Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCFE 100900 Orange County Environment and Resource Conservation Department P . O , Box 8181 Hlllshomugll, NC 21278 r � �, Phone : (91 �)) 245 - e D a►� OP Fax : ( 919 ) 644 -3002 FI?'lull : t' 001ZiI )fOYLl&O . 01771 "l�E ' . 11t: . 1IS a - Memorandum To : Commission for the Environment OCT From : Roy Fortmann , Chair Date : October 2 , 2000 Re : October 9 Meeting Agenda Please find attached the agenda and materials for the next meeting of the Commission for the Environment , which is scheduled for : Noonday, October 9, 2000 7 : 30 p . m . Southern Human Services Center 2505 Homestead Road Chapel Hill , NC At this meeting we will receive presentations on regional transportation planning from two speakers and discuss the 2001 - 2002 Lands Legacy Action Plan , as well as other topics . We do plan to have committee breakout sessions . If you have questions , or will be unable to attend , please contact David Stancil ( 245 - 2590 , dstancil@co . orange . nc . us ) or Rich Shaw ( 245 - 2591 , rshaw@co . orange . nc . us ) by the Friday before the meeting . I look forward to seeing you on the 9t " a r LAFIL r ti • _ 7 I~ II rin _ - r F L. 1 - . 1 7 - - , 0 ti 4 ; • r _ • F _- _ - _ -L , _ 1 - - - me 1ti, � { . � r r _ _ _ _ _ _ WIN- �r 1 _ p _ I - s rt ' } _ 4 im - L 7. .. N7111 r• Y r ` S S } � r _ _ Syr � • r Mo no ti No y • ti t. .,� ice_ . - ' 1 � • b - . OLD- _ - _ 3 • _ - _ y� . Ed ow in NO }, r - a , } 0 - ords {_ J ' • a� r 0 MOM -• { Mom } No ti :F 0 0 MIL r r —._ In ki IN � ' ' 0% in YLPN _i _ 1 ' 7 � •J � r_ � y 11 1 rs : -*_ _ 1 • t F - _fir - _ _ -_ _ AA `�`• + ' -; � " II# nn - _ ' _ . '+'.1.� 1 e` ` J` I 4 •� : Z r ' I� I y _ ,L . 1 Nl_jL_E III In S IN ' ' -S J 1 7o • - - � ' " rl y • - { S ME MIN _ won •_r - 1 in -- , �+ J = a L �� �' r 7 k— { RIB • 1 { k #• �• ' ME a �dlllo - :IM IN Midi 0 Nol I IM I MOM —10 • 1 l no 1 - J . �. nr f _ _ MOM 0 No No MIE in I 1 � � � �" I�ti -addin " ' 1 � E itM �; • T yME in �4 • . - - 0 tO—�� ME _L° PS+s F' i f i r ,n � ? • _ # a. - - J •- } - � ice_ +•� — - - tip int. No _ L � 1 • _ OP L ����""1.1#•••s�� +. _ I' S1 �" � 7 I • F�� L �Tz ._ _ L _ in F ' 1NN r • FT=� - 1 t Y - L ti ":�1 1r -_ _ _. in ., e r1a - - - _ ._ ain 1. %_rr rIN r { 7 ��� {Lj i� ti�7.r 1 rKr_ ti 1 r -_ IN ll� _ - r�..i� � - � • � 1 - , ' 'J , Olt � � J M' - r 1 _ r - ' .I •I . , _� _ _ ' _r - JOE 1 - 'r M 0 on t�k Y_ • • Lr I 1 .r � • _ MIN .• I t ti ti 1 � �Noon: � 1 . L �r _ r r L _ Fill- _ ti �ti s - 1 +.ME - No M.1a 9L 11 . jr ,� 0 ONE - ; r ti • 1 s � ` �•I ,ti ' , -- �-J • in L no .0 A • = - • � �-00 ON _ loom -y. • It •+-7 ' - j % — ' L r — MON _ - _I Y ;IMMIJ - • r ' — J in ' F . . 7- •rr - . _n MIN IN � r . + NMI - s � MOM T_ 0 0L � � -` ` a 111 SC min Moss no 1 } 'T r 'P ti 1Flom .3ylow ■ � � -� ' ; 'r 1 t • ~No . �� • F • r ti {' � ti • •0 { �� '"1�� 4� } • r - IN ' :fit - � 1% _ MM _ _ - � "1 � _ ••��•• .. 1 ♦� ti ' .' tiy1 1 . . . r _ 1 t'1 ' � � �_ 1 r , 1 1 30 r .r NEL L' ON . 1 _ % - .,F• rti ti ri _ _ , " - 1 r .� 1 . " � • r • '� ' = y. - � • � _ _ r 1r ' •' • r_ ry r. MOM •' _ in NJ 0 No I Ms ir I - . • - _ •. • • � • • - - • - ' � 1 • r ' r — 1 0 � - " te - — " - � ' r iwl _ _ � • _% ' 06 OL 0 No No INN ti � ,. , ,• 1 ''� � ? . S-.1 � _ 1 '- '� _ o _ " . '� . , - _S ti • • . - . - 1 . � 1 - - • rti0 No Y" �L � . - YL �'�I t - •7-MI ' r ~ • 711 O - - ME 7 rL y, — le Jr • -FL . I11 - r 111111 No _ . � "ME ON { .•J ; • �• 1F = r. kL. _ . - "1 tiJOI IN - �`} ' . y� lIN 1 � . _ � •ti ��_. F �r, r �1 ' ! tL _ 1 - J , :. � . AGENDA Orange County Commission for the Environment Monday, October 9 , 2000 7 : 30 p . m . Southern Human Services Center 2505 Homestead Road Chapel Hill , NC 7 : 30 I . Call to Order 7 : 30 II . Additions or Changes to Agenda 7 : 31 2 III . Approval of Minutes ( September 11 ) 7 : 32 10 IV . Regional Transportation Planning Please see attached materials . Following presentations by Tim Saunders ( on DCHC MPO ) and David Bonk from the Town of Chapel Hill , the Commission may wish to discuss the County 's role in transportation planning and the planning process . 8 : 00 17 V . Lands Legacy Action Plan 2001 - 2002 Please see attached memo . In October and November, the Commission should consider recommendations for the 2001 - 2002 action plan . Staff recommends referring the matter to the BR Committee for a report in November . 8 : 15 36 VI . Timber Harvesting Session ( 11 / 28 ) Please see attached final version and proposal from N . C . Forest Service , as per previous e - mail . 8 : 30 VII . Updates • AFLEV Work Group , Sustainability 8 : 35 VIII . Agenda Items for Next Meeting ( 11 / 13 ) 2001 - 02 Lands Legacy Action Plan , AFLEV report , Shaping Orange County 's Future , 2001 State of the Environment " Progress Report " . 8 : 40 IX . Committee Breakout Sessions 2001 State of the Environment progress report , other committee work . 9 : 30 X . Adjournment ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSION FOR THE ENVIRONMENT Summary of Meeting September 11 , 2000 Held at Orange County Southern Human Services Center, Chapel Hill , NC Members Present : Cara Crisler, Julie Tucker, Annette Jurgelski , Mark Smith , Richard Pratt, Lee Rafalow, Loraine Kohorn , Hervey McIver . Excused Absences : Laura Cotterman , Roy Fortmann , Dan Okun , William Glaze . ' Guests : Ben Hitchings , Gayle Wilson , Deborah Gross Staff Present : David Stancil , ERCD Director, Carol Crawford , ERCD Administrative Assistant . I . Call to Order . Crisler called the meeting to order at 70. 35 p . m . . II . Additions or Changes to Agenda . Stancil suggested adding an item prior to the breakout sessions on an appointment to the Intergovernmental Parks Work Group . The Commission agreed to add this as Item # X . III . Approval of Minutes (August 14, 2000 ) . MOTION : Tucker made motion to approve the August 14 , 2000 minutes with noted changes by Kohorn . Seconded by Kohorn . VOTE : unanimous . IV . Open Burning Issues Stancil gave an overview of Open Burning issues , including recent media coverage of the Lake Hogan Farm situation and legislation recently adopted by the General Assembly . In July , the General Assembly ratified a bill giving Orange County authority to regulate and prohibit the open burning of trees , limbs , stumps and construction debris . This authority may be applied as a condition of approval for subdivision approval and other clearing and development permits . DRAFT CFE 9/ 11 /00 Minutes Page 1 of 8 L :\Carol\C F EM 1N\91100cfeF IN AL. do c • The bill and authority does not apply within the Carr and Cheeks voting precincts of Orange County . • Agricultural , horticultural and silvicultural ( forestry ) activities that are exempt from County permitting and land use rules are also exempt from this bill . As such , open burning under by bona fide agricultural operations and managed forestry operations is not affected . • The authority to regulate open burning is limited to the County 's territorial jurisdiction , and as such does not automatically apply inside municipal jurisdictions . In order for any new County regulations to apply inside Towns , the Town boards would need to adopt the same regulations . In the Orange County - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Joint Planning Area , the towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro would need to adopt these standards in order for them to apply in the " transition areas " north of Chapel Hill and Carrboro * . Transition areas are areas that are governed by a joint land use plan , but permit authority is delegated to the respective Towns . • The County "s Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling Task Force recently released a report that calls for the County to mandate recycling or reuse of " recyclable waste material . " The report recommended an ordinance that would require the separation of materials for recycling or reuse purposes . Items to be reused or recycled include yard waste and " non - reusable wood waste " ( i . e . , trees and vegetation cleared from land for any purpose other than sale as a commodity or chipping for sale ) . The proposed ordinance would prohibit disposal of such waste through open burning in the County . • To implement the ordinance , the County must first address a method for handling recycled wood waste . The Board of Commissioners will consider this and other related issues on an upcoming worksession . Stancil noted that Lake Hogan Farms subdivision , where open burning was recently an issue , is in the Carrboro transition area . To address this issue in transition areas under the new legislation , the following would need to occur : 1 ) the County develops a plan for handling recycled wood waste , 2 ) the County adopts ordinance prohibiting burning and mandating recycling , and 3 ) Carrboro passes resolution putting the ordinance into effect within Carrboro 's jurisdiction . The BOCC has adopted a resolution that would have agencies using county funds use open burning as a last resort . DRAFT CFE 9 / 11 / 00 Minutes Page 2 of 8 L :\Caro1\CFEMIN\91 100cfeFINAL. doc Fortmann suggested ( via email ) that the CFE draft a resolution recommending that the BOCC implement regulations addressing open burning as soon as possible and that the County attempt to work with developers to help minimize and eliminate open burning of debris from site clearing . This type of burning was noted as a significant air quality issue that needs to be addressed . Tucker noted some of the alternatives to open burning for handling waste wood . Stancil stated that the county now has the authority to comprehensively address the open burning issues through C &D waste recycling ordinance . The CfE discussed the draft ordinance regulating recyclable waste materials and licensing the collection of solid waste in Orange County . v . C & D Recycling Task Force Report Stancil provided a synopsis of a draft ordinance that was included in the Construction & Demolition Task Force Report : • Possible methods for disposal of recyclable waste material ; • Recyclable waste includes recyclable construction and demolition waste , yard waste , corrugated cardboard , non - reusable wood waste , and other materials as may be designated as such by amendments to this ordinance ; • All recyclable waste generated in Orange County shall be recycled . It is a violation of this ordinance for any person to dispose of recyclable waste except as permitted in this ordinance . Stancil then introduced Gayle Wilson , Solid Waste Director . Wilson noted that the current C & D landfill is filling up and as the County seeks a new site other means for C &D waste disposal are being considered , such as recycling . A large percentage of the C &D waste stream can be recycled , which could postpone the need for a new C &D landfill site . The task force was created to explore these possibilities of recycling C & D wastes . He noted that construction materials are more easily separated and recycled than demolition debris . The majority of waste materials are from new construction verses demolition . The initial focus of the task force was on large piles of debris that burn for days . DRAFT CFE 9/ 11 /00 Minutes Page 3 of 8 L :\Carol\CFEMIN\91100cfeFINAL . doc Uu The current draft proposal would require a solid waste plan if the cost of the project is $ 50 , 000 or more , however that would not exclude ordinance compliance for other situations . A detailed survey of the landfill found that 60 % of the trips to dump C &D materials were delivered by small pickup trucks and amounted to 40 % of the landfill volume . A comprehensive plan is being prepared for handling materials such as land clearing waste , clean wood waste , metals , dry wall and carpet matting . The need to begin implementation of various options to manage C&D waste debris for developers , builders and citizens was noted as important . It was suggested that some larger contractors may be disposing C&D material out of the county . Stancil pointed out the Summary of Recommendations on page three of the report . Rafalow suggested that a list of vendors be made available to residents . CfE members agreed to submit comments on a proposed draft resolution to staff and requested that a draft come to the CfE in October for finalization and adoption . vim " Regional Greenprint" Stancil noted the plans for a " regional greenprint" proposal , which would tie together existing plans for protecting open space across the region and develop new plans where they do not exist . The Triangle Land Conservancy , Triangle J Council of Governments and the NC Division of Parks and Recreation are coordinating development of the AA greenprint " . County staff is participating in the plans for this proposal . Stancil introduced Ben Hitchings from Triangle J Council of Governments . Hitchings described the project as addressing green space on a six- county level : Orange , Chatham , Durham , Wake , Lee and Johnson counties . According to statistics from Natural Resources Conservation Service there are approximately 50 acres lost daily to development in the Triangle area of these six counties . Protecting important natural areas across the region is becoming urgent . Hitchings noted the significance of local programs such as the Lands Legacy program and how they play a leading role in protecting the natural and recreational areas upon which our communities depend . The intent of the greenprint is to build on existing plans such as Lands Legacy , where they exist . The regional council of governments is working with non - profit DRAFT CFE 9/ 11 /00 Minutes Page 4 of 8 L :\Carol\CFEMIN\91100cfeFIN AL. doc � h organizations and state Division of Parks and Recreation to develop a framework in which the different community will fit into a regional greenprint . He noted that a single greenway segment is considerably