HomeMy WebLinkAboutCFE agenda 060815AGENDA
Commission for the Environment
June 8, 2015
7:30 p.m.
Orange County Solid Waste Administration Building
1207 Eubanks Road, Chapel Hill
Time Item Title
7:30 I. Call to Order
7:32 II. Additions or Changes to Agenda
7:35 III.
Approval of Minutes — May 11 (Attachment 1)
7:40 IV.
OWASA's Energy Management Plan
Orange Water and Sewer Authority ( OWASA) is developing an energy management plan for its
water, wastewater, and reclaimed water utility operations and facilities. Terri Buckner ( OWASA
Board of Directors) will introduce the OWASA energy management plan and discuss the
possibility of the CFE collaborating with OWASA, the schools, and the towns on a panel
discussion of energy conservation and management (Attachment 2)
8:15 V.
2016 Orange County Bond Package
The CFE will consider asking the BOCC to reopen the process for determining the contents of
the proposed 2016 bond referendum (Attachment 3)
8:30 VI.
Green Building Incentives
The CFE will continue its discussion of potential incentives for energy - efficient construction,
following -up on the April presentation of Chapel Hill's pilot program. (Attachments 4 -5)
8:45 VII.
Updates and Information Items
Staff and /or CFE members will provide updates on the following items:
➢ CFE comments on draft changes to impervious surface rules (Attachment 6)
➢ Herbicide being used to control hydrilla in Eno River (Attachment 7)
➢ Electric Vehicle fast charger station installed in Hillsborough (Attachment 8)
➢ Electric Vehicle Workshop — June 18 Hillsborough (Attachment 9)
➢ CFE news article — Why Plant Natives (Attachment 10)
➢ What we can do to protect bees (Attachments 11 - 13)
➢ Fracking having difficult start in NC (Attachment 14)
➢ 2nd solar array at White Cross planned for Orange County (Attachment 15)
➢ NC Forest Service in Orange County — 2014 Annual Report (Attachment 16)
➢ Court denies challenges to EPA's ozone designations (Attachment 17)
➢ Duke Forest stewardship and sustainability tour — June 27 (Attachment 18)
9:00 VII. Adjournment
Nextmeeting; July (No Meeting)
August 13 (Hillsborough)
CFE Meeting Ground Rules (Adopted 9112111)
1. Keep to agenda topic under discussion
2. Share relevant information
3. One person speaks at a time after recognition by the Chair
4. Everyone is invited to participate in discussions / no one person should dominate
discussions
5. Strive to reach consensus first before voting
Activities the CFE expects to carry out in 2015:
• Continue to update the Orange County State of the Environment 2014 report
• Convene an Energy Task Force (or equivalent work group) to improve the County's
ability to foster local sustainable energy production and energy efficiency strategies
• Recommend ways to reduce the County's "carbon footprint" and implement the
County's Environmental Responsibility Goal
• Help with public outreach and management efforts related to hydrilla in Eno River
• Help initiate the development of a comprehensive conservation plan for Orange Co
• Collaborate with NC Botanical Garden and others to identify significant roadside
habitat for native plants; ask NCDOT and other utilities to protect those roadside
habitats [authorized by BOCC June 2012]
• Co- sponsor the annual DEAPR photography contest (The Nature of Orange)
• Help plan for and participate in DEAPR's annual Earth Day event
Concerns or emerging issues the CFE has identified for 2015:
• The CFE will continue to advocate for an expansion of the County's commercial food waste
pickup and composting services to reduce food waste in the solid waste stream
• The CFE remains interested in developing incentives for increasing energy efficiency in new
construction [January 2012 memo to Planning Board]
• The CFE will strive to learn more about environmental justice matters and incorporate
relevant information and considerations in the State of the Environment 2014 report
• The CFE will follow closely the Solid Waste Advisory Group's discussions of how to improve
the handling and disposal of Orange County's solid waste, and will advocate for better long-
term solutions
• The CFE will continue to advocate for increased efforts to gather information related to water
resources in Orange County and will continue to increase public awareness and
understanding of water supply sources, related concerns, and what steps can be undertaken
to maintain or improve the quantity and quality of Orange County water supply resources
• The CFE will continue to address, as appropriate, the critical environmental issues for Orange
County as enumerated on page 3 of the 2014 State of the Environment report, which include
potential adverse effects from a) invasive, non - native, plant and animal species; b) reductions
in State -led collection of water resources data; c) potential drilling for natural gas in the Deep
River basin; d) urban sprawl; and CFE support for e) the responsible deployment of clean and
appropriately -sited renewable energy and reductions in energy use to help fight climate
change
Attachment 1
Orange County
Commission for the Environment
DRAFT Meeting Summary
May 11, 2015
Richard Whitted Meeting Facility, Hillsborough
PRESENT: Lydia Wegman (Vice Chair), Jan Sassaman (Chair), May Becker, Peter Cada, Lynne
Gronback, Loren Hintz, Bill Newby, Jeanette O'Connor, Sheila Thomas - Ambat, David Welch
ABSENT: Tom Eisenhart, Donna Lee Jones, David Neal, Rebecca Ray, Gary Saunders
STAFF: Tom Davis, Rich Shaw, Brennan Bouma
GUESTS: Chip Hughes (National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences)
Call to Order — Wegman (Acting Chair) called the meeting to order at 7:35 pm.
Additions or Changes to Agenda — None.
III. Minutes — Sassaman noted there was an incorrect statement on page 1 of the April 13
meeting summary where it said Gronback was still a candidate for appointment to the
CFE. Sassaman pointed out Gronback had already been appointed. Hintz motioned to
approve the summary as amended: seconded by Sassaman. Approved unanimously.
IV. Proposed Amendment to Impervious Surface Rules — Shaw reviewed the April CFE
meeting's discussion of proposed amendments to the County's rules that limit the
amount of impervious surfaces on developed properties in certain water supply
watershed protection areas. He said the rules would allow an increase in the allowable
impervious surfaces provided the property owners install an approved infiltration best
management practice (BMP) and abide certain other conditions.
Shaw referred CFE members to OWASA's comments that were generally favorable with
the amendments as long as the County would ensure that the required annual
maintenance inspections occur and that the program include a process for what would
occur if a BMP no longer functioned properly and the owner decided not to repair or
replace the BMP. Shaw also noted OWASA recommended that a licensed engineer be
required to design the BMP.
CFE members responded to the proposal and discussed possible comments.
• Newby expressed his doubts that such a program would work properly.
• Hintz agreed with Newby, noting however that he does not anticipate there would
be a large amount of requests to install infiltration BMPs. He asked how property
owners would know whether they would need to abide by these rules. He noted
the Chapel Hill board of adjustment has forgiven mistakes by homeowners; if the
County adopts this amendment the requirements need to be explicit.
• O'Connor noted that building permits are needed prior to most construction, so it
would be highly unusual for property owners to be uninformed of what is allowed.
• Sassaman agreed. He said the County has a unified permitting process.
• Davis said the County's permitting system is called "Permits Plus."
Attachment 1
• Bouma pulled up the County building permit webpage and described some of the
information needed for a building permit, such as the amount of existing
impervious surfaces and how much additional impervious area is proposed.
Thomas -Ambat noted the City of Raleigh Stormwater is considering a text
change to its impervious area exemptions for active stormwater control
requirements. She said this change will limit these exemptions to a maximum
impervious area based on residential zoning. Based on the recommended
revisions, properties that exceed these limitations will be required to provide
either a flood study or volume control for the 90% storm.
• Hintz made a motion that the CFE go on record of supporting the proposed rule
change as long as procedures are established and implemented for monitoring
and enforcement, and as long as property owners are made aware of the rules.
• Becker said she does not believe this rule change would benefit the environment,
and the role of the CFE is not to allow for more development. She recommended
the CFE not support the rule change, but perhaps not object to it either.
• Shaw reminded members that Planning Director Craig Benedict said the intent of
the amendment was to allow for no net increase in runoff from developed
properties to receiving water bodies.
• O'Connor said an increase in impervious surface could result in a greater loss of
habitat and carbon sequestration even with no net increase in water runoff.
• Cada agreed, noting also that although the volume of runoff may not increase,
the water quality of the runoff could be worse.
• Sassaman agreed; more development will result in greater nutrient loading. He
said the problem is the cumulative effects of these incremental changes.
• O'Connor said BMPs can be expected to fail in the future. The environment is
already not doing well; the CFE should not support being less restrictive.
• Cada said the County ought to require a letter of credit or a process for the
removal of excess impervious surfaces. There should be strict enforcement.
Wegman summarized the comments /discussion. She said Becker had suggested that
the CFE not support or endorse the proposed rule change. Sassaman proposed
sending a memo to the BOCC that states the CFE is neutral or does not object to the
proposed rule change, but the CFE wants the County to establish an enforcement
process with yearly inspections that sets a certain amount of time for the landowner to
remedy the site when the BMP fails to work properly. Hintz added that the CFE is
uncomfortable with the proposed rule change because the measures will be difficult to
design and enforce without resulting in an incremental loss of habitat. He suggested
while the CFE cannot endorse wholeheartedly because of the loss of habitat quantity
and quality, loss of carbon sequestration, and reduced water quality despite no expected
increase in water quantity. Cada suggested the CFE recommend there be some sort of
permit renewal process.
The CFE agreed to have staff prepare a draft memo based on the discussion and to
circulate the draft memo to CFE members for review and approval via email. The final
memo will be submitted to the Planning Board and BOCC for consideration.
2
Attachment 1
V. Environmental Justice — Sassaman reminded CFE members of Commissioner Mark
Dorosin's interest in the CFE including some information on environmental justice issues
in the State of the Environment report. Sassaman said he had reported back the BOCC
that the CFE would begin to educate itself about the issues in Orange County and see
what data could be gathered and presented in future editions of the report.
Sassaman introduced Chip Hughes (National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences). Hughes apologized that his colleague, Sharon Beard, could not attend the
meeting. He provided some background on environmental justice issues, beginning with
the illegal dumping of PCBs in Warren County, NC in the 1970 -80 time period.
Hughes described the fight for environmental justice as making sure that in situations
where there adverse environmental impacts that the impacts are not placed on minority
populations disproportionately from the neighboring communities. He gave the example
of the solid waste landfill on Eubanks Road sited next to the Rogers Road community,
and the positive changes that have resulted for that community in the past few years.
Hughes said there may be some metrics available for incorporating environmental
justice issues in the SOE report, such as some kinds of environmental inequities. Hintz
noted that the 2014 SOE report included data on the amount of protected land in Orange
County. He suggested the CFE evaluate whether minority communities have fairly equal
access to public parks and open spaces. Do they live in close proximity to the parks?
Newby said there is community data available from the US EPA that may be useful for
these determinations. He said the Environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis
Program (BenMAP) is an open- source computer program that calculates the number
and economic value of air pollution - related deaths and illnesses. The database includes
many of the concentration - response relationships, population files, and health and
economic data needed to quantify these impacts. Bouma said he agrees that this could
be a useful source of data for evaluating some potential environmental justice issues.
O'Connor said the CFE Land Resources Committee monitors the protection of
significant natural resource lands in Orange County, but is not aware of anyone
determining whether the publicly - assessable lands are benefiting underprivileged
communities. Gronback said as a public school teacher she is a witness to significant
problems associated with income gaps among the families that attend her high school.
