Agenda - 03-26-2009 - 4a1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

4a-4 Caents an i~a~rch Z0~7 Dry pules ~ rordara ~es~~irp~ gage 4 ^f 5 rnechanical devices throughout the Jordan watershed that can continuously monitor stream flaws, such as the s~rean~ gauging stations installed. by the TJS, and fxequent, routine water quality rno~toring at those stations. Such devices and ~e associated rr~anita.g programs will be the only way to provide the data necessary to accurately assess the benefits ~rie~ded by changing land uses, stormwater ref~ofits, nonstr~a-ct~rral fills, etcetera. .ire such expenses covexed in existing ~w budgets or will such expenses be anorparated into Lure bndge~ 9. Fiscal ~paets R The fiscal analysis n~a~es the assumption ~ hspter 4~ p.~3~ that because "almost all municipalities in the watershed are sr~b~ect to phase Z~ requirernents and are to i~r~plen~ent new development prag~an~s beginning xnxd~ to Tate ~DD7," and because, `~v`.ually all re,aini~ag municipalities fall within water supply watersheds and i~rnplen~ent ~TS~w ~torrnwater progran~s~~'that Jordan municipalities will not incur, r~sign~ficar~t, ~uantifiable additional costs to in~p~en~ent this rile." The Fhase ~ and w'w storrrxwater programs da not have nutrient reduction xequ~rernents. Local governments will need ~aew programs and resources to addxess the nutrient reduction requirements; fide validity of this assumption musfi be questioned, . ~ 0. Fiscal impacts ~ The pay rate of $~Ihc~ur '.~ chapter ~, p.~4} used to quantify e cast of local govern~x~ents contracting assistance in preparing ordinances seems rather low. l ~. Fiscal impacts ~ Section .~~~ ~~}(a}~vi} must be alari~~ed such that ifthere exists a local governn~.ent option fax mitigation then that local option shall he ie only o~`set option that developers use. This wQUld ensure ~.iat developers will not be a~lawed to opt out of local rnitigatian programs and into tha ~~ E~ when local governments choose to chaxge a substantially higher mitigation fee than the N ~P rate. ~'hese higher ratan will be necessary to recuperate adequate funds fio suppaz~ the actual irnplerrlentatior~ of nutrient a„setting rnea.sures~ and t~i~s ~nora strinant option for the Iocal gavernnaents is supported by the language ire Section .~~~ ~3~ that describes the ol~awin standards as, "mininau,~~ and which is clearly meant . spirit to allow more stringent standards to be established by local governn~.ents. ~n foot, cla~rxfication ~rouhout those rules that local gover~rnents ha~re .e option to implement more stringent standards to achieve the nutrient reduction goals will be essential. ~~. Fiscal ~rnpacts Section .~~G~ must also be claxil"red such that any contributions to NC CEP resulting franc development occurring within a particular~urisdiction and within are ofthe three Jordan L.~e arms, or other appropriate hydrologic unit must be expended within that sane pvXitical and hydrological area of ~axdan Labe. l~; lplementation ~ delete Scction .O~G3 ~4~~b} that requbres homeowners to bear the responsibility far verifying that nutrient applicators they hixe have net the requirements off` Section ,~~G ~~(a~. Such a req~iarernent is cu.€nbersome and unrealistic. . ~4. nplementation ~ Tl~e five~year time frame for the completiar~ ofnutrient nranagen~ent training pec'id in~Section .~~~3 ~5}~a} is taa land. Local governments a~`fected by this rule are, as it is currently written, required to prepare programs den~onstrrating haw required zedr~ctions will be achieved within three gears. The nutrient n~anage~nent training time game should be no longer than three years as well, 3~~ IlV~st Main ~~reet, C~rrbore, NC ~~~~~ A~ Q~lA~ bP~~~T~~1~TY Eh~P~~YER