HomeMy WebLinkAboutChapter 6 - VIP and LI ROANC
D
W
Q
R
O
A
N
O
K
E
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
L
OC
A
L
I
NI
tIA
tIV
E
S
&
V
OL
uNtAR
y I
NC
E
N
tIV
E
P
RO
gRA
mS
2
0
1
1
6.1
LocaL InItIatIves
In addition to local initiatives that have been planned or implemented throughout this planning
cycle, this Section includes a list of watershed groups and natural resource agencies focused on
improving water quality across the basin. There may be additional groups and agencies active
within the basin. Please contact the DWQ Roanoke River Basin Planner to have your water quality
improvement or protection program/projects listed here.
the Importance of LocaL InItIatIves
Local initiatives to protect water quality are essential to any community because local citizens
make decisions that affect change in their own communities. There are a variety of limitations
local initiatives can overcome including limited and diminishing state government budgets and staff
resources, absence of regulations for land use management, and many others. Local organizations
and agencies are able to combine professional expertise in a watershed, thus allowing groups to
holistically understand the challenges and opportunities of different water quality efforts. Involving
a wide array of people in water quality projects also brings together a wide range of knowledge and
interests and encourages others to become involved and invested in these projects.
By working in coordination across jurisdictions and agency lines, more funding opportunities may
be realized. This potentially allows local entities to do more work and be involved in more activities
because their funding sources are diversified. The most important aspect of local endeavors is that
the more localized the project, the better the chances for ongoing success.
The collaboration of local efforts are key to water quality improvements. There are good examples
of local agencies and groups using these cooperative strategies throughout the basin and specific
groups and projects are discussed within each of the 10-digit watershed write ups in the Subbasin
Chapters. Some of these groups are listed below. DWQ applauds the foresight and proactive
response of local watershed groups and local governments to address a number of water quality
problems.
CHAPTER 6
LocaL InItIatIves &
voLuntary IncentIve
programs
IN thE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN
chapter topIcs
£Local Initiatives
£CG&L
£319 Grants
£SWCD
NC
D
W
Q
R
O
A
N
O
K
E
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
L
OC
A
L
I
NI
tIA
tIV
E
S
&
V
OL
uNtAR
y I
NC
E
N
tIV
E
P
RO
gRA
mS
2
0
1
1
6.2
Lake gaston Weed controL councIL
*Information submitted by: Wally Sayko, Brunswick County (Va) Director, Chairman Public
Affairs Committee August 8, 2011.
Current activities by the LGWCC:
The second chemical application has been applied to some 1,200 acres. This product is called
Sonar and is a time released product that lasts for about 40 days. Three applications are
applied about 30-35 days apart. During this period tests are run to assure that the proper level
of product is present to provide continuous impact on the Hydrilla.
Planned activity by LGWCC:
A company is under contract to survey the lake in the fall to determine the amount of vegetation
in the lake and determine how many acres of potential Hydrilla is present. This will provide
three important pieces of data to us for the following year. First, it will verify the effectiveness of
this year’s contracted treatment. Second, it will establish how many acres of Hydrilla still exists
to determine if we need to add Grass Carp and the third is of course what areas of the lake that
have Hydrilla that can be treated by chemical. Not all areas can be treated. Water over 10 feet
deep for instance is not very effective and also the flow of water is critical since the chemical will
be moved from the desired location.
Completed activities by the LGWCC:
We put into the lake this year over 8,400 grass carp. They were put into two locations - Big
Stonehouse Creek in North Carolina and the Route 1 Bridge in Virginia. Based upon a formula
that has been developed by NC Wildlife Resources Commission, this data is put into a program
to determine the number of grass carp per infested acre of Hydrilla. The goal is to maintain
grass carp at 15 per acre. Insertion of the 8,400 grass carp this year will bring the current rate
to that level.
Activities that did not happen by LGWCC:
We were planning a significant effort to plant more controlled native plants in given areas of the
lake. This effort was to be coordinated with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Because of a
lack of funding for the COE this plan was not carried out.
