HomeMy WebLinkAboutCFE agenda 121415AGENDA
Commission for the Environment
December 14, 2015
7:30 D.m.
Richard Whitted Meeting Facility (Room 250)
300 West Tryon Street, Hillsborough
Time Item Title
7:30 I. Call to Order
7:32 II. Additions or Changes to Agenda
7:35 III. Approval of Minutes — November 9 (Attachment 1)
7:40 IV. Proposed Rule Changes for Airport Development
Michael Harvey (Orange Co. Planning and Inspections) will present a draft amendment to the
regulations governing the development of an airport in Orange County. The draft amendment
was referred to the CFE, Economic Development Advisory Board, and towns of Hillsborough,
Chapel Hill and Carrboro for comments. (Attachment 2)
8:10 V. Orange County Stream Buffer Requirements
Michael Harvey will brief CFE members on the County's plan to address 2015 legislation that is
intended to curtail local governments' ability to protect surface water quality (and riparian
habitat) by requiring stream buffers for new and existing development.
8:15 VI. CFE News Articles / Outreach
The CFE will review /discuss the latest news articles intended to educate /inform the public about
issues highlighted in the Orange County State of the Environment. (Attachments 3 -4)
8:30 VII. CFE Committee Priorities
The CFE will review the list of priority issues /projects identified by each committee in early 2015
so that members can consider updating and revising the list in early 2016. (Attachment 5)
8:45 VIII. Updates and Information Items
Staff and /or CFE members will provide updates on the following items:
➢ CFE Resolution re green building incentives (Attachment 6)
➢ Herbicides and pesticides used at County facilities (Attachment 7)
➢ Annual Report and Work Plan for 2015 -16 (Attachment 8)
➢ Impact of 2015 Legislation on County's dev. rules (Attachment 9)
➢ County explores new ways to recycle organic waste (Attachment 10)
➢ Solar bees effect on Jordan Lake water quality (Attachment 11)
➢ State clean energy mandates in jeopardy (Attachment 12)
➢ UN Climate Change summit preview (Attachment 13)
➢ Short answers to hard questions on climate change (Attachment 14)
➢ Top 10 ways to reduce carbon emissions (Attachment 15)
➢ Orange Co wins Smart Fleet Leader award (Attachment 16)
➢ Duke Forest LOG newsletter - Fall 2015 (Attachment 17)
9:00 IX. Adjournment
Nextmeeting., January 11 (Chapel Hill)
CFE Meeting Ground Rules (Adopted 9112111)
1. Keep to agenda topic under discussion
2. Share relevant information
3. One person speaks at a time after recognition by the Chair
4. Everyone is invited to participate in discussions / no one person should dominate
discussions
,. Strive to reach consensus first before voting
Activities the CFE expects to carry out in 2016:
• Continue to update the Orange County State of the Environment 2014 report
• Continue to explore ways to improve the County's ability to foster local sustainable
energy production and energy efficiency strategies, including developing incentives
for increasing energy efficiency in new construction
• Recommend ways to reduce the County's "carbon footprint" and implement the
County's Environmental Responsibility Goal
• Continue to 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
• Co- sponsor the annual DEAPR photography contest (The Nature of Orange)
• Help plan for and participate in Orange County'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
• The CFE will continue to learn more about environmental justice matters and incorporate
relevant information and considerations in the SOE 2014 report and its other activities
• 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
November 9, 2015
Orange County Solid Waste Administration Building, Chapel Hill
PRESENT: Jan Sassaman (Chair), Sheila Thomas - Ambat, May Becker, Peter Cada, Tom
Eisenhart, Loren Hintz, David Neal, Bill Newby, Jeanette O'Connor, Rebecca
Ray, Gary Saunders, Lydia Wegman
ABSENT: Lynne Gronback, David Welch
STAFF: Rich Shaw, Tom Davis, Brennan Bouma
I. Call to Order — Sassaman called the meeting to order at 7:31 pm.
11. Additions or Changes to Agenda — Shaw asked to present the draft memo on the
County's use of herbicides and pesticides at the beginning of the Updates and
Information part of the agenda. Sassaman agreed. There were no other changes.
111. Minutes — Sassaman asked if there were any comments about the meeting summary for
October 12 meeting. Wegman noted O'Connor's name was misspelled on page 2.
Eisenhart motioned approval as amended; seconded by Cada. Approved unanimously.
IV. Green Building Incentives — The CFE continued its discussion of potential incentives
for energy- efficient construction. Neal introduced a draft CFE resolution asking the
BOCC to develop a green building incentives program that would rebate permitting fees
for new commercial and residential construction, modeled after the program adopted by
the Town of Chapel Hill for the Ephesus - Fordham planning district.
Neal said he would like to add a "Whereas statement" that recognizes Orange County's
efforts to reduce energy usage at its County buildings and facilities. He offered to work
on draft language with help from Bouma. Wegman suggested minor edits to the 5th
Whereas statement and the final "Resolved statement."
Hintz asked if the CFE would include with the resolution the Ephesus - Fordham district
FAQs that was included in the CFE materials. Neal said he would like to include only a
summary paragraph that describes the Town of Chapel Hill's pilot project.
Bouma and Neal presented two alternatives for an additional "Whereas statement." CFE
members chose the first alternative: "WHEREAS, Orange County is committed to
reducing the energy usage of its own buildings and has invested in several successful
energy efficiency projects to lower long -term costs and reduce environmental impacts;"
Hintz motioned to approve the resolution as amended and send to the BOCC for
consideration and further action: seconded by Eisenhart. Approved unanimously.
Sassaman thanked Neal for drafting the resolution and moving this issue forward
Attachment 1
V. Falls Lake Rules — Davis reported on the Upper Neuse River Basin Association's
(UNRBA) ongoing efforts to improve the Falls Lake Nutrient Management Strategy (Falls
Lake Rules). He showed a preview of a presentation he planned to make to the BOCC
at an upcoming work session.
Davis said stage two of the Falls Lake Rules require local governments, the NCDOT, the
agricultural community, and other regulated parties located in the Falls Lake watershed
to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient loading to Falls Lake by 40% and 77 %,
respectively. He said the UNRBA is working on several projects to address serious
technical and financial impediments to meeting these nutrient reduction goals.
Davis provided an overview of the following projects by the UNRBA:
1. Lake and Watershed Water Quality Monitoring
2. BMP Nutrient Credit Development
3. Development of Nutrient Credit Calculation Tool
4. Falls Lake Rules Review
CFE members asked several questions about the projects and the overall objectives of
improving the water quality in Falls Lake, which provides drinking water for Raleigh.
• Hintz asked why the nutrient reduction goals were chosen if they are
unattainable. Davis said Division of Water Resources staff was rushed to come
up with goals, but data was lacking and model assumptions were inappropriate.
• Becker asked if the UNRBA would use a difference model than the one used by
the State. Davis said they will use same model, but with more and better data.
• Sassaman asked whether there had been stream sampling performed in
advance of enacting the current rules. Davis said DWR relied on whatever data
existed previously and on sampling from five gages in western end of Falls Lake.
• Shaw asked if DWR is receptive to getting these data from UNRBA. Davis said
they are because they know their initial model was flawed.
• Hintz asked if the CFE inform landowners of the importance of minimizing their
use of fertilizers is that helpful to Falls Lake? Davis said it would be helpful to the
lake, but local governments would not likely receive credits.
• Davis noted atmospheric deposition is a significant source of nutrients that was
not factored into the model or the rules. He said up to 50 percent of the nitrogen
entering Chesapeake Bay is from the atmosphere.
Sassaman thanked Davis for sharing this information. There no action required.
VI. Annual Report and Work Plan (2015 -16) — Sassaman reminded CFE members that
each year the BOCC asks its advisory boards to prepare a report of their activities,
accomplishments, new issues, and concerns. He asked Shaw to present the draft report
and work plan for 2015 -16.
Shaw reviewed the draft report, highlighting the changes from the previous report. He
identified several additions to the important accomplishments section and the activities
the CFE expects to carry out in 2016. Shaw asked for comments from the members.
• O'Connor suggested adding the CFE's recommendation of developing incentives
for energy- efficient construction to the list of accomplishments.
• Hintz suggested adding language to link the news articles to the SOE report
2
Attachment 1
• Becker suggested deleting the reference to the January 2012 memo about the
CFE's interest in developing incentives for energy- efficient construction
• Neal suggested adding language that says the CFE will continue to learn more
about environmental justice matters and incorporate relevant information and
considerations in the CFE's activities in addition to the SOE report.
Wegman motioned to approve the 2015 -16 report and work plan as amended; seconded
by O'Connor. The motion was approved unanimously.
VII. Election of Officers — Sassaman advised CFE members would elect a new Chair and
Vice -Chair for the upcoming year in accordance with the CFE policies and procedures.
Sassaman nominated Wegman for Chair. There were no other nominations. Hintz
motioned to close the nominations; second by Saunders. Motion approved unanimously.
Sassaman nominated Gronback for Vice Chair. There were no other nominations.
Saunders motioned to close nominations; second by Wegman. Approved unanimously.
VIII. Updates and Information Items —
Herbicides & Pesticides Used at County Facilities — Shaw reminded members the
BOCC asked the CFE to consider a list of herbicides and pesticides used by County staff
at County buildings /facilities, and for the CFE to provide feedback or recommendations.
Shaw referred CFE members to the draft memo prepared by staff based on the
discussion at the October meeting. Hintz noted there was a typo in 3�d paragraph.
Wegman motioned to approve the memo as amended and to send on to the BOCC.
Saunders seconded the motion; the motion was approved unanimously.
Collaborative Energy Conservation /Management Projects — Saunders and Bouma
reported on the October 28 meeting of the interagency committee working to collaborate
on energy conservation and management projects of mutual interest. They reminded
CFE members that the group had previously identified five projects of mutual interest. At
the recent meeting the group decided to seek specific vendor proposals for two of the
five projects: 1) Fleet management opportunities, and 2) Technical evaluation of solar
PV opportunities at public facilities /land tracts. Once proposals are complete, each
organization can seek approvals from their respective decision makers. The Biogas to
energy project at the OWASA wastewater treatment plant is also slated to move forward
with OWASA and UNC as the primary collaborators. The purpose and focus of the street
lighting coordination project and the joint energy and carbon tracking and reporting
project both require further elaboration before proposals can be made.
Information on the following subjects was provided in the meeting package; selected
items were discussed: a) Nov 4 public mtg. on food waste diversion, b) BOCC decision
on Nov 2016 bond referendum, c) HB 765 rules reform bill, d) Former DENR Secretary
comments on legislative changes, e) OWASA biosolids management, f) environmental
justice panel discussion (Nov 12), and g) industrial hemp becomes new legal crop in NC
IX. Adjournment — Sassaman adjourned the meeting at 9:07 pm
Summary by Rich Shaw, DEAPR Staff
3
14[r-T
A. C, Oqkl-f AJ,-
ORANGE COLIN'TY
1 j1j,' " r-:17, r". l f, ;7'
4=='
ORANGE COUNTY, NC (December 3, 2015)—The Director of the Orange County
Planning & Inspections Department, in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.8
Zoning Atlas and Unified Development Ordinance Amendments of the UDO, has initiated
a text amendment to revise existing regulations governing the review and approval of
airports.
During the time period the UDO was being developed (2010-11) there were efforts •
the State and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to locate a new airport in
rural Orange County. These efforts were, ultimately, abandoned.
At that time staff and residents identified a need to revise existing regulations
governing the development • airports. Work • this issue was delayed while other
priority UDO amendments were pursued.
With this text amendment, staff is proposing to create a new Conditional Zoning District
allowing for the development of an airport. This would require the Board of Orange
County Commissioners (BOCC) to act on a petition to amend the zoning atlas to create
a new airport district.
VY'
tgrelrAris M.
Planning staff will hold two information sessions to solicit public comment on the
'oroperty. These sessions will be held at the West Campus Office building at 131 West
Margaret Lane in Hillsborough on the following dates:
* Thursday December 17, from 5:30 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.
* Monday December 21, from 5:30 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.
For more information, please contact the Orange County Planning & Inspection5
Department at 919.245.2575.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN / FUTURE LAND1SEAIJAP
AND
UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO)
4WE"0D1,1 E1 T OUTLI11E
Revision(s) • existing regulations governing the development • airports.
Districts;
3. 5.17.5 General Aviation Airports, STOL, and Heliports; and
4. Article 10 Definitions
These efforts were, ultimately, abandoned due to local community concerns over thg
process initiated • the State Legislature and the University. The State rescinded
the airport authority and, as • the writing • this document, no additional activity has
occurred.
At that time staff identified a need to revise existing regulations governing ft
development of airports. Work on this issue was delayed while more pressing UDO
amendments were pursued.
2. Analysis
As required under Section 2.8.5 of the UDO, the Planning Director is required to:
`cause an analysis to be made of the application and, based upon that analysis,
prepare a recommendation for consideration by the Planning Board and the Board of
County Commissioners'.
Airport and other similar facilities are combined into a central land use category,
specifically Airports, General Aviation, Heliports, STOL, defined within the UDO as
follows:
• "Airport (Heliport. S. T. O.L. Port), Air Carrier: A public airport served by a certified air
carrier. This includes any runways, land areas or other facilities designed or used for
landing, taking off, processing passengers or cargo.
• Airport, Commuter Service (Heliport. S. T. O. L. Port): A public airport, not served by a
certified air carrier, but is served by one or more commuter airlines which enplaned
2500 or more passengers in the preceding calendar year.
• Airport, General Aviation (Heliport. S. T.O.L. Port): A public airport serving aviation
other than airlines. This includes any runway, land area, or other facility designed or
used for the landing and taking off of small aircraft."
Such use(s) are only permitted through the review and approval of a Class A Special
Use Permit by the BOCC in the following general use zoning districts:
1. Rural Buffer (RB);
2. Agricultural Residential (AR);
3. Rural Residential (R -1);
4. Light Industrial (1 -1);
5. Medium Industrial (1 -2); and
6. Heavy Industrial (1 -3).
Staff is proposing to create a new Conditional Zoning District allowing for the
development of an airport. This would require the BOCC to act on a petition to
amend the zoning atlas to create a new airport district. Staff believes this mechanism
will be the most appropriate as it would:
a. Require the applicant to obtain approval of the site plan by the BOCC before the
project can move forward;
b. Allow for the review of the project in a legislative setting rather than the quasi - judicial
setting associated with a Special Use Permit;
c. Allow for a process whereby the County can negotiate with the applicant to address
potential impacts of the project on surrounding property owners; and
d. Give greater flexibility to the BOCC with respect to acting on the petition.
The proposed amendments will also clarify the development of private facilities for local
plane enthusiasts.
2
The amendments are necessary to address previously expressed concerns over the
development • an airport in the County, update existing development standards/
regulations, and provide the County with greater flexibility in terms • acting on the
petition. Additional analysis will be part of the public hearing materials.
Land Use Goal 2: Land uses that are appropriate to on-site environmental
conditions and features and that protect natural resources, cultural resources, and
community character.
1111WQ 1I1kTk*^,24 r-111001,11611flely- TgAidralpg
HIRRM49-1.1I Wri Ll I
F,Moo][Ol4t4W.kVniT*TiFk."-ff*T&Mo Wre=— 1,
8151MM015110
• Quarterly Public Hearing
February 22, 2016 (NOTE: this date is subject to chang]
c. BOCC Updates/Checkpoints
May 5, 2015 – Approval of UDO Amendment Outline Forl
Nov 4, 2015 & Jan • 2016 (if necessary) — Planning Board Ordinance Review
Committee (ORC)
February 22, 2016 (projected at — Quarterly Public Hearing
May 2016 — Receive Planning Board Recommendation
Mission/Scope: Public Hearing process consistent with NC State Statutes and
Orange County ordinance requirements
a. Planning Board Review:
Nov 4, 2015 and Jan • 2016 (if necessary) – Ordinance Review Committee
UTOW K; W11 111• 2 1 1111:094T, 17, 1 =_1 0 FIR •
• Advisory Boards:
Commission for Environment –
December 2015
Economic Development Advisory Board
– November 2015
i. Notice Requirements
Legal advertisement published in accordance with the provisions of the LIDI
U General Public: Open House Meetings to review project with interested
property owners/residents — Oct 2015 and Jan 2016.
Advertising shall be in local paper and County website.
Other: Submit regulations to the FAA for review/comment November 2015
Consideration and approval will not create the need for additional funding for thiz
provision of County services. Costs for the required legal advertisement will be paid
from FY2015-16 Departmental funds budgeted for this purpose. Existing PlanniRl�
staff included in the Departmental staffing budget will accomplish the work -r '•
• process this amendment.
I IN&I :1121*011 a LOW-11 J, I ZI
a - , - - - •
0
'fiaar t sr ze, rnln. (acres[ I r10rmau
[1II1 Fhe' AID-CZ district Vas ,,AIllntei r��o-�a�J to alllow for fIexiif:aullty C,n d� meF°q�:iionaC 'pace Ratio, ` ratlen. �u�g :a a�a.au ecru ar 9: Y i C
�j
sl:aur +lerris. phe eveoaH develaapin'ient will lae evakmlled io ei°usue RequaiedF�ecnaaticbra @llao °m�acasii�c�arurau�u� i
compatibility wish a,iwuu°rr.aciIHIding lomr,ap el-Ues and 4di t9are�, :b policies aand StG aac�e IRatre, ruurra. � g ��
olla�[ecbveaa of 96s Ddkiance. Slpec rfrc srte desrcgn slandaids shall V.ae
omccrtpor td kft the Planning Lepartrneini approved &te Man. ye° aAr;c C "ecsstrer;
No r°aaqav lu einent [I �
Laurdscap e RaHol ru °uinl
1. Ararrrtaaiitronsrfor the AP -CZ rlstrict. shall be accepted c�My for Ilaaai,colis vuu�lh�r, Orec,l: �I�u��ontaaaga�� arum access from a State
2
roadway
2. Ibca@enHal uses shall be estfrc,l(cd to RPao.ae, li ,pcad as prannr tirkcl fcru.a IE,' lagb..GZ p.Y�,,,idrft iii Ser;P nn 5,2 3,
I All madways c:levc;Rc:eped wf huar the AIIFu.. CZ dish' cat s haH i:ac des gnod and c onskra.uu' eiJ to the public reswJ I:macra,u�aent standards
3
as defined by the Norgm a aaCna Deraubmaa of rranssarlatieoa.
