Chapter 12

Chapter 12 - Management Strategies 129
Chapter 12
Water Quality Management Strategies

12.1 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 and is 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 government 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 the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, whose duties include approval of Coastal Habitat Protection Plans and designation of
Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC). After designation of these areas, the Commission 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 the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

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 NOAA 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 NC laws and regulations to minimize
redundancy and avoid conflict with other regulations, prioritize emerging coastal issues and use
adaptive management based on lessons learned.

130 Chapter 12 - Management Strategies
12.2 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

Chapter 12 - Management Strategies 131
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.

132 Chapter 12 - 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 non-point 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 non-
point 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 non-
point 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 non-point 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 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

Chapter 12 - Management Strategies 133
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 a
copy of the plan. Questions and comments can be directed to [e-mail] or by calling
[phone] or [phone].

12.3 Oyster Action Plan

Over the past several years efforts to restore North Carolina’s native oyster have increased
significantly and annual oyster harvests have also increased. However, since the early 1900’s,
the oyster population has declined an estimated 90 percent due to of a variety factors – habitat
loss, pollution, diseases, and harvest pressure. Recognizing the need for concerted action to
reverse this trend and the value of a healthy oyster population, an Oyster Forum was sponsored
by the North Carolina Coastal Federation in 2003 and is supported by state’s CHPP. The forum
participants, including scientists, fishermen, policymakers and educators, drafted the Oyster
Restoration and Protection Plan for North Carolina: A Blueprint for Action. Goals of this plan
include:

• To restore and protect North Carolina’s native oyster populations, and habitat so that
estuaries are again robust, diverse, & resilient ecosystems,
• To build broad public awareness & support for the value of estuarine conservation &
sustainable fisheries, and
• To work with a strong coalition to make significant, demonstrable & meaningful progress
towards oyster restoration in the next 3-5 years.

Within the Pasquotank River Basin, the Oyster Action Plan has identified priority areas where
restoration and protection efforts will start.

• Low Priority areas include: Stumpy Point (H3)
• Medium Priority areas include: Hatteras (H4), Outer Banks (H5), Roanoke Sound &
Croatan Sound (H1/H2)

To achieve the goals of oyster protection and restoration there needs to be an increase in funding
and resources allocated to oyster research, public education, regulation enforcement and land
acquisition. The Blueprint identifies a need to increase resources available to the Division of
Marine Fisheries’ Shellfish Rehabilitation Program, planning oyster hatcheries at the NC
Aquariums, and designating more oyster sanctuaries. Public education activities could focus on
individual actions to include oyster shell recycling and oyster gardening. To promote a
sustainable oyster industry opportunities for increasing mariculture are sought. Cleaning up
existing sources of point and nonpoint source pollution in shellfish waters and watersheds is
essential along with improving enforcement of discharge regulations. Communities not under
stormwater regulations should voluntarily implement effective stormwater rules and include
them in their CAMA Land Use Plans. DEH Shellfish Sanitation surveys are a valuable source
for identifying water quality concerns and areas that threaten oyster health; supporting these
surveys with resources and expanding their mapping capabilities is important for oyster
restoration and protection.

134 Chapter 12 - Management Strategies
12.4 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
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:

Chapter 12 - Management Strategies 135
• 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
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).
136 Chapter 12 - Management Strategies
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.

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.

Chapter 12 - Management Strategies 137
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.

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.

138 Chapter 12 - Management Strategies
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.

12.5 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
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

Chapter 12 - Management Strategies 139
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.

12.6 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 still have no 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.

12.6.1 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 assessment 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 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, natural area
140 Chapter 12 - Management Strategies
buffers, 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.

12.6.2 Land Use Plans for Communities in the Pasquotank 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. Table 28
presents counties and their municipalities within the Pasquotank River basin. The status of each
CAMA Land Use Plan is also indicated.

Table 28 Local Planning Jurisdictions
Multi-County
Planning Region R
The Albemarle Commission
CAMA Land Use Plan CRC Certification Progress
(as of March 2007)
County Municipalities CRC
Certified
Review &
Revisions
Under State
Review
In
Process
Updates in
2008
Camden 2005
Currituck X
Dare X
Gates 2005
Pasquotank Elizabeth City X
Perquimans Hertford, Winfall X
Tyrrell Columbia X
Washington X
Town of Duck 2005
Town of Southern Shores X
Town of Kitty Hawk 2005
Town of Kill Devil Hills X
Town of Nags Head X
Dare
Town of Manteo 2007

