HomeMy WebLinkAboutCFE agenda 091415AGENDA
Commission for the Environment
September 14, 2015
7:30 p.m.
Orange County Solid Waste Administration Building
1207 Eubanks Road, Chapel Hill
Time Item Title
7:30 I. Call to Order
7:32 II. Additions or Changes to Agenda
7:35 III.
Approval of Minutes — August 10 (Attachment 1)
7:40 IV.
Energy Conservation / Management Forum
Terri Buckner (OWASA Board of Directors) and Gary Saunders will report on the initial planning
for a proposed community forum on energy conservation and management (Attachment 2)
8:15 V.
Green Building Incentives
The CFE will continue its discussion of potential incentives for energy - efficient construction.
Staff will report back on recent meeting with County Planning & Inspections (Attachment 3)
8:45 VI.
CFE Outreach / News Articles
The CFE will review recent and draft news articles intended to educate and inform the public
about issues highlighted in the Orange County State of the Environment (Attachments 4 -6)
9:00 VII.
Orange County Bond Referendum 2016
The CFE will consider sending a representative to the September 15 BOCC meeting to provide
comments on the County's proposed 2016 bond referendum (Attachments 7 -8)
9:15 VIII.
Updates and Information Items
Staff and /or CFE members will provide updates on the following items:
➢ Chatham Co approves temporary fracking moratorium (Attachment 9)
➢ Hydrilla in the Eno River update (Attachment 10)
➢ Chapel Hill pollution prevention video wins national award (Attachment 11)
➢ Bolin Creek trail work raises erosion concerns in Chapel Hill (Attachment 12)
➢ Orange County Social Justice Goal - adopted 2010 (Attachment 13)
➢ OWASA wastewater and biosolids annual report (Attachment 14)
➢ OWASA hires sustainability manager (Attachment 15)
➢ Tree Harvesting in Orange Co brochure (Attachment 16)
➢ Duke Forest deer management program (Attachment 17)
➢ NC's curious response to EPA's Clean Power Plan (Attachment 18)
➢ Making Energy Work Conference — Oct 6 -7 (Attachment 19)
9:30 IX. Adjournment
Nextmeeting; October 12 (Hillsborough)
CFE Meeting Ground Rules (Adopted 9112111)
1. Keep to agenda topic under discussion
2. Share relevant information
3. One person speaks at a time after recognition by the Chair
4. Everyone is invited to participate in discussions / no one person should dominate
discussions
5. Strive to reach consensus first before voting
Activities the CFE expects to carry out in 2015:
• Continue to update the Orange County State of the Environment 2014 report
• Convene an Energy Task Force (or equivalent work group) to improve the County's
ability to foster local sustainable energy production and energy efficiency strategies
• Recommend ways to reduce the County's "carbon footprint" and implement the
County's Environmental Responsibility Goal
• Help with public outreach and management efforts related to hydrilla in Eno River
• Help initiate the development of a comprehensive conservation plan for Orange Co
• Collaborate with NC Botanical Garden and others to identify significant roadside
habitat for native plants; ask NCDOT and other utilities to protect those roadside
habitats [authorized by BOCC June 2012]
• Co- sponsor the annual DEAPR photography contest (The Nature of Orange)
• Help plan for and participate in DEAPR's annual Earth Day event
Concerns or emerging issues the CFE has identified for 2015:
• The CFE will continue to advocate for an expansion of the County's commercial food waste
pickup and composting services to reduce food waste in the solid waste stream
• The CFE remains interested in developing incentives for increasing energy efficiency in new
construction [January 2012 memo to Planning Board]
• The CFE will strive to learn more about environmental justice matters and incorporate
relevant information and considerations in the State of the Environment 2014 report
• The CFE will follow closely the Solid Waste Advisory Group's discussions of how to improve
the handling and disposal of Orange County's solid waste, and will advocate for better long-
term solutions
• The CFE will continue to advocate for increased efforts to gather information related to water
resources in Orange County and will continue to increase public awareness and
understanding of water supply sources, related concerns, and what steps can be undertaken
to maintain or improve the quantity and quality of Orange County water supply resources
• The CFE will continue to address, as appropriate, the critical environmental issues for Orange
County as enumerated on page 3 of the 2014 State of the Environment report, which include
potential adverse effects from a) invasive, non - native, plant and animal species; b) reductions
in State -led collection of water resources data; c) potential drilling for natural gas in the Deep
River basin; d) urban sprawl; and CFE support for e) the responsible deployment of clean and
appropriately -sited renewable energy and reductions in energy use to help fight climate
change
Attachment 1
Orange County
Commission for the Environment
DRAFT Meeting Summary
August 10, 2015
Richard Whitted Meeting Facility, Hillsborough
PRESENT: Jan Sassaman (Chair), May Becker, Peter Cada, Tom Eisenhart, Lynne
Gronback, Loren Hintz, David Neal, Bill Newby, Jeanette O'Connor, Rebecca
Ray, Sheila Thomas - Ambat, Lydia Wegman, David Welch
ABSENT: Gary Saunders
STAFF: Tom Davis, Rich Shaw
GUESTS: Elizabeth Zander, Bill Kaiser (Chapel Hill Environmental Stewardship Advisory Board)
Call to Order — Sassaman called the meeting to order at 7:35 pm.
Additions or Changes to Agenda — Hintz asked to discuss his draft news article about
invasive species. Sassaman agreed to add that to the Updates and Information items.
III. Minutes — Wegman motioned to approve the June 8 minutes as written; seconded by
Eisenhart. Approved unanimously.
IV. Advisory Board Appreciation — Shaw handed out insulated lunch bags -- a gift from the
Board of County Commissioners office to members of Orange County advisory boards.
Shaw expressed his thanks to CFE members for their volunteer service to the county.
V. Hydrilla in the Eno River Update — Davis provided an update on results from the initial
two months of using herbicide to help control the spread of hydrilla in the Eno River east
of Hillsborough. He showed maps of the project area, depicting the progress of the
herbicide concentrations at different monitoring stations between Lawrence Road (near
Hillsborough) and Red Mill Road (near Falls Lake). Davis showed photos of hydrilla in
the Eno River before and after the herbicide treatment.
Davis reported the hydrilla has died back considerably from the treatment, but there has
been some chlorosis to native water willow and injury to native riffleweed. A two- to
three -week pause in treatment was initiated on July 20 during which the management
zone will be monitored for response of natives and remnant hydrilla. Depending on
these responses, treatment will either be considered complete or be resumed at a lower
injection rate to prevent hydrilla recovery but reduce potential stress to riffleweed.
Davis answered questions from CFE members about the cost of the two year study
($75K) and what agency has the lead role in determining how to proceed with the project
(NC Division of Water Resources). CFE members thanked Davis for his presentation
and asked him to keep them apprised as further results become available.
VI. Green Restaurant Challenge — Elizabeth Zander introduced herself as Chair of the
Chapel Hill Environmental Stewardship Advisory Board, whose charge is to assist the
Chapel Hill Town Council in strengthening environmentally responsible practices that
protect, promote, and nurture the community and the natural world through advice and
program support. She introduced her colleague and former CFE member, Bill Kaiser.
1
Attachment 1
Zander presented her board's plans for a "Green Restaurant Challenge" for CFE
consideration and potential collaboration. She said restaurants would be evaluated
based on four criteria: energy consumption, water consumption, waste reduction, and
local sourcing. Zander said she has conferred with Brennan Bouma because of his
experience with the Triangle Green Business Challenge while with Triangle J Council of
Governments. She has also conferred with Blair Pollock and Muriel Williman with the
Orange County Solid Waste Management department.
Zander asked whether the CFE would be interested in collaborating with her board, and
possibly expanding the "challenge" to restaurants operating throughout Orange County.
She noted that one of the CFE's objectives is to increase food composting.
CFE members asked questions and offered their ideas:
• Hintz asked if there would be prizes awarded. Zander said there winners would
be recognized with good public relations. She noted Person County had a
guidebook to restaurants and highlighted those with sustainable practices.
• Wegman asked if the idea has been discussed with sample restaurants. Zander
has spoken with two owners who noted monitoring waste would be difficult.
• Hintz asked staff if there would be any problem for the County to participate,
such as listing winning restaurants on its website. Shaw said it should be alright
to list the winners based on the contest criteria, but he would need to check.
• Sassaman asked how much variation might there be among different
restaurants; and noted a restaurant's size would affect its ability to achieve
efficiencies. Zander said they need to find equitable ways to measure success,
such as basing on number of patrons, percentage change, or most improved.
• Neal said evaluating energy consumption would also be challenging due to some
restaurants using leased space versus owning the building outright and being
able to make changes. Gronback suggested dividing them into two categories.
• O'Connor suggested promoting financial incentives, such as rebates.
• Hintz noted a countywide campaign would also include Mebane, Hillsborough,
and Carrboro. He asked how the challenge would work. Zander said she
envisions a six -week contest, beginning with publicity, baseline measures at the
participating restaurants, documenting any changes, and tallying results.
• Cada said the variability of restaurant buildings makes it difficult to make
comparisons. It may be better to recognize restaurants for the percent of
improvements made for different measures over the time period.
• Neal said this contest should be a positive and educational opportunity that
encourages participation. He suggested that "just by playing, you win."
• Shaw said rather than using detailed metrics perhaps the contest could ask
participants to simply tell what they have done to reduce waste, or reduce energy
or water consumption, or to increase local sourcing. Keep it open and subjective.
• O'Connor suggested introducing some social justice element, such as the
percentage of unused food that is donated to another organization.
Zander thanked CFE members for these ideas and asked if anyone wished to help pl
for the contest in a smaller group discussion. Wegman, Neal, and Gronback offered
their assistance. Sassaman thanked those members and asked Neal to report back.
2
Attachment 1
Sassaman then thanked Zander and Kaiser for sharing this information with the CFE
and welcomed their ideas for other opportunities for potential collaboration.
VII. Green Building Incentives – Neal noted that it had been since early 2012 that the CFE,
in a memo to the Planning Board, expressed its interest in pursuing potential incentives
for energy- efficient construction and renovation in Orange County. He recommends not
waiting for the Town of Chapel Hill to complete its pilot study of offering incentives for
"green building" in the Ephesus - Fordham district. Neal mentioned a conversation with
Commissioner Jacobs in which he wished Morinaga had installed solar panels on its
buildings. Neal said he reminded Jacobs the County has authority to offer incentives.
Shaw suggested that he and Bouma meet with one or more receptive members of the
County building inspections staff to discuss the potential for green building incentives.
He will make the contacts and notify Neal so that he can participate if available.
O'Connor said the Town of Carrboro considered offering green building incentives, but
the cost of permits for the relatively small size of projects in Carrboro is not enough to
offer much of a rebate. She said a representative from the Homebuilders Association will
be meeting with Town staff to discuss other ideas for potential incentives.
Gronback said Green Globes, maintained by the Green Building Initiative, is an
alternative to the LEED green building rating system for assessing a building's water
efficiency, energy usage, construction materials, indoor air quality, and building site.
Hintz said one purpose of this effort is to increase education and awareness; even small
financial incentives can increase the chance that builders consider the green options.
Sassaman agreed, and noted many people in Orange County cannot afford to improve
the efficiency of their homes without the availability of financial and technical assistance.
Neal said he wants the County to do what it can to promote green building using the
authority granted by the General Assembly. He still considers this "low- hanging fruit"
and a worthwhile endeavor for the County —using either incentives or public education.
The CFE discussed the possibility of sending the BOCC a copy of the CFE's January
2012 memo to the Planning Board, and asking the BOCC for its support and direction.
Shaw suggested waiting on re- sending that memo to the BOCC until he and Bouma has
a meeting with County building inspections staff to discuss this matter and identify
specific ways the County could design and implement potential incentives. He will
arrange a meeting and notify Neal so that he has an opportunity to participate.
Sassaman asked to be notified of the meeting as well.
Neal and Wegman indicated that following the meeting(s) with the inspections staff they
would be willing to go back to the Planning Board to re- engage them in a conversation
on how to make this work. Wegman noted she is now a member of the Planning Board.
Wegman suggested they might also involve other advisory boards such as the Economic
Development Commission.
Wegman asked staff to check in with the Town of Chapel Hill staff to see if there is any
further progress on their pilot program and to report back to the CFE in September.
3
Attachment 1
VIII. Photo Contest Winners — Shaw presented the winning photos from "The Nature of
Orange" photography contest, which is co- sponsored by the CFE. Shaw reminded CFE
members the goal of the contest is to inspire people to help document the beauty and
diversity of our natural resources and our residents connecting to their environment. He
displayed the winning photos from the Youth and Adult categories, and reported that the
photos will be on display at area libraries, visitor centers, and other public places.
IX. Updates and Information Items — Information on the following subjects was provided in
the meeting package; selected items were discussed: a) CFE comments on draft
changes to impervious surface rules, b) CFE memo re 2016 bond package, c) CFE
news article on native plants, d) Blackwood Farm Park opening, e) solar energy at
Rogers Rd Community Center, f) Orange Co. under quarantine for emerald ash borer, g)
OWASA Mitigation Tract forestry update, h) EPA's environmental justice screening and
mapping tool, i) 2014 the hottest year on record, j) climate change literacy, k) $125M for
climate change campaign, I) effective insect repellents without DEET, and more.
Hintz reported that he sent a draft news article about non - native, invasive plants and
animals to CFE members earlier in the evening. He asked members and staff to review
and comment on the draft.
X. Adjournment — Sassaman adjourned at approximately 9:15 pm.
Summary by Rich Shaw, DEAPR Staff
E
Summary of Inter - Agency Meeting to Discuss
Potential Community Forum on Energy
August 4, 2015, 5:30 p.m. — 7:00 p.m.
OWASA Boardroom
Meeting Attendees
Brennan Bouma, Orange County
Terri Buckner, OWASA Board of Directors
Brad Ives, UNC Associate Vice Chancellor for Campus Enterprises /Chief Sustainability Officer
Pat Davis, OWASA
Randy Dodd, Town of Carrboro
Jesse Freedman, Town of Chapel Hill
George Jacobs, UNC Energy Management
Kathy Kaufman, Carrboro Climate and Energy Task Force
John Richardson, Town of Chapel Hill
Gary Saunders, Orange County Commission for the Environment
Overview Presentation
Terri Buckner welcomed the meeting participants and thanked them for attending the meeting.
She said that OWASA was in the early stages of developing an energy management plan, and it
seeks to inform and actively engage customers, local governments, the University, and others as
it develops the plan. The purpose of this meeting is to determine if there is interest in working
together to organize and hold a community forum on energy management, similar to the
Community Solid Waste Forum that was hosted by Chapel Hill's Sustainability Committee and
the Orange County Commission for the Environment on May 30, 2013 (held at the Chapel Hill
Public Library).
An energy forum would provide participating agencies the opportunity to: (1) share information
about their respective goals and objectives, efforts, and successes to date, and (2) receive
feedback and ideas from the public, and (3) identify opportunities for collaboration.
The OWASA Board of Directors and Orange County Commission for the Environment support
the forum concept, and requested that this group develop preliminary goals and objectives and a
proposed approach, format and timetable for such a forum for review by each groups governing
body before committing to the forum.
Agency Updates
Participants provided a brief summary of their respective agency's energy and carbon
management goals and objectives and ongoing efforts.
Summary of Inter- Agency Meeting to Discuss Potential Community Forum on Energy
Meeting Date: August 4, 2015
Page 2
Discussion of the Forum Concept
Participants agreed that a community forum on energy could be useful; however, strong "curb
appeal" is needed to generate a high level of public participation. Randy Dodd said that Carrboro
held a series of three community meetings relating to energy and climate, and that the turnout
ranged from about 15 to 40 people. A lot of time and effort went into planning, organizing, and
holding those meetings.
After much discussion the group agreed that the real opportunity here is to work together "to do
something awesome" in Orange County. The group agreed that partner agencies would meet
again to begin identifying and evaluating opportunities for collaboration, from which one or
more community forums would evolve.
Potential Strategies for Collaboration
1. Bring in technical experts to evaluate technologies, benefits and costs, etc. for a project
such as installing solar power systems at partner agency facilities /properties. Chapel Hill
is in the early stages of considering issuing a request for qualifications for consulting
services for an evaluation of Town facilities. Jesse and John will share more details on
this with the group at the next meeting.
2. Evaluate alternatives to beneficially reuse all of the biogas generated at OWASA's
Mason Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant. This would include evaluating strategies to
increase biogas production by working together to divert food waste, fats, oil, and grease,
and /or other high strength wastes to the plant. One or more partner agencies could
consider providing funding support if needed to enable OWASA to move ahead with
such a project. OWASA staff believes that it may be eligible to receive a 20 -year, no-
interest loan from the State Clean Water State Revolving Fund for such a project.
Develop joint strategies for making energy and water conservation an important part of
our respective agency's culture, and our community's culture. We need to better inform
and engage our employees, residents, businesses, students, etc. in efforts to reduce energy
and water use, and carbon emissions.
4. Consider "crowdfunding" or other innovative approaches as a way to raise funding for
renewable energy projects.
Next Steps
OWASA will draft a meeting summary and distribute that for review and comment by
meeting participants. The final summary will incorporate any comments received.
2. OWASA will issue a poll determine the best date and time for the next meeting, which
would likely be in September. Considering the regular meeting schedules of local
Summary of Inter- Agency Meeting to Discuss Potential Community Forum on Energy
Meeting Date: August 4, 2015
Page 3
governing boards, there was a general preference for holding the meeting on a
Wednesday from 5:30 to 7:00 p.m. at OWASA.
3. Meeting participants will provide any follow -up information, comments, questions and
suggestions to Pat Davis via e -mail to pdavisgowasa.org or by phone at 919 -537 -4210.
Those will be consolidated and provided to the group in advance of the next meeting.
Prepared by:
Patrick Davis
Sustainability Manager, OWASA
MEMORANDUM
To: Orange County Planning Board
From: Orange County Commission for the Environment
Renee Price, Chair
David Neal, Energy Committee
Date: January 26, 2012
Re: Incentives for Energy Efficient Construction and Renovation in Orange County
The Orange County Commission for the Environment ( "CFE ") invites the Orange County
Planning Board to consider a Low Energy Construction Permitting Incentive ordinance in
2012. N. C. Gen. Stat.§ 153A -340 allows counties to charge "reduced building permit fees or
provide partial rebates of building permit fees for buildings" that meet or exceed recognized
energy efficient design and construction principals. Members of CFE are available to work
with the Planning Board and county staff to review similar ordinances enacted pursuant to this
statute (for example, from Catawba County) and from around the country, then to draft an
ordinance for consideration by the Orange County Board of Commissioners.
Neither the current level of carbon in the atmosphere nor projected increases in greenhouse
gas emissions are sustainable. Costly and potentially irreversible adverse climate effects are
likely unless mitigation measures — such as increased energy efficiency investments and
decreased fossil fuel consumption — are taken in the near future. In Orange County, we
cannot wait for policy changes at the state and federal level to encourage increased energy
efficiency. Steps taken now to improve efficiency and decrease or eliminate our reliance on
fossil fuels for energy production will help lock -in reduced energy use for years to come.
Since 2003, Orange County has been a member of Local Governments for Sustainability, an
international membership association committed to a sustainable future. Creating incentives
for energy efficiency in construction is consistent with Orange County's commitment to a
sustainable future. The 2005 Greenhouse Gas Inventory revealed that nearly fifty percent of
greenhouse gas emissions in Orange County come from residential and commercial buildings
(consistent with national data). Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro, in conjunction
with Hillsborough, are currently working on a revised inventory of greenhouse gas emissions
and attempting to identify reduction measures.
Making use of the authority granted by the General Assembly to incentivize energy efficient
construction is a straightforward way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the county level
for the long term. CFE would like to explore crafting an incentive program that would be
attractive to lower- income residents, for whom savings on utility bills would provide a
particularly important benefit.
' From Architecture 2030, buildings account for 48.7% of total energy consumption in the
United States (available at httL / /architecture203O.org/the _problem /buildings _problem why).
Co 2� 2tGSSGO ti for the E7ki vGrokswe4e-
c% orgwcge couwte D F,4PR Po Po ,< 8181 HzCCs6orouc�G vc � g (q y)
To give an example of how such an energy efficient construction incentive might function,
below is a summary of the Catawba County incentives enacted pursuant to N. C. Gen. Stat. §
t 53A -340:
Catawba County is providing incentives to encourage the
construction of sustainably built homes and commercial
buildings. Rebates on permit fees and plan reviews are available
for certain qualifying structures and renewable energy projects.
Buildings designed and constructed in accordance with the US
Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED), NC HealthyBuilt Homes,
Energy Star, or the National Association of Home Builders'
Model Green Home Building Guidelines can receive a 25%
blanket permit fee rebate, not to exceed $500. Catawba County
will also rebate 50% of fees related to plan review or express
plan review for commercial buildings seeking LEED
certification.
Additionally, existing one and two family homes and
commercial buildings can receive a 50% rebate on the
permitting fees associated with the installation of geothermal
heat pumps, photovoltaic (PV) systems, solar water heating
systems, and gray /rain water collection for flushing fixtures.
Regular fees must be paid in full at time of plan review or
permit issuance. Fee rebates will be refunded upon project
completion and certification by third party inspection agency.2
Rebates or reduced fees for efficient construction could be structured on a sliding scale, with
zero energy construction receiving the most robust incentives. Given the current level of
permitting fees, rebates or reductions in Orange County could be designed here that could
provide a substantial incentive for efficient construction.
The CFE looks forward to working with the Planning Board on crafting an efficiency
incentive program for consideration by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. We
would appreciate the opportunity to have this item included on an upcoming agenda and to
work with you on completing a draft proposal in the next few months.
cc: David Stancil
Craig Benedict
From the Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy & Efficiency (available at
<http: / /www.dsireusa.org /incentives /incentive.cfin ?Incentive Code= NC87F &re= 1 &ee =1 >)
corur�cLssCov (ort-he sw✓Crowmtewt
o% oraw _qe coakLty DFAPF, Po gox 919Y, Hzusborou0G, Nc 2V2,�Z5' (9.Z
This is another in a series of articles by the Orange County Commission for the Environment
(CFE). Each article highlights an environmental issue of interest to the residents of Orange
County. The CFE is a volunteer advisory board to the Board of County Commissioners.
Additional information can be found in the Orange County State of the Environment 2014 report
at r /commission for the environment.php
Potential Effects of Fracking on Orange County
by the Orange County Commission for the Environment
Introduction
Certain geologic basins in the United States have deposits of organic -rich shale
containing reserves of natural gas and oil. Extraction of hydrocarbons from these shale
deposits has become fairly widespread using horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing,
or "fracking." In North Carolina, organic -rich shale deposits occur in rocks of Triassic
age; basins that contain Triassic rocks exposed at the surface are shown below. Only
the Sanford sub -basin has been proven to contain organic shale.
Only a very small portion of southeastern Orange County is underlain by the Triassic -
aged Deep River Basin. This basin is composed of three sub - basins; from north to
south they are the Durham, Sanford, and Wadesboro sub - basins. The central portion of
the Sanford sub -basin contains an approximately 800 - foot -thick deposit of organic -rich
shale. Limited activity to date identified potentially commercially viable natural gas
resources in a 59,000 -acre (92- square -mile) portion of the Sanford sub -basin in Lee
County and a portion of Chatham County.
In 2011, the NC General Assembly directed several state agencies to investigate
implications of horizontal drilling and fracking for oil and natural gas production in North
Carolina. The resulting North Carolina Oil and Gas Study was published in 2012. In
addition, the General Assembly overrode then - Governor Perdue's veto, thus legalizing
fracking for natural gas extraction once regulations governing these activities were
developed. Regulations governing horizontal drilling and fracking were developed and
as of March 2015 applications for the permits necessary to drill for natural gas in North
Carolina have been available. As of September 2015, no drilling unit applications or
complete oil or gas well permit applications have been received by the state.
Concerns
While direct adverse effects from fracking are unlikely in Orange County, nationwide
shale -gas exploration and exploitation demonstrate that the fracking process involves
activities that could result in adverse impact, including the following:
• Possible contamination of surface water and groundwater;
• Negative impacts to water supplies;
• Wastewater disposal issues;
• Negative air quality impacts;
• Negative infrastructure impacts; and
• Detrimental social impacts common to boom and bust economies
If drilling for natural gas from nearby shale deposits occurs, the likely impacts on
Orange County would be indirect, though not insignificant. The water used for fracking
that is not recycled would need to be disposed of. This water would likely be trucked to
a wastewater treatment plant, possibly in Orange County. Wastewater plants may not
be able to test for and remove the contaminants found in return water, leading to the
possibility that contaminants could be discharged into local waterways. Increased heavy
truck traffic could cause damage to county roadways and bridges.
Conclusions
The low price and large supply of domestic natural gas, as well as the significant
amount of gas known to exist in much larger shale deposits elsewhere in the United
States, make extraction activities in North Carolina unlikely in the near term. Fracking
within Orange County is even more unlikely since Triassic rocks are limited to the
southeastern portion of the county. Were drilling to occur in shale deposits some 30
miles south of Chapel Hill, indirect impacts on water supplies and transportation
infrastructure could take place in Orange County.
