HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-26-2009 - 4a24a-6 AGENDA #4a2
OFFICE OF THE MANAGER
405 arti~ Lutl~e~ rig, ~ji. Blvd.
~hap~l dill, N ~7~t4-~~05
T'ele~ho~e ~9t9} 9G8~~743
F~~ ~919~ ~6~-~0~3
vvv.towt7of~ha~~ll~11~ afg
~eptenrzbez• ~ , ~~07
Dr. David H. Moreau, chair
North Carolina Environmental iVlanagernent omission
16171VIai1 Service tenter
Raleigh, N X769-1~~7
Mr, Rich Hannan
DENR -~ Division of water duality, Planning section
1 G ~ 7 Mail e~~vice Center
Ra,lcigh, ~N ~7~99-1 ~ 17
.~~: ~`ou o~ ~r~~~~ ~r~~ 5~~~~ ~..~~~~s acv ~~~ ~~o~as~~ ~~.~~~~~ ~~~~
~ ~r~~s ~a~ ~~~ ~, ~~~~~~ ~Io~~v ~~~ ~o~~
]dear Dr, Moreau and Mr. Hannan:
Enclosed are can~.ents frarrl the Town of Chapel Hill staff regarding the proposed Nutrient
1Vlanaement Strategy Rules ~"Jordan Rules"} for the B. Everett Jordan Reservoir. fur
comments and questions involve elements of the Jordan Rules that require further
clarificationleplanation, requirements in the Jordan Rules that are contradictory andlor will
impair the ability of local governments to achieve reasonable compliance, and issues that need
farther consideration and study to assure that the most practical and effective approaches are
implemented to reduce nutrient levels and algal blaon~s in the Reservoir.
we strongly support the over-arching goals of ipraving the water quality of the B, Everett
Jo~•dan Reservoir and ipro~ring the health of the streams f lowing to the reservoir. The Town of
Chapel Hi11 has been a leader among local governments in supporting the goals of water quality
protection as demonstrated through irnplen~entation of a number of environmental protection
initiatives over the past qua~•ter centu.~{y. During this time, the Tawn Council and. staff have
c~•eated and refined local development ordinances that reflect current scientific understanding of
envlrol~nental processes, the latest engineering practices, and the in~pot•tance of environmental
quality and protection as enaphasl~ed m the Town's Corrrprehensive Plan. e have involved the
public at all levels of this process, from holding public hearings aiad receiving public comment,
to sollclt~ng review and caminent by Town Boards and Comn~tsslons,
we are concerned, however, that the Town's established and continuing pia-active
environmental protection efforts have not been acknowledged in the process of devising methods
far managing water• quality in Jordan Reservoir. This is especially e~rident in the selection of the
baseline~s~ proposed for measuring compliat~ce with the rules, since the Town's initiatives prior
to im.plc~nentation of the rules would x•eceive no credit,
we believe that the contr•al of nutrients solely through the management of starmwater runoff and
point source discharges will fail to significantly improve floe reservoir's water q~lality. e think
4a-7
Dr. David Nio~~au at~~ Mr. Rich Gaun~n -- L~~t~~•
~~pt~irri~e~• ~ 3, 207
Page ~
that a nacre thorough and multi-faceted assessment of all sources of i~itrpgen and phaspho~~s in
the 3ordan Reservoir basin needs to be conducted, including not only the division of mater
duality but also the Division of Air ualxty, the Division of environmental health, the ~ivisian
of waste Manage~.ent, and the Division of sand Resources, Since these divisions function
under the ~nvlranental Management o~aualisian and the Depa,rtn~ent of ~nvlronment and
l~atural Resources, we believe this presents an excellent oppcr~.inity far cooperation between
and anaan the divisions to consider a number of different perspectives in creating a
eompfeheiaslve regional plan to manage nutrients in the watershed draining to the Jordan
Reservoir. This approach weuld be consistent with the three ley aspects ~f pollution
naa~aagement strategy -identify the sources, eliminate ar reduce the sources as much as passible,
and then establish treatment as close to the sou~.~ces as possible.