Activities by the Lake Gaston Association: (LGA)
The LGA supports the Weed Control Council efforts in a number of ways. First, it lobbies the
five county governments surrounding the lake to provide full funding ($116,000 each) for weed
control efforts during the annual budgeting cycle. Second, it provides volunteers in support
of a lake wide weed survey each year and the native plant re-vegetation program. Third, the
LGA responds to inquiries from concerned property owners regarding weed control issues.
This support is provided by the LGA’s Lake Environment Committee. Specifically this year, the
Environment Committee:
£Repaired over 50 native plant cages in the water on the lake in conjunction with the Corps’
re-vegetation program. Some of the cages suffered physical damage from boaters and some
from animals. In one cage we found over 20 turtles that had to be released and in another a
3 foot Gar Fish. These areas were all repaired and any damage and plant success recorded
for the COE. The monitoring and reporting of these locations is ongoing by the LGA.
NC
D
W
Q
R
O
A
N
O
K
E
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
L
OC
A
L
I
NI
tIA
tIV
E
S
&
V
OL
uNtAR
y I
NC
E
N
tIV
E
P
RO
gRA
mS
2
0
1
1
6.3
£Completed training of over 26 new volunteers to participate in our annual lake aquatic plant
survey. Our goal this year is to survey more than 90% of the lake with volunteers. This data
is then sent to NC State, to Rob Richardson and his organization for input into a map source.
This data is then shared with the LGWCC for additional information into the annual lake
survey they conduct. The survey will begin in late August.
£Was instrumental in convincing two counties to maintain full weed control funding, another
to restore full funding from none the previous year, and another to increase its funding from
$25,000 to $75,000.
£Responded to a number of concerns by property owners that were checked out by committee
members and reported back to the proper organizations. These have included concerns over
runoff from farms and a Moto Cross track, to questions about types of weeds they may have
near their shoreline and the effort to remove an abandoned house boat on Poplar Creek.
In May the LGA sponsored a Lake Clean Up campaign in all 5 counties. It was the first effort of
this type on the lake. A lot of trash was cleaned from the lake.
Partners on the lake:
£Lake Gaston Weed Control Council, Dr. Elton Brown, President
£Lake Gaston Association, Doug Hughes, President
£Stake Holders, Pete Deschenes, Chairman
£Technical Advisory Group (TAG), Rob Richardson, Chairman
£North Carolina State University, Rob Richardson, Steve Hoyle
£Virginia Tech.
£Dominion Power, Jim Thornton
£Virginia Dept. of Inland Fisheries, Vic Dicenzo
£North Carolina Dept. of Natural Resources, Kirk Rundel
federaL, state & LocaL IncentIve programs
constructIon grants & Loans
The NC Construction Grants and Loans (CG&L) Section of DWQ provides grants and loans to
local government agencies for the construction, upgrades and expansion of wastewater collection
and treatment systems. As a financial resource, the section administers five major programs
that assist local governments. Of these, two are federally funded programs administered by the
state, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) Program and the State and Tribal Assistance
Grants (STAG). The STAG is a direct congressional appropriations for a specific “special needs”
project within NC. The High Unit Cost Grant (SRG) Program, the State Emergency Loan (SEL)
Program and the State Revolving Loan (SRL) Program are state funded programs, with the
latter two being below market revolving loan money. The Section also received an additional
Capitalization Grant authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 in
the amount of $70,729,100. These funds are administered according to SRF procedures. All
projects must be eligible under title VI of the Clean Water Act. For more information, please see
the CG&L website.
