HomeMy WebLinkAboutCFE agenda 010818AGENDA
Orange County Commission for the Environment
January 8, 2018
7:30 p.m.
Richard Whitted Building, 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 Draft Minutes — December 11th, 2017
The CFE will consider approval of minutes from the last meeting. (Attachment 1)
Action needed.
7:40 IV. Orange County Roadside Wildflower Conservation
As requested at the December CFE meeting, there will be further discussion with NC Botanical
Gardens staff concerning this issue.
8:00 V. Citizen's Climate Lobby
A representative of the local chapter of The Citizen's Climate Lobby will present information of
this group and their mission related to climate change. (Attachment 2)
8:30 VI. Committee Meetings
Committees will meet to discuss updating the priorities they would like to address in 2018.
(Attachment 3) Action needed.
9:00 VII. Revised 2018 CFE Activities and Concerns
The group will review and discuss the updated draft activities and identified concerns for 2018
that are included on page 2 of this agenda.
9:10 VIII. Updates and Information Items
Staff and /or CFE members will provide updates on the following items:
➢ Continuing Action Items from previous CFE meetings:
➢ Article about, and US Army Corps of Engineers response to DWR about,
proposed Jordan Lake demonstration project (Attachment 4)
➢ SELC 2015 comments on Draft EIS for Durham Orange Light Rail Project
(Attachment 5)
➢ 2018 CFE Meeting Calendar (Attachment 6)
➢ Any other new information from CFE members and staff
9:15 IX. Adjournment
• Next Meeting; February 12th, 2018 Southern Human
Services Center, 2501 Homestead Road, Chapel Hi//
CFE Meeting Ground Rules (Adopted 9112111)
1. Keep to agenda topic under discussion
2. Share relevant information
3. One person speaks at a time after recognition by the Chair
4. Everyone is invited to participate in discussions /no one person should dominate
discussions
,. Strive to reach consensus first before voting
Activities the CFE expects to carry out in 2018:
• Plan and develop the State of the Environment 2019 report.
• Continue to write news articles on environmental issues of importance to Orange County,
including climate change, energy conservation, and other important topics.
• Create "Green Tips" as a means of communicating brief sustainability messages.
• Continue to explore ways to improve the County's ability to foster local sustainable energy
production and energy efficiency strategies, including making Orange County an even better
place for appropriately -sited solar energy generation, 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).
• Advocate for an update to the County's greenhouse gas inventory.
• Continue to help with public outreach and management efforts related to invasive species
• Participate in a County effort through the Lands Legacy Program to identify and preserve
important landscape corridors that connect significant natural areas and open space (BOCC
Priority #1).
• Co- sponsor the annual DEAPR photography contest (The Nature of Orange).
Concerns or emerging issues the CFE has identified for 2018:
• 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, maintenance and improvements, including educating citizens about existing
programs for up -fits.
• The CFE will continue to learn more about environmental justice and incorporate relevant
information and considerations in the next State of the Environment report (2019) and elsewhere
• The CFE will continue to follow discussions of how to improve the handling and disposal of
Orange County's solid waste, and advocate for 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
Attachment 1
Orange County Commission for the Environment
IIIIIVIII'° IIII ° ° ° " "" "1111' "" Meeting Summary
December 11, 2017
Richard Whitted Building, 300 West Tryon Street, Hillsborough
Present: Lynne Gronback (Chair), Bill Kaiser (Vice Chair), Bill Ward, Matt Crook,
May Becker, Jeremy Marzoula, Bradley Saul, Will Stanley, Marshall Gray,
Kim Piracci, Sheila Thomas- Ambat, Alan Parry
Absent: Peter Cada, Bill Newby
Staff: Tom Davis, Kim Livingston
Call to Order — Gronback called the meeting to order at 7:29.
II. Additions or Changes to Agenda — The order of the agenda was changed to
accommodate Marzoula who was late to the meeting. Davis made an
administrative addition to the agenda and added the 2018 calendar. Saul asked
if the SOE was on the agenda. Gronback agreed to revisit it early next year.
Saul suggested the Facebook page be made public.
III. Approval of Draft Minutes from November 13, 2017. Kaiser made a motion to
approve the minutes as written. Thomas -Ambat seconded. Approved
unanimously.
IV. Annual CFE Election — Kaiser nominated Saul for Chair. Parry moved his
nomination. Approved unanimously. Kaiser offered to continue as Vice Chair.
Stanley moved his nomination. Approved unanimously.
V. Orange County Roadside Wildflower Conservation — Livingston led
discussion of the letter sent to the CFE from staff at the NC Botanical Gardens
concerning the protection of native wildflowers along Orange County roadsides.
After considerable discussion, consensus was made to ask Johnny Randall to
attend an upcoming CFE meeting to discuss his request. The main questions
that arose where as follows:
• Is the data collection effort complete and is there a map displaying the
areas with significant wildflower populations?
• What are the Botanical Garden's objectives?
• What would be the CFEs role in this? What is the NC Botanical Garden's
role in this?
• What is the timeframe for getting the request completed?
• Should the CFE take the role of educating the citizens on this matter?
Attachment 1
Thomas -Ambat asked staff to find out who in Orange County does the utility easement
acquisitions.
VI. Draft DOLT Article — Marzoula gave a summary of the DOLT article that he
wrote. He suggested it be put on the CFE Facebook page. Revisions to the
article were discussed and it was agreed that comments were to be sent to
Marzoula by Friday, December 15th and the final draft would be sent back the
committee on December 18th. Consensus was reached to have the article put on
the CFE Facebook page after the January meeting.
VII. Planning for 2018 — Davis led discussion on planning for 2018. The activities
the CFE expects to carry out in 2018 were edited as follows:
• Plan and develop SOE 2019.
• Continue to write news articles on environmental issues of importance to
Orange County, including climate change, energy conservation, and other
important topics
o Saul suggested the CFE write a monthly "green" tip and add it to the
Orange County monthly email.
• Recommend ways to reduce the County's "carbon footprint" and implement
the County's Environmental Responsibility Goal (BOCC Priority #10)
o Advocate for update of Green House Gas inventory
• Continue to help with public outreach and management efforts related to
hydrilla in +ho Fran Rmypr invasive species
• Participate in a County effort through the Lands Legacy Program to identify
and preserve important landscape corridors that connect significant natural
areas and open space (BOCC Priority #1)
The concerns or emerging issues the CFE has identified for 2018 were edited as
follows:
The CFE remains interested in developing incentives for increasing energy
efficiency in new construction, maintenance, and improvements
o Crook suggested that the CFE could educate people about existing
programs for up -fits
VIII. Updates and Information Items — information on the following items was
provided:
North Carolina Clean Path 2025- A discussion started after Davis brought
this to the CFEs attention. The conversation was tabled because it was
not on the agenda as a discussion item.
IX. Adjournment — Kaiser motioned to adjourn, and Gray seconded. Meeting
adjourned at 9:15.
C'et 0 S )
ate Lobb
6P .. i izen Ci*i
Citizens' Climate Lobby is a non - profit, non - partisan, grassroots organization focused on federal passage of
Carbon Fee and Dividend.
In order to generate the political will necessary for passage of our Carbon Fee and Dividend proposal we train and
support volunteers to engage elected officials, the media and the public.
What is Carbon Fee and Dividend?
Carbon Fee and Dividend is the policy proposal created by Citizens' Climate Lobby (CCL) to put a federal price
on carbon -based fuels so that their consumer cost reflects their true costs to society.
It's the policy that both climate scientists and economists say is the best first -step to reduce the likelihood of
catastrophic climate change from global warming.
Why Carbon Fee and Dividend?
Currently, the price of fossil fuels does not reflect their true costs — including their impact on global climate.
Correcting this market failure will require that their price account for the true social costs.
As long as fossil fuels remain artificially inexpensive, their use will rise. Correcting this market failure requires a
federal price on carbon that accounts for their true costs.
What Will Carbon Fee and Dividend Do?
Carbon Fee and Dividend will do four things:
1. Account for the cost of burning fossil fuels in the price consumers pay.
2. Cut emissions enough to stay below the 2 °C threshold for "dangerous" warming.
3. Grow jobs and GDP without growing government one bit.
4. Recruit global participation.
What we do
• We lobby in support of our Carbon Fee and Dividend proposal by building helpful, friendly relationships with
our federally elected representatives, with respect, appreciation and gratitude for their service.
• We write letters to the editor and op -eds, and meet with editorial boards to gain their editorial
endorsement. Additionally, we work with digital media, radio, TV and all forms of social media.
• We give presentations and do outreach at events to promote CCL and introduce others to our Carbon Fee
and Dividend proposal.
• We seek endorsements from community leaders and municipalities in order to demonstrate to our
representatives that there is broad political support for our proposal.
• We support our volunteer chapters with monthly conference calls, and we support the leaders of those
chapters with weekly conference calls.
More at citizensclimatelobby.org
Coto
i izens) Ciliv ate Lobby
Citizens' Climate Lobby
More at citizensclimatelobby.org
Orange County Commission for the Environment
CFE Committee Priorities
(updated April 2017)
Air and Energy Resources Committee
(May Becker, Bill Newby, Matt Crook, Alan Parry, Alex Nicodem)
1. GHG Emissions Inventory — Consider whether it is feasible and worthwhile to conduct a
comprehensive update of the County 2005 greenhouse gas emissions inventory.
2. Green Building — Help the County develop an incentive program for green construction.
3. Climate Change — Educate county residents about climate change, alternative energy sources
and efficiency, and steps to reduce their (and County government's) carbon footprint.