Chapter 12 - Management Strategies 141
Camden County
The LUP states the county will develop a shoreline access plan. The plan supports the reduction
of soil erosion, sedimentation, runoff to protect water quality. It also takes into consideration
countywide soil erosion and sedimentation control ordinance and a stormwater ordinance to
include retention facilities and limits to impervious surface development. The county supports
the use of BMPs for agriculture and forestry land uses. Vegetated buffers are encouraged
between any right-of-ways. The county supports the use of package sewage treatment plants
outside of proposed sewer service areas. These package plants must have a plan to assimilate
into a public plan if private operation fails. The county opposes the installation of package
sewage treatment plants and septic systems near areas classified as wetlands or natural heritage
areas, with the exception of constructed wetlands. Strict enforcement of lot size requirements is
needed for houses using septic systems.

Specific policies aimed to protect water quality include: establishing buffers along Joyce,
Areneuse and Sawyer’s Creeks and reducing nutrient runoff from developing areas along these
waterways. The county supports state water quality and coastal management policies, including
stormwater regulations. The county will rely on state and federal agencies to promote protection
of aquatic nursery habitats and the Great Dismal Swamp. The county supports cluster
development.

Currituck County
The LUP separates the county into three areas to include: Knott’s Island, the Outer Banks, and
the mainland. Knott’s Island is expected to have modest residential development and is
development limited by the soil suitability for septic systems. Many of the new residential
developments along the Outer Banks are large vacation rental units, which limit stormwater
infiltration and pose concerns for the need to establish new wastewater treatment plants.
Redevelopment includes replacing older beach cottages with large structures leading to
intensification of land use and increased residential density. The coastline of the mainland is
experiencing modest development as it is a less expensive alternative to development on the
Outer Banks. Development is likely to move inland to agricultural tracts that are already cleared,
leveled and well drained.

There are no large central sewer systems in Currituck County, but there are nine large surface
sewage treatment plants and 64 on-site wastewater treatment systems. Septic systems are the
predominate wastewater treatment option, however poor soil suitability leaves many of these
systems failing. The LUP water and sewer policies include encouraging utility service extension
to areas that are in existing developed areas and potential growth zones, where development
densities make a public system more efficient, in new areas to support new industry and
economic growth and away from environmentally sensitive areas and farmland. Package plants
are supported to allow more efficient land use; these plants will be permanently managed on an
organizational basis and may require assimilation into a central sewer system once established.

The LUP states its policy is to support actions to prevent soil erosion and sedimentation from
entering the estuarine waters, controlling quality and quantity of stormwater runoff into the
estuary, runoff from land use activities should be close to natural conditions and new
developments are required to not exceed predevelopment runoff conditions. Stormwater
management for new development requires engineering plans to include 10- year storm or 4.3
inches management. Natural vegetation, wetlands and open spaces are encouraged to maintain
pervious surface areas and vegetated buffers are encouraged to help protect water quality. A
142 Chapter 12 - Management Strategies
countywide drainage and flood management plan is to be developed to help resolve stormwater
problems.

Manteo LUP
Town of Manteo anticipates continued growth, with a higher percentage of people being retired.
Goals included in the LUP as identified by citizens of Manteo include: maintaining a small town
character, sense of community and history, protect wetlands and environmentally fragile areas
while providing public green spaces, improve water quality in Shallowbag Bay, and limit or
reduce growth to prevent exceeding the wastewater treatment plant’s capacity. With the
recognition that meeting many of the town’s goals is dependent on improving and protecting
water quality, the LUP identifies stormwater runoff, marinas, and discharge from their WWTP as
threats to water quality. In 2000 Manteo developed a Stormwater Management Plan which
identifies their stormwater conveyances as open ditches that lack capacity to convey during peak
flows and they do not treat the polluted runoff before it is discharged into surface waters. They
now have a stormwater management ordinance requiring new and redevelopment management
plans that include onsite stormwater treatments. The town is also pursuing green spaces for use
as stormwater treatment via bioretention and filtration. Shallowbag Bay was identified as one
site where stormwater management improvements could improve water quality.

Water quality and conservation policies include, encouraging low water consumption to reduce
the amount of wastewater needed to be treated, increase efficiency of the WWTP, limit
impervious surfaces, limit additional WWTP intake to the current planned and permitted
developments and encourage vegetated riparian buffers and wetlands. The LUP states one of the
main constraints to development is the limited capacity of the WWTP. The town acknowledges
that growth includes increased marina use and is encouraging marinas to become Clean Marina
Certified. The town supports island-wide water quality planning to help address environmental
protection issues that impact Manteo, but are outside the towns planning zone.