Learn more about fracking and North Carolina geology:
• http: / /porta1.ncdenr.org /web /guest /shale -gas
• http: / /portal.ncdenr.org /c /document library /get tile?uuid=b6t4712d-746e- 4606 -9d24-
542ab0e40693grou�ld -14
• httoe / /www.newsobserver.com/ news /business /articlel4730470.htmi
• htt�e// www2veg�a egoy /hydraulictracturing
• http: / /www.ie. nc.edu /issues /trackingectm
Attachment 6
ORANGE COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, AGRICULTURE,
PARKS AND RECREATION
MEMORANDUM
To: Commission for the Environment
From: Rich Shaw
Date: September 9, 2015
Subject: Articles for Public Outreach
Since February CFE members have worked with staff to develop monthly articles for publishing
in the Chapel Hill News and The News of Orange County. Thus far there have been articles on hydrilla
in the Eno River, electronic vehicle charging stations, the benefits of native plants, and problems
caused by the emerald ash borer and other invasive exotic species.
The following is a revised calendar for writing and publishing of additional articles based on the
Orange County State of the Environment 2014. Potential topics are provided for CFE members
to consider and select for the remainder of 2015.
Revised Calendar for Preparing /Puhlishing News Articles
Topic
SOE
Committee (Lead)
Completion
Publication
H drilla in the Eno
I
pp. 69 -70
Water Cada /Davis
Aril
Aril
New electric vehicle
charging stations
pp. 21 -22
Air & Energy Bouma)
Aril 15
May 13
Pollinator Issues
pp. 43 -44
Land O'Connor /Shaw
_June
_June
Terrestrial invasives /
choosing native spp.
pp. 43 -44
Land Resources
Hintz /Shaw
Aug 15
Aug 19
Potential effects of
frackin in Orange Co.
pp. 71 -72
Water (Davis /Sassaman)
draft
Sept 14
late Sept
Solarize projects
or
WISE program
N/A
Air & Energy (Neal /Bouma)
Water conservation
.47-54
Water /Davis
Barriers to solar
development
N/A
Air Est Energy
/Bouma
Land conservation
pp. 37 -42
Land We man/Shaw
Reconsider schedule for 2016 (change to quarterly?)
Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation
PO Box 8181 /306 -A Revere Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
(919) 245 -2510
From: Orange County Government
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015
Subject: Press Release- ORANGE COUNTY ACCEPTING PUBLIC COMMENT ON PROPOSED BOND
REFERENDUM
00 Y
01" RANGE',C0LJNJ'-
Media Contact
Carla Banks, Director of Public Affairs
Phone: 919.245.2302
Mobile: 919.475.6650
cbanks oranecountync.ov
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
ORANGE COUNTY ACCEPTING PUBLIC COMMENT ON PROPOSED
BOND REFERENDUM
ORANGE COUNTY, NC (September 9, 2015) —The Board of Orange County
Commissioners (BOCC) invites public comment, during its September 15 meeting, on a
proposed bond referendum.
Public comment is listed on the Agenda under `Matters not on the Printed Agenda.'
The meeting will start at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center, located at
2501 Homestead Road in Chapel Hill.
The BOCC also welcomes written comments, which can be submitted via e-mail to
ocbocc oranecountync.ov or mailed to the Clerk to the Board's office at 200 S.
Cameron Street, Hillsborough, NC 27278.
Memorandum
To: Orange County Board of Commissioners
From: Orange County Commission for the Environment
Date: June 15, 2015
Subject: 2016 Bond Referendum
The Commission for the Environment (CFE) is concerned about the preliminary decision
by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) to restrict the planned 2016 bond
referendum to funding for school improvements and expansion. In particular, the CFE
believes the BOCC should have proceeded with the process discussed at the November
19, 2014 Assembly of Governments meeting, which would have provided an opportunity
for the BOCC to hear from the public, relevant County- appointed citizen advisory
boards, including the CFE, and representatives of key County departments, such as the
Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation, on their areas of
expertise and /or concern.
The CFE is of the opinion that the BOCC's decision - making process would benefit
greatly by hearing comments from County residents, advisory boards, and departments
on the funding needs facing programs and activities that are essential to the quality of
life in the County. No doubt education is important, but equally important are parks
and recreation, affordable housing for low - income residents, and services for the county's
growing population of seniors, among other needs. For example, if the County could
provide $5 to $10 million for park development, it would be possible to develop and open
the long - planned Blackwood Farm Park as well as additional recreational facilities in
the northern part of the county. By developing Twin Creeks Park located next to Morris
Grove Elementary School, the County would provide recreational opportunities for both
school children and adults, helping to improve the quality of life for all residents as well
as making the county a more attractive area for new businesses that seek well- rounded
communities in which to locate their operations. Funding for parks and open space could
help preserve additional farmland and natural areas with permanent conservation
easements.
The CFE urges the Board of County Commissioners to reopen the bond referendum
process and provide a full opportunity for public and County staff comment. The CFE
would very much appreciate an opportunity to present its views on funding priorities
related to parks and open space land conservation to the BOCC.
Thank you for considering our views.
Copies: Bonnie Hammersley, County Manager
David Stanch, Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation Director
chapelboro
Chatham Commissioners Approve Temporary Fracking Ban
By Elizabeth Friend - August 19, 2015
Fracking pond
Chatham County Commissioners voted unanimously on Monday to ban hydraulic fracturing, or
`fracking,' for two years while officials update county land use plans and ordinances.
The General Assembly voted in 2012 to limit the ability of local governments to regulate
fracking, but Chatham Board Chair James Crawford wrote in a press release that law does not
prevent temporary moratoriums.
The new ban puts a halt to county approvals for oil and gas extraction. Crawford says board
members are concerned the process produces large volumes of potentially hazardous waste and
toxins. He notes the county has no facilities for treatment of such wastewater.
Chatham is one of a handful of towns and counties throughout the state that have acted to limit
fracking, but it's not clear if these bans could withstand a legal challenge from drilling
companies.
Last year state legislators authorized fracking in North Carolina, though to date, no permits have
been approved.
The controversial extraction process is on hold pending a state Supreme Court ruling in a lawsuit
over the process of appointing members to state commissions. That lawsuit includes the N.C.
Mining and Energy Commission, which would be the agency responsible for issuing fracking
permits.
Chatham commissioners say they'll spend the next two years looking for ways to mitigate
potential damages, should the fracking ban be lifted.
http: / /cha pelboro.com/ news /local - government /chatham- commissioners -approve - temporary- frackin -ban/
Eno River Hydrilla Treatment Status
From: Emens, Rob
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015
To: Eno River Hydrilla Task Force members
Subject: Eno River hydrilla treatment status
Hello Eno River Hydrilla Task Force,
I have a few things to share with you:
1) Since July 27 or soon afterwards the entire river has flushed of fluridone, at least at detectable
levels, see attached FasTEST report. The injection unit was turned off on July 20. This was
initially expected as a temporary treatment suspension and was done as a cautionary act
responding to a report on anecdotal observations of water willow and riffleweed being
impacted. The thought was to further evaluate conditions and possibly resume treatment in
August, or even early September. I will not get into the full analyses of water willow, riffleweed,
snails, etc. conditions here, rather save that for an update by our Research & Monitoring
Committee at our next task force meeting.
On Aug 3 a group of folks, including myself, visited several sites, some within, and some outside
of the treatment zone to compare condition of non - target plants and presence /condition of
hydrilla. We found there to be no significant difference in riffleweed condition. Water willow
within the treatment zone did express some chlorosis which was expected. Hydrilla was found
to be controlled to a large extent. Mark Heilman also visited several sites later that week. He
provided a report on his observations, interpretation, and offered some future actions. Since
we attained 95 +% hydrilla control (possibly 99 + %), and realizing at this point additional
treatment would incur additional cost but diminished return, a decision has been made to not
resume further treatment this year.
2) 1 will start planning for a full Task Force meeting, looking at dates in September. Once I get an
idea of meeting place availability I will send out a poll with a couple times to choose from.
3) 1 visited the Pleasant Green access (part of the State Park and within the treatment zone) last
Thursday. I attached a photo of the hydrilla plants I found there. There is healthy new growth
and potentially some tuber sprouting occurring. Overall there doesn't seem to be a lot of plants
out there and what I found took some hunting around.
