HomeMy WebLinkAboutCFE agenda 020816AGENDA
Commission for the Environment
February 8, 2016
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 — December 14, 2015 (Attachment 1)
7:40 IV. Welcome / Resolutions of Appreciation
➢ 2016 Meeting Calendar (Attachment 11)
➢ CFE outreach / news articles (Attachments 12 -13)
➢ Proposed airport /airstrip rule amendments (Canceled)
➢ Eno River hydrilla management project in jeopardy (Attachment 14)
➢ DWR guidance for local stream buffer rules (Attachment 15)
➢ COP21 agreement summarized (Attachment 16)
➢ 2015 was the hottest year on record (Attachment 17)
➢ Solarize the Triangle (Attachment 18)
➢ Effects of solar panels on farm fields (Attachment 19)
➢ The conservative case for solar subsidies (Attachment 20)
➢ Brumley Forest Nature Preserve trail building work day (Attachment 21)
9:30 VIII. Adjournment
Nextmeefing; March 14 (Chapel Hill)
The CFE will welcome Bill Kaiser (new member) and consider resolutions of appreciation for
outgoing members Jan Sassaman, David Neal, and Gary Saunders. (Attachments 2 -4)
8:00 V.
$2 Billion Statewide Bond Campaign
Staff will provide an overview of the $2 billion bond campaign for North Carolina (BuiidingA
Better North Carolina), scheduled for a vote as part of the March 15, 2016 primary elections.
(Attachments 5 -7)
8:20 VI.
Lands Legacy Program Update
Staff will provide an update on plans to open two new Orange County nature preserves (Hollow
Rock Nature Park and Seven Mile Creek Preserve), and an overview of other land conservation
projects and activities within the Lands Legacy Program (Attachments 8 -9)
8:45 VII.
Committee Meetings
The standing committees review 2015 priorities, next steps, and new ideas. (Attachment 10)
9:15 VIII.
Updates and Information Items
Staff and /or CFE members will provide updates on the following items:
➢ 2016 Meeting Calendar (Attachment 11)
➢ CFE outreach / news articles (Attachments 12 -13)
➢ Proposed airport /airstrip rule amendments (Canceled)
➢ Eno River hydrilla management project in jeopardy (Attachment 14)
➢ DWR guidance for local stream buffer rules (Attachment 15)
➢ COP21 agreement summarized (Attachment 16)
➢ 2015 was the hottest year on record (Attachment 17)
➢ Solarize the Triangle (Attachment 18)
➢ Effects of solar panels on farm fields (Attachment 19)
➢ The conservative case for solar subsidies (Attachment 20)
➢ Brumley Forest Nature Preserve trail building work day (Attachment 21)
9:30 VIII. Adjournment
Nextmeefing; March 14 (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 (BOCC Priority #10)
• Continue to help with public outreach and management efforts related to hydrilla in
the Eno River
• Help initiate the development of a comprehensive conservation plan for Orange Co
• Co- sponsor the annual DEAPR photography contest (The Nature of Orange)
• Help plan for and participate in County's annual Earth Evening event
Concerns or emerging issues the CFE has identified for 2016:
• The CFE will continue to advocate for an expansion of the County's commercial food waste
pickup and composting services to reduce food waste in the solid waste stream
• The CFE remains interested in developing incentives for increasing energy efficiency in new
construction
• The CFE will continue to learn more about environmental justice matters and incorporate
relevant information and considerations in the State of the Environment report and its other
activities
• The CFE will continue to follow the Solid Waste Advisory Group's discussions of how to
improve the handling and disposal of Orange County's solid waste, and will advocate for
better long -term solutions
• The CFE will continue to advocate for increased efforts to gather information related to water
resources in Orange County and to increase public awareness and understanding of water
supply sources, related concerns, and what steps can be undertaken to maintain or improve
the quantity and quality of Orange County water supply resources
• The CFE will continue to address, as appropriate, the critical environmental issues for Orange
County as enumerated on page 3 of the 2014 State of the Environment report, which include
potential adverse effects from a) invasive, non - native, plant and animal species; b) reductions
in State -led collection of water resources data; c) potential drilling for natural gas in the Deep
River basin; d) urban sprawl; and CFE support for e) the responsible deployment of clean and
appropriately -sited renewable energy and reductions in energy use to help fight climate
change
Attachment 1
Orange County
Commission for the Environment
DRAFT Meeting Summary
December 14, 2015
Richard Whitted Meeting Facility, Hillsborough
PRESENT: Lynne Gronback (Acting Chair), May Becker, Peter Cada, Loren Hintz, David
Neal, Jan Sassaman, Gary Saunders, Sheila Thomas -Ambat
ABSENT: Tom Eisenhart, Bill Newby, Jeanette O'Connor, Rebecca Ray, David Welch,
Lydia Wegman
STAFF: Rich Shaw, Tom Davis GUEST: Michael Harvey (OC Planning & Inspections)
I. Call to Order — Gronback called the meeting to order at 7:35 pm.
11. Additions or Changes to Agenda — There were none
111. Minutes — Gronback asked for comments on the November 9 meeting summary. Hintz
motioned approval as written; seconded by Saunders. Approved unanimously.
IV. Proposed Rule Changes for Airport Development — Michael Harvey (Current
Planning Supervisor, Orange Co. Planning & Inspections) presented a draft amendment
to the regulations governing the development of public airports and private air strips 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.
Harvey began by noting that some key dates in the written materials had changed. The
open houses that had been scheduled for December 17 and 21 were postponed until
spring 2016. Draft rule change won't be ready for public hearing until September 2016.
Harvey noted the proposed rule changes are not in anticipation of any applications to be
filed. The rules for airport development were one of several key issues that the Planning
Board chose not to address when the Unified Development Ordinance was created in
2009 -10. Harvey said the current rules are about 30 years old and in need of updating;
staff feels there is ample need to improve the standards and process for permitting
airports and air strips. He noted, for instance, that currently the same rules apply to both
private airstrips and public airports.
Harvey said the amendment would provide a different process and set of standards for
private airstrips and public airports. Private airstrips would require a special use permit
(SUP) and be limited to five airplanes, prohibit drones, and require hazardous materials
plan. Public airports would require conditional zoning, which he described as a "floating
district." A proposed airport district would allow for a heightened level of public review
than is allowed in the current SUP process. Harvey said, unlike the SUP process, the
general public could provide comments without having to go to the expense of obtaining
expert testimony. Also, the BOCC and applicant could negotiate on conditions to be
applied toward the airport development.
Harvey provided examples of key standards that would be applied to public airports,
such as no residential housing allowed in the district, and airports could not be sited in
Attachment 1
the Rural Buffer surrounding Carrboro and Chapel Hill. He noted applicants would need
to provide additional site data, including hydrological and environmental information.
Harvey asked the CFE to consider the draft rule changes and provide any comments.
He noted further changes to the draft are expected, but comments at this stage would be
helpful. He has also requested comments from the Economic Development Commission.
• Sassaman asked if there is any reason to suspect a public airport is being
planned for anytime soon. Harvey said there has been no indication of that.
• Sassaman asked the status of the airport in Chapel Hill. Harvey said UNC's
expansion at Carolina North is on hold; the existing airport remains in use and
there are better accommodations for local air traffic at RDU airport.
• Hintz noted that private airstrips can have grass runways with little or no
impervious surfaces. Harvey said the type of surface is important for permitting.
• Hintz asked if a local dairy producer would need a permit for an airstrip used for
delivering milk for sale from the farm. Harvey said if the airstrip is for local farm
products predominantly then it would not require a SUP or a conditional zoning
permit. The same would be true for a crop dusting operation.