Perquimans County
Growth in Perquimans County is anticipated to occur mainly in the subdivision areas of Hertford
and Windfall. The county developed strategies to encourage residential development along
internal access roads and to discourage strip development along state roads. Development,
without the use of a centralized public sewer system, is limited because of poor soil conditions
causing technical difficulties with septic tank drain fields. The unincorporated portions of
Perquimans County rely on septic systems and Hertford currently operates a municipal
wastewater treatment system that is being improved. Windfall’s wastewater is collected and sent
to Hertford for treatment. Wastewater treatment package plants will be considered in certain
zones.

Specific water quality policies call for the enforcement of new ordinances regarding land use,
development and redevelopment activities to protect the Perquimans River, Little River, Yeopin
River and the Albemarle Sound. The LUP states the county will consider establishing criteria for
cluster housing, vegetated buffers, impervious surface limits, stormwater management
alternatives, erosion and sediment controls. The county may also amend zoning designations of
permitted and condition use density and intensity criteria. The LUP identifies stormwater
management and treatment is dependent on structures, swales and ditches associated with the
transportation system and ponds and natural areas. The county suggests a stormwater study be
completed to evaluate flood conditions and land use activities that contribute to intensified
flooding.

Chapter 12 - Management Strategies 143
Land Use Plan Critique
After review of several CAMA Land Use Plan 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 trainings for developers and local leaders. Overall, LUP policy
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.

12.7 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
144 Chapter 12 - Management Strategies
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.
(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.

Chapter 12 - Management Strategies 145
(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.

12.8 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.

12.9 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. Camden County extended a moratorium on new subdivisions until
a new school can be completed to hold the additional students resulting from the developments.
Outside of the Pasquotank 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. 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
146 Chapter 12 - Management Strategies
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. Growth management
requires planning for the needs of future population increases, as well as developing and
enforcing environmental protection measures. 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.

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 Pasquotank 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.

12.10 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
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.

Chapter 12 - Management Strategies 147
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.
This 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 are 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.

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.
The following local organizations and agencies are highlighted to share their efforts towards
water quality improvement.

12.10.1 Federal Clean Water Act – Section 319 Program

Section 319 of the Clean Water Act provides grant money for nonpoint source demonstration and
restoration projects (Table 29). 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://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/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 29 Section 319 Grant Funded Projects in the Pasquotank River Basin
Fiscal
Year Name Description Agency Amount
2002
Effects of Drainage Ditches and Roads on Watershed
Ecology Hyrdrology and Water Quality within the
Emily and Richardson Pryer-Buckridge Coastal
Reserve
Wetlands &
Hydroloic
Modification
NC DENR,
DCM & NCSU $200,000
2000
Promote Responsible nutrient management by
developing a procedure to document forage crop
realistic yield expectations (RYE) NCSU
148 Chapter 12 - Management Strategies
2003 -
2004 Manteo Stormwater Retrofit (not a 319 Project)
Urban Stormwater,
Planning CWMTF $247,500
2004
Adapt a Site Evaluation Tool (SET) for use by local
governements in Upper Neuse Basin in determining
w/stormwater performance standards for new
development
Upper Neuse
River Basin
Association
2005
Phytoremediation to Prevent NPS Discharge of
Gasoline Contaminated Groundwater to the Pasquitank
River
Groundwater
Protection, Stream
Restoration NCSU $145,054
2005 Kitty Hawk Stormwater Education
Urban Stormwater,
Education
DCM-NERR
Manteo $11,590
2005 -
2006 OBX LID Project
Urban Stormwater,
Planning, Education
Coastal Studies
Institute $58,300
Total Funding $662,444

12.10.2 Pasquotank River Watershed Project

In 2005, Congress approved a multi-year Pasquotank River Watershed Project led by the
Albemarle Regional Health Services Agency, NCSU’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
and Cooperative Extension. The Project will demonstrate the application of Integrated Water
Designs (IWD), which addresses all aspects of water management such as: septic systems,
stormwater, water table management, flood control and erosion and sedimentation control. IWD
concepts will be developed; appropriate technologies selected and designed, and a demonstration
community will be selected. Existing baseline water quality conditions and water quantity
impacts (e.g. storm water removal, flooding, etc.) will be monitored, including assessment and
tracking of key water quality pollutants as they move through the ground water. Bacterial source
tracking (BST) techniques will be investigated to determine if they can help identify key
microbial pollutant sources. More advanced types of septic systems than are currently in use will
be evaluated to determine their potential use as IWDs for repair of failing septic systems. NC
State University team, working in partnership with the Pasquotank County Cooperative
Extension office and the local Albemarle Agency staff will coordinate technology transfer
training in the county. Water management professionals throughout the state will also be trained
at the NCSU’s training centers located throughout the state. New hands-on demonstrations and
training materials will be developed to describe the IWD approach to practicing professionals
such as soil scientists, planners, technology designers, installers and service providers.
Cooperative Extension will lead public educational programming efforts for community decision
makers and field practitioners.