we believe that, although adaptive management is encouraged as part of the Jordan Rules and
has been shown to encourage more effective anc~ affordable changes in environmental practices,
much mare iiafai~.nation is necessary and better techniques and optio~as must be made. available
such that local goveriarnents and state agencies Can better target il~anagement tactics to nutrient
saui'cs. we strongly recanamend that the State further study and evaluate ail possible nutrient
management strategies and satutlarls, including a canaprehensive evaluation of the role ai' the
Farrington Load ASR ~ a08} causeway, in the processes of lal~e circul~.tion, ilutiient cycling, and
algal population dynamics.
we a~•e also concerned that the fiscal analysis ignific~.ntly underestimates the costs far
implementing the prescribed nutrient management measures far bath local gavern~nents and state
agencies. ~1ven the poten.txal costs, we consider a thorough evaluation of alte~~at1ve strategies
and solutions essential to goad stewardship of taxpayers' ruoney.
we appreciate this opportunity to comment on the prapasedNutrient Strategy Rules far B,
Everett Jordan Resei•~oir, we have attached ou~~ detailed comments and questions regarding the
proposed rules, and we loa1~ forward to the development and in~plenaentatian of a practical,
effective, carrlpreheiasive, regional, rriulti~source nutrient naanagenaer~t strategy that will
ultimately result in a cleaner, healthier B, Eve~'ett Jordan Reservoir. Please contact Ms. Sue
Burl~e, PE at 91~~9~~R72~~ if you have questions or require additional rnforn~ation,
Town 1Vlanager
Attachment; chapel HXIr Town staff ca~n~nent and questions regarcl~rig the proposed Nutrient
Strategy Rues far the B, Everett Jordan Reservoir
cc; Bruce Heflin, Assistant Town Manager
Ralph ~at~pino, Town Attorney
C eorge Snaall, PE, engineering Director
Sue Bu~~l~e, P~, Sta~nawater Managerrzent Engineer
Pat~•1c1a D'Arconte, Stornawater Spec~allst
4a-8
TD1NN OF CHAPEL HILL STAFF D~MMENT AND C~UETIONs REGARDING PR~P~SED
JORDAN LASE NUTR[ENT TI~ITEGY RULES - SUBMITTED E~TEMBBR ~, ~0~7
~~A NCAC ~~B.D~G~: 1~IiAT~~S~Ei~ NL~TRI~NT REDU~T~~~ SAL
1. Rule .0262(3) states reduction goals are in terms of a percentage reduction in delivered
nutrient Toads to the lake. What transport factors were used, i~ any, to determine how
much of an individual site's nutrient load is delivered to the lake? Does this transport factor
apply to both percentage reductions (as for existing development -see x.0266(3}(a)) and
the unit-area mass loading rates has for new deveiapment -see §.a2fi5(3)(a)(i))?
~, Aerial deposition of nitrogen from local and distant combustion sources} i a significant
contributor to nitrogen loads in araa water bodies. Aerially-deposited nitrogen as a nutrient
source is addressed by the rules in .0~6~~8} only as an acknowledged limitation, and
suggests the EMC could undertake separate rule-nuking in the future to support the
Jordan Rules.
Achieving success in reducing nitrogen loads to Jordan Lake may be highly dependent on
addressing aerial sources, Urban impervious surfaces such as sidewalks and roofs
typically do not produce nitrogen and phosphorus; they do collect dry particulates that get
washed off during precipitation events.
Addressing local combustion sources such as the heavy traffic in the Triangle and Triad
regions is certainly feasible and has a variety of human health and enviranmenta] benefits.
Ernissions control has worked very well in the past for controlling load pollution. Current
methods for emissions contra] also offer carban~reduction benefits. Carbon reduction is a
stated goal of both the Chapel Hiil Tawn Council and the University of North Carolina, and
u~rill become increasingly adopted by other ~urisd[ctians as our climate chows signs of
change.
is it more cost-effective to be treating aerially-deposited nitrogen using stormwater
management rather than limiting its creation through combustion sources? vUouldn't it be
cheaper to central nitrogen ofi the source rather than try to treat it secondarily through
stormwater management?
Biosolids application is currently allowed in the Upper New Haile Arm subwatershed.
vllhat is the estimated nutrient cantributian from this application? vUauld it be considered a
fertiliser? inc~ bioolids application has the potential to be a significant nutrient source, it
needs to be regulated as part of the Jordan [pules, in spite of the fact that it's already
subject to existing regulatory and compliance programs. Those existing programs were
not developed v~ith the gaa[ of vuatershed nutrient management.
