The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCFE 031102 c� � c� oec� Memorandum To : Commission for the Environment From : Roy Fortmann , Chair Date : March 4 , 2002 Re : March 11 Meeting Agenda Please find attached the agenda and materials for the next meeting of the Commission for the Environment , on Monday, March Y Y , 2002 7 : 30 p . m . Southern Human Services Center 2505 Homestead Road Chapel Hill , NC If you have questions , or will be unable to attend , please contact Carol Melton ( 245 - 2597 , cmelton@co . orange . nc . us ) by the Friday before the meeting . IT AGENDA Orange County t i Commission for the Environment March 11 , 2002 7 : 30 p . m . Southern Human Services Center 2505 Homestead Road , Chapel Hill , NC Time PPg # Item 7 : 30 I . Call to Order 7 : 32 1 II . Approval of Minutes ( February 11 ) 7 : 35 III . Recommendation on Triangle Greenprint This item was referred by the Board of Commissioners on February 25 . A copy of the report was provided in a previous mailing ( extra copies will be available at the meeting ) . The Commission may wish to review the Regional Open Space Assessment and develop comments and a recommendation for the Board of Commissioners . 8 : 00 5 IV . Amendment to CFE Rules of Procedure — "" CFE Associate Members " This item was presented for initial review on February 11 and is now up for decision , to include this section as an amendment to the Commission 's Rules of Procedure . Attachment 1 includes the existing rules incorporating the final language of the proposal ( including comments from February 11 and subsequent discussions among committee members ) . 8 : 10 13 V . Review — Evaluation of OWASA Mitigation Lands Please see Attachment 2 8 : 20 VI . Status of CFE Applicants and Recruitment 8 : 25 35 VII . BOCC Agenda Items Update Please see Attachment 3 . 8 : 30 VIII . Next Meeting — April 8 8 : 35 IX . Committee Breakout Sessions 9 : 30 X . Adjournment 1 COUNTY OF ORANGE COMMISSION FOR THE ENVIRONMENT DRAFT Summary of Meeting February 11 , 2002 Held at Orange County Southern Human Services Center, Chapel Hill , NC Members Present : Roy Fortmann ( Chair ) , Dan Okun , Laura Cotterman , Cara Crisler, Annette Jurgelski , Lee Rafalow , Johnny Randall , Mark Smith , Julie Tucker Excused Absences . Hervey McIver, Richard Pratt, Chris Wachholz Guests : Pat Davis , Triangle J Council of Governments , Deborah Amaral Staff Present : David Stancil , ERCD Directors Rich Shaw , Land Conservation Manager ; Bradley Decker, ERCD Intern ; and Carol Melton ERCD staff I . Call to Order Chair Fortmann called meeting to order at 7@30 p . m . II . Approval of Minutes ( January 14 , 2002 ) Crisler asked if committee reports were expected each meeting as noted in the meeting summary . Fortmann clarified that the intention was for each committee to give an update of their work at the breakout session time of the meetings . MOTION : Rafalow motioned to approve the January 14th minutes with corrections as noted by Crisler and Fortmann . Seconded by Crisler . VOTE : Unanimous , III . Additions to the Agenda Okun introduced Deborah Amaral as a possible candidate for the CFE membership . Ms . Amaral is on the faculty of the UNC Department of Environment Science and Engineering , and is involved in solving issues related to water in the local area and the state . Randall reported on the BOCC recently adopted a resolution in support of the newly formed Morgan Creek Valley Alliance . He passed around a copy of the resolution and a draft brochure about the Alliance . III . Water Resource Management in the Triangle , Pat Davis ( Triangle J COG ) Okun introduced guest speaker , Pat Davis , Water Resources Program Manager with the Triangle J Council of Governments ( TJCOG ) . Okun mentioned some of the Water Resource Committee ' s concerns about water supply issues in Orange County . He noted that TJCOG has gathered the best available information related to those issues and Mr . Davis would provide an overview of local plans and projections of water needs and services . Davis began by noting that the TJCOG is recognized as a leader in water supply protection . They assist local governments in their seven - county region with watershed management and encourage development of the state ' s minimum standards for protection of public water supplies . TJCOG has worked closely with local , state and federal agencies to develop the DRAFT MEETING SUMMARY Page 1 of 3 CFE February 11 , 2002 �1 4 Triangle Area Water Supply Monitoring Project . Underway since 1988 , the project involves systematic sampling and analysis of water quality at several major water supplies in the region . Through this effort communities now have important information about the existing and potential quality of the public 's water supply . Davis noted that Orange County has taken a number of actions to protect water resources in its jurisdiction . He displayed some of the reports prepared over the last 20 years with data on county water demands , wastewater needs and service needs ; and recommendations for watershed protection . He mentioned other reports by OWASA and the surrounding towns . Davis gave an overview of water resources in this region and of Orange County Is position within the Neuse and Cape Fear river basins . He noted the importance of resource protection because of the County being at the headwaters of these two important river basins . He gave information about the area 's water supply sources , water filtration facilities , wastewater treatment/ reclamation facilities , mutual aid agreements , and water resources for the future . Based on local and state population projections , it is evident that the region will experience population growth and urbanization in the future . This growth will bring about significant changes in land use activities and associated increases in impervious surfaces . A number of streams in the area are already rated as " impaired " due to nonpoint source pollution and the other effects of urbanization . Unless adequate measures are taken now , further impairment of water resources can be expected to occur in the future as a result of the additional growth and development and associated changes in land use that will occur throughout the region . An evaluation of the growth effects on water resources is needed to better inform local decision makers on the long term water quality impacts of their local land use planning and growth management strategies . Management and protection of water resources is a complex task requiring coordination and cooperation among the residents , businesses , and governmental agencies . Water conservation and the reuse of reclaimed wastewater in meeting water needs should be considered to assist in planning , managing and protecting our water resources . Through cooperative efforts we will be better prepared to address the long - term water supply and water quality protection needs of present and future residents and businesses . Chair Fortmann thanked Davis for his presentation and invited him to discuss these issues further with the Water Resources Committee . IV . Resolution — " Non - CFE Members as Committee Members " Tucker reviewed the revised proposal for non - member participation in CFE matters . She said the proposal includes changes that were suggested at the January meeting . Members discussed their preferences for the official name of non - member participants . The name " Associates " was chosen over " Friends " or " Advocates . " Fortmann recommended adding a section describing who is eligible to participate as a CFE Associate and suggested some language . Fortmann , Cotterman and Rafalow offered other edits to the proposal . Tucker agreed to finalize the proposal and present at the next meeting to be followed by a vote on an amendment to the CFE by - laws . Stancil said he would prepare a draft amendment for CFE consideration . CFE members requested that they be allowed to look at DRAFT MEETING SUMMARY Page 2 of 3 CFE February 11 , 2002 03 the applications submitted to the BOCC for CFE membership so that they might identify possible candidates for CFE Associates . IV . Update — AFLEV Work Group Stancil reported that the AFLEV Work Group met in January to discuss a possible grant submittal through the state energy office to the US Department of Energy for a program that ' s available through Clean Cities network . The Group is considering working jointly with the NC Department of Transportation ( NCDOT ) and possibly the Town of Hillsborough . Stancil noted that NCDOT has a unit located in Hillsborough between I - 40 and I - 85 . He reported communicating earlier in the day with Ann Taswell , Clean Cities coordinator at TJCOG , and it appears that the deadline for this submittal is too soon to clear the state office . However , there is another state grant program coming available in April , which may provide a viable opportunity . Stancil is scheduling a meeting in early March with the county commissioners , CFE representative , NCDOT Raleigh and local branch , and the Town of Hillsborough to discuss a potential joint proposal for a CNG or fueling station in Hillsborough . Staff will update the CFE as the project develops . VI . BOCC Agenda Items Update Stancil reviewed some of the materials included in the meeting packet from the previous month 's BOCC agenda . Fortmann reminded members that he had asked staff to provide this kind information and encouraged members to look at the BOCC agenda website for pertinent issues . Stancil reported on the recent BOCC retreat , noting that most of the time was spent on concerns regarding financial matters . The Board indicated its interest and agreement with on the CFE progress report . Stancil noted that the BOCC will be organizing a Water Summit to bring together all the different towns and utility providers within the county . March meeting agenda items will include discussion of the Triangle GreenPrint — a regional open space proposal that will be referred to this board for comment by the BOCC . ( CFE members were encouraged to attend a presentation at the Feb . 251h BOCC meeting . ) Also in March , the concept plan for Southern Community Park may be looked at for comment . VII . Committee Breakout Sessions VIII . Adjournment ( next meeting — March 11 , 2002 ) The CFE adjourned at 10 : 00 p . m . DRAFT MEETING SUMMARY Page 3 of 3 CFE February 11 , 2002 � 1A County of Orange , Commission for the Environment Rules of Procedure , amended 4/ 15 / 99 OJ PROPOSED 3 / 11 /02 AMENDMENT IN SHAHED BOLD TEXT RULES OF PROCEDURE Attachment # 1 ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSION FOR THE ENVIRONMENT ARTICLE I - PURPOSE AND DUTIES A . Purpose The purpose of the Commission for the Environment shall be to advise the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC ) on matters affecting the environment , with particular emphasis on environmental protection . Be Duties The Commission for the Environment shall have the following specific duties : 1 . To advise the BOCC with regard to environmental policy, with particular emphasis on environmental protection . 2 . To educate the public and local officials on environmental issues . 3 . To perform special studies and projects on environmental questions as requested by the BOCC . 4 . To recommend environmental initiatives to the BOCC . 5 . To study changes in environmental science and environmental regulations in the pursuit of their duties . 6 . To perform other duties as requested by the BOCC . ARTICLE II - OFFICERS A. Officers The elected officers of the Commission for the Environment shall consist of a Chair and a Vice Chair . 1 . The Chair shall preside at all meetings and hearings of the Commission for the Environment and have the duties normally conferred by parliamentary usage on such officers . 1 o6County of Orange , Commission for the Environment Rules of Procedure , amended 4/ 15 /99 PROPOSED 3 / 11 /02 AMENDMENT IN SHAHED BOLD TEXT 2 . The Vice Chair shall serve as Acting Chair in the absence of the Chair, and at such times shall have the same powers and duties as the Chair . Be Election Procedures and Terms of Office The procedures for election of the Chair and Vice Chair shall be as follows : 1 . These officers shall be elected by the Commission for the Environment from among its members at the regular meeting in November of each year . They shall take office at the following regular meeting . 2 . The candidate for each office receiving a majority vote of the Commission for the Environment members present shall be declared elected . 3 . The officers shall be elected for a term of one year . They shall be eligible to succeed themselves for not more than three consecutive terms . 4 . Vacancies in the office shall be filled immediately for the unexpired term by the regular election procedure . ARTICLE III - MEMBERS A . Membership 1 . Members of the Commission for the Environment shall be Orange County residents . 2 . Members of the Commission for the Environment shall be appointed by, and serve at the pleasure of, the BOCC . 3 . The Commission for the Environment shall have fifteen appointed members plus one County Commissioner as follows : a . Five members with specific expertise in : • Air Quality • Biological Sciences • Engineering , (preferably in a field related to the environment) • Land Resources • Water Resources 2 07 County of Orange , Commission for the Environment Rules of Procedure , amended 4 / 15 / 99 PROPOSED 3 / 11 /02 AMENDMENT IN SHAHED BOLD TEXT b . Ten at- large members with some knowledge of environmental science and/or environmental issues including , but not limited to experts in the following fields : • Education • Energy • Law • Public Health • Public Policy • Solid Waste • Other areas that overlap with the five areas of specific expertise 4 . Appointed members shall serve a term of three years with initial terms staggered as follows . a . Air Quality - one year , thereafter three years b . Engineering and Land Resources - two years ; thereafter three years c . Biological Sciences and Water Resources - initial term three years d . At- Large Members : • One year for four members • Two years for three members • Three years for two members 5 . Associate CFE Committee Members a . Purpose and Rationale • Recognizing that the Commission for the Environment ( CFE) committees could benefit from additional support from people who are not appointed to the CFE , the CFE proposes the idelines to recruit and integrate non - CFE members following gu into CFE committees . The objective is to identify persons with unique expertise and different perspectives to assist with special projects or ad-hoc work groups . These "Associates " of the CFE will be non-voting participants and will assist the CFE with special projects or ad- hoc work groups . Associate CFE members will not have the same responsibilities as CFE members . b . Eligibility Requirements • All persons interested in becoming Associate CFE members are eligible to apply for the position . • Participation is not limited to Orange County citizens . 3 U �7 County of Orange , Commission for the Environment Rules of Procedure , amended 4/ 15 /99 PROPOSED 3 / 11 /02 AMENDMENT IN SHAHED BOLD TEXT c . Integrating Associate CFE members into CFE Committees • The CFE will recruit Associate CFE members according to the following guidelines : 1 ) Each committee will develop a 1 to 2 -page summary of the committee ' s charge, responsibilities , and goals for the year . 2) Each committee will identify potential Associate CFE members . The committee will interview and accept Associates based on the committee ' s needs . 3 ) Once an Associate has been chosen to serve on a committee, the CFE chair will send a letter of invitation to that person , welcoming him/her to the committee as an official Associate CFE member. The letter will describe the responsibilities of the individual and the committee to which they have been asked to serve (e . g. the projects he/she will work on , project or task force duration , etc .) . Length of service will be at the discretion of each committee . 4) In November of every year, each committee will evaluate each Associate CFE member ' s participation on the committee . The CFE will encourage Associates to continue working with the CFE as long as they positively contribute to the mission of the CFE . d . Recognition of Associate CFE Members • Associate CFE members shall be recognized as " Orange County CFE Associates " and shall be listed as such in official CFE documents , announcements and other media designed for public dissemination . Be Attendance 1 . Any member of the Commission for the Environment who misses more than three consecutive meetings or more than one-half of the meetings in a calendar year, for 4 OJ County of Orange , Commission for the Environment Rules of Procedure , amended 4/ 15 / 99 PROPOSED 3 / 11 /02 AMENDMENT IN SHAHED BOLD TEXT something other than an approved absence as determined by the Chair, may lose their status as a member and may be replaced by the BOCC . 2 . Absence due to sickness , death of an immediate family member, professional leave , or other valid reason shall be considered an approved absence and shall not affect the member' s status . 3 . In the event of a long illness or other cause for prolonged absence , the member may be replaced . ARTICLE IV - ADMINISTRATION A. Staff The Orange County Environment and Resource Conservation Department (ERCD ) shall serve as staff to the Commission for the Environment . Be Secretary The Environment and Resource Conservation Director, or designee , shall serve as Secretary to the Commission for the Environment . The Secretary shall keep all minutes and records of the Commission for the Environment and provide proper and legal notice of regular and special meetings to members and the public . ARTICLE V - MEETINGS A. Regular Meetings Regular meetings of the Commission for the Environment shall be held the second Monday of each month at 7 : 30 p . m . at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill , or other place within Orange County designated by the Chair . The meetings shall adjourn not later than 10 : 30 p . m . unless extended for the meeting in session by vote of the members . Be Special Meetings Special meetings may be called by the Chair or by the written request of at least three other members of the Commission for the Environment . The notice of such a meeting shall specify the purposes of the meeting and no other business may be considered except by unanimous consent of the Commission for the Environment members present . 5 1 � County of Orange , Commission for the Environment Rules of Procedure , amended 4/ 15 / 99 PROPOSED 3 / 11 /02 AMENDMENT IN SHAHED BOLD TEXT C . Meeting Notice The Secretary shall give five days notice for both regular and special meetings . D . Quorum 1 . A quorum shall consist of a majority of the regular appointed members of the Commission for the Environment . 2 . A quorum shall be present for conduct of formal business . E . Votin The vote of a majority of those members present shall be sufficient to decide all matters before the Commission for the Environment, provided a quorum is present . F. Conduct of Meetings 1 . All business to be considered shall be listed on the agenda . To secure such consideration, a request must be received by the Chair or Secretary at least seven days before any regular scheduled meeting . No other business may be considered except by unanimous consent of the Board members present . All special business or items not specifically noted on the regular meeting agenda maybe deferred by the Commission for the Environment until the next regular meeting date . 2 . The order of business at regular meetings shall be : a . Call to order and roll call . b . Consideration of additions to the agenda. C . Call for approval of minutes of previous meeting . d . Consideration of remaining items on the agenda . e . Adjournment . 3 . The order of business for special meetings shall be as set out in the meeting call . 4 . All meetings of the Commission for the Environment shall be open to the general public . 5 . For procedures not covered by these rules , the Commission for the Environment shall follow the rules contained in Roberts Rules of Order, Revised. G . Cancellation of Meetings 6 i County of Orange , Commission for the Environment Rules of Procedure , amended 4 / 15 /99 PROPOSED 3 / 11 /02 AMENDMENT IN SHAHED BOLD TEXT Whenever there is no business for the Commission for the Environment , the Chair may dispense with a regular meeting by giving notice to all members not less than twenty- four hours prior to the time set for the meeting . ARTICLE VI - AMENDMENTS These Rules of Procedure may, within the limits allowed by law , be amended at any time by an affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the full membership of the Commission for the Environment provided that such amendment shall have first been presented to the membership in writing at a regular or special meeting preceding the regular meeting at which the vote is taken, and provided further, that any amendment shall be reviewed by the BOCC . Enacted . March 9 , 1998 Amended : April 15 , 1999 7 . _�.-.._ .__ _ -..� ._a...._...�.._.�.....,.. ..._.__.._,_v._._-__... _e... .,,..,.�. . ... ..... .. .. ....... ...,.,. ....,........... ..... a .. .. ,, .....,. . ......._............�., ._�_� ... ...� . ......�: . .. , _. . _.. ..,u. - . � . .�.w _.......,...z...w.uu:.in,u u= u.�.Raw.uusc.uua_.vu,.:vruo,.zu.iva'a..aaicEaauas�.qua:.nt„1i::drl .7�Catn�.Y,rt.Vetuli 1 �' i Intergovernmental Parks Work Group A Report OWASA Mitigation Tract Committee Ole DON iSO , : i_ see • OF 0066 OF t 10 t 1, ti ` , ;•�► ti t� i / t . t r 1 . � � ! � i// �• l . ' , � � . / s ` �, ; , '� . . ' . ,� • . . Y'+•,�yp,7 __ - r , f to >•1 , ,�,. . • r 'r .ter �..:a•.;. ��k�1b�� ar'�. ��}' t -r • . i . . 1 `Jir +r � ��ru'f�, �: . i �-a. j� • i . � • ( ^_ : l � .r rat �/� � �+ i �� a� ±t - fit •!• :rjlfl.��j' %JY � Y � . .ri}- � M f•• ' •y�� •�j T� Y- i� l��[��7`I ��i• 3t V February 00 sit , : � I, . . , . t.. .�, }fir; O�ange Co Zr11 ry tN ' ri +r:rt' fi s: 44N0 . 4' f .c. . �r . . . y a< ; x r ;. .4 we .. ` . Al 4 .. : Environment & Resource Conservation • `';o~` IyyVtV�;r.': i-' 'd toes 99 4FIN .; 04P306 - �� Re �� Tc Road / PCB 'Box 81 � 1 T N r r ~ Hillsborouah , NC 227278 • 'J . . i . r .:5. - 'ram t: : :11 .iJ e:4 ;^L` + rA• I Phone : ( 919 ) 2451112597 , Fat : ( 919 ) 64411& 3351 Memorandum To : David Stancil , FRCDirector From : Rich Shaw , Land Conservation Manager Subject : OWASA Mitigation Tract Evaluation Date : February 13 , 2002 Please find attached staff evaluation of the OWASA Mitigation Tract . The subject property is a 490 - acre tract located between Buckhorn Road and Mt . Willing Road ( Bingham Township ) . The Parks Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan ( adopted 1988 ) calls for a Bingham - Cane Creek District Park ( 75 - 199 acres ) in northern Bingham Township . It also calls for a White Cross Community Park ( 25 - 74 acres ) in southern Bingham . Neither park has been established to date . [ The latter is a land acquisition priority in the current Lands Legacy Annual Action Plan . ] The Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group report ( 1999 ) recommended that the County pursue a collaborative arrangement with OWASA for establishing sites that would serve either or both of these park needs . Since that time , Orange County and OWASA staffs have initiated discussions of the potential future use of OWASA - owned land for public recreational uses . OWASA has indicated a willingness to consider , on a site - by - site basis , the provision of parklands provided the intended uses . %A6ould not compromise water quality in Cane Creek reservoir or the Authority 's . ability to have sufficient land for biosolids application . The Intergovernmental Parks Work Group has created an OWASA Lands Subcommittee to evaluate the potential use of OWASA lands for public park purposes . The so - called " Mitigation Tract " may provide one such opportunity . Page 1 of 4 The Tract is located outside of the watershed critical area and is not needed for biosolids . application . OWASA purchased the tract in 1982 to help compensate ( or mitigate ) for the loss of wildlife habitat resulting from the creation of Cane Creek Reservoir . The acquisition was a conuition of the federal permit to construct the reservoir . The ERCD staff analysis of this property is focused on the potential use of the property for a park site that would be compatible with OWASA 's ( and the County ' s ) interest in protecting the rural character and hence the water quality . in Cane Creek watershed . The attached evaluation is based on the adopted Lands Legacy criteria for general and parkland acquisition . Unlike other properties evaluated by the Lands Legacy program , the mitigation tract does not need to be acquired for protection . OWASA purchased the site to protect its conservation values , including watershed protection value and high - quality wildlife habitat . The issue now is whether to make all or a portion of the tract available for public recreation and , if so , for what kinds of uses ? The following points summarize staff ' s initial findings : 1 . The Mitigation Tract is a valuable property . The large size and high quality of this nearly unfragmented tract makes it a significant wildlife habitat . A large portion of the property was identified in a 1999 study as a core area for wildlife in Orange County . 