The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCFE agenda 030920 AGENDA Orange County Commission for the Environment March 91", 2020 7:30 p.m. Southern Human Services Center, 2501 Homestead Road, Chapel Hill Time Item Title 7:30 I. Call to Order 7:32 II. Additions or Changes to Agenda 7:34 III. Approval of Draft Minutes — February 10t", 2020 The CFE will consider approval of minutes from the last meeting.Action needed(Attachment 1) 7:35 IV. CFE Activities - 2020 The CFE will discuss current activities. 7:45 V. Eno-New Hope Landscape Conservation Plan Steering Committee members from the Eno-New Hope Landscape Conservation Group will present results and recommendations of the Eno-New Hope Landscape Conservation Plan with a focus on Orange County. 8:10 VI. Climate Action Tax Brennan Bouma will provide an update to the CFE on the current status of approving the Climate Action Tax projects. 8:20 VII. Upper Neuse River Basin Association (UNRBA) Falls Lake Regulatory Forum Wesley Poole will provide an update to the CFE on UNRBA's recent Falls Lake Regulatory Forum that was held in Durham on February 12, 2020. (Attachment 2) 8:30 VIII. Committee Meetings CFE Committees will break out for discussion. 8:50 IX. Updates and Information Items Staff and/or CFE members will provide updates on the following items: • Earth Evening-April 24",2020 6-8pm Any other new information from CFE members and staff 9:00 X. Adjournment • *Next Meeting: April 13th, 2020 @) West Campus Office Building, Room 302, 131 West Margaret Lane, Hillsborough CFE Activities — 2020 Item Committee/Person(s) Next Responsible Steps Fast Facts for a Greener B. Bouma Bouma presented first four tips structured from SOE Orange report. Working with an intern to create a full list from the 2019 SOE. Will be posted to CFE Facebook page and Twitter forums. Rights-of-Way B. Saul Subcommittee formation approved by CfE at Subcommittee January meeting. Review and update of Land Resources Ongoing review by committee and staff. Forest Management Policy Greenhouse Gas B. Ward Complete! Posted to Orange County Sustainability Emissions Inventory B. Bouma Website. Climate Action Plan B. Ward Initial work has begun to lay out scope and format. B. Bouma With GHG Inventory completion and successful application for LEED for Cities and Communities Grant, planning can begin in earnest. Seeing CFE assistance in climate action generation and community engagement. Carbon Fee & Dividend / B. Ward Review again in Fall 2020. Fossil Fuel Divestment A. Parry resolution(s) Landscape corridor Land resources Presentation tonight! planning Idling Campaign B. Bouma Right of Nature K. Piracci Group of CfE members to meet and discuss. Coordination with Planning Dept Recent Achievements • The State of the Environment is complete! • We helped to host the 2019 Environmental Summit. • Hosted ecostudio UNC student Kerina Patel researching the successes of the rural buffer • BOCC unanimously passed our"Best Practices on Roadsides and Rights-of-Way" resolution • CFE mentioned by County leaders several times during recent Our Climate Resolutions event in Chapel Hill CFE Meeting Ground Rules (Adopted 9/12/11) 1. Keep to agenda topic under discussion 2. Share relevant information 3. One person speaks at a time after recognition by the Chair 4. Everyone is invited to participate in discussions - no one person should dominate discussions 5. Strive to reach consensus first before voting Attachment 1 Orange County Commission for the Environment DRAFT Meeting Summary February 10, 2020; 7:30 pm West Campus Office Building, Room 302, 131 West Margaret Lane, Hillsborough Present: Bradley Saul (Chair), Bill Ward, James Eichel, Jody Eimers, Laura Doherty, Kim Piracci, Alan Parry, Jeremy Marzuola, Carrie Fletcher Absent: Lynne Gronback Staff: Brennan Bouma, Chris Hirni, Wesley Poole I. Call to Order Saul called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. II. Additions or Changes to Agenda Saul requested to insert Piracci's presentation of draft proposed ordinance concerning rights of nature as Item VII. III. Approval of Draft Minutes from January 13t", 2020 Motion by Ward; seconded by Fletcher; none opposed; motion passed. IV. CFE Activities—2020 CFE