Chapter 13

Chapter 13 - Agriculture 157
Chapter 13
Agriculture and Water Quality

13.1 Animal Operations

Over the years, key legislative bills were introduced and approved to regulate concentrated
animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in the State of North Carolina. In May 2006, the
Environmental Management Commission (EMC) adopted Title 15A Subchapter 02T. The rules
reflect current policy and provide routine consideration of an applicant’s compliance status.
Section .1300 of Subchapter 02T applies to all persons proposing to construct, modify, expand or
operate an animal waste management system. Animal waste is defined as livestock or poultry
excreta or mixture of excreta with feed, litter, bedding or other material generated at a feedlot.
Animal waste management systems are defined as a combination of structural and nonstructural
practices that collect, treat, store or apply animal waste to the land. An animal waste
management plan is defined as a plan to properly collect, store, treat or apply animal waste to the
land in an environmentally safe manner developed in accordance with the General Statute §143-
215.10C (www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_143/GS_143-
215.10C.html).

Table 31 summarizes the number of permitted livestock operations, total number of animals,
number of facilities, and total steady state live weight. These numbers reflect only operations
required by law to be permitted, and therefore, do not represent the total number of animals in
each subbasin. The Pasquotank River basin contains approximately 74 animal operations,
including both permitted and nonpermitted cattle, poultry and hog farms, as shown in Figure 13.
Table 31 Permitted Animal Operations.
Cattle Swine
Subbasin No. of
Facilities
No. of
Animals
Total Steady State
Live Weight
No. of
Facilities
No. of
Animals
Total Steady State
Live Weight
03-01-50 - - - 1 500 216,500
03-01-51 - - - 1 1,350 182,250
03-01-52 - - 8 7,590 1,105,750
03-01-53 1 120 96,000 7 65,960 11,096,962
03-01-54 - - - - - -
03-01-55 - - - - - -
03-01-56 - - - - - -
Totals 1 120 96,000 17 75,400 12,601,462
* Steady State Live Weight (SSLW) is in pounds, after a conversion factor has been applied to the number of swine, cattle or poultry
on a farm. Conversion factors come from the US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)
guidelines. Since the amount of waste produced varies by hog size, this is the best way to compare the sizes of the farms.
CURRITUCKCAMDEM
PASQUOTANK
GATES
PERQUIMANS
CHOWAN
WASHINGTON
TYRRELL
DARE
Elizabeth City
Winfall
Hertford
Manteo
Columbia
Roper
Creswell
03-01-5403-01-50
03-01-52
03-01-53
03-01-51
03-01-56
03-01-55
A l be m a r le S ou nd
Pamli
c
o Sound
C
u
r
r
i
t
u
c
k

S
o
u
n
d
P
a
s
q
u
ota
n
k Riv
er
N
o
rt
h

R
i
v
e
r
Little
R
iv
er
Perquimans River
HYDE
Alliga
t
or
River
Figure 15 Animal Operations in the Pasquotank River Basin
0 6 12 18 243
Miles
®
Planning Section
Basinwide Planning Unit
May 2, 2007
Legend
Animal_Operations
Cattle
Swine
Poultry
Subbasin Boundary
Municipality
Primary Roads
County Boundary
Hydrography
Southern Shores
Kitty Hawk
Kill Devil Hills
Nags Head

Chapter 13 - Agriculture 159
13.2 Agricultural Best Management Practices and Funding Opportunities

13.2.1 NC Agriculture Cost Share Program

The NC Agricultural Cost Share Program (NCACSP) was established in 1984 to help reduce
agricultural nonpoint runoff into the state’s waters. The program helps owners and renters of
established agricultural operations improve their on-farm management by using best
management practices (BMPs). These BMPs include vegetative, structural or management
systems that can improve the efficiency of farming operations while reducing the potential for
surface and groundwater pollution. The NCACSP is implemented by the Division of Soil and
Water (DSWC), which divide the approved BMPs into five main purposes or categories.

• Sediment/Nutrient Delivery Reduction from Fields
Sediment/nutrient management measures include planned systems that prevent sediment
and nutrient runoff from fields into streams. Practices include: field borders, filter strips,
grassed waterways, nutrient management strategies, riparian buffers, water control
structures, streambank stabilization, and road repair/stabilization.

• Erosion Reduction/Nutrient Loss Reduction in Fields
Erosion/nutrient management measures include planned systems for reducing soil erosion
and nutrient runoff from cropland into streams. Practices include: critical area planting,
cropland conversion, water diversion, long-term no-till, pastureland conversion, sod-
based rotation, stripcropping, terraces, and Christmas tree conservation cover.

• Stream Protection from Animals
Stream protection management measures are planned systems for protecting streams and
streambanks. Such measures eliminate livestock access to streams by providing an
alternate watering source away from the stream itself. Other benefits include reduced soil
erosion, sedimentation, pathogen contamination and pollution from dissolved, particulate,
and sediment-attached substances. Practices include: heavy use area protection, livestock
exclusion (i.e., fencing), spring development, stream crossings, trough or watering tanks,
wells, and livestock feeding areas.

• Proper Animal Waste Management
A waste management system is a planned system in which all necessary components are
installed for managed liquid and solid waste to prevent or minimize degradation of soil
and water resources. Practices include: animal waste lagoon closures, constructed
wetlands, controlled livestock lounging area, dry manure stacks, heavy use area
protection, insect and odor control, stormwater management, waste storage
ponds/lagoons, compost, and waste application system.

• Agricultural Chemical (agrichemical) Pollution Prevention
Agrichemical pollution prevention measures involve a planned system to prevent
chemical runoff to streams for water quality improvement. Practices include:
agrichemical handling facilities and fertigation/chemigation back flow prevention
systems.