Hintz suggested the CFE members mull it over until the next meeting. He said he is
supportive of allowing private air strips in the Rural Buffer.
Sassaman said he supports having the different rules and processes for airports and
airstrips, and he supports the conditional use permit for public airports. He would not
support there being an absolute ban on new airports in Orange County.
Gronback thanked Harvey for sharing this information and said the CFE would consider
the proposal and provide comments at a later date.
V. Orange County Stream Buffer Requirements – Michael Harvey provided an overview
of the County's plan to address 2015 legislation intended to curtail local governments'
abilities to protect surface water quality (and riparian habitat) by requiring wider stream
buffers for new and existing development.
Harvey said Orange County has some of the most restrictive stream buffer requirements
in the state. He said the NC Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has provided
three options for local governments to justify maintaining current rules. Harvey said the
first option is to document that local rules were implemented prior to 1989, which was
not the case for Orange County. The second option is to present scientific evidence that
justifies the need for more restrictive stream buffers to protect water quality. Harvey said
Orange County intends to pursue this option — perhaps in collaboration with other local
governments in the Upper Neuse River Basin Association. Harvey said the County also
plans to pursue a third option: to make the case that Orange County's stream buffer
rules are implemented under a different enabling legislation than that which is addressed
in the 2015 legislation. The Orange County standards were initially intended to protect
water quality in so- called "critical areas" of public water supply watersheds, but were
extended to provide further protection throughout those water supply watersheds.
Harvey said the NC DEQ requires local governments to submit their justification by
August 2016. The NC DEQ will provide its response by November 2016.
Gronback thanked Harvey for sharing this information. There was no action required.
2
Attachment 1
VI. CFE News Articles / Outreach — The CFE reviewed the latest news articles intended to
educate /inform the public about issues highlighted in the Orange County State of the
Environment. CFE members commented on the draft article by Cada and Davis about
the adequacy of fresh water supplies in Orange County. Sassaman suggested some
additional information be added that explains the reasons for fluctuations in total public
water supplies provided by the different water utilities. After further discussion, the CFE
decided to make no changes to the article and approved it as written. Cada suggested
the Water Resources Committee prepare a follow -up article that provided more details
about changes in the total public water supplies provided by water utilities over time.
Neal reported he has prepared a draft article summarizing the successful Solarize
Orange campaign, which resulted in many installations of rooftop solar in the county. He
said he sent the draft article to Brennan Bouma for initial review and edits before it is
sent to the full CFE for final approval. Shaw said the article should be ready in January.
VII. CFE Committee Priorities — CFE members reviewed a list of priority issues /projects
identified by each committee in 2014 -15 in anticipation of the committees meeting to
discuss and update the list in early 2016.
VIII. Updates and Information Items — Information on the following subjects was provided in
the meeting package; selected items were discussed: a) CFE resolution on green
building incentives, b) CFE memo about herbicides /pesticides used at County facilities,
c) CFE annual report & work plan 2015 -16, d) impact of 2015 legislation on County's
dev. rules, e) County exploring new ways to recycle organic waste, f) effects of "solar
bees" on Jordan Lake water quality, g) State clean energy mandates in jeopardy, h)
climate change, i) ways to reduce carbon emissions, j) Orange Co wins Smart Fleet
Leader award, and k) Duke Forest news.
IX. Adjournment — Gronback adjourned the meeting at 9:13 pm.
Summary by Rich Shaw, DEAPR Staff
3
it r a r) urn e 0 J' ,J: ]"11 1� ,�y"
RESOLUTION of APPRECIATION
for
JAN SASSAMAN
WHEREAS, Jan Sassaman served as a member of the Orange County
Commission for the Environment since January 2012; and
WHEREAS, Jan Sassaman has contributed to the discussions and initiatives
of the Commission during that timeframe with his thoughtful and insightful
points and vision, as well as serving his final two years as Chair; and
WHEREAS, Jan Sassaman's expertise and advice, especially in the areas of
solid and hazardous waste management and risk assessment, were critical to
the Commission's work and recommendations as embodied in the 2014 State
of the Environment report and many other reports to the Orange County
Board of Commissioners, and his influence will continue to be seen in future
such reports and initiatives; and
WHEREAS, Jan Sassaman exemplifies the commitment of Orange County
citizens toward issues regarding the environment and the protection of our
natural resources by his willingness to devote time to the efforts of this
commission, in addition to his other work in environmental protection:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Commission for the
Environment thanks Jan Sassaman for his five years of service on the
Commission, invites him to continue to offer thoughts to the group in the
future as he desires, and wishes him well in his future endeavors.
This, the 8th day of February, 2016.
Lydia Wegman, Chair
Orange County Commission for the Environment
it r a r) urn e 0 J' ,J: JI"li 1� ,�y"
RESOLUTION of APPRECIATION
for
DAVID NEAL
WHEREAS, David Neal served as a member of the Orange County
Commission for the Environment since October 2010; and
WHEREAS, David Neal has contributed to the discussions and initiatives of
the Commission during that timeframe with his thoughtful and insightful
points and vision, as well as serving one year as Chair; and
WHEREAS, David Neal's expertise and advice in the areas of environmental
law and alternative energy sources were critical to the Commission's work
and recommendations as embodied in the 2014 State of the Environment
report and many other reports to the Orange County Board of
Commissioners, and his influence will continue to be seen in future such
reports and initiatives; and
WHEREAS, David Neal illustrates and exemplifies the commitment of
Orange County citizens toward issues regarding climate change, green
energy, and the protection of our natural resources by his willingness to
devote time to the efforts of this commission, in addition to his other work in
the environmental law arena:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Commission for the
Environment thanks David Neal for his five years of service on the
Commission, invites him to continue to offer thoughts to the group in the
future as he desires, and wishes him well in his future endeavors.
This, the 8th day of February, 2016.
Lydia Wegman, Chair
Orange County Commission for the Environment
it r a r) urn e 0 J' ,J: ]"11 1� ,�y"
RESOLUTION of APPRECIATION
for
GARY SAUNDERS
WHEREAS, Gary Saunders served as a member of the Orange County
Commission for the Environment since January 2009; and
WHEREAS, Gary Saunders has contributed to the discussions and initiatives
of the Commission during that timeframe with his thoughtful and insightful
points and vision, as well as serving a period as interim Chair; and
WHEREAS, Gary Saunders's expertise and advice in the areas of air quality
management and public transportation were critical to the Commission's
work and recommendations as embodied in the 2014 State of the
Environment report, and in many other reports to the Orange County Board
of Commissioners, and his influence will continue to be seen in future such
initiatives; and
WHEREAS, Gary Saunders's contributions as CFE liaison to the Orange
Unified Transportation Board will benefit the citizens of Orange County who
will navigate its roadways and use alternative modes of transportation; and
WHEREAS, Gary Saunders illustrates and exemplifies the commitment of
Orange County citizens toward issues regarding the protection of our natural
resources by his willingness to devote time to the efforts of this commission,
in addition to his other work in protecting North Carolina's air quality:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Commission for the
Environment thanks Gary Saunders for his six years of service on the
Commission, invites him to offer thoughts and insights to the group in the
future as he desires, and wishes him well in his future endeavors.
This, the 8th day of February, 2016.
