Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCFE 040802 Memorandum To : Commission for the Environment From meRoy Fortmann , Chair Date : April 1 , 2002 Re . April 8 Meeting Agenda Please find attached the agenda and materials for the next meeting of the Commission for the Environment , on Monday, April S. 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 . Ar AGENDA Orange County Commission for the Environment April 8 , 2002 7 : 30 p . m . Southern Human Services Center 2505 Homestead Road , Chapel Hill , NC Time !g # Item 7 : 30 I . Call to Order 7 : 30 II . Additions or Changes to Agenda 7 : 32 2 III Approval of Minutes ( March 11 ) 7 : 35 7 IV . Capital Investment Plan 2002 - 2012 / Lands Legacy The current draft of the CIP as it relates to Lands Legacy and parks and open space projects is provided as Attachment 1 . 7 : 50 9 V . Initial Planning — State of the Environment 2002 While not due until December, the Commission may wish to discuss initial thoughts on the design , format and content of this years ' ( full ) report . Related materials are provided as Attachment 2 . 8 : 10 55 VI . Updates ■ Comprehensive Plan Elements ■ Proposed Conservation Heroes Award ■ Annual Environmental Summit? Please see Attachment 3 8 : 25 70 VII . BOCC Agenda Items Update Please see Attachment 4 . 8 : 30 VIII . Next Meeting — May 13 8 : 30 IX . Committee Breakout Sessions 930 X . Adjournment fl r7 COUNTY OF ORANGE DRAFT COMMISSION FOR THE ENVIRONMENT Summary of Meeting March 11 , 2002 Held at Orange County Southern Human Services Center, Chapel Hill , NC Members Present : Roy Fortmann ( Chair) , Dan Okun , Laura Cotterman , Hervey McIver, Chris Wachholz, Lee Rafalow, Johnny Randall , Mark Smith , Annette Jurgelski , Alice Gordon Excused Absences : Cara Crisler, Richard Pratt, Julie Tucker Guests : Marc deBree , N . C . Department of Environment and Natural Resources Staff Present : David Stancil , ERCD Director; 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 * 35 p . m . and asked if there were any additions or changes to the agenda . Stancil noted that Marc deBree was not expected to arrive until 8 * 00 p . m . and asked the order of items be changed . Fortmann agreed and asked Stancil to give an update of County budget issues regarding how they might affect the CFE and ERCD . II . Approval of Minutes ( February 11 , 2002 ) Okun asked the minutes be amended to note that Deborah Amaral teaches at the UNC Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering ( but is not on the faculty ) . MOTION : Smith motioned to approve the February 11th minutes with correction as noted by Okun . Seconded by Cotterman . VOTE : Unanimous , III . Additions to the Agenda Okun asked about the status of the BOCC organizing a proposed " water summit . " Stancil said while no date has been scheduled for the meeting , the idea is to bring together utility providers within the county to talk about public water supply issues of mutual concern and benefit . Okun asked that the CFE be alerted to further updates of this project . III . Amendment to CFE Rules of Procedure — " CFE Associate Members " This item was presented for initial CFE discussion and comment on February 11 and is now up for decision on whether to include this as an amendment to the Commission 's Rules of Procedure . The rules of procedure including the proposed amendment were distributed in the agenda packets . Fortmann noted that the purpose of having " Associate " members is to provide members with additional expertise and assistance on specific tasks and projects . Stancil added that the initiative of offering the Associates professional recognition for their efforts was also important . MOTION : Rafalow motion to adopt the amended Rules of Procedure as distributed . Seconded by Okun . VOTE : Unanimous . Stancil noted that the revised Rules of Procedure would be forwarded to the BOCC for review . Fortmann will write a cover memo . Draft Summary 3 / 11 /02 Page 1 of 4 �A Iv . Review - Evaluation of OWASA Mitigation Lands Stancil noted that a report prepared for the Intergovernmental Parks Work Group ( IPWG ) was included in the CFE agenda packet . Over the last few months the IPWG has been interested in looking at the possibility of someday using some of the OWASA owned land in Bingham Township for parks and recreational purposes . OWASA has indicated a willingness to consider , on a site - by - site basis , the provision of parklands provided the intended uses would not compromise water quality in Cane Creek Reservoir or the Authority ' s ability to have sufficient land for biosolids application . The IPWG 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 . As the property has a natural resource component , Stancil asked Shaw to review the report for the CFE . Shaw described the 490 - acre Mitigation Tract , located between Buckhorn Road and Mt . Willing Road in Bingham Township . The site is located outside of the watershed critical area and is not needed for biosolids application . OWASA purchased the tract in 1982 to help compensate for the loss of wildlife habitat resulting from the creation of Cane Creek Reservoir . The acquisition was a condition of the federal permit to construct the reservoir . The staff analysis of this property 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 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 . 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 . As parkland , the site would continue to further County goals of protecting key open space lands within Cane Creek watershed , identify prime forest/ wildlife habitat and the rural character of Bingham Township . Unlike other properties evaluated by the Lands Legacy program , this tract does not need to be acquired for protection . OWASA purchased the site to protect its conservation values , including watersheds 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 . Shaw reviewed initial findings , unresolved issues and an assessment of the tract using adopted criteria for evaluating potential parkland acquisition . CFE members discussed pros and cons of the property being used for recreational purposes as well as being left undisturbed as is and raised questions regarding possibility of existing covenants or other legal status implications such as management issues and game land provisions . Stancil noted that that this project was identified in the Annual Action Plan for the Lands Legacy program and is consistent with a Parks & Recreation Advisory Council objective of establishing a park in Bingham Township . Stancil mentioned that there may a requirement that the site be open for hunting . He discussed a Mecklenburg County park that is closed for a certain amount of time while hunting goes on to meet an obligations to provide hunting on the property . The Mitigation Tract is probably not conducive to active recreation ( i . e . , playing fields ) , but might serve well for nature / hiking trails/ picnic areas and other low impact recreation uses . Staff was asked if is there a compelling reason to promote low impact recreation rather than just leaving it as open space . Stancil said driving reasons are coming from a parks and recreation standpoint because there is an identified need for parks in Bingham Township . Shaw reported that biologist Bruce Sorrie will evaluate the Mitigation Tract as part of his investigation of new sites for consideration in the update to the County ' s inventory of natural areas and wildlife habitat . Draft Summary 3 / 11 /02 Page 2 of 4 04 Some members asked to visit the site before making a recommendation as to how the property might be managed . Shaw will arrange a field visit for interested members . V . Recommendation on Triangle GreenPrint This item was referred to the CFE and to other advisory boards for comment following an initial presentation to the Board of Commissioners on February 25th . A copy of the report was provided previously . The BOCC is asking for advisory board review and recommendations with regard to the Triangle GreenPrint . Marc deBree , from NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources ( NCDENR ) , Division of Parks and Recreation , presented background information on the Triangle GreenPrint . He said the project is a partnership between Triangle J Council of Governments , Triangle Land Conservancy and NCDENR . The GreenPrint report describes a regional open space assessment that identifies important green spaces in the triangle region . The GreenPrint is intended to facilitate development of a regional vision for open space in the Triangle . It will provide information and tools that will help land management organizations , citizens , and their elected representatives identify and protect a regional network of green space . The maps included in the report were derived from a geographic information system ( GIS ) database developed with the help of over 140 open space professionals and local experts . The database and report are available at www . trianglegreenprint org . The report does not identify specific tracts for protection nor recommend particular protection strategies . It Includes information about different types of open space , many of which may not have been previously been mapped or documented on a regional scale ; demonstrates through maps the need for regional cooperation to protect open spaces that cross jurisdictional boundaries and are a work in progress that can be updated with relative ease to incorporate new information and plans . As work to protect open space in the years ahead , the Triangle GreenPrint can provide needed data , help coordinate the efforts of individual conservation and land management organizations and provide us with ways to measure our progress as a region . The GreenPrint sponsors are seeking a resolution of support from each of the six counties included in the project . The next step will be to assure that all the identified sites are integrated into the planning and protection efforts of local governments , state and federal agencies , non - profit conservation organizations , universities and other entities . Several questions and answers followed the presentation . CFE members agreed to read over a draft resolution and to send thoughts on a potential recommendation to staff via email . Discussion of the draft resolution included suggestions of adding language about a ) the Lands Legacy Program accomplishments and how its meshes with the GreenPrint project , b ) the County 's update of it Natural Areas Inventory and development of a Natural Areas Element , c ) the importance of regional planning for protecting open space , d ) working with surrounding entities on projects in the New Hope Corridor and Little River Park , and e ) potential land protection initiatives along the Eno River and proposed Mountain to Sea Trail . Staff will gather board comments from the CFE , APB , and HPC and develop a draft resolution for BOCC consideration . McIver and other members asked for electronic version of deBree 's generic resolution . ( Gordon asked staff to send draft to her . ) deBree distributed a Triangle GreenPrint survey and asked members to fill out and return . Draft Summary 3 / 11 /02 Page 3 of 4 05 VI . Budget Update Stancil reviewed how state budget cuts could affect CFE goals and ERCD . He explained plans to address current year shortfalls by delaying payments to capital funds and perhaps freezing vacant positions . Impacts to the ERC department budget will not be substantial this fiscal year . Next fiscal year , there may cuts in the Capital Improvement Plan and delays in the sale of bonds approved last November . These issues will be discussed at the March 18 work session . Stancil said the Lands Legacy annual allotment of $ 500 , 000 could be cut back to $ 100 , 000 to cover only the debt service that we have on Seven Mile Creek and one other site . He noted that he hopes that would be a one - year reduction . Stancil explained that the bond funds have to be appropriated in the near future and decisions may be made the BOCC ' s March 18 work session . Different groups will likely lobby for their projects getting funds first , including schools , senior centers , affordable housing , and town park projects . The question is how will the funds for Lands Legacy be appropriated over the bond timetable . Stancil is hopeful that some of that money will be available in the first two years . If the funds are delayed until later years we may miss opportunities as they arise for Lands Legacy properties . Fortmann suggested that these issues be discussed further as an agenda item for the April CFE meeting . VII . Status of CFE Applicants and Recruitment The CFE discussed ideas of recruiting new members , as there are three available positions open . They also discussed ways of recruiting Associates for work on special projects . Commissioner Gordon said she would investigate how to expedite filling CFE vacancies . VIII . 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 reviewed the materials from BOCC consideration of alternatives to open burning of agricultural land - clearing debris . He noted that most farming activities are exempt from the ordinance and that it was likely to be addressed through subdivision regulations . Members discussed open burning issues , air quality concerns , and the differences between agricultural and non - agricultural burning activities . IX . Committee Breakout Sessions X . Adjournment ( next meeting — April 8, 2002) The CFE adjourned at 10200 p . m . Draft Summary 3 / 11 /02 Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENT # 1 N Proposed CIP - 3 / 18/ 02 Lands Legacy Fund FY 2002 - 03 $ 2 . 0 million $ 1 , 000 , 000 from 2001 bond $ 500 , 000 from alt financing ( easements/non- public access ) $ 500 , 000 pay- as -you - go ( LL fund) FY 2003 - 04 $ 1 . 525 million $ 1 , 025 , 000 from 2001 bond $ 500 , 000 pay- as -you - go ( LL Fund) FY 2004 - 05 $ 3 ,425 , 000 $ 2 , 425 , 000 from 2001 bond $ 500 , 000 from alt financing (conservation easements/non -public access ) $ 500 , 000 pay- as -you - go (LL Fund) FY 2005 - 06 $ 3 , 050 ,000 $ 2 , 550 , 000 from 2001 Bond $ 500 , 000 LL Fund FY 200 & 07 $ 1 ,500 ,000 $ 1 , 000 , 000 from alt financing $ 500 ,000 LL Fund FY 2007- 08 $ 500 , 000 $ 500 , 000 LL Fund FY 2008 - 09 $500 , 000 $ 500 , 000 LL Fund FY 200940 $ 500 ,000 $ 500 , 000 LL Fund FY 201041 $ 500 , 000 $ 500 , 000 LL Fund FY 201142 $ 500 ,000 $ 500 , 000 LL Fund � 8 �m 0 § § E § § § k I k N 88 O V- Tom vl/ M r M N N N N d N N N N N N N N > ww www w $ ww w QC� i+ p c E z 8 8 6 �, 25 25 �5 25 25 25 7885 � 25 285 Q C 88 N `� � Lo NO O 75 m w w TM cj P w (V N O w w w w w w w N ww www wa 00cc CD w rN Go N LL Appendix I 2 ww www w � ww w n E 4 CDM ,D w 0 0 N O O O O O O O O O O O } w w w w w w w w w w N 1� v c _ V1 O m CD E o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w w w w w w w w Gow N a ECD _ a a a m } ww ww � w 8 w � 25 25 a m w N w w of j ww www C, ww w c ELL 8 C a M G E Ln a) w 88 8 pQ Q. t N O O 0 0 0 w 0 w 0 O O a c 8 N 4 $ m W w W W wj w N N w N Vj m 00 O O O O O 00 O 0 N 0 w w w w w w w w w w N Um E c w T Oq d M < QQ QQ QQoQ QQoQ QQ QQ 88 QQ th C) N O O w 0 0 O O w 0 w E } V g a c in a LL 0 V w w $ tn g oLO 0+ $ L C (h m CL o w w r* g go oq LO O m D ww www w � ww w O 1° m Q $ 0 o VI m g N n o N CL h $ w w g N $8s a s s 64g N E w F' c c O 0 a au —0 mo1c av� oD 5 Ic cz o m L D a�i aci cn a m 5 u LL E ev > �aoi mo m � aU v c ° co aa)i J cn E m �a u C9 3 3 cn CD Cl c U vi 0 a� m r »- L 'm o m E co 0 o o ` m u CL Lu LL. d cn cn a ,a all CL cn N m V 1n <D r� W D> O N " ndb( D� i I C." ) r, CO 00 W 01 U U U ^U O \ U A � A cc cn U W W a . N U 'd b Coo W �+ + W � W � ri crNI � o � v rd rd � vw uo All cn 0 D Do POP, c� �' Pit 11) o �1 U b W �' ° o o O o Z O b 'd O � � O AI W o "^' � cd 1 N L U W O O � O 'b .; O O O O O p p W � r rd o P o r4En WWI a) r4 C/) � o � O rl v a� o COO $m4 ri En w b e O W rill O 0 V U OCA lice lillio O O O . l O 3 p , a 111111114 o > O aVol N N b N N1 9 0 N cd b Q' 40, by cid o U o o . U) � U a� b E 41 � +mj3 > O a0i v ' ~ O O O y O � W b � c� �' � o coo ri � � A V E+ CN > HhO � i 0 p O O O O O O O w � o IrOtImental I Focusing on via piece by pieceG - CIIl�+lj (' llll l.'/'`, � ` � + ` 1 } I Y `�+ ..� L.,ki•+ � � �A� i •tr ►11 ��, �� AW � IbI6 lll�J CI` Ct �rGcL �O 6 ` ' �� �1O � ` '� l - i 1 r • ` } }� . r � , e 13 V rM � COUNTY OF * WAKE ap RALEIGH , NORTH CAROLINA June1998 One of the many challenges we face in an area that is growing as rapidly as Wake County is in 4 finding a balance between economic development to support our residents and businesses and protecting our environment . To date , Wake County has dealt very admirably with environmental issues ranging from landfills to septic systems to countywide water and sewer needs . However, as the population continues to grow, these issues also grow increasingly complex . Meeting this challenge will require commitment and cooperation from the County , all of our municipalities and our citizens . For its part , Wake County has taken steps to more effectively focus on environmental issues . In February of this year , we created a new Department of Environmental Services that is responsible for urban and rural water quality , air quality , stormwater issues , inspections of restaurants and other public facilities , solid waste disposal and recycling , and environmental education and information . By combining the resources that previously were under different departments and by continuing to coordinate its efforts with municipalities , Wake County is demonstrating its continued commitment to focus on the protection of our environment and to a high quality of life . The report you are holding is yet another demonstration of this commitment . The Wake County Environmental Network, which is comprised of 18 agencies , is nationally recognized for its efforts to educate and inform the public about important environmental topics . This Environmental Quality Indicators Report , prepared by County staff along with the City of Raleigh ' s Environmental Quality Advisory Board , is a tremendous step toward raising public awareness and providing us with a way to measure our progress in coming years . By using the latest technical data available , the report is intended as a tool to assist elected officials and citizens in making informed decisions about environmental policies and actions . f, {t{l{ I ' We are very proud of the Network for its enthusiasm and dedication to the environmental "big picture " in Wake County . We hope that you will find this an enlightening and useful tool in your own work and studies , and that you will join us in ensuring that Wake County remains a great place to live , work , learn and play ! Cordially , Richard Y . Stevens County Manager i e Environmental Indicator Authors Rick Bailey Wake County Environmental Network : Soil & Water Conservation John Callaway Wake County Environmental Network : Public Safety Jan Demmy French Wake County Environmental Network : Planning Lynda Fuller Wake County Environmental Network : Solid Waste Management Jill Gurak City of Raleigh : Environmental Quality Advisory Board Tom Hill Wake County Environmental Network : Soil & Water Conservation Sheila Jones Wake County Environmental Network : Soil & Water Conservation Bob Mosher City of Raleigh : Planning Department Randy Mundt Wake County Environmental Network : Inspections , Plans & Permits Lois Nixon Wake County Environmental Network : Keep America Beautiful Alton Perry Wake County Environmental Network : Forest Service Graphic Design Vivian Waggoner Wake County General Services : Reprographics Text and Layout Tom Hill Wake County Environmental Network : Soil & Water Conservation Data Graphs David Pond Wake County Public Information Office Data Graphs Wright Lowery Wake County Environmental Network : Soil & Water Conservation GIS County Stream Map Jaclyn Girard Wake County Environmental Network : Keep America Beautiful Cover Design and Color Gra hits Thank you to the Isaac Walton League of America for generous permission to use many of the graphics from their " Community Sustainability " materials created by artist and Sustainability Education Project Director, Benjamin Hren . Thank you ! For copies of IWLA 's Community Sustainability materials, please write : Sustainability Education Project, Isaac Walton League of America 707 Conservation Lane , Gaithersburg , Maryland 20878 - 2983 Edits City of Raleigh , Wake County Environmental Network , Wake County Public Information Office Data Thank you to the many public and private agencies and organizations that gathered , documented , and shared the scientific and demographic data contained within this report . ii 15 s ♦ 1. '� +V , 1..✓j �+ �� . ..a., ,1 1 vI r �, • . �� "._J /� � ,v.s ] 1 ] i.✓ , .mod - 1 • U . ' . ', . ,.. 1 XF Letter from the County Manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i Acknowledgements . . . . • . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii Tableof Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i i i Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv - v J Fix f +S Population Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 2 34 aw Land Use HousingGrowth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 6 Registered Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � . ' 9 - 10 ® 4 r Photometric Index of Litter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., Tons Landfi I led . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 12 Household Hazardous Waste Collected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 14 Chemical Incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 - 16 � r l etc Carbon Monoxide/Ozone Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 18 f ' Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - 20 Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 - 22 OF Tons of Soil Saved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 - 24 FarmlandAcres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 - 26 Numberof Acres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 - 28 Significant Natural Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 - 30 Rare Plants and Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • • • sees • • • • 31 - 32 Map of North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 CitizenSurvey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3400F35 County Resources /Phone Numbers inside back cover 16 �4) how i _ `j ^ tea ~ 9 WON, • !- � � `' 1 O 3 r `bP xOto"' moo or Oo- Executive 5ummiry : Wake County is " a great place to live , work , learn and play. " We want to help ensure that it will always live up to its motto . The environmental quality of Wake County, North Carolina and the resulting quality of life of its citizens is affected by individual citizen • ONOactions as well as government policy. The goal of this 1998 report is to establish and report a baseline measurement for several carefully selected Environmental Quality Indicators . Each year these same indicators will be measured to note their status and trends : either good or bad , up or down , forward or backward , better or worse or staying the same . Environmental Quality Indicators are bits of information that reflect the status of larger ecological systems . They give us the " big picture , " indicating the " environmental health " of a particular natural resource or the impact of human or natural pressures on our environment . True to the First Law of Ecology, " Everything is connected to everything else , " this report shows that all of the Environmental Indicators are interconnected and affect each other. For example, news stories this year have reported on erosion from construction sites contributing to sediment , the most n common water pollutant, in streams and rivers . fIdentifying and tracking a series of Environmental Quality Indicators is difficult . There are several different kinds of indicators . It was difficult to choose which ones to include in this report . Some can be measured directly by using official sources , such as government data . Others are based on physical measurements that citizens must perform themselves , such as data collected in stream monitoring programs . Still other indicators can be measured only through community surveys . Another difficulty in assessing Environmental Quality Indicators is the relatively new monitoring technology and the fact that reports do not necessarily cover the same geographic areas or time periods . Identifying and tracking a series of Environmental Quality Indicators is important . The task is important because it is the only way policy makers can obtain a reasonably objective picture of where we are , where we are going and where we have been with respect to the environment we live in . IV This report is presented to elected officials , policy makers , and citizens as a helpful tool in guiding policy decisions that affect and impact Wake County ' s environment . It was written by the Wake County Environmental Network in cooperation with the City of Raleigh Environmental Quality Advisory Board . The Wake County Environmental Network is comprised of staff from 18 county agencies with environmental responsibilities for enforcement, operations , and education . The Wake County Environmental Network Mission is to provide current environmental and related health information on issues , regulations , programs , services and events . In presenting this information , the Network ' s goals are to involve , to educate , to motivate , to raise awareness , and to set a positive example for all people in Wake County. As trends in future reports are evident they will be reported to elected ZZZZ officials throughout Wake County with recommendations on policy . decisions intended to improve the environmental quality and the quality of life in Wake County. Citizens are encouraged to request the Network 's publication, Wake County Environmental Handbook for information on how citizens can accept the responsibility to help improve the environment through their daily activities . Citizens can request more information on issues in this report by contacting the government resources listed on the inside back cover. • v 1b A q y .