2020.05.01-NSAB-UNRBA-IAIA_presentation-v3

Falls Lake Alternative
Existing Development
Management Approach
Nutrient Scientific
Advisory Board Meeting
May 1, 2020
Agenda
•Review current rule structure for existing development
under the Falls Lake Nutrient Management Strategy
•Discuss why an alternative approach is needed
•Summarize preliminary program guidance developed by
the UNRBA
•Describe prospective implementation schedule and next
steps
2
Falls Lake Nutrient Management Strategy:
Existing Development Rules
•Load reduction requirements are based on two stages
•Stage II is currently being re-examined by the UNRBA
•Stage I load reductions require local governments to
reduce nutrient loading from development that occurred
between 2007 and 2012 back to 2006 levels
•Local governments are allowed to combine load reduction
requirements from existing development and wastewater
treatment
•Local governments are allowed to work together as a
group to meet existing development load reductions
3
The Falls Lake Alternative Existing Development
Management Approach focus on Stage I.
Challenges with the Current Rule Structure
•Requires estimates of pre-development loading rates
•May be calculated using tools like SNAP or JFSLAT
•Rules also include default loading rates
•Default rates can result in zero (even negative) load reductions
•DWR and jurisdictions were not able to resolve use of these rates
•Requires estimates of increase in loading due to development
•May be calculated using tools like SNAP or JFSLAT
•Rules are unclear on how loading from onsite systems should be factored in
•Different jurisdictions have different types of data, applied different calculation tools, and used different assumptions
•Difficult to get “fair” estimates across all jurisdictions
4
Challenges with the Current Rule Structure
•Requires implementation of practices with State-
approved nutrient load reduction credits
•Difficult to account for age and level of maintenance
•Ignores bypass of storms greater than 1”
•Ignores activities that are beneficial, but difficult to
quantify in terms of pounds reduced, e.g.,
•Education and public outreach programs
•Maintenance of onsite wastewater treatment systems
•Fertilizer application to lawns
•Pet waste pickup
•Repairing leaking sewer lines
•Buffer restoration in developed areas
5
Estimates of Stage I Credits and Requirements
•Estimate of the combined watershed-wide Stage I existing
development load reduction requirements
•6,000 pounds of nitrogen per year
•800 pounds of phosphorus per year
•Combined watershed-wide post-baseline reduction credits
from WWTPs with additional load reductions from non-point
source practices implemented since 2006
•50,000 pounds of nitrogen per year
•5,000 pounds of phosphorus per year
6
Need for an Alternative Approach
•Jurisdictions and DWR have found it difficult to
negotiate Stage I Existing Development load
reduction requirements
•Many beneficial activities are not creditable
•Need to expand the tool box
•Most non-point source load reductions have
been implemented by a few jurisdictions
•Prefer to engage everyone in the watershed
7
UNRBA Proposed Alternative
•In 2018, the UNRBA began developing an alternative
called the Stage I Existing Development Interim
Alternative Implementation Approach (IAIA)
•“Interim” until the Stage II re-examination is complete
•Alternative –does not focus on counting pounds
•Additional participants included staff from DWR and non-
governmental organizations
•Focuses on investment in eligible practices rather than
counting pounds of nutrients
•Provides more flexibility and cooperation
•Voluntary program –members may choose to implement
individual local programs under the current rules
8
Allowance in the Rules for an Alternative
•Language in the rules regarding group compliance and
combining requirements allows for an alternative
approach
•Reasonable assurance that Stage I load reduction
requirements will be met
•Credits from wastewater treatment plants are high
compared to required reductions
•Wastewater treatment plants have good historic
performance
•IAIA ensures continued implementation of nutrient
reducing measures
9
Summary of Preliminary Draft
IAIA Program Guidance
10
Objectives of the Interim Alternative
Implementation Approach
•Promote reasonable progress
•Implement projects in the watershed while the re-
examination continues toward completion
•Demonstrate commitment of the UNRBA to
•Maintain uses and provide water quality improvement
•Provide a reasonable, fair, and equitable management
strategy
•Utilize existing programs when available to efficiently
implement eligible projects and activities
•Minimize administrative and process delays
•Seek ways to lower costs in the development and
installation of projects
11
Participation in the Process
•Process began in 2018 with many discussions, iterations,
and input across a range of organizations
•UNRBA Members
•Path Forward Committee
•IAIA Workgroup
•Staff from Division of Water Resources Planning Group
•John Huisman
•Rich Gannon
•Jim Hawhee
•Representative for non-governmental organizations
•Peter Raabe
•Representative for agriculture
•Anne Coan
12
Potential Eligible Activities
•All State-approved practices with established nutrient
credits including stormwater control measures
•Green infrastructure and best management practices that
include water quality and quantity improvements
•Programmatic measures addressing
•Fertilizer application education for businesses and
homeowners
•Onsite wastewater treatment system inspection,
maintenance tracking, and tank pump-out programs
•Pet-waste education and waste management stations
•Illicit discharge detection and elimination
•Stream and riparian buffer restoration and enhancement
•Land conservation in high priority areas
•Greenways, parks, and projects with water quality and
quantity benefits
13
Potential Eligible Activities, Continued
•Infrastructure and wastewater improvements including
•Repair and replacement of leaky infrastructure
•Reduction of sanitary sewer overflows
•Extension of sewer lines to areas using onsite
wastewater treatment systems or package plants
•Repair and replacement of malfunctioning septic
systems and discharging sand filter systems
•Projects and activities implemented to address other state
and federal water quality regulations (MS4 permits/Phase
I or II communities, TMDLs on streams, etc.)
