HomeMy WebLinkAboutCFE agenda 101215AGENDA
Commission for the Environment
October 12, 2015
7:30 p.m.
Richard Whitted Meeting Facility (Room 250)
300 West Tryon Street, Hillsborough
Time Item Title
7:30 I. Call to Order
7:32 II. Additions or Changes to Agenda
7:35 III. Approval of Minutes — September 14 (Attachment 1)
7:40 IV.
Herbicides & Pesticides Used at County Facilities
The CFE will consider a list of herbicides and pesticides used to manage the grounds at Orange
County buildings and facilities. The BOCC would like the CFE to review the list, discuss with
DEAPR staff, and provide feedback or recommendations to staff and BOCC. (Attachments 2 -3)
8:00 V.
Green Building Incentives
Bouma will provide an update on the Town of Chapel Hill's early experience with the pilot
Commercial Green Building Incentive in the Ephesus - Fordham district. (Attachment 4)
8:15 VI.
Collaboration in Energy Conservation/ Management
Saunders and Bouma will report on the third meeting of the interagency committee working to
collaborate on projects to address energy conservation and management (Attachment 5)
8:30 VII.
CFE Outreach / News Articles
The CFE will review /discuss the latest news article intended to educate and inform the public
about issues highlighted in the Orange County State of the Environment. (Attachment 6)
8:40 VIII.
Annual Report and Work Plan (2015 -16)
Each year the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) asks its advisory boards to prepare an
report of their activities, accomplishments, new issues, and concerns for BOCC information. A
copy of the 2014 -15 report is attached for your reference. A draft 2015 -16 will be provided for
CFE consideration in November. The final report is due December 18. (Attachment 7)
8:50 IX.
Updates and Information Items
Staff and /or CFE members will provide updates on the following items:
➢ Green Restaurant Challenge update (Attachment 8)
➢ BOCC to discuss solid waste /recycling /food waste (Oct 13) (Attachment 9)
➢ Orange County Resolution of Support for Small Solar (Attachment 10)
➢ BOCC decision on Nov 2016 bond package (Attachments 11 - 12)
➢ Carrboro's Community Climate Action Plan - Draft Report (Attachment 13)
http: //www.townofcarrboro.oM /718 /Energy- and -Cli mate - Task -Force
➢ OWASA Biosolids management report — Part 2 Draft (Attachment 14)
➢ Forest Service offers advice for treating ash trees (Attachment 15)
➢ Raleigh streetlights being switched to LED (Attachment 16)
➢ Changes to state environmental laws /rules (Attachments 17 - 19)
➢ New rules boost EPA's environmental justice efforts (Attachment 20)
➢ NC House and Senate pass industrial hemp bill (Attachment 21)
➢ Fine particles linked to early death (Attachment 22)
➢ Haw River Trail newsletter (Attachment 23)
9:15 X. Adjournment
Nextmeeting., November 9 (Chapel Hill)
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
,. 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
September 14, 2015
Orange County Solid Waste Administration Building, Chapel Hill
PRESENT: Jan Sassaman (Chair), May Becker, Lynne Gronback, Loren Hintz, David Neal,
Bill Newby, Jeanette O'Connor, Rebecca Ray, Gary Saunders
ABSENT: Sheila Thomas - Ambat, Peter Cada, Tom Eisenhart, Lydia Wegman, David Welch
STAFF: Tom Davis, Brennan Bouma
GUESTS: Terri Buckner ( OWASA Board of Directors), Pat Davis ( OWASA Sustainability Mgr.)
Call to Order — Sassaman called the meeting to order at 7:34 pm.
Additions or Changes to Agenda — Sassaman said he would like to add a brief update
and discussion on the status of CFE membership and appointments. He said he would
insert this item between Items IV. and V. on the agenda.
III. Minutes — Hintz motioned to approve the August 10 minutes as written; seconded by
Saunders. Sassaman pointed out a typo on Page 2. Approved unanimously.
IV. Energy Conservation / Management Forum — Terri Buckner ( OWASA Board of
Directors) and Gary Saunders reported on the first two meetings to plan for a community
forum on energy conservation and management. Buckner said the meetings have also
included representatives from Carrboro, Chapel Hill, UNC, and OWASA.
Buckner reported the group decided that a community forum is not desirable at this time
after all. Instead they will identify projects of mutual interest where there are
opportunities for collaboration among the different entities. Buckner said the group might
want to hold a public forum after identifying one or more projects. She noted the Town of
Carrboro held a public forum on climate change and did not get adequate public
participation. The plan is to have something specific for members of the public to
consider and react to in the future.
Bucker said the group developed an initial list of potential projects that also included
metrics on how each group would measure and report on energy conservation and
management. It also included metrics on social value. Bucker said the next task is for
people to review the list and prioritize projects of interest to the entity they represent.
The group will consider those prioritize and decide where to go next.
Bucker said the next two meetings will be September 30 and October 28, during which
the group will identify the projects of mutual interest and to determine what is necessary
to make them happen. She noted this is different from what she had presented in August
and hopes this new idea will also be of interest to the CFE for further participation.
Sassaman asked Saunders what he wanted from the full CFE. Saunders asked CFE
members look over the list of potential energy conservation collaboration projects and
provide comments to him in time for him to report to Mary Tiger of OWASA by Sept 18.
Attachment 1
Saunders commented on the list of potential collaboration projects. He agreed with
Buckner that this initial approach would be better than a public forum.
Buckner noted that some of the potential projects are short -term projects and others are
relatively long -term. She said Chapel Hill has been talking with a consultant about
compiling an inventory of roofs that could support solar energy production in advance of
future capital improvement planning for roof replacement. She said another project is the
potential for the University of North Carolina to utilize methane gas produced by
OWASA's wastewater treatment plant. Neal asked what happens to the methane
currently. Buckner said the methane is burned by flaring. Pat Davis said OWASA
generates 110,000 cubic feet of methane gas daily (61 BTUs). He said a portion of the
gas is captured and used to heat OWASA's digestion process and a portion is flared off.
Pat Davis discussed some of the other potential projects being considered by OWASA.
He offered to provide more details on projects to CFE members.
Buckner noted that the CFE gave tentative approval of this concept in August. Buckner
and Saunders asked if the CFE remained favorable of this new collaboration movinq
forward. Sassaman asked members if they wished to continue the involvement. The
consensus was that the CFE wishes to continue its collaboration in this effort.
Bouma described some of the other potential projects on the list for CFE members to
consider and respond to. Sassaman asked Saunders to send the list of potential
projects to CFE members. Saunders noted the list of 11 potential projects was only
released to the working group on Friday and he would send it via email.
O'Connor reported on a project by the Town of Carrboro's climate task force. Becker
asked whether the inventory of roofs for their solar energy potential could also include
privately -owned homes and buildings. Buckner noted that public funds can't be used to
solarize private buildings. Neal and Bouma discussed a project by the City of Raleigh to
support and expand solar energy production.
CFE members thanked Buckner, Davis, Saunders, and Bouma for their report.
CFE Membership (Unscheduled item) — Sassaman noted that several CFE member
appointments will expire at the end of December, and also that he will need to resign
from the CFE because he and his wife are relocating to Chatham County. He said
Donna Lee Jones's position remains vacant following her resignation this past June.
Sassaman said the terms for Neal and Saunders will December 31 and neither is eligible
for reappointment. He said Ray's and Gronback's terms also expire December 31, but
both are eligible for reappointment and both are interested in continuing on the CFE.
Sassaman said there will be four vacancies to fill shortly. He asked CFE members to
contact people thev feel would be aood candidates for servina on the commission and to
encourage them to apply. Bouma reported that at a recent BOCC meeting he heard
strong interest by commissioners in filling all vacancies on their advisory boards. CFE
members expressed interest in findina candidates from diverse racial and social
backgrounds, especially given the CFE's interest in environmental justice issues
V. Green Building Incentives — The CFE continued its discussion of potential incentives
for energy- efficient construction. Bouma reported on his and Rich Shaw's recent
meetings with James Baxter, chief commercial building inspector with the Orange
2
Attachment 1
County Planning & Inspections Department. Bouma noted that Baxter is a long -time
member of the staff and is very familiar with the state building and energy codes.
Bouma said he also spoke with Gordon Dively, who was formerly with the Solid Waste
department and was recently hired to be the County's capital projects manager.
Bouma reported the County established a green building committee in 2007 -08, but that
it was dissolved when the recession took hold in 2008 -09. He said the committee
included representatives from around the county, and they tried to identify incentives for
green building. They considered potential changes to the fee schedule and helping to
publicize businesses that employed green practices, but the committee stopped meeting
before anything resulted from those discussions.
Bouma suggested it is a good time to resume these discussions. He said Orange
County uses the international energy code as a minimum standard, and James Baxter
was a member of the large commission that developed the energy code. Bouma said
the code was developed because green building was conflicting with the standard
building codes that were in place around the country. He said the energy code is
actually out in front of what is being done in practice. Bouma gave an example of the
intent of the energy code to improve the energy efficiency of HVAC systems; however in
practice the practice of installing new systems is out of synch with the process needed to
calibrate those HVAC systems properly.
Bouma said Baxter and Dively have ideas for green building incentives that could be
discussed further. He said alternatives to reducing permit fees or providing rebates
should also be considered because permit fees are needed to generate revenue for
staffing the inspections division. Bouma noted decreasing the size of a house can
usually improve energy efficiency, so increasing property taxes for larger houses with
energy inefficient construction is another potential option. He cited the example of
OWASA's increased water and sewer fees for larger residences that use more water.
Sassaman said most residents would not consider higher property tax as a disincentive
because they may not recognize the higher fee embedded in the escrow portion of their
mortgage payment. He found that was the case with the County's $120 recycling fee.
He said only three residents objected to the fee. Hintz and Neal questioned the legal
authority and acceptability of a tax surcharge for larger, inefficient residences.
Gronback, Newby, and Bouma discussed the costs and benefits of "tiny homes."
Bouma reported that Baxter is interested in continuing this discussion and determining
what ideas can be generated for County consideration. He said Baxter is interested in
learning about Chapel Hill's experience with its pilot project of permitting development in
the Ephesus - Fordham district. Neal asked Bouma whether he had a chance to contact
the Chapel Hill town staff for an update on that pilot effort. Bouma said he had not.
Neal suggested that once we learn from the Chapel Hill experience how many
commercial builders are willing to pursue the rebates the CFE could work with Planning
and Inspections staff to develop a package of potential incentives that would apply in
certain locations, conditions, and circumstances. The package might go then go to the
Planning Board and BOCC as draft amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance.
Bouma said he would work with the Air and Energy Committee on next steps.
Neal noted that a rebate for commercial building construction is likely to be more feasible
than for residential buildings, particularly when dealing with retrofits. He suggested the
County could appropriate a certain total amount of rebate funds available annually, and
once those funds were spent there would be no more rebates for that given year.
3
Attachment 1
VI. CFE Outreach / News Articles — The CFE reviewed news articles intended to educate
and inform the public about issues highlighted in the State of the Environment report.
Sassaman thanked Hintz for his work on the article that was published featuring news of
the emerald ash borer and other invasive species. Sassaman asked if there were
comments on the article by Tom Davis on hydraulic fracturing. Hintz asked whether the
article should mention potential adverse health effects. Davis said the article is intended
to cover the potential effects of fracking on Orange County. Sassaman suggested the
potential for health effects is captured in language about potential water contamination.
Gronback said some deeds to property relinquish the landowners' mineral rights.
The CFE approved of sending the fracking article as written to area newspapers.
Sassaman thanked Davis for is work on preparing the article.
CFE members then considered an updated list of potential topics for new articles
(Attachment 6). Davis said he would ask Cada to work with him on an article about
water conservation, based on narrative from the SOE report. The CFE discussed
producing an article or two on solar energy generation in Orange County, and to include
language in the article that advocates for restoring state tax incentives for solar energy.
The CFE decided to prepare an article about solar energy issues for October, an article
about water conservation for November, and an article on barriers to solar development
for December. Draft articles will be reviewed by the appropriate committee and then
shared with the full CFE for a final scan prior to being submitted for publication.
VI I. Orange County Bond Referendum 2016 — The CFE reviewed the letter it had sent to
the BOCC in June asking the Board to consider reopening the bond referendum process
and providing a full opportunity for public and County staff comment. The CFE
discussed sending a representative to the September 15 BOCC meeting to thank the
BOCC for this opportunity and to provide comments pertaining to the County's proposed
2016 bond referendum. Bouma mentioned that he heard that as many as 200 people
were expected to show up at the meeting to speak on this issue. Hintz suggesting CFE
members communicate their interests to the BOCC by email rather than at the meeting.
Sassaman said he would send an email to BOCC members and attached a coov of the
CFE's June memo for reference. He suggested other CFE members could do the same
VIII. Updates and Information Items — Information on the following subjects was provided in
the meeting package; selected items were discussed: a) Chatham County's temporary
fracking moratorium, b) hydrilla treatments in the Eno River, c) Chapel Hill's pollution
prevention video, d) Bolin Creek trail, e) Orange County's social justice goal, f)
OWASA's wastewater /biosolids report, g) OWASA's new sustainability manager, h)
County brochure on tree harvesting, i) Duke Forest deer management, j) NC's response
to EPA's Clean Power Plan, k) Making Energy Work Conference — Oct 6.
Newby reported the US EPA's Environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program
(BenMAP) program has added to its component for social justice considerations.
Bouma reported County staff are identifying subjects for public service announcements
to be aired on WCHL Radio. He asked CFE members for any ideas for future topics.
IX. Adjournment — Sassaman asked for a motion to adjourn. Hintz motioned to adjourn;
seconded by O'Connor. Sassaman adjourned the meeting at 9:35 pm.
Summary by Rich Shaw, DEAPR Staff
E
Department of Environment,
Agriculture, Parks & Recreation
1 �4ft.r*rNrNV-3:
In May, a Board member requested information about the types • pesticides and
herbicides used • County staff to manage and maintain grounds, parks,
landscaped areas and buildings.
I I I r-ROJES10 I I Lqw•r-4a" I I • I Lei I M4111 I INp wels I b-T-3walLOK91 IN rgs Im I vej I I I r.14 Lei I W., I $10ig IBM
z Many
• the items listed are not applied • a regular basis, but as needed.
a my=**
Orange County Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks & Recreation
PO Box 8181, Hillsborough, NC 27278
Phone: (919) 245-2510 Fax: (919) 644-3351
D
I I
�o
ca
co
0
m
>
0
m
>
�
m 0-
x
j
4-1
(U
4�
m
In
0
m
u
m
x
0
bio
41
(U
E
m
o
L.
