[Durham INC] Help --Trinity Park Wetland could save Durham $20M and more...
TheOcean1 at aol.com
TheOcean1 at aol.com
Thu May 10 20:34:40 EDT 2012
I second Melissa's idea, and glad you didn't CC the whole group since it
would be such a shame if we missed the opportunities. I'd certainly be (a
little) less concerned about a huge price tag to build a natural area, if
School House of Wonder (and other groups) used it for field training.
We could teach those kids about polly wogs, and critters, while we also
injected a good dose of environmental stewardship into those future
caretakers of earth.
Bill Anderson
In a message dated 5/10/2012 8:27:06 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
mmr121570 at yahoo.com writes:
I agree that if this is a hole surrounded by a fence then we have
problems.
This is a GREAT opportunity to build something beautiful, beneficial for
the wildlife and the surrounding nbhds, and educational to the public about
the benefit of wetlands.
The PR is there...my daughter recently won the contest for 'Wetlands Are
Beautiful' posters (5th grade) held by the Soil and Water Conservation
District this Spring.
But we need more than PR. We need REAL action and evidence of true
commitment in this regard.
I certainly hope that the soil and water conservation district and
Durham's 'Water Conservationist', Mike Dupree, will be consulted and intimately
involved in the plans. They may even be able to help with funding for
projects like this and would likely be able to write a grant if the city and
Storm Water Services truly sought and welcomed their input. (Storm Water
services ften erroneously sees SWCD as a threat rather than the partner they
should be.)
Perhaps the NC Botanical Gardens and/or Museum of Life and Science staff
could also be involved in the design. They have an immense amount of
experience and beautiful wetland gardens to prove it!
Local companies could be solicited for donations, and a plaque could be
erected detailing all those who contributed time and/or money. An educational
walking trail would be perfect!
I envision cat-tails and pitcher plants, lily pads, irises, lilies, and
all those beautiful plants that inhabit healthy wetlands...and of course the
wildlife that come with them...
This is truly a wonderful opportunity for Durham. I hope we don't drop the
ball.
Melissa (Rooney)
____________________________________
From: Anne Guyton <annemguyton at yahoo.com>;
To: Philip Azar <pazar at nc.rr.com>; Catotti, Diane <Diane.Ca
totti at durhamnc.gov>;
Cc: Inter neighborhood council <inc-list at durhaminc.org>;
Subject: Re: [Durham INC] Help --Trinity Park Wetland could save Durham
$20M and more...
Sent: Thu, May 10, 2012 11:20:35 PM
Diane says: "Staff is planning briefings and neighborhood engagement all
summer." I sincerely hope this means neighborhood input into the actual
planning process as opposed to education and comment on a completed plan.
I am very interested in how the benefits will be measured over the long
term and if the environmental impact of construction will be measured.
Respectfully,
Anne M. Guyton
From: Philip Azar <pazar at nc.rr.com>
To: "Catotti, Diane" <Diane.Catotti at durhamnc.gov>
Cc: Inter neighborhood council <inc-list at durhaminc.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Durham INC] Help --Trinity Park Wetland could save Durham
$20M and more...
Thanks! Will cool jets -- not that I have any.
On May 10, 2012, at 6:51 PM, "Catotti, Diane" <_Diane.Catotti at durhamnc.gov_
(javascript:return) > wrote:
Staff is planning briefings and neighborhood engagement all summer.
Diane N Catotti
On May 10, 2012, at 6:40 PM, "Philip Azar" <_pazar at nc.rr.com_
(javascript:return) > wrote:
I am neither opposing, nor, at this point, supporting the proposal. I am
concerned, however, on at least two points: 1. There is room for the
adjacent neighborhoods to weigh the greater good, if any, in their deliberations
and 2. Trinity Park has requested, repeatedly, Staff updates on the proposal
only to be put off because council or other staff needed to be briefed
first. Now, it's being presented in the paper and on , if not the paper, as a
done deal which I humbly submit ain't right.
Regardless of the eventual outcome, there's time for neighborhood input
that's real and not based on an assumed outcome.
Not opposed. Not supporting. Wanting some neighborhood briefings and
neighborhood input, and INC support for that process.
Philip Azar
TPNA delegate
On May 10, 2012, at 5:17 PM, Melissa Rooney <_mmr121570 at yahoo.com_
(javascript:return) > wrote:
Totally understand where everyone is coming from on the other issues.
However, I know first hand of properties (my own and others) being literally
washed away due to the velocity with which storm water is directed through
them...particularly those containing what should be a small intermittent
stream. I have spoken on site with storm water services and soil and water
conservation people as well as an environmental landscaper, and all said the
best solution is to convince upstream residents to donate land for a
retention pond to slow down (as well as filter) the water.
So when I read this article, I was thrilled that the city was looking into
this.
This does not just affect these particular neighborhoods. It stands to
benefit properties far downstream as well.
Other BMPs may only treat the chemical content of the water, not the
damage caused to properties by the accumulated stormwater (and erosion) that is
the source of the problem.
I do not see how a wetland or retention pond that is home to beavers,
turtles, frogs and water foul can do anything but improve the aesthetics and
the values of the homes in the nbhds directly impacted.
Would certainly love to hear from all sides at upcoming INC meetings
(including Stormwater Services and SWCD) and for INC to discuss and contemplate
weighing in on this.
