Chapter 10

Management Strategies 85
Chapter 10
Water Quality Management Strategies

10.1 The Role of State Government

Several commissions, agencies and programs handle State policies governing actions and
activities in coastal areas. The Environmental Management Commission (EMC) is a 19-member
panel that is appointed by the Governor and legislative officials responsible for adopting rules for
the protection, preservation and enhancement of the state’s water and air. Water related rules
include stormwater management, basinwide planning, nutrient management strategies and
discharge permits.

The North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) established a cooperative program
of coastal area management between local and state governments. The Act states that local
governments shall have the initiative for planning, while the state government establishes areas
of environmental concern. With regard to planning, the State is directed to act primarily in a
supportive, standard-setting, and review capacity, except in situations where local governments
do not elect to exercise their initiative. In addition, the CAMA established the Coastal Resource
Commission (CRC) within DENR, whose duties include approval of Coastal Habitat Protection
Plans and designation of Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC). After designation of these
areas, the ERC is responsible for issuing all permits and establishes regulations to control
development. The CRC is a 15-member board appointed by the governor to adopt rules and
policies for coastal development and certify local land use plans for the 20 coastal counties and
their communities. These regulations are implemented and permitted by the Division of Coastal
Management (DCM) (see website http://dcm2.ehnr.state.nc.us/). An example of these rules is
the establishment of a 30-foot buffer zone for building along estuarine waters.

The Division of Marine Fisheries is responsible for the stewardship of the state's marine and
estuarine resources, which encompasses all coastal waters and extends to 3 miles offshore.
Agency policies are established by the 9-member Marine Fisheries Commission and the
Secretary of DENR.

The N.C. Divisions of Water Quality, Coastal Management, Land Resources, Marine Fisheries,
Soil and Water Conservation, Parks and Recreation, and Environmental Health are responsible
for many coastal activities and policies, including stormwater management, development
permits, erosion control programs, agriculture and land preservation, shellfish protection and
recreation monitoring, just to name a few. Additional state programs include the Albemarle-
Pamlico National Estuary Program (APNEP) and many inter-agency and group partnerships that
work together to protect the resources found in coastal waters and communities.

The Coastal Zone Management Act requires National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
to evaluate the performance of federally approved state coastal management programs. During
the review of NC’s CAMA specific recommendations call for the assessment of existing state
laws and regulations to minimize redundancy and avoid conflict with other regulations, prioritize
emerging coastal issues and use adaptive management based on lessons learned.

86 Management Strategies
10.2 Coastal Habitat Protection Plan

North Carolina has approximately 2.9 million acres of estuarine and marine waters, comprising
the largest estuarine system of any state along the Atlantic coast. North Carolina has a billion-
dollar commercial and recreational fishing industry and ranks among the nation’s highest
seafood-producing states. Fish and shellfish species important to these industries depend on the
quality and quantity of habitats found along our rivers, sounds and ocean waters. Pressures from
development, loss of habitat, pollution and degraded water quality threaten fish habitats.
Shellfish beds, mud flats, marshes, sea grass beds, freshwater streams and swamps are in
jeopardy. The loss of these vital fish habitats threatens fishing industry central to North
Carolina’s history and economic growth.

Recognizing these threats, the N.C. General Assembly passed the Fisheries Reform Act of 1997.
Included within this law is a requirement for three of the state’s regulatory commissions (Marine
Fisheries, Environmental Management, and Coastal Resources commissions) to adopt a plan to
manage and restore aquatic habitats critical to North Carolina's commercial and recreational
fisheries resources. The DENR developed the Coastal Habitat Protection Plan (CHPP) through a
cooperative, multi-agency effort with public input. The CHPP was adopted by the three
commissions in December 2004 and sets the stage for unprecedented improvements in fish
habitat protection and restoration in North Carolina.

The CHPP is a detailed document describing the six major fish habitats and providing scientific
information on their ecological functions and importance to the species that inhabit them. It
identifies threats and management needs for each habitat and recommends administrative,
regulatory and non-regulatory steps necessary to protect, restore and enhance each habitat.
These recommendations are a result of scientific studies, deliberations of the three commissions
and input from citizens who attended 20 public meetings held during the development of the
CHPP. The CHPP identifies six habitats that need protection or enhancement:

• Water Column
• Shell Bottom
• Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV)
• Wetlands
• Soft Bottom
• Hard Bottom

DENR and the three commissions developed and adopted specific plans to implement the CHPP
recommendations, with a focus on actions that could be taken based on existing resources and
within the 2005-2007 budget cycle. The implementation actions are organized according to four
habitat management goals:

GOAL 1. Improve effectiveness of existing rules and programs protecting coastal fish
habitats
North Carolina has a number of programs already in place to protect coastal fisheries and the
natural resources that support them. The Marine Fisheries Commission (MFC) has adopted rules
addressing the impacts of certain types of fishing gear and fishing practices that may damage fish
habitats. The Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) regulates development impacts on certain
types of critical coastal habitats, such as saltwater marshes and primary nursery areas. The
Environmental Management Commission (EMC) has issued water quality standards that address

Management Strategies 87
pollution of coastal waters from both direct discharges and runoff. The Coastal Habitat
Protection Plan (CHPP) identifies a number of gaps in the protection provided for critical fish
habitats under these programs, but also notes that these habitats would benefit from stronger
enforcement of existing regulations and better coordination among agencies.

Recommendation 1.1- Enhance enforcement of, and compliance with, Coastal Resources
Commission, Environmental Management Commission and Marine Fisheries Commission
rules and permit conditions.
Recommendation 1.2 - Coordinate and enhance water quality, physical habitat and fisheries
resource monitoring (including data management) from headwaters to the nearshore ocean.
Recommendation 1.3- Enhance and expand educational outreach on the value of fish habitat,
threats from human activities, effects of non-native species and reasons for management
measures.
Recommendation 1.4- Coordinate rulemaking and enforcement among regulatory commissions
and agencies.

GOAL 2. Identify, designate and protect strategic habitat areas
Maintaining healthy coastal fisheries requires consideration of the entire ecosystem and the way
different types of fish habitat work together. For example, coastal marshes help prevent erosion
of soft bottom habitat. Unobstructed passage through the water column allows certain fish
species to reach their spawning grounds in inland wetlands. Fragmenting these habitats, or
damaging one of a series of interrelated habitats makes it more difficult for aquatic systems to
support strong and healthy coastal fisheries. In 1998, the EMC, CRC, and MFC defined
Strategic Habitat Areas. These areas are complexes of fisheries habitat that “provide exceptional
functions that are particularly at risk due to imminent threats, vulnerability or rarity.” These
areas merit special attention and should be given high priority for conservation.

Recommendation 2.1- Evaluate potential Strategic Habitat Areas (SHAs) by a) coordinating,
completing and maintaining baseline habitat mapping (including sea grass, shell bottom and
other bottom types) using the most appropriate technology; b) selective monitoring of the
status of those habitats; and c) assessing effects of land use and human activities on those
habitats.
Recommendation 2.2- Identify and designate SHAs using ecologically based criteria, analyze
existing rules and enact measures needed to protect SHAs and improve programs for
conservation (including voluntary actions) and acquisition of areas supporting SHAs.

