Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-19-1997 - 10a 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 19, 1997 Action Agenda Item SUBJECT: Report on Cane Creek Watershed Study DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: _Yes_X_No BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: Yes_X No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Cane Creek Watershed Study(Separate enclosure) Mary Willis Excerpt from 1997-98 Commissioners Goals Extension 2583 OWASA Resolution TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Executive Summary Hillsborough- 732-8181 Correspondence Durham -688-7331 Mebane -227-2031 Chapel Hill -967-9251 PURPOSE: To receive a report on the results of the Cane Creek Watershed Study. BACKGROUND: The Commissioners Goals adopted for FY 1997-98 include Implementation of the Cane Creek Watershed Study prepared for the Orange Water and Sewer Authority. Adopted Milestones for accomplishing this goal include an initial informational report to the Board of Commissioners (September, 1997 in attached Plan of Action), followed by the preparation of a staff report on the impact of the Study and draft implementation proposals (October-November, 1997 in attached Plan of Action). The purpose of this agenda item is to present the initial report on the Cane Creek Watershed Study. The Report will be presented by a representative of the Orange Water and Sewer Authority. RECOMMENDATION: Receive as information ma, Q cn Z 0 Jt O .......... wo .......... . ..... .... . . .... ..... .......... . . . ..... .. ............. . ..... ... .......... .. ............ ... .. ............. .X ................. . ............ .. ..... ........... . ......... ........... ................ ........ .. ..... ..... 14 ..... ...... .... ........... ................. ............ ........... ........... ........ ...... a P. .... ........... ........ . ............ (n O Qn ........... ..... ........... ..... ............ .. ....... CD . ..... .... .... LLJ V ....... ........... .... ... ........ ..... ...... . ..... .......... .......... (n .. ..... .... ....... ......... ...... ....... .... .. ........ ... .... . . .... 00 cr (M a) 00 C6 Z cr LL cc LU U x LU C6 96 c V = °. CA C6 cj a a — L 4) 2 1 8 AE 2 0 &1 2 s A A E c r a JA 0 82 U c > a JS tc S s "0 0 C aH 8 C6 ig rz a g X 92 gIS I Orange Water and Sewer Authority 3 ' OWASA 400 Jones Ferry Road P.O. Box 366 Carrboro, NC 27510 (919) 968-4421 Provisional Recommendations for Protecting the Cane Creek Water Supply June 26, 1997 Introduction and Background Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) owns and operates the Cane Creek Reservoir as one of two principle water supplies for the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, UNC Hospitals, and portions of Orange County. The reservoir cost $20 million to build and was filled in 1989. Cane Creek is expected to provide water to the community through the twenty-first century. In January 1994 the OWASA Board of Directors appointed a 22-member Watershed Advisory Committee to guide the Board in developing a management plan for ensuring the long term quality of the Cane Creek Reservoir. The Committee's charge included assistance to staff and Board in developing the scope of work for a consultant study; interaction with staff and consultants during the study; and finally, advising the Board on a preferred water supply protection strategy. The Committee was composed of a range of stakeholders, including property owners and watershed residents, water customers from Carrboro and Chapel Hill, professional experts from the University, elected officials from each governing jurisdiction, and OWASA Board members. A complete list of Committee members is attached as Appendix A. In October 1994 the Board approved Committee-drafted goals, objectives, and a scope of work, and in June 1995 awarded a consulting contract to the Cadmus Group, Inc. Cadmus worked closely with the Committee and OWASA staff reviewing data, developing, refining, and modeling alternative management scenarios, and in August 1996 presented results in the Cane Creek Reservoir Watershed Study-Draft Report. Findings indicated that future water quality objectives could be met through four different approaches that relied on varying degrees of open space preservation, large lot zoning, cluster development, regional stormwater ponds, and tributary subimpoundments. Each of the options theoretically offered the same water quality outcome, but differed substantially in its impact on watershed property owners, cost to OWASA ratepayers, uncertainty of meeting predicted results, and potential for unintended or irreversible results. The Committee and the OWASA Board agreed to solicit additional community input before recommending a single preferred strategy. Accordingly,the Cadmus report was circulated to local elected officials, staff, and interested citizens; highlighted in newspaper articles; and An Equal Opportunity Employer e Provisional Cane Creek Recommendations 4 June 26, 1997 Page 2 presented at three public meetings, including one in Bingham Township in the watershed. Verbal and written comments were received from nearly 50 individuals. These were compiled by OWASA staff and reviewed by the Watershed Advisory Committee in March and April 1997. An additional management scenario emerged from this process and was evaluated by Tetra Tech, Inc. (successor contractors to the Cadmus Group) for compliance with previously established water quality goals. These provisional recommendations by the OWASA Board are based on these efforts, which lasted nearly three and a half years. Guiding Principles Long-standing water supply principles emphasize the importance of high quality source water. OWASA's own Water Supply Protection Policy expresses a commitment to high quality drinking water through a combination of source water protection and treatment technology. The overall goal developed by the Watershed Advisory Committee and adopted by the OWASA Board was to manage the Cane Creek Reservoir to meet or exceed all applicable state and federal standards and to ensure its excellent water quality and long term viability as a public water supply source. This goal was characterized by four water quality and two non-water quality objectives. The most important was minimizing risks to public health, but of the non-water quality objectives, both the Committee and Board considered minimizing impacts on County residents who are not OWASA customers to be more important than minimizing rate increases to OWASA customers, and nearly as important as the public health objective. These objectives established benchmarks against which alternative management scenarios were evaluated and measured by Cadmus. Additional principles and core values that underlie the recommendations presented in this report are noted below. Virtually all are related to the long period of time during which Cane Creek is expected to serve the community. • The Cane Creek Reservoir is a valuable resource in which the people of Carrboro and Chapel Hill have invested more than 20 million dollars. It is essential to protect this investment for the next 100 years or more. • OWASA and other water providers are responsible for making decisions today and for managing resources for a future too distant to see with clarity. Sound management requires making these decisions with care and caution in order to sustain as many options as possible for future generations. • Water quality problems typically develop over periods of years or decades and may require years or decades to resolve. Even though Cane Creek water quality is in compliance with current State and federal standards, actions are needed today in advance of environmental and regulatory conditions of tomorrow. Important lessons exist in the Provisional Cane Creek Recommendations 5 June 26, 1997 Page 3 pro-active water supply protection decisions made more than a century ago by cities such as New York, Boston, Portland, Oregon, and Portland, Maine. • As a water supplier, OWASA acknowledges a preference for non-structural protection strategies. Open space preservation and land use management through acquisition, zoning, and development controls is a practice with widespread support in the water industry and is preferable to technological methods, such as stormwater detention, tributary subimpoundments, and other engineered solutions, with unproven or inconsistent performance records. (Comment: It is noted that this institutional preference, which somewhat conflicts with efforts to minimize effects on watershed residents, was not shared unanimously by the Cane Creek Watershed Advisory Committee) • Community input, stakeholder equity, and effective partnerships are essential. OWASA is committed to applying to Cane Creek the valuable technical and political experience gained during the 1989-91 University Lake protection efforts. Present Water Quality Water quality in Cane Creek is generally good and in compliance with applicable regulatory standards, but it is not pristine. As in University Lake and other Piedmont reservoirs, Cane Creek is enriched by nutrients that contribute to a range of conditions that may compromise both public health and aesthetic objectives. Cadmus conducted an in-depth review of current management practices and conservation plans for the five active dairy farms in the watershed. Findings and predictive analyses revealed a high degree of compliance with recommended agricultural practices for cropland, pastureland, and animal waste management. Inspection of recent and ongoing pesticides data from the reservoir and tributaries revealed occasional traces of agricultural herbicides. On the few occasions when these were detected in the reservoir itself,they were at levels more than 10 times lower than pesticide standards for treated drinking water. Modeling analyses indicate that development regulations and practices currently in place are not sufficient to prevent future deterioration