I. Typically when an airport is developed local land use regulations restrict adjacent development to protect the
airport operation. From our standpoint what we are attempting to do is require the exact opposite, specifically an
airport should not create a significant impact on adjacent property owners use of their property.
2 Staff wants to ensure adequate access to a proposed airport facility by requiring frontage on a public road.
3 This is being recommended to ensure roadways can handle heavy equipment and emergency vehicles.
4�
5 Specific uses shall beHmUed\uffiumeapprovadby�,hmBomndofOouin�YCommima|oners. Additloma||y. non -residero[Muses
are n�trlc[ed based oin the V\Iate�nshod Flrotection Oveday District in which the pioperty is located. Refi:,i to Seclk)n 4.2
0ur|anduaansMr|rhono.
0.A||nwab|eimpemioumauMaceseo|aiion11�heVVatorshmdPmtec,ionOvodayDiebiotinwh|ch1hepropedyim|ocated
Refer 8oSectonA 2.0forebnaandmmnofthee||onab|eimperv|ouumu faoeavam.
7. Devo|opmentwithin�henondi1|ona| zoning d|athu1ahaUbeaui,�lectto MI; opp|ioab|aumo standards detailed inAtio|ee5and
all appkable deve|ollonen� stamdards (Jelailed within Aitkcle 6 of this Ordinance or provIde creative alteirna6ves; that meet
the |ntent and spirit of Hie naQu|aUons,
8. TheAP~CZzoning di�� U �oh� be pnuhib|�d within the Runa| Buffisr and umedaasifiomdon modanokd ondhe Fuure Land
Use Map nf Hire odopAad MY) Co ill pnahen Give P|an
Q No new dewe|opment having m significant negative impoctonexiaUng roadways, trafiinpmUemamrmurauodnoinoWe
pml"tLmmohm||bepenmit�dun|eamanappmpriaite and rab|aao|ution has been approved 0rm|tigate these conditione,
^ The purpose of the requirement isto ensure the applicant has total contm|overth*pmperty(s)thatviU
comprise the proposed airport facility. Our goal iotu ensure adjacent property owners do not have their
development rights limited (i.e. height restrictions) due to the development of an airport.
Article 5:Uses
Section 5.1: Establishment of Use Reaulations
TG�,. In addition to the listing of such uses, the Board of County Commissiop
,e.ps 'intends that
-',ke general standards and the more specific requirements establi herein, shall be
use;Z�thie Board of Adjustment, the Planning Board and t oard of County
Commissionex,s, as appropriate, to direct deliberation on application or the approval of
Special Uses.
(D) It is the express, intent of oard of Inty Commissioners to delineate the areas of
concern connected with each o applications
for such Special Use shall valuat .
(E) Establishment of sses of Special Uses; )��ority To Approve or Disapprove
I Uses which shall be
There ar reby established the following classes of Sp I Uses which shall be
ap ed or disapproved as shown:
(1) Class A -Approved or disapproved by Board of County Commi i ers
(2) Class B - Approved or disapproved by Board of Adjustment
(A) The Board of County Commissioners is mindful of its responsibility ho protect the public
health, safety and general welfare of the residents of Orange County and intends to
encourage development within the County consistent with that purpose.
(B) The Board of County Commissioners also recognizes that certain uses are appropriate
for development in Orange County but their location and site development specifics
cannot be predetermined or regulated through the use of a general zoning district
designation and conventional standards.
(C) Conditional Uses and Conditional Use Districts are hereby established and shall be
reviewed in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance.
(1) Any use listed as Permitted by Right mby Special Use Permit on the Table of
Permitted Uses may be approved aee Conditional Use within a Conditional Use
District, unless expressly excluded in Section 5.1.4(E) of this Ordinance.
(2) Permitted uses are subject to all general and specific standards of approval for
that use, ao established within this Section.
(E) Exclusions
(1) Unless otherwise noted in Section 5.2, the following uses shall not be considered
or approved eaa Conditional Use District within the Commercial-Industrial
Transition Activity Node or Economic Development Transition Activity Node land
use classifications, on designated by the adopted Comprehensive Plan:
(g) _Airporte' General Aviabn
�
zStaff is modifying existing language to be consistent with proposed new airport classification methodology. It is
not our intent to allow these land uses to be approved through the Conditional Use District process.
Orange County, North Coroina — UnifiedDevelopmwr*Qrdinonce Page 5-2
Commercial Feeder Operation,
,,\__Compnadng
Operation with grinding,
fe),([\__Cremehorie.
Extraction nf Earth Products,
(9).(h) L_Junkyarda'
zStaff is modifying existing language to be consistent with proposed new airport classification methodology. It is
not our intent to allow these land uses to be approved through the Conditional Use District process.
Orange County, North Coroina — UnifiedDevelopmwr*Qrdinonce Page 5-2
Article 5: Uses
Section 5.1: Establishment of Use Reaulations
O(o(_ _m.,m
„Landfills (less than 2 acres),
(�)(J . _
,Landfills (2 acres or more),
Processing Facility, Regional,
(0.(9(__.._,,,,,,,_Military
Installations (National Guard & Reserve Armory),
Hotel (Fraternities, Sororities, and Dormitories),
}(?
Stables, Commercial,
_,,,
Stockyards / Livestock Markets, and
Waste Management Facility; Hazardous & Toxic
(2) For all
land use classifications other than the Commercial - Industrial Transition
Activity Node or Economic Development Transition Activity Node, the following
uses shall not be considered or approved as a Conditional Use District:
(a)
Agricultural Processing Facility
(j�.(.... .....wAirport&,
General Aviation, p,,l,a�4up����, , S. F.O . L,
.Bus Terminals & Garages,
Class II Kennels,
(
Commercial Feeder Operation,
(.Okf
Composting Operation with grinding,
(�aA( I�u),
Crematoria,
Theaters,
__Extraction of Earth Products,
Farm Equipment Rental, Sales and Service,
(( [r( .O....,_�..W,Feed
Mill,
Funeral Homes,
Services: Over 10,000 square feet,
).......,,Hospitals,
Hotels & Motels,
Light,
O('p,,,,,w,,,e,wlndustrial,
Medium,
(r),(,d %,)_mm__Industrial,
Heavy,
4
Junkyards,
(less than 2 acres),
fv, +)(y�(
Landfills (2 acres or more),
(v- )y�)_,,,__Meat
Processing Facility, Regional,
(f)(}
Military Installations (National Guard & Reserve Armory),
Freight Terminals,
(a�)( )LL
Motor Vehicle Maintenance & Repair (Body Shop),
Motor Vehicle Repair Garage,
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 5 -3
Article 5:Uses
Section 5.17: Standards for Miscellaneous Uses
(e)
Recreational areas, service parking
for the proposed use(s).
(f)i
The site is served by direct access to a State maint i ed road.
internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation ' dequate for the proposed
(3) Expiration d Renewals
(a)
This Clas Special Use rmit, if approved, shall be valid for six years,
but may be re ed e-approved by the Board of Commissioners
after receiving a from the Planning Department that the use is, and
has been co s e it was issued, in compliance with provisions
ofthe S lal ermi Orange County Planning Department
i�snt
sha its report on the co liance of the special use no later than
days before the expiration of the cial Use Permit.
The Board of County Commissioners shall renew the Special Use
Permit if it is determined that the applicant has d to comply with the
conditions of approval. If the Board of County C m i ioners does not
renew the permit, the permit shall become null a d void u the
expiration of the time limit.
(c)
If the Special Use Permit is not renewed or re-approved, then the
applicant may submit a new application as if it were a new use.
5.17.6 S1 0,",and-NefiPerl',64
(1)
prll?v�s�ons of the ii- Uaflons,.
(B) Standards for A Special Use Permit),
(1) Submittal Requirements
In addition to the information required in section 2.7, the following shall be
submitted as part of the application:
w01 z:
service areas.
^Asprmiouslyindicatedstaffbproposngtobmakdownairportsintn2categohes: Airport Private Airfield and
Airports — General Aviation. Private airfields will be reviewed under the Class A Special Use Permit process while a
general aviation airport will be subject to rezoning to the Airport Conditional Zoning (AP-CZ) District
5 UAS is the term used by the FAA for drones, models, and radio controlled aircraft. The intent of the standard isto
require perty owner using same mpart ofa commercial operation to obtain the necessary pennUz
-Staff|uon|yrequihngupdvateairhe|dbeprohibitedfrombeingusedtnmpportocommeniu|uirtrae|
operation.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 5-136
Article 5: Uses
Section 5.17: Standards for Miscellaneous Uses
":rite tcligo jhga lm ,contaru.I e _Aa configuration diagram depicting the
layout of runways, taxiways, appreach
tug ioi p,ptgE ILria;4;t� and overrun areas. These diagrams should also be on
aerial photographs that show the area within fiv -r -) -27 miles of the
proposed site.
(f�,Lff) ,,,.,Isotonic contours or n�6s(" core -t��u�o fur) 'e: 8showing the effects of aircraft
operations upon land within one mile of the boundary of the proposed
site.
..Thi��,itinrber and type o rrcr�r: raft 1i.A>pc.used tcr be .u°r�t reds aria Ilu6nfl.,.r se .tN
sarag afCIraft, e and , sWr"IGe ar ia, f�,r
an 9
(d).)` )__.. „How on site fire and rescue services shall be provided and a letter from
the appropriate agency stating services are available and adequate to
protect the proposed facility.
.Sflt.:).....land uses Jcx ii�..'!:k.....within the final approach zones,, of the
ucuu~nrrtao fieki..
)e) ..__.. IJazno:6° )us. K l,el.4s_ Iffiana(ig[n.c° "w "n:).. V "np.�:I�F...uuoa i up.uf..g dg° qEr ipjooirb of the,
yn °ty�.:t:puu f:ru r,pi llltwal.p.ruu, s lii.t „ir t ,...gl:u�i II u�ct..pfl a ou:ruait ¢mml«ernk ass and
'rug[fte!oduuc.)tr...pna pttifl)ii @.itjwuut riot ] rn� ),t d to, t.U..la °..fi)Hr,vving.:.
0) you °pll urr fuu.d.,
(H) Jyrj(g!� fllurid,,
.............e n . ory y
ry __...... Iu��;tiiu u:f:���.�f...dt /c.uo°
)yP p[y._gtll eii Vru)yaruutpuP...au bst,ances,
aa,nau� �a...r)y p,tn &heet . ..� a ut.r
. ccrvi w....unugc &.f
pale p� c of ciiro ....._. a .. i .... e f.. e
�. f IIt9� and 6 °rIIG;tIG tll \6c V11G ...wut,fl.�r.€ "_..III u.uouS(t A �'a,fu� aDf tVt....
S .,ubr uuttaII.
(f)(ttm___,_Certification that all dniu nisi atu a )FAA) and State
standards and requirements have been met.
)r,)........... ccrrn,tcna)...... cllf uuatll r�trNy p oufrtn c..i'..p))...)tcs, el ii p,.)yc i9�)y u.i.i a)'..rr�l�u )u, y�r.unll....liri.i:
All FA A: and State regulations are met as a condition of approval
_ya yCaOse Revel �VVk.�.lt „`a� ll
oryiuir)u,ou ...I��fuu)�murart lgtTli�yr� )fc«*... :•
Staff is not requiring the full 5 mile radius for an Airport - Private Airfield as the impacts should not be as great as
what we anticipate for an Airport— General Aviation land use.
8 In reviewing FAA information on airport development these terms are used interchangeably.
9 This provision was moved to subsection(s) (b) and (c) of the proposed amendment.
10 Staff is recommending this language to avoid the blurring of commercial versus private facilities. What we want
to avoid is a private property owner allowing for 'public' use of an airstrip as part of a club, organization, or other
similar activity.
11 Noise contour lines are a continuous line on a map representing equal levels of noise exposure. According to the
FAA severe noise exposure occurs outside the 55 DNL (day -night average sound level) contour line, the level at
which the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) describes noise exposure as minimal. Noise exposure is regarded
as significant above the 65 DNL noise contour line.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 5 -137
Article 5: Uses
Section 5.17: Standards for Miscellaneous Uses
site and its operation will not adversely affect existing adjacent land
Land sufficient to provide approach zones and overrun areas is owned or
controlled by the applicant.
(W,.(@'),---.Adequate land area is provided for all of the proposed unee, buildings
and storage areas.
Suneening of buildings, storage and maintenance areas is provided from
adjacent residential land.
A),(g).,Letters from appropriate fire and rescue agencies that protective services
can be provided odan adequate level.
(9)fj".�) _/\uceoaeho|| be directly onto eState maintained road.
����__Compatib|a
land uses are located in the final approach enaou of the
airport.
"
hn
R�-g�kn�nw 15���hecjule for review of
!:h�g����
12 Given the nature uf the development staff believes it would be appropriate to require a the submittal ofanndce
of intent to inform all parties of a pending application as well as an initial neighborhood meeting so that the
general public can comment on the proposed prior tnit being submitted. Ao written there will be2neighborhood
meetings for the development of an Airport- General Aviation facility with the second meeting occurring prior to
the actual public hearing.
OrangnCoumy.NorthCaruina — UnifiedDevo|opmertOrdinanoe Page 5-138
Article 6: Uses
Section 5.17: Standards for Miscellaneous Uses
gg IIII a r �r�.gp,t,p -e d 'tr�t.... td.v rfis the � m, d k'wut,i,�a
.h b a k x
si4aa V 4;R rra �,. ;a,G 114 � VU,,,,
V (2(.7atdpalha ..P.0 °u4 a drp..dVr....att'dtadeJ dup ! db!e,l(e of the p°nae ;tnoronm u
n �t,
g unra4l,, 4 ur(,..,adrddion vrRhhn Illi.dd "..cou.uun(td..
Suat infltltWl f'
Mjd men:'tuub
the _iium�,� u,a..dp_dq areH a a � (( .,,513 aailp„p�:J
Ilpp r��dc °da.a�4�ou �a.�„ dladodpetr�d, "d u. °a�a I��d"I.q.�quu��...�� "'�....m �u� n�4�4��q.";d�i.�,..�"
r aa"cal.iies ......mIifr11
d oa
(add u�udut�" afa., all7��11a�4�c��unidd4uia4n��4ua�qu��luu�du ��uwuia�c.uti4 d�4 u «".
d pt.ion haplH. b ...tUtykJ ��...o n .a errW .iud.oa!�tg (,,as d6r;Vd�t
«da(4(u(ga,�un , _Ir,ddauurp�.uu,p�adrupna „... "..
a l .,.,.,. Ifna' -a u.d�:.: riiR,hdg,o G..5l rr i�uV�es. V dV.ne..l�, [u” pdndr
airrarer d, ..
(d ( pup rur " r,� "_M � _ od'io naatu°awd„ nad .ICII„°nf� -":
nud Il,nulpe.p.,(.ddu.ati drt..._ t..pdP rVamm�a m,li,,parllV Uua a4 uauq: .a a
pdOtltt'tYr�ad ku4,ltlrn4p Nng.t""fCv�.��a, coip,ir,",,.,and anbcipgj, ;,d. deskGln gIlk"".II"u1G " .igf
aalll,a lu.l ctUrp.' .6:mpdalFd�pap:.�ad.'n4an ffi,aa dduda(dua (..
....._ ' aodpw,l)ata.....A,v�irru�te s.a i;du d dE gfaVnup sG e. aaan aRy+ . a uVl; ai t" atur °�g
ki'uu( ..m..,, 2l012a
(uar( ...�_ p dY.dI'oi4pg.` ,
Nadu... a a a and [„d_nlNta ta, of SI a i4 c r�oa.d,aa'rrl,
( li......... Ihifl:ra t„luruai4 drpre apuaad otheil d".d.r.tdnuarua de ifr a.ulua ES,.
( . ....... II 4na °ru�nc(..an Vnaaeolpg. lcal spit aa,..aii °alb!:
araii( du add...
ll�w . �7 Va a.b views u.0 .
..ta aand...(c4u °ur the aautd....�.
.(dp.(..... 9Q 2111401x... a.rll..d,sloOn;p;1lyvr.nder rna riagg!In ["I p�gp.p,.
((... .... cn;°s:
4a IIau4�Vdt ii.d<,ull u.!I::p.�ur�l_d�udd ��r4Va�ca ~lid,...urda oatu�G4'.....
n Jab tal diia eili. §k ty.,.
13 All site plans have to demonstrate compliance with development standards contained within Article 6 which
includes parking, signage, and lighting. Staff does not believe it necessary to repeat compliance with these
individual sections herein.
14 An airport has several imaginary surfaces and zones that exist primarily to prevent existing or proposed
manmade objects, objects of natural growth, or terrain from extending upward into navigable airspace. These
include approach surfaces /zones, transitional surfaces /zones, horizontal surfaces /zones, and conical
surfaces /zones. The Ordinance requires the applicant to identify, define, and locate each zone as part of the
submittal package.
Orange County, North Carolina ® Unified Development Ordinance Page 5 -139
Article 5: Uses
Section 5.17: Standards for Miscellaneous Uses
(h) 12g giea d. ll Y,e r s [ ty,
.5pecJec; of _s,pedaQ concern sudh as tho e ...d s��ggg!gq �gq
1hreatened oii indain er'., fiv: , and can6date
9 afl-.]-�� � -..- � - ---- —gfl '- j
eq,')ggjes hkdy tg i2p_pEg_s �0 — -_ aria nt pEgjq tio�
--I.
