HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-26-2009 - 4a5Jordan Summary
AGENDA #4a5
Jordan Nutrient Management Strategy Rules
Summary of Rules Adopted by the EMC on May 8, 2008
(Blue text indicates change from April 2007 version)
GENERAL:
• All local jurisdictions as well as State and Federal property owners, including NCDOT,
must comply with Rules.
• DWQ is required to work with local governments to develop model stormwater program
and accounting tool. DWQ is also required to revisit accounting methods and the loading
reductions derived from them at least every 5 years; reevaluate nitrogen source rates like
aerial deposition, also review nutrient removal efficiencies of BMPs.
• Rules explicitly refer to BMP design requirements, drainage times, and nutrient removal
efficiencies as described in DWQ's BMP Manual instead of setting them out in Rules.
More easily revised (become more accurate) in BMP Manual than if they were in the
Rules.
• Jordan Rules extend the requirements of the Watershed Protection District to the Town's
entire jurisdiction.
NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT:
Nutrient (fertilizer) application is now regulated by property type and size rather than the
applicator.
Reduced size threshold to five acres (from 10 acres) for lands treated by hired applicator.
NEW DEVELOPMENT:
• Minimum development area to trigger stormwater BMP rules is 1 ac SFR, duplex,
recreational, ~/ ac for other development.
• New development must have BMPs to treat stormwater down to 2.2 Iblac/yr nitrogen and
0.82 Ib/aclyr phosphorus; re-development may eithertreat down to 2.2 Ib/aclyr nitrogen
and 0.82 Iblac/yr phosphorus or use percent load reductions as for existing development.
• Public roads/linear utilities constructed by the Town only have to meet the buffer
protection rules, not nitrogen exportlreduction requirements; this excludes developer-built
roadslutilitiesthst will be dedicated to the Town, which must meet nutrient reductions.
• Nitrogen offsets may be bought for new development. The developer must treat down to
4 Ib/ac/yr nitrogen for single family/duplex or down to 8 Iblac/yr nitrogen for other
development first. Offset payments or options may be through EEP, local government
option, or proposed by developer as approved by DWQ.
• The Town must assume ultimate responsibility for operations and maintenance for BMPs
for high density development. The Town also must ensure proper operation,
maintenance, enforcement, and compliance.
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT:
Existing development must reduce nitrogen export by 35% and phosphorus export by 5%
mass exported is to be calculated using the Tar-Pamlico calculation tool and land use
loading rates or similar. Reduction is to be done through installation of new BMPs,
retrofitting existing BMPs, or other non-structural nutrient management methods.
Development after the baseline period but before rule implementation will be considered
existing development. The Town must estimate nutrient loading from development from
this period, and present load-reducing practices implemented in this period in order to get
Page 1 of 4
httpa/townhall.townofchapelhill.org/agendas/2009/03/26/4/a/4a5 jordan_nutrient_strategy... 3/25/2009
Jordan Summary
any "credit".
• Town must do a technical analysis to serve as the basis forthe existing development
load reduction program - to include assessment of feasibility of achieving goals, consider
magnitude of reduction need relative to area, potential for using different BMPs, costs
and efficiencies - "as practicable."
• Load reduction plan must aim for reaching half of load reduction goal in 10 years of rule
date; alternate compliance timeframe may be proposed if it demonstrates need. After 10
years Town may submit revised load reduction program.
• Town may monitorstream flows and runoffto find high loading areas, and may target
treatment there to get proportionally greater load reduction credit. Must have DWQ
approval for monitoring design and estimation of load reduction. Doing so allows Town to
delay submission of load reduction program to DWQ by one year, delay adoption and
implementation of approved program also by one year, if monitoring proposal is
submitted to DWQ within 6 months of rule date.
• Town must submit stormwater program plans for new development and existing
development for approval, includes annual reports from Town, IDDE, public education,
MS4 mapping, can be linked with NPDES permit. Schedules for submitting different
nutrient management plan components have changed.
RIPARIAN BUFFERS:
• Local programs and buffer rules may be more stringent than is required by the Jordan
Rules.
• All perennial and intermittent streams get a 50-foot minimum buffer, no exemptions for
land use type (e.g. SFR} or date of platting (i.e. grandfathering).
• Riparian Zone 1 (first 30 feet) -completely undisturbed vegetation
• Riparian Zone 2 (next 20 feet} -can be disturbed but must be regraded and revegetated,
diffuse flow to buffer maintained.
• Concentrated flow from outside the buffer must be dispersed prior to its entry into the
buffer. Periodic corrective action to restore diffuse flow must be taken,
structures/measures to be designed to prevent erosion. No new stormwater
conveyances (including roof drains) are allowed in the buffers, with certain exceptions.