Lydia Wegman, Chair
Orange County Commission for the Environment
1/19/2016
�%40ECy
0D +O
Building A Better North Carolina
�a�ECr
w ,`iANh k JW "yaw
r +nn
ABOUT THE CAMPAIGN
$ 2 Billion Campaign
0,4NEC?�
u'u(
• Will appear on the March 15, 2016 primary ballot
• First statewide bond since 2000
• Investments in community colleges, universities, small
towns and urban cities, agriculture, and the National
Guard
• Impacts 73 counties across North Carolina
1/19/2016
2
Key Facts
• No tax increase needed to pay for bond based on NC's
strong financial position
• Since last bond, NC has added 2 million people
• Passage will help NC prepare for future growth; not just
react
Broad, bipartisan support
1/19/2016
2
0,,,kt4EC?-
G MM
Now Is The Time To Invest
1.11.11.11.11 ln-V.-T- ...... P-
J,/
1,p . . . . . . . .
21AI,
D%
I I)fl() I 961S NM I 1Y ZS I'M 1'4X5 V33,0 199S MOO )()OFi ME) X)n
r414 E C y-
P/as/m/. & &0
What's In The Bond?
1/19/2016
3
�,�rvrr
EDUCATION
Focus On Education: °,,
Preparing Our Students & Workforce
°
Agr
National Guai
& Public Safe
Water /Sewer
Communit
Parks & Zoos
UNC System
1/19/2016
NNECp
U M N�
Q Local Community Colleges Benefit
$350 million in new construction, repairs, and
renovations
58 campuses across the state
Will help meet the demands
of a 21st Century workforce au
NNECp
Major Investments In Universities
$980 million in new construction and repairs
Focus on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math
(STEM) buildings
$150 million for repairs and renovation
Will help North Carolina workers
compete for jobs of the future �na�
1/19/2016
5
SMALL TOWNS &
URBAN CITIES
N�+ECr
'' Small Towns & Urban Cities
0 $300 million investment across the state
0 Water and sewer improvements
01, Modernize water systems
Will ensure economic competitiveness
and improve water quality
u i
1/19/2016
A
PUBLIC SAFETY
N�+ECr
,.' , Public Safety
0 $78.5 million investment across the state
0 3 National Guard Readiness Centers
01, Public Safety Training Academy
Will help with emergency preparedness
_ and training for future deployments �
1/19/2016
7
AGRICULTURE
} Agriculture
f,
N�+ECr
$179 million —One of the largest single investments in farms and
agriculture
New Plant Sciences Research Complex at NCSU
Agriculture and Consumer Sciences Lab for veterinary, food, drug,
and motor fuel testing
Will make North Carolina a world leader
in agriculture research �
1/19/2016
F.,
STATE PARKS & ZOO
0 State Parks & Zoo
STATE PARKS
0 $75 million investment
G New facilities, hiking trails,
campgrounds, and funding
for environmental education
N�+ECr
ZOO
0 $25 million investment
0 Will make the zoo a premier
family - friendly and tourist
destination, and create new
jobs /facilities
1/19/2016
E
N0ECy
0D +O
``Sr am aua �U�
Campaign Key Messages
1/19/2016
10
1/19/2016
11
�%40ECy-
0
tic
``Sr am aua �U�
Campaign Resources
N+ECr
Where Can I Get More Information? 1
CAMPAIGN QUESTIONS:
linfo @VoteYesTolnvest.com
Campaign Headquarters
919- 325 -1014
1/19/2016
12
1/19/2016
13
U
W //
*110
F
.v
av�
.��aa
C U Z N
C Z N M
'�O-
C O
U Q
Q U
O
LL
U
U
V
N
C
C
O
U
4
O
a
I
E
m
nw„r
a
-
_
�-�.'°
Q CO
r °
m
m
U
.r m-
o
m E o r m N >=
m Q
_
�
o � m E
�w
�w � m °I ,�
�" °1 m 3 -
V
� ° a'° � � m o
`� m
N U
av
av m 0 E
U_ s
N Y m
o
m
ID
o b °
o E
c m
EE
d
� � C7 -y Q °
V 0 0 0 � �
N m
00.
� N .0
o
C5
m y
o 0
o f
,.
0 0 y Y O
, 3 E o m
}+
-° o o
ai U o o
E° -°1 ° N
-�
`-' `° m° Y `o E E m
E a o 0
o
.�%
41
N
N o E
3 °- � v mY°
m_ � i
u m� •- o ,� Z� o m y
Fra o �� a
V� N��
.-
m
�
.3
_E .-
E
m -°- N =° 0 E
m N
O y_
E
o
t m- m m
O - y 0
0 0
V LL
O X •- N
D N N
N
.J E
d N _
Y 4 V E
0
Y -O .�- O? .�-
3
° W
O°
:E Z o N
° m m E
a °° 2 vT E
�`°
U
U
V
N
C
C
O
U
4
O
a
I
bapp,,:
° a a SEES ii xp
0000 ..
mNm" o
°aamm �a�
t6 t6 t6 t6
a
- - --
u
ma
E
o
a s ¢ a a
za
zz z z
UUUU
`;
L m �° - �° m [n E
a3i a3i a3i a3i
vJ
t6 [nE «E*�' vZ �� m j � J
m a y
_3.3
m
a2
o _
�o3��m�Um� -u �S
o o
OS c�
o Z yo N Y y 3 a E >- o �-° o° o N �-o o a o >«`�
cl 00c
o
C'1�
��
o3
o
UoC�S�Y����d 0 ELL -( SS - I� Iii vC� >mU UU U�LLC'1������Z
91 - E
c >
i s y° m v\ v o' c °E'
uUUU yCi yuo�o`o >m°i> U�oz UU m ma�a'�z�� uu�mcs aaSm 7
[,
E E E a - — arr
u UU o o¢
m m
t6 t6 t6 t6 t6 t6 t6 t6 t6 t6 t6 t6 t6 t6 t6 t6 t6 t6 t6 t6 t6 t6 t6 t6 t6 t6 t6 t6 t6 t6 t6
m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m o s o w
'.zol[" cGZOH in cn cn in in in in cn in in in in cn cn in in in in cn in in in in cn cn in in in in cn in in in in cn in in.........zi"�"
�sE
- -s C,
mod_ _
o a z°rr� zz z Qcn cn
m E p o
a�u
a
U - E E E Q Q o0
z OE
B E_E
ria-���u�YUUYUUUUUU N
7 Qw .Z Z »z......
t6 t6 t6 t6 t6 t6 t6 t6 t6
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
U
_c_ - Ua�_�U a� -o�U — — E «uU —
a> >,E m ,? U- c u
„U a°'iUU UU U -� E. co_ c°'U j.cU °joU EU_ UU �UU EU. EUUEcc o� 7Ec
EEU_ EUEE UE EU `Ew UU,E EU '.gym E E UU`E,
EE E ��- u Du- "EEso E� E ,?,?w -EEy u oU `U EE >�u
„E U Eo EoE> `E¢� �u vU OU`E ou E- ����EU- �Io>EE 3E �EE�Uo U -E�ooEo
�ooE o oa 'E�su�s �s� U�oEEE E E �o ooU tE of E`�EU ->u
o �U� o; oa `o�ou - UEEU�Eaa�Us�oUa �E U
am -3 o f a U o E N U a 3 0
oEs >o u oz ���m �oE °�55��u uY
¢¢mmmmuuuuuuUUUUOOa�°��iiN ���� � >�
1A111V111V1111V1114
1 1 6 4 51/11/414 414 414
��tt11111��
°�1�IIII4114�
111N 116444444444
116kq� A \4116111111��
,�114�411111A4
1411414
116411 @11 @11111�W'
11 6 41414 4141114
1111 @11�111111110p
1111111VA11
1411 @��1 @1111���
1A111V111V1111V1114
1 1 6 4 11/11/414 414 414
116411 @11 @11 @11 @11 @1110
0
U
U
U
N
c
c
O
U
T
4
O
a
a
E
U
a
a
a
U O
U
Z
4411', 70
rpgN1��
ro
C
U
Z
Z N
U r�
N 07
�
2%i
a
U
LL
0
U
U
U
N
c
c
O
U
T
4
O
a
{ \ \2/
\{
{
§ \ \ E M
W 0
J- r�:
a) u
0 a) 0),�r u
� \\ \ \ \ §)\
2 0
Department of Environment,
Agriculuire, Parks & Recreation
To: Orange County Commission for the Environment
From: Rich Shaw, DEAPR Land Conservation Manager
Date: February 3, 2016
Subject: Hollow Rock Nature Park — Update
Construction of the Phase I of the Hollow Rock Nature Park (formerly Hollow Rock
Access Area) is well underway and we are an opening to the public in Spring 2016.
