As reported on UNC's Carolina North discussion forum.

Attendee Comments Received at the Ecological Assessment Listening Group Meeting With Biohabitats Inc., Nov. 6, 2006

Does the group know of any studies that have been done on the site?

• Morgan and Little Creek Plan by the State of NC
• Chapel Hill Bird Club bird counts
• Chapel Hill High School bird counts
• Smith Middle School water monitoring (data may not be usable)
• Streamwatch on Bolin Creek
• Fish studies done by UNC students downstream of site
• Creeping Cedar study
• County assessment of forests across the entire county includes site (publication-
• Landscape for Wildlife in Orange County
• Salamander study by graduate student
• Local governments and Haw River Assembly water quality data: Wendy Smith, of Town of Chapel Hill, may have some of the data
• Carrboro macro-invertebrate data
• Information on Friends of Bolin Creek website-pictures of flora and also pictures of Crow Branch
• There is some history of the site on the Friends of Bolin Creek website also. There is an old mill site on the property, originally owned by Buck Taylor, a notable early Chapel Hill citizen. Comment that this site has been abused/disturbed by the public.

Are there any notable areas or features of the site the group would like to point out?

• Winter sparrows and woodpeckers are often sighted on property.
• Over the past 10 years invasive plant species presence has increased notably.
• The pond enhances site beauty and should be preserved.
• There is a hardwood stand to the north of the pond that is very nice.
• There is a very old hardwood stand in the northwest corner of the site.
• There are large, mature yellow poplars to the west of the runway.
• There are large mounds of earth to the north of the runway, of uniform size and spacing, that are visible from an interior road.
• There are approximately 20 miles of mountain bike trails on the site that are also used by hikers and people walking their dogs.
• An area to the north and east of the runway is not well drained and the bike trail builders avoided it.
• The open area on the west side of the site was a community garden site approximately 10 years ago.
• Crow Branch and its tributaries are a very ecologically important part of the site.
• Suggestion that the rail line be a focus area for transit, rather than using interior site routes;
• Bedrock prevents vertical erosion of the channel of Bolin Creek, which is increasing lateral erosion of the stream banks.
• Vernal pools exist to the north of the west end of the runway.
• Quite a few Indian artifacts have been found in the former community garden area.
• Areas that were part of the former Navy runways have pioneer species vegetation that are different from the adjacent areas.
• There are piles of organic matter north of the west end of the runway that are in and around an open area. They were placed there by the University for recycling, before the drum grinder was purchased and placed in the current lay down area.
• The water quality in Crow Branch downstream of the pond appears to be poor, and it may be that the leachate from the old landfill is negatively affecting it.
• The water quality in the pond is good.
• The Carolina North tract is a very important community amenity for outdoor activities.
• There is no data on usage, but the numbers of users is thought to be high.
• There are not many recreational trails in the greater site area.
• Some of the trails on the site are very old.
• Some of the mountain bike trails on the site are well-built and some are not.
• The mountain bike community would like to volunteer to work with the University on the trails.
• The southeastern portion of the tract is not as recreationally attractive as other areas of the site.
• Individual commented that they view open fields/athletic fields as greenspace.
• The site is a very good running site, it has a rural flavor that is valuable.
• The site needs some active management now, to maintain it and prevent degradation.
• The deer population may become a problem as habitat surrounding the site shrinks.
• There is an opportunity to build bike trails through the site along Bolin Creek that would avoid car traffic and possibly connect to Barclay Road.
• High school students occasionally use trails across site to get to school.
• There are possibilities to link community greenways across the site, on the Craig and Adams tracts, and from Twin Creeks to the site.
• Local residents see the site as a destination for open space.
• Carolina North will provide a impetus for an off-road link between old and new campuses.

What are some changes that the group would like to see?