from new development. Overall findings and management options are summarized below. Details are available in the August 1996 Cadmus report. Major Findings: • Existing water quality is acceptable,but not pristine. Provisional Cane Creek Recommendations 6 June 26, 1997 Page 4 • The most significant water quality problems are associated with nutrients and algal blooms. Cadmus characterized these as representing a high risk to attaining the Cane Creek objectives. • Low levels of dissolved oxygen in bottom waters during the summer months increase the concentration of naturally occurring iron and manganese, which create taste and staining problems unless removed at the treatment plant. Other compounds associated with high nutrient and low dissolved oxygen conditions can also cause objectionable tastes and odors in the treated water. These conditions are considered to be a high risk to attaining the aesthetic water quality objectives for Cane Creek. • Total organic carbon(TOC) concentrations, an indicator of potentially harmful disinfection by-products formed during chlorination, are similarly considered to be a high risk condition. Cadmus'modeling indicated that TOC levels are not likely to change, regardless of management strategy. • Based on current knowledge and monitoring data, there appears to be little risk from chemical pesticides and synthetic organic chemicals (SOCs). • Risks from microbial pathogens, such as Giardia and Cryptosporidium, are in the low to moderate range and are expected to remain low if animal waste practices and OWASA's treatment plant operation are sustained at their current, high levels of performance. • Sediment delivery to the reservoir reflects generally good land management practices and is within an acceptable range. Sedimentation is not expected to reduce water storage capacity if accumulation rates remain in the present range. • Cane Creek's fish population is acceptable, but could be improved through independent fishery management programs. • Aquatic weeds are not a current problem,but continued oversight is needed. Management Options: No single management option can meet all of the objectives; therefore, a combination of methods is needed: • Modifications to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance - Orange County's watershed protection requirements are among the most stringent in North Carolina, but certain modifications are needed to manage degradation due to future development. • Further evaluation of tributary detention by OWASA. Provisional Cane Creek Recommendations 7 June 26, 1997 Page 5 Additional steps recommended include: • OWASA acquisition of nearly 1300 additional acres of critical land to help prevent future contamination. • Modification of the Cane Creek water intake structure to allow selective withdrawal of higher quality water. • Further evaluation of cost-effective water treatment options, such as pre-oxidation with chlorine dioxide,that may reduce the production of disinfection byproducts. • Discussion with Alamance County officials their consideration of re-zoning the Alamance portion of the watershed. Some options have been eliminated from further consideration: • In-lake management techniques, such as mechanical de-stratification, bottom water aeration, alum-copper sulfate application, or biomanipulation, are not recommended. State and Local Water Supply Protection The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission(EMC) requires local counties and municipalities to enact baseline land use regulations for water supply watersheds within their jurisdiction. Communities may adopt stricter standards if desired. Both Alamance and Orange Counties are in compliance with EMC regulations for the Cane Creek watershed. The one-acre minimum lot size required by Alamance County complies with the EMC's basic standard. By contrast, Orange County's water supply requirements are among the most stringent in the state. These are codified in Article 6.23,Extra Requirements for Watershed Protection Overlay Districts, of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. Highlights include: • A maximum allowable density of 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres throughout the watershed. Impervious surfaces are generally limited to 6 percent. Non-residential development is limited to 12 percent imperviousness, but no more than 139 of the 18,500+Orange County acres in the watershed may be developed for non-residential purposes. • Preference for non-structural stormwater controls that rely on buffers, natural vegetation, and infiltration. Structural controls, such as detention ponds, are allowed, but may not be used to qualify for density or impervious surface waivers. Any such devices are subject to strict performance requirements, including the posting of maintenance agreements, security bonds, and cash deposits. 8 Provisional Cane Creek Recommendations June 26, 1997 . Page 6 • Buffer requirements are in place for the reservoir shoreline and along all perennial and intermittent streams. Buffers must remain in natural vegetation and may only be used for a limited set of restricted activities. • Clustering of residential lots is allowed throughout the watershed with no prescriptive minimum lot size. Additionally, Orange County promotes its innovative Flexible Development Standards for Preserving Rural Character. • Water supply and wastewater systems are limited to individual wells and on-site septic systems. Neither community water nor wastewater systems are allowed in the watershed. Adequacy of Existing Programs The Cadmus Group used Cane Creek field data to customize and calibrate water quality models to predict the results of future development and management scenarios. Water quality is predicted to deteriorate substantially as residential development exceeds 25 percent buildout. The reservoir already exhibits nuisance algae that cause taste and odor problems in treated water. These are often dominated by species that release harmful toxins under more extreme conditions. Algal blooms are predicted to quadruple in frequency,to more than 30 percent of the summer months, as development approaches 100 percent buildout. Significantly, such a degree of degradation is predicted to result from future activities that comply with current regulations. As noted, Cadmus determined that these conditions could be avoided through different combinations of open space preservation, land acquisition, large lot zoning, cluster development, regional stormwater ponds, and tributary subimpoundments. The recommendations presented below are the cumulative result of these technical analyses, community input, and Committee discussion. They attempt to provide a balance between water quality and stakeholder equity objectives outlined earlier. (Please see the Executive Summary of the August, 1996 Cadmus Report attached as Appendix B.) Recommended Changes to Local Regulations The Committee's primary regulatory recommendation is to amend the Orange County Zoning Ordinance such that all new residential development in the Cane Creek watershed occurs either on large lots or in prescribed cluster configurations. Large Lots Under the recommended requirement, minimum lot sizes in the Cane Creek watershed would be the same as currently specified for University Lake; that is, 5-acre minimum,except for parcels recorded as of June 26, 1997, which could first be subdivided into as many as five 2-acre lots. Any additional lots created from the parent tract would have to be at least 5 acres. Provisional Cane Creek Recommendations 9 June 26, 1997 Page 7 Existing parcels of less than 12 acres would be unaffected by the proposed rezoning, because they could be subdivided into five 2-acre tracts, which is consistent with current provisions. (Comment: Nearly 75 percent of the 1300 existing parcels in the Orange County portion of the watershed are less than or equal to 12 acres in size. These properties, which constitute about 20 percent of the watershed area, would not be affected by the new large lot requirements.) Creative Open Space Design (Clustering) As an alternative to mandatory large-lot development,property owners could choose a more flexible approach by locating dwelling units on smaller lots and reserving a portion of the tract as permanent open space. Existing forested or agricultural land could remain in those uses as part or all of the designated open space. It is recommended that such development continue to be promoted under Orange County's Flexible Development Standards with a required open space reservation of 50 percent, allowable density of 2 acres per dwelling unit(based on total tract size and subject to suitability for septic systems), and a minimum actual lot size of 1 acre. Development opportunities on a hypothetical 55-acre parcel are illustrated for existing 2-acre zoning and compared to large lot and open space options in Figures 1 through 3 below. Although the availability of central water or sewer utilities is recognized as an important factor in the viability of clustering,there is substantial concern about the reliability of subsurface and spray irrigation wastewater technology. At this time OWASA does not recommend these methods be allowed for community scale applications in the Cane Creek watershed, even if operated and maintained by OWASA. OWASA may choose to revisit this issue sometime in the future through an open,public process. Figure 1. Existing Zoning Figure 2. Large Lots Figure 3. Creative Open Space + + f f 1 1 f 55-acre parcel -55-acre parcel - 55-acre parcel - 5 acres roads& -5 acres roads& - 5 acres roads& infrastructure infrastructure infrastructure - 25 two-acre lots -5 two-acre lots - 25 one-acre lots 8 five-acre lots - 25 acres open space preserved Provisional Cane Creek Recommendations 10 June 26, 1997 Page 8 Other Development Requirements Other land use and development requirements, such as impervious surface limits, permissible uses, and so forth, would remain as currently specified in Orange