GOAL 3. Enhance habitat and protect it from physical impacts
The CHPP identifies a number of ways in which fish habitats can be damaged by direct physical
impacts. Some examples include filling of wetlands, dredging of soft bottom habitat, destruction
of shell bottom and hard bottom areas, damage to submerged aquatic vegetation by use of certain
types of fishing gear, and physical obstructions that block fish movement to and from spawning
areas. While large impacts can directly contribute to the loss of habitat functions, the
accumulation of many small impacts can make a habitat more vulnerable to damage from which
it might otherwise recover quickly. In some cases, historic damage to a habitat can be mitigated
through the creation of sanctuaries where the resource can recover. One such program involves
creation of protected oyster reefs. In other cases, the cumulative impacts of multiple projects can
be more effectively managed through comprehensive planning and plan implementation.

88 Management Strategies
Recommendation 3.1- Greatly expand habitat restoration.
Recommendation 3.2- Prepare and implement a comprehensive beach and inlet management
plan that addresses ecologically based guidelines, socioeconomic concerns and fish habitat.
Recommendation 3.3- Protect submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom and hard
bottom areas from fishing gear effects through improved enforcement, establishment of
protective buffers around habitats and further restriction of mechanical shellfish harvesting.
Recommendation 3.4- Protect fish habitat by revising estuarine and public trust shoreline
stabilization rules using best available information, considering estuarine erosion rates, and
the development and promotion of incentives for use of alternatives to vertical shoreline
stabilization measures.
Recommendation 3.5- Protect and enhance habitat for anadromous fishes by: a) incorporating
the water quality and quantity needs of fish in surface water use planning and rule making
and b) eliminating obstructions to fish movements, such as dams, locks and road fills.

GOAL 4. Enhance and Protect Water Quality
Good water quality is essential to coastal fisheries because water is the common element in all
fish habitats. The water conditions necessary to support coastal fisheries include the right
combination of temperature and salinity, as well as the absence of harmful pollutants. Achieving
and maintaining good water quality for purposes of fisheries productivity requires management
of both direct discharges of pollutants and stormwater runoff. The CHPP provides additional
support for policies directed toward better management of point and nonpoint sources of water
pollution. In doing so, the CHPP recognizes a need to go beyond relying on regulatory programs
alone. Addressing water quality impacts will also require targeted use of land acquisition
programs, incentives for conservation, development of effective BMPs, and assistance for local
governments to upgrade wastewater and stormwater management infrastructure. Maintaining the
water quality necessary to support vital coastal fisheries will not only benefit the commercial
fishing industry – it will benefit a large sector of the entire coastal economy built around travel
and tourism, and recreational fishing.

Recommendation 4.1- Reduce point source pollution from wastewater.
Recommendation 4.2- Adopt or modify rules or statutes to prohibit ocean wastewater
discharges.
Recommendation 4.3- Prohibit new or expanded stormwater outfalls to coastal beaches and to
coastal shellfishing waters (EMC surface water classifications SA and SB) except during
times of emergency when public safety and health are threatened, and continue to phase out
existing outfalls by implementing alternative stormwater management strategies.
Recommendation 4.4- Enhance coordination with, and financial/technical support for, local
government actions to better manage stormwater and wastewater.
Recommendation 4.5- Improve land-based strategies throughout the river basins to reduce
nonpoint pollution and minimize cumulative losses to wetlands and streams through
voluntary actions, assistance and incentives.
Recommendation 4.6- Improve land-based strategies throughout the river basins to reduce
nonpoint pollution and minimize cumulative losses to wetlands and streams through rule
making.
Recommendation 4.7- Develop and implement a comprehensive coastal marina and dock
management plan and policy for the protection of shellfish harvest waters and fish habitat.
Recommendation 4.8- Reduce nonpoint source pollution from large-scale animal operations by
the following actions: a) support early implementation of environmentally superior
alternatives to the current lagoon and sprayfield systems as identified under the Smithfield

Management Strategies 89
Agreement and continue the moratorium on new/expanded swine operations until alternative
waste treatment technology is implemented; b) seek additional funding to phase-out large-
scale animal operations in sensitive areas and relocate operations from sensitive areas; and c)
use improved siting criteria to protect fish habitat.

Visit http://www.ncdmf.net/habitat/index.html to learn more about the CHPP or to download the
plan. Refer questions and comments to [e-mail] or call [phone] or (800) 682-
2632.

10.3 NC Coastal Nonpoint Source Program

Section 6217 of the Federal 1990 Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA)
requires every state participating in the Coastal Zone Management Act Program to develop a
Coastal Nonpoint Source Program (CNPSP). The purpose of this requirement, as stated in the
Act, is to "strengthen the links between Federal and State coastal zone management and water
quality management programs and to enhance State and local efforts to manage land use
activities that degrade coastal waters and coastal habitats." To accomplish these goals, the
federal agencies established 56 Management Measures that are to be used by each state to
address the following nonpoint source pollution categories (first five items) and that provide
tools to address the various sources of nonpoint pollution (last item):
• Agricultural Sources
• Forestry
• Urban Areas (urban runoff; construction activities; existing development; on-site
disposal systems; pollution prevention; and roads, highways and bridges)
• Marinas and Recreational Boating (siting and design; and marina and boat
operation/maintenance)
• Hydrologic Modification (channelization and channel modification; dams; and
streambank and shoreline erosion)
• Wetlands, Riparian Areas and Vegetated Treatment Systems

Detailed descriptions of the management measures, where they are intended to be applied, their
effectiveness, and their costs can be found in EPA’s Guidance Specifying Management Measures
for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters at the following website:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/MMGI/.

Within North Carolina, Coastal Nonpoint Source Program (CNPSP) is administered by the
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) and the Division of Coastal Management (DCM).
The core of the state’s CNPSP is increased communication and coordination between DWQ and
key state agencies that have regulatory responsibilities for controlling nonpoint sources of
pollution. This increased dialogue is facilitated in part by the state’s CNPSP Coordinator and
promotes identification of gaps, duplications, inadequacies and/or inefficiencies of existing
programs and policies. Responsibilities of the state program coordinator also include developing
the 15-year Strategy Plan, serving as a liaison between DWQ and DCM, and participating in the
development of nonpoint source outreach and educational activities. For more information,
contact the NC Coastal Nonpoint Source Program Coordinator at [phone], ext. 567.

CNPSP Evaluation
Since obtaining federal approval of its program in 2003, North Carolina made significant
progress in implementing the management measures of the state’s CNPSP. This finding is based
90 Management Strategies
on a review of a range of programs, actions and initiatives of state agencies, local governments,
cooperating federal agencies and regulatory and non-regulatory programs between 2002 (the
year the State’s plan received preliminary federal approval) and 2006, which focus directly or
indirectly on avoiding, reducing, and/or treating nonpoint source pollution in the coastal
counties.