4. There are no existing programs to control nutrient loads from onsite wastewater systems
(e.g. septic systems}. Land uses with septic systems were considered #o contribute a large
amount of nutrients in the Division of Water Qua[ifiy's reckoning of nutrient allocations by
land use type. It is not clear if local ga~ernments have the authority to require regular
inspections and/or maintenance ofi onsite wasfiewater systems or rnust rely on the county
or state en~ironmentai health programs to enforce these provisions.
5. The Division of vlEater Quality held four stakeholder meetings to design an adaptive
management plan for the lake. The results of this plan vuau[d revise the lake model to
have more computational "ce[Is" t~ better model inylake processes. The plan would also
add new lake rrxanitaring sites, and new watershed rnanitaring sites on small tributaries in
the Laver New Hope Arm and in the Hain Arm of the lake to hotter estimate nutrient
delivery loads. Na new sites uvould be added in the Upper Neva Hope Arne there are
Page ~ of 9
4a-9
currently three at the "bottom" of the drainage area. Furthermore, the watershed model
which vuas used to model sources of nutrients in the three respecti~re watersheds was not
to be revised. currently, the ~ratershed model is of insufficient scale and precision for any
kind of targeted management practical, such as to allow local governments the ability to
trace and correct highly localised sources Qf nutrients or determine true land use nutrient
loading rates ~ratherthan using published sources, none of which era calibrated far our
soils and geology}. Devising the lake model alone would not contribute the kind of
information needed for adaptive management.
one possibility proposed by stakeholders prior to the first publication of the Rules in ~~~5
was the removal of the Farrington Road ~~ ~ 40~} causeway that crosses the lake. The
.causeway turns the Upper New Hope Arm into a de facto stormwnter forebay for the Louver
New Hope Arr. The narrov~r opening of the causev~ay limits the flow of water out of the
Upper New Hope Arm, landing to a residence time of aver a year. This nearly stagnant
flow leads to increased sedimentation easily visible Pram the causeway but also attested
to by people canoeing up the tributaries}, increased tornperatures, and decreased
dissolved oxygen. These conditions are very favorable forthe proliferation of algae,
~. The need to revise the Inke model ~prirnarily, the cost to da so} wars one of two main
reasons given by ~v~{~ in early stakeholder meetings for not modeling lake processing for
the scenario where the Farrington Road causeway were to be removed and replaced with
a bridge. The other reason given was the supposition that allowing water from the Upper
New Hape Arm to r~ix vuith that of the Lower New Hape Arm would necessarily worsen the
water duality in the Lo~rer New Hope Arm. There are scientific reasons to believe,
however, that uwrere increased mining allowed the Upper Neva Hope Arne ono longer strongly
segr~ented from other areas} would experience in~praved nutrient processing without a
concomitant reduction in nutrient processing in the Lower New Hope Arm. The very
purpose of a revised lake model vuauld be to truly test the assumption that water quality
would worsen if the causeway were to be removed.
~ ~ NA O~By0~fi3: NUTRIENT I~ANAEMENT
1. The ten-acre threshold established in §.0263(3)(d) should be deleted. A!I contracted
nutrient applicators should be subject to these requirements.
2. Please provide a definition fflr "nutrient management consultants." (§.0263(3}(e))
3. Nutrient management training or completing and implementing a nutrient managemen#
flan is insufficient to modify any behavior tending towards overapplication of fertilizers
{§.0263(4)). A statewide licensing and certification program is needed sa that persons
hiring an applicator can readily check that fihe applicator has been properly trained
~{§.0263(4){b)).
15A NCAC 02B.02fi4: AGRICULTURE
~. In ,g~64~7}, {`sufficient level of farm stewardship" appears to establish a standard far
compliance. Please provide a definition far this term.
