HomeMy WebLinkAboutFalls_Lake_AgReport_CY2018
NCDA&CS
2020 Annual Progress Report
(Crop Year 2018) on
Agricultural Operations’ Stage 1
Reductions for the Falls Lake
Agriculture Rule (15A NCAC
02B .0280)
A Report to the Division of Water Resources from the Falls Lake Watershed
Oversight Committee: Crop Year 2018
1
2
Summary
This report provides the annual progress report of collective progress made by the agricultural community
to reduce nutrient losses toward compliance with Stage 1 of the Falls Lake Agriculture rule. For this report,
the Falls Lake Watershed Oversight Committee (WOC) oversaw the application of accounting methods
approved by the Environmental Management Commission’s Water Quality Committee in March 2012 to
estimate changes in nitrogen loss and phosphorus loss trends in the Falls Lake Watershed. This report is for
the period between the strategy baseline (2006) and the most recent crop year (CY)1 for which data was
available, 2018. The Falls Lake WOC received and approved crop year CY2018 annual reports from six
counties as part of the Falls Lake Agriculture rule,
which is part of the Falls Reservoir Water Supply
Nutrient Strategy. To produce this report, Division of
Soil and Water Conservation staff received, processed
and compiled baseline and current-year reports from
agricultural staff in six counties, and the WOC
compiled the information and prepared this report.
Agriculture has been successfully decreasing nutrient
losses in the Falls Lake watershed. In CY2018,
agriculture collectively exceeded its 20% Stage I
nitrogen reduction goal for cropland and pastureland,
with a 77% cropland nitrogen reduction and 36%
pastureland nitrogen reduction compared to the
2006 baseline. All six counties exceeded the
mandated 20% reduction goal this year.
Since the baseline, reductions in nitrogen loss have
been achieved through an overall decrease in
cropland in production, a decrease in nitrogen application rates, and an increase in best management
practices (BMPs) such as 20 and 50-foot riparian buffers. Since reporting began, reported cropland acres
decreased in the watershed by 31,807. It is assumed that some of those agricultural lands were converted
to development. Phosphorus qualitative indicators demonstrate that there is no increased risk of
phosphorus loss, with an 22% and 12% decrease in animal waste phosphorus production and tobacco
acreage, respectively, and a 38% increase in cropland conversion to grass and trees since the 2006 baseline.
1 The 2018 crop year began in October 2017 and ended in September 2018.
Falls Lake Watershed Oversight Committee
Composition, Falls Agriculture Rule:
1. NC Division of Soil & Water Conservation
2. USDA-NRCS
3. NCDA&CS
4. NC Cooperative Extension Service
5. NC Division of Water Resources
6. Watershed Environmental Interest
7. Watershed Environmental Interest
8. Environmental Interest
9. General Farming Interest
10. Pasture-based Livestock Interest
11. Equine Livestock Interest
12. Cropland Farming Interest
13. Scientific Community
3
Rule Requirements and Compliance
In January 2011, the permanent Agriculture Rule that is
part of the Falls Reservoir Water Supply Nutrient Strategy
became effective. The Agriculture Rule provides for a
collective strategy for farmers to meet nitrogen loss
reduction goals in two stages. The strategy goal is to reduce
the average annual load of nitrogen and phosphorus to
Falls Lake from 2006 baseline levels. Stage I requires that
agriculture reach a goal of 20% nitrogen loss reduction and
40% phosphorus reduction by year 2020. This Stage I
nitrogen goal requires a 20% reduction from pasture
sources. Stage II sets reduction goals of 40% and 77% for
nitrogen and phosphorus, respectively, by year 2035, which
includes a 40% nitrogen reduction from pasture sources for
the watershed. A Watershed Oversight Committee (WOC)
was established to guide the implementation of the rule
and to assist farmers with complying with the rule.
All county Local Advisory Committees (LAC) submitted their seventh annual reports to the WOC in January
2020. Collectively, agriculture in the six counties is meeting the cropland nitrogen loss reduction goal, with
a 77% reduction. Qualitative indicators for phosphorus suggest there is no increased risk of phosphorus loss
from agriculture in the watershed. Pasture nitrogen loss accounting relies on USDA-NASS data which is
gathered via the Census of Agriculture every five years. For CY2018 the six Falls Lake counties reported a
36% reduction in pastureland nitrogen loss compared to the 2006 baseline. This reduction exceeds the rule-
mandated 20% goal.
