Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-23-2005-w21 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORKSESSION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 23, 2005 Action Agenda Item No. _~ SUBJECT: Jordan Lake Watershed Nutrient Management Strategy and Rules DEPARTMENT: Planning, Environment and PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No Resource Conservation ATTACHMENT 1, Jordan Lake staff report INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Benedict, 245-2575 David Stancil, 245-2590 Ren Ivins, 245-2586 Will Autry, 245-2588 TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 336-227-2031 PURPOSE: To review a staff report on the proposal from the NC Division of Water Quality (DWO) to implement a Nutrient Management Strategy and new Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) rules in Jordan Lake Watershed, Formal comments on the proposal are due on May 31St BACKGROUND: Over the last 20 years, water quality has become an issue for Jordan Lake. The levels of chlorophyll a and subsequent algal growth from nutrients have created concerns about eutrophication in the lake. Portions of Orange County within the Cape Fear River basin (generally, the southern and western areas of the County including the towns of Mebane, Chapel Hill and Carrboro and the Joint Planning Area) are within the Jordan Lake watershed, In addition to serving as a recreational water body and a wildlife habitat impoundment, Jordan Lake is a water supply reservoir with three jurisdictions drawing drinking water and others with plans or allocations for the future, Over the last five years, modeling of the lake's water quality was conducted that indicated the need for management of nutrients. Specifically, the need to reduce the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus in the lake was identified as a priority, NCDWQ has proposed a strategy and TMDL rules that would nitrogen and phosphorus reductions throughout the lake's watershed, The rules would be most stringent in the subwatershed known as the Upper New Hope Arm, where new rules requiring 35% and 5% reductions for nitrogen and phosphorous, respectively, would affect components from 2 agriculture to new and existing development. Groups including the Haw River Assembly and the NC Citizens for Glean Water have adopted resolutions urging the State to implement the proposed measures. Several jurisdictions and utility providers within the Upper New Hope Arm of the lake have identified the need for adaptive management to refine existing information and gather additicnal data, to calibrate the modeling done to date and perhaps generate an improved strategy. The NCDWG2 is accepting comments on the proposed plan through May 31ST Staff from Planning and Inspections and ERCD have prepared a report with additional details regarding the background/context, proposed rules and implications for Orange County, and some possible issues for comment (attached,) FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with receipt of the report ar provision of comments, The implementation of the proposed rules, and the question of possible Orange County inclusion in the Phase II NPDES program (please see attached report) would have financial implications for the County in terms of stormwater controls and changes to development standards, as well as other as yet unidentified components RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board review and discuss the staff report, including the issues for possible comment, and decide what (if any) comment to share with the NCDWQ prior to May 31St, If formal comment is desired, staff could prepare a letter based on the Board's discussion to transmit prior to May 31 S` 3 REPORT Jordan Lake DWQ Proposed Nutrient Management Strategy and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) May 23, 2005 The purpose of this report, prepared by staffs from Planning and Inspections and ERCD, is to provide background/context for a proposed set of rules from the N.C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) and USEPA to address nutrient management in the entire Cape Fear portion of Orange County, which is separated into two parts, both of which drain into Jordan Lake. The "Upper New Hope Arm" of the lake's watershed includes the Joint Planning Area of Orange County (University Lake watershed, the New Hape basin and Jordan Lake Zoning Overlay), Chapel Hill and Carrboro, as well as parts of Durham, Wake, and Chatham Counties. The "Haw River Arm" includes the remaining Cape Fear portions of Orange County in southwestern and western Orange County. (See maps in Attachment 1) NCDWQ has asked for comments on the proposed strategy/rules by May 315 Background /Context NCDWQ has been monitoring water quality in ,Jordan Lake on a regular basis. Eutrophication (the aging process by which shallow lakes gradually became dry as a result of the accumulation of sediment and organic matter) is a concern for .lordan Lake. Nutrient enrichment contributes to the process, as it causes excessive growth of algae and aquatic plants Qust as fertilizers applied to the land cause grass, plants, and weeds to grow rapidly). In natural lakes, this aging process occurs over geologic time. However, this process can be greatly accelerated by human activities in a watershed, and man- made lakes, especially in our region, are much more susceptible to eutrophication than natural lakes. In 1983, Jordan Lake and all waters in the Haw River watershed were designated by NCDWQ as Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW). As a result, the permitted wastewater facilities in the watershed were given more stringent phosphorous limits in an effort tp prevent further water quality degradation. In 1997, additional legislation added further restrictions to the permitted dischargers in the watershed. As a result of the 1997 legislation, from 1999-2002, nine local governments and water providers in the Triangle and Triad regions participated in the development of a Jordan Lake Nutrient Response Model,. The modeling found that .lordan Lake has elevated levels of nutrients -primarily phosphorus and nitrogen -and high levels of chlorophyll a, which is an indicator of algal growth. NCDWQ considers Jordan Lake to be one of the most biologically productive (or eutrophic) lakes in the State, As a result of these findings, NCDWQ determined that the Upper New Hope Arm of Jordan Lake (which includes the towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and the "Joint Planning Area") must address the elevated chlorophyll-a levels resulting from excessive nutrient loads (nitrogen and phosphorus) to the lake, using a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) standard. Point sources account for 45% of the Total Nitrogen (TN) and 18% of the Total Phosphorus (TP) load to the Upper New Hope Arm of the lake,. Overall, it is estimated that non-point sources contribute about 70% of the total nutrient load to the lake. Three major publicly-owned wastewater treatment plants and several small privately owned "package" plants discharge highly treated effluent just a short distance from the lake. In 2004-05, a Jordan Lake Stakeholders Project (convened by NCDWQ, Triangle ,1 Council of Governments and Piedmont Triad Council of Governments), worked to evaluate the model results and provide a framework to address these issues. While many fruitful discussions and review of the modeling results were held, no consensus on strategy recommendations emerged from the process, As such, the NCDWQ decided to move forward with a phased-in Nutrient Management Strategy (NMS) and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) rules in late 2004. The proposed nutrient management measures address both point sources and non-paint sources (from developed land surfaces in the upstream drainage area). If not managed properly, population and economic growth projected to occur in the watershed over the coming decades will threaten the ability of the lake to support its designated uses as a major regional drinking water supply, recreational resource, and aquatic habitat, These rules will have impacts on local stormwater programs, agricultural practices, development standards, and wastewater treatment (similar to new rules put in place for the Neuse River basin in 1999).. There has been some disagreement among stakeholders about the NCDWQ proposal. Some groups, including the Citizens for Clean Water and the Haw River Assembly, have concerns that not enough has been done to address water quality issues since the 1983 NSW classification, and are supportive of the NCDWQ proposal. Utility providers and municipalities have expressed concerns about the validity of the model results, and the inherent uricertainty due to limitations of sampling data, as well as the economic impacts of the proposal an their wastewater treatment plants and stormwater control measures. Proposed ]ordan Lake Non-Point Source Nutrient Management Strategy /Orange County Implications As previously Hated, strategies to reduce Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus would be implemented throughout the entire watershed. Portions of Orange County fall within two different sectors of the Jordan Lake watershed. Based on the modeling of the watershed, the measures would differ significantly between the two sectors. s As discussed on page 1 and shown on the map in Attachment 1, the towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and the entirety of the Joint Planning Area (both Transition Areas and Rural Buffer) would fall within the area known as the "Upper New Hope Arm." It is in this area that the most stringent reduction strategies would be achieved. Other portions of southwestern and western Orange County in Bingham Township and along the County's western border fall into the "Haw River Arm, which would be implementing rules to achieve nitrogen and phosphorus reductions, but on a much lesser scale. The following table reflects the actual reductions requirements for these sectors, and provides a synopsis of the implications by type of measure or activity: Upper New Hope Arm Reduction Requirements: Nitrogen (N): 35% reduction , or an allowed 4.1 Ib N/acre per year Phosphorus (P): 5% reduction , or an allowed 1.1 Ib P/acre per year Reductions from a 1997-2001 baseline period Haw River Arm Reduction Requirements: Nitrogen (N): 8% reduction , or an allowed 5.6 pounds N /acre /year Phosphorus: 5% reduction , or an allowed 1.5 pounds P /acre /year Reductions from a 1997-2001 baseline period C i :q h a U ti y G ~ • p Hfr~a ~_ 3 ~ '° a ~ U byp U ~ O ~ .