Search This Blog

Friday, August 30, 2013

Answer Man dives into stagnant water at dog park

From the Citizen-Times, June 9  http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20130610/COLUMNISTS09/306100018/Answer-Man-dives-into-stagnant-water-dog-park

written by John Boyle

Question: Briefly, there is a stagnant pond of water that is breeding protozoa at the Azalea Road dog park. I have visited this park for eight months, and the water is always there. The dogs love to run through it and drink it. Many dogs have become sick as a result. Both of my dogs did. Other visitors to the park mentioned that their children and dogs have been ill. This is a great park otherwise, and many people from all over the county come with their dogs.
A month or so ago, I got 150 signatures on a petition, hoping to get some action. I took the petition, my dogs’ vet bills and also photos to document the problem. I spoke with the assistant director of parks at City Hall. She emailed me a week later saying she spoke with park maintenance and they intended on fixing this problem, but stated there was no scheduled time to do so.
The dogs leave there with the risk of serious health issues and mud that smells so bad that it is hard to put it into words! I constantly worry that mine will get sick again, but the benefits of exercise win each time.


My answer: I’m thinking they just need to install some commodes out there. My basset hound Molly routinely imbibes toilet water at our house, and she’s as healthy as a horse. Well, other than the breath thing.


Real answer: A temporary fence scheduled for installation this week magically went up Thursday, after I inquired about this situation.
But a permanent solution will take more time, according to Debbie Ivester, assistant director at the parks and recreation department.  "To completely eliminate the standing water along the fence line of the Azalea Park dog park requires significant engineering and reconstruction of the berm located near the dog park,” Ivester said via email. “The solution to prevent water accumulating inside the fenced area of the dog park is to relocate the parameter fence away from the standing water area so dogs and people are separated from the water. The short-term fix is to install a temporary fence which will occur the week of June 10. The permanent fix is to relocate the existing fence and do minor grading in this area to enhance the water drainage. This work will occur within the next two months.”

Asheville "nasty" "disgusting" "strong smell" "poo piles"



That's what dog owners who visit Asheville's dog parks are saying at bringfido.com, a dog enthusiast website about dog-friendly travel, and Yelp.com.  How likely is it that a new North Asheville Dog Park will be any better? 

An appropriately located, well-maintained dog park is a valued community asset.  But the proposed North Asheville Dog Park at 284 Beaverdam Rd on the Thoms estate is not in an appropriate location, especially since the City has a record of inadequate maintenance, as documented in the comments below.  Pending budget shortfalls do not bode well for improvements in maintenance.
The Trust for Public Land, concerning dog parks http://cloud.tpl.org/pubs/ccpe_Dog_Park_Report.pdf advises that dog parks should "avoid locations directly abutting residences" and "avoid sensitive environmental habitats." Dr. Ed Hauser, wetlands coordinator for the Elisha Mitchell Audubon Society, says the Killian house is in an environmentally sensitive location that may be unsuitable for a dog park.  Perhaps letters from dog park users will highlight some reasons why.
   
Excerpts from visitor reviews of Asheville's two dog parks are below.  Some of the visitors are from out of town, but all reviews are about Asheville’s dog parks.  Some reviews were positive;  overall, Azalea Dog Park was rated by bringfido.com 3 bones out of 5 and French Broad River Dog Park, 2 bones.

About Azalea Dog Park:



“There were no poopy bags - I'm not sure if there were any there or not - if so, I didn't see them, so come prepared. There was a fair amount of dung already in the park - probably because of lack of poopy bags.”  ”Gnawing on the ankle and pre-existing poo piles occur at any/all dog parks, so I won't count those things against this park's rating.”  Stacey in Fayetteville, NC
   
“I went to this and the other park and was extremely disappointed with both the parks as well. Patchy grass, overcrowded, muddy, fecal matter left around, not well-kept in the least. If you love your dog, take him/her for a hike on a nice trail in Asheville instead.”  CA Dog Owner in Burbank


“it just seemed a little dirty with none to little ground cover.”  Rick in Garner, NC

“The last time we were there, the larger lot was closed b/c of giardia in the water stream.”  Mel in Asheville (Note from wikipedia “The Giardia parasite originates from contaminated items and surfaces that have been tainted by the feces of an infected animal.”)

