Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCFE 091399 AGENDA � Orange County S E P _ Commission for the Environment Monday, September 13 , 1999 6 : 30 p . m . Southern Human Services Center Homestead Road Chapel Hill , NC 6 : 30 I . Call to Order 6 : 30 II . Additions or Changes to Agenda 6 : 30 III . Approval of Minutes ( August 9 ) 6 : 35 IV . Durham Inventory and Open Space Durham Senior Planner Jane Korest will be present to discuss the status of Durham 's inventory of natural areas and plans for open space preservation . 7 : 00 V . Proposed C & D Landfill Sites Two sites are under consideration for the proposed construction and demolition debris ( C &D ) landfill . 7 : 30 VI . Eno River Watershed Resolution As requested on August 9 . 7 : 40 VII . Shaping Orange County ' s Future A status report , including a draft newspaper insert with a vision for the year 2030 , will be provided . 7 : 50 VIII . Draft Criteria for Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitat ( Biological Resources Committee ) 8 : 00 X . Committee Meeting Breakout Sessions 8 : 25 XI . Committee Reports 8 : 30 XII . Adjournment i t• 41 938 LIP lu IF IF Ip I ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSION FOR THE ENVIRONMENT DRAFT Summary of Meeting August 9 , 1999 Held in Orange County Southern Human Services Center, Chapel Hill, NC Members Present : Dan Okun, Kris Price , Richard Pratt, Lee Rafalow, Mark Smith, Annette Jurgelski , Rosalinda Lidh, Cara Crisler, Mary Jane Baker, Julie Tucker . Excused Absences : Loraine Kohorn, Roy Fortmann, Jane Sharp - Mac Rae , William Glaze , Alice Gordon . Guests : Ed Kerwin, OWASA Executive Director . Staff Present : David Stancil , Director, Department of Environment and Resource Conservation, Marc deBree , ERCD Intern, Carol Crawford, ERCD Admin . Assist . I . Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7 : 40 p . m . by David Stancil . Stancil explained that the chair and co - chair would both miss the meeting and both conveyed their apologies . Stancil . offered to facilitate the meeting or, suggested a member chair the meeting . Commission members asked Stancil to facilitate the meeting . II . Welcome to New Member New members , Mary Jane Baker and Julie Harllee Tucker, were welcomed to the Commission for the Environment with everyone sharing their specific interests in the work of the Commission . III . Additions or Changes to Agenda An update of the status of the Construction and Demolition Landfill Site was requested and added to the agenda as Item VI . Status of the Flexible Development Ordinance revisions and Environmental Impact Ordinance update were also requested . Stancil reported that he had met with Planning Director, Craig Benedict, and that he is interested in feedback from the CFE on revisions to the Environmental Impact Ordinance . The Environment Education/Indicators Committee will begin reviewing and develop recommendations on the EIO and FDO . Regarding the air quality issues , Stancil related a meeting on the purchase of low emissions vehicles to begin implementing the policy adopted by the BOCC on the purchase of new vehicles by October 1 ", 1999 . Last updated 08/ 17/99 1 IV. Approval of May 10 , 1999 and June 14 , 1999 Minutes . A correction to the May 10 , 1999 minutes was noted on page six as shown below in bold : "Rafalow noted that the education activities become more the responsibility of all CFE members and volunteered to be the coordinator for input to the CFE web site . " MOTION : Crissler moved to approve May 10'' and June 14 minutes . Seconded by Okun. VOTE : Unanimous . V. Water Reclamation Program Stancil introduced the speaker, Ed Kerwin, Executive Director from Orange Water and Sewer Authority . Kerwin explained that OWASA is the retail supplier for water and sewer for Chapel Hill and Carrboro with UNC being the largest consumer (about 30 % of the water sold) . OWASA has two water surface reservoirs , Cane Creek and University Lake where the water is pumped to the Jones Ferry Road treatment plant, (a 15 million gallon a day operation) and then provided to customers through about 320 miles of pipeline . When the community is finished with the water, the wastewater is piped to the Mason Farm Wastewater Treatment Plant where it is treated to appropriate levels and discharged to Morgan Creek. Kerwin explained that reclaimed water is taking that highly treated wastewater effluent, treating it further, and then providing it to users for non-potable purposes such as irrigation, and cooling for industrial plants . He continued describing the process saying that the current wastewater treatment plant treats the wastewater to eliminate 90 - 95 % before discharging to the stream . The receiving water completes the cleaning process without any adverse impact to the stream . OWASA has a permitted capacity of nine million gallons per day at the Mason Farm plant . With expansion underway to expand the capacity to twelve million gallons per day to meet the needs for the next ten to twelve years . Kerwin explained the reclaimed water process was the treating of the 90 - 95 % treated effluent again through a final filtering process where it receives a high level of disinfection, then it can be used for non-potable purposes . This type of re -use of water is practiced thought the country, driven by supply and demand of consumers . Reclaimed water use has been practiced many years by using sophisticated dual distribution systems with excellent records of acceptance as environment suitable and in protection of public health . OWASA is recycling some water at the plant for process purposes however, reclaimed water isn 't being provided off site at this time . OWASA has studied the feasibility of reclaimed water for the service area such as Finley Golf Course (located next to the plant) , University use of irrigation and cooling , and Meadowmont Development for irrigation . OWASA is approximately halfway through a comprehensive water and sewer master plan studying every aspect of operation, projecting what the demand for services will be over the next fifty years , and what resources will be needed to meet the projected needs . Reclaimed water will be an important option. Kerwin noted that the closest potential reclaimed water operation implementation is the Finley Golf Course . The re -built golf course is set up with pipeline to use reclaimed water . They are currently using water for irrigation directly from Morgan Creek . The water from Morgan Creek Last updated 08/ 17/99 2 003 is free , and outside of state water rules , doesn ' t motivate the purchase of reclaimed water . UNC built a 11 /2 acre lake to store the water i- n before irrigating the golf course . UNC has also been receptive of the idea of using reclaimed water . Presently it is estimated that the cost to the consumer would be an additional seventy-five cents per 1000 gallons of reclaimed water . It was noted that this cost is for treating the 90 - 95 % effluent water to the State ' s reclaimed water standards of five milligrams per liter or less of suspended solids . The Commission asked questions about the available capacity of water in Morgan Creek, Kerwin replied that at this time of year 80 - 90 % of the water in Morgan Creek is the treated wastewater. Smith asked what is the normal cost of water for the consumer . Kerwin replied $ 2 . 