Download to read offline
Uploaded byU.S. Water Alliance
Neuse River Basic OWLS '14 Presentation
This document summarizes a panel discussion on the challenges facing the Falls Lake watershed in North Carolina. It discusses the history of water quality issues in Falls Lake leading to stringent nutrient reduction requirements. The Upper Neuse River Basin Association (UNRBA) was refocused to help members meet these requirements through collaborative efforts like developing nutrient credits and an adaptive monitoring program. While making progress towards its goals, the UNRBA still faces challenges in balancing ecological science with public policy given the large costs of compliance.
More Related Content
Similar to Neuse River Basic OWLS '14 Presentation
More from U.S. Water Alliance
Neuse River Basic OWLS '14 Presentation
- 1. Spotlight: The UpperNeuse River Basin Association (UNRBA) Forrest Westall, UNRBA Pam Hemminger, UNRBA Don O’Toole, City of Durham Kenny Waldroup, City of Raleigh Alix Matos, Cardno September 2014
- 2. Introduction to theSession Forrest Westall
- 3. Panel Members >Forrest Westall, Executive Director of the UNRBA > Pam Hemminger, UNRBA Chair, Orange County Representative > Don O’Toole, Senior Assistant City Attorney, City of Durham > Kenny Waldroup, Assistant Public Utilities Director, City of Raleigh > Alix Matos, Cardno
- 4. The Challenges ofFalls 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 of critical water resource issues affecting the whole watershed > Summarize the development of the Consensus Principles > Highlight the reconfiguration of the Upper Neuse River Basin Association (UNRBA) > Examine the roles of adaptive management and the application of water quality science in examining the regulatory framework developed for Falls Lake > Describe the political and public policy environment in North Carolina and its potential effects on the Falls Lake Nutrient Management Strategy
- 7. The Falls Lake Watershed
- 8. History of theIssues and the Consensus Principals Don O’Toole Kenny Waldroup
- 9. The Upper NeuseFacts Percent of watershed Wake 13% 1% 27% 25% 17% 17% Franklin Durham Orange Granville Person > 770 square miles > 6 counties > 8 municipalities > 6 public drinking water systems > 9 water supply reservoirs
- 10. Upper Neuse LandCover 14% 58% Land Cover 24% 3% 1% Developed Forest Pasture/ Crops Water Wetlands
- 11. North Carolina’s waterquality standard for Chlorophyll-a is 40 ug/l. This graphic shows water quality violations identified in 2005-2007.
- 12. The Memorandum of Agreement known as the “Consensus Principles”
- 13. Why is thiseffort important to Raleigh?
- 14. Why is thiseffort important to Durham? Direct Costs Responsible Party Stage I Stage II WWTP City of Durham $40 million $80 million - $320 million Existing development City of Durham $45 million $645 million ??? New Development Developers $45 million $1 billion (watershed) Total Both $130 million $1 billion - $2 billion
- 15. The Re-Focus ofthe UNRBA Pam Hemminger
- 16. A Brief Historyof the UNRBA > Formed in 1996 due to continued concerns about the future water quality of Falls Lake > Initial focus was information development and general study of the Lake and its watershed > The organization shifted goals and objectives following the adoption of the Falls Lake Nutrient Management Strategy and the passage of the Falls Lake Rules in 2010 > Ongoing focus to assist member jurisdictions with Strategy implementation and reexamine the Stage II Rules
- 17. Structure of theOrganization > Members • 6 counties (Wake, Orange, Durham, Person, Granville, and Franklin) • 7 municipalities (Raleigh, Wake Forest, Durham, Hillsborough, Creedmoor, Stem, and Butner) > Board of Directors • Each member government has a Director and alternate > Executive Director—critically important > Path Forward Committee—comprised of member experts
- 18. The Stated Purposeof the UNRBA, 2011 By-Laws The Association is organized and shall operate exclusively as a non-profit corporation to assist its member local governments in their efforts to jointly address issues of concern to the member local governments relating to water quality and waste water management in the Upper Neuse River Basin and the Falls Lake Watershed.