15~ N~AC ~~8.0~~5: ~TORMwATER I~IANACEMENT FAR NEw DEVELOPMENT
Page ~ of 9
4a-10
~ . Revise .0~~5~~}~a}~i} by adding the follov~ring underlined language: starmv~ater BMPs
andloroffsets are ernplayed such that "Nitrogen and phosphorus iaads contributed by the
proposed nevu development activity shall not exceed certain snit-area mass loading rates,'
"based an Bi~P efficiencies published by tie division of yl~ater ~uality_ Requirer~ents for
urban tormvuater, lath near develaprnent and existing develapn~ent, need to reflect the
use of best management practices to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the rnaxirnurn
extent practicable. This is consistent vuith the approach and language in the federal glean
lll~ater Act ~ 4a~~p}~3}{B}} and the associated faders[ regulations addressing urban
storrnwater under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination system ~NPDE} pragrarn.
~. in7ilarly, revise the reference to a vuater quality standard at .a~G5~~}~a}viii} by deleting the
follaing language { }: "T~e~e-~t~~_~~+~~,~~+~t ~~„~ ~-~,+~~~~+ ~r~-~,~~~~~,~
F .
d~~r~~ ' n n~ ~h~~+~r~ n~ ^ fE."
~ ~~ ~~~ ~
3. According to Rule ,0265{3)(a)(~i), developers may use an offset option for nutrient loading
contingent on the acceptance of their proposals by the NC Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (§.0240(a)). Both nutrient loading offset payments and riparian mitigation
payments only have the restriction to be used for projects in the same river basin as the
impact, but not the specific restriction to the same Jordan subwatershed as the impact.
Similarly, the mitigation options of donated real property and restoration/enhancement of
non-forested riparian buffer are required only to be located "the same distance from the
Jordan Reservoir as the proposes[ impact, or closer to the Reservoir than the impact..." as
stated in §.[1268(4) with na restriction to the same Jordan subwatershed as the impact.
Do loco! gavernmen#s have the authority to restrict the use of impact payments or
mitigafiion projectslproperty for developments in their jurisdictions or to require that they be
used/created in the same Jordan subwatershed as the impact? This would be consistent
with §.0269~2)(b), in which parties see[cing to sell excess loading reductions {credifs) may
make them a~aila~le only in the same subwatershed as the impact.
4. Annual reports (from regu[afied parties) are specified ~n the rues at §.0265(4}(~) and
§.0266(4)(h}, but there are na details in the rues regarding exactly what regulated parties
need to track and what/how to report it. Will instructions or guidance on annual reports be
included in the State's model stormwater program and ordinance and/or the "tao["
developed for nutrient reduction calculation?
The efficiencies assigned #o urban starm~ater BI~IPs for new deve[opment and existing
development in the fiscal analysis appear to be lo~rerthan thane assigned to comparable
agricultural BIUIPs ~e.g., filter strips, buffers}. The urban BMP efficiencies need to be
revised up~rard.
~ 5A h1~AC ~~B,~~~~: TORl~iV11ATER i~ANA~MEIVT FAR E~iITIN~ ~E11EL~PMENT
~ . section .g~G~~}~a}~i} should be revised v~rith the fallo~uing added underlined} or deleted
~ ~ }language: "In addressing this long-term objective, a local government shall
include estimates of, and plans for offsetting, nutrient loading increases from lands
developed s~~~~a~t~fh~--~~ri^~ ~~ ~f prior to impl~mentatian of ~
r~~-raln~-rmr~n~nrnr~r~mc of these rules." Irn lernentat~on ma have occurred at ap time
Page3of~
4a-11
before, during, crafter the baseline period, and compliance shall be contingent ~n
continued implementation and maintenance of such practices,
This language is needed to acknowledge the efforks made by those ~urid~ctior~s that have
implemented stormwater and buffer requirements for many years prior to these regulations
and it is consistent with language contained in .9~4{7}for agriculture.
The Town has been a ocal leader in adopting environmental protection practices such as
stream buffers, runoff volume and rate control, total suspended solids in runoff control,
treelforest stand protection, erosion and sedimentation control, and a variety of practices
nave known as Low impact Development which includes cluster development, pedestrian-
andtransit-oriented development layout, latM[evel stormwater management, etc. The Town
has been implementing these progressive plann[ng and starmwater management practices
over the past two decades but will only get "credit" for stormwater management installed
from ~90~ onwards. Furthermore, since the Town has already required buffers and B[~Ps
in recent developments, the "easy projects" to increase nutrient removal in existing
developments are already lane, leaving the Town with fewer locations and options for
installing BMP or restoring riparian buffers.