Hintz said he observed disproportional numbers of minority school children taking part in
certain outdoor activities during his tenure as high school science teacher in Chapel Hill.
Sassaman said he has discussed environmental and social justice issues with Reverend
Campbell and David Caldwell. Sassaman agrees the CFE is in a position to address
some portion of the issues in future SOE reports, including some recommendations on
what the County and individual residents can do to make improvements.
Bouma observed that many of the County's advisory boards have a role in addressing
environmental justice and /or social justice issues. He suggested the CFE also consider
what are the environmental benefits of establishing equity among the different segments
of the community. O'Connor suggested lower- income residents of the community could
benefit in many ways if they had access to solar energy. Wegman suggested that it
might be a good idea to convene a broader meeting of advisory boards to discuss the
overall and to identifv measures that could be implemented across the boards.
The CFE thanked Hughes for joining the advisory board in this discussion
3
Attachment 1
VI. Updates and Information Items — Information on the following subjects was provided in
the meeting package; selected items were highlighted for discussion: a) Earth Evening,
b) a CFE news article about hydrilla in the Eno River, c) hydrilla management in the Eno
River, d) the County's solid waste recycling program funding plan, e) the County's solar
development initiatives, f) the 2016 County bond referendum, g) Chapel Hill - Carrboro
City Schools awarded a Green Ribbon, h) Regulatory Reform Act of 2015 (HB 760), i)
The Nature of Orange photo contest, and j) Norm Christensen's keynote presentation
from the Orange County Environmental Summit held in October 2014.
Wegman reported that the BOCC had tentatively decided to pursue a $125 million bond
referendum in fall 2016, and the scope of the funds would go entirely for the schools.
She suggested the CFE ask the BOCC to reconsider including other kinds of projects in
the bond package, including funding for parks and open space. Hintz and other CFE
members agreed with this proposal. Wegman offered to prepare draft a memo to the
BOCC for CFE members to review and comments. CFE members agreed to have
Wegman circulate a draft memo for CFE review and approval.
VI I. Adjournment — Wegman adjourned at approximately 9:30 pm.
Summary by Rich Shaw, DEAPR Staff
M
ITEM 7
AGENDA ITEM
• COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT CONCEPT FOR ENERGY MANAGEMENT PLAN
PURPOSE
• To obtain the Board of Directors' feedback and guidance regarding the possibility of
establishing an "Energy Council" as a key strategy for engaging local governments,
partners agencies, and stakeholders in energy management planning.
BACKGROUND
• At its March 17 and April 28, 2015 meetings, the Natural Resources and Technical Systems
(NRTS) Committee received and discussed a 10-year assessment of energy use at OWASA,
a summary of our energy management efforts to date, and potential goals and objectives
for our energy management plan. The Committee also discussed potential next steps for
engaging the community in our energy management planning efforts, and agreed that early
on in our work, we should begin to "tell our story" and engage the community through
multiple channels.
• NRTS Committee Chair Terri Buckner volunteered to write a guest newspaper article about
our energy management planning efforts and the opportunity for customers and other
stakeholders to stay informed and participate throughout the process.
• Another engagement strategy the Committee discussed is the possibility to establish an
"Energy Council" or other forum to engage local governments, the schools system,
University, and other stakeholders in discussions about energy management. The
Committee did not develop specific details regarding this concept, but agreed that an
inclusive approach early on in our work would demonstrate that we: (a) welcome and
proactively seek the community's feedback and assistance; (b) want to work in partnership
with the community; and (c) are committed to sustainable energy management.
• NRTS Chair Terri Bucker will verbally present this concept to the Board.
• As background information, attached is the Proposed Community Engagement Plan for
Energy Management Plan Project (CEP), which was included as an attachment to the
Energy Management Plan Project Charter approved by the Board on January 22, 2015.
ACTION NEEDED
• Board of Directors discussion of this concept, and guidance to staff.
May 28, 2015
a]
(Attachment B to Board-Approved Energy Management Plan Project Charter)
Proposed Community Engagement Plan
for Energy Management Plan Project
Purpose
The Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) is developing an Energy Management Plan
(EMP) to provide strategic direction for OWASA's energy management, energy efficiency, and
renewable energy decisions, actions, and investments. The EMP will document our goals and
objectives (including targets), and ongoing strategies for: managing and conserving energy and
related costs; increasing energy security and reliability; using renewable energy; and reducing our
greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs).
Our customers and the community we serve will be affected by and interested in our energy
management efforts, decisions, and investments. Therefore, it is important that we provide
stakeholders (a) timely information about the project, our efforts, and the strategies and
investments we are considering, and (b) meaningful opportunities for them to have input in and
provide feedback regarding this effort. The intent of this Community Engagement Plan is to
describe our planned approach to achieve that.
The format and content of this plan follow the Community Engagement Guidelines approved by
the OWASA Board of Directors in November 2014.
Outcomes/Obiectives
1. Provide timely and clear information to stakeholders about our energy use and energy
management efforts; what is proposed; how they might be affected; costs and benefits of
strategies we are considering; how they might be affected; how they can participate in and
provide comments on this effort; etc.
2. Seek stakeholder feedback and questions so that we can better understand their interest
in, perspectives, and expectations regarding our energy management efforts.
3. Engage stakeholders in a dialogue by receiving and responding to their comments and
questions, and providing additional information as needed.
4. Encourage action by our customers and other stakeholders where applicable, by
empowering them with information about topics such as how their water conserving
actions can help us reduce the amount of energy we use to meet their water demands.
5. Raise the awareness level of employees and gain their support for the plan, as well-
informed and supportive employees will be key to the success of the program. Involving
employees will show that their opinions count, that they have a say in how things work,
and that they are valued members of our team.
6. Gain support and buy-in for our efforts, and gain the trust of stakeholders, including
public officials.
7. Evaluate the effectiveness of our engagement efforts for this project through informal
surveys of stakeholders, and through Board and staff reviews.
I
am
(Attachment B to Board-Approved Energy Management Plan Project Charter)
Stakeholders
Stakeholder groups that we want to inform and engage include the following. Additional
stakeholders may be identified and included once the project is underway.
• Interested OWASA customers
System users that may not be OWASA accountholders
Community organizations
• Local government elected officials and staff
• UNC and UNC Healthcare
• Chamber of Commerce, including the Foundation for a Sustainable Community
• Conservation/environmental organizations
• Civic groups
• Energy-related companies serving our community, including our energy utilities and fuel
suppliers (Duke Energy; PSNC/Scana Energy; Piedmont Electric Membership Cooperative)
• Energy and sustainability program staff from Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Orange County, Chapel
Hill — Carrboro City Schools, and UNC/UNC Healthcare
• Other organizations with expertise in/support for sustainable energy management (NC
Energy Office; Advanced Energy; Alternative Energy Corporation; Piedmont Biofuels;
Strata Solar; YES Solar; etc.)
• Our employees, who will be key to the success of our energy management efforts
Core Messages
The engagement effort shall clearly convey the following messages to stakeholders:
• OWASA desires to increase the sustainability of its energy use through cost-effective
investments, operational changes, policies, etc.
• OWASA believes that enhancing energy use sustainability and reducing our GHG
emissions is beneficial to our community, State and nation, and an important priority in our
community.
• Water conservation is a key means of reducing GHGs, because saving water means less
fossil-fuel derived energy will be needed to pump and treat water and wastewater to meet
the needs of our customers. Conversely, because a substantial amount of water is used for
energy production, saving energy also enables better management of water resources.
• OWASA seeks to proactively inform and engage stakeholders as we develop of the Energy
Management Plan, and we welcome and appreciate questions, comments, and suggestions
regarding our energy management planning efforts, and our community engagement
efforts.
• OWASA desires to inform the community on an ongoing basis in the future about its
energy management initiatives and their results.
2
W
(Attachment B to Board - Approved Energy Management Plan Project Charter)
Key Information
The following information will be provided to stakeholders as part of this engagement effort:
a. What is proposed? Development of an Energy Management Plan to increase the
sustainability of our facilities and operations and reduce GHGs.
b. Who would be affected? OWASA customers may be affected depending on the cost to
implement the future recommendations and the associated savings OWASA may achieve.
There would be broad societal benefits associated with long -term reductions in GHGs.
c. What are the expected advantages and disadvantages (non financial and financial) of
alternative courses of action? This will be developed as the technical work proceeds.
d. What is the timetable for the project and stakeholder participation? The draft Plan is
scheduled to be completed in Fiscal Year 2416.
e. What opportunities will stakeholders have to participate and let us know what they are
thinking? They will be able to offer comments, questions, and suggestions throughout all
phases of the project.
f. How can stakeholders get more information and be placed on the list to receive project
updates, information and draft reports, meeting notices, etc. ? Interested stakeholders can
contact us by phone or e -mail to be placed on our distribution list. They can also visit our
project webpage (to be developed)
Approach
Our communications approach includes multiple activities to inform and engage stakeholders
throughout the project, and to evaluate the success of our engagement effort. We believe the
proposed activities described below will be cost - effective and appropriate considering the level
of staff effort required to support this engagement effort and the scope and importance of the
Energy Management Plan project.
Four core strategies that will be common to our information, engagement, and evaluation efforts
are:
1. Establish and publicize an energy management plan project webpage to convey
information about the project; enable interested stakeholders to submit their questions,
comments, and suggestions on -line.
2. Establish an e-mail distribution list that helps us convey project information and public
participation opportunities to stakeholders in a timely and efficient way (through our
Constant Contacts service).
3. Include informal surveys and feedback opportunities as a feature of our project website,
public meetings on the project, presentations to stakeholder groups; etc.
4. Establish an informal technical advisory committee (TAC) to provide high -level technical
input throughout the project. This will enable other professionals to share best practices in
energy management as well as resources and successful methods they have used. The
committee will include, but not be limited to, energy and sustainability managers from
local public agencies (several local staff have agreed to participate on the proposed TAC).
to
(Attachment B to Board - Approved Energy Management Plan Project Charter)
The information process will include a variety of methods for conveying project information to
stakeholders, such as:
• a dedicated project webpage;
• e -mails to stakeholders on our distribution list;
• paper mailing(s) to stakeholders (such as newsletters);
• news releases, guest articles in local papers; etc.;
• outreach presentations to interested community groups, including elected officials;
• social media (Twitter; any other social media that OWASA may decide to use in the
future); and
• announcements and presentations during televised Board meetings and other community
meeting(s).
The engagementldialogue process will include opportunities to ask questions, seek information,
and provide comments and feedback via a variety of methods, such as:
• participation at meeting(s) of the Board of Directors or its Committee(s);
• e -mail, letter, or fax at any time to the staff and/or Board;
• participation at project - related community outreach meetings;
• face -to -face meetings (either one -on -one or small groups) upon request; and
• feedback forms on the project webpage.
We will strive to provide at least two to four weeks for distribution and review of applicable
information before engagement /feedback opportunities at Board and Committee meetings when
the project is discussed.
The evaluation process will include:
• informal surveys of stakeholders (offered on the webpage, at outreach meetings, etc.) to
seek their feedback on the information and engagement opportunities we have provided;
• After Action Review by staff; and
• Board of Directors evaluation of the value of the engagement process for the project.