12.10.3 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
waters and establishing a network of riparian buffers and greenways. In the Pasquotank River
basin, 34 projects have been funded for a total of $34,157,005 (Table 30). For more information
on the CWMTF or these grants, call [phone] or visit the website at www.cwmtf.net.

Chapter 12 - Management Strategies 149
Table 30 Clean Water Management Trust Fund Projects in the Pasquotank River Basin
Project
Number Application Name Proposed Project Description Amount
Funded
1997B-006
NC Div Coastal Management -
Buckridge Tract
Acq&Restor/Alligator R
Restore and enhance 10,000 acres of wetlands at
Buckridge Tract. Monitor results. $3,858,500
1998A-008
NC Wildlife Resources
Commission - Hassell Tract Acq/
Whitehurst's Ck
Acquire through fee simple purchase 491 acres along
Whitehurst Creek. $169,000
1998A-010
NC Wildlife Resources
Commission - Tice Tract Acq/
NW River & Tulls Bay
Acquire through fee simple purchase 473 acres along the
Northwest River, Tulls Bay, and Crosses Creek. $250,000
1998A-011
NC Wildlife Resources
Commission -Midgett Marsh
Tract Acq/ Roanoke S.
Acquire through fee simple purchase 574 acres along
Roanoke Sound. $620,000
1998A-403
Roper- Roper Site Acq and Env
Cleanup/ Kendrick Ck
Purchase, clean up and preserve a waterfront greenway
property of 4.8 acres and 10,000 linear feet along
Kendricks Creek. $60,000
1998A-413
Pasquotank Co-Constructed
Wetlands/CE/Ag BMPs/Newland
Construct a series of "in-stream" wetlands along the 7
mile canal, modify and stabilize canal (6,000 acre
drainage). Restore riparian wetlands, and secure
easements on 278 acres buffers. Install water control
structures and ag BMPs. $413,600
1998A-414
Currituck County- Constructed
Wetlands/CE/Ag BMPs/Guinea
Mill
Construct a series of instream wetlands, restore 35 acres
of hardwood swamp, acquire 50 foot easements on both
sides of the canal. Implement ag BMPs in 6,000 acre
watershed. $352,610
1998B-507
Roanoke Villas Clean Water
Found. -Land Ap/WWTP
upgrade
Design, construct and operate infiltration pond alternative
to surface water discharge. Remove 60,000 GPD
permitted discharge into SA waters. $245,568
2000A-010
NC Wildlife Resources
Commission - Harrison Tract
Acq/North R
Acquire through fee simple purchase 3,915 acres along
the North River. CWMTF funds to acquire the 720 acres
of riparian buffers. $534,360
2000A-018
NC Wildlife Resources
Commission - Roanoke Island
Greenway I
Acquire through fee simple purchase 38 acres on Roanoke
Island. Tract to become part of a greenway system. $1,207,000
2000B-006
Nags Head & Nature
Conservancy- Nags Head Woods
Acq
Acquire through fee simple purchase 49 acres along
Roanoke Sound in the Nags Head Wood-Jockeys Ridge
conservation complex. $693,000
2000B-010
NC Div Coastal Management -
Roper Island Acq
Acquire through permanent conservation easements 8,274
acres on Roper Island along the Alligator River. CWMTF
funds to be combined with other funds to acquire the CE. $285,220
2000B-013
NC Wildlife Resources
Commission - Circle
Tract/Alligator River Acq
Acquire through fee simple purchase 5,401 acres along
the Alligator River and Second Creek. $1,715,000
2000B-015
NC Wildlife Resources
Commission - Roanoke Island II
Acq & Greenway
Acquire through fee simple purchase 46 riparian and
wetland acres along Roanoke Sound. Tract represents
Phase II of the Roanoke Island Greenway project. $2,707,000
2001B-023
NC Aquarium Society-
Acquisition & Stormwater/
Whalebone Junction
Acquire 5 acres along Atlantic Ocean and treat
stormwater runoff from 30 acres to Roanoke Sound. $4,600,000
2001B-042
Perquimans Co. Restoration
Assc.-Acquisition/ Perquimans
River
Acquire through fee simple purchase 38 acres on the
Perquimans River. Includes riparian buffer installation,
created wetland demonstration, nature trail construction,
and environmental education. $345,000