“Asheville has put down bark mulch which rots and stinks. There is a nasty stream running through the middle of the dog runs, but otherwise there is no water.”  Annalee in Asheville



About French Broad River Dog Park:
  
“Just visited this dog park for the first time this morning. I was greeted with a strong smell of dog poo.”  Loree in Asheville


“This dog park is disgusting. Rotting bark mulch on the ground, mud, and stench of feces and urine. Not a good place to bring your dog if you want them to stay healthy.”  Annalee in Asheville

‘This dog park and the others in Asheville are nonsense. So much for moving to a so-called dog-friendly town. Filthy and overrun by people who can't control their dogs. These are not safe, physically and very unsanitary. I'd never take my dog here.”  Dog Owner in New to Asheville   

“Patchy grass, overcrowded, muddy, fecal matter left around, not well-kept in the least.”  Northern CA Dog Owner in Burbank
  
“The mud is the biggest annoyance.  You can tell that over the years crap has been mixed with it because it smells like a damn sewer.  Something should really be done about that.”  Nate B, Asheville, NC

284 Beaverdam Rd Flood Plain Map

Click to enlarge, click Back button to return

Is the Thoms Estate property on Beaverdam Rd an "ideal" site for a Dog Park?

Friends for a North Asheville Dog Park is an organization of some 50 to 80 people.  They say a dog park will benefit the community by allowing dogs and owners to socialize, and that happier, more exercised dogs will behave better at home.  They also claim nearby real estate will rise in value as dog owners will want to live near the park.  Recently, they have identified a 6-acre parcel at 284 Beaverdam Rd, part of the old Thoms estate, as an “ideal” site for a dog park.  They have raised $5,000, and on May 14, City Council voted unanimously to grant an additional $5,000 to fund a plan for the site.

Why is the Thoms Estate location an "ideal" site for a dog park?  It is close to where the Friends live, and the city may be able to get free land from its owner, Ark Development, who is building a subdivision across Beaverdam Creek.  In other ways, the site is far from ideal.

The Trust for Public Land has published a list of Best Practices for a Dog Park, from the City of Seattle.  Seven criteria are listed; this site fails five.  These are:

    1.     Avoid locations directly abutting residences.  This parcel has 9 residential parcels abutting it, and 19 across a street.  The parcel is 6 acres, and while the placement of the proposed dog park is unknown, it is certain residences will be nearby.

    2.     Assure availability of close-by parking.  A parking lot is proposed, where the house now sits.  However, as a bus stop is nearby, as well as many residences, it is likely the lot will be used for purposes other than a dog park.

    3.     Choose spots where there are minimal impacts on the visual character of the park.  (This assumes a dog park is already contained within a larger park, not abutting residences.)  Dog parks are not attractive, and it is difficult to grow grass.  Usually they are small fenced lots with a mulch floor.  Making a dog park fit into a well-landscaped neighborhood is problematic.

    4.     Avoid sensitive environmental habitats.  Animal waste combined with loose mulch and no grass makes for easy runoff of pollutants into Beaverdam Creek, Spooks Branch and an unnamed creek, which all cross the property.  We are advised by local ecology professor Dr. Ed Hauser, that this is an environmentally sensitive site, and a dog park could possibly cause harm to the Creek, the Audubon Bird Sanctuary, and Beaver Lake.  He recommends a Level 2 Environmental Assessment be performed before proceeding with a dog park.

    5.     Find property with no history.  Establishing the dog park would mean demolishing a house, currently occupied by long-term tenants.  According to Buncombe County tax records, the house was built in 1842.  Many in the community feel it has historic value, and a historical marker at Beaverdam and Merrimon refers to it as the Killian House.  Update:  At the July 18 public meeting, dog park Friends stated they are no longer including the house in the proposed park.  Still unresolved is how much land will be kept with the house.

The other two of the seven criteria are: site to avoid spillover into non-dog areas, and avoid locations near children’s play areas.

Traffic is a concern for local residents.  “Traffic” in this context does not mean simply volume, but fast vehicles coming from many directions, mostly from out of sight.  Beaverdam Road is narrow, has no shoulders or sidewalks, has many curves, and many intersecting streets and driveways.  Skyview Drive intersects Beaverdam at an acute angle, directly across from the proposed park entrance, and it’s a harrowing enough experience entering Beaverdam without opposing traffic added to the mix.

Finances for construction and maintenance have not been resolved.  One suggestion is for the Friends group to raise funds sufficient for construction and ten years’ maintenance.  The Friends have an unfounded belief the land donor will contribute a major share, and they have an unrealistic idea, based upon costs of a dog area within a large park, of the ongoing costs of a freestanding park. City Council was advised on May 14 by Councilman Pelly that the City will have no financial burden arising from the operation of the dog park.  However, at the Friends June 10th meeting, attendees were assured by City officials that the City would bear ongoing maintenance costs such as mowing, trash pickup, restocking dog waste bags, etc.  Mr. Pelly said finances would improve in the future, implying the Friends would have little ongoing financial burden.

It has been said that any project will have detractors, suggesting those of us who oppose the Beaverdam Dog Park are typical “Nimby” (Not in my back yard) protesters. But “Nimby” only has meaning when a project really does have to be in somebody’s back yard.  The first Best Practice outlined above says that a dog park should not be in anyone’s back yard.  A dog park should be located within a larger park, removed from residences.  We also have legitimate concerns that a Beaverdam Dog Park will harm the environment, disturb the neighborhood by being noisy and unsightly, destroy a historic house and evict its tenants, cause accidents, and end up costing money the City can’t afford.




PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT for PROPOSED NORTH ASHEVILLE DOG PARK




A PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND REPORT OF FINDINGS FOR THE PROPOSED            
NORTH ASHEVILLE DOG PARK PROPERTY



Report Written By:

Dr. Edward J.P. Hauser, Ph.D.
Wetlands Ecologist and Environmental Biologist



Report Submitted To:
George Kroncke, M.D.
President, Hills of Beaverdam Homeowners Association


Subject Property Location:

284 Beaverdam Road
Asheville, NC 28804

Field Studies and Review of Agency Resource Information
Conducted from June 7 - 13, 2013 
        
    June 14, 2013



SECTION 1.00 OVER VIEW FOR THIS REPORT AND SUBJECT
PROPERTY

1.01  Nature of this Preliminary Environmental Assessment and
Report of Findings

This report represents the preliminary professional and ecological finding
for the proposed North Asheville Dog Park and the subject property.  It is
based on a cursory site visit and review of existing agency resource
information, i.e., USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Maps, FEMA Flood Plain
Maps, etc. 

It can also be considered to be a conceptual Phase I Environmental
Assessment. However, it does not consider any onsite hazardous waste
disposal or deposits, the legal transfer of title of the land from its original
ownership, nor functional building on the subject property, as these are not
issues of concern.  This report protocol follows recommendations of
environmental engineering firms and/or professional contacts , i.e.,
Altamont Environmental Engineering.

Furthermore, the one acre uplands which support a four bedroom housing
structure leased by over 10 tenants, driveways, and adjacent lawn are not
a part of this study.The conceptual dog park plan, which is part of the
designated commons and consisting of five acres, is the Area of Concern
(AOC) and the subject of this report.  The conceptual plan would allow for
demolition of the existing house and use this part of the property as a
parking lot. This area is not of concern as it is outside of the floodplain and
riparian corridor of Beaverdam Creek , which is part of the subject property.

1.02  Property Ownership and Tax Parcel Information

The following data was obtained via the internet and Web Property Record
Card (ID# 9740-76-9648-00000) for the County of Buncombe, North
Carolina.  The Taxing District is the City of Asheville, NC.

PAGE 1

1) Owners:

Gateway Communities of Asheville LLC
2323 NE Marlberry Lane
Jensen Beach, FL 34957 

2) Buncombe County Subject Parcel Information:

Account: 8254362
Most Recent Deed Date of Transfer: 03/30/2012
Deed Book/Page: 4969/0145
Plat Book/Page: 0114/0058

3) Acres:

5.00 Acres Designated as Commons
1.00 Acre Designated as Lot

6.00 Total Acres

NOTE: The area designated as commons, which consists of 5.00 acres
represents the subject property of this report.
