County's Zoning Ordinance. Potential Town and Country Tradeoffs It is important that the OWASA Board and elected leaders who influence or implement these changes recognize the long-standing sovereignty issue perceived by many watershed property owners. Bingham Township residents consider OWASA's source water protection initiative an additional burden imposed on the rural community by the demands of urban growth in Carrboro and Chapel Hill. Watershed residents, who have no access to OWASA water, will realize no water quality benefits from the sacrifices they must make. The OWASA Board recognizes this view and is sensitive to it. We remain open to considering a range of flexible actions that might offset the perceived loss of rural sovereignty: • Payments-in-lieu for unrealized volunteer fire district taxes that would otherwise be levied on land owned by OWASA in Bingham Township. These are currently estimated to be in the range of$4,000 to $5,000 per year. • Use of OWASA's Cane Creek recreational site and former Stanford house as a County-operated park and nature interpretive center. OWASA would retain control of any water-based activities. (Comment: Orange County's Public Recreation Master Plan identifies the need for a future district park in Bingham Township. Portions of this proposal may qualify for state and federal grant programs. OWASA has made overtures in this direction in the past.) • Sale, trade, or transfer of non-watershed land owned by OWASA in Bingham Township to the Orange County Board of Education for use as a new school site if such a transaction were sought by those with appropriate decision-making authority. • Accelerated or"front-loaded" funding of OWASA's program for purchasing critical land and conservation easements in the watershed, including the set-asise of up to one-third of budgeted land acquisition funds ($150,000 of$450,000 in FY 98) for easement purchases. Provisional Cane Creek Recommendations 21 June 26, 1997 Page 9 Other Recommendations • Seek rezoning of the Alamance County portion of the watershed, which is currently designated for 1-acre residential development,to be consistent with Orange County zoning. • Seek consideration by Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Orange County for Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) opportunities for Cane Creek property owners. With appropriate enabling legislation, these jurisdictions could establish higher density "receiving areas" in which developers could exercise development rights (density bonuses)purchased directly from property owners in the watershed. OWASA and its customers would benefit from decreased density in the watershed; Cane Creek property owners would benefit from TDR payments in return for additional (voluntary) development restrictions; and in-town developers would benefit through density bonuses in designated areas. All transactions would remain in the private sector. Recommended OWASA Actions Large-lot zoning and open space development alone will not achieve future water quality goals, but must be supported by additional open space acquisition by OWASA, as well as possible construction and operation of a tributary subimpoundment(mini-lake) on Caterpillar or Tom's Creek. The need for such a facility will depend in part on future development activities, specifically the amount of open space development that takes place in coming years, and the actual size of newly subdivided lots.' Land Acquisition: OWASA will need to purchase approximately 1,260 acres of land in addition to the 1,600 acres already owned in the watershed to meet future water quality goals. Based on current land prices, the total cost would be more than$6 million (1997 dollars). To achieve these land acquisition goals, OWASA will: • Allocate sufficient funds over the next five years to proceed pro-actively toward protecting critical land in the watershed. • Seek grant funds from the newly established North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund. • Consider establishing a controlled sell-back program through which land purchased in fee simple is returned-to the private market with permanent conservation easements attached. Tributary Subimpoundment: Depending on the degree of cluster type development that occurs and the actual size of new subdivision lots, it may also be necessary for OWASA to create a 20 to 40-acre subimpoundment(mini-lake) near the mouth of Caterpillar or Tom's Creek. Provisional Cane Creek Recommendations 12 June 26, 1997 Page 10 Construction costs are difficult to estimate without a preliminary engineering study, but would likely be in the 2 to 4 million dollar range. Further evaluation of tributary subimpoundments will require: • A preliminary engineering study to determine the general feasibility and cost estimates for a mini-lake at either the Caterpillar or Tom's Creek sites. • Monitoring land development and water quality trends that may determine the eventual need for a subimpoundment. Overall Implementation Plan As these recommendations are acted upon by OWASA, Orange County, and other local governments, it is recommended that the overall findings and management strategy be incorporated into a formal Implementation Plan. This would specify time tables and responsibilities for action, ongoing data collection, and a process for periodic Plan reviews and updates. 13 Appendix A: Cane Creek Watershed Advisory Committee Watershed Residents Ms. Patricia Crawford, Watershed Resident and Property Owner Ms. Dolly Hunter, Watershed Resident and Property Owner, Developer Mr. Robert Nutter, Dairyman, University Lake Watershed Mr. Dan Snipes, Dairyman, Cane Creek Watershed Interested Citizens Mr. Chris Hogan, Former Dairyman, Chapel Hill (*) Ms. Margaret Brown, Orange County, Protect Our Water Mr. Braxton Foushee, Carrboro (*) Ms. Lois Herring, Orange County, League of Women Voters Ms. Nancy Mueller, Orange County, League of Women Voters Mr. Allen Spalt, Carrboro, Agricultural Resources Center, Protect Our Water(*) Professional Experts Dr. Deborah Amaral, UNC Department of Environmental Sciences& Engineering, Cane Creek Resident Dr. Francis DiGiano,UNC Department of Environmental Sciences & Engineering (*) Dr. David Godschalk, UNC Department of City and Regional Planning (*) Dr. Daniel Okun, Professor Emeritus, UNC Department of Environmental Sciences & Engineering Ms. Elin Ferrell, District Conservationist,USDA Soil Conservation Service Elected Officials Mr. Randy Marshall, Carrboro Board of Aldermen(*) Ms. Jacqueline Gist, Carrboro Board of Aldermen(*) Ms. Julianne Andresen, Chapel Hill Town Council(*) Dr. Donald Willhoit, Orange County Board of Commissioners (*) OWASA Board Members Mr. Patrick Davis, Chapel Hill (*) Mr. Frank Hammill, Carrboro (*) Mr. Alan Rimer, Chapel Hill (*) (*) Indicates OWASA water user ADpendix B. AL The Cadmus Group, Inc. 14 Cane Creek Reservoir Watershed Study—Draft Report Executive Summary August 1996 \ ` J Turkey 1 Hill Creek Cane Creek Toms Creek Nearshore - 1 Wate Fork Cater illar Creek Cane Creek Reservoir 1920 Highway 54, Executive Park, Suite 1.00 Durham, NC 27713 15 Cane Creek Reservoir Watershed Study—Draft Report Executive Summary Prepared for The Orange Water and Sewer Authority Prepared by Jonathan Butcher Trevor Clements Kimberly Brewer Arthur Werner David Korn Jennifer Carey Natalie Archambault The Cadmus Group, Inc. Steve Coffey Dan Line NCSU Water Quality Group George Pesacreta Ecological Consultants Contract Number CO1-51366 August 1996 16 . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY STUDY SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES The Orange Water and Sewer Authority(OWASA)owns and operates the Cane Creek Reservoir as a water supply for residents of the towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, and portions of Orange County, North Carolina. OWASA commissioned the Cane Creek Watershed study to aid in developing management plans to protect the quality of the water supply into the next century(see Figure E-1 for a map of the study area). Given the current predominance of agricultural and forested land in the watershed, proper management of those land use activities is now the greatest concern for protection of the water supply. Over time, however, the character of land use is projected to shift to residential, presenting new challenges to protecting the water supply. Restrictions on either agricultural or land development activities to manage watershed impacts can impose burdens on local residents and land owners. A viable management plan to protect the water supply heeds to address potential adverse water quality impacts while also avoiding imposition of unnecessary burdens on either residents or OWASA rate payers. To meet these multiple objectives, the scope of work for this study was developed with substantial input from a broad-based advisory committee of local elated officials, OWASA Board members and customers, watershed property owners, and technical experts. In June 1995, OWASA selected The Cadmus Group, Inc. to conduct the study. The original scope of work contained eleven tasks including collection and evaluation of existing reservoir and watershed data, development and application of modeling tools for prediction of future water quality in Cane Creek Reservoir under alternative management scenarios, and recommendation of a watershed protection plan. The latter task was modified, however, because OWASA and the advisory committee agreed that several of the feasible mangy alternatives under consideration warrant review and input from a larger segment of the community before selection of a final plan of action. The purpose of this report, therefore, is to provide a technical basis for the selection of a final management plan, and to communicate the study findings to date and the alternative management scenarios under consideration. OWASA's primary goal is expressed as follows: : Manage the Cane Creek Reservoir to meet or exceed all applicable state and federal standards and to ensure its excellent water quality and long term viability as a public water supply resource. E-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Figure E-1. Cane Creek Reservoir 17 Region Map Cane Creek Watershed Study Area ORANGE COUNTY NEUSE RIVER BASIN Affillsbomughl ALAMANCE COUNTY ,- DURHAM COUNTY CANE CREED wATERS�n :• .::: •. :..; UPPER Hill CAPE FEAR : Cairboro Miles RIVER BASIN - . 