HomeMy WebLinkAboutCFE agenda 111416AGENDA
Commission for the Environment
November 14, 2016
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 — August 8 and October 10, 2016
The CFE will consider approval of minutes from the last two meetings. (Attachments 1 -2)
7:40 IV. UDO Text Amendment for Minor Subdivisions
The CFE will consider commenting on a proposed amendment to the Unified Development
Ordinance (UDO) that was discussed in October. The proposed change allows for minor
subdivisions with a "Flexible Design" option, which allows clustering of houses and more open
space. Staff prepared draft comments based on the CFE discussion. (Attachment 3)
7:55 V. CFE Outreach and Facebook Page
The CFE will also consider a draft news article on Climate Change (Kaiser et al.), an invitation to
display information at the Orange County Library, and whether to develop internal guidelines for
the CFE Facebook page and other social media. (Attachments 4 -5)
8:15 VI. CFE Annual Report and Work Plan 2016 -17
Each year the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) asks its advisory boards to prepare a
report of their activities, accomplishments, new issues, and concerns. A draft 2015 -16 report is
provided for CFE consideration. The final report will be due on Dec. 16. (Attachment 6)
9:00 VII. Updates and Information Items
Staff and /or CFE members will provide updates on the following items:
➢ CFE Roster (Attachment 7)
➢ Orange County stream buffer requirements (Attachments 8 -9)
➢ Go green to save green (Attachment 10)
➢ Potential SolSmart community designation
➢ Carrboro to consider a Climate Action Plan (Attachment 11)
➢ NIEH study of the effects of biosolids land application (Attachment 12)
➢ State cutbacks hinder NC's Clean Air Act enforcement (Attachment 13)
➢ Duke Forest newsletter (Attachment 14)
➢ Urban forests in the wake of Hurricane Matthew (Attachment 15)
➢ National electric vehicle charging network (Attachment 16)
➢ Tesla's solar roof (Attachment 17)
➢ Industrial Hemp Commission holds first meeting (Attachment 18)
➢ Any other new information from CFE members and staff
9:15 VIII. Adjournment
Nextmeeting., December 12 (Chapel Hill)
➢ Election of Officers
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
s. Strive to reach consensus first before voting
Activities the CFE expects to carry out in 2016:
• Continue to update the Orange County State of the Environment 2014 report
• Continue to explore ways to improve the County's ability to foster local sustainable
energy production and energy efficiency strategies, including developing incentives for
increasing energy efficiency in new construction
• Recommend ways to reduce the County's "carbon footprint" and implement the County's
Environmental Responsibility Goal (BOCC Priority #10)
• Continue to 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
• Co- sponsor the annual DEAPR photography contest (The Nature of Orange)
• Help plan for and participate in County's annual Earth Evening event
Concerns or emerging issues the CFE has identified for 2016:
• 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
• The CFE will continue to learn more about environmental justice matters and incorporate
relevant information and considerations in the State of the Environment report and its other
activities
• The CFE will continue to follow 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 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
Orange County
Commission for the Environment
DRAFT Meeting Summary
August 8, 2016
Orange County Solid Waste Administration Building, Chapel Hill
PRESENT: Lydia Wegman (Chair), May Becker, Peter Cada, Bill Kaiser, Bill Newby,
Rebecca Ray, Sheila Thomas -Ambat
ABSENT: Lynne Gronback, Loren Hintz, Jeanette O'Connor
STAFF: Tom Davis, Rich Shaw
Call to Order — Wegman called the meeting to order at 7:40 pm.
Additions or Changes to Agenda — None. Shaw reported that the County purchased
land earlier that day for an addition to the County's Soccer.com Soccer Park.
III. Minutes — Wegman asked for comments on the June 13 meeting summary. Kaiser
motioned approval as written; seconded by Becker. Motion approved unanimously.
Kaiser asked if there was any new information about the possibility of installing a solar
array at the closed landfill, which was discussed by the CFE and members of the Town
of Carrboro's Environmental Advisory Board (EAB) at the June meeting. Shaw noted
that the EAB members had spoken with Orange County Solid Waste staff about two
possible sites at the landfill, but he had not heard anything further. Shaw said he would
contact the Solid Waste staff and report back to the CFE with any news.
IV. CFE Facebook Page — CFE members recapped the June meeting discussion on the
use of Facebook and other social media to communicate with the public about CFE
activities and other environmental matters of interest to county residents. At that meeting
CFE reviewed the Orange County Social Media Policy included in the meeting materials.
CFE members expressed continued interest in using social media (not just Facebook)
and asked staff could request that someone from the County attend a future meeting to
answer questions and to help guide the CFE in how it could participate in outreach to
county residents. CFE members said they recognize and appreciate the need for
Orange County to enforce a social media policy, but it remains unclear how the CFE
should move forward with its outreach efforts.
Shaw said he would ask Beth Young (DEAPR Communications) or David Hunt (BOCC
Clerk's Office) to attend a future meeting.
V. Hydrilla Treatments in Upper Eno River Basin (Update) — Davis provided an update
on year two of a two -year pilot study to treat the aquatic weed hydrilla in the Eno River.
He said the chemical treatments were being injected into the Eno at two locations (rather
than just one in 2015) and the effects are being monitored at several locations along the
16 miles of river that comprise the study area. Davis noted the Eno River Hydrilla
Management Task Force decided to maintain a lesser concentration of the chemical
Fluridone ( <5 ppb versus <15 ppb in 2015)), but due to the high incidents of rainfall they
would need to use more of the chemical than they used the previous year.
Davis reported hydrilla has been treated effectively while native plants appear healthy.
He noted, however, there are several ponds and tributary streams that feed into the Eno
River that need to be treated for hydrilla. He said those upstream areas need to be
surveyed in order to develop an effective treatment plan. Davis said the Eno River
Hydrilla Management Task Force is working on a five -year management plan, and he
expects the State of NC will provide funding assistance for the project.
Davis answered questions from CFE members:
• Becker asked how native plants were doing. Davis said pre- and post- treatment
surveys of native plants show no evidence of problems thus far.
• Newby asked if any other counties had similar experience with treating hydrilla in
a river system. Davis said Orange and Durham are the first to try this.
• Kaiser asked what about in other areas of the country. Davis said many other
regions are battling hydrilla and other invasive aquatic plants, including Florida
with an annual budget of about $25 million.
• Cada asked if the State would use Fluridone in a water - supply reservoir, such as
Lake Orange. Davis said the EPA has approved it for use in drinking water.
• Thomas -Ambat wondered if hydrilla might develop immunity to the chemical.
• Becker asked if there was sampling occurring downstream of the study area.
Davis said the sampling occurs all the way to Falls Lake, and after entering the
lake the chemical is diluted well upstream of the City of Raleigh water intake.
Wegman thanked Davis and asked that he continue to keep the CFE apprised of further
developments, including the five -year plan for treating upstream areas.
VI. Inter -Local Clean Energy Working Group — Shaw updated the CFE on recent
discussions by the Inter -Local Clean Energy Working Group about the County's potential
participation in a Phase I Solar Feasibility Study. He said the work group had developed
a draft scope of work for a study that would provide Orange County and its partners with
a prioritized list of possible renewable energy deployment sites and help the group
prepare for a potential joint procurement of solar photovoltaics (PV) in the future.
Shaw said Bouma was participating in the group and would provide future updates.
VI I. The Nature of Orange Contest Winners 2016 — Shaw presented the winning
photographs from this year's contest, The Nature of Orange. He reminded CFE
members the goal of the contest is to encourage residents to help document the beauty
and diversity of our natural resources and our people connecting to their environment.
Shaw reported there were 89 entries by adults and youth (under 18 years old), and the
three volunteer judges evaluated photos based on, relevancy, composition /arrangement,
focus /sharpness, lighting, and creativity.
Winners received a congratulatory letter, certificate, and a small monetary award. During
the month of August the photographs were displayed at the Orange County Library and
the Chapel Hill /Orange County Visitors Center. They will also be on display at the Cedar
Grove Community Center and the new Cup -A -Joe on King Street in Hillsborough.
VIII. Updates and Information Items — Information on the following subjects was provided in
the meeting package; selected items were discussed: a) overview of 2016 environmental
legislation by NC General Assembly, b) State's rejection of plans to preserve land in
Falls Lake watershed, c) County to fund study to justify wider stream buffers,
2
d) Mountains -to -Sea Trail, e) County recognized by NC Coastal Federation, f) Impact of
tree harvesting on wildlife, g) NC's Butterfly Highway, h) coal and gas expected to
decline in next decade, i) Antarctica ozone hole beginning to heal, and j) the healing
power of nature.
IV. Adjournment — Wegman adjourned the meeting at 9:12 pm.
Summary by Rich Shaw, DEAPR Staff
3
Orange County
Commission for the Environment
DRAFT Meeting Summary
October 10, 2016
Orange County Solid Waste Administration Building, Chapel Hill
PRESENT: Lynne Gronback (Vice Chair), May Becker, Loren Hintz, Bill Kaiser, Bill Newby,
Rebecca Ray
ABSENT: Peter Cada, Jeanette O'Connor, Sheila Thomas - Ambat, Lydia Wegman
STAFF: Brendan Bouma, Rich Shaw
GUESTS: David Hunt, Jim Northrup, Patrick Mallett, Rachel McCook, Alan Parry
I. Call to Order — Gronback called the meeting to order at 7:32 pm. She noted that seven
CFE members were needed for a quorum, but only six members were in attendance.
11. Additions or Changes to Agenda — Shaw asked to move up the discussion of the
CFE's use of Facebook and other social media so that David Hunt could take part in the
discussion prior to having to leave for fire training. Gronback asked CFE members if
there were any objections to that request; there was none.
111. Minutes — No action was taken on the August 8 meeting summary for lack of a quorum.
[Note: The order of agenda items IV. and V. was reversed.]
V. CFE Outreach and Facebook Page — The CFE continued its discussion on the use of
Facebook and other social media. David Hunt (BOCC Office, Information Specialist)
and Jim Northrup (Orange Co. Information Technology Director) presented information
and responded to questions on the use of social media by a County advisory board.
Shaw provided an overview of the CFE's initial creation of a Facebook page by former
CFE member Steve Nezgoda and subsequent postings of information by CFE members
Jeanette O'Connor and Loren Hintz. He said the CFE has not used the Facebook page
in several months pending information on how to conform to the social media policy.
Hunt explained the use of social media by County departments and by advisory boards.
He noted some of the potential problems that can occur and have occurred. Hunt and
Northrup offered their support for the CFE's transition of its current Facebook account to
a new Orange County account in accordance with the County's social media policy.
CFE members asked what kinds of information is considered inappropriate and would
need to be removed from the Facebook page. Hunt said to avoid posting copyrighted
material and to avoid advocating positions on political matters. Northrup suggested that
if the CFE includes information from other sources that its members make a reasonable
effort to know and understand the meaning of the content. He said if there is any
question about the appropriateness of material the CFE should ask for an opinion from
the County staff, and in some cases from the County Attorney.
Ray recommended the CFE establish internal protocols for the posting of material. She
pointed out that some organizations only "push" material to their social media page while
others also allow public comments to show up on the page. Hunt and Northrup warned
that if the CFE allows public participation it must refrain from censuring comments that
don't necessarily reflect the positions of the CFE.
Hintz recommended that the CFE only "push" material to its Facebook page, at least for
the short term. Other CFE members agreed with that suggestion.
Gronback summarized the discussion thus far, noting that the CFE will provide the login
information for its current Facebook account to allow the transition to a new County -
supported account. She said it appears the CFE wishes to allow only posts by CFE
members with no public comments.
Hunt and Northrup described the following process for making the transition:
• CFE will provide login credential to the current Facebook account (created with a
previous member's personal email) to Beth Young, DEAPR Communications.
• Beth will work with the County's IT Help Desk to transition the account to meet
Orange County requirements in its Social Media Policy.
• Beth will provide the two or three CFE designees with the login name (email) and
password for updating Facebook.
• CFE members will post and maintain the CFE Facebook account.
• Each time a CFE member who has update authority leaves the Commission, the
password will be changed.
• The current password will be logged and maintained by the IT Help Desk.
Gronback thanked Hunt and Northrup and said the CFE will follow -up on the transition
and will develop a process and protocols for posting information on Facebook.
IV. UDO Text Amendment for Minor Subdivisions – Patrick Mallett and Rachel McCook
(Orange County Planning staff) presented a package of proposed amendments to the
Unified Development Ordinance for minor subdivisions in Orange County. The proposed
changes would a) increase the maximum number of lots eligible for minor "flexible"
subdivisions from five lots to 12 lots, and b) allow for smaller lots and larger areas of
common open space within those subdivisions, but with no net increase in density.
Mallett presented slides to explain the changes and how they will unfold. He said this is
the first in a series of amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to offer
greater flexibility and more sustainable development. This particular set of changes is
considered non - controversial because it provides a "win -win" for all parties. Mallett said
his coming to the CFE is part of the community outreach effort to explain the proposed
amendments and to receive feedback. The Planning Board will discuss on October 17.
Mallett said the proposed amendments will promote flexible design and the preservation
of open space in Orange County —both of which further some of the housing and land
use goals of the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The amendments would
consolidate the major and minor subdivision standards for the Flexible Development
option available to landowners and developers. The changes also combine the former
Cluster Development provisions with the Flexible Development option. Mallett noted that
this option is not available for within the Rural Buffer around Chapel Hill and Carrboro.
Mallett discussed the many benefits of clustering residences using the Flexible
Development option, including increased open space, reduced infrastructure costs,
better stormwater management, higher home values, and benefits to wildlife.
2
Mallett and McCook showed illustrations that demonstrated how the Flexible
Development would help to cluster home sites, thus allowing for more common open
space, less infrastructure, and lower costs of construction. They presented a table that
showed that as lot sizes decrease, the required amount of open space increases within
the subdivision. For instance, 30 percent open space is required for a subdivision with
40,000- square -foot lots; 40 percent open space is required for 30,000- sq. -ft. lots; 50
percent open space is required for 20,000- sq. -ft. lots. Off -site septic would be allowed,
but each lot would have its own dedicated off -lot septic area.
Hintz made suggestions on the need to clarify language in Section 7 and Section 3.
Bouma asked what may occur in the common open space. Mallet said there could be
recreational amenities, such as trails, playground, garden, gazebo, and picnic shelter —
as long as it is approved and maintained by the homeowners association. Bouma asked
if the common area could be used for a community solar energy array or community
garden. Mallett said it could as long as it stayed out of sensitive resource areas. Each
project is considered on a case -by -case basis.
Gronback thanked Mallett and McCook and asked if the Planning Department wanted
comments from the CFE. Shaw will prepare a draft letter of support of the proposed
amendments to the UDO for CFE consideration at the November meeting.
VI. Potential SolSmart Community Designation – Bouma briefed the CFE on the
County's application for designation as a SolSmart community [http: / /www.gosparc.org /].
He said a new Pew Research Center survey shows nearly nine -in -ten adults in the U.S.
favor expanding the use of solar power to meet our energy needs. Through the SolSmart
program from the US Department of Energy, the County hopes to access technical
assistance that will help us make Orange County an even better place for solar energy
generation. The program aims to reduce the uncertainties, delays, and unidentified
barriers that contribute to higher solar installation costs. Bouma said the County hopes
to access a higher level of technical support through working with a SolSmart Advisor.
This Advisor would split their time with Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and the County for up to
six months, starting in 2017.
VII. CFE Annual Report and Work Plan 2016 -17 – Shaw reminded CFE members that
each year the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) asks its advisory boards to
prepare a report of their activities, accomplishments, new issues, and concerns. Shaw
referenced the copy of the 2015 -16 report, and noted that the back side of each CFE
agenda contains key information from the report. Shaw said a draft 2016 -17 report will
be provided for CFE consideration at next meetina. The final report is due December 16.