� 1. jj;� Ior e � . • ' . Environmental Quality Indicator : ter ' . ; is I Why indicator Population has a major impact on all other indicators . The location was Selected and activities of people affect every aspect of the natural environment including the air, water, wildlife habitat, and soil structure and productivity. Population at any given time reflects the fertility and mortality of the native population plus people who have come to the area for various reasons ( such as job opportunities and quality of life ) . As population grows , more local natural and public resources and services are needed to accommodate the entire population . How indicator Wake County Planning estimates county population annually based was measured on real and personal property information compiled from the Wake County Assessor, a telephone survey of group quarters , and household characteristics from the 1990 Census . The estimates include people living in all types of houses , manufactured homes , apartments , dormitories , long term care facilities and group homes . i The trend ' Wake County is home to the North Carolina state government , in Wake County j 12 municipalities and part of the Research Triangle Park . The county, which has one of the lowest unemployment rates in North Carolina and ! the country, continues to grow and attract people from other counties , i ? regions , and countries . i In July 1996 Wake County ' s population was estimated at 540 , 787 . The number of residents grew by 6 percent since July 1995 which translates to an increase of 37 people per square mile in just one year. t In terms of growth rates , the fastest growing communities were Holly Springs and Rolesville , which each increased in population by more I than 30 percent between 1995 and 1996 . The population of Apex , Cary j and Fuquay Varina grew by more than 10 percent each . Municipalities j with the smallest growth rate , Raleigh and Garner, increased at over 2 percent each . Even at this rate , Raleigh added 7 , 379 citizens in one year. Population growth in the unincorporated areas matched the County ' s overall rate of about 6 percent . The Wake County Wake County has developed a Land Use Plan which encourages growth in and around the municipalities and away from water supply Government response watersheds and other sensitive natural resources . 1 600 , 000 540 , 787 21, 500 , 000 - 508 , 733 o. 400 , 000 477 , 166 0 a) a 460 , 492 0 300 , 000 ` x 443 , 198 I r435 ,499 200 , 000 - 301 . 327 4269960 + 229 , 006 100 , 00 169 , 082 136 ,450 At ONE O N C (D co O N (D 00 O N Nt (D 00 O N it (D O O N d' (D LO to to to to (D (D (D (D (D 1� 1� 1` 1` 1` 00 00 w co co O a) O a)a) O D) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O) Year ? It ihop Wake County Planning estimates county population annually bases/ on real and personal property information from the Wake County Assessor, to %phone survey of group quarters, and household characteristics from the 1990 Census. 2 U L � xGOT g Environmental Quality Indicator : kA �I tj r � Why indicator I Land use identifies how individual parcels of land are used such as was selected agriculture , park , or office . Some land uses impact the natural environment more than others . How indicator Wake County Planning uses a computer program which assigns a was measured specific land use classification to each parcel in the Assessor ' s records . The program uses information on each parcel record such as zoning , tax rate , land class and building use to assign the existing land use . Because the model does not measure road right- of- way areas directly, a proportional percentage of the road right- of- way areas has been assigned to each land use classification . The trend Since 1995 , the acreage of agricultural and vacant land has in Wake County I decreased while residential acreage has increased . Agriculture ( 27 % ) and residential area ( 26 % ) were the primary land uses . In 1996 , the ! county still contained about 100 , 000 acres of vacant parcels , about 20 % of the whole county ( 548 , 000 acres ) . Other categories of land use including commercial , industrial , institutional , office , forestry, and parks remained about the same since 1995 . The Wake County Wake County has developed a Land Use Plan which encourages Government response ( residential , commercial - retail , and office ) growth in and around the municipalities and away from the water supply watersheds . Part of o the plan identifies and provides incentives to preserve pens pace . Wake County works with the farming community to conserve natural resources and farming as a way of life . i 3 Lake Park 1 %° 2 % Vacant / Forestry 20 % 1 / 9 % NPP XI rah a` . r.� " ' V°� + ot, , , TMP. A ' ; Agricultural v a 1 ;Yy, y k' •' ,' 3' , ti 1 { Sa •.: U31 �•p /I y, r� iA! i E 10 PFF Residential 26 % i Office Institutional Indu°strial 1 °/ ° C mmercia� 2 /o 1 % ilage . _3. � .? V1 ,.✓ � C4 •}:L + *y ..� i7l1 ' 1 + 11i.� :� �, 1 i aJL� �:� L '1. l2 � � 1 .L u3 , i3 . � a • �) Ato ... .111i sipall ] 11 - j �'' •y ` ♦�t� 1,- . , ( �q / 1q1 . y�r•� [yq� y�h� :� .k i br i. .. a 'l � u .o .'I4J41 • ' -` �Y tar �f 'LE .•�l��a '.v V vj .SSiJ .S HI j � 3Yo Wake County Manning uses a computer program which assigns a specific land use type to each parcel in the Assessors records.. The program uses in {ormation on each parcel record such as zoning, tax rate, land class and building use to assign the existing land use. 4 IL a, u 40 MENEM Environmental Quality Indicator : Why indicator i As population increases, more housing is needed to accommodate was sel ected I the new residents . The construction of each new house uses land , and natural and man - made materials . Soil , vegetation , and natural drainage patterns are disturbed during construction activities such as grading and moving of materials onto the building site . Buildings and pavement prevent rainwater from entering the groundwater table . The new residents will draw on the water supply and will generate wastewater, trash , and impact the transportation network and air quality. How indicator I The Wake County Assessor keeps records on all buildings and was measure manufactured housing i d n Wake County. From these records we can determine the number and type of new residential units built each year. There are 11 different building types ranging from single-family detached II� homes to apartment buildings . I The trend I In July 1996 , there were over 215 , 500 residential units in the county. ' Two-thirds of all county households ( not including group care facilities in Wake County and dormitories ) reside in detached single family houses with an average residential lot size of 0 . 9 acres . Between 1995 and 1996 , 9 , 100 new residential units were completed , including 7 , 200 new single-family homes . HUD estimated that the median price for a house in Wake County was i $ 130 , 000 . About half of the new single-family homes built in 1996 fell at or below the median sales price . A minimum household income of $ 44 , 600 is needed to purchase a home at this price . While Wake County median income in 1996 was $ 50 , 700 , the County estimates that 40, 000 people ( 7 . 4 % of the population ) live below the poverty level . The Wake County I Wake County recently adopted the Land Use Plan which promotes growth in and around the municipalities . Wake County administers HUD Government response g P �' i funds to rehabilitate substandard housing and promote construction of affordable housing . The County has recently established an Affordable Housing Task Force to address certain housing issues . 5 23 " O;A ..1. tij 220000 ,r... yy 200000 , r „ " =tom; lot r J• 9 Jl 180000 r ' I , , : ` 1:.1 0( ma 7 r r. - F fG . tlihl 160000 + k f rota i 4 y ^ j y ' ' r ' vo ; ; 140000 rr , ' of to fl � Vl , , a ' • I to So , 120000 r ; C + , x, S L� ti' y . 100000 rIf r' "� ' . �: . . �, If I of I , . . , : , td�ti 80000 - % t r ; }`'>5 off 60000 , No, f . 0 to to 04 o. t 40000 ; T 1 20000 ' ' t , 4r 0 ord',i l Y , t 1994 1995 1996 Year 0 Total Residential Units ■ Single Family Units ._ l '. ..$ � .& i .l � � �r... aWINte: > , .v }old ri . , . . , . 7 (to � • p .� •,' !-^$ 1 •� j „I + / � 1 •* , + 11 • a -: a 9 14 fool 4y .A .3 .'w 1] ' � ' J � / :1' -i { , . Y � . 'I.) .J '�a� ..' � �1 � 1/ i1 �I � .i L 'J 4.r �. l � 1 i0 �•% .1 {ri ' � ,: � . , i :'.1 Icy � '�� l t ti' y ' � .f s4 1 •i ,:a j � .i yy yy 7 r • �_ . . 6 It • ] . . _v ��/ S r � : 4 . . l ,.u . ;,\ iv ii �,a i.Z l Y. % .,y. i .�! 'tl L.' y The Wake County Assessor keeps records on a// buildings and manufactured housing in Wake County. From these records we can determine the number and type of new residential units built each year. There are 11 different building types ranging/ from single family detached homes to apartment buildings. 6 2 rx Environmental Quality Indicator : I r Its, � � / / ` \ 000 Why indicator The advent of the automobile has had a more profound effect on the environment was selected than any other change in modern society. Our society places a high priority on maintaining an independently mobile populace, with efficient ' automobile traffic flow often valued over existing land use patterns . Local government land use policies and regulations such as zoning and subdivision regulations, which include a hierarchy of road construction standards, and utilities extension plans ( including transportation , water, sewer), influence how and where growth will occur. Land use policies oriented toward supporting suburban development contribute to produce many problems for the County, including the deterioration and /or loss of natural and cultural resources, overburdening of the infrastructure, societal fragmentation , and economic stagnation . How indicator Information was derived from Federal Highway Administration , Highway Statistics was measured 1995 ; NC State Data Center, NC Division of Air Quality; and Wake County GIS . The trend Wake County is losing its rural feel . Large highway projects spur new devel - in Wake County opment . The amount of land consumed by new development exceeds the proportionate share of population increase in the past 15 years . Over 16 /o of all land in the County is devoted to road rights- of-way. People are driving farther each day, with the majority of trips being made in a single occupancy vehicle . Auto emissions and impervious surfaces created by new roads have increased , which contributes to diminished air and water quality in the County. Wetlands and croplands are lost as development sprawls outward . Housing and infrastructure investment is on the perimeter, where developers can build at less cost and with fewer zoning controls . This sprawling of low- density residential and commercial uses threatens the viability of traditional central business districts , which is the source of a large portion of the tax revenue needed to run municipal governments . i The number and diversity of local governments has hampered the coordination of transportation and use policies . Opportunities for citizens to use mass transit are limited . From 1985 to 1995 residents' daily mileage per person increased 29 . 9 %, with an average daily commute of 33 . 6 miles . Persons per vehicle in 1995 was 1 . 15 . i The Wake County The Wake County Land Use Plan , as approved , will allow for continued development of automobile-dependent suburban subdivisions and shopping Government response malls and office parks . 7 L; 5 44 sk IF ; 490 , 000 470 , 000 — -- - — 450 , 000 -- ---- __ _ _ 430 , 000 -- -- ---- _ 410000 — - - - - --- 390 , 000 - -- - - - _ _ v, 370 , 000 - 350 , 000 1 - IF OFF, — 0 IF 330 , 000 r c 310 , 000 �— — — —_ ' IF OF 290 , 000 — -Fab I * I — — — — — 270 , 000 - - - - — - - — v II — — — — — OFF. I 250 , 000 -- - M d- LO c0 f` 00 O O 00 co 00 co co O O m rn rn rn rn rn rn O O m O O O O O O O O O O O) e— r— • 1 1 • Al 1 i In . I ` T '. TIN ' r yy III V a; I Ida OFF If IF 1 1 ! 1 i , /n /�ormation was derived from Fedora/ r7lgnway Administration, Highway Statistics, 1995,• NC State Data Center, NC Division o � �lir Qua/ity, and Wake County G/S. 8 26 °►-fug ... , ,1 . � y,`. •�1 ",�_r„J• ; nA•. .• ` 4 ' a EnvironmentalQualityIndicator : Envyro n04 � ` _ _y �� � f •.7 : , -' ' a I .K. •'. . p h indicator Littering affects the visual quality of the environment and is an indicator Why a of the willingness of citizens to change their behavior to improve that was selected environment . Other solid waste issues that are related to littering are illegal dumps , junked and abandoned motor vehicles , and uncovered trucks . The Photometric Index was developed for Keep America Beautiful , Inc . in the mid - 7os by the American Public Works Association and is used throughout the United States as a way to measure the success of educa . tional programs to change behavior and reduce littering * w indicator The Photometric Index tracks litter at random sites in several categories : HO parking lots , loading docks , dumpsters , and vacant streets , rights- of-ways , p g was measured lots . The purpose of the Index is to obtain an annual photographic " snap - shot" of litter in the community on a certain day, and to compare it to previous years ' findings . Since Wake County ' s program was initi The trend ated in 1986 , the Photometric Index has shown in Wake County • an 89 % decrease in litter on rights - of-ways • a 92 % decrease In litter on streets • an 88 % decrease in litter in parking lots • a 76 % decrease in litter around loading docks and dumpsters . i In Wake County, cigarette butt litter is also tracked . In 1997, of all the locations with any litter, 65 % contained cigarette butts as part of that litter. Ongoing education is needed to increase citizen awareness that cigarette butts are litter, too . The Wake County Wake County is leading a statewide effort to introduce legislation in the 1999 session of the General Assembly to make the enforcement of litter a i nts and civic g Government re5 on5e p laws more effective . Ongoing educational programs to stu e groups raise citizen awareness of their personal responsibility to help change littering behavior. Nationally, Keep America Beautiful is collecting data on the connection between littering , illegal al dumping , graffiti , junked vehicles and crime . betty i This connection is commonly referred to as the " broken window theory. " i 9 ,2 7 1 •}.. y, � ..J r� -f•:� r�� jit: � `� �' +i a!'r�, 9rc� �h n ,t � 'l, f � f .�,9 ' �±!'� ;� 1 !� . '�l �t ,h V1 ✓ In t i +`� .� r . � �. i.. i' S / v168 ,�• A j `� '� �f s .d. ?L •1..� i Sr 20 18 16 14 rest -c 1ta i ,. N0 12 9 .0 :3rof s ; f , i, - . ! t , = y : 10 ik r 'Percentage s Loading Docks/Dumpsters 4 Parking Lots 2 Rights -of-Way 0 - 1987 1989 Streets 1991 1993 1995 1997 Year Tel 1 a VIVO #3 A3 } � ! " ' ! � .� ll� , . � .� . . i:4i?� L `: ti1 � L 't.,' :3 ., ifj '` .� ti N �.y .S y i�•..�f0 y y/ . L •* r �. '•+ 4 .J .yy. .1) �y e� • ry .?� :i ,.. .�..� tr J� : ' C` • ,� ViiIa w � #: 46N _iM .i ^Ii � .�.y �J .1 I� V• .� A. L '�i !. �'S ti/ f Fl ` . irM �y /,`• rt1 i� . :'�► ' .� i ➢ e� iA1 � J � a .3ins. v v �. cw� '�Lt� � ►.Js ` :` :9 , :�� :b•� VIVO 'Olt , ' ya1: gills' �� iV41) A0 its . i ` =• �i : '4• � . . � a-rj13 � ^ � q»�3 ':� '� 3w iJj , 1. t . , r :.. ej The Photometric Index was developed for Keep America Beautifu/, Inc. in the mid- 1970 "s by the American Pubic Works Association and has been used throughout the United States in Keep America 13eautifu/ communities. 10 2 l-� Environmental Quality Ind icator : xI . Loti Why indicator Although the amount of solid waste generated is an important indicator selected of sustainability, the amount of waste landfilled is the true measure of was resource consumption . By annually comparing solid waste tonnage landfilled per capita , Wake County can gauge the success of its waste reduction and recycling initiatives targeted waste reduction goal . The majority of waste in achieving its targe reduction programs impact the residential sector, not the commercial sector, which generates 70 percent of the County 's municipal solid waste stream . t How indicator To determine solid waste tons landfilled per capita per year, the tons landfilled ( as reported in the State of North Carolina Solid Waste was mea5Ured Management Annual Report) was divided by the County 's population for that fiscal year. The trend i Over the last five years , the tons landfilled have increased from almost j 540 , 000 tons in Fiscal Year 1991 . 1992 to 747 , 000 tons in Fiscal Year in Wake County I 1995 = 1996 , This increased tonnage can be attributed to the phenomenal population growth as a result of the County 's reputation as a great place to live , work and raise a family. Along with this growth comes increased commercial development I which generates construction and demolition debris . For the past two fiscal years , this calculation has caused the County to incur a negative i waste reduction percentage . i The majority of the County ' s waste reduction and recycling efforts target the residential sector. The tons recycled through these and limited commercial waste reduction efforts have increased over the last five years . In Fiscal Year i 1991 - 1992 , almost 31 , 000 tons were recycled . In Fiscal Year 1 995 - 1 996 1 this tonnage increased to a little over 68 , 000 tons . The County goal is to increase the tonnage recycled to 236 , 277 tons by Fiscal Year 2000 - 2001 . CountyIn May 1994 , the County hired a commercial waste 'reduction specialist to The Wake implement educational programs , foster material markets , implement waste Government reopon5e assessments and exchanges , and track contributors to the commercial solid waste stream . The goal is to increase waste reduction by the commercial sector and the variety of materials being diverted from the landfill . 11 2 � 1 . 60 1940 , , { �..,, s� - F . . 1 • . ` 1 . 20 A14 1000 gLC NO }'fir i " �' �F' � . ' • • P !: ! t is U ' 1 "1 • � O 0 . 60 ,u. s; r ; � 1 irk, r rk 64 ' r . :rleft " ■ TONS RECYCLED PER 0 . 40 ��� 1 � �t� ; '•t ,'" CAPITA 4 i ' 1 t~ +/ f. F� +L • � �4ae11 i; tT* 0 . 20 0 . 00 FY 91 /92 FY 92/93 FY 93 / 94 FY 94/95 FY 95 /96 Fiscal Year A� � .1 � �� �; :� r � � by -a ir in et ex To determine solid waste tons /andfilled per capita per year, the tons /andfi/led, as reported in the State of North Carolina Solid Waste Management Annual Report, was divided by the County ' population for that fiscal year. 12 30 a.¢ L �.. Environmental Quality Indicator : 110 L 0 F1 0 LJ Eo f E C 0 L L Ema G E D D' % ZAR1D0U :S; iVA Why indicator The average household generates more than 20 pounds of hazardous was Set eCted waste each year . As a whole , households generate more hazardous waste than the commercial sector . Irresponsible disposal of these materials in sanitary landfills , storm drains or septic systems can eventually pollute our groundwater, streams and lakes . By tracking the total pounds of household hazardous waste collected at the County ' s permanent facility, local governments can measure the success of their educational initiatives to increase public awareness of responsible purchase , management and disposal of these toxic materials . How indicator Monthly, the County ' s contractor for management of its permanent Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facility provides a report that was measured notes the types and volumes of materials it collects during the twice - a - month collection days in addition to operational and disposal costs . Also reported is whether the material was recycled or landfilled . `rile trend Wake County ' s permanent Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facility opened May 18 , 1996 . Through April 1997, a total of 300 , 967 in Wake County pounds of household hazardous waste was collected . An average of 300 participants delivered waste each month . The total annual cost per participant was $ 131 . 08 . The total annual cost per pound was $ 1 . 43 . On average , 88 percent of the materials are recycled ( this includes energy recovery by incineration ) . Paint , primarily latex , comprises over 75 percent of the volume of materials accepted for recycling/disposal . The Wake, County The County has initiated an educational campaign highlighting proper purchasing techniques and alternative disposal options for latex paint . Go c; vernment; re5p � n5e Recently, the County initiated a pilot program to collect , process and recycle as much latex paint as possible through the local Habitat for Humanity . If the pilot program is successful , paint disposal costs could be reduced by as much as 50 percent . 13 3 , 1 1 ] Ajj ' ..f7 40000 35000 30000 N 25000 .o 20000 0 - a 15000 10000 5000 - 0 rn rn>04 W W � ' rn toot w Cn z Month and Year I to * .r� �4 Ca ,r '- `i • , r (ktoto �, { � r +4 s AL �Iu� .. : 4 js 1 . 1 .� {- � .•1 �✓ 'bi ia . � .i .ia ''. i J .� �. {. fixL � 2, 1{ il .y '4J , 1 'W �L 1LJy1L :� �. � F71 'S. Wake Countys contractor for management of its permanent Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facility provides a monthly report that notes the types and volumes of materials it collects during the twice a month collection days ito n addition to operational and disposal costs. Also reported is whether or not the material was recycled or landfilled. 14 3 � V " A KU 0 J IAA Vann M j A L ,.W J Environmental Quality Indicator : CHEMICAL INICIOr Wh indicator Hazardous materials play a key role in our society. From the gas in our Why indicator to the manufacturing products of our industry, hazardous materials was selected provide the energy and items necessary to support our national economy. The public and private sectors are continually challenged to find new and better ways to use, store, and transport hazardous materials . Local government efforts in Wake County work to distinguish the amounts , locations , and movement of hazardous materials . Statistics on Wake County show the importance of this data for public and environmental safety. How indicator The Wake County Commodity Flow Study characterizes the movement of hazardous chemicals observed by shipment in 200 sampling hours . Other was measured Study categories ( not shown ) order " top ten " chemical groups by pounds and gallons . The trend I Wake County ' s industrial base is large and contains different types of manufacturing and services . It is a center for pharmaceuticals , electronics , in Wake County 1 plastics , computers , agriculture , state administration , and education . In addition , the Carolina Power & Light Company 's Harris Nuclear Power Plant is located in Wake County and supplies electrical power for the County and surrounding areas . it is one of 109 County facilities that report using , handling, and/or storing Extremely Hazardous Chemicals ( EHS ) . Wake County expects the growth of new EHS facilities to continue . Currently, the industry and retail base has a total annual reporting quantity of chemicals in excess of 3 . 7 billion pounds ( 1993 ) , including Extremely Hazardous Substances ( EHS ) exceeding 53 million pounds . Eighty percent to 90 percent of Wake County spills are diesel fuel or petroleum products , while the remaining spills are chemicals . The Wake County Wake County 's transportation system and industrial base pose opportunities and challenges for environmental safety professionals . Together, business and Government response ; government employees work to minimize potential risks to health an envir- onment . Their efforts include gathering chemical information , training for hazardous spills, and responding in emergencies . The Commodity Flow Study enables Wake County to anticipate the most probable type of hazardous accidents which could occur ; and allows local fire, police , and rescue agencies to plan and train for a variety of health and safety operations . 15 33 1 ' 47 All Others Petroleum Oil 27 % Combustible Liquid 4% 9 % Dangerous up 141 , 4% - Flammable ,r IF 8 % OF _� _h 'r ' _ Corrosive •. . La A Cyrogenic Nitrogen LI IF r0.0 F11, 4 f Elevated TemperatureOF r Materials Oxidized Nonflammable 9 % Liquified Petroleum ° 4 % Gas 2 /0 21 % slt1 .fit 1 III W {7 �[m� ,� r :rt .• : 1 • 't : A j• 3j 111 v : a1 ` I. �t _ :• 3 �il� ..v.`7 ' !, <� :� a.i� • 4 ,3' I . � : •� 140 OFF It 120 ILI IF 100 1 80 J It 5 r 41 )OFF 1+ 400 ; r : ,' `Y , • S R I�5 OF OF a % r 1.k . : y r OF OF OF :, 20 I to a it of . I For 4 OF . . , 0 1984 ( 6 months ) 1987 1990 1993 1996 '-I t r OF z � . ) f°j . t.'1 •. "I .1 Flow.,1 / .too .OF . , ': '1.J .44 J. � . � ;. a' lot > 1 _ ,, .� ,. 5� �:. � ' S- f `.T�i SS, ;�W. OFF* to OF too Jc.9 + .�. 3. 53.5 .` � ln •, � + .,, to t 1 5. � � ri .. . � .,, �. • f. * ' , I. . . . • t �� . j ii1Fllow �w J The Wake County Commodity Flow Study characterizes the movement of hazardous materials through the County. The top graph orders the top ten categories of chemicals observed by shipment in 200 sampling hours. Other Study categories (not shown) order % top ten "" chemical groups by pounds and gallons. The bottom graph shows the number o f hazardous materia/ incidents by year since 190 q This information enables Wake County to anticipate the most tool probable type of hazardous accidents which could occur and allows local fire, FI police, and rescue agencies to plan and train for a variety of health and safety operations. 16 3 r� TF coo op Environmental Quality Indicator : ` � ` ��� ' • � •L., - � '. � ..=. {�' , . ' 1 , .� � � �= � I. ...r .�� Nam.. f'� +� s:..a a'�' •\.,+' l �• ,''T :.+--' • ..P" ^� J 1 J J 1 1 .,. a:•1 R ...�. .1d � JJJ� ..y � ,1 ! tTr.u. Why indicator There are six pollutants for which National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS ) have been established : carbon monoxide , ozone , sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, suspended Was Set ected particulate matter, and lead . In order to determine whether the NAAQS are being met in North Carolina , the NC Division of Air Quality ( NC DAQ) monitors air quality at stations located in air quality control regions throughout the state . Wake County is in the Eastern Piedmont Air Quality Control Region . In the past, the Raleigh - Durham area experienced carbon monoxide and ozone levels that exceeded the national standards . However, due to improved monitoring data, Wake County was redesignated as " maintenance" for carbon monoxide on September 18 , 19950 and " maintenance " for ozone on June 171 1994 . The county is currently meeting all the NAAQS . Of the six pollutants for which there are NAAQS , carbon monoxide and ozone are the most widespread and abundant in the region , and also statewide . How indicator Carbon monoxide is a colorless, poisonous gas produced by incomplete combustion of fuel . Vehicular emissions account for the majority of the carbon monoxide in the region . Was n1ea5Ur8d The NAAQS for carbon monoxide is 9 parts per million ( ppm ) for an 8 - hour average period and 35 ppm for a 1 - hour average period . Ozone is made up of three oxygen atoms , and is the main component of smog . Ozone is mainly formed by a series of complex reactions involving hydro- carbons , nitrogen oxides and sunlight . The NAAQS for ozone is 0 . 122 ppm for a 1 - hour average . In 1995 , the NC DAQ maintained four stations in Wake County monitoring carbon monoxide and three stations monitoring ozone . One station in Franklin County monitors ozone concentrations downwind of Wake County. The trend Since 1979 , carbon monoxide concentrations in Raleigh , Wake County, and the region have been generally decreasing . Figure A shows the 8 - hour average carbon in Wake County monoxide concentrations occurring between 1990. 1995 at two monitoring stations in Wake County. Since 1990 , average ozone concentrations have been generally decreasing , but can be affected by weather conditions . For example , during the hot , di summer of 1988 , the ozone standard was exceeded 69 times . During the cool , wet summer of 1989 , the standard was exceeded only 6 times . The Wake County Vehicles are the major source of carbon monoxide and ozone in Wake County. In 1983 . there were an estimated 250 , 000 vehicles registered in the County. By 1995 , the numbE Governmen t reovon5e had risen to 436 , 439 vehicles . According to the NC DAQ , programs to control vehicula emissions and to maintain traffic flow have helped reduce air pollution problems in Wa County. These programs include the Environmental Protection Agency 's vehicular emissions standards , the Wake County Inspection and Maintenance Program , and computerized signal timing systems in Raleigh . 