NC
D
W
Q
R
O
A
N
O
K
E
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
L
OC
A
L
I
NI
tIA
tIV
E
S
&
V
OL
uNtAR
y I
NC
E
N
tIV
E
P
RO
gRA
mS
2
0
1
1
6.4
tABLE 6-1: Cg&L PROjECtS FuNDED DuRINg 2004-2009 IN thE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN
LOCAtION PROjECt DESCRIPtION DAtE AmOuNt 8 DIgIt
huC FuNDINg
Eden, City of Dry Creek and Smith River Sewer
Rehabilitation
5/8/2009 $714,303 03010103 ARRA
Rich Square,
Town of
Rich Square Collection System
Rehabilitation
5/21/2009 $1,728,180 03010107 ARRA
Roanoke Rapids
SD
Replace the Disinfection System 7/31/2009 $1,241,156 03010107 SRF
Rich Square Sewer Rehabilitation and a Spray
Irrigation System
4/14/2004 $2,999,940 03010107 SRG
sectIon 319 grant program
Section 319 of the Clean Water Act provides grant money for nonpoint source demonstration
and restoration projects. In 2009/2010, approximately $450,000 was available annually through
base funding for demonstration and education projects across the state. An additional $2
million was available annually through incremental funding for restoration projects on impaired
waters statewide. All projects must provide non-federal matching funds of at least 40 percent
of the project’s total costs. Project proposals are reviewed and selected by the North Carolina
Nonpoint Source Workgroup, made up of state and federal agencies involved in regulation or
research associated with nonpoint source pollution. Information on the North Carolina Section
319 Grant Program application process is available online as well as descriptions of projects
and general Section 319 Program information.
There were two projects in the Roanoke River basin that were funded through the Section 319
Program between 2004 and 2010. The first project, the Smith Creek Agricultural Sediment
Initiative, was active from 2005 to 2008. The main objective of the project was to address severe
sedimentation problems in the Smith Creek watershed in Warren County, specifically targeting
segments of Smith Creek on North Carolina’s 303(d) list of impaired waters. The NC Division of
Soil and Water Conservation contracted with the Warren Soil and Water Conservation District
to prepare a comprehensive watershed restoration plan. The plan helped guide the installation
of best management practices (BMPs) within the watershed to reduce sediment delivery to the
impaired waters. Eighteen cooperating landowners were involved in implementing BMPs to
improve water quality.
The other project funded by the 319 Grant Program extends from 2008 to 2011 and is also with
the NC Division of Soil and Water Conservation, in partnership with Stokes, Rockingham, and
Caswell County Soil and Water Conservation Districts. The primary objective of this project
is to install BMPs throughout the Dan River watershed to reduce sediment delivery and fecal
coliform bacteria to help restore impaired waters on the state’s 303(d) list. BMPs to be installed
include: livestock exclusion fencing, water tanks, field borders, grassed waterways, heavy use
area protection, and non-agricultural BMPs such as wetlands and rain gardens. Installation of
the proposed BMPs should help prevent the off-site movement of nutrients and pesticides, and
improve streambank stability and habitat for fish and macroinvertebrates. This project will build
on earlier planning efforts by updating and supplementing existing documents to produce a
watershed restoration plan that satisfies EPA’s nine required elements. Numerous outreach and
educational opportunities are also being conducted during the project to inform local citizens,
students and elected officials about the purpose and effectiveness of the BMPs.
NC
D
W
Q
R
O
A
N
O
K
E
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
L
OC
A
L
I
NI
tIA
tIV
E
S
&
V
OL
uNtAR
y I
NC
E
N
tIV
E
P
RO
gRA
mS
2
0
1
1
6.5
tABLE 6-2: 319 gRANt CONtRACtS IN thE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN BEtWEEN 2004 & 2009
FISCAL
yEAR
CONtRACt
NumBER NAmE DESCRIPtION 8-DIgIt
huC AgENCy FuNDINg
2005 EW06022 Smith Creek Agricultureal
Sediment Initiative: Phase II
Agricultural BMP
Implementation
03010106 DSWC $130,000
2008 1585 Dan River Watershed BMP
Implementation
BMP
Implementation
03010103 DSWC $399,900
Total Funded:$529,900
soIL & Water conservatIon
The North Carolina Agricultural Cost Share Program
The NC Agricultural Cost Share Program (NCACSP) helps reduce agricultural nonpoint runoff
into the state’s waters. The program, administered by the NC Division of Soil and Water
Conservation (now within the NC Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services as of 2011)
and managed by the local districts, helps owners and renters of established agricultural operations
improve their on-farm management by using best management practices (BMPs). These BMPs
include vegetative, structural or management systems that can improve the efficiency of farming
operations while reducing the potential for surface and groundwater pollution. A full listing of all
the BMPs and the categories they are grouped in is available at the following link (under Section
V: Best Management Practice Guidelines)
Across the Roanoke River Basin, 4,167 individual Best Management Practices were installed
from January 1, 2004 through August 1, 2011. Below is a map (Figure 6-1) showing the
geographic location of those 4,167 practices installed.
