[Durham INC] City/County Budget and Stormwater Services/BMPs

[Schultz, Mark]

Would welcome any and all comments to the paper. This is a good
conversation that deserves a wider audience.

Thanks for any consideration,

Mark

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Will Wilson <willwilsn at gmail.com> wrote:

> There's a lot here from both John and Melissa, but what distresses me
> most, at least from the read I get, is the response by folks in the
> downtown core -- DDI perhaps? -- to wipe their hands clean of any
> environmental costs of the constructed urban environment. With regards to
> stormwater issues, it's evidenced by the desire to turn the former Duke
> Diet and Fitness center into the primary (and perhaps sole) stormwater
> control measure for the hundreds of acres of downtown impervious surface,
> rather than using more costly innovative green infrastructure approaches
> like green roofs that evapotranspire cistern-stored stormwater, trees,
> green facades, etc, approaches that come with many greater environmental
> benefits like urban heat island mitigation, air quality improvement, and
> energy-use reductions.
>
> Yes, it's new. Yes, it's harder. Yes, it's more expensive. But it'll be
> better all around for the many benefits that green infrastructure will
> provide downtown and greater Durham.
>
> Thanks,
> Will Wilson
>
> On 5/11/2013 12:25 AM, Melissa Rooney wrote:
>
>>
>> Warning: this is a long one, but I hope everyone will read it over their
>> glass (or 3) of wine, beer, or, if you are healthier than I, tea this
>> weekend.
>> I am pleased that John Cox and Stormwater Services has responded to my
>> earlier email to the INC.  Though I was late for Tuesday's
>>   Soil
>>   and Water Conservation District board meeting on Tuesday, I was glad to
>> hear from the two SS attendees that the SS was preparing a response.
>>
>> I would love to get a real, back-and-forth conversation with Stormwater
>> Services (SS) on the INC listserv, so that INC members (including myself)
>> can learn about (and discuss) what Stormwater Services does and how it
>> differs from what the Soil and Water Conservation District does.
>>
>> A number of thoughts:
>>
>> 1) Despite the fact that Durham citizens elect SWCD Supervisors every 4
>> years (can't remember if the term is shorter than that), I bet a majority
>> of us don't even know the SWCD exists. In fact, I knew nothing about the
>> SWCD before I became the Grants Chairperson of Creekside Elementary School
>> (about 4 years ago) and came upon the SWCD's CCAP program when I was
>> looking for some local funds to level the dry-river-bed of an athletic
>> field at
>>   that DPS school. At
>>   the time, I didn't care what the SWCD was, I was just glad it was so
>> eager to help me fix our field :-)
>>
>> 2) I qualified in my initial email that I did not have much experience
>> with County Stormwater/etc. Services (I don't even remember what the county
>> department(s) are called). This is because 1) I get lost in a Target store,
>> so I desperately try to avoid having to navigate my way around bureaucratic
>> systems (I just know how certain depts have worked, in practice, for me);
>> and 2) unlike the city, the county partially funds a position in the SWCD
>> to assist with BMP programs, etc., so I usually call the SWCD when I have
>> any questions/concerns.
>> 3) I want to ensure that my opinions/concerns/suggestions here have
>> nothing to do with me being an Associate Supervisor on the SWCD, although
>>   I thank John for reminding me that I am one. It is so new to me (and I
>> have so little time to contribute to it beyond emails and monthly meetings)
>> that I completely didn't think to include this information in my initial
>> email.
>> History in this regard: I was asked to become an Associate Supervisor
>> because I had learned so much about the SWCD through previous projects at
>> DPS schools, my house in South Durham and my rental property in Northgate
>> Park. It was obvious to all that I  thought the SWCD was an incredibly
>> under-utilized resource, and I was trying to get the word out to everyone I
>> knew that the SWCD exists and may very well be able to help them.
>> Before I agreed to be an Associate Supervisor (which, incidentally, is a
>> non-voting board member), I specifically ensured
>>   that accepting the position would not inhibit me from freely (and at
>> all times) speaking my mind as a citizen. (I also made it clear that, if
>> they were hoping for a prospective SWCD supervisor, they were barking up the
>>   wrong tree.)
>> Do I understand all the inner bureaucratic workings or fine details of
>> the city-county and inter-organizational politics involved? Absolutely not.
>> Do I really want to understand them? Not really.
>> 4) All I know is my personal experience, which, in the interest of full
>> disclosure, I really should detail for the INC listserv.
>> After doing one DPS project with the SWCD, the SWCD helped me (via CCAP
>> matching) install a 1000-gallon cistern at my primary residence (which is
>> in the county). After this, they helped me (by finding/providing matching
>> funds and assistance) with a quite significant stream-bank restoration on
>> one of the 3 rental properties I own in Northgate Park
>>   (which is in the
>>   city, which people seem to forget is also in the county). This stream
>> (a.k.a. intermittent storm-water course), which was literally eating my
>> property, continues another ~500 yards beyond my property before flowing
>> directly into Ellerbe Creek (opposite the Northgate Dog Park).