North Carolina met three of the four objectives of its CNPSP Five-Year Action Plan: 2004-2008,
as a result of program improvements and initiatives listed below:

• Working with other agencies to improve data management capabilities and distribution to
more effectively address nonpoint source impacts;
• Improving implementation and enforcement of existing regulations and programs and
• Developing effective and dynamic education and outreach programs.

Progress on the fourth objective, reducing fecal loading into impaired SA waters, continues to be
challenging. North Carolina faces enormous environmental challenges as a consequence of
population growth and development. With most of the state’s oceanfront developed, large tracts
along the estuarine shoreline and adjacent to the Intracoastal Waterway are being developed.
The CNPSP’s greatest challenges for the foreseeable future lie in strengthening the state’s
stormwater management programs to achieve real protection for unimpaired waters, while
facilitating significant restoration of impaired waters coast-wide. The NC CNPSP will continue
working to establish and strengthen programs and tools to offset the impacts associated with
growth in this sensitive and vital region of the state.

Coastal population growth and development will continue to strain local and state government
resources. Of great concern is the fact that current state and local land use planning and
environmental management programs are not sufficient to address coastal nonpoint source
pollution. Therefore, the NC CNPSP intends to pursue improvements in the following major
program areas:

I. Developing Partnerships and NPS Implementation Tools with Local Governments

In North Carolina, local governments have primary responsibility for planning and managing
growth within the framework of state law and regulations. Most development activities are
reviewed by, approved or denied by appointed and elected local government boards comprised of
citizens. They are volunteers often with some or limited training on the technical issues of land
use, transportation and stormwater management.

Neither state agencies nor local governments alone can address the complexities of development
and environmental sustainability. An integrated approach that incorporates training and the
development of implementation tools with more formalized technical assistance and grants, as
incentives should be explored. Some excellent building blocks for an integrated local
government assistance program include DCM’s land use planning program and community
planners; the University of North Carolina’s School of Government training programs; the NC
Chapter of the American Planning Association citizen planners training program, Sea Grant’s
Water Quality Planner; the NC National Estuarine Research Reserve’s Coastal Training
Program, the Cooperative Extension Service’s Growth Readiness program, the county
Cooperative Extension Service programs, the Clean Water Management Trust Fund, the

Management Strategies 91
Ecosystem Enhancement Program’s local watershed plans and the Clean Water State Revolving
Loan Fund.

II. Improving Stormwater Management

While progress has been significant, major challenges to managing and eliminating stormwater
impacts remain. Although North Carolina’s coastal stormwater rules have been in effect for over
15 years, DWQ staff, other resource management agencies and many citizens believe the rules
are ineffective. In January 2007, DWQ issued rules for a new stormwater program for local
governments, the Universal Stormwater Management Program (USMP).

The USMP improves on the current rules by essentially eliminating the ability to avoid use of
stormwater best management practices (BMPs) by staying below certain impervious thresholds.
USMP strengthens other provisions as well, including treatment of a larger stormwater volume
and providing attenuation of larger flows. While USMP would improve protections, it is only a
voluntary option.

In recognition of the inability of existing rules to reduce the water quality impacts of stormwater
and the need for stronger minimum mandatory measures, the DWQ is proposing changes to the
coastal stormwater rules that are similar to the USMP but not quite as protective, requiring
instead engineered stormwater treatment devices for all development adjacent to high quality
coastal waters that have more than 12 percent built-upon area. The rules will also require the use
of control measures that result in fecal coliform die off and control sources of fecal coliform.

Compliance with the stormwater rules is a significant issue. NC CNPSP funded inspections of a
significant number of permit renewal sites in DWQ’s Wilmington Regional Office region and
found that approximately 35 percent were not in compliance. Approximately 8 percent of the
sites had installation problems or design deficiencies and 2 percent exceeded the impervious area
limits. Lack of routine maintenance was the main cause of non-compliance in the majority of
inspected sites.

There is not enough DWQ field staff to inspect every site, and this situation is compounded by
insufficient and incorrect information on these sites in DWQ’s permit tracking system. A grant
from the CNPSP is funding a DWQ effort to develop a field inspection form, inspect a subset of
permitted sites that will be up for renewal in 2007 and 2008 and develop a consistent method for
processing renewal permits and entering the data in DWQ’s tracking system. This work should
be completed by December 2007.

The increase in development in the coastal counties has resulted in the construction of hundreds
of roads servicing subdivisions. Under current state law the state Department of Transportation
(DOT) can be petitioned to designate roads as public and be maintained by DOT. DOT District
Engineers review subdivision maps and/or plats for conformance with the state’s minimum
construction standards. They also review the stormwater facilities operations and maintenance
plan required as part of this process. Coordination between the regional offices of DWQ and the
appropriate DOT district offices on pending state stormwater permits could result in
improvements in the proposed drainage plans and implementation of appropriate stormwater
BMPs, including minimizing stormwater through site design.

92 Management Strategies
Local governments have primary responsibility to plan for and manage growth in their
jurisdictions. While many coastal counties and municipal governments are making progress on
stormwater management, a 2006 UNC School of Government survey of local ordinances found
that while 18 of the 20 coastal counties have subdivision ordinances, only eight have stormwater
ordinances effective throughout their jurisdiction, two have partial coverage and only seven have
erosion and sediment control ordinances. Without improvements to local government
development ordinances, local stormwater management and enforcement, coastal water quality
will continue to be compromised.

III. Improving Management of Marinas and Recreational Boating

There are approximately 450 marinas in coastal North Carolina and over 100 shops where boats
are built. There are thousands of private docks and piers as well. In the first seven months of
2006, DCM approved 53 major permit applications that added 340 private boat slips to coastal
waters. Of these almost 90 were new residential multi-slip docking facilities. In addition, DCM
issued approximately 1200 general permits in 2006 for small docks/piers of one or two slips (GP
07H .1200). At a minimum, these general permits added 1200 new residential boat slips in the
state’s coastal waters in one year.

The CNPSP funded a unified marina policy project, and the project Steering Committee
concluded that the state should focus on improving management of facilities with 3-10 slips.
These multi-slip docking facilities currently are not subject to the more comprehensive state
regulatory review required of marinas; yet their locations and numbers are believed to have
significant impact on water quality and fragile coastal habitat. The DCM and Marine Fisheries
are cooperatively developing guidance on placement of structures in shallow waters and the
DCM has made changes to its major permit application for marinas and multi-slip docking
facilities to capture more detailed information.

The DWQ is conducting a marina and boatyard study to: 1) better understand the services and
activities common to marinas, boatyards, and manufacturers, 2) determine if these facilities are
properly covered by a NPDES stormwater permit (NCG190000), 3) understand types/frequency
of process wastewater discharges that occur at these facilities and 4) sample process wastewater
in order to understand and characterize waste streams.

The state law governing the designation of no-wake zones should be amended to allow
designation to protect estuarine and river shorelines and shallow water habitats.