Hollow Rock Nature Park is a 75-acre site comprised of multiple land parcels owned
separately by Orange County, Durham County, and Town of Chapel Hill. The site
straddles the Orange-Durham county line and New Hope Creek forms the western
boundary. Portions of the site are protected with conservation easements held by the
State of North Carolina.
Plans for a nature preserve styled park date back to the early 1990s when Orange
County, Chapel Hill, Durham County and the City of Durham adopted the New Hope
Creek Corridor Open Space Master Plan, which called for preservation of lands along
the New Hope Creek corridor, from central Orange County to Jordan Lake. The master
plan envisioned a public trail network with a number of "access areas" at strategic
locations, including the "Hollow Rock Access Area" at the intersection of Erwin Road and
Pickett Road. A master plan for the Hollow Rock site was adopted in 2010.
Orange County and Durham County, under an interlocal agreement signed in 2015, will
jointly manage and operate the park. Durham County will oversee the area east of
Pickett Road; Orange County will manage the portion west of Pickett Road.
The initial public amenities (Phase 1 a) include a gravel 15-car parking area, overflow
parking, natural surface trails, four pedestrian bridges, information kiosks, a park
entrance sign, and a cleared area for the "old" Hollow Rock Store, which is planned to be
relocated to this site by a non-profit organization working with the Friends of Hollow
Rock Store. Funding for Phase I comes from the two counties and a $200,000 grant
from the NC Recreational Trails Program. Additional county funds are budgeted for
Phase 1 b, which will include a restroom, educational venues, and interpretive signage.
CFE members will be invited to an opening event in late-April or early-May.
Attachments
Orange County Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks & Recreation (DEAPR)
PO Box 8181, Hillsborough, NC 27278
Phone: (919) 245-2510; Fax: (919) 644-3351
i0 M.
Phasing Plan for Hollow Rock Nature Park
Phase la. Infrastructure, `amenities, and site work already completed or
allowable under RTP Grant.
• Additional Survey work - Cultural & Archaeological (Completed)
• Land Acquisition (TLC Parcel in Orange County) (Completed)
• Bridge Engineering Design Work for Pedestrian Bridges (4) (Completed)
• Preliminary Design Work for Parking Lot (Site Plan, Engineering, Approvals, Topo Survey)
(Completed)
• Entrance Driveway and Parking (Gravel/H C Paved/Wheel Stops) (Underway)
• Entrance and Directional Signage (Underway)
• Pedestrian Bridges (4) for nature trails on east side of Pickett Road (Completed)
• Information kiosks and trail maps (Completed)
• Site clearing for future Hollow Rock Store (Completed)
Phase 2 (Timeframe T13D)
• Additional Survey work - Cultural & Archaeological and /or Topographic
• Hollow Rock Store relocation (by Friends of Hollow Rock Store)
If Pickett Road were ever closed:
• Entrance Gates
• Parking (Gravel /HC paved/Wheel Stops)
• Top -dress gravel - Pickett Road
• New Entrance Sign /Directional Signage
Hollow Rock Nature Park — Under Development Exhibit C
Bridge and Kiosk at trail head
Wilt
To: Orange County Commission for the Environment
From: Rich Shaw, DEAPR Land Conservation Manager
Date: February 3, 2016
Subject: Seven Mile Creek Preserve
The Seven Mile Creek Preserve is a 306-acre area with multiple land parcels that
Orange County acquired over many years—initially for a future water supply reservoir
(1970s) and later for a nature preserve and low-impact recreation area.
The preserve is located southwest of Hillsborough, between Mt. Willing Road and
Moorefields Road. Access to the preserve is by way of the driveway entrance to historic
Moorefields located off Moorefields Road. The site is managed by DEAPR.
Preparations are underway for opening the eastern portion of the Seven Mile Creek
Preserve for public use beginning in 2016. Initial site amenities will be a gravel parking
area, pedestrian trail (1.5-mile loop, natural surface), benches, primitive group campsite
(primitive, no water/toilet), and information kiosks. See attached map.
The Seven Mile Creek Preserve includes portions of two significant natural heritage
areas (Crabtree Creek Monadnock Ridge and Sevenmile Creek Sugar Maple Bottom)
and is recognized as an important wildlife corridor. The site will also feature a segment
of the planned NC Mountains-to-Sea Trail.
CFE members will be invited to an opening event once that's been determined.
Attachment
Orange County Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks & Recreation (DEAPR)
PO Box 8181, Hillsborough, NC 27278
Phone: (919) 245-2510; Fax: (919) 644-3351
®
w
a
c
CL
Ct)
4
it
u)
d)
�
u
CO
d
.
r
!
1
O
CL
cr-
0
o
C)
o
t1)
qi
N'
i�
U)
U)
r
L
48
1,
a
c
Ct)
4
it
u)
d)
CO
d
.
r
!
0
C)
N'
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.