17 35 �. 10 a a 8 a a ,f` Cy 4 or .41 4� " a e QQ « - 0 Person St . u Q 2 � c Z Eme Hwy 70W 0 0 O'N O� O� Q1 O\ 01 O� ON O� ON O\ Year vmL 'qY_ yIF; a f .. : ~�Ysr "✓ 4y.� / FY t•ut > I , �o JIAe � r , p t'. 'I . a,sl r O rIII 1 .. J . a `� �f , f a y - . 0 OIL ItA 1 yme to+ • , ( ' t a ! ' + At � A tofit '• _ . k ' - / . .4. i .Y to 0, O V ti : 1 ! Tt 4L ,' � 1 , ij ' t A It • r � ' � ' t " Ood O 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 � • 111 � ' L ')' r .' �, � .�' . .. ' . Feet LL% ;� ,�-• � .�. •.� ..' `7 '. � 4 .fYFt, '.' / ✓ ' 1yj� ,� f��l /r4 tf • � 1 �� ,mo I {../, •l . III � � 'tjd .I. I31 i pit ow 111 - mL It 0 ,J � ./ . _. � �.� ' �' u a 1, _. .it � •�+.f i.% ��.\ 1 . � �l � � •� � ...� .f. .. Il J ? -W `1..r �'> :�� �Y .k '�� N .81'� i 3 :1 .3 �� I? i7 �.d s {{• c7 t i . ( � Y i :t y« ! �\ \ I•'•Y7 `1 _ '7•'1 't.a .,a r, � �, '1 _ :r u y .L •-f :s r,P { •! I :. . : tl i 7 K i 4 " Yc. t tlt .� j '� '- "J t.04 1 .� r. ab `�., i :•a '.�yy >.d �. _ ,:.' ''_ : ..i .i. .i ., �. � . 1 / a �( ! ' J` '' � : I.J ..1 � 'j.a .�1 •y .L',4 .j+1 . a:) ,e�1a...arYa..� .:� :5. :Fr — j _ I +1 e' .�em, if z� ; J ; 1 ..A t, I, e ..i Are m44. 1 � ' �:ll •'At I _ A1% Few � f T a �� Ame de A, .11 I� "' � aS) ��i� i Awe a me �J. . M' I 'J; . � :� t . J � ' i':? = i '61w At f '� :d� ' � ' �� °i � Vote, :� ��� � .w ;� ' : ' The EPfl gauges air qualify at these locations for compliance with the Clean Air legislation. 18 36 .ry Environmental Quality Indicatorwit . 1 iAx � ,. 'ram•` w. Why indicator The " use support " status of a waterbody is a measure of how well that was selected resource supports its designated uses . This is a general rating system used by the State Division of Water Quality ( DWQ ) to interpret water quality data . Streams are classified as fully supporting ( excellent to good ) , support threatened ( good to fair ) , partially supporting ( fair ) , or not supporting ( poor ) . Support threatened waters fully support their designated uses at present but show indications of not fully supporting these uses in the future . How indicator DWQ used available chemical and biological ( stream life ) sampling data was measured to develop this stream rating system . The color coded stream map contained in this report was drawn from a similar map contained in DWQ 's Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan ( 1993 ) and a similar plan for the Cape Fear River Basin ( 1996 ) . The trend Only 11 percent of the stream miles sampled in the County are rated fully in Wake County supporting . These are generally small tributary streams in less developed areas . Most of the approximately 41 percent of these streams classified as support threatened are found in rural areas . The estimated 33 percent of the County ' s stream miles that are partially supporting and the 15 percent that are not supporting are , for the most part, found in the more urban , heavily developed areas of the County. Sedimentation , habitat loss , nutrient loading , and organic enrichment are the major problems associated with urbanization . Sedimentation is the most common problem in the more rural areas with some bacterial contamination also being noted . Wake County waters are generally in poorer condition than others across the State . For example , 45 percent of the waters studied statewide are fully supporting while only 3 percent are not supporting . The Wake County Wake County stream buffer requirements in water supply watersheds have been more restrictive than State minimum requi Government response rements for some time . The County 's watershed zoning restrictions were also in place before the State required it . In a recent review of local sediment and erosion control regulation enforcement, the County 's program was found to be the most aggressive in terms of fines assessed against violators . The local farm community has worked for many years to install agricultural best management practices ( BMP ' s ) which protect water quality. Recently, the County has initiated a program to help both rural and urban landowners learn about and comply with the state 's new Neuse Basin Rules . 19 37 to y. to% \ i� iV ;pp,�'sj1 . N ,; It ';r gorge frol Sep �� fit, i� ..Z 0t-J J go• 7 +' 5 W S 'Ad C , •J % ,,ti0 Wag IL 4 . go go W ❑ J {lf a � to 60 or tow '\- _l wool - f. I . '1 •. . Wore �3 odo NW yi • � do good km 1, �'�� �L j " i ❑ ■ . . , ,IN oW6 • tom t dw .. . . r; f• 0 Nor jMull) SyM � . . .: !L W J ❑ ❑ . X .gyp - l; ` SOY \ 1 . 1 of Cl ❑ ❑ W � � . o S„ . C s IS . do A . D Ip do Y ❑ . ■ � ' t. Jed' . • . ` ❑ ❑ D. ❑ . ❑ ; oftwo Ilrdo � . Li 01. We a �? :. ❑ r ❑ �. ' ❑ , — 1 r�L_ I wool,—� � . ❑ � El W"d � ❑ LiCl El , ■ ■ ' ■ r . - ■ ■ ■ ■ �i El! El�... mow ` a ❑ ' ❑ ❑ 11 • ` , �!p oil Ds El El a 40 *; 20 38 off 04. old .: me . go it too a•. loo Ol 3V °' Quality EnvironmentalIndicator : ;,: • . it Add >. V pi to loo do ` ,� } o , � � d , Y ` r ~l � �1 fir" . i i ^er' . . ,1 � r it v� o;F Why indicator As the demand for water grows , so does the importance of water quality was selected protection and water conservation . Water pollution problems can limit the use of existing supplies . Projections indicate that the demand on the public water supplies in 2010 will be almost four times higher than the demand in 1975 . Groundwater, which supplied the needs of almost half the population 30 years ago , accounted for only 20 percent of water usage i n 1990 . How indicator This information was obtained from the Triangle J Council of Governments was measured based upon information gathered directly from local governments in Wake County in 1977 and 1996 . Additional information for this section was obtained from Wake County ' s 1989 Water and Wastewater Facilities Plan ( Hazen and Sawyer) . The trend In 1992 , Wake County was using approximately 20 percent of the i estimated capacity of existing and potential surface water supplies . By in Wake County the year 2010 , water use is expected to rise to approximately 40 percent of this capacity. At the average 1992 per capita water consumption rate of 148 gallons per day, the surface water supplies in the county could support a maximum of 1 . 5 million users . If the current rate of population growth continues and 80 percent of these new residents are served by these water systems , maximum capacity would be reached by the year 2040 . Water conservation efforts , extended droughts , water pollution problems and / or changes in population growth rates could , of course , change these projections significantly . The Wake County i Wake County is moving ahead with plans to build the Little River Reservoir in the eastern part of the County. Local governments are also Government response working to strengthen water quality protection and water conservation efforts to reduce the pressure on available supplies . Maintaining a responsible water supply reserve into the next century will require significant expenditures by local governments and ratepayers for both developing new supplies and building expanded treatment facilities . The most difficult challenge will be to identify additional supplies beyond those currently known . Wake County may be forced to draw additional water from outside its borders to meet the growing demand in the future . A Water and Sewer Task Force is developing a plan to address these issues . 21 ' '; •''. 39 ; i * Ast . , i t. s a 1 ; J ` I� 1 ' 341 i t i t ryS 1 a e1 s .1 , e _ ao .. . , e , , y — � 11 1 i t i it At vto Oil Of Or Is is 100 , . N 90 / O 80 { 70 / r ' J , SO c IMA ONO 60 . / / Csw rr r 50 � i , . . � � ,. • / , . 14%p. _ i u. 40 / �, + ll, k Yh r• / r 1 , c 30 / , �. / t 5 j 20 / A t . p 10 _ 0 1975 1992 (Projected) 2010 Year ` r It ,. . �� ; . I If AM *I ". . . , �, .1 .' .• i 11 . ,1 • l � , -I , � ilI tA " ♦.J .°, . ; { Is& . � w , ?,. ! j .:i + 113 'f� Of n . r � . .1 '' _ ` ! Of This information was obtained from the Triangle .J Council of Governments bask/ upon information gathered directly from loco/ governments in Wake County. Additional information for this section was obtained from Wake County s 1989 Water and Wastewater Facilities Plan (Hazen and Sawyer) 22 Environmental Quality Indicator . ,. 16 8-0 i, , i F I '. 1{ Why indicator As soil moves with rainfall runoff on agricultural lands , so move the t was selected nutrients and pesticides attached to the soil particles . The nutrients and pesticides also may be transported in solution with rainwater. Proper land treatment practices , such as the installation of Best Management Practices ( BMP 's ) can reduce the amount of soil ( sediment) , nutrients , and pesticides which reach water bodies . BMP 's include practices such as grassed waterways , stri cropping , field borders conservation tillage, , terraces , and crop rotation . Besides damaging water quality, soil loss can also reduce the productivity of agricultural soils upon which we allI lql depend for food and fiber. c How indicator j The figures in the attached graph were derived from the Wake Soil and Al g g p was measured i Water Conservation District using its annual reporting data . The figures measure the soil resources conserved by the installation of new BMP 's t: . in tons per year. The figures do not represent existing BMP 's and their ongoing benefits . The significant increase in soil savings in the 1993/94 year was due to new federal legislation requiring BMP installation and r'4 the subsequent reporting of those activities . + The trend Wake County is above average in the installation of new BMP 's as in Wake County j compared to the 33 other Piedmont North Carolina counties based I on total cropland acres . Nationally, it ranks above the median for comparable soils and land use . f Government agencies provide local landowners with technical The Wake County assistance for designing and installing BMP 's . For many years , Wake Government reoponoei, County has contributed one of the highest levels of funding in the state to this effort . Because of this local support, Wake County has been able to take full advantage of Federal and State cost share programs over the years . These programs cover up to 75 percent of the cost of installing BMP 's on agricultural lands . 23 1 hw yv)y ' 'i ' • ' t 1995/96 (TO DATE ) 1994/95 1993/94 1992/93 - i - 1991 /92 - LM 1990/91 �- 1989/90 1988/89 - i 1987/88 1986/87 - 1985/86 ! - - 1984/85 / -- - � - - - 7/" --- - - 0 10 , 000 20 , 000 30 , 000 40 , 000 50 , 000 60 , 000 70 , 000 80 , 000 Tons of Soil Saved '. i . . . . . _ . . - _ .. • i - . '� :3 J ' 1, . . . a ✓ `. . , i '.' i . . . _. to * The siyni icont increase in the 1993/9q year was due to new ledera/ legislation requiring 13MP installation and the subsequent reporting of those activities. 24 L . . _ � ' • ' / �1i t 1 '1 , . i ^• l '} St , r ` : sr :�,. ✓ " .� �IF Feld t. Fm � !. ' . . , e f �•r • r 'I , i• r ✓ ,r , ! •� i _ ..� j tir rl -j '9 1 '.� `. .rIft ' � • ' 410 ISO --_ _ _ _ = " � Environmental QualityIndicator : Mom am aam IF I Why indicator Tracking the number of acres in farmland is important for several was selected reasons . Soils suitable for crop production cover only 3 percent of the earth 's surface . Farms also provide the vast majority of Wake County ' s remaining forest land , wildlife habitat, and open space . l Increased pollution is generally associated with other land uses as well . Crop values alone account for approximately $ 60 million worth of revenue to the farmers in Wake County. How indicator j Data on the number of farmland acres in Wake County was was measured I obtained from U . S . Census Bureau Reports from 1945 to 1992 . The trend Wake County is losing farmland much more rapidly than most areas T in Wake County in the United States . In 1945 farmland covered 76 percent of Wake County. Today that figure is down to 22 percent due to rapid urbanization and conversion to other land uses . Less than 15 percent of the farms found in Wake County in 1945 remain today. The Wake County f Wake County adopted a voluntary program in 1989 designed to Government response I protect farms through the purchase of development rights . Under this program , the county would pay farm owners an amount of money equal to the difference between the land ' s agricultural and development values . Budget priorities have limited the success of this program but efforts to obtain funding continue . Until funds are obtained , farmland preservation is promoted through educational programs encouraging estate planning by farm owners . Wake County does provide use value tax relief to qualifying farm owners to reduce the property tax burden on the local farming community. i This reduced tax rate for farm operations has made it possible for agriculture to continue in many areas in spite of the rapidly escalating land values in the county. i 25 43 i am " 1 • �: . i '., jW+ 450000 400000 . 350000 ' ` 40 r; 300000 OF ;; : {, n y 250000 IF b , . y; . } It go I + ' go : � ; r, 150000 " �. ; ,; � r y Al� i or IV 100000 R zf cf , tC 50000 Y M .:} ; tJ ' r Idt .•Y 1 t�. l j e . 1 7Lj sor, 1 I , lo j, gj Ig 1945 1954 1959 1964 ' 1969 1974 1982 1987 Year 1992 4a J t got . : .day . • � i . 4 . . i mot. Jl I..r dgg. O 4 ,i Data on the number of form/and acres in Wake County was obtained from U.S. Census Bureau reports from 19g5 to 1992. A farm is defined here as land where the primary purpose is to grow crops and/or livestock. 26 Ui.l�titiwa5i►�'.1L; 6u:.1yL11:":;.-_i::.i._,x ..—�k:�u:Pil:.:.^L'•'�i:tiro"i:.4:il' •,6,to U'S�•`_.,1?SSYsa7i,PiS:4 n,:.51i�:YRiSc�«I94 4 �¢ Environmental Quality Indic •ator . MOK ides open space and wildlife habitat in addition to wood Why indicator Forestland prov was selected products ranging from pulp and paper to 2 x 4s . Another important benefit is cleaner air. Some studies have shown that a single tree can j provide up to $ 62 , 000 worth of pollution control over its 50 year life . It provides us with an impressive volume of oxygen while taking in atmospheric carbon . Trees provide an excellent cover to prevent soil erosion and serve as riparian buffers to keep nutrients and pesticides out of our streams , improving water quality. Forestlands are the most affordable and effective source of pollution abatement and control . How indicator Data on the number of forestland acres was derived from the U . S . was measured Department of Agriculture — Forest Service . The trend i Wake County is losing forestlands at a much faster rate than the national and state averages due to increasing population and development . After in Wake County Hurricane Fran , there is potential for losing even more forestland if much of the land that was timbered is not replanted or regenerated . i Note : Hurricane Fran destroyed an estimated 75 , 000 trees in Wake County based on the amount of wood debris hauled away ( and assuming an average 15 - inch diameter maple or oak tree contains 50 cubic yards of woody debris ) . This estimate does not take into account Fran trees that were cut for lumber or fallen trees still on the ground . The Wake County Technical assistance is provided to private landowners (the largest category of forestland ownership in Wake County) in an effort to reforest timbered Government re5pon5e acres . State and Federal cost share programs aid in this effort by " sharing " the cost of reforestation with these landowners . This year, in the aftermath of Hurricane Fran , more than 2 , 000 acres were reforested in the county. This figure is a 100 percent increase over previous years when forestland in Wake County was not damaged by major storm systems . Assistance is also provided to private landowners for the management of their standing forestland . With the increase in urbanization in Wake County, assistance is also extended to homeowners and urban communities throughout the county. Management recommendations are directed toward the landowner 's or homeowner 's objectives . These objectives may in tree species selection , screening , timber production , wildlife improvement, sustaining good water quality, and aesthetics . 27 45 i 350 , 000 - - --- - --- - -- - - - - - - -- - - — - 1 300 , 000 ' 250 , 000 N 2003000 150 , 000 a 100 , 100 ' 50 , 000 0 1958 1975 1984 1990 1993 Year t l .io9 . i : , : . i.� •Ll N .i1t =. . " , . i ► i.r� . . ? •� � , L : .{' i 4RJ oil Information was derived from U. S. Department of fgyricu/ture - Forest Service 28 t• a :.,a r_ _ems - - S v ' An 9 4. 49. Environmental Quality Indicator : Ir � , ' '; d i �� �•V ~. � .�i\' ' ,� � ... ,••r•� , - ' i S � •S '� '� A • { �J ' � 1 ,.. '`/ d .. 1 : ' �..o+ , � 'te li. 1. i. Natural areas are important for several reasons : they provide critical Why indicator was selected I plant and animal habitat ; they ensure ecological integrity ; they preserve i biodiversity ; they show us how certain parts of the county naturally look �. and function without human occupation ; and they offer respite and j enjoyment to Wake County citizens seeking refuge from the noise , J � crowds , and hectic pace of city life . As an environmental indicator, I natural areas serve as a study comparison between natural and human - i I impacted environments . How indicator This information was obtained from the 1993 Albemarle Pamlico Estuarine Study - Phase III by the NC Natural Heritage Program within the NC DIVI - was measured { sion of State Parks and Recreation — DENR . The trend As Wake County ' s human population increases , the amount of county land left in its natural state decreases due to the inevitable expansion and in Wake County conversion to urbanization . Even though Wake County has become very urban , it has 59 natural areas identified and inventoried by the NC Natural Heritage Program . Some of these areas are in private . ownership and others are owned by local governments or North Carolina State University. Some areas are protected by conservation easements or other special i designations , and others await prioritization to assess their immediate need for conservation . i i Through this report, the Wake County Environmental Network encourages The Wake County local government officials to protect and conserve all of Wake County 's Government response I significant natural areas through open space and greenway planning . i Wake Soil & Water Conservation District recently discovered a " new " - t flatrock community at the Wake County Office Park . Site plans for a proposed radio tower and building were altered to redirect stormwater runoff and to lessen the impact of construction . Such actions serve to protect unique sites and to serve as a role model to other municipalities . 29 47 WAKE COUNTY Fifty- nine significant natural areas have been identified and inventoried in Wake County. 9 Their ecological importance is based on : N quality and 1 s integrity of the natural � 16 Al communities , the rarity and condition of rare A plants and animals , or the uniqueness or A5 11 importance of geomorphic features . These 3 Raleigh 14 • 15 nineteen areas have broader ecological co 10 y O significance shared by neighboring counties , 6 A 17 A the state of North Carolina , the Southeast -4 region , and the nation . A13 This map shows the location of Wake � 2A7 County ' s 19 significant natural areas as A 12 identified and inventoried in the 1993 Albemarle Pamlico Estuarine Study- Phase III by the NC Natural Heritage Program . 1 . Adam Mountain : The second highest point in Wake County with the only example of an Open Barren community with stunted trees and unusual plants . 2 . Camp Branch : The densest colony of Lewis ' heartleaf in NC . 3 . Crabtree Creek- Ebenezer Church Road Slopes : A steep , north - facing slope with the uncommon shrub catawba rhododendron . 4 . Hemlock Bluffs : Canadian hemlocks on steep , north - facing slopes , occurring 200 miles from their normal range in the Appalachian Mountains . Rich population of wildflowers and excellent diversity of salamanders . 5 . Horseshoe Farm Bottomland Forest : A meander or " horseshoe bend " of the Neuse River with natural levees and a mature , essentially non - disturbed hardwood forest . 6 . Lake Raleigh Hardwood Forest : Mixed hardwoods with excellent wildflower diversity. 7 . Middle Creek Bluffs & Slopes : Wildflowers on slopes with large showy orchid population . 8 . Mitchell 's Millpond : Largest extent of granitic flatrocks in NC with several rare plants and the rare Neuse River waterdog . 9 . Old Still Creek Forest : Mixed hardwoods and a diversity of wildflowers . 10 . Robertson 's Millpond and Buffalo Creek : Old millpond with a nearly complete canopy of native bald cypress trees and a diversity of nesting birds . 11 . S . W. Rolesville Granitic Rocks : Numerous flatrocks and boulders with one of the largest colonies in NC of nestronia , a rare shrub . 12 . Sunset Lake Salamander Ponds : Two ponds that support the only Piedmont population of the tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum ) , a State , Threatened species . 13 . Swift Creek Bluffs : Mature, high quality American Beech trees on slopes and flats with wildflowers . 14 . Temple Rock : Large granitic flatrock in pristine condition with good examples of primary succession on bare rock . 15 . The Rocks : Large extent of granitic flatrocks covering 10 acres with good granitic flora . 16 . Upper Barton Creek Bluffs & Ravine : Mature mixed hardwood forest with a high diversity of plants , especially ginseng . 17 . Walnut Creek Sumac Site : Habitat for Michaux ' s Sumac , a federally Endangered plant species . 18 . Wild Cat Hollow : Small caves amid granite boulders . 19 . Umstead State Park : Extensive pine and hardwood forests covering 5 , 000 + acres with varied wildlife and some rare animal species . 30 .s.Lr.L1:�:Mu'.}j� •-1' -1-_l` 1TIT W,irt.1- . . - 1.. -.: 1 ,�T.., -INN - N'Vtfliliik'.it>{L11W11iti'.11Ylu�.lka:1 . 4 A L:qW ' .1�•'L`,•, ti,.�. ..J... .�.;� 1 .',l' ��.i!n": A , �. •w , w��` .!�:`� 11,E -LiHiw�..�N.i1dZi!alw�/lluwl.a.� 1 ` L1i: H 111 a'li'.n 1 ' t1 � -5.ryt � , . . i . .r n --�.L , `. b. Nti 1L�GlIL t4� 48 tw .; • �a Is �r ' .1' y,Ov _ '� . _ Sjs .1 Environmental Quallety Indicator : To 11 ) Why indicator Healthy plants and animals , with Warp selectedstable populations in good physical condition , indicate a healthy environment . When species become stressed , unhealthy or few in number, this can signal to changes caused by human activities and/or environmental negative response � Since humans share and depend degradation , p on the same habitat for survival le y must pay attention to the less tolerant species who act as a canary in a coal mine, " signaling a gradual yet serious decline in environmental health and ecologicaln integrity. The same symptoms may event tal public health and the well - being of the human community,, wally affect How indl' Cator This Wake County species list was ob tained from the NC Natural Heritage Was measured Program within the NC Division of State Parks and Recreation— DENR . T 1996 list is compiled from a variety of sources inc his museums and herbaria , literature , and personal commlugifield surveys , cations . The trend Wake County 's natural diversity of wild plants and wildlife is being in Wake County reduced by the loss or degradation of critical ha rapid population growth rate . When people move habitat due to the is acound animals are displaced . Some species adapt to human activity plants and and those that don ' t are given titles as shown below to - designate nate theange, severity of their need for immediate conservation . g Endangered (E) : A species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range . Threatened MIDI A species likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its ran Special Concern (Sc) , A species for which there is insufficient range , information to support listing . i Significantly Rare (SR) : A species is rare and in need of population monitoring and conservation action . Candidate (C) : A species under consideration for listing for which there ' sufficient information to support listing , is The Wake County - The Wake County Environmental Network , through this report, is raising GovernMent reoponse the awareness of Wake County government and local p � of this declining trend in biodiversity. This information risu me ded officials and assist officials in making sound everyday guide positively enhance wild plant and animal h biptatl rather that will r than destroy it . 31 ito . CAA 0! LM U C 4! O CID S! Common Name - Federal Status * W ►L- �' u e u Vertebrates Fishes Least brook lamprey Neuse River waterdog Carolina madtom ( Neuse River) Roanoke bass Amphibians Tiger Salamander OK Four- toed salamander Reptiles Southern hognosesnake - FSC Birds Bachman 's sparrow- FSC Black vulture Bald eagle - T Red - cockaded woodpecker- E Loggerhead shrike Mammals Star- nosed mole Southeastern myotis ( bat ) - FSC Northern myotis ( bat) Invertebrates Dwarf wedgemussel - E Alewife Iloater Triangle floater Yellow lance - FSC Roanoke slabshell Atlantic pigtoe- FSC Eastern lampmussel Green floater- FSC Squawfoot Gray petaltail Notched rainbow Mottled dusky wing Lemmer 's pinion Giant swallowtail ( butterfly ) Diana fritillary ( butterfly) - FSC Vascular Plants Piedmont gerardia Narrow- leaved aster American bluehearts Douglass 's bittercress Rigid sedge Carolina thistle Granite flatsedge Creamy tick - trefoil Heller ' s rabbit tobacco Lewis 's heartleaf Piedmont quillwort Bigleaf magnolia Glade milkvine Sweet pinesap - FSC Dwarf ginseng Indian physic Small 's portulaca Michaux 's sumac - E Low wild - petunia Pursh 's wild - petunia Swamp saxifrage Veined skullcap Western rough goldenrod Appalachian golden - banner Carolina least trillium - FSC Kidney sedge Water purslane Godfrey 's thoroughwort Littleleaf sneezeweed Prairie dock Nestronia Nonvascular Plants X Oersted 's campylopus * E = Endangered 32 FSC = Federal Species of Concern T = Threatened � 0 ca 0 o�ac aF yQ1 lac c Q o 0' c is ro - c� 02 o m 0 a> c Q) ro 2 m m c U o m EE wo z U a)) 3 ca E n- c O x O O in U U N c Z R1 0 N O O N J C c (n C C]. cCD Z _ .3 U (D Y 0 C U c O C c ro C UI CIL > a) u o E m` U) o m • . am c ro .n y c C7 c wo o O E U rn O ro 0 3 c caJ O a: z �J ro ro U = �o U ca o° ro y i • ' r o La o a, O o a) Emo c U O C7 � cm \V �� C V A � O C 1 q Q) lCU 7 C • ' > 3 O Vl .� C Q 0 fr L cu C �1 Y GD mc) \ 4 c � (1) � v Y X m Q m \, Q ro (a c (m7 c (Ln ca ro V Qcn m ° � ro ro U :1 U 3 m 72 o 3 t Q) C) ¢ �c L U U N a C C } L U) C O 00 U) C 41 O ro = C ro m > o `n o c ro o F= ro (n = U ro c O C U '� ro cn E > ro ro L U ro 0 (D Q) Y O N L U 33 51 Citizen Grade Card 1998 We are interested in the perceptions and knowledge of citizens about the Wake County environment. Please complete this survey and return it to us at the address below by January 1999. 1 . During the past year, do you think the quality of life has improved or worsened in the Environmental Quality Indicators discussed in this book ? Check "same, " "better, " or "worse " in each category of the grade card (on the back of this page) . 