, ~~~ Western Wake Fteg~onai ~+-• Wastewater itltana ement Fac3iitias { -. _ --___._._ _ s_._ ,_~ --~_.~__,,~,~ ~ , ~-:-~ ~F 8i~ ae~.~nn ~src-,r~r~,.r,aw~N~ ~~~u: 2 Tab 25 Tab 25 Supporting Documentation • Subject: Re: [Fwd: Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities FAQ] From: Kim.Fisher@TownofCary.org Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 14:22:30 -0400 To: bobkelly@mindspring.com Your wrote: I would like to know the names of the individuals from Apex, Cary, Holly Springs and Morrisville who performed this review of TM 8.0 and selected three sites for detailed analysis. The names of that you have requested are: Tim Donnelly for the Town of Apex, myself for the Town of Cary, Blake Mills for the Town of Morrisville Stephanie Sudano for the Town of Holly Springs, all of whom were designated by their respective town managers as their town representatives to the Technical Advisory Committee for the Western Wake Partners. Robert K. (Kim) Fisher, P.E. Director of Public Works and Utilities Town of Cary P. O. Box 8005 Cary, North Carolina 27512-8005 Phone: (919) 469-4092 FAX: (919) 469-4304 E Mail: kim.fisher@townofcary.org E mail sent to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. Bob Kelly <bobkelly@mindspr ing.com> 08/30/2005 08:30 AM Please respond to bobkelly@mindspri ng.com • -------- Original Message -------- kim.fisher@townofcary.org To cc Subject [Fwd: Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities FAQ] Subject: Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities FAQ Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 08:06:50 -0400 From: Bob Kelly <bobkelly@mindspring.com> Reply-To: bobkelly@mindspring.com To: info@westernwakepartners.org Dear Mr. Fisher: In reading the FAQ document on the westernwakepartners.org web site, I found an interesting statement in question 12. I have copied question 12 in its entirety and included it here: 12. How and when did the Partners go from 12 sites to three sites? When was Site 14 chosen as the preferred site? Where, specifically, are these issues discussed in a Technical Memo? DENR Response.lwp Tab 26 Tab 26 Supporting Documentation TM 8.0 presents the rationale for selecting the original 29 sites and • applying scores to create a shortlist of 12 sites. Site C (Site 14 in TM 8.0) was identified as the preferred site in TM 8.1 (see page 12). TM 8.0 was prepared as part of the initial work by the partners with Wake County as the lead agency. At the conclusion of that work, the current project partners (Apex, Cary, Holly Springs and Morrisville) entered into a new agreement to implement the Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities. At that time, Holly Springs decided not to send wastewater to the new water reclamation facility for treatment. Apex, Cary, Holly Springs and Morrisville reviewed TM 8.0 and selected three sites for detailed analysis. Sites located south and east of U.S. 1 were eliminated from further consideration since Holly Springs changed the way it wanted to participate in the project. Then, Site C (14) was identified as the southernmost location to be considered for the final evaluation, and the two additional sites were located north of Site 14. Please notice the area I have underlined and highlighted, that states Apex, Cary, Holly Springs and Morrisville reviewed TM 8.0 and selected three sites for detailed analysis. I would like to know the names of the individuals from Apex, Cary, Holly Springs and Morrisville who performed this review of TM 8.0 and selected three sites for detailed analysis. Sincerely, Bob Kelly (919) 880-6181 • • Tab 26 DENR Response.lwp Tab 26 Supporting Documentation Tab 27 Subject: Re: Land Site To: (name removed to protect privacy) Cc: Kim. Fisher@TownofCary.org From: Leila.Goodwin@TownofCary.org Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 14:38:56 -0400 When choosing a site for a plant, the Project Partners (Apex, Cary, Holly Springs and Morrisville) must find a solution that best balances many - and sometimes competing - goals. These include: Social and Cultural Factors The plant must be located' on a site that-protects citizens' quality of life. This means keeping the plant as far away as possible from homes, parks, churches, playgrounds, and other areas 'important to the people of he community. Leila R. Goodwin, PE Water Resources Manager • • DENR Response.lwp Tab 27 Supporting Documentation • From: jbrobinson [mailto:jbrobinson@nc.rr.com] Sent: Sunda ,June 26, 2005 11:11 PM To: ~' (Name removed to protect privacy) Cc: Ernie McAlister; jack.smith@thecartergroup.com; marla.dorrel@townofcary.org; mike.joyce@townofcary.org; Nels.Roseland@townofcary.org; Julie Robison Subject: Re: Council meeting on June 23, 2005 Dear Mrs. -, (Name removed to protect privacy) You may be surprised to hear that, while I angrily demanded respect from the New Hill residents on Thursday night, I understand the points of your email and agree with them. Please note that I would not expect an apology from any of the audience but do expect order among those in attendance of the meetings. First, historical or societal issues were not considered when the site selection process was undertaken. For that, I am very sorry. I was disappointed when I learned that the preferred site impacted the community as it does. It should have been a factor as important as meeting the standards of the Interbasin Transfer. Had that been a factor and only sites on the other side of U.S. 1 been considered, the towns involved would have floated bond referendums for larger amounts. But, we don't have the • $18M-$27M (depending on the quote) to go the extra distance. In addition, we don't have the time to reprioritize sites at this time. This was clearly conveyed by the experts who are working on this project. Second, I agree with you that this vote was one that,doesn't comply with"by the people and for the people"' As I stated in the meeting, I didn't think that it was appropriate or fair for this responsibility to be given to Cary. As much as you don't want politicians who don't represent you to make a decision such as this, we don't want to make it. Condemnation is ugly and painful....especially for a wastewater treatment plant. Will the decision torment me? Absolutely. This was alone-lose decision to be made and the impact of siting a wastewater plant in a community is devastating. I'm sorry that I lashed out on Thursday. In my 5.5 years on Council, this was the hardest decision to make. People laughing during my comments was upsetting. Sincerely, Jennifer Robinson Jennifer Robinson Cary Town Council District A Representative • Tab 28 DENR Response.lwp Tab 28 Supporting Documentation Tab 29 Published: Feb. 15, 2006 in The Cary News • In My Opinion: Why doesn't Cary treat New Hill like Green Level? By PAUL BARTH I attended the Southwest Wake planning meeting at the C.C. Jones Building in Apex on Jan. 24. During that meeting, there was an excellent presentation by Scott Ramage from the Town of Cary Planning Department. Mr. Ramage made numerous statements about how the Town of Cary worked with the residents for more than two years on ways to protect the Green Level Historic District. He also mentioned the Green Level Historic District is now protected, and the surrounding property can be used only for residential or open spaces. Industrial uses are not permitted in and around the Green Level Historic District. Compare the above to how the Town of Cary worked with the community of New Hill when they selected the site in New Hill for their regional sewage plant. 1. Town of Cary did not notify anyone that property in the center of the New Hill community was being considered for a sewage plant, other than the family who owned the property that was about to be condemned. Cary had a communication plan for the sewage plant that called for a minimum of two public meetings with at least a 30-day notification prior to each meeting, but never executed this communications plan. 2. As a result of a New Hill community meeting held May 31, 2005, Cary hastily scheduled a public information session on June 14, 2005. Cary had planned to condemn the property at their June 9, 2005, council meeting, but at the urging of Wake County Manager David Cooke, Cary decided to wait until after the public information session. 3. New Hill citizens wrote letters and made public appearances at town meetings held in Cary, Apex, Morrisville and Holly Springs, as well as attended Wake County commissioners meetings. We requested the towns delay the condemnation for 30 days to give the citizens of New Hill time to study the situation. Even though the Wake County commissioners passed a resolution agreeing to the 30-day delay, the Town of Cary refused our request for the delay and proceeded with condemning the land for the sewage plant. 4. In our many letters we wrote and in our pleas at the town meetings, we mentioned several times that the sewage plant was being built adjacent to our historic district, two churches, four rest homes and many residences. The Western Wake Partners -those four municipalities -did not care, as they proceeded with condemning the land. 5. Even Cary council member Jennifer Robinson realized the Western Wake Partners had made a mistake. In an a-mail dated June 26, 2005, she writes: "First, historical or societal issues were not considered when the site selection process was undertaken. For that, I am very sorry. I was disappointed when I learned that the preferred site impacted the community as it does. It should have been a factor as important as meeting the standards of the Inter-Basin Transfer." Given the Town of Cary's track record working with the residents of Green Level to protect their historic district, why was similar protection not given to the New Hill Historic District? Is it because the Green Level Historic District is within Cary's extraterritorial jurisdiction and the New Hill Historic District is not? DENR Response.lwp Tab 29 Supporting Documentation Tab 29 New Hill is in the Long Range Urban Service Area for Apex, which means one day Apex will annex the area. Why did Apex not stand up to Cary and the Western Wake Partners and refuse to let a sewage plant be constructed adjacent to our historic district? Paul Barth is president of the New Hill Community Association. • • DENR Response.lwp Tab 29 Supporting Documentation • Listing of Council/Commissioner Meetings where we presented our concerns Apex June 21, 2005 July 5, 2005 September 9, 2005 September 20, 2005 December 6, 2005 December 20, 2005 February 21, 2006 Other Meetings Where We Shared Our Concerns DENR Response.lwp August 13, 2005 SCI Master Mitigation Plan September 1, 2005 Southwest Wake County Land Use Plan September 26, 2005 Candidate Forum in Apex October 11, 2005 Southwest Wake Planning Meeting November 17, 2005 Southwest Wake County Land Use Plan January 6, 2006 Apex Transportation Planning Meeting January 24, 2006 Cary's Version of the Southwest Wake Planning Meeting March 28, 2006 WWP Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) Apri14, 2006 NC Dept. of Cultural Resources Meeting: Impacts to New Hill historic district and historic properties by siting the sewage plant in the center of New Hill r~ U Cary June 9, 2005 June 23, 2005 August 11, 2005 August 25, 2005 February 23, 2006 Holly S,prin~s June 7, 2005 July 5, 2005 September 20, 2005 Morrisville September 26, 2005 February 13, 2006 Tab 30 Wake County June 20, 2005 November 7, 2005 Tab 30 Supporting Documentation Subject: Tuesday meeting • From: <tpforbes@bellsouth.net> Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 0:52:15 -0400 To: <billjensen@nc.rr.com>, <bryan.gossage@apexnc.org>, <mjones@wakemed.org>, <keith.weatherly@apexnc.org> CC: <wwakecitizens@theotts.org> Dear Mayor Weatherly and Apex Commissioners: Tab 31 <gschulze@apexnc. org>, It was obvious on Tuesday evening that I was upset by your refusal to consider Mr. Jensen's resolution concerning the wastewater treatment facility being planned for New Hill. I will not apologize for being emotional, as this is an emotional issue for those of us whose community is being threatened. My words about Apex remain true. When I moved to New Hill, I knew that eventually growth and development would engulf this lovely rural community someday, too. But I always said, as have many others, "If we have to be annexed, let it be Apex, not Cary." I would not make that statement today, and your actions up to and including those on Tuesday have alienated much of this community. Those commissioners who professed to agree with Mr. Jensen but who refused to support his resolution gain nothing by their false words. You are the leaders of the Town of Apex. Leaders are supposed to LEAD, not be LED. You have chosen to let Cary lead the way, even as you acknowledge that there might be better sites. In fact, if you have read the data, you KNOW there are better sites, and your words about trusting the process are decidedly hollow. It is the process that is the problem. I hope that you did hear what Mr Moore asked of you: if Holly Springs is refusing to buy in up-front, they should not have the option of purchasing capacity from this plant. After all, the reason given for the site selection is that Holly Springs chose not to participate. I hope we can count on your support for this issue. One final note: I am willing to admit when I am wrong, and I concede that I went too far when I said that it was not true that the Western Wake Partners own the land. In my mind, owning it and taking by condemnation are not exactly the same, but I understand that legally the land is owned by the Western Wake Partners. I do hope that Mayor Weatherly was as quick to insist that Mr. Donnelly speak the truth as he was to correct me. However, I see by the letters that my neighbors have received today that that is unlikely. Are you in fact planning to provide water to the New Hill community, as his letter states? If so, when will this occur? Is annexation a requirement for this as well? Or is is possible that the water line will simply go thorugh the New Hill community enroute to the planned sewage treatment plant? I look forward Tonya Forbes 362-1090 n LJ to your response. DENR Response.lwp Tab 31 Supporting Documentation Tab 31 Subject: Fwd: New Hill Meeting with Cary Officials • From: NCDeerHunter29@aol.com Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 10:18:48 EDT To: bobkelly@mindspring.com Hope... Didn't really expect I would. Mayor Sears didn't respond back to me either. No surprise there. Paul... Subject: Re: New Hill Meeting with Cary Officials From: Bob Kelly <bobkelly@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 07:38:13 -0400 To: NCDeerHunter29@aol.com Did you hear from Smith? NCDeerHunter29@aal.com wrote: Dear Mr. Smith, John Moore, one of our New Hill Community Association members, recently spoke with you. John indicated that due to the number of calls you have received from residents of New Hill, you would be willing to support an effort to have Cary Town Manager Bill Coleman arrange a meeting with us. • Cary official attendees would need to have the knowledge to answer our questions. Suggested outline for meeting could be, but not limited to: 1) What are the issues and how have they been addressed 2) Site selection and EIS process 3) What options are still available We would also need to have the meeting recorded to ensure we correctly understand Cary's responses to our questions. Please let me know when this meeting might be scheduled. Regards, Paul Barth, President • DENR Response.lwp Tab 31 Supporting Documentation Tab 31 Subject: Re: Re: FW: New Hill land use • From: <tpforbes@bellsouth.net> Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 13:04:15 -0400 To: <tpforbes@bellsouth.net>, <tgurley@nclegalsolutions.com>, "David Cooke" <dcooke@co.wake.nc.us> CC: <tpforbes@bellsouth.net>, <joe.bryan@co.wake.nc.us>, <pjeffreys@nc.rr.com>, <citizens4kenn@aol.com>, <Harold.Webb@co.wake.nc.us>, <herbcouncil@councilfinancial.com>, <wwakecitizens@theotts.org>, <tcoleman@newsobserver.com>, <apexherald@mindspring.com>, <aarnold@nando.com>, <editors@indyweek.com>, <wptfnews@curtismedia.com>, <kim.genardo@nbc.com>, <ksmith@wral.com> Dear Mr. Cooke, As the County Manager, I had hoped that you would have replied to my questions by now. I have not received an answer to either question. In addiiton, I was disappointed that no one from Wake County was present at the public meeting on August 23 to discuss the SCI Master Mitigation Plans being submitted by the Western Wake Partners (WWP). Wake County also has a mitigation plan that is included as an appendix in the plans of each of the four towns that make up the WWP. As a resident of the county, I had hoped to be able to get the answers to some of my questions at that meeting. Howver, not only were there no representatives from Wake County at the meeting, there were no land use planning maps for Wake County that we could use as reference. • I have included my two previous emails for your reference and am for the third time, requesting a written response to my questions. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely, Tonya P. Forbes From: <tpfarbes@bellsauth.net> Date: 2005/08/08 Mon AM 05:29:06 EDT To: <tgurley@nclegalsalutians.cam>, "David Cooke" <dcaake@ca.wake.nc.us> CC: <tpforbes@bellsauth.net>, <joe.bryan@ca.wake.nc.us>, <pje~~reys@nc.rr.carn>, <citizens4kenn@aol.com>, <Y3arald.Webb@ca.wake.nc.us>, <herbcauncil@cauncilfinancial.cam>, <wwakecitizens@theatts.arg> Subject: Re: FW: New Hill land use Dear Mr. Cooke and Wake County Commissioners, I am re-sending this letter is the hopes that you will have this issue • in mind when you meet for your work session today. I have done a bit of research on the land use plan for Wake County, and according to a map DENR Response.lwp Tab 31 Supporting Documentation Tab 31 dated February 2004, there is a Community/Activity center planned for • the area in which the wastewater treatment .facility is planned. Also, if you reference the land use planning maps, you will note several historic sites adjacent to the proposed site for the facility. Surely placing a wastewater treatment facility near historic sites and a planned community center would not be considered an appropriate use for this land. Again, I hope that the residents of New Hill can count on the support of the Wake County Commissioners at the critical point in the permitting process when you will have input. I await a response to my question about this land use plan as well as my question about why Wake County pulled out of the Interlocal Agreement with the Western Wake Partners. Again, I request a written response via email "reply to all." Thank you, Tonya Forbes -----Original Message----- From: t~~,r~es@oe_~~~utr..net [~~al~ tc.. ~n~arbC:s@bel acut:_.net] Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 10:33 AM To: :, ..~ t ,,r;i~.~.G~:a~e.~.~,~:~; ~jeTrel~~~;v.-r.cctr,; Czli'~1Pi'r'`i I Pad ,, ;_U`10:.` . uO;`t; C~. i~e_'1v~~eriIi~°avi..('CIT':; ~ia~>1~;..`t~7at-}Nid: l,.iti~ke.nC.Uti.; ~e~~%"Ct7riC_i~~LO:I1C~_ti~'id.>..~_.~-.~O~i1 Cc. ~.a~~ke~,yt~zen~~~~rl~c}-.,..c",_ Subject: New Hill land use Dear Wake County Commissioners: I am writing again to request an answer to a couple of questions. I wrote about a week ago and asked for some information in reference to the Western Wake Regional Waste Water Reclamation Facility (WWRWRF) planned for New Hill. Mr. Jeffries attended a rally in New Hill last Friday and answered my question about the use of Progress Energy land for a horse jumping and riding facility. However, I have not received answers to my other two questions. I am requesting that they be answered in writing by a reply to this e-mail. My first question was about the land use plan for the New Hill area in which the WWRWRF is planned. I understand that during the permitting process, Wake County will be asked to certify that this use is consistent with the land use plan for the area. Thus, my question here is two-fold: what is the land use plan, and will the Board of Commissioners certify that the use of the land is appropriate? Or, can we, the citizens of New Hill, rely on our county commissioners to aid us in our attempt to have this facility placed in a a more appropriate location? I would point out here again that we are not opposed to this regional facility being placed in this geographical locale; we are simply opposed to it being placed in the center of our community and near homes and churches. I would also DENR Response.lwp Tab 31 Supporting Documentation Tab 31 note that while the state did mandate the need for municipalities to . abide by the InterBasin Transfer, at no time did the state mandate that a regional facility was required to do so. Each of the four towns making up the Western Wake Partners could build their own facility in their own town to Accommodate their need for wastewater treatment. Again, we recognize the reason behind the regional facility, but the citizens of New Hill should not have to bear the burden of this facility while the citizens of the four towns enjoy increased quality of life at our expense. My second question was simple: Why did Wake County pull out of the Interlocal Agreement with the Western Wake Partners? Note that I have copied the New Hill Community Association e-mail group on this letter, as I would like to share this information with the community. Thus, a "reply to all" response would be appreciated. I look forward to your response. Thank you, Tonya Forbes Publicity Chair, New Hill Community Association 3636 Bosco Rd. New Hill, NC 27562 (919) 362-1090 • DENR Response.lwp Tab 31 Supporting Documentation Tab 31 Subject: Please consider • From: <tpforbes@bellsouth.net> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 0:21:12 -0400 To: <council@townofcary.org> Dear Mayor McAlister, Ms. Dorrel, Mr. Smith, and Ms. Robinson: I am writing to you tonight not just as the publicity chair for the New Hill Community Association, but as a citizen of a small community that I have grown to love with the protective fierceness of a mother bear for a cub. I know that your jobs are difficult and that you have many important issues to occupy your time and your thoughts, and I can appreciate that. However, like many residents of New Hill, the issue of the waste water treatment facility pervades my thoughts. NIght and day, I find myself trying to figure out how to stop what I can only view as an assault on our community as well as trying to understand your justification for the site selection. It is difficult for me to understand the lack of consideration that has been shown for the desires of the citizens of New Hill, especially given our more-than-reasonable response to the placement of this facility. When confronted with the likelihood of the wastewater treatment facility being placed in New Hill, we did not scream "Not in my backyard!" Instead, we, as a community, reviewed the data and agreed that we would not oppose any of the sites south and east of USl--sites that were evaluated and deemed most • suitable by the engineers. I know that you are aware that many New Hill citizens have reviewed the available data and that we find the cost argument against placing the facility south and east of US 1 to be invalid. It is not unreasonable to ask that the citizens of Apex, Cary, Holly Springs, and Morrisville pay for the treatment of their own sewage. This letter is yet another plea to you: It is not too late to do what is right. It would require only two of you to get this item placed on the agenda for the next town council meeting and move to vote to reverse the condemnation of the Seymour property as well as to reconsider the sites south and east of USl. Only then will the permitting process be truly fair, for only then will the DENR agencies be given the opportunity to compare all of the best options. Sincerely, Tonya Forbes 3636 Bosco Rd New HIll, NC 27562 (919) 362-1090 • DENR Response.lwp Tab 31 Supporting Documentation Subject: Letter to Rev Hart, Pastor, New Hill Baptist Church • From: Bob Kelly <bobkelly@mindspring.com> Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:11:57 -0400 To: keith.weatherly@apexnc.org CC: bryan.gossage@apexnc.org, billjensen@nc.rr.com, mjones@wakemed.org, dgmeckes@aol.com, gschulze@apexnc.org, bruce.radford@apexnc.org, apexherald@mindspring.com, Adam Arnold <aarnold@nando.com>, Tcoleman@newsobserver. com Dear Mayor Weatherly: Tab 31 I just had the opportunity to read the July 15, 2005 letter you wrote to Reverend Gerald Hart, Pastor New Hill Baptist Church. I thank you for responding to Reverend Hart, and not ignoring him as you have ignored my letters and e-mail messages. In your letter to Reverend Hart, you state, "Please rest assured that the process for drafting and approval of an environment impact statement and issuance of a permit to construct this facility will allow a full and comprehensive review of your concerns. Your membership and the good folks of New Hill will certainly be allowed every appropriate opportunity to address these issues during this review." • Mayor Weatherly, I don't know how you can make such a statement. In my letter to you, dated July 8, 2005, I stated, "When talking about the Environmental Impact Study, Mr. Esqueda and his company are only going to list Sites A, B, and C. Nothing about the other sites will be mentioned. Only listing those sites is stacking the deck against the residents of New Hill. When you compare only those 3 sites, of course Site C will look better than the other two. However, when you compare Site C against all the other sites in the study, you quickly see that Site C is not the best site. I am very disappointed that you and the Apex Commissioners did not ask the correct questions. I am also disappointed that you and the other partners can't see how information is being manipulated to make the site in New Hill look more favorable than it really is." Mayor Weatherly, you knew a full week