69 for 1000 gallons . The CFE questioned the runoff possibilities from irrigating the golf course . Kerwin deferred the CFE to direct specific questions to UNC on Finley Golf Course , noting that he had heard they had a state of the art system where only minimal chemicals are used for fertilizing . Jurgelski questioned the ownership of the creek . A concern was that using the "free" water from the creek was taking away from downstream users . Okun noted there are no regulations about this type of use . An idea of requiring golf courses to use reclaimed water for irrigation thereby allowing downstream users enough water was discussed . Okun noted that we do not have a proper water law appropriate for a water short area . This area is not considered water short, such as other places like Florida where urban population growth is so great they have had to establish water districts . These districts require only 85 % to be permitted whether from a river or underground . This allows regulation as to the purpose or use of the water, if water of lower grade is available , the permit is only issued for lower grade water versus using drinking water quality for irrigation of golf courses . The management to enforce these regulations is politically controversial . At least Okun concluded, they have the capacity to regulate the use of water as a public good whereas we do not . Kerwin concluded by stating that OWASA is interested in providing reclaimed water ; and, that reclaimed water is regulated by the State in that it has to be continuously monitored under strict rules . He also noted that the seventy- five cents cost in this case is minimal , due to the location of the golf course in proximity to the wastewater treatment plant . And, if a new subdivision is located so as to get the reclaimed water to the user, it could raise the cost as much as $ 344 per thousand gallons . Okun discussed the reason for extra filtration for reclaimed water as being due to public contact and that material from the creek collects on the golf course eventually causing odor or other problems . Even golf courses that use the lower grade water might possibly begin to want to purchase the cleaner reclaimed water in the future . He also noted that the type of treatment done by OWASA is conducive to less use of solid fertilizers because the water is rich in nitrogen and also produces less environmental harmful runoff. Last updated 08/ 17/99 3 004 Harllee Tucker raised questions about the preferred use and least desirable use of reclaimed water . Kerwin replied that the use studied is within the customer service area for irrigation or cooling however, farmers could benefit also . With a dual distribution system, homes would get the drinking water pipe and a second pipe of reclaimed water for flushing toilets , irrigating lawns or washing cars . Okun added it is used extensively for market type crops in California and Florida . He also noted that all multi - story buildings in Japan are required to have dual distribution water systems . Okun noted there are about 100 dual systems in the country for irrigation. The idea of installing the two water lines during the development of subdivisions and construction of buildings the cost is much less than coming in later to retrofit the lines for reclaimed water use . Developers could be encouraged to put in both lines from the start of the project, as water becomes more scarce the need will encourage the use of reclaimed water . Stancil asked if the CFE might see the results of the OWASA Master Plan next spring . Kerwin said he would be glad to report back at a later time . VI . Solid Waste Site Update The Landfill Owners Group , is comprised of a group of elected officials from the different jurisdictions and as a joint body administers the landfill . An option to buy a portion of land in Little River Township off Guess Road in northern Orange County was obtained . The proposal (not yet considered by the BOCC) is to use it for a C &D (Construction and Demolition) landfill site . It is thought this would prolong the life of the current landfill . The idea is to coordinate inspection at the current landfill or new landfill for C &D items and re -route them to the C &D landfill and, vice versa if trucks attempt to dump other items at the C &D site . VII . Air Quality Issues Stancil began by reviewing the three parts as # 1 -Revised Resolution on the Alternative Fueled Vehicles included in the agenda packet with the changes in bold . MOTION : Rafalow made the motion to adopt the Revised Resolution . Seconded by Lidh . VOTE : Unanimous . Stancil noted that the second issue , open burning . The BOCC is concerned about current incidents of burning by public agencies on high ozone days and about open burning in general . Stancil had deBree investigate what the County can do and research what options are available . Marc deBree presented the information contained in the memo handed out, noting that the County does not have the same power to regulate air pollutants as the State . Recent legislation in the N . C . General Assembly tried to make that statute applicable to counties failed . Counties may under G . S . 143 -215 . 112 and the NC Air Quality Rules Section . 1906 , may establish air pollution control programs which will allow them to create air quality and emission control standards , ordinances , rules , and regulations . Stancil added that a possibility is a memorandum Last updated 08/ 17/99 4 005 of agreement with the State Permitting Agency that as long as the local rules meet or exceed the standards of the State , there can be a delegation by the State to allow regulation by the County . A question of frequency of occurrence of this type burning was raised . Stancil noted that some firms would burn vegetative waste during construction rather than dispose by more costly measures such as mulching . Another issue of open burning of leaves causing breathing and vision problems was discussed . The idea of permits being issued during implementation of large construction sites to require environmentally conducive disposal of debris was favored , over adopting additional laws for the average citizen to contend with and the local government to enforce . Baker reported on a business (B &B Topsoil Mine) that takes in items to be turned into mulch as an alternative to burning or dumping and volunteered to investigate . Jurgelski noted that Duke Power has similar operation where they grind trees into mulch on sites they are clearing . The idea of mulching leaves such as the Town of Carrboro does could be another option by local governments . Rafalow reminded that when open burning is allowed to continue , it does a significant amount of damage to the air quality . California has outlawed open burning . Smith commented on the enforcement of air quality rules as being difficult, abusive and threatening , and one of the most difficult things the State does . Stancil concluded that the CFE could decide to develop recommendations with an approach similar to what Erosion Control does - consider the size of a disturbed site rather than focus on large commercial activities . Staff will investigate and report back on the extent of open burning , impact on air quality and ideas on what initial steps to take , budgetary costs possibly involved and, how this could be related to the permitting process . It was noted that the air quality committee needs to get together to look at the draft of the air quality action ozone plan and report to the CFE . VIII . CFE Web Site Stancil noted that the site is up , along with the departmental site . Rafalow noted that the intent of the CFE website was to create a lead to the ERCD website and that the redundant information should be removed and add needed information . Stancil posed the question if the CFE ( 1 ) wants to continue the separate website highlighting important items to the CFE or, (2) integrate the CFE site into the ERCD site . CFE members concluded that they would review the site and forward ideas to staff or to Rafalow for updates . IX. Neuse River Rules Stancil noted that, due to the late hour, the CFE briefly needs to be aware of new rules for the Neuse River Basin that takes in the northern part of the county from near Alamance County including Hillsborough to east of Durham line . Generally , for Orange County the implications are two fold : ( 1 ) basin-wide , there is a plan to reduce nitrogen in the basin by 3 0 % overall . Last updated 08/ 17/99 5 006 Included in the agenda packet is a brochure distributed to local farmers by the State about ways to protect the riparian buffer and adopting best management practices of buffer requirements . The second item for change for the county in relation to watersheds is that because of the new Upper Neuse rules the Town of Hillsborough and the eastern fringe of Hillsborough are likely to be designated as a water supply watershed area, to allow enforcement of the new standards adopted to deal with stream buffers , runoff, and storm water controls . The existing lower Eno rules come from a protected water supply intake on the Eno River by , Durham, with a ten-mile radius from that point which takes in part of Orange County . Future development in Hillsborough may need to address water supply measures . Previous County policy has been to use non- structural land use and stream buffer controls in some type of minimum lot size . The CFE asked staff to draft a resolution recommending that the County join the Upper Neuse River Basin Association and begin planning for extending watershed standards throughout the Eno basin, to be presented at the next meeting . X. Draft Criteria for Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitat (Biological Resources Committee) Stancil asked the CFE to review the table handout as it will be part of the proposed criteria of sites for land acquisition, for discuss at the next meeting . Stancil explained that the BOCC would receive the draft report which would include the criteria, the different acquisition options and management structure as to how we acquire , what we do with the land by September 21 st Staff will present some of the components of the draft at the next CFE meeting and a more formal review in October . XI . Committee meeting Breakout Sessions Committee sessions were deferred due to lack of time . XII. Reports from Committees XIII . Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 30 p . m . Last updated 08/ 17/99 6 007 Little River Corridor On a smaller scale , the valley of the Little River closely resembles those of its sister streams , the Eno and Flat Rivers , both geographically and biologically . It differs from them , however , in the much smaller amount of protection for its natural areas . The function of this valley as a movement corridor for wildlife is , in fact, highly imperiled . Like the Flat and the Eno , the headwaters of the Little River lie well outside of Durham County in the gently rolling terrain of the Carolina Slate Belt. The two forks of the Little River arise in the , northwestern part of Orange County where they flow through a entirely rural countryside . Without any urban discharges , water quality in both forks has remained excellent , and as in the corresponding reaches of the Flat and Eno , the riffle and pool habitats of both ignificant fauna of freshwater mussels and other aquatic species that have forks support a highly s become rare elsewhere within the region . Although this aquatic habitat has been considered for designation as state Critical Habitat by the Wildlife Resources Commission and has been identified as State Significant by the Natural Heritage Program * no significant terrestrial natural areas have been identified -- let alone protected -- within either the Orange or Durham County sections of the upper Little River watershed . In absence of any core refuge , the terrestrial wildlife of this region are completely dependent on the precariously rural character of the landscape for their continued survival . Below the confluence of the North and South Forks , the Little River begins its plunge down to the Durham Triassic Basin . In place of the shallower pools and riffles upstream , the river in this section has carved down to the bedrock, leaving deep plunge holes , extensive boulder gardens , and steep , rocky promontories in its course . This section of the corridor contains the one main natural area surveyed in this watershed , the Little River Gorge . This privately owned site, which comprises the Saw Hole Bluffs of Rob Sutter ' s inventory as well as a larger area of slopes located above the Little River Reservoir , supports populations of both plants and animals that are more representative of the Blue Ridge than the Piedmont . It also includes the lower portion of the Little River Aquatic Habitat and at least some of its sigifi can t fauna of freshwater mussels . As is true for the corresponding escarpment gorges of the Flat and Eno Rivers , the uplands adjoining the Little River Gorge are all strongly dissected by the strong stream - cutting action of this region , and the rugged terrain of this section is still mostly undeveloped . In contrast to the Eno and Flat , however , whose gorge sections are surrounded by extensive areas of protected uplands , almost all of the land surrounding the Little River Gorge is privately owned . This includes the Little River Uplands , which Rob Sutter considered one of the most significant blocks of upland habitat remaining in Durham Countyls . At the extreme lower end of the Gorge , however, a small amount of protected habitat exists as part of the buffer lands around the Little River Reservoir , owned by the City of Durham as a water supply reservoir . Although this area includes some of the steep , north-facing bluffs that contain populations of some of the montane disjuncts , the amount of city-owned land within the gorge is too small to constitute a significant refuge area . Its value to wildlife , is Although important for wildlife, this tract was not covered in the current survey , due both to problems with access and to time constraints . Until developed , however, it should be regarded as a key refuge area within the Little River Corridor. 211 008 furthermore , is mitigated by the heavy amount of recreational use the reservoir receives , and even more by the US 501 highway corridor that cuts across the valley less than a quarter mile from the Emouth of the gorge . Downstream from US 501 , the main portion of the Little River Reservoir takes up most of the stream valley and acts as a major barrier to the movements of aquatic species . On the other hand , the buffer lands around the lake provide the only significant block of protected upland habitat that exists in the entire upstream reach of the Little River . Downstream from the reservoir , the corridor passes through a short section (about one river mile) of Treyburn Development , whose large residential and industrial complexes will eventually occupy most of the terrain between the Little River Reservoirs and the Triassic Basin lowlands that are protected as part of the Falls of the Neuse Gamelands16 . For the moment , the presence of otter , beaver , and red -bellied watersnakes within the Little River Gorge -- all of which have moved up the Little River from the Eno Valley -- indicates that this corridor can still be negotiated by at least semi- aquatic species . If conservation easements , landowner covenants , open-space set-asides , * and other conservation tools can be employed to protect buffer strips along the entire river , it is probably not too late to preserve the corridor function for still other species of wildlife , particularly species associated with riparian habitats . Protection of stream buffers is also critical for the preservation of the L nue Little River Aquatic Habitat . Ensuring the continued survival in this area of the its diverse community of terrestrial species , however , will probably require the protection of at least one large area of upland habitat , located in either Durham or Orange Counties . 16 The gamelands that surround the lower reach of the Little River, although logically a part of the Little River Corridor , are treated in this report along with the lower portion of the Eno — see Lower Eno/Lower Little River Bottomlands . 212 SITE DESCRIPTION Little River Gorge/Little River A uatic Habitat FAUNAL SIGNIFICANCE: State (DIRC 4) LANDSCAPE FUNCTION : Medium (DIRC 1 ) BOUNDARY INTEGRITY : High LEVEL OF THREAT : Medium PROTECTION STATUS : Low COAEWUNITY VIABILITY : High (DIRC 3) SUAIMARY OF SIGNIFICANT FEATURES : 1 . The Little River Aquatic Habitat supports populations of three freshwater mussels that are state listed as Threatened and candidates for federal listing . yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis canosa) , Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masons) , and triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata) . Additionally present are the squawfoot (Strophitus undulatus) , also state listed as Threatened , and the notched rainbow ( Villosa constricts) , considered significantly rare in North Carolina . All but the triangle floater have been recorded in the Durham County portion of this aquatic habitat . 