LL
41
0
IQ
cr
W
CL
(A
Lf)
I n
Z
z
IV,
P
ullz
4�
4�
0
4' (A
"D
m
0 r)
U-
<
4y T
-W C
C.
X�
Z
z
�j
E
Rf
'o <
1., 1+11
q a
-W"
0
•r . ® E ol
1_ 2
-1
4 X
a) X)
-n q
LI!
.6
3 C.13
�13 'D
a M
41
U,
z
t,
.
(D z
t"
1� M
0
tic"
r,
t! .0
a)
s
0
L.
<
<
. 2
4�
uo
c
b a
� 2
.
.2
x 0
z
z
Lm
0
m
m
M
u
u
u
u
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Z
z
z
z
z
W
p9
41
W M
Z
z
z
.2
X
r 0
m E
N
N
M
m
0)
(A
0
D
u
CIA
(A
a)
>
> a)
>
>
>
>
w
CL
0
txo
V
U
U
U
U
U -C
-C U -
a
:3
>
a)
a)
<
<
<
<
0
w 0
W 0
tw 0
w 0
w 0
a)
ai
a)
c (D
C: (D
c (D
c
(D
:3
:3
:3
D
a)
QJ
(A
V)
<
Ln
<
Ln
<
0
M
W)
ai
a)
4.0
tlo
:2
-2
c
U
Y
m
41
i3-
ai
4�
u
ai
0
Jz-
W
-2
0
73
(n
0
0
u
M
CL
E
(U
--
a)
ai
.r
L
0
a:
:2
u
w
_u
to
U-
<
c
m
�
a)
w
aj
✓ a)
4Ul
IA
Ln
3:
3:
C)
0)
.2
w
0
0-
m
(D
_0
>
m
0
0
ca
co
0
m
>
0
m
>
�
m 0-
x
j
4-1
(U
4�
m
In
0
m
u
m
x
0
+1
a)
E
41
41
(U
E
o
L.
LL
41
0
x
m
cr
W
CL
(A
Lf)
N
M
I.('1
CIO
y
bg
S3
21
cu
Q)
QJ
w
E
4 .s
Cl
M
co
cl
41
cu
'iai
t
F
C)
15"
W
8
vi
CD
0
w
.10
y
r.
2 E
rl
Ln
L
O
O
c
C
C:
w
.0
.0
.0
X
c
U.J 0
°fie
u
u
u
u
E
41 sa
-
o
D
Z
z
� •
(A
a) E
0
U)
C
0
(n
a)
Ln
Ln
Ln
In
'A
(U
Ln
w
Lu M
w
>-
>-
>-
>-
>-
>-
tw
V
w
(A
x r
is
r
0
is
E
N
N
m
r4
rn
rn
m
m
w
cc
4-
0
uj
bo
ai
ai
Q)
a)
bD
_0
CL
-a
-0
-a
-a
v)
a)
a)
a)
a)
2-
a)
a)
a)
a)
w
Q
0
41
a)
IA
u)
c
W m
m
.�=
4-
L�
m_0
m
0
-a o
a)
0
Y
-0
0)
V
a)
u
C)
>
0
41
0
U)
m CL
-0
CL
'a :3
4-o
0
_0
CL 0
Q. 0
>
CL
L..
c
-5
Y -0
E
m 0
>
S
ai
m
Lm
n
-0
CL Ln
C:
—
Z.,
-a .-
(A
O
o
a)
C: 0-
(U a)
a)
0
a)
m
®J
0
7-u
ro
Ln
a)
U)
vi
E
:F3
0>
-0
0
1 0
C 0
m
"
m
-
:3
m
0
Qj
a) M
ro
a) —
:3 4�
0
M
4-
a)
o
- 41
CL
z
41
0
_r_
a)
m
x
co
4J
C L
21
0
bJD
Ur
C
u
a)
CL
Q)
c
E�
0
D
0
V N
--
0
L-
-0
.2
E (02)
4�
>
0
0
0-
CU m
a)
CL
<
V)
Fes-
U
.. ....... ....
,
O
O
O
LL
N
G
O
'a
C
O
U
U
U
a)
Q
N
C
C
O
C
a)
L
c
m
N
O
f6
U
Q
CL
m
a)
N
a)
U
C
f9
2-
L
bn
.N
U
0
Q.
N
v
Q
a)
L
Ln
C
ca
a)
E
z
O
f—
Q
U
C C �
o w
z
U Q
� •L Q
O
C O C
O
L (d
O 0 Ll
a) 1L
ca
z v C
= L N
E H 0
O 'n a)
LL N a)
a U
Q 4+
N
i
O O
Qj
_N N
N
= L :3
hA N
.N U
N Y i
a) N O
Ln
� a)
N L c6
� � L
O o
L
O L c
4-;
(A N
L
O U a)
U i �
-a o O L bn
3 co O
3 � o
a) L
a) a)
CL L
L
u O
X
Ln O N
p
U �
L
O m
0 U
u
bn O
L Q
v a)
L L
a
M O
E
f0
v CL
� o
C 4-
L �
a) L
Q
vi O
L
1
S. }+
O a)
C
N
{n L
4- -0
O
a)
bn U
m C
fEb °)
O O
N
L +�
a) O
> E
L
z
bD
�O
_N
�O
U Q
O
0
3
i a)
0 L
O a+
U
a)
L a)
L
m a;
E N
� V
N N
O -
Q N
X
a)
L
U
41
a)
a)
E
X
0
0
+_
L
cUO
E
v+1
N
N
C
v
N
N
N
O
CO
O
;
�-
O
•O
a)
O
E
U
bLA
p
L
L
E
°N'
�
Q
U
�,
U
>
0
i
a)
O
D
X
C
C
U a)
cb
'a
�-
CO
4
N
0
•�
O a
4!
N
L
N
U
+
a)
L
f0 O
L
N
O
'L
a)
N
O
a)
N
.N
O
L-
O
N
•C
a)
m
E
U
a)
i
DEAPR Administrative Policy
Sustainable Landscaping at Orange County Facilities
Approved by the Commission for the Environment (CFE) on June 14, 2010. for implementation by DEAPR. It
is based on guidelines proposed by a Joint Committee on Sustainable Landscaping Practices (2008) comprised
of representatives of the CFE, the Planning Board and County staff from Planning & Inspections and DEAPR.
Goal Statement: Use appropriate and sustainable landscaping practices on all County -
owned properties, including buildings, parking, parks, and other facilities.
Purposes: Landscaping around government buildings and facilities is important for
maintaining the value and appearance of public property. When landscapes are not
managed efficiently, it can increase maintenance costs, waste natural resources, and pollute
the environment. Sustainable landscaping practices can produce significant economic and
environmental benefits. Savings include reduced labor, water, fertilizer costs, and lower
hauling expenses and disposal fees. Composting and mulching returns valuable organic
material to the soil, which increases the water - holding capacity of soil, reduces erosion, and
conserves water. Proper watering, fertilizing, Integrated Pest Management (IPM), and
pruning can encourage healthier, disease - resistant plants and can reduce the amount of
pesticides, fertilizers, and other toxic runoff entering storm drains and polluting streams and
other water bodies.
I. Guidelines:
The following guidelines apply to all properties owned and maintained by the County.
Departments should consider these as minimum guidelines and may choose to
employ standards that are more restrictive than these guidelines, consistent with
other County policies and procedures.
A. Resource Conservation
1. Prioritize building on land that is already disturbed
2. Site buildings to take advantage of the natural day light and solar gain, with
natural venting where possible
3. Plant deciduous trees on the southwest sides of buildings to reduce energy
needs in the summer and to increase possible solar gain in the winter.
4. Plant evergreen trees on the northeast corner of buildings for protection from
winter winds
5. Harvest rain water with cisterns to help reduce the use of potable water
6. Design and implement efficient irrigation systems
7. Specify drought tolerant plants
8. Use local building and plant materials to reduce transportation costs
9. Use recycled materials and FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) certified wood
10. Minimize night light pollution
11. Balance cut and fill on site
12. Provide priority parking spaces for carpooling, alternative fuel vehicles, and
bicycles
13. Identify and protect heritage trees —trees that, because of their age, size,
type, historical association, or horticultural value, are of special importance
B. Storm Water Management (Applicable for new construction and retrofitting
existing facilities)
1. Recognize the value of storm water detention on site to reduce the amount
sent to the storm sewer and streams
2. Restore and create wetlands where appropriate for increased flood control
and to enhance water quality
3. Reduce pollution by treating storm water through the use of bioswales, storm
water planters, rain gardens, ecoroofs, or other effective storm water
retention measures
4. Disconnect impervious surfaces from draining directly into surface waters,
wherever feasible
5. Reduce impervious surfaces with porous concrete, porous asphalt,
permeable pavers or other effective storm water retention measures
6. Encourage the use of cisterns in design for new construction projects
7. Use low- impact design techniques to help treat pollution opportunities at their
source
C. Maintenance
1. Use native plants
2. Avoid invasive species
3. Reduce pruning needs by allowing plants to realize their natural forms and
providing enough room for growth
4. Minimize the amount of grass lawn by using ground covers that require little
or no irrigation, water use and mowing
5. Use organic mulch (from a local source) to retain water and suppress weeds
6. Use organic fertilizers and compost
7. Use pesticides and herbicides (no stronger than directed) only when no other
alternative exists
8. Consider using integrated pest management practices — utilizing materials of
natural origin such as plant oils (e.g., rosemary, wintergreen) or boric acid
D. Social Capital
1. Provide accessibility to buildings and facilities by individuals with disabilities
under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990
2. Consider opportunities to include social gathering spaces
3. Incorporate interpretive signage that speaks of site history and sustainable
design principles
4. Provide bicycle and pedestrian linkages to other facilities
5. Plan for the inclusion of public art
6. Consider the affects of landscaping on crime prevention
E. Waste Reduction
1. Provide recycling bins for park users
2. Create on -site composting areas
3. Use products and materials that are durable and can be reused or recycled
II. Implementation:
The Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR) shall
use these guidelines to develop landscape plans for each County -owned property
within its purview. Each plan should consider comprehensive pest management
alternatives consistent with the applicable guidelines provided in Section LC of this
policy.
2
A. Existing facilities
Landscape plans for existing facilities should be developed within two years of
the adoption of this policy.
B. Newly- acquired facilities
When the County acquires new properties, sites with existing facilities should
have a landscape plan completed within six months of acquisition.
C. New construction
Newly- constructed facilities should have a landscape plan in place at the time of
its completion and opening.
Issued as DEAPR Administrative Policy #3
P. David Stancil, Director
Effective date: October 1, 2010
3
ORANGE COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, AGRICULTURE,
PARKS AND RECREATION
MEMORANDUM
To: Commission for the Environment
From: Rich Shaw
Date: June 3, 2015
Subject: Summary of the presentation on Chapel Hill's green building incentives
At your April 13 meeting the CFE received a presentation on the Town of Chapel Hill's pilot
program of providing financial incentives for sustainable design (or "green building'') within
the Ephesus Church / Fordham Renewal District.
The following is a summary of the presentation and CFE discussion:
Chapel Hill's Green Building Incentives — John Richardson (Planning Manager for
Sustainability) and Jesse Freedman (Energy Management Specialist) presented an
overview of the Town of Chapel Hill's pilot program of providing financial incentives for
sustainable (or "green building ") design. Richardson noted that this pilot program applies
only for development within the Ephesus Church / Fordham Renewal District.
Freedman said the Town's objective is to incentivize developers to build high - performance
buildings with better energy and water conservation performance than the 75th percentile
of similar buildings. He noted that prior to this program the incentive was to build the
worst energy and water efficient buildings allowed by law.
Freedman described the Town's process of choosing a green building standard for energy
use from among many options, including LEED certification, Energy Star, 2030 Challenge,
and others. The Town chose the Energy Star program, which the staff considers a neutral
standard. The Town chose the State water performance standard. Freedman said the
intent was to create standard that are rigorous and achievable.
Freedman said in this pilot phase the financial incentive for builders is up to a 35%
reduction in their development permit fees. He reviewed the benefits of green building
versus conventional building in terms of energy use and water consumption. He noted the
tendencies for higher rental rates (+ 2% — 17 %), greater resale value (+ 5.8% - 35 %), higher
market value (+ 13.5 %), and lower operating expenses (- 30 %) for green buildings on
average.
Richardson said the rebate could result in a potential total maximum reduction in revenue
from permit fees of about $600,000; however that level of activity is highly unlikely. He
said there have been only two applicants to date. Richardson said Town staff will try to
verify performance measures, likely through periodic field inspections.
Freedman and Richardson responded to questions from CFE members:
O'Connor asked if there were incentives for sustainable design of the outside portions of the
buildings, such as green roofs, xeriscaping, and onsite water retention. Richardson said
yes, there are standards for the outside as well.
Neal asked if Chapel Hill had looked at examples of like programs in other jurisdictions,
such as Catawba County. Richardson said they consulted NC State's DESIRE database for
suitable examples and found that Charlotte's program was most effective. The others
reported low levels of effectiveness.
Sassaman asked if the Town used other incentives in addition to the permit fee rebate.
Richardson said the State has authorized the rebate incentive. For buildings and
development outside of the Ephesus Church / Fordham district the Town uses other
standards and requirements for approving special use permits.
Sassaman asked if the Town applies these standards to its public buildings. Richardson
said the Town has, by ordinance, a LEED Silver minimum for all buildings. For example,
the Chapel Hill Library was built to LEED Silver standard.
Neal asked if these standards applied to single - family residential development, and might
the Town consider expanding the incentives to other parts of the town. Richardson said it
is only intended for commercial and multifamily residential, and said the council has not
discussed imposing these standards elsewhere.
Hintz asked how much less the cost of utilities might be for buildings in the Ephesus
Church / Fordham district than in other parts of the town. Richardson said it would
depend on the building type; the staff has run some calculations.
Richardson said the Town of Chapel Hill will reassess the pilot program at the end of the
first year and the staff will work with the town council on making adjustments if needed.
Neal noted the CFE has recommended to the BOCC and the Planning Board that Orange
County consider adopting similar incentives for sustainable development, but thus far
nothing has resulted from those discussions.
The CFE thanked Richardson and Freedman for their presentation.
From: Mary Tiger [ma i Ito: mtiger @owasa.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 12:21 PM
To: Terri Buckner; Pat Davis; Brennan Bouma; gary.saunders @ncdenr.gov;
Subject: Brief Summary and Next Steps from Last Night's Energy Collaboration Meeting
Thanks to those who were able to attend the Inter -local Energy Collaboration Working Group meeting at
OWASA last night. By way of this email, I wanted to provide the entire group with a brief summary of
and next steps identified in last night's discussion. For those in attendance, please feel free to contribute
if I missed or mis- represented anything.