discussed current activities with a brief status update for each item. V. Presentation—Environmental Justice Bouma presented on topic by sharing slides from Orange County Employee Training along with TED talk video about the danger of a single story. Group activity highlighted how people benefit from a clean, green environment. Closed with note that the CHJI plans to do an environmental justice timeline and asked how CFE might contribute. VI. Greene Tract-Update Hirni provided an update on the Greene Tract and discussed the 2020 Greene Tract Resolution&Environmental Assessment Interlocal Agreement. Explained that DEAPR had not been that involved to date, but will be so in the future due to the proposed 60 acres Headwaters Preserve within the tract. VII. Draft Proposed Ordinance—Rights of Nature Piracci presented a draft proposed ordinance concerning rights of nature that environmental attorney, Linda Wendling, had put together. Saul asked Piracci to keep researching the topic and report back to the CFE. VIII. Committee Meetings CFE Committees met to discuss initiatives/projects. Page 1 of 2 Attachment 1 Orange County Commission for the Environment DRAFT Meeting Summary February 10, 2020; 7:30 pm West Campus Office Building, Room 302, 131 West Margaret Lane, Hillsborough IX. Updates and Information Items Saul notified CFE that Parry, Fletcher and Ward had been recommended for reappointment and four of the remaining five CFE vacancies had been recommended for appointment. Recommendations were as follows: Francis Binkowski to position#2 (Air Quality), Kim Livingston to position#3 (At-Large, formerly Land Resources), Elizabeth McWhorter to position#5 (Water Resources) and Jaya Nair to position#7 (At-Large). One vacancy will remain for an At-Large position. Saul reminded CFE members of attendance requirements moving forward. CFE briefly discussed Earth Evening involvement coming up on Friday, April 24 from 6-8pm. X. Adjournment Fletcher motioned to adjourn the meeting at 9:07 pm; seconded by Parry; none opposed; motion passed. Page 2 of 2 j '7i ; Attachment 2 Vnrb • - • • - - Why is Falls • ' = ° Lake important? • • - • - • • +-. . . . .+ - Falls Lake is a tremendous + • • •- • • • • + • • .+• +. + - asset. It was originally • • . • • .•- - •+- - ' - constructed to help protect • • -• • •- -. - downstream areas from • • •• • • • + • flooding, and it also _ WWI baff;zl-. . - . + provides drinking water, 1 + _+ • _ •• • • _ •_ • + • .+_ + habitat for fish and wildlife, and a place for recreation. • . • - - • • • - •• • - • i What is the Falls Lake Nutrient Management Strategy? Chlorophyll-a is the green pigment that allows plants to harness sunlight to turn CO2 into food. At high concentrations, it can point to nutrient pollution — in other words, the presence of too much nitrogen and phosphorous in our water, which stimulate plant and algae growth. In 2010, the NC Environmental Management Commission adopted a nutrient management strategy and rules for the Upper Neuse Basin to reduce the amount of nitrogen and phosphorous that enter the lake. hat do the Rules require . Who do the Falls Lake Rules regulate? Stage I State and federal agencies that contribute to stormwater runoff I New and existing development which are required to reduce nutrient loading through s stormwater controls Stage 11 a Agriculture that may grow vo crops, produce animals, or hold g lands in an unmanaged state 1 f Wastewater treatment facilities that discharge { treated wastewater into rivers and streams �,•tom �s i' ✓ram"✓��- Stage II presents unnecessary challenges to future water quality improvements. Research by our technical consultants indicates that Stage I1... rrr ♦ Requires nutrient reductions that are impossible ✓ with today's technology ♦ Rules out cost-effective, innovative solutions that exist today ♦ Would cost local governments and citizens in the T Basin over$1 billion to implement ,w- ,✓ri -..... ---.....