2 . What is important to you ? Rank the Indicators in the last column of the grade card from 146 . 3 . How long have you lived in Wake County ? 4 . What is your zip code ? 5 . Rate the community appearance of Wake County. (Circle one number. ) Terrible 1 2 3 4 5 Good 6 . Additional Comments : Return survey to : WCEN/KAB, P. O. Box 550, Raleigh, NC 27602 by January 1999. ( Over) 34 5L ;! ✓ _ f icy Indicator Same Better Worse Rank (Q. #2) IN HUMAN IMPACT Population Growth Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Housing Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TRANSPORTATION Registered Vehicles , : 1 '; ; ; SOLID WASTE f ® Photometric Index of Litter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tons Landfilled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Household Hazardous Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INDUSTRIAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1 � Chemical Incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �( � AIR QUALITY � 6 Carbon Monoxide /Ozone Concentrations . . . . f . • WATER Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; � ; j ; i ' „ � . - �. , • ti „ � ; i > > , SOIL CONSERVATION Tons of Soil Saved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Farmland Acres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � ' FORESTLAND Number of Acres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NATURAL HERITAGE Significant Natural Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rare Plants and Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 r 1A PHONE NUMBERS and - � MAlL of ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE S a • • • • • • • • • • . • . . . . Janice D . French 919 - 856 - 5905 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . jfrench@co . wake . nc . us r: Ok ps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Randy Mundt 919 - 856 . 6228 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . sees . . . . . . . . 0 rmundt@co . wake . nc . us ti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lois Nixon 919 - 856 - 6779 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 Inixon@co . wake . nc . us . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lynda Fuller 919 - 856 . 5597 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ifuller@co . wake . nc . us. ' , , t . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . John Callaway 919 - 856 - 5587 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . jcallaway@co . wake . nc . us _ . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jill Gurak 919 - 676 -5107 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) ill _Gurak@ccmail . rustei . com . . . . . . . . Rick Bailey 919 - 250 - 1056 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . jrbailey@co . wake . nc . us . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bob Mosher 919 - 890 - 3658 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tom Hill 919 - 250 - 1059 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . thill@co . wake . nc . us . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rick Bailey 919 - 250 - 1056 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . jrbailey@co . wake . nc . us . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alton Perry 919 - 212 - 7363 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . aperry@co . wake . nc . us . � c : a � � i ita � : . . + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sheila Jones 919 - 250 one - 1065 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . sbjones@co . wake . nc . us Wake County Environmental Network Information and Referral . . . . 919 - 856 = 6788 Ask questions or request an Environmental Handbook Wake County Web Address . httpa//www. co . waketncous/services . htm a� 5 � • jo a " - Pt INI �f 044 l j Y .•� 1 • •i r 1 49 IF + I .t I 1 i j iOW ji IS ; i • I . I t 1 I i 1 • Printed on recycled paper 20 % post- consumer content Written , published , and distributed by : WAKE COUNTY Environmental Network The Wake County Environmental Network is a group of 18 County agencies with responsibilities for environmental operations , enforcement and education . ATTACHMENT #3 Status of Updates to Elements of the two Orange County Comprehensive Plan April 1 , 2002 The Orange County Comprehensive Plan , as described in the Zoning Ordinance , is comprised of several different elements which are inter - related and linked together through the Land Use Element (which was originally adapted as the Orange County Land Use Plan in September 1981 ) . CommentsElement Existing? Last Land Use 1981 Update plans underway — public hearing in November 20029 Economic Development Partially — Update ? Goals adopted 1987 , 1987 , 1991 , Strategic Vision adopted 1991 , 1995 Economic Development Districts adopted 1994 - 1995 . But pieces never pulled together in a form all - adopted element . Parks and Recreation 1988 To be updated — public hearing May , 2003 Transportation Not done Transportation plan partially completed , as part of LU Element Housing Partially — Affordable Housing Task Force 1989 report adopted 1989 intended to serve as Interim element . Natural Areas Underway Public hearing in February , 2003 Services and Facilities Not done Initial draft prepared 1991 — neverpursued _ Water Resources N/A - awaited To be prepared using surface completion of water and ground water studies Water and reports — public hearing Resources November 2003 project ( 2001 ) Open Space Lands Legacy Lands Legacy serves as interim 20000 Natural element of plan until time Areas Element permits reformatting into OS underway Element . ( Could include Natural Areas Element) 5s 5 `1 2 . 2 . 11 Specific Powers and Duties In furtherance of sub - section 2 . 2 . 10 the Planning Board is authorized and directed to : a ) Gather maps and aerial photographs of man - made and natural physical features of the area , statistics on past trends and present conditions with respect to populations , property values , the economic base of the area , land use , and such other information as is important or likely to be important in determining the amount , direction and kind of development to be expected in Orange County and its various parts as background for its Comprehensive Plan and any ordinances it may prepare . b ) Make , cause to be made , or obtain special studies on the location , condition , and adequacy of specific facilities , which may include but are not limited to studies of housing ; commercial and industrial facilities ; parks , playgrounds , and recreational facilities , public and private utilities , traffic , transportation , parking facilities ; environmentally critical areas and important natural resources ; all county officials shall , upon request , furnish to the Planning Board such available records or information as it may require in its work ; c ) Approve and recommend for adoption by the Board of Commissioners a Comprehensive Plan for the development of the County , as well as amendments hereto ; d ) Consider for approval , approval with modification or disapproval proposed plats of subdivisions as specified in the Orange County Subdivision Regulations ; e ) To make , recommendations , upon referral , on all proposed amendments to this ordinance in accord with Article 20 . f ) Make recommendations to the Board of Commissioners and the Board of Adjustment , as appropriate , on applications for approval of Planned Developments and Special Uses in accord with Articles 7 and 8 ; g ) Prepare and recommend to the Board of Commissioners new ordinance or amendments to existing ordinances which will have the effect of implementing the Comprehensive Plan ; h ) Engage in a program of information dissemination to the public and officials ; i ) Recommend to the Board of County Commissioners the establishment and / or continuation of Township Advisory Councils . Cooperate with these Councils to the end 2 - 5 5 that Planning Board investigations and may plans receive fullest consideration . p y j ) Establish advisory committees to assist it in its functions ; k ) Perform all necessary actions in support of its duties and powers . * 2 . 2 . 12 Comprehensive Plan , Intent The Comprehensive Plan shall constitute an internally * Amended consistent and compatible statement of policies for the 4 - 4 - 88 long - term , physical development of that portion of Orange County under County jurisdiction . The Comprehensive Plan shall consist of a statement of development policies and shall include maps and text setting forth objectives , principles , standards and plan proposals for physical development . The Comprehensive Plan shall be comprised of the following individual elements : a ) A land use element which designates the general distribution , location , and extent of the uses of land for housing , business , industry , open space , education , public buildings and grounds , and other categories of public and private uses . b ) A transportation element which identifies the general location and extent of existing and proposed major highways , scenic roads , railroads , transit routes and facilities , bikeways and pedestrian facilities , airports , and other public and private transportation facilities . c ) A housing element which contains an evaluation of housing problems and sets forth a program to alleviate unmet needs , including standards and plans for the improvement of housing and the provision of adequate sites for housing . d ) An oiDen s ace element which identifies the location and extent of existing and proposed open space for the preservation of natural resources , the managed production of resources , outdoor recreation , and public health and safety . e ) A recreation element which designates a system of areas and public sites for recreation , including parks and playgrounds , recreational trails , and other similar areas . f ) An economic development element which contains an analysis of the local economy and projections of future economic activity . The economic development element may also identify existing and proposed sites for new and expanding businesses and industries , and the facilities needed to serve them . 2 - 6 59 g ) A services and facilities element which identif ies existing and proposed service areas and improvements for water , sewer , refuse disposal , education , emergency services , and other utilities and service facilities . h ) Such additional elements dealing with other subjects which in the judgment of the Board of Commissioners relate to the physical development of the County . Such elements may include , but not be limited to , the subjects of historic preservation , community or rural design , growth management , etc . As part of the Comprehensive Plan , area plans may be prepared which focus on a portion of the County such as a township , a watershed or an interstate highway interchange . Likewise , technical information and / or task force reports prepared as part of a plan element or an area plan may be incorporated as part of the appendix of or as a supplement to the Comprehensive Plan . In preparation and adoption of a plan element , area plan or other similar document , the Board of Commissioners shall ever be mindful of the need to balance the public interest with the needs of private interests , particularly in the conservation of surface and underground water resources , soil resources , and natural growth resources of the county and the efficient use of the renewable and non - renewable sources of energy . * 2 . 2 . 13 Comprehensive Plan Adoption * Amended The Comprehensive Plan shall be so prepared that all or 4 - 4 - 88 individual elements and parts thereof may be adopted by the Board of Commissioners . The Board of Commissioners , upon receipt of a recommended Comprehensive Plan or portion thereof from the Planning Board , shall consider such recommendations and adopt them by resolution , either unchanged or with modifications . Prior to adoption of the Comprehensive Plan or portion thereof , the Board of Commissioners shall hold a public hearing thereon . Notice of the public hearing shall be given by publishing said notice at least twice in a newspaper of general circulation in Orange County , stating the time and place of such hearing , and the substance of the proposed plan . This notice shall appear in said newspaper for two successive weeks with the first notice appearing not less than ten ( 10 ) days nor more than twenty - five days before the date set for the public hearing . 2 - 7 0 * 2 . 2 . 14 Amendment of Ado ted Comprehensive P p pensive Plan * Amended For the purpose of establishing and maintaining sound , 4 - 4 - 88 stable , and desirable development within Orange County , the Comprehensive Plan or portion thereof shall not be amended except as follows : a ) Because of changed or changing conditions in a particular area or areas of the County ; b ) To correct an error or omission ; or c ) In response to a change in the policies , objectives , principles or standards governing the physical development of the County . 2 . 2 . 14 . 1 Initiation of Amendments An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan or portion thereof may be initiated by : a ) The Board of Commissioners on its own motion ; b ) The Planning Boards or c ) Application , by any person or agency , which accurately and completely sets forth the reason ( s ) fo ; the proposed amendment as prescribed in Article 2 . 2 . 14 above . 2 . 2 . 14 . 2 Classification of Amendments Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan or portion thereof are classified as " principal " or " secondary " amendments . Principal amendments include : a ) Additions to or modifications of policies , objectives , principles or standards ; b ) The creation of new activity nodes or additions to existing activity nodes which exceed ten ( 10 ) acres in land area ; or c ) Proposals for new freestanding plan areas or additions to existing areas that exceed one hundred ( 100 ) acres in land area . Secondary amendments include : a ) The expansion of an activity node where the additional area is contiguous to an existing node and does not increase its land area by more than ten ( 10 ) acres ; b ) The expansion of a designated plan area where the additional area is contiguous to the existing plan designation and does not increase its land area by 2 - 8 f Or IF _ OFF, OF Ir ; e , ! . r 1 • OFF - f • Fie i i -�M Lot) , f • �" i V r _ OF e ti i e � A � I • zr It FFFJ IF OF d rIF • e I � - t. r OFFIF • • f j d I IF Vie; OF 'FIIIIN tjOe Or i ? • AOF: IF t t Oil FI �FFFFFFFFA OFF IF �� i LI LL t OF I 1 i F4 If t 4 �_� i } i 1 :,. IF L , ea • a � - t i • • • 00 LU o w N Z IN a IF 0 X w 0 > z F U IF p X w X En XIN c� Z a o IN it I If mi CN c jp IF a. irl I : F a W N �t a, _� _ JIF E Z r" CL CL O � WIF IF = W Cn as IF W = rn x C� tiI lit N a� a � a� F— IN E O 'Z `tM V W r I IN X � co E U 0 W x U Z 'J W NIN I m° O W `~ if xIF V � jt If � J N9 It 'O E ,W Q Q r E V Z 00 y Z r IFIF J O o U) c X E o o c 00 N - E IN o m O � >, N V U N V Z O y , U O o (n `-' a) E o a E °� O Q) a 'a a aD s a � a) games V OJ � O6 ° O � > cn ai c O c°n v U � J (n a) (L O U L C: Solenoid Y c -v o c O � c� f— c o 06 c a� a E c cn O Co. a> O W c) � cLv cn ? a o O cNNE Q � J L c -o o L c O > c �, vs � U �, H M a) cam cn a) cn O 06 cv O O U E .� > � -p U N _U c_n cn cv ' ' U (n > mo rn -O �' C � o fn M m L O —_ a) O O m +� II (II = N o � V U c i � C O O U ai 2 c ` M C M 0 0 Joining w VULINN, (D � C �' p ca o am".o `n � m ca (� aci a a INCCY) (NO(D a� a a� ccv a� n° O � ° C0 ' E c cn ° o a O o = = o Q E _v a C: Limit— O co c � Q U c m O Q ' cn c0 � _O vi (� .v , c U E J � ` C - c O cw Z) 2 . O ++Op C )X O O aUE II5O N wC -IT JIM IT I on Own a � o 0 0 I 'D 0 o TT c N M all Sri co z M Orange CountyComprehensive Plan 63 Small Area Plan Boundaries 6 1 1 ...y dayWlYY. { c r If I Ifx ' + �I � Y � I If I I If .. _ t : . . . IIN iftle River I. s , I Y`f '' Upper Eno / - �c Q 'S 'fr4r .f - '' 4olt _MJ'i I w d` Cedar Grove ` �`` � �f� � i r � - . i oftr .1 t 5 r`- ' .... FF mfi It, PFF # . If I - _ Iqi It NIf Ito I I I Mebane I I Lower Eno Hillsborou I I I I Cane Creek / Bingham I Carrboro / Chapel Hill Joint Planning Area Legend I Cane Creek/Bingham 0 CarrborotChapel Hill Joint Planning Area I ® Efland / Cheeks Hillsborough ILittle River Lower Eno Mebane NI Upper Eno/Cedar Grove Drainage Basin Divide M e I Watersheds Townships Map Prepared by Carrie Whilehill 2 0 2 4 6 Mlles Orange County Planning Department 03119102 S 2 ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING � INSPECTIONS [DEPARTMENT Craig N . Benedict , AlCP , Director Administration Fx=• 30 F Revere Road b * 'W r n f `7 g } 4 - 57 � P Q Box 8181 ( 410 ) - 3002 ( FAx) HIIIsborough , www . co . orange , nc . us + � , C6C *~ North Carolina , 27278 ago 1 nmA W . - - MEMORANDUM TO : Board of County CornrrJcsloners John M . Link , Jr, , County Manager FROM E Craig N . Benedict , AICP , Planning Director Thorhas R , Tempia , AICP, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor BATE : March 11 , 2002 SUBJECT ; Comprehensive Land Llse Plan Gammitkee and Community Outreach 1 . COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN COMMI77EE ( CLUPC ) In November 2D01 , you received Information about the creation of a Comprehensive Land Use Plan Committee . As you will recall , the purpose of this committee is - to serge as a sounding board during comprehensive planning process . Initially we had hoped to have this comrnhtge already uinderway. However with the addition of Mr. Tempia as Comprehensive Planning Supervisor, we are ready to move ahead with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Committee as directed by the Board of County Commissioners . A scheduled maeting with tho BOCC can set forth the format of the Committee and the start of Public Outreauh . Specifically , the Comprehensive Planning staff would present various planning strategies , techniques , and tools , and the Committee would assist staff in developing the pros and cons of the different scenarios . They would riot be a racommending committee , but an impo ant group offering their perspective on the Comprehensive Plan pools , objectives , and policies as appl led countywide . Primarily the Planning Department would provide staffing for the Committee with specific � - development of rtaln 0lemsnts by the Economic Developmant and ERCD D 0epartments , The Committee will maet wah staff over the next months with one meeting prior to the community outreach forums , one during the forums , and one after the forums are completed . The community outreach forums will not suggest a speolfic planning policy direction , but offer a range of growth . management opportunities as presented by staff. b MEMORANDUM March 11 , 2002 Page 2 We are rgcommanding that the Committee consist of two mambets of the Board of County Commiissioners and one member from each of the following committees and an alternate : Planning Board Board of H9211th and Environmental Health Corn rnission for Environrment Agricultum Preservation Water Resource Committee Economic Development Committee II . COMMUNITY OUTREACH PROGRAM After analysis of options through the CLU PG . staff will begin the community outreach program . Input from Orange County residents is an important component of the corn prehenslye planning process . In order to maxi rniae participation In tthis process , we have developed the fallowing basic Qu# ine for community outreach during this, first stage of the cornprehensive planning process ; [SATE ROU P POTENTIAL LOCATIONS April 4 Committee � Food Lab April 841 i Public Little River Township : Schley Grange ; Caldwell ' Community Center ARM 22 - 25 Public Eno Township . Pleasant Green Communi Center April 29 -- May 2 Public Chapel Hill Township : Southern Human Services nter ; New Hope Volunteer FD ; A , L . Stanback Middle School ; did — IVla 13 - 16 public Bingham Township : Surkhorn Community Center ids Mid May Committee Food Lab ; Battle Courtroom ; Southern Human Services Centaur solid '4111 May 20-23 Public Chtgeks Township : Efland - cheeks Community Center June 10 - 13 Public Cedar Gr*ve Tow nship : Ruritan Ciuban Methadisf Church ; June 24 = 27 Publir, Hillsborough Township : Food Lab ; Rattle Courtrwm Beginning of July Committee Food Lake ; Rattle Courtroom ; Southern Human Services Center , . ilia DECISIONS At this time we need you to rrke the following desi $ iorls : 1 . Authorize the creation of the Comprehensived Land Use flan Committee ; 2 , Determine whether the Board or the individual c* mmMees wvill appofnt their representatives ; and 3 _ Approve the general com�dept of the Community Outreach Prograrn , 6 � did Orange County =L : Environment & Resource Conservation J, t • r IWA RcN ? crc Read / PO Box 8181 " idwHillshon-) ugh , NC 27278 y. . Adds rsr; �K Ph �� nc : ( 919 ) 245 2597 , Fax : ( 919 ) 644 3351 ,pis, ;v . r; ; %/ / ( ' Memorandum To : Commission for the Environment From : ERCD staff Subject : Proposed Conservation Heroes Award Date : January 25 , 2002 Recognizing that almost 70 % of the contiguous United States is held in private ownership and that future natural area conservation efforts on the part of private individuals will be a significant component of preservation , the Orange County ERCD and the Commission for the Environment have proposed a program that publicly acknowledges significant private endeavors and/or expenditures that contribute to land and resource conservation obj ectives . The following draft is presented for CFE comment . The Conservation Heroes Award would be an annual award that recognizes individuals and organizations that have shown a sustained and outstanding commitment to resource conservation in Orange County . The recipient can be a landowner, board member, If concerned citizen , business , government or private non-profit organization, or any other person or group who has worked towards natural area conservation . There would be three main purposes of the Conservation Heroes Award program : 1 ) to identify and award citizens and organizations who have advanced the cause of natural and cultural resource conservation by their actions , 2 ) publicize conservation options avaidi lable to private landowners and 3 ) improve the understanding between the private sector and county resource conservation agencies , Process Phase 1 ( October 1 ) : Nomination forms would be emailed out by ERCD , posted on website , and posted in the newspaper . A specified due date is stated on forms . Phase 2 ( October 31 ) : Forms are received and compiled on due date . 6 � Phase 3 (November) : Selection committee is composed of two County Commissioners , ERCD Director, and two CFE Members . The selection committee reviews forms and makes nominations according to the stated criteria . Phase 4 (December) : Selected Conservation Heroes are contacted and awarded at County Commissioner Meeting . Criteria • Separate individuals and organizations into two classes • Identify the natural or cultural resource conservation contribution that the individual or group made , the amount of time spent working on this contribution , and the monetary value of the contribution (if applicable) . The monetary value assigned to the contribution should reflect the method used to contribute , for example 5 acres of similar real estate would be valued more if it were donated versus a conservation easement placed on the land . • Combine time spent and value and rate individuals in one group and organizations in another. • Make decisions based on this comparison . • Ensure that awards represent an equal share of groups and individuals . • Ensure that awards equally represent geography, race , and age . • Make sure that a variety of contributions are chosen to advertise the different types of contributions Orange County residents can make . J � Orange County Conservation Heroes Award 2002 Nomination Form The Conservation Heroes Award is an annual award that recognizes individuals and organizations that have shown a sustained and outstanding commitment to conservation of natural and cultural resources in Orange County . The recipient can be a landowner, board member, concerned citizen, business , government or private non-profit organization, or any other person or group who has worked towards natural or cultural area conservation. To nominate an individual for this award , please fill out the form below and return by email , fax, or ground mail to : Environment and Resource Conservation Department PO Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Phone — 919 -245 - 2597 Fax — 919 - 644 - 3351 Email on cmelton@co . orange . nc . us Supplemental materials , such as photos of a preserved property or public relations materials the individual or group produced that generated a lot of positive feedback, may be included . The award- < > will be presented at the Orange County Board of Commissioners meeting on < > . Deadline for Submitting Nominations is < >. Nominee NAME : ADDRESS . CITY/ STATE/ZIP : DAYTIME PHONE : E-MAIL : Submitted By : NAME . ORGANIZATION $ ADDRESS : CITY/ STATE/ZIP : DAYTIME PHONE : & MAIL : Please submit a brief narrative (600 words or less) clearly explaining how the individual or group nominated is an exemplary conservationist and why they should receive the Conservation Heroes Award . 70 AT AC ME, Update Items 71 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 . NC DOT Community Transportation Program Capital Grant ( 73 ) NCDOT Rural Operating Assistance Program Grant Funding ( 77 ) Classification Plan Amendment - Open Space Design Specialist ( 81 ) Proposed Joint Grant Application to NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund - Upper Eno Watershed Protection ( 85 ) Legal Advertisement for Joint Planning Public Hearing - April 17 , 2002 ( 93 ) Appointments to the CFE - March 19th BOCC Agenda ( deferred ) ( 97 ) Master Planning of the Eubanks Road / Old 86 Site ( 99 ) Comprehensive Plan Schedule and Land Use Committee ( CPLUC ) ( 101 ) 2002 - 03 BOCC Goals ( 101 ) 2002 - 2012 Capital Investment Plan ( CIP ) Public Hearing ( 103 ) Appointments to the Commission for the Environment ( 103 ) 7rim) f 73 i 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD Of COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meting Date : March l 9 , 2002 Actlon Agenda Item Not SUBJECT ; NCDOT Community Transportation Program Capital Grant DEPARTMENT ,, Aging / OPT PUBLIC HEARING , ( YIN ) Yes ATTACHMENT ( S ) ; CTP Capital Grant Application INFORMATION CONTACT , Purchase of Modular Unit to House Jerry Passmore , ext . 2009 OPT at Motor Pool All Terry , ext . 