HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-11-2001-1Attachr~errt 1
LANDS LEGACY PROGRAM
Long-Term Priorities 2002-2010
4~ DRAFT -- Apri15, 2001
The Lands Legacy program, adopted in April, 2000, provides a mechanism for
the County to acquire critical natural and cultural resource lands for preservation
and the provision of future services, such as parks. The Lands Legacy program
functions through an Annual Action Plan adopted by the Board of Commissioners
each spring. The Annual Action Plan sets priorities for.resource land.-acquisitions
in the upcoming fiscal year. -
However, in addition to this year-by-year work plan, along-range program of
this type requires along-range vision of resource and parkland acquisition
priorities. This "vision" document is designed to help identify top priorities that lie
beyond the scope of the Annual Action Plan, and to gauge the financial resources
necessary to accomplish the program.
Fortunately, in the last few years several studies and reports have been created
that help in crafting such a vision. As discussed in the Lands Legacy document,
the Comprehensive Resource database has been used to provide a "first~cut" set
of priorities in the areas of parklands, natural areas/wildlife habitat/prime forests,
watershed farmland, cultural and archaeological sites, and watershed riparian
buffers. Many of the relevant County advisory boards have also identified
projects and needs that are outside of the coming fiscal year -such as the
Commission for the Environment's 10-year vision for biological resource lands in
the 2000 State of the Environment report.
The following pages contain long-term goals for the program, consistent with the
Lands Legacy program document and other recent special task forces and
studies.
The result is what might be viewed as a 10-year listing of priority Lands Legacy
projects for the. County.
Prima O eratin Princi les
As adopted in Lands Legacy and other subsequent documents, the pursuit of
long-term priorities will be guided by several opera~ng principles:
• Voluntary Participation: We would work only with willing sellers
• Public Outreach: We would continue to publish and distribute brochures on
tax benefits and other advantages to donation and sale of land.
• Grants: We would continue to aggressively pursue grants at all levels
• Adopted Guidelines and Projects: Acquisitions would follow adopted
guidelines and principles in the Lands Legacy program document
• Balance opportunities and threats: Some threats to resource lands are
known - at other times unforeseen opportunities arise.. The program should
retain flexibility and funding to address both types of needs
• Collaboration: We would continue our practice of collaboration with other
local governments, land trusts/associations, OWASA, Duke and UNC. In
addition, the County might pursue assisting coalitions of interested citizen
and neighborhood groups that might, share interest in land conservation
• Meeting Multiple Needs: We would continue to focus on opportunities that
meet multiple needs (natural areas that include riparian buffers, parklands
that include historic sites) to maximize available funding
• Multiple Methods: Types of protection tools would include fee-simple
purchase, conservation easements, timber rights purchase. Acquisitions may
also be achieved in conjunction with the Planning Department through the
development process, where appropriate.
Goals Ob'ectives for 2002-2010
As adopted, the Lands Legacy program has five types of resource land
acquisitions:
• Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitat
• Farmland Preservation
• Parklands and Open Space
• Cultural and Archaeological Resources, and
• Watershed Riparian Buffers
For each of these areas, the following sub-sections identify longer-term priorities
culled from existing documents and advisory board recommendations:
2
Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitat
Acquire or otherwise Protect Identified Natural Areas and Wildlife
Habitat and Prime Forests
• Acquire unprotected portions of remaining N.C. Natural Heritage natural
areas and wildlife habitat sites (as identified from Inventory of Natural
Areas and Wildlife Habitats)
• Acquire unprotected Prime Forest (top tier) areas from "A Landscape
with Wildlife" reports
• Complete the Seven-Mile Creek Preserve
• Preserve key pieces of the Upper New Hope Corridor (New Hope Creek
Corridor plan)
• Protect lands adjacent to or tying into Eno River State Park (ERSP), the
Duke Forest open space network and UNC/Jordan Lake public lands
(related to trails projects shown below)
(Work with Eno River Association (ERA), Triang/e Land Conservancy
(TLC), Duke University, UNC, towns, State Parks and citizen groups as
partners: Look for overlaps with other priorities -acquisitions that meet
mu/tiple objectives)
Farmland Preservation
Protect Prime and Threatened Farmland in Watersheds
• Two new agricultural conservation easements through Lands Legacy each
fiscal year (average 100 acres per year - 1000 acres total over 10 years)
• Focus on farmlands in Cane Creek, Upper Eno, Back Creek and Little River
- build "critical masses" of farmland with adjoining farms where possible
• Farms must be good stewards, use Best Management Practices and have
good conservation record.
