Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 12-07-2009 - 6aORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: December 7, 2009 Action Agenda Item No. to - q SUBJECT: Update and Recommended Actions - Solid Waste Transfer Station Site Selection DEPARTMENT: County Management Solid Waste Management ATTACHMENT(S): Under Separate Cover 1) Preliminary Concept Plan for a SWTS on Hwy 54 2) Preliminary Concept Plan for a SWTS on Paydarfar Property 3) Paydarfar Property - Environmental Assessment (EA) 4) Paydarfar Property - Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) Report 5) Decision Making Flow Chart and Narrative 6) Staff Response to Questions Conceming the Adopted Exclusionary Criteria PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No INFORMATION CONTACT(S): Frank W. Clifton, County Manager, 245- 2306 Gwen Harvey, Assistant County Manager, 245 -2307 Gayle Wilson, Director, Solid Waste Management, 968 -2885 Craig Benedict, Director, Planning, 245- 2592 PURPOSE: To provide an update on several issues and recommended actions for bringing the search process for a Solid Waste Transfer Station (SWTS) in Orange County to a conclusion. BACKGROUND: Summary of Actions and Events Since BOCC Direction to County Management on September 9. 2009: • The Chapel Hill Town Council acted on September 28, 2009 to remove the Town -owned 8 -acre site on Millhouse Road near the Town Operations Center from further consideration by the County for use as a Solid Waste Transfer Station. • County Management and Legal provided notice to West 54, LLC that the proposed Highway 54 site (0.7 miles west of Orange Grove Road on NC 54 ; 142.7 acres and North Side of NC 54, 8.0 acres) remained under active consideration by the BOCC for use as a Solid Waste Transfer Station. ►N • County Management has continued discussions with City of Durham officials on the potential use of their Solid Waste Transfer Station located off East Club Boulevard to receive solid waste for disposal from Orange County and the Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Hillsborough. Orange County has been given verbal assurances that either a short-term or long -term use remains possible. • A preliminary concept plan for siting a Solid Waste Transfer Station on the County - owned Paydarfar site off Millhouse Road has been further refined by Olver, Inc. • A Cultural /Archaeological survey of the Paydarfar site was completed as part of the environmental assessment prepared by Olver, Inc. and submitted to the State Clearing House. Planning has issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). • County Management and Planning have had discussions with NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) officials regarding access and traffic issues pertinent to the Paydarfar site. Olver, Inc. has also discussed this issue with NCDOT. • Financial Services has continued to coordinate with Bond Counsel on bond reimbursement aspects related to the potential use of the Paydarfar site for the Solid Waste Transfer Station. • Solicitations have been made by Solid Waste Management for interest by haulers /host landfills to receive solid waste that would be transferred from a Solid Waste Transfer Station sited within Orange County. Four firms representing seven (7) landfills have responded. • Requests for Proposals (RFPs) have been issued by Asset Management and Purchasing seeking a principal consulting firm and peer review consulting firm to be engaged for the design and engineering of a Solid Waste Transfer Station that would be sited within Orange County, pending BOCC decision on specific site. • Solid Waste Management has continued to coordinate with Town partners on potential operational and fiscal impacts of an in- County or out -of- County Solid Waste Transfer Station. • Solid Waste Management has provided a tour of the Hwy 54, Paydarfar, and City of Durham Transfer Station sites to members of the BOCC. • Lease of the house at 6823 Millhouse Road (future Millhouse Road Park property) has been delayed pending a BOCC decision on the Solid Waste Transfer Station. Review of Current Conditions and Circumstances: • The BOCC has two alternative sites within the County under consideration for a solid waste transfer station, each with objections from affected communities. • The Hwy 54 site is ready to move forward given an affirmative decision by the BOCC (subject to purchase of the site). • The City of Durham transfer station appears to be a viable option with details and actual costs subject to final negotiations. • The County owned 10 acre Paydarfar site is a viable option within the County's control but comes with objections similar to those posed by the previously considered Eubanks Road. • The remaining projected capacity at the current landfill could be exhausted, under best management practices, by Summer 2012. • The need for a solid waste solution within the County remains a reality, notwithstanding meticulous review and public debate over alternatives; i.e., waste to energy technologies utilization of private vendors, and other options available. • The solid waste transfer site selection process, re- opened in December 2007 with the engagement of Olver, Inc., has involved intensive technical research and been infused with substantial community participation over a period approaching 2 years. • Orange County government through the Solid Waste Management Enterprise Fund has expended in excess of $490,584 for all work, meetings, reports, specialty subcontractors, and certain fees related to the SWTS site search (January 2008 to Present). • The BOCC has previously agreed to the creation of a Community Advisory Group to be engaged with Solid Waste management and the chosen engineering group to provide a conduit for information, communications and dialogue regarding the development and implementation of a state -of -the -art facility in the spirit of mitigating to the greatest extent practical any adverse impacts. • The accompanying Attachments are provided to further illustrate current findings and subsequent steps in the decision making process. Attachment 6, Staff Response to Questions Concerning the Adopted Exclusionary Criteria, addresses why, for example, the Paydarfar site proposal did not emerge earlier in the analysis by Olver, Inc. 1) Preliminary Concept Plan for a SWTS on Hwy 54 2) Preliminary Concept Plan for a SWTS on Paydarfar property 3) Paydarfar Property — Environmental Assessment (EA) 4) Paydarfar Property — Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) Report 5) Decision Making Flow Chart and Narrative 6) Staff Response to Questions Concerning the Adopted Exclusionary Criteria Summary The County has spent two years and several hundred thousand dollars pursuing a resolution as to how to handle solid waste disposal once the county landfill closes. Ultimately any site selected within the County for a Solid Waste Transfer Station has negative consequences and connotations, real or imagined. It is estimated approximately 30 months will be needed from the time of the site decision to allow for facility design, permitting, bidding and award of a contract, and construction. The current estimate for landfill capacity is Summer 2012; Further 4 delays in decision making make an interim plan necessary. The Durham Transfer Station would be a satisfactory remedy as an interim measure. Orange County is a leader in environmental stewardship. Efforts in this process cannot be viewed as being anything but comprehensive; subject to immense scrutiny and with broad community involvement. Where ever a facility is placed it will impact upon that area and the routes to that location. Where ever placed, all practical means can be employed to establish high standards of quality in facility appearance and operations. These considerations have been paramount in staff efforts to bring forth viable options, consistent with the economic impacts upon future waste disposal costs. County Management and Solid Waste Management have provided the BOCC a solid body of information that should enable a consensus to emerge on solid waste disposal options. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the BOCC to make that decision. Staff is prepared to present the various options and respond to questions. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The cost associated with the negotiation /acquisition and design /development of the solid waste transfer station is estimated at $5 -6 million. When the BOCC received a Capital Funding Update at its budget work session on October 27, 2009, an estimate of $8 million was provided, representing the high end of a funding equation given the unknowns of a land acquisition. Solid Waste Management still believes the $5 -6 million range is viable. The transfer station capital project will be financed through debt issuance secured by Solid Waste Enterprise Fund and County General Fund revenue with the intent that payment would come entirely from Solid Waste Fund Revenue. Sufficient reserves are available within the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund to initiate property acquisition. RECOMMENDATION(S): The County Manager recommends the Board consider adopting a motion to approve either Option A. Option B, or Option C and the associated actions contained within the chosen Option, as detailed below. Option A. Highway 54 site — If the BOCC is prepared to move forward on this site then: 1) Authorize the County Attorney and County Management to complete negotiations to acquire the Hwy 54 site, up to a total of 150.87 acres (142.87 main acreage; 8.0 access acreage). The appraised value is $935,000. A minimum of 36.2 acres is recommended. 2) Authorize a reimbursement resolution for the project and authorize actions by Finance to secure financing for land acquisition, professional services, and other project related expenditures as may be required, including appropriate budget amendments 3) Direct the County Clerk to begin solicitation of volunteer representatives from the Hwy 54 area to serve on a Community Advisory Committee to be appointed by the BOCC to help guide the design /development phase of the Solid Waste Transfer Station on the Hwy 54 site per BOCC authorization January 2009 Option B: City of Durham transfer station — If the BOCC sees this option as a viable solution, then: 1) Authorize the County Manager to proceed with validating an inter -local agreement between Orange County and the City of Durham formalizing future arrangements. 2) Direct County Management to begin working with the Towns on amending the 1999 Inter -local Agreement is necessary with regard to the County obligation to provide solid waste disposal facilities and formalizing waste stream flow commitments so that any agreement with the City of Durham provides the towns and county the best rate possible over the course of a long -term agreement. Option C: County owned property north of old landfill off of Millhouse Road — If the BOCC sees merit in this option, then: 1) Direct County Management to begin the process associated with reimbursing the Parks and Open Space Fund for the purchase of the Paydarfar property ($191,172). 2) Authorize a reimbursement resolution for the project and authorize Financial Services to initiate actions to secure financing for land acquisition, professional services, and other project related expenditures as may be required, including budget amendments. 3) Request Town of Chapel Hill to donate two adjacent parcels (PIN #9871702353; 9870890971) 4) Direct the County Clerk to begin solicitation of volunteer representatives from the Millhouse Road area to serve on a Community Advisory Committee to be appointed by the BOCC to help guide the design /development phase of the project per BOCC authorization January 2009 Note 1: Public water and sewer is located very near this property and could be extended to the site via a bore under the railroad. If there is value in extending those utilities to the site (for this facility and the future park facilities on the parcel to the north) then an amendment would be required to the Water /Sewer Boundary Agreement. We believe the site can be serviced with a well and septic tank system so this item might be considered as part of developing the future park site. Note II: Selection of this site will generate community concern and opposition. While not fully mitigating the selection of this site upon all parties, it is suggested that the BOCC might consider allocating some portion of the land purchase differential between the Hwy 54 site ($935,000 appraised value) and the acquisition reimbursement on the County owned site ($191,172) totaling $744,838 as seed money toward public facility improvements in the area (utilities, park improvements, etc.) Note III: Alternatively, the BOCC might consider a landfill /transfer station County - Municipal solid waste disposal surcharge ($1.00 per ton generates approximately $57,000 annually) and dedicate it to the surrounding community (within 3000 feet) for improvements, including utilities and other public facilities. This surcharge could be implemented beginning July 1, 2010, initially applied to the municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill tonnage. I i i �• MILLHOUSE 1 « 40' « .. 60 EASEMENT r�1..� ■ � ..� y • ■ /- PROPERTY I cnnrmc sc�1,a �,// LINE ■ r. - ..,. 115E PAYDARFAR ' PROPERTY • t i P!N# ; 9871702353 ■ ■ I TRAI ER R■; STO AGE ■ I i OLVER INCORPORATED ne.pned RCS sal ■, 1 =100 -o ORANGE COUNTY. NC s ^•� "°' r Consultants and Environnental Engineers Drawn NTB TRANSFER STATION STPING Job No.� 20151 M5 RLNX FAN Rau. ME M Checked. RCS Date, NDV. 2009 . PAYDARFAR SITE // lit CARY, NNM ulLw US mm 657-M PRELBUNARY CONCEPT LAYOUT - SINGLE HAY F14 Na.w- R— De.— t- ___.. Date By ■..y.V..��� �F- /t.J ■ LEGEND « �- • EMPLOYEE • EXISTING GRADING PARKING' PROPOSED GRADING . PIN9 9870890971 PROPERTY LINE ■ ' EASEMENT — -- TRANSFER ' ■ ' STATION 1 I NOTES: • " I ■ 1. PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN IS PROVIDED TO IDENTIFY GENERAL AREA OF DISTURBANCE. WATER STORAGE O i 2. DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FEATURES HAVE TANK NOT BEEN DEVELOPED —j. BEYOND THE CONCEPT STAGE AND ARE NOT -- �■ . �� • �� . «.� . �.. �•,. ■ �,. PART OF THE PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN I PRESENTED AT THIS STAGE OF SITE DEVELOPMENT • i OLVER INCORPORATED ne.pned RCS sal ■, 1 =100 -o ORANGE COUNTY. NC s ^•� "°' r Consultants and Environnental Engineers Drawn NTB TRANSFER STATION STPING Job No.� 20151 M5 RLNX FAN Rau. ME M Checked. RCS Date, NDV. 2009 . PAYDARFAR SITE // lit CARY, NNM ulLw US mm 657-M PRELBUNARY CONCEPT LAYOUT - SINGLE HAY F14 Na.w- R— De.— t- ___.. Date By ■..y.V..��� �F- /t.J ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N- Benedict, AICP, Director Administration 306F Revero Road (919) 644-3002 (FAX) Hillsborough, NC 27278 ,�_~ Valerie McMillan, Director State Environmental Review Clearinghouse NC Department of Administration 116 West Jones Street Fifth Floor, Suite,5106 Raleigh, NC 27699-1301 - - hand-delivery Address is for | Dear Ms. McMillan: This is a request to place the enclosed AppliGation for Environmental Assessment into the State Clearinghouse system for review and comment. The material has been submitted to out department by the firm of Olver Incorporated for review in accordance with provisions of the Environmental Impact Ordinance of Orange County. This assessment is submitted as a prerequisite to possible construction of a Solid Waste Transfer Station on a tract in the Chapel Hill Township in Orange County. This submittal for a Solid Waste Transfer Station is similar to a different site Orange County considered earlier this year. Orange County owns the tract now under consideration. The site is immediately north of the existing landfill site and in the vicinity of the Town of Chapel Hill's Operations Center. It is further identified by Parcel Identification Number 9871-60-7301. (Please see the attached map). The site will most likely be served by a well and a ground absorption septic system although other alternatives are currently being explored. The entire site is zoned Agricultural Residential (AR) and is within Orange County's planning jurisdiction. The site is not within a State Protected Water Supply Watershed. The tract size is 10 acres and it is likely that almost al] of the tract will be subject to land disturbance. A governmental facility such as a Solid Waste Transfer Station is a permitted use in the AR district. Please send all clearinghouse comments to; Perdita Holtz, AICP Orange County Planning Department' P.O`. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 The contact consultant for the project is; Ernie Parker Cher Incorporated 1135 Kildaire Farm Road, Suite 200 Cary, NC 27511 Phone: (919) 816 -6360 It necessary, I can be contacted by telephone at (91 9) 245-2611 during normal business. hours. Thank you for your assistance_ Sincerely, P-al-L Perdita Holtz, AICP Planning Systems Coordinator Enclosures: 16 copies of the Application for Environmental Assessment Solid Waste Transfer Station Site Under Consideration 0 250 .500 750. Feet Orange County Pk"tinkv and tn7ectims Department GIs Flap Prepared by -Brian Carson septen6er 29, 2009 APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Project Name Orange County, North Carolina — Solid Waste Transfer Station Applicant Board of County Commissioners, Orange County, North Carolina Address 200 South Cameron Street PO Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Phone (919) 732 -8181 Owner Orange County, North Carolina Address 200 South Cameron Street PO Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Phone (919) 732 -8181 Location of Property Southwest of the northward turn of Mill House Road just after its Crossing of the railroad tracks, approximately one -half mile north of Eubanks Road. Acreage 10 acres Township 7.19..24C Tax Map Reference 716220 PIN(s) 9871607301 Zoning District Orange County Land Use Plan Category Rural Buffer Date received Date accepted /rejected Sua®ary Comments: FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY Reviewed by I. GENERAL SITE INFORMATION TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT, WITH ASSISTANCE FROM PLANNING DEPARTMENT AS NEEDED A. Zoning and use of adjacent property. North Rural Buffer South East Rural Buffer West B. Topography: highest elevation El. 520 (estimated) lowest elevation El. 498 (estimated) general direction of slope Estimate % of property with 0 - 5% slope 5 - 15% slope 15 - 25% slope more than 25% slope 67% 32% 1% 0% Rt -Rural Transition JPA Rural Buffer (Required only for the portion of the site associated with or impacted by the proposed activity) C. Drainage Are there any streams or drainage easements located on the property? (See below) Is any of the site located within a: Watersupply Watershed _ Water Quality Critical Area _ Floodplain _ No No Describe The Orange County Erosion Control Division Staff performed an on site stream determination for the property. Their September 8, 2009 opinion is that the drainage feature on the property is not a Stream and not subject to buffer rules. D. Does the property contain any of the following Inventory Natural or Cultural Resources? (As identified in the "Inventory of Sites of Cultural, Historical, Recreational, Biological, and Geological Significance in the Unincorporated Portions of Orange County" or the "Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of Orange County, North Carolina ".) yes no a. cemeteries x b. archaeological sites x C. historic sites x d. areas of geological significance x e. designated natural areas x f. designated habitat x g. other x For each "yes" answer above, please indicate location on site plan and complete the following, with the assistance of the Orange County Environmental Planner. Also complete Attachment A. (1 ) Type of resource Inventory reference no. or page Description of Resource (2) Type of resource Inventory reference no. or page Description of resource (?attach additional sheets if needed) II. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Describe proposed use of property The property would include a 2 -bay, 250 -ton per day solid waste transfer station with scale house, associated access roads, and parking areas 2. Number of lots 1 3. Number of structures 2 4. Estimated square footage of area to be graded for development of attached residential units (excluding roads, but including parking areas) n/a 5. Estimated square footage of area to be graded for non - residential use (excluding roads) 8 acres 6. Estimated area to be graded for roads 2 acres 7. Road Type: Public Private Class A Class B 1200 feet Class C Total road length 1200 feet 8. Hours of operation for commercial or industrial use Approximately 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. — Monday through Saturday B. STATE PERMITS REQUIRED 1. Does the project involve the mining of earth products? No If so, how many cubic feet of material are expected to be excavated? Has an application for a Mining Permit been submitted to NCDRCD? Please attach map indicating expected extent of proposed activity. 2. Does the project involve generation or storage of hazardous or toxic wastes, as identified by the Environmental Protection Agency? (A listing of all hazardous materials is available from the Planning Department) No Describe the wastes to be generated. Transfer Station will receive and transfer residential and limited commercial and industrial waste for transportation and disposal off site. Now much material is expected to be generated per month? Will any material be treated onsite? Volume? Will Any material be stored onsite? Volume? Where will disposal of the material take place? How will materials be transported to the disposal site? what measures are proposed to protect water quality and air quality in case of spills? 3. Will the project involve a lanes application system far. treatment of wastewater? No If yes, describe Has an application for a non-discharge permit been submitted to the NC Department of Environmental Manage-meat or Orange County Department of Environmental Health? d, is a septic tank system proposed which has a design capacity of more than 3000 gallons per day? _ No If yes, describe Has an application for a non-discharge permit been submitted to the NC Department of Environmental Management or grange County Department of Environmental. Health? S. Does the activity involve sludge disposal? No If yes, where is the source of the sludge? Describe where and how the sludge is being disposed. 6. Water Usage a. Estimated no. of employees ZA_ x 25 god X400 qm b. Estimated water use for climate control gs d C. Process grater 500 -1000 go _S(. % consumed discharged to septic system t discharged to surface (including stores sewers) (describe. evaporated .f % reclaimed/reused Consumptive volume of water to be % other evaluated during design stage 100 % 250 — 500 gaud d> Water used for cooling, heating, etc., in association with production or manufacturing reused consuned discharged (describe:- �> % other iD4 650 —900 gpd Total Water Usage e. Describe source of water A well will be drilled on site and groundwater used if public water is not available TO BE COMPLETED ONLY IF INVENTORY SITE(S) IS/ARE IDENTIFIED IN I.E. (ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEEETS IF NECESSARY) (1) a. Impact on Resource from Proposed Development b. Proposed Mitigation (2) a. Impact on Resource from Proposed Development Err. Proposed mitigation ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PAYDARFAR Prepared for: Orange County, North Carolina Chapel Hill, North Carolina �= eat 0 %' SEPTEMBER 2009 Prepared by: OLVER INCORPORATED 8720 Red Oak Boulevard, Suite 505 "!7 Charlotte North Carolina 28217 N.C. License No. C-t 55T Conutiting Exghwrt �e Adds Scientists Project Number 20151 COVER SHEET Date: September 30, 2009 Title of Activity: Orange County, NC Solid Waste Transfer Station — Paydarfar Site Submitted By: Board of County Commissioners Orange County, North Carolina 200 South Cameron Street Post Office Box 8181 Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Responsible State: Orange County Planning Department Agency and Contact: Craig Benedict 306 -F Revere Road Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278 Type of Document: Environmental Assessment Applicable Rule: Chapter 40 Orange County Environmental Impact Ordinance Background: In the case of the proposed Orange County waste transfer station, the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources' Division of Water Quality and Division of Waste Management have indicated that an EA and SEPA approval will not be required because the proposed transfer station operation (250 tpd) is less than 350 tpd required for such analyses. SEPA coordinators have also confirmed that an Environmental Assessment (EA) would not be required in this particular case. Despite the fact that an EA is not required by state regulations, it is required by the Orange County Environmental Impact Ordinance and was completed as part of the due diligence for this siting. The attached EA document reviews the environmental impacts of the con- struction and operation of a 250 -ton per day solid waste transfer station on the Paydarfar site -located in the central portion of Orange County off of Millhouse Road near the intersection of Interstate Highway 1 -40 and NC Highway 86. The EA contains a project description, review of the existing environment, discussion of the need for and alternatives to the project, potential environmental impacts associated with the project and mitigation measures for those impacts. Environmental Assessment — Paydarfar Site September 30, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... ..............................1 1.1 Project Description ........................................................... ..............................1 1.2 Purpose and Need for the Project ......................................... ..............................2 3 2.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ....................................................... ............................... 2.1 Alternative Methodology Track ............................................ ............................... 3 2.2 Site Selection ................................................................. ............................... 4 3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA .............. 6 3.1 Topography .................................................................... ..............................6 3.2 Soils ............................................................................. ..............................7 3.3 Land Use ........................................................................ ..............................7 3.4 Wetlands ....................................................................... ..............................8 3.5 Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands ...................................... ............................... 8 3.6 Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and State Natural Areas .... ..............................9 3.7 Areas of Archaeological or Historical Value ........................... ............................... 10 3.8 Air Quality ................................................................... ............................... 11 3.9 Noise Levels ................................................................. ............................... 11 3.10 Water Resources ........................................................... ............................... 12 3.10.1 Groundwater Resources ....................................................................................... .............................12 3.10.2 Surface Water Resources ..................................................................................... .............................12 3.11 Forest Resources ........................................................... ............................... 13 3.12 Shellfish or Fish and Their Habitats .................................... ............................... 13 3.13 Wildlife and Natural Vegetation ........................................ ............................... 13 4.0 PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROJECT ........ .............................14 4.1 Topography ................................................................ .............................14 4.2 Soils .......................................................................... ............................... 14 4.3 Land Use ..................................................................... ............................... 15 4.4 Wetlands .................................................................... ............................... 15 4.5 Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands .................................... ............................... 15 4.6 Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and State Natural Areas . ............................... 15 4.7 Areas of Archaeological or Historical Value ........................... ............................... 15 4.8 Air Quality ................................................................... ............................... 16 4.9 Noise Levels ................................................................. ............................... 16 4.10 Water Resources ........................................................... ............................... 16 4.10.1 Groundwater Resources ....................................................................................... .............................16 4.10.2 Surface Water Resources ..................................................................................... .............................17 4.11 Forest Resources ........................................................... ............................... 18 4.12 Shellfish or Fish and Their Habitats .................................... ............................... 18 Environmental Assessment - Paydarfar Site ii September 30, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 4.13 Wildlife and Natural Vegetation ........................................ ............................... 18 4.14 Introduction of Toxic Substances ....................................... ............................... 18 5.0 MITIGATIVE MEASURES ............................................................ .............................19 6.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................... ............................... 20 7.0 EXHIBITS ................................................................................... .................•............. 21 8.0 PERMITS, LICENSES, AND APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS .... ............................... 22 9.0 APPENDICES ............................................................................ ............................... 22 Environmental Assessment — Paydarfar Site iii September 30, 2009 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description The County currently disposes of solid waste from residents and businesses at the existing Orange County solid waste landfill on Eubanks Road. This landfill is expected to reach capacity and be closed in 2012. Rather than construct a new landfill, the County has decided to dispose of its solid wastes in a regional landfill outside of the County after the present landfill has reached its capacity. A solid waste transfer station is needed within the County to receive solid wastes from the local collection trucks and to consolidate those wastes into larger long -haul trucks for transportation to the selected regional landfill. No wastes will be disposed at the transfer station site and all wastes will be stored in appropriate watertight containers until they are removed from the site for disposal. The transfer station will consist of an enclosed metal building (160 feet by 160 feet) and scale house (20 feet by 20 feet), which will sit on a 10 -acre parcel of land in the central part of Orange County off Millhouse Road adjacent to the boundary of the existing Orange County Eubanks landfill. The site location is shown on Exhibit A. Except for the use of an existing entrance road easement, construction of the facility will be confined to the 10 -acre site and a small area of adjacent County park land. The roads, equipment storage area, parking spaces, and buildings will result in approximately 160,000 square feet of impermeable surface. The site will be graded prior to construction and designed to protect the quality of the stormwater runoff. The wastewater generated at the site by cleaning the tipping floor of the transfer station will be recycled with the residue hauled off -site for disposal. Sanitary wastes will be treated on site with a septic system. After being weighed on a scale system at the scale house, trucks that enter the facility will unload their wastes on a tipping floor inside the building and exit. The building will be enclosed to minimize odor and control dust and litter. The wastes will then be pushed from the tipping floor into enclosed and watertight trailers attached to long -haul vehicles, located below the tipping floor. Approximately 250 tons of waste will be loaded daily. At the end of each day, the tipping floor will be emptied completely, and all wastes stored in containers in the trailer storage area. The wastes will be moved by the long -haul vehicles to an out -of- county regional landfill where the wastes will be unloaded and disposed. The County plans to solicit bids from regional waste disposal landfills once the transfer station has been sited and designed. A conceptual site plan layout for this site is presented as Exhibit B. The transfer station shall only accept solid waste that is generated by households, institutions, commercial businesses, and some industrial establishments. Although residential municipal solid waste (MSW) routinely contains limited quantities of cleaners and similar household products, the Environmental Assessment — Paydarfar Site September 30, 2009 facility will not accept permitted RCRA hazardous wastes. Explosives, pathological, and biological wastes will also not be accepted for processing at the facility. The site will have a special waste handling area with dumpsters for tires, batteries, white goods, and other materials requiring special handling for disposal or recycling. 1.2 Purpose and Need for the Project In the past, the siting of new landfills has been the solution to the increased need for disposal facilities. However, in recent years a number of factors have made the siting of new landfills increasingly difficult, such as decreasing amount of suitable land available, legal barriers, potential long -term environmental concerns, and mounting public opposition. The process is further restricted by new permitting regulations required by state agencies. The nationwide trend in solid waste disposal has been toward construction of larger, more remote, regional landfills. Currently, the waste generated in Orange County is disposed in the solid waste landfill located on Eubanks Road. In Fiscal Year 2008 -09, approximately 50,157 tons of MSW were disposed in the existing Eubanks Road Landfill. The landfill is expected to close in 2012 at which time there will be no MSW disposal options within the County. The portion that is not recycled or composted will have to be taken to an out -of- county landfill or processed by an alternate technology to reduce volume. In anticipation of the current landfill's closure, efforts have been made to identify an alternative waste processing technology appropriate for use by the County. Orange County has thoroughly evaluated alternatives to the proposed transfer station, including both alternative waste management methods and alternative site selection for the transfer station. A study completed by Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc., (GBB) recently supplemented by a similar study by Olver Incorporated ( Olver) concluded that there is not enough waste generated within the County to achieve the economies of scale necessary to make viable alternative waste processing technologies cost - effective. Based on the study, the Orange County Solid Waste Advisory Board (SWAB) determined that the best solution at present would be to continue with the planned transfer station, and when the County's existing MSW landfill reaches final capacity, wastes will be transferred out of the County for disposal. See Section 2.0 for more details on these alternative evaluations and determination. The decision to build a solid waste management transfer facility to haul Orange County's wastes to a landfill facility outside of the County comprises just one element of the County's overall plan for managing its MSW. The proposed plan, along with the County's Solid Waste Management Plan adopted in 1997, is an integrated approach, which includes source reduction efforts, recycling, Environmental Assessment — Paydarfar Site 2 September 30, 2009 composting, new collection and financing strategies, and public education programs to encourage involvement in all aspects of waste management from generation through disposal. The County is implementing an integrated solid waste management strategy to achieve a 61 percent waste reduction goal. 2.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Orange County has undertaken a thorough review of its MSW management program over the past several years and has considered and evaluated numerous alternatives during the process. The concept of the transfer station itself is a product of this process, being an alternative to the construction of a new landfill. The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) initiated a comprehensive site selection process to locate the proposed solid waste transfer station. The County has also investigated various alternatives to construction of a transfer station. These analyses have progressed along two tracks. The Alternative Methodology Track has been to further investigate whether there are viable alternatives to the construction of a County -owned transfer station. This analysis has shown the construction of a County -owned transfer station to be a necessity and the best methodology for management of Orange County's MSW for the foreseeable future. The Site Selection Track has been used to develop and implement a set of criteria for identifying and ranking candidate sites and to select a suitable site for the transfer station within the County. 2.1 Alternative Methodolociv Track As mentioned previously, GBB conducted the Alternative Waste Processing Assessment] to explore reasonable alternatives to landfill disposal of MSW by Orange County. The study concluded that at Orange County's current level of solid wastes generation (less than 250 tons per day), the cost of financing, building, owning, and operating a waste -to- energy plant would be in the range of $100 per ton of refuse processed after sale of electricity generated from the heat recovered from incineration and sale of scrap metal recovered from the residual ash. Based upon the estimated costs of constructing and operating the transfer station, transport, and landfilling at a regional private- sector disposal site, GBB concluded that it was not economical in the short term to consider a stand -alone waste combustion facility to handle waste from only Orange County. It was also concluded that the other emerging technologies investigated in the study are at present not mature, practical, proven, or appropriate for managing large quantities of mixed solid waste. Significant permitting issues may prevent or significantly delay the implementation of any waste- to- energy process. 1 http:// www. olver. com/ orangecounty/ PDF% 20files /Aftemative_Technologies_ Assessment , %20Orange %20County %20NC %208- 15 -08.pdf Environmental Assessment — Paydarfar Site 3 September 30, 2009 Based on these findings, the SWAB recommended that solid waste management efforts concentrate on getting the County's transfer station sited, permitted, designed, built, and operating, as well as continuing the County's successful and aggressive recycling efforts that are reducing the amount of waste to be landfilled. Concurrent with the site selection process as described below, Olver has conducted a second review of available technologies. Furthermore, Olver conducted in -depth interviews with local commercial transfer stations located outside of Orange County and performed detailed cost evaluations considering the alternative of using these existing stations in lieu of construction of a County transfer station. The conclusion of Olver's studies was to re- affirm the findings of the GBB report and the need for the Orange County transfer station. 2.2 Site Selection The objective of the site selection process was to identify the available candidate sites for a transfer station and then to systematically reduce that list of candidate sites to a manageable number through a series of progressively detailed technical screenings. The purpose of using this system was to reduce subjectivity and to limit the number of sites requiring detailed evaluation. Through the process of collaboration between the BOCC and the public, three categories or sets of criteria were developed and applied in the evaluation of possible transfer station sites. These categories include exclusionary criteria, technical criteria, and community- specific criteria. The initial screening applied the exclusionary criteria to properties to eliminate from further consideration sites not having specific -site characteristics. Briefly, exclusionary criteria include the stipulation of areas where development is prohibited by federal, state, or local laws or regulations. Exclusionary criteria also include consideration of land use, zoning requirements, watershed protection, and other factors that may significantly impact the environment, facility costs, or project implementation. For example, sites beyond a 12 -mile radius of the County's projected waste generation centroid were eliminated because of the haul distance for the collection trucks. Some of the exclusionary criteria were used to assure that there was adequate space on a candidate site without infringing on limiting site conditions such as wetlands and overly steep slopes. The presence of these limiting conditions on a property in itself was not exclusionary, so long as there was adequate space available on the parcel for construction and operation of the transfer station unencumbered by those conditions. After removal of the excluded sites, the remaining 243 sites were screened through two additional cycles using the technical criteria, ultimately resulting in a list of ten finalist sites. These ten sites were then scored both using the Technical Evaluation Criteria and the Community- Specific Environmental Assessment — Paydarfar Site 4 September 30, 2009 Evaluation Criteria. Technical criteria include specific engineering, operation, and transportation parameters that should be considered to assure that sites are feasible from a technical design, environmental, and economic prospective. The community - specific criteria consider the potential impacts that the facility may have on the surrounding community. This set of criteria underscores the priority that the public placed upon environmental justice considerations such as impacts upon adjacent land use; proximity to schools, churches, and recreation sites; and the number of residents impacted. Once these evaluations were made and public comments were heard, Site 056 (Howell site) on Highway 54 in western Orange County was identified as the candidate transfer station site by the BOCC. An Environmental Assessment for Site 056 was prepared and submitted to the North Carolina State Environmental Review Clearinghouse by the Orange County Planning Department in February 2009. Siting evaluation and planning are continuing for development of the transfer station on that property. Site 056 has been identified as the candidate site through the site selection process and has been shown to be a suitable site for the transfer station facility. However, during the completion of additional environmental studies and through public discussions about the development of Site 056, two additional sites have been identified for re- consideration after having been earlier eliminated during the site selection process. One of the two additional sites is owned by the Town of Chapel Hill, contiguous to its Operations Center on Millhouse Road. This potential site was previously eliminated during the site selection process because of difficulties with site access. This property was re- evaluated when it became known that the Town may consider making this land available to Orange County for the transfer station and providing entry through the Operations Center access road. Although it appears on this basis that the site may be technically suitable as well, it is not yet clear whether the Town will actually make the site available. The second site being re- evaluated is the subject of this Environmental Assessment for the Paydarfar site. It is a 10 -acre tract off of Millhouse Road contiguous to the Eubanks landfill that is already owned by Orange County. This site was originally eliminated since it is below the 25 -acre exclusionary size criteria. However, since the tract is surrounded by land owned by Orange County or the Town of Chapel Hill, it is now recognized that those properties may be used to provide the needed buffer areas around the transfer station. Since the transfer station and its ancillary facilities can be placed within the 10 -acre tract, this property is being re- considered. Environmental Assessment — Paydarfar Site 5 September 30, 2009 Although Site 056 has been demonstrated to be a suitable site for the transfer station, one or both of the sites under re- consideration may also be shown to be suitable and may offer advantages in development and operational costs and in reducing hauling distances for the collection trucks. The reduced haul distances could offer environmental advantages in reduced fuel usage by the collection trucks and the resulting reduced emissions of greenhouse gases. An environmental justice assessment was used in conjunction with other community evaluation criteria in the ranking of the ten finalist sites. In order to quantify the community population surrounding each site being considered, 2000 Census block and block group data were used to rank the sites regarding potentially vulnerable population groups including: minority populations, age groups ( <18 years and >65 years), education sectors ( >25 years old without a high school diploma or equivalent), and low income populations (living below the poverty level). The evaluation was done by calculating the number of people per acre for each population group located within a 1,000 -foot radius of the candidate site being scored. For each candidate site, the population densities for each of these population groups were added together and the total value ranked from highest density of vulnerable groups to the lowest density for the ten finalist sites. As previously discussed, the Paydarfar site was not included in those original ten finalist sites. However, as a part of the re- consideration of this site, the population density of vulnerable groups was calculated in the same manner. The resulting population density score for the Paydarfar site is comparable to the other candidate sites on Highway 54 (within 1,000 feet of the property boundary). The development of the Paydarfar site as the County transfer station is not expected to place a disproportionate burden of potential environmental consequences on any group of people within 1,000 feet of the property boundary. The area within this radius is sparsely populated since a great portion of the land with the radius is owned by the County or the Town of Chapel Hill. The historically black Rogers - Eubanks Community is located approximately half a mile to the south - southwest of the Paydarfar site, although the exact boundaries of the Rogers - Eubanks Community are subject to interpretation. 3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA 3.1 Topography The property has slight to moderate slopes in the general range of less than 5 to 10 percent with elevations ranging between 497 feet and 520 feet. See Exhibit C.1 for the site location and area topography within the Chapel Hill USGS quadrangle. A topographic drainage feature angles from the southeast corner of the property toward the northwest. A small area bordering the drainage feature has slopes in excess of 10 percent. Exhibit C.2 is a more detailed topographic map of the Environmental Assessment — Paydarfar Site 6 September 30, 2009 site area. Construction of the transfer station will require extensive site grading and grade changes, including several feet of balanced cut and fill to establish construction grades. Using the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program website mapping, it has been determined that the site will not encroach on any floodplains. See Exhibit D for a copy of this mapping. 3.2 Soils According to information provided by the Orange County Planning Department and the United States Department of Agriculture's Web Soil Survey of Orange County, North Carolina, the site location is comprised of the soils summarized in Table 1 below and shown in Exhibit E. 3.3 Land Use The site is referred to as the "Paydarfar Site" after the previous owner of the property. The 10 -acre site is bordered on the north, south, and west by property also owned by Orange County. The Eubanks landfill is located immediately to the south. To the west and north is a large, mostly wooded, 69 -acre tract with some fields and meadowlands. This tract is designated for future development as a County park, largely to be used as a soccer complex. A brick house, garage, and several outbuildings are located on the eastern portion of the property which are planned to be leased for residency until the park is developed. The land to the east, between the site and Millhouse Road, consists of two approximate 2 -acre parcels owned by the Town of Chapel Hill. A residence is located on the northern end of the northernmost of the two parcels, near the bend in Millhouse Road. The general nature of the surrounding area is rural with most of the land being wooded with limited areas used for farming or meadows. Several residences are located along Millhouse Road to the north of the site. Spence's farm, an after - school and mini -camp facility for children and the Emerson Waldorf School are located about 0.6 -mile north of the Paydarfar site. A railroad track serving the UNC boiler plant parallels Millhouse Road. The Town of Chapel Hill Operations Environmental Assessment — Paydarfar Site 7 September 30, 2009 Center is located across Millhouse Road to the northeast. Interstate highway I -40 is located beyond the Operations Center farther to the northeast. According to the information from Orange County regarding county zoning districts, the site is located entirely within Orange County jurisdiction. Exhibit F is a map of the site's zoning within the County. The County's GIS website identifies the proposed site and the surrounding areas adjacent except to the south as being zoned Rural Buffer. The land to the south of the site is within the Town of Chapel Hill's jurisdiction and is zoned as Rural Transition (JPA). 3.4 Wetlands There are no mapped wetlands located directly within the project site or in the immediate vicinity according to the United States Fish and Wildlife National Wetlands Inventory. There are two small ponds and a small wetland area shown about 1,000 feet to the north on published mapping. These features are not downgradient of the proposed transfer station site. See Exhibit G for the location and descriptions of the ponds and small wetland area in the vicinity of the proposed site. The Orange County Erosion Control Division staff reviewed available information on the project site in the Orange County GIS mapping and found that the parcel did not contain previously mapped streams or water features. One drainage feature was indentified on the site based on the site topography. During a follow -up field reconnaissance, the staff determined that the drainage feature is not a stream and found no ephemeral channels or other evidence of water features on the site. The staff determined that the tract will not be subject to stream buffer rules. These findings are contained in the Erosion Control Division September 8, 2009 Surface Water Identification Report (Appendix A). Although the United States Fish and Wildlife National Wetlands Inventory did not identify any wetlands on or adjacent to the subject site and the Orange County Erosion Control Division found no evidence of streams, an experienced wetland specialist was retained to perform a reconnaissance of the site to specifically examine the property for signs of wetlands. Hal Owen & Associates, Inc. personnel visited the site on September 15, 2009. As discussed in their September 18, 2009 report on the project site, no evidence of potential wetlands was found (Appendix B). 3.5 Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands The site is wooded and not used for agriculture at this time. The sloping topography of the site and the central drainage feature would not make the site conducive to farming. The areas adjacent to the site are also wooded, are occupied by the existing County landfill, or consist of woods and Environmental Assessment — Paydarfar Site 8 September 30, 2009 meadows to the north and west that are scheduled for development as a County park. Orange County owns the subject tract and the surrounding land to the north, south, and west and does not currently use and does not intend to use the land for agricultural purposes. Therefore, it is determined that there are no prime or unique agricultural lands at the site or in the immediate surrounding area of the site that will be impacted by the transfer station operations. 3.6 Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and State Natural Areas As previously noted, the County plans to develop the tract of land immediately to the north of the subject site as a soccer field park. The 69 -acre property was purchased for use as a park, with the potential for a soccer complex with walking trails in the woods to the west. None of the facilities for the soccer fields have been developed to date and park development is scheduled to occur between the years 2014 to 2016 if funds are available. Both the County and the Town of Chapel Hill own substantial amounts of land in the immediate vicinity including the landfill facilities and the Town Operations Center. None of these lands are used for wildlife management or recreational purposes. There are several identified natural areas and wildlife corridors in the vicinity of the Paydarfar site as shown on Exhibit H. To the west and northwest are the Bald Mountain, Meadow Flats, Blackwood Mountain, and the Duke Forest Post Oak/Blackjack Oak Natural Areas. All of these natural areas are associated with the Wildlife Corridor that extends largely along the trace of New Hope Creek and its tributaries. The closest boundary of the wildlife corridor area is about 1,300 feet from the Paydarfar site. The edge of the Duke Forest Post Oak/Blackjack Oak Natural Area is about 1,600 feet from the Paydarfar site. The development of the Paydarfar site for the transfer station will not sever or interrupt any portion of the Wildlife Corridor. None of these natural areas or the Wildlife Corridor are downgradient from the Paydarfar site. According to the Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats for Orange County (December 2004 update), a 2002 re- survey of the Duke Forest Post Oak/Blackjack Oak Natural Area (previously named the Eubanks Road Xeric Hardpan Forest site) found no evidence of this forest type nor of cow -itch vine, blackjack oaks, or lichen. The area was described as third growth oak - hickory forest with abundant red maple and scattered red cedar, loblolly pine, and sourwood. The Henry J. Oosting Natural Area is located on Old Field Creek, about 3,700 feet in radial distance from the Paydarfar site and about 7,000 feet distance along the trace of the creek. This area is located to the east of highways I -40 and NC 86 from the site. The Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats Inventory describes this area as consisting of bottomland and adjacent slopes of Environmental Assessment — Paydarfar Site 9 September 30, 2009 mature forestland. The forest contains mature mixed mesic hardwoods reported to contain state - listed plants including Lewis' heartleaf, Bush's sedge, and creamy tick - trefoil. The four -toed salamander and the greytail petaltail dragonfly are also reported in the area. This natural area is not expected to be impacted by the construction or operation of the transfer station because: • sediments from the Paydarfar site will be controlled by a closely monitored erosion control plan; • no waste water will be released to the stream; • there is no portion of the stream on the Paydarfar site; and • the natural area is about 7,000 feet downstream along the trace of the creek. 3.7 Areas of Archaeological or Historical Value According to the Orange County Environment and Resource Conservation Department (ERCD), there are no known archaeological or historical resources located on the proposed project site. The site has been occupied by a residence in recent times but the house burned a number of years ago. Another residence is also located on the property but was apparently never occupied. The ERCD has listed the Blackwood Farm, the Blackwood Grist Mill, and the Nunn Residence along Millhouse Road as identified historic sites closest to the subject property. Other historic sites are known in the area at greater distances. The Blackwood Farm site is located about 0.6 -mile north of the Paydarfar property and is presently occupied by the Spence's Farm facility. The Blackwood Mill and pond are located about 0.2 -mile north of the site. The mill has been converted into a residence. The Nunn residence is located about 0.3 -mile southeast of the Paydarfar site. None of these three sites appear likely to be impacted by the proposed operations at the transfer station. As shown on Exhibit I, ERCD has listed other properties in the area that may have cultural or historical significance. None of these sites appear likely to be impacted by the development of the Paydarfar site. In order to thoroughly understand the historical and cultural resources on the site and in the area of the property, TRC Environmental Corporation (TRC) was retained to perform a Cultural Resources Background Study for the site. The results of this study are contained in TRC's report of September 18, 2009 (see Appendix C for report). Based on a review of published literature, TRC found nine listed potential archaeological sites and seven identified potential historic structures within one mile of the Paydarfar tract. The nearest National Register of Historic Places property is the Hogan House about 0.6 -mile from the site. Environmental Assessment — Paydarfar Site 10 September 30, 2009 TABLE 3 Historic Sites in Project Vicinity Site Name Distance to Proposed Facility Footprint OR432 Blackwood Farm 0.6 miles OR433 Blackwood Grist Mill 0.2 miles OR434 Nunn House 0.3 miles OR489 Hogan House 0.6 miles OR490 Kirkland House 0.75 miles OR1433 House 0.3 miles OR1442 House 0.3 miles TRC personnel also performed a field reconnaissance of the Paydarfar property and found no evidence of archaeological sites, historic sites, or cemeteries on the Paydarfar site. TRC concluded that, in their opinion, the development of the Paydarfar site will not likely impact any significant cultural resources. 3.8 Air Quality The project site is located on an undeveloped, wooded 10 -acre lot. Air quality at the site is considered as good to moderate as no nearby industries emit air pollutants. Air quality is affected by the adjacent landfill, the Chapel Hill Operations Center, local traffic on Millhouse and Eubanks Roads, and thoroughfare traffic on highway I -40. Most of the surrounding lands are woodland with low density development. Compared to more distant potential sites, location of the transfer station at the Paydarfar tract would result in less fuel used by the collection trucks and correspondingly reduced emissions of greenhouse gases. 