Agenda - 03-26-2009 - 4a5 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Jordan Summary atmospheric deposition. • Guidance on responsibilities for nutrient treatment of stormwater before it enters another jurisdiction or in cases of shared infrastructure has yet to be written. DWQ Staff states this is something that will be explored in the development of the various model stormwater programs to be created by DWQ. Complications of BMPs in series are also planned to be explored in this process. • Compliance is expected to be tracked similarly to how it is in the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico basins, which have similar riparian buffer protection and new development nutrient management rules to the Jordan Rules. • Many methods and BMPs for managing nutrients as described in the Rules do not yet have nutrient removal efficiencies determined. As demand forthese particular BMPs continues, it is expected that DWQ will attempt to determine removal efficiencies, and may accept values determined by other sources (such as other states}. • While the Town doesn't get "credit" for good environmental stewardship before 2001, we can still get "credit" for converting BMPs that existed at that time to have better nutrient removal. • The State has no clear requirement that EEP funds will be used for mitigation in the same basin as the impact offset by fee-in-lieu. The land use density in the Upper New Hope basin means there won't be many opportunities for EEP to do projects in our area. Town-specific issues and concerns: The Jordan buffer rules are simpler in many ways than current the RCD ordinance and have the potential to be easier to implement. However, these rules will probably require considerable changes to the RCD portion of the LUMO. Our buffer protection program and ordinance will need to be approved by the EMC, but the Town has a rather lengthy and complicated process for making LUMO changes, especially for a change of this magnitude. Unless we base a new buffer rule entirely on the State's planned model ordinance, we should plan for sufficient time for staff to present to the EMC a draft riparian buffer ordinance for approval, concurrently presenting the draft to the Town's boards and commissions for review and public hearing process. Any changes made as a result of the boards and commissions reviewlpublic hearing will have to be submitted to the EMC again. The Town's method for classifying streams is more stringent than State's, State is OK with that, but will the Town want to require Jordan-type buffer rule management for all streams classified as perennial or intermittent by Town staff or those just on USGS quad mapslSoil Service maps (as required by the rule)? What triggers the requirement for a ZCP? Are there ways for Town staff to determine changes in land use, especially the use footprint (using the Jordan Rules definition) where no ZCP is required? Linking enforcement of buffer rules to the ZCP allows non- ZCP-requiring activities that affect the stream buffer to continue, thus impairing our ability to effectively implement the buffer rules. Can the Town implement these rules in a way that is separate, or somewhat separate, from the LUMO or any future development- dependentordinance? Page 3 of 4 httpa/townhall.townofchapelhill.org/agendas/2009/03/26/4/a/4a5 jordan_nutrient_strategy... 3/25/2009