5 CHATHAM '•�.- UNIVERSITY LAKE COUNTY WATERSHED E-? EXF-CUTrvE SUMMARY 18 With input from the advisory committee, OWASA identified the following management objectives and levels of relative emphasis for both water quality and non-water quality issues: Water Quality-Related Objectives 1. Minimize risks to public health (Emphasis: Most Import=) 2. Minimize loss of reservoir storage capacity due to sedimentation (Emphasis: More Important) 3. Minimize aesthetically objectionable taste, odor, and color problems in tapwater(Emphasis: More Important) 4. Maintain desirable quality for recreational and aesthetic enjoyment (Emphasis: Important) Non-Water Quality Objectives 5. Minimize impacts on County residents who are not OWASA customers (Emphasis: Most/More Important) 6. Minimize rate increases to OWASA customers (Emphasis: Important) SUMMARY OF TECHMCAL APPROACH Cadmus organized the study to address three general management areas: the watershed, the reservoir, and the water supply treatment and delivery system(Figure E-2). These components correspond to the concept of multiple barriers for water supply protection, with watershed(or source)protection providing the first line of defense, the reservoir providing an intermediate level, and the treamnent plant providing the last line of defense. Minimizing risk cost-effectively may require using all forms of protection. Study Focuses on Three Levels WATERSHED RESERVOIR WATER SURLY R�wWKSOWM WaterQ-W Qmft wd M-"—O t and k".Ww Try Mtaauet M-261 011 RegairelweoEt Water Quality Relationships k WATER Y IFIF4 S/S Lowing Seek sy- APkt" Treatment ithdmwa WATERSHED RESERVOIR Figure E-2. Study Focus Levels E-3 19 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Cadmus also designed the study to address the multiple objectives outlined by the advisory committee. A "scenario-based" decision approach was used, whereby meaningful indicators were developed to link management objectives with options, and provide a shorthand for communicating the potential effects of management decisions on attaining those objectives. The advisory committee and OWASA planning staff were involved throughout the study,providing feedback on the feasibility and preferences for management options. The study was conducted in five phases: 1. Coordination and collection of data 2. Analysis of existing data 3. Refinement of decision approach 4. Development and evaluation of management scenarios 5. Documentation of findings and recommendations to date Watershed contaminant delivery and reservoir water quality models were calibrated and applied to support phases 2 through 4. A spreadsheet modeling tool oriented for continued planning and management decision support was also developed and used to aid in the evaluation of management scenarios. STUDY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO DATE From the information gathered and analyzed during this study, conclusions were drawn in five key areas that should form the foundation for completing a management plan for the Cane Creek Reservoir and Watershed. (1) Existing Reservoir Water Quality Current water quality is generally acceptable and in compliance with applicable water quality standards, but is not pristine. As with University Lake and other Piedmont reservoirs, Cane Creek Reservoir receives large loads of nutrients that contribute to a range of conditions that have the potential to compromise both public health and aesthetic objectives(Chapter 2). Potential changes m land use may increase the threat of excessive nutrient loading. (2) Current Protection Measures Modeling analyses indicate that development regulations and practices currently m place are not su,,lcient to prevent future water quality deterioration from anticipated new residential development. Although agricultural sources in the watershed currently contribute substantial contaminant loads to the reservoir, continued implementation of best management practices for dairy operations under time tables specified by North Carolina Administrative Code 15A NCAC 2H .0200 appear adequate to protect the reservoir from further degradation attributable to agricultural sources(Chapter 4). E4 20 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ' (3) Greatest Risk Highest risks to attaining water quality management objectives for the reservoir are presented by: • Increased algal blooms associated with nutrient loading from future development. Summer algal blooms are already frequent in Cane Creek Reservoir. Most blooms are dominated by blue-green algae, including species associated with taste/odor problems and potential production of algal toxins. Increased residential development could worsen the problem(Figure E-3). so 40% =L 60 30% a 4 0 2p 40 20% .o o 20 10'/e U a w 4 M.. 0% Undeveloped Current Conditions 25%Buildout Full Buildow .P Concentration a Algal Bloom Frequency Figure E-3. Projected Eutrophication Impacts under Current Protecdon Measures • High manganese cows caused by naturally occurring lake conditions, which result in undesirable aesthetic conditions in finished water. The intake raw water will contain problematic concentrations of manganese when OWASA must draw water from below the depth of the thermocline (a temperature barrier that separates surface from bottom waters in the summer) and occasionally at times when anoxic (devoid of oxygen)bottom water is mixed into the surface water. • Total organic carbon levels,expected to remain high in the raw water supply because decaying vegetation and in-lake production are not amenable to control, which react to form harmful by-products during disinfection steps in the water supply treatment and distribution system. • Law dissolved oxygen concentration, reduced water clarity, and microbial pathogens also pose a moderate risk to attaining water quality objectives(See Chapter 2). E-5 21 EXECUTWE SUMMARY (4) Management Options No single management option can meet all six of the water quality and non-water quality objectives. OWASA and the community must therefore consider scenarios that combine multiple forms of management(Chapter 3 and Appendix F). • Watershed Management. Achieving water quality objectives in Cane Creek Reservoir is best addressed through management actions in the watershed and tributary arms of the lake. Four alternative management approaches or scenarios, reviewed and refined by the Advisory Committee, are proposed for further review and evaluation by the OWASA Board and community(See Table E-1). The scenarios include different combinations of zoning; open-space preservation; buffer requirements; residential, agricultural, and forestry best management practices,land acquisition, and in-lake management options which are detailed in Exhibit E-1 at the end of the Executive Summary. Although each scenario is projected to,meet water quality objectives, they differ in key areas for consideration, including political feasibility,certainty of effectiveness,potential for unintended adverse consequences, and ability to develop additional or retrofit solutions when unotpected conditions occur. Further input on community preferences and concerns should therefore be gathered and considered before deciding on a specific alternative (Chapter 4). Table E-1. Preferred Management Scenarios for Further Review Auaitia..l Bat OWA" Oraage Co. Opt:,Pow mmafemaot AcgaWdon In-Labe maoftenent Somario Zowng Prtsoervatioa IhAers Pracd= (airs) Optim Currat Derider 36 4 tributary 2. Tributary Detention Ponds 2-aae voltu tart' detention 4a. Open space 2-sae Voluntary` Current Raidential,forestry, 632 1 tributary Preservation and BMPs 5R Nearshore S. Lute Lot Zoning and 5/2 voluntary current Fares",sgricultum 1265 None BMPs I I dairies 6. Mandatory Gloater 2•scm Mandatory Cornet Real,dairies 1377 2 tributary Development detention • In-lake Management. Several m-lake management options were evaluated for addressing key risks, but were rejected because of high cast and uncertainty in effectiveness. These options included mechanical destratftation,hypolimnedc aeration, alum and copper sulfate applications, and biomampul=On(changing biological community structure). Further evaluation of constructing impoundments(large detention ponds) in one or more of the tributary alms of the lake to enhance removal of sediments and contaminants prior to reaching the intake area is recommended, however, as part of the four watershed management scenarios (Chapter 4 and Appendix F). • Water Supply Treatment. Attempting to address degradation of the raw water supply solely through enhanced processes at the treatment plant will not provide the desired level of assurance for providing high quality drinking water. Certain problems in raw water supply quality (e.g., periodic low levels of dissolved oxygen,high levels of iron and manganese, and high levels of total organic carbon) are, however, expected to continue even with the most restrictive watershed management options under E-6 22 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY consideration. Further evaluation of additional cost-effective treatment techniques, such as pre- oxidation with chlorine dioxide, is recommended(Chapter 4 and Appendix E). • Other Management Considerations. - Fish Population Management. The quantity and size of game fish(i.e., species popular with fishermen) in the reservoir will respond positively to improvements in the reservoir's water quality. There are, however, additional management actions, independent of water supply water quality protection, which could be undertaken to improve the game fish populations. Further monitoring of fish populations and