more valuable when linked with those in other jurisdictions to form trails such as the New Hope Creek Trail or the American Tobacco Trail . Development of the regional greenprint will include three phases beginning this Fall . Baseline information was shown on a map of approximately 145 , 000 acres already protected in the Triangle . New layers of data will be added to the map from individual community/ county protection proposals such as the Land Legacy plans for Orange County . Phase I is a technical process of bringing together staff from local governments , agency representatives , and non - profits to review the base maps and sketch out the important natural and recreational areas . Three design workshops ( Parks & Greenways , Natural Areas & Wetlands , Farmland & Forestland ) will be held to identify areas where a number of objectives may be achieved at once . Phase II is take the different scenarios of what might be protected and have a public process , meetings across the region , solicit feedback from residents , local leaders and elected officials . Phase III will result in a regional , open space greenprint which each local government will be asked to adopt as an official plan. As local open space plans move forward , the regional system will be achieved and the natural and recreational functioning systems will be maintained . This effort will help North Carolina reach its goal of protecting an additional million acres by 2010 . Hitchings noted that the proposed greenprint could also help Triangle communities receive state funds for acquiring land for parks and open space . Discussion followed on time frames , the upcoming workshops , criteria development, the coordination of efforts among the jurisdictions , and funding limitations . Hitchings encouraged the CfE members to contact him by email if they have any further questions or suggestions . Stancil noted that in the next couple months the CfE would be discussing priority initiatives for including in the Lands Legacy action plan for 2001 - 02 , and that it would be useful to consider initiatives not only at a local level but in the context of the regional greenprint . DRAFT CFE 9 / 11 /00 Minutes Page 5 of 8 L :\Car01\CFEMIN\91 100cfeHN AL . doc E VII . Timber Harvesting Information Session The CfE discussed a variety of possible ways to publicize the November timber harvest panel meeting , including press releases , newspaper articles , flyers and direct mailings to large landowners , forest owners , farmers , conservation - minded people and others . Rafalow agreed to draft a letter and circulate via email to CfE members . Stancil reviewed the agenda for November 28th meeting . Item # 5 on the agenda (" Next Steps - Follow - up ") was discussed as being significant . Stancil asked if a couple of members would be willing to meet with panelists and work with staff on publicity , holding a ' dress - rehearsal " and developing follow - up information in early November . Tucker agreed to assist on the details for the session . It was recommended that the CfE invite Andy Sachs to the November meeting to help prepare for the meeting . VIII . Updates a . AFLEV Work Group — Stancil reported that the AFLEV is currently looking at a draft report . The work group report will go to the BOCC late November or early December with recommendation on pursuing a mobile source emission reduction grant in December 2000 . The work group is looking at several vehicles on the county 's vehicle replacement list for possible candidates of alternative vehicles , either compressed natural gas , bi - fuel or electric vehicles . b . Sustainability — Consultant Pam McIntosh is working on developing measures for 44 indicators of " sustainability " developed the Shaping Orange County 's Task Force group and giving ERCD a sense of where we ' re moving toward sustainability goals using the measurable indicators . She will be available to meet with the EIE Committee or the CfE to discuss her work in October . c . Shaping Orange County 's Future — Provisional Report went to County public hearing on August 28th , however no action taken to date by BOCC . It may be November before the BOCC refers the SOCF recommendations to advisory boards for review and comment . The Assembly of Governments meeting has been set for January 29th d . Natural Areas and Open Space Element — Rich Shaw has been working on the Natural Areas and Open Space Element and plans to meet with the Biological Resource group before the October meeting . McIver DRAFT CFE 9 / 11 /00 Minutes Page 6 of 8 L :\Caro1\CFEMIN\91 100cf eFINAL . doc suggested that the CfE read the biological and land use section of the SOCF report . CfE members requested copies be sent via email . IX . Agenda Items for Next Meeting ( 10 / 9 ) Stancil reported that October meeting speakers include David Bonk from Town of Chapel Hill , someone from Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization , items for the Lands Legacy Annual Action Plan 2001 - 02 , review of the SOCF report, and ideas for the 2001 State of the Environment report . The CfE discussed the State of the Environment report and a similar report in Mecklenburg County that is produced every two years . The Commission agreed to change the timeframe to a bi - annual report and an alternating year progress report on recommendations and accomplishments to present to BOCC this year . The idea of two audiences , the BOCC and the public , was discussed as important . Working with the press to educate the public was also identified as important , such as the upcoming Timber Harvesting meeting . X . Proposed Intergovernmental Parks Work Group ( IP Work Group ) Stancil gave an overview of the Intergovernmental Parks Work Group membership . The group will consist of 17 members including one member from the CfE . Advisory board and elected representatives from each jurisdiction will be appointed by the elected board of that jurisdiction . Meetings will be held three times per year for a period of three years from July 2000 through June 2003 . There will be yearly reports with a final report due in June 2003 . After three years , the participating parties may make the work group a permanent group . The charge of the IP Work Group is to build on the momentum of the Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group process by accomplishing the following . 1 . To gather, exchange and share information on parks planning and development in the municipalities and County . 2 . To maintain and update the Inventory of Parks and Recreation Facilities developed as part of the Joint Master Recreation and Parks report , including new properties acquired or dedicated . 3 . To foster communication between the municipalities and County on future opportunities and collaborative ventures . DRAFT CFE 9 / 11 /00 Minutes Page 7 of 8 L :\Caro1\CFEM1N\91 100cfeFTNAL . doc 4 . To provide a coordinating mechanism for updates to parks and recreation plans in each jurisdiction . 5 . To review and inform the municipalities and County concerning parks needs and potential opportunities . 6 . To develop parameters for parks standards ( leaving flexibility for the actual standards to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction within these parameters ) . 7 . To develop and coordinate public education and public outreach on parks issues ( coordinated brochures , etc . ) Rafalow volunteered to serve on the IP Work Group . XI . Committee Breakout Sessions The Commission adjourned and Committees formed for a brief breakout session . XII . Adjournment DRAFT CFE 9 / 11 /00 Minutes Page 8 of 8 L :\Carol\CFEMIN\91 I00cfeFINAL . doc MEMORANDUM To : Commission for the Environment , Air Quality Committee From : Marc deBree , ERCD Intern CC : Dave Stancil , Kris Price , Bill Glaze Re : Questions about Orange County transportation planning Date : June 7 , 2000 Attached is a narrative statement regarding questions that were asked by the Commission for the Environment , Air Quality Committee members in their April 18 , 2000 memorandum to Dave Stancil (a copy of that memo is included in this mailing) . I have prepared this document in consultation with Karen Lincoln, Transportation Planner for Orange County. Further questions should be directed to her . Below is a list of the questions (excerpted from the original memo ) that have been addressed . • Does the County have a current Transportation Plan? • Does the County have a long-range Transportation Plan? • What is the current focus of work in the Orange County Planning Department with respect to transportation planning ? • What demographic and transportation data are available for planning in the County? • What transportation issues has the Department identified as most important for Orange County? • What parameters/issues drive transportation planning in Orange County — traffic management, road construction , road maintenance , air quality, quality of life , or others ? • With respect to the issues and recommendations cited above , what is the County doing with regard to regional transportation planning ? • What is the County ' s involvement in regional transportation planning organizations such as the Triangle Transit Authority? (TTA) • What is the direction of transportation planning in Orange County? What is the County ' s stand on mass transit, car-pooling, bicycles , etc ? k Orange County Transportation Planning Overview (the end of this document has a list of acronyms) Transportation planning in Orange County is heavily influenced by three major factors : the administrative boundaries of different governing bodies , the source of funds for transportation projects , and state and federal legislation that determines the extent and timing of the county ' s role in transportation planning . Many organizational layers have a hand in guiding transportation planning in the County, and with them , many documents . The organizational structure is like a multi - layered cake , whose layers do not always fit perfectly atop one another . At the base are the individual municipalities who have jurisdiction over their city roads . Then there is the Orange County government that helps , at a planning level , to link the individual municipal plans with the rural areas of the county and with the major highways and interstates ( although counties have no road -building or maintenance responsibilities in NC ) . The next layer is the State Department of Transportation (DOT) . They have divided the state into 14 planning divisions for regional coordination . All of Orange County is in Division 7 , which also includes Alamance , Caswell , Guilford , and Rockingham Counties . Finally, there are the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs ) . Two MPOs have jurisdiction in Orange County . The Durham , Chapel Hill , Carrboro - Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC -MPO ) includes the municipalities of Durham , Chapel Hill , and Carrboro as well as Durham County, and half of Orange County. It contains parts of three state DOT divisions : 5 , 7 , and 8 . The Alamance MPO includes the municipalities of Burlington , Graham , Elon College , Gibsonville , Haw River and Mebane . Areas in Orange County not covered by an MPO are under the direction of Division 7 of the State DOT . With all these governing bodies overseeing different portions of Orange County, the transportation planning process appears piecemeal . However, there is some regional coordination in Durham and Orange Counties through the DCHC - MPO . Still , the process is not centralized and differing goals and priorities among the governing bodies in the County can lead to conflicts between planning and implementation . Funding for transportation projects generally comes from the Federal government ( distribution of money from the gasoline tax ) with some additional contribution from the state and local r- governments . The federal funds first go to the state in various allotments for different types of projects . The state then redistributes specified amount to the MPOs . The MPOs , in part, fund the individual transportation operations like TTA , and Chapel Hill Transit . Projects funded with these federal funds must be part of a local or regional plan such as the DCHC -MPO ' s 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan or the Thoroughfare Plan for Orange County. In consultation with all the organizational bodies involved, these projects are added to the State Transportation Improvement Program (TIP ) . The TIP serves as a six -year implementation program . All projects that receive any federal or state transportation funds must be listed in the TIP . We are currently working under the 2000 - 2006 plan . The next plan (2002 - 2008 ) is expected out this summer . There are several other documents that pertain to transportation planning in Orange County. The Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan includes a section on transportation . This section is the County ' s current and long-range transportation planning document . It has recently been revised and the revised version has received a recommendation of approval by the Planning Board . It will probably not be adopted by the BOCC until August . The document identifies the functional classification of County roads , which in turn , determines the degree of access an area will have to roads within the county network and to major highways in the area . By controlling this access , the County is able to better guide development and local land use . A Bicycle Transportation Plan was adopted in April 1999 . It is considered a companion document to the Land Use Element ' s Transportation section . The County ' s existing transportation documents have very little information about pedestrian issues . Although the Transportation Plan for the Town of Hillsborough briefly discusses a pedestrian and bicycle