Agenda - 08-26-1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

41 A. Alternate Scenario A. Multiple Classifications, WS-TV and B /C. At the time of the last classification in 1983, the EMC reviewed technical information and heard citizen comments that convinced them to apply the dual classification to the Falls and Jordan Reservoirs. Reasons for these classifications included the shallow depths of the upper reaches of the reservoirs, the distance of these upper reaches from existing or projected water intake locations, the "chain of lakes" affects mentioned above, and the general unsuitable waters in the upper reaches for water supply purposes. As an alternate, Durham could suggest that this multiple classification remain. All of the Falls Reservoir tributaries on the dam -side of a point near Lick Creek (Durham Co.) and Beaverdam Creek (Wake Co.) would be classified as WS -IV, while tributaries upstream of this point would be classified as B or C. Likewise, all of the Jordan Reservoir tributaries on the dam -side of a point near Farrington Road (NC 1008 in Chatham Co.) would be WS -IV, while tributaries upstream of this would be classified as B or C. These classifications were appropriate in 1985 and remains appropriate for the same reasons. The one mile Critical Area and the five mile Protected Area definitions would still be used with this scenario. Under this alternate, the Falls Reservoir Critical Area in Durham County would include about 9 square miles while the Protected- Area would include about 46 square miles. (Again, the figures for the Falls Reservoir exclude the water surface area and the public land around the reservoirs.) The Critical Area would be outside the Urban Growth Area and is indicated as appropriate for agricultural and rural density residential uses on the County Plan. The Protected Area would cover about 28 square miles of the Urban Growth Area. Projected land uses from the City's Future Land Use Map include primarily low density residential with some areas of high density residential, commercial and industrial use. To the extent that these could not use the high density option, the density permitted by the State's rules would be less than compatible with the City's Plan. For the Jordan Reservoir, no Critical Area and no Protected Area would exist in Durham Count because of the distance from the WS portions of the Reservoir to the Durham County line. B. Alternate Scenario B: WS-1V One We Critical and Two We Protected Areas. Another alternate approach that Durham could suggest would be to reduce the geographic extent of the Critical and Protected Areas around the Falls and Jordan Reservoirs. A reasonable Critical Area could be at one mile with a modified Protected Area of two miles. If the EMC embraced this approach, consistency would be maintained in the mapping of watershed protection areas used in regulations that Durham County has been enforcing for the past six years. With this alternate, the Falls Critical Area would include about 17 square miles while the protected Area would include about 35 square miles. Likewise, the Jordan Reservoir Critical Area would be about 1 square mile and the Protected Area would be a little less than 4 square miles. (Again, these figures exclude the water surface area and the public land around the reservoirs.) The land use implications for Durham are obvious: much less non -Corps land is affected by the State's rules. In fact, none of the Critical Area and only about half of the Protected Area is inside of the Urban Growth Area where Durham has envisioned suburban and urban intensity 13