IV. Developing Best Management Practices Guidance for Hydromodification Projects

Many ditches and canals in coastal North Carolina were first excavated for agriculture and
forestry. Their management and maintenance continues to be exempt from state environmental
review even though many are now managed for flood control purposes. Coastal counties and
local governments have developed, or are in the process of developing stormwater management
plans that include maintaining some existing drainage canals and ditches to avoid flooding of
residential and commercial development. These maintenance activities can adversely impact
water quality as well as riparian vegetation and fresh water and estuarine resources. Routine
maintenance to remove debris from these canals and ditches, and cleanup in response to storm
damage, is done in the absence of comprehensive guidance that could minimize the
environmental impacts.

Management Strategies 93
The DENR should establish an interagency working group to develop guidance on best
management practices for routine and emergency maintenance activities. Adherence to this
guidance should be required, at a minimum, for maintenance and management projects funded
under the state’s water resources development grants and the Clean Water Management Trust
Fund. The working group could also consider developing a hands-on training program for
contractors who conduct snagging and clearing activities, similar in intent to the Clear Water
Contractor workshops conducted by the Division of Land Resources.

The working group should include representatives of the Divisions of Water Resources, DWQ,
Forest Resources, Division of Soil and Water Conservation, Marine Fisheries, DCM, the
Wildlife Resources Commission and the Ecosystem Enhancement Program, along with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Natural Resources Conservation
Service.

V. Updating Information for Decision Making

The most recent land-cover information for North Carolina is based on 1997 imagery. Given the
significant increases in population and development in the coastal counties, the use of ten-year
old information does not allow for analysis of current conditions. North Carolina needs to
update the state’s land cover information and develop a funding and planning mechanism for
continued updating on a 3-5 year basis.

10.4 Community Conservation Assistance Program

The landscape of North Carolina is changing and Soil and Water Conservation Districts have
voiced concern about a void in program areas to address the growing threat of nonpoint source
pollution issues on non-agricultural lands. In the summer of 2005, a survey was distributed to all
districts to inventory their level of interest and best management practices (BMP) needs on
urban, suburban and rural lands. Many districts completed surveys about their needs for this
program, and they requested over $6.5 million for local projects. Division staff used the survey
responses to develop two grant applications for program funding. In July 2006, while the grant
applications were still under review, the legislature unanimously passed H2129, creating the
Community Conservation Assistance Program (CCAP). Shortly after, both grants were approved
at 100 percent funding. An additional survey was completed in fall 2006, and 40 districts
responded with needs for CCAP BMPs. A grant was submitted on behalf of those districts
during the March 2007 application cycle for the Clean Water Management Trust Fund. If
awarded, this grant will impact several counties in this river basin.

Current Status
CCAP will support the installation of stormwater BMPs. This program is an innovative approach
to controlling the amount and quality of stormwater runoff that enters our surface waters.
Through locally led conservation, the Division of Soil and Water Conservation (DSWC) and Soil
and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD) have been successful in implementing voluntary
agricultural BMPs, which have addressed many different water quality parameters. The intent is
for CCAP to operate under the same guidance and accountability as the NC Agriculture Cost
Share Program and achieve the same successes.

CCAP will focus its efforts on stormwater retrofits to existing land uses. It will not be used to
assist in new development sites to meet state and federal stormwater mandates. Districts have the
94 Management Strategies
technical expertise to install stormwater BMPs and a successful history of promoting voluntary
conservation practices. The program will give the districts the structure and financial assistance
to carry out this mission. CCAP will encourage local governments, individual landowners and
businesses to incorporate stormwater BMPs within their landscape. The economic incentive, 75
percent of average installation costs, will encourage voluntary conservation.

Standards and specifications for 15 CCAP BMPs have been approved by the Soil and Water
Conservation Commission. These practices include: impervious surface conversion, permeable
pavement, grassed swale, critical area planting, bioretention areas, backyard rain gardens,
stormwater wetlands, backyard wetlands, diversion, riparian buffer, stream restoration,
streambank and shoreline protection, cisterns, abandoned well closure and pet waste receptacles.

Funding
The DSWC was recently awarded two grants that will fund CCAP implementation in 17 counties
across the state. The DSWC received a grant from the Clean Water Management Trust Fund in
the sum of $557,000 and an award from the Section 319 Clean Water Act grant program for
$277,425. Since this is a grant funded program to date, only districts that participated in the
surveys will receive an allocation. The maximum amount of assistance per practice is limited to
$50,000. It is the program’s goal to seek additional funding sources, including recurring state
appropriations, to offer this program statewide in the future. The DSWC and districts are excited
about the possibilities that this program offers in addressing current stormwater pollution issues.

10.5 The Role of Local Government in Land Use Planning

As residential and commercial development expands inward from the coast, many local
governments are now faced with making land use decisions to limit the extent and areas of land
development. Several coastal counties do not have zoning ordinances, or have large areas of the
county that are not under zoning ordinances. In addition, property owners are being faced with
the decision to continue historical uses of their land or sell their property for development. This
is happening in both rural and coastal communities. According to a recent survey conducted by
the Raleigh News and Observer, more than 34,000 houses and condominiums are planned or
underway in the 20-county area of the coast from Currituck County to Brunswick County.

10.5.1 Land Use Plans

The Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) requires each of the 20 coastal counties to have a
local Land Use Plan (LUP) in accordance with guidelines established by the Coastal Resources
Commission (CRC). A land use plan is a collection of policies, maps, and implementation
actions that serves as a community’s blueprint for growth. Each land use plan includes an
inventory and assessment of existing environmental conditions along with local policies and a
future land use map that address growth issues related to designated Management Topics: land
use compatibility, infrastructure carrying capacity, natural hazards, public access, areas of local
concern, and water quality.

Inventory and assessments specific to water quality include the identification of existing surface
water quality, current situations and trends on permanent and temporary closures of shellfish
waters, areas with chronic wastewater treatment system malfunctions, areas with water quality or
public health problems related to nonpoint source pollution, and locations where land use and
water quality conflicts exist. Policies to address water quality issues are prepared based on the

Management Strategies 95
management goal, CRC planning objective, and land use plan requirements specified for the
water quality Management Topic. For water quality, the management goal is to maintain,
protect, and where possible, enhance water quality in all coastal wetlands, rivers, streams, and
estuaries. The CRC’s planning objective is for communities to adopt policies for coastal waters
within the planning jurisdiction to help ensure that water quality is maintained if not impaired
and improved if impaired. Local communities are required to devise policies that help prevent or
control nonpoint source discharges (sewage and stormwater) through strategies such as
impervious surface limits, vegetated riparian buffers, maintenance of natural areas, and wetland
protection. They are also required to establish policies and future land use map categories that
are aimed at protecting open shellfishing waters and restoring closed or conditionally closed
shellfishing waters.

The CRC's guidelines provide a common format for each plan and a set of issues that must be
considered during the planning process; however, the policies included in the plan are those of
the local government, not of the CRC. By law, the role of the CRC is limited to determining that
plans have been prepared consistent with State Land Use Plan guidelines, do not conflict with
State or Federal rules, and are consistent with the State’s Coastal Management program. Once a
land use plan is certified by the CRC, the Division of Coastal Management uses the plan in
making CAMA permit decisions and federal consistency determinations. Proposed projects and
activities must be consistent with the policies of a local land use plan or DCM cannot permit a
project to go forward.