A summary table showing community engagement activities, target audiences, communication
methods, etc. is provided on the following page.
11
SUMMARY TABLE OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES, TARGET AUDIENCES, AND METHODS FOR ENERGY PLAN PROJECT
ID
Description
Activity Type
Responsibility
Schedule
Target Audience
Communication Methods /Channels
Resources
1A
Project webpage established to
Support
Staff
Feb 2015
Stakeholders
Project webpage on OWASA's website; includes automated features for
support engagement process
accessing and downloading project information, submitting comments,
questions and suggestions, and providing feedback regarding the
TBD
engagement process
1B
Project stakeholder e -mail list
Support
Staff
Feb 2015
Stakeholders
E -mail distribution through Constant Contacts (this is proposed to be our
established to support engagement
primary method for notifying interested stakeholders of the availability of
process
information about the project and opportunities for public input)
TBD
1C
Technical Advisory Committee
Engagement
Staff
Feb 2015
Local Agency
Staff-to -staff invitations to participate; TAC provides initial peer review of
established to provide support
Energy and
project information, technical analysis and recommendations, etc, prior
Sustainability
to public release, where practical
TBD
Managers
1D
Outreach and engagement through
Engagement
Board and Staff
TBD
Stakeholders
Letter requests to make presentations to local governing boards;
at least two general project
Including Local
presentations by the Board and staff (with consultant support if needed),
meetings with public; meetings with
Governing
followed by 4 &A; feedback; evaluation
civic groups and other organizations,
Boards
TBD
and presentations to local governing
boards
2
Project introduction - purpose,
Information
Staff
Mar 2015
Stakeholders
Project webpage; project e -mail distribution; letters to local
TBD
timetable, opportunities and
governments; announcements and invitations at Board meetings,
methods for participation and
community meetings, and via local media outlets; Twitter messages; local
feedback, etc,
media outlets
3
Baseline assessment of energy use;
Information
Staff
Mar 2015
Board and
Project webpage; project e -mail distribution; letters to local
TBD
information about our energy
Stakeholders
governments; announcements and invitations at Board meetings,
management accomplishments;
community meetings, and via local media outlets; Twitter messages; local
consideration of potential goals and
media outlets
objectives
Engagement
Board and Staff
Mar- May
Stakeholders
NRTS Committee and Board Work Session presentations and discussions;
TBD
2015
project webpage; project e -mail distribution; social media; electronic and
paper mailings; Blue Thumb newsletter; local media outlets; opportunity
for public to comment prior to Committee /Board giving direction to staff
4
Evaluation of alternative
Information
Staff
Summer 2015
Board and
Project webpage; project e -mail distribution; letters to local
TBD
management strategies
Stakeholders
governments; announcements and invitations at Board meetings and
community meetings, and via Blue Thumb and local media outlets;
Twitter messages
Engagement
Board and Staff
Summer 2015
Stakeholders
NRTS Committee and Board Work Session presentations and discussions;
TBD
project webpage; project e -mail distribution; social media; electronic and
paper mailings; Blue Thumb newsletter; local media outlets
Ta
SUMMARY TABLE OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES, TARGET AUDIENCES, AND METHODS FOR ENERGY PLAN PROJECT
ID
Description
Activity Type
Responsibility
Schedule
Target Audience
Communication Methods /Channels
Resources
5
Draft Plan
Information
Staff
TBD
Board and
Project webpage; project e -mail distribution; letters to local
TBD
Stakeholders
governments; announcements and invitations at Board meetings and
community meetings, and via Blue Thumb and local media outlets;
Twitter messages
Engagement
Board and Staff
TBD
Stakeholders
NRTS Committee and Board Work Session presentations and discussions;
TBD
project webpage; project e -mail distribution; social media; electronic and
paper mailings; Blue Thumb newsletter; local media outlets; opportunity
for public to comment prior to Committee/Board giving direction to staff
6
Release of Final Plan
Information
Staff
TBD
Board and
Project webpage; project e -mail distribution; letters to local
TBD
Stakeholders
governments; announcements and invitations at Board meetings and
community meetings, and via Blue Thumb and local media outlets;
Twitter messages
Engagement
Board and Staff
TBD
Stakeholders
NRTS Committee and Board Work Session presentations and discussions;
TBD
project webpage; project e -mail distribution; social media; electronic and
paper mailings; Blue Thumb newsletter; local media outlets; opportunity
for public to comment prior to Committee/Board giving direction to staff
7
Seek and evaluate feedback
Measure
Staff
Through -out
Stakeholders
Informal survey of stakeholders - survey instruments available through
TBD
regarding the effectiveness of the
Effectiveness
Project and at
the project webpage, distributed through the project e -mail list, or
community engagement process
Completion
distributed in paper form at public meetings or in- person meetings with
staff; publication of the results on project webpage, with distribution
through project e -mail list, and report to the Board
Measure
Staff and Board
End of Project
Board
Informal survey of Board via e -mail (using Survey Monkey, or paper copy)
TBD
Effectiveness
Measure
Staff
End of Project
Staff and Board
Document findings from staff's After Action Review; communication of
TBD
Effectiveness
results to Board via e -mail; discussion of results with Board if requested
7.7
DRAFT Memorandum
To: Orange County Board of Commissioners
From: Orange County Commission for the Environment
Date: June 4, 2015
Subject: 2016 Bond Referendum
The Commission for the Environment (CFE) is concerned about the preliminary decision
by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) to restrict the planned 2016 bond
referendum to funding for school improvements and expansion. In particular, the CFE
believes the BOCC should have proceeded with the process discussed at the November
19, 2014 Assembly of Governments meeting, which would have provided an opportunity
for the BOCC to hear from the public, relevant County- appointed citizen advisory
boards, including the CFE, and representatives of key County departments, such as the
Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation, on their areas of
expertise and /or concern.
The BOCC's decision - making process would benefit greatly by hearing comments from
County residents, advisory boards, and departments on the funding needs facing
programs and activities that are essential to the quality of life in the County. No doubt
education is important, but equally important are parks and recreation, affordable
housing for low - income residents, and services for the county's growing population of
seniors, among other needs. For example, if the County could provide $5 to $10 million
for park development, it would be possible to develop and open the long - planned
Blackwood Park as well as additional recreational facilities in the northern part of the
county. By developing Twin Creeks Park located next to Morris Grove Elementary
School, the County would provide recreational opportunities for both school children and
adults, helping to improve the quality of life for all residents as well as making the
county a more attractive area for new businesses that seek well- rounded communities in
which to locate their operations.
The CFE urges the Board of County Commissioners to reopen the bond referendum
process and provide a full opportunity for public and County staff comment. The CFE
would very much appreciate an opportunity to present its views on funding priorities
related to parks and open space land conservation to the BOCC.
Thank you for considering our views.
Copies: Bonnie Hammersley, County Manager
David Stanch, Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation Director
ORANGE COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, AGRICULTURE,
PARKS AND RECREATION
MEMORANDUM
To: Commission for the Environment
From: Rich Shaw
Date: June 3, 2015
Subject: Summary of the presentation on Chapel Hill's green building incentives
At your April 13 meeting the CFE received a presentation on the Town of Chapel Hill's pilot
program of providing financial incentives for sustainable design (or "green building'') within
the Ephesus Church / Fordham Renewal District.
The following is a summary of the presentation and CFE discussion:
Chapel Hill's Green Building Incentives — John Richardson (Planning Manager for
Sustainability) and Jesse Freedman (Energy Management Specialist) presented an
overview of the Town of Chapel Hill's pilot program of providing financial incentives for
sustainable (or "green building ") design. Richardson noted that this pilot program applies
only for development within the Ephesus Church / Fordham Renewal District.
Freedman said the Town's objective is to incentivize developers to build high - performance
buildings with better energy and water conservation performance than the 75th percentile
of similar buildings. He noted that prior to this program the incentive was to build the
worst energy and water efficient buildings allowed by law.
Freedman described the Town's process of choosing a green building standard for energy
use from among many options, including LEED certification, Energy Star, 2030 Challenge,
and others. The Town chose the Energy Star program, which the staff considers a neutral
standard. The Town chose the State water performance standard. Freedman said the
intent was to create standard that are rigorous and achievable.
Freedman said in this pilot phase the financial incentive for builders is up to a 35%
reduction in their development permit fees. He reviewed the benefits of green building
versus conventional building in terms of energy use and water consumption. He noted the
tendencies for higher rental rates (+ 2% — 17 %), greater resale value (+ 5.8% - 35 %), higher
market value (+ 13.5 %), and lower operating expenses (- 30 %) for green buildings on
average.
Richardson said the rebate could result in a potential total maximum reduction in revenue
from permit fees of about $600,000; however that level of activity is highly unlikely. He
said there have been only two applicants to date. Richardson said Town staff will try to
verify performance measures, likely through periodic field inspections.
Freedman and Richardson responded to questions from CFE members:
O'Connor asked if there were incentives for sustainable design of the outside portions of the
buildings, such as green roofs, xeriscaping, and onsite water retention. Richardson said
yes, there are standards for the outside as well.
Neal asked if Chapel Hill had looked at examples of like programs in other jurisdictions,
such as Catawba County. Richardson said they consulted NC State's DESIRE database for
suitable examples and found that Charlotte's program was most effective. The others
reported low levels of effectiveness.
Sassaman asked if the Town used other incentives in addition to the permit fee rebate.
Richardson said the State has authorized the rebate incentive. For buildings and
development outside of the Ephesus Church / Fordham district the Town uses other
standards and requirements for approving special use permits.
Sassaman asked if the Town applies these standards to its public buildings. Richardson
said the Town has, by ordinance, a LEED Silver minimum for all buildings. For example,
the Chapel Hill Library was built to LEED Silver standard.
Neal asked if these standards applied to single - family residential development, and might
the Town consider expanding the incentives to other parts of the town. Richardson said it
is only intended for commercial and multifamily residential, and said the council has not
discussed imposing these standards elsewhere.
Hintz asked how much less the cost of utilities might be for buildings in the Ephesus
Church / Fordham district than in other parts of the town. Richardson said it would
depend on the building type; the staff has run some calculations.
Richardson said the Town of Chapel Hill will reassess the pilot program at the end of the
first year and the staff will work with the town council on making adjustments if needed.
Neal noted the CFE has recommended to the BOCC and the Planning Board that Orange
County consider adopting similar incentives for sustainable development, but thus far
nothing has resulted from those discussions.
The CFE thanked Richardson and Freedman for their presentation.
MEMORANDUM
To: Orange County Planning Board
From: Orange County Commission for the Environment
Renee Price, Chair
David Neal, Energy Committee
Date: January 26, 2012
Re: Incentives for Energy Efficient Construction and Renovation in Orange County
The Orange County Commission for the Environment ( "CFE ") invites the Orange County
Planning Board to consider a Low Energy Construction Permitting Incentive ordinance in
2012. N. C. Gen. Stat.§ 153A -340 allows counties to charge "reduced building permit fees or
provide partial rebates of building permit fees for buildings" that meet or exceed recognized
energy efficient design and construction principals. Members of CFE are available to work
with the Planning Board and county staff to review similar ordinances enacted pursuant to this
statute (for example, from Catawba County) and from around the country, then to draft an
ordinance for consideration by the Orange County Board of Commissioners.
