20051457 Ver 1_FW EcoLINC May 15th.msg_20120515

Strickland, Bev
From: Reed, Steven [[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 11:23 AM
To: Reeder, Tom
Subject: FW: Ecol-INC: May 15th
From: EcoLINC [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 9:35 AM
To: Reed, Steven
Subject: EcoLINC: May 15th
Display this email in your browser
..... ..... C . ....... ......... .... M"C ........ .. .... ..
IN THIS ISSUE:
Ecol' INC: May 15, 2012
^ Back to Top
NCLM News & Political Report
With the legislative Short Session beginning tomorrow, League staff and members have laid the
groundwork for a busy session.

represent the legislative and regulatory priorities for N.C. cities and towns.
"Bring League members have also made plans to continue conversations with their local legislative
delegations by meeting with legislators at their Raleigh offices. First, they will participate in the
League's ongoing campaign.
leaders with them to legislative visits. This campaign will extend to Town Hall w
membership's largest legislative gathering, scheduled this year for June 6.
The League staff and members look forward to working with future and returning legislators, as well
as Ms. Thompson and qtr. Larkin, in their new roles.
^ Back to To
Legislature Expected -to Consider Natural Gas Extraction
Proposals
The Senate proposal (pg. 37), advanced by Sen. Bob Rucho, would fast-track development of
necessary regulations by July 2014 but would also take away all local authority to control aspects
of this industrial activity. The House proposal, offered by Rep. Mitch Gillespie, is expected to
to support natural gas extraction so long as development of the industry preserves the health,
safety, and welfare of communities. I

regulations prohibit natural gas extraction. However, beginning last session, legislative leaders (led
by Sen. Rucho and Rep. Gillespie) and Governor Perdue have voiced support for reforms that
would allow development of this industry.
While natural gas extraction has brought positive economic benefits and jobs to other states, local
governments there have also dealt with a wide range of impacts from development of this industry,
including concerns about water supply, wastewater treatment, stormwater runoff, road and bridge
systems, public safety, emergency response, and zoning authority.
^ Back to To
Short Session Preview
General Many proposals remain eligible for consideration by the N.C.
Session, which begins tomorrow. This overview by 'A
speedy session that will conclude by July 4. With the focus on state budget adjustments,
controversial bills will not likely be considered.
a
Other environmental legislation that could receive consideration this session includes the following
topics:

Back to To
tors Promise Big Proposals After Nutrient Forum
State regulators expect the upcoming "N.C. Forum on
springboard for several large proposals that would address nutrient impairment in state waters. In
remarks to the N.C. Environmental Management o of w
Quality (DWQ) Planning Section Chief Alan Clark told Commissioners that the forum, which will
focus on the state of nutrient science, law, and policy in North Carolina and the U.S., would result
in more proposals for their consideration later this year.
First, Clark forecast that his section would bring forth a rule to establish in-stream nitrogen and
phosphorus standards -- the so-called "numeric nutrient criteria" that have caused extreme
controversy in Florida and elsewhere over the past two years. Clark stated that the U.S.
Environmental Protection Ag (EPA) expects North Carolina to develop in-stream standards as
a condition of a federal grant to DWQ.
Then, Clark told Commissioners to expect a package of "proactive measures" to prevent future
nutrient impairment. That idea recalls a defeated 0 nutrient Lgjg��k though Clark told
Commissioners that this new package would not take the same form as his section's 2010 attempt
at statewide nutrient regulation.
The topic of nutrient impairment is a top EPA prigLity
action across the country since President Obama took office. Specifically, the Obama
administration has responded to environmental activists' calls for states to develop numeric nutrient
standards, or criteria, which dischargers such as wastewater treatment plants and stormwater
systems would then have to meet. EPA Senior Policy Advisor Ellen Gilinsky will offer EPA's
perspective during the N.C. forum.
11u �
RMriluML4 III
Agenda
Chesapeake Bay. Over twenty speakers will address possible legal frameworks for nutrient
strategies, costs and funding of controls, and different types of controls. These topics respond to
the request of EMC Chair Steve Smith when the EMC shelved the 2010 nutrient strategy proposal.
Specifically, Smith asked DWQ to:
1. Explore alternatives to the 2010 strategy
2. Form a clear statement of the science underlying nutrient strategies

4. Consider basing the strategy on a parameter besides chlorophyll -a
5. Examine other indicators of changes in nutrient levels in water bodies
The League worked with DWQ staff in suggesting speakers and topics for discussion to ensure a
strong local government and legal perspective in the discussion. The forum will feature a number of
local government speakers and panelists, including:
• Jeff Hughes, UNC Environmental Finance Center
• Jackie Jarrell, Charlotte- Mecklenburg Utilities
• Darryl Moss, Creedmoor Mayor and EMC Commissioner
• Michael Richardson, Cape Fear Public Utility Authority
• Richard Whisnant, UNC Environmental Finance Center
The forum will culminate in a report of the topics discussed. Organizers have structured audience
questions through use of a panel, and all questions must be submitted in advance through this
website.
Register online for the forum, and you may be eligible to receive 11 PCU contact hours. DWQ has
also applied for up to 12.5 of CLE hours.
^ Back to To
Mercury Permitting Strategy Targets Wastewater
fhe state Division of Water
percent of the mercury load to the state's waters, while airborne mercury that reaches the ground
via rainfall contributes the remaining 98 percent. Unlike wastewater discharges, permitted sources
of air emissions will not be affected under this plan. In addition, DWQ will not require any load
reductions from permitted stormwater programs.
-w
w =1 M-1
w
Generally, this strategy caps the amount of mercury permitted to enter N.C. waters. The