At the local level, land use plans provide guidance for both individual projects and a broad range
of policy issues, such as the development of regulatory ordinances and public investment
programs. Although DCM monitors use of the land use plans through an implementation status
report, strict adherence to land use plan policies and implementation actions is largely up to the
local government. For this reason, community and local official support of the land use plan is
critical to successfully achieving the goals for each management topic, including water quality.

10.5.2 Land Use Plans for Communities in the Chowan River Basin

More information and a list of CAMA LUPs are available from the Division of Coastal
Management website: http://www.nccoastalmanagement.net/Planning/planning.htm. The
following Table 23 presents counties and their municipalities within the Chowan River Basin
and their status on completing a CAMA Land Use Plan.

Table 23 Local Planning Jurisdictions
Locality CAMA Land Use Plan CRC Certification
Progress (as of March 2007)
Multi-County
Planning County Municipality CRC
Certified
Review &
Revisions
Under State
Review
In
Process
REGION Q
Mid-East Commission Bertie X
REGION R:
The Albemarle Commission Chowan Edenton X
REGION R:
The Albemarle Commission Gates 2005
REGION Q
Mid-East Commission Hertford X

96 Management Strategies
Chowan County/Town of Edenton LUP
Chowan County and the Town of Edenton are planning for moderate growth over the next 20
years, recognizing that most of this growth with be along the waterways. The LUP recognizes
that waterfronts with public access are important to maintain with impending development along
the waterways. The LUP specifically identifies current land use trends that conflict with
protecting water quality. These land uses include: loss of natural open spaces and riparian
buffers, residential development in previous agricultural and forested lands, along major road
corridors, near the airport, and in the 100 year floodplains, impact of large scale residential
developments and small lot development in areas with soils that have septic system limitations.
The LUP recognizes the soil conditions limits urban uses and the suitability of septic tanks and
therefore, centralized sewer facilities are needed to support urban development. Water quality
management in the LUP includes policy development to limit nonpoint source runoff, limit
impervious surfaces, and to protect and maintain vegetated riparian buffers and wetlands.
Policies will focus on protecting un-impaired waters and restoring those waters that are impaired.
The plan includes support for long-term water and wastewater improvements to provide
countywide sewer service. Cluster subdivision designs are supported to help manage growth and
only to be allowed in areas serviced by public utilities. Private package wastewater treatment
plants are supported but under the conditions that if the system is noncompliant than the plant
will become a public facility. A stormwater management plan is proposed, pending funding, to
help formulate local ordinances. The LUP identifies a policy dependent on DWQ and Division
of Coastal Management guidance for protecting water quality in regards to potential threats of
development along waterfronts, wetlands, rivers and streams.

Gates County LUP
The LUP states that water quality protection is an issue with contamination occurring from
stormwater runoff and failing septic systems. State and Federal agencies are identified as the
main assets to help implement and regulate water quality protection programs. The county plans
to maintain its rural character through protecting open spaces, natural resources, and public trust
waters, balancing residential and commercial growth with promoting smart growth, and
discouraging strip development along State maintained roads. Development is limited without
the construction of a central public sewage system because of poor soils conditions, which
prevent septic systems from functioning properly. Objective’s identified that will protect water
quality include establishing criteria to support cluster subdivision design, local buffers,
impervious surface limits, innovative stormwater controls and supporting the State’s efforts to
restore shellfish harvesting waters. However, many of the LUP’s goals, objectives and policies
are vague and rely on State and Federal laws for enforcement.

Land Use Plan Critiques
After review of several CAMA LUP drafts, DWQ recommends that all communities adopt low
impact development strategies and technologies for both new development and as options in
retrofitting existing infrastructure. It is important for communities to undertake stronger
stormwater controls and to update old or failing wastewater systems (e.g., on-site and treatment
plants) to prevent future deterioration in water quality. Communities need to address
development issues in regards to water quality by implementing the best available control
options and by implementing enforcement. DWQ views LUPs as a tool to improve and protect
the water quality that these communities’ economies depend on. Unfortunately, many of the
reviewed LUPs do not adequately reflect proactive planning above and beyond state minimum
criteria. DWQ also recognizes and supports the importance of low impact development and
appropriate technologies education for developers and local leaders. Overall, LUP policy

Management Strategies 97
framework is too general. A large number of policies address adoption of ordinances and
procedures by the local government, or defer to the State and Federal agencies’ rules to meet the
LUP requirements. The policies should provide specific guidance to aid in the development of
local ordinances and procedures, not merely state that they will be adopted.

An evaluation of 40 CAMA LUPs written during the mid 1990’s concluded, “local planning
efforts are procedurally strong, addressing the ranges of issues they are required to cover, but
analytically and substantively weak, providing little meaningful attention to regional
environmental protection concerns” (Norton, 2005). This evaluation found that many LUPs
completed the various required analyses in regards to identifying hazards, flood zones, soil
limitations and environmentally sensitive areas, but later in the plan made future land
classifications for development with no reference to these analyses (e.g., high density
development on oceanfront property zoned as high hazard) (Norton, 2005). The plans did not
adequately explain how land was determined suitable for future growth and development and did
not adequately address potential adverse environmental impacts, beyond state compliance
standards (Norton, 2005). Almost all the communities addressed the environmental impacts and
thus need for improved wastewater systems, but “they uniformly failed to discuss the potential
growth-inducing effects and resulting environmental impacts that come with infrastructure
expansions” (Norton, 2005). In addition, stormwater management was addressed for controlling
runoff and associated flooding, but did not address the water quality related issues associated
with stormwater management (Norton, 2005). In conclusion, regional environmental concerns
and cumulative and secondary impacts of development were not addressed with specific
management strategies in the LUPs.

10.6 Management Recommendations for Local Governments

Below is a summary of management actions recommended for local authorities, followed by
discussions on large, watershed management issues. These actions are necessary to address
current sources of impairment and to prevent future degradation in all streams. The intent of
these recommendations is to describe the types of actions necessary to improve stream
conditions, not to specify particular administrative or institutional mechanisms for implementing
remedial practices. Those types of decisions must be made at the local level.

Because of uncertainties regarding how individual remedial actions cumulatively impact stream
conditions and in how aquatic organisms will respond to improvements, the intensity of
management effort necessary to bring about a particular degree of biological improvement
cannot be established in advance. The types of actions needed to improve biological conditions
can be identified, but the mix of activities that will be necessary – and the extent of improvement
that will be attainable – will only become apparent over time as an adaptive management
approach is implemented. Management actions are suggested below to address individual
problems, but many of these actions are interrelated (NCDENR-DWQ, 2003).

(1) Feasible and cost-effective stormwater retrofit projects should be implemented throughout
the watershed to mitigate the hydrologic effects of development (e.g., increased stormwater
volumes and increased frequency and duration). This should be viewed as a long-term
process.

