HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-27-1995 - C-1-b 0
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date:November 27, 1995
Action Agenda
item# C-1-b
SUBJECT:CP-3-95 LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT(NATURAL&CULTURAL RESOURCES)
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: X Yes No
ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION CONTACT:
Planning Director X2592
Proposed Amendments
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 967-9251
Durham 688-7331
Mebane 227-2031
PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on proposed amendments to the Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
BACKGROUND: The current Section 2.2, Natural Environment, of the Land Use Element was initially adopted
in September, 198 1.Only two amendments have been made to that section since then. The first
amendment occurred in August, 1989, following completion of a staff-generated Inventory of
Sites of Cultural. Historical, Recreational. Biologdcal. and Geological Significance in the
Unincorporated Portions of Orange County. The second amendment occurred in December,
1993, and included changes to the"Water Resources" section through which to implement, in
part,the State's Water&MIX Watershed Protection Act of 1989.
Revisions to the above mentioned sections of the Land Use Element are proposed for the
following reasons:
• Inventories for historic sites(1992-93),archaeological sites(1993-1994),and natural areas
and wildlife habitats(1987-1988) have been prepared but have not been incorporated into
the Land Use Element.
• With the adoption of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan in 1986, and updates of
various Township components in 1988, a new Land Use Plan category, Resource
Protection Area,was introduced.The Land Use Plan is a composite of Township Plans,but
the application of the Resource Protection Area category to the county-wide plan has not
been accomplished.
• As part of its recommendations, the Rural Character Study Committee (1993) advocated
the preparation of a Comprehensive Resources Map to identify and overlay critical
environmental,natural,wildlife, cultural, historic, archaeological,biological, and geologic
resources to show land owners and developers the location of such sites,and encourage the
voluntary use of conservation easements.
• Recent initiatives by the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board have focused on the use of
conservation easements as a means of voluntarily preserving agricultural lands, including
026
scenic, historic, environmental features associated with such lands. Workshops have been
held for County staff on the use of such easements, and, if property owners are to take
advantage of tax credits for easement donation or limited development, policies which
encourage the conservation of such features must be incorporated into the Land Use
Element.
The proposed amendments will address each of the above mentioned needs. Section 2.2,
Natural Environment, is proposed for amendment so as to include the results of inventories of
historic and environmental resources, and provide a basis for prioritizing such features for
conservation. Changes to Sections 3.3 - Land Use Plan Categories, 3.4 - Locational Criteria,
and 3.5 -Land Use Goals&Draft Policies are also proposed through which to designate and
encourage the conservation of important resources. An amendment to the Land Use Plan Map
is also proposed to designate "Resource Protection Areas" consistent with the proposed text
amendments.
RECOMMENDATION: Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan,including the Land Use Element, are subject
to the same provisions governing the Zoning Ordinance and Atlas. Article 20 of the
Zoning Ordinance requires that the Zoning Officer's recommendation be presented to
the Planning Board within 30 days of receipt of an application. However, Article 20.4
exempts any applications for amendments to the Zoning Ordinance by either the
public or the County from the provisions of Article 20.3. In either case, though, the
public hearing is the time scheduled for presentation of the Zoning Officer's
recommendation.
Zoning Officer Recommendation
Provided that the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners find in the affirmative,
the Zoning Officer recommends approval of the proposed text amendments and
change to the Land Use Plan Map.
Administration Recommendation
The Administration recommends that the proposed amendments be referred to the
Planning Board for a recommendation to be returned to the Board of Commissioners
no sooner than January 16, 1996.
09,7
PROPOSED ORDINANCE/PLAN AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE/PLAN: Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan
ORIGIN OF AMENDMENT: X Staff Planning Board BOCC Citizen
X_Other: Agricultural Districts Advisory Board
STAFF PRIORITY RECOMMENDATION: X High_Middle Low
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 27, 1995
PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT: To update the current Section 2.2, Natural Environment, to
include the results of inventories of historic and environmental resources, and provide a basis for
prioritizing such features for conservation. Changes to Sections 3.3 - Land Use Plan Categories,
3.4 - Locational Criteria, and 3.5 - Land Use Goals & Draft Policies are also proposed through
which to designate and encourage the conservation of important resources.
E%IPACT/ISSUES: The current Section 2.2, Natural Environment, of the Land Use Element was
initially adopted in September, 1981. Only two amendments have been made to that section since
then. The first amendment occurred in August, 1989, following completion of a staff-generated
Inventory of Sites of Cultural- IfistodcaL Recreational.Biological„ and Geological Significance in
the Uninco1yorated Portions of Orange Countv. The second amendment occurred in December,
1993, and included changes to the "Water Resources" section through which to implement, in
part, the State's Water Sup&Watershed Protection Act of 1989.
Revisions to the above mentioned sections of the Land Use Element are proposed for the
following reasons:
• Inventories for historic sites (1992-93), archaeological sites (1993-1994), and natural areas
and wildlife habitats (1987-1988) have been prepared but have not been incorporated into the
Land Use Element.
• With the adoption of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan in 1986, and updates of various
Township components in 1988, a new Land Use Plan category, Resource Protection Area,
was introduced. The Land Use Plan is a composite of Township Plans, but the application of
the Resource Protection Area category to the county-wide plan has not been accomplished.
• As part of its recommendations, the Rural Character Study Committee (1993) advocated the
preparation of a Comprehensive Resources Map to identify and overlay critical environmental,
natural, wildlife, cultural, historic, archaeological, biological, and geologic resources to show
land owners and developers the location of such sites, and encourage the voluntary use of
conservation easements.
• Recent initiatives by the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board have focused on the use of
conservation easements as a means of voluntarily preserving agricultural lands, including
023
scenic, historic, environmental features associated with such lands. Workshops have been held
for County staff on the use of such easements, and, if property owners are to take advantage
of tax credits for easement donation or limited development, policies which encourage the
conservation of such features must be incorporated into the Land Use Element.
The proposed amendments will address each of the above mentioned needs.
EXISTING/PROPOSED ORDINANCE/PLAN PROVISIONS: The existing provisions of
Section 2.2 are provided as a separate attachment. Existing and proposed provisions of Sections
3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 are included as part of the "Proposed Ordinance Amendments". Additions to
those sections are highlighted in boldface type, while deletions are highlighted in ga*ed*eu
type.
ORDINANCE REVIEW CON 111�1CIME:
PLANNING BOARD:
BOARD OF COMMISSIONER&
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
2.2 NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
THE ENVIRONMENTAL FRAMEWORK
The environment is an integral component of the planning process, providing both the physical
and cultural. context within which land use activities occur. The basic environmental goal
incorporated into the Land Use Element is the minimization or elimination of the negative impacts
on a particular natural or cultural system caused by development activities. Because
environmental systems are interrelated, ignoring potential impacts will inevitably lead to negative
consequences. Such consequences do not stop at property lines, but affect the general public.
Thus, the protection and appropriate use of the environment is both- a private and a public
responsibility.
The primary elements of the environment incorporated into the formulation of the Land Use
Element include:
WATER RESOURCES
watersheds
geology and ground water yields
floodplains
wetlands
LAND RESOURCES
prime agricultural soils
steep slopes
soil conditions
PLANT AND ANIMAL RESOURCES
vegetation
natural areas and wildlife habitats
wildlife corridors
CULTURAL AND SCENIC RESOURCES
historic sites
archaeological sites
recreation sites
scenic roads
These elements, both individually and in combination, pose constraints and opportunities for the
development of land. Such constraints do not necessarily prohibit development. Rather, they may
offer new opportunities which influence the form, design or pattern of proposed development, and
along with other locational criteria, to suggest where and what type of development is most
appropriate for Orange County.
030
WATER RESOURCES
Watersheds
Orange County is in the headwaters of three of the state's major river systems - the Cape Fear,
Neuse and Roanoke River basins. Several sub-basins are existing public water supply watersheds.
Although many have been protected for years, several new water supply watersheds were
recognized in 1993 as part of the State's Water Supply Watershed Protection Act of 1989.
Neuse Basin. Much of northern Orange County lies in the Neuse Basin. The main streams of the
Orange County portion of this basin are the north and south forks of the Little River and the Eno
River, which join to form the Neuse River in Durham County. The Neuse empties into the
Pamlico Sound at New Bern.
The Neuse Basin contains a number of different sub-basins and watersheds. The Upper Eno sub-
basin contains Lake Orange, Corporation Lake, Lake Ben Johnson, and proposed reservoirs on
the West Fork of Eno and Seven-Mile Creek. These lakes currently serve or are proposed to
serve Hillsborough, Efland, and portions of Alamance County.
The northern and western parts of the Neuse basin provide water for residents of Durham City
and County. Much of northeastern Orange County is within the Lake Michie (Flat River) or Little
River basins, which flow east to reservoirs in Durham County. Additionally, the eastern portion of
the Eno River basin in Orange County, known as the Lower Eno, is part of a 10-mile protected
area arc for the City of Durham's emergency water intake on the Eno River in Durham.
Cape Fear Basin. The southern and extreme western portions of the County are part of the Cape
Fear Basin. Major streams of this basin all flow into Jordan Lake and eventually the Cape Fear
River in Chatham County. The Cape Fear empties into the Atlantic at Wilmington.
