Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
~fl <br />2. Agriculture -The relationship between the purpose the rule (.0262 (1)) and the standard <br />BMPs to be implemented (.0264 (7)) is unclear. This is especially true in consideration of the <br />statement that "implementation may have occurred at any time before, during, or after the <br />baseline period." It would seem that the probability of reducing nutrients from agriculture <br />sufficiently to achieve the nonpoint source nutrient targets under this rule is small. This <br />undermines the nonpoint source nutrient reduction strategy as a whole. Furthermore, <br />agricultural sources generate nitrogen credits by implementing any BMP in addition to the <br />list provided in .0264 (7)(a). By providing a threshold to generate nitrogen credits that bears <br />no relationship to the nutrient reduction targets, agricultural sources may be generating <br />spurious credits, fi~rther undermining the nonpoint source nutrient reduction strategy. <br />3. Stormwater Management for New Development <br />a. The fiscal analysis makes the assumption (FA Chapter 4, p.43) that because "almost all <br />municipalities in the watershed are subject to Phase II requirements and are to implement <br />new development programs beginning mid- to late 2007," and because "virtually all <br />remaining municipalities fall within water supply watersheds and implement WSW <br />stormwater programs," that Jordan municipalities will not incur "significant, quantifiable <br />additional costs to implement this rule." The Phase II and WSW stormwater programs do <br />not have nutrient reduction requirements. Local governments will need new programs <br />and resources to address the nutrient reduction requirements, so I question the validity of <br />this assumption. <br />b. The fiscal analysis states that "much new development activity is likely to fall within <br />municipalities' planning jurisdictions. Thus, counties should not incur significant <br />additional costs to implement this rule" (FA Chapter 4, p.43). Given the growth that <br />seems to be occurring in counties like Chatham, I question the validity of this <br />assumption. <br />c. The pay rate of $36/hour (FA Chapter 4, p.44) used to quantify the cost of local <br />governments contracting assistance in preparing ordinances seems rather low. <br />4. Stormwater Management for Existing Development <br />a. The rule includes the requirement that local governments conduct feasibility studies "to <br />determine the extent to which the loading goals referenced in this Rule may be achieved <br />from existing development within a local government's jurisdiction through load <br />reducing activities" (.0266 (3)(a)(ii)). What happens if any local government determines <br />that implementing BMPs to reduce loading from existing development sufficiently to <br />meet the nutrient reduction targets is not technically feasible? <br />b. BMP surface area calculations were increased by 15% to account for "slopes, etc." (FA <br />Appendix B, note 22, p.B-3). This may be a sufficient increase in BMP area to account <br />for topography and site conditions. However, if the land cost calculation is based solely <br />on the BMP footprint (which is true for the cost equations provided by the Ada Wassink <br />and Bill Hunt, and A. Moran and B. Hunt references listed in FA Appendix B, notes 1 <br />and 3, p.B-1), then the land costs do not include the cost of land sufficient to provide <br />access to the BMP for maintenance and monitoring. <br />c. The land value estimate of $78,000 per acre is based on a weighted average of property <br />values in the City and County of Durham (FA Chapter 5, p.59). The properties used to <br />calculate the weighted average included US Army Corps of Engineers' land, NC <br />2' <br />