2 . The highly scenic Little River Gorge possibly supports populations of worm-eating warblers (Helmitheros vermivorus) , cedar waxwings (Bombycilla cedrorum) , redback salamanders (Plethodon cinereus) , and other disjunct montane species . Black vultures ( Coragyps atratus) , state listed as Special Concern , and striped skunks (Mephitus mephitus) , a regionally rare species , are also frequently observed along the upper reach of the Little River , LANDSCAPE FEATURES : The Little River Aquatic Habitat includes the North and South Forks as well as the upper portion of the Little River itself, from the confluence of the two forks downstream to the Little River Reservoir (Smith , et . al . , 1993) . The two headwater streams lie mostly in Orange County , where they flow through a largely wooded and undeveloped watershed . No towns or large communities exist along either stream and only one residential and one commercial package treatment plant currently discharge into the South Fork . Consequently , the water in these streams is exceptionally high and the reaches upstream from the reservoir have been designated WS II by the state Division of Environmental Management (equivalent of High Quality Waters) . Downstream , however , the river passes through a more developed area (including the Treyburn complex) , where eight package plants empty into the river .. The water quality was nonetheless still rated as Good as far downstream as Old Oxford Road as recently as 1991 -- DEM , 1991 ) . Just a few miles below the confluence of the two forks in northwestern Durham County , the Little River begins its plunge through the edge of the Slate Belt into the Triassic Basin .. The narrow chasm cut through this fall line is perhaps the most scenic place in the entire county , rivaled only by the similar but wider gorges on the Flat and Eno Rivers . Below the old Johnston Mill site , the slopes rise up as much as 150 ' along first one side of the river then the other . At 213 O10 SITE DESCRIPTION Little River Gorge/Little River. Aquatic Habitat several points , massive rock cliffs stand immediately above deep pools and cascades formed as the river courses over wide exposures of bedrock and extensive areas choked with boulders . i ii The vegetation along this gorge s rt from the shade provided by large sycamores , ri no less scen c than the geological features . Apa ver birches and other overhanging riparian trees , the river receives a good deal of sun and supports broad beds of willowherb (Justicia americana) , pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata) , and thick submerged streamers of riverweed (Podostemum ceratophyllum) , all of which provide deep green contrasts to the sparkling water playing over the rocks . Throughout the gorge , the vegetation is intact up slope as far as the crest of the bluffs . Since the river runs primarily due east , the slopes differ drastically in terms of their exposure to the sun , and consequently in vegetation . The south-facing slopes are extremely dry and open , supporting thickets of blueberries and stands dominated by chestnut oaks , post oaks , shortleaf pine , and other xeric species . In sharp contrast , * the north-facing slopes immediately opposite support large tangles of mountain laurel and patches of montane species such ' as galax ( Galax aphylla) and wintergreen (Gaultheria procumbens) . DESCRIPTION OF TBE FAUNA : The high quality waters of the Little River and its two headwater forks support a molluscan fauna that is nearly as rich as that of the Eno or Flat Rivers . A total of eight species have been recorded within the Little River and its two headwater forks (McGrath , 1991 ) ; four of them are state-listed as Threatened . Most of these species have been recorded in the gentler gradients upstream from the gorge , where the habitat consists of extensive pools interspersed between stretches of riffles . Populations of yellow lampmussels (Lampsilis cariosa) , Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) , squawfoot (Strophitus undulates) , notched rainbow ( Villosa constricta) , and two species of elliptios have been recorded in the North and South Forks within Durham County and . a population of triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulates) was discovered just upstream in the Orange County reach of the North Fork (McGrath , 1991 ) . Shells of yellow lampmussels , notched rainbows , and elliptios were also found during this inventory as far downstream as the Little River Gorge , and still more species may be found if a more intensive survey is conducted (the survey by McGrath did not extend below the confluence of the two forks) . In addition to the mussels , 36 species of fish have been recorded within the Little River (Menhinick) , including eight species -- all shiners or darters -- that -are indicators of high quality waters . The most noteworthy species is the mimic shiner (Notropis volucellus) , which has been recorded from only a few sites within the Piedmont . The Roanoke bass (Ambloplites roanokensis) , which is endemic to the Neuse , Tar , and Roanoke drainages , has also been recorded , as have otters (Lutra canadensis) , queen snakes (Regina septemvittata) , and red -bellied watersnakes (Nerodia erythrogaster) , a predominantly Coastal Plain species that may have strayed up into the Little River Reservoir from the Triassic Basin . Eleven species of forest interior , neotropical migrants were recorded on one visit made to the Little River Gorge late in the nesting period (24 June) , given the quality of the forests 214 011 SITE DESCRIPTION Little River Gorge/Little River A uatic Habitat along the slopes , still more species should be expected to occur here . One of these , the regionally-rare worm eating warbler (Helmitheros vermivorus) , may in fact have been heard on this visit , but was not confirmed . This species is extremely scarce as a nesting species in the Piedmont , where it occurs particularly in association with steep , north-facing slopes covered with mountain laurel , an excellent example of which occurs on the city-owned land bordering the reservoir . Another regionally-rare species associated with steep slopes , the broad -winged hawk (Buteo platypterus) , is commonly seen just upstream along the Little River (Tom Krakauer , Museum of Life and Sciences , pers . comm . ) and should also be looked for as a nesting species within the gorge . Wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) is also frequently seen in this area (Jane Korest , pers . comm . ; Tom Krakauer , pers . comm . ) . This species is associated with fairly large tracts of undeveloped habitat , which occur both along the steep slopes of the gorge and nearby tracts of fairly hilly terrain (a part of which was identified as the Little River Uplands by Sutter , 1987) . Other wide-ranging species associated with extensive forests have also been reported along the upper reaches of the Little River , including barred owls (Stria varia) , pileated woodpeckers (Dryocopus pileatus) , and possibly long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata) " . Black vulture ( Coragyps atratus) , state Special Concern , and striped skunk (Mephitus mephitus) , which is generally rare within the Triangle region , are also frequent within this area , but are associated more with the rural landscape than with the extensive woodlands . PROTECTION STATUS AND THREATS : The slopes above the Little River Reservoir are protected from development through ownership by the City of Durham , but only to the top of the steep bluffs (a house is located immediately adjacent to the city property line on top of the south slope above the lake) . The rest of this area , including the entire gorge upstream from the lake , is privately owned and subject either to development or timbering . New homes are , in fact , being constructed throughout this region , although upstream from the reservoir , zoning is used to protect the watershed and limits density to one dwelling unit per two acres (J . Korest , pers . comm . ) . The corridor function of the Little River is also being affected by downstream developments . US 501 and adjoining developed areas around Orange Factory already present a significant obstacle separating the upland areas above the Little River Reservoir from the extensive gamelands located along the confluence of the Little and Eno Rivers . The reservoir also restrict overland movements along this section and is a virtually absolute barrier to fish and many other aquatic species . Even more important , at least potentially , the Treyburn development embraces the Little River for approximately one mile between the Little River Reservoir dam and the Falls of the Neuse Gamelands . The intensive development planned for this tract may virtually sever any linkage between the upper and lower wildlife habitats along the Little River , 17 Tom Krakauer has observed roa&killed weasels along Guess Road in this vicinity ; they could , however , have been mink , which should be fairly common in this area . 215 012 SITE DESCRIPTION Little River Gorge/ Little River A uatic Habitat CONSERVATION RECOM1y1ENDATIONS : The steep slopes within city ownership should be registered as , a Natural Heritage Area . Registry agreements , conservation easements , or other forms of conservation agreements should be sought from the owners of the adjacent properties . The Little River Gorge 4needs particular protection , both from development and from the unregulated and heavy human use of this area - - piles of trash , campfires , latrines , and extensive trails form a stark contrast to the beautiful scenery at this site . Protection should also be sought for a continuous corridor of woodlands along the river both up and . downstream from the gorge . Wherever possible , low density or carefully sited cluster development should be favored on the uplands in this region over indiscriminate , high density development , particularly where large tracts of forest would be affected . g 216 Vill •rOEM IrA 71A •! �� 1, i �` �\ ` J „ kip 1 1+� ~� SRI Ell Nll Own 'Mile AV kmaj kv Tl Ao FYI g7rFv%'% Alm 1/ or TIMEVIA Million vp EMT Al 3 fi1t► �, ��/ � ������� �1� �•�.