habitat conditions(particularly dissolved oxygen concentr atiorts in the shallow, near-shore areas) is recommended, followed by coordination with the NC Wildlife Resources Commission to refine fishing limits at the reservoir(Chapter 4). - Microbial Pathogen Management. No instances of disease associated with key pathogens of concern, Cryptosponduan and Giardia,have been associated with the OWASA water supply. Monitoring information is limited,however, and actual presence of these pathogens in the reservoir is uncertain. Cryptosporidium remains a concern in the Cane Creek Watershed because it is associated with infected animals, particularly cows and beavers. Several factors, including watershed land management practices, physical characteristics of the reservoir, and treatment system operations used by OWASA mitigate the risk. Maintaining these barriers is important, along with improving real-time monitoring of particulate matter in finished water as an early indicator of potential problems(Chapter 4). - Nuisance Aquatic Weed Management. Aquatic weeds(macrophytes)have caused problems in a number of local water sources, but are not currently a problem in Cane Creek Reservoir. Preventing their introduction, however, requires continued vigilum. OWASA should maintain its prohibition of traftered boats and continue inspection of allowed small boats and electric motors prior to launching. It is also recommended that OWASA establish a more formal surveillance program to locate and control localized outbreaks before they become threats to meeting management objectives(Chapter 4). (5) Management Selection Several management approaches have been identified which can meet the overall water quality goal established by OWASA. Each alternative, however, has significantly different implications for other goals such as minimizing impacts to watershed residents and OWASA customers. Completing a watershed management plan that meets all objectives optimally can be accomplished only with additional public outreach and input. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COMPLETING A WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN To the extent possible, OWASA wants the Cane Creek Reservoir watershed management plan to be shaped, understood, and supported by the affected community. This report describes a number of alternative protection strategies to meet water quality management objectives. There is more work to be done, however, before a complete plan that meets all management objectives, including non-water quality objectives, is ready for implementation. E-7 23 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NEXT STEPS FOR PLAN DEVELOPMENT Several steps are needed to complete development of a watershed management plan for the Cane Creek Reservoir that optimally achieves the objectives identified by the Advisory Committee. Public Review OWASA has indicated that its next step will be to present the results of this study—the conclusions drawn to date and the management scenarios recommended for further consideration—in one or more community forums to raise public awareness and obtain community input before deciding on an optimal plan of action. Cadmus recommends following large group public presentations with moderated small group discussions to allow for more dialogue and input. Consensus may not be readily achievable, and it will be important for OWASA to seek common ground among stakeholders and refine proposed management options accordingly to increase public support, while still maintaining the water quality objectives. Orange County Impact Analysis As the preferred scenarios are narrowed down to those that are technically sound and most widely supported, it will be important for OWASA to work closely with local county planners to analyze the scenarios for secondary impacts on local development patterns, housing costs, and associated effects on tax revenues, demand for public services, and so forth. OWASA Board Decisions Following public review and local government impact analysis, the OWASA Board of Directors is expected to select a preferred plan of action and then work with other anwes to implement it. Options include choosing one of the currently defined scenarios, refining one of these scenarios, or recommending further analysis to address any important information gaps that may have arisen during the review process. When making their selection,we recommend that OWASA staff continue to guide the Board through the use of decision criteria (feasibility, certainty, potential for unintended adverse consequences, and ability to develop additional or retrofit solutions when unexpected conditions occur). It should be noted that some of the currently defined scenarios contain options that require decisions by others(e.g., zoning decisions are under the authority of the Orange County Commissioners), and dwxefore OWASA plans must be adaptable to those decisions. Documentation Documenting the plan of action is important for providing a long-term reference, and communicating implementation details. A strong plan will include specifics regarding actions and their timing, roles and responsibilities for implementation, financing, and indicators to measure progress in meeting objectives. LONG-TERM PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Watershed management efforts for the Cane Creek Reservoir will not end with the adoption of a plan. Watershed management is a dynamic process that requires responses to changing conditions, goals, priorities, funding, and other factors. As a part of completing the written plan, therefore, OWASA and the community should consider three long-term actions: E-8 24 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Education and Outreach One of the first steps to implementing a water supply protection plan is to ensure that parties responsible for implementation understand the plan objectives and what each parry needs to do. Cadmus recommends that OWASA use public meetings and ongoing forums (e.g., Soil and Water Conservation District Board of Supervisors meetings)to raise public awareness of the final plan and seek support for implementation. Monitoring Implementation and Evaluating Performance Neither complete buildout of the watershed nor full implementation of the protection plan is likely to occur immediately following plan adoption It will be important for OWASA to continue to monitor changes in land use/land cover within the watershed as well as water quality in the reservoir and finished water supply. Additionally, the timing of implementation actions should be documented where construction of control or treatment structures is used, or new management operations are employed on a large scale, to be able to analyze water quality responses to those management actions over time. Key water quality indicators to continue monitoring include: 1. Chlorophyll-a as indicator for algal bloom occurrence 2. Blue-Great Algae species identification as indicator of algal toxin potential 3. Total Phosphorus and Total M roger as indicators for evaluating eutrophicauon trends 4. Manganese to guide treatment operation adjustments to avoid aesthetic problems in finished water S. Total Organic Carbon to guide treatment operation adjustments to avoid creating unacceptable levels of disinfection by-products in finished water 6. Dissolved Oxygen to guide treatment operation adjustments and as an indicator of lake ecosystem health 7. Secchi Depth as a measure of water clarity and an indicator of in-lake conditions for aesthetic and recreational enjoyment 8. Fecal streptoca and Closh►&=perf?=gens should be considered for use as surrogates for microbial pathogen risk Additionally,regular strategic monitoring in watershed titwaries should be continued at a minimum of three stations for basic water chemistry, nutrients, and biological parameters. This will provide a basis to monitor water quality response to changes in land use in the watershed and track effectiveness of management practices. To maintain periodic analyses of toxins in the raw water supply, Cadmus recommends continued raw water monitoring such as currently conducted in the Triangle Area Water Supply Monitoring Project. OWASA's contirnied participation in the American Water Works Association Research Foundation study for monitoring presence of algal toxins in water supplies is also recommended. PERIODIC PLAN UPDATE Watershed management should not be considered a one-time planning event. Conditions, concerns, priorities, management goals, and implementation capabilities all change over time, and a strong watershed management approach is one that can adapt accordingly. Increasingly, governments and organizations involved in watershed management are establishing frameworks that support ongoing management through a cycle of activities that ensure periodic update of watershed assessments, management objectives and priorities, and E-9 25 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY strategic implementation plans. OWASA has already developed(or is in the process of developing through this study) many of the components of a watershed management framework: 1. A strategic monitoring program 2. Assessment capabilities including modeling tools developed through this study 3. A stakeholder advisory group to assist in establishing management objectives, priorities, and implementation plans 4. A decision approach process for evaluating, ranking, and selecting management options 5. A documentation process that communicates management goals, objectives, plans, roles and responsibilities, and timelines 6. An outreach program to raise public awareness of Cane Creek Reservoir water quality and relationship to human activities in the watershed, and to enlist public support and participation for maintaining a high quality water resource Cadmus recommends building on this foundation by implementing a watershed management cycle that institutionalizes use of these components and ensures continuity, consistency, cost-effectiveness, technical defensibility, and public support(Figure E-4). Many watershed frameworks are based on a five-year cycle, which often 1.Maintain public awareness of watershed conditions and corresponds well with public and private water supply protection plan status. strategic planning time horizons. It 2 Ulm management goals and objectives should also be noted that the North Carolina Division of Water Quality Data Collection (DWQ) administers a five-year 3.Develop and implement strategic data collection plans. management cycle for the Cape Fear 4.compile and maintain detailed information and data. River Basin in which the Cane Creek watershed lies. Thus, adopting a five- year management cycle for the Cane s.Analyze and evaluate information and data. Creek watershed would provide an 6.Reassess where management efforts are needed. opportunity to better coordinate activities between OWASA and DWQ and to leverage resources. If OWASA decides iL Update Protectioii Plan to establish a management cycle, it may 7.Refine management strategies. wish to further analyze additional factors 8.Update water supply protection plan. (such as capital improvement planning) before making a final decision on cycle Implementatim length. 