>> I turned to the SWCD after I reached a very quick dead-end with SS.
>> (Note: Although the city's "discretionary assistance program to assist
>> property owners with specific types of severe drainage problems" may not
>> have been applicable to the situation on my property, the people I talked
>> to at SS never mentioned anything to me about any other possibility for
>> funding (or matched
>>   funding). I would think a stream-bank restoration like this one, which
>> involved at least two dangerous sinkholes (reminding our consultant of the
>> situation at NaNa's and University)) should have been consistent with the
>> intentions of the Ellerbe Creek Raincatcher's program; plus, I'd have been
>> happy to match a significant portion of the cost. Many months later, when
>> the Raincatcher's program for the Ellerbe Creek watershed finally got
>> underway, those involved actually contacted me about my Northgate-Park
>> property; but, of course, with the stream-bank restoration complete, it was
>> no longer a high priority.
>> On the other hand, the SWCD found the funds to match me ~50% of the cost
>> of the stream-bank restoration. SWCD could have said,
>>   "sorry, we are funded by the county, not the city" (or maybe they
>> couldn't have said this because the city is in the county), but they very
>> happily assisted me with the stream-bank restoration, inspected the
>> property several times before and during the restoration, and required that
>> I commit to 5 years of annual site visits to ensure everything is working
>> as planned and is being maintained (you can time your seasons by these
>> annual inspections).
>> The above stream-bank restoration is a BMP (in the Ellerbe Creek
>> Watershed) for which the county would get credit, but if the city had been
>> able to help me, they'd have gotten the credit.
>> 5) I apologize that my
>>   earlier email "indicated that Stormwater Services receives stormwater
>> fees from residents located outside city boundaries." I live in the county
>> but purchase water and sewer from the city (at double city residents'
>> rates).  I also pay significant fees to the city via my water bills; but,
>> though I have always associated these fees with fulfilling the Jordan/Falls
>> lake rules (and, therefore, obviously dealing with stormwater), I don't
>> even know exactly what these fees are used for: perhaps someone can
>> elaborate (in bullet-list, rather than pamphlet form, please).
>> In addition, because I have apparently (and for years) underestimated the
>> significance of what is in the city versus what is in the county, I didn't
>> attribute enough significance to this in my first email.
>> 6) I don't understand how 'any such [stormwater fees] misunderstanding
>> [would need] to be resolved in order for the City to further a working
>> relationship with
>>   SWCD'.
>> If
>>   there are
>>   means by which both SS and the SWCD can accomplish more by
>> sharing/differentiating rather than duplicating services, then whether or
>> not SS gets stormwater fees from non-city residents is beside the point.
>> 7) The Credit System: This whole credit system thing is incredibly
>> time-consuming and is completely counterproductive to its intentions.
>> The 'engineered stormwater control measures for which we can establish
>> nutrient credits' are just that -- Engineered (and, therefore, financially
>> assisting those who do that kind of thing). I have yet to discover a human
>> derivation/process that is actually superior to what it is trying to
>> replace in Nature. But I digress.
>> Furthermore, based on the current 'credits' system, neither the county
>> nor the city can get credits for reductions in
>>   Nitrogen and Phosphorous resulting from reduced suburban/urban
>> lawn-fertilizer use. Meanwhile, Durham farms are rapidly becoming
>> single-family residences, and most engineered (and, therefore,
>> credit-worthy) initiatives/BMPs are a drop in the bucket compared to what
>> could be achieved by simply but determinedly reducing lawn-fertilizer use
>> in Durham county (which includes the city).
>> At the very least, we
>>   should absolutely require (right now, it's voluntary for the most part)
>> landscapers and lawn-service providers to be certified in 1) the
>> recommended application amounts -- most are over-fertilizing because they
>> have not taken into consideration the increasingly high N and P levels in
>> our rainwater, and 2) application procedures (like actually taking the next
>> few days' weather
>>   into account and ensuring that applied fertilizer isn't washed into our
>> creeks and streams due to stormwater runoff or carelessly placed or timed
>> sprinklers).
>> I hope to write an article with some hard numbers in this regard soon.
>> 8) "At the same time, City stormwater staff is also working to expand the
>> range of measures for which credits are available, including stream
>> restorations, ... backyard rain gardens, fertilizer management plans, and
>> other
>>   non-structural
>>   measures.  This includes promoting or funding research to provide the
>> data needed to establish credits..."
>> The SWCD has been doing this for years, apparently in parallel to you
>> guys. You all really need to get together on this. You may not have to
>> expand with regard to these services. Perhaps the city can just give the
>> SWCD a bone and take advantage of their expertise here.
