[Durham INC] P.S. Stream Buffers

Sun Nov 7 09:53:36 EST 2010

It seems to me that what we're talking about here is what do we do with 
the rain water that runs off our roofs, driveways and other impervious 
surfaces.  Sure, an additional 50 ft of stream buffer will help 
somewhat but at what expense?

If we stop that rain water (I refuse to call it storm water run-off) 
 from leaving our properties by directing it into a rain garden, we 
accomplish at least 2 things.

1. Most importantly we are eliminating the quantity of water that must 
be conveyed, without erosion and the contaminates it picks up along the 
way,  to wetlands, streams, creeks, lakes and reservoirs.

2. We are reducing the size of our lawns that require copious amounts 
of chemicals to maintain in a green, weed-free state, not to mention 
the time and labor to keep them cut to acceptable heights.

Durham is famous for it's grass roots activism.  One house at a time, 
one rain garden at a time and we can start decreasing the amount of 
storm generated water that is causing so many of our problems.

Cheryl Shiflett

-----Original Message-----
From: Melissa Rooney <mmr121570 at yahoo.com>
To: TheOcean1 at aol.com
Cc: inc-list at rtpnet.org; durhamenviro at yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, Nov 5, 2010 9:12 am
Subject: Re: [Durham INC] P.S. Stream Buffers

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" &lt;TheOcean1 at aol.com&gt;
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.  Durham citizens   and those downstream pay for these 
poor decisions, whether it is increased   storm water 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 PROP.S. 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 
&lt;mmr121570 at yahoo.com&gt;   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-McFa
dden at durhamnc.gov ; Howard.Clement at durhamnc.gov ; mike.woodard at durhamnc.g
ov, 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 &lt;mmr121570 at yahoo.com&gt;
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 &lt;tinamotley at earthlink.net&gt;
To: Melissa Rooney &lt;mmr121570 at yahoo.com&gt;; 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

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