Scope of Report and Methodology
The estimates provided in this report represent county-scale calculations of nitrogen loss from cropland
agriculture in the watershed made by the NC Division of Soil and Water Conservation (DSWC) using the
‘aggregate’ version of the Nitrogen Loss Estimation Worksheet (NLEW) and adjusted for the percentage of
each county in the Falls Lake Watershed. NLEW is an accounting tool developed to meet the specifications of
the Neuse Rule and approved by the Environmental Management Commission’s (EMC) Water Quality
Committee in March 2012 for use in the Falls Lake Watershed. The NLEW development team included
interagency technical representatives of the NC Division of Water Resources (DWR), NC Division of Soil and
Water Conservation (DSWC), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)-Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) and was led by NC State University (NCSU) Soil Science Department
faculty. NLEW captures application of both inorganic and animal waste sources of fertilizer to cropland. It is
an “edge-of-management unit” accounting tool that estimates changes in nitrogen loss from cropland and
pastureland but does not estimate changes in nitrogen loading to surface waters. Assessment methods
were developed and approved by the Water Quality Committee of the EMC for phosphorus and are
described later in the report.
Falls Lake NSW Strategy:
The Environmental Management Commission
(EMC) adopted the Falls Reservoir Water
Supply Nutrient Strategy rules in 2011. The
strategy goal is to reduce the average annual
load of nitrogen and phosphorus to Falls Lake
from 2006 baseline levels. In addition to point
source rules, mandatory controls were applied
to address non-point source pollution in
agriculture, urban stormwater, and riparian
buffer protection. The management strategy
was modeled after similar nutrient strategies
for the Neuse River, Tar-Pamlico River, and
Jordan Lake.
4
Over time NLEW has been updated to incorporate updated realistic yield expectations, nitrogen use
efficiencies, and soil management groups. In 2015 a new web-based version of NLEW (v6.0) was created on
NC Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services servers which corrected user interface bugs and
allowed more accurate reporting of aggregate nitrogen loss.
Nitrogen Reduction from Cropland from 2006 Baseline for CY2018
All counties submitted their seventh progress reports to the WOC in January 2020. In CY2018 agriculture
achieved a 77% reduction in nitrogen loss from cropland compared to the average 2006 baseline. Figure 1
shows annual loss percent reductions per year since CY2011, calculated with the two different versions of
NLEW, and Table 1 lists each county’s baseline, CY2017 and CY2018 nitrogen (lbs/yr) loss values from
cropland, along with nitrogen loss percent reductions from the baseline in CY2017 and CY2018.
Figure 1. Collective Cropland Nitrogen Loss Reduction Percent 2011 to 2018, Falls Lake Watershed.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
%
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Year
NLEW v5.33b NLEW v6.0
20% Reduction Goal
5
Table 1. Estimated reductions in agricultural (cropland) nitrogen loss from baseline (CY2006) for CY2017
and CY2018, Falls Lake Watershed
County
Baseline N Loss
(lb)
CY2017 N Loss
(lb) §
CY2017 N
Reduction (%)
CY2018 N Loss
(lb) §
CY2018 N
Reduction (%)
Durham 146,090 46,750¤ 68% 56,971¤ 61%
Franklin 11,772 3,651 69% 3,274 72%
Granville 127,704 34,473 73% 22,829 82%
Orange 347,402 64,745 81% 66,519 81%
Person 484,123 102,157 79% 91,053 81%
Wake 52,405 25,941 50% 29,789 43%
Total 1,169,495 277,717 76% 270,435 77%
§ Nitrogen loss values are for comparative purposes. They represent nitrogen that was applied to cropland in
the watershed and neither used by crops nor intercepted by BMPs in an agricultural management unit, based
on NLEW calculations. This is not an in-stream loading value.
¤ This number may include some buffer acres on formerly agricultural land which has been converted to
other uses (see page 6).
Notably, Granville, Orange, and Person Counties are currently reporting an approximately 80% nitrogen loss
reduction from baseline. Both Orange and Person Counties have lost over 50% of their corn acres. Orange
has lost 50% of their tobacco acres and over 70% of their wheat acres. Person has lost almost 40% of their
wheat acres. Granville has lost almost 35% of their soybean acres and over 15% of their corn acres. Some of
these losses can be attributed to permanent loss of agricultural land to development, and others can be
attributed to wet weather failures, changing crop rotations, or low commodity prices. It is possible that
some of these acres are now grazed as pasture, which means that they are now accounted for in the pasture
NLEW reporting framework described later in this report. Only non-grazed hay acres are accounted for in
the cropland NLEW reduction calculation. Still others may simply be idle and not receiving any fertilizer
application, though it is possible that idle acres could come back into production in the future.