2 . The physical characteristics of the Mitigation Tract make it highly suitable for public use and enjoyment for low - impact recreational uses ( e . g . , hiking / nature/jogging trails ) . An area just south of the Martin Road access and another within reach of the Buckhorn Road access could support active recreation , but it would require clearing mature pines and leveling the moderately sloped terrain . 3 . If opened for public use , the Mitigation Tract would provide a unique wilderness area for county residents , albeit somewhat similar to the County ' s Seven Mile Creek Preserve ( 295 acres thus far ) located less than four miles away . 4 . OWASA has indicated that certain OWASA lands located outside of the watershed critical area may be suitable for use as parkland without compromising OWASA ' s protection of watershed lands and maintaining its ability to provide high quality drinking water . This tract is located in the upper reaches of the watershed . Page 2 of 4 5 . OWASA is receptive to the idea of making this land available for certain low - impact parkland uses only , such as a hiking /jogging trails , picnic areas/ shelter , primitive camping , nature center , and other educational / research activities . 6 . Opening this land for public use could help address low - impact parkland needs in this section of the County and take some pressure off Eno River State Park and Duke Forest properties located in eastern parts of the County . The. future openings of McGowan Creek Preserve ( Fall 2002 ) , Little River Regional Park ( Spring 2003 ) and Seven Mile Creek Preserve ( 2004 - 05 ) will also help satisfy current and future demands . 7 . The Mitigation Tract is part of a proposed network of wildlife corridors and " rustic woodland trails " that would link Cane Creek to the Eno River system . As parkland , this site would continue to further County goals of protecting key open space lands within Cane Creek watershed , identified prime forest/ wildlife habitat and the rural character of Bingham Township . Unresolved issues : 1 . What are the specific Federal / State conditions for the property use ? For example , must all or a portion be open for hunting ? Is Federal or State approval required before allowing other recreational use ? If so , would they allow low - impact recreational uses ? Active recreation ? 2 . Regardless of whether federal / state agencies require it be open for hunting , what is the County 's disposition toward seasonal hunting on all or a portion of the property ? If hunting were allowed , could it be done in compatibly with the other proposed park uses ? 3 . Would the NC Wildlife Resources Commission manage the hunting activities if that use were allowed ? 4 . Are the County and / or OWASA interested in committing the resources necessary to operate and maintain the property , both as a park and to adhere to state/ federal permit conditions ? [For example, staff oversight, rules enforcement, developing/posting appropriate signage, parking area (s), trash removal, trail maintenance, etc. ] 5 . Access to the property from Buckhorn Road needs to be explored further . The County Land Records shows only a single point of access , while the survey flagging indicates about 60 feet of road frontage . Page 3 of 4 17 6 . As a low - impact park facility , how adequately would this site meet park needs identified in the Parks Element of the Comprehensive Plan and the Master Recreation and Parks Work Group Report ( 1999 ) ? Attachments : 1 . General site evaluation 2 . County parkland acquisition evaluation 3 . Location map 4 . Landowner/ parcel map 5 . 1998 Orthophoto 6 . USGS topographic map 7 . Soil survey map 8 . Vegetation and trails map 9 . Site photos Page 4 of 4 (n Lr) C V) Q ra 'tom s � Uc � � -u vmvai0 c O U o 0 • U C 0 0 -o Q a ra Q o (Q • � °vi .ru ° i L a C O V N ru cr QQmc a) 0 Le) x • . o a .3 U a c 0 0 a) C N U a O -p C E - Q a) Q1 Q ra ra > C L a 01 O N N -a � '� C ra N Cl Q cn U CL OU O • ' '� Ln • a p Ql1 O LO 0 O U a) u W CD MC Q N .w O cu4=J� �' La � 0 L E A y " .� c Q fiO�r.f O C o - 4_, U CO Ql o O a '� C 5 ' raa) 4amj �, > O f0 4. ) U v • � ate-' � U .� V) o L O 4=J 4"' Mac 0 .LL-� Q Q 0 (n "0 a.-i .m a C C �O L a u fa c Q ' ra cn OL : Q i > > • � : Q 0(am ro C co ra Q Cn ra a) 4=j • C4mj Co 0 4.0 OU •� Q 1' . O O C > >. ra ' L � • C 4- o LJ E Q > Q C 4=J-O O C N Eo o ra ° < mo C) 0) Q C v - L O L V) r0 L a (n � p L (U O ' E C .O p- C C Q U 0mc 0 . � � mo V � '�' O �' � U) C 4m � c 1 ra C� 4 L to cn N c C C — C ' ra o cn 0 (n C w L c Q C >� c o L. C I� U cn =0 fO m Q Q � fa o a : c � • � cn (L) E U 0 Q o a- ..0 • � U J . L 0 0 0 0 O rLa Q rNa c a Lm a) M ' O U C' Qa C '+-' � � .N .0 � — Q fu t �--' cn a) : fu � ca "o ' > 4=J U) a.., Q a) C u a O 0) • — cn o1 v Q c -o • — c Q o. ra Q �v • , O L C ra (n o C u �' o a) ra Q aJ L Q O � >. � � � � � QLA (1) u a � cU) o .� 41 4=J o .v Q cn `� L Q Q 4- o ' ... �, CL O Q Oz � Q >, 0 x ° o, c um, -O c Q u- UL a-' � C = c � :1-J Q ° ' L O Q1 . j — c • — 0 ' % ra p c Q) � a- r Q L L a J Ln .LJ Q ra G U � (1) t a) ro (� a) cn a Q cn C� m0 m � a I=- � rua -oo a ( 00 > 1 - . > � .� O v e— Q) O c o •D c C)MOONED o N CUO V O O t CrD m � L +-. C 'OO v rO C O , n o Z u of (DLL � nQ) Mimi C c cwommodiso L oc�*Ala La ° 4wi L a vNa s o un u (a a Le j j c V)+ m C vCL 0) C) voC uN o >' LL o f . 0 L u O i ra O O -O .v O . 0 p .� C •C -0 ,C cCp a) N r0 a) a) 3Immme 0 oLcvio -v fu ais � o � � c .-: -� ° nU ° man o � � � ' o cr° o � 3thWO Ors , u � M = Uamo Boa) 4 rM c L -oGMENEWO o o 0 0 >.C: OMMEEM ' OLE o. c co E - a. L c v ru vi = c L CL a i=, >. a) > > . o w G > o >� (n v) v L L u L L �C C u ru N (n U (Q a) GMENOWN E 00 a) a) tin Q) f0 O L ^ (� auj > a) C v uimm, � :3 a) mu LO. L --fOD a. O C Nc ocn E �ve a) �a a � ruc a) O �c m a) in c �O� OL(-�n oc aaa)�) v _ C � c .E O O coU o o o � o . L L 0 ru Long u . `U .a uE a. U ro • o C t a o (aL.a.) rL3.0 Q) E : � a Cp �, U C+-' ' 'v vLcn � N Ems Ln;° � � Oa) �u � E o a L IMISMOMMID t � ° v .cU � � E oco Uo � WCno L Qrn�1 N • 0 '-' , c 3 '0 C U Ol C M L a) O ° i C L - ra O C v cu aJ ca y c O aJ t r s 4_ a) ru a) = s u - N U O C i- ° cn 0 c C a) O C (n 0 C O a) L E (n E N r fu 0 L 0 O ( ) U) clo c .D L N =' a) a) -O C L L C WO a) u a) N '� to C U N > Q -C =3 �' a) o > C �O a O a) = L • oMMmmmmmm L (n ry eamc CL >` Q a)ma cem u Om O c ru >► Q a"' •C N (n O 0 m >, � ' C = ^ t (D O L a + u:. -p C vi -0 C U U N L c i j (LD � 73 W N (0 U C 'O N ° 0 M a) a) ammommeO L E w O �' C a) �+- a L a) dmm�-- a) v O U C C •n _ L a) O (n a� r , O C O :3 C a) 0 � � a 'd .O ►- aJ O U O �' E (n aJ �o L ro N L cr m 3 Ln a) • a•) N L C u Cn 00 > a) �. C O r� L C � � � N u 0n •.0 C E (n � ra m L O_ u) 0 (j u O m Ln 0) Longs > O 0. -•C mQ O L o W E O ab O 4= ' .n a.-+ n' ~ C L N a) > � rD w a) w c o a o 0 0 0 3 v c o w :u vi ra L •N `� -C r0 ru E �► m O t N u ^ "- u 'O fu .> v n M�MmjE (n � C .0 O O u Q C acl) a) �/ O QJ ° 'C (n 0 M V � V1 L V �O >7 �O- E L L .� Las O O c Q �+ .0 N U u L v C U B rD u u 0 .0 a1 N 3 u ru O a) L co wimmi ui U Q 'L � Q) cn r° `t v a) ' . t 'a..+ mo r° -o s rn �. E E (n N C C C a) \ C u ( ) mO a) O C a) X_ > u 0 Q ru O N O N (� L C O O � , O O L o � L C .0 00 0 .0 ' ry L O C �, . 0 .�. > I'-- Q N L I-- o I— u I— E . c P (n o (n a . — � �+ O I— o- Q ro Q r> Z3 � • (n O ggmm� _ � C • � c a �LI ro 0' ru o c ra � c o o • — a _ o u � o V) ( uu N • > o. Long U 01 ro L C1 rL. C C.+ � RROMMER0 O O alN a) L O WIMEMS o o ro a) ' X � — Q.CD I U N Z o✓ w V) L� VON C Q) C L (u LowO L � O � � ' Q low tv � L ,� rD -O 4- L v N tL • may` 01U �` 4_ .0 N O � O C O t .0 a01E O V L p C rmomaD U O �' 'C L C C .0 ro O rn O O O L rD 4_ O N tD � N .�, ' � ko qztc c rD �, -C O F-- L >� O C N L C O C R N C O L U C C 41 to O p a. i O 0 C ° N QJ �-- O N 3 tL i 4•-' C ' L (B � >% a..i OJ CO ro vvbv0 � • � NSF=- N '''' N � � :E�j Noll mo '� Q>) °c' n. coru � c c L � tnN -o � v � —fu roc - o > % 4.5 ° � goom c > +.� }°�4mJ30 W o U o L v .a; a — c l/� rfl Q) O Q ro N o oNc 4 3: malai l orowocn > -v c of° c .Najrn 00ow tv L Q) •� _ 3 F_ w M L O L low C ' L C Q u Downsaw 0. rn 4'j 4 ' c� •�! (� C 0 L U U Q) to • — L. a r0 U L ° >� 4... E O p v _ `�" vi 17 � tU N N "O N aj O N O O L Q 4.., O ' L �+ iMC u + C C 0) ma 'O C O O Ol to L C O w rfl 01 O U L = n' c C O v O U 01 U O • � x CO C O �' 'D QUEENC N "O 4 •a L 0 ~ p�all ,� a' 4�— a u1 0 L E � 1J E O Q) ' L .,_, OPool ^ 1 , (� d L O fu � �° . � � v� m -vMLMJ >, OOuOc °�' c �v � c .nEtnc � p1 °i �' � Lm s- Q) .t; rLp C_ 'O N L .�-I C C `i' °a to ra . L 0 'r�L. 'O U ° C C U 4_ t p Volume QJ > Lop � WOWED C > m � •C '- L L mo tv N O O O . U L � . ' x O L OL N E = NL o c v ~ C. tn � u v � ru E fu 'u ° " c cs E N Q�j v .0 Y p. ' x C .0 �-• r� 0_ 0 rCp v V O BUMMED Enion looloo . > Ln a)L L L to O i F- O Q� _ • O- tin NIMMONS .0 � 2 v_ n 0 cD 0 m O 01 to u Q L ..0 O to Qw 0 = 0 M > C fu u v E moo �61 U r� a_' >' °O tv Co r0 � 0 >► 0 L L L N to rD > N o O tv N no ao _ L • - o - ° rli • -Nimmonsems C ro c&MEMO - fu mu to � Cu k+- atoolimac = -Dvv � cn � � Q� rv ,c ° moo a� � o &MEMO � 0 � 0 � mW 4J � >, rn -O E a c .c 4- F- N �O Loo c � r� x N to u rD v 4- �O .0 L a ' L O O �O O i u v ry �, — v rII ry M C q � O o c C N 0_ _+ O N O 0 ro O �` to o �, N N q L 4 . C iu w 4. Ol C O N _ Q) � N L 0. 0 S. > E _ .cc Q) � � 304mi Locos .� � � Lc � amwtv (Drvm °j �' to C -c L >, wo V1 0 all 4-1 U tD O �' ra Lmms N to N O — O O Q) D IllN tv "0 C � C L L, to x � di L- O" ol L L Q� M c Ol c O c O L a rO N U 'O O m L w000 0 U ro Q 4.1 0- v C L O L r� O ai O C O O L c L .O r� >, .E cLa C Q 4- a + 0) — � .� N O O O' cD �, L ^ c O ro C .0 �- O O 'O O r0 vi U v� •� rD N v O N F- > i ° C C) d U C O O v � U u 4mj all L r� E 0. L Ln v Q) 01 L O C m L u QJ v N .0 0 0_ 0 v rLp :E C N N L •O 1Ln O j .0 N Q) (n ow wilU Q1 d F_ a ) � to M � ^ .� OL ME: 4_ Ol � 4J r0 LL O to c vLr� rw � cn �' — � �+ ° tvc °- uoca) , � vLL a� vs � c � a-' a -C.+ "- o, � Etn ' ro0 LL ° �' c ° sE ? � � > � 0) {Jroof ko L u w r0 4ci owl CL 0 o Q `° c ro o O ra N o 4°.. +L-' o L a N o o U V1ai N C O c ILL L `+- loc — `� 0 � 4 m c U L (nOPENED � � LP) � rp ao+ 4- Cn .0 Q1 U ° 'r� ° •oolC Lfl ° p ' N c N -D DOWNSO ^ O U j L �'' N � ' L C O N r� i W >. ,--I C = to 0 ° loolooloo 3 N m > c N O ^ C rD x E a N C (s — coCDru tri C N t x c 5 4^ '� C U N L O 4._. c1 ate.: � O to OL m ' L O � � -p .0 c u '0 L � v O o+ p rD I- .° to C C C f0 v O C Q) 4%J v rn 0 0 O tv L a to Q) o 4m, N o +, i + 0_ L ry 0) CL •- L C c 0 a°°+ , 0_ 01 co v ca n. OWNED r� ro 0 a � � L : N ° a C to to N L U Q) C Q) O u � rD to '�'. Oa = Low to W L O= a ffl O 3 vi w � N O = 0 O C � Powwow o u a., v° .� � N among 01U0 " � � � to `� � 0 °domm au '-' C. Low � -O ra Q C E Q) +.� N Q) � L L c C rfl N to L M .4, `+- 0 0 •C N L U C O+ tv cm O .low � � C N N ro mooN M •� L L .O �' In � � N N O or. 0- '� O N C F_ v � � •r..i boolooC ° N L >� L (l7 Q) F_ '� Q C rD L oolN L � L r L O °n o � .° Ev o �► a � 0 0 r� ' C C ,U ° o Q) a � � .o c 3o � � u U (L)wimmi SEEMED D :34mjvamu u � � •aL., � fu L tv � � -_ tn (1) � > IMMMMWN LU ' o o c u curLow � U Q C C O .� CO Lazo� U a c ou o c O U' J 4= � � r w SOMEONE a..,GUMMEDu— � rn = u p C C � L N _ -0 MENEEMIN >% N LM Q) Q1 �, 4mi L L > N L C Dammam U O C U -O V L ro N F- > > O O O mo U L L- ro ro 'O CO ry p 0 0 �+ C .p ro -O +-+ L m v c L V) >• O L L — L N 1mi Co o , v c u y L L p ,,., v t U .m.+ fu rn rn Q Ln � auic4mmj a�'iNv0 r° 4-- Oc �°, auip1 � u NOWro 0 L r. ,E 0 O QJ L +� Cl a, Q C 0 N '� aj ° 3 Uo XE .0 � L ra y ,- Qv� 3a -covu, � ° 0 aj MW c co c E a� .c ro � ° a) at � ' awc ° gin- vr° QQ'ia m = a" Lamm=3 � L � c � >, U cacioam ua � or° ruvQ; .0 0NUH � Boa ov CD C U W rho �n c ro � c � � i 00 c 0 � cn � a� omammon 0 u a L L C v � U 1 Q) O .O a) O L O O p L a O �-' a ro > L ERENE .DL c r Q O Ol � o ° " O 4mi .0 o U to C aJ a) m O O O 'aO cE L3 SEENEWu �, ooro ro 0Lo0S0 o N n +- J� OEc � o • O O' — O JQO 0 O c � o :mo ' c C05 n cj o � v � o � o0 v MENNEN � 00u � E � E v � �nOcQ 0, Eoo ,� � Lmommom somms _ c c Q) c G SMENNEC c o o co v 0 s v fu oi vNi L 4mmmm U) v E 3 M .0c op MOMMERM = a N , - . = v N C N co a Miami O U� L V) C � ro ammomm ~ u cc o 40 ' co O.V) O = L V) � � c \ = (� V) N a) L O C O E 01 O rD CD Vf .r .+ % ry rD amomm � \ L > E .0O C: O L � O lamom •c NEEME GCOMME >., c v rB U O ru OMMEME 0 ~C - � o � =L � 0 ` � a � � O � ai uau ' � � 04m' oi oV) v � n on a�7O ro ro C "' roL sommom aaaaaaa L � ' L- omommma oaaaaa sommomm � COm o � Q E , �� C° rn ° - � ' 0 � gyo m0 � c = 0ro c � - 00c sE ocvai c(n .� La C .n v _ n Law o ' a) O L > L ow V) Oo I V) C V) LU a� uU — L sE -m L �roo 0rn0pa a�� aj p �O m ro A OLo>= mw EMENIN rrco . �3 � ° �ELN E � n 3 Q v � O u fu ) Ln E (Lo O + N ` pC:) iO NL U c � o C MO 0 °u rn4mi C � o 0 LQa� ' " 0wommoma vo EW 4mmow at L. aaaa mommom mo nD " +- �+ C ro Miami 0 QU N ' o N On _ fu • a :D�' �'' c oM o � a � O NQ Nro � � Enu . 0) c o � aL , E uc � c u0 . - 0vcn E u0 QJ U � 0 0cou V) ° o . ,o � n � c r cL.a) L p ' o �� u c uav LN > � =o ro • LE � r0 N x cn VEMENEW Q N C .E [+� -C _C W M U C .- p C ' i o Q a. L. Q) C N Q 0 C 'rp C F- F... ro cv O �+ p a) C (n cn L. L O O >� a) 'O ro a N a > In Q � Q) O �+ _ C ro {=� � � �- � . _ -o m Mimi o cn 0 �° r� c ruo rNn � � UO L � U) o C u -o 0 L o uEMOMEMID— E E ;�, u a � 3 c E a � p u 0 ao, 0 u mmJ a� , o c rn p L W C Q� o L ro ' C a� u a C L L L O u L 0 OAMJ V� ro c {� N (� a L a W cn Q �' mo a N ro m o N F— � V) E ro E— 4.j sommon — MEN MENEEMEMEN L11 ran . C :; c o Z3' Q1 U C Q mo C N O Q) U O C O U O C7 ¢ U) G., r)' L _ N 4- N (1) L O 41111111140 O v co 4mJ 0) L ° oa 3 ' � C) Vs� c s . °'0) c � 23 fa v) cn � � °a cc' � � vi � c ui cv �► L fn Q fl! +, m0cn � 3W ,cn � � ° ' cn0) ° cv4 •� c � as L o 0. �, ° Q >'lie = o fu o °' -v O C (LO = � E ct fo � m cu v U u � = � a Con Ei � � c o " MQ � MC'811111140 cc' a t Q) o. > fu0 � o � >, 0 3 0 � o � U C ° (na� 0 � o j f° � ocfv � n. c mac °' ra0 fuvc .° E3: mu -0 � QmcU Ec o cn0 a flu tootootoo" fn O L h•- 4- Q 0 E O In L a••� L •+ O O Q L a) O O � .Y fD L aJ � ° C O aJ -p C) O E VC:p con •� C C C 0 > fa a aJ E a) 021111111 c u min c o .w4 3 � u E c sommoom Ln 0 , v � L 1i a' � 3 a`ni4=J C) wo (a �' UE tII � � E � Q) aj ° � Qr., c � � MO � v a � � 0 E O o o' ° E � ° � � O L _ O N Ln 4- L . L O a) ' > O L O B tow O xC: mw 0 0 � 4mic CD' CL � c ° n a� c � o c j o � fn 0 a••� • � 4_ MO c c s � f� o -o �_ c� c u O ,c u '0 O � C N = E UO cn L w u1 >` ' L C O 0 t C� C U a) t' i� O C O cD a) :�, O ° `L° � � L � O a' v v E � cu L as E aE vwo a � v -ci i = vr4mJ MW c14� � crvcn � � 30 •�°-° u � a� n c 4=J L � _ 0 c vn N — c E C fo O O fD4-1 � ,O >1111110 L. > N f0 C cn 'fn O C a..+ 0 3 C:ommomin 0 o a�i N Xc m ° o c � 00 o u • > c' a � o �C .� L y., 'fn v 0 N 4... c wo u N u u f0 0 ' > moo ° cQ sma w N � ntooCL >�fu � ° 3vCO 02111111b Uco 3 mom ,;° E �, � � o, � x ago vtnfv ° o- afn — a� ° aa� o � cfn � � cut furaoE � � o � 0 Eck 41111111111 oar � v, oos c .0 � O "0 O aJ '0 L. fU C . _ c 0 a C fn •C aJ D NCL c L. j � o >- o c a�iU Q E ate► � .a"' o c fn C a L O O O cn fn fp — O cn C O 0 .� 'fO a••► o o o � c m �' os Us cNo � -c o o toottootto° c u � N `' E fn .0 0 7 o am E - ►- �' � i- -c o �' p E > 0 � rn0 D � - Nt'' � fn Y a ) , c � a. 4 a ao ° L c 3 . 3 u c aw c u .> u fo Ln O 0 0 C 0 L 0) 0 101111011 ' L to L "NoU) a) f0 m L 0 a 0 �- tm � n. ai u � tow u °' fit "- .o � � � 00, E-. ;,c sx � Q Loo c m E fp -o f71 vn a) 0 v a) 0 3 c �, a� _ E a cnEa' a�iov; E c o cc �, ''' L "- N �' oirow .c ° ° a� O Q) aJ � E rn cv _a � ,-q � fv � C c f° 0 m L C > E a • > E— a -0 fn a) mc Nr L L Lf1 f11 Q) ° Ol .V ' L L' ° ' L 0 C N U c a ) 0 -v � a > a) c ai i s o r, f° 0 c ' ,� c W .= ai fo a ' au a) > fv , o .c0caV) .c0cCmc0 u 0ais o oa � .� 11m ca) aa) m � a I- 3m I- cn - cf-- ate, Q Z � � Z a � a ._ c Ouc� � It I Iol ol IT r r - N' om - T CU . � n- cn Z . — - c a) C fn Q- - _ fo j . i rn N ° . . a u Q o. :v N Q � � � � ccv � � . � � a� .� c w . m O fu a) mc CJ _ 0 c '> > ' cn 3 c c a� aU N INC c C� OQ o. 0 acne � � O _ `e U O U U o v Y a s f U rn Q Q U p O D. C N U N U `1 a) O L O C CL C C r0 cn L 0) Q) E aJ OU ro .o >, E >4=J Ln ,� o ra ow o ru 0) . 0 c a ' U rn cn . c Ln O- c4 ' °' o � U) L � oo 0 .0C saL. as U N ,� -o . ? o a) wo o .c c n m >ioo � aov a _ cC, c c o LEI- .c - QJw -O rUo E rUo � Lu 4- a ) t 2 a O co � � o a� E N � s s o m o o � F- Ln (U � c ov � o >. E0 � MCO 3 � oLn >% 0 Ls 0 Ln rfl O Le 0 U rfl V U O ' C r� cm 1 01 >� O Lm '0 N N 4mi u_ U rD O >� Q .D t Ln D f0 't Q) Q) a N N C_ 3 Ql O OL �. L ��, L. CL E 'O _r o aU m � N = � rca E >' F uQ)0 � �- - � o ' o' -v = v : c � o � 00a; � afD .0 U o U a C O N O O Ln � O o ra a) ram � a) I U U i- U L (n O N ow a >, a O ro .N V O = = L CL ro v .� o CM hoc Q, .cMCC: W ' v O V L o C (a. Ln N a�Cn C N C U °' Ln m"j W W W 0 ry to o w O L WE c a F- m O w U c LL 0 . Imi w LMMJ uj O C "' w o 0 o O C c fo Q o ' � U o_ C� V) ro � c � U u Q) � O i CD � rca U O L Parkland Acquisition Evaluation Template Attachment 2 Assessment of OWASA Mitigation Tract using Adopted Criteria for Evaluating Potential Parkland Acquisition Parklands Acquisition Criteria OWASA Mitigation Tract The existence of matching funds from a N / A — Site located in unincorporated part requesting jurisdiction of the county , Possible donation / lease . Potential for grants and other funding N / A — Land may be available at little or opportunities no cost to Orange County . [ Funds for trail development may be available from NC Rec , Trails Pro ram . Completion of existing projects with an N / A adopted facility Ian Contains a site identified in the NO - It does , however , include 150 - 180 Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife acres of mature hardwoods identified as Habitats of Orange County , N . C . prime forest wildlife habitat in the 1999 0 inventory conducted for Orange County . Compatibility of planned park use with YES — Potential park uses include low . adjacent land uses impact recreation ( hiking / nature trails ) and seasonal hunting . Hunting would be compatible as long as there were clear and appropriate rules established and enforced so as not to adversely impact the surrounding land uses . ( e . g . , a . . separation of uses during hunting season Appropriate intensity of use for the area YES — A public park featuring low - impact recreation would blend into with this sparsely populated area of the County . Cane Creek watershed protection area Location YES — The site would help satisfy park needs identified in Parks Element of the Comprehensive Plan by establishing the " Bingham - Cane Creek District Park . " Promotes continuity of wildlife corridors , YES — Could provide an alternate link to rustic trails and linear parks proposed Cane Creek to Seven Mile Creek/ Eno River rustic woodland trail and wildlife corridor . Land is adjacent to new schools NO — Closest schools are 4 . 5 miles away . ( Efland - Cheeks Elementary ; Cedar Ridge Hi h Grady Brown Elements Land for active recreation is suitable and MAYBE — Site includes areas that may be appropriate for planned uses suitable for active recreation , but would require clearing and access may be difficult . OWASA prefers not to allow active recreation at this site . The reservoir permit may ose limitations . Furthers purposes of Upper Eno and NO — Site is located outside of those New Hope Corridor preservation efforts riparian corridors . Parkland Acquisition Evaluation Template Attachment 2 Access ( transportation ) is safe and MAYBE — There is access to the site from easily - accomplished Martin Road ( off Buckhorn Road ) , but roadway is rural and partially unpaved . An alternate access point from Buckhorn Road should be explored . Meeting multiple goals ( of the above ) YES — Developing the site into a park gets higher weighting would achieve County parkland goals ( Parks Element of Comprehensive Plan ) . Existing protection by OWASA furthers County goals of preserving prime forest , wildlife habitat , water supply watershed , rural character and open s ace . ER CD February 6, 2002 2 �i� ♦ M Ern RON go fill any' MMINWA INA ri 111 11. 1/11 _ =�� •/1 � �� ` � % � � l�i=ui,u►\1 i am " ►; .' =�� all 1'�. \ " — �I•� ` .. NIP �1/ � • � '-1i" F, 1�—a _ !Y `♦� r III+■ '��, � � .. c � = �t'■• � � �� -..-1,1 i��' � � ► per .��' ` • iLl \�11 �� / 1 � - - . r°� ��: - �� _ : 1 - ' ■■q -- - - - ,t_— _ - .II � . ■ ; cam': �5i ; Ile : � YI■�„ ii 1� d j�ij„■li:' ■`byl: ■ •ate '� } � :. �� 1 �/ ::- '1 � � c `'a � _ + � a\�rt■ '%�",.11��N� 1'�'1 1, 1 �.� i��J_ / ? � 7Giil Ji = ��, 1■ �.= all �� 1 • � _ - �� . ._ ' ■� is = � � � al�� ,Nu' �1! ,�1 ' .■ Ts Million EVA WA f IN ig low IV k Hill � -� ■ �G � � � �. �- E11■�:::.�.� R ■ � ��,11�:1� elm -1 � . ram. a nn,. ' � � 1 f l�,`� I/c-� ' � u■�■s 11�/1/ 1 _ .: .... ...E ,,• - � �� - �\ Ire -_� , �, �■-i Wel, WdI ILI %1 • Own— WIN ilk 71L ' , �t.�%`� 1•� � 1',� off VA Location Map • . . .�•;� � ,17;.,' III �yScale ( miles ) mom � � �� MINNIE _.� Attachment 4 VN Mot �.1 Cti - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PP J Co NIP INK It.it �A• � L 14t . . � ' rt b;�,,is,^ S � A z Robot L bo ; n _ ;�` y _ 5-?� ►� ` A " r� P"of r, } fe loot At � wk � nZH 3 pJJ � 1 L° '' . , ►^7 ` . D :,.� u � 11 rnQ S � c i 1 h lot he 1 i S 1 a of arp yy film �As 411 It rim- up Ad Ar �°i �!, a " NO L J "` • AIFor- 1~ � f j 7r �:4 4 :� , • . p, �. + y . ` v Ar ] 1. / ( * - ; r'' t :� . `.' .� tt IN I.,e VAAA - '.n.l 1 - t ! r � , .. 1 , fir' , t / t # tr M . 11 . E ? -t ] - 1 • r .. h IF 6y��_ 111ppp 1 • t ( - �C- • 'd� _ < f -�FT Is 1i� r• ^ r - is. . .` �~ ; r * �.a i � ~A' t .� • K . � r� ' '.1-�+ � ��-if-r+: S /{•], ;�� y ` AN ' ', ti41, � iS Yt 1 �A • ` I ' f � • 1 r, •1! ff y �' ; i i � .l . f.:. . ' + , •. / \�1 • {{ l. � , •r• , t r A) ,�j �' • .� . ` . I �i / ,.�• j w r. .8 • r AAA - t--.q.�.; • • •CgTr'?h j : j , ` - _ ` '` +v , . j !? 0� a} .d�rd. i4 ♦ .vsxY ' ti' lA ;{r •t,� lr / Y ~ .1 7:, . ,_; r ,' . �r. ( . r ! , ' ' b R, , i J. � . _ ar some- A a Its. 1 it � -NS I f a 4 "All Kti� - t, 5 • e� ' ' J' • [ : Y 4H'i ' ii1. _• ht A :: ii _ .All 2 aim '�.� .,, ,r/;yi ? � �- �• ' .h # M 'i " -R � 1 • •;11R'l t . • I ; ' t. r• s • (• y Is .. { C , • i A . �y •*, - y1Jl . ' =1 tAT I ' v �.y}?• l \,L _% ., r t ;1 `�J � _ Aft, y: • - -� l{ •y �Ada a � ,T , , , 7 � . a. ! � _Iy t . •• { . ' -• ,�•• < f 1 �. L-{ �.' 1 / I' l c . /'.; , rt. , •c4 •�' ? lad P s_ r y 1 , _ u7� l �j 11 i • �' r �!, t , t It / . , , . . •rr f• . .F +r I 'M ' 'r'1 'v ,� •is, r • _ v . '1 Fit •• • t AAA O i � t A , t n . . r �.�Epistils . r ' rat, „ r k t A:r tr* ' dt} { r,. r r �• r3;'.` lr . 1 ,y ,. t : of1, 11 1 i S� I �.y_ may■ a r, * T _ - +• • ra.�FATr 11t , 1 r � . /�. N. � + • � r. ` 11f�' � AAA' ;'� J {I ' ,. ♦ '+ • • so � r�. • t S •.•�y�.' 1• � ' ! 7 ) • �: i1 "'•a1�,Y ' , ` 1 - y�- - ;/ . _ • t+ ti e� •y sj r,+ i i ��er - .`( y { „s�•a r 7, . , tt. r{GS p. a,� 2• t lit r : • 1•OFF f v�' ✓t:-i i ►L� Ir - r '. -r, `f..a. ' A r T ' , 1 �4� A _ - pi• . - •rt . •:17 , ,e IA _ , a4 Am itvoi '' - 4� . +: . ' •, I� r , , . ]K . . r . ,� h. i .ay J . � Att , ` Im / :4T. ',rf' /� �`: .'. is t_ � ' 1 \ -j; / ia7Y r fsr t ' -+ j} I � _ � - _ �r 'lrl.'AAN j;f 7 � 'ti ,( . .� ,= - . AVAIL_ . - i. . � ' .11 a rlt all, Y?• y Yr7 A So ft Am , f am 0 % yl r,• ('• y Y ,�,y }S ' ' l` re.'t t 5 . '. 7I' � ' r 1 if nt�1 i *oil ' :r• am �t � J " �y � :4� � t f •AGIV � ' n / , t- { �aim (, � ' ilk'- 1 a j '�� ' t . 7Z 1 mot �. y ' h 1 , •y� AN } �. �' ` ' ,i ..{�i ' w �' �j..i� ` ' • • '{ , i'lt { AN aT_�iAf: s My ' ♦ i r 'rR V ' ' ,'tLj t� .Jr• r -{, • '�''' •� i r � jr '_dY .� • - � , ' ' • I + • tt �! `+'7' • •� � . . r • t • t a_ . • + t _ Gam._ ■Y ~ AIM �. � FF . `4 Flo; . , .�: ,, • , , f , to 1�fr � ' t %LAT If I OFF AVE! Ve Am l � h1v J - + Pt 1 1 t Y r TOO ar /1 4 r {, r • . k VFW )) �4 'Not 1 " , • r it l , . . � ./ . . • : 1Rp } � IP� e ;r f .wtfr! r � • t . J � 1 ,a , r - r r It FAA y. _ i !``•,- YOb �/''! - - . 5 %' 1- ! i . ^ d. - A it . . �� J• v-. nYf /Y. t � t1``• t • �_i k - • 41 S ' rfil _ 4'•f � r _ ' �- j wYl '•\I�� •' � . �' �� 1 :7`' _ _ _+- ; .IIIra' �' . ( ' /, � ~ �`� . CIt Ig f -, � • Yd -,� i! l +• t` 1 . r. '"� r j: p yrF _ S I -"�yej` I tv • �y . 5 { ,'jda( y is rF, III . , ( ' [ri •i , •. �j" i ,, T F •-Cv 1• ;I•• ' ` -. r . r . , 4fi • �Itr •! S '� , a. � . 'r 11T 1 -�1 ' IF ir . - F t '� `� to Sl / ( , ' -Am .. �"•, . � Rt A ii - nj � it + 1 nflimploom � ' .. ' wNo al M` 01A A q" Y t i 1tl + ` " .I9f t + L . off `Ap- 'I "???•*i . � �_ LL * ' i• v 1AN 4 5r. JL- i r •• rt+- hjrl ! t r,y�t1Y a ' l ` . -' }� . - �v , � Am . �� 'i' l r ' rtie L' ♦ .v fsl ,�ij•J/\�'�i y . �1!„ l! _r r IiT m fl .`� •'tFF AN i.,y i -'� . G ; -t 4 • } .I , 's`r�r ,•,+rn _ ,I • �� , 1 �' ' t '�: J. • ,•l` * ••�^ t +' � `� %° . 7� �5��' � � _' v . : ' .^�' � .1 - - VA. 3 •,� . 1 ft 7 'N • i - ' Am _ ;�s -+ r ". - a Sri 1 f :�'�jF �nl r . �R r, tea 3tr Sy'tl .* 1 h- 1 LAll WVF `•' ; • 9, r �'(. -t•S r �y ••: . .a �s^ i -+r U , AFA -S r r ?N ; old 4 xa a / ,� ,..6, j • f T •'i , •t � (' 1 s , A �J, +fr•'b' bt °;,tt- • y • } t '. n 1'�i I , T - - •• , -• i t• . - F 1 it , � I a t` •._` ' Mass. . J1 t� [ X�,. 1J f f, ,l , r •. - 5 ' 77t _ _ _ _ AN AF7 - •+ - T AN b .S • f r � - C -/ A ' a Y .1 , : 7• . •.:1�t' ` � .f [• ' 1 - y . - " r -c { 1 r , �� FZ impY ' acart 4 9 V.' S ..t MM . �ad aris /l` , +7ro i v, at 'fmal • �` t r + ,c� �• »r1 rz Z _5 i., , 41 • a i - . t r �,i* ,eh' i '` „ ' I TL, i. l yr ' `�,y, :AlkLL• y+ - s , _� •J � _ - r did �a e _ 0 aj.4 ' ' 1 } �Asti �' I a' ANN r r- ., � • . f � ; { �' ] - 0 AI F FAA ,r- �� d dlg,AN astiF ,� r.