prior to writing the letter to Reverend Hart that your statements are not accurate. How can the "membership and the good folks of New Hill" rest assured there will be a comprehensive review of our concerns when 26 sites will not be included in the Environmental Impact Statement? Many of these sites were ranked as being more suitable than the final 3 sites in New Hill. Once again I'll ask the question I asked in my July 11 e-mail to you: Is this how you treat your neighbor? • DENR Response.lwp Tab 31 Supporting Documentation Tab 31 You still have time to correct all the mistakes Cary has led Apex, Holly • Springs, and Morrisville into by ensuring this sewage plant gets put on CP&L property, and not in downtown New Hill. Bob Kelly 3020 Olive Farm Road Apex, NC 27502 • DENR Response.lwp Tab 31 Supporting Documentation Subject: Another Request From a Concerned Resident of New Hill • From: Bob Kelly <bobkelly@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, OS Aug 2005 08:51:30 -0400 To: keith.weatherly@apexnc.org, bryan.gossage@apexnc.org, billjensen@nc.rr.com, mjones@wakemed.org, dgmeckes@aol.com, gschulze@apexnc.org, bruce.radford@apexnc. org CC: apexherald@mindspring.com, Adam Arnold <aarnold@nando.com>, Tcoleman@newsobserver.com Dear Mayor Weatherly Apex Town Council Members Apex Town Staff: Tab 31 I realize the Apex Town Council has received many letters from New Hill residents the regarding sewage plant slated for New Hill. I also realize that Cary has issued a "gag order" such that the partners can not respond to e-mail messages or written letters, however, please continue reading and let me make you aware of a new piece of information, something the residents of New Hill have known for some time. Thursday afternoon, August 4, 2005, Wake County Commissioner Phil Jeffreys stated on Radio Station WPTF that the preferred site on Progress Energy land and the site in New Hill were not evaluated using the • same formula. According to Commissioner Jeffreys, the Progress Energy site was evaluated using 150 acres and the New Hill site was evaluated using 180 acres. He then said that if both sites had been evaluated equally, Progress Energy land would have been the best site hands down. Commissioner Jeffreys also said when Cary was confronted about the flawed evaluation, they stated they had no interest in revisiting the issue. With the arrogance the Cary Town Council has shown throughout this entire process, why do the leaders of Apex, Morrisville and Holly Springs blindly follow Cary? I am requesting the Apex Town Council demand the Town of Cary reverse the condemnation of private property for this facility. I further request that the Western Wake Partners initiate talks with Progress Energy for the purpose of placing the facility on land near the Shearon Harris nuclear plant on sites that the engineering studies indicated would be more suitable. I am angered that the results of an exhaustive and expensive, tax paid study, were discarded by Apex, Holly Springs, Morrisville, and Cary. Furthermore, I am not in favor of the forcible takeover of private property. The people of New Hill have been treated unfairly. We have been reasonable in our response to this issue. We want elected officials to behave ethically and responsibly. Please do the right thing: insist that this facility be placed on land that was already taken from the citizens of New Hill. Put the sewage plant on • land now owned by Progress Energy. Land that the tax paid engineering study found was more appropriate. DENR Response.lwp Tab 31 Supporting Documentation • I sincerely hope you will not ignore this request as you have my previous requests. Bob Kelly (919)880-6181 • • Tab 31 DENR Response.lwp Tab 31 Supporting Documentation Tab 31 Subject: Is this how you treat your neighbor? • From: Bob Kelly <bobkelly@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 11 Ju120O5 15:23:01 -0400 To: keith.weatherly@apexnc.org, bryan.gossage@apexnc.org, billjensen@nc.rr.com, mjones@wakemed.org, dgmeckes@aol.com, gschulze@apexnc.org, bruce.radford@apexnc. org CC: apexherald@mindspring.com, aarnold@nando.com, tcoleman@newsobserver.com BCC: wwakecitizens@theotts.org Dear Mayor Weatherly Apex Town Council Members Apex Town Staff: Last Tuesday, July 5, I attended the Apex Town Council special meeting. I had heard rumors there would be a special meeting to discuss the sewage treatment facility that is being placed in New Hill. Luckily for me, I called the Town Clerk to inquire as there was nothing on your web site about the meeting. During the meeting, I heard Tommy Esqueda state that this project has been underway since 2001. To my knowledge, for the 4 years this sewage treatment plant has been planned, not one time did you or any of the Apex Town Council Members notify anyone in New Hill. I could understand your reluctance to notify us if we were hundreds of miles away, but Mayor Weatherly and Apex Town Council Members, we are your neighbors. We are the ones at the next table in the Apex restaurants, our children play on the same teams as your children, and we stand in line with you at the post office, many of us have the same zip code as you. Again, we are your neighbors. We are not strangers to you or to Apex. Do you think it is right that over a four year period, not one of you bothered to have a discussion with residents of New Hill or Western Wake County? Is it right that you did not have anything printed in the Apex Herald that would give us a little forewarning? You were going to allow the property for the sewage plant to be condemned without a public hearing or without notifying those of us impacted by the sewage treatment plant. In your opinion, is this any way to treat your neighbors? Does Cary have such an influence on Apex that you can not even do what is right for your neighbors? If the answer is yes, then let's disband Apex and rename it Cary West. I'm already concerned that New Hill is about to become New Cary! Or, am I and my parents wrong? My parents always taught me to live by the golden rule, i.e., "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Is the way you treated us the way you want us to treat you? This Sunday when you are in church, ask your pastor if what you did is the way you should treat your neighbor. Then after church, call your parents and ask them if the way you treated us is the correct way to treat your neighbor. • DENR Response.lwp Tab 31 Supporting Documentation Tab 31 You still have time to correct all the mistakes Cary has led Apex, Holly • Springs, and Morrisville into by ensuring this sewage plant gets put on CP&L property, and not in downtown New Hill. Bob Kelly 3020 Olive Farm Road Apex, NC 27502 • • DENR Response.lwp Tab 31 Supporting Documentation RLK Mayor Keith Weatherly P. O. Box 250 Apex, NC 27502 July 8, 2005 Dear Mayor Weatherly: I attended the special meeting of the Apex Board of Commissioners July 5, 2005 and must tell you that I am disappointed that you and the Apex Commissioners are blindly following Cary in their quest to place a sewage treatment facility within the township of New Hill. I sat in the audience and listened to the presentation by Tommy Esqueda and the questions asked of Mr. Esqueda. While Mr. Esqueda answered all the questions posed to him, he conveniently left out a lot of information. Also, apparently you and the Apex Commissioners have not read the engineering reports prepared by Mr. Esqueda and others, as you do not seem to have enough information to ask the right questions. For example: •When talking about the Environmental Impact Study, Mr. Esqueda and his company are only going to list Sites A, B, and C. Nothing about the other sites will be mentioned. Only listing those sites is stacking the deck against the residents of New Hill. When you compare only those 3 sites, of course Site C will look better than the other two. However, when you compare Site C against all the other sites in the study, you quickly see that Site C is not the best site. I am very disappointed that you and the Apex Commissioners did not ask the correct questions. I am also disappointed that you and the other partners can' see how information is being manipulated to make the site in New Hill look more favorable than it really is. •When the Apex Commissioners went into closed session, we had an opportunity to talk to Mr. Esqueda informally. Even in an informal discussion, he still maintained that the residents of New Hill will have access to the Sewage Treatment Plant. Here again, he was making statements that are only half true. He knows that in order to have access to the facility we will have to be annexed by one of the partners, but again, he conveniently did not mention it until we brought it to his attention. •During our informal discussion with Mr. Esqueda, he mentioned he has never been on any of the Progress Energy property. We explained to him that Progress Energy has cut the trees on and around Site 20 and that very little clearing is necessary. Since he has not been on the property, he was not aware of the benefits of using that site. •We questioned Mr. Esqueda as to why using the Progress Energy sites would be • more expensive. He stated that information is on the partners web site. I mentioned Tab 31 DENR Response.lwp Tab 31 Supporting Documentation that what is on the web site is only some gross numbers, and there is no supporting • information as to how the 27 million dollars was derived. This is information we have been trying to get from the Cary Town Council and so far have been unsuccessful. It is our concern that their numbers may be in error, like other information in the engineering study. We can only assume the numbers are being generated now, or reworked, and that is why they are not being made available. •Mr. Esqueda repeatedly stated that a cost comparison of the sites was not done, however, cost was one of the weighting factors in the information provided by the engineers. Can you begin to see the problem? At the beginning of the meeting, I stood and recited the Pledge of Allegiance along with everyone else. Having served in the U. S. Army during the mid sixties, the Pledge of Allegiance has always had special meaning to me. When we came to the last line, "with liberty and justice for all" I could not help but wonder where is the justice for New Hill. As you are aware, we had no say whatsoever in the decision to locate the sewage treatment facility in New Hill. We have no representation on the Cary, Apex, Morrisville, or Holly Springs Town Councils. Cary and the partners have spent years studying this facility; we were notified just a short while ago. Where is the justice in that? Where is the justice in condemning privately owned property when thousands of acres of previously condemned land is available just one mile down the road, i.e., Progress • Energy? Mayor Weatherly is it the intention of Cary, Apex, Morrisville, and Holly Springs that all of Wake County be developed similarly to how Cary is today? Do we want every square inch of Wake County developed with homes on quarter acre lots and strip malls on every corner? If the answer is yes, then Apex and the other towns are headed in the right direction. From the actions of Cary over the last few years, they seem to be satisfied with all development as long as there is a small greenway through the neighborhood. Personally, I do not want to see this type of development encroaching on New Hill or Western Wake County. I do not want my grandchildren growing up in a place where they never get to see horses, cows, sheep or forests. I don' want them thinking hamburgers come from the grocery store, or that lumber comes from Home Depot. My wife and I walk along the roads in New Hill late in the evenings. Quite often we encounter families from Apex or Cary that have stopped on the side of the road so the children can see horses grazing in the fields. You can' find this in Cary, Apex, Morrisville or Holly Springs, and if the partners continues to follow Cary, it will not be long before you will not be able to find it anywhere in Wake County. Is this what you want? Personally, I do not want Apex to turn into Cary South, and I do not want New Hill to turn into New Cary! i Also, what happened to the statements in Lincoln' Gettysburg Address: Tab 31 DENR Response.lwp Tab 31 Supporting Documentation "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish • from the earth." This must only pertain to residents of Cary, Apex, Morrisville and Holly Springs, as it certainly does not pertain to the residents of New Hill. As you and the partners are aware, the governments that made the decision to place the sewage facility in New Hill were not governments of the people of New Hill, by the people of New Hill, or for the people of New Hill. Mayor Weatherly, I encourage you and the rest of the partners to do the right thing and stop this sewage treatment facility from going onto property in the middle of our small, rural community. Sincerely, Robert L. Kelly CJ • Tab 31 DENR Response.lwp Tab 31 Supporting Documentation • Subject: New Hill Sewage Plant From: NCDeerHunter29@aol.com Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 12:35:09 EDT To: joe.bryan@co.wake.nc.us, pjeffreys@nc.rr.com, tgurley@nclegalsolutions.com, Citizens4kenn@aol.com, Harold.Webb@co.wake.nc.us, herbcouncil@councilfinancial.com, dcooke@co.wake. nc. us CC: wwakecitizens@theotts.org Dear Wake County Commissioners, Tab 31 t am President of the newly formed organization called "New Hill Community Association." I have attached a letter expressing my concerns about the Sewage Plant being planned by the Western Wake Partners -- Town of Cary being the lead partner. This sewage plant is currently cited in the center of our community, adjacent to our Historic District, two churches (ca 1880 and 1910), playground and many residents. While speaking to the Mayors and Council Members of these four towns, many have said that they were not aware of the site location in New Hill and it's impact to our social and cultural environment. If they had known about the impact, then the decision would have been different. It seems reasonable to me that if Town Council members have not done the due diligence required to make such a critical business decision then this mistake needs to be corrected before any further actions take place. • • DENR Response.lwp Tab 31 Supporting Documentation Tab 3 ] Subject: Let's put all this in perspective. • From: Berry Credle <bcred1e0820@yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 20:58:11 -0700 (PDT) To: wwakecitizens@theotts.org, council@townofcary.org People of New Hill.... Of course you should be happy to have a sewage treatment plant in your historic district. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?? Oh wait, let's examine history for a moment: In 1963 a Lake (later named Jordan) was dumped in your backyard and construction started in 1967. Sorry about losing all the farm land (some of those folks just a few miles away were your neighbors - I know this), but what a great thing - ya, it put a lot of people out of a place to live and work, but WOW Cary and Apex sure have a lot of drinking water now and it is a fun place to go on the weekend. (reference: http:,'%www.ils.unc.edtuparkproject%visit;';jord,/history.htlni) According to the state, and folks from Cary and Apex (who drink this water), you should be thrilled! In the early 1970s, CP&L (now Progress Energy) started a plan to put a Nuclear Power Plant in New Hill (reference http:/iindycveel:.eoni/clurham,`2000-1 I-29i'cover.html) on land owned by the Wombels, Smiths, Hollemans and others, but why are you sore? Some of the remnants of their homesteads can still be seen on trails of that swell park they built for us (reference: http:~-~v`~=1~.~vake~.~av.cc~~n;'NR/exc~es<<`SAF5BFF6-2~A9-44FC'-8C'6C]-F882~?9E62B~.ht~n) Isn't that a great place to spend a weekend for a picnic... aren't you happy this was placed in your backyard? According to Progress Energy, you should be thrilled! Well you had a railroad in your town you should (by natural extension) want a Dixie Pipeline Easement (for high pressure gas) to flow right near those tracks... heck, what harm will that cause? Aren't you happy with a high pressure gas easement? According to Dixie Pipeline, you should be thrilled! Hey, you know... the power company sure could make some money by transmitting power across US 1 through some backyards to get to Green Level... you know Cary wants that area to grow and they're gonna need power, so let's run it through our unincorporated areas of the county. Power lines are very attractive and increase your property value, right? Aren't you happy? YOU SHOULD BE THRILLED! ANYONE HEARD OF A GOOD PLACE TO DUMP LOW LEVEL RADIATION? The State sure didn't want us to feel left out. Scan this thread for some excitement along the Wake/Chatham county line in 1994 (reference: http:/igroups-bcta.googlc.comigroup'triangle.general!brotivse_tha•eaclrthrcadl??ce~ccbda6Cif~e2Jba3be~e=lc1 ac l 0f~?tt=1~w'+le~~ei-nuclear-cc~aste-~ciump~- I think it was the geology (rock fissures) that cost us the opportunity to house this dump. Hey, you cannot win them all! BUT OPPORTUNITIES STILL ABOUND (read on)! How about a sewage treatment plant? Through some process not yet divulged to the citizens of New Hill, the possible sites (12) were reduced to 3 and by some magic (which I know will be made available to us possibly even before they break ground on site 14/c), the cost of the top 3 sites skyrocked which propelled the • downtown New Hill site (14/c) to the top of the list. DENR Response.lwp Tab 31 Supporting Documentation Tab 31 I just don't guess I understand what the problem is. I mean there are families which have been here for 200 • years. They must like Railroads, Nuclear Plants, lots of Lakes, electrical transmission lines, pipeline easements otherwise they wouldn't live here, right? ...I follow Jennifer's logic... people in New Hill must really enjoy this type of treatment ...they rarely ever win these battles... they're always getting dumped on.... and heck look, the western wake partners have such an opportunity here... an attractive sewage treatment plant which will throw a nice family off their land of 2 centuries... yes, it will stink occasionally at the playground in the churchyard across the street, but not in the backyards of any of the partner's constituents. (Wasn't there a tea party in Boston some 230 years ago complaining about treatment such as this?) I guess if you don't like getting dumped on, buy some property in Cary and move there (is the thinking of these partners), then you can be the dumper rather than the dumpee. Oh yeah, and we still haven't even fully discussed the property destruction associated with the pumping stations and the permanent damage expected to the American Tobacco Trail canopy if the sewage is piped along that corridor. YOU SHOULD BE THRILLED, RIGHT? Councilperson Jennifer Robinson, with all due respect, walk a mile in our shoes!... you just don't seem to understand any of this very well at all. Berry Credle 2920 Ridgepine Drive Apex, NC 27502 (on border of New Hill postal district). • • DENR Response.lwp Tab 3 ] .7 DENR Response.lwp Supporting Documentation DFtA~ Staie and Federal Agency Gomrnerits Wesb~n Wake Regional Wastewater Tr~eahment Facilities EIS Corntflent Agency Comment No. Agency We believe that t#re proposed facility may adversely affect the New Hope Historic District, a property bated in the Nati~cmai Register of Historic Plaoas. WRhaut additional itsformation to the corr#rary, there appears to tie potential forthe 1~9 introduction of atmospheric elements such as light and odor as well as noise from tfie increased traffic and operations. These ail 'll adversly effect the rural character and setting of the historic district. Given the potential adverse effects associated with the pro~aosed facility, we 4~ recommend that we meat to discuss its layout and operations fn greater detail. Ulfake Cor,nty- Wake County doss not agree with the Tirn l44aioney placement of a sewer fine witRin the ROW that makes uptfire ATT. Ttrere should be 1g1 amore extensive evaluation sod consideration of atterna#!ve routes that would have less environmental im;sacts reareaiional and canstrairrts on a vakued _ resource. Page ;ip of 50 Tab A ~~~ ~~ Tab A • DENR Response.lwp Supporting Documentation ~'~ i~ f ~, r.~l Harm +Ga ~ ~~ au a! R t9iNoe tf.rs. e..~+, ~_ ~.,t,awr^.,ratrrrt wr.ftr.ta.ar,a..•~ ,,arre c. a..- tr...rrr ,,s.,, o,.a,J pf~ere.w+.~ irato 10.2005 us~ttaw-xnu~i ofwtt,..k, c...fr To: Daa 8lrwde~, Aeeeatsurt C3sief C~oruaucuo.~ (3rusta ~ Low Ariioa of YGatet 9~ DENR a From: Past Sasdi:axk ,~'fi"'`,~i~t•-•-~"' }~ Wpam VGsJ~c 97uerReadarnafida Facifitp, Ne®H01. Wake Ccxmt~, C~04-.3147 Thu tsfesaaxsrrdiam u xt fc8ow uP cn the eeveial tanvmatwne that atx Flrvtirorttnerttat Rniew Coatxlurrmor Rerfee Giedtai0-F~rie f' hu had voidx Hannah 5tt+Ginge, wad axth f atey Norma po° corfecat~6 thr propoead Weeoetn 9Dak: Water Ramon Paditp ('RAF? + tT51 is 2Jew Hdl. We noavad our Grit rfafificstion of dfn propcead proioct &arn thr Staor ~ in iJeretnbeT 2004 ar a empittg dottattet t fot s shaft Erfnroasrrnxtal h~ct $,~yoertrenx {EtS}. Based can the kadc of specific ixxfotatation in rise a~copotg tequrss. we providod trusfxrfents vn iT, 2005, ~+ a ~ ~ outer infcemaesoa ::antexarcrg the pruryect We had. no reepsnre to damt ,~exfi,eax until ismt everic vrirrtt tht pmt ~, a the duettioo of Haaxuir ~~, eana~ w a rx>ap ahawio8 the knetai~otx of tin pQVposax! WRF. 'lire snap ahowe the 9 ae aRarfediaoeip ad'peent m the Near Hi0 Nt*t°tu I)iaatt a pcopatr hoed m tlx hleaorrat Regioosr of l3iwoeic Planes m App 2001. Frxxn our co[tveoac~oxr r wish ~ Groats and Low, wa txndecaausd that the pcopaaed undettakiag s klreiy oo be Gu-dnd w•sb monies firm the US Fnviranu»errta! Ptt (E1'A? and shay paYxtnts from tht: i7S harry Corgi of Eag~itre+sa. !f this ie the sae, tint projaet » eublxx to rnmphmrt with Sectiarr 106 of the 13atia>nal t~Iusoaoc Pro>ta+ratioxf Act and rho re~ulariosu of tiro .Adviaary C.eunca oxt Hnoasic Prnervarion x~ 36 CFA Part 800.'I1fe lair and ro unpkrxfenting aregrrlatfone t+ex~s+e a fedora! ai~cF m twice hiataric ptrtpexttea mm ' ~ to s~oid advesd}' ~ PreP~' or m!trgit'°8'er'i' adverat cfft,en that rtnv teeuh from du underoltixxg.'Afe S+ettioxr 106gracrse u arppoa«i to begin earif'n projttt pianrring ahiiz dun. u a broad ~ of groptx ah>xt-aav~ar Burt maT woad $ huoanc p• Groen dfu dfc sccgiag cioa.~taxterrt ~~ tirar prc'i~ ~~t °a0" ~ ~°t t6 CO'~~on of the etrvrroxrmrntal atutin '3rat will be imtkxied in dra E1S and dux woe have had. nrnrfMawr nllC from coacettrad gnoperty aovtuss iat Nea~ 3-Ttl) about dfe poeeibk caxfdararaxioa of prcrperry kx dras WAF, woe Foe! drru vt need to provide a sting; wor3 of cannon to the lion of Waxer Qua6rs card to the proiect pausnm. To proceed ~,••+r~ w,~Tfra+.'~w.ctirer.ar>resxr*'tt' ex>t.mrw.r.e.wrc "a'~~w0°` ~asfrai..ta~>~-; «ua+.ar.wwa..r.awr->tcs>+~x: ~rltafa~p ttf M:.eWre~rl ad~r6 f~ MtxflAfrw~Or~, 4Ml~rC :aaPMEi Tab A Tab A • Supporting Documentation Tab A with cunwteuu o' prt~~+erty that ~e ut>atdy ad~aoetrt rn a Natxuiat Re~exr-iest+ed ~('~ Fnor cn conapleang the easvirc r~rt'crwtal stur~cx and Sextion S06 FmOG"s ace~ru to ~ to be adv~tx'l u~d could rtcuEt in a unite of isuhle finds ~ a~tq ms tea nod ~ Fuether, to rx a as tkfat frnved~aee adequatt c+nnrideratiora of the c ffects tit the pra~carcd tacilit}~ art the hietrues district could }~rtuhly jeppu~dizc tfie nee of ~Pd. funttq fvr ei~e prrsfixt. 1n hit or the speed cait}a which rhea ~ aPp~ w be progressing, tmnui irsfotmatfcm on histont resotures and. t~nin gfui ,. ~nvultation with us, t9c reeomstlend tf~at tht garden inacrh*eil msxt m feitiy diattns than matter and h~or i~; is p~~ t?lease eonrrcrtvls. Gtodhi~-Fatl+'y at?33-4763 m sd~eduie a m~tir~ of the appropaiate pantie s ~ the very future and to s#is~ arty c~sticans you tnav leave concexning dxu matter, "Tlsantr you. • • DENR Response.lwp c~ JetY srrocv, SHPQ Iatsy ]3artQn, L91~'t'Z Hannah I~WQ Tab A Supporting Documentation 3uly 1{?. 2405 Proclamation regaxding the px`aptased Weste~cn wake Regional Waste Water Treatm+ant PLarst, Tha[ we as a k~4ely of New iti13 Baptist Chuz~ch do hexeby this day the lpth of July, 2Ra5 by vote of our mecnbeXS, go on record oppcsir~g the loCatiar. of the Viewer Waste 'i`reatiment p3ant that is beinr, forced on u~. ate believe that unclex our U.&. Constitution we staovald have had as much right to be involves in this selection process as the towns of Cary. Apex, Morrisville aa~d Holly 5priags. We believe that the prvgosed location is too near Ciur church, alone with the First Baptist Church:, aAG~ approxitrtately 84 homes ar busineas~_ Sigr~ec7 ,.by, ~ +~.-~. Rev.. Gerald Eiart Fos pox Steve F£1lF3tE~r Chairman of i~eaccan Board _'"_' ~~~ Pansy 8. Womble. Cnurei~ Clerk. • Tab B DENR Response.lwp Tab B • Supporting Documentation ~, . ,,~-. ~J v. _ . ~ ~. 1lFP'P Etcrct`r."rYE P#iWS. sTxlal ~7rr~ ¢rol~h!Ci pyp~t; SU+'! L<6tSL~714f dr~ia a4~6IX++~ .. 3CtD M. FA 41F11 I~nT IL'RW~G"'< Mw~i10M. e~rc xTa+~ra-84th 3u1 1+~, 20(MS YaurNa~: t5~~l4 7sa.s7ac to ~ a& 7'a=#~~!I6 r~u c...s~~. GtcMtGt: yj/oss C®UMTY P8S[e?r ~'iG[~t~d ~~[ ~4CVC H1IIItLT. C'.FIdU'C:7a'CtI elf. Tl BCBSTd ~8Zi5S' I)_'4'~D7A~?~C, ~=h11.11C~ C~C Ncw }:lEli Baptist C3~urcTa 37t7t- Old. Higher P.C?. Boat ~~ Ncu~~ Hai1,1NC 2?~ 4~zs>~€ls, Tab B AM.I11W'~:µiFOMaI/H[ALTM AM++ FiWMAdr ~8l5MYFL:6 GbMN~A11~'C ~ebcwwt R~u~r.alar!c s.t'a 7rsaws ~acucc 1YWGt~bllY ~ "~ yeku sa tsnuch fear yoar P ~ n rca~ Vie: Pz~ttpa'i vaster tass~2mr..tt ~fant. I shata your ccaaACCan abourt Lire lc~ati~an e>f tsree~t plant. The ctay~ I i of it 1 contacted G~''~L tl~mwgh th~r I.,e~islativr Tdei t+~ Y ttaat tltcy lerca#e hxs on Prograss F..aaergy ianel. ,a-lthough there: arc a lc~# of masons fern that I am cloubs fa l that ihi~ r~itl hap~ee_ Flca~ ier anc advssed. With rr!ti~, arts zinc }rouse, ayl Stagy try rrat • DENR Response.lwp Tab B Supporting Documentation • ,aw+~ R ar mac E~'~.