It is important to note that small number of agricultural acres in Durham, Franklin, and Wake Counties tends
to result in a magnified effect of year-to-year crop shifts on aggregate nitrogen loss reduction in those
counties. Overall, the Falls Lake Watershed is reporting a cropland nitrogen loss reduction of 77% for
CY2018.
6
Best Management Practice Implementation
Agriculture is credited with different nitrogen reduction efficiencies, expressed as percentages, for riparian
buffer widths ranging from 20 feet to 100 feet. NLEW versions 5.33b and 6.0 for the Neuse River Basin
provide the following percent nitrogen reduction efficiencies for buffer widths on cropland: 20’ receives 20%
reduction, 30’ receives 25% reduction, 50’ receives 30%, and 100’ receives 35% reduction (see Table 2).
Note that these percentages represent the net or relative percent improvement in nitrogen removal
resulting from riparian buffer implementation.
Table 2. Buffer Width Options and Nitrogen Reduction Efficiencies in NLEW
Buffer Width NLEW % N Reduction
20’ 20%
30’ 25%
50’ 30%
100’ 35%
An accurate reassessment of active agricultural land and remaining buffer systems is needed due to the
rate at which urbanizing counties have lost agricultural land. This reduction in agricultural acreage also
has implications for the other counties in the watershed which do not have local staff capacity to
perform a new agricultural land inventory. The WOC and DSWC are exploring ways to address this need
using GIS technology and expects to be able to provide more detail in future reports. An interim
adjustment of Durham’s BMP acre totals based on DEQ reports2 has led to a reduction of 20 ft. buffers
by 755 acres, 30 ft. buffers by 683 acres, 50 ft. buffers by 2,122 acres, and 100 ft. buffers by 4,015
acres. These adjusted totals have increased the accuracy of nitrogen loss calculations. Figure 2
illustrates the amount of buffers on cropland in the baseline (2006), CY2016, CY2017, and CY2018.
2 Osmond, D. L., and K. Neas. "Delineating agriculture in the Neuse River Basin." Final report to NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
for USEPA 319 program (2011).
7
Figure 2. Nitrogen Reducing Buffers Installed on Croplands from CY2016 through CY2018, compared to
Baseline (CY2006), Falls Lake Watershed*
*Some of these buffers may be on land that is now in new development and therefore no longer buffering
active agricultural operations.
BMP data is collected from state and federal cost share program active contracts, and in some cases
BMPs were installed without cost share funding. While there is some variability in the data reported,
LACs are reporting the best available information. As additional data is collected, the LACs will review
the sources and update their methodology for reporting if warranted.
Reported riparian buffer acre estimates do not take into account the entire drainage area treated by
buffers in the piedmont, which is generally 5 to 10 times higher than the actual acres of the buffer
shown in Figure 2.3 Riparian buffers have many important functions beyond being effective in reducing
nitrogen. Recent research has shown that upwards of 75% of sediment from agricultural sources is from
stream banks and that riparian buffers, particularly trees, are important for reducing this sediment.4 In
addition, buffers sequester phosphorus and sediment as they move through the riparian zone and provide
other critically important functions such as wildlife habitat and stream shading.5
3 Bruton, Jeffrey Griffin. 2004. Headwater Catchments: Estimating Surface Drainage Extent Across North Carolina and Correlations
Between Landuse, Near Stream, and Water Quality Indicators in the Piedmont Physiographic Region. Ph.D.
Dissertation. Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27606.
4 Sweeney, B. et al., 2004, Riparian deforestation, stream narrowing, and loss of stream ecosystem services, PNAS 101:39, 14132-
14137; Sweeney and Newbold, 2014.
5 Spruill, T.B., 2004, Effectiveness of riparian buffers in controlling ground-water discharge of nitrate to streams in selected
hydrogeologic settings of the North Carolina Coastal Plain, Water Science and Technology 49:3, 63-70.
