HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-26-2009 - 4a6~}~'aan~e~f 2
4a-28
~~~
4
•/~w ~~..Ijw~lir~ ~+,l~il"'L[~ ~i~1~~1.~~~y C~MM~~ ~\~/i ~D ~~ C~~~~F~~~r/N w~~.~
~~F~~~ou~ c~uR Pt~ST C7F`~IC~ BMX 8 ~ ~
AucFM. Got~voN boo ~C]U'~H C~~~4C~l~I~T'R~E"r
MI~NEr soN
~ir~~Ba~~~~H, No~~r C~oc~n~. ~7~78
June 28, 2007
ar. David H. Moreau, Chair
Environmental Management Commission
~ fi 7 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC ~7fi99- ~ ?'
~ 4
\~J ~8t~~
Re: Com" menu on the proposed Jora~ar~ Reservoir Water ~u~aply Nulrier~t Rules, June
~~j ~V~I
Dear Dr. Moreau:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments vn the proposed nutrient
management rules for Jordan Lake Reservoir. C?range County appreciates the work to
date by the Environmental Management Commission ~EMC~ and the North Carolina
Division of water t~uality ~NCDwQ~ staff to address the goal of reducing nutrients, and
is supportive of this goal. However, we do have some concerns about the proposed
implementation method of non~point source reductions, especially in the Upper New
Tape Arm of the lake.
As ,you know, grange County has a song history promoting proactive measures for
watershed protection: The County irnplemented~ watershed protection measures in its
~ 981 Land Use plan and associated honing ordinance and Subdivision Regulations,
and also implemented an Erosion Control drdinance in 1975. Both of these actions were
firsts for counties in forth Carolina at that time. In addition, the Erosion Control
ordinance mandates that and land disturbance in University take Uliatershed dater
extended to other watersheds require a building permit approved by the Erosion Control
Division.
For the last ~5 years, and beyond, County policy has consistently focused substantial
emphasis on ~ratershed protection, relying primarily on land use and non-structural
measures to protect water quality. Dn-site infiitrativn of the first one~inch of stormwater
runoff, extensive stream buffers that exceed state minimums measured from the edge
of the FEMA mapped flaodplain, if present, and not the stream bank, and protection of
riparian buffer lands and flaodplains~ are among some of the many watershed protection
techniques Grange County uses in this and other watersheds in our jurisdiction. The
reason for this long-standing policy is a fundamental belief that addressing water quality
pratectiar~ at the source by limiting nutrient loading at the outset is preferable tv relying
on structural controls after the fact.
WWiN.CD.DRANGE.N+C. U's
PRDTE'GTING AN,G PRk'SERYING P~"OPL,E~r RESDGRCES, QUALITY DJ= LIFE
DRANGS CDUNTYr .1~1DRTH CAROLINA ~- YDV ~DUNTI
(9k 19} ,~45-~" ~'3D ~ Fi4~ (.'9 !"9,~ ~i4~-D~^~'6
4a-29
The portions of the Jordan Lake watershed in Urange County reflect this proactive
approach to water quality protection. within the Upper New Hvpe Arm of this watershed,
Grange County has instituted far-reaching land use or non-structural controls, as shown
on the attached map.
There are three sub-basins draining to the Upper New Hope Arm in the County's
jurisdiction. The University Lake watershed apart of Morgan Creek~'has, since X989,
included a minimum lot size of five-acres far each new lot, with impervious surfaces
limited tv as little as ~°~~ in same cases. These measures were instituted after a
comprehensive watershed technical study and extensive community dialogue. The
Upper New Hope Creek basin, north of Chapel Hill and Carrbora, is part of an area
known as the "Rural duffer," which hastwo-acre minimum lot sizes and over 2,4oa acres
of protected~land. This protected land also includes over 7,ga4 linear feet of New Hope
Creek in the County's jurisdiction. A small portion of Morgan Creek downstream of
University Lake and south of Chapel Hill also has two-acre lot zoning, and significant
protected lands.
Grange County also enforces flood damage prevention regulations, which supplement
stream buffer standards. Bath of these prohibit any new structures or septic drain fields
near surface water bodies.
As an exar~ple of the effects of Grange County watershed standards, our staff has used
an adaptation of the Upper Meuse Basin Site Evaluation Tool SET} far a recent ~,
development in the Un"rversity Lake watershed. Can an 8D-acre site with a natural
nitrogen-loading rate of g.8fi pounds per acre per year, unrestricted development would
produce an estimated 5.~1 pounds per acre per year. Orange County regulations
dropped that estimated nitrogen loading rate to ~ .81 pounds per acre per year. larger lot
sizes required in this watershed appear to be the primary cause.
Grange County is ~-and has always been -very supportive of attempts to reduce nu~ient
loading and protect water quality in Jordan Lake. However, the method of the proposed
implementation for the non-point source rules in the Upper New Hope Arrn may not be
practical or equitable for a rural jurisdiction, especially since significant protective
measures have been instituted far many years.
In particular, Orange County would like tv offer the following points for the Cornrr~issivn's
consideration:
~ . Deductions for existing development are not ~petforrnance" based.
a. The proposed reductions for nitrogen and phosphorus are represented as
percentage loading reductions. This "one size fits ally approach does not
acknowledge the very different loading rates and land use patterns between
urban and rural portions of this area; nor does this approach take into
consideration the resultant difficulty in achieving apercentage-based
reduction by jurisdiction.