- 19. What Makes theUNRBA Different? > Collaboration of the regulated community and end user of the water > The consolidation and coordination of membership response to a demanding regulatory framework > Differing political views of regulation (rural versus suburban versus urban) > Members willing to focus on mutual goals and not differences due to the unprecedented nutrient control regulatory requirements
- 20. The Path Forward:Increasing the Effectiveness of the UNRBA in the Era of the Falls Lake Rules
- 21. Key Actions inSuccessfully 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 the re-examination process > Retention of an Executive Director
- 22. UNRBA Contracts withCardno > 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 forthe Goals of the UNRBA Alix Matos, PE
- 24. UNRBA Re-examination Strategyfor Stage II • Explored regulatory options • Developed monitoring program • Expand the toolbox Assessed existing information Linked water quality to designated uses Assessed feasibility of Stage II
- 25. Assessed Existing Information > Agencies predicted the upper lake would be highly eutrophic > Benefits of the lake were assumed to outweigh the risk of eutrophic conditions > Water quality improves steadily from the upper to lower end of the lake > Natural lake processes protect downstream waters
- 26. Linked Water Qualityto Designated Uses
- 27. Cost Benefit Analysisof Stage II > Used the State’s Fiscal Analysis to estimate costs > Accounts for benefits • Increased recreational use • Reduced chemical costs for water treatment > Additional potential benefits • Compliance with future SDWA standards • Avoided costs of WTP upgrades Costs = $1 billion Benefits = $7.5 million
- 28. Potential Regulatory Options > Use attainability analysis • Naturally occurring conditions or hydrologic modification • Significant and widespread social and economic impacts > Variance > Site specific criteria 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 40, 77 35, 70 30, 60 25, 50 20, 40 15, 30 10, 20 5, 10 0,0 Annual Implementation Costs ($ million) Percent Reduction (TN, TP) Little Impact Mid-range Impact Large Impact Impact categories are based on the USEPA Municipal Preliminary Screener and represent the impact to households in the watershed.
- 29. Compliance Cannot BeAchieved with Existing Technology > None of the existing BMPs can achieve the required TP reductions > Existing development is most severely challenged BMP Nutrient Removal Efficiency for Each BMP Type Nitrogen Phosphorus Stormwater 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 by the UNRBA • $50,000 grant from the State > Develop nutrient credits for measures that currently do not have State approved credits > Develop a tool that local governments can use to calculate credits
- 31. Optimization • Parameters • Frequencies • Locations Analyses • Identify data gaps • Statistical models Adaptations • Test models • Revise program Re-examination • Update lake model • Recalculate loading targets • Support regulatory options Adaptive Monitoring Program (~$800,000 per year)
- 32. Moving Forward inthe Face of Regulatory Challenges Forrest Westall
- 33. A Personal Perspectiveof 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 MovingForward > 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 Scienceand 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. 2010 Falls LakeStrategy is passed Consensus Principles adopted 2011 UNRBA decides to initiate a re-examination of Stage II 2012/2013 UNRBA contracted work to develop a strategy for the re-examination process 2013/2014 Develop monitoring plan to support re-examination and obtain DWR approval 2014/2018-19 Collect monitoring data 2019/2020 Revise lake model and recalculate reduction goals 2021-? Pursue regulatory options as needed
- 37. These End PointsCannot be Achieved Unless the UNRBA can: > Maintain cooperative relationships > Keep the members at the table > Provide compelling information to support the decisions of the organization > Deal effectively with changing political climate > Meet the needs of a diverse membership > Promote a cooperative and flexible State and Federal response to the science that the UNRBA is developing
Editor's Notes
- #8 FORREST Map of NC with Appalachian mountains on the west and Atlantic Ocean on the east Orange, Durham, and Wake Counties are part of what is know as RTP RDU is on border of Durham and Wake Counties—Raleigh and Durham are not one city Major universities of UNCCH, Duke, NCCU, and NCState in this area Show where Falls Lake and its watershed is
- #10 The watershed to that reservoir, called Falls Lake, encompasses 770 square miles within 6 counties, has 8 municipalities and 6 public drinking water systems supplied by 9 water supply reservoirs. Falls Lake itself is the primary drinking water reservoir for the City of Raleigh and six client communities, which collectively have very little actual jurisdiction within the watershed. Background The Falls Lake Watershed is located in the upper portion of the Neuse River basin. It is 770 square Miles in size spans portions of six counties (Wake, Durham, Orange, Granville, Person, and Franklin). And includes portions of seven municipalities Raleigh, Durham, Hillsborough, Creedmoor, Butner, Roxboro, Stem. The lake serves as a water supply to over 450,000 residents in Wake County. For the purpose of discussing the strategy, the Upper watershed is defined as the areas of the watershed draining to the portion of the lake above NC-50. The lower watershed is the portion of the watershed draining to the the portion of the lake below NC-50 The lake is currently listed on the EPA 303d list for chl-a violations throughout the lake. Senate Bill 981 – Charged the EMC with adopting NMS no later than January 2015
