HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-20-2007-6c~~~~~
Jordan Lake Water Supply Nutrient Management Strategy and Rules
Status Report -September 7, 2007
Over the past several years, the N.C. Department of Enviroriment and Natural
Resources' .Division of Water Quality has worked to prepare rules to address
water quality in Jordan Lake watershed. The Jordan Lake watershed stretches
from north of Greensboro to Cary, and includes portions of eight counties.
Almost half of Orange County (125,000 acres) is in the Jordan Lake watershed,
including Chapel Hill and Carrboro. The rulemaking process also included a
Jordan Lake Stakeholders Project, facilitated by Triangle J Council of
Governments, to provide a sounding board and feedback on the rules.
Watershed modeling was performed by TetraTech Inc. in 2003, as a basis for
the rules.
The proposed rules seek to address deteriorating water, quality due to algal
growth and chlorophyll-a levels in Jordan Lake, designated as Nutrient
Sensitive Waters (NSW). As noted in previous meetings of elected boards in
Orange County, these water quality issues were predicted as far back as the
early 1970's. The rules provide for a variety of measures to address nutrient
loading in the watershed, which has been divided into sub-watersheds.
The most stringent nutrient reduction efforts would be applied in the Upper New
Hope Arm subwatershed, which includes southern Durham, Chapel Hill,
Carrboro, and the' "Rural Buffer." Other portions of southwestern Orange
County fall into the less-affected Haw River Arm subwatershed. In the Upper
New Hope Arm, the rules call for a reduction of total nitrogen (TN) by 35% and.
total phosphorus (TP) by 5%. To meet this goal, a variety of reduction
measures would be applied that affect .wastewater providers (point=source
dischargers), existing and new development, and agriculture. The cost of fully
implementing these measures to achieve the desired reduction has been
estimated at $905 million to the affected parties, including $530 million for local
governments to address stormwater practices and infrastructure, and $256
million to wastewater providers to upgrade treatment plants.
On June 15 of this year, the proposed rules were published and the.
Environmental Management Commission (EMC) opened public hearings on the
strategy and rules. Public hearings were held in July in Carrboro and Elon, and
attracted large numbers of speakers. Comments from local jurisdictions were
shared with the EMC hearing officers of the hearings, which supported the
strategy to protect water quality but raised questions about some
implementation interpretations. In response to suggestions from several
jurisdictions (including Orange County and Chapel Hill), the public hearing
process was extended by one month, and concluded on September 14.
It is currently anticipated that the EMC hearing officers will report their findings
to the full EMC in October, at which time the EMC may begin, consideration of
the proposed rules. The current timetable would have the rules forwarded for
promulgation by' the General Assembly in the 2008 short session. If the rules
are enacted in 2008, local governments will be required to begin feasibility
studies in FY 2008-09, with implementation to begin in 2011.
The proposed nutrient management strategy will have significant implications
for the Upper New Hope Arm jurisdictions in terms of both existing and future
development. A number of issues have been raised before and during the
hearing process, including:
^ Questions about how the nutrient loading reductions will be allocated by
jurisdiction (as the land use patterns and projected loading vary
considerably between the jurisdictions);
^ The fact that many measures to reduce loading have been undertaken
since 2001 and are not accounted for in the reduction strategy (which
treats 2001 as the base year). This may make it difficult for some
jurisdictions to effect further percentage reductions in a "one size fits all'
approach;
a Questions about whether the proposed strategy will in fact meet the
nutrient reductions specified, and
^ Questions about the cost of implementation, particularly to address
existing development. .