After briefly reviewing the proposed projects and programs and criteria used to prioritize these projects,
we looked at the top projects based on the group's assessment of their potential to achieve each of the
four criteria. I have attached a slide deck that summarizes the responses. Slide 5 really served as a
springboard for our discussion of what projects were a priority for the group and next steps needed to
move the effort forward. (We did not review slides 6 -15, but they are provided here for the group for to
view. I've also added a slide to describe how the ranking was done. This was spoken last night.) Please
note that these slides and summary are intended only for the purposes of the group.
In summary, we identified five initiatives that hold promise for collaborative efforts among the group.
• Biogas to energy at OWASA wastewater treatment plant
Champions: Brad Ives (UNC) and Pat Davis /Mary Tiger ( OWASA)
Next steps: UNC and OWASA to meet to discuss details around collaborative opportunities
• Technical evaluation of solar PV opportunities at public facilities /land tracts
Champion: Jesse Freedman, Town of Chapel Hill
Next steps: Identify information needed from each agency on sites with potential for PV
• Street lighting coordination (particularly of lighting under direct control of agencies)
Champion: Gaylan Bishop, UNC
Next steps: Investigate if UNC staff can conduct assessment of potential for LED lights on agency
property; send invitation to the group to attend a UNC lighting tour
• Fleet management efficiencies
Champion: Brennan Bouma, Orange County
Next steps: Identify information that is needed to build a baseline to assess opportunities to
collaborate on increasing fleet efficiency (potential source: Triangle Clean Cities and NC Clean
Energy Technology Center)
• Joint energy and carbon tracking and reporting
Champion: Elizabeth Zander, Chapel Hill Environmental Stewardship Board
Next steps: Identify information that is needed (and in what form) for inter -local comparisons
using standards used by the state and others; review existing energy data management and
reporting approaches used by towns, county, OWASA, school system, and UNC
Each of the champions identified will take the lead in coordinating the next steps. Additionally, I will
work on summarizing the short -term, intermediate, and long -term objectives of each of the projects,
and Terri Buckner will also look at the social cost of carbon.
Please hold Wednesday October 28th from 5:30 -7pm in the OWASA Board Room for the next meeting.
We will circulate a Doodle Poll soon to identify another date in early December to meet.
Best regards,
Mary Tiger
Sustainability Manager
Orange Water and Sewer Authority
919 - 537 -4241 (office)
rrn1::ier °�uwasa.ur°
Attachment
ORANGE COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, AGRICULTURE,
PARKS AND RECREATION
MEMORANDUM
To: Commission for the Environment
From: Rich Shaw
Date: October 7, 2015
Subject: Articles for Public Outreach
Since February CFE members have worked with staff to develop monthly articles for 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, problems caused by the
emerald ash borer and other invasive species, and the effects of fracking on Orange County.
Revised Calendar for Preparing /Puhhshmg News Articles
Topic
SOE
Committee (Lead)
Completion'
Publication
H drilla in the Eno
69-70
Water Cada /Davis
Aril
Aril
New electric vehicle
charging stations
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
fracking in Orange Co.
pp. 71 -72
Water Davis /Sassaman
Sept 1
Oct
Solarize projects
N/A
Air Est Energy (Neal /Bouma)
draft
Oct 15
late Oct
Water conservation
pp. 47- 54
Water Cada /Davis
draft
Nov 1
Nov
Barriers to solar
development
N/A
Air Est Energy
/Bouma
draft
Dec 1
Dec
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
November 26, 2014
NAME OF BOARD /COMMISSION: Commission for the Environment
Report Period: 2014-2015
ORANGE COUNTY ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
ANNUAL REPORT / WORK PLAN FOR THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
The Board of Commissioners welcomes input from various advisory boards and
commissions in preparation for its annual planning retreat. Please complete the following
information, limited to the front and back of this form. Other background materials may be
provided as a supplement to, but not as a substitute for, this form.
Board /Commission Name: Commission for the Environment
Persons to address BOCC at work session and contact information:
Chair: Jan Sassaman
Vice Chair Lydia Wegman
Primary County Staff Contact:
919 - 933 -1609 jan.sassaman @gmail.com
919- 886 -8775 Inwegman @gmail.com
Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation
Rich Shaw (Land Conservation Manager) 245 -2514 rshaw@orangecountync.gov
Tom Davis (Water Resources Coordinator) 245 -2513 tdavis @orangecountync.gov
Brennan Bouma (Sustainability Coordinator) 245 -2626 bbouma @orangecountync.gov
How many times per month does this commission meet, including any special
meetings and sub - committee meetings?
One meeting per month (2nd Monday); committees meet as needed during meeting
Brief Statement of Commission's Assigned Charge and Responsibilities.
Purpose: to advise the BOCC on matters affecting the environment, with particular
emphasis on environmental protection and enhancement. Other duties include:
• Perform special studies /projects on environmental issues as requested by BOCC
• Recommend environmental initiatives to the BOCC, especially of local importance
• Study changes in environmental science and environmental regulations in the
pursuit of the CFE's duties
• Educate the public and local officials on environmental issues
What are your Commission's most important accomplishments?
• Published the 2014 Orange County State of the Environment report
(previous reports were completed in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2009)
• Convened Orange County Environmental Summit (2005, 2009, 2014)
• Made recommendations to BOCC on food waste and solid waste tax district (2014)
• Worked with Orange County Schools to introduce local environmental indicators/
status and trends into middle and high school science curriculum (2004, 2009, 2014)
• Hosted a Solid Waste Forum with the Chapel Hill Sustainability Committee (2013)
• Co- sponsored the annual Nature of Orange photography contest (2012, 2013, 2014)
• Advocated for' /2 cent sales tax referendum for Triangle Region public transit (2012)
• Compiled annotated bibliography of the effects of forestry on water quality (2012)
• Developed sustainable landscaping and forest management policies for the
administration of County -owned facilities (2010)
• Assisted County staff in completing the Natural and Cultural Systems Element of the
Orange County Comprehensive Plan (2008)
Commission for the Environment November 26, 2014
List of Specific Tasks, Events, or Functions Performed or Sponsored Annually.
• Review and comment on environmental issues (e.g., fracking, biosolids application,
water pollution, air quality, forest mgmt..) and other issues assigned by the BOCC
• Identify priorities for the Lands Legacy Action Plan (natural areas and wildlife habitat)
• Conduct special studies pertaining to Orange County environment (e.g., energy
efficiency /sustainability, forestry effects on water quality, herbicides and native flora)
• Develop recommendations on implementation of ground water studies of the 1990s
and the integration of ground water and surface water quality and quantity
• Conduct environmental education outreach at events (e.g., Last Fridays, Festifall)
Describe this commission's activities /accomplishments in carrying out BOCC
goals /priorities, if applicable.
BOCC Goal Five: Create, preserve, and protect a natural environment that
includes clean water, clean air, wildlife, important natural lands and sustainable
energy for present and future generations.
Presented findings and recommendations to BOCC on selected environmental
issues: effects of forest mgmt. on water quality; effects of herbicides on roadside
native plant habitat; potential effects of hydraulic fracturing ( "fracking ") in Orange
County; problems caused by hydrilla in the Eno River (BOCC Priorities #1 and #12)
Stayed abreast of ongoing and developing env. issues of importance to the County,
such as Falls & Jordan Lake nutrient mgmt. rules, reducing commercial food waste in
solid waste stream and permitting of biosolids on farmland (Priorities #12 and #16)
Provides comments on proposed master plans for future parks /preserves
If your commission played the role of an Element Lead Advisory Board involved in the
2030 Comprehensive Plan preparation process, please indicate your activities/
accomplishments as they may relate to the Comprehensive Plan's goals or objectives.
(Element Lead Advisory Boards include: Planning Board, Commission for the Environment,
Historic Preservation Commission, Agriculture Pres. Board, and Parks & Recreation Council)
The CFE provided extensive input into DEAPR staff development of the Natural and
Cultural Systems Element of the Comprehensive Plan— specifically the chapters on Air
and Energy Resources, Water Resources, and Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitat.
Objective AE -1:
Assess and implement the current countywide greenhouse gas emissions inventory and
action plan target reductions.
• The CFE helped to initiate a countywide inventory of greenhouse gas emissions
(2005), and continues to advise on ways to reduce the County's "carbon footprint."
Objective AE -15:
Foster participation in green energy programs such as installation incentives for solar hot
water /solar generation /solar tempering in residential or commercial construction. The
County should develop programs that will link citizens and businesses with options for
alternative and sustainable energy sources.
• The CFE's Air and Energy Resources Committee has developed proposals that
address energy efficiency and renewable power issues, and will pursue further in
collaboration with other advisory boards and stakeholders.
Commission for the Environment November 26, 2014
Objective NA -3:
Develop a more detailed and consistent methodology for monitoring changes in forest
cover throughout the County, and specifically the extent of mature hardwood forest.
• The CFE's State of the Environment report documented significant reductions in
mature hardwood forest that occurred from 2003 -2008 and since 1988. DEAPR staff
will update those data to include forest conversions that occurred 2009 - 2013.
Objective NA -11:
Develop a comprehensive conservation plan for achieving a network of protected open
space throughout Orange County, which addresses 1) threats to important natural areas;
2) connectivity between protected areas; 3) coordination with neighboring counties; and
4) sustainable management of critical natural resources.
• The CFE's Biological Resources Committee prepared a draft scope of work and is
considering how to proceed as follow up to the 2014 Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Objective NA -16:
Create a system of public and private open space and conservation areas, including
parks, nature preserves, and scenic vistas representative of Orange County landscape.
• The CFE advises County's Lands Legacy program in its efforts to protect the most
important natural and cultural resource lands through a variety of means.
• The CFE's Biological Resources Committee prepared a draft scope of work and is
considering how to proceed as follow up to the 2014 Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Objective WR -5:
Promote and participate in regional efforts to plan for use of water supplies in the region
in an equitable manner, including contingency planning for water supplies during
droughts. [Also Objectives WR -9, WR -10, and WR -15]
• CFE stays abreast of Jordan Lake Partnership and advises staff as needed
• CFE advocates for full implementation of the Water Resources Initiative to ensure
planning for an adequate water supply for current and anticipated future needs
Objective WRA 1:
Provide incentives and educational information to landowners to increase protection of
watersheds and ground water supplies and their inter - relationships.
• The CFE distributes groundwater and surface water educational materials at Festifall
and Last Fridays events and as part of its State of the Environment reports
NOTE: The Orange County State of the Environment 2014 identified specific
recommendations on ways to help maintain and improve Orange County's
environmental quality, many of which address objectives stated in the
Orange County Comprehensive Plan.
Commission for the Environment November 26, 2014
Identify any activities this commission expects to carry out in 2015 as they relate to
established BOCC goals and priorities. If applicable, is there a fiscal impact (i.e.,
funding, staff time, other resources) associated with these proposed activities (list).
• 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 (BOCC Priority #10)
• Help with public outreach and management efforts related to hydrilla in the Eno River
• Help initiate the development of a comprehensive conservation plan for Orange Co
(BOCC Priority #1)
• 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
What are the concerns or emerging issues your board has identified for the upcoming
year that it plans to address, or wishes to bring to the Commissioners' attention?
• 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
4
Green Restaurant Challenge
From: Elizabeth Zander [mailto :elizabeth.zander @gmail.com]
Sent: October 7, 2015
To: Brennan Bouma
Cc: Rich Shaw
Subject: Green Restaurant Challenge?
Hi Brennan & Rich,
I apologize for the slowness of forward movement! I have been emailing and calling restaurants
to try to get together a focus group. Others are interested in participating, but only Greg
Overbeck from the Chapel Hill Restaurant Group has committed to meeting, and I would like to
get 3 -4 restaurants present with interested members of the CFE and ESAB.
If you know any Orange County restaurant owners personally, I would certainly appreciate the
assistance gathering folks together. The ESAB's capacity has been hurt a little the last two
months due to vacancies and members with life events that kept them from meetings, but we
should have better attendance starting this month.
I hope to be in touch soon with some progress.
Best,
Elizabeth
Hi Elizabeth,
Rich Shaw asked me if I had any updates on the Green Restaurant Challenge that you were
hoping to put together, and I thought I'd just ask!
Any news we can share with the CFE?
Brennan
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 15, 2015
Action Agenda
Item No. 4 -e
SUBJECT: Orange County Resolution of Support for Small Solar
DEPARTMENT: Asset Management Services PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Resolution of Support for Small Solar Brennan Bouma, 919 - 245 -2626
PURPOSE: To adopt a resolution of support for small -scale residential solar arrays.
BACKGROUND: Orange County is a leader in North Carolina in successfully developing and
delivering alternative and more sustainable energy sources for County facilities and assets.
Several adopted County goals and policies specifically support the development of renewable
energy resources such as solar arrays, including the 2005 Environmental Responsibility Goal
and the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Recently in May of 2015, the Orange County Board of
Commissioners showed further support of solar technologies by endorsing the development of a
pilot solar photovoltaic system within its County facilities, beginning with the Rogers Road
Community Center.
In recent years, the cost of solar installations has fallen while their popularity has increased, for
both small residential installations (5 kilowatts on average) and large -scale commercial
installations. While both small and large solar arrays provide useful amounts of renewable
electricity for Orange County residents and businesses, they create different land use impacts in
the space they occupy and their visual appearance. Reflecting this difference in impact, and in
an effort to further promote the development of small residential solar installations, Orange
County has separated small solar installations of less than 20 kilowatts from the larger
commercial installations in the permitting and review process.
Changes in procedure like this help to encourage and facilitate the adoption of small solar
installations by County residents. These efforts by County staff to facilitate adoption of this
technology should be applauded and continued.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Adoption of this resolution of support will have no financial impact.
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following two Orange County Social Justice Goals are
applicable to this agenda item:
• 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: 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.
Small scale solar installations represent infrastructure improvements that will assist residents in
reducing their long term energy costs. Working with County residents to facilitate the
development of small scale solar, in accordance with applicable land use regulations, helps to
increase access to this technology and its benefits. Maintaining the separation of small scale
solar from large scale solar in the permitting and review process helps to ensure that small scale
solar projects are reviewed fairly in proportion to their possible impacts.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve and authorize the
Chair to sign the attached resolution of support for small solar installations in Orange County.