• Partner with OWASA and Qrange Soil and Water District where possible.
Pursue NC Farmland Preservation Trust Fund and new USDA Farmland
Preservation program grant funding, along with other new sources.
Parklands and open Space
Acquire Lands for a Countywide System of Parks, with equal emphasis for
active recreation (soccer fields, other playing fields, picnic shelters, other) and
low-impact (trails, picnic areas, environmental interpretive areas). This includes
the following priorities:
• Complete projects identified in the adopted 1.988 County Master
Recreation and Parks Plan (please see Appendix for list), working both
short-term and long-term on priority acquisitions
• Acquire key pieces for three long-term Rustic Woodland Trails outlined in
the 1999 Joint Master Recreation and Parks report that connect town
parks, county parks and Duke Forest/Eno River State Park. This network
would be the extent of County off-site trails plans.
• Address parks and open space needs (that meet Countywide criteria for
joint parks coordination) with Town of Carrboro
• Address parks and open space needs (that meet Countywide criteria for
joint parks coordination) with Town of Chapel Hill
• Address parks and open space needs (that meet Countywide criteria for
joint parks coordination) with Town of Hillsborough
(All acquisitions coordinated through the Lands Legacy program consistent
with criteria on joint parks projects Parks in southwest Orange to be
coordinated with OWASA and located on OWASA lands wherever possible)
Cultural and Archaeological Preservation
Protect Heritage Corridors and Historic Sites
• Develop a conservation easement acquisition program for St. Mary's Road
(and/or Trading Path) Heritage Corridor
• Identify and Protect the ~~Grayfields" 1752 County seat site (also part of
Seven-Mile Creek Preserve priority)
• Identify Faucette Mill/Chatwood Heritage Corridor -- develop program for
donation or purchase of conservation easements
• Accomplish other preservation of priority historic sites from adopted
Historic Preservation Element of Comprehensive Plan through parkland
acquisitions, where possible (parklands that contain historic sites)
Watershed Riparian Buffers
Protect Water Supply Watershed Riparian Buffers
• Protect land at the confluence of the Upper Eno River, and in Cane Creek,
University Lake and Little River watersheds -through the other programs
and priorities listed above
• Partner with OWASA, Eno River Association/Eno River State Park, Triangle
Land Conservancy, City/County of Durham, City of Mebane and Towns of
Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Hillsborough
4.
Lands legacy Program
Legend
Cultural & Archa__._o.~...___..__._..
Parklands & Open Space (includes Rustic Woodland Trails)
Natural Areas & Wildlife Habitat/Prime Forests
Water Supply Watershed Riparian Buffers
1:200000
w y
end
rf Orange
Environment & Resour
Conservation Departm
March 23, 2007
Farmland Preservation * • Ta 6e accomplished within defined watersirt~d
Long Term Priorities (2002 - 2010}
a
17
d
D
0
LL
.~
d
O ~
rl '"
O
N ~
~ _
O
0 ~"
N
~3
~° v
~ ~
^+.~ H
^~'"
L .i
O~
ai
S
o
O
~ N
M
69
w o
°
O
o~0
.~
fA c
°°o
O
v'f
~.j
Uri o
S
N
.~
64 o
o°
~
~n
~
69 S
o
N
M
~
ffl S
o
oho
~
bFy o
c
N
d'
b9 0
°0
~
d'
ff} 0
00
C
N
b4 0
0°
GQO
C
UF}
~
~ a
c E" ~
c ~ ~,
v ~
V ~
ai
o.
~ a~
'~ ~ 00
~ ~ °~° 0 ~ ~
~ ~ . ~ r~'~
d ~' ~ 30
~ u
~ ~.