>>�l �►,�R,.�>� �► ' t Lk / III !/ �1 �r � ``•�1 �' WV lMFOL.. '/i'J :. \� tX LIT, V FEN I Irl Via TOP TV 14 Sit ir Fall %No 1 0 fal Ny, awr te`./ ai . Nip fJ` PitAl I r - fill At • ' — mmommin — U 1 . 217 ZOOLOGICAL SURVEY FORM Little River G I . Lo CATION USGS Quad : Rougemont Site Boundaries ; Primary boundaries follow crest of the slope above the river Relationship to Previous Inventory Sites : Includes the Saw Mill Hole Bluffs and a section of the Little River Corridor (Sutter , 1987) He TERRESTRIAL HABITATS NHP Element Species . Coragyps atratus (State Special Concern) Regionally Rare Species : Mustela frenata Mephitis mephitis Buteo platypterus Indicator Guilds : Forest Interior Species : Buteo platypterus Vireo flavifrons Carnivores/Raptors ; Lasiurus borealis Coccyzus americanus Vireo olivaceus Procyon lotor Nycticeius humeralis Strix varia Seiurus aurocapillus Mustela frenata Sciurus carolinensis Dryocopus pileatus Seiurus motacilla Mephitis mephitis Procyon lotor Empidonax virescens Wilsonin citrina Coragyps atratus Mustela frenata Polioptila caerulea Piranga rubra Buteo lineatus Coragyps atratus Hylocichla mustelina Pimaga olivacea Buteo platypterus Colinus virgimanus Vireo flavifrons Otus asio Scolopax minor Vireo olivaccus Low-nesting Species * Bubo virginianus Otus asio Parula americans Colinus virguuanus Strix varia Bubo virginianus Seiurus aurocapillus Scolopax mmor Archilochus colubris Seiurus motacilla Seiurus aurocapillus Human- sensitive Species: Picoides pubescens Wdsonia ciumma Seiurus motacilla Mustela frenata Cyanociva cristata Piranga olivacea Vlrilsam citrina Colinus virginianus Parus carolinensis Agkistrodon contortrix Cardinalia cardinalis Scolopax minor Pars bicolor Hyla chrysoscelis Coluber constrictor nryothorus ludovicianus Big-trce/Snag Species: Agkistrodon contottrix Dendroica dominica Long-Distance Migrants : $taco lineatus Piranga rubra Buteo platypterus Buteo platypterus Non- forest Species : Cardinalis cardinalis Coccyzus amencanus Bubo virgmianus Mephitis mephitis Carduelis tristis Archilochus colubris Strix varia Passerina cyanea Sceloporus undulatus Empidonax virescens Dryocopus pileatus Molothrus ater Coluber constrictor Polioptila caerulea Opheodrys aestivus Bufo woodhousei fowleri HyIocichla mustelina wide-ranging Species ; Epargyreus clarus Papilio glaucus Vireo flavifrons Mustela frenata Strymon melinus Celasttina ladon Vireo olivaceus Coragyps atratus Phyciodes tharos Hermeuptychiasosybius Seiurus aurocapillus Bum lineatus Megisto cymela Seiurus motacilla Buteo platypterus Invaders : Wilsonie citrina Bubo virgmianus Molothrus ater Forest/Edge Species ; Piranga rubra Strix vans Buteo lineatus Piranga olivacca Dryocopus pileatus 219 ZOOLOGICAL SURVEY FORM Little River G� Habitat Features : Size of Primary Habitat : 121 acres for gorge and city owned land below SR 1461 Habitat Heterogeneity : Medium -- mature hardwoods on steep north and south- facing slopes , heath bluff, riparian vegetation Forest Structural Diversity : Well developed Water Sources : Little River is perennial ; Little River Reservoir Amphibian Breeding Sites . None recorded Denning Sites : Extensive rock outcrops Big Trees/Large Cavities : Large trees ( 15 - 20 " dbh) are common ; several oaks seen that were ca . 30 " dbh Snags and Logs : Common Mast-producing Species : Oaks and hickories are dominant Nectar Sources : Pickerel weed , heaths Landscape Features : Refuge Shape : Irregularly linear Refuge Integrity/Fragmentation : Crossed by SR 1461 , otherwise unfragmented Proximity to Other Refuges/Existence of Corridors : No large refuge areas are closeby ; corridor extends down Little River to the Eno but passes through the Treyburn development Threats and Disturbances : Evidence of Past Land Uses : Old roadbed and mill site Level of Human Intrusion : High -- lots of trash Distance to Nearest Road : Bisected by 1461 ; bounded on east side by US 501 ; Potential for Habitat Loss or Fragmentation : Medium - - land upstream from the reservoir is all privately owned ; area is becoming developed Potential for Changes in Adjoining Land Use : High -- development Species Records : Lasiurus borealis (KRAK) Colinus virginianus (KRAK) Parus bicolor (9406-24/o) Nycticeius humecalis (KRAK) Scolopax minor (KRAK) Thryothorus ludovicianus (94-06-24/o) Sciurus carolinensis (94-06-24/o) Coccyzus americanus (944&24/o) Polioptila caerulen (94-06-24/o) Castor canadensLs (91 -06- 07/s) Otus asio (KRAK) Hylocichla mustelina (94-06-24/o) Castor canadensis (94- 06-24/s ,d) Bubo virginianus (KRAK) Vireo flavifrons (91 -06- 07/o) Procyon lotor (91 - 06-07/t) Strix varia (KRAK) Vireo flavifrons (9406-24/o) Mustela frenata (KRAK) Archilochus colubris (94- 06-24/6) Vireo olivaceus (94- 06-24/0) Mephitis mephitis (KRAK) Picoides pubescens (9406-24/o) Panda americana (944&24/o)Lutra canadensis (91 - 06-07/s) Dryocopw pileatua (KRAK) Dendroica dominica (9406-24/0) Lutra canadensis ( 94-06-24/s) Empidonax virescena (9406-24/o) Seiurus surocapWus (9446-24/o) Coragyps atmtus (9406-24/o) Cyanocitta cristata (940&24/0) Seiurus motscilla (91 -0& 07/o) Buteo lincatus (KRAK) Parus carolinemis (94- 06-24/o) Wilsonie citrina (94-06-24/o) Buteo platyptcrus (KRAK) Parus bicolor (91 -06- 07/o) Piranga rubra (944 &24/o) 220 017 ZOOLOGICAL SURVEY FORM Little River Gme Piranga olivacea (94- 0&24/o) Acris crepitans (944&24/o) Megisto cymela (9406-24/o) Cardinalis cardinalis (94-0&24/o) Hyla chrysoscelis (9406-24/o) Dromogomphusspinosus (91 -0& 07/o) Passerina cyanea (9406-24/o) Ram catesbeiana (94-0&24/o) Gomphus exilic (91 - 06-07/o) Molothrus ater (9406-24/o) Rana clamitans (91- 0&07/o) Hagenius brevistylus (91 -0& 07/o) Cardualis tristis (9406-24/o) Rana palustris (91 -0&07/o) Epitheca princeps (9406-24/o) Sceloporus undulatus (9406-24/o) Rana palustris (9406-24/o) Celithemis fasciata (940&24/o) Coluber constrictor (94- 0& 24/o) Epargyreus clams (940&24/o) Erythemis simplicicollis (9406-24/o) Nerodia erythrogaster (9406-24/o) Papilio glaucus (94-0&24/o) Lbellula cyanea (940 &24/o) Opheodrys aestivus (NCMin Strymon melinus (9406-24/o) Lbellula incesta (9406-24/o) Regina septemvittata (9406-24/o) Celastrinn ladon (940&24/o) Lbellula luctuosa (9406-24/o) Agkistrodon contortrix (NCMU) Phyciodes tharos (940&24/o) Lbellula lydia (94- 06-24/o) Bufo woodhousei fowleri (94-0&24/o) Hermeuptychia sosybius (940&24/o) Lbellula vibrans (91 - 06- 07/o) Additional Survey Needs : Breeding bird census should be conducted earlier in the year ; search should be made for redback salamanders III. AQUATIC HABITATS NHP Element Species , Ambloplites cavifrons (Significantly Rare) Lampsilis cariosa (State Threatened ; Federal Candidate) Villosa constricta (Significantly Rare) Regio_ nally Rare Species . Nerodia erythrogaster Notropis volucellus Indicator Guilds : Water- quality Sensitive ElEptio icterina Ind Species : Species : Elliptio sp. Lcpomis cyanellus Nocomis raneyi Lampsilis cariosa Corbicula fluminea Luxilus albeolus Villosa constricta Lythrurus aAens Cyprinella analostana W(Q Tolerant Species : Notropis procne Anguilla rostrata Notropis volucellus Ameiurus natalis Percina peltata Ameiurus platycephalus Percina roanoka Lepomis cyanellus Habitat Features : Lotic/Lentic : Little River is perennial , Little River Reservoir is a public water supply reservoir Depth / Width : channel is 6 - 7 ' wide , 2 - 3 ' deep in pools (deeper pools also present) 221 018 ZOOLOGICAL SURVEY FORM Little River Goer e Flow Rate : Moderate Water Quality/ Clarity : Very clear Bank Condition : Good Insolatiom Well insolated Substrate (s) : Bedrock , boulders , cobble , sand Emergent Vegetation : Pickerel weed Woody Debris : Present Other Shelter : None recorded Landscape Features : Stream Classification : 4 ° or 5 ° creek or small river Connections to Other Intact Reaches : Aquatic habitat continues upstream into Orange County Integrity of Adjoining Forests : Good Threats and Disturbances : DEM Water Quality Ratings : Good to Excellent Biological Rating (DEM , 1985 and 1991 ) ; Designated as State High Quality Waters Sources of Pollution : One residential