4. Energy Efficiency — Partner with Piedmont Electric Membership Corp and /or Duke Energy
to take advantage of USDA program for low- interest loans for energy efficient upgrades for
its members /owners.
Water Resources Committee
(Peter Cada, Rebecca Ray, Sheila Thomas - Ambat, Bill Kaiser, Marshall Gray)
1. Hydrilla Treatments — Continue to educate the public about hydrilla and other invasive species
of concern; continue to monitor chemical treatments to assure they are not harmful to rivers.
2. Surface and Ground Water Quality and Quantity — Increase the collection of data for surface
and ground water quality and quantity; increase public education so it might lead to more
funding for data collection.
3. Water Supply — Continue to educate county residents about our water supply and what steps
can be taken to improve /maintain quality and quantity of future water supplies.
Land Resources Committee
(Jeanette O'Connor, Lydia Wegman, Lynne Gronback, )
Native Plant Habitats - Renew collaboration with NC Botanical Garden and others to identify
significant roadside habitat for native plants; then ask NCDOT and other utilities to eliminate
the use of herbicides to manage vegetation in those special roadside habitats.
Native Landscaping - Educate homeowners and businesses on reasons to choose a diversity of
regionally native species for landscaping and other ways to promote biodiversity.
f 0 ® s 1
NC POLICY WATCH I hats #er iC�S
Home / Articles / News / Environment / Proposed secret chemical treatment of Jordan Lake could be dead in the water
Proposed secret chemical treatment of Jordan Lake
could be dead in the water
Lawmakers appropriated $1.3 million for pet project
By Lisa Sorg - 12/20/2017 - In Environment, Top Story
Print This Article
195 U11 11 e NaNk
0
SePro's proposal to chemically treat part of Jordan Lake would damage all five of the congressionally authorized uses of the reservoir: fish
and wildlife, drinking water, recreation, flood control and downstream water quality. (Photo: US Army Corps of Engineers)
This is the first of two stories aboutJordan Lake. Tomorrow read about the UNC Collaboratory's findings on algae
and pollution in the reservoir.
It seemed like a bad idea at the time. Now, confirming the concerns of many scientists, environmental advocates
and even some lawmakers, a plan to chemically treat a portion ofJordan Lake is even worse. The US Army Corps of
Engineers has concluded that a proposal by the private company SePro to use chemicals to kill algae in Jordan
Lake would irreparably harm the drinking water source for more than 300,000 people.
GL
This is the proposed application area in the
Morgan Ann of Jordan Lake (Photo: NC DEQ)
In a letter to the Division of Water Resources, the Corps rejected the proposal, worth $1.3 million to SePro. The
Corps, which built the reservoir on an old tobacco farm in the 1970s and 1980s, has legal jurisdiction over Jordan
Lake. Without its approval, the plan can't proceed. The treatment segment of the project was scheduled to begin in
March 2019.
And for the first time, the Corps' letter reveals there was a plan in the works to conduct a similar pilot project for
Falls Lake.
The Jordan Lake plan called for using algaecides and other chemicals, as well as dumping as many as 350 tons of
chemically treated clay fill into 300 acres of the Morgan Creek Arm. That amount is for only one treatment, and is
similar in scale, the Corps wrote, to a bridge replacement or road widening project.
SePro would be unwilling to remove the fill after the pilot program ended, because it would be too expensive,
according to the letter. "Cost is not an acceptable justification for not addressing the adverse impact," the Corps
countered.
feed on them, but cutting into the recreational use of the reservoir.
Although the state submitted the 114 -page proposal in October, it was not the Department of Environmental
Quality's idea. SePro had hired former House Speaker-turned-lobbyist Harold Brubaker to muscle a $1.3 million
appropriation through both charnbers. The legislature responded by slipping in an 11 th -hour provision to earmark
The permanent loss of water storage volume, the Corps wrote, "is an
Cost is not an
unacceptable adverse impact" to all five of the lake's congressionally
authorized purposes: water supply, flood control, public recreation, fish
acceptable
and wildlife, and downstream water quality.
justification for not
addressing the
The chemicals contained in the algaecide could harm aquatic life, and
lanthanum, a soft metal compound of phosphorus - locking clay, "would
adverse impact
likely accumulate in certain tissues offish in the lake" the Corps wrote. In
some instances, the chemical harm is unknown, but state officials believe
the number of the fish would decrease, harming not only the wildlife that
feed on them, but cutting into the recreational use of the reservoir.
Although the state submitted the 114 -page proposal in October, it was not the Department of Environmental
Quality's idea. SePro had hired former House Speaker-turned-lobbyist Harold Brubaker to muscle a $1.3 million
appropriation through both charnbers. The legislature responded by slipping in an 11 th -hour provision to earmark
the money to an unnamed contractor - whose qualifications could have only been SePro's - for a pilot chemical
treatment.
The bill language required the state department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to conduct sampling and then,
pending Corps approval, facilitate SePro's chemical plan. However, as of October, DEQ had not signed a contract
with the Indiana -based company. Founded by an NC State University alumus with deep ties to the chemical
industry, SePro also has facilities in Rocky Mount and Whitakers.
Brubaker did not respond to a request for comment. Nor did Rep. Nelson Dollar, a Wake County Republican and
chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.
The question of how to clean up pollution in Jordan Lake has dogged the legislature for nearly a decade, since
2009, when lawmakers passed rules that would have more strictly regulated in particular, housing and
commercial development. But special interests, such as the real estate lobby, chafed at the regulations. As a
result, lawmakers have repeatedly delayed the implementation of the rules. Instead, they have floated other
initiatives, including SolarBees, which were supposed to churn the water and prevent algae from growing. The $1
million project failed.
An overgrowth of algae can tax water treatment plants that must filter the microorganisms from finished water.
Some types of algae are toxic and can sicken people or animals that touch or ingest the contaminated water.
Parts of Jordan Lake are designated as "impaired" on the federal government's official list of such waters because
of several factors, including the presence of chlorophyll a, an energy source for algae.
SePro had proposed a chemical treatment for Jordan Lake to DEQ in 2016. Emails obtained by Policy Watch
indicated that DEQ scientists disapproved of the proposal, citing a lack of information and potential environmental
impacts of a copper -based algaecide. The EPA also chimed in, stating that chemical treatments could run afoul of
the Clean Water Act.
Undaunted, SePro responded with an alternate proposal using a peroxide -based chemical known as Pak27. Under
the proposal, as much as 280 million pounds of Pak27 would be sprayed in the Morgan Arm as many as eight
times — either in a single day or over a longer period. Although less toxic than copper -based compounds, Pak27
could kill zooplankton, which other organisms depend on for food, DEQ wrote.
In the proposal, DEQ outlined a sampling and monitoring plan to track any effects of SePro's various treatments.
Adding to the concern, the proposal was largely secret. Public copies of SePro's proposal were heavily redacted
because the company claimed the details were proprietary. UNC scientists contacted by Policy Watch could not
evaluate the plan because there was so little public information.
Elaine Chiosso, executive director of the Haw River Assembly, commended the Corps' decision to not approve the
state's proposal. She told Policy Watch that the watchdog group "is appalled that the General Assembly funded this
algaecide project, which would do nothing to actually clean up ongoing nutrient pollution into the lake."
If SePro, via DEQ, still chooses to pursue the pilot project, it would have to
If the state chooses to prepare an Environmental Assessment or even a more involved
Environmental Impact Statement. Both those processes, required by
pursue the project, we federal law, entail public notice and comment.
will be at the forefront of 'If the state chooses to pursue the project by submitting a full
Environmental Impact Statement to the Corps," Chiosso said, "we will be at
public opposition the forefront of public opposition,"
SEPRO USA( NROG A Jicatien Res ense 11- 14-2017 -2 by Lisa Sara on Scribd
Reference the North Carolina Division of Water Resources' (DWR) Cictober 5,
2017 request for use of Government property under the stewardship of the US Army
Corps of Engineers at B. Everett Jordan Lake for a demonstration project on the in -situ
effects of algaecide and phosphorous locking technologies. It is our understanding that
the overall goal of this effort is to identify treatments with the potential to be
implemented lake -wide at Jordan Lake and Falls Lake. We have reviewed the request
in accordance With Engineer Regulation 1130 -2 -550, Ch, 17, Non - Recreation Outgrant
Policy.
The request indicates that DWR would enter into a contract for the application of
algaecide and phosphorous locking technology; however, a contractor has not been
selected. As a result, the request indicates that many details and impacts of the
proposed action are unknown or cannot be quantified. For the purpose of this initial
submittal, DWR cites an unsolicited project proposal received from a potential
contractor. We understand that DWR would submit a complete proposal if the project
moves forward.
Based on our review, DWR's current proposal is not considered feasible due to
identified adverse impacts, so the proposed action would not be authorized. For a
proposed use of Government property to be considered feasible, the impacts
associated with an individual action or the accumulated impact of a series of actions
must. not adversely impact the capability of the project (Jordan Lake) to generate the
benefits for which the project was congressionally authorized, constructed and is
operated. The request identifies measurable permanent adverse impacts to Jordan
Lake's water storage volume as well as potentially adverse unquantified impacts to fish
and wildlife resources.