Neither the current level of carbon in the atmosphere nor projected increases in greenhouse
gas emissions are sustainable. Costly and potentially irreversible adverse climate effects are
likely unless mitigation measures — such as increased energy efficiency investments and
decreased fossil fuel consumption — are taken in the near future. In Orange County, we
cannot wait for policy changes at the state and federal level to encourage increased energy
efficiency. Steps taken now to improve efficiency and decrease or eliminate our reliance on
fossil fuels for energy production will help lock -in reduced energy use for years to come.
Since 2003, Orange County has been a member of Local Governments for Sustainability, an
international membership association committed to a sustainable future. Creating incentives
for energy efficiency in construction is consistent with Orange County's commitment to a
sustainable future. The 2005 Greenhouse Gas Inventory revealed that nearly fifty percent of
greenhouse gas emissions in Orange County come from residential and commercial buildings
(consistent with national data). Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro, in conjunction
with Hillsborough, are currently working on a revised inventory of greenhouse gas emissions
and attempting to identify reduction measures.
Making use of the authority granted by the General Assembly to incentivize energy efficient
construction is a straightforward way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the county level
for the long term. CFE would like to explore crafting an incentive program that would be
attractive to lower- income residents, for whom savings on utility bills would provide a
particularly important benefit.
' From Architecture 2030, buildings account for 48.7% of total energy consumption in the
United States (available at httL / /architecture203O.org/the _problem /buildings _problem why).
Co 2� 2tGSSGO ti for the E7ki vGrokswe4e-
c% orgwcge couwte D F,4PR Po Po ,< 8181 HzCCs6orouc�G vc � g (q y)
To give an example of how such an energy efficient construction incentive might function,
below is a summary of the Catawba County incentives enacted pursuant to N. C. Gen. Stat. §
t 53A -340:
Catawba County is providing incentives to encourage the
construction of sustainably built homes and commercial
buildings. Rebates on permit fees and plan reviews are available
for certain qualifying structures and renewable energy projects.
Buildings designed and constructed in accordance with the US
Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED), NC HealthyBuilt Homes,
Energy Star, or the National Association of Home Builders'
Model Green Home Building Guidelines can receive a 25%
blanket permit fee rebate, not to exceed $500. Catawba County
will also rebate 50% of fees related to plan review or express
plan review for commercial buildings seeking LEED
certification.
Additionally, existing one and two family homes and
commercial buildings can receive a 50% rebate on the
permitting fees associated with the installation of geothermal
heat pumps, photovoltaic (PV) systems, solar water heating
systems, and gray /rain water collection for flushing fixtures.
Regular fees must be paid in full at time of plan review or
permit issuance. Fee rebates will be refunded upon project
completion and certification by third party inspection agency.2
Rebates or reduced fees for efficient construction could be structured on a sliding scale, with
zero energy construction receiving the most robust incentives. Given the current level of
permitting fees, rebates or reductions in Orange County could be designed here that could
provide a substantial incentive for efficient construction.
The CFE looks forward to working with the Planning Board on crafting an efficiency
incentive program for consideration by the Orange County Board of Commissioners. We
would appreciate the opportunity to have this item included on an upcoming agenda and to
work with you on completing a draft proposal in the next few months.
cc: David Stancil
Craig Benedict
From the Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy & Efficiency (available at
<http: / /www.dsireusa.org /incentives /incentive.cfin ?Incentive Code= NC87F &re= 1 &ee =1 >)
corur�cLssCov (ort-he sw✓Crowmtewt
o% oraw _qe coakLty DFAPF, Po gox 919Y, Hzusborou0G, Nc 2V2,�Z5' (9.Z
MEMORANDUM
To: Orange County Board of County Commissioners
Orange County Planning Board
From: Orange County Commission for the Environment
Date: June 5, 2015
Subject: Proposed amendments to Orange County's impervious surface rules
The Commission for the Environment (CFE) has considered the draft amendments to Orange
County's impervious surface limitations for development in water supply watersheds.
Michael Harvey and Craig Benedict provided an excellent overview of the proposed revisions
to the Unified Development Ordinance at the CFE's May 11 meeting, and we thank you for
the opportunity to provide comments.
Although the amendment is not intended or expected to increase runoff from developed
properties, whether it be pervious or impervious, it is the finding of the CFE that the
cumulative effects from a larger developed portion of the watershed could have adverse
environmental impacts. If only a handful of landowners chose to pursue this option then the
effects would be minimal. However, with widespread use there could be an incremental loss
of wildlife habitat and a decrease in carbon sequestration as a result of the loss of wooded
areas. And although the volume or quantity of storm water runoff may not increase as a result
of the proposed changes, the quality of water leaving a site could worsen.
The CFE does not object to the proposed amendment, but the CFE cannot endorse a rule
change that lessens protection of the natural environment. If the County adopts the proposed
amendment and allows for the installation of infiltration BMPs to offset additional impervious
area, then the CFE would agree with the proposed requirements for engineered designs,
recorded maintenance agreements, annual inspections, and a viable enforcement mechanism.
The County should also consider requiring a performance bond and the renewal of the permit
after some reasonable period of time.
Again, the CFE appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposed change to the
Unified Development Ordinance.
Copies: Bonnie Haminersley, County Manager
David Stancil, Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation Director
RALEIGH —
To combat a rapidly spreading hydrilla infestation in the Eno River, the Eno River Hydrilla Management
Task Force has begun applying an EPA - approved herbicide in the river from Lawrence Road to Roxboro
Road in Orange and Durham counties.
The application began Friday and runs through the end of September.
SePRO Corp. is handling the application of fluridone, in a 16 -mile target zone of the river. SePRO
Corporation will apply the herbicide in a concentration well within the limits approved by the EPA — a
concentration that is both safe for swimmers and boaters and non -toxic to fish and wildlife.
The herbicide treatment project is part of a two -year pilot program to reduce the presence of hydrilla in
the Eno River.
Hydrilla is a highly destructive, nonnative aquatic plant from Asia that creates nearly impenetrable mats of
stems and leaves of the surface of lakes, rivers and other waterways. It crowds out native vegetation,
reduces recreational opportunities, and ultimately can harm fish and other aquatic organisms, as well as
bird species. The plant also can clog intakes in rivers and reservoirs that are used for drinking water
supplies and irrigation.
While task force members don't expect any significant injury to non - target plants within or adjacent to the
treatment areas, they recommend that homeowners with properties adjacent to the river not use treated
water for irrigation without consulting a task force member first.
The application of fluridone in the Eno River will be the first time the herbicide has been used in a river in
North Carolina to combat hydrilla, although it has been used successfully in Lake Gaston, Lake Tillery,
Tar River Reservoir and Lake Waccamaw to control hydrilla.
Hydrilla was first discovered in the Eno River basin in the early 1990s in Lake Orange, which is located
upstream of Hillsborough. In 2009, biologists confirmed hydrilla in another upstream reservoir, West Fork
Eno Reservoir. The N.C. Division of Water Resources is actively managing hydrilla in both upstream
reservoirs.
Members of the task force conducted a survey in fall 2013 and detected hydrilla at different densities in
25 miles of the river. The most infested area was about 15 miles of river from the N.C. Highway 70 Bridge
in Hillsborough to Guess Road in Durham.
"Hydrilla has significantly affected recreational opportunities in the Eno River," said Mark Fowlkes, the
Piedmont aquatic habitat coordinator with the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission. "Specifically, when
hydrilla has reached its full growth for the year, it is almost impossible to fish, kayak or wade in the river."
Biologists say because hydrilla grows so quickly and can form new plants from tiny fragments, it could get
established in Falls Lake and become a serious nuisance in terms of recreation and water supply.
For more information, email rob.emens @ncdenr.gov or call 919- 707 -9012
.,
s
O
O
;F
■
Am
W
m
■
LM
W
cn
s
V
W
O
N
CC
L"
O
5
O
V
b�
L."
42
O
O
L."
CC
b�
CC
O
z
O
A
CC
CC
O
O
O
O
c�
N
U
N
U
U
N
N
N
C�
^U
N
,s
v�
N ,s
U
N N
O
� N
bA
•? U
rcn
cn
N
;..o ct
ct
U
b�A �
c O
cn
ct a)
� N
t
O Ct
� N �
� � N
O N �
� O x
ct O
N
N
W �
O
N
C�
O
O
c-j
n
U
N
O
O
N
N
O
N
N
N
H
,s
'd
O
'd
O
O
U
c-j
Ste"
O
N
0
'd
c�
N
'd
N
N
O
N
U
Ste"
N
O
U
c�
O
c-j
cn
cn
,s
N
cn
N
O
0
>C
O
N
,s;
0
N
N
U
O
O
N
U
N
p1
L
V
LL
O
U
c�
c�
O
M
Ste"
N
'd
3
U
N
N
O
N
rA
0
U
ct
N
N
bA
O
O
N
U
ct
rA
bA
ct
N
ct
U
ct
N
N
N
N
N
bA
ct
U
ct
�bA
O
,�
I
O
U
0
O
ct
N
N
N
U
N
0
N
ct
rA
ct
O
U
N
,s
m
v�
N
N
5C
N
N
N
O
0
c-j
rA
rA
ct
N
O
O
d
N
bA
..
N
'd
N
bA
U
N
N
N
O
U
U
U
v�
O
c�
bA
U
N
N
N
O
ct
O
U
N
N
O
N
Q
Q
c�
N
N
ct
cn
U
ct
^
ct
O
ct
;= ti
'd
N
�
O
,�
U
N
�
ct
N
O
ct
Q
O
O
-
ct
ct
�,
•
U
O
�
U
cn
>
N
N
ct
3
>'
ct
ct
bA
4
A
ct
O
N
p
t
'd
cn
7s
ct
U
>-,
c
O~
ct
cn
�
ct
S�
ct
U
�"
O~
N
cn
N
cn
'd
v
s,
ct
ct
�
W
ct
c
ct
Lt
ct
N
ct
U
4
bA r
vA
z
ct
o
o
cn
W
O
O
O
bA
c
ct
N
rA
0
U
ct
N
N
bA
O
O
N
U
ct
rA
bA
ct
N
ct
U
ct
N
N
N
N
N
bA
ct
U
ct
�bA
O
,�
I
O
U
0
O
ct
N
N
N
U
N
0
N
ct
rA
ct
O
U
N
,s
m
v�
N
N
5C
N
N
N
O
0
c-j
rA
rA
ct
N
O
O
d
N
bA
..