9. Implement protection action plan. 10. Monitor progress toward goals and objectives. Figure E-4 Recommended Cane Creek Watershed Management Cycle E-10 26 Exhibit E-1. Summary of Management Scenarios for Further Public Consideration Scenario 2: Tributary Detention This scenario emphasizes OWASA in-lake(or near-lake)efforts to protect water quality through the construction of sub-watershed scale tributary detention facilities near the mouths of the major tributaries(ranging in size from 10-43 acres). Management options on the watershed are minimized,resulting in minimal burden on watershed landowners. Zoning: Currently zoned for 2-acre minimum lots in Orange Co., 1 acre in Alamance Voluntary open-space preservation under current ordinance,resulting in a net PrOeservatione 10%preservation of existing rural land uses in Orange County and 6%in Alamance County. Buffers: Current requirements. BMPs: Current practices only,except that animal operation BMPs required by state regulations are assumed to be in place. Current OWASA land purchase fiords plus additional funds,as required,are Purchase/Easement: diverted to the cost of acquiring sites and constructing tributary detention facilities. No additional land is acquired beyond that needed for constriction of tributary sub-impoundments,due to the high cost of these facilities. Regional sub-impoundments to trap pollutant loads are constructed near the mouth of four of the five major tributaries(Caterpillar Creek,Watery Fork, In-Lake Options: Cane Creek,Turkey Hill Creek). No detention facility is planned for Toms Creek because of construction costs and difficulties associated with currently existing Apple Mill Pond,which does not provide any discernable water quality benefits. Scenario 4a: 10%Preservation of Open Space Combined with Additional BMPs This scenario combines planned open-space preservation with relatively little restriction on use of the remaining land. Current 2-acre zoning would be maintained,except in the central area nearest the lake. To compensate for the increased pollution load generated by 2-acre development, structural stormwater controls for new development are included in the mix of BMPs. It is also assumed that Alamance Co.will continue to allow development under the state's minimum watershed protection rules. This scenario includes voluntary open-space preservation and one tributary detention basin on Caterpillar Creek. Zoned for residential development at 2 acres in Orange Co.,with zoning of Zoning: 5 acres with 2-acre option in nearshore critical area,and 1 acre in Alamance Co.on buildable areas. Buffers: Current requirements. Open-Space Voluntary open-space preservation resulting in a net 10%preservation of Preservation: existing rural land uses in Orange County and 6%in Alamance County. E-I 1 Exhibit E-1. Summary of Management Scenarios for Further Public Consideration 27 (Continued) An array of BMPs is assumed for agricultural,forestry,and residential development. Agricultural BMPs currently in place are assumed to continue, while animal operation BMPs are expected to improve somewhat through implementation of required management plans and additional recommendations. It is assumed that current Forestry Practice Guidelines are adhered to more because of increased outreach and education sponsored by BMPs: OWASA. This will result in reduced load from land disturbed by timber harvest. Residential BMPs focus on stormwater control via regional-scale (average area controlled of about 200 acres)detention ponds for developments with zoned lot size of two acres,with maintenance assumed by a public agency,while land acquisition cost for the detention ponds is provided by development impact fees. These stormwater controls are instituted only for areas of concentrated 2-acre development. Purchase/Easement: OWASA purchase and acquisition continues for 10 years from present at current rates of funding amounting to approximately 630 additional acres. In-Lake Options: OWASA construction of a tributary detention basin on Caterpillar Creek (only)to reduce total nutrient and sediment load reaching the reservoir. Scenario 5: Preservation of Open Space Combined with Large-Lot Zoning and BMPs This scenario focuses management on large lot 5-acre zoning(within Orange Co.). Assumes all Orange Co.portions of the watershed have 5-acre zoning with Zoning: 2-acre options similar to those in the University Lake Watershed. Continued 1-acre zoning is assumed for Alamance Co. Open-Space Voluntary open-space preservation resulting in a net 105/6 preservation of Preservation: existing rural land uses in Orange County and 6%in Alamance County. Buffers: Current requirements. BMPs are included for agriculture and forestry(as in Scenario 4), but BNTs: no additional BMPs are required for residential land uses, due to lack of efficiency at larger lot size. Purchase/Easement: OWASA purchase and easement acquisition efforts are assumed to continue at the present rate of appropriation for 20 years from present. In-Lake Options: None. Scenario 6: Mandatory Cluster Development In this scenario, no down-zoning is required in Orange Co., yet substantial open-space preservation is achieved by requiring all new developments to follow cluster development patterns. Density is limited by the availability of suitable sites for septic drain fields on a site specific basis. To achieve water quality goals, the cluster approach is combined with two other major management options: (1) construction of two tributary detention facilities, one on Caterpillar Creek, draining most of the Alamance Co. area, and another on Watery Fork, where the cost effectiveness of a detention facility appears high; and (2) increased OWASA acquisition of property or conservation easements. E-12 Exhibit E-1. Summary of Management Scenarios for Further Public Consideration (Continued) 28 1-acre zoning in Alamance Co.,2-acre residential zoning in Orange Co.,with Zoning: a requirement for mandatory clustering in developments subject to the subdivision process. Houses would be clustered primarily on 1-acre lots. Open-space preservation is achieved in Orange Co. through a mandatory clustering requirement under the currently zoned density through a combination of smaller lots and open space. For 2-acre zoning,clustering on 1-acre lots(sufficient for septic drain fields)results in a net of 5001e preservation in rural uses of a developable tract. On a site-by-site basis, Open-Space clustering on lots smaller than 1-acre with nondischarging community Preservation: wastewater systems maintained by OWASA might be allowed(see below), resulting in a greater percentage of open-space preservation. The open-space preservation program is assumed to be adopted within Orange Co.only,and, because mandatory clustering is required,it is assumed that additional voluntary open-space preservation will be negligible. As in other scenarios, the open space which is preserved is assumed to reflect the current proportions of forest and agricultural land uses in the watershed. Buffers: Current minimum requirements remain in place,but clustering can be used to maximize protection of riparian corridors and other sensitive areas. Within cluster developments,a structural BMP(e.g.,wet detention basin)is assumed to be present to serve the developed portion of the site. This would be paid for by the developer. The purpose of this BMP is primarily to control BMPs: first-flush washoff of pollutants from impervious areas,rather than provide effective sediment trapping,but a minor reduction in annual delivery of nutrients is also expected. Agricultural lands are assumed to follow current practices only,except that required animal operation BMPs are assumed to be in place. For this scenario,OWASA purchase/easement efforts place a higher emphasis on obtaining conservation easements. This higher participation in easements is achieved in part by assuming that a higher price will be offered Purchase/Easement: for easements than in other scenarios. It is also possible that OWASA may effectively create easements by purchasing land,then reselling it with deeded easements. The analysis of this scenario assumes 413 acres of fee simple purchase and 964 acres of conservation easement,for a total of 1377 acres (see footnote). The in-lake options for this scenario include OWASA construction of a In-Lake Options: tributary detention basin on Caterpillar Creek and a detention basin on Water Fork(20 years from now)to reduce total nutrient and sediment load reaching the reservoir. Cluster development under this scenario may include alternatives for community wastewater systems(non-discharging)on a site-by-site basis, Other: with the condition of a strong OWASA involvement in the planning/design process and OWASA assumption of