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

Browse Search

4a-12 light of any transport factors not explicitly stated in the rules. wCll a draft version of this tool be available early enough far Iccal governr~erit to use in their calculations and studies? 5. According to Rule .g~G~~3}~a}iii} the feasibility study shall propose an implementation ra#e and schedule for load reducing activities. Mule F~~~9 also allows a jurisdictian tv buy nutrient credits to meet Cts land reduction requirements, However, there are no benchmarks for progress or a suggested tir~eline far mee#ing land roductian requirements. Hove are proposed implementation rates ar~d schedules judged to be adequate? If a feasibility study indicates that load reducing activities and projects are insufficient to meet reduction goals across the jurisdictian, i the jurisdiction then required to buy nutrient credits to meet its goals? ~. vUhat exactly constitutes "retrofitting}, as referred to in ~,O~G~~3}~a~~iv}? Gne assumes it includes installation of new B[UIPs in existing developments. According to DvU~ staff, MPs existing during the baseline period cannot be counted towards nutrient land roductian. However, could improvement o~ modification of existing BIUIP to treat nutrients or increase treatment be considered far credit? Could repair of brakenlpoorly~functioning BAP to restore nutrient treatment ca_pacit~ be considered far credit? Given the potent~a4 far these activities to improve nutrient management can repairer improvement of these existing BMPs be used for full ar even partial nutrient credit? ?. vllhen starmwater infrastructure is shared or crasser boundaries between local jurisdictions, which entity bears the responsibility for nutrient roductian? Local governments, such as fawns and counties, are encouraged to work with each other to jointly meet loading targets in .0~~~~~~{a}~v~~, which Boas allow a method to address such shared infrastructure, imilar4y, NCD~T-maintained roads and LNG properties are scattered throughout Chapel Hi[['s jurisdictian such that the starmwater infrastructure of these three entities is highly interconnected. However, there is no clear guidance in these rules on responsibilities for nutrient reduction when starmwater infrastructure is shared between local governments and state agencies. while it would probably be highly beneficial and reduce inefficiency, it is similarly unclear whether NCDC~T or UIVC is allowed to enter into joint nutrient management agreementswith local governments. S. Aacarding to discussions with D1~11~ staff and based an similar calculations far the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico, inta[lation of a new starmwater BLIP upstream of an existing BI~P being used for nutrient reduction has the potential to lower the nutrient removal credit far the downstream BI~P ~thraugh the "BIUIPs in series" calculations}. 1llfhat is the minir~um separation distance between Blv[Ps in ord er to be considered separate? Or ere nutrient treatrr~ent loads for BlU[Ps in series, even if separated, calculated only using the drainage area flowing tather~ that doesn't already pass through a BMP? This is likely to bean extraordinarily complex calcuiatian of BI~P nutrient removal. Haw is treatment capacity . managed under this scenario? ~ 5A NC~IC ~~B.~~~~: PR~TE~TIGN ~F EITIN R[PARIAN BUFFER ~ . In ~a~G~l~9}, Table of Uses,llegetation Maintenance includes the removaC of understory nuisance vegetation as defined in `Exotic Plant Guidelines," by Cherri L. smith, Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and recreation. Raleigh, NC. This reference does not provide a definition of "understary nuisance vegetation." Please provide a definition or change to "invasive exotic species," which is defined in the cited reference. Page ~ of ~