~l ~ ~ '~ ;.7 Q ~ G..
~ 0 O ~ ~ W ~}'+ 'd ~ ~ ~ Q ~
'~
v~ ~ rn ~ ~
O p ~ ~ ~
~ H N
U ~
N ~ ~
~ ~ '
~
~ ~ +~ i.. U O ~
~ o
~
,ti N
~ v'
~ d
~
~
C a ~
„
o+
,x ~ d i
~-~ ~
ed N ~ ~ ~ a
.C ~ ~ U ~ y ,~ ~ ,~ p G ~ py ^Ci ~ ~, ~ C~ C. ~ y ' U bn ~
'~
W
° ~' o ~~ '~w ,-, '° ocv
d 'd
~ ~
~
d ~~'
U
~ O
E.1y pp
N~ ~
X. .~' V ._, ~
,~~
v
~ ~ ~~ ~.
O N K1.~
W G CC
L c~
~i " c
d y e
.
a
v' cn a~ c~ -o ~ a
Q ~ -. 3 a~ ~
" p U .~'
~ ~
" ~ ~
"O
' W ~ }°'~ for
~"" ,
,~ ;j
U .
,~ ~
V •^" 3 ~,' i
O O ~ 3 ~ ~; ~
~--
O
i ~ ate
.~ °'
~ ~ ~ W ~ ~
~'
d
~ ~
'~ ~
~~' cC '~ N V
~ ~ ~
~
~ ,~ Fi
'~ ~
. ~.
~ U
~
~ v
a
~ ~ 7 N
" , ~~„ v
;.d
i
'~ C~ ,~ ~ p
'~ C: ~ ~ •+~-
•~-+' ed
cd ,..d
a
~„
, '° a
- °
~ `~ ^~' ~ c ~ ° ~ ~ '~ 'n c
n ' ~ ~
^ ~~ Ct.b ~~r~ Q ~ Qpa Q ~ .~Ux ~ a.c.~ S¢A. ~ ~ ~
.-,
~ ~
.,
~~ :~
~
~
~
~~ w ~ a ~ ~~ 'o ,ti
U ~ c~
~ ~ ~
ro
~
~
~ ~ ,x
~ ~
~ o
U
~ ~ ~ U U ~
~" ~ +~
'
~
~ O
~
Z A rvn
a
~ -~r
.+
~ (Si
~ ~
~~ ~ •~ .
r~..
p...
3 ~
~
y oo ~
~ e~
~ co
A~
"
~ 3
Z
~
~ i
~
0
,~ A
on c ~
v
°' ~ ~
y
~ ~ ~ ~
y
~ ° _
'" d
~ `-'
v
c w
a~
''~ ~
~
~
~
~
~j
FM ~ ~
Fo-. ~
C ] ~
~y
~ ~
~ y
~
A o
W
a a
F
QS ~ xi ~ v A w ~ w o t7 x ti x ~
.~..~ ~a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~w ~ ~ ~ ~
lf]
o
0
°
~--~
~R a
0
°o
N
~
•~ .~
d"
~, A ~, O
~.
~ ~,
~
~ ~~
~ ~ ~
~
~
a~ o ~
:~
v ~ ~ ~
o ,~
. ~
a '~ ~ ' ~
-d ~
Q ~
^d
p O~
'-d
~ O H ~
~. v~ ~, rn O ~
~
'ri C7
~ ;~ A
.~
~ ~ O ~
'~
C3'' ~
~ ~ ~
al i ~ ~ ~ ~
~
3
a °o a °c 4.