3.9 Noise Levels The area of the proposed project site is subject to a number of noise sources, predominantly from traffic on the local roads and highway I -40. Activities at the landfill and the Chapel Hill Operations Center also contribute to noise levels. Some commercial activities are also located around the intersection of Eubanks and Millhouse Roads. Environmental Assessment — Paydarfar Site 11 September 30, 2009 3.10 Water Resources 3.10.1 Groundwater Resources According to the Water Resources Investigation Report 00- 42862, the primary source of groundwater in Orange County is from the fracture zones of the felsic metavolcanic rock that underlies most of the County. These rocks are typically overlain by varying thicknesses of regolith soils derived from the in -place weathering of parent bedrock. The regolith soils are found to be less weathered with depth and transition to weathered rock then to bedrock. Although water is often found in the lower portions of the regolith soils, reliable water sources require a well cased into the fracture zones of the bedrock. Well yields are typically less than 25 gallons per minute with an average of approximately 16 gpm. The average groundwater recharge in the New Hope Creek Basin is about 150 gallons per day per acre. There is an existing potable well on the Paydarfar property that was associated with the former Chan residence that burned. Records obtained from the Orange County Planning Department indicate that the well is 165 feet deep and produces about 20 gallons of water per minute. The well is reported to still be functional and the ERCD has plans to use the well for area groundwater monitoring. Neighboring residences and farms in the area located in the Rural Buffer generally rely on groundwater for their water source while area residents within the Town of Chapel Hill typically use municipal water supplies. 3.10.2 Surface Water Resources The project area is located in the Cape Fear River Basin. As determined by the Erosion Control Division of the Orange County ERCD, there are no streams located on the property. Surface water drainage from the site area flows through Old Field Creek and New Hope Creek to Jordan Lake. As previously noted, the Orange County ERCD staff reviewed available information on the project site in the Orange County GIS mapping and found that the parcel did not contain previously mapped streams or water features. One drainage feature was indentified on the site based on the site topography. During a follow -up field reconnaissance, the staff determined that the drainage feature was not a stream and found no ephemeral channels or other evidence of water features on the site. The staff 2 Cunningham, W.L. and C.C. Daniel, 2001. `Investigation of Groundwater Availability and Quality in Orange County, North Carolina." United States Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation Report 00 -4286. Environmental Assessment — Paydarfar Site 12 September 30, 2009 determined that there are no streams on the Paydarfar property and the tract will not be subject to stream buffer rules. 3.11 Forest Resources The site is covered by relatively young pine and hardwood trees with some larger, more mature hardwoods and pines. The surrounding area includes the adjacent landfill cells to the south and a mixture of woodlands and meadowlands to the other sides. The wooded areas include mesic mixed hardwoods of mostly oak and hickory trees with red maple and with scattered cedar and pine trees. Generally, using information from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Programs inventory, the Chapel Hill 7.5- minute USGS quadrangle contains the following forest communities: • Basic oak - hickory forest • Dry-xeric oak forest • Mesic mixed hardwood forest • Piedmont monadnock forest 3.12 Shellfish or Fish and Their Habitats Review of this site by the Orange County Erosion Control Division staff and an independent wetland scientist confirm that there are no streams or wetlands on the Paydarfar property. Examination of the property by the Catena Group (Catena) during their Threatened and Endan- gered Species Survey of the site confirmed that there was no potential habitat for shellfish or fish. 3.13 Wildlife and Natural Vegetation The Catena Group was retained to perform a Threatened and Endangered Species Survey for the Paydarfar site. Catena, described the 10 -acre site as consisting of secondary forest and planted loblolly pine habitats, with an adjacent fallow field. They described open gaps in the forest canopy extending from the southeast corner toward the northwest corner. Catena listed five federally protected species occurring in Orange County, including the bald eagle, the red - cockaded woodpecker, the dwarf wedgemussel, Michaux's sumac, and the smooth coneflower. According to Catena, all state - listed species for Orange County that are not federally listed include several mussel species for which no habitat exists on the property. Catena also found that there was no potential habitat for the dwarf wedgemussel or the bald eagle, since there are no water features on the property. They also found that there was no potential foraging or nesting habitat for the red - cockaded woodpecker within the project vicinity, and there are no active colonies in the County. Environmental Assessment — Paydarfar Site 13 September 30, 2009 Potentially suitable habitat for the smooth coneflower and Michaux's sumac was observed in the forest canopy gaps and at the margins of the forest and adjacent fields. However, Catena thoroughly examined these areas and found no individuals. Catena's conclusions were that the project actions will have "No Effect" on any of the species listed for Orange County. A copy of the Catena Group's report is included in Appendix D. 4.0 PREDICTED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROJECT 4.1 Topography The Paydarfar site has little level ground and has slopes ranging from less than 5 percent to about 10 percent, with a few small areas slightly steeper. A drainage feature diagonally crosses the property from the northwest downward toward the southeast. As shown on Exhibit B, the transfer station facilities will occupy most of the 10 -acre tract. Grades and roadway turns will have to be set to accommodate use of the site by large collection trucks and larger long -haul vehicles using the facility. Therefore, the topography of the site will have to be re- shaped in accordance with the design and operational requirements of the transfer station. The elevation of the overall site will not substantially change and efforts will be made to balance the volume of cut and fill. Site grades will be set to match existing grades at the site boundaries and surface water drainage patterns from the site will not greatly change. Careful design and implementation of erosion control facilities will be made to limit sediment erosion from the site. 4.2 Soils As discussed above, the topography of the site will need to be modified to construct a functional transfer station. Although sampling and testing of the native Georgeville soils will be necessary, these soils should be suitable for earthwork construction. According to the USDA soil survey report, the depth to groundwater or rock is expected to be substantially greater than the depths of excavation. In setting grades, efforts will be made to balance cut and fill volumes but some use of off -site soils for fill may be necessary. Best management practices (BMPs) will be used during construction to ensure that chemical spillage is minimized, and soil is not contaminated. Long -term effects to soil in the area are not expected due to the facility being fully- enclosed and facility policy will prohibit the long -term storage of chemicals outside. Environmental Assessment — Paydarfar Site 14 September 30, 2009 4.3 Land Use According to the County's Zoning Ordinance, transfer stations may be located in all Zoning Districts in the exclusive planning jurisdiction of the County where governmental facilities and office buildings are located. This parcel is located within the exclusive planning jurisdiction of Orange County; and therefore, there are no conflicts with zoning or planned use for the development of this site into the transfer station. 4.4 Wetlands Published wetlands mapping by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service has been reviewed. In addition, staff from the Orange County Erosion Control Division reviewed and visited the site. An independent wetlands expert also examined the site. These activities have confirmed that there are no streams or wetlands on the site to be disturbed by the construction or operation of the transfer station. A stormwater management plan will be in place both during construction and operation of the facility. 4.5 Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands There are no impacts on prime or unique agricultural lands at the proposed project site since no prime or unique agricultural lands were identified on the property. The site is not presently farmed and is covered predominantly with young loblolly pines and the topography is not conducive to farming. 4.6 Public Lands and Scenic Recreational, and State Natural Areas There is no impact anticipated to the natural areas located in the vicinity of the site. The nearest identified downstream natural area is the Henry J. Oosting Natural Area, which is over one mile downstream along Old Field Creek and beyond highways I -40 and NC 86 from the site. Although the site drains to Old Field Creek, there are no streams on the property. Erosion control and stormwater plans will be implemented for the site and should deter any effect on the downstream natural area. 4.7 Areas of Archaeological or Historical Value As discussed in Section 3.7, a Cultural Resources Background Study was performed by TRC Environmental Corporation, which concluded that, in TRC's opinion, it is unlikely that development of the Paydarfar site will impact any significant cultural resources. Environmental Assessment — Paydarfar Site 15 September 30, 2009 4.8 Air Quality The facility will have minimal impact on ambient air quality. The facility shall be fully enclosed and the heating, ventilating, and air- conditioning (HVAC) systems will be provided to maintain indoor air quality and minimize potential air emissions. The building envelope will be constructed from environmentally preferable materials that minimize life -cycle environmental impacts, resource depletion, and human toxicity. The project will generate up to 70 vehicle trips per day. This includes County, Town(s) and commercial haulers and tractor trailers hauling refuse to the landfill. While currently there are no trucks entering the property, there is already established daily traffic on both Millhouse Road and Eubanks Road. The collection vehicles will be restricted to certain County roads to reach the property. The transfer station is located near the waste generation centroid, which will minimize the overall collection truck traffic volumes across the County to the transfer station, also minimizing the overall carbon footprint. Air quality impacts during construction are expected to be minimal. Emissions from construction vehicles will represent a short-term air quality impact from dust and equipment emissions. 4.9 Noise Levels The proposed project will increase noise levels over current conditions. However, this increase will be limited to the noise associated with the collection vehicle and tractor trailers entering and leaving the site. The transfer building will be totally enclosed and constructed with an acoustic building shell (interior insulation and liner panel system) to contain noise within the building. On- site traffic and noise levels will be controlled by maintaining the natural wooded buffers around the site. The transfer station will operate only during daytime hours when the noise produced at the facility will be compatible with other activities in the area. 4.10 Water Resources 4.10.1 Groundwater Resources Although public water and sewer utilities are available in the area, it is uncertain whether these utilities can be made available to the site. Therefore, planning for the facility is proceeding under the assumption that no public water or sewer will be available at the site. A groundwater well already exists on the property, although Orange County ERCD is planning to use that well for its County -wide groundwater monitoring program. If this well is not used for the transfer station, another well will be drilled to provide water for Environmental Assessment — Paydarfar Site 16 September 30, 2009 consumption, washdown, and fire protection. A storage tank will be built on site and sized appropriately to ensure adequate water for fire protection. Daily water usage for operation of the transfer station is expected to be in the range of 650 to 900 gallons per day. Based on the size of the property and the previously discussed recharge rate of about 150 gallons /day /acre, infiltration into the site and associated buffer surfaces will exceed expected usage. With the additional infiltration of a large area of County -owned land at the existing landfill and future park area, the water usage at the site is not expected to have an impact on the quantity of water available to the neighboring residences or farms. A separate septic tank and drainfield system will be designed to handle the minimal sanitary wastes generated at the facility. A site evaluation by the Orange County Environmental Health Services has found that some suitable soils exist on the property that should be adequate for the septic drainfield. The concept of a pump and haul system for the wash -down water has been approved by the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Division of Waste Management and Division of Water Quality. No solvents or similar type cleaning fluids will be used in wash -down operations of the transfer. No long -term outdoor storage of waste or other materials will be allowed. 4.10.2 Surface Water Resources To improve stormwater runoff quality, BMPs will be implemented in the development of storm -water management and control measures for those areas outside of the building envelope. Wastewater will originate during normal facility operations primarily from equipment and tipping floor cleaning and sanitary wastes. The wash -down system will be designed with storage and containment for the capture of all wash waters resulting from station operation. The wastewater will be recycled on site, and the residue will be hauled off site for disposal. No wash -down water will be discharged on site. As referenced in Section 3.10.2, the Orange County Erosion Control Division determined that there are no streams on the Paydarfar property, and the tract will not be subject to stream buffer rules. Environmental Assessment — Paydarfar Site 17 September 30, 2009 4.11 Forest Resources The site is predominantly covered by young loblolly pine and hardwoods. The project will require extensive grading to achieve construction grades. The adjacent County -owned and Chapel Hill owned properties will provide buffer areas. Trees existing in the buffer areas will remain largely undisturbed to provide effective buffers. The transfer station design will include erosion management practices, and no long -term effects from the removal of the trees from the transfer station site are expected. 4.12 Shellfish or Fish and Their Habitats As stated above, no potential habitat for fish or shellfish exists on the property; and therefore, there will be no on -site impacts due to construction of the transfer station. The transfer station design will include erosion management practices to deter downstream sediment effects. 4.13 Wildlife and Natural Vegetation The Catena Group was retained to perform a Threatened and Endangered Species Survey for the Paydarfar site. Catena's conclusions were that the project actions will have "No Effect" on any of the species listed for Orange County. The construction of the transfer station will require extensive site grading of the Paydarfar site but most of the surrounding adjacent properties, which belong to the County, will remain intact from their present condition for use as buffer. These surrounding lands will provide habitat for flora and fauna in the area. 4.14 Introduction of Toxic Substances No toxic substances will be introduced during the construction of the project. During operations, the transfer station will be operated in accordance with applicable regulations and BMPs designed to assure that toxic substances will not be introduced to the environment. These practices include: ■ Waste Prohibition — By permit and regulation, the facility cannot accept any hazardous, toxic, or radioactive waste. ■ Load Inspection — Orange County Solid Waste Operations Staff will conduct inspections on the refuse to assure that the material received is in accordance with allowable waste by the permit issued by NCDENR for the transfer station. A program of random visual inspections will be in place to check for unsuitable materials. Any material that cannot be demonstrated to comply with the facility permit will be rejected. In addition, all loads Environmental Assessment — Paydarfar Site 18 September 30, 2009 dumped on the tipping floor are visually inspected by operations staff to assure that unsuitable material is not placed in trailers for transport to the landfill. ■ Collection of wash water, contact water, and spills — The transfer station building is designed to capture all tipping floor wash -down water as well as any contact water that may drain from the refuse. The containment system would also contain any spills of any toxic materials. The wastewater from the containment system is going to be pumped and hauled to a wastewater treatment plant. Any contamination to the wastewater (as a result of a spill) could be treated prior to its release to a public wastewater treatment plant. 5.0 MITIGATIVE MEASURES It is anticipated that the construction and operation of the transfer station will have no significant impacts to the project area. This section reviews the mitigation measures that are incorporated into the siting, design, construction, and operation of the facility. In order to mitigate and prevent these adverse consequences, the following actions are proposed: ■ BMPs will be used during construction and operations to ensure that chemical spillage is minimal, and soil is not contaminated. The facility will be enclosed, which will further protect soils in and around the transfer station. ■ No streams or wetlands exist on the Paydarfar property, as confirmed by the Orange County Erosion Control Division and Hal Owen and Associates — a soil science /wetland consultant. ■ The Cultural Resources Background Study for the site has determined that it is unlikely that development of the Paydarfar site will impact any significant cultural resources, as documented by TRC. ■ The location of the transfer station on the Paydarfar site will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from collection trucks hauling MSW to the transfer station, relative to the greenhouse gas emissions by those vehicles to sites farther from the Orange County waste generation centroid. ■ The impact on air quality from the facility itself is not significant, and the system is designed such that emissions from the facility will not pose a health risk. An HVAC system will be installed to protect indoor air quality as well as decrease potential air emissions. The building envelope will be constructed from environmentally - preferable Environmental Assessment — Paydarfar Site 19 September 30, 2009 materials that minimize life -cycle environmental impacts, resource depletion, and human toxicity. The Catena Group was retained to perform a Threatened and Endangered Species Survey for the Paydarfar site. Catena's conclusions were that the project will have "No Effect" on any listed species for Orange County. Although the Paydarfar site will need to be cleared for construction grading, the adjacent site buffers will remain largely intact, providing habitat for area flora and fauna. The building will be designed in a way to decrease noise reaching the outside. Operations at the transfer station will be limited to daytime hours. Also the surrounding buffer areas will remain largely intact, which will buffer the surrounding area to any on -site traffic and noise levels. In order to protect surface water and groundwater, BMPs will be implemented to improve stormwater runoff quality at the site. Wastewater will be recycled at the site, and residue will be hauled offsite for disposal. A separate septic tank and drainfield system will be designed to handle the minimal sanitary wastes generated at the facility. No solvents or similar type cleaning fluids will be used in wash -down operations of the transfer station tipping floor. No long -term outdoor storage of waste or other materials will be allowed. 6.0 REFERENCES Cunningham, W.L. and C.C. Daniel, 2001. "Investigation of Groundwater Availability and Quality in Orange County, North Carolina." United States Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation Report 00 -4286. Environmental Assessment Guidelines, North Carolina Department of Administration, March 1999 EPA's EnvironMapper Store Front: http : / /www.epa.gov /enviro/html/em / Land Capability Classification for Agriculture in British Columbia, MOE Manual 1. Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Kelowna, British Columbia, Apri11983. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey: http : / /websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov /app/ North Carolina Flood Mapping Program, CTS Floodplain Maps: http: / /www.floodmaps.nc.gov/ North Carolina Natural Heritage Program: http: / /www.ncnhp.org/ Environmental Assessment — Paydarfar Site 20 September 30, 2009 Orange County Zoning Ordinance: http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?sid=33&pid=l 3166 Orange County Environment and Resource Conservation Department, Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats for Orange County, North Carolina, December 2004. Orange County Environment and Resource Conservation Department, Paydarfar site mapping and data files Orange County Health Department, Paydarfar tract well and septic system data, March 1985. Orange County Planning Department GIS Data, 2009. Orange County, North Carolina. State of the Environment 2009 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, David Paydarfar Property, Piedmont Geologic, P.C. December 13, 2006. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory: bitp://www.fws.vov/nw EXHIBITS • Exhibit A Paydarfar Site Location Map • Exhibit B Paydarfar Site Layout Plan • Exhibit C.1 USGS Quad with Site Topography • Exhibit C.2 Paydarfar Site Topography • Exhibit D Paydarfar Site Floodplain Map • Exhibit E Paydarfar Soil Map • Exhibit F Paydarfar Site Zoning Map • Exhibit G Paydarfar Site Wetlands Map • Exhibit H Paydarfar Parks and Natural Areas Map • Exhibit I Paydarfar Cultural Resources Environmental Assessment — Paydarfar Site 21 September 30, 2009 8.0 PERMITS, LICENSES AND APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS Table 2 presents a summary of the permits, licenses, and approvals required for the construction and operation of the facility: TABLE 2 Permits, Licenses, and Approval Requirements for Construction and Operation of the Solid Waste Transfer Station Administrative Item Solid Waste Management Facility Perm77EFT Environmental Assessment/Finding of ty Planning and Inspections Department Building Permits ty Planning and In Department Site Plan Approval ty Planning and Inspections Department 9.0 APPENDICES ■ APPENDIX A — Orange County Zoning Ordinance Surface Water Identification, Orange County Planning and Inspections Department, Erosion Control Division. September 9, 2009 ■ APPENDIX B — Wetland Investigation, Paydarfar Site, Hal Owen and Associates, Inc., September 18, 2009 ■ APPENDIX C — Cultural Resources Literature Review and Field Reconnaissance of the Proposed Orange County Solid Waste Transfer Station Site at the former Paydarfar Property, TRC Environmental Corporation, September 18, 2009 ■ APPENDIX D Threatened and Endangered Species Survey, Orange County Transfer Station Site, Mill House Road, The Catena Group, September 16, 2009 Environmental Assessment — Paydarfar Site 22 September 30, 2009 Legend streams Secondary Roads primary Roads waterbodies Project No. 20151 September 2009 Orange County Solid Was te paYdarfar Si t Transfer e Location plan Station EXHIBIT q j� Aw Legend Streams .rs' $econdaN goads ® PrimaN Roads INlaterb°dl,es project 140 i r 2p0 1 r10 Proposed Transfer " TAKEN FPOM USGS CHAPEL # W HILL QUADRANGLE BANGLE Orange Coun Project No. 20151 September 2009 ✓^, L✓ tY Solid Waste Transfer S —� Pa a Ydrfar Site Location tation � EX map HIBIT C. 0,4M �,R Legend Streams ".+.�. Secondary Roads Primary Roads "eryodies 10 9% Slope or Greater Legend Streams 1`' Secondary Roads Pnmary Roads Watertiodies Food Zones aM AE - 100_Year flooding SEFyy - 100 -Year floodwaY i t 4DFp X _ 500 -Year flooding Legend _ AM OKMNI- Streams econdary Y. Primary Roads Waterbodies Fro� G- m range ZONING Count Y Pl anning and Ins Factions E ANtCS �" Rural golfer Ora� p mant, Plannin � phaPel Hill Transmon nrye 9 GIS Division Pro t e �°un + S 'Jul Setem,2W9 P � "Y2008 T ransfer aYdarfar Site Zoning p Station EXHIBIT F a� � Legend Streams Seconda+Y Road$ �. Primary Roads vNands From Orange County Planning and Inspections Department, Planning GIS Division, July 2008 INK Orange County Solid Waste Transfer Station ' Paydarfar Site Parks and Natural and Wildlife Areas 90 Project No. 20151 EXHIBIT Hti ?