E U
L
E
r_
0
Q
C: a)
0
r-
N
O
N
4� 4
rl
C: m
C
(1) (1)
>
E U
00
E
r_
0
000
C: a)
0
r-
N
O
U
u
T
L
0
rl
rl
C
>
N
Ln
+,
E
N
V
Li
'a U
I
=
4-
Z
Ln
O
O d
a)
L s
N
Ln N m to
c
a) tw
j)
tw
C:
a) L
E
> 7
= OL
rl
Ol
H
Q
C
O
m U
-E
N
N N N
�
�6
O
3
to o
N 01 N
-r-
c
<
mm =
c C
3
T
n
E
r_
0
l0 M O n
N N N
L
N m to
n N N N
W
iL
LL
T
L
0
M O r" N
LL
tD
0
�Vf
Vf
Tmq
E
C)
E
N
V
0
V
N
t/
N
L
L_J
���/
Ii
i
0
M
a.,
a
v
v
v
1 Q
N 00 Ln
n
m o ti N
l0 M O n
N N N
F
N m to
n N N N
N
LL
N 01 LO m o
M O r" N
LL
�y N M
}
LL
N N
Ln N N
w ~
N
cSa
N
N
N
Lu C
N
U
N N N
7 c-I w Ln
N N N
[O
Ln N m to
N 0 M O
w
C
Ln N N
H
aN-II
a
w
v)
I ti w Ln
N
N N N
N 00 Ln
n N N N
LL
l0 M O n
N N N
F
N m to
n N N N
N
oo N N
cF
w C
M O r" N
LL
N O I N N O rn
}
LL
ti °° N
Ln N N
N 00 Ln
N N
F
LO m o
N 01 �y N M
N
N N N
N
n N N N
cF
w C
N N
LL
I, N N N
J
LL
ti °° N
Ln N N N
w ~
N N
cSa
N LL
N
Lu C
N
U
N N N
7 c-I w Ln
N N N
Ln N m to
N 0 M O
N N N
M O
N N M
N N
F
Ln
N
m
N
w
F
N 01 N
c
OI N
M N M
w
c C
^ aeil N co
O
H
�
Q
U
In
N 01 O m o
O
In
l0 m o
O
N N M
z
N N N
N 00 Ln
n
N 00 Ln
N N N
F
LO m o
N 01 �y N M
F
N N N
cC
n N N N
cF
w C
am-,I ON N
Z
N
J
N 0 N
N N N
n
N 00 Ln
N N N
l0 N O
m O r, N
N N N M
F
m O I�
cC
Ln N N
n N N N
cF
N
J
LL
N 00 N N
Ln N N N
w ~
N N
cSa
N LL
N
Lu C
N
U
N N
7 c-I w Ln
ti N
M O
m O n
N N N
N
N N N
F
Ill N N
F
N 01 N
— :3
o
N
N
}
G
Q
Q
C
C
N
v 0
C
c-I OOI N N N
a-II
Q
n
m °tiNm
CO
v)
�tiN°N°
Z
Lu
n
N 00 Ln
N N N
LL
m O r, N
N N N M
F
LO m o
N 01 �y N m
cC
Ln N N
n N N N
cF
N
J
N
N
Ln N N N
N m to
n n N N N
N w Ln
0 M O
N 01 N N M
~ N N N
U NIN°N°
N N N
m o �
N m lO
LL n N N N
ti CO Ln
N N N M
O M O
F N 01 �y N M
H
N
OOI N N N
Q N N N
LO m o
In N 01 �y N M
LL N 00
Ln N
c N N
F
n N N N
N N N M
LL
N 01 LO m o
cC
�y N M
N N
v)
Q
N
N
N
N
w ~
N ON N
cSa
C
N
Lu C
aN-II N
U
w v)
7 c-I w Ln
N N N
m o �
N m lO
LL n N N N
ti CO Ln
N N N M
O M O
F N 01 �y N M
H
N
OOI N N N
Q N N N
LO m o
In N 01 �y N M
LL N 00
Ln N
c N N
F
n N N N
N N N
F
Ln N m lO
N N N
cC
co N
v)
Q
m ti N
U
U z �a0
z 2 :3
— tiu o
Lo
— :3
o
v 0
3E
a - _
Z
—
tL0
t1A
t1A
tL0
tL0
—
U z
0
—
=
—
=
—
=
—
::3
—
:
—
O
=
O
=
O
=
O
r
�
o
�
o
�
o
�
o
�
o
�
C i1
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Y o
OU
2
U
2
U
2
U
2
U
2
U
LU
0 00
r,4mri
V m
�v�
�E
U O
m
m u- E
h0 re,
C C
h0
a, m
a
�
E v
N
4-
t%f
LLI
Qj
CL
DO
L
f6
ci
L
U
L
rI
O
00
C
�
z= o
WCC�
LL
LL
G
Q
c+.
0
O
z
0
j
NJ
1
(n
L Q-0 CL
C
G
W Ln a)
— V)
2u =*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
This is another in a series of articles by the Orange County Commission for the Environment
(CFE). Each article highlights an environmental issue of interest to the residents of Orange
County. The CFE is a volunteer advisory board to the Board of County Commissioners.
Additional information can be found in the Orange County State of the Environment 2014 report
at r /commission for the environment.php
Water in Orange County —Is There Enough?
By Orange County Commission for the Environment
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.
200
`°
.�
Water Utility
CL
L
150
- - - - - -�
— — — City of Mebane
w
100
•.....
• ..
o
'••.
— -OWASA
w
Q
50
•
o
Town of
M
Hillsborough
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.
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=
This is another in a series of articles by the Orange County Commission for the Environment
(CFE). Each article highlights an environmental issue of interest to the residents of Orange
County. The CFE is a volunteer advisory board to the Board of County Commissioners.
Additional information can be found in the Orange County State of the Environment 2014 report
at r /commission for the environment.php
A Surge in Solar Energy Produced on Rooftops in Orange County
David Neal, Orange County Commission for the Environment
This past year, with the help of the Solarize Orange campaign, Orange County
experienced a surge in the installation of rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) systems. In 2015
the Solarize campaign helped 50 homes install rooftop systems that can generate a total of
298 kilowatts (kW) of electricity using sunlight. Each participant saved an average of
$1,500 through bulk - purchasing of solar panels and related equipment. In combination
with the two previous Solarize campaigns, solar PV systems have been installed on a total
of 135 homes in Orange County, with the capacity to produce 1 million kilowatt hours
(kWh) of clean energy per year! This is the greenhouse gas equivalent of not burning
740,000 pounds of coal or the amount of carbon stored in 565 acres of forest.
Some of our neighbors were spurred to go solar by the anticipated expiration of the
state's renewable energy tax credit, which our General Assembly let sunset at the end of
2015. For others, it was the dramatic decrease in the cost of solar panels and their
installation. For some, an opportunity to reduce the amount of air pollution generated
from the burning of fossil fuels, including coal, that supply much of our electricity was
enough of a motivator. All three of these factors drove my family's participation in the
Solarize Orange campaign.
Since we installed our system, we have not paid Duke Energy for a single kilowatt
hour. During these short winter days, we will need to rely more on the electric grid for
power, but our panels produce electricity every day, even when the sky is overcast.
Unfortunately, clouds of a different sort hang over the Solarize initiative. The
expired state renewable income tax credit had made solar PV systems significantly more
affordable, allowing homeowners to recoup up to 35% of their costs. Without it, solar is
out of reach for many Orange County residents.
Those who balk at state or federal tax credits for renewable energy systems should
remember that fossil fuels and nuclear power have received substantial subsidies for
generations. In addition, the use of fossil fuels incurs social and health costs that we all
bear in the form of increased rates of asthma and other respiratory illnesses, polluted
surface waters, and altered landscapes. We should petition our state representatives to
restore the state renewable tax credit and thank our congressional delegation for recently
extending the federal tax credit through 2020.
In spite of the loss of the tax credits, between now and April 30th, two of the biggest
Solarize campaign organizers in North Carolina, NextClimate and NCWARN, are joining
together to "Solarize the Triangle." Besides increasing solar installations, the Solarize
campaign is working to lower the cost of solar through education and easing access to
more affordable financing.
On a larger scale, the market for residential solar could be expanded by changing
state policies that prevent third -party power purchase agreements. In these arrangements,
solar energy companies install solar panels for little to no cost and then bill the homeowner
for the energy these panels produce. In states where these agreements are allowed, they
have been very successful at bringing solar to homeowners who otherwise might not be
able to afford solar power.
A solar system is a great hedge against increases in electricity rates, and provides
tangible savings to those who otherwise may spend much of their limited income on
electricity. My family is thrilled to have been able to afford the upfront costs and
participate in the Solarize Orange campaign. As a community, let's find a way to make the
benefits of solar available to all of our neighbors.
Department of Environment,
Agriculture, Parks & Recreation
[III UTINTOT =
As you are aware, the Eno River Hydrilla Management Task Force has been working since
2007 to address the infestation of the Eno River with Hydrilla verticfflata (hydrilla), a highly
invasive submerged aquatic weed native to Asia. Hydrilla is considered to be the biggest threat
to the natural resources of Eno River State Park. In Orange County, hydrilla is known to infest
the Eno River, Sevenmile Creek, Lake Orange, Compton's Pond, Lake Arrowhead, and the
West Fork Eno Reservoir.