The western portion of the basin tends to have more Stream Protection practices installed
than the eastern portion of the watershed. Moving east, there is a considerable shift into
Erosion/Nutrient Reduction and Sediment/Nutrient Reduction practices. This is due to different
ecoregions.
tABLE 6-3: tOtAL BENEFItS DERIVED ACROSS thE ENtIRE BASIN FOR thOSE PRACtICES INStALLED
thROugh thE NC AgRICuLtuRAL COSt ShARE PROgRAm BEtWEEN jANuARy 1, 2004 thROugh AuguSt
1, 2011:
DERIVED BENEFItS BENEFIt
PARAmEtER BENEFIt VALuE
Acres Affected Acre 36,960
Nitrogen Saved Pounds 421,609
Phosphorus Saved Pounds 81,458
Soil Saved Tons 166,646
Waste-N Managed Pounds 341,306
Waste-P Managed Pounds 230,317
NC
D
W
Q
R
O
A
N
O
K
E
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
L
OC
A
L
I
NI
tIA
tIV
E
S
&
V
OL
uNtAR
y I
NC
E
N
tIV
E
P
RO
gRA
mS
2
0
1
1
6.6
FIguRE 6-1: ACSP BmP INStALLAtION IN thE ROANOKE RIVER BASIN BEtWEEN jANuARy 2004 thROugh
AuguSt 2011
NC
D
W
Q
R
O
A
N
O
K
E
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
L
OC
A
L
I
NI
tIA
tIV
E
S
&
V
OL
uNtAR
y I
NC
E
N
tIV
E
P
RO
gRA
mS
2
0
1
1
6.7
cLean Water act, sectIon 205(j) funded projects
The DWQ and EPA awarded the Kerr-Tar Regional Council of Governments funding from the
2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of $34,760 to complete the Roanoke River
Basin Bi-State Commission and North Carolina Roanoke River Advisory Committee Activity
and Project Development Operational and Coordination Support Project. The North Carolina
and Virginia Roanoke River Basin Advisory Committees and the Roanoke River Basin Bi-
State Commission were created by the North Carolina and Virginia legislatures in 2003. Their
purposes included addressing bi-state issues of water quality, quantity, assimilative capacity,
developing policy recommendations and supporting coordination between the states. This grant
which concluded in 2011, provided support for the planning activities to achieve the legislative
intent of these committees and commission. Over the past few quarters the Committees and
Commission have been actively reviewing the issues of lifting the 1982 ban on uranium mining
in Virginia and developing a more detailed charge to the Ad hoc Water Allocation Committee
concerning a water allocation proposal that is acceptable to both states.
amerIcan rIvers
In 2011 American Rivers ranked the Roanoke River as the third most endangered river in America
due to the possibility of uranium mining. Extracting uranium ore requires intensive use of water
and chemicals, and leaves behind massive amounts of radioactive and contaminated waste.
The mining, processing, and waste disposal have the possibility of leave a toxic, radioactive
legacy in the watershed for centuries if not done in an environmentally sensitive manner.
More information about this ranking is found on the American Rivers website.
NC
D
W
Q
R
O
A
N
O
K
E
R
I
V
E
R
B
A
S
I
N
P
L
A
N
:
L
OC
A
L
I
NI
tIA
tIV
E
S
&
V
OL
uNtAR
y I
NC
E
N
tIV
E
P
RO
gRA
mS
2
0
1
1
6.8