~
_
j .rN _
U ~N
~ ~ O O ~ ~ .~
H U ~ F U ~ e"do
.~ .~
~ ~
~r
a
~ '
d ~
O cd O e
C
tV
~ ~ ~
y
a~
i~U N
~U
~ U `~ U
~ ~
O ~ ~
O
" "
~
.~ ,~e ~ .~ ad'
a~ ~ a~ ~
- ~~~ ~~~
~
~
it
CAC
a
W
a
yg
w
d
o
~
Q
~
~
M
64
Q
~ 4
o
~
~
Q
~
Q
~
o
~
f!4
~ ~ ..~. !~
C~ r.+ ~
~ ~ O
_ O ~ ~
F ~ O
~
~ ~~ ° ~" ~ ~ ~U
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~~
y ~ p +~ O ~d ~~ ~ ~ d
,y ~
C7 ,~ ~ ~°, ~ ~ 3 a ~r V ~ ~
~ ~ O
~
~
~' ~'
° ~ U
"b ~
~q ~ ~ ~
o °' O
~ ~
s~ ~
~ ~ N
'~~
•~ ~
~ H ~ ~
~ ~ o ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
~ •~ '~ ~ v ' O "d ~ ~ ~`' ~ O ~ O V
~
ay
~
~ c~
~" C7
~
U
~ 3
O '~ .
~ ~ U
~
~ '
0
vri e~ ~+ ~
O ~
w 4 W
U] ~
~ ~
O
v~ V d
>., yo ~ i
~-!
.~ o O
~ ~'~
~ .
a~~~ .~ ~ .~ ~C~
~
In y ~
U
~ 'zi`p,,
~ c~ •~
O
U
v~ P.:d v~
~
y rn
~
U m
~
V ~
~ ++
rn cd
n d
.d
~° O C7
°~ .~ ~
~ ~ A ceY
3
o ° ~
~ eC
o ed
a Qr it
~~ ~
.,
~ en
" ~ .~
~b ~ ~ w U +
~ ~ ~ ~ a
.~
~ aQ .
o•~ 3 .
~~~ ~
oac~'i .
o, .~ .
° .
e"W
~ H° d aa ~~'P. d ~i' Q a d d
i
i
V
.
al ~
~
y
"
cd ..-i
~ ~
41
~
y.,
~ ~i
x ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~
~ ~ ~ . .
I~ ~
~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ O
~ W~ ~ ~
~ O
j
'. a r'
O ~
~~' eC ~
v p.+ (~
i •~ ~~
~ ~
~ ~' ~
U ° ~
~ a ~ ~'
~
~ ~ V o
~p
_ .,~ '
A '
w ;~ ~ ~ '
C~ p.
...~
A o ~.~
~
U
[
~
- ~. ^~
V/ W
M U A p
M~ W ~
M w
M U \~
M x
M W O
M~ 0
C"~
~ M
v M ~
tD
0
0
0
~
N
F/3 0
o
0
~
b4 ~
acmes
~ ~ ~
x x 3
c~ ~
•~ .~
~
-d -o
~ ~
41
Q F." C]
p F. y
~ V
~ ~ V
UH
e~ V '~
ed N
V~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ .C O W
~~ ;~ °°z
~~ ~a :~~
y ~ ~ V
N
~ ~ h •~ _
~ .W
U Q U O .~
d" ~ ~ ~~i
d" ~ V]
4'
QU° QU d~
Q
"C1
O
o U
~
'~ ~
~
o ~
x
„
.~ o
x~ ~ ~~
~
a =
~~ ~
~~ ~
~~
~ ~
C7
~
0 w
rt U ~ ~
C
tp
a
c
ro
N
1U
N
m
v
0
c
.~
~Q
Q
N
.~
N
t
C
10
H
10
fp
fop
c
c
f0
O.
t
01
O
t
a
m
.Q
.a
a~
0
0
ro
a
L
a~
O
n
Public Outreach
The County ofi Orange is fortunate to have a citizenry with a strong conservation
ethic. This offers opportunities for the Lands Legacy program to expand the
realm of partnerships beyond state, local government and land trusts.