~'tl(~ 1 ail}' ~ ~, ~x ~#4 ~CV?ET ~~LAed ~'~8!'R l'aSttlr T3evr Sail' Ba~ttst E'burch Pct Dffict tiQtt ~~ 't1t-a° 1:111, h'C 2'~SG2. I)c~ S'astor ~Ssit; 'I'kon;; ~3t-u for sirarir-g wiita mac tk-c prcrclaattattic~ rcpardirh~ the P'~P"°~ W csecm Wake lt.c~c~raa114'asta Water Trcatnec~at Plant, I,caertaink3+ ~~ndt'd i1~at tl-s ssua i~ of camc+ern to Neuv Fink residents attd ~~' congrGgivn. E resc af;surcrl that. the Pr~rss far drafting ancf apnr~+vat of an e~viruturarnt imp~a~ct ~taremcnt and issuauace of a pernuk to eonst~M this. facilit4 wiil allow a full au~d cuarnrrchcnstvc re«,ew of your canc~!~S. '4`otar rr~emh~sk-ip the good fc~kks of H~~ F lit t twill ecrtaraky k-c stlaw'cd ~t~crv ~, roprstc pSsP4CkUnih~ UD address thc~C issues duriu ~4:i~ ¢c~.~i~.`, AP,ain, Pastor Bark, tlsaAk yuu fpr takirsg the time tea write, Pct shame my ra~ltlo Mr. Hunter aa~d his, iNomble. ~lr-cc~k~~ ...- Keith ~. V4' ly l+aynr pP Ex Ze ~~ ~A '~' CA • Tab B DENR Response.lwp Tab B Supporting Documentation The News & Observer March 9, 2004 Column: Road Worrier Cary commuters holding their noses Author: Bruce Siceloff; Staff Writer Edition: Final Section: News Page: B 1 Index Terms: TRANSPORTATION Road Worrier Estimated printed pages: 2 Article Text: What is that funky smell? Every morning, it hovers over Interstate 40 near Lake Crabtree, waiting for Ronald S. Cornell and the four North Raleigh kids he carpools to Cary Academy. Tab C Every morning, they try not to breathe. "When we're coming down the hill toward Harrison Avenue, we try to remember to turn the car to interior air only, at the bottom of the hill," Cornell says. "It's going up that hill that you. get it worst." Alas, it is just what the nose knows it must be: a sewage treatment mishap. Just west of Lake Crabtree and south of I-40, inside the North Cary Water Reclamation Facility, down at the bottom of a 2-million-gallon sludge vat, an air pipe is broken. The plant turns raw waste into sludge or biosolids, which are trucked to farms as fertilizer. It produces water that is clean enough for irrigation, cooling and industrial uses. Since the break was discovered in early February, the town has been working to empty the sludge vat so the pipe can be fixed. That will take until the end of March. Until then, the sewage process isn't working quite the way it should. Detailed updates on progress at the North Cary plant are posted online at www.townofcary.org/ aboutcary/odor.htm, along with information about the town's long-term approach to pungent problems that have drawn previous complaints from I-40 commuters. "It's pretty smelly stuff,"says Kim Fisher, Cary public works-and utilities director. "We have been,trying to deal with odor issues at the plant for quite. a number of years." • DENR Response.lwp Tab C Supporting Documentation ~ WRAL.com Cary Considered Great Place To Live, But What's That Smell? POSTED: 7:33 p.m. EST February 10, 2004 UPDATED: 8:00 p.m. EST February 10, 2004 CARY, N.C. -- WRAL viewers have called, e-mailed and told us in person -- something stinks in Cary. The town, known as one of the best in the United States, is not about to back away from the stench. It hits people when they are driving on Interstate 40, just west of Harrison Avenue. Those who have experienced it can vividly describe it. Tab C "It smells like my 18-month-old daughter's diaper in a trash can somewhere in the house," David Morken said," and I don't know which one, but I have to go looking for what waste basket that diaper is in." • Morken's description was pretty close to right on. The smell that has people talking comes from Cary's Wastewater Treatment Facility off Old Reedy Creek Road. Driving by is bad enough. But try working, or working out -- near it. "I own a business directly across from the plant," Morken said. "We smell it every day. "Depending on the weather, it is worse some days than others. But I also run at lunch, and, as you go by, you can't escape it." Said Cary Utilities Director Rob Bonne: "Certain types of weather patterns cause the odor to accumulate rather than disperse." Bonne said the solution to the stink is a Biosolids Dryer, an $11 million facility. Construction starts next month on West Lake Road. The dryer will turn all the smelly sludge into neat, dry, non-smelly fertilizer pellets. Cary is known for cul-de-sacs, good schools and good shopping. But now, something else could put the town on the map, or in the ground in some places. The town plans to sell the finished product as yard fertilizer. Milwaukee makes a fertilizer called Mil-organite. One day, hardware stores in the Triangle may be selling Car-organite. DENR Response.lwp Tab C Supporting Documentation • Cary officials said the town could earn up to $70,000 a year on fertilizer sales. As for the current situation with this sewage smell, town officials say they are working on It. In the meantime, everyone admits that Cary's sewage definitely stinks. Reporter: Mark Roberts Photographer: Gil Hollingsworth Online Producer: Paul Enssiin Copyright 2004 by WRAC. com. All rights reserved. • • Tab C DENR Response.lwp Tab C Supporting Documentation NBC 17 • Cary Hopes New Plant Will Ease Sewage Stench Plant Will Turn Sludge Into Ferti/izer POSTED: 6:07 pm EST March 22, 2004 CARY, N.C. -- As the town of Cary grows, so does its sewage needs. Some say the stench coming from sewage buildup around Harrison Avenue is also Growing. Tab C "The smell out here near .Harrison can be almost offensive," Mayor Ernie McAlister said. Cary's two waste water treatment plants are working overtime trying to handle more than 65,000 gallons of sewage a day. "You have sludge that needs to be treated and that's what creates the smell," McAlister said. Cary officials say the solution may be turning the sludge into fertilizer pellets. Monday, Cary broke ground on the region's first system that will convert waste into high-quality fertilizer. The state of the art plant will cost $13 million. A federal grant is helping to pay around $1 million of the cost. "You always look for win-win solutions and this seems to me the genuine article," Rep. David Price, D-Chapel Hill, said. "You're talking about reducing the volume of waste and talking about a product that has an economic value." "The pellets will be commercially valuable for farmers," McAllister said. "It's taking something with no value and adding value to it." The plant is expected to come online in 2005. It could generate 50,000 pounds of fertilizer everyday. Copyright 2004 by NBC1;~. co. Al/ rights reserved. • DENR Response.lwp Tab C Supporting Documentation The News & Observer • Apri129, 2006 Hidden jewel of a neighborhood tarnished by foul odor Janell Ross, Staff Writer Tab C When Diana Murphy moved to a new subdivision off Sunnybrook Road in Raleigh in 2003, she was sure she had found an "undiscovered jewel." Her neighborhood is full of young families and older retirees. It is flanked by dense trees, and it sits 10 minutes from Murphy's downtown job. But two years ago, when construction on the U.S. 64/264 Bypass began, an unkind aroma began to sometimes hang in the air. "Sewer, definitely sewer smells," said Murphy, who is married and has a daughter. "I don't know why it hasn't been solved." As it turns out, Murphy lives in an area with some potential for obnoxious olfactory experiences. Topsoil disturbed during construction can release certain sewerlike smells, said H. Dale Crisp, Raleigh's public utilities director. Murphy's subdivision sits near a capped and now closed city landfill where sewer-type smells can also sometimes escape, Crisp added. But the most likely culprits are he two wastewater lift tations less than#hree miles from Murphy's home. Murphy has called at least three times since the problem began. The trouble is, the smelly problem is usually worse at night. By the time city offices open, the odor is often gone, Murphy said. The lift station that sits less than a mile from Murphy's home collects wastewater from about one-third of the city, elevates it and then moves it downhill to the city's treatment plant in far southeastern Wake County. And like a soda after a good shake, agitated wastewater has more gases. The city tries to suppress those odors in the interest of being a good neighbor, Crisp said. A contractor soon will install a monitor that will measure sewer gases around the clock. When it is in place, Crisp said, it should help the city feed the lift station the right odor-controlling chemical blend. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be published, broadcast or redistributed in any manner. © Copyright 2006, The News & Observer Publishing Company A subsidiary of The McClatchy Company • DENR Response.lwp Tab C Supporting Documentation • The News & Observer August 27, 2002 Using land near Harris Author: Richard Stradling; Staff Writer Edition: Final Section: News Page: al Index Terms: development Progress Energy CP&L Estimated printed pages: 3 Article Text: Tab D Progress Energy, the largest private landowner in Wake County, is looking to develop some of its vast holdings in aonce-remote corner of the county. • Progress Energy owns nearly 17,000 acres in Wake, the equivalent of three Umstead state parks, most of it taken up by Harris Lake, the Shearon Harris nuclear plant and surrounding land west of Holly Springs. The company owns more land than it needs to buffer the lake and the nuclear plant, making hundreds of acres available for development. "We look at that area as obviously a very high potential growth area," said spokesman Garrick Francis. "We will continue to analyze all the property we have in that area for its development potential." Progress Energy's subsidiary, Carolina Power & Light, took the first step last winter when it asked Holly Springs to annex 425 acres, making it eligible for town water, sewer and other services. The company took the second step last week when it persuaded Holly Springs commissioners to rezone 53 acres of that land along U.S. 1 to allow commercial development. Progress Energy will jump into the development business in a big way this fall, when it breaks ground on a $100 million office, retail and residential complex in downtown Raleigh. Twenty miles away, the company's land near Shearon Harris could fuel the westward expansion of Holly Springs into a part of the county that once seemed beyond the reach of development. Holly Springs was the state's fastest-growing town in the 1990s, and town officials, unlike their counterparts in Apex and Cary, have no interest in slowing down. Mayor Dick Sears and other town officials met with Progress Energy representatives this week to say they're eager to work with the company on future development. DENR Response.lwp Tab D Supporting Documentation Tab D "We talked about the possibility of partnering on more commercial development, high schools, water • treatment facilities, residential, and that's about as far as it's gotten," Sears said. "They do have a lot of land down there that we are interested in." CP&L has no immediate plans to develop the 53 acres along U.S. 1, but the company's rezoning application says an office park, shopping center or mixed-use project are possibilities. "We're just preparing ourselves so that when the market turns around we'll be in a better position to use the asset," Francis said. "Obviously that area has great potential." The rezoning surprised neighbors of the property, a forested tract surrounded by other forests and a smattering of houses. Elizabeth Ray, who has lived off Friendship Road since 1996, said people expect more building in their part of the county, but always considered the CP&L land off limits to development because of the nuclear plant. "There's enough signs that something's going to come our way," said Ray, whose 25-acre lot backs up on the company's land. "We just didn't expect it so soon. And we did not expect it from CP&L." CP&L acquired thousands of acres of farm and forest land in the southwest corner of the county in the 1960s and 1970s as it planned to build four nuclear reactors at Shearon Harris. After the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in 1979, the company scaled back the plant to one reactor, which required less cooling water and a smaller lake, Francis said. Francis could not say how much Progress Energy land might be available for development, but he said it's more than the 425 acres annexed by Holly Springs. Company land abuts the town in several places, including the town's industrial park. The land is within five miles of the nuclear plant, but company officials don't think that will discourage development. Developers have planned or built hundreds of homes that are as close. "There certainly are lots of people who live in pretty close proximity to the plant and feel safe," Francis said. "Whatever you create out there, people would be willing to use it." The 53 acres rezoned last week are split by U.S. 1. Company officials say that makes them a logical place for commercial development, even though the nearest interchange on U.S. 1 is several miles away and the land is reachable now only by a gravel road. Progress Energy will ask the state Department of Transportation to build an interchange nearby before it develops the property, Francis said. Town officials will support a new interchange when the time comes, Planning Director Gina Bobber said. Finisterra, a planned 775-acre golf course subdivision just south of the recently annexed CP&L land, calls for up to 2,100 homes, enough to justify new access to U.S. 1, Bobber said. Meanwhile, Progress Energy's moves to develop its property have caught Ray and her neighbors off guard. They learned about the rezoning only about two weeks ago, she said. Now they're anxious about having a big chunk of commercially zoned property in their midst. "I don't feel it is fair to rezone a piece of property without giving the adjacent landowners time to understand • the impact or what they plan to do," Ray said. "Right now it's all up in the air." DENR Response.lwp Tab D Supporting Documentation • Staff • Copyright 2002 by The News & Observer Pub. Co. Record Number: hlgy0r89 DENR Response.lwp Tab D Tab D Supporting Documentation The News & Observer • October 23, 1997 CP&L in position to sell land near plant Author: KYLE MARSHALL; STAFF WRITER Edition: Final Section: Business Page: C 10 Index Terms: CPL Wake Estimated printed pages: 3 Article Text: Tab D NEW HILL -- With new development headed down U.S. 1 southwest of Apex, Carolina Power & Light Co. is taking steps to sell some of its vast real estate holdings surrounding the Shearon Harris nuclear plant. The state Utilities Commission, at CP&L's request, last month modified its rules concerning a possible sale • of parts of the company's roughly 26,000 acres at the Harris plant. The commission no longer will have to approve land sales or exchanges, but it is retaining some restrictions on CP&L, such as no sales inside a one-mile radius of the plant. CP&L said it does not have imminent plans to dispose of any property associated with the Harris plant, about 20 miles southwest of Raleigh. But the Raleigh utility wants to make sure it can easily sell or lease the parcels it wants to when the inevitable pressures for more development creep into the southwestern corner of the county. "We may potentially have some scenarios to sell," said Les Pearce, CP&L's manager of real estate management. "We have the growth of Fuquay-Varina, Holly Springs and Apex and down [U.S.] 1 that way. It has continued to grow rapidly." Developers have discussed such uses as golf courses, homes and industrial plants. Pearce said he has fielded many calls from people interested in developing CP&L property. If CP&L were to sell any land suitable for development, it could fetch prices of up to $45,000 an acre for industrial use, according to commercial real estate developers. A golf course could bring in $10,000 to $15,000 an acre without homes, or perhaps $20,000 with residential use. "Doing a golf course or two is a possibility," said Cary developer Tim Smith. "Maybe some residential use. • But nobody's going to live real close to a nuclear power plant." DENR Response.lwp Tab D Supporting Documentation Tab D Only a portion of the CP&L land would be available for sale or lease, and Pearce said he didn't know how • much would be eligible. The land immediately surrounding the plant, the more than 4,000 acres under water at Harris Lake, the gamelands overseen by the state Wildlife Resources Commission and parcels leased to Wake County and N.C. State University's College of Forest Resources wouldn't be sold. The most likely CP&L parcels to be sold or leased would be those along U.S. 1. The widening of the highway to four lanes is expected to lead to more development. A stretch from the highway's split from U.S. 64 to the New Hill exit, which is near the Hams plant, was completed this month. More widening of the highway into Chatham County will occur by the end of the year, and the final stretch to U.S. 15-501 near Sanford is scheduled for a December 1998 completion. Another potential draw to the area, Smith said, will be a new Sanford airport under construction in Lee County near the Chatham County line. The airport will be close to property near the Harris plant. CP&L owns land on both sides of the highway in Wake County. Its property stretches well beyond the plant itself to include parcels in Chatham and Harnett counties. CP&L, the biggest private property owner in Wake, recently began developing along-range land plan for the Harris property. Planners from CP&L plan to talk to county and municipal officials as they put together a document that would guide future uses of the property. If CP&L agrees to sell or lease any of the land, the company still must notify the Utilities Commission about its intentions. It has agreed to submit a report and map at least 30 days before a land transaction is • completed. The restrictions on land deals forbid CP&L from engaging in any transaction in which a parcel is within one mile of the plant, has environmental problems, may have an impact on the nuclear plant's operations or is part of the property for the proposed low-level nuclear waste site near the plant. Caption: map; Wake Co.; Staff Copyright 1997 by The News & Observer Pub. Co. Record Number: 1997295131 • DENR Response.lwp Tab D Supporting Documentation The News & Observer • October 28, 1997 Wide open spaces Edition: Final Section: Editorial/Opinion Page: A16 Index Terms: CPL development environment Triangle EDITORIAL Estimated printed pages: 1 Article Text: Tab D It only takes a quick drive down U.S. 1 to be free of the congested Cary-Apex hub and to fmd yourself in the midst of acre upon acre of open countryside. • That so much undeveloped space still exists so near such a rapidly developing area of Wake County is largely because of Carolina Power & Light Co. The company has amassed roughly 26,000 acres surrounding the Shearon Harris nuclear power plant near New Hill. Those vast acres have naturally attracted the attention of land-hungry developers. Indeed, CP&L has shown signs that the time might not be far off when Wake County's largest private landowner will make some of that land available. The company has received clearance from the state Utilities Commission to sell part of its holdings. As tempting as those lands are to developers, they should be no less alluring to local government. This region is rapidly running out of open, undeveloped space. The CP&L lands offer an opportunity to guarantee that not all of the area will sprout subdivisions, shopping centers and traffic. CP&L has shown environmental sensitivity with leases that already protect thousands of acres of prime real estate. Lake Harris, lands leased to N.C. State University's forestry program and game lands controlled by the state wildlife commission will not be on some future auction block, the company says. CP&L planners will be meeting with county and municipal officials as they develop along-range scenario for the area. The governments' goal in those talks should be to preserve as much of that open land as possible. CP&L has shown a willingness to cooperate, and it would be a shame if officials missed this golden opportunity to do even more. • Copyright 1997 by The News & Observer Pub. Co. Record Number: 1997300107 DENR Response.lwp Tab D 0ct•21. 2005 5~40PM Supporting Documentation Law Office KRE "EaquCdB, Thomas" <EsquedaTC~m.com> 01/18/2005 08:15 AIN No•5383 P• 1 Tq akim.fist»x~townofcary.org>, a6m.bailey~taMmofcary.org> co sleila.Qoodwin~townofcary.ore>. "Roane. Kelly" cBooneKR~odm.com> bcc Subject Progress Energy Work Plan Greetings Kim and Tim: As r} follav+MUp to our meeting with Progress Energy, I wanted to summary the work plan arttldpated to provide Progress Energy the information they requested. Attadted is a draft work plan for your review and comment. Let me know if this is consistent with your recoNection of the meeting, and I mill make additions, deletions or changes you suggest. Thanks sr1"ammy • (t}Progress Energy wil! provide an estimate of the land area that will require water and sewer service, and attempt to categorize the land areas as resicientiai, commerolal and Industrial. (2} puce the land ales era Identified by Progrea& Energy, the Consultants will make an estimate of thg wastewater flow volumes associated with the land area estimates. (3) anc$ the wastewater flow projections are complete, the Gonsultarlts wiH use the QUAL2E model to determine Ethane is assimilative capacity In the Cape Fear River ~ Buckhorn Dam to accommodate the flow. (4) 't'he Consuharrts will conduct the water quality rrrodaling, and prepare a brief memorandum summarizing the iallawing: {a) Srtef desatptlon of QUAI.2E model, and the pracaas undertaken by Cary and pWC to develop the model; DWa's review process for the model; and resuhs of the model when originally developed and run in 2D01 to 2003, <j~;_Just wam Progress Energy to know that there Is some history with the model.> {b} Oensrel assumptions and criteria used to develop and ruri model (c) Summary of modeling results using Progress Energy flow estimatesJprojectlons (d) lafscussion of TMDL issues upcoming for Cape Fear River, and dearly Indioate that those issues can not be modeled with QUAt2E and #hatthe assimilative aapaaltiy for TN and TP can not be defined a; this time without the use of a new water quality model. Indicate that DtNQ has a plan In pleas to develop a new water quality model to define the assimilative capadty for TN and TP. (e} outline the steps and procedures that Progress Energy should undertake to seoure a NPDES permit for their own VyVYTP that dischat~es to the Cape Fear River. • DENR Response.lwp Tab E Tab E Supporting Documentation Oct.21. 2005 5~40PM Law Offica KRE No.5383 P. 2 ni~ai"~r Mee#ing Summary Memorandum No. 015 To: Technical Advisory Committee From: Westem Wake Consultant Team Meeting pate: January 13, 20(?5 Subject: Westem Wake WRF Meeting with Progress Enemy M~tirlg Attendees: Tom Trocheck, Progress Energy Tim Bailey, Town of Cary Marty Clayton, Progress Energy Tommy Esqueda, CnM Kim Fisher, Town oi• Cary Kelly Boone, CDM Meeting Summary On Thursday, January 13, 2005, from 11:00 AM tQ 12:00 PiVI;, a meeting was conducted with representatives from 1'ro~ress lanergy, Town of Cary, and CDM to review aad discuss land • acquisition xequirements for the Westem Wake RegionalWastewater Managexlu~tt Facilities Project. The meeting was conducted at tine Town of Cary Public Works and Utilities - Operations Center. The objectives of the meeting were: ^ Discuss potential routes for the effluent pipeline to the Cape Fear River and potential sites for the outfall structure at the river; ^ Illscuss obtaining permission for Town of Cary representatives to acce~ property owned by Progress energy for the purpose of evaluating effluent pipeline routes and outfall struete~re sites; and ,~ Discuss potential accex roads across Progress Energy-owned ]and from, Shearon Harris Road #o the proposed water reclamation facility (WRF) site. The Town of Cary and CDM presented an overview of the prajeck and a rxtap depicting the potential effluent pipeline routes artd outfali sites that have been ident#fied by GIS analysis. Progress F~ztergy staff indicated that in order to support the Western Wake WRF outfa]1 structure between the Buckhorn Darn and the Chatham County/ Harnett County lute, they would need assurance that the Cape Fear River's assimilative capacity is sufficient to accept the additional wastiewater effluent that would be generated by development of approximately 25,000 acres of property owned by Progress Energy. Town of Cary staff stated that any property that is wiihftt ttx> service areas of one of the Westem Wake Partners (Towns of Apex, Cary, Holly Springs, and Morrisville) has already beext included in flow projections for the Western Waite WRF. Town staff reported that Chat?tam Co~mty was • i:ttvited to participate in the Western Wake project but declined. Tab E DENR Response.lwp Tab E Supporting Documentation Oot.21. 2005 5~41PM Law Office KRE No.5383 P. 3 • pRAFf Meeting Summary Nlemcuandum No. 015 Wastam Wake WRF Mes4ng with Progress Energy January 13, 20x5 Page 2 Town of Cary staff stated that they believe it is unlikely that the NC Division of Water (duality will be able to report the total rematnfitg assimilative capacity of the river. Town staff confirmed that the proposed Western Wake WRF discharge flow was modeled, but the remaining capacity of the river to accept additional wastewater flow was not deteratined. Town of Cary staff agreed to consider performing additional nctodeling to determine whether Progress Energy's proposed additional flow Can be accommodated by the xiver. Town of Cary staff stated that the additional modeling would require informatuan hom Progress Energy regarding total land area and projected lard use, irucluding the amount of land that cannot be developed due to proximity to the Haxx#s plant. Pragxpss Energy agreed to provide that information. Town of Cary staff requested that Progress Energy allow Cory's representatives to access the effluent pipeline routes and potential outfall. sites in order to continue ptngress of the project. Progress Energy geed to a11ow access and agreed to provide Cagy with confidentiality and safety liability release agreements. Progress Energy star that Town representatives would need th contact Program )3nergy prior to visiting the sites. • 3'ragress Bnergy represattaiives stated that the passibility of installing an effluent pipeline adjacent to the Progress F.