•Projects and activities that focus on flooding that have an
associated water quality benefit
•Additional projects and activities beyond those listed
above pending vetting with other UNRBA members and
DEQ
14
Example Investment Distribution for
Stage I Existing Development IAIA
•Would only apply to the period leading up to the new
strategy resulting from the re-examination of Stage II
•Represents minimum amounts
•Assumes a total annual funding of $1.5 million per year if
everyone participates
•Applies the existing UNRBA fee structure
•Allows for rollover from one year to the next
Member Annual Funding Level Member Annual Funding Level
Town of Butner $23,393 Town of Hillsborough $34,221
City of Creedmoor $16,926 Orange County $161,943
City of Durham $337,587 Person County $114,394
Durham County $133,300 City of Raleigh $466,081
Franklin County $19,058 Wake County $88,968
Granville County $100,453 Town of Wake Forest $13,692
15
Funding Options
•Self-funded –An individual member may use funds for
eligible projects and activities within and managed by their
own jurisdiction.
•Interlocal agreement –Individual members may enter into
an interlocal agreement where eligible projects and
activities are jointly funded.
•Funding other local organizations –
•Individual members may contribute funds to other
local organizations including local Soil and Water
Conservation Districts, County Health Departments,
watershed associations, and land conservation groups.
•The receiving local program would be responsible for
prioritizing and selecting eligible projects and activities.
•Use of funds by other local programs would be limited
to projects and activities associated with water quality
and quantity benefits.16
Funding Options, Continued
•Contribution to UNRBA pool of funds –
•Individual members may contribute to a joint funding
pool that would be used by the UNRBA to fund eligible
projects and activities.
•May expend these funds through existing local
organizations, a mitigation bank, contractor, etc.
•A joint selection process would be used to select
projects and activities
•May accumulate funds for one or more years until
sufficient funds are acquired to support a meaningful
project or activity
17
Reporting to Support Tracking
•Each member would submit annual reports to DEQ:
•Funding option(s) used and additional partners
•Primary organization responsible for management and
distribution of funds
•Types and locations of projects and activities planned
or implemented and linkages to water quality benefits
•Status of projects and activities (permitting,
construction, etc.)
•Funds allocated (cash and in-kind)
•Estimated nitrogen and phosphorus reductions
associated with projects and activities if quantifiable or
other tracking metric for activities without crediting
methods
•Anticipated timeline for completion of each project
•The UNRBA would compile and summarize the reports
18
19
Duration
•Potentially begin in the fiscal year 2022 budgeting cycle
(July 2021) or the following cycle
•Continue until a revised nutrient management strategy for
Stage II is put in place and implementation begins
•Previous and ongoing nutrient reduction activities and
projects will count in the newly developed management
strategy for Stage II
•Investments made to maintain water quality/uses and
improve water quality would include work performed
previously
•Voluntary participation renews annually; reverts back to
individual local program if not renewed
IAIA New Re-examination Strategy
Compliance Options
•Two compliance options exist for jurisdictions
•Individual local program
•Assignment of Stage I Existing Development load
reduction requirements to individual jurisdictions
•Tracking pounds of nutrients reduced
•Annual accounting
•Group compliance under the IAIA
•Investment-based tracking
•Annual reporting including tracking metrics for
specific practices
•Submittal of annual reports to DWR
20
Participant Responsibilities
•Adherence to existing rules (e.g., Neuse Buffer Rules)
•Requirements of grant-funded projects are met
(allocations are not claimed as match on more than one
project and expenditures are allowed)
•Written agreements are in place regarding use of funds by
local organizations
•Issues regarding credit sharing associated with agricultural
projects are negotiated with input from the Falls Lake
Watershed Oversight Committee and included in the
written agreement
21
Contributions from Participants
•In excess of minimum requirements may rollover to the
next year(s)
•Will count toward the re-examination strategy for Stage II,
including those investments made between the baseline
period and the start of the IAIA
•Should be fully reported, even those above the minimum
amount established for the IAIA
•Facilitate tracking of activities
•Communicate progress
22
Year 1 Program Monitoring
•IAIA is intended to maximize flexibility and adapt program
as needed
•The following would not be limited in year 1, but rather
monitored and adapted as needed
•Distribution of types of activities implemented
•Amount of expenses associated with project planning,
design, land acquisition, permitting, construction,
operation and maintenance
•Amount of investment from in-kind technical services
23
Prospective Implementation
Schedule and Next Steps
24
25
26
Next Steps
•Continue working with DWR and DEQ toward
implementation of the IAIA under the Falls Lake Rules
•Coordinate with local councils and decision makers
•Develop interlocal agreements
•Participation in the IAIA
•Joint projects
•Develop a reporting template to streamline summary
report
27
28
Closing Comments
Additional
Discussion