Jordan Lake Water Quality Rules

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

2. Outline • Introduction • Purpose • Jordan Lake background • Jordan Lake Water Quality Rules • Policy Appraisal • Goals • Problems • Decision Process Analysis • Social Process Analysis • Correcting the Process • Financial Responsibilities • Timeline • Conclusions • Questions

3. Introduction: Background • Purpose • Provide information on: • Jordan Lake • Water Quality Rules • Identify current problems resulting in the Jordan Lake Water Quality Rules • Social Process • Decision Process • Provide alternate solutions to problems • Knowledge gained from this policy process

4. Introduction: Background • Upper Cape Fear River Basin • Nutrient Rich Reservoir • Water Quality • Eutrophic Waters • NSW classification • Who is affected? (NC State Parks, 2010)

5. Introduction: Jordan Lake Watershed (DWQ, 2009)

6. Introduction: Background • Stakeholder Project • Nutrient Strategy Management Plan • Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)

7. Jordan Lake Water Quality Rules • Agriculture • Stormwater Management from New and Existing Development • Riparian Buffers • Discharge from Wastewater Treatment Plants • Stormwater from State and Federal agencies • Nutrient Load offsetting (NCSU,2010)

8. Jordan Lake Water Quality Rules • Goals • Restore and maintain nutrient related water quality standards within the lake • Protect the lake for its classified uses • Maintain or enhance regulations currently implemented by local governments (as stated in 15A NCAC 02B .0263 through .0273 and .0311(p))

9. Jordan Lake Water Quality Rules:Common Interest • In a timely manner: • Improve overall aquatic environment • Improve recreational conditions • Improve drinking water quality • Equitable division of treatment costs • Standpoint Restore and maintain the quality of North Carolina’s surface waters.

10. Policy: Problems Invocation Implementation Timeline Length of Project 2016 Deadline Stage 2 Rules Deferring change by stalling Ex: Alamance Co. • Are resources available to carry out the rules? • Unfunded Mandate • Inequitable Allocation • Local Government • What sanctions will be applied in what situations? • Sanctions • Alamance Co. • Are fines the correct sanction?

11. Policy: Problems • Implementation Timeline

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

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

14. Policy: Problems Situations • Public Comment Period • 2008 • Legislative process overseen by Representative Lucy Allen • Problem Areas: • Where are the stakeholder meetings that include all participants? (NCDENR, 2010)

15. Policy: Problems Strategies Problem Areas: DENR Scientific Management Why aren’t the downstream communities and local governments fighting for their needs? Triangle J • State Government • Top-down, bureaucratic rule making • Closed door negotiations • Upstream Government • Media • Lobbyists • Environmental Coalition • Lobbyists • Developers • Lobbyists

16. Correcting the Problems • Insufficient Funds • Financial Responsibility • Downstream communities • Upstream Payments • North Carolina State Funds • Common Interest • Cost share moves us closer to the common interest • Success of a cost share strategy

17. Correcting the Problems • Duration of Timeline • Access to Resources • Assets and Incentives • Transparency of expectations • Future deadlines • Common Interest • Promotes communities developing long term strategies to improve water quality and achieve policy goals. • Success of an incentive program

18. Conclusions • Policy Flaws • Special Interest Involvement • DENR use of scientific management • Water Quality Expectations • DWQ expects local governments to not meet the deadlines • Stage 2 • No prediction to when nutrient levels will change • Future Policies • Falls Lake Nutrient Strategy Plan

19. Questions? Questions? (Private School Review, 2010)

20. Resources • Images • NCDENR, 2010. http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/guest. November 2010. • NC State Parks, 2010. http://www.ncparks.gov/Visit/parks/jord/main.php. Novemeber 2010. • DWQ, 2009. http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/jordanlake. November 2010. • DWQ1, 2009. http://www.ncwater.org/Permits_and_Registration/Jordan_Lake_Water_Supply_Allocation/backgrnd.php. November 2010. • Private School Review. 2010. http://www.privateschoolreview.com/school_ov/school_id/36289. November 2010. • http://news.ncsu.edu/releases/wmshuntstormwater/