N
'd
N
bA
U
N
N
N
O
U
U
U
v�
O
c�
bA
U
N
N
N
O
ct
O
U
N
N
O
N
Q
Q
.,
N
'd
N
O
O
U
O
N
N
'd
N
'd
O
4-j
O
'd
N
U
ct
tt
ct
O
,s
N
N
64
ct
ct
N
,s
N
bA
,s
U
cn
N
N
7
N
O
i
o-
ER:
O
U
O
'd
c�
O
O
,s
N
U
c�
U
O
_O
c�
N
U
O
N
O
N
'd
N
O
N
N
�U
c�
N
c�
Ste"
O
N
O
U
O
O
N
N
64
O
0
Ste"
N
N
0
x4-j
O
N
U
N
O
N
tb
U
O
�U
O
c�
O
'd
O
U
N
ct
N
O
O
N
O
N
bA
ct
cn
U
cn
N
N
O
'd
N
U
N
cn
ct
cn
N
s;
'd
ct
U
N
O
cn
cn
O
R
O
N
O
N
U
N
O
U
Mg
O
U
N
O
bA
O
bA
N
bA
N
N
ct
N
U
N
O
N
'd
N
64
N U
O
N
� U
N
O
O �
� O
� O
>o
N •�
c�
U
U �
N �
'd a
� 5p
O
� U
U �
O
� U
O
� O
H
a
Q
s
ct
cn
r--
N
p
cn
cn
p
4-4
ct
ct
t
cn
O
•�
�
N
N
cn
t
Ct
ct
ct
ct
O
O
v'
N
v
O
ct
In
cn
ct
cn
O
cn
4-j
cn
cn
rilEo
r--
n
ct
ct
cn
O
O
ct
N
bUA
N
c�
[�
po
U
Ste"
ct
ct
ct
'd
ct
'd
O
cn
N
cn
cn
cn
ct
Ct
4=1
ct
OJ)
�"
cn
N
p
c
p
N
N
Ct
ct
ct
N
cn
ct
cn
O
cn
O
ct
cn
cn
Ct
cn
rA
—Cto
750
70)
�"
N
N
4
N
ct
cn
ct
O
N
H
Mg
O
U
N
O
bA
O
bA
N
bA
N
N
ct
N
U
N
O
N
'd
N
64
N U
O
N
� U
N
O
O �
� O
� O
>o
N •�
c�
U
U �
N �
'd a
� 5p
O
� U
U �
O
� U
O
� O
H
a
Q
s
.,
O
N
'd
O
O
O
N
N
O
bA
'd
U
O
N
bA
O
bA
O
U
N
bA
ct
N
7s
rA
U
N
O
N
O
O
N
N
'd
ct
cn
N
N
N
c�
H
N
O
ct
N
'd
ct
N
,s
v�
N
U
W
O
O
N
N
N
'd
N
N
U
'd
N
ct
N
O
bA
O
bA
N
N
O
c�
ct
N
N
N
O
bA
O
bA
ct
N
N
,s
N
N
N
'd
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
c�
U
C�
O
'd
O
U
U
c�
N
O
'd
N
N
U
O
N
d
O
'd
N
N
^O
'd
N
O
N
O
C�
C�
N
Ste"
N
N
N
O
O
_O
c�
N
O
N
U
N
N
'd
N
U
N
bA
ct
C)
'd
ct
U
N
b�A
N
N
U
cn
ncn
cn
N
O
U
O
bA
'd
O
'd
N
O
c�
cn
cn
ct
O
N
bA
ct
C)
ct
'd
N
U
O
ct
O
ct
N
N
N
c�
H
N
ct
O
O
N
O
ct
cnbA
O
N
U
,s
N
cn
ct
H
vI
O
N
U
'd
O
O
'd
'd
c�
Ste"
'd
N
N
O
N
c�
N
N
,s
N
N
N
N
N
U
N
'd
N
U
N
N
N
N
N
U
,s
N
N
O
,s
m
N
O
N
O
O
N
N
O
,s
N
'd
N
U
N
N
N
�U
v�
,s
Ste"
O
'd
N
O
N
O
N
O
Ste"
O
O
N
M
u
O
N
O
U
Q
s
. 0 • 0
Hillsborough, ►.0 2725948
11; - 11:30 am
Breakfast & Networking
Driving Electric Presentation & Panel Discussion
Electric Vehicle Showcase & Test Drive
AIR'n,
Piedmont Electric
Membership Corporation
Your Local Touchstone Energy' Cooperalivc?4 Y )
For more information contact Kristi Brodd
kbrodd@advancedenergy.org or 919 - 857 -9019
vanc
e � e �a,. ,r
This is the second in a series of articles by the Orange County Commission for the Environment
(CFE). Each article highlights an environmental issue of interest to the residents of Orange
County. The CFE is a volunteer advisory board to the Board of County Commissioners.
Additional information can be found in the Orange County State of the Environment 2014 report
athLtp://www.orangecounlync.gov/departments/deqpr/commission _ for the _environmenf. h
* * * * * * * * * **
The native butterfly weed attracts bees, butterflies and birds (Photo: Orange County DEAPR)
DRAFT Why Native Plants?
Orange County Commission for the Environment
For most people, plants in our landscapes serve one purpose: beauty. But in reality,
plants are critically important for food webs and life cycles. Author Doug Tallamy
explains, "almost all North American birds other than seabirds — 96% — feed their
young with insects." These insects require host plants on which to lay their eggs, plants
with which they have evolved over millennia. When we trade native plants (those
species that have evolved with surrounding plants and animals, each influencing the
evolution of the other) for species from other places, we hinder the ability of these
insects to reproduce. A clear example can be seen in a comparison of the flowering
dogwood (Cornus florida), which is native to Orange County, and the kousa dogwood
(Cornus kousa), which is native to Korea, China, and Japan. The flowering dogwood
supports 117 species of moth and butterfly larvae; the kousa dogwood supports zero.
Some argue that they frequently observe insects on their non - native plants. For
instance, butterflies can often be seen drinking nectar from the flowers of the non - native
butterfly bush (Buddleia davidii), leading people to assume they have chosen a helpful
species for their yard. But no native species of butterfly will use the butterfly bush as a
host plant on which to lay its eggs.
Native plants are also important to our economy. Insects pollinate many of the foods we
enjoy eating. As of 2009, pollination of U.S. crops by native insects was valued at more
than nine billion dollars. Some individual species, such as the monarch butterfly, have
an estimated economic value in the billions of dollars. These insects will cease to exist
without the correct host plants on which to lay their eggs. In fact, researchers estimate
that the monarch butterfly population has declined by 80% over the past 21 years. The
decline is attributed in large part to the disappearance of the milkweed plants on which
the species relies, resulting in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considering the
monarch butterfly for protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
In contrast to the high economic value of natives, non - native species can be
economically and environmentally devastating; such species are categorized as
invasive by the federal government. Nearly half of the species listed for protection under
the ESA are in trouble due at least in part to invasive species. Far from the economic
good of natives, invasive species are estimated to cost the U.S. more than 120 billion
dollars in damages annually. It can take decades to determine that a species is
invasive, and such a finding does not automatically lead states to ban the sale of the
species.
While switching to native species from non - native or invasive ones may seem difficult, a
number of resources exist to help residents figure out which native plants will thrive in
your yard or garden. The North Carolina Botanical Garden (http: / /ncbp.unc.edu /) offers
plant lists, classes, tours, family and youth programs, and knowledgeable people to help
you in your hunt (not to mention a beautiful garden to stroll through to see spectacular
natives year- round).
Plant lists and local nurseries that specialize in species native to our region can also be
found through the North Carolina Native Plant Society (http: / /www.ncwildflower.org /).
You can also learn more about pollinators and native plants at Carrboro's first annual
Pollinator Day at the farmer's market on June 13
(http: / /www.townofcarrboro.org /988 /Pollinator - Celebration).
YOU CAN HELP SAVE THESE
VALUABLE POLLINATORS .
r� )
Backyard As an experi-
"' Wildlife enced wildlife gar-
Renee dener, I was skep
tical when my
Elder eyes first landed
on a Bayer Crop -
Science media alert announcing the one-
year anniversary of its North American Bee
Care Center in Research Triangle Park.
What little I knew about Bayer — the com-
pany that I once associated with children's
aspirin — included the fact that its Crop -
Science division manufactures pesticides,
some containing neonicotinoid, a sub-
stance that has been suspected of harming
bees and recently was banned from Lowe's
home improvement stores.
So I called Rebecca Langer,
a microbiologist who serves
as bee .manager for the $12 "
million Bayer Bee Center
that opened at RTP in spring
2014. Bayer scientists have
been studying bee health and Langer
husbandry practices since
the early 1990s. Its original Inside
bee research facility is in 5 ways to
Monheim, Germany. help bees
"Bayer has a longstanding thrive, 8C
interest in bees, because it's
part of our business," said Langer, who
cares for 13 hives containing approximately
60,000 bees each at the RTP site. -
Although the company's Crop Protec-
tion /Seeds division manufactures pesti-
cides, herbicides and other agricultural
chemicals, it also develops seed strains
aimed at improving yields of crops such as
cotton, canola and wheat.
"We, as much as everyone else, have a
need for bees," Langer explains. "We test all
of our products for their effect on bees."
SEE BEES, PAGE 8C
SC Saturday, May 23, 2015
BEES
CONTINUED FROM PAGE IC
Bees provide a crucial link
in the natural world. Bees
pollinate 75 percent of our
vegetables, fruits and nuts.
Without pollination by bees,
many crops could become ex-
tinct.
According to "Bee Basics,"
a publication of the U.S. De-
partment of Agriculture
Forest Service and the Polli-
nator Partnership, about
4,000 species of bees live in
the United States, but no
honeybees existed here until
European settlers brought
them over in hives.
Bees with names like the
blueberry bee and squash bee
pollinate native plants, with a
single hardworking blueber-
ry bee capable of visiting
50,000 blueberry flowers and
generating 6,000 blueberries
during its six weeks of life.
Both honey bees and na-
tive bee populations have
been shrinking in recent
years, and President Barack
Obama is seeking $82 mil-
lion in his 2016 budget to
study the reasons for the
losses, particularly the possi-
bility that neonicotinoid or
other pesticides are major
culprits.
Langer said similar re-
search has been conducted at
Bayer's Bee Centers for quite
some time. She said bee sci-
entists have not been able to
link pesticide, when used ex-
acily as intended, to major
drops in bee populations.
One of the most serious
threats identified so far is the
varroa mite, which carries vi-
ruses and bacteria that are
deadly to honeybees. Once
the mite attaches to a bee like
a tick and enters a hive, every
bee in that community will
likely become infected and
die.
Originating in Asia, where
bees developed a natural re-
sistance to the pathogens,
varroa mites made their way
to Europe in the 1970s and to
North America in the 1980s.
They wipe out millions of
Western honeybees annually.
Another deadly phenom-
enon affecting honeybees is
colony collapse disorder, in
which entire colonies of
worker bees disappear from
the hive, leaving behind a
queen and immature bees
that cannot sustain them-
selves.
COREY LOWENSTEIN - NEWS & OBSERVER FILE PHOTO
Bayer scientists study bee health at the Bayer North
American Bee Care Center in Research Triangle Park.
There are plenty of ways wildlife gardeners can give bee health a
boost:
® Invest in native flowering plants that provide food for bees. On
a single foraging trip, a bee will stop at 20 to 40 different flowers.
Include plants with flowers of different sizes in order to ac-
commodate big bumblebees, as well as more petite models. Even
pots of flowers on the porch will help provide valuable habitat.
• Include flowers with a variety of colors, scents and shapes.
• Clump flowers together to make it easier for bees to jump
from plant to plant.
® Don't apply pesticides and other chemicals between about 9
a.m. and 4 p.m., since that's when bees are most likely to be out-
side the hive foraging for food.
For more natural pest - control and gardening tips ,check out the
Greenhouse Catalog website at greenhousecatalog.com/natural-
gardening.
For a fun way to learn more about bees and the plants that sus-
tain them, try the Pollinator Partnership's Bee Smart application
for Android and iPhone. It's available at pollinator.org. After down-
loading the app, just type in your ZIP code for a list of suggested
plants to grow in your area.