(npn __.,.S�g�nien trees gAsta� d' � d/ id thie
.1 Qg_ jj)111111s�t.ze qi �... o.r. -spggjg�:,. gt ,
Slat US Eflld SQUirce of the lnforrnaflon conipded In the h1veintory,
rhe I dog�ca�jnve.ritoiy �bg�] C 071 d
b J�'?g_,n r; pg,�]�e t gngiz�js d,eSqi'Rjng
babitat isle gr�ty, �,iiabita.1t��i,,.,a�iic�...�,,(),.,,,,elcl,c) logica�
tO aind
�j f I
wb:arllat fo 111abiat Eflnhal`ICEW�'ieint
ct Statein c
...... -- i �,,nt �ed in acgprdance withi
.Sectkx 6-161 ('Ir.0 nance..
StUd,\ g.dpterni e.the.al )i ojateness of
t jjmH del4i N�wv niw h wate� n:
to �i)e C01111SU
�M'dndrawdi thai
V s, safe and SUstahnabb iin 'the 41111TI t
,gdb e_y...Onity oj gV]d jf. d�AJIeu
WEAS WMihli the %d6rdly are wnticfi'awals
_III ilaunrte pauun el uLgD� MIhggh(,)in "'Uin iinu ',,[udnjq t
noi hirnited
unn
.(Hj methoQJs for R
�:[q[ reSOLUces and natgra� areas,
Resb-A afion airid rnnil a on II2[ An fgC y1pj�wi ds and other '4but,,.As,,.
State wid/orfedera� r EinV(s as irmt. a 11..V1 e regjred foir dtgatk)n of
It 'I fg, or�-,qgj ng. �ite . ilia Irg 01
_M-a-J,,,,,e,i,ar*e. qpt
nd!!u nom -sn.W.-waste-a0d,
U
isgvadonppgfl._
Hazw'dQLIS Mateija�s hfiai'Mjow gt-E!VgD, hnch di, ion of the
stormL gI]dTlqokng Qf,Ygu JQUS chern�ca�s apid
fgg� jpEoducts hndudhig RA Vy.ng
IIII.lmu4a ne fjd,.
Uynl[Q�Jc fi!uJd'
(20..... 21
(IV) Uflbjlka3.11111S UWIzedjo su t " g f t a
hcr
Flesti.cides and/orlfeIfll,ozei,I and
-ce
y gjbgu° hazaidous substain..-s'
A W t � M Safet Data Si'u.'?et fist i g gggh ��ibstaince, its krigivn q rnpacts,
:� g'i Y :. I..... - � t a
PhYai 2� reqLdI.-.e.d as pga gf flie.
siubrMtd
(➢) Vugtonk; cointours or n6se contOU11' lines howirli gjjIg @ffggts of airg aflr
a1Pg[gjk)"S LlruQ[n bnd Wflih"u 5 rnHes of the bounda[y,2f,tj')p.j
An EmffungyM,uinaggfng�]t [IIan _outHrflr&jbg fg6hfies i oc�g� and
jgaapgnses to an a u;um „n oml all2 .W 1l t P t
�s p�gC� ��gH �denO an cj a ed
[g,�oui-ces fm ]jgMog g.flimJig, 6ng tVgIgE g��gess s�tes and Ode a
�u [C
d.eiaHed breakdown of anficiOggtd uOvdvgneint.jb � gq k p!&uc safety
�.SJ
Orange County, North Carolina - Unified Development Ordinance Page 5-140
Article 5: Uses
Section 5.17: Standards for Miscellaneous Uses
tluc r utlwadt� y I
., .... zr.0 �� n uuuur�l _w.. , . .I�aurR.�n�.l �u u � � wl'���nu,u au Q a Eyiarn ,.
w... nuu r tyre i [g r�u��rxu �1., n li ° __. .II F derar AvIzu Ioini
(urn...........1 ra�dlu�...�........ 1- ....:.ruir >auu a u.um„ a ur nrl't fl, rtu n w iin sir �y...'.....
ru...011..� .)...�ruuu.tl Infanta m ta.n¢Irnlunnn
�"r�tonruuni,lutnur...
: ,) :.............u........w....r 1,: is ..j' .! tl:: d.'° f,... o :(,..( °�nsnfhi- 2:(.�.o.n.
tha1i 50 Page t u,tl�w V .u�f�aii_rPn uC.�_Vp�� a.tl_�.m� tgtl.tl, gt.ennatl or I.
I'naIiA I tl H �w d tug _r..r.w .
r.. <wnIy_6Jiruor Urface
Zone c cat r i tlrth CZaiwt
.............w.......
(,V) ........... 6 tngEin.ue lair �auu.d.tlps(,, buffer .. ° >iva,Vtl be I�.r�rtaVO,ed rm_u...I naInptaIned g.)n sl.s ient
this ra;:�� "'Il �16r 0�...!u�A..1 ...u..�nr`....rQalul�l lratl ..1 atlrt �.Ild! c uuu 'r „n . Gmtlriri �.. .�n_.ntl�(
. _ ............
............ tlgu hty yuol8l..an III nnprjrlult.n .q.iin...nstV.u'r eii"ut pLuLiv y rr.n...`�V�drllll lrr;��; allHowed..:Po
uunrr a nj,y illy .finrtl dawn tyl.l�j.li..rkw..
(1) Submittal Requirements
�n addition to the information required in Section 2.7, the followi shall be
submitted as part of the application:
Notification
mped envelopes addressed to each o er of property within 500 feet
oft roperty proposed for subdivisi The names and addresses of
propert wners shall be based o e current listing as shown in the
Orange C>Land ecords stem.
(b) DevelopmA statemelicant, indicating the anticipated development
schedule ut the project.
(c) Water and
(i) If the proposed lots are to be rved by a public water system,
proof of water supply and servic vailability in the form of a
certified copy of a resolution to that ect enacted by the
governing body of the water system pro ing the water to serve
the lots in the subdivision.
(ii) If the proposed lots are to be served by a public wer system
proof of public sewer service availability in the form certified
copy of a resolution to that effect enacted by the govern body
of the sewer system providing the sewer service to the lots i he
subdivision.
15 In reviewing other example Ordinances height limits can range from 50 to 75 feet. Staff selected 50 feet as it is
more consistent with existing height limits in other general use zoning districts.
16 In recommending this standard staff understands there will be concerns over potential conflicts created with the
preservation /planting of vegetation and aircraft safety (i.e. approach and take off patterns). Our goal is to require
a sufficient land use buffer to shield adjacent property owners from the impacts of an Airport — General Aviation
facility and confine runaway areas to the interior portion of the AP -CZ District in an attempt to mitigate noise,
vibration, and visual impacts.
Orange County, North Carolina — Unified Development Ordinance Page 5 -141
Agiritoui—rosin
A business directly
Article 10: Definitions
Section 10.1: Definitions
.:I Ail, Ca""ier
A pit.fla i.c—akpoirt. 6eived b" GeFtified ai-r I-unwayr,, kmd ae, or4MI"ier kiGIW-es
designeck)r used for-4zncfing, tak�ng-
)501.rport, Seirvlce (1-4et�-peirt'
A 6&uw?d by-a-(4eIrfified air by one Irior(t.,
enplaned-2.500 (>r ninof-(a pewusengen,;-in t1-'fie--PFeGE4Jk-1g Cak,` II EJEHI year.
Aiyped,�
desiia.'.,pned oii used for the cat -E,,ninafl-aa raft
ii,ir 1° Gent,'nal Aviabori
.............
pg�ic air rf.. f,, � gy�� M g se� vice to air pg��pgqg[s and/cr �leased airciraft foii con mierciat and/or
R9 2, ( -1 - - w 1------ - -1- - - --. . . -- � -111 11 -11.1-1-1 .
,itfstjtkitiolina Devekm1iient shaH irmhide bUt riot �be Hi'nited t U W ar as
o,.,,, r n ay�_
oses. �gg.d�n-g -9 L
y G'Ipui oesuatcuntiu.�.11.11tand uses.
p
'j'!qMisiqin Instrurrierit Rt,iriw
[gilVgy hgying giI instrurnent gj.H-iZii19 9EDgyiggtion faciRies with (�)IIidly bgt�izontaf
gi�:u kjaruce, or are t pg ng igg!j n ec ipr[ipulij, for whiic�-i a straigtftjr I c in instii urnent a x
Y Z '9W'
A,iir,[ jt- Pre(;isiaiini linstrurrtent,Run
an insti'i,iiment apipigggb piloceditlie Wjfiz� 9,,. qlagi!ama• LgEding ' Dgm (jL5),QE 9
F'recision A L)� I) Radar (r-�AR) g�L.Lfggil�[y igy
-P
hr' Z ft — Private Niolid1d
1 -1 .11�---.111-1�,,�.-�'ll""I'llI'll",'ll""I"ll""Il.,�-11.11,11,11�"..","�ll,�-�,��I
A private airfigid or pgi�songfl aiiciraft not be
�J,II)Itedt juin �yc f
o w �g, �g�]ft g gigg!�, 8ii pgq-I5,ti� g[jing iou ,astructure and facHifies,
a _gf.girciiaft
&[Lpr ftSiijirfaceZoines
ifljlggingil agu-fgices and zones that exist 2EII'Tiaiflyjpjq� �Leqj...existiqg I ...�tnba
_u wardintoinavi b air ac incitj IC�cj:
ag pg I I-Ji -d
Appiog lh Surface Zoine, A Mflface iorg4otreuruua a1111.1N. giikaiied on the extended run
,centeii,ivale,-e)(,�endiii"n.g .ggL\ALa- _rd gig gpmyg[d from the erd of d e p�j[ng[y a.rac�..aAt, the
zone
c61ncides wWh di width, of the i M s 200 feet fii 'n fl, e ruii
------ .--R�'M gig[fggg g I d be,gin. gx�sAnd
21 '2A
aind is 1,000 feet wide. iTIE�, Ca zone expgqtja gigtwg�id gi2ifoino2,y to a width of
j9I.Q00 feet at a liiorizontaat distance of 50,9QQ fggj fi'oE' Lt!jUj[ii"na!y �gijggg Its cent er'Jine
i pia gointinwafion of the centeliras: of Hhe 1-ijinwa'.
Qpnii;W &.n face Zone. A surface u'd fi,q[n tbgj2g�'rtpi e y gf the
['110i,izontat SLH face at a stop -, gf ZQ' 1 tor a hoii izontM distance of 4,000 feet. �'he conical
.......... . ...........
zorie is established on the aii,ea I coiiinrneiy�es atthej?gipj2pjy cnf ..t[ hgiiZonW one
and extends outward then foir a 6stanceof..!'QgQkgtr «a2grrjJlPyygi qqLpmppqpf 201.
(Q _1'iairo��honat SUrfaces Zoine. lhese SLH-faces extei'W oigtvraid at Il
g§ _(0 it g!y
d�gp g gj)gBes) tg.jbp interhine amj extend at a slIop 10 0 �.t Y Q :
��_Jh riz in aH f
each foot va r c H Mffl the sides of the pfii aity
Ifl-- _,gi)A2ppgL_ aUrfaces to wheie th y
-g_
North Carolina - Unified Development Ordinance Page 1 0-�i
Article 10: Definitions
Section 10.1: Definitions
L�jp pprinnet(;Ir (,,)f vvhk;h (;6n(,J(Jes with d �e_pei��rnetei of fl'ie hodzontM zone. "The hoijzonta�
jgggp,,01� I,o thg.;e arcs. 'The hor[zorita� zone does riot inCJWJE� the,a p[ggg�� and trans�fionW
0
its mobile home stand in 0 age due to
wind . erosion, floodih er natural forces.
Appeal
A request from interp �Ordinance by the Boa�
ofAdumdmenL ---~-�___
QrmnQeCounty'NnMhCorm|ino - Vnified Development Ordinance Page 10-3
CHAPEL FULL NEWS
WEDNESDAY NOVEMBER 25 2015
CHAPELHILLNEWS.COM
issues Fracking for Orange County
Exposod North Carolina Triassic Rift Basins
7rS"sicassins
M
-777777--
Learn more about fracking and North Carolina geology:
* l��ttp://portal.ncdenr.org/web/guest/shale-gas
* httP://www.newsobserver.com/news/bLiSiness/articlel4730470.htmi
* httP://www2.epa.gov/hydraulicfracturin
CONCERNS
While direct adverse
DRAFT CFE news article (Dec. 7, 2015)
Water in Orange County —Is There Enough?
The word water can bring a variety of images to mind, but usually water is a news topic
only when there is too little or too much. The myriad ways that water plays a role in our
daily lives is not always obvious. One thing we can all agree on is that access to
reliable sources of clean water is vital. Clean water is a resource that is renewable but
can be limited in availability. Adequate supplies of clean water are necessary for public
health, agricultural production, economic growth, and ecosystem health.
As Orange County's population grows, the number of people relying on municipal water
supplies will increase as urban areas expand. Surface water (i.e., from rivers and
reservoirs) is the primary source of water for our towns, whereas residents of rural
areas of the county are completely dependent upon groundwater for their water supply.
The accompanying graph presents water data from the N.C. Division of Water
Resources. This information illustrates the average amount of water used per person
from 1997 to 2014, with usage reported in gallons per day per person (g /d /p) by the
water utilities servicing areas within Orange County: Mebane, Hillsborough, OWASA
(Orange Water and Sewer Authority), and OAWS (Orange - Alamance Water System).
Usage is calculated by dividing the total average amount of water used daily by the
number of people served by the utility. The numbers in the graphic include all
residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and system process uses, as well as
unaccounted -for water losses due to leakage or unregistered water meters. These data
may not have been verified for all of the years reported.
The graphic illustrates that the per capita demand for water in the areas of Orange
County served by utilities has generally decreased markedly since the droughts of 2002
and 2007. Those droughts alerted local residents and other water users to the need for
immediate and on -going water conservation. It is thought that this increased awareness
led to the decline in the consumption of utility - supplied water that has occurred since
2002.
200
`°
.�
Water Utility
CL
L
150
— — — City of Mebane
w
100
•.....
••' '• ....
o
'••.
— -OWASA
w
Q
50
•
o
Town of
M
Hillsborough
0
1 1 1 1 1 1 ....
OAWS
1996
1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014
Year
The accompanying graph presents water data from the N.C. Division of Water
Resources. This information illustrates the average amount of water used per person
from 1997 to 2014, with usage reported in gallons per day per person (g /d /p) by the
water utilities servicing areas within Orange County: Mebane, Hillsborough, OWASA
(Orange Water and Sewer Authority), and OAWS (Orange - Alamance Water System).
Usage is calculated by dividing the total average amount of water used daily by the
number of people served by the utility. The numbers in the graphic include all
residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and system process uses, as well as
unaccounted -for water losses due to leakage or unregistered water meters. These data
may not have been verified for all of the years reported.
The graphic illustrates that the per capita demand for water in the areas of Orange
County served by utilities has generally decreased markedly since the droughts of 2002
and 2007. Those droughts alerted local residents and other water users to the need for
immediate and on -going water conservation. It is thought that this increased awareness
led to the decline in the consumption of utility - supplied water that has occurred since
2002.
DRAFT CFE news article (Dec. 7, 2015)
Outside of the public water service areas, rural residents depend on groundwater, rather
than surface water, for their drinking water. Groundwater consumption is difficult to
track because of a lack of groundwater usage information. It is expected that the
ongoing growth in the number of water supply wells in the county mirrors growth in
overall groundwater consumption. However, if the trend in decreasing per capita water
consumption observed at local water utilities reflects a similar unmeasured trend
amongst groundwater users, the net use of groundwater could also be decreasing.
Conversely, the increasing number of residential consumers of groundwater could offset
any decrease in per capita residential consumption, resulting in an increase in
groundwater consumption. Unfortunately, analysis of trends or determining the
amounts of groundwater used is not possible without local consumption data.
To support a healthy environment and sustainable growth, the water resources of
Orange County, both surface water and groundwater, must be managed carefully such
that these finite resources are not overtaxed or wasted.
What can be done to help manage Orange County's Water Resources?
• Get informed about local sources of water and the importance of conserving all
water supplies.
• Perform a water audit of your water consumption and discover if there are easy
steps you can take to reduce your use of potable water. Examples include fixing
leaks, even minor leaks, taking shorter showers, installing a rain barrel or rain
garden, planting drought tolerant plant species, and many others!
Track local groundwater conditions through Orange Well Net (OWN), a network
of groundwater observation wells used to monitor local groundwater conditions-
http://www.ncwater.org/?page=537&lmp=&county ame=&search=&t1=1&aguifer=& tafion=&net=ora nge inactive=
Attachment 5
CFE Committee Priorities
(as of February 2015)
Air and Energy Resources Committee
(May Becker, Tom Eisenhart, David Neal, Bill Newby, Gary Saunders, Jan Sassaman)
1. GHG Emissions Inventory - Update the County 2005 greenhouse gas emissions inventory.
(First determine whether it will be feasible & worthwhile to perform a complete update.)
2. Green Building — Help County implement a rebate on permit fees for green construction.
3. Climate Change - Educate county residents about climate change, alternative energy sources
and efficiency, and steps to reduce their (and the county's) carbon footprint.
4. Energy Efficiency - Partner with Piedmont Electric Membership Corp. to take advantage of
USDA program for low- interest loans for energy efficient upgrades for its members /owners.
5. RENEW Group — Proceed with the creation of the planned Renewable Energy and Efficiency
Work Group (utilizing the current CFE / Air & Energy Committee structure).
Water Resources Committee
(Peter Cada, Donna Lee Jones, Rebecca Ray, Sheila Thomas- Ambat)
Invasive Species — Educate the public about invasive species of concern, their extents/
locations, and what steps can be taken to address them.