� September 2009 From Orange County Planning and Inspections Department, Planning GIS Division, July 2008 9 a 0f1,�y,� Oran County Solid Waste Transfer Station I`I'I /! #' Paydarfar Site Historic Sites S Project No. 20151 EXHIBIT September 2009 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Erosion Control Division 306F Revere Road (919) 245 -2588 5 P O Box 8181 (919) 644 -3002 (Fax) Hillsborough, www.co.orange.nc.us �, c =L•'``' North Carolina, 27278 September 8, 2009 Gayle Wilson Orange County Solid Waste Management Department P.O. Box 17177 Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Re: Orange County Zoning Ordinance Surface Water Identification PIN 9871 -60 -7301, TMBL 7.19..24C Jordan Lake Unprotected Watershed Dear Mr. Wilson: This letter serves as confirmation of an on -site stream determination made by Orange County Erosion Control Division staff on August 26, 2009 for the referenced property. Orange County enforces a stream buffer along streams and water features in the County per the Orange County Zoning Ordinance (see Section 6.24.1 Additional Requirements for Lots Outside of Watershed Protection Areas, as amended on May 20, 2003). Based on our initial review of the Geographic Information System (GIS) data, the parcel did not contain previously mapped streams or water features. The topographic data did indicate one drainage feature in the northeast half of the property. This drainage feature was evaluated in the field to determine if it met the criteria to be considered a stream and thus subject to the buffer rules. The evaluation was conducted pursuant to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality's Identification Methods for the Origins of Intermittent and Perennial Streams (Version 3.1, February 28, 2005). Additionally, staff walked the remaining portion of the tract to determine if other areas met the criteria to be classified as a stream or water feature. Mr. Wilson September 8, 2009 Page 2 Based on the field evaluation, it was determined that the drainage feature indicated by the topographic data (Feature A) is not a stream and therefore not subject to the buffer rules. In fact, our evaluation did not even identify ephemeral channels within the tract, nor did we find evidence of other water features. Thus, the tract would not be subject to the stream buffer rules. If you have questions about this determination please contact me at (919) 245 -2588. If you have further questions about the application of the Zoning Ordinance to this property please contact Current Planning Staff at 919 - 245 -2575. Sincerely, Terry L. Hackett Stormwater Resource Officer/ Erosion Control Officer II Attachment: Aerial Photograph / Map cc: Craig Benedict, Director Orange County Planning & Inspections Ren Ivins, Supervisor Orange County Erosion Control Division Michael Harvey, Zoning Officer, Orange County Planning & Inspections Bob Sallach, President, Olver Inc. File Su Orange dace water ORANGE COUNT, :�O BOX 8181 i1LLSgpRp UGH, NC 27278 Count Identification Feature NOT Subject i P' 9871 -60 7 01 s T� �, 7.19..240 Orson Cp � tv end .,1# a it I'll, 4^ AUI Q 100 ftft 0 om WO-11 Mr. Ernie Parker Olver, Inc. 8720 Red Oak Boulevard Charlotte, NC 28217 Re: Cultural Resources Literature Review and Field Reconnaissance of the proposed Orange County Solid Waste Transfer Station Site at the former Paydarfar Property (PIN 9871607301), Orange County, North Carolina Dear Mr. Parker: On behalf of Olver, Inc., TRC has completed a background cultural resources literature review and field reconnaissance of the proposed 10 -acre Orange County Solid Waste Transfer Station tract in Orange County, North Carolina. The tract (Orange County PIN 9871607301) is located on the west side of Mill House Road in Chapel Hill, at the northeast corner of the existing Eubanks Landfill site (Figure 1), and was purchased by Orange County from David Paydarfar in 2007. For purposes of the literature review, the area examined included a one -mile radius around the project tract. Research was conducted on September 11, 2009 at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA), and the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), Survey and Planning Branch. The research included a review of maps and site files at the OSA for archaeological sites listed in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and a review of maps, survey records and architectural history books relating to Orange County at the SHPO. Historic maps and online historical documents were also consulted. On September 14, 2009 TRC staff visited the project area to visually examine the project tract. The project area is lightly wooded with areas of secondary undergrowth. TRC staff walked the property in four parallel transects (from east to west) in order to examine site conditions, document extant structural remains, and assess the potential for significant cultural resources on the property. RESULTS Literature Review Archaeological Sites. A review of the files and records at the OSA revealed that there are no previously recorded archaeological sites on the property, although, nine previously recorded sites are located within a 1 -mile radius (Table 1). Four of those sites (31OR185- 31OR188) were identified during the cultural resource reconnaissance survey for the I -40 Extension project in Durham and Orange Counties (McCabe et al. 1978). McCabe et al. (1978) recommended that one of the sites (31OR185, a Late Archaic short term habitation site) be subjected to further subsurface testing, but it is not clear if that was ever accomplished. A fifth site, the Alexander Hogan Plantation Site (31OR296), was identified during an archaeological survey of portions of Orange County conducted by I. Randolph Daniel in 1993 and 1994. This site contains the stone foundations of two large outbuildings and a large cemetery (or two associated cemeteries) consisting of small fieldstones, with some set within a small stone -lined enclosure and the remainder located to the north and outside of the enclosure (Daniel 1994:80). The graves are believed to be associated with the Alexander Hogan plantation, dating to the mid- to late -19t` century. Subsequent investigation identified two more stone foundations and chimney rubble associated with the main house (Daniel and Vujic 1995). The property was listed to the NRHP in March 1996. Site 31 OR520 is a small prehistoric lithic scatter identified during a Phase I archaeological survey for the proposed expansion of the Orange County Landfill (Joy and Becker 1999). The artifacts were found to be in a disturbed context and no further investigation was warranted. In 2000, TRC conducted a cultural resource survey for the Greene Tract, then slated for development by the Town of Chapel Hill Department of Solid Waste Management (Millis 2000). Two sites identified by that project are located within a one -mile radius of the proposed transfer station- 31OR522, a Late Archaic lithic scatter, and 31OR529, a prehistoric isolated lithic find. Both sites were determined ineligible for the NRHP. Site 31OR609 was identified during the 2007 survey for the proposed Orange County Animal Shelter conducted by ESI, Inc. (site form on file, NC Office of State Archaeology). The site consists of a single prehistoric lithic flake and has been determined ineligible for the NRHP. Table 1 Previously recorded archaeological sites within one mile of the project area. Site No Description NRHP Eligibility Reference 31OR185 Late Archaic short term habitation Eligible. Further work rec. McCabe et al. 1978 31OR186 prehistoric lithic scatter No farther work McCabe et al. 1978 31OR187 prehistoric lithic quarry/workshop No further work McCabe et al. 1978 31OR188 prehistoric lithic scatter No further work McCabe et al. 1978 31OR296 Alexander Hogan Plantation Site NRHP- listed Daniel 1994 31OR520 prehistoric lithic scatter No further work Joy and Becker 1999 31OR522 Late Archaic lithic scatter Ineligible Millis 2000 31OR529 prehistoric lithic isolated find Ineligible Millis 2000 31OR609 prehistoric lithic isolated find Ineligible ESI 2007 Historic Structures. The historic structure files at the SHPO's Survey and Planning Branch office list seven structures that lie within a 1 -mile radius of the proposed project area (Table 2), five of which were identified during a 1992 Chapel Hill Township Architectural Survey conducted by Kelly A. Lally and M. Ruth Little. Table 2. Previouslv recorded historic structures within one mile of the project area Site No Name Date NRHP Eligibility OR432 Blackwood Farm Post Office and General Store mid -19 century Unassessed OR433 Blackwood Grist Mill ca. 1910 Ineligible OR434 Sam and Laura Nunn House ca. 1905 Eligible OR489 Clyde Hogan House late 196i /early 206' century Unassessed OR490 John Kirkland House ca. 1860s Ineligible; destroyed OR1433 House ca. 1933 Unassessed OR1442 House ca. 1952 Unassessed Site OR432, the Blackwood Farm Post Office and General Store, is located on the west side of Mill House Road (SR 1725) approximately 0.6 mi (1.0 km) north of the project area, in the present Spence's Farm complex. The property consists of a one -room log house with detached log kitchens, a log barn and numerous frame outbuildings said to have been built by the Blackwood family; it is thought to have housed the original Blackwood post office and general store after the railroad came through the area. The NRHP eligibility of this property has not been assessed. The Blackwood Grist Mill site (OR433) is 0.18 mi (0.3 km) north of the project area, on the east side of Mill House Road (SR 1725). The building is a small frame structure with a stone basement, and was built by the Blackwood family for a grist mill. According to Lally and Little (1992), the structure was converted to a house in the 1950s and has consequently lost its architectural integrity; it is considered ineligible for the NRHP. The Sam and Laura Nunn House (OR434) is located 0.3 mi (0.5 km) southeast of the project area on the east side of Mill House Road (SR 1725). The house was built by Sam Nunn for his family ca. 1905. At the time of the 1992 survey, the Nunn house was one of two two -story log houses found in the area (Lally and Little 1992). According to records at the SHPO's Survey and Planning Branch, this property was determined eligible for the NRHP on June 6, 1993. The Clyde Hogan House (OR489) is located on the west side of SR 86, approximately 0.6 mi (1 km) to the northeast of the project area. According to Lally and Little (1992), the Hogan House complex contains a "somewhat remodeled late 19'h/early 20'b century I- house" with a log smokehouse, log corn crib, frame garage, and a vertical board frame building that "may have been a detached kitchen ... in the backyard." According to Orange County real estate data, the house dates to ca. 1892. The survey did not assess the NRHP eligibility of this property. The John Kirkland House (OR490) was located on the east side of SR 86 approximately 0.75 mi (1.2 km) to the northeast of the project area. In 1992, Lally and Little noted that this was an antebellum log house built by John Kirkland that was later expanded with an addition and new style roof. A board- and -batten smokehouse and stilted dairy sat in the yard. Survey maps at the SHPO Survey and Planning office note that this house has been destroyed, and online Orange County Land Records /GIS do not list a structure on this property. The John Kirkland House is considered destroyed and ineligible for the NRHP, although it is possible that significant archaeological remains are present on that property. The SHPO Survey and Planning office survey maps identify two other properties within a one -mile radius of the project area— OR1433 and OR1442. OR1433 is located at 6616 Mill House Road, approximately 0.3 mi (0.5 km) north of the project area. No survey information was found at the Survey and Planning office other than the survey map notation, although online Orange County Land Records /GIS show that the one -story frame dwelling at that address was constructed ca. 1933. The NRHP- eligibility of that property remains unassessed. OR1442 is located directly north of the project area at 6823 Mill House Road, and according to online Orange County Land Records /GIS is a small brick one -story bungalow type house dating to ca. 1952. The NRHP- eligibility of that property is also unassessed. Cemeteries. The North Carolina Cemetery Survey records at the North Carolina State Archives do not list any recorded cemeteries within the project tract. Similarly, an on -line database of Orange County cemeteries (htti): / /www.cemeterycensus.or /ng c /omWindex.htm) also fails to depict cemeteries on or adjacent to the property. A number of cemeteries do lie within a one -mile radius, however, including the John Freeland Family Cemetery and an unmarked cemetery on the former Kirkland property (located north of the John Kirkland House), and the fieldstone- marked cemetery at the Alexander Hogan Plantation site. 3 Historic Map and Aerial Photograph Review. The tract was likely part of a land parcel granted to John Patterson in the 1750s (Markham 1973), and was apparently part of the StrayhornBlackwood family plantation beginning in the late 18`h century. The Blackwood Farm, located 2.5 mi (4 km) to the north of the project area, was the original plantation home of the Strayhorns and much of the local area was owned by the Strayhorns and later, the Blackwoods. In particular, the Blackwood family appears to have owned much of the surrounding property (particularly to the north and east). The current project tract was sold by Eugene Blackwood to Francis Chan in 1979 (Orange County Deed Book 319:123), the grandson of Samuel D. Blackwood, owner of the Blackwood Farm (Pearce 2009:18). According to Pearce (2009:18), Eugene Blackwood had inherited much of the family lands from his father, Malcolm Eugene Blackwood. A series of historic maps dating from the late - eighteenth century into the twentieth century were consulted to determine potential historic structure locations on or adjacent to the property. None of the 18d' and most of the 19 century maps showed any detail of the project area, and the nearby Blackwood Mountain were not noted on any maps until the 1880s (see Collet 1770, Price and Strother 1808, McRae 1833, Kerr 1882, and Shaffer 1886). The earliest identified map showing detail of the project area is the 1891 township map of Orange County (Tate 1891) (Figure 2). Although roads, the railroad line, some property owners' names, and some commercial or industrial buildings are shown on this map, nothing is depicted within the vicinity of the project area.. The 1918 soil map of Orange County shows greater detail of the project area, and depicts an east -west road that ran just north of the project area —this road seems to correspond to the dirt access road across the northern property boundary seen today (Vanatta et al. 1921) (Figure 3). A structure is illustrated in the general vicinity, but may relate to the Blackwood Grist Mill located just north and east of the project tract. The 1938 North Carolina State Highway and Public Works Commission (NCSHPWC) map of Orange County shows major roads and buildings in the project vicinity (NCSHPWC 1938) (Figure 4), but is schematic in nature and does not provide a precise depiction of roads or buildings. Two buildings are illustrated on the west side of the railroad and Mill House Road in the general project vicinity, however. It is assumed that one of these represents the ca. 1933 house at 6616 Mill House Road (just to the north of the project area). It is unclear what the second building represents, but it seems likely that neither of the two depicted buildings was present on the project tract. This is confirmed by a subsequent USGS topographic map (USGS 1947), which also fails to depict a structure on the property (Figure 5). Aerial photographs dating from 1938 to present also were consulted. Photographs dated 1938, 1955, 1966, and 1972 show the current project tract under cultivation with no indications of any structures. Neither the 1947 or 1978 USGS maps (see Figures 1 and 5) show any structure on the property, but the 1981 photorevision of that map illustrates the house built on the property by Francis Chan, suggesting that it was built sometime between the late 1970s and 1981 (Chan had purchased the property from Eugene Blackwood in 1979 [Orange County Deed Book 319:123]). The remains of this building were examined during the visual survey of the property (see below). No other buildings appear on the project tract. In a 1993 aerial photograph of the property area, the house was in ruins and the surrounding land was becoming overgrown; that photograph also depicts a second structure on the property, which had apparently been moved there from another location (see below). By 1999, the entire tract had become covered with trees and vegetation and it remains this way today. The Rogers - Eubanks Community. In 2007, the Rogers - Eubanks Coalition was formed "to reverse the decision of the Orange County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) to place a regional solid waste transfer station (SWTS) in the Rogers - Eubanks community, to redress the injustices that affect the health and safety of residents in the neighborhoods which abut the Orange County Landfill, and to ensure that Rogers - Eubanks community residents and all North Carolinians have affordable access to safe drinking water, sanitary waste disposal, and safe communities" (Rogers- Eubanks Coalition 2009) The Rogers - Eubanks community is centered around the intersection of Eubanks and Rogers roads southwest of the studied tract. According to Pearce (2009), the Rogers - Eubanks community is a traditionally African- 4 American community dating back at least 150 years, and had its origins as a primarily agricultural community that was begun by former enslaved African- Americans on lands originally owned by former slave owners. A number of African- American owned farms were located in the area beginning in the late 1800s, including those of the Hogan, Nunn, and Caldwell families, and the community also contained a school and churches (Pearce 2009). As with any community, the precise boundaries of the Rogers - Eubanks community are subject to varied interpretations. The proposed project area lies well north of the "Rogers Road Historic Neighborhood Boundary Line as Suggested by the Small Area Task Force" as depicted by Pearce (2009:181), however (although it should be noted that that the nearby Nunn House is also located outside the boundaries as shown). The available data do not suggest that any structures associated with the Rogers - Eubanks community were formerly located on the property. Field Reconnaissance TRC conducted a limited field reconnaissance of the project tract on September 14, 2009. The tract is located north of the current Orange County Solid Waste facility and is moderately wooded (Figure 6). TRC staff walked the entire parcel searching for any evidence of past cultural activity, including locating structural remains, searching soils in treefalls and eroded areas for archaeological artifacts, and searching for any potential gravesites or former structure locations. The project tract contains a mixture of young pine and hardwood trees and secondary vegetation, consistent with its status as former agricultural fields. No evidence of a water source was identified, although the 1978 USGS map shows an intermittent stream just to the southwest of the property. No evidence of prehistoric artifacts or archaeological sites was observed, although no subsurface testing was conducted. The structural remains of the ca. 1980 Francis Chan house were identified in the northeastern part of the project tract. The remains of two sets of large masonry retaining walls and the masonry walls of the main structure were identified, as were piles of building debris (Figures 7 and 8). All observed structural elements are modern in age, and the remains clearly have no historical significance. A second structure is located approximately 160 in (525 ft) south of the Francis Chan house. This building appears to have been moved onto the property some time between ca. 1972 and 1993 based on aerial photographs and currently sits on modem concrete block piers. The structure is a one -story frame house with clapboard siding (attached with machine cut nails), and likely dates to the late 19th to early 20th century. A collapsed porch is present on the northern end (Figures 9 and 10), and the main structure is in poor condition. The main door faces to the north, while a second entry door is on the east side leading into the kitchen. The interior contains electrical fixtures and some fiirnishings, as well as piles of rotting drywall, insulation, and plaster. Electrical lines on the western side of the house have been disconnected and no evidence exists of the building having had electrical service at this site. A large stack of concrete blocks sits to the north of the building near the collapsed porch, and were most likely to be used to construct a foundation for the building. Although a formal structural evaluation was not conducted, due to poor condition and the fact that it has been moved to this site, this building is almost certainly ineligible for the NRHP. CONCLUSIONS The literature search has identified no previously recorded archaeological sites, historic structures, or cemeteries on or adjacent to the 10 -acre tract. Although the NRHP- listed Alexander Hogan Plantation Site (31OR296) is situated within a mile of the property, neither it nor any other known archaeological sites will be impacted by the project. The structural remains on the property are considered ineligible for the NRHP. A detailed assessment of the project's potential effect on the NRHP - eligible Nunn House (OR434) or other potentially significant historic structures in the vicinity is beyond the scope of this project, but given the overall project setting, with proper design the project is considered unlikely to adversely affect any such properties. Information on the potential for prehistoric sites on the property is provided by a predictive model created by I. Randolph Daniel (1994) as part of his archaeological survey of Orange County. In his work, Daniel (1994:93 -94) found that prehistoric archaeological sites in the New Hope Creek drainage are located primarily on terraces and ridges near fertile bottomlands along major tributaries. Daniel (1994:95 -96) created a predictive model of site distribution, and divided the county into three zones. Zone I represents areas of high probability for site occurrence, and includes all inhabitable parts of river floodplains and the bottomlands of major creek drainages as well as the adjacent terraces and ridges. Zone II (moderate probability) includes areas within 1 km of the main drainage channels, excluding bottomlands and the immediately bordering terraces and ridges. Zone III (low probability) includes upland areas not defined by Zone I and II (i.e. the remainder of the county). The current project tract falls along the boundary of Zone II and III, with New Hope Creek located 2 km north of the project tract, and the main channel of Old Field Creek approximately 0.6 km to the southeast. The field reconnaissance confirmed this general assessment of the property as having low- moderate potential for prehistoric archaeological sites. Although a shallow intermittent drainage appears to have formerly crossed the project tract, it was probably not a major focus for prehistoric populations. Consequently, is considered unlikely that significant prehistoric archaeological resources exist on the project tract. The available map and historic evidence provide no indications that structures were formerly present on the property. Although the tract was formerly part of the Blackwood family holdings, there are no indications that it was ever used for non - agricultural purposes. For those reasons, is considered unlikely that significant historic period archaeological sites, or historical resources associated with the Rogers - Eubanks Community, are present on the property. In summary, based on the available evidence it is TRC's opinion that development of this property is unlikely to impact any significant cultural resources. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (919) 530 -8446, or via email at holson(a-),tresolutions.com, if you would like additional information, or have any questions or comments about this report. Sincerely, )} Heather L. Olson, M.A., RPA Archaeologist rol REFERENCES Collet, Captain 1770 A Compleat Map of North Carolina from an actual survey. Plate VII in North Carolina in Maps, edited by W. P. Cumming, 1966. State Department of Archives and History, Raleigh. Daniel, I. Randolph 1994 An Archaeological Survey of Portions of Orange County, North Carolina. Research Report 12, Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Daniel, I. Randolph and Tatjana Vujic 1995 Alexander Hogan Plantation National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form. On file, North Carolina Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh. ESI, Inc. 2007 Site Form: 31OR609. On file, North Carolina Office of State Archaeology, Raleigh. Google Earth 2009 Location: 17 S673303.9 lm E 3983100.91 m N. Image 1993, U.S. Geologic Survey. Google Earth Mapping Service, copyright 2009 Tele Atlas. Joy, Deborah and Mark Becker 1999 Archaeological Survey Report, Proposed Orange County Landfill, Eubanks Road, Chapel Hill, Orange County, North Carolina. Prepared for Joyce Engineering, Inc., Greensboro, North Carolina. Prepared by Legacy Research Associates, Inc., Durham, North Carolina Kerr, W.C. 1882 Map of North Carolina. On file, North Carolina State Archives, Raleigh. Lally, Kelly A. and M. Ruth Little 1992 Chapel Hill Township Survey —Final Report. On file, North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, Raleigh. McCabe, J. Terrance, Thomas J. Hargrove, and Jerry L. Cross 1978 I -40 Extension: A Cultural Resource Reconnaissance Survey of the Proposed Interstate 40 Extension, Durham and Orange Counties, North Carolina. Prepared for the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh. Prepared by Archeology Branch, Archeology and Historic Preservation Section, Division of Archives and History, North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, Raleigh. Mac Rae, John 1933 A New Map of the State of North Carolina. John Mac Rae, Fayetteville, and H.S. Tanner, Philadelphia. Millis, Heather 2000 Cultural Resource Survey of the Greene Tract, Orange County, North Carolina. Prepared for the Town of Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Prepared by TRC Garrow Associates, Inc., Chapel Hill, North Carolina. North Carolina State Highway and Public Works Commission (NCSHPWC) 1938 Map of Orange County, North Carolina. North Carolina State Highway and Public Works Commission, Raleigh. Pearce, Emily Eidenier 2009 Rogers Road. Carolina Center for Public Service, University of North Carolina — Chapel Hill. Price, Jon and John Strother 1808 The First Actual Survey of the State of North Carolina. Plate IX in North Carolina in Maps, edited by W. P. Cumming, 1966. State Department of Archives and History, Raleigh. Rogers - Eubanks Coalition 2009 About the Coalition —Goals and Mission Statement. Electronic document, http•// rop,ersroad .wordoress.com/about/I accessed 15 September 2009. Shaffer, A.W. 1881 Shaffer's Township Map of North Carolina. On file, North Carolina State Archives, Raleigh. Tate, George W. 1891 Map of Orange County. On file, North Carolina State Archives, Raleigh United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1947 Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 1:62,500 scale. 1978 Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 1:24,000 scale. 7 Vanatta, E.S., L.L. Brinkley, and S.F. Davidson 1921 Soil survey of Orange County, North Carolina. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Figure 1. Location map for the proposed Orange County Solid Waste Transfer Station site. Urklan4 ET STOme lm� roj ec J. J. wltilfielrz J. KiAd 4nd S.H. COL ffO. 23 Aladrll C. TTF- # P. cut" Ici a fV'. -9. Loyds V,07,*6 ORANGE CHURCH TEAM SAW MILL & P3 In rORA NG, A(,C- C. Pendsr# $6 CEMETERY elkh Figure 2.The proposed Orange County Solid Waste Transfer Station site and vicinity as depicted in 1891. 10 w HOPE off. BETHANY CH Cow a WOOD I L RO ESON ILL lac4iWboo .0 MAR-- 1$ 3 C. jolk"m J C. Bobj roj ec J. J. wltilfielrz J. KiAd 4nd S.H. COL ffO. 23 Aladrll C. TTF- # P. cut" Ici a fV'. -9. Loyds V,07,*6 ORANGE CHURCH TEAM SAW MILL & P3 In rORA NG, A(,C- C. Pendsr# $6 CEMETERY elkh Figure 2.The proposed Orange County Solid Waste Transfer Station site and vicinity as depicted in 1891. 10 .I� SRID � 4 d ��,',.�Ys�y'.>- :.w^'iC�P°` � ��+c { kgy�' �� �� f ':' y✓ y� pay oyy WIN- wK AMEN J, JUN d> u a. '�' s'i `�, '� Fes„ Van � '`b t?,e �'*". °� :w-"m 1 s g' . � xN4� '�,,a�' t¢ f y� , 1 r t� ✓ P �"' w..�' d' i .� mss, t p� ��Pd �' #� ' t �yyYwll �. RAW a. 9 e z 1 i ONTO OR- J {� d nr '� �ta�teQ 12 in 1938. MGS 75:11in -r Qaadrang4Map CHAPEL hU L 1978 (phoromnrrd 1981) p vA bi e r p 4000 Noah ■ 11 J p Feet i Kilometer Figure 5. 1947 USGS topographic map showing the proposed Orange County Solid Waste 'lranster Station site. 13 Figure 6. The proposed Orange County Solid Waste Transfer Station site, view to south. 14 Figure 7. Ruins of Francis Chan house, view to north. Figure 8. Ruins of Francis Chan house, view to east/northeast. 15 Figure 9. Dilapidated house moved to southern portion of project tract, view to southwest. Figure 10. Dilapidated house moved to southern portion of project tract, view to west. 16 Threatened and Endangered Species Survey Orange Transfer Station Site -Mill House Road Paydarfar Site Orange County, North Carolina Prepared For: Olver Incorporated 1135 Kildaire Farm Road, Suite 200 Cary, North Carolina 27511 Prepared By: The Catena Group The Catena Group 410 -B Millstone Drive Hillsborough, North Carolina September 16, 2009 Timothy W. Savidge 1.0 INTRODUCTION The proposed Orange County Transfer Station Site -Mill House Road Paydarfar Site occurs on a 10 -acre parcel in east central Orange County (Figure 1). The subject property consists of secondary forest and planted loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) habitats, with an adjacent fallow field. Relatively open gaps in the forest canopy extend from the southeast corner of the property, extending to the northwest corner. As part of the environmental impact analysis, the Catena Group Inc. (TCG) was retained to conduct Threatened and Endangered species surveys on the property. 2.0 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES — ORANGE COUNTY The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service currently lists five federally protected species as occurring in Orange County, NC (Table 1) (hqp://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/couniyfr.html Table 1. Federally Protected Species in Orange County, North Carolina Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Record Status Vertebrate: Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus BGPA Current Red - cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered Historic Invertebrate: Dwarf wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered Current Vascular Plant: Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered Historic Smooth coneflower Echinacea laevigata Endangered Historic BGPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act TCG conducted a search for element occurrences on the property site via the NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) virtual workroom http://www.acI.org_/). No federally protected species were identified within two miles of the property. 