In particular, the Lands Legacy program should:
• Continue to publicize the Lands Legacy program through brochures and
presentations
• Through neighborhood meetings, explore awareness and possible partnership
with citizen and neighborhood interest groups on critical resource land
acquisitions
• Explore the possibility of providing a property 1=ax check-off for Lands Legacy
Fund
• Develop a revolving fund far timber rights and/or conservation easement
acquisition that can be paid into by citizens and homeowners associations to
mitigate any impacts from managed forestry programs
• Explore the potential for a matching grant program for land acquisitions,
possibly from a future (beyond 2001) bond referendum
8
Appendix A
Excerpts from the State of the Environment Report,
February, 200.0
Relates to Natural Areas table on page 5
Executive sutnanary:
Substantial gains have been made in Orange County in the last decade in the amount of land area
placed under some sort of protection. At the same time, however, the rate of forest fragmentation,
primarily as a result of.residential development, has likewise increased. To slow or to halt the
losses of our most significant resources and natural areas, we recommend to the County
Commissioners that County take the following steps:
- Increase the total area of protected natural areas, with highest priority given to the mast
significant areas facing the most imminent threat. This requires allocation of County funds
towards land acquisition, as well as seeking matching funds from outside sources. The
County should also play a more important role in working with other land preservation
groups, and in helping to coordinate the efforts of all involved groups.
B. Increased Protection for Areas of Concern
Some natural areas in the County, those with unique value or lack of accessibility, require
ongoing surveillance to prevent future negative impacts.
- the Little River Corridors: While the County's recent acquisition of the 135-acre
NewtonPTCF property makes a beginning to protection of this clean water body, we would
like to encourage the County to take steps to offer greater watershed protection in the Little
River Basin, and to work in conjunction with Durham County as they develop a plan for the
Little River.
- .Highly ranked sites, on, private lands: Because County government has little direct control of
these lands, there needs to be strong incentives for developers to respect and to contribute to
the protection of our critical, inventoried, and important biological sites. If incentives are
inadequate, the County needs to consider imposing restrictions on development, land
clearing, or ecosystem disturbance on or near these sites. In addition, methods to acquire
such sites when they became available need to be fully available to the ERCD.
C. More effective conservation policy
While the state of biological resources in Orange County is better than in mariy counties
throughout the state and the nation, some adjustments in the policy arena will help these resources
to maintain their integrity through the human population increase foreseen for the future.
0
- Orange County does have existing policy aimed at protecting the environment; however,
enforcement is limited and, in some cases, ineffective. A list of current policy with aside-by-
side listing of available remedies would inform both county employees and citizens of what
recourse we have when an area is in danger and what policies need better means of
enforcement.
- The existing Environmental Impact Ordinance lacks the instruments to offer full protection to
inventoried sites. We strongly encourage amendment of this ordinance to provide for
'effective protection of significant biological resources.
- Clear-cutting and the damage it inflicts on wildlife habitats, biological diversity, water quality
and quality of life is a significant problem faced throughout the county. The county's current
ability to regulate clear-cutting is limited, and the role of timber harvest in the local rural
'economy cannot be overlooked. However, a balance needs to be established between the
_ _ rights of private property owners and the needs of the community. Finding such a balance
needs to be addressed sooner rather than later, as this means of harvest both exacerbates the
biological impact of forest loss from clearing for residential development and contributes to
conflict between rural and suburban populations.
- 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.
1V. Needs and Recommended Actions to protect biological diversity in Orange County:
A. Hi hest riorit areas for conservation effort.
Based on currently available information, (biological inventory, Natural Heritage data and both
TLC reports), we rank the following areas as of highest conservation priority areas for the
County, in order of importance.
1. Lands surrounding Eno River State Park
2. Occoneechee Mountain buffer
3. Sevenmile Creek Bottoms
4. Central County Forest, Hills, and Corridor: Blackwood Mountain/Duke
Forest Blackwood Division/ Meadow Flats/ Bald Mountain/ Pegg Hill,
and connecting lands
5. New Hope Creek Corridor, including upper section which connects to
the Central County Forest (#4)
6. Lands surrounding Mason Farm
7. Chestnut Ridge
$. River corridors: Upper Eno River, N and S forks of the Little River
9. Forest southwest of Cedar Grove
10. Pickard's Mountain
10
Justifications:
1. Lands surrounding Eno River State Park (ERSP): This area is identified
in LWWI and II as the most important intact prime forest in the County,
by virtue of its area, the presence of the River, and the undisturbed
forest within the Park. However there is no guarantee that this azea will
retain this high biological value, as the State Park lands comprise less
than half of the total area. Residential developmenC in this azea is
rapidly fragmenting the surrounding forest. If this cutting and building
is left unchecked, it is sure to lead to degradation of the core forest area
of the Park. The land between Pleasant Green Rd, Route 70, Palmer
Grove Church Rd and St. Mary's Rd. needs to be designated somehow
as buffer area, and tools developed that will 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
.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.