2. Surface and Ground Water Quality - Increase the collection of data for surface and ground
water quality; increase public education so it might lead to more funding for data collection.
3. Water Supply - Increase public education of our water supply, and what steps can be taken to
improve /maintain quality and quantity of water supplies into the future.
Land Resources Committee
(Loren Hintz, Jeanette O'Connor, Lydia Wegman, David Welch)
1. Comprehensive Conservation Plan - Initiate development of a comprehensive conservation
plan for Orange County, to be used by Lands Legacy program and others to protect natural
areas and wildlife habitat. Consider ways to ensure conservation land is distributed equitably
throughout the county so that everyone has reasonable access to enjoy these areas.
2. Native Plant Habitats - Renew collaboration with NC Botanical Garden and others to identify
significant roadside habitat for native plants; then ask NCDOT and other utilities to eliminate
the use of herbicides to manage vegetation in those special roadside habitats.
Native Landscaping - Educate the public (homeowners /businesses) on reasons to choosing a
diversity of regionally native species for landscaping and other ways to promote biodiversity
in the home landscape.
4. 2016 Bond Package - Advocate for including land conservation (i.e., support for Lands
Legacy program) as part of the planned bond package for 2016; take the lead in educating the
public about why protected space and natural areas are important for Orange County.
ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSION FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
RESOLUTION
Incentive Program for Energy Efficient Construction
WHEREAS, energy efficiency is the lowest cost, cleanest, and most underutilized resource for
meeting our energy needs; and
WHEREAS, energy efficiency in new construction enhances comfort and saves money for the
occupants of those structures for the life of the structure; and
WHEREAS, there are split incentives between builders and occupants when it comes to
investments in energy efficiency in new buildings because those efficiency measures can add
costs for builders that result in savings for later occupants;and
WHEREAS, saving money by using less energy would most benefit low- income residents who
pay the largest percentage of their incomes on monthly power bills; and
WHEREAS, energy efficiency measures will reduce air pollution and save money for all rate
payers by minimizing the need to produce electricity from fossil fuels; and
WHEREAS, state law allows county and city governments to enact incentives for energy
efficient construction in the form of rebating permitting fees, but otherwise does not allow local
governments to require more energy efficient construction than is already required by the state
building code; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill adopted an incentive program for energy efficiency
construction, allowing for rebates of permitting fees for energy efficient construction that meets
certain objective benchmarks in the Ephesus - Fordham District: and
WHEREAS, Orange County is committed to reducing the energy usage of its own buildings and
has invested in several successful energy efficiency projects to lower long -term costs and
reduce environmental impacts;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
That the Orange County Comission for the Environment (CFE) recommends that the Orange
County Board of County Commissioners adopt an incentive program that rebates permitting
fees, modeled after the program adopted by the Town of Chapel Hill, for new commercial and
residential construction and look for creative ways to encourage low or no -cost energy efficiency
upgrades to existing buildings, primarily targeted at our lowest- income neighbors to provide
them with savings on their utility bills.
This the 9th day of November, 2015
fan sasAWN1
Jan Sassaman, Chair
Orange County Commission for the Environment
MEMORANDUM
To: Orange County Board of Commissioners
Bonnie Hammersley, County Manager
From: Commission for the Environment
Date: November 9, 2015
Re: Use of herbicides and pesticides at County -owned facilities
The Orange County Commission for the Environment (CFE) was asked by the BOCC to
consider the list of herbicides and pesticides used both inside and outside the County -owned
buildings and facilities, and to provide feedback or recommendations to the staff or BOCC.
The CFE received the list at the October 12 meeting and had a thoughtful discussion with
David Stancil and members of his DEAPR staff as well as Brennan Bouma from AMS. The
CFE also reviewed DEAPR's sustainable landscaping policy, which states that pesticides and
herbicides should be used no stronger than directed and only when no alternative exist.
CFE members reviewed the list of herbicides and pesticides used on grounds and playing
fields, and asked many questions on how and when chemicals are applied. CFE members
learned that the staff maintain a high level of safety and control in the application of these
products. They are well - trained and use products according to directions included on the label.
CFE members noted, however, that just because a product is EPA - approved and regulated
there may be alternatives that are better for the natural environment. The CFE recommends
DEAPR and AMS staff conduct periodic reviews of their use of herbicides and other
chemicals, including an examination of alternatives to potentially harmful substances.
The CFE is confident with the use of herbicides /pesticides by County staff, but the CFE
remains wary about the use of these products by residential users. The CFE will consider
developing some sort of guidance targeted toward homeowners in the county— perhaps using
this as the subject for one in the series of newspaper articles that the CFE has authored for the
Chapel Hill News and News of Orange County.
The CFE appreciates the opportunity to review this information and have this discussion.
cc: David Stancil, DEAPR Director
Jeff Thompson, AMS Director
GOl2Cl2CG55%J�ib for t
G, %OlZ1Ir�B GOUVi,t� P�f�h12, h0 gOX �1�1 /�6C��01'OUG�GI, NG���j�� �1� -�-�f5 -610
November 9, 2015
NAME OF BOARD /COMMISSION: Commission for the Environment
Report Period: 2015-2016
ORANGE COUNTY ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
ANNUAL REPORT / WORK PLAN FOR THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
The Board of Commissioners welcomes input from various advisory boards and
commissions in preparation for its annual planning retreat. Please complete the following
information, limited to the front and back of this form. Other background materials may be
provided as a supplement to, but not as a substitute for, this form.
Board /Commission Name: Commission for the Environment
Persons to address BOCC at work session and contact information:
Chair: Lydia Wegman
Vice Chair Lynne Gronback
Primary County Staff Contacts:
919- 886 -8775 Inwegman @gmail.com
919- 219 -3219 Ironback@gmail.com
Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation
Rich Shaw (Land Conservation Manager) 245 -2514 rshaw@orangecountync.gov
Tom Davis (Water Resources Coordinator) 245 -2513 tdavis @orangecountync.gov
Brennan Bouma (Sustainability Coordinator) 245 -2626 bbouma @orangecountync.gov
How many times per month does this commission meet, including any special
meetings and sub - committee meetings?
One meeting per month (2nd Monday); committees meet as needed during meeting
Brief Statement of Commission's Assigned Charge and Responsibilities.
Purpose: to advise the BOCC on matters affecting the environment, with particular
emphasis on environmental protection and enhancement. Other duties include:
• Perform special studies /projects on environmental issues as requested by BOCC
• Recommend environmental initiatives to the BOCC, especially of local importance
• Study changes in environmental science and environmental regulations in the
pursuit of the CFE's duties
• Educate the public and local officials on environmental issues
What are your Commission's most important accomplishments?
• Initiated a series of articles on environmental issues featured in SOE report (2015)
• Made recommendations to BOCC on 2016 bond package, the use of herbicides/
pesticides at County facilities, and incentives for energy efficient construction (2015)
• Commented to Planning Bd on proposed changes to impervious surface rules (2015)
• Provided ideas for Public Services Announcements (PSAs) for County radio spots (2015)
• Collaborated with other entities on energy conservation and mgmt. projects (2015 -16)
• Published the 2014 Orange County State of the Environment report
(previous reports were completed in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2009)
• Convened Orange County Environmental Summit (2005, 2009, 2014)
• Made recommendations to BOCC on food waste and solid waste tax district (2014)
• Worked with Orange County Schools to introduce local environmental indicators/
status and trends into middle and high school science curriculum (2004, 2009, 2014)
• Hosted a Solid Waste Forum with the Chapel Hill Sustainability Committee (2013)
Commission for the Environment November 9, 2015
• Co- sponsored the annual Nature of Orange photography contest (2012 - 2015)
• Advocated for' /2 cent sales tax referendum for Triangle Region public transit (2012)
• Compiled annotated bibliography of the effects of forestry on water quality (2012)
• Developed sustainable landscaping and forest management policies for the
administration of County -owned facilities (2010)
• Assisted County staff in completing the Natural and Cultural Systems Element of the
Orange County Comprehensive Plan (2008)
List of Specific Tasks, Events, or Functions Performed or Sponsored Annually.
• Liaisons to Intergovernmental Parks Work Group and Orange Unified Transp. Board
• Review and comment on environmental issues (e.g., fracking, biosolids application,
water pollution, air quality, forest mgmt..) and other issues assigned by the BOCC
• Identify priorities for the Lands Legacy Action Plan (natural areas and wildlife habitat)
• Conduct special studies pertaining to Orange County environment (e.g., energy
efficiency /sustainability, forestry effects on water quality, herbicides and native flora)
• Develop recommendations on implementation of ground water studies of the 1990s
and the integration of ground water and surface water quality and quantity
• Conduct environmental education outreach at events (eg, Last Friday, Earth Evening)
Describe this commission's activities /accomplishments in carrying out BOCC
goals /priorities, if applicable.
BOCC Goal Five: Create, preserve, and protect a natural environment that
includes clean water, clean air, wildlife, important natural lands and sustainable
energy for present and future generations.
Presented findings and recommendations to BOCC on selected environmental
issues: effects of forest mgmt. on water quality; effects of herbicides on roadside
native plant habitat; potential effects of hydraulic fracturing ( "fracking ") in Orange
County; problems caused by hydrilla in the Eno River (BOCC Priorities #1 and #12)
Stayed abreast of ongoing and developing env. issues of importance to the County,
such as Falls & Jordan Lake nutrient mgmt. rules, reducing commercial food waste in
solid waste stream, and permitting of biosolids on farmland (Priorities #12 and #16)
Provides comments on proposed master plans for future parks /preserves
If your commission played the role of an Element Lead Advisory Board involved in the
2030 Comprehensive Plan preparation process, please indicate your activities/
accomplishments as they may relate to the Comprehensive Plan's goals or objectives.
(Element Lead Advisory Boards include: Planning Board, Commission for the Environment,
Historic Preservation Commission, Agriculture Pres. Board, and Parks & Recreation Council)
The CFE provided extensive input into DEAPR staff development of the Natural and
Cultural Systems Element of the Comprehensive Plan— specifically the chapters on Air
and Energy Resources, Water Resources, and Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitat.
Objective AE -1:
Assess and implement the current countywide greenhouse gas emissions inventory and
action plan target reductions.
• The CFE helped to initiate a countywide inventory of greenhouse gas emissions
(2005), and continues to advise on ways to reduce the County's "carbon footprint."
Commission for the Environment November 9, 2015
Objective AE -15:
Foster participation in green energy programs such as installation incentives for solar hot
water /solar generation /solar tempering in residential or commercial construction. The
County should develop programs that will link citizens and businesses with options for
alternative and sustainable energy sources.
• The CFE's Air and Energy Resources Committee has developed proposals that
address energy efficiency and renewable power issues, and will pursue further in
collaboration with other advisory boards and stakeholders.
Objective NA -3:
Develop a more detailed and consistent methodology for monitoring changes in forest
cover throughout the County, and specifically the extent of mature hardwood forest.
• The CFE's State of the Environment report documented significant reductions in
mature hardwood forest that occurred from 2003 -2008 and since 1988. DEAPR staff
will update those data to include forest conversions that occurred 2009 - 2013.
Objective NA -11:
Develop a comprehensive conservation plan for achieving a network of protected open
space throughout Orange County, which addresses 1) threats to important natural areas;
2) connectivity between protected areas; 3) coordination with neighboring counties; and
4) sustainable management of critical natural resources.
• The CFE's Land Resources Committee is working with other conservation entities to
initiate the development of a comprehensive conservation plan.
Objective NA -16:
Create a system of public and private open space and conservation areas, including
parks, nature preserves, and scenic vistas representative of Orange County landscape.
• The CFE advises County's Lands Legacy program in its efforts to protect the most
important natural and cultural resource lands through a variety of means.
• The CFE's Land Resources Committee is working with other conservation entities to
initiate the development of a comprehensive conservation plan.
Objective WR -5:
Promote and participate in regional efforts to plan for use of water supplies in the region
in an equitable manner, including contingency planning for water supplies during
droughts. [Also Objectives WR -9, WR -10, and WR -15]
• CFE stays abreast of Jordan Lake Partnership and advises staff as needed
• CFE advocates for full implementation of the Water Resources Initiative to ensure
planning for an adequate water supply for current and anticipated future needs
Objective WRA 1:
Provide incentives and educational information to landowners to increase protection of
watersheds and ground water supplies and their inter - relationships.
• The CFE distributes groundwater and surface water educational materials at Earth
Evening and Last Fridays events and as part of its State of the Environment reports
NOTE: The Orange County State of the Environment 2014 identified specific
recommendations on ways to help maintain and improve Orange County's
environmental quality, many of which address objectives stated in the
Orange County Comprehensive Plan.
Commission for the Environment November 9, 2015
Identify any activities this commission expects to carry out in 2016 as they relate to
established BOCC goals and priorities. If applicable, is there a fiscal impact (i.e.,
funding, staff time, other resources) associated with these proposed activities (list).
• Continue to update the Orange County State of the Environment 2014 report
• Continue to explore ways to improve the County's ability to foster local sustainable
energy production and energy efficiency strategies, including developing incentives
for increasing energy efficiency in new construction
• Recommend ways to reduce the County's "carbon footprint" and implement the
County's Environmental Responsibility Goal (BOCC Priority #10)
• Continue to help with public outreach and management efforts related to hydrilla in
the Eno River
• Help initiate the development of a comprehensive conservation plan for Orange Co
(BOCC Priority #1)
• Co- sponsor the annual DEAPR photography contest (The Nature of Orange)
• Help plan for and participate in County's annual Earth Evening event
What are the concerns or emerging issues your board has identified for the upcoming
year that it plans to address, or wishes to bring to the Commissioners' attention?
• The CFE will continue to advocate for an expansion of the County's commercial food
waste pickup and composting services to reduce food waste in the solid waste stream
• The CFE remains interested in developing incentives for increasing energy efficiency
in new construction
• The CFE will continue to learn more about environmental justice matters and
incorporate relevant information and considerations in the State of the Environment
report and its other activities
• The CFE will continue to follow the Solid Waste Advisory Group's discussions of how
to improve the handling and disposal of Orange County's solid waste, and will
advocate for better long -term solutions
• The CFE will continue to advocate for increased efforts to gather information related
to water resources in Orange County and to increase public awareness and
understanding of water supply sources, related concerns, and what steps can be
undertaken to maintain or improve the quantity and quality of Orange County water
supply resources
• The CFE will continue to address, as appropriate, the critical environmental issues for
Orange County as enumerated on page 3 of the 2014 State of the Environment
report, which include potential adverse effects from a) invasive, non - native, plant and
animal species; b) reductions in State -led collection of water resources data; c)
potential drilling for natural gas in the Deep River basin; d) urban sprawl; and CFE
support for e) the responsible deployment of clean and appropriately -sited renewable
energy and reductions in energy use to help fight climate change
4
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 23, 2015
41
Action Agenda
Item No. E.1
SUBJECT: Impact of 2015 Legislative Updates on Orange County's Erosion
Control /Stormwater Programs, Riparian Buffer and Impervious (Built -Upon
Area) Regulations
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (YIN) NO
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Memorandum on SL2015 -246 (H44) -
Stormwater Impacts
2. Memorandum on SL2015 -286 (H765) -
Stormwater Impacts
3. Memorandum on SL2015 -246 (H44) -
Riparian Buffer Impacts
4. Session Law 2015 -149 (H634)
5. Session Law 2015 -246 (H44)
6. Session Law 2015 -286 (H765)
7. Matrix Outlining State and County Riparian
Buffer Requirements
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Howard W. Fleming, Jr., PE,
Engineering /Stormwater Supervisor,
(919) 245 -2586
Michael Harvey, Planner III, (919) 245 -2597
Craig Benedict, Planning Director,
(919) 245 -2592
James Bryan, Staff Attorney, (919) 245 -2319
PURPOSE: To review how legislative changes made in 2015 have or will impact the County's
Erosion Control /Stormwater programs and riparian buffer regulations as enforced by the
Current Planning division. This abstract provides staff background and information on each
individual item with requests for direction and /or identification on identified next steps.
BACKGROUND:
Session Law (SL) 2015 -149 (H634) - An act to clarify the definition of built -upon area
(BUA) for purposes of stormwater programs.
The basic change per this SL is, for the purposes of implementing stormwater programs,
"built -upon area" does not include ... a surface of number 57 stone, as designated by the
American Society for Testing and Materials, laid at least four inches thick over a
geotextile fabric; or a trail as defined in G.S. 113A -85 that is either unpaved or paved as
long as the pavement is porous with a hydraulic conductivity greater than 0.001
centimeters per second (1.41 inches per hour)."
S: \2_Boards \BOCC\2015 Public Hearings'Nov QPH\Work Session Items \2015 Session Law Effects \Abstract -Session Law Effects 11232015 - mdh +b-wf edits.doc
42
Please refer to Attachment 4 for a copy of the legislation.
2
This only (at this time in our planning opinion) affects the stormwater calculations for
runoff retention which would require less storage. This BUA will likely not be widely
used.
• Session Law 2015 -246 (H44) - An act to reform various provisions of the law related to
local government including modifications to riparian buffer standards and changes to the
enforcement of voluntary State regulations (i.e. stormwater).
A copy of the legislation is contained in Attachment 5.
An analysis on the legislations impact on the County's stormwater program in contained
in Attachment 1 and Attachment 3 contains our assessment of its impacts on our riparian
buffer program.
This will greatly affect the existing stormwater program in the Jordan Lake watershed
where we implemented rules in advance of pending state regulations (which have been
delayed).
A primary consideration relates to what regulations should be implemented if current
ordinances are determined to be non - enforceable?
• Session Law 2015 -286 (H765) - An act to provide further regulatory relief to the citizens
of North Carolina by providing for various administrative reforms, by eliminating certain
unnecessary or outdated statutes and regulations and modernizing or simplifying
cumbersome or outdated regulations, and by making various other statutory changes.