operation and maintenance. This option is assumed to apply to a relatively small portion of the total number of units in the watershed. E-13 Exhibit E-1. Summary of Management Scenarios for Further Public Consideration (Continued) 29 Footnote: Although this approach to acquiring easements is what OWASA prefers,it was not used as the basis for assumptions in the other scenarios. Clarification of this preference occured after analyses for scenarios 1-5 had already been performed. However,this should not prevent OWASA from using the prefered easement acquisition method with any management scenario. The corresponding increases in land covered by easements will only serve to enhance protection of the water supply and its quality. E-14 30 Appendix C: Additional Comments All members of the Cane Creek Watershed Advisory Committee were invited to submit individual comments that might differ from those expressed in an earlier draft of these June 26 Provisional Recommendations. Comments from two members are attached in this Appendix, as is a letter from the Chair of Orange County's Bingham Township Advisory Council. Several Committee members and members of the general public attended the June 12, 1997 OWASA Board of Directors meeting when that earlier draft was discussed. This agenda item had been publicized in special newspaper ads prior to the meeting and had been mentioned in local news stories. Verbal comments of visitors to the June 12 Board meeting are summarized in this Appendix. C-1 31 [Received via Email) Date: 6/3/97 5:25 PM Priority: Normal TO: Ed Holland Subject: Report ------------------------------- Message Contents ------------------------------- Ed, My only comment concerns the charge to the Committee. I continue to believe that the Committee was not charged to develop a "single preferred strategy". At the least, that was not the charge I understood when I joined the group. If the charge was changed since the January 13, 1994 Board Resolution, I missed it. I stated this at the meeting in Orange Grove last summer. Therefore I cannot endorse the report to the extent it suggests a preferred option. Thanks for keeping me informed and for all your help to the Committee. Pat Crawford c-3 FROM : D HUNTER/P DORR PHONE NO. 9199670603 Jun. 06 1997 0E: 19AM P01 32 TO: OWASA Board of Directors FROM: Dolly Hunter DATE: June 5, 1997 SUBJECT: Recommendation for Protecting Cane Creek Water Supply 1. In order for clustering to be achievable in rural Orange County.it requires a maximum of 20%open space with a minimum lot size of I acre.Land is the greatest expense in rural developments while infi astructurc (water/sewer,roads)is the greatest expense in urban areas. Urban developments recoup costs with higher density. Rural developments, without water/sewer,must have a minimum l acre lot size. Shorter roads can cut costs but with 200' being a generous length of road frontage for a 1 acre lot. at$30 a linear foot, the saving of$6,000 does not make up for the loss of a $20,000 1 acre lot. If clustering is desirable it should be doable otherwise it is downzoning. 2. If the 5 &2 zoning with cluster configuration is enacted.an accurate calculation should be made of the parcels in the watershed with acreage over 12 acres in size. (A recent comment has been made that 25%of all existing parcels are over 12 acres in sine). If an owner of one of those parcels decides to subdivide at any time after the date of downzoning enactment,an analysis should be made of the development potential(with soil,slope etc.constraints)at the 2 acre minimum zoning versus the 5&2/cluster zoning.The difference in values should be compensated to that landowner by OWASA as a purchase of development rights hold in perpetuity,or in a Land Bank for future transfer or for a TDR program with sufficient receiving areas designated to absorb such transfers. 3. It is fundamentally unfair to make a certain segment of the population pay for the benefits of another.Fair compensation is the honorable and equitable thing to do. C-4 ' 33 rM May 30, 1997 Barry Jacobs Chair, OWASA Board of Directors PO Box 366 Carrboro, NC 27510 Dear Barry: On May 8, the Bingham TAC received a report on the recommendations forthcoming from the Cane Creek Watershed Advisory Committee. The TAC commends this Committee for its long and diligent work, but feels it must respond to a few of the recommendations. As township residents, the TAC hears regularly from citizens about this issue, and we are obliged to pass along their (and our) concerns. • It appears that the comments and input from Bingham residents have not been given serious mention in the report. On November 20 and December 11, 1996, Bingham residents expressed to committee members and OWASA staff their feelings that additional hardship with no benefits seemed to be on the horizon for Bingham residents. The vast majority of residents at these two meetings expressed their displeasure with large-lot zoning and mandatory cluster approaches - both verbally and in the "straw-poll" held at the end of the meeting. • I was disheartened to see these thoughts listed in the report as issues "perceived by many watershed property owners," and relegated to the back pages of the report. To Bingham residents, the implications of additional land use controls with no benefits for those forced to bear these measures are much more than perceptions - they are very real. • Another perception that is very real to us is the lack of an elementary school in Bingham for our 585 students. The idea of an elementary school site is one that residents have listed as a need for years, and the Orange County Board of Education has been made aware of this. The C-5 34 ' TAC encourages the Board of Directors to consider this idea as discussions progress. In summary, many of us feel that the comments and input from Bingham residents were "glossed-over" in the Committee report. Building rapport with citizens who bear the burden of protecting OWASA's water supply is an important component, and we stand ready to assist in this role. However, this also requires sensitivity to Township needs and cooperation by OWASA, and we appeal to the Board of Directors to consider the needs and interests of Bingham residents as you prepare a proposal for the County Commissioners. An additional meeting in Bingham Township might be a good vehicle. . Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. The TAC or I w_ ill be happy to talk further with you or the Board of Directors, if desired. Sincerely, t%qZ V f�q�/�66 Jeff Peloquin Chair, Bingham TAC cc: Karen Barrows, Planning Board Chair S.A.M. Brooks, Planning Board Representative (Bingham) Marvin Collins, Planning Director David Stancil, Planner II/Land Use and Environment 0 = d oaral of' EEc1 Kerwin E d No l l a ►•� C-6 [Received Via E-Mail) From: Dodd, Randall C. 35 Sent: Thursday, June 12, 1997 7:02 AM To: 'Ed Holland' Cc: 'Deborah Amaral' Subject: Cane Creek Committee Recommendations Ed- I will not be able to attend the meeting tonight, but would like to submit comments on the recommendations being developed for the Board. I submit these comments as 1) an OWASA water user; 2)a landowner in the watershed; and 3) a water quality professional. 1. The recommendations that have been developed focus heavily on land use and development (primarily lot size) issues. I concur that this is a major issue, but believe that more comprehensive recommendations addressing land cover and land management issues are also warranted. I believe a primary goal for watershed management should be to protect and restore forested land, with a focus on riparian systems. (Various versions of draft rules for the Neuse River basin could be helpful in providing technical details.) I understand that-this overlaps with recommendations that have come forth-my suggestion is to more explicitly acknowledge and pursue(primarily riparian) forest protection, restoration,and management through a wide array of both voluntary and regulatory mechanisms. 2. 1 have not reviewed the Zoning Ordinance for the watershed, and so cannot comment at this time on whether I believe any changes are warranted. I would encourage OWASA and the Advisory Committee to thoroughly review the ordinance at this time in light of new initiatives in Carrboro's Northern Transition Study Area, the Neuse River Basin(including the upper basin), and ongoing initiatives in the Chesapeake Bay. 3. I do not agree that the overall performance goal should be based on large lot build out. I believe that this assumes a transition that is neither imminent nor necessarily desirable. I believe that performance goals should be based on a desired water quality,which relates more directly to land cover and management than lot size. 4. I am troubled by the wording of the sentence (under Potential Town and County Tradeoffs) "The Committee offers no judgment...". First, I believe the committee should clearly acknowledge that residents were heard("no judgment" implies they weren't). Second, I believe the committee should clearly acknowledge that a win/lose proposition is possible if actions (such as rezoning) occur in which residents are again asked to make sacrifices (without benefits) which benefit OWASA and customers. (The committee should be striving to achieve a win/win proposition.) Finally, I disagree with the use of"perceptions" and "perceive" in this sentence. Loss of development rights through rezoning is a very real (and not perceived) loss. I do concur with the suggestions and recommendations to address the issue, and suggest that Purchase of Development Rights be included(along with Transfer of Development Rights). Designation as a Forest District may provide an additional legal option. 5. I concur with Dolly Hunter's recommendations (attached in the last mailout) and hope the Committee and Board give serious consideration to these suggestions. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. C-7 J 36 Summary of Public Comments to OWASA Board June 12, 1997 Mr. Lindsay Taps, Bingham Township Resident Proposed OWASA payments-in-lieu-of property taxes to Orange County would be of little or no benefit to Bingham Township residents. Downzoning should not be justified by percentages or numbers, but by"what's right and wrong" for property owners. Mr.Jeff Peloauin,Bingham Township Resident Speaking as an individual,not as Chair of Bingham Township Advisory Council. Residents' "perceptions" of burdensome regulations noted in 6/6/97 draft document are very real. Disappointed that recommendations offer no alternatives for water quality protection other than large-lot zoning. Would prefer to see allowance for other options. Doesn't believe that Bingham residents fully appreciate the impact of large-lot zoning. Mr.Allen Spalt,Member,Cane Creek Watershed Advisory Committee Acknowledges OWASA's commitment to public participation throughout the three-year process. Supports precautionary approach of the recommendations. OWASA's preference for non-structural management practices is supported by expert opinion. Urges ongoing caution about low levels of pesticides in the water. Even though these were observed in concentrations 10 times lower than treated drinking water standards,recent research suggests that some organic chemicals may disrupt endocrine systems at much lower levels than previously realized. OWASA should look beyond chlorine technology to reduce the occurence of disinfection byproducts in treated water. OWASA should"front load" its investment in watershed land acquisition by purchasing as much as possible early in the rezoning process and should exercise caution when considering the resale of watershed land. 37 Orange Water and Sewer Authority OWASA 400 Jones Ferry Road P.O. Box 366 Carrboro, NC 27510 (919) 968-4421 MEMORANDUM TO: Ed Kerwin FROM: Ed Holland DATE: October 1, 1997 SUBJECT: Cane Creek Watershed Protection-Comments from Canrboro and Chapel Hill On August 25 and 26 Barry Jacobs and Alan Rimer presented OWASA's Provisional Recommendations for Protecting the Cane Creek Water Supply to the Chapel Hill Town Council and Carrboro Board of Aidamen. Both bodies have considered the recommendations and responded to OWASA(see attachments). Officially,the Chapel Hill resolution is still in draft status,pending approval of Council's September 2Z, 1997 minutes. Comments from both Carrboro and Chapel Hill are supportive of the Provisional Recommendations,but offer additional points of emphasis for OWASA and the Orange County Commissioners. These will be incorporated as appropriate into Final Recommendations to be prepared for Board consideration on October 23. Please let me know if I can provide further information. Ed A. o AICP Director of Planning and Development attachments !ZLNM Of Draw RPP to-i-97 1< An Equal Opportunity Employer 7.2 COOQj MAO t9tt 996 6TO YVd tO:ZT IU L8/tT/OT- 38 ITEM 7 AGENDA ITEM • RECEIPT OF COMMENTS FROM CARRBORO AND CHAPEL HILL REGARDING CANE CREEK WATER SUPPLY RECOMMENDATIONS PURPOSE • To receive watershed protection comments solicited from Carrboro and Chapel Hill. BACKGROUND • On June 26, 199'7 the Board of Directors endorsed Provisional Recommendations for Protecting the Cane Creek Water Supply. It was the Board's intent to solicit comments and/or endorsements from Carrboro and Chapel Hill and then consider further revisions that might be suggested before presenting a final package to the Orange County Commissioners. • Hairy Jacobs and Alan Rimer presented the.Provisional Recommendations in person to the Chapel Hill Town Council and Cartboro Board of Aldermen on August 25 and 26. Both bodies have considered the recoons and responded to OWASA as requested. • Comments from both Canboro and Chapel Hill are supportive,but offer additional points of emphasis for OWASA aid the County Commissioners. These will be incorporated as appropriate into Awl Recommendations to be prepared for Board consideration on October 23. • A schedule of the overall County approval process,which will likely take until August, 1998,is attached as information ACTION NEEDED • Receive the comments submitted by Canton and Chapel Hill. Discuss as needed. STAFF a'QMMFN jLQN • Staff recommends that the Board receive the comments and incorporate them as appropriate into Final Recom wndationt to be considered on October 23. October 9, 1997 7.1 zoo&M VSVMO tott too STO IVa C0::j MU 18/tT/OT 39 Cane Creek Water Supply Protection Approval Process June 26, 1997: OWASA Board Adopts Provisional Recommendations and Transmits to Carrboro, Chapel Hill,and Orange County Aug 25-26, 1997: OWASA Presentations to Chapel Hill and Carrboro Elected Boards Oct 3, 1997: Carrboro and Chapel Hill Comments Due at OWASA Oct 9, 1997: OWASA Board Receives Carrboro and Chapel Hill Comments Oct 21, 1997: OWASA Presentation to Orange County Commissioners (Informational Only) Oct 23, 1997: OWASA Board Adopts Final Recommendations and Transmits Formally to Carrboro, Chapel Hill,and County Oct-Nov 1997: Orange County Prepares Staff Analysis Dec 1997: County Staff Presents Report to Commissioners Jan 1998: County Conducts Public Meeting(s)in Bingham Township Feb 1998: County Staff Prepares Draft Ordinance Changes Mar-Apr 1998: County Planning Board and Ordinance Review Committee Review Changes May 26, 1998: Proposed Changes Presented at Joint Public Hearing June 1998: County Planning Board Prepares Recommendations to Commissioners Aug 1998: Board of Commissioners Acts on Ordinance Changes 7.3 ti00( MAO t9tt 996 M YVd #O:ZT 31�/�TrOT 40 r:1 TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL M U==ca�au STURT CRAM NLL,NOM CAROIAM VS16 'f ,�eua>1�c�>haolt October , 1997 sat►Jacobs,Chair Orange Water and Sewer Authority 400 Jong:Ferry Road Carrboro,NC 27510 Dear W.Jacobs: On September 22,the Town Council adopted tile,enclosed resolution which primarily expresses our general concurrence with the provisional recommendations submitted by the OWASA Board Of Directors. lye Council included in the r+esok*m last night a comment that the 5 minimum lot sine standard may be pmhmW to&xV*development fiom a water protection pmpwdrm in addidao,the Council staffed its support for Agatous enflorcemeat by the County of the reaper to test whether had in a flexible development pmolates adcquatdy for subsuchm vastawa ter systems,and for requirumatt to reserve areas for fiftre drain&Ids if needed. On behalf of the Council,I rcgmg that you provide a copy of the rewrnmendatioas when your respective boards adopt them in the fixture 1 1 g 1i g Cane Creek water quality protection. The Council is intwested in seeing these 1ecommendations and may amend or add to the, ommants adopted test night. Finally,I(rope that we could work together in making a joint statement to the Orange and Alamanee County Boards of Commissioners in the fi=r- I am optimistic that there will be points of agreement among our respective boards so that we can submit a joint statement. Please feel free to call we if there is any need. Sincerely, Rosemary 1. Wal rf Mayor cc: Council Members enclosure: C : 3OAeD OF T IRECTOkS Eb lee kw W C- 10 9001A VSVMO t9tt 996 eT8 IVA SO=ZT 311E WtTiWr- ' 41 DRAFT OF RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE CHAPEL un I TOWN COUNcEL ON UP 1- 22,1997: SUBJECT TO REVISION BY THE TOWN COUNCIL A RESOLUTION REGARDING PROTZCTWG THE QUALITY OF WATER IN THE CANE CREEK RESERVOIR(974-22/R-9) BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel EN that the Council adopts the folow a comments on protecting the quality of water in the Cane Creek reservov, abler is the community's,largest water a ghAy source: • The Council generally concurs with the provisional recommendations presented to the Council by OWASA in August, 1997. • The Council believes that the five-acre minimum may offer a higher level of water quality protection- • The Council also requests that Orange County rigorously enforce regulations for reserve field areas in the can of septic tank f ihww. • The Council concurs that overall impervious surface limits should remain at six percent for residential devekpnent and twelve percent for non-residentiol devebpnI. • The Council admm the Mayor to submit this resolution to the Carrboro Board of Alderman and OWASA Board with a rcq<uut to receive a copy of their recommendations. • The Council aruthorkm the Mayor to submit this resolution to the Orange and Alamance County Corrmtissiorscr 1 and/or to work with OWASA and Town of Carrboro representatives to &*nit joint comments to the County Boards of Commissioners reflecting points of This the 22r day of September, 1997. C-11 LOOQ� MAO t9tt 996 6T6 Yv3 90=ZT 3115 L6/-FT-/WT- 42 f TOWN OF CARRBORO NORTH CAROLINA SEP 2 9 1997 September 24, 1997 Mr.Barry Jacobs,Chun OWASA Board of Directors P.O.Box 366 Curboro,N.C. 27510 Dar Barty:. The Carrboro Board of Aldertow at its mewing on Septembar 23, 1997 discussed. OWASA's providonal recommendations for protecting Cane Creek The Board voted to accept the report from OWASA with the following comments: 1. That OWASA make fiord:avaiil"to subsidise dairy&mws who are m either water apply watershed(Utdvecsity Lake or Cana Creels)and who have to meet Best Maaag 11 1""-Practices,. 2. That Creative Open Space wang sears mow appropriate and ca is with dkxU to presarve water quality and the goals of the County's Flaoble Dewlopmeat Ordinance. 3. The Ttanstbr of Development Rights program is attractive. Any p mg=devised should be constructed red in coordumon with sin fiw e&rts by the Orange County Agricultural Districts Advisory Board and Economic Development Comnis"L 4. That existing 12-acre lots be allowed to subdivide into five two-awe tracts. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this very important document. Sincerely, Wt JAJ (L Lt-- Michad R. Nelson Mayor c : soars of Vketc&-A Ed �<Crw;r, Ed Nonal (/ An MtA r- 7.4 101 WEST WAIN STREET, CARRSORQ, NC 77010 • effSt 942.0$41 • PAX 1*101 000.7737 • TOO 11151 Ses-7717 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER S00� VSVA0 toff 898 878 YV3 'ti 311E t8/fi/OT