• Mitigation required for many kinds of buffer impacts, thorough procedures for mitigation
and fee-in-lieu (through EEP)
• Existing and ongoing uses in buffer are allowed, but only in the CURRENT FOOTPRINT.
• Buffer rules apply to existing uses when use changes or change in footprint, not
dependent on or necessarily related to formal development or issuance of ZCP. Change
in ownership is not considered a change in use.
• Rules have table of uses for buffers similar to the Town's but more strict, has categories
of "Exempt" (permissible without authorization with restrictions on activity),
"Allowable" (may proceed where there are no practicable alternatives, requires
authorization), and "Allowable with Mitigation" (may proceed where there are no
practicable alternatives, requires authorization and a mitigation strategy).
• Rule has clear procedures for determination of "no practical alternatives" (which Town
currently lacks for buffer impacts).
Follow-up to Jordan Rule Concerns and Questions:
• Aerial deposition of nitrogen was addressed to some degree in the Hearing Officer's
Report and Staff Replies to Comments. Recently enacted state and federal air quality
regulations are expected to reduce nitrogen deposition rates over the next 30 years. It is
not clear how those potential results will be reflected in the Jordan Lake model. The
Hearing Officers' Report states that the Jordan Lake strategy implicitly accounts for
Page 2 of 4
httpa/townhall.townofchapelhill.org/agendas/2009/03/26/4/a/4a5 jordan_nutrient_strategy... 3/25/2009
Jordan Summary
atmospheric deposition.
• Guidance on responsibilities for nutrient treatment of stormwater before it enters another
jurisdiction or in cases of shared infrastructure has yet to be written. DWQ Staff states
this is something that will be explored in the development of the various model
stormwater programs to be created by DWQ. Complications of BMPs in series are also
planned to be explored in this process.
• Compliance is expected to be tracked similarly to how it is in the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico
basins, which have similar riparian buffer protection and new development nutrient
management rules to the Jordan Rules.
• Many methods and BMPs for managing nutrients as described in the Rules do not yet
have nutrient removal efficiencies determined. As demand forthese particular BMPs
continues, it is expected that DWQ will attempt to determine removal efficiencies, and
may accept values determined by other sources (such as other states}.
• While the Town doesn't get "credit" for good environmental stewardship before 2001, we
can still get "credit" for converting BMPs that existed at that time to have better nutrient
removal.
• The State has no clear requirement that EEP funds will be used for mitigation in the
same basin as the impact offset by fee-in-lieu. The land use density in the Upper New
Hope basin means there won't be many opportunities for EEP to do projects in our area.
Town-specific issues and concerns:
The Jordan buffer rules are simpler in many ways than current the RCD ordinance and
have the potential to be easier to implement. However, these rules will probably require
considerable changes to the RCD portion of the LUMO. Our buffer protection program
and ordinance will need to be approved by the EMC, but the Town has a rather lengthy
and complicated process for making LUMO changes, especially for a change of this
magnitude. Unless we base a new buffer rule entirely on the State's planned model
ordinance, we should plan for sufficient time for staff to present to the EMC a draft
riparian buffer ordinance for approval, concurrently presenting the draft to the Town's
boards and commissions for review and public hearing process. Any changes made as a
result of the boards and commissions reviewlpublic hearing will have to be submitted to
the EMC again.
The Town's method for classifying streams is more stringent than State's, State is OK
with that, but will the Town want to require Jordan-type buffer rule management for all
streams classified as perennial or intermittent by Town staff or those just on USGS quad
mapslSoil Service maps (as required by the rule)?
What triggers the requirement for a ZCP? Are there ways for Town staff to determine
changes in land use, especially the use footprint (using the Jordan Rules definition)
where no ZCP is required? Linking enforcement of buffer rules to the ZCP allows non-
ZCP-requiring activities that affect the stream buffer to continue, thus impairing our ability
to effectively implement the buffer rules. Can the Town implement these rules in a way
that is separate, or somewhat separate, from the LUMO or any future development-
dependentordinance?
Page 3 of 4
httpa/townhall.townofchapelhill.org/agendas/2009/03/26/4/a/4a5 jordan_nutrient_strategy... 3/25/2009
Jordan Summary
Enforcement of current the RCD is not strong right now (any penalties?). The Town will
need to devise and describe enforcement mechanisms (among other things) when
submitting its buffer ordinance for approval to the EMC. Enforcing Jordan Rules will likely
require more staff (at the very least in Inspections), education (for public and staff , better
cooperation between departments and Town Boards, better procedures (decouple from
ZCP?), and political and institutional willpower.
• The stormwater requirements contained in the LUMO do not address the nutrient
reduction requirements specified in the Jordan rules for new development and existing
development.
Page 4 of 4
httpa/townhall.townofchapelhill.org/agendas/2009/03/26/4/a/4a5 jordan_nutrient_strategy... 3/25/2009