~ N id . ~ bq NQ a~Ai ro N~~~~ k3 ti a .G b o ° .b ~ bA ,% .~.-. ~ a~ ~' `~ .., bD iC 3 U U v ;a bo cad o ~ ~ Z ~ ° ~'^ ~ ~ G~~ a~ a~ tin G ~ N y ~i C~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ 0 on~aN°N,a? Ov]WUw U.~ c~ ai pVp O ,D at V b •.. .~ o ~ o B 0 N p .~ q .. ^d ~°~ °oU K . ro o b W b w° O Y Y ..O 3 ~ ^c c da~o QU R.rO. EU UJ N y ~ r" ~ O b ~ ~ ° ti N ~ (.y ~ U 4. r . O .b 4 b ~ h ~ V O ~ G . N ~ R. 4. ~ ~ 4-i O ~ ~ ~ ccf Y ~q 3 aoi ro ~ ~ W ~ w ;b ¢~ 3 ,ti o ~ b ~ ° ~ ° ' ~ ° ~ a a i ~ ' - • x ~ as ~ j ~ ° o o ~ ~ c n ~ a. c a ~, ~ , o ~ o ~ m o o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ° ou ~ , ^ Z ~ .k X" b . N 0 b ~ p p cct G ~ ° V l ~ ' ~ N ° ~ ~ Ly ~ . v ~ ~ ~+ GJ ' ~ ' ry ~ Q W y U~ ~ y ~~ ~ y w O~ ^~ , ~ ~ U V UJ ~ G N •~~' G bq ~ ~ m U ~ U a ~v~ N ay w ° °5 ~ ~ o 0 ,~' o 3 0 ~ -~ ' ~ 3 ° a. o m ~' -o . a v o ° ~ a ro ,~ N a, ~ ~, o o a ~ ~' o ~ a a; o N . . .~ 3w 3 ~ ~ ~> 3 ~ ~ ~ _°? ` ~ H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ° ~ aH 'b a~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ° g ~ ~ vi o ~' 4+ U N ~ N Q 'Y ~ C "~ ~ C~ ~ ~ ' C O P. ~ ~ O O U N 0 a+ W .. + b1J ~ cC ~ vp~ bA ,~ N +% 'dCC U "' O A e 3 ~! b°q p Q., ~ G bOA ~ O ~ O q er' ~ W~ p, •.~-~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ °' ~ ar ~ 3 a 3 i p ° ~ ~ ~ °o ~ a c i . . ~ ~ o ~ ° ~ c ~ ~ b ~ o ~ ~ Y z z ¢ z ~ ` y V ~ ea O, ~ o ~w , ~ b ~ b ,-: b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ J~ ~~`~„ 3 ~-d 3"tea ° d ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C7 ~r •ti ~ ~. ~ Y~Qb~U3Y~Q ~ N O~ O '~' y~ N 'U V O O O+ N p O ~ Gam, . ~ O "-' U . ~ y ~ ~ ° y °' .ti U ~ ° ^' ~ ~ ° a ro v ~ o" a'.a' `d tea °; ° ~ ~ ~ ~a~ ~ ° w ~ y ,o~ ~w o W ~ ,~>, a ° P, o .-. m .., y ~3~Ub.~~ 7 C C O N~ 0 O D O g y W N (~ ~ y ni .~ y ~ N ~ Q v wo' 3 0 ~ ~ ~ o a' a°i cya .C ~ aZi E.U ~Za~ad ° ~ ~ y a ~ ~ o o ° [ ° ~ ~ u~ a ~ ~ q .. a N t-. .~ G N b ~ ~ ' a ~. . ~ bA o N .:+ Y cd i .~ n q o y Y j . . y ~ ~ o ,a ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ 3 o ,~. ~ .o v , i ~ ~ .o N Y ~ 0 0 p" ~'+ V i U ~ ° O i ' j ~ t ~ ~ Cd N y ~ ~ ~ C". ~ H 'O-' fly ~ A, ~ ..k N U .rye' y 'Lti'" N q H .y+ ~+ N ,O Y 'b ~~ y CG N y a ~; o .G °~ ~ IC$ (a t+ a o e°'n ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ° ~ ~ a. . ~+ o ° o o °' '~ r: 3 ~ ~ 0.i abi 3 ° o ~ ° ~ b ~ ~' ~ c n 3 o ~ ° ~ '~ ~ °° °~ ~ a p G . G~ . , , .~ , ~ a~ a~ 3 ~ G . y H o N ~ p, ~ ~ .c .«~ m x a~ :~ O iu ~ p, , ~ o > y ~ b y y . r. N E-~ ° O Q+ 3 N O^ ~" ~ y ~ 0 ~ 0 ° cd ~~ N N ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ d ~ 3 Z ro ~ ~G! ~ F' a~ ~ `~ o :b a yy .~ ~ ~ y (d ~ O i ~ O ~ o ; o Co ~ ~ ° -~ ~ ~ a o ~ ~ ° ~ ~ H b , u , ° ~ 3 ~ v . b an 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ G ~7 O N N b a ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ i ~o •~, o v~ 3 ~ z c Q ~Q m ' a z ~ ~ ~ z ~ N ~, T bp N -~ ~.,, y y ~_ O ~ w b ~' r-. OD ~ P+ N ~ +-~ H ~ ~ N~ ?~ -- w 3~ o° an o° b J' .C '~ aF~± '~ ~ `" i... G..' c~ c~ ~ y a.~-~ O ;° `~ ~ o o ~~° ~ ~ ~ o.~ g ° o ro ro ~ `~ o 0 3 ~ ~ b o ~ ~ ~ .o 'd b U 3 vro G x w ro -, ~'° °~ y y 3 N ° ~ ~ N .N. ~ ~ ~~ N R. bOA .N. N p H ~UQ °.~ a,~U R,° ~Ow°O~° ~ N O O T cd ~ T~~ '~ ~ b ro ~ U N b o°~ o 0 0 `tt U a~ u, U ccf ,.C 'er ~ o q a°i O 3 ~ w° o '~ 3~ o °? ".~. o 0 y0 ~~ 'b ~ ~ ~N N Gl o,~a o G ~ o N ~ ~ T ~ ~ ~ b a 3 o Y C O > icc a ~ +~ w7, O b .~ ro b Q Y ,~ R. cOi TJ N bf) ~ ° B aCi ~ iu > ' ~ ~ °~ G ~ q w ~ aoi ~ °~~' .~ o bA ~ °> o °' ' G °' ~ °' ° ~ ° > °' ~ ro 3 M L.. ~N U A. . Fi . ~+ Q~ ~ 1~i ° V ~ ~ o ~ ° a ' ' (~ Vl O to a n-a ~ ~ H rob ° .C ° o .c y °~' ° " H a ~ m ro ~ ° ~ ,~ ~' ro ~ ° o ~ 3 ci ~ o ti n, 'b m o b ~, a. N w ° ,b ~ o on y o y p ~' G O z ~G ° o ~ bA N ~ a ~ ~ ~, ~ v, o C ° N ~ ~ ~ N ' ° ~ ro ~ b ~ ~ N ~ . O ~ N O ~ ° ~ ~ b .. b ro N O ~ N w ° ~ .~ LL ~ N N Y V L'~ .C } ! W C ~ ~ ° Y 3 N A_v V a cC ° . ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ .a N d ~ b ~ o .~ o _~ A ° ; o °' o~n °o o ° Q ~ 3 .~ '~ H rob ~ y o ~ G o ti a y p~ Z o k ~ ~ o .a ~ ao 'b B a b b a > ~ .o ~ ~ m.~ a°i o Y? ° ~ ~ o i k o ~ a ~ ° o ° . ~ o ° ~ G ~ ° .C ~ ~ 0 5n o 0 0 ~ ~ y o ~ ° ~ . ~ o o ~ H ~ a o ~ v i~ 3 ~ ° o q .~ aq G ~ ~ ' m m x W H g b 3 ~ ~~ Y p • C . ^ ti °' ~ g ro~ p G ~ w° °' U " o -~ G w° N ~ w ~ ~ N ~ cd W aq .o .C N .;~ ~ b >, ~ ro «f .G ~ N N .-+ N N a-' t'., ~ ~' T ~ ~ o c U ~ 3 a~i .x ~ ~ v N N v N ~ ~ `~ ~ o o ~ y 3 ~ p °.~ bA O G ~ a0i N R. C m ~ °n.° ~ C7 ~ a,U y w .o ~ .> ° .c '~ .~ ~ O O ~Ud' y ~ O ~ cd 0.. G I N A, a~ C m -`c~ pp aNi ~ N m O ~ ~ ^d O ~ •C YO O N N O ~ ~ y ~ ~ o°" abi ~ a ~~ ~., o~ ~,., ~ ~ 3 H ctl ~. b ~ ~ U ~ ~ 'd ~ ~ ~ ~.~ v ~ .... o o > a~ ro ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~°' a Q ~ m d ~~'' ~ ~ ~ b •~ ~ ~" N O N~ N a+ H C7 w N ai ~ N N bA ... ~ ~ ' ~ ~ a~ r~! w O U q ~ >, ~ oq b O m vi ~ ~~" ~ c~ O ca N tC ~i" 3 ., ~ v y ~ z •° G ~ ~ o ~ ~° ~ o o ~ o ~~,~ N +-' `G o ~Y~ ~ ~ N'~o ~ 0 ~a ~v ~ ' x G d w o ~ ~ N ~ ~ Y ~ ~ 3 oA ~ 3 o - ~ ~ w ~ ca v ~ 'b ° ~ o G o ~ ~ p, ~ 3 ~ oan ~° H 0 w 3~ ~ as ~ G o. ~ a°'i b 0 H y ~ ~ b ~ N ~ ~ Q~ ~ O ro .~ y D O N 0 v ~ '-' 3 v ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ U o T G 'b a~ .~ ..' . i q ro o d W o4 ~ ~ °~ o o .Y p... C ~ ~ w a. P7, `'~ row m U C N ~ > °~ _ .?' ~'o~ 3 ~ ~ .~ o ~ x , a ~ P ~ o w y ~ ~ ~ p~ ~ ~ , ~ , G ro y q° o m ~.n O ~" U ~ N ° O w cG ~ a ° Y ~ .-~~., U bn O '3 ~ ~, x~ o ~ H ,~ °5, U W T o b ° °~~' aoi °3 `~°~ ~ U y N S W ~ v~ Q Y ro y . ..G ~ p ~ U Q R. N c~ ti~ -fl Y N ro ~ ~ T O U~ O `d 0 x~ ~, o ~ a a~ cn a~ °' o~~ is b~ m ~ G ~ a. ~ W O bn y~ ro a v' in N b A. ~ ~ ~~ m H .c .~ 4: ~ ~ Y U ~ti H Q `~L' ~ 3~ b U . o° ro y ~ ~ Y ro ° Yz b b ~ ~ ~~ ~b~~~ ` Y~ ° b o o~ a, ~ .d ~ ~ o ~ ~ w ~ ~ • ~ 3 N ~ a ~ b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ° , ro S a o .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - N > ~ bz ro a ° Y ~ .~ 3 ~H b . . ~ x ~ ,~ ~, o ~ > Q a~ H o ~ ro ~° ~ o ro a b y ~ ~ ~ o ~~ ~ Y m N Y N b G . `~~' a°i prop .•^C..• .'"[". ~ ~ p ~ ~G O ~1 O N y a.,_~i Y . qC G ' ~ ~ G ~ " 3 3 w w ~~ vi .~ ti ~ U ' m . y b1..n~ N m w, G , rq N U ' .~ W N ~ ti O y b ~ q N R ~ W ro . ti p °G ti '~ ~ ~ x 3 U a o ~ a ~ a y ,~ ro o G ~ a i b ~ T ~ 4. ~ ~v 3 .c ~ y 3 :° a? v pn U v ~ ~ o ~ ~ ' ' ro ~~ m axi u, G ~ ~ ~ °~ ° o ~ 3 ° ' ti ° 3 ~ ° '" ti ~ ~ bn .,~, ..., C ° O bn O Y C y q ., ~ N ~~ U Y~ ° . w ~ 'b -d Y~ ' O H ro ° ~ o . r.1 H OU b ~ ro ~ U y > ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ >' ~ pn a ~ W y w ~ ° ~ ~ .3 .~ a i cryc ~ vU '~ ~ ~ C w y '^ ~ ~ b ~' 3 ro ~ ~ ~ ~ n ° 3 G ~ ~ ti ~ ~ Q ° 3 ^~ ~ q . ro Q > ro 0 Y Q{ U a d i ~ 3 a ° ~ ~ ro 3 y ° ti ~ ro '~ O ~a Issues for Possible Comment If the County chooses to provide comments to the DWQ prior to May 31 deadline, there are a number of different areas and topics within which it could do so. The following list of possible issues far comment is taken in large part from the Upper New Hope Arm Work Group (Attachment 3) and resolutions in support of the DWQ proposal from Citizens far Clean Water and Haw River Assembly (Attachment 4): 1, Comprehensive, Coordinated Protection of Water Quality for Jordan Lake While elementary in nature, both the utility providers and the citizen groups share an interest in the NCDWQ.,.that of implementing measures that will help protect Jordan Lake, whether the NCDWQ proposal or some modified approach as suggested by the Upper New Hope Arm jurisdictions. As noted by the Citizens for Clean Water resolution on Jordan Lake Reservoir, protection of the lake's water will need to be coordinated and regional in scope in order to be effective, A general statement of support far new and specific measures to protect the water quality would be common ground held by all parties, and an important note to retain sight of. 2. Adaptive Management and Further Research. The Upper New Hope Arm Work Group has noted that an adaptive management approach to the Jordan Lake TMDL and strategy might be prudent, given questions about the modeling to date and a perceived need for additional data about the lake and its current and projected future water quality. For example, enhanced water quality modeling has been proposed over afour-year period to complement previous work and examine and validate findings related to nutrients, carbon, chlorophyll a and other algal parameters, Following the four- yearmodeling, the local governments might fund cone-year project to update and enhance the Jordan Lake Nutrient Response Model -evaluating the reduction targets and calibrating the model to include the extra years or water monitoring, The recalibrated and updated model would then be used to analyze and potentially modify the nutrient reduction targets proposed by NCDWQ. 