2. Section .02 6(3}(a)(i) notes that local governments may seek suppfemen#af funding for
implementation of load-reducing activities thraugf~ grant sources such as the Noah
Carolina Clean Water Management Trust Fund, the North Carolina Clean Water Act
Section 319 Grant Program, or other func~ing programs for nonpoint sources. What
funding sources is the State identifying or making available for the performance of the
feasibility studies?
As the area underthe Town of Chapel Hi[I's planning jurisdiction is more than 9310
developed source: Chapel Hill Data Book, ~D~~},this requirement has significr~t fiscal
anal practicable impacts forthe town.
The Fiscal Analysis states a total cost of ~ .~M for conducting the planning studies Table
RP.~ Annual Planning Costslavings, for local governr~ent}; however, this estimate is tea
law and needs to be revised.
3. Rule ~~25~{~{a~{iii states that a Cocally-conducted feai~i[ity study will determine the extent
to which the loading goals may be achieved from e~cisting development. Is this equivalent
to the standard engineering definition of "maximur~ extent practicable" or an extent
currently techno ogical[y feasible?
Door feasibility in this case include same measure of financial cost? Is there a penalty for
a jurisdiction if the feasibility study determines that the loading reduction goals cannot be
mot across the entire jurisdiction practicably? dill local gavernn~er~ts need to undertake the
full set of BI~P installations whether or not it is practicable and whether or not it actually
reduces nitrogen exports to the lake?
4. Tie nutrient accounting tool referred to in §.0265(4)(a) is to be de~e[oped by DWQ within
12 months after the effective date of the Ru[e. According to §.0266~3)(a)(i} local
governments must include estimates of and pfans far offsetting nutrient loading increases
from hands developed subsequent to the baseline period but prior to implementation of new
de~e[opment programs. According to §,0266((3)(a}iii} a feasibility study to determine the
extent to ~+hich loading gaa4s may be achieved from exist+ng development m~s# be
conducted by local governments. In order to estimate nutrient loads from re~ently-
developed lands and to conduct a feasibility study, local governments should be using the
same loading calculation methods #hat will be in the nutrient accounting tool, especially in
Page 4 of 9
4a-12
light of any transport factors not explicitly stated in the rules. wCll a draft version of this tool
be available early enough far Iccal governr~erit to use in their calculations and studies?
5. According to Rule .g~G~~3}~a}iii} the feasibility study shall propose an implementation ra#e
and schedule for load reducing activities. Mule F~~~9 also allows a jurisdictian tv buy
nutrient credits to meet Cts land reduction requirements, However, there are no
benchmarks for progress or a suggested tir~eline far mee#ing land roductian requirements.
Hove are proposed implementation rates ar~d schedules judged to be adequate? If a
feasibility study indicates that load reducing activities and projects are insufficient to meet
reduction goals across the jurisdictian, i the jurisdiction then required to buy nutrient
credits to meet its goals?
~. vUhat exactly constitutes "retrofitting}, as referred to in ~,O~G~~3}~a~~iv}? Gne assumes it
includes installation of new B[UIPs in existing developments. According to DvU~ staff,
MPs existing during the baseline period cannot be counted towards nutrient land
roductian. However, could improvement o~ modification of existing BIUIP to treat nutrients
or increase treatment be considered far credit? Could repair of brakenlpoorly~functioning
BAP to restore nutrient treatment ca_pacit~ be considered far credit? Given the potent~a4
far these activities to improve nutrient management can repairer improvement of these
existing BMPs be used for full ar even partial nutrient credit?
?. vllhen starmwater infrastructure is shared or crasser boundaries between local
jurisdictions, which entity bears the responsibility for nutrient roductian? Local
governments, such as fawns and counties, are encouraged to work with each other to
jointly meet loading targets in .0~~~~~~{a}~v~~, which Boas allow a method to address such
shared infrastructure, imilar4y, NCD~T-maintained roads and LNG properties are
scattered throughout Chapel Hi[['s jurisdictian such that the starmwater infrastructure of
these three entities is highly interconnected. However, there is no clear guidance in these
rules on responsibilities for nutrient reduction when starmwater infrastructure is shared
between local governments and state agencies. while it would probably be highly
beneficial and reduce inefficiency, it is similarly unclear whether NCDC~T or UIVC is allowed
to enter into joint nutrient management agreementswith local governments.
