- Lower Saucon's Environmental Advisory Council voted to not send its blessing on landfill plans to township council
- The board chairman called the vote as 4-3
- The state approval process for a landfill expansion could take years, and dump officials haven't applied yet
LOWER SAUCON TWP., Pa. — Lower Saucon Township’s Environmental Advisory Council voted Tuesday to not send its blessing of the Bethlehem Landfill’s most recent Phase Five Expansion plans to township council for review.
The vote came after a lengthy discussion regarding how the proposed addition to the dump’s disposal area could affect wetlands and other water bodies downstream.
Landfill officials provided an overview of the preliminary land development and lot consolidation plan for the Phase Five Expansion submitted to the township Sept. 11. They said they’re waiting to get a review letter back from the township engineer.
The plan is the same as one highlighted for the borough Planning Commission on Sept. 28. That day, only two of the seven committee members were present, so there could be no vote on the matter.
Some of the landfill's expansion efforts were limited in court on Tuesday.
Deforestation, effects on wetlands
Dru Germanoski, committee member and professor of geology and environmental geosciences at Lafayette College, asked the landfill representatives what percentage of the proposed expansion land was currently forested.
Joe McDowell, of the engineering firm Martin & Martin and working with Bethlehem Landfill Co. as an engineering consultant, said he wasn’t particularly involved in the environmental analysis but would describe it as best he could.
“We looked at the additional land that was being added to the landfill parcel, analyzed all of the natural resources by the zoning ordinance and I would say 90 to 95 percent of the properties were mapped with either steep slopes, woodlands, firmly sensitive woodlands, wetlands and the like."Joe McDowell, of Martin & Martin Inc.
“We looked at the additional land that was being added to the landfill parcel, analyzed all of the natural resources by the zoning ordinance and I would say 90 to 95 percent of the properties were mapped with either steep slopes, woodlands, firmly sensitive woodlands, wetlands and the like,” he said.
There appear to be 10 wetlands around the site, including six within the newest proposed expansion area. Those six range from 0.0092 of an acre to 0.1042 of an acre.
McDowell said that if the state Department of Environmental Protection or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers found the project’s impacts to the wetlands to be “jurisdictional,” then landfill officials would apply for joint permit applications and offer mitigation alternatives as required.
Germanoski then specifically asked whether the overall plan would call for that land to be deforested and used as a landfill.
“[The trees] will be removed as the landfill is built out over time,” Maryanne Garber, Bethlehem Landfill Co. legal counsel, said. “And then as the cells are developed and filled, they’ll be closed and vegetated.”
“This plan will deforest that landscape. There are wetlands on that landscape, steep slopes, all the things that are criteria that guide us in our deliberations about open space.”Dru Germanoski, Lower Saucon Environmental Advisory Council member and geology professor
Germanoski said the proposal disregards the areas that recharge groundwater and feed wetlands down slope. He said the impermeable liner that would come along with any landfill expansion would eliminate that recharge to areas such as Bull Run and the Lehigh River.
“This plan will deforest that landscape,” Germanoski said. “There are wetlands on that landscape, steep slopes, all the things that are criteria that guide us in our deliberations about open space."
A new disposal plan
Garber said the newest proposal differs from the previous one in that it would involve an 86-acre disposal area instead of the 117 acres originally proposed.
The plan also would have that space set back further from Bull Run and the Lehigh River water bodies.
She explained that the newest edition of the project would involve 193 acres of conservation easement, including the two primary parcels involved with the expansion and other areas to the immediate west and southwest.
“By reducing the disposal area that we were proposing, we were also able to increase the size of the conservation easements that at the time we were proposing to the township but have since been granted to the township,” Garber said.
“And so that increased the conservation easement area on the two primary parcels that are associated with the expansion by 37 acres.”
McDowell said the existing landfill — comprising both the Northern and Southeastern realignments — takes up about 224 acres in total.
He said the latest addition would increase the space to about 503 acres, including areas to the north and east of about 82 acres as well as 3 ½ acres to the west.
“By reducing the disposal area that we were proposing, we were also able to increase the size of the conservation easements that at the time we were proposing to the township but have since been granted to the township. And so that increased the conservation easement area on the two primary parcels that are associated with the expansion by 37 acres."Maryanne Garber, legal counsel for Bethlehem Landfill Co.