3. Agricultural Rules Implementation To date, the involvement of the agricultural community in the .Jordan Lake rules has been minimal, despite efforts to engage different groups as part of the .Jordan Lake Stakeholders Group, Substantial efforts to explain and inform agricultural organizations might be wise prior to the implementation of the new rules - so that meaningful comment can be solicited and received prior to implementation. ~a 4. Forestry Provisicns While the pending House Bill 1172 would strip away the few opportunities that Iccal governments currently have in engaging the forestry community in dialogue about promoting good forestry and notification of forest management activities, this provisions have been identified as important and the Board may wish to reiterate support for these measures, regardless of the outcome of the pending legislative bill. 5. Feasibility Study for Existing Development Non-Point Source Strategy One of the most substantial undertakings (and highest potential financial implications) of the proposed rules relates to the provisions requiring upfits and retrofits to existing stormwater control measures. While the impacts on Orange County jurisdiction (the Rural Buffer and other rural areas) would appear to be less significant, this is a matter of great concern to the more-urban and densely- populatedjurisdictions. Some of the jurisdictions would like to propose a feasibility study for this component of the proposed rules to gauge whether such retrofits could be accomplished, and if pursued, how much of an impact they would have on the nutrient loading to the lake, 6. Phase II NPDES and Orange County Jurisdiction /Scope of Application for stormwater Rules It is still uncertain whether or not Orange County will be required to participate in the Phase II NPDES stormwater program in general, or as a result of the Jordan Lake TMDL and Nutrient Management Strategy. This may be a matter for further discussion. Attachments Attachment 1 -Maps of 7ardan lake Watershed, Upper New Hope Arm and Orange County Cape Fear Basin Attachment 2 -Proposed DWQ Nutrient Management Strategy/TMDL Attachment 3 -Master list of Recommendations (Upper New Hope Arm Work Group) Attachment 4 -Resolutions Received from Citizens for Clean Water Attachment 5 -Phase II NPDES Rules Attachment 6 - Summary of Neuse Basin Rules to 13 ~y River Basins Minor Streams - Major Streams ® Watersheds Municipal Jurisdictions O~snpv Comfy PYnninO a^tl InipvaUOn[ Dep[tlmeN 415 AI[p Plepnatl Ey M41em Cokmen Pmjedien: Iletl~ Cm(ma SIYn Phna (loep Datum' Iie~lD Pmulem l~3 Cape Fear_River Basin fi ~'ctch m end 2 B. Everer! Jordan Reservoir Nua-iznl A9anagemenl Strate~~ and TNIDL -Public Revie++~ Dr n! ~to V.2 Proposed Nonpoint Source Nutrient Strategy For Jordan Lake Nutrient Sensitive Waters Background In 1983, the NC Environmental Management Commission designated .lordan Lake and its contributing watershed as "Nutrient Sensitive Waters", requiring a plan to reduce nutrient inputs from the watershed into the lake. initially, the NC Division of Water Quality placed phosphorus limits on the discharges of wastewater treatment facilities. However, nutrient problems persisted. The watershed encompasses the high-growth areas of Greensboro, Burlington, Chapel Hill, and western portions of Durham, Cary and Apex.. The extent of growth following the watershed's NSW designation through 1997 is illustrated in Figure 1. Figure 1, Land Cover Changes, Jordan Watershed, 1982-1997 G00.0 SOOA ,-. °0 400,0 0 ~i ,+~ .300.0 y v L ~ Z00,0 ] 00.0 7982 1,~Oa ~JCs' `yS~ ~Q ~yi C toy Q~S 4o J~ti Oti ~~ 9 O 1982 ®1997 ~t~~ hi 2002, the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) placed the upper New Hope Arm of.Jordan Lake on the state's list of impaired waters, the 30.3(d) list, and identified it as a segment requiring a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL.) to meet the water quality criterion for chlorophyll a. Excess nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) from both point source and nonpoint source pollution contribute to excess algal growth in the lake, The bullets and Table ]below provide modeled estimates of nitrogen loading fi'om point and nonpoint sources to the entire lake as well as breakdowns of those loadings to both the Upper New Hope and Haw River' Arms of the lake. Phosphorus estimates follow in the same format (B Everett Jordan Lake TMDL Watershed Modet Development, Tetra Tech 2003). DfdrO Modeling &TNIDL. Urail. V-0 pnge A-Li B. Everett Jardan Reservoir Nutr'ienr A9mraeement Sn-atew and TA1DL- Pu6tic Revien~ Drafi ~ r Total Nitrogen: for the entire lake, Point sources = .32%; Nonpoint Source (NPS) = 68% o Ansong NPS conmibutiazs to the entire Lalce: 36% of NPS from agriculture, 29% from residential, 9% from comm./Indus.., 19% from forest and 7% from other. o Ansong NPS cariributions to the Hat-++ River nrna 46% of NPS is from agriculture, 25% from residential, 7% from comm./Indus., 16% from forest and 6% from other (NPS accouuts for 68% of total loading). o Anaong NPS care ibrrtions to the Upper New Hope Aim a1.Iordan Lake, 10% of the NPS is from agriculture, 39% from residential, 21% from commJh3dus , 19 % from forest, and 1 I% from other (NPS accounts for 55% of total loading). Table 1. *Percentage of N Loading by Source Category and Percent TMDL Loading Reduction Targets for Jordan Lake, Haw River Arm, and New Hope Arm Point Sources Agriculture **Residential Comm/ Indust. Forest Other (NPS NTMDL Taz et Jordan Lake 32 24 20 6 13 5 Haw River 32 31 17 5 Il 4 8 U er New Hoe 45 6 21 12 10 6 35 " Pcrcemagcs for .4g. Rcs .Comm /Indus .Forest, and Oihcr NPS arc based on % of total PT/NPS. c g Ag Loading = 36 % x 68 % (NPS) = 24 io " Includes stormwamr subject to Phase I and Phase II NPDGS permiving requirements - P'or total phosphorus: for the entire lake, Point sources = 16%; NPS = 84%.. o Anaarg NPS corn ibution to Jordan Lake, 51 % from agriculture, 12% from residential, 6% from comm./Indus.., I S% from forest and 16% from other. o Among 1VPS conk-ibutiar 10 the Kaw River, 62% from agriculture, 8% from residential, 4% from comm./Indus., 12% from forest and 14% from other (NPS accounts for 8:3°/u of total loading). o Amoazg NPS cons ibadiorr to the Upper New Hope Airn o~.Ia~dara Lake, 17% fiom agriculture, 29% from residential, 18% from comm./Indus., 19 % from forest, and 17% from other (NPS accounts for 82% of total loading). Table 2. Percentage of P Loading by Source Category and Percent TMDL Loading Reduction Targets for Jordan Lake, Haw River Arm, and New Hope Arm Point Sources Agriculture **Residential Comm/ Indus Forest Other (Nl'S P TMDL Tar et Jordan Lake 16 43 IO 5 13 13 I{aw River t7 51 7 3 10 12 5 U er New Hoe 18 14 24 IS IS 14 5 ' Pcrccnmgcs'forAg, Rcs .Comm /Indus . Porest, and Otbcr NPS arc based on % of total PTMPS '" Includes stormeater subjem m Phase 1 and Phase II NPDES permitting requirements - Alamance, Chatham, Durham, Guilford and Orange counties each contribute 10% or more of total N to.Iordan Lake. For the lake as a whole, the largest contributors of total N are Alamance and Guilford counties, together accounting for 57 percent of the total. For the TMDL. segments, Orange and Durham counties are the major contributors, with approximately equal total loads, A significant portion of the residential N load is due to onsite wastewater disposal. - Alamance, Chatham, Guilford and Orange counties each contribute 9%or more of total P. Df4'Q A9odeling fi Td~IDL Unit V4 page A-lG 8. Everett./ordan Resernoir Nutrient MmvaQemenr Sn-ate~v and Th1D/ -PuGlic /teoiea~ Draf Li 2003, a stakeholder group was established to assist DWQ and the NC Environmental Management Commission (EMC) in developing the Jordan Lake TMDL. and a nutrient management strategy for the .Jordan Lake Watershed. The TMDL, target was drafted after a series of meetings. The TMbL target for the Haw River Arm of the lake is 8 % total N reduction and 5 % total P reduction, both relative to the baseline period of 1997,2001- The TMDL target fbr the Lipper New Hope Arm of the lake is 35 % total N reduction and 5 % total P reduction, both relative to the baseline period of 1997-2001 (Michelle Woolfolk, 2003)t The middle and lower portions of the New Hope Arm are currently meeting their intended uses.. However, DWQ has proposed a cap on existing loading to maintain current conditions in this heavily-used portion of the lake and to prevent loading to this portion from affecting conditions in the impaired and stressed portions (Upper New Hope and Haw River Arms). Proposed Strategy for Public Comment The stakeholders and DWQ staff developed and evaluated several possible scenarios of NPS management strategies before DWQ prepared the recommended strategy for public comment in Table 3, below. The five scenarios are provided in an Appendix for information purposes, They covered the spectrum of possibilities from completely voluntary to full regulation of all significant nutrient sources. The resulting NPS management strategy proposed here builds from concepts implemented in the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico River Basins.. It is recognized that this strategy will be controversial in some quarters, and that public input will be needed before the Division staff can recommend a final strategy to the Water' Quality Committee and the Environmental Management Commission for potential rule-making. For the subject areas of agriculture, urban stormwater, nutrient management, and riparian buffer protection, the Division would propose to work in general from the rules adopted in the 7ar- Pamlico River Basin. The text of each of the Tar-Pamlico rules can be found at httn://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/tarpam.htm. Control of point and nonpoint sources of nutrients may require a higher reduction percentage if reductions from background sources are not sought and therefore must be achieved elsewhere. If the necessary reduction is achieved by the point and nonpoint sources in proportion to their contribution to existing load, the targets for implementation would increase to 9% 7N and 6% 7P reduction in the Haw River Arm, and 42% TN and 7% 7P reduction in the Upper New ]lope Arm D 14'O AOodelirzg ~ TdIDL Unil, h'4 page 9-17 G d u qa Fy ~1 b~A a F., d bD C e1 ~-. a ^q ~ i G G O ~ ~, a, Ki y ~. ~TT u u ~ a, 1 ~ z a ~, C ~~~ - ~ y ('' yiy C. .