HomeMy WebLinkAboutCFE minutes 101215
1
Orange County
Commission for the Environment
Meeting Summary
October 12, 2015
Richard Whitted Meeting Facility, Hillsborough
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PRESENT: Jan Sassaman (Chair), May Becker, Tom Eisenhart, Lynne Gronback, David
Neal, Jeanette O’Connor, Gary Saunders
ABSENT: Sheila Thomas-Ambat, Peter Cada, Loren Hintz, Bill Newby, Rebecca Ray, Lydia
Wegman, David Welch
STAFF: Rich Shaw, Tom Davis, Brennan Bouma
GUESTS: David Stancil (DEAPR Director), Curt Farmer (DEAPR Parks Division)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
I. Call to Order – Sassaman called the meeting to order at 7:38 pm.
II. Ad ditions or Changes to Agenda – None.
III. Minutes – Sassaman asked if there were any comments about the meeting summary for
September 14 meeting. There were none; approved by acclamation.
IV. Herbicides & Pesticides Used at County Facilities – Shaw reported that the BOCC
asked the CFE to look over a list of herbicides and pesticides used by County staff to
manage the grounds at Orange County buildings and facilities, and for the CFE to
provide any feedback or recommendations to the staff or to the BOCC.
Shaw referred CFE members to the memo and attached list of herbicides and pesticides
that was prepared by Tom Davis with input from other staff responsible for the use of
those chemicals on County-owned property. Shaw introduced Curt Farmer who
oversees athletic fields at the County’s soccer complex (Soccer.com Center) and at
other County parks. Shaw also referred members to DEAPR’s sustainable landscaping
policy, which states that pesticides and herbicides should be used no stronger than
directed and only when no other alternative exists. He said the policy also recommends
using organic fertilizers including compost.
CFE members asked questions about the list of pesticides and herbicides.
Sassaman asked how long people are kept off the fields after herbicides are
applied. Farmer said each chemical is labeled with guidance on the proper time
interval for re-entry. Sassaman asked which is the most common herbicide
used. Farmer said it is glyphosate (“RoundUp”); he uses 15 gallons annually.
O’Connor asked whether the staff has used organic compost as a fertilizer.
Farmer said he has tried compost, but there were problems with it containing
unwanted materials, including nails and glass. He prefers using sand.
Becker asked if the staff would be willing to use organic alternatives. Farmer said
he is certainly willing as long as they perform well and not too expensive. He
welcomed any information or guidance from CFE members. He intends to phase
out the use of 2-4-d products as alternatives for killing weeds become available.
2
Eisenhart asked how much of a role does cost play in the choice of products
used. Farmer said when using public funds price matters quite a lot.
Gronback asked if Farmer uses a mixture of turf grass. Farmer said yes,
especially those that can outcompete the unwanted weeds.
Stancil noted that many of the users of County fields—especially the Soccer.com
Center—demand high-quality fields that require special maintenance. He said
the center hosts many tournaments and college soccer showcase events.
Bouma said he had performed a quick search for viable alternatives to 2-4-d, but
could not find anything suitable on line.
Sassaman said he expects there is a fairly high level of safety and control for the
application of herbicides and pesticides on County sites by licensed staff. He
said he is more concerned about the use of these products by homeowners in
residential areas throughout the county. O’Connor and said she would like to see
more guidance targeted toward residential users of these chemicals. Stancil
noted that during the 2008 drought period the County held public meetings to
educate people about water conservation and the proper use of fertilizers.
Becker cautioned that just because a product is EPA-approved and regulated
there may be alternatives that are better for the natural environment. O’Connor
agreed, but also noted that natural compost can also pollute streams.
Gronback asked Farmer about the use of pre-emergent weed control products.
Farmer said he loves them because they often have a one-time application rate.
Bouma said he expects County staff would be welcome to a periodic review of its use of
herbicides and other chemicals, including the examination of alternatives. Farmer said
this discussion is helpful and timely because this is the time of year to identify product
needs for the coming year.
Bouma suggested the staff of DEAPR and AMS (Asset Management Services) meet
periodically to discuss potential alternatives to some of the more caustic substances.
He said there are some non-profit organizations that monitor these issues and might
have some helpful suggestions.
CFE members thanked Davis, Farmer and Stancil for sharing this information.
V. Green Building Incentives – The CFE continued its discussion of potential incentives
for energy-efficient construction. Bouma provided an update on the Town of Chapel
Hill’s early experience with the pilot commercial green building incentive in the Ephesus-
Fordham planning district.