PAGE 2

2.00  AREAS OF CONCERN

2.01  Beaverdam Creek and Water Quality

The subject site, designated as commons, and consisting of five acres is
located within the riparian zone of Beaverdam Creek.  The creek is located
along the northern boundary of the subject property and flows down stream
from east to west.  It is Category 4 perennial flow stream and receives
water from the headwaters of Beaver Dam Valley.  It feeds into two water
bodies, c.a. one mile from the subject property: a) the golf course irrigation
pond, owned and managed by the Asheville County Club and b) Beaver
Lake, owned and managed by the Lakeview Park Home Owners
Association.

Beaver Dam Creek is a state designated high quality stream by NC
Division of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).  Biotic evidence
of the stream’s high quality waters is represented by the presence of the
following taxonomic groups: Phylum Arthropoda, Class Crustacea
(crayfish), Phylum Arthropoda, Class Insecta (Stoneflies and Caddisflies,
and Phylum Mammalia, Class Pices (creek chubs).  Such organisms
require high levels of dissolved oxygen (D.O.) In low turbid waters that are
not nutrient enriched.  D.O, is the most limiting factor for all aquatic animal
species and typically occurs in a restricted range of 7 - 10 ppm.

Thus, there is a major environmental and ecological concern as to
degradation of water quality due to these probable causes:

1) Increased nutrient enrichment (eutrophication), whereby increased
releases of phosphorous and nitrogen will promoted accelerated groth of
nuisance algae.

2) Lowered dissolved oxygen (D.O.), due to alga blooms which have a high
biological oxygen demand (B.O.D.), which can exceed 14 ppm. This results
in anerobic or anoxic conditions whereby no free D.O. is available to
aquatic animal life, resulting in fish kills.

3) Increased turbidity or loss of water clarity due to increased releases of
suspended solids from increased sheet erosion and surface runoff, and 

PAGE 3
increased loss of soil organics due to said accelerated surface runoff of
water and sheet erosion.  Cloudy waters absorb more solar energy,
whereby water temperature is increased.  Increased turbidy may also come
from alga blooms. It should be noted that as water temperature increases,
it loses its capacity to hold D.O.

4) The discharge of dog feces, which are high in phosphorous, can be
mitigated by 100% use of proper fecal collection and disposal. However,
examination of surface conditions at the Azalea Lake and French Broad
River existing Dog Parks, managed by the City of Asheville, indicates that
the ground cover is a mosaic mixture of dirt, grass, fecal remains, and
puddles.  Dog owners and park users themselves have complained of the
poor environmental quality of these two parks from the standpoint of visual
and scenic aesthetics and persistent nuisance odors. Furthermore, many
dog owners allow there pets to run free outside of fenced areas, ranging
free, including swimming in local waterbodies.  

Such land use is of concern from a public health point of view as they
promote exponential growths of: a) Phylum Cyanophyta (blue green algae),
Phylum Protista (protozoans), and Phylum Schizophyta (bacteria,
especially E. Coli). Thus, it is apparent that based on current practices and
field observations that all fecal remains are not being collected.  In addition,
collection bags are not readily available on a regular basis.

The urinary excretions of dogs are high in nitrogen nutrients and there is no
effective way of collection and disposal of these excretions.  Nitrogen
enrichment of waters favors the increased growth of nuisance blue green
algae, especially species of the genus Anabaena. Blue green alga blooms
of this genus not only contribute to loss of D.O., but also release
phytotoxins which causes death to mammals that use a contaminated
source for swimming, drinking water, or other recreational primary skin
activities.  This includes dogs, livestock, and humans. There are accounts
of such health issues at the Azalea Dog Park and adjoining ponds.

5) The change in vegetative cover from a mixed scrub shrub thicket and
closed canopy woods to grassy open space will exponentially increase
sheet runoff and surface erosion of the proposed DP site.  This will occur
because water precipitation will no longer have mechanical interference 

PAGE 4
from woody components of trees and shrubs, such as leaves, limbs, and
stems. With normal mechanical interference, the kinetic energy of falling
water droplets is minimized so that root systems of the existing vegetation
can absorb water and translocate it below the upper soil surface. This
important natural erosion control feature will be lost.  This aspect alone
results in exponential increase in sheet erosion and surface runoff.