A copy of the legislation is contained in Attachment 6. An analysis on the legislations
impact on the County's stormwater program in contained in Attachment 2.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Consideration will not create the need for additional funding for the
provision of County services; however...
Item A —If we decide to amend the LIDO, there would be staff time commitments and a
resulting public hearing.
1. Costs for the required legal advertisement will be paid from FY2015 -16 Departmental
funds budgeted for this purpose.
2. Existing Planning and stormwater staff, included in the Departmental staffing budget, will
accomplish the work required to process these amendments.
Item B — We will examine the legal ramifications of other actions
Item C - Staff will proceed with a Riparian buffer study with present cost unknown and
unfunded. Approximate cost could be $40,000 to $50,000. We will seek cost sharing and
collaboration where possible.
Service Impact: Current Planning, Engineering /Stormwater staff, and the County Attorney's
office would need to be involved with all of the scenario pathways. It should be noted,
however, that some impact to service might result, due to the extensive nature of these
regulations, if revised, and the fact they are reviewable by the State for compliance and
subject to additional revision until approved.
SA2_Boards\BOCC \2015 Public Hearings'Nov QPH \Work Session Items \2015 Session Law Effects \Abstract - Session Law Effects 11232015 - mdh +hwf edits_doc
43
3
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following Orange County Social Justice Goal is applicable to
this agenda item:
GOAL: ESTABLISH SUSTAINABLE AND EQUITABLE LAND -USE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES
The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, incomes
and educational levels with respect to the development and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations, policies, and decisions. Fair treatment means that no
group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental
consequences resulting from industrial, governmental and commercial operations or
policies.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board receive the information
and provide comments:
1. Stormwater Rules: Collaborate with the Attorney's Office and seek guidance from NC
DEMLR and DEQ as to what "rules Orange County should default to, if we need to
suspend present UDO regulations because of the delayed rules enforcement prohibited
by SL 2015 -246 (H44).
2. Riparian Buffers: Proceed with study to justify present standards.
SA2_Boards \BOCC 12015 Public Hearings'Nov QPH \Work Session Items \2015 Session Law Effects \Abstract - Session Law Effects 11232015 - mdh +hwf edits doe
Attachment 1
PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director
ELI'
Engineering / Erosion
,� � , 131 W. Margaret Lane
Control I Stormwater Suite 201
(919) 245 -2575 ORANGE COUNTY P. O. Box 8181
(919) 644 -3002 (FAX) NO)? TF1 CAROLIf,4A Hillsborough, NC 27278
www.orangecountync.gov
T A 0 �
TO: Orange County Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Howard W. Fleming, Jr., PE, Engineering /Stormwater Supervisor
DATE: 11/23/15
PROJECT: GENERAL
SUBJECT: Session Law 2015 -246 (HB 44)
The following is the Engineering /Stormwater Division's analysis of the impacts of
subject legislation on the Erosion Control /Stormwater program of Orange County.
ADDED § 153A- 145.6. Requiring compliance with voluntary State regulations and
rules prohibited. (For full text see Attachment 4)
Based on this new law, it appears that our ability to enforce the Jordan Lake Stormwater
regulations for new development is rescinded. This is based on the fact that SL2012-
200 (enacted 08101112 versus Orange County UDO amendment ordinance 2012-
011, adopted 04117112) delayed our required implementation to August 10, 2014.
Subsequently, SL2013 -395 delayed implementation of all Jordan Lake Rules "that begin
July 1, 2013, or later" for a period of three years. So, it appears that the requirement for
us to implement the Jordan Lake new development stormwater regulations has been
delayed until 2017.
Even though the title of 153A -145.6 says "voluntary State regulations ", the text of the
first paragraph says-
"If a State department or agency declares a regulation or rule to be voluntary or the
General Assembly delays the effective date of a regulation or rule proposed or adopted
by the Environmental Management Commission, or any other board or commission, a
county shall not require or enforce compliance with the applicable regulation or
rule, including any regulation or rule previously or hereafter incorporated as a
condition or contractual obligation imposed by, agreed upon, or accepted by the county
in any zoning, land use, subdivision, or other developmental approval, including, without
limitation, a development permit issuance, development agreement, site - specific
development plan, or phased development plan."
Since the required implementation has been delayed by the General Assembly until
2017, Engineering /Stormwater Division's interpretation is that the County "shall not
require or force compliance with the" new development rules for Jordan Lake. We
recommend consideration and interpretation by the County Attorney's office.
S:\2 Boards\BOCC\2015 Public Hearings\Nov QPH\Work Session Items \2015 Session Law EBects\Att 1 - ImpactsOfSL2015- 246( I -1B44)EC- SW- ProgOfOC_111215.doc
45
11/23/15 Page 2 of 3
BOCC Impact of SL 2015 -246 (HB 44) on Orange Co.
These are the rules which form the basis of the stormwater regulations for almost half of
the County. In the absence of these rules, research will need to be done to determine
how the UDO would need to be modified in order to meet the requirements of state law.
Unfortunately, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Energy Mineral and Land Resources (DEMLR) is right in the middle of a comprehensive
review of stormwater regulations, which involves significant reorganization, repeals of
duplications and amendments. Why is DEMLR doing this?
#1 S.L. 2013 -82 requires new rules for Fast -Track permitting. Minimum Design
Criteria (MDC) are part of the Fast -Track requirements, so they have to be
codified too.
#2 G.S. �15013-213A directs state agencies to review and update their rules every
10 years.
#3 It's a good opportunity to update & streamline.
Substantive changes resulting from this that will affect Orange County include:
1. Minimum Design Criteria (MDC) and fast -track permitting
2. Project density
3. Disconnection instead of swales
The recodified comprehensive rules adoption is scheduled for July of 2016.
Sep -Dec 2015
Nov 12, 2015
Jan 14, 2016
Jan 15, 2016
Jan 20, 2016
Feb 17, 2016
Mar 2016
Apr 17, 2016
Jul 13, 2016
DEMLR develops fiscal note
WQC approves rule text
EMC approves rule & fiscal note
OSBM certifies fiscal note
DEMLR files rule & fiscal note in Register
Comment period begins
Public hearing(s)
Comment period ends
EMC adopts rules
SA2 Boards\BOCC\2015 Public Heariugs\Nov QPIAWork Session Items\2015 Session Law Eflects\Att 1 - InpactsOfSL2015- 246 (HB44)EC- SW- ProgOfOC_111215.doc
46
11/23/15 Page 3 of 3
BOCC Impact of SL 2015 -246 (HB 44) on Orange Co.
ADDED: § 160A- 499.4. and § 153A -457. Notice prior to construction.
Article 21, Chapter 160A and Article 23 of Chapter 153A of the General Statutes
were amended to include new sections requiring counties to provide notice prior to
construction
(a) A county shall notify the property owners and adjacent property owners prior to
commencement of any construction project by the county.
(b) Notice under this section shall be in writing at least 15 days prior to the
commencement of construction, except in any of the following instances:
(1) If the construction is a repair of an emergency nature, the notice may be
given by any means, including verbally, that the county has for contacting the
property owner within a reasonable time prior to, or after, commencement of
the repair.
(2) The property owner requests action of the county that requires construction
activity.
(3) The property owner consents to less than 15 days' notice.
(4) Notice of the construction project is given in any open meeting of the county
prior to the commencement of the construction project.
The Engineering group believes category (4) will prevail as the primary vehicle for
such notifications to occur, thereby ensuring Orange County Compliance.
SA2Boardsl130CO2015 Public HearingsNov QPH\Work Session Items\2015 Session Law Effects\Att I - In pacGOYSL2015- 246( I -IB44)EC- SW- ProgO10C_111215. doe
Attachment 2
PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director
M
Engineering / Erosion
Control /Stormwater Y 131 W. Margaret Lane
(919) 245 -2575 ORANGE COUNTY P. O. Box 8181
(919) 644 -3002 (FAX) NORTt -f CAROLINA Hillsborough, NC 27278
www.orangecountync.gov
►1 TI O : ► -411111 11
TO:
Craig Benedict
FROM:
Howard W. Fleming, Jr., PE, Engineering /Stormwater Supervisor
DATE:
11/23/15
PROJECT:
GENERAL
SUBJECT:
Session Law 2015 -286 (HB 765)
The following is my analysis of the impacts of subject legislation on the Erosion
Control /Stormwater program of Orange County. (For full text of SL 2015 -286, see
Attachment 5.)
Michael Harvey has reviewed this memorandum in advance of finalization, as it touches
upon ordinances enforced by Current Planning. I have incorporated his one comment.
1. The Environmental Review Commission (EMC) is required to study "open and
fair competition with respect to materials used in wastewater, stormwater, and
other water projects "; whether to require public entities to consider all acceptable
piping materials before determining which piping material should be used in the
constructing, developing, financing, maintaining, rebuilding, improving, repairing,
procuring, or operating of a water, wastewater, or stormwater drainage project.
Recommendations are due to the 2016 Regular Session of the 2015 General
Assembly, which starts April 25, 2016.
The outcome of this provision cannot be determined at this point in time. As
Orange County Engineering (a division of Planning & Inspections) engages
in the development of water, sewer and potentially other infrastructure that
would promote development in the Economic Development Districts
(EDD's), changes may be expected to Orange County's construction
documents for such future projects.
S92_Boards\BOCC\2015 Public HearingsWov QPH\Work Session Item \2015 Session Law Efects\Att 2 - ImpactsOtSL2015- 2860-I B765 )EC- SW- PrograrnOfOC- 1 11215.doc
48
11/23115 Page 2 of 4
BOCC Effects of SL 2015 -286 (H13 765) on Orange Co.
2. Session Law 2015 -286 (HB 765) amends the laws governing isolated wetlands.
a) Regulated discharges to isolated wetlands and isolated waters were
modified by this legislation to apply only to Basin Wetlands and Bogs
and no other wetland types and shall not apply to an isolated man -made ditch
or pond constructed for stormwater management purposes or any other man-
made isolated pond.
b) No later than March 1, 2016, the EMC is to establish three zones (Coastal,
Piedmont and Mountain) for purposes of regulating impacts to isolated
wetlands. Orange County is in the Piedmont. Our threshold for impacts
not requiring mitigation will be less than or equal to one -half acre of
isolated wetlands. Mitigation requirements for impacts to isolated
wetlands greater than this threshold shall only apply to the amount of
impact that exceeds the threshold. The mitigation ratio remains the
same (1:1).
c) Impacts to isolated wetlands shall not be combined with the project impacts
to 404 jurisdictional wetlands or streams for the purpose of determining when
impact thresholds that trigger a mitigation requirement are met.
d) These regulations have a "delayed effective date" per as provided in G.S.
15013-21.3, which is full of entirely confusing language. Most likely, these
regulations will become effective sometime during the 2016 spring
session of the General Assembly.
e) The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) is directed to
study a number of issues surrounding "isolated wetlands" and report its
findings and recommendations to the EMC on or before November 1, 2014.
The year of this date must be in error, as it predates the ratification date.
The implications are that this study could reverse or amend the very rules
discussed above. It almost reads as if the legislators are saying, "please
confirm our direction ".
3. EMC development deadline for developing fast -track permitting for stormwater
management systems has been pushed back to November 1, 2016. NC DEQ
has staff working on this. Their current direction is paired with the
development of the Minimum Design Criteria (MDC), which applies to the
Best Management Practice (BMP) Manual. The MDC are currently
published and are undergoing public review. We assume there may be
some eventual downstream implications for Orange County to implement a
clone process.
4. Apparently effective immediately, as no effective date paragraph was included.
§143 -214.7 Stormwater runoff rules and programs is modified to allow
"...any acceptable engineering hydrologic and hydraulic methods." (Genesis and
intent unknown; other related provisions do not apply in Orange County.)
S:\2BOards\BOCC2015 Pubiie HearingsNov QPI-AWork Session Items\2015 Session Law EffectsUtt 2 - ImpactsOtSL2015- 286(BB 765 )EC- SW- ProgramOfOC- 111215.doc
.•
11/23115 Page 3 of 4
BOCC Effects of SL 2015 -286 (HB 765) on Orange Co.
5. [POTENTIAL ORANGE COUNTY LIDO TEXT AMENDMENT REQUIRED]
Session Law 2015 -286 (HB 765) removes the previously allowed latitude of local
stormwater management programs to "exceed" the requirements of the model
program adopted by the Commission and requires Orange County to submit our
current or revised stormwater management program to the Environmental
Management Commission (EMC) by March 1, 2016. The EMC will then review
and approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove our revised stormwater
management program by December 1, 2016.
The EMC reviewed and approved Orange County's stormwater management
program in January of 2012; however, it must be stated that the focus of the
EMC at that time was compliance with the Falls Lake Rules. Due to the fact that
Orange County is about 45% Falls Lake watershed and 50% Jordan Lake
watershed (and about 5% Hyco Creek watershed), our presentation was an
overview of our entire UDO regulations, with a focus on how they pertain to the
Falls nutrient strategy. It is hard to predict the outcome of this 2016 review,
as the focus appears to be on excessive differences (i.e. where Orange
County is more restrictive). These regulations are extremely detailed and it
appears Orange County has incorporated most of the nutrient limitations
verbatim from both the Falls and Jordan nutrient strategies. Orange
County's mix of watersheds caused us to be conservative in trying to make the
stormwater regulations consistent across the entire county. Other reasons for
Orange County's more restrictive regulations are less obvious to those of us
without the benefit of historic context. In discussing this matter with Current
Planning, it is our ioi int opinion that "stormwater program" could and probably will
be interpreted in a broad manner. We expect it will encompass built -upon area
(BUA) limitations, as defined in the Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for
Class WS -II through IV Waters, 15A NCAC 02B .0214 through .0216.
Using this broad interpretation, Orange County's "stormwater program"
differences appear to be primarily in the areas of impervious surface (built -
upon area) allowances and riparian buffers (both of which are enforced by
Current Planning), where Orange County approaches these limitations in a
manner different than that outlined in the North Carolina Administrative
Code (NCAC). The EMC may find that UDO revisions are required.
15A NCAC 02B .0262 Jordan Water Supply Nutrient Strategy
15A NCAC 02B.0275 Falls Nutrient Strategy
15A NCAC 02B .0233 Neuse River Basin- Nutrient Sensitive Waters
Management Strategy- Protection and Maintenance of Existing Riparian Buffers
15A NCAC 02B .0267 Jordan Water Supply Nutrient Strategey: Protection of
Existing Riparian Buffers
15A NCAC 02B .0214 Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class WS-11
Waters
15A NCAC 02B .0215 Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class WS -III
Waters
15A NCAC 02B .0216 Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for WS -IV Waters
S:\2_Bouds\BOCCt2015 Public HearingslNov QPH- Work Session Items @015 Session Law EffectskAtt 2 - ImpactsOfSL2015- 286( 1- IB765 )EC- SW- ProgramOfOC- 1 11215.doe
50
11/23115 Page 4 of 4
BOCC Effects of SL 2015 -286 (HB 765) on Orange Co.
6. Requires the Environmental Review Commission (ERC), with the assistance of
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), to perform a
comprehensive review of all regulations related to the management of
stormwater in the State, and make recommendations as to whether they should
be recodified or reorganized in order to clarify State law for the management of
stormwater. The reporting timeline for this starts April 25, 2016 and the outcome
cannot be determined at this point in time. No resulting changes are expected
to Orange County's stormwater management program; however we
welcome clarification!
7. Excludes cluster mailbox units from calculation of built -upon area for the
development for stormwater permitting purposes. This only applies to single -
family or duplex developments. For retrofits, local government shall not require a
modification to any stormwater permit for that development. Effective
immediately but expires on December 31, 2017, or when regulations on cluster
box design and placement by the United States Postal Service become effective
and those regulations are adopted by local governments, whichever is earlier.
8. By March 1, 2016, DENR is required to report to the ERC the results of a study,
including any recommendations as they relate to exempting linear utility projects
from "certain" environmental regulations. "Linear utility projects" are defined as
electric power lines, water lines, sewage lines, stormwater drainage lines,
telephone lines, cable television lines, data transmission lines, communications -
related lines, or natural gas pipelines. The outcome and effects of this
legislation on Orange County cannot be determined at this point in time.
9. §143- 214.7C was added and DENR / EMC must amend their rules to be
consistent with not requiring mitigation for impacts to intermittent streams,
except as required by federal law. For purposes of the added section,
"intermittent stream" was defined as a well- defined channel that has all of the
following characteristics-
(1) It contains water for only part of the year, typically during winter and spring
when the aquatic bed is below the water table.
(2) The flow of water in the intermittent stream may be heavily supplemented by
stormwater runoff.
(3) It often lacks the biological and hydrological characteristics commonly
associated with the conveyance of water.
Apparently effective immediately, this prohibition seems problematic, as
intermittent streams are considered "waters of the US" under the Clean
Water Act and therefore "jurisdictional ", requiring 404 permitting for
impacts and the corresponding 401 water quality certification by the State.
Orange County is prohibited from issuing a land disturbance permit until
what is commonly referred to as the "4041401 permit" is issued.
Except as otherwise provided, all provision of the act are effective when it becomes law.
S:12_Boards\B00C\2015 Public HearingslNov QPH\Work Session Items \2015 Session Law Effects\Att 2 - ImpactsOfSL2015- 286( HB765 )EC- SW- ProeramOfOC- 111215.doc
Attachment 3
PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director
51
Current Planning 131 W. Margaret Lane
(919) 245 -2575 --1 Suite 201
(919) 644 -3002 (FAX) ORANGE COUNTY P. O. Box 8181
www.orangecountync.gov NORTf°f CAROLINA Hillsborough, NC 27278
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Bonnie Hamersley, County Manager
Travis Myren, Deputy County Manager
John Roberts, County Attorney
FROM: Michael D. Harvey AICP, CFM, CZO — Current Planning Supervisor
DATE: November 12, 2015
SUBJECT: IDENTIFICATION of impacts associated with NC Session Law 2015-
246
Session Law 2015 -246, ratified on September 23, 2015, potentially has significant
impacts on the County's stream buffer program as detailed within Section 6.13 of the
Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
A summary of these impacts are:
1. Local governments are prohibited from adopting, implementing, and enforcing
riparian buffer (i.e. stream buffer) regulations that exceed State requirements.
