[Durham INC] P.S. Stream Buffers
Melissa Rooney
mmr121570 at yahoo.com
Tue Nov 9 15:18:33 EST 2010
The discussion b/w Cheryl and Pat is interesting and pertinent, no doubt. But
I'm still incredibly frustrated with the way particularly rural and suburban
citizens are constantly asked to 'compromise' with the development community and
not the other way around. I mean, if the 'environmentalists' (certainly those
which the increasingly negative connotation is meant to generalize) had their
way -- there would be a demand to save ALL trees that were not directly in the
line of building construction and associated root damage zones. So to the
'environmentalists,' a 100 foot buffer IS a significant compromise. I mean, look
at the protections that Chapel Hill and Cary (yes, CARY) have in place for
streams.
Jordan and Falls lakes are a mess. We citizens are having to pay the costs, and
the development community is perpetually avoiding accountability in this regard.
Every little bit of protection we can give these water sources helps -- much in
the same way that every little bit of money my family can save helps our
personal bottom line.
We need wider buffers AND we need the grass roots efforts including
rain-gardens, barrels, etc. In fact, it's clear we need even more than
this...including a lot of $ to clean up these water sources.
And why is the EEUDO committee deemed knowledgeable enough for other changes to
the UDO but not when it comes to stream buffers? Regardless of the reasons, this
committee was comprised of many (possibly a majority) with direct and indirect
connections to the development industry. I saw the paperwork they were given and
the discussion and arguments they had over the course of the many months that
they worked out these recommendations. I would think their recommendations ARE
the compromise (and that they are well researched).
Seems to me it's just that the developers want more, and they get paid to
further represent their interests at our local gov't meetings, whereas we
lay-citizens do not. And, of course, requiring more protection than mandated by
the state is not exactly a political move that is popular with developers and
associated special interests (builders, consultants, lawyers, etc.)...it's not
an easy move on the part of our elected officials. But that's why we elected
them right? To make these difficult decisions in the best interest of ALL their
constituents.
Just my frustrated interpretation of things.
I'm certainly interested in hearing where I'm deemed wrong here...
Melissa
________________________________
From: Pat Carstensen <pats1717 at hotmail.com>
To: inc listserv <inc-list at durhaminc.org>; enviro durham
<durhamenviro at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, November 7, 2010 11:53:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Durham INC] P.S. Stream Buffers
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
>e
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20101109/45c96c19/attachment.html>
More information about the INC-list
mailing list