Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
• f <br />J <br />r ` <br />f : r state Clearing ou e <br />:i LL March 16., 2009 <br />Page <br />• - rr l r <br />- r <br />{ <br />This 'i's flatly wrong, A large about Lfour. acres .'important vernal pool <br />• stem —a type of protected wetland ---is located under ,and immediately adjacent f F <br />to the actual proposed building footprint- .,and certa idly, 'within the area :to he <br />} LL graded for access -to the ,building by heavy trucks. See Fxhibitr k attached* <br />compare EA ,E hlbit A. "Site 05 Plan Layoutr{ This- vernal pool s'rstem is directly <br />5• <br />connected to navigable waters of ,the, nited States,, and o.are,wetland <br />r ' protected by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Corps of ngineer' <br />regulations.- See Exhibit * letter of certified wetlands, delineator. In addition <br />"the h �dric soi is a nd hydrop hi lk ve et6tion at the sits i s l of • t he, u p land <br />wetlands. Of the Piedmont. appear to extend d far beyond, the grater surface <br />because of the flat topography-, An abundance of aquatic life ras' observed at -the <br />site including frogs* frog eggs,, and salamander eggs as well aas other. wild lifer <br />such ' a turkeys the remains of a bill ^ - bobcat scat to rtle and deer and raccoon <br />` foot print , *� <br />Exhibit hit Letter of u he RE. fa tf nears the entire site i r <br />-com posed • of the l ig nuns soil series,, which'is partially hydric and characterized by <br />water within 12 to- 301r)ches of the ground surface. <br />This •mi re re entation to ardin retiands'is very ins ortahrt' This, <br />r misrepresentation would he important, In any FA because of the environmental,, <br />legal,, and ro "• feasiii impacts of wetlands being on the site. It i ` <br />i l <br />even more important to this project because the �r ce f r etla'n o a site <br />F was an exclusionary criterion in the site selection •process;. See Exhibit C <br />Excluionai Criteria Chart, That i, the presence of these' on this site <br />r should have a chided this site from any consideration for the locatio;n of thl <br />' l <br />proJectf• under the countyf own standards. z <br />• r <br />ALTERNATIVES, r ; <br />L Failure of --thg akdscuss atffrOves <br />The 'Envi ronmental Assessment Guidelines -promulgated by the <br />learn nq house require that the alternative a naly is i n an EA "",discuss all <br />reasonable alternatives to the proposed project;" 1 ncl udi r the alternative of no <br />1 r t r F <br />action. <br />, <br />This EA discusses only one a lternative� It fair to discuss even a <br />reasonable range of alternatives ,much less all alternabVes., There is no r <br />di: cussion of the 'no action" alternative. The only alternative discussed is waste <br />to energy, - <br />- r <br />