Jordan_Lake_Ag_Report_CY2018

1

NCDA&CS
Annual Progress Report for the
Jordan Lake Agriculture Rule
(15A NCAC 02B.0264) for the
Baseline Period (1997-2001) for
Crop Year 2018
A Report to the Division of Water Resources from the Jordan Lake Watershed
Oversight Committee: Crop Year 2018, Submitted 2020

2

Contents
Summary ..............................................................................................................................................................4
Rule Requirements and Compliance ....................................................................................................................5
Scope of Report and Methodology ......................................................................................................................6
Nitrogen Reduction from Cropland from Baseline for CY2018............................................................................7
Best Management Practice Implementation .......................................................................................................9
Fertilization Management ................................................................................................................................. 12
Cropping Shifts .................................................................................................................................................. 15
Land Use Change to Development and Cropland Conversion .......................................................................... 17
Pasture Accounting ........................................................................................................................................... 18
Phosphorus Indicators for CY2015 through CY2018 ......................................................................................... 21
BMP Implementation Not Tracked by NLEW .................................................................................................... 24
Looking Forward ............................................................................................................................................... 25
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................................... 26

3

4

Summary
This report provides an assessment of collective progress made by the agricultural community to reduce
nutrient losses toward compliance with the Jordan Lake Agriculture rule. For this report, the Jordan Lake
Watershed Oversight Committee (WOC) implemented the accounting methods approved by the
Environmental Management Commission’s Water Quality Committee in July 2011 to estimate changes in
nitrogen loss and the phosphorus loss trend in the three Jordan subwatersheds for the period between the
strategy baseline (1997-2001) and the most recent crop years (CY) for which data was available, 2018. This
report provides progress estimates in three categories: cropland nitrogen, pasture nitrogen, and agricultural
phosphorus. To produce this report, Division of Soil and Water Conservation staff received, processed and
compiled current-year data from agricultural staff in eight counties, and the WOC reviewed and approved
this report. Refer to Figure 1 for the location of the Jordan Lake Watershed, including the three
subwatersheds affected by this rule.
The cropland nitrogen portion of the report demonstrates agriculture’s collective compliance with the
Jordan Agriculture Rule and estimates progress made by agriculture in the watershed to decrease the
amount of nutrients lost from agricultural management units. Agriculture has been successfully decreasing
nutrient losses in each of the Jordan Lake subwatersheds. Each of the three subwatersheds is meeting their
cropland nitrogen loss reduction goal from baseline to CY2018, with the Upper New Hope Watershed
reporting a 56% reduction, the Lower New Hope
Watershed reporting a 76% reduction, and the Haw
River Watershed reporting a 33% reduction. Table 1
illustrates the estimated reductions in nitrogen loss
collectively achieved by cropland agriculture
compared to the 1997-2001 baseline.
Reductions in cropland nitrogen loss have been
achieved through crop shifts and reduction in
nitrogen application rates for most major crops in
the watershed. From the baseline to 2018, the
watershed has experienced a crop shift from crops
with higher nitrogen requirements to mixed cool
season grass (hay) and soybeans. In addition, the
nitrogen rate on mixed cool season grass (hay) has
decreased significantly.
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. Each of the three subwatersheds met their pastureland nitrogen loss reduction goal
from baseline to CY2017, with the Upper New Hope Watershed reporting a 47% reduction, the Lower New
Hope Watershed reporting a 73% reduction, and the Haw River Watershed reporting a 38% reduction.
Jordan Lake Watershed Oversight Committee
Composition, Jordan 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