Melissa (Rooney)
____________________________________
From: Pat Carstensen <_pats1717 at hotmail.com_ (javascript:return) >;
To: bill anderson <_theocean1 at aol.com_ (javascript:return) >; john martin
<_bulldurhamnc at yahoo.com_ (javascript:return) >; Melissa Rooney
<_mmr121570 at yahoo.com_ (javascript:return) >; inc listserv <_inc-list at durhaminc.org_
(javascript:return) >;
Subject: RE: [Durham INC] Help --Trinity Park Wetland could save Durham
$20 M and more...
Sent: Thu, May 10, 2012 10:13:53 AM
I thought we discussed this at a delegate meeting and thought the question
for us was less "yes or no" but "how do we do it in a way that is most
compatible with neighborhood needs?"
Regards, pat
____________________________________
From: _TheOcean1 at aol.com_ (javascript:return)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 22:57:18 -0400
To: _bulldurhamnc at yahoo.com_ (javascript:return) ; _mmr121570 at yahoo.com_
(javascript:return) ; _inc-list at durhaminc.org_ (javascript:return)
Subject: Re: [Durham INC] Help --Trinity Park Wetland could save Durham
$20 M and more...
Yup, I'm with John, those neighborhoods (and any that might be forming in
that area) should have first and heavier weighted votes - for want of a
better term.
That also allows other neighborhoods to scratch their heads awhile and
examine such things as cost benefits. Personally, the total estimated cost
seemed shocking to me. They had this property under contract to buy for well
under $3 million a couple years ago, and you'll need to add demolition and
tipping the building into the landfill fees. (I hope some things can be
salvaged, like the gym floor)
So it will cost how many million to create a natural area?
Bill Anderson
In a message dated 5/9/2012 10:09:23 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
_bulldurhamnc at yahoo.com_ (javascript:return) writes:
Melissa,
Before you and others rush to embrace this, I think it would be wise to
get input from the neighborhoods most directly affected: Trinity Park, Old
North Durham, and Central Park.
I have a lot of questions about this and the effects it will have on those
neighborhoods. The cost savings and environmental concerns are not the
only issues.
John
--- On Wed, 5/9/12, Melissa Rooney <_mmr121570 at yahoo.com_
(javascript:return) > wrote:
From: Melissa Rooney <_mmr121570 at yahoo.com_ (javascript:return) >
Subject: [Durham INC] Help --Trinity Park Wetland could save Durham $20 M
and more ---
To: "INC" <_inc-list at rtpnet.org_ (javascript:return) >, "Durham Enviro"
<_durhamenviro at yahoogroups.com_ (javascript:return) >
Date: Wednesday, May 9, 2012, 9:15 PM
Please review the article below and consider writing Mayor Bell and the
City Council (_council at durhamnc.gov_ (javascript:return) ) with your support
for construction of a wetland at the old Diet and Fitness Center on
Trinity Avenue for the following reasons:
1) this wetland will help to reduce the velocity of water runoff during
storm events, thereby reducing erosion of private properties that now suffer
from storm water run-off directed through those properties. We NEED more
wetlands and retention ponds in this watershed to protect existing
structures and private properties.
2) this wetland would be aesthetically pleasing and provide wildlife with
a much needed habitat in our urban area;
3) this wetland would immensely help naturally filter Nitrogen and
Phosphorous and other pollutants out of the Ellerbe Creek Watershed, which flows
into Falls Lake and could save Durham as much as $20 Million in the long
run with regard to costs of BMPs (best management practices) required to
reduce N and P runoff into Falls Lake (as a result of the Falls Lake Rules).
_The Durham News | Wetland could save city up to $20M_
(http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=wetland%20wise%20durham%20news&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFcQ
FjAA&url=http://www.thedurhamnews.com/2012/05/08/212014/wetland-could-save-c
ity-up-to.html&ei=dxSrT8PAOcautwfJ5eiiAg&usg=AFQjCNFLs0wgbZEUajqkt4SN6kIdrtL
3fA)
(http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=wetland%20wise%20durham%20news&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFcQFjAA&url=http://www.thedurhamnews.com/2012/05/08/212014
/wetland-could-save-city-up-to.html&ei=dxSrT8PAOcautwfJ5eiiAg&usg=AFQjCNFLs0
wgbZEUajqkt4SN6kIdrtL3fA)
_http://www.thedurhamnews.com/2012/05/08/212014/wetland-could-save-city-up-to.html_
(http://www.thedurhamnews.com/2012/05/08/212014/wetland-could-save-city-up-to.html)
Thanks for your consideration and input!
Melissa (Rooney)
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
Durham INC Mailing List
list at durham-inc.org
_http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html_ (http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html)
_______________________________________________
Durham INC Mailing List
_list at durham-inc.org_ (javascript:return)
_http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html_ (http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html)
_______________________________________________ Durham INC Mailing List
_list at durham-inc.org_ (javascript:return)
_http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html_ (http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html)
_______________________________________________
Durham INC Mailing List
_list at durham-inc.org_ (javascript:return)
_http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html_ (http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html)
_______________________________________________
Durham INC Mailing List
_list at durham-inc.org_ (javascript:return)
_http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html_ (http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html)
_______________________________________________
Durham INC Mailing List
_list at durham-inc.org_ (javascript:return)
_http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html_ (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/20120510/e6879168/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the INC-list
mailing list