HomeMy WebLinkAboutCFE 101199 Orange County
Environment and Resource Conservation Department
Itw
P . O . Box 8181
Hillshorolloh, NC 2 72 78
Phone ; (919) 732 - 8181 0l' 967- 9251 , x2597 7n
Fax , (919) 644- 3002 114
EllrnilY Mot o1"I'Mco . 010rznge6lic4lis
Memorandum
OCT
To : Commission for the Environment
From : Loraine Kohorn , Chair
Date : October 4 , 1999
Re . October 11 Meeting Agenda
Please find attached the agenda and materials for the next meeting of
the Commission for the Environment , scheduled for :
Monday, October 11 , 1999
7 : 30 p . m .
Southern Human Services Center
Homestead Road
At the meeting we will be providing comment on the new Triangle Land
Conservancy report and the Joint Master Recreation and Parks report ,
which have been referred to us by the County Commissioners . We also
have updates on the C & D landfill , the State of the Environment
reports , and other areas of significance .
Please take time to review the enclosed Parks work group
report and the previously - mailed Triangle Land Conservancy
report prior to the meeting , to facilitate informed discussion of
any points we wish to make .
If you have questions , or will be unable to attend , please contact Carol
Crawford ( x2597 ) at the numbers or e - mail above . I look forward to
seeing you on the 11th .
AGENDA
Orange County
Commission for the Environment
Monday, October 11 , 1999
7 : 30 p . m .
Southern Human Services Center
Homestead Road
Chapel Hill , NC
7 : 30 I . Call to Order
7 : 30 II . Additions or Changes to Agenda
7 : 30 III . Approval of Minutes ( September 13 )
7 : 35 IV . Rating Land in Orange County for Wildlife
Value : A Landscape with Wildlife , Part 2
Please read this report prior to the meeting ( sent under
previous cover in September ) . The report offers a means
of mapping and calculating areas for their wildlife
significance . There are a number of recommendations
made by the authors . The Board of Commissioners has
referred this to the CFE and the Planning Board , The EIE
Committee may wish to consider what this report means
in light of the Flexible Development regulations and the
Environmental Impact Ordinance ,
8 : 05 V . Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work
Group Report
Report attached. Please review this report prior to the
meeting . This work group of elected officials and
representatives from across the County has developed a
report after 17 months of work . An executive summary
of the report , along with the full document , is attached .
The CFE may wish to think in particular about proposals
to link town and county/ state parks , and preserve
natural resources through park design .
8 : 30 VI . State of the Environment Reports
As in the CFE work plan , each committee is to prepare a
State of the Environment report for the Board of
Commissioners retreat in December . A final draft of the
reports should be prepared by the November 8 meeting .
( agenda continued on next page )
8 : 45 VII . Update on C & D Landfill
On September 29 , the Board of Commissioners excluded
the Guess Road site from further consideration , and
scheduled a November 9 worksession to further discuss
options . A work group may be created to advise on the
C & D landfill course of action . No action was taken on the
proposal from Durham County for joint park on the
adjacent property owned by the Triangle Community
Foundation , The LOG option on the 178 - acre Cavin piece
has expired .
855 VMS Report of Air Quality Resolution
The Board of Commissioners approved the CFE
resolution on reducing vehicle fleet emissions and
pursuing a mobile source emission grant with the
EVASEP planning group .
9 : 00 IX . Consideration of Water Reclamation
Action
On August 9 , the CFE received a presentation on water
reclamation . Because of time constraints , no actions
were considered . Interest was expressed in a resolution
asking UNC to use reclaimed water at Finley Golf Course ,
9 : 03 X . Updates ( Shearon Harris, Open Burning )
9 : 05 XI . Committee Breakout Sessions
State of the Environment reports ( all ) , air quality action
plan and next steps ( AQ ) , Flexible Development and EIO
( EIE ) , TLC report ( BR ) .
