Agenda - 10-07-1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

49 9/18/91 10. CRITICAL WATERSHED (CW) STATUS demonstrated °special conditions that warranted protection measures adopted by the Board of Commissioners in that year. The current protection measures go above and beyond the state minimums, and CW status would provide recognition of that fact. The Planning Board recognizes that impending study of the Cane Creek watershed in 1992 may lend credence to a like designation for this water supply. By the same token certain portions of the Upper Eno basin containing the proposed WS -II segment of the watershed might also be appropriate for this designation, although there is no data to quantify such status .....: A:! ;: "•i ?:•i:{^4?nx...:9: ?�. P }:rx:.• -..• ::'�Y,.•: {+�•. x:•,y}v ?(tr.;^.hF..,:.•:: •: at this time. the` r :: h :F r z o i c cr> ria - =IMri 11. UPPER ENO BASIN CLASSIFICATION The preliminary classification of the Eno basin treats all portions in Orange County the same, even though there are no water sources east of Hillsborough in Orange County. Historically and to this day, Orange County has separated this basin into the "Upper Eno", north and west of Lake Ben Johnson in Hillsborough; and the "Lower Eno ", from Lake Ben Johnson to the Durham County line. As such, watershed protection measures similar to that of the current WS -III classification have been applied to the zoned portions of the Upper Eno basin since 1984. NCDEM, however, has recommended a classification of WS -IV for the entire basin. There are a number of complicating factors in the Upper Eno and Lower Eno. In the Upper Eno, what water sources should be protected long -term? How should the suburban corridor and commercial - industrial node along US 70/1 -85 in Efland factor into the classification? In.the Lower Eno, is there in fact a watershed "Protected Area" extending west from Durham? Durham City /County staff is recommending the use of buffers rather 4