• Invasive plant species removal;
• Improved water quality;
• Trail design and management;
• Landfill and chemical site remediation;
• Recreational spaces, fields;
• More archaeological assessment of the site;
• Use of proper construction specifications for mountain bike trails, which are available through local bike clubs;
• Repair the channels of tributaries of Crow Branch that flow across gas line right of way;
• Stream bank restoration/stabilization where there is high trail use;
• Successfully prohibit River County Park could be used as a model for good bike trail design;
• Leave standing dead trees for bird habitat;
• Deer population management;
• Wildlife inventory;
• Maintain wildlife corridor to north of Homestead Road;
• There are many different ecotypes onsite, it is complicated and needs further discussion to fully explore;

Are there any data gaps?

• Viewscape locations on the site: the feeling of isolation is valued, especially along Bolin Creek;
• Habitat Map;
• User frequency data;
• GPS mapping of bike trails;
• How much ecological work does the site do for society? How much natural capital exists onsite?
• The fewer rules, the better;
• Conservation areas need to be at least 40 acres for viable wildlife habitat presentation; Forested areas, especially mature hardwoods, are very ecologically valuable.

November 20 2006 4:44 pm by site admin

As reported on UNC's Carolina North discussion forum.

Maps from Carolina North Ecology Listening Session, Nov. 6, 2006

Here are two maps created by Biohabitats of Raleigh. The maps were marked up in the Ecology Listening Session on November 6.

Each map is available as a low-resolution JPEG and as a high-resolution TIF.

North Campus Property (high-resolution TIF, 11.8 MB)
North Campus Property (low-resolution JPEG, 695 KB)

Landscape Ecology (high-resolution TIF, 8.6 MB)
Landscape Ecology (low-resolution JPEG, 577 KB)

Here is a legend detailing what was written on the map during the session. Each number corresponds to a numbered point o
n the maps.

North Campus Property map:
1. +20 miles trail
2. very important for recreation hiking, learning
3. site feels like home in rural N.C.
4. more trails not done in resp. manner
5. bike trail
6. native american artifacts
7. Community gardens used up to 10 years ago
8. amazing forest
9. bedrock lateral erosion
10. cascades ridge (left) and enchanted forest (right)
11. mill site
12. 120' tulip poplars amazing site
13. recreation
14. rail line
15. wet
16. vernal pools
17. large trees special place
18. [variation of ??]
19. organic waste (1 yr)
20. 3-4 mounds disturbed
21. wet
22. (swimming) pond
23. crow branch leachate
24. landfill area
25. runway alignments
26. bike connector

Landscape Ecology map:
1. twin creeks park

November 20 2006 4:45 pm by site admin

CAROLINA NORTH LEADERSHIP ADVISORY COMMITTEE

FACILITATOR’S REPORT

Sept. 7, 2006
Friday Center, 4-6 p.m.

The seventh meeting of the Carolina North Leadership Advisory Committee took place on Thursday, Sept. 7, 2006 at the Friday Center. The meeting was convened at 4 p.m. by Ken Broun.

The Committee received a memorandum from Douglas Crawford-Brown setting forth draft principles dealing with the environment. Dr. Crawford-Brown and Jack Evans clarified that Crawford-Brown’s role in preparing the memorandum is not as a member of the University delegation to the Committee, but as an independent environmental expert.

Julie McClintock asked if the Committee eventually will “circle back” to the University annotations on the matrix. Jack Evans said that he looked forward to doing that, and reiterated the University’s position that it reserved the option of objecting to those portions of the matrix of principles that it had previously put in italics.

James Carnahan proposed that “soil types” and “permeable soils” be assessed as part of Carolina North’s environmental assets and among the things to be protected. There was a discussion of the issue, but no resolution of whether the Committee’s final principles would include that reference.

Bill Strom called the Committee’s attention to an addition to the Horace Williams Citizens Report recommending baseline work to permit an evaluation of how changes at the Carolina North site would have an impact on the environment. He stated that the report would be submitted for inclusion in the matrix as part of the HWCC report adopted as town policy. [The report was submitted after the meeting and has been added to the matrix as requested.]

There was a discussion of the statement in the matrix submitted by the Chamber of Commerce dealing with the creation of public amenities, such as schools, parks, conference facilities, trails and greenways that are open and welcoming to the public. Jack Evans expressed the concern that the listing might be interpreted as a check list for the creation of the amenities. There was general agreement in the Committee that the list was intended as providing examples and not as a check list.

