Browse
Search
Agenda - 02-24-2003-c1b
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2003
>
Agenda - 02-24-2003
>
Agenda - 02-24-2003-c1b
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/2/2008 8:56:48 AM
Creation date
8/29/2008 10:44:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
2/24/2003
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
c1b
Document Relationships
Minutes - 20030224
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2003
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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
X14 <br />Three common problems encountered include, but are not limited to, disputes as to whether a <br />USGS stream actually exists, disputes as to whether the location of said USGS stream is as <br />shown on the map and disputes concerning whether the floodplain is properly mapped based <br />on the inaccurate location of a USGS stream. <br />The State's original decision to require the use of USGS maps at the time the watershed <br />protection rules were adopted was due to the fact that the USGS maps were available <br />throughout the state while better maps, such as the Soil Survey, were not. Orange County <br />adopted the USGS maps `by reference', as did other jurisdictions throughout the State. Due to <br />the `by reference' adoption of the USGS maps the County's ability to `relocate' the stream is not <br />available and the procedure for correcting an inaccurate stream location on a USGS map at the <br />Federal level is lengthy and expensive. Furthermore, the correction of one inaccurate stream <br />on a USGS map does not necessarily mean that inaccuracies for other streams on the same <br />map are corrected. There are better methods than the use of static maps to protect stream <br />quality and watersheds, the two most notable being DWQ certification of local governmental <br />personnel and delegated authority. <br />Orange County now has staff members trained in identifying surface water features that have a <br />direct impact on water quality. Prior to receiving delegated authority for enforcement of the <br />Neuse River Buffer rules from DWQ, each member of the Orange County Erosion Control staff <br />received 50 hours of field training and classroom testing under the Surface Water Identification <br />Training and Certification (SWITC) program. House Bill 1257 mandated the SWITC <br />certification program to be taught by DWQ staff. This training, which is intended to ensure the <br />enforcement of rules enacted by the N.C. Environmental Management Commission, is deemed <br />sufficient by DWQ for stream identification use and establishing buffers per state-mandated <br />watershed protection rules. The stream identification checklist that County staff uses to identify <br />streams was developed by DWQ. It is included as an attachment. <br />This proposed amendment will allow usage of available, existing methods to protect streams by <br />broadening language in the zoning ordinance that would allow, in addition to the USGS maps, <br />the use of the Soil Survey of Orange County and field identification of water features by County <br />staff. By using these three methods of water feature identification in combination with each <br />other, virtually all streams that affect water quality will be protected. Another derived benefit is <br />that the availability of County staff to do field determinations of streams will provide a service to <br />property owners, more accurate and without cost, that will help them maintain a high quality of <br />stream preservation. <br />A visual presentation of portions of the Cane Creek, Upper Eno and University Lake watersheds <br />showing the difference between the USGS maps and Soil Survey will be presented at the Public <br />Hearing. <br />FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no public financial impact with this decision. <br />RECOMMENDATION(S): Planning Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed <br />amendments. <br />The Administration recommends that the amendments be <br />referred to the Planning Board to return a recommendation to the <br />BOCC no sooner than May 20, 2003. <br />G:currentplanning/eddie/streambuffer/abstract-streamclassification (Feb24,2003) <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.