5

Qualitative phosphorus indicators demonstrate that there is no increased risk of phosphorus loss. Primary
factors contributing to this trend include a reduction in tobacco acres, a decrease in the amount of animal
waste phosphorus, and implementation of conservation tillage on 90% of cropland in the watershed.
Rule Requirements and Compliance
Effective August 2009, the Agriculture Rule that is part
of the Jordan Water Supply Nutrient Strategy provides
for a collective strategy for farmers to meet nitrogen
loss reduction goals within six to nine years. The goals
for this nutrient strategy are specified at the
subwatershed level in Table 1 and are compared to
the 1997-2001 baseline period. The Lower New Hope
Subwatershed has a goal of no increase in nitrogen or
phosphorus. The Upper New Hope Subwatershed has
a goal of 35% nitrogen loss reduction and 5%
phosphorus reduction. The Haw River Subwatershed
has a goal of 8% nitrogen loss reduction and 5%
phosphorus reduction. All reductions are required for
both cropland and pastureland, and the two are
calculated separately. A Watershed Oversight
Committee (WOC) was established to implement the rule and to assist farmers in complying with the rule.
The Jordan Agriculture rule stipulated that if the initial accounting done for CY2010 found that a nitrogen
goal had not been achieved in a subwatershed, then Local Advisory Committees were to be formed in that
subwatershed and farmers were to register their operations with the committees. Based on the success on
cropland nitrogen reductions relative to the strategy goals estimated in initial reports, the WOC found that
such actions were not required.
All counties provided information for the annual report to the WOC in February 2020. Collectively, each of
the three subwatersheds is meeting their cropland nitrogen loss reductions, with the Upper New Hope
Watershed reporting a 56% reduction, the Lower New Hope Watershed reporting a 76% reduction, and the
Haw River Watershed reporting a 33% reduction. These reductions have been achieved primarily by
reduced nitrogen application rates and cropping shifts from higher nitrogen crops to lower nitrogen crops.
Overall nitrogen loss reduction percentage in the Haw subwatershed decreased from 55% in CY2017 to 33%
in CY2018, largely due to an increase of over 3,500 acres of corn and 4,000 acres of wheat in the watershed.
Both of these crops require higher nitrogen input than other crops grown in the watershed.
In addition, each of the three subwatersheds is meeting their pastureland nitrogen loss reductions for
CY2017, with the Upper New Hope Watershed reporting a 54% reduction, the Lower New Hope Watershed
reporting a 73% reduction, and the Haw River Watershed reporting a 49% reduction. These reductions have
been achieved primarily by reduced nitrogen application rates and an overall reduction in pasture acres.
Pastureland nitrogen loss is calculated on a 5-year cycle, and CY2017 is the most recent year for which data
is available.
Jordan NSW Strategy:
The Environmental Management Commission
(EMC) adopted the Jordan Water Supply
Nutrient Strategy in 2008. The strategy goal is
to reduce the average annual load of nitrogen
and phosphorus from each of its
subwatersheds to Jordan Lake from 1997-
2001 baseline levels. In addition to point
source rules, mandatory controls were applied
to addressing non-point source pollution in
agriculture, nutrient management, riparian
buffer protection, and urban stormwater. The
management strategy built upon the Neuse
and Tar-Pamlico River Basins efforts.

6

Scope of Report and Methodology
The estimates provided in this report represent whole-county scale calculations of nitrogen loss from
cropland and pastureland agriculture in the watershed made by soil and water conservation district
technicians using the ‘aggregate’ version of the Nitrogen Loss Estimation Worksheet, or NLEW. The NLEW is
an accounting tool developed to meet the specifications of the Neuse Agriculture Rule and approved by the
Water Quality Committee of the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) for use in the Jordan Lake
Watershed. The development team included interagency technical representatives of the NC Division of
Water Resources (DWR), NC Division of Soil and Water Conservation (DSWC), USDA-NRCS and was led by NC
State University Soil Science Department faculty. The NLEW captures application of both inorganic and
animal waste sources of fertilizer to cropland and pastureland. The NLEW is an “edge-of-management unit”
accounting tool which estimates changes in nitrogen loss from cropland and pastureland but does not
estimate changes in nitrogen loading to surface waters. An assessment method was developed and
approved by the Water Quality Committee of the EMC for phosphorus and is described later in the report.
The Nitrogen Loss Estimation Worksheet (NLEW) was developed to estimate a baseline nitrogen loading and
percent N reductions based on the regulatory framework developed for the agricultural accounting tool1.
Changes in nitrogen occur due to nitrogen fertilizer management, conservation practices, cropping shifts,
and loss of agricultural lands. The Jordan Lake Agriculture Rule was written so that each sub watershed has
a nitrogen loss reduction requirement.