VIII. Updates and Information Items – Information on the following subjects was provided in
the meeting materials: a) Orange County study to justify stream buffers, b) Oakwood
solar farm approved near Mebane, c) Duke Forest deer management, d) OWASA
approves conditions for Mtns -to -Sea Trail (MST), e) new MST bridge over the Eno River
in Hillsborough, f) Triangle ozone deaths can be prevented, g) Carolina water managers
brace for future, i) North Carolina's invasive plants, j) windfarm planned off the NC coast,
k) Americans polarized view of climate change, and 1) Dutch adapting to sea -level rise.
IV. Adjournment – Gronback adjourned the meeting at 9:30 pm.
Summary by Rich Shaw, DEAPR Staff
3
DRAFT MEMORANDUM
To: Orange County Board of Commissioners
From: Orange County Commission for the Environment
Date: November 14, 2016
Re: Comments on Draft UDO Text Amendment for Flexible Minor Subdivisions
The Orange County Commission for the Environment (CFE) has reviewed the draft text
amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) sections for subdivision and
flexible development to allow for Flexible Minor Subdivisions.
The CFE appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Our ability to review and
comment was facilitated by an excellent presentation to our board on October 10 by Patrick
Mallett and Rachel McCook of the Planning and Inspections Department. The CFE learned
that the proposed changes would a) increase the maximum number of lots eligible for minor
subdivisions from five lots to 12 lots if the Flexible Development option is chosen, and b)
allow for smaller lots and larger areas of common open space and other environmentally
sensitive lands within those subdivisions, but with no net increase in density.
The benefits of clustering residences include reduced land disturbance and built -upon area,
reduced infrastructure costs, less impervious surface and better stormwater management,
increased open space, and increased wildlife habitat. The clustering of development can also
help to maintain open space buffers between homes and neighboring agricultural uses, which
also helps to protect Orange County's rural character.
The CFE supports the fact that the proposed amendment would promote flexible designs that
preserve more open space (minimum of 33 %) without reducing the allowable number of
home sites in a subdivision. Flexible design would also encourage the connection of common
open space within subdivisions with existing and planned public trails, greenways, sidewalks,
and public streets. Also, the new rules will allow for individual off -site septic systems.
The CFE recommends that the Planning Board and its staff consider adding a provision
that would encourage the alignment of open spaces for neighboring subdivisions,
thereby resulting in a larger contiguous area of open space.
The CFE also encourages the Planning Board and its staff to allow the common open
space to be used for renewable energy installations where feasible, such as a community
solar energy array, as long as the installation avoids sensitive resource areas.
Thank you for bringing this matter to the CFE for discussion and feedback.
cc: Tom Davis, Patrick Mallett, Rich Shaw
GOl2Cl2CG55%Jrib forte tGre F-vIbvzr w t
G,% OlZ1Ir�B GOUVi,t� P�f�h12, h0 gOX �1�1 /�6C��01'OUG�GI, NG���j�� �1�� �-�f5 -610
Revised draft (BK/PQ Oct 7, 2016
This is another in a series of articles by the Orange County Commission for the Environment
(CFE). Each article highlights an environmental issue of interest to the residents of Orange
County. The CFE is a volunteer advisory board to the Board of County Commissioners.
Additional information can be found in the Orange County State of the Environment 2014 report
at r /commission for the environment.php
Climate Change (Part 1 of 2)
Orange County Commission for the Environment
Summary of Evidence
Our climate is changing, this is clear. Since 1950, many changes are unprecedented.
These include atmosphere and ocean warming, winter snow cover decreasing, Arctic sea
ice decreasing, sea level rising, increased melting of mountain glaciers, increased
atmospheric water vapor, and the timing of seasonal events (earlier thaws, later frosts).
Accompanying these changes are extreme rainfall events and more severe drought.
Average global surface temperature has risen about 1.5° F in the past 100 yrs. The
past decade was the warmest over the past measured 136 years. In the Northern
Hemisphere, 1983 -2012 appears to be the warmest 30 -year period over the last 1,400 yrs.
And, the past 15 consecutive months were the hottest on record — average temperature in
July 2016 was 1.5° F hotter than the average July for the years 1950 -1980.
Global average ocean surface temperatures have steadily increased since 1950,
causing the ocean to expand— contributing to sea level rise. Since 1950, sea level rise rates
have been greater than the average rate during the previous 2,000 years. Additionally, the
majority of glaciers on Earth continue to shrink. Over the last two decades the Greenland
and Antarctic ice sheets have melted significantly. If the Greenland ice sheet fully melts it
would cause global average sea level to rise about 23 feet.
Cause and Effect
Human influence on climate change is clear. Recent anthropogenic emissions of
greenhouse gases (GHGs) are the highest in history —they are the reason for the recent,
rapid rate of change (a follow -on article discussing how distant past climate changes
inform the current scientific community's opinions is being composed). GHGs have
increased to levels unseen in the last 800,000 yrs. GHGs are controlled by earth's orbit
Revised draft (BK/PQ Oct 7, 2016
around the sun. However, orbital changes are not behind today's global warming —our
current orbit dictates we should be cooling not warming! CO2 has increased by about 40%
since the 1700s from 280 ppm (parts per million) to today's 400 ppm.
Ocean acidification is the lesser known result of climate change. The ocean absorbs
atmospheric CO2— leading to an increased acidification of the ocean, which is currently
30% more acid than 300 years ago (a drop in pH from 8.2 to 8.1). The ocean's ecosystem
will begin crashing when pH falls below 7.8. As acidification worsens, it's more difficult for
coral to construct reefs and mollusks to calcify their shells. Reef building is particularly
vulnerable to climate change —with current loss a sign of that change. If current trends
continue all coral reefs will cease to grow, and start dissolving, within 50 years. Australia's
Great Barrier Reef has already declined by 50% over the last 30 years.
Models
Scientists use models to test hypotheses, make predictions, and frame new
questions. They test them by replicating observed data. When Global Circulation Models
(GCMs) do a good job of replicating past and current observations, we have increased
confidence they can forecast the future. GCMs have been able to do just this — including
more rapid warming seen since 1950, and short -term cooling after recent volcanic
eruptions (Mount Pinatubo, 1991). GCMs also predict many of the extreme events we
currently experience, such as major flooding, and extended heat waves and drought.
GCMs tell us about the drivers of significant changes in global temperature observed
over the last century. Models using only natural forcings (solar variation, volcanic activity)
show essentially no temperature increase over the last 100 yrs. When including
anthropogenic effects the GCM fit with observed data is very good. Despite skeptics' claims,
nobody has created a general circulation model that includes anthropogenic effects
explaining climate behavior over the past century without CO2- driven warming.
From: Libbie Hough
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 12:11 PM
To: David Hunt; Stacy Shelp; Andi Morgan; Beth Young; Ashley Mercer; Beverly Shuford; Coby Austin;
David Caldwell; Nancy Coston; Yvonne Scarlett; David Stancil; Jim Northrup; Jeff Thompson; OC Arts;
Robert Gilmore; Shelia Beasley NCSU.EDU; Brennan Bouma;
Cc: Erin Sapienza; Lucinda Munger
Subject: You do AMAZING things. Libraries share INFORMATION.
It's a natural fit!
In Hillsborough, we have a large bulletin board that over 500+ people see every day. Think of it
as an old school digital monitor.
On this bulletin board, we have space to:
1) Share flyers for public events. Email them to me and I'll post them (here and in
Carrboro, and shout out to you on Twitter).
2) Profile your department, or an initiative from your department.
So, if you want folks to more about --
1) Our great community centers,
2) Steps we're taking to keep our streams and lakes healthy,
3) The support we offer small businesses or agritourism efforts,
4) Etc.
Drop me an email and we'll figure out a way to get your info up at the library.
If you don't need this service, forward to someone in your department and let them know the
library is eager to spread the word.
Thanks,
LIBBIE HOUGH I C011111111111UIINIICA I110II SSII'I:C IIAIII.IISI
1137 W, 111lAI11kG' 11k1 I 111 AII` 1:
11111111 LSIII�011R,OUII II> INC 27278
II 9.24 x.2539
November 7, 2016 DRAFT
NAME OF BOARD /COMMISSION: Commission for the Environment
Report Period: 2016-2017
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: Lydia Wegman
Vice Chair Lynne Gronback
Primary County Staff Contacts:
919- 886 -8775 Inwegman @gmail.com
919- 219 -3219 Ironback@gmail.com
Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation
4IlGh Shaw .. (Lwk"p .... 911n6a °II 2Vwtll9k"p.... allna° X111 ") ....,24,5-2,514
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?
I0ade uIT�Fraauauincu":0atlialn ,,: to [Y', CC on i1'.)0 arncu":0urnclnt to fleAlbne .
• Initiated a series of ii ewe � pl pgP' articles on environmental issues featured in
....l . ... . . .9290 ...t . . .f ... ....t...h......e .......................................... .............................. . report 2015 `0tIna ITa: c ..a�c o
• Made recommendations to BOCC on 2016 bond package, the use of herbicides/
pesticides at County facilities, and incentives for energy efficient construction (2015)
• Commented to Planning Bd on proposed changes to impervious surface rules (2015)
• Provided ideas for Public Services Announcements (PSAs) for County radio spots (2015)
• Collaborated with other entities on energy conservation and mgmt. projects (2015 -16)
• 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)
Commission for the Environment Movember 7, 2016 DRA,,FT
• 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 The Nature of Orange photography contest (2012 - 201 „3)
• 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)
List of Specific Tasks, Events, or Functions Performed or Sponsored Annually.
• Liaisons to Intergovernmental Parks Work Group and Orange Unified Transp. Board
• 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)
.. ............c. r................... .... J a .... ,,..............:'........ :a :................ .� a. .:....6 a : :i .:'. .rrr....... a.... I 's
2 Il....�c�lcll a �.Fcuinuinu�iwcw�n,.� cup uuinllllw�ww�n�m�ucw�n c� qucu.su� iw ,.�iu.su,.� c� �Il�c `I00�.�,.�
• Conduct environmental education outreach :..F .F (e.g., Last Friday, Earth
Evening)
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.
Commission for the Environment Movember 7, 2016 DRA,,FT
• 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 41IT aii ;d 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.
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 I III l l p staff
:u..11 u.4 n0.atv tnc6 data is un.a.l..s.0. v fc: �.),st ac.n.v. .uRI.YY wc.un, that caa.:.:.:. .F ..2.0.0 2.0..4..:.
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 Land Resources Committee is nau lialinailiin 111 a Q o,u, i,n t,y gffoirt to lidenil
90" 1_IT ::Nseirve liunnp2'taini IlaunO,:aa 2 g2EElidor,,: illnai aaininaai ,:li olfiaaini unaturall
unF „ a,: , wo i* Rg 4th ....Othel' i;E:cuwaiwcn ....en #(uan c uR4n ate the developn;eRt of
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 Land Resources Committee is gna' li6ipgj1n 111 a ouni a foirt to fide nfl
au�0 nuIT�Fr :auITva Iiirn,p2j taini Ilaui0 aana g,2[[lidor,,: illnai connect ficaini unaturall
aunFras
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 Earth
Evening and Last Fridays events and as part of its State of the Environment reports
Commission for the Environment Movember 7, 2016 DRAFT
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.
4
Commission for the Environment Movember 7, 2016 DRAFT
Identify any activities this commission expects to carry out in 201 ' " " 7 " ' ' 6 as they relate to
established BOCC goals and priorities. If applicable, is there a fisal impact (i.e.,
funding, staff time, other resources) associated with these proposed activities (list).
• mm .c.un� un�c �c �na i. i.n. ) ii a n.q . .mm.c.w.un� Ci.ai c� in In�w:(eun.un. n� .0.`..4. : �.F.nc.u#
• Conflique to i1te nem; airfides on cunvliroigrncuni 11 of liu"nn uIT un c t )uIT un c
u.sini un llu.s0liun Illiun is Iln un c cuncuIT osery iii in n0 illncu....uu n n uIT un ... nli .
........................................................................ 0.................................................................. 0.................................... 0........................................................................................................................................... h............................. ................h............ §.
• Continue to explore ways to improve the County's ability to foster local sustainable
energy p roduction and energy efficiency strat egies, T. . . . .... .. . . :... .. .21
N IT ,.
� g IT ,.
an .F�.Fun IIn.Fi�.Fu nll..F �u ,.�Il�nu .Fun .Fu .Fun.Fuiuun and developing incentives for
increasing energy efficiency in new construction
• Recommend ways to reduce the County's "carbon footprint" and implement the
County's Environmental Responsibility Goal (BOCC Priority #10)
• Continue to help with public outreach and management efforts related to hydrilla in
the Eno River
• Nair ii pgte lin a Qouiqty!2nEj 1 denflfy go0 pu : :NNseirvc line n oITt ini II un0,, Inc g2EuJdorc
that conned
sjg inu unnini unniu.suITn nunFrn nun ncun,w,nnnc.....F
(BOCC Priority #1)
• Co- sponsor the annual DEAPR photography contest (The Nature of Orange)
• Help plan for and participate in County's annual Earth Evening 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?
Iln ..... I .I n.c.un� unu�c �c .a.0nc.n.a �oF a.n K a.un,119in of the Ge.u.0 m1".. (,)FRw .n.; ...'i
a6 a. .... "..... � ..................... ....6 a. "............6 . "..... .�y... a.......: r........... ............ .a6 a ....:....... 6 a. ....rrr a.: r. .....