>> 9) a) "The
>>   issue of possible redundancy between City and County stormwater
>> programs has been addressed by a memorandum jointly prepared by Durham
>> County Engineering and Environmental Services and City of Durham Stormwater
>> and GIS Services Division for the Joint City-County Committee, December 29,
>> 2010..."
>> Here we go, into the bureacratic quagmire...Certainly, the city and
>> county can share (and fund appropriately) a position at the SWCD. As John
>> (and others) explained at the latest SWCD board meeting, the SWCD doesn't
>> get nutrient credits for anything it does. If they do it for the county, the
>>   county gets the credits. If they do it for the city (as demonstrated by
>> city-funding toward this end), the city should get the credits. Otherwise,
>> it appears the city gets the SWCD's services, but the county gets the
>> credits. John, or anyone else, please correct me if I'm misinterpreting
>> anything here. (As John pointed out, I am new to this rigamarole.)
>> John/SS, please feel free to elaborate regarding why any of the separate
>> city-county orgs' responsibilities you outlined in your response should
>> prohibit the above
>>   suggestion from being implemented.
>> b) "...Merging or combining the [city and county] programs doesn't make
>> sense at this time. ..." I don't think the city and county need to merge
>> anything. But I do think it would be a great idea for each to pay for
>>   1/2 a SWCD
>>   position so that the SWCD can oversee the cisterns, rain-gardens,
>> stream-bank restorations, and education and public outreach arms of both
>> the city and the county, thereby avoiding merging or redundancy of these
>> city vs. county responsibilities.
>> 10) a) "The City, through its stormwater permit, is required to meet
>> “minimum measures” for public outreach and public involvement..."
>> The old 'Minimum Measures' problem... I've seen this in multiple gov't
>> depts. Just
>>   b/c you are required to meet 'minimum measures' for public outreach and
>> public involvement (and just b/c the state is trying to prohibit you from
>> doing anything more than such 'minimum measures' elsewhere) doesn't mean
>> you should ignore the benefits of using the SWCD, which is already doing
>> fabulous 'public outreach and involvement' for the county in which the city
>> resides. Both the city and SWCD will get more bang for their bucks. It's a
>> Win-Win situation, as the politicians so often like to say.
>> John, you yourself have told me how overtaxed SS is with all the Jordan
>> and Falls rules and everything else that you all do (only a portion of
>> which you mention
>>   in your response to the INC listserv). If you encourage the city to
>>   fund part of a SWCD position to cover public outreach and involvement,
>> that should free you guys up a little so you can concentrate on your other
>> (immense) responsibilities.
>> Besides, is it written in the stars somewhere that Durham is doomed to
>> the bare minimum? (I don't think so, and I know a lot of people who agree
>> with me.) It's this sort of thinking that damages public relations.
>> b) "Services provided by SWCD do not address the range of target
>> pollutants, pollutant sources, and target audiences listed in the City’s
>> Stormwater Management Plan.  They also do not meet the City’s permit
>> requirements for implementation, tracking, and performance outcome
>> measurement."
>> A brief visit to the projects (cisterns,
>>   raingardens, stream-bank restorations, etc.) overseen by the SWCD
>>   demonstrates that, given their unique
>>   holistic approach and regardless of any legislation legalese, these
>> SWCD projects would be hard-pressed not to address the target pollutants of
>> which John speaks. Why can't the city use the SWCD to plan and implement
>> these bmps and have the SS (which is all too familiar with the mess of
>> legal requirements) available to interpret the bureaucratic legal-speak and
>> ensure that all the i's are dotted in this regard? 11)  "However, the City
>> has three pilot programs to help develop information needed to establish
>> water quality benefits and nutrient reduction credits for these types of
>> measures", including "Raingarden installations" via "the Ellerbe Creek
>> Watershed" and "the Mayor's Summer Youth Program".
>> How has the city implemented these programs, and have they had to hire
>> additional staff to do so (particularly wrt rain-garden
>>   installations)?
>> The SWCD has the expertise for all 3 of the above city programs and would
>> be happy to provide their services toward this end. But the SWCD needs
>> appropriate funding from the city to do so. You can't get blood from a
>> stone, though the SWCD people have been trying hard to prove otherwise;
>> and, of course, the city wants and would deserve any nutrient credits
>> resulting from these city programs.
>> Is the primary problem that the city and county want to keep all
>>   lines clearly delineated between them at all
>>   costs?
>> If so, then we need to start changing that mind set to save Durham time
>> and money. (I think everyone will agree that, when it comes to fixing a
>> water problem, time is at least as important as money.)
>> 12) "City Council created a discretionary assistance program to assist
>> property owners with specific types of severe drainage problems.  The
>> intent of this program is to assist property owners with compromised
>> drainage systems that are negatively impacting a structure or the primary
>> entrance/exit of a structure.  The typical eligible project for this
>> program involves an older home built over a storm drainage system where the
>> system has aged and is compromising the foundation of the home.  This
>> assistance program is completely discretionary and is not required as part
>> of the City’s municipal stormwater permit and Stormwater Management Plan."