4) The Research & Monitoring Committee met last week. I wasn't able to attend but heard that is
was a productive meeting. They are lining things up to get the surveys that are needed to be
done this fall. One level of surveying is to inspect the various impoundments and tributaries
within the Eno watershed. Speaking of which I visited Compton's Pond last Friday. This was in
response to residents who contacted me. They happened to be at our "open house" and
recalled my request to everyone that if they think they see hydrilla to please contact me.
Compton's Pond is severely infested with hydrilla. This is the impoundment upstream of Lake
Orange between Compton Rd and NC 86. The attached photos were taken from a park that sits
behind the schoolhouse along NC 86.
Rob Emens
Aquatic Weed Control Program
NCDENR — Division of Water Resources
919 - 707 -9012
Hydrilla amassing below water surface along shoreline of Compton's Pond in northern Orange County
Healthy new growth of hydrilla found at Pleasant Green access to Eno River (8/13/15)
From: <bsinclair @nc.rr.com>
Date: Tue, Aug 11, 2015
Subject: Re: Town of Chapel Hill, NC: Water Pollution Prevention Video Receives National Award
Chapel Hill Water Pollution Prevention Video Receives National Award
August 11, 2015
A video produced by UNC's Institute for the Environment (UNC -IE) and the Town of Chapel Hill's
Stormwater Management Division won the Water Environment Federation's (WEF) 2015 StormTV
Project award in the training category. The link is at: httD:/ bit.ly /1DHZSw3
WEF is a non - profit technical and educational organization representing water quality
professionals around the world.
The winning video, Keep Restaurant Pollution and Profits From Going Down the Stormwater Drain
(http: bit.ly /lDHZSw3), as well as its companion video in Spanish (http: bit.ly /lMguYwm), will
be added to WEF's StormTV Project's listings on YouTube and will be featured in the awards
ceremony during WEF's conference in Chicago in September. The conference is the world's largest
annual water quality conference.
The video was produced as part of a local pollution prevention training program created for
restaurant workers. The program addresses stormwater runoff pollution and the need to prevent
dumping detergents, grease and organic matter from bars and restaurants into storm drains. The
Wallace Genetic Foundation helped to fund the effort. The Chapel Hill Restaurant Group provided
use of Mez and Squid's for filming the restaurant scenes.
The video and other free outreach materials help restaurant owners and employees become aware
of the storm drain system, learn about local watersheds and understand how they can prevent
water pollution. Since the training program began in Chapel Hill, restaurant employees have
reduced the number of dumping violations, and several local businesses have invested in
constructing or improving washout areas to avoid sending detergents, bacteria and organic matter
into storm drains and local creeks.
Restaurant training materials are posted on the Town of Chapel Hill's website under Stormwater
Management (httD: / bit.ly 1UzecLI Chapel Hill restaurants may call Stormwater Management for
free training presentations. For more information, contact Wendy Smith at 919 - 969 -7246 or
wwsmith @townofchapelhilLor.
Bolin Creek trail work in Chapel Hill raises erosion, water concerns
AaA aA 1 'IOth, 2015 1:::1y "I "'arriirrruy (airU1313 1grubbC@newsobserver.com
CHAPEL HILL
The once - narrow Bolin Creek trail that wound between the creek and steep hills along Umstead Drive is
now wide and flat, littered with loose rocks and several freshly cut trees.
Since work on phase 3 of the Bolin Creek Greenway started in June, neighbors and others have grown
concerned about the work and how it could harm the creek. The area also is known for flooding during
moderate and heavy rains.
"The fact is that this small road, this
paved 10 -foot greenway, is going to
be wedged between a very steep bank
and a creek, and that is going to be
terrifically difficult to do without
damaging the creek," said Julie
McClintock, president of the nonprofit
Friends of Bolin Creek.
The creek could appear cloudier over
the next few weeks, town stormwater
engineer Chris Jensen said, but steps
are being taken to control erosion and
water quality. Contractor S &C
Construction is using traditional black
mesh erosion fencing in some areas but has installed waddles — rolls of coconut fiber matting — in rocky,
compacted areas along the creek. The waddles are moved outside the work zone during construction.
The work is challenging, said Bill Webster, Parks and Recreation planning and development manager,
but S &C Construction has extensive experience building bridges and other projects in wetland areas.
The existing Bolin Creek Greenway — 1.5 miles of 10- foot -wide asphalt — connects Community Center
Park on Estes Drive with Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, just south of the Chapel Hill Police
Department. The half -mile, concrete connection from MILK Boulevard to Umstead Park could take nearly
a year to build and cost $2.2 million.
Pedestrians and cyclists, once it's finished, will pass through a 37- by 16 -foot, arched culvert under MILK
Boulevard, going up the hill and across a Bolin Creek bridge on the other side. The greenway then
crosses Umstead Drive and follows an abandoned sewer easement west along the creek's southern
banks to a planned tunnel under Pritchard Avenue Extension and the park.
The project also will add a sidewalk to Umstead Drive, from MILK Boulevard to the new trail crossing, and
replace a wooden bridge in the park with a steel one. The new bridge will form a future connection to
Tanyard Branch trail, the Northside neighborhood and downtown.
T fie Nuys & Observer
The changes are expected to form an important link in the town's trail system and make it safer for to
cross busy MLK Boulevard and head downtown or west to Carrboro. Cyclists and pedestrians now go
down the hill, past a dangerous gas station driveway, to cross at the traffic light.
Concerned residents say there are better ways to safely route people than a concrete trail next to a
creek in the resource conservation district — land set aside to protect water quality.
"A river's riparian area is a delicate place, and there is usually a minimum area along every creek or river
that should not be messed with, in order for the body of water to stay healthy," Umstead Drive resident
Sue -Anne Solem recently emailed town leaders.
The fear is that stormwater will race down the hill, crossing the concrete unabated, and push more
sediment downstream, residents said. That could erode the creek, increase the potential for flooding
and harm aquatic life, they said.
Repairs to the Bolin Creek Greenway in recent years show what could happen, Mt. Bolus Road resident
Will Raymond said. Floodwaters in 2013 damaged the trail's edges, destroying handrails and retaining
walls, and creating a large landslide in one section.
Town leaders seem determined to move full speed ahead anyway, Raymond said.
"The town doesn't listen to the experts. They don't listen to the residents," he said. "I guess we're doing
to have to find chunks of asphalt in the creek before the town starts believing this was a bad idea."
Raymond brought his concerns to the Friends of Bolin Creek a few years ago, McClintock said. The group
opposed the project, she said, but had few options because it had been approved. They plan to work
with town staff this week on a way to monitor the creek's health, she said.
Town and Jordan Lake watershed rules do allow greenway construction in conservation districts, but
those greenways must be designed, built and maintained in a way that reduces their impact.
The N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources has approved the plan, Jensen said, They
are using concrete for the trail, because it's better suited for poor soils and in areas that flood, he said.
Some residents suggested a wider sidewalk on Umstead Drive would be better, even if it requires land
from neighbors or juts out over the creek. The work should have been done a few years ago, they said,
when OWASA put its new sewer line under Umstead Drive.
That would have been more expensive, affected more neighbors and taken more trees from the creek's
northern bank, Webster said.
The town has created an online storymap (nando.com /1n -) to provide updates about the work. The map
shows landscaping around the MILK Boulevard culvert and west along the greenway to Umstead Drive.
Only a few stone retaining walls will be added on the southern side of the creek.
Town staff will consider again this fall whether the trail along the creek should get new landscaping, he
said.
"We have the plans, and we generally follow the plans," he said. "But just as important, when you're in
the field, you look at the reality."
That is small comfort to Janet Tice, whose home overlooks the creek. Tice said she first learned the work
was starting when crews cut down some of the trees. She never got the town's May letter alerting
neighbors that the work would start in June, she said.
"I fail to see how this is not going to be just a disaster when it comes to erosion and flooding," she said.
Webster and Jensen invited residents to keep an eye on the work — from a safe distance — and call if
they see possible problems.
"We (welcome) people's ideas," Webster said. "We live in a community with a whole lot of smart folks."
On September 2, 2010, the BOCC unanimously ADOPTED the social
justice goals outlined in the proposed Orange County Social Justice Goal.
The adopted goals are as follows:
SOCIAL JUSTICE GOALS
GOAL: FOSTER A COMMUNITY CULTURE THAT REJECTS OPPRESSION AND
INEQUITY
The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race or color;
religious or philosophical beliefs; sex, gender or sexual orientation; national origin or
ethnic background; age; military service; disability; and familial, residential or economic
status.