route network that links to the proposed County bicycle routes . Rail and bus planning is not addressed much in County documents . It is the DCHC -MPO and TTA whose documents address these regional considerations . The DCHC -MPO 2025 Long Range Plan serves as the major regional plan, and Phase III of TTA ' s Regional Transit Plan deals with the long - term identity of Orange County " s transit system . While these regional documents exist, there is still no unitary transportation policy document for all of Orange County . At the end of this memo is a list of the documents that I have collected that pertain to transportation planning in Orange County . As noted earlier, counties in North Carolina do not build or maintain roads . Since 1931 , the NCDOT has had the construction and maintenance responsibilities for all roads except for city streets . This is why most of the County ' s focus is on managing access . Both access management and transit planning have been identified as important issues for Orange County . These issues , as well as road construction , maintenance , air quality, and quality of life , drive transportation plamung in Orange County and have been addressed in the newest revision to the Comprehensive Plan ' s Land Use Element . Most traffic management concerns are in the urbanized areas and are under municipal , not County jurisdictions . Major highways where traffic is a concern are often under state jurisdiction . The County ' s main involvement with traffic management is the County zoning regulations for planned developments that require traffic impact analyses to determine what management measures should be implemented . Finally, both the initiatives of NCDOT and the wishes of the County Commissioners are factors that affect the direction of County transportation planning . The thoroughfare plans produced for the County and region by NCDOT are expected to be updated once we finish our work on the functional designations . The County expects to be developing transportation management plan requirements for non-residential development sometime in the near future . These plans would help minimize traffic congestion in these newly developed areas. The County also has a funded TIP project to map and sign bicycle routes in the County. Initial meetings with NCDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian staff have been underway. The map will be of "tried and true " routes that are safe for most bicyclists . Once the routes have been mapped , the state will install signage . While the County' s main power to shape the future of transportation here is through the formulation of subdivision regulations , and by promoting certain types of and locations for development , the County actively coordinates with DCHC -MPO , Triangle J Council of r Governments (TJCOG) , TTA , and Orange Public Transportation ( OPT) regarding regional transportation planning initiatives . Several representatives from the County and the municipalities of Orange County represent our interests on regional transportation boards . In our work with TTA , Orange County representatives are currently checking out the availability of funds for a transit station as phase III of the Regional Transit Plan . Also , TTA says that a Durham-Hillsborough bus is expected to begin in March of 2001 . It will provide limited service during peak hours . Finally, the Department on Aging , through its Orange Public Transportation ( OPT) service , operates the only current, countywide transit system . This is not however, a conventional public transit system . It is designed as a human services project, not a transportation project . It only serves local transportation needs on a subscription service if it can accommodate those needs . OPT receives its federal funding through a different mechanism . If As a human services project , the County chooses to expand OPTs services , the funds would have to come from another source . In conjunction with OPT , we are getting ready to choose a consultant to update the community transportation services plan . Regarding ideas such as mass transit , car-pooling, bicycles , etc . , the County remains in favor of furthering these types of initiatives and generally maintains a progressive outlook on the future of alternative transportation options for the County. However, no official document or statement exists which details the County' s stance . In preparing transportation planning documents , lots of data is always needed . Quite a bit of data is available from a number of sources , although questions have been raised about the quality of some data . Much of the data for these documents comes from outside sources (NCDOT for example) , but the County Planning staff regularly provides information for census updates including workplace data updates regarding physical locations of employment centers , and information on employee commute patterns and through "windshield surveys " ( actual field observations of land uses ) . Perhaps the best source of existing data on Orange County demographics and trends is the Orange County Profile , created for the Shaping Orange County ' s Future Task Force . The Office of State Planning is another good source of demographic information and TTA has a database of people with carpool/vanpool interests in the County . Also available is digital data from the Census on Transportation Analysis Zones , which is demographic data, generally used in modeling exercises . Updates are expected from the 2000 census . Apart from the official plans of the County and other regional transportation bodies , Transportation concerns and issues have been mentioned in a number of other recent works . Thgse provide information on community concerns and desires , sustainability issues , the activities and plans of local transportation services , and overviews of County transit service feasibility . Each is listed below along with the other major transportation documents affecting Orange County transportation planning . List of collected resources : • Transportation Plan for the Town of Hillsborough , NCDOT 1997 Report for the 1985 Thoroughfare Plan Study for Durham- Chapel Hill - Carrboro Urban Area • Orange County Thoroughfare Plan Study Report , NCDOT 1990 • 2025 Transportation Plan Alternatives , DCHC MPO - TAC Meeting, 7 / 14/99 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan, DCHC -MPO , 12/6/99 Revised (not yet adopted) Transportation Section for the Land Use Element of the County Comprehensive Plan • Orange County, NC - Mobile Source Emissions Reduction Program -DRAFT - 10/ 12/99 • Bicycle Transportation Plan : Orange County, NC , Adopted April 6 , 1999 • Transportation Section : Orange County Profile - A Report to the Shaping Orange County' s Future ( SOCF) Task Force • Goal 3 : Environmentally Sustainable Transportation Systems , from Provisional Report and Recommendations , April 2000 . SOCF Task Force • Report of the SOCF Transportation , Infrastructure , and Services Committee , May 1998 • Issue Paper : Transportation Considerations for Orange County . An issue paper prepared as background information for SOCF Task Force . Fall 1999 • Amendments to Orange County Subdivision Regulations , Approved by Planning Board 5 /3 /00 . L List of Acronyms Used : TTA — Triangle Transit Authority MPO — Metropolitan Planning Organization DCHC -MPO — Durham, Chapel Hill , Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization ISTEA - Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act TIP — Transportation Improvement Program BOCC — Board of County Commissioners NQDOT — North Carolina Department of Transportation TJCOG — Triangle J Council of Governments OPT — Orange Public Transportation ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENT AND RESOURCE CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM To : Commission for the Environment From : David Stancil , Environment and Resource Conservation Director Date : September 21 , 2000 Re : Lands Legacy — Annual Action Plan 2001 - 2002 At your October and November meetings , the CfE will be asked to discuss any projects you would like to recommend to the County Commissioners for inclusion in the Annual Action Plan for Lands Legacy for the upcoming 2001 - 2002 fiscal year ( July 1 , 2001 -3une 30 , 2002 ) . A draft Annual Action Plan will be presented to the Board at their annual retreat in mid - December . Attached is the adopted process for developing the Annual Action Plan , as well as the current 2000 - 2001 Interim Action Plan . As you can see , each relevant advisory board will be making recommendations on projects for land acquisition , if any . These may include fee - simple acquisitions , conservation easement or other alternative acquisition methods ) . These recommended projects from each board will be compiled into a draft Annual Action Plan for the Commissioners . At your October meeting , please think about any land acquisitions for natural areas and wildlife habitat, wildlife or riparian corridors or other open space that you would like to recommend . You may wish to look at your adopted criteria for evaluating natural areas and wildlife habitat ( also attached ) . Feel free to identify projects that may offer multiple preservation goals ( a natural area contained within a larger park setting , for example ) . We will attempt to keep you abreast of what other advisory boards are considering in November . In the State of the Environment report , the following ideas were suggested as priorities ( please do not limit your discussion to these topics — these are provided only as a starting point ) : • Lands surrounding Eno River State Park • Adjacent lands at Occonechee Mountain • Seven - Mile Creek area • Lands along Morgan Creek surrounding Mason Farm and N . C . Botanical Garden V • The Neuse/ Cape Fear Headwaters Forests and Monadnock Corridor (" Central County Forests , Hills and Corridor ") • New Hope Creek Corridor • Chestnut Ridge • Eno River and Little River corridors • Southwest Cedar Grove Forest • Pickard 's Mountain area Please feel free to call ( 245 - 2590 ) if you have any questions . cc : Rich Shaw , Land Conservation Manager Lands Legacy Annual Action Plan Annual Process August Staff begins work to identify possible projects , BOCC asked to provide initial guiding thoughts prior to advisory boards September Initial discussions by the Commission for the Environment ( natural areas and wildlife habitat, riparian buffers, parklands ) , Agricultural Preservation Board (farmland ) , Historic Preservation Commission ( cultural and archaeological ) , and Recreation and Parks Advisory Council ( parklands ) October Staff works with each advisory board to finalize proposed projects for coming fiscal year . November Advisory boards approve recommended projects , staff develops into draft Annual Action Plan . December Draft Annual Action Plan submitted to BOCC as part of retreat materials . March -April BOCC reviews draft and revises as desired May Annual Action Plan adopted concurrent with CIP discussions �i Lands Legacy Interim Action Plan Adopted 513100 Lands Legacy — Interim Action Plan For the period May 3, 2000 -- June 30, 2001 Introduction The Lands Legacy program , adopted on April 4 , 2000 , is activated through an Annual Action Plan process . In future years , this process will begin in August of each year with a staff- generated draft which will be reviewed initially by the Board of Commissioners and then sent to relevant advisory boards for further development of priorities for the coming fiscal year . The revised draft would be distributed to the Board of , Commissioners at the December goal - setting retreat, and finalized during the budget/CIP process in the spring of each year . For the initial year of the program , the Board has authorized an Interim Action Plan to be created to guide Lands Legacy resource land purchases from the present through the fiscal year 2000 - 2001 (which begins on July 1 ) . The Interim Action Plan that follows is consistent with the template adopted as part of the Lands Legacy program , and contains goals for the period May 2000 -June 2001 , more specific objectives and a priority table with timetable and purpose . The document closes with a performance report for the previous year ( which is incomplete in this case , since the program was just adopted ) . Goals for May 2000 - June 2001 ( Note : the following goals implicitly include -continuing to aggressively pursue grant funding for many of the County 's proposed projects . ) 1 . Purchase parklands ( regional , district and community- level ) strategically throughout the County, for both active and low - impact recreation , to land - bank for future parks that can provide leisure opportunities for all citizens ( and potentially be co - located with future schools ) . 2 . Partner with the towns and other entities such as OWASA in acquiring future park sites , where possible . 3 . Work with a willing seller ( and a partner entity , if possible ) to purchase a " pilot " farmland conservation easement in conjunction with the N . C . Farmland Preservation Trust Fund , 4 . Finalize park management and facility development/ use plans via an inter- local agreement with Durham County for the Little River Regional Park and Natural Area , 5 . Protect sensitive natural areas in the Seven - Mile Creek bottomlands and along New Hope Creek . Lands Legacy Interim Action Plan Adopted 513100 6 . Accomplish preservation of riparian buffers , historic and archaeological sites , and identified natural areas and wildlife habitat/ prime forest through parkland acquisition , when possible 7 . Update the 1988 Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitat , Specific Acquisition ob" ectives A . Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitat • Work to preserve ( through acquisition and other means ) identified Natural Areas in the Seven - Mile Creek area • Work to preserve ( through acquisition and other means ) properties along the Eno River adjacent to Duke Forest ( Hillsboro Division ) or Eno River State Park • Work with the UNC Botanical Garden and Triangle Land Conservancy and others to preserve an identified natural area surrounding the Mason Farm Preserve in Chapel Hill • Continue to monitor the efforts to preserve Pickard 's Mountain natural area , with standing offer to assist in preservation if needed • Work in conjunction with Triangle Land Conservancy to pursue opportunities for preservation of additional lands along the New Hope Creek Corridor ( as they might arise ) B . Farmland Preservation • Work ( with the Soil and Water District and / or OWASA ) to identify a willing seller of a conservation easement " pilot project, " preferably in Cane Creek watershed . Preservation of a farm in the watershed that also contains riparian buffers would optimize the purchase for all potential partners and could meet multiple goals . • Apply for a grant from the Farmland Preservation Trust Fund by December 1 , 2000 , for assistance in purchasing the conservation easement . • If practical , finalize arrangements with the Soil and Water District to hold the conservation easement, with specified monitoring and maintenance responsibilities worked out through a Memorandum of Understanding between the County and the District . C . Parklands and Open Space • Using existing plans and the comprehensive resource database , pursue acquisition of park sites in the following areas : Lands Legacy Interim Action Plan Adopted 513100 2 K • A district or regional park ( with a combination of active and low - impact and natural area preservation ) — in Chapel Hill Township , between Chapel Hill/ Carrboro and Hillsborough . This park could serve both rural and Town populations . • Expansion of the " Cedar Grove Park" at Northern Human Services Center into a district park ( with a combination of active and low - impact recreation ) • A community park ( with active and loMmpact recreation ) — in Bingham Township • A community park ( with an active recreation focus ) — Eno Township or Schley area ( unless needs are met through other park possibilities in north or east Hillsborough ) • Develop a map and plan for a pilot project trail ( paved greenways in urban settings , rustic woodland trails in rural areas ) linking Chapel Hill and/ or Carrboro Town parks , less - sensitive areas of Duke Forest, future County parks and Eno River State Park . • Acquire ( through easement, donation or purchase ) the missing links for the pilot project trail , as practical . • In all park acquisitions , be cognizant of the potential for school site co - location . • The County 's focus in parkland acquisition and collaboration should be on community, district and regional - scale parks . D . Riparian Buffers • With the focus on parklands , natural areas and a farmland easement pilot project, attempt to accomplish preservation of buffers in water supply watersheds through parkland acquisitions during this timeframe . • Develop possible priorities for riparian buffer acquisitions in 2001 - 2002 E . Cultural and Archaeological Sites • Given the focus on parklands , natural areas and a farmland easement pilot project, attempt to accomplish preservation of cultural and archaeological sites through parkland acquisitions during this timeframe . V • Develop possible priorities for cultural and archaeological site acquisitions in FY 2001 - 2002 a� CL on wo Occ U r� � � a' o � � a� ° � U O U p rJ En .a; d U U pq > Co U U cnEn En cla �4 co 0 � � 0 0o t as�. � � H ' 6 ''� cd O O cd "d O O 3 "� O COD U � ��+ WIT N "o N di N �" O '�. ��.+ O n O .O CL OL 0 0 • cla N O O O 0 .°O ^ U N O O O 9cd m WWI cu cd "o O N c U cd [>D C: 01 N NbR U 46SCOS C 'b r-+ bo p v •> C; ro O t�. O Cz O ., . 0 W OO CD"d 'C7 U~ ' O co On a ) QJ � p U i -� 'b • cd cl co cd w En cd cn rn N > U cd U 4-, C~ cd co � d U cd cOC +� a , � ;� o U m a� 0 O cd �• U � coU •� O •— o o t t4=4 c° am) W cad 'n �, O . O U cd • ^' v� N E cd O u O A a U O C~ U i=4 b A + L; � U cd rcd vi n O mo cd a O . O c'nV=4 En O CDcn a) _ ^" CO Cl p cd U U '—+ U O cd .� �' O A U U cad U > ' p OU �. cd U .•O phi cn cd ;=4 • VO4 cd +mj +Mm, � r N o > C/)CA) cq .� U rp :3 a� d P� O A "tj Q O NCd O cd U ., L cn OCZ CL En cd O �[ -Y � O U O O � ' O O cd .� L ) � a - a � , fl co w RU UC7a., . � Z m 3 � � u E-- I— 3 r O � O U >, 0 �: I pap `� Can o U O bo O O cd C O En ca O a� cn En Ln MO 4 a) p ;v p ¢ c •� Q O . . .� COa 3 U "�C >, ,au'►,' � A � v � �O , � , 1 O� .bA U al "am,P AN U O~ A O O� u ap Z ' �CIS 0 ru � . � O . O "fl O U Tip � bap N O ts. �, o o o o > o sap. n o • ", " � a� r-. m �' "o o o o "o ° cu o `� � o Rio o cd a moo Q r-y N w N N r 1 Z Rap N O ►�i Q, W 3 Q �-+ cu U N moo can .d O G TWO (U'II cd G� O • ", � cam 4=4O c ` 'ad "o U O ' loom Nihilism tan co Cd � In cd b O �' O o SaoFriClap fu a� o N or NliN3 0 o P4 ° o o o ' t�. n a0i .o 0 a+ O O O �' O Q Nlommil cd4114c `v p Q bbA � � ccdd A O U 'b cop p 64 CO " O y ""' ^' O �i O r t Q a O . � O ' W ,� Oru > Ww ° ° Z "d � � C° w w D V) cu c U -o .D Clap aj (� a �� , • � � ' UO Q. cad co cd so. cn a a) or limi mammon cn maimomma "d > a� a� p s . cd O E-+ cd � G v + � m4ammaj En William O cd n > j Q O ' ~ p o cc=, pap • P, O " U � Q) v 0 O Q 0 cd ,b . ". cd cn cd > Q bo . .� O- O rn 44 0 4� cCS �' rr" '� O O . � Ar N U N 3 Id p cd . .� �, cd OCd "d cn 0 0 0 O : i-+ 0 1-. 2 O co -d O sm Q o cn p S�. Cd a� a� cd j "o C millommi -o cd o o o Oro "o ►•-, a a �3 GQ a "n u. . ", a H o .� 4-. Z ° a M bo Miami 4=i bo E o DO U ° U v Rap C O O cd L b0 CaO t O m co cz Poll En Ln cCdd 0 "C 0 ° ' �; O E "C bD cd , O yVj rO N •—, W N "o U cad a) En �' •� rn ro c O cd E bIlk �'" Pap �.. 6 p. 3 ° U b A ° O Q" ° p °' p O� A. ° ° ,� to O cd � u W 'ti �, ° Clap p O "d cd d` rn O a' p 0 woof Cz E� U pap, DOU E-+ 3 P. O a' U `''-4 .� cad O Q 4Mmq US U U O �E � Lands Legacy Interim Action Plan Adopted 513100 Other Notes and Special Inquiries • As acquisitions are explored , staff will consider parks and resource lands in the context of long -term trail linkages with parks as listed in Joint Master Recreation and Parks Work Group Report ( and include these in the update to County Master Recreation and Parks Plan ) : Staff will also consider acquisitions in context of potential school / park co - location , and pursue accordingly . • ' Other acquisition inquiries received from landowners and potential partners during the year will be compiled and periodically presented for the Board 's review and direction on whether to pursue acquisition . At present, there are four additional inquiries that have been made that have not been broached with the Board . A summary of these inquiries will be forthcoming . Some may be in keeping with the goals and objectives listed herein . • Staff will begin the outreach and educational efforts discussed in the Lands Legacy program , making available brochures on Lands Legacy, the advantages of land conservation , and other related issues . Staff will also solicit speaking engagements to spread the word about the program during the coming year . • Discuss conservation easements with Duke on less - sensitive portions of the forest for future trails . - Performance Report for Previous Year This is the first year of the program . In future years this section will contain more detail about accomplishments during the previous year . A Performance Report will be prepared for the first Annual Action Plan ( FY 2001 - 02 ) in December 2000 . However, there were several opportunities that arose during FY 1999 - 2000 that occurred and can be listed : • Received grant of $ 143 , 000 from Clean Water Management Trust Fund toward March 31 , 2000 purchase of Duke University property in Upper Eno watershed critical area , adjacent to public water supply . This property is currently being referred to as the McGowan Creek Preserve ( pending official Board action ) . • Received grant of up to $ 377 , 000 ( Durham and Orange ) for the proposed Little River Regional Park and Natural Area from Clean Water 1.1l Lands Legacy Interim Action Plan Adopted 5/3/00 Management Trust Fund . Submitted application to Parks and Recreation Trust Fund for project as well ( decision anticipated in early- May , 2000 ) . • Evaluated consultant work on Greene Tract, which led to eventual preservation of 60 acres of the property by the Board . • Brought six properties for potential acquisition to the Board for formal review and direction . Staff Aeveloped an evaluation of each site , based on relevant criteria . In addition to these activities , there are other projects that have furthered the goals of Lands Legacy — in particular the provision of parkland and parks facilities . The following report, " Report on the Parks Bond and Other Parks - Related Projects " addresses these activities . Conclusion Although the Lands Legacy program was not adopted until April , the draft program was used to evaluate and pursue two acquisitions of parkland and watershed riparian buffers . A total of $ 520 , 000 in grant money was awarded by the Clean Water Management Trust Fund toward these projects , with another application pending before the N . C . Parks and Recreation Trust Fund . The proposed action plan for the coming 14 months focuses on addressing the parkland deficit in the County , developing a pair of pilot projects for farmland preservation and a rustic woodland trail link, and preserving land in what could become a Natural Area Preserve in the Seven - Mile Creek area . The total cost of the proposed Priority List of projects for the upcoming fiscal year ranges from a low of $ 2 . 11 million to a high of $ 5 . 05 million — depending on the acreage acquired , the cost of the land , location of the land , and the timing of acquisitions . This cost estimate is a rough estimate , and will be refined as more - detail is developed on potential sites . The cost estimate does not reflect grant funds that might be achieved to pursue the projects , nor does it include contributions from prospective partner entities . Staff will continue to aggressively pursue grants to fund these projects , and solicit the involvement of partner agencies , wherever possible and practical . Co - location of school and park facilities will be evaluated in each case . While pursuing the current action plan as adopted by the Board , staff will also begin developing the first regular Annual Action Plan for 2001 - 2002 in the early-fall , with advisory boards helping draft priorities and initiatives during the fall — to be presented at the Board 's December goal - setting retreat . Report On the Parks Bond and Other Parks - Related Prefects For the period November 1997 to the present A . 1997 Parks Bond — Status Report 1 . Facilities Development - $ 3 . 0 million ( Bond included $ 1 million for Homestead Park in Chapel Hill , $ 1 million for Southern Community Park in Chapel Hill , $ 500 , 000 for Efland - Cheeks Community Park, $ 500 , 000 undesignated ) Spent or Appropriated From Bond To Date • $ 757 , 690 : Efland - Cheeks Community Park ( Phase I ) • $ 105 , 000 % To Town of Chapel Hill for Southern Community Park ( lights , bleachers and irrigation for soccer field ) • $ 145 , 0000, To Town of Chapel Hill for Homestead Community Park ( utility building for skateboard park and batting cage ) • $ 75 , 000 : To match Town of Carrboro funds for enhancement of fields at Smith Middle School • No other facility development bond money has been requested for authorized projects ( remainder of Homestead Park, Southern Park ) Total Facilities Bond spent / appropriated to date - $ 1 , 082, 6 90 As of current date , $ 1 , 917 , 310 remaining ( $ 167, 310 undesignated ) 2 . Parkland Acquisition - $ 3 . 0 million • $ 110 , 774 for Cedar Grove Park ( Northern Human Services Center) As of current date, $ 2, 339 , 226 remaining Action Plan for Proposed Par �Aand BanL�ing See Lands Legacy Interim Program B . Other Park- Related Projects 1 . Little River Regional Park and Natural Area ( option ) - $ 88 , 000 to $ 132 , 000 total County cost ( projected from combination of sources ) 2 . " McGowan Creek Preserve " ( Duke property ) - $ 157 , 000 total County cost ( 1 / 2 from ERC fund and 1/2 from School / Park Reserve accumulated interest ) 3 . Riverwalk Park in Hillsborough — agreed to use of County- owned lands along Eno River adjacent to County campus for park area . {{ r CCp , L y nv r r 1 � t; i- Finally , there is a significant lack of coordination of protection efforts with surrounding counties . Forests , watersheds , wildlife corridors and development projects do not abruptly stop at county borders . Efforts in one location may be impeded by lack of effort in a neighboring county or vice versa . Effective protection of resources must include coordinated effort among all the affected jurisdictions . IV . Needs and Recommended Actions to Protect Biological Diversity in Orange County . P A . Highest Priority Areas for Conservation Effort . P Overall , we feel the County should aim to ensure that at least 10 % of its land , or 25 , 600 acres , is in some form of designated protected status within the next 10 years . This goal is reasonable and achievable , especially if the proposed increases in state and federal funds for open space acquisition become available to supplement local government fiends dedicated for this purpose . If state and federal funds are not increased, a 15 - year goal would be recommended . P Based on currently available information (biological inventory, Natural Heritage data and both TLC reports ) , we present the following areas as a first approximation of those highest conservation priority areas for the County, in order of importance , and subject to further review and change by the BRC and the ERCD ( Table 3 ) . Primary criteria used in amving at this list include size , composition , biological distinctness , degree of threat , and connectivity to other p � � Y areas . Table g g 3 . Highest priority areas for conservation action m Orange County . A First Approximation 1 . Lands surrounding Eno River State Park 2 . Occoneechee Mountain buffer 3 . Sevenmile Creek Bottoms �I 4 . Lands along Morgan Creek and those surroundm g� Mason Farm ills , and Corridor : Blackwood Mountain/Duke 5 . Central County Forest , H Forest Blackwood Division/ Meadow Flats /Bald Mountain/Pegg Hill , and connecting lands 6 . New Hope Creek Corridor, including upper section which connects to the Central County Forest , Hills , and Comdor ( see # 5 , above) 7 . Chestnut Ridge 8 . River corridors : Upper Eno River , N and S forks of the Little River 9 . Forest southwest of Cedar Grove 10 . Pickard ' s Mountain Justifications : 1 . Lands surrounding Eno River State Park ( ERSP ) : This area is identified in L`37W - I and - II as the 8 K 2 S F most important intact prime forest in the County, by virtue of its area , the presence of the River , the undisturbed forest within the Park , as well as numerous Natural Heritage records for regionally important species . However there is no guarantee that this area will retain this high biological value , as the State Park lands comprise less than half of the total forested area in which it is embedded . Residential development in this area is rapidly fragmenting the surrounding forest . If this cutting and building is left unchecked , it is sure to lead to decyradation of the core forest area of the Park . This area needs to be designated as buffer area , and tools developed that will restrict land uses to those compatible with the aims of the Park , and protect this land as wildlife habitat . 