1. Annual Agriculture Progress Reports Neuse & Tar-Pamlico River Basins
November 2012
Prepared by the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico
Basin Oversight Committees
John Huisman
Division of Water Quality

2. Neuse & Tar-Pam River Basins

3. Rule Overview Neuse & Tar-Pam Agricultural Rules
Effective:
August 1998 (Neuse) and September 2001 (Tar-Pam)
Goal:
30% N reduction in N load from baseline
Tar-Pam: No increase in Phosphorus load
Collective Implementation
2 Basin Oversight Committees (BOCs)
31 Local Advisory Committees (LACs)
Annual Reports – Use NLEW accounting tool

4. Neuse estimated N Loss Reductions
County
2010 Reported N Loss Reduction
2011 Reported N Loss Reduction
Carteret
34%
39%
Craven
62%
49%
Durham
55%
Franklin
69%
68%
Granville
58%
Greene
48%
Johnston
53%
Jones
51%
36%
Lenoir
22%
19%
Nash
57%
63%
Orange
54%
Pamlico
Person
59%
Pitt
61%
56%
Wake
76%
Wayne
42%
43%
Wilson
Total
45%

5. Tar-Pamlico Estimated N Loss Reductions
County
2010 Reported N Loss Reduction
2011 Reported N Loss Reduction
Beaufort
41%
35%
Edgecombe
37%
28%
Franklin
67%
63%
Granville
49%
Halifax
40%
22%
Hyde
38%
34%
Martin
24%
Nash
65%
69%
Person
75%
66%
Pitt
57%
Vance
61%
Warren
72%
Washington
51%
31%
Wilson
39%
Total
43%

6. Phosphorus Loss Tracking Tar-Pamlico River Basin
Tar-Pam Ag Rule:
No increase in P from baseline year
Development of a Phosphorous Loss Accounting Method
Approved a P accounting method in 2005
Nine (9) Indicators are used to qualitatively assess the risk of P loss
Indicators characterize changes in land use and management to assess P-loss risk compared against the baseline year (1991)
2011 BOC findings - No net increase in P loss risk

7. Future Steps Encourage BMP implementation Targeted outreach for:
Falls Lake NSW Strategy
Technician & LAC meetings will be held Winter-Spring 2013

8. Acknowledgements
Neuse & Tar-Pamlico Technicians Producers LACs BOCs Local SWCD DSWC NRCS CES NCDA & CS NASS NLEW Committee NCSU DWQ

9. Questions
Neuse Basin John Huisman DWQ – Nonpoint Source Planning Unit Phone: (919) Tar-Pamlico Basin Mike Herrmann Phone: (919)

10. Slides in Reserve

11. Nitrogen Loss Estimation Worksheet (NLEW)
Empirical Spreadsheet-based Model
Developed by DWQ, NRCS, and NCSU
Update in 2011: Decrease buffer N removal efficiency
Estimates Nitrogen Loss from Cropland Ag
Compare baseline loss to current crop year
Loss Estimates at County Scale
Technicians Collect Data Annually
Number of Acres / Type of Crop
Fertilization Rates
BMPs implemented

12. Phosphorus Loss Tracking Tar-Pamlico River Basin
2011 P-Loss Indicators
Parameter
Units
2011
Change 91-11
2011 P Loss Risk +/-
Agricultural land
Acres
721,432
-11% -
Cropland conversion (to grass & trees)
31,631
4,693%  -
CRP / WRP (cumulative)
41,833
117% - 
Conservation tillage
 40,612
-1.94%*
Vegetated buffers (cumulative)
227,528
348%
Water control structures (cumulative)
Acres Affected
84,442
59%
Scavenger crop
86,283
550%
Animal waste P
lbs of P/ yr
16,695,543
23%  +
Soil test P median
mg/kg 87
4.82%
* Reported conservation tillage (CT) reflects active cost share contract acres, not acres where contracts have expired but continue to use CT.

13. How were N loss reductions achieved? Neuse River Basin
2008
N-Loss Reduction
2009
2010
N-Loss
Reduction
2011
BMP implementation 5% 7% 6% 8%
Fertilization management
12%
14%
Cropping shift
10%
17%
11%
Cropland converted to grass/trees 1%
1.5% 2%
Cropland lost to idle land
6.5% 4%
Cropland lost to development
Total
41%
44%
49%
45%

14. How were the N Loss reductions achieved? Tar-Pamlico River Basin
CY2008
N-Loss Reduction
CY2009
CY2010
CY2011
BMP implementation
10%
11% 9%
Fertilization Management
21%
20%
23%
17%
Cropping shifts 8%
Reduction in cropland due to idle land 4%
3.5% 3%
Reduction in cropland due to cropland conversion
Reduction in cropland due to development 1%
TOTAL
50%
49%
43%

15. Changes In Buffer Efficiencies
Width
NLEW
v5.02 %
Reduction
v5.51 %
v5.53b %
20’
40% (grass)
30%
20%
75% (trees)
n/a
30’
65%
40%
25%
50’
85%
50%
70’
55%
100’
60%
35%