- #11 DON Falls Lake was filled in 1981 Both the Army Corps of Engineers and NCDENR anticipated in the Environmental Impact Statements (1973-1974) that Falls would have issues with N and P Anticipated abundant algae growth in the upper reaches of the lake (shallow and low flow rate), expected Raleigh’s water withdrawal to be ok since the water would be withdrawn near the dam Noted that point sources, stormwater runoff, and rainwater are significant sources of N and P EPA predicted that the lake would experience some eutrophic effects between 1990 and 2000 Anticipated that additional point source controls would keep nutrients in check and viewed non-point sources as uncontrollable sources of nutrients.
- #12 KENNY: In the early 2000s, The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR or DENR) undertook a sampling program for the lake that indicated impairment (note: three years of data was unable to be used due to laboratory errors and quality control problems). By 2005, legislation (SL 2005-190 or S981) was introduced mandating a study of Jordan Lake, High Rock Lake and Falls Lake. The resulting session law also mandated the development and implementation of a nutrient reduction plan by DENR and the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) when impairment was determined. Based on water quality data collected between 2002 and 2006, Falls Lake was listed as impaired for chlorophyll a on the draft NC 2008 303(d) list. The portion of the lake above I-85 was also listed as impaired for turbidity. DENR asked for more time in the “regulatory clock” as it had too little data to make informed decisions. Ultimately, after a legislative extension (SL 2009-486) which included interim controls on new development, a major stakeholder process began in 2009 to develop a State Nutrient Management Strategy with applicable Rules (State equivalent to TMDL). Not to underplay the role of the development community or the environmental advocacy non-governmental organizations, but it was generally recognized the concerns of the City of Raleigh and its desire to protect its water supply was the major driver for rule development. Because of this, the rules negotiations process was intensive; By late 2009, an acrimonious public dispute had arisen in the annual Mayors and Chairs meeting conducted by the Triangle J COG over the scope of the proposed rules and the timelines for achievement of reductions. This article in the News and Observer, the region’s primary newspaper, lead Mayor Bell of Durham and Mayor Charles Meeker of Raleigh to convene staff and elected leaders across the region to develop common ground…
- #13 DON Durham, Raleigh, and other jurisdictions in the watershed worked together to develop the “Consensus Principles” Two important elements or stages: Stage I actions (implementation began in 2012): implementation of measures considered protective of Raleigh’s water supply (20%N and 40%P; regs imposed on point sources, non-point sources (new development and existing development), ag, and DOT) Stage II (implementation in 2021): involves further reductions in N and P to 40% and 77% respectively; but it includes what the UNRBA calls a relook; UNRBA will systematically monitor and then model (watershed and lake) to determine if stage 2 is really required and if it is required what it should look like
- #14 For Raleigh, concerns centered around perceived declines in raw water quality and increases in total organic carbon. This trend is ASSUMED to be directly connected to declining water quality in Falls Lake, ASSUMED to be related to increased urbanization, and an increasing awareness of TTHM and HAA impacts through DBP formation. Although TOC contamination was/is a primary concern, other impacts of PRECEIVED declining water quality in Falls Lake include: Increased doses of treatment chemicals at E.M. Johnson; Increased waste loads from those chemicals that impact treatment facilities and disposal costs; Increased incidence of microbial contamination in Falls Lake requiring enhanced monitoring of the treatment process; Increased occurrence of nuisance aquatic weeds that could clog intakes; More frequent algae blooms at the intake, or algae that is generated in the upper reaches on the reservoir and flushed towards the intake will create treatment problems that can significantly reduce existing treatment capacity (filter clogging diatom algae and an increased need to use drinking water to wash filters). The consequence of declining water quality in Falls Lake COULD lead to greater operational and capital expenditures to ensure compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act regulations. Low in costs are estimated at $115 million with upper end estimates of $250 million (2010 dollars). From these separate concerns and the Consensus Principles, the Upper Neuse River Basin Association was “reborn”….