S. Aacarding to discussions with D1~11~ staff and based an similar calculations far the Neuse
and Tar-Pamlico, inta[lation of a new starmwater BLIP upstream of an existing BI~P being
used for nutrient reduction has the potential to lower the nutrient removal credit far the
downstream BI~P ~thraugh the "BIUIPs in series" calculations}. 1llfhat is the minir~um
separation distance between Blv[Ps in ord er to be considered separate? Or ere nutrient
treatrr~ent loads for BlU[Ps in series, even if separated, calculated only using the drainage
area flowing tather~ that doesn't already pass through a BMP? This is likely to bean
extraordinarily complex calcuiatian of BI~P nutrient removal. Haw is treatment capacity .
managed under this scenario?
~ 5A NC~IC ~~B.~~~~: PR~TE~TIGN ~F EITIN R[PARIAN BUFFER
~ . In ~a~G~l~9}, Table of Uses,llegetation Maintenance includes the removaC of understory
nuisance vegetation as defined in `Exotic Plant Guidelines," by Cherri L. smith, Dept. of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and recreation. Raleigh, NC. This
reference does not provide a definition of "understary nuisance vegetation." Please
provide a definition or change to "invasive exotic species," which is defined in the cited
reference.
Page ~ of ~
4a-13
~. In ,~~7{9}, Table ~f ~Jses, "v~ildlife passage„ is considered an Al[awable Use in the
riparian buffer only if a determination of no practical alternatives is made. "~Il~ildlife
passage" is not domed ~n .0~6~{~}, if "wildlife passage" is the maintenance of a forested
ar other natural corridor connecting natural areas has the #erm is used in conservation
biology, why is it considered ~ land use impacting the riparian buffer to the extent that a
determination of no practical alternatives is necessary
~ 5A NCAD o~~~a~~s: ~iT~ATION FAR R[PARIA~I ~uFFER~
No comments.
~5A NCA~C O~~,O~G~: ~PTl~NS FAR ~FFSETTiN NUTRIENT LADS
Na comments.
15A NDAD ~~B.~~~Q: wAETEwATER DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS
No comments.
~5A NCAC ~8,027~ ~ STORMI~ATER REC~UIRE~ENTS FAR STATE AND FEDERAL
ENTITIES
The requirements and schedule for the state and federal agencies need to be identical to those
for local government. The state agency implementation schedule appears to lag local
government by 18 months. Further, comparable requirements fio those contained in
§.0266(3)(o-e) for local governments appear to be missing for non-DOT agene~es.
~ 5A NDA~ ~~8.4~~~: RIPARIAN SUFFER ~11TATION FEES
Na carnrnents,
~ 5A NCAC q2B~~~~ ~ : CAPE FEAR RAVER BASIN
No comments.
FISCAL ANALYSIS
~ . The Fiscal Analysis includes na new costs to the Division to implement these rules Mpg.
xviii~, which is not realistic.
~. To avoid complexity, cast calculations were carried out at the scale of the entire vuatershed
Mpg. xx}. This likely greatly overestimates oasts far those in the Lower New Hope Arm
subwatershed, somewhat overestimates costs for the Have Arm, and underestirr~ates casts
for those in the Lipper New Haile Arm. This is attributable to the significantly greater
amount of nutrient reduction that must be achieved in the Upper New Haile Arm. The
Fiscal Analysis needs to provide more realistic cost analyses forthe separate
subwatersheds. Further, the estimated costs for each local government should be
identified.
At the arrboro public hearing, same Hauv dischargers asser#ed that they will be required
to remove closer to 20°lo in ar~er to meet the ~°la nitrogen reduction at the lake because of
Page ~ of 9
4a-14
transportfactars. The transport factors describe the attrition of nutrients as they travel
dawn through a subwatershed~ if the looal expork was reduced by 8°l0, the delivered [aad
would also be reduced by 8°l0, The local e~part and delivered [aad would not be the same
"mass," but they vuill be the same "percent mass." Cara the ~VV~ provide some
o[arificatian?