Sheet erosion and surface runoff will be further increased because over
time, it is impossible to maintain a contiguous grassy layer.  With norm,al
DP use, islands of grass are destroyed by running and digging dogs which
results in a mosaic ground cover of open patches and grass. 
Increased sheet erosion and surface runoff will significantly degrade the
high quality waters of Beaverdam Creek.

6)  Negative ecological synergy and interaction between abiotic and biotic
components of all germane aquatic ecosystems represent serious
concerns.  Synergy is the interaction of two or more factors which can have
deleterious impacts on ecosystems.  For example, a) nutrient enrichment
promotes alga blooms which helps deplete D.O. , b)increased water
turbidity absorbs solar energy, thereby raising water temperature which
promotes lowered D.O, c) increased metabolic rate of aquatic animals as
water temperature increases, and d) release of phyto-toxins or zoo-toxins
from blooms of algae or protozoans, which will have deleterious affects on
aquatic animals.

When the above listed set of conditions are present and interaction occurs,
the end result will be deleterious or lethal to most high quality aquatic
animals.  The wildlife biologist who examined the fish kill at the pond
adjoining Azalea Dog Park stated: “ this is a classic case of oxygen
depletion”.  He was correct in part.  What he did not say is that this is a
classic case of alga blooms which depleted oxygen.
   
6) Finally, the subject property is in flood prone zone of Beaverdam Creek.
The majority of the property (about four acres)  is within a FEMA




PAGE 5


designated 100 year storm event area that is topographically characterized
as a low bottom floodplain terrace. Topographic maps indicate that the
average slope is about 1%.  The remaining one acre section is still part of
the stream riparian corridor or has such steep slopes (> 10%), which does
not meet the needs of a dog park. Within the past two tears, this regional
section of North Asheville has experienced three 100+ year flood events.
Thus, there exists a potential for extensive discharge of nutrients into the
creek on am intermittent basis from the subject property, even if mitigation
structures such as an ecofilter wetland are established..    




























PAGE 6

3.00  OTHER AREAS OF CONCERN FOR THE BEAVERDAM
CREEK VICINITY WATERSHED

3.01  Low Stream Flow and Pools of Beaverdam Creek

The Beaverdam Creek headwaters are part of the precipitation area known
by climatologist as the “Dry Ridge”.  It is subject to less rainfall that all other
areas of North Carolina, especially during summer months, which results in
low stream flow, thereby creating small pools.  Such areas are extremely
sensitive to eutrophication, lowered D.O., and E. coli bacterial growth.
Thus, they are at risk on a very short term scale for lowered water quality
and potential fish kills, especially during a drought precipitation cycle.

3.02  Irrigation Pond at the Asheville Country Club

This water body receives its holding waters from Beaverdam Creek.
This is a small irrigation pond and therefore is sensitive to eutrophication,
lowered D.O., and E. coli bacterial growth.  Thus, it is at risk on a short
term scale for lowered water quality and potential fish kills especially during
a drought precipitation cycle. Because this pond serves as a source for
irrigation water for the golf course, other environmental impacts would be
nominal.

3.03  Beaver Lake

Beaver Lake is a privately owned, is a relatively small lake (about 40 acres
in size),and is a relatively shallow body of water, with its maximum depth
being less than 20'. It was created in 1923 via a  dam and controlled
spillway.  It is owned and managed by the Lake View Park Association.  

All freshwater lakes undergo hydroseric ecological succession over time.
Early stages are called oligotrohic in which nutrient levels are very low (i.e.,
Pat < .05 ppm) and D.O. ranges between 7-10 ppm.  Such lakes usually
support a cold water salmonid fishery.

Because of its warm waters and shallow depth as well as nutrient and
organic enrichment over more than 80 years, it now supports a high quality
warm water fishery dominated by many species of bass (i.e., largemouth, 

PAGE 7
small mouth, spotted, and stripped). Nutrient levels are at a mid level, i.e.,
P is about .5 ppm or less.  Usually such lakes may reach summer
temperatures of 70 degree F and have D.O. levels of 4-7 ppm.

