Watershed Investments NC

“State officials urge people to avoid contact with potentially harmful algal blooms that have shown up in prominent water bodies statewide in recent weeks due to North Carolina’s hot weather.”

So read the first line of a recent press release from the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources notifying the public of a number of algal blooms occurring across the State and pointing to hot weather as the culprit. Whether intentional or not, the department painted a very incomplete picture of the causes of algal blooms such as these.

Excess nutrients are a critical ingredient to spurring algal growth, not just hot weather. Scientists within the Department are well aware of the causes for these types of algal blooms. Indeed, they have developed nutrient control strategies and advisory councils to help better deal with their causes.

Mentioned in the press release is the Chowan River, one of the states’ river basins with a nutrient reduction strategy. Pictures from earlier this summer provided by Sound Rivers show the magnitude of the blooms. Reports are that they have persisted throughout much of the summer and, by the looks of it, are serious and affect large areas.

I’m not sure why the Department would provide an extremely narrow press release, but it does little to acknowledge the problem of excess nutrient pollution plaguing many of our state’s the water bodies.

The Senate passed a version of HB 44 which has proposed measures that directly threaten our waters. The Bill, titled Local Government Regulatory Reform, includes Section 13 which guts the most cost-effective measures to addressing excess nutrients in our waters. The measure in question is protects streamside forests. As written, the subject bill allows their removal and replacement with grass.

Streamside forests function to protect streambanks from erosion, filter pollutants from upstream sources, and improve both aquatic and terrestrial habitat. The water quality benefits have been well documented. A thorough synthesis published in 2007 of 45 studies found that wider streamside buffer (100 to 200 feet) were more effective and reliable than more narrow buffers. While buffers of 50 feet or less still have benefits they are a compromise between what is needed and what society was willing to accept.

Thorough descriptions of the Bill along with quotes from scientific experts on its perils can be found in the Independent. The Smith Environment Blog has a post that also describes the key aspects of this unjustifiable Bill. What I’ll focus on is the cost effectiveness of these features for improving water quality.

These critical features are some of the least costly and most beneficial for society. When compared with other measures, a State of Maryland study found forest buffers to have the best value when compared against other more costly stormwater control measures (see image at top).  Removing their protections will result in negative impacts to water quality that are more costly to repair later.

As written, HB 44 is bad for NC waters and needs to opposed.

A spring day a few weeks back I had the chance to visit Milburnie Dam on the Neuse River in Wake County. The dam used to produce a small amount of electricity but now is the subject of controversy over whether it should remain where it stands or be removed.

Among other things, those who want it removed argue that the dam is a safety hazard and that it impedes the path of migrating fish. Advocates for keeping the dam have set up a Facebook page to call for its preservation. On it they describe their concerns for losing the pool and wetlands that lie behind the dam and its general aesthetics that they have grown to appreciate.

Of course, money has a role in the story. According to the last dam removal prospectus released by Restoration Systems, the company sponsoring the dam’s removal, the company hopes to gain approximately 32,590 feet of credit for restoring the stream length impounded by the dam. If the company is successful and able to achieve the benchmarks needed to satisfy regulators, those credits would be worth millions.

With that kind of money at stake, the company has sunk a lot of time, effort, and financial resources into their dam removal campaign. This campaign includes a website and promotional videos. While the project has supporters, it has yet to win approval from the agencies responsible for permitting the project.

This brings us back to our recent visit. Hanging out below the dam, an angler threw out a net to catch bait fish. In several throws, he was able to bring back over a dozen shad stuck at the dam. He through those back as he was looking for smaller fish for bait.  Still, for those fish stuck at the dam, it would be nice to see Milburnie removed in a way that benefits both those advocating for its preservation and those seeking to remove it. That solution would be most beneficial to those species suffering from its existence.

