Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
20 <br />light of any transport factors not explicitly stated in the Hales. Will a draft version of this tool <br />be available early enough for local govemments to use in their calculations and studies? <br />5. According to Rule .0266{3)(a)(ii} the feasibility study shall propose an implementation rate <br />and schedule for toad reducing activities. Rule .0269 also allows a jurisdiction to buy <br />nutrient credits to meet its load reduction requirements. However, there are no <br />benchmarks for progress or a suggested timeline for meeting load reduction requirements. <br />How are proposed implementation rates and schedules judged to be adequate? If a <br />feasibility study indicates that load reduang activities and projects are insufficient to meet <br />reduction goals across the jurisdiction, is the jurisdiction then required to buy nutrient <br />credits to meet its goals? <br />6. What exactly constitutes °retrofitting° as referred to in §.0266(3)(a)(iv)? One assumes it <br />includes installation of new BMPs in existing developments. According to DWQ staff, <br />BMPs existing during the baseline period cannot be counted towards nutrient load <br />reduction. However, could improvement or mod cation of existing BMPs to treat nutrients <br />or increase treatment be considered for credit? Could repair of broken/poorly-functioning <br />BMPs to restore nutrient treatment capacity be considered for credit? Given the potential <br />for these activities to improve nutrient management can repair or improvement of these <br />existing BMPs be used for full or even partial nutrient credit? <br />7. When stormwater infrastructure is shared or crosses boundaries between local <br />jurisdictions, which entity bears the responsibility for nutrient reduction? Local <br />govemments, such as towns and counties, are encouraged to work with each other to <br />jointly meet loading targets in §.02fi6(3)(a)(vi), which does allow a method to address such <br />shared infrastructure. Similarly, NCDOT-maintained roads and UNC properties are <br />scattered throughout Chape! Fliil's jurisdiction such that the stormwater infrastructure of <br />these three entities is highly interconnected. However, there is no clear guidance in these <br />rules on responsibilities for nutrient reduction when stormwater infrastructure is shared <br />between local govemments and state agencies. While it would probably be highly <br />beneficial and reduce inefficiency, it is similarly unclear whether NCDOT or UNC is allowed <br />to enter into joint nutrient management agreements with local governments. <br />8. According to discussions with DWQ staff and based on similar calculations for the Neuse <br />and Tar-Pamlico, installation of a new stormwater BMP upstream of an existing BMP being <br />used for nutrient reduction has the potential to lower the nutrient removal credit for the <br />downstream BMP (through the °BMPs in series" calculations). What is the minimum <br />separation distance between BMPs in order to be considered separate? Or are nutrient <br />treatment loads for BMPs in series, even if separated, calculated only using the drainage <br />area flowing to them that doesn't already pass through a BMP? This is likely to be an <br />extraordinarily complex calculation of BMP nutrient removal. How is treatment capacity <br />managed under this scenario? <br />15A NCAC 028.0267: PROTECTION OF EXISTING RIPARIAN BUFFERS <br />In §.0267(9), Table of Uses, Vegetation Maintenance includes the removal of understory <br />nuisance vegetation as defined in "Exotic Plant Guidelines," by Cherri L Smith, Dept. of <br />Environment and Natural Resources. Division of Parks and Recreation. Raleigh, NC. This <br />reference does not provide a definition of "understory nuisance vegetation." Please <br />provide a definition or change to "invasive exotic species," which is defined in the cited <br />reference. <br />Page 5 of 9 <br />