2 . Occoneechee Mountain : The inclusion of much of Occoneechee Mountain within the ERSP has been an important step forward . However, adjacent lands remain in private hands . While private p p e ownership may be the best, most secure solution , the County should work with landowners to assure that this most significant of the County' s sites remains securely protected and buffered . fill, 3 . Sevenmile Creek Bottoms : This inventoried bottonmland forest is of regional biological significance for the species found there , and is also identified in LWW- II as a forest of high wildlife value , by virtue of its size , and fortis part of the County' s designated corridor system. We recommend that the County work to acquire parcels to connect the pieces it already holds in this area , and/or that they work with landowners to negotiate conservation .easements or practices to keep this site in a natural , unfragmented state . 4 . Lands along Morgan Creek and those surrounding Mason Farm: Because of the biological significance of Mason Farm and adjacent Botanical Garden Lands and the high degree of threat to their integrity, the County should take what steps it can to help keep fiurther losses and fragmentation from occurring . Without some secure buffers , the integrity of some of the County' s most unique forests and associated vertebrate communities could be compromised . 5 . Central County Forests , Hills , and Corridor : Blackwood Mountain/Duke Forest Blackwood Division/ Meadow Flats/ Bald Mountain/ Pegg Hill , and connecting lands . From LWW41 it is evident that one of the key core forest areas of the county extends in a band through the central County, from Blackwood Mountain to Bald Mountain . Of strategic importance here is maintaining connectivity in a fragmented system of uplands and stream corridors . If connectivity to the New Hope Creek Corridor ( See # 6 , below) can be maintained and/ or developed , this enlarges the natural area substantially . Acquisitions or easements which help to preserve forest integrity in this region are to wilt', be fostered by the County . 6 . New Hope Creek Corridor, including the upper section which connects to the Central County Forest ( See # 5 , above ) . The New Hope Creek Corridor east of NC 86 , currently of relatively secure ' conservation status , is another key core natural area in the County . While it is generally isolated from the Blackwood-Bald Mountain core , New Hope Creek could conceivably be serving as a conduit for animal and plant movement . Anything that can be done to maintain or restore connectivity between the New Hope Creek basin and area # 5 is to be encouraged . Protection of surrounding land from conflicting uses by designating it as buffer zone would enhance protection of New Hope Creek, 7 . Chestnut Ridge : This xeric forest ( E01 AND E02 ) is an important upland forest, comprised largely of chestnut oak . It is a relatively large tract of forest, and also is an important upland area for landscape connectivity . Due to its present status as privately- owned land , its long-term status may be insecure . Allegedly there has been some fragmentation from residential development . The extent of this fragmentation needs to be assessed , and the current biological value of the site determined . Conservation strategy would then be based on current integrity . J 8 . River corridors : Eno River , N and S forks of the Little River ( See III . B above ) : Conservation tj �1 i efforts should focus on protection of the Upper Eno River basin, and along both the North and South Forks . of the Little River , for water quality protection , rare species protection, and for the maintenance of wildlife corridors . ti 9 . Forest southwest of Cedar Grove : a large tract of forest was identified southwest of Cedar Grove by LWW - I and - II . This forest was identified from aerial photographs solely based on its size . It should be surveyed for biological importance . Its current status is not known . Conservation effort would then reflect results of such on- site survey . 10 . Pickard' s Mountain : While Pickard' s Mountain is now relatively secure , in environmentally it remains an area of biological importance , primarily by virtue of its size responsible private hands , P and its unfragmented status . The County should be kept apprised of the status of this land and perhaps work with the landowner to encourage putting the tract, or parts of it, under conservation easement . Also , the County should work to encourage habitat connectivity between Pickard' s Mountain and Bald Mountain, through easements and/ or acquisition . F B . A Dynamic Biological Inventory Biological systems are dynamic entities , changing over time and shifting spa 11 tially on the landscape . What we see today is merely one point in the history of the landscape , and not a static reflection of the " Balance of Nature " . In addition , new sites are identified through increased exploration of the landscape , acquisition of new knowledge , and temporal changes in biotic IF I communities . County protection efforts need to take this spatial and temporal dynamism into account . To keep its biological information current , Orange County needs to develop a dynamic biological inventory that builds the 1988 inventory by Sather and Hall and the two recent TLC . This dynamic inventory will respond to changes that Landscape with Wildlife reports from yn ry P occur as new sites are described and as documented sites are lost through land use changes . Updating the inventory could be the joint responsibility of an Inventory Review Committee comprised of biologists and conservation workers , and the Land Resources Conservation Manager . The updated inventory could both be made available as a resource to entities working to protect natural areas within the county , and could serve as the repository for biological data gathered by these groups . NC Natural Heritage Program has indicated that funding may be available for such an update (Rich Shaw , pers . comm . ) C . Improved Inventory of Resources in Northern Orange County While the greater presence of agricultural activity, as well as the nature of the soils , ill be found in northern Orange County, there remains makes it less likely that unusual species w a need for greater biological exploration in the northern County . This area was not thoroughly investigated by Sather and Hall , for both biological and logistic reasons . But LWW - I and - II have pointed to several areas of prime forest that may warrant exploration . D . Update GIS Data 10 A Lai1d� Legar, Program ror Orar; r�_:, C01Jrtj A 5 �_ d �i�j�C;O IV . Criteria and Priorities for Acquisition The significant GIS system data that the County has developed in natural and cultural resources will not be useful to the County without a set of criteria to guide site evaluation , prioritization , and significance . Over the spring and summer of 1999 , each of the County 's advisory boards with `f roles in resource preservation were asked to provide thoughts on criteria that should be used to evaluate resources . These ideas have been used to developthe following criteria modified in some cases to fit the overall El 9 context of the program . MWM A . General Evaluation Criteria While certain types of resources will best be evaluated against y specific criteria for the type of resource , all potential land acquisitions ( whether fee - simple or other ) may be initially evaluated on several general criteria . The general criteria may also be useful , in conjunction with the Board 's adopted goals , in deciding among competing resource preservation opportunities . In late 1998 , a general evaluation template was created to evaluate interim land acquisition proposals being considered by the County . . The evaluation template assesses , for each site , the following variables : I General Evaluation Template J How is the ! and classified in the Comprehensive Plan and zoning m ��i �'' Inventory and F'. ._ ource checklist — what is present on the site ? Are there develo ment constraints to the property ? Is there an imminent threat to development or purchase the property ? What type of access exists to the site ? What are the surrounding land uses ? Ownership and Value ( both market and assessed ) information . 14 What is the asking rice and timeframe for sale ? Are there previous evaluations or assessments ? Liability concerns ? What are the possible uses of property ? Would the acquisition meet Countgoals ? air Beyond this basic evaluation , more - detailed and specific site assessments will be needed , depending on the type ( s ) of 16Jr: r r ' A Frognc m for orange Couf) 4/ Ado» rec' 414100 r _ resources , The following sub sections contain potential criteria for evaluating certain types of resource acquisitions . The criteria have been developed in conjunction with the County 's advisory boards in each area , where possible . Criteria comments were discussed with the Commission for the Environment, Agricultural Districts Advisory Board , Recreation and Parks Advisory Council , Historic Preservation Commission and Water Resources Committee . In addition , the Parkland Criteria has been adopted by the Board of Commissioners . B . Criteria for Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitat (developed in conjunction with the Commission for the Environment) Orange County is fortunate in having funded three reports on natural areas and wildlife habitat, conducted by the Triangle Land Conservancy , that go a long way toward identifying the most important areas in the County . The County is also fortunate that a number of public , private and non - profit entities have previously been involved in protecting some of the 64 known natural areas and wildlife habitat . However, over half of these sites remain unprotected in private ownership. To date , 10 of the 64 identified natural areas and wildlife habitat ( 16 % ) are protected ( in full or in part) through state park or land trust ownership/ easement . Three of the sites are within Eno River State Park, with all or portions of six others protected by the Triangle Land Conservancy , One site i 9 y s held by The Nature Conservancy . I An additional 19 natural areas are owned by public or private educational institutions — namely, Duke University and / or the University of North Carolina . Duke holds 12 of the identified sites within the boundaries of Duke Forest . While these sites are not protected in perpetuity and are held by a private institution , Duke has a long - standing policy for protection of the natural areas within the forest . The 1988 Duke Forest Management Stud commissioned b the University , does 9 Y, Y tY , recognize that important natural areas are contained within the rforest . Duke policy is that the University " will be sensitive to . . . unique natural areas ", and that Duke " should not permit negative environmental impacts as a consequence of disturbance of Isensitive natural and cultural resources . " 17 A Lands Legacy Pronrfn for ola, 7ge County Adopted /I/DO F 3J A 1988 forest management study classified land holdings into four categories . The study recommended that Duke retain portions of the forest classified as Class 1 — Permanent Research Forest and 4 , r k Class 2 — Research Project Land as areas to be retained in their forest state . All 12 of the sites in Duke Forest are within portions of the forest that are classified as Class 1 or 2 research lands . t; ; However , there is no binding agreement that guarantees that the forest study will be adhered to , and there are no easements for perpetual protection for natural areas located on lands owned by Duke . 7 . Held by Public or Non - Profit Land Trust . . . Eno River State Park 3 , . ,Triangle Land Conservancy 6 3 are partial easements . . . The Nature Conservancy _ _ _ 1 Owned b Public Institution UNC Mason Farm 7 Owned b Private Institution Duke University Duke Forest 12 In Private Ownership Privately - owned 35 Tota 164 F Seven sites are located on lands owned by the University of North Carolina . Most of the se sites are located on the Botanical Garden or adjacent Mason Farm Preserve property . The University has a long - standing policy for protection of these areas . However , like Duke , there is no formal guarantee that these lands will be perpetually protected . Even with 29 sites in some method of protection , there are at least 35 natural areas as yet unprotected . There also may be , many sites not yet identified , whether through lack of review or oversight in previous work . The new prime forest areas shown in the 1997 and 1999 reports from the Triangle Land Conservancy (TLC ) may contain additional areas not yet identified . Some of the 35 sites in private ownership may be high priorities for public acquisition , particularly as filtered through the recent TLC reports . A method for prioritizing and evaluating natural areas and Fr wildlife habitat will need a set of criteria for review . a 18 y�' A Lonus " o , , cy Program for Cringe Cour, Auosoted 414�%0O 3 i. In the spring of 1999 , the Biological Resources Committee of the Commission of the Environment considered criteria to these ends . The following criteria were developed by that group and are recommended by the Commission for the Environment for use in evaluating potential acquisitions : Natural Areas and 'Wildlife Habitat PRIORITY PHYSICAL LAYOUT . High Size area High Shape ( re : minimization of edge effects —could be quantified as ratio of ed e to interior area High ( Slope / elevation / orientation topography ) — might make it more or less susceptible to developments might have some special or unique feature ( things that might make a group willing to contribute to its protection )Topography : slope/ elevation / orientation - - Medium Proximity / geographic relation connectivity : proximity/ geographic relation to other natural areas Medium Does it contribute to a Wildlife Corridor ( water & land , or just land ) ? Low Position in watershed distance from source re : waterquality ) Low Geo ra hic evenness ( by watershed ? Low Does it have body of water? PRIORITY BIOLOGICAL VALUE High Biodiversi — species richness High Integrity ( needs clarification of definition , but things like crossing by roads , power lines , selective logging in recent history , other signs of degradation ) Medium Number of rare species/ State listed ( Natural Heritage ) , species of conservation concern Medium Ecosystem distinctness ( state/ regional / country ) : need to develop means to judge this Medium Presence of invasive exotic plant species ( how many species , how severely infested Low 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 a I I types Low Importance for bird breeding sites PRIORITY INTACTNESS High 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 Medium Other forms of pollution or proximity to dump sites , highways , underground tanks , hog farms , etc . Low Noise Low Distance from artificial light sources 19 A Lamas LeGacy Program for Den le County AdopteC/ �fetc PRIORITY HUMAN VALUES 3 High Scenic value to be used judiciously ) Medium Potential for recreational use Medium Presence of historical / archeological sites/ significance Low Proximity to population centers/ users Low North county vs . south county ( both as human and spatial issue ) F Low Presence of species/ resources of economic value ( is there anything other than timber? PRIORITY OTHER High Meeting multi , multiple biological/ conservation criteria across lines High . Availability of second funding source PRIORITY ECOSYSTEM FUNCTION High Presence of wetlands : hydrologic buffering , contribution to water storage . Medium Vegetation : thermal buffering , water storage natural areas serving as sites for insect pollinators and predators , which serve agriculture , nutrient cycling . h. Medium Vegetation as riparian buffer . In addition to these criteria , the 1999 Triangle Land Conservancy report, " Rating Lands in Orange County by Its Wildlife Value , " takes the use of criteria to a new level . The report uses a formula on contextual ratings and intrinsic ratings to evaluate the County 's NMI remainingrime forests and actual ) identifies areas of significance ` p � Y that are recommended to be the focus of acquisition efforts . A map showing the forest areas with highest ratings is provided as Appendix G. The Commission for the Environment ( CfE ) has evaluated the 4 recent TLC report . The CfE recommends viewing the map of priority prime forests ( Map 8 ) with some caution , because it includes an inherent bias toward forests that include inventoried natural areas . The CfE suggests that the presence of an inventoried site should not be a factor in ranking a forest as wildlife habitat . Overall , the CfE supports the report recommendations and encourages any County policy changes that would help implement the recommendations . r C . Criteria for Prime Farmland (developed in conjunction with the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board) Prime Farmland - Land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, fiber, forage, r oilseed, and other agricultural crops with minimal inputs of fuel fertilizer, pesticides and labor. ( US Department of Agriculture ) 20 DRAFT 9 / 13 / 00 Timber Harvesting : Current Practices and Alternatives Information Session November 28, 2000 7 : 30 p . m . Stanback Middle School NC 86 , between Hillsborough and Chapel Hill Proposed Session Agenda ' 10 7 : 30 Introductions and Welcome ( ? ) What is the issue/problem to be addressed? 2 . 7 : 35 Purpose of Session ( moderator Andy Sachs ) To disseminate information on timber harvesting and explore alternative methods. What alternatives exist? Get everyone on the same page in terms of information about what can/can 't be done. Also, cover ground rules for evening. One page mission statement to be prepared. 3 . 7 : 45 Presentations / Comments by Panelists Each member of the panel will have 7 minutes to address their role and " what you see as the most important issue in timber harvesting techniques today . " Panelists can submit written material as handout and/or have AIV if desired (also will be table in lobby for information/presentation boards). Quick wrap-up after comments to close. Panel members • Judson Edeburn, Duke Forest Resource Manager • Rick Hamilton, Extension Forestry Specialist, NCSU • Fred Cubbage, N. C. State • Rich Ducker, Institute of Government • Barney Barnard, Private timber consultant • Representative of N. C. Forest Service 4 . 8 : 30 Question and Answer ( moderator) 5 . 9 : 00 Next Steps / Needed Follow - up ? Important item . Alternative techniques and market alternatives learned about . Public education/awareness ? Forum once everyone is more knowledgeable . Other follow - up meetings ( regional ? ) 6 . 9 : 15 Adjournment and " Mingling " PR plans: press release, newspaper article, flyer, direct mail. Rafalow to draft letter to editor/guest column and circulate to cfe. Meeting of panelists, moderator and CFE rep (Tucker) in early-November. Step 1 Describe the present situation . The piedmont of North Carolina is growing at an unprecedented rate . This growth is putting even more pressure on the areas limited natural resources . As the piedmonts population grows the diversity of the population grows as well . This diversity leads to new and varied demands on the resource . , Lack of historic use information as well as general lack of knowledge have led to increased criticism of forestry practices in , not only North Carolina , but the nation . A . What is the problem / need / opportunity ? The Division of Forest Resources has always held training and informational meetings to those involved in forestry . These meetings reached forest landowners , timber buyers , and loggers ; they seldom attracted individuals outside this group , and seldom integrated any dialogue between the groups . B . Who is involved ? The involved parties would be anyone who has an interest in the way the natural resources in the piedmont of North Carolina are managed . CO Why is action needed ? Action is needed because forestry is being mistakenly blamed for many environmental troubles . If this perception is allowed to go uncorrected then the true cause for these problems wIII not be identi f ied and they will go uncorrected longer . `ry Step 2 Describe the desired outcome or goal ( ConditionB ) My proposal is to bring a# interested parties to the table for the purpose of information exchange and mutual education . The purpose of this forum will not be to debate specif is issues or try and persuade someone to change their views . I would consider this forum a success if every individual in attendance came out with some bit of information that they did not have coming in . Step 3 Describe tangible indicators and / or milestones that can be used to measure whether or not progress is being made from Condition A to Condition B ( what will you see , hear , and experience that tells you that you are on the right track ? ) One tangible indicator would be what I hear through my everyday conversations with loggers , buyers , landowners , and citizens . One thing I have found out is that most people usually have an opinion on forestry issues , and they are not ashamed to itl Another indicator would be the number of tell you about citizen complaints that I get on harvest operations through out the district . I would think that the frivolous nature of some of the calls would decrease as awareness increased . Finally ongoing forums would be a good indicator of interest and would thus be a good indicator of possible progress . f' Step 4 Describe a set of action steps to get from Condition A to Condition B . A . Describe the process you intend to use I intend to write an article as a rebuttal to a recent story on logging . At the conclusion of that article I plan to broach the sub ject of this forum and invite public opinion and comment on the matter . I intend to invite the author of the previous article to come out with me and get a good look at what is actually going on . I have also submitted a copy of this proposal to an Orange County group that may be able to help me with contacts . B . Identify the people and / or organizations that you will involve . I will involve anyone with interest in the sub jest . C . Clearly specify your role I will bring the interested parties together . I will open the discussion with a short presentation offering my perspective . I will set ground rules for the forum and serve as moderator f or the meeting in order to hopef ul ly f end of f conf rontations and keep things moving . D . Identify a time frame over which these actions are To be taken . Include milestones ( fisted in Step 3 if applicable I would like to hold the initial meeting this year . Subsequent meetings will take place as interest dictates . ' Step 5 Describe the resources needed to carry out the action steps . A . People I will use the group here in Orange County for possible contacts especially legislative ones . I will use each counties extension system for lists of potential contacts . I will also use the county forest service to help identif y potential participants . B . Supplies and equipment C . Communication ( printing , telephone charges , etc D . Travel E . Other expenses F . Total budget I expect to meet all of my these needs myself . Through the Division I should be able to furnish all my supplies . All participants will be from this locality and will have no need for travel reimbursement . I expect the room we choose to have this in and refreshments will be my only foreseeable expenses . G . Amount of NRLI funds requested That will be dependent upon the number of people expected at this forum and that is unknown at this time . Informational Items ( not part of the agenda ) Commission for the Environment October 9 , 2000 agenda ivironment News Service : White House, C . . . Applaud Environmental Funding Compromise wysiwyg : // 1 /http : //ens -news . com/ens/sep2000/2000L- 09 - 29 - 15 . lhtml r Network Free Internet . . for it Locos Home > News > Environment > Top News l r- , It , Headlines Environment - I: ''. T' .t � ' F' . . ' 'lp Environment News Message Board White House , Congress Applaud Environmental Funding Compromise Personalize Your News By Brian Hansen Environment Websites WASHINGTON , DC , September 29 , 2000 ( ENS ) - Congress has wrapped up a flurry of last minute negotiations on the Interior News Web Guide Department ' s spending bill , which the White House is predicting will be a " fantastic step forward " in terms of funding a host of Current Events conservation and environmental programs . Chat George Frampton , chair of the White House Council on Science News Environmental Quality , acknowledged that the final details of the massive spending bill will not be known until next week . E - Wire Instant Updates But barring any " last minute surprises , " the bill should please anyone who is concerned about protecting the nation ' s forests , Environment oceans and open spaces , Frampton said . News Index " What we do know is that the bill represents an historic Environment breakthrough in conservation funding , " Frampton said . " This in our Events Calendar view is really a fantastic step forward . " ENS Features Last large forest in Manchester, New EcoTravel ►a ' ' EDF Scorecard r _, " �. `' �.