“This western piece here, as far as expansion, is proposed to allow for close off final capping and closing of the western area without benefit of any waste relocation,” McDowell said.
Garber added that any properties immediately to the west and north of that particular disposal area all would be granted the conservation rights as recently approved to the township.
The expansion also would involve a proposed mechanically stabilized earth berm, about 50 feet high on average, throughout the new area, including the planting of vegetation as the wall is built out.
McDowell said two of those walls are currently being used elsewhere at the landfill.
Any particular expansion also would call for broadening the state DEP permit boundaries on site, encompassing not only the disposal areas, but also any support systems such as stormwater detention basins and leachate storage tanks.
Developers are proposing two 100-foot-diameter leachate storage tanks on the southeastern corner of the project, with additional landscaping planned to the north.
A wetland area of just less than an acre lies just to the southwest, making for what appears to be the largest wetland displayed on the provided map.
McDowell said two basins are proposed for the new project, including a larger one to the northeast and a smaller one to the southeast.
“Those facilities will collect the majority of the Phase Five Expansion area stormwater runoff from the site, provide treatment and then discharge from the property,” McDowell said.
Two other existing basins to the north and west would also manage some of the project stormwater runoff.
Some nearby woodlands would remain undisturbed as part of the plan, including areas to both the north and south of the project. Landscaping would be done, McDowell said, in four areas surrounding the area in question, totaling about 4,000 trees planted.
“That’s a process that has a whole public participation component to it and meetings with the host municipality and adjacent municipalities and public comment periods, public hearings, public meetings."Maryanne Garber, legal counsel for Bethlehem Landfill Co., on the dump expansion approval process
Later in the meeting, Garber said the DEP review process could take upward of three to five years.
“That’s a process that has a whole public participation component to it and meetings with the host municipality and adjacent municipalities and public comment periods, public hearings, public meetings,” Garber said.
She said there can’t be any construction done until that process is completed.
Garber said the landfill hasn’t even submitted an application just yet, but were looking to get input on the preliminary plans.
Public comment
Resident Michael Ciccarello, who lives nearby, asked what would happen if somebody’s well water was contaminated after commenting that deforesting the area would increase water runoff.
He also mentioned a past occurrence in Steel City where residents’ wells were compromised, though he said it was not a case involving the landfill. He asked if the landfill officials were prioritizing public health with their new plan.
Board Chairman Thomas Carocci, who’s also a township council member, asked that Ciccarello ask questions specifically about the plan being discussed and to remain respectful.
“If your well water is contaminated and there’s evidence that it was contaminated as a result of the landfill operation, then whatever our legal obligation is, we will fulfill."Maryanne Garber, legal counsel for Bethlehem Landfill Co.
Ciccarello said he had thought his question was valid.
Garber said landfill staff would continue monitoring groundwater monitoring wells to be placed around the expansion as they currently do elsewhere on the property.
“If your well water is contaminated and there’s evidence that it was contaminated as a result of the landfill operation, then whatever our legal obligation is, we will fulfill,” Garber said.
The vote
Germanoski commented that giving a blessing on the preliminary plans to township council would be “inconsistent with the philosophy and the purpose of the Environmental Advisory Committee” and it would “destroy this real estate, the forests, the wetlands, the recharge area for groundwater, including residents’ wells.”
“I don’t think we’re going to agree on a lot,” Carocci said. “My recommendation with the board’s approval is that we don’t [approve] because I don’t think we’re going to agree.”
After making his motion to not send an approval of the plans to council, there was a delay for a second.
Board member Ann Spirk eventually seconded the motion, and Carocci hurried through the roll.
Board member Germanoski made his case as to why he didn’t agree with the proposal, voting “no.”
“I don’t think we’re going to agree on a lot. My recommendation with the board’s approval is that we don’t [approve] because I don’t think we’re going to agree.”Thomas Carocci, chairman of the Lower Saucon Environmental Advisory Council and member of township council
Board member Allan Johnson voted “no.”
Board member Laura Ray didn't approve of the plans as listed.
Board member Cheyenne Reiman voted “that we don’t make a recommendation, for more review.” She later asked, “What’s wrong with receiving more information then making a decision then?”
Board member Ann Spirk said she wanted to see more information before any approval.
Board Vice Chairwoman Sandra Yerger echoed Spirk.
Carocci called the vote tally as 4-3.