~tergy easement would need M be discussed with the Transmission Depart:ruent due to possible impacts to grounding systems or future Progress Energy facilities. Staff indicated they would CaordiiLabe with the Transmission Department to determine potential impacts from effluent pipeline mutes 4 and 11 on the map. Town of Cary staff indicated that the Western Wake partners would like to obtain a second access paint to the WRF site from Shearon Harris Road. This access would require constructing a road across Land owned by Progress Energy. Representatives from Pragxess Energy confirmed that they would be willing to consider an access road. Details regarding fencing and Babes wfll need to be coordinated. Town of Cary staff ;noted that plans for gate and fencing configurations are flexible. Progress l3nergy staff requested that the Western Wake Partners provide them with the estimated electrical capacity requirements of the W RP as soon as possible. Action ttsems 1) Progress Energy will provide Town of Cary with an estimated amount of land to be developed and proposed land uses by ~ for the area to be used in pm jectirtg wastewater flows for the purpose of modeling Progress Energy's additional Cape Fear River discharge. 2) Once the land area has been defined by Progress Energy, the Town of Cary will use the information to estimate projected wastewater flow rates and tha# will be used to conduct additional water quality modeling for the Cape near River. • Tab E DENR Response.lwp Tab E Supporting Documentation • Oct~21~ 2005 5~41PM Law Office KRE No~6383 P. 4 ~RAFC Meetlng Summary Memorandum No. 015 Westsm Wake WRE Meeting with Progress Energy January 13, .2005 Page 3 3) Priar to initiating the water duality madeliag, the Town of Cary will submit a memorandum to Progress Energy autlfntng the activities too be caxtduct~ed, the assumptions to be used, and the results to be generated far the modeling effort. The purpose of the memarandum is to ensure that Cary staff attd Pxogress Energy staff share eorrunon expectations for the water quality modeling effort. 4) Unce the modeling is completed, the Town of Cary will report the results to Pmgnass Energy, as well as a general outline of the steps Progress Energy should pursue in order m secure a wastewater disrltarge m the Cape Pear River. It is understaad that Progress Ertergy may construct its owr- wastewater treatment facility and independent discharge or Progress Energy could share in the discharge structure and ou#all to be canstruc~ted by the Western Wake Farmers. 5) Progress Energy will provide Town of Cary with confidentiality and safety liability release agreements so that representatives cu- access the effluent pipeline and potential autfaIl sites, Progress Er-et~y will also provide a name and phone number .for a contact person at Progress Energy that Cary will telephone in advance of visiting any properties awned by F,ragress Energy. 6) I'ragress Energy staff will coordinate with their Transmission IJepaartrxtec-t to determine potential impacts from effluent pipeline routes ~ and ll om the neap. ~ 1'lie Western Wake Partners will. provide Progress Energy with the estimated electrical capacity requirements as soon as ppssibie. This concluded the meeting, Tab E DENR Response.lwp Tab E Supporting Documentation News & Observer, The (Raleigh, NC) • Janua 4 2005 ry , Sewage bypass proposal debated Author: Wade Rawlins; Staff Writer Edition: Final Section: News Page: B 1 Estimated printed pages: 3 Article Text: Should the town of Cary -- or any other town -- be allowed to dump partially treated sewage into a river after heavy rainfalls? Utilities officials in Cary, Durham and Greensboro support a proposed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy that would allow sewage plants to release a mixture of fully treated and partly treated sewage during peak flows. The practice is called blending. Tab F Some plant operators say the change would give them more flexibility to protect their plants, help ensure that all sewage gets some treatment, and prevent overflows of raw sewage. State water quality officials oppose blending, and the city of Raleigh said it wouldn't do it. Environmentalists say it encourages plants to skip treatment steps more routinely and release more disease-causing organisms into the water. "Obviously, from our standpoint and most cities' that have plants in North Carolina, the issue is the extreme weather conditions," said Rob Bonne, Cary's public utilities director. He wrote to the EPA last year supporting the change, which is now in the final stages of :review. "You are protecting the river or stream that you are discharging into from a catastrophic failure of the treatment plant." State officials say state policy doesn't allow skipping any treatment step but makes allowances case by case for releases during wet weather. • "Certainly under very extreme circumstances, such as hurricanes, blending is an inevitability," said Mark McIntire, a state regulator. "However, in these situations, it is DENR Response.lwp Tab F Supporting Documentation Tab F the division's experience that entire facilities are inundated. As such, blending is a force • of nature rather than a mode of operation." Bypassing one stage The EPA first announced the idea a year ago and is reviewing a final policy. The change has been sought by the association that lobbies on behalf of municipal sewage plant operators who face the prospect of spending millions of dollars to repair cracked underground sewage lines that fill up with groundwater during wet weather. Plants typically treat sewage in several stages. First, raw sewage passes through screens to filter out large solids such as sticks and litter, then moves to settling tanks to allow other solids to sink to the bottom. The partly treated sewage then undergoes a second round of treatment in aeration basins, where microorganisms eat the dangerous viruses and parasites in organic waste. Some plants also treat sewage with disinfectant to kill pathogens before piping it into a creek or river. The EPA proposal would allow plant operators to skip the second step when the volume of sewage exceeds the capacity of microorganisms to consume the waste. Some of the partly treated sewage would be diverted around the second treatment step and mixed with fully treated sewage before release. "There are times when that is necessary," said Terry Rolan, water management director for the city of Durham. "It is sometimes practical to not put all the flow through those units and save the system so it operates the next day when the flow drops back down." Plant operators say blending for a day during peak flows can prevent problems that can shut down a plant for days. A surge of stormwater can act like a tidal wave, washing most of the living microorganisms out of the basins that are critical to biological treatment. That can render a plant ineffective for days or weeks. During wet weather, the city of Greensboro has used blending for decades at its smaller sewage plant, which discharges into North Buffalo Creek, which eventually flows into the Cape Fear River. A valve automatically diverts flow around the secondary treatment once the plant reaches capacity. "It's a ho-hum thing for us," said Martie Groome, who oversees compliance for Greensboro's sewage plants. "We've been doing this for years. If we still have to meet our limits, we don't see it as a big deal." DENR Response.lwp Tab F Supporting Documentation Objections raised • Blended sewa e under the EPA ro osal still would have to meet lants' re ular g~ P P ~ P g discharge limits. Typically, those are based on average concentration levels. McIntire, the state regulator, said it would be impossible to know whether the wastewater being released during blending complied with permitted discharge limits until after the fact -- when the treated sewage was already in the river. Tab F "How will a facility know if it's in compliance when it takes five days to get some of the test results?" McIntire asked. "I'd be real surprised if we'd ever approve blending as EPA defines it." McIntire said that state law does not allow plants to skip the biological treatment and that awell-run sewage plant should not need to resort to blending. Treatment plant operators are required to report unexpected releases of sewage. State regulators review those releases case by case. The city of Raleigh added 30 million gallons of storage capacity after a series of discharges of partly treated sewage into the Neuse River after heavy rains. T.J. Lynch, superintendent for Raleigh's sewage plant, said the city would not adopt the blending policy. "You are guessing as to what your pollutant levels are," he said. "I don't want to take that risk." Jim Swartzenberg, an oyster farmer and president of the N.C. Shellfish Growers, said sewage blending could lead to coastal shellfishing waters' being closed for longer periods after heavy rains. "I'm against it," Swartzenberg said of the EPA proposal. "It recognizes there is a problem out there. It just says we'll legalize it, not fix it." Copyright 2005 by The News & Observer Pub. Co. Record Number: i9s82v89 DENR Response.lwp Tab F Media Articles Tab G About The Proposed Sewage Plant In New Hill • • Date Title .Author Descr Lion Source 06/01/2005 New sewage treatment plant for New Hill News Story newsl4.com 06/05/2005 Plant site irks citizens David Bracken Article The News & Observer 06/09/2005 New Hill residents feel dumped on Shawn Daley Article The Apex Herald 06/09/2005 New Hill residents ask board for hel Shawn Daley Article The Apex Herald 06/09/2005 New Hill residents protest sewage lant Brett Tackett News Story newsl4.com 06/14/2005 Wake County Residents Protest Sewa e Plant Article nbcl7.com 06/15/2005 New Hill residents protest ro osed sewa e treatment lant Article newsl4.com 06/16/2005 Neighbors protest sewer site choice Adam Arnold Article Cary News 06/16/2005 Hear Our Voice Shawn Dale Article The A ex Herald 06/24/2005 Town Ready To Fight'Poo Hill' Plan For Sewa e Plant News Story nbcl7.com 06/24/2005 Despite Opposition, Cary A roves Sewa e Plant Site News Story nbcl7.com 06/24/2005 New Hill Residents Vow To Continue to Fight Against Sewage Plant News Story WRAL.com 06/25/2005 New Hill Folks Fume Toby Coleman Article The News & Observer 06/30/2005 Ca flushes New Hill re uest Shawn Dale Article The A ex Herald 07/11/2005 New Hill residents cry foul Toby Coleman Article The News & Observer 07/21/2005 A modern arable set in New Hill Crai Hardee Article The A ex Herald 07/28/2005 New Hill Residents Plan Rall Shawn Dale Article The A ex Herald 07/29/2005 New Hill Residents Hire Lawyer To Fi ht Sewa e Plant News story nbcl7.com 08/04/2005 New Hill does battle with Goliath Shawn Dale Article The A ex Herald 08/11/2005 New Hill Residents Protest Sewage Plant Plans Article nbcl7.com 08/12/2005 Cary waste plan derided Toby Coleman Article The News & Observer 08/18/2005 Ca takes land for lant Adam Arnold Article The Ca News 08/18/2005 New Hill residents take fight to Ca Shawn Daley Article The Apex Herald 08/20/2005 Condemnation upsets farm owners Ryan Teague Beckwith Article The News & Observer 08/27/2005 Costs led towns to pick New Hill for lant Toby Coleman Article The News & Observer DENR Response.lwp Tab G Media Articles Tab G About The Proposed Sewage Plant In New Hill • • Date Title Author Descri tion Source 09/01/2005 New Hill residents continue their Shawn Daley Article The Apex Herald fi ht 09/03/2005 Let the good times roll N & O Writers Triangle The News & Observer Politics 09/08/2005 Apex Board nixes chance to help Shawn Daley Article The Apex Herald New Hill residents 09/13/2005 New Hill residents take their Beth Hatcher Article The Cary News rotest to A ex 09/22/2005 Ca and the 'Gutless Wonders' Crai Hardee Editorial The A ex Herald 10/07/2005 Candidates state their case Shawn Dale Article The A ex Herald 11/19/2005 More secluded site rejected Toby Coleman Article The News & Observer 11 /26/2005 Hard looks in New Hill Editorial The News & Observer 12/28/2005 Mayors brush off Apex request to Adam Arnold Article The Cary News consider alternate sewer lant site 12/29/2005 Town Board adopts New Hill Shawn Daley Article The Apex Herald resolution 01/12/2006 Sounded Good At The Time A. C. Car ill Article The A ex Herald 01/26/2006 Cary Mayor Responds to council's Shawn Dailey Article The Apex Herald resolution O l /26/2006 New Hill targeted for additional Shawn Dailey Article The Apex Herald reactors 02/10/2006 A fight over a proposed wastewater News story WRAL.com lant is headin to court 02/10/2006 Town Sues To Block Planned News story nbcl7.com Sewa e Plant 02/11/2006 Suit filed over sewage plant Toby Coleman Article The News & Observer 02/16/2006 New Hill wastewater plant hearing Gretchen News Story newsl4.com is postponed Bartelt & Web Staff 02/16/2006 New Hill residents take fight to Shawn Daley Article The Apex Herald court 02/23/2006 The Sell-Outs ndrome A. C. Car ill Article The A ex Herald 02/23/2006 Raising funds for looming legal Article The Apex Herald battle DENR Responselwp Tab G Supporting Documentation Tab H Do you think New Hill residents have a legitimate complaint? • 96% Yes 4% No Yes. New Hill is more than a zip code and yes the Internet does exist there, as well as a lot of friendly folks. I hope it is stopped, and soon.!! - Rick H. I New hill, NC Yes. This is not the first time New Hill has been "dumped on". To place this facility in a location where the residents have absolutely no say-no vote is inexcusable ,biased and discriminatory. - Stacey D. I Apex, NC Yes. Cary needs to find a different location. Progress Energy should offer land in order to show their community spirit! - Calvin N. /Apex, NC Yes. While sewer capacity is critical to this area, locating it in an area that is detrimental to those not benefiting from it should not be allowed. - Barry B. /Willow spring, NC Yes. I grew up in New Hill and my parents have spear-headed the group that is fighting this. The community has done their research and are hard-working honest people who have pride in their land and their community. The facts are there and YES, this is a very legitimate complaint! - Shelley S. l Beaumont, TE Yes. Every citizen recognizes the need for municipal services that benefits everyone. However, that burden should not be disportionately placed on one community. New Hill residents already "host" Jordan Lake for drinking water, Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant for energy, the Dixie Pipeline and now the Waste Water Treatment Plant. All land taken • from New Hill residents by eminent domain to serve other communities. And it is obvious by the sneaky way the process of land acquisition by eminent domain occured that New Hill has become the toilet of the county and its citizens not worthy of respect to be included in the process. Ask the New Hill black community who will be direct neighbors of this plant if they were ever included in the process to have any say in its location. -Jeanne H. I New hill, NO Yes. Cary has once again gone too far. We understand they need a treatment facility, but to condemn a man's family homestead (and overlook property already in place for such a facility) is ethically and morally wrong. - ./, Yes. Put the plant in Cary close to those who benefit from it! -John M. /Hillsborough, NC Yes. With the plant put in the center of our community, it will close any door to possible on a quite way of life. I move for Cary in 85' to be able to like the fram life I could do any more in Cary. -Judy H. I New hill, NC Yes. The New Hill site was not even in the top 10 sites recommended by the extensive site research project completed by the Consultation Firm, and the Partners refuse to answer to that issue. Clearly the Politicians of Cary, Apex, and Morrisville feel confident they can abuse the eminent domain laws without repercussion in a community that does not elect them. I drive around Cary, Apex, and Morrisville and I see many acceptable locations for the plant. Somehow those sites haven't even been considered? - Linda G. /Apex, NC Yes. Citizens in the New Hill area fully appreciate the need for a regional site and for discharge to be down river of Jordan lake due to environmental reasons, but there have to be better alternatives than what is now proposed. First, citizens around New Hill do not understand why they are essentially being selected against their will, without representation or input, as the site for Cary and other municipalities. Why is the site not within one of the • municipalities, with piping to the discharge area? Alternatively, why are less populated sites or commercial sites along new US1 not being considered? Finally, why isn't a solution being pursued that utilizes 200 of the nearly 25,000 vacant DENR Response.lwp Tab H Supporting Documentation Tab H acres Progress Energy has around the Shearon Harris nuclear plant? At the core, it appears that the municipalities • have taken the least expensive route towards a regional solution. The presentation on the Cary website: http://www.townofcary.org/depts/pwdept/wwrwmfpresentation.pdf makes this point pretty clear. Seeking an economic solution is understandable. However, the notion that one community can save money on waste processing by indemnifying, with impunity, an area in the heart of another community and well removed from its borders is ethically bankrupt. The corporate borders of Cary, Apex, and Holly Springs are multiple miles from the proposed site. Cary has garnered a reputation for such behavior previously, and their current intentions do nothing but further exemplify this reputation. Cary, Apex, and Holly Springs might have to spend an additional amount for a proper solution, but it should be both their desire and responsibility to identify a solution which is not an affront to surrounding and less powerful communities. -James V. /Apex, NC Yes. If the town of Cary feels the need to keep on growing, then the town should have to live with their own problems that comes with it. Sewage, trash and the like should be taken care of in their own backyard not in the backyard of others. - George K. /Apex, NC Yes. The residents of New Hill have not had a voice in the site selection process and the selection parameters used by the Wake Partners did not include cultural/community impact as had been previously indicated. In addition, the exclusion of all the sites south and east of US 1 during the late stages of site evaluation has not been clearly explained in public and frankly seems to be an arbitrary decision conflicting with the very selection criteria used in the process. - Rick H. / Morrisville, NC Yes. How can anyone think this is fair when there is no benefit to the community affected (such as a school or road would provide) - Berry C. I Apex, NC Yes. Since it is in our community there should have been more out reach on the part of Cary to get us to participate in helping them find a solution that would be better suited then plopping it the facility in what was not the most suitable • location according to data provided to the community through the freedom of information act. - John D. /New hill, NC Yes. The land for the plant was taken from the family who owned it to put in a waste treatment plant that wouldn't even or benefit the residents of New Hill. Enough, already, of government takeovers of private lands. - Kate S. /Holly springs, NC Yes. This is nothing more than dirty politics. Where is there probity? -John N. /New hill, N. Yes. Mayors McAlister and Weatherly have been caught in lie after lie as per this issue. Your station reported that Cary "purchased" the property in New Hill when, in fact, Cary had it condemned. Furthermore, the residents of New Hill will never be able to use this plant (although they'll have the benefit of smelling it). WB 22 should look futher into this story to obtain all of the facts. - Danna B. / Youngsville, NC Yes. I am upset that they weren't notified until after the decision was made.. they were not included in the planning of this facility. - Darlene M. /Apex, NC Yes. I am concerned at the non-transparent process used to select the site and the non-transparent way the WWP cooperated on the decision making. With so much condemned land already in the New Hill area (Progress Energy), surely there was a better site outside the heart of New-Hill. -Jeff C. /Apex, NC Yes. Why would anyone think this is fair? - B C. /Apex, NC • DENR Response.lwp Tab H Supporting Documentation Tab H Yes. The Cary town council has been very opaque in its deliberations and has not allowed input from New Hill residents. In particular, the fact that they would not consider moving the plant to Shearan Harris land for a minimal increase in costs is particularly disingenuous. Also shameful is the apparent fact that New Hill residents will not get access to city water or sewer except at great personal cost. (I am relocating to New Hill in two weeks) -Chris K. /West Chester, PA Yes. Progress Energy has 11,000 more than they need for four reactors and the top 4 sites were selected on their property. - Tal H. I Apex, NC Yes. This looks like a clear case of picking on the less powerful when exercising the power of eminent domain. -Catherine H. /Raleigh, NC Yes. Typical of Cary - "Our Way or No Way"... - Frank B. /Raleigh, NC Yes. I don't think New Hill should have to take the waste of Apex, Cary, & Morrisville. There is unused space at the Sherron Harris area that shouldn't bother anyone to have the waste treated there. - Doug B. I Raleigh, NC Yes. NO VOTE, NO VOICE, NO REPRESENTATION! NO WAY! - Vickie G. /New hill, NC Yes. The legitimate complaint is about the false representation by the town of Cary that the site chosen was the best indicated by the consultants who evaluated sites in the vicinity of New Hill. False representation? -- No. LIE. - Clarence D. /New hill, NC Yes. They should not be host to a sewage plant they can't use. Also, property that had been in a family for several generations shouldn't have been condemned for the plant. • -James W. /Raleigh, NC Yes. Overbearing and secretive behavior isn't good for anyone anywhere! - W. m. J. /New hill, NC Yes. New Hill has had land taken for Jordan Lake, Shearon Harris, power lines & the Dixie pipeline. Isn't that enough? Progress Energy took 14000 more acres than needed for the nuclear power plant, let 200 acres of that land go to the WWT facility. - Ethel D. / Cary, NC Yes. New Hill has not had a vote, not had a voice, and will not benefit from the sewage plant. The sewage plant does not belong in the center of their community and adjacent to their historic district. The plant should be moved to a location such as Progress Energy land that was already taken from New Hill residents for a nuclear plant. - Paul B. /New hill, NC Yes. The way the Western Wake Partners have treated the residents of New Hill is disgusting. From all 4 mayors to each bureaucrat in the towns, they all have acted like the people of New Hill are second class citizens who deserve nothing better than to house the elite people's sewage plant. This is not government of the people, by the people and for the people. The elected officials of the 4 towns, including the mayors bureaucrats should be ashamed of themselves. - Bob K. /Apex, NC Yes. It seems clear that Cary and the other towns have, at the least, treated the New Hill residents with no respect. This looks like an abuse of eminenetdnmain--communities with money and resources "dumping" on those with less. They(Cary, Apex and the other towns) should be ashamed. - Lauren F. /Apex, NC • Yes. It seems that elected officials are hiding behind some process. I expect for there to be some processes in order for things to get done. But I also expect that when there is injustice for elected officials to recognize it, and do DENR Response.lwp Tab H Supporting Documentation something about it. -John M. /New hill, NC Yes. The citizens of New Hill weren't involved in the selection process. The site is in the center of their town -not evenon the outskirts. The towns failed to follow their own interlocal agreement! - David B. /New hill, NC Tab H Yes. It's really frustrating. Perk out here is very poor, surface pump systems, and we couldn't even use the plant-- besides, WHY PUT IT IN THE VILLAGE when there's MILES of wilderness out there, closer to the CP &L nuclear plant? -Judy T. /Apex, NC Yes. A decision should never have been made about the location of this facility without the knowledge of New Hill residents and without giving them an opportunity to participate in the decision. It was a "done deal" before New Hill even knew about it. The PROCESS is more disconcerting to me than the siting of the plant. Since the town is not incorporated, it has no voice in local politics and that is unfair. -Anne K. /New hill, NC Yes. WWP has other sites more suitable than the one chosen. THey should use P.E. land as their choice. - Gerald G. /New hill, NC Yes. Cary's municipal staff and elected officials arrogance in this and plans to use the American Tobacco Trail to hold their sewer line to this plant is astounding. Cary staff never asked the owners and lessors of the American Tobacco Trail corridor if they could dig existing and future trail for this sewer line, they just presumed it and said they didn't have to ask anyone to do it. It is amazing their arrogance in this entire matter. - Bill B. / Pittsboro, NC • Yes. 1) New Hill residents should have been notified. 