The final stage of hydroseric lake succession is termed eutrophic. Such
lakes are very shallow (< 10' in depth), have high nutrient levels (i.e., P =
1.5 ppm or more. Such lakes have a D.O. range of 3 - 5 ppm.  Such lakes
support an abundance of aquatic beds, submerged aquatics, and fringe
marshes.  Rough fish such as carp and bullheads may dominate, but warm
water fisheries will still be present.
My estimation is that Beaver Lake is in the mesotrophic > eutrophic state of
succession.  Thus, it becomes increasingly ecologically sensitive to nutrient
enrichment (called eutrophication), especially if new non-point or point
sources occur on an ongoing basis.  The proposed dog park site
represents a potential nonpoint source.

3.04  Beaver Lake Bird Sanctuary

This 10 acre bird sanctuary adjoins Beaver Lake and Beaverdam Creek. It
mainly consists of wetlands such as marsh, wet meadows, and swamp
shrub thicket. During flood stages of the creek, water enters the sanctuary
via a geologically old oxbow. Such floodwaters,  even if they are nutrient
enriched will have little or no ecological impact because of the ecofiltering
nature of the wetlands.













PAGE 8


4.00  CONCLUSIONS

4.01  Ecological, Environmental, and Stream Aquatic Considerations

The fact that Beaverdam Creek is a NCDENR designated high quality
stream dictates that a prudent and complete environmental assessment be
made of the subject property in order to determine potential negative
impacts on water quality.  Thus, there is a need to determine the current
biotic and abiotic constituency of Beaverdam Creek on a preconstruction
basis at locations above and below the subject property.

4.02  FEMA Flood Plain Zone Designation

The fact that the subject dog pond site is located with a FEMA designated
flood zone dictates that a prudent and complete environmental assessment
be made of this area of the subject property in order to determine potential
negative impacts on water quality and erosion potential with the changes in
vegetation cover.  Thus, there is a need to evaluate the erosion potential of
the proposed dog pond site with changes in vegetation structure.

4.03  Eutrophication of Waterbodies Downstream

There is clearly a potential for nutrient enrichment (eutrophication) down
stream. Thus, water quality studies from the standpoint of existing water
chemistry need to be conducted on a preconstruction basis. Beaver Lake,
over time, will be most drastically impacted because of its various
recreational uses, including boating and fishing.

4.04  Public Health Issues

Because there are potential health issues associated with fecal deposition
(E. Coli) and possible buildup of nitrogenous wastes that will stimulate
growths of nuisance blue green algae and protozoan, both of which release
toxins, there is a need to evaluate this source of pollution and recommend
appropriate mitigation.



PAGE 9

4.05  Agency Resource Information and Site Specificity

Any agency information gathered as a first step in any environmental
assessment can not always be construed as being site specific.  When
data indicates that the subject property is in a sensitive ecological area, this
alone dictates a followup detailed environmental assessment.

4.06  Wetlands

Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act and administrated by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) dictates that a delineation of wetlands
must occur if there is a proposed land use change that involves any
deposition or excavation of the ground cover.  Three criteria must be met:
a) hydric soil, b) wetlands hydrology, and c) hydrophytic vegetation, the
species being ecologically known as hydrophytes. The vegetation is always
an expression of a and b.  A cursory site observation of the subject
property indicates that there are two dominant trees that are considered to
be hydrophytes by USACER, the EPA, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. These are Acer negundo (box elder) and Acer rubrum (red maple).

Thus, there is a need to determine on a site specific basis if any USACE
jurisdictional wetlands occur on the site.  If they do, a complete wetlands
delineation must be done.

4.07  Recommendations

Based on the data presented in this preliminary report and the concluding
statements listed above, it is clear that a follow up and detailed
environmental assessment be conducted on the subject property.
Ordinarily, this is a prudent first step taken by environmentally conscious
developers, or county or city polital entities, or germane groups supporting
the project such as the “Friends or Supporters of the North Asheville Dog
Park”.

Such a study should be done before engineering architectural drawings are
completed so as to not waste tax payers monies or other funding.  To do
other wise is to put the “cart before the horse”.  


PAGE 10
This study must address and evaluate all the environmental considerations
listed above.  It does not need to be a Level II Environmental Assessment
for the same reasons as given in Section 1.00 for this preliminary report.



































PAGE 11