150 Chapter 12 - Management Strategies
2001B-502
Camden County/Currituck
County -Sawyer's Creek
Provide funds to design and obtain permits for a regional
wastewater collection and land application systems to
address failing and straight-piped septic systems draining
to Sawyers Creek. $3,564,000
2002A-014
Nags Head - Acq/ Catfish Farm
Open Space
Acquire 11.4 acres through fee simple purchase along the
Roanoke Sound and tributary creeks. CWMTF would
fund purchase of 46% of the tract. $300,000
2002B-017
NC Wildlife Resources
Commission - Acq./Risky
Business, Roanoke Sound
Acquire through fee simple purchase 250 acres along the
Roanoke Sound, Johns Sand Beach and Broad Creeks. $375,000
2002B-608
Tyrrell County Water & Sewer
District 1 - Septic
Systems/Scuppernong II
Eliminate failing septic tanks in Districts 1&2 of the
County by constructing a collection system and pumping
waste to the Town of Creswell's WWTP. The Town of
Creswell's WWTP would be expanded. Would reduce
pollutant delivery to the Scuppernong River. $1,203,647
2003A-029
NC Div Parks & Recreation -
Acq./ Pettigrew State Park,
Scuppernong River
Acquire through fee simple purchase 1,864 acres along
the Scuppernong River and add the property to Pettigrew
State Park. $890,000
2003A-031
NC Wildlife Resources
Commission- Acq./ Davis Tract,
Alligator River
Acquire through fee simple purchase 340 acres draining to
the Little Alligator River. The tract contains areas of
ditched cropland which will be restored when the tract
becomes part of the adjoining Alligator River Game
Lands. $374,000
2003A-032
NC Wildlife Resources
Commission- Acq./ GMS Tract,
Alligator River
Acquire through fee simple purchase 8,476 acres,
including 4,860 riparian and wetland acres, along Second
Creek and Alligator River (both ORWs) and Little
Alligator River. The tract will be managed as part of
WRC's Game Lands Program. $1,700,000
2004A-702
Manteo, Town of - Storm./
Shallowbag Bay
Design, permit, & acquire stormwater easements for
pocket stormwater infiltration areas and/or construction of
pocket infiltration areas to treat runoff from 147 ac in the
Shallowbag Bay drainage area. $379,500
2004B-046
NC Wildlife Resources
Commission-Acq/ Pipkin Tract,
Broad Creek
Protect through fee simple purchase 120.5 acres along
Broad Creek and Roanoke Sound. The tract is adjacent to
open shellfish waters and would become part of the
Roanoke Marshes Game Lands. $200,000
2004B-604
Stumpy Point Water & Sewer
District - Septic/ Stumpy Point
and Lake Worth Septic Tanks
Construct 8 miles of a septic tank effluent pump sewer
collection system to connect 110 failing septic systems to
a tertiary WWTP with UV disinfection. Project will
reduce fecal coliform and nutrient delivery to Stumpy Bay
and Pamlico Sound. $1,728,000
2004B-802
Creswell, Town of - Plan/
Stormwater Management,
Scuppernong River
Develop a plan to address stormwater management needs
for the Scuppernong River and a tributary canal. Plan to
consider wetland pond modification, wetland
construction, pump station modification, and canal
widening. $25,000
2005A-024
NC Wildlife Resources
Commission - Acq/ Roanoke
Island Greenway, Amended
Project
Provide additional funds to finalize the purchase of 39
acres along Croatan Sound that were previously approved
by CWMTF (2000B-015). The tract has increased in
value since the original award. Tract will be managed as
part of the Game Lands program. $1,746,000
2005A-804
Manteo, Town of - Plan/WW/
Wastewater Treatment
Feasibility Plan, Shallowbag Bay
Develop a feasibility study of nutrient removal options for
wastewater discharged to Shallowbag Bay. $65,000
2005A-806
NC Coastal Federation -
Plan/Acq/ Currituck Sound
Protection Plan
Develop a plan to prioritize acquisition and restoration
efforts in Currituck Sound. Project to include landowner
outreach and development of funding proposals for top
two priority sites identified by the study. $40,000