2) Less community-intrusive sites were identified. 3) It's ridiculous to place this plant in the middle of a community and not even let the residents have access to the plant. - Amy . /Apex, NC • DENR Response.lwp Tab H • • • .^ a c e~ O •~ a °. t'_ 0 .,., c~ ^. e~ U .~ ~+ v ~. W a ... 0 ... .~ ~. W a .~ Z .~ c~ x C7 O it ono ~. a~ s~ ~. 0 ~. A~ .~ ... a .~ A .~ ~. CZr w ... A o ~ ~ a~ 3 ~ ~ v v ~ O O .. ~ a_ x °' a a o .. A~ ~" -~ .^ a c v R ~- ~^^i .~ -i^^~ ~~ a c~ 0 0 0 ~. ~~ ~~: ~. ... ~x ~~ ~. ~~~ ~~~ a~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ °~' ~ o ~ ~ U L ice. ~~/ ~ C W ice. iL~i i., eC eC c~ ~ ~ ~x ~ ~~z ~ ~ .s ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . Ad Placed in The Cary News Not Just A Zip bode `~ ~~~: ~F>r~>tt[I ~~ehi~~c~ ~~` ~- ~~;~ir`~.Q ~ 1! ~:~~ii~~ '~~~ ~I~~' ti~~ 4~~2r>~~aE ~~'111ts11" r-~~~`"`. ~'~i• ` d! l~c~ut~ ot:a I~:intl The Western Wake Partners (WWP), made up of the towns of Apex, Cary, Holly Springs, .and Morrisville have condemned a 200 ~ r,~ ~. _ acre family farm in the heart of historic New Hill for the purpose !~% of buildirrR their regional sewage plant. The decision to put the sewage plant in New Hill was made in secret meetings with no ~` input from anyone in New Hill. Also, there has .never been a ~"~ public hearing regarding the site in New Hill or the condemnation of the property. Wh_y are New Hill Citizens l~utra~ed? 'tts.ci~ ttt~ The WWP continue to withhold public information related to the `~..Itt ~t, site selection. Some elected .officials have not provided documentation even though requests dating back to August 2005 filee~'e~; have been filed. 't'a;~t'eti4 Your tax dollars are being spent to give Progress '~ F-ttcyr;T~ ,„tt ~ Energy preferential treatment, and to assist them in ~ developing their excess property surrounding the tt '~~' i I t0 CY t- rtl Shearon Hams Nuclear Plant. ~ « • { Z~e~dl-ta~ Apex Mayor Weatherly overstepped his authority by not following g ~ -tt t ~l t, Apex town ordinances. Without allowing the Board of Commissioners to vote, he, at the urging of Town Manager Bruce I~ttltotrt ~( Radford, unilaterally approved the site selection. Now Mayors t1~ e I }~ c 1~ Weatherly and McAlister are attempting to cover up this mistake. The site selection process was severely flawed. A tax payer funded study never ranked the New Hill site higher than 4th. Cary Town Council Member Jerurifer Robinson stated, "I was disappointed Kesbuf'fltt~ when I Teamed the preferred site impacted the community as it ~lrc I)ec.f~ does.." Duruig recent election campaigns, numerous candidates and elected officials .stated the New Hill site is not the best site; and New Hill citizens should have had input into the process. The partners /consultants .are making misleading statements. + They have repeatedly claimed New Hill citizens will be served by the sewage plant. ~ .i lluY~ • Bill Coleman, Cary Town Manager, stated, "The gist ... was that T fteit' Progress Energy does not want the wastewater plant on their ~~iut'~' site..." +Laker, when members of the New Hill Community met with the same Progress Energy representatives, they were told PE has never been asked by Cary for property for the sewage plant. _,y~,~,t- [ 1~i1 (t.t~: Cary, Apex, and the Western Wake Partners have demonstrated a lack of respect for those being impacted. nc~ Se`t€ `tt • Kim Fisher, Cary Director of Publicworks, stated, "Seems to me 16tt' ~ ~~'~t' New Hill is a zip code, not a community:' Tab J DENR Response.lwp Tab J Ad Placed in The Cary News Wake County managerDavid Cooke stated his goal is to keep the • project on tract withaut the Board of Commissioners having to .get involved or being dragged in. Susan Moran, Cary Public Information Officer stated: "..the Partners have agreed that we want to avoid publicity for as long as possible..." On September 20, 2005 Cary held another secretmeeting without notifying, or getting input-from the citizens of New Hill New Hill citizens are told repeatedly .that the time for public comment is during the Department of Em~iromnental and Natural `~~.f.: E..g€- Resources {DENR) review. Of 29 sites that were studied, the top 12 were ranked in order of preference. Of those 12, the sites ~" ranked highest by consultants were discarded. Only the selected site, which ranked 4'h, and 2 other sites, {one of which ranked 7"' .and .the other, which was not ranked) will be submitted to DENR for review. C How :o rro~i tour . Noigh6or Ruie Boob New Hill citizens realize .the sewage plant is needed - just not in the middle of our community. Consultants determined that better sites lie South and East of US 1 on`thousands of acres previously taken from New Hill citizens by CP&L. The selected :site is across. the street .from one church and playground; borders another church; two rest homes; many houses; and is in the middle of the New Hill. Historic District. Why should You :care? Can you trust your elected officials to , ~ your tax dollars being used wisely? operate in the open? • Have your elected officials abdicated • Is thi 'how you want yourneighbors their responsibility? treated? What can You do? 1~~ ~ ?e~~~ ~ lily + Demand accountability from your elected officials. i t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ e ;IKr l~~e • Tell them you want New Hill treated fairly. ~~, t ~~c~ ~ i~, • Write to yourelectedofficials •Attend public meetings ~ o `~ ~' ~' ~~~{ F ~ t • Visit NewH111C'A.or~ for suggestions, meeting dates and to €"`~ ```''~` F1~ donatetoourlegalfund (Visit 1~eruFifillC:R.vre for supporting docttmetttation) New Hill Community Association, Paul Barth, President P. ~. BOX ~ New Hill, NC 37562 c: Tab J DENR Response.lwp Tab J Sewage Spills In The Triangle Tab K . FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 1, 2006 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY CAUSES SEWER OVERFLOW CARY, NC - A contractor working for the North Carolina Department of Transportation on the U.S. 1/64 widening project struck and punctured a Town of Cary sewer line, leading to a sewer spill estimated at 18,000-36,000 gallons on Saturday, April 29 about 11 a.m. The incident occurred near the 1600 block of Kildonan Place just north of Cary Parkway in eastern Cary . The untreated waste reached an unnamed tributary of Swift Creek and was halted at Wellington Lake before making its way to Swift Creek; no fish-kill was observed. Officials investigated the cause of the mishap and found that the Town had improperly marked the location of the sewer line. After temporarily diverting the waste flow from the damaged 16" force-main line, Town crews repaired the pipe while simultaneously performing the spill cleanup. For nearly 18 hours, crews flushed all affected areas, utilizing about 171,000 gallons of de-chlorinated water and pumped the flushing water back into the Town of Cary sanitary sewer collection system. The Clean Water Act requires public notice in the form of a news release issued by public works operators within 48 hours of the detection of a wastewater overflow of 1,000 gallons or greater that also reaches surface waters. Paid advertisements are also necessary for spills in excess of 14,999 gallons. ### PRIMARY CONTACTS: Sam Tingler, Manager of Utility Systems Maintenance, (919) 621-8241 April R. Little, Public Information Specialist, (919) 481-5091 Susan Moran, Public Information Officer, (919) 460-4951 • DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle Tab K • FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Apri121, 2006 BLOCKED LINE LEADS TO SEWER OVERFLOW CARY , NC -Debris blocked a portion of the Town of Cary 's sanitary sewer system resulting in a 1,900-gallon spill from a manhole on Thursday, Apri120 about 5 p.m. at the 300 block of Kettlebridge Drive. The untreated waste reached an unnamed tributary of Apex Lake off Lake Pine Drive ; no fish-kill was observed. After quickly unblocking the line and restoring normal flow, Town crews flushed the affected area with 100,000 gallons of dechlorinated water and pumped the flushing water back into the Town's collection system. "While we don't believe the spill was the result of vandalism, it may have been caused by buildup from household usage," said Mike Bajorek, Cary Public Works Director. "Citizens can help reduce these types of spills by avoiding the disposal of certain items into the collection system." Bajorek indicated that the Town lists common items that should not be disposed of in the sewer on its web site at www.townofcary.org. The Clean Water Act requires public notice in the form of a news release issued by public works operators within 48 hours of the detection of a wastewater overflow of 1,000 gallons or greater that also reaches surface waters. Paid advertisements are also necessary for spills in excess of 14,999 gallons. • ### PRIMARY CONTACTS: Mike. Bajorek, Cary Public Works Director, (919) 469-4090 Sam Tingler, Cary Utility Systems Maintenance Manager, (919) 621-8241 April R. Little, Public Information Specialist, (919) 481-5091 • DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE • BLOCKED LINE LEADS TO SEWER OVERFLOW Tab K April 7, 2006 GARY , NC -Debris blocked a portion of the Town of Cary's sanitary sewer system resulting in a 1,172-gallon spill from a manhole on Thursday, Apri16 at 7 p.m. on Great House Court in Morrisville, NC. The untreated waste reached an unnamed tributary of Crabtree Creek; no fish-kill was observed. After quickly unblocking the line and restoring normal flow, Town crews built a dam, flushed the affected area with 114,600 gallons of dechlorinated water, and pumped the flushing water back into the Town's collection system. To decrease such incidents, the Town of Cary in 1998 established a Pretreatment Program designed to work with property owners to reduce the amount of fats, oils, and greases (FOG) that are dumped each year into the municipal sewer system. When such spills do occur, the pretreatment team sends reminder letters about the problems associated with FOG to area residents and businesses. Helpful publications from the FOG program, which are available at www.townofcary.org, include: * What do I do if I have a sewer blockage? * Do's and Don'ts -Sanitary Sewer System * FOG Bill Insert * How to dispose of cooking grease * How blockage affects the sewer system • * Common items that should not be disposed of in the sewer The web section also includes a short video of the inside of a sewage line coated with grease. The Clean Water Act requires public notice in the form of a news release issued by public works operators within 48 hours of the detection of a wastewater overflow of 1,000 gallons or greater that also reaches surface waters. Paid advertisements are also necessary for spills in excess of 14,999 gallons. On Apri13, 2006 ,the Town of Cary officially took over water and sewer operation and maintenance services for the Town of Morrisville at Morrisville's request and in accordance with a merger agreement adopted by both governing boards. Therefore, it is the Town of Cary 's responsibility to not only respond to sewer issues in Morrisville but also to distribute public notices in accordance with state regulations. ### PRIMARY CONTACTS: Sam Tingley, Manager of Utility Systems Maintenance, (919) 621-8241 April R. Little, Public Information Specialist, (919) 481-5091 Susan Moran, Public Information Officer, (919) 460-4951 • DENR Response.lwp Tab K • • • Sewage Spills In The Triangle FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE BLOCKED LINE LEADS TO SEWER OVERFLOW Tab K February 6, 2006 CARY , NC -Rags and gravel combined to block a portion of the Town of Cary 's sanitary sewer system resulting in a 11,048-gallon spill from a manhole on Saturday, February 4 at 11:30 a.m. behind Jodhpur Drive . The untreated waste reached an unnamed tributary of Bond Lake ; no fish-kill was observed. After unblocking the line and restoring normal flow, Town crews cleaned around the manhole that overflowed. Crews did not flush the area since flushing had already occurred naturally with the heavy rains. "While we're not sure exactly how the debris got into the line, we don't believe it was the result of vandalism," said Wastewater Collection Field Supervisor Paul Campbell. Campbell added that the debris appeared to have been in the line for some time and likely was not the result of recent construction activity. The Clean Water Act requires public notice in the form of a news release issued by public works operators within 48 hours of the detection of a wastewater overflow of 1,000 gallons or greater that also reaches surface waters. Paid advertisements are also necessary for spills in excess of 14,999 gallons. ### PRIMARY CONTACTS: Paul Campbell, Wastewater Collection Field Supervisor, (919) 462-2000 April R. Little, Public Information Specialist, (919) 481-5091 Susan Moran, Public Information Officer, (919) 460-4951 DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE BLOCKED LINE LEADS TO SEWER OVERFLOW Tab K January 30, 2006 CARY , NC -Grease and debris blocked a portion of the Town of Cary 's sanitary sewer system resulting in a 2,239-gallon spill from a manhole on Saturday, January 28 at 4:30 p.m. behind Luxon Place . The untreated waste reached an unnamed tributary of Bond Lake ; no fish-kill was observed. After quickly unblocking the line and restoring normal flow, Town crews built a dam, flushed the affected area with 57,400 gallons of dechlorinated water, and pumped the flushing water from the tributary back into the Town's collection system. To decrease such incidents, the Town of Cary in 1998 established a Pretreatment Program designed to work with property owners to reduce the amount of fats, oils, and greases (FOG) that are dumped each year into the municipal sewer system. When such spills do occur, the pretreatment team sends reminder letters about the problems associated with FOG to area residents and businesses. Helpful publications from the FOG program, which are available at www.townofcary.org, include: * What do I do if I have a sewer blockage? • * Do's and Don'ts -Sanitary Sewer System * FOG Bill Insert * How to dispose of cooking grease * How blockage affects the sewer system * Common items that should not be disposed of in the sewer The web section also includes a short video of the inside of a sewage line coated with grease. The Clean Water Act requires public notice in the form of a news release issued by public works operators within 48 hours of the detection of a wastewater overflow of 1,000 gallons or greater that also reaches surface waters. Paid advertisements are also necessary for spills in excess of 14,999 gallons. ### PRIMARY CONTACTS: Sam Tingler, Manager of Utility Systems Maintenance, (919) 621-8241 April R. Little, Public Information Specialist, (919) 481-5091 Susan Moran, Public Information Officer, (919) 460-4951 DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE • BLOCKED LINE LEADS TO SEWER OVERFLOW Tab K January 10, 2006 CARY , NC -Grease and debris blocked a portion of the Town of Cary 's sanitary sewer system resulting in a 2,451-gallon spill from a manhole on Sunday, January 8 at 4:02 p.m. at the 200 block of Whitehall Way . The untreated waste reached an unnamed tributary of Walnut Creek ; no fish-kill was observed. After quickly unblocking the line and restoring normal flow, Town crews built a dam, flushed the affected area with 52,300 gallons of dechlorinated water, and pumped the flushing water back into the Town's collection system. To decrease such incidents, the Town of Cary in 1998 established a Pretreatment Program designed to work with property owners to reduce the amount of fats, oils, and greases (FOG) that are dumped each year into the municipal sewer system. When such spills do occur, the pretreatment team sends reminder letters about the problems associated with FOG to area residents and businesses. Helpful publications from the FOG program, which are available at www.townofcary.org, include: * What do I do if I have a sewer blockage? * Do's and Don'ts -Sanitary Sewer System * FOG Bill Insert * How to dispose of cooking grease • * How blockage affects the sewer system * Common items that should not be disposed of in the sewer The web section also includes a short video of the inside of a sewage line coated with grease. The Clean Water Act requires public notice in the form of a news release issued by public works operators within 48 hours of the detection of a wastewater overflow of 1,000 gallons or greater that also reaches surface waters. Paid advertisements are also necessary for spills in excess of 14,999 gallons. ### PRIMARY CONTACTS: Sam Tingler, Manager of Utility Systems Maintenance, (919) 621-8241 April R. Little, Public Information Specialist, (919) 481-5091 Susan Moran, Public Information Officer, (919) 460-4951 • DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle • News & Observer, The (Raleigh, NC) January 11, 2006 Column: Triangle Briefs Clogged Cary sewer overflows into creek Author: From Staff Reports Edition: Final Section: News Page: B3 Estimated printed pages: 1 Article Text: Tab K CARY -- A sewer overflowed Sunday, sending 2,451 gallons of raw sewage into an unnamed tributary of Walnut Creek. Town of Cary utility workers said the waste spilled from a manhole at the 200 block of Whitehall Way after grease and debris blocked the sewer line below. Workers spent Sunday evening clearing the sewer and flushing out the tributary with 52,300 gallons of dechlorinated • water. Cleanup workers did not find any dead fish, according to Sam Tingler, the manager of the town's utility systems maintenance. Copyright 2006 by The News & Observer Pub. Co. Record Number: isx4zt89 • DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle Tab K • BLOCKED LINE LEADS TO SEWER OVERFLOW CARY , NC -Grease and debris blocked a portion of the Town of Cary 's sanitary sewer system resulting in a 2,235-gallon spill from a manhole on Saturday, November 12 shortly after noon behind Beachers Brook Lane in southern Cary . The untreated waste reached a dry streambed that is an unnamed tributary of MacGregor Lake ; no fish-kill was observed since there was no water in the stream. After unblocking the line, Town crews built a dam, flushed the affected area with dechlorinated water, and pumped the flushing water back into the Town's collection system. To decrease such incidents, the Town of Cary in 1998 established a Pretreatment Program designed to work with property owners to reduce the amount of fats, oils, and greases (FOG) that are dumped each year into the municipal sewer system. When such spills do occur, the pretreatment team sends reminder letters about the problems associated with FOG to area residents and businesses. Helpful publications from the FOG program, which are available at www.townofcary.org, include: * What do I do if I have a sewer blockage? * Do's and Don'ts -Sanitary Sewer System * FOG Bill Insert * How to dispose of cooking grease * How blockage affects the sewer system * Common items that should not be disposed of in the sewer The web section also includes a short video of the inside of a sewage line coated with grease. The Clean Water Act requires public notice in the form of a news release issued by public works operators within 48 hours of the detection of a wastewater overflow of 1,000 gallons or greater that also reaches surface waters. Paid advertisements are also necessary for spills in excess of 14,999 gallons. ### C PRIMARY CONTACTS: Sam Tingler, Manager of Utility Systems Maintenance, (919) 621-8241 April R. Little, Public Information Specialist, (919) 481-5091 Susan Moran, Public Information Officer, (919) 460-4951 DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle Tab K News & Observer, The (Raleigh, NC) • August 18, 2005 Column: Wake County Briefs Pump station fails, killing fish in Cary Author: From Staff Reports Edition: Final Section: News Page: B3 Estimated printed pages: 1 Article Text: GARY -- Failed electrical parts at asewage-pumping station caused 94,579 gallons of untreated waste to escape from a manhole near an unnamed tributary of Middle Creek, Cary officials said Wednesday. Workers discovered the overflow about 8 a.m. Monday during a routine check of the pump station, which was last visited Friday, according to a news release from the town of Cary. Crews also discovered that the pump station's automated alarm system was affected by the electrical failure. Crews replaced a surge arrestor as well as several fuses in the station's control system, officials said. The • station was back in operation about 8:30 a.m., said Sam Tingler, utility systems maintenance manager. State environmental officials were notified of the spill, and Cary crews flushed the affected area with 369,000 gallons of dechlorinated water, according to the news release and Tingler. More than 200 small dead fish, most 1 to 3 inches long, were removed from the site near Holly Brook Drive in southern Cary. Copyright 2005 by The News & Observer Pub. Co. Record Number: ilenri89 • DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle NBC 17 Cary Reports Sewage Spill Of Over 94,000 Gallons POSTED: 8:52 am EDT August 17, 2005 CARY, N.C. -- Cary officials say several failed electical components are to blame for a sewage spill at the town's pump station Monday. Officials said it was estimated that 94,579 gallons of untreated waste escaped from a manhole and spilled into a tributary of Middle Creek. Crews used over 360,000 gallons of de-chlorinated water to clean the affected area. The spill resulted in the deaths of more than 200 small fish, which were removed from the site. The spill was discovered at about 8 a.m. Monday during a routine check of the pump station, officials said. The last check of the station had been conducted Friday. In addition to the spill, officials said the town's automated alarm system was affected by the electrical failure. Tab K "It is highly unusual for us to have this sort of multiple failure occur at the same station at the same time," said Utility Systems Maintenance Manager Sam Tingler. • Tingler said a thorough investigation is underway. The Clean Water Act requires public notice in the form of a news release issued by public works operators within 48 hours of the detection of a wastewater overflow of 1,000 gallons or greater that also reaches surface Waters. Paid advertisements are also necessary for spills in excess of 14,999 gallons. Citizens living or working near a sewer line, manhole or pumping station are encouraged to report any and all unusual smells and sights immediately to the Town by calling Public Works & Utilities at (919) 469-4090. Copyright 2005 by NBC17.corn. • DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle Tab K News & Observer, The (Raleigh, NC) • June 9, 2005 Column: Triangle Briefs Sewage spill reaches Turkey Creek Author: From Staff Reports Edition: Final Section: News Page: B6 Estimated printed pages: 1 Article Text: CARY -- A sewer line was blocked by a combination of sand, asphalt and bricks, resulting in a spill discovered on Monday near Council Gap Court off Davis Drive in west Cary. An estimated 18,000 gallons of untreated waste escaped from a manhole and reached Turkey Creek. The problem was reported just after 4 p.m. Monday, and it took repair crews less than an hour to unblock the line and contain the spill. Crews reported about 100 small fish had died in the area. • Copyright 2005 by The News & Observer Pub. Co. Record Number: ihtlhc89 • DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle Tab K News & Observer, The (Raleigh, NC) . July 2, 2005 Why grease is a drain on Raleigh sewers Author: Janell Ross; Staff Writer Edition: Final Section: News Page: B1 Index Terms: NC TAX COST FINANCE WASTE Estimated printed pages: 2 Article Text: THE ISSUE: Why is the city of Raleigh posting ads on the sides of city buses urging people not to pour grease down their drains? STATUS: Grease is the No. 1 cause of sewer blockages and overflows in Raleigh this year. Twenty-four grease-related overflows cost taxpayers about $120,000 during fisca12004-05. They are the driving force behind the $100,000 education campaign that includes "grease, don't go there" ads, reminders on water bills, brochures and public presentations. Raleigh spends an additional $2 million each year on sewer system cleaning to prevent grease and debris-related overflows. THE DEAL: In Raleigh, it is illegal to introduce --- that's polite sanitary sewer system lingo for flush, drop or pour --- anything besides human waste, toilet tissue and used water into the sewer system. That means nothing, not even food scraps or this morning's bacon grease, is supposed to go down any household drain, toilet or garbage disposal. Raleigh's almost 1,200 restaurants are required to install grease traps, and most participate in a fats, oils and grease collection program. But at home, people tend to think the few inches of chicken-frying grease left in the skillet, the corner of oil-coated vegetables left after a stir fiy and whatever else they put down their drains can't clog the mighty wastewater system. Some even think that putting this stuff down the sink keeps trash out of the landfill, said Marti Gibson, Raleigh's environmental coordinator. But it has no time to biodegrade in the sewer system. And oil is lighter than water. So grease poured down the drain accumulates at the tops and sides of sewer pipes. Over time, it can build up. If a blockage happens, wastewater and sometimes raw sewage can windup in apartments and homes, on city streets and in the creeks and streams that feed the watershed. That's the water supply. DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle Tab K Sewer system officials want Raleigh residents to compost any food scraps fit for composting. If you can't, • then do what grandma