The cause of the collapse
disorder is still unknown, al-
though factors suspected in-
clude various viruses and
fungi, genetic abnormalities,
and loss of natural habitat
that disrupts the bees' life cy-
cle.
Water shortages, unusual
weather patterns and chem-
ical pest control exposure are
also of concern, according to
the U.S. Environmental
Agency's pollinator protec-
tion site
(http://l.usa.gov/lei7zxF).
Another possible factor is
the stress that honeybees are
under from being transport-
ed to multiple locations for
pollination purposes, Langer
said.
Honeybees, she explained,
are the most heavily traveled
livestock in the United
States. For example, Califor-
nia's almond crop requires
1.7 million colonies of bees
during pollination season in
mid- February — that's about
half of all the bee colonies in
the U.S.
Native bees are rarely af-
fected by the verroa mite, but
have suffered from a signifi-
cant loss of local plant spe-
cies. Pesticide misuse, cli-
mate change and prolifera-
tion of nonnative invasive
species are also considered
harmful to native bees.
Langer agrees that pesti-
cides may harm bees and oth-
er insects if used incorrectly.
"It's critical to read the la-
bel — not only for the proper
way to use pest control prod-
ucts but also how often to ap-
ply them," she said. "And it's
important not to apply when
bees are around or the flow-
ers are in bloom that attract
bees."
Although the jury may be
out on whether safe applica-
tion of pesticides damages
bees and bee colonies, I avoid
using chemicals on my plants
and lawn whenever possible.
I believe that a gardener who
is trying to attract wildlife
has an extra obligation to
protect creatures coming to
the yard.
Saving America's bees
Imo";
GARY KAZANJIAN - AP
Towns that participate in the "Bee City USA" prograrn are asked to designate public spaces as pollinator
gardens with signs to educate the public.
Scientists praise the Obam;
By SETH B®IBENSTEIN
Associated Press
WASHINGTON 'The ®bama administration hopes to
save the bees by feeding them better.
A new federal plan is intended to reverse America's
declining honeybee and monarch butterfly populations
by making millions of acres of federal land more bee -
friendly, spending millions of dollars more on research
and considering the use of fewer pesticides.
While putting different type of landscapes along high-
ways, federal housing projects and elsewhere may not
sound like much in terms of action, several bee scientists
said that this a huge move. They say it may help pollina-
tors that are starving because so much of the American
landscape has been converted to lawns and corn that
don't provide foraging areas for bees.
"This is the first time I've seen addressed the issue that
there's nothing for pollinators to eat," said University of
Illinois entomologist May Perenbaum, who buttonholed
President Barack ®bama about bees when she received
her National Medal of Science award last November. "I
think it's brilliant."
Environmental activists who wanted a ban on a much -
criticized class of pesticide said the ®bama administra-
tion's bee strategy falls way short of what's needed to
save the hives.
Scientists say bees — crucial to pollinate many crops —
have been hurt by a combination of declining nutrition,
mites, disease and pesticides. The federal plan is an "all
hands on deck" strategy that calls on everyone from federal
bureaucrats to citizens to do what they can to save bees,
which provide more than $15 billion in value to the U.S.
Big losses for beekeepers
A federal survey finds that beekeepers in the U.S. have lost
more than 40 percent of honeybee colonies since April 2014.
Percentage of bee colonies lost
M BE= now
10 20 30 40 50 65%
i �
• 11 111 i • 4!
By Richard J. Dolesh
n emerging conservation threat is having a profoundly negative ef-
fect on the nation's most important pollinators, and by extension, the
birds, amphibians and other wildlife that live in their habitat areas.
This threat comes from the expanding use of the most widely used insecticides,
the neonicotinoids.
Despite the growing body of evidence confirming their toxicity to beneficial
bees and birds that are found in agricultural habitat areas, this group of pesti-
cides has rocketed to the top of the list for sales not just in the United States, but
globally as well. The neonicotinoid insecticides now account for more than one
quarter of the entire global market, and the prevalence of their use is growing.
"Neo- nics," as they are sometimes
called, have been around a relatively
short time — only since the 1990s.
However, they were the first new ma-
jor class of insecticides developed in
the past 50 years, and they replaced
classes of insecticides such as the or-
ganophosphates and carbamates that
were known to have serious human
and environmental health impacts
and which were implicated in the
killing of songbirds, the decline of
eagles, osprey and hawks, and the
prevalence of several neurological
disorders in humans.
Nicotine has long been known as
a substance possessing insecticidal
properties, and it has also been shown
to have less toxicity to mammals than
it does to insects. However, early for-
mulations of insecticides containing
nicotine compounds, or nicotinoids,
30 Parks &Recreation I JULY 2014 1 WWW.NRPA.ORG
were unsuccessful for a variety of rea-
sons. It was not until breakthroughs
in the 1980s that new formulations
known as the neonicotinoids were
developed and then widely produced
and marketed. They now account for
fully 80 percent of all seed treatments
as well as more than 25 percent of all
other insecticides.
A Cause for Concern
Despite the popularity and effective-
ness of neonicotinoid insecticides,
there are serious questions regarding
their impacts, particularly their long-
term persistence in the environment,
their impact on aquatic systems in
which effects are magnified by sur-
face runoff, and "their cumulative
and largely irreversible mode of ac-
tion in invertebrates," as noted in a
2013 report by the American Bird
Conservancy. All of these factors,
and the growing belief that the neon-
icotinoids are implicated in Colony
Collapse Disorder (CCD) in honey-
bees, have led to urgent calls for ac-
tion by national environmental and
conservation organizations such the
Center for Food Safety, the Center
for Environmental Health, the Amer-
ican Bird Conservancy and beekeep-
er groups nationwide.
A coalition of groups filed an
emergency petition with the Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) to
suspend the use of one of the neo-
nics, clothianidin, which is believed
to kill birds as well as beneficial bees,
but it was denied by the EPA. Law-
suits have been filed, and in 2013,
Reps. John Conyers and Earl Blume -
nauer introduced the "Saving Ameri-
ca's Pollinators Act," H.R. 2692, but
it failed to make it out of committee
in the House of Representatives. This
bill would require the EPA to suspend
the registration of neonicotinoids,
conduct a review and do field studies,
and for the EPA and the Department
of the Interior to monitor the adverse
impacts on birds, bats, bees and oth-
er beneficial insects. The European
Union, by contrast, recently adopted
a two -year suspension of the use of
neonicotinoids while studies to de-
termine impacts on native bees and
other wildlife species are completed.
The Impacts to Natural
Resources and Wildlife
The effects of neonicotinoids on bees
are becoming more well- document-
ed. What is known is that the neo-
nics are systemically absorbed into
plant tissue and can be present as res-
idues in leaves, flowers and pollen.
Furthermore, neo -nics can be found
in plant tissues and soils up to six
months after application, and residue
concentrations can reach lethal levels
in some plants for some species. They
are particularly deadly to honeybees
and bumblebees as well as a number
of butterfly species. Most troubling
is that some manufacturers' recom-
mended application rates may cause
consumers to apply concentrations at
up to 100 times those used in agricul-
tural applications without realizing
the impact the product will have on
bees or other pollinating insects.
Neo -nics' persistence in the envi-
ronment is causing researchers to
take a closer look at the effects on
aquatic ecosystems particularly, and
on birds generally. It is known that
one kernel of corn treated with one
type of neonicotinoid is enough to
kill a songbird if ingested. Amphib-
ians appear to be hard -hit as well, as
they take the brunt of concentrated
residues contained in surface runoff
into ponds, wetlands and streams. In
addition, emerging evidence shows
that the registration of the neonic-
otinoids did not seem to take into
full consideration the impacts on
the reproductive cycles of birds and
other sublethal impacts. Studies have
shown birds that consume one -tenth
of an affected seed per day during
egg - laying season may suffer negative
impacts to reproduction. Seed treat-
ments seem to have the largest effect
on birds because there is inevitably
some percentage of spilled seed or
some portion of the crop that is not
fully covered by soil.
A Course of Action for Parks
Pollinators are important for parks,
and parks are vital to pollinators. Park
and recreation agencies should make
every effort to learn more about this
class of insecticides and to assess the
potential benefits and hazards of ap-
plying neonicotinoid insecticides in
parks — on golf courses, in horticul-
tural displays, to agricultural areas and
in any other areas where pest manage-
ment is practiced, with particular care
to the potential effects on bees, song-
birds and aquatic organisms.
At a minimum, certified appli-
cators and managers who have re-
sponsibility for directing other staff
in application of insecticides should
become aware of the potential short -
term and long -term dangers of neon -
icotinoid insecticides. Further, even
if agencies are practicing Integrated
Pest Management (IPM) strategies,
it is important to take into consider-
ation that new pre - emptive applica-
tion strategies that call for applying
insecticides to turf or as seed treat-
ments are taking precedence over
IPM methods. Such strategies call
for applying pesticides in advance of
any specific evidence of insect dam-
age, rather than selectively and in
response to damage. With neonicot-
inoids, this practice can cause long-
term unintended harm to bees and
other pollinators as well as damage
to aquatic ecosystems. Parks need to
be protectors of our pollinators, and
better knowledge about the insecti-
cides we use will help accomplish
that goal. a
Richard J. Dolesh is NRPA's Vice President of
Conservation and Parks (rdolesh(ionrpa . orq).
i
For more information about the po-
tential conservation impacts of ne-
onicotinoids in parks, and to assess
hazards and risks, visit the Xerces
Society at WMAr,xerces.org /neonico
tnnoids -anti -bees and the American
Bird Conservancy at WWW.abc:birds.
org/abcprograms /poIi y /toxins/
Neon ic_ „FINAI_,pdf.
WWW.NRPA.ORG I JULY 2014 1 Parks& Recreation 31
9
but price.s fell
vey
for fracking in mid-March,
natt
By JOHN MURAWSKI
stat
jmurawski@newsobserver.com
rocl
Wildcatters are having a
2
hard time making a go of en-
pas
ergy exploration in North
due
Carolina.
ing
Since the state began ac-
set;
cepting permit applications
rules
for fracking in mid-March,
and
none have been filed, and
starts
there is little visible sign of
safety
any hydraulic fracturing ac-
2014
tivity in the state. A judge's
morat(
decision this month totem-
state's
porarily halt all drilling per-
go into
mits for fracking in North
lative \
Commission
,to develop the
UUUK wr energy; tXPIU,[ ULIU11.
Legislators pushed
I I IUI CILUI 1U1 I I UIIUa, allu Oalmy
rules go into effect.
through an energy bill last
May 6: The moratorium is
year expecting the state to
reinstated when a Wake
see its first shale gas wells in
County judge halts the 'ap-
2015, and join Pennsylvania
proval of fracking permits un-
and Ohio in attracting the
til the N.C. Supreme Court
jobs that come with frack-
rules on a related legal
ing. Instead, depressed en-
matter.
ergy prices worldwide and
uncertainty over the
Lee counties; Lee is consid-
amount of shale gas here
ered to be the epicenter of
have made the state unap-
future fracking activity.
pealing to all but small, in-
The documents provided
dependent operators.
by Mark Rabin offer a
So far, of the two groups
glimpse at the activities of
that have expressed interest
wildcatters, the moniker
in drilling here, one ceased
used in the oil-and-gas in-
operations last,year before
dustry for prospectors who
conducting any testing.
operate on thin margins.