9 : 25 XII . Committee Reports
9 : 30 MIS Adjournment
ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSION FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
DRAFT Summary of Meeting September 13 , 1999
Held in Orange County Southern Human Services Center, Chapel Hill, NC
Members Present : Loraine Kohorn, Dan Okun, Kris Price , Richard Pratt, Lee Rafalow,
Annette Jurgelski , Rosalinda Lidh, Cara Crisler, Julie Tucker, Roy Fortmann, , Alice Gordon
Excused Absences . Mark Smith, Mary Jane Baker, William Glaze .
Guests : Jane Korest, Durham Senior Planner , Gayle Wilson, Chapel Hill Solid Waste Director
Staff Present : David Stancil, Director, Department of Environment and Resource Conservation,
Carol Crawford, ERCD Admin . Assist ,
I. Call to Order.
The meeting was called to order at 6 : 30 p . m . by Loraine Kohorn
II . Additions or Changes to Agenda
Stancil noted that Gayle Wilson, Town of Chapel Hill Solid Waste Director, was here to talk
' about the C &D Landfill site proposal .
He also noted a handout from Marc deBree as a follow-up information on open burning issues
from the previous meeting discussion .
III . Approval of Minutes (August 91h)
There were four corrections noted for the minutes as : ( 1 ) page 4 , 2nd paragraph, rewording the
second sentence as in bold : "The idea of installing the two water lines during the development of
subdivisions and construction of buildings causes the cost of installation to be much less than
coming in later to retrofit the lines for reclaimed water use . " (2) page 5 , 2nd paragraph, 3rd
sentence , rewording to : "The idea of mulching leaves such as currently done by the Town of
Carrboro could be another option by local governments . " ( 3 ) page 5 , 2nd paragraph, 5th sentence ,
change ` California ' to "Los Angles has outlawed open burning . " (4) page 5 , 2nd paragraph, 6th
sentence , clarification — " Smith commented on the enforcement of air quality rules as being
difficult in having to deal with discourteous offenders . "
MOTION : Jurgelski moved to approve August 9d' minutes . Seconded by Crissler.
VOTE : Unanimous .
Last updated 09/29/99 1
IV. Durham Inventory and Open Space
Durham Senior Planner Jane Korest presented discussion on the status of Durham ' s Inventory of
Natural Areas and plans for open space preservation . There was an inventory completed in 1996
resulting in five designated natural area corridors with the Little River Corridor being one of the
more significant resources for Durham County residents . Korest explained the Little River
Corridor Issues in regards to three primary points :
➢ The Little River corridor is one of five designated natural area corridors in Durham (new
Hope Creek, Eno River, Flat River and Lick Creek are the other four) . Special open space
protection plans will be prepared for each of these corridors . The New Hope Creek plan was
prepared some time ago , and has provided the basis for a long term acquisition plan for the
city and county . Background work is underway already on the Little River Corridor Plan,
with a public involvement phase anticipated for later this year . The objective of the plan is to
balance growth with preservation of the value of the Little River corridor for wildlife ,
botanical habitat, and potential recreation .
➢ The Little River corridor is strategically important to Durham for several reasons . The
protection of the upstream portions of the Little River is important to help preserve the water
quality for the Little River Reservoir . The existing high quality and purity of the water is
evidenced by a number of rare mussel species that depend on very clean waters , including
four species that are state listed as threatened and candidates for the federal endangered
species list . The Little River corridor is also important for wildlife habitat and for its
excellent potential for low impact recreation opportunities for Durham residents .
➢ The Durham Board of County Commissioners previously approved spending $ 400 , 000 in
county park and recreation bond funds to acquire lands along the Little River corridor; of
which $ 204 , 000 has been spent to acquire 50 acres of land along 501 north .
Korest also addressed Watershed and Land Use Regulation Issues as follows :
➢ Landfills , (both sanitary and C & D ) are permitted only in the I - 3 industrial zoning category .