~ W C ~ >> '~ 7 ~ ° ;a u iG c p o' 1 L ~ n o °0 U O ~ a ' ~ c N p a c o = rn W oo y u > a '~ C z:. b N ~ ~_ w N _ L ° ~ N 1 r L L a' ~ _B w `u o 5 ~ C ~ .. " ~ a a o ' E o.. aui ~I `[~ d \3 0 :y r~ C U ~ ry ~ u p~ F i7 ~y O p E C C ~' C Z C. v O ~ E " en ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ y ~ 0 n' 9 ~ ~O CO 'C~-' G u N u O.-C ~U ~ y~>FXCL rJ O c e v~ .~ c~ s . y y ~ 5 ~ > en .c o -o `~ ~~ O ' u m ." . v ~ ~ m u 1 Q ~ `o C ~ ~ a. w c - ~ n m y u~ c = C I h~ ~ u~ C C G~ C ti b Z O O U ~1 P ~ ' ro K u p ~ d u ^ ~ V V 0 p c ~ ~ ~ fJ C W W U ~ ~ G ~ .G y H ~ D > .. p C N O C ~ o co ~p Cp O _ ~ r ' i 4. " 7 i C O ` ? ~N :D ua ou ~i ? ~' T C 'w K °p ~ Tab .° u o] o b cn ~ d ° ~ q tln. m Q :o a, ~ c °u ° ~ o ~ N `~' ~ V 4 .~ '~ G ~ u _' b ~ i .~ u u O n ~ 'O O > v O p C N Z G N Q ,°y ~ C U p ' =0 ~u C . ~ O y~ l O ~ W y vi r'! 7- z" = ,n O~ . . w e.~ ~y U ' O fJ O > CJ u T ,n dw 's G `J O ~ C ~ E~ ~ G N ° 1>a ~ U fn j L ° " ' CDU U ! w h c a i ai ./w, .. d u o m 4 ~ o~ 2 o ° L ~~ ~ .c q c ~ h F U T u `~ o ro F ~ ~~ b fl r ~" T ~ O O F G ~~ C~~ D~ ~ b C a ~O 4 v m ~~ ti ~ F r " ~ r' m ~ w a 3~ n y ~ ` c' ~! " Z a ai o~ E E .°'. z~ u v E ' c c E a "' o ~' m a ° u u E ~y c A u a u O~ n m c ° y (n 'p 7 -' O c ~ n , , c c n. ., E C¢ O O h ~ , y r ~ ~~ M 'O ~ ~ G rJ y a> y o fJ W O •r '~ b >~ F o ~.J Cp Oi w E v d T1 F E U C ,' j CO _ r~ y .7 -.r .~ ~ p N ~ p 2 c o F ~ ~ Z o o W ~ > E o . . c ~ o~ Q ~ ~; ~ ~ c 3 v u ~ Z ± ^° e n v ro C ~ W m o ~ uq " : a`b °- n a r -° y F c u~ b ' v o o `" ° : u °' -" .: u~ . 01 c a ° ~ '- a - E i v ~ ~ o ~ o ~' >, o, U v o a CL C7 r . in c c op _ - i o u o O u i ~ c a G . E u R. C cc+ ~ >_ F ci ° ~ Y+ h `c'6 ~ E ti y Q o 4 v yE ~ ° C ~ ~ 6 g c>i °, ~ i ~ ' .9 e \° O .°a' N :n ~ :v y y ~Q - ~ n ~ m a a? o -o ~ ~ n ~ ~ .. F e ~ . .. E ~ > N T a y o o ~ n c c h w~ ~ p~ ~ ~ T y ~ E ~. ~ ~ ~ m 9 ~ L/ rJ r ~ -_ n E C G O vi Q 'G O ~. rJ > ~ ..j _ m 1 y ~ ~n C ~ ~ ~ c~ Q ,~ ~ y N 'n ~ ~ .- > ~ 04 7 w `~ v' i " c E Z 0. ai u~ a O o 7 :y o ~ y ~ o ~ G N o. u o E u ~- m > 'c o u a°i v' a u o o~ u Z C u° cOi n M ?3 ~~= y u. i .E O o .°.: 1 . c ,ai u 7-i n o n n~ y~ i a. ~ a a c ~ a U U ~ ; . } ~ 19 'C y 'U G 0 v c*i y .Q H 07 4: N O O U h ^ u _ u u h f N O U L T +, C ~ h y= u~ G a O i O p ti n e ~ C pU ~' r E !'~ _' ~. ~ G O T C Q c Z C, ' F ` ~ o n G ~ E~ . O 9 ~ ~ ~ p ai ^ ` ~ ~ h ~ c ~.~ !!w. W q 00 ~ '~ G `J' U~ y U U G r~ 4 . =. O N L L ei i F' C rh ,-y ~ ~. 'y G O y V O ri G ~ U w ~ N ^ C ~ cJ .D O co c °~ ro o aK'J c °' ~o.o a A C m ' -t O' ti T .-~ O C O C O a F^ ~ ~ ti~ n ~ ~O. ~ v '~ h d .C ~ E .. a v ~. 6 C ~ c ~ y po ~? o ~~ c u C u O C Z Cr O E q u oU 3 `~ C O ~ c E ~ ~ 0 3 ~ c°°' c , ~ r u Q "~ E F m o `~~ u ~ba 3 o y = c . n c u^ p o u u ~ C L - 'd ~ O,'j L' C N O cJ [..i m n S ~ ~ F U m ~ w ~ ~ Z a ~ n o o c G~ N o ~ ., a ~ u CJ h a N TJ O N ~ Y G b~ ' d b 9~ C u u p E m o ,~ ~ a C ~ C 9 r ~ C N p cJ ~ d G d. C ~ x x o m e F ~ O U Q b d w' O o ~ E ~ ~ H w0 d O O p u ~ c i pp ~ c , o N E E G e e a G ~ E a X '- S 6 O T> ~ O p0 N h C E u n~ [~ ~..^~ .. . U ~ N p O C Q• N E T ~ ~ O u d w vui u~ u 7 O F E~ O Z ~ C u C u y ~ O O G ~ C "' C Dv~ ~ O = D O~ Z .^-w ,G ~ C C Cj tOA' C h ~ .a d a itl O u L c i =y C ? O. Lu, G p h 7 w c~ n, x o p t a^ m o ~ ~ ~ b~ v ,° ro . F y pup ~ C o a ~ y L~ M ~ ! C~ O y~ C h ~ :7 w p 2y p, n =' O h ~ L T O ++ C N N^ 0. '~ G h o N = O F O W~ N O ~ ti u? ~ U C N p ~ O O ^p ~~ "~ ~ W C L L 5 y ~~ O = r ~y of ~ E C, N 4 rf 0 , O v~ r ei O d F W ~ a 'S .r ~ ~ ¢ G G ~ F G L ~ ~ O a ~ ~ O U ~ C d O N ~ = = - ¢ N _i G Z ~ ^°o z w a a a ~° O ._. 0 4 w o cu 4°OW °o W ub c O, C7 rn ~+ vi ._' o ,S C .. Q c~ ~' u 'U ~ a ~ c rn ? O N C o o ^' ti o a ~ 'G F ~, u C p N z V i ~ 2 ~ C O ~ r i n ~ > i ~ u O v O v -~ s ~ o~ w ~ °~g a~~ ~ u .~ C ~ so '~ > 3 , C O C N y Ca ~ b 4 O .. a C Q ~ C m~ .. 'a E ..N. O C^ .~ .. ~ = N F 3a 3 3o~u ~ 3~~p r Z [:7 H L Z W N.z E C Z z ao Ol b 'a O v ri _~ .Q CS H N ~; c ;~ T °_ N U E V O 'O N ci '~ ^ T ,~ ` O O Ill G = r U 6 U h U E 4. T T C. U V a ;C tl C 0 " CD U n U :J U U , , G [J O. (_.~ n r. O U .U. .C ~ d. w h ; y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v_ e ; ~ p ° o o° v ti o E o c ' 0> > O D d O s :~ 0 >.~ O m B G ti~ ~ U ~ rr G y CUD ~> V° .~ ~ G ' ' U G h ~ ~ U ~~ ~ . C O c n C o c a i c v 6 ~ E n c ~> a ° ' > . . o Z x y N cu o F c~ C b ~ ~ b ~ L r ~ ~ U ~j r 'G v; d O C G a C°~ y i O. >y C7 c c u n °: ~ 0 0 n c u o m~ E ' y ,-~ ° ° ° ° ~ _ ?'c~ "" cam-'' > o Z c > E c u ;~ > aW ~ ~ ~ C oO~3 ~ ~mw c ~ E mo~ o m o w° F ~~ y o o ~ y~ y n o~ ~u 'O C ,p C u> U 'Z ~ u n F" E U 4 E U ` a ~ u ~ ~ ° ° '~ '~ m c 3~ °.' ~ 4 .b u F J o Z 4 °' D c E o0 o m c u ca °° d 'o ~ m u O G b C vi -. E C > ~ p y O C y ~ C ° y ° E y ti '~ T ~ y~ o o a c F m G m 3 u E ~c`~. r n o ~~ n` u c N w n c >. y ~ c0 a, o C Z ~ '~ > F u .~ s p y O C O o c v w w> F u .~ , > y . ... $ o o c o y> :n m . c o ~D ~/? .E C y ~ C N b O U C N of O C C o , d U~ G " N T ' C p 0 y U T U Vi ti ,~ E^ y j n O P :y a ~' 0 O '_' C ~ y O E ' y ~ C ~ ~ O C O D ~ b~ ? E r E t-0 O G ° U C. ° yy~ ~11 W p . O CC ~~~ ~^ ~ O~ ~ u O i n~ C U ~ O C y o ° v v ~ ,C v y n j 0 0 b d b ^° C o ~ C D . 0 6, ~ D O~ N C E N >~ a ~ C ~ iy ~ n O C O ~> V O a> y - ° ~ ° ~ o ° ~ ~ o ~ o ` n y c °`h G `c' ~ ° ° 'O c = o Z c; ~ o y ~~ E m>~ o ~ ~ E o~ o f n ~ s ~ > L ~ . C - O ' E ' . C C ~- . m h U I ~ L " . ' ~ ~. LL ° E u E o u > o ° " m 3 ° ~ m ~> a > H ~ ~ C ~ '~ a tlp . C fn w x v~ ~ :n > U ° p U 'D y O 0 C C N v, G U S U E ~ rJ ~ G F U C `i.J u ~ fn 3 y u G v C T E I 9 u O°~ ;n h L T C ? y O ° E ~' O r ^ ~.. . T O~ C. .O b U C rJ .. . ~ b- 40 b+ U G u ~ ~ o ~ r U L 0 4y' ~'' c°i O >p d ~ i R C N .C~. y yy p ~ p ~ ~ z U ~ O Q , .^ U CA ~ U G i U E . . G O C nJ ~ = ~ ~ U . i C y y U~ y y C C 0. ~ C G 4 CC N~~ u O ~~~ ° W~ U O .. _ U u .°~. 'C y 'O O l > O 0 4 ~~ y N C L x <S ~„~ _C C y ~ R `. ti y D. y ~- ~ Cq c O U O > C. ep c o ~ E O. ,>. O ° x Jc..; " ~ >,H c E ~ y v~ o o i ~ cn ~ ~y, o u ~ y ° e 'i aR. h o~ a > c~ E~ ~ b ~ o 'n ~ g D ~ m ~ o `~ e-~. .. 3= c" b ~ E -° 0 3 3 o c 2 0.. c4 c x ° ai ~ c m u 9 a °3c ao v - c v O' 7 F n ~° ~ o - ~ ~ d' ~ O a rn O C > y O U '~' `tlc O~ ~~ ~ a y '~ C C u 0 d. y . ~ ~ ~ L V1 N > ~ N ~' O ~~ J O h ~ G ~ E R E d> O y a o 4 a ' 3 G y -p m < ~ pU o .. 5 ~ o ~ S ~ ~ [- ] Ci v E ~^ a E F x a R mr r v. m o ~ ~"" Z > > ~ C to y a i F O ai ° O p > V O U 7 vIZ ~S ai O N "CS G u ri y .Q :9 ~ u Q W G > , ~ c: ~. `..' c y n N ~ C ~ c _ n n °- ~ u v4 0 ~ ~ c7 G C Z0. i~ b y -~? .nom w m 'E ~ ~ c F -o ~ c t,~-, y ° m O~~ i ~ n ~ C U~ y U E a T~ , ° p D O ' 5 O t ~ . o ti a U C E ~ .^- .» ~ U O > n w ~ o co O r c =' a o N O ~ ~ G U L C V ~ n~ O 4: v ~ P .v'-C O n C .~ ~ CU :-0 c Lt7 ' U F~ O C ~ a O ~ y n C G P. j G O ^~ U ~ v + y C ~ T ~' ° cf G F ., y a ~i u y s > s, >- ~ m ' o F ~ a o , m ~ ~ u ~ ° ~ Y o > > c y p, v c ~ o. o ~"' ~ ~ U 'm >~ C U > O C G C 7 'L E~ W~ a `> °- ~ c~ m ~ ~ o c cn a ~` ° W ~ o ° m v w° s E ~ , , ~ g ° to , m F F n r c y.n m w ~'a .`dc ~~~ ~° ~ m.~ a~ ~ o o Z c, v D o E a~ :: y n~° c b ° 3 ~~ 3 v ~ y U~ c~ ;C ~v° E O~ G ,= v~~ ya u ~, N F U E C a o C O~ ~ ~y v a Z:b LU '~ C. ~O Vl eJ E U n n n .-: ~"' ~ ~ O G N O v~ O ~ .~ ~° .M ~ d C N U O O d D ~ C W T N ~ U d O U~ n ~ O 0 w L . _. cq a> H ~ ~ a ? G c O E C ° w x * o o .c 3 y > E n a .o F., i 'O i n 'O ~ N ~ ~ .C o n~ ~ _. O E 4 ,C 0 j G ~ ~ C c e o .°-~ n 3 c ~ E c 4 > ~~° c °' o w~ co a n c L~~ N b `n n T~ m O + O~ .C O O C cp w a`"i E~ C n > . ° T w ~ 9 n ~ .,Y ~ F G G~ C C a C O ~U~aa OCD vp N S O ~ V' ~ G n c> ~ G Z] O~ y ' n G O v, W 'p ~+ " U w :~ ~ T .T_~ ~ a m . -° ° ° E °' o > 'L y o. > c> Zc, ~ ~ ~ a a. ~ o n ,y O >_ ~ M n o - O .. c o q ~ U CJ N :~ n p h o > ° v y V ~ w E a ^ a ...~GOU i _ U~~mCa by0 ^~W 'O~ >U n ~ '~ C O Q W C ^' O N > a c " ~ ~ > •• ~ ~ ~ c G ~ > 0 i ~ a a ~ a ~ ~ ~ T ' F n s a o °~ o o n E ~" $ . c~ n o c Q. 3 9 ~ c >, ~ a ~ aa.. v O T a 4- C . ,c a U 0 v ~` ° ~ G ~ o C > ~ w u O > p ~ .O ~ e~ E_ -d o a y v i o ` 'O ~ O 3 . ~ U ~ ° O ro ~ ' ~ , c o F, ~° G s Y a c n° T :d y y a. 5 0. W ~. V r ~ . a ~ C ~ ~ '; ; > O ~ 3 ~ ~ h N y ' C ° U r O y p ~ . J ~ vv i ~ J AJ o ^ C v~ DO ~ y G N o.. nG. C .G u n G 'O U a) O N ~ O E'~~d "~ ~ E'a Cn> L~U C ~~ GC CJ P O 47 ~ a a an ~ ~ . O •c, ~ n o ° 'D . .; o OO ti s °: n . 0 . g a v , o u ' N _ ^.q.~ = Q ~> O G CO a O .... T N 3 a U U O ~~ .~ F~ N ~ o a^ w v 0 U ~'~'^s-a '~ n~ ° .y n E E > j C :~ O w a c u7 '._ ~ . . c a ~ ` ~ ~ E > O ~ > C ~ C > .L C .C C ~' U - 0 ~ . y ~ 0 ^ 0 T 0 3~F ~~ .0.2 ~ I" cJ ° F ~.~ U ~ O U C ~ W r-J 3 s ~ O s .7 H E, z ~ U ~ ~ ~a~ J a ~ z O m G G O ' ~ in ~ CF O~ 1 °Km O c:7q< v~WO F ~« a~ N "O v q +:+ .^'.~ O u ~. M d H ~- >, a ° = o do n~~ ~o '„ U ~ G v E ~ j ~ -~ t U ~ O ~ G C .. .. G 4.. ° 'n L J-. }~ CO C . , . U ,~ O ^p O ~ P y~ U ~ ~ .U ~ N V ~ V a U O C' U O .. 0 ;J G U U >> q ~" ~ 'U C. q G N U ~ U ' Z~ G, G Z ^•' O ~ ... U _: u~ JO 4 G N E J ~ 4°-. _ , n o m ~ u u o o c. -~ h x c :n ..7 ~' ~ V w~ Y '~ .C ..G N E u C i ~ M O _ y 0 E ~ ~ C 'nC ~y > . ~Lb7i y. .~. i ~ h vi G C O x C 'O ~ e ^ ~ - i P a v `i ~ j . O ~ U ~ . . p y a G ~ ° ~ U l C y ~ ~ '~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ C C ' ~ m ~ ~~~~o'~ W ~oo~ ~o~~ Q C U ~ C L O o0 T ~ ~ C d a 0 O .G Z Q N !~ C d° C ti >` y N ~ U LO ~ x vi vi ~ N O ~ ~ C W =~ ~ ' ° CD Z, x d CJ C o 3 U U 'b O C ~ e] m 4 n U w ¢ u x •~ y ~' o b s .r v c -- a o~ m m ~ o~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ v c E ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~~y~ ~ _ , , a i h ° n~ o ~ o u i c 5 g ~-° a C °o ~ u c a E ~ Y -° ~ ~ Z a, v ~ . cn ^a ~ B~ 7 v ~ a U 3 `. ti 3 3 ., ._ ?~ G F' - y ~ ~ ~ O O U ~ 6.'G u 9 ~ ' cl n i eC > ~ U E . w ~ 5 ~ v ~ .b o ~, ... 3 ° ~ a'v>°~vE ~ ~ ~ b c D ~ g ., i ~ C O ai P- 1, "U ~ O ~ U yG. 'O rJ C n ° =~ y C C1 W . " W ~ 1 ~ '] D > ..O J . . f N N U (~ ~ ._. > J U . i U C Vi c ^' d o F u c~~ ~ 'D c ~ nA ~ 2 ~ r ° O ~ a ti ~" a ~ U U ~C 3 C O o . ' n1 U C 'U :a v C O C rf G o > ~ N ~ S ~ ~"' N b N C E~ N U E 'O U -G ~~ 'h O u W~ d b F U ~ . ~ W O 0 ~ ~ vi 9 ~ 0 'O rJ O n .