2002 Paris Edda Lot Paving for Triangle TELEPHONE NUMBERS ; Tra risk Authority and OPT Use Hillsborough 732 =8181 t Purchase of Two Printers for Use by Chapel Hill 9684501 OPT Durham 688 -7331 ' Purchase of OPT Bus Stop igna Mobarie 338 227 =2031 PURPOSE ; To conduct a public haaring and to approve a FY 2002103 Community Transportation Program ( CTP ) Capital Needs application to the North Carolina Department of Transportation , Public Transit Dlvislon for a total of $ 197 , 037 with a $21 , 893 local match . The funds would oover a modular unit for the Orange Public Transportation (OPT ) administration , the Northern Human Services Center parking lot paving , two printars for OPT and OPT bus stop signage. BACKGROUNDrw The North Carolina Department of Transportation ( NCDOT ) . Public Transportation Division accepts annual requests for capital needs from county community transportation programs . Orange Public Transportation is eligible to make an application . OPT is requesting funds ($ 167 , 000 ) to locata a now modular unit ( 27 . 5 ' x 66 `= 1808 aq . ft . ) at the Public Works .silo , if approved , OPT administration and all vehicles would be relocated from the Whitted Human Services Center close to the County Motor Pool and refuel ]! W station . This move would enhance the parking facillbles at the hitt &d Building and ramove OPT functions from resldenUal neighborhoods . On Augur 18 , 1008 , the Board of Counter Commissioners approved designating the Northern Human Services Center's southern parking lot as a Ri��gk3nal Park a ride lot in order to pramote more oar and van pooling in cooperation with Triangle Transit Authority . The capital request for $ 45 , 000 would pave the approximately 120 ' X 225 ' lot , The smaller capital needs request would be the replacement of two OPT printers ($ 5400 ) and additional OPT bus stop slg n ag a ($ 1530 ) . FINANCIAL IMPACT : The NC DOT Community Transportation Program Grant raquWas a 10 % local County match in the amount of $ 21 , 893 which would be included in the Department on Aging/OPT 2002 =2003 proposed budget request. ?. 1 2 RECOM M EN DATI QN ( Sl : The Manager rewmman d s that the Board conduct the public t ea rl ng and r approve the CommunRy Transportation Program Capital Needs Applicadon for FY 20024) 3 and authorizs the Chair to sign the Gertified Statements of. Participation . 75 ' t YY2003 Cornmurtitp Transportation 1302r= (CM Crept Applleatton CATITAL SRCIIOI~ 3 ATTACHMIMNT _a Docarmatation of Capital Resources and Y eeds is required . You 3hculd nave naehed agreement with your eons ulL=1 regarding your capital needs prior to submitting Part II of the CTP Application. Since capital funding eau be eery comMitive and mdaquatc auto capital funds may not be available to meet all nwd5 , applicauts = encouraged to include as many facts as possible in regard to imhicic need and utilization_ Applicants should be aware of their sire ratio , lift ratio , replac-cment vehicles needed, and any potential need to expand services when completing the dooumcntaction. flea rcmembcr tr, ccmider Utpansian cquiprmnt that maybe needed should you ripply and be approved for disom unary Fur31 (;eTk dl Public funding for gY 2002 — 2003 . Proposals for capital assistance w meet facility and technology needs arc uplional . Appti"tits should assess their awn capital needs and provide g prioritl d [i3tin of an capital needs by each individual item. Vfhcn listing replacement ve�hicl es , idmti fy each vehicle to be replaced by the compleic VIN , and indicate the type of reglacemcut Vebicle you are requesting . Also identify expmnun vuhides by vehicle type aad "Expansion" . Requeated replacement vehicles wi II also bG idrnlificd cm the Replacement Vehiele tab of the budget for Part TI of the C;'T P app] Icatiom If meal delivery seivices or otlier iticidental use of vehicles does not conflict with the proviswn Of transit some a or result In a reduciaon of pukilio tranRportation service; then the DTP recipient ,rnW use system %vhicles for these purposes. I: or ex=ple, if your system chcsje to t= vort meals during midday " domTe' periods, but then received eligible requests for transportation of human senrice agency or public pa-swnifr; during ebis pcTiod of time , t3rcn your system is r+aquir+�cl to tzricyriticc the p�asmiger ' s transpvrtativo requests btforc other nods . Mtril deli very servim would out be an excuse to reject time truisportation requests, fnridonrd use M' not cwmidemd WE determwing system vehicle needs . Documentation of Capital Needs provide :a Narrative in the Spree Provided Below Omngc Public Trantspoftation , the rural transit pruvider for Or nge County , rNUest t} IQ purchase of anew facility to be plw ed on county awned land . "Phis building is a maodu lar unit that 1vill meet standards fcrr ADA . Orange (''ounty has land to permanently place the modules urnit scar the County Motor Pool operations Rite. 'This Rtmcture wou] �d vnab1c Orange Public Trmsportation (OP') to be recognized as a public transit system , remove current operations Nm re dcztual area. and inGroasc cf idcncy m mauint;ti mg vcttiales . urrerltly_ OPT is paused in the Richard E , 1� hitted Building which includes Dcp � l of Sgcial Samcm Health Depar=ent, Public Library, (}range County Recreation and Parks and Department o n Agi ng. We are physical ly ] acated 1 n thrcc ofTiecs in the Dcpartnic mi or Aging office complex . Relaca6on of OPT Administration and Vehicles will reduce traffic and parking congestion at the Whittcd Building . _ IvleetaiiEs are currently being bell with County officials to dele ne w era l location options and fusibility of purchasing the modular structure. l fb A 77 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date : March 19 , 2002 Action Agettcia Item No . SUBJECT : NCDOT Dural Operating Assistance Program Grant Funding MENNEN DEPARTMENT : Transportation / OPT . PUBLIC HEARING : ( YIN ) Yes ATTACH M E NT( S ) : INFORMATION CONTACT " ROAP Application Jerry Passmore, md . 2000 RGP Discretionary Application ( Marketing Plan cry Page 9 ) TELEPHONE NUMBERS : Hillsbor tAgh 732mal U1 Chapel Mill 9684501 Durham 6884331 Mebane 236 227 .2153 ,1 TV PURPOSE : To "hold a public hearing and to approve a FY 2002M3 Rural Opc� ratlon Assistance Program ( ROAP ) fund application for $ 00 131 and to approve a FY 2002103 Discretionary Rural General Public ( RGP ) fund application for $ 116 . 684 . BACKGROUND : The North Carolina Department of Transportation , IlublIc Transportation Division designates ROAP funds each fiscal year to Orange County . ROAP consolidates the Elderly and Dlsai ad Transport ion Assistance Program (EDTAP ) , the Work First Transitional! Employment Transportation Assistance Program and the Rural General Public ( RGP ) Pmgrart7 into a single application package . These ROAP funds allow Orange County to continue servicing the above - mentioned Programs from July , 20a2 through June . 2003 . The Public Transportation Division has additional Rural General Public dlscretlonary funds to as $ i $ t with the developrr nt of rural public routes , The discretionary fund request would (1 ) add additional routes to the Orange Express for hourly service throughout the day . ( 2 ) add midday routes that compliment Triangle Transit Authority ' s Hillsborough to Durham commuter bus service , and (3) establish a Hillsborough inter-city bus route that would connect with service to Durham and Chapel Hill . Established marketing plans for the proposed routes have been completed with Triangle Transit Authority and Orange Public Transpertaticn ( OPT ) . FINANCIAL IMPACT : The ROAP grant requires no lvc* l matach . The discrationary RGP grant requires a Imal rnatc h of $ 7 , 868 which is already included in the OI '1` operating budget . - RECOMMENDATION (S ) As The Manager recommends that the Board approve the application for Rural Operating Assistance program funds for FY 2002103 and to approve the Rural General Public discretionary fund appii tien for Fly 2002I03 and authorize the Chair to sign the Certified Staten-oent of Parkicipation . ? s y APPLICA,.TION FOR OPERATING ASSISTANCE RURAL OPERATING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FY 2 002 - 2003 : General Infe rm a ion Applicant (County) : C ramn ge County County Finance Office Ten Chavious ' Address : Fist ice Eon 81 Yit : Hillsharuhi : 2 ?_ Telepl one No . . (919)245�2000 Fax : ( 19 ) 644-3044 E -] all Address : ivstsmom . Rco. ormuffir. _ns Project Descriptions Atfteh tent A . Elderly and Disahhod Timanworiation Assistaiwg Pro LUTAE) 0range Public Transportation (OPT) is the designated lead agency for public and human services agency transportation in niral Orange County and the recipient of the EDTAP 8.110eation - of $ 54 , 243 , 00 with no kk6 l match iegu.�ired . OPT will o =t !nue rt� u90 tots allocation to provide medicala transportation for the: sixty-plus and disabled residents of Orange aunty. Additionally, OPT wi11 • offer one sl ingfpersona( business round trip per wreak to those tM poplu lation groups who lire outside the Chapel Hill Transit amice area and do not have access to the Orange Express public shuttle. To the extent possible, trips will be grouped by googTaphic area. per 'wcekday and the d= limtlen will be the closest possible provider. The ` Orange Voucher Program "' an effort fimded. lby EDTAP in .2 10 - 2001 w111 ea :ntinue to efi'er eligible disabled perms under age 60 up to $ 1001monih to pay for travel ar=gement s to meet the individuals ' needs and to ft . . dest;nation s) of thei r c#� aia This sorviee i s provi ded Monday through Friday, 8 @ 00 a, m. to 5 *00 p. m . All EDTAP mnrice recipients are asked to contribute $ 3 . 00 per one - way trip . This fee is waived for any individual whose family income is at ar below 125 °r of the poverty level as determined by the Depai ment of Health and Human Services . Contributions are Lid I] zcd to fund acidiliuml trips. 1 79 3 Persons sixty y= and older can be certified for services by completing a Client Registration Form which Is kept one file at the OPT administrative office in Hillsborough , N .C. Perms under the age of sixty seeking EDTAP service must itave a cer#ification compllcd and autlorized by his/her physician. All IDTAP recipientas must he rc - certified annually. I I � I:ta�h �nenf lam. Work Fiat TrausatianaljEmplgymentTransfartactfon Assistancepropram With an allocation of S10,699 ,00, Change Public Transportation provides forinet' Werrk First participants or other low-income persons certified for Medicaid or Food Stags with a maxunuin of $300, 00 per year to assist with erriploymeul relater/ (rawportation. For v mhicle owners the funds may be used for repairs and/or insurance, For non-vehicle own= the funds mat assist with the purse of bus passes, van/car pool i�xponsc, or possibly a vehicle donated to the Whccls For Work Program. The actual survive provides willvary depending upon the nee , i.e. auto repair shop, insuranceetrt, Chapel Hill Transit; TriangIv. Transit Authority, or other local transit conipames. The OPT Transport:. bon Coordinator will dc=)ine the most appropriate transit solution on a case - by-case basis. Attachment C. Rural General Public (R. [TP) Orango PuI)No Transportation (OPT), managed by th a Orange County Department on ft A. && , serves human service agcncies ' clients mfiose ridership is paid by the 14 local sponsoring ag ics and spacial populations such as the eklorly, dis,ablcd or .Medicaid ulienis who are supported with NC DeparrLmcnt of Transportation, Home and Commtmity : are Block Grant, or state pLibiic assistmee funds _ 'rho rnajarity of the C�FT s vioc consists of public routes, fixcd routes, f rcd- deviated routes . Utilizing ]ift� equipped vans and minibuses, minivans and cars or private vendors, the OPT pwgriam continues to Wand coordination of its demand -response == ical and public watts . The gcographic service area is rural Orange County, outside the Chapel Hili Transit semce = L OPT tr#msportation service is provided each weekday, with w +ackend or evening strips for upecial lenses or li i'c- swtainin r er medical svices. The development of a regional sem%4iee hcmeecn Hillsborough and Durharn , KC , became _ operational on 2001 , The regional service provider (Triangle Trawit ALL harily) provides commuter service h4nnday through Friday i"rom Hi11 $bomugh to Duke Medical Center. }PT pmvi des "feeder " routes into Hillsborough where riders c au connect w ith 'Triangle Transit Authority (1 A ) routes , O � 1 1� ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM A13STRACT Meeting Date : March 1 g , 2002 Action Agenda Item No . - SUBJECT : Classification Plan Amendment — Open gpaoe Design Specialist DEPARTMENT , Environment and Resource PUBLIC HEARING : (Y[I ) No Conservation and Personnel ATTACHMENT ( S ) : INFORMATION CONTACT : Class Specification for Open Space David Stan il , Environment and Design Specialist Resource Conservation Director Extension 2590 Elaine Holmes . Personnel Director , Extension 2000 TELEPHONE NUMBERS . Ni1lsborou g h 732 =8181 Chapel Hill . 96345011 Durham . 688 -7331 Mebane 336 =227 =2031 PURPOSE : To amend the Orange County Classification and Pay Plan to add the new class of Open Space Design Specialist at Salary Grade 71 . This grade has a hiring range of 173351 — �45 , 3 �7 . BACKGROUND . With the June 2001 budget adoption , the Board of Commissionetz approved a new permanent full -time Open Space Design Specialist position In the Environment and Resource Ccnaervartlon Department effeckive January 1 , 2002 . As part of its action , the Doard asked the County Manager to explore the needs related to future parks development and the relationship between the two County departments most involved In parks acquisition , planning and development — the Environment and Resource Conservation Department ( ERCD ) and the Recreation and Parks Department . At the November 29 , 2001 Board wmi(session , the Board received the " Navy Era far Parks" report outlining information on departmental coordination ( ERCD and Recreation and Parks ) ; the continuum of parks planning ; parks design , maintenance and stewardship ; and future resources needs . As outlined in the parks report, the ERCDis taking the lead rola in initial planning , Sita _ identifiration and evaluation , land acquisition and concept planning with the Recreation and Pam Director being involved in the process . To this end , the Open Space Design Specialist located in the ERCD will : Dural op cc ncept pla n s , tayc ut a nd des n for n ew pa rk facil iti es , 8 � ■ Identify throughHold surveys appropriate locations far nature trails /walking trails and other low- irnpact recreation facilities . • Advise an development of park faciftty to ensure ecc logical ly- sensRive siting and design , and Develop environmental education and outreach programs at park faciiltias , and organize and oversee nature trail programs . + Assist the Land Resource Conservation Manager in overseeing stewardship of County lands ( nature preserves , nonservation easemerits , and other open spaoas) . * Work closely with Recreation and Parks staff in programming and maintenance of facilitias . Once hired , the Initial task fur this posldon will be the design of the socaer field at Maple Elie Farm , Personnel has reviewed the duties and responsibilities of the Open Space Design S peci of ist, compared the duties and responsibilities to axisting County positions and conducted a market survey , althn ug h the available a market data was limited . FINANCIAL IMPACT : As part of the budget process for 2001 - 02 , the Board established the Open Space Design S peclal ist posibo n effective January 1 , 2002 . Funds for this are included in tha approved budget for 2001 = 02 . The astimated annual cost for the pas It ' on Is about $ 58 , 000 (salary and benefits ) . Based on filling the position in May 2002 , the estimated cost for fisoal year 2001 -O2 Is about $ 9 , 600. REC OMME N DATIO N { Sys The Manager recommends that the Board amend the Classification and pay Plan to add the new class of Open Space Design Specialist at Salary Grade 71 . 3 Attachment OPEN SPACE DESIGN BPECIAU T GENERAL DEFINITION OF WQEK• Performs difficult professional work in planning and designing of park facilities ; does related work as required . Work is performed under general supervision . TYPICAL TP,S Q Develop conoept plan , loycut and design for new park facilities , working with cltizen committees and making public preserktatlons as needed , Advises on development of park facility to ensure ecolcgically- aensftive siting and design , and field - identifying appropriate locatlons for nature trails /walking trail' s and other low " Impact recreation facility ; Develop environmental education and outreach programs at park fadlilles , and organize and oversai�i nature trail programs ; Coordinate and organize volunteer work on trail construe ion and maintenance , Assists in stewardship of County-awned lands ( nature preserves , conservation easements , and other open spaces ) ; Works closely with Rec4seativn and Forks staff in programming and maintenance of park facilities ; Monitors consultant contracts for parks design improyements , as needed ; Pursues grant funds for parr improvements ; Conducts public presentations for Board of County Commissioners , concept plan corn mittaes , various boards and chric groups ; Performs related tasks as required , KLtOWLEDGES • SKILLS AND ABILITIESM Thorough knowledge of the methods and practices utilized in landscape architecture for the planning and design of park faculties ; thorough knowledge of ecological andenvironmentally = suns itive design ; general knowledge of construction administration from inception to wmple icn ; general knowledge in Identifying and prioritizing natural and cultural resources ; general knowledge in land acquisition for resource conversation , ability to present the results of design and research effectively in oral , wrftten and graphic form ; ability to establish and maintain effective working relationships with County officials , associates , representatives of other agencies and the general publ' ic . E, ATIQN AND EXPERIENCE : Any combination of education and experience equivalent to graduation from an occredited college or university W th major wurse work in landscape archnectiure , land resource management, envlrcrimental planning or related field and at least two gears professional experience in park planning , development or design , U � - - - - . . . . .. ' v " "" • 1 ORANGE COUNTY 85 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION ZRS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRA6T Meeting Date: March 19 , 2002. Action Ages Item No . I mce SUBJECT , Propo5ed Joint Grant Application to NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund — Upper Eno Watershed Protection - - DEPARTMENT : Environment and Resource PUBUC HEARING : (YIN ) No Conservation ATTACHMENT ( B ) : INFORMATION CONTACT : Concept Proposal for Grant Appllcatinn David Stancil , 245 - 2590 CWMTF Grant Evaluation Guidelines Rich Share , 245 =2591 Map of upper Ergo Watershed TELEPHONE NUMBERS : Hi11119boroush 732 -81 $ 1 Chapel Hill 9684501 Durham 8884331 Mebane 336 =227 -2031 PURPOSE : To consider submitting a joint grant application with the Eno River Association to the North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund ( CWMTF ) for voluntary protection of high priority resource lands in the Upper Eno Watershed . SAC KGRO UND : In the fall of 2001 , ERCD etaff and representatives from the Eno Neer Association ( ERA ) informally discussed a proposal to submit a joint ounty� ERA application for funds from the NC Clean Wafer Management Trust Fund to acquire land ( riparian buffers ) and conservation easements In the Upper Eno watershed . The objective would be to further protect water quality and wildlife habitat in the critical area of the Upper Eno Protected Watershed . Conserving these lands will help ensure the long -term viability of the Eno River as a public water supply and high - quality habitat for aquatic organisms and o# her wildlife that exist within than riparian corridor . A secondary purpose is to protect known and potential arohaeo log i l sites ( hlstorin and prehistoric) that area likely to exist within this corridor. The proposed applicadon would build upon prior Count} efforts for watershed protection , as well as a previous CW MTF grant to the Eno Raver Associatioun for identifioatiob and prioritization of npanan lands within the Upper Eno 4 atarshed . That project resulated in an Eno River fiparfara Coldor Gcurserva #fors Des'far (August000 ) preparl by � ietirrnt Planning Associates , One of the purposes of the OWMTF grant was to assist in the selection of future projacts for funding within that watershed , The anticipated timetable for the rrj ect would be to a identify hi h - rlorit P 1 � g p y pa reels [ Ma r chlApol 2002] , b) contact landowners to discuss landowner interests and conservation options [March/April ) , c) develop potential conservation strategies for interested la n d ovine rs [April/ May] , and d ) submit th, a grant application [June 1 ] . If the state proceeds with the grant cycle , the awarding of grant would be in October 2002 . EC staff proposes subrrEltting an applitlon despite the uncertainty of state funding - ava i (abil Gty to the g ra nt p rag ram . Governor Ea 51ey recerrdy froze more than $20 rnll I ion of the CWMTF ' s $40 million budget to help cover the state ' s projected $ 900 million budget shortfall , Thirty-nine grants approved by the CVVMTF board in November , 2001 may now be at risk because of the freeze , On February 18 , the CWIVITF board of trustees announced that grant applications would be accepted for its next funding cycle , The deadline for applications for that cycle is ,tune 1 , 2002 . The CVVMTF board also stipulated that potential grant applicants be made aware that future approvals will be based on availability of funds. As shown on the attached Concept proposal . staff and ERA propose a grant submittal for $ 1 million — using some portion of the Lands Legacy Fund as a match please see below ) . It is worth noting that CWMTF grant funds and County matching funds toward this project could serve a dual purpose — acquiring conservation easements on farmland in the watershed , as well as protecting riparian buffers . If grant funds are not awarded for this project, a secondary approach may be to evaluate acquisitionsleasements for the highest - priority lands using funds from the County' s Lands Legacy Fund ( Ind uding proposed altemadve flnancling for conservation easoments ) . Acquisition of high -priority lands in the Lipper Eno Watershed is Mer� ified in the 2001 - 2002 Lands Legacy Annual Action Plan . Th a E RA Boa rd of Directors wi I I meat on M arch 14 tea can sid er wheth er ERA wou Id I ik,e to proceed with a joint grant application , The ERNS Land and Stewardship Committee is expected to recommend that they support this proposal - ' FINANCIAL IMPACT.b The proposed grant application is expected to be in the range of $ 1 , 000 ► 000 . The specific dollar amount wlII depend on the number of landownars express their interest ( by ,June 111 ) In pursuing a passible conservation agreement on their property. Although no fund trig match is � required , the likelihd of grant approval is greater if significant matching funds are offend . Matching funds for this prefect in the amount of $ 300, 000 could be available from Orange County Lands , Legacy Fund (current pay - as- you-go funds and proposed alternative finiancing for conservation easements ) , and potentially augmented by the 2001 County parks and open space bond funds fbr Lands Leg a ear . Thd total project cost would be , therefo re , a round $ 1 , 300 , 000 , RECC} Ar'JA ENDATION ( S ) : Thp Manager rammmcnds that the Marl authoriza the joint submittal of a grant application to the NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund priorto the June 1 2002 deadline, Draft .Itfareii 11 , 2002 3 Conceptual Proposal Joint Oranga County) Eno River Association Application NC Clean Water M ana Barn ant Trust Fund Orange County EIROD and the Ergo River Assooiation stab propose submitting a joint County- ERA application for funds from the N0 Clean Water Menagement Trust Fund to acquire land ( riparian buffers ) and conservation easennents in the Upper Enoowatershed , Tha objective would be to 1halp protect water quality and wildlife habitat in the crrfrcal area of the Upper Eno Pmtacted Watershed . Conserving these lands would help ensure the long -term viablllty of the Eno River es a public water supply and high - gUslity habitat for aquatic organisms and ether wildlife that exists within the riparian conridar . A eecondary purpose is to protect known and potential archaeological sites ( historic and prehistoric) that are likely to exist within this corridor . [Noto — the P11mary objective ofthe CWMTF is to pmtec € wafer quality.] Funds to match the CWMTF grant would be available from Orange County Lands Lagaq program ( perhaps augmented by the 2001 County perks and open spece bond ) . At this time , it is estimated thatthe applies # ion raqueat $ 1 , 00O , 040 in state # unds to be matched with $ 300 , 000 in local match fbr a total project cost of $ 1 , 300 , 000 , The specific dollar amounts will depend on which landowners express Interest ( bar ,dune Vt � ire pursuing a passible conservation agreement an their property . Proposed Timetable : Seek approval from the ERA Board of Dire = rs and Orange Countyt Board of Commissioners [ March 20021 • Identify high - priority parcels using the Eno River Riparian Carridor Ccnservataon Design (August 2000 ) prepared by Piedmont Planning Associates for the Eno fiver Association and funded by the CWMTF [ March /April 2002] Cevelop potential oonseNation options for high - priority parcals [ March [Apri1 ] Contact landowners ; dlscuss landowner interests , cortservaUon options and potential conservatiorirfinaneial benefits ; request easenrient donations or options to purchase [Aprillklay] Develop more spaclfic conservation strategles for interested landowners [April / Mayl Apply for CWMTF by Jane 1 , 2002 JAwards announced by October 20021 41 Pursue acquisltiorVei� semonIs with comUnation of CountylCWMTF funds Lands within the Lipper i= no Proto ted Watershed ( map attached ) are subject to an additional layer of subdlvlslon regulations imposed by Orange � oUnty to protect existing or potential drinkin0 water rivers and reservoirs ( e . g . , use limitations , wirier stream buff ersI density limits , Imperrieus covar limits ) . Still further restrictlans are Imposed on lands wkhln the ' critical area ," defined as lands " One- half mile from the normal pool of Lake Orange , Corporation take , and potential mservair sites on the West Fork or the Upper Eno and Seven Mile Creek , or to the ridgeline of the watarshad , whichever Is less , " ti MIT Grant Cruid �iacs htipJ,h� +�uw, � wmtF, ruea'� uidc .hrm] la 4 deanwat r MkNAQrMCNT7 % GST r4f+ R CLEAN WATER MANAGEMENT TRUST FUND ( MTF) GRANTS GRANT EVALUATION GUIDELINES These guidolineq can be dnwnloiadod as a ' I " cxt filc f. txt ! or a Rich Text file ( , rtfi , NOTE; Rice§ Texi ,&L'vrniu! van be ru ed by Mic m qj? PFvrd or W04 erfec1. A , Eligible applicants for ""ITT grants . a ) Any fthe following, are eligible to receive a grant from C MTF for the purpose of protecting or enhancing; water duality ; 1 . A State agency • 2 . A local government or other political subdivisiiw of the state or a combination of such entries , 3 . A nonprcf"it corporation whose pnmary purpose is the conservation, preservation and rugtoradon of our State's env ironmental and natural resources . (b) Iry match is required ; howcvcr, Trustees may choose to fund projects at less than I 00 "A of. tl e application request . B . CW.VITF purposes : a) Grant movies €rom ' IIU ntay be used for any otlhc 1"o1lou purposes : ■ Acquire land for riparian buffers fo-r environmental protection fo surface ,%mten or urban driaLug water supplies, or for establishhm' s a network of greenways for enviru =eatal , educational or recreational uscS . ■ drinking grater plies. ■ Cmdinatc with other public prolgams involved w4b. lands ad joiring; water bodies to gain the inost public benefit while prot� eting and improving water quality . . ■ Restoro dl+ograded lands for heir ability to protect water quality. ■ Repair failing waste =Elianent systems : if( i) an application # o ffic Clean water Rcvolving Loan and grant Ftmd bm goon subinitted . and denied in the latest revinv cycle ; (E ) repair is for a reasonable remedy to an existing waste tiwtmont problem : and ( iii) the ropalr is not for the purpose of expanding the system to accomodate future anlicipawd groNOh of a " community . Priority shall be given to econornicAy distressed units of lucal 30vCmrnCn1:, BE ■ Repair} eliminatc failiri8 septic tank systcrns ; to etirm ate, illegal drainage c6nntct oDs , and to expand waste tre .t cnt S}rmm9 if the systern Its being expanded as a remedy to eliminate failing septic tank systems or illegal draiage wnnectims , Priority shall be given to Gconomically ,FA 3MN2 4 : 1 4 FM C'Vti' MTF Cant r* uidclinc9 - ht�fprdtvrprw . �ti►' Ctil �- nCt`guidc , titrut s � 9 distressed units of local SovernmMt , fttrprove stonnwatcr controls and management 11 E cI litate planning tl) at targets reductions in surfacl�- Atwater pollution . C . CWNITF Obs' ectives and grant appUcatian evaluation and prforttlzation . (a) Grant applicxati ws� will be quantitatively cyaluuted vpon their contribution taw and achieving e pnncipal objectives of the fund : 0 } restoration of r3.egr-aded waters , (2) protection a1' unpolluted waters, and (3) establishment of riparian buffers . A numuic scoring " r- rn will wide Ilse Board and the applicants in lidKirl z*tna prospocts for funding . The following evaluation and :scoring system will be applied to ail applications: 1 - - Principal Objectives a -- Restoration of degraded waters (Point Range ; 045 ) as impaired; preferrea� Tu} ctx walk ��� re t� cc the pollutant identified as the case of wider quahU imr�pairrnent, (2) restrrre wwdandfunc_ lfons, (3) improve aquatic habratt, a € d �� r (4) pa�rore f�'�rvd Plain funct wls adjacent to Empaired waters). OR b - . Protection of unpol lt " waters f ExpfanaHon : Protection projec14 will target spe. cy1c waters that have not bezn indentifaed by IVC-DWQ as Impaired, preferred PYMvjccl� will (1) restore or maintain the naiural hyFdrologic , floiv patterns or other wader gwality vauhm: 11? g funclions of adjacent lands (e. g, rat frient reduvion processes) , (2) rnuarrtuarr � tr � arnbt�rzk sdabalL adMi reduc i?;g potential far se-diment erasion , andlor (3) avoid, reduce or elimMate discharge vfROUtdants) , AND OR a Establishment of riparian b-u.ffm car won%4ra;� s ( Po� iiit Ran : 0 = 10) 2 - - Additional priorities a - - CaDsistcney with NC -DAVQ Basinwide Maria mcni Plau (Point RX19c : 0=20) (Flylanazionnf In the event that the plan for the subj(�Cj basir� hat not beer -faunally adopied, the prq1ecr .should be articulated with iV em. rtcc to the ruprerir D WO dray plan fr� r- shad baser,) , Pre ct prapasafs witl idant0i the waters that =14111 &j enhanced, restored, or protected by so ld project. PNAs, Cratical Habitatsfor erd arsger ed aquatic .specks , !Facer Supp4' jvaj 'sked) , Proposal' .should demonstrate Integration whin other 1valur gwarty programs or strute-glas in the sub- basin) . hoe Provide mea,surablefunduririg outvomts (PointRoLnge : 0. 