|
Here’s a letter that was recently sent to Richland County Council by the Gill’s Creek Watershed Association (see below). FYI, most of Rosewood falls in Councilman Greg Pearce’s district, some in Councilwoman Kit Smith’s.
“Dear Members of [Richland] County Council,
You have been inundated by calls and emails that question the proposed staff version of the stormwater ordinance revisions to be considered at 7:00pm tomorrow in Council chambers. Below are answers to these questions/charges that should help you in making your decisions. As you know, the Richland County Conservation Commission (I represent District 8 on the Conservation Commission) has unanimously endorsed the staff version of the stormwater revisions. Carol Kososki, Vice Chair, Richland County Conservation Commission and Vice Chair, Gills Creek Watershed Association
The wider the buffer, the greater the benefit. The Planning Commission ordinance has approved 25-foot buffers recommended by the Homebuilders Association. For permanent streams, the county staff has recommended 100-foot buffers or the width of the floodway, whichever is wider; the buffer is 50-feet for intermittent streams and most lakes and wetlands. The Homebuilders Association has falsely reported that the 100-foot buffer confers no additional environmental benefits to 25-foot buffers. Here are some counter-arguments with references:
A 25-foot buffer has poor habitat value (SCDHEC)
A 25-foot buffer minimally protects streamside habitat (SCDHEC)
A 50-foot buffer has minimal general wildlife and bird habitat (SCDHEC)
A 100-foot buffer has some use as a wildlife travel corridor and general bird habitat (SCDHEC)
A 300-foot buffer has good general wildlife value and may protect significant wildlife habitat (SCDHEC)
A national survey showed that 100 feet was the median statutory buffer width (SCDHEC)
Stream and river corridors should have a minimum width of 100 feet for 70% of their reach (Univ. of Washington-SCDHEC)
Expensive flood control methods are less likely to be necessary if the buffer includes the floodplain (Center for Watershed Policy)
Buffers must be at least 50 feet wide to effectively trap and remove sediments and contaminants in stormwater, and maintain fish and wildlife habitat (Land Use Clinic–Univ. of Georgia)
100-foot buffers will trap sediments under most circumstances (Land Use Clinic-Univ. of Georgia)
In most cases, 100-foot buffers should provide good control of phosphorus and nitrogen
35-100 foot buffers of native forest should be preserved or restored along all stream to maintain aquatic habitats (Land Use Clinic-Univ. of Georgia)
300-foot buffers of native forest are necessary to protect land animals that live near streams. (Land Use Clinic-Univ. of GA)
Trout streams need buffers at least 100 feet wide to maintain viable trout populations (Land Use Clinic-Univ. of GA)
Endorsements. County staff reports that its buffer recommendations have been endorsed by:
SCDHEC (approval letter with commendation)
Center for Watershed Protection (Memo endorsing staff recommendation)
Friends of Congaree Swamp (Letters to Council)
Gills Creek Watershed Association (Letter to Council)
Richland County Conservation Commission (Letter to Council)
Richland County Neighborhood Council (Unanimous voting)
Carolina Clear (Clemson Extension)
Lexington County (For Uniformity in Midlands Region)
Calhoun County and other adjacent Counties (Enquiring and eagerly watching our process to adopt same language in their Ordinances)
Congaree National Park and streamside buffers. Most waters within the park are Outstanding Resource Waters, while Cedar Creek is the state’s only designated Outstanding National Resource Waters. The park’s water resources can only be protected if the streams flowing into the park are managed responsibly. Sensible streamside buffers are an effective and economical method for protecting the Park’s waters and enforcing its Outstanding Resource Waters designation.
Density compensation and conservation easements. Richland County has a density compensation ordinance on the books–the so-called “Green Code” (Section 26-184(c)), which allows increased housing density for preservation of green space; e.g. buffers. There are many ways to measure indirect economic benefits of buffers, but this is a direct measure of economic impact. Transfer of conservation easements for greenspace also have a direct tax benefit for landowners.
Buffer impact. County staff had initially reported the buffers proposed by the new ordinance would protect 27000 acres (~5%) of Richland County lands. Just recently, the staff computed the difference between land protected by the current buffers and the land protected by the proposed buffer ordinance–it is at most 9000 acres–less than 2% of Richland County’s land area. This is a modest price to pay for the benefits that wider buffers would confer, including environmental protection (see comments above) and increased opportunities for recreation access (e.g., greenways).
SCDHEC Consent Order. Richland County has to pay $830,000 in fines for violating the Pollution Control Act and Water Pollution Control Permits, and will pay additional fines for failing to implement various measures in the consent order. Given SCDHEC’s endorsement of the county staff’s amendments (and SCDHEC’s silence on the planning commission’s amendments), Council should adopt the staff’s amendments.” (end)
AND, here’s an invitation to attend the hearing Wednesday, November 26:
“This matter will come before Council for a public hearing tomorrow at 7:00pm in Council Chambers, 2020 Hampton St. [The above email] offers important information that counters objections to the staff version of the stormwater revisions. Please help improve water quality in Richland County by coming to the public hearing tomorrow evening and getting in touch with your member of Council by email or telephone.
Carol Kososki, District 8 Representative Richland County Conservation Commission, Vice Chair, Gills Creek Watershed Association”
|
Meeting Dates