In June 2014, the Task Force initiated a two-year pilot study to evaluate the use of an EPA-
approved herbicide (Fluridone) to manage hydrilla within a section of the Eno River. The results
of the first year of the study are very encouraging. The low concentration of Fluridone that was
added to the Eno just east of Hillsborough was highly effective at managing the growth of
hydrilla during the 2015 growing season throughout the treatment zone extending to Roxboro
Road in Durham.
Please let me know if I can provide any further information on this topic.
Attachment: Nov. 30, 2015 letter from Tom Fransen, DWR Water Planning Section Chief
cc: Rich Shaw
Orange County Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks & Recreation
PO Box 8181, Hillsborough, NC 27278
Phone: (919) 245-2510 Fax: (919) 644-3351
4? es r7,. °rye_=
November 30, 2015
Mr. Tom Davis, Water Resources Coordinator
Orange County
306A Revere Rd.
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Re: Future State Funding for Aquatic Weed Control Projects
Dear Mr. Tom Davis;
PAT MCCRORY
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
As a unit of local government currently receiving financial assistance for aquatic weed management
through our cooperative funding program, this letter is intended as notification of a change in the funding
process for the Aquatic Weed Control Program (AWCP). Under G.S. 143- 215.73F [Shallow Draft
Navigation Channel Dredging and Lake Maintenance Fund] Uses of Fund.; states the following:
"(2) For aquatic weed control projects in waters of the State located within lakes under Article
15 of Chapter I I 3 of the General Statutes. Funding for aquatic weed control projects is limited
to five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) in each fiscal year."
The above referenced statute limits the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality — Division
of Water Resources' (DEQ -DvR) AWCP to only provide technical assistance and funding of projects
that are located within lakes. In the past, the AWCP funding was provided through the Water Resources
Development Projects with no limitations on aquatic weed control projects in the states surface waters.
This change in the use of funds for the AWCP may affect one or more of your projects, for which the
DWR has previously provided technical and financial assistance. We understand this operational change
may result in management issues with existing aquatic weed infestations within your jurisdiction that
previously qualified for technical and financial assistance. At this time, only projects located within lakes
will be eligible for the technical and financial assistance.
Thank you very much for your attention to this important matter. Please contact Linwood Peele at
linwood.peele(ci ncdenr.gov or (919)707 -9024, or Tom Fransen at tom.fransenL(i ncdenngov or(919)707-
9015, if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Tom Fransen, Water Planning Section Chief
Division of Water Resources
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Water Resources
1611 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1611
919 707 9000
N.C. Division of Water Resources and Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
Q &A for SL 2015 -246 Section 13
Q1. Does this Section apply to local water supply watershed protection programs? How about
NPDES Phase 1 /Phase 11 programs?
A1.The Division of Water Resources and the Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources
(Divisions) interpret the session law such that it applies to those local governments who are
administering riparian buffer programs under authority delegated to them in accordance with
G.S. 143 - 214.23 (Neuse, Tar - Pamlico, Catawba, Goose Creek) or who are required to
administer riparian buffer programs in accordance with Title 15A NCAC 02B .0267 (Jordan
Lake) or .0250 (Randleman Lake). The Divisions do not interpret the session law such that it
applies to local water supply watershed protection programs or NPDES Phase I /Phase II
programs. As such, the Divisions will not be requesting that local governments submit their
watershed ordinances or NPDES Phase 1/11 stormwater ordinances for review and approval as
a result of this session law.
Q2. Does this Section apply to other local ordinances that are not local water supply protection
programs, NPDES Phase 1 /Phase 11 programs, or riparian buffer programs under authority
delegated in G.S. 143 - 214.23 or in accordance with Title 15A NCAC 028.0267 or. 0250?
A2. The Divisions recommend that you confer with your local counsel as to whether this statute
applies.
Q3. Can local governments in the Jordan Lake watershed continue to enforce the 100 foot
vegetated buffer on high- density projects as required by the Water Supply Watershed rules?
A3. The Divisions interpret the session law such that local governments who are administering the
Jordan Lake buffer requirement must continue to implement the 50 -foot Jordan Lake buffer,
but may not continue to enforce a 100 -foot vegetated buffer within the Jordan Lake
watershed if that 100 -foot buffer requirement is adopted solely to comply with the Water
Supply rules, and not as a requirement of another program, permit, certificate, or other
approval. Local governments may qualify for an exception under the other items of this
Section. Local governments must continue to enforce the minimum 100 -foot vegetated
buffer for high density projects in Water Supply watersheds outside of the Jordan Lake
watershed (including Randleman).
Q4. Does the requirement in G.S. 143- 214.23A (f) to show riparian buffer areas on the recorded plat
apply to new plats (i.e. when new plats are recorded they have to show the buffer) or does it
also apply to existing plats (i.e. local governments must go back and re- record existing plats to
show the buffer)?
A4.The requirement only applies prospectively, meaning that when new plats are recorded they
must show the riparian buffer area.
January 29, 2016
THE CLIMATE POST by Tim Profeta December 17, 2015
Nations Strike Deal to Curb Carbon Emissions
The first pact to commit all countries to cut carbon emissions —the F a1E.is . g�,c °c °,m�,c: °nd. was signed by 195
countries in LeBourget, France, on Saturday. Some aspects of the agreement, which will go into effect in
2020, will be legally binding, such as submission of emissions reduction targets and regular review of
progress toward them. However, the targets themselves will not be binding.
The agreement contains these k �:�inU:S:
• To keep global temperatures "well below" 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) compared to pre-
industrial levels through the year 2100 and to "endeavour to limit" them to 1.5 degrees Celsius
• To balance carbon source and carbon sinks in the second half of this century
• To review each country's emissions reduction contribution every five years so that it can be
scaled up
• For rich countries to help poor countries by providing "climate finance" to adapt to climate
change.
Previous United Nations talks had called on developed economies but not developing ones to mitigate
greenhouse gas emissions. The new accord, in the works for nine years, requires action in some form
from every country, rich or poor. But it imposes no sanctions on countries that fail to reduce and
eventually eliminate greenhouse gas pollution.
In a televised statement, President Barack Obama praised world leaders for agreeing on a deal that "offers
the best chance to save the one planet we have," while conceding that "no agreement is perfect, including
this one."
Critics say the pact is vague and aspirational and does not do enough to avert serious damage. It lacks a
timescale for phasing out fossil fuels, and critics describe the language on monitoring and verifying
emissions reductions as weak.
Nevertheless, the agreement was hailed by many world leaders.
"When historians look back on this day, they will say that global cooperation to secure a future safe from
climate change took a dramatic new turn here in Paris," said United Nations Secretary- General Ban Ki-
moon, who added that "markets now have the clear signal to unleash the full force of human ingenuity."
The agreement won't enter into force until 55 countries representing 55 percent of the world's emissions
have ratified it.
Deal Details: Finance and Temperature
Some of the biggest crunch issues in the lead up to the climate agreement in Paris were money and
temperature goals. So what does the deal say about these issues?
Finance: According to an agreement made at the talks in Copenhagen in 2009, developed countries will
aid developing countries with $100 billion a year in climate finance by 2020 to aid in the transition to
sustainable forms of energy. It's an agreement they opted to continue through 2025. Prior to 2025, a new
goal will be adopted— exactly when or who is responsible for meeting it is unclear. The fund, so far, isn't
quite up to that $100 billion goal. There is no legally binding language about it.
