Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 01-27-2009 - 3 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: January 27, 2009 Action Agenda Item No. SUBJECT: Jordan Lake Nutrient Management Rules — Update DEPARTMENT: ERCD, Planning PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Jordan Lake Rules Staff Report David Stancil, 245-2598 July 2008 Public Hearing Comment Tom Davis, 960-3878 Terry Hackett, 245-2588 PURPOSE: To receive an update from staff on the Jordan Lake Nutrient Management Rules, which were approved by the N.C. Environmental Management Commission (EMC) in 2008 and will soon be taken up by the N.C. General Assembly. BACKGROUND: Over the past several years the State Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has worked to meet mandated provisions of the Clean Water Act that address the water quality issues in Jordan Lake. Over a period of three years, and through a series of stakeholders groups and DWQ-led meetings, a set of nutrient management rules to address the nitrogen and phosphorus levels in Jordan Lake were eventually propagated by DWQ in early 2008. The rules went to public hearing in the summer of 2008 (the County submitted comments at the public hearing, which are attached), and were adopted by the EMC in the fall. While it is not certain what final form the rules will take (as there appears to be considerable opposition in some areas of the state and the region), staff has periodically reported to the Board on the status of the rules and the implications of these rules on the County. The attached report provides an updated synopsis of the rules and the areas of emphasis, from agriculture to new development to existing development. It is existing development which may pose the greatest challenge to local governments, as addressing existing development to meet the nutrient reduction measures may require retrofits to existing stormwater controls and new measures in some cases. It should be noted Orange County currently implements a similar type of nutrient reduction rule in the Neuse River basin. However, the proposed Jordan Lake rules have more substantial reductions and differ in some key ways. Most of the nutrient reductions proposed to address Jordan Lake are targeted to two sub-basins (or "arms") of the lake. The Upper New Hope Arm includes all of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and the surrounding Rural Buffer. This area is proposed for a 35% reduction in nitrogen and a 5% reduction in phosphorus loading. The remainder of southwestern Orange and the western edge 2 of the County (including Mebane) is in the Haw River Arm, where 8% reductions in nitrogen and 5% reductions in phosphorus are proposed. As outlined in the staff report, some key issues, challenges or opportunities to be aware of include: • The potential cost (as yet undetermined) of retrofitting existing development to meet the reductions. • The potential to have to overtreat new development stormwater if existing development reductions are not met. • The potential for nutrient trading and offsets — where an opportunity may exist for the County to use existing programs to offset and/or mitigate nutrient-loading. • The potential difficulty in meeting a 35% nitrogen reduction in the Upper New Hope, which is heavily forested and is expected to have a low loading rate. • The County's long history of watershed protection, on-site infiltration of stormwater and non-structural controls may serve to greatly lessen the impact on the County and citizens in the County's jurisdiction. • Many local governments have made comments to the State that substantial funding assistance is needed to accomplish the implementation of these rules. • The rules may face opposition from several quarters in the General Assembly this spring. The first milestones for implementing the Jordan Lake Rules, assuming their adoption, is still two years distant and the full implementation and nutrient reduction is planned to be accomplished over a decade - or slightly longer. However, the potential costs of implementation are unknown and perhaps substantial, and the potential benefits will require significant further discussion and planning. With these challenges and benefits on the horizon, an early start toward planning for the implementation may be prudent once final action is taken. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The full costs of implementing the Jordan Lake Rules are not presently known, but have been estimated between $230 million - $530 million for all local governments in the watershed over the full term. Orange County's jurisdiction is more rural, and County subdivision regulations have long focused on on-site infiltration and non-structural measures to reduce nutrient loading. This fact should work to reduce the County's potential implementation cost, but the degree to which this is true will not be known until more data is received about existing nutrient loading rates. Future Capital Investment Plans may need to reflect implementation measures during the period 2011-2020 once more is known about the costs of implementing the rules. As the rules progress toward enactment, staff will continue during the coming year to assess and evaluate the actual costs associated with implementation. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board receive the staff report and discuss the implications and related issues and provide feedback and direction as needed. 3 1/27/09 Jordan Lake Nutrient Management Rules (proposed) Staff Report- Implications for Orange County January 27, 2009 In the next month, the N.C. General Assembly will begin consideration of new rules that have been crafted by the NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) and approved by the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) to reduce nutrient loading in B. Everett Jordan Reservoir (Jordan Lake). The following document provides an overview of the implications of the rules for Orange County's jurisdiction and County government programs. It should be noted that a similar program of rules is already in place for the Neuse River Basin — although the proposed thresholds of activity for the Jordan Lake watershed are quite different. u;�'L� s ; , is ''" ^` Why? To address algal blooms in the lake that affect water quality. Algal growth is caused by heightened levels of nutrients. In Jordan Lake, reductions in nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) are the primary nutrients being addressed. Who is Affected? The entire watershed upstream of Jordan Lake, as shown on Map 1 (which includes Cary, Durham, Chapel Hill, Orange County, Burlington and Greensboro among other locations) is subject to the new rules, although special nutrient reduction measures are targeted to three sub-areas (or"arms"); the Upper New Hope, Lower New Hope, and Haw. Local governments, all wastewater providers, agricultural operations, and new and existing development are affected. Please see Map 2 for the areas affected in Orange County. When Do the Rules Take Effect? The EMC and NCDWQ have proposed an effective date of summer 2009, but the actual effective date will be set by the General Assembly when and if the rules are enacted. When Must the Rules be Fully Implemented? Generally, within 10 years. Local governments must have one-half of the necessary stormwater reductions implemented within 10 years, or have an alternate plan for reduction. Jordan Lake Watershed ROCKINGHAM ,,-------1—___ f. CA WELL _ __ `fir 1 Z ilikt, f? Oak Ridge - . .... . FO: H [, Ke _ GUILFORD t I Greensboro ,� .t Ekm Cdtege Haw River Mebas/e serial- Gl.____ .,._ Burlington h ALAMANt 7}" Alamance . rlrs >` v V _ 1_ ORANGE P--sant Garden if . Durham -% Chapel Hill DURHAM Carrboro ` Legend " Morris We Jordan Lake Watershed ry County boundaries I= Lakes&reservoirs `�� CHATHAM Major streams 1‘ WAKE s Towns rte , 0 5 10 20 Miles c r'_ v 5 Orange County will be impacted by the proposed new rules in the following manner. The form and degree of impact will be determined by the subarea ("arm") of the watershed any given area drains into. As shown in the box below, there are two such "arms" within Orange County (also shown on Map 2 on the following page). The nutrient reduction rates for the two "arms" are very different, as shown in the box. Jordan Lake"Arms"and The reason for the differences in required nutrient Required Nutrient reductions are based on two related factors: Reductions 1) The nature of Jordan Lake is unusual, with water Upper New Hope entering the northern part of the lake via the Upper (in Orange County this New Hope Arm and moving slowly down the length includes Chapel Hill, of the lake, while Haw River Arm water enters the Carrboro and the New Hope lake much closer to the dam at the southern-most and Morgan Creek basins) part of the lake. As such, the Upper New Hope arm -35%Nitrogen is much smaller and proximate to the lake, providing - 5%Phosphorus a quick transport time to the lake, but thence slow Haw River Arm movement through the lake. (in Orange County,this includes western an 2) Therefore, despite the fact that the Haw River southwestern Orange County, Arm contributes three times as much nitrogen as the and Mebane) Upper New Hope Arm, the hydraulic retention time -8%Nitrogen for Haw River water in Jordan Lake is only five -5%Phosphorus days, compared to 418 days for water from the Upper New Hope. As stated in the proposed rules, "Each arm of the lake has reduction goals, total allowable loads, point