�nm,.�i�n inwnll�u.sin unwn0 ncu"ninc,.�iwwnq ,.�w�wn,.� is w�.FOu.sn �cc0 �nu�,.�i wwn the �nn,.�i�n
• The CFE remains interested in developing incentives for increasing energy efficiency
in new construction
• The CFE will continue to learn more about environmental justice matters and
incorporate relevant information and considerations in the inert State of the
Environment report „(,2,Q2Q and its other activities
II Iln I I..... wII ncun�uunu.�c �c I�.�IIII�.)Mn� i.Yn�. ��;�.�IIu��.,i �,,��..�.�NI�. ���a.,�µ��.w�.,)ir��� ���n�.,)u.,�I.� .w a .,�u,.�a..,�u.,�,.,,.wu�.,�wI.� �. I &n�.,�Mn�,
c ww�wl.�ir�., µ��. i.h Iln�..�w ;a.illuii �g �..F;d a.iw.wll.��.,�.w..�II �.�I d��n�..�u�����,. ��w�.,�u.,au�i,y .w .w�.,�Ilu.,i Mn ..�.i.. and 4II
• The CFE will continue to advocate for increased efforts to gather information related
to water resources in Orange County and 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
Orange County
COMMISSION FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
(updated August 2016)
POS #
DATE OF APPOINTMENT
TERM
TELEPHONE
TOWNSHIP OF
[NAME
HOME ADDRESS
COMMITTEE (Representation)
ENDS
E -MAIL
RESIDENCE
May Becker #1
9/21 /10 & 11 /6/14
511 Cotton Street
Air & Energy Resources
12/31/17
919 - 969 -7439
Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
(At Large)
tomatocutter@yahoo.com
Peter Cada #10
9/21/10 & 11/6/14
420 Coach House Lane
Water Resources
12/31/17
919 - 485 -2071
Eno
Hillsborough, NC 27278
(At Large)
peter.cada@tetratech.com
Thomas Eisenhart #6
1/22/15
605 Jones Ferry Road, Apt TT15
Air & Energy Resources
12/31/16
919 - 360 -7468
Chapel Hill
Carrboro, NC 27510
(At Large)
tomeisenhart@gmaiI.com
Lynne Gronback (Vice Chair) #14
3/17/15 & 12/15/15
2420 Sunnyfield Court
Land Resources
12/31/18
919 - 219 -3219
Bingham
Hillsborough, NC 27278
(At Large)
Lgronback@gmail.com
Loren Hintz #4
1/27/09
804 Kings Mill Rd.
Land Resources
12/31/16
919 - 933 -8987
Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, NC 27517
(Biological Resources)
ldhintz@beIlsouth.net
Bill Kaiser #5
12/15/15
2112 Markham Dr.
Water Resources
12/31/18
919 - 933 -9794
Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
(Water Resources)
w_mckaiser hotmaiLcom
William Newby #2
5/20/14
2821 Becketts Ridge Road
Air & Energy Resources
12/31/16
919 - 541 -5296
Hillsborough
Hillsborough, NC 27278
(Air Quality)
newby.william007@gmail.com
Jeanette O'Connor #9
5/21/13 & 11/6/14
117 S Peak Dr.
Land Resources
12/31/17
703 - 678 -6893
Chapel Hill
Carrboro, NC 27510
(At Large)
jeanette.oconnor gmaiLcom
Rebecca Ray #15
11/19/13 & 12/15/15
5617 Jomali Drive
Water Resources
12/31/18
919 - 383 -0685
Eno
Durham, NC 27705
(At Large)
rebecca.ray@nc.rr.com
Sheila Thomas -Ambat #8
11/6/14
103 Hunter Hill Place
Water Resources
12/31/16
919 - 225 -4744
Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, NC 27517
(At Large)
staemail@yahoo.com
Lydia Wegman (Chair) #3
11/19/13 & 11/6/14
5704 Cascade Drive
Land Resources
12/31/17
919 - 886 -8775
Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
(At Large)
Inwegman@gmail.com
VACANT #11
12/31/17
At Large)
VACANT #7
//16
Resources
12/31/16
At Large)
VACANT #12
/ /16
Resources
12/31/18
En ineer
VACANT #13
/ /16
Resources 12/31/18
At Lar e
David Stancil 245 -2522
Director, Dept. of Environment, Agriculture, Parks & Rec.
dstancil @orangecountync.gov
Rich Shaw 245 -2514
Land Conservation Manager
rshaw @orangecountync.gov
Tom Davis 245 -2513
Water Resources Coordinator
tdavis @orangecountync.gov
Brennan Bouma 245 -2626
Sustainability Coordinator
bbouma @orangecountync.gov
11/9/2016
From: Michael Harvey
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2016
Subject: Decision regarding stream buffer regulations
As many of you are already aware Session Law 2015 -246, ratified on September 23, 2015, had
significant impacts on the County's stream /riparian buffer program as detailed within Section
6.13 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
As previously reported the summary of these impacts was as follows:
1. Local governments are prohibited from adopting, implementing, and enforcing
riparian buffer (i.e. stream buffer) regulations that exceed State
requirements. Exceptions to this prohibition include:
a. The adoption of more restrictive standards to comply with, or implement,
Federal or State law;
b. Represents a condition of a permit, certificate, or other approval issued by a
Federal or State agency;
c. Was enacted prior to August 1, 1997 and meets listed requirements;
d. Said regulation(s) are reviewed and approved by the State Environmental
Management Commission (EMC) through the review of a scientific study
providing documentation on the need for increased /more restrictive standards
based on local physical and environmental conditions.
2. Local governments shall not treat land within identified riparian buffers area as if
the land is: `the property of the State or any of its subdiuisions unless the land or an
interest therein has been acquired by the State or its subdiuisions by a conveyance or
by eminent domain'.
3. Riparian buffer areas are required to be denoted on subdivision plats.
4. When riparian buffers are located within designated common areas or open space
areas located within a minor /major subdivision each abutting parcel shall be viewed
as having an equal interest in that buffer area. The County is required to allow
adjacent lots to `count' this buffer area towards lot size, density, perimeter buffer,
and conservation purposes.
The County, while initially arguing we were complaint with the provisions of the law, prepared
the required scientific study justifying the implementation and enforcement of riparian
exceeding State requirements (i.e. more than 50 ft.). This study was submitted for review in
September of 2016 in preparation for presentation to the EMC. Orange County was not alone
in this endeavor. Studies were also submitted by the Town(s) of Carrboro and Cary as well as
Wake County.
Staff and our consultants attended meetings on Wednesday and Thursday of this week to
present our findings.
Ultimately State staff determined Orange County's buffer program was exempt from complying
with the provisions of the law and informed EMC members we already had the appropriate
authorization to enforce more restrictive buffers', specifically through the previous review and
approval of our buffer regulations (i.e. Section 6.13) by the EMC. EMC members agreed with
the determination that Orange County, along with Carrboro, Cary, and Wake County, could
enforce their respective buffer programs as written.
As e iiii est ll6t o i�cili li uu ed uu e uii ile euu �fe ui� cee 111 N
e as cu u uu euu � U:y co iiii i t 'iii iiiii i ed 'iiii iiiii i Sectioiiiii 6 i 3
(etteclllled
It is worth noting several EMC members commented, after the meeting was adjourned, our
study was very well conceived and provided sufficient documentation detailing the need for
more restrictive riparian buffers.
I would like to express my gratitude to our consultants for their hard work in completing this
task and for providing the necessary technical guidance demonstrating the need for more
restrictive riparian buffers in Orange County. There was a lot of night /weekend work over a 4
week period done to get all the necessary soil collection and testing done. This including field
trips to several coastal area counties for soil collection work to serve as a comparison to our
baseline data model.
I also would like to take a moment and convey my gratitude to the numerous County staff that
assisted in completing this project in the timeframe afforded to us by the State. We would not
have been successful without their efforts.
Thank you.
Michael D. Harvey AICP, CFM, CZO
Current Planning Supervisor — Planner III
Orange County Planning Department
131 West Margaret Lane
PO Box 8181
(919) 245- 2597(phone)
(919) 644 -3002 (fax)
Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 132, correspondence sent and received from this
account is a public record and may be disclosed to third parties.
Attachment 2 Article 6: Development Standards
Section 6.13: Stream Buffers
(6) Information signs may not contain advertising material or exceed six square feet
in area.
(D) Temporary Signs
(1) Temporary signs may be used for construction and real estate information, and
future tenant identification, in accordance with the provisions of this Section.
(E) Awnings
(1) The form and color of the awnings must be consistent.
(2) A minimum eight -foot vertical clearance must be maintained.
(3) Signs on awnings must be painted on or screen printed and limited to the
awning's flap (valance) or end panels.
(4) Canvas, treated canvas, matte finish vinyl, and fabric awnings are permitted.
(5) Plexiglas, metal, and glossy vinyl illuminated awnings are prohibited in the
Hillsborough EDD and strongly discouraged in the Buckhorn and Eno EDDs.
(F) Signage for Parks, Public and Non - profit; Recreational Facilities, Non - Profit;
Recreational Facilities, Golf Courses; and Recreational Facilities, Profit
Total sign area shall be limited to 500 square feet for all signs permitted herein, not
including Directional Signage erected in accordance with the provisions of this Section.
(G) Basic Sign Design Schedule for Hillsborough EDD
The following design schedule has been approved for the Hillsborough EDD:
6.13.1 Purpose
The purpose of the regulations included in this Section is to protect County water resources by
establishing minimum buffers adjacent to streams, rivers, water bodies and other water features
and limiting development and other land disturbing activities within those buffers.
6.13.2 Applicability
The stream buffer regulations and standards contained herein shall be applicable to all streams
and water features, as follows:
(A) Streams identified by any of the following means:
(1) Shown as solid blue lines or as broken blue lines on the USGS Quadrangle
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -95
Article 6: Development Standards
Section 6.13: Stream Buffers
maps,
(2) Shown as water feature in the Orange County Soil Survey, or
(3) A water feature identified by a field determination of County staff trained in
surface water identification through the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ).
(B) Steam buffers shall extend around the perimeter of all water features if any portion of the
stream buffer of a stream touches the water feature. Disputes pertaining to water feature
decisions by County staff shall be filed directly to the NCDWQ.
6.13.3 Calculating Width of Stream Buffer
(A) Special Flood Hazard Area Zoning Overlay Districts & FEMA Floodplains
(1) Those streams identified by FEMA as having floodplains shall have stream
buffers calculated from the outside edges of the 100 -year floodplain.
(B) Calculating Slope Value
(1) Draw 250' length perpendicular lines, at 200 -foot horizontal intervals along the
entire length of the outside edges of the stream, or the outer edge of the FEMA
floodplain, whichever is greater.
(2) Determine the elevation at either the stream bank or the outer edge of the FEMA
floodplain, whichever is highest (Elevation 1), and at the point 250' from the
stream or FEMA floodplain, whichever is applicable, along the perpendicular line
(Elevation 2).
(3) Subtract Elevation 1 from Elevation 2 for the Difference.
(4) Divide the Difference by 250 for the Mean.
(5) Multiply the Mean by 100 to determine the "Slope Value ".
(6) Perform this calculation for both sides of the stream or floodplain.
Figure 6.13.13.B: Stream Buffer Slope Value Calculation
Elevation at Stream Bank
Stream
0 Elevation at FEMA Floodplain Edge
250' fl
fl 250' c_
CL
Y
1 LL
t
a
0
2
200' a
�
o 200' 2
<
¢
v
-o
Q Q
Stream -Q
250'
2.50' a
4
ii
L
w
Slope Value =
— M x 100
250
(C) Method A — Stream Buffer Based on Slope and Groundcover
(1) The width of the buffer shall be a minimum of 50 feet from each edge of the
floodplain or stream bank.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -96
Article 6: Development Standards
Section 6.13: Stream Buffers
(2) An additional 15 feet shall be added to the 50 -foot buffer (65 feet total) where the
slope value is less than 7.5 %, as measured 250 feet from the edge of the
floodplain or stream bank.
(3) For slope values 7.5% and greater, as measured 250 feet from the edge of the
floodplain or stream bank, an additional 30 feet shall be added to the 50 -foot
buffer (80 feet total).
(4) These calculations shall be made for both sides of either the stream bank or
floodplain, whichever is greater.
(D) Method B - Stream Buffer Based on Slope and Groundcover
6.13.4 Minimum Buffer Widths for Watershed Protection Overlay Districts
(A) University Lake Critical Area (UNIV -CA)
(1) The buffer width adjacent to streams shall be calculated for both Method A and
Method B, and at any given point along the stream, the width of the buffer shall
be the larger of the two.
(2) The same method shall be used to calculate the buffer around the reservoir itself.
New structures shall be located at least 150' from the reservoir or outside of the
stream buffer, whichever is greater.
(B) University Lake Protected Watershed (UNIV -PW)
(1) The buffer width shall be calculated for both Method A and Method B, and at any
given point along the stream, the width of the buffer shall be the larger of the two.
(C) Cane Creek Critical Area (CANE -CA) & Upper Eno Critical Area (U- ENO -CA)
(1) The buffer width adjacent to streams shall be the width calculated using Method
A.
(2) Method A shall also be used to calculate the buffer around the reservoir itself.
New structures shall be located at least 150' from the reservoir or outside of the
stream buffer, whichever is greater.
(D) Upper Eno Protected (U- ENO -PW), Lower Eno Protected (L- ENO -PW) & Back Creek
Protected (BACK -PW)
(1) The buffer width shall be as calculated using Method A, or 150', whichever is
less, except where density exceeds 1 du /ac and impervious surface exceeds
12 %.
(2) Where density exceeds 1 du /ac and impervious surface exceeds 12 %, the buffer
width shall be calculated as above, but shall not be less than 100'.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -97
Article 6: Development Standards
Section 6.13: Stream Buffers
(E) Cane Creek Protected (CANE -PW), Little River Protected (LITTLE -PW), South Hyco
Creek Protected (HYCO -PW), Flat River Protected (FLAT -PW), Haw River Protected
(HAW -PW) & Jordan Lake Protected (JORDAN -PW)
(1) The buffer width shall be the width calculated using Method A, or 150', whichever
is less.
6.13.5 Areas Outside of Watershed Protection Overlay Districts
(A) In areas not identified on the Official Zoning Atlas as Watershed Protection Overlay
Districts, a stream buffer a minimum of 50 feet in width shall be established along both
sides of streams identified per Section 6.13.2.
(B) Stream buffers for Soil Survey streams shall only be calculated using Method A as
explained in Section 6.13.3.
6.13.6 Uses Allowable Within Stream Buffers
(A) General Standards
(1) Prior to any land disturbing activity within a designated stream buffer, the
property owner shall provide written notification of the location and nature of the
proposed use to the Planning Department for review. The notification shall state
that the use shall be designed, constructed, and maintained to minimize soil
disturbance and to provide the maximum water quality protection practicable.
(2) All land disturbing activities within a designated stream buffer require approval of
the Erosion Control Officer in accordance with applicable State and local
regulations, as well as all other required local, State and /or Federal permits and
approvals prior to commencement of land disturbing activities.
(3) The submittal of additional information and /or applications may be required prior
to any land disturbing activity within a designated stream buffer, in accordance
with the provisions of this Ordinance.
(B) Additional Standards for Uses Allowable With Mitigation
(1) Development proposals shall be submitted and reviewed in accordance with this
Ordinance and all applicable State regulations.
(2) Mitigation shall be provided in accordance with adopted State standards and
shall be approved and inspected by the Erosion Control Officer or his /her
designee.
(C) Uses Allowable
The following uses are allowed as a matter of right in stream buffers, subject to the
General Standards established in Section 6.13.6(A), and any specific standards for the
use:
(1) Above - ground and buried utility lines for local distribution of electricity, telephone,
data, and cable television service, as well as accessory and appurtenant
apparatus such as poles, guy wires, transformers and switching boxes.
(2) Individual or community wells.
(3) Public water and sewer lines are permitted only as allowed by the Orange
County Water and Sewer Policy, and may be located within stream buffers only
to the extent necessary to cross the stream buffer as closely as possible to
perpendicular. Individual or community wastewater disposal systems are not
permitted in stream buffers.
(4) Public and private streets, bridges, railroad rights -of -way, and other similar travel
ways, provided that they enter and exit the buffer area as nearly perpendicular as
possible.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -98
(D)
Article 6: Development Standards
Section 6.13: Stream Buffers
(5) Archaeological activities /projects conducted in accordance with all applicable
County, State and Federal regulations.
(6) Dam /reservoir maintenance activities.
(7) Maintenance of existing outfalls provided they are managed to minimize the
sediment, nutrients, and other pollution that convey to waterbodies.
(8) Driveway crossings on single - family residential lots that disturb less than, or
equal to, 25 linear feet or 2,500 square feet of stream buffer.
(9) Greenways and /or hiking trails six feet in width composed of natural materials at
least 30 feet from the top of bank of a stream or water body.
(10) Historic preservation projects /activities.
(11) Periodic maintenance of modified natural streams, such as canals, and a
grassed travel way on one side of the surface water when alternative forms of
maintenance access are not practical.
(12) Public water and sewer lines that do not disturb over 40 linear feet.
(13) Stream restoration and /or stream bank stabilization.
(14) Wetland restoration, in accordance with all applicable County, State and Federal
regulations.
(15) Vegetation management, including but not limited to:
(a) Emergency fire control measures provided that topography is restored;
(b) Planting vegetation to enhance the riparian buffer;
(c) Pruning forest vegetation provided that the health and function of the
forest vegetation is not compromised and the pruning activity is
conducted by hand;
(d) Removal of individual trees which are in danger of causing damage to
dwellings, other structures or human life provided the activity is
conducted by hand; and
(e) Removal of poison ivy and other nuisance vegetation, including invasive
exotics, as identified by the NC Cooperative Extension.