Bouma reported that he had spoken with Jesse Freedman who, along with John
Richardson, had briefed the CFE on this program in April 2015. Bouma said the town
had only received three or four building permits for this district thus far, but only one of
those—an apartment building—is under construction. The town anticipates the
developer of that building will be applying for some kind of green building certification;
however it’s unclear whether he would have done this regardless of the town’s
incentives. Bouma explained that developers often choose to apply for such certification
as a marketing tool despite the high cost of applying and obtaining the certification.
3
Bouma said it may be years before the Town of Chapel Hill has enough of experience
with this incentive program to determine the effectiveness of the program. He answered
questions from CFE members.
O’Connor asked if developers are required to take the incentive. Bouma said no,
they are not. Neal said it may be unlawful to require that.
Neal asked if the town staff knew how large a project needed to be to justify (or
pay back) the cost of the green building features. Bouma said he did not know,
but he noted he and other County staff are looking at potential green building
practices for the construction of the planned new County jail in Hillsborough.
Sassaman asked if there are any guarantees that future operators of the green
buildings will maintain them properly. Neal and Bouma said they did not think so.
Neal said he attended a recent conference and learned that human error
accounts for many failures in the operation of green building features. He noted,
however, there are new technologies for monitoring the performance of energy-
saving devices in buildings.
Neal suggested the CFE inform the BOCC that although there has not been enough time
to assess the effectiveness of the Town of Chapel Hill’s commercial green building
incentive program it may be worthwhile for Orange County to establish a similar
incentive program for large commercial development projects. Bouma suggested the
County may also want to include some large-scale residential development projects.
Neal and other CFE members agreed with that idea.
Sassaman asked if Neal was suggesting the CFE write another memo to the BOCC.
Neal said he thought it may be better to craft a CFE resolution, and that he is willing to
prepare a draft resolution for CFE consideration at the November meeting.
Sassaman thanked Bouma and Neal for the report and the proposed next steps.
VI. Collaborative Energy Conservation/Management Projects – Saunders and Bouma
reported on the third meeting of the interagency committee working to collaborate on
projects to address energy conservation and management projects of mutual interest
and where there may be opportunities for collaboration among the entities, OWASA,
Orange County, UNC, and the towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill.
Saunders reported the group selected five projects, and for each one the group has
identified a “champion” and some initial next steps. The five projects are as follows:
Biogas to energy at OWASA wastewater treatment plant
Technical evaluation of solar PV opportunities at public facilities/land tracts
Street lighting coordination (particularly lighting under direct control of agencies)
Fleet management opportunities
Joint energy and carbon tracking and reporting
Saunders said the next meeting will be October 28, during which the group will discuss
the five projects and determine where to go next`. Bouma said the group members seem
to be collaborative and the meetings have been productive thus far.
Sassaman thanked Saunders and Bouma for their report.
4
VII. CFE Outreach / News Articles – Shaw presented an updated schedule for new articles
to be prepared by staff and CFE members. Bouma said he would work with Neal on the
next article summarizing the recent activities of the Solarize Orange initiative. Bouma
said he would be meeting with Rob Pinder (Next Climate / Solarize Orange) the next day
and would ask for summary information to include in the article. Shaw reported that the
article about fracking that the CFE approved at the September meeting was submitted to
the newspapers on September 19; however he heard back from Mark Schultz (Chapel
Hill News) that it might not be published until after the Chapel Hill elections. Shaw said
he has not yet seen the article in The News of Orange County.
Bouma reported that three ideas for public service announcements (PSAs) that CFE
members offered in September have been prepared for airing on WCHL radio during the
month of October. He thanked the CFE for their input on that initiative.
VIII. Annual Report and Work Plan (2015-16) – Sassaman reminded CFE members that
each year the BOCC asks its advisory boards to prepare a report of their activities,
accomplishments, new issues, and concerns. He referred members to the 2014-15
report in the meeting materials. He noted the 2015-16 will be due December 18.
Shaw suggested he would work with Davis and Bouma to prepare a draft 2015-16 report
for the CFE to discuss and revise in November. The CFE agreed with that plan.
IX Updates and Information Items – Information on the following subjects was provided in
the meeting package; selected items were discussed: a) Green Restaurant Challenge,
b) solid waste/recycling/food waste, c) Orange County support for small solar, d) Nov
2016 bond package, e) OWASA biosolids management, f) Forest Service advice for ash
trees, g) Raleigh streetlights to be switched to LED, h) Changes to state environmental
laws/rules, i) EPA’s environmental justice efforts, j) NC House and Senate pass
industrial hemp bill, k) Fine particles linked to early death, i) Haw River Trail
X. Adjournment – Sassaman adjourned the meeting at 9:00 pm.
Summary by Rich Shaw, DEAPR Staff