Exceptions to this prohibition include:
a. The adoption of more restrictive standards to comply with, or implement,
Federal or State law;
STAFF COMMENT. Staff is still researching the implications and
meaning of this standard with State officials.
Part of our argument is our current program is consistent with State
regulations (i.e. the County only requires only a 50 ft. State
designated riparian buffer). We do, however, require more
restrictive buffers based on a water features location within an
identified Watershed Protection Overlay District and all soil survey
streams throughout the County.
From our standpoint existing regulations are connected within our
watershed management/protection program and are not
52
necessarily riparian buffer based. Support for this conclusion is
referenced throughout Section 6.13 Stream Buffers of the UDO.
We may have a defensible opportunity in this exception in this area
to preserve our current program.
It needs to be remembered there has been a comingling of
watershed management/riparian buffer regulations over the years
which complicates this position. We may find ourselves having to
modify existing language and re -adopt development standards to
ensure proper delineation of our policies to avoid conflict.
b. Represents a condition of a permit, certificate, or other approval issued by
a Federal or State agency,
STAFF COMMENT. Orange County does not meet the criteria.
c. Was enacted prior to August 1, 1997 and meets listed requirements;
STAFF COMMENT. Section 143 -214 23(A) (c) of the North
Carolina General Statutes requires communities demonstrate the
ordinances implementing these regulations included that following,
specific, findings to qualify for this exemption:
the requirement was imposed for purposes that
include the protection of aesthetics, fish and wildlife
habitat, and recreational use by maintaining water
temperature, healthy tree canopy and understory, and
the protection of the natural shoreline through
minimization of erosion and potential chemical pollution
in addition to the protection of water quality and the
prevention of excess nutrient runoff,
and
(ii) the ordinance would permit small or temporary
structures within 50 feet of the water body and docks and
piers within and along the edge of the water body under
certain circumstances.
While we are still researching the adoption of stream buffer
regulations, dating back to the mid 1980's, we are unable to verify
ordinances adopted by the County implementing this program
contained the required language or allowances.
It is our professional opinion we will not have sufficient
documentation demonstrating we complied with this exemption.
d. Said regulation(s) are reviewed and approved by the State Environmental
Management Commission (EMC) through the review of a scientific study
providing documentation on the need for increased /more restrictive
standards based on local physical and environmental conditions.
STAFF COMMENT: Staff was informed by the Attorney's office,
based on County Commissioner direction, we received
authorization to begin developing a Request for Qualifications
53
(RFQ) to select a firm to complete this required scientific study.
The RFQ will be released for peer review /comment by November
23, 2015_ As part of this process staff will be reaching out to the
Upper Neuse River Basin Association (UNRBA) who may be able
to provide assistance.
At this time staff is unsure how much this study will cost but
estimates range from approximately $40,000.00 to $80,000.00. It
should be noted funds for this study do not exist within the
Planning Department budget.
This study needs to be completed and submitted to the EMC by
August of 2016.
The EMC has 90 days to take action on the request and should
make a final decision by November of 2016.
It has also been suggested by State staff we submit formal
notification by February 1, 2016 of our intention to complete and
submit a scientific study for review.
This is the exception we are pursuing to maintain our current
standards as written.
2. Local governments shall not treat land within identified riparian buffers area as if
the land is: `the property of the State or any of its subdivisions unless the land or
an interest therein has been acquired by the State or its subdivisions by a
conveyance or by eminent domain'.
STAFF COMMENT. Staff believes we already comply with this
standard.
3. Riparian buffer areas are required to be denoted on subdivision plats.
STAFF COMMENT: Staff believes we already comply with this
standard.
It should be known, however, State law does not require this area
to be surveyed (i.e. established by actual field location /delineation
by a surveyor). All the surveyor has to do is denote the
approximate required buffer area. We may have to withdraw the
survey requirement.
4. When riparian buffers are located within designated common areas or open
space areas located within a minor /major subdivision each abutting parcel shall
be viewed as having an equal interest in that buffer area. The County is required
to allow adjacent lots to `count' this buffer area towards lot size, density,
perimeter buffer, and conservation purposes.
STAFF COMMENT. Staff believes we already comply with this
standard.
5. Staff interprets the Session Law as prohibiting the County from requiring property
owners from voluntarily agreeing to more restrictive riparian buffer standards in
54
order to receive development approval(s). If this interpretation is correct this will
impact current regulations governing private road justification as contained within
Section 7.8.5 of the UDO.
We may have to modify and lessen our private road justification standard(s) to
comply with the law.
Ultimately the County has until January 1, 2017 to be compliant with applicable State
regulations associated with the implementation and enforcement of riparian buffer
standards. Having said that the State is requesting formal, written notification from local
governments outlining their anticipated course of action (i.e. preparing a scientific study
for review by the EMC amending ordinances to be consistent with State law ;
demonstrating existing regulations already comply, etc.) by February 1, 2016.
It should be noted these issues and impacts are different from those being addressed
by the Erosion Control /Stormwater division as State law changes with respect to
stormwater regulations require local governments to cease and desist enforcement of
temporary regulations (i.e. Jordan Lake rules) in its entirety until further and formal
rulemaking occurs at the State level. There will be a more immediate impact that will
have to be addressed by staff on this topic.
IMPACTS: The impacts of the Session Law are broken down as follows:
a. IMMEDIATE-
i. Staff will continue the current dialogue with State officials
arguing our buffer requirements are connected with our
watershed management program and are, therefore, consistent
with State law and can continue to be implemented as written.
Clarification of existing language will still be required and staff
believes we will be required to re- submit our watershed
management program to the State for re- certification.
ii. Staff will finalize and release for internal peer review the RFQ
soliciting a professional firm to complete the required scientific
study for presentation to the EMC in the event the State rejects
our argument(s) outlined herein.
iii. Staff will have to complete an assessment of all section(s) of the
UDO that will have to be amended to ensure compliance with
State law in case we do not prevail with our 2 viable options.
b. INTERMEDIATE /LONG RANGE:
Staff will need to complete an assessment of adopted
Comprehensive Plan policies for potential modification to
address compliance with new State regulations.
Staff will need to engage in public outreach to `educate' local
residents on revised buffer regulations.
Staff is available to provide additional feedback and guidance as necessary.
1
O
� O
W yj
W
mw
uj
Z
� J
O J
z=
T J
W
0 d
a
r
1
-
C o
•� U C° •cC
b H
-O a l �" G to V1
w O w
ate-+ N O c N W
O U ✓ D. ate-+ W
O_ rn
q N,�O �cd
cd
3 a°�
a o °�' •d
o� dcl. oov, yaoai °o
O U O �✓ � cd O cd O O ��� w
Oti w. �+ ate+ O
ON C O y cd 4o O O
un
Cd O
O cd } O «i G }" 0 0 w o 0
� O a Co L� �. O O 'ia � m ,� O O O. •cy �
cd +•+ U w v'
bz
NM �" Q `n O cd p cd cd
5..� Ln ... + U d Li N bA w N �, > �+
OWj N cd
c N
cu
O O H U
•
on v,Q
v o
+ :�+
rn N
E c
E 0
o
•� u x. m cd t4
m
tuD
.+
d cd
c
O .�'.
2 N 0
O. P.
in,
ct
- bo (U 0— O 0
O
ro -o -o
L -C fo � rfl
'" m .9 cd y
44-4 O a ++ sa
O
E v1 f 7q
C o
•� U C° •cC
b H
-O a l �" G to V1
w O w
ate-+ N O c N W
O U ✓ D. ate-+ W
O_ rn
q N,�O �cd
cd
3 a°�
a o °�' •d
o� dcl. oov, yaoai °o
O U O �✓ � cd O cd O O ��� w
Oti w. �+ ate+ O
ON C O y cd 4o O O
un
Cd O
O cd } O «i G }" 0 0 w o 0
� O a Co L� �. O O 'ia � m ,� O O O. •cy �
cd +•+ U w v'
bz
NM �" Q `n O cd p cd cd
5..� Ln ... + U d Li N bA w N �, > �+
OWj N cd
c N
cu
O O H U
yO :z
+ :�+
rn N
N ..C..- cd
^'ii > cd
•� u x. m cd t4
+�
•� •� p O O O U
.+
d cd
b�A U
O .�'.
2 N 0
O. P.
in,
ct
- bo (U 0— O 0
O
'+� U
cd o
3
+J cd
'" m .9 cd y
44-4 O a ++ sa
O
y cd +E b4'G
—4 bo � �
O O O cd w
> o��
�.aA 00 i!-a °o
�'cd4 ao�
E� 4;
w
U cd U un
u o� U
tn
to
4J O C
cu
O cd y
tA
ea
A
C `-'
3
a o d GL U
E re :
o bo
u i
w
O o n u
r. bo
C7 p +�
w
7 p
U O O
C O cd cd
}-'
O cad cd w., •—,
0
Ln
V i 0 i &
bncd q R q
f0 0 a
v
v o 0
d 0
®%J a- :
-�
b �^
C
' V
E
cd "" +�
i 0
at
:++ � o
w� dOo�•�
ao
w �o L
I
o x U o
Q 0 i 0 [
w U U �w
FROM PASSE !A
WASTE
materials such as shoes, textiles
and diapers were diverted,
Ralph estimated.
In contrast, an organic waste
collection program would need
to generate at least 25,000 tons
per year for infrastructure in-
vestments like biogas produc-
tion to be viable, Ralph said.
Orange County, the towns
and university already do sever-
al things well: yard waste col-
lection, commercial food waste
composting, recycling, and solid
waste drop -off centers.
The county kept 17,150 tons
of yard waste and food waste
from even entering the landfill
last year, through programs like
leaf collection and commercial
food waste collection.
All told, recycling and com-
posting have cut Orange Coun-
ty's per- capita waste 64 percent
from the 1991 -92 base year
used for measuring progress.
Residents visit solid waste
drop -off centers an average of
10 times per year, and can drop
off their own compostable
waste at the Walnut Grove
Church Road center.
What does this mean for
enhancing organic waste recov-
ery?
Ralph suggested increasing
the number of drop -off sites for
household food waste, enrolling
more businesses and schools in
food waste -to- compost pro-
grams (a "no- brainer," she
said), or even doing a detailed
feasibility study of the costs and
benefits of curbside organic
waste pick -up.
Pooling resources with anoth-
er entity might also make re-
newable energy production
more feasible, Ralph said.
OWASA Sustainability Man-
ager Pat Davis said he attended
the presentation to learn more
about biogas production at
wastewater treatment plants
more feasible. One way is to
add food waste fats, oils, and
greases -which could be col-
lected curbside.
"One of the possibilities that
our board of directors is looking
at is how do we beneficially use
all of the biogas that we pro-
BO RADER KRT
As the ground begins to thaw next spring, many gardeners will begin'
preparing soil for planting by adding organic materials lil<e compost.
Did you know?
Orange County operates recycling programs for the commercial
sector. Call 919 -968 -2788 to find out if your business is eligible for
the commercial recycling program or organics collection program.
.................................................................................. ............................... ...............
duce at the wastewater treat-
ment plant," Davis said.
TREADING NEW GROUND
With SWAG still formalizing
its partnership with the uni-
versity and UNC Hospitals,
Jacobs couldn't predict when
SWAG will take its next steps.
But Ralph said SWAG's ex-
ploration of organic waste re-
covery makes Orange County a
pioneer - as a relatively low
generator of waste, based in the
South, and not legally mandat-
ed to recover organic waste.
"To be quite frank, to have
the community considering
what they want to do with di-
verting food waste and organics
... it's being somewhat ahead of
the curve," Ralph said.
"You're treading new
ground."
Most U.S. municipal or state
organic waste diversion pro-
grams are based in larger cities
on the west coast or in the
Northeast, she said. Many pro-
grams are driven by high land-
fill tipping fees or shortage of
landfill space - and North Car-
olina faces neither of these
constraints.
So why explore diverting
organic waste? It's still a cost
consideration, as well as as a
moral one, Jacobs said.
"For every pound of waste
you divert, you don't have to
pay for fees for hauling ... it's
cheaper, as well as environ-
mentally more sound ... (that's)
the closest thing we have to a
`driver, "' Jacobs said.
Jacobs also acknowledged the
fraught history of landfills in
Orange County. The Orange
Regional Landfill, located in the
historically black, working -class
Rogers- Eubanks neighborhood,
opened in 1972, despite com-
munity protest, and remained
open until 2013, placing Orange
County at the center of a debate
over environmental racism.
"(That history) affects every-
thing," Jacobs said.
"I think we're highly sensitive
to siting issues, and to the
broadest possibilities of govern-
ment responsibility."
Waste- reduction efforts could
also help-prevent the possibility
of ever opening a new Orange
County landfill, Jacobs said.
"We're just trying to get as
far to the front of waste- reduc-
tion technology as possible," he
said. "And to do it in a cost -
effective way, and an envi-
ronmentally just way."
SUNDAY NOVEMBER 29 2015
tt° . CHAPELHILLNEWS.COM i All,,
s
r;
Y
r
f
.. r rat res ' ao' W..� rM � w � z ,� £r � �, „ � �r � °. F•C
r.�
i IJ
state has all the data
work
BY CRAIG JARVIS
cjarvis@newsobserver.com
RALEIGH
Experimental whirling
devices floating in Jordan
Lake have not significant-
ly improved water quality
after a year in operation.
State environmental
regulators say the effec-
tiveness of the 36 Solar-
Bees won't be fully known
until the end of a four -
year pilot program. They
say it's too early to draw
any conclusions from a
preliminary report issued
last month.
There is not enough
data for a definitive con-
clusion, Sarah Young, a
spokeswoman for the
N.C. Department of Envi-
ronmental Quality, said
Tuesday.
Environmentalists say
the state already knows as
much as it needs to: The
devices don't clean up
pollution.
"Any sensible decision
would be to pull the plug
on this experiment now
and get serious about
restoring water quality in
Jordan Lake," Elaine
Chiosso of the Haw River
Assembly said Tuesday.
Jordan Lake provides
drinking water for
300,000 residents in and
beyond the Triangle. It
has been designated un-
der the federal Clean
Water Act as impaired
CHUCK LIDDY 2014 NEWS & OBSERVER FILE PHOTO
One of the 36 SolarBee units deployed on Jordan Lake.
because most of the time
it exceeds state standards
for chlorophyll a, the
green pigment in algae
and plants.
A number of state and
local political officehold-
ers representing commu-
nities upstream, which are
the sources of most of the
pollution, have fought
against stringent restric-
tions that the General
Assembly put in place in
2009, suggesting the
additional costs that
would be imposed on
development would be
harmful. The legislature
has delayed implementa-
tion of those restrictions
four times, beginning
with the Republican take-
over of the General As-
sembly.
It has also caused a split
among Republican legis-
lators, with those repre-
senting Cary and other
downstream communities
opposed to the unproven
technology now deployed
on the lake.
The McCrory adminis-
tration has said malting
Jordan Lake healthful for
drinking water, as well as
for recreation, is a top
priority. Last year, state
regulators told legislators
that SolarBees would be
the most cost - effective
option but suggested
trying a few new tech-
nologies on a small scale
to see what works the
best.
Legislators went with
the SolarBees, which stir
algae in the water in an
effort to disperse and,
reduce pollution. The
first -year study focused
on two arms of Jordan
Lake: Morgan Creek and
the Haw River.
"These preliminary
results indicate that nutri-
ent related water quality
conditions did not signif -.
icantly improve in areas
of the lake where Solar-
Bees were deployed," said
the report by the state
Division of Water Quality;
which was sent to the
General Assembly on Oct.
1.
The devices had a "sub-
tle" performance record
in a pilot project in Cabar-
rus County in 2007, ac-
cording to a study by
UNC Charlotte, which
recommended not using
them.
In June, state envi-
ronmental regulators said
the SolarBee project was
late getting started and so
only one summer had
been tested; they had
hoped to test two full
summers. Algae blooms
more rapidly in the sum -
mer.
Sen. Rick Gunn, a Bur -
lington Republican who
supports the experiment,
said Tuesday that he
agrees with regulators
that it's`too soon to tell.
"We've made a signif-
icant investment that
pales in comparison to the
hundreds of millions of
dollars that existing Jor-
dan Lake rules would cost
municipalities," Gunn
said. "I think, while we
did not see movement
yet, one summer is not
long enough to see if
there's a positive trend."
Environmentalists have
said from the beginning
that the SolarBees would
be ineffective and that the
pilot program would only
delay addressing the
source of pollution from
upstream runoff and old
wastewater treatment
plants. Advocates said
that one year of data was
sufficient and that the
results were not surpris
Ing.
"If this was just a nice
little science experiment
that didn't have an impact
on anyone's life, then it
might be fine to say keep
doing this for several
years," Chiosso said.
"Meanwhile, all this pol-
lution keeps going into
Jordan Lake without the
restrictions the Jordan
Lake rules would have
provided."
Other environmental
groups, like the North
Carolina chapter of the
Sierra Club, are con-
cerned that a deregula-
tion law enacted this year
could have the effect of
preventing local govern-
ments from enforcing
ordinances they have
adopted to comply with,
the Jordan Lake rules.
The Haw River passes
through eight counties.
This year, the General
Assembly extended what
was initially a one -year
trial through October
2018.
Legislators also gave
$1.5 million from the
Clean Water Manage-
ment Trust ]Fund to the
Department of Envi-
ronmental Quality to
continue the project. The
state has already spent
$1.6 million on the Solar-
Bees.
The devices were pro-
vided by a company on a
no -bid contract. The com-
pany says its data shows
more success than the
state's.