1 Osmond, D.L., L. Xu, N.N. Ranells, S.C. Hodges, R. Hansard, and S.H. Pratt. 2001. Nitrogen loss estimation worksheet
(NLEW): agricultural Nitrogen loading reduction tracking tool. In: Optimizing Nitrogen Management in Food and
Energy Production and Environmental Protection. Eds: J. Galloway, E. Cowling, J. Erisman, J. Wisniewski, C. Jordan.
Contributed Papers from the 2nd International Nitrogen Conference. October 14-18, 2001. Potomac, MD, USA.
Pp.777-783.

7

Nitrogen Reduction from Cropland from Baseline for CY2018
The Jordan Lake Watershed encompasses just over 1,000,000 acres, and in CY2018 a total of 95,004 acres
were planted in cropping systems. Of those, 90,176 acres (95%) were grown in the Haw subwatershed,
3,480 acres (4%) were grown in the Upper New Hope subwatershed, and 1,348 acres (1%) were grown in the
Lower New Hope subwatershed. Figure 1 shows a breakdown of these cropland acres by subwatershed:

Figure 1: Total cropland acres grown in CY2018 by subwatershed in the Jordan Lake Watershed

All counties submitted their progress report to the WOC in August 2018.
• For the Lower New Hope Watershed, agriculture achieved a cropland nitrogen loss reduction of 76%
compared to the average nitrogen loss from 1997 to 2001.
• For the Upper New Hope Watershed, agriculture achieved a cropland nitrogen loss reduction of 56%
compared to the average nitrogen loss from 1997 to 2001.
• For the Haw Watershed, agriculture achieved a cropland nitrogen loss reduction of 33% compared
to the average nitrogen loss from 1997 to 2001.
Table 1 lists each county’s cropland nitrogen loss (lbs/yr) at the time of the baseline and in CY2017 and
CY2018, along with nitrogen loss percent reductions from baseline values in CY2017 and CY2018.
Haw
Upper
New Hope
Lower
New Hope

8

Table 1. Estimated reductions in agricultural nitrogen loss (cropland) from baseline (1997-2001), CY2017 and CY2018, Jordan Lake Watershed †
County Baseline Nitrogen Loss (lb) † CY2017 Nitrogen Loss (lb) † CY2017 N Loss Reduction (%) CY2018 Nitrogen Loss (lb) † CY2018 N Loss Reduction (%)
Upper New Hope Subwatershed: Goal of 35% nitrogen loss reduction (1% of total Jordan Lake Watershed cropland)

Chatham 43,063 6,694 84% 7,996 81%
Durham 37,618 12,425 67% 15,565 59%
Orange 68,632 33,440 51% 43,039 37%
Wake 9,694 4,084 58% 3,098 68%
Total 159,007 56,643 64% 69,697 56%
Lower New Hope Subwatershed: Goal of no increase in nitrogen loss (4% of total Jordan Lake Watershed cropland)

Chatham 56,632 9,917 82% 11,858 79%
Wake 38,362 15,816 59% 11,151 71%
Total 94,994 25,732 73% 23,009 76%
Haw Subwatershed: Goal of 8% nitrogen loss reduction (95% of total Jordan Lake Watershed cropland)

Alamance 697,634 261,444 63% 458,154 34%
Caswell 260,254 113,352 56% 126,569 51%
Chatham 245,458 45,524 81% 55,704 77%
Guilford 1,393,551 738,657 47% 1,101,023 21%
Orange 231,272 106,835 54% 137,983 40%
Rockingham 169,080 71,839 58% 127,705 24%
Total ‡ 2,997,249 1,337,651 55% 2,007,138 33%
† Nitrogen loss values are for comparative purposes. These are produced via NLEW calculations and based on best available nitrogen application rates to cropland
in the watershed. Loss totals represent nitrogen neither used by crops nor intercepted by BMPs in a Soil Management Group. This is not an in-stream loading value.
‡ Total reduction percentages are calculated by comparing current nitrogen loss to baseline nitrogen loss. Individual county totals contribute proportionally, and so
smaller watershed trends tend to be more volatile than large watershed trends.