(a) Over the short term, currently feasible retrofit projects should be identified
and implemented.
98 Management Strategies
(b) In the long term, additional retrofit opportunities should be implemented in
conjunction with infrastructure improvements and redevelopment of existing
developed areas.
(c) Grant funds for these retrofit projects may be available from EPA initiatives,
such as EPA Section 319 funds, or the North Carolina Clean Water
Management Trust Fund.

(2) A watershed scale strategy to address inputs should be developed and implemented,
including a variety of source reduction and stormwater treatment methods. As an initial
framework for planning input reduction efforts, the following general approach is proposed:

(a) Implementation of available best management practice (BMP) opportunities
for control of stormwater volume and velocities. As recommended above to
improve aquatic habitat potential, these BMPs will also remove pollutants
from stormwater.
(b) Development of a stormwater and dry weather sampling strategy in order to
facilitate the targeting of pollutant removal and source reduction practices.
(c) Implementation of stormwater treatment BMPs, aimed primarily at pollutant
removal, at appropriate locations.
(d) Development and implementation of a broad set of source reduction
activities focused on: reducing nonstorm inputs of toxics; reducing
pollutants available for runoff during storms; and managing water to reduce
storm runoff.

(3) Actions recommended above (e.g., stormwater quantity and quality retrofit BMPs) are likely
to reduce nutrient/organic/bacterial loading, and to some extent, its impacts. Activities
recommended to address this loading include the identification and elimination of illicit
discharges; education of homeowners, commercial applicators, and others regarding proper
fertilizer use, street sweeping, catch basin clean-out practices, animal and human waste
management, and the installation of additional BMPs targeting biological oxygen demand
(BOD) and nutrient removal at appropriate sites.

(4) Prevention of further degradation will require effective post-construction stormwater
management for all new development in the study area.

(5) Effective enforcement of sediment and erosion control regulations will be essential to the
prevention of additional sediment inputs from construction activities. Development of improved
erosion and sediment control practices may also be beneficial.

(6) Watershed education programs should be implemented and continued by local governments
with the goal of reducing current stream damage and preventing future degradation. At a
minimum, the program should include elements to address the following issues:

(a) Redirecting downspouts to pervious areas rather than routing these flows to
driveways or gutters;
(b) Protecting existing woody riparian areas on all streams;
(c) Replanting native riparian vegetation on stream channels where such
vegetation is absent;
(d) Reducing and properly managing pesticide and fertilizer use;
(e) Reducing and properly managing animal waste; and
(f) Reducing and properly managing septic systems.

Management Strategies 99
10.7 Planning for Sea Level Changes

Sea level rise will adversely impact North Carolina’s coastline and specifically the northern
coastline because of its underlying geologic structure (Riggs and Ames, 2003). There is a
predicted acceleration in coastal erosion and an increase in estuarine shoreline erosion if oceanic
processes are altered by increased barrier island elevation through natural or human
modifications (Riggs and Ames, 2003). Major loss of land is predicted in Currituck, Camden,
Dare, Hyde, Tyrrell, Pamlico and Carteret counties if glacial melting rates increase significantly,
as projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Riggs and Ames, 2003; IPCC,
2001).

Drowning the North Carolina Coast: Sea-Level Rise and Estuarine Dynamics by S. Riggs and D.
Ames (2003) published by North Carolina Sea Grant provides information specifically
addressing northeastern NC. This book provides images and figures explaining sea level rise and
coastal erosion. This book should be used as a resource for coastal town and municipality
planners as new developments, utility infrastructure and other land use decisions are made.
Several universities are researching the impacts of sea level rise on North Carolina’s coastal
economy, more information about their findings can be found at the website:
http://econ.appstate.edu/climate/. Information about sea level forecasts being developed by
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association and several universities in North Carolina can be
found at: http://www.cop.noaa.gov/stressors/climatechange/current/slr/welcome.html.

10.8 Using Land Use Planning as a Tool to Reduce Impacts of Future
Development

Many communities are looking at the challenges and opportunities that development offers to
their communities seriously. Outside of the Chowan River basin, the town of Bath approved a 6-
month moratorium on new subdivisions to allow them time to assess how the town wanted to
develop its remaining waterfronts lots and where the town needed to protect its resources.
Camden County extended a moratorium on new subdivisions until a new school can be
completed to hold the additional students the county is experiencing. In addition, Pamlico
County approved an ordinance to limit density and height of developments along the water. The
neighborhood of Woodsong in Shallotte drains to Lockwoods Folly which is Impaired for
shellfish harvesting. The development will use pervious concrete to collect stormwater and a
man-made wetland to help treat it, as well as courtyard gardens to treat runoff before it goes to a
collection system. The developer notes that degradation of the environment does not have to
follow development, but believes a quality lifestyle is being sold by clustering home sites and
creating large common areas. These types of development activities point to a growing market
for developments like these; socially, financially and environmentally viable.

Proactive planning efforts at the local level are needed to assure that development is done in a
manner that maintains water quality. These planning efforts can find a balance between water
quality protection, natural resource management, and economic growth. These actions are
critical to water quality management and the quality of life for the residents of the basin. DWQ’s
review of draft CAMA Land Use Plans finds that the planning efforts do not adequately protect
water quality. Many plans do not consider the cumulative impact from development on water
quality. Land Use Plans need to incorporate proactive measures to meet future growth demands
to prevent water quality deterioration.
100 Management Strategies

To prevent further impairment in urbanizing
watersheds local governments should:

(1) Identify waters that are threatened by
development.
(2) Protect existing riparian habitat along streams.
(3) Implement stormwater BMPs during and after
development.
(4) Develop land use plans that minimize
disturbance in sensitive areas of watersheds.
(5) Minimize impervious surfaces including roads
and parking lots.
(6) Develop public outreach programs to educate
citizens about stormwater runoff.

Action needs be taken at the local level to plan for
new development in urban and rural areas. For more detailed information regarding
recommendations for new development found in the text box (above), refer to EPA’s website at
www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/wacademy/acad2000/protection, the Center for Watershed
Protection website at www.cwp.org, and the Low Impact Development Center website at
www.lowimpactdevelopment.org. Additional information regarding environmental stewardship
for coastal homeowners is available at http://www.soil.ncsu.edu/assist/coastindex.html. Further
public education is also needed in the Chowan River basin in order for citizens to understand the
value of urban planning and stormwater management. For an example of local community
planning effort to reduce stormwater runoff, visit http://www.charmeck.org/Home.htm.

10.9 The Importance of Local Initiatives

As the Basinwide Planning Program completes its third cycle of plan development, there are
many efforts being undertaken at the local level to improve water quality. DWQ encourages
local agencies and organizations to learn about and become active in their watersheds.

An important benefit of local initiatives is that local people make decisions that affect change in
their own communities. There are a variety of limitations local initiatives can overcome
including: state government budgets, staff resources, lack of regulations for nonpoint sources,
the rulemaking process, and many others.