Within the Cape Fear basin are part or all of four watersheds. There are two existing water
supplies, a portion of a watershed providing water to Graham and Mebane, and a pair of
"protected areas" for downstream supplies. University Lake, draining the Morgan Creek
sub-basin, and the Cane Creek Reservoir, both in the Cape Fear Basin, serve as water supply to
Chapel Hill and surrounding areas. The Back Creek watershed, providing water to Graham and
Mebane in Alamance County, extends into northwestern Orange County. In addition, two new
water supply watersheds were added in 1993 as part of the state's watershed protection program.
The 10-mile "protected area" arc for the Town of Pittsboro's Haw River intake extends into
southwestern Orange County. Likewise, the Jordan Lake Reservoir, located in Chatham County,
has a 5-mile "protected area" arc extending into the southeastern corner of Orange County and
the Town of Chapel Ifill.
Roanoke Basin. Within the Roanoke River basin, in the northwestern reach of the County, is the
South Hyco Creek basin, a watershed that flows north into Person County and provides water for
the City of Roxboro.
1�1b ► 1 AAtj�� ► . E,I '
t
03 �
Because these areas contribute to the public health and safety in the form of drinking water
supplies, special land use protection measures are necessary for the areas' protection. Measures
designed to insure high water quality are discussed in later sections of the Land Use Element.
Geology and Ground water Yields
Area geology was recorded in 1966 by the N.C. Department of Water Resources and the
Geologic Survey of the U.S. Department of the Interior. While the bedrock geology of the county
is fairly complex, it consists of three principal rock types:
• Metavolcanic. Most of Orange County is underlain by low grade metamorphic rocks of
predominantly volcanic-sedimentary origin. The formation is part of a large distinctive rock
unit that extends from central Georgia to southeastern Virginia, known locally as the Carolina
Slate Belt. As shown on the Geology Map, this formation consists-of Felsic Metavolcanic,
Intermediate Metavolcanic, and Mafic Metavolcanic rock units. Interbedded with these units
are Phylitte and Schist, Metamudstone and Meta-Argillite, Metamorphosed Gabbro and
Diorite, and Metavolcanic-Epiclastic rock units.
• Granite and grandiorite. In the northwestern corner of Orange County, intrusive rocks of
granitic composition are found. The same formation also extends as a band through Carrboro
and Chapel Hill to the west side of Durham. As shown on the Geology Map, this formation
consists of the Metamorphosed Granitic rock unit.
• Triassic. Found in the extreme southeastern corner of the county, this formation is comprised
of rocks which are sedimentary in origin and formed by erosion of material from the upland
Slate Belt. As shown on the Geology Map, this formation consists of the Chatham Group,
Undivided, rock unit.
These rock units are important because they govern, in part, the potential yield of ground water
from wells. All ground water was once precipitation which fell in the form of rain or snow. The
percentage of precipitation that becomes ground water depends on factors such as rainfall, slope,
soil permeability, vegetation, and temperature. As an example, soil permeability differs
considerably. The granites, grandiorites, and acid volcanic rocks weather to silt loans. Water
percolates downward faster through the silt loans than through the dense, sticky clays developed
on the gabbro, diorites, and more malfic volcanic rocks.
Orange County receives about 43 inches of precipitation annually. Gravity causes water derived
from precipitation to percolate down through the soil cover until it reaches a zone of saturation
within which all openings or interstices are completely filled with water. The upper surface of the
zone of saturation is referred to as the water table. It is not a flat surface, but one that generally
conforms to the land surface. It also fluctuates in response to natural forces such as precipitation,
temperature, evaporation, and transpiration. For example, ground water levels are highest in late
Winter and early Spring, but decline through the Summer because of increasing transpiration of
vegetation and the increased evaporative capacity of the air. In late Autumn, levels rise again as
vegetation goes dormant and the evaporative capacity of the air drops.
�,'Yyy Ve..�r'�G:.'��;y �^I .y�'�'��3' ,� '��. '�•��`-��t:fie il�
e��-,�`P".'(A��fy'.�,,�,rs� -�" r.r7 :,q�� u�.+•."t=?=0.K n,;n.�:F*--�.:, -
r''
J � �'
%from
034
In the zone of saturation, the size and type of openings or interstices depends in part on the type
of rock, and the quantity of water that a rock can hold depends on its porosity and permeability.
In sedimentary rocks, porosity is governed by the size, shape, and arrangement of individual
grains. In crystalline rocks, porosity is governed by the size and numbers of fractures. On the
other hand, the permeability of a rock type is governed by the size and shape of the spaces
between grains or fractures, and the degree to which they are interconnected.
Topography also has an important bearing on the quantity of ground water that a well will yield.
Lower yields can be expected on hills because they are underlain by massive, poorly jointed rock
that has few pore spaces for water storage. Lower yields can also be expected because the depth
to the water table is greater beneath hills than surrounding valleys and slopes. Finally, a greater
percentage of precipitation becomes runoff on hills, contributing more to the recharge of valleys
and flats below.
Ground water yields are important because 29 percent of the county's housing units rely on this
source for home and farm needs. As shown on the accompanying table, most of these units are
located in rural areas outside of municipalities.
WATER SOURCE
All Public System or
Township Housing Private ompany Individual Well
Units Number Percent Number Percent
Bingham 2,310 164 7.1% 2,146 92.9%
Cedar Grove 1,485 13 0.90/0 1,472 99.1%
Chapel Hill 25,708 22,083 85.9% 3,645 14.1%
• Chapel Hill 14,271 14,071 98.6% 200 1.4%
• Carrboro 6.108 6,084 99.6% 24 0.5%
• Remainder 5,329 1,928 36.2% 3,401 63.8%
Cheeks 2,154 1,045 48.5% 1,109 51.5%
• Mebane 216 216 100.0% - -
• Remainder 1,938 829 42.7% 1,109 57.3%
Eno 2,164 493 22.8% 1,671 77.2%
Hillsborough 4,069 3,516 86.4% 553 13.6%
• Hillsborough 1,783 1,756 98.5% 27 1.5%
• Remainder 2,286 1,760 77.0% 526 23.0%
Little River 793 20 2.5% 773 97.5%
Total 38,683 27,334 1 70.7% 11,349 29.3%
Source: U.S. Census of Population&Housing, U.S. Census Bureau, 1990.
Ground water in the county is obtained from openings such as fractures or from the overlying
porous mantle of soil and weathered rock. Dug wells generally are not deep enough to intersect
the water table during long periods of low rainfall. Consequently, drilled wells constructed far
below the water table are a more dependable sources of ground water and less susceptible to
surface water contamination.
In rural areas, home and farm needs can be met by ground water yields of as little as three to five
gallons per minute. In 1987, the U.S. Geological Survey conducted an analysis of well yields in
the Blue Ridge and Piedmont portions of the state. Shown on the accompanying table are the
average yields obtained from wells, by both geologic and hydrogeologic (water bearing potential)
rock unit classification.
WELL YIELDS- PIEDMONT NORTH CAROLINA
Geologic Hydrogeologic Number Average Yield
Rock Classification Rock Classification of Wells m
Metamorphosed Granitic Felsic Metaigneous 791 19.1
Felsic Metavolcanic Felsic Metavolcanic 280 13.0
Intermediate Metavolcanic Intermediate Metavolcanic 43 16.8
Mafic Metavolcanic Mafic Metavolcanic 63 11.9
Metamorphosed Gabbro & Intermediate Metaigneous 284 18.4
Diorite
Ph litte& Schist Ph litte 127 20.3
Metavolcanic E iclastic Metavolcanic E iclastic 95 16.9
Metasmudstone& Argillite 319 14.6
Meta-Argillite
Chatham Group, Triassic Sedimentary 269 11.6
Undivided Rocks
Source: Adapted from Statistical Analysis Relating to Well Yield to Construction Practices
and Siting of Wells in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge Provinces of North Carolina,
U.S. Geological Survey, 1987.
The geologic rock units listed in the table are shown on the Geology Map. Although not shown in
the table, well yields were generally greater where wells were located in draws and valleys, and
lowest on hills and ridges.
Floodplains
The riparian zone of a river, stream or other body of water is the land adjacent to that body of water
that is, at least periodically, influenced by flooding. In general terms, riparian ecosystems are found
wherever streams or rivers at least occasionally cause flooding beyond their channel confines. Such
ecosystems can be broad alluvial valleys or narrow strips of streambank vegetation
The flooding of the riparian ecosystem is important for the maintenance of that system for several
reasons. The flooding water and subsequent ground water levels are the main determinants of the type
and productivity of vegetation found in the riparian zone. Flooding waters also bring nutrient-rich
sediments to the floodplain, export organic and inorganic material from the floodplam, and serve as a
primary agent for long-term aggradation(deposition of alluvial material)and degradation(downcutting
of surface geology)of the floodplain.
100-Year Floodplain.The precise boundaries of riparian ecosystems, particularly on the upland edge,
are difficult to determine because of seasonal and yearly changes in flooding levels, soil moisture, and
SA b� �
owl
�..r
fi'4 y
r, ��
03i
vegetation. However, riparian ecosystems have been classified into "zones" which refer to the
probability of annual flooding. Combined, these "zones" make up the 100-ywar f oodp"n or area
expected to flood at least once in a 100-year period.
The 100-year floodplain can be further divided into two areas on the basis of hazard potential.