✓ ��✓--� � ��✓�- � ,� ♦ May only produce minor improvements — Falls Lake already provides safe drinking water, supports a healthy fishery, and provides enjoyable recreation with today's good water quality The UNRBA is committed to leading the development of a more effective strategy for improving water quality in Stage 11. r Can the Stage 11 rules be reexamined and revised? Yes! The Falls Lake Rules specifically allow for a reexamination of the Stage II requirements. Pursuant to the rules, the UNRBA is working with the State of North Carolina and partners across the basin to reexamine Stage II of the Nutrient Management Strategy. ✓ Data ✓, ✓ coltection, G lit c ✓ v I ✓ r I 6 ✓ ✓ ✓ Collaboration .. uoy �I I q ✓ f �& r I 1 I t„ / ✓ r Where can 1 learn more? Members of the public are welcome to attend all UNRBA meetings.To join us at an upcoming Visit our website UpperNeuse.org meeting or review minutes from previous meetings, visit our website at UpperNeuse.org Attachment 2 _ 2020nrb MODELING STREAM FLOWS AND LAKE LEVELS "J. Falls Lake - Regulatory Forum 1: UNRBA calibrates ® ° models to observed Strategy Reexamination stream flows and lake water levels Milestones �Third Technical Stakeholder Workshop Communication and support- building continue Successful investments in UNC Collaboratory € , nutrient reduction �. continues its Falls �. throughout the Lake evaluation basin improve water 1� UNRBA develops quality in Falls Lake framework for Stage II Reexamination DWR approves Vf ,...,.. k .. s modeling framework } x �� and procedures DWR approves 21 f UNRBA begins monitoring program model set-up p 1' UNRBA begin MODELING WATER QUALITY AM, �� • monitoring in 2014 and �� finishes in 2038 ' 10 ��, �' UNRBA hosts two ••" ' over technical workshops 28,000 observations! _ •' and compiles data from stakeholders • NC General Assembly • gq� sets a 2023 end 'r date for the • ' reexamination process 2019 MODELING CONTINUES UNRBA "•• • releases its final Monitoring Report ~-`' UNRBA continues • • . • ••• to develop • computer models of Falls Lake and �t its watershed Communication q , and support- building continue throughout the UNC Collaboratory reexamination begins its Falls process Lake evaluation s J Attachment 2 i I i COMPARING MANAGEMENT ACTIONS REACHING CONSENSUS ON A STRATEGY ADOPTION PROCESS ! i • k Y 1 z3 The UNRBA is a non-profit - . . p t • ; organization comprised of sixs • municipalities, six counties, six local , 3 soil and water conservation districts, and a regional water and sewer authority. Since 1990, we have been ' dedicated to providing a forum for considering and promoting innovative PROPOSING A NEW STRATEGY approaches to water quality planning ' wi and management in the Upper Neuse ; 0 • j River Basins 770-square-mile watershed. For more information about the Association and our ? ; mission, visit UpperNeLise.®r g g • •• • L,,,a�l G s �fi pia .�.'�-r��,�s�i��.�a ��;,��,�.� � � :a, Y� $ W Attachment 2 UNRBA Regulatory Forum -Supporting Information AfVEf Nutrient Management Strategy Reexamination Milestones 2020 N40DELING STREAM FLOWS AND LAKE LEVELS • UNRBA hosts first Falls Lake Regulatory Forum to brief leaders on the status of Stage 11 re-examination • UNRBA calibrates models to observed stream flows and lake water levels • Third Technical Stakeholder Workshop -calibration of stream flows and water levels • Communication and support- building consensus throughout the re-examination process • UNC Collaboratory continues its Falls Lake evaluation 2021 MODELING WATER QUALIrf • UNRBA calibrates models to observed water quality in streams and in Falls Lake • Fourth Technical Stakeholder Workshop- calibration of water quality • UNRBA continues outreach to external stakeholders for input on potential replacement strategies • UNRBA hosts the second Falls Lake Regulatory Forum for input on potential replacement strategies • UNC Collaboratory releases its first interim report on Falls Lake and continues its Falls Lake evaluation • Communication efforts and support-building continue 2022 COMPARING MANAGEMENT ACTIONS • Watershed and lake models are fully calibrated • UNRBA submits modeling files to DWR for review and approval UNRBA uses calibrated models to compare nutrient management actions: How do actions in the watershed and lake affect the lake's water quality? How feasible and cost-effective are different kinds of management actions? Is the current chlorophyll-a standard for Falls Lake attainable? Are regulatory alternatives warranted