Agenda - 06-26-2007-6e - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2 progressive non-structural measures to address watershed protection via land use controls. These include significant and protective stream buffers, on-site infiltration of runoff, larger lot sizes (5 acres in University Lake, two acres elsewhere in the Upper New Hope), stringent impervious surface limits and floodplain protection. Added to this, beginning in 2001, the County's Lands Legacy Program began acquiring critical natural and cultural resource lands that include watershed riparian buffers and farmland within water supply watersheds -including much of New Hope Creek itself as it enters Durham County. Between these actions and the land within Duke Forest and otherwise protected, over 7,000 linear feet of New Hope Creek is within protected land in Orange County. However, many of these progressive measures that served to lower nutrient loading from the County's jurisdiction are not recognized by the proposed rules, which would treat all activity prior to 2001 as "existing development" and still require a 35% reduction in nitrogen and 5% for phosphorus. Added to this is the fact that few agricultural operations remain in this portion of the County, making it difficult to effect reductions for agricultural loading rates. As such, in the County's case, it may be difficult to implement apercentage-based nutrient reduction when loading levels are already projected to be very low - in large part due to County- implemented programs of the last 30 years. The draft letter to the EMC notes this fact, along with the County's strong history in watershed protection and the measures that have been instituted over the years. The letter goes on to note: ^ The reduction measures proposed are not performance-based and may not be equitable, with flexibility needed for more rural areas where local governments have instituted progressive watershed protection and minimized nutrient loading. As such, it is difficult to determine whether there is an appropriate correlation between nutrient- loading and reduction measure implementation, ^ The measures for non-point sources were not calibrated to the Jordan Lake model, ^ There is little agriculture in the watershed within County jurisdiction, making reductions difficult to achieve, ^ The burden of cost for implementing there measures would fall on local governments. Water quality issues in Jordan Lake have been long-predicted, and State funding assistance would be helpful, ^ There are questions about equitability of costs and benefits to individual jurisdictions that need to be further addressed, o Local governments could use additional flexibility in meeting the requirements, such as allowing provisions for working with the State Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), and ^ The timing of the public comment period over the summer months is not conducive to stakeholder and public participation. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with the conveyance of these comments. However, promulgation and Implementation of the Jordan Lake rules will have financial impacts for local governments, including funding feasibility studies (within one year) and reduction measures. The cost of implementing reduction measures would not be known until feasibility studies are completed. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board authorize the submittal of the letter, with such changes as deemed necessary.