Agenda - 03-26-2009 - 4a2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

4a-9 currently three at the "bottom" of the drainage area. Furthermore, the watershed model which vuas used to model sources of nutrients in the three respecti~re watersheds was not to be revised. currently, the ~ratershed model is of insufficient scale and precision for any kind of targeted management practical, such as to allow local governments the ability to trace and correct highly localised sources Qf nutrients or determine true land use nutrient loading rates ~ratherthan using published sources, none of which era calibrated far our soils and geology}. Devising the lake model alone would not contribute the kind of information needed for adaptive management. one possibility proposed by stakeholders prior to the first publication of the Rules in ~~~5 was the removal of the Farrington Road ~~ ~ 40~} causeway that crosses the lake. The .causeway turns the Upper New Hope Arm into a de facto stormwnter forebay for the Louver New Hope Arr. The narrov~r opening of the causev~ay limits the flow of water out of the Upper New Hope Arm, landing to a residence time of aver a year. This nearly stagnant flow leads to increased sedimentation easily visible Pram the causeway but also attested to by people canoeing up the tributaries}, increased tornperatures, and decreased dissolved oxygen. These conditions are very favorable forthe proliferation of algae, ~. The need to revise the Inke model ~prirnarily, the cost to da so} wars one of two main reasons given by ~v~{~ in early stakeholder meetings for not modeling lake processing for the scenario where the Farrington Road causeway were to be removed and replaced with a bridge. The other reason given was the supposition that allowing water from the Upper New Hape Arm to r~ix vuith that of the Lower New Hape Arm would necessarily worsen the water duality in the Lo~rer New Hope Arm. There are scientific reasons to believe, however, that uwrere increased mining allowed the Upper Neva Hope Arne ono longer strongly segr~ented from other areas} would experience in~praved nutrient processing without a concomitant reduction in nutrient processing in the Lower New Hope Arm. The very purpose of a revised lake model vuauld be to truly test the assumption that water quality would worsen if the causeway were to be removed. ~ ~ NA O~By0~fi3: NUTRIENT I~ANAEMENT 1. The ten-acre threshold established in §.0263(3)(d) should be deleted. A!I contracted nutrient applicators should be subject to these requirements. 2. Please provide a definition fflr "nutrient management consultants." (§.0263(3}(e)) 3. Nutrient management training or completing and implementing a nutrient managemen# flan is insufficient to modify any behavior tending towards overapplication of fertilizers {§.0263(4)). A statewide licensing and certification program is needed sa that persons hiring an applicator can readily check that fihe applicator has been properly trained ~{§.0263(4){b)). 15A NCAC 02B.02fi4: AGRICULTURE ~. In ,g~64~7}, {`sufficient level of farm stewardship" appears to establish a standard far compliance. Please provide a definition far this term. 15~ N~AC ~~8.0~~5: ~TORMwATER I~IANACEMENT FAR NEw DEVELOPMENT Page ~ of 9