did: Put your food scraps in the trash, and collect your grease in a container near the stove. Then, for goodness' sake, throw it away. To suggest a topic for What's the Deal, contact Tom Ferriter at tferrite @@newsobserver.com or 829-4559. Caption: CONTACT US Copyright 2005 by The News & Observer Pub. Co. Record Number: iiznuy89 • DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle Tab K • FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS CAUSES SEWER SPILL IN CARY June 8, 2005 CARY, NC -Sand, asphalt, and bricks combined to block a portion of the Town of Cary's sanitary sewer system resulting in a spill discovered on Monday near Council Gap Court off Davis Drive in western Cary. An estimated 18,000 gallons of untreated waste escaped from a manhole and reached Turkey Creek. The problem was reported to the Town just after 4 p.m. on June 6, and it took repair crews less than an hour to unblock the line and contain the spill. Workers installed a temporary dam to keep the waste from traveling downstream, limed and flushed the area with clean water, and pumped the waste back into the municipal system. Crews observed about 100 small dead fish in the area. The Clean Water Act requires public notice in the form of a news release issued by public works operators within 48 hours of the detection of a wastewater overflow of 1,000 gallons or greater that also reaches surface waters. Paid advertisements are also necessary for spills in excess of 14,999 gallons. • Citizens living or working near a sewer line or manhole are encouraged to report any and all unusual smells and sights immediately to the Town by calling Public Works & Utilities at (919) 469-4090. ### PRIMARY CONTACTS: Sam Tingler, Manager of Utility Systems Maintenance, (919) 469-4095 Mike Bajorek, Public Works Division Director, (919) 469-4093 Ben Shivar, Assistant Town Manager, (919) 469-4003 Susan Moran, Public Information Officer, (919) 460-4951 • DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle Tab K News & Observer, The (Raleigh, NC) a June 1, 2005 Column: Triangle Briefs Wastewater emitted into Middle Creek Edition: Final Section: News Page: B3 Index Terms: WATER WASTE Estimated printed pages: 1 Article Text: APEX -- Due to operator error, the town of Apex released about 25,000 gallons of partially treated wastewater into a tributary of Middle Creek on Saturday. The release occurred at the town's Middle Creek Wastewater Reclamation Facility off N.C. 55. Plant Manager John Cratch said the town tested the dissolved oxygen levels at several points in the creek after the release and determined it caused no adverse effect to the creek's aquatic life. • Copyright 2005 by The News & Observer Pub. Co. Record Number: ihe7y289 DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle Tab K NBC 17 Sewage Spill Fouls Umstead Park Waterways Authorities Search For Culprit POSTED: 7:48 pm EDT May 4, 2005 UPDATED: 8:03 pm EDT May 4, 2005 RALEIGH, N.C. -- Environmental authorities are investigating a sewage spill that tainted a creek and two lakes in Umstead State Park with more than 3 million gallons of raw sewage over the past month. A 20-man crew finished pumping sewage from the creek Wednesday afternoon after spending a week wading through the sludge trying to clean the water. The creek feeds Big Lake and Sycamore Lake in the state park and eventually flows into Crabtree Lake in Cary. Park visitor Jim Miller said the stench from the spill was so bad Wednesday afternoon -- after most of it had already been cleaned up -- "you could taste it." Authorities said an unidentified contractor used an illegal plug that broke loose and clogged up an active sewage line. For 35 days, any sewage flushed in the area near Umstead State Park backed up through a manhole and flowed into the creek, authorities said. The plugs usually have identification tags that would help authorities locate the user, but the illegal plug doesn't have any markings that would help in their investigation, authorities said. The contractor faces a fine of $500 per day for the spill and will also be liable for the cleanup costs. Park ranger Bob Davies said the lakes would remain closed until environmental officials give the all-clear signal. "It's cut back on the fishing down at the lake, but it's also cut back on the boathouse operations on the weekend," Davies said. Even after the lake is reopened, he said he wants park visitors to be aware of the damage caused by the sewage spill. "We get a lot of people who go fishing. We just want them to be well informed," he said. "If they want to take the risk and keep the fish and eat them, it's up to them. But at least they've been informed." Copyright 2005 by 1V~C~ acorn. All rights reserved. • DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle Tab K • FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE February 26, 2005 GREASE AND GAUZE LEAD TO SEWER SPILL CARY, NC - An accumulation of grease and gauze led to a wastewater overflow at the 700 block of Griffis Street in downtown Cary Friday afternoon. About 1,556 gallons of untreated wastewater escaped from a manhole, running into an unnamed tributary of Kildaire Lake. No fish kill was observed. Repair crews arrived at the scene around 12:15 p.m. Friday. In addition to dislodging the blockage, they dammed the creek, flushed the area, and pumped the liquid back into the Town's sanitary system. Crews were in the area unti17:45 p.m. The Clean Water Act requires public notice in the form of a news release issued by public works operators within 48 hours of the detection of a wastewater overflow of 1,000 gallons or greater that also reaches surface waters. Paid advertisements are also necessary for spills in excess of 14,999 gallons. ### PRIMARY CONTACTS: Sam Tingley, Utility Systems Maintenance Manager, (919) 469-4095 Susan Moran, Public Information Officer, (919) 393-4383 DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle Tab K News & Observer, The (Raleigh, NC) • September 3, 2004 Column: Triangle Briefs Grease blamed for sewage overflow Author: From Staff Reports Edition: Final Section: News Page: B3 Estimated printed pages: 1 Article Text: RALEIGH -- Grease in a sewer main caused the overflow of about 67,200 gallons of raw sewage to overflow from a manhole at the dead end of Basswood Drive. City public utilities crews responded to the overflow about 4:30 p.m. Monday and had it corrected by 7 p.m. the same day, city officials said. The overflow is thought to have.lasted seven days. Sewage reached an unnamed tributary to Big Branch South. City officials blame the overflow on grease that residents who live upstream released into the sewer system. Only water, human waste and toilet paper should be discharged into the sewer system. The city will distribute information to property owners reminding them of what's allowed. Copyright 2004 by The News & Observer Pub. Co. Record Number: i3gfgz89 DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle Tab K • ., • Www.news14.com Hurricane causes sewage spill 8/16/2004 9:11:19 AM By: News 14 Carolina Staff Hurricane Charley's rain Friday night caused a sewage spill in Cary. It happened at a pump station on Walnut Creek near Buck Jones Road. Officials believe more than 15,000 gallons of untreated wastewater spilled from a pump station manhole which then ran into Walnut Creek. The unusually high volume of water in the creek from Hurricane Charley diluted the untreated wastewater so no cleanup was Necessary. Copyright ©2006 TWEAN d.b.a. News 14 Carolina DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle Tab K NEWS RELEASE • FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE SEVERE WEATHER LEADS TO SEWER SPILL August 15, 2004 CARY, NC -Friday night's rains led to a wastewater overflow on the grounds of the Walnut Creek pump station near the 1100 block of Buck Jones Road in eastern Cary. While officials are continuing to refine their calculations, it is believed that more than 15,000 gallons of untreated wastewater escaped from a pump station manhole, running into grain-swollen Walnut Creek. No fish kill was observed. Repair crews were called to the scene around 7:30 p.m. Friday by an automated dialer, which alerts public works crews to possible pump station problems via telephone. Wastewater began escaping from the manhole just after 8 p.m., and the flow was so strong from infiltrating rainwater that the manhole cover actually blew off about 30 minutes later. The overflow ended around 9:20 p.m. Because of the fast-moving, high volume of water in the swollen stream, the untreated wastewater was heavily diluted making stream cleanup unnecessary. The Clean Water Act requires public notice in the form of a news release issued by public works operators within 48 hours of the detection of a wastewater overflow of 1,000 gallons or greater that also reaches surface waters. Paid advertisements are also necessary for spills in excess of 14,999 gallons. • ### PRIMARY CONTACTS: Sam Tingley, Utility Systems Maintenance Manager, (919) 469-4095 Susan Moran, Public Information Officer, (919) 393-4383 • DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle Tab K FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE r~ BLOCKED LINE LEADS TO SEWER OVERFLOW July 23, 2004 CARY, NC -Grease blocked a portion of the Town of Cary's sanitary sewer system resulting in a 2,075-gallon spill from a manhole on Thursday at the 1500 block of Seabrook Avenue in central Cary. The untreated waste reached an unnamed tributary of Swift Creek, and approximately 10 dead, 1" fish were found during the cleanup process. After unblocking the line, Town crews built a dam, flushed the affected area with dechlorinated water, and pumped the flushing water back into the collection system. To decrease such incidents, the Town of Cary in 1998 established a Pretreatment Program designed to work with property owners to reduce the amount of fats, oils, and greases (FOG) that are dumped each year into the municipal sewer system. When such spills do occur, the pretreatment team sends reminder letters about the problems associated with FOG to area residents and businesses. Helpful publications from the FOG program, which are available at www.townofcary.org, include: * What do I do if I have a sewer blockage? * Do's and Don'ts -Sanitary Sewer System * FOG Bill Insert * How to dispose of cooking grease * How blockage affects the sewer system * Common items that should not be disposed of in the sewer The web section also includes a short video of the inside of a sewage line coated with grease. The Clean Water Act requires public notice in the form of a news release issued by public works operators within 48 hours of the detection of a wastewater overflow of 1,000 gallons or greater that also reaches surface waters. Paid advertisements are also necessary for spills in excess of 14,999 gallons. ### PRIMARY CONTACTS: Sam Tingler, Manager of Utility Systems Maintenance, (919) 469-4095 Leon Holt, Utility Pretreatment Coordinator, (919) 462-3871 Susan Moran, Public Information Officer, (919) 460-4951 • DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle Tab K FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE • BLOCKED LINE LEADS TO SEWER OVERFLOW July 13, 2004 CARY , NC -Grease and debris blocked a portion of the Town of Cary 's sanitary sewer system resulting in a 1,372-gallon spill from a manhole on Monday near the intersection of Park Scene and Park Monte in western Cary . While none of the untreated waste reached an active creek or stream, some waste did settle into a depression at a storm drain outlet near an unnamed tributary of White Oak Creek; no fish-kill was observed. Repair crews unblocked the line and pumped the waste back into the municipal system. To decrease such incidents, the Town of Cary in 1998 established a Pretreatment Program designed to work with property owners to reduce the amount of fats, oils, and greases (FOG) that are dumped each year into the municipal sewer system. When such spills do occur, the pretreatment team sends reminder letters about the problems associated with FOG to area residents and businesses. Helpful publications from the FOG program, which are available at www.townofcary.org, include: * What do I do if I have a sewer blockage? * Do's and Don'ts -Sanitary Sewer System * FOG Bill Insert • * How to dispose of cooking grease * How blockage affects the sewer system * Common items that should not be disposed of in the sewer The web section also includes a short video of the inside of a sewage line coated with grease. The Clean Water Act requires public notice in the form of a news release issued by public works operators within 48 hours of the detection of a wastewater overflow of 1,000 gallons or greater that also reaches surface waters. Paid advertisements are also necessary for spills in excess of 14,999 gallons. ### PRIMARY CONTACTS: Sam Tingley, Manager of Utility Systems Maintenance, (919) 469-4095 Leon Holt, Utility Pretreatment Coordinator, (919) 462-3871 Susan Moran, Public Information Officer, (919) 460-4951 • DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle Tab K The News & Observer • March 31, 2004 Column: Triangle Briefs Grease blamed for sewer spill Author: From Staff Reports Edition: Final Section: News Page: B3 Estimated printed pages: 1 Article Text: RALEIGH -- Grease buildup in a sewer main caused a sewage spill from a manhole behind 2714 Creech Road on Friday, according to a city news release. The public utilities department was notified of the spill about 10:30 p.m. Friday. Crews corrected it by 12:30 a.m. and the area was cleaned up, according to the release. About 9,600 gallons of sewage reached a tributary to Walnut Creek. The state Division of Water Quality was notified. City officials blame the spill on grease that had been discharged into the sewer system by upstream • residents. City officials say only water, human waste and toilet paper should be dumped down the toilet or drain. The city will distribute information to upstream property owners and residents to remind them of the rules. Copyright 2004 by The News & Observer Pub. Co. Record Number: hvfjf689 • DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle Tab K • FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 1, 2004 • • VANDALS CAUSE SEWER SPILL IN CARY CARY, NC -Town of Cary Public Works and Utilities staff were notified by an alert citizen of an overflowing manhole in the 100 block of Spring Hollow Court 6:30 p.m. Saturday. That section of the Town's sanitary sewer system had been vandalized by inserting rocks and sticks into the manhole. Approximately 15,978 gallons of untreated waste escaped into an unnamed tributary of Swift Creek. No fish kill was observed. The blockage was cleared, and normal flow has been restored. Swift Creek was flowing too high to build a dam; however, a feeder creek was pumped, raked, and all areas around the overflowing manhole were limed. The Clean Water Act requires public notice in the form of a news release issued by public works operators within 48 hours of the detection of a wastewater overflow of 1,000 gallons or greater that also reaches surface waters. Paid advertisements are also necessary for spills in excess of 14,999 gallons. Cary Crimestoppers will pay up to $2,500 for information leading to the identification and apprehension of the individual responsible for this crime. Anyone with information may contact Crimestoppers at 226-CRIM(E), pressing option 3 for Cary . All calls will be kept CONFIDENTIAL at caller's request. ### PRIMARY CONTACTS: Sam Tingler, Utilities System Maintenance Manager, (919) 469-4095 Bill Coleman, Town Manager, (919) 469-4002 Susan Moran, Public Information Officer, (919) 460-4951 DENR Response.iwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle Tab K NEWS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE February 13, 2004 BLOCKED LINE LEADS TO SEWER OVERFLOW CARY, NC -Grease blocked a portion of the Town of Cary's sanitary sewer system resulting in a 1,532-gallon spill from a manhole on Wednesday in the 700 block of Riverton Place in southeastern Cary. Some of the untreated waste reached an unnamed tributary of Swift Creek, but no fish-kill was observed. Repair crews unblocked the line and pumped the waste back into the municipal system. To decrease such incidents, the Town of Cary in 1998 established a Pretreatment Program designed to work with property owners to reduce the amount of fats, oils, and greases (FOG) that are dumped each year into the municipal sewer system. When such spills do occur, the pretreatment team sends reminder letters about the problems associated with FOG to area residents and businesses. Helpful publications from the FOG program, which are available at www.townofcary.org, include: * What do I do if I have a sewer blockage? * Do's and Don'ts -Sanitary Sewer System * FOG Bill Insert • * How to dispose of cooking grease * How blockage affects the sewer system * Common items that should not be disposed of in the sewer The web section also includes a short video of the inside of a sewage line coated with grease. The Clean Water Act requires public notice in the form of a news release issued by public works operators within 48 hours of the detection of a wastewater overflow of 1,000 gallons or greater that also reaches surface waters. Paid advertisements are also necessary for spills in excess of 14,999 gallons. ### PRIMARY CONTACTS: Sam Tingler, Manager of Utility Systems Maintenance, (919) 469-4095 Leon Holt, Utility Pretreatment Coordinator, (919) 462-3871 Susan Moran, Public Information Officer, (919) 460-4951 • DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle Tab K FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE • BLOCKED LINE LEADS TO SEWER OVERFLOW January 14, 2004 CARY , NC -Rags and medical debris combined to block a portion of the Town of Cary 's sanitary sewer system resulting in a 2,311-gallon spill detected on Monday morning in the 100 block of Ashville Avenue in southern Cary . While some of the untreated waste did reach Regency Lake ,most was contained in a storm retention pond. No fish-kill was observed. It took repair crews about one hour to unblock the line. They pumped the waste back into the municipal system; liming was unnecessary. To help reduce future incidents, the Town is sending letters to customers in the area instructing them on the proper disposal of medical and other debris. The Clean Water Act requires public notice in the form of a news release issued by public works operators within 48 hours of the detection of a wastewater overflow of 1,000 gallons or greater that also reaches surface waters. Paid advertisements are also necessary for spills in excess of 14,999 gallons. ### • PRIMARY CONTACTS: Sam Tingler, Manager of Utility Systems Maintenance, (919) 469-4095 Leon Holt, Utility Pretreatment Coordinator, (919) 462-3871 Bill Coleman, Town Manager, (919) 469-4002 Susan Moran, Public Information Officer, (919) 460-4951 • DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle Tab K The Chapel Hill News • July 26, 2000 Flood leads to sewer spill Author: David Schulman; Staff Writer Edition: Final Section: The Chapel Hill News Page: Al Index Terms: weather water disaster waste OWASA Orange Water and Sewer Authority Estimated printed pages: 3 Article Text: CARRBORO -- The largest pump station in the local sewer system failed early Monday morning during a monsoon-like deluge, sending an estimated 2 million to 3 million gallons of untreated wastewater into • Bolin Creek and Little Creek. The spill was by far the largest reported by the Orange Water and Sewer Authority since Hurricane Fran in 1996. "The flooding around the Rogerson Drive pump station was much more than I saw during Hurricane Fran, Floyd, or Dennis," OWASA Executive Director Ed Kerwin said. He said floodwaters all but covered a nearby stop sign. The two creeks affected by the spill drain into Jordan Lake, which serves as a water supply for Cary and other Wake County towns, though Chapel Hill does not drink from the lake. Ken Schuster, regional supervisor for the state Division of Water Quality, said inspectors had not yet visited the site Tuesday morning. "We want to get all the facts on what did happen," Schuster said. Kerwin said he was "very disappointed and unhappy" about the spill. But he said OWASA was most concerned Monday with the washout of Piney Mountain Road, which exposed a critical water pipe and threatened service to thousands of households in Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Flooding opened a 60-foot gulch in the roadway, exposing a gas line and a water main. A pickup truck, which got stuck in the flooding at 2 a.m. Monday, ultimately plunged onto a wide stormwater culvert, just feet from the sagging water line. The water line connects to OWASA's largest water storage tank, at nearby Nunn Mountain. • "Worst case scenario: If that line gave way in the middle of the night, it could have emptied a 3 million-gallon storage tank in short order," Kerwin said. DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle Tab K That loss of water could have cut off water service and diminished fire protection for thousands of people, • he said, so a crew of 25 and a crane team worked into the night Monday, using chains to secure the sagging pipe to a 100-foot steel frame. "We feel it's been secured extremely well, given the circumstances," Kerwin said. Until repairs on the road are completed - a project expected to take several weeks -the pipeline will remain secured by the heavy steel frame, but exposed. The sewer spill at the two-year-old Rogerson Drive pump station was the largest for OWASA since Hurricane Fran, when power failures and flooding caused the Mason Farm sewer plant to spill an estimated 16 million gallons into Morgan Creek. Steve Harned, chief meteorologist for the National Weather Service in Raleigh, said rainfall in Chapel Hill was "comparable" to what the area experienced during Fran. But he said the intense rains were "very localized" during Monday's storm. While OWASA reported rainfall of 5.1 inches Sunday night and Monday morning at the Jones Ferry Road water treatment plant, a weather station at Horace Williams Airport reported 7.2 inches. Kerwin said the Mason Farm sewer plant, which has been isolated by other heavy rains in recent years, had little trouble from the storm. But the Rogerson Drive area was swamped worse than he had seen during Fran. At daybreak, a wetsuited OWASA crew and the South Orange Rescue Squad's swift-water rescue team boated together across the turbid waters and fixed the pump station. The pump station was isolated by the floodwaters on an island of high ground, and, in case of more trouble, the boats left behind a single OWASA crew member, provisioned with food and water. Kerwin said OWASA had no explanation why the three pumps at the new pump station -which remained above the floodwaters -cut off in unison at 3 a.m., without tripping any alarms. Kerwin speculated that the equipment may have lost power after a lightning strike or a power "burp." The spill could have been averted or significantly reduced if crews had been able to reach it sooner, Kerwin said, but the rushing floodwaters made it unsafe for workers to reach the isolated pump station in the dark. Though OWASA estimated the volume of the spill at roughly 20 to 30 times more than the largest spills the utility has reported since Fran, Kerwin said the amount was heavily diluted by stormwater. "The amount of actual sewage would have been very, very much less than the 2 to 3 million gallons," he said. "Because at that time of night, the average sewage flow would be very low." By Tuesday, no fish kills had been reported related to the spill. The storm also dramatically increased water levels in OWASA's two reservoirs, with more than 2 1/2 feet of water flowing over the Cane Creek dam by 5 a.m. Monday. The morning before, the lake had been 10 inches below capacity. "We've had pretty enormous weather extremes," said Kerwin, reflecting on the hurricane systems, snow storms, and droughts the area has see since 1996. "What I've read about global warming, one thing people • agree on is: Expect more weather extremes." DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle Tab K And with more wet weather in the forecast, OWASA is bracing for more. • "We're ready," he said. "Although I don't know if you ever can be ready for such an enormous rainfall event." Caption: Comrado Gonzales, left, tosses a piece of debris out of the way of a suction hose that sucks up heavy pieces of trash in the creek behind Eastgate Shopping Center. Gonzales' co-worker, Mike Cheek, mans the controls of the massive vacuum operated by Drain Masters. The creek was filled with trash, food products and other debris that washed out of stores during the flood. Staff photo by Jon Gardiner c photo Copyright 2000 by The Chapel Hill News • DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle Tab K The News & Observer • March 25, 2000 Municipalities grapple with growing sewage problems Author: KRISTIN COLLINS; STAFF WRITER Edition: Final Section: News Page: B 1 Index Terms: waste population Triangle Estimated printed pages: 4 Article Text: The Triangle's booming towns are learning an unpleasant lesson: Dealing with growth means dealing with sewage. • As small towns struggle to serve surging populations, their sewer systems are plagued by maintenance lapses, line blockages and overflowing treatment plants. The result: Millions of gallons of waste spill into rivers and streams, killing fish and threatening drinking water. So far this year, Wake, Durham, Orange and Johnston counties have reported spilling more than a million gallons of wastewater. In 1999, the four counties reported 213 spills totaling 4.2 million gallons of raw or partially treated sewage, the state Division of Water Quality reports. Across North Carolina, an estimated 72 million gallons of wastewater has been spilled this