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
20' Buffer 30' Buffer 50' Buffer 100' Buffer
Bu
f
f
e
r
A
c
r
e
s
Buffer Width
Baseline 2016 2017 2018
8
Fertilization Management
Since the baseline year, reduced nitrogen application rates have resulted from improved agronomic decision
making, economic conditions, and fluctuating farm incomes. Commodity prices and low profit margins have
impacted the application rates of nitrogen on farms in the Falls Lake Watershed. For most crops, farmers
have reduced their nitrogen application rates from baseline levels. Figure 3 displays the nitrogen application
rates in pounds per acre for the major crops in the watershed. Nitrogen application rates for fescue hay are
56 pounds/acre lower than during the baseline. Nitrogen rates on corn, tobacco, and wheat remained
relatively stable between CY2017 and CY2018. Fertilization rates are revisited annually by county local
advisory committees using data from farmers, commercial applicators and state and federal agencies’
professional estimates.
Agriculture in the six counties within the Falls Lake watershed is focused primarily on pasture-based
systems, with pasture ranging from 29-64% of the agricultural land use. On hay and pasture, nitrogen
application rates are significantly less than NC State University recommendations and only small amounts of
phosphorus are added. Thus, it appears that hay production acres are underfertilized in the Falls Lake
Watershed.6
Figure 3. Average annual nitrogen fertilization rate (lb/ac) for agricultural crops for the baseline (2006),
2016-2018, Falls Lake Watershed
6 Osmond, D. L., and K. Neas. "Delineating agriculture in the Neuse River Basin." Final report to NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
for USEPA 319 program (2011).
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Hay Corn Soybeans Tobacco Wheat
Ni
t
r
o
g
e
n
R
a
t
e
l
b
s
/
a
c
r
e
Crops
Baseline 2016 2017 2018
9
Cropping Shifts
The LACs recalculate the cropland acreage annually by utilizing crop data reported by farmers to the Farm
Service Agency. Because each crop type requires different amounts of nitrogen and uses applied nitrogen
with a different efficiency rate, changes in the mix of crops grown can have a significant impact on the
cumulative yearly nitrogen loss reduction. The WOC anticipates that the basin will see additional crop shifts
in the upcoming year based on changing commodity prices and weather.
Soybeans decreased by over 400 acres for the second year in a row, tobacco decreased by over 350 acres
from CY2017 to CY2018, and corn increased by over 140 acres from CY2017 to CY2018. A host of factors
from individual to global determine crop choices. Figure 4 shows crop acres and shifts for CY2018 compared
to the baseline. The reported acres of all major crops have decreased by over 31,500 acres in the watershed
since the baseline. None of the hay acres reported in this table are grazed by livestock.
Figure 4. Reported Acreage of Major Crops for the Baseline (2006), 2016-2018, Falls Lake Watershed
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
Hay Corn Soybeans Tobacco Wheat
Ac
r
e
s
Crops
Baseline 2016 2017 2018
10
Land Use Change to Development and Cropland Conversion
The number of cropland acres fluctuates every year in the Falls Lake Watershed due to cropland conversion
and development. Each year, some cropland is either permanently lost to development or converted to
grass or trees and likely to be ultimately lost from agricultural production. Data regarding land use change
since the baseline is summarized below.
As shown in Figure 5, it is estimated that since the 2006 baseline there has been a decrease in crop
production of 31,807 reported acres (57% of total cropland). An estimated 15% of agricultural land
(cropland and pasture) has been permanently lost to development. Through state and federal cost share
programs, 2,114 cropland acres (7% of cropland loss) were converted to grass or trees. The remaining
cropland reduction, which includes 10,644 acres of idle land, could potentially be brought back into
agricultural production.
The estimates for agricultural land lost to development come from methodologies developed at the
individual county level based on available information and the many and diverse local government reporting
requirements associated with development. Each county uses a different method, but these methods are
documented and use the best local information available. These estimates do not separate the amount of
cropland versus pastureland lost; the number reported is agricultural land converted to development.