>> Clearly, the SWCD also assists property owners in this regard (even city
>> property owners, though via the city-county connection). The SWCD funded
>> and oversaw an entire stream-bank restoration on a stream that completely
>> traversed my 1950's property in Northgate Park and even offered to write a
>> grant to do a
>>   much bigger restoration (if I could just get my downstream neighbors to
>> agree to be a part of it).
>> 13) Finally (I can actually hear the sighs of relief, including my own):
>> John/SS, it would be great if you could tell us, point blank, the number of
>> employees (or fractions thereof) dedicated to each of the headings below,
>> so that we can discern how many people we are paying to do these things at
>> SS and compare it to how many the SWCD assesses would be needed to do the
>> task(s), particularly given that the latter is currently doing these tasks
>> and likely needs only to expand their service range:
>> Raingardens and Cisterns (including the Raincatcher's program)Streambank
>> RestorationsPublic Education and OutreachGrants Writing for
>>   and implementation/installation of BMPs
>> ** Thanks, everyone, for bearing with me, particularly John Cox and
>> others at SS. I look forward to SS's response and continuing a transparent
>> and constructive conversation ...
>> SincerelyMelissa (Rooney)
>> P.S. (Couldn't help it!)"The NC Division of Water Quality’s Nutrient
>> Science Advisory Board is expected to complete
>>   work to
>>   establish initial nutrient credits for stream restoration by the end of
>> this year, allowing the City to make informed management decisions."
>> I wish the city would just walk around my suburban neighborhood (and
>> others like it throughout Durham) during a rain event when all the spring
>> lawn treatments are taking place, and watch the greenish-yellow fertilizer
>> runoff that is directed (across impervious sidewalks, roads and pipes)
>> directly into our streams, and then I wish the city would pass measures to
>> ensure the drastic reduction of this fertilizer runoff. Regardless of
>> whether or not the state gives them any credits, it's the rational and
>> right thing to
>>   do.
>>
>>   --- On Fri, 10/5/13, Cox, John
>>   <John.Cox at durhamnc.gov> wrote:
>>
>> From: Cox, John <John.Cox at durhamnc.gov>
>> Subject: [Durham INC] City/County Budget and Stormwater Services/BMPs
>> To: "Durham INC listserve"
>>   <inc-list at rtpnet.org>
>> Cc: "Melissa Rooney" <mmr121570 at yahoo.com>
>> Received: Friday, 10 May, 2013, 2:51 PM
>>
>> Dear Inter-Neighborhood Council,  On April 23, 2013, Melissa Rooney sent
>> a message to the listserv entitled “City/County Budget and Stormwater
>> Services/BMPs.”  The general tenor of the message is that City of Durham
>> Stormwater and GIS Services Division in the Public Works Department should
>> provide funding to the Durham Soil and Water Conservation District.  The
>> City of Durham Public Works Department (the City) appreciates and values
>> the efforts and accomplishments of the Durham Soil and Water Conservation
>> (SWCD) in obtaining grants to restore stream segments; hosting a cost share
>> program for rain gardens,
>>   cisterns, and other best management practices; coordinating outreach
>> events; and more. The City cooperates with SWCD by attending monthly SWCD
>> Board of Directors meetings, working with SWCD on numerous outreach
>> efforts, and providing grant support for a green roof on the SWCD building
>> on Foster Street. The City has expressed an interest in furthering
>> cooperation through a contract or Memorandum of Understanding with SWCD to
>> initiate a pilot program for specific performance-based services that meet
>> the City’s permit needs and implementation criteria. The City has and will
>> continue to request input from SWCD on the proposed South Ellerbe Wetlands.