Landfills are not permitted in the Little River watershed .
➢ Durham has adopted watershed overlay restrictions for the entire Little River drainage basin
that require :
♦ 2 acre minimum lot sizes with 6 percent impervious surface maximums ;
♦ 150 foot stream buffers adjacent to perennial streams found on either USGS
Topographic quad maps or Soils Survey maps ;
♦ 50 foot undisturbed stream buffers adjacent to intermittent streams shown on
USGS topographic quad maps or on Soil Survey maps .
➢ Durham has a local Sedimentation and Erosion Control Ordinance that requires
additional standards for High Quality Waters (HQW) , including the Little River . The
Last updated 09/29/99 2
requirements include that a maximum of 20 acres be disturbed at any one time for a
project ; and that structure and devices be constructed to provide protection from the
runoff of a 25 -year storm event .
Okun inquired about practices used for acquiring lands along streams .
Korest replied that acquisition came from amenable landowners , resulting in a patchwork of
lands acquired in the beginning stages . Another type of acquisition comes from dedication of
recreation areas in subdivision plans along the corridor .
Okun asked about the quantity of staff needed to monitor sedimentation control .
Korest responded that there are four infield staff, and even with that Durham receives complaints
of that not being adequate .
Jurgelski asked if any recreation areas are planned for the New Hope Creek corridor .
Korest responded that it would depend on citizen input .
Harllee -Tucker asked what happens to acquired lands in the future and if there is guarantee these
lands stay in the preservation program .
Korest explained that lands acquired with grant funds are dedicated easements for the
preservation purposes and cannot be used for another purpose .
Kohorn inquired if Durham County has talked to Orange County about these issues in Little
River .
Korest noted that on June 28 `h the Durham County Board of Commissioners had passed a
resolution of concern about the proposed C&D Landfill site .
Rafalow asked if Orange and Durham counties have any joint planning agreements .
Korest replied that for the most part the j oint planning items were along * the Chapel Hill sections
of the New Hope Corridor between the counties . She also suggested that joint plan similar to the
New Hope Corridor between the counties could be beneficial .
V. Proposed C & D Landfill Sites
Stancil noted that at the last meeting the CFE asked for a briefing on the proposed C &D Landfill .
He thanked Gayle Wilson for coming and handed out copies of the Landfill Sites Report and an
Overview of Site Search Process/ Status . The overview of the site search process describes the
site selection process and deciding criteria, a map of the Guess Road site identifying watershed
ilar map for the site at Eubanks Road .protection efforts and a sim
Kohorn asked for information on runoff anticipation and what has been estimated sedimentation
in nearby streams . Wilson noted that in the report there was information about two
drainageways where surface water is to be diverted away from the active area into a natural
drainageway . The closest disposal area is over one half a mile from the river . Sediments that are
mixed with the surface water is channeled into sedimentation basins , where water is held to allow
the sediments to settle out, then released into stream without the sediments . This site has two
Last updated 09/29/99 3
basins to handle the 25 year storms and can be increased by ten to twenty percent as necessary .
Wilson added that staff has extensive experience with twenty years of operating municipal waste
and C &D landfills without any offsite contamination of surface water or groundwater from the
sites . The State Land Quality Division checks the sedimentation levels on the site regularly . He
noted that C &D Landfills are not regulated to be lined because the materials accepted are not a
threat to the environment, are required to meet drinking water standards at the boundary of the
site for surface and ground water . .
CFE members asked questions about other treatment of runoff and whether there was
construction material that is considered prohibited .
Wilson replied that C &D materials in liquid form were prohibited . , such as wet paint .
Pratt suggested that the character of construction materials should be considered since these
items have changed significantly over the past 10 years because materials such as plastics , glues ,
phynenolics products , and other things that could potentially break down in the groundwater are
different from the previous types of wooden C & D materials . He also noted that a lot of artificial
items have been introduced into the construction business .