RES- 2015 -046
K
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Resolution of Support for Small Solar
Whereas, the widespread adoption of solar technology would reduce the necessity to build
additional nuclear or fossil -fuel generating plants with their attendant problems; and
Whereas, the County has endorsed the development of a pilot solar photovoltaic system
within its own County facilities; and
Whereas, the County's 2030 Comprehensive Plan establishes several goals and objectives
encouraging the development of alternative energy sources in accordance with applicable
land use regulations; and
Whereas, the price of small residential solar voltaic arrays has recently fallen and kits
containing all of the necessary electrical components have become readily available, and
Whereas, recent local efforts to promote the development of small residential solar have
been successful, including the Solarize Orange project which has resulted in new solar
installations on over 150 homes and small businesses across Orange County in 2014 and
2015; and
Whereas, the average residential solar array installed in Orange County over the past 2
years is approximately 5 kilowatts, and solar installations up to 20 kilowatts are allowed as
an accessory use for a residential property; and
Whereas, Orange County has previously adopted comprehensive land use regulations in
order to distinguish the permit submittal and review process for small residential solar
projects and large, commercial, solar utility operations in an effort to further promote the
development of small residential solar facilities; and
Whereas, the County wishes to empower the residents of Orange County to take advantage
of these recent advances in this promising renewable energy technology;
Now Therefore, we, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, declare our support for
this technology and direct the County Manager and staff to encourage and facilitate its
adoption by individual residents.
This 15th day of September, 2015
Attest:
Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board Earl McKee, Chair
Orange County Board of Commissioners
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 6, 2015
Action Agenda
Item No. 7 -a
SUBJECT: Additional Discussion Regarding a November 2016 Bond Referendum and
Possible Consideration of a Preliminary Resolution To Set Bond Purposes and
Amounts
DEPARTMENT: County Manager, Finance and PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No
Administrative Services
ATTACHMENT(S):
Proposed Preliminary Resolution To Set
Bond Purposes and Amounts
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bonnie Hammersley, 919 - 245 -2300
Paul Laughton, 919 - 245 -2152
PURPOSE: To continue discussion regarding a November 2016 Bond Referendum, and to
consider adoption of a preliminary resolution to set bond purposes and amounts.
BACKGROUND: In several meetings during the past year, the Board of Commissioners has
discussed the scheduling of a General Obligation Bond Referendum. A large part of the
incentive for moving forward with a bond referendum is the repair, renovation, and upgrading of
existing older school facilities. Both school systems completed facilities assessments reflecting
needs totaling approximately $330 million. The scope of study for Chapel Hill - Carrboro City
Schools included schools constructed prior to 1990, while the Orange County Schools study
included all district buildings.
At the Board of Commissioners January 30, 2015 Retreat, the Board directed staff to develop
materials for Board consideration regarding the Board formally expressing its intent to schedule
a November 2016 Bond Referendum, including a total bond package amount of approximately
$125 million. The Board also directed staff to move forward with the development of a process
for a November 2016 Bond Referendum similar to the process utilized during the County's
2001 Bond Referendum.
At its March 3, 2015 Regular meeting, the Board discussed its intent to schedule a November
2016 Bond Referendum to address County and School capital needs; discussed the proposed
creation of, structure, and charge for a proposed Capital Needs Advisory Task Force; and
discussed the potential need for the services of a qualified facilitator for the Task Force. The
Board subsequently requested additional information from staff and the two school systems for
continued discussion at a future meeting.
2
The Board further discussed this item at its April 21, 2015 meeting, and approved the
scheduling of a November 2016 Bond Referendum to address School Capital needs. The
Board also approved its intent for a bond package totaling approximately $125 million, and
supported the concept of a Bond Education Committee. This Committee's composition,
appointment process, and public outreach responsibilities would be discussed and decided on
at a future meeting.
At a work session on September 10, 2015, the Board continued its discussion and received a
presentation on the fiscal impacts for various bond issue scenarios.
This agenda item includes a proposed resolution by which the Board could make a preliminary
determination as to bond purposes and amounts. This resolution would give direction to staff
in discussing the County's plans with staff of the North Carolina Local Government
Commission (LGC), which is a State agency that must approve substantially all County
borrowings, and in preparing the remaining formal proceedings for Board action.
After the adoption of this resolution, the Board could delete proposed purposes or reduce the
amount of bonds proposed for any purpose, but could add a purpose or increase the amount of
bonds proposed for any purpose only by re- starting the process with another resolution like
that presented here.
A motion to approve the resolution should specify the purposes and amounts of bonds to be
authorized for purposes specified in the motion. When the Board has determined the amounts,
staff will suggest a number for the tax -rate equivalent impact to be included in the motion for
completion of the resolution.
To summarize the procedure for calling the referendum —
a) Board considers a resolution such as that presented, (i) to set maximum
parameters of bond purposes and amounts, (ii) to make certain "findings of fact" required by the
LGC application process, and (iii) to authorize staff to proceed with the LGC application process
and the remaining formal steps for the bond issue.
b) County staff will discuss the proposed bond program with the LGC staff and
complete an application for LGC approval.
c) Staff will present to the Board the proposed forms of the "Bond Orders ", the short
authorization proceedings required by law. The Bond Orders are first presented to a Board
meeting for "introduction ", with no formal vote on the Bond Orders required.
d) Then there will be a required public hearing on the Bond Orders.
e) After the public hearing (at the same meeting or a subsequent meeting), the Board
will take a final vote on the Bond Orders, and on a separate resolution to put the questions
before the voters.
There will be a separate Bond Order and ballot question for each purpose for which bonds are
proposed. Staff will schedule the remaining steps for completion prior to the Board's 2016
summer recess, as directed by the Board.
C
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no immediate financial impact related to the discussion of a
November 2016 Bond Referendum.
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following Orange County Social Justice Goal is applicable to
this agenda item:
• 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.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board 1) continue its discussion
of a November 2016 Bond Referendum, 2) provide direction to staff, as appropriate, and 3)
consider adopting the preliminary resolution at the Board's pleasure.
M
RES- 2015 -053
Resolution Stating an Intent To Proceed with a Referendum
For Orange County General Obligation Bonds
WHEREAS:
The Orange County Board of Commissioners has reviewed the need for capital
improvements for various public purposes. The Board of Commissioners has considered
alternative means of financing the costs of the desired improvements, and has made a
preliminary determination to finance at least some of the costs of these projects through
the issuance of general obligation bonds. The issuance of these bonds is subject to the
approval of the County's voters at a bond referendum.
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of Orange
County, North Carolina, as follows:
1. The Board makes an initial determination to proceed with a referendum on
November 8, 2016, for County general obligation bonds for the following purposes and
in the following maximum amounts:
Purpose
Maximum Amount ($)
2. The Board makes the following findings of fact in support of its
determination:
(a) The proposed capital projects are necessary and expedient for the
County.
(b) The amount of bonds proposed is adequate and not excessive for the
proposed purpose. Although capital needs for the stated purposes may exceed the
amount of bonds proposed, the Board finds that this level of bond funding is
appropriate considering the County's resources and other needs.
(c) The County's debt management and budgetary and fiscal
management policies have been carried out consistently in accordance with the
law.
(d) The Board expects a potential annual tax rate equivalent impact to
the County related to paying debt service on the bonds of approximately
cents per $100 of assessed valuation.
3. (a) The Finance Officer is authorized and directed to proceed with the
proper steps toward the authorization of the referendum, including proceeding with an
application to the North Carolina Local Government Commission (the "LGC ") for its
approval of the bonds. The Board appoints the Finance Officer as the County's
authorized representative with respect to the LGC application process.
(b) The Finance Officer, in collaboration with the Clerk, is authorized and
directed to publish a notice of the Board's intent to apply to the LGC for approval of the
bonds. This notice must be in the form prescribed by statute and consistent with this
resolution.
(c) All County representatives are authorized to take all such further action as
they may consider necessary or desirable in connection with the furtherance of the
purposes of this resolution. This resolution takes effect immediately.
From: Jan Sassaman
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 10:39 PM
To: 'Saunders, Gary'; Rich Shaw; 'David Neal'; 'David Welch'; 'Jeanette O'Connor'; 'Loren Hintz'; 'Lydia
Wegman '; 'Lynne Gronback'; 'May Becker'; 'Peter Cada'; 'Rebecca Ray'; 'Sheila Thomas - Ambat'; 'Tom
Eisenhart'; 'William Newby (CFE)'
Subject: RE: CFE meeting materials - Sept 14 (Chapel Hill)
CFE Members:
Per our discussion this evening, I have sent the following to the BOCC, along with another copy of the
June 15 memo that was in our packets.
Thanks to those of you who were there for a profitable meeting that ended on time.
See you in October.
JanS
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
September 14, 2015
Dear Orange County Commissioners:
At our monthly meeting this evening, the Orange County Commission for the Environment
discussed the pending public hearing on the 2016 Bond Referendum.
The CFE asked me to express our appreciation that you are conducting a hearing on this
matter as we urged in our correspondence to you of June 15, 2015, a copy of which is
attached for your reference. We also reaffirmed our hope that as part of the Bond issue,
funds will be allocated to fund projects that would not only enhance educational
opportunities, but that would also benefit a wider segment of the population. As an example,
as we noted in that letter, if the County could provide $5 to $10 million for park
development, it would be possible to develop and open the Blackwood Farm Park as well as
additional recreational facilities in the northern part of the county, and by developing Twin
Creeks Park, the County would provide recreational opportunities for both school children
and adults.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jan F. Sassaman, PhD
Chair, Orange County Commission for the Environment.
'"YOWN
II+ EI RG V D (:' ,1111 I E, .' 11C" IIII C " FASIIK ]FORCE
RCE
Carrboro established a new Energy and Climate Protection Task Force task force in May, 2014, charged
with supporting the Town with community planning for climate protection and resiliency. The Task
Force has been asked to prepare a report to submit to the Board of Aldermen that addresses:
a. Recommendations for new actions the Town can pursue to reduce nonrenewable energy use and
greenhouse gas emissions from residential and commercial buildings in Carrboro
b. Recommendations for new actions the Town can pursue to reduce nonrenewable energy use
associated with transportation in Carrboro
c. Recommendations for new actions the Town can pursue to promote renewable energy in
Carrboro
d. Recommendations for new actions the Town can pursue to better manage vegetation, soil, and
impervious surfaces to capture carbon, reduce energy use in buildings, mitigate the heat island
effect, and reduce stormwater runoff.
list of Task Force members can be found here. Agendas and meeting minutes are posted as they
become available.
A diu:°al'i ui°epoiil presented to Board of Aldermen on June 23, 2015 and video of the Board's discussion can
be found here.
http : / /www.townofcarrboro.org 718/Energy- and - Climate- Task -Force
DRAFT BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT REPORT -
PART 2
October 2, 2015
Orange Water and Sewer Authority
Carrboro — Chapel Hill, North Carolina
OWASAA public, non-profit agency providing water, sewer and reclaimed
water services to the Carrboro- Chapel Hill community.
1.2
Table of Contents
ExecutiveSummary ......................................................................................... ............................... ii
Purpose............................................................................................................. ............................... 1
Background...................................................................................................... ............................... 1
Approach for Determining Desired Biosolids Management Program ............. ............................... 2
Our Community Engagement Efforts .............................................................. ............................... 3
Overview of Evaluation of Biosolids Recycling Alternatives ......................... ............................... 4
Consideration of Impacts to the Local Agricultural Community .................... ............................... 8
Summary of Performance of Alternatives Compared to Our Objectives ........ ............................... 9
Staff Recommendations and Proposed Next Steps ........................................ ............................... 11
List of Tables
Table 1. Relative Comparison of Biosolids Management Options With Dewatered Biosolids
Conveyance and Loading Improvements
Table 2. Relative Comparison of Biosolids Management Options Against Evaluation Criteria
List of Appendices
Appendix A. OWASA's Biosolids Management Objectives
Page i
1.3
ORANGE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
A public, non-profit agency providing water, sewer and reclaimed water services
to the Carrboro- Chapel Hill communio).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OWASA has evaluated several options to improve and optimize recycling the biosolids produced
during the treatment of wastewater at the Mason Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP).
This draft Biosolids Management Report Part 2 presents the results of that evaluation, and
focuses primarily on options that use existing biosolids treatment processes at the WWTP. As
agreed to by the Board of Directors, this evaluation does not include options that would require
design and construction of new, major biosolids treatment systems either independently or in
cooperation with other parties.
Options have been evaluated against social, environmental, and financial objectives which have
been previously agreed to by the Board of Directors, but for which no relative ranking or weighting
has been assigned. An additional objective — consideration of impacts on OWASA employees —
is included for consideration.
Key findings from the evaluation are:
1. There is no single alternative that outperforms all other options across all objectives;
therefore, the final decision as to the preferred option will depend on how the Board of
Directors weighs the different objectives.
2. Based on the assumptions used for this analysis, the annual operating and maintenance
costs of all of the options evaluated are within about 17% (about $150,000 difference
between the highest and lowest cost options) of one another. Capital equipment and capital
improvements costs associated with the different options have a much greater range of
variation, with the lowest option costing $380,000 and the highest costing about $1.8
million over the 20 -year planning period. (This is about 1% or less of the projected total
Capital Improvements Program costs for the next twenty years.)
3. Options involving the land application of liquid biosolids are more transport- intensive, and
involve more risk of vehicle accidents, spills, and improper application of biosolids. They
also have greater uncertainty regarding their long -term viability. Options involving land
application by OWASA are more labor intensive.
4. Options involving greater dewatering will pose greater challenges for the treatment of
wastewater, especially as plant flows approach the design capacity of the WWTP.
5. Land application of liquid biosolids maximizes the value to farmers, while application of
dewatered biosolids has considerably lower value to farmers due to reduced nutrient and
moisture content.
400 Jones Ferry Road Equal Opportunity Employer Voice (919) 968-4421
Carrboro, NC 27510 -2001 Printed on Recycled Paper « « «.o«asa.org
1.4
6. Estimated 20 -year capital equipment and capital improvements costs are considerably
higher for options involving dewatering 50% or more of our biosolids, as conveyance and
loading improvements will be needed at our existing dewatering building. Options
involving land application of dewatered biosolids have even higher capital costs because a
new off -site dewatered biosolids storage facility will be needed.
Recommended Next Steps
There are near -term opportunities to improve our biosolids recycling program, but we can maintain
our existing program approach if the Board of Directors would like to take additional time to
determine the best course of action for long -term management of our biosolids considering our
biosolids management objectives. In addition, if the Board determines that it has adequate
information to modify the existing program, it would take time to design, permit, and construct
any capital facilities as well as provide adequate notice to the farmers currently in our biosolids
program. Therefore, the following next steps are recommended:
1. Staff provide any additional information needed by Board to determine the preferred path
forward for biosolids management.
2. Inform farmers participating in our program and other stakeholders that we will continue
our current biosolids management program approach for at least the next two fiscal years.
This will provide additional time for evaluation of our options, selection of the preferred
option, and, if applicable, hire additional staff and /or design and implement any
improvements required to implement the selected option. If the Board of Directors agrees,
this will be reflected in the preparation of the annual budgets for Fiscal Years 2017 and
2018.