Craig Jarvis:
919- 829 -4576,
@Craigj NandO
BY CRAIG IARVIS
cjarvis @newobsenvev. cons
North Carolina has been
home to a thriving solar
industry for the past eight
years, thanks to a tax break
and requiring utilities to
develop clean energy.
IV`vv 2`� L -gl
. J
But opponents of target-
ed tax credits and govern-
ment- funded advantages
for certain businesses have
been chipping away at.
those benefits - with mixed
results.
This year the state legis-
lature did away with a 35 .
percent tax credit for in-
vestments in renewable
energy.
But efforts to get rid of
what is known as the "re-
newable energy portfolio"
law, which mandates a
certain level of energy
production from solar,
wind and other renewable
sources, have repeatedly
failed.
That debate is expected
to return to the General
Assembly next year. Once
again, the battle will be
pitched.
"I like to call it the most
important state policy issue
you've never heard of,"
Donald Bryson, state direc-
bers working on the issues
"My cause is, how do we
include an energy strategy
decided it might be too
but still hold the cost on
challenging to attempt to
?„
energy.
ass both provisions. The
p` p
<, a z,
as< E �R a a
The libertarian Amer-
§
icans for Prosperity thinks
vance the tax credit sunset
z
(`'°�s 3
the same way, and in
and tackle the renewable
_
If�= a 3
x, L; � ; �;F�
hopes of building support
energy portfolio freeze in
I _.,i:,.
. t
for another run at eliminat-
the 2016 short session.
<., u.,s *Al
ing the renewable mandate
The goal, he said, isn't
just to do away with the
Ia, ? 1 <r, ° °r<
I Z, e
;, i� < <. y n
the organization is spon-
renewable energy man-
Donald Bryson, state
Boring a series of Free the
Grid „ town halls around
date, which he and other
director o f Americans for
the state.
opponents consider a gov-
Prosperity, on the
Earlier this month it held
ernment subsidy, but to
renewable energy
the first meeting in
work toward a broader
mandate
r
mington, where Hager and
overall strategy.
Rep. Chris Millis, a civil
"We want to develop a
engineer and Republican
low- emission energy port-
representing Onslow and
folio, which would include
Pender counties, spoke to a
renewable, nuclear, hydro
full house. U.S. Rep. David
and others, to drive us
Rouzer also spoke on Envi-
toward not only low -cost
ronmental Protection
energy but also low CO2
Agency regulations.
(carbon dioxide) emis-
Town halls are planned
sions,” Hager said.
in Raleigh, Winston -Salem
COSTS OF RENEWABLES
and Asheville. The group
He said the purpose of
has also launched a cam -
the 2007 law establishing
paign of door -to -door,
the portfolio was not about
phone and mail efforts.
lowering carbon emissions
We think it hurts in-
but about boosting the
novation in the energy
wind industry, which most-
industry, Bryson said of
"We're
ly ended up helping the
the mandate. not
solar industry. That, he
opposed to solar. We're
said, ended up being more
not opposed to wind. -
expensive for ratepayers.
We're not opposed to
"People don't realize
health insurance --but
what the renewable port -
when Obamacare required
folio costs us, „ Hager said.
people to buy it, it hurt the
Not just a little on the bill
"Not
It's the same
every month. It's an addi-
way with REPS (renewable
tive effect on all products
energy portfolios)."
in stores; distributors,
Bryson said it's a long -
manufacturers have that
range issue for AFP, and
burden, too. Plus it's em-
that if it isn't successful
bedded in every state,
next year it will be back at
federal and local govern-
the legislature the follow -
ment. So it's inflationary to
ing year for the long ses-
A,- F, - -I ............... --
sion.
for of Americans for Pros
perity, said Friday.
North Carolina gave a
shot in the arm to solar
and, to a lesser extent,
wind power in 2007 whe
the legislature set a goal
for utilities to produce 12
percent of their electricit
from renewable energy.
sources. The current rat(
6 percent, and would gr(
to 10 percent in 2018 an
cap off at 12.5 percent in
2021.
Rep. Mike Hager, a Re
publican from Rutherfor
ton and a former Duke
Energy engineer, has cri
sailed against the portfo
law for the past several
years. He has been thwal
ed by a bipartisan bloc of
legislators who point to t
jobs and other economic
benefits of the growing
alternative energy indus,
ry.
As he has in the past,
Hager worked in this re-
cent-session for a freeze
those escalating portfoli-
rates in two bills. In the
final shuffling of legisla-
tion, the only provision
that survived was the or
allowing the tax credit t
sunset.
Hager said Friday tha
House and Senate mem
FROM § IC
ENERGY
"We plan to continue to
drive it until we get some
satisfaction on energy
policy for the state focused
on the least cost and not
picking winners and los-
ers," he said.
Supporters of govern-
ment encouragement for
alternative energy point to
economic benefits. Last
year, the solar tax credit
totaled $126 million and
generated $717 million in
spending, according to the
N.C. Department of Reve-
nue.
It was disclosed last
week that Google is going
to become the first cus-
tomer of a Duke Energy
program using energy from
a solar farm that will be
the second- largest in the
state and will be in Ruther-
ford County, which Hager
represents.
Duke will buy energy
from the farm, and Google
will buy energy credits that
represent the electricity
from its Lenoir data center.
The idea is to help custom-
ers that use a lot of power,
such as Google, meet cor-
porate sustainability goals,
The Charlotte Observer
reported.
The N.C. Sustainable
Energy Association coun-
ters AFP's argument that
alternative energy increas-
es costs. The N.C. Utilities
Commission says electric-
ity rates overall have in-
creased this year, but the
vast majority of that in-
crease is because of new
fossil fuel plants and in-
flation.
The association also
argues that there is no free
market for energy in North
Carolina anyway, regard-
less of REPs. That's be-
cause there is a highly
regulated monopoly, in
Duke Energy, and the
renewable mandate allows
limited competition.
Studies have shown that
the energy portfolio has
created jobs, many in the
state's poorest areas, said
Cassie Gavin, a lawyer
with the North Carolina
chapter of the Sierra Club.
She said clean energy
benefits the environment
and the economy, and
reduces the need for ex-
pensive new power plants.
"It's disappointing that
some legislators are appar-
ently still fully committed
to crippling North Car-
olina's clean energy suc-
cess story by freezing ,
REPs," said Molly Diggins,
the state director of the
Sierra Club.
Craig Jarvis :, 919- 829 -4576,
@Craigf NandO
BY JUSTIN CATANOSO
Correspondent
overnment leaders
FROM PAGE
C'4 L I M AT E
by sea -level rise triggered
by global warming for
which it bears no responsi-
bility. The situation there
threatens to upend the
lives of 345,000 people.
That's the intersection
between climate change
and human rights that
concerns the United Na-
tions. Knox's written re-
ports recommend what
can be done, such as ask-
ing industrial countries
that are the largest source
of greenhouse gas emis-
sions to compensate the
Maldives so it can build
protective sea walls.
It's a tough sell.
"If you're really con-
cerned about climate
change," Knox said, "you
don't take two decades to
get to a decision. But
we've got this issue: We
don't have one world
..........- ..............................................................................................
...............................
agreement to burn less fossil
Wake Forest professor optimistic about negotiations
fuels in order to keep the Earth
......................................................................................................
...............................
from heating up so fast.
This year has already been
goal is to forge a framework that
preceded Paris. While there
declared the hottest on record,
they hope will spare the planet
have been intermittent success -
as were the previous 14 years.
from the kind of catastrophic
es in many of the meetings,
The results are with us now:
warming by 2100 that many
environmentalists argue that
Rapidly melting Arctic ice caps
climate scientists see as inevi-
elected leaders have failed for
leading to sea -level rise. Warn=
table.
two decades to achieve the most
ing oceans leading to dying
Twenty U.N. summits have
fundamental outcome: a binding
coral reefs-and -more frequent
government; having the
world divided up into
nearly 200 countries
makes the problem infi-
nitely harder to deal
with."
Remarkably, Knox sur-
veys a grim landscape and
insists he is optimistic
about the outcome of the
Paris negotiations, which
run through Dec. 11. Why?
"For the first time ever,
the world's three largest
leaders in carbon emis-
sions are on board: China,
the United States and the
European Union (which is
counted as one entity),"
Knox said. "Those three
alone account for 50 per-
cent of all carbon emis-
sions. With that kind of
leadership, other nations
will fall in line."
Then there is this: Since
the high - profile failure of
storms of greater intensity.
Persistent droughts leading to
water scarcity not just in poor
sub- Saharan Africa but also in
wealthy California.
Wake Forest
University law
professor John
Knox is the Unit.;;
ed Nations spe-
cial representa-
tive on climate
change and hu-
man rights. In his
role, he travels Knox
the world, primar-
ily to poor countries in tropical
regions to evaluate the ravages
of climate change being experi-
enced.
Knox visited the tiny island
country of Maldives in the Indi.
an Ocean. It is being swallouyd,
Climatologists say weather is now more unpredictable and erratic. I ne unpreceaentea
power and destruction of hurricanes Katrina, pictured, and Sandy are possible examples.
the 2009 negotiations in
Copenhagen, where poor
countries fell bullied by
powerful nations and
bailed out of any accord,
an entire strategy was
ditched. No longer would
the U.N. try to dictate to
nearly 200 countries what
each should be doing.
The name of the game
now? Do what you can.
"Copenhagen was the
gravestone for the top -
down approach," Knox
says. "Instead, more than
150 nations pledged earlier
this year to reduce their
own carbon emissions to
levels they believe they can
achieve. Those (pledges)
make it extremely likely
that the voluntary commit-
ments will be drafted into
an accord that nations can
agree on. That's never
happened before:"
DIFFICULT MATH OF
CLIMATE CHANGE
The Obama admires-
tration does not plan to
seek approval for any -
Paris accord. The presi-
dent has said he believes
he has the authority to
impose carbon emission
limits through existing
legislation and the EPA.
And Knox isn't worried
that other countries will .
renege on their promises.
Global urgency about
climate change is on the
rise, he says.
No wonder. Since 1900
and the full emergence of
the industrial age, the
burning of gas, oil and
coal for energy has en-
abled enormous prosperity
in the First World. It has
also caused the planet to
warm by about 1 degree
Celsius (1.8 degrees Fah-
renheit). The geologic
record over millions of
years shows the Earth has
never warmed so fast in
j such a short time.
Think of the atmosphere
as a blanket. Before the
1900s, the blanket's thick-
ness was ideal. It allowed
in enough.of the sun's
heat to warm the Earth,
while enabling enough of
that heat to reflect off the
surface and.escape. That
lightweight blanket kept
temperatures steady and "
nonthreatening to human
activity.
"Without a greenhouse
effect," Knox said, "we
would have the atmos-
phere of the moon."
But tons and tons of
greenhouse gas emissions
over the decades have
increased the thickness of
that atmospheric blanket.
The Earth has warmed.
And Mother Nature, who
has been tossed off bal-
ance, has responded with
a vengeance.
Climate scientists say
weather today is more
unpredictable, more errat-
ic. The unprecedented
power of hurricanes Katri-
na and Sandy are possible
U.S. examples. In the
Philippines, three of the
most ferocious typhoons
ever have leveled the
island state in the last
three years. Alaska is
losing its permafrost.
Bangladesh, essentially
a country spread across a
marsh, may see 150 mil-
lion people dislocated by
sea -level rise.
Lima, Peru, is a desert
city of 9 million people
where it never rains. It
depends on Andean gla-
cier melt for its water.
Those glaciers have
shrunk by a third.
Climate scientists be-
lieve that carbon emis-
sions must be reduced
drastically to keep the
world from warming an-
other 1 degree Celsius in
the next 50 -75 years. If we
keep burning fossil fuels at
the current rate, temper-
atures are expected to rise
an additional 3 to 5 de-
grees Celsius. Life on
Earth could become un-
sustainable by the 22nd
century, scientists warn.
And here's where
Knox's optimism takes a
hit: the emissions gap.
When calculated, the
voluntary global pledges
are only half as much as
needed to prevent an
increase of 1 degree Celsi-
us by 2100.
"Cutting out the use of
fossil fuels, Knox said.
"There is no other way to
fix this problem."
WHAT ABOUT
FORESTS?
Others disagree.
Representatives from
the nation's leading envi-
ronmental groups held a
news conference Nov. 20
and issued an urgent plea.
It's not just about reduc-
ing emissions, they.say.
It's seeing the forests for
the trees.
Trees and organic matter
thrive on carbon dioxide.
It's their oxygen, especially
in the dense tropical forests
around the belly of the
Earth. In Brazil and the
Congo, Indonesia and
Peru, tropical forests soak
in COz and store it in
leaves, limbs, trunks and
roots. As long as the tree is
alive and standing, it holds
that carbon as if locked in a
vault.
But when trees fall
through deforestation,
when they are burned or
left to rot, the vault opens,
and the carbon escapes.
Deforestation globally
contributes as much to
carbon emissions as the
entire, transportation sector.
"The activities of the
land sector collectively
account for about 24 per-
cent of global greenhouse
gas emissions," said Jason
Funk, a climate scientist
with ,he Union of Con-
cerned Scientists in Wash -
ington, D.C. "But forests .
provide sequestration
potential equal to about 10
to 14 percent of current
gross emissions."
Funk and his colleagues
at the Environmental
Defense Fund, the World
Wildlife Fund, the Nature
Conservancy and Conser-
vation International be-
lieve Paris negotiators are
overlooking a crucial as-
pect for offsetting the
effects of climate changer
yes, reduce emissions, but
also agree to an aggressive
strategy to also reduce
deforestation and regrow -
forests where they have
been slashed and burned
for ranching, farming and
extraction.
"Forests and other eco --
systems are the only posi-
tive way we have of re-
moving carbon from the
atmosphere at scale," said
Steve Panfil, a policy ad-
viser with Conservation
International in Washing-
ton, D.C. "Any agreement
in Paris has to take that
into account. If we stop
deforestation today, the
remaining forests could
reduce emissions (by pull-
ing gases from the atmos-
phere) by 30 percent."
But there are other
practical reasons to stop
destr3ying nature, Panfil
adds. Mangroves blunt the
fury of land -bound storms.
Rain and cloud forests
play a crucial tole in the
water cycle, which affects
weather patterns around
the world. Millions of
people depend, on forests
for food security.
"The emissions gap is
real, and it's fair to say the
land sector has not been
Q—,
C'n..V , �jt j ZZ
given the importance it
deserves in closing the
gap," Funk said.
SKEPTICISM AND
OPTIMISM
Meanwhile, somewhere
in the Eastern Hemisphere
- he wouldn't say where,
but not Indonesia, which
his Skype handle says -
Chris Lang runs a website
that lays waste to the
arguments of environ-
mentalists and their love
of standing forests.
It's just unrealistic, he
says.
Lang also is highly crit-
ical of U.N. policies that
allow industrialized coun-
tries to continue to burn
fossil fuels at will as long
as they pay a tropical
country enough money to
preserve a stretch of rain
forest capable of absorb-
ing all that pollution. It is,
at best, a zero -sum gain,
Lang says, before becom-
ing cynical, or realistic -
depending on your per-
spective. (For his out-
spokenness and online
prominence, Lang says he
fears for his life, hence his
secretiveness.)
"The idea that forests
are worth more standing
than they are being cut ,
down to grow palm oil
(Indonesia), drill for oil
(Ecuador) or dig for gold
(Peru) is not working,"
Lang said during a Skype
interview. "You can al-
ways make more money
cutting down the trees.
And with a carbon trading
system, you are not burn-
ing any less fossil fuels."
The answer, Lang says,
is not even a topic of dis-
cussion in Paris. It is not
just about reducing carbon
emissions, he argues. It
should be about keeping
coal, oil and gas in the
ground, period. Then
invest heavily in renew-
able forms of energy, such
as wind, solar, hydroe-
lectric, even nuclear.
"They talk about reduc-
ing emissions, but they
never talk about stopping
the extraction of oil and
coal," Lang said. "That's a
complicated political dis -
cussion. Is Saudi Arabia
going to stop drilling for
oil? Is West Virginia going
to stop digging coal? No.
Not without really difficult
discussions about what's
really needed."
Knox, who studied and
taught climate policy for
20 years at American
University before moving
to Wake Forest, takes this
all in. He's heard all the
arguments, all the skepti-
cism, all the doomsday
talk. Still, he remains
optimistic about Paris and
what comes next.
"This wailing and
gnashing of teeth follows a
familiar pattern," Knox
said. "In the 1970s, when
Congress adopted major
pollution regulations for
the first time, Detroit
(automakers) cried that
they would be forced out
of business. They said
meeting the new pollution
standards was impossible.
"But then the laws
passed, the regulations
were adopted, and it
turned out, it was possible.
And possible to do it far
more cheaply than they
imagined, which turned
out to be bettef for the
economy. Look, if we get
halfway there in Paris
(with emissions reduction
targets), that's a pretty
good start. That's some-
thing to build on later."
Paris is not the end of
the global battle to fight
climate change, Knox
said.
It's an important pivot
point with all nations
finally on board. More
progress will come. More
solutions, too. He's seen it
before. Time and again.
Justin Catanoso is director
of journalism at Wake
Forest University. His
reporting is sponsored by
the Pulitzer Center for
Crisis Reporting in
Washington and the Center
for Energy Environment
and Sustainability at Wake
Forest. He will cover the
Paris summit; his reporting
can be followed at
www.justincatanoso.com.
Short Answers to Hard
Questions About Climate Change
By Justin Gillis, New York Times November 28, 2015
The issue can be overwhelming. The science is complicated. Predictions about the fate of the
planet carry endless caveats and asterisks.
We get it. And so, as the Paris climate talks get underway, we've provided quick answers to
often -asked questions about climate change. You can submit your own questions here.
1. How much is the planet heating up?
1.7 degrees is actually a significant amount.
