1. Presented by: Bill Kreutzberger Jaime Robinson November 14, 2017
Science and Stakeholders - Taking Initiative in the High Rock Lake Nutrient Management Strategy
Presented by:
Bill Kreutzberger
Jaime Robinson
November 14, 2017
Abbotts Creek, a section of High Rock Lake near Lexington, North Carolina. Source: Photo by Panda Brown. (Wife of en:User:Pharmboy)

2. Science and Stakeholders
The Science:
NC Division of Environmental Quality’s Nutrient Criteria Development Plan
High Rock Lake selected as the first lake for nutrient management
The Stakeholders
Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin Association, including POTWs and industry
Yadkin RiverKeeper
Agricultural Interests
NCDOT
Stormwater programs
Potential Outcomes and Strategy Moving Forward

3. The Need for a Strategy

4. NCDP Background Refresher
Three areas for Nutrient Criteria Development
Piedmont Reservoir watershed
High Rock Lake
Planned adoption of numerical nutrient criteria (NNC) completion in July 2018
Estuaries
Albemarle Sound
Planned adoption of NNC by Dec 2020
Rivers/Streams
Central Portion of Cape Fear River Basin
Planned adoption of NNC by Dec 2021
Statewide Criteria
Estuaries – 2023
Lakes – 2024
Rivers/streams – 2025

5. NCDP Background Refresher
Creates Science Advisory Council (SAC) and Criteria Implementation Committee (CIC)
SAC focus has been primarily on HRL

6. YPDRBA Engagement in NCDP Process

7. YPDRBA Engagement in the NCDP
Mission Statement:
Through active participation in the High Rock Lake Nutrient Criteria Development, we will work collectively to engage with DEQ and other stakeholders such that it results in comprehensive, cost-effective, flexible, and adaptive process and requirements

8. Science and Stakeholders
Why engage early in the process?
Water Quality in HRL
NPDES Permit Cycles
NCDP
Other Stakeholder Objectives

9. Science and Stakeholders
Why engage early in the process?
Water Quality in HRL
NPDES Permit Cycles
NCDP
Other Stakeholder Objectives

10. Comprehensive Approach: Understanding the Source Contributions of Nutrients
Point Sources are not the only major contributor of nutrients

11. YPDRBA Engagement in the NCDP
Implementing the Mission Statement
DEQ engagement
Active participation in SAC and CIC process, including technical reviews
Stakeholder engagement
Alliance with Yadkin Riverkeeper and outreach to agricultural interests and NCDOT
Comprehensive approach
Working with Riverkeeper on approach to not leave responsibility just on point source discharges
Cost-effective approach
Creation of nutrient removal cost estimation tool for point-sources and use of water quality model to develop cost-effective nutrient reduction strategy
Flexible and adaptive process
Supporting proposed revisions to chlorophyll a water quality and conducting water quality sampling at 2 HRL stations to develop baseline WQ dataset

12. The Science: Chlorophyll a response
Modeling indicates phosphorus removal only will lead to reductions of chlorophyll a in HRL and meet water quality objectives.
We also know from evaluating WWTP processes that this is more cost-effective; TN removal leads to a large jump in cost.

13. The Science: Chlorophyll a response
How much TP removal by point source discharges is enough?
This depends on how much is also reduced from nonpoint sources.
Reductions only by the point sources could be enough to meet the standard, but prefer a watershed-scale approach to nutrient management
Potential changes to the chlorophyll a standard could provide some flexibility in how the standard is achieved and applied to utilities

14. The Science: Phosphorus Removal Costs and Responses
Geomean Chl a (µg/L)1
Scenario
TP Reduction
Total Capital
Total Annual O&M
Total Net Present Value
Point Source Reductions
All Source Reductions
Baseline
N/A
Current
11%
1 mg/L at permitted flow
44%
$8,348,000
$1,799,100
$28,985,000
1 mg/L at 80% permitted flow
55%
$28,536,000
0.5 mg/L at 80% permitted flow
78%
$42,842,000
$4,057,100
$89,375,000
Notes:
Assumes TN loading at baseline conditions for all scenarios
Costs updated to 10/2016 based on ENR CCI

15. The Science: Nitrogen Removal Costs and Responses
Nitrification
Nitrogen Removal
Scenario
TN Change
(+ Increase,
- Decrease)
Total Capital
Total Annual O&M
Total Net Present Value
Baseline
Current
+21%
8 mg/L at permitted flow
+11%
$78,585,000
$5,469,300
$186,434,000
$4,312,900
$377,220,000
5 mg/L at permitted flow
-31%
$288,193,000
$7,547,000
$516,074,000
Note: Costs updated to 10/2016 based on ENR CCI

16. Potential range of required reduction based on geometric mean results
You can say that we are going to present results based on seasonal geomean - like discussion from SAC- but minor changes to curves