3.0 SURVEY RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS A Threatened and Endangered species habitat determination was conducted at the proposed project location on September 14, 2009 by Tim Savidge and Mike Callahan. As there are no water features on the property, there is no potential habitat for dwarf wedgemussel and bald eagle. While there are a few large pine trees scattered throughout, the planted pine stand is less than 30 years of age and the property is not contiguous with any pine stands greater than 60 years of age. Therefore, it was determined that the site did not contain potential nesting or foraging habitat for the red - cockaded woodpecker. In addition, there are no known red - cockaded woodpecker colonies within the project vicinity, and there are no known active colonies in the County. Potentially suitable habitat is present for the smooth coneflower and Michaux's sumac in the form of forest canopy gaps and forest and field edges. These areas were thoroughly searched plant -by -plant and no individuals were located. Therefore, it is concluded that the project actions will have "No Effect" on any of the species listed for Orange County. Paydarfar T & E September 2009 TCG Job #3258 The Paydarfar Property Catena Site Location Group Orange County, North Carolina Paydarfar T & E TCG Job #3258 Date; Figure Scale, D 100 200 Feet i Job No.; 32§8 September 2009 All t mrca ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Current Planning (919) 245 -2575 (919) 644 -3002 (FAX) www.co.orange.nc.us 306F Revere Road P O Box 8181 Hillsborough, North Carolina, 27278 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ORDINANCE FINDING ON MILLHOUSE ROAD (AKA PAYDARFAR) SITE SOLID WASTE TRANSFER STATION APPLICATION: In accordance with the provisions of the Orange County Environmental Impact Ordinance (EIO) the following report details staff's review of an initial Environmental Assessment (EA) and the issuance of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the project, and associated material, as referenced herein. Introduction: Olver Incorporated (hereafter 'the consultant') submitted a project, on behalf of the Orange County Solid Waste Management department, relating to the possible development of a Solid Waste Transfer Station within Orange County on property owned by Orange County. As part of this project the consultant completed an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the site, in accordance with the provisions of the County EIO. The following review and assessment of the EA has been completed by Orange County Planning staff, in accordance with the provisions of the EIO. Millhouse Road (west side, formerly known as the Paydarfar Site) Solid Waste Transfer Station — Site Specifics: The property is comprised of 10 acres plus adjacent offsite access easements owned by Orange County and is contiguous to the Eubanks North landfill. The site is located off of Millhouse Road approximately Y2 mile north of Eubanks Road (see Exhibit A of EA). An existing easement on adjacent property owned by Orange County will provide access to the site. Surrounding property is owned by Orange County (68 acres to the north and west and 114 acres to the south [the closed portion of the landfill]) and the Town of Chapel Hill (4 acres to the east). The site is located in the vicinity of the Town Of Chapel Hill's Operations Center (see Attachment A). The site is under Orange County planning jurisdiction and is zoned Rural Buffer (RB). It is also designated as Rural Buffer on the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Map. The site is located contiguous to the Chapel Hill Transition Area, as defined in the Joint Planning Land Use Plan. The site is not located within a water /sewer service area, as denoted on the Water Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement ( WSMPBA). However, it is located immediately adjacent to the service area boundary. The site may be served via a private ground absorption septic system and individual well reviewed and approved by the Orange County Health Department. If all parties to the WSMPBA agree that the use is an "essential public facility" the site could have public water and sewer service by OWASA. (Please refer to Attachment B for a copy of the Water Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement Map). In accordance with the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, specifically Section 4.3 Table of Permitted Uses, staff has determined that a Solid Waste Transfer Station, in this specific case, represents a governmental facilities and office buildings which is listed as a use permitted by right within the RB zoning district. In order for a Solid Waste Transfer Station to be developed on the property, the project will have to go through the administrative site plan review /approval process detailed within Article 14 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. Based on existing mapping data, as well as field observations completed by the County Erosion Control (EC) staff during an inspection occurring in August of 2009, no water features were identified on the site (see Appendix A of EA). Additionally, no jurisdictional wetlands or streams under Section 404 of the -Clean Water Act were found on the site (see Appendix B of EA). A cultural resources literature review and field reconnaissance was also completed for the site by TRE, a subcontractor of Olver. The literature search identified no previously recorded archaeological sites, historic structures, or cemeteries on or adjacent to the site. The field reconnaissance revealed the structural remains of the ca. 1980 Francis Chan house (no historical significance) and a second structure in poor condition that had been moved to the property sometime between ca. 1972 and 1993. The structure is "almost certainly ineligible for the NRHP" (National Register of Historic Places). (See Appendix C of EA). Additionally, a Threatened and Endangered Species Survey (contained in Appendix D of the EA) concluded that the project is expected to have "No Effect" on any threatened or endangered species. K Environmental Assessment: In September 2009, staff was presented with a rough concept plan detailing the possible development of a Solid Waste Transfer Station on the site. The concept plan indicated that there would be approximately ten (10) acres of land disturbing activity associated with the project, including the proposed access road off of Millhouse Road. After review of the concept plan, and the various provisions of the EIO, staff concluded that: 1. The proposed development project is not listed as being exempt from the preparation of an EA, 2. The proposed land disturbing activities are over the 40,000 square foot threshold detailed within Section 2.2.3 of the DO requiring the submission and completion of an EA, and 3. The project is proposed on a parcel(s) of property over two (2) acres in area. For these reasons, staff required the completion of an EA as a prerequisite step to a future formal site plan application submission and review process. The EA application for the site, completed by the consultant and their sub - consultants, was prepared in accordance with the Orange County EIO and followed the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) application guidelines to provide staff additional information regarding environmental impacts of the project. Other than the 40,000 square feet triggering mechanism, there are no other criteria in the Orange County EIO that would require preparation of an EA. Furthermore, the project as proposed would not require an EA under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) because the anticipated amount of waste to be handled is less than 350 tons per day. The scope of the EA prepared by the consultant exceeds that which would be necessary in order to meet normal EA criteria application requirements. This enhanced EA assessment was created to address a higher level of detail requested by the Board of County Commissioners as part of the review of this site (please refer to Attachment C for a table breaking down the various EA review requirements). Environmental Assessment — Clearinghouse Review Process: On October 2, 2009 planning staff prepared a memo to the State Clearinghouse requesting that the project be entered into the State Environmental Review Clearinghouse for publication (i.e. public notification) and distribution to various State agencies in order to solicit their informal review and comment since an EA does not 3 require State review. However, to collect the best amount of review and comment at this stage of the project, staff sent the EA through the Clearinghouse process. The consultant hand delivered the materials to the Clearinghouse in Raleigh on October 2, 2009. The project was assigned State Application Number 10 -E- 0000 -0124 and was published on October 9, 2009. During the 30 -day review State agencies submitted their comments to the coordinator. The review period closed on November 9, 2009. Staff received comments back from the Clearinghouse on November 16, 2009. Following is a summary of the various comments relating to the development of the site received as part of the EA review process: Agency /Staff Respondent: Comment(s): North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Environmental Review Coordinator Cover letter only. Melba McGee North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Heritage Program has no record of significant Harry LeGrand natural communities, significant natural heritage areas, or conservation /managed areas in the project area. NCDENR Division of Waste Management Dexter Matthews, Director East Regional Compliance Branch A Solid Waste Management Facility permit Ted Cashion, Supervisor from the Division's Solid Waste Section must be secured. The Hazardous Waste Section has no objection to the proposed project. Superfund Section Recommends that any well be installed in the S. Franch, Environmental Chemist northern one third of the parcel in order to comply with the 500 -foot distance requirement from landfills. 4 Solid Waste Section Acknowledges the following areas of potential Jason Watkins, Central District Supervisor concern: • The proposed Transfer Station facility is adjacent to the closed Orange County C &D landfill which has shown exceedances of the 2L groundwater standards in its monitoring system. If the proposed facility were to utilize the existing potable well on the property regularly, it could potentially cause the contamination plume to migrate (be pulled) towards the proposed facility. • The proposed facility location is in close proximity to the Rogers Road community that has raised concerns about the placement of any future Solid Waste facilities in this area. Shawn McKee Monitoring wells at the closed unlined Compliance Officer Orange County C &D landfill have shown constituents above the NC2L standards for inorganics (may be naturally occurring). Chris Marriott The increased water from an on -site well Environmental Senior Specialist may change regional groundwater conditions by creating a cone of depression and drawing water mounded in the water mass towards the property line between the landfill and transfer station. • The Rogers Road community (approx. 0.5 miles away) has been very vocal of the existing adjacent MSW landfill. NCDENR Division of Environmental Health Public Water Supply Section What is the projected on -site visits that will be Michael Douglas, Regional Supervisor able to access the drinking water? Public Water Supply Section Raleigh Regional Office Completed checklist. Jim McRight North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Piedmont Region Coordinator Okay with proposal and provides three Habitat Conservation Program recommendations to further minimize impacts Shari L. Bryant to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources. • New developments exceeding 10% imperviousness should include stormwater controls designed to replicate and maintain hydrographic condition at the site prior to change in landscape. • Use landscaping that consists of non- invasive native species and Low Impact Development (LID) technology. Using native species instead of ornamentals should provide benefits by reducing the need for water, fertilizers, and pesticides. Using LID technology in landscaping will not only help maintain the predevelopment hydrologic regime, but also enhance the aesthetic and habitat value of the site. • Sediment and erosion control measures should be installed prior to any land clearing or construction. These measures should be routinely inspected and properly maintained. Excessive silt and sediment loads can have numerous detrimental effects on aquatic resources including destruction of spawning habitat, suffocation of eggs, and clogging of gills of aquatic species. Other Agencies Triangle J COG No comment Clearinghouse Coordinator Lana Hygh North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office No comment Clearinghouse Coordinator Renee Gledhill — Earley NC Crime Control & Public Safety — Division of Environmental Management — No comment Floodplain Mapping Program Clearinghouse Coordinator NC Department of Transportation No comment Clearinghouse Coordinator Please refer to Attachment D for all detailed comments received concerning the review of the EA. Staff Assessment: Staff did not receive comments from various State or local agencies indicating that the project should not move forward or indicating any irreparable environmental harm as the result of the proposed development. None of the agencies recommended any changes to the project other than recommending that any water supply well be located in the northern one third of the parcel, recognizing the concerns of the Rogers Road community, recognizing the NC21- groundwater monitoring results at the landfill, requesting that consideration be given to using native species landscape varieties and Low Impact Design technologies, and commenting on stormwater controls. These ideas will be incorporated into the site plan if the site is chosen. After reviewing all submitted comments, and reviewing the EA prepared by Olver Incorporated, the Orange County Planning Department hereby makes a FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT in accordance with the provisions of the EIO for the aforementioned project based on the following: 1. Staff has not received any comment indicating that there will be significant environmental harm to the site or surrounding property if developed as proposed. 2. The site can be developed to minimize environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable. 7 3. According to the information staff has available, at the writing of this document, there are no regulatory compliance issues with the project as currently proposed. 4. The project does not meet the criteria within the Orange County EIO for the completion of an Environmental Impact Statement. 5. Staff has determined that the project is consistent with the provisions of the EIO. As a result of this finding, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) shall not be required. EA Review /Report Completed by: Perdita Hol t Planner III Sufficiency Review Completed By: Craig Benedict, AICP Planning Director — Orange County Date: 0 Z ?/2; � V / EDUC ALDO FR ATIONA! ASSOCIATION _(21 Acres) Solid Waste Transfer Station Option C wwwwww� Mi► ►house Road s Area THE WALOORF EDUCATIONAL ASSOCI res1pN ORANG .JU1411r% C NG BLAC pA10 eras) P Witter ames ° �. Streaft, ME P" CHq EL HILL f2 Acres) THE WALDO FR EDUCATIONAL A35Acres)ON CHA EL. HILL (1t) Acres) TOWN 0 F CIIAPEL HILL (11 Acres) TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL (17 Acres) Attache yj FROM ¢4��1 � �•p Y 9 G €�� 5.44 ' . art, �, qq . Environmental Assessment and ATTACHMENT C Environmental Impact Statement Requirements Environmental Assessment (Orange County Application Requirements) Environmental Assessment (State Application Requirements) Orange County Enhanced Environmental Impact Statement (Orange County Requirements) (Site Plan Per Article 14) Impetus for Study: Impetus for Study: Impetus for Study: Required if any of the following apply to Required if a transfer station is proposed to Required if any one of the Environmental Impact the site: handle 350 tons, ormore, of waste per day. Statement (EIS) trigger criteria (e.g. mining, This project is proposed to handle 250 tons hazardous materials, state or federal EIS required) 1. It is a small or large generator of per day so neither a SEPA Environmental are present and/or if planning staff determines that hazardous waste. Assessment nor a SEPA Environmental the applicant has not adequately addressed 2. Uses in a commercial or industrial Impact Statement is required. The applicant significant issues in the EA that are required to be operation more than 10,000 gallons of followed the State format in order to provide addressed per the Orange County Environmental water /day. adequate information on the project that Impact Ordinance. 3. Require grading of more than 40,000 would allow Orange County staff to perform a square feet, exclusive of roads, for more detailed EA analysis. non - residential... development. (This is the triggering item for EA review) Potential new information could activate the 4. Require grading of more than 40,000 need for additional information to be square feet, exclusive of roads, for non- submitted for either the EA Enhanced or the residential components of residential EIS. development. 5. Any stat permit as listed below and/or: a. State or Federal requirement to file an SEPA or NEPA document. b. Property located in a state- classified water supply watershed c. Slopes in excess of 25% outside of easement or stream buffers. Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Statement Requirements Environmental Assessment (Orange County Application Requirements) Environmental Assessment (State Application Requirements) Orange County Enhanced Environmental Impact Statement (Orange County Requirements) Site Plan per Article 14 Application Requirements: Application Requirements: Application Reguirements: Application form showing: Application form showing: Purpose Statement of the EIS 1) project name, 1) project name, Content: 2) applicant's name, address and 2) applicant's name, address and contact 1) Cover Sheet with designation of draft contact information, information, document 3) property location and acreage, 3) property location and acreage, 2) Title of activity 4) zoning district of site, 4) zoning district of site, 3) List any involved cooperating entities 5) adjacent properties with land uses, 5) adjacent properties with land uses, 4) Name, address and contact information of tax parcel data with map. 6) tax parcel data with map. person who can supply further information Basic Plan information includes: Additional Application Requirements Additional Application Requirements 1) zoning and use of adjacent property, - Purpose and need for project - Summary of activities 2) topography, - Conceptual Site Plan with grading limits - Completed EA document 3) drainage, and building outline and parking - Alternatives including proposed activity. 4) watershed information such as - Alternatives Analysis streams, floodplains and wetlands, -Site Selection Process that was used. 1. Explore & evaluate all reasonable 5) limits of grading alternatives. 6) outline of structures 2. Discuss reasons for the elimination of 7) any cultural or archeological sites, if alternatives from detailed study. any, located within boundaries of the 3. Include appropriate mitigation measures not site. already included in the alternatives. 4. Describe the environment of the area to be affected and the environment to be crated by the alternatives under consideration. Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Statement Requirements Environmental Assessment (Orange County Application Requirements) Environmental Assessment (State Application Requirements) Orange County Enhanced Environmental Impact Statement (Orange County Requirements) Site Plan per Article 14 CONTINUED: CONTINUED: CONTINUED: Additional application requirements Additional Application Requirements 5. Describe environmental consequences, such as (a) direct effects, indirect effects and 1) Project description, Existing Environmental Characteristics of possible conflicts between the proposed 2) Number of lots Project Area activities and the objectives of federal, state, 3) Structures proposed / existing 1. Topography and local plans policies and controls for the 4) Square feet of graded areas for 2. Soils affected area. structures and parking, 3. Land Use 6. List the names and qualifications of the 5) Area of grading for access roads, 4. Wetlands persons responsible for preparation of the 6) Type of road (public or private), 5. Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands EIS. 7) Length of road, 6. Public Lands & Scenic, Recreational and 7. Appendix shall meet the following 8) Hours of operation for non - residential State Areas. requirements: use(s). 7. Areas of Archaeological or Historic Value a) consist of materials substantiating any 8. Air Quality analysis fundamental to the principal 9. Noise Levels document, as distinct from material of 10. Water Resources lesser significance that may accompany a. Groundwater the document or be incorporated by b. Surface Water reference; 11. Forest Resources b) normally be analytic and relevant to the 12. Shellfish or Fish and Habitats decision to be made; 13. Wildlife and Natural Vegetation c) shall not be counted in the EIS 50 page 14. Environmental Justice limit; and d) be circulated with the EIS or be readily available upon request. Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Statement Requirements Environmental Assessment (Orange County Application Requirements) Environmental Assessment (State Application Requirements) Orange County Enhanced Environmental Impact Statement (Orange County Requirements) Site Plan per Article 14 Ouestions that have to be asked: Ouestions that have to be asked: Ouestions that have to be asked: Are any of the following state permits Predicted Environmental Effects of Project All of the questions /issues identified for a normal required? for each of the following: EA and a State EA have to be addressed. 1. Mining of Earth Products 2. Generation of hazardous or toxic 1. Topography wastes 2. Soils 3. Land application for treatment of 3. Land Use wastewater 4. Wetlands 4. Septic Tank designed to exceed 3000 5. Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands gallons per day 6. Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, 5. Sludge disposal proposed and State Natural Areas 6. Water usage for various activities 7. Areas of Archaeological or Historical (drinking, process use, discharges, Value reclamation, and sources) 8. Air Quality 9. Noise Levels 10. Water Resources a. Groundwater Resources b. Surface Water Resources 11. Forest Resources 12. Shellfish or Fish and Habitats 13. Wildlife and Natural Vegetation 14. Environmental Justice 15. Introduction of Toxic Substances Mitigation Measures, if any are required or needed shall be proposed. Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Statement Requirements Environmental Assessment (Orange County Application Requirements) Environmental Assessment (State Application Requirements) Orange County Enhanced Environmental Impact Statement (Orange County Requirements) Site Plan per Article 14 DECISION PROCESS DECISION PROCESS DECISION PROCESS Planning Staff decision of either a: Planning Staff decision of either: Submittal of EIS requires the following 1) Finding of No Significant Impact 1) Finding of No Significant Impact Staff forwards the submitted EIS document to the (FONSI), or (FONSI), or State Clearinghouse for a 45 -day review period to 2) Finding of Significant Impact (FOSI), 2) Finding of Significant Impact (FOSI), receive state agency comments. which requires the submittal of an EIS which requires the submittal of an EIS document. document. A newspaper advertisement shall be published in a paper of general circulation informing the public that a 15 -day review period on the EIS is open and comments may be submitted to the Planning Offices. After the 15 -day review period closes a Public Hearing shall be held by the BOCC. At the Public Hearing the BOCC receives the EIS report. No decision is necessary. The report is only used to determine if the project / plan properly addresses environmental concerns. ATTACHMENT D North Carolina Department of Administration Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor Britt Cobb, Secretary November 16, 2009 Ms. Perdita Holtz Orange County Orange Co. Planning & Inspections Dept. P.O. Box 8181 Iiillsborough, NC 27278 Re: SCH File # 10 -E- 0000 -0124; FA; Orange County Transfer Station entails of an enclosed metal building 160 feet by 160 feet and scale house 20 feet by 20 feet which will sit on a 10 acre parcel of land in the central part of Orange county Dear Ms. Holtz: The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse under the provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act. Attached to this letter for your consideration are the comments made by agencies in the course of this review. If any further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to this office for intergovernmental review. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, 64� Valerie W. McMillan, Director State Environmental Review Clearinghouse !Attachments cc: Region J Mailing Address: Telephone: (919)807 -242S Lucalroa Address: 1301 Mail Service Center Fae (919)733 -9571 116 West Junes Street Raleigh. NC 27699 -1301 State Courier #51 -01 -00 Raleigh. North Carolina e- tread valerie .w.ntcnnillan(i�)doa. tic. go At, !squat! opportunity :Q(jirtrtative Action h.'n1p1n3vr 11/16/2009 01:57 9197153060 NCDENR PAGE 01/14 WM'r`�WR North Carofina Department of Flnvironxnelnt and Natural Resources Beverly Eavnc Perdue Dee Freetnan Governor Secretary M73MOPAr1DUM TO: FROM: RE! DATIC: PasWC Fax Note 7871 DM 111104 1 @1110- 14 To YALAR11Z IdLt4WA Frft %La M AraoL- CO. Phan !1 Phone if Fax V FAX Y Valerie McMillan state Clear in8h se Melba McGee Rnviror►menta Review Coordinator 10 -0124 BA for orange County Transfer Station - Paydarfar Site November 10, 2009 The Department of EciviY011%4Kfttr and Natural Resources has reviewed the propa®ed information. The attached comments should be provided to the applicant for consideration and addressed prior to finalizing project plans. Thank you for the opportunity to review. Attachments 1601 Mal 3ervic a Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 276" -1$01 �Carolin$ Phone: 919.73964WK I FAX: 919. 715.3080 Intemet: www.ennstete.ne.us An Equal Oppodunily 1 Onn.uv. Ac"n Employs _ So% "qd 110% Pan eunau ner Papor Aftralill 11/1612689 01:57 9197153060 NCDENR PAGE 62/14 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission U Gordon Myers, Executive Director MEMORANDUM TO: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator Office of Logislativc and itltMgovernmental Affairs FROM: Shari L. Bryant, Piedmont Region Coordinator Habitat Conservation Program DATE: 22 October 2009 SUBJECT: Eanvirtmmontal Assessment for Orange County Tran3her Station — Paydarfar Sitc, Orange County, North Carolina, DENR Project No. 10 -0 124. Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have roviowad the subject doeutnetit and we am > atxtfliar v*b the habitat values of the area. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fiab and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), and North Carolina General Sttrtutes (G.S. 113.131 of seq.). Orange County proposes to construct a transfIer station on a 10 scro site. The proposed project includes eoutstmction of tat enelapa&metal building, equipment storage area, parking spaces, and ,roads. The facility will accept only solid waste generated by households, institutions, commercial and some industrial bttsinesse s. The purpose of the project is to provide a facility to collect the County's solid waste. The waste will be transported to a landfill facility outside of the County. The site drains to Old Field Creek, a tributary to New Hoot Ctrrok in the B.E. Jordan Reservoir watershed of the Cape Fear River-basin. Thera are records for the federal species of ooneem and state endangered brook floater (Alaamidonla vari'coso) and Carolina creokshcll (Vitllaea vautghantana); the :state threatened creeper (Stmphitus lmdalOW); the slate spacial eone to notched rainbow (Villosa considers); and the state significantly rare chameleon lampmtrssel (Lampsikir sp.) and Eastern cteekshell (Villosu delumbis) in Now Hope: Ctook. B.B. Jordan Resarvoir supports a diverse fishery including largemouth bays (Micmpterus salrnoldes), crappie (POMOXIs spp.), sunt'ish (Lepomix spp.), catfish (ICrerlyrw,a Opp) and striped bass (Morons sans dhr). In addition, theca are two Significant Natural Heritage Areas located near the proposed p mject site — Blackwood Mountain and Henry J. Ooisting N*WW Am. The applicant indicates there are no streams, wetlands, or 100 -year floodplains on the site. A stormwater management plan will be developed for construction end operation of the facility. The wash - down systems will be designed to contain and store all wash wagers resulting from station operation. Wastowatar will be recycled on site and'the residue hauled off -sift for disposal. No wash -down wager will be discharged on site. No long term storage of waste or other materials is proposed. Mailing Address: Division of inland Fisheries - 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699_1721 Telephone: (919) 707 -0220 - Fax: (919) 707 -0028 11/16/2009 81:57 9197153860 NCDENR PAGE 03/14 Page 2 22 October 2009 EA Tranelar Station Project No. 10.01x4 We offer the following recommendations to minimize impacts to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources. 1. New developments meeding 10% imperviousness should include stormwater controls designed to replicato and maintain the hydrographic cendition at the site prior tq the change in landscape. 2. Uso landscaping that consists of non- invasive native species and Low Impact Development (LID) technology. Using native species instead of ornamentala should provide bctitftts by reducing the Hoed for water, fertilisers, and pesticides. Using LID technology in landscaping will not only help maintain the predeveiopment hydrologic regime, but also enhance the aesthetic and habitat value of the site. 3. Sediti1ent and erosion controls measures should be installed prior to any laud clearing or construction_ These measures should be routinely inspected and properly maintained. Excessive silt and sediment loads can have numerous detrimental effects on aquatic resm. ces WhIding destruction of spawning habitat, sufft=don of eggs, and clogging of gills of aquatic species. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further avdatance, please contact our office at (336) 444 -7625. 11/1612009 01:57 9197153060 NCDENR PAGE 04114 Beverly Eaves Perdue Govemor *.rrr�� 04COMR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources November 4, 2009 A MOIANDUM TO: Melba McGee, DENR, Environmental Coordinator FROM: Harry LeGrandd. Natural Heritage Program SUBJECT: EA — Orange Coutity Solid Waste Transfer Station; Orange County REFERENCE: 10 -4124 Dee Freeman Secretary The Natural Heritage Program has no record of significant natural commtmitie4i sigoifimt natural heritap areas, or conservation/managed areas at the site nor within 03-mile ofthe project arcs, other than the fact that the project sito is located on Orange County -owned land. known as Miilhouse Road Park. According to Exhibit 1-1 in the EA, this portions of this tract will be a proposed soccer park, as opposed to a "nature preserve" type of park. There are several natural areas and conservation areas, owned by Duke University, about 0.3 to 0.4 mile west of the project site, as shown on Exhibit 14. of the EA.. These features — Blackwood Mountain and Duke Forest Post OakBlackjack Oak Site, both RegWterod Natural Heritage Areas within.Duke Forest — are not expected to be impacted by this project. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 919- 715 -8697 if you have questions or need further information. 