3. Sevenmile Creek Bottoms: This iwventoried bottomland forest is of
regional biological significance for the species found there, and is also
identified in LWWII as a forest of high wildlife value, by virtue of its
size, and forms pazt .of the County's designated corridor system.
4. Central County Forests, Hills, and Corridor: Blackwood Mountain/Duke
Forest Blackwood Division/ Meadow Flats/ Bald Mountain/ Pegg Hill,
and connecting lands. From LWWII it is evident that one of the key
care 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 #5) can be maintained and/or developed, this enlazges the
natural azea substantially. Acquisitions or easements which help to
preserve forest integrity in this region are to be fostered by the County.
5. New Hope Creek Corridor, including the upper section which connects
to the Central County Forest (#4). The New Hope Creek Corridor east
of Rt. $6, 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 #4 is to be encouraged. Protection
of surrounding land from conflicting uses by designating it as buffer
zone would enhance protection of New Hope Creek.
6. Lands surrounding Mason Farm :Because of the biological significance
of Mason Farm and adjacent Botanical Gazden Lands and the high
degree of threat to their integrity, the County should take what steps it
can to help keep further losses and fragmentation from occurring.
Without some secure buffers, the integrity of some of the County's
most unique forests and associated vertebrate cotnmunities could be
compromised.
i i
7. Chestnut Ridge: This xeric forest (E01 AND EO2) is an important
upland forest, comprised largely of chestnut oak, a relatively large tract
of forest, and also is an important upland area for landscape
connectivity. It is presently privately awned and thus its long-term
status is 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.
S. River corridors: Eno River, N and S forks of the Little River: (see
above) . Conservation efforts should focus on protection of the Upper
Eno 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.
9. Forest southwest of Cedar Grove: a large tract of forest was identified
southwest of Cedar Grove by LWWI 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.
10. Pickard's Mountain: While Pickard's Mountain is now relatively secure,
in environmentally responsible private hands, it remains an area of
biological importance, primarily by virtue of its size 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.
12
Appendix B
Parks Projects Identified in the
1988 Master Recreation and Parks Element -
County of Orange Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit 6-i~
Relates to Parklands tab/e on page 6
Projects_with Land Acquisition Completed/Underwa~r
+ Efland-Cheeks Community Park (opened May, 2000)
• Cedar Grove District Park (land acquisition underway) ~ - -
• Little River Regional Park* (land acquired, park plan underway)
• Hillsborough-area Swimming Pool (Sportsplex)
• Cheeks District Park (McGowan Creek Preserve and Seven-Mile Creek Preserve)
• Fairview Community Park (some facility development complete)
Remainin Parks Pro'ects
• Chapel Hill Township District Park
• University Station Community Park
• Bingham District Park
• White Crass Community Park
• Walnut Grove Community Park (aka Eno/Schley Park)
• Chapel Hill High School -Swimming Pool
* -Opportunities arLittle River Regional Park and Cedar Grove District Park have
effectively transferred the community park and district park concepts that were originally
shown, while still meeting the same needs. Based on what has actually transpired through
acquisitions and opportunities, the original community parks at Cedar Grove (Northern
Human Services Center) and Caldwell have become district and regional parks,
respectively. Accordingly, the original Cedar Grove/Little River District Park is now the
proposed Walnut Grove Community Park. In effect, the same needs are being met by two
district parks and one community park as were envisioned for two community parks and
one district park.
i?
County of orange Master Recreation and Parks Plan
.p ~:
• kp ' i ,.
~~ ~ s' Walnut:Grove om nib--Par -
~(`~darGroveD'istric Park.-, ,- - ...~
_ ycoN. \ ~I ~c:Ex n
. - ~ {----:- - L~~ ~ ..
j ~!~: ~ ~
~_.` V ~ y ~ . ~, , % ~ ~~, - .k . ' ~~~ _Littl River Regional Park
-~~ ~ _,.
