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

2. Washington
Chesapeake
Bay
Neuse River
Basin
Atlanta

3. Population in 1990 about 1.0 million
Flat-
Eno-
Little
Neuse River Basin
Land Area = 5,600 sq.mi.
Water Area = 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 River Basinwide 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

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

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

8. 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

9. Strategy: Agricultural Sources
Goal: 30% reduction of nitrogen 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

10. 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

11. Basin Oversight Committee (BOC) (appointed by Secretary of the Dept
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

12. 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.

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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.

17. 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

18. 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)