year, putting the state on track to far exceed last year's total of 136 million gallons from nearly 2,900 spills, records show. Many of the spills came from larger systems, such as those in Raleigh, Durham and Orange County, but dozens occurred in smaller towns. The state is getting tougher on towns that pollute waterways, but old and failing systems make mishaps unavoidable. New spills are reported nearly every day. "When you've got something underground, it's unseen until a problem occurs," said Ernie Seneca, spokesman for the N.C. Division of Water Quality. "Unfortunately, anumber of local governments have put too much emphasis on growth, instead of taking care of their existing problems." • DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle Tab K Many towns have clay sewer pipes that have been in the ground since the 1930s or earlier and • are prone to leaks and overflows. Some towns don't have the staff to keep tabs on their ever-growing webs of sewer lines. And some have treatment systems that can't handle increasing volume. In tiny Kenly in Johnston County, 100,000 gallons of sewage spilled from a wastewater treatment plant in August, state records show. In Morrisville in western Wake, the state is considering fines for a leak that lasted as long as six months before workers discovered it in January. An estimated 200,000 gallons of raw sewage flowed into a Neuse River tributary, Seneca said. Town utility workers apparently never checked on the line, which was installed for a new condominium complex in May, he said. In Garner, officials have spent years trying to keep a flawed waste-treatment system working, with dozens of overflows. Last year, the growing town spilled more than 210,000 gallons of sewage. In Zebulon, flooding and grease blockages caused nine spills last year, totaling close to 400,000 gallons. This month, the town received $2 million from the state Department of Environment and Natural Resources, partly to fix cracked and aging sewer pipes. Ken Waldroup, Zebulon utilities director, said the town doesn't have enough money to keep up with its needs. After spending $5.5 million to expand its sewage treatment plant in 1994 -the town's single largest-ever expense -there wasn't much left over to replace pipes that leak or to • pay a large staff to clear grease that blocks lines. "A small town only has so much capital," Waldroup said. "We're faced with a difficult choice of expanding the plant or repairing our lines." Rick Dove, the Neuse River Foundation's riverkeeper, said towns need to sacrifice amenities before they skimp on sewer upgrades. "No town wants to spend money on things that are on the tail end like sewage," Dove said. "They want to spend their money on bridges and parks, things that make the town look better. It's just insane to see this growth continue without the systems to handle it." All the spills worsen the woes of rivers such as the Neuse, where an overload of nitrogen from sewage and other pollution sucks oxygen out of the water. The state, which is trying to shut down polluting hog farms, is now putting greater emphasis on stopping sewage spills in cities and towns. In addition to doling out $165 million in grants for sewer upgrades since July, state officials have started forcing towns to report spills to the news media and to pay hefty fines when they allow pollution to reach water. Now, towns are looking at new ways to solve their problems. DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle -Tab K Cary, Apex and Holly Springs are working on a joint treatment plant, a move the state likes • because it creates fewer places where waste is discharged into the water. Garner is negotiating a utility merger with Raleigh. Zebulon will use part of its grant to start a program that will reuse treated wastewater in lawn sprinklers and boilers, rather than sending it into the river. And Raleigh, which treats waste for many of Wake's small towns, has launched a public relations campaign to stop people from blocking lines by pouring grease down drains. Other towns, such as Apex, are emphasizing maintenance. The town, which has grown from a tiny village to 20,000 people, tries to avoid spills by checking on pump stations every day and inspecting lines with cameras. Still, Assistant Town Manager Mike Wilson said, it's nearly impossible to maintain old systems and keep up with the new lines developers install for rising subdivisions and shopping centers. "You can be as vigilant as you can be, and bad things go wrong," he said. Dove said most towns can do more, if they make sewer systems a priority. "I think one spill's unacceptable," Dove said. "Two is more than unacceptable. We have the ability to have no spills, if we fix our systems and put the money into it." ### Biggest sewage spills Ten biggest Triangle sewage spills in 1999: 1. Neuse Crossing Utilities, Sept. 16-Nov. 18, Neuse Crossing Drive, 1.2 million gal. 2. City of Raleigh, June 24, Woodspring subdivision, 200,000 gal. 3. City of Raleigh, March 3, Eden Street, 165,000 gal. 4. Town of Zebulon, Sept. 15.16, lift station old U.S. 64, 157,500 gal. 5. City of Raleigh, Aug. 16, Johnston Pond, 151,200 gal. 6. Orange Water and Sewer Authority, Sept. 5-6, Smith Level Road, 150,000 gal. 7. Orange Water and Sewer Authority, Sept. 30-Oct.l, Mason Farm Road, 150,000 gal. 8. City of Raleigh, Jan. 4, SBI lab, 127,000 gal. 9. Town of Zebulon, Sept. 15-16, lift station Worth Hinton Road, 126,000 gal. 10. Town of Kenly, Aug. 25, Kenly wastewater treatment plant, 100,000 gal. Source: N.C. Division of Water Quality Caption: c graphic Sewage Spills staff Copyright 2000 by The News & Observer Pub. Co. Record Number: frztc989 DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle Tab K NEWS RELEASE • FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 16, 2000 GREASE AND CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS LIKELY CAUSES OF CARY SEWAGE SPILL CARY, NC -Grease and construction debris combined to cause a sanitary sewage spill near the construction site of Phase I of Preston Reserve, 900 Berwick Valley Lane in Cary. Untreated waste escaped from a manhole and reached Coles Branch Creek and Wake County Erosion Control Pond #18. This pond has been closed to the public while cleanup efforts continue. It' possible that some of the waste also reached an unnamed tributary going to Lake Crabtree; no fish-kill has been observed. Repair crews have unplugged the clogged line, installed a temporary dam to keep the waste from traveling downstream, limed and flushed the affected area, and pumped the waste back into the municipal system. Town of Cary Public Works crews were made aware of and responded to the problem around 10:00 AM, March 14th. Preliminary estimates place the overflow at about 25,000 gallons; however, this number could change as the Town conducts flow monitoring testing and continues its investigation into the problem over the next few days. The Clean Water Act adopted this summer by the State Legislature requires a news release be issued by public works operators whenever a wastewater spill of 1,000 gallons or greater reaches surface waters. Paid advertisements are also necessary for spills in excess of 14,999 gallons. This is the fourth such spill Cary has had this calendar year. • PRIMARY CONTACTS: Mike Bajorek, Public Works Division Director, 469-4093 Bill Coleman, Town Manager, 469-4002 Susan Moran, Public Information Officer, 460-4951 • DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle Tab K NEWS RELEASE • FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 6, 2000 VANDALISM RESPONSIBLE FOR WEEKEND SEWAGE SPILL IN CARY CARY, NC -Vandals dropped a 150' rope into a manhole to cause a 7,350-gallon sanitary sewer spill early Sunday evening at 111 Clubstone Lane in Lochmere Highlands. The untreated waste escaped from the manhole and reached an unnamed tributary of Swift Creek, but no fish-kill was observed. Repair crews responded immediately to the citizen-reported overflow. They unplugged the clogged line, installed a temporary dam to keep the waste from traveling downstream, limed the affected area, and pumped the waste back into the municipal system. Responding to vandalism in the area over the past several years, Town crews had bolted down the manhole cover where yesterday' incident occurred. Unable to raise the lid, the people responsible for the crime apparently forced the yellow boat rope into one of several small ventilation holes in the manhole cover. The rope floated through the collection system until it snagged enough debris to cause a blockage and subsequent overflow. Cary Police is investigating the crime. The Clean Water Act adopted this summer by the State Legislature requires a news release be issued by public works operators whenever a wastewater spill of 1,000 gallons or greater reaches surface waters. This is the third such spill Cary has had this calendar year. • PRIMARY CONTACTS: Mike Bajorek, Public Works Division Director, 469-4093 Bill Coleman, Town Manager, 469-4002 Susan Moran, Public Information Officer, 460-4951 c: DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle Tab K The News & Observer • July 29, 1999 Down the drain Edition: Final Section: Editorial/Opinion Page: A14 Index Terms: waste environment Triangle EDITORIAL Estimated printed pages: 2 Article Text: It maybe the name of a popular movie and Broadway musical, but to environmentalists and utility workers, grease is nothing to sing and dance about. Tons of grease are clogging drains across the Triangle. Half of the more than 80 sewage spills that have dumped 1.57 million gallons of sewage in the area already this year have been caused by grease in sewer lines. No one escapes blame for this expensive and destructive mess. An N&O report on the problem found that the average Triangle citizen is responsible for half a pound of grease a month. The most prolific culprits are commercial and industrial kitchens that fry food and businesses that dump oil-based chemicals down • the drain. Cleaning the grease from blocked sewer lines is an expensive problem for municipalities. Raleigh is trying to hire additional workers (not surprisingly, it is hard to find people to do such work) as it dramatically increases its budget for sewer maintenance. Cary has launched a $50,000-a-year grease control program. Durham is considering new ordinances requiring restaurants to have multiple grease traps. Restaurants, especially fast-food burger and fry places, are high on the list of culprits. While they are required to have working grease traps, inspectors are finding that not all traps are cleaned as often as they should be. The result is huge amounts of grease going straight into sewer lines. The problem will soon be even more of burden for communities. A new state law sets a $25,000 fine for each sewer spill and requires municipalities to publish advertisements confessing their environmental sins. Grease is a problem that can be stopped at the source. Restaurants and industries need to keep grease traps in working order. There must be enough municipal inspectors on hand to see that they do. Residents can make a big difference by storing used kitchen grease in jars and throwing it out with the garbage instead of washing it down the drain with hot water. Copyright 1999 by The News & Observer Pub. Co. Record Number: 1999209089 • DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle Tab K The News & Observer • August 22, 1997 Sewage cleanup completed Author: SABRiNA JONES; STAFF WRITER Edition: Final Section: News Page: B3 Index Terms: Swift Creek LEAD Estimated printed pages: 2 Article Text: Garner -- Town and state officials said they have completed the cleanup of last week's half-million-gallon spill of raw sewage into Swift Creek, but they are still reviewing the spill's possible impact downstream. Workers spent days hauling away waste material, putting down lime on residual solids and installing aerators to replace oxygen lost from the water in Mahler's Creek and Swift Creek when a Garner sewer pipe ruptured last week, spilling 552,000 gallons of raw sewage, said Ron Horton, Garner's public utilities • director. The spill killed about 200 fish and caused officials to advise residents of southern Garner to conserve water. "Based on sampling that we have done since the event started last Tuesday, it basically shows that Swift Creek and Mahler's Creek have both recovered," Horton said. "There's enough oxygen in the water for the fish to live." Garner engineers noticed a drop in the wastewater volume at the town's sewage treatment plant Aug. 12 and found sewage bubbling out of the ground next to Mahler's Creek, which flows into Swift Creek - a tributary of the Neuse River - off N.C. 50 in southern Garner. Ernie Seneca, spokesman for the state Division of Water Quality, said officials are reviewing the town's response to the spill and the possible damage to the aquatic ecosystem downstream, particularly to a rare freshwater mussel. Swift Creek flows from southern Wake County through Johnston County and joins the Neuse near Smithfield. "We did advise water suppliers downstream to increase monitoring," Seneca said. "We do have concerns about the dwarf wedge mussel, and as of yet do not know the full impact to this endangered species. We are still assessing the situation." The Garner spill followed a series of recent sewage spills in Cary, Apex and Durham. On Monday, authorities blamed a faulty alarm system at an Oxford sewage plant fora 1.2-million-gallon spill of untreated waste into a Granville County creek that killed thousands offish and threatened drinking-water supplies. • Garner officials blamed last week's spill on a ruptured 16-inch sewer pipe that carries raw waste from the entire south side of town. The plastic pipe was installed a decade ago by Municipal Engineering Services DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle Tab K Co., and one or more rocks eventually wore through it as the pipe vibrated, Town Manager Peter Bine • said. Workers repaired the broken line Aug. 13 and restored the flow of sewage to the town's wastewater treatment plant. Meters at the pump station monitor the amount of wastewater being pumped from the station and the amount at the receiving end of the line at the sewage-treatment plant, Bine said. Town workers have discussed installing an alarm that would automatically alert an emergency agency when a pipe is malfunctioning, he said. "We're going to try to find [an alarm] or adapt one," Bine said. "We have 80 miles of sewer lines -there's just no way of preventing a line from breaking. This line has operated satisfactorily for 10 years with no problems. This is, unfortunately, an accident. Copyright 1997 by The News & Observer Pub. Co. Record Number: 1997233175 • DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle Tab K The News & Observer • August 15, 1997 Two more sewage spills reported Author: DOUG DONOVAN; STAFF WRITER Edition: Final Section: News Page: B4 Index Terms: Durham waste Environment Estimated printed pages: 2 Article Text: DURHAM -- Less than three weeks after two large sewage spills occurred, a pair of construction gaffes Wednesday spilled even more sewage, including 20,000 gallons that flowed into a nearly dry stream in southern Durham. Residents were warned to stay out of the unnamed creek near Grandale and Wineberry drives in the Parkwood area until cleanup efforts are complete. The incidents did not threaten drinking water, but, coming on the heels of the July spills, they kept cleanup workers unusually busy. "We've had a rash lately, it seems," said Terry Rolan, Durham's director of water resources. The first -and most serious -spill occurred July 27 when pipes at Durham County's Triangle Wastewater Treatment Plant overflowed, discharging 1.6 million gallons of sewage into Northeast Creek, which flows into Jordan Lake. Tests showed no contamination of the lake, the water supply for Cary and Apex. A 30,000-gallon sewage spill was reported July 30. That sewage seeped into an unnamed tributary that leads to Falls Lake, Raleigh's water supply. Nearly 100 dead fish were found near the tributary. On Wednesday morning, Durham County officials responded to what was termed a minor incident at Interstate 40 and Miami Boulevard near the Central Park Pump Station. Contractors digging in the area sliced through an electrical line, cutting power to the pump station. The excavation also punctured a sewer main filled with sewage. The sewage seeped into a trench that the contractor, C.C. Mangum Inc., had already dug. Chuck Hill, director of the county's utilities division, said that about 1,000 gallons seeped out. Once power was restored by a generator, the sewage was pumped back into the line. DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle Tab K The second, more serious spill occurred Wednesday night. City Engineer Ken Wright said a subcontractor working for Duke Power inadvertently pierced a sewage pipe while digging a cable line. Debris that fell into the wastewater pipes clogged the line and caused an overflow of 20,000 gallons at the intersection in Parkwood. "There was overflow to the creek," Rolan said. The unnamed creek is an intermittent stream that was barely moving. Rolan said most of the spill was contained in two beaver ponds. Cleanup crews were having a tough time getting to the ponds because of debris left over from Hurricane Fran. The city's response to the spill was deemed vastly better than the response to the spill reported July 30. That spill was first noticed July 25, when a Durham resident saw an overflowing manhole on Weyburn Road near a pump station. City officials found no problem. But on July 28, workers noticed that a timer showed the pump station had run for 30 minutes instead of six hours, signaling a clog in the line. The spill was not reported to the public until July 30. On Thursday Rolan presented a report signed by City Manager Lamont Ewell that said: "The primary problems are the result of communication shortcomings in the exchange of information between members of the city staff, and the failure to promptly recognize and report the fact that surface waters may have been contaminated." The report listed actions the city would take to improve communication. • Copyright 1997 by The News & Observer Pub. Co. Record Number: 1997226100 • DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle Tab K The News & Observer August 14, 1997 Sewage spill endangers rare mussel Author: James Eli Shiffer; STAFF WRITER Edition: Final Section: News Page: B3 Index Terms: Garner waste Environment Estimated printed pages: 3 Article Text: GARNER -- The half-million-gallon spill of raw sewage into Swift Creek earlier this week posed no major threat to human health, but it could obliterate a rare freshwater mussel and damage a healthy stream ecosystem, state officials said Wednesday. State biologists waded through Mahler's Creek and Swift Creek on Wednesday to assess the damage from the • spill, which was blamed on a Garner sewer pipe that may have been improperly installed years ago. Only scuba divers will be able to determine the spill's toll on the dwarf wedge mussel, an endangered creature that survives in only a handful of streams in Eastern North Carolina and other spots on the Atlantic Coast, said Steve Hall, a zoologist with the N.C. Natural Heritage Program. "It's exactly this sort of catastrophe that can wipe this species out for good," Hall said Wednesday. He said the dwarf wedge mussel cannot hold its breath as long as its larger mussel cousins when a mass of pollutants flows through the water, as it did for more than 15 hours Monday and Tuesday. On Wednesday afternoon, levels of fecal coliform - an indicator of dangerous bacteria -were 1,000 times as high as state standards in one section of Swift Creek, said Ernie Seneca, spokesman for the N.C. Division of Water Quality. Workers repaired the broken line by 1 a.m. Wednesday and restored the flow of wastewater to the town's sewage-treatment plant. The plant sprays treated waste onto a field, instead of pumping it into a waterway. The 16-inch line had been installed a decade ago by Municipal Engineering, which somehow allowed rocks to settle in the fill when it buried the pipe, Garner Town Manager Peter Bine said Wednesday. As the plastic pipe vibrated, one or more rocks eventually wore through it, he said. Bine said the rupture probably began Monday afternoon while town engineers were still working at the plant, but they did not notice the reduced volume of wastewater until about 8 a.m. Tuesday. By then, an estimated 552,000 gallons of raw sewage had bubbled out of the ground only a few feet from Mahler's Creek, which flows into Swift Creek - a tributary of the Neuse River -off N.C. 50 in southern Garner. DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle Tab K • The mishap follows a string of recent sewage spills in Cary, Apex and Durham, including a 1.6 million-gallon spill last month from the plant that serves Research Triangle Park. It was also the third spill this month in Garner, which has been trying to upgrade and expand its sewage facilities to attract new industry and development. On Aug. 1, a puncture caused by a work crew spilled 1,000 gallons of waste. The same day, a hole in an old iron sewer pipe leaked about 750 gallons, according to state records. State regulators said the plant had major problems with sewage runoff five years ago, but Garner has since had a relatively clean record. Since 1992, the state cited the town twice for violations -both times in May 1995 for overflows ofsewage-pumping stations. In neither case was Garner fined. Bine said the most recent spill was difficult to prevent, considering the line had functioned properly for 10 years . That was little consolation for Hall, the zoologist, who said he had trouble sleeping after hearing about the mishap Tuesday night. He said state and federal environmental officials had just started to enlist local communities in an effort to protect Swift Creek from damaging development. "It's just incredible that after all this work, it just takes one accident to undo it," Hall said. Swift Creek -which flows from southern Wake County through Johnston County and joins the Neuse near Smithfield - is home to a large number of threatened aquatic creatures, including several other mussel species and an amphibian, the Neuse water dog. Like many other mollusks, dwarf wedge mussels live on sand and gravel on stream bottoms, filtering the water for sustenance and oxygen. The few streams with populations of dwarf wedge mussel are all threatened with damming and development, he said. Most freshwater mussel species are declining, Hall said, because they depend on pristine, free-flowing streams. "Swift Creek is among the crown jewels offree-flowing aquatic bio-diversity," said John Kent, a mussel researcher who is conservation chairman for the New Hope Audubon Society in Chapel Hill. Tina Ober, who maintains a private sewage-treatment plant near the site of the spill, was the first to report the problem after seeing dead fish during a routine inspection of her plant Tuesday morning. At first, she thought her plant had malfunctioned, but she soon discovered the spill had happened upstream. "When I realized I couldn't do a damned thing, I sat down on the riverbank and cried," she said. Caption: Jesse Luper, left, and Tim Woody, both specialists in wastewater treatment, check the concentration of dissolved oxygen in Swift Creek near Interstate 40. The endangered dwarf wedge mussel depends on pristine, free-flowing water. Staff photo by Heidi Thomsen photo Copyright 1997 by The News & Observer Pub. Co. Record Number: 1997225097 • DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle Tab K The News & Observer August 2, 1997 Sewage spills rarely end in fines for cities Author: JAMES ELI SHIFFER; STAFF WRITER Edition: Final Section: News Page: Al Index Terms: Durham accident waste Environment Estimated printed pages: 5 Article Text: The 1.6 million gallons of raw sewage that spilled out of a Durham wastewater plant last weekend is unleashing another kind of flood -voices calling for tighter regulation of cities that foul waterways. From the governor's office to bait shops near Jordan Lake, people are questioning why plants in Durham, Kinston and other cities have been allowed to dump raw sewage and violate pollution limits, often with no fines or penalties. Regulators with the N.C. Division of Water Quality -the main agency charged with upholding these laws - say their philosophy has been to work with violators, rather than fine them for every infraction. Overall, they say, cities and towns have dramatically improved their sewage treatment over the past 20 years. Others say the state should be less tolerant of any waste seeping into the state's streams and drinking-water supplies. "These are not acts of God," said Dan Okun, a retired engineering professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who has warned about outbreaks of waterborne disease. "These are acts of people failing to do what they should do." Just in the past eight months, six plants have dumped more than 10 million gallons of raw and partially treated waste into streams from Charlotte to Cary, according to DWQ records. Although many of the spills were quickly dispersed, all of them carried potentially dangerous bacteria, heavy metals and other contaminants into waters where people boat, swim or fish. According to state and local officials, several factors explain why these violations and spills go unpunished: -Some 250 people in DWQ monitor 6,700 facilities that dump into the state's water, along with policing 20,000 sewer line systems, animal waste lagoons and other non-discharge facilities. As a result ,sewer plants largely monitor themselves and sometimes go more than a year without seeing a state inspector. - The state's sewage plants are straining under population growth and the cost of improvements. A