� r 4 {/"�'17 A.. '• {�• . ty ti T ; j 1' r- - : rt , � 1 .Ia FA % P r :`Y_ �` l �t ' .1,^ ,JtR >t. a A . `F.Alw ►si ` •� . • • 1 • ' gS . • . .f ° SAP± .- � � i yr . .r �rr" ' K' .. _ - • ; . A I - r yv r dsdYY r ' '4• i '. 4 4 saw "� ' t+� �''.c �,l� '>r S. =^ ,r�,;=.r]a; : . � r { - • , ,,. , - t k. 'iE�! f .y• � ' y aty�� Im , .g{ ; l , [ '�` }i' `� d > t- ror .7i. r ' Z ' + : r'l{ .$. r@ ri • ,'- • ��,y_.�i�'y� -" ;tfOF 9 rli. , . � Fit . 1 �fR - : • �4�'L;' �' - ( '�;%1 p 1. • .1' r•- e+tiF. k ^ 'L my is l sZ (k' . t , r I r /a�,"¢✓"��• r rVs all, V. IL .� - f i ?'tl ' t •_ `tr j!)1� "art -� , !'` • r� � 'T+r,' .i� M , jr r �' + ' rPAN ---�FAA A � f••` r r { '�• � • :.115 ,/ .. � ► ;m� R NOF ..ram' a r 'tll. a ,J �'k .1 l t , ` ' j+t7'' k + _• t ( 1 Y' t r .i - _ f • -; •,�/rr• lc. « ,y �+ ^t Y �' `1 ' I' J�i` 4 :t ! ��r A Y. ' • ] , 11VIA AAA FF , ` ' � 2 1 ITi, . F - . !/� '., Fat . .P- J!`t- ' `3�" i }`� 'Gyy . �J d a lor Ar i - p. 'F r1T t�/ / Sett tirOil sain _� ,,�y7 � t�.• . = *t , 'L,',41 I pn �A 'f�I �4.� 1'j .' z 1�ry,�ji`A1' A` I % j , • • -5 : i , { • 'lY:y am Aa , -�W�4�i .� '•v'R/''.rr('yC�'k�, �`F , ✓ , { t AN r ,1, r= • t . • 'F�"jR: ,yii' , 'C f• Ay` f t�w pf ' •'� pailloossis - , e•. ` Aw p `��. - 'F:4i.• „ , r , I,r ,7t4, r.:. - � ,/ �, .� i )Y +, - t.i +. �+�t 'T' 1 - r - - ,. - e {� : , rr: i t tNO t•- .a4AC� � n i Y i. : A VIA<,'i' a1.`'Q` )F- it' 1 { � r 1 (t 'L{: ! y 11 , �d / .o la: or � M' '_mil 81A •y ALAI l ' _ • L , . .r L �' i,' ' P c. a 6 ' Fii• • 1 f. ,� r• '44 • f{ '• a7 1' 1 'I Lit ^, r r 4 lt,J ' , + - f �' �y,r.• � ! l�• ' .otr ' r ( 11 . 1}_ .J- 7st IN , • r r•.1 4 � A -r• p' ` 1. � . }1 f,F S. } v' • A . � a #1At�. 1 (% Stop t . _ Mr , ro ♦ { tj r ` ' - _ �r rt ! � , , ` =1`�`` f• �i� , r •_ - i �+' •'- •firj 1 ' + • ? 1 '' tit '1 .�•� ' • T t � . '.A . ` ] ? p • : `O � • : , ` }_ dT ry ' vir / t : FIF at �� %� { re f Fs .ta i}�j � . I �' _ � � � ; �#, . L �� ,'aft 1s F -.. ';� ' 7 �,� '�` IF b % A As f R.` e 't: - , , 1 (i• , _ � • • .tf , ,All �'d •___ rt { �+{5 rti ' . ��e�,%;� i � j � `Yl d r�1 G i . t ' r • yjt,� Al �. .� {� `�• � . } f, � . Y� r �J A. i , r t r a6' _ Srrt . T tJr• T rI 7I' ��j t 4. • • { as .S r � • . �, y � ` I Fir . SIal a . de •• ; `� ? S'r '. r ' , rJ �✓� '�flr ' ' • p zI r � :� ` t 'A. 999 .ytlx �y Am s `/ �� a , Fit 6 AY TF ' ' ' A ' .tt �R � � T11� `' 7i ''Am-AA 1 t ,, , „tl Nowy. ht j• ' . , , )h, �y t��+ ��xyy-FF 1, ,r! A. r0'�44 fe i/. 1 r lr f �•� r ` Ir /t f ,, tf„ Y ".W Jrj ^s', i .7r( `t' ' • �uT`{..• , ' . � n � Ili � 1 ,i. r Il • { � N ,� T`/. - TO � �•. _ . '•i .r (. fa amap IFF Am of Y ' I ' 1 .11. ; -\ * " 1 ,V A : r rI?)= fait ' f r^,.,fA I •� - I - 1 , . 1 .1 .. -`w , •'/. >j r � 1 . , • • 5 . 1 / � `"� �•• ' • ; �,*�)� � r( •" '• 4 ; ,t _ n•.1S• Yt 1� , - »' ., J . •t _ .�'t�" .J•lt •, , ,ir� f: : ' 1 }c.,�} • ' F ,, ' t. l •. t. ) �• . `+5 ;� - t �} r�P - - '^ �r :I• ;"7, 4�- u - fi a p . . . ��►wy�+. - T r �2 � r ' . � ' �; '� , A Yh fS �t ` r am ' ' , • ' par .>° . rti cl.. : Kr t 4 t I'to Am /1 ' a ,�. . }i !9."S•1. '.: [ ' _ �. 1; da;'t r , '�• •, , -q _ ' ; \ • '1 = ', •� f y ` .` r1 - r' rr i 'nt1 ,•r � � 1 / 1 a?Sl . . ,` 1 < .1 1 r { rf Fita it t t LL • / ,, G, { � r 1 " IT a+ : 1.� 'Via � �,^ IN IF ` ',d . t ram • R . -.K• . - t�'•+,�, � ' � '� � 7y VAN s -` . r :�AN , A 0 AAA j1 \ LA ... T •. • .M.•.. TS f1 { 9t t : ,,} .7 r 7`Y1 A • - l car It t Ky � c •f 1 a � ' ` 1 S • ' � ' f i 1 ' .3r• • j`! r \ . ai rr(( , Al . /�sw1V 1 r7Xti,.: Alf , '( .4 . i _ � � 'Y r ,.. {;Y.:: wt ' s i A AN PA .1 ; t�(1 ] j1 � t � { { ~fir * Al �iAl r Ft £�`! ; . • . • A- '' - ; y� 1 ` ; rye.= , , - ', L '•IF Kai Is . E ttl yr �• ��. tr'�iFfix' r r M� �'. i .;tT.Jf 0 a? i � . At OFF. - { f{+' '!), ) :C - tiAifeI- / _ : 1' ri Sr ••.t-�. i at - Am of .. a j r r.xl : ,. 1: •- d • • � � 2J >> hemAem ehateh he ' r 11 ) l J hae 7`` \ ' home l r- Z lam, t• re � N � - eer Ole PRO 0 / GO .J Or Is 77 me IN its. _ I IF 96 Of 000e/ 1 i S � J OWASAree IN IN --- `1 J 00 IMI- cc� f � ` I OWASA Mitiogation Tract 0 OWASA Tract Stream o *. Lake [� Parcel Boundary ��r . ` � r �``�• Bui � din 0 7001400 Feet 9 County of Orange En +nronrnenl 8 Resource Eno USGS Map Coneerva, ron0eparlinent February 20, 2u02 h1 Jones Hr8 / HrC HrC E Lg EnB Attachment 7 J Get] HrB B His HrB Ly HrC GOB TOO / w Or B B G. HrC Ho His Al His j w G.0 EnB Hoe Lg HrB C)l His B HrC � vr G E EnC Hr8 \ HiB r EnB HrC G.0 BEnC Hr0 G�— g HrB 00 GOB HrB EnB We w O Hr8 Hie GOB G.0 GOB His HrB .0 Cn w _ . L Attachment 8 �I JckH�R�� GUN CLUB - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • � Cn m G FOP m i o .. \ GOFF E t - - - - - - r - i r F � 'T OL ,& FOP � \ s b 1 doo i PINE MI XE6 HOWARO OFT PAAb W 0 0 ?a.S' • • our 4 And 11 ! ; ,F . ; . s i rrav /iIR AI >� of • ' �y •' oft �`L-MSS . lr r of !. �y^y + ,A � -r'L�.`F}v; rlri � _� i . t. ti7p Apilry to , ~•" . i' ' ill1 ' rN ` . ' �r y � ge� i ) r } ` r � 'd ' ay ° � to .a;. . `Y No -t r , 'Ii . " y � ilY I I, PPPi1 ' ` . GL . d w we ' ET�.p ti•'t,+' !, , , mac oll r i ' i lii il " u..Yi�lv1 r � ,i 1 t �1 � `' �� 51:*1145 off, P ofe oil 4 awe AIR IL 0 � _ k t 4 Id of No EE 444 J.L9 ber. y '� ryk��?,rAll I; ' y f !y! �,1r r , ' IYYY,1Ly ' To 4 d .:p , , . : . i y' 40, Martin Road access (cul-degagesac at top of hill) Yfr •c h, we get off 4 go a Maim ago to PEIJ�.r, to of , ..: • f�of Sol I MIL ,, - ', • ' y Val. - ; • , giv of r • ) � 00all , VINO" "Womb ' pry ± 1 J �� • . �r' ••: � . '�. rr/ r �ti� � .0AT �r'L� k �Gr� t 6 %% �+� � • 0 ,l i 't ` TV i - �l'g �:'i. �` f l, . ". � � '•AS'.�: �1 r,.. �►�`-: •1rt ��fr?.' _� � T' • 44 jilt folio r ! Stoneformer • me site ' I � i loll ri to I Ilk wo TV , fj { ( PA. Job off d Egg . ! •!1 � , : ' ; : ( 1 ,' � r i - ; °' _ `l • tr q ` , •� '' iii t � . 7 . f-► 1 1 f,`Si11t f.' ( b �+ � st� '� Q'i IM t .. l . �, ` : • f .• ,( ti Gr^s , . / . pia!` cf �: `r ,' It s _ ' .�� 4t ti I I _ ! y 'Frito to Ito MJis ' i. " rn ' ' �„ , ,Gl : � it elk . f few Allor 0 VIEW V do IPA ElP ob ob go tool flow At fit I r to ago To be 1 -ti 6 To leg. -- T off -_.ter_, .. :. .ti;t +p1 f _ ti �logoi'P)faab , i' P folio goo 0 Are >s ,�►oV gwo--or art, get �► re.e.�a•r'.Pr'„�, `-. f' f It T .� ' r/dray r M- • e,'S •''�t' v ��1•'.f� . ,0 . . a. �. :�i'.(.— _�i+'l�r —off +Iti � ,ems ,/ 1!„ F ' • p/ i ' `�"�'� 1 = t — 7wft (Rp- - —` 11F off f,f`I I + of VA 11.Ij t - ,/ �,! ' r��h,,• /c 1' . fl • 1G -p/ 'l �j1�. .: / of {a ob be : Y� Lei' Y r IS beat off fil ,.Trail through pine forest ( Section 2 ) 11 ;4 or td� ' ,* 'Vologe „ - ' ,� ,swz!;ea� erg ago a ilY�y , 1; i� ' i�`; A •�R kA e '' • E 1 , 011 L., (irs� i� 4 ;� y�-1 z�iE , p r Wog a FFFF ' " ' i 1 �A« %y �lgy�, •st j ? r" ^. ✓ . 4 ' ter 'R r' , L'MIL 1 a�V TV i , . No go Cab& . ;� s . r�� ( h � s' :a ,tlt-e fzjm '•rl •��z �+��'iti•'1 ;:° - � 1 ,iy :'�u�;:�' off of %;�i � a 1 0 It of iry ,y 1 yi ��a • •! � ' a4 TIT VIVAA+ , , vr' r ( rPi 1� F��` Y9� rN�I •� . , ; ' !� ► �}M? Mt � � Vw4ty hof Ti '}' ' •� y , . 4. ? } . , . .•y ' �� s t�',11'y� ��ill r 6 L IF Pro TIE off 94KA I go. folio Axle o0v ell A IN P�- I t Alif five Tulip poplars in hardwood forest ( Section 2 ) o. ' - go vologo, :v Poo so 4= = • 11 • i1 1Fh Jet IF,, . > : At ILI, ({ n i +,.• ; 1 ` t /_ mil _ . .. ; 1 • , ! Cc a it It I j A ` y, ; r • ,. 'li JM ��: ', . `' y i •.�:i .rii 't.11(C: : { �, 1, �/ r �• ? ' < lf`ii , •y , � t , j !; 4�i ` �^ � rlt . 1 �� 106, F {j��`1fSt1t i til t1rl��iyiTAtt' h^I' , ' 1r� `'f J VIA b. t + , ,3� 4�1 IZ P' • . * �/, AV , F11 ' , 1 � . jIF� -4+ ,.✓*,r; • b '+ • �� • t7•~�r l� 1 �� {{ IV • r � . , • Jtff... �4 � _ p � . , _ " • � � �'�••pr f�` 1 :•. i I i ;11 � d , ' • t .j " `` ,K l, t 1vt 7C ,ii b;P - !L%•"�e ..► f ?I '`r - ; .ssea e 'I Y\ , ^- � : i,off Is AL A Air"Firm.. �o' o4�s ` 4 �`' �.� : i. b f s °r ' 1 ji ! •' , A, s..--'•:.-++- r9 V. „v� j`�, + !% �'r'��tpp OWA y" . .+ „ — _ . ,,.. ... : . .� . + a' }j',.r.�.._^��aytr!'.�.. , ' ls� " • ! 1 t ^ y1,- r •.R• r somme AV y .:r.4..'' ,yWrt+. �.e' + i. . _ - ,` :�. ad I p� p ,oc>La� ~ �' �; ei 1 •�'OI � p . .i Am. O War i • • . • • • • • ' • _ _ _ • • • • • • If Ilk Air at ILL _`-""�.t' )l " t It 4 •G�jk'��,� t i �• Ii '�� uf � �'� ! } f N- � , ��1 : Y� Aral t � ^;�' e: {: E y"' �'• . '4 ' fit• � s.!-` r il�i o . '� yqi i t �� . ` ,: , , 4*1 41 till owl SAM At Tli�P4 r •/ar` r � rt c' i7-•.'" .� "i� .i, _ t i' A mar ter"* +7tB= A� It , 1� tit � ' R r .1 ' fir 1.i ' ti �T• � 1 at • , r STYA ' r 00 ImAL POW go .Li.:�-� ?,•,'lir• j, �:�•t:• X Y1 . - ► ` :w.��,. •rrIf S�`ltp�'}�� .. /" III tr , ► r • ♦ 1 rr t•k .+ ,_' w ., i �•� _ is •Y . . ftf r ' a ' g. �:J` _ 2LIL IN �. 4 Trail through hardwood forest ( Section 2 ) s1 . t� 'JSt: SIF ' J "X•!< •'ll ' {j . ; !�, . it , , ' . � �• J N, 666 c4 ' , Y ; . � .i r ° N� t1"' ` , ! � !a-i , ' 11 t G,'•i'• ,� -. ° I t y-- ' j' 14 Illy, r + far, ) � t fit;,: ` 1T li' t ► �! ! • ' � ` w� City"• ul9, . fj i lj ", d . �• 7� , E�t , r, ►r . � 1 tl '{ I• ,:i�' I:. . ? ' ` , p 3 1r �z 7 I S�, ; lj' 2•;L 'C'�1.• t Q:,L • i 1c ' � 1 e+ a �1'�' Owl, � 11 j : :: ♦ ° , ill ' i � Jr. JZ �� t . W y J ` I aw DO [[ '' t -I 0 N. �. . kr ` zu. l ALI . ft , �5�� «" f ry .'j •,'l PAW L� ft ) `. �. (�� _ '• .fin t,� �. tr _ ,�:1 4s,, r ! � '^ .i f'af i+,+1lt•, gljti .Tlye `•�., 'S1:• -L.1 ta. . � .1�. Gtc 4 -G . { 3rti0�r t :• r� arratrear.,. , ` • ,.1 tFar.Jk , I . •�-r�'+�, . • J 1+ryy^�' Or VVVa ✓ 1� Fr ./ ." , + ` ''fr; �;'. 3+ Yt a. . wrS ii , + r`" �� ,' Y: '3� • •y FIVI �. �, yyy+ �`e:��. , '4' ' I T. !+- is �. t + ry $cif; ,tr '. .V= +� tt' ,, rY . `; -} j�iii. j• u*X,4 ATV trail and directional sign ' • • • • • • 0 4 3 � Attachment # 3 Update Items from Last Month ' s Board of Commissioners Meetings The attached are selected materials of interest from the previous month ' s Board of Commissioners agendas . Where appropriate, action taken on the item is written on the top of the. abstract . RJ k' Y 7 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting date : February 18 , 2002 Action AgLtLnda Item No . 3 SU131IECT . Planning Process for Parks , Recreation , and Open Space Projects DEPARTMENT : Environment and Raso Li rce PUBLIC HEARING . (YIN ) ConsnrvationfBudget ATTACHMENT INFORMATION CONTACT , Summaiy of I PWG Discussion 1 /31102 David Stencil , 245 - 2590 Tables - Potential Dond Alternative Financing Donne Dean , 245 = 2151 schedules TELEPHONE NUMBERS . Hillsborough 7324181 Chapel Hill 969=4501 Durham 636 -7331 Mebane 336 -227 -2431 PURPOSE : To review the planning process for parks , recreation , and open space projects approved by voters as part of tho November 2001 band . BACKGROUND : In Decarnber , the Board reviewed a draft proposal for projected bond :5s, los authorized by the voters in November 2001 . 1n this and subsequent discussions , tha Board has expressed interest in considering a mechanism and timetable for considering the appropriation of funds far parks , recreation , and ❑ per spaca bond proieQts . The Board also , along with the Chapel Hill Town Council , asked the Intergvverpmantal Perks ( IP ) Work 0roup # v discuss and recommend a planning prose -ss khr these projects , using the draft Joint Parks Policy Statement as a guide . Dn January 31 , 2002 , the I Work Group reviewed the draft policy statement and Town of Chapel Hill comments in a facilitated discussion . As a result of that disous.8ion3 the Vork Group identified a pos $ ible approach based on the Gvunty! chools planning process . The attached su unary outlines the basic cvrnvept � of that di rscussion . The III Work Group is :sche�duled to consider a recommendation on this item at their meeting on February 27 , 2002 . Staff will make a PaworPcint presentation at this February 18 work session focused on (�cmprehonsivaly integrating the poliaylplanrting process and funding timetabla components . Staff have also provided updated tables ( sea A tachment 2 ) for potential band and altemeti %' e finandng capital project timetables that reflect a delay in the first band sale from ,July 2002 to January 2003 , The Manager recantly recommended that approach as a method to reduce th a mau 111 t cf de bt servi ca that wou Id have to be bu dg ated for FY 200 - 03 , 33 FINANCIAL IMPACT : There is no financial impact In r.ecalving the presentation of this item , - although subsequent actions regarding eventual funding timetables and planning precGsses will unquestionably have important financial impliootions RECOMMENDATION (S ) : The Manager recommends that the Board receive the prosent $tlon and discuss the pcs* Gble altemative mechanisms ider� tifi � , i 39 DRAFT 2f7 /02 Atta chrnent l Summary Outline of IP Work Group Discussion, 1 / 31 / 0 2 On zJanuary 81, the Intergovernmental Parks (IP} Work Crovp met to review the Ccun y 's draft policy sicdemea. i 'Use of County Funds for Joint Par& and Open i Space Projects . " 77) e Chupet Mall Tour Couneid and the County Board of Com m iss ionere, had a&kvd the LP Work Group to 7` v ' w Vie polta .ry statiamcnt in fight Of issues raised and deuclop a reaoramendatdon, The group 's ideas and Thoughts were to be upritten up and presented for a passible recammendaho4 on Febragry 27, along with priority informw1on mque rigid from the Towns, Same general concepts about joint County/Tamrn parks wen agreed to by consensus: 1 . Interest in avoiding overlap and delays in completing projects 2 , An apprcpr2ate level of County overmghtloveryiew of projocto g , Deans cif address ' bath speel 2001 bond praj acts and standing permen nt polir:y fay new joint projects The Work Group also agreed that the following points .from the draft policy statement should be retained : 1n the ooncept of 'Conditional Approval" (item ## 1 in draft ,policy statement) , for new Joint projects Only 2 . That the County should have joint approval for cancept plans can parkslopen spaoe projects the County is fully or partially funding a . That joint projects should be eonsist, eat with adapt-ed County guidelines and criteria 4 . That 2WI bond pro] ects should be exempted fl: Qm the conditional approval pruwss (itom 91 in draft policy statement) 5 . That all joint parks will be open for use bs tx11 County citizens ( as per adopted Open Facilities Policy) Upon further diec Rion of the Issues rai 7�ased regarding thir draft, the IP Work Group developed a new proposal for addressing joint p arkz p " ects on a ase- y case baste, This concept was expanded with explanation of aelmilar prr}r ss a r ady nci� rtc er. r�. v_ the Gou nU with both xchoo I systems. The Worl� Group agreed that: _The "jcintparks" to be covcred by this should he defined* * The Tawns ;F�bould provide informatIVII on their top priority projouts DRAFT 217/0 Attachment 1 In terms of the proponed proces$, the York Group neco mmen4ed Mal a procestr be de ueloged adorn the dines of thLy current Cou my l schools Tnode 1, that would' 1 . Have Towns and County develop a priority . list of projects , 1 ith project cost estimate and oypected duration 2 , The County would then consider funding opportunitaas and scheduleof projects 3 . Once a project receives the .riscal go - alhead , a Capital Prmect Ordinance would then be developed (this step triggers the creation of a Town/ County Parks Project Work Group) 4 . Town and County elected boards would appoint two members to a Parku Prujcct Work Group for the project Par Froject NVorlc Group # 2 elected officials fmm the County, and the junsdietin irivolvW in the pro, ect • MRD2Lge7s er dC51' SJ3E F% • Relevant Staff' (B"d M Parks /ERCI) ) Charge to Ewh Parks Project Work Group The Parks Project Work Group 1AFould dcvelap a recommendation ' to eacL elected board on coordinating parks design gad construction (Mclmding phasing platy , and the hiring of design and construction c = altants and architects) , coordinating park operation , stewardship and mar ntenance ( including the hiring of operational consultants ) , the process for doe► eloping a park c*recpt }plan ( Including appaintmen to any committees), the process for approval of the concept plan and park construction, the proecas for approval of final site pi sand construction phisM1 and plans for leasing or cxclwivc usclscheduling of park facilities by sty private or non- ; profit fum or organization New J of n t Rark410 en Spam Proposals New joint park proposals that have not yet been ident-hied or discussed would follow a different proc es8 tb a t would have the joint park concept rMewed by the Board of ComrrriaalQners , v�itli a. commendation from the ll' Work Croup ( Ew per emsting item # 1 in draft pokey statement.) * Current J61, nt Town / County ,arks and Open Space .Ppo jets (} UMCUctilons) 1 . Homestead Park Aquatics Center (Chapel Hill, () range County) 2 . �`airv� ew Park (() range County, Hillsborough) 3 . Smith Middle School Park (Orange County , Carrbom) 4 . r � nwar#Joirit () pen apace (Chapel Hill , Orange ColAnty, Carrboro ) 5 . Southern Park (Orange •County , Chapel Hill) � s@ t E so � :No � . . . 1 so v • ` imot . r{ . 1 ; _ ME a r < cd so as 0 r R ME 0 .'ter` ME, ME OEM ME 0 NO No vvqq ` A + ' ME ME WE tiV . 0 ME t, NO ONE IN: a W t . . � zsf� d"2n ME ON , 0 MOVE ' +MOVE } `EN 1 � ` • t v4 • us ry r rrrNO r' c of x ME .W Qi tl REMOVE h. M • , 6 f .4 I` ��qq • 5 a � a8 fl tT vv W W L4 ►i - ' me M a C r T NO _ ti l M Ems No Mot T ray ryry f+ 4 4IV M�oomt ME I W r N tli lf'( In to r �o . . .:{, , •, so O4 COOO go moo, V h" 45 Vol 77 07 O 4 ' • �b a i° NO NO to : ME NO gap I NO I Q► 4 G Qr QQ , • % ,� E IV Ilk°ti r il�r 4 r g ME aQ or rl a wwt=i, � 45� � L I ME 1 :1ON 0ME � • •me r it � ° cME � w � � oo ' 0 G % `,A-ri- E ME ME ~• ti r� o ofymco 4ME 0 • � 0 If� !� � pLr ce pry mj� , . � MEN : Y a a a a � F- Qao � � : • I I ONE, she L t� o oaod o p 1p mum 'a S ` h N 97 ail L� 5 q Q G .y . ; lrEVEN .. . , + lh u5 YL�i ca c � 4 S r ! jam vJ r � r A } •. p- ef cK11 ME ME ME � � M A r.. 13 T r � P S'�I 6 In WI 09 w m > ` •60 : , ' ' Y , L aO Yi Val ohm eti cn ,� yr ar � F � ` ON Fes- m � o- �TM1 SG b - • 'ti' • • qOq c pd 8 Q6Q it 4 ' q a q q , . � `< , . � . ' ME Q '� O 8 ¢ Q N i4 L4 K OF ey , ! a• ' 44ii pppppo d y pppppp N apore . mt how iii:Ei, ME L ME I ME .� ONE ME I � V!I LA 00 � � � m � 93 laolala � - T , r q ME I 6q oqqs eqo aqqi ewc SEEM I o r it r? 4 Y7 lfi Ili . CID so : I C 8 Q19 MINE, No n ev a s �L g E a d s tr> rn us w rn v NO 4 C F u i 3 eq �{ 4 r Ito I& � G OC cai64 o oa � 0 4 MEN 4161 4A r N K T 3 N �y �O7 2�07 Y1 {Ve Y7 ;s . •. • N N a''.I y q •V t r ' + LL c v- mot s MR �ID EVEN J Do a IM tq :lj � s ME a MEN, a r,\ rso do, me Ito 4 D > 'r ME 41, ME ME a y;tomms LL 15 � No , I to 19ME . D Its e� � a tj a r7a _� ea � � 'Who S o � `a o o a Sr0 ME 9 c #MOVE U � � as r3ME NO u L ME w as 4tVtL � ob �: o� mod LL2w e NOVEL_ 4. . � Z asses , : . � .We : •N a >64 do ' `: ; ra MAIN " ' 'Ed . is 0 , , a( . ; Yas 4 Ed y. • 1 6%wid i ;.' Me .$ ,L , :� . a ^ .a ME Joe p y ME g r .� ,' . , , < Iowa ME ME ya & 9 ME1 . } ON aof low ME � . . ' } a ter ads , a Ed . 00 : . ; £ , u. • J ME % ME ' M1 rry q ca Iv . O oao ai ►1 i • ' : Of i !S ME a � c� rr, rtn , o Ti e r at> r +J� : g add � — ri •• . `,� : ME � _ me if 0 AN ; ; ado 0 MEd, op c 4 ;' red, 0 r . � . dlieN : , , ' 9 � n m 1 uI f� I9yJyjI � old ME 8 + f OG a C tr �� ME 7 0 ME ME • r. L� 2 ' rL7 • .' � ��r I . draw. arz fl Ci CisC g Ed, 3 D GG e 1 ;. T m O Q O C Q W * !q� 4 YF 1 I,SI{ g I � a � sEa am �1 ��'' ppccQ �M � pp `t _ ' sea' • y a Off ' O y} v? 4Y YF slide Q sir ; .' `: k •( • 1I ' `4 . 'u Ell, `; 1 C C Q M1 M1 ', •, J ' ' 4 u r . ' I we .4 ME F . ¢ E . . , . v . �LI ¢ . o a ,{ 5 7 G p r,7 b tS � O Y} p L • �_ x Ed y a' t F �- o GPI. 1L IR r� w �+ rJ r- F- y `%. , ME c��c hi r� aof 4 G �0 0 +. Roof a LMa Ed w ti • ' Ca a9 �y do r � 3 r or ME r ' ` ab o 4� c, . .j • . .. as I , cY G O O Q 71 0 + • ' I ' . • �J so m R o o P � gyp} 3 0 +mr a +c p 4P vMf Oa Nodded �'� . : . .�se 0 as4h(' \ � so lot ME Y / ' ? ' OPINIONS ez :b as ' H~ w ME 0 le _ d it 1r p 1d � r R' INC: 4 all y { • 2 I- r ei Idea, EVEN c{ ii S sea r� o ME Me q u1 g o n s slidT ' f 0 1 do 0 ti , ': ' so PI c a mgo so %. mmm add, Millis U V me ME; of ME a added, G11 all LT w ON a E e b 103 oIN to a lli4p p k ., . r r Missile,n n 1 lose, two, f�if ' F- F- F- I+ • �' slope ME go11111kAt Edged 0 ME •,kME ' Q: { O at. ME d so •� CE Ed Ed ' ME F]` w Sao ! ` • 133 to pal 01 JUMP � . 1o . sm ME gA•( �7 Jews EL C ' ' , a I— 34M, FIE flows SO 0 :4106 NJ a allim LE E usm ¢ p .�J ti ��ii E CC a c `'� J�Sy t7 m ON, 'i7. ? : . . LEE g fide a ME N eidoe � � � I $ 040 VMEN , SR ` . e a ME EN Was, i : > lq :. . it h New be 0 Re a N feed �11 `` fry} 1 k ` U P „ o w ra Ln c 1 rd 1.. at I a Net "N/ • •. 6 E r ySee, I . d ¢ }ee IN 0 6 = Yn .E _ be I be Ih c a S 'IL, Poe 9 be I . i 11 New It. c oldi > . � _ L � A a 3 a t NO �. ; Ito a ■ � 5 ; Net L Y sl .� G m !�1 0 ` ' n1 . �d 4 q • No • • - " '• 1q a ,a .a ' . a• +4 N N + � i L L . . l. f 4 so be p i Rof PpQ �y • IN , be be be I w } •�' . beN yy M1WIN _ `S_ l Y v4 ■ 1 a 0 Gas . � . 1 f. . be 40 be 0 v a ho n Lu ' be K the 0 es. ' f ,• 4 � No 9 or Note, IN I . : o : t ■ N � 2a 9 2 o a N wo n n � p ; � • . a v o 7 a r_�yh � 1 •� .� 4 : N Y O QI .h LIN lebe etas be to le -.; h III > , be be be o Q c ; H .i cel p` a F� L - Ink, 11,10 Nobel NCO N, a T u r^ . ` Y• v IN Sbell, 0 IN S T ,n , � :a �;; T e " ~ K we CI CLs p 9L � : ' Ts . C '� F W L 0 , n 9 Lb • c F LL wd h !i ti } a o L' n n r' n E Y 4 : so v P P P 4p b IN, of ° ' IN 0 to It a Meet IS ap 444 = e ` ffi Cy o L6 m = c s o a T. o boo, �J `k $. a � ' tom ' be rot we ;. 2 d i u ;� . • , . 1. Iy r, d N g E i . 'c` r4 LM �. rf 9 0 V,43 w . . o Y ' o t E L - 8 ML ++ 4 CI be a , I be INIM S ■ i9 0 it i0 lL N 4 otootom Well I IN I Cool m IN be Net raJ I Np I I I be 0 F p B . 4i be . >Nbb v 4INS,be • a Z �. , A , o a 01 , L ■ i . ' 8 ygo . r ,V. r�1 h7 L ; � a1�< "+ F 4 ' £ t . ; ' . � . be,4 'low � ; A be"t 4 7sNe No' bell,time 4 0 be 6 IN F . ! • I It 1Net IN be • 0 , I : � a . . . � » � � � - m ® - . • - - - © - — _ _ . . . . . . . . , . - - - or or \ $ % � , � ; ; ; ; A N 74 :N IQ pie ; # A # A 4 Ct ! | � � & ■ ■ � a § | § E § ■ § ' e WE WIN . . ; | § B § § K I � i § , . . # & � k ■ � I ■ � � m .CL § � � I § � smii jr: HIM MENf ' % � ■ ; § ; � © � ■ § ; ■ � �MEN w § ■ ' a & � Sr a Rroom a a ■ - & ^ $ , & _ Oil OR aao o. Poo qaRP, Amp & as _ � Or, me@A § ■ - ; - & - ; ■ ■ JI $ JIMI \ 2 ■ I ■ a = . , . . , . , . , . T m ! MEMO � { � � � | . " ' e k ■ , � _ Iry � § \ . Ron } e ■ ■ I I | § ( � \ % � @ I § � � § � ■ a or \ k � . TTI - . or a ,EL . � � a a F " ` t ` / " - � ■ ^ ' \ [ WIN 49 m doll _ n 0 ■ ■ ■ � $ ow ` -f IMP h ' - k a " E ' Q 2 -■ ■ Pa B b . _ Jim Who, r ■ * a & 2 _ - . ■ }. $d or / _ or m - , � ; � c , _ � ; . _ Mrs Ooel �] E @ ` 1% of • - © _ or { � | � � k ` ` • ` - � ( � - - � | E ! p to� i � ! _ ; , | 2 � lI ! � : � � - | § � CA ` , � ! a | � ILI, � . ! $ . � & � r $ ` « | ' ror � � i � n § 7 � low . � ! i 2 � � 2 - ■ . � f ` ; _ - _ � � � � $ � � R , � • a Lo , � " | � � , k � . ' 2 - | | � b b ` B ' ! ! f � � - , • � ! . . . ■ . % 3 ƒ a § or a KK , ea eak or . � . m _ _ . ; n2 = rsr ■ � 9 Ir4 $44n ; 1Q :A RA n k gym ■ m # ■ OW . 1 ORANGE COUNT` BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date : February 18 , 2002 Act! Qn Agenda Item Na . 4 SUBJECT : Payrnent- In � Liau ( PIL ) Status Report DEPARTMENT : Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING , (YIN ) Nu ATTACHMENT ( S ) ; tone INFORMATION CONTACT : � Craig N . Benedict , ext . 2592 Dave atancil , ext . 2590 Bob Jones , exi . 2651 TELEPHONE NUMBERS . Hillsborough 7324181 Chapel Hill 9684601 Durham 888w7331 Mebane ( 336 ) 227 .2031 PURPOSE : Ta hear a brief report on thn status of the P [ L regulation as it relates to its present standards of dedication of land for public sites or payment- in4eu of dedication $ BACKGROUND .& Section Ill= B - 7 of the Subdivision code entitled , " Sites for Public Uses " requires that anyone yvhn subdivides land shall dedIc2te a portion of this property or make a " payment� ln = lieu " for recreation purposes . Presontly the ode standard includes . Dedicate 1157 acre per lot gr, ality land 1120 acre per lot environmentally W nstrained land These standards are employed if the Recreation & Pans Adv [ $ 4ry Board /ERCD deturrnines that the subdivision area has public site suitability for dedication , However, this portion of the. ordinance has been rarely used because even a 100 - unit site would only require 1 . 