GOAL: ENSURE ECONOMIC SELF - SUFFICIENCY
The creation and preservation of infrastructure, policies, programs and funding necessary
for residents to provide shelter, food, clothing and medical care for themselves and their
dependents.
GOAL: CREATE A SAFE COMMUNITY
The reduction of risks from vehicle /traffic accidents, childhood and senior injuries, gang
activity, substance abuse and domestic violence.
GOAL: ESTABLISH SUSTAINABLE AND EQUITABLE LAND -USE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, incomes
and educational levels with respect to the development and enforcement of environmental
laws, regulations, policies, and decisions. Fair treatment means that no group of people
should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences
resulting from industrial, governmental and commercial operations or policies.
GOAL: ENABLE FULL CIVIC PARTICIPATION
Ensure that Orange County residents are able to engage government through voting and
volunteering by eliminating disparities in participation and barriers to participation.
'w..� ®� �IIIVIW �fliliNbN R ( ) II tt� il
wwwum 0!` I
I p f q`� "�y "�' PI uN 1411NINIIVN4 YN��!1�I1Iy1I1,I ^�tt INI ` IU IIII IMF „ „y� y^^;, gyp 1�0 \ry�;,�9,�” � ^ W {pr
� 4II IIIp �j �Arvn6V1 �11111n�dfllY �111NIM (IIII IIIIY� tli �Vl� d IIII )J �!I @a I II �A g`Iryl� "ryNnn�Vry ,y tlp q ,y tlll I � d 4 / II
`�'� IIpWIM �j I'IpPp Annual Report
u w uii �,��ai r;
for y
a�����.:i through June 2015
We surpassed the water quality standards for our Mason Farm
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The phosphorus level in
our treated wastewater was 7% below the limit and nitrogen
was 71% below the limit. Limiting phosphorus and nitrogen is
important for water quality because they promote excessive
growth of algae, which reduces water quality and makes water
more difficult and expensive to treat for drinking purposes.
We treated and recycled 1,597 dry tons of wastewater biosolids.
Biosolids are solids which we separate from wastewater and
treat so that they can be recycled in agriculture or landscaping.
Our Class A biosolids continue to meet the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) standards for Exceptional Quality.
In September 2014, we completed $10.4 million of
improvements at our WWTP which reduced electricity use per
gallon of wastewater by about 30% ($250 ®000 annual savings);
will help us meet future standards for treated wastewater; and
further eliminated off -site odor.
There were two overflows from our sanitary sewers. The
overflows totaled an estimated 1,100 gallons or a fraction of
one percent of total wastewater volume (2.95 billion gallons).
In 2014, we began a review of opportunities to reduce biosolids
management costs while ensuring sustainable use of biosolids.
A key issue in this study is whether OWASA should continue
applying liquid biosolids to approved farmlands.
When a sewer is damaged, the flow in a sewer is blocked or if the flow in a sewer exceeds pipe capacity, the result is an overflow
of untreated wastewater.
What can block a sewer pipe and cause an overflow?
• Accumulations of fat, oil and grease. Fat and grease should be disposed of with refuse taken to a landfill, and used cooking oil
should be recycled;
• Tree and shrub roots, which can enter a crack in a pipe then grow inside a sewer; and
• Trash or debris such as clothing and towels.
• We inspect sewers to find blockages, damage, cracks and
leaks. In 2014 -15 we cleaned about 86 miles of sewers, or one -
fourth of the system; and inspected about 11 miles of sewers.
• We test for leaks, cracks and unauthorized connections to our
sewers by putting non -toxic smoke into the pipes to see where
smoke comes out.
• We clean sewers to remove blockages by fat, grease, roots, etc.
• We fix cracks in sewers to keep out rainwater and groundwater.
• We mow and clear our "easements" to help keep tree and
shrub roots from growing into and blocking sewers, and to
maintain safe, timely access. A sewer easement is an area
where we can install and improve sewer lines; inspect,
maintain and repair them; and keep clear access.
• To ensure adequate capacity, structural integrity and reli-
able operation, we spent about $1.7 million to rehabilitate or
replace more than 2.7 miles of sewers and manholes in FY
2014 -15
Proper disposal i grease
Please dispose of household fat and grease with trash that
goes to a landfill and recycle cooking oil at the:
Orange County Household Hazardous Waste Program,
1514 Eubanks Road,
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
919.932.2989
Restaurants and related businesses are required to install grease
traps and to have them pumped out on a regular basis.
Keeping r s debris out of sewers
Our sanitary sewer system is not designed to handle trash and
debris, which can cause blockages and overflows. For example,
baby wipes and other hygienic wipes, even those called
"flushable," should not be flushed.
Reporting s a r overflows and odor
If you notice an overflow from OWASA sewer or a private sewer
service line, please contact us immediately at 919.968.4421 at
any time so that we can stop the overflow from our sewer, or
contact the property owner if a private pipe is leaking.
What are biosolids and why are they recycled?
Biosolids are the solids separated from wastewater then
treated at our WWTP. Biosolids can be recycled to improve
soil because biosolids include phosphorus and nitrogen,
which improve the fertility of soil; and other organic matter
which holds moisture in the soil and improves its structure.
Our WWTP produces about 4.4 "dry tons" of biosolids per
day. IA dry ton is the weight of solids without considering the
weight of water that remains with biosolids after they are
farmers. The other half of our biosolids are dewatered and
mixed with other organic material at a private composting facility.
What State and Federal regulations apply to biosolids?
Federal and State regulations limitthe levels of various metals
in biosolids, and the rates at which biosolids can be put on
farmland to help grow crops for animal consumption. The
amount of biosolids that can be applied to a field depends on
the nitrogen level in the biosolids and ability of a crop to use
nitrogen. Our biosolids are tested for bacteria, phosphorus,
• Solids are removed in settling tanks;
• Bacteria and other microorganisms consume pollutants;
• We use filters to remove very small particles not removed in settling tanks;
• Ultraviolet light disinfects the wastewater; and
• We add oxygen to benefit fish and amphibians in waterways receiving
treated wastewater.
Some treated wastewater is used for non - drinking purposes via our reclaimed water
system. Most treated wastewater is recycled at Morgan Creek near Finley Golf
Course. Morgan Creek flows to Jordan Lake, a water supply for several communi-
ties in the region. OWASA has a State allocation of Jordan Lake water for severe
droughts and operational emergencies.
We maintain 340
of sanitary sewers and
2.1 1where we pump
wastewater uphill, but most of
our sewers operate with
the simple force of gravity.
Reclaimed water (RCW) is highly treated wastewater which can be used for various non - drinking purposes. Using reclaimed water
reduces the need to use water from our reservoirs. From July 2014 - June 2015, the University and UNC Healthcare used about
239 million gallons of RCW, or about 30% of the University's overall water purchases from OWASA.
info @owasa.org to arrange a time and date.
Pharmaceutical compounds in the water environment are a
matter of scientific research regarding how they may affect
people, fish, etc. If medications are flushed down a toilet or
otherwise get into the sewer system, pharmaceuticals may get
into a creek, river or lake that is a water supply. Wastewater
treatment plants, septic systems and drinking water treatment
plants are not designed to remove pharmaceutical compounds
Medication should not be flushed down the drain. The Chapel
Hill and Carrboro Police Departments have drop boxes for safe
disposal of liquid and pill medications that are expired, unused,
or unwanted. Liquid medications must be in the original
container. Pills must be in original container or a zip lock bag.
New and used needles are not accepted.
If you have questions or comments about wastewater or
biosolids collection, treatment and recycling, please contact us at
919.968.4421 or iino@owasa.or. For a more detailed version of this
report, please visit our website.
Chapel Hill Police Headquarters
828 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard; drop box days and hours:
Monday- Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM. More information: 919.968.2760.
Carrboro Police Department
100 North Greensboro Street; drop box days and hours:
Monday- Friday, 8:30 AM to 5 PM. More information: 919.918.7397.
400 Jones Ferry Road
Carrboro, NC 27510
919.968.4421 1 info @owasa.org I owasa.org
'% @owasaI
A public, non- profit agency
"" " " " " "'
OWASA
providing water, sewer and
reclaimed water services to the
Carrboro - Chapel Hill community.