for this man-made water body? • Fifth Technical Stakeholder Workshop - evaluation of management actions and technical feedback • UNRBA hosts the third Falls Lake Regulatory Forum to receive feedback from leaders to guide direction of the revised nutrient management strategy • UNRBA releases Final Modeling Report documenting model calibration and scenario evaluations • UNC Collaboratory releases second interim report on Falls Lake - Falls Lake evaluation continues Communication and support-building continues 2023 PROPOSING A NEW STRATEGY • UNRBA releases its draft strategy for nutrient management • Sixth Technical Stakeholder Workshop- presenting revised strategy • Communication efforts and support-building continue • UNRBA hosts the fourth Falls Lake Regulatory Forum on the revised strategy • The UNC Collaboratory releases its final report on Falls Lake • UNRBA submits its recommendations to the EMC 2024 REACHING CONSENSUS ON A STRATEGY ADOPTION PROCESS • Seventh Technical Stakeholder Workshop- update on the path to adoption • Communication efforts and support-building continue throughout the basin • Strategy-adoption approach selected • Revised strategy implementation steps begin Attachment UNRBA Regulatory Forum -Supporting Information Vnrba- A.daftional Resources and Contact Information ° General Information: - Home: the UNRB4 and its mission - Falls Lake Rules, challenges, and successes - Developing better strategy - Technical Resources: - Meeting schedules, agendas, and materials - UNRBA monitoring program, quality assurance project plan, data portal, and monitoring reports - Nutrient credit program and tracking tool - Re-examination planning, modeling quality assurance project plan, stakeholder sessions � ^ Contact Information: Forrest R. VVesta||' Sr., Executive Director Upper Neuse River Basin Association P.O. Box 27O| Butner, NC275O9 Phone: 919.339.3078 Ennai|: forrea1.vv*ota||@unrba.org UNRBA Board of Directors and Alternates (Date: 2/3 2020) Member Director Alternate#I Alternate#2 City ofCreodnnnnr NeenaNnvve|| Del Mims ND* City ofDurham Jeviera Caballero Reginald Hicks Miohe||eVVoo|fn|k City ofRaleigh Pending Kenneth VVo|droup Carolyn 8aoh| Durham County E||anReohhovv Ryan Eaves McKenzie Myers Franklin County Harry Foy SonttHonnrnerbaoher ND* Granville County Owen Roberts Barry Baker Michael Felts Orange County Sally Greene JarnezetteBedfnrd Wesley Poole Person County Jimmy Clayton Lori Oakley Kayla DiCriatina South Granville VVASA Soot1Sohroyer FredDanoy ND* Town nfButner Bill McKellar MikeCirie||o Thomas Morrow Town ofHillsborough JennVVeever Terry Hackett ND* Town of Wake Forest Carrie Mitchell ND* ND* Wake County Sig Hutchinson Melinda Clark Matt Calabria * ND = Not Designated Attachment 2 i UNRRA Forum Questions and Answers klnrba j Question 1 - What is the basis of North Carolina's chlorophyll-a standard,and how does it compare I to other States? • Falls Lake water quality impairment decisions and the Falls Lake rules are based on the non- attainment of the chlorophyll-a standard. NC first adopted a chlorophyll water quality standard in 1979 (-40 years ago). NC and SC both have a 40 pg/L chlorophyll-a standard. However, NC considers waters impaired if the chlorophyll-a standard is exceeded in more than 10% of the samples. South Carolina considers waters impaired when the chlorophyll-a standard is exceeded in more than 25%of samples. This is a significant difference. • Most states have a narrative standard for eutrophication concerns. Narrative standards evaluate impairment based on observable, negative impacts to the designated uses of a lake such as aquatic life, swimming, water supply, and recreation. Question 2 - How is NC's standard different than other States that have a numeric criterion? • Other states that have numeric standards for chlorophyll-a typically have specific applications such as growing season averages that are evaluated at specific locations within the lake. For example, locations identified near a dam, at a water supply intake, or at a certain bridge crossing are typical. Most other states with a chlorophyll-a water quality standard incorporate a duration, frequency, central tendency of magnitude, or specific conditions that