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

Browse Search

4a-10 ~ . Revise .0~~5~~}~a}~i} by adding the follov~ring underlined language: starmv~ater BMPs andloroffsets are ernplayed such that "Nitrogen and phosphorus iaads contributed by the proposed nevu development activity shall not exceed certain snit-area mass loading rates,' "based an Bi~P efficiencies published by tie division of yl~ater ~uality_ Requirer~ents for urban tormvuater, lath near develaprnent and existing develapn~ent, need to reflect the use of best management practices to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the rnaxirnurn extent practicable. This is consistent vuith the approach and language in the federal glean lll~ater Act ~ 4a~~p}~3}{B}} and the associated faders[ regulations addressing urban storrnwater under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination system ~NPDE} pragrarn. ~. in7ilarly, revise the reference to a vuater quality standard at .a~G5~~}~a}viii} by deleting the follaing language { }: "T~e~e-~t~~_~~+~~,~~+~t ~~„~ ~-~,+~~~~+ ~r~-~,~~~~~,~ F . d~~r~~ ' n n~ ~h~~+~r~ n~ ^ fE." ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ 3. According to Rule ,0265{3)(a)(~i), developers may use an offset option for nutrient loading contingent on the acceptance of their proposals by the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (§.0240(a)). Both nutrient loading offset payments and riparian mitigation payments only have the restriction to be used for projects in the same river basin as the impact, but not the specific restriction to the same Jordan subwatershed as the impact. Similarly, the mitigation options of donated real property and restoration/enhancement of non-forested riparian buffer are required only to be located "the same distance from the Jordan Reservoir as the proposes[ impact, or closer to the Reservoir than the impact..." as stated in §.[1268(4) with na restriction to the same Jordan subwatershed as the impact. Do loco! gavernmen#s have the authority to restrict the use of impact payments or mitigafiion projectslproperty for developments in their jurisdictions or to require that they be used/created in the same Jordan subwatershed as the impact? This would be consistent with §.0269~2)(b), in which parties see[cing to sell excess loading reductions {credifs) may make them a~aila~le only in the same subwatershed as the impact. 4. Annual reports (from regu[afied parties) are specified ~n the rues at §.0265(4}(~) and §.0266(4)(h}, but there are na details in the rues regarding exactly what regulated parties need to track and what/how to report it. Will instructions or guidance on annual reports be included in the State's model stormwater program and ordinance and/or the "tao[" developed for nutrient reduction calculation? The efficiencies assigned #o urban starm~ater BI~IPs for new deve[opment and existing development in the fiscal analysis appear to be lo~rerthan thane assigned to comparable agricultural BIUIPs ~e.g., filter strips, buffers}. The urban BMP efficiencies need to be revised up~rard. ~ 5A h1~AC ~~B,~~~~: TORl~iV11ATER i~ANA~MEIVT FAR E~iITIN~ ~E11EL~PMENT ~ . section .g~G~~}~a}~i} should be revised v~rith the fallo~uing added underlined} or deleted ~ ~ }language: "In addressing this long-term objective, a local government shall include estimates of, and plans for offsetting, nutrient loading increases from lands developed s~~~~a~t~fh~--~~ri^~ ~~ ~f prior to impl~mentatian of ~ r~~-raln~-rmr~n~nrnr~r~mc of these rules." Irn lernentat~on ma have occurred at ap time Page3of~