A friend once told me that you’ve got to crack some eggs to make an omelet. Metaphorically, he was referring to the need to prep a stream, floodplain, or wetland for restoration by removing all the stuff that’s preventing it from functioning as it should. Once it’s removed, the site will likely look in poor shape but it’s a necessary step in the restoration process.

Well, the City of Raleigh is cracking some eggs on Pidgeon House Branch. The Branch drains much of the heart of Raleigh winding north from downtown carrying stormwater runoff from lawns and roads in the City to Crabtree Creek and, further downstream, the Neuse River. The Creek is much in need of the attention it has begun to receive.

Articles in both The Independent and the Raleigh Public Record do a good job chronicling some of the history of the Branch and the City’s plans for restoring it. Restoration is needed, too. Pipes and culverts cover much of the stream preventing it hosting the wildlife or possessing the aesthetic habitat that draw people to water.

The plan is in its infancy but progress is being made. Recently, the City has acquired and began demolition on some structures that rest near the Branch.  These buildings were built in the floodplain and often flooded when the area receives heavy rains. The plan here is to remove the fill material adjacent to the stream and the pipes covering it to allow Pigeon House Branch to have more habitat and room to meander like streams want to do.  Adding a greenway to improve pedestrian and bicycle access downtown is another goal.

While it may be a long-term plan, it’s encouraging to begin seeing progress toward its implementation. For us omelet lovers, this should be a good one to enjoy.

The multiple benefits of working to enhance the enhance habitat are definitely worth pursuing.  One of the country’s largest wetlands, a 51-acre site, is constructed is Down East and doing well by a lot of measures.  In developed areas, like the areas of New Bern that drain to this wetland, these projects can be the most cost efficient and effective ways to improve the quality of water draining to them.

A recent Journal article touches on some of the additional benefits of the site serving as an educational facility for local biology students and attracting wildlife such as the american woodcock, marsh wren, king rail, osprey and bald eagle.  Opportunities like this one can face difficulties in their implementation but can instrumental in helping achieve multiple benefits needed to help both protect and improvement our environment.

It’s not a movement to protect environmental resources or reverse climate change. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. The State’s environmental commission sent draft rules to public comment to consolidate protections for streamside forest that include the use of retroactive credits. With a little digging, you can see why it’s a bad idea.

Retroactive crediting is a term the State is using to describe older practices put in the ground for one purpose to be used for a different purpose. The problem with this approach is that it doesn’t provide the net benefit needed in the environment and it should be discouraged.

The main reason that this is a bad idea is that buffer impacts were not regulated or mitigated prior to the existence of buffer protection rules. Without accounting for the loss of streamside forest on pre-buffer rule impacts, there is no understanding if pre-rule projects have accounted for those impacts.

Another big reason for not allowing retroactive credits is that the lakes and reservoirs that these rules were meant to protect are perennially impaired.  More effort is needed to help restore uses to these water bodies, not less.

Should projects completed in 2006 built up 18 years ago be allowed to claim credit on things that were not regulated at the time? EEP thinks so and lobbied the legislature to change the state’s rules. They stand to gain extra funding at the expense of actually doing any work to improve the environment.

Retroactive credits result in environmental losses and shouldn’t be allowed.

For those interested, comments are being accepted on the draft rules through April 17th, 2015.  Check on the DWR website to learn more.

A good way to get away from the bustle of the holidays is to get out and enjoy our great outdoors.  Winter hikes offer a different perspective on nature and are a great way to work off some of that holiday ham and pecan pie.  NC parks offers some good first day hikes at State Parks throughout the State.  For those in the Triangle area here are some local hiking options.

Whatever option works for you, taking the opportunity to get out and hike is something you won’t regret.

This was an interesting video on the geomorphology of river channels worth passing along. Straightening of stream channels was policy in the US for many years and encouraged, particularly in the first half of the 20^th Century. As can often happen, as our scientific understanding evolves, we realize the error in our ways and have to fix things. Current US policy is oriented toward moving straightened streams back to a more natural meandering pattern.