source wasteload allocations, and nonpoint source load allocations for both nitrogen and phosphorus based on a field-calibrated nutrient response model " This means that nutrient reductions must come from point sources such as wastewater treatment plants as well as from non-point sources such as agricultural operations/fields and stormwater from new and existing development. The requirements for each of these non-point sources are discussed below: Agriculture Commercial agriculture must collectively meet the nutrient reduction goals for both nitrogen and phosphorus (as shown in the box above) within six years through voluntary enlistment of new practices, or nine years through additional measures imposed by the EMC. Initially, Watershed Oversight Committees will be established to pursue the voluntary measures, and annual reporting will be at the county scale. Accounting will be completed three years after the effective date of the rules to determine the reductions in nutrient loading which have occurred from the voluntary measures since the 2001 baseline. Three months 3 D • O. 0 ; O r hed B.EVEREIT JORDAN LAKE w r . WATERSHED tJY- ..-,c}-4' r-4' d).., CASWELL k Ripe park ,a 'j ...4.V 4 y �„ 1 � d J 141'J' Map Prepared November 4 2005 ,.„ x 7 -, I i-- ` .14" o a o Elon _ Greensboro° { J/ Burlington -_ p° 801 Whib ..OY 0 P / / Graham GUILFORD j ) y y J ,Alamanoit ° GI �`f• ,.,y/ rrf l Durham oi Pleasant 0'S Ore S ® I o Garden W 9 ^ a ° � , it— New�yee�Y 1 m Jr o � ® pe _. . -°/-----N----5% m. „11 LEGEND ®Munidpstity e Surface Water Intake -� 1 .�I✓ Piker Supply Watershed: Hi�m@'aPhr ° NPDES Wastewatr Site - -_� • ;E� yys,p Haw River%Meshed (Minor) �' ,-, �.+• !/Cary L WS-111 Upper New Hope Watershed u NPDES Wastewater Site V ` .- M i� r ° ,•f_.J WS-IV — In erNewHopeWatndmd • Dam NI. ' ��" s �� —IL_ ; _ .,• R./r `® ` / , "IX _.'¢ WAKE. .._..,,.� Its 'e w 14, o \br'Y►:�vi�G.j���� td .:Whiny Mali fI '/ F /o P, y � � 1 after this point in time, Local Action Committees will be established, if needed, to help promote Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to reduce the impact of agricultural runoff and track the progress of the program in each County and watershed. If, after six years, the watershed has not met its nutrient goal, the EMC can require individual compliance to meet the target. In Orange County's jurisdiction, there is little agriculture in the Upper New Hope Arm. Almost 60% of this sub-basin is forested, with most of this in Orange County. Hay and pasture land is the primary agricultural activity in the upper reaches of the New Hope, and this on a limited basis. A few dairy operations remain in the Morgan Creek basin, upstream of University Lake, and there are also hay and pasture lands located in the vicinity. However, the Haw River Arm includes more agricultural activity, more active dairy and animal operations, and more diversity in farming. Dairies are located at several locations in southwestern Orange County, which is one of the state's historical bastions of dairy farming. Eventually, once the nutrient reductions have been met, there may exist a real possibility for nutrient credit generation from agriculture. For example, a pasture- based livestock operation that implements an excluded buffer BMP on part or all of its operation may sell nitrogen reduction credits attributed to the restoration. In other words, if a farmer excludes cattle from the buffer and implements a restoration plan, the nitrogen credit from the restoration can be sold at any time (see page 10). In summary, there are few agricultural operations in the Orange County portion of the Upper New Hope Arm, but those present will have substantial nitrogen reductions (35%) to address. There is much more agriculture in the Haw Arm within the County, but the reduction levels in this sub-area are less-prescriptive (8% N and 5% P). However, in the long-term, some farmers may be able to take advantage of nutrient credits from their operations. Stormwater— New Development The County will be required to develop and implement programs or require stormwater controls on new development activities to meet the nutrient reductions (35% N / 5% P in the Upper New Hope Arm/Rural Buffer, 8% N / 5% P in the Haw Arm —which includes southwestern and western Orange). Residential, commercial and industrial land uses account for 28% of the land cover in the entire Upper New Hope arm, and 17% in the entire Haw River Arm (which reaches west through Alamance and Guilford counties). A baseline year of 2001 is assumed for reductions. The overall nutrient reductions established by NCDWQ equate to nutrient loading rates for new development of 2.2 lbs/acre for Nitrogen, and 0.82 lbs/acre for 5 8 Phosphorus in the Upper New Hope Arm, and 3.8 