Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
060 <br /> 4 <br /> (2) Mr. Danziger feels that statements in the EIS dealing with <br /> socioeconomic impacts are clearly biased, half truths and what he <br /> might characterize as misrepresentations. He gave several examples <br /> of this in his letter. He noted that the Tax Assessor has indicated <br /> that OWASA does not pay taxes on the land it owns and that only <br /> "leasehold improvements" are taxed. As a result of this proposal <br /> the County could lose an additional 136 acres to OWASA. <br /> (3) Throughout the EIS, it is reported that OWASA has made or will make <br /> critical inspection of the water leaving the Quarry and Asphalt <br /> operations. He fears that without impugning the dedicated staff at <br /> OWASA it may be more difficult to find a minute amount of some <br /> hazardous trace element by an employee whose management is <br /> contractually obligated to help get these approvals. <br /> (4) He asked that the Board please note the careful wording and phrasing <br /> throughout the EIS regarding the asphalt plant. He made reference <br /> to specific sections dealing with the 401 water quality <br /> certification, and air quality measures. He emphasized that OWASA <br /> itself prohibits any asphalt, concrete, or Teddy mix plants under <br /> the proposed lease between OWASA and American Stone dated May 10, <br /> 1990. He noted that the document titled "Spill Prevention and <br /> Counter Measures Plan" was not done on site but by a professional <br /> engineer in Indiana. <br /> (5) On the question of rare and protected species, Mr. Danziger noted <br /> that the document presumes some species to be extinct because a <br /> literature search did not identify any records or names of <br /> threatened or endangered species in the vicinity of the proposed <br /> project. The information has never been verified by actual field <br /> trips. <br /> Mr. Danziger feels there are three options that were not discussed in the <br /> EIS: (1) close the quarry and asphalt plant now and if OWASA really needs <br /> more storage, buy the hole that now exists, (2) close the quarry in 15 years <br /> when the stone runs out and the asphalt plant after upgrading in 7 years when <br /> the lease ends or (3) permit a quarry operation somewhere in Orange County but <br /> outside of any watershed protected areas. <br /> Allan Spalt noted that the purpose of an EIS is to inform decision makers <br /> and the public about all reasonable alternatives and all potential impacts in <br /> order to promote sound decision making. An EIS does not require that the most <br /> environmentally sound decision is made. He feels that the proposal being made <br /> is probably, in the long run, good for Orange County. However, in the short <br /> run there is a lot of people living in that area and the environmental impacts <br /> need to be considered in any decision that is made. He feels that if the <br /> quarry is such a great long run benefit to the County it should be worth it <br /> to be sure it-does not have real serious impacts on the environment or the <br /> people living in that area while this plant is operating. He does not feel <br /> the document helps in making these kinds of decisions for the short run <br /> because it does not consider all potential impacts. This EIS was done in the <br /> office and the wetlands issue needs to be addressed fairly. The language that <br /> is used in the EIS applies that things will be improved. This is not starting <br /> out with a fair attitude. It is a document that set out to prove conclusions <br /> that had already been reached rather than one that is intended to inform the <br /> public and decision makers about all reasonable alternatives and potential <br />