By Dickson Phillips and Tom Cors
The draft alignment of the proposed Bolin Creek greenway was presented at the Century Center on Sept. 21. The proposed alignment opts for the “creekside†route in preference to the upland forest route. The bases for and stated purposes of this route selection do not seem to be supported by the facts, and we think are contrary to the long-term interests of the community and to the Bolin Creek corridor.
First, the preference for the creekside route was said to reflect the preference of the attendees at the May 20 workshop. However, an analysis of the limited sample does not support that conclusion. In fact, while the favorable opinions for the upland route were roughly in the same proportion as for the creekside route, more than double the proportion of attendees strongly opposed the creekside route than the upland route (7 of 28 responders, or 24 percent, rated the creekside route between 1 and 3 on the scale of 10, while only 3 of 26, or 11 percent, rated the upland route at 1 to 3). This reflects that while both routes would apparently be pleasing to roughly the same proportion of people (to the extent the sample has validity), a higher proportion of interested parties strongly oppose the creekside route than oppose the upland route. This level of opposition should have led to a preference being stated for the upland route rather than for the creekside route.
Further, the reasons for the opposition to the creekside route are substantial and relate to the harm that would be caused to the corridor (both temporary and permanent) by the construction of a significant hardened route through the length of the creek. In that regard, while the staff and the others involved to date have presented the creekside route as having environmental benefits – indeed, benefits to the creek and preservation of the natural area are featured as reasons for the project superior to transportation – as staff and the Greenways Commission know, the project is a N.C. DOT-funded project, which prescribes a transportation purpose and transportation-related conditions. Project funds are specifically not granted for construction of a greenway and very clearly are not available for buffer restoration or stream-bank improvements.
In fact, the DOT-imposed conditions for a hardened surface of a minimum 10-foot width, which would run approximately two and one half miles, would introduce roughly three acres of pavement into the Bolin Creek riparian buffer.
This new impervious surface may well cause more environmental harm than benefit by acting as a more efficient surface for transport of runoff into the creek. The paved surface may also promote erosive flow in some areas and will promote the addition of nutrients to the creek due to the increased pet traffic to be anticipated. Further, although certain areas of the existing creek buffer zone may be proposed to be closed temporarily, in general it should be expected that trails will continue to be formed in the unpaved areas of the buffer and that the existing problem of erosion and sedimentation in the creek will not be solved.
(The fundamental cause is the use of the buffer for OWASA easements, which precludes restoration of a forested buffer whether or not this transportation route is constructed.)
Virtually lost in the town’s calculus appears to be the harm to the natural environment threatened by this project. The Bolin Creek corridor from Estes Road to Homestead Road runs through a 1,000-acre forested heart of our increasingly urbanizing area. Peter White, director of the N.C. Botanical Garden, calls this corridor our “Great Smoky Mountains†due to its biodiversity. The area is greatly enjoyed and appreciated for its natural area qualities, whether for recreation, hobby or science. Although hardly pristine or untouched by past and present human activity, it nevertheless contains areas of high-value upland and lowland forests, wetlands and a riparian zone that, together with its sheer expanse, create a relative urban wilderness. For the simple value of preserving and protecting this area, we should not introduce the proposed three acres of pavement, which will have both obvious and subtle adverse effects on the semi-wild character of the corridor.
Finally, a significant legal and policy problem exists with the proposed alignment. Under the new Jordan Reservoir Nutrient Management Rules, as of Aug. 11, the town is not permitted to undertake construction of a hardened path in the 50-foot riparian buffer of Bolin Creek without a certification from the state that there was “no practical alternative†that would cause less disturbance to the buffer (15A NCAC 02B.0267(11)). By definition, one such alternative exists in the upland route, and there are others. Therefore, should the town attempt to pursue the creekside route, the state should deny the certification.
The town should get its purposes straight and attend to each separately. By all means, try to find funds (as the economy improves) to do what can be done to improve the Bolin Creek riparian buffer and to restore damaged stream banks.
There are many measures that can be taken, including tree and other plantings to the extent consistent with the OWASA easement, natural-surface path improvement, erosion-control devices constructed from natural materials, diffuse flow measures and stream-bank restoration. Seek other sources of funding for those measures. DOT’s money is for transportation, not for environmental rehabilitation. If the town desires transportation and “connectivity,†do so along existing transportation corridors such as Seawell School Road, and don’t do harm to our high-value natural area under the guise of illusory environmental benefits.
So much for the incumbent Mayor and Aldermen who crow about their environmental record.
Sounds like a disaster to me.
It is time to vote in people who really care about Bolin Creek rather than just talk about it.