Uses Allowable With Mitigation
The following uses are allowable within stream buffers with mitigation, subject to the
standards established in Sections 6.13.6(A) and 6.13.6(B) above, as well as any specific
standards for the use:
(1) Water dependent structures, such as docks, piers, public and private boat ramps,
boat houses over the water, walkways, water recreational amenities, and other
similar uses.
(2) New drainage outfalls provided that a stormwater management facility is installed
to control nutrients and attenuate flow before the conveyance discharges into the
stream buffer.
(3) Driveway crossings on single - family residential lots that disturb less than, or
equal to 150 linear feet or 1/3 of an acre of stream buffer.
(4) Any driveway or roadway, whether for a single - family residence or a subdivision,
that is parallel to the stream or water body, regardless of cumulative impact.
(5) Greenways and /or hiking trails six feet in width, with improved paths (i.e. paved,
wood decking, etc.) at least 30 feet from the top of bank of a stream or water
body.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -99
Article 6: Development Standards
Section 6.14: Stormwater Management
(6) Trail crossings, and associated bridge or other structure, provided they are
oriented perpendicular to the stream and constructed in accordance with best
management practices to minimize soil erosion and other adverse impacts to
water quality.
(7) Public water and sewer lines that disturb over 40 linear feet, but not greater than
150 linear feet of riparian buffer.
(8) Temporary roads intended for access to a property for development purpose.
(9) New stormwater management ponds, with or without a riparian buffer established
adjacent to the pond.
(10) Vegetation Management that includes the installation of new vegetation and a
one -time application of fertilizer to re- establish the vegetation.
(11) Vegetation Management / Replanting in an effort to protect existing structures.
6.13.7 Diffuse Flow Requirement
(A) Diffuse flow of runoff shall be maintained in the stream buffer by dispersing concentrated
flow and re- establishing vegetation.
(B) Concentrated runoff from new ditches or constructed conveyances shall be converted to
diffuse flow before the runoff enters the stream buffer.
(C) Periodic corrective action to restore diffuse flow shall be taken if necessary to impede the
formation of erosion gullies.
6.13.8 Land Disturbance and Planting of Vegetation
(A) Area within a stream buffer which is subject to serious erosion may be disturbed for the
purpose of planting and maintaining erosion - resistant vegetative cover.
(B) Existing forested areas or any other healthy vegetation may not be removed from a
stream buffer, except where replaced with vegetation resulting in comparable stormwater
runoff velocity and quantity one year after planting.
(C) New vegetation shall be planted to capture non - source pollutants before they reach the
perennial stream, as per applicable Orange County Standards.
6.14.1 Introduction
As a watershed becomes more developed, the amount of impervious surface increases, causing
a decrease in the rate at which stormwater runoff which can be absorbed into the soil. This
results in more stormwater flowing directly into streams and other water bodies. Because this
direct runoff has not been filtered through the soil, pollutants from the air and land surface enter
streams and increase the potential for pollution of drinking water supplies.
6.14.2 Purpose
The purpose of the Board of County Commissioners in adopting stormwater regulations is to
protect the water quality of the streams that lie within Orange County by reducing and controlling
stormwater runoff and addressing nutrient reductions for both new and existing development.
6.14.3 Jurisdiction -Wide and Inter -Local Approaches
(A) Orange County shall have the option of implementing jurisdiction -wide and /or inter -local
approaches to control stormwater runoff and achieve nutrient reductions.
(B) Any jurisdiction -wide and /or inter -local approaches must be approved by the Orange
County Board of Commissioners, and the Environmental Management Commission
before implementation.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 6 -100
Community Climate Action Plan
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Saving Energy,
Generating Renewable Energy, and Enhancing Ecosystems
Town of Carrboro, North Carolina
PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT (April 8, 2016)
BOARD OF ALDERMEN
LYDIA LAVELLE, MAYOR MICHELLE JOHNSON
BETHANY CHANEY DAMON SEILS
JACQUELYN GIST SAMMY SLADE
RANDEE HAVEN- O'DONNELL
With support from the Carrboro Energy and Climate Action Task Force:
Carolyn Buckner, Jeff Herrick, Kathy Kaufman, Jeanette O'Connor, Rob Pinder
Acknowledgments
The Carrboro Planning Board, Environmental Advisory Board, and Transportation Advisory
Board for sponsoring the Fall Forum series on Energy and Climate Action held at the Carrboro
ArtsCenter in 2014 and their review of a draft of this plan.
The Carrboro Board of Aldermen for adopting a proactive climate protection resolution, and
feedback on a draft of this plan.
Those who have worked to develop and support previous greenhouse house gas inventories for
Carrboro and Orange County.
The many people and organizations in the community involved in climate action work.
Fa[.)k Of ('Oirlt&rlt
ExecutiveSummary ......................................................................................................... ............................... i
Introduction.................................................................................................................... ..............................1
BeyondDoom and Gloom ........................................................................................... ..............................2
The Cities for Climate Protection Campaign and the Five Milestone Process ............ ..............................3
The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory .................................................................. ..............................4
Establishing Emissions Reductions Goals .................................................................... ..............................4
TheLocal Climate Action Plan ..................................................................................... ..............................6
CommunityIntegration ................................................................................................... ..............................7
Community Integration Recommendation #1: Create Grass Roots Partnerships to Engage Community9
Community Integration Recommendation #2: Expand Public Partnerships to More Explicitly Consider
ClimateAction .......................................................................................................... ...............................
11
Community Integration Recommendation #3: Create Green Neighborhood Program .........................12
Community Integration Recommendation #4: Integrate Climate Action with Local Living Economy...
14
Community Integration Recommendation #5: Expand Capacity ............................... .............................15
Community Integration Recommendation #6: Facilitate Low Cost Financing for Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy Projects ....................................................................................... .............................15
Community Integration Recommendation #7: Integrate Climate Action and Social /Equity Initiatives.
16
Building Energy Efficiency Measures ............................................................................. .............................19
Buildings Recommendation #1: 50% Challenge ......................................................... .............................20
Buildings Recommendation #2: Energy Audit /Performance Rating ........................ ...............................
22
Buildings Recommendation #3: Demonstrate /Pursue Energy Performance Beyond Minimum
Requirements for New Development ........................................................................ .............................23
Buildings Recommendation #4: Create Rental Property Task Force and Process ..... .............................24
Buildings Recommendation #5: Create Rental Property Registry/ Certification ...... ...............................
25
Transportation Measures ............................................................................................ ...............................
26
Transportation Recommendation #1: 50% Challenge ............................................... .............................27
Transportation Recommendation #2: Enhance Transit Service ................................ .............................28
Transportation Recommendation #3: Improve Vanpool /Carpool Options ............. ...............................
29
Transportation Recommendation #4: Further Promote Walking, Biking, Transit ..... .............................29
Transportation Recommendation #5: Limit Idling in School Loading Zones ............. .............................31
Renewable Energy Measures ......................................................................................... .............................32
Renewable Energy Recommendation #1: Pursue Community Solar Projects ........... .............................33
Renewable Energy Recommendation #2: Pursue Downtown Geothermal Heating and Cooling .........
34
Renewable Energy Recommendation #3: Create Rental Property Task Force and Process ...................35
Ecosystem Protection and Enhancement ...................................................................... .............................36
Ecosystem Recommendation #1: Pursue Stormwater Utility .................................... .............................38
Ecosystem Recommendation #2: Evaluate Extent to Which the Deer Population and Climate Change
affect Native Plant Ecosystems .................................................................................. .............................40
Ecosystem Recommendation #3: Accelerate /Expand Organic Waste Collection /Composting .............42
Ecosystem Recommendation #4: Create a Tree Coalition ......................................... .............................43
Ecosystem Recommendation #5: Improve Regulations and Community Capacity to Discourage
Invasive Plants and Encourage Native Plants ............................................................ .............................44
Implementation Recommendations .............................................................................. .............................47
Appendix1 ..................................................................................................................... .............................49
Boulder's Local Climate Action Plan and Climate Commitment ................................ .............................49
Appendix2 ..................................................................................................................... .............................50
How the Jones Household Goes Carbon Free in 10 Years ......................................... .............................50
Appendix3 ..................................................................................................................... .............................53
10 Things You Want to Know about Human Nature if you're Fighting Climate Change ........................53
Appendix4 ................................................................................................................... ...............................
57
Energy in the 21st Century: Excerpts from Post Carbon Institute's Energy Primer ... .............................57
Executive Summary
In 2009, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen passed a resolution committing the Town to take steps to
reduce emissions of greenhouse gases that are causing global climate change. In doing so, and through
work leading up to the resolution with other Orange County governments, the Town joined a group of
more than 1000 cities, towns and metropolises around the world who are taking part in the Cities for
Climate Protection Campaign. The campaign follows a 'Five Milestone' process that includes a
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventory, establishment of an emissions reduction target,
development and implementation of an action plan to reduce emissions, and monitoring of emissions
reductions measures.
This document expands on previous efforts, with an emphasis on completion of the second milestone —
further articulation of a reduction target, and the third milestone — the drafting of a Local Climate Action
Plan. In 2014, Carrboro developed a plan focusing on the Town's municipal operations. This plan is a
companion and follow up to that effort with an emphasis on measures that the broader community is
asked to take in order to achieve GHG reduction targets. The recommendations offered are intended to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while raising the community's awareness of and involvement in
solutions to global climate change and a post- carbon energy future, adaptation to changes and
enhancement of ecosystem resilience.
A significant recommendation of this report is for the Town and community to adopt a goal of a 50%
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2025, as supported by a broad community campaign.
Additional recommendations are provided around the themes of community integration, energy
efficiency of buildings, transportation, renewable energy, and ecosystem protection and restoration.
Measures outlined in the Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions not only contribute to overall climate
change mitigation, but can also provide the community with many local benefits such as financial
savings through energy efficiency, the creation of newjobs, improved air quality and public health, and a
healthier forest and streams.
The degree to which the broad campaign advocated for in this plan takes off will depend on many
factors. The following direction is suggested to build momentum: 1) focused attention is needed to
more rapidly reduce energy use in buildings; 2) similarly, the efforts underway to increase transit,
bicycling and pedestrian modes of travel as well as vanpooling, carpooling, and carsharing need to gain
even more traction; 3) innovative efforts are needed to support residents with limited opportunities for
renewable energy; 4) grass roots efforts and new partnerships need to be fostered; 5) the paradigm for
local environmental /ecosystem protection and restoration needs to expand to consider the stress of
climate change; and 6) last not but not least, individuals, businesses, and in effect the entire community
need to take the recommendations in this report to heart.
Research 11 s
Land Application of Treated Sewage Sludge: Community Health and
Environmental Justice
Amy Lowman,' Mary Anne McDonald,' Steve Wing,' and Naeema Muhammad3
'Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA; 'Department of Community
and Family Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA; 'Concerned Citizens of Tillery, Tillery, North Carolina, USA
BACKGROUND: In the United States, most of the treated sewage sludge (biosolids) is applied to
farmland as a soil amendment. Critics suggest that rules regulating sewage sludge treatment and
land application may be insufficient to protect public health and the environment. Neighbors of
land application sites report illness following land application events.
OB1ECTrvES: We used qualitative research methods to evaluate health and quality of life near land
application sites.
METHODS: We conducted in -depth interviews with neighbors of land application sites and used
qualitative analytic software and team -based methods to analyze interview transcripts and identify
themes.
RESULTS: Thirty -four people in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia responded to
interviews. Key themes were health impacts, environmental impacts, and environmental justice.
Over half of the respondents attributed physical symptoms to application events. Most noted
offensive sludge odors that interfere with daily activities and opportunities to socialize with family
and friends. Several questioned the fairness of disposing of urban waste in rural neighborhoods.
Although a few respondents were satisfied with the responsiveness of public officials regarding
sludge, many reported a lack of public notification about land application in their neighborhoods,
as well as difficulty reporting concerns to public officials and influencing decisions about how the
practice is conducted where they live.
CONCLUSIONS: Community members are key witnesses of land application events and their poten-
tial impacts on health, quality of life, and the environment. Meaningful involvement of community
members in decision making about land application of sewage sludge will strengthen environmental
health protections.
KEY WORDS: biosolids, environmental health, environmental justice, land application, qualitative
research, sewage sludge. Environ Health Perspect 121:537 -542 (2013). http: / /dx.doi.org /10.1289/
ehp.1205470 [Online 11 March 20131
In the United States, municipal wastewater
must be treated before it is returned to the
environment. Sewage sludge is the solid by-
product of wastewater treatment. Most of the
sludge created by municipal wastewater treat-
ment plants in the United States undergoes
biological, chemical, or thermal treatment and
is then applied to farmland as a soil amend-
ment [National Research Council (NRC)
2002]. Treated sewage sludge, also called bio-
solids, contains nutrients useful as fertilizers as
well as heavy metals, toxicants, and pathogens.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
regulations require periodic monitoring of
certain heavy metals and indicator bacteria in
treated sludge, but there is no routine moni-
toring of other toxicants (NRC 2002; U.S.
EPA 1994). Most treated sludge is labeled
Class B, which has less stringent requirements
for pathogen reduction than Class A sludge;
the two classes are the same with respect to
other contaminants (NRC 2002). Treated
sludge is usually applied to land as a liquid
spray or solid cake, creating aerosols and dust
particles that can drift downwind from the
application sites (Baertsch et al. 2007; Paez-
Rubio et al. 2007).
Some scientists suggest the rules regulat-
ing sludge treatment and land application are
based on outdated science and may be insuffi-
cient to protect public health and the environ-
ment (Gattie and Lewis 2004; Harrison and
McBride 2008; Harrison et al. 1999, 2006;
Lewis and Gattie 2002; Lewis et al. 2002;
Mathney 2011; Snyder 2008). Monitoring
land application, enforcing regulatory rules,
and systematic tracking and investigation of
public concerns are often limited by staffing
shortages and budget constraints at federal,
state, and local levels (Harrison and Eaton
2001; Lowman et al. 2011; U.S. EPA 2000,
2002). The U.S. EPA's Inspector General
(U.S. EPA 2000) found that,
while EPA promotes land application, EPA can-
not assure the public that current land application
practices are protective of human health and the
environment.
Some residents living near land applica-
tion sites associate physical symptoms such as
mucous membrane irritation, respiratory and
gastrointestinal distress, headaches, and skin
rashes with land application of sewage sludge
(Harrison and Oakes 2002; Lewis et al. 2002;
Lowman et al. 2011; Shields 2002). Residents
also report foul odors and interference with
their quality of life and beneficial use of their
property (Lowman et al. 2011; Shields 2002).
Although in 2002 the NRC's Committee on
Toxicants and Pathogens in Biosolids Applied
to Land recommended studying human expo-
sure and illness, little research into the experi-
ences of persons living near such sites has
been conducted since then (NRC 2002).
This article reports the results of analyses of
qualitative interviews conducted with neigh-
bors of sites where sewage sludge is applied to
land. Qualitative research is of increasing inter-
est in environmental health science, and has
been promoted as a useful tool that can com-
plement traditional exposure assessment and
epidemiologic studies (Brown 2003; Moffatt
and Pless- Mulloli 2003; Scammell 2010).
Little quantitative research has been con-
ducted on the impacts of the land application
of treated sewage sludge on neighbors' health
because of a lack of systems for surveillance
of reported illness (Keil et al. 2011; Lowman
et al. 2011), the episodic nature of most appli-
cations, and low population density in rural
areas. We use qualitative methods to provide
detailed information about people's percep-
tions of health and quality of life, including
temporal sequences of events that may be dif-
ficult to ascertain in traditional cross - sectional
epidemiologic research. Furthermore, we use
qualitative research to understand local and
individual factors that may modify a person's
experience with the land application of sewage
sludge and to place these experiences into a
broader context of environmental injustice.
