Nutrient Strategy for the TarPamlico River Basin, North Carolina

1
Nutrient Strategy for the Tar-Pamlico River
Basin, North Carolina
for the USDA Seminar on Nutrient Trading October
23, 2003
Rich Gannon, NC Division of Water Quality
2
Talk Outline

• Basin background
• Nutrient Strategy overview
• Trading program
• Neuse trading program differences

3
TAR-PAMLICO RIVER BASIN
New
Roanoke
Chowan
Pasquotank
Watauga
French Broad
Little
Tennessee
Tar-
Broad
Pamlico
Hiwassee
Savannah
Catawba
Yadkin-
Neuse
Pee Dee
White
Oak
Lumber
Cape Fear
4
TAR-PAMLICO RIVER BASIN

• Population 365,000
• 5,450 sq. miles
• Avg Pop Density
• of 80 pers/mi2
• 2 towns gt 50,000

5
Land Cover in the Tar-Pamlico Basin 1993-1995
Landsat imagery
Water 20
Forest 55
Crop Pasture 23
Urban 2
6
The Problem

• Symptoms since mid-70s
• Increasing chlorophyll a violations, low d.o.
• Increasing fish kills, diseases, stressed biota
• Loss of submerged aquatic vegetation
• Causes and Sources
• Excessive nitrogen ( phosphorus) loading
• Entire basin contributes
• Human/other animal waste, fertilizer, combustion
• P loads reduced - PCS recycling, detergent P ban

7
(No Transcript)
8
HistoryTar-Pamlico Nutrient Strategy

• 1989 Designated Nutrient Sensitive Waters
• 1990 Phase I (-1994)
• Step-down PS loading cap, trading
• 1995 Phase II (-2004)
• - Performance goals re. 1991 30 ?N, no ? P
• - Point source Assoc steady N,P caps
  trading
• - Point source non-Assoc tech limits, offset
  new N,P
• 1996 - NPS voluntary action plans
• 2000 - Nonpoint source rules adopted
• Riparian Buffer Protection - Agriculture
  -
• Urban Stormwater - Nutrient Management

9
Point Sources - Non-Association

• Rule effective April 1997
• Affects 53 facilities
• Expansions gt .5 MGD and
• new discharges gt .05 MGD
• Concentration limits 6 mg/l N, 1 mg/l P
• offset new loading 110 at 29/kg-yr

10
Nonpoint Source Rules Tar-Pamlico Nutrient
Strategy

• Urban Stormwater
• Local governments implement programs
• New development must reduce N loading 30
• Illicit discharge detection removal
• Education programs seek retrofits
• Agriculture
• County-level committees work with farmers to
  achieve 30 reduction in N loss in 5 to 8 years
• Use N loss accounting tool
• P control - technical committee develops guidance

11
Agricultural Nitrogen Loss Accounting Tool
12
Tar-Pamlico Nutrient StrategyNonpoint Source
Rules (contd)

• Nutrient Management
• All fertilizer applicators develop nutrient mgmt.
  plans or take Extension-led training
• DWQ does education program for homeowners
• Riparian Buffer Protection
• Riparian buffers in place 1/1/00 protected
• Includes vegetated areas within 50 feet of
  streams, ponds, lakes, and estuarine waters
• Outer 20 feet - can manage as herbaceous

13
Tar-Pamlico Nutrient Trading Program
14
Early Point Source Scenarios

• Technology limits 6 mg/l N, 2 mg/l P
• Technology limits or trade 11 million over 5
  yrs.
• for equivalent 200,000 kg NP reduction via ag
  BMPs
• Final Phase I Agreement (90-94)
• Association of dischargers agreed to
• Annual step-down cap 525,000 ? 425,000 kg NP
• Exceed cap? Pay for ag BMPs at 56/kg
• fund estuary model
• earnest money for ag BMPs
• implement results of facilities optimization
  study

15
Phase II Agreement1995 - 2004

• Overall performance goal based on estuary model
• 30 N ? from 1991, hold P at 1991
• Association of dischargers, gt 90 of point source
  flows, under annual loading bubble
• Association steady caps, NPS trading
  400,000 kg N/yr 70,000 kg P/yr
• Exceed cap? Pay for ag BMPs at 29/kg N
• Individual NPDES permits lack N, P limits