The loss of water storage volume without replacement, as described in the
request, is an unacceptable adverse impact to all five of the lake's congressionally
authorized purposes, which are dependent on the availability of the storage; water
supply, flood damage reduction, public recreation, fish and wildlife conservation, and
downstream releases for water quality. The request states that due to the cost involved
it is not anticipated that the contractor would be willing to remove or mitigate any
material discharged into the lake. Cost is not an acceptable justification for not
arirlroacinn �n itio i-n t Tho r'.nr— nnlir is — not I— of m !-i etnr
> Print This Article
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON
DISTRICT, CORP.u%OF ENGINEERS
f
1,
H. EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LACE
POST OFFICE BOX 14A
-
MONCURE. NORTH CAROLINA 77584
November 9, 2017
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Resources
David Wainwright
1611 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1611
Dear Mr_Wainwhght:
Reference the North Carolina Division of Water Resources' (DWR) Cictober 5,
2017 request for use of Government property under the stewardship of the US Army
Corps of Engineers at B. Everett Jordan Lake for a demonstration project on the in -situ
effects of algaecide and phosphorous locking technologies. It is our understanding that
the overall goal of this effort is to identify treatments with the potential to be
implemented lake -wide at Jordan Lake and Falls Lake. We have reviewed the request
in accordance With Engineer Regulation 1130 -2 -550, Ch, 17, Non - Recreation Outgrant
Policy.
The request indicates that DWR would enter into a contract for the application of
algaecide and phosphorous locking technology; however, a contractor has not been
selected. As a result, the request indicates that many details and impacts of the
proposed action are unknown or cannot be quantified. For the purpose of this initial
submittal, DWR cites an unsolicited project proposal received from a potential
contractor. We understand that DWR would submit a complete proposal if the project
moves forward.
Based on our review, DWR's current proposal is not considered feasible due to
identified adverse impacts, so the proposed action would not be authorized. For a
proposed use of Government property to be considered feasible, the impacts
associated with an individual action or the accumulated impact of a series of actions
must. not adversely impact the capability of the project (Jordan Lake) to generate the
benefits for which the project was congressionally authorized, constructed and is
operated. The request identifies measurable permanent adverse impacts to Jordan
Lake's water storage volume as well as potentially adverse unquantified impacts to fish
and wildlife resources.
The loss of water storage volume without replacement, as described in the
request, is an unacceptable adverse impact to all five of the lake's congressionally
authorized purposes, which are dependent on the availability of the storage; water
supply, flood damage reduction, public recreation, fish and wildlife conservation, and
downstream releases for water quality. The request states that due to the cost involved
it is not anticipated that the contractor would be willing to remove or mitigate any
material discharged into the lake. Cost is not an acceptable justification for not
arirlroacinn �n itio i-n t Tho r'.nr— nnlir is — not I— of m !-i etnr
> Print This Article
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
wl% WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
B. EVERETT JORDAN DAM AND LAKE
POST OFFICE BOX 144
MONCURE, NORTH CAROLINA 27559
November 9, 2017
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Resources
David Wainwright
1611 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1611
Dear ULAUah9ri6ht:
Reference the North Carolina Division of Water Resources' (DWR) October 6,
2017 request for use,of Government property under the stewardship of the U8 Army
Corps of Engineers at B. Everett Jordan Lake for a demonstration project on the in-situ
effects of algaecide and phosphorous locking technologies. It is our understanding that
the overall goal of this effort is to identify treatments with the potential to be
implemented lake-wide at Jordan Lake and Falls Lake. We have reviewed the request
in accordance with Engineer Regulation 1130-2-550, Ch. 17, Non-Recreation Outgrant
Policy.
The request indicates that DWR would enter into a contract for the application of
algaecide and phosphorous locking" technology; however, a contractor has not been
selected. As a result, the request indicates that many details and impacts of the
proposed action'are unknown or cannot be quantified'. For the purpose of this initial
submittal, DWR cites an unsolicited project proposal received from a potential
contractor. We understand that DWR would submit a complete proposal if the project
moves forward.
Based on our review, DWR's current proposal is not considered feasible due to
identified adverse impacts, so the proposed action would not be authorized. For a
proposed use of Government property to be considered feasible, the impacts
associated with an individual action or the accumulated impact of a series of actions
must not adversely impact.the capability of the project (Jordan Lake) to generate the
benefits for which the project was congressionally authorized, constructed, and is
operated. The request identifies measurable permanent 'adverse impacts to Jordan
Lake's water storage volume as well as'potentially adverse unquantified impacts to fish
and wildlife resources.
The loss of water storage volume without replacement, as described in the
request, is' an unacceptable adverse impact to all five of the lake's congressionally
authorized purposes, which are dependent on the availability of the storage: water
supply, flood damage reduction, public recreation, fish and wildlife conservation, and
downstream releases for water quality. The request states that due to the cost involved
it is not anticipated that the contractor would be willing to remove or mitigate any
material discharged into the lake. Cost is not an -acceptable justification for nJ3CZWZZ
NnV 14 20!'i
.. s
addressing an adverse impact. The Corps policy is no net loss of maximum storage
capacity of the lake. Proposals that impact storage are required to replace the lost
volume. For each cubic yard of storage lost, an equivalent volume shall be restored -at
no cost to the Government. The cited proposal would discharge 386 cubic yards of clay
fill material into the lake for one treatment on 300 acres. This volume is similar in scale
to fill. for a bridge replacement or road widening project for which replacement of lost
storage is required. A plan for replacement of lost storage volume must be provided for
the proposal to be considered further. To address cumulative impacts, the proposal
must also address how storage volume loss would be replaced for a full scale
implementation of the treatment.
The described effects of the cited phosphorus locking and algaecide treatments
on fish and wildlife resources may also adversely impact two of the lake's
congressionally authorized purposes which are dependent on these resources: public
recreation and fish and wildlife conservation. The request indicates that lanthanum, a
chemical component of the cited phosphorous locking fill material, would likely
accumulate in certain tissues of fish in the lake. The request also states that it is very
likely that fry and fingerlings will be negatively impacted by the application of the cited
algaecide; that the effects of the algaecide on larger fish or the overall fish population is
unknown; and that the extent of impacts that the algaecide would have on zooplankton,
copepods, fry, fingerlings, juvenile, and adult fishes is difficult to predict as many yet
undetermined factors need to be considered (i.e. application rate, duration, interval,
copepod grazing rates, etc.). The request further states that wildlife that depend 'on fish
as a food source may potentially be affected through a decrease in fish populations.
The relatively short term and /or small scale of the demonstration project is identified as
limiting factors for these effects. If the DWR chooses to move forward, additional
information on these effects, over the term of the demonstration project and for a -full
scale implementation, would be necessary.
If DWR chooses to pursue the proposed use of Government property for this
demonstration project, the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) or
potentially an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) would be necessary. A 30-day public notice period
for scoping of -the project would also be necessary to allow for public and agency input
prior to DWR preparing the EA. Due to the many unknowns identified in the request,
the. information provided is considered insufficient for the purposes of project scoping. If
DWR chooses to move forward, additional information will be required.
We appreciate DWR's efforts to address water quality issues in the Cape Fear
River Basin, including Jordan Lake. If you have questions regarding this matter, please
contact me at 919- 846 -9332, extension 2226.
fe ejohone., 9.3.a)...967...3./350 60.1 WIf:::.S..I.. IRO .SIf:::IMAIf8YS ..I..If8IEIET .St.)IITIE. 220 I:::acsirni e., 9.3.9 ...929 ..942.3..
CII "'II IRIE.11. II "'II1I 11 L, IMC 275.6.2356
October 13, 2015
VIA E- MAIL
D -O LRT Project — DEIS
c/o GoTriangle
Post Office Box 530
Morrisville, NC 27560
info@ourlransiffiulure.com
Re: Comments on Durham - Orange Light Rail Transit Project Draft Environmental
Impact Statement
These comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ( "DEIS ") for the
Durham - Orange Light Rail Transit ( "D -O LRT ") project are submitted by the Southern
Environmental Law Center on behalf of Clean Air Carolina, Medical Advocates for Healthy Air,
and the Orange- Chatham Group of the North Carolina Chapter of the Sierra Club. SELC is a
501(c)(3) non -profit organization dedicated to protecting the natural resources of the Southeast.
In particular, SELC works with groups throughout North Carolina to promote transportation and
land use decisions that strengthen our communities, protect our natural resources, and improve
our quality of life. Clean Air Carolina is a non -profit committed to improving North Carolina's
air quality through education and advocacy efforts to reduce pollution in our state. Medical
Advocates for Healthy Air is an initiative of Clear Air Carolina comprised of health
professionals dedicated to educating others about the health impacts of poor air quality and
advocating for stronger policies that will promote clean and healthy air for North Carolinians.
The Orange- Chatham Sierra Club Group is a local division of the national nonprofit Sierra Club,
which promotes protection of wild places and responsible use of natural resources through
education and advocacy. Orange- Chatham Sierra Club Group's members live in Orange,
Chatham, Alamance, and Caswell Counties.
We are pleased to indicate our enthusiastic support for the D -O LRT project and the
National Environmental Protection Act ( "NEPA ") Preferred Alternative identified in the DEIS.
We see this project generating many benefits to the region, and we appreciate that GoTriangle
has identified light rail as the best -fit solution for the growth demands of the Durham - Orange
Corridor ( "D -O Corridor" or "the Corridor "). In addition to our strong support for the project,
we submit the following specific comments regarding the DEIS.
Light Rail Creates Significant Benefits Beyond Public Transportation Improvement
We are thrilled by the prospect of a light rail system within the Triangle Region. Light
rail lines have been successfully implemented in cities across the country to enhance public
Charlottesville a Chalo l Bill a Atlanta a Asheville a 1::3irmingharn a Charleston a Richmond a Washington, fDC
transportation options while generating a variety of corresponding benefits. We are encouraged
that a light rail system will finally be constructed within the Triangle, and we hope that the
system will continue to expand as its promised benefits become a reality. In particular, we wish
to highlight the environmental, human health, economic, and community benefits a light rail
system will bring to the D -O Corridor and the greater Triangle area.