Wilson replied that EPA does the scientific evaluations of the materials and places restrictions on
the landfill operations . The state has the opportunity to scrutinize the regulations and make them
more stringent . Asbestos for example is a material that has special handling procedures in that it
is governed closely . The Landfill is only allowed to receive asbestos generated from work on a
private residence and are not allowed to receive any commercial asbestos . They would be
referred to facilities to do handle that type of disposal .
F, Pratt asked about demolition materials and if an inspector takes a sample of the debris to
determine what is in it . For example , if a building was torn down the debris might not constitute
building materials .
Wilson replied that if the materials were in the building and were not any of the prohibited items .
No petroleum tanks , barrels are allowed . Inspectors on the site watch each dump and if anything
like a tank or barrel is spotted the operation is stopped and investigated . They will load these
items back onto the trucks and must take it back with them .
Okun asked how many inspectors are on the site at one time . Wilson replied that three are on
staff and a requirement that at least one must be on site at all operational times (usually two) .
They are trained in identifying materials . The inspector ' s job is totally to inspect the loads being
dumped . There is an equipment operator who has another view from a higher location and rakes
the material out to be inspected . We also have a C &D recycling person who is looking for
recyclable materials and looking for other items such as metal that can be sold .
Pratt noted that some types of sensor devices could be used to locate petroleum type materials
and asked if anything like that is used to discern what might be in saturated soils in huge dump -
truck loads of materials . Wilson noted that it would not be impossible to sneak in small amount
of saturated soil . He noted that the waste - stream in Orange County is ideal due to lack of
industry and potential heavy polluants .
Last updated 09/29/99 4
Rafalow asked where does the University dispose of unusual items . Wilson replied that the only
known C &D items received from the University is from internal staff repairs . For large
construction projects the University bids the work to contractors who dispose of it .
Harllee-Tucker asked about the typical breakout of C &D waste - stream verses municipal waste .
What incentives might be offered for recycling that might require certain wood or bricks or
concrete might be separated out and not dumped in the landfill ? How many other sites are there
in the county and state of this nature ?
Wilson replied that there is only one C &D Landfill in the county and did not know the number in
the state . Noting that these sites are restricted to accepting materials generated in the county of
operation . There is privately owned landfill in Person County . He noted that an LCID (Land
Clearing & Inert Debris) landfill is easily permitted . They accept stumps , rocks and dirt, but not
construction material . A new privately owned facility has just opened up in Guilford County .
Staff conducts a waste characterization study every five years . One was done in 1990 and 1995
and one will be done in October of 1999 and again next spring . Two seasons of studies allows
an idea of the waste - stream for that period of time . The C &D and MSW waste - streams vary
quite a bit . Very little of the C &D waste - stream material is allowed in the MSW waste - stream .
The waste - streams are very dissimilar .
Wilson also discussed a new plan adopted by the Town of Chapel Hill that all projects that go
through CUP and SUP processes must complete a solid waste management plan which has two
primary components : space planning , and a land clearing and construction demolition section.
Wilson also discussed possible future C &D Hauler Ordinance . A list of materials that are easily
locally recyclable would be required to be separated out of the loads at the jobsites . All haulers
would be licensed which would not be allowed to haul mixed loads of C &D materials . Another
idea of differential fees would encourage recycling . For example if someone brings in a clean
load of drywall not mixed with anything else , the Landfill would only charge $ 10 a ton verses a
mixed load which would be charged $ 40 or $ 50 a ton .
Potential routes for the Guess Road site were discussed with three possible routes being 15 - 501
out Guess Road to the site, I - 85 to Hwy 70 and out Hwy 57 to Guess Road, smaller loaders could
use St . Mary ' s and New Sharon Church Roads . Times of operation are planned to be the same as
existing facilities , 7 : 00 a . m . to 4 : 00 p . m . however, those times could be changed by the BOCC .