Orange Water and Sewer Authority
400 Jones Ferry Road
Carrboro, NC 27510
919.968.4421 1 info @owasa.org I owasa.org
'% @owasaI
Orange Water and Sewer Authority
A public, non-profit agency providing water, sewer and reclaimed water services
to the Carrboro- Chapel Hill community
NEWSRELEASE August 27, 2015
Mary Tiger is OWASA's new Sustainability Manager;
Mary Tiger began work as OWASA's new Sustainability Manager on Monday,
August 24th. Her responsibilities include continuing to develop and improve
OWASA's strategies and programs for sustainable use of resources and
environmental protection.
The OWASA Board's Strategic Plan values "embracing the principles of
environmental, social, and economic sustainability. We strive to make the
highest and best use of our local water resources and to promote
conservation of water, energy, and other natural resources." Strategic Plan
initiatives related to sustainability include affordability outreach and preparing
energy management and water conservation plans.
Before joining OWASA, Ms. Tiger served as Chief Operating Officer and a
Senior Project Director at the Univ. of North Carolina's Environmental Finance
Center for six years. She has also worked as an intern with Charlotte Water
and as Utility Conservation Coordinator for the City of Loveland, Colorado.
Mary earned a Master's degree in Public Administration from UNC in 2009.
When not busy playing Legos with her five -year old daughter or gardening
with her husband, Mary enjoys learning to play the violin, dancing and hiking.
"Mary Tiger has excellent analytical, communication and management skills in
addition to her strong knowledge of water resources and sustainability
concepts, and we are delighted that she has joined the OWASA team," said
Ed Kerwin, OWASA's Executive Director.
Mary Tiger, Sustainability Manager, 919- 537 -4241 or mtierowasa.orq
O U > E m O = U m m L 0
� O7 O m a) E
"O L
C L
O O7 — O a)� O- E O OI U O
O U O H m C p C m Q
U) O U O
.! O= O= O O a) - U)
N O O E O U> O
O L 0 Q o O O
i
y l m O O p 0 U O m U p
O p U O in m in a m a)
c > m
O E
Q> Q m U
O O O L L O
2 O O vpi >,� - 0) O U
Q _ O
m O
L m O m O a) O C m L O 3C -0 OC U N O E C u > U i "O ±: _ -0 O
L 7 -'0
a) p O a) E - m C O () X U 0 p � m
p Q m U p 0) O
ui U) >j L O Q C a--' 7 O LO C O C
O C U O -a >, "� E C m O O- U 7
U
.� N C 7 7 0 m m .� � U) 0 PA
CD o o m
O 0- m —
U LL
O O L O 0 U)
U
O
O OL U U U
O
Co
Q a� U
m O L O E U U U
> °� m
m >< N C
C) m L
O U O L U U
C U '� L
30 O
> O C/5 Q+J
m Q U O p W p E
Q U
O �.O o Q
N O i ) U O c
>' -0 U U O Co p C)
i L L
O
O O C O m O C O
LL m m 2 L U O m "O
'
p � �n
>
.
O O U
O >+ U
O
-
Q
O L
O C
O O O
N
0--o
Q
U m
O
•� O
O
U
O
O Q
O
L
C
U
O
O
7 U
L
O O
> L
C O p O
p C
>E
C � L
C
p
U
m
O7
0
U
a3 Co
p
.�
U
O
m a) Q�
O
U L
O
O C
N
U
L m
O
7
0
O
m Q
p
C
> U
O U
U
3 0
U
O L
U
m
U
O
O
2 O
a
C:
vi
O
U
o
— O 7
F-
m O U
O
Y
C
O
U � m
� O
O U > E m O = U m m L 0
� O7 O m a) E
"O L
C L
O O7 — O a)� O- E O OI U O
O U O H m C p C m Q
U) O U O
.! O= O= O O a) - U)
N O O E O U> O
O L 0 Q o O O
i
y l m O O p 0 U O m U p
O p U O in m in a m a)
c > m
O E
Q> Q m U
O O O L L O
2 O O vpi >,� - 0) O U
Q _ O
m O
L m O m O a) O C m L O 3C -0 OC U N O E C u > U i "O ±: _ -0 O
L 7 -'0
a) p O a) E - m C O () X U 0 p � m
p Q m U p 0) O
ui U) >j L O Q C a--' 7 O LO C O C
O C U O -a >, "� E C m O O- U 7
U
.� N C 7 7 0 m m .� � U) 0 PA
CD o o m
O 0- m —
U LL
O O L O 0 U)
U
O
O OL U U U
O
Co
Q a� U
m O L O E U U U
> °� m
m >< N C
C) m L
O U O L U U
C U '� L
30 O
> O C/5 Q+J
m Q U O p W p E
Q U
O �.O o Q
N O i ) U O c
>' -0 U U O Co p C)
i L L
O
O O C O m O C O
LL m m 2 L U O m "O
'
p � �n
>
O O U
O >+ U
O L
O C
C
O
U m
O
!
.0 O
O
O
C)
O
C
C
U
O
O
7 U
O O
O O
'U U
O
i O U
O
m C
C
p
U
L O
U
m
� U
L
U
a3 Co
p
.�
U
_
Ci
O m>
O
C O
"O OL
m m a?
4 c p
> C Q X O
m O ' — >
Q O C p m m U.
O 0-
E
m U m o O U >,
> VC U) O L O
>
m
OC Q O .� E �� a U U O
C)-U) 7= O C C O
O O m> ( U Q p L
O> U L \\
U m N O C
O O m O L
E
.� L O> ?�
C O
p U C O Q
U O
a) a) U .� O i �� U L C C O O
i C O Q—o Q O m p >
E
U
Q Q Q "5
O O Q m U) U
X E U
C C m C U
O 7 C O m O U O '� C O C m Q
O O U O= p
U p O C) �.3 U �.� _ �Q O
3 m N C U L
m '0 > 0 .O > >+ m C >O >O O C C m O
m L L m L L O O O > L
> N >, O J Q O Q "O 4Q "O O U Q-0 U Q-
c O
7
N > O 3 > > O
L L Q >N a)
U O U Q� U) Q� _ Q C
� m
O O � 0 'a
U > �U, = U Q O
p U) O
C m 0 0 U) U - m U a)
U O L
O O O
> U O U Q
C 7 O L cm te)
a
L
O z C p m 0
m
U p 0 c6 C
O U O O
' O U
>
O7
\� U
O m C E
U) L 1.
O m O a)
L Q p
O "m >+ L
05 �' a C O7 "o
O CO O m
U O
� U o
o o °� m U)
LL � U C: Q O
U m L N
L O L Q
U
(n C O E
C)
N C U
U) Q) U m C
O O O Lp L
L N O7 O > 3
Q a7 N O
O O L
U C) o
O 7 o
3
U
U
i p m
O O a �U,
z U o U
i m p O O
C O O C M O
p O m
O co 0) U O c
0 LO - -0 m
Q N ° m E
O C C
U L m O
O
0 U
C
N N O
O
L m O
O C > �
U N �U,
o C
O
U U) U
O a) O
m -0 O
C U B L C N
3 H H o
o c a-ui Q U
U O O —
O
O
U N O O >
c m m
O E '- a) O
Q U
L OL O .� U m
U a) i
0 O C O O
"O
a"' M O Q
C 7
+U U Q
m > > m L L
L L
^ �O L - L ">
E U L Q
X N 0 4O 3 O
N Q O p a) U
i E O U O
LL OU ~, . a N AM
ui
07 C U 07 O C O
m LL '-6
—
C O . C
M- U L O
U)
L U L
� O � O O T m
p O O Z O L U)
O O E: C O LL —
>>
L
O Z O C 1
p
L L
U O O a) O m U Ll
O C U
C L L O LL O
O p m p m m a) 0 0
O Q o p .� 0 0 0 U C
U O U C O O U O
O U
N U m [L > O O O U O
3: 7 >,
U C .0 L N L O O N= O N O U
U O m m O O E
C L C U C O U C O
O Co O O b O �.O U U
O � L L U - Q U A '- Q C o � Q.
