The recipe for serious algae blooms:
All three are currently affecting the coast as reported in the media and help illustrate that the state needs to continue its pursuit of measures to control nutrient pollution and its harmful effects.
Efforts to reduce nutrient pollution to waterways have often been compared to a diet. That is, nutrients in our waterways such as nitrogen and phosphorus are like calories for humans, they become a problem when their intake is excessive. Signs and symptoms of excess nutrients include algae blooms and fish kills.
What are ways for putting our lakes and estuaries on a nutrient diet? The NC Division of Water Resources was criticized recently for not considering land preservation as a practice that reduces nutrients. North Carolina certainly has its share of beautiful landscapes worth preservation but does the act of protecting existing forests and wetlands lower nutrient levels in eutrophic waters?
Preservation proponents argue that the merits of protecting lands justify rewarding the activity with clean-up credit. Those responsible with developing a clean-up plan, however, want activities that are proven to reduce runoff. They prefer activities like improved waste water treatment, better filtering of stormwater runoff, and reducing the amount of fertilizers and manure that washes into creeks and streams.
Do many of our waterways need to go on a nutrient diet? Without question. Is preservation part of that diet? It certainly promotes healthier watersheds but it should not be the cornerstone of a nutrient reduction diet.
A large figure in the world water quality policy weighed in on North Carolina’s current management paradigm. In a blog post, Ken Reckhow rejects some of the fanciful directions recently taken recently by the NC legislature to address impairments in Jordan and Falls lake but acknowledges that clean-up goals for these lakes may be unattainable. So, what should be the goal if the water quality standard is not achievable?
Mr. Reckhow summarizes his opinion:
“I believe that many surface water quality criteria that have been established by the States are not adequately representative of designated use. Further, I believe that in many situations we have set water quality criteria that have resulted in TMDLs that have associated costs of compliance that are way beyond expected water quality benefits. At the same time, I am not a proponent of in-lake treatment processes as an alternative to watershed pollutant load reduction except in small waterbodies where studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of in-lake techniques. My bottom-line perspective on the two issues that I raise – we should revisit the TMDL program and the underlying surface water quality standards, yet we should not be taken in by the low-cost, but ineffective in-lake treatment technologies”
The EPA allows for site-specific water quality criteria. Pursuing that direction would require the State to determine the uses that should be supported by different parts of a lake or estuary and, conceivably, have different standards for those parts. That may be a direction the State pursues but they should build upon its existing efforts and learn from other nutrient strategies like that for the Chesapeake Bay so that they do not end up recreating the wheel.
Are site specific standards the way to achieve what has been considered unattainable? Maybe. Particularly for the Falls Lake nutrient strategy where reduction goals of 40% nitrogen and 77% phosphorus may not be realistic.
From the “in case you missed it” file, algae has been flourishing this year in Lake Okeechobee, Florida at levels 40 times higher than standards acceptable to the State, smelly decaying globs, and lots of finger pointing. One source for the algae causing pollution is the sugar industry whose phosphorus runoff has been cited as a bloom source in the past. Others are pointing the finger at water managers from the federal government who have been releasing increased amounts of nutrient laden water from the Lake through the St. Lucie Canal which flows to beaches along the Atlantic Ocean.
Tying it back to our State, our legislature backed off their proposal to eliminate nutrient strategies in North Carolina and focused again on delaying the measures only for Jordan Lake. Efforts to shore up these strategies, however, are needed as controlling of nutrient loads remains a challenge and algal blooms continue to plague our state’s waters. Controlling nutrients loads may not be a pillar of state legislative candidate campaigns, but nutrient control measures the state has enacted should be maintained and bolstered to keep the great green gobs from appearing in our waters.
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) released results of a study and a searchable map they completed on the expansion of pig and chicken farms in North Carolina. As they detail:
“Over two decades alone, North Carolina’s swine population has nearly doubled, from 5.1 million in 1992 to 9.5 million by 2012, according to the USDA Census of Agriculture. During the same period, the state’s broiler chicken production increased by 60 million, to 148 million animals (EWG 2016).”
Raising more animals in the state isn’t necessarily a problem. With regards to the state’s water resources, however, the volume of waste from all those animals can be a challenge to dispose of.
A portion of the facilities that handle these animals are subject to inspection from the State’s Department of Environmental Quality. The majority of chicken producers, however, are not because their waste is dry and assumed compliant with environmental protection laws.
Is it a safe assumption? Like anything else in society, there are bad actors. In 2014, Feedman Farm’s was found guilty of dumping hog waste into North Carolina waters.
The State’s struggle to show progress in reducing nutrient pollution has dogged the Division of Water Resources. With this EWG study, it’s clear that the grind to bring down pollution of waterways is complicated by the waste produced from larger, more numerous farms.
