[Durham INC] P.S. Stream Buffers
Melissa Rooney
mmr121570 at yahoo.com
Fri Nov 5 09:03:18 EDT 2010
Tina's the expert here. But the general thinking is that it is always best to
leave things as Nature has put them -- meaning stream buffers and restrictions
on clearing and cutting sloped land and certain soil types. Just plain common
sense (and public record) shows that chopping and clearing it all and then
trying to introduce man-made 'fixes' has never been as effective as Nature,
herself.
Melissa
________________________________
From: "TheOcean1 at aol.com" <TheOcean1 at aol.com>
To: tinamotley at earthlink.net; pats1717 at hotmail.com; ken at kengasch.com;
mmr121570 at yahoo.com
Cc: inc-list at rtpnet.org; durhamenviro at yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, November 4, 2010 11:11:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Durham INC] P.S. Stream Buffers
Gosh, I don't know enough to enter this discussion, but Tina's point makes me
wonder if a berm of soil between the stream and anything else, that would stop
the water from running right into the stream, and cause it to filter through
the land first.
Probably hard to regulate such a thing, but wouldn't that help?
Bill
In a message dated 11/4/2010 8:09:14 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
tinamotley at earthlink.net writes:
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. Durhamcitizens 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 Durhamis TriassicBasinsoils which has low
>permeability and erode easily when disturbed. The lower part is also the water
>supply watersheds for Jordanand FallsLakes. Durhamallows up to 70% impervious
>surface in this area.
>
>The upper portion (light colored) of Durhamis the watershed
>for LakeMichieand 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
>Jordanand FallsLakes, surely our elected officials would want to do what is
>most effective for protecting water quality and minimize costs for
>Durhamcitizens.
>
>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
>REALTOR®/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, Bill.Bell at durhamnc.gov ; farad.ali at durhamnc.gov ; Eugene.Brown at durhamnc.gov ; diane.catotti at durhamnc.gov ; Cora.Cole-McFadden 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
>
>or
>
>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://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story_news_durham/10156480/article-Council-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
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20101105/c487746b/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/20101105/c487746b/attachment.jpg>
More information about the INC-list
mailing list