3. Prepare and issue a Request for Proposals for liquid biosolids management contract
services needed to supplement OWASA management of liquid biosolids for the next two
years.
4. Remove the Biosolids Management Report Part 2 approval from the Board of Directors'
12 -month schedule and obtain the Board's guidance regarding scheduling of future
evaluation of alternatives and possible community engagement activities, if desired.
Page iii
1.5
RALEIGH — In two years, the emerald ash borer has become a notorious pest in North Carolina. From its
first appearance in the state in 2013, it has already left a trail of dead ash trees in its wake, and it
continues to spread, prompting a statewide quarantine in September.
But, there are options for homeowners and landowners or land managers interested in protecting
individual trees. "Treatment options are available, but because of the cost and accessibility of trees in a
forest, it is simply not feasible to treat large forested areas," said Rob Trickel, head of the N.C. Forest
Service's Forest Health Branch. "However, treatment of a few individual trees may be worth considering
for some homeowners or landowners."
Options for the urban or landscape /ornamental ash tree include removing the ash tree, replacing the ash
tree, or keeping the tree by treating it with pesticides.
For those interested in keeping their ash trees around, NCFS has developed an Emerald Ash Borer
Insecticide Guide. The guide was developed to assist even the newest of pesticide users with selecting
and treating their ash trees, covering common questions concerning tree identification, what pesticides
can be used and how to make a pesticide application. The guide can be found online at
www.ncforestservice.gov /forest health /pdf /EAB NCPesticidePub.pdf
The guide lists 17 pesticides for EAB treatment that have been registered through the N.C. Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services Pesticide Section and also have been tested in field trials through
universities or government agencies.
Homeowners may also want to contact a certified arborist if they are uncertain about applying pesticides
themselves or if their tree is large. "Generally, it is worth hiring an arborist if you want to protect ash trees
larger than 20" in diameter, but arborists can serve any size tree," Trickel said.
To calculate your tree's diameter, measure the width in inches around the tree at 4.5 feet above the
ground. Divide that number by 3.14, and that will give you your diameter at breast height.
Another consideration is the cost of treatment. That is often a complicated issue, depending on many
factors. There is an online calculator available through Purdue University that may assist landowners in
making the decision. You can find it at.http://extension.entm.purdue.edu/treecomputer/.
Using the calculator will give you a side -by -side comparison of the cost to remove, remove /replace and
treat with different pesticides. The calculator is free, but users must register a user name and password.
"Generally speaking, the developers of the calculator assert that in most cases, it is more economical to
protect ash trees with pesticides than it is to replace them," Trickel said.
For more information related to the research and science behind selecting an appropriate insecticide, the
North Central Integrated Pest Management Center developed a publication, Insecticide Options for
Protecting Ash Trees from Emerald Ash Borer. It is as extensive guide that answers many common
questions. To learn more about insecticides for emerald ash borer, go to
www.emeraldashborer .info /files /multistate eab insecticide fact sheet.pdf for this online publication.
For additional resources regarding ash trees in the urban environment, visit the N.C. Forest Service's
Managing Emerald Ash Borer in Urban Areas page at
www.ncforestservice.gov /forest health /forest health eab.htm. The Pesticide Guide is posted there,
along with other tools to help in the identification and decision making process.
The N.C. Forest Service and the NCDA &CS Plant Industry Division continue to monitor the emerald ash
borer. If you suspect you have the insect, please contact your county ranger, call the NCDA &CS Plant
Industry Division hotline at 1- 800 - 206 -9333, or email information to at newpesto_ncagr.gov.
n 5 z
Hy
N
o
o
� i O
i w
CJ p
w '• +'
i � V
i Q
a ;
d V
co Q) w 9 ed O y x cd
Qw �U 75 v)
U cd Q) a 0 ct a° � obL Q :j
bz = ' >
�aczovo'�obu
c'n co
i cu a U O-C N m
��
E v� v y
cbjQ cd co .G a V cl�
ccz Gq 0.) -1--, a 1 "1 y x ca
b�OA W Q v Q
cd
w co
co
o �
_° Q � cn
C) o �+� a o o'er Qo
Q r3 c�a Ts U .a° O
C
U
bt 0 cd .� co
cu z� Qs�aou
o �m�V0�°0��
� biD W 2 o
.� Ct off - ��q �NOQ)
�'•i O -O O W O '�" +J
UO o IoD
as i 64 W cC 'A P�, bA m a U +� O w0 M
bA
a
M
o;
N
O�
W
'C7
a.,
s.
«i
..G
U
W o cd 0
�. to al
In
o o
v
O � ^' N•� •w, ,� cd N
O N 3 p b4
+ U Q a +� +^ S, by
'a = � ;.. U >� o a i
Q ° ° p. ct � ° o °' o � a
R.� o
64 + O ci N 5
Ln
00 bl)
o -•
O O
W
cd
W � o
by
^M
v) U Cd cd
biD 4m.
bD
� N
o " 3 o '
by bq cd U
O U �' by 00 N ten,
� fl
3 � Cd Q �"
°��' `�
cn �i
tz
H h O t7 v7 O 't? O 3 (� Cd
cd O ran 4 � U m
w q cd cc!
W
OJ
CC O -O cd
o�
f°
s i
C745Tso a)
Q0���
co Q) w 9 ed O y x cd
Qw �U 75 v)
U cd Q) a 0 ct a° � obL Q :j
bz = ' >
�aczovo'�obu
c'n co
i cu a U O-C N m
��
E v� v y
cbjQ cd co .G a V cl�
ccz Gq 0.) -1--, a 1 "1 y x ca
b�OA W Q v Q
cd
w co
co
o �
_° Q � cn
C) o �+� a o o'er Qo
Q r3 c�a Ts U .a° O
C
U
bt 0 cd .� co
cu z� Qs�aou
o �m�V0�°0��
� biD W 2 o
.� Ct off - ��q �NOQ)
�'•i O -O O W O '�" +J
UO o IoD
as i 64 W cC 'A P�, bA m a U +� O w0 M
bA
a
M
o;
N
O�
W
'C7
a.,
s.
«i
..G
U
W o cd 0
�. to al
In
o o
v
O � ^' N•� •w, ,� cd N
O N 3 p b4
+ U Q a +� +^ S, by
'a = � ;.. U >� o a i
Q ° ° p. ct � ° o °' o � a
R.� o
64 + O ci N 5
Ln
00 bl)
o -•
O O
W
cd
W � o
by
^M
v) U Cd cd
biD 4m.
bD
� N
o " 3 o '
by bq cd U
O U �' by 00 N ten,
� fl
3 � Cd Q �"
°��' `�
cn �i
tz
H h O t7 v7 O 't? O 3 (� Cd
cd O ran 4 � U m
w q cd cc!
2015 -2016 General Assembly
Committee: Date: September 28, 2015
Introduced by: Rep. McElraft Prepared by: Karen Cochrane -
Analysis of: Conference Report Brown, Erika Churchill,
H765- PCCS40526 -SBf -6 Jeff Hudson, Jennifer
McGinnis, Chris
Saunders,
Staff Attorneys
Jennifer Mundt
Legislative Analyst
SUMMARY.- House Bill 765 would amend a number of State laws related to business regulation,
State and local government regulation, and environmental regulation.
PART I. ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
REPEAL OBSOLETE STATUTES
Section I.I. would repeal obsolete provisions in the criminal law related to using profane or indecent
language on public highways and refusing to relinquish a party telephone line in an emergency.
BURDEN OF PROOF IN CERTAIN CONTESTED CASES
Section 1.2. would clarify that the petitioner has the burden of proof in most contested cases and
establishes that the State agency has the burden of proof in certain contested cases, including cases
involving the imposition of civil fines or penalties and cases involving the demotion, suspension or
discharge of a career State employee. The Joint Legislative Administrative Procedure Oversight
Committee is directed to study whether there are other categories of cases in which the burden should be
placed with the agency. This section would become effective when it becomes law and would apply to
contested cases commenced on or after that date.
LEGISLATIVE APPOINTMENTS
Section 1.3. would amend the law governing legislative appointments to boards and commissions,
whether by the General Assembly through the appointments bill or directly by the Speaker and the
President Pro Tempore, to apply the following rules if the law requires a recommendation or nomination
by a third party for the appointment:
For consultations or recommendations of a third party:
• The consultation or recommendation is discretionary and not binding.
• The third party must submit the consultation or recommendation at least 60 days before
expiration of the term or within 10 days of a vacancy.
• Failure to submit the consultation recommendation within the time period is deemed a
waiver of the opportunity.
0. ''«` III III�IWIIIW�NI�VNI�I1VII�VIIIIIfl11YIIIIIVI °uu
This bill analysis was prepared by the nonpartisan legislative staff for the use of legislators in their deliberations and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.
House Bill 765
Page 2
• For appointments made from a list of nominees provided by a third party:
• The third party must submit the recommendation at least 60 days before expiration of the
term or within 10 days of a vacancy. This provision does not apply to appointments to the
Legislative Ethics Committee.
• Failure to submit nominees within the time limits is deemed a waiver of the opportunity.
These provisions would become effective when they become law and apply to recommendations,
consultations, and nominations made on or after that date.
OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING BOARD INVESTIGATORS AND INSPECTORS
Section 1.5. would amend the law governing occupational licensing boards to prohibit a board from
contracting with or employing a person licensed by the board to serve as an investigator or inspector, if
the person is actively practicing in the profession or occupation over which the board has jurisdiction.
The section would not prohibit the board from hiring a licensee for purposes other than as an
investigator or inspector or if the licensee is not actively working in the field. Also, the section would
not prohibit the board from contracting with licensees to serve as expert witnesses or consultants,
provided their duties and authority are limited to serving as an information resource to the board or
board personnel.
NO FISCAL NOTE REQUIRED FOR LESS STRINGENT RULES
Section 1.6. would amend the process for the periodic review and expiration of existing rules under the
Administrative Procedure Act. The section provides that if, during the readoption process, a rule is
amended to impose a less stringent burden on regulated persons than the existing rule, then the agency is
not required to prepare a fiscal note for the rule.
APO TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING BOARD
CHANGES
Section 1.7. would direct the Joint Legislative Administrative Procedure Oversight Committee (APO) to
review the recommendations contained in the Program Evaluation Division report, entitled
"Occupational Licensing Agencies Should Not be Centralized, but Stronger Oversight is Needed," to
determine how to improve oversight of occupational licensing boards. The section directs APO to
consult with various interested parties in conducting its review and to propose legislation to the 2016
Session of the 2015 General Assembly.
TECHNICAL CORRECTION
Section 1.8.(a) would make a technical amendment to G.S. 20- 116(g)(3) to rewrite the provision to
eliminate duplicative lettering in accordance with coded bill drafting protocol.
Section 1.8(b) would add a new bill section to House Bill 44, Local Government Regulatory Reform, to
limit the scope of the grant of zoning power with respect to special use permits and conditional use
permits.
Sections 1.8(04d) would amend Section 12 of House Bill 44, Local Government Regulatory Reform,
which requires notice to property owners prior to commencement of construction by a county or city.
The amendment would define 'construction' to exclude routine maintenance and repair.
House Bill 765
Page 14
Section 4.15.(b) would direct the Commission for Public Health (Commission) to review and amend
rules to implement the changes described above.
Section 4.15.(c) would direct the Commission to report, beginning January 1, 2016, and every quarter
thereafter until all rules are adopted, as to its progress of adopting and amending rules pursuant to
Sections 4.14 and 4.15 of this act to HHS Oversight and the ERC.
Section 4.15.(d) would direct the Commission, in consultation with DHHS, local health departments,
and industry stakeholders, to study the costs and benefits of requiring treatment standards above those
that are established by nationally recognized standards, and report its findings and recommendations to
HHS Oversight and the ERC on or before March 1, 2016.
CONTESTED CASES FOR AIR PERMITS
Section 4.17. would amend the process for filing a contested case regarding an air quality permit
decision of the EMC by:
• Providing that the filing for a contested case by a permit applicant or permittee would stay the
EMC's decision while the filing for a contested case by a person who is not the permit applicant
or permittee would not automatically stay the EMC's decision.
• Limiting these contested case provisions to permit application decisions rather than other types
of permit decisions, such as permit modification, suspension, or revocation.
Section 4.17 would also direct the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to study whether
these changes to contested cases for air quality permits should be expanded into other programs
administered by the Department. The Department will report the results of the study to the
Environmental Review Commission by March 1, 2016.
AMEND ISOLATED WETLANDS LAW
Section 4.18. would make the following changes to the regulation of isolated wetlands in the State:
• Provide that the only types of isolated wetlands the State will regulate are Basin Wetlands and
Bogs and that the State will not regulate isolated man -made ditches or ponds constructed for
stormwater management purposes or any other man -made isolated pond.
• Provide that the mitigation requirements for impacts to isolated wetlands apply only to the
amount of impact that exceeds the current regulatory thresholds.
• Provide that impacts to wetlands that aren't isolated wetlands will not be combined with impacts
to isolated wetlands to determine whether the regulatory thresholds have been reached.
• Direct the Environmental Management Commission to amend its rules by March 1, 2016, to
establish a coastal region, piedmont region, and mountain region for purposes of regulating
impacts to isolated wetlands. The regulatory thresholds for the three regions would be as
follows:
• Less than or equal to one acre of isolated wetlands for the entire project in the coastal
region.
• Less than or equal to one -half acre of isolated wetlands for the entire project for the
piedmont region.
• Less than or equal to one -third acre of isolated wetlands for the entire project for the
mountain region.
In no event could the regulatory requirements for impacts to isolated wetlands be more stringent
than required under current law, which is less than or equal to one acre of isolated wetland for
House Bill 765
Page 15
the entire project for areas east of Interstate 95 and less than or equal to 1/3 acre of isolated
wetland for the entire project for areas west of Interstate 95.
AMEND COASTAL STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS
Section 4.19. would direct the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to evaluate the water
quality of surface waters in the Coastal Counties, the impact of stormwater on this water quality, and
stormwater management measures. The Department would report the results of the study, including any
recommendations to the Environmental Review Commission no later than April 1, 2016.
AMEND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT LAW
Section 4.20. would make the following changes to the regulation of stormwater in the State:
• Extend the deadline for the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) to adopt rules to
implement fast -track permitting for stormwater management systems.
• Provide that the volume, velocity, and discharge rates of water associated with the one year, 24 -hour
storm and the difference in stormwater runoff from the predevelopment and postdevelopment
conditions for the one year, 24 -hour storm must be calculated using an acceptable engineering
hydrologic and hydraulic method.