Figure 5. Total Reported Cropland Acres in the Falls Lake Watershed, Baseline (2006), 2011-2018
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
Baseline 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Ac
r
e
s
Year
11
Phosphorus Indicators for CY2018
The Phosphorus Technical Assistance Committee (PTAC) was created to establish a phosphorus accounting
method for agriculture in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. In 2005 it determined that a defensible, aggregated,
county-scale accounting method for estimating phosphorus losses from agricultural lands was not feasible
due to “the complexity of phosphorus behavior and transport within a watershed, the lack of suitable data
required to adequately quantify the various mechanisms of phosphorus loss and retention within
watersheds of the basin, and the problem with not being able to capture agricultural conditions as they
existed in [baseline year] 1991.” The PTAC instead developed recommendations for qualitatively tracking
relative changes in practices in land use and management related to agricultural activity that either increase
or decrease the risk of phosphorus loss from agricultural lands in the basin on an annual basis. In 2010 the
PTAC reconvened to make minor revisions for the tool’s use in Falls Lake Watershed, all of which were
approved by the Water Quality Committee of the EMC. The qualitative indicators included in Table 3 show
the relative changes in land use and management parameters and their relative effect on phosphorus loss
risk in the watershed for baseline (CY2006), CY2016, CY2017, and CY2018.
Table 3. Relative Changes in Land Use and Management Parameters and their Relative Effect on
Phosphorus Loss Risk in the Falls Lake Watershed
Parameter Units Source Baseline
2006 CY2016 CY2017 CY2018 % change
'06-'18
P Loss
Risk +/-
Reported
Cropland acres FSA, LAC 55,969 24,277§ 24,582 24,162 -57% -
Cropland
conversion (to
grass & trees)
acres USDA-NRCS
& NCACSP 1,527 1,995 2,067 2,114 +38% -
Conservation
tillage†
contracted
acres
USDA-NRCS
& NCACSP
26,787
(47%)
19,999
(82%)
19,787§
(80%)
19,852
(82%) +37% -
Vegetated
buffers
(cumulative)
acres USDA-NRCS
& NCACSP 52,139 54,420 ¤ 54,421 ¤ 54,421 ¤ +4% ¤ -
Scavenger
crop acres LAC 0 1,400 2,483 2,088 +2,088%‡ N/A
Tobacco acres FSA, LAC 3,288 3,082 3,250 2,822 -12% -
Animal waste
P lbs of P/ yr NC Ag
Statistics 586,612 482,969 494,071 455,057 -22% -
Soil test P
median P Index NCDA& CS 77 53 59 62 -19% -
§This number was corrected due to a discovered spreadsheet error and differs from past reports.
† Conservation tillage is being practiced on additional acres but this number only reflects acres under active
cost share contracts.
¤This number may include some buffer acres on formerly agricultural land which has been converted to other
uses (see page 6).
‡The percent change for scavenger crop acres is assumed to have increased from 1 due to the problem with
calculating a percentage difference from zero.
12
Most of the parameters in Table 3 indicate less risk of phosphorus loss from agricultural management units
than in the baseline period. Factors contributing to the reduced risk of phosphorus loss in the Falls Lake
Watershed include:
• Tobacco acres were reduced by 12%
• Animal waste P was reduced by 22% from livestock and poultry
• Cropland conversion to other uses
Based on field office reports, conservation tillage acres remain high even after contracts expire due to
farmer satisfaction with the practice after initial implementation. Despite the reduction in reported tillage
acres, and because some farmers have adopted the use of conservation tillage without cost share
assistance, a higher percentage of agricultural land is currently being cultivated with reduced tillage than
was reported during the baseline due to the overall reduction in agricultural acres. By this metric, the
phosphorus loss risk remains negative.
The soil test phosphorus median number reported for the watershed fluctuates each year due to the nature
of how the data is collected and compiled. The soil test phosphorus median numbers shown in Table 3 are
from agricultural operations and are generated by using North Carolina Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services (NCDA&CS) soil test laboratory results from voluntary soil testing and the data is
reported by the NCDA&CS. The number of samples collected each year varies. The data does not include
soil tests that were submitted to private laboratories. The soil test results from the NCDA&CS database
represent data from entire counties in the watershed and have not been adjusted to include only those
samples collected in the Falls Lake Watershed.
Given the key role of phosphorus in the Falls Lake nutrient strategy, the Falls WOC recommends that
phosphorus accounting and reporting follow a three-pronged approach:
1. Annual Qualitative Accounting: Conduct annual qualitative assessment of likely trends in agricultural
phosphorus loss in the Falls watershed relative to 2006 baseline conditions using the method
established by a 2005 PTAC report that added tobacco acres and removed water control structures.