� : ,x ' Hampshire is now the Shopping Green r , �` ' k 4 - I � � focus of a heated fight Cartoons M �' VV ` ,: . `� is ' ;-" ' ' �" between developers and PI ; ji4tVIII oil , ; i � conservationists who want IN 1 IV 11Nim IV _ � " it for an urban park . ( Photo � 1 � 15� ` 4 . " f �41it k courtesy Manchester, NH Urban , rlr 1 Ki. 5 yy , {M � JVI It,• 11, , � Open Space ) � } �> I per wi ya According to Frampton , the i , # ; ' " bill will reflect many of the tit . .:1 ` •u'3 = •� • . ° essential elements outlined in the Conservation and Reinvestment Act ( CARA ) , which has been one of the centerpieces of the Clinton administration ' s environmental policy agenda . That initiative was designed to direct federal dollars towards urban parks , coastal fisheries and historic preservation projects . The newly architected spending bill would also bolster the revenue of 5 10/2/2000 8 : 21 AM Environment News Service : White House, C . . . Applaud Environmental Funding Compromise wysiwyg: Hl /http : //ens-news . com/ens/sep2000/2000L- 09 - 29 - l5 . html stream flowing into a trust fund to be used for land acquisition and conservation activities over the next six years . The new Interior Department spending bill will approximately double the funding appropriated for those kinds of federal and state projects in the coming fiscal year , Frampton said . It will also contain a provision whereby the $ 1 . 6 billion outlay will " ramp up " to $ 2 . 4 billion per year by fiscal year 2006 , said Frampton . North Shore Palisade Head area ; Superior National p Forest, Lake Superior, Minnesota ' k ( Photo courtesy U . S . Forest Service ) ; Specifically ecificall the bill � � � ` � � `'lh �� / , M �t < - F � C yap ? will authorize an ��iI,r tt 'I + t ? t. . outlay of $ 1 . 6 billion 3 wW . . ; for those types of b '' programs in the coming fiscal year , Frampton said . About 1 / 3 of that outlay will be earmarked for federal programs such as land acquisitions , marine sanctuaries and park and refuge maintenance backlogs . The remainder will be directed towards state historic preservation projects , urban parks , and grants to states for wildlife conservation and forest protection projects , Frampton said . Still , the funding levels and six year authorization provision contained in the new spending bill represent a real departure from the original terms of the CARA legislation . That measure , as originally drafted , would have funded the state and federal conservation programs at a rate of $ 3 billion per year for a period of 15 years . Key Republican appropriators fought hard this week to kill or significantly scale back the far reaching environmental funding contained in the CARA legislation . Senator Slade Gorton ( Photo courtesy Office of the Senator ) Senator Slade Gorton , a Washington Ili„ Republican who chairs the Senate Interior t Appropriations Subcommittee , and Congressman Ralph Regula , an Ohio Republican who heads the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee , blocked an effort by pro - CARA Republicans to attach a r modified version of the conservation measure to the Interior Department ' s spending bill . That compromise , proposed by Alaska Republicans Frank Murkowski and Don Young , would have provided a six year period of guaranteed funding , beginning at $ 1 . 8 billion and ramping up to $ 3 2 of 5 10/2/2000 8 : 21 AM nvironment News Service : White House , C . . . Applaud Environmental Funding Compromise wysiwyg : // 1 /Iittp : //ens -news . con-/ens/sep2000/2000L - 09 - 29 - 15 . litml billion per year . " There ' s no deal , " Gorton told reporters after a closed door bargaining session with pro - CARA Republicans and White House officials earlier this week . Gorton threatened to filibuster an effort to move CARA through the Senate . Congressman Norm Dicks , a Democrat from Washington , was IF instrumental in breaking the logjam . Dicks made the proposal that was ultimately adopted by the anti - CARA Republicans . jIT Congressman Norm Dicks ( Photo courtesy ;. Office of the Congressman ) 9 � . Dicks expressed no disappointment with the �, , 444 forced compromise in the program . " This is the largest increase in conservation `._, . programs funding ever approved by Congress , Dicks said . This is a major victory t:*A for the Clinton - Gore administration , and it *i represents a real consensus to move forward . . a , , to acquire , preserve and maintain precious park lands and open spaces in America . " The Clinton administration is also very pleased that it was able to facilitate the removal of most of the " anti - environmental riders " from the Interior Department ' s spending bill , Frampton said . " We also had very intense negotiations during the last week over riders , Frampton said . " We think that basically all of the harmful anti - environmental riders have either been take on off, or we ' ve negotiated language which eliminated their harmful environmental impact . " A rider that would have cut funding for dam removal studies has been eliminated from the compromise spending bill , as have a number of measures that would have had detrimental effects on forest management activities in Colorado and New Hampshire , Frampton said . Moreover , Frampton said , the administration was able to modify the language of a controversial forest fuels reduction rider drafted by Senator Pete Domenici , a New Mexico Republican . Environmentalists had dubbed that amendment the " son of the salvage rider , " out of fear that it would have allowed more salvage logging timber sales in the nation ' s national forests . of 5 10/2/2000 8 : 21 AM Environment News Service : White House, C . . . Applaud Environmental Funding Compromise wysiwyg: Hl /http : //ens-news . corn/ens/sep2000/2000L- 09 -29 - l5 . html Trail Creek Fire , Atlanta , Idaho , x � r f �rjt�kk j c .yy . August 2000 ( Photo f VyF IVA VA evi to by Ric Holmes courtesy ` ' mil " ` NAM VIA A "AV 13 National Interagency Fire , ;' ., Center ) u 1%_ " We thought that rider was especially 50, 5 unnecessary because the administration now has a plan on fuel reduction that has basically been endorsed by all the western governors , " Frampton said . " We feel pretty good about the rider negotiations and ecstatic about the funding levels [ for environmental programs in the Interior Appropriations bill ] , " Frampton concluded . The newly written Interior Appropriations bill will be sent to both houses of Congress for approval next week . Meanwhile , 10 other spending bills remain unfinished . President Clinton this week signed an emergency short term measure that will keep the government operating through October 6 , but he admonished Congress to finish its work . " In February , I sent a budget to the Congress that funded critical investments in our future , " Clinton said . " We need realistic levels of funding for critical government functions that the American people expect their government to perform well , including education , law enforcement , environmental protection , preservation of our global leadership , air safety , food safety , economic assistance for the less fortunate , research and technology , administration of Social Security and Medicare , and other important programs . " None of the funding bills for the programs that support these functions have been sent to the White House , " Clinton said . " I urge the Congress to approve the 11 remaining 2001 spending bills as quickly as possible , in an acceptable form . " Click Here for Related Stories © Environment News Service ( ENSI 2000 . All Rights Reserved . Environmental Press Releases Free ENS Daily News Feed by Email k 4 of 5 10/2/2000 8 : 21 AM nvironment News Service : White House, C . . . Applaud Environmental Funding Compromise wysivryg: // 1 /http : //ens-news . com/ens/sep2000/2000L - 09 -29 - l5 . htm1 Add Me Email the Environment Editor Get your personalized news here . Copyright © 2000 Lycos , Inc . All Rights Reserved . LycosO is a registered trademark of Carnegie Mellon University , Our Privacy Vow Terms and Conditions Standard Advertising Terms and Conditions of 5 10/2/2000 8 : 21 AM Governor Cellucci Signs Community Preservation Act New Funding Now Available to Cities and Towns (Boston, MA) : Today, in a long- awaited move forward for open space protection in Massachusetts , Governor Cellucci signed the Community Preservation Act (House Bill 5370) into law at a ceremony in Waltham. The bill, which has been debated by lawmakers k for nearly 18 years, grants Massachusetts' 351 cities and towns the right to raise local property taxes to fund land conservation, historic preservation, and affordable housing . It also provides significant matching funds to participating communities . " The Community Preservation Act provides a powerful new weapon in the fight to protect our communities from suburban sprawl, " said Whitney Hatch, regional director of the Trust for Public Land, a national conservation organization. " By enacting this bill, Governor Cellucci and the Legislature are taking an important step to stem the tide of unplanned development that is sweeping Massachusetts . " Currently, 44 acres of open land in Massachusetts is developed every day. To fund the state' s matching program, CPA imposes new fees on filings at the registry of deeds and land court . Homestead declarations , which are often made by the elderly to protect their homes from foreclosure or in bankruptcy proceedings , are exempt from the new fees . Based on fees paid to the registry .last year, this increase is expected to generate roughly $26 million per year- all of which will be directed to participating communities . " This is truly an achievement to celebrate . The Trust for Public Land applauds both the Legislature and Governor Cellucci for developing a fair and effective bill that will protect the fabric of our communities . We would also like to recognize the committee chairs , Representative John Rogers and Senator Marion Walsh, as well as Secretary Bob Durand for their steadfast commitment to passing the Community Preservation Act , " said Hatch. In order for a municipality to qualify for state matching funds , Town Meeting or City Council must first vote to place a property tax surcharge of no more than 3 percent on the ballot . Alternatively, CPA may be placed on the ballot through a petition signed by at least 5 percent of the city or town' s registered voters . Once CPA is placed on the ballot , local voters must then vote to approve it . Unlike Proposition 2 V2 overrides , adoption of CPA requires a majority vote locally, not a two -thirds vote . In addition, participating cities and towns can opt out of CPA after five years and end the surcharge . A minimum of 10 percent of the annual revenues raised through the surcharge must be used for each of three core community concerns : land protection, historic preservation, and affordable housing . The remaining 70 percent can be allocated for any combination of these three uses . If every city and town adopts CPA by implementing a 3 percent property tax surcharge, nearly $200 million will be raised every year for open space protection, historic preservation, and affordable housing, according to the State House News Service . DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Policy Governing the Procurement of Environmentally Preferable Products Adopted by the County of Orange , 2000 . Effective date : PURPOSE The goal of this policy is to : Formalize practices already employed by County Departments in the use of environmentally preferable products ; and 4 To explore new products ; and To expand the use of environmentally preferable products and practices by County Departments and their contractors whenever possible . By including environmental considerations in purchasing decisions , Orange County can promote practices that improve public and worker health , conserve natural resources , and reward environmentally conscious manufacturers , while remaining fiscally responsible . DEFINITIONS For the purpose of this policy , the following definitions shall apply : " Biodegradable " means the ability of a substance , material , or product ingredient to readily decompose by the action of microbes . " Chiorofluorocarbon , ( CFC ) " refers to the family of compounds of chlorine , fluorine , and carbon . CFC ' S contribute to the depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer , and have been used as an ingredient for refrigerants , solvents , and for blowing plastic-foam Insulation and packaging . The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer calls for complete elimination of CFC production . " Environmentally preferable products and services " as defined by Presidential Executive Order 13101 , means products and services that have a lesser or reduced effect on human health and the environment when compared to competing products and services that serve the same purpose . This applies to raw material acquisition , as well as product manufacturing , distribution , use , maintenance , and disposal . " Green building practices " means the incorporation of environmental , health , and waste prevention criteria in building design , site planning and preparation , materials acquisition , construction or remodeling , deconstruction , and waste disposal . " Integrated pest management ' means the use of a combination of pest control methods including improved sanitation , mechanical , physical , biological , or chemical means . " Post - consumer recycled material " refers to material that has served its intended use and has been discarded for disposal or recovery , having completed its life as a consumer item , and is used as a raw material for new products . " Practicable " means satisfactory and within reason when considering price , performance , availability , compatibility with specified operation , and public safety . " Processed - chlorine free paper " refers to paper that is manufactured using a percentage of post- consumer recycled paper fiber ( that may contain residues of chlorine ) and is whitened without adding chlorine or chlorine derivatives . fop BACKGROUND Orange County has an opportunity to provide a model for environmental leadership in the community by incorporating a plan of action that will conserve precious resources such as water , raw materials , and energy , reduce the use of hazardous substances , and potentially improve the environmental quality of the region . By incorporating environmental considerations in public purchasing , Orange County can reduce its burden on the local and global environment , remove unnecessary hazards from its operations , protect public health , reduce costs and liabilities , and help develop markets for environmentally responsible products . ACTION PLAN Upon approval of this policy and to the extent practicable , the following action steps will be taken in an effort to meet the goals of this policy : Orange County will prepare purchasing specifications that follow U . S . EPA Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines for products containing recycled content . Recovered Materials Advisory Notices ( RMAN ) shall be used as a reference for determining the recycled content specifications for these products . All printing and copy paper products purchased by the County shall consist of a minimum of 30 % post- consumer recycled fiber . 