4. The cost estimates far additional regulatory transactions on the part of [oval governments
for new development Mpg. 3} and for riparian buffer protection are significantly under
estimated. host estimates assume negligible costs foradditianal regulatory transactions
on the part of local governments for new development {pg~ 5~ and for riparian buffer
protection, partly because local governments already have programs that deal with new
development stormwater controls ar~d stream buffer protection to same degree. However,
the Jordan Rules for new development storrnwater treatment and riparian buffer protection
are sufficiently different in many ways, and much more strict in other ways, to require extra
time and effoltfrom local jurisdictions for increased inspection and enforcement costs din
orderta ensure compliance, which is the responsibility of local governments}, increased
plan review casts experience has shown that mare complex engineering calculations
require significantly more plan review}, and increased public education and outreach.
5. host calculations for new developments use a weighted average for the entire Jordan
vuatershed, ratherthan different calculations forthe different subwatersheds {pg. 37}, This
greatly underestimates costs for those in the Upper New Hope Arm subwatershed and
overestimates costs for others.
~. In the section concerning nevu development, the calculation methodology assumes no
regulatory costs to developers in ~g09 or ~~~ ~ for Bonne reason they are merged with
riparian buffer protection ~ but not all riparian impacts happen in the course of
development} Mpg. 4g}. However, prudent jurisdictions are likely to attempt to modify their
development ordinances to approximate the expected tarmwater program rules in order to
minimise the amount of retrofitting they have to da to very new developments. imi[arly, it
assumes there will be no maintenance costs far BI~Ps in 200 and ~~~ ~ as well Mpg. 46~.
~'. In the section concerning new development, casts are likely underestimated for chapel Hill
as propartionatelymore of its development will be moderate-to-higher density residential
and mixed development, incurring much greater treatment req~irernents average Th[ load
X5.0 Iblaclyr}than for residential average TIV load 4,04 Ib~aclyr} Mpg. 40}, A likely
unintended side effect of the nutrient management strategy encourages sprawling
residential development over compact farms that set aside open space because the
nutrient treatment requirement is sa much greater for compact development.
8. host calculation methods far new development also used an allowable nitrogen value of
~.~ Iblaclyr, higher than the ~.~ Ib~aclyrthat Upper New Hope Arm ~UNHA} developers
will be allowed Mpg. 40}. Using the designated UNHA target, developers will have to treat
up to S5°I~ of nitrogen coming off their sitar. vvith an average ~~IP efficiency for nitrogen
of 30°l0, and the prablerns of using BNiPs in series ~lov~rer B~[Ps in series only remove a
pOrt~an of what IS left}, developers would have t0 Install a m~nlmum of three Bi~1Ps to get
down to the 4.0 Ib~aclyr threshold far buying nitrogen credits and would have to use five
MPs per care to get below the u[tirrrata ~.~ Iblaclyr goal. Even residential, with 11~ acre
lots, would require two ~NiP per acre, calculations only use a single BIk~P cost-
effectivenessvalue, which you can only assume if you use only one ~CIICP. BlU[Ps in series
will have progressively poorer cost-effectiveness. Treatment efficiencies for BI~IPs are
Page ~ of 9
4a-15
only listed far a certain size of B[~P as well. It [s not calculatedldetermined whether an
oversized BMP will perform better far these development cases that need so much mare
nutrient removal.
9. In the section regarding new development Mpg. 4}, it is noted that credits can easily be
generated far averkreating phosphorus, but that these credits could not be used to cover
nitrogen reduction needs. However, for existing development Mpg. ~~} it is asserted that
local governments would be able to trade excess phosphorus reduction credits in order to
meet nitrogen reduction needs, cantradictir~g the methods used for calculating casts for
new development. That credit value is used towards reducing the estimated costs for
existing development retrofits. By their calculation this comes to 5.4 million peryear Mpg,
6}.