There was then a discussion of the Transportation section of the matrix. The Chapel Hill delegation asked for a clarification of the University’s statement that “intelligent transportation systems” be used at Carolina North. Jack Evans said that the statement referred to use of technology to facilitate flow of traffic such as coordinated traffic signals, bus driver activation of traffic signals and electronic information on bus arrival times.

The Chapel Hill delegation raised the issue, with regard to several statements in the University’s submission, as to whether the project as conceived by UNC was sufficiently transit oriented. George Cianciolo expressed concern that adding streets was counter-productive to a transit oriented development. Mark Chilton raised the specific issue of the University’s plans for Estes Drive and Seawell School Road. Jack Evans responded for UNC that transit was to be a significant part of the transportation solution. However, he envisioned a balanced plan that recognized a priority to reduce the use of single-occupancy vehicles and to make substantial use of transit, but that would see a certain amount of single occupancy vehicle traffic.

There was discussion of this issue, as well as the related question of the transit study that will be conducted for the transit partners – the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and UNC. The transit study has not yet begun. Details for its completion are being discussed among the partners. When begun, it will take six to eight months to complete – at a time likely beyond the life of this Committee. The facilitator pointed out that the transit study’s work was independent of the Committee. The Committee will propose general principles about transportation as well as other issues. The transit study will provide expert advice on the specifics of transit in this community.

There was other discussion of the need for Carolina North to be transit oriented. Included in the discussion was a recognition that the transportation issue is interlocked with issues of housing. Housing at Carolina North for persons working at Carolina North would reduce the need for private automobiles.

There was an affirmation of the principle set out at the June 1 that public transportation is the default principle for Carolina North. There was general agreement that this does not mean that the single occupant automobile be eliminated from the project. Rather, it is a recognition of the need for a balanced development in phases to be coordinated with the creation of housing, so as to minimize reliance on the private automobile.

The facilitator noted that there were several questions raised by the Chapel Hill delegation concerning the University’s submissions with regard to transportation. These matters included the question of connections to the surrounding roads system. Those issues will be discussed at the next meeting.

There was a suggestion made by Julie McClintock that the facilitator prepare a draft of a proposed structure for the Committee’s final report. The facilitator agreed to prepare such a draft.

There was request that the University provide a timetable for its work in developing Carolina North. Jack Evans agreed to provide that timetable at the next meeting.

The suggestion was made by Cam Hill that the Committee meet more frequently. There was general agreement with the suggestion, although a few members expressed concern. The facilitator agreed to work with University staff in planning additional meetings, possibly on the fourth Thursday of each month.

The next meeting of the Committee will be at 4 p.m. on Thursday, October 5, at the Kenan Center.

UNC's leadership on the LAC has said that UNC's Board of Trustee's (UNC BOT) will not read a 15 page report on Carolina North.

Previous attempts to hammer out consensus between UNC and the community have failed, usually at the last minute, because UNC's BOT interceded and upset the detailed negotiations.

UNC's LAC representatives unwillingness to present an extensive document for required review bodes ill for the collaborative process.

Attached is a memorandum I have prepared in response to the Committee’s direction that I suggest a structure for our final report. I hope that my suggestions will begin the conversation as to the report’s structure. In the memorandum, I have also tried to illustrate the kind of statements that I think might constitute principles to be stated by the Committee. The principles that I have set out are based on submissions from various sources and in some instances reflect committee discussions. However, they are intended only as illustrations rather than an attempt at this relatively early date to formulate any kind of a final statement.

I will set some time at the October 5 meeting in the event that the committee should decide that it want to discuss my proposed structure.

Ken Broun

MEMORANDUM

To: Leadership Advisory Committee for Carolina North
From: Ken Broun
Subject: Structure of the Committee’s Final Report

Date: September 21, 2006

The Committee has asked me to suggest a structure for the Committee’s final report to the Chancellor. This memorandum is intended as a response to that request and was prepared to support the Committee’s discussions and decision making. Irrespective of my suggestions, the structure and content of the final report will be a Committee decision.

The Committee’s final report should be a statement of planning principles that would assist the University in reaching its goals and objectives for Carolina North. Those principles will be arrived at by a process of discussion at our Committee meetings. The principles set forth in the Committee’s report should reflect consensus where it exists, but may also demonstrate differences in opinion where no consensus has been reached. I have tried to illustrate how principles might be documented in the final report as well as how any lack of consensus on principles might be documented. My suggestions should not be construed as an attempt to synthesize the Committee’s decisions to date or as an attempt to provide direction for future deliberations except as to the structure of the final report and as an attempt to define the term “principle.”

A definition of “principle” is elusive in this context. The definition that I have used for this document is a statement that will effectively guide the planning of the Carolina North project without dictating the precise manner in which the project will be designed or constructed. Where possible, without getting into precise design issues, some general parameters for carrying out the principle may be stated. Rather than attempting any further definition of “principle,” I hope that I can illustrate what I mean through example in this memorandum. The principles set forth are intended only as illustrations of the kind of statements we may want to make in our final report.

The outline I have in mind for the final report bears the most resemblance to the outline of the Horace Williams Citizens Committee report, which is the most complete statement of community input made to date. However, I envision a document with less detail. Furthermore, I have varied from the HWCC format somewhat using the term “Environmental Considerations” to cover matters covered in at least two of the HWCC categories. I have also added a specific topic covering Housing and Commercial Uses, which are topics addressed in other categories in the HWCC report.

As we have discussed at our meetings, the “matrix” of principles proposed by the University, local governments and the Chamber should also be submitted to the Chancellor as reflecting the input into the Committee’s deliberations. The matrix should include the statements submitted without editing or annotation.

Following is a proposed structure with examples derived from the submissions by various committee members or delegations and our discussions to date. The language of the introduction and principles set forth is intended as an example of the kind of statement that might be made or, at best, a starting place for further discussion.

INTRODUCTION

This Committee was charged by Chancellor James Moeser with issuing guiding principles for the development of Carolina North. He described Carolina North as necessary in light of the limited space still available on the existing campus, but asked for help in determining how it should be built. Chancellor Moeser asked for guidelines for a development that “will make us proud and support the fundamental mission of the University.” He suggested that we focus on the issues of fiscal equity, housing, transportation and the environment. The following report is intended to meet the Chancellor’s charge. In addition to reflecting the discussion among members of the Committee over the course of a year, the report is based on proposed statements of principles submitted by the Town of Chapel Hill (the report of the Horace Williams Citizens Committee), the Town of Carrboro, Orange County, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce and the University. Those principles are contained in a matrix that is attached to this report.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Carolina North will create a campus for living and learning that is a model of sustainability. It should be socially, environmentally and economically sound. (Taken from draft of guiding principles submitted by the University, Aug. 18, 2006)

Carolina North will create healthy living environments; protect, restore and ecological integrity; conserve energy and natural resources, and use them efficiently; balance social, economic and environmental concerns in decision-making; promote equity, human dignity and social justice. (Taken from HWCC report)

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT

Phase the development of Carolina North to ensure that transportation infrastructure, retail, recreation and civic facilities and housing will be provided concurrently with and in proportion to academic and research uses to minimize disruption to the surrounding neighborhoods and ensure the sustainability of the mixed-use area. (Taken from HWCC report and Committee discussions).

FISCAL EQUITY

The Carolina North campus will have a neutral or positive fiscal impact on the Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Orange County local governments. (Taken from draft of guiding principles submitted by the University, Aug. 18, 2006 and from various submissions in the matrix)

ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES

Carolina North presents a unique opportunity to meet the mission of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill while providing a model for environmentally sustainable community design reflecting reasonably anticipated environmental goals over the next 50 years. Carolina North will therefore be an exemplar of sustainability in the sense that if the entire community of Chapel Hill and Carrboro adopted the design and operational practices embodied in Carolina North, this community would be environmentally sustainable. (submitted by Doug Crawford-Brown)