Jurgelski asked about how the sites were selected . Wilson noted that the instructions were to
locate a site , reasonably priced, not in a rural buffer, freely offered for sale . Jurgelski asked if
this could become a future municipal waste facility . Wilson replied that if the BOCC approved it
could be possible however, that idea was not known to him and no discussion had occurred on
this .
Commissioner Gordon added that the site would not be used for a Solid Waste Landfill if it was
chosen . She asked why the space closest to the road is the preferred site at Guess Road . Wilson
replied that staff could not locate the disposal area that utilizes the maximum disposal space due
Last updated 09/29/99 5
to the shape of the site . It had to be divided into two areas , the smaller triangle shaped closer to
the road and the larger center one to maximize the use of the property as an C &D disposal
facility . It would be quicker to develop and more cost efficient to develop the smaller space first
as we are under time constraints .
Rafalow asked how the estimated life of the two sites was determined .
Wilson replied that it was based on the amounts of tonnage now with a one percent increase
annually in the quantity . Taking into consideration an extensive C &D recycling program would
increase the life of the site : Other variables such as when the economy is good more building is
done generating more waste take effect . .
Kohorn asked if the northern leg that drains directly into the Little River would be left as is and if
it was hardwood forest . Wilson replied it was a mixture , mostly forested . Kohorn asked if there
was a guarantee it would be left as is . Wilson replied that could be given by the BOCC . He
noted there is no disposal potential for the "panhandle" .
Pratt questioned the feasibility of another access road . Wilson noted other property would have
to be acquired .
Rafalow asked what happens if a new C &D site is not built . Wilson responded that a survey had
been conducted of users of the landfill about this issue . The survey showed people figure out
where the next legal site is and they take items there , or illegal dumping throughout the rural and
urban areas , more burning of materials could occur, and on site burial of materials . As it is easy
to properly dispose of C &D material in the county there is not much illegal dumping . If they can
, not easily dispose of it properly there will probably require additional enforcement measures to
begin . Another issue would be increase in building costs to citizens if they have to drive long
distances and pay employees to dispose of materials out of the county .
Price asked about the percentage of recyclable waste materials in the C & D verses the Municipal
Waste and how much that might change with technology changes . Wilson replied that
technology was not the driving factor for C & D recycling . Original markets is the driving force .
He estimated that a higher percentage of the C &D is recyclable than the Municipal Waste
materials . As a large portion of the waste - stream is rock, brick, concrete and there is no market
for that around here
Pratt asked if this site would be excavated and filled and covered with piling up of brick and rock
to be recovered in the future if needed . Wilson noted that only items brought in separate could
be worthwhile . If we had to sort it a value would be spent that could never be recovered . Also
we save and stock pile brick as time allows .
Kohorn thanked Wilson for coming to the meeting and asked the members if they were interested
in taking a position on the issue of the proposed site .
Rafalow stated that at a minimum the CFE should be encouraging joint planning with Durham as
they are trying to preserve the Little River area and the landfill is in the middle of that area. The
Last updated 09/29/99 6
two counties should be planning the preservation of the area together and that the impact of the
proposed landfill could have on the area should be considered .
Gordon commented that hopefully joint planning would not be limited to environmental issues
because, joint planning is needed in the area of urban sprawl .
Kohorn asked if the CFE should be looking at our concerns with Little River as it is in Orange
County noting that there are different time lines at work .
Jurgelski asked what environmental impact study had been done . Crissler added that it was her
understanding that Blair Pollock said a study was on going . Kohorn asked if the CFE was
interested in contributing to preservation issues such as preservation of the fresh water mussels .
Okun stated a concern for management of long term maintenance of the site .
Stancil suggested allowing staff to draft something for j oint planning on the Little River corridor
to be presented at the next meeting .
The commission discussed that time would be up for the current C &D site next summer and that
enlargement of that site would require condemnation of land , which is not acceptable by the
BOCC .