~ OF In the section regarding existing developr~ent, the calculation methodology assumes no
costs until the fifth year Mpg. xxi and ~~}. ,However, local governments will need to s#art
feasibility studies immediately upon l~u[e adoption, and will need to go through the lengthy
process of writing and adapting nevu ordinances. The cost of conducting feasibility studies
is completely absent. alcu~af~~n also assume That Df(~ will be the entity developing
regulations, monitoring and recordkeeping, and inspection and enforcement, in addition to
installation, operation, and maintenance of BI~P, when in fact these responsibilities are
also the responsibility of the local gavernn~ents because they must keep track of these
issues for their annual reports Mpg, ~~}. In any case, DC~ calculates these casts to be
zero, when they mast cerkain[y will not be,
1 ~ . For calculating existing development retrofit casts for DST, Dv1lG~ used an area[ landing
value supplied by DOT, of ~. ~ ~ l~ i~4~ac~yr Mpg. ~ ~~}. No other entities were allowed to
estimate their nutrient contribution or loads in this way. This very likely significantly
underestimates loads generated from DOT roads, as the supplied loading rate is~ust
slightly less than that used for urban parklandlopen space ~.~~ Ib N~aclyr} calculated to
have 4°l~ imperviousness forthe TetraTech model} and less than all residential values
~sewered, ranging frorr~ g.31 to ~~.g~ Ib Nlaclyr} except far very love density ~ewered only,
more than 2 acres per dwelling unit}.
~~. The "ca-mingled drainage treatment" scenario for DOT refers to the treatment of runoff
from both DOT and non-DOT land in order to be most efficient in runoff treatment. ]t
proposes that DOT may sell treatment credits at hi her rates than it costs to DST to loco[
jurisdictions for treating their runoff {pg, 1 ~~}, This is a significantly laver estimate of costs
for DOT ~~~~ million} compared to the estivate for putting a AMP on every autfall an all of
their existing roads in.the watershed {~9~ million} {pg. ~9}. This suggests that DOT may
transfer much of the BI~P casts to local governments, but this cast to governments is not
included. DOT's lowest cost alternative ~8 million} was to use only EEP offsets. There
is concern whether there are a sufficient number of sites in the Upper New Hope Arm that
meet the FFP project criteria to offset al[ the miles of DST roads in the UNHA.
~ ~. fasts for regulation of new development are rolled into thane for riparian buffer protection,
including estimates for plan review, permitting, variance process, etc. host estimates for
these are all rolled into one value including inspection and enforcement, permitting, plan
review, program development Mpg. 9~}. Some regulatory costs are presented, all based an
the assumption that NPDE Phase ~ vuauld require riparian buffr~pratectian anyway ~pgF
7~} ~a dubious assurr~ption}, but they are likely significantly underestimated. [n our
experience, inspection and enfarcerr~ent will likely be extensive as many properky owners
Page 8 of 9
4a-16
gill impact the buffer far both activities that would need a development permit, as well as
activities that currently do not such as clearing, other activities currently considered
"maintenance" that affect the buffer. Enforcement would have to include the collection of
data an location of different buffer cover types and monitoring to ensure that forested
buffers are nat impacted and the footprints of uses in buffers did not increase. No costs
are included forthe extensive education thatwill be required for landouuner, developers,
engineers, surveyors, real estate agents, and attorneys.
~~, The Fiscal Analysis asserts that the NPDE Phase ~ requirements include a ~-foot
setback far impervious surfaces far all perennial and intermittent streams {pg, 78~ and that
therefore the additional casts associated with the Jordan requirements farthe pratection of
existing riparian buffers are minimal. The NP~E requirements state that "built-upon
areas are at least 3g feet landward of perennial and ir~terrnittent surface waters.,' The
NPDE requirement does nat prohibit the disturbance ~e.g., clearing and grading} within
the 3a~faot setback and it should nat be interpreted as affording the same protection as a
buffer pratection requirement.
~ ~. The Fiscal Analysis assumes I~ndowners would likely take steps to revegetate cleared
riparian areas in existing developr~ents regardless of the rule's requirement Mpg. ~~ ~, and
therefiore pace na new costs. vve have found that most landawners are usually only willing
to revegetate to lawn Even those vuith interest to reforest their riparian areas will require
guidance, and possibly assistance, from local governr~ents.
~ ~, fasts far mitigating riparian buffer impacts are supposedly railed into thane far riparian
buffer pratection Mpg. ~~g}, but any costs far administering this program are not explicitly
mentioned in the cast estimates far riparian buffer protectian. In the experience of staff,
costs associated v~rith plan re~riew, inspection, recardkeepin, and ensuring r~aintenance,
even far restoration projects not undertaken by the Tawn, are significant.
Pale ~ of 9