These local organizations and agencies are able to combine professional expertise in a watershed,
which allows 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 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 become available, and it is easier to generate necessary matching or
leveraging funds. This will potentially allow local entities to do more work and be involved in
more activities because their funding sources are diversified. The most important aspect of these
local endeavors is that the more localized the project, the better the chances for success. Federal
and State government agencies are interested in assisting local governments and citizen groups in
developing their water quality management programs.
Planning Recommendations
for New Development
• Minimize number and width of
residential streets.
• Minimize size of parking areas
(angled parking & narrower slots).
• Place sidewalks on only one side of
residential streets.
• Minimize culvert pipe and hardened
stormwater conveyances.
• Vegetate road right-of-ways, parking
lot islands and highway dividers to
increase infiltration.
• Plant and protect natural buffer
zones along streams and tributaries.

Management Strategies 101

The collaboration of these local efforts are key to water quality improvements. There are good
examples of local agencies and groups using these cooperative strategies throughout the state.

10.9.1 Federal Clean Water Act – Section 319 Program

Section 319 of the Clean Water Act provides grant money for nonpoint source demonstration and
restoration projects, listed in Table 24. Through annual base funding, there is approximately $1
million available for demonstration and education projects across the state. An additional $2
million is available annually through incremental funds for restoration projects. All projects
must provide nonfederal 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 (NPS). Information on the North Carolina Section 319 Grant Program application
process is available online at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nps/application_process.htm.
Descriptions of projects and general Section 319 Program information are available at
http://www.ncwaterquality.org/nps/Section_319_Grant_Program.htm.

Many Section 319 projects are demonstration projects and educational programs that allow for
the dissemination of information to the public through established programs at NC State
University (NCSU) and the NC Cooperative Extension. Other projects fund stream restoration
activities that improve water quality.

Table 24 Section 319 Grant Funded Projects in the Chowan River Basin
Fiscal
Year Name Description Agency Amount
2000
Evaluation and Demo of Stream &
Riparian Wetlands Restoration and
Construction
Wetlands & Hydrologic
Modification NCSU $140,000
2000
Background Monitoring & Evaluation
for Proposed Golf Course BMPs in
Chowan River Basin Coastal NPS, Monitoring NCSU $22,264
2004 Evaluation of Proposed Golf Courses in
Chowan River Basin BMP Implementation NCSU $107,124
2004 Gates County Environmental Education
Program Education
Gates County
SWCD $2,965
Total Funding $272,353

10.9.2 NC Construction Grants and Loans Programs

The NC Construction Grants and Loans Section 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 later two being
below market revolving loan money. In the Chowan River basin, the Town of Rich Square
102 Management Strategies
received a total of $ 2,999,940 in grants and loans to help fund the replacement and rehabilitation
of sewer collection system lines and for a wastewater reuse project.

As a technical resource, the Construction Grants and Loan Section, in conjunction with the
Environmental Protection Agency, has initiated the Municipal Compliance Initiative Program. It
is a free technical assistance program to identify wastewater treatment facilities that are declining
but not yet out of compliance. A team of engineers, operations experts and managers from the
section work with local officials to analyze the facility’s design and operation. For more
information, visit the website at http://www.nccgl.net/. You may also call (919)-715-6212 or
email [e-mail].

10.9.3 North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program

The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) combines an existing wetlands-restoration
initiative by the DENR with ongoing efforts by the NC Department of Transportation (DOT) to
offset unavoidable environmental impacts from transportation-infrastructure improvements. The
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers joined as a sponsor in the historic agreement, which is committed
to restoring, enhancing and protecting the wetlands and waterways across the State of North
Carolina. EEP can provide:

• High-quality, cost-effective projects for watershed improvement and protection;
• Compensation for unavoidable environmental impacts associated with
transportation-infrastructure and economic development; and
• Detailed watershed-planning and project-implementation efforts within North
Carolina's threatened or degraded watersheds.

EEP can perform restoration projects cooperatively with other state or federal programs or
environmental groups. For example EEP efforts can complement projects funded through the
Section 319 Program. Integrating wetlands or riparian area restoration components with Section
319 funded or proposed projects will often improve the overall water quality and habitat benefits
of the project. EEP actively seeks landowners throughout the state that have restorable wetland,
riparian, and stream restoration sites. For more information about EEP, visit
http://www.nceep.net/ or call [phone].

10.9.4 Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program

The Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP) was established by Congress
“for the purpose of protecting important coastal and estuarine areas that have significant
conservation, recreation, ecological, historical, or aesthetic values, or that are threatened by
conversion from their natural or recreational state to other uses.” The program provides funding
for projects that ensure conservation of these areas for the benefit of future generations, giving
priority to lands that can be effectively managed and protected and that have significant
ecological value. The Division of Coastal Management administers the CELCP program in
North Carolina. For more information on funding opportunities and guidelines see
http://www.nccoastalmanagement.net/Facts/CELCP.htm.

10.9.5 Clean Water Management Trust Fund

The Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF) offers approximately $40 million annually
in grants for projects within the broadly focused areas of restoring and protecting state surface

Management Strategies 103
waters and establishing a network of riparian buffers and greenways. In the Chowan River
basin, 13 projects have been funded for a total of $20,042,810. A description of the projects are
listed in Table 25. For more information on the CWMTF or these grants, call [phone] or
visit the website at www.cwmtf.net.