A. Light Rail Yields Significant Environmental Benefits
The environmental benefits of light rail are myriad. Most obvious, light rail reduces the
number of vehicle trips that are made each day and correspondingly reduces tail pipe pollution.
Pollutants from cars contain a variety of toxic and carcinogenic compounds.' Such pollution
includes harmful carbon monoxide ( "CO "), nitrogen oxides ( "NO C ), and volatile organic
compounds ( ,,VOCs ").2 NOX and VOCs emissions are precursors to ozone, which is associated
with a variety of detrimental human health and ecological effects.3 Car emissions also contain
greenhouse gases ( "GHGs ") like carbon dioxide ( "COz "), which contribute to global climate
change.
In addition, urban light rail systems such as this one encourage concentrated growth in
already disturbed environments, rather than the sprawling development into undeveloped, natural
areas that is often enabled by new - location highway projects.4 Light rail facilitates these
concentrated growth patterns primarily because it is a "fixed- guideway" system. Once the light
rail line is constructed and its various stations are fixed in place, the D -OLRT project will allow
investors and developers to confidently invest in an area that will thrive due to the transportation
options in place. Light rail will effectively anchor development within a predictable corridor
along the light rail route.
Such guided, planned land use with built -in public transportation options is
environmentally beneficial on many levels. By containing development within a specific,
planned, high - density area, the light rail system will help stall sprawling, unplanned growth
patterns into suburban and exurban areas. This type of unplanned growth can lead to long
commute times and an associated increase in vehicle miles travelled ( "VMT "). With more cars
on the road driving for longer periods there is an associated increase in local air pollution and
greenhouse gas emissions, as discussed above. Likewise, as growth sprawls out of urban areas
1 E.g. HEALTH EFFECTS INST., SPECIAL REPORT 17: A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON EMISSIONS,
EXPOSURE, AND HEALTH EFFECTS OF TRAEEIC- RELATED AIR POLLUTION 2- 17 -2 -18 (2010), available at
http: // pubs .healtheffects.org /getfile.php ?u --553
'E.g. id.; EPA, AUTOMOBILE EMISSIONS: AN OVERVIEW 2 (1994), available at
http: / /www3.epa.gov /otaq /consumer /05- autos.pdf, Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Transportation Sector Emissions,
EPA, http: / /www3.epa.gov /climatechange /ghgemissions /sources /transportation.html (last updated September 11,
2015).
s Ground -Level Ozone, EPA, http : / /www3.epa.gov /ozonepollution / (last updated October 1, 2015).
4 DEIS at 4 -291 (noting that "[t]he proposed D -O LRT Project and associated land use policies are expected to
encourage more compact development, which has a smaller footprint than the auto- oriented development likely to
occur without the transit investment ").
2
into less disturbed, rural areas, there can be significant impacts on other aspects of the natural
environment. Forests may be cleared, farmland developed, and wetlands and streams paved
over. The increase in impervious surfaces from this development can have an extremely
detrimental effect on water quality as run -off increases.
In contrast, compact, planned land use enables developers to use space more efficiently,
requiring less new development into rural areas. Moreover, compact, mixed -use communities
mean residents can walk, bike, or use public transportation to reach destinations. In turn, fewer
people rely on cars in their daily lives, which equates to fewer harmful pollutants being emitted
into our air and water on a daily basis.
Moreover, the D-O LRT will serve as a keystone piece of a long -term vision for an
improved Triangle -wide public transit system. As explained in the DEIS, the D-O LRT has not
been proposed or developed in isolation; instead, it is part of a broader regional plan to invest in
fixed - guideway transportation solutions.5 As such, the D-O LRT is an important regional
investment in an environmentally -sound public transit solution which will facilitate compact, less
environmentally damaging transit - oriented development. Indeed, the affected municipalities
have premised their public transportation plans on this light rail project being implemented . 6
Local governments' land -use visions "call for more compact, walkable, higher - density, mixed -
use development within the D -O Corridor," and a light rail system will accordingly "channel
future growth by providing a transportation option that supports compact, high - density
developments. "7
B. Light Rail Improves Physical and Mental Health
By driving mixed -use, compact development near public transportation options, light rail
encourages more active lifestyles. Walking and bicycling to destinations, or to the closest light
rail station, will be feasible and easier than driving and finding parking. Transit - oriented
development, and the corresponding greater use of public transportation, increases physical
activity and improves physical health.$ For example, mixed -use neighborhoods with public
transportation access correspond to lower rates of obesity, while sprawling neighborhoods
correspond to higher rates of hypertension, diabetes, asthma, and cancer.9
One study of individuals living near the Charlotte Lynx light rail system showed
significant increases in physical health, including that light rail users lost weight and
substantially reduced their likelihood of becoming obese. 10 Public transportation access and
5 Id. at 2-2-2-8.
6 E.g. id. at 8 -7.
Id. at 1-22; see id. at 4 -291, 4 -298.
8 See TODD LITMAN, VICTORIA TRANSPORT POLICY INSTITUTE, EVALUATING PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION HEALTH
BENEFITS 13 -15 (2015), available at http: / /www.vtpi.org /tran health.pdf.
9 Id. at 15.
10 John M. MacDonald, et al., The Effect of Light Rail Transit on Body Mass Index and Physical Activity, 39 AM. J.
PREVENTIVE MED. 105, 108 (2010). The study concluded that "[t]he findings from the current study suggest that
walkable communities are also associated with numerous mental health benefits, such as
reducing emotional stress and symptoms of depression. 11 Moreover, in terms of general public
health, public transit use is safer than private automobile use, with a much lower fatality rate than
automobile travels. 12 As one researcher has observed, "[p]eople who live or work in transit
oriented communities tend to drive fewer annual miles, drive at lower speeds, and have better
travel options that allow them to avoid high risk driving, such as after drinking alcohol or when
ill. "13 Light rail, as a fixed public transportation system, will lay the foundation for such healthier
and safer transit - oriented communities in the D -O Corridor.
Additionally, light rail's resulting reduction in tailpipe emissions corresponds to
significant human health effects. As noted above, driving individual automobiles creates toxic
particulate matter pollution and ozone - producing chemicals that can have a wide range of
adverse health effects. A recent study published in the journal Nature suggests that air pollution
was responsible for 3.3 million premature deaths worldwide in 2010.14 Air pollution exacerbates
asthma, which was the leading medical cause for school absences in North Carolina during the
2009 -2010 school year. 15 It is also linked to low birth weight, premature birth, miscarriage,
autism, ADHD, obesity, diabetes, compromised immune response, increased susceptibility to
allergies, stroke, liver disease, dementia, anxiety, and depression. 16 Particulate matter pollution is
created not only by burning fossil fuels, but also by road wear, brake wear, and tire wear. The
cleanest electric car will still cause particulate matter pollution because it cannot avoid friction
with the petroleum -based asphalt comprising our roads. However, light rail avoids these
friction -based sources of pollution by not using the petroleum -based asphalt. Moreover, light
rail can avoid or mitigate these many adverse health impacts by providing a high- capacity public
transit alternative to driving private vehicles. Fewer cars on the road equates to cleaner air for
North Carolinians.
increasing the access to LRT transit for individuals to commute to work may help overcome some of the barriers to
engaging in daily utilitarian exercise." Id. at 110.
LITMAN, supra note 9, at 17.
12 Id. at 8 -9.
13 Id. at 8.
14 J. Lelieveld et al. The Contribution of Outdoor Air Pollution Sources to Premature Mortality on a Global Scale,
525 NATURE, 367 —371 (2015).
15 N.C. DEPT. OE HEALTH & HUMAN SERvs., ASTHMA IN NORTH CAROLINA FACT SHEET 1 (2011), available at
http: / /www. asthma .ncdhhs.gov /docs /factsheets/ 2011 /AsthmaInNorthCarolina.pdf, N.C. DEPT. of HEALTH & HUMAN
SERvs., THE NORTH CAROLINA ASTHMA PLAN 2013 -2018 2 (2013), available at
http: // www. asthma. ncdhhs .gov /docs NorthCarolinaAsthniaPlan- 2013- 2018.pdf (identifying Reducing school
absences due to asthma as one of four priorities of the North Carolina Asthma Plan).
16 E.g. Ambient (Outdoor) Air Quality and Health, WORLD HEALTH ORG.,
http:/ /www. who. int/ mediacentre /factsheets /fs3l3 /en/ (last updated Mar. 2014); ARB Fact Sheet: Air Pollution and
Health, AIR RES. BD., http: / /www.arb.ca .gov /research/health/fs /fsl /fsl.htm (last updated Dec. 2, 2009); Bradley S.