recent study revealed $11 billion was needed to pay for water and sewer projects just to meet current needs. • DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle Tab K - Environmental regulators say state statutes discourage them from assessing fines on water quality • violators except in the most extreme circumstances of repeated violations, intentional misconduct and chronic negligence. The recent spills have only bolstered the rhetoric of the hog industry group Farmers for Fairness, which has been saturating the airwaves with commercials calling on government to fine wastewater plants for the more than 400 waste spills since December. Although hog farmers may still end up facing new regulations, both supporters and opponents agree their ad campaign is putting pressure on politicians. On Friday, Gov. Jim Hunt vowed to take tougher action against municipal polluters. "We should be working with and pushing municipalities to check their systems, to more regularly make sure they're working the way they ought to be," said Hunt, minutes after installing Wayne McDevitt as his new secretary of environment, health and natural resources. "We're going to hold them accountable." Records maintained by the N.C. Division of Water Quality show that wastewater plants across the state have routinely dumped untreated sewage without penalty. One plant, Eden's Mebane Bridge facility, had 15 spills over the past eight months, dumping some 7.3 million gallons of waste into the Dan River. Not a single fine has been assessed against the facility. ### Tradeoffs for the taxpayer: State officials defend their oversight and blame the spills on heavy rains, aging and overloaded sewers and tight budgets. State inspectors, they say, are being diverted to other priorities -investigating fish kills and policing hog lagoons. Preston Howard, the water quality division director, said spills often occur because of uncontrollable hazards inherent in systems that serve thousands of users through hundreds of miles of pipes. • He said a company can dump a dose of contaminants that disables a plant, a grease ball can block a manhole or a storm can inundate a pump station, forcing a plant to bypass all waste to avoid being flooded. Howard acknowledged that some of the spills could have been prevented, if taxpayers had reached deeper into their wallets. "They need to be willing, as the public, to invest in the infrastructure improvements necessary to make that happen," Howard said. "They need to be willing to invest in the inspectors to police those systems.... We don't even get to see every facility once a year." Howard said that none of the recent spills resulted in lasting environmental damage. But harmful or not, they have alarmed those who use the waters downstream. Lee Horner plans to throw back every bass he catches from Jordan Lake after he heard about last weekend's sewage spill from Durham's Triangle Wastewater Treatment Plant. "I probably won't eat something out of Jordan Lake for several months," said Horner, 30, who was perched on a rocky embankment with three fishing poles in the lake Thursday evening. He said he was shocked to hear that some of Durham's wastewater feeds into the drinking-water reservoir for Chatham County, where he lives. "Why are you dumping wastewater into someone else's drinking water?" he said. • Since colonial times, however, towns and cities have had little choice but to send their wastewater downriver. For years, such communities "straight-piped" their sewage right into streams. But over the DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle Tab K past several decades, federal and state laws -along with grants and low interest loans -have helped towns • build and upgrade plants, which are now subject to extensive regulations. Each month, treatment plant operators must send the state detailed reports on whatever flows out of their effluent pipe. Excessive amounts of ammonia, fecal coliform, mercury and other contaminants will result in an automatic citation from the state. ### Overall compliance up: But Howard said state law requires them to consider many factors, including the extent of cooperation with authorities and environmental damage, before assessing fines. As a result, regulators tend to rely more on certifying plant operators and imposing moratoriums, which control the ability of a local government to hook more customers onto an overloaded plant. Steve Tedder, the division's water quality section chief, said these enforcement techniques have improved overall compliance by dischargers from 60 percent to 85 percent over the past decade. Raleigh, for example, has not violated its permit for 18 years. The state's water-quality program has been called a national leader by Mike McGhee, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's water division director for the Southeast. "Their monitoring program is by far better than anything I've ever seen," McGhee said. Still, enforcement seems to vary depending on the region. Regional supervisors in Winston-Salem and Washington, N.C., have not recommended a single fine over the past six months for a sewage plant violation, while the Mooresville office has urged more than a dozen fines. Richard Bridgeman, the acting Mooresville regional supervisor, said cities need to know the state means business. • "Sometimes non-compliance is cheaper than compliance," Bridgeman said. Conservation groups have become frustrated with what they consider the state's permissive treatment of sewage violators. One group, the Springfield, Va.-based American Canoe Association, has sued six North Carolina towns that it claims has polluted the waters used by recreational paddlers. The cities of High Point and Greensboro have reached settlements with the canoe association with payments of cash penalties and promises of upgrading their sewage treatment. ### Administrators faulted: "We really want the state to do its job of enforcing rules and regulations," said John Runkle, a Chapel Hill attorney for the group. Runkle blamed top water quality administrators for making excuses about a lack of inspectors for what's really a lack of action. "If there's a need for staff, then you'd better make a case for that and be at the legislature doing afull-court press." Environmentalists say increased sanctions would help deter spills and violations. But municipal leaders say that sewer customers would have to foot the bill for fines and costly sewer upgrades. "Some things are just going to break down when you start stressing the system as much as we are in North Carolina," said Paula Thomas, a former sewage plant operator who now works for the N.C. League of Municipalities. Cities may soon have to pay even more to meet expected tougher standards being considered by lawmakers. The Senate's "Clean Water Responsibility Act" lowers the levels of nitrogen and phosphorus the plants can produce. A companion bill would allow a $1 billion bond referendum for plant upgrades. In response to the Kinston spill, the Senate also has voted to give the state the power to investigate and take over plants that repeatedly violate water quality laws. "We can do a better job of quick inspections, DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle Tab K planning and enforcement," said McDevitt, the new secretary of environment, health and natural • resources. "The charge is clear. We've got to do whatever it takes to clean up our waters." (Staff writer Pavi Sandhu contributed to this report. Caption: An employee with JMM Operational Services removes raw sewage from the site of the spill in southern Durham County. Staff photo by Scott Sharpe The News & Observer: Document Display c photo; c graphic; Big Spills, few fines; Staff Copyright 1997 by The News & Observer Pub. Co. Record Number: 1997213093 .7 C DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle Tab K The News & Observer July 29, 1997 Sewage treatment plant has history of trouble Author: JAMES ELI SHIFFER, ALAN SCHER ZAGIER AND CHRIS O'BRIEN; STAFF WRITERS Edition: Final Section: News Page: Al Index Terms: waste accident Jordan Lake environment water RTP Estimated printed pages: 5 Article Text: Authorities on Monday were blaming a ruptured valve for one of the Triangle's largest sewage accidents - a spill of 1.6 million gallons into tributaries of Jordan Lake that is prompting more questions about state oversight of wastewater treatment plants. Cleanup crews built a dam to contain the spill, which began Sunday morning and continued for 13 hours. Partly because of that response, the spill at Research Triangle Park's sewage treatment plant poses no immediate danger to Cary, Apex and other communities that draw their drinking water from Jordan Lake, state and local officials said. Even so, some environmentalists said the accident was predictable given the track record of the plant, which Durham County owns. Since 1993, state regulators have cited the plant for 14 violations of its operating permit - including excessive discharges of ammonia, fecal bacteria and other pollutants -but issued just one fine. Two years ago, the county's Environmental Affairs Board produced a 70-page report warning about the plant's operating problems and calling for upgrades. "We've been seeking to raise the alarm for a few years now," said David Kirkpatrick, the board's current chairman. "Now there's no more need to." Sunday's spill dumped the equivalent of three Olympic-size swimming pools of waste into Northeast Creek and a smaller tributary of Jordan Lake. As the waste flowed downstream, it sucked oxygen from the water and caused a small fish kill. Inspectors with the N.C. Division of Water Quality, however, found no immediate water quality problems when they tested Jordan Lake farther downstream Monday. They also defended their enforcement record, saying the plant's problems since 1993 were sporadic and that the plant's operators worked in good faith to correct them. • "For the most part they seem to be doing a pretty good job," said Dennis Ramsey, the DWQ's assistant chief for operations. "Their record doesn't stand out as being a problem." DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage, Spills In The Triangle Tab K • State and local officials said that Sunday's spill stemmed from a leaky valve on one of the four pumps at the Triangle Wastewater Treatment Plant, which serves most of the laboratories and factories of Research Triangle Park. The plant -the only one owned by Durham County -sits south of the intersection of N.C. 54 and N.C. 55 and discharges up to 6 million gallons per day of treated waste into Northeast Creek. About 11 a.m. Sunday, a valve at the plant's pump station started leaking sewage through a 2-inch hole, said Ken Schuster, DWQ's regional supervisor. The resulting flood knocked out all four pumps, causing the sewage to overflow and cascade into the creek. The overflow - an estimated 1.6 million gallons -continued for 13 hours, until workers could repair the first motor, said David Thompson, the Durham County manager. He said the goal was getting the plant operational before Research Triangle Park's 37,000 employees arrived at work Monday morning. On Monday, workers scrambled to contain the spill as a humid stench hung over the plant and puddles of waste still dotted the ground. County workers planned to dilute the sewage with clean water after building a dam 400 feet downstream from the spill on Northeast Creek. The contamination dropped oxygen levels in the creek low enough to kill several sunfish underneath a bridge crossing. Once the concentration reaches a safe level, the county will remove the makeshift dam -made of hay bales -and let the diluted water flow downstream. At a news conference Monday, Thompson, the county manager, couldn't answer why the valve failed. The county once hired city engineers to run the plant, but since 1993 it has used a private contractor, JMM Operational Services of Denver, Co., which county officials say has improved efficiency and lowered costs. . Thompson lauded the performance of JMM since he arrived as county manager last year. But he called for action to fix a design where a single valve failure can incapacitate a facility designed to handle 6 sewage gallons of waste per day. "I am concerned about that malfunction and just as concerned about the ability to isolate that malfunction to continue to operate the plant," he said. "There has to be a way, engineering-wise, to isolate at least two pumps." Most sewage spills occur in conjunction with rainstorms, but the Triangle plant overflowed three days after the most recent downpour. "This is an usual event given that the temperature is so high and the flow of water is so low," said Judy Garrett, a regional supervisor for the state Division of Water Quality. Environmentalists said the spill is another example of the state's reluctance to aggressively enforce water quality laws. Earlier this year, the State Bureau of Investigation launched a probe after disclosures of unreported sewage spills in Kinston, which DWQ has cited numerous times but fined only $500. "Conservation groups think the Division of Water Quality has not been tough enough on this plant and many other wastewater treatment plants and animal operations," said Bill Holman, a lobbyist for the Sierra Club and other environmental groups. According to state files reviewed by The News & Observer, DWQ inspectors issued violation notices against the Triangle plant six times in 1993, four times in 1994, twice in 1995 and twice in 1996. Some of the plant's early problems included excessive levels of mercury, ammonia and total toxicity, but its only fine - $500 -resulted from late filing of reports. U DENR Response.lwp Tab K Sewage Spills In The Triangle Tab K In 1993, regulators warned the county that the plant had personnel at the plant for only 8 to 10 hours a day, • despite a state requirement for round-the-clock staffing. Two years later, DWQ granted the plant a variance on the 24-hour requirement, similar to one given to Kinston. Despite all the citations, state officials say the plant is a well-run facility. When it issued a new discharge permit for the plant last year, the state delayed enforcement of regulations regarding the amount of volatile organic compounds in the plant's treated wastewater until Aug. 1, records show. Ramsey noted that the violations have tapered off in recent years. He said the plant's operators have made improvements after getting notices of violation. "They're passing a whole lot more than they're failing," he said. As far as the sporadic problems, "it's not real uncommon when a plant has industrial users. A lot of times they just don't know what's happening. One industry, even a homeowner, almost could dump something down the drain on them." Still, at least one local politician is worried about the plant's track record. Durham County Commissioner Ellen Reckhow said the problems show the need for careful consideration of every new construction project, including subdivisions, that adds to the stream of sewage. "We have to be very careful about the impact of development, especially in the watershed," Reckhow said. State officials will continue to investigate the spill to see whether the county violated its permit. Garrett said her division would then recommend whether to fine the county. In addition, regulators expect to have results today of Jordan Lake water tested Monday for bacteria. The spill occurred several miles away from the water intakes for Cary and other communities, and officials expect the sewage to be long dispersed before it gets near those intakes. "We are concerned, but we don't expect any outcome from the spill that would affect our water quality," said Kim Fisher, director of the Cary's public works and utilities department. ### Staff writer Elizabeth Wellington contributed to this report. ### Design at fault in Durham spill 1-The spill occurred in a pump station that pushes sewage into the nearby Triangle Wastewater Treatment plant. The station houses four jpumps in its basement. 2-'The check valve of pump No. 3 malfunctioned, causing raw sewage to flood the other pumps. 3-The result was a complete shutdown, causing 1.6 million gallons of raw sewage to be dumped into nearby Burdens and Northeast creeks, tributaries to Jordan Lake. 4-The spill was contained by damming Northeast Creek south of the spill. although a small fish kill occurred downstream from the plant, the spill doesn't seem to be an immediate threat to area drinking water. Caption: Danny Smith, Division of Water Quality environmental specialist, lifts a Burdens Creek water sample. Staff Photo By John Rottet c photo; map; spill location; Staff Copyright 1997 by The News & Observer Pub. Co. Record Number: 1997209092 • DENR Response.lwp Tab K • Supporting Documentation `+~~ ~~.~- I. -- a~r.~~ qtr' K • ~h4S f6 ~~ CP '~~' ~Ti~L ~ii~'TC~~L+~ DI;S'T~„1C'I' ~i~i 6v c6e Ural[ $rarer, ~rat~tasc;;r v~[kye Ina~ria= ?},}~cr.:~csms~.nciss~J[ p ~, csre ;~rtre }{ixi~ric ~tti~n~a#ian C~(~acer randtr ~+raWS :iq:~~ •3f tl~c 1'~zrian~ Ha_n~;; l rs~rrian ftt[ ~,f .9fa(, St?'... !J{.~.+6C~3~. Tie ~iasi4ra~1 3c};i.rer i~ >i la5r at pro~r~ ~cG, °';itJ~t isr ra,mcriclr. ~tisenrY. ~.rc~r~~cu:e., xrai:gcal~=, i~d •: ~.rr-rr - a ::~~rn~,rrl,-mare i~uLe~t ~4 the sigr~i~~~ti pi-vs~:.~l r•~ic~JS°s ~f ~~~ c»sor-rRl px[[_r_f:~r.~•." !"rttiacc{icr I;sccd pt!!rtin der{ [ts 6;e pct3rta~cti ~~• char trveya~ra pur E7C {, [.'. L'4:t[tll`Jif fl{3JC:i~ Oi u'.It t~tldr3. ,F.~JTC~~P F, ,1%~aidS r'g Pt7Pt dx'r .}~ ~islt?F~' ATJt7!' ~i11 ~F ,~drITrJTt .... Jauan !€+f*' ~.._#~CiI ~~ _~~lt~l _. _.. l+r Emr~r~# • DENR Response.lwp Tab L Tab L • • Supporting Documentation ~. l ~• ~ ~ i ~f ~ I III e; ~ ~. } fl 6 ~, DENR Response.lwp ~~ L ''lS t S ...s ',~_ , ti +r ~ ~ ~_ .~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ 1--'^,- ~ ,~~ '~ $ .--.L..-,--..,. ~ ~ .. {/'i ~ s --. ~ ~ }, ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~, ~~~ _~~ ,. ~~~ `.~ j ~---'~ ,e~--'-~ ~~ i i -z _-~' "-• {_'_" ~-= ~ - rr-- '`, Tab L Tab L Supporting Documentation News & Observer, The (Raleigh, NC) • March 14, 2006 Cooper: Penalties would boost access Author: Matthew Eisley; Staff Writer Edition: Final Section: News Page: B 1 Index Terms: NC FINANCE ETHICS Roy Cooper N.C. Open Government Coalition Sunshine Week Public Records, Open Meetings Estimated printed pages: 3 Article Text: Tab M • North Carolinians are entitled to know more about the financial dealings and potential conflicts of interest of their top government officials, state Attorney General Roy Cooper said Monday. Speaking in Raleigh to a group promoting open government, Cooper said public officials and political candidates who hide or lie about their financial connections should be prosecuted. Cooper also called for more openness in state budgeting and new power for state prosecutors to root out political corruption. All of Cooper's proposals, which he first aired in January, would require changing state law. "Access to public information is the foundation of freedom," Cooper told about 100 journalists, lawyers, government officials, public-policy advocates and citizens at a seminar hosted by the nonprofit N.C. Open Government Coalition, which includes The News & Observer. The event celebrated Sunshine Week, organized by open-government advocates around the country to emphasize the importance of public records and open meetings. Cooper said the internal culture of government often disrespects the public's right to know what's happening, contrary to state law and good management. Cooper said too many state and local government workers violate the public's right of access to government information, often out of ignorance. His office and the N.C. Press Association are putting together a sunshine manual for government officials. • DENR Response.lwp Tab M Supporting Documentation Tab M Cooper suggested that government workers who illegally withhold public records or close meetings might . deserve punishment. "It's not really much good to have a law in place unless you have consequences," he said. That echoed a complaint aired throughout the seminar, which dovetailed with a nationwide teleconference examining how government secrecy hurts the public, often in the name of protecting national security. "We've met the government, and it is us," said Raleigh media lawyer Mark Prak. " ... The forces pushing for secrecy can always muster a good argument. But the erosion of public access hurts us all." Cathy Packer, a journalism professor at UNC-Chapel Hill, said one of her recent students was surprised to find that there's no penalty for government officials who break the access laws. "Then why would they follow it?" the student asked. Packer said adding penalties to enforce the state's sunshine laws would improve the public's access to government information and decision-making. Other speakers offered ways to improve public access to government information and actions: - Thomas McCormick, Raleigh's city attorney, suggested creating a state board to give non-binding legal interpretations to help settle disputes about access to records or meetings, helping avoid lawsuits. "A lot of legitimate questions remain under the Open Meetings Law," he said. McCormick also suggested forbidding members of public bodies to participate in meetings by phone, which he said doesn't work well and doesn't serve the public. - Tom Boney Jr., publisher and editor of The Alamance News in Graham, said local district attorneys should gain authority to file criminal charges or civil lawsuits to enforce public access. He also said all closed meetings should have to be taped, so the public can learn later who said what. - John Bussian, a First Amendment lawyer and the lobbyist for the state press association, said North Carolina should adopt a constitutional amendment requiring at least atwo-thirds vote of the state House and Senate to pass any laws weakening public access, as some states have. Bussian also said state law should be rewritten to give the public complete access to records of government workers' hiring, firing, and performance. Seconds later, Bussian's chair slipped and he tumbled loudly off the dais. The embarrassed but athletic lawyer attempted no cover-up. He bounded back up and quipped to the audience, "I couldn't take any more secrecy." Hodding Carter III, a UNC-CH professor of leadership and public policy, former newspaper editor, and past spokesman for the U.S. State Department, exhorted the press and public to question government at all levels. "Information is power; that's what it's all about," he said. "Press against the notion of'Trust me.' Keep • saying: Verify, verify, verify. The future of the country is best served by questioning." DENR Response.lwp Tab M Supporting Documentation • SUNSHINE WEEK Your Right to Know This is Sunshine Week, when journalists, librarians, lawyers, educators and other advocates of open government highlight the value of freedom of information. Here's what's coming up in The News & Observer: Wednesday: Four private citizens make great use of public records. Thursday: Battles over public hospital information spread to other agencies. Friday: Two public job searches work fine; why are others secret? Saturday: High school students seek truth about crime. Sunday: Small-town newspaper publisher won't take no for an answer. Read previous stories online at newsobserver.com key word sunshine. Copyright 2006 by The News & Observer Pub. Co. Record Number: iw3yln89 Help ~ Feedback ~ Parental Consent ~ Privacy Policy ~ User Agreement © Copyright 2004, The News & Observer Publishing Company, a subsidiary of The McClatchy Company Tab M DENR Response.lwp Tab M Figure 4-9A ~.? 1 ~ ~~ v Y d~~~<= Transmission Routes Evaluated ' LEWEV i• i• ~~ ~ f ~S PO ! RR ~,. • O .. 1, ~ ,~ ; /HOR~O ~ ~ J l _ ~ ,__,--' ~ TRELAWNEY ~-~ I ~~~ Y ~ ~) ~,~ ~E~L~°E°n°RE Point of entry for Reedy ~°~Fti~s ,. ~ ~, ._ 1~ , ,. I ` °~ ~ ~ ~ Branch Gravity Sewer +.~+ ~ ~ , C ~ 1 , ~ ~~ w~ , /~/ ~ ~ ~ O _. '~ ~ ( ~~ ~ ,- ~ 1 ,GRF A ~ FANTAIL ~~ ~~_~ ~1 ~; FN t ~ ~ O ~ % c ~ ~~ ~, ~~ ~Ei.~,_! .. ,~~nN a_ 4 V WIZAR~ ;;~_~__ ~ , ~,: Point of entry for Beaver l0' ~ ~ ~ w ,e o Q ~ _. 3 ~ - Creek Gravity Sewer y , --,- ~ ~~ p ~ a ~ ~ ,~- ~ L~-~.~~~ LANS8RQ0 ~ ~ Q ~~~ BRED BARN ~s.'C Alternative ABeaver Creek Pump r,'~.-_- ~, ~ ~. ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~t K{ ~ ~; ~,~- - "• o~ Delve c Ades Station at Olive-Chapel Road ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ; , yo ~ z _ Q ,~~- r ~ `- z~ ~(~ ~, l ~ o P ~~ , m - _~~ ,'Z ~ _ ~ ~ ~p ~~- AVERRO& ! PESO O ~ * ~ ~ r`~ ~ OO ~! ~~ is '- ~ ~' ~ ~' ~ ~ 2, ~ ~ ! ` cr VATE '' ' 1 ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ y ~ ~s„ , ~e,~ Alternative Segment B Beaver Creek Pump Station ~; ~~~ ~ ~ ~ at Richardson Road ~~ ~ ~ ~,~,,~ ~~°~ see ~ ~ ~ ~~ve -,o MAGC}ALA `- - -_ ., N pE ~~.. ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ - _ } - ~ ~ f~ p P ~.._f O ~ -I l ,'~ ua r ~ ~ . __ egment A _ ~ ~ '1 ~ ~ ~'. ~~ ~! _ ~` ~ e ~° ~ Alternative S ~ ~ - --~ ', , ." ~ ~----~-~---~ ~ ~,~~ ':: ' ~ , ~~'._ d Alternative Segment 2 ~, '•i '~,., I ~P '7 ~ ~ ~ O,y _. . - ', ~. {,. .p~ - .. _ ~ .. ~. ~ -;. t OLIV2`DAIRY 0~` ~ CZ,( ~ coq ~~ ~ O O. w i G ~ Rai ~, N ~~ ~ ~os?~~~`' ~~ `~"'~daF ~ ,t~~~. ~, < a`~ 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles '1 '_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J~aN,~~ fl r ~ `. ~~ Q ~ Apex Segment (Common) V'IEP ~ ~ 4 tp , HU E OL4bE ,~,. Reedy Branch /Apex Segment ..w ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ' / ' (Common) ~~~~ Y Alternative Segment 1 ~ 4 ~ t - ' ~ ~ ~ ~ Common Route Segments _,..y ,~ ~ g, Y ~ 2 p-" 1\ 'T ' ` ` s ~~---~%~ ~ ~ ': ~~ Alternative Route Segments ~~~ , ~.,~,~,~, ~ ~,,. i °;,o~'y~ Alternative Route Segments I ~ ~ ~: \~~ ,~;"~~ ~~- ~ P ~ WRF Site ~ ` ~' 2 z' I~-~ ~~ '~ v~ ° ~. Gamelands / ATT gr f t y ~._ y ~ ., ~ e i U ~~ °RT°N~ ~ ~° ~ ` ~ m t `' Roads W ~ ,% { , L '2 a Waterbodies