Neuse River Basic OWLS '14 Presentation

download Neuse River Basic OWLS '14 Presentation

of 56

Embed Size (px)

description

Neuse River Basic OWLS '14 Presentation

Transcript of Neuse River Basic OWLS '14 Presentation

  • 1. Spotlight: TheUpper Neuse RiverBasin Association(UNRBA)Forrest Westall, UNRBAPam Hemminger, UNRBADon OToole, City of DurhamKenny Waldroup, City of RaleighAlix Matos, CardnoSeptember 2014

2. Introduction to the SessionForrest Westall 3. Panel Members> Forrest Westall, Executive Director of the UNRBA> Pam Hemminger, UNRBA Chair,Orange County Representative> Don OToole, Senior Assistant City Attorney,City of Durham> Kenny Waldroup, Assistant Public Utilities Director,City of Raleigh> Alix Matos, Cardno 4. The Challenges of Falls Lake In a Nutshell> Controversial Corps of Engineers reservoir> Primary source for public water for one jurisdiction> Concerns about water quality> Chlorophyll-a water quality impairment> Legislative action to require nutrient management> Very restrictive nutrient reduction requirements> Reductions required for existing development> Expensive Stage I requirements> Costly Stage II requirements 5. Nutrient Reduction Requirements> Stage I (2011- 2021) Achieve standards in lower lake by 2021 Initial reductions watershed wide Reduce loading by 20% for TN and 40% for TP New development requirements implemented in 2012> Stage II (2021 2036) Achieve standards in entire lake by 2041 Additional reduction in upper watershed Reduce loading by 40% for TN and 77% for TP Continue new development requirements 6. Panel Presentation Topics> Review the history of Falls Lake and the emergence ofcritical water resource issues affecting the whole watershed> Summarize the development of the Consensus Principles> Highlight the reconfiguration of the Upper Neuse River BasinAssociation (UNRBA)> Examine the roles of adaptive management and theapplication of water quality science in examining theregulatory framework developed for Falls Lake> Describe the political and public policy environment in NorthCarolina and its potential effects on the Falls Lake NutrientManagement Strategy 7. The Falls LakeWatershed 8. History of the Issues and theConsensus PrincipalsDon OTooleKenny Waldroup 9. The Upper Neuse FactsPercent of watershed Wake13%1%27%25%17%17%FranklinDurhamOrangeGranvillePerson> 770 square miles> 6 counties> 8 municipalities> 6 public drinking watersystems> 9 water supplyreservoirs 10. Upper Neuse Land Cover14%58%Land Cover24%3%1%DevelopedForestPasture/ CropsWaterWetlands 11. North Carolinas water quality standard for Chlorophyll-ais 40 ug/l. This graphic shows water quality violationsidentified in 2005-2007. 12. The Memorandum ofAgreement known as theConsensus Principles 13. Why is this effort important to Raleigh? 14. Why is this effort important to Durham?Direct Costs Responsible Party Stage I Stage IIWWTP City of Durham $40 million $80 million - $320 millionExistingdevelopmentCity of Durham $45 million $645 million ???NewDevelopmentDevelopers $45 million $1 billion (watershed)Total Both $130 million $1 billion - $2 billion 15. The Re-Focus of the UNRBAPam Hemminger 16. A Brief History of the UNRBA> Formed in 1996 due to continued concerns about the futurewater quality of Falls Lake> Initial focus was information development and general studyof the Lake and its watershed> The organization shifted goals and objectives following theadoption of the Falls Lake Nutrient Management Strategyand the passage of the Falls Lake Rules in 2010> Ongoing focus to assist member jurisdictions with Strategyimplementation and reexamine the Stage II Rules 17. Structure of the Organization> Members 6 counties (Wake, Orange, Durham, Person, Granville, andFranklin) 7 municipalities (Raleigh, Wake Forest, Durham, Hillsborough,Creedmoor, Stem, and Butner)> Board of Directors Each member government has a Director and alternate> Executive Directorcritically important> Path Forward Committeecomprised of member experts 18. The Stated Purpose of the UNRBA, 2011 By-LawsThe Association is organized and shall operate exclusivelyas a non-profit corporation to assist its member localgovernments in their efforts to jointly address issues ofconcern to the member local governments relating towater quality and waste water management in the UpperNeuse River Basin and the Falls Lake Watershed. 19. What Makes the UNRBA Different?