Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
18 <br />7. Revise §.0265(3)(a)(i) by adding the following underlined language: stormwater BMPs <br />and/or Offsets are empfoyed such that "Nitrogen and phosphorus loads contributed by the <br />proposed new development activity shall not exceed certain unit-area mass loading rates," <br />"based on BMP efficiencies published by the Division of Water Quality. Requirements for <br />urban stormwater, both new development and existing development, need to reflect the <br />use of best management practices to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum <br />extent practicable. This is consistent with the approach and language in the federal Clean <br />Water Act (§ 402(p)(3}(B)) and the associated federal regulations addressing urban <br />stormwater under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. <br />2. Similarly, revise the reference to a water quality standard at §.0265(3}(a)ril) by deleting the <br />following language (st~ilEet#feuglm): " <br />' A <br />3. According to Rufe .0265(3)(a)(vi), developers may use an offset option for nutrient loading <br />contingent on the acceptance of their proposals by the NC Ecosystem Enhancement <br />Program (§.0240(a}). Both nutrient loading offset payments and riparian mitigation <br />payments only have the restriction fo be used for projects in the same river basin as the <br />impact, but not the specific restriction to the same Jordan subwatershed as the impact. <br />Similarly, the mitigation options of donated real property and restoration/enhancement of <br />non-forested riparian buffer are required only to be loca#ed "the same distance from the <br />Jordan Reservoir as the proposed impact, or closer to the Reservoir than the impact..." as <br />stated in §.0268(4) with no restriction to the same Jordan subwatershed as the impact. <br />Do local governments have the authority to restrict the use of impact payments or <br />mitigatiion projectslproperty for developments in their jurisdictions or to require that they be <br />used/created in the same Jordan subwatershed as the impact? This would be consistent <br />with §.0269{2)(b}, in which parties seeking to sell excess loading reductions (credits) may <br />make them available only in the same subwatershed as the impact. <br />4. Annual reports (from regulated parties} are specified in the rules at §.0265(4)(e) and <br />§.0266(4)(h), but there are no details in the rules regarding exactly what regulated parties <br />need to track and what/how to report it. Wilt instructions or guidance on annual reports be <br />included in the State's model stormwater program and ordinance and/or the "tool" <br />developed for nutrient reduction calculation? <br />5. The efficiencies assigned to urban stormwater BMPs for new development and existing <br />development in the fiscal analysis appear to be lower than those assigned to comparable <br />agricultural BMPs (e.g., filter strips, buffers). The urban BMP efficiencies need to be <br />revised upward. <br />15A NCAC 02B.0266: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FOR EXISTING DEVELOPMENT <br />Section .0266(3)(a)(i) should be revised with the following added (underlined) or deleted <br />(str3lFet#~eag#) language: "In addressing this long-term objective, a local government shall <br />include estimates of, and plans for offsetting, nutrient loading increases from lands <br />developed prior to implementation of yew <br />f these rules.' Implementation may have occurred at anv time <br />Page 3 of 9 <br />