Minor wastewater facilities must monitor for mercury once every five years, but will not
receive a permit limit unless the monitoring data indicates a need
ww� INN
In response to questions from FINK members at the FINK meeting Thursday, DWQ committed to
gathering all comments received at these stakeholder meetings and to provide a response to the
comments. The League urges its members with major wastewater facilities to attend this meeting
to learn how the permitting strategy may affect operations.
In addition, DWQ will accept written comments on the TMDL and wastewater permitting strategy
through June 11. The EMC plans to vote on the TMDL at its July meeting.
^ Back to To
EPA Signals intend -to Discard t w t w TMDL
c
In actions that could have implications for permitted N.C. stormwater programs, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Ag (EPA) has taken steps to discard its endorsement of a
controversial approach to certain stormwater-related water body clean-up plans, or Total Maximum
Daily o
agreement in Missouri and revision of a related guidance document.
11 11111�ww*11011 NNW
Under the federal Clean Water Act, a TMDL must be based on a specific pollutant that exceeds a
corresponding water quality standard. When EPA adopted its stormwater flow approach in 2010
guidance, the League and other groups objected,
not a pollutant with a water quality standard, it cannot legally form the basis of a TMDL.
In Missouri, EPA agreed April 30 to revise a stormwater
affected permit-holders to collect more data. Then, parties will develop a scientifically-defensible
management strategy to address impairment in the impaired waters. In the settlement agreement,
EPA also agreed to allow the state environmental agency to cease TMDLs for water bodies for
which there are only "unknown pollutants." A related lawsuit challenging another Missouri
stormwater flow TMDL is also in settlement negotiations.
Around the same time as the Missouri actions, in North Carolina, DWQ drafted a stormwater fl 0
TMDL for Little Alamance Creek, now withdrawn. The affected permit-holders, which included t]
cities of Burlington and Graham, as well as the League and other local government groups,
vigorously contested the TMDL. Read the League's comments.

watersheds affected by increased stormwater flow.
DWQ has not indicated that it would pursue stormwater flow TMDLs in other watersheds, an initial
concern for local governments who worried that similar TMDLs could be written statewide in a
"cookie cutter" approach. Once a Tel DL is written, only those entities holding permits are held
responsible for taking actions to reduce the pollutant load to waters. Over 120 N.C. cities and
towns hold stormwater permits.
By retracting the Missouri stormwater flow TMDLs and pursuing settlement negotiations rather than
litigation in other stormwater flow TMDL challenges, EPA may be signaling a withdrawal of its 0
stormwater flow guidance.
practices, and the g other interested groups argued
approach may only be done through the public process of rulemaking.
On March 13, EPA submitted a revised guidance document to the White Douse Office of
Management & Budget for review. After review, EPA could decide to revise, retain, or drop the
guidance altogether.
^ Back to To
.. First Hydrologic Model for Public Review
fhe N.C. Division of w Resources ■ has prepared its first hydrologic model
comment. A hydrologic model simulates the flow of all waters in a river basin, taking into account
surface and ground waters, transfers into and out of the basin, other withdrawals, ecological flow
requirements, and other data on the flow of water. These models could prove to be a valuable tool
for local governments in assessing the resiliance of their water supplies versus future growth
The Broad River Basin covers an area in southwestern forth Carolina that includes most of
Henderson, Polk, Rutherford, and Cleveland counties. The cities of Forest City, Kings Mountain,
and Shelby all have surface withdrawals in the basin.
While the legislation does not direct a specific use for these models, DWR expects the models to:
• Predict long-term availability of municipal water supplies
• Evaluate the effects of multiple municipal water supply withdrawals
• Assist with interbasin transfer applications
response • I nform the development of local water supply plans
• Increase accuracy of local drought ..- response
In tandem with the public comment period, another EMC committee, the Water Allocation
Committee, will likely receive a briefing on the model at its July meeting and schedule a vote for its
September meeting. The full EIVIC Could take a vote on the model in September as well.

However, any EIVIC vote on a river basin model would be conditional at this point. The
Commission's approval is preliminary because the models do not include ecological
amount of stream flow necessary to maintain ecological integrity in the stream. In any future
regulatory scheme to allocate
aquatic life in a stream.
The same legislation that created the models also directed a scientific process to estimate
ecological flow, led by the Ecological • - Advisory
determining ecological flow in each river basin. Once the Board finishes its work and DWR adjusts
the basin models, the EIVIC will have an opportunity to provide a final vote on each model.
rainfall, may allow local governments and other water users to fine-tune their estimates of future
water supply needs. DWR may also use completed models when evaluating applications for
interbasin transfers.
-. ZATMEMIM
^ Back to To
Regulatory Brief's
^ Back to To
NCB 1 & State Government t Meetings and
Events

To unsubscribe or to manage your subscriptions click here.