4 All janitorial paper products shall consist of a minimum of 50 % post- consumer content . 4 Orange County will return used toner cartridges for remanufacture and will purchase re - manufactured toner cartridges when practicable . No janitorial cleaning or disinfecting products shall contain ingredients that are identified by United States Environmental Protection Agency or the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health as carcinogens , mutagens , or teratogens . All cleaning supplies used by Orange County shall be products approved as environmentally preferable as defined earlier in this document . Orange County shall continue its efforts to phase out the use of chlorofiuorocarbon containing refrigerants , solvents and other products to accommodate the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer , and national requirements . All purchased or leased electronic equipment including photocopiers , computers , printers , lighting systems , HVAC , kitchen and laundering appliances , and energy management systems will meet U . S . Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) or U . S . Department of Energy ( DOE ) energy efficiency standards . Where applicable , the energy efficiency function must remain enabled on all energy- efficient equipment . All motor oil shall contain a minimum 25 % re - refined base stock . All re - refined oil must be American Petroleum Institute certified . All motor vehicles operated by Orange County shall use recycled propylene glycol antifreeze . Paint purchased by Orange County or its contractors shall contain the minimum amount necessary of volatile organic compounds , and shall contain maximum recycled content . Orange County shall implement an integrated pest management program for pest control . Any chemicals used to eliminate or deter insect pests and undesirable vegetation shall be the most readily and completely biodegradable product available for the given application , and shall be applied in a manner that is least likely to come into contact with humans and any other animals for which treatment is not intended . All construction and renovation projects performed by Orange County shall incorporate environmentally sensitive building practices as shall be more specifically defined in other County policies . All departments shall specify that they and their contractors / consultants use double - sided copying for documents prepared for the County to the extent feasible . All photocopiers purchased by Orange County following adoption of this policy are required to be capable of double - sided copying . IMPLEMENTATION TEAM To ensure that the effort will yield meaningful results , the Purchasing Department will coordinate the establishment of a special interdepartmental work group , who shall meet periodically following the adoption of this policy . Standing members will include : Assistant County Manager ERCD Director Public Works Director Purchasing Agent Purchasing Director Recreation and Parks Director Recycling Coordinator The work group will seek input beyond this operational group during various stages of the work , particularly when identifying and analyzing new product possibilities . The duties of the group shall include , but not be limited to the following : Expand the purchase of environmentally preferable products . Identify environmentally preferable alternatives . Recommend alternative processes within Orange County operations that will reduce the use/disposal of hazardous substances and will promote resource conservation . Collect and maintain up4o - date information regarding manufacturers , vendors , and other sources for locating /ordering environmentally preferable products . Provide a forum for open dialogue among personnel affected by the policy . Educate and inform staff about the environmental purchasing program . The work group shall provide technical / logistical assistance to help County departments incorporate environmentally preferable products into their operations . All departments are strongly encouraged to advance environmental purchasing for their specific operations through the purchase of environmentally sensitive products whenever feasible . The County shall ensure that environmentally preferable products are specified for use by consultants and contractors employed by the County to the extent practicable . Within 90 days following the implementation of this policy , the work group will agree upon standard language to be included in County Request for Proposals ( RFP ) and specifications as appropriate . Such language will be incorporated into all specifications and RFPs effective immediately upon adoption of the recommended language . Results of the policy implementation shall be reported to the Board of County Commissioners no later than September 15 annually . This report shall include , but not be limited to total purchases of environmentally preferable products by each department the results of designated product evaluations , and any new initiatives deemed appropriate by work group for the up - coming fiscal year . PERFORMANCE AND PRICE Nothing contained in this policy shall be construed as requiring a department or contractor to procure products that do not perform adequately for their intended use , exclude adequate competition , or are not available at a reasonable price in a reasonable period of time . Bid awards for products purchased under this policy shall be made in compliance with state law . Business ' page 131 m Carolina is on the verc5e b Classifieds , page 7, C9 of landing a Baltimore prep comics , page 5, C6 basketball star , passe ® 5 Editorials , page 4, A14 'a Rescuers continue to Movies , page C3 search for a Hillsborough obituaries , page C2 ` man reported missing off Sports , page D1 the Carolina Beach coast , Stocks , page 63 page Al Television , page 136 b ^- c. sxd :err.- �n P, S. eras b< nhc;er-ar,3!s.2"" 7;rsF ra .rrxyi^ .t'� '^sue s z, i i?r a, f. : � -+ tt4 ['?ar_r: •••-iy�,r..�.�; ;,�' „P.Ea ,rsz _ � '- .e. '--K. i 'n. u °-,f. Rzfeesx "R j e f d • -_7_ ,r y "1 ' eY3�lfrteh�l4 ;.ts.3:.e•(t .+a o T - a s e4ve 3 � ✓ r'r - INNIS If 751 If = AMk a aILL I ! r V e I ALI If- + If If Wif F 1 1�t6. . . ,If kkkt ' t r r - g 'ram t a A ?aRVIfl5 Y f� ?jPEi Rti Oro. 1. ry, a g If fl�k ` 1+'t,"Xk+' } �.tr,#, .'• +xst e+ t"5t i-'c It dtfR. •.3�4`4 Pathways11 p , �, . 1. 1� }y �'+ �� � • • i The Pathways Preserve f � include mix ILL ®f P proposed x " ` ' = development is „ yam . '. for about 485 acres. The project includesjp I It d IT housingretail 635 dwelling units; If ' If � about 200 acres wouldAt = t e �r be kept as open space '# By ROB SHAPARD r III E E s e chh@herald-sun. com; 732-6397 r } 1L+1Q 86 I If ' If ' HILLSBOROUGH — Develop- , - ` ,k0. ers of a project that would include 57 E more than 600 dwelling units and a {, '% E :` commercial area hope to unveil r- } CIL 4 E their plans officially in November. a r it ?� .. , Orange Planning Director Craig '01M Benedict described the project as ' COUEI NTY ! i k.. ; probably the largest subdivision L HL ALL proposal the county has received } in the past decade. r Hillsboruu ' � ' ,y The mixed-use project, current- O " �' ' �� 70 -. l4. y labeled the Pathways Preserve, 4 If �"'�°�° k a� .. . . ,.._ r� e would cover about 485 acres just north of Hillsborough, between in open space, to be deeded to the N. C. 57 and N. C. 86 . county to use as it pleases . THE HERALD SUN/ BILL WILLCOX The new Pathways Elementary The developers are aiming to get !perintendent in Guilford County, School, which is scheduled to open their project on the agenda for a %strict with interim leaders . next month, and Mars Hill Baptist Nov 27 public hearing before the Church are at one end of the pro- Orange County Commissioners jest area. Phelps Road is at the and the county Planning Board. ® . ® other end. They had hoped - to make the i is The residential section would be public hearing last month, but ly ` concentrated on about 285 acres in county planning staff requested the southern end, and developers more information from the devel Michael Dean Chadwick of First opers . American Land and Tony Natelli The Orange County Commis- ' yy of Natelli Communities have sioners took an informal look at 4Ir^J4 �'ip Y jrf i 14�ii offered to keep another 200 acres lease see DEVELOPMENT/PAGE -� . w the zi4)iMg1eton prop ( # lrf in * , , :, � ` rFILL ' in, ti ' IF JA r Ve've had an 1.{z; _: L* ; r'� with DOT about } " ` I ` ri there would be i r IF . r t t rjL , ti n� 4 her dre ewa " he } , Y r ►? ? � ' x . �t Fe .r. Y-. : : i Q f �� That pipe , nor { . 3 s v d jt• W9 ''F �� if 'L�r - We IF . IF IF IF ' - ;l I 1-1 Ine•h i �. + in , . s p v n+"` •. • l Fit In IF THE HERALD-SUN/BILL WILLCOX' PAY RATS 'Sydrelil an Australian shepherd , was in dog heaven Wednesday afternoon at the Orange County Animal FROM PAGE 1 Shelter. A group of seventh-graders from Phillips Middle School had just watched the pooch get implanted with a microchip for identification purposes . Later, they got to pet Sydney. Lamont Ewell and ager William Cole: $ 150,623 and $126, DEVELOPMENT The Pathways Preserve homes "walkable, " Commissioner Barry lye likely would range in price from the Jacobs asked about the distance Council member ROM PAGE 1 lower $ 100 ,000s to more than between the commercial area and their vote also rea, $200,000, said Benedict, the county's the northern-most home sites, profile vacancies ernment. Durham planning director. Told it was just under a mile, new county manai the project during a work session Benedict has said he supports the Jacobs said he doubted a lot of pea just launched a Tuesday night. Pathways Preserve proposal in genii ple would walk that far to and from replacement for B , Natelli, Chadwick and planners eral, since it would focus a large- a possible grocery in the commer- to retire Dec. 31 , John McAdams and Jerry Turner scale development near the urban cial area. He asked Natelli why he The Durham se displayed a map with several types area of Hillsborough — rather than wouldn't put the commercial area in setback late last of housing, as well as retail space out in the county, farther away from the center, rather than in the south- county's top c; and land for county facilities such services like law enforcement, ern end near Pathways Elementary. Hanover County as a library. water and sewer. Natelli said the homeowners in O 'Neal opted to st More specifically, the map For the project to become a reali- the Pathways Preserve wouldn't be posts showed: an eight-acre "town center" ty, the developers will need a zoning enough to make the commercial Durham County possibly for commercial uses ; a change from the county commis- area viable, so the commercial area answered O 'Neal four-acre parcel for local-govern- sioners that would allow a "planned would need to be near an access reopening their anent uses such as a library or fire unit- na-mixed development" desig point for shoppers coming from rather than by c stations 186 multifamily residential tion, as well as a special-use permit. elsewhere. manager from th units on about 24 acres; 96 town- Commissioner Steve Halkiotis Commissioner Margaret Brown who remained. Blouses on 16 acres; 166 "patio/clus- asked the developers Tuesday how expressed concern that the develop- Raleigh's searcl ter" residential units on about 44 much water the project would need ers might get approval for the pro- acres; 185 single-family homes on eventually. He was told between ject and sell out to a different entity about 74 acres; a daycare center on 200,000 and 250,000 gallons per day. that would develop the project. ,F,fl . ell IF 2 . 1 acres; and a recreation area on The developers plan to sign an That's not the plan, Nate44 lli about 22 acres. agreement with Hillsborough for responded. He said his firm, as a IF A u The current design also calls for water and sewer service , master developer,� r r , y a intends to be � r z xIF ,r,s a , € t lit 1 %buffers between each of the "pods" After the developers described involved in all stages of the develop- ` ; ` 3 E In • i ' of residential uses , the proposed subdivision as very ment. ; f x ; e- IFi °IF tii6i , + • i ' r 1, em �F fi Feef i k Mill tE ® , 4 ;Y i ? . IF 1_Ein Fell li 3A ' 3 r ; 14tf D T EFIVIGE ORS & FREEZERS F. Fee 4 i i 1 1 V ® W Y ON SALE — WEEK ONLYIF ; fi ` 3 Get in the !{. L ' ILL contest ar. EIFnee 0 0 r ® ; an Tuesd rIF IF ' I+ I copy Will ia'i ® ol� -� : ` K � c ®aenLid ® �� 4 facnons N "l FORTHE WAY IT' S MADE® ' i - - three Tue _I y J; i . 25 Cu . ft . °' 4' r ti Ghost Stc IJ, GUARANTEED IF 1. Side b Side r � � � cusses wi - LOWEST PRICES , { a Y 4 f , ning entri s� 4 # Fort, i ED25TWX IF I IF$ 995 11 111 Irsis KSR525 r YESI io . rr MAt f JAM ;e 1 _ j ® 0 e ., iilk I. 1 17, 24 an( .4k i , E, ties . .Thar _ IF sor Gra e ils' s P IF Fee 1 Giant 25 . 2 cu . ft . ana IF IF F Ice & Water t: I rn I - ff. with = : ; , , I