My last post introduced the Nutrient Criteria Development Plan (NCDP), a plan for addressing the State’s approach to better managing nutrient pollution. In short, current State policy actions are triggered by the symptoms of nutrient pollution, not by the causes. In practice, this typically means that state actions to control nutrient pollution get triggered when monitoring of chlorophyll a reaches 40 ug/L. Currently the State has few tools for addressing excess nutrients – the source of the eutrophication problem.

Bear Creek in the Neuse River Basin illustrates this problem well. Located in Wayne, Lenoir, and Greene counties, this Creek has no nutrient specific impairments yet contributes a highly disproportional amount of nutrient pollution that leads to fish kills and other impairments downstream in the Neuse River Estuary.

The US Geological Survey has studied the Creek for several decades. Tim Spruill, a former USGS scientist, helped author a summary of some of the findings from those studies and used those results in his comments on the NCDP. Of Bear Creek, Spruill writes:

“most, if not all, nutrient pollution is nonpoint and agriculturally derived. Although Bear Creek drains only 1 % of the Neuse Basin at Fort Barnwell, NC, it is the source for 6 % of the entire annual nitrogen load of the Neuse at Fort Barnwell and yet it was not identified by NC DWQ as an impaired stream for nutrients. Why? Because there were no biological visual cues (i.e. visible algal growths) that the stream was impaired and no violation of the 40 ug/L chlorophyll a standard used by North Carolina.”

Nutrient pollution from Bear Creek and other creeks like it will continue to negatively affect the State’s water bodies unless the State is committed to dealing with the cause of these problems. As Spruill concludes in his letter,

“If, instead, NCDENR continues environmental policies and strategies based on what special interests and politicians judge to be appropriate in order to save money and allow continued pollution of the State’s water resources, while ignoring scientists and scientific evidence that excess nutrients are a problem and could cost more to the State in the long term in terms of increased pollution that will be more difficult to remove in the future along with the resulting lost fisheries, tourism, and quality of life for the State’s residents than the short-term “savings” (that are not), then it is time for EPA to do their job and implement and enforce nutrient standards to uphold requirements of the Clean Water Act.”

This last measure would be dramatic and avoided if the state can demonstrate that it’s committed to curbing nutrient pollution. An EPA takeover is unlikely to happen but should help focus NC DENR on implementing the recently approved NCDP.

NC’s Environmental Management Commission (EMC) recently heard the State’s plan to address problems associated with excess nutrients polluting the State’s waters. The State has been butting its head against a wall on this issue for over a decade. The last effort at this plan was approved by the EPA in 2004. Some of its elements were implemented but others got stuck and never made it out of the rulemaking process due to concerns over fairness, cost, and a thorough vetting of alternatives. The best example of this being the Division’s attempt at a more proactive approach to controlling pollution via the ‘Threshold Rules’ that were presented to, and batted back by, the EMC several times between 2009 and 2011.

Fast forward to the current plan released by the Division of Water Resources and approved by the EPA earlier this summer. It puts out milestones over the next 5 years for the Division to take action in new water bodies of High Rock Lake, Albermarle Sound, and the Middle Cape Fear River. Concurrently, a Scientific Advisory Council will work with the Division to help sift through the data the evolving science to help guide decision-making on water quality, monitoring, and pollution reduction.

One hurdle to overcome with the State’s effort to create a more proactive strategy for dealing with nutrients is the political headwinds such a plan would face. Current plans such as that for Jordan Lake took 6 years to get approval and have been modified in the legislature multiple times since they were approved in 2009. Indeed, in 2013 they were nearly repealed but a late compromise was instituted that led to another 3 year delay in their implementation and funded water circulation technology as an alternative treatment solution for the Lake.

Absent a critical event, such as that for Toledo, the Division will find many political as well as scientific challenges to implementing more proactive approaches to curbing nutrient pollution in the State.