Table 25 Clean Water Management Trust Fund Projects in the Chowan River Basin
Project
Number Application Name Proposed Project Description Amount
Funded
1997A-129
Seaboard -WWTP
Improvements and Sewer
Rehabilitation
Repair and expand failing WWTP (lagoons) and land
application system. Expansion needed to deal with excessive
I&I. Project finished under budget and Board approved I&I
repairs. $1,037,000
1997B-017
Edenton - Chowan
Develop. Corp-
Acq/Constructed
Wetlands
Acq 54-acre Bayliner tract. Construct 20-ac & 1-ac wetlands to
treat runoff from 200 acres. Trade 12 ac of 54-ac Bayliner
Tract for 60-ac John Island Tract, incl 1 ac west of airport for
conversion to wetland for airport & industrial park runoff. $880,000
1999A-406
Edenton, Town of -
Edenton Bay Watershed
Restoration Program
Protect through fee simple puchase and conservation
easements 1340 ac. Acquire and remediate George Jones hog
farm and Ashley Welding. Remediate former landfill and
fertilizer complex and convert fish hatchery ponds to
stormwater ponds. $3,285,810
2001B-702
Chowan County-
Stormwater Wetland/
Chowan River &
Albemarle Sound
Construct a stormwater wetland and buffers to treat runoff
(244 acre watershed) from the Chowan Golf Course & Country
Club. Includes a chemical handling facility, donated
conservation easment, and water quality monitoring. $414,000
2002B-606
Powellsville, Town of -
Waste Treatment Facility
Construction/Ahoskie Cr.
Eliminate 168 failing septic tanks in the Town by constructing
a collection system and land application waste treatment
facility. Would reduce pollutant delivery to Ahoskie Creek.
Includes acquisition of 379 acres for land application. $475,000
2001B-033
NC Wildlife Resources
Commission - Chowan
River Tracts
Acquire through fee simple purchase 19 tracts to protect 6,466
acres along the Chowan River and tributaries (Buckhorn,
Barnes, Sarem, Cole, Catherine, Warwick, & Keel). $3,000,000
2004B-504
Colerain, Town of - WW/
Emergency Stand-by
Generator
Purchase emergency generator and install at Town's main
wastewater pump station. Reduce spills of wastewater from
this facility during power outages and impact on Chowan
River. $17,000
2004B-701
Edenton, Town of -
Storm/ Stormwater
System Design, Queen
Ann Creek
Design and permit a stormwater management system to treat
runoff from a 40-acre drainage area (55% impervious). If
eventually constructed, the system would reduce stormwater
discharges and pollutant delivery to Queen Ann Creek. $68,000
2006A-806
Chowan County-
Plan/Storm/ Stormwater
Drainage Study
Fund development of a countywide water quality management
and improvement plan to establish stormwater infrastructure
needs. Adopt ordinances, identify top priorities for
implementation, and designate special use water management
districts. $85,000
2006A-501
Ahoskie, Town of - WW/
Nucor Steel Reuse
project, Ahoskie Creek
Construct consumptive reuse faclilities and force main to
Nucor Steel Plate Mill, which will use from 0.8 to 1.3 MGD
reuse water from the Ahoskie WWTP, instead of groundwater.
Ahoskie's existing plant flow will be decreased from 0.9 to 0.3
MGD. $3,000,000
2006A-017
Nature Conservancy, The
- Acq/ IP Timber Tracts,
Chowan River
Protect through fee simple purchase 8,682 acres, including
1,343 riparian acres, along the Chowan, Meherrin, and
Wiccacon Rivers. Project would aid in the protection of an
extensive swamp forest system and would become part of the
NC Game Land Program. $7,210,000
104 Management Strategies
2006B-703
Colerain, Town of -
Storm/ Constructed
Wetland, Chowan River
Design, permit & construct stormwater BMPs to treat
stormwater from a 37-ac watershed prior to discharge to the
Chowan River & help to control floodwaters into the Town's
sewage system. Includes constructed wetlands and stream
stabilization. $71,000
2006A-527
Seaboard, Town of- WW/
I&I Rehabilitation, Ivy
Creek
Rehabilitate 7,000 of sewer line along Ivy Creek. Install a
standby generator. $500,000
1997A-129
Seaboard -WWTP
Improvements and Sewer
Rehabilitation
Repair and expand failing WWTP (lagoons) and land
application system. Expansion needed to deal with excessive
I&I. Project finished under budget and Board approved I&I
repairs. $1,037,000
1997B-017
Edenton - Chowan
Develop. Corp-
Acq/Constructed
Wetlands
Acq 54-acre Bayliner tract. Construct 20-ac & 1-ac wetlands to
treat runoff from 200 acres. Trade 12 ac of 54-ac Bayliner
Tract for 60-ac John Island Tract, incl 1 ac west of airport for
conversion to wetland for airport & industrial park runoff. $880,000
1999A-406
Edenton, Town of -
Edenton Bay Watershed
Restoration Program
Protect through fee simple puchase and conservation
easements 1340 ac. Acquire and remediate George Jones hog
farm and Ashley Welding. Remediate former landfill and
fertilizer complex and convert fish hatchery ponds to
stormwater ponds. $3,285,810
Total Funded $20,042,810
This list does not include:
- all projects are in the CWMTF's Northern Coastal Plain region
- regional or statewide projects that were in multiple river basins, or
- projects that were funded and subsequently withdrawn.

10.9.6 Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program (APNEP)

In February 1987, Congress established the National Estuary Program (NEP) through
amendments to the Clean Water Act. A unique approach to resource management, its hallmark
of using science to inform and engage broad-based community involvement, collaborative
decision-making, outreach and education, distinguishes the NEP from other programs.

As the first NEP to be designated “an estuary of national significance” in November 1987, the
Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program (APNEP) was known then as the Albemarle-
Pamlico Estuarine Study (APES). The APNEP has since been joined by 27 other NEPs located
in 18 coastal states and Puerto Rico spanning the United States’ three coastlines. It is estimated
15 percent of all Americans reside in a NEP designated watershed.

Each NEP is mandated to develop a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
(CCMP) that details deteriorating/threatened environmental conditions in their estuarine region
and the strategies required for rectifying them. In November 1994, the Administrator of the EPA
accepted APNEP’s CCMP on behalf of the citizens of the United States, and Governor James B.
Hunt, Jr., accepted it on behalf of the citizens of North Carolina.

Estuaries are of significant economic value to the states under whose governance they fall, as
well as to the entire nation. It is estimated that estuaries provide habitat for approximately 75
percent of commercial fish catches in the United States and 80-90 percent of the recreational
fishery, totaling more than $1.9 billion annually. Recreation and tourism in coastal areas
generate an additional $8 to $12 billion annually. Clearly, it behooves the State to protect these
fragile, beautiful, and valuable places.

Management Strategies 105

In Chowan River basin, APNEP has supported a number of research, restoration, and
demonstration projects. Several demonstration projects are designed to mitigate the effects of
stormwater runoff and pollution. Recently, in the Chowan River basin, the APNEP has funded
projects in three locations intended to improve water quality and to aid in environmental
education: Disputanta, Virginia, and in North Carolina, Gatesville and Edenton.

The JEJ Moore Middle School schoolyard demonstration project in Disputanta, Virginia includes
an outdoor classroom, kiosk, signage, and a pedestrian nature trail that accesses an existing
natural area near the school. Eagle Scouts, volunteers, teachers and students participated in the
planning and building of this community-wide project. An observation platform is planned with
separate funding to complete the effort.

The John A. Holmes High School demonstration project in Edenton also utilized the talents of
students in its design and installation. Students use flow meters and water quality testing kits to
chart improvement of water quality going to a local stream following filtration through two rain
gardens. This project is unique because it includes a two-foot deep rock drainage system using
popped rock (“Carolina Solite”) that has an absorption capacity that is 25 percent higher than
crushed rock.

The Gatesville High School project is a collaborative venture led by the Gates County Public
Schools, the County of Gates, and local students to plan and construct a boardwalk, bridge and
observation platform through a wetland area on the school grounds. This project enhances
science teaching and learning for 640 high school students and their teachers, as well as the
general public.

APNEP also funded the Chowan River Riparian Shoreline Assessment in coordination with a
Comprehensive Coastal Inventory Program at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Data was
collected along the tidal portion of the Chowan River basin to assist with land use and shoreline
management. The program protocol includes a method for collecting, classifying, mapping, and
reporting conditions to assess riparian shorelines. The data inventory collected information from
three shore zones: 1) the immediate riparian zone, evaluated for land use; 2) the bank, evaluated
for height, stability, cover and natural protection; and 3) the shoreline, describing the presence of
shoreline structures for shore protection and recreational purposes. For more information about
project results and maps please visit http://ccrm.vims.edu/chowan/chowan_disclaimer.htm.

For information on the APNEP, visit http://www.apnep.org/
106 Management Strategies
.