9

Best Management Practice Implementation

Agriculture is credited with different nitrogen reduction efficiencies, expressed as percentages, for riparian
buffer practice installation widths ranging from 20 feet to 100 feet. The NLEW for Jordan Lake provides the
percent nitrogen reduction efficiencies for buffer practice installation widths on cropland as displayed in
Table 2.
Table 2: Nitrogen loss reduction percentages by buffer practice installation width
Buffer width Nitrogen loss reduction percentage2
20 feet 20%
30 feet 25%
50 feet 30%
100 feet 35%

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. In addition, riparian
buffers can reduce phosphorus and sediment as it moves through the buffer and provide other critically
important functions. According to a report completed in 2007, Delineating Agriculture in the Lake Jordan
River Basin, the majority of agricultural land is already buffered. This study found that, six of the counties
had more than 75% of their agricultural land buffered, and that the average buffer width was greater than
50 feet .3Due to data availability and staffing limitations, a decision was made to utilize GIS technology and
aerial photography for baseline BMP totals. Baseline acreage of riparian buffers on cropland among the
different widths for which agriculture receives reductions was obtained through this process first in 1998
and then again in 2010. Overall, total acres of buffers slightly decreased between 1998 and 2010 due to the
fact that overall agricultural production acres decreased during that same time period. This helps explain
why the first reported buffer acres were noticeably lower than baseline totals. Since the CY2010 report,
however, total buffer acreage has been obtained through individual contracts implemented through state
and federal cost share contracts, and buffer acres are added after each project’s completion.
Since the baseline some buffer practices have been installed in the Jordan Lake Watershed through the
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). DMS has completed 63 projects in the watershed from the baseline

2 These percentages represent the net or relative percent improvement in nitrogen removal resulting from riparian
buffer implementation.
3 Osmond, Deanna L. 2007. Final Report for the Sampling Analysis: Delineating Agriculture in the Lake Jordan River
Basin. Department of Soil Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27606.

10

through 2019, and at least six private mitigation banks from which DMS purchases credits are currently
operating in the watershed. DMS project data is not tracked either for previous land use or for the area of
buffer restored in conjunction with stream restoration projects. Because DMS funded these buffers for
compensatory mitigation for stream or buffer permitted losses also occurring in the watershed, they are not
eligible to be counted for reductions under the agriculture rule, even if they are located on agricultural
lands. Thus, DMS buffer restoration projects are not included in the totals provided in this report. As DMS
continues to install buffers adjacent to and purchase credits generated on agricultural land, this decreases
the possibility for buffers to be installed for credit under agriculture rule progress reporting.
In the Lower New Hope Subwatershed, 144 acres (57%) of the buffers in the subwatershed still exist but are
no longer eligible for accounting under the agriculture rule because these lands have been taken out of
agricultural production. This subwatershed experienced a decrease of 12% of cropland with wide riparian
buffers over that time period. In the Upper New Hope Subwatershed, 531 acres (39%) of baseline buffers
still exist but are no longer eligible for accounting under the agriculture rule, also because these lands have
been taken out of agricultural production. This subwatershed experienced a decrease of 21% of cropland
over that time period. For these two watersheds, the limited number of cropland acres greatly increases
the effect of any change in agricultural operation land use on overall nitrogen loss reduction percentage.
The Haw River Subwatershed only saw a decrease of 1% of buffer acres in the watershed. This is to be
expected, since the subwatershed did not lose any cropland acres from 1998 to 2010. Detailed information
regarding buffer acreages implemented by subwatershed in baseline (1998) and crop years 2015, 2016,
2017, and 2018 is displayed in Figures 2, 3, and 4.
Of the cropland acres in the Jordan Lake Watershed, 1% are in the Lower New Hope Subwatershed.
Figure 2. Nitrogen Reducing BMPs installed on Croplands from Baseline (1998), 2015, 2016, 2017, and
2018, Lower New Hope Subwatershed, Jordan Lake Watershed *

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Scavenger Crop
(annual acres)
20' Buffer
(cumulative
acres)
30' Buffer
(cumulative
acres)
50' Buffer
(cumulative
acres)
100' Buffer
(cumulative
acres)
Ac
r
e
s
Baseline
2015
2016
2017
2018

11

Of the cropland acres in the Jordan Lake Watershed, 4% are in the Upper New Hope Subwatershed.
Figure 3. Nitrogen Reducing BMPs installed on Croplands from Baseline (1998), 2015, 2016, 2017, and
2018, Upper New Hope Subwatershed, Jordan Lake Watershed*