>> The City will continue to invite SWCD staff to meetings to discuss what the
>> City is required to do as a preliminary step to establishing how SWCD can
>> help the City meet its obligations.    The City of Durham is the most
>>   heavily
>>   regulated municipal stormwater program in the state.  The City’s legal
>> stormwater mandates include a federal municipal stormwater permit and
>> Stormwater Management Plan, six federal industrial stormwater permits for
>> City facilities, state water supply watershed protection regulations for
>> five drinking water sources, and three sets of state regulations for
>> nutrient sensitive waters.  All of the City’s stormwater efforts are and
>> must be guided by these mandates.   The message writer is new on the SWCD
>> Board of Directors.  The message raises numerous issues that appear to be
>> based on a misunderstanding of the programs and mandates under which the
>> City stormwater program operates.  For example, the message incorrectly
>> indicates that Stormwater Services receives stormwater fees from residents
>> located outside city boundaries.  Certainly any such
>>   misunderstanding needs to be resolved in order for the City to further
>> a working relationship with SWCD. The responses below are provided to
>> clarify the City’s stormwater program.  Issues raised include the
>> following:  ·         Concern that City of Durham Stormwater Services is
>> heavily focused on developing cost-effective nutrient credits. This is
>> true.  The City is working to meet unprecedented reduction mandates for
>> Falls and Jordan Lake rules. Plans include using engineered stormwater
>> control measures for which we can establish nutrient credits.  At the same
>> time, City stormwater staff is also
>>   working to expand the range of measures for which credits are
>> available, including stream restorations, pet waste collection, fixing
>> failing septic systems, backyard rain gardens, fertilizer management plans,
>> and other non-structural measures.  This includes promoting or funding
>> research to provide the data needed to establish credits, participation in
>> NC Division of Water Quality’s Nutrient Science Advisory Board, and
>> participation in the Upper Neuse River Basin Association’s Path Forward
>> Committee.    ·         General redundancy and lack of coordination between
>> three programs: Durham County Engineering and Environmental Services, City
>> of Durham Stormwater and GIS Services
>>   Division, and Durham Soil and Water Conservation District.The issue of
>> possible redundancy between City and County stormwater programs has been
>> addressed by a memorandum jointly prepared by Durham County Engineering and
>> Environmental Services and City of Durham Stormwater and GIS Services
>> Division for the Joint City-County Committee, December 29, 2010.  Merging
>> or combining the programs does not make sense at this time.  Because the
>> City owns and operates a municipal stormwater system, it must fund repair
>> and maintenance as well as comply with a federal municipal stormwater
>> permit.  In unincorporated areas of Durham County, streets and the
>> associated stormwater system are owned and operated by the North Carolina
>> Department of Transportation, which is also required to comply with a
>> stormwater permit.  Durham County does not own and operate a municipal
>> stormwater system and is therefore not
>>   required to obtain and comply with a stormwater permit under the Clean
>> Water Act.Although County and City stormwater programs currently have
>> different needs, both programs recognize the need to coordinate efforts and
>> to support each other.  Durham County operates the Erosion and
>> Sedimentation Control program in both City and County.  Durham County
>> Environmental Health regulates on-site wastewater systems in both City and
>> County.  City and County often hold coordinating meetings to share data,
>> discuss approaches, and share concerns.      ·         Possible redundancy
>> of service in stormwater education programs between SWCD and
>>   City of Durham.The City, through its stormwater permit, is required to
>> meet “minimum measures” for public outreach and public involvement.  The
>> City and SWCD coordinate with each other and with Keep Durham Beautiful to
>> sponsor Big Sweep and Creek Week cleanups. There is no duplication. The
>> team approach allows us to reach more residents and clean up more creeks
>> and litter than through one group alone.Services provided by SWCD do not
>> address the range of target pollutants, pollutant sources, and target
>> audiences listed in the City’s Stormwater Management Plan.  They also do
>> not meet the City’s permit requirements for implementation, tracking, and
>> performance outcome measurement.    The City is required to implement a
>> detailed set of programs specified in the City’s
>>   approved
>>   Stormwater Management Plan.  The City’s stormwater education audiences
>> range from city staff to target business sectors to industrial facility
>> managers, teachers and schools, and residential property owners.  In the
>> past year the City conducted 86 outreach events and numerous other internal
>> presentations. Festivals, workshops, public meetings, engineering seminars,
>> and presentations to school and community groups are a regular part of the
>> City’s program.  The City has also prepared videos that are available on
>> the City’s cable channel and on YouTube on various topics including stream
>> buffers, household hazardous waste disposal, vehicle car washing, and
>> disposal of cooking grease. All stormwater communication products intended
>> for general audience are reviewed by technical writers, stormwater
>> managers, and the City’s Public Affairs Office.To facilitate continual
>> improvement, the City’s
>>   stormwater education efforts are coordinated with its water quality
>> assessments, industrial inspections, and illicit discharge detection and
>> elimination program.  Community groups that have received presentations
>> from the City’s stormwater staff can attest to the staffers’
>> responsiveness, willingness to accommodate schedules, level of knowledge,
>> and level of professionalism. ·         Possible redundancy of programs to
>> retrofit existing residential properties with cisterns, rain gardens and
>> other small stormwater control measures.Currently SWCD operates a program
>> to routinely implement these types of measures with
>>   funding provided through the Community Conservation Assistance Program.