~ Cp y h ~ ~ ~~° O 'O G j 0] C C O O ~ w iJ 'O U >' O b J u ~ ~ N ~ O d 7 U iy d~ O- G ~. U° O G C U O o U v C u c - c co E u F t U o ~ -' ~ 7 m 'o .. F U U n .. ~ Z n. ~ 3 ~ o ~ ~ -o ~-~-+ n C ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ U = Z c C O ¢ .O ~ ~ ryj C ~ ~ vi O o0 "F ~ D C ~, ~ E q U ~t . d N O d O O U d C V w ~~ O tO.O ~. ~ U b x= y ?.+ c] O d C~ F~ .T. p ~ u y .>. C i C) ~,.. ~~ G . = U C O ~ ~ ~, T C y U C L Ti ~ O C ,- ~. ~ O _ ~° Y w0 O U C U G U y ~ ~ U U N (.., q u o v' E E w T aEi U n° p vi ~ V C " a C U '~ y° U Q p U N M C O C n i U C u ~ ~ Cr C Z. `"' d ~ m E O j ,O y n O rJ .G [~ ~ C aui ~' ~ C .O ti ? O n ~ C a E Cy '; ~° ~ o . o E - ~ ~ o a ~".. N "' v d . `~ 3 =s . , ~ . O J C i.. . i > O .7 e .-i N D y ... ?~ ~ m d q T W W¢ T.~ C ~ '~ s a U ~] 'p ~ .G ~ ~ o .u., ° s y U G O > ~ ~ U r o , y L ° o °J °' 7~ y~~ 0 S i. r ° c a U i ~ ~ 3 O ~ ' r°" .un c ° r ^A O G h ° y u cu ys yJ b0 ~n . c4 ~ ' C ' E ~ C! O v i C ~ tri p N > J N E O >' w ~ ~ . v C U „ . ii C C+ G ~ c a+ N O Ci > CA ? uni .. " d, ` E ' E C b U ~~ y U ~ : M y ~ O~ iy b U U 3 ., G _ s , C i U CJ + r ' -~ U " ~ ` " ~ "' ° ~ n C W 'o U • < > K F w ° U ~ c `~." ~ - . o U w e CJ v o O ~ GO W G U CJ E N A ~ < n~cv>c ~i>Py c ~c~c~ ~~.5v ~ ~ c '-" ~ 3 i s, 3 N -`~ n "r.~ ~ 9 3 F E Z 7_ ~ r W S ' ~ Z . -a O ti ~ 4 ~=. 4 G ' , U L7 V. y L1 . H p [-~ =G '%w < z~ ~ d ..7 < O r ~~ N C4 At~~chrrnn~t 3 JORDAN L.AKL^ UPPER NEW HOPE ARM WORK GROUP ~~ (draft) Master List of Reaolnlnendations forthe DWQ Proposed Jordan Lake TMDL and Nutrient Management Strategy May 10, 2005 Worlc Group Members Town of Carrboro (NPS) Town of Cary (NPS) Town of Chapel Hill (NPS) Chathan7 County (NPS) City of Durham (PS) City of Durham (NPS) Durham County (PS) Durham County (NPS) Town of Morrisville (NPS) Orange County (NPS) Orange Water and Sewer Authority (PS) Walce County (NPS) The following recommendations are based ou: • the B. Everett Jor°dma Reservoir, North Carolina Nutrient Management Strategy and Total Maximuna Daily Load (Public Review Draft, Apri12005) and the Proposed Nonpoint Source Nutrient Strategy for Jor°dan Lalce Nutrient Sensitive YYaters contained in Appendix V of that report, and • comments from commissioners at the EMC Water Quality Committee meeting on March 9, 2005. The recommendations are intended far each of the local govermnent members of the Work Group to use in preparing its awn set of recommendations to be submitted to the Division of Water Quality and the Environmental Management Conunission. By using this list of recommendations, the various recommendations submitted by the local governments are more likely to be consistent with each other. Each local goverrunent may adopt any part of any reconunendation in this list. Context: 1. Jordan Lake is a man made reservoir in the Piedmont Region of North Carolina. As such, the lake is shallow and the retention time in the New Hope Arm of the lake is very long (over 400 days), conditions ideal for growing algae. Before the lake was impounded, water quality modeling predicted that Jordan Lake would be euh'ophic. 2. Jurisdictions in the Upper New Hope Arm Subwatershed of .lordan Lake have been implementing measures to protect the water quality of,Tordaii Lalce, including stringent land use controls and advanced wastewater treahnent, since the early 1980s. The measures implemented by local governments have reduced the amount of nutrients and sediment exported by development occun-ing within their jurisdictions, and have steadily a5 reduced the concentration of nitrogen within New Hope Creek. This assertion is proven by the DWQ memorandum Ti•end Analysis of Nutrient and TSS Cwtcenh~ations in the CFRB (October 15, 2004). Despite increased development in the Upper New Hope Arm Subwatershed, the concentrations of total suspended solids and total phosphorus have remained constant in New Hope Creels during the 1990-2004 period, and total nitrogen has decreased steadily since 1990. Adaptive Management: L All participants of the Jordan Lake Stakeholder Project supported an adaptive management approach to the .Jordan Lalse nutrient management strategy. We recommend that the EMC include explicit provisions within the B. Evet°ett Jordmr Reservoir, North Carolina Nutrient Management Strategy and Total Maxinnan Daily Load document tlrat specifies activities and a schedule for implementation, 2. We recommend that enhanced water quality monitoring of .Jordan Lake and its tributaries begin as soon as possible. The monitoring program would last for four years, would complement the efforts of the DWQ as described iu the Nutrient Management Strategy document, and would be funded by local goverunents. The local govermnent monitoring program would consist of & in-lake locations, as well as a stream location on White Oak Creels. The monitoring program would include physical parameters, nutrients, carbon, chlorophyll a, algal species and algal density. 3. Following the four-year water quality monitoring period, local governments would fund a ane-year project that would include enhancement of the Jordan Lake Nutrient Response Model and evaluation of the TMDL and nutrient targets for Jordan Lalse. We would extend the calibration of the model to include three of the four years of water quality data collected during the enhanced monitoring program, and use the remaining year of water quality data to revalidate the model. We would use the recalibrated and revalidated Jordan Lake Nutrient Response Model to analyze the nutrient targets established by the state for the tluee arms of Jordan Lake (CJpper New Hope, Lower New Hope urd Haw River). 4. These aforementioned activities would be consistent with the DWQ schedule for the Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. 5. We recommend that the EMC commit to reviewing the etIlranced Jordan Lake Nutrient Response Model upon its completion, and with DWQ recommendation, approving its application for nutrient target analyses. 6. We recommend that the EMC cotmnit to re-evaluating the Jordan Lake TMDL, nutrient targets, and nutrient management strategy based on the results of the TMDL, and nutrient target analyses conducted with the approved .Jordan Lalse Nutrient Response Modeh Immediate Implementation: 1. We recommend that the EMC implement the DWQ's strategies for Agriculhu°e, Nutrient Management and Buffer Protection, and proceed to rule making as soon as possible. Local govermnents would support the state in that effort. 2. We recorrunend that the EMC implement the DWQ's strategy for New Development, and proceed to rule making as soon as possible, Furthermore, we recommend that any Storrnwater Rule for New Development apply to the entire area of the Upper New Hope Ann and Lower New Hope Arm Subwatersheds. No,jurisdiction within those areas ~~ should be excluded. The provisions of such a rule should be consistent throughout the entire area, and should vary only in that the nutrient targets to be achieved differ between each of the two subwatersheds, Local governments would support the state in that effort. 3. We recommend that if the EMC includes a "buy-down" prograzn for new development, at least 80% of the revenue generated by the program must be spent on projects within the ,jurisdiction in which the revenue was generated. 4. We reconunend that the state require the Department of Transportation to submit nutrient management plans to the DWQ for their existing projects and for any new projects. Jordan Lake Watershed Model: 1. The Jordan Lake Watershed Model used for nonpoint source nutrient allocations is inadequate for implementing and monitoring the nonpoint source nutrient management strategy, We recommend that the DWQ redevelop the model at a higher resolution and update the model with more current land use and impervious surface information, 2. We recommend that the DWQ update the model periodically to incorporate changes in land uses, impervious surfaces, and nutrient loading rates. The model will be important for monitoring progress in nonpoint source nutrient management for the Tordan Lake Watershed. Feasibility Study: 1. We recommend that the DWQ conduct a feasibility study to deternline whether the nonpoint source management strategy for existing development is feasible, We do not even know whether it is theoretically possible to achieve the proposed nutrient limits within jurisdictions that have urban lazed, The feasibility of the NPS strategy has implications for the entire nutrient management strategy as a whole. What happens if the EMC and EPA adopt the nutrient management strategy and TMDL, and we then discover that the areal nutrient limits camrot possibly be achieved? 