,~~,,k ~7 _ - ; l
'Sure~-c`~sab C `~ D~trict Park~~_"- -4~ / ~ ~` --.;"
-~xv.. '' ~, J i
r~unxnNxn:
Mebane -l o~-- / ~
Fairy"ie~ munity Park : ~
~ •,
Efland-Cheeks , o mun t Fork-- - - ~ - -
1--; - -- - --- - --~' Hillsb ^~~
N'C57 TEN ~ _~.. . "' ~`~.. , iA , . J ,, .L r. .
~: ~`` ~ ~~ '~' '` splea
- mac" ~~~ ~G •., ~ /~ -\v .. ~L,~ - ~ c
as T ~~. _- ~ n ~ • __
M ~ / `~~~ Alternate Cheeks gistrict orn nrc`~ -.
.~,~` ~ `~ ~ ~ U~ive i ' ~+3`ta n Park
/ GAO ~ J ~~^ ~= ~.. ~,~ ~~, },~(~'1-~1~J l ~`~
1 ~.. ~ .. -_.-1 / I
1 IL ~` ~ ~~L^7_N g~
,,~`~ \, ~
o`'`~ ` . - ^ , _ Proposed ~ apel Hill D~str~c j ark
Bingham Dis riot Parke - ' r .~ ~•~~ ~AN~
~/ ~~
Ff .' - I ~ i ~ ~` u rtoa -ti
~y&``` ~ a /~~\~
r \ Pool -Chapel Hill High School
White'C CQm~y~unity/Park ~~
~" f ~
~, ~~ 5;,
F~ ~ ~ C~ .
n[n rtc~.v~no an ~ ~ ~ ~,-
--- --~~~ ---~-,~ -_ f,
. ~ ^~t~f.
ray b
• Other ~~' ``
• Community Park N
~$ County of Orange, N.C.
• District Park S Environment ~ Resource
O Regional Park 0 3 6 Miles Conservation Department
M Jones
Streams 3/9/01
Note: Circles denote general location of proposed parks. Actual location varies.
Appendix C
Excerpts from the ]oint Master Recreation and Parks
Work Group report, May 1999
Relates to Parklands table on page 6
C. Analyze Potential of Land for Greenways and Rural Trail Links
Class 3 (lrnproved Woodland Trails) could be seen as a hybrid trail found in both urban
and rural areas, and as such could be used as an example of rural trail links that tie some
parks and open space to a regional trail system on a primary corridor to be identified in
the future. In this sense, Woodland Trails may constitute a th_ir_d category ~of corridors and
trails.
There are several criteria that could be used to evaluate land suitability for wildlife
corridors, woodland trails and greenways, in this setting. Examples might include:
Wildlife Corridor Evaluation Criteria
• Located along perennial streams, or ridges connecting watershed basins and their
perennial streams
• Located away from residential structures to preserve privacy
• Connects and includes identified natural areas and wildlife habitat and other areas of
public interest
• Privately held unless dedicated to public entity - no public access unless granted by
property owner/public entity
• No trails, except as existing from the movement of wildlife/people
Woodland Trails (Rural Trail,~LinksZEvaluation Criteria
• Located along an identified primary corridor system
• Located away from natural areas and wildlife habitat, or in such fashion as to
minimize impact on these areas
• Links parks, urban greenways systems and existing open space areas such as Eno
River State Park
• Consistent with along-term regional trails system
• Located in areas with minimal streamway and adjoining lands erosion potential
• Located away from residential structures to preserve privacy
• Located in areas where periodic access for emergency vehicles can be sited
Greenwa Evaluation Criteria
• Located along streamway systems in urban or surrounding areas
• Co-located with existing easements (such as utility easements)
• Located as far as possible from residences to preserve privacy
• Located no closer than 25 feet to the stream bank
+ Stxeam crossings should be avoided whenever possible and grade separated when
necessary
id
• Located to ensure that minimum disruption of the trail would result from repair or
replacement of utilities
• Located to connect existing neighborhoods, parks and services
• Located to allow for emergency vehicle access
With these priorities in mind, the long-term potential for a few carefully-sited rustic rural
trails linking some urban greenways or parks to existing and future rural linear parks and
open space does exist. Plans for development of any coordinated infra-County trail
system should be developed with linkages to regional plans for parks and trails. Linkages
along the Haw River, Eno River State Park, New Hope Creek, Jordan Lake and future
rails-to-trails initiatives will likely be critical components of a long-range regional trails
system. The Joint Planning Area Strategy Map shows the beginnings of such a system
that was envisioned in 19$7. While considerable further work is needed in this area, it is
possible with existing mapping to visualize three examples of passible long-term rural
trail links tying town parks and open space to those in rural areas:_ .. r.
