Meeting+2009+Aug+06

Thursday 2009 Aug 6 8:30-10
 * Wake County Nature Preserves Meeting**

*3213 Jordan Hall*
NCSU Campus


 * Attendance Notes**

Toddi Steelman Jamie Ramsey George Hess Sabrina Thomas Kim Shumate Kaytee Holcombe Leighann Cienek Gary Perlmutter Heather Cheshire Jacquelyn Wallace Tim Lisk David Shouse Jackie Trickel Chris Snow John Connors


 * Annotated Agenda Items**

1) **Discussion of different definitions for Wake Nature Preserves**

In anticipation of gaining closure on the definition of what we are doing, we want to work toward a group vote on our intended mission. These definitions are what are up for debate. Please feel free to modify as appropriate to move debate forward.

a) **Pure definition-**- Advantage: does not dilute our intended purpose or create incentive to do something less than a full nature preserve. Clearly states what we are about and people can elect to be a part or not. People who participate will clearly share our vision. Disadvantage: may scare off some participants because is too restrictive or perceived as too restrictive. May depress participation.

- Be silent about specifics regarding what the NP can be next to - Let each NP be a case by case situation JC: Wake Nature Preserves a human experience we expect the NP to observe. DS: Government agencies not inclined to give an easement without a compensation, however elected officials do change on a regular basis and could change. LC: Easements are more flexible, could protect the core nature preserves areas. JC: Be clear that the intent is not to restrict the building of education centers or access points. LC: What incentives will be brought to the municipalities for wake NP designation? ST: Would like to see the property at Bass Lake protected...has potential to acquire other open space. TL: Feels the Wake county has benefited from the partnership from the inventories and management plans JC: Grant money possible to making these things happen CS: Benefits that are not just to muncipalties such as the university and state agencies.

3 areas of benefit: 1. Messaging: unifying principle across county that has signage and notes something special about a place 2. Assistance with a management plan 3. Guidance in technical things and stewardship 4. Potential to protect

b) **Include border discussion**-- clearly state that WNP doesn't preclude development of more active recreation adjacent to WNP. Advantage: makes clear that we are not against active recreation and creates a clear path for parks like Lake Jordan, Holly Springs, Durant Park. Disadvantage: creates incentive for a larger parcel of land to be divided into two entities (Nature Preserve and Park). May degrade experience on Nature Preserve.

TS: Is hearing "not a fight we can fight",

-

c) **Include Wake Wonders option**-- include the option of Wake Wonder designation, which is an ecologically significant feature within a broader parcel of land. Advantage: there may be a lot of interest in WW designations out there that we could capture. This is a lot less threatening than the full blown NP designation. Disadvantage: this may be the easiest option for most places and dissuade from the full blow NP designation; essentially it undercut the NP designation.

At the next meeting, we will reveiw the definition and criteria as a package.

<<from george 16 July - I took the ideas from Jamie's draft, discussion at our meeting on 16 July , and the criteria we already developed and made some proposed modification - see Definitions & Criteria.

Here's my 2-cents on the above ...

pure definition ... well, what else is there? We want nature preserves to conserve particular natural elements. That's what a nature preserve is ... would we say "let's establish a nature preserve, but don't worry too much about whether it works"? Makes no sense. We say what a WNP is, what should/not be allowed _ __within___ in it, consistent with protecting the resource (which we've done n the criteria), and move along. So I favor the pure definition.

borders ... I don't think we need to address explicitly the adjacent-to-active-recreation issue. I've added a statement about boundaries to the criteria that I think does the job without being that specific - they are to be created to maximize probability that the resource will persist, and to ensure a user experience commensurate with the resource. If the larger parcel can be divided and still ensure this, what's our gripe? We can say that you can't have ballfields next to a nature preserve all we want, but unless the people creating these preserves buy into the concept and purpose of protecting the resource, saying it won't keep it from happening. Also, I don't see where we stop with these anti-adjacency requirements - do we say "can't have high-density housing" "no hospitals" "can't have a shopping mall next to it?" - why are we picking on ballfields? I prefer to keep the focus on protecting the resource and the experience rather than starting to create a list of can'ts. If the people creating and managing the WNPs really intend to conserve, these exclusions will follow; if they are not, we can't stop them in any way that's reasonable.

wake wonders ... I've tried to incorporate and differentiate. If it's confusing, let's let it go. I don't buy the dilution argument, for the same reasons articulated under "borders" - a WW is not a NP - if people don't want NPs, they're not going to create them whether or not WWs exist. Adding the idea of an approving and periodic review board also, I think, helps keep anyone from claiming that a WW is a WNP. Further thoughts from george 3 Aug ... On naming ... and other things Some concern has been raised about the use of the term "Wake Nature Preserve" for municipal parks, because it masks the true ownership of the park. Here's one potential solution ...