2. We recommend that the feasibility study begin immediately. Allocation for Future Growth: We oppose any explicit allocation for future growth. An explicit allocation for future growth would be, in fact, an allocation to the state, The currently proposed allocations appropriately leave growth management to the local govennnents, which are responsible for treating that wastewater and stormwater. a~ rORDAN LAKE UPPER NEW HOPE ARM WORK GROUP (draft) Master List of Existing Local Provisions for Nutrient Management May 17, 2005 Worlc Group Members Town of Cazrboro (NPS) Town of Cary (NPS) Town of Chapel Hill (NPS) Chatham County (NPS) City of Durham (PS) City of Durham (NPS) Durhazn County (PS) Durham County (NPS) Town of Morrisville (NPS) Orange County (NPS) Orange Water and Sewer Authority (PS) Wake County (NPS) This document sununarizes some of the existing local government nutrient management controls in the Upper New Hope Arm Subwatershed of Tardan Lake. This summary is intended for each of the local government members of the Work Group to use in preparing its own set of recommendations to be submitted to the Division of Water Quality and the Environmental Mazragement Cotrunission. Any mention of the proposed Nonpoint Souuce Nutrient Management Strategy refers to the Prroposed Nonpoint SozA°ce Nutrient Strategy for Jor•dazz La1re Nutrient Sensitive Waters contained in Appendix V of the B. Everett Jordmz Resez°voir, North Carolina Nutrient Management Strategy and Total Ma~-izzzuzrz Daily Load (Public Review Draft, April ?005). The local governments in the Upper New Hope Arrn Subwatershed are already implementing many components of the proposed Nutrient Management Strategy for .Jordan Lake. The following examples provide a summary of some of those local efforts. Stormwater Management for Existing Development The proposed Nonpoint Source Nutrient Management Strategy component of greatest concern is the Stormwater Rule for Existing Development, In short, local govenmzents would be required to install storznwater BMPs to reduce the nutrients exported from existing developed land such that those developed areas would be exporting nutrients at the rates of 4.1 Ibs/acre-yeaz- of TN and 1 1 lbs/acre-year of TP, or less, The following items summarize local govermnent measures to reduce the water quality impacts of existing development. These local government efforts have resulted in measrzrable ~S improvements in water quality. For example, the current draft Cape Fear Basin Plan discusses a trends analysis conducted by the NC Division of Water Quality indicating a statistically significant decline in nitrogen loading in New Hope Creek (at Stagecoach Road) over the period 1994 to 2004. The Division also noted declines in phosphorus and suspended solids. Chapel Hill Storn7water Utility -The Town of Chapel Hill enacted a stormwater utility ordinance (approx. $1.7M annual budget) with the intent and purpose to protect, restore and improve non-point source water quality and reduce flooding, Program elements include but are not limited ta: stream restoration, watershed assessments and improvements, infrastructure maintenance and improvements, C1P, stormwater program and floodplain program administration, and public education. Stream Restoration and Stonnwater Retrofittin>; -The Tawu of Chapel Hill's Comprehensive Plan hnplementation includes public/private partnerships to clean up and restore streams. The Town's Local Hazard Mitigation Plats prioritizes flood-prone structures for acquisition, demolition and open space creation in riparian areas.. The Town's Watershed Initiative and Plarming Strategy with the NC Environmental Entrancement Program has identified BMP retrofit and stream restoration opportunities. Several high priority opportunities are currently under consideration. City of'Dan~hmn Stonnwater Utility -The City has developed a Stonnwater utility to provide stable funding. The Storrnwater Utility generates approximately six million dollars annually. The utility funds 59 positions in the stormwater Services Division, including roadway appearance activities (street and sidewalk sweeping, litter control, and dead animal removal), drainage system maintenance and repair work (cleaning and repair of the drainage system located in the City right-of--way), inspection of commercial and industrial facilities, stream monitoring, illicit discharge identification and elimination, and pollution prevention/public education. Stormwater Treatment -Most of Durham is already covered by one or more stornwater requirements, as shown in the map below. Under these programs and the City's own regulations, the City has required construction of more than 300 structural controls to manage and treat runoff (BMPs). In the .Iordan Lake watershed, there are currently 112 stormwater management practices in the City of Durham. This includes 8 Stonnwater wetlands, 48 wet ponds, 17 Stonnwater sand filters, 6 bioretention facilities, and 20 detention basins. a~ Durham Stonnwater Programs wsal WSJICn ® Pla:et bcai W511 PA Pro: ~ IASI W5111 CA :III:::`- q .Sy W 5 III PA i£51 WSIV CA W 5 IV PA WS iy ~ ~ry~ Wi~IV CA c~ ~.'~ CA - 0 8 10 15 Flllez Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination -The City of Durham has an active Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination program to detect and control all sources of pollution that could impact water quality.. To date, the program has conducted more than 1200 investigations, responding to complaints, staff observations, and results of water quality monitoring. Stream Restoration and Stonnwater Retrofitting -The City of Durham is actively involved in stream restoration and Stonnwater retrofitting projects with various partners, Cunently more than $4 million has been expended or committed to stream restoration and Stonnwater treatment projects within the City. In the Jordan Lake watershed, projects that have been completed include stream restoration on Third Fork Creek in Forest Hills Park, and stream enhancement and wetlands restoration on Sandy Creele. Also in the Jordan Lake watershed, the Durham Soil and Water Conservation District has received a grant to design Stonnwater retrofits at R, N. Harris Elementary School, and is seeking fwrds for a stream restoration project at the schooh Duke University is implementing a stream restoration and stormwater heatment project in Upper Sandy Creek. Duke University, NC Central University and other public and private partners are preparing a grant application for retrofitting and partial redevelopment in an area of downtown Durham along the drainage basin divide, and thus draining to both Jordan and Falls Lakes, The intent is for the entire project to receive LEEDS certification.. Orange County Participates in efforts to restore streams and wetlands tluough such efforts as the Morgan & Little Creeks Local Watershed Plan with NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program, Canrrboro, 30 Chapel Hill, and others. These efforts will result in projects that improve water quality degraded by existing development.. Other Stormwater Management Measures Local governments in the Upper New Hope Arm Subwatershed of Jordan Lake have been working to protect water quality in the absence of state rules, often adopting rules before being required to by state regulations, and often adopting local rules that go beyond state requirements. Many of the local governments are already implementing some of the measures that would be required under the Jordan Lake Nutrient Management Strategy, azrd maziy of the local govermnent requirements go beyond those that would be required under the .Iordan Lake strategy. Chapel Hill Stormwater Management for New Development -The Town of Chapel Hill's Comprehensive Plan hnplementation includes: • Low hnpact Development design and improved stonnwater management regulations • Improved sedimentation azid erosion control regulations. • Open space and greenways acquisition. • Limits impervious surfaces with ratios, depending on the zoning. • Rigorous environmental standards for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, including stornlwater management. • Protection of significant stands of species from development impacts. ;~arian Buffer Protection -The Town of Chapel Hill's Resource Conservation District Ordinance requires: • 150 ft riparian buffers (per bank side) for perennial streams, and • 50 ft riparian buffers (per bank side) for intern~ittent streams, Open Space -The Town of Chapel Hill has a Greenways azid Open Space Master Plan that includes open space acquisition activities. The total bond funds expended since 1996 is $3.2 Million, stonnwater Education -The Town of Chapel Hill has dedicated a staff position exclusively for water quality education. The person provides stonnwater education at elementary schools, supports a public participation program, staffs booths at public events, supports the Clean Water Education Partnership, and targets audiences for best management practice messages (e,g,, homeowners, restaurazrts, automotive, Boy and Girl Scouts, etc.). Stream monitoring -The Town of Chapel Hill conducts monthly aznbient water quality monitoring of major streams in 13 locations using EPA lab methods and conducts digital data base maintenance. 31 City of Durhmn Stormwater Management for New Development -The City of Duxixam adopted a new Comprehensive Plan in 2005 to guide future development decisions. • The Unified Development Ordinance is a major overhaul of Durham's development regulations and defines a number of development tiers (feral, suburban, urban, downtovwx, compact) so that development in those areas will be appropriate, and provides for a minimum lot size of three acres in the rural tier. • City ordinances require dedication of both open space and recreation land for new residential developments, or a paylnent-in-lieu that is used for laird acquisition. The City also exacts an impact fee from new developments for recreation and open space; those fiords are used for land acquisition as well. • Development is limited from impacting natural slopes of 25% or greater. • Impervious surface limits and buffer requirements exceed state requirements in water supply watershed overlay zoning districts. Requirement State Min JorJan CA Stnte Min JorJnn ['A \V5-1 CA \VS-4 I'A Low Density Max 24% G'% 24% 24% built U on Aren High Density Max 50°/ 40'%i 70% 70'% Quilt U on Arca Low Density 30' 250 ft reservoir pool, 30' 150 ft perennial, Setback 150 ft perennial, 100 Ct intermitlent 100 ft intermittent nigh Density 100' 250 ft reservoir pool, 100' 150 ft perennial, Selbacit 150 Ct perennial, 100 ft intermittent 100 ft intermittent Riparian Buffer Protection -The City of Durham requires riparian buffers that exceed widths proposed for Jordan Lake and apply to both perennial and intermittent streams, streams appearing on either USGS or Soil Survey maps, with the more stringent designation controlling. • Citywide there is a minimum of 50 ft buffers, plus a 10 ft construction setback (60 ft total) applying to perennial streams, intermittent streams, alxd natural ponds and lakes. The inner 50 ft is to be natural, unmanaged vegetation in the rural