Temperature: To keep temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius, the agreement calls for parties to "reach
global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that peaking will take longer
for developing country parties, and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with best
available science, so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals
by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century." According to The New York Times, the
passage implies that at least some fossil fuels can continue to burn, as long as the greenhouse gas
emissions are absorbed by a larger number of "greenhouse sinks," like new forests.
One environmental organization has already suggested that if commitments pledged before and during the
talks in Paris are met, a critical mass of countries could reach emissions peaks by 2030.
Arctic Temperatures Reach Record High
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released its �:�.�,�i��.'. Re'�;��)rj ('ar(j which
.........................
finds that the average annual air temperature over land in the region was 2.3 degrees Fahrenheit above the
long -term average (between October 2014 and September 2015). That's the highest since modern records
began in 1900 av, (,nt.s.._ °'ortune.
"Warming is happening more than twice as fast in the Arctic than anywhere else in the world," said
NOAA Chief Scientist Richard Spinrad. 'We know this is due to climate change.
This warmer air, the report suggests, is affecting sea temperatures and melting ice — expanding oceans and
causing sea -level rise. Just how bad is it? In the 80s, about 20 percent of the sea ice in the region was old
and about 45 percent had formed that year. By contrast, in 2015, about 70 percent had formed in the
previous year; only about three percent was considered "old" ice.
"The conclusion that comes to my mind is these report cards are trailing indicators of what's happening in
the Arctic," Spinrad said. "They can turn out to be leading indicators for the rest of the globe."
Jim Overland, a NOAA oceanographer and one of the more than 70 co- authors of the report, suggested
that even the newly inked Paris deal may not be enough —at least in the short term —to turn things
around.
"Unfortunately, we passed some critical points on that," Overland said. "If the globe goes to a 2- degree
warming, we're looking at a 4- or 5- degree warming for the winter in the Arctic by 2040, 2050. That's
based upon the COz that we've already put into the atmosphere and will be putting for the next 20 years."
The Climate Post offers a rundown of the week in climate and energy news. It is produced each Thursday by Duke
Unh,ersiiv's Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions and cross posted on the Hu�ngton
Post and National Geographic News Watch.
GREENWIRE The leader in energy & environmental policy news
2015 smashed records, but 2016 will be hotter still -- scientists
Emily Yehle, E E reporter
Published: Wednesday, January 20, 2016
Last year was the world's warmest year ever recorded, beating out 2014 in average temperatures
over land and ocean surfaces, according to both NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
Federal scientists announced the news this morning, marking the second year in a row that broke
temperature records stretching back to 1880. It was widely expected and in line with NOAA's
announcement earlier this month that 2015 was the second - warmest year for the United States
(j2reenwire, Jan. 7).
A strong El Nino pushed temperatures particularly high at the tail end of the year, contributing to an
unprecedentedly warm December. But on a call with reporters today, NOAA and NASA scientists
emphasized that 2015 would have broken records even without the "El Nino assist."
"Even without El Nino, this would have been the warmest year on record. We're really looking at a
long -term trend," said Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "This
is really just a symptom of this long -term trend."
The year was significantly warmer than 2014, the previous record holder, with the average
temperature across global land and ocean surfaces 1.63 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th - century
average. In 2014, that number was 1.24 F.
December broke its own records, reaching 2 F above the 20th - century average. That's the first time
in 137 years any month has departed so far from the average. The bottom line: Both NOAA and
NASA are "virtually certain" that the world experienced its hottest year in 2015.
Schmidt and Tom Karl, director of NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information, also
predicted that 2016 would be even hotter. "I think probably both Gavin and I would say the odds
favor 2016," Karl said. "If you were going to be betting, you would bet that it would be warmer than
2015."
2015 also marked the first time the temperature was 1 degree Celsius above the 19th- century
average (based on measurements from 1880 to 1900). That is a significant milestone at a time when
world leaders aim to limit global temperatures to 2 C above preindustrial levels, as outlined in the
recent Paris accord.
Since 1970, the world has warmed by about 0.15 C a decade, according to both NOAA and NASA
data. The world is already seeing the impacts of global warming, and those impacts are just going to
get clearer, Schmidt said.
"There has to be a sustained discourse and monitoring of the situation from everybody for this
problem to get under control," Schmidt said. "It's really something that depends on the long -term
trends and our long -term ability to maintain focus on this issue."
��MdffJJJV �ppDf�llaft1f,
JI)ANuIm/ iu �Um � uui�uiuiu�iuiuu�ui uuuu1mi muuuuuuuuuuuu 111 u�uuu�uuu�uum u�
�uA
cait
't 1,i e t r" ii
4
Spread the Word: Solarize is Back!
To ring in the new year, we have just
launched our biggest Solarize program ever.
If you own a home or business
anywhere in the Triangle, you
can gsgp up now for a free solar
assessment.
Find out how you can start saving money on
your electric bill, help advance the clean
energy revolution and get a 30% tax credit
from Uncle Sam.
Solarize the Triangle is brought to you by the state's
two top sponsors of Solarize programs; NC WARN and J101 111104
I 0
NextClimate. Over the last two years, the two
organizations have helped 312 homes and businesses �u� �� �f
go solar. That's more than 1.5 megawatts of clean„
solar energy. To get that much power, you'd have to
burn nearly 900 tons of coal every year.
Solarize helps homeowners go solar more cheaply and
easily. We pre- screen the installers and negotiate a
discounted price with them. This year's Solarize pricing is around 14% lower than last
year's.
The price drops more as more people go solar through Solarize. We rely on neighbor -to-
neighbor marketing, so please forward this email to your friends and neighbors.
You can i for Solarize the Triangle from now through April 30, but if you do it
today, you can start saving sooner. The assessment is free and there is no obligation or
pressure to buy.
Learn lots more at s i or join us for one of our free Dublic information
sessions, including Saturday, January 23 at 10 a.m. at the Chapel Hill Public Library.
Do you belong to a faith community or other organization that would like to be a
Solarize Partner and help us spread the word to your members? Read more
For every 30 contracts that are signed during the program, we will donate
a solar system to a low- income household or a nonprofit that serves low- income
people. The partners will help us choose the recipients.
I f ue% ,,,J;, ow` , ! Call 919 - 416 -5077 or email Linfo@solarize-nc.org.
Solarize the Triangle, Events
a project of NC WARN and extCli ate How it Works
solarize-nc.or Sian UD Now!
info c�lsolarize -nc.or Facebook
(919) 416 -5077
YOU are Sd bsci ik.bed to NC WAIRN as anndeu preep—alu mnieduakevedu ,
Click here to uansuabscribe
4D Solar
Senator.,
panels, ra ruin" fields
BY COLIN CAMPBELL
AND BENJAMIN BROWN
ccampbell@newsobserver.com
bbrown @ncinsider.com
N.C. Sen. Bill Cook, a
Beaufort County Repub-
lican, says the state needs
to tackle the growth of
solar farms on agricultural
fields because the land
that's used is "pretty well
ruined" for future farm-
ing.
The topic surfaced
Thursday during a legisla-
tive committee meeting
on agriculture. A repre-
sentative from the N.C.
FROM PAGE
SOLAR
lican who is a farmer and
chairs several agricultural
committees, said he
agrees with Cook that
solar farms are a concern.
But "it's a smaller issue
in my opinion compared
to houses," he said.