Peterson, et al., Effects of Prenatal Exposure to Air Pollutants (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) on the
Development of Brain White Matter; Cognition, and Behavior in Later Childhood, 72 JAMA PSYCHIATRY 531
(2015); W. James Gauderman, et al. Association oflmproved Air Quality with Lung Development in Children, 372
N. ENG. J. MED. 905 (2015).
I
C. Light Rail Brings Business and Boosts Economic Development
As alluded to above, the proposed light rail system will draw concentrated economic
development. 17 Large companies are deliberately investing in and developing areas connected to
permanent public transit systems like light rail. Mercedez -Benz relocated to downtown Atlanta, 18
and Kaiser- Permanente decided on Georgia over Colorado because of the public transit options
available, specifically the rail system in the Midtown area. 19 Indeed, The Charlotte Lynx System
has proven to be an enormous economic success for the area: "From 2005 to -date, the Blue Line
has generated approximately $900M in development projects completed within a �/2 mile of the
Blue Line Stations. "20 This has "transformed portions of the community from vacant or
underutilized parcels to vibrant, pedestrian friendly communities including housing, restaurants,
retail and small businesses." 21 Charlotte Area Transit System staff project an additional $500
million -worth of development in the coming years. 22 The Blue Line Extension, which is set to
begin operations in 2017, has already attracted more than $200 million in new, private
development projects along the future route. 23 Clean Air Carolina, which is based in Charlotte,
has witnessed first -hand these positive community not to mention environmental and health
benefits of the Lynx system. While this success story from within our State is particularly
impressive, it is not an isolated instance. Light rail systems across the country, in metropolitan
regions similar to the D -O corridor, have likewise experienced substantial economic benefits.
These include systems in Portland, Oregon; Dallas, Texas; Denver, Colorado; Santa Clara
County, California; and St. Paul- Minneapolis, Minnesota. 24
Notably, bus service, including bus rapid transit ( "BRT "), has not and cannot spur such
economic benefits precisely because of its unpredictable, ever - changing routes. 25 A BRT system
includes fixed guideways for buses, thus removing segments of bus service from mixed -use
traffic to enable quicker travel times. However, BRT is still characterized by flexibility in route
17 See DEIS at 1 -22; id. at Table 8.1 -1: Project Need Performance Summary for No Build, NEPA Preferred, and
Project Element Alternatives.
" Matt Kempner and J. Scott Trubey, MARTA A Sudden Factor in Company Moves, THE ATLANTA JOURNAL-
CONSTITUTION, Jan. 16, 2015, http : / /www.myajc.com/news/business /marta -a- sudden - factor -in- company-
moves/njpnF/.
19 Maria Saporta, Transit and Walkability Key Factors in Kaiser Permanente's Decision to Put 900 New Jobs in
Midtwon, SAPORTAREPORT, Apr. 17, 2015, http://saportareport.com/transit- and - walkability- key - factors- in- kaiser-
permanentes- decision -to -put- 900 -new jobs -in- midtown/.
20 E -mail from Tina Votaw, Transit Oriented Dev. Specialist, Charlotte Area Transit Sys., to Kym Hunter, Staff
Attorney, S. Envtl Law Ctr. (April 22, 2015); see also Alternatives Analysis at 5 -86 ( "North Carolina's first LRT
line, the Blue Line, has been a catalyst for almost $1.5 billion of new or planned development along Charlotte's
South Corridor, a formerly underutilized railroad corridor. ").
" E -mail from Tina Votaw, supra note 20.
22 id.
23 id.
24 Alternatives Analysis, at 5- 86 -5 -87 (listing the significant economic benefits which have accrued to the areas
surrounding the respective light rail systems).
25 Alternatives Analysis, at 5 -88 (citing limited available studies on BRT and noting that potential economic benefits
of BRT are unproven and speculative, unlike light rail's demonstrated positive effects).
and still relies on mixed -use traffic for portions of its trip. Businesses cannot plan on bus service,
but businesses can and will plan on a fixed light rail system.
D. Light Rail Creates Desirable Mixed -Use Communities
Private citizens are also increasingly choosing to live near established public
transportation options. Indeed, a recent Chapel Hill poll indicated that the D-0 LRT project is
"overwhelmingly popular" with 69% of voters supporting the project .26 This is in line with
national trends showing that people, particularly the Millennial generation, are consciously
driving less and prefer to use alternate modes of transportation. 27 The vast majority of
Millennials express a preference for living in more urbanized, mixed -use, walkable communities
with public transportation access. 28 Existing compact, mixed -use development along public
transportation routes have shown that such less automobile- dependent communities are a reality
with corresponding real benefits: "[r]esidents of communities with high - quality, well integrated
public transit ... own half as many vehicles, drive half as many annual miles, walk and bicycle
four times more, and use public transit ten times more than residents of more automobile -
dependent communities. "29
Light rail will also assist less mobile populations, such as the elderly, 0- or low -car
households, and lower- income families. These populations will be able to depend on light rail
for their transportation needs, while also making long -term housing and employment decisions
knowing that light rail will remain, fixed in route, for the future. Indeed, the D-0 LRT system
will connect large employment and education centers with its end points near the institutions of
the University of North Carolina and Duke University, respectively. 30 Public transportation to
such employment hubs will provide a low -cost, reliable means of transportation to jobs for low -
income and 0 -car households. These same individuals will also have greater access to the
educational opportunities at both universities on the D-0 LRT project route. Light rail and its
corresponding transit - oriented development "provide basic mobility and accessibility,
particularly for physically and economically disadvantaged people, such as people with
disabilities and lower- income seniors. "31 Public transportation and more compact, mixed -use
communities can provide a means of greater access to necessary medical services for the elderly
and disabled .32 The D-0 LRT project exemplifies this attribute by connecting to both the UNC
26 Memorandum from Tom Jensen, Dir. of Pub. Policy Polling, State of the Chapel Hill Election 2 (Sept. 23, 2015),
available at http:// chapelboro .com/wp- content/Uploads /2015 /09 /ChapelHillPoll2015.pdf.
27 TONY DUTZIK & PHINEAS BAXANDALL, U.S. PIRG FUND & FRONTIER GRP., A NEW DIRECTION: OUR CHANGING
RELATIONSHIP WITH DRIVING AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR AMERICA'S FUTURE 21 -25 (2013), available at
http: / /www.uspirg.org /sites /pirg /files/ reports /A %2ONew %2ODirection %2OvU S.pdf.
" Id. at 23; Millennials Prefer Cities to Suburbs, Subways to Driveways, NIELSON (Mar. 4, 2014),
http: / /www.r ielsen.com/us /en/insights /news /2014 / mllennials- prefer - cities -to- suburbs- subways- to- driveways.html.
29 LITMAN, supra note 9, at 3.
30 E.g. DEIS, at 1- 3 -1 -4.
31 LITMAN, supra note 9, at 16.
32 E.g. WENDY FOX -GRAGE & JANA LYNOTT, AARP PUB. POLICY INST., EXPANDING SPECIALIZED
TRANSPORTATION: NEW OPPORTUNITIES UNDER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT 1 (Jan. 2015), available at
m
Hospitals and the DukeNA Medical Centers. Furthermore, fixed -route transportation helps
older adults maintain a more independent lifestyle while remaining in their homes and
communities, particularly when paired with well- coordinated, community- focused transportation
and growth policies. 33
Public transportation and compact, walkable communities will also assist families living
in poverty by enhancing transportation options and access. As recognized in a Federal Highway
Administration paper, "[i]mproving mobility and job accessibility are very important factors to
escape poverty." 34 Light rail will serve as a reliable, fixed, accessible transportation option and
drive development of less automobile- dependent communities. Such characteristics appeal to
and benefit populations in need of greater transportation accessibility, as well as those who are
deliberately choosing to rely less on private automobiles for their travel needs.
It The NEPA Preferred Alternative is the Best Option for the D -OLRT Project
The above - stated benefits of light rail inform our support for the specific D -O LRT
project. The stated Purpose and Need of the D -O LRT project includes implementing a high -
transit transportation solution that facilitates future land use plans which focus on compact,
transit - oriented development. 35 As the DEIS states, "[i]n order to address the transportation
challenge faced by the region and more specifically within the D -O Corridor, and to cultivate a
more sustainable cycle of growth for a future, a high - capacity transportation infrastructure
solution is required. ,36 Thus, this project is intended to address not only transportation demands,
but land -use demands. Indeed, the Alternatives Analysis completed at an earlier stage of this
project identified four needs to be addressed, one of which was "to foster compact
development. "37 A light rail system is by far the best high- transit option in terms of promoting
compact, less- environmentally damaging development. As documented throughout the DEIS, the
D -O LRT project will best satisfy the defined Purpose and Need of the project as compared to
other transportation options and the studied alternative light rail routes.
A. Light Rail is the Best Transportation Alternative for Meeting the Stated Purpose and
Need of the Project
Light rail represents the best option for alleviating the already- present problems of
increasing congestion in the project area. As identified in the DEIS, population growth in
http:// www. aarp. org/ content/dam/aarp /ppi/2015 /AARP- New - ACA - Transportation- Opportunities.pdf (identifying
access to transportation as a critical need for elderly individuals).
" E.g. TRANSP. FOR AM., AGING IN PLACE, STUCK WITHOUT OPTIONS 3, 35 (2011), available at
htq)://www.t4america.org/docs/SeniorsMobilityCrisis.pdf.
34 FED. HIGHWAY ADMIN., NATIONAL HOUSEHOLD TRAVEL SURVEY BRIEF: MOBILITY CHALLENGES FOR
HOUSEHOLDS IN POVERTY 3 (2014), available at http: / /nhts. oral .gov /briefs/PovertyBrief.pdf.
35 DEIS at 1- 22 -1 -23; see also Alternatives Analysis at 3 -1.
36 DEIS at 1 -16.
37 Alternative Analysis at 3 -1. The other three needs were: "to enhance mobility," "to expand transit options
between Durham and Chapel Hill," and "to serve populations with high propensity for transit use." Id.