package plant exists upstream on the South Fork Barriers to Migration : Little River Reservoir Potential for Impoundment , Flow Alteration , or Draining : Unknown Species Records : Castor canadensis ( 91 -06-07/s) Notropis altipinnis (MEND Percina roanoka (MENId) Castor canadensis (94-06-24/s,d) Notropis Procne (MEND Etheostoma vitreum (MENH) Lutra canadensis (91 -06-07/s) Notropis volucellus (MENH) Etheostoma nigrum ( MENM L.utra canadensis (944&24/s) Erimyzon oblongus (MEND Dromogomphus spinosus (91 -06-07/o) Nerodia erythrogaster (94-06-24/o) Hypentelium nigricans (MEND Gomphus exilic (91 -06-07/o) Regina septemvittata (9406-24/o) Moxostoma anisurum (MEND Hagenius brevistylus (91 - 06- 07/o) Rana catesbeiana (94-06-24/o) Moxostoma pappillosum (MEMO Epitheca princeps (94 &24/o) Rana clam 'tans (91 -06- 07/o) Moxostoms cervinum (MENH) Celithemis fasciata (94-0&24/o) Rana palustris (91-06- 07/o) Ameiurus natalis (N ENH) Erythcmis simplicicollis (9406-24/o) Rana palustris (9406-24/o) Ameiurus bmmneus (M R140 Lbellula cyanen (9406-24/o) Anguilla roatrata (MENH) Ameiurus platycephalus (MENDD Lbelluln incesta (9406-24 /o) Dorosoma cepedianum (94- 06-24/0) Noturas insignia (MEND Lbellula luctirosa (94-06-24/0) Esox americanus (MEN I) Aphredoderus sayanus (MENH) ILbellula lydia (94- 06-24/o) Esox niger (MENH) Pomoxis nigromaculatus (MENH) Lbellula vibrans (91 -0&07/o) Notemigonus crysoleucas (MEMO Ambloplitea cavifrons (MENH) Elliptio icterina (91 -06- 07/r) Clinostomus funduloides (MENH) Micropterrrs salmoides (MIId1) Elliptio sp. (94-06-24 /r) Semotilus atromaculatus ( MEND Micropterus salmoides (9406-24/o) Lampsilis canosa (91 - 0& 07/r) Nocomis raneyi (MENH) Lepomis cyanellus (MEND Lampsilis cariosa (94-06- 24/r) Nocomis leptocephalus (MEMO Lepomis macrochirus (MENH) Villosa constricta (914& 07/r) Luxilus albeolus (MENH) Lepomis gibbosus (NEENH) Corbicula fluminea (94 - 0 &24/ r) Lythrurus ardens (MENH) Lepomis auritus (MENH) Cyprinella analostana (MENH) Percina peltata (MENH) 222 00 ZOOLOGICAL SURVEY FORM Little River Gorge Additional Survey Needs : Several species of mussels that have been recorded upstream should be searched for in this reach , including the Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) , squawfoot (Strophitus undulatus) . and the triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata) , fish records are also historic and need verification . 223 0 (-) o 021 GRITERIA 'FOR SELECTING NATURAL AREAS FOR CONSERVATION ACTION PRIORITY PHYSICAL LAYOUT H Size (area) H Shape (re : minimization of edge effects —could be quantified as ratio of edge to interior area) H (Slope / elevation / orientation topography) — might make it more or less susceptible to development ; might have some special or unique feature (things that might make a group willing to contribute to its protection)Topography : slope/elevation/orientation - - M Proximity / geographic relation connectivity : proximity/geographic relation to other natural areas M Does it contribute to a Wildlife corridor (water & land, or just land) ? L Position in watershed (distance from source re : water quality) L Geographic evenness (by watershed?) L Does it have body of water? PRIORITY BIOLOGICAL VALUE H Biodiversity — species richness H Integrity (needs clarification of definition, but things like crossing by roads , power lines , selective logging in recent history, other signs of degradation) M Number of rare species/ State listed (Natural Heritage) , species of conservation concern M Ecosystem distinctness (state/regional/country) : need to develop means to judge this) M Presence of invasive exotic plant species (how many species , how severely infested) L Ecosystem representation : Should we preserve some of all types ? (beta diversity) contribution to even representation of the diversity of Orange County ' s ecosystems , preserve some of all types L Importance for bird breeding sites PRIORITY INTACTNESS H Degree of threat (proximity to urban area, proximity to development — residential or industrial, proximity to roads and planned roads , proposed development, on the market, said to be about to go on the market, threat of logging M Other forms of pollution or proximity to — dump sites , underground tanks , hog farms , etc . L Noise L Distance from artificial light sources PRIORITY HUMAN VALUES H Scenic value (to be used judiciously) M Potential for recreational use M Presence of historical/archeological sites/significance L Proximity to population centers/users L North county vs south county (both as human and spatial issue) L Presence of species/resources of economic value (is there anything other than timber?) PRIORITY OTHER Meeting multi, multiple biological/conservation criteria across lines Availability of second funding source CRITERIA FOR SELECTING NATURAL AREAS r . FOR. CONSERVATION ACTION PRIORITY ECOSYSTEM FUNCTION H Presence of wetlands : hydrologic buffering, contribution to water storage . Vegetation : thermal buffering, water storage natural areas serving as sites for insect pollinators and predators , which serve agriculture , nutrient cycling . Vegetation as riparian buffer . 023 FE information I It MS 1 . Board of Health plans for Wastewater Treatment and Monitoring Program ( WIMP ) . 2 . Article of interest ( from Commissioner Barry Jacobs ) CFE Items and News Briefs ➢ The annual meeting of The Conservation Council of North Carolina is October 2 , in Raleigh . The meeting is on air quality . Would any CFE member like to attend ? ➢ The NRC has ruled that a public hearing is required for CP& L's expansion of storage pools at Shearon Harris . The hearing has been set for January 4 , 2000 in the Washington , D . C . area . The issue is currently in the discovery phase , with County consultants Thompson and Lochbaum scheduled to be in Hillsborough on September 16 and 17 to review materials and ask questions of CP &L . The County has applied to the Z . Smith Reynolds Foundation for a grant to cover expenses of pursuing the matter . o24 MASTER PLAN EXECUTIVE OUTLINE 020 WTMP EXPANSION PROPOSAL July 14, 1999 Board of Health Adopted July 22 , 1999 Components 1 . Education (Draft plan attached) 2 . Homeowner Incentives • Possible low interest loans or grants through a revolving fund for septic system repairs • Exemption or delays from some re -inspections based on proper checking and maintenance of individual systems • Free advanced training for community or homeowners ' associations volunteers to be " ambassadors " in wastewater management and " first responder" duties • Possible free water sampling or other services provided at the time of the re-inspections 3 . Re -inspections • The option given the most favorable response for re- inspections is to begin in the water quality critical areas and expand outwards to the corresponding watersheds and eventually to the whole county Objectives 1 . Improve source water quality - both ground waters and surface waters 2 . Prevent disease transmission 3 . Optimize septic system lives 4 . Maintain and preserve septic system repair areas 5 . Avoid or delay septic system repairs 6 . Minimize obstructions to transfers of property due to failing septic systems , especially those with limited or no viable repair options U2b TIMELINE Phase One 1st year - Projected startup date : April 2000 1 . Educational plan development, implementation of community awareness , and module development - See attached plan 2 . Define homeowner incentives - 3 . Begin search . and submit applications for startup monies from federal and state agencies for re-inspections and possible revolving fund monies for repairs of failing systems Staffing required : One FTE health educator 2nd year 1 . Education plan continues — sessions for individuals and targeted groups 2 . Random inspection sampling to assess need for full program of re -inspections - sampling to be drawn from existing system inspections completed in the normal course of applications received in the Environmental Health office 3 . Complete final framework for re-inspections and frequency of re-inspections 4 . Finalize funding mechanisms for program continuation 5. Continue funding search for repair of failing systems (if needed) Staffing required : . 