and suburban tiers, but maybe landscaped in urban, compact and downtown tiers. • Much wider buffers apply in water supply watersheds. In the Jordan Lake Watershed, the buffer is 100 ft for intermittent and 150 ft for perennial streams, much wider than the state minimum for WS-IV PA and WS-IV CA (see map on page .3), • In addition to buffers that directly protect streams, most development in the 100-year floodplain is prohibited, which results in substantially expanding the width of the 50 ft minimum buffer in areas where the floodplain has been mapped, particularly in areas closer to .lordan Lake, • the City of Durhazn has been designated as a "Tree City" each year for more than fifteen consecutive years for- its preservation of trees. For residential development, the City requires tree coverage of between 20% and 25%. Forestry operations are largely exempt from local regulation under state law. To prevent developers from using the foreshy exemption as a basis of clearing city-required buffers, land cleared under the forestry 3~ exemption may not be developed for five years if the clearing removes trees in city required buffers. • The City of Durham requires 50 ft buffers for,jurisdictional wetlands, Ooen Snace -The City of Durham has been developing an extensive greenway system, acquiring thousands of feet yearly of floodplain and floodway land by both fee simple purchase and dedications of easements, The City has a Parks and Recreation Master Plan and a Trails and Greenways Master Plan each of which provide for open space acquisition. The City currently holds almost 1300 acres of land for recreation use, 71 % of which is developed as public parks. The park on our most recent acquisition (105 acres near the Little River Reservoir) is being plumed to minimize impervious surface by sharing parking and roads with an adjacent middle school. Stormwater Education -The City of Durham has a very active program led by a full-time educator dedicated to providing stornwater education. The progrin uses a variety of methods to educate the general public, including radio and television advertising (tluough the Clean Water Education Partnership), and direct mail campaigns, The program also targets problem business sectors to improve knowledge and awareness of steps that responsible businesses can take steps to reduce impacts. The program conducts outreach at elementary schools, booths at public events, stream clean ups, storm drain mincing, and education activities with homeowner groups. The program also provides Project WET (Water Education for Teachers) training to train local teachers. Stream monitoring -The City of Durham conducts several stream monitoring programs to assess standards compliance and use support, support stressor analyses, evaluate trends, and target our water quality protection and restoration work. The City collects benthic macro invertebrates annually in the summer at 19 sites. The City conducts monthly ambient stream monitoring at 38 sites, with an additional 15% of quality assurance samples, Dur°Izanr County Stormwater Management for New Development -Durham Cowrty requires that post- development flow rates increase by no more thazr 10% over pre-development flow rates for the one-year, 24-hour storm. Riparian Buffer Protection -Durham County requires 50 ft buffers for any waterbody on either USGS or NRCS Soil Survey maps. Orange Comzty Stormwater Muiagement for New Development -Orange County 's controls on new development include: • An Erosion Control program that requires LD pernits for all sites disturbing more than 20,000 square feet (or 10,000 squaze feet in the University Lake Watershed). Orange County implements this program for the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill, as well, 6 33 • Prohibition of certain land uses, depending on the zone.. • Maximum density limits, depending on the zone. • Impervious surface limits, depending on the zone • Structural and nonstructural stonnwater BMP requirements.. >~arian Buffer Protection -Orange County requires riparian buffers as follows. • A minimum of 50 ft from each edge of the floodplain. • In addition to the 50 ft buffer, an additional I S ft shall be added where the slope value is less than 7.5%, as measured 250 feet from the edge of the floodplain (i.e., 65 ft buffer total). • Tn addition to the 50 ft buffer, an additional .30 ft for slope values 7.5% and greater, as measured 250 feet from the edge of the floodplain (i.e., 80 fi buffer total), • These buffer widths are measured from each side of either the stream bank or the floodplain, whichever is greater. ~`}iachmc~t 4 3~f RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE B. EVERETT JORDAN RESERVOIR, NORTH CAROLINA NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY AND TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD PLAN WHEREAS, citizens of Noah Carolina have an irdrerent right to clean, high quality drinking water WHEREAS, rivers, lakes and drinking water reservoirs continue to degrade in water quality under the present management system. WHEREAS Jordan Lake is rated as an impaued water resource due to excess nutrients -nitrogen and phosphoms -and requires additional scrutiny for the protection of this drinking water resource. WHEREAS water flows from one region and jurisdiction to the next, traversing the boundaries of towns and counties wherein water quality must be maintained. WHEREAS towns and counties cannot independently protect drinking water resources. WHEREAS state mandated water quality requirements ensure that all entities within the boundaries of North Carolina equally share the responsibilities for maintaining and improving water quality. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Commissioners of Orange County expresses its resounding support for the B EVERTT JORDAN RESERVOIR, NORTH CAROLINA NUTRIL-NT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY AND TOTAL. MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD PLAN proposed by the NC Division of Water Quality to the Environmental Management Commission. Enacted this the _ day of , 2005 Introduced by Commissioner: Seconded by Commissioner: Attest: Chair County Clerk 35 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE DRINHING WATER RESERVOIR PROTECTION ACT and the B. EVERETT JORDAN RESERVOIR, NORTH CAROLINA NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY AND TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD PLAN WHEREAS, citizens of Nortlr Carolina have an inherent right to clean, high quality drinking water. WHEREAS, rivers, takes and drinking water reservoirs continue to degrade in water quality under the present management system. WHEREAS Jordan Lake is rated as an impaired water resource due to excess nutrients - nirogen and phosphorus -and requires additional scrutiny for the protection of this drining water resource, WHEREAS water flows From one region and jurisdiction to the next, traversing the boundaries of towns and counties wherein water quality must be maintained.. WHEREAS towns and counties cannot independently protect drinking water resources. WHEREAS state mandated water quality requirements ensure that all entities within the boundaries of North Carolina equally share the responsibilities for maintaining and improving water quality. WHEREAS, state efforts to clean up degraded reservoir waters have lagged for years beyond their projected timelines. WHEREAS, the cost of treating degraded water for drinking accrues to the taxpayers of the cities.. WHEREAS, the recreational water quality of reservoirs must be protected before pollution violates health standards. WHEREAS, there has been no comprehensive, statewide assessment of the water quality status of drinking water reservoirs. WHEREAS, the DRINKING WATL^R RESERVOIR PROTECTION ACT is a carefully drawn proposal to assess the status of drinking water reservoirs across the state, to put state clean-up efforts on a reasonable schedule, and to prevent pollution problems before the damage is done, saving local taxpayers the additional cost of treatment. WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners finds and believes that adopting the Drinking Water Reservoir Protection Act will help protect public health, preserve the recreafional and economic value of the takes, and create opportunity for further growth and economic development. WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners supports the B EVERTT JORDAN RESERVOIR, NORTI-I CAROLINA NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY AND TOTAL. MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD PLAN, as proposed by the NC Division of Water Quality to the Environmental Management Commission, which will protect Jordan Lake from excess nitrogen and phosphorus pollution from wastewater treatment plants and tsnoff NOW, THEREFORE, THE NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF :CONBVIISSIONERS DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1. That the foregoing is true, correct and adopted. Z, That Orange County urges the North Carolina General Assembly to pass the proposed Dritrlting Water' Protection Act. 3. That Orange County urges the Department of Environment and Naturai Resources to move ahead with the Nuhient Management Strategy as drafted-. 3~ 4. That Grange County directs the Clerk to distribute copies of this resolution to Governor Easley, North Carolina General Assembly, and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources Water Quality Planning Branch. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the North Carolina Orange County Board of Comrnissioners, held on the _ day of _, 2005. Introduced by ,Commissioner Seconded by ,Commissioner Chair ATTEST: By .County Clerk ~~ RESOLUTION SiJPPORTING THE NORTH CAROLINA DRINKING WATER RESERVOIR PROTECTION ACT WHEREAS, the cost of treating degraded water for drinking accrues to the taxpayers of the cities WHEREAS, the recreational water quality of reservoirs must be protected before pollution violates health standards.. WHEREAS, there has been no comprehensive, statewide assessment of the water quality status of dririlcing water reservoirs. WHEREAS, the Drinking Water Reservoir Protection Act is a carefully drawn proposal to assess the status of drinking water reservoirs across the state, to put state clean-up efforts on a reasonable schedule, and to prevent pollution problems before the damage is done, saving local taxpayers the additional cost of treatment. WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Comnssioners Finds and believes that adopting the Drinking Water Reservoir Protection Act will help protect public health, preserve the recreational and economic value of the lakes, and create opportunity for further growth and economic development NOW, THEREFORE, THE NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF :COMMISSIONERS DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1. That the foregoing is true, correct and adopted. 2 That Orange County urges the North Carolina General Assembly to pass the proposed Drinking Water Protection Act. 3 ,That Orange County directs the Clerk to distribute copies of this resolution to Governor Easley and the North Carolina General Assembly. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the North Carolina Orange County Board of Commissioners, held on the day of , 2005. Introduced by .Commissioner Seconded by ,Commissioner Chair ATTEST: By .County Clerk Haw River Assembly P.O. Box I87 B}nuun NC (919) 542-5790 /u•a~aenrji.net wwrv.l:mvriver.org 4/12/05 Elaine Chiosso, Executive Director Support New Rules to Protect Jordan Lake NOW North Carolina cannot wait any longer to protect the waters of Jordan La/re. Tl:is iarpor7ant drinking water supply mrd popnlm• recreation area is norv on the EPA "Lnpaired Waters' list because ofpollutiou t/rat causes excessive algae growth. After lengthy studies and a stalrel:older process, tke NC Division of Water Quality has released its strategy to r°edrrce pollution in Jordan Lake. Anew Gill in the legislature supports the inrplemwrtatiou of this strategy. The public needs to let our state m:d local elected officials, and tke EMC, Irnorv that this plan to reduce pollution iu Jordan Lake should be approved and prrt into action now -without any fiu•tker delay Iordan Lake is one of the most important natural resources in our region for dririlcing water, recreation and wildlife, and yet we have allowed it to be degraded to the point that part of it is now on the official EPA "Impaired Waters" and new monitoring shows the rest of the lake is too. .Jordan Lake is the drinking water supply for a large number of Triangle residents including Cary, Apex, Morrisville, and north Chatham -and soon Durham. The L,alce is visited by over a million people each year who come to swim, fish, camp and enjoy this 47,000 acres of land and water in a fast developing region. Explosive growth in Chatham and western Walce mean more housing developments are being approved close to the lake -creating even more wastewater and runoff pollution.. The Problem: Too much nitrogen and phosphorus pollution (almost 4 %z million pounds total per year) reaches the lake from upstream wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) and from urban, agricultural and construction run-off from land. Parts of the upper lake r°outinely are in violation of the chlorophyll a standard (measurement of a pigment from algae). Algae flourishes in these nutrient rich waters, causing problems for water quality and recreational use. The problem is worst in the Upper New Hope arm of the lake, where waters are shallow and slow-moving, fed by creeks that drain the urban areas and WWTPs of Chapel Hill, Cazrboro and Durham. The pazt of the lake fed by the Haw River arm is also in trouble from nutrients that originate from runoff and WWTP effluent as far upstream as Greensboro, The Solution: We have to decrease the nutrients -nitrogen and phosphorus -that gets into the lake. After many years of study (and delay), development of a sophisticated lake model, and almost two years of a stakeholder process, The Environmental Management Commission (EMC) has now released the NC Divisor of Water Quality (DWQ) "Draft Nutrient Management Strategy and the TMDL" for Tordan Lake for public review. The report identifies the sources of 39 nutrient pollution -both from point source dischargers and from non-point runoff The pollution `load' is calculated to a tlneshold for what a healthy Jordan Lake can handle (Total Maximwn Daily Load - TMDL) and then this reduced amount of nutrient `load" is allocated to all the sources of pollution. ^ This strategy mandates reductions in the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus entering the lake from all wastewater treatment plants. ^ New rules are proposed to reduce polluted run-off into streams from land and paved surfaces such as mandatory undisturbed stream buffers, better agricultural, storm water, and on-site wastewater protections. After public comment, The Draft plan will go back to the Enviromnental Management Commission for a vote this July. We expect a hard fight to get this plan through because of opposition from local governments who balk at spending more on pollution controls and development and agricultural interests who resist new water protection rules. Help from the Legislature: As we go to press, a `Drinking Water Reservoir Protection Act" bill has been introduced in the Senate (SB 981) and the House of Representatives (HB 1134) that will address problems in these reservoirs before they are listed as impaired. In addition it will require the EMC to report to the legislature next year on the progress of the Nutrient Plan for Jordan Lake and its implementation. Take Action: The Haw River Assembly was a key stakeholder in the process that led to the Draft plan. We have made recommendations to strengthen parts of the plan further, including safeguards on any pollution trading programs, and equally stringent protections for the middle part of the lake where massive new developments using spray irrigation WWTP are being built in Chatham County.. ^ To read the draft report use this liiilc for the DWQ website: http://h2o.enr-state.nc.us/tmdl To read the Haw River Assembly's comments go to our website: www.hawriver.or~ Attend the Nutrient Management Strategy attd TMDL Public Meeting May 2, 2005, 6:00 pm in Building 1, Alarna~tce Connnunity College, in Graham (at Hwy 54 exit off I-85/40) ^ Tell DENR you support the Draft report -send comments to Michelle Woolfolk at DWQ by May :31, 2005. Email: michelle.woolfolk@ncmail.net ^ Tell your representatives at the General Assembly to support the Drinking Water Reservoir Protection Act" bilk Go to htto://www.ncleQ.net/NCGAInfo/Directories/emailinfo html ^ Tell your local government officials in the Haw River and Jordan Lake watershed that you support new protections for clean water for Jordan Lalce NOW-and so should they. We cannot wait any longer. (HRA's Executive Director Elaine Chiosso reps°esented the Harov Rive~° Assembly and other envirom~aental interests dm°ing the Joy°dan L,a1ce Stalceholde~° P~rojeet from May 100.3 -until December 2004) A-f~hachrr~nfi 5 '~~ The NPDES Phase II Program In 1972, the National Pollutant Discharge Elinunation System (NPDES) program was established under the authority of the Clean Water Act. Phase I of the NPDES stormwater program was established in 1990. It required NPDES permit coverage for large or medium municipalities that had populations of 100,000 or' more, In North Carolina, there are six Phase I communities. Phase II of the NPDES Stormwater program was signed into law in December 1999. This regulation builds upon the existing Phase I program by requiring smaller communities, also lalown as small municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s), to be permitted. Regulated small MS4s must apply for permit coverage by March 200.3. Those conununities pernzitted under Phase II are required to develop and implement a comprehei~lsive stormwater management program that inchides six nunimum measures: 1. public education and outz•each on stormwatez• impacts; 2. public involvement/participation; 3. illicit discharge detection and elimination; 4. corzstructiorz site stormwater runoff control; 5. post-construction stormwater rrzanagemerzt for new development and redevelopment; 6. pollution prevention/good houselceeping for municipal opez°ations. Additional information on these six nunimum measures and the federal Phase II program can be found at the U.S, Environmental Protection Agency web site, fl~f fiachmt'rrt- /o L~ ~ What the Neuse NSW rules require • Point sources: The nitrogen limit for individual dischargers or the dischargers have the option to join a coalition of dischargers to allow implementation of point source controls in amore cost-effective manner throughout the basin. • Urban Stormwater: The affected local governments are required to develop and implement a local Stormwater management program to address nitrogen, • Protection and Maintenance of Existing Riparian Areas: Riparian (streamside) areas (50 foot buffer) must be protected and maintained on both sides of streams, rivers, lakes and estuaries. • Agriculture: The agricultural rule provides each farmer with the options of become part of a collective local strategy for implementing best management practices on their land, or implementing standard best management practices as specified in a rule. • Nutrient Management: This rule affects landowners, leasees, and commercial applicators who apply nutrients to 50 acres or more of residential, agricultural, commercial, recreational or industrial land. Each person has the options of successfully completing nutrient management training or of developing nutrient management plans for the lands where they apply fertilizer.