7
Durham and Orange Counties is exploding; indeed, "[b]etween 2010 and 2040, the population of
each county is expected to grow by 64 percent and 52 percent, respectively." 38 We agree with
and applaud the DEIS's acknowledgment that "[t]he existing built and natural environments limit
the ability to widen the roadways to accommodate additional travel lanes," and that "[i]f left
unmanaged, this rapid growth will not only continue to constrain corridor mobility, but will also
result in sprawling development patterns, which would lead to the reduction of open space and
farmlands." 39 Building more roads is not the answer to population growth and increased
transportation demands, and expanding such roads would result in environmentally harmful
development patterns and further exacerbate dependence on automobile travel. We further agree
with the DEIS's conclusion that "[e]ven with implementation of all roadway projects
programmed in the 2040 MTP, the capacity of the roadway system will not keep pace with the
increase in traffic volumes. "40 Importantly, building new roads can sometimes paradoxically
cause an increase in congestion. Travelers who previously avoided congested roads by foregoing
discretionary trips or by traveling at non -peak hours might now opt to take more trips at different
times. Moreover, development might expand along the new road, creating new communities and
new travel demands. As such, building roads entices new vehicle trips, creating what is known as
"induced demand" and in turn causing more, not less, congestion.
Light rail is uniquely suited to meet the transportation needs in the D -O Corridor.
GoTriangle analyzed a variety of different transit system options in the Alternatives Analysis
phase, and correctly concluded that they would not meet the identified Purpose and Need of the
project.41 As identified in the earlier Alternatives Analysis, "the flexibility in the delivery of
conventional bus services fails to provide the permanency in routing and stop placement
necessary to shift current development patterns. "42 Furthermore, adding additional buses on
already congested roadways will not address increased travel demands. 43 As observed by the
DEIS, "[t]he number of buses serving each of these areas [near UNC hospitals and /Durham VA
Medical Center /Duke University Medical Center] has surpassed or is approaching the feasible
limit of the number of buses that can be accommodated on the roadways. "44 We have been
pleased by the increased bus ridership in the region, as identified by the DEIS, and believe this is
indicative of the shift in the public's desire and willingness to utilize public transportation
options. However, the DEIS correctly identifies that the current bus system at our present -day
population levels is increasingly inconsistent and unreliable in adhering to bus schedules. 45
38 DEIS at 1 -5.
39 Id. at 1 -6.
40 Id. at 1 -17.
41 Alternatives Analysis, ES- 4 —ES -8, 5 -113 -5 -118, (2012); see 42 U.S.C. § 4332 (C), (E) (requiring evaluation of
"appropriate alternatives" when preparing EIS); 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14 (limiting EIS review of alternatives to those
that are "reasonable ").
4' Alternatives Analysis at 3 -8.
43 DEIS at 1-18 -1-19.
44 Id. at 3 -9; see id. at 1 -22.
45 Id. at 1 -10.
M.
Clogged roadways already prevent efficient travel times of both private cars and buses, and this
will only worsen with an increased population in the area. 46
Like increased bus service, BRT falls far short of meeting the Purpose and Need of the
project. Triangle Transit ruled out BRT largely because of its inability to meet the economic
development and compact growth elements of the project's Purpose and Need .47 While
proponents of BRT tout its flexibility and ability to respond to growth and development, this
characteristic is precisely why BRT is less effective in driving compact land use patterns. Light
rail outcompetes BRT in passenger capacity, partially because cars can be added to trains, and
additional trains can be added to the entire light rail system with minimal impact so as to easily
increase passenger capacity. Finally, commuter rail or heavy rail was appropriately rejected as a
feasible option for the D -O corridor. Such vehicles are incapable of stopping quickly enough
between closely- spaced stations, such as are needed on Duke and UNC campuses and in
downtown Durham.
In contrast to other options, the D -O LRT project is a fixed transportation system which
will drive smart, compact development while decreasing the numbers of cars on the road and
enhancing public transportation accessibility. As the Alternatives Analysis succinctly
summarized, after extensive evaluation of other modes of transportation, "the [light rail
alternative] alone can fully address the stated Purpose and Need for a fixed- guideway
investment in the Durham - Orange Corridor. "48 Ridership forecasts of the NEPA Preferred
Alternative demonstrate that light rail will provide a substantial reduction in automobile trips; by
2040, the preferred alternative will account for more than 23,000 trips per average weekday. 49
These forecasts are supported by the ridership rates of the Charlotte Lynx system where daily
ridership exceeded 2020 forecast levels within three years of its initial operations "and now
averages about 15,000 trips per day." 50 The DEIS also projects that the light rail system will
yield 23 million fewer vehicle miles traveled annually by year 2040.51 We agree with and
support GoTriangle's determination that light rail is the best mode of public transportation for
meeting the transportation and development needs of the D -O Corridor.
B. The NEPA Preferred Alternative is the Superior Alignment for the D -OLRT Project
We urge GoTriangle to proceed with the currently identified NEPA Preferred Alternative.
We agree with and applaud the DEIS's observation that "[t]he NEPA Preferred Alternative
would cause the least damage to the biological and physical environment and best protect,
46 Id. at 1 -18.
47 E.g. Alternatives Analysis at 5 -88, 5 -113 ; DEIS at 1 -16.
48 Alternatives Analysis at 5 -113.
49 DEIS at 3 -14.
50 Alternatives Analysis at 5 -86.
51 DEIS at 4 -252; id. at Table 4.13 -1: Comparison of Estimated Annual VMT for the Triangle Region (2040) (in
millions of miles).
E
preserve, and enhance historic, cultural, and natural resources." 52 The NEPA Preferred
Alternative represents the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative ( "LEDPA "),
as determined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( "EPA ").53 The United States
Army Corps of Engineers ( "USACE ") likewise supports the NEPA Preferred Alternative. 54
In completing its thorough review of alternatives, GoTriangle carefully considered
whether certain sections of the proposed D-OLRT route could be aligned differently. These
Project Element Alternatives constitute different possible routes in the New Hope Creek and
Little Creek areas of the project's route. As determined by the DEIS after careful evaluation, the
other Project Element Alternatives have greater environmental impacts, particularly to
undisturbed natural habitats, than the NEPA Preferred Alternative.
For example, the C2 Alternative impacts 23 more acres of biotic resources than the
NEPA Preferred Alternative. 55 The C1 and CIA Alternatives would impact undisturbed natural
areas, such as the Little Creek Bottomlands and Slopes Significant Natural Heritage Area. 56
Importantly, the USACE informed GoTriangle that given the existence of a less - environmentally
damaging alternative, the USACE would not authorize the C1 alternative with its corresponding
significant adverse impacts to natural resources and public use of the Jordan Lake Game
Lands .57 Although the DEIS nonetheless carefully studied this alternative, the USACE's
unwillingness to grant GoTriangle use of the Jordan Lake Game Lands for the C1 Alternative
effectively eliminates it as an option. 58
The NEPA Preferred Alternative also outperforms the New Hope Creek Alternatives in
terms of impacts to the natural environment. The New Hope Creek LPA ( "NHC LPA ")
Alternative would result in fragmentation of undisturbed forested areas and wetlands, and would
create a new transportation corridor in the New Hope Creek Bottomlands. 59 The New Hope
Creek 1 ( "NHC 1 ") Alternative fares slightly better than the NHC LPA Alternative, but would
impact 7 more acres of hardwood forests than the NEPA Preferred Alternative. We are pleased
that the selected NEPA Preferred Alternative impacts the fewest acres of biotic resources as
compared to the other element alternatives, and we support GoTriangle in advancing this route
for further evaluation and implementation. 60
51 Id. at 8 -26.
53 See id. at 8 -14.
54 See id. at 8 -14.
55 Id. at 8 -18.
56 Id. at 8 -17.
57 Id. at 8 -17, G -99.
58 See 16 U.S.C. § 460d (authorizing USACE to "grant leases of lands ... at water resource development
projects . .. for such purposes as [the Secretary] may deem reasonable in the public interest ").
59 Id. at 8- 18 -8 -19.
60 See DEIS at Table 8.2 -1: D-0 LRT Alternatives Benefits and Consequences Matrix.
10
C. Fewer Harmful Effects Correspond to the Farrington Road Rail Operations and
Maintenance Facility
In addition to studying different alignment routes, the DEIS reviewed different possible
locations for a rail operations and maintenance facility ( "ROMF "), where trains will be serviced
and stored, and where the technical operations for the system will be based. The Farrington
Road ROMF included in the NEPA Preferred Alternative surpasses each of the alternative
ROMF locations. Leigh Village would permanently impair use of the historic Walter Curtis
Hudson Farm, and the Patterson Place ROMF is incompatible with the Preferred Alternative
New Hope Creek Element ( "NHC 2 "), as well as the perhaps "second best" New Hope Creek
route possibility of NHC 1.61 Because the Patterson Place ROMF would rule out these two
environmentally - preferable routes, we oppose the Patterson Place ROMF and strongly concur
with the NEPA Preferred Alternative's selection of the Farrington ROME While the Cornwallis
and Alston Avenue ROMF locations may result in fewer impacts to water resources, and natural
resources in the case of the Alston Avenue ROMF, the resulting operational difficulties, higher
costs, and community impacts render these locations less desirable to the NEPA Preferred
Alternative location. 62 Specifically, the Cornwallis Road location would have significant
impacts on the Judea Reform Congregation, Levin Jewish Community Center, and the Lerner
Jewish Community Day School .63 The Alston Avenue Location would be located in an area
with high low- income and minority populations, result in a net loss of jobs, and displace multiple
businesses. 64 Such significant community impacts would undermine the community support and
longevity of the D -O LRT project.