5 FTE GIS/database position Phase Two 3rd, 4th and 5th years 1 . Ongoing education to individuals 2 . Complete first round of educational efforts to targeted groups 3 . Begin re4nspections 4. Have revolving fund monies , if available , in place for grants or low interest loans to repair failing systems discovered during re-inspections Staffing required : 1 FTE Registered Sanitarian 01 7 Beyond five years 1 . Re-educate/update education of targeted groups 2 . Continue individual and community educational efforts with upgrades as necessary 3 . Continue re-inspections - complete cycle for all systems should occur in approximately 20 years Staffing required : 2 -5 additional Registered Sanitarians for re- inspections . Depends on scope determined in year two . Funding Options 1 . Federal or State grants - for startup only 2 . General fund 3 . Fee per inspection it fee charged to the owners of 4 . Annual operations perm inspected systems structured to recover actual cost of inspection in 5 (? ) years 5 . Annual fee charged to all septic system owners to structured to recover direct costs of service delivery on an annual basis 6. Hybrid or combination 7. Staff recommendation - combination of 1 , 2 , and 5 above Groups Represented in the Workgrouu 1 . OC Health Department staff 2 . OC Board of Health 3 . OC Planning Department staff 4 . OC Manager ' s Office staff 5 . OC Board of County Commissioners 6. OC Commission for the Environment (presentation made and attended latest meeting) 7. OWASA 8 . Town of Hillsborough (invited) 9 . Triangle J Council of Governments 10 . OC Water Resources Commission (presentation made only) 11 . NCSU Cooperative Extension (sent copies of materials only) 028 029 � r o cer / r e act overfo . to alp - protect habitat increase the acreage dedicated to By PAT ROBERTSON wildlife habitat each year. 1 Staff Writer i Cash grants and professional Power line rights of way, often wildlife management advice will choked with briars and scrub be provided to land owners or j brush , could. become . havens for F managers who � are committed to . wildlife under an . incentive pro - five years. of rights - of-way man- gram launched , Monday . , . . ageriment: Representatives of 38 power Funding is provided by electric companies , 4 utilities, tinriber compa- power companies and electric nies , conservation organizations cooperatives . Jan. 1- is the deadline and state and federal natural to sign. up for the first year. resources agencies . signed the Landowners , hunt clubs , agreement establishing the ;Power wildlife organizations And I others for Wildlife program. may apply for the grants . Applica- " With an expanding human . tions and brochures are 'available population combined with the loss ;at local USDA-NRCS and Soil and and degradation of wildlife habitat, Water Conservation District we need to seize every opportunity offices , to protect and , enhance habitat , " Approved participants can said Paul Sandifer , executive receive .as much as $ 60 per acre director _ of the state Department of and a maximum $ 1 , 000 in a five - Natural Resources . 1 . year period to manage for wildlife The agreement will provide. . in rights-of-way across their prop- funding to protect up to 500 miles erty., of power line rights of way. across. Typical practices include the state next year ; said Walley mechanical and chemical brush Turner, , acting state conservation- control and permanent and annual ist with the USDA= Natural wildlife plantings . . Resources Conservation Service . Sandifer said the program will Turner said with an estimated benefit quail , rabbits and other 10 , 000 miles of rights of way in game , and will support songbirds , South' Carolina , the aim is to hawks and other wildlife . 030 Work group urges local governments to ' lan&bank' (9/3 / 1999 , CHN) httpw//www . chapelhillnews . com/Issues/ 1999/09/03 /news03 . html 0 3 � AV 1 Y� ff News .: Home Classifieds News sports Opinion Around Town Arts Calendar Chapel Hill News Real Estate Section Search Contact Us Work group urges local governments to ' land - bank' With available land being snapped up for development, county looks to $ 8 million bond to acquire space for parks and facilities . By DAVE HART, Staff Writer CARRBORO - - As new homes and subdivisions pop up on one plot of land after another in Orange County, the amount of land available for soccer fields , bike paths , hiking trails and playgrounds shrinks in proportion . And as the demand for land grows , the cost of land grows as well . That' s why a work group composed of officials , staff and citizens is urging the local governments to raise funds and purchase park land as quickly as possible , while there ' s still land to buy . " The current critical need is to begin long -term land acquisition, " says a report compiled by the Orange County Master Recreation and Parks Work Group . " Simultaneous with the population increase , land in Orange County is rapidly increasing in value . Large tracts are being subdivided, and options for geographic locations of park land in every township are diminishing . " A priority for use of future funds clearly must be land acquisition for long-term park needs , rather than simply developing recreational facilities (which can be developed over time as population increases) . " The report calls that plan " land banking . " " It essentially establishes a ' savings account' of land, " the report says . " Once the saving account has been fully funded, land can be withdrawn and developed for specific parks and recreation needs . " " I hope people understand the concept, " said Margaret Brown of the Orange County Commissioners , who chaired the group . " It' s crucial . The emergency is that land is disappearing rapidly . We have to buy it first, while we still can . Then, later, we can go back and put facilities on it . " The group identified a total of 1 , 385 acres of park land in Orange County . Based on the county' s estimated year 2000 population of 112 , 000 , the county and towns will have an overall deficit of 645 acres of parks and recreation land 1 of 3 9/3 /99 12@36 PM Vork group urges local governments to 'land-bank' (9/3 / 1999 , CHN) httpm //www . chapelhillnews . com/Issues/ 1999/09/03 /news03 . html next year . The deficit is calculated based on a population-based standard 0 3 Y p p commonly used by recreation specialists . By 2025 , the report says , when the county' s population is estimated to be 168 , 000 , the park land deficit will double , to 1 , 265 acres . To head off that shortage , the group recommends that an $ 8 million parks bond be placed on the ballot for the November 2000 election . In addition, $ 2 . 89 million remaining in land acquisition funds from the 1997 parks bond should be used to purchase land as soon as possible . The $ 6 million parks bond passed in 1997 with 55 percent of the vote . " It' s important that people see how well that bond money has been spent, " Brown said . " With that money, we're opening seven new multi -purpose playing fields and two new parks , including Chapel Hill North, which has all sorts of great amenities , and a beautiful park in Efland . When we started looking at the future needs in this group , we didn't know what we ' d find . Would it take $ 50 million, $ 100 million? But when we analyzed it, we saw that it actually was a figure that is quite doable , less than $ 11 million . So we 're put out this rough figure of $ 8 million for a bond, which would be used only to purchase property . " The work group was created in November 1997 and charged with assessing Orange County' s parks/recreation facilities and making recommendations to ensure the continued availability of those facilities . It was the first time '. Brown said, that government officials , recreation specialists and representatives from all the local governing bodies and major public organizations worked together to address recreation needs . " Before , everybody had worked in their own little boxes , " she said . " This time , we brought together all the governments , UNC , Duke , OWASA, everybody who had a stake in the issue . And it quickly became clear that we could accomplish a lot more by all working together . That way we can create a vision and we can better raise funds . " The group ' s first recommendation is to continue that cooperation by forming a permanent Parks and Resources Land Council be formed, including reprentatives and citizens from the county , Hillsborough, Chapel Hill , Carrboro , the school systems , UNC , Duke and OWASA . Among the first actions of such a council would be to establish a consistent set of standards for parks and recreation facilities throughout the county . The group strongly encourages all the local municipalities to work together rather than separately to raise funds and buy park lands . In addition, UNC , Duke and the Orange Water and Sewer Authority - - all of which own substantial land used for recreation - - should be