lbs/acre N and 1.43 lbs/acre P in the Haw Arm. The nutrient loading rates must be met for runoff leaving the new development. Specifically, new development also must control one inch of rainfall and the post-development runoff may not have a net increase over the pre-development runoff rate for the 1-year, 24-hour storm (which is about 3 inches of rain). Onsite methods to control stormwater may include non- structural controls (open space, stream buffers, etc.) as well as structural practices (bioretention, stormwater wetlands, stormwater ponds, etc.). Developers will be allowed to meet nutrient targets onsite, completely or only partially, and could then meet remaining nutrient reduction needs through payment-in-lieu to local governments or to the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) with a DWQ-approved "offset plan." Developers may also utilize private sellers for offsite reductions. Any such nutrient offsets must occur in the same watershed as the nutrient exceedance occurs. For single family residential development, the site must use onsite methods to reach 4 lbs/acre/year before the developer can use an offset or in-lieu payment to reach the watershed target. For commercial/industrial development, the site must use onsite methods to reach 8 lbs/acre/year before the developer can use an offset or in-lieu payment to reach the watershed target. These loading rates for new development would be administered by the local government, so the County will be required to ensure stormwater treatment to meet the target reduction rates, address flow control for stream protection, and provide for stream buffers. Where watershed protection rules exceed these rules, development would need to meet the more stringent set of rules. Stream buffer enforcement would be at the local level. The effective dates for the new rules have been adjusted on several occasions during the rule-making process. Based on the currently-planned July 2009 effective date, NCDWQ must submit a model local government program to the EMC within 18 months. (This model program will include a tool for developers to calculate nutrient loading resulting from site development plans, including the affects of utilizing different BMPs on stormwater runoff.) Once the model program is approved, within an additional six months, local governments must then submit plans for their stormwater management programs for NCDWQ review and approval to address new development. As several different steps must be completed by different agencies and commissions, creation of an exact timetable is not possible at this time, but local programs could be approved and implemented as soon as July 1, 2012, with annual reports from the local governments subsequently required. 6 Local Juridisdictions and Basins of the Upper New Hope Arm of Jordan Lake N I Wes/ ORANGE i KC ...• .., 1 \ l0if - .--•---'i-'l--.--. . 1t,1.1.ar4 11 .., _A j�E l 1, DyRHAM• 1:180,000 , 1. — : N,, . - . . , il )1Fir- _ 1,1„4„, \ :el.. il 1-,I - ' " , I. ' ;. ill lit ' - 41111#4 •VNI .•....; I.: .:'■'° -'''t ' i A a.... .3) at" '. e ice. !;• '' ' I tt 4 ,s„,, k ANC-5q ! .` V f •1 ,` , . . Nt-"- ) AI '11;1 '''' '.,l.,i___11r=opr.' .--71■444 r -,.. Legend °` „,, ,.:.,c, . , -, ”, al Irr *IN , ____ County Boundaries • «:• QI ,j-,..k 0 a / Primary Roads — — --__— _ / �t C,_ — `�, .� • — —' 1 — J/ ip Perennial Stream ..2-------c------.7,---- --------,8 ----7-77,I N"— n '� 7�� , .1 a : �o Intermittent Stream �' �' ; • ..i j� � o f Wetlands and Inundation Areas .� • • 2 � . k I Waterbodies i �C c / L.,...,? u lila,fa VG, Chapel Hill Town Limits ytr ' • �;� O� Q C; oTon.limits rrbor /ts ` _fir, �'._ �° I , • sr Cary Town Limits . . ,' t 7 • ,tiJ , ° , a 4. Durham City Limits CT H A M o ," -1:-.L.--- -`'~ r�' o Morrisville Town Limits s'a i , _ .© Raleigh City Limits ; a . - Area of Concern J . �, moo • "• .!.s.,Al •Tr.--E7AH WAKE 10 Stormwater- Existing Development Perhaps the most significant impacts of the nutrient rules for local governments are the provisions to address existing development. For this purpose, all reduction activities and measures implemented before 2001 are considered to be "existing" and do not qualify towards meeting the mandated reduction goals. The basis for new reduction measures to "retrofit" existing development is the expectation (based on modeling) that the rules for new development (as described above) will not be sufficient to meet the overall nutrient reduction target rates that modeling has demonstrated to be needed. This rule will have substantial impacts in the Upper New Hope Arm, primarily for the urban areas. All local governments are required to implement nutrient loading reduction measures on existing developed lands to meet the reduction targets. Based on