Thursday's discussion at
the legislature wasn't the
first time solar farms have
prompted concerns in
that you guys are con-
cerned about the use of
farmland for solar farms
and such," Cook said. "1
recently read an article
about it, and it sounds like
once farmland is convert-
ed to use for solar farms,
it's not coming back, and
eventually that land is
pretty well ruined for any
kind of farming."
Experts on solar energy
say Cook's concerns are
largely unfounded. Steve
Kalland, executive direc-
tor of the N.C. Clean En-
ergy Technology Center at
N.C. State, said the long-
term impact of solar pan-
els on farmland is small
and manageable.
He listed several minor
potential effects: Gravel
roads to install and main-
tain the panels could lead
to some soil compacting. .
Herbicides are often used
to keep plants from grow
North Carolina. Last
month, the tiny North-
ampton County town of
Woodland passed a mora-
torium on new solar
farms. Leaders there said
they didn't want solar
installations surrounding
the town on all sides.
But Woodland got
international notoriety
after several residents'
w�. c r
comments went viral
online. One warned that
solar panels would suck up
energy from the sun, while
another noted that the
area had seen an increase
in cancer deaths.
Done of those issues
were raised at Thursday's
meetings. But Wood Far-
less, a Bertie County farm-
er appointed to the panel
by Gov. Pat McCrory,
voiced a concern specific
to Eastern North Carolina.
"If a hurricane comes in
and wipes out one of the
solar farms, it's categor-
ized as a hazardous
waste," Farless said. "it's
cost prohibitive to clean
that up."
Colin Campbell:
919 -829 -4698,
@a RaleighReporter
The Opinion Pages I Op -Ed Contributor
The Conservative Case for Solar Subsidies By BEN HO January 5, 2016
To many skeptics, particularly on the right, the spectacular failure of the solar -panel manufacturer
Solyndra in 2011, after receiving a $535 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy,
demonstrated the industry's shaky future and the danger of government efforts to subsidize it to success.
Fast forward to today. Solar energy prices have continued to fall rapidly, twice as many Americans work
in the solar industry as in coal mining, and last year one -third of new electricity generation came from
solar power.
Solar, long viewed through the lens of crony capitalism, has shown the ability to inject real market
competition in energy distribution, one of the last monopolies in the energy sector, while improving the
efficiency of the grid and putting more dollars in the pockets of middle -class Americans. Conservatives,
in other words, need to take another look at solar.
The case for solar isn't limited to prices and jobs. Consumers want choice. Unfortunately, in most
markets around the country, electricity is still one of the few areas where we have virtually no choice over
our supplier. Imagine you want to buy a G.M. car, but you were told you can buy only a Toyota. You'd
be outraged — yet this is how almost all Americans are forced to procure their electricity.
Solar also solves an efficiency challenge. Right now, demand peaks during the daytime, far exceeding the
supply of baseload power. To meet demand, we have invested in a great deal of spare capacity. Most of
this capacity comes from coal and natural gas plants that run only for a fraction of the day. According to
the Energy Information Administration, outside of peak hours, most natural gas -fired power plants in
America used only 5 percent of their total capacity in 2012.
Again, to borrow an automotive analogy, you wouldn't buy a new car just for those few days you had
extra errands. Instead, you'd call an Uber or rent a Zipcar. That's the same role rooftop solar panels can
play for our energy challenges — instead of building another huge plant for a few peak hours, we can
build just as much solar capacity as we need.
Critics of solar have often said that it produces only "when the sun is shining," and that is true.
Fortunately, we need energy most during the daytime — making rooftop solar a smart choice for
consumers while adding energy to the grid when we need it most.
And while challenges of storage and metering policies remain, both technology and regulatory models
have made significant strides. States like California are considering metering policies that incentivize
solar consumers to reduce their demand at peak hours and enable them to sell energy back into the grid
when the grid needs it most. Technologies like Google's Nest "smart" thermostat and Tesla's home
battery are making it easier for consumers to monitor their energy consumption and better store renewable
energy when the sun isn't shining.
Of course, conservatives will respond that their core objection remains: Solar functions only because of
government subsidies. But there are a couple of issues to consider.
For one thing, not all subsidies are created equal, and the government actually has a good track record in
promoting new energy technologies. New developments often face two market gaps that can potentially
delay or even kill them: the "technological valley of death," in which promising advances hit a technical
brick wall, and the "commercialization valley of death," in which an effective technology can't get to
market. Government research labs and subsidies have supported a number of forms of energy — from
nuclear energy, to hydraulic fracturing, to photovoltaic solar — through these troughs.
And there's nothing unique about the government's support for solar. According to the Congressional
Research Service, total government support for the oil and gas sector over the years dwarfs the amount of
support for the solar industry.
Furthermore, the solar investment tax credit is pretty smart. It's structured so that as solar power becomes
more efficient, the effect of the credit on each watt produced becomes smaller. Ideally, we would let
markets decide the winners on their own, but so long as government is intervening in markets, it should
do so in an evenhanded way. Similarly, any government support for the solar industry should be
impartial, rather than having government bureaucracy pick and choose favored companies as it does
through its loan guarantee program. The solar investment tax credit comes close to that ideal.
And there's nothing in free - market economic theory that precludes government support. Markets tend to
underproduce what economists call positive externalities — that is, the broad social benefits, like a
cleaner environment, that aren't captured on a company's balance sheet.
Solar panels, and the companies that make them, are replete with such benefits: They eliminate redundant
power plants that otherwise lie idle, empower consumer choice and have fewer negative consequences
than most other forms of energy. But markets don't always reflect these, which is why it makes sense for
subsidies to enter the picture.
The kerfuf le over the Solyndra collapse aside, many conservatives already agree, and have for years.
When I was at the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush, we believed that an
across - the -board energy policy was by far the best approach — and that included solar. From both a
market and an environmental point of view, supporting the solar industry should make sense, no matter
which side of the aisle you come from.
Ben Ho is an economics professor at Vassar and Columbia. He served as the lead energy
economist for the White House Council of Economic Advisers from 2006 to 2007.
el
Brumley Forest Nature Preserve trail building work day
TO RC is excited to have its first trail building work day with Triangle Land Conservancy
at their Brumley Forest Nature Preserve! Satin d a Febr
ua r �20 2 0 �16 8 : 30 A �M
Last year, TORC signed. an MOU with TI-C to partner with them in helping build. and. maintain
the ma lti-LIse trail at BrUITIley Forest.
TI-C is planning to open this property to the pUblic in the Fall of 2016.
The master plan calls for 12 miles of ma lti-Use trail and. 4 miles of hiking only trail.
https://www.tliangleland.org/explore/nature-preserves/brumley-forest-nature-preserve
Please be sure to register on the TI-C blink provided. below:
"On this workday, volunteers will hell,) prepare Brumley Forest Nature Preservefi)r its Fall 2016
public opening. lasks may include building trails, constructing railing on boardwalks,
demolishing an old (lock, removing invasive species, etc.
Voltinteers should be six years of ag-e of older and minors must be accony')anied by an adult or
guardian. Please register so we have an approximate head count.-
hops: 11www. triangleland. org/ news - and - events /event /trail- crew"
TORC and. TI-C will provide all tools. Depending on how dry the soil is as we approach the 20th
will depend. on whether we are hand. building or LISilIg a machine. TI-C has contracted. with
Native Trails from two grants.
Make sure YOU dress warmly for the cold. weather, wear protective shoes or boots, bring gloves
and. plenty of water.
We will meet at the Orange COU11ty Durham Tech campus at 8:30 am and. at 8:45 we will drive
over to the property.
10 El Z