1 / 18

Neuse River Basin Provided by Dr. D. Monreau to Dr. G. Powell for this website

Neuse River Basin Provided by Dr. D. Monreau to Dr. G. Powell for this website. Washington. Chesapeake Bay. Neuse River Basin. Atlanta. Flat- Eno- Little. Neuse River Basin Land Area = 5,600 sq.mi. Water Area = 633 sq.mi. Population in 1990 about 1.0 million. Durham. Little

edwardjensen
Download Presentation

Neuse River Basin Provided by Dr. D. Monreau to Dr. G. Powell for this website

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. Neuse River BasinProvided by Dr. D. Monreau to Dr. G. Powell for this website

  2. Washington Chesapeake Bay Neuse River Basin Atlanta

  3. Flat- Eno- Little Neuse River Basin Land Area = 5,600 sq.mi. Water Area = 633 sq.mi. Population in 1990 about 1.0 million Durham Little R. USGS gages with at least 20 years of record Raleigh Wilson You are here Contentnea Cr. Middle Cr. Goldsboro Kinston New Bern Trent R..

  4. Neuse RiverBasinwide Water Quality Management Plans • First in series of 5-Year plans issued March 1993 – listed 32 federal and state NPS programs • Second – December 1998 – included the corrective actions with the NSW strategy • Third – July 2002

  5. Goal: 30% reduction of nitrogen within five years Neuse Nutrient-Sensitive Waters StrategyOrdered by House Bill 1339, ratified June 1996Administrative rules adopted December 1997 Established by committee of informed scientists as the level that, if achieved, would likely have detectable water quality improvement.

  6. Elements of the Strategy • Point Sources • Agriculture Sources • Nutrient Management for Non-Ag Sources • Urban Stormwater Management • Riparian Buffers

  7. Strategy: Point Sources • 30% nitrogen reduction within 5 years • Nitrogen cap of 2.8 million pounds of nitrogen per year • Trading program for point sources to be implemented by a coalition of participating dischargers • An offset (in-lieu fee) fee program for new or expanding sources

  8. Strategy: Agricultural Sources • Goal: 30% reduction of nitrogen 1991-1995 load from agriculture within 5 year • Activities, including livestock operations, can comply by: • participation in a collective local (county) strategy, or • installation and maintenance of specified BMPs • Organizations: • Local (county) Advisory Committees • Basinwide Oversight Committee

  9. Local (county) Advisory Committees (LAC) (appointed by EMC and SWCC)Prepare county level plans for agriculture Participants: • NC Soil and Water Conservation Districts • USDA – NRCS • NC Dept. of Agriculture • NC Cooperative Extension Service • At least two farmers

  10. Basin Oversight Committee (BOC)(appointed by Secretary of the Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources to oversee county level plans) Participants: • NC Soil and Water Conservation Districts • USDA – NRCS • NC Dept. of Agriculture • NC Cooperative Extension Service • NC Division of Water Quality • The scientific community • The farming community

  11. Strategy: Urban Stormwater Management • Required for 10 cities and 5 counties • New development required to demonstrate loading not to exceed 3.6 lb/ac (70% of predevelopment load estimated to be 5.1 lb/ac) • Post development peak flow not to exceed pre-development peak for 1-yr 24-hr storm.

  12. Strategy: Riparian Buffers • Protection of existing streamside buffers on all streams (as determined by USGS and soils maps) • 30 feet of virtually undisturbed forest vegetation; • 20 feet of grassed/vegetated area or harvestable trees

  13. Measurement of Progress • Point source monitoring • Annual reports on Neuse Agricultural Rule by the Basin Oversight Committee • Tracking installation of BMPs • Assignment of reduction credits • Monitoring at mouth of river

  14. Reported Progress • Point sources – monitored reductions in excess of 40 percent, achieved within three years • Agriculture sources – BOC reported 42% reduction as of 2003 • Estimated 18% reduction in N concentration at mouth of river

  15. Limitations on Evaluation of Outcomes:Point Sources and Urban Runoff • Point sources - No cost information reported • Urban runoff • No instream monitoring for field measurements of loads and reductions from baseline; • No cost information • No systematic enforcement or verification that management plans are being followed.

  16. Limitations on Evaluation of Outcomes:Agricultural Runoff • No cost information reported • No instream monitoring for field measurements of loads and reductions from baseline • No independent review of how LAC’s and BOC are assigning credits for load reductions

  17. Limitations on Evaluation of Outcomes:General • Monitoring only at mouth of river – cannot disentangle effects of multiple strategies, including spatial and temporal factors • No dedicated source of revenue for monitoring, inspection, and evaluation. • No attempt to assess risk of another round of massive algal growth-fish kill events (which, of course, is the principal objective)

More Related