20 ) C- - Provide other ruwuNes {Po7 )lt }range: 0 - 20 ) d - - Applicanfs qual if cati one ( Poi lit Ran gc . 001 (J ) (Erpla wdon Preferred applieauf T will demonstrate : ��� their: ahili[y to ensure any long timC management rcquired by the project, (2) Jtduciary responsi bill y, (3) likelihood of.' uccay for their performance an themeprojecLs will be considered. e - - Develop r oan buf�'cr srecnv� ays sowing emviroarnental ., educational or recreational yes , (Point Range ' 0 . 10) f-- - Target cnviro=entauy SeWidvv waters, including ( 1 ) biSh quality waters (e . gr . wzlla supply , ORWs , BQWs etc . ), or (2) severely degraded wa> ( c , gj waters noted on D ' s 303 (d ) list ) ( Pint 2 of 3 3 , �4 204+ 4114 PM h'MTF Gmt C'ruideLin4 hUp :Ifwww. cwrntf 13wYoLIMC .htnl Range : 0= 10) , g-- Cantribute tourard integrated ecological network . (Point Range; O-5) h-- EnTploy Innovative procedures or techno . (Point Range: 0-�) loom Provide public education uses (Point Range : 0L 5) Preserve waters having special economic or reormziorLa►l uses , (point Range , 0 - 5) (b) The Board will also be truided by the following none - quantxt•ative grit in making final fur►ding decisions : i - - Applicatiorm for projects which are mandated by legislation or regulation may be funded but are not preferred. "ncc CwNjaT is not available for compensatory mitigafion prvjccts . 2-- Projects cligiblc for funds from other ainte or federal grant proL7=s will be considered, but will not be prof d unless significant matLhing res= cali azc provided. 3 -- 'fo the extent practicable, gramt awards wili he distributed ScoUWhically across the state . At least 20% of annual allocations will be targeted to each of three geographic regions of the state : mountain , piedrno & and coastal. 4,_ Me, soope axed b6neftts of the project will bd evaluated relative to the amount of the requested grant. , 5 The Board may award gram an a limited bmis for ( 1 ) 13miects which W11taw pl4ttning that target rcductaon in surface waiter pollution or protection of unpolluted waters ; c r (2 ) ? ordination with. other public programs to gain the mosc public hcnett while pretocts 9 and irnprovintg water duality; even # �o such applications may trot s�c= woll ern our rnoa, res of quantitative Mtena above. 6-- The Board may award grants to applicants for projects which tiic Boaid finds are uniquely different than the quantita►tivo criteria ealticipate and are exceptional opportunities for restoration or • pm9ervation. F3aclr to Honk F � . 3rdd2002 4; 14 Phri 1 1 41 ■ i ! LIMA 4 r L. fj i •!� • i 9 i R� 1 ' � }�'� e ppp * * melds OR AIN — Ado, ' imamsa *r _ 1 Lit �` t ohm 4m � * 1 !r 4 FS f I ' � • 1+ `f � i1 L y y 5` w j I � I � :� � ' 1Y ' r• see ' 4 9L 93 l ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONER $ ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting EAtend March 19 , 2002 Action Agenda Item Nay . SUBJECT : Legal Advertisement for ,Joint Planninq Public Hearing — April '17 , 2002 DEPARTMENT , Planning & Inspections PUBLIC HEARING : ( YIN No ATTACHMENT( S) : INFORMATION CONTACT & Proposed Legal Advertisement Craig Benedict , ext . 2592 Proposed Public Hearing Abstract and Gene Bell , ext , 2560 Attachments TELEPHONE NUMBERS : H Illshoroug h 732 =8181 Chapel Hill 9884501 Durham 683 =7331 Mebane 338 -227 =2031 PURPOSE : To consider the legal advertisement for items to be presented at the Joint Planning Area public hearing scheduled for April 17 , 2002 . BACKGROUND : The Boatel of County Commissioners revims proposals to be considered at public hearing for consistency with general County policy and presentation format . The following items are proposed for consideration at the April 17 , 2002 Joint Planning Area public hearing . A . ,Joint Planning Agreement Amendment Purpose : To receive public comment on a proposed amendment to the Joint Planning Agreement to provide a linkage with the Water and Sewer Management , Planning and Boundary Agreement , Linkage of the two agreements is pert of an overall atratay to align Iccal government land use decisions with public water and sewer permitted areas . Accordingly , inconsistent requests for lend use amendments by third persons seeking connection to public water and sever systerria would not be recommended for approval . This method is used in other areas around the country to ensure that local government utility plans and land use plans are not .thwarted through demands by land owners and the development comrnunfty that public water and sewer connections tee made Dontrary to the planned service area of the utilities . The Water and Sewer Management , Planning and Eoundary Agreement already contains a reference to the .Joint Planning Agreement in Section II . H. The proposed amendment fncorporatusJhe Water and Sewer Management , Planning and Boundary Agreement into the Joint Planning Agreement thus formalizing its previsions as land use planning requirements that have the effect of I aw, Following conclusion of the public hearing , the matter should be referred to the towns of Chapel + Hill and Carrboro for decision and then to the Orange County Planning Board for a recommandadon to the Orange County Board of Commissioners. A proposed schedule follows . Chapel Hill May 7 , 2002 - Planning Board Recommendation May 27 , 2002 - 'own Council Declelcin May 103 2002 - Planning Board Recommendation ,dune 4 , 2002 - Board of Aldermen Decision Orange County June 4, 2002 - Planning Board Recommendation June 27 , 2001 - County Commissioners Decision U . . Nen - P" ub' l1u Hearing items I . Joint Planning Agreement Timelin a Requested by : Chapel Hill , Orange County, and arrbaro Purpose : To receive a report on tirne limits specfed in the Joint Planning Agreement. The second sentence in Section 1 . 3 . B . of the Joint Planning Agreement states , "Subject to tarmin # inn provisions of this Agreement , annexation provisions of this Agreement shall be valid for not more than 20 years and may thereafter be renewed . " These provisions will expire in July 20060if they are not renewed . 2. Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Requested by , Chapel Hill Purpose : To receive a report on the proposed implements an of the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Memorandum of Understanding and Schools Adequate Public Facilities MMal Ordinance , I Land Use E I ament - Orange County Comprehensive Plan Requested by; Orange County Purpose : To receive a progress report on the preparation of a new Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan. To receive input from Chapel Hill and Carrbore through a suggested joint task force to review possible land use scenarios for the Rural Buffer, 4. Chapel Hill Comprehensive plan Amendments for the Nerthwest Am Requested bye. Chapel Hill Purpose: TO naive a report on Pmgress to and adoption by Ora nga County of the fallowing amendments presented at the April 2001 Joint Planning Area Public Hearing : ■ Changing the designation of land south of Eubanks Bead from "open Space " to " Low Residential " - + Changing the designation of land north of Eubanks Road , between the existing landfill and Millhouse Road , from Mixed Use , Office Emphasisi to Open Space + Changing the designation of par is behwen Millhouse Rand and Interstate 40 from "Mixed Use , Office Emphasis " to °Rural Residential " a 95 FINANCIAL IMPACT : None . RECOMMENDATION ; The Adminie # ralon recommends approval of the Notice of Public Dearing for Aprils 17 , 2002 . i J � Dc J 7 . 1 ORANGE GQUNTY _ 2 BOARD OF COMMISSIONER $ ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Dante : March 19 , 2402 Action Agen a Item Now SUBJECT . Appointments to the Commission for the Env Ironment ( CFE DEPARTMENT . Board of Commissioners PUBLIC HEARING : (YIN ) # o ATTACHNIENTM . Under Separate Corer 114FORMATION CONTACT : Membership List Clerk' s Office . ext . 2130 , 2125 , 2126 , 2129 Interest List Resumes /Applications of Those Who Hava TELEPHONE NUMBERS1 Appiind Hillsborough 245 -2130 Chapel Hill 9684501 Durham 688 ^7331 Mebane 336427 -2031 PURPOSE , To fill three positions on the Commission for the Environment ( CFE ) . BACKO ROU N D E, There are currently three At - Large vacancies on the CFE . ThG Clerk' s office has received 28 applications from citizens who have expressed an interest to serve on the CFE . FINANCIAL IMPACT : None RECOMMENDATIONS) a Appoint three people to fill these positions with tornna as follows : Position t 1 , first term , ending 1213112005 ; Position $ 13 and 15 , each partial terms , booth ending 1213112003 . Work Session Agenda Page 1 of 2 Work Session Agenda 99 Orange County Board of Commissioners Orange County Board of Education Chapel Hill- Carrboro Board of Education March 25 , 2002 7 : 30 p . m . Southern Human Services Center 2501 Homestead Rd. Chapel Hill, N . C . FAI°Get Acrobat° Adobe Reader Print4riendly version 1 . County OCS/CHCCS_Discussion /Policy Lswes a. Short Term and Long Term High School Planning Considerations b . OCS /CHCCS Committee on Collaboration Between School Systems c . Factors Affecting FY 2002 - 03 School Budgets d . Priority Projects — Bond Renovation Funds , Alternative Financing , and Pay- as -you- go (PAYG) e . OCS /CHCCS Capital Investment Plans f. School/Parks — Operations , Maintenance and Community Access g . Pre -K Programming — Operational and Capital Budget Impacts h . School Facilities Task Force Report — Issues Requiring Further Discussion/Resolution i . Joint Determination of School Capacities J . School Siting Matters — OCS Middle School # 3 , Proposed CHCCS High School #3 k . Middle College High School Program 2 . Issues Identified/Presented by Orange County Schools (All items identified by the Orange County Schools are addressed elsewhere on this agenda) 3 . Issues Identified/Presented by the Chapel Hill- Carrboro City Schools C a. Master Planning of the Eubanks Road/Old 86 Site b . Use of Segal Consultants C . Communications http : //www . co . orange . nc . us/OCCLERKS/020325 . htm 04/01 /2002 Work Session Agenda Page 2 of 2 (All other items identified by the Chapel HilCarrboro City Schools are addressed elsewhere on this agenda) 4 . County/OCS/CHCCS Informational Reports a. Minority Student Achievement b . Third Month School Capacity/Student Membership Updates c . Status of Durham Tech Satellite Campus Project d . Status of Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Consideration e . FY 2001 -2002 School Audit Reports httpo //www . co . orange . nc . us/OCCLERKS/020325 . htm 04/01 /2002 DRAFTc - ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS P � fi rn e AGENDA BOCC Work Session April 3 , 2002 6 : 00 p . m . — Dinner 6 : 30 p . m . — Meeting Southern Human Services Center Chapel Hill, NC (6 : 30 — 8 : 00) 1 . Discussion Issues from Board of Health ( 8 : 00 — 8030) 2 . Update of Student Capacity, Membership , and Projection Methodologies ( 8 : 30 — 9 : 15 ) 3 . Comprehensive Plan Schedule and Land Use Committee (CPLUC) (9 : 15 —9 : 40) 4 . Efland/Buckhorn EDD/Cheeks Small Area Planning Study (9A0 — 10 : 00) 5 . 2002 - 03 BOCC Goals � `j �' Orange County Board of Commissioners C1+ Agenda Regular Meeting Note : Background Material Tuesday, April 2 , 2002 on all abstracts ilable in the Clerk ' s 7 : 30 p . m. ava F . Gordon Battle Courtroom Office Hillsborough, NC 27278 Compliance with the "Americans with Disabilities Act " - Interpreter services and/or special sound equipment are available on request. Call the County Clerk ' s Office at 7318181 , extension 2130 . If you are disabled and need assistance with reasonable accommodations , contact the ADA Coordinator in the County Manager ' s Office at 732- 8181 , extension 2300 or TDD# 644- 3045 . 1 . Additions or Changes to the Agenda (7 : 30- 7 : 35 ) PUBLIC CHARGE The Board of Commissioners pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any time should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending person to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. 2 . Citizen and Audience Comments (7 : 35 - 7 : 45 ) (We would appreciate you signing the pad ahead of time so that you are not overlooked . ) a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda b . Matters on the Printed Agenda (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda below . ) 3 . Board Comments (7 : 45 - 7 : 55 ) 4 . County Manager ' s Report (7 : 554800) 5 . Resolutions/Proclamations ( 8 : 00- 8 : 25 ) a. Resolution Honoring Marcia Argo , Orange County Schools Teacher b . Child Abuse Prevention Month c . Fair Housing Month d . Public Safety Telecommunicators ' Week e. County Government Week f. Orange County Senior Games Events Days March 28 , 2002 4 : 08 PM 6 . Special Presentations 7 . Public Hearings ( 8 : 25 - 8 : 45 ) * (S 2002 - 2012 Capital Investment Plan (CIP) Public Hearing 8 . Items for Decision- - Consent Agenda ( 8 : 454 : 55 ) a. Change in Board of County Commissioners Regular Meeting Schedule b . Budget Amendment #5 c . Renewal of Consolidated Agreement Between NC Department of Health and Human Services and the Orange County Health Department d . Housing Rehabilitation Contract Award 9 . Items for Decision- -Regular Agenda a. Non-Emergency Ambulance Transport ( 8 : 55- 9 : 15 ) b . Appointments to the Schools Facilities/Construction Standards Task Force and High School Planning Work Group (9 : 15- 9 : 25 ) c . Appointments to the Board of Equalization & E&R Board Review (9 : 25 - 9 : 30) d . Reappointments and Appointments to the Orange County Planning Board (9 : 30- 9 : 35 ) e� Appointments to the Commission for the Environment (CFE) (9 : 35- 9 : 40) f. Rules of Procedure for the Board of County Commissioners (9 : 40= 9 : 45 ) 10 . Reports a. Symposium on Initiating Regional Planning to Address Potential Terrorist Attacks on Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Facilities at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant (9 : 45- 10 : 00) 11 . Appointments 12 . Minutes 13 . Closed Session ( 10 : 00- ) a. "To discuss the County ' s position and to instruct the County Manager and County Attorney on the negotiating position regarding the terms of a contract to purchase real property , " NCGS § 143 - 318 . 11 (a) ( 5 ) . 14 . Adjournment Note: Access the agenda through the County 's web site, www. co. orange. nc. us March 28 , 2002 4 : 08 PM 1 � � 105 Additional 0 Information Items Commission for the Environment Agenda I40 MV / CMS Page 1 of 1 106 term omit F M, HOME TELL US TELL A FRI H 1 0 H Q C +C u P A N C Y V E H _l . E , L F 1 C 0 N G E S T 1 D N M A N A 0 E M E N Project Overview < Get Involved :� About HOV Lanes ;� Get More Overview Information Because I40 is a vital transportation link in the region and in tl Get Involved � ' � s participation is an important part of the I40 High Occupancy V Overview Congestion Management Study . Incorporating citizen suggesti Upcoming Meetings and needs into the study process and outcomes will result in b Previous Meetings with greater support. NCDOT would like your help in guiding it: Comments/ Feedback making process for this project . Your comments and involvemi Contact Us Did you know. . . . . . . will help shape future traffic and transportation solutions that a FAQs In the United States , the and potentially constructed . first exclusive freeway HOV lanes were opened in 1969 NCDOT is dedicated to providing you with a variety of ways to in the median between the and stay informed . To assist you in getting more information al northbound and HOV CMS , there are project newsletters , handouts , a website , southbound lanes of k395 project comments received to date and more . in northern Virginia . Copyright 2001 . All rights and materials reserved . All materials are the intellectual property of NCDOT & Parsons Brinckerhoff. N httpo //www . 14Ohov . com/involved/ 03 /28 /2002 ' P I- 40 HOV / CMS age 1 of 1 107 � � HOME TELL US TELL A FRI i G kl C U r P A �1 . 0 �". ._E . H ' I . . - 1+1 .G E '�° 1 . C� F A N . . . N Project Overview ��° 2� � ` = ' : Get Involved k ' t About HOV Lanes ' v Upcoming Meetings Get More Information ' ■ Monday , April 22 ( 11 : 00 a . m . ) Project Display at IBM in f Get Involved ;; _ Triangle Park . . . .. . . .. .... . . Overview ■ Tuesday & Wednesday , April 23 -24 ( 11 : 30 a . m . ) Project Upcoming Meetings Previous Meetings Offices in Research Triangle Park Comments/ Feedback pid you know. . . . . . . Contact Us y ■ Thursday , April 25 ( 8 : 00 a . m . ) Project Display at IBM in l FAQs In the United States , the Triangle Park first exclusive freeway HOV lanes were opened in 1969 in the median between the northbound and southbound lanes of k395 in northern Vir inia . Copyright 2001 . All rights and materials reserved . All materials are the intellectual property of NCDOT & Parsons Brinckerhoff. N http : //www . i40hov . com/involved/meetings_upcomingeasp 03 /28 /2002 103 109 preparations for the data collection including logistics , staffing , and finding . Two memos from the Triangle Model Executive Committee are included as Attachment 7A and 7B . TCC Action : Receive a report on the Socioeconomic and Data Collection for 2002 Regional Model Update . 8 . FY 2002 -2008 TIP Amendment #4 (Attachment 8) 10 : 25 - John Hodges - Copple , TJCOG This amendment is the result of a recent CMAQ award to the Triangle J Council of Governments (TJCOG) for a Biofuels Rebate Program , which will reimburse stakeholders for the incremental costs of Biodiesel and Ethanol . This program is designed to improve air quality through the use of bio -based renewable fuels . The total CMAQ funding awarded for the Biofuels Rebate Program from NCDOT is $ 280 , 700 . A local match will be secured by TJCOG through a $ 41 , 250 contract with the NC Department of Administration ' s State Energy Office to administer the Biofuels Rebate Program and $ 17 , 000 from an existing Mobile Source Emissions Reduction Grant that TJCOG has received from NC DENR ' s Division of Air Quality . The TJCOG is requesting the MPO ' s support for an amendment to the 2002 -2008 TIP for this project . The Capital Area MPO has already passed a resolution supporting this project . Attachment 8 is the FY 2002 -2008 Amendment #4 . TCC Action : ( 1 ) Review FY 2002 - 2008 TIP Amendment #4 ; and (2 ) Recommend appropriate action by' the TAC . Staff Reports 9 . Reports from the Chair 10 : 10 - Mark Ahrendsen, TCC Chair I40 Congestion Management Study (HOV Study) The Chair will provide a progress report on the I40 Congestion Study. NC 54 Corridor Study The Chair will provide an update on the NC 54 Corridor Study, 100 NCDOT Report 10 : 20 - Jon Nance , Division 5 - NCDOT - Mike Mills , Division 7 - NCDOT NCDOT Division Engineers will update the TCC on the status of projects within the urban area . Informational Items 3 110 ## 8 ( 3 / 27 / 02 ) RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE 2002 - 2008 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEI`01ENT PROGRAINO1 FOR THE DURHAM CHAPEL HILL - CARRBORO URBAN AREA AMENDMENT # 4 April 10 , 2002 A motion was made by TAC Member and seconded by TAC Member for the adoption of the following resolution , and upon being put to a vote , was duly adopted . WHEREAS , The Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP ) is a staged multiple year listing of all federally funded transportation projects scheduled for implementation within the Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Urban Area which have been selected from a priority list of projects ; and WHEREAS , The document provides the mechanism for official endorsement of the program of projects by the Transportation Advisory Committee ( TAC ) ; and WHEREAS , The inclusion of the TIP in the transportation planning process was first mandated by regulations issued jointly by the Federal Highway Administration ( FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and no project within the planning area will be approved for funding by these federal agencies unless it appears in the officially adopted TIP ; and WHEREAS , The procedures for developing the MTIP have been modified in accordance with certain provisions of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 " Century ( TEA 21 ) and guidance provided by the State ; and WHEREAS , Projects listed in the MTIP are also included in the State TIP ( STIP ) and balanced against anticipated revenues as identified in the STIP ; and WHEREAS , The North Carolina Department of Transportation and the Transportation Advisory Committee have determined it to be in the best interest of the Urban Area to amend the FY 2002 - 2008 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program as described in the attached sheet ; and WHEREAS , There has been no change in the MTIP project schedule or project design concept and scope with regard to the air quality conformity finding made by the Durham- Chapel Hill - Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee on February 13 , 2002 . Now , therefore, be it resolved that : The Durham- Chapel Hill - Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee hereby amends the FY 2002 -2008 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program of the Durham- Chapel Hill - Carrboro Urban Area, as approved by the TAC on April 10 , 2002 as described in the attached sheet . Carrboro 1tiIP0 Durham — Chapel Hill — Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program Amendment #4 — April 107 2002 FY 2002 - 2008 Justification The DCHC MPO will approve Amendment #4 to the FY 2002 - 2008 TIP on April 10 , 2002 . This amendment was requested by the Triangle J Council of Governments ( TJCOG ) to develop and administer a Biofuels Rebate Program to reimburse stakeholders for the incremental costs of Biodiesel and Ethanol . Incremental costs are the price differentials between alternative fuels and their conventional counterparts - gasoline and diesel . This program is designed to improve air quality through the use of bio - based renewable fuels . The total CMAQ funding awarded for the Biofuels Rebate Program from NCDOT is $ 280 , 700 . A local match will be secured by TJCOG through a $ 41 , 250 contract with the NC Department of Administration ' s State Energy Office to administer the Biofuels Rebate Program and $ 17 , 000 from an existing Mobile Source Emissions Reduction Grant that TJCOG has received from NC DENR' s Division of Air Quality. 1 .13 Pam, con ct o � o Q � c� Q o � O � !� CO OON 0 0 .� LO (0 CO CD co cq CD co (D00d' O O CDmm MOOM T- ONM NMt� C� LO I` O Cn O Co c- . W% COpp CO CD CDO co CD It �-- � 00 00 0 mot' CD a CD N M r- �- lo N LOo 0 0 LO 00 T-- CO C� ti ti co N co r%%m CD m CD V� 0 M;t co co r- 00 m a0 09 9 00 LO 0 C) t� t` (D r r- 00 00 ti � co d- M � N �fi O p � O o o a 0 m CL .�c O O 10 O a, 0 O it CANAdi A, ve to •`t _><.s�t7I. •J?•'h' x;.�y v:`c�^Q 'N„ ri'. tx�:y?.pia� '.} j Ry', :-A.1 i r • � it �ei �. - J'�rr 'n ',,�y`yJ .1i .'-.t y i T;rall7t ..,�t'+,�i;JCAN sC1 ;`'1`'. Y• a 1 :t �" J•'��- ;„ r�., � �eate y' •� .,� ; '' JrC .•o?-•-,: •, j 1 k7go Ad v.y Fad C 4 1 .j Cr 't G e " e Re ;ry i :I 4 i , % 4 ' It . i,:r": AN 1*Iy*e'% u i� ;f�`'� � T i r + iCard, ^"r ' f y� d` ^; uj r e y ; date I " �1� I 41 ' s roI `.r. . , :.3 I r 1i vi , yEs`^ . . w' r r— . II -fir,"o", . 3 '"Is,•' -. t) 4} r-I it IN , �1 . r _ a r 'x ..j' � C ..V k. { - _�� i CAVy r r ' ' 4' r Ad" ae I£� t - °INCtF ti r. iMA ys 0 Is I I'Voltv ` ti j k�. i��, 4 ~u . new 1>,p WIN I Ali I r ',-r£f;..