When added onto the baseline (2006) environmental conditions of the community, Carolina North will produce sustainable levels of criteria air pollutants and air toxics; emissions of carbon dioxide; carbon absorption capacity of the land; amount of land available as species habitat; amount of open land for human recreation; protection of water bodies; generation of waste; and quantity of water flowing off surfaces as run-off. “Sustainable” here means that each of these conditions and their implications for public health would be acceptable as a permanent feature of life in the community. (submitted by Doug Crawford-Brown)

Carolina North and related off-setting measures will produce no net increase in emissions of precursors of ozone, no net increase in vulnerability of the community to storm-water events, no net increase in loading of sediment and nutrients into local streams, and a continued ability to meet the carbon dioxide emissions reduction goals established by the university under CRed. “Related off-setting measures” means improvements to the existing campus and/or university support of community-wide programs targeting these four environmental conditions. (submitted by Doug Crawford-Brown)

With respect to all other environmental conditions, Carolina North will leave a “buffer” to accommodate development elsewhere in the community. “Buffer” means that the incremental effect of Carolina North on all relevant environmental conditions, when added onto existing baseline conditions, will allow for reasonably anticipated future development elsewhere in the community without the community exceeding natural and/or legal limits on these conditions. (submitted by Doug Crawford-Brown)

NATURAL AREAS, PARKS AND RECREATION

The Committee could not reach agreement on a principle that would guide the University in determining the amount of area that should be preserved as open space. There was consensus in the committee that a significant part of the Carolina North property be preserved as open space. Many community members of the Committee preferred the additional statement that the University preserve in perpetuity the maximum amount of open space possible with a goal of preserving 75% of the area, while the University representatives on the Committee said that they did not want to set limits today on how the land would be used in the future.

Designate and protect areas that serve as passive recreation opportunities, as wildlife habitat, and as buffers along Bolin Creek and Crow Branch. (HWCC report).

Carolina North should have amenities that are open and welcoming to the general public. Examples of amenities that may be included are schools, parks, conference facilities, performance space, trails and greenways. (submitted by Chamber of Commerce; discussed at by the Committee, 9/7/06).

Partner with local government and groups to develop trails and greenways. Trails along creeks should be developed in a sensitive manner to protect fragile ecology. (Based on HWCC report)

HOUSING AND COMMERCIAL USES

Carolina North should create a livable community of University-related, compatible uses that integrate living, working, recreating and shopping areas, both horizontally around the site and vertically within buildings. (submitted by the University).

TRANSPORTATION

The default principle for transportation to, from and within Carolina North is to rely on public transportation. (agreed upon by the Committee, June 1, 2006)

Any changes proposed by the University in roads or road configuration will be proposed only after full consideration of the availability and feasibility of public transportation serving the needs of persons working and/or living at Carolina North. (based upon discussion at Committee meeting, 9/7/06)

Each phase of the development of Carolina North should have a balance of University buildings, housing and other features so as to minimize single passenger automobile trips. (based upon discussion at Committee meeting, 9/7/06)

APPENDICIES

Chancellor’s charge to the Committee
Matrix of Principles
Facilitator’s Reports
Records of the meetings

To meet the accelerated schedule, Broun et. al. will be meeting:

Following is the new schedule for LAC meetings. All meetings are 4-6 p.m. If anyone has any questions or comments, we can discuss the schedule changes either through this list serve or at the October 5 meeting.

Oct. 5 - Kenan Center
Oct. 19 - Friday Center
Nov. 2 - Friday Center
Nov. 30 - Kenan Center
Dec. 14 - Friday Center
Jan. 4 - Friday Center
Jan. 18 - Friday Center
Feb. 1 - Friday Center
Feb. 15 - Friday Center
Mar. 1 - Friday Center
Mar. 15 - Friday Center

More information here.

To: LAC (9-3-06)
From: Doug Crawford-Brown
Re: Environmental Principles for Carolina North

I’ve taken a stab at a few principles at the end of this memo, related to environmental issues we raised in our last meeting. Before giving the wording on those principles, I want to take a moment and explain how I reasoned towards them.