The floodway is the area within and adjacent to the stream banks required to discharge the
100-year flood without raising the water surface elevation more than one foot above base flood
level at any point. Obstacles in the floodway can disrupt this function, increasing the potential for
flood damage. The floodway fringe is the area bordering the floodway which will be inundated
during a flood and hold the floodwaters until they can be carried away in the floodway channel.
In 1980,the Federal Emergency Management Agency JUAA)prepared a Flood Insurance Stuff for
Orange County.While the purpose of the study was to aid in the implementation of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 and local flood damage prevention programs, the study defined the boundaries
of 100-year floodplains along major streams and rivers in the county. Orange County applied and was
admitted to the federal Flood Insurance Program and subsequently adopted a Flood Damage
Prevention Ordinance on March 2, 1981. The ordinance constitutes a major regulatory tool
affecting the use of land constrained by flood hazards.
Alluvial Soils. Not all of the 100-year floodplains in the county have been defined by FEMA.
However, the Soil Survey of Orange County- N.C. contains information through which to identify
soils subject to flooding. Alluvial soils are located along stream corridors and have resulted from
repeated deposition by flood waters over time. They indicate not only past, but potential future,
flooding. These soil types and their characteristics are listed on the following table.
ALLUVIAL & HYDRIC SOILS
Floodint Water Table
Soil Type Frequency Duration Depth feet Kind
Altavista Occasional Very brief 1.5 to 2.5 Apparent
once or less in 2 years less than 2 days) (a thick zone
Chewacla Common 0.5 to 1.5 of free water in
Frequent Brief the soil)
Congaree more than once in 2 ears 2 to 7'da s 2.5 to 4.0
Source: Soil Survey of Qrangg County.N.C.,U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, 1977.
The 100-year floodplains and alluvial soils in Orange County are shown on the Floodplain Map.
Since floodplain areas are more extensive and overlay many alluvial soils,these features have been
combined into a composite map.
Wetlands
Wetlands comprise one of the Earth's most productive natural ecosystems and have a set of common
natural functions that make them valuable resources. These resource values can be summarized as
follows:
r �
iris
lob
ZVI
lip, A
0,3,1
• Wetlands 49id the quality of water. Aquatic plants change inorganic mftnents into organic
material, storing it in their leaves The stems, leaves, and roots of these plants also slow the,flow
of water through a wetland, allowing the silt to settle out Consequently, wetlands protect
downstream water resources from siltation and pollution.
• Wetlands influence the quantity of water. They act as a sponges, retaining water during dry
periods and hold it back during floods, thus keeping the water table high and reiatively stable.
• Wetlands are important resources for overall environmental health and at wsity. They provide
essential bree&ng, nesting, and feeding grounds and cover for may forms offish and wildlife.
77wese factors have the vdue of p ovubng general environmental health by creating recreational,
research and educational sites, and adding to the aesthetics of the community.
While there may be agreement regarding the functions that wetlands perform,there is less unanimity in
defining such areas. No comprehensive inventory has been made of wetlands in Orange County, and
detailed determination of wetland locations tends only to be made in the course of development
planning which anticipates the need for formal permitting by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. That
agency has established criteria for such determinations,based on soils,hydrology,and vegetation.
Hydric Soils. Wetland soil is both the medium in which many of the wetland nutrient transformations
take place and the primary storage of available nutrients for most wetland plants. It is often described
as hyaric soil, defined by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) as a soil that, in its undrained
condition, is saturated, flooded or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop
anaerobic(oxygenless) conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of hyrfrophAc vegetation
(grows only in water). As shown on the preceding table, hydric soils are identical to alluvial soils,both
in terms of soil types and their characteristics.
National Wetlands Inventory. In 1971, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service began the National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI), a systematic effort to classify and map America's wetlands. Working with
a classification system based on soils, hydrology, and vegetation, and aerial photographs, biologists
were able to map possible wedand areas.
In Change County, identified areas in the NWI include only the stream system, certain marshy areas,
lakes, and farm ponds. Although other wetlands exist, their absence from NWI mapping is more a
function of their small size or specific characteristics, making them difficult to identify from aerial
photographs.
Wetland Communrties! More detailed information concerning the location of wetland area is
available from two other sources. The fiat of these is LANDSAT satellite data, collected and analyzed
as part of the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study,one of several studies undertaker through the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's National Estuary Program.Land use and land cover characteristics
for the 36-county estuarine region, including Orange County, were identified using the data. Among
the land cover classes described in the study were bottornkmd h=dwood forests, a type of forested
wetland found predominantly in the floodplains of streams and rivers,and characterized by tree species
such as red maple and sweet gum which thrive in moisture-rich soils.
0110
The second source, based on actual field surveys, is the Inventory of the Natural Areas and Wildlife
Habitats of Oran a County N.C. which provides information concerning "palustrine" or wetland
communities. The most common of these communities are the Piedmont Alluvial Forest and the
Piedmont Bottomknd Forest associated with the floodplains of streams and rivers. Much more
uncommon is the Piedmont Swamp Forest, which is restricted to the Triassic Basin area found only in
the southeastern comer of the county. One of the best remaining examples of this natural community in
the eastern Piedmont is the old growth swamp forest of the Big Oak Woods.
Since Orange County is a headwater region, large streams are lacking. Only at the southwestern
comer, where the Haw River forms several miles of the county border, is there a large enough river
system to deposit the amount of sediments needed for the development of the Piedmont Levee Forest
community. This community, dominated by river birch, box elder, and ash, occurs only in a narrow
portion of the Haw River.
Three other wetland communities have a restricted distribution in Orange County. The Rocky Bar mad
Shore, dominated by perennial herbs, is present on shoals in the Eno River. Several beaver ponds,
classified as semi permanent impoundments, occur on smaller streams throughout the county, most
notably in places where the natural topography allows for the development of a wide impoundment, as
at sites on tributaries of the Little River. At these locations, marshes have developed in the wetland
produced by the beaver ponds.
A third uncommon wetland community, the Upkmd Depression Swamp Forest, is found in flat or
depressed upland areas that hold water for long periods of time. Such upland depressions vary in size.
One depression in the Blackwood Division of Duke Forest covers dozens of acres,while several much
smaller pools near the Eno River are less than an acre. These depressions are characterized by species
that are more common to low-lying swamp forest.
Wetland communities identified in the Inventory of the Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of
Oran a County. N.C. are listed in the accompanying table by type and location. Because there is
considerable overlap between satellite and data, only bottomland hardwood forests and the
system of streams, marshy areas, and ponds from the NWI are shown on the Wetlands Map. The
location of each wetland cone mity site is shown on the Natural Areas/Wildlife Habitats Map.
s .
041
WETLAND COMMUNITIES
Site
Community Location Number Site Name
Rocky Bar& Shore Uncommon in small E13 Eno River State Park- Cate's
streams Ford
Piedmont Levee Rare due to absence CO2 Haw River Alluvial Terrace
Forest of large streams
Piedmont Rare-found only in B03 Cedar Terrace Bottoms
Swamp Forest Triassic Basin area M17 Big Oak Woods
M18 Mor an Creek Swam
Piedmont Common in broad E05 Occoneechee Mesic Slopes
Bottomland stream valleys E08 Poplar Ride Slopes&Bottom
Forest M18 Morgan Creek Swam
N16 New Hope Alluvial Forest
CO3 Lower Cane Creek Slopes&
Bottom
E07 Cates Creek Montmorillonite
Forest
Eno River State Park-
E11 Buckwater Branch Hardwood
Swam
Piedmont Alluvial Common in E13 Eno River State Park-Cate's
Forest stream valleys Ford
Eno River State Park-
E 15 Cabelands&Rhododendron
Slope
E16 Four-Toed Salamander Spring
M15 Mason Farm Hackberry Bottom
N16 New Hope Alluvial Forest
Uncommon-found E10 Poplar Ridge Slopes& Bottom
Upland Depression in flat,poorly NO2 Bald Mountain Hardwood
Swamp Forest drained upland Depression
areas NO3 Meadow Flats
Semi-Permanent Uncommon- LO1 South Fork Little River
Impoundments mostly beaver L02 Forrest Creek Beaver Pond
ponds M05 University Lake Marsh
Source: Inventory of the Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of Orange County N.C.,
Dawson Sather and Stephen Hall for the Triangle Land Conservancy, 1988.
0 4
LAND RESOURCES
Prime Agricultural Soils
Orange County has experienced two striking trends in recent decades - population growth and
farmland loss. A population increase of 50,881 persons, or 118%, occurred in the county between
1960 and 1990. Corresponding to this change, population density increased from 108 persons per
square mile to 236 persons per square mile. At approximately the same time, the proportion of land in
farms declined from 52% in 1964 to 26% in 1992, while the number of farms declined steadily from
1,115 to 433, a decrease of 61%.
Farm Loss & Population Gain
140000
120000-aeo
100000. 0010
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
1960 Farm Acreage
1%9 1974 1980 Population
1987 1992
Associated with the loss of farmland has been an increase in the size of farms. Between 1964 and 1992,
the average farm size increased from 118 acres to almost 156 acres. During this period, the proportion
of small farms (e.g., those less than 50 acres in size) declined by five percent while larger farms (e.g.,
those 180 acres or greater in size)increased by six percent.
43%
Distribution of Farms by Size- 1992
®1 to 49 acres
■50 to 179 acres
0180 to 499 acres
0 500 or more acres
31•/. 20%
6%
Despite the sharp decline in land in farms over the past thirty years, agriculture remains an important
contributor to the economy of Orange County. In 1992, the value of all agricultural crops sold in the
county was $8.43 million, with tobacco accounting for almost two-thirds of the total. In contrast, the
dairy products represented almost one-third of the$25.3 million value of livestock and poultry sold.