>>
 * Suppose we go with the idea that Wake Nature Preserves are "approved" by some body (perhaps Triangle Land Conservancy, if we use the model in which TLC holds an easement on the Preserves (FYI, TLC is interested in this approach))
 * The County or a municipality applies for WNP designation and protection (ie, easement)
 * If approved, the preserve would carry the County or municipal name for it, with the subdesignation "A Wake Nature Preserve" ... for example, Turnipseed Nature Preserve - A Wake Nature Preserve ... or Holly Springs Bass Lake Park - A Wake Nature Preserve
 * As part of the easement protection process, annual monitoring is required. Thus, each year TLC (following this example) would determine if the terms of the easement are being met and the site still merits the WNP designation.

2) **White Paper Progress**-- Kaytee any data on your front? Does anyone else have any data around Wake County that they could share/know about to justify why nature preserves are a good idea? Kaytee has found this information so far.

3) **Criteria Progress**--- Here they are - definitions and criteria

- will be discussed at next meeting


 * 4) Timeline**-- Turnipseed Road Countdown-- what are we doing when to make this happen?

-Moved to next meeting.


 * 5) Marks Creek Lichen Survey -** Gary Perlmutter plans to present an update on the progress of this inventory project.

- Collected around 137 species potential species - Data located under Marks Creek Assessment on wiki page - Will return to MC on 8/6 and collect canopy measurements - Return every weekend until hunting season, and return when season ends. - Rich diversity due to variance in habitats


 * 6) CNR Volunteer Hours** ... added by george ... every NCSU employee (every state employee, in fact) can take 24 hours per year for community service time. There is an effort in the College of Natural Resources to organize that time and make better use of it. The idea of doing things associated with WakeNature has come up ... see email that follows.

Gary and George, I am working with the group of CNR staff/faculty on college-wide volunteer activities. Right now, we are organizing a series of half-day activities, on week days, for people to volunteer and use community service hours. On the recent survey, Wake Nature Preserve Partnership came up several times. Is there a time when a group of CNR employees could be useful for a partnership project? Or is there another way to use CNR volunteer time? Thanks, Sarah

Sarah SLOVER Graduate Program Coordinator Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources North Carolina State University

<>

-wake county volunteer program -core volunteer person per corridor: organize montly activites per cooridor - CNR faculty set-up workshops to education municipal staff about natural resource subjects - creates network of people -enhance the visitor experience through volunteers - most pressing volunteer needs at Marks Creek (put on next agenda)


 We should probably begin following this more closely.

A proposed draft of the City of Raleigh’s Comprehensive Plan update has been sent to the City Council for its review. At today’s council meeting, the Raleigh Planning Commission formally forwarded its recommendation on the plan. The Planning Commission is recommending approval of the Comprehensive Plan update with about 175 amendments. These amendments include changes to the future land-use map and to policies and actions. The Planning Commission also is recommending new policies and actions in response to public input. The Comprehensive Plan update provides the framework to guide Raleigh’s growth through 2030. The document has a firm grounding in both data and analysis, represented by a 400-page Community Inventory Report and an audit of more than 5,000 previously adopted policy, goal and action statements. The update process included more than 50 public meetings, 1,500 participants and 1,200 online comments from citizens. During its review of the Comprehensive Plan update, the Planning Commission conducted 14 meeting. __**The City Council will begin its review of the draft Comprehensive Plan update at a retreat with City Planning Department representatives on Aug. 3 at 4 p.m. in Room 304 at the Raleigh Convention Center. Council members also will have planning workshops on Aug. 24 and Aug. 31 to review the plan **__. __**Both workshops will be held at 4 p.m. in the council chamber at the Avery C. Upchurch Government Complex, located at 222 W. Hargett St **__. In addition, a North Raleigh public meeting will be held on Aug. 10 at 6:30 p.m. at the Eastgate Neighborhood Center, 4200 Quail Hollow Drive. __**A Southwest Raleigh public meeting is scheduled for Aug. 13 at 6:30 p.m. in the council chamber at the Avery C. Upchurch Government Complex. **__ All council meetings are open to the public. The draft Comprehensive Plan update and the Planning Commission’s certified recommendation can be viewed on the project website at [|__www.planningraleigh2030.com__]. Print copies also are available for review at the following locations (the copies cannot be removed from the facilities): Specific questions about the Comprehensive Plan update process can be directed to the Comprehensive Plan hotline at 516-2669, or emailed to __info@planningraleigh2030.com__. All queries will be answered within 24 hours. John Boyette Public Affairs Specialist Public Affairs Department __Mitchell Silver__ Director Planning Department One Exchange Plaza, Suite 304 Raleigh, NC 27602 919-516-2626
 * Council To Review Proposed Comprehensive Plan Update **
 * Department of City Planning on the second and third floors of One Exchange Plaza, 219 Fayetteville St.;
 * City Clerk’s Office, Room 207, Avery C. Upchurch Government Complex, 222 W. Hargett St.; and
 * City of Raleigh Urban Design Center, 133 Fayetteville St.;
 * Prepared by: **
 * For More Information Contact: **



//Please add items you'd like to see on the agenda by 5PM Tues before the meeting.//

//Please add your pre-meeting discussion of these items under the item right here on the agenda, or on the appropriate linked page.//


 * Introductions as needed** (5 minutes)