Address correspondence to A. Lowman, Department of
Epidemiology, University of North Carolina, Campus
Box # 8050, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 USA. Telephone:
(919) 966 -1306. E-mail: amy—lowman @unc.edu
We thank the study participants for their
generous contribution of time and thoughtfulness
to this research. We also thank the members of the
community-based organizations who brought this
research topic to our attention and contributed to the
development of the research questions.
This research was funded by the National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (grant
5ROlES015469 -02).
S.W. provided pro bona testimony in legal proceed-
ings related to landfills and provided advice on radia-
tion and health for a law firm that made a gift to the
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. S.W. and
A.L. participated in research in 2006 -2007 funded
by the Water and Environment Research Foundation
(WERE) to develop a protocol for tracking and
investigating symptoms reported near sewage sludge
land application sites. N.M. is an employee of the
Concerned Citizens of Tillery. M.A.M. declares she
has no actual or potential competing financial interests.
Received 15 May 2012; accepted 28 February 2013.
Environmental Health Perspectives • VOLUME 121 1 NUMBER 5 1 May 2013 537
IIIIIIIIIIII
Lowman et al.
Methods
Community members who reported health
impacts and nuisances from land - applied
sludge near their homes brought this research
topic to our attention. We worked with
community-based groups in North Carolina
and Virginia to identify and invite eligible
individuals to respond to an in- depth, semi -
structured interview about their experiences
living near treated sludge application sites.
Some eligible participants contacted us after
learning about our research through pub-
lic documents or word of mouth. Interview
respondents often referred the interviewers
to other individuals who were willing to talk
about living near sludge application sites.
This recruitment method is a type of pur-
posive sampling commonly used in qualita-
tive research (Merriam 2009; Patton 2002).
Rather than using random samples to general-
ize findings to populations, purposive sam-
pling selects a sample for its ability to provide
insight on a research topic (Ulin et al. 2005).
Qualitative findings based on purposive sam-
pling may be transferable or relevant to other
populations if key elements of the population
and context are similar to those of the original
research (Bernard 2010; Patton 2002).
To be eligible for the study, participants
needed to be >_ 18 years of age, live within
1 mile of a permitted sewage sludge land
application site, speak English, and be will-
ing to spend 1 -2 hr responding to a semi -
structured, open -ended interview about their
experiences living near the site. To show
appreciation for interviewees' time, we sent
each participant a $25 honorarium.
We (all of the authors) had interviewing
experience and all of us conducted interviews
between 2009 and 2011. We typically inter-
viewed in pairs at residents' homes or at pri-
vate meeting places of their choosing. We
completed part of one interview by phone.
Often we interviewed two people together,
such as a husband and wife. At the beginning
of each interview, we explained the research
project and obtained informed signed con-
sent from participants to participate in a
recorded interview. Interviewers followed a
semistructured open -ended discussion guide
that included the following topics: partici-
pants' history with the community and their
land and what these mean to them; common
indoor and outdoor activities; observations or
concerns about the surrounding natural envi-
ronment; perceptions of and experiences with
sludge application near their home; individual
and community response to the application
of sludge; coping mechanisms; and efforts to
obtain information, contact authorities, and
investigate avenues for action. The guide drew
from input from persons living near sludge
application sites and from a guide developed
for previous research on air pollution from
industrial hog operations in North Carolina
(Tajik et al. 2008; Wing et al. 2008).
Interviews lasted from 45 min to 2 hr. At
each interview, participants provided infor-
mation about their date of birth, sex, race,
and ethnicity. After the interview, research-
ers wrote or dictated field notes that included
observations of the interview context and other
information not captured in the recording; for
example, descriptions of participants' homes
and yards that provided information on social
and economic background, participants' inau-
dible reactions that captured depth of feeling
on a subject, and observed similarities and dif-
ferences among participant responses that con-
tributed to the development of themes. When
we determined that all interview topics had
reached data saturation, that is, when nothing
new or contradictory was emerging from the
interviews, we concluded data collection.
We transcribed recorded interviews and
field notes and reviewed them for accuracy.
We read and discussed the interviews as they
were completed and transcribed so that early
interviews informed later ones. This itera-
tive process enabled us to identify important
themes, note areas where we needed more
information, and determine whether there
were topics that needed further clarification
and additional research (Gibson and Brown
2009; Guest et al. 2012; Patton 2002).
As a team, we developed a detailed code -
book to analyze the interviews. One team
member (A.L.) used Atlas.ti (Scientific Software
Development GmbH, Berlin, Germany) to
code segments of text from the the interview
transcripts and to combine similarly coded
passages across all interviews. These grouped
passages enabled us to conduct team -based eval-
uations of the coding, refine code definitions,
examine topics that included a range of experi-
ences or opinions, and identify themes and rep-
resentative quotations (Guest et al. 2012; Ulin
et al. 2005). We based our analytic themes and
codes on our interview questions and on domi-
nant themes present in participants' responses.
Throughout the analysis we referred to the texts
to check that our interpretations were consistent
with the data (Guest et al. 2012).
To further enhance the trustworthiness
of our analysis, we solicited feedback from
five randomly selected respondents about
the three main themes we used to summa-
rize our findings and our interpretations of
their personal statements. We telephoned the
five respondents and presented them with the
themes and transcriptions of their interview
statements related to those themes. Then we
asked whether the themes accurately captured
what they said. All five respondents were in
complete agreement with the themes and
interpretations reported in this article.
The research was approved by the institu-
tional review boards (IRBs) at The University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (08 -0813)
and The Duke University Medical Center
(Pro00016294). In addition to following
the IRB- approved protocol for protecting
the confidentiality of study participants, we
obtained a certificate of confidentiality from
the National Institutes of Health to help pro-
tect personally identifiable information from
being released in any federal, state, or local
legal proceedings, even under court order
orsubpoena.
Results
We completed 26 interviews with 34 indi-
viduals 35 -83 years of age living in rural and
semirural areas within approximately 1 mile of
sewage sludge land application sites in North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. Twenty
participants were from North Carolina, 6 from
South Carolina, and 8 from Virginia. Nineteen
interviews were with individuals, 5 with mar-
ried couples, 1 with a brother and sister, and
1 with a married couple and a relative. Of
the respondents, 17 were male, 17 female,
21 white, 12 African American, and 1 Hispanic.
Interviewers observed that most participants
lived in modest homes and neighborhoods that
could be described as working or middle class,
although a few lived in larger, newer homes that
could be described as upper - middle class.
At the time of the interviews, all but
5 respondents had lived in their homes for
5 years or more. Almost half (16/34) of the
respondents had lived in their homes or
neighborhoods most of their lives, and 11 lived
on property or in neighborhoods where their
families had lived for more than a generation.
Eleven reported having a background in farm-
ing. About half maintained gardens on their
property, and many tended outdoor animals,
including horses, goats, fowl, and dogs.
The study results are categorized accord-
ing to key themes identified in the interviews
about the experience of living near land -
applied sewage sludge fields: health impacts,
environmental impacts, and environmental
justice.
Health impacts. Most respondents felt
that sludge applications had a negative impact
on some aspect of their health. The World
Health Organization (WHO) defines health
as a state of well- being, and not just the
absence of disease (WHO 1948). We drew
on this definition to categorize respondents'
remarks on health impacts into the following
subthemes: physical well- being, mental well-
being, and social well- being.
Physical well- being. Nearly all respon-
dents (30/34) described offensive odors asso-
ciated with sludge. The extent to which the
odor affected the respondents varied. Some
described it as "unbearable," others as an odor
they "got used to," and one respondent said,
"it don't bother me." Respondents reported
538 VOLUME 121 1 NUMBER 51 May 2013 • Environmental Health Perspectives
they notice sludge odor for periods lasting
from 2 days to 6 months after application.
Over half (18/34) of the interview respon-
dents associated acute physical symptoms
that lasted a short period of time with sludge
application events near their home (Table 1).
The most commonly reported symptoms were
eye, nose, and throat irritations and gastro-
intestinal symptoms (nausea, vomiting, diar-
rhea). Other symptoms reported by more
than one respondent include cough, difficulty
breathing, sinus congestion or drainage, and
skin infections or sores.
One respondent described recurring physi-
cal reactions coincident with sludge applications
near her home:
All I know is [the sludge] will make your eyes burn.
It will make your throat burn. And then you'll start
coughing, and after that, you can't breathe. And
that's when I go to the doctors.
A farmer and long -time resident described
the nauseating effects of sludge odor:
The stench it would actually make you sick. It
takes a lot to bother me, but it certainly got to me.
I'd get nauseated after being out for about an hour
in the morning.
Other physical symptoms or conditions
that were mentioned by no more than one
respondent include pneumonia, swelling of
brain arteries, increased seizures, temporary
blindness, swollen tongue, closed throat, lung
infection, and migraine.
A few respondents expressed concern that
they or their family members have chronic
health problems, such as asthma or cancer, that
make them more sensitive to harmful constit-
uents in sludge. The parents of a child with
chronic respiratory problems said they keep him
indoors as long as sludge odors from a neighbor-
ing field are present —up to 2 or 3 months —to
protect him from possible airborne pollutants.
Mental well- being. Over half of the
respondents (18/34) said sludge application
in their neighborhoods stirred unsettling emo-
tions, including anger, frustration, misery, fear,
worry, anxiety, insecurity, and helplessness.
Respondents most commonly expressed anger
related to not being informed about sludge
application in their neighborhood, reckless
sludge truck drivers, regulators who seem
unconcerned with violations of land applica-
tion rules, public officials who do not respond
to reported concerns, and health impacts.
A woman who reported that she and other
family members get sick after nearby sludge
applications described the emotional impact
of sludge this way:
I'm bitter and frustrated and angry because [sludge]
is affecting my family .... And it's going to alter
the rest of their lives because of something that's
been laid down next to them that we knew nothing
about, and had no control over.
Sewage sludge, health, and environmental justice
Malodor from sludge seemed to affect
some respondents' mental states. As one
interviewee said,
I'm outside cutting grass or working in the garden
and constantly smelling that [sludge] .... Your atti-
tude changes by disturbances in your environment.
A war veteran with posttraumatic stress dis-
order reported experiencing flashbacks from
sludge odor reminiscent of the smell of burning
waste in a warzone:
[Sludge] is not just a nuisance; it's a medical prob-
lem for me .... I am not able to get myself to a
place where I can begin to heal if they're constantly
driving me backwards ... every time I've got to walk
out of my house and smell the freaking warzone.
Most respondents (26/34) shared ways that
sludge odor and other related nuisances inter-
fere with their enjoyment of home, property,
and the outdoors. One long -time rural resident
who joined her husband in the country after
they married volunteered this common senti-
ment about the impact of sludge odor on her
home life:
I don't want to come home because when we come
home, we're Locked in the house. My husband says,
"This is not the same. It's just not the same. We
can't really enjoy where we live."
Social well- being. Some respondents
(8/34) said sludge odors disrupt their oppor-
tunities to socialize with family and friends.
Several lamented they are unable to spend
time walking, playing, eating, or sitting out-
side as a family when sludge odor is present.
One father said,
We have a gazebo outside. We sit outside. At least,
that was our conversation in planning it. Family -
ness. And [sludge] took that away.
A few respondents said they refuse visits
from extended family members because of
the intensity of the sludge odor and concerns
about its health impacts. A mother and grand-
mother said,
My daughter wants to come up with the grandkids,
with the family —1 won't let her come when they're
sludging. She got so hurt one year. "Mommy, we're
coming for a week." I said, "No, you can't."
Others said sludge odors interfere with
social gatherings. One respondent whose fam-
ily has lived in his neighborhood for genera-
tions recalled,
They first put [sludge] out right before the Fourth
of July .... We had to put our plans to the side
on doing something on the outside. We usually
have cookouts, but you can't cook out in nothing
like that.
A total of 22 respondents named specific
activities they are unable to do because of
malodor from sludge during and for up to
several months after a sludge application event
(Table 2). The most frequently mentioned
activity limitations were letting children play
outdoors, opening house and car windows,
and hosting relatives or outdoor social gath-
erings. Others include line -drying laundry,
walking freely around the neighborhood, gar-
dening or working outside, sitting outside as
a family, and staying home. A few respon-
dents described ways of coping with the odor
so they could continue their usual activities.
One woman said she wears a mask to do barn
chores when sludge odor is strong. Another
said she wears a mask to leave the house when
the odor is present.
Environmental impacts. Over half of the
interview respondents (18/34) reported observ-
ing land application activities of environmen-
tal concern to them. The most commonly
reported concerns include sludge spillage on
public roadways and private property, grazing
cattle on land- applied pasture soon after appli-
cation, the absence of signage at land appli-
cation sites, and sludge runoff into surface
waters. Table 3 lists these and other observa-
tions of concern to respondents, as well as the
number of respondents who reported them. In
some cases, self- informed respondents said that
the land application activities they observed
were violations of state standards and that they
attempted to report them to officials. In other
cases, respondents had no knowledge of their
state's land application standards.
About one -third of the respondents
(12/34) said they noticed changes in the natu-
ral environment since sludge application began
Table 1. Acute (short duration) physical symp-
toms respondents attributed to sludge exposure
(n = 18/34 respondents).
Let children play outdoors
No. of respondents
Acute symptom
reporting symptom
Eye, nose, throat irritation
8
Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea
8
Cough
5
Difficulty breathing
4
Sinus congestion, drainage
4
Skin infection, irritation, sore
2
Table 2. Activities respondents said they are unable
to do because of malodor from
sludge during and
for up to several months after a sludge application
event (n = 22/34 respondents).
No. of respondents
reporting activity
Activity
limitation
Let children play outdoors
8
Open house/car windows
8
Host relatives or outdoor social
6
gatherings
Line -dry laundry
5
Walk freely around the neighborhood
5
Garden or work outside
4
Sit outside as a family
3
Stay home
3
Environmental Health Perspectives • VOLUME 121 1 NUMBER 51 May 2013 539
IIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIII
Lowman et al.
in their neighborhood. For example, seven
respondents said they noticed more deaths and
illness among livestock and water life:
I Look at the sludge on this slope—when they put it
out, if it rains, this water flows down in this branch
.... Now there is no fish or anything that lives in
these little branches. No crawdads, anything ....
When I was growing up, we'd go there and I would
fish for them and so forth. But all this is gone ....
So that is saying something has killed all this stuff.
Five respondents reported a change in pri-
vate well water since applications began near
their homes, such as the presence of chemicals,
"green slime," bacteria, or odor. One report
came from a man whose property is adjacent
to a land application site:
My well ... water had an awful smell to it, and a
green slime ... like three months [after sludge appli-
cation] .... Before they [applied sludge], I had lived
here ... two and a half years. Without a problem.
Environmental] stice. The U.S. EPA
(2012) defines environmental justice as the
"fair treatment and meaningful involvement
of all people ... with respect to the develop-
ment, implementation, and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations, and policies."
Seventeen of 34 respondents indicated they
live near sludge application fields that are
owned by individuals or entities, including
municipalities, who do not live in the commu-
nity. In light of this, some said their rural or
semirural community was being used unfairly
as a "dumping ground" for city waste and that
they were left to deal with the odor, health
problems, and other nuisances that come with
it. Four respondents suggested they may be
treated inequitably when sites are selected for
land application because of their rural and
lower income status:
They've just got to have somewhere to dump the
stuff, and the rural communities, where you've got
low income people who aren't able to fight for them-
selves and stuff like that. That could be some of it.
Related to the "meaningful involvement"
component of environmental justice, most
respondents described barriers to obtain-
ing information about sludge application in
their neighborhood, reporting concerns and
problems to public officials, and influencing
decisions about the use of sludge where they
live. We used these three aspects of "meaning-
ful involvement" to categorize what respon-
dents said on the topic into three subthemes:
public notification, reporting concerns, and
influencing decisions.