1 �
of
Ic
IL
� r• � � 1 -R l
ba
-*► Pry Y .a�+f�+�
,lo
Ce.�
J � y
044
If agriculture is to continue as a way of fife in the county, farmers must be assisted in helping them
stay on the land. Important farmlands must also be preserved, for they are among the best suited
for development due to more moderate slopes and better permeability.
In 1982, the U.S. Department of Agriculture developed definitions of and criteria for classifying
important farmlands as part of the Farmland Protection Policy Act. The most commonly used
definition for farmland preservation purposes is prime farmland or land that has the best
combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, fiber, forage,
oilseet4 and other agricultural crops with minimum inputs of fuel, fertiliser, pesticides, and
labor. It may be croplan4 pasturel=4 or forest land but not urban built-up land or water.
In Orange County, there are 136,688 acres of prime farmland according to the USDA definition.
However, not all of this land is in active farm use. Based on LANDSAT satellite data and the Sail
Survey of Orange County, N.C., approximately 38 percent or 51,831 acres of prime farmland is
used for crop and pasture land. As shown on the Prime Farmland Map, these lands are located
primarily in the northern, western, and southwestern portions of the county.
Steep Slopes
Orange County is located in the geographic province of North Carolina known as the Piedmont.
This area is characterized by gently rolling topography drained by small streams which have cut
"V" shaped valleys. Elevation generally ranges from 700-800 feet in the northern part of the
county to 200 feet in the extreme southeast. The highest point in the county is Occoneechee
Mountain, with an elevation of 859 feet. The lowest point is near Jordan Lake in the southeast
comer of the county, where the elevation is approximately 230 feet.
Slope indicates the relative suitability of vacant land for future development. Excessive or steep
slopes are a factor in many environmental problems and can significantly increase the vulnerability
of land to damage from human activities. The potential for erosion and resulting sedimentation
from areas laid bare by construction activity increases as the slope increases. Steep slopes also
pose a problem for septic tank filtration systems. Effluent traveling down slope which hits an
impermeable layer, such as a shallow bedrock, can travel laterally and emerge at the surface,
causing health and aesthetic problems. - - --- -
Land with a slope of less than five percent is considered moderately sloping and is capable of
accommodating most types of development activities not requiring extensive tracts of level land.
Slopes exceeding 15 percent(15 feet of vertical change per 100 feet of horizontal distance) offers
an obstacle to potential development. Such land is considered generally unsuitable for intensive
development and economically unfeasible for building utility facilities. The presence of steep
slopes does not, in and of itself, prohibit development. When it does coincide with other
constraining features, though, future growth should be directed towards less sensitive areas. This
action also serves to direct development away from areas with generally higher development
costs.
w4=7 100
R
T � .,�. �
. .�
, Y
046
Steep slopes are shown on the Topography Map and are generally found in the southeastern
section of Orange County. They are also associated with major stream channels and prominent
topographic features such as hills and mountains.
Soil Conditions
Perhaps no other natural environmental factor in Orange County is as much a determinant factor
on land use and land development as soil conditions. Soil characteristics such as depth to bedrock,
permeability, shrink-swell potential, erodibility, and drainage are crucial factors in influencing land
use. Constraints to development may only be slight, but they may be so severe to deter
development altogether from a given site. In general, however, as the severity of the soil
limitations increases,the cost of site preparation and construction also increase.
In 1977, the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) completed a soil survey of Orange County. Each of
the 38 soil types in Orange County have been described in terms of characteristics, potential uses,
and management requirements. The characteristics of the soils in area determine what problems
can be expected as land is developed. These problems generally relate to limitations for septic
tank absorption fields and dwellings.
Limitations for Septic Tank Absorption Fields. The use of septic tank absorption fields is
important because slightly more than one-third of the county's housing units rely on such systems
for sewage disposal. As shown on the accompanying table, most of these units are located in rural
areas outside of municipalities.
METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL
All Public System or
Township Housing Private Company Septic system
Units Number Percent Number Percent
Bingham 2,310 104 4.5% 2,206 95.5%
Cedar Grove 1,485 - - 1,485 100.00/0
Chapel Hill 25,708 20,618 80.2% 5,090 19.8%
• Chapel Hill 14,271 13,543 94.9% 728 5.1%
• Carrboro 6.108 5,888 964916 ---- --- 220 3.6%
• Remainder 5,329 1,187 22.3% 4,142 77.7%
Cheeks 2,154 446 20.7% 1,708 79.3%
• Mebane 216 200 92.6% 16 7.4%
• Remainder 1,938 246 12.7% 1,692 87.3%
Eno 2,164 108 5.00/0 2,056 95.00/0
Hillsborough 4,069 2,486 61.1% 1,583 38.9%
• Hillsborough 1,783 1,655 92.8% 128 7.2%
• Remainder 2,286 831 36.4% 1,455 63.6%
Little River 793 - - 793 1 100.0%
Total 38,683 1 23,751 1 61.4% 14,931 38.6%
Source: U.S. Census of Population&Housing, U.S. Census Bureau, 1990.
;` r �'�'�' Sr` `' .i"±f..►'*shy. t •�_y' I'►��..Jr,U,7 ` �,
'rte� �" �,,i ����+��I �,l .�'�• ����
. •� -�'`'�C'pry
Ne
I NMI
IPA
-I-.- *k, , W*- -
w '�� ��}��� � �"'f' s+-fir✓ � � .3 ° �
L•�'.�a�lfil
ItAr
ir
sk
'x-.74'^..�►- `-`�` '
l a t .d
IA
ig
Qw
IdIVAW
4 * t 0 loll 1,
• 3 A .
W4 I IV
I tip,
048
Septic tank absorption fields are subsurface systems of tile or perforated pipe that distribute
effluent from a septic tank into the soil. Soil properties and site features that affect the absorption
of the effluent and/or the construction of the system include slow permeability, shallow depth to
bedrock, wetness, and steep slopes. For example, areas with impermeable soils or high water
tables can limit the ability of the soil to assimilate septic effluent. Where the depth to bedrock or
some other impermeable layer is shallow, drainage from septic systems can flow too close to the
surface, often emerging and standing or flowing on the surface. Similarly, the drainage from septic
fields located on steep slopes can flow to the downslope surface before sufficient filtration has
taken place. Hence, soil characteristics are an important factor in limiting development that
utilizes septic tanks.
Soil limitations for septic tank absorption fields are summarized in the following table. If the
degree of soil limitation is expressed as slight, sods are generally favorable for the specified use
and limitations are minor. If moderate, soil properties or site features are unfavorable for the
specified use, but limitations can be overcome through proper system design and at additional
cost. For example, if permeability is a factor, that limitation may be overcome by modifying the
field or increasing the size of the absorption area. If severe, sod properties or site features may be
so unfavorable or difficult to overcome that major sod reclamation, special design or intensive
maintenance is required.
SOIL LEVUTATIQNS FOR SEPTIC TANK ABSORPTION FIELDS
Degree of Soil Limitation
Characteristic Slight Moderate Severe
Permeability Rapid to Moderate Slow to
moderately rapid very slow
Wetness No limitations No limitations Seasonal high water
table and flooding
Depth to bedrock More than 72 inches 48 - 72 inches Less than 40 inches
Slope 0 - 8 percent 8 - 15 percent More than 15 percent
Source: Soil Sun=of Orangg CgmWE,N.C., U.S.DA Soil Conservation Service, 1977.
Sods with severe limitations fcir—*&'tank-Absorption fields are illustrated on the following map.
Of the 38 soil types identified in the Soil SUM of Orange Cog=N.C., 63 percent (24) present
severe limitations for septic tank absorption fields, while 37 percent (14) have moderate
limitations. There are no soils in Orange County rated as having slight limitations.
While a majority of soil types pose severe problems for septic tank absorption field installation,
only 41 percent of the county's land area(103,420 acres) is comprised of such soils. As shown on
the accompanying map, most are located in the northwestern and southeastern portions of the
county, and are characterized by slow permeability.
Limitations for Dwellings. Most of the soils characterized as having severe limitations for septic
tank absorption fields present similar limitations for dwelling construction, especially those
without basements. Of the 38 soil types identified in the Soil Smaa of Orange CowAL N.C., 53
1 1
xx
wt
LI
k
�A
.. �!! ���:'► s .
Ak
IK
W, , 7,•• d
o � �
ram- 50
Irv-
lap
"9,N. W:10
s �► -��},v < iii i i
CA,
AL
i! Try ,r' �"�► `: '� � •.' ;^T
1�A '' ��. �,��'p'� is `>�• j��'t' ,f
050
percent (20) have severe limitations, 29 percent (11) have moderate limitations, and 18 percent
(7) have slight limitations.
Soil properties and site features that contribute to failures in building foundations and footings
include depth to the water table, depth to bedrock, stability, and problems associated with these
characteristics that are compounded by conditions such as steep slopes and flooding tendencies.
The presence of bedrock close to the surface not only increases excavation costs but can also
result in drainage problems after construction. Unstable soils can slip and slide easily, and organic
materials in soils may decompose or dry out and shrink, resulting in a loss of foundation support.
