Browse
Search
Agenda - 08-26-1991
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1991
>
Agenda - 08-26-1991
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/8/2017 11:43:46 AM
Creation date
11/8/2017 11:33:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
8/26/1991
Meeting Type
Public Hearing
Document Type
Agenda
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
354
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
and maintain erosion control devices annually, etc, <br />"Silviculture activities are requirod to intiplement the provisions of the Forest Practices Guidelines Related <br />to Water Quality." <br />+ The proposed rules require agricultural activities to comply with existing federal laws. In addition, in <br />critical areas, agricultural activities would need to have a 10 -foot vegetated buffer along all perennial <br />waters; and animal operations, greater than 100 animals, must employ UMP's recommended by the Soil <br />and Witter Conservation Commission. <br />jhblems <br />1. The State and local governments do not have adequate staff to enforce current sedimentation and erosion control <br />laws; These rules add new requirements without adding new staff. <br />2. An Agricultural Extension Agent told Triangle ) that these rules would be difficult for small dairy fr nners zoho <br />would need to build fences fo provide buffers for the streams and to build new watering sources for their live-stock. <br />RECOMMENDATION <br />Though these sections may need revisions to make them more workable, Triangle ) believes that the <br />EMC has taken steps in the right direction by addressing pollution from agriculture, silviculture, <br />and transportation activities - significant contributors to runoff pollution, <br />(4) Discharges & Stormwater <br />The proposed rule states that in areas where some category of anew wastewater discharge is prohibited <br />(such as domestic discharges), expansions of existing discharges of that category will be allowed if there <br />Is no increase in the pollutant loading„ <br />1 <br />The wastewater discharge approach adds flexibility, at the same time providing for no net loss of water <br />quality protecl(on. <br />J. Federal regulations require state and local governments to begin treating stormwater as a discharge, requiring <br />#a permit for stormwater running off a particular site. The proposed rules, however, do not provide the same <br />cxtbility for stormwaier "discharges " as they do for other discharges. <br />2. The requirement for wet detention ponds controlling the first I " of runoff may preclude other runoff control <br />measures that, for a given site, may provide equal or more roater quality protection. <br />RECOMMENDATION <br />Apply the performance- based approach to all discharges, including stormwater. <br />Revise the rules as follows: <br />n211(e)(3)(i)IV; 0211(e)(3)(ii)III; 0211(f)(3)(i)IV; & 0211(f)(3)(ii))11 <br />control runoff from the first inch of rainfaIl l7tMY147 eQ33iXg ent w AHtVV�ratection <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.