Public notification. All respondents told
us that neither public officials nor land appli-
ers directly informed them that sewage sludge
from wastewater treatment plants would be
applied near their homes. Nearly all expressed
disappointment about this. One respondent
who reported sludge odors that smelled like
"death" and blamed sludge for contaminat-
ing his well water described resentment that
nobody informed him that a neighboring city
would apply sewage sludge a few hundred feet
from his home:
We have no knowledge about this, so therefore
we're not prepared for the surprises that may come
.... If somebody wants to come out here and
explain something to us and it sounds common
sense and Legit, we'll listen. Don't do us like you're
doing us now.
A few respondents mentioned that some
municipalities or land appliers post signs to
inform the public that land application is
occurring but that it is not an effective form of
notification because the signs are often difficult
to see and interpret. One respondent described
a "crumpled up and rusty sign down on the
ground." He said new signs have since been
posted but they are not posted at every "sludge
field." Another respondent said she saw a sign
by a field in the early days of land application
near her home, but at the time she did not
understand the terms on the sign, such as "bio-
solids, " residuals, " and "Nutriblend," which
she interpreted to mean they were "applying
vitamins." Others noted that signs were too
small or in obscure places, listed incorrect or
no contact information, were not posted far
enough in advance of application for residents
to be prepared, or were present for only a few
days rather than the entire application period,
which made them easy to miss. Six respondents
volunteered that they had not seen signs mark-
ing fields where land application was occurring.
Lacking information about land applica-
tion of sewage sludge, interviewees spoke about
their efforts to find out about it. Some said
Table 3. Number of respondents reporting observations of environmental concern (n = 18/34 respondents)
regarding land application operations.
No. of respondents
Reported observation reporting observation
Sludge spillage on road, path, or property
9
Cattle grazing <30 days after an application event
7
No signage marking application sites during and after application events
6
Sludge runoff into surface waters
5
Sludge in buffer zones (e.g., across property lines, near ditches, gardens, and private wells)
4
Failure of sludge to assimilate into soil
3
Unmarked application boundaries
2
Application during rain event
2
Application in critical watershed
1
they discussed it with neighbors. At least seven
made calls to public officials. Three of the seven
said they received straightforward answers
about land application of sewage sludge from
public officials. Four described difficulty reach-
ing officials and receiving satisfactory answers.
For example, they described being trans-
ferred on the telephone multiple times and
never reaching anyone who would give them
straight answers. They said officials responded
to their inquiries about sludge with ambiguous
statements, such as "it's safe," "it's a farming
experiment," "it's a special fertilizer," or "it's
approved." One woman said that she and her
neighbors did not learn the truth about what
was being applied in their neighborhood for
several years after she first asked a local waste-
water treatment official about it. Residents of
a different neighborhood reported that when
public officials evaded their questions about
sludge, they resorted to following sludge trucks
to find out what they were hauling.
Reporting concerns. Fourteen respon-
dents said they reported specific sludge - related
concerns to officials, including offensive odors,
land application in the rain, sludge run -off
into drinking water sources, land applica-
tion in critical watersheds, sludge that fails
to assimilate in the soil, suspected well water
contamination, reckless sludge trucks, health
problems concurrent with sludge application,
sensitivity of children and elderly to sludge
due to respiratory infections and an immuno-
compromised condition, inaccuracies in state
land application records, and questions about
the heavy metals content or general safety
of the sludge. A few respondents reported
improvements in the land application practice
over time and said officials and operators had
responded to their concerns by respecting set-
back distances, using alternate driving routes,
slowing down trucks hauling sludge, posting
correct contact information on land applica-
tion signs, and returning their phone calls
requesting information.
Nearly all (13/14) respondents who
reported concerns registered dissatisfaction
overall with the response from officials, saying
they "do nothing," "don't listen to the people,"
answer to the industry rather than the people,
"beat around the bush," "sidestep stuff," "deny
there's a problem," "don't investigate con-
cerns," "don't keep their word," don't answer
their phones, try to cover things up, say contra-
dictory things about the constituents of sludge,
act "like they don't care," and have no interest
in doctors' letters stating it is unsafe for their
patient to be exposed to sludge.
Influencing decisions. One respondent
described feeling "powerless" to influence land
application in his community because all the
power and control are with the sludge indus-
try, and local leadership will not or cannot
do anything to change the practice. Similar
540 VOLUME 121 1 NUMBER 51 May 2013 • Environmental Health Perspectives
frustration was expressed in other interviews.
For example, a respondent from Virginia said
the Dillon Rule, a judicial doctrine that limits
local government authority in Virginia, North
Carolina, and other states (Clay 1989), pre-
vents her local government from establishing
rules and regulations governing land applica-
tion where she lives. She felt that it was unfair
to favor one land owner who wants to use
sludge when the majority of the community is
opposed to it. She added,
The industry has all the control. Because they can
pull up application, or they can lay it down. And
they don't care. As long as they've got permission
to do it, they're going to do it.
In spite of perceived barriers to influenc-
ing land application decisions, over half of the
interviewees (19/34) described changes they
would like the industry to make to improve
public notification and enhance public and
environmental protections. First, several
respondents suggested public officials should
directly notify residents within 1 mile of sludge
fields before the first and subsequent land
application events. A few said residents should
be given the opportunity before land applica-
tion events to inform public officials of house-
hold members with health conditions, such as a
respiratory illness or weakened immune system,
so that an injection method of land application
can be used to better safeguard their health, or
so application at the site can be suspended.
Some respondents who reported poorly
visible signs near sludge fields or who reported
seeing no signs at all suggested that land appli-
ers post large visible signs 2 weeks before
application and for the duration of the event.
Respondents said this would allow them to
prepare for the event and take necessary safety
precautions for their family and animals. Also
related to public notifications, some respon-
dents said they would like to receive the results
of sludge testing from the wastewater treat-
ment plants that apply waste near their homes
in order to monitor concentrations of harmful
constituents and possible concerns.
Respondents concerned about well water
contamination said the city should provide
water to residents in land application areas or
offer free periodic testing of their private well
water to evaluate its safety. A few respondents
said application in a critical watershed and
land application before forecasted rain events
should be prohibited. If the latter should occur,
respondents said the sludge should be tilled
under immediately following application to
prevent runoff. Some respondents also felt that
land application should not occur under windy
conditions because of the increased likelihood
of exposing neighbors to migrating pollut-
ants. Generally speaking, respondents who
were aware of land application rules and who
reported violations said that better enforcement
Sewage sludge, health, and environmental justice
of existing rules is needed to protect human
and environmental health.
Respondents who felt there were conflicts
of interest in land application governance and
practice that undermine human health and
the environment said these should be mini-
mized by contracting with independent sci-
entists to perform and report soil and sludge
batch testing; funding independent, formal
research about health and environmental
impacts of sludge application; prohibiting
state and local health departments and the
U.S. EPA from promoting land application;
and making government employees respon-
sible for telling residents the truth about land
application.
Finally, a few respondents said they would
like the land application industry to improve
and maintain roads damaged by the frequent
travel of heavy sludge trucks.
Overall, eight respondents said they would
like land application to stop, either indefinitely
or until independent research can "prove it's
safe" for human health and the environment.
Discussion
We used qualitative research methods to
enhance understanding of the impacts of land -
applied sewage sludge on the health and qual-
ity of life of nearby populations. Respondents
reported symptoms consistent with findings
from earlier studies that report neighbors of
land application sites experience physical reac-
tions to land- applied sludge (Gattie and Lewis
2004; Lewis et al. 2002). Confined animal
feeding operations (CAFOs) also apply liquid
wastes and sludge to farmland. CAFO neigh-
bors describe health impacts similar to those
reported by neighbors of land - applied sew-
age sludge (Butlers 2005; Horton et al. 2009;
Radon et al. 2007; Schiffman 1998; Schiffman
et al. 2000; Schinasi et al. 2011; Tajik et al.
2008; Thu 2002; Thu et al. 1997; Wing and
Wolf 2000; Wing et al. 2008). The overlap of
hazardous agents in CAFO waste and treated
sewage sludge, including odorant compounds,
endotoxins, and other allergens and irritants,
suggests that similar community health impacts
are plausible (Lewis et al. 2002).
Respondents also reported adverse impacts
on their mental and social well-being and on
the surrounding natural environment. Some
said they observed sludge spillage on public
roadways and private property, grazing cattle
on land - applied pasture soon after applica-
tion, and sludge runoff into surface waters.
These and other land application activities
that respondents said they witnessed are vio-
lations of land application standards in one
or more of the three states represented in
this study (Harrison and Eaton 2001; North
Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources 2006; South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental
Control 2009; Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality 2011), highlighting
the need for stricter enforcement of standards.
Respondents also described environmental
injustices related to land application of sewage
sludge, including barriers to participating in
decisions about how the practice is conducted
in their neighborhood. Land application of
sewage sludge is part of a larger context of envi-
ronmental injustice that characterizes relation-
ships between urban areas that create wastes
and nearby rural areas that receive the wastes.
In addition to sewage sludge, urban wastes
disposed in rural and semirural communities
include municipal solid wastes, construction
and demolition debris, and industrial wastes
(Norton et al. 2007). Jones (2011) describes
the urban —rural dimension of environmental
injustice this way:
For the majority of Americans who live in metro-
politan areas, rural dumping becomes a logical
choice: undeveloped land is inexpensive and avail-
able, fewer residents will be harmed should con-
tainment measures fail, and, most importantly,
nuisances and dangers are removed from their
own neighborhoods.
This report does not include everything
respondents said about living near sludge appli-
cation sites; rather it represents the dominant
themes that we identified in the open -ended
interviews. There were few positive remarks
about sludge and the response of industry and
government officials to residents' concerns,
possibly because of our method of recruiting
participants. We asked community contacts
to help us identify people who could pro-
vide information on the subject of living near
sludge application sites. Although we did not
ask for referrals to people who had problems
with sludge, people with negative opinions of
the practice may share local social networks,
which could lead to their perspectives being
overrepresented. Alternatively, some rural resi-
dents who have been negatively affected by
land application of sludge may be unwilling to
speak out or participate in research because they
fear retribution from influential land owners or
government officials who benefit from sludge
application and control rental property, access
to resources, or jobs. In addition, we are unable
to report the numbers of respondents who had
similar or opposing views or experiences for
all interview topics because we obtained the
information through open -ended interviews
that did not probe the participants to respond
to a list of standardized questions. Our study
was not designed to quantify the prevalence or
incidence of reported symptoms, health impacts
and other concerns in populations near land
application sites.
Our study does demonstrate that people
of diverse backgrounds who live in three dif-
ferent states raised health and environmental
concerns about land application. Similarities
Environmental Health Perspectives • VOLUME 121 1 NUMBER 51 May 2013 541
IIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIII
Lowman et al.
in participant statements, issues raised, and
terminology used suggest that the health and
environmental issues identified here warrant
attention from environmental health scien-
tists and public health officials. Although dif-
ferences in the composition and treatment of
sewage sludge, land application methods, and
geographic features of application sites make
the transferability of results to other locations
uncertain, case reports indicate that similar
health and quality of life issues are raised in
other states and countries (Harrison and Oakes
2002; Lewis et al. 2002; Lowman et al. 2011;
Shields 2002).
Conclusion
Most respondents suggested that if land appli-
cation continues, it should be conducted in
a more just and democratic way-one that
informs people who may be affected by the
application before it occurs, takes commu-
nity input seriously and adapts the practice
accordingly, and ensures that people and their
environment are kept safe from harm.
Phil Brown (2003), a professor of sociology
at Brown University who has studied contami-
nated communities worldwide, concluded,
Virtually all cases of contaminated communities are
detected by lay discovery, largely because affected
populations tend to notice environmental prob-
lems. As well, scientists and government agencies
are not usually carrying out routine surveillance
tbat would detect such problems.
Surveillance and monitoring of land
application of sewage sludge is limited, and
enforcement of the rules is weak (Harrison and
Eaton 2001; Lowman et al. 2011; U.S. EPA
2000, 2002). Community members are key
witnesses of land application events and their
potential impacts on health, quality of life, and
the environment. As such, they may consider
documenting their experiences by taking photo-
graphs and keeping diaries with dates, times,
and descriptions of application events, truck
traffic, odor, physical reactions, environmental
impacts, or other observations. Residents' docu-
mentation and ideas for improvements to land
application offer a distinct perspective on the
practice that industry and government officials
lack. Meaningful involvement of community
members in decision making about land appli-
cation of sewage sludge will strengthen environ-
mental health protections.
REFERENCES
Baertsch C, Paez -Rubio T, Viau E, Peccia J. 2007. Source
tracking aerosols released from land- applied class B bio-
solids during high -wind events. Appl Environ Microbiol
73(14):4522 -4531.
Bernard HR. 2010. Analyzing Qualitative Data: Systematic
Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications Inc.
Brown P. 2003. Qualitative methods in environmental health
research. Environ Health Perspect 111:1789 -1798.
Bullets S. 2005. Environmental stressors, perceived control,
and health: the case of residents near large -scale hog
farms in eastern North Carolina. Human Ecology 33:1 -16.
Clay WL. 1989. Dillon's Rule. Virginia Town and City, August
24(8). Available: http:// www .fairfaxcounty.gov /dmb /fcpos/
dillon.pdf [accessed 22 February 20131.
Gattie DK, Lewis DL. 2004. A high -level disinfection standard for
land applying sewage sludges (biosolids). Environ Health
Perspect 112:126 -131.
Gibson WJ' Brown A. 2009. Working with Qualitative Data.
Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications Inc.
Guest G, MacGueen KM, Namey EE. 2012. Applied Thematic
Analysis. lsted. LosAngeles:Sage Publications Inc.
Harrison EZ, Eaton MM. 2001. The role of municipalities in
regulating the land application of sewage sludges and
septage. Nat Resour J 41:1 -47.
Harrison EZ' M cBride MB. 2008. Case for Caution Revisited:
Health and Environmental Impacts of Application of
Sewage Sludges to Agricultural Land. Cornell Waste
Management Institute. Available: http: / /cwmi.ess.cornell.
edu /case.pdf [accessed 7 September 20121.
Harrison EZ, McBride MB, Bouldin DR. 1999. Land application of
sewage sludges: an appraisal of the US regulations. Int J
Environ Pollut 11(1):1 -36.
Harrison EZ, Oakes SR. 2002. Investigation of alleged health
incidents associated with land application of sewage
sludges. New SoIut 12(4):387 -408.
Harrison EZ, Oakes SR, Hysell M, Hay A. 2006. Organic chemi-
cals in sewage sludges. Sci Total Environ 367:481 -497.
Horton RA, Wing S, Marshall SW, Brownley KA. 2009. Malodor
as a trigger of stress and negative mood in neighbors of
industrial hog operations. Am J Public Health 99(suppl
3):S610 -S615.
Jones CC. 2011. Environmental justice in rural context: land -
application of biosolids in central Virginia. Environ Justice
4(1):1 -15.
Keil A, Wing S, Lowman A. 2011. Suitability of public records for
evaluating health effects of treated sewage sludge in North
Carolina. NC Mad J 72(2):98 -104.
Lewis DL, Gattie DK. 2002. Pathogen risks from applying sew-
age sludge to land. Environ Sci Technol 36(13):286A 293A.
Lewis DL, Gattie DK, Novak ME, Sanchez S, Pumphrey C. 2002.
Interactions of pathogens and irritant chemicals in land -
applied sewage sludge (biosolids[. New Solut 12(4):409 -423.
