Statement of the Cape Fear Riverkeeper before the Wilmington City Council on rezoning to accommodate the proposed Gateway Project
Cape Fear River Watch is in a unique position. We own property directly attached to the proposed Gateway Project and are also an environmental organization that has been asked to take a position on the rezoning effort.
The Gateway Project as presented does indeed appear to be forward looking and it seems that an attempt is being made to be environmentally sensitive. For instance, the idea of using underground tanks for the reclamation of stormwater is indeed potentially a way to mitigate some of the affect of a high density development. The offer to maximize green space and open it to the public is attractive.
However, from an environmental perspective we do need to point out our concerns. On Tuesday, September 7, 2004 City Council adopted the City’s first Future Land Use Plan. The Plan was accepted and portrayed to the public as the guide for the physical development of the City over the next twenty years. The plan was developed following a series of more than 80 meetings and input from more than 600 citizens.
In this plan you agreed that to protect the Cape Fear River, development should limit impervious surface coverage to 25% in Watershed Resource and Conservation Areas. You then made an allowance to this guideline for projects that conformed to adopted �exceptional design standards for enhanced stormwater controls.� A series of necessary elements required for exceptionally designed projects was determined. These items were said to be baseline requirements which must be met in order for any development to be considered as an exceptionally designed project.
When the River Front Mixed Use zoning district was established another exception to the suggested standard was adopted and the maximum 25% impervious surface coverage was increased to 50% if exceptional design standards could be demonstrated.
From our position City Council, expected and has always asked the same thing that we are asking. That is for the applicant to be prepared and willing to make the necessary investment to explain and document in detail any technology that is being proposed as an �exceptional design.� Demonstrate that it is a proven and workable technology that will protect the environment, and the water quality of our river.
We believe that any �exceptional design� must be understood at a level that will allow for it to be documented and incorporated into the list of special considerations for development in an RFMU zoned area or area blanketed by the City�s Future Land Use Plan. Our concern is that this has not been done and that if the request is approved you are setting a precedence. One that weakens the City�s Future Land Use Plan and does not provide the level of protection to our river that was intended when the River Front Mixed Use zoning district was established.
In conclusion we are pleased that the applicant has expressed a desire to be environmentally sensitive. We are also encouraged that they have reached out to consult with Cape Fear River Watch for our review and input. Our concerns are that we do not feel that sufficient detail is provided to define the special use of the property and waterfront to satisfy the rezoning request. The density of the project is our second most concern. In short if the rezoning is permitted based on an artist rendering versus engineering drawings then the expression �the devil is in detail� may come to haunt us. If the project is approved and the infrastructure can not support the density and traffic the Gateway to the city may instead become a Gate to the city.
Attachment A
Stormwater Controls. Reduce total pollutant load leaving the site and minimize changes in overall site hydrology by use of LID techniques, or a combination of LID and conventional techniques.
To qualify for bonus points in this category, the following guidelines shall be met:
(1) Site design and impervious cover reduction practices shall be used to the maximum extent practicable to minimize runoff volume;
(2) Serial combinations of the following techniques shall be used to result in a post development time of concentration (Tc) equal to the pre-development Tc:
a. Vegetated swale conveyance of runoff;
b. Disconnecting impervious surfaces;
c. Lengthening of flow pat;
d. Increasing resistance (roughness) of flow path;
e. Maximize use of sheet flow over vegetated surface;
f. Increase flow over pervious soils to increase filtration;
g. Flattening grades;
h. Use of decentralized bio-infiltration, and infiltration, and storage (cisterns);
i. Iterations and combinations of the above as approved by the City Manager.
(3) The entire retention storage volume must be retained and infiltrated.
(4) All added landscaping areas shall be made hydrologically functional for retention.
(5) The stormwater management plan shall include an approved maintenance plan and schedule.
Support Your Local RiverKeeper
Support Your Local Riverkeeper
Friday, November 30, 2007
Cape Fear River Watch
Dear River Watch Supporter:
We are asking for you to support your Riverkeeper at the upcoming County Commissioner’s meeting. The meeting will be held on Monday December, 3rd at the New Hanover Courthouse, 24N Third Street, Wilmington, NC at 5:30 PM. Doug Springer and Cape Fear River Watch are concerned with a proposal to modify the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan to allow for higher density development of designated Conservation Area on the Wilmington downtown riverfront.
Doug’s plan is to make a public statement that we expect and hope the Commissioners and Planning Board will use the CAMA Land Use Plan as their guiding principle when developing ordinances such as the Riverfront Mixed Use (RFMU) zoning ordinance. If they don’t respect it, then the plan and all the efforts to develop it were done in waste. If instances arise where it must be modified, it should be done with great scrutiny and not taken lightly. Agenda item (1.4) is an example of where the proposal is to modify the Plan which should be the guiding principle versus modifying the ordinance to meet the plan.
Secondly, Doug will explain that the Overlay District created to define specific areas that are eligible for consideration for zoning as RFMU needs to be evaluated and modified. We feel that one specific area that is included in the Overlay should be removed. That is the area that is directly north of the battleship. It is an estuary and prime fishing area located at the confluence of the Northwest and Northeast branches of the Cape Fear Rivers. This area is also one of the few marsh areas that are visible from downtown Wilmington. This area is owned by the state of North Carolina and could be removed without impacting a private citizen or developer.
