Agenda - 01-21-2016 - 6-a - Minutes

Browse Search

13 1 Chair McKee added that some agricultural operations, for feeding cattle, use this type of 2 stone to prevent erosion and mud build up and run off. 3 Chair McKee asked if there are regulations that the County may need to adjust. 4 Craig Benedict said amendments or defense of existing practices might be needed. He 5 said stream buffers are one example where this may occur. He said there are some unknowns 6 at this time. 7 Craig Benedict said the cities and counties must explain their stormwater program to the 8 State no later than March 1, 2016. He said the County has asked for guidance from the State 9 regarding this matter. 10 Michael Harvey spoke regarding the riparian buffers, saying the State currently 11 recognizes a 50-foot buffer. He said Orange County enforces a 50-foot buffer with an additional 12 15 to 30 being added depending on the slope of a property. 13 Michael Harvey said staff is investigating several options of how to proceed next. He 14 said the two options are a scientific study, which will require a budget amendment to complete 15 or proof that the current UDO is in compliance with the State's regulations. He said there has 16 been a comingling of regulations over the last 10 years and resolving these issues will not be 17 straightforward. He said it is the hope that the majority of the County's current buffer program 18 can be maintained as a watershed protection standard. 19 Commissioner Dorosin clarified that the two options are to have a scientific study that 20 vindicates everything or shows proof that these are not riparian buffers, but rather are part of a 21 watershed management program. He asked if the latter option were possible, would only a 22 portion of the current stream buffers be protected. 23 Michael Harvey said yes, it would only protect portions of streams located in a protected 24 or critical watershed boundary. He said the State law allows for certain encroachments and 25 certain clearing of the mandated 50-foot buffer. He said the County's stream buffer regulations 26 allow for certain types of development in a stream buffer, but there is not the overall reaching list 27 that the State currently recognizes. 28 Commissioner Rich asked if any other counties are involved in this process. 29 Michael Harvey said Orange County would probably be the first. He said Orange 30 County is unique in the methodic nature that it took in the 1980s and 1990s to link a lot of 31 protections to the watershed program. 32 Commissioner Rich asked if the cost of the study is known. 33 Michael Harvey said it would cost between $40,000 to $75,000, due to the scientific 34 specificity of the study. He said his reading of the statute shows the requirement of scientific 35 evidence. 36 Commissioner Pelissier asked if much of the justification for the buffers being related to 37 watershed management is due to Orange County being a headwaters county. 38 Michael Harvey said yes. 39 Commissioner Pelissier asked if there are other headwaters counties in the State, and, if 40 so, what is their status. She said perhaps such counties could team up and present a united 41 front to the State. 42 Michael Harvey said there are other counties, but he is unsure which ones they are. He 43 said the Upper Neuse River Basin Association (UNRBA)would be consulted for assistance, as 44 it is coordinating with all of its member counties. He said many other agencies will be partnered 45 with as well, and the hope is that Orange County will not even need to conduct a study. 46 Commissioner Jacobs asked if staff had a chance to get copies of the University Lake 47 Watershed study or the Cane Creek Watershed study. 48 Michael Harvey said these have not been fully read. 49 Commissioner Jacobs suggested that these studies might have some useful information. 50 Chair McKee asked if County Attorney or Manager had any comments.