Notes for communicating with the Mayor and Commission on riparian buffers:
Regarding the Mayor-appointed committee’s recommendations
 25 foot buffers for lakes and ponds is insufficiently protective, particularly in light of storage of
sediment, nutrients, and other pollutants in these water bodies.
 Wetlands provide a natural mechanism for improving water quality free of cost! Buffers help
maintain these crucial ecosystems. Under a recent GA Supreme Court ruling, state buffers do
not apply to wetlands, which make local buffers much more important.
 Buffer-averaging could provide an undue impact to buffers, if there are not stipulations.
Important components of a buffer averaging program would include: (1) a maximum level of
impact into the buffer and along the buffer, (2) a planting program for the remaining buffer, and
(3) oversight by ACC’s Planning Department.
Regarding Commission Girtz’s proposal
 A minimum wetland buffer should be instituted immediately, not “in the near-term.” Ideally
this would be a minimum of 50-feet, although 25-feet is more likely to be approved by the
Mayor and Commission without further “study time.”
 This proposal addresses most of the issues surrounding buffer averaging, but there is currently
not consideration of a maximum “shoreline distance” of impact.
 The “target buffer” proposal is intriguing. My reading is that it would also cover agricultural
zoning, which is currently exempt from buffer requirements. If this is the case, this proposal is a
SIGNIFICANT improvement to current policies. If not, this is an incremental improvement to
lake, pond, and wetland buffering.
 The “in lieu” mitigation proposal is not directly related to buffers, but instead focuses on how
wetlands are regulated by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Currently, a wetland may be
impacted in Clarke County and a replacement constructed in Greene County more than 40 miles
away. An “in lieu” program would encourage local offset to environmental impacts. Currently,
we are exporting our ecosystems to Greene County, so this represents a strong improvement to
wetland management.
Value of buffers
 Riparian buffers provide an important mechanism for protecting local water quality. According
to the UGA River Basin Center, “most scientific recommendations for minimum buffer widths
range from 15 meters (about 50 feet) to 30 meters (about 100 feet)” (Wenger and Fowler 2000).
 Other water quality notes:
o ACC has 80 miles of “impaired waters” in 122 square miles of county, which have
unacceptably high levels of fecal coliform making them unsafe for fishing and swimming.
 Impaired waters map: https://www.athensclarkecounty.com/6100/WatershedsMap
o ACC Stormwater’s annual budget is $2.9M (FY16 Budget, Page C-108). Would this
taxpayer cost go down with increased buffers? It seems likely…










ACC Stormwater’s homepage on the value of stream buffers:
https://www.athensclarkecounty.com/3105/Stream-Buffers
o Watershed restoration is significantly more costly than preservation and conservation.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
o Our tiny county has more species of fish than the Colorado River basin!
Buffers reduce the risk of flood damages by providing “room for the river.” This is particularly
important as we cope with the coming challenges of uncertain levels of climate change.
We live in a developed county. Riparian buffers provide an opportunity for wildlife habitat and
corridors for movement.
Buffers put the “green” in the Greenway. The Greenway has been a source of significant
investment by the county and taxpayers. Without riparian buffers, the Greenway is little more
than a sidewalk that floods. Public greenspace has proven time and again to enhance, not
detract from community development nationwide. Buffers not only contribute to that goal, but
provide an opportunity for greenspace in lands of marginal quality for development.
Greenspace helps regulate temperatures and reduce the “urban heat island.” I like it when my
power bill is lower, and I suspect others do too.
Someone always lives downstream. If our downstream neighbors could vote on our buffer
ordinance, I suspect they would support higher water quality coming into their communities.
Lakes, ponds, and wetlands are connected parts of the county’s water system. Since we agree
on the value of stream buffers, the logical connection is to also support other buffers.
There is an opportunity cost for development. However, by reducing buffers, we are foreclosing
opportunities for future generations. Seizing opportunities for ourselves at the cost to future
generations is ethically questionable (at best).
We have had 75 foot stream buffers for nearly a decade, and our community has grown by
thousands and been recognized by a half-dozen groups as “business friendly.” Atlanta has 75
wetland foot buffers, and I don’t think anyone would describe its growth as “stifled”.
The Mayor and Commission have the following stated goals for their actions:
o “Goal A: Engage the community in a visioning process rather than announcing the
Mayor and Commission’s plan.”
 Has the community been engaged in this buffer regulation? Are public meeting
comments really “engagement in visioning”?
o “Goal B: Provide infrastructure that is supportive of sustainable growth, is
environmentally sensitive, and is fiscally sound.”
 Energy conservation is about reduced use, which buffers can contribute to.
 Water conservation is more than not flushing the toilet. Watershed
management is good for protecting our water supply and good for the
environment.