. .
b. As described above, Orange County already employs watershed protection
measures that account for relatively low nutrient loading rates. In order to
4a-30
achieve the proposed 35°/~ reduction in total nitrogen in the Upper New Hope
Arm, it is conceivable that forested areas may have to be converted to some
sort of structural stormwater control, counter to the County's lan~~term policy.
With forestry outside of the realm of local government regulation, orange
County may not be able to enforce any provisions related to forestry.
c. A 35°ln reduction for rural watersheds with relatively low nutrient loadings will
not be as effective as a 35°/~ reduction applied to urban watersheds.
d. vtilhile stormwater reffofts nnay be a logical approach in urban areas where
loading rates are higher, it does not seem practical or equitable to hold rural
areas to the same percentage reduction goal, when protective measures are
already in place.
e. An in-stream~nutrient level goal for each sub~watershed of Jordan Lake, end
a corresponding nutrient delivery model to sustain the goal, may be a mare
effective method to equitably address reductions.
~. .oading rates by jurisdiction may not be equitable.
a. because of the location of the monitoring stations further downstream in both
the Morgan Creek and New Dope Creek sub-basins, it is impossible at this
time to accurately project loading rates by jurisdiction and validate what are
very different land use patterns and non-point source loading between
jurisdictions.
b. As such, it is difficult for each jurisdiction to determine whether the costs of
reduction are being equitably borne by the jurisdiction where loading is
occurring. if this type of reduction approach is pursued, further assessment of
the costs of implementing the rules - calibrated as best possible tv the
leading coming from each jurisdiction ~ v~ould be instructive to help ensure
that benefts and costs are equitably shared. A program that prdvided
reciprocal benefts to jurisdictions with low loading rates but high levels of
protection is essential to meeting equity concerns raised by heightened
regulation. The City of Raleigh's efforts to fund upstream watershed
protection in the Upper Neuse is reflective of a proactive realisation of such
an obligation.
3. Non-point source reductions were not calibrated to the Jordan Lake model.
a. It is our understanding that the non~point source reductions called for in the
rules were not calibrated to the specif c Jordan Lake model, as was the case
with the paint4source loading. The non-point source reduction rates were
instead estimated from other modeling and land use projections.
b. Therefore, it is not as clear whether the proposed rules for non-point sources
will achieve the stated goals, and it may be impossible to know if the
reduction targets will work until substantial tune, funding and other resources
are expended on feasibility studies and implementation.
fi
4a-31
c. There are also efficiency, cost and feasibility concerns regarding fibs splitting
of nitrogen reductions for non-point and point sources. Nutrient reductions
from non-point sources are mare complicated and costly tv abfiain.
4. There is very little agriculture in the New Hape Creek basin.
a. while this portion of the County is rural, this will greatly limit the ability to
achieve percentage-based reductions for agriculture.
~. Existing development nay have lower loading rates than new development.
a. The rules as proposed may unintenfiionally require exisfiing development to
have Ivwer loading rates than new development. Under the proposed rules,
new developrnenfi will have the option of paying a one-time offset fee in lieu of
reducing nutrient loading on~sifie. This potentially means that new
development will have higher actual loading rates.
G. Burden of cost fails an local governrnenfis.
a. If the ruses are implemented, local government wilt be asked to shoulder the
brunt of what may~~~proach a ~ billion pace tag for the nutrient strategy.
. b. Since the water issues in Jordan Lake are not new in terms of real or
expected results, it would be critical fiv have State funding assistance to help
focal governments address these measures.
c. The current state of Jordan Lake water quality is markedly similar to
predictions made over 34 years ago by a variefiy of experts, and it is as much
a regional and statewide issue as a local issuew
T. Local governments need added flexibility in meeting requirements.
a. More flexibility for local governments to participate in buy dorm opportunities
with FOP}would help local governments achieve the rules.
b. The proposed rules allow far a trading program. However, more time is
needed for the stakeholders to assess whether a trading program will be
feasible. 11Uhile trading scenarios with partner jurisdictions appear to have
merit, the current targeted watershed study is not complete.
7
c. An emphasis on nutrient reduction trading, rather than in-lieu-of payments,
maybe more effective. A finding ratio of 2:1 ar greater maybe needed to
ensure actual in-basin nutrient reductive.
4a-32
S. The current punned public comment period is not feasible.
a. The current planned timetable far public comment over the summer months
June 1 ~•August ~ ~~ is not optimal to receive public comment on a subject of
this importance. Many local government boards take a "summer" break.
Because of the paten~el cost and far reaching ramifications of these rules,
the public comment period should be sufficiently fang enough to allow
appropriate response from impacted focal governments.
In summery, grange Gaunty would ask the Commission to consider modification of and
alternatives to application of a single nutrient reduction percentage to all jurisdictions in
the Upper New Hape Arm. ~ ..
Thank you far considering these comments, and we stand ready to help work with the
State and other local governments in en equitable,and efficient manner to reduce
nutrient loading in Jordan Lake. Tease feel free to contact our staff in the Environment
and Resource Conservation and planning departments if we may provide additional
information or clarifcation.
Sine ely,
..
'x
Moses Carey, Jr.
Ghair
(Jrange County Board o Commissioners
Gopie~
Board of Gomrnissioners
Laura Blackmon, County Manager ,
Rich Gannon, NGDwQ Non~l~'oint Source planning Unit Supervisor
Sydney Miller, TJCC~G Vllater Resources ~rvgram Manager
8