- #15 DON The Falls Lake rules will require the following expenditures by the City of Durham and the Durham development community: Existing Development (stormwater)—Costs to the City Stage 1: The City anticipates that it will spend $45 million to comply with the Stage 1 ED rules. The following projects are already underway: Algal Turf Scrubber—cost through pilot project stage: $540,000. Rain Catcher Project—cost to the City of initial installations: $200,000 UNRBA Nutrient Credit Development Project—City contribution: $50,000 Stage 2: A 77% reduction in P cannot be met. Even if the City of Durham was removed from the watershed and completely reforested it is unlikely that that the Stage 2 goals would be met. City and NC State University have estimated that it would cost $645 million dollars for the City of Durham to attempt to meet the Stage 2 goals. New Development (stormwater)—Costs to developers within Durham Stage 1: The City estimates that it will cost the development community $45 million dollars to comply with the Stage 1 ND rules. Stage 2: The City does not have an estimate for the cost for developers with the City of Durham to comply with the Stage 2 ND rules; however, the estimated cost for the entire watershed is nearly $1 billion. Wastewater Treatment Plant—Costs to the City Stage 1: The City will spend approximately $40 million (includes addition of carbon and alum feed and the installation of the Anitamox process for further N reduction) Stage 2: The City estimates that it will cost between $80 and $320 million to meet the Stage 2 requirements. This estimate is based upon the need to install some or all of the following technologies: microfiltration, membrane bioreactors, nanofiltration, reverse osmosis, and flow equalization structures.
- #23 In 2012, the UNRBA began working with Cardno ENTRIX to develop a strategy for the re-examination. The rules require at least 3 years of monitoring data to support any model revisions, and in 2013 Cardno began to develop the monitoring program. Sampling and coordination will occur for 4 to 5 years. In 2013 we also began a Nutrient Credit Project to develop credits for BMPs that currently have none.
- #42 As predicted, water quality issues arose within the Reservoir BUT the Picture here tells two stories, one of eutrophication and another of an unusually shaped lake with extreme shallows in the headwaters where the five primary tributaries enter the lake. Recognizing the dual issues of concern about water quality and a “designed” propensity for eutrophication, the first attempts to protect water quality were voluntary.
- #43 One such voluntary protection activity was/is land preservation. The Upper Neuse Clean Water Initiative: a partnership between Raleigh, Durham and others in an effort to prioritize and, through voluntary actions, protect those lands most critical to the long term safety and health of all drinking water supplies for the communities in the Upper Neuse River Basin. The UNCWI has completed 81 projects, protected 73 miles of stream with wider buffers, preserved 7,042 acres (2% of the watershed, with other efforts protecting 30% in total) totaling $70.4 Million in property value. Unfortunately, these efforts did not seem to resolve the water quality issues…
- #53 Bullet 2 _ took out (stormwater perspective –DW agrees . . Our costs are projected to be $320M if 2 technologies required ($80M for microfiltration or membrane BioReactor; $240 M for nanofiltration or reverse osmosis)
- #55 The history of the nutrient problems in Falls Lake began before its construction by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE or Corps). In the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Falls Lake, the Corps stated that the lake would suffer from nutrient impairment shortly after construction. That forecast proved true shortly after the lake filled in 1981.