> Collaboration of the regulated community and end userof the water> The consolidation and coordination of membershipresponse to a demanding regulatory framework> Differing political views of regulation(rural versus suburban versus urban)> Members willing to focus on mutual goals and notdifferences due to the unprecedented nutrient controlregulatory requirements 20. The Path Forward: Increasing the Effectiveness of theUNRBA in the Era of the Falls Lake Rules 21. Key Actions in Successfully Changing the Focus of the UNRBA> Achieving agreement within the membership on the new direction> Significant dues increases> Creation of a Path Forward Committee> Retention of water resources consulting firm to guide there-examination process> Retention of an Executive Director 22. UNRBA Contracts with Cardno> 2012 Re-examination Strategy $200K> 2013 Monitoring Program Development $300K> 2014+ Monitoring Program Implementation $800K per year for 4 to 5 years> 2013 Nutrient Credit Project $350K 23. Technical Support for theGoals of the UNRBAAlix Matos, PE 24. UNRBA Re-examination Strategy for Stage II Exploredregulatoryoptions Developedmonitoringprogram Expand thetoolboxAssessedexistinginformationLinked waterquality todesignatedusesAssessedfeasibility ofStage II 25. Assessed Existing Information> Agencies predicted the upperlake would be highlyeutrophic> Benefits of the lake wereassumed to outweigh the riskof eutrophic conditions> Water quality improvessteadily from the upper tolower end of the lake> Natural lake processesprotect downstream waters 26. Linked Water Quality to Designated Uses 27. Cost Benefit Analysis of Stage II> Used the States FiscalAnalysis to estimate costs> Accounts for benefits Increased recreational use Reduced chemical costs forwater treatment> Additional potentialbenefits Compliance with futureSDWA standards Avoided costs of WTPupgradesCosts =$1 billionBenefits =$7.5 million 28. Potential Regulatory Options> Use attainabilityanalysis Naturally occurringconditions or hydrologicmodification Significant andwidespread social andeconomic impacts> Variance> Site specific criteria8070605040302010040, 77 35, 70 30, 60 25, 50 20, 40 15, 30 10, 20 5, 10 0,0Annual Implementation Costs ($ million)Percent Reduction (TN, TP)LittleImpactMid-rangeImpactLarge ImpactImpact categories are basedon the USEPA MunicipalPreliminary Screener andrepresent the impact tohouseholds in the watershed. 29. Compliance Cannot Be Achieved with Existing Technology> None of the existing BMPs can achieve the requiredTP reductions> Existing development is most severely challengedBMP Nutrient Removal Efficiency for Each BMP TypeNitrogen PhosphorusStormwater Wetlands 40% 40%Bioretention 35% 45%Infiltration Devices 30% 35%Buffer Restoration 30% 35%Grassed Swales 20% 20%Stage II Requirement 40% 77% 30. Nutrient Credit Project> Contributors/Partners $300,000 contributed bythe UNRBA $50,000 grant from theState> Develop nutrient creditsfor measures thatcurrently do not haveState approved credits> Develop a tool thatlocal governments canuse to calculate credits 31. Optimization Parameters Frequencies LocationsAnalyses Identify data gaps Statistical modelsAdaptations Test models ReviseprogramRe-examination Update lakemodel Recalculateloading targets Support regulatoryoptionsAdaptive Monitoring Program(~$800,000 per year) 32. Moving Forward in the Face ofRegulatory ChallengesForrest Westall 33. A Personal Perspective of the UNRBA: Why Get Involved?> Water quality management focused> Bleeding edge of technology> High economic stakes> Respect all members views> Adaptive management 34. UNRBA is Moving Forward> Committed to achieving Stage I> Dues from $ 120,000 in 2011 to over $ 800,000 in FY 2015> Credit development project $ 300,000> Monitoring program $ 800,000 / yr for 4 to 5 years> New Development in place 2012> WWTP upgrades for Stage I are near completion> Falls Lake Watershed versus Jordan Lake Watershed 35. Balancing Ecological Science and Effective Public Policy> Southern Piedmont man-made reservoir> Strategy is aimed at meeting Chlorophyll-a standards> Other water quality concerns (TOC and water treatment)> Costs of strategy versus water quality benefits> Regulatory and legal options> Reluctant regulatory agencies> Member interests may diverge in the future 36. 2010Falls Lake Strategy is passed Consensus Principles adopted2011UNRBA decides to initiate a re-examination of Stage II2012/2013UNRBA contracted work to develop a strategy for the re-examination process2013/2014Develop monitoring plan to support re-examination and obtain DWR approval2014/2018-19Collect monitoring data2019/2020Revise lake model and recalculate reduction goals2021-?Pursue regulatory options as needed 37. These End Points Cannot be Achieved Unless the UNRBA can:> Maintain cooperative relationships> Keep the members at the table> Provide compelling information to support the decisions of theorganization> Deal effectively with changing political climate> Meet the needs of a diverse membership> Promote a cooperative and flexible State and Federal responseto the science that the UNRBA is developing