2. Phosphorus Loss Assessment Tool (PLAT): The PLAT has been developed to assess potential P loss
from cropland to water resources. A survey of the Falls Lake watershed counties was conducted in
2010, with the next survey to be conducted in the future if funding is available. The results of the
2010 survey demonstrated that the potential for phosphorus loss is very low (< 0.35 lbs/ac/yr) for
four of the five counties surveyed. Phosphorus loss in Orange County is rated at the low end of the
medium range (> 1 lb/ac/yr). Even with the installation of buffers along all streams and the
discontinuation of phosphorus application (fertilizer, biosolids, or animal waste), there would be
limited potential for additional phosphorus loss reduction.
3. Improved understanding of agricultural phosphorus management through studies using in-stream
monitoring: Quantitative in-stream monitoring should be conducted. Such monitoring is contingent
upon the availability of funding and staff resources. An appropriate water quality monitoring design
would be a paired-watershed study of subwatersheds with only agricultural land use. This design
would allow estimates of phosphorus loading for different management regimes and load
reductions after conservation practices have been implemented. However, funding for this study is
currently unavailable.
13
The WOC recommends that no additional management actions be required of agricultural operations in the
watershed at this time to comply with the phosphorus goals of the agriculture rule. The WOC will continue
to track and report the identified set of qualitative phosphorus indicators to DWR annually, and as directed
by the rule to the Environmental Management Commission. The WOC expects that BMP implementation
may continue to increase throughout the watershed in future years, and notes that BMPs installed for
nitrogen, pathogen and sediment control often provide significant phosphorus benefits as well.
Pasture Accounting
Pasture nitrogen loss is also calculated using NLEW and is based on the total number of pasture acres,
pastured livestock, and implemented livestock exclusion systems in the watershed. Reported pasture
acreage and livestock totals are collected every 5 years from the USDA Census of Agriculture, and
implementation data for exclusion systems is collected from local Soil and Water Conservation District staffs
in the watershed. Exclusion systems installed with various setback widths are assigned the nitrogen loss
reduction percentages shown in Table 4. These reduction percentages include the elimination of direct
deposition of waste into surface waters by livestock in addition to the filtration of nitrogen by vegetated
buffer areas.
Table 4. Percentage nitrogen reduction from pastureland for different BMPs
Pasture BMP N Reduction
Exclusion fencing with a 10’ stream setback 30%
Exclusion fencing with a 20’ buffer 35%
Exclusion fencing with a 30’ buffer 40%
Exclusion fencing with a 50’ buffer 45%
Exclusion fencing with a 100’ buffer 50%
In CY2017 agriculture achieved a 36% reduction in nitrogen loss from pastureland compared to baseline. For
pasture accounting 2007 was chosen as the baseline year because the closest possible Census of Agriculture
was collected and published based on 2007 data. Figure 6 shows overall watershed nitrogen loss percent
reductions for each reporting period since CY2007 and Table 5 lists each county’s baseline, CY2012 and
CY2017 nitrogen (lbs/yr) loss values from pastureland, along with nitrogen loss percent reductions from the
baseline in CY2012 and CY2017.
14
Figure 6. Collective Pastureland Nitrogen Loss Reduction Percent 2012 and 2017, Falls Lake Watershed.
Table 5. Estimated reductions in agricultural (pastureland) nitrogen loss from baseline (CY2007) for
CY2012 and CY2017, Falls Lake Watershed
County Baseline N Loss
(lbs) *
CY2012 N Loss
(lbs) *
CY2012 N
Reduction (%) *
CY2017 N Loss
(lbs)
CY2017 N
Reduction (%)
Durham 55,564 41,891 25% 36,348 35%
Franklin 1,600 1,776 -11% 1,538 4%
Granville 104,474 72,371 31% 59,288 43%
Orange 47,689 24,861 48% 23,864 50%
Person 50,088 30,824 38% 29,114 42%
Wake 5,747 3,689 36% 3,795 34%
Total 265,162 175,411 34% 153,947 42%
* Values in this column may not match values included in previous reports due to accounting methodology
changes since the last reporting period. It was decided that pastureland nitrogen loss accounting should be
reported only for unbuffered pastures in the watershed, as opposed to total pasture footprint.
The reduction percentages reported above result from a combination of pasture land loss, fertilization
decreases, stocking rate changes, and BMP implementation. Table 6 shows how these factors have changed
in the Falls Lake Watershed since the CY2007 baseline.