• Provide that development may occur within a vegetative buffer if the stormwater runoff from the
development is discharged outside of the buffer and is managed so that it otherwise complies with all
applicable State and federal stormwater management requirements.
• Provide that the requirements that apply to development activities within one half mile of and
draining to Class SA (shellfish) waters or within one half mile of Class SA waters and draining to
unnamed freshwater tributaries will not apply to development activities and associated stormwater
discharges that do not occur within one half mile of and draining to Class SA waters or are not
within one half mile of Class SA waters and draining to unnamed freshwater tributaries.
• Provide that no later than March 1, 2016, a State agency or local govermnent that implements a
stormwater management program must submit its current stormwater management program or a
revised stormwater management program to the EMC and that no later than December 1, 2016, the
EMC must review and act on each of the submitted stormwater management programs. The EMC
may only approve a program if it finds that the standards of the program equal those of the EMC's
model program.
• Direct the Enviromnental Review Commission (ERC), with the assistance of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources to review and consider reorganization of State statutes, session
laws, rules and guidance documents related to stormwater management. The ERC must submit any
legislative recommendations to the 2016 Regular Session of the 2015 General Assembly.
• Extend the sunset on the provision that allows cluster mailboxes to be constructed without requiring
a modification of a stormwater permit from December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2017.
STUDY EXEMPTING LINEAR UTILITY PROJECTS FROM CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATIONS
Section 4.21. would direct DENR to study whether and to what extent activities related to the
construction, maintenance, or removal of linear utility projects should be exempt from certain
environmental regulations. DENR will report the results of the study to the ERC no later than March 1,
2016.
House Bill 765
Page 16
REPEAL DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES IDLING
RULES
Section 4.24. would direct the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources to repeal the
Heavy -Duty Vehicle Idling Restrictions rules by March 1, 2016, and provide that until the effective date
of the repeal of the rule, DENR, the EMC, or any other political subdivision of the State cannot
implement or enforce the rule.
AMBIENT AIR MONITORING
Section 4.25. would direct DENR to review its ambient air monitoring network and request from the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to remove any monitor not required
by federal law that the Department has determined is not necessary to protect public health, safety, and
welfare; the environment; and natural resources. This section would also direct DENR, no later than
be September 1, 2016, to discontinue all ambient air monitors not required by federal law and for which
EPA approval for discontinuance is not required if the Department has determined that the monitors are
not necessary to protect public health, safety, and welfare; the environment; and natural resources. This
section would not preclude DENR from installing temporary ambient air monitors as part of an
investigation of a suspected air quality violation or in response to an emergency causing an imminent
danger to human health and safety.
DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY NOTICE REQUIREMENTS
Section 4.27. would reduce the notice period for consent orders related to air pollution from 45 days to
30 days and would provide that notice of a consent order or a public meeting on a consent order would
be given on DENR's website rather than in a newspaper having general circulation in the county in
which the air pollution originated.
PROHIBIT THE REQUIREMENT OF MITIGATION FOR IMPACTS TO INTERMITTENT
STREAMS
Section 4.31. would provide that, except as required by federal law, DENR could not require mitigation
for impacts to intermittent streams.
PIGEON HUNTING
Section 4.32. would exempt pigeons from the animal cruelty statutes and the Animal Welfare Act.
WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION STUDIES
Section 4.33. would direct the Wildlife Resources Commission (Commission) to review the methods
and criteria by which it adds, removes, or changes the status of animals on the State Protected animal list
and compare these to federal regulations and the methods and criteria of other States in the region. This
section would also direct the Commission to review the State's policies for addressing introduced
species and make recommendations for improving these policies. The Commission would be required to
report its findings to the ERC by March 1, 2016.
Section 4.34. would direct the Commission to establish a coyote management plan to address the
impacts of coyotes in this State and the threats that coyotes pose to citizens, industries, and populations
of native wildlife species within the State. The Commission would be required to report its findings and
recommendations, including any proposed legislation to address overpopulation of coyotes, to the ERC
by March 1, 2016.
AN ACT TO REFORM VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE LAW RELATED TO LOCAL
GOVERNMENT.
The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
NOTICE TO CHRONIC VIOLATORS
SECTION L(a) G.S. 160A -200 is repealed.
SECTION 1.(b) G.S. 160A -200.1 reads as rewritten:
"§ 160A- 200.1. Annual notice to chronic violators of public nuisance or overgrown
veLetation ordinance.
(a) A city may notify a chronic violator of the city's public nuisance ordinance that, if
the violator's property is found to be in violation of the ordinance, the city shall, without further
notice in the calendar year in which notice is given, take action to remedy the violation, and the
expense of the action shall become a lien upon the property and shall be collected as unpaid
taxes.
The notice shall be sent by registered or certified mail. When service is attempted
by registered or certified mail, a copy of the notice may also be sent by regular mail. Service
shall be deemed sufficient if the registered or certified mail is unclaimed or refused, but the
regular mail is not returned by the post office within 10 days after the mailing. If service by
regular mail is used, a copy of the notice shall be posted in a conspicuous place on the premises
affected.
yeaf, the eity gave notieeef vielation at lust twee tomes und ion of
(c) A city may also give notice to a chronic violator of the city's overgrown vegetation
ordinance in accordance with this section.
For purposes of this section, a chronic violator is a person who owns property
whereupon, in the previous calendar year, the city gave notice of violation at least three times
under any provision of the public nuisance ordinance."
AUTHORIZE CITIES TO REGULATE CERTAIN STRUCTURES THAT
UNREASONABLY RESTRICT THE PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO USE THE STATE'S
OCEAN BEACHES
SECTION 1.5. G.S. 160A -205 reads as rewritten:
"§ 160A -205. Cities enforce ordinances within public trust areas.
(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of G.S. 113 -131 or any other provision of law, a city
may, by ordinance, define, prohibit, regulate, or abate acts, omissions, or conditions upon the
State's ocean beaches and prevent or abate any unreasonable restriction of the public's rights to
use the State's ocean beaches. In addition, a city may, in the interest of promoting the health,
safety, and welfare of the public, regulate, restrict, or prohibit the placement, maintenance,
location, or use of structures that are uninhabitable and without water and sewer services for
with notice provided to
the determination by certitied mail at the time of the determination, equipment, personal
property, or debris upon the State's ocean beaches. A city may enforce any ordinance adopted
pursuant to this section or any other provision of law upon the State's ocean beaches located
within or adjacent to the city's jurisdictional boundaries to the same extent that a city may
enforce ordinances within the city's jurisdictional boundaries. A city may enforce an ordinance
adopted pursuant to this section by any remedy provided for in G.S. 160A -175. For purposes of
this section, the term "ocean beaches" has the same meaning as in G.S. 77- 20(e).
RIPARIAN BUFFER REFORM
SECTION 13.1.(a) Subsection (el) of G.S. 143- 214.23 is repealed.
SECTION 13.1.(b) Part 1 of Article 21 of Chapter 143 of the General Statutes is
amended by adding a new section to read:
143- 214.23A. Limitations on local government riparian buffer requirements.
(a) As used in this section:
"Local government ordinance" means any action by a local government
carrving the effect of law approved before or after October 1. 2015, whether
requirement.
"Riparian buffer requirement" means a landward setback from surface
waters.
Except as provided in this section, a local government may not enact, implement, or
enforce a local government ordinance that establishes a riparian buffer requirement that
exceeds riparian buffer requirements necessary to comply with or implement federal or State
law or a condition of a permit, certificate, or other approval issued by a federal or State agency.
(c) Subsection (b) of this section shall not appl try local government ordinance that
establishes a riparian buffer reauirement enacted prior to August 1. 1997. if (i) the ordinance
minimization of erosion ana potentiai cnemicai pollution in aaaition to the protection of water
quality and the prevention of excess nutrient runoff, and (ii) the ordinance would permit small
or temporary structures within 50 feet of the water body and docks and piers within and along
the edge of the water body under certain circumstances.
U A local government may request from the Commission the authority to enact,
implement. and enforce a local government ordinance that establishes a riparian buffer
conaition of a permit, certiticate, or otner approval issuea ny a teaerai or Mate agency. 1 o cto
so. a local government shall submit to the Commission an application reauestina this authoritv
Irian buffer
U
e2 Citi
be
rotection of water quality unless the Comm
by the local government supports the nece
,ction of water quality_
treat the land within a riparian buffer area a.
s subdivisions unless the land or an interest
ivisions by a conveyance or by eminent do
wither the State nor its subdivisions holds a
vner to satisfy any other development - relate(
including. but not limited to. residential i
vn on
common areas or open space ana neitner the Mate nor its subdivisions nolas any property
interest in that riparian buffer area. the local government shall attribute to each lot abutting the
ripa�
trop(
and yields tree conservation purposes open space or conservation area requirements setbacks
perimeter buffers, and lot area requirements.
(g) The Commission may adopt rules to implement this section."
SECTION 13.1.(c) The definitions set out in G.S. 143- 214.23A(a), as enacted by
Section 13.1(b) of this act, shall apply to this section. Notwithstanding G.S. 143- 214.23A(b), as
enacted by Section 13.1(b) of this act, a local government ordinance that establishes a riparian
buffer requirement for the protection of water quality that exceeds riparian buffer requirements
necessary to comply with or implement federal or State law or a condition of a permit,
certificate, or other approval issued by a federal or State agency that is in effect on October 1,
2015, may remain in effect and enforceable until January 1, 2017. If the local government
ordinance is authorized by the Environmental Management Commission pursuant to
G.S. 143- 214.23A(d), as enacted by Section 13.1(b) of this act, on or before January 1, 2017,
the ordinance may continue to be in effect and enforceable. If the local government ordinance
is not authorized by the Environmental Management Commission pursuant to
G.S. 143- 214.23A(d), as enacted by Section 13.1(b) of this act, on or before January 1, 2017,
the ordinance shall no longer be in effect or enforceable.
SECTION 13.1.(d) This section becomes effective October 1, 2015.
SECTION 13.2.(a) The Environmental Management Commission, with the
assistance of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, shall examine ways to
provide regulatory relief from the impacts of riparian buffer rules adopted to implement the
State's Riparian Buffer Protection Program for parcels of land that were platted on or before the
effective date of the applicable riparian buffer rule. The Commission shall specifically examine
ways to fairly provide properties with relief where a change in use has occurred that would
otherwise trigger the requirements of the riparian buffer rules. Such relief would be determined
on a case -by -case basis and provide relief to successor owners. For purposes of this study, a
change in use that would otherwise trigger the requirements of the riparian buffer rules shall
not include either of the following circumstances:
(1) Developing from a vacant condition to a use allowed by the current local
regulations, unless the local regulations have been changed at the request of
the property owner since the date the buffer rule was applied; the parcel was
recorded prior to the effective date of the applicable buffer rule; and the
allowable use is for any nonfarming or nonagricultural purpose.
(2) The property configuration has not been altered except as a result of either
an eminent domain action or a recombination involving not more than three
parcels, all of which were recorded before the effective date of the applicable
buffer rule.
The Commission may also consider and recommend other circumstances that should
not constitute a change in use that would otherwise trigger the requirements of the riparian
buffer rules. No later than April 1, 2016, the Commission shall report the results of its study,
including any recommendations, to the Environmental Review Commission.
SECTION 13.2.(b) This section becomes effective October 1, 2015.
SECTION 13.3.(a) As used in this section, "coastal wetlands" means any salt
marsh or other marsh subject to regular or occasional flooding by tides, including wind tides,
whether or not the tidewaters reach the marshland areas through natural or artificial
watercourses, provided this shall not include hurricane or tropical storm tides.
SECTION 13.3.(b) For purposes of implementing 15A NCAC 02B .0233 (Meuse
River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy: Protection and Maintenance of
Existing Riparian Buffers) and 15A NCAC 02B .0259 (Tar - Pamlico River Basin: Nutrient
Sensitive Waters Management Strategy: Protection and Maintenance of Existing Riparian
Buffers), Zone 1 of a protective riparian buffer for coastal wetlands shall begin at the most
landward limit of the normal high water level or the normal water level, as appropriate.
SECTION 111(c) The Environmental Management Commission shall adopt
temporary rules to amend its rules consistent with this section.
SECTION 13.3.(d) This section becomes effective October 1, 2015.
SECTION 13.4.(a) The Environmental Management Commission shall amend its
rules for the protection of existing riparian buffers to provide for the case -by -case modification
of the requirement for maintaining woody vegetation in the riparian buffer area upon a showing
by a landowner that alternative measures will provide equal or greater water quality protection.
SECTION 13.4.(b) The Environmental Management Commission shall adopt
temporary rules to amend its rules consistent with this section.
SECTION 13.4.(c) This section becomes effective October 1, 2015.
SENATE BILL 119
RATIFIED BILL
AN ACT TO MAKE TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO THE GENERAL STATUTES AND
SESSION LAWS, AS RECOMMENDED BY THE GENERAL STATUTES
COMMISSION, AND TO MAKE ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL AND OTHER
AMENDMENTS TO THE STATUTES AND SESSION LAWS.
The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
PART I. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE GENERAL
STATUTES COMMISSION
SECTION L(a) G.S. 1- 267.1(d) reads as rewritten:
"(d) This section applies only to civil proceedings. Nothing in this section shall be
deemed to apply to criminal proceedings, to proceedings under Chapter 15A of the General
Statutes, to proceedings making a collateral attack on any judgment entered in a criminal
proceeding, or to appeals f e ^rd °r^ of the trial ^ ufts per -t fining -to civil proceedings filed by
a taxpayer pursuant to G.S. 105- 241.17."
SECTION 1.(b) G.S. 7A -27 reads as rewritten:
"§ 7A -27. Appeals of right from the courts of the trial divisions.
(a) Appeal lies of right directly to the Supreme Court in any of the following cases:
(1) All cases in which the defendant is convicted of murder in the first degree
and the judgment of the superior court includes a sentence of death.
(2) From any final judgment in a case designated as a mandatory complex
business case pursuant to G.S. 7A -45.4 or designated as a discretionary
complex business case pursuant to Rule 2.1 of the General Rules of Practice
for the Superior and District Courts.
(3) From any interlocutory order of a Business Court Judge that does any of the
following:
a. Affects a substantial right.
b. In effect determines the action and prevents a judgment from which
an appeal might be taken.
C. Discontinues the action.
d. Grants or refuses a new trial.
(al) Appeal lies of right directly to the Supreme Court from any order or judgment of a
court, either final or interlocutory, that holds that an act of the General Assembly is facially
invalid on the basis that the act violates the North Carolina Constitution or federal law. Nothing
in this P°etion - subsection shall be deemed to apply to appeals from orders of the trial courts
pertaining to criminal proceedings, to proceedings under Chapter 15A of the General Statutes,
to proceedings making a collateral attack on any judgment entered in a criminal proceeding, or
to appeals from orders of the trial courts pertaining to civil proceedings filed by a taxpayer
pursuant to G.S. 105- 241.17.