In closing we will inform the Commissioners that the January Coastal Resource Committee meeting will be dedicated to strategic items and agenda items such as this will be pushed to the March meeting. This gives the Board time to allow staff to further review this agenda item. Additionally, we will state that our understanding is that the Commissioners could, in this session, make a motion to remove the area we consider wrongfully classified as part of the Overlay District from the RFMU…
If you should have any questions or any thoughts feel free to email us at:
The meeting agenda is available at:
http://webapps.nhcgov.com/weblink7/DocView.aspx?id=166626&dbid=0.
December First Saturday
Fish of the Cape Fear
Simba will focus his presentation on the Striped Bass, Shad and the endangered Short-Nose Sturgeon, all native to the Cape Fear River. These three species need both fresh and saltwater at different times in their reproductive cycles.
Simba Glass is an especially enthusiastic Aquarium Educator. He is as passionate about fishing as most aquarists are about fish. Swamps, lakes, rivers, estuaries and the mighty ocean – Simba fishes all of it. He has an astonishing knowledge of fish, their habits and habitats.
This is a wonderful opportunity to learn about these three species in our local waters.
This Cape Fear River Watch Program is co-sponsored by the City of Wilmington Stormwater Services and the North Carolina Aquarium at Fort Fisher. Please call 910 762-5606 for more information.
Cape Fear River Watch has been working to protect and improve the water quality of the Cape Fear River basin since 1993. Please come and meet our Riverkeeper, Doug Springer. River Watch is a member of the Water Keeper Alliance and we offer a variety of Environmental Education, Action and Advocacy programs for all residents within the Cape Fear watershed.
Please call Joe Abbate, Program Coordinator, for more information 910 762-5606.
RiverKeeper to DENR: We’ve Got Some Questions
Secretary William G. Ross
North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
Dear Secretary William G. Ross,
Cape Fear River Watch, Inc. is one of the public interest not-for-profit organizations that has been participating as a partner in a group that formed out of concerns about the production and monitoring of Ammonium perfluorooctanoate acid (APFO) or C8 at the DuPont Fayetteville Works production facility. As the newly appointed Cape Fear Riverkeeper I have several questions about North Carolina�s role in monitoring the production of APFO and in assuring public health and safety. Cape Fear River Watch has determined that the production of C8 in the Cape Fear Watershed is a substantial threat to the Cape Fear River given that this is the only production facility in the United States, DuPont�s history with respect to C8 discharges to ground and surface water in Ohio and West Virginia, the Environmental Protection Agency�s finding that C8 is a likely carcinogen, and their Global Stewardship Program which has called for the elimination of public exposure to C8 the year 2015.
My first question is about the discharge of C8 into the ground water that was reported to the State in 2005. It is my understanding that this discharge was investigated by DuPont and that the results of this investigation were reviewed by both NCDENR and the EPA. What are the results of this investigation? Was the source of the discharge determined? If so has that been remediated and are there safeguards in place to assure that future discharges can be quickly identified, reported and corrected?
The second question is in regards to the EPA Global Stewardship Program. Through this program companies to reduce PFOA releases and its presence in products by 95% no later than 2010, and to eliminate PFOA as a source of exposure by 2015.
The EPA asked the following of the companies volunteering to participate:
- Provide their commitment by March 1st, 2006.
- To submit their year 2000 baseline numbers for emissions and product content by October 31st, 2006.
- To submit annual public reports on their progress toward the goals due in October of each successive year. .
- To ensure comparable reporting of reductions, participating companies must commit to work with EPA and others to develop and agree upon analytical standards and laboratory methods.
Is the State of North Carolina through NCDENR involved with and monitoring the companies who have volunteered to participate in the Global Stewardship Program? Is the DuPont Company participating? If so have they submitted their year 2000 base line numbers and their first annual report? Are copies of these now available to the public?
My third question has to do with the Interim C8 Ground Water Standard that has been established by NCDENR. Establishment of an Interim Ground Water Standard for C8 at 2 parts per billion came as a surprise to water quality advocacy groups. Why did NCDENR determine it is in the best interest of North Carolina citizens to set an interim ground water standard for C8? What is the current status of this interim standard? How long will this interim standard be in effect? What are the requirements for North Carolina to establish a permanent legal ground water standard for Ammonium perfluorooctanoate acid, C8 and are there opportunities for public review and comments built into the process for establishing ground water standards.
My final question is about the amount of sediment carried into the Cape Fear River along with the discharge water from the DuPont Fayetteville Works plant. I understand that this an issue that was brought up through public comments made as part of the process of reviewing and renewing the North Carolina Discharge Permit for the DuPont Fayetteville facility. In response to these comments NCDENR stated that DuPont was presenting options to reduce the amount of sediment delivered to the Cape Fear River along with their discharge water. At that time NCDENR stated that it was not able to share these alternatives with the public. Dupont has indicated to me that they presented an alternative for handling its discharge water and the ball is in your hands for evaluation and modeling? If so can they now be shared with the public and will there be provisions for public review and comments on the alternatives presented and the NCDENR evaluation of these alternatives?
I appreciate the time and staff effort that will be required to respond to my questions. The responses to these questions will help me guide and direct Cape Fear River Watch�s efforts to work with NCDENR to improve the quality and vitality of the Cape Fear River. A thorough and accurate understanding of everything the North Carolina is doing to protect this valuable river and the people who live, work, and play on the river is critical to determining how Cape Fear River Watch�s advocacy can be applied to complement and augment the State of North Carolina�s work to secure the future of this valuable natural resource.
Sincerely yours,
Douglas Springer
Riverkeeper
Cape Fear River Watch, Inc.