Lowman A, Wing S, Crump C, MacDonald PDM, Heaney C,
Aitken MD. 2011. Public officials' perspectives on tracking
and investigating symptoms reported near sewage sludge
land application sites. J Environ Health 73(6):14 -20.
Mathney JM. 2011. A critical review of the U.S. EPA's risk
assessment for the land application of sewage sludge.
New Solut 21(1):43 -56.
Merriam SB. 2009. Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and
Implementation. San Francisco, CA:Jossey -Bass.
Moffatt S, Pless - Mulloli T. 2003. "It wasn't the plague we
expected." Parents' perceptions of the health and envi-
ronmental impact of opencast coal mining. Soc Sci Mad
57(3):437 -451.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. 2006. Subchapter 02T Waste Not Discharged
to Surface Waters. Section .0100-General Requirements.
Available: http: / /neruIes.state.nc.us /neac /title %2015a%20
- % 20environment% 20a nd % 20natural % 20resources/
chapter % 2002% 20- %20environmental %20management/
subchapter %20V subchapter %20t %20rules.htmI [accessed
7 September 20121.
Norton JM, Wing S, Lipscomb HJ, Kaufman JS, Marshall SW,
Cravey AJ. 2007. Race, wealth, and solid waste facilities in
North Carolina. Environ Health Perspect 115:1344 -1350.
NRC (National Research Council). 2002. Biosolids Applied to
Land: Advancing Standards and Practices. Washington,
DC:National Academies Press.
Paez -Rubio T, Ramarui A, Sommer J, Xin H, Anderson J, Peccia J.
2007. Emission rates and characterization of aerosols pro-
duced during the spreading of dewatered class B biosolids.
Environ Sci Technol 41(10):3537 -3544.
Patton MG. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods.
3rd ad. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications Inc.
Radon K, Schulze A, Ehrenstein V, van Strien RT, Praml G,
Nowak D. 2007. Environmental exposure to confined animal
feeding operations and respiratory health of neighboring
residents. Epidemiology 18(3):300 -308.
Scammell MK. 2010. Qualitative environmental health research:
an analysis of the literature, 1991 -2008. Environ Health
Perspect 118:1146-1154.
Schiffman SS. 1998. Livestock odors: implications for human
health and well- being. J Anim Sci 76:1343 -1355.
Schiffman S, Walker J, Dalton P, Lorig T, Raymer J,
Shusterman D, at al. 2000. Potential health effects of odor
from animal operations, wastewater treatment, and recy-
cling of byproducts. J Agromedicine7(1):7 -81.
Schinasi L, Horton RA, Guidry VT, Wing S, Marshall SW,
Morland KB. 2011. Air pollution, lung function, and physical
symptoms in communities near concentrated Swine feed-
ing operations. Epidemiology 22(2):208-215.
Shields H. 2002. Sludge victims: voices from the field. New
Solut 12(4):363 -370.
Snyder C. 2008. Citizens for Sludge -Free Land. Testimony of
Caroline Snyder, Ph.D. U.S. Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee, September 11, 2008. Available: http: //
sludgefacts .org /EPWtestimony.pdf [accessed 7 September
2012].
South Carolina Departmentof Health and Environmental Control.
2009. Land Application of Sludge Program Approval.
Columbia, SC:Water Facilities Permitting Division, SCDHEC.
Tajik M, Muhammad N, Lowman A, Thu K, Wing S, Grant G.
2008. Impactof odorfrom industrial hog operations on daily
living activities. New Solut 18(2):193 -205.
Thu K. 2002. Public health concerns for neighbors of large -
scale swine production operations. J Agric Saf Health
80:175 -184.
Thu K, Donham K, Ziegenhorn R, Reynolds S, Thorne P,
Subramanian P, at al. 1997. A control study of the physical
and mental health of residents living near a large -scale
swine operation. J Agric Saf Health 3(1):13 -26.
Ulin PR, Robinson ET, Tolley EE. 2005. Qualitative Methods in
Public Health. San Francisco, CA:Jossey -Bass.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1994. A
Plain English Guide to the EPA Part 503 Biosolids Rule.
Washington, DC:U.S. EPA. Available: http: / /water.epa.gov/
scitech /wastetech /biosolids /503pe_index.cfm [accessed
7 September 20121.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. Office
of Inspector General Audit Report: Water Biosolids
Management and Enforcement. 2000 -P -10. Available: http://
www.epa.gov /oig /reports /2000 /OOPOOIO.pdf [accessed
7 September 20121.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. Office
of Inspector General Status Report: Land Application
of Biosolids. 2002 -S- 000004. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA.
Available: http://wvvw.epa.gov/oig/reports/2002/BIO SO LIDS_
FINAL_REPORT.pdf [accessed 7 September 20121.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012.
Environmental Justice Basic Information Webpage.
Available: http: / /www.epa.gov /environmentaljustice /basics/
index.html [accessed 7 September 20121.
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. 2011. Virginia
Pollution Abatement(VPA) Permit Regulation [9VAC 25 -32].
Available: http: / /townhall .virginia.gov /L /viewchapter.
cfm ?chapterid= 2209 &display = chapterinfo [accessed
7 September 20121.
WHO (World Health Organization). 1948. Preamble to the
Constitution of the World Health Organization as Adopted by
the International Health Conference, New York, 19 -22 June
1946. Available: http: / /www.who.int/about /definition /en/
print.html [accessed 7 September20121.
Wing S, Horton RA, Marshall SW, Thu K, Tajik M, Schinasi L,
at al. 2008. Air pollution and odor in communities near
industrial swine operations. Environ Health Perspect
116:1362 -1368.
Wing S, Wolf S. 2000. Intensive livestock operations, health,
and quality of life among eastern North Carolina residents.
Environ Health Perspect 108:233 -238.
542 VOLUME 121 1 NUMBER 51 May 2013 • Environmental Health Perspectives
BY )IE TErg1gT zou
Colter for Publiclratekriiy
Three years ago, pulp and
paper company Dommar un-
veiled a "state -of- the -art" addi-
tion to its plant in Plymouth,
North Carolina, where waste
would be transformed into eco-
friendly energy.
Domtar, based in Fort Mi11,
S.C., touted the facility as the
only one of its kind in the Unit-
ed States and said it would pro-
duce 75 toms a day of a fossil -
fuel alternative by refining a
molasses -like rnbiture of pro-
cessed pine chips. Company
officials claimed it would do so
without significantly increasing
air pollution.
But it wasn't until August
2014 that Dorntar notified
North Carolina's Department of
Environmental Quality about
excessive eni.ssions of hydrogen
This Dorntar mill in Plymouth was one of more than a dozen [Jorth Carolina facilities flagged by the
SEE ENFORCE, 2E Environmental Protection Agency in a May letter criticizing state Clean Air Act enforcement.
sulfide and other toxic
compounds at the new
plant, even though the
company had begun notic-
ing pollution spikes the
year before.
Hydrogen sulfide is so
dangerous that it can
cause instant death in
high concentrations; it
skews the memory and
dulls.the sense of smell in
lower amounts. In 2014,
the Plymouth site released
more than 130,000
pounds of the gas — up 78,
percent from 2013, ac-
cording to the U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection
Agency.
Domtar was one of
more than a dozen North
Carolina facilities flagged
by the EPA in a May letter
to DEQ Secretary Donald
van der Vaart. The letter,
obtained by the Center for
Public Integrity under the
Freedom of Information
Act, criticized the state
agency for its reluctance
to go after repeat offend-
ers and its pattern of issu-
ing few violation notices
and paltry fines. The EPA
blamed the DEQ's lacklus-
ter performance on 2011
state laws that provide
polluters with "greater
opportunity for informally
resolving" violations and a
"tiered enforcement pol-
icy" that has led to fewer
penalties.
Congress passed the
Clean Air Act in 1970 with
a pledge to protect public
health, and the law has
been largely successful at
driving down emissions
even as the economy has
grown - reducing six
common air pollutants by
nearly 70 percent.
The act relies on coop-
eration between federal
and state regulators. But
experts, including some at
the, EPA, say its benefits
aren't being fully realized
because enforcement
remains wildly inconsis-
Domtarr
tent.
The EPA has had trou-
ble coordinating with
recalcitrant states and
territories, which are re-
sponsible for day -to -day
policing despite significant
federal and state cutbacks.
Incomplete and inaccurate
data supplied by states to
the EPA complicates at-
tempts to identify problem
are as.
The scarcity of data
prompted the Center for
Public Integrity to file
public- records requests
with all 50 states, the EPA
and the U.S. Census Bu-
reau, to try to assess Clean
Air Act enforcement na-
tionwide.
The Center found that
40 state environmental
agencies have reduced
regulator head counts in
recent years, even as fed-
eral and state responsib-
ilities have proliferated.
North Carolina's DEQ has
suffered some of the deep-
est cuts, its 2014 envi-
ronmental workforce cut
by a third from 2008 lev-
els,. In Illinois and Arizona,
staffing has fallen by more
than a third since 2007:'
New York's workforce has
been cut by nearly a quar
ter, Michigan's by a fifth.
N.C. ENFORCEMENT
The Clean Air Act itself
remains contentious.
North Carolina is among
27 states suing the EPA to
block the Clean Power
Plan, a cornerstone of
President Obama's cli-
mate policy that would use
the act to curb emissions
at coal -fired power plants.
Van der Vaart, known for
continuing a business
friendly approach to reg-
ulation first fostered by his
predecessor, has called
the plan a federal "take-
over."
Three of North Car-
olina's coal -fired power
plants were among the
nation's top 100 emitters .
of greenhouse -gases in
2014, a Center analysis
found. Domtar's Plymouth
facility ranked in the top
200 for toxic air emitters
nationwide.
THE SYSTEM COS STRETCHED,
THINNER AND THINNER AND THINNER.
Shari Filson, deputy assistant administrator for the
EPA's enforcement division
Yet, by the EPA's count,
air- related penalties at the
DEQ dropped 93 percent
from 2011 to 2014, while
enforcement actions de-
creased by51 percent.
The DEQ fined Domtar
$100,000 in June 2015
for air violations but the
Plymouth biofuel plant
has been allowed to con-
tinue to operate despite
lacking the proper permit.
Such a document would
cap the facility's emissions
and set other operational
conditions. This summer,
state regulators gave
Domtar another pass,
giving the company until
November to submit a
permit application that
was due in September.
A Domtar spokesman
said the company is
"working diligently with
the state."
The DEQ's Stephanie
Hawco declined to re-
spond to questions from
the Center and said the
agency will reply to the
EPA's May letter later this
fall. Hawco also declined
to answer questions about
Domtar, saying only that
"DEQ has protected pub-
lic health by ... ensuring
[Domtar is] on a path
toward getting into com-
pliance."
Van der Vaart, in an
opinion article published
last year in The Charlotte
Observer, defended the
administration's approach
to regulating pollution.
He said success
shouldn't be measured in
terms of how many re-
strictions are imposed. He
said advancements in
technology make it impor-
tart to constantly review
the science behind envi-
ronmental protections and
to make sure the public's
money is effectively spent.
Recent laws have made
it easier for polluters to
avoid penalties if they
report violations to state
regulators first.
FEWER COPS
ON THE BEAT
Heads of state agencies
are typically nominated by
governors, while budgets
are subject to gubernato-
rial approval - throwing
regulators into the politi-
cal fray. John Quigley was
forced out as chief of
Pennsylvania's'
Department of
Environmental Protection
in May after a
profanity - filled email he
sent to activists raised
questions about his ob-
jectivity in a big oil and
gas state. Though hand-
picked for the position by
Gov. Tom Wolf; a
Democrat, Quigley barely
lasted a year and a half on
the job.
Quigley was vocal about
deep cutbacks at his agen-
cy. Last year, the EPA
flagged the DEP for
inadequate
air- enforcement staffing.
New York's Department
of Environmental Conser-
vation has fewer than
2,900 full -time employ-
ees, down from 3,775 in
2007. Last year, the DEC
referred just 85 air - related
cases for enforcement in
civil courts, compared to
467 in 2007. Its flat - lining
budget was the subject of
a 2014 report by the state
comptroller, who warned
that unchecked emissions
would put residents at
greater risk of death and
illnesses such as cancer
and asthma.
"It's pretty clear they're
doing less with less," said
Peter Iwanowicz, a former
DEC acting commissioner
who now heads the Alba-
ny-based Environmental'
Advocates of New York.`
2=KJ
Florida's Department of
Environmental Protection
has faced a slide nearly
identical to New York's,
even as the state's econo-
my has grown. The agency
employs just over 2,900
people, compared to
3,600 in 2007. Repub-
lican Gov. Rick Scott —
who reportedly prohibited
state workers from using
the terms "climate
change" or "global
warming" — has touted
shorter turnaround times
for permits as a sign of
greater efficiency.
But Florida's chapter of
Public Employees for
Environmental
Responsibility, which
advocates for stronger
enforcement, blamed
Scott's business- friendly
politics for a "severely
crippled" department that
allows polluters to skirt
citations. The group's
annual report-found that
18 air - pollution enforce7
ment cases were opened
in 2015, compared to an
annual average of 93 in
previous decades.
Bill Becker, director of
the National Association
of Clean Air Agencies,
testified before Congress
in March that states have
borne the brunt of re-
duced federal funding.
While the Clean Air Act
calls for federal grants to
cover up to 60 percent of
state air programs, in
reality states have shoul-
dered 75 percent of the
costs. The gap has caused
"agencies to reduce or
eliminate important air
pollution programs, post -
pone. necessary air -mon-
itoring expenditures and
even reduce their work -
forces," Becker said.
Shari Wilson, deputy
assistant administrator for
the EPA's enforcement
division, said in an
interview that the impacts
of state budget shortfalls
are magnified by increas-
ing numbers of facilities
and regulations. The
In a written statement,
the EPA said that its rela-
system gets stretched,
tionship with the states is
thinner and thinner and
strong." But it provided
thinner," she said.
few internal records on
The EPA itself has been
state performance re-
pared down. Its full -time
'
quested by the Center.
workforce is under 14,400
The documents it pro -
employees, down from
duced show that it's not
16,600 a decade ago.
uncommon for enforce -
Staffing across all 10 re-
ment inadequacies to go
gional EPA offices — _ =
unresolved long after
which work directly with
they've been identified.
states — has also declined. ",
While the EPA has re-
STARK DIFFERENCES
sisted recommendations
to radically shake up over
BETWEEN STATES
sight of states, it has tried '
people
the dozens of people
other ways to improve. Its
interviewed for this n'' ,.
nascent Next Generation
no two could agree on = l
Compliance strategy is
which states or EPA re-
aimed at boosting enforce-
gions were excelling or
ment with enhanced
failing. Annual enforce - J
tracking that enables facil-
ment metrics provided by _ 3
ities to "identify and fix
states — such as inspec-
pollution problems before
tions, violations and pe-
they become violations,"
nalties — are riddled with
the EPA says.
"widespread and persist -
The agency has visited
ent data inaccuracy and
20 states to promote
incompleteness ... which
"Next Gen" and has given
make it hard to identify
11 funds for infrared cam -
when serious problems
eras that detect otherwise
exist or to track state ac
invisible pollution. Efforts
tions," the EPA wrote in a�
to beef up air monitoring
2013-memo.
are crucial, says the
The EPA's Office of
American Lung '
Inspector General has kj
Association, because
repeatedly raised concerns
fewer than a third of U.S.
over uneven enforcement
counties have smog or
Ina 2011 audit, the office
particle- pollution mon-
found - that even top -per-
itors, leaving many con-
forming state agencies
munities in the dark about '
failed to meet EPA goals
basic air quality.
for basic duties like in-
Janice Nolen, an
spections and wrote that A
assistant vice president of
the EPA "cannot assure
national policy at the asso-
that Americans in all
ciation, said underfunded =
states are equally protect- .'
states may not want to
ed from the health effects '
expand monitoring.
of pollution."