Chapter 12 - Management Strategies 151
2005B-504
Elizabeth City, City of - WW/
Hughes Boulevard Force Main,
Knobs Creek
Address infiltration & inflow problems by constructing
16,200 lf of force main to serve 2,200 residences. Would
reduce fecal coliform bacteria and nutrient contamination
to the Pasquotank River. Includes pump station upgrade
and standby power generation. $2,000,000
2006A-024
NC Coastal Land Trust - Ac/
Indian Creek Tracts
Protect a total of 1,027 acres along the Indiantown Creek
through purchase of 702 acres in fee and of a 325-acre fee
simple donation. $528,000
2006A-406
Perquimans County- Rest/
Newbold- White House and
Greenway, Perquimans River
Design, permit and construct natural channel design
shoreline stabilization project along 2,000 linear feet of
the Perquimans River. Construct 3 stormwater wetlands
and link to county greenway system. $340,000
2006B-706
Kitty Hawk, Town of -
Storm/Rest/ Stormwater BMPs,
Kitty Hawk Bay
Design and permit BMPs to improve water quality along
4,100 linear feet of shoreline in Kitty Hawk Bay. Potential
BMPs include a breakwater system, reestablishment of the
fringe marsh, and infiltration and bioretention areas. $543,000
2006B-816
Washington County - Plan/Acq/
Sustainable Development
Planning, Albermarle Sound
Fund the development of a long-term sustainable
development plan for the southern Albemarle Sound
shoreline between Mackey's Ferry and Leonard's Point.
Includes inventory of existing conditions, vision
statement, implementation strategies. $100,000
Total Funded $34,157,005
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.

12.10.4 North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP)

The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) combines an existing wetlands-restoration
initiative by the NC 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. NCEEP 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.

NCEEP can perform restoration projects cooperatively with other state or federal programs or
environmental groups. For example NCEEP 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. The NCEEP actively seeks landowners throughout the state that have restorable
wetland, riparian, and stream restoration sites. For more information about NCEEP, visit
http://www.nceep.net/ or call [phone].

12.10.5 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
152 Chapter 12 - Management Strategies
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 lands which 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.

12.10.6 Oyster Shell Recycling

The North Carolina Oyster Shell Recycling Partnership is encouraging restaurants, seafood
dealers, community organizations and individuals to participate in the effort to collect oyster
shells and use them to build oyster reefs in protected oyster sanctuaries. More information about
this recycling effort can be found at http://www.ncfisheries.net/shellfish/recycle1.htm. Oyster
recycling sites within the Pasquotank River Basin include:
• Nags Head: Jockey’s Ridge State Park (Hwy 158)
• Kill Devil Hills: Nature Conservancy, Nags Head Woods (701 West Ocean Acres Dr.)
• Wanchese: NCDMF office, Wanchese Seafood Industrial Park (604 Harbor Rd.)
• Avon: Village Grocery (40618 Hwy. 12)
• Hatteras Village: Burrus Red & White (57196 Kanlar Rd.)
• Rodanthe/Waves/Salvo: Recycling Center, Rodanthe Harbor (Myrna Peters Rd.)

12.10.7 Clean Marina Program

The Clean Marina Program is a voluntary program that began in the summer of 2000. The
program is designed to show that marina operators can help safeguard the environment by using
management and operations techniques that go above and beyond regulatory requirements. This
is a nationwide program developed by the National Marine Environmental Education
Foundation, a nonprofit organization that works to clean up waterways for better recreational
boating. The foundation encourages states to adapt Clean Marina principles to fit their own
needs. North Carolina joins South Carolina, Florida and Maryland as states with Clean Marina
programs in place.

Marina operators who choose to participate must complete an evaluation form about their use of
specific best management practices. If a marina meets criteria developed by N.C. Marine Trades
Services and the Division of Coastal Management, it will be designated as a Clean Marina. Such
marinas will be eligible to fly the Clean Marina flag and use the logo in their advertising. The
flags will signal to boaters that a marina cares about the cleanliness of area waterways. Marinas
that do not meet the standards will be able to learn about improvements needed for Clean Marina
designation. Marina owners can reapply after making the necessary changes.

The International Yachting Center in Columbia, NC is the only Clean Marina in the Pasquotank
River basin, while there are 14 other marinas with pump-out facilities in the basin. For more
information about the program, please see http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/Marinas/clean.htm or
http://www.nccoastalmanagement.net/Marinas/marinas.htm
Or contact N.C. Coastal Reserve Education Office at 252-728-2170 or Coastal Management at
919-733-2293.

Chapter 12 - Management Strategies 153
12.10.8 Currituck Sound Restoration Feasibility Study

The Army Corps of Engineers and the State of North Carolina are partnering to conduct a
Feasibility Study on the Currituck Sound to identify ways to improve water quality and restore
the Sound. The ongoing study is being cost shared between the US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) and the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Each cost
share partner pays 50 percent of the feasibility phase costs.