75 acre dedication ( 1 00 units tirnes 1157 acre ) which is small and possibly not in central area servlca , Finvi roll mental land dedications could total 5 acres ( 100 units times 1120 aero ) . Presently there is not a clear mechanism that if a lame project is a prospective recreation site and dedication requires a smal' I dedication , how can adjacent additional purchases be accornmodat d to achieve a functional threshold size site . If dedication is not warrarited : PIL occurs $422 , 00 per lot F community park area Cal 455 , 00 Pe r lot if d ist rict psrk area When a combination of dedication and payrnent- in - lieu c = r:q the subdivider is aredltad equivalent to 1 0 , D001acre . A consultant , TischIer a Associates , was hired to evaluate the standards of the existing code and work with Planning Director Craig Benedict , E RCD o 0 1 rector David Stan cII and Commissioner Same Jacobs to update the coda prevision if warranted through an analysls of existing and proposed park conditions . Initi8l evaluations that occurred Isst year noted the need to include the positive impact of the recreatia ndo pe n s pa Ge portion of the bond ae an Indicator of future pond itio ns [ i . e . higher t_. evi� is of Service tLOS ) I . That inclusion accordin0ly would not occur until the bond parsed . Additional elaments of the PIL researeh include : t . How much tinoney will be cipont7 2 . What will it be spent on ( i , e , active faGilitaes , activa or open space land purchases )? : , Whem is it to be spent to examine saMee districts Tha f ram ewoW, of d evelo ping th 9 answers to these iss u e s h ave been in el Lid eel En regent BO CC work sessions , so staff is trying to input this, new information into the cede provision analysis of future LOS standards . As ono added research element , staff is I MV453migating tha use and value of exist ng or future joint schooltpark facilities so their valwe can be included in the oolculation . In summary , whatever standard the aaunty card achieve by virtue of its fiscal wimmitments , then the subdividerfdevelapment community can he held to a similar startda red , At this time , the consultant has not had enough information to determine if the eAsting dedication or PI is high or lour . Staff expects to bring this to Public Hearing in Into - flay 2002 . FINANCIAL IMPACT : None at this time . RrECOMMENDATION ( s ) : The (Manager recommends that the Board recalve the report for information only at this time . _ ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date : February 19 , 2002 Action Age rid a Item No . �f SU8JEDT : Alternatives to Open Burnin of Aq riculturel Lsndol earl n Debris DEPARTMENT : Solid Waste Management PUBLIC HF. ARiNG : ( YIN ) N� ATTACHMENT ( S ) ; INFORMATION CONTACT . 2111 /02 Solid Waste Director Memo Gayle Vlilsen , 968 - 2885 Air Curtain Burning Information TELEPHONE NUMBERS , . . . Hillsborough 732 - 8181 Chapel Hill 968 - 4501 Durham 688 = 7331 Mebane 336 - 227 - 2031 PURPOSE : To tecejve a preliminary staff report , and to the extent possible , provide directiorn to staff to winnow down a list of possible cptiorns for alternatives to open burning of agricultural land clearing debris . BACKGROUND : On December 11 , 2001 , the BOCC adopted a regulated Recyclable Materials Ofdinanoe , which takes effect on July 1 , 2002 . The purpose of the ordinance is to regulate both recyclable construction and demolition ( C & D ) materials and potentially other materials in the waste stream by keeping those materials from being landfilled and requiring that thay bo sepafa# ed for recycling instead . While the ordinance is not spec ifiCal a C & D recuycling ordinance , the initial focus of the ordinance is on ghat are typically considered C & D materials - for example , untrrva, tedlunpainted wood waste , w oodern pallets , ind scrap metal . Cardboard is also included . Other materials may be added in the future to the list of regulated rr� aterials _ Prior to adopting the ordinance on Deloamber 11 the Board conducted a November 7 pub is hearing on the matter . Vhile adopting the ordinance , the Board asked staff to examine a number of points raised by citizens during the public hearing and other questions rai .c. ed by Cammissioners during consideration of the ordinance . Generally , conrns involve how best to balance interests in utilizing the Regulated recyclable Materials Ordinance to prohibit open burning Qf [ an dclearing debris wilth the desire not to place an unreasonabla burden cn the Orange County agricultural ccrrimunity . The accompanying merno from the Solid baste fdanagament [director outlines staffs assessment thus far of possible options , The ord in anoe adopted on December 11 differed from previous drafts in that i# temporarily e ,liminat� non - reusable wood waste from the definition of solid waste . That portion of the ord in anoe was th a bas is for most oon terns ra ised at (c r before ) the BOCC ' s November 7 p u b I i c Dearing on the proposed ordinance , as it would impact the agricultural communibl ' s landclearing activities , Separating the prohibition on burning of landclearing doebris alluwi� d the remainder of the ordinance - the recyclable materials restrictacns - to be implemented by July 1 , 2402 . The queLstion of open burning of landclearing debris can be resolved andlar addressed by other means or through a future amendment to the regulated recyclable materials ordinance . The Board may canaider amending the ordinance later this spring so that the matter cf open burning ccudd actually be addressed in time for the July 1 , 2002 effe6ve date . This preliminary report regarding is uas raised at that public hearing includes information on . is How would the agricultural COMMunity be impacted by the prohibition of open burning of landclearing debris ? } Wh6t is the estimated amount of land cleaned on an annual basis for agricultural activities ? • How could the ordlnam� be modified to make specific acoammodations to the agricultural oo m rmi n ity? w What af# ernatives to open burning could be made available to the agricuRural = mmunit�� should the BOCG proceed to prohibit open burning of all Iandclearing debris ? • ,kre options available to subs idiz6 corks to, the agricultural community that are assQciated o wRh alternatives W open burning ? * Could th 'a ` use value " tax designation be utilized in considering special accommodations for agricultural burning '? FINANCIAL ffl PACT : Issues related tc financial impact are discussed in the ic = mpanying memorandum . There could b� substantial capital and operating carts for the County , depending on which option is chosen . Tc the extant possible , staff recommends that private sector capabilities * tea 1 mop lemment the chosen option be utilized . R5COMMENDATION ( SI : The Manager recommends that the Board reoeiva and consider the preliminary information presented in the accompanying stag report ; pose any questiQns about the rnateriai andfer identify other options the Board may wish to pursue , and provide guidance to tfie Manager and staff as they prepare a refined plan to implement opticn ( s ) related to ag ncu Itu ral lands le an ng d ebris that the Board m ay aUbsequently choose to 0 pleme nt . i � y AIENIORANDVU TOO John link , County Manager N RO M : Gayle WiLson , Solid W kiste Ntanagwrient Direct or SUBJECT : Board of Commissioners Fallow-up — Aheinadves to Agri culture Rum my DATE ; February 11 , 2002 This memorandum addrmcl i"sx�s raised at the Novo nbcr '7 ., F'ubl ; . Bearing and the December 11 2001 Board of Comm saunas Meeting related. to how the Rogialatfd Rgcyulable .Materials " inauea (R.i IO) would impact agr iculwre relatad buming practices . Ba vround At the D €acmhcr i 1 , 2a01 Board of CammissIMMME meeting the Board adopird d P%egulated Roeyclable Materials C)r6naaumr, that mpwif Lally exc hided the sections from earlier drafts Mitch would liive pmbibi ted the buimiug of 1ndcleamg debris , including that which is generated from ari culture activities . Int � st Jrrom the agricultural communi � ty was evident, in part, from cnmmi� nts made at the Nuvembdr 7 public 14eanng where ,several pmons expressed their concern that tf,.e prohibiLion of their usual himiing practices could c& LL%c thelu additional expeusi or other difficulties . Based on the eanccrns of the agricultUr,� w=unity and tho aid ' s sensilivily to their concerns; staff waR asked to investigate and evuluate alternatives La open burr rig that might be made avoidable to tlxi� agricultural community. Sobel Waste sraffha_s conwltod. with the Manager's office, fi ,rL%, As= Eor, County Attorney, Cooperative Bxtemi on , Eimergeticy Management , 13udsctirT ; r'u mtry Service, Econurmc: Development, and Envjyo t ant! k� uusc. c Cjvnscrvation ' Departments for assistance and rldviItc regarding this Matter . Staff inLen & to solicit feedback from those farmers urho spoke at the November 7 Public, Heating and is in the process of arran�n eg meetings to do so , Th timing ofzbcsc tricctin$ s did not allow rommeals rmeived to be incorporated w i thin this report. �18C1].SSlidiri How would the igricultmre community be imp2cted by the prohibition Of op-ea buraing of laudclearing debris ? Unless the agriculture wnuntir ty ele,^ted to =plypush the 6e " material into an unused portion of the property and leave ibc toatcrial ( u slowly d.ezrrrpose, it is anticipated that there would likely bean increase in costs associated with handcicaring activities. Additionally, sane farms may have lim itod space in which to placc rhC mateiials for an rxtcnded tune , Costs could rYtate tv : +� liaLlUng away the materit:1 to ai i o ffM.si to mulching or di sposal facility 5 � 4 performing on- site IZ mdang of materials What is the estimated amount of land clemd on an snanal basis for agriculture activities ? According to the Cooperative E?ttonsion offico, the best available estimates indicate $gout 75 acres; }rear are cleared ibr a ' culture related uses. It is believed that lancicicaring activitiesVOWd occur in the tuip -of 3 -5 acres per clearing event IIow could the ordinance be Modified to make specific accommodation to the agrieuLtuire cammunit `` According, to the County Attorney , any prohibition of burning of latidolesring debris utilizing this ordinance must oxaply ' cq ctally to the agriculture cornmum ty and those other sectors , primarily the development community. The County Attorney ' s opinion is that the ordinance could not be rn �lificd as to provide preferential treatment to a specific sector of the oommunity . Therefore , the board could praccod to Prohibit gill burning of landclowiiS dchrris, regardless of its origin . Altemativcly, the Board could proceed with an ordimmce that does grant praferendal trea=mt to the agriculture communty, un (11 such a time as the ordinance is successfully ohaltcnged through lit� atiom , �Fe undersMid that it would be possiblo to approach the issue of prohibiting humiaig from another perspective. The agriculture community could possiblyanhieve their goal of avoiding the prohibition of a MCLJture related burning by lobbying the legislature flop the elinamdon Of the division to Orange Cou.rrty relating to the split legislative precinctg, which if sucocssfu [, would allow Orange County to advance its interest ' contioiling open burro through Utilization of the Development Ordinance , This would achieve the BOCC 's goal of prohibiting development related burning , while at the satuc time not reguhA* legilltriaTc agriculture landclearing activitkos . �1V11i1e state law would allow such a de'vol opment ordinance related rftethod of rrgul;u ag open burning , tJl e split precincts provide a legal impediment to the County proceeding in th is Manners The ordinance could also he comtructcd av as to define the prohibition of open b urniin g so as not to include air curtain burning , Sped is conditions could be included is the ordinance for this t)rpc Of binning to restrict its use, including a reguirem+ent of air curtain burning pe aiits . Howcv r , consistent with tfthc attorney ' s pre�dom opinion, the air curtain bunting option would therm likely be available to both the agriculture anal non - agnoulriurc community equall % . Farther reTv2nv by the Attorney is nacesury to detcTmine whether `pair curtain " burning mould somebow be available exclusively to the agriculture CaTlnmuniLy. A more thorough discussion of tir curtain burning, including a detailed description of this inning methodology, an evaluation of the process and volume tcducti on cap abilities, and a brief discussion of rcl &tcd pub lic health and fue safety 18S311122, i-g included in n 5 of the Next section. What alternatives to open burning wald be made available to the agneulture Cowin unity should the BOCC proceed to 'Frubilyit open burning of all landclearing dehris ? 1 . Pash the -cleared inaf Ws Into a pile pr wMAvw v1sewhere on the property and kt M6 material decoMpose. 2 f�cs�ripfiiorx ; i1h the ordinance probibition of the open !curving of all landclearing debra, whazher originating fraFn agr� etzftszre or develcprttenz arlivil :x_ Ae County would provide• no assistance or subsidies, • It is likely flied this uption would nr:,vuh N u rich soil amendment, hoivever, it is also likely} that it caulrl lake several years to compost, without periodic turning-, to pmducc a ushhfe prradact. j ■ Spacw for this option may he limited. • Leaves compliance up to the Mdivtdual fanner. Covet$ • Liftic to no cost option for agriculture comxrattnh V. aside frort1 Me lass of`patentialfy usable space, NO cast to County dare to ih a ah.Vernce of`Special eqUiPM rPnVS (uffr,ng by thG Sadid TMUfe Alanageniard D partmerd, because no operational russistance would beprvvided, 2. Leave compliance wide prnhlMon all burn'07 up to individual farmer through utilt ion of theprivate sector, wlilt raa active M' VV4Vmext by County. Description : ' air cP6ion assumes that the farmer, for whatever re =on, f.hrxwe,5 nui so wa 1her to ii,Laec 4wMtn cost rriez`hod fisted in } , This opt [onpresldn: es shag she iMXvidizalfaimerivouldcomply with u prohibitl'orr on the open hur•r ing of fanikeleanng debris by utilizafian of 1heprtvate .sector in)'t it aciwe, mwithout local gemarnment operational involvement. Key hwcs: • May he vi ewed as conrrary to stated interest of ROCC in avtively .supporting and promwing the agriculture industry in Orange Gounty. • May result In the landfilling of landelearing rdvbyls because it would likely be the least costly aptir n, even if hauled to our- of- co7inty landfill, This could be viewed as contraFy to county gotials of rerdixing the (an dflHing UPidl) i�vstes to the extent•passibIa. • Et szingpravair. rimberinglTandclearing it astrumre in the region cateld pride senlces necessary to alrlmv agrfe- 04ure. cornmunt? v to comply with ordinance, + Ylere are no permitted landelearirtg debtL. landfills zn. Orange County. Orange County C Iandfftt is pepmiaad dry tecoiPe Ia ndulou ri n,", matai aIs, hoyveverpermlitted C D disposal space too valuable and tipping,fees are correspondingly pvol br tive, All lundclear ng debris landfifling options are locatod our- ref-voumy; hu ►wver, even dliaer landf lling options arelirnitezi Eliminates The r exq for the Solid Waste .man agernent Department to become aetively involved in the vn-sate management of lr nzWearing debris related to compliance with the prohibitian on burning these materials . 54A t ±Most farons a re lily air�eady� utilizing privaae sector to perform landclearing acctivi tics sereb}, simply upanding existing business relat io"Sh iply_ i Private sector does not pre� eratl}- haves stocFpiling of landscape debris andgrir� clir�g o1uGrat 0ns locations .sire a rezoning to .grlcultural Service (AS) AN squired, Rezonings of this typehrive met ,ytrong opposW. on in the past from the neighbothood, If Fn ater ials are ground on -.site and deft for fa rm or to utilize in the,f lure, some riy c of fi ex i.�ts due to hest generation M sin aha srataepile of mrdcho On an lnrermUient basis, it is likely the private sector would be cast competitive vfith any few based (unsub yidizcd) local governrnen t provided grindirg of ha uhng operations. 7 ate privale sector Vp icaclly is stractured, for highb,; -Pnobale, variable sized prpiects, that e.6n be scheduled around any number ref angoiig mgional landclearing activi tiu, . Mein staffing and e9m)9ni exit i.s predimted on these rypes of operations , loc:ul gvvvrnmenl capabiLiiy far such intermitlent opercatiotrs ramon69 the agriculture comm v►waald enwil more emrs for equ2' mentlsta ng duv fo the ltmxtedlirregular need prarerrted by the agricultrare c omrnunily for this i vpe of operation and the. investment required to dolelop this capability. the Solid Waste Afanagement would htn;e € o v er-s off to maintain ihis capoblllty due to ongoing r7equirerrperats of osarper�ar� rarrnf facility. Cost . Mow Sluff has had some da; cal€y in obtaining relivable cost estimai &s for private sector operations . Costs are t pliva2ly slt"peciflic and vary j0dely depunding on it ;dividual business work[oadylabligations, and other local market andsite variables. We haiw Ynadd cost estirrtares bedv ►v, bas od on coWacts with two local landclearing corripania.4 that provide services for farms . i nese estimates do no€ Mclude the costs of landeletiaring; only estirrsactes of?nanaging r}w debris of mrHl1 d. , Ha Pnoterial_i ground into mulch on -,site and either leftfor the farmer .sfia�ure use or )rained c� �vc�a, �voa�ld er� tacid some leas! of cost, o�l�ever, the usable Mulch would have sr� rr a ura ue., at leeaw to some frar€nerw, c a soil amendmBrat. Static piles of ruralcis create a potential f ire hazard, 'r 'Pin foes at pr- ivute landfills in adjaemrr counfi es vary. Farnsm ' stale that they frequently have difficuliy locating legally permit ed larrdeleafing dehr"s landfa11s1.YtWqp dumps, It i s tempting to utiline a number of no►r permilted damp loctiariows. o Pf no rem nnahly priced, permitted local non burning — non -grindir�; op tors availahlc a batt are burning vo fd oneawuga illegal datrnpane, ■ Staff believes rhat one of the likely least cost cep€ awns for farmers, aside from burnIng, is hcaufMg Ian dciearinc clebr'is to aprlvatc landfall. Orange Counry 's constructian and deniolidon landfill fees areprohibiiive for landclearing and inert debris (f XID) due to Me Value of perm C capacity jxrsrrs ahaa ofpermirted LCID capacity. Orange Coswjty Solis? Waste Afanagement does not operate a RCM la?Tdj7ll, nor does irpresendy maintain any management capobili#v for managing these type wastes. T errs arm as porn: it set LC'ID landfillff in Orange County. L' ven wjjh the arVuisitivn of the egaipm ent related to th a RR.V OnUnance, the Eubanks Road site dvm nod have space to manage/ recycle even modest volumes of landelecaring debris . kaff esthnaaw €hat a publicly moved L CID recycling f aciliv, as an allerndttw ro laradfillireg, atoll he r1pepcted at a 'Wst similar ro an L CID landf all, Gvithout we of disposal and suggests that the BOCC: conr ,rider dereloprrient of ,yUCA o local recycling c rapcxciry, , ta, helaenwws suer a 4 LC;ID recycling facility e;ouId be operated at a profif for the .Langral p'und and offer prodsrcers of landolearing debris ca masunaldyPr ' ced, local aIternailrr.' to burring and landfildiRg- + Having the materials ground urr � dle and hauled away by private copdraetors to a perrttirred iatidf ati (or rer�clxrzg fRCili 1 u ou}d etivst axe estiFnated 9, tTOD - 11 , � � L� er ' rrcr�e �a5 yurrr mg Fars tipparrg fee is charged at the. aTasidnatBon and the acreage is onlynsQdemle y dense). Orz ,s ile grin di) ig f and hauling to an LCID land }41rew;litW fruaiily wash a 1j. S6A071 1ippIng fee would cost ar estirnared 1 i , 000- Sf3. t7D0. [Grinding materials on Bile trnd is acing the rnszkh in place i4-vuld cost an estimated $6, 3 fJtJ $ k 000 per acre. It has been es tiara ud that for a private contractor to load and haul landclearing dEhris to an LCID Eandf11YregyvUrrgfacility, Including S5461fvn tipping fee, rvotald cost 7. 00049, 0001acre , t roes not precl ud ? same, grrvetizrmental f!nancial a!ssiseatj cn1sab s*, howin)0r, if the Solid Tvizie � 'nterpme Fund is iu provide the subsidy, it is likely that the subsidy mast he available to i}� e I corrlr+t�cnny ar4arge (developers) . taff, based on previous t='ounty Allarney statements, believes 4hefund cannot d erentiare , • Mf ca subsidy is la be offered only to ag-riccclNre communily, a clear dcfi ition or rnethad of idenrAsing legitimate farming operations mat be dev4opu da �; tf applied, and a ncrrx - Solid ffasta Managenzent Fund ,source of;funding must he idenrrfied. .SYaff believes ilii4 Could be doyte by e_slablishmea of appropiIate criteria , 3. co -ony coolamobdize .'olld F3 =e Management Departrnertt stafflequipment to farms aNd grind the landdearrng inateriads one site. Descrt ?t ion: This optran assumes that the Solid Waste Management Departmeri will utilize egttrpr was ulreaa`y planned to tie acquired as part of C D recycling aeri vdiei rel aiad to adje adoption cif 'the RFaV01 plus additia'nal "jwwmem and -a ng n "la%rary do provide mabile, or -sate grinditag operaliulls. Kov Issues _ + Cor�,sistenr with BOCC interest in aclrpelypromoting and .suppordng size rgnawltwe � on�rra � sx: sty, in Orange (Yatattts�. + Noiwxthslanding sonte of 'rhe issues noted below, the Solid Waste hfanag4oment Depart nieTar could pro1ide this on site service to the cagricu liiwu community and, if necessary, the development community, + Large wood wrarte grodcr 6meigrhing approx. 125, 000 lbs. . including tFactor and snarler) ercee,ds many rural state bridgeleuNert weight fim its_ • Ma?lY arnss would have. entran ces or Culvert's unable to supp rr siz e and ikw k}it of eq uipnj eFzt. + Perforrntng- this servaw on private propert y may in PoIva liability ism . + Equ' gene could not be mah ilized in damp weathar due to possibility of gehing stack or dcamagtng formlot2d, Equipment alreagjl mobilize rd could bet sirranded until g ound drie,4_ Due to ftmited siorage space at tie Ian dfrdl for vegetatave waste and clean woad �vaNiLP waiting to he .ground, the a lndEt' �,�ardrl o1� ly be able fo he a Vacy Font the landfill rnul atng operatrari for bricfperiods of' time (est. 8l 10 da i max. ) , ; # C QUldInadivreunddy, cnwUrage IQfodele ring of mrule tvo {dccomrrvclur� rzg c!` trtexperasil , • If Solid Wa5ie . fanagcrraant Fm d is to fim d onz site op era ti o nB fo r agrjr fmrxc.- related lorzdc:lear'ing, the Timndmay be legally obligated roprovide this se vice for the ton -agn adtttr•e ! cammunity, thereby over- eommffing departmental resources and a nnecessatrlys Nmpefing with the private sector. Il is staffs . undersfanding that the Fund can not di erenliale. Some ,farms may lack space to store mulch created by this service. 1 f materwhi are ground on�slte and I for fanner to ud hze 3n the fusture, .serge olisk of fire emits due to Meat generation within the staficpile of mulch. # C tar: infernzirrxent bcss , it i,� liked E privaate senor would be cas4w�ougpe iti e hdxh any ��-ow based (unsubsidised) local government prrn�red c -site grinding opgratiox� s , '}4t� private sector -ty.ptcally is ttmavredfor high y mobile, va t7able sizedprojects , that eon be sch eduled acround any number of ongaing regional iandciear'ing activities. Yeheir staffing and equipmeal are predicared on these tvpe opersations. A local government 's capabdiV for such ir�fe i `ent operations an: orsg the agri�csal are coft� xn �trait, uld er= tai { Pnor-O CO-VS for Oqu men flstaffing due to tJee Iimitedlirregiar need presented by the agriculture comm zanily for this type of operalion and the investinen f required ed to develop this capability. The Solid Waste Management Deparrsawnt wvulil hku to uvar-ssq `' to mainlrain A & eapability dine to ongoing requavisnents of ourpernsanentfacility. .4xisding staff is unable to conduct offsite gper a4lons duo do staffing Pcc� uirefr�rits ist the lanr ll. Parr rirrle heals equipment operators , fnarn our experience, are difficult to obtain " • ffservice to be offered only to the agriculture community, a clear definition or reethod of ic'.ratifying leg!"' wase farming operations must be developed and applied CON +� Copmldcrahle coyt involved in acquiring and mobilizing equipmont. .7be OQU p r en needed to provide. Loose ref)=sslu• grinding operations -mould includes + Low - boy Trailer - S25, 500 ua filer "ofad Acldiatrsalqu2prn entatst S248 . 500 Other rnisrellraneou .s costs would include fuel, rnainlenance, supplies, ere. * Is is ekysimafed that sthe cost for the Solid Waste Management Dcparlynamr to grind + mm%yite and leave the mulch worcld & , 4, 000 - 6, 0001acre , • Costs associated with pruviding this non - land ill faint related serui� �t�ould nee�7 to be reimbursed ro fund either thrz? ugb lber recovery of Busts frvm fees or subsidized hey same other public entity, unk-4i4 the service is made available to the public at large (including developers) . Given dw on -goang need far ibis equipment at the landfill itself. rise Solid Waste Managermuna Deparment may not be able try neat the demand of the public of large. A DO T permit is rerrrrired ea ch time the grinder fs moved oto state Poads. The permit also req tyres a lead and chase vehicle wish .strobe lighis and " Wide Load " sis9nne. * One f ulkime, &ta ffpvrsars and z� part- rinse staf,�'people (ifthey� could be f bunt) could he necessary to perform this aff,91 re service, at an estimated additional annual wsl to the budget c f appr=imateiv $50rOOOL • Thk, option does not preclude some gvrerrarncntal financial ta,�sfstancevjubsia4, however, uslag the Solid TFuste Uwuzgement Fund and using alternative svzarcU ofmt& diaation may involve di f�'erenf lirnitrataonslcorsstl �uinls, . r According to the t.oundv Artorney, if l?oard wishes to make this service avcailaNe to borne tlbc Ogr ICUlture commumA41 as wejl as she nova - agriIculture communim it could coo so aasing Subd Waste Management Fund :xp enditasm. Alternatively, if the Board wishes ordy to pr-nvide this service to the agriad4wwa community, some method caf'rofmbursement to the Solid Waste Fund would be required or a norWanct 'll source offundingr idenr0ed. Fees could be based on either an h6urly rate, per acre arlob rate and could be based on any number Q,f' variablrs such as quaraity ofmuderial la be ground, lawl:on of farm and dif cuh Yo get to, whether• large wumps are. to be included in maierial, extimated level of annual denjan d for dliis yen cue, etc- * 1,f' a subs!4 is to be o f�`ered oniv ire agricuhure cot mun it a clear del n. ilion or meaod of identifying• legitimate farpning operationse musl be developed and a trim = Scalid Waste Management Fund S*Ource of fa ml ng be identified. eases would include n2obilLation costs (draraxrporting equipment to and from the rite) and costs amncioied directly Kjith the grMing operation . i Ifrhe ground mulch were not wanted Yeaded on site , there would be addixxonW costs ro haul rawuy the mulcts, depending an the hazel dirtance . t pping fees• and the off side Iandfllllrvcyclatrb fa cifitGr- Mote: 1•t would be difficult to predict a jee schedule for this par}ti cukr option at this point withorlif same additional gufdamefrant the Board and additional analysis by staff, Board input an the whether drift Ilerplee would be availacbde to only tke. agricuhure conrmmiity or also would he availaNe to the nun -,agriculture common iija is irnportaW, Should the Board be,f utter interested in this alter-naxive and onva rellalile cast eairrwi iv�N ary developed, staffwill provide th erm to rile Board. Whwher this option is combined with other of the S options Ivied is pmferred may calla impact •ul rim ate Cos tsife &T, Staff1)ahava`]� ibs cryfs would upproxiMale private 8Cezor costs. d. C'ounry eoutd acquire hauling equipment to load and hail 1" delew0mg materials to u lutal govemmantafly own -edloperaied dr ndeleating and irwn debris recyclin g facifio). Description . TAI'B option wo&t, fd entail a signifac: arslly reducad levrel of mobilization relative to #3. 