1 / 20

Jordan Lake Water Quality Rules

Jordan Lake Water Quality Rules. Anna Barnes: Graduate Student Natural Resources NCSU James Blackwell: Graduate Student, Natural Resources NCSU Amy Dombrowski: Graduate Student, Natural Resources NCSU Brunell Guglemann : Graduate Student, Natural Resources NCSU

ania
Télécharger la présentation

Jordan Lake Water Quality Rules

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Jordan Lake Water Quality Rules Anna Barnes: Graduate Student Natural Resources NCSU James Blackwell: Graduate Student, Natural Resources NCSU Amy Dombrowski: Graduate Student, Natural Resources NCSU BrunellGuglemann: Graduate Student, Natural Resources NCSU Alicia Raimondi: Graduate Student in, Natural Resources NCSU Daniel Riechers: Graduate Student Technical Communication NCSU

  2. Outline • Introduction • Jordan Lake background • Significance and Purpose • Jordan Lake Water Quality Rules • Policy Appraisal • Goals of the rules • Persistent Problems • Decision Process Analysis • Social Process Analysis • Correcting the Process • Alternative Solutions • Benefits for the Common Interest • Significance

  3. Introduction: Background • Upper Cape Fear River Basin • Nutrient Rich Reservoir • Water Quality • Eutrophic Waters • NSW classification • Who is affected?

  4. Introduction: Jordan Lake Watershed

  5. Introduction: Background • Durham, Chapel Hill, Cary, Burlington and Greensboro

  6. Introduction: Background • Significance • Water Quality • Increased economic and population growth have degrade the aquatic habitat • Residents • Poor water quality could threaten the use of the lake • Safe Drinking Water • Recreation • Policy • Largest collaborative effort with the public coordinated by Department of Water Quality (DWQ) • Adaptive Management approach

  7. Introduction: Background • Stakeholder Project of 2008 • Nutrient Strategy Management Plan • Storm water Rules • Existing Development • New Development • Offsetting Nutrient Off Loads • Riparian Buffer • Wastewater Discharge • Agriculture • Fertilizer Management • Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)

  8. Introduction: Common Interest Restoring and maintaining the quality of North Carolina’s surface waters. • Primary Benefits • Improving the overall aquatic environment • Improving conditions for recreation • Improved quality of potable water • Increased economic productivity • Secondary Benefits • Improvements to streams • Reduced sediment • Reduced Cost • Reduced Irrigation dependency in developed areas

  9. Prescription: The Jordan Lake Rules .0262 Purpose and Scope; .0263 Definitions; .0264 Agriculture; .0265 Stormwater Management for New Development; .0266 Stormwater Management for Existing Development; .0267 Protection of Existing Riparian Buffers; .0268 Mitigation for Riparian Buffers; .0269 Riparian Buffer Mitigation Fees to the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program; .0270 Wastewater Discharge Requirements; .0271 Stormwater Requirements for State and Federal Entities; .0272 Fertilizer Management; .0273 Options for Offsetting Nutrient Loads; and .0311 Cape Fear River Basin.

  10. Policy: Goals • Restore and maintain nutrient related water quality standards within the lake • Protecting the lake for its “classified uses” • Maintain or enhance regulations currently implemented by local governments

  11. Policy: Persistent Problems • Decision Process • Analysis overview • Problems • Prescription • Implementation

  12. Policy: Persistent Problems Prescription Implementation • Contingencies • Insufficient Allocation • Cost • Original estimate was $905 million • Who pays what? • Sanctions • Timeline • Model • Nutrient Trading • Buffer Rules

  13. Policy: Persistent Problems • Social Process • Participants • Where all participants fairly represented? • Situations • In what arenas did the participants interact? • Strategies • What strategies did the participants use to achieve their goals?

  14. Policy: Persistent Problems Participants • Who do we want involved? • State Government • Upstream Communities • Downstream Communities • Environmental Groups • Developers, Local Business • Who was involved in the 2009 revised rules? • Developers • Most notably: Southern Durham Development • State Government • DENR, EMC, EPA • Upstream Governments • Most notably: Durham, Burlington, Greensboro

  15. Policy: Persistent Problems Situations Strategies • Largest problem in the Social Process • Public Comment Period • Where are the stakeholder meetings used in the 2008 rule creation? • That’s right MISSING • Upstream Government • Media • Lobbyists • Developers • Threaten litigation… never pursued • Lobbyists • State Legislature • Create legislation: citing economics as the driver

  16. Correcting the Problems: Strategy

  17. Current Trends • Nutrient loading into Jordan Lake • Away from goals • Lowering initial remediation costs for upstream local governments • Away from goal • Rapid development in watershed • Away from goal • Water rates continue to increase • Away from goal

  18. Correcting the Problems: Who

  19. Correcting the Problems: Why

  20. Conclusions

More Related