The Currituck Sound Restoration Coordination Team is collecting data and formulating
recommendations necessary to meet the established restoration goals and objectives. Data
collection efforts are being conducted as part of multiple individual studies within the Currituck
Sound as well as in the surrounding watersheds that impact the Sound, including Back Bay. A
Feasibility Report and NEPA document recommending viable restoration projects and
management measures will be the products of the study.

The Currituck Sound Restoration Coordination Team is composed of multiple agencies and
organizations including, but not limited to: USACE, Wilmington District, DENR, Division of
Water Resources (DWR), Elizabeth City State University (ECSU), USACE Coastal and
Hydraulics Laboratory (CHL), NC National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR), US Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), US Geological Survey (USGS), USACE Engineer Research and
Development Center (ERDC), Hampton Roads Planning District Commission, Division of
Coastal Management (DCM), NC Coastal Federation (NCCF), Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation (VADCR), Currituck County, The Nature Conservancy (TNC),
Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC), Division of Water Quality (DWQ), Pasquotank River
Basin Regional Council, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ), Virginia
Marine Resources Commission (VAMRC), and Albemarle Pamlico National Estuary Program
(APNEP). The entities composing the restoration team participate in one or more of three
Workgroups, which are: Hydrologic, Hydrodynamics, and Water Quality Modeling Workgroup;
the Living Resources Workgroup; and the Planning and Public Involvement Workgroup.

The Hydrologic, Hydrodynamics, and Water Quality Modeling Workgroup is using a model to
characterize existing hydrologic and water quality conditions in Currituck Sound, develop a
baseline, and produce a model for use in determining the condition in which to restore the Sound.
This Workgroup is developing and using a modeling package based on modeling requirements of
the USGS in cooperation with USACE ERDC, DWR, and ECSU to develop a comprehensive
and cost effective data collection and monitoring plan for Currituck Sound, including site
locations, data type, frequency, and purpose of the data to be collected. The model will
characterize the effects of internal and external factors such as freshwater flow, tides, wind,
suspended and bottom sediments, nutrient inputs, land use, etc., on water quality and the health
of the biological communities in Currituck Sound.

The Living Resources Workgroup consists of four subgroups, which have individual data
collection efforts underway. The four subgroups and subject matter areas are as follows: the
Vegetation Subgroup (Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV), forests, wetlands, marshes,
invasive species); the Survey/GIS Subgroup (land and hydrologic surveys, aerial photography,
mapping, and geographic analysis); the Fisheries Subgroup (freshwater and saltwater fisheries
and crabs); and the Waterfowl Subgroup (nesting water birds and waterfowl).

154 Chapter 12 - Management Strategies
The Vegetation and Survey/GIS Subgroups have completed data collection efforts for historic
and existing SAV within the Currituck Sound and surrounding watershed. This is a critical
component of the Currituck Sound Feasibility Study because the abundance of SAV has
undergone several long-term downward trends since early 1900’s and has not fully recovered to
former abundant conditions of the past century. The SAV Habitat Cooperative Mapping Project
at ECSU has completed and will continue with field surveys, as well as recording data on water
clarity, temperature, salinity, DO, pH Distribution, density and species composition of SAV.
Also collaborative efforts to digitize the findings reported in the Sincock Master Surveys were
completed by USACE, ECSU, and others. The result of this effort is an interactive site, “The
Sincock Master Survey Internet Mapping Service & Website,” and is available at:
http://155.82.232.43/website/Currituck_Sincock_MS/ viewer.htm.

The Planning and Public Involvement Workgroup serves to gather information from the public
for incorporation into the study and to disseminate information from ongoing study findings out
to the public. This Workgroup is requesting historical information and records, fishing and
hunting logbooks, and old photographs and maps of the Sound and Shoreline. This Workgroup
will hold future Public Meetings; the public will be informed in advance. The planning function
of this Workgroup serves to balance the interests of all involved entities as well as produce the
Currituck Sound Restoration Feasibility Report. This report will capture and document the
Currituck Sound Restoration Coordination Team’s findings and make recommendations for
alternatives and management measures to improve water quality and restore the Sound.

For further information or inquiries regarding the Currituck Sound Restoration Feasibility Study,
you may visit http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Currituck Sound/main.htm or contact Tara
Anderson, Lead Planner, at 910-251-4694 or 1-800-626-8449, ext 4694.

12.10.9 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 of 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

Chapter 12 - Management Strategies 155
generate an additional $8 to $12 billion. Clearly, it behooves us to protect these fragile,
beautiful, and valuable places.

In the Pasquotank 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 Pasquotank River basin, the APNEP funded
projects in three locations intended to improve water quality and to aid in environmental
education: Manteo, Winfall and Hertford.

The Perquimans County High School constructed wetland and environmental education project
in Hertford is a collaborative effort led by Perquimans County Schools, and the Perquimans
County Soil and Water Conservation District. The project reshaped and restored natural
wetlands located on the grounds of the school and included the construction of an access
boardwalk, pedestrian bridges and an observation deck. The now accessible wetlands are used as
the basis for an outdoor education program for 570 high school science students and their
teachers. This phase of the project builds on the successful first stage of the Jennie’s Gut
constructed wetlands project, also funded in part with an APNEP grant.

The goal of the Manteo Middle School demonstration project, to create two attractive stormwater
gardens (with signage) in a highly visible schoolyard site, included the labor of students,
teachers, and community volunteers. The gardens serve as a point of collections for stormwater
coming off the school’s parking lots and roof. The project also includes curriculum development
utilizing information on stormwater pollution.

The Town of Winfall’s drinking water treatment plant was exceeding water quality standards in
its backwash waters for some time. Regular monitoring showed high levels of iron, manganese,
magnesium, calcium, chlorides and sand. To remove the offending elements and treat the
discharge, a constructed wetland system with salt and iron tolerant plants was installed adjacent
to the plant. Two wetland cells were built using rock check dams and a third cell was built using
logs for the check dam. A boardwalk, with an observation platform at its center, allows the
wetland to be used as an outdoor environmental education classroom for the Perquimans County
Middle School adjacently located to the wetland. It should also be noted that an added benefit of
the wetland system is the diversion of runoff (showing high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus)
from an abandoned fertilizer plant across the rood, and from school grounds, roads and parking
lots adjacent to it.

For information on the APNEP, visit www.apnep.org.

12.10.10 Albemarle-Pamlico Regional Water Quality Study

The study will identify regional water quality, water management, and recreational concerns
resulting from land-use changes associated with unprecedented development in Chowan,
Perquimans, Pasquotank, Camden, Gates, Currituck, Dare, Hyde, Tyrrell, and Washington
counties. This work will build on county-wide drainage studies and water quality projects that
the Albemarle Resource Conservation and Development Council (RC&D) and its partners have
implemented, or are implementing, in the Albemarle-Pamlico region. Projects identified and
implemented as a result of the study will help create a region-wide infrastructure for maintaining
the integrity of water resources and improving drainage. Components of the regional study will
include:
156 Chapter 12 - Management Strategies
• Identify and prioritize streams and canals for a 5-year recurrence interval for clearing and
snagging in major watersheds.
• Identify opportunities to develop or upgrade stormwater ordinances in each county to
address water quality and drainage concerns associated with rapid commercial and
residential development. Ordinances would include standards for 1) evaluating upstream
and downstream drainage at the watershed level, 2) determining flooding consequences
for existing and new developments, and 3) reconstructing drainage systems on
commercial, residential and public/ agricultural properties using innovate techniques
including constructed wetlands, buffers, and water table management.
• Identify a commercial, residential and public/agricultural property in each county to
reconstruct drainage systems for demonstrating innovative stormwater management.
• Identify opportunities for establishing a water quality/water management advisory
committee in each county to provide technical information, public education, and
research support.
• Identify opportunities for establishing Special Use Water Management Districts
(SUWMD) in each county to provide a mechanism for public input to prioritize and
implement drainage and water quality improvement projects.
• Identify opportunities for establishing a regional Stewardship Development Program
similar to the Lower Cape Fear Stewardship Development Program. The program would
recognize innovative residential and commercial development projects that protect the
environment.
• Identify key issues and costs associated with monitoring and evaluating water quality and
reconstructed drainage projects at the local and regional level.

Each of the 10 counties in the region is at a different stage of developing the study components
listed above. For example, with assistance from NCRS and the Albemarle RC&D, Pasquotank
County is developing a stormwater ordinance that includes specifications for evaluating up-
stream and downstream drainage at the watershed level, and reconstructing drainage systems
using innovative techniques such as constructed wetlands instead of detention and retention
ponds. Perquimans County is beginning the process of developing a stormwater ordinance, and
may be able to save time and money by using Pasquotank County’s ordinance as a model. The
same scenario may apply to other counties in the region that will have to develop ordinances to
help manage stormwater runoff from residential and commercial development.

The regional study will help identify specific project opportunities in each county, and progress
toward maintaining the integrity of regional water quality and improving drainage. Conducting
the study and coordinating projects on a regional level will also allow the sharing of experiences
and information, and thus help avoid costly mistakes and duplication of effort.