The commission talked about ways of regulating who may use the C &D site to only Orange
County citizens and builders and the advantages of having a C &D site . Kohorn asked if the CFE
wanted to take any action at this time .
Gordon noted that the county has the responsibility to see that mixed solid waste is disposed of,
the county does not have the same responsibility for a C &D waste . The other one is closing next
summer .
Rafalow stated he felt obligated to do some j oint environmental planning with Durham County .
It is clear that environmental issues do not stop at political borders .
Stancil suggested to let staff prepare something based on what you ' ve said and bring it back to
the October meeting, knowing that some of this may have taken care of itself by then . Stancil
stated his assumption was that the CFE still wants to talk about joint planning whether the
landfill goes through or not, as there are other issues in the Little River corridor .
Rafalow suggested that it could be simple motion such as we think the county ought to enter
joint planning agreements for managing environmental impacts in the Little River Basin .
Fortmann noted there was no reason to restrict it to the Little River Basin . It should include
Chatham County , Durham County , Alamance County, and Person County and there is no reason
to rush that resolution, as it has no impact on the C &D site . Because it is Orange County that is
responsible for the site , not Durham County .
Last updated 09/29/99 7
The CFE discussed several options for wording of a resolution . A concern of more information
and time should be given to the issue
Kohorn noted that the language could be changed to come across with the CFE ' s concern . More
discussion on what wording to use was expressed . Given the hour of the evening , Kohorn asked
how many people were in favor of putting forth a resolution tonight agreeing that the one on joint
planning is being postponed . The majority indicated yes .
Price read the resolution as drafted during the breakout time .
" Considering the concerns expressed by Durham County for the impacts of the proposed
C & D Landfill on the watershed and on the environmental quality of the Little River, we
the members of the Commission for the Environment, strongly encourage the Board of
Orange County Commissioners to evaluate environmental impacts in their considerations
for siting a C & D Landfill. "
Kohorn asked for a motion .
MOTION : Jurgelski made motion to adopt the resolution . Seconded by Harllee-Tucker .
VOTE : Nine in Favor . (includes Okun ' s proxy as he left early)
One negative vote (Fortmann) .
Lidh asked why Fortmann was not in favor .
Fortmann noted that he did not think the CFE had enough information . He was in favor of
recommending that the BOCC consider environmental impacts but not appropriate to focus on
this one site .
VI . Eno River Watershed Resolution
Kohorn noted that the Eno River Watershed Resolution was on the yellow handout .
MOTION : Rafalow motioned to adopt the resolution . Seconded by Lidh .
VOTE : Unanimous .
VII . Shaping Orange County ' s Future
The information handed out was indicated as information for the CFE . Kohorn encouraged the
members to read the information and contact the SOCF staff if you have concerns . It is
important for the CFE to take in the vision produced .
Last updated 09/29/99 8
VIII . Draft Criteria for Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitat (Biological Resources
Committee)
Kohorn noted the criteria is to be included in the Lands Legacy Program that is in the process of
being written .
IX. Committee Meeting Breakout Sessions
The CFE broke out for subcommittee sessions to see where we are at and set some direction for
the fall .
X. Committee Reports
Fortmann report on the Air Quality Committee noting that the committee consists of Harrlee -
Tucker, Smith, Glaze and Fortmann . Our primary goal is the status report on air quality in the
county . We have background information and will be writing the report .
Environmental Education Indicators group reported the members are Rafalow, Crissler, Pratt,
and Price . We plan to look at strengthening the FDO , by looking at the Environmental Impact
Statement, interviewing the Planning Director, and meet before our next CFE meeting .
Kohorn reported on the Biological Resources Committee that Rich Shaw had been hired and we
want to meet with him to discuss priorities and plans for the Biological Resources in the county .
r, XI . Adjournment
Kohorn adjourned the meeting at 9 : 30 p . m . .
Last updated 09/29/99 9