In sum, the NEPA Preferred Alternative utilizes existing transportation right -of -ways and
follows a route that minimizes new impacts to sensitive environmental resources. By sticking
close to established transportation corridors, most of the NEPA Preferred Alternative's
environmental impacts are to already disturbed environments. As such, we are pleased with the
identified NEPA Preferred Alternative and strongly support GoTriangle's continued selection of
this route and ROMF location as the NEPA Preferred Alternative.
III. GoTriangle Should Continue to Analyze Certain Environmental Impacts and Develop
Further Mitigation Measures
On the whole, the DEIS carefully and thoroughly documents the possible impacts to
natural resources, streams and wetlands, water quality, and air quality within the project area.
We are pleased with the consistent recommendation of best management practices to avoid and
reduce certain environmental impacts. The below comments applaud some of the specific
aspects of the DEIS's discussion of the affected environment and environmental consequences,
61 Id. at 8 -20.
61 Id. at 8- 21 -8 -22.
63 Id. at 8 -21.
64 Id. at 8- 22 -8 -23.
11
while also noting areas in which the Final Environmental Impact Statement ( "FEIS ") should be
improved.
A. Natural Resources
Overall, we are content with how the DEIS addresses potential impacts to natural
resources, including wildlife and broader ecosystem impacts. The DEIS recognizes that the
indirect impacts largely compact development in the affected area—"would be more beneficial
to natural resources than the type of dispersed growth that typically occurs with auto - oriented
development." 65 We believe such acknowledgments and comparisons are important when
considering a project such as this, where some minimal environmental harm may result in the
construction and implementation phases, but where the long -term environmental effects are
substantial. Even then, the natural resource impacts will largely be limited to already disturbed
habitats . 66
However, the DEIS provides an incomplete picture regarding endangered and threatened
species. We are pleased that GoTriangle carefully analyzed the occurrence of federally listed
species in the project area, and that the DEIS includes preliminary measures to be taken in the
event the species are observed in the area. Nonetheless, the DEIS lists many North Carolina
state - listed endangered and threatened species, but does not include any information about their
abundance in the project area or how to mitigate possible harm to the species. We understand
that studies and coordination with North Carolina agencies are ongoing, and we encourage
careful evaluation of possible harm to these species and implementation of necessary mitigation
measures. The FEIS should include a more thorough discussion regarding these state - listed
species.
B. Water Resources
While the NEPA Preferred route will have impacts to water resources in the project
area particularly wetlands, streams, and floodplains —the impacts are relatively minor when
considered in comparison with the sprawling, car - oriented development that would occur under a
No Build scenario. 67 Nonetheless, we note that the NEPA Preferred Alternative will impact
approximately .558 acres of wetlands, 68 and that the Little Creek project elements alternatives
would actually impact .05 acres fewer than the NEPA Preferred Little Creek route (C2A).69 We
have limited concerns about this as the acreage impact is so slight. Moreover, we understand
that while the Little Creek alternatives may impact a smaller acreage of wetlands, these
alternatives "would impact one or two more [discrete] wetlands .,,70 Nonetheless, GoTriangle
65 Id. at 4 -92.
66 Id. at 4 -138, 4 -142.
67 E.g. id. at 4 -290, 4 -292.
68 Id. at 4 -156.
69 Id. at 4 -159.
70 Id. at 4 -159.
12
should continue to evaluate the possible wetlands impacts associated with the NEPA Preferred
Alternative and identify specific mitigation measures to ensure the least impact possible to these
special water resources.
C. Air Quality
The DEIS's cursory examination of air quality impacts does a disservice to the project by
failing to document the significant positive effects the D -0 LRT will have on air quality. While
"[ m]odeling analyses are only required for areas that are in nonattainment or maintenance for a
particular pollutant" in terms of National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( "NAAQS ") under the
Clean Air Act, the FEIS should discuss more of the air quality impacts than are discussed in the
DEIS. n The DEIS identifies that Durham County is a maintenance area for carbon monoxide
and then limits air quality discussion to this sole pollutant and area. Even if modeling analyses
are not required, the FEIS should document and consider the possible air quality impacts that
will result from this project. For example, the FEIS should note that by reducing the numbers of
cars on the road, there will be a corresponding reduction in multiple harmful pollutants.
Moreover, even if additional modeling analyses are not required, they certainly are not
prohibited, and we would support GoTriangle conducting further modeling analyses to document
the positive effects this system will have on air quality.
D. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
One of the prime environmental benefits of the D -0 LRT is the potential for reductions in
tailpipe emissions of GHGs. In December 2014, the Council of Environmental Quality ( "CEQ ")
issued a draft guidance on "Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of
Climate Change," under NEPA. 72 The draft guidance instructs agencies to consider impacts on
GHGs when conducting a NEPA analysis. The DEIS failed to conduct such an analysis, citing a
lack of a "national strategy to address greenhouse gas emissions from transportation," and
asserting that "[i]t is technically unfeasible to accurately model how negligible increases or
decreases of CO2 emissions at a project scale would add or subtract to the carbon emissions from
around the world." 73 We disagree with this sentiment. As recognized by the CEQ's draft
guidance, while "climate impacts are not attributable to any single action," they are "exacerbated
by a series of smaller decisions, including decisions made by the government" and should be
analyzed as such .74 Here, the D -0 LRT's impact would almost certainly have the positive
environmental effect of reducing GHGs. Documenting such a positive effect is important for
future transportation planning and to establish the precedent of conducting such evaluations.
71 The FEIS should also clarify that 40 C.F.R. 93, subpart A, requires modeling analyses for only nonattainment or
maintenance areas for a given pollutant. While reference is made in Appendix K23, the source of this requirement
should be clarified within the text of the FEIS.
72 Revised Draft Guidance on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change, 79
Fed. Reg. 77801 (Dec. 24, 2014).
73 DEIS at 4 -201.
74 Revised Draft Guidance, 79 Fed. Reg. at 77825.
13
IV. GoTriangle Should Continue to Collaborate with Low - Income and Minority
Communities Who Mav be Impacted
Although there is wide community support for enhanced public transit options in the D -O
Corridor and for light rail in particular, 75 the D -O LRT project has the potential to
disproportionately burden certain low- income and minority communities in Durham. While the
Durham - Chapel Hill Metropolitan Statistical area is economically robust, the DEIS notes that the
census tracts within the D -O Corridor have a 19 percent lower median household income than
the combined median household income in Durham and Orange counties on the whole. 76 More
than thirteen percent of households within the Corridor do not have an available vehicle, and
42.6 percent of households in the Corridor have only one vehicle. 77 Moreover, Durham has a
history of proposed transportation projects having a disproportionate impact on people of color
and low- income communities. 78 GoTriangle must be mindful of these disparities and the
historical backdrop in continuing to proactively engage communities that will be affected by the
D -O LRT project.
We are pleased by GoTriangle's thoughtful efforts to date in informing and collaborating
with affected communities. The DEIS identifies access to proposed stations is a primary concern
voiced by low- income and racial minority communities in the area. 79 The DEIS also highlights
concerns about affordable housing, business displacements, and inequitable distribution of sales
tax revenues from the area. 80 While the DEIS identifies responses to each of these concerns, we
hope GoTriangle continues to collaborate and develop additional means of mitigating these
concerns, as required by Executive Order 12898.81 We are pleased that Durham County and the
City of Durham have set goals of having "15 percent housing within a 1/2 mile of each station be
affordable to people at or below 60 percent of the median area income." 82 However, we
encourage GoTriangle to work with local leaders to develop more hard - and -fast policies and
mechanisms to keep housing affordable. Such measures should include methods to help current
residents in the affected areas remain in their homes and not be priced -out of their residences.
Additionally, the DEIS should be clearer and more consistent about the potential problem of
75 E.g. Jensen, supra note 26, at 2.
76 DEIS at 1-8.
77 Id. at 1-5.
78 See id. at 5 -30; Removal ofLos Primos Supermarket— Analyzing and Identifying Alternatives, FED. HIGHWAY
ADMIN. (last updated Feb. 4, 2013),
https: / /www.fhwa. dot. gov / environment /environmentaljustice /ej_ and_ nepa/case_studies /case04.cfm; Case Studies:
East -West Expressway Environmental Impact Study, FED. HIGHWAY ADMIN. (last updated Aug. 29, 2011).
http: / /www. fhw a. dot .gov / environment /environmental] ustic e/c ase_studie s /case3. cfm.
79 DEIS at 5 -18.
'0 Id. at Table 5.3 -1: EJCommunity Concerns Expressed and Triangle Transit Actions /Response.
81 Exec. Order No. 12,898, 59 Fed. Reg. 7629 (Feb. 11, 1994).
82 DEIS at Table 5.3 -1: EJCommunity Concerns Expressed and Triangle Transit Actions /Response; id. at 5 -31; see
N.C. GEN. STAT. § 136- 252(b)(3)(d) (requiring recipients of state public transportation grant money to develop
strategies "to provide replacement housing for low- income residents displaced by transit development ... for the
purpose of increasing the s tock of affordable housing to at least fifteen percent (15 %) [near the transit development]
to be affordable to families with income less than sixty percent (60 %) of area median income. ") .
14
affordable housing; a few pages after identifying this problem, the DEIS includes "[a]ffordable
housing near transit" as one of the offsetting beneficial impacts the project will have on low -
income and minority populations. 13 Affordable housing should be eliminated from this list of
benefits in the FEIS, unless concrete and enforceable policies are instituted that guarantee access
to affordable housing proximate to light rail stops.