(b) dal- Except as provided in subsection (a ) or (al) of this section, appeal lies of
right directly to the Court of Appeals in any of the following cases:
(1) From any final judgment of a superior court, other than the er° desef ibed it
4seetio (a) of this seetion, or- ne based on a plea of guilty or nolo
contendere, including any final judgment entered upon review of a decision
of an administrative agency, except for a final judgment entered upon review
of a court martial under G.S. 127A -62.
(2) From any final judgment of a district court in a civil action.
"(e ) 2014 and 2015 Expenses — A taxpayer is eligible for a credit under this section for
taxable years beginning on or after January 1 2016 for qualifying rehabilitation expenditures
that were incurred in 2014 and 2015 if all of the following conditions are met:
(1) The certified historic structure is located in a Tier 1 or a Tier 2 county.
The certified historic structure is owned by
(3) The qualifying rehabilitation activity commenced in 2014.
A certificate of occupancy is issued on or before December 31, 2015.
The taxpayer meets all of the other conditions in this section."
SECTION 54.5.(b) Section 32.2(c) of S.L. 2015 -241 reads as rewritten:
"SECTION 32.3.(c) Subsection (a) of this section becomes effective January 1, 2016, and
applies to qualified rehabilitation expenditures and rehabilitation expenses incurred on or after
that date except as otherwise provided b law. The remainder of the section is effective
when this act becomes law."
SECTION 54.5.(c) This section is effective when it becomes law and applies to
credits that may be claimed for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2016.
SECTION 55. G.S. 110- 90.2(al) reads as rewritten:
"(al) No person shall be a child care provider or uncompensated child care provider who
has been any of the following:
(1) Convicted of a misdemeanor or a felony crime involving child neglect or
child abuse.
(2) Adjudicated a "responsible individual" under
G.S. 7B 807( l).G.S. 713- 311(b).
(3) Convicted of a "reportable conviction" as defined under G.S. 14- 208.6(4)."
SECTION 56.(a) G.S. 110- 105.5(c), as enacted by S.L. 2015 -123, reads as
rewritten:
"(c) Individuals whose names are listed on the Registry shall not be a caregiver as
defined in G.S. 110 105ltb)0� G.S. 110- 105.3(b)(1) at any licensed child care facility or
religious- sponsored child care facility."
SECTION 56.(b) This section becomes effective January 1, 2016.
SECTION 56.2.(a) G.S. 113 -415.1 reads as rewritten:
"§ 113 - 415.1. Local ordinances pFel ag-re -2ulating oil and gas exploration,
development, and production activities invalid; petition to preempt local
ordinance.
(a) It is the intent of the General Assembly to maintain a uniform system for the
management of oil and gas exploration, development, and production activities, and the use of
horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing for that purpose, and to place limitations upon the
exercise by all units of local government in North Carolina of the power to regulate the
management of oil and gas exploration, development, and production activities by means of
, ordinances, property restrictions, zoning
regulations, or otherwise. Notwithstanding any authority granted to counties, municipalities, or
other local authorities to adopt local ordinances, including, but not limited to, those imposing
taxes, fees, or charges or regulating health, environment, or land use, any l„,.,,1 or-d r. nee th
pfohibits or- has the effect of pfohibiting all provisions of local ordinances, including those
regulating land use adopted by counties municipalities or other local authorities that regulate
or have the effect of regulating oil and gas exploration, development, and production activities
that the Miiiiffg and Enefgy
to the ex4ei# eff-eetuate
within the
iction of a local government are invalidated and unenforceable to the extent necessary to
uate the purposes of this Part, that do the following:
(1) Pi:ehibit the siting of 11 f ;1 and exploration, de a et# an 1
of oil or gas explor-a4ien or- development
pelitiea4 subdivision.
(3) Place any restriction or condition not placed by this Article upon oil and gas
exploration, development, and production activities and use of horizontal
Page 24 S 119 [Ratified]
drilling or hydraulic fracturing for that purpose within any county, city, or
other political subdivision.
(4) In any manner are in conflict or inconsistent with the provisions of this
Article.
be eenstfued to ffiedify, atnend, of r-epeal any peAien of this n ft ell u-pAess +
end, all pr-evisieas of leeal efdiffa*ees, ineluding these fegWating laffd use, a opted by
se:rs� nz� rep: es:cs:rss�;r�
cl If a local zoning_ or land -use ordinance imposes requirements, restrictions, or
nnnditinnc that are u(-,n(-.rally nnnlicable to development. including. but not limited to, setback,
activities would be regulated under the ordinance of general applicability, the operator of the
proposed activities may petition the Oil and Gas Commission to review the matter. After
receipt of a petition the Commission shall hold a hearing in accordance with the procedures in
subsection (d) of this section and shall determine whether or to what extent to preempt the local
ordinance to allow for the regulation of oil and gas exploration, development, and production
activities.
(d) When a petition described in subsection (OLcl� of this section has been filed with
the Oil and Gas Mining ^ „a Energy Commission, the Commission shall hold a public hearing
to consider the petition. The public hearing shall be held in the affected locality within 60 days
after receipt of the petition by the Commission. The Commission shall give notice of the public
hearing by both of the following means:
(1) Publication in a newspaper or newspapers having general circulation in the
county or counties where the activities are to be conducted, once a week for
three consecutive weeks, the first notice appearing at least 30 days prior to
the scheduled date of the hearing.
(2) First -class mail to persons who have requested notice. The Commission shall
maintain a mailing list of persons who request notice in advance of the
hearing pursuant to this section. Notice by mail shall be complete upon
deposit of a copy of the notice in a postage -paid wrapper addressed to the
person to be notified at the address that appears on the mailing list
maintained by the Commission, in a post office or official depository under
the exclusive care and custody of the United States Postal Service.
(e) Any interested person may appear before the Oil and Gas Mining and E^°rT <.
Commission at the hearing to offer testimony. In addition to testimony before the Commission,
any interested person may submit written evidence to the Commission for the Commission's
consideration. At least 20 days shall be allowed for receipt of written comment following the
hearing.
(f) A local zoning or land -use ordinance is presumed to be valid and enforceable to the
extent the zoning or land -use ordinance imposes requirements, restrictions, or conditions that
are generally applicable to development, including, but not limited to, setback, buffer, and
stormwater requirements, unless the Oil and Gas Miring and Energy Commission makes a
finding of fact to the contrary. The Commission shall determine whether or to what extent to
preempt local ordinances so as to allow for the establishment and operation of the facility no
later than 60 days after conclusion of the hearing. The Commission shall preempt a local
ordinance only if the Commission makes all of the following findings:
(1) That there is a local ordinance that would pFe ibat of have the off et pr-ehibitingTggulate te oil and gas exploration, development, and production
S 119 [Ratified] Page 25
activities, or use of horizontal drilling or hydraulic fracturing for that
purpose.
(2) That all legally required State and federal permits or approvals have been
issued by the appropriate State and federal agencies or that all State and
federal permit requirements have been satisfied and that the permits or
approvals have been denied or withheld only because of the local ordinance.
(3) That local citizens and elected officials have had adequate opportunity to
participate in the permitting process.
(4) That the oil and gas exploration, development, and production activities, and
use of horizontal drilling or hydraulic fracturing for that purpose, will not
pose an unreasonable health or environmental risk to the surrounding
locality and that the operator has taken or consented to take reasonable
measures to avoid or manage foreseeable risks and to comply to the
maximum feasible extent with applicable local ordinances.
(g) If the Oil and Gas Mining ^ „a Energy Commission does not make all of the findings
under subsection (f) of this section, the Commission shall not preempt the challenged local
ordinance. The Commission's decision shall be in writing and shall identify the evidence
submitted to the Commission plus any additional evidence used in arriving at the decision.
(h) The decision of the Oil and Gas Miniffg an E„ Commission shall be final
unless a party to the action files a written appeal under Article 4 of Chapter 150B of the
General Statutes, as modified by this section, within 30 days of the date of the decision. The
record on appeal shall consist of all materials and information submitted to or considered by the
Commission, the Commission's written decision, a complete transcript of the hearing, all
written material presented to the Commission regarding the location of the oil and gas
exploration, development, and production activities, the specific findings required by
subsection (f) of this section, and any minority positions on the specific findings required by
subsection (f) of this section. The scope of judicial review shall be as set forth in G.S. 150B -51,
except as this subsection provides regarding the record on appeal.
(i) If the court reverses or modifies the decision of the Oil and Gas Mining ^ra Ener -g�r
Commission, the judge shall set out in writing, which writing shall become part of the record,
the reasons for the reversal or modification.
0) In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by this procedure, the
provisions of Rule 6(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, G.S. IA-I, shall apply.”
SECTION 56.2.(b) G.S. 130A- 309.205 reads as rewritten:
"§ 130A- 309.205. Local ordinances regulating management of coal combustion residuals
and coal combustion products invalid; petition to preempt local ordinance.
(a) It is the intent of the General Assembly to maintain a uniform system for the
management of coal combustion residuals and coal combustion products, including matters of
disposal and beneficial use, and to place limitations upon the exercise by all units of local
government in North Carolina of the power to regulate the management of coal combustion
residuals and coal combustion products by means of ordinances, property restrictions, zoning
regulations, or otherwise. Notwithstanding any authority granted to counties, municipalities, or
other local authorities to adopt local ordinances, including those imposing taxes, fees, or
charges or regulating health, environment, or land use, all provisions of local ordinances,
including those regulating land use, adopted by counties, municipalities, or other local
authorities that regulate or have the effect of regulating the management of coal combustion
residuals and coal combustion products, including regulation of carbon burn -out plants, within
the jurisdiction of a local government are kwali and unenforceable, to the
extent necessary to effectuate the purposes of this Part, that do the following:
(1) Place any restriction or condition not placed by this Part upon management
of coal combustion residuals or coal combustion products within any county,
city, or other political subdivision.
(2) Conflict or are in any manner inconsistent with the provisions of this Part.
SECTION 56.2.(c) Subsection (a) of this section is effective retroactively to June
4, 2014. Subsection (b) of this section is effective retroactively to August 20, 2014.
SECTION 56.5. G.S. 115C -47 reads as rewritten:
"§ 115C -47. Powers and duties generally.
Page 26 S 119 [Ratified]
North Carolina House and Senate Pass Industrial
Hemp Bill
October 01, 2015
Hemp, Inc. (OTC PINK: HEMP) announced today Senate Bill 313 passed the House on September 28,
2015 (with a vote of 101 to 7) and the Senate on September 29, 2015 (with a vote of 42 to 2) in favor of
the proposed Industrial Hemp legislation in North Carolina. According to the North Carolina Industrial
Hemp Association (NCIHA), "this legislation will authorize an industrial hemp pilot program within the
state of North Carolina and establish the Industrial Hemp Commission (IHC) to be followed by pilot
program participants." IHC will implement the university research program.
Passed by both the House and the Senate, Industrial Hemp Senate Bill 313 awaits final approval from
Governor Pat McCory. If approved by the Governor, the state will then establish its Industrial Hemp
Commission to oversee the pilot program. This commission, reportedly, will work with the North Carolina
Industrial Hemp Association (NCIHA) of which David Schmitt, COO of Hemp, Inc.'s (OTC: HEMP)
subsidiary Industrial Hemp Manufacturing, LLC in Spring Hope, NC, is on the Board of Directors.
Bruce Perlowin, CEO of Hemp, Inc. (OTC: HEMP) said, "We couldn't be more excited. Just one day after
the House approved the bill, it was approved by the Senate. This is a major accomplishment for the state.
Years ago, the Senator Stan Bingham attempted to pass an Industrial Hemp bill but North Carolina's law
enforcement opposed it and that buried the bill. Now, there are no objections to it. People are being
educated on the myriad benefits of industrial hemp, including how it can help the economy. I believe we'll
see less objections across the country as more people begin to understand what hemp is and how it can
benefit them as an individual and how it benefits their community. Our multipurpose hemp processing
plant is the only one in the state, so we are thrilled."
Per the Bill (view full Senate Bill 313 here), the General Assembly declared that promoting and
encouraging the development of the industrial hemp industry are in the best interest of North Carolina
residents. The industrial hemp industry can "expand employment, promote economic activity, and provide
opportunities to small farmers for an environmentally sustainable and profitable use of crop lands that
might otherwise be lost to agricultural production."
The bill also states it seeks to "establish an agricultural pilot program for the cultivation of industrial hemp
in the State, to provide for reporting on the program by growers and processors for agricultural or other
research, and to pursue any federal permits or waivers necessary to allow industrial hemp to be grown in
the State."
"This is exciting news for North Carolina farmers who will be able to cultivate industrial hemp again for the
first time in 71 years," said Thomas Shumaker, Executive Director for NCIHA. "We would like to thank
everyone who supported our organization throughout this effort especially North Carolina Agriculture
Commissioner Steve Troxler and his team for their hard work and support in making this a reality. "Hemp,
Inc.'s multipurpose industrial hemp processing plant in Spring Hope, North Carolina is 80% complete.
German engineer, Jens Kleinert of Temafa Machines, the manufacturer of Hemp, Inc.'s decortication
machine, says he was quite surprised that it was able to be installed in such a short amount of time. This
is Kleinert's third time visiting the plant to monitor the re- installation and has since derived a list of final
tasks that need to be done.
The fact that hemp is not yet legal in North Carolina played no role in setting up shop in North Carolina.
Executives say the company will process kenaf until Senate Bill 313 goes into effect. "Even with the
kenaf, we expect it to produce millions of dollars in revenue a year, which is already legal and very
lucrative," said Perlowin.
From hemp historian John Dvorak's research, in 1619, it was illegal not to grow hemp in Jamestown,
Virginia because it was one of the country's most valuable resources. Colonists were ordered to grow 100
plants specifically for fiber export. States actually encouraged hemp cultivation. However, marijuana
prohibition and the dominance of the cotton industry set in. Today, Americans want to take advantage of
the lucrative hemp cash crop.
Hemp is a plant that was grown around the world for centuries. This plant, once considered a valuable
natural resource, is and has been harvested for its fibers, seed, seed meal and seed oil. The hemp plant
is a variety of the plant species Cannabis Sativa. The leaves of the hemp plant also look very similar, thus
its confusion with marijuana. While both plants look similar, they are quite different. Hemp contains less
than 1 % THC, the active ingredient known as delta -9- tetrahydrocannabinol. The marijuana plant, on the
other hand, does contain 5 - 20% of this active ingredient.