The NCACSP is a voluntary program that reimburses farmers up to 75 percent of the cost of
installing an approved BMP. The cost share funds are paid to the farmer once the planned BMP
160 Chapter 13 - Agriculture
is completed, inspected and certified to be installed according to NRCS standards and
specifications and SWCC policies. The annual statewide budget for BMP cost sharing is
approximately $8 million. [Note: the annual statewide budget for ACSP cost sharing is $5.6
million; the additional $2.4 million is the annual statewide budget for technical assistance.]
During the period from 2000 to 2005, $1,280,878 was provided for projects in the Pasquotank
River basin. Table 32 summaries the cost and total BMPs implemented (i.e., acres, units, linear
feet) throughout the Pasquotank River basin.

Table 32 Summary of NCACSP Projects in the Pasquotank River Basin (2000-2005)
Purpose of BMP
Erosion Reduction1
Sediment
Reduction2
Stream
Protection3 Animal Waste4
Total Cost ($) Total Cost ($) Total Cost ($) Total Cost ($)
Total
Cost ($)
2,962.5 ac 238,760 2,088.5 ac 43,267 0 0 4 units 18,123 300,150 Subbasin
03-01-50 400 ft 3 units
535 ac 51,000 1,907 ac 46,904 0 0 2 units 44,510 142,414 Subbasin
03-01-51 4 units
3,698.6 ac 410,746 2,573.3 ac 43,219 0 0 8 units 54,114 508,079 Subbasin
03-01-52 3 units 62 tons
1,349.4 ac 131,749 373 ac 74,551 0 0 3 units 27,500 233,800 Subbasin
03-01-53 24 units
416.6 ac 66,548 104.3 ac 22,405 0 0 0 0 88,953 Subbasin
03-01-54 26 units
121.1 ac 7,266 7.2 ac 216 0 0 0 0 7,482 Subbasin
03-01-55
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subbasin
03-01-56
1 Erosion Reduction/Nutrient Loss Reduction in Field
2 Sediment/Nutrient Delivery Reduction from Field
3 Stream Protection from Animals
4 Proper Animal Waste Management

Total Benefits

Soil Saved
(tons)
(N)itrogen
Saved (lb.)
(P)hosphorous
Saved (lb.)
Waste-N
Saved (lb.)
Waste-P
Saved (lb.)
Subbasin 03-01-50 3,736 98,799 10,595 17,030 18,674
Subbasin 03-01-51 130 6,008 8,026 0 0
Subbasin 03-01-52 6,446 10,954 6,787 85,736 35,146
Subbasin 03-01-53 1,718 29,329 1,367 13,785 13,803
Subbasin 03-01-54 1,179 36,564 4,575 0 0
Subbasin 03-01-55 0 571 0 0 0
Subbasin 03-01-56 0 0 0 0 0

* The North Carolina Agricultural Nutrient Assessment Tool (NCANAT) contains two field-scale assessment tools: the Nitrogen
Loss Estimation Worksheet (NLEW) and the Phosphorus Loss Assessment Tool (PLAT). NCANAT is a product of the
cooperative effort between the NC State University, NC Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services, USDA-NRCS and the
DENR. The tool consists of a function that allows comparisons to be made before and after BMPs are installed. Gains and
losses of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment due to BMP implementation can be computed. The DSWC has adopted this
program to calculate these losses for the NCACSP reporting requirements.

Chapter 13 - Agriculture 161
County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) contacts for the Pasquotank River basin
are included in Appendix IV. BMP definitions and SWCD contact information can be found
online at www.enr.state.nc.us/DSWC/pages/agcostshareprogram.html.

13.2.2 USDA – NRCS Environmental Quality Improvement Program (EQIP)

The USDA – Environmental Quality Improvement Program (EQIP) provides technical,
educational and financial assistance to eligible farmers to address soil, water and related natural
resource concerns on their lands in an environmentally beneficial and cost-effective manner.
NRCS district contacts for the Pasquotank River basin are provided in Appendix IV, or
information can also be found on NRCS website at
http://www.nc.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/EQIP/index.html.

13.3 SWCD Water Quality Strategy Plan

Agricultural land use and a growing development continue to alter natural hydrology with the
need to improve drainage. Currently, most of the swamps and wetlands have been circumvented,
routing stormwater through these areas in man-made channels. The water that once flowed
through the floodplain is now channeled through man-made ditches directly to the creeks and
rivers and is no longer filtered by swamps. In the Pasquotank River basin, redesigning and
reconstructing drainage systems may improve water quality. Drainage redesign involves
evaluating the entire watershed to determine were instream improvements can compliment farm
fields and subdivision improvements such as no-till, land grading to reduce nitrogen, water
control, riparian buffers and establishing wetlands.

Better tools to predict water flow are now available and research at NC State University provides
examples that demonstrate how drainage systems can be redesigned. Reestablishing degraded
swamps can be achieved by improving drainage, while forcing stormwater flow to reassociate
with the floodplain. Old floodplains can be restored by establishing in-stream wetlands and
building new wetlands where needed directly in the drainage system to reduce the total volume
of water flow from these drainage systems.

SWCDs are encouraging the counties to develop Special Use Water Management Districts.
Each district is to develop a list of priorities to address stormwater issues and drainage. Plans for
each watershed will address the following:

• Volume of stormwater retained and discharged during stormwater events,
• Channel modification to reassociate storm flow with the biology of the flood plain to
remove sediment and nutrients,
• Establishment of instream wetlands where needed,
• Drainage improvements required to sustain conservation enhancement and to provide
drainage for urban and agricultural areas,
• Clearing and snagging required on five-year intervals to maintain the integrity of the
drainage system and
• Demonstration projects illustrating innovative techniques for addressing the water quality
issues associated with drainage.
162 Chapter 13 - Agriculture