>>  The City itself does not have a program to routinely implement these
>> measures, in part because nutrient credits have not been approved by state
>> regulators.  However, the City has three pilot programs to help develop
>> information needed to establish water quality benefits and nutrient
>> reduction credits for these types of measures.  (1)    The City contracts
>> with Ellerbe Creek Watershed Association on a pilot program to install
>> residential rain gardens and cisterns.  (2)    The City received a grant
>> from the state’s 319 stormwater
>>   program to install 40 rain gardens using workers from the Mayor’s
>> Summer Youth Program.  For this project the NC Botanical Garden provided
>> plants for fall planting and helped with plant selection, garden design,
>> planting, homeowner education, and maintenance.  (3)    To document
>> credits, the City has undertaken Rain Catchers, an innovative research
>> project funded by the Clean Water Management Trust Fund.  Rain Catchers
>> includes a year of pre-installation monitoring to establish baseline
>> conditions of water quality and hydrology in South Ellerbe Creek. Rain
>> Catchers will install approximately 50 rain gardens, 120 cisterns, 50
>> backyard trees, and 68 street trees at over 100 residences in the South
>> Ellerbe Creek watershed. After installation, Rain Catchers monitoring will
>> assess the
>>   cumulative effect of these measures.  Rain Catchers also includes a
>> separate research component by North Carolina State University to evaluate
>> the benefits of rooftop disconnection.  Installation of practices uses
>> contractors selected through the City’s competitive bid process. Homeowners
>> signed a 10-year maintenance agreement and will have follow up
>> inspections.The results of these programs will be used to guide future
>> deployment of these stormwater control measures.  Once the results from
>> Rain Catchers are available, the City can advocate for credits and can make
>> an informed decision about expanding the current pilot programs.  ·
>>   Stormwater funding availabilityDespite being the most heavily regulated
>> municipality in North Carolina, the City’s water quality programs represent
>> less than 20% of the stormwater budget.  The largest fraction of the budget
>> is devoted to operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement of existing
>> drainage infrastructure located within street rights-of-way.  The City’s
>> Public Works Department operates a lean stormwater program, with City
>> Council approving anything extra such as the two feasibility study
>> contracts to evaluate innovative nutrient treatment systems (Aqualutions
>> and Algal Turf Scrubbers).  ·         Lack
>>   of funding by the City to repair drainage on private property,
>> including unstable stream banks City Council created a discretionary
>> assistance program to assist property owners with specific types of severe
>> drainage problems.  The intent of this program is to assist property owners
>> with compromised drainage systems that are negatively impacting a structure
>> or the primary entrance/exit of a structure.  The typical eligible project
>> for this program involves an older home built over a storm drainage system
>> where the system has aged and is compromising the foundation of the home.
>>  As of 2009, the City had completed 395 private drainage assistance
>> projects at an average cost of $11,500 per project.  This assistance
>> program is completely discretionary and is not required as part of the
>> City’s municipal stormwater permit and Stormwater Management Plan.
>>    ·         Stream Restoration Projects and Large Projects The City has
>> a history of working with neighborhood groups, nonprofit organizations,
>> other City and County departments, the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
>> Program and interested residents when it comes to siting, planning, and
>> maintaining stream restorations and other large stormwater projects. Staff
>> members have worked to address neighbors’ concerns about buffer plantings,
>> land use, and safety.   The NC Division of Water Quality’s Nutrient Science
>> Advisory Board is expected to complete work to establish initial nutrient
>> credits for stream
>>   restoration by the end of this year, allowing the City to make informed
>> management decisions.  More information is available on the City’s web site
>> at www.durhamnc.gov/stormwater. Click on the “Technical Reports” link on
>> the right side of the main stormwater page to view the annual compliance
>> reports for the City’s stormwater permit, the Stormwater Management Plan
>> and the other documents referred to above.   Sincerely,         John  John
>> H. CoxWater Quality ManagerStormwater and GIS Services DivisionCity of
>> Durham Public Works Department101 City Hall PlazaCity of Durham, NC
>> 27701(919) 560-4326 ext 30212www.durhamnc.gov/**stormwater<http://30212www.durhamnc.gov/stormwater>
>> www.facebook.com/**DurhamNCStormwater<http://www.facebook.com/DurhamNCStormwater>“Keep
>> it neat. Leaves and grass off the street.”  (Whitespace has been removed
>> from following message)From: Melissa Rooney <mmr121570 at yahoo.com>
>> Date: April 23, 2013, 12:28:46 PM EDT
>> To: INC <inc-list at rtpnet.org>
>> Subject: [Durham INC] City/County Budget and Stormwater Services/BMPsI
>>   apologize that I cannot make the INC meeting tonight to bring this up
>> in person (I have the kids on my own again and they have commitments this
>> evening). However, I wanted to ask the INC to consider making some
>> collective suggestions regarding the city and county budgets, particularly
>> regarding stormwater management.Please bear with me -- I tried to make the
>> correspondence below as brief as possible, but there are many important
>> things to consider here. Right now the following 3 entities deal with
>> stormwater issues in Durham city and county (I hope there aren’t
>>   more, but these are all I know of):  Durham County : Engineering and
>> Environmental Services (EES)City of Durham - Stormwater & GIS Services
>> (SS)Durham County : Soil & Water Conservation District (SWCD) To the best
>> of my knowledge, the SWCD receives only a nominal amount of county funding
>> (it is likely the smallest budget line item), though I know of many
>> rain-garden/cistern installations and stream-bank restorations that the
>> SWCD has done in the city (largely because the city residents involved did
>> not receive assistance from SS).  At any rate, it is quite apparent to me
>> that the 3 Durham entities above do not work together as they should and
>> sometimes even compete with one another, resulting
>>   in redundancy, inefficiency, and increases in time,
>>   human resources, and $ spent (for both the city and the county). See
>> the ‘Examples’ section under my signature for specific examples. I recently
>> wrote several people in city and county government about the need for the
>> city and county to cooperate and collaborate in this regard, and I
>> suggested that they do so by using (and appropriately funding) the SWCD for
>> the purposes of cistern/rain-garden/small BMPs (best management practices),
>> stream-bank restorations, and public education/awareness, as well as
>> requiring SWCD’s true input and PR skills for bigger projects like the Duke
>> Fitness Wetland project. I have personally communicated with SS and SWCD
>> (though I don’t
>>   have much experience with Durham county’s stormwater/environmental
>> services), and I am well aware of the SWCD’s superior responsiveness,
>> customer service, education, and installation and maintenance of bmp’s.