In the United States of America, hemp dates back to the 1600's. American farmers were required by law
to grow hemp in Jamestown, Virginia and other colonies in order to export fiber. Hemp was a valuable
natural resource. As such, the Declaration of Independence was drafted on hemp paper in 1776 and the
U.S. Constitution was outfitted with 60 tons of hemp sails and rigging. Past Presidents George
Washington, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams all grew hemp, while Abraham Lincoln used hemp seed
oil to fuel his lamps. This is just a sampling of how hemp was used. It wasn't until 1937 that hemp rapidly
declined in popularity due to the passage of the Marijuana Tax Act.
Despite the "Hemp for Victory" campaign during WWII, harassment from law enforcement coupled with
inadequate education on the difference between hemp and marijuana quickly disparaged Americans.
According to author Jim Lunstrum's article, Wisconsin Once Led the Nation in Hemp Production, the last
hemp crop was grown in Wisconsin in 1958. In 1970, the Controlled Substances Act officially prohibited
cultivation of the hemp crop.
Today, hemp provides just as many benefits as it has done for centuries, both environmentally,
ecologically, and economically. Hemp can be grown in different climates and in a variety of soil types. It's
naturally resistant to most pests and is grown very close together. One acre of hemp can produce four
times more paper than one acre of trees and is usually planted and harvested within four months.
Over 25,000 products can be derived from hemp. Forests and wildlife habitats would be saved and
erosion of topsoil due to logging would be eliminated, if hemp were used. Hemp, as a food source, is rich
in essential fatty acids such as Omega 3 - 6 -9. Hemp seeds can also be made into butter, milk, protein
powder, oils, soap, and candles to name a few. Over 25,000 products can be derived from hemp. Read
more on the uses and benefits of hemp on www.voteindustrialhemp.com.
It should be especially noted that hemp is an excellent source for fiber, which is why Hemp, Inc. will
manufacture it in its multipurpose decortication processing facility. This natural, organic fiber can be
processed into everything from clothing to textiles and was once the fabric of choice. Initially, it was only
used as industrial fiber because of the coarseness. Traditional methods using acid to remove natural glue
(lignin) in plant fibers to soften fabric had an adverse effect on hemp, as it made the fiber too weak for
use. However, research evolved and an enzymatic process was developed to remove the lignin without
weakening the fiber. This enzymatic process produced "de- gummed" hemp fiber that could be spun with a
variety of other fabrics to create wonderful textiles for the apparel industry. Because of the durability,
resistance to mold and ultraviolet light, and other properties of hemp, apparel made of hemp have been
known to far surpass non -hemp products.
According to the non - profit trade association, Hemp Industries Association (HIA), the U.S. retail market for
hemp products was valued to be at least $620 million. This includes hemp food, body care products, non -
diary milk, shelled seeds, soaps, lotions, clothing, auto parts, building materials and various other
products. It's also important to note that market growth is increasing, even with current challenges...
primarily legislature.
III'
New rules boost agency's environmental justice efforts
Tiffany Stecker, E E ireporter
Published: Wednesday, Septe mber30, 2015
It's been a big week for environmental justice at U.S. EPA.
The agency recently finalized two rules intended to protect the poorest sectors of the population
from toxic substances. EPA began the week by announcing an overhaul of pesticide regulations to
protect farmworkers -- many of whom are undocumented and do not speak English -- to include the
first age restrictions on pesticide applicators and an annual requirement for safety training.
The agency followed up yesterday with a long- awaited refinery rule, which sets tough standards on
petroleum refineries to cut toxic air emissions. The rule requires refineries to monitor emissions on
site and publicly disclose those levels for the first time, creating, in EPA Administrator Gina
McCarthy's words, "a kind of neighborhood watch for refinery pollution" (see related story).
Along with climate change, environmental justice -- the alleviation of pollution in poor and
underserved communities -- was one of McCarthy's top priorities when she came on as EPA chief in
2013, following in the footsteps of her predecessor, Lisa Jackson.
"Environmental justice is at the heart of EPA's mission to protect public health - especially for
vulnerable communities dealing with risks associated with pesticide exposure," McCarthy wrote in a
blog p2st ahead of the agricultural Worker Protection Standard revisions (EE eves PM, Sept. 28).
Matthew Tejada, director of EPA's Office of Environmental Justice, wrote his own blog ost to
highlight how the refinery rule will improve overall health of residents living around the facilities. The
approximately 6.1 million people living within 3 miles of a petroleum refinery are disproportionately
likely to be poor and members of a minority group, according to EPA ( a2Lgy ire, Sept. 30).
"The emission reductions from this final rule will lower the cancer risk from refineries for 1.4 million
people. That's not just good for the communities that live in and around refineries -- it's outstanding,"
he wrote.
But despite EPA's vocal loyalty to environmental justice, some critics have knocked the agency for
not addressing claims from poor and minority areas. EPA's Office of Inspector General recently
found that the agency was three years late in issuing guidance for considering environmental justice
in rulemaking. An investigation from the Center for Public Integrity found EPA's Office of Civil Rights
has dismissed 95 percent of complaints of environmental discrimination under Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964.
Other cases, like the complaint filed by the community living around Flint, Mich.'s wood -fired
Genesee Power Station, have languished for years (Greenwire, Feb. 19).
But farmworker advocacy groups, which have called on EPA to update its standards over the past
two decades, acknowledged that the updated worker protection standard represented a greater
focus on environmental justice.
"The EPA has been very engaged with the farmworker community organizations to correct the
deficiencies in the Worker Protection Standard," said Virginia Ruiz, director of occupational and
environmental health for Farmworker Justice.
"The new final rules are a first important step, but we want to see EPA engaged just as strongly in
the implementation and the education and enforcement to make sure they are meaningful," Ruiz
added.
The addition of a farmworker representative on EPA's National Environmental Justice Advisory
Council (NEJAC) was a significant step, said Jeannie Economos, pesticide safety and
environmental health project coordinator at the Farmworker Association of Florida.
"This isn't just a regulation, this isn't just something on paper, it affects the next generation,"
Economos said.
For Vernice Miller- Travis, a longtime environmental justice advocate and member of NEJAC, the
recent actions represent a long departure from how the agency used to view civil rights.
"Is it everything? No. Is it a significant improvement from what it was? Absolutely," she said. "I feel
that our representation is more valued at this moment than it has been heretofore."
II III L.. II t II II' II II II iI II II IL f C IL........ II II II IIIC II III " "I "" Al k RU . II C II Y
Greenwire is written and produced by the staff of E &E Publishing, LLC. The one -stop source for those who need to
stay on top of all of today's major energy and environmental action with an average of more than 20 stories a day,
Greenwire covers the complete spectrum, from electricity industry restructuring to Clean Air Act litigation to public
lands management. Greenwire publishes daily at 1 p.m.
II'° III''
HIIII IIII
Fine particles linked to early -death risk -- study
Amanda Peterka, E &E reporter
Published: Tuesday, September 15, 2015
Exposure to fine airborne particles increases the risk of premature death, according to a new study
of more than 500,000 people.
An increase of just 10 micrograms per cubic meter of airborne fine particles increased the risk of
death from all causes by 3 percent, the study led by New York University scientists found.
"Our data add to a growing body of evidence that particulate matter is really harmful to health,
increasing overall mortality, mostly deaths from cardiovascular disease, as well as deaths from
respiratory disease in nonsmokers," said George Thurston, an NYU epidemiologist and the study's
lead author, in a statement.
Published online today in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, the research was funded
by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and NYU.
Fine particles are about one - thirtieth the width of a human hair and have been linked by previous
studies to health problems and premature death. The annual national ambient air quality standard
for fine particulate matter is 12 micrograms per cubic meter.
The NYU team said the new study was aimed at confirming whether work done in the past on higher
levels of particles could be replicated.
The researchers used data from the National Institutes of Health and AARP on 517,041 people aged
50 to 71 and living in California, Florida, Louisiana, New Jersey, North Carolina and Pennsylvania as
well as in the Atlanta and Detroit areas.
The data -- collected from 2000 to 2009 -- take into account factors that could affect health, such as
level of education and alcohol consumption. They estimated exposure to fine particles by census
tract using pollution data collected by U.S. EPA through its Air Quality System database.
Along with finding an increase in death from all causes, the researchers found that an increase of 10
micrograms per cubic meter led to a 10 percent increase in the risk of death due to heart disease.
The same pollution increase was associated with a 27 percent increase in the risk of death by
respiratory disease for nonsmokers.
The results were consistent regardless of gender, age group and level of education. "Our study is
particularly notable because all the data used in our analysis comes from government- and
independently held sources," Thurston said. Richard Hayes, a senior study author and an NYU
epidemiologist, said in a statement more research is needed on which ingredients of fine particulate
matter are most harmful to human beings.
"We need to better inform policymakers about the types and sources of particulate pollution so they
know where to focus regulations," he said. "It is especially important to continue monitoring health
risks as national standards for air pollution are strengthened."
Greenwire is written and produced by the staff of E &E Publishing, LLC
NEW PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS TO EXPAND LAND TRAIL
wenty -seven new property acquisitions have been added to the land trail route in Southern
Alamance County, between Great Alamance Creek south of Swepsonville River Park and Cane
Creek on the Alamance- Orange County line. This stretch of river is over ten miles long and gaining
land here requires the cooperation of
several landowners. We have acquired
critical pieces to continue the Haw
River Trail (HRT) south from
Swepsonville River Park and to create
nearly four miles of contiguous HRT
in the heart of Saxapahaw. The
existing Saxapahaw section will
extend two miles downriver and one
mile upriver, following the Church
Road bridge and connecting to trails
on Saxapahaw Island. Funding for the
project came from a multi -year grant
from the North Carolina Parks and
Recreation Trust Fund.
SAXAPAHAW ISLAND
PARK
e are pleased to announce preliminary plans for
Saxapahaw Island Park, a nature -based park that
combines elements of community and family; art and
culture; and play and learning with recreation. The park win
feature hiking trails, gathering spaces, waterfront access,
and a nature play and learning area. To realize our vision
for this innovative park, we have asked the community to
get involved in its design and implementation.
Email info @thehow.org to getinvolved.
Conceptual plan for Saxapahaw Island Parr
HRT land route in Southern Alamance
County. Recent acquisitions shown in red.
SPINY SHOFTSHELL TURTLE ON THE HAW
Spiny softshell turtle found basking on the rocks of
the Haw River.
bile paddling on the Haw River Trail, we came
across an unusual turtle basking on the rocks -a
spiny softshell (Apalone spinifem). This turtle has never
before been documented from the Haw River
Watershed nor from the Cape Fear River Basin (see
sidebar for more about river terminology).
Jeff Humphries, Wildlife Diversity Biologist with the
Wildlife Resources Commission, says this is an exciting
find and he is looking forward to conducting surveys
on the River to determine if this find is a lone turtle
transported to the watershed or a member of a native
Haw River population previously undiscovered.
Learn more about the Spiny softshell by visiting the Amphibians & Reptiles of North (arolina page of bio.davidson.edu/herpcons.
MOUNTAINS -TO —SEA TRAIL MASTER PLAN ESTABLISHES ROUTE
ALONG THE HAW RIVER TRAIL
orth Carolina State Parks released a master plan and a
new website for the Mountains -to -Sea State Trail (MST).
The plan establishes the path of the MST to follow the Haw
River Trail from Haw River State Park on the Rockingham -
Guilford County line, through Alamance County to Cane Creek
on the Alamance- Orange County line.
(heck out the master plan and the interactive map at mmountainstosea , org
HAW RIVER TRAIL FLORA
he riparian corridor of the Haw River supports a
diversity of plants and wildlife. While hiking the Haw
River Trail this summer, we noticed several interesting
plants. Have you seen these plants on yourhikes?
1. Carolina Spinypod (Matelea carolinensis)
2. Eastern Sensitive -briar (Mimosa mi(rophylla)
3. Bitter -bloom (Sabatia angularis)
4. Passion Flower (Passiora incarnata)
#hawrivertrailflora to show us your finds!
NEW TRAIL CONNECTING GLENCOE MILL VILLAGE TO THE
TOWN OF HAW RIVER NEARING COMPLETION
he finishing touches are being applied to the newest section
of the Haw River Trail /Mountains -to -Sea Trail. The Sellers
Falls Section connects to the Glencoe Section at Stoney Creek
Marina to create over seven miles of contiguous trail. The new
section offers over two miles of trail meandering through mature
hardwood forest with prominent views of the river.
More than 100 volunteers with the Friends of the Mountains -to-
Sea -Trail contributed over 2,000 hours building this trail. Efforts
included not only clearing the way by removing briars and roots,
but also leveling ground, putting in rock stepping stones, and
constructing six bridges. Three of the bridges are 20 feet or more
in length. Thank you to our faithful volunteers and to everyone
who contributed!
The Sellers Falls Section is slated to open this winter.
Map of the Sellers Falls section of the Haw River Trail, which connects
to the Glencoe Section at Stoney Creek Marina.
ALAMANCE COUNTY TRAILS PLAN
FMST volunteers designed and built
a new 24 foot bridge along the
route (top). They used hand tools to
clear and level the trail (bottom).
lamance County has adopted a county -wide trails plan that establishes the Haw
River Trail as a top priority. Additional priorities include creating connecting trails to
municipalities and establishing trails along creeks flowing into the Haw River. You can
view the plan at alamance- nc.corn /recreation.
PADDLE TRAIL FEATURED IN OUR STATE MAGAZINE
he Haw River Paddle Trail was featured in Our State Magazine in June. The article reviews the
history of the Haw River, provides a paddle guide, and details the current value of the river to
wildlife, paddlers, and the regional economy. Check it out at ourstateo corn /haw ®river ®paddle.
For a detailed guide to river sections of the Haw River Paddle Trail please visit our website at
thehawoorg /Paddle _ trail/ RiverSectionsohtrnl. Looking for a guided adventure or need to rent a
boat to get out on the trail? Visit thehaw.org/Paddle_trail/outfitters.html for a list of local
outfitters and their contact information.
UPCOMING EVENTS
TRAIL BENEFIT EVENTS
Trailathlon: Saturday, November 7th, 9:00am
S axraprahraw I For information or to register visit thehaw.org
Haw River Hustle: Sunday, November 8th, 8:00am
Glencoe I For information/to register visit burl in ton C.gov/Outdoors
AFTER WORK HIKES
Your
difference. This Spring, 68
over x € 3
How River Trail.
Join in on a series of after -hours hikes along the Haw River Trail this Fall— for more info visit
burlingtonNC.gov/ Outdoors.
For questions, comments, or to add/remove your name to/from the HRT mailing list, email info@thehow.org.