1601 Mail Service linter, PAW9h, Nonh Cardin 27689.1601 Phone: 919 rM -4041 FAX: 919.7f 8 WO Internet: www.enr.sme.ntus NV,—IzzfW0,rIL M lqud 0" t mn 1 A*ffmh- Ad M flmaa?Nr— N% Reoy W j 10% Post Co WO* pAW 11/16/2009 01:57 9197153060 NCDENR PACE 05/14 Bevedy Eaves Perdue Governor . . k M MWA North Carolina Department of Environment Divislon of Waste ManaW Dexter R. MaMews Director October 12, 2009 To: Dexter Maiihows, Director Division of Waste Management From: Ted Cashion. Supervisor Rastern Region coatpilame ar moh Ric: * RCRA commorM ott the 00e500 Ot+anga Q9"lY Ttsnafhr Station Project 0 10-0124 'rhe Hazardous Waste Section has mviewerl the subject project. Orange County pl h utskr station will comist of an enclosed motel building (160 fret by 160 feet) tint a 10 acre parcel of land in central Orange County. The property would inciudc a with seals house, associated access roads. and parking ar4rd. The trwwftr station shall only accopt solid waste that is generated by ha establishments from within orange County. Explosives, pathological and acceptable wastes For processing at tits facility. Orange County will need to aacure a Solid Walk Manapinc it raeility permit f vm Solid waste appears to be the most likely waste to be generated in constn construction, rebuilding, or demolition of structures occurs, the waste that Is County must determine if the waste is a hazardous waste. The County is reminded that if the County getiontles >220 pounds of hazardous Scotian (HWS) must be noted, and the County must comply with tits small quart > 2200 pounds of hazardous waste in a calendar month, the HW9 must be noti quantity gencratpr requirements. The lfaxardous Waste Section has no objection to the proposed project. Should any questions anise, please contact me at 919 -508 -8557. r 4 tM6 Mali 34MM Canter, Ralelgb North Carslna 27680.1845 Rww 9194"001 FAX 918415 40611 I mornal: wwwmaslanahtc.org Natural Resources Dee Freeman Secretary to coneeuct a soitd waste transfer station. The sio house (20 fact by 20 fist), which will sit Oil Ay, 250 ton per day solid waste transfer station instkulions, commercial, and some industrial I wastes, and other hazardous wastes are not Division's Solid Wasit Suction, this project. The County is reminded that if trod will most likely be a solid waste, and the e in a calendar month, the Hazardous Waste nwralgr requirements, Ifthe County generates and the County must comply with the large N�`� Calo�'na �►taturat��/ �r 11/16/2009 01:57 9197159060 NCDENR PAGE 06/14 . maM��a NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment pnd Natural Resources, Dexter Matthews, Director MISMORANDUM TO: Division of Wash October 27, 2009 Do ter R, Matthews, Director Divisiotl of Waft Management THROUGH: Jim 8ateson, He t E}18 Superfund S ore FROM: S. rranc h, Envi ental Ci Superfund Section lid Z SUBJECT: Orange County Solid Waste I have completed the review of the attached infon the proximity to CERCLIS or inactive basardous waste s involves•the construction of a solid waste transfer station building and a scale house on a lNecre pared off of Mill Eubanks Road intersection. The project is adjacent to the landfilt whose construction and demolition sector is local southern perimeter. A well and septic system will be ins Initially, four hazardinrs waste sites were identified to be project. These sites are described below and are denoted The Orange County Regional Landfill Site (NCI to the southern border of this project parcel is in the proct supervision of the NC Solid Waste Section. Groundwatei activities at the Regional Landfill are focused on releases northeast and dowhgradierit from the closed unlined lands northern part of the facility, north of Eubanks Road. The sector has two monitoring wells near the project's souther failed to detect any constituents in these two wells throug However, a well further south in this landfill revealed ele, volatile organic solvents. The proposed project is located tk groundwater flow at the Landfill Site Beverly haves Perdue, Governor Dee Freeman, Secretary and Removal Branch Station cation on the subject project for es. The subject project hat includes a warehouse iouse Rd, just north of the Change County Eubanks :d alongside the project's tiled to serve this facility. within a four -mile radius of the n the attached map. 186 171 106), located adjacent os of remediation untler the assessment and ten nediation )f organic compounds detected 11, which is located in the :onstmetion and demolition t border. Analytical results out the years or monitoring. ated, but sub -2L, levels of hydraulically cross - gradient to Although construction of the proposed transfer station does not. require a permit from the Solid Waste Section of the Division of Want Management, Solid Waste Management regulations require that landfills cannot be located closer than SOD feet to groundwater supply wells. The plans submitted indicate that a water supply well may be 1646 Mail Gervice Center, Raleigh, NOdl11 Carolina 27699.1646 Phone: 919 -SM -84001 FAX: 919- 715.40611 Internet: www,wastenotnc. An 10W V) Arr'r M1k8 AWN Employe • 50% PftK ed 110 % Pwt Canmmrer Pepw Noe Carolina ll�`ll1'l7�'t�' 11/16/2009 01:57 9197153060 NGDENR PAX 07/14 I installed. It is recommended that any well be installed in the northern one third of the parcel its order to- comply with this 500 -foot distancc requirement. The applicant may also want to determine whether there is any Brisk of pumping groundwptear potentially impacted by the nearby landfill units, oven at locations gtcater than 500 feet from the waste. C Both the University of NC Airport Road/ Old Sani tary Landfill Site (NCD 980 557 615) and the University of NC/Airport Waste Disposal A =a Site (NCD 980 557 623) have been removed from the CERCLIS List. The former is on the NC !inactive hazardous Sites Branch (IHSB) Priority List. The latter is undergoing remediation under the IHSB Registered Environmental Consultant Program. I13oth of these sites are located about 2.5 miles southeast of the project. The UNC- Chapel Hill -Estes Drive Site (NCI 982 093 783), located about 2.8 miles soutbeast of the project is undcrgoing remediation - under the supervision of the NC'Hamrdous Waste Sectionl(sitc has been dcferred from CERCLA). No action has been taken by the .IHSB with regards to this site and the Orange County Regional Landfill Site. After mvicwing the file information, ! b0ove it is ikely that the project will affect the above four sites, with caveats on the Orange County Regional Landfill Site, w stated above. If you have any questions, please call me at (919) 508 -8455. Attachments cc: Jim Batcson Ervin Lane, solid Waste Section 1 i I i i I . . . . . . . . . . ! Ar lit V11-7 IVOR, Wal 11/16/2009 01:57 9197153060 IODENR PAGE 09/14 WDEELMOR North Carolina Department of Environment Dexter Hews. Director nhtlsloe of Waste Menem Solid Waste &wtlon Whdon-Seiern ReglorW t MEMORANDUM TO: Dexter Matthews, Director - Division of Waste FROM: Jason Watkins, Central District Supervisor, Solid DATE: October 19, 2049 SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment — Orange County Trau The Solid Waste Section has reviewed the Environmental Asses; has seen no major immediate ixnpacts from thiA project. The Set potential concern: Natural Resources emriy Eaves Perdue, Gmrnor Dee Fmwmn, Secretary Section Station Orange County Transfer Station and oes acknowledge the following'areas of 1. The proposed Tiansfer Station facility is adjacent to the clos&d Orange County C &D landfill which has shown exceedances of the 2L groundwater standards in its monitoring system If the proposed facility were to utilize the existing potable well on the property regularly, it could potentially cause the contamination plume to migrate (be pulled) towards the prop?sod facility. 2. The proposed facility location is in close proximity to the Rogers Road community that has rained concerns about the,placement of any futum Solid Waste facilities in this area, Orange County should make every feasible effort to minimize the get emtion of waste, to recycle materials for which viable markets exist, and to use recycled products and materials in the development of this project where suitable. Any waste generated by this project that cannot be bencfic' all y reused or recycled must be disposed of at a solid waste management facility permitted by the Di Vision. e nearest permitted facility to the prcljcet is the Orange County C&D Landfill (permit 68-04). Questions regarding solid waste management should be directed to Specialist, Solid Waste Section, at (3367 771 -5090. cc; Chris Marriott Holly Murray Shaven McKee 585 Wauphtown Street, Winston - Salem, NO 27107 Phone: 330. 771.50001 FAX: 338. 77148311 lnten*: www.wast stn r ,d CPPOnutd� I Aairn�lirr AcGop • 0 % ftcr W 110 % P=CaMM Psp& Chris Marriott, f..nvironmental Senior None Carolina a A(Aily 11/16/2009 01:57 9197153060 NCDEhR PAGE 10/14 NCDEW North Carolina Department of Environme Dexter R. Matthew9, Director Division of Waste Managerr October 13, 2009 M�ND=U, j+1 TO: Christopher Marriott, Environmental Senior Specialist FROM: Shawn McKee, Compliance Officer SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment — Orange County Natural Resources Iftbon severy EIM tea, Gawemor Dee f=reeman, 9ectatagt Please review the attached information for the Environmental Assessment — Orange County Transfer Station. Fill in the information below and either send or fax this page to me. Please feel fret to comment on any Issues mentioned or not mentioned relating to Solid Waste. Me+ feel free to attach additional sheets if necessary. If you have questions or, need more Information, call me at the Raleigh Central Office (919) 508- 8512. Thank you. I Do you know of any existing cWitidns in the community, whic project? Proposed facility is adjacent to dosed unlined Grange Co. C.&D constituents above the NC2L standards for inorganics (may be use from an on -site well may change regional groundwater cor and drawing water mounded in the waste mass towards the pi station. have an adverse impact on this dfili. Monitoring wells have shows► orally occurring). The increased water Ions, by creating a cone of depression :rty line bewmen the landfill and transfer 2: Do you know of any adverse Impacts this project would have or' r. ithe community? The Rogers Rd community (approx. 0.5 miles away) has been very vocal of the existtng adjacent MSW landfill. 3. Please list the nearest waste management facility (or facilities) permitted to accept waste from this project. The adjacent Orange County CHAD Iandfil (68-D4) (entrance located on Eubanks Rd.) would accept waste from tyre project during construction. Once the facility is opened, It will be able to Incorporate any waste generated into the workload of wash being transferred. 1 1846 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Canilina 27698.1546 Phone: 919 - 508.84001 FAK 919.73348101 Internk htipllwastenoiri6 rg . An 8041 OPOMMb t ApMMOM Add IMPIOW- P►BMItl 04 001 PU" ROMM PIW 11/16/2009 01:57 9197153060 NCDENR DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH InterAgenay Project Review Response Project Name 4VAge Conatti-Board of Type of Project Commissioners. Comments provided by: ❑ Regional Program Person 0 Regional Supervisor for Public Water Supply Section ❑ Central Office program person PACE 11/14 OCT 09 Project Number 10.0124 County orange EA . _ _ n e County Tran&r Statiode Od _mMal bldQ..lba' mk home X X 3W JQ 3it OR 10 acre parcel of hand in central UC..0 -as s Name Michael Dougi� /►eC-i�ai�h RO j/ Dante: 10/07/2009 Telephone number: 4? /f- 7171 ` '"Ti44) pr+cgram within Division of Environmental Health: {} Public Water Supply ❑ Other, Name of Program: Response {check all applicable}: ❑ No objection to project as proposed ❑ No comment ❑ Insufficient iniarmaton to complete review ❑ Comments attached ® See comments below 7 ,al Ae Public water supply 80;kn 1 IEnvi=Mhtal Review Cootdinator for the Division of Environmental Health 11/16/2009 01:57 9197153060 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURALRESOURCES DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Inter - Agency Project Review Response Project Name Qn ire- County Board oi[ Type of Project Commiissiooers. PAGE 12/14 Project Number 10 -0124 County Oran e EA--0rMntW11tX Transfer Station: rncleetd meCal bldg 1601 X 160' & it on 10 acre parcel of land in mtral Ornato Runty. ❑ The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications for all Water system improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the award of a contract or the Initiation of construction (as required by 15A NCAC 18C .0300et seq.). For information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, (919) 733 -2321, ❑ This project will be classified as a non- oommunity public water supply and must comply with state and federal drinking walar monitoring requirements. For more Information the applicant should contact the Public Water Supply Section, (919) 733 -2321. ❑ If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure or feet or adjacent waters to the harvest of sheANsh. For Information regarding the shellfish sanitation program, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Section at (252) 726 -6827. ❑ The soil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding problem. For information concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the applicant should contact the Public Health Pest Management section at (919) 7334MO7. ❑ The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated structures, an extensive rodent control program may be necessary in order to prevent the migration of the rodent9 to adjacent areas. For information concerning rodent control, contact the local health department or the Public Health Pest Management Section at (919) 733-8407. ❑ The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their requirements for septic tank installations (as required under 15A NCAC 1IA. 1900 et sop.). For Information concerning septic tank and other on -site waste disposal methods, contact the On -S to Wastewater Section ,21: (91 D) 733 -2895, ❑ The applicant Should be advised to contact the local health department regarding the sanitary facilities required for this project. ❑ If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water line relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Health, Public Water Supply Section, Technical Services Branch, 1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 -1534, (818) 733-2321. 29 For Regional and central oftlCe comments, see the reverse side of this form. Jim McRight PWSS 10/0712009 Reviewer Sectlonffiran i Dam 11/1612009 61:57 9197153960 NCTEIR State of North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources RavietNng f]moe: BatlRl�b lanai Ofli� PAGE 13/14 INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project NuMba- e`d %2y nut Dar, _- After review of this project it h6S been deurtnined that the ENR ptamMS) artd/rX approvals indicated may need to be *Wood in order for dais project to comply with North Carotins Law, Quastionr rgrming theist ptrmiu shwid be oddtwed to the Regional Difu s indicated an the reverse of the form. All applications, information and guidelines Mauve to thcs¢ plans and permits Ira available from the same Regional OfIke. Normal Proam Tine (statutory Utre limn) PEWITg SPiSCIAL APPLICATION PttOCEDURM or REQUIREMENTS Permit to emtsm ct do owatc wastewater tttetendtt Application 90 days before boon epneretlRlen at award of tMiRtetlon 30 days fat iiitbte, sewer system cttamlom a sower Syamma comwA ou.siw inspection. Poett"appiieetion technical confffmc* usual. (90 days) not discharging Into state surface warm. IYPL!$$ ptttrnil to dia11lmrga into awfsco water and/or i furfutar Appltcation 180 days before begin activity. On4ile inspection, Pro-appiicatien contwonco usual, Add lolly, obtabi permit to conMua wastowster W128 days n emit to Afld CQntrgs ?e W ib4itida traaww(Ia 1hy-g w*W after NPDES. Reply time, 30 days after maillpt of (N /A) disotwog into Nslo S wfw `fie' plans or isauo of NPDES permit-whichever is low. �P Water Use Permit Pre-applintian technical aonfwatae uwally necessary (NIA) dip PSI Wcq Consatrctaun Pamtit Complete application in= be received end pamnit lamed prior to the inatage m Ora well. 7 days (15 days) App asban copy nVA be xnW On each t riparian prop M Owner. C J Dredge oat Fill Itemuk 00ah6 unpcatign. Pte- wislicedact woitrence usual. Filling may require tAMI t M to Fill OM N.C. Dcpertrxaa Ofndminf M1011 and Fedoral 55 days (90 days) Dretir and Fill PcrtOit P*rmit to conmet & apwrate Air Poilution Abt taliel t Appliooimt must be pubmittad and permit rtaaivetl prior to boa and ope"On of tlo assist, Ira parmk is RyUirad m alt "lities and/or Un*$Iwn Sumcs as per i 0 A NCAC (2Q.0100 mitt 2Q.0300) sift without load zoning, Must Marro arse dddilimal toquirtmene and 90 days MmellrIU (2Q.0113). i Penng to conwtmt At Opamte Tmosportadw Fier nY m Application must be submitted at least 90 days prior to c9tMat(on or 2Q.0601) 90 days per lP A NC.PX (2D.02W. modification oftbe sounw. open burning associated with subject prep" must be in compi OW with 15 A NCAC 2D 1 900 Darbblition gr renwvatlara of wwAsrns awns aining asbeato met" must be in comp) ranee with 15 A l� MAC 70,1110 (a) (1) which mquirm noti$cadon and N/A � ) mm-W prlat to damelition. Contact Asbwaa ComM (� Group 919.7074950, Complex Source Permit requlred undar 15 A NCAC 1...( 20.0800 The Sadtatalliation IsOlutimu Comm) Act of 1973 am be propwrlY eddfs tad fm any lend disturbing aedvky. An awaits A f aad"NaFkaMail NOW plmu will be regnbed if orac or more sow is be dIIR wWd. Plop Pled waft proper Regional Omw pond Quality 20 d4* h6XI n) At (asst 30 days bmbes begirudeg ettivity, A f" wr SUfbr dw urn am or any part of ew tie. Ah aapsass wvtaw option is (30 days) available vAth addlOwai (lee. Sedtrncnanlon and woolaei eanlsal must be adddmOed in seewdance wide NCDM,g apino+od Program. Particulm• art inert tdeadd be given In (30 days) draw and in11nitWM of approprlab primasar aedi ant ttaWMS deviate os wmi a 8111616 dointraw aonvoywnces wad (ado. � Owsim 10006ctloa usual Sutaly bond filed v-* M Bond amotw0 varies "a Mining Pmtnit with type mine end irtabOr *[NMI of d6akW land, Any ado mined grease 30 days dwt tint see tf" W wmtMA 71te opptopiato bard must be received (60 days) bcbv the permit can be tasted. „ i No'% Carolina 9umktg permit ()"ka hVir"ion b) N.0 Dlvlatot Forest Rasouregs if pnrmk exceeds 4 days 1 day (NIA) ' Speakd clround Cleeratca Bufndng Pormk 22 and N,C. Division Forest Reamirces raquired "Irmtup dten coup" w n�c►a ate in annual N.C. with Organic mils tiro 1Nring ataividw at Irwolved. In11peations should ho rrgtlaatd I day (NIA) at lent an days bwbm rclual bum is planned " ldes NIA 10.12 0days (IWA) i(Wrnk rtquire4 6pplleuian 60 d6yln 6efbre begin Clown 0 ion App1lcast mist him N.C. ffs-raty gv011ed angi pay tA: P.raM plats. Mspat cartAant ift.. Gentry ea XnXdan Is sogaM ft to P44 approved plum play alto require k permit Under mesquite ttanteol pfoaram. And a 481 permit 6Om corps of Im'RIMU.M 30 days PACtncart. An Inspaad0n of site Is neapsary so vorlly flatard Ctassl8oantn, A (40 days) I= of (200.00 Mill ricer POKY the spptvcmtk n. An 34didmM) 11/16/2009 81:57 9197153860 NCD" PAGE 14/14 REGIONAL 4F11'XCIFS Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below. I Asheville Regloaial fltRee 2090 US Highway 70 Swannanon, NC 28778 (829) 296 -4500 0 Faye tevia Rllooessl Qtnee 225 NW* 0mon Steeee; Suite 7t4 Fayetteville, NC 28301 -SW (910) 433 -3300 f.1 umtesville Regiond Office 610 But Center Avenue, Suite 301 Mooresville, NC 2811S (904) 683 -1699 �gi gb Regl0ani O£t� 3800 BWMtt Mve, Suite 101 Raleigh, NC 27609 (919) 791 -4200 F) Wilmii+tgtola Viviemal Office 127 Coxiind Drive Extension Wilming0rt, NC 2840S (910) 796-7215 !l Wiltmtoel -Salem 4000021 Olte 58S Waughtown Street Winston- Salem, NC 27107 (336) 731-5000 943 Wnhingtpatsquare Malt`"— Wa1iln8WM6 NC 27889 (252) 946-6481 Ntntttal Proceae Time (3AW" time 11M10 PRRMrM Sp6CdAL APPLICATION PROCIMUM of REQUIRBMENTS File surety bend afS3.0W rrldt Wk +inning ie 31Ne elf NC oeadldmtal that 1 D a 1_"7 Permit to drift Upiaratoty all et Rae weal any wdl opma by drW epwuor shelf, upon absodotamtaik bd plumed NIA Geephyetcat Expfmttlort Ptrrttlt wwar Ling to ow tubs and rcauwkw. J AOpu�an filed *0 ENR ex Mat 10 dugs prior to i atu arpo rA Application by %&W. NO ateadrd MWIC ien MM. 1049y, N/A based on atracwte else is ++ 1 5.20 days 0 SmceLakoConamwidnPmot A drawlegs of structure & proof ofowncslitp of riparian NIA property. ro dayll I_l 401 WdcrQualiryCorli8catidn NIA 130 C1 CAMA Pantie ibe MAJOR &wWpmm Sii000 Fee trarotaamniparry appllkniipn s4 Sys p suttaya) f'1 CAMA hmdt &r MINOR dsvalapam S50.00"MW uxampny applicadatt 2'2 do t23 dy* ) bVaral etie msnult s e arc boa1W in yr oaw the area. xW monarma taeZ to rw dr d pteoso oodfy: [, J N.C. Osadedc svrvey. Bon 2768? Raleigh. NC27611 ,118 AbmmdoaMwt deny wells, Irmorad mwube in aecarawa aish fido 15A. Subdup+x 2C.01o0. [j Ned na iat of ft proper rr*w office is md*wmd l `orphni" urtdargtowjd awn vq*A (UM) are dwovared drama arty ertdmtdw apffl6 n. L j Cdaiptianee wish 1 SA 14CAC 314 IMO (CoastY SWimweter Rukil) is requited. (NJA) A) I_l Tar Pandica a Nation Ripari•a butter We requirae. * amnmata i4;zh AW a nemwo. being ccimin to cicc Cammarrt ar><Y) REGIONAL 4F11'XCIFS Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below. I Asheville Regloaial fltRee 2090 US Highway 70 Swannanon, NC 28778 (829) 296 -4500 0 Faye tevia Rllooessl Qtnee 225 NW* 0mon Steeee; Suite 7t4 Fayetteville, NC 28301 -SW (910) 433 -3300 f.1 umtesville Regiond Office 610 But Center Avenue, Suite 301 Mooresville, NC 2811S (904) 683 -1699 �gi gb Regl0ani O£t� 3800 BWMtt Mve, Suite 101 Raleigh, NC 27609 (919) 791 -4200 F) Wilmii+tgtola Viviemal Office 127 Coxiind Drive Extension Wilming0rt, NC 2840S (910) 796-7215 !l Wiltmtoel -Salem 4000021 Olte 58S Waughtown Street Winston- Salem, NC 27107 (336) 731-5000 943 Wnhingtpatsquare Malt`"— Wa1iln8WM6 NC 27889 (252) 946-6481 NORTH CAROLINA STATL CLEARINGHOUSE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COUNTY: ORANGE H04: SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL STATE NUMBER: 10--E- 0000 -0124 DATE RECEIVED: 10/02/2009 AGENCY RESPONSE: 11 /04/2009 REVIEW CLOSED: 11/09/2009 CLEARINGHOUSE COORD REGION J TRIANGLE J COG P.O. BOX 12276 RESEARCH TRIANGLE PK NC REVIEW DISTRIBUTION CC &PS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DEPT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION TRIANGLE J COG PROJECT INFORMATION APPLICANT: Orange County TYPE: State Environmental Policy Act Environmental Assessment DESC: Orange County Transfer Station entails of an enclosed metal building 160 feet by 160 feet and scale house 20 feet by 20 feet which will sit on a 10 acre parcel of land in the central part of Orange county The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for intexgovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above indicated date to 1301 Mall Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -1301. If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at (919)807 -2425. AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS'SUBMITTED: NO COMMENT COMMENTS ATTACHED SIGNED BY: DATE: > c-� COUNTY: ORANGE NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW H04:SOLID MS RENEE GLEDHILL.- EARLEY CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR DEPT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE MSC 4617 - ARCHIVES BUILDING RALEIGH NC REVIEW DISTRIBUTION CC &PS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DEPT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION TRIANGLE J COG PROJECT INFORMATION APPLICANT: Orange County TYPE: State Environmental Policy Act Environmental Assessment STATE NUMBER: 10 -E- 0000 -0124 DATE RECEIVED: 10/02/2009 AGENCY RESPONSE: 11 /04/2009 REVIEW CLOSED: 11/09/2009 Cad 09 LtAC DESC: Orange County Transfer Station entails of an enclosed metal building 160 feet by 160 feet and scale house 20 feet by 20 feet which will sit on a 10 acre parcel of land in the central part of Orange county The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -1301. If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at (919)807 -2425. AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED: 9 NO COMMENT. f—] COMMENTS ATTACHED SIGNED BY: fa""C- DATE: 1().2-0. 1. R DATE: 1().2-0. COUNTY: ORANGE NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW H04: SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR CC &PS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PROGRAM MSC # 4719 RALEIGH NC REVIEW DISTRIBUTION CC &PS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DEPT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION TRIANGLE J COG PROJECT INFORMATION APPLICANT: Orange County TYPE: State Environmental. Policy Act Environmental. Assessment STATE NUMBER: 10 -E- 0000 -0124 DATE RECEIVED: 10/02/2009 AGENCY RESPONSE: 11 /04/2009 REVIEW CLOSED: 11/09/2009 DESC: Orange County 'transfer Station entails of an enclosed metal building 160 feet by 160 feet and scale house 20 feet by 20 feet which will. sit on a 10 acre parcel of land in the central part of Orange county The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for .intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -1301. If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at (919)807 -2425. AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED: X] NO COMMENT [—] COMMENTS ATTACHED SIGNED BY: 'P^ Y i:J C��lil rd j��V V f� Fr � '•rte '�: DATE: COUNTY: ORANGE NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION / INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW STATE NUMBER: DATE RECEIVED: AGENCY RESPONS REVIEW CLOSED: H04. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL MS SHIRLEY FOYE CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION STATEWIDE PLANNING - MSC 41554 RALEIGH NC REVIEW DISTRIBUTION CC &PS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DEPT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION TRIANGLE J COG PROJECT INFORMATION APPLICANT: Orange County TYPE: State Environmental Policy Act Environmental Assessment 4.y._ r> 1 1 t 10 -E -0000 -0124 10/02/2.009 E: 11/04/2009 11/09/2009 DESC: Orange County Transfer Station entails of an enclosed metal. building 160 feet by 160 feet and scale house 20 feet by 20 feet which will sit on a 10 acre parcel of land in the central part of Orange county The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -1301. If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at (919)807 -2425. AS A RESULT OF THIS EVIEW HE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED: NO COMMENT [] COMMENTS ATTACHED SIGNED BY: DATE : /0 � 14 "Oq {fl6d_t 4 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Current Planning (919) 245 -2575 (919) 644 -3002 (FAX) www.co.orange.nc.us 306F Revere Road P O Box 8181 Hillsborough, North Carolina, 27278 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ORDINANCE FINDING ON MILLHOUSE ROAD (AKA PAYDARFAR) SITE SOLID WASTE TRANSFER STATION APPLICATION: In accordance with the provisions of the Orange County Environmental Impact Ordinance (EIO) the following report details staffs review of an initial Environmental Assessment (EA) and the issuance of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the project, and associated material, as referenced herein. Introduction: Olver Incorporated (hereafter 'the consultant') submitted a project, on behalf of the Orange County Solid Waste Management department, relating to the possible development of a Solid Waste Transfer Station within Orange County on property owned by Orange County. As part of this project the consultant completed an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the site, in accordance with the provisions of the County EIO. The following review and assessment of the EA has been completed by Orange County Planning staff, in accordance with the provisions of the EIO. Millhouse Road (west side, formerly known as the Paydarfar Site) Solid Waste Transfer Station — Site Specifics: The property is comprised of 10 acres plus adjacent offsite access easements owned by Orange County and is contiguous to the Eubanks North landfill. The site is located off of Millhouse Road approximately % mile north of Eubanks Road (see Exhibit A of EA). An existing easement on adjacent property owned by Orange County will provide access to the site. Surrounding property is owned by Orange County (68 acres to the north and west and 114 acres to the south [the closed portion of the landfill]) and the Town of Chapel Hill (4 acres to the east). The site is located in the vicinity of the Town Of Chapel Hill's Operations Center (see Attachment A). The site is under Orange County planning jurisdiction and is zoned Rural Buffer (RB). It is also designated as Rural Buffer on the Orange County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element Map. The site is located contiguous to the Chapel Hill Transition Area, as defined in the Joint Planning Land Use Plan. The site is not located within a water /sewer service area, as denoted on the Water Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement ( WSMPBA). However, it is located immediately adjacent to the service area boundary. The site may be served via a private ground absorption septic system and individual well reviewed and approved by the Orange County Health Department. If all parties to the WSMPBA agree that the use is an "essential public facility" the site could have public water and sewer service by OWASA. (Please refer to Attachment B for a copy of the Water Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement Map). In accordance with the Orange County Zoning Ordinance, specifically Section 4.3 Table of Permitted Uses, staff has determined that a Solid Waste Transfer Station, in this specific case, represents a governmental facilities and office buildings which is listed as a use permitted by right within the RB zoning district. In order for a Solid Waste Transfer Station to be developed on the property, the project will have to go through the administrative site plan review /approval process detailed within Article 14 of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. Based on existing mapping data, as well as field observations completed by the County Erosion Control (EC) staff during an inspection occurring in August of 2009, no water features were identified on the site (see Appendix A of EA). Additionally, no jurisdictional wetlands or streams under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act were found on the site (see Appendix B of EA). A cultural resources literature review and field reconnaissance was also completed for the site by TRE, a subcontractor of Olver. The literature search identified no previously recorded archaeological sites, historic structures, or cemeteries on or adjacent to the site. The field reconnaissance revealed the structural remains of the ca. 1980 Francis Chan house (no historical significance) and a second structure in poor condition that had been moved to the property sometime between ca. 1972 and 1993. The structure is "almost certainly ineligible for the NRHP" (National Register of Historic Places). (See Appendix C of EA). Additionally, a Threatened and Endangered Species Survey (contained in Appendix D of the EA) concluded that the project is expected to have "No Effect" on any threatened or endangered species. 