•!7t . .Ie d ,.-` ��tr y • ' :e - _ - nr ' , 7' be _ At IF. S 'L ,�:).r. ✓'. ..y. T . we R'T i• - i � 15 4 ' L>a 7Y . ;. .1 ITT t t tdw IRA IF 6 t 'a ,flee . a d �,sa .;ikAN A I Ad1 "tasa Too. aw`F�iag � £eN y �lttr - . _ . t0 0 I t� S + V { rC tti t tTo T i 1. - t >LsP"If�y . I - r IN I to I t Re VIC I RE be N IV a I A N.A. I I . ', CIA, IN I A A A� A VAN I '�j t.ty RICO . I _ ...y —I S l + t ral t ! i J i fit s '' . . y„ .y tRC pn fri ; r , It a - - r rf +ant r . ' s. t aA. ray SIs74: � - r i . . of r A. _ts I to r S 'J. t t - C T r f tr. . 11[ r ' 'CAN : t_ Z ` jt CA; y ""?�.s,{+ Ja,.. ;' 'y i i .' - I - 7e x r✓, % 1. :IAV I t VA fi 4IF I .^�. ap„ 3`�: T�':Ir mut a. 1m � • rN . _ .. L' }AV ,r }.r ', x . II IR we 0 .I.' III : CA CA I , _ yr . 1 ) ;It ft D' t C - 'G 1 A u � ; � ' � f did ,A NO - `l:r+ r , ?' .-dC RE `.3 t IN y � ' • 1 1 t t 4 , 1 r ?%,it5t, 4 ' y rt ♦ 1 J 4 t" t� j _i ♦; r, G ! 'r pa .t- IYt 1`, ( r; 1 .'r s s - � ' •ta OR I c r £ ` Is a To�+j "r c 't r Ad 7% i i ' ( f t f c� , t I L tFftr Ad , ' , t r �Iir t , ! •I. ' I ' ; fr" s:.' 14 tr _ 3 'W I %' I % . } C - . r • r r a ? ' rir t ^ )1v{ '� � A .1 >, • r - . I . , .: .,F 2 R. AM V, tl + I . 'Jl . ' rJIf A tl: 1 L _ t . • > a tv t t - a IV 4. >.IN % : y _ '' g C -� J 4 4.S't' Y ' t I r r£ " 1 r. I , t _ F �.. tr jf> 7 Yp I� � � J K #•' `L r al w W �f + t s r t .t { 1 , r ( Now yr ri A I I J4' .s p _ c. " 1 'b i �`.I a j s �/£ 1 ' r =/r ' ' ' A. ' f 7 We .`ir , I I1 J y . t+ •�' C;f< .� I. Ir r • (+rd r y* 'F` }l�<� ,(at "1+"i , rr p , ,t 7j1 t r ' r 1 S �>%44 2 7 �L Imp1 �. r,7� M`�{�rJ t }Ei : r 1 • t- t t rIII S '� %7:•.,d7 % 4.' - • s5 , L .I of ^Si t 5Y t £ _ r . ' CC��v .(i14 t Cr ! • . 5 • fW ' iyr err taj'p I 7 1 r + �.L fth • 1 7 III -r . -.'�' CC I £ ° {,_rp. 7 �' , id s '�' # Ga c I • , to I - ARIA, < rOr at r �o't 1� A Eb _ 1 Arsaffi ' t ^ � lid +j 1 n 1 , .. >k 'Y . � 't „y "!� Syr n q p"f £ _ , t f • s rCC �. .y " � ''l . , :�{ yrx ' ty. . . . t �• � hetfe7C � - s a . } aj�. I de,s �rAre. ♦ h ,- 'els iy £� ''+ i� to 'J e_ '�" `, fr. i i P ( t 4 ;►Z ,rr . 1IN A 1t V4 S �i° 2„ •. t • w r !� y3• ` ' t,y}p jt�. X ;4t` . ilt i'rf:4>F'lQ � ) .�t .rr,l } tr i. sI r +i:3 o14 + if d _ r K c it `xAt Jl` ' ��!' � C�y„ .. X y a 1 1 I ` I. S_v ♦ a 1 �ry p• i13t 4 � �4y,,r .r' KL r � I.' to � .5 t, ' A. t ,�yyy `� . CRITICS,� +,t,4s s i t I PUN�� Y`"_ .s>.. ..: IN - s i�(�R•'T" ,�Il!W"p{'�1s=.S-fx, E>'.C`I '� A• 11 � i - r . .`S 1 i ♦ i l V'�3 r -t . ' V. i 3 w;' r � 'JJ r�t . at . t�yf t l'f<t'�'rr' ' t i l l p.('y . ' ' I •r t rt . r :.i I . t v ti read:f}+ Of t.: r' 4 S• F'7 6 Ca .� }I v,,. I� i� � i •'t'' s - i •VARt 'l y v,_ 1 } r Y, I Steil } '!K�t ato A .i j� J- J w: . 9 + 1x JI .A 4 1 t�� F' , ts! � o s� ,N D � 1 K:J ♦ )� • ' _C. '` TS •�!' ( �k I l � y t �' L , S A -4 . . r t Go ddit, OR E - CA Alto; -II A1 �. yt �k I — AV Y•aL 1I. I INlyt, • r '1r �t�r[ }b.. !��II L c f+yi Y It l : t ) ~' .5 tr 7q i ' ' I .Si t ti I ' arAd - t ° Lj tr R . �. •y�,.t... •ii• '' - ''1S .S �i'.'didrq, {.,{tiJ �. . :y . . 1� , py�� T Y- ,,,..,{ Ir '� ,/a ta 'ti xt Jf . • E . � A- I did w rS.. Zia AS,Nowr F lCom`i: ~ - 'tit^ . �f• 43 'C Y' IN I ( S a F gvr r '�rivit� r � ' e � r{ �Y � • t I ,Ir1do N IN CARL It I r-; i Z.;'- ?C• '_'- Xu jrk •''6:.>iv r .P1111EPA •1'i•� " �I „ ? . t '� 1 y • ' ' • L^. it I _ ` t r ';" �; - y _ ram. '', ¢: I ,I _ ,1 I. r tnr Nine J I'I '!' Y -i _ '• £ ,,i 1 - + fib A I III VAR I IN r` ```c re t RICO : I Rl,Or 4- �Fa. _I fM - I _ l . lto I i -} -y ✓J1. tS 1• .. Of I .. �r ,Lj):t • ' S�4 CIA. . _% 5 . 6I ItF• •YE'y1`�yf,;I'']yj��. 5 v "r,j�wel'4!.iR '1 I _ " AY . . t{ 6 'I Y I Amw� •. 0. {T.4 IAw.. . t yl. % ACT -y �� + ii %.% . s �, f• �•t�.•y 'T .{+p�. . 4 } P . }�{{id lr r'"I•tY : i •f _ . . J . � rt •ri- 7Pg� n I r `.�y�YCtA.y"„ t�-tRytr � , v.�, #T-� sss':4 �� _ r Net I A go S I. ir+• 1 tL . I . . . ,y i oz A fig. > �! r ej It t >� " D . '[' i + - _ TOO yS.7ii . rnr , y , Tl AV - . J ill IN I . :< iAdd Ad - ! to - do - YYY i16 ,'I .r'j}p. ..yl Ft �+ '•°t*i t fa 'rff: ,si fO. Wi 'r - 'D{.�e � Ili 6 'p IAN RAW - ,:--C�:' ,,3 _ .E �, � '•@3,�' % ' j� >•. ;eyl�e,�, dye' a I I I pi I , Aill' I At I I I ;vilA 1 `ic , . t t td S ; ; t `,tsj� 1 AV I I berNt r „ I -< 'I - 1 1) r1� tE $ - �' r ,; rYa . N AT A _ _ +, `_rti , : n y r sy{�ji =. , �'� * a 99 �GAIL « , y4am$- '>� I N I e 1 1 S �.) 1 ' I ,' r t ;•� r V iti ` . '•tt�. t'o�li.• � E It IV A AN 1. CA a .Ndid Apa"; I I A. �e 5 'I I Jay A IAN IF legal I ttaCl i I .. I ode �, � a 1' :,J " '' is 'tom I 1.p vhhf t t• t �r _ - hwo ::� : i —j t 3„ wed I t LR y f XX %I eIA` I��- ),")K+f �Ti'4c'1,,�� '1'. 'fit.( i ,i ! 1 "..i•. s9a ask .•r % am . - _ I Lok RE A, I I Z IY'�4 Mj •_:9 I;jr . . i WI;_ _ - .etv Ike.". ;[.. 'I "A 'IIITfi +"A fee - .. C.:tom i ='w .{t y 3 A .^rs�ti£•A. pA..ryi` ady ..• {yl It f S k 6 4,43 I I WON WAR, ad it I I IN tR Pfi f ro CAN `! of I Ji r! Ne r•, Y !SO y jew CA sol at D ' 1I ClIdJrnft I IN 1 S' S 1 t 4 y t - s 3 11 �t_`dt fi 1 ORr. p� `h. RJR - c ' � � '1. +S ti el Role rat £ ��i,�}£ I�fACT". IRAN �h l' q�JI yr , s. ML, K i g ed' y S 6�+s. �`^ ++t �!= 6 _ s J , j '1` YR.s, < 1. �'w . ,,Addre CAy IN .estw % .w.?!' I.R7Ep jI� 6;lI ow l 1 '• ,• Nor • i . t ' y ,.� , `? %6 F ; e'C— f[�y £ e t : .' ?=.L y . t' 1 :.�txaV. M:o. 'R iuNALRORRAOR •.� .A - ➢....dv` 4k s• tit • t . t1•_ � F Ae Uilol . 000 11 14 c _ O 0 0�d CIN 7t cu CL C, Z U L O � O 000 000 INC O O . as � a .� auI � uaa .� ad 117 • POO 0 rum • � ci r•-� � O • 4--, • �, o o ct � 4� c� r—, • • M O ct > ct ct ct ct 00 Q • r-.r g st Ilk ;:w n mGoq kn 44 44 -944 118 c� O v v � G'C Q � �I 11 ; O polo pro H . a . POM 04 • � �; `� �' M= O • � �i ' PRO Piz w M 1 a PEA ENO E � e� � � � � O 4� � �b.4 � ai 1• � W �" C� POO PLO a A,, • �, Cl %%%%%PEA P60 , �o ;moo Ct ZJ ago wo POO pumo H H h a a 4 W O '� 44 '� 120 qro i .;:-II i . t . : 1 b y t r 4a ��. 4t ' L It I'm IIe It I 44 It 4 t it 4 340 VI : �. f low I fir, � Y� LrH ��.- r tal �+• �C. . �. ---�r . + la , cl . . 1. rim tit' rl "1 r : jlSIC L .�_ i'III vma. -, I I I .. ,e 1 9 ' WOO t� F t o :. as o r. iVat -rim j . : WR wit ul lampVP d! m d? b 4! m } .'s at Q�. O: 0:. 10 Ci . oa Z .} ' •w�'. \��Sa�+•1��' 'sR\��.•St��."L�'+���°k' tia'.S4 i.•.� w`eye'ti'�,`'.�.`��..L� f,.�Q•ei. i ; • � . 4.y��'L � � •' ow wl ar 10*6 Is 1 6' a a.�l.-a��a `. ti �Z.. . .� �'_ '�♦ �j;- ,. 4� • C - t4• ' 60 AL 1IF t - ' Im t i • �•..... . `� � � `:.1.i�i. •M l�` Lei V . ; . L•j4, + • a r -, v SIM N Is • 1 \ dw ME ti It If . .._ ,4. - � - . VA ' �° ew No IV. ; Ne Imp to -IN to Or- C Vo >u ` — �qIIIIwq IV Ve,:It 10 Ot nL tow No I e No too. two W2 tow Ip It I . tiIt _ . tit _r - bl to % It ZVI �7 Y 'S.: : : bo a• i 1 ► r r L r, . IV IV ` ,• : .y ` Its ' 4 iY - a�;0 : 0 v OIV. .IV Immow - ,mms - • ....._. , IV I IN . ; �,■� _ LLW am -� vV _ Z�., -See ......- IN e ►ti■�I rVIVV i oVV0K 4 .. o _ V. : 4. I nIf It - 1 - - � .. CD ._ ... 4aVER % YVe „ ,, �r NIV t V000 cr e ff %.;td— w.. 31 771 41 to "o Q o �` ♦may a� .. V (C C _ !] •� � � Ix b : S •g j � W ":s _ LL "ENO $=4 En CIOo ago o 123 to t r ;A. I . - � _ Ad Al A. ta ' tAd ! OC Iq\ or loodelf volt . No :AdqI A too -Ado V •� of Add WIN of A," Voodoo FIt r r.top I it —I III Wool, 1: h 14 Al AA,A Allow loo. " Ad do Ad IF __. . ` do AmI _- j Ad Ad at fw dom Ad 16 food If I + :No A ) : I � I t Add — — JVold Add •' � , A l4 IV Add L ~ y ` 'J t (Ad of F Ad. I older I ;IL 4WVA `ow Add Ilm:moe dir N i"Add .i ,.,A, old% f:_ i " � . ' I. ' ~1st ., ,.. .-. � fy•. Ads of do Y Ad A - o - } Add,Am;pV L. . _ I . Y ' O +i I ' ^ i : s .i i ` r '"A It 1� O a 1 do Voodoo Z. —Aft•• Ad L' q — mm•:� ��...� lot fol. . IN _ _ = ,,. , il. ' �-s � ' lSL '�... ' rI .Ado.—mil .i .-•� •J . — ' Ad, ''_ i~ dd 1 ' If Ad Vol. AdVAwr4 y Cod- low elf to No I ar a do. .t.. Alto Vold. rd : E . . —`--�� __.. Apollo Add, I 3 . Al I VIA It odd do w Vol y low Id, I,dro old 0 do. Alto VIA Id — i ;•T'�No dJ •.r "i--- ,ors-•. ; At iT \ 1 • � / m *00 Nll If of •' Jl rd AS .. _ A. 01 ' t tom. .... _ _ ^'�� 1 Atoo .". do dd AIMED AN Ad o loommot door. =t . I Ad If 'Allow Ad w6J 1A to pI NO LU _ _ - S ...... _ _ flood � � O oo j tAApVAVAI% G O - id. . . . • iamb 4� IF I. IF IWOF, r - r• - ^ _ Folkr ANI IF OF wwwwwo.! 9I two :•r P. • '� ■ , FINN.�. or _�I "N moo r` Fro A, to PIP ljo ;Boo Flows I ilow J � i r . ? "r kk v; AIR 4 IF • 'fir oft ::Now, kY,. IF, OF to OFF/ Fit 1 cd LJPANIF FO wFpF !: ti It IF 0 PEN Pool ram" •-_-� j f O wool IFFIL _ looks, F IFw ale. I Folio PowPEN IF . CLIFF' pt 0 itwho !( _ too, -i lRR "' { � � 44, L , + ri a r % ._+�. ?' ~ram N IF we lolz OFF OFF, 44 ( Wolof t` • .tip--' •�. ? 'i\ •� 6j 1 , POP \t , 1YcY" �� � .� ' L lv S 1 � R3 ! � : ..,X : ,. J // y'�. "il.�` C. r 1 N OC �I /. xf 5. Pommor � rrt 1 lid CIO yw T . - a : • OF, ,1. .• low fY ' r 71 . ..-:t . ~ •� {{ _ `11 .�1 F ' _ tr �,'S two, C] PIP 40, owwoof i US 1'�5H Byp OFFs _ ,, ; li /�OFF —�• - Y— t� ` / IF ? two, e o ` - �• ' IF "Powwo? to PP I Pop I+ Poll ^NNN POP _ _ _ IF For IF 7 l IF IF lot IF FIT `--�. �- POP For IF Owwwwwwwww" , IF OFF I I Or Floor F IF IF I IF OFF, i Or IF t IF IF IF or POPP, Fit IL Fool FS � . M YR -rl•�1 1.r 1.-. '.1 .•1 ,� if—� �•,; , •, Fw,P IF : t- Iowa t It IF C. `y jSt � . 125 k At kV o11 tom_ i � �_-� _ t. ; •.i -: x r •• i LAVA11 Ao o oVL it • .._ � r . .s.:r. do o Amp to I We po- AoAlwW /L! to ,,. ✓ '^ ' .__-' N O m "J Ci totAA Arr,0 Lm v • i Memo c � . ( 1 c•� . ono . —r 1 c'— ;f =Not MWIDPARP o 4 l ' e 144 . o !'NomP c.� NAAse T, i'. r t r vp t• ' o i r 1.�. • _ .- moo . — _ •4 °' ` T 4 _AV AV too so� of AAV Aw \ ` 1 //� .40 —ti - fir POO 0�0 J% _ i it j �s Aeor Ao j r`fts Y % too jo4: toO VA. jig :�. 1—r ' . . . :..... aI a u, o o 0 126 a� c� a� e � O � CCU o c 03 cn Q • ° ct o ct w con Ct cn o ° ormlj J'WIIJ TV\ 1� 127 �l bo 00 cn cid OIrmci oc 00 Con c�3 Pon '� o ZVI o o� 0 0 � o o �+ Piz . � r � C:8 � � aoo3 ran PM 0 � � , ENO 4� 03 44 N ct Cld con 0 ct al C8 c� O cn ct . , RO . . CCU O Emm� w ►-� . o a� 0 r--ll cs � o a� C� T T T O • PM4 v � 129 t Y � Yd poop r sc tWR � g '{ �- ,k-jft,7xTe. Y y,�m fr r 3! Y �:� ' • : 7 � � ,� r � r . rL;��rt�, a.a ��,4 "r' ������` ' .I+ �r K . rye } b4 f M. ,.. F ! fi d J SI L• s T1 3tllYS } ,•�•k�"'`4` N t H 1 Y P''1 . '1F� R� >f �' 3 A., s�`^F '' ,r (V . tot t +f $6,�:�- ; :- . ' ' _._: .. .. . ' � :�•'�6'� �:.'.�• Y. . ,sk. �' � � 90 4�Yur i. «rx'.> p n NOA 1 " CID 666 sw Y .� "4° Wig( �L r t3 ' r YrY* 'k t.: `a�` ,�y K. . . �� �'ps�s iy�, � ..�: ` A ; '., • . to + y _ } 3 _ 4 y ~ ,rr s r ss S S! ' s x rrto I. r til r9c � � � . . "�" 4! t,�.sc�Y,�, `r . «• " � ��. , �, � h. �•;ate" f�, a�'i. .� r PI -•± .:' was r ✓i tf r, ZIP .:IiY - � . •nf . M ' n . .F ;Boo �3 i i � � C� 130 1 � � 0 � � ct 03 U c�t W �, cd r _ cu 11 2 C O ct O o ;ENO A 03 ootoo � � � o410 E ct ;:3 cr, z 5104 T ci T T '� 3•.� > � WWU �� : � A i 131 Q a m (U X ° c ° OU) U ca C� fY E E LM m (D a� Co ° F LL �� ■ w c ¢ C cn m E E c`a cn° c`a cn ° a ° m UY U ° lq � O t L1J L O L O t O) ° N W4�= O O f �� z N tII N J C V Z Z Z Z S � W m 7 - E U Oo = ,Y aQ kk • % FF W _ ni A ITS �■■� AF �I1ell � tI IF IF I �i o IF Z14 + 3'ZAe�IF vt— ks ' + r 1 IF IF a At I. 14 IF I N ti a : a.• 4 � r . � - P •d IF .F.I � � - r : . ' : '+h�1E eF. � �� � � I , � .'' .riF`+ � ��� �,i• ,�� vt 't 3 £ � 4 •^��. :s. ' Ir - I IF } , - � . { � . . ��t ems ' r` ' f• Itif:.�'�i .< ^�.'3� ,t}�.R�`, p i ���• 'p j . i . •, n )�� ,� .' , ti z , Ft IF IF t IF IF I lift + IF rl 1• �t Sri. , a, s` 1 r h t y •.� 41d4ha+ kC � °q r µ s Sy ��!►:� IF IF } f -4 FLAW ;a t� � ta: jT • ""`: r"� a , Q r \ ti i € Fill i + F• , i`r'`� ,�" .4r. G » 6 4F, f„•I I +. i:o o srrr r -� til . . }'r * ' 'i4 .' }� i•.�r t. < �,. L7 . W w' tr-kyM1 m-. ' I , �i ' kk c� � �tet } t r�E.'�t•pJt '�2 ' kt : .. . IF V . s•+ IF . ' IF I . :, OF ,� - t.. Ai. ;+ Fes - . .- - . . . . FIFIFFFIr . _. . _ .. . . . . . . 1 : IF IF IF IF E . IF y N� �h s, : s 3 • " *qr IF '. IN, c� t �. I IF j 03 u O � C'� 4.� • s:1 CA "a* C�3 Pon* 4� O O ;HMO rME4 ctcon ocn cl I � • 01 � Ct Ct o > aUm Poll . ram CCJ � Cal cd CZ ro 00 133 SEIM= IF or or ;y . _I. To, "1 a • •� • IF or FIX I IF ; fF IF t f a r . . it t IF . . y `x IF �IF I ��. _ S• IF- For IF 'iI Fro I IF to r o � � rt a� . , _yy .C?Y.It IF I /)111 f I If IF I IF1FJ1t. i1� �1 �Wi4a: IF . x i ` . . For jt, �2 { YL"Puc3IF I I IF Y' F _ It ^�J%% IN IF 34 I or T :i Y 3i '...� , raj tIF So » f K .o{,,. to G+1' kPf 1IF ]inFor FI or IF �+to �lfcpp F �} } Ty�rs. � .7.Li . r ✓ . . .,^,ram si � Ff �,j t. r.�, f •�Ati ` V � I IV IF IF, Fe y ` 1 rl >Ib If¢ Sf ' G OP sa• 1n I h F . � . IF e It It It I I IF IF F IF IF' IF FFrT IF IF to it i � . �} 2",1Y • fl , i ' IF o I. r►. . r z, A. 13 A m ENO Emo r 00 CEOs O �,� . . • � ITT um O 4� 'b 4LN , it' T,1 IS.ft 1,11T moll' 00 f 6Ig O t c ao r , i ` - T i c zi t InTj Toni MEMO c� O O *ma ° 135 • � ■ N bA :� +� ct cn E--� °O • ••" v ro rwo roc ct romq ct ct U O • ""O ; too O p3 n to v U .� ♦' p m '� ' •� 4� ctto • irmml mml ct � • � ctct cn ` Pogoct 4) 4) Eww o r � cn • � � CU • P* 03 ct Q 03 z 4� ro r •40 via ail +c 4� ct con i m O U Ct P* tj U cn CA cn oj 4 I qcu aj J � • ^ m sa c 137 0 mom O m . � U C� ct c�3 CCU b�D O � b,4 � � O O � - ct a� � N O � • n '� ct c3 . POO 3 O >1 w O Q rx • � a� ct �, . O r p CCU o ct cid pm cd Cld ct ct bA v� • ,� v ccd �3 c� W Emm� co cn Pon* c�...., V cis '� �-F--i cu 0 ct � . � C� � . 139 a� c o ct Un cn ct cd U 4.� O ct ct ct cn cd ct ct act � � iao ■ y � • � h o o o Q h Dave Stancil - Fw : CIRCULATE TO cfe ? I Page 1 141 From . mark g smith < mgeesmith@juno . com > To : < DSTANCIL@co . orange . nc . us > Date : 3/ 17/02 12 : 46AM Subject : Fw : CIRCULATE TO cfe ? l Dave . . . do you remember if I 've already passed this thing along to you ? Mark Mark Smith @ home , 919 929 1135 3108 Five Forks , Chapel Hill , NC 27516 --- --- ------ - - - - - ----- -- -- - -- -- -- - -- - ---- - -- - -- - -- - -- - - - - - - - ----- --- -- --- " Economics of Conservation ; 'Wildscaping ' Can Protect Habitat and Turn a Profit" Corpus Christi Caller-Times ( 01 /22/02 ) P . D6 ; Elder , Laura Rufus Stephens , an urban biologist with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department , is hoping the concept of "wildscaping " will catch on with area homebuilders . Through wildscaping , builders preserve wildlife habitats - food , shelter , nesting sites , and water - by conserving the trees , shrubs , and plants growing underneath larger trees on the site . Wildscape - certified projects must protect or restore half of the property' s native plants , leaving enough to protect animals from weather and predators . Urban sprawl - the extension of suburbs into surrounding areas - has damaged many habitats , but Stephens says designing developments differently to incorporate the environment can help solve the problem . However , labor for a wildscaping project can be more time -consuming and costly because workers have to guard against destroying trees or plants . Even so , Stephens says wildscaping can be profitable for builders . For instance , Mike Ortman ' s 29 - acre wildscape project cost an added $ 1 , 700 in labor , but the units quickly sold , lowering the overall cost with a faster investment return . (www , caller-times . com ) - -- - ---- -- ---- ---- --- -- -- - --- -- - - -- -- - - - --- r i farmland rep ort Covering the policies, practices and initiatives that save farmland and open space Since 1990 • Deborah Bowers Editor TWO TYPES OF EASEMENTS OFFERED Florida devising state PDR and TDR programs TALLAHASSEE FL — Under legislation passed last that affect the natural hydrology of the land or that year, Florida is developing a statewide purchase of detrimentally affect water conservation . . . " development rights program and a pilot transfer of "The first priority was to get a document that development rights program localities can opt to addressed agriculture first, and environment sec- use if approved by the state . Both programs are in ond, " said Craig Evans of the Florida Stewardship the early stages of development . Foundation and a member of the rulemaking com - The Rural and Family Lands Protection Act was mittee . Easements in Florida to date, Evans said, enacted without funds, but the legislature called for have been complicated, too restrictive and simply a needs assessment that was recently completed . too frustrating for farmers, even preservation - The report recommends $ 25 million for the pro- minded ones, to take on . gram ' s inaugural year, which would begin this In addition to the two forms of easements , up July . to 10 percent of program funds can be used for two The program is still in rulemaking, with two types of agreements that aim at further protections — committees working on eligibility criteria, ap- one , the Resource Conservation Agreement, could praisal guidelines and acquisition objectives .Ed Koester of the Division of Forestry, Florasoccur in conjunction with an easement, the other, the Agricultural Protection Agreement, as a forerun - ida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Ser- ner to an easement , vices, said the programs of Delaware, Vermont, Under the Resource Conservation Agreement, Pennsylvania and California have been reviewed to landowners could receive annual payments for con- see what aspects might be adaptable to Florida . serving habitat and water resources . The agreements But, he said, agriculture in his state is fairly unique run from five to 10 years, and eligibility begins in its operations and economics , upon settlement of an easement . For this reason , "we ' re not looking to model (Continued on page 2) our program after anybody ' s, " he said . The Rural and Family Lands Program will of- fer more than just one protection arrangement for Florida ' s farmers and landowners . Volume 12 , Number 5 March 2002 In addition to a traditional conservation ease Nor - ment, which could apply environmental restrictions Maryland lot rights in legislature again . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 defined under Florida statute 704 -06, the program Minnesota council to consider regional PDR . 686 . . . . . 5 will offer "Rural - lands -protection easements" Kentucky program gets $ 10 million boost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 which would only restrict construction of non - News Briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 agricultural buildings , subdivision, and "activities Job Postings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Farmland Preservation Report is published by Bowers Publishing, Inc. 10 times per year . Subscription rate of $ 205 includes index and hotline services. Editorial and circulation offices : 900 La Grange Rd . , Street, Maryland 21154 • (410) 692- 2708 • ISSN : 1050-6373 . © 2002 by Bowers Publishing, Inc. Reproduction in any form , or electronic forwarding of this material without permission from the publisher is prohibited . 143 Page 2 farmland preservation report March 2002 Program would cost $ 100 million per year (Continuedfrompage 1) already been passed by the House, with a lot of sup. The Agricultural Protection Agreements pro- port from both agriculture and environment groups , vide payments to landowners whose lands include p People are reaching across former enemy " significant natural areas " and are 30-year contracts lines to support this . " that have the same effect as rural - lands-protection easements during the period . Contracts include the State would approve pilot TDR areas state ' s right to buy a conservation easement at the Reaching across enemy lines is something that end of the term , or, prior to sale or transfer of the will have to happen even more , as the state endeav- property , even after the 30-year term . Easement ors to put together the other program Gov . Jeb Bush purchase may also occur at any time during the term signed into law last June . The Rural Land Steward - ofthe contract if both parties agree . Landowners ship Area Program, twin to the Rural and Family can receive up to 50 percent of the purchase price of Lands Protection Program , would authorize coun- the agreement up front, with equal annual payments ties to designate rural areas of 50 , 000 to 250 , 000 following * acres , a single area containing both sending and re- The law calls for giving preference to ranch ceiving zones . The pilot program would authorize and timberlands " managed using sustainable prac- five such areas around the state . The areas "shall be tices . "According to Kuester, the primary goal of the located outside of municipalities and established urban growth boundaries, " effectively creating de- program is agricultural protection , but when two velopment zones as well as preservation zones top- scoring farms "are equal for sustainable attrib- within rural areas . "Transferable rural land use utes, those properties will compete with natural re- credits" would only exist in the designated areas . source attributes . " The rules committee determined The pilot program is still in the discussion that the three top natural resource attributes most stage , according to Walker Banning of the Florida important for the state are significant species habi - Department of Community Affairs, which adminis- tat, groundwater recharge, and natural floodplain ters the state " s growth management concurrence protection . law . "We have not excluded cropland, " said Evans, "1 spend a lot of time on the phone . People are "but the emphasis is on agricultural land with sig- mulling the concept over. So far, no takers," Ban - nificant resource values, " and rangeland and forest Wing said . provides water quality protection and wildlife habi - Recognizing the difficulty of establishing tat in addition to agricultural production , transfer of development rights programs , the Flor- In its assessment report prepared for the legis - ida Stewardship Foundation garnered a private lature, the Division of Forestry recommended that foundation grant to organize the Rural Lands Stew- the program ' s objective should be "to protect one ardship Council . Made up of farm and environment acre of agricultural land for every acre lost over the groups , as well as the lead state agencies involved next decade . " That would mean a 900 , 000 -acre and local government representatives , Craig Evans preservation goal under current estimates that the said members have already been named and the first state will lose 1 . 3 million acres in that time , and, of meeting set for April 10 . those acres, 70 percent from forest and rangeland . The cost over 10 years was estimated at $ 1 . 46 The transfer of development rights (TDR) was billion , roughly $ 100 million per year . Entering the first established for the purpose of farmland preser- public arena cautiously, however, the report recom - vation by Calvert and Montgomery Counties in mended just $25 million for the program ' s inaugu - Maryland , and in the New Jersey Pinelands in the ral year, which happens to fall in one of the worst early 1980s . Since then, several dozen localities na- budget years of the last decade . tionwide have established the legal mechanism to What are the chances of funding? Evans says enable transfers , but few have succeeded in reach - even with the budget shortfall , " it ' s possible . " It has (Contimied on page 3) March 2002 farmland preservation report Page 3 land Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation ( MALPF) and request "owner ' s and child ' s lots" without having to prove , or legally be held to, the ing program goals of protecting large areas from lots being used only by family members . Such lots development . designate certain areas to be are allowed by right, on approval , at a density of TDR programs des protected , called sending areas , and areas to be de- one per 20 acres owned, up to a maximum of 10 . veloped or to receive increased density, called re- According to some who follow actions of the ceivi MALPF Board of Trustees lot requests appear to ng areas . Transfers are market driven , with de - , pp ii have increased in recent years . Some local admmis - velopers purchasand using them to n i g development r ncrease the density allowancesghts or credits , trators believe the intent of the law has been abused in many cases over the history of the program . on sites within the receiving zones . MALPF staff was unable to provide statistics on The Florida approach would most closely re- semble the Pinelands program , which shifts devel - the number of lot requests that have occurred . opment often from one rural location to another, House Bill 1384 , introduced by Delegates with the objective of protecting the most environ - wheeler Baker and Nancy Stocksdale, both mem - mentally sensitive locations . The Pinelands program bers of a task force that studied the MALPF pro- has protected more than 16 , 000 acres of environ - gram last year, would restrict the number of resi - mental lands since 1981 and is operated by the dent' tial development rights on land excluded from Pinelands Development Credit Bank, an independ - the district to a density of 1 : 50 and a maximum of ent state agency created by the New Jersey legisla- four . And , unlike current regulations, landowners ture in 1985 . The designated Pinelands area covers would have to stipulate the number of dwellings 934 , 000 acres of pitch pine and cedar swamp for- that would be built on the excluded land . ests, cranberry bogs and blueberry farms . Further, the bill would enable the MALPF Contact: Craig Evans, 5612894690; Ed Board of Trustees to approve applications based on Kuester, 850 414-9929, Walker Banning, 850 922 - whether the owner has used buffer or other tech - 1785 niques to protect the preserved portion from the ef- fects of new homes on the excluded portion . MAR YLAND The bill stipulates buffer areas, trespass pre- ventatives including fences , placement of road ac- Lot rights , upfront ex - cess in relation to farm machinery use, and other factors "to protect the state ' s investment in agricul - c l u s i o n s issue back on turally productive land and to prevent adjacent de- velopment from compromising the potential for ag- legislative agenda ricultural production on the proposed district or easement . " ANNAPOLIS, MD — What one observer called " a The bill also addresses requests for house complicated and contentious issue, " has surfaced lots on the portion of the farm to be preserved , first pro - by relating them to reserved rights on the excluded again in Maryland ' s farmland preservation portion of the farm in terms of total number of re- gram : how to accommodate applicants who want to retain some house lots without jeopardizing the ob- served rights allowed , and second, by increasing jectives of the program . the monetary penalty for each lot request . Under Some local administrators claim House Bill current rules , landowners who originally sold the 1384 , now in the House Appropriations Committee, easement may request up to 10 lots at any time fol - would tighten current rules , but create other, lowing easement sale . Under HB 1384 , that number equally difficult problems . would diminish to one lot for the first 20 acres and Under current rules , applicants to the agricul - one lot for each additional full 50 acres minus the tural district program, the first step in easement sale number of reserved lots on any excluded portion of eligibility, may exclude a certain portion of a farm the farm — up to a maximum of four on both the from the preservation deal . And, even after an ease- preserved portion and any excluded portion . ment is sold , landowners can go before the Mary- (continued on page 4) studiesCase published 1 the American Institute o 15 Certified Planners 1_ 0It FALL 2001 38 AS E B OOK Restoring a Suburban Stream in Grove itiy, 0h1* 0 By David F. Greene , AICP lanners everywhere are concerned with protecting the environment , especially water resources . We routinely prepare watershed plans , greenway master plans , and regulations to protect riparian corridors . In cases where streams are already degraded , however , engineers tend to lead restoration processes instead of planners . Planners can play a greater role in the restoration of riparian corridors , if they understand the dynamic forces of stream hydrology and some of the causes of streamside degradation as well as provide leadership in coordinating restoration projects . They can also advocate more natural methods of restoration . This case presents the lessons of restoring a suburban stream in Grove City , Ohio , called Grant Run . It describes the impact of changes to Grant Run over time and how the stream was restored , at reasonable cost , to be a Figure I community asset . HISTORICAL SUCCESSION OF GRANT RUN �. _ -- r,� K „ 3 PFF BackgroundIF `"f `�" IF IN How the Stream Became - ' ' Degraded s' Grant Run is a small tributary to the Scioto River in Grove City, a suburb of Columbus , Ohio . Its watershed is only 3 . 