[Durham INC] P.S. Stream Buffers
Pat Carstensen
pats1717 at hotmail.com
Sun Nov 7 10:53:02 EST 2010
Thanks Cheryl.
What we learned when we were looking at the proposed ordinance changes is that you need to reduce both velocity and amount of run-off. Faster water carries more pollutants / nutrients, makes more erosion, and floods folks downstream. Particularly worrisome is "sheet flow" (so much water going down a slope that friction is no longer much of a factor).
I am particularly interested in bringing back Mangum terraces (developed by James Priestly Mangum of Wake Forest in the late 19th century, but with Mangum being such a Durham name, we ought to be pioneers on this). A Mangum terrace is an agriculture practice that puts a level area or slight up-slope every once in a while on a downslope to break up sheet flow. I also think that curb-side gardens would be attractive additions to neighborhoods and, again, slow run-off into the streets.
Ideally we would get storm-water rebates for such "conservation practices," but that will probably take 10 years of research so they can put a $$ value on the impact of the practice.
Regards, pat
> To: mmr121570 at yahoo.com; TheOcean1 at aol.com
> Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 09:53:36 -0500
> From: scjdurham at aol.com
> CC: inc-list at rtpnet.org; durhamenviro at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Durham INC] P.S. Stream Buffers
>
> 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" <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. 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
> <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-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 <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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20101107/b0db7ac6/attachment.html>
More information about the INC-list
mailing list