U o /)>> �' U E o a u E .o c o
Q) 0 O m O m> O m O U
Duke Forest Deer Managei-nent Program .fir c, 2"() "1
p
The Office of the Duke Forest is preparing for its eight huraing
season through the NC Wildlife Resources Commission Deer
Management Assistance Program, Results from the 2015 deer,
population survey showed an increase in total deer spotted
when compared to 2014, but the number remains well below
the high recorded in 2010, The Office will continue to monitor
this trend but is confident that hunting is necessary to reduce
the negative irripacts of overabundant deer on the Forest,
-the 2015 season will begin on September 28th and continue
through December 18th. DL,Irir'lg this time, the Durham,
Korstian, and Blackwood Divilsions of the Forest will be
closed to all public access Monday through Friday, All
divisions of the Forest will be open on Sar.urdays arid Sundays
and on November 26th avid 27th in observance ofThanksgivivig,
Hunting is conducted by two pre-selected groups'- it. is not
open to the general public, The Durham and Korstian Divisions
will be hunted with bow and arrow only while the Blackwood
Division will have both bow arid gun hunting. For safety
reasons, please observe all posted signs and seek alternate
locations for recreation,
Researchers, teachers, and students with upcoming or ongoing
work in the Forest should contact the Office as soon as possible
to discuss arrang ern ents for, use during the deer season.
1he Office of the DLIke Forest appreciates YOUr SUPIDort air(]
coopeeatuonthirOLA(.,][,�oiAttl,)(ryprograryi, IfYOLJ[iavearly(ILI(,� sti(,)rws
or concerns, please contact the Office at (919) 613 8013, or via
email at dUkeforest(�,)dtjke.edu, You rnay also check our web
site (www.dkikefor(?st.duike.edu) for updates on hie prograin,
MONDAY thii-ouph YRWIDAY
SEP 28 — DEC �18, 2015
For the Deer Herd
Reduction Program
Duke Forest Office
919-613-8013
Signs will be posted at al/ goted entrames to the Ouke Forest. Staff
will be issuing citations to any unauthorized users found in the Forest
during the hunt,
V
gill
M
z
M
:r
M
z
A
P � �' 'a"(' , q(lid< relwr('ni: (-' (I'dem'La
llc�wh�ngA 14'suorch Lwduj�'AOHY
]I SYABLIJMH 0
Office of the Duke Forest - Duke University - Box 90332 - Durham, NC 27708-0332
2015 Deer Management Program IN tice
I[ "Ni II Forest Closur u is I Referevice Calendar
Nonprofit
Organization
U.S. Postage
PAID
Durham, N.C.
Permit No. 60
a=
Su
M
T
W
W
Th
I F
Sa
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
16
17
18
19
18
19
20
21
22
20
21
22
26
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
December 2015
30
Su
M
T
w
Th
November 2015
Sa
Su
M
T
3
w
Th
F
Sa
8
2
3
11
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
17
18
19
15
16
17
21
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
29
25
26
27
28
I
loxne TOETWIM
Su
M
T
W
Th
F
Sa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
December 2015
Su
M
T
w
Th
F
Sa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
North Carolina's curious response to EPA's Clean Power Plan
LJgLJ St:1 0th, 2015
1E.: Y IR161biiiil uulirmlii th colin t urlii Ilkwtii lin c6ll uiriuui lii t
In one way, the new U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule to limit carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions from power plants released on Monday looks like a typical air quality rule. The Clean Power
Plan rule sets state by state reduction goals for a pollutant (CO2) from a particular set of sources
(electric generating facilities).
But the rule takes an unusual and innovative approach to meeting those goals. The rule identifies three
components (or "building blocks" in EPA rule- speak) of a plan to reduce CO2 emissions associated with
power generation: 1. reducing power plant CO2 emissions (the traditional Clean Air Act approach); 2.
increased electric generation from renewable energy sources; and 3. transition of electric generation
facilities from coal to natural gas.
In effect, the rule aims to lower CO2 emissions per kilowatt hour used and allows the states to take
credit for CO2 emissions avoided by shifting electric generation to energy sources with low or no CO2
emissions. EPA set state CO2 reduction goals by estimating how much each state could lower CO2
emissions using the three basic building blocks. (The earlier draft EPA rule used energy efficiency as a
fourth "building block" in setting state CO2 reduction goals; the final rule does not, but still allows a
state to use energy efficiency measures to meet its reduction goal.)
The proposed EPA rule requires each state to submit a plan for meeting its CO2 reduction target by June
30, 2016. The state plan can rely on any or all of the three "building blocks" in the EPA rule; it can also
include measures that fall outside those categories – including increased energy efficiency — as long as
the plan achieves the CO2 reduction target for regulated electric generation facilities. If a state fails to
develop a plan, EPA can create a federal plan for the state.
The McCrory administration has opposed the Clean Power Plan rule — in written comments, in
testimony before Congressional committees and in a statement released on Monday. In part, the
administration has argued that the Clean Air Act does not authorize EPA to issue a rule that relies on
measures — such as increased reliance on renewable energy — that go beyond limiting pollutant
emissions from regulated power plants.
Last week, the practical implications of that position became clearer when DENR Secretary Donald van
der Vaart told a Senate committee that the McCrory administration intends to resist the flexibility
offered under the federal rule and submit a CO2 reduction plan based entirely on requiring additional
CO2 emission reductions at power plants.
The Secretary's comments came as a state Senate committee debated House Bill 571, which requires
DENR to develop a state CO2 reduction plan with the participation of the public and the electric utilities.
DENR did not support House Bill 571, but the bill passed the House with a bipartisan majority and the
support of the state's major electric utilities and environmental organizations.
Last Wednesday, the Senate Agriculture and Environment Committee adopted a substitute draft of H
571 that would prohibit DENR from taking any action or expending any state resources on development
of a CO2 reduction plan until all legal challenges to the federal rule had been resolved or until July 1,
2016 (whichever came later). Asked to comment on the proposed substitute bill, Secretary van der Vaart
indicated that DENR would prefer to submit a CO2 reduction plan by June 30, 2016 as required under
the federal rule — but a plan based entirely on reducing power plant emissions. (Note: The bill has not
yet gone to the floor for a vote and discussions between the Senate and DENR are apparently ongoing.)
Most states have started planning to meet the CO2 reduction targets. Even in coal - producing states
where political opposition to the EPA rule tends to be highest, state air quality agencies have begun
sketching out CO2 reduction scenarios in case the rule survives the expected legal challenges. Only one
state — Oklahoma — has prohibited its environmental agency from developing a plan. A recent
Washington Post story reported that even coal- dominated states like Kentucky seem confident of
meeting the CO2 reduction target thanks in part to recent investments in renewable energy generation.
It isn't clear that any state other than North Carolina has decided to develop a plan based solely on CO2
reductions at coal -fired power plants.
All of which leaves something of a public policy mystery.
A state with significant advantages in renewable energy, energy efficiency and already on the road to
transitioning power plants from coal to natural gas seems to have settled on a policy that throws those
advantages away. Instead of working with electric utilities, consumers and environmental organizations
to develop the most cost - effective CO2 reduction plan for the state, DENR intends to unilaterally
develop a plan based entirely on reducing power plant emissions.
Moreover, it isn't clear why or what that policy choice could cost the state.
Robin Smith is a lawyer with more than 25 years of experience in environmental law and policy and a
former Assistant Secretary for Environment at the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. She blogs at hp: / /wwwosmithenvironmentocom/
7th Annual Making �k nergy Work Conference
Raleigh Convention C'enter
NCSEA's annual Making Energy Work conference is the setting for collaboration to move our
clean energy economy forward. We recognize that success is a team effort - and North
Carolina's future energy success story will be the result of clean energy providers, consumers,
businesses, utilities, decision makers, and advocates working together toward common goals.
Since 2009, the conversations generated at Making Energy Work provided opportunities to
inform, build relationships and identify solutions that lead to the continued flourishing of
North Carolina's clean energy economy. With uncertainty on the horizon, these conversations
are more important
than ever.
Highlights from our 2014 event included:
0 Over 50 exhibitors;
• A diverse group of sponsors representing the clean energy industry and its consumers;
• Exciting 'Power Pitch" segments dedicated to showcasing 5 inspiring start -up
entrepreneurs & innovators;
• NCSEA's Clean Energy Awards presented to individuals, businesses and organizations
that have achieved outstanding advancements in our industry; and
Countless new connections and partnerships formed
among attendees!
In keeping with tradition, we expect this year's Making Energy Work will build on that
momentum and deliver our best event yet.
J li /I /1 /'l /1 ," r„ % %;1 /I nl, ,rr fr IL d A rc N / 0 rt d_, y o„ 11 I(a! r fir» o r,r l s r 'U,, N41 E W 2 0 1 5;;;
• Exclusive reception, providing opportunities to network and make new connections
• An exciting display of the latest electric and alternative fuel vehicles
• The new & improved official Making Energy Work 2015 mobile app, which helps MEW
attendees connect before, during and after the event
• A fun and engaging badge earning game with prizes for the top scorers
• And more!
More about this at: http: / /www.makin energywork.org/