As of this October, the Earth had warmed by about 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880,
when tracking began at a global scale. That figure includes the surface of the ocean. The
warming is greater over land, and greater still in the Arctic and parts of Antarctica.
The number may sound low, but as an average over the surface of an entire planet, it is
actually high, which explains why much of the land ice on the planet is starting to melt
and the oceans are rising at an accelerating pace. The heat accumulating in the Earth
because of human emissions is roughly equal to the heat that would be released by
400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs exploding across the planet every day.
Scientists believe most and probably all of the warming since 1950 was caused by the
human release of greenhouse gases. If emissions continue unchecked, they say the global
warming could ultimately exceed 8 degrees Fahrenheit, which would transform the planet
and undermine its capacity to support a large human population.
2. How much trouble are we in?
For future generations, big trouble.
The risks are much greater over the long run than over the next few decades, but the
emissions that create those risks are happening now. Over the coming 25 or 30 years,
scientists say, the climate is likely to resemble that of today, although gradually getting
warmer. Rainfall will be heavier in many parts of the world, but the periods between
rains will most likely grow hotter and therefore drier. The number of hurricanes and
typhoons may actually fall, but the ones that do occur will draw energy from a hotter
ocean surface, and therefore may be more intense, on average, than those of the past.
Coastal flooding will grow more frequent and damaging.
Longer term, if emissions continue to rise unchecked, the risks are profound. Scientists
fear climate effects so severe that they might destabilize governments, produce waves of
refugees, precipitate the sixth mass extinction of plants and animals in Earth's history,
and melt the polar ice caps, causing the seas to rise high enough to flood most of the
world's coastal cities.
All of this could take hundreds or even thousands of years to play out, conceivably
providing a cushion of time for civilization to adjust, but experts cannot rule out abrupt
changes, such as a collapse of agriculture, that would throw society into chaos much
sooner. Bolder efforts to limit emissions would reduce these risks, or at least slow the
effects, but it is already too late to eliminate the risks entirely.
3. Is there anything I can do?
Fly less, drive less, waste less.
There are lots of simple ways to reduce your own carbon footprint, and most of them will
save you money. You can plug leaks in your home insulation to save power, install a
smart thermostat, switch to more efficient light bulbs, turn off the lights in any room
where you are not using them, drive fewer miles by consolidating trips or taking public
transit, waste less food, and eat less meat.
Perhaps the biggest single thing individuals can do on their own is to take fewer airplane
trips; just one or two fewer plane rides per year can save as much in emissions as all the
other actions combined. If you want to be at the cutting edge, you can look at buying an
electric or hybrid car, putting solar panels on your roof, or both.
If you want to offset your emissions, you can buy certificates, with the money going to
projects that protect forests, capture greenhouse gases and so forth.
In the end, though, experts do not believe the needed transformation in the energy system
can happen without strong state and national policies. So speaking up and exercising your
rights as a citizen matters as much as anything else you can do.
4. What's the optimistic scenario?
Several things have to break our way.
In the best case that scientists can imagine, several things happen: Earth turns out to be
less sensitive to greenhouse gases than currently believed; plants and animals manage to
adapt to the changes that have already become inevitable; human society develops much
greater political will to bring emissions under control; and major technological
breakthroughs occur that help society both to limit emissions and to adjust to climate
change.
The two human - influenced variables are not entirely independent, of course:
Technological breakthroughs that make clean energy cheaper than fossil fuels would also
make it easier to develop the political will for rapid action.
Scientists say the odds of all these things breaking our way are not very high,
unfortunately. The Earth could just as easily turn out to be more sensitive to greenhouse
gases than less. Global warming seems to be causing chaos in parts of the natural world
already, and that seems likely to get worse, not better. So in the view of the experts,
simply banking on a rosy scenario without any real plan would be dangerous. They
believe the only way to limit the risks is to limit emissions.
5. What's the worst -case scenario?
There are many.
That is actually hard to say, which is one reason scientists are urging that emissions be
cut; they want to limit the possibility of any worst -case scenario coming to pass. Perhaps
the greatest fear is a collapse of food production, accompanied by escalating prices and
mass starvation. Even with runaway emissions growth, it is unclear how likely this would
be, as farmers are able to adjust their crops and farming techniques, to a degree, to adapt
to climatic changes. Another possibility would be a disintegration of the polar ice sheets,
leading to fast -rising seas that would force people to abandon many of the world's great
cities and would lead to the loss of trillions of dollars worth of property and other assets.
Scientists also worry about other wild -card scenarios like the predictable cycles of Asian
monsoons' becoming less reliable. Billions of people depend on monsoons to provide
water for crops, so any disruptions would be catastrophic.
6. Will a tech breakthrough help us?
Even Bill Gates says don't count on it, unless we commit the cash.
As more companies, governments and researchers devote themselves to the problem, the
chances of big technological advances are improving. But even many experts who are
optimistic about technological solutions warn that current efforts are not enough. For
instance, spending on basic energy research is only a quarter to a third of the level that
several in -depth reports have recommended. And public spending on agricultural
research has stagnated even though climate change poses growing risks to the food
supply. People like Bill Gates have argued that crossing our fingers and hoping for
technological miracles is not a strategy we have to spend the money that would make
these things more likely to happen.
7. How much will the seas rise?
The real question is not how high, but how fast.
The ocean is rising at a rate of about a foot per century. That causes severe effects on
coastlines, forcing governments and property owners to spend tens of billions of dollars
fighting erosion. But if that rate continued, it would probably be manageable, experts say.
The risk is that the rate will accelerate markedly. If emissions continue unchecked, then
the temperature at the earth's surface could soon resemble a past epoch called the
Pliocene, when a great deal of ice melted and the ocean rose something like 80 feet
compared to today. A recent study found that burning all the fossil fuels in the ground
would fully melt the polar ice sheets, raising the sea level by more than 160 feet over an
unknown period.
With all of that said, the crucial issue is probably not how much the oceans are going to
rise, but how fast. And on that point, scientists are pretty much flying blind. Their best
information comes from studying Earth's history, and it suggests that the rate can on
occasion hit a foot per decade, which can probably be thought of as the worst -case
scenario. A rate even half that would force rapid retreat from the coasts and, some experts
think, throw human society into crisis. Even if the rise is much slower, many of the
world's great cities will flood eventually. Studies suggest that big cuts in emissions could
slow the rise, buying crucial time for society to adapt to an altered coastline.
8. Are the predictions reliable?
They're not perfect, but they're grounded in solid science.
The idea that Earth is sensitive to greenhouse gases is confirmed by many lines of
scientific evidence. For instance, the basic physics suggesting that an increase of carbon
dioxide traps more heat was discovered in the 19th century, and has been verified in
thousands of laboratory experiments.
Climate science does contain uncertainties, of course. The biggest is the degree to which
global warming sets off feedback loops, such as a melting of sea ice that will darken the
surface and cause more heat to be absorbed, melting more ice, and so forth. It is not clear
exactly how much the feedbacks will intensify the warming; some of them could even
partially offset it. This uncertainty means that computer forecasts can give only a range of
future climate possibilities, not absolute predictions.
But even if those computer forecasts did not exist, a huge amount of evidence suggests
that scientists have the basic story right. The most important evidence comes from the
study of past climate conditions, a field known as paleoclimate research. The amount of
carbon dioxide in the air has fluctuated naturally in the past, and every time it rises, the
Earth warms up, ice melts, and the ocean rises. A hundred miles inland from today's East
Coast, seashells can be dug from ancient beaches that are three million years old. These
past conditions are not a perfect guide to the future, either, because humans are pumping
carbon dioxide into the air far faster than nature has ever done.
9. Why do people question climate change?
Hint: ideology.
Most of the attacks on climate science are coming from libertarians and other political
conservatives who do not like the policies that have been proposed to fight global
warming. Instead of negotiating over those policies and trying to make them more subject
to free - market principles, they have taken the approach of blocking them by trying to
undermine the science.
This ideological position has been propped up by money from fossil -fuel interests, which
have paid to create organizations, fund conferences and the like. The scientific arguments
made by these groups usually involve cherry - picking data, such as focusing on short -term
blips in the temperature record or in sea ice, while ignoring the long -term trends.
The most extreme version of climate denialism is to claim that scientists are engaged in a
worldwide hoax to fool the public so that the government can gain greater control over
people's lives. As the arguments have become more strained, many oil and coal
companies have begun to distance themselves publicly from climate denialism, but some
are still helping to finance the campaigns of politicians who espouse such views.
10. Is crazy weather tied to climate change?
In some cases, yes.
Scientists have published strong evidence that the warming climate is making heat waves
more frequent and intense. It is also causing heavier rainstorms, and coastal flooding is
getting worse as the oceans rise because of human emissions. Global warming has
intensified droughts in regions like the Middle East, and it may have strengthened the
drought in California.
In many other cases, though, the linkage to global warming for particular trends is
uncertain or disputed. That is partly from a lack of good historical weather data, but it is
also scientifically unclear how certain types of events may be influenced by the changing
climate.
Another factor: While the climate is changing, people's perceptions may be changing
faster. The Internet has made us all more aware of weather disasters in distant places. On
social media, people have a tendency to attribute virtually any disaster to climate change,
but in many cases there is no scientific support for doing so.
11. Will anyone benefit from global warming?
In certain ways, yes.
Countries with huge, frozen hinterlands, including Canada and Russia, could see some
economic benefits as global warming makes agriculture, mining and the like more
possible in those places. It is perhaps no accident that the Russians have always been
reluctant to make ambitious climate commitments, and President Vladimir V. Putin has
publicly questioned the science of climate change.
However, both of those countries could suffer enormous damage to their natural
resources; escalating fires in Russia are already killing millions of acres of forests per
year. Moreover, some experts believe countries that view themselves as likely winners
from global warming will come to see the matter differently once they are swamped by
millions of refugees from less fortunate lands.
12. Is there any reason for hope?
If you share this with 50 friends, maybe.
Scientists have been warning since the 1980s that strong policies were needed to limit
emissions. Those warnings were ignored, and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have
since built up to potentially dangerous levels. So the hour is late.
But after 20 years of largely fruitless diplomacy, the governments of the world are finally
starting to take the problem seriously. A deal that is likely to be reached in Paris in
December will commit nearly every country to some kind of action. Religious leaders
like Pope Francis are speaking out. Low - emission technologies, such as electric cars, are
improving. Leading corporations are making bold promises to switch to renewable power
and stop forest destruction. Around the world, many states and cities are pledging to go
far beyond the goals set by their national governments.
What is still largely missing in all this are the voices of ordinary citizens. Because
politicians have a hard time thinking beyond the next election, they tend to tackle hard
problems only when the public rises up and demands it.
TOP TEN WAYS TO REDUCE YOUR CARBON EMISSIONS
(AND SAVE MONEY AT THE SAME TIME)
From Cooler Smarter: Practical Steos for Love ®Carbon Living
Expert Advice from the Union of Concerned Scientists
1. Switch to a car with better fuel economy. Upgrading from a
20 mpg car to a 40 mpg car can save you 4,500 gallons of
gasoline over the car's life span. At today's gas prices, that's
a total savings of more than $18,000.
2. Make your house more air tight. Even in reasonably tight
homes, air leaks may account for 15 to 25 percent of the
heat our furnaces generate in winter or that our homes gain
in summer. If you pay $1,100 a year to heat and cool your
home, you might be wasting as much as $275 annually.
3. Buy and USE a programmable thermostat for a 15 percent
reduction in your heating and cooling emissions and save
PR ,k.lh ). I 4r.PS
P TVR,7,,f ,l'Vi➢l''P�,rvd
k
Mu ,If ry" p s V.. e�NA
$180 a year. During the summer, a setting of 78 degrees Fahrenheit is optimal during
the hours you are at home, and 85 degrees when you are away during the day.
4. Eat less meat, especially beef. An average family of four that cuts its meat intake in half
will avoid roughly three tons of emissions annually.
5. Use power strips in your home office and home entertainment center to curb
"phantom loads" and save a surprising amount on your electric bill. Keeping your laser
printer turned on when not in use could be costing you as much as $130 annually.
6. Upgrade your refrigerator and air conditioner, especially if they are more than five
years old. New ones are twice as efficient or more. For fridges: if they're old an upgrade
can pay for itself in as little as three years in energy savings alone.
7. Get an electricity monitor from your local hardware store or even borrow one from
many local libraries to see where the energy hogs are in your home. This can help you
save hundreds of dollars annually.
8. Change those light bulbs. New LED light bulbs can give the same light for 15 percent the
electricity. That adds up to more than $100 in savings for most families each year.
9. Wash clothes in cold water. They get just as clean with today's detergents. But hot
water washes use five times the energy —and create five times the emissions. This could
save you nearly $100 a year.
10. Buy less stuff. Reduce, re -use, and recycle —it's not just about pollution, but the
strategy will lower your emissions too and help combat global warming.
And one more...
11. Spread the word. If all Americans reduced their emissions by 20 percent we could
shutter 200 of the nation's 600 coal plants, a great step in fighting the worst
consequences of climate change.
ORANGE COUNTY WINS SMART FLEET LEADER AWARD
ORANGE COUNTY, NC (November 4, 2015) -- Orange County's Fleet Maintenance
division wins the Smart Fleet Leader Award for the second year in a row. The
presentation took place at the City of Raleigh's new Central Operations Facility.
The 9th Annual Mobile Clean Air Renewable Energy (CARE) awards were presented
to individuals, technology providers, and organizations.
This award recognizes the
diligent work and careful
attention of the County staff
involved in purchasing,
maintaining and operating our
vehicles in the most efficient
way possible. A special thanks
to those departments who have
worked with the County
Sustainability Program to install
and operate idle reduction and
clean alternative fuel
technologies: Emergency
Services, The Sherriff's Office,
and Orange Public Transit.
A total of 26 public and private North Carolina fleets were recognized as NC Smart Fleet
members for their fuel efficiency and emissions reduction efforts. NCDOT Chief Engineer
Mike Holder recognized the awardees in Raleigh.
The North Carolina Clean Transportation Tour, hosted by the N.C. Clean Energy
Technology Center (NCCETC), concluded a three city tour with a final event at the City
of Raleigh's new Central Operations Facility on Thursday, October 22.
Nearly 250 attendees were given the opportunity to get behind the wheel of over 15
alternative fuel vehicles at each location. Vehicles ranged in size from neighborhood
electric vehicles to natural gas school buses. Some of the vehicles available to
participants were the all- electric Tesla Model S, a hybrid Chevy Express, a natural gas
Ford Taurus Interceptor, a propane Ford Explorer Interceptor, and a biofuel powered
Dodge Charger.
The awards recognize outstanding individuals and organizations for their efforts in
reducing transportation - related emissions. Skip Kirkwood, Sam Brake, Alliance
AutoGas, City of Charlotte Solid Waste Services, and the City of Charlotte Fire
Department were all recipients of a 2015 Mobile CARE award. Find out more about their
accomplishments here.
NCDOT Board of Transportation Chairman Ned Curran recognized the awardees in
Concord, NCDOT Secretary Nick Tennyson in Winston - Salem, and NCDOT Chief
Engineer Mike Holder in Raleigh.
View Ipbgtg5 god pEg5g[)tations from the N.C. Clean Transportation Tour.
iii m iii iii IpotIIIII iiiii m Ill
invas ve If"IIaint Spedes
Non- native invasive plant species ( "invasives ") are plants that grow outside of their native range and ex-
hibit rapid rates of growth and spread. These species lack predators and diseases that naturally control
them in their home ranges. As a result, invasives compete with native plants for sunlight, water, nutri-
ents, and habitat. When they successfully displace native vegetation, they modify the habitat available
for wildlife, including pollinators. Overall, invasives disrupt the ecology of our native ecosystems and
represent a unique management challenge.
IIII iiiiiiiiectar' III
Shqf iherd Mature ra�Hd� ��)�roject Lkii °iderway
1:1111 iirieriM As III ,i B air iii Cai lrffiriii 11ried
An adult EAB (Eric R. Day, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Uni-
versity, Bugwood.org). Adults lay eggs on the bark of ash trees. When
the eggs hatch, the larvae bore into the bark and feed on tissues that
transport water and nutrients.
A common cry you'll hear more and more of these days as we worry
about the health of our forests in the face of invasive insects like the
Emerald Ash Borer and Asian Long-horned Beetle. In the Duke Forest,
we provide firewood at our picnic shelters and actually DO NOT AL-
LOW outside wood to come in. Checkout the website for more info.
& �Res
July /, /,
The caterpillar of the
Catalpa Sphinx Moth
(Ceratomia catalpae)
feeding on Catalpa
tree leaves (Duke
Forest 7128175).
The caterpillar of
the White- Blotched
Heterocampa Moth
(Heterocampa
umbrata) prefers oak
leaves. The bright
pink coloring suggests
that it is about to
pupate (Duke Forest
9!7!75).
® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ®
& O iiir III[
Year in Review
Management & Stewar,&[Al�p
July 2014 - June 2015
W HE H "'
H E L P I N G TO LO 0 K' A F l®, R
FORESTS,,
F'I N D OUT MORE.
Gi
FIFURAMFM A tit
'SIC
Duke Forest Operations Manager, Jenna Schreiber, oversees a
prescribed burn to reduce competition in a Longleaf Pine re-
search stand. Prescribed burns help accomplish a variety of
natural resource objectives and are conducted within a narrow
window of precisely defined weather conditions.
A creative use of leftover Christmas trees to implement best
management practices (BMPs) during a recent harvest. BMPs
help protect water quality during forestry operations, and in
this example, are helping to prevent runoff from the road from
entering a nearby creek.
4L4hJ& AL
DUKE FOREST
Teaching & Research Laboratory
ESTABLISHED 19,31
Office of the Duke Forest • Duke University • Box 90332 • Durham, NC 27708 -0332
NonProfit
Organization
U.S. Postage
PAID
Durham, N.C.
Permit No. 60