3 •hi-5 oprinn 4v () uddprovide for the Solid Was re ldanagevneitf Deparometd to Ioad and hard the lan de. iearing marerials frarN the farm to a cerjtra sire presumably owned and opierated by the County) , where the grinding Operation c?ou lake place as slai'egu3j�rnQmx time permits , � �ariat�ora of this o, tiora tsvould be to leave ae hailing da the private sector (as art #2) andyimplypruvidfuj a focal recycling �satc) alternative to our- o,f= counly disposal or tither less dasirable options. K .lssUe3 + Acquisition q f'a landcfearing and inert debris rcrcyc:Iirrg .Fite Within orange Cvurrdy is consistent with the C&D RecyrUng Frisk Force 's recomme73darions and recenr Solid Waste Mamcagemara Deparrrraow vqff recom mundrllions, In staffs opMiokt, idenlifying a locadarj to inddaaede landclearing and inert debris recycling opuralsons is needed regardless of alternative selected by the Board to assist agnemlture rom munity in fanning alternatives to open burning. Economic DcWtop "ient Districts are Possible iocwivas caonsistent with the fight- indtutrial nglure of these type operatfow. Re EDDs are also core uen ient to the ma,j,ortry of f arms its Orange ? Wj ty, uFhic h would reduce hauling cysts . Ala old resolve Various o?j moire transportaaion1weigh r lira it con plica �dns ivhVe .s fill prov3ding assisxanee to the agriculture community, • + Con -sistent with Board 's intervs•l in prr. rooting and a.ssssung the local agriculture community. i May still presuni som e degree of liability related to upc:rtations conducted on. private prope7V i,f' and when a loc,arion could lie rczonedproperly. 56 :10 + Could tnadmrtendfy encourage landelearing if made zoo accommodating or Inexpensf veso 41 Dijftulry identafyltrg legin'Mate farm landelearing activity ,fr-urn landclearin ,g actii* conducted as a prelude to d"Ir;.vmeai I,f service to be offered only to agrriculture coma unity. a clear of de#thiflon ar method of identif ing legitimae farrmAg operanon s must be devulope.d. May be legally obligated to provide this jvr'vice for the nox gg+'iculture communist- rather than rastricdMg do the agriculture community only. especial!}) if Solid Waste Enterprise Rund is izssd. • This Winn iteould a/Iuw the deparement to mote Me grinder much less ,fre� uanf4p, av x'ding dhe additional costs o•f grinding annsiti and the compl cations involved udth transport ng Me large grinder and fba ' V4 .9 Mating ro operating on prrmfe property. cost: • C?miderable cost involved acquiring and rrmnhil& tttg equipment. ne egzaipm cat needed to provide these off-site grinding operaaions (and which iS identical to the egu pment listed In V) would include ; ■ Pxcavator - $ 1 SS, 000 +► bow- hoy Trailer - X2.5, 500 * Drlrrap Trailer - .5387000 Total Additional Equipment G psi = �—9, 500 0 Other m iscelluncous ao si r would inch de • fuel, maintenance, supplies, /case of tractor, etc. * Coasts associated with providing this non4andf ill fund related servace would head to he retImbursed to the fund either through Me recovery of' mmrB from , fee,€ yr subsidized by some wherpublic� en tit u� less the service is made awrilable to thepublic at lard.. 1t is U41y ihua the loading and hauling arerviea only could be provided mK ida one additional position arc as estimatad cost of S35, 000 annually, This option does not preclude some governmental r: ancial assWaw,1a ubsadY- Ac:rardirzgto the County Attvrney, if Board wishes to piake this service ava dable to }both rAe agriculture community a3 well as the non agrivwitliru c�ommunxiy, it could dry so using ,Solid Waste Managemew Fund expenditures. Afterna vely. if the Board wishes only to provide this i service to the crgriewlture commupffy, some melkod o,f teim &ursemeid to the Solid Wasie Managem & nt Hind or a item ate source of fund!ng swouIrd u "V. o Fees could he h = c, d on either an howly rato, per- ucmi urjob rate and could be 1%ued on any v umber o,f variables such as quantity of material t o bo ground, locatf'on o f fium and diY04ty to get to, swhcther large s nhw uro fo he Meluded in material, estimated leis of t n n ual demand for this service, tote. 1Vote : It - would be di cult topredlct a fee slhedule ,for this partieurtar optiox at this point Mthout some additiw7al guidance from the Board and additional awalysis h staff. Board inptd ors the whether this service world Inc available to only the agriczdlture community or atso would be available trr rh a n on - agri cuitura community is important. Once reliable cost o stimates are developed staff will provide there to the Board. Ordinance could aUmv a ' outUin lrurnirag (alas calledpil bun g)• Desoriptiorr: . Ais oprian wuld re milt in ar: irproaeh to the prohibition an open burning by not it; eluding air cUrtain [ype burning undor• the definwara of olpen bwning•. A brief duscriptinrr of the type burn It furs been provided by �ltr- Rurners, 1. 1 C, a manufacturer of air eurtai,� equipment as 4 ttachrn Lml A , 57 z � A ttachmen i B prm4des additional inforn cation from dhe Lcu A lcamvs lVaticm41 IA horarar Various go mrYpnowlal and non -gvklernmenial contacfs .to which Waff has spoken have expressed a garxraily favorable dispcultion toward this controlled bwming method and f gel at ,should at least he e(insidc:red by the B { CC, SYaff has not yet received arty feedback.from fhe Depar men 3 of Envfjeonment area Resource Cam~ ervtadiun rar N&rUh Department on rills matter. Key Jssuvs : i Staff believes Based an c rlier discussion .? with die Gounzy Atiome vi fhat air cuotain burning auruld probtabiy not be allowed by the ar dinance within the agriculture conmiunity unTy, and would have to he available lu all. ■ By changing the definidon of open burnil) g witNa the andinan,4 co, the .Board could ch oose to n of inelzuk a&'r• cunacin bwn [Ag urjder irs defraition of open burning, mid consider rt as apea?.1 ssib e mefhod of con Irollterl burning. • Go?; era [& con siderod a more efficient, thorough type of burning, that produces ,5. nif zc aridly le y smoke - and ash residue than aperr burnhig * Can be utilized on -sr e or at a central locatiron ; equi mmt is Inobile. • See Arrach meat C, Xorth Carolina .4dminivtrafive. Cudv relating to Air C'urfain HU171ers. • Considered by iwny emergency management and forest7y o„f ick s a v an essenral tool,for e f ethvly managing large quantities of starrn relined or diseased vegetative debris , + T;w County coWd acquire an air eurtain harmer- and provide the service directly, pres,unuibl w for a ree + Pr4wle air curtain burning companies are aviiilahle within the region. + Cwwuldamlfly with foeal emergengv managamene and formtry officials have resulted in reasonably favorable ophrions of this type of burnMg, pardccalarly whom compared to open burning. • Should the. Board w sh to c: or�Eder n tng air fairltain burning ollowable '►vit�siY3 the o �'afirad� rrce, variow conditions and mnstraints could be stipulated (i. e. � a.f acres, wind direct ior `speed, distance from adjacent prnperty1'd xleffing, etc. . ) , as ron iained w rhin the ATCA C (aiiachmew B) . An air curtain permil could Ire regyiired, sul ecling dhe perms ijolder tr folfalry various local gra ' delines andpay a permit fii. • A state Itceuse is reclaccred du lawfully pf 'rforrn this lyre of burnarag. C OS'tS: # Stdff has made are inquiry with two localprivate air curtain hurrsing cumpanies in apt allerrtpr fo obtain owirnrated eosts for thoe services on a per a acre. basis. Mr. Reese Martin says then: situp v are too marry variahles to gicneral e about costs and estimates are pr vided as relate to u spEcifac lucradaora . An other c c mpwty� es1irnwes dhal ec�xlai for this ser►�iee would be ttbc�ut # if the C'outrty Solid caste Al inageanent Depar•rment were to obtatrr the nucal;yalsy eapabilily to provide air ourtain hurn ( g ra the agrzculrure caymn unity (a'psuming the develtrp-ment c.'ommunity could be excluded), stdff estimatod that tke per acre f c would he aprAoximarely $ 1, 5004Z 000 per acre. Circumstances e-ould resydi in cus• ts lower or higher than his range. A portable air � curtain machine suffi Beni to handle mart johs vijould rrAd approximately $25, 0000 7 , 000. A i loiv4oy mrWor ($25, 000), an excavcaror ($ 185, 000)) cared other rnisceflaneous rostr would itzlude fuel, maintarlam2e, .supplies, etc. would also he neca unary. One additional posihon worzld be necessary (appnox S3 .5, 001 ! >var) 9 58 6. alto w agrieft1l ire comm (Wits► to 6peft burn 0121y a specific ifed) acreage per year. �es�r'tpai0� This ralternativeassumes the agrieWfure community, through fhe ordbiance could be allowed to open burst a very limited amount of acreage perliear, perhaps through a special parrnitting process, that cotdd also conlaiN other rondiHons such as time of day, prevailing dlrerHom ' andspeed of wired, Key L� uev , + Country A ftorn ey woWd leave to evaluate whether- this type arranWement would be (a wful. + Would alloLv open 1_ruming to on at ilary limited, eon"Ilea way. + Would addrasr the BOCCinterest ir1 !im i tang nc �: lrnpact of the proh lbidon of open hurnin,g on the agr aculfure community; i Would be necessary to develop m. *a for dtitermining 2 legirimate a gyiculture ' ��se. + Perm ;'; 1a'g auxhargy would have to be idenJifled, l , e, Etnerg-ency wanagemEnt, Solid iVaste , Cooperative 1rteras10n, anVirvnmens and Re ours y Conver,y alion, etc, # Inconsiseent with BOCC interest in prohib3tinZ open burning. C041 ; + virtually no nav ca, t harden for the agriculture ca tunny. * Wb uld requiry no additional eq u;pment or new operations Pr the Solid Waste Manag-emeti t Deparlment, asidefram .svmu level ofparraitting Are options available to sabsidize msts associated w1th alternatives to open burning wlthk the agriculture community ? ; Should the Board choose to ukilirc the Solid Waste Management fund to pay for •tbe recycling of 1andcleanng debris Eom private property v+riti►in Orange Count, the County Attorney believes if would be able to do so . Bowcvtr . This st�vice could not be limitod � the agriculture community but would need to also be made available too the development community. If the Board wishes to make the service srivailable 4o only the agriculture community we believe it nmy be able to do so, however the servico must be subsidized by ran- Solid Wwste Muriagument lvding or the Solid Waste Management Fund rnust ho reimbursed for expenses related to promote or prmrving agriculture/economic development. Ci u Ed th a " use value" tax designation be utilized in considering $p ecgl accomm odations for agriculture burning . in oMer to vmf�' t1im a poteitial site is subjeut to an aipcullure related subsidy of spomal stryie• e, some method must be developed to verif}F that such a site is legitimately in vol stod in agriculture . It haz been sugyacrited that the agriculture ` Luse mx" designation oould serve this purpose , Tho " Ilse tax " desi �mation was developed in the 1970 ' a to protcct ogr� cullore Ia nd from i�tcraasi� g tax burdens. Property of a mi= uin 10 acreS in Size used in pasture or uu dcr active caltiTmuon Is eligible. 10 �-- 59 13 Tbo Tex Assessor has indieated that this could be used m such u tcst for affirmina au ri 14 we e legitimacy, however, there W o Ad be some shortcamings associated with ibis approach. Wot all agriculture propmy is " signed "use value " desigatian . + There is a diffm-cnec in defining a farm depending on whdbor You' re viewing from a planning; context w a use contest. • The property may have bocn sold to a developer and a lapse exists be'Lween the transaction and tho use designation, p [culmly is the trangfcr Kapp o g hctween Janu�� and a uly, The tax records will not Alow the new owner because the value is basted on the use as of January 1 . M' fication with the Revenue DepaaTmix ntmay be nccomary. « A developer can take an op ( tun on a "use valae , Wop �- y and offer the oxvncr a bonus if the oi%mur cluz� the property prior tD relinquishing possession. The owner could. procecd. to ctcaT the 18ndbased on the special r,icultwv status and associated special servi� r a��gilai le to that special dcsio ation, and then turn around and sell to the devoloper , fiBeing the developer of The burd enlexpenss of camplyino with the ordinance , Summary Table of Options for Alanaging Agricultural I . andeleming Debris in Orange County Option CDSt to COURty Cummcuitg 1 . Wiudrow dobrls oa Nono Slaw procegs, space limit4ions , site 'fann c sible Boning restrictions 2. Leave campLuace up to NGn c ; but 1) raft 1 des no .ost S6 , 5 04 - S 13 , 404{acre • Igo tam fannff conornic relief, County could county T,CTD sites ibr disposal , subsidize with a non- Solid (Ws Font rise Furl d source 3 . County gin" can farm w/ $249 , 500 capital, May have to pTuvide smite to County equipment $ � (�, OUO sl f . anyow, not just farmers . If fees eked , $ 4 ,000 to S l 1 , 000leer _ aei• C . County hauls to Cowitym $ 248; 500 capital - - Have to acquire land ., Could lar• ate vaned LCID processing $ 35 ,000 staff: in Economic Development thcifitYLand for facility District. If fees charged $ 4 ,000 to $ i,� 00 er acre 5 . County uses mobile alr - $ 235 ,040 capitall Need legal chines io open ^ urtnitj b�urier on faun sites , 35,040 stuff, burning defirnition. May have to Privato sav , s now ravide service to anyone, not just v ailable) ers . if fees charged , S 1 , 500 to 0002or acre. _ -. Allow farmers a limited Konu y have to allow limited open aLbi )it y to open b% uin fuming to everyone., not Just armors so 14, Cancl u sion Based on staffs undcrstandizxg of the wards ' desire tv prohibit , to the extent possible . the open buming of anywast: e , including laadclearirg debris, coupled with the •dcalre to litna the financial impact on the agriculture community of complyi rig with a prohibition an open burning, ataffis prTaTed to make two prolirninary suggestions . Stifl' has reccived .somc fcadback from the aoricul tuts eommeanity and is presently schcdulin g opportunities to receive additional input , S [ aff has also examined a number of iwo sonable alternati�t �s regordiag how the agnuultui�e comm mu Unity may conYply with the open burning prahibiti �rn, baa $d on TmMng levels of Mbrmaticniknowledge . 1 . Controlled burning (air culainlpit; burning) appears to be a masot; bie alW=tiYe to open burning. if its uso. could somchow be limited to use only by the agriculture mnivaniity it ;would boa strong staff recommendation , It is staff s understmmdiug that if it is made perrnissib l e through the ordinance , 1 will be open tD use throughout the oouoty by the public .at Larne . Since ' sta ` ( anrd presumably the Board) is uncomfortable +�rith allowiin� wi �e� r�d burrning , eve if SUM S1y coulrolled/regulated . exempting ai r curtainbuming from theprohibition on opon burning is an unenthusiastic recommcrndation . However, for purposes of accommodating the arcu7rire Community, it would likely be the least curtly landclearM2 debris rnHmLsgrrmcnt alter= fivu to open burning . a) Private sectUr coUld be reel on to provide this service. The Board could adept ,guidelines for its use, including mandating a County permit. Criteria could bo do c1 opcd by which those bkims areconducted and strictly enforced , Economic development or other source funding could subsidize the agriculture community' s ' use a f this service. If a subsidy for ttl iculturc rcl ated use Is desired, criteria to identify legitimate ag icul#ure use cli gibi liter' can be developed , b) Orange County Solid Waste Management could obtain the necessary resouro to perfotxrn this service, either hough ft lag by theSolid Waste Management Fund or throu 0i a fee for service approach . Sites could still be required to obriLin a pwilit and meet certain qualifi atlom, Lf a foe for service approach is used , a subsidy ccruld at;ll be provided for agriculture related um If a 4ubsidy for agtkultum related use is desired , criteria to idtncify legitimate agriculture use Cli &bility can be developed . 2 . Based on statcmenrs from the $griculture oommurtity, previous discus.9ians of' the C&D recycling cummittee, discussions of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee and previous recommendations by Solid Waste Management staff staff. bollms there is a serious need for a local (lam otanty) altesna Ve to landfillin,g and burning of landcleering debris . No envir = en[ ally s , ioca.l, lour cost alt tine is available , Even if air Curtain burxuing is made lawful, some farmers do not tavcrburmng these materials. Staf�' has previously indicated (mast recently in a Octnber 1 , 201 . r ort) a need for a .25 40 acre Iandclwring and inert debris (LCID ) recycling facility within Oranp County that woulct not only recycle lando1U= g and A nert debris , but also serve $ s a oolIcction site for ( storm debris Managemmt , and as a possible . site for a future uornpas# ing operation . Generators of landcleari ug wastes with�itn tJrangc County must Kara 1 these mate ri als to disiimt disposal Fiaci l iti cs; some with questionable legal permit stutus. Staid' believes that should such a site be developed, it could offer prefercnti al tiepin o fees for apiculture related debris and produce a material for which there is a mul et , Alternatively, 61 flees could be subsi dizcd as wfcrcrioed above. The Co unly' s wood waste g6ndor Wuld be tmn warted periodically to this site and the materials ground and marketed. 5 turf believes the other aptio m di smgged in this report would be more expensive and problematic . nio suggost�od alterrialives identified above pMTWI c the two most cast effe ti options as well as offer bath a burning ( conLm I Icd) and nonmbuming option, Staff is pzt9md to provide additional Lforma on , exp and on , or proceed to develop an implementation plan for any of the alto rnatives presented in this report or that may ba intraducW by the Boar L 1 � U 4 1 • ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Data : February 19 , 2002 Action Age Item Now SUBJECT : Rural Planning Organizations Report DEPARTMENT : Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING . ( YIN ) rho ATTACHMENT (S ) E. INFORMATION CONTACT . t . Report on Rural Planning Organizations Karen Lincoln , ext . 2594 2 . Attachment A — materials from TJCOO TELEPHONE NUMBERS : Hillsb rtough 732 �8181 Chapel HIMI 9684501 Durham 888 =7331 Mebane ( 330 )n7 -2031 PURPOSE To receive a report on Rural Planning Organizations ( F PO ) . BACKGROUND : The North Carolina (3eneral A ; aaembly , in 2000 , enacted legislation authorizing N DOT to create Rural Planning Organizations to give rural areas an active void in transportation planning . The North Carolina Dopartmont of Transportadon ( NCDOT ) has requested that all counties consider their interest in parddpating in the RFD program . i FINANCIAL IMPACT : There is no financial impact associated with this agenda item at this time , If tha bard decides to form an RPO with other reundes , Orange County will have an annual obligation of Us shara of 20 of the funding for the lead planning agency and there will he additional Orange Counter staff time . RECOMMENDATION ( $ ) : As the Board decides , 63 , f 2 RUFZAL PLANNING ORGANIZATION REPORT January 18 , 2002 North Carolina Department of Transportation ( NODOT ) , to ensure that all rural counties will k�e able to farm a Mural Planning Organization} ( RPO ) with other counties having similar transportation interests and needs , has requested that counties consider their interest in participating in the RPO Program . The following repast gives a brief out Ine of tho program , orange County ' s options and advantages and disadvantages of each option for Orange County , Background North Carolina General Assembly , In 2000 , enacted legislation that authorized North Carolina Department of Transportation in cooperaUori with local elodad officials to establish Rural Transportation Planning Organizaticris ( RP' Os ) to plan rural transportation systems and to advise the DOT on rural transportation policy, The purpose of the RPO program is to provide a cooperative unified void for rural entities to , advocate for their funding and project needs , and to be meaningfully involved in integrated multi- modal transportation planning and the project programming process . Participation in the program is voluntary . The core functions of the RPO are : ( 1 ) to owrdinate locai . and regional multimmodal transportation plans ; ( 2 ) to provide a mechanism for meaningful public participation in the transportation planning process , ( 3 ) sto develop and prioritize transportation projects for input Into the Statewide Transportation improvement Program (STIP ) I, and ( 4 ) to provlda a transportation - related information clearinghouse ( informs or) resource center) for local gevarrrments and other interested organizar cns and persons . The Rural Planning Organization includes representatives frorn three to fifteen contiguous counties , with total population of at least 60 , 000 , and Is set up like the Metropolitan Planning Organization ( MPO ) with a lead planning agency ( LPA ) . However , the RPO , unlike the MPO which is a policy board , acts in an advisory capadty . The State has appropriated a bass of $80 , 000 and a ceiling of $ 100 , 000 for each RPO _ Local jurisdictions mast provide a twenty - percant match . The funds are being made avaiiable to pay for lead planning) agency staff end their planning work . The local entities seeking to establish are RPO in their region would develop a Memorandurn of Understanding ( MOU ) , to bo signed by all local members , as Well as by NCDOT , The RPO hr OU specifies theRPO ' s geographic area * mission , eligible functions , local membership , staffing , funding , level of NCDOT participation , and other procedural and operational issues . Orange County Options Orange County must consider whether transportation issues in th6 rural pardons of the county are more related to transportation interests of the urbanized areas of the oounty ( MPO ) or to rural portions of neighboring counties . The portion of Orange County that is I the Durham = Chapel Hill - GwWro ( DCHC ) Motropolitan Planning Organization will remain in that MPO . Orange Countys options for the reminder of the county are : 1 , to expand the county ' s involvement in the Dtirharr Chapel Hill an ro ( DCHC ) Metropolitan Planning Organization (the entire county becomes part cf the DCHG MPO ) ; 2 , to join with some combination of adjacent counties in a Rural Planning Organization ; 1 3 . to Jain with the Burlington MPO ; or I C to maintain the courrty' s current arrangement , where a portion of the county is in j the DCHC MPO , and the remainder of the county is not (grange County does not join an RPO ) . The table on the next page outlines ad vantages and d Es;dvantages of each of the above options . Orange County has several choices if the county decides an cpdan 2 above to join with serve mmbination of adjacent counties to form a Rural Planning Organization . Triangle ,J Council of Govemments has developed a proposal for an RPO for Triangle oriented counties ( Orange . Chatham . Lee and Moore ) , These documents am attached as Exhibit A . Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation ( PART) proposes an RPO for counties within NCDOT Divisions where PART operates , PART would aot as Lead Planning Agenoy . Counties in the RPO could include Rockingham , Caswell , Alamanre , Davidson , FRandc 1ph and Orange . Orange County cKjuld36an an FPO with adjacent counties not alre2dy committed to another RPO arrangement , Alamance , Caswell and Chatham Counties are adjacent oounties khat have not yet made a decision regarding the RPO program . Most of the RPOs are being sat up by the regional councils of govemments ( GO Gs ) , There are one or two that are being set up differently . 65 — a _ 13.. 