And the second unraveled
The emails chronicle an ini-
this year, leaving unpaid
tial wave of giddy excite-
fees and estranged business
ment, ending in mutual re-
associates, according to
criminations. They also
draft business plans and pri-
highlight the problems in
vate emails provided by one
raising funding for such
of those involved in the of
risky ventures and under-
fort, Mark Rabin, a Fayette-
score the concern of frack-
ville energy broker and the
ing opponents who worry
son of state Sen. Ronald Ra-
about the lack of technical
bin. The Republican sen-
proficiency and safety rec-
ator represents part of John-
ords of smaller operators.
ston and all of Harnett and
SEE FRACKING, PAGE 8A
.4
SA Lunda aV 24x 2015 FROM PAGE ONE
WIF (1,1011161 ?J�Wll
Source: Geology.com The News & Observer
Early enthusl
Rabin took an interest in
developing North Carolina
last fall, and contacted Wo-
Yet acct
much as $125 million.
Their email exchanges show
that Fisher, Butler and Rabin
met with the N.C. Geological
Survey in January, at the
height of the trio's energy eu-
phoria, to conduct due dili-
gence.
After that meeting, Butler
emailed Fisher and Rabin as
well as senior state geologist
Jeffrey Reid and state geolo-
gist Kenneth Taylor.
"Our time together yester-
day was outstanding!" Butler
wrote in an email obtained
from Rabin. "I think it can be
done for a lot less and will get
additional information to be
pertinent to our project in
Sanford."
Reid promptly advised
Butler to .curb his enthusi-
asm.
"Being the first holes, and
the depth involved, you will
be surprised at the cost — do
not underestimate what can,
and will, go wrong!" Reid
wrote back. "I have had sev-
eral personal catastrophes
drilling that were by bad luck
despite our careful planning
and contingency plans."
Rabin had been working
AF The News & Observer -
richest Following the
i
Around Lee County, it's
widely understood that if
fracking ever gets underway,
Southern Pines residentJ. Da-
niel Butler stands to reap the
financial windfall from much of
the natural gas produced. But-
ler is the county's single larg-
est owner of "mineral rights"
below properties owned by
Lee County residents.
Lee County' residents who
own their mineral rights would ?
also profit if they negotiate
high royalties and other favor-
able terms.
According to research con-
ducted this year by Butler and
others, the most promising ar-
ea to drill three to six test wells
would be a 12 -mile straighta-
way mapped in 1986 and known
as Seismic Line 113. Seven ver-
tical test wells were drilled'
along the line between 1974 and
1998, and all showed indica-
tions of the presence of natu-
ral gas or oil.
The energy -rich vein cours-
es under such Lee County
landmarks as the Ole Gilliam
Mill and Jackson Brothers`
According to emails and in- !
voices provided by Rabin,
Sporl logged about 64 hours
of work in January, February
and March, and billed
$9,893.
Sporl said earlier this
month that he is still waiting
to get paid before he releases
the engineering study. Rabin'
acknowledged that it's ulti-
mately going to be his
responsibility to pay the bill.
In a phone interview, Sporl
dismissed North Carolina's
shale gas resource as "small'
potatoes" and its energy ex-
plorers as "naive characters."
For his part, Butler dis-
avowed any association with
Fisher and dismissed Rabin
as "totally unreliable;"
"I resent very highly the in -'
sinuation that I have any
involvement with these peo-
ple," Butler said in a phone
interview. "I'm not involved
with anybody."
Rabin said Butler; second-
guessed him and had unreal-
istic expectations.
one of the Rabin and iBrack broke off
group was contact in April, but Brack
forth Car- said he is still pushing ahead
aid cost as with his energy plans, noting
owners.
Butler's access is governed
by 1975 land deeds that trans-
ferred the mineral rights to his
possession. Those deeds give
Butler "the right to enter upon
said lands for the purposes of
drilling" and also `to occupy
and make use of so much of
the surface of said land as may
be reasonably necessary."
The deeds also require But-
ler, who lives in adjoining`
Moore County, to pay Lee`
County landowners for any
damage to their land or crops
from his drilling operations.
According to Lee County prop''
erty records, 37 landowners
are bound by the terms of
these deeds.
Staff writer John Murawski
that his interests here extend
beyond fracking and include
alternative energy vehicles
fueled by natural gas.'
"This industry has a lot of
different people - they're not
all on the up- and -up," Brack
said. "It's simply a matter of
putting something together
that landowners trust."
urawski: 919 - 829 -8932
North Carolina officials will
begin exploratory drilling
Wednesday to gauge shale gas
potential in the southeastern
part of the state, an area that re-
mains unassessed for energy ca-
pacity.
All three planned drilling sites
are on state government proper-
ty and are intended to measure
the energy potential of the Cum-
berland- Marlboro basin, which
runs diagonally through seven
North Carolina counties, includ-
ing an eastern sliver of Johnston
County. `
The drilling will involve ex-
tracting core samples for labora-
tory analysis, as opposed to drill-
ing for direct evidence of gas or
oil
The core samples will be taken
from a depth of about 240 feet to
400 feet; the cores will measure 4
inches across and about 30 feet in
length.
The first drilling site will be the
N.G. Department of Transporta-
tion Maintenance Yard in Rae-
ford.
The drilling will get underway
at 7 a.m. and could last two to
five days, said the contractor,
Russ Patterson, founder of San-
ford -based Patterson Exploration
Services.
The state awarded Patterson
Exploration a $145,000 contract
to take three core samples. The
drilling, and subsequent labora-
tory analysis, will be overseen by
the N.C. Geological Survey.
The second drill location, at
the N.C. Wildlife Commission's
Fayetteville Fish Hatchery in
Cumberland County, could be
drilled this week or next week.
The third site is on Laurinburg
Highway Patrol property in Scot-
land County.
Patterson said the contract in-
cludes an option to drill a fourth
site in Scotland County at the
N.C. DOT Maintenance yard' in
Wagram.
STAFF WRITER JOHN MURAWSKI
How to reach us
Business Editor:
David Bracken, 919- 829 -4548,
dbracken@newsobservercom
C
a /Z:2-7
i_
Shown in blue are the North Carolina shale basins from the Triassic period about 220 million years ago,
and a proposed, or unassessed, basin in orange.
Chatham
�
�
M0
xgvx/my H@mett
Anson
Richmond
^s 0
A. `
Cumberland \ Sampson
M Geologists believe gas-rich
planned this year.
Sources: U.S. Geological Survey, N.C. Geological Survey,
Johnston
Staff graphic
Chapel Hill News
May 26, 2015
Orange County commissioners review White Cross solar farm plans
By Tommy Grubb
tgrubb@newsobserver.com
HILLSBOROUGH
The Orange County Commissioners
heard Tuesday from a California
company that wants to build a solar
farm in the White Cross community,
six miles west of Carrboro.
White Cross Solar LLC is seeking a
permit to build a 5- megawatt solar
power facility near the northwestern
corner of White Cross Road and Old
Greensboro Highway. The company is
owned by Cypress Creek Renewables, a
solar energy developer and owner
established in May 2014.
William and Carol Byron, who own the
35.8 -acre parcel, would sell roughly 20
acres to the developers. They plan to
continue living in their home, south of
the proposed solar farm.
The site is less than a mile from the 6- megawatt White Cross Solar Farm that Strata
Solar built in 2013. It would be to the rear and north of the White Cross Recreation
Center.
The solar permit hearing is "quasi judicial," meaning the commissioners can consider
only sworn testimony and factual evidence.
The Planning Board could review the project at its July 1 meeting and make a
recommendation to the commissioners by Sept. 1. The solar facility, if approved, could
be generating electricity for Duke Energy Progress by the end of 2016, company
officials said.
County staff and White Cross Solar officials held two neighborhood meetings about the
project this spring.
The solar array would cover nearly 12 acres of the site and be surrounded by a
minimum 50 -foot buffer of trees and shrubs. A typical array is mounted on 2- to 3 -foot
poles, is 7 to 9 feet tall and about 63 feet long, county planner Patrick Mallett said.
The site would be enclosed with an 8- foot -tall, chain -link fence, accessible via a gated
driveway off White Cross Road.
Crews could drop by at least once a week to maintain the solar facility and cut the
grass, officials said.
Negotiations with a neighbor have produced a revised plan showing a wider, 65 -foot
landscaping buffer on the site's northern border, said project engineer George
Retschle, of Ballentine Associates. Roughly 30 feet of that buffer would be existing
plants, he said.
Neighbors at Tuesday's meeting signed up but did not speak about the company's
plan.
"Our belief is that our neighbors are comfortable with what we're proposing," White
Cross Solar attorney Beth Trahos said.
Real estate appraiser Tom Hester testified that his review of about 30 similarly
situated solar farms built since 2011 had not affected nearby property values or sale
prices.
MORE INFORMATION
The Planning Board will take public comments about the White Cross solar farm plan
through July 1 and pass them on to the Orange County Board of Commissioners in
September. The commissioners will not accept additional comments this fall.
Review the solar plan, starting on page 510, at /:V [)d. Send comments to
county Planning Supervisor Michael Harvey at mharvey@orangecountync.gov or by
mail to: 131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough, NC 27278.
NCFS Summary of Accomplishments in Orange County
NCFS 2014 Summary of Accomplishments in
Orange County
LT
L`,
Cn
�UDE17� .
Prepared by: Christian Hirni, Orange County Forest Ranger
NCFS Summary of Accomplishments in Orange County
County Overview for 2014
The following report and attachment detail the staff and accomplishments of the
North Carolina Forest Service for Orange County and its citizens. As you can see
from the attached data and statistics, the practice and proper management of
forestry is still very important to the economy and environment in Orange County.
County N.C.F.S. Resources
Personnel
County personnel are supported by 11 District Office employees based in Hillsborough, which
are 100% state funded. In addition to this, 450+ employees are available from across the state to
assist with incidents and technical advice in Orange County.
N.C.F.S. Vehicles and Heavy Equipment
z
NCFS Summary of Accomplishments in Orange County
Forest Resources in Oranp-e County
Land Area in Orange County (total) 254,720 Acres
Total Forest Land 150,400 Acres
(protected by NCFS from fire, insects and disease)
Privately Owned Forest Land 136,700 Acres
(eligible for management and cost share assistance)
*Here in Orange County the N.C. Forest Service has a unique opportunity to act in
a dual role involving traditional forestry and the up and coming field of urban
forestry. Included in the statistics below is the number of urban assists and plans
conducted by our staff.
Traditional Forest Manap-ement
Traditional forestry involves assisting landowners in the management of forest
health, timber growth, timber stand improvement, harvesting and reforestation of
timber land. Recommendations are made taking into account both the goals of the
landowner and sound forest management practices that protect and enhance
wildlife and water quality.
Management Plans prepared
69
Management Plans Acres
2,952
Site Preparation Acres
43
Reforestation Acres
258
Total Harvest Acres (including
1,073
thinning)
Timber Stand Improvement Acres
161
Acres under Forestry Best
4,385
Management Practices
Active Logging Inspections
110
3
NCFS Summary of Accomplishments in Orange County
Forest Stewardship
The Forest Stewardship Program is a cooperative effort involving several agencies
and forestry professionals. It is designed to encourage landowners to manage their
natural resources to enhance timber, fish and wildlife, water, soils, and aesthetics.
