Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
149 <br /> RURAL Bu ER STSIPX <br /> - - POLICY ANALYSIS - PHASE 2 <br /> • Issues vs Policies <br /> CONSERVATION <br /> The following conservation issues were identified in the <br /> DATA & ANALYSIS phase of the study: <br /> (1) Together with slope, topographic relief is a direct <br /> influence on the water table and the location of streams <br /> and waterways. as well as soil erosion. Therefore any <br /> alterations in topographic relief or slope gradient may <br /> have far reaching effects on the entire area. <br /> (2) The adequate protection of biologically significant <br /> areas and historic sites is increasingly important in <br /> light of recent and proposed development in the Rural <br /> Buffer. However, providing protection for such areas <br /> and sites is difficult since their exact location and <br /> present status is not always known. <br /> (3) Escalating land prices due to residential demand in the <br /> Rural Buffer is making it more difficult to keep prime <br /> farm land in agricultural use. <br /> (4) Development activity in the Rural Buffer has two impacts <br /> on Duke Forest properties. Erosion and runoff from <br /> development activity upstream may lead to the degrada- <br /> tion of surface water habitats. Increased development. <br /> not just in the Rural Buffer, but throughout the Chapel <br /> Hill/Durham region also places increasing recreation <br /> pressures on the forest. <br /> Comparing/contrasting the issues with policies. goals. <br /> objectives. proposals. and standards identified in phase I of <br /> POLICY ANALYSIS yields: <br /> Issue 1 is addressed in a very general fashion by <br /> Proposal 1. Resource Protection Areas are referenced and <br /> steep slopes are a component of these although such is not <br /> referenced in Proposal 1. It is questionable whether Issue 1 <br /> is a relevant issue. <br /> Issue 2 is addressed in several places. but only in a <br /> general fashion. It is addressed somewhat by Policy 1 <br /> although there are discrepancies. Policy 1 addresses his- <br /> torical/archaelogical sites, but does not mention biologi- <br /> cally significant areas. It also assumes the location of <br /> such sites is known whereas Issue 2 states this is not always <br /> the case. Policy 3 could also be considered applicable if <br /> given a very liberal interpretation. The term non-renewable <br /> resources generally applies to mineral resources. but could <br /> also (I think) be expanded to cover historical/biological <br /> resources. Goal 1 speaks of protecting natural and cultural <br />