0 _ � . u m MOD E $ li a , w c 0 g � & # m! V _ WID _ I two 92 in ELM c� CL i 5 m L ,a � 9 tag � E akaGii WO 2 C $ � Ec 22 IL IOU 0 8 sits WO C C � C � S Q - ^Ova 40 ` CV CL . .f ER . . * - NOW , V t e 2 co CD tun a c 8 O I s inrr � . VOW t M Most of the RPQs are being set up by the regional councils of govemments ( COOS ) . There are one or two that are being set up differently . The following RPOs are aireardy fofTned or have submitted a MOU to NCDOT for approval _ Region A ( Cherokee , Clay , Graham , Haywocd , Jackson , Maven and Swain ndes ) Regfan C ( McDowell , Polk and Rutherford Counties ) Region D (Alleghany , Ashe , Avery , Mitchell , Watauga , Wilkes and Yancey Counties ) Region E ( Alexander, Burke , Caldwell and Catawba Counties ) Lake Norman ( Cleveland County in Region C . Iredel1 , Lincoln and park of GasWn in Region) F ) Region I ( Davis , Stokes , Surry and Yadkin Counties) Ri rgion K ( Franklin , Granville , Person , VanCrS and Warren Coundes ) Legion M ( CurnborlandT Harnett , Sampson Countlos plus Bladen County in legion N ) Region N ( Hake , Bich mond , Robeson and Scodand Counties ) Region) O ( Bmnswick , Columbus and Pander Counties ) Rogion R ( Ca mdent Chowan , Currituck , Dare , Cates , Hyde , Pasquotan k , Perquimens . Tyrral and Washington Counties ) Beaufort , Martin and Pitt bounties in Region Q are considering forrniriq a Rural Planning Organization _ The following counties are entirely within en MPG _ Durham and Wake ( Region ,J ) Forsyth ( Region 1 ) Guildford ( Region C ) Mecklenburg ( Region F ) Almost entirety of New Hanover ( Reg ion O ) The following counties have not yet mde a decision to form an RPO . Bunoornbe , Henderson , Madison and Transylvania Counties ( Region B ) Anson , babarrus , Rowan , Stanly and Union Countkes ( Region F ) Alarnance , Caswell , Davidson , Montgomery , Randolph and Rackirw ham Gaon as ( Region H ) Chatham , Lee , Moore anid grange Counties ( Region J ) Edge'combe , Hafffax , Nash , Northhamption and Wilson Counties ( Region L ) CarteratT Craver , Duplin , Greene , Jones , Lenoir, Onslow , Parnllca and Wayne CNunties ( Region P ) Berne and Hertford Counties ( Rnion 0 ) Conclusion Orange County must consider its interests in deciding which option best addresses its transportation needs . The county should consider whether its transportation interests in the predominantly rural areas of the county are rwre wmpatible with the more urban portions of the county and neighboring Durham County , or more compatible with the rural portlon s of neighboring counties , The county should consider that within an MPO , the MPO has the authority to adapt transportation plans , decide priority of transportation projects , and can prevent unwanted projects from being constructW ; while tho RPO has only advisory authority and NCDOT decides priorlty of transportation projects to be constructed . The county may also consider that local governments de not contribute direct funding for MPO operations while local govemments must contdbuta 20 % of the funding for RPO operations . ( However , the funding would be a minirnal issue since the 20 % match - $ 20 , to $ 25 000 , respectively , for 5AO , 0Q0 base to � 100 , 000 maximum 80 % to be funded by NCDOT - would be divided among the owntles making up the RPO , ) Orae " nty mist also decide whether its transportation Interests in the ng predominantly rural areas of the wunty are more oompadble with counties in the Triangle J region or with counties to the west that are In the Pledrr nt Authority for Regional: Transportatbn service area . or with some other c.Drnbinatio n of adjacent counles that are not already comnAted to a Dural Planning Organization (for example , Aramance and Chatham ) , For the latter scenario , Grange County must develop a proposal for those counties that outlines the structure .and openation for tho RPM} _ a ATTACHMENT A 7 kural Transportation Planning Organization Objectives , Features Benef its Triorlgle J CounciI of Governments October 2001 il'hu1 is tr I urad Transpvnatian Plrrr: nMg Or rri;ufian (RPO) ? An RPO is a vuluntary awooation of loml governmwnts to plan rural transportation systems and advise the NCDOT an rural traaWQrtati9a pt}li.Vy . The 1999 Board of Trauspomtion RefoTM Bill (House bill 1304 ) acquired NCD01 to dcssrclop a p s plan do establish RPO . RPOs were authorized by Scnatc Bill 1195 in 2000 . Mial are Ike ob eetives of an RPO ? the law authorizing K110s outlined four core objectives ; 1 . Develol I Q long-r=ge lore] and regional nu. CFinacl.�l transportation prlarys , in peration with the NC DOT . 2 . Providing a forum for public participation in the trarispartat Ion planning pfocess . 3 . DevelopinZ and prioritizing suggcsaona for projects that the RPO believes should be incladtd, in tht i Staic ' s 'lr= portation IffipmvL.Tnem Program ( TIP) . 4 . Providing #ransgartatima.related information too local governments and a+er i titerested or&.;aii7ati0t) s and piers " & Inat features MAW a Triangle area RPO have ? A Triangle Area RPO must include a� least S counties , but could include up w 5 counties . The RPO Cart sent It9 urban transpro#apon cc+ueterparksI the Metropolitan Planning Orpniza4ons ( MPOs ) that undertake transport planning in Wake, lAuham and parts of ( mnge and Chatham Counties. The RPO would be administered Rough the Triangle J Comcil of Gown u> mts WCOO) . Dedicated staff would be hired to undertake RFO tasks , supplccntcd by cxis#iing TJCOG planning and geographic i m nformation systems staff. Up to 80, of RPO funding would be prothde,d by NCDOT, based ono funding formula involvirig the population and number of countieri in the RPO, At least 200/a of RPO funding must be provided by the local RPO members . i~Yhatr berg might a Mangle Area APO prowdfe ? A ]Beagle Area 1iFU administered through Triangles J COG canprovide local gov c is N� the • an effective voice in advocating the transportation interests of rural eonnries and theme to %ms , • technical assiuwmce for transportation planning and economic and demograahie projections, • o loyal center of contact for w rldng with different divitsieas within the NC'DOT , ■ a single source fvr infor:n ].`ld= 4� n state and federal Mutisporta-tion activitie6 . • established links to the two Metropolitm Plemiing Orgpnim ions in the region and other trmr rtation pmw%idcn such as the Triangle Transit Authority and the RaleighmDurhani Airport Authority * a sophsticatcd gographic information system with skilled staff: and numerous d: to souwcts , and ■ experi =Ued administrators of coordumted Yegional efforts . ss ATTACHMENT A � MEIM ORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR COOPERATIVE , COMPREHENSIVE AND CONTINUING TRANSPORTATION PLAN N I N AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A RURAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION FOR 7h7e Counties of Chatham , Johnston , Lee , Moore and Orange , comprising a portion of the Region J Planning Area , and the Municipalities contained therein ( excluding Chapel Hill , Carrboro and Hillsborough ) and the North Carolina Department of Transportation . ITNE55ETH Whereas , section 135 of Title 23 , United States Code , declares that it i5 in the national interest to encourage and promote the development of transportation systems embracing various modes of 1tansportation in a manner that will serve all areas of the State efficiently and effectively Pr and Wherew , North Carolina General Statutes 136r- 21 1 ernaated avly 6 , 20W , pravidews far the establishment of Rural Transporta ion Planning Organizations ( RPOs ) Similar in concept to Metropolitan Planning Organizations ( iPOs ) for transportation planning in North arclina ' 5 urban areas and Whereas , the establishment of o Rural Transportation Planning Organization ( RPO ) , similar in concept tc the Urban Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organizotions ( MPOs ) , would provide rural crecs the in partnership v,� ith the North Catalina Deportment of opportunity to work Transportation tour ord development of sound , short and long - range transportation planning for rural areas ; and Whereasr the establishment of a Rural Transportation Planning Organizclticn for the portions of Region J area that are not already included within MPO boundanes would assist the North Carolina Department of Transportation in complying with the provisions of the Transportation Equity Act for the 213t Cenfury ( TEA 21 � , enacted June 9 , 1998 , relafive to the participation of local officials and the public in the transportation planning process , and Whweas , It is the desire of these local governments and agencies to establish a Continuing , Comprehensive , Cooperative Transportation Planning Pracen with the establishment of a Rural Transportation Planning Organization for the Region, J Planning Area : the following memorondurn of understanding is made . ATTACHMENT A r 1 q5 Wabftmenf gF Rural TraAS00daflon Planning Or a nrzatlon . It is hereby agreed , that the Counties of Chatham , Johnston , tee , Moore and Orange , and the Municipalities Contained therein ( excluding Chapel Hill , Carrboro and Hillsbofough ) , and the North Carolina Department of Transportation intend to establish and participate in a Rural Transportation Planning Organization created for the general purposes and responsibilities outlined in the following : 1 . Develop long - range local and regional: mulilmodal transportation plans in cooperation with the North Carolina Department of Transportation . 1 Provide a forum for public participation in the transportation planning process . 3 . [develop and prioritize suggestions for transportation projects the Rural Transportation Planning Organization believes should be included in the tate ' s Transportation Improvement Program , 4 , Conduct transportation - related studies and surveys and provioG transportatian � reiated information to local governments and rather interested organizations and persons . 5 . Undertake mutually agreed upon transportaficn - related tasks to enhance transportation system development , coordination and efficiency . Section 2 . _ AdmInIstraflon . and Funding . I is hereby further agreed that transporloiion plans and programs acid land use policies and programs far the Rural Transportation Planning Organization will be coordinated by the Trionole J Council of Government$ , an agency selected on behalf of participating local governments and the North Carolina Department of Tronsportation to be the administrative entity and serve as the IeQd planning agency for coordinating transportation planning in the RPO Planning Areas . It is hereby further agreed that the participating local governments shall provide the local matching funds necessary to obtain state funding for the Rural Transportation Planning Organizafion , Sectton 3 . Establishment of Rural Transportation Advisory Comirn t MAC ) . A Rural Transporta # ion Advisory Committee ( RTAC ) is hereby established with the responsibility for serving as a forum for cooperative transportation planning decision making for the Rural Transpartaticn Planning Organizoticn ( RPO ) . The Rural Transportation Advisory Cornrnittee ( RTAQ shall have the responsibility for keeping the policy boards informed of the status and requirements of the transportation planning process ; assisting in the dissemination and clarification of the decisions , inclinations , and policies of the policy boards ; and helping to ensure meaningful pubkic participation in the transportation planning process , ATTACHMENT A a 1 , The Rural Transportation Advisory Cornmitteo will be rQsponsable for carrying out the following : A , Establishment of goals and objectives for the transportation planning process . B , Endorsement , review and , approval of changes to adopted Transportation Plans for the Rural Transportation Planning Organilzction . C . Endorsement , review and approval of a Prospectus for Transport ❑ tion Planning v+rhich rtollnes work tasks an i responsibilities for the variauS agencies participating in the Rural Transportation Planning Organization . D . Endorsement , review and approval of Transportation Improvement Pr jects which support and enhance rural transportation within the Rural Transportation Planning organization , 2 . The membership * of the Rural Transportation Advisory Committee shflll consist of to following : A . One County Comimissionc� r representing each County . B . One municipal elected official representing the municipal interests in each County , unless there are no municipalities included in a county ' s RPO plcinning area . C . One member of the Tricngle J Council of Governments Executive Board . a .• A member of the North Carolina Board of Transportation representing the Department of Transportation . 1 The County Commissioner representing etch county shall be elected b � the Board of County Commissioners of each county in regular session _ The elected municipal representative shall be selected by balloting of municipal elected offiaiais in each county ( one vote for each town ) every two years . A simple majority vote wins the seat . The tofm of office for all seats on the RTA is two years , Re - appointment is possible , - - 4 - The Rural Transportation AdViSory Committee ( RTAC ) will meet as often as it is deemed appropriate and advisable . On the basis of majority vote of its membership , the Rural Transporf ation Advisory Committee shall appoint a member of the committee to act as choirperson with the responsibility for caordlriation of the cornrnitte , ' s activities and another member to act as price - chairperson to ossurne this responsibility in the chairperson ' s absence . A member of the staff of the Tdangle J Council of Governments will serge as secretary to the committee , s ATTACHMENT A � 1 .don 4. EsfablDshment of Tranmoftiflon TeOnleal Commtlte a MCI . A Transportation Technical Committee shall be established with the responsibility of general review , guidance and coordination of the tfansportation planning process for the Rural Transportation Planning Organization ( RPO ) and the responsibility for making recommendations to the Rural Transportation Advisory Committee regarding any necessary actions felating to the continuing transportation planning process , 1 , The TTC shall be responsible for development , review and recommendation for opproval of the Transportation Planning Prospectus for the PPQz the Transportation improvement Plan , and revisions tO the Transportation Plan for the RPO . 2 . Membershlp of the Transportation Technical Committee shall incl ❑ de technical representatives from oil local and state governmental agencies directly related to and concerned with the transportation planning process for the RPM} Planning Area . Initially , the membership shall include , but may not be limited to , the following , A . County Manager and Covnty Planner ( if designated ) fram each of the counties in the RPO Planning Areas . Be The Chief Administrative Official or Planner ( as designated ) from each municipality cif 1000 population or more in the RPO Planning Area . Transportation Planner , Triangle J Council of Governments . Do the Division Engineer , or designated representative , for each Highwoy [division of the North Carolina Department of Transportation that sefVes the RPO Planning Arecs, , E . Manager , � tafew ide Planning Branch , Planning and Environment , North Carolina Department of Transportation , or designated representative , F . Area Traffic Engineer , Division of Highways , Traffic Engineering Branch , north Carolina Department of Transportattion . 3 . the Transportation Technical Committee shall meet when it is deemed appropriate and advisable . On the basis of majari #y vote of i # s membership , the Transportation Technical Committee shall appoint a member of the committee to act as Chairperson With the responsidilitY for coordinating the committee ' s activities . Membership of the Transportation Technical Committee may be revised upon the approval of the Rural Transportation Advisory Committee of the RPO , SgStion 5 . Mer Assidance . It is further agreed that the participating agencies will assist in the transportation planning process by providing 73 ATTAC H M E NT A 1 planning assistance ., data and inventories in cccorclonce with the approved Prospectus of the RPO . . Seetlon 8 . drawal . Any party to this Memorandum of Underslonding may ithdraw its participation in the continuing transportation planning process by giving ? 0 days written notice to , the other parties prier to the date at �vithdrarv �al . ecilan 7_ . AuthortzcdTon . In witness whereof , the par fi3s of this Memorandum of Understanding have been authorized by appropriate and proper resolutions , arid / or legislative authority to sign this Memorandum of Understanding , This the day of , 20020 Chatham Countmy Clerk By : Chairman Johnston County l Clerk By : Chairman tee County Clerk By : Chairman Moore County Clerk By : hairrr7an Ora n ge County Clark ' • Chairman North Carolina Department of ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date : March 6 , 2002 Action Agenda Item No . SUBJECT : Planning Process for Joint County/Town Open Space Projects — IP Work Group Update DEPARTMENT : Environment and Resource PUBLIC HEARING : (Y/ N ) No Conservation ATTACHMENT ( S ) : INFORMATION CONTACT . * - Update on Discussions of IP Work Group David Stancil , ERC Director , 245 - 2590 * - Draft Recommendation TELEPHONE NUMBERS . Hillsborough 732 = 8181 Chapel Hill 968 =4501 Durham 688 =7331 Mebane 336 -227 -2031 PURPOSE : To receive an update on the progress of the Intergovernmental Parks ( IP ) Work Group regarding a recommendation on a policy for planning joint parks and open space projects . BACKGROUND : On January 31 and again on February 27 , the Intergovernmental Parks ( IP ) Work Group met to review the County ' s September 10 , 2001 draft policy statement " Use of County Funds for Joint Parks and Open Space Projects " . The policy statement draft was sent to the Towns for review and comment in September , 2001 . The Chapel Hill Town Council and the Board of Commissioners asked the IP Work Group to review the policy statement in light of issues that had been raised and develop a recommendation . The attached draft recommendation was developed via facilitated discussion of the policy draft and Chapel Hill Town Council comments at the January 31St meeting ( no changes to this draft were made on February 27 ) . A summary of meeting discussion from February 27 is also provided to apprise the Board of the Work Group ' s progress to date . A subcommittee of elected officials has been formed from the IP Work Group , to finalize discussion of remaining unresolved issues . The IP Work Group anticipates meeting in April to complete their recommendation — in time for the Board ' s review and adoption of a planning process concurrent with the 2002 - 2012 Capital Investment Plan . The Manager' s recommended CIP will be presented on March 18 . 2 1 � Staff will be prepared to present at the meeting an example of how the IP Work Group recommended process might work . FINANCIAL IMPACT : There are no financial impacts associated with receipt of the IP Work Group update and recommendation . The eventual planning process that is adopted will have significant implications for how joint County/Town bond projects are addressed . RECOMMENDATION ( S ) : The Manager recommends that the Board receive the report and provide comments . ? � 1 Summary of IP Work Group Discussion 2 /27 / 02 The following items summarize the discussion of the IP Work Group at their February 27 , 2002 meeting regarding the draft policy statement for joint parks and open space . ❑ The Work Group agreed that the draft recommendation was near completion , with only a few remaining issues needing further discussion ❑ The Work Group discussed the merits of empowering the proposed Project Plan Groups ( PPG ' s ) with the authority to make decisions regarding parks construction and operation , as opposed to making recommendations to respective elected boards ❑ The Work Group discussed the level of detail envisioned for PPG review , and whether after concept plan approval , the final steps should be left to staffs ( unless special conditions or issues warranted further elected official participation ) ❑ The Work Group noted that the PPG ' s could be the vehicle to address the appropriate level of public participation needed , and that the regulatory process for approval of parks would provide another layer of public review o The Work Group briefly discussed the coordination of concept plan committees and PPG ' s — noting the potential for integrating the two processes and providing steering /guidance opportunities that could be offered to the committee Following the discussion , the Work Group appointed a subcommittee of Margaret Brown , Mark Dorosin and Flicka Bateman to meet and further discuss the above issues , for a possible April IP Work Group meeting to adopt a recommendation . NOTIf : NO CIL4NGES WERE 11LOWE R.) TIIIS DR2IFT AT 71HE FEBRU 041RY `" i 11%()P, _Ii GROUT' i11EE1'IIVG . PE'2 77)I 1G SUBCOJILI1IT`l E' .11EI-ANG .Z1 VD APPROT -1L 1 \' APIL 1lRAli7 2 / `0 / 0 7. IP Work Group Recommendation Planning Process for Joint County/Town Parks and Open Space ProJects February 27 , 2002 On January 31 , the Intergovernmental Parks (IP) Work Group met to review the County 's 9110101 draft policy statement "Use of County Funds for Joint Parks and Open Space Projects . " The Chapel Hill Town Council and the County Board of Commissioners had asked the IP Work Group to review the policy statement in light of issues raised and develop a recommendation . The following recommendations were developed via facilitated discussion of the policy draft and Chapel Hill Town Council comments . IP Work Group members asked that the ideas be written up and presented for a recommendation on February 27. A . General Areas of Common Interest/ Consensus There are a number of general concepts related to planning for joint parks that are shared by all jurisdictions . 1 . An interest in avoiding overlap and delays in completing projects 2 . A recognition that County oversight/overview of joint parks and open space projects which the County funds wholly or partly is appropriate 3 . That a planning policy should address both specific 2001 bond projects and new joint parks /open space projects yet to be developed In addition, the IP Work Group discussed the draft policy and the Town of Chapel Hill 's issues . The group agreed by consensus that some objectives from the draft policy statement "Use of County Funds for Joint Parks and Open Space Projects " should be retained . The following list contains the points recommended for retention (with locational reference in the 9110101 draft policy statement in parentheses). 4 . The " Conditional Approval" process , for the purpose of new joint projects only (objective 1 ) NOTE: A70 CILI NGES I ER E ALiDE TO THIS DR: IET AT T.H .FEBR Uz�lI,' I `i I1�fORI�: ryE 11IL' ' 'G z:UVD APPRO�VAL 1N.APRILEl1� CE lI1LCIO 'F' � 1F F \ � lIll DIAFT 2 / 9, 0 / 02 5 . The County should have joint approval for concept plans on parks /open space projects the County is fully or partially funding ( Objective 3 , bullet 3 ) 6 . Joint parks and open space projects should be consistent with adopted County guidelines and criteria (objective 2) 7 . The 2001 bond projects should be exempted from the conditional approval process (objective 4) 8 . That all joint parks will be open for use by all County citizens , as per adopted Open Facilities Policy (objective 7 - a) B . Proposed Changes to Planning Process Upon further discussion of the issues raised regarding other portions of the draft policy, the IP Work Group developed a new approach for addressing joint parks and open space projects on a case - by - case basis . As noted by County officials at the meeting, this concept is similar to one in effect for the County and school systems for new capital projects . 1 . Information Needed The IP Work Group noted that, to pursue this new approach, additional information was needed or should be clarified. a) Clarification is needed to define which parks and open space projects are "joint" projects to be covered by this approach (please see Attachment 1 for staffs interpretation of this list) b ) Information is needed from the respective Towns regarding their own internal priorities among these joint projects 2 . Alternative Process for Joint Statement of Intent ( objective 3 ) The IP Work Group noted that a one size fits all " approach to planning joint projects might apply standards and expectations that are not applicable in each case . As each joint project on the table is unique and different, the concept of a case - by - case approach for many of the project details and decision points is suggested as an alternative . This approach is consistent with the County 's process for joint efforts with the schools, and offers flexibility to adjust the functions and plans of each project as needed . The IP Work Group recommends that the County have a set of general `guiding principles " that apply to all projects, perhaps based on the General Areas of Common Interest in section A of this recommendation . It is then recommended that each project be handled on a case - by - case basis using the following approach . r 7 ti 7 t f 7 �� 7 l a i i 7 ? ;. ) �) 19 \'OT : ��` O C IL- L ?�� GES li ERL AI�1DE TO 7IIIS DR�� FT AT TI I �3h r : lei. C1 <)l�'Ii GROUP 11EE7IIVG, P11�\'DI \7G .