2 Environmental Assessment: In September 2009, staff was presented with a rough concept plan detailing the possible development of a Solid Waste Transfer Station on the site. The concept plan indicated that there would be approximately ten (10) acres of land disturbing activity associated with the project, including the proposed access road off of Millhouse Road. After review of the concept plan, and the various provisions of the EIO, staff concluded that: 1. The proposed development project is not listed as being exempt from the preparation of an EA, 2. The proposed land disturbing activities are over the 40,000 square foot threshold detailed within Section 2.2.3 of the EIO requiring the submission and completion of an EA, and 3. The project is proposed on a parcel(s) of property over two (2) acres in area. For these reasons, staff required the completion of an EA as a prerequisite step to a future formal site plan application submission and review process. The EA application for the site, completed by the consultant and their sub - consultants, was prepared in accordance with the Orange County EIO and followed the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) application guidelines to provide staff additional information regarding environmental impacts of the project. Other than the 40,000 square feet triggering mechanism, there are no other criteria in the Orange County EIO that would require preparation of an EA. Furthermore, the project as proposed would not require an EA under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) because the anticipated amount of waste to be handled is less than 350 tons per day. The scope of the EA prepared by the consultant exceeds that which would be necessary in order to meet normal EA criteria application requirements. This enhanced EA assessment was created to address a higher level of detail requested by the Board of County Commissioners as part of the review of this site (please refer to Attachment C for a table breaking down the various EA review requirements). Environmental Assessment — Clearinghouse Review Process: On October 2, 2009 planning staff prepared a memo to the State Clearinghouse requesting that the project be entered into the State Environmental Review Clearinghouse for publication (i.e. public notification) and distribution to various State agencies in order to solicit their informal review and comment since an EA does not 3 require State review. However, to collect the best amount of review and comment at this stage of the project, staff sent the EA through the Clearinghouse process. The consultant hand delivered the materials to the Clearinghouse in Raleigh on October 2, 2009. The project was assigned State Application Number 10 -E- 0000 -0124 and was published on October 9, 2009. During the 30 -day review State agencies submitted their comments to the coordinator. The review period closed on November 9, 2009. Staff received comments back from the Clearinghouse on November 16, 2009. Following is a summary of the various comments relating to the development of the site received as part of the EA review process: Agency /Staff Respondent: Comment(s): North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Environmental Review Coordinator Cover letter only. Melba McGee North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Heritage Program has no record of significant Harry LeGrand natural communities, significant natural heritage areas, or conservation /managed areas in the project area. NCDENR Division of Waste Management Dexter Matthews, Director East Regional Compliance Branch A Solid Waste Management Facility permit Ted Cashion, Supervisor from the Division's Solid Waste Section must be secured. The Hazardous Waste Section has no objection to the proposed project. Superfund Section Recommends that any well be installed in the S. Franch, Environmental Chemist northern one third of the parcel in order to comply with the 500 -foot distance requirement from landfills. rd Solid Waste Section Acknowledges the following areas of potential Jason Watkins, Central District Supervisor concern: • The proposed Transfer Station facility is adjacent to the closed Orange County C &D landfill which has shown exceedances of the 2L groundwater standards in its monitoring system. If the proposed facility were to utilize the existing potable well on the property regularly, it could potentially cause the contamination plume to migrate (be pulled) towards the proposed facility. • The proposed facility location is in close proximity to the Rogers Road community that has raised concerns about the placement of any future Solid Waste facilities in this area. Shawn McKee • Monitoring wells at the closed unlined Compliance Officer Orange County C &D landfill have shown constituents above the NC2L standards for inorganics (may be naturally occurring). Chris Marriott The increased water from an on -site well Environmental Senior Specialist may change regional groundwater conditions by creating a cone of depression and drawing water mounded in the water mass towards the property line between the landfill and transfer station. • The Rogers Road community (approx. 0.5 miles away) has been very vocal of the existing adjacent MSW landfill. NCDENR Division of Environmental Health Public Water Supply Section What is the projected on -site visits that will be Michael Douglas, Regional Supervisor able to access the drinking water? Public Water Supply Section Raleigh Regional Office Completed checklist. Jim McRight North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Piedmont Region Coordinator Okay with proposal and provides three Habitat Conservation Program recommendations to further minimize impacts Shari L. Bryant to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife resources. • New developments exceeding 10% imperviousness should include stormwater controls designed to replicate and maintain hydrographic condition at the site prior to change in landscape. • Use landscaping that consists of non- invasive native species and Low Impact Development (LID) technology. Using native species instead of ornamentals should provide benefits by reducing the need for water, fertilizers, and pesticides. Using LID technology in landscaping will not only help maintain the predevelopment hydrologic regime, but also enhance the aesthetic and habitat value of the site. • Sediment and erosion control measures should be installed prior to any land clearing or construction. These measures should be routinely inspected and properly maintained. Excessive silt and sediment loads can have numerous detrimental effects on aquatic resources including destruction of spawning habitat, suffocation of eggs, and clogging of gills of aquatic species. Other Agencies Triangle J COG No comment Clearinghouse Coordinator Lana Hygh North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office No comment Clearinghouse Coordinator Renee Gledhill — Earley NC Crime Control & Public Safety — Division of Environmental Management — No comment Floodplain Mapping Program Clearinghouse Coordinator NC Department of Transportation No comment Clearinghouse Coordinator Please refer to Attachment D for all detailed comments received concerning the review of the EA. Staff Assessment: Staff did not receive comments from various State or local agencies indicating that the project should not move forward or indicating any irreparable environmental harm as the result of the proposed development. None of the agencies recommended any changes to the project other than recommending that any water supply well be located in the northern one third of the parcel, recognizing the concerns of the Rogers Road community, recognizing the NC21- groundwater monitoring results at the landfill, requesting that consideration be given to using native species landscape varieties and Low Impact Design technologies, and commenting on stormwater controls. These ideas will be incorporated into the site plan if the site is chosen. After reviewing all submitted comments, and reviewing the EA prepared by Olver Incorporated, the Orange County Planning Department hereby makes a FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT in accordance with the provisions of the EIO for the aforementioned project based on the following: 1. Staff has not received any comment indicating that there will be significant environmental harm to the site or surrounding property if developed as proposed. 2. The site can be developed to minimize environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable. 7 3. According to the information staff has available, at the writing of this document, there are no regulatory compliance issues with the project as currently proposed. 4. The project does not meet the criteria within the Orange County EIO for the completion of an Environmental Impact Statement. 5. Staff has determined that the project is consistent with the provisions of the EIO. As a result of this finding, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) shall not be required. EA Review /Report Completed by: Perdita Holt III Sufficiency Review Completed By: Craig Benedict, AICP Planning Director — Orange County Date: :a THE WAIDO FR EDUCATIONAL ASSOC►ATIO (21 acres) N Solid Waste Tea nsfer Station Option C Millhouse �y /Road Area THE WALD EDUCATIOMq F ASSACIATION cr ®s) JULIA M ORANGE B 0 Acj $)OD CO GE (10 Acres) n (88 Acres) CHA EN H L.L (2Acres) EDUCA101 " ASSOCIATI0 (s Acres) N aWn_of.,L- Aerations pel Hill Center,.;.. CH2 El OF �•...,,,., ( Acrft) ITOWN or CHAPEL N LL (10 Acres) TO CHPEI IL (11 AcresH) L I CHAPEL. HILL (1 T Acres) Attach►r ���� � �� a �' � +. wR ''zed" ''"•'.� � y,:q ���'� �'� J1��- �,r .�..= _.�_.`�I Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Statement Requirements ATTACHMENT C Environmental Assessment (Orange Environmental Assessment (State Environmental Impact Statement (Orange County Application Requirements) Application Requirements) County Requirements) Orange County Enhanced (Site Plan Per Article 14) Impetus for Study: Required if any of the following apply to the site: 1. It is a small or large generator of hazardous waste. 2. Uses in a commercial or industrial operation more than 10,000 gallons of water /day. 3. Require grading of more than 40,000 square feet, exclusive of roads, for non - residential... development. (This is the triggering item for EA review) 4. Require grading of more than 40,000 square feet, exclusive of roads, for non- residential components of residential development. 5. Any stat permit as listed below and/or: a. State or Federal requirement to file an SEPA or NEPA document. b. Property located in a state - classified water supply watershed c. Slopes in excess of 25% outside of easement or stream buffers. Impetus for Study: Required if a transfer station is proposed to handle 350 tons, or more, of waste per day. This project is proposed to handle 250 tons per day so neither a SEPA Environmental Assessment nor a SEPA Environmental Impact Statement is required. The applicant followed the State format in order to provide adequate information on the project that would allow Orange County staff to perform a more detailed EA analysis. Potential new information could activate the need for additional information to be submitted for either the EA Enhanced or the EIS. Impetus for Study: Required if any one of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) trigger criteria (e.g. mining, hazardous materials, state or federal EIS required) are present and/or if planning staff determines that the applicant has not adequately addressed significant issues in the EA that are required to be addressed per the Orange County Environmental Impact Ordinance. Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Statement Requirements Environmental Assessment (Orange County Application Requirements) Application Requirements: Application form showing: 1) project name, 2) applicant's name, address and contact information, Environmental Assessment (State Application Requirements) Orange County Enhanced Application Requirements: Application form showing: 1) project name, 2) applicant's name, address and contact information, 3) property location and acreage, 3) property location and acreage, 4) zoning district of site, 4) zoning district of site, 5) adjacent properties with land uses, 5) adjacent properties with land uses, tax parcel data with map. 6) tax parcel data with map. Basic Plan information includes: 1) zoning and use of adjacent property, 2) topography, 3) drainage, 4) watershed information such as streams, floodplains and wetlands, 5) limits of grading 6) outline of structures 7) any cultural or archeological sites, if any, located within boundaries of the site. Additional Application Requirements - Purpose and need for project - Conceptual Site Plan with grading limits and building outline and parking - Alternatives Analysis -Site Selection Process that was used. 2 Environmental Impact Statement (Orange County Requirements) Site Plan per Article 14 Application Requirements: Purpose Statement of the EIS Content: 1) Cover Sheet with designation of draft document 2) Title of activity 3) List any involved cooperating entities 4) Name, address and contact information of person who can supply further information Additional Application Requirements - Summary of activities - Completed EA document - Alternatives including proposed activity. 1. Explore & evaluate all reasonable alternatives. 2. Discuss reasons for the elimination of alternatives from detailed study. 3. Include appropriate mitigation measures not already included in the alternatives. 4. Describe the environment of the area to be affected and the environment to be crated by the alternatives under consideration. Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Statement Requirements Environmental Assessment (Orange Environmental Assessment (State Environmental Impact Statement (Orange County Application Requirements) Application Requirements) County Requirements) Orange County Enhanced Site Plan per Article 14 CONTINUED: Additional application requirements 1) Project description, 2) Number of lots 3) Structures proposed / existing 4) Square feet of graded areas for structures and parking, 5) Area of grading for access roads, 6) Type of road (public or private), 7) Length of road, 8) Hours of operation for non - residential use(s). CONTINUED: Additional Application Requirements Existing Environmental Characteristics of Project Area L Topography 2. Soils 3. Land Use 4. Wetlands 5. Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands 6. Public Lands & Scenic, Recreational and State Areas. 7. Areas of Archaeological or Historic Value 8. Air Quality 9. Noise Levels 10. Water Resources a. Groundwater b. Surface Water 11. Forest Resources 12. Shellfish or Fish and Habitats 13. Wildlife and Natural Vegetation 14. Environmental Justice CONTINUED: 5. Describe environmental consequences, such as (a) direct effects, indirect effects and possible conflicts between the proposed activities and the objectives of federal, state, and local plans policies and controls for the affected area. 6. List the names and qualifications of the persons responsible for preparation of the EIS. 7. Appendix shall meet the following requirements: a) consist of materials substantiating any analysis fundamental to the principal document, as distinct from material of lesser significance that may accompany the document or be incorporated by reference; b) normally be analytic and relevant to the decision to be made; c) shall not be counted in the EIS 50 page limit; and d) be circulated with the EIS or be readily available upon request. Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Statement Requirements Environmental Assessment (Orange County Application Requirements) Questions that have to be asked: Are any of the following state permits required? 1. Mining of Earth Products 2. Generation of hazardous or toxic wastes 3. Land application for treatment of wastewater 4. Septic Tank designed to exceed 3000 gallons per day 5. Sludge disposal proposed 6. Water usage for various activities (drinking, process use, discharges, reclamation, and sources) Environmental Assessment (State Application Requirements) Orange County Enhanced Questions that have to be asked: Predicted Environmental Effects of Project for each of the following: 1. Topography 2. Soils 3. Land Use 4. Wetlands 5. Prime or Unique Agricultural Lands 6. Public Lands and Scenic, Recreational, and State Natural Areas 7. Areas of Archaeological or Historical Value 8. Air Quality 9. Noise Levels 10. Water Resources a. Groundwater Resources b. Surface Water Resources 11. Forest Resources 12. Shellfish or Fish and Habitats 13. Wildlife and Natural Vegetation 14. Environmental Justice 15. Introduction of Toxic Substances Mitigation Measures, if any are required or needed shall be proposed. M Environmental Impact Statement (Orange County Requirements) Site Plan per Article 14 Questions that have to be asked: All of the questions /issues identified for a normal EA and a State EA have to be addressed. Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Statement Requirements Environmental Assessment (Orange County Application Requirements) Environmental Assessment (State Application Requirements) Orange County Enhanced Environmental Impact Statement (Orange County Requirements) Site Plan per Article 14 DECISION PROCESS DECISION PROCESS DECISION PROCESS Planning Staff decision of either a: Planning Staff decision of either: Submittal of EIS requires the following 1) Finding of No Significant Impact 1) Finding of No Significant Impact Staff forwards the submitted EIS document to the (FONSI), or (FONSI), or State Clearinghouse for a 45 -day review period to 2) Finding of Significant Impact (FOSI), 2) Finding of Significant Impact (FOSI), receive state agency comments. which requires the submittal of an EIS which requires the submittal of an EIS document. document. A newspaper advertisement shall be published in a paper of general circulation informing the public that a 15 -day review period on the EIS is open and comments may be submitted to the Planning Offices. After the 15 -day review period closes a Public Hearing shall be held by the BOCC. At the Public Hearing the BOCC receives the EIS report. No decision is necessary. The report is only used to determine if the project / plan properly addresses environmental concerns. L ATTACHMENT D .��, North Carolina Department of Administration Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor Britt Cobb, Secretary November 16, 2009 Ms. Perdita Holtz Orange County Orange Co. Planning & Inspections Dept. P.O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Re: SCH File # 10- E- 0000 -0124; EA; Orange County Transfer Station entails of an enclosed metal building 160 feet by 160 feet and scale house 20 feet by 20 feet which will sit on a 10 acre parcel of land in the central part of Orange county Dear Ms. Holtz: The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse under the provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act. Attached to this letter for your consideration are the comments made by agencies in the course of this review. If any further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to this office for intergovernmental review. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, 64�t192064K--"� Valerie W. McMillan, Director State Environmental Review Clearinghouse Attachments cc: Region 1 Mailing Address; relephate: (919)807 -2425 Locallan Address: 1301 Mail Service Center Fax (919)733 -9571 116 West Junes Street Raleigh, NC 27699 -1301 State Courier #5 1 -01-00 Raleigh. North Carolina e-mad valerie.w.mcmillnn@Uoa.Piv.gor An Eyrarl dclion F.rn>>la)wr 11/16/2009 01:57 9197153060 NCDENR PAGE 01114 A41 'A North Cuofina AepartMep.t of F-nvironrnelnt and Natural Resources Beverly Eaves Perdue Dee Fteetnau Governor Secretary MSMOR=UI4 TO: FROM: RB: DATB: Past -W Fax Note 7671 DsW l t 11 (0 Q&" 14 7+n R R� From I' p�AC1aC co. Ph" A Phone fi Fax # F9x i Valerie McMillan State Clezringh se Melba McGee Bnvironmenta Review Coordinator 10 -0124 SA for orange County Transfer station - Paydartax Site November 10, 2009 The Department of Eartvironmant and Natural Resouree9 hag reviewed the proposed information. The attached Comments should be provided to the applicant for consideration and addressed prior to finalizing project plans. Thank you for the opportunity to review. ' Attachments 1601 Mall Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 -1601 rt�►�arolina Phone: 919-T33- 451841 FAX: 919.715.3080 Irrteml�t: www.enr.stata.nc,ur: �i����� rr An Egeal O"oduniiy t ArBmulkre AoUan Employer - 90% Roeydnd 110% Pass Caneumer PAper f//��J 1111 11/16/2009 01:57 9197153069 NCDENR PAGE 02/14 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission f- Gordon Myers, Executive Director NMMORANDUM TO: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator Office of Logislativc tad lbtallovetrirnental Atfhirs FROM: Shari L. Bryant, Piedmont Region Coordinator '&&- -irk Habitat Conservation Program DATE: 22 October 2009 SUBIECT: Environmental Assessment for Orange County Transfer Station — Paydarfar Site, Orange County, North Caretitia, DENR Project No. 1"124. Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the subject document ad we are thin Liar witb 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. 661 et soq.), and North Caroliza General Statutes (G.S. 113 -131 et seq.). Orange County proposes to construct a transfer station on a 10 acre site. The proposed project includes constmetton of on cnNosed,metal building, equipment storage area, parking apace s, and- roads. The facility will accept only solid waste generated by households, institutions, commercial and some industrial businesses. The purpose of the project is to provide a facility to collect the County's solid waste. The waste will be transported to a landfill faollity outside of the County. The site drains to Old Field Cft* a ttlbutary to New Hope Ctmk in the D.E. Jordan Reservoir watershed of the Cape Fear River basin. There are records for the federal species of ooncem and state endangered brook floater (Almmidonla varicosa) and Carolina creekshcll (Vlllaca vaughaniana); the statc threatened creeper (S#vphftw un4ql4w); tt ftte spode! conoft notched rainbow (Vllloso cottstricla); and the state sipifleandy rare chameleon lampmussel (Lampsilir sp.) and Pasteur cteekshell (Villosa d6hR"bis) in New Hope Croak. B.Js, Jdfft Rcsorvair st*06t s a diverse fishery including largemouth bass (Mimptemssahnoldes), crappie (Pamoxts spp.), sunfish (Leponri+r spp.), eatfi$lh (ii:rglyms spp,) and striped bass (Morena sawrilts). In addition, there no two Significant Natural Heritage Areas located near the proposed project site — Blackwood Mountain and Henry J. Oosting Nahmal Am. The applicant indicates there are no stream, wetlands, or 100 -year floodplains on the site. A stoanwater management plan will be developed for construction and operation of the facility. The wash - down system will be designed to contain and store all wash waters resulting from station operation. Wastewater will be rocyclW on site and'tho residue hauled off -silo for disposal. No wash -down water will be discharged on site. No long term storage of waste or other materials is proposed. Mailing Address: Division of inland Fisheries - 1721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699 -1721 Telephone: (919) 707 -0220 - Fix: (919) 707-0028 11/16/2009 01:57 9197153060 NCDENR PACE 03/14 Page 2 n October 2009 Fro = [`ranoAr Station Project No. 10-0124 We ofkr the following rocommendatiiona to minimize impacts to aquade and terrestrial wildlife resources. 1. New devolopmeuts exceeding 10% imperviousness should include stormwatrr Controls designed to replicate and maintain the hydrographic condition at the situ prior to the Change in landscape. 2. Use landscitpbng that consists of non- invasive native species and Low Impact Development (LID) technology. Using native species instead of ornamentals ahould provide beuodt9 by reducing the need for water, fertilizers, and pusbicides. Using LM technology in landscaping will not only help maintidn the predevelopmeat hydrologic regime, but also enhance the aesthetic and habitat value of the site. 3. Soditttcnt and erosion controls measures should be installed prior to any land clearing or construction_ these measures should be routinely inspected and properly maintained. Excessive silt and sediment loads can have numerous ditln ental erects on aquatic resoums inchtding destruction of spawning habitat, suffocation of aggs. and clogging of gills of aquatic species. Thank you for the opportvWty to continent on this project. If we can be of further aWatance, please contact our office at (336) 449 -7625. 11/16/2009 01:57 9197153060 NCDENR PAGE 04114 Beverly Eaves Perdue Govemor �� CO MR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources November 4, 2009 TO: Melba McGee, DENR Environnaental Coordinator FROM: [Marcy LeGranNatural Heritage Program SUBJECT: EA — Orange Coutity Solid Waste Transfer Station; Orange County REFERENCE: 10 -0124 Dee Freeman Secretary The Natural Heritage Program has no record of significant natural communitie% significant natural heritage &teas, or conservationimanaged areas at the site nor within 0.3 -mile ofthe project area, other than the fact that the project site is located on Orange County -owned land known as Mulhouse Road Park. According to Exhibit H in the EA, this portions of this tract will be a pttoposed soccer park, as opposed to a "nature preserve.' type of park. I . There are several natural areas and conservation areas, owned by Duke University, about 0.3 to 0.4 mile west of the project sate, as shown on Exhibit 14 of the EA. These features — Blackwood Mountain and Duke Forest Post Oak/Blackjack Oak Site, both Begiaterod Natural Heritage Areas within Duke Fomst — are not expected to be impacted by this project. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 919- 715 -8697 if you have questions or need further information. 1601 Mal Service Certtar, Relei9h, North Carelins 276Wi 601 �,�i Phone: 919.733.4041 PAX: 919719-3068 Internet: wwwamsme.noms PrCV -7�=kna Mlq"Waft iI1AftW.W4 pAeftECM- W%WpMl10%PostWo r*Peps /f'fi 11/16/2009 61:57 9197153060 W North Carolina Department of Environment ar D1v1*n of Waste Managem Bevedy Eaves Perdue Dexter R. Matthews Governor Director 00ober 12, 2009 To: Dcxtcr Matthews, Director Division of Waste Management From: Ted Cashion. Suporvisor Nz- Easttrn Region Compliseca armeh RE: ' RCRA commontta 0h the pr4p4icd Omr%go County Ttmtatbr Station Project 0 10-0124 Natural Resources PAGE 05/14 Dee Freeman Secretary Ilia Hazardous Waste Section has reviewed the subject project. Orange County plains to construct a solid waste transfer station. The tmmfer section will consist of an anclonad metal building (160 fleet by 160 Rat) and�scalo house (20 feat by 20 fist), which will sit an a 10 Rare parcel of land in central Or=V County. The property would include a � -bay, 250 ton per day solid waste transfix station with scale house, associated access mess. and parking arvai. The transfer station shall only accept solid waste that is generated by he establishments frmn within Orange County. Explosives, pathological and acceptable wastes for pmrcming at the facility. (hangs County will need to secure a Solid Wank Matutpitittit Paeility permit from Solid waste appears to be the most likely waste to be generated in conAr construction, rebuilding, or demolition of structures occurs, the waste that is County must determine If the,waste is a hazardous waste. The County is reminded that if the County generates >220 pounds of hazatdous Section (HWS) must be notified, and the County must comply with the small quant ? 2200 hounds of hazardous waste in a calendar month, the HWS must be note quantity generatpr requirements. The Hourdous Wom Section has no objection to the proposed project. Should any questions arise, please contact me at 919 -508 -8557. r 1846 Mall Sgnatea Center, RAMP North Carolina 276-1846 t'tWitfs WWW.wastsnahmag M Ewd Oypa�oa7nNttsRNMeACdaa Bn7topr institutions, caittmctcicl, and some industrial I wastes, and other hazardous wastes are not Division's Solid Waste Sr&ion. this project The County is rarnindcd that if tied will most likely be a solid waste, and the We in a calendar month, the Hazardous Wastc generslor requirements, Iftha County generaate2 d, and the County must comply with the large �� Caro1'na 1�adural�0 r� 11/1612009 01:57 9197153060 NCDENR PAGE 06/14 ,�.raorq�ir�.riw NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment pnd Natural Resources Dexter Matthews, DirWor MEMORANDUM Division at Waage October 2y, 2009 TO: Niter k Matthews, Director Divisiott of Waft Management THROUGH: Jim Bateson, Re , t a E ual Superfund S on ; FROM: S. i'ranch, Enviro ental Chem Superfund Section ed ;� Beverly Eaves Purdue, GmemOr Dee Freeman, Secretary and Removal Btanch StMJECT: Urhnge County Solid Waste Trans cr Station I have completed the review of the attached information on the subject project for the proximity to CERCLIS or inactive bazardous waste sitter.. The subject project involves.the construction of a Rolid waste transfer station that includes a warehouse building and a scale house on a INacre parcel off of Milt iou.4e Rd, just north of the . Eubanks Road intersection. The project is adjacent to the grange County rubanks landfill whose construction and dernolitinn sector is locat alongside the project's southern peruneter. A well and septic system will be inst died to serve this facility. Initially, four hazardmrs waste sites were identified to be iuithin a four -mite radius of the project. These sites are described below and are denoted can the attached map. The Orange County Regional Landfill Site (NCD 1986 171 106), located adjacent to the southern border of this project parcel is in the process of remediation under the supervision of the NC Solid Waste Section. Oroundwaterrt assessment and remediation activities at the Regional Landfill are focused on releases of organic compounds detected northeast and dowhgradierit from the closed unlined landf ll, whicb is located in the northern part of the facility, north of Eubanks Road. The construction and demolition sector has two monitoring wells near the project's southern border. Analytical results failed to detect any constituents in these two wells throughout the years of monitoring. However, a well further south in this landfill revealed el ateri, but sub -2L, levels of volatile organic solvents. The proposed project is toa ate d�ydruulically cross - gradient to the groundwater flow at the Landfill Site Although construction of the proposed transfer station does not.require a permit room the Solid Waste Section of the Division of Waste M�t gemem, Solid waste Management regulations require that landfills cannot be ideated closer than 500 feet to groundwater supply wells. The plans submitted indicate that a water supply well may be 1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1646 tpw i R pOiPhone: 919. 