[Durham INC] P.S. Stream Buffers

Thu Nov 4 20:07:18 EDT 2010

Would simply increasing the stream buffers by 50 feet help protect water
quality?  Since City Council just ruled against increasing the stream
buffers, let's consider this..  The more effective solution would be to
consider soil type and slope when calculating the amount of impervious
surface and stream buffers for a site. 

What the developers don't want you to know is that they understand the
effects of soil type and slope.   It is factored into the requirement to
control 1 inch of rain in a 24 hour period.  They all use software that
can calculate the runoff volume based on site conditions.  Feel free to
ask a developer to verify this.

The developers lobby our elected officials to keep regulations at bay to
maximize profits.  Durham citizens and those downstream pay for these
poor decisions, whether it is increased stormwater fees or water
treatment plant costs to those downstream. 

Here is a map of Durham.  

The lower portion (red) of Durham is Triassic Basin soils which has low
permeability and erode easily when disturbed.  The lower part is also
the water supply watersheds for Jordan and Falls Lakes.  Durham allows
up to 70% impervious surface in this area.  

The upper portion (light colored) of Durham is the watershed for Lake
Michie and Little River.  The impervious surface limitation is 6%.
Water and sewer are not allowed, so development is very restricted.  The
soils are generally better in the upper portion than the lower portion
of Durham.

Maybe the development community has a point..because simply increasing
the stream buffer by 50 feet wouldn't be nearly as effective as
calculating impervious surface limitations and stream buffers based on
soil type and slope.  

With the high costs quoted by Durham's staff for improving water quality
in Jordan and Falls Lakes, surely our elected officials would want to do
what is most effective for protecting water quality and minimize costs
for Durham citizens.

Tina Motley-Pearson

-----Original Message-----
From: inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org [mailto:inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org]
On Behalf Of Pat Carstensen
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 5:27 PM
To: Ken Gasch; Melissa Rooney
Cc: inc-list at rtpnet.org; enviro durham
Subject: Re: [Durham INC] P.S. Stream Buffers

If one takes the time to look in even the most casual way at the
proposed ordinance, one will see that IT DOES NOT PROPOSE TO INCREASE
THE BUFFER downtown, in compact developments or in the urban tier (I'm
pretty sure the 100 feet are already required for perennial streams in
the Eno River critical watershed). See page 11.  

http://www.ci.durham.nc.us/council/ord_changes/TC0900008_110110.pdf

What I distinctly am detecting is the scurry of little lawyer feet and
the threat to gnaw the ankles of anyone who doesn't get in line.

Regards, pat
  _____  

Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 16:59:40 -0400
From: Ken at KenGasch.com
To: mmr121570 at yahoo.com
CC: inc-list at rtpnet.org; durhamenviro at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Durham INC] P.S. Stream Buffers

I appreciate Stream buffers when farmer Dan's field is being turned into
a subdivision. However, stream buffers have rendered in-fill lots within
Durham's pre-war neighborhoods, that are close to streams, all but
useless. Houses got torn down during the "bad" times due to neglect.
Houses can't go back up now. We are left with weedy lots. Who mows it?
What do we do with them? It is a real problem that the UDO does not
address. I do not support stream buffers for this reason. Over and out.

Ken Gasch
REALTORR/Broker
Seagroves Realty
www.KenGasch.com
C: 919.475.8866
F: 866.229.4267

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Melissa Rooney <mmr121570 at yahoo.com>
wrote:
Apparently we citizens HAVE to come out in droves to have any chance of
our concerns being heard over those of the development industry. 

Please, please, please write your city council members, particularly
Mayor Bill Bell, with your support for more protections for our stream
buffers. Widening from 50 -100 feet is a SMALL request, considering the
protections of neighboring jurisdictions (read the HS article). The
longer we wait to strengthen our stream buffer requirements, the more
stream buffers we'll lose to development -- we don't have much land
left..

council at ci.durham.nc.us,  <mailto:Bill.Bell at durhamnc.gov>
Bill.Bell at durhamnc.gov ;  <mailto:farad.ali at durhamnc.gov>
farad.ali at durhamnc.gov ;  <mailto:Eugene.Brown at durhamnc.gov>
Eugene.Brown at durhamnc.gov ;  <mailto:diane.catotti at durhamnc.gov>
diane.catotti at durhamnc.gov ;  <mailto:Cora.Cole-McFadden at durhamnc.gov>
Cora.Cole-McFadden at durhamnc.gov ;  <mailto:Howard.Clement at durhamnc.gov>
Howard.Clement at durhamnc.gov ; mike.woodard at durhamnc.gov,
Tom.Bonfield at durhamnc.gov

(remove any spaces in the above email addresses before sending)

And if you can also send your letters (to the city council) to the
editor of the Herald Sun, that'd be great too!

http://www.heraldsun.com/pages/letter_submit
<http://www.heraldsun.com/pages/letter_submit> 

or

 <mailto:bashley at heraldsun.com> bashley at heraldsun.com

Melissa (Rooney)

  _____  

From: Melissa Rooney <mmr121570 at yahoo.com>
To: inc-list at rtpnet.org; durhamenviro at yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, November 4, 2010 2:12:57 PM
Subject: [Durham INC] Council stops move to widen stream buffers from 50
to 100 feet
See below. Are you kidding me !? This just keeps getting more and more
insulting. The widening of stream buffers from 50 to 100 feet was one of
the big conclusions/recommendations by the EEUDO (Environmental
Enhancements to the UDO) committee that stemmed from the REAP
(resolution for environmentally responsible amendments and protections
to the UDO) which was presented to the INC over a year ago.

ANY impact to improve water quality is necessary and is already far
belated. And the EEUDO committee members who met for many hours and
worked very hard on their recommendations certainly thought that
widening the stream buffers from 50 to 100 feet would have a significant
impact.

I'd like to know just what the council means by 'minor.' Doesn't sound
very scientific...

Melissa (Rooney)

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Tina <tinamotley at earthlink.net>
To: Melissa Rooney <mmr121570 at yahoo.com>; rcyoung4 at frontier.com
Sent: Thu, November 4, 2010 1:21:53 PM
Subject: Durham's Buffers
Council stops move to widen stream buffers. Shift from 50 to 100 feet 
would have 'minor' impact on water quality [You may need to register 
to view this article.] 

<http://action.ncconservationnetwork.org/site/R?i=JGS_dbuP9bj93SJvCC7SlQ
..>
http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story_news_durham/10156480/article-Co
uncil-stops-move-to-widen-stream-buffers?instance=main_article 

_______________________________________________
Durham INC Mailing List
list at durham-inc.org
http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html

_______________________________________________ Durham INC Mailing List
list at durham-inc.org http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20101104/7a766eb9/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 4961 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20101104/7a766eb9/attachment.jpg>