provide for an allowable exceedance of the standard under certain circumstances. Question 3 - How is chlorophyll-a related to the designated uses of Falls Lake - swimming,drinking water, aquatic life, and recreation? • Quantifiable linkages between chlorophyll and designated uses are very difficult to define. Chlorophyll is an indicator of fertility and not necessarily a reliable indicator of problems. For example,you can have drinking water taste and odor problems even when chlorophyll-a levels are well below 40 pg/L. Alternatively, you may not have any taste and odor problems when chlorophyll-a is well above 40 pg/L. The same example may apply to toxic algae episodes, and not all algae are toxic. It is not the chlorophyll levels that are associated with toxicity but rather particular species of algae that may be triggered under certain conditions to produce toxins. I Question 4 - Did the UNC Collaboratory Report on Jordan Lake suggest that NC should reevaluate the chlorophyll-a standard with an emphasis on the standards being site-specific and seasonal? • The Jordan Lake UNC Collaboratory Report did suggest the need for NC to re-evaluate its water quality standard for chlorophyll-a as follows: UNC Collaboratory Jordan Lake Final Report December 2019 "The state's longstanding broad nutrient sensitive waters criterion (an instantaneous chlorophyll-a standard of 40 pg/I applied everywhere) should be reevaluated. For the past few years scientists have been reviewing this issue as part of the work of the Nutrient Criteria Development Plan Science Advisory Council. The Department of Environmental Quality should continue to engage in and encourage discussions related to development of new standards with an emphasis on the standards being site-specific and seasonal." 1 Attachment 2 i UNRBA Forum Questions and Answers kintba � Question 5-How long will it take to complete the effort on water quality modeling, and what are I some of the example scenarios that will be evaluated? • The UNRBA Watershed and Lake Models are scheduled to be completed by 2022. The models will allow evaluation of many different scenarios, but realistically, we want to focus E on the lake's response to different levels of nutrient management in the watershed. We also want to understand how things that we cannot control, like very large storm events, affect nutrient loading and the growth of algae in the lake. We can test scenarios like best available technologies, and we can also test extreme conditions like if the watershed was completely undeveloped. Primarily we will evaluate the response of the lake to varying levels of investment resulting in non-point and point source reductions. Question 6-Is the State providing any resources to the UNRBA in working on these issues? What can our legislators do to support this effort? • The UNRBA worked cooperatively with DWR to provide some additional data from within the lake. DWR's data is the main source of lake quality and represents the measurements we will be using in calibration and confirmation of the lake models. • DWR is fully engaged with the efforts of the UNRBA. DWR is consistently present at our committee meetings and Board meetings. DWR has also helped the UNRBA secure funding grants like the development of new nutrient reduction credits for practices including the elimination of illicit discharges and soil improvement. Currently DWR is working with the UNRBA to obtain a grant to fund revisions to the watershed model code for nutrient loading from different types of onsite wastewater treatment systems. • The NC General Assembly supported a Session Law to assist with revising the compliance schedule for Stage I and delayed the implementation of Stage II prior to the revision of the Falls Lake Rules. DWR delayed requirements for compliance with parts of the Falls Lake Nutrient Management Strategy to coincide with the Session Law. Question 7-It seems that the UNRBA is making good progress on the re-examination, is there any problem with the Raleigh water supply? • The majority of the drinking water in Raleigh comes from Falls Lake and is treated at the E.M.Johnson Water Treatment Plant. Falls Lake provides raw water that results in a public drinking