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

Browse Search

4a-11 before, during, crafter the baseline period, and compliance shall be contingent ~n continued implementation and maintenance of such practices, This language is needed to acknowledge the efforks made by those ~urid~ctior~s that have implemented stormwater and buffer requirements for many years prior to these regulations and it is consistent with language contained in .9~4{7}for agriculture. The Town has been a ocal leader in adopting environmental protection practices such as stream buffers, runoff volume and rate control, total suspended solids in runoff control, treelforest stand protection, erosion and sedimentation control, and a variety of practices nave known as Low impact Development which includes cluster development, pedestrian- andtransit-oriented development layout, latM[evel stormwater management, etc. The Town has been implementing these progressive plann[ng and starmwater management practices over the past two decades but will only get "credit" for stormwater management installed from ~90~ onwards. Furthermore, since the Town has already required buffers and B[~Ps in recent developments, the "easy projects" to increase nutrient removal in existing developments are already lane, leaving the Town with fewer locations and options for installing BMP or restoring riparian buffers. 2. Section .02 6(3}(a)(i) notes that local governments may seek suppfemen#af funding for implementation of load-reducing activities thraugf~ grant sources such as the Noah Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund, the North Carolina Clean Water Act Section 319 Grant Program, or other func~ing programs for nonpoint sources. What funding sources is the State identifying or making available for the performance of the feasibility studies? As the area underthe Town of Chapel Hi[I's planning jurisdiction is more than 9310 developed source: Chapel Hill Data Book, ~D~~},this requirement has significr~t fiscal anal practicable impacts forthe town. The Fiscal Analysis states a total cost of ~ .~M for conducting the planning studies Table RP.~ Annual Planning Costslavings, for local governr~ent}; however, this estimate is tea law and needs to be revised. 3. Rule ~~25~{~{a~{iii states that a Cocally-conducted feai~i[ity study will determine the extent to which the loading goals may be achieved from e~cisting development. Is this equivalent to the standard engineering definition of "maximur~ extent practicable" or an extent currently techno ogical[y feasible? Door feasibility in this case include same measure of financial cost? Is there a penalty for a jurisdiction if the feasibility study determines that the loading reduction goals cannot be mot across the entire jurisdiction practicably? dill local gavernn~er~ts need to undertake the full set of BI~P installations whether or not it is practicable and whether or not it actually reduces nitrogen exports to the lake? 4. Tie nutrient accounting tool referred to in §.0265(4)(a) is to be de~e[oped by DWQ within 12 months after the effective date of the Ru[e. According to §.0266~3)(a)(i} local governments must include estimates of and pfans far offsetting nutrient loading increases from hands developed subsequent to the baseline period but prior to implementation of new de~e[opment programs. According to §,0266((3)(a}iii} a feasibility study to determine the extent to ~+hich loading gaa4s may be achieved from exist+ng development m~s# be conducted by local governments. In order to estimate nutrient loads from re~ently- developed lands and to conduct a feasibility study, local governments should be using the same loading calculation methods #hat will be in the nutrient accounting tool, especially in Page 4 of 9