1.I assumed that these should be principles, not goals or strategies. I take a principle to be a statement about a core value we want Carolina North to reflect; a goal to be a measurable characteristic that will let us know whether we have satisfied a particular principle; and a strategy to be a statement of the way in which we will reach that goal.

2.Then I assumed that we are talking here about environmental issues, and not growth per se. There are legitimate reasons to control growth, but if we want the latter, we should just say it rather than couching it in environmental standards. So I have tried to design these principles based solely on their impact on core environmental concerns.

3.Then I assumed that principles need to be applied to all sectors of our community at some time. Still, Carolina North has some unique features: (i) it will be a large change in the infrastructure of our community, giving us an opportunity to affect that infrastructure significantly in one grand step; (ii) it is being built by a university with immense intellectual resources to solve problems of sustainability – the Chancellor has provided us leadership in that regard; (iii) it will be built in part by the State, which has resources to stimulate the market for sustainable designs; and (iv) it can provide a template for what we need eventually from all sectors of the community.

Here is my wording for a broad environmental principle, followed by more specific ones.

First Environmental Principle: Carolina North presents a unique opportunity to meet the mission of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill while providing a model for environmentally sustainable community design reflecting reasonably anticipated environmental goals over the next 50 years. Carolina North will therefore be an examplar of sustainability in the sense that if the entire community of Chapel Hill and Carrboro adopted the design and operational practices embodied in Carolina North, this community would be environmentally sustainable.

Then we need a principle concerning what we mean by “environmentally sustainable”, which can be a vague term. I assume that “environmentally sustainable” communities produce impacts that preserve specific conditions of the environment and public health above some level we would find acceptable as a long-term condition of life.

Second Environmental Principle: When added onto the baseline (2006) environmental conditions of the community, Carolina North will produce sustainable levels of criteria air pollutants and air toxics; emissions of carbon dioxide; carbon absorption capacity of the land; amount of land available as species habitat; amount of open land for human recreation; protection of water bodies; generation of waste; and quantity of water flowing off surfaces as run-off. “Sustainable” here means that each of these conditions and their implications for public health would be acceptable as a permanent feature of life in the community.

The community already is near natural or legal limits for some of these conditions. Important examples are ozone (related to emissions of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds); carbon dioxide emissions (related to climate change and the town-gown Carbon Reduction pledge); run-off of water during storm events (related to impervious surfaces); and watershed protection (related to flow of sediment and nutrients into local streams and rivers). The challenge here is in (i) bringing about these community-wide improvements without placing the burden solely on Carolina North, (ii) considering the “net” impact of campus activities, with improvements elsewhere by the University in part “offsetting” the effect of Carolina North (much as a cap-and-trade program allows), and (iii) ensuring that Carolina North does not consume all of the “buffer” between existing conditions in the community and the natural or legal limit. Fortunately, meeting the CRed pledge will have the follow-on effect of keeping ozone precursors neutral, and current water practices in campus construction will ensure that the storm-water and loading conditions are met at Carolina North.

Third Environmental Principle: Carolina North and related off-setting measures will produce no net increase in emissions of precursors of ozone, no net increase in vulnerability of the community to storm-water events, no net increase in loading of sediment and nutrients into local streams, and a continued ability to meet the carbon dioxide emissions reduction goals established by the university under CRed. “Related off-setting measures” means improvements to the existing campus and/or university support of community-wide programs targeting these four environmental conditions.

Finally, we have the other environmental conditions specified in the Second Environmental Principle. For these conditions, there is some “buffer” left for development, meaning the community is not yet at any of the relevant natural or legal limits on these conditions (although we are approaching them rapidly). For these conditions, the principle adopted should reflect the desire to avoid having Carolina North consume this “buffer”, which would prevent other forms of growth from occurring in town if the community desired.

Fourth Environmental Principle: With respect to all other environmental conditions, Carolina North will leave a “buffer” to accommodate development elsewhere in the community. “Buffer” means that the incremental effect of Carolina North on all relevant environmental conditions, when added onto existing baseline conditions, will allow for reasonably anticipated future development elsewhere in the community without the community exceeding natural and/or legal limits on these conditions.