integral parts of the effort . " We have to coordinate our efforts , " said Carrboro Alderman Jacquie Gist, who served on the work group . " We can't pretend we all use entirely separate recreation facilities . People from Carrboro use other people ' s facilities , and people from Chapel Hill and the county use ours . We don't want a territorial set-up where we go , ' You can't use our football field, and we can't use your swimming pool . Other recommendations include more joint school/park facilities , such as the of 3 0 /1 /QQ 1 1 * 1K DAA Work group urges local governments to ' land-bank' (9/3 / 1999 , CHN) http : //www . chapelhillnews . com/Issues/ 1999/09/03 /news03 . html one proposed at the future Smith Middle School ; partnerships with OWASA, 033 UNC , Duke and other parties such as the Triangle Land Conservancy to identify and acquire lands , joint capital funding and land-banking plans ; an open facilities policy that would ensure that all county residents have access to recreation lands owned by all the jurisdictions and OWASA ; and consideration of an impact fee or impact tax to fund parks and recreation facilities . Dave Hart can be reached at 93M744 or dhart _ nando : com [ Top Next Story > ] Home Classifieds News Sports Opinion Around Town Arts Calendar Chapel Hill News Real Estate Section Search Contact Us 3 of 3 9/3 /99 12 * 36 PM 034 C &D - - or none of the above ? (9/3 / 1999 , CHN) http : Hwww . chapelhillnews . com/Issues/ 1999/09/03 /newsO2 . html 035 Me SIM wan � v „ t. . u � R . News Home Classifieds News Sports Opinion Around Town Arts Calendar Chapel Hill News Real Estate Section Search Contact Us C & D - - or none of the above ? Commissioners consider two new landfill sites for construction and demolition -- or C & D -- waste . But both options have problems , and the current C &D landfill could close without a new facility ready . By DAVID SCHULMAN , Staff Writer CHAPEL HILL - - If you build it, they will come . The dump trucks , that is - - loaded with concrete and wooden construction debris . But will they , in fact, build it? The current landfill for construction and demolition waste - - a part of the Eubanks Road landfill complex - - will have to close in 10 months , according to Gayle Wilson, solid waste director for Chapel Hill . And starting Sept . 7 , the Orange County Commissioners will hold a series of meetings this month to decide whether to buy a landfill site on the Durham County line , or choose a smaller site on Eubanks Road . Or neither one . Neither site yet has the support of a majority of the county board - - which, under a still unsigned agreement with Chapel Hill and Carrboro , is supposed to take over responsibility for landfill operations in January 2000 . And Wilson, whose department for the meantime remains a Chapel Hill department, says he won't be surprised if neither site is chosen. The Guess Road site has been vigorously opposed by neighbors , and by Durham County Commissioners . Two members of the Orange County board - - Barry Jacobs and Margaret Brown - - already have pledged to vote against it because it lies in a reservoir watershed for Durham, just five miles upstream of the city' s intake facility . " It' s in the watershed , " said Brown . " I don't have to have any other reason . " " We really do take pride in watershed protection, " Jacobs said. " I don't think we should be putting landfills in watersheds . " Commissioner Stephen Halkiotis has not yet committed himself. But he says he likes neither site , and emphasizes that he has seen only one letter in favor of the site - - from a Raleigh construction firm . 1 of 3 9/3 /99 12 * 42 PM &D - - or none of the above ? (9/3 / 1999 , CHN) http : //www . chapelhillnews . com/Issues/ 1999/09/03 /newsO2 .html 03 If he votes against Guess Road it won't matter what commissioner Moses Carey and board Chair Alice Gordon -- who are keeping mum - - decide . With three or more votes against it, the county won't exercise its option to buy the land for $ 497 , 000 , and only one site will be left under consideration : Eubanks Road . While the Guess Road site so far has drawn a great deal of public attention - - with 130 opponents appearing at one meeting where it wasn't even on the agenda - - the Eubanks Road location so far has been little discussed . Nonetheless , the possibility remains that Eubanks Road could have another landfill before neighbors struggling with bad wells get their long -promised water lines . The county' s option to buy the Guess Road site expires at the end of September . And Carey said that if it is not chosen, that likely spells another landfill for Eubanks road. "Not necessarily , " said Carey, " but probably . " But the Eubanks Road plan is far from a default option . The Eubanks Road site is far smaller than the Guess Road location - - 33 acres versus 178 acres - - and Wilson said it would last only 14 years . The Guess Road site , by comparison, r would be good for more than 60 . And, besides the controversy involved in siting another landfill on Eubanks Road, it would require the condemnation of property owned by Inna Deng who has sworn she will never let her land be used for a landfill . And it could involve tangling with Duke University , which as owner of Duke Forest land has thwarted prior attempts to site landfill facilities . Meanwhile , three commissioners -- Brown, Halkiotis and Jacobs - - have begun to suggest that neither site may be appropriate . And while Jacobs said it might be reasonable to consider other sites , Brown and Halkiotis now are openly questioning the need for another construction and demolition landfill . Asked for alternatives to the Eubanks Road site , Brown said, "No site . It' s not a mandate . " Halkiotis criticized the current economics of construction and demolition waste , which use dumping fees to help pay for local recycling programs . He described this revenue stream as " a form of legalized cocaine , " that encourages large- scale dumping of construction materials - - rather than recycling - - in order to pay for the recycling program . Brown said if Eubanks Road is chosen, she would want to see it attractively built, not showing neighbors a swath of raw earth. But she said what she ' d most want to see is a comprehensive recycling effort that focuses on construction waste, and encourages the resale of building materials . " I ' d really like to see Orange County have a first-rate recycling program that does C &D really well , " Brown said, " a facility that we can be proud 'off not all just being buried or thrown in a hole or carted off ' With the authority over landfill decision in what Brown called " a real limbo situation " until the county takes over from Chapel Hill, it' s unclear which elected boards must agree in order for a site to be chosen . of niIinn in . nn nXX C;&D -- or none of the above ? (9/3 / 1999 , CHN) http * //www . chapelhillnews . com/Issues/ 1999/09/03 /news02 . html 3 Ni1 But if neither site is picked, solid waste director Wilson said, each of the C &D site users would have to fend for themselves . " After the current site closes next summer, builders would have to drive to Person County to use a construction and demolition landfill , Wilson said . And, he said, he would expect an increase in illegal dumping , burning and burial of materials throughout the county . " It' s a big question mark, " he said . Another option would be to simply bury construction waste in the main landfill that accepts mixed materials . That' s an easy option for builders - - disposal of materials costs $ 40 a ton, regardless of what' s in it . But it' s a costly choice for the landfill itself. Wilson said that construction and demolition landfill space costs " roughly $ 40 , 000 an acre to site , permit, and operate . " The lined all-purpose landfill - - itself running short on space - - runs to $ 350 , 000 an acre . Jacobs , however, said it might be worth it for " two or three months " if the extra time allowed a better option to be found . The committee that oversees landfill operations - - which includes representatives from Orange County , Chapel Hill , and Carrboro - - this winter considered eight possible sites for the construction and demolition landfill . But only two , the Guess Road and Eubanks Road sites , were sent to the elected boards for consideration . David Schulman can be reached at 918 -2022 ext . 377 or dschulma@, nando . com . [ Two I Next Stoo > ] Home Classifieds News Sports Opinion Around Town Arts Calendar Chapel Hill News Real Estate Section Search Contact Us 3 of 3 9/3 /99 12 : 42 PM