[Durham INC] P.S. Stream Buffers
Pat Carstensen
pats1717 at hotmail.com
Sat Nov 6 10:14:48 EDT 2010
I looked at the technical papers that were sent to the EEUDO committee. They are still on the Planning Department's website. I would call the benefit of an extra 50 feet an "inconvenient truth" (like the climate crisis, something it pays some people find it profitable to question). An extra 50 feet cuts the amount of nitrogen, particles, etc. by a factor of at least 2 and sometimes a factor of 4.
I think the statistic used in the newspaper article is basically "picking your science." Even if it is, it means that 50 feet about cuts the amount of stuff going into the creeks in half.
Regards, pat
> Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 23:40:36 -0400
> From: bragin at nc.rr.com
> To: TheOcean1 at aol.com
> CC: tinamotley at earthlink.net; pats1717 at hotmail.com; ken at kengasch.com; mmr121570 at yahoo.com; inc-list at rtpnet.org; durhamenviro at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Durham INC] P.S. Stream Buffers
>
> Oddly enough, there's an unnamed branch of the South Ellerbe running
> through my yard, and most of my back yard neighbors' as well. Many of
> them use their back yards as parking lots, and one even ran an
> unlicensed auto repair shop there for well over a year. This not only
> creates impervious surface, but also adds used motor oil and brake fluid
> to the runoff.
>
> When i asked the planning department what could be done about this, i
> was told that since my neighborhood was built before any zoning codes
> were in effect, everything was grandfathered in, and nothing could be
> done through our current ordinances.
>
> Barry Ragin
>
>
> TheOcean1 at aol.com wrote:
> > 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. 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
> > REALTOR®/Broker
> > Seagroves Realty
> > www.KenGasch.com <http://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 <mailto: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:council at ci.durham.nc.us>,
> > Bill.Bell at durhamnc.gov <mailto:Bill.Bell at durhamnc.gov> ;
> > farad.ali at durhamnc.gov <mailto:farad.ali at durhamnc.gov> ;
> > Eugene.Brown at durhamnc.gov <mailto:Eugene.Brown at durhamnc.gov> ;
> > diane.catotti at durhamnc.gov <mailto:diane.catotti at durhamnc.gov> ;
> > Cora.Cole-McFadden at durhamnc.gov
> > <mailto:Cora.Cole-McFadden at durhamnc.gov> ;
> > Howard.Clement at durhamnc.gov <mailto:Howard.Clement at durhamnc.gov> ;
> > mike.woodard at durhamnc.gov <mailto:mike.woodard at durhamnc.gov>,
> > Tom.Bonfield at durhamnc.gov <mailto: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 <mailto:bashley at heraldsun.com>
> >
> > Melissa (Rooney)
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > *From:* Melissa Rooney <mmr121570 at yahoo.com
> > <mailto:mmr121570 at yahoo.com>>
> > *To:* inc-list at rtpnet.org <mailto:inc-list at rtpnet.org>;
> > durhamenviro at yahoogroups.com <mailto: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
> > <mailto:tinamotley at earthlink.net>>
> > *To:* Melissa Rooney <mmr121570 at yahoo.com
> > <mailto:mmr121570 at yahoo.com>>; rcyoung4 at frontier.com
> > <mailto: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
> > <http://action.ncconservationnetwork.org/site/R?i=JGS_dbuP9bj93SJvCC7SlQ..>
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Durham INC Mailing List
> > list at durham-inc.org <mailto: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
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20101106/c1b0e5e8/attachment.html>
More information about the INC-list
mailing list