508 -84001 FAX: 919 - 715.40611 Internet: www,wasionotnc.org i �,��i An %W ftominiWIMmika Ad w Iftb er • 50% Roeycw 110 % Pict cautuuner popes ` +r 11/16/2009 01:57 9197153060 NCIENR PAGE 07/14 installed. It is recommended that any well be installed in tIhe northern one third of the parcel in ender to -comply with this 500 -foot distance requirement The applicant may also want to determine whether there is any risk of putnpitig groundwater potentially impacted by the nearby landfill whits, even at locations greater than 500 feet from the waste. Both the University of NC Airport Road! Old Sani juy Landfill Site (NCD 980 557 615) and the University of NC/Airport Waste Disposal Area Site (NCD 980 557 623) have been removed from the CERCLIS List. The former is on the NC inactive Hazardous Sites Branch (1HSB) Priority List. The latter is undergoing remedi4on under the 1NSB Registered Environmental Consultant Program. (Both of these sites arc located about 2.5 miles southeast of the project. The UNC— Chapel Hill -Estes Drive Site (NCD 982 093 783), located about 2.8 miles southeast of the project is undergoing remediation - under the supervision of the NC'Hazardous Waste Seetionl(sitc has been deferred from CERCLA). No action he's beed taken by the IHSB with regards to this site and the Orange County Regional Landfill Site. After reviewing the file information, i believe it is Likely that the project will affect the above four sites, with caveats on the Orange County Regional Landfill Site, as stated above. If you have any questions, please call me at (919) 508 -8455. Attachments cc. Jim Batvson Ervin Lane, Solid Waste Section 1 t i I a i J I R MY " 11/1612009 01:57 9197153060 NCDENR PAGE 09/14 Ate; NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Dexter Iti+Mdth&. aredor Dhrlsirnt of Waste l anappm of omity Eaves Perdue, Govemor Solid waste action Dee Freeman, Secretery Winston -Sakrn Reglonal Ofte MEMORANDUM TO: Dexter Matthews, Director - Division of Waste N FROM: Jason Watkins, Central District Supervisor, Solid DATE: October 19. 2009 SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment — Orange County The Solid Waste Section has reviewed the Environmental Am has seen no major immediate impacts from this project. The potential concern: Section Station -- orange County Transfer Station and oea acknowledge the fbIlowing-arees of 1. The proposed Transfer Station facility is adjacent to the clos6d Orange County C &D landfill which has shown exceedances of the 2L groundwater standards in its rnHtoring system. If the proposed facility were to utilize the existing potable well on the property regul �dy, it could potentially cause the contamination plume to migrate (be pulled) towards t wd facility. 2. The proposed facility location is in close proximity bo the Rogers Road community that has raised concerns about the -,placement of any future Solid Waste facilities in this are& Orange County should snake every feasible effort to minimiac the generation of waste, to recycle materials for which viable markets exist,, and to use recycled products and materials in the development of this project where suitable. Any waste generated by this project that cannot be beneficially reused or recycled must be disposed of at a solid waste management: facility permitted by the Division. The nearest permitted facility to the project is the Onmgc County C&D Landfill (permit 68 -04). Questions regarding solid waste management should be directed to Specialist, Solid Waste Section, at (336) 771 -5040. cc; Chris Marriott Holly Murray Shaven McKee 585 Waughk*m Street, Winston - Salem. NC 27107 Phone: 338- 771 -50001 FAX: 338. 771.48311 Internet: www MEQW0pp=r*IAlkMIWAcft - 0%Ro*W110 %Po0c0MffWP4PV Chris Marriott, Environmental Senior one Carol 11/16/2009 01:57 9197153060 NCDENR PANE 10114 �� 14CDENR North Carolina Department of Environme Dexter R. Matthews, Director Division of Waste Managem October 13, 2009 MEIwiOItA,� DUM TO: Christopher Marriott, Environmental Senior Specialist FROM: Shawn McKee, Compliance Officer SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment — orange County Natural Re$burM BeV4rly Eaves perdue, Governor Dee Freeman, Secretary Please review the attached information for the Environmental Assessment — Orange (County Transfer Station. Fill In the information below and either send or fax this page to rne. Please fuel free to comment on any issues mentioned or not mentioned relating to Solid Waste. Plea e feel free to attach additional sheets if necessary. If you have questions or, need more information, call me at the Raleigh Central Office (919) 508- 8512. Thank you. 1. Do you know of any existing oWition5 in the Community, which project? PrapoSed facility is adjacent to closed unlined Orange Co. C&D h constituents above the NC2L standards for inorganics (may be n+ use from an on -site well may change regional groundwater cond and drawing water mounded in the waste mass towards the prol station. have an adverse impact on this Monitoring wells have shown ly occurring). The increased water , by creating a cone of depression line between the landMI and transfer 2: Do you know of any adverse Impacts this project would have on 'the community? The Rogers Rd community (approx. 0.5 miles away) has been Iry vocal of the existing adjacent MSW landfill. I 3. Please list the nearest waste management facility (or facilities) perrnitted to accept waste from this project. The adjacent Orange County C&D IandMi (68-04) (entrance located on Eubanks Rd.) would accept waste from the project during construction. Once the facility is opened, It will be able to incorporate any waste generated into the workload of waste being transferred, I 1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Can3lina 27661646 Phone: 918- 5M4i}D 1 FAX: 919 ►73348101 Intemit http.Avastenotn�,org An dOUDI OMOMo My+AhMhmM Add ffmpIDW- PMW DM Duel Purim RbCydad pq 11/1612009 01:57 9197153060 NCDENR DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Inter- Agenoy Project Review Response Project Name 0 VWS0y§ev Board of Type of Project Commissioners. Comments provided by: ❑ Regional Program Person {� Regional Supervisor for Public Water Supply Section ❑ Central Office program person PAGE 11/14 OCT 09Z9 Project Number 104124 county Orange FA . _ g22 County Transfer Statiod: eadoitd metal 160' it same house 20' X 20' to sit on 10 acm pA r of Imud in central Orange Comma M Name iM3chael Aougll+wRalfth RO Date: 10/0712009 Telephone number: 47/f— 791/` ` AU4) Program within Division of Environmental Health: Public Water Supply ❑ Other, Name of Program: _ Response (check all applicable): ❑ No objection to project as proposed © No comment ❑ Insufficient information to complete review ❑ Comments attached ® See comments below Ar Public Water Supply Socwn Environmental Review Coordinator far the badslon of Environmental Health 11/16/2009 01:57 9197153060 NCDENR DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURALRESOURCES DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Inter - Agency Project Review Response Project Name QMae Conatr Board of Type of Project PAGE 12/14 Project Number 10 -0124 County Oran e EA --QrAno County TmpAr 9tstion: enclosed wtal bldz 160' X 160' A Basic hJuse 20' X IQ' to-sit Olt 10 Bare parcel of_laild is -central Oraal County. F1 The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications for all water system improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the award of a contract or the Initiation of construction (as required by 15A NCAC 18C .0300et. seq.). For information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, (818) 733 -2321. ❑ This project will be classified as a non- wmmunity public water supply and must comply with state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the applicant should contact the Public Water Supply Section, (819) 733 -2321. ❑ If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of feet or adjacent waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding the shellfish sanitation program, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Section at (252) 726-6827. Q The soil disposal areas) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding problem. For information oonceming appropriate mosquito control measures, the applicant should contact the Public Health Pest Management section at (919) 73348407. ❑ The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated structures, an extensive rodent control program may be necessary in order to prevent the migration of the rodents to adjacent areas. For information concerning rodent control, contact the local health department or the Public Health Pest Management Section at (919) 7336407. ❑ The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their requirements for septic tank Installations (as required under 15A NCAC 180. 1000 et. sap.). For Information concerning septic tank and other on -site waste disposal methods, contact the On -Site Wastewater Section at (910) 733 -2895, ❑ The applicant should be advised to oontect the focal health department regarding the sanitary faclfldes required for this project ❑ If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water line relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Health, Public Water Supply Section, Technical Services Branch, 1834 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27609-1634,(919) 733 -2321, N For Regional and Central Office comments, see the reverse side of this form. Jim MoRight PWSS 10/0712009 Reviewer Section/Branch DOW 11/16/2009 01:57 9197153960 NCDENR State of North Carolina Department of Invironment and Natursll Resources RevieaAngOtfim: B*jj&h Rs ional OfTioc PAGE 13/14 INTERGOV9RNMENTA1,. REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS Project. NumberLO`a % 2y— Due Date:..__ _ Aftor review of this projca it has besh determined that the ENR permWs) 7urd/or approwls itdicatcd may Head to be DIMINd ih order for Ibis pmjcd to comply with Worth C eroiisa JAW, Qttastionr regarding than permiv shvuid be tadtimpod to the Rcgiond Ofrtea indicated on the rcversc ofthe form. All applicatmms, infbrmiuiaa and guideline relative to these plans and primin arc avoidable from the same Regional Oltice. Normal Procter Tkm PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory If rte limit) Permit to construct it operate wastewater Iratlttmtc ruilithis, sewer system cxtorntoan R suwor sy+mms Appucalon 90 days betbre boon epnetruRion a award of eonpiNcuon 30 days not discharginit into state suriaac waters. . contracts, On.sin inspaadoo. Poet- application taehbical conference used. (90 days) NPOSS - pemtlt to ISaciatrgs into atrdfoca weer and/or Appiiation 180 days before begin activity. OmNe inspeadon, Pf"Wicstion aoltfKaGa usenet, AddklowNy, obtain permit to coafwuet wastewater W 120 days (�] permit in oppttte tmd colmbttet wapbawatar iheilitia dcimit to 9 late piste surAm wwalb tro vvw( &ciliW -gmnW mitts NPAES. Reply time, 90 tin alter maelpr of (NIA) plans or Issue aNPDES permk whichever is law. i@ Wsaar the hmtk Preappiieation wilmied cori(tra w UVADY oc=%my 3 Ndrys ( ) pdt wen Cronsmtcs6um Pormh Complete application must be received and pamrit eimed prior b dho inawlation ors well. 7 days (15 days) Appiioafties oW huts be served on cads sUm m rep l m property ovtwr. C3 Droddgic and FIR Permit Olake hayeopgn, its- appllcedon vori t aft raami. Rliibq may ragtdm 55 days FAW"btto Fill tips N.C. Dcpaninan nfAdminierratfon end Federal (90 do") Dredg! no Fill Pam , Pw mk tv to rtmat a operate Air PoiiulkM Aba%MM Applioetion meat be aubn *d and po mit roaaived prior to r j fhcilitiea .nd►rr P•mission 99urev as par 13 A NCAC asastnawon and apamtias of t1N aNitce, it a pamtit is requirad 'it a► (2Q,0100 deti 7Q.0900) stet m tt W load zoning, rhea there ate additivrfal tequiremela and 90 doe timelines (2QAi I )). IYl Permit to corm oct 8 operate Trrrtcpormdm Foci fly w AWiation mmi be ombmkted at last 90 dayp prior to cosmodon at per I P A NCAC (2D.08W, 2Q.0601) 90 do" modiffcadon orlhe saeoa. ripen ba i tg associated Whh subject promw MUM be in rnmplIAW wkh 15 A NCAC 20.19M Demolition or gnovatlorot of sowu ras vorwshtitrg asbeian and aria) nwpt ba in compliance wire 15 A in NiA ntbmle; rm-m prlot toldemolo Agee Cmd 199 ) coup 919- 707,59so, C,ompkx 6041M Pernik rMWNd unrig 15 A NCAC I... I 20.01100 The Sedtalentetion Pollution Conpol Act of 1973 hmae be properly addntnd far halt' land dipaadAng sWv(b. An emime R fj aadimentatiae esriboi plan will be required if oric or mote acre to be dlsambdd. Plap tiled with proper Regional OIAce (Land QualNy 20 dop Sat:tun) At 1cw m days bePon begismi ft ettivity, Aft *VSO for etc first acre err say part of an mere. Ah cWgM tovIaw oplort t+ aveilabie with a vitimw Ma. (30 dsye) C 7 SWImert4don and waiett Compel mast be addrosaed in aaemdatton %eb NCDOT,s NA"avod program, halowar ettepri tt should be to dasim and Meallsom a (30 day;) 4taPpropriela pork nowr aadVii ant ttappi% devious a; watt N atsbla dD"P%VW aoavoyawn ad mdau. OMaihe itlept Was usual Surgty trace tiled -MG1 RNR Bond amotmt varlet 'a Mining Perini with type mine and mbnbor ofelime of knit. Any am rained ghe w 30day; Nuts one rase ttWpt till WMISI t, The NPRO Nate bind must be recetired (60 day') bcfble the petntivan be lanced. J NOA Carolina bomhtg poauk ()04hN iropsption by N.0 Divlsfoa Films Reaaarew Ifparmk;aaatds 4 days I day (NIA) Speaks i Cyround Ckaroaaa 810liva Pwmk - 22 (partite h Werim by Nfi, Division Ftxeat Rolmirm mquued "If moo then coontiet m eoanal N.C. with ownic will 0ve aefaa afgrnund akeling Nctivides are Mvolved, MspeWena should be i day rogu a ant iNasf tan &Yp Mac actual bum it planned " ( NIA) 1 11 lt06111hg Facilidp WA 90.120 dgyp iwA) Irpatmit n9aka4 appllttedon 60 days, after; begin C4tlattMIOn. APpIieani must him N.C. "fled w4lo hp: pqWo p(M, impoics atruetioa.• eertk'(y cinmunisa is oocardind to PM approved pleat May airs Mquho, I Dsae .Wely ?emit permit under moNgm116 aatutad Oforinan, And a 404 permit film corps or 20 days PnCNteas. An frt wtlon of die Is eactytary a antsy MUM Clacrif lUtioa, A (6060) mtaimwa Ibc of At00,00 nlwl NUMPMY Nrc appdrearfpn. An adds iwW —., -- — -- - - - 11/1612609 91:57 9197153660 NCDENR PACE 14/14 REGIONAL OFFXCFS Questions regarding these permits should be addrused to the Regional Office marked below. I Asheville Regional Offiee 2090 US Highway 70 Swannanon, NC 28778 (828) 296 -4500 ❑ Fatyofteville Re&sd Office 225 NOM Cheen Street, Suite 7t4 Fayetteville, NC 28301 -5043 (910) 433 -3300 n won sville Regional Office 610 But Center Avenue, Suite 301 Mooresville, NC 28115 (704) 663 -1699 fdgh Regional o fine 380013a mtt f3riive, Suite 101 Raleigh, NC 27609 (919) 791 -4200 0 Wilmingtola Mosel Office 127 CardiaW Drive Extension Wilmington, NC 28405 (910) 796 -7215 ri Wismit -Salem .Regional office sm Waughto" Street Winston- Salem, NC 27107 (336)171.500 n Vi±lieilingio�.R. .1W Office - 943 Wuhingtoin $quairie Washington, NC 27889 (252) 9+46-6481 1Vemrfal Procesu'Time (ahrottory time limit) PEP34M SKC1AL APPLICATION PROCEDUM tier REQUMIMENI S Flit p"V bead dfS3,000 with Wk nmtnini to 84ee erNC WN11donol ilia 1 D days L7 Permit to drift utpwatay all or Sam well wq W b drill tl MIL UPW RIAMmad, be pi+Uad NIA dlwdn8 to i nppuCatiom Coal ,with ENR to least 10 dWs prior to imis orpamit. I it days Ll Gespl"iear Explmallon Permit Application by (W14t. No m odord application ram. VA boom on s9Wbw ante is 3aw, Mint + deaadDtiams 1540 days 0 Sam LakoCamuV timPomt aE Arawimge of atruetore d: proof of owna*shlp of riparian NIA Property,- �� L7 401 WaterQusliryCeturautiam N/A 130 55 days C1 CAMA Permit (Or MAJOR &vdcpnu:nt :230.00 ft tmntseam paay appliaadon (150&0) [ 1 CAMA Pettadt f t MQIOR develapmttmt 950.00 ka ftw aecormpmq awkstive PS drys) evtral etic nientmnYtla ere rotated is err � the .red. racy rrwnunaax treat+ ib ba moved air Beady please sadly: [. ! N.C. Oeodede Survey, Smt 21681 NeW NC 27611 AbamdonmmtatwW wdis irm otad mutbe fmlmmdamfe wlrhTWe ISA. Subeh*w2C.01OD. r, Nod iesdon oftite proper m&Od office is ^d9uealed Vorphan• undarprmmd atone ,WnU (UM)..e Alaeovered dafledetiy 00 oe eperat;om. days L:3 Cdaipiiomee wig! I SA NCAC 2N l Md (CoraW Smmwat¢er Rulea) is rWired. (NIA) ( (_I ,Tar Pamlim at Now Rh nw buf1ki Rain ro** d. ii mmum (attad ow a amwe". bllnB ectmbt to cite eommrmt audtority) REGIONAL OFFXCFS Questions regarding these permits should be addrused to the Regional Office marked below. I Asheville Regional Offiee 2090 US Highway 70 Swannanon, NC 28778 (828) 296 -4500 ❑ Fatyofteville Re&sd Office 225 NOM Cheen Street, Suite 7t4 Fayetteville, NC 28301 -5043 (910) 433 -3300 n won sville Regional Office 610 But Center Avenue, Suite 301 Mooresville, NC 28115 (704) 663 -1699 fdgh Regional o fine 380013a mtt f3riive, Suite 101 Raleigh, NC 27609 (919) 791 -4200 0 Wilmingtola Mosel Office 127 CardiaW Drive Extension Wilmington, NC 28405 (910) 796 -7215 ri Wismit -Salem .Regional office sm Waughto" Street Winston- Salem, NC 27107 (336)171.500 n Vi±lieilingio�.R. .1W Office - 943 Wuhingtoin $quairie Washington, NC 27889 (252) 9+46-6481 NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW COUNTY: ORANGE H04:SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL STATE NUMBER: 10--E- 0000 -0124 DATE RECEIVED: 10/02/2009 AGENCY RESPONSE: 11/04/2009 REVIEW CLOSED: 11/09/2009 CLEARINGHOUSE COORD REGION J TRIANGLE J COG P.O. BOX 12276 RESEARCH TRIANGLE PK NC .REVIEW DISTRIBUTION CC &PS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DEPT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION TRIANGLE J COG PROJECT INFORMATION APPLICANT: Orange County TYPE: State Environmental Policy Act Environmental Assessment DESC: Orange County Transfer Station entails of an enclosed metal. building 160 feet by 160 feet and scale house 20 feet by 20 feet which will sit on a 10 acre parcel of land in the central part of Orange county The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -1301. If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at (919)007 -2425. AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS' SUBMITTED: NO COMMENT F� COMMENTS ATTACHED SIGNED BY: DATE: COUNTY: ORANGE NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW H04: SOLID MS RENEE GLEDHILL- EARLEY CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR DEPT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE MSC 4617 - ARCHIVES BUILDING RALEIGH NC REVIEW DISTRIBUTION CC &PS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DENR LEGISLATIVE AFI'AIRS DEPT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION TRIANGLE. J COG PROJECT INFORMATION APPLICANT: Orange County TYPE: State Environmental Policy Act Environmental Assessment :STS ^rte STATE NUMBER: 10 -E- 0000 -0124 t;! DATE RECEIVED: 10/02/2009 (L(,J� AGENCY RESPONSE: 11 /04/2009 t CT 2(�9 REVIEW CLOSED: 11/09/2009 HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE t39 -' LtA , IOja4(M DESC: Orange County Transfer Station entails of an enclosed metal building 160 feet by 160 feet and scale house 20 feet by 20 feet which will sit on a 10 acre parcel of land in the central part of Orange county The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -1301. If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at (919)807 -2425. AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED: 9 NO COMMENT, F-1 COMMENTS ATTACHED SIGNED BY: fa"" DATE: to' 20' ! ,r l pr COUNTY: ORANGE NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW H04: SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR CC &PS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PROGRAM MSC # 4719 RALEIGH NC REVIEW DISTRIBUTION CC &PS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DEPT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION TRIANGLE J COG PROJECT INFORMATION APPLICANT: Orange County TYPE: State Env.i.ronmenta.l. Policy Act Environmental Assessment vo loll (P STATE NUMBER: 10 -E- 0000 -0124 DATE RECEIVED: 10/02/2009 AGENCY RESPONSE: 11/04/2009 REVIEW CLOSED: 11/09/2009 DESC: Orange County Transfer Station entails of an enclosed metal building 160 feet by 160 feet and scale house 20 feet by 20 feet which will. sit on a 10 acre parcel of land in the central part of Orange county The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for .intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -1301. If. additional review time is needed, please contact this office at (919)807 -2425. AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED: X1 NO COMMENT F] COMMENTS ATTACHED SIGNED BY: 1 ? ocr u F DATE: COUNTY: ORANGE NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW H04: SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL MS SHIRLEY FOYE CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION STATEWIDE PLANNING - MSC #1554 RALEIGH NC REVIEW DISTRIBUTION CC &PS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS DEPT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION TRIANGLE J COG PROJECT INFORMATION APPLICANT: Orange County TYPE: State Environmental Policy Act Environmental Assessment ,•`t i STATE NUMBER: 10 -E- 0000 -0124 DATE RECEIVED: 10/02/2009 AGENCY RESPONSE: 11 /04/2009 REVIEW CLOSED: 11/09/2009 DESC: Orange County Transfer Station entails of an enclosed metal. building 160 feet by 160 feet and scale house 20 feet by 20 feet which will sit on a 10 acre parcel of land in the central part of Orange county The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -1301. If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at (919)807 -2425. AS A RESULT OF THIS EVIEW HE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED: SIGNED BY: NO COMMENT F] COMMENTS ATTACHED DATE: /D — 14 -0-7 'u DESC: Orange County Transfer Station entails of an enclosed metal. building 160 feet by 160 feet and scale house 20 feet by 20 feet which will sit on a 10 acre parcel of land in the central part of Orange county The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -1301. If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at (919)807 -2425. AS A RESULT OF THIS EVIEW HE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED: SIGNED BY: NO COMMENT F] COMMENTS ATTACHED DATE: /D — 14 -0-7 CITIZENS INVOLVEMENT PHASE CONSULTANT SELECTION F -�� SITE PLANNING PHASE DESIGN & PERMITTING PHASE ORANGE CITIZENS APPROVAL COUNTY OWASA ADVISORY L- STORMWATER EROSION MANAGEMENT CONTROL PLAN PLAN AUTHORIZATION BOCCE PEER SITE TO NEGOTIATE SITE CONCEPT FINAL SITE REVIEW SELECTION PURCHASE OF PLAN APPROVAL PLAN SITE ---- ? FINAL DESIGN FLOW CPD PRELIMINARY DETAILED CSWD DESIGN DESIGN AUTHORIZATION CHART APPROVAL DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION CONTINUED PACKAGE DOCUMENTS BELOW ESTABLISH PEER GREEN 4� CITIZENS ADVISORY -- REVIEW BUILDING OWASA COMMITTEE PROGRAM DENR OWASA DENR SW NCDOT NCDOT WATER /SEWER PERMIT PERMIT APPROVAL PERMIT APPLICATION APPLICATION PEER APPLICATION FLOW CHART REVIEW CONTINUED FROM ABOVE W BIDDING & FUNDING PHASE FINAL DESIGN & CS WD AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION BIDDING CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS CONTRACT AWARD PEER REVIEW AUTHORIZE SITE ACQUISITION BDCC CONSTRUCTION PROJECT AUTHORIZ COST FUNDING APPROVAL DISPOSAL ESTIMATE CONTRACT AWARD AUTHORIZE HAUL CONTRACT AWARD FINANCE K PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOOT NOTES j AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT J ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL $I J POSSIBLE PERMIT APPROVAL REQUIRED J J BASED UPON REQUIRED PERMITS CONSTRUCTION PHASE CPDJ DENR) TS OTHER OMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION APPROVAL STARTUP COPERATION HAUL CONTRACT PROPOSAL EHAUL AND OSAL DI SPOSAL P CONTRACT PROPOSAL CERTIFICATE TO OPERATE LEGEND APPROVAL COUNTY AND /OR REGULATORY APPROVAL PROJECT ACTIVITY ABBREVIATIONS CSWD COUNTY SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT DENR DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES CPD COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT OWASA ORANGE WATER L SEWER AUTHORITY NCDOT NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BOCC BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY TRANSFER STATION IMPLEMENTATION FLOW SCHEMATIC OCT. 30, 2009 C BOCC Actions Required for Transfer Station Process In- County Transfer Station Decision 1. BOCC selects transfer station site, authorizes County Attorney and County Management to initiate negotiations to purchase property, and authorizes source of funding of expenditure for purchase (or reimbursement resolution if Paydarfar site - $191,172) 2. BOCC authorize award of contract for primary transfer station design/permitting engineering firm and a second contract for a second engineering firm that will perform a peer review of technical services /work products provided the County by the primary firm 3. BOCC approval of transfer station site concept plan 4. BOCC approval of award to construct the transfer station and relevant contractual agreements related to facility construction 5. BOCC authorizes financial Services to initiate actions to secure financing for land acquisition (if necessary), professional services, and/or other project related expenditures as may be required, including budget amendments 6. Award of contract for Hauling and Disposal of transferred wastes Durham Transfer Station Utilization Decision 1. Authorize the BOCC Chair and County Manager to begin working with the Towns of Carrboro, Chapel and Hillsborough regarding amending the Interlocal Agreement with regard to County obligation to provide local waste disposal facilities and with regards to waste stream flow commitments for a possible preferential tipping fee arrangement with the City of Durham. 2. Authorize the BOCC Chair and County Manager to proceed with validating a potential interlocal agreement between Orange County and the City of Durham formalizing future arrangements. 3. Authorize the County Manager to establish a customer account with the City of Durham Transfer Station and to direct county municipal solid waste to the City of Durham Transfer Station once the Orange County landfill reaches capacity. f lc �mc 4_ 6 Follow Up From November 17, 2009 Board of County Commissioners Meeting On the Application of Exclusionary Criteria The following paragraphs explain, in part, some of the aspects in question regarding the site selection process brought forward at the earlier meeting. The adopted Exclusionary Criteria includes a list of ten criteria. After the first eight reduced the pool of candidate sites, the two remaining were used to further narrow the field of potential candidate sites. These are described with added notation by staff below. Excerpt from Solid Waste Transfer Station Site Selection Criteria Adopted Exclusionary Criteria Criteria 9. Sites with County Owned Lands or Easements Designated for Preservation County -owned lands acquired for parks and /or nature preserves Lands that have been purchased by the County through the Lands Legacy Program (or other mechanism) for the protection of natural and cultural resources and as future park sites. Site(s) with deed restrictions or with permanent conservation easements will be excluded. Staff Note: This criterion did exclude many County owned sites because many were purchased with Lands Legacy monies. Lands Legacy monies, in most cases, can be reimbursed by other funds. However, an extra iteration of interpretation was not made to ascertain if the future use of a park or conservation could also accommodate other uses of less than 25 acres with adequate buffer adjacencies. There was original draft language that mentioned master - planned lands that were fully accounted (spatially) for specific park or conservation use would be excluded. This draft would have permitted a yet to be master planned County land area to be included for consideration. In application, a master plan of a large County parcel may show how other public uses could be accommodated along with a park. Adopted Exclusionary Criteria Criteria 10. Sites with Less than 25 Acres in Size Unless Transportation Access, Existing Buffers, and Preliminary Transfer Station Layout Demonstrates The Adequacy of a Smaller Site 25 acre single or combination of parcels Staff Note: This criterion excludes less than 25 acre sites unless adequacy of a smaller site can be shown because of unique offsite conditions. Roughly a 9 -10 acre site was the minimum area for the facility and associated site plan aspects (i.e. an area of about 660' square). However, larger than average buffers (landscape or other uses) were suggested and an additional 192' buffer around the original 9 -10 acres would create a 25 acre parcel. On private property one would need the entire 25 acre parcel unless another use, such as an interstate could serve as a buffer. Less than 25 acres would be acceptable if offsite areas (such as additional County or municipal owned lands or interstate, etc.) could accommodate the buffers. CADocuments and Settings\mallison \Local Settings \Temporary Internet Files \OLK108 \The adopted Exclusionary Criteria2 CBenedict GH edit.doc