"When you put a mon-
Auditor Kathlene Butler
itor in a place and it shows `
said in an interview that
a problem," she said,
the differences among the
"then something's got to
states were stark. "It
be done." -
seemed some states were
very clear on what was
jie Jenny Zou is a reporter
expected of them in terms
with the Center for Public
of performance from the
Integrity, a nonprofit
[EPA] region," she said..
investigative news
"Other states knew there
organization in
was an ability to nego- ,
Washington, D.C.
tiate."
IIII e e [':,7o, e r, i�/i , ig Ih� 4l, r, r, i�/t a iii ii e �� iir, a il
k-IMMMU LIIIVUYII LIM I Vl%=,�L, IIVVUIIIY �LMCIIII KJCIMV�, �[AILLINly Li%=%= LI
landscape. Twenty years later, the Office of the Duke Forest is remembering this historic hurricane
and considering its long term effects on the Forest.
Durham Judd reached the Duke Forest and met u e e s a - cLsuydenu_�en
It was surprising howsignificant the damage was... When I got to Durham, there
were trees down everywhere. I got to the end of Lemur Lone, and I couldn't even
get to the [Duke Forest Maintenance] Shop because trees were drawn... The first
thing to do was cut through the trees to get to the Lemur Center.
After opening up the roads to the Shop and the Lemur Center, Duke Forest staff regrouped and
more than 1,400 trees down across 35 miles of roads.
Fallen trees had also damaged several structures including the Bobby Ross, Jr. Memorial Picnic
imyea r A'.8
Intense rainfall led to flooding that overtopped the Wooden Bridge inside the Korstian Division - a
bridge that normally sits 15 feet above New Hope Creek. High waters eroded "rip rap the stabiliz-
ing gravel and rocks that reinforce the banks around bridges.
Most damage was concentrated along northeast-facing slopes in the Duke Forest's Durham and
Korstian Divisions, which faced the eye of the storm. After consulting with the Duke Forest Advisory
Committee and Duke University administrators, Judd and his team decided to officially close the
Duke Forest. Portions of the Forest remained closed for three to six months following the storm.
(continued on nextpage)
Bobby Ross Jr. Memorial Shelter
Splintered tree trunk
Though Duke Forest has recovered from the devastation, Hurricane Fran's effects will remain
visible for decades. The tip-up mounds and decaying tree trunks linger, and long-time
But we did the right set of things. Now we know what to do in the future!
Oine iraiiiiiii 4)iirogiiraiirn
ods for collecting mosquitoes and ticks, including installing chemical lure traps and performing tick drags. The Duke Forest
sessions were )cart of a lar,# er trainin�� on vector biolo Y—INild-caw0t and tecWL*�ues for contrffLnrlo
mosquito and tick-borne diseases.
— Feedback from the Field-,
- Dr. Gregory Gray (Duke University)
East, Duke Forest may be the first real forest they
have experienced. They are, as one can imagine,
suitably impressed.
- Dr. Michael Reiskind (NC State University)
During the field sessions in Duke Forest, One Health students set up chemical
lures to trap adult mosquitoes and perform tick drags to collect ticks.
Malak Al Masri, a Lebanese research scientist, examines a tick specimen collect-
ed from Duke Forest during the 2076 Duke One Health Training Program.
�Ieseaiird�,i aind ead�,fling
July 2015 - June 2016
Four new monitoring
wells installed at the
McGlynn Lob research
site include one depth
to bedrock well of 83
feet and 3 shallower
wells ofabout 74 feet
each. Waterlevel
sensors are actively
collecting data that
help researchers
understand
groundwater
recharge.
® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ®
"11111gagernein't & Outiiread�,i
and outreach about natural resources and forest management. This yea staff delivered lectures or workshops at several
public and orofessional meetinQs- includinQ the 9th Annual Student Society of American Foresters Symposium: A Closer Look
at Forest Certification and at a worksh . qN �
a American Land Retention project. We brought the forest to the kids at a Durham Public Library event and
(iplivprpd a field tour for DrespntprS DartiCiDa iw in Viikp'- Fnx/ironmpntal Art-�, nd Htimanitips Wcc,_�Iiop, bliWjcL, workskof,.
Y6&�r i�h�ri Revi�ew July 2015 - June 2016
Duke Forest Natural Heritage Monitoring Program
FINDOUTMORE
FSC 7
4L4hJ& AL
DUKE FOREST
Teaching & Research Laboratory
ESTABLISHED 19,31
Office of the Duke Forest • Duke University • Box 90332 • Durham, NC 27708 -0332
NonProfit
Organization
U.S. Postage
PAID
Durham, N.C.
Permit No. 60
BY MELISSA MCHALE
ong after the floods
recede, and the
wires are repaired,
residents of the
Triangle will continue to
deal with the aftermath of
Hurricane Matthew. The
focus of our attention: all
of those trees! We are
living in a heavily treed
urban area, to say the
least. In fact, Raleigh
boasts 60 percent tree
cover, compared to the 20
percent average tree cover
for cities across the United
States.
Some residents will be
mourning the loss of their
"big old friend" - that tree
which held a playhouse
adored by local children.
Others may be silently
cursing their high canopy
coverage, while raking
vegetative debris toward
the street for the next
several weeks. And others
may even go a step furth-
er, and begin to blame all
of their neighbors for
keeping those "hazards to
society" on their proper-
ties in the first place.
No matter what end of
the "tree hugger /hater"
spectrum you find yourself
on, it is important that we
think through our personal
landscaping decisions
carefully. A majority of the
land area in most cities,
especially in sprawling
urban areas, is dedicated
to residential neighbor-
hoods. This basic fact
means that each and every
one of us plays a role in
how our cities look, feel,
and function.
Research across the
U.S., and in our own back-
yard, shows how many
benefits we receive from
our urban forests (ecol-
ogists call these benefits
"ecosystem services "). It
is undeniable that trees
provide us with hidden
services that can easily be
taken for granted on the
2-IJI i6
daily basis. For instance,
at large scales trees can
have a positive impact on
air and water quality. At a
more localized level there
are many days in which
those trees save us from
the sun on boiling summer
afternoons. Moreover,
don't underestimate the
ways in which trees may
impact your personal well-
being, as there is increas-
ing evidence that trees can
improve our physical and
mental health.
With all of these trees
around us, it may seem
like our urban forests are
not in any particular dan-
ger; however, a study out
of N.C. State a few years
ago has already shown
that the "city of oaks
may not be boasting about
its tree cover in the near
future. Urbanization and
climate change threaten
the extensive tree cover in
our cities, not to mention
the provisioning of ecosys-
tem services associated
with their presence.
Further, we know that
many of our minority and
low - income communities
are not as well -treed and
therefore not at the receiv-
ing end of all of these
urban forest benefits.
Right now they might
instead be struggling with
the costs associated with
maintaining a mature
urban forest.
Where does this leave
us post - Matthew? Well,
we know from casual
anecdotes that Hurricane
Fran led to the death of
many healthy trees - a
mass assassination event
that the insurance compa-
nies were keen to support.
We also know that in the
aftermath of an extreme
event, it is easy to be reac-
tionary about the costs we
may not have been pre-
pared to incur. I suspect
that our urban forests are
in more danger than we
had predicted in the past.
Let me be honest: If you
want to get rid of that red
maple that dropped a
branch on your car, you
probably should. But in
the next few months try
and also pay attention to
what the trees do for you -
from the simple things in
life like enjoying those
beautiful fall colors, to
some of the more complex
ways in which these urban
forests might be providing'
you with ecosystem servic-
es you don't normally pay
attention to. p
And when you are done
raking up the debris or
cursing the fallen heroes N
in our landscapes, inquire
about getting those import
tant wires underground so
that you don't fret about
them in the next storm; be,
proactive about the trees
needing maintenance on
your property so they are ._
not a hazard during
storms; donate time or
money toward organiza-
tions that work in low -
income communities,
either helping them with
the clean up or the green
up; and most simply, plant
a tree and think carefully
about choosing an appro-
priate species and a suit-
able location.
In all of these ways and
more we can be a part of
creating a healthy urban
forest for future gener-
ations living in the Trian-
gle.
Melissa McHale is an
associate professor of
Urban Ecology at N.C.
State University.
ht_t_pWwww.utilitydive.com/ November 4, 2016
P
E Utility ,,
Dept. of Transportation unveils national
electric vehicle charging network
EV drivers can expect a charging station about every 50 miles on a new network
of interstate highways announced by the Department of Transportation.
-Moving to support the electrification of the transportation sector and to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, the federal government this week announced 55 routes
that will serve as the basis for a national network of "alternative fuel" corridors
spanning 35 states.
-The U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
issued a request in July for states to nominate new fuel corridors. The network
announced Wednesday is almost 85,000 miles long.
-Corridors where alternative fuel stations are already in operation will be eligible for
new signs alerting drivers to refueling opportunities. The network will include fuel for
electric, hydrogen, propane and natural gas vehicles.
As the United States looks ahead to environmental and emissions
commitments, decarbonization of the transportation sector will play an
essential role. Transportation is the largest greenhouse gas emitter in the
country, outpacing the power sector for the first time this year. Because of
that, cleaner transportation will play a huge role in helping the U.S. meet
its pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80% or more by 2050. One
way to clear a pathway for cleaner transportation is to set up corridors to
help construct EV charging stations, according to the White House.
"Alternative fuels and electric vehicles will play an integral part in the
future of America's transportation system," U.S. Transportation Secretary
Anthony Foxx said in a statement. "We have a duty to help drivers identify
routes that will help them refuel and recharge those vehicles and
designating these corridors on our highways is a first step."
According to new FHWA data, U.S. drivers consumed nearly 72 billion
gallons of gasoline in the first half of 2016 and drove more than 3 trillion
miles last year.
Signs that will designate alternative stations will be similar to existing
signage for gas stations, food, and lodging. But despite the expansive first
November 4, 2016
steps, some areas of the country are clearly underserved. A map of the
transportation corridors from the Department of Transportation shows
extensive networks on the West Coast and along the Northeast and Mid -
Atlantic. Texas and Oklahoma also have large amounts of infrastructure.
None of the routes, however, pass through Montana, Wyoming, North and
South Dakota, Alabama, Mississippi, New Mexico, Arizona and others.
ChargePoint CEO Pasquale Romano issued a statement calling the DOT's
announcement a "big step" in efforts to make EV charging available across the
country. "This initiative will help make sure that EV drivers can travel
anywhere in the country," Romano said.
The announcement follows a July initiative launched by the federal government
to make available up to $4.5 billion in loan guarantees and inviting
applications to support the commercial -scale deployment of charging
infrastructure.
itive Fuel Corridors
bM - 51griage Ready
Sv - Signage Pendmg
1.541 300 450
Miles
repared by FHWAA
vax
rs� r�Ir1
,q
9, 4,"�
�r
su
° -0r�4���aam�Aki+�
i
1Y
r 7i
n b/
Ak
rT
.,.:
di 26i
�.,.Y.Y�
,yyyy�
I86�'�i0'� ».
�/
(I 195
✓id0�
y
j X
i
v
P'
yuara.. Crk4.PER
Cleaner transportation will play a huge role in helping the U.S. meet its pledge to cut greenhouse
gas emissions by 80% or more by 2050. U.S. Department of Transportation
U,. S k ,J f..„ N r, ,;: r fl d
i
Fede-rol liighway Administration
Alternative Fuel Corridors
November 4, 2016
Advancing America's 21st Century Transportation Network
With the designation of the first alternative fuel corridors, FHWA is establishing a national
network of alternative fueling and charging infrastructure along national highway system
corridors.
FHWA intends to support the expansion of this national network through a process that:
• provides the initial opportunity for a formal corridor designation now and in the future on
a rolling basis, without a cap on the number of corridors;
• ensures that corridor designations are selected based on criteria that promote the "build
out" of a national network;
• develops national signage and branding to help catalyze applicant and public interest;
• encourages multi -State and regional cooperation and collaboration; and,
• brings together a consortium of stakeholders including state agencies, utilities, alternative
fuel providers, and car manufacturers to promote and advance alternative fuel corridor
designations in conjunction with the Department of Energy.
No One Saw Tesla's Solar Roof Coming
Elon Musk just showed us the grand unification of Tesla: Fast cars, big batteries, and a
stunning solar rooftop.
BLOOMBERG Tom Randall October 31, 2016
On Friday evening as the sun descended over the old Hollywood set of "Desperate
Housewives," Elon Musk took to a stage and fired up his presentation about climate
change. It was a strange scene, with hundreds of people crowded into the middle of a
subtly artificial suburban neighborhood.
It wasn't until about a minute into the speech that Musk casually let the crowd in Ni
Tsla's ig secret. "The interesting thing is that the hes you NiN
see around y are
sN lar houses," Musk said. "Did you ntice?"
e b Ni
Four things I didn't think were solar cells.
Tesla says the tempered glass is "tough as steel," and can weather a lifetime of abuse
from the elements. It can also be fitted with heating elements to melt snow in colder
climates. "It's never going to wear out," Musk said, "It's made of quartz. It has a
quasi-infinite lifetime."
This, apparently, is a solar roof.
M=
rooftop solar, undermining huge
investments that families have made in their solar sys�e--M—s
customers to use that electricity themselves, at night.
ff-xem-���
Like previous attempts at solar shingles, the solar-plus-battery package hasn't really
caught on yet. SolarCity's total bundled sales thus far number in just the hundreds.
But an argument can be made that the products just weren't compelling enough yet
and the prices were still too high.
Sekine, a BNEF analyst who covers battery technology.
"The future is going to overwhelmingly be solar plus battery," Musk said. "They go
together like peanut butter and jelly."
Battery Prices Keep Tumbling
Lilifflum lon, Foreca&t ($*Who
384,
350 3,25
302 282
262 245, 228
212
774,
197
182
04
ta Cell , Pack
Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance
firm prices of a solar roof at this point would be difficult.
"It is the metaphoni c 'super-car' of residential solar," said BNEF solar analyst Hugh
Bromley. "It portrays cutting-edge technology with broad appeal, but ... it competes
in a solar market where most customers are comfortable in a family sedan."
The 2017 trifecta: Solar roof, Powerwall 2, Model 3
Photographer: Tom Randall/Bloomberg
From: NCDA &CS News Releases [mailto:noreplys @ncagr.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 1:50 PM
Subject: Industrial Hemp Commission to hold first meeting Nov. 1
°lh SHARE i �J F.,1 ..
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
TUESDAY, OCT. 25, 2016
CONTACT: Dr. Sandy Stewart, director Lori Pfister, administrative assistant
NCDA &CS Research Stations Division NCDA &CS Research Stations Division
919 - 707 -3237 919- 707 -3236
• :s s s 11 s 111 11111 • s
RALEIGH — The N.C. Industrial Hemp Commission will hold its first meeting Tuesday, Nov. 1, at 2 p.m. in the
Martin Building at the State Fairgrounds. The meeting is open to the public.
The state General Assembly passed legislation in 2015 to create a pilot program to research hemp production in
North Carolina as allowed under federal law. The Industrial Hemp Commission will be responsible for setting up
the rules and process for applying for the pilot program.
The commission has nine members representing agricultural research, law enforcement, farming, agricultural
consulting, agribusiness and the N.C. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
More information about the industrial hemp pilot program is available at www.ncagr.gov /hemp.
-bal -2
NCDA &CS Public Affairs Division, Brian Long, Director
Mailing Address:1001 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -1001
Physical Address: 2 West Edenton Street, Raleigh NC 27601
Phone: (919) 707 -3001; FAX: (919) 733 -5047