current schedules, within three and one-half years (presumed to be July 2012 or later), Orange County would need to develop a stormwater program, which would include a Load Reduction Program and an Existing Development Administration Program. These programs would detail proposed reduction measures on existing development and would need to be approved by NCDWQ and the EMC. The local program must include: • Proposed implementation rate • Nature of program (actions), and • Overall compliance timeframe. Within four and one-half years of the rules effective date (possibly as early as July 2013), implementation of the load reduction measures in the program would begin, with public education and illegal discharge elimination to start within six months of EMC approval of the NCDWQ model local program, possibly as early as January 2012. The rules as revised would require that half of the reduction goals be met within 10 years (by July 2019), with an option to propose an alternative timeframe if supporting technical documentation for the alternative is provided. At the July 2019 ten-year mark, the County would also be required to implement a revised load reduction program to address the remaining reduction needs which have not been met. Local governments may also now use private sellers of reduction credits as identified in the preceding section, and the County may identify high- loading catchment technologies and measures and treat proportionally for greater credit. The County would be required to submit annual reports of program activity. NCDWQ has identified a number of potential measures to accomplish the needed level of nutrient reduction for existing development that include (but are not limited to): • Improvements to existing retention/detention ponds and stormwater structures, 8 I\ • Stream restoration, • Wetlands creation/low-impact design, • Source control of fertilizer and pet waste, • Street sweeping, • Stormwater capture and reuse, • Creating and enhancing stream buffers, • Treatment of property redevelopment (changes in use, new permits), • Overtreatment of new development, • Retrofits to existing development, • Advanced wastewater treatment at wastewater treatment plants, and • Removal of existing impervious cover. Stream Buffers This would require implementation of programs to protect existing vegetated stream buffers within 50 feet of intermittent and perennial streams, with the first 30 feet being undisturbed vegetation and forest and the second 20 feet allowed to be managed vegetation. Existing activities would be permitted to continue within buffers, but any change in land use would trigger the new rules. There are other provisions for mitigation of buffers and specified allowable uses, but the existing Orange County regulations are more stringent that the new proposed rules, and should adequately address this component of the Jordan Lake Nutrient Rules. Jordan Lake Offset Options and Nutrient Trading As noted above, most of the parties affected by these rules have options for offsite loading reduction — buying other stream buffer land or paying a fee to existing or new programs that do stream restoration and other nutrient reduction 9 work in order to meet their responsibilities for load reduction. However, as discussed above, minimum onsite reduction strategies must be achieved before offsite credits can be pursued. The Ecosystem Enhancement Program is the primary target of such offset efforts, but the County could also possibly use its own programs (such as Lands Legacy, and programs administered by the Soil and Water District and Erosion Control) to provide other offset options to meet requirements for new and existing development. Biosolids The nutrient rules as proposed include a change related to the land application of wastewater system biosolids —that nutrient management plans created for wastewater residual biosolids must adhere to Soil and Water rules in place or as may be amended at the time permits are approved, and that biosolids application must comply with the phosphorus requirements of the applicable USDA rules. Additionally, applications for renewal of existing permits for biosolids application must adhere to the new rule within one year of the adoption, and all new permits must comply with the rule as of the effective date of the rule. POSSIBLE ACTION TIMELINE Summary of County Mandated Maximum Earliest Possible Responsibilities Elapsed Time Deadline Following Effective Date :ass ng a Ju effective date for •ulations Submit program for New July, 2011 Development— Stormwater to NCDWQ Implement public education and 6 months after January, 2012 illicit discharge efforts (Existing NCDWQ model Development) program accepted by EMC. Model program must be submitted to EMC wiithin 