0
20
40
60
80
100
2012 2017
%
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Year
20% Reduction Goal
15
Table 6. Pasture operation changes from baseline (CY2007) for CY2012 and CY2017, Jordan Lake
Watershed
Factor Baseline (CY2007) CY2012 CY2017 2012-2017 %
Change
Pasture Land 40,565 acres 29,816 acres 26,584 acres -34%
Fertilization† 92 lbs N/acre 80 lbs N/acre 86 lbs N/acre +7%§
Stocking Rate 0.54 animal
units/acre
0.62 animal
units/acre
0.65 animal
units/acre
+20%
Livestock Exclusion
System
Implementation
454 acres affected 927 acres affected 1,527 acres
affected
+236%
†Total fertilization rate equals direct waste deposition times volatilization factor plus supplemental application.
§ Inorganic fertilization was stable between the crop year 2012 and crop year 2017, and the increase in fertilization rate
is primarily due to increases in animal stocking rates and waste deposition.
16
BMP Implementation Not Tracked by NLEW
Not all types of nutrient and sediment-reducing BMPs are tracked by NLEW such as: livestock-related
nitrogen and phosphorus reducing BMPs, BMPs that reduce soil and phosphorus loss, and BMPs that do not
have enough scientific research to support estimating a nitrogen benefit. The WOC believes it is worthwhile
to recognize these practices. Table 7 identifies BMPs and tracks their implementation in the watershed
since the end of the baseline period.
Table 7: Best management practices installed from CY2006 to CY2018, Falls Lake Watershed*
BMP Units BMPs Installed (CY2006-CY2018)
Critical Area Planting Acre 711
Composting Facility Number 8
Diversion Feet 26,398
Dry Stack Number 8
Fencing (USDA programs) Feet 81,284
Field Border Acre 10,115
Grassed Waterway Acre 8,663
Nutrient Management Plan Acre 1,267
Pasture Renovation Acre 326
Stream Crossing Number 3
Sod-Based Rotation Acre 15,545
Tillage Management Acre 19,852
Terraces Feet 3,678
Trough or Tank Number 97
Waste Storage Facility Number 9
*Values represent active contracts in State and Federal cost share programs. Additional BMPs may exist in
the watershed as producers may maintain practices after the life of a cost share contract, and other practices
are installed by farmers without cost share assistance.
17
Looking Forward
The Falls Lake WOC will continue to report on and
encourage rule implementation, relying heavily on the
local soil and water conservation districts who work
directly with farmers to assist with best management
practice design and installation.
Because cropping shifts are susceptible to various
pressures, the WOC is working with all counties to
continue BMP implementation on both cropland and
pastureland that provides for a lasting reduction in
nitrogen and phosphorus loss in the watershed while
monitoring cropping changes.
Funding
Ongoing agriculture rule reporting has incorporated data
processing efficiencies and improvements in recent
years. NLEW upgrades have allowed LAC members to
more actively participate in the compilation of data and
analysis of nitrogen loss trends, and a new Division of Soil
and Water Conservation contracting system has helped optimize BMP documentation efforts.
In CY2018 soil and water conservation districts spent almost $300,000 through the Agriculture Cost Share
Program in the counties of the Falls Lake Watershed, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service spent
almost $660,000 through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program in the counties of the Falls Lake
Watershed. These programs have all helped fund erosion and nutrient reducing best management
practices. Funds are also expended for installation of these practices by local farmers and landowners either
through participation in these cost share programs, or by installing practices at their own cost. Participation
by so many members of the local agricultural community demonstrates a commitment toward achieving the
nutrient strategy’s long-term goals.
The EPA 319(h) grant program, which is administered by the Department of Environmental Quality, awards
competitive grant funds for implementation of approved management programs for all types of nonpoint
sources. Grant funds from the 319(h) program can be used to supplement technical assistance, match cost
share funding, and support BMP implementation. From 2012 through 2015 an EPA 319(h) grant valued at
$131,563 supported BMP implementation on equine operations in the Falls Lake Watershed. The Division of
Soil and Water Conservation, funded through an EPA 319(h) grant, expends approximately $50,000 on
agricultural reporting staff support annually.
Funding is an integral part in the success of reaching and maintaining the goal through technical assistance
and BMP implementation. It is also important for data collection and reporting.