Below is a list of Orange County Forest Stewardship Committee members and the
agencies with which they are associated. This year 5 comprehensive Forest
Stewardship Plans covering 314 acres were written for landowners detailing the
total resources on their property and making recommendations on how to best
manage them.
Laura Hendrick, Water Quality Forester, N.C. Forest Service
Kelley Douglass, Wildlife Biologist, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
4
*County Ranger Christian Hirni points out a
rather large root ball during a field
examination for a new Stewardship Plan in
northern Orange County
NCFS Summary of Accomplishments in Orange County
Cost Share Assistance
The N.C. Forest Service offers assistance in forest management through managing
cost share assistance in forest practices. The most common practice is of course
reforestation by way of planting trees in cutover areas or reforesting old fields. In
2014, The N.C.F.S. main program, the Forest Development Program (F.D.P.)
reimbursed landowners in Orange County with a total of $6,738 of cost share
assistance. The average cost of $75.00 per acre of reforestation is offset by the cost
share of $30.00 per acre or 40% of the total cost, allowing an additional 180 acres
to be planted in Orange County that otherwise may not have been planted as well
as an additional 41 acres of release. In 2015, an additional 697+ acres have been
approved for cost share assistance.
Tree Improvement and Nursery Program
The N.C. Forest Service owns and operates two nurseries that are involved in
growing and selling, at a minimum cost, genetically improved and area specific
seedlings to be planted by private and public landowners in North Carolina. In
2013, the Orange County office delivered and provided planting advice on an
additional 4,534 assorted conifers and 1,520 assorted hardwoods for a total of
6,054 individual trees planted from N.C.F.S. nurseries. This is in addition to the
499 acres of pine reforestation done under traditional forestry practices in 2014.
Through the combined efforts of the N.C. Forest Service and our cooperative
agencies, a grand total of over 225,000 trees were planted in Orange County in
2014!
Sotwrlor
r„
u
1- -NC UE
u5 P; TV ''Mi n"3P
Call yore, nearest ANA i''oresi rvice 01141'c'
5
If
Aq
K ce VVmuR�H MiWLA N1111,
1.4 %0 i rV RAT a "IM
1114, 0, MAIWWA
NCFS Summary of Accomplishments in Orange County
Urban Forest Manap-ement
Urban Forestry involves assisting landowners in the management of the health and
quality of their urban forest. This can range from individual shade trees to
neighborhood and /or community urban plans. Both the County Ranger and
Assistant County Ranger in Orange County are Certified Arborists to better assess
urban trees and forests
Shade Tree Assists 51
Urban Plans 10
*Forester Jennifer Roach takes notes for a tree of concern along the
Town of Hillsborough Riverwalk Trail
Tree City USA
The Tree City USA program is a national program that provides the framework for
community forestry management for cities and towns across America. The N.C.
Forest Service helps administer the program with the Arbor Day Foundation here
in North Carolina. There are currently 3 Tree City USA towns in Orange County.
11
NCFS Summary of Accomplishments in Orange County
Insect and Disease Control
The North Carolina Forest Service is responsible for monitoring and responding to
any report of pest and disease in the forests of our state. This can range from native
Southern Pine Beetle outbreaks to monitoring for the nearby Emerald Ash Borer.
Insect and Disease Activity 6
Insect and Disease Activity Acres 164
*Black Turpentine Beetle found in a drought stressed loblolly pine
*Emerald Ash Borer discovered in
Person, Granville and Vance
Counties in 2013
7
NCFS Summary of Accomplishments in Orange County
Fire Control
In 2014, considered another wet year by comparison, the N.C.F.S. in Orange
County still responded to 23 wildfires burning a total of 26 acres. A total of 11
warning tickets were issued to burning offenders as part of our Fire Prevention
Program.
H-1
;d
NCFS Summary of Accomplishments in Orange County
Information and Education
The N.C. Forest Service conducts Fire and Forest Management educational
programs for groups of all ages and demographics. These can range from Smokey
Bear fire prevention programs at a local elementary school or parade, local
Envirothon and FFA club training, to landowner workshops to better assist
property owners in knowing their available resources.
School Programs 13
Town Parades 3
Other Outreach Programs 8
Safety and Wildfire Programs 10
'-manger kilns au I Vrange IAUnLy rand W 1d.Ule
Bear comes to the Carrboro Arbor Day Celebration
G
NCFS Summary of Accomplishments in Orange County
Fire Department Assistance Prop-ram
The N.C. Forest Service offers assistance to all fire departments across the state
and in Orange County. Through our F.D.A.P. we are able to provide special
assistance in relation to Wildland Fire Suppression courses, a 50150 matched grant
for purchasing wildland fire gear, managing GSA purchasing for discounted fire
gear, discounted Class A foam purchasing for fire departments and the DoD /FEPP
federal loan and donation programs for the more expensive items such as trucks
and high output generators.
Recently, the Chapel Hill Fire Department acquired a 5 ton 6X6 transport vehicle
to be retrofitted into a wildland fire engine. It was acquired in 2014 for the fire
department and we are excited to say that after a new coat of Tar Heel blue, a truck
valued at around $80,000 was handed over to the Town of Chapel Hill last fall.
*Smokey the Bear rides atop the new Chapel Hill Fire Department Fire Vehicle in the Chapel Hill Holiday Parade
10
NCFS Summary of Accomplishments in Orange County
The above report is just a brief overview of all the North Carolina Forest Service
has been involved with in the past year in Orange County. As you can see forest
management in all of its aspects and wildfire control is very active and important
in Orange County. The Forest Service is only able to accomplish the above with
the assistance of Orange County government and the 40% funding of the
cooperative budget.
We would gladly present this report at a regularly scheduled County
Commissioners Meeting or discuss it and any of our programs.
Seeing county landowners accomplish their goals of forest management and
helping the local agencies manage their programs allows us the chance to succeed
not only in our mission but also in our sense of place and appreciation here in
Orange County. We appreciate the support of Orange County in funding the North
Carolina Forest Service mission and our continued accomplishments here in
Orange County, North Carolina.
Sincerely,
Christian Hirai
Orange County Ranger
North Carolina Forest Service
11
E &E Publishing, LLC
IIII III'° IIY'IIII „ IIII IIII ° ° °IIIC° °'1111 „ III'
In big EPA win, court denies challenges to ozone designations
Jeremy R Jacobs, E&E reporter
Jugs 2, 2015
A federal appeals court today rejected a series of challenges from states, environmental groups and
energy companies to U.S. EPA's determinations of which parts of the country meet its standard for
ozone, a main component of smog.
In May 2012, EPA finalized its attainment and nonattainment designations for its 2008 ozone air
standard of 75 parts per billion. If the agency finds a county or area does not meet the standard, that
area must undertake significant and often expensive steps to reduce ozone emissions.
Mississippi, Texas, Indiana, Delaware and Connecticut all challenged EPA's nonattainment findings
for some of their counties. Environmental groups argued that 15 other counties that were found in
attainment shouldn't have been. And, in another claim, the groups argued that Utah's Uinta Basin --
home to oil and gas development and some of the country's worst ozone pollution -- should not have
been dubbed "unclassifiable."
In a nearly 90 -page opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected all
of those claims, handing EPA a significant victory.
"Because EPA complied with the Constitution, reasonably interpreted the [Clean Air Act's] critical
terms and wholly satisfied -- indeed, in most instances, surpassed -- its obligation to engage in
reasoned decision - making, we deny the consolidated petitions for review in their entirety," the court
wrote.
The consolidated cases featured all types of arguments, and the court refuted each one. Some of
the most high - profile challenges involved the Uinta Basin, as well as Wise County, Texas, which lies
near Dallas and is home to significant natural gas and oil development. Like the Uinta Basin, Wise
County has historically had the country's worst ozone pollution.
EPA separated Wise County from the Greater Dallas -Fort Worth Metroplex and classified it as in
attainment with the previous ozone standard in 1997. In assessing the newer limit, however, EPA
found it failed to meet the 2008 standard.
Various companies, including Devon Energy Corp. and Targa Resources Corp., contended that EPA
misapplied a multi- factor test to label the county in nonattainment. Specifically, they criticized the
agency for relying on meteorological factors, including wind.
But the court deferred to EPA's expertise in the area.
"Barring an unreasonable or irrational application of the 'scientific data within [the EPA's] technical
expertise, "' the court wrote, quoting precedent, "we cannot say that the EPA acted arbitrarily or
capriciously."
E &E Publishing, LLC
In the Uinta Basin, WildEarth Guardians contended that the area should have been characterized as
in nonattainment, not "unclassifiable."
The problem in the area is that, until recently, there were no ozone monitoring stations in the basin.
In a 2007 settlement with Kerr -McGee Corp., EPA required the Oklahoma -based company to install
monitors in northeast Utah. EPA argued that it could not rely on data from those monitors to
determine whether the area was in attainment for the 2008 standard, saying the data did not meet
EPA's "quality assured and quality certified" standard for the years necessary for the attainment
determinations (Gr°eenwir°e, Oct. 21, 2014).
Again, the court sided with the agency's expertise.
"EPA reasonably declined to rely on data that it considered of insufficient quality for designation
purposes," it wrote.
Other challenges were similarly rejected, including Connecticut and Delaware's attempt to draw a
nonattainment area spanning more than 15 upwind states because of ozone pollution that drifts into
their borders.
A Sierra Club attempt to force EPA to reclassify 15 counties as nonattainment instead of attainment
was also dismissed.
E &E Publishing, LLC
122 C St. NW, Ste. 722, Wash., D.C. 20001
Phone: 202-628-6500 Fax: 202-737-5299
From: Beverly Burgess [mailto :beverly.burgess @duke.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 8:34 AM
To: forest - events @duke.edu
Subject: 2015 Duke Forest Stewardship and Sustainability in a Piedmont Forest Tour
Hello Forest Friends:
Registration is open for the Duke Forest Stewardship and Sustainability in a Piedmont Forest
Tour
2015 Duke Forest Stewardship and Sustainability in a Piedmont Forest Tour
Saturday, June 27th, 2015 9 am — 12 noon (meet at 8:50AM)
WHERE: Meet at the Duke Forest Maintenance Shop
Please join us to learn more about how we manage the Duke Forest with a focus on stewardship
and sustainability. You'll hear about different timber management techniques and procedures
that are in place to ensure protection of natural and cultural resources. We'll also talk about
forest health and our efforts to control invasive species and manage the negative impacts of
overabundant deer populations. Sign -up below if you're interested; participation will be capped
at 24.
We will meet at the Duke Forest Maintenance Shop at 8:50 AM to maximize our time in the
woods. June 27th Tour
Thanks, as always, for your continued interest in the Duke Forest!!! We hope to see you in the
woods soon!!!
— Beverly
Beverly Burgess, Administrative Assistant
Office of the Duke Forest
Duke University
Box 90332
308 Research Drive, LSRC
Room A 142
Durham, NC 27708
Office: 919-613-8013 Fax: 919-613-8077
www.:, !ke f d
or°e: � ° 4.!ke.e d �,
www..Eocehook.com d�,.!kefore .�,.
,yke f �,r° „ ,;....,;,