Some soils that shrink and swell can change in volume by as much as 20 percent, putting great
strain on building foundations. These limitations can and should be considered on a detailed basis
prior to development.
Soil limitations for dwellings without basements are summarized in the following table and shown
on the accompanying map. As was the case with septic system suitability, the amount of land area
comprised of soil types with severe limitations for dwellings is considerably less. Of the county's
total land area, 39 percent (98,310 acres) has severe limitations, 28 percent (70,850 acres) has
moderate limitations, and 33 percent (85,560 acres) has slight limitations.
SOIL LIMITATIONS FOR DWELLINGS WITHOUT BASEMENTS
Degree of Soil Limitation
Characteristic Slight Moderate Severe
Drainage Rapid Moderately Poorly drained
Shrink-swell potential Very low to low Moderate High to very high
Slope 0 - 8 percent 8 - 15 percent More than 15 percent
Source: Soil Survey of Orange County.N.C. U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, 1977.
�J
PLANT AND ANIMAL RESOURCES
Woodlands
Almost 54 percent of Orange County's land area is covered by woodlands, 60 percent of which is
comprised of hardwood forest. Although hardwoods are distributed across the county, the
concentration of such forests is greater in the central and eastern portions where farming is less
prevalent. As shown on the Vegetation Map, pine forests are located primarily in the southeastern
section of the county.
ORANGE COUNTY WOODLANDS
As Percent of As Percent of
Type Acrea a All Woodlands All Land
Bottomland Hardwood 25,981 19.00/0 10.2%
Hardwood 66,227 48.2% 26.0%
Mixed Pine/Hardwood 12,991 1 9.4% 5.1%
Pine 32,095 23.4% 12.6%
Total 137,294 100.0% 53.90/6
Source: LANDSAT Satellite Data, Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study, N.C. Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, 1988.
These woodlands provide a diverse environment for plant and animal life, and protect and
conserve important resources such as watersheds and soils. Forest vegetation stabilizes and
enriches the soil, and slows runoff from precipitation. Closer to urban environments, woodlands
buffer the sights and sounds of civilization, absorb air pollutants, and act as moderators of
temperature extremes. The microclimate of a forest, created in part by the shade of the trees and
the transpiration of water from the leaves, keeps surrounding air at an even temperature.
Woodlands adjacent to and interspersed among suburban and urban areas thus act as natural air
conditioners.
Natural Areas/Wildlife Habitats
Between June of 1987 and October of 1988, an inventory of the principal natural areas and
wildlife habitats of Orange County was conducted for the Triangle Land Conservancy in
coordination with the N.C. Natural Heritage Program. Published in December, 1988, the
inventory report identified a total of 64 sites.
Each site identified in the report was given a ranking of overall significance, integrity, and threat
status by the authors of the inventory, plant ecologist Dawson Sather and zoologist Stephen Hall.
For each category, five levels of significance, site integrity, and threat were identified in the
inventory as described below.
Significance Rating. Significance refers to the presence of an important biological or
geomorphic element on the site and the rarity of that element. The levels of significance identified
in the inventory were as follows:
tt,•
p:; t
JP
.. _
Ar
PA
11 Alm. ♦ �
AAI v 41C
saw
I oil
JL4 ML+ !
��•�•, '�- .�~ Y �*s �i,yam �^ � !'-�'�� ��,�,��.' ",
sue. r.
'�� �4w �^
7��y� � I�►'~.�f ':� ��-,�. ��Jp�-i y�t C' dam►:•
;,� ��'�� � -`, ads ,.��.�„�� Y�r� �.�•, ��`� ��-�.��..
♦ rte. - � t. _.i J ��,�b` .! ��{� � �`_.�"_t „ ;., �.
"' t 3�� .��'�! �► I I ,
tit
61-
ho-
Ad
Ar
JL
.r a {{ �A ` •�
" ::�� � is � �1► " � ., ' -�-r- . � ..r: ;,,
v
0�;3
• State significance. A site of State significance has been recognized by the North Carolina
Heritage Program as a natural area which possesses outstanding natural features such as a
very rare plait or animal, It may also contain one of the best examples of a community type
or geomorphic feature in the state. Three sites were identified in the inventory as having
State significance.
• Regional significance. A site of Regional significance also possesses outstanding natural
features such as a rare plant or animal species While it may be one of the best examples of a
community ON or geomorphic feature in the eastern Piedmont, it is not one of the best
within the entire state. A total of 14 sites were identified in the inventory as having Regional
significance.
• County High Significance. A site of County High significance is one of the most significant
sites within the county, although similar sites may occur in other counties in the state or
region. Such a site may or may not contain a rare plant or animal species However, it is
considered to be the best of its type in the county, based on habitat uniqueness, species
diversity or overall aesthetic appeal. A total of 18 sites were identified in the inventory as
having County High significance.
• County Medium Significance. A site of County Medium significance is one which may or
may not have a rare plant or animal species Although it is an example of a habitat or
community that is representative of the overall natural diversity of the county, there is a
better example of such a natural area elsewhere in the county. A total of 19 sites were
identified in the inventory as having County Medium significance.
• County General Significance. A site of County General significance does not have any rare
plant or animal species, but it is a good representative of the natural diversity of the county.
Such sites may rank high in general aesthetic appeal or have value because of their location
near urban or suburban settings A total of 10 sites were identified in the inventory as having
County General significance.
Integrity Rating.Integrity refers to the quality of the biological features of the site,including size
and vigor of the populations, level of disturbance, and size of the natural area. The levels of site
integrity identified in the inventory were as follows:
• Prime. The forest or other vegetation at the site is relatively mature, and no paved roads cut
across the site. A total of 34 sites were classified in the inventory as Prime.
Very Good The forest or other vegetation at the site is relatively mature. However, the
natural are has intrusions such as roads, power lines, sewer lines or residential clearings
Seven sites were classified in the inventory as Very Good
• Good The forest or other vegetation at the site is relatively mature. However, the size of the
natural area is small, and the site is surrounded by development. A total of 17 sites were
classified in the inventory as Good
r v}
054
• Moderately Goad The forest or other vegetation has been recently disturbed in some places.
Three sites were classified in the inventory as Moderately Good
• Fair. The forest or other vegetation has been disturbed but shows evidence of recovery.
Three sites were classified in the inventory as Fair.
Threat Rating. Threat refers to an assessment of threats to a site which could affect the site's
aesthetics or biological viability. The levels of threat identified in the inventory were as follows:
• Extreme. The possibility exists for high impact development, clearcutting,flooding or dense
residential development. A total of 11 sites were classified in the inventory as Extreme.
• Strong. There is a possibility for low impact development, such as diffuse residential
building. A total of 11 sites were classified as Strong.
• Moderate. The possibility exists for point impact such as bridges, roads, sewerlines or
powerlines. A total of 12 sites were classified as Moderate.
• Slight The site is undeveloped but is managed as a multiple use tract and is not immune to
future threats A total of 18 sites were classified as Slight.
• Negligible: The site is presently managed as a natural area A total of 14 sites were
classified as Negligible.
In the following table, each of the 64 natural areas and wildlife habitats has been listed by the
major drainage basin in which it is located. Descriptions of the significant features associated with
each site, as well as the status of State-listed species of plants and animals, are presented in the
Inventory of the Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of Orange County. The 64 sites are shown
on the Natural Areas/Wildlife Habitats Map.
