Browse
Search
Agenda - 03-17-2009 - 7a
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2009
>
Agenda - 03-17-2009
>
Agenda - 03-17-2009 - 7a
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/16/2009 2:41:45 PM
Creation date
3/16/2009 2:41:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
3/17/2009
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
7a
Document Relationships
Minutes - 20090317
(Linked From)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
19 <br />before durin4 or after the baseline period and compliance shall be contingent on the <br />continued implementation and maintenance of such practices. <br />This language is needed to acknowledge the efforts made by those jurisdictions that have <br />implemented stormwater and buffer requirements for many years prior to these regulations <br />arxi it is consistent with language contained in §.0264(7) for agriculture. <br />The Town has been a local leader in adopting environmental protection practices such as <br />stream buffers, runoff volume and rate control, total suspended solids in runoff control, <br />treelforest stand protection, erosion and sedimentation control, and a variety of practices <br />now known as Low Impact Development which includes cluster development, pedestrian- <br />and transit-oriented development layout, lot-level stomlwater management, etc. The Town <br />has been implementing these progressive planning and stormwater management practices <br />over the past two decades but will only get "credit" for stormwater management installed <br />from 2002 onwards. Furthermore, since the Town has already required buffers and BMPs <br />in recent developments, the "easy projects" to increase nutrient removal in existing <br />developments are already done, leaving the Town with fewer locations and options for <br />installing BMPs or restoring riparian buffers. <br />2. Section .0266(3)(a)(i) notes that local governments may seek supplemental funding for <br />implementation of load-reducing activities through grant sources such as the North. <br />Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund, the North Carolina Clean Water Act <br />Section 319 Grant Program, or other funding programs far nonpoint sources. What <br />funding sources is the State identifying or making available for the performance of the <br />feasibility studies? <br />As the area under the Town of Chapel Hill's planning jurisdiction is more than 93% <br />developed (Source: Chapel Hill Data Book, 2007), this requirement has significant fiscal <br />and practicable impacts for the town. <br />The Fiscal Analysis states a total cost of $1.7M for conducting the planning studies (Table <br />RP.3 Annual Planning Costs/Savings, for local government); however, this estimate is too <br />low and needs to be revised. <br />3. Rule .0266(3)(a){ii) states that a locally-conducted feasibility study will determine the extent <br />to which the loading goals may be achieved from existing development. Is this equivalent <br />to the standard engineering definition of "maximum extent practicable" or an extent <br />cxarrently technologically feasible? <br />Does feasibility in this case include some measure of financial cost? Is there a penalty for <br />a jurisdiction if the feasibility study determines that the loading reduction goals cannot be <br />met across the entire jurisdiction practicably? Will local govemments need to undertake the <br />full set of BMP installations whether or not it is practicable and whether or not it actually <br />reduces nitrogen exports to the lake? <br />4. .The nu#rient accounting tool referred to in §.0265(4}(a) is to be developed by DWQ within <br />12 months after the effective date of the Rule. According to §.0266(3)(a)(i} local <br />govemments must include estimates of and plans for offsetting nutrient loading increases <br />from lands developed subsequent to the baseline period but prior to implementation of new <br />development programs. According to §.0266((3}{a}(ii) a feasibility study to determine the <br />extent to which loading goals may be achieved from existing development must be <br />conducted by local governments. In order to estimate nutrient loads from redently- <br />developed lands and to conduct a feasibility study, local govemments should be using the <br />same loading calculation methods that will be in the nutrient accounting tool, especially in <br />Page 4 of 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.