Agenda - 03-17-2009 - 7a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

19 before durin4 or after the baseline period and compliance shall be contingent on the continued implementation and maintenance of such practices. This language is needed to acknowledge the efforts made by those jurisdictions that have implemented stormwater and buffer requirements for many years prior to these regulations arxi it is consistent with language contained in §.0264(7) for agriculture. The Town has been a local leader in adopting environmental protection practices such as stream buffers, runoff volume and rate control, total suspended solids in runoff control, treelforest stand protection, erosion and sedimentation control, and a variety of practices now known as Low Impact Development which includes cluster development, pedestrian- and transit-oriented development layout, lot-level stomlwater management, etc. The Town has been implementing these progressive planning and stormwater management practices over the past two decades but will only get "credit" for stormwater management installed from 2002 onwards. Furthermore, since the Town has already required buffers and BMPs in recent developments, the "easy projects" to increase nutrient removal in existing developments are already done, leaving the Town with fewer locations and options for installing BMPs or restoring riparian buffers. 2. Section .0266(3)(a)(i) notes that local governments may seek supplemental funding for implementation of load-reducing activities through grant sources such as the North. Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund, the North Carolina Clean Water Act Section 319 Grant Program, or other funding programs far nonpoint sources. What funding sources is the State identifying or making available for the performance of the feasibility studies? As the area under the Town of Chapel Hill's planning jurisdiction is more than 93% developed (Source: Chapel Hill Data Book, 2007), this requirement has significant fiscal and practicable impacts for the town. The Fiscal Analysis states a total cost of $1.7M for conducting the planning studies (Table RP.3 Annual Planning Costs/Savings, for local government); however, this estimate is too low and needs to be revised. 3. Rule .0266(3)(a){ii) states that a locally-conducted feasibility study will determine the extent to which the loading goals may be achieved from existing development. Is this equivalent to the standard engineering definition of "maximum extent practicable" or an extent cxarrently technologically feasible? Does feasibility in this case include some measure of financial cost? Is there a penalty for a jurisdiction if the feasibility study determines that the loading reduction goals cannot be met across the entire jurisdiction practicably? Will local govemments need to undertake the full set of BMP installations whether or not it is practicable and whether or not it actually reduces nitrogen exports to the lake? 4. .The nu#rient accounting tool referred to in §.0265(4}(a) is to be developed by DWQ within 12 months after the effective date of the Rule. According to §.0266(3)(a)(i} local govemments must include estimates of and plans for offsetting nutrient loading increases from lands developed subsequent to the baseline period but prior to implementation of new development programs. According to §.0266((3}{a}(ii) a feasibility study to determine the extent to which loading goals may be achieved from existing development must be conducted by local governments. In order to estimate nutrient loads from redently- developed lands and to conduct a feasibility study, local govemments should be using the same loading calculation methods that will be in the nutrient accounting tool, especially in Page 4 of 9