Minutes - 19931014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

556 the county could lose an additional 136 acres to OWASA. (3) Throughout the EIS, it is reported that OWASA has made or will maY critical inspection of the water leaving the Quarry and Aspha operations. He fears that without impugning the dedicated staff ar- OWASA it Pay be more difficult to find a minute amount of some hazardous trace element by an employee whose management. is, contractually obligated to help get these approvals. (4) He asked that the Board please note the careful wording and phrasing throughout the EIS regarding the asphalt plant. He made reference to specific sections dealing with the 401 water quality certification, and air quality measures. He emphasized that OWASA itself prohibits any asphalt, concrete, or ready mix plants under the proposed lease betT,:aen OWASA and American Stone dated May 10, 1990.. He noted that the document titled "Spill Prevention and Counter Measures Plan" was not done on site but by a professional engineer in Indiana. (5) On the question of rare and protected species, Mr. Danziger noted t'.;at the document presumes some species to be extinct because a literature search did not identify any records or names of "threatened or endangered spe.:ies in the vicinity of the proposed project. The information has never been verified by actual field trips. Mr. Danziger feels there are three options that were not discussed in the EIS: (1) close the quarry and asphalt plant now and if OWASA really needs more storage, buy the hole that now exists, (2) close the quarry in 15 years when the stone runs out and the asphalt plant after upgrading in 7 years when. the lease ends or (3) permit a quarry operation somewhere in Orange County bi outside of any watershed protected areas. Allan Spalt noted that the purpose of an EIS is to inform decision makers and the public about all reasonable alternatives and all potential impacts in order to promote sound decision making. An EIS does not require that the most environmentally sound decision is made. He feels that the proposal being made is probably, in the long run, good for Orange County. However, in the short run there is a lot of people living in that area and the environmental impacts .need to be considered in any decision that is made. He feels that if the quarry is such a great long run benefit to the County it should be worth it to be sure it does not have real serious impacts on the environment or the people living in that area while this plant is operating. He does not feel the document helps in making these kinds of. decisions for the short run because it does not. consider all potential impacts. This EIS was done in the office and the wetlands issue needs to be addressed fairly. The language that is used in the EIS applies that things will be improved. This is not starting out with a fair attitude. It is a document that set out to prove conclusions that had already been reached rather than one that is intended to inform the public and decision makers about all reasonable alternatives and potential impacts in order to promote sound decision making. That is why it is a flawed EIS. Two of the main issues is that this is in the watershed. If the asphalt plant was not already there, this would not be under consideration. The second issue is that even though this is to be a new state-of-the-art asphalt plant which is more energy efficient, it will use the same energy as before This means the plant is going to be twice as large. One of the most serioL flaws in the EIS is the potential for a spill and the traffic generated by enlarging the asphalt plant. He feels this should be considered elsewhere.