The DEIS observes that acquisitions and displacements required by the D-0 LRT project
might "be perceived as a disproportionately high and adverse effect on the east Durham
community in particular." 84 The DEIS lacks documentation or analysis of the businesses and
community resources that may be displaced due to the project. This missing information creates
an incomplete picture of the nature and extent of the adverse effects such displacements and
acquisitions will have on affected people of color and low- income communities. As such, we
urge GoTriangle to devote detailed discussion in the FEIS to the precise businesses and resources
to be displaced in the affected areas. Further, as much as possible, GoTriangle should select
routes that will require as few business, community resource, and residential displacements as
possible. Retaining community pillars is key for community cohesion.
We are mindful that community members have expressed concerns that the current D -O
LRT project does not reach East Durham, where low- income and minority populations are in
dire need of better access to public transportation. Instead, light rail will reach these
communities only during a possible later phase of light rail expansion. In the transportation
mitigation section, the FEIS should address coordinating connecting bus service from East
Durham communities to the nearest D-0 LRT stop as well as provide realistic numbers on the
ridership projections for D-0 LRT from East Durham. Because community members have
expressed that the D-0 LRT will not serve the East Durham community due to the local nature
of community travel, these additional actions would work toward establishing how East Durham
residents would get to the D-0 LRT, assessing the level of current East Durham community
transportation need, and firmly determining how this project can actually provide transit to those
lower - income, less mobile households. Indeed, since a prime part of the Purpose and Need for
the project is providing public transit access to lower - income, less mobile households,
connecting East Durham communities to this light rail project should be prioritized.
Finally, we urge GoTriangle to study and include in the FEIS information about the
estimated fares for light rail passengers. We note that the DEIS stated Go Triangle will work
with public transportation staff to "engage the public and complete a Transit Service and Fare
Equity Analysis" prior to initiating revenue service. 85 If the light rail service is cost - prohibitive
for low- income populations, the project will not satisfy its stated Purpose and Need, and may not
yield as many positive benefits for target populations as forecast by the DEIS.
83 DEIS at 5 -35.
14 Id. at 5 -30.
85 Id. at 3 -14.
15
As noted throughout the DEIS's section on impacts to low- income and minority
populations, despite the possible negative impacts, many positive impacts will accrue to the
affected communities. These include new employment prospects and greater mobility and
connectivity with other communities through the greater access to reliable public
transportation. 86 We agree that in many ways, low income and people of color communities
stand to benefit from the D-0 LRT project, but we nonetheless encourage GoTriangle to
continue to carefully analyze and avoid potential impacts to these communities.
V. Conclusion
We are thrilled to offer our support for the D-0 LRT project and to submit these
overwhelmingly positive comments regarding the project. As discussed above, the D-0 LRT
system represents an opportunity to improve the public transportation network in the region,
while driving compact, prosperous growth and development in the face of future population
growth in the D -O Corridor. In turn, the D-0 LRT project corresponds to environmental, health,
and community benefits. We urge GoTriangle to enhance its analysis and address our limited
concerns regarding the project. We look forward to continuing to work with GoTriangle in
advancing this exciting public transit investment.
16 Id. at 5- 3 -5 -35.
Sincerely,
yry�_ "__----- -
Kym Hunter
Staff Attorney
C_�._, -Vm��
Ramona McGee
Associate Attorney
16
KH /lv
cc (via email):
Stanley A Mitchell, FTA
S. Kenneth Jolly, USACE
John Sullivan, FHWA
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Pete Benjamin, USFWS
Joey Hopkins, NCDOT
Renee Gledhill - Earley, NC SHPO
Jay Zimmerman, NCDENR - DWQ
Felix Nwoko, DCHC MPO
June Blotnick, CAC
Laura Wenzel, MAHA
Terry Lansdell, MAHA
Max Felsher, Orange- Chatham Group of the North Carolina Chapter of the Sierra Club
Olga Grlic, Orange- Chatham Group of the Sierra Club
May Becker, Orange- Chatham Group of the Sierra Club
Roger Diedrich, North Carolina Chapter of the Sierra Club
17
E U
co
E
r_
O
Q
C: a)
0
r-
N
O
a)
4� 4
rl
rl
u
C
(1)
>
E U
co
E
r_
O
W
C: a)
0
r-
N
O
U
L
O
rl
rl
u
C
>
N
Ln
+,
V
N N N
N
LL
w
'a U
� V
L
=
4- "
Z
Ln
O
O d
a)
L s
N
N N N
c
a) tw
j)
tw
C:
U L
E
> 7
O
rl
rn
W
N
a
=.
Q
C
O
(6 U
-E
o
Cl
N N
�
�6
O
3
to o
-r-
N N N
<
mm =
3
T
In
E
r_
O
N N N
L
N
W
i
LL
L
O
-I N
O
�Vf
Vf
N N N
.E
�
E
O
N N
V
N N N
O
V
LL
tw
Lu
� V
L
N
r�1
U
i
i
Lft
a.
0
M
4.
a
GJ
Q
LO m o
In N 01 N N M
LL N 00 N N N
F n N N N
In
`~ Ln
N
N N N
LL
N
LL
ti 0o Ln
-I N
Q
N N N
}
�
O M o M
N � N N
N N
LL
N N N
jN
LL
Ln N m to
N N N
Lu
LL
N
W
m
N N N
N N
N N M
N
r�
N N N
rnc OI N N
u
C
a
F
W
N
In
N 01 N N �
LO m o
In N 01 N N M
LL N 00 N N N
F n N N N
In
Ln N N
N N N
LL
cN-I
LL
ti 0o Ln
-I N
Q
N N N
}
�
O M o M
N � N N
N N
LL
N N N M
jN
LL
0 M O
� N N M
Z
LL
N
a
N N N
~ N N
N N M
N
r�
N N N
N ONO
n
}
eail
C
F
C
v)
� M O
c-I N N
LO m o
In N 01 N N M
LL N 00 N N N
F n N N N
n N N co
m o �
N N N
LL
N m lO
n N N N
F
N 00 Ln
N N N
-I N
Q
m o a ti
N N N M
}
�
O M o M
N � N N
N N
LL
Ln N m to
jN
LL
OOI N N N
Z
LL
^ 7 N w
a
N N N
^ N N N
LO m o
In N 01 N N M
LL N 00 N N N
F n N N N
n N N co
LL
N N N
M N
Ln N m lO
N N
cc
W C
-I N
Q
N N N
N
N O r-
M
Lu
N N
LL
Ln N m to
LL
N m to M O
N 0 N N OM
LL
^ 7 N w
J
N N N
N N M
r�
N N N
oo Ln
F
N N
F
ON
N N
N
o
Cl
N N
^ N N N
N N N
c
~F
N 01 N N
W
l0 N N N
I N w N
W
ca
m
r�
-
V
O
O
cn
=
cB
O
`IcB
=
O
`IcB
=
O C
N �l N N N
j
cF
C
Ln aN-II N N
W
cF
C
M OI N N M
_
U
_
U
_
U
_
U
_
U
=
L
O n
n N N N
Z
n
7 N N
Q
v)
N 0 c� N OM
LO m o
In N 01 N N M
LL N 00 N N N
F n N N N
In M N N N M
l0 M O
LL N 01 c-I N M
`~ Ln N N
N N N
N N N
oC ^ � N
Q
v) ti oo
N N N Ln
n N N co
LL
N N N
F
Ln N m lO
N N N
cc
W C
-I N
Q
N N N
c
C
N O r-
M
In M N N N M
l0 M O
LL N 01 c-I N M
`~ Ln N N
N N N
N N N
oC ^ � N
Q
v) ti oo
N N N Ln
n N N co
LL
N 01 N N
F
N 00 Ln N
N N N
F
N N N
Q
N N N
c
C
Ln �N
Lu
Ln N N N
W v)
LL
I �wLn
N N N
In M N N N M
l0 M O
LL N 01 c-I N M
`~ Ln N N
N N N
N N N
oC ^ � N
Q
v) ti oo
N N N Ln
n N N co
LL
N N N M
LL
l0 M O n
N N N
F
n N m to
N
N N N
c
C
N w Ln
Q
Ln N N N
N 0 N N OM
}
J
N N N
In M N N N M
l0 M O
LL N 01 c-I N M
`~ Ln N N
N N N
N N N
oC ^ � N
Q
v) ti oo
N N N Ln
N 00 Ln
LL
N N N M
F
0 M O
N 01 N N M
N N N
F
n N N N
N
N mI N N onn
c
C
� am-II ON N
Q
Ln N N N
n N N co
LL
l0 M O n
N N N
F
N m to
n N N N
N w Ln
a N N N
M r, N
J
N mI N N onn
a
Q v,
Ln N
co N N N
r�
o
Cl
} N
c
r�
-
V
O
O
cn
=
cB
O
`IcB
=
O
`IcB
=
O
`IcB
=
O
`n
=
cB
O
`n
=
Ln
0
V
a?
_
U
_
U
_
U
_
U
_
U
=
L
4-
U
fa
LL
U
to
0
C:
U
�
i
a)
�
N
�
c
(1)
N
W
a
z
W
W
r
N
L
N
L
ci
L
L
Q
Q
•�
a''
Qj
Qjj
C
I
c-I
=
Q
L
Q
N
V)
a�
w
0
u
O
N
L
E
j
O
Z
O
L
-0
E
U
N
D
cif
Z
0
0
Z
W
W
ro
E
D
=
a)
4-
D
N
2
0
�
z
t
U
t
O
p
-0
—