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

Browse Search

28 Comments on March 2007 Draft Rules -Jordan Reservoir 9/17/2007 Page 4 of 5 mechanical devices throughout the Jordan watershed that can continuously monitor stream flows, such as the stream gauging stations installed by the USGS, and frequent, routine water quality monitoring at those stations. Such devices and the associated monitoring programs will be the only way to provide the data necessary to accurately assess the benefits yielded by changing land uses, stormwater retrofits, nonstructural BMPs, et cetera. Are such expenses covered in existing DWQ budgets or will such expenses be incorporated into future budgets? 9. Fiscal Impacts -The fiscal analysis makes the assumption (FA Chapter 4, p.43) that because, "almost all municipalities in the watershed are subject to Phase II requirements and are to implement new development programs beginning mid- to late 2007," and because, "virtually all remaining municipalities fall within water supply watersheds and implement WSW stormwater programs," that Jordan municipalities will not incur, "significant, quantifiable additional costs to implement this rule." The Phase II and WSW stormwater programs do not have nutrient reduction requirements. Local governments will need new programs and resources to address the nutrient reduction requirements; the validity of this assumption must be questioned. 10. Fiscal Impacts -The pay rate of $36/hour (FA Chapter 4, p.44) used to quantify the cost of local governments contracting assistance in preparing ordinances seems rather low. 11. Fiscal Impacts -Section .0265 (3)(a)(vi) must be clarified such that if there exists a local govenunent option for mitigation then that local option shall be the only offset option that developers use. This would ensure that developers will not be allowed to opt out of local mitigation programs and into the NC EEP when local governments choose to charge a substantially higher mitigation fee than the NC EEP rate. These higher rates will be necessary to recuperate adequate funds to support the actual implementation of nutrient off-setting measures, and this more stringent option for the local governments is supported by the language in Section .0265 (3) that describes the following standards as, "minimum," and which is clearly meant in spirit to allow more stringent standards to be established by local goven~unents. In fact, clarification throughout these rules that local governments have the option to implement more stringent standards to achieve the nutrient reduction goals will be essential. 12. Fiscal Impacts Section .0265 must also be clarified such that any contributions to NC EEP resulting from development occurring within a particular jurisdiction and within one of the three Jordan Lake arms, or other appropriate hydrologic unit must be expended within that same political and hydrological area of Jordan Lake. 13. Implementation -Delete Section .0263 (4)(b) that requires homeowners to bear the responsibility for verifying that nutrient applicators they hire have met the requirements of Section .0263 (4)(a). Such a requirement is cumbersome and unrealistic. 14. Implementation -The five-year time frame for the completion of nutrient management training specified in Section .0263 (5)(a) is too long. Local governments affected by this rule are, as it is currently written, required to prepare programs demonstrating how required reductions will be achieved within three years. The nutrient management training time frame should be no longer than three years as well. 301 West Main Street, Carrboro, NC 27510 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER