This week’s September 20 Greenways Commission meeting got me thinking; they always do. I realized something –
Everyone from all sides agree on some key goals for our community.
- More bike use
- Lower carbon footprint
- Increased access for all
- Improved water quality
- Ensuring space for wild species
- More fun for people
- What have I missed?
Save Bolin Creek’s opponents are clearly concerned that these goals can’t be met without paving. Not true.
Our plan will work.
- Bike paths are connected into Carolina North via bike paths along the side of Seawell School Road.
- Bike transportation safety standards are met all around town within these bike lanes and paths.
- The UNC Tripp Farm connector trail that will cross Bolin Creek will be accessible to all and will travel through the heart of the forest. It provides a level entrance to the forest.
- Water quality is enhanced because funds that were granted to the town, through EPA, the State and Friends of Bolin Creek, can be applied to less costly projects that seek to reestablish native vegetation and control erosion.
- Remediating trails feeding down from the hills into the valley reduces soil runoff, directly improving water quality.
The reasons why paving will not work are these.
- Invasive species are introduced with construction disturbance and increased light penetration of the forest, although it is species dependent (and yes, there are already invasives in the forest).
- The assertion that paving would help is superficially plausible, but actually wrong. Hardened structures near the creek result in greater problems to water quality. No data has been presented or can be found to support improved water quality with paving. Note that current streams that have paved greenways next to them are impaired or 303d listed. If paving were good for water quality where is the expected improvement for these waterways?
- We’ve learned from the state that given that excellent alternatives are available, disturbance within the buffer won’t be allowed. Any contemplated pavement project would clear an additional 30 feet when added to the cleared OWASA easement. Visualize the impact to the forest of a cleared area over 50 feet wide running for over 2 miles along Bolin Creek.
- Cutting down the trees this close to the stream will result in loss of tree cover over the water. The result (and don’t take our word, do some further reading) is a chain reaction:
- increased light penetration to the water
- increased water temperatures
- decreased dissolved Oxygen in the water
- higher algae growth
- degradation of water quality and habitat
- loss of biodiversity in the stream
- finally, with lower food chain numbers shrinking, larger animals move on
I’m sure this debate will continue. Knowing what we do agree on will help us find a solution agreeable to all.
Contributor
Michael Birenbach
mary sonis
rcrook
Linda Haac
Thank you. Clear and cohesive conversation about this “paving vs. non-paving” debate is most welcome. I applaud your sticking to the facts and the rational presentation that points out our commonalities as well as the impracticalities. Finally! I hope everyone – from both “sides” – reads this post.
Very well said. It’s been frustrating to see facts and other important information about what is really practical and beneficial get buried in the impassioned response of the community and the Commission. Good job sorting all that out, Rob, and presenting the basics in this situation.
this is an excellent summary…and it sticks to the basics…everyone should read this! Thank you Rob.
Rob, thank you. I really like your point about ideas being “superficially plausible.” In the Greenways, Inc. report, they state many points that are superficially plausible, but the points are in fact not true. Examples are that the wildlife will be helped by acres of concrete, or that it will stabilize the soil.
The same with the presentation by the Carrboro Advocates for Greenways. In the presentation they said that concrete will help stabilize the riparian zone. They threw out a lot of statements that seemed logical, but when you think about — or read the scientific literature — it isn’t true. Most people aren’t deeply versed in these issues, so a post like yours is valuable to this discussion. Thanks!