• A North Chapel Hill/Rural Buffer comdor linking Booker Creek Greenway,
Northern Community Park, Duke Forest, New Hope Creek (including TLC lands and
Duke Forest) back to the New Hope Creek Corridor and the Durham County line.
• A corridor in southwest/central Orange County linking the Haw River, Cane Creek
Reservoir, OWASA mitigation lands, Seven-Mile Creek lands, Eno River and Duke
Forest, Eno River Walk in Hillsborough and the Eno River State Park. (A northern
branch along the Eno toward the new Hillsborough reservoir could be added to this
concept).
• A corridor in southern Orange linking Bolin Creek Greenway via Meadowmont and
UNC to the UNC Botanical Garden to Jordan Lake lands.
Recommendation H. Address Eausting Needs
15
Currently, countywide parkland needs are assessed in terms of types of parks
(e.g. regional, community, neighborhood, etc). While additional work is needed
in developing standards, it is possible to envision an overview of park needs
based on population standards.
The combined projected population for all of Orange County in the year 2025 is
168,000. This total county population was used to assess the level of adequacy
for future years. Based on this, in the year 2000, Orange County will need a total
of 2030 acres of park/recreation land in order to meet national adequacy
standards. With current park facilities (including projected acquisitions in the
next year), a deficit of 645 acres will exist in 2000. In 2025, the County will need
3100 acres with a current projected deficit of 1265 acres. Details on how these
projections were generated may be found in Appendix J. Based on the projected
future need for X,265 new acres of parkland, the Work Group has determined that
the current critical need is to begin long-term land acquisition ("land banking").
This concept is similar to any kind of bank ~ it essentially establishes a "savings
account" of land. Once the savings account has been fully funded, land can be
withdrawn and developed for specific parks and recreation needs.
* -The total acreage in community parks currently exceeds acreage needs, but
the existing community parks (three in Chapel Hill, one in Carrboro and one at
Efland-Cheeks) may not meet the geographic needs of the County. Community
park needs appear to exist in Hillsborough, northern Orange County and
southwestern Orange.
The estimated cost of purchasing this acreage countywide, in 1999 dollars, is
$IO.I2 million. Over time, the cost of purchasing land for parks will undoubtedly
rise dramatically.
I. Recommendations for Use of Current Funds and Future Funding Needs
Simultaneous with the population increase, land in Orange County is rapidly
increasing in value. Large tracts are being subdivided, and options for geographic
locations of parkland in every township are diminishing. A priority for use of
future funds clearly must be land acquisition for long-term park needs, rather
than simply developing recreational facilities (which can be developed over time
as the population increases).
A program far land acquisition for long-term park needs should be developed
that identifies sites that could meet needs (including potential for siting active
and low-impact recreation), based on projected size and location of parkland
throughout the county. The availability of matching funds from the benefiting
jurisdictions should be an important component in future acquisition and park
development....
1~
Based on the most commonly accepted standards, the county/towns~will need the
following new parks just to meet current deficits:
To address the estimated $10.12 million in future park needs, the following
actions should be taken to use existing band funds and address long-term needs.
1. The remaining $2.89 million in land acquisition funds from the 1997 parks bond should be
used for acquisition of lands identified as sites far long-team parks use as soon as possible.
2. The balance of funding should be an estimated $8 million parks bond placed before the voters
in November 2000....
Developing a program for identifying and acquiring long-term park sites at this
time will greatly reduce the cost of meeting long-term park needs.
1~