In 2001, grants from several sources funded a total of two watershed technicians and a Neuse River Basin
Coordinator. The technicians’ primary responsibility was to assist farmers with BMP implementation. These
The WOC recognizes several factors affecting
agriculture:
➢ Urban encroachment
➢ Market Fluctuations
➢ Changes in government programs
(i.e., commodity support or
environmental regulations)
➢ Weather (i.e., long periods of drought
or rain)
➢ Scientific advances in agronomics (i.e.,
production of new types of crops or
improvements in crop sustainability)
➢ Plant disease or pest problems (i.e.,
viruses or foreign pests)
18
technicians assisted existing county staff to expedite the installation of nutrient reducing BMPs in the basin.
On June 30, 2015 the last technician funding was expended, and technician funding is no longer eligible for
grant awards by funding entities in the state. Therefore, less technical assistance for BMP implementation is
available. Ongoing responsibility for conservation practice planning and installation now depends on local
staff that also have other duties. Budget changes at the USDA have necessitated a statewide restructuring
of North Carolina NRCS field staff, and these changes have led to a reduction in federally-funded technical
capacity at the local level. At the present time there is also no funding for a basin coordinator. Part of the
responsibilities of the technicians and basin coordinators was to assist with the reporting requirements for
the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico Agriculture Rules. In addition to his other duties, an employee within the
NCDA&CS Division of Soil and Water Conservation funded by EPA 319(h) funds has been assigned the data
collection, compilation and reporting duties for the Agriculture Rules for all existing Nutrient Sensitive
Waters Strategies.
Now that watershed technician funding has been eliminated, a more centralized approach to data collection
and verification is necessary. This evolving approach will involve GIS analysis and more streamlined FSA
acreage documentation. Because most district staffs have neither the time nor financial resources to
synthesize county level data, this centralized collection approach will come at the expense of local
knowledge. Annual agricultural reporting is required by the rules; therefore, continued funding for the
Division’s only remaining nutrient coordinator position is essential for compliance.
Previously, funding was available for research on conservation practice effectiveness, realistic yields, and
nitrogen use efficiencies. Due to eligibility changes and other funding constraints, it is unlikely that new data
will be developed. Prior funding sources for such research, which provided much of the scientific
information on which NLEW was based, are no longer available. Should new funding be made available,
additional North Carolina-specific research information could be incorporated into future NLEW updates.
Phosphorus accounting and reporting will continue to address qualitative factors and evaluate trends in
agricultural phosphorus loss annually. Periodic land use surveys with associated use of PLAT are needed
every five years, but it is unlikely that funding will be available for this activity. Additionally, understanding
of agricultural phosphorus management could be improved through in-stream monitoring contingent upon
the availability of funding and staff resources.
Members of the Falls and Jordan Lake WOCs have been working with DWR on issues regarding nutrient
offsets that arise from trades involving agricultural land. Also, the WOC feels that additional research is
needed on accounting procedures for pasture operations, and supports such research being conducted.
Additionally, should readily accessible information become available on biosolids applications to agricultural
acres in the watershed, the WOC will consider whether separate accounting for those applications of
nutrients is feasible and appropriate.
19
Conclusion
The Falls Lake WOC will continue to monitor and evaluate crop trends. The current shift to and from crops
with higher nitrogen requirements may continue to influence the yearly reduction. Significant progress has
been made in agricultural nitrogen loss reduction, and the agricultural community is achieving its 20% phase
I reduction goal. However, the measurable effects of these BMPs on overall in-stream nitrogen reduction
may take years to develop due to the nature of non-point source pollution. Nitrogen reduction values
presented in this annual summary of agricultural reductions reflect “edge-of-management unit” calculations
that contribute to achieving the 20% phase I nitrogen loss reduction goal. Significant quantities of
agricultural BMPs have been installed since the adoption and implementation of the nutrient management
strategy, and agriculture continues to do its part towards achieving the overall nutrient reduction goals of
Falls Lake.
Report submitted: April 3, 2020
Financial constraints will affect future reporting:
➢ The Falls Lake Watershed has lost all funding for watershed technicians. LACs are being asked
to take on a more active role in the data collection and synthesis that these positions
conducted previously. It should be noted that farmers and agency staff personnel with
other responsibilities serve on the LACs in a voluntary capacity.
➢ The Neuse/Tar-Pam Basin Coordinator position is no longer funded, and the Division of Soil and
Water Conservation has had to restructure current staff workloads to ensure that Falls Lake
reporting can be completed. Therefore, less time is available to support local efforts to do the
reporting and assist with BMP implementation and outreach.
➢ Periodic land use surveys critical to understanding watershed agricultural activities are not
currently being conducted. These surveys are contingent upon future funding.