05,
Natural Areas. 1 Wildlife Habitats
' /T` ! �/ ,1 �• r lam ' r �: `'
`! 1
1
o
4� Legend:
I l 1
Natural
Areas
V - B 1 :' Streams
iV Roads
Y, r.ISMS
USG
NATURAL AREAS/WILDLIFE HABITATS
Map Site
Number Site Name Acreage Significance Integrity Threat
Bolin Creek Sites
BO1 Bolin Creek 243.5 Co General Very Good Extreme
B02 Battle Park 61.5 Co General Very Good Moderate
B03 Cedar Terrace Bottoms 149.1 Co Medium Prime Moderate
Cane Creek Sites
CO1 Cane Creek Reservoir 850.2 Co Medium Very Good Strong
CO2 Haw River Alluvial 6.0 Co Medium Fair Slight
Terrace
CO3 Lower Cane Creek 173.1 Co High Prime Slight
Slopes and Bottom
Eno River Sites
E01 Camp Chestnut Ride 111.8 Co General Good Slight
E02 Crabtree Creek 969.4 Co General Mod Good Strong
Monadnock Ridge
E03 Seven-Mile Creek Sugar 93.1 Regional Prime Extreme
Maple Bottoms
E04 Eno River Duke Forest 123.0 Co Medium Prime Strong
Mesic Slopes
E05 Occoneechee Mesic 67.4 State Prime Negligible
Slopes
E06 Occoneechee Dry Slopes 93.2 Regional Prime Extreme
and Summit
E07 Cates Creek 10.7 Co General Good Slight
Montmorillonite Forest
E08 Poplar Ridge Slopes and 117.3 Co High Prime Moderate
Bottom to Strong
E09 Eno River Rich Mesic 16.8 Co High Prime Slight
Slopes
E10 Eno River Uplands and 637.8 Co High Very Good Extreme
Vernal Pools
E11 ERSP Buckwater 434.7 Co High Prime Negligible
Branch Hardwood Slope
E12 ERSP Cox's Mountain 81.1 Co High Prime Negligible
E13 ERSP Caber Ford 180.0 Co High Prime Negligible
E14 ERSP Mountain 21.6 Regional Prime Negligible
Spleenwort&
Rhododendron Bluff
E15 ERSP Cabelands& 128.9 Regional Prime Negligible
Rhododendron Slope
E16 Stoney Creek Four-Toed 21.6 Co High Good Slight
Salamander Spring
057
NATURAL AREAS/WELDLIFE HABITATS CONTENUED
Map Site
Si ni
Number Site Name Acrea a fcance Integrity Threat
H co Creek Sites
HO1 Allison Road Heartleaf 16.4 Co Medium Good Negligible
Ravine
H02 Pentecost Road 8.9 Co High Good Slight
Nestronia Flat
Little River Sites
LO1 South Fork Little Marsh 18.3 Co Ifigh Good Slight
L02 Forrest Creek Beaver 19.4 Co Medium Fair Slight
Pond
L03 Timmy Ed Road 25.1 Co High Good Slight
Heartleaf Flat
L04 Breeze Road Heartleaf 7.4 Co Medium Good Slight
Ravine
Morgan Creek Sites
MOl Pickards Mountain 615.5 Co High Prime Extreme
M02 Calvander Laurel Bluff 66.2 Co Medium Very Good Strong
&Bottom
M03 McCauley Mountain 80.7 Co Medium Prime Extreme
M04 University Lake Slopes 91.4 Co Medium Prime Ne ' 'ble
M05 University Lake Marsh 41.2 Co General Fair Negligible
M06 Berryhill Rhododendron 17.2 Regional Good Moderate
Bluff
M07 Stillhouse Bottom 66.1 Co Fligh Prime Strong
M08 Graybluff Rhododendron 2.3 Regional Good Moderate
Slope
M09 Stillhouse Bend Glade 7.1 Co Medium Good Negligible
M10 Morgan Creek Anemone 16.4 Regional Good Moderate
Glade
Mil Hunt Arboretum 13.1 Regional Prime Moderate
Rhododendron Bluff
M12 King's NO 17.6 Regional Prime Moderate
Rhododendron Slope
M13 Laurel Hill Ridge& 439.3 Co Medium Prime Strong
Vernal Pool
M14 Mason Farm Pond 7.8 Regional Prime Moderate
Rhododendron Bluff
M15 Mason Farm Hackberry 16.2 Co Medium Prime Strong
Bottom
M16 Mason Farm Southern 289.8 State Prime Moderate
Shagbark Hickory to Extreme
Forest
0
NATURAL AREAS/WILDLIFE HABITATS (CONTUfUD
'n )
M Site T
Number Site Name Acrea e Si nificance Integrity Threat
Morgan Creek Sites (Continued)
M17 Big Oak Woods 61.1 State Prime slight
MI 8 Morgan Creek Swamp 124.8 Regional Mod Good L Slight
New Ho a Creek Sites
NOI Bald Mountain 63.3 Co Medium Prime Negligible
Hardwood Slopes
NO2 Bald Mountain 53.7 Co Medium Mod Good Slight
Hardwood Depression
NO3 Meadow Flats 54.7 Regional Prime Slight
N04 Eubanks Road 4.1 Co High Good Slight
Montorillonite Forest
NOS Blackwood Mountain 302.0 Co Medium Very Good Strong
N06 Steepbottom Branch 110.9 Co General Mod Good Slight
N07 Currie MR 84.9 Co Medium Prime Strong
N08 Camp Pipsissewa 12.6 Go General Good Extreme
N09 New Hope Church Road 30.2 Co Medium Good Extreme
Basic Forest
NIO New Hope Chestnut 22.5 Co General Good Extreme
Oak Forest
NII Oosting Natural Area 202.5 Co ffigh Prime Extreme
N12 Gate 24 Purseweb 8.3 Co General Prime Slight
Spider Ravine
N13 Wooden Bridge Bluffs 39.8 Co Iiigh Prime Negligible
N14 New Hope Creek 11.0 Regional Prime Moderate
Rhododendron Bluffs
N15 Hollow Rock 11.5 Regional Very Good Strong
Rhododendron Bluffs
N16 —New-Hope Alluvial 82.5 Co High Prime Negligible
Forest
N17 Couch Mountain 173.5 Co ffigh Prime Negligible
N18 Piney Mountain 58.7 Co Medium Prime Moderate
Source: Inventory_of the Natural Am and Wildlife Habitats of 9=0 C Triangle
Land Conservancy, 1988.
05,E
Wildlife Corridors
In natural area conservation, emphasis is generally given to the preservation of plant communities
in determining which habitats are worthy of conservation. This is due, in part, to such areas being
relatively easy to identify. Although they stand out from the background landscape, natural areas
are scattered rather than connected throughout the landscape. They have survived in a fragmented
fashion because they historically have been difficult to cultivate or build on.
Although it has been argued that animals are dependent on the plant communities and will survive
only if the requisite plants are conserved first,the needs of animals are not necessarily those of the
plants. Animal populations are more vulnerable to habitat fragmentation than plants, and the
major problem in conserving native animal species involves the avoidance of isolation; e.g., the
maintenance of connections to other populations. The basic reason for this difference is that
animals have greater spatial requirements than plants. They must move around to find food,
mates, and shelter.
In fragmented landscapes, wildlife dispersal is blocked by distance, by physical barriers or both.
To overcome such obstacles, the Inventory of the Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats of Orange
Countv recommended that natural areas and wildlife habitats be linked by connecting corridors so
that smaller, isolated reserves could function as a larger one, incorporating a variety of habitat
types.
As shown on the Wildlife Corridors Map, the suggested network of wildlife corridors in Orange
County follows major stream corridors, connecting natural areas and upland habitats with larger
wildlife areas in the vicinity of Jordan Lake, Falls Lake, and the Haw River. The system of
corridors includes the following sites or groups of sites identified in the inventory:
1. ENO RIVER REFUGE SYSTEM
a Eno River State Park[Ell EIS]
b. Eno River Uplands[EI01
C. Eno River Mesic Slopes[E09]
d Poplar Ridge[E08]
e. Occoneechee Mountain[E05 EO61
f. Duke Forest along the Eno[E04, El 6]
g. Seven-Mile Creek[E031
h. Crabtree Creek[E021
z LITTLE RIVER REFUGE SYSTEM
a. Forrest Creek Beaver Pond[L02]
3 NEW HOPE CREEK REFUGE SYSTEM
a. Korstian DivisionlDuke Forest[N13 N16, N18]and
New Hope Bottomlands[N12]
b. Currie Hill[N07]and Camp Posissewa[N08]
C. Oosting Natural Area[NI 1]
d Blackwood Division/Duke Forest[NOM NOS]
e. Steep Bottom Branch[NO61
060
4. MORGAN CREED REFUGE SYSTEM
a Morgan Creek Swamp[M181 and Jordan Lake
b. Mason Farm[Ml 4-Ml 7]
C. Laurel Hill[M02]
d Morgan Creek Valley[M07 Ml3]
e. University Lake[M04 MOSJ
f. McCauley Mountain/M01]
S. CANE CREEK REFUGE SYSTEM
a Haw River[CO2]
b. Lower Cane Creek[C031
C. Reservoir and surrounding slopes[C01 J
d Crabtree uplands[E02]and Pickards Mountain[M01]
Along the major drainage tributaries which form the wildlife corridors, the recommended
minimum corridor width is 200 meters or 660 feet (100 meters on each side of the stream). The
width is based on studies of forest interior vegetation and predatory behavior in corridors and
forest edges. The 200-meter width is also recommended as a buffer area around natural areas and
wildlife habitats which are part of the overall corridor system but he outside of a major stream
linking such areas and habitats.
•
MMIEN
imp
l
062
CULTURAL AND SCENIC RESOURCES
Historic Sites
From the Spring of 1992 through the Summer of 1993, a comprehensive survey of Orange County's
historic resources was undertaken in the unincorporated portions of the county.. Unlike other counties
in the region, the majority of buildings recorded in Orange County represent a relatively narrow range
of house types and building styles. This commonality of building techniques is representative of the
overall character of a Waal county which has historically been comprised of small yeoman farmers. Of
the 665 resources identified, only 49 are thought to date to before the Civil War. By far the greatest
number of houses surveyed date from 1865 to 1943, illustrating the agrarian nature of a county which
has persisted to this day.
As part of the inventory,the consultants employed by the County recommended sites to the N.C. State
Histonc Preservation Office for finther study and possible listing on the National Register of Histonc
Places. The National Register is the nation's official list of buildings, structures, objects, sites, and
districts worthy of preservation for their significance in American history, architecture, archaeology,
and culture. In total, 34 sites were recommended for the Study List, including two potential historic
districts. However, seven other sites were added at the request of individual property owners.
Combined, these sites included the following categories and eligibility criteria. Orange County sites
which have already been listed in the National Register are also identified.
• Log Houses: For a property to be considered for the National Register, it. must have
"integrity" or retain enough of its historic physical character to represent its historic period
and associations adequately. For a log house, there has to be minimal alteration to the exterior
as well as to the interior of the house. Five log houses that have undergone little or no
modification were placed on the Study List, including the Gosling (ca 1840), Miller
(ca 1820), Neville (ca.1860), Reilly (ca 1870), and Sikes (ca 1860) houses. The Paisley-Rice
log house is listed on the National Register.
• Antebellum Farmhouses and Farmsteads: Due to the rarity of antebellum or pre-Civil War
houses in the county, integrity thresholds for National Register consideration may be lower.