18 months Implement New Development- July, 2012 Stormwater nutrient reduction •ro•ram Conduct plan to address 3.5 years January 2013 Existing Development/ stormwater, submit program for Existing Development nutrient reduction Implement Existing 4.5 years January, 2014 Develo•ment-Stormwater 10 13 nutrient reduction program Annual reports from County to Annually NCDWQ on new development and existing Development Programs 50% of all nutrient reduction to 10 years July, 2019 be accomplished, or alternative timeframe and technical basis submitted. Submit revised program for reducing remainder of nutrient reduction requirements. Implications for Orange County Government/ Issues for Consideration 1. Estimated Cost NCDWQ developed a set of cost estimates in conjunction with the rules preparation, which was revised for the May 9 adoption by the EMC. The estimated cost for local governments in the Jordan Lake watershed to implement their responsibilities under the rules was up to $530 million (total), although it could be as low as $230 million. The vast majority of the projected cost to local government is in addressing the possible requirements for existing development. These projected costs include the required plans, the potential capital costs of new structural measures, and the cost of new staff needed to address structural and non-structural solutions (such as through development standards and stormwater ordinances, for example). In Orange County's case, with a longstanding preference to non-structural watershed protection and stormwater management, the primary costs to be incurred cannot be accurately estimated until the jurisdictional loading rate is determined using forthcoming spreadsheets from DWQ, and a subsequent plan is complete. However, costs are expected to be incurred in the following categories: • Additional staff to oversee and inspect new ponds and stormwater measures • Construction of new stormwater measures (ponds, bioretention areas, wetlands), and renovation and expansion of existing structures • Land acquisition for stream buffers, stream restoration, wetlands creation and other nutrient reduction, and • GIS needs to determine 2001 and 2009 nutrient loads. In order to determine nutrient loading rates Orange County must determine land use and/or cover types as inputs for the baseline period as well as currently. Staff is investigating utilizing the state's GIS services to obtain this data. Since there would be a substantial cost to obtain this data, it may be appropriate to ask the state to provide 11 assistance. This would also allow loading rates to be calculated consistently across the watershed. • Establishment of a local nutrient trading process Staff will be required to develop a Load Reduction Program as well as an Administrative Program to address the requirements for existing development. The components of these programs were discussed above and staff hours will be necessary to meet the requirements of these programs. If stream monitoring is also pursued as part of the Load Reduction Program, additional staff labor will be needed. Staff will be working to assess the financial impact to the County of implementation of the rules, as they progress through the General Assembly approval process. 2. Possible Difficulty in Meeting Upper New Hope Target Each jurisdiction is asked to meet the same loading rate (2.2 lbs/acre N, 0.8 lbs/acre P) and reduction target (35% N, 5% P). However, in Orange County's case, loading rates for N and P in the Rural Buffer (New Hope Creek, Morgan Creek) are expected to be quite low, pending the formal loading rate to be determined. Recent communications from the State indicate that this will now be accomplished by each jurisdiction, using a spreadsheet to be supplied by DWQ. The nature of the New Hope Creek corridor in Orange County jurisdiction, for example, is very rural and heavily forested, with little agriculture or residential development (the total residential land use in the entire Upper New Hope arm is only 25%, and the vast majority of this development is outside of County jurisdiction). As New Hope Creek leaves Orange County, it has passed through three miles of Duke Forest and the future New Hope Preserve. In this case, the current existing loading rate for N may already be very low. In such a case, making a 35% reduction in an already low number may be difficult. Uncertainties remain as to whether or not a 35% reduction in N loading would be required if the load data determined for Orange County indicates that our jurisdiction's Nitrogen load is already less than the overall goal of 2.2 lbs/acre/year. 3. Nutrient Trading Possibilities With substantial pressures on the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and the City