17. Science and Stakeholders: Chlorophyll a response
Scenario 1 – All sources (56%)
Scenario 2 – All sources (45%)
Scenario 3 – All sources (22%)
Scenario 1 – Point sources only (89%)
Scenario 3 – Point sources only (81%)
Scenario 2 – Point sources only (87%)
Current – Point sources only (97%)

18. Potential Outcomes and Strategy Moving Forward

19. Stakeholder Engagement
YPDRBA in conjunction with stakeholders develop initial nutrient management strategy
Move forward with P-only nutrient reduction strategy for dischargers
Develop non-regulatory approach to N reductions
Determine appropriate targets for P reduction understanding limitations of the model
Work with other stakeholders to reach agreement on initial reduction goals and strategies
Track SAC process to ensure strategy is consistent with proposed criteria
Continue to use the Cost Curve to understand implications of TP removal on utilities
Propose strategy to DWR and EMC

20. The Benefits of Stakeholder Engagement
Understanding the other sources of nutrient loading and the potential costs of nutrient reduction enables the YPDRBA and its members to make choices about where to make investment.
City of Winston-Salem: Provides funding support to its Soil and Water Conservation Service staff to reduce nutrient loading through agricultural programs and education efforts.
This type of support is being considered across the basin because it is more cost- effective than the same amount of point-source removal.

21. The Science: Preparing for an Adaptive Management Process
Began seasonal monitoring of High Rock Lake
DEQ only monitors every 5 years
Increased frequency needed to detect trends
Objective: As nutrient management strategies are implemented, water quality will be monitored and benefits recognized
Chlorophyll a
Dissolved Oxygen pH

22. Science and Stakeholders: Preparing for an Adaptive Management Process
Two stations are now monitored by the YPDRBA. Utilities are cooperating to provide sampling support and analysis is done in part by the same lab performing their required monthly ambient monitoring.
DEQ hosted a sampling event in the lake
Boats provided by DEQ and the Yadkin RiverKeeper
SAC members, YPDRBA members, and the RiverKeeper were invited

23. The Science – DO and pH Dissolved Oxygen pH
Consensus that SAC should not recommend changes to the DO criterion magnitude, nor derive separate criteria for bottom waters
SAC discussed refining narrative language on where and how DO criteria are applied
Discussed clarification for bottom waters hypoxia and temporary surface water hypoxia due to mixing
Decided that the existing language was sufficient for lake bottom waters, and hypoxia in lake surface waters was too rare to merit additional language. pH
Further discussed proposal to increase pH maximum to 9.5 (from 9.0)
Considerable debate and presentation of data – including examination of ammonia levels
Asked SAC members to develop proposals for July meeting

24. Science and Stakeholders: Strategy Moving Forward
YPDRBA in conjunction with stakeholders develop initial nutrient management strategy
Utilities Actions:
Move forward with P-only nutrient reduction strategy for dischargers and carry this forward in permitting renewal strategies
Continue to use the Cost Curve to understand implications of TP removal on utilities
Winston-Salem’s continued support of Soil and Water Conservation District staffing
Track and participate in SAC process to ensure strategy is consistent with proposed criteria
Stakeholders Actions:
Develop non-regulatory approach to N reductions with other stakeholders
Joint meeting of stakeholders – August-October *
*Timing based on SAC recommendations regarding chlorophyll a and algal toxins

25. YPDRBA Plan Moving Forward
Pause for recommendations from the SAC
Further stakeholder engagement meetings to develop strategy
Initial nutrient management strategy
Winston-Salem’s continued support of Soil and Water Conservation District staffing
Consider expansion of this approach to other HRL watershed counties with YPDRBA funding
Promotion of land use best management practices
HRL monitoring to support an adaptive management strategy

26. Science and Stakeholders: A Model for Success

27. High Rock Lake Dischargers Mission Statement
Through active participation in the High Rock Lake Nutrient Criteria Development, we will work collectively to engage with DEQ and other stakeholders such that it results in comprehensive, cost-effective, flexible, and adaptive process and requirements.

28. YPDRBA Engagement in the NCDP
Implementing the Mission Statement to achieve objectives
DEQ engagement
Active participation in SAC and CIC process, including technical reviews
Stakeholder engagement
Alliance with Yadkin Riverkeeper and outreach to agricultural interests and NCDOT
Comprehensive approach
Working with Riverkeeper on approach to not leave responsibility just on point source discharges
Cost-effective approach
Creation of nutrient removal cost estimation tool for point-sources and use of water quality model to develop cost-effective nutrient reduction strategy
Flexible and adaptive process
Supporting proposed revisions to chlorophyll a water quality standard and conducting water quality sampling at 2 HRL stations to develop baseline WQ dataset

29. Presented by: Bill Kreutzberger Jaime Robinson November 14, 2017
Science and Stakeholders - Taking Initiative in the High Rock Lake Nutrient Management Strategy
Presented by:
Bill Kreutzberger
Jaime Robinson
November 14, 2017
Abbotts Creek, a section of High Rock Lake near Lexington, North Carolina. Source: Photo by Panda Brown. (Wife of en:User:Pharmboy)