>> (After receiving nothing but a pat on the shoulder from SS, I was assisted
>> by the SWCD with a residential stream-bank restoration, 2 cistern
>> installations, sedimentation and erosion solutions/plans at a public
>> school, a rain-garden installation, and a few other projects at public
>> schools and private residences – see below my signature for a brief but
>> more detailed description of my experiences with the SWCD in this regard).
>> As a result of these experiences, I am convinced that the city and the
>> county should, at the very least, divert the responsibilities of education
>> and small-BMPs and streambank
>>   restorations from SS to the SWCD and should fund the SWCD accordingly.
>> I have absolutely no doubt that we will see more bang for our bucks in a
>> more timely fashion than what is happening currently via the separate city
>> and county storm-water management organizations. Furthermore, I have heard
>> SS insist to the public (i.e. at INC meetings and other public outreach
>> meetings)
>>   that the Trinity Wetland installation is in addition to smaller BMPs
>> that are ongoing. However, I have also become aware of individual comments
>> among SS staff to the effect that 'we shouldn't have to do [this or that]
>> because the Wetland will take care of it'.  This is exactly what nearby
>> neighbors are afraid of...that SS is going to use the Wetland installation
>> merely as a water-filtering/cleaning facility rather than a truly and
>> aesthetically maintained Wetland that is habitat to vegetation and wildlife
>> and truly used for the purpose of public education. I guarantee you that
>> these nearby neighbors would be much more amenable if the Wetland were
>> required to pass
>>   the scrutiny of the SWCD and to have to adhere to their strict
>> maintenance and follow-up guidelines over the long-haul.  It seems to
>> everyone I talk to (except SS staff) that the SS just wants credits (as
>> quickly as possible), whereas the SWCD wants long-term, sustainable
>> solutions. Given the above considerations, the SWCD is the perfect entity
>> for addressing storm-water problems and BMP installations at least on
>> private properties (though public/gov’t-owned properties and projects would
>> greatly benefit from the involvement of the SWCD), not to mention for
>> conducting public awareness and education programs, in BOTH the city and
>> the county. If the SWCD were utilized in the above fashion, we would reduce
>> redundancies resulting from separate (but, nonetheless, parallel) city and
>> county storm-water programs, Jordan/Falls lake programs/installations, etc.
>> Admittedly, the resources of the SWCD (particularly human resources) are
>> stretched to the limit
>>   (particularly given their miniscule funding from the county (and no
>> funding from the city)). They will need additional funding to truly be able
>> to put their expertise to work on BMPs, stream-bank restorations and other
>> projects in the city (and to increase their involvement and oversight in
>> the county). In this regard, Stormwater Services receives tens of millions
>> from the water
>>   fees charged to Durham citizens (city and county) via their water
>> bills. Some of this money should be diverted from Stormwater Services
>> directly to the SWCD -- to fund an additional position (or positions) to
>> expand the work that SWCD's Mike Dupree and Eddie Culberson have been doing
>> to research, install, and follow up and ensure proper maintenance
>> (something most Durham citizens think is lacking with Stormwater Services)
>> for BMPs and Streambank restorations.  ** This is not only a request for
>> more city and county funding for expanded SWCD services, it
>>   also presents a means for providing that funding by omitting current
>> redundancies and inefficiencies in city/county storm-water maintenance and
>> diverting a portion of current storm-water fees to the SWCD, which actually
>> installs effective BMPs in a timely and truly sustainable fashion and in a
>> manner that visibly benefits fee-payers and improves public relations.