As an amendment to House Bill 1030, the Senate passed its budget bill last week and with it, used a machete to demonstrate their view of the state’s efforts to reduce nutrient pollution to the Neuse and Pamlico estuaries as well as Jordan and Falls lakes. They offer their opinion in items 3 & 4 on page 111, stating:
What’s it take to restore large watersheds? That’s a question posed by NC’s Environmental Review Commission to the State’s Department of Environmental Quality and one they’ll have to report on at the end of 2016. It’s a hard question to answer, too, as there are many pollution sources to assess, lag times to account for, and emerging science to understand.
There are, however, areas where nutrient reduction strategies have three decades of implementation efforts with studies to draw upon that help us better understand their performance. Two such places, the Neuse and Pamlico river basins, are in North Carolina. I’ve discussed those in previous posts. Here, however, I wanted to highlight the work and progress with our neighbors to the north in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
What began with pledges from states surrounding the Bay and the District of Columbia to reduce nutrient flows to the bay by 40% in 1987 has led to the nation’s largest clean-up plan formalized in a TMDL in 2010. The Chesapeake Bay Program is the agency in charge with leading it all, reviewing the TMDL, tracking implementation measures and assessing reduction requirements that have withstood court challenges.
Since those initial pledges, total pollution to the bay has been reduced by cutting back nutrient flows from wastewater treatment plants and reducing polluted runoff from agricultural and stormwater sources. While these reductions have not met the goals established to help restore the Bay, they have made gains.
In 2010, faced with the lack of improvement, the EPA stepped in and required Bay watershed states to put together Watershed Improvement Plans, or WIPs, that spelled out how they would make the reductions necessary to meet water quality goals. Now over 5 years into implementation of WIPs, States are on the hook to do what it will take to restore the Bay. Maybe this will be the model needed to answer the question about what it takes to restore a large waterbody.
According to news reports, the funding for the much discussed Solar Bees in Jordan Lake has been pulled by the Department of Environmental Quality seemingly ending experimentation with this technology in the Lake. Medora, the manufacturers of the devices had won the ear of key legislators with the promise that these devices stirring up the water in the lake might somehow replace the need to actually reduce pollution from upstream communities. Monitoring reports of the lake, however, have shown that the technology has practically made no difference at improving concentrations of algae at areas where the devices are located.
From the beginning, scientists working for Medora had said that Solar Bees were only part of the solution and that nutrient reduction measures were needed for the lake to improve. That position, however, never gained traction with legislators as they have passed several bills delaying the implementation of nutrient reduction actions. With pollution loads to the Lake continuing unabated, algae prospered.
The State’s most recently released assessment of in-lake devices like Solar Bees does not look bullish on other technology, either. Given that, legislators should take this opportunity to recognize that time is being lost on efforts to reduce pollution to the lake and the state’s original Jordan Lake Strategy should be implemented.
Here’s a primer on nutrient pollution posted by the EPA. It doesn’t highlight problems here in North Carolina, but nutrient pollution has plagued waterbodies such as the Chowan, Jordan and Falls lakes for years.
Source: EPA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WIU7H1x3_8
People often cite the cost of nutrient management strategies as a reason that they should not be undertaken. Indeed, the NC Division of Water Resource’s fiscal assessments of the cost of the Jordan and Falls Lake Nutrient Strategies estimate the implementation of each of those plans to be between $1 and $1.5 Billion dollars. That’s lot of money to spend and is a number often used by critics to argue against the clean-up plans.
Looking at the benefits of those strategies, however, helps illustrate why those dollars are a good investment. The State’s most recently passed strategy for Falls Lake explores the ancillary benefits of the money spent on the nutrient strategy. Here’s some of what the Division reports on these benefits:
“Assuming the strategy reductions are met, resulting improvements in raw water quality would help lower current drinking water treatment costs through reductions of chemical treatment needed and could also avoid potential future costs of expensive treatment upgrades. DWQ would also expect improved conditions for primary contact recreation which include swimming, fishing, boating, and skiing. Improvement in the water quality would also likely have a positive impact on local property values in general, increasing with greater proximity to the lake, and would serve to enhance the greater local economy through increased desire to live near a healthy sustainable natural resource.” Falls Lake Hearing Officer Report, 2011.
When added, the benefits of implementing the nutrient strategy offset the cost almost dollar-for-dollar. Importantly, these strategies also help to extend the life of the vital Falls and Jordan drinking water reservoirs which, when combined, supply water to nearly 800k residents of the triangle. The nutrient strategy calls for measures that reduce erosion on farms and urban development. By helping prevent erosion from the watershed, less sediment is deposited in the reservoirs. That sediment builds up over time and reduces the capacity to both store water and serve its targeted population. As an example, High Rock Lake was estimated to be losing approximately 0.36% annually due to sedimentation. That may not sound like much but it is scenario water managers do not want to see for either of the Triangle’s main water reservoirs.