Of the cropland acres in the Jordan Lake Watershed, 95% are in the Haw Subwatershed.
Figure 4. Nitrogen Reducing BMPs installed on Croplands from Baseline (1998), 2015, 2016, 2017, and
2018, Haw Subwatershed, Jordan Lake Watershed*

* The acres of buffers listed include estimated acres from GIS analysis from
1998 and 2010 aerial photography and acres implemented through cost
share programs since baseline. Cropland acres affected by the buffer could
be 5 to 10 times larger than the acreage shown above.4

4 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
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Scavenger crop
(annual acres)
20' Buffer
(cumulative
acres)
30' Buffer
(cumulative
acres)
50' Buffer
(cumulative
acres)
100' Buffer
(cumulative
acres)
Ac
r
e
s
Baseline
2015
2016
2017
2018
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
Scavenger crop
(annual acres)
20' Buffer
(cumulative
acres)
30' Buffer
(cumulative
acres)
50' Buffer
(cumulative
acres)
100' Buffer
(cumulative
acres)
Ac
r
e
s
Baseline
2015
2016
2017
2018

12

Fertilization Management
Fertilization rates are revisited annually by counties using data from farmers, commercial applicators and
state and federal agencies’ professional estimates. Total nitrogen application rates include both organic
(waste) and inorganic (fertilizer) sources, even in situations where a producer applies some of both to the
same crop. In this watershed, the majority of crops are under fertilized due to economics. Mixed cool
season grass (hay) has always been under fertilized in the Jordan Lake Watershed and continues to be under
fertilized. Nitrogen fertilization rates on these acres fell in the Lower New Hope and Haw subwatersheds
and increased slightly in the Upper New Hope subwatershed. This is important to note as it is the largest
acreage crop grown in all three subwatersheds. For many of the high acreage crops, farmers have reduced
their nitrogen fertilization from baseline levels, while fertilization rates on other crops have increased or
remained the same. Figures 5, 6, and 7 display the nitrogen fertilization rates in pounds per acre for the
major crops in the watershed. Nitrogen fertilization rates for soybeans remained consistent with baseline
fertilization rates or decreased in the subwatersheds. Nitrogen fertilization rates were higher in 2017 and
2018 than in the baseline period on corn acres due to differences in crop varieties and increased plant
population densities, with expected increases in nitrogen uptake that produce higher yields. Wheat
experienced decreases in nitrogen fertilization rates in 2017 and 2018 compared to the baseline. No corn
was grown in the Lower New Hope subwatershed in 2015.
Of the cropland acres in the Jordan Lake Watershed, 1% are in the Lower New Hope Subwatershed.
Figure 5. Average annual nitrogen fertilization rate (lb/ac) on cropland for the baseline (1997-2001) 2015,
2016, 2017, and 2018, Lower New Hope Subwatershed, Jordan Lake Watershed

Region. Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC 27606.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Corn for grain Hay Soybeans Tobacco Wheat
Ni
t
r
o
g
e
n

R
a
t
e

(
p
o
u
n
d
s
/
a
c
r
e
)
Crops
Baseline
2015
2016
2017
2018

13

Of the cropland acres in the Jordan Lake Watershed, 4% are in the Upper New Hope Subwatershed.
Figure 6. Average annual nitrogen fertilization rate (lb/ac) on cropland for the baseline (1997-2001) 2015,
2016, 2017, and 2018, Upper New Hope Subwatershed, Jordan Lake Watershed

Of the cropland acres in the Jordan Lake Watershed, 95% are in the Haw Subwatershed.
Figure 7. Average annual nitrogen fertilization rate (lb/ac) on cropland for the baseline (1997-2001) 2015,
2016, 2017, and 2018, Haw Subwatershed, Jordan Lake Watershed

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Corn for grain Hay Soybeans Tobacco Wheat
Ni
t
r
o
g
e
n

R
a
t
e

(
p
o
u
n
d
s
/
a
c
r
e
)
Crops
Baseline
2015
2016
2017
2018
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Corn for grain Hay Soybeans Tobacco Wheat
Ni
t
r
o
g
e
n