>>  Thus far, I have been a bit of a lone wolf, hoping someone with influence
>> will hear me howling and sincerely consider what I’m howling about. I now
>> need other Durham citizens (individual members of this listserv and the INC
>> collectively) to back me up by emailing/calling your city and county
>> officials and managers and showing your support at upcoming
>>   budget public hearings.  This is going to require some serious
>> communication b/w the city and the county about how to ally their
>> stormwater services, their BMP installations, and their resulting
>> stormwater credits as well as regarding how much each should budget for the
>> SWCD for their services. Thanks, as always, for seriously considering my
>> suggestions and for making your concerns and
>>   recommendations/support known to your elected officials and city/county
>> managers. I don’t have time to initiate a big public movement in this
>> regard, but I hope that the INC and those who are on this listserv will
>> insist on increasing collaboration, reducing redundancies and increasing
>> our use (and funding) of currently existing entities for services in which
>> they have demonstrated success (which is the case with the
>> SWCD).Sincerely,Melissa Rooney  * After quite a bit of push-back (which I
>> have
>>   personally observed), SS finally appears sincere in their efforts to
>> collaborate with the SWCD on small BMPs (raingardens and cisterns and the
>> like), but the verdict is still out on how much SS will involve the SWCD in
>> larger projects, like streambank restorations and the wetland project at
>> the Duke Diet and Fitness site. Certainly, SS and SWCD still compete
>> (rather than collaborate) for federal (and other) funding, as can be seen
>> with their two competing projects at Southern high-school (these projects
>> should be combined to get the most bang for our buck, but SS politics
>> appears to be getting in the way of collaboration here). The following
>> links may delineate this a bit:Southern High School Received $30,714 for -
>> Durham County Farmland Protection Program The regular monthly ... - Durham
>> Count (search for 'southern highschool') (I could not find info on the
>> separate funding given to Stormwater Services for their project at
>> Southern, but you can see
>>   a smaller example via the link immediately
>>   above, in which it is stated that SS 'was going to buy [rain-garden]
>> plants from Southern High School [via the BETC project of Southern and the
>> SWCD] but now they have decided to purchase them from the [North Carolina]
>> botanical gardens.' Why wouldn’t the city’s SS support a county project
>> when it is clearly synergistic and beneficial to both?) * SS has its own
>> bmp (i.e. raingarden)-installation program (separate from anything done by
>> the SWCD): Durham rain gardens are green in more ways than one - The News
>> ...  As a result, SS hired and trained (at taxpayers’ expense) its own
>> personnel to implement the program(s). Meanwhile, the SWCD already had the
>> expertise and experience (and a stellar record) for installing and
>> maintaining rain-gardens and other such
>>   bmp’s on private land:Durham County : Community Conservation Assistance
>> Program Why not just give the SWCD more funding and use the expertise that
>> is already available to us
>>   (particularly when the SWCD offered their services in this regard)? The
>> latter would have saved quite a bit of $ and time. It appears the reason is
>> because of politics and unproductive competition between SS and the SWCD. *
>> Brief recount of my personal experiences of SWCD’s superior responsiveness,
>> customer service and education:After receiving a run-around from SS, it was
>>   the SWCD that did the stream-bank restoration on my property on Gresham
>> Ave (in the city). The SWCD also installed a 1000-gallon cistern at
>> Creekside Elementary School and at my personal residence at 301 Spring
>> Garden Drive, and the SWCD advised Grounds and Maintenance Superintendent
>> Allen Bailey with regard to the tremendous irrigation problems at Creekside
>> Elementary (we are slowly implementing their suggested long-term (that's a
>> key word) solutions). Furthermore, Mike Dupree (from the SWCD) is working
>> with Jin Ellington, the coordinator of Citizen Schools (afterschool
>> program) at Lowe’s Grove Middle School, to organize a 1/2-semester (at
>> least) workshop for the Citizen Schools that focuses on sustainable food
>> production and environmental sustainability (including education about
>> stormwater and water resources). Two other SWCD employees had a table
>> regarding the same at Creekside Elementary's Science Night this month (and
>> they weren't even being
>>   paid for their time). I could make an extensive list of the altruistic,
>> non-paid hours that SWCD staff put into education of children and the
>> public._______________________**________________________
>> 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
>> http://www.durham-inc.org/**list.html<http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html>
>>
>>
> --
> http://www.biology.duke.edu/**wilson/<http://www.biology.duke.edu/wilson/>
> New Book: http://www.**constructedclimates.org/<http://www.constructedclimates.org/>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Durham INC Mailing List
> list at durham-inc.org
> http://www.durham-inc.org/**list.html<http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html>
>



-- 
Mark Schultz
Editor
The Chapel Hill News l The Durham News
The News & Observer
919-932-2003
Facebook: facebook.com/mark.schultz.94043
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20130513/c01f74de/attachment.html>