Agenda - 08-26-1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

59 water quality effects of different land use regulatory schemes and the social and economic tradeoffs. The Staff would also recommend that the EMC consider including provisions in the rules that would accommodate a detailed site - specific watershed management study as the basis for rules. This would anticipate a local jurisdiction's initiative to have such a study prepared as a more accurate guide to land use intensity that could be permitted in order to achieve water quality protection objectives. The State's rules would set watershed requirements in lieu of such a study, but provision could be included for the EMC to approve such a study as a more detailed, site - specific guide. In this process, the State could rely on technical information to establish the rational nexus between land use regulations and the public purposes being served. The availability of this process serves as an incentive for local governments to perform the more detailed watershed management studies needed to establish cost and effectiveness of watershed protection strategies. B. WS II and WS -III: Transfer "10 Percent at 70 Percent" Across County Lines. The proposed rules for WS -II and WS -III watersheds permit up to 10 percent of each jurisdiction's non - Critical Area of the watershed to be developed at up to 70 percent built -upon area without stormwater controls. However, no provision exists for transferring these among various jurisdictions in the same watershed. For example, Durham could use this provision to permit limited amounts of intensive industrial and /or commercial development in the Lake Michie and Little River watersheds. However, Durham's adopted General Development Plan 2005 indicates that these watershed areas are to remain primarily rural. Consequently, the "10 percent at 70 percent" would likely be unused in Durham County. The County may wish to negotiate a transfer of this development potential to other portions of the watershed, specifically Orange County or Person County, where industrial and /or commercial may be a more appropriate land use in a location farther from the reservoirs. This could represent a substantial incentive for upstream jurisdictions to embrace a higher classification. Durham should comment to the EMC to consider establishing some mechanism to permit the transfer across jurisdictions of "10 percent at 70 percent" development potential. C. Eno River Watershed for Emergency Raw Water Intake. The Eno River emergency raw water intake is a special category of water supply. Because of the temporary nature of use of this water source, watershed protection to the same degree of others is not as important. However, at some time in the future, this intake could become a permanent water supply source. On one hand, Durham could acknowledge this and request that the watershed upstream of the intake be protected with the full range of Critical Area and Protected Area requirements. On the other hand, the usefulness of this water supply as a permanent source is limited because of low flow and quality problems. If any additional development restrictions are appropriate, they may be in the nature of stream buffers and discharge limits, as well as additional measures to control spills of hazardous materials in the watershed. 15