7 square miles . HIGHLIGHTS The early presettlement watershed of Grant Run was almost entirely eastern hardwood forest of Beech and In the 1850s , the Grant Run Maple . The bankfull stream dimensions were approximately 8' wide by 8' deep. This was adequate to carry the 1 -3 year stone event because most of the rainfall was absorbed by the tree roots and canopy. Summary : Planners watershed was a forest ( see Figure can manipulate the 1 ) . Before settlement , Grant Run natural environment to repair stream was a small , meandering stream that F '. ; degradation. grew during seasonal flooding to Focus : Watershed about six to eight inches deep and protection , tloodplain about Six feet wide . Such a narrow management, stream stream width was adequate to hydrology, greenways. transport the surface water carried After settlement, fanning and home sites replaced most of the forest. Cultivated fields allow more Timeline : 1850-present during a one - year to three - year storm water runoff resulting in three to four times more water rushing through Grant Run. To hold more water, the stream becomes deeper, by 10- 12 inches and wider by 8-8 feet. Stream trees are undercut storm event on a wooded water by the erosive force of the water and fall into the stream. Water Is more sediment laden and the variety shed . Erosion was minimal because of stream plants and animals diminishes. only about 10 percent of the water k I �_.,% ' � falling in the watershed actually ran v 1 off over land into the stream . While ?i ` the watershed was forested , large amounts of stormwater were stored in the floodplain . The final stage of development has replaced the farmland with grass, roads, driveways and homes. The runoff from impervious surfaces increases to twice the farmland levels eroding a deeper channel and severely undercutting trees that limit channel widening . The stream Is polluted with more sediment and toxic materials from roads, yards and parking lots. 146 PLANCASEBOOK When farming was introduced , some of the adjacent properties . The frequent one - year and floodplain storage and most of the trees were two - year storm events caused severe erosion as the eliminated and more stormwater ran off the land . stream naturally increased channel capacity to hold Grant Run was required to accept four to five times increased stormwater runoff. The out - of- bank flood more water during storms . As a result , erosion events swept away streamside trees and plants and enlarged the stream 's depth and width to accommo - virtually destroyed the stream . date larger volumes of water. More erosion gener- High water levels and the sediment created by ated more silt and sediment , killing most of the fish severe erosion also caused the variety of aquatic life and animal life and destroying the riparian plant to decline and the most sensitive fish and inverte - life . Eventually, the stream reached a point of brates to die . Amphibians were eliminated due to equilibrium , where erosive forces stabilized , plant sudden rises and falls of water levels because life reestablished itself along the widened stream amphibian eggs laid in high water dried out and bank , and some of the fish returned to the stream . died when the water receded . What was once a The next generation of development to succeed thriving stream became a wasteland , and what farming - sub urbanization in the 1940s - brought should have been a neighborhood amenity became about housing and more roads that further in - an erosive eyesore and a threat to property. creased impervious surfaces and stormwater runoff. What was once a ' small stream handling approxi - A Pilot Restoration Project mately five to 10 cubic feet of water per second is Born under forested conditions became a larger stream A pilot project to restore Grant Run grew out of a handling water volumes as high as 75 - 100 cubic collaborative effort among several stakeholders . feet per second under suburban development First , the planning staff of the Mid - Ohio Regional conditions . Planning Commission working for Franklin County Under the pressure of suburban development , had prepared a greenway plan that designated Grant Run was unable to handle greater volumes of tributaries of the Scioto River, including Grant stormwater runoff during flood events . The imbal - Run , as greenways with bike trails . However, other ance between stream capacity and flood volume led stakeholders— the owners of property along Grant to severe stream bank erosion that cut deeply into Run—were more interested in protecting their property from stream erosion than having a greenway trail in their backyards . Grove City had PLANNERS8 CASEBOOK attempted to address erosion problems themselves is published in January, April, July, and For information about Atce membership: by planting landscaping in the stream corridor, but October itute o Certersified of Planers, an an American InstitPlanners of their efforts were partially washed away by the high Institute of Certified Planners, an in- Certified Planners stitute of the American Planning As- 1776 Massachusetts Ave., N .W. volumes of stormwater carried by Grant Run . sociation. Washington, DC 20036 Grove Cityresponsible for controlling 202.872-0611 was res p g AICP Multi -Media stormwater and preventing further flooding of Task Force To submit a case study: Steve Preston, FAICP, Chair Jerry Weitz, Editor properties along Grant Run . Additional capacity Tom AgnotCalavi i 1405 Mid Broadwell 300Road for flood waters was needed but widening the Nico Calavita Alpharetta, GA 30004 Ernest Freeman , AICP 770.751 . 1203 stream channel and armoring the stream banks April Getchius, AICP Ray Quay, FAICP Copyright 2001 by the American with concrete ( i . e . , traditional solutions ) . Adjacent Ken Reardon Planning Association. Reprint owners opposed expensive and invasive Janet Smith property PF P Elizabeth Via , AICP permission must be requested in writing from APA. Publishing offices engineering projects that wuuld ruin the appear- Ad Hoc Memberst for Planners ' Casebook are located at ance of the stream and their properties . Carol Barrett, FAICP the American Planning Association's David Boyd , AICP Chicago office (address below ) . Meanwhile , the local office of Natural Resources Norman Krumholz, AICP Conservation Service ( NRCS ) and the Franklin Sam Casella, FAICP Planners ' Casebook is cataloged under the International Standard Serial Number County Soil and Water Conservation District AICP Commission us ISSN 1064-5519. ( FCSWCD ) had formed a Scioto River watershed Sam Casella, FAICP Sherrie Matthews, Managing Editor V. Gail Easley, FAICP Susan Lee Deegan, Designer group to improve water quality in the larger Laurence C. Gerckens, F.atcP Michael A. Harper, AICP Attn: Postmaster and subscribers watershed . That group had already determined that Norman Krumholz, AICP Please sent change of address to: restoration efforts were needed in the watershed . Robert P. Mitchell , AICP subscription Department Sue E. Pratt, AICP American Planning Association Grove City 's arborist , Bob Lowery, posed the idea of Sue Schwartz, AICP 122 S . Michigan Ave . , Suite 1600 restoring Grant Run using natural materials instead Chicago , IL 60603 Executive Director 312-431 -9I00 of the traditional concrete to armor the stream W. Paul Farmer, AICP I Please supply both old and new addresses. banks . NRCS and the FCSWCD agreed with Lowery FALL 2001 � 47 IJ and included the restoration of Grant Run as a part of stormwater does not increase significantly. When of their comprehensive water quality and stream a stream is already affected and there is no place for preservation effort in the county. A "Nature increased storage , as was the case with Grant Run , Works " grant was given by the State of Ohio to the following methods can be used to create a FCSWCD for the restoration of Grant Run . Grove successful flood control and streamside restoration City provided money ( 45 percent ) to match the project . grant funds ( 55 percent ) . Hence , the combined The first phase of restoring Grant Run analyzed objectives of establishing greenways , enhancing stream erosion and determined its " bankfull " width water quality, preventing erosion , protecting private and stream depth . The volume *of stormwater and property, enhancing community appearance , and frequency of flood events ( e . g . , one - year to three - providing more flood storage capacity culminated year floods ) affecting the stream were analyzed . in the pursuit of the Grant Run stream restoration This was very important because all of the succeed - project that was supported by city, county, state , ing levels of measurement depended on having an federal , and private stakeholders . accurate advance estimate of flood width and depth . FACTS OF THE CASE Most small tributaries already affected by devel - Any stream channel that is forced to take on opment have cut down into the streambed ( i . e . , the additional water volumes will eventually have to be first phase of stream erosion ) . When the stream widened , or it will widen itself if nothing else is contacts harder subsoils and rock , it can no longer done . Communities can apply traditional engineer- cut down to increase its size and begins to cut ing solutions to streams with severe erosion by laterally ( see Figure 2 ) . Grant Run had to be replacing slumping stream banks and threatened enlarged laterally to hold more water and decrease bridge embankments with concrete walls and stream velocity. riprap . Such engineering solutions often prove to be temporary, very expensive , and sometimes visually Figure 2 intrusive . Furthermore , they do virtually nothing to BASIC STREAM DYNAMICS ~ _ improve habitat and water quality. STREAM CHANNEL AT BEND Alternatively, streamside degradation can be NEW BANKFULL WIDTH addressed using more natural means of stream OLD BANKFULL WIDTH protection . The Grant Run neighborhood sup - ported an alternative method that would stabilize OUTSIDE STREAM OF CURVE T EROSION stream banks . Stream restoration officials helped ,�.., ... FORCES neighbors of the stream recognized the complex Od CUBIC . Streambed forces acting on the stream and applied the N . dynamic forces of stream hydrology to solve the problem . Grove City and a restoration consultant , working with the FCSWCD , sought to stabilize the stream channel so that it could carry the frequent one - year and two -year floods without erosion or the Restoration Details need for ongoing maintenance . The natural stream The stream channel was redesigned and the restoration techniques used at Grant Run can be stream banks were recontoured ( see Figure 3 ) . To transferred to other jurisdictions , and the lessons minimize disturbance , work was performed learned in the case of Grant Run can inform similar predominately on one side of the stream . The new stream restoration efforts . bankfull limit was given a flatter, wider stream cross - section in order to slow stream water flows Overview and First Steps and reduce erosion . Stream riffles were created to Stream restoration projects should be thought of as help reduce the erosive force of water. As water plans for natural systems infrastructure . Ideally, all falls over rocks and small waterfall - like riffles , of the existing floodplain storage areas—including oxygen is also added to the water. Streambeds that trees , ponds , and wetlands—would be preserved to have been deeply down cut can actually be raised , hold the new runoff generated by suburban devel - if additional width can be accommodated . opment . Streamside vegetation and trees act as a Restoring streamside vegetation and installing buffer to filter and store water during heavy rainfall . erosion controls are key steps that follow the Impervious surfaces should be minimized using redesign and recontouring of the stream . Instead conservation design techniques so that the volume of concrete , the erosion control systems used for PLANNERS ' CASEBOOK Grant Run were root wads created from trees that oversight . Planners also helped secure the grant were removed to widen the stream . The upturned funds for the project , and they helped administer roots slow the force of the water, especially on and oversee the work of the stream restoration curves , and slowly decay. Large rocks also were contractor. Grove City Arborist Bob Lowery took placed along the stream edge along with short the initiative to suggest the pilot project in the first sections of tree trunks cut down during the place , and he was instrumental in steering the widening process . The modified bank was planted scope of the restoration project toward a " natural" with cuttings of red twig dogwood , birch , maple , rather than exclusively " engineered" solution . This and willow. The recontoured bank above the project can now be used to justify more restoration Figure 3 stream edge was then seeded with grass and in greenway and community plans throughout the covered with straw. region . CHANNEL REDESIGN OUTCOMES Benefits The Grant Run restoration project provided many benefits , including improved water quality, in- : creased storage of flood waters , healthier habitat , - `'� ,� T� � �► � better aesthetics , and higher values for properties 4 - x,. along the stream . The Grant Run stream restora - �f . ,, . :; •,:� : tion project reduced the severity of erosion that was '; ►! u caused by the increased surface water flows from suburban development in the watershed . The N ULLWDTWI project saved tons of soil that will no longer erode downstream and reach the Scioto River. The bankfull volume of Grant Run after restoration is more than twice as wide as the r - The stream does not have enough room to carry flood water during 1 -2 year bankfull storm events and that about 23 feet wide , causes trees to be undercut by flood water and fall Into the stream. The stream must be widened by w ting old stream bankfull limits . High water, even during back and flattening the banks. Usually only one side Is changed to save trees, -- the first stages of restoration , has not disturbed the restored stream . The complete restoration of Grant Run took several months , but it can now handle the flow of the one - year to three - year flood events ,t, without serious erosion and without the need for armoring the banks . Stream water quality has improved , and there Vt = F will be more varieties of aquatic life in the microcli- < mate . The new plantings of red twig dogwood , BANKFULLWIDTH maple , birch , and willow will not only stabilize the bank but also help filter sediment from surface - - . runoff and slow floodwaters . Tree branches and leaves provide shade that helps reduce water The new stream has more capacity and a gradual slope to reduce erosion. Tree root wads, cut loge and • temperatures , which in turn helps improve aquatic rocks are used to stop erosion along the banks. A rock riffel is placed at intervals of five to seven times the bankfull width to slow the water and add stream oxygen. Riparian trees and cuttings are planted life . The roots will reduce nitrogen from subsurface to stabilize the bank, shade the water, filter surface runoff and provide animal habitat. water and absorb some of the stormwater. The restored stream looks much better than the The Role of Planners eroded and worn stream . Grant Run residents have Planners fulfilled the behind - the - scene support stopped worrying about the loss of their lands and roles that are much less visible than the restoration are pleased with the aesthetic improvements . efforts themselves , yet integral to the success of the Heavy rains no longer back up into residential yards project . Planners maintained the big picture view along the stream . The Grant Run restoration and coordinated project activities through the project is believed to have stabilized and increased complex overlapping jurisdictions of city, county, property values . These observations are based on state , and federal agencies . Individual departments opinions of local Realtors and a Columbus , Ohio , Might unintentionally impede the progress of the study showing that streams and parks increase efforts without the planners providing constant values of adjacent properties by approximately 10 5F, percent . Grant Run has become an amenity again . Fall2001 19 Costs The Grant Run restoration item Cost Suggestions project cost $ 35 , 000 for Rock $ 25 per ton ; $ 10 per ton Use river rock rounded by work involving 1 , 200 feet for transportation erosion , rather than of stream improvements , jagged - edge quarry rock , for an average of approxi - for a more natural appearance mately $ 30 per linear foot . Unit costs for materials are Topsoil $ 10 - $ 15 per Compost on - site materials , shown below, along with cubic yard if possible , to reduce hauling suggestions : costs ( grind tree and leaf litter ) It is difficult to write specifications for a stream Labor $ 3 , 000 - $ 5 , 000 Budget to move a front end restoration project , because loader, backhoe , or other there are so many variables equipment to the site that will affect its costs . Streams that have develop - Vegetation $ 6 - $ 10 per potted plant , Use local ( native ) materials ment ( buildings ) within $ 100 per 1 1 /2 - inch and , if possible , recycle the floodway, severe slopes caliper tree ( diameter of on - site materials ( more than 20 percent ) on tree trunk at base ) both sides , concrete armoring , dense shrubs Excavation $ 6 - $ 12 per cubic yard Estimate excavation based ( e . g . , Japanese Honey - i suckle ) or heavy forests , on stream cross - sectons retaining walls , or roadways Erosion $ 300 - $ 400 ( nine feet For steep slopes within 20 feet will be much control tall by 100 feet in length ) more expensive or impos - fabric sible . The amount of existing vegetation and Erosion $ 12 - $ 15 per linear foot Use fabric woven with floodplain , as well as the control seedlings and soil , placed existing stream geometry, log at the base of stream , to can create major differences reduce planting labor costs in requirements for material and construction . The costs of completing stream restoration projects also will vary with the terrain , surrounding features , severity of flooding , and accessibility to the stream . The costs of restoring Grant Run were substan - tially reduced below average costs through several means . Trees along the stream were used to create root wads and logs to assist in preventing toe erosion of the stream banks . Some rock had to be hauled to the site , but most of the construction material was already on the property. Using on - site materials signifi - v cantly reduced material purchase and hauling costs . Volunteers worked on the v project which further reduced project P d o costs . Adjacent property owners volun - teered their time and planted trees along c the stream to further stabilize the stream Ln AW a banks . Finally, obtaining grant funds reduced the local costs of stream restora - } ' ' v tion . Rock, rootwads, and cuttings help stabilize the bank near the park. PLANNERS ' CASEBOOK Figure 4 STREAM RESTORATION TECHNIQUES ,NN� I . P 4 44 �.S Lr Rock Riffle Root Wad Tree Cuttings Regraded And Logs and Seeded is �l.w 13IN -ankfullImlt �It ,r;I%ty i I IN ILL IN ii Streia I N. `. IF It. qI 17 IN LESSONS LENAIRNED 1 Greenway plans may need much superior to the alternative— Adjacent property owners to incorporate stream restora - a drainage ditch or a culvert—that can aupport and benefit from tion projects . Greenway usually results when standard the project . Owners of property planners should not assume engineering solutions are applied along the stream had to endure , that all tributaries are cur- to stream bank erosion . temporarily, the disruptions of rently suitable for use as The behind- the - scenes work the restoration project . How - greenways without restoration . is just as important as the visible ever, all property owners They may need to restore results . Planners do not have to ultimately benefited as a result streams in order to meet the have the "glory " roles . In this of the project through reduced objectives of greenway plans . case , planners played the impor- land loss and flooding and Stream restoration should tant , but much less visible , roles improved property values . It is not be the exclusive purview of applying for grant funds , advisable to inform affected of the engineer. Detailed managing contractors , and residents of the anticipated stream erosion and preserva- coordinating the activities of construction schedules and tion efforts are almost always various agencies . educate them , and the public the domain of the engineer There are many ways to generally, about the benefits of and contractor. In the case of reduce project costs . Grant funds stream restoration . Grant Run , however, the city for stream restoration may be Stream restoration can have arborist took initiative to available from federal or state major public benefits . The advocate use of natural environmental protection public benefits of restoring materials for restoration rather agencies or other sources . Costs Grant Run included improved than concrete . Planners should to complete the Grant Run water quality, greater diversity understand the techniques of restoration project were reduced of aquatic life , a substantial restoring a stream using by using on - site materials where reduction of downstream natural rather than traditional possible , involving adjacent flooding problems , and im - solutions . Aesthetically, a property owners in volunteer proved property values along • naturally stabilized stream is labor efforts , and through other the restored stream . 1 means , _ . _ or . - 1 r AA. j � ,r s` r � �nk 1 ESL T!r : ' • ."- vA • AS p 0 owl on it a tom/+[-_t'. —�• v i l• . ' ' ii i ___tiYYY', / gA • ' _Nt � .-� ;�ALI eA r� . • . iT s ' - .� 1.•, � .ram IAo f l yt, A :;t W1�� + ; " y� `. . E i.., r 7 ; kt ,;^ ` Y, : t 'i"r� C . R�• ! ,v A ; � i ► K A. [i . • *;• .. +f�.:•"'• ` - ' i•� ` ' i�e'rn M '�CfS- .n�t ='' • �_ •' . '' • ] �.'r•• ,i, :, - . � t . �� .stI - � . , . ' 1 F III o gA o i%}wo.: y A AV4'+it • YC • ✓r: A. flR13 ' 3 •)• . C ' •' '/ . ! A . f. ir . s A , , s :• • r:� . w y w�! T \'� tf 7 LL . �,:_ vf ,*r ^ , � . JA VIV AM Am At Ago 6 , nw A FAR At Art i'A A, LIP - ; mod ' a, Aft _ ' , . AV • � : get 9. 0 FA At A OF A 1t, � ' ..� filepir J. r y�;.for IF OIL •Y FALL, ter; -:� «R , -� _ Air , , i �\ _ poddle - 1 CY'�'' '� •L' rk got r _ js ; . . � �!. 2 ^„'Ta.' > f- .N' ^•a t \ %t ' . 61 ,i'r •9 r- C' .. ?p I h 0 � k•�S • sr � fALL .-"'•i a �5y'y�iS ' ►(t �'rt ' • `• " �' '� f.• i r. At. r +Y.6.K' . . '-+ki ' _ e '1►`t •;;i15� «�•]' `; .. v Zs • L ' LIP A to A It 0 to A No-0r4 y An: �� r � s:�wClef nows FAA IV �• iA "big Agg" AC?07%k Alto MILL-1 A. A nor ow, At Y f f"\ �.}�; : '• , '~ ....ram �w • • billcill A. 0110", AC IN At, ti 0. I At IILFI I An ^�.Zi!tti . ` ' ,�. • 1 r , ► •' " i.AI L he 4 ' /' =na . w,• .- • .r• -. •. Ana r . / . q'1G ; 4.0 'sue : t r i �. '• ' +.+y 77 ,y,y �.. _ -i" - �- - QV VA. 14 ' : v - i{y`r mal In 4`1 OIL no OFF 2W wi At _ ;y,— y'. . •+k[ y , ;tb . L ,5 r -+IA t Alto 1 �, 1 11 4' 1 r a'.• • �+ : . r a .r j ;d•.os'?;ak'• zr /NI>+� '"" -,. , 1 • ,.f& . �;. t e.,v -r ram► - . . i • do off AV • 1 / • ' • • • ' • • • • ff so AN to A on i to *6 INr`` `ti Cr i 1_ AS its * i � _ 1,. 1 . �� i:� ...r..,.� . •r ` f - AA IAL .� _ test ' FF 01 Owl FA • • •1 •l .� {N, e; '.G . .%�%�rr SCA .,w ti. �2` � ';� _ - /te r ,►• A . ;L I pot VIA FCLII Ft 0 • , iA4 � h "tip f ` � 'YItaoi .` .r`• ., . � ti� r r wsiwJ£ t - ; ,j >N � i ' `.� �: 15:ten . . i 1� /ri. .r F -7 �4t 1 �T �^ ✓_c .w - ! . 7 .j • ,! = r,��i _ _. At An AA t l 4 + � / � . ti 1 �. ''1� •t ►•, r , - - Lb.. �ya � .-r +1 �:wi�•�4f✓ ` ,.�'� T - t ttn q { '� ; y %! , ��+ ' ttff+�5 ' •�L� A 1 A-1 .1f � ` '!, i ikar{ , St,}� '^? - �`b' .�s.-•,j.�'ry,-- ` i �T.' J: :j ,�K 1'-i��ri '•►,y�,�V • _^%me . . r... , �1 ' 7.f.Y o - rjw i5rty,. `. • t ,Vxi .�f. ,�7In AV w 1 ' ' C,A or r31 , { v '? 1 � L ;'t r , ? A Al a ~ :s t J . r - �11 r Al noo .j ' ` "� ` . . . •a• 't LM c1t�2- /. ' ♦ - •' F:.,m , c •� FAA ► rt L \ {( } .i " �. ,Y1/ fir, 4 - _ s .r �Mr ; l rft' µ l I I LW Ago AM A WAIS AAA % .i "+a','.I'.`"�„Fitt Ayry �r ,t ►. y . �= _WIF.� �Jr 3' ` " J. j` ' I- Y fit. �7'"Y„iFlit ti ` s At +FjF`••`,' S • AFFAIR. 0 OIL FAA A. At 140 le For - _ 3G , .��� +•.Jr- tG i - � � T{ . , i . . • K•.". . • R.... • ~�7yi.i . . I ' " '.r' sue. '�✓ • A , : ' • �•1. *�'V.yA. �'} t` ;.F- 1 At L . OF ; t Men r f 1 'J LA Nonprofit Organization U . S . Postage P A 1 D Permit No . 289 Aurora , Illinois American Institute of Certified Planners American Planning Association 122 S . Michigan Ave . , Suite 1600 Chicago , IL 60603 Paul David Stancil , AICP Orange County 45 PO Box 8181 Hillsborough , NC 2727M181 ' o ' LIO ` alPnuagnaaS umoiumop jo ixed io3 urld 1u3wd0lanapa1 u uo saIuiaossy puu 11ED L023irJ ioj uiliom Alivauna si auaaaJ 61IN • suujd DAIS - uaLjaidwo :) puu pooLjiogLj2ia ! 1 uaaaiim suLj oslu aH • snquinloo ui ivawiiudaQ Ai3muaa1O s� uoissiwwoo Juiuuuld luuoi aNd oiLjOTTIN z9l 11" m p34i0m pup AiunoD aiiz)Au j - uoi - 2uixa-j io3 uEld Awemuaaif u paauaia aH • suot - ai ' oiL1O ' sngwnloZ) puu 1, j:) niva)j ' uo32uixal aLja ui sluaw - u.1ano2 leaol Ljalm p3110m suLj aH 0Aj1S1an1un aquas oii1O woi4 uiuuujd luuoi2ai pule hi :) pule ainiaaiiLja.iu adu :) spuuj ui saal ? ap su< i 1 - ' d:) ► d ' auaairJ 3 p1n13Q � ., 1AP!!! �R!;;tiI ^,}•.n•�w^;;1^ H.-�m w��i :9 un\^^ .I..�.;.r•r ; -.n.c' ;ic;na"trv+rr, !�'• --.+ :.pT,..a;;.,!i, •