Nevertheless, these houses should read as antebellum structures and retain enough exterior
and interior fabric to document their age. Exterior siding may have been replaced and the
interior modernized,but as long as the design, general plan, and majority of original materials
are intact,the house would be eligible under architectural significance.
When considering farm complexes for National Register listing, the property must be
evaluated as a whole. A potentially eligible property would have many components including
the domestic and agricultural outbuildings, and landscape features. Criteria for an agricultural
complex are not as strict as guidelines for an individual house. For example, a farmhouse may
have undergone significant alteration over time without jeopardizing the integrity of the whole
farm.
Three antebellum houses have been placed on the National Register. Chatwood (Faucette
house and mill), Moorefields, and Maple Hill. Twelve antebellum farmhouses and/or
t
Hi*stori*c S 1
C:
1
1
i .
•
Legend
SITES
i ♦ ' r • • National Register
National Register
Study List
i Otbw
• DISTRICTS
N Roads
•
/r
WAS now
064
farmsteads have been recommended to the Study List:John Paisley Hughes house (ca.1830),
Pittard Place (ca 1860), William Maynard farm(181411857), Rosie Wrenn house (ca.1840),
Morris Lloyd farm (ca.1850), Smith-Cole house (1845), Sam Couch farm (ca 1848), William
Couch farm (ca 1867), the Elms(ca.1795), Little Ayr Mount(ca 1830), Sunnyside (ca.1845),
and the Forrest house (ca.1850)
• Late 19th Century - Early 20th Century Farmhouses and Farmsteads: Integrity thresholds
for this category are similar to those of antebellum sites. Popular house types during this
period included the Craftsman inspired bungalow and Period Revival houses such as the
Colonial Revival and Greek Revival styles.
Sixteen farmhouses and/or farmsteads have been recommended to the Study List: William F.
Cole farm (ca 1920), Vance Daniel farm (ca 1892), Charles Davis farm (ca 1890), Benjamin
Duke house (1891), Walter Hawkins farm (ca.1900), Dr. Arch C. Jordon house (ca.1870),
Bryant Neville's farm (ca 186011926), Henry Lloyd farm (ca 1880), Sam and Laura Nunn
house (ca 1905), Caine Roberts farm (ca 1880), Phelps farm (ca 1880), Kirkland-Miller
farm (1895), William Wood McDade farm (ca 1890), Watson farm (ca.1870), Tally
homeplace (ca 1860), and the Pritchard-Poythress house (ca 1890). Only one structure has
been listed on the National Register- the Rigsbee Rock House.
• Churches: To be eligible for listing, the National Register requires that a church building be
over 50 years old, retain its architectural integrity, be a significant example of church
architecture or be associated with a historically important person or event. The fact that a
congregation is old or that a cemetery on the site is historic does not satisfy the criteria.
Cemeteries may be eligible for listing as contributing features to church complexes or
individually for settlement, art or landscape architecture, or their archaeological potential.
One church site, St. Mary's Chapel, is currently listed on the National Register. Three other
churches have been recommended for the Study List: Carr United Methodist (1915),
Harmony Primitive Baptist(ca 1880), and Bethel Baptist(ca 1900).
• Schools: Paramount in importance when considering schools for National Register-listing are
integrity, feeling, and association. Due to their importance, thresholds for integrity are lower
than for other institutional buildings such as churches. Original location and site should be
considered and maintained as should the original form, window treatment, architectural
details, and building materials.
One school site, Bingham School, is currently listed on the National Register. Two other
schools have been recommended for the Study List: Murphy School and Teacherage (1925),
and White Cross School(1933).
• Rural Mills and Stores: To be considered eligible for the National Register, a store should
be in its original location and retain much of its interior and exterior fabric. Commercial
buildings eligible for the National Register are usually significant as representatives of
06O
community and commercial development, or representative resources of commercial
architecture.
No individual commercial buildings have been determined eligible due to extensive remodeling
or severe deterioration. Only one National Register site exists, the Faucette mill and house
(Chatwood).
• Historic Districts: Crossroads communities are generally eligible for National Register listing
as representative of the community, commercial, and transportation development of the area.
To be eligible, the general historic atmosphere of the crossroad community must be intact with
few modern structures present.
Although not recommended to the Study List as crossroad communities, three locations have
been suggested for further study as potential local historic districts: Cedar Grove, the Oaks,
and the Ray Kenion district. These locations may also be eligible for the National Register as
rural historic landscapes.
While existing buildings are perhaps the easiest historic sites to document, they are by no means
the only ones. Numerous mills once provided for the economic well-being of the county, and
many of the dams and raceways still exist. Furthermore, over 150 cemeteries and burial sites
provide a record, in many cases the only record, of the lives and deaths of.Orange County
residents. The existence of churches and rural community centers also imparts an identity and
cohesion to rural communities and neighborhoods that can benefit the planning process. While
many church buildings may be of recent vintage and not of historic value, the same does not
necessarily hold true for the congregations. Over twenty Orange County congregations have been
in continuous existence for at least 150 years.
Descriptions of historic sites and community features are presented in the following publications:
• An Inventory of Sites of Cultural Historical Recreational Biological and GeoXogical
Signcance in the Unincorpora ted Portions of Orange Courrrtx Orange County Planning
Department, 1988. — -- -
• Ch el Hill Townshtrygy:Final Rem Kelly A. Lally and M. Ruth Little, 1992.
• Orange Cormty Multi 1p a froper#y Document anon Form: Historic Resources of (range
Coun Todd Peck and Jody Carter, 1993.
All sites identified in the 1992-1993 inventory of historic sites and structures are shown on the
Historic Sites Map.
Archaeological Sites
Archaeological sites have been recorded in Orange County for over 50 years. Until 1993,
approximately 300 sites were known, and 250 of those were recorded by the staff and students of
the Research Laboratories of Anthropology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
b p
s �
•1� _ / I` h
or
MN
�►,+• _
s �
1 K
067
working together with members of the N.C. Archaeological Society. The remaining sites were
recorded primarily as a result of environmental impact reviews conducted by the Research
Laboratories, the N.C. Department of Transportation, and private businesses.
During the Winter of 1993-1994, the Research Laboratories conducted an archaeological survey
of portions of the county. An additional 151 sites were recorded during the survey, and the results
of the fieldwork were used in conjunction with previously existing site data to generate a
preliminary model to aid in predicting the distribution of archaeological resources. The model
divides the county into three zones with respect to the density and types of archaeological remains
that might be encountered. These zones are as follows:
• Zone I - High Potential: Zone I represents those areas that are likely to contain a high
density of archaeological remains. This zone includes all inhabitable portions of river
floodplains of 100 meters (approximately 328 feet) in width. Such areas include the central
and eastern portions of the Eno as well as inhabitable tracts of bottomland along the Little
River and New Hope, Bolin, and Morgan creeks. Similarly, terraces and ridges immediately
above the floodplains are also included in this zone.
Sites in these locations will probably contain the remains of native settlements dating from AD
1000 with scattered households and storage pits, hearths, and burials. Floodplains are also
likely locations for historic mills and their associated features. The locations of such sites did
not require the relatively wide floodplains that prehistoric settlements needed. They would
have been located at points along river segments with enough of a gradient to develop a
"head" or fall of water, enough exposed rock in the stream bed for a solid dam foundation,
and enough rock for dam construction.
• Zone II - Medium Potential: Zone II includes the area within about one kilometer
(approximately 3,280 feet or 0.62 mile) of the.main drainage channels in the county, including
bottomlands and their immediately bordering terraces and ridges. In particular, ridges and
hilltops are likely locations for artifact scatters. Moreover, some ridges and hilltops may
contain structural remains in the form of stone foundations or more intact ruins. Other historic
features such as cemetenermay also-be found, with the best preserved remains most likely to
occur in forested tracts.
• Zone III-Low Potential: Zone III includes upland areas not defined by Zones I and II; e.g.,
the remaining area of the county. Again, ridges and hilltops are the most likely topographic
locations for archaeological remains, particularly at stream confluences.
The three zones described above are shown on the Archaeological Remains Potential Map.
Descriptions of the survey sites as well as an in-depth explanation of model rationale are
presented in An Archaeologcal Survey of Portions of Orange Co n y N.C.
Recreation Sites
In 1987-1988, a Master Recreation and Parks Plan was prepared for the County by Woolpert
Associates. The Plan was adopted in July, 1988 as the Recreation Element of the Comprehensive
068
Recreati*on Si*tes
r� ` �I
•� It \
1 �
\ y Legend:
Community Park
t .V District Park
Streams
;V Roads
I
1 1 ■
_ c
r.uerer
Plan. Not only were existing recreation facilities throughout the county surveyed, but projected
land requirements were identified for an adequate parks system.
Recreation or park sites, particularly in rural areas, bridge the gap between natural and cultural
resources. They not only provide natural settings but serve as centers of community activity. Two
types of park facilities were recommended to serve this dual purpose: community parks and
district parks. Each of these facilities is described below:
• Community Park: A community park may serve a single neighborhood or several
neighborhoods, depending upon the local needs and population distribution. A community
park has an average service radius of one to two miles and requires a minimum of 2.5 acres
per 1,000 population. Such parks could be developed adjacent to an elementary or middle
school, and provide recreational opportunities for the entire family, including areas suited for
intense recreation such as athletic fields, swimming, and tennis. Areas of natural quality could
also be included for viewing, sitting, and picnicking. A water body is a component typically
found in a community park.
• District Park: A district park provides diverse recreational opportunities on a much larger
scale. A district park should be within a one-half hour driving time and contain a minimum of
2.5 acres per 1,000 population served when planned in conjunction with a school. If planned
separately, 5.0 acres per 1,000 population served should be provided. A major difference
between a district park and a community park is the district park should have an indoor
recreation building or interpretive center, depending on the type of facility planned .
There are four district parks (75 acres/161/6 active recreation) and four community parks (25
acres/48% active recreation) proposed in the Master Recreation and Parks Plan. The location of
these facilities is shown on the Recreation Sites Map.
Scenic Roads
A drive in an automobile along the rural roads of Orange County will convey to the traveler an
appreciation of the countyts rich agricultural heritage and natural scenic beauty.However,the character
of many roads will-change as development pressures require the paving or widening of roads to
accommodate increased traffic.Additionally,the view from the road will change as fields once used for
pasture and crops become dotted with rural subdivisions.
In 1988, the Transportation Advisory Subcommittee (TAS) of the Planning Board initiated work on
preparation of a Transportation Element for the county's Comprehensive Plan. As part of its efforts,the
TAS evaluated the possibility of a voluntary scenic roads program and participated in a field trip to
identify criteria for designating scenic roads in the county. In August, 1992, the TAS surveyed two
areas, Davis Road south of Hillsborough, and a large agricultural district in Bingham Township.
Numerous stops were made along each route, and TAS members were asked to identify and
photograph features that they believed contributed to the scenic quality of the routes.
From the results of the field trip, the TAS identified six categories of features which in combination,
contributed to the scenic value of route.These categories included
070
_ -Sceni*c Road Corri* dors
i
P
TAMA:
Scenic Roads
Scenic Corridor
N Roads
I
• r4
N
/ � r
i NQI�
071
• Road characteristics, including topography, surface material, and design speed,
• Landscape features, including scenic vistas and similar features;
• Vegetation, including forest and agricultural patterns;
• Water bodies;
• Cultural features, including buildings, walls, bridges, and fences; and
• Other features, such as compatible development and signs
These features were incorporated into a"Rural Roads Survey Form" and used to conduct a pilot study
of the arterial and collector roads in Bingham Township. Subsequently, in 1994, all roads except
residential access roads and interstate highways within a one-half mile radius of 12 study farms were
evaluated for development of a purchase of development rights program for the county. More recently,
in the Summer of 1995, interns surveyed rural roads as part of a regional transportation modeling
project and identified additional "scenic road" candidates. The results of all these surveys have been
combined to form the system of scenic routes shown on the Scenic Road Corridors Map.
072
07;3
COMPREHENSIVE RESOURCES MAP
The inventory presented in the preceding sections catalogues a diverse range of resources: water, land,
plant and animal, and cultural and scenic. Traditionally, such resources have been viewed separately as
being so sensitive that almost any development would destroy their resource values, or grouped
together in limited ways to identify those features which preclude development for reasons of health
and safety.
The Development Constraints Map is an example of this approach Pertinent features such as
floodplains, steep slopes, and impermeable soils are identified, located, and evaluated in terns of their
significance. A composite map is then prepared which combines the information layers together to see
the overall pattern of potential development areas. This technique is often referred to as 'overlay or
sieve mapping" because the most suitable land for development becomes apparent as those areas that
drop through the"sieve" of information layers.
Identifying Conservation Areas
While the Development Constraints Map underlines those features to be considered for health and
safety reasons, a more effective approach is to focus on those resources considered essential to a
coherent conservation network, then let its size and location be a central organizing theme in the land
use planning process. The preparation of a Comprehensive Resources Map utilizes such an approach
and displays resources which have been grouped together into two categories-"Primary Conservation
Areas"and Secondary Conservation Areas".
Primary Conservation Areas: Sensitive environmental resources, historically significant sites, and
features considered unbuildable because of their limitations or inherent unsuitability for development
should be placed in"Primary Conservation Areas". Such features include:
• Wetlands;
• Floodplains and alluvial soils;
• Steep slopes;
• Natural areas, and wildlife corridors and habitats;
• Historic and archaeological sites,including:
0 sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places;
0 sites included on the State's National Register study list;
0 sites designated as a local historic landmark;
0 areas designated as a local historic district;and
0 areas identified as having a high potential for archaeological remains.
Secondary Conservation Areas: Within the second broad category of conservation areas, resources
vary more widely m importance,vuhierability or fiagility,and consist of the following
• Woodlands;
• Prime farnland;
• Other historic and/or archaeological sites;
• Recreation sites and facilities; and
• Scenic views and corridors.
Within these elements or features, those ranking among the top of their category should always be
protected as "Secondary Conservation Areas". Likewise, within each type of resource, there are
examples of greater or lesser significance, whether one is looking at mature woodlands or young,
diseased or thinned out stands, prime farmland soils or those of local importance, or a historic site
eligible for inclusion on the National Register to a much altered older house missing many original
features.
Integrating the Information Layers
Once all the resource features have been prioritized in terms of their significance, a composite
map can be prepared which combines all Primary Conservation Areas together to form a network
of the most significant and/or unbuildable resources around which development may occur.
Likewise, all Secondary Conservation Areas can be combined together to define buildable areas
within which development can occur while conserving other features. When decisions must be
made to conserve or develop, priorities should be based upon an understanding of what is the most
environmentally sensitive, the most historically significant, or the most scenic when compared with
similar features or other kinds of resources. Both Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas are
shown on the Comprehensive Resources Map.
I
R
E ♦ / ��
NOW
op
in
MR
Aw
'11IN '11I S . 4w
6.
_ .. '
IM11; -,
> _
-
-� q N " ��/
kL
1
il� i,+��
v. .lk ji4 t
ot
Ilp�r
AL
.. �.r r
�� YR s
fit
3.3 LAND USE PLAN CATEGORIES
LAND USE PLAN CATEGORY DESCRIPTIONS
RESOURCE PROTECTION AREAS: Land designated as Primary Conservation
Areas which contains idenfifiable eF petentied MfUffil sensitive environmental resources,
historically significant sites, and features considered unbuildable because of their
limitations or unsuitability for development. This includes wetlands and tloodplains
along drainage tributaries, aid-steep slope areas (15% or greater), natural areas, wildlife
habitats and corridors, and significant historic and archaeological sites. These areas
form the basis for a paF6 mid epen spsee system conservation network whieh peeves
the fimmwefk within which other land uses are situated.
3.4 LOCATIONAL CRITERIA
PLAN CATEGORY: RESOURCE PROTECTION AREAS
Land Slope: ate-oval% . Located in areas where slopes are 15% or greater.
Hydrology: Located in anes dw&Fe ift eF wetlands and 100-year floodplain areas
along drainage tributaries or adjacent to steep slopes aFeas.
Flora and Fauna: Located in areas that ffmy contain significant natural areas and
wildlife habitats, including connecting wildlife corridors,
speeies as identified by local, state or federal gevemment inventories.
Soil Conditions: Ne-eyeluatien. Located in areas that contain alluvial and/or hydric
(wet)soils.
Public Services/Utilities: Located in areas where urban-type services will not be required
and should be discouraged.
Transportation Systems: Located in areas where arterial or collector roads would not
exist or be needed.
Energy Use: No evaluation.
Existing Land Use: Located in areas that are best left undeveloped because of their
limitations or unsuitability for development, and 'ea in a --`mW stme and/or
preserved because of the presence of environmentally sensitive
features and/or historically significant sites.
Agricultural and Forestry: See Existing Land Use.
07S
Population Density. Located in areas which by their very nature would have no
permanent residential population.
f
Historic and Cultural: Located in areas theA nmy have containing historic and/or
archaeological sites et&dfal -value as ideRfified designated by state, federal eF 60umy
geveFwRem listed on the National Register of Historic Places, included on the
National Register Study List, designated as a local historic district or landmark,
and/or identified as having a high potential for archaeological remains.
3.5 LAND USE GOALS AND DRAFT POLICIES
The county-wide goals for Orange County are general in concept and scope. They encompass
areas over which the County government has varying degrees of influence and serve as a guide in
developing policies and programs related to land use and the management of growth and
development in the county.
CATEGORY: NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES CONSERVATION
AND ENERGY
GOAL ONE: The conservation and protection of Orange County's natural and cultural
environments by means which are equitable to all citizens of the county.
1.1 Protect the following significant Public Interest Districts and Resource
Protection Areas from adverse development impacts and require
management of these areas in ways that will prevent internally generated
negative impacts from affecting surrounding land:
• Wetlands;
• Floodplains and alluvial soils;
• Steep slopes;
• Natural areas,and wildlife corridors and habitats;
• Historic and archaeological sites, including:
0 sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places;
0 sites included on the State's National Register study list;
0 sites designated as a local historic landmark;
0 areas designated as a local historic district; and
0 areas identified as having a high potential for archaeological
remains.
• Publicly owned parkland(Eno River State Park);
• Water reservoir buffer lands (lands around University Lake and Cane
Creek Reservoir);
• Research oriented lands(Duke Forest); and
• Lands placed by individual property owners into conservation
easements;
LAND USE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT (See enclosed map)
mill
AL Ile
� l
� 1 1
Jj .��y
V
-` i - . 1 1