|
|
|
home > sections > planning > nps |
Navigation Links |
|
Nonpoint Source Management Program :: Tar-Pamlico Nutrient StrategyIntroduction: In the mid-1980's, the Pamlico River estuary saw an increase in problems that pointed to excessive levels of nutrients in the water - harmful algal blooms, low oxygen levels, increased numbers of fish kills, and other symptoms of stress and diseases in the aquatic biota. In response, the NC Environmental Management Commission designated the Tar-Pamlico River Basin as "Nutrient Sensitive Waters", and called for a strategy to reduce nutrient inputs from around the basin to the estuary. The following pages describe the evolution of the Tar-Pamlico nutrient strategy to date. The strategy's first phase, which ran from 1990 through 1994, produced an innovative point source/nonpoint source 'trading' program that allows point sources, such as wastewater treatment plants and industry, to achieve reductions in nutrient loading in more cost-effective ways. The second phase, which runs through 2004, established nutrient goals of a 30% reduction in nitrogen loading from 1991 levels and holding phosphorus loading to 1991 levels based on estuarine conditions. In addition to point sources, Phase II calls on nonpoint sources to contribute to these goals, and establishes a set of nonpoint source rules addressing agriculture, urban stormwater, fertilizer management across all land uses, and riparian buffer protection. As a gauge of progress, DWQ staff performed a statistical evaluation of the reduction in nutrient concentrations instream at Grimesland a few miles upstream of Washington. Staff looked at the period of 1991 through 2002, and used statistical techniques to minimize the effects of flow and seasonal factors on nutrient concentrations. They found statistically significant reductions in both total nitrogen and total phosphorus over this time period, as described in their report (pdf file, 351Kb, 4pp + figures)
Links to More Information: The following links offer more detailed descriptions of the program's elements.
Contact the DWQ staff person managing the Tar-Pamlico nutrient strategy, John Huisman by: Tar-Pamlico Basin Overview: The Tar-Pamlico River basin begins in the Piedmont of North Carolina and extends approximately 180 miles through the Coastal Plain to the Pamlico Sound. The Tar River collects flows from approximately 2,300 miles of freshwater streams before entering the estuarine Pamlico River at Washington. The 5,400 square mile basin encompasses portions of 17 counties, including the cities of Rocky Mount, Tarboro, and Greenville, as well as much agricultural and forest land. In the late 1980's, increases in algal blooms and fish kills in the upper Pamlico estuary were linked to excessive nutrient levels in the River. These conditions led the state Environmental Management Commission (EMC) to designate the entire Tar-Pamlico River basin as Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) in 1989. This designation required the state to develop a nutrient management strategy for the basin. Phase I: Point Source - Nonpoint Source Nutrient Trading Program: The first phase of the strategy targeted wastewater treatment plants and industry - "point source" discharges of water, since they were better understood than runoff sources ("nonpoint" sources), easier to control, and made significant nutrient contributions to the river. Initially, the State?s environmental commission, the Environmental Management Commission, had considered simply setting technology-based nutrient concentration limits on point sources. In response, dischargers formed an association in 1989, and together with two environmental groups, Environmental Defense Fund and the Pamlico Tar River Foundation, approached the state with a proposal for a novel, collective nutrient trading program. In December 1989, the State, the dischargers' Association, and the environmental groups signed an agreement marking the initial phase of this benchmark innovative nutrient trading program between point and nonpoint sources of pollution. The Association agreed to either reduce their nutrient loading to the estuary or, if they exceeded an annual collective loading cap, to fund agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs) through the state?s existing Agriculture Cost Share Program. This Agreement allowed Association dischargers to find more cost-effective ways to collectively meet their loading cap by allowing facilities that were better able to remove nutrients at a given time to make the changes needed to make reductions toward the collective limit. The Agreement also provided a more cost-effective nutrient reduction alternative if the Association couldn't meet its cap - payments for agricultural BMPs that are documented to be more cost effective than retrofits or treatment modifications during expansion. The parties to this innovative Agreement, called Phase I of the NSW strategy, were the Association, the Division of Water Quality, two environmental groups - the Environmental Defense Fund and the Pamlico-Tar River Foundation - and the Division of Soil and Water Conservation. The Phase I Agreement covered the period 1990-1994 and called for other actions by the Association as well. The Association agreed to:
Phase II of the NSW Strategy was adopted by the EMC in December 1994, and covers the period 1995-2004. The major thrust of Phase II was to establish instream reduction goals for nonpoint sources as well as for point sources of nutrients, and to implement a plan for achieving the NPS reductions. Based on the estuary model completed in Phase I, parties to the Phase II Agreement set goals of a 30 percent reduction in total nitrogen loads to the estuary from 1991 conditions and no increase in phosphorus loads. These goals may be adjusted in future years as reduction progress is made and better technical understanding develops. Parties to the Phase II Agreement are the Association, DWQ, and the Division of Soil and Water Conservation. The environmental groups opted out primarily because they were not satisfied with the 30% goal, they felt that the point source cap should be lower, and they felt that the nonpoint source strategy should be structured to provide better assurance of meeting the goals. A Plan for achieving the 30% nitrogen reduction goal from nonpoint sources was adopted by the EMC in December 1995. Although Phase II runs through 2004, the NPS Plan called for sources to achieve the goal by the end of 2000. The NPS Plan, referred to as the "voluntary plan," relied on existing programs to achieve the goal through better targeting, coordination, and increased efforts to obtain staff and cost share resources. It included action plans for nine different nonpoint source categories: agriculture, forestry, urban stormwater, construction, on-site wastewater, solid waste disposal, wetlands, groundwater, and atmospheric deposition. Phase II Progress. Annual status reports to the EMC on the progress of voluntary NPS Plan implementation began in May 1997. These reports allowed the EMC to reevaluate the adequacy of the voluntary approach and to consider the need for mandatory measures to expedite progress toward the goal. The EMC had strong reservations over progress described in the first annual status report. The second report in May 1998 showed that substantial numbers of agricultural BMPs had been implemented since 1991, but that based on progress to date a significantly greater rate of implementation was needed to reach the agricultural goal by 2000. This was true particularly in light of the increased number of animal operations in the coastal plain since 1991. Since DWQ had estimated that agriculture was responsible for most of the NPS nutrient loading to the estuary, and had tasked agriculture with achieving most of the NPS reductions needed, agriculture's progress was a key element of the NPS Plan. The other categories, urban and atmospheric deposition, were unable to quantify changes in loading. While a multi-party research effort was begun in the state in 1996 to address the numerous unknowns associated with atmospheric emissions, transport, and deposition of nitrogen compounds, the science was too preliminary to allow for useful accounting or to guide management decisions. Accounting for changes in NPS loading is an ongoing challenge nationwide. The second annual report also emphasized that lack of resources was a key limitation to making and accounting for progress in all categories. Nonpoint Source Rulemaking: After two years of implementing this "voluntary" nonpoint source approach, in July 1998, the EMC determined that progress was inadequate, and called for development of rules to achieve the nonpoint source reduction goals. Stakeholder Process. To initiate rulemaking, DWQ staff convened stakeholder teams around seven subject areas identified by a steering committee and held intensive meetings from November 1998 through February 1999. Stakeholder teams had primary responsibility for developing draft rules for public hearing or other recommendations. Meetings provided a working environment for all affected interests and staff to express differing views and to search for mutually acceptable solutions. Meetings operated on a consensus basis and were managed by professional facilitators. DWQ staff?s role was that of a stakeholder with equal authority to all others. Seven stakeholder teams met on the following nonpoint source subjects. On an eighth subject, protection of existing riparian buffers, the steering committee agreed to accept the product of a legislatively established stakeholder advisory committee for the adjacent Neuse River Basin.
The stakeholder teams, including the Neuse buffer committee, developed draft rules for the last four of these subjects -- agriculture, nutrient management, urban stormwater, and riparian buffer protection. The first four stakeholder teams did not propose new rules, but did recommend other actions by the EMC. The May and July 1999 meetings of the EMC approved most of these other actions. Public Comment Period. In May 1999, the EMC approved not only the first public comment period on four proposed rule subjects, but also after lengthy discussion, the subject of atmospheric emissions of ammonia. In adding this subject, members showed a strong interest in hearing the public?s concerns on it, particularly related to ammonia emissions from confined animal operations. While the second public comment period, on the actual text of the rules, did not include a rule to control ammonia emissions, the EMC recognized the importance of this source and the need for more science to quantify it and to identify management options. The Commission?s discussion also helped launched a departmental effort to consider such rules as part of an effort to find alternatives to the prevailing lagoon and sprayfield technology for confined animal operations. Two public hearings on the proposed rules in August and September 1999 drew a total of 287 attendees, and 234 people submitted written comments. Because of the great impact of Floyd and other hurricanes that summer, the public comment period was extended to mid-October for the buffer rules and the end of the year for the others. Between December 1999 and October 2000, the Commission adopted a set of rules covering four subject areas for the Tar-Pamlico River Basin, as described in the following section. The EMC delayed adoption of the agriculture rules until October 2000 while staff worked with farming interests to resolve their outstanding issues. Pasture operators took their remaining concerns to the General Assembly, which led to a six-month arbitration process chaired by legislative staff. The result of this process was a bill, H570, which both houses ratified by the end of July 2001. The bill made certain changes to the agriculture rule. It called for implementation of the rule effective Sept. 1, 2001 with those changes, and it directed the EMC to amend the rule to incorporate the changes, which are described in the rule summary below. SUMMARY OF TAR-PAMLICO NUTRIENT RULES This table lists the rules adopted by the EMC for the Tar-Pamlico Basin, and is followed by a narrative describing each one.
* Temporary buffer rules were effective Jan. 1, 2000. Buffer Protection Rules: A set of three buffer rules was adopted. The main rule, called the buffer protection rule, requires that existing vegetated riparian buffers in the basin be protected and maintained on both sides of intermittent and perennial streams, lakes, ponds, and estuarine waters. This rule does not establish new buffers unless the existing use in the buffer area changes. The footprints of existing uses such as agriculture, buildings, commercial and other facilities, maintained lawns, utility lines, and on-site wastewater systems are exempt. A total of 50 feet of riparian area is required on each side of waterbodies. Within this 50 feet, the first 30 feet, referred to as Zone 1, is to remain undisturbed with the exception of certain activities. The outer 20 feet, referred to as Zone 2, must be vegetated, but certain additional uses are allowed. Specific activities are identified in the rule as "exempt", "allowable", "allowable with mitigation" or "prohibited". Examples of "exempt" activities include driveway and utility crossings of certain sizes through zone 1, and grading and revegetation in zone 2. "Allowable" and "allowable with mitigation" activities require review by Division staff and include activities such as new ponds in drainage ways and water crossings. The other two buffer rules are the buffer mitigation rule and the buffer program delegation rule. The mitigation rule defines the process applicants would follow to gain approval for activities that are identified in the buffer protection rule as "allowable with mitigation". It also outlines acceptable mitigation measures. The delegation rule lays out the criteria and process for local governments to obtain authority to implement the buffer rules within their jurisdictions. Nutrient Management Rule: The nutrient management rule requires people who apply fertilizer in the basin, except residential landowners who apply fertilizer to their own property, to either take state-sponsored nutrient management training or have a nutrient management plan in place for the lands to which they apply fertilizer. For residential fertilizer users, the Division of Water Quality will develop and implement an education program within three years of the rule?s effective date. The rule applies to fertilizer applicators, people who own or manage fertilized lands, and consultants who provide nutrient management advice. Stormwater Rule: The stormwater rule requires six municipalities and five counties in the Tar-Pamlico Basin to develop and implement stormwater programs within two and a half years. The municipalities are: Greenville, Henderson, Oxford, Rocky Mount, Tarboro, and Washington. The counties are: Beaufort, Edgecombe, Franklin, Nash, and Pitt. These local governments were identified based on their potential nutrient contributions to the Pamlico estuary. The EMC may add other local governments as appropriate in the future through rule-making. Local programs are to include the permitting of new development to reduce nitrogen runoff by 30 percent compared to pre-development levels, and to keep phosphorus inputs from increasing from those levels. The local programs must also identify and remove illicit discharges, educate developers, businesses, and homeowners, and make efforts toward treating runoff from existing developed areas. Agriculture Rules: Two rules were adopted for agriculture. The first is a goal statement. It calls on farmers in the basin to implement land management practices that achieve certain nutrient reduction goals. The goals are a 30 percent reduction in nitrogen loading from 1991 levels within five to eight years of the rule?s implementation, and control of phosphorus levels at or below 1991 levels within four years of the approval of a phosphorus accounting methodology. The main agriculture rule details the process and options for achieving the nutrient goals. Implementation will rely on cooperation between a Basin Oversight Committee and, in each county or watershed, a Local Advisory Committee. The Basin Oversight Committee will have representatives from governmental, environmental, farming and scientific communities. It will develop a tracking and accounting methodology to gauge progress toward the nutrient goals based on implementation of various nutrient-reducing management practices. The Soil and Water Conservation Commission will have the opportunity to approve standard practices in consultation with farming commodity groups and others. Each Local Advisory Committee, comprised of farmers and local agriculture agency representatives, will develop a local strategy and submit annual reports to the Basin Oversight Committee. The reports will quantify progress toward the nutrient goals. Farmers who are involved in the commercial production of crops or horticultural products, or whose livestock or poultry holdings exceed specified numbers, will be subject to the rule and will be required to register with their local committee during the first year the rule is in effect. Registration will help farmers get details on rule options and technical and cost share assistance. As described above, the agriculture rule underwent a legislative negotiation process following its adoption to resolve the pasture community?s outstanding concerns. The process yielded certain changes to the rule, as established in the resulting bill, Session Law 2001-355. The changes call for the following:
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 . (919)733-7015 |
top of page