R
a
t
e

(
p
o
u
n
d
s
/
a
c
r
e
)
Crops
Baseline
2015
2016
2017
2018

14

Figure 8 depicts the total annual nitrogen (in pounds) applied to cropland during the baseline (1997-2001),
2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 to show the impact of fertilization rates related to crops that are grown in each
subwatershed. Due to the small size of the subwatersheds in Jordan Lake, minor changes in nitrogen
fertilization rates result in significant effects on the reported nitrogen reductions on cropland for smaller
subwatersheds. The total amount of nitrogen lost in each of these subwatersheds is a function of the
fertilization rate for each crop and the number of acres planted, which means that the largest nitrogen
fluxes in the Jordan Lake Watershed occur on hay, wheat, and corn acres in the Haw subwatershed. Of all
crops grown in the Jordan Lake Watershed, hay acres grown in the Haw subwatershed encompass the vast
majority of all nitrogen applied to cropland. Depending on annual crop rotations, corn in the Haw
subwatershed encompasses roughly a third of the total nitrogen volume as hay, and wheat encompasses
roughly a fifth of the same.
Figure 8. Total annual nitrogen applied (lbs) to cropland for the baseline (1997-2001), 2015, 2016, 2017,
and 2018 by Subwatershed, Jordan Lake Watershed

-
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
5,000,000
Corn for grain Hay Soybeans Flue-cured
tobacco
Wheat
To
t
a
l

P
o
u
n
d
s

o
f

N
i
t
r
o
g
e
n
Crops
Baseline
2015
2016
2017
2018
Baseline
2015
2016
2017
2018
Baseline
2015
2016
2017
2018
Lo
w
e
r

N
e
w

H
o
p
e

U
p
p
e
r

N
e
w

H
o
p
e

H
a
w

15

Cropping Shifts
Counties calculated cropland acreage by utilizing crop data reported through the North Carolina Agricultural
Statistics Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in cooperation with the North Carolina Department
of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
Agricultural Statistics reports selected major commodity crops, which means that smaller acreages of
vegetable produce and specialty crops are not included in their annual reports. In addition, in any county
where it occurs, Agricultural Statistics does not report planted or harvested acreage for any crop where
fewer than 500 acres were grown or where fewer than 3 individual producers reported growing a particular
crop. Each crop requires different amounts of nitrogen and uses the nitrogen applied with different
efficiency rates. Changes in the mix of crops grown can have a significant impact on the cumulative yearly
nitrogen loss reduction.
Figures 9, 10, and 11 show crop acres and shifts for the baseline, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018. The acres of
mixed cool season grass (hay) increased by 9,531 acres in the Haw subwatershed since the baseline but
decreased by 35 acres in the Lower New Hope subwatershed and 166 acres in the Upper New Hope
subwatershed. This shift to hay production in the Haw subwatershed may be due to the tobacco quota
buyout program and increased reporting of hayland by farmers. Overall in the three subwatersheds corn
and soybeans have increased by 1,226 and 11,038 acres, respectively, and tobacco and wheat acres have
decreased by 3,365, and 2,504 acres, respectively. A host of factors from individual to global determine
crop choices. Crop acreages are expected to fluctuate with the market yearly.
Of the cropland acres in the Jordan Lake Watershed, 1% are in the Lower New Hope Subwatershed.
Figure 9. Acreage of Major Crops for the Baseline (1997-2001), 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018, Lower New
Hope Subwatershed, Jordan Lake Watershed

-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
Corn for grain Hay Soybeans Tobacco Wheat
Ac
r
e
s
Crops
Baseline
2015
2016
2017
2018

16

Of the cropland acres in the Jordan Lake Watershed, 4% are in the Upper New Hope Subwatershed.
Figure 10. Acreage of Major Crops for the Baseline (1997-2001), 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018, Upper New
Hope Subwatershed, Jordan Lake Watershed

Of the cropland acres in the Jordan Lake Watershed, 95% are in the Haw Subwatershed.
Figure 11. Acreage of Major Crops for the Baseline (1997-2001), 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018, Haw
Subwatershed, Jordan Lake Watershed

0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
Corn for grain Hay Soybeans Tobacco Wheat
Ac
r
e
s
Crops
Baseline
2015
2016
2017
2018
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
Corn for grain Hay Soybeans Tobacco Wheat
Ac
r
e
s
Crops
Baseline
2015
2016
2017
2018

17

Land Use Change to Development and Cropland Conversion
The number of cropland acres fluctuates every year in the Jordan Lake Watershed and