of Durham to reduce nutrient loading from new and existing development, an opportunity may arise for the County to partner with these jurisdictions to protect New Hope Creek and Morgan Creek upstream through acquisition of stream buffers, creation of wetlands, and other upstream techniques. The details of possible nutrient trading networks are still being worked out and are complicated, but this approach has been explored conceptually with the 12 )5 consultants crafting the possible nutrient trading program and appears to offer some potential. It also appears that much of the nutrient trading and offsets may be able to occur through existing County programs, like Lands Legacy, cost-share programs through USDA, stormwater programs within the Erosion Control office, and other efforts. One of the more interesting approaches that may be feasible is creation of an Orange County in-lieu fee program. This may generate funds that Orange County can leverage with its other conservation programs to meet nutrient load reduction requirements under the rules. In the long run, this may be the most fruitful area of activity, with the County serving as an alternative "mitigation bank" to the Ecosystem Enhancement Program or other mitigation opportunities. 4. Agriculture in the Upper New Hope and Haw Arms The agricultural provisions in the portions of Jordan Lake watershed in Orange County are voluntary at first, but may become mandatory in nutrient goals are not met. The expectation among agricultural agencies is that, in most cases, the measures outlined for agriculture can be met through the voluntary approach. As previously noted, there is little agriculture remaining in the Upper New Hope Arm and substantial activity in the Haw Arm. Additionally, as noted in the agricultural section of this report, the possibility may exist over time for farmers to generate credits for nutrient reduction and sell or trade those credits to other users. 5. State Funding Assistance Many jurisdictions, including Orange County in the 2008 public hearing comments, have stated that State funding assistance to tackle the varied and costly provisions of meeting the rules is of critical importance. This assistance could take many forms, in helping to retrofit existing stormwater controls in some jurisdictions, to acquiring stream buffers and conservation areas upstream to offset nutrient loading in other areas, to GIS support from the State's Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, which could provide invaluable assistance in using aerial photography and other GIS coverages to help establish the 2001 baseline loading rates and the current 2009 rates. In order to determine nutrient loading rates Orange County must determine land use and/or cover types as inputs for the baseline period as well as currently. Staff has already been investigating utilizing the state's GIS services to obtain this data. Since there would be a substantial cost to obtain this data, it may be 13 ((0 appropriate to ask the state to provide assistance. This would also allow loading rates to be calculated consistently across the watershed. 6. Potential Opposition to the Rules in the 2009 General Assembly In the 2008 public hearings, considerable opposition was raised to the proposed Jordan Lake rules, from the development community, local governments and wastewater treatment providers. Although the issues were not always the same, most revolved around the projected cost to these entities for implementing rules for new development and existing development. Possible bills revising the rules to alter or do away with certain provisions, such as the existing development retrofit provisions, are being drafted on several front and are expected to be introduced in the coming month. The primary implication for Orange County in this venue is that this assessment of the rules could be altered by changes to the eventual enacted version, changing some of the costs or assumptions included herein. While there may be changes to the rules, some legislation to address nutrient loading in Jordan Lake will be needed, to meet at a minimum the federal Clean Water Act provisions. The Jordan Lake Nutrient Management Rules have been, and continue to be, a very fluid process - with new interpretations and provisions added at several points along the past three years, as recently as December 2008. The potential for this to continue is strong, as the rules enter the legislative process in 2009. This document represents staffs best attempt as of January 2009 to outline the current status of the rules and the projected implications — knowing that these too, will likely change and evolve yet again.As such, this document is best viewed as a status report for this 'snapshot in time.' 14