water supply that meets State and Federal water quality rules. The City of Raleigh provides both annual and monthly drinking water quality reports. Laboratory staff from the City of Raleigh perform an exceptional level of testing to ensure the safety of drinking water. In 2018, staff at the Raleigh laboratory collected, tested and analyzed Raleigh's water between 6,000 and 7,000 times a month. • Seasonal taste and odor issues that sometimes occur are consistent with other reservoirs and surface water supplies throughout NC. Falls Lake meets its designated drinking water use, and Raleigh is in compliance with all national Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Question 8-What is the real problem? Is water quality in the lake bad? Is it getting worse? Is there an algae problem or is the problem with our water quality assessment tools? • Falls Lake was placed on NC's impaired waters list (Section 303(d) under the Federal Clean Water Act)for non-attainment of the water quality standard for chlorophyll-a. This standard requires that chlorophyll-a not exceed 40 pg/I. 2 t la 3 J 1 Attachment 2 i UNRRA Forum Questions and Answers ntb!p • Nutrient loading to Falls Lake has dropped since it was first impounded. However, chlorophyll-a levels can vary due to operation of the dam, sediment nutrient releases and the timing of storm flow periods. Nutrient loading is an important factor, but it is not the only factor that controls chlorophyll-a levels. • Chlorophyll-a is a measure of algal productivity but is not a measure of algal problems. It is an indicator that algal issues and effects on designated uses should be evaluated, but chlorophyll-a itself is not toxic. Chlorophyll-a is necessary to support the base of the aquatic food web and productive and healthy fisheries in Falls Lake. The challenge for the UNRBA is to strike the right balance in terms of protecting designated uses, supporting a healthy food web, and finding cost-effective solutions to improve water quality. • NC's current water quality standard for chlorophyll-a is not a reliable measure of functional insults on the designated uses. It is the UNRBA's position that the reservoir needs a site- specific standard that links chlorophyll-a measurements to actual impairment of uses. This is also the approach that the NC Division of Water Resources has taken with the Scientific Advisory Council (SAC) appointed under its Nutrient Criteria Development Plan, The SAC, which, includes representation by EPA Region IV, is recommending an average chlorophyll-a standard as a component of a site-specific criterion for High Rock Lake. Question 9-why does it take so long to come to an agreement between the local governments and the State of North Carolina on howto best protect Falls Lake? I) • There are many parties, or stakeholders, interested in the management of Falls Lake. These groups, and the individuals that make them up, have various views of what needs to be done to properly manage this reservoir. The parties include the local governments, agriculture, agencies, and non-governmental organizations. • The state agencies such as the Department of Environmental Quality and its Divisions are also stakeholders. These regulatory agencies have public policy, rules, and laws that govern i management of water quality in the state. • All of these interest groups have an impact on the local governments in the watershed. The local governments also have varying views of the level of management needed to protect Falls Lake and the Falls Lake drainage area. • All of these factors make a stakeholder process complicated, involved, and sometimes difficult. It takes considerable time to work through these potential conflicts. • The UNRBA is committed to consensus-based decisions whenever possible. In building consensus decisions, the UNRBA seeks to be transparent in our meetings and all of our efforts working towards a successful re-examination of the Falls Lake Rules. Our goal is to develop a cost-effective approach and a sustainable future for all of the Falls Lake l designated uses. Consensus takes time, but it is worth the effort. It serves no positive purpose to fail to bring people together and find common ground. i 3 )