Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
1
Department of Environmental Quality
Annual Agriculture Progress Reports Neuse & Tar-Pamlico River Basins Prepared by the Neuse & Tar-Pamlico Basin Oversight Committees Department of Environmental Quality
2
Neuse & Tar-Pamlico River Basins
Department of Environmental Quality
3
Neuse & Tar-Pamlico Estuaries
History & Agriculture Rule Overview Chl-a Impairment Nutrient Management Rules for each basin Point & Nonpoint Sources: WW, Stormwater, Ag, Buffers Goal: 30% reduction in N, no increase in P (Tar-Pam only) Effective Dates: Neuse: (1998), Tar-Pam (2001) Agriculture Rule Collective Compliance Approach Basin Oversight & Local Advisory Committees Department of Environmental Quality
4
Basin Oversight Committees (BOC)
Representatives Division of Soil and Water Conservation US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service NC Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services NC Cooperative Extension Division of Water Resources Environmental General Farming Pasture-Based Livestock Scientific Community Department of Environmental Quality
5
How Does Agriculture Achieve Reductions?
Implementing BMPs Reducing Fertilizer Application Rates Crop Shifts to Low Nitrogen Crops Cropland Conversion Department of Environmental Quality
6
Agriculture Accounting Methods
EMC Approved Methods Cropland Nitrogen Loss: NLEW Tool Phosphorus Loss: Qualitative Indicators Department of Environmental Quality
7
Cropland Nitrogen Accounting
N Loss Estimation Worksheet (NLEW) Empirical Spreadsheet-based Model Estimates Nitrogen Loss from Cropland Ag Compare baseline loss to current crop year Loss Estimates at County Scale Data Collected Annually Number of Acres / Type of Crop Fertilization Rates BMPs implemented Department of Environmental Quality
8
SUBSURFACE N LOSS AFTER CROP
BMP - acres affected SOIL SERIES CROP (acres) OPTION: Client RYE CURRENT N RATE C OVER CROP BMPS SOIL GROUP RYE N RATE CROP N UPTAKE EXCESS N N PARTITION SUBSURFACE N LOSS AFTER CROP CEREAL COVER CROP SUBSURFACE N SURFACE N BMP N EFFECT N LOSS N LOSS ESTIMATED N
9
Interagency group that included:
NLEW Development Interagency group that included: NCSU: Soil Science & Crop Science Departments NCDENR (Div. Water Quality & Soil and Water) NCDA USDA-NRCS outside reviewers Why County Scale? There are ~120,000 agricultural fields in the Neuse alone. Collecting data on each field every year is financially and logistically impossible. Department of Environmental Quality
10
Funding Reductions to Support NLEW Data Collection
Department of Environmental Quality
11
Agriculture BMPs Credited in NLEW
% N Reduction Buffers (Width) 20’ 20% 30’ 25% 50’ 30% 70’ 100’ 35% Water Control Structures 40% Cover Crops Rye & Triticale 15% Oats & Barley 10% Wheat 5% Department of Environmental Quality
12
Other Agriculture BMPsNot Currently Credited
Diversion Fencing (USDA Programs) Field Boarder Grassed Waterway Livestock Exclusion Sod Based Rotation Tillage Management Terraces These practices are not currently credited in NLEW but are believed to achieve nutrient reductions Department of Environmental Quality
13
Neuse Estimated N Loss Reductions
County 2013 Reported N Loss Reduction 2014 Reported N Loss Reduction Carteret 38% 40% Craven 44% 58% Durham 56% 47% Franklin 76% 84% Granville 53% 96% Greene 37% 55% Johnston 52% 60% Jones 22% 29% Lenoir -3% 25% Nash 45% 62% Orange 68% 79% Pamlico 0% 9% Person Pitt 36% 43% Wake 72% Wayne 41% Wilson 27% 50% Total 46%
14
How were N Loss reductions Achieved
Neuse River Basin 2011 N-Loss Reduction 2012 2013 N-Loss Reduction 2014 BMP implementation 8% 7% Fertilization management 14% 10% 6% Cropping shift 11% 18% Cropland converted to grass/trees 2% Cropland lost to idle land 4% 3% Cropland lost to development Total 45% 37% 46% Department of Environmental Quality
15
Tar-Pamlico Estimated N Loss Reductions
County 2013 Reported N Loss Reduction 2014 Reported N Loss Reduction Beaufort 32% 40% Edgecombe 36% 48% Franklin 70% 78% Granville 53% 82% Halifax 34% 47% Hyde 30% 35% Martin 25% 27% Nash 59% 74% Person 65% 64% Pitt 49% 56% Vance 61% 69% Warren 63% Washington 24% Wilson 39% Total 41% 51%
16
How were N Loss reductions Achieved
Tar-Pamlico River Basin 2011 N-Loss Reduction 2012 2013 N-Loss Reduction 2014 BMP implementation 9% 10% 8% 12% Fertilization management 17% 20% 18% Cropping shift 6% Cropland lost to idle land 3% 5% Cropland converted to grass/trees 4% 1% Cropland lost to development Total 43% 46% 41% 51% Department of Environmental Quality
17
Phosphorus Accounting Method
Tar-Pamlico Developed by Joint Technical Committee EMC approved in 2005 Qualitative Indicator Trends 9 indicators qualitatively assess risk of P loss Baseline vs. Current Crop Year Characterize changes in land use and management Department of Environmental Quality
18
Phosphorus Loss Tracking: Tar-Pamlico
2014 P Loss Indicators Parameter Units Baseline 1991 CY2014 Percent ‘91-‘14 change CY2014 P Loss Risk +/- Agricultural Land Acres 807,026 653,954 -19% - Cropland conversion (to grass & trees) 660 46,837 6997% - CRP / WRP (cumulative) 19,241 41,833 -117% - Conservation tillage 41,415 52,428 27% Vegetated buffers (cumulative) 50,836 218,419 330% Water Control Structures (cumulative) Acres affected 52,984 91,240 72% Scavenger Crop 13,272 83,700 531% Animal waste P lbs of P/ yr 13,597,734 14,530,827 7% + Soil test P median P index 83 81 -2% Department of Environmental Quality
19
Looking Forward DSWC secured funding to update NLEW software in winter of 2016 BOC will continue to review new data to incorporate into process DWR following up with NCDA and Poultry Federation Funding for staff is critical, without which tasks fall to the voluntary LACs & BOCs for data compilation – staff also needed for BMP implementation. Department of Environmental Quality
20
QUESTIONS? Department of Environmental Quality
Similar presentations