16
Phase II Design (continued)

• Local water quality impact? DWQ retains
  authority to require nutrient removal
• Non-Association dischargers - separate rule
• technology limits offset any new loading
• FT in caps - 30 instream loss assumption
• Environmental groups did not sign
• goal inadequate - should be 45
• caps too high
• NPS voluntary plan too vague

17
Tar-Pamlico N Offset Rate

• Consultant evaluated cost-effectiveness of BMPs
  used by cost share program in Tar-Pam
• Safety factor of 2 recognizes uncertainty in
  costs and loading reduction estimates
• 10 administrative cost added

2(13/kg N) 0.1(2(13)) 29/kg N
18
Use of Offset Payments

• NC Agriculture Cost Share Program for Nonpoint
  Source Pollution Control
• Voluntary
• 75 of BMP costs reimbursed
• Coordinator tracks, targets offset fees
  separately
• Compliance monitoring
• SWCDs inspect min 5 contracts/yr
• All animal waste systems inspected twice/yr
• DSWC reviews local programs _at_ 5 yrs
• Noncompliance? Repay or face legal action

19
(No Transcript)
20
N Load, N Cap ( pre-Agreement load)
Members Avg Flow (MGD)
21
Point Source Association NP Loads thru 2002 vs.
Caps, Tar-Pamlico River Basin, NC
22
Phase II Nitrogen Cap vs. Goal, Tar-Pamlico
River Basin, NC
Phase II Cap 87 1991 Load
Phase II Goal 70 1991 Load
23
Is the Tar program successful?

• Approx. 50 reduction N load vs. pre-strategy
• Approx. 40 reduction N load vs. 1991
• While flows increased 1/4 to 1/3
• At far less cost than via CC, and reportedly
  lower cost than via ag BMP offset fee
• If NPS trades needed, have administrative,
  compliance, and tracking processes in place

24
Is the Tar program trading?

• Among point sources, informal effluent trading
• Members agree to install nutrient removal as they
  expand
• No payments besides dues (flow-based)
• Coalition achieves reductions collectively at
  much lower cost than via uniform technology
  limits
• Considering excess load surcharge to achieve
  equity
• PS/NPS - more like a load exceedence tax
• Not market-driven lowest cost means via
  individual action
• PS and NPS not under uniform requirements
• Ag BMPs are voluntary via cost share
• But it does provide lower cost means of reducing
  loads

25
Is the Tar program cost-effective?

• Initial projections
• 200,000 kg reduction via ag BMPs 11.8 m
• Sum of individual members meeting technology
  limits
• 50 - 100 million
• Actual cost to Association in Phase I 800,000
• (model, optimization study, BMPs, position,
  fees)
• BNR capital costs on upgrade or expansion
  reportedly more cost effective than 29/kg
  offset, and minimally more than expansion without
  BNR. Maintenance reportedly minimally more.

26
Nutrient Removal Installed by Association Members

• 1985, 1995 Greenville 9.8 MGD
• 1992 Rocky Mount 13.2
• 1992 Washington 1.8
• 1994 Louisburg 0.8
• 1997 Enfield 0.6
• 2000 Robersonville 1.4
• 2001 Belhaven 0.4
• 28.0
• (Full Association 34.1 MGD)

27
Issues for Phase III

• Goals and caps
• new estuary modeling
• improve load delivery estimates via modeling
• Offset rate
• revise for current projected BMPs
• weight for projected spatial distribution?
• upper bound of uncertainty estimate as safety
  factor?
• concurrency issue with banked credits
• set P offset rate, consider available P
• Agricultural BMPs
• no cooperators case, greater compliance
  monitoring?

28
Tar-Pamlico Nutrient StrategyLessons Learned
Highlights

• Driver can vary - crisis, regulatory threat,
  outreach
• Expect doubters - fully demonstrate need
• Make goals tangible to public and adaptive
• Dual accounting - land-based and instream
• Regulation - last resort only
• Ample time for fair stakeholder processes
• Resources, resources, resources

29
Neuse Trading - Differences from Tar-Pamlico

• Recently negotiated TMDL with EPA
• Individual N allocations in permits
• Individual allocations use transport zones
• N limits are provisionally waived for association
  members
• Association cap exceedence enforcement
• Cap exceedence ? offset payment to NC WRP

30
More Information
Tar-Pamlico Nutrient Strategy website http//h2o.e
nr.state.nc.us/nps/tarpam.htm Staff
contact Rich Gannon 919-733-5083 ext.
356 rich.gannon_at_ncmail.net