�" (:'I3C ` n�'�1�� 111 ' 1 f�E AIh:1 Y'IiN,G .,IATD .:-OIPPli O1,7i-1.1.; 1�\' DRAFT 2 / 0 / 02 a . Process for Current Joint Parks and Open Space Projects ( diagram of process included as Attachment 3 ) 1 ) The Towns and County should develop a prioritization of joint projects , including project cost estimates and expected duration (see B . Lb above ) 2 ) The County would then consider funding timetables , opportunities and the schedule of projects 3) Once the County has approved funding and timetable , a Capital Project Ordinance would be developed by both jurisdictions . This step would trigger the creation of a Town/ County Parks " Project Plan Group " (PPG) to recommend key decisions on the project . 4) The Town and County elected boards could then appoint two members each to a Parks /Open Space Project Plan Group for each project , as per its schedule . 5 ) After receiving recommendations of the Project Plan Group , the County Commissioners and Town elected board would make their respective decisions regarding the Project Plans . 6) The parks would be designed , constructed and opened in accord with the Project Plan Parks/Open Space Project Plan Group (PPG) • 2 County Commissioners and 2 elected officials from the jurisdiction( s) involved in the project • County/Town Managers or their designees • Relevant Staff (Budget , ERCD , Parks , other as needed) Proposed Charge to Each Parks/Open Space Project Plan Group (PPG) Develop a recommendation to respective elected boards on the following items : • Which jurisdiction will serve as lead entity for coordinating parks design and construction (including phasing plans , and the hiring of design and construction consultants and architects) • Which jurisdiction will coordinate park operation, stewardship and maintenance (including the hiring of operational consultants) • The process for developing a park concept plan, if not already completed (including appointments to any committees so charged) • The process for Board approval of the concept plan and park construction, or any like steps • The process for Board approval of final site plans and construction phasing • Any plans for the leasing , or exclusive use/scheduling of park facilities by any private or non-profit firm or organization so NOTE: r ti r ti t � i i , �� r t1N OTZ : '� O C, H20I1� GEb WERE KLI DE 7 O THLI DR 'IF, AT .THE I EBR ( TAR Id' ..: i 11 `OR.1 GEi' C� tIP 'tII{;1 1'7�1'C� . �'E_ 'DI LTG SI: TI.iCC)I I. IIITI 'I E' �lIEEI'l�\'G : 1:1?IU . II'Pfi'. 0 �. 4L IN DRAFT 2 /20 / 02 b . Future (As Yet Unidentified ) Joint Parks and Open Space Projects New joint parks or open space proposals that may be developed in future years might use the following process, which is essentially the above process, preceded by the `conditional approval " process outlined in the County 's draft policy statement. 1 ) A written request proposing the joint project would be submitted to the Board of Commissioners , who would review proposal and (if deemed appropriate for further study) refer it to IP Work Group . 2) The IP Work Group would review proposal , consulting with Schools/Land Use Councils if warranted , and make a recommendation to County Commissioners and respective Town Board (s) 3) The Board of Commissioners would then consider the recommendation , receive any needed clarifying information , consider funding potential (including whether the project should be part of a future bond package ) , and decide on whether ( and when) to designate " conditional approval" for the project 4) The Board of Commissioners would then , at the appropriate time based on funding availability and other considerations , follow the process for current joint projects outlined in subsection B . 2 . a above (beginning with B . 2 . a . 2) C . Other Issues / RemaininaQuestions There are a few details or matters that the IP Work Group would forward for further consideration along with this recommendation: 1 . Will County Capital Project Ordinances include the Town funding portion ? 2 . What happens if the PPG' s disagree on details or are unable to reach consensus ? 3 . One task before the IP Work Group is the development of a Memorandum of Agreement between the County and Towns regarding parks and future roles and responsibilities . It appears that much of this discussion could be the body of such an agreement ? Should the IP Work Group continue to develop a draft agreement ? 4 . How will the County make decisions on project schedule and timetables ? Do projects that are " ready" get the first green light ? 5 . How should public participation in parks planning be coordinated with the PPG' s ? NOTE: NO CH�INGES WERE JI =1Dh TC) THIS DR:t:Ir7' �� 11 TIIr .DEB U� Il~ I' � ; 14'i-li 8 �- Gli' 1 t :`P . GII .1 '1'I \rG . 1 '1 \' DI \' (:i C:' B ( ` Otl1. 1III ''1'EI� �11f; 1�TL'dN'r A ND � 17'P�i' CJ t. -11; I�\T � 11?ftill: DI AFT 2 /0 / 02 Attachment 1 List of Current Joint Town/ County Parks and Open Space Projects (jurisdictions involved) 1 . Homestead Park Aquatics Center (Bond partners - Orange County , Town of Chapel Hill ) 2 . Fairview Park (Bond partners - Orange County , Hillsborough ) 3 . Smith Middle School Park (Bond partners - Orange County , Carrboro ) 4 . Greenways/Joint Open Space (Bond partners - Chapel Hill , Orange County , Carrboro ) 5 . Southern Park (Bond partners - Orange County , Chapel Hill ) � � i) r- 8 L NOTE J 'O CIL"PINCHES VVERE .'1�� .k 1DI TO TI ' DR 2 FT �T TIII FEDR t : .IIR I' � i 1 VOP Ii GIi' (� tiP 111I:.111'1 'C , I'L'i` L)I��' C: . ' (: ' I: CO�� f 111 :1. ''P.I 1..� .111FL I TIA'G � U ) � II'1'7R 7O C-`<-1L 1 �' 11.1'.I� Il.; lJ l \: ili 12 4 / +) 0 / 0 Attacllhment 2 Town Priorities Among 2001 Joint Town/ County Parks and Open Space Proiects NOTE: Priorities not yet received from Towns Town of Chapel Hill • • . ( Tow n • o Duration* Town of Carrboro • Project Total Cost Status Expected . o Duration* Town of Hillsborough 1 . Fairview Park 53 Additional Information Items Commission for the Environment March 11 2002 Agenda ews & Obseiver( Print Friendly) : littp : //www , . . m/newire/news/Story/910279p . 907742c . litml n es e r Y e r. c o m Published : Thursday , February 14 , 2002 8 : 47 a . m . EST Budget cuts cripple clean water pro " ects RALEIGH , N . C . (AP ) - - A state fund dedicated to moving swine farms out of flood plains and preserving maritime forests has been crippled as Gov . Mike Easley attempts to narrow the budget shortfall . Easley froze more than half of the $ 40 million budget of the Clean Water Management Trust Fund as part of his plan to balance North Carolina ' s budget . 0 With $ 20 . 8 million unavailable , the fund will have trouble paying for projects already approved . Those projects include a $ 1 million wastewater reuse project in Chatham County , a $ 5 . 9 million buyout of flood - prone swine farms and a $ 2 million purchase of rare maritime forest on Ocracoke Island . " It' s a big setback , " said Molly Diggins , state director of the Sierra Club . " We understand that these decisions are painful , but North Carolina ' s losing land faster than almost any other state in the country . " The budget cuts complicate the state ' s slow progress toward a goal of protecting 1 million acres from development by 2010 . Budget- balancing already has taken $ 8 million from two other land conservation programs . Created in 1996 , the Clean Water Management Trust Fund has spent more than $ 220 million to protect forests and wetlands , repair failing wastewater systems , buy out polluting farms and undertake other projects to fight water pollution . Instead of considering 100 new applications for land and water projects , the fund ' s trustees will have to rescind grants for local governments and nonprofit organizations . Some of the groups have made investments and expect the state to reimburse them . " We ' re going to have to sit down and assess how much money we really have left and what we ' ve approved , " said Bill Holman , the fund ' s executive director . " We may well have to make contact with some folks and say , ' Sorry . " ' Despite the uncertainty , the state Division of Soil and Water Conservation has not changed its schedule for the second phase of the hog lagoon buyout . The first round of the buyouts closed out pollution - prone open -waste pits on four farms and will do the same for 10 more , said Cathy Akroyd , a division spokeswoman . Other farmers who want to sell their properties to the state face a Feb . 28 application deadline , she said , but the state won ' t have any money to pay them if the $ 5 . 9 million approved last year is frozen . BACK - © Copyright 2000 , The News & Observer . All material found on newsobserver. com is copyrighted The News & Observer and associated news services . No material may be reproduced or reused without explicit permission from The News & Observer . 2/ 14/2002 9 : 59 AM 85 TM Vol . 13, No . 1 January—March 2002 2001 Open Space Results Editorial, The Conservation Fund' s chairman calls for an American network ■ In 2001 , voters in 24 states agreed to spend almost $ 1 . 7 of parks and open space . billion for parks and open space . Last year, voters OK' d 137 of 196 state and local ballot Small Tracts , Oregon' s growth management measures ( 70 °Jo ), according to the Land Trust Alliance law faces another challenge, America steps ( lta . org ) and Trust for Public Land ( tpl . org ) . On Nov . 6 alone, voters approved $ 1 . 2 billion in funding for parks up its recycling of brownfields, Coloradans and open space in 86 of 115 ballot measures, a 75110 ap- take steps to better manage growth and proval rate . Among the larger measures approved Nov . 6 . California links growth with water supply . • $ 192 million in Morris County, N .J . , for open space, recreation and farmland preservation, • $ 160 million in Santa Clara County, Calif . , for parks, Thank you : A grateful thank you to 140 open space and trails, and readers who recently contributed • $ 115 million for the Great Outdoors Colorado program . On page 3 are open space measures approved Nov . 6 . $ 6, 685 to the COMMON GROUND New Jersey listings are incomplete due to limited space . Research Fund . See Open Space page 3 Corporate Notes : American Electric Power, BP and Alliant Energy are helping develop Land Protected in Florida , the nations first carbon emissions trading Maryland and Georgia system, and Johnson & Johnson and Philip ■ The Conservation Fund recently helped the Suwannee Morris are supporting Conservation Fund projects in several states . River Water Management District obtain a conservation easement on the 32, 000- acre California Swamp in Dixie County, Fla . , one of the largest ever placed on private Personnel : Lawrence A . Selzer succeeds property in the state . The Fund worked closely with land- John Turner as president and CEO of The owner Forest Systems in the $ 13 . 6 million acquisition, Conservation Fund . which culminated 20 years of effort by the state to protect the site . The easement permanently restricts development on the land, which borders the Lower Suwannee National Databank : The South produces more timber Wildlife Refuge and acts as a freshwater filtration basin for the Lower Suwannee watershed . The company will con- than any country in the world ( except the U . S . , of course ) . tinue pine forestry operations on 15, 000 acres of upland under new guidelines aimed at enhancing the swamp eco- system . Forest Systems retained rights to hunting leases but will allow public access for hiking and bird watching . See Land Protected , page 6 86 COMMON GROUND VOL , 13 NO , 1 JANUARY-MARCH 2O02 • America ' s We need new, smarter approaches to was little science and even less thinking land conservation to leverage funding and about economic development . There were Network address the accelerating rate at which land is few opportunities for professional develop - being developed . ment . By almost every measure, the work of of Parks In the 1970s, when I began work in con- conservation is becoming more complex . nervation, we protected individual parcels of Conservationists need to understand mar- and Open land . Today, we protect networks of open keting, business planning, real estate and space . Still, too many land conservation ef- tax law, as well as ecology and geographic Sace forts are haphazard and reactive in nature . information systems . We need to build the pSuccessful land conservation must be : capacity of our movement by embracing the • more proactive and less reactive, concepts of training, education and lifelong • more systematic and less haphazard, learning . We also need to educate the public • multifunctional, not single purpose, about the benefits derived from green infra - • large scale, not small scale, and structure . And, we need to attract the best • better integrated with other efforts to and brightest to our field . The final chal- manage growth and development . lenge is people . We must broaden our The key to accomplishing this is " green movement to include more of the young and infrastructure, " a framework that provides a people of color . Our work is fundamentally ioR% "19 strategic approach to land conservation . Just about people—our children and theirs . as growing communities need to upgrade Now is the time for a more strategic and is published quarterly as a and expand their built infrastructure ( roads, comprehensive approach to land conserva - service to the conservation sewers, utilities, etc . ), so too they need to tion . The opportunity is before us to create a community by upgrade and expand their green infrastru & national system of parks and open space The Conservation Fund ture—the network of open space, wood- community by community . Our nation' s 3 . 2 Patrick F. Noonan lands, wildlife habitat, parks and other million miles of rivers and streams provide Lawrence A. Selzer natural areas that sustains clean air, water, a natural framework for America ' s green in- President and natural resources and enriches our qual- frastructure design and—when linked with Mike McQueen ity of life . Green infrastructure repositions working landscapes, farms and forests con- Editor open space protection from a community served by conservation easements—repre - Jack Lynn amenit to a communitynecessity . sent a new era of smart conservation . Editorial Consultant y y Meg West Green infrastructure can help reduce The new measure for smart conserva- Art Director opposition to development . When citizens tion is " acre for acre . " For each acre we For address corrections and think all land is up for grabs, they oppose develop, we protect an acre . We have the information, contact: development everywhere . But when people opportunity to create—community by com- April Berry have some assurance that special places will munity and state by state—a national sys- Circulation Manager be saved, they become more amenable to a & tern of parks and open space that will The Conservation Fund 1800 N . Kent St . , Suite 1120 commodating new development . stretch from " sea to shining sea . " Arlington, VA 22209 When I started in conservation, many of —Patrick F . Noonan 703 / 525-6300 us were winging it . We hadn' t been educated The author is chairitian of the board of directors COMMON GROUND routinely grants permission for reprints . or trained for what we were doing . There of The Collservatiol7 Ftind . Address editorial correspondence and reprint queries to : COMMON GROUND 940 Stillwater Lane _ t Earlysville, VA 22936 434 / 973-7324 coground@)aol . com COMMON GROUND is available ' on the World Wide Web at http : // www .conservationfund . org Printed on recycled paper. 0 , ) o, � o ? 6 �p . r _ � ` 87 COMMON GROUND VOL . 13 NO . 1 JANUARY-MARCH 2O02 Open Space , from page 1 State Jurisdiction Description Funding Arizona Gilbert Open space bond $20. 4 million California Placer County Property tax for parks and recreation $8 .4 million Santa Clara County Property tax for parks, open space and trails $ 160 million Colorado Statewide Great Outdoor Colorado open space bonding $ 115 million Basalt Bonds for open space, parks, wildlife, etc. $3 million Broomfield Sales tax for parks and open space $8 million Douglas County Bonds for open space $43 million Manitou Springs Sales and property tax for parks and open space $1 .4 million Parker Bond authority for parks, open space $ 12. 5 million San Miguel Property tax for parks, open space, trails, etc. $14 million Superior Sales tax for open space $8 million Connecticut Glastonbury Bond for open space $3 million Florida Lake County Sales tax for parks $30 million Georgia Suwanee Bond for parks, open space, trails, greenways $ 17. 7 million Iowa Ames Bond for conservation / recreation area, water supply $4 .97 million Massachusetts Agawam Property tax for open space, recreation, etc. $ 1 . 6 million Cambridge Property tax for open space, recreation, etc. $25 . 7 million Easthampton Property tax for open space, recreation, etc. $1 . 9 million Newton Property tax for open space, recreation, etc. $ 10 .2 million Peabody Property tax for open space, recreation, etc. $3. 1 million Maine Falmouth Bond for land acquisition and open space preservation $ 1 . 5 million Michigan Birmingham Bond for parks, recreation and land acquisition $25 million Missouri Green County Sales tax for parks, trails, zoo, etc. $ 18 . 7 million New Jersey Barnegat Township Property tax for conservation and recreation areas, etc . $1 . 28 million Bloomfield Township Property tax for open space, recreation and conservation $4 . 1 million Califon Borough Property tax for open space $87, 475 Chatham Borough Property tax for open space, recreation, etc. $390, 000 Delaware Township Property tax for open space, farmland preservation $2 . 3 million Demarest Property tax for open space, farmland preservation, etc. $283, 645 Egg Harbor Township Property tax for conservation and recreation $6.5 million Fairfield Township Property tax for open space, conservation $730, 000 Franklin Township Property tax for recreation, farmland preservation, etc. $380,000 Gibbsboro Property tax for parks, open space, etc. $560, 000 Glen Gardner Borough Property tax for open space, farmland preservation $47, 529 Gloucester Township Property tax for parks, open space, etc. $8.9 million Hainesport Township Property tax for open space $89, 820 Hamilton Township Dedicates funding for open space - Hope Township Property tax for open space, recreation, farmland preservation $ 1 .32 million Jackson Township Property tax for open space, recreation, water quality $4 million Lawrence Township Property tax for parks, open space, etc. $49 million Little Egg Harbor Property tax for conservation $ 1 . 8 million Little Silver Borough Property tax for open space, recreation, farmland pres ., etc . $ 1 . 3 million Manasquan Borough Property tax for open space, recreation, etc. $315, 175 Manchester Township Property tax for open space, recreation, etc. $3 .4 million Mendham Township Property tax for land conservation, recreation $663,089 Middlesex County Property tax for recreation, conservation, etc. $188 million Midland Park Borough Property tax for open space, recreation, farmland preservation, etc. $240, 500 Moorestown Township Property tax for open space $4 .8 million Morris County Property tax for open space, recreation, farmland preservation $ 192 million New York Ardsley Village . Bonds for parks, open space $1 .75 million Dobbs Ferry Bond for park, open space $3 million Easthampton Bond for open space $5 million Southold Bond for open space, farmland preservation $2 million Tarrytown Bond for land conservation $3 million North Carolina Orange County , Bonds for parks, open space, recreation $20 million Ohio Gates Mill Property tax for land and water preservation $90, 500 Miami County Property tax for land preservation $21 million Stark County Property tax for parks $19 .2 million West Geauga Park District Property tax for environmentally sensitive land acquisition $276, 000 Pennsylvania Franconia Township Income tax for open space, farmland preservation $8. 5 million Patton Township Bond for open space $2 . 5 million Plumstead Township Bond for open space, conservation easements, etc. $6 million Stroud Township • Income tax for open space $3 . 6 million Texas Alvin Bond for land acquisition and improvements, parks, etc. $3 . 15 million Cedar Park Bond for parks and recreation $ 10 .6 million Harris County Bond for parks $60 million Houston Bond for parks, recreation $80 million Round Rock Bond for parks $ 17 . 3 million Travis County Bond for parks $28 . 6 million Washington Bainbridge Island Bond for open space, forest acquisition, etc. $8 million Source: LandVote 2001 , tpl . org, Ita . org : . `'' , �y ... . . . . . . . . .....Vl .:�:iil . .� 11 . : 1 ., . .' 1 .1 ,�•. it ,�� . . . . .,. , \Il• �:,. .4• .��..,',. 1 . • .._ . . . . . . . . . 88 COMMON GROUND VOL . 13 NO . 1 JANUARY-MARCH 2O02 S M A L L It better rain in California : As the nation' s Get outside : More than 707o of Americans The Conservation Fund most populous state ( pop . 34 . 5 million ) pre - said that outdoor leisure activities are more Vital Statistics pares for another 11 million residents by effective in reducing personal stress than Land protected by TCF 2020, water supply becomes more crucial by indoor activities, according to a 50- state and partners, 2001 : the day . Gov . Gray Davis recently signed a survey conducted by RT Neilson for Recre- Acres protected : 30211349 bill (SB 221 ) that for the first time directly ational Equipment Inc . ( rei . com ) . Nine in 10 Est. value : $284,420, 256 links water supply and land use planning . people said that spending leisure time out- Cumulative land protected, The new law bars cities or counties from doors lifted their spirits, the October survey 1985-2001, by TCF and approving residential subdivisions of more of 1 , 000 households found . Other findings : partners : than 500 units unless there is written verifi- Of the 707o who planned outdoor activities Acres protected : 3,252,362 cation that enough water will be available over the recent holidays, one - third said they Est . value : $ 1,624, 603, 864 for the development . The law goes a step planned to spend more time outdoors than TCF' s average annual fund- further than a 1995 act that requires planning the previous year . And 757o strongly agreed raising expense : agencies to consider information provided by that engaging in outdoor activities is a good 170 of total income water suppliers in their decision whether to way to build family relationships . The Conservation Fund approve new development . Under the 1995 is a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit law, planners can ignore the information and Recycling land : More than 112, 000 acres organization established to approve a development if they wish . The ( 175 square miles ) of contaminated land in advance land and water 500 -unit trigger originallywas set at 200 but the U . S . are being redeveloped, according to conservation in America . gg g P g The Fund is a member of was raised to gain legislators' approval . the second annual ECS Land Reuse Report Earth Share and participates Keep in mind that the proposed Newhall ( ecsinc . com, 800 / 327- 1414 ) . California, in the Combined Federal Rancb project in Santa Clarita in Los Angeles Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Campaign as # 0930. County would create 21 , 600 homes and at- Pennsylvania and Wisconsin had the most d Ito tract 65, 000 residents, the largest develop - sites planned for or under redevelopment, p Earth Share ment project in county history . according to ECS Inc . , an environmental. insurer, and the International Economic FWS, BLM directors confirmed : The Senate Development Council ( iedconline . org, 202 / Conservation leadership approved the nomination of Kathleen Clarke 223 - 7800 ), an association of economic and Courses as director of the Bureau of Land Manage - community development professionals . In- "Gateway Communities : ment on Dec . 21 . Since 1998, Clarke served as dustrial use of recycled land dropped to 21o' Keys to Success, " interactive executive director of the Utah Department of from 387o last year, replaced by a higher pro- TV workshop, Feb . 27. Natural Resources and deputy director from portion of mixed uses, office, residential and Contact Anne Desmarais, 1993 to 1998 . The Senate also confirmed cultural and recreational uses . 703 / 525-6300 . Steven Williams as director of the Fish and "GIS Design for Regional Wildlife Service on Jan . 29 . Williams has di- Growth management in Colorado : Gov , Bill Conservation Planning, " rected the Kansas Department of Wildlife Owens signed several growth management March 1145 and Nov. 18-22, and Parks since 1995 . Born in Vermont, he bills in November approved in a special ses - Shepherdstown, w. Va, also worked for state fish and wildlife agen- sion of the state General Assembly . The two 304 / 876-7452. cies in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts , most significant laws : House Bill 1006 for the "The Practice of Environmen- first time requires high-population and fast- tally Sensitive Development," Little warm ? The global average surface growing counties to create comprehensive March 21 -22, Orlando, Fla ., temperature in 2001 is expected to be the sec- land use plans . One caveat: The plans aren ' t April 11 -12, Chicago, Ill.; and April 29_30, Vienna, Va. and warmest on record, just behind 1998 . binding . The counties can ignore them . Sen- 800 / 321 -5011 . Nine of the 10 warmest years since 1860 have ate Bill 15 gives counties and all cities—not occurred since 1990, according to the World just home rule cities like Denver—the au - "Green Infrastructure: A Meteorological Organization (www . wmo . ch) . thority to assess impact mpact fees to pay for infra ~gic Approach to Green Space Planning and Conser- Although global temperatures have risen structure, such as roads and sewers, that vation, " May 14.16, more than 1 . 08 ' F during the past 100 years, serve new development . Two bills that Chicago, Ill . 304 / 87&74626 the rise hasn' t been steady . Since 1976, the didn' t make it to the governor' s desk which global average has risen three times faster legislators may revisit this year : one to make than the century -long trend . And 2001 was binding the new county comprehensive the 23rd consecutive year with the global plans and a second requiring the six- county mean surface temperature above the 1961 — Denver metro region to develop a regional 1990 average . In central England, where sur- plan that would be binding on all local gov- face temperatures have been kept for 343 ernments once two- thirds of the affected lo - years, October 2001 was the warmest ever . cal governments approve it. 89 COMMON GROUND VOL . 13 NO . 1 JANUARY—MARCH 2O02 TRACTS Grants for sustainable forestry. The Na . Backers of Oregon ' s model growth manage - tional Commission on Science for Sustain- ment law await a critical state Supreme able Forestry (202 / 530 -5810, ncssf. org ) is Court decision regarding the legality of a soliciting proposals for 10 grants up to property rights measure that, if put into $250, 000 each for research on the relation- place, could decimate the 28 -year- old law6 ship between biodiversity and forest Measure 7, approved by voters in November management . The Doris Duke Charitable 2000, requires that landowners get paid for Foundation, Surdna Foundation, Packard any drop in land value stemming from most Oregon 's Measure Foundation and National Forest Foundation state or local regulations . The state of Oregon are funding the commission, which launched estimated the measure could cost $ 5A billion 7 requires that the five-year, $ 7 . 5 million project in January . a year, equivalent to the state' s annual gen- landowners get It aims to improve the scientific basis for the eral fund budget. A trial court judge invali- paid for any drop development, implementation and evalua- dated the measure in February 2001 on in land value tion of sustainable forestry practices in the constitutional grounds, and the state Su- United States . The commission is conducted preme Court heard arguments on appeal in stemmingfrom under the auspices of the National Council September . A decision is expected as early most state or local for Science and the Environment (202 / 530- as February . The growth management law 5810, NCSEonline . org ), a nonprofit group requires 241 Oregon cities to draw urban regulations . working to improve the science behind envi- growth boundaries to rein in development ronmental decision-making . " Our number and limits 25 . 5 million acres to farm and for- one charge is to conduct the highest priority, est use . By one estimate, farmers and forest Objective, non- advocacy research on land owners have received $3 . 5 billion since biodiversity and sustainable forestry that is 1973 in compensation through property tax most relevant to improving management reductions . Their land is taxed at a special as- practices in the next five years, " said John sessment rate that is much lower than even Gordon, commission chair, and former pro- farm use value, let alone development value * fessor at the Yale School of Forestry and No matter what the high court decides, vot- Environmental Studies , ers will likely revisit the issue this fall . The Conservation Fund would like to thank the following recent contributors to the COMMON GROUND Research Fund: David H . Ackerman Charles Conklin Jr. Scott Gongaware Bob Langsenkamp Jr. Darla Sather Michael Alexander Walter Cook Christopher Graham George Lauff Mary Savala Cynthia Andrews Lane Coulston Mr. & Mrs . Henry Gray Elizabeth Lewis John Scott Jr. Candace Ashmun William Cowles Arlene Grubbs Barbara Lipscomb Michael Seeland Henry Baker Jr. Charles Creighton Otto Gutenson Orie Loucks John Simpson Barbara Bedford & Charles Geisler Edmund Cronin Jr. Guy Hager Carolyn Lowe Sandra Smith Carole Bell Barbara Dean Steven Hamburg Cyrus Lyle Jr. Elizabeth Stanek Matthew Bender Frank Dinovo Samuel Hamill, Jr. Donald Mansius Marion Stoddart Robert Bennett Jr. Kathleen Donaghue Doreen Hamilton Catherine McCracken Marjory Swope Kenneth Berlin Frederick Dorrell Clifford J . Harrison, Jr. Peggy McNeill Evelyn Tapani- Rosen thal John Bethell Judith Doty Dumke Marjorie Hart Sara & Ned Meekins James Taylor Jerry Bley Steve Durrant Scot Heath Geary Mizuno Elizabeth Tilbury- Marquard Bruce Watson Boyd George Edwards James Henry Robert Morey Jules Tileston Morris Edward Voss Mo Winifred Brand Jean Taylor Federico Alix Hopkins Letitia Ann Wait Don Bronkema William Flournoy Jr. Robert Houck Francis Moul Barbara Brown Henrietta Forcanser Shelley Hughes Mark Myers Richard Watkins Hamilton Brown & Mike Fotos & Claudia Lindsey Lynne Hull Darby & Geraldine Nelson Georgia Welles Martha Worthington Eve Fout Donald Hunsaker Duncan Patten Gary Werner Andrew Cadot David Fox Frederic Jandrey Harrison Payne Kris Wernstedt John Carlock Christine Freitag Karen Jescavage-Bernard John & Mary Pelton Meg & David West David Carrington Grenville Garside Elizabeth Kaeding Bruce Pendery C . David White Ronald & Pamela Castle Elizabeth Garst Michael Keathley Nina Ratrie Peyton Andrew & Stephanie Wilbur Marian Chertow William Ginsberg Dorothy Keough Richard Pritzlaff Edith Wilhelm James Clarke Mr. & Mrs. Robert Glennon Karen Kerner Thomas Pytel Howard Williams Charles & Anita King Ala Reid Frank Wolff David Kinnamon Robert Reid Jr. Mark Wyckoff Douglas Knudson Ellen Reneke Jan Zimmerman More than 160 donors gave $8, 045 to the Josephine Kohn Kenneth Ribbeck COMMON GROUND Research Fund in 2001 . if Karen Kress Eugene Roark you would like to make a gift, please do . Send Mike Kruse G . A. Robinson III Berthe Ladd Mike Roeder your check c / o The Conservation Fund, 1800 N . Ney Landrum Edwin Scott Rosenbaum Kent St ., Suite 1120, Arlington, VA 22209-2156 . W . Michael Lane Michael Russell COMMON GROUND VOL . 13 NO . 1 JANUARY-MARCH 2O02 • • Land Protected , from page 1 Fish and Wildlife Service and Jim ■ In the largest conservation easement in its Connaughton, chairman of the White House history, Maryland contributed $ 7 . 6 million to Council on Environmental Quality . "We a federal-state - county partnership to protect hope this meeting is the first of an ongoing 5, 000 acres of farmland along the Eastern effort to engage the states in setting the Maryland Shore of the Chesapeake Bay . Chino Farm, agenda for natural resources conservation in contributed $ 7 . 6 the largest in Queen Anne' s County, in- this country, " Norton said . The group plans cludes 2 . 5 miles of Chester River shoreline . to meet April 25-27 to discuss the work of million to a fed- About 300 acres will be managed under the committees on land conservation, transporta- eral -state- county federal Conservation Reserve Enhancement tion and agriculture . The Conservation Fund, partnership to Program to create buffers and improve water with assistance from the Richard King p 'rotect 5 000 acres quality . More than 100 acres will be re - Mellon Foundation, provided financial sup - planted with trees to provide wildlife corri- port for the initial meeting . of farmland along dors to link adjacent forest lands . The Fund, the Eastern Shore which helped arrange the easement, has as - ■ Jim and Lucia Gilliland of Memphis, of the Chesapeake sisted in protecting 99, 000 acres in the state . Tenn . , recently loaned $ 500, 000 interest-free to The Conservation Fund to create the Con- Bay ■ DeKalb County, Ga . , tapped its new $ 125 servation Partners Fund . Like many Ameri- million fund for parks and green space in cans, the Gillilands have watched a sputter- December to add 940 acres to the Davidson- ing stock market and record low interest Arabia Mountain Nature Preserve 20 miles rates and decided to seek a better return by east of Atlanta . The acquisition coincided looking beyond traditional investments . with a 100- acre gift to the county by the Through the new partners fund, investors Richard King Mellon Foundation that in- agree to loan at least $ 250, 000 interest- free to creased the reserve to more than 1 , 600 acres . the Fund for at least two years . The money The land includes rocky outcrops, woodland will fund land conservation projects, and and a stream within the South River water- loans will be repaid at the end of the term . shed . The additions form a land bridge that The Gilliland money helped protect 5, 000 connects the preserve with Panola Mountain acres along the Cumberland Trail in Tennes - State Conservation Park . The Conservation see . The state which ai The Urban Land , ms to create a 280 - Fund assisted with the gift . mile linear park, secured more than half the Institute and land, leaving more than 2, 000 acres unpro- the U. S . Green ■ The Denver Business Journal recently tected . With a boost from the Gilliland loan, Building Council chose the preservation of the 21 , 000- acre The Conservation Fund bought the land and Greenland Ranch in Douglas County as a now has time to raise money with its part- will host a two -day Groundbreaker of the Year Award winner . ners to protect it for the long term . For more symposium about The project, which Sydney Macy of The Con- details about the Conservation Partners Pro- the practice of servation Fund ' s Colorado office worked on gram, contact David Phillips ( 703 / 525 - 6300, sustainable for years, brought $ 70 million in funding to - dphillips@conservationfund . org ) , gether from Great Outdoors Colorado, Dou- development . For glas County and a conservation buyer . The ■ In the largest environmental grant in its more information county purchased 3, 600 acres of the ranch history, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation for recreation . A conservation easement was ( mott . org ) has given $ 3 . 975 million to The On " The Practice placed on the remaining 17, 400 acres of the Conservation Fund to create a revolving loan of Sustainable working ranch, which was purchased by the fund ( 616 / 426- 8825, pkohring@aol . com ) to Development, conservation buyer in July 2000 . protect coastal and freshwater ecosystems in to be held March the & state Great Lakes basin . The revolving ■ Leaders of 45 state natural resource agen- fund will provide land trusts and govern- 26 - 27 in cies, led by John Oliver, secretary of the ment agencies with short- term loans to pur- Pittsburgh, Pa . , Pennsylvania Department of Conservation chase ecologically significant areas and call 8001321 - 5011 , and Natural Resources, met at a landmark conservation easements . The Conservation meeting in Shepherdstown, W . Va . , in Octo- Fund will provide technical assistance to ber to seek ways to encourage multistate help complete the acquisitions . The new partnerships and more effectively communi - fund is expected to protect $ 15 million of cate their interests to the federal govern- land in 5 years . " This grant is a tremendous ment . The leaders were joined by Gale leap forward, " said Peg Kohring, the Fund ' s Norton, Interior secretary, Fran Mainella, Midwest director . " We can look at larger director of the National Park Service, Steve blocks of land and be more systematic in the Williams, since confirmed as director of the preservation of ecologically important sites . " COMMON GROUND VOL . 13 NO , 1 JANUARY-MARCH 2O02 • • R A T E N • ■ Chicago and Mexico City have joined ■ The Philip Morris Companies has American Electric Power, BP, Alliant En - awarded a $40, 000 grant to The Conserva- ergy and dozens of other companies in the tion Fund to help create the nation' s first development of North America' s first carbon land trust that helps African-Americans re- emissions trading system . The Joyce Foun- tain land ownership, protect critical land and dation (joycefdn . org, 312 / 782 -2464 ) has water resources, implement sustainable farm A grant from given $ 1 . 1 million to Northwestern Univer- practices and spur economic development Philip Morris sity and Environmental Financial Products that showcases African-American heritage . Companies will to establish the Chicago Climate Exchange The Sandhills Family Heritage Association p (312 / 554 -3350, chicagoclimatex . com ) . The (SFHA, 919 / 489-2416, sandhillsfamily help establish exchange, to open later this year, will enable @yahoo . com ), led by Ammie Jenkins, is the nation 's first participants to get credit for voluntary emis - serving African-American landowners in the land trust to help sion reductions and buy and sell credits to six - county Sandhills region of eastern North p reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 57o be - Carolina, one of the country ' s most signifi- African -A mericans low 1999 levels over 5 years . Credits will be cant and endangered ecosystems . SFHA will protect their land given for emission offset projects, including provide programs that use conservation and heritage . methane destruction, solar and wind energy techniques to help black land owners retain projects and reforestation , their property, preserve the area' s- natural resources and celebrate local cultural and ■ Johnson & Johnson recently awarded a historical heritage . SFHA, the Land Loss $ 50, 000 grant to The Conservation Fund to Prevention Project and the Fund also are accelerate work in three community- led con- sponsoring workshops on land ownership servation efforts : brownfield redevelopment, laws . The partners are seeking funding to urban green infrastructure and conservation buy conservation easements to protect Afri- programs for disadvantaged youth . can-American land ownership in the area . • Selzer Succeeds Turner as Funds CEO ■ Lawrence A . Selzer has been chosen as turn with environmental principles . Larry president and CEO of The Conservation Fund . has shown that we can create productive, in- The Fund also has hired an Illinois state novative partnerships with the private sector director and a Montana field representative , and work with public agencies to achieve long range economic and environmental Selzer succeeds John Turner, who joined goals . We welcome his leadership , " he said . the Bush administration Nov . 13 as Assistant Turner joined the Fund in 1993 after Selzer has shown Secretary of State for Oceans and Interna - serving as director of the Fish and Wildlife that we can create tional Environmental and Scientific Affairs . Service during the first Bush administration . Selzer, who joined the Fund in 1990, most As president, Turner guided the Fund to productive, recently served as senior vice president of the help conserve more that 3 million acres of innovative Fund ' s sustainable programs . He was respon- wildlife habitat, river corridors, historic sites partnerships with sible for the Fund' s American Greenways Pro- and community open space . " I speak for all gram, the Freshwater Institute, the Conserva- of us in expressing admiration for John ' s the private sector tion Leadership Network, the Civil War Battle- commitment to conservation and his contri - and work with field Campaign, Resourceful Communities butions to public service, " Noonan said . public agencies to Program, sustainable forestry and six state field offices . Selzer, 41 , earned his undergradu- ■ The Conservation welcomes staff mem- achieve long range ate degree in environmental sciences from bers, William " Will" Humphrey and Gates economic and Wesleyan University and ran marine research Watson . Humphrey ( whumphrey@conserva - environmental programs out of Woods Hole, Mass ., before re- tionfund . org, 312 / 332- 6292 ), the Fund ' s new ceiving a master' s degree in business from the Illinois state director, came from Jones Lang goals . University of Virginia . LaSalle, a real estate services, development " Larry brings a unique combination of and investment management firm . Watson skills and experience to meeting new chal- (406 / 541 -8555, gwatson@conservationfund . lenges, " said Patrick Noonan, chairman of org ), the new Montana field representative, the Fund . " He is at the forefront of ' smart most recently worked at the Pennsylvania conservation, ' which balances economic re - Environmental Council near Pittsburgh . COMMON GROUND VOL . 13 NO . 1 JANUARY-MARCH 2O02 Southern About 12 million acres of the South' s on management options necessary to keep forests could be lost to urbanization between forests healthy, concludes the study . It was Forests 1992 and 2020, with the largest losses in the compiled by more than 25 scientists from the Piedmont and coastal plains, according to Forest Service, Environmental Protection Studthe Southern Forest Resources Assessment Agency, Fish and Wildlife Service, Tennessee y (free, 828 / 2574200, www . srs . fs . fed . us / sus - Valley Authority, state forestry and fish and tain), a two-year study released in Novem- wildlife agencies and several universities . ber by the Forest Service . The effects of Any effective strategy to ensure the long- urban and suburban areas extend far beyond term health of the 214 million acres of south- city limits, resulting in wildlife habitat frag- ern forest will require the cooperation of 5 mentation, a scarcity of forest benefits, such million private landowners who oversee as recreation opportunities, and limitations nearly 907o of the land . Some findings . • The current forest area in the South (214 million • Planted pine increased to 32 million acres in acres ) is 607o of the total in 1630 and 91 'a of that 1999, up from 2 million in 1953 . Pine plantation recorded in 1907 . Eleven percent ic ^,•rued by gov- acreage is forecast to jump 677o' to 54 million aces ernment, with the remainder in private hands . The by 2040, mostly through conversion of cropland . forest industry owns 22 %, of the private land, fol- • Ozone pollution is forecast to jump between lowed by farmers (21 % ) and corporations ( 12% )' Forecasts indicate 20 % to 50% from 1990 and 2025 . Growth reduc- with the remaining 45 % owned by others . tions in southern pines are expected as a result. that 31 million • Forecasts indicate that 31 million acres of forest • In 1997, timber harvests produced 700, 000 jobs acres of forest will will be developed and 25 million acres n farmland in the wood products sector and more than $ 118 will become forest land between 1992 and 2040 . billion in total industry output . Total economic be developed and • Between 1953 and 1997, the South' s timber pro- impacts of these activities were about 2 . 2 million 25 million acres duction more than doubled, its share of U . S . pro- jobs and $251 billion of total industry output . duction increased from 41176 to 587o , and its share of • In 1997, outdoor recreation-based tourism con- Of farmland will world production increased from 6 . 3 % to 15 . 8 % . tributed between 0 . 64 and 2 . 88 % of southern become forest land The region now produces more timber than any jobs . Public lands represented 56o' of the contri- between 1992 country in the world, except the U .S . bution. Recreation pressures on public land are • Timber market models forecast that timber pro- substantial . Much private land is unavailable for and 2040 . duction in the United States will increase by about public recreation. The trend is toward less access . one- third between 1995 and 2040 . Nearly all of the • Of the 1 , 208 vertebrate species known to exist growth will come from the South where produc- in the South, 132 are considered to be of conser- 7 4 % for hardwoods .is forecast to increase 56 % for softwoods and vation concern, and 28 are classified as critically 7% imperiled . The South, the center of amphibian • Although softwood inventories will increase biodiversity in the nation, has 54 amphibians steadily until at least 2040, hardwood removal is classified as species of concern, and 19 as criti- forecast to exceed growth by 2025 . cally imperiled . ZST9 - 9LZL � ON ' HOM099111H i9I9 X09 Od Id3a a3003 93a I UTAN3 AID3DNVI0 IIONdIS 0100 HW allisHnOHH NOIiDHHHOD ssaxaaV 60ZZZ V1 ` u0} 0utJJV ' D' NQLONIHSV%% OZ >r� altnS a ' ` . 1S luaX ON 0091 E66E 'ON .LI NNHd (IIVd 3OVISOd ' S ' il 09NO 11,40dd - NON News & Observer(Print Friendly) : http : //www . newsobserver . com/tu . . , /909734p - 907336c . htm Page 1 of 2c n e o b r v r. c o m Published : Tuesday , February 12 , 2002 3 : 33 a . m . EST DURANT NATURE PARK : LAKES RECOVERING Murkybut healthy Creatures thriving in waters sullied by 1 =540 construction project By JAMES ELI SNIFFER , Staff Writer RALEIGH - Workers fought the mud with heavy equipment , floating nets , buckets and chemicals . But the remnants of a muddy mishap during the construction of the Outer Loop last year still stain the waters in Raleigh ' s premier nature park . Eleven months ago , a botched effort to reroute a stream around Interstate 540 near Gresham Lake Road allowed tons of red mud to wash into Durant Nature Park , a 237 - acre oasis of trees and water among new highways , apartments and warehouses . The plume of soil made a thick brown soup of the park ' s two lakes . Since then , park workers have pronounced the lakes " thriving " after analyzing water samples and finding plenty of creatures living in the cloudy waters . " It looks pretty bad , " said Martha Flanagan , Raleigh ' s city naturalist , as she gazed at the coffee -with - cream - colored waters of the upper lake Thursday morning . " But it seems to be healthy . " The two lakes lost their crystal clarity well before the city of Raleigh acquired the old Boy Scout camp off Durant Road in 1978 . Still , on most days the two lakes retained a certain green - blue hue , capturing the reflections of surrounding pines and inviting canoeists , anglers and swimmers . The sudden mud bath arrived in March 2001 . A nearby homeowner and avid fly-fisherman , David H . Moody , walked to the creek between his back yard and the Outer Loop site and saw , to his horror , a river of red soil coursing down the hill . State environmental officials called the bungled stream relocation the worst sedimentation violation caused by the highway project . The N . C . Department of Transportation stopped the work and sent in crews to haul out heaps of dirt , bucket by bucket , and dump it on higher ground . More muck had escaped downstream into the park ' s upper lake . Rocks and logs poking out of the water were stained red . Officials with DOT and Raleigh ' s parks and recreation department conferred on what to do . They considered a kind of lake transfusion -- pumping out the water , mixing in a chemical that would clump the mud and pumping the water back in - - but the lakeshore was too crowded with trees to set up the necessary heavy equipment . They also ruled out dumping tons of gypsum into the water . They settled on two measures to keep the problem from getting worse . Eco Turf Inc . , a Raleigh erosion control company , installed flocculant logs and particle curtains . The logs , placed in the creek feeding the lake and the spillway between the lakes , slowly released the dirt- clumping chemical into the water . The curtains , attached to lengths of PVC pipe , floated in the water to capture the thicker silt . Clayton Phillis , president of Eco Turf , said he has seen worse sedimentation than what happened in Durant Park . Phillis said he thinks the lake " cleared up a bit" as a result of his efforts . DOT estimates its cleanup cost $ 105 , 0008 Eco Turf' s contract expired last summer . Since then , some of the particle curtains have washed away . Mounds of mud remain in the winding creek , imprinted with raccoon tracks , washed periodically downstream with every http : //cgi . newsobserver . com/ standing/help/tools/_scripts/ friendly-pnnt . cgi 02/ 12 /2002 Wews & Observer(Print Friendly) : http : //www . newsobserver . com/tu . . 0 /909734p - 907336c . htm Page 2 of 2 big rain to cloud the lakes anew . " This is kind of like putting a Band -Aid on the leg you amputated , " said Moody , standing next to an uprooted particle curtain on Wednesday . Last month , Lucy Mantilla , Durant Nature Park' s assistant manager , found hope in a tadpole and mayfly larvae she scooped out of the upper lake . Neither creature tolerates silt very well . She also found dragonfly nymphs , snails , a small fish and " a gelatinous egg mass . " Levels of oxygen were normal in the lake , and levels of most common pollutants weren 't elevated , Mantilla said . Last summer , day campers swam as they always have in the lower lake . The fishermen haven ' t stayed away , either . But the clear waters won 't return until the construction upstream is over , said Richard A . McLaughlin , associate professor of soil science at N . C . State University and a sedimentation expert . " It ' s really just a matter of getting clean water in there to flush that out and start over again , " McLaughlin said . Staff writer James Eli Shiffer can be reached at 83 & 5701 or ishiffer C newsobserver . com . BACK] © Copyright 2000 , The News & Observer. All material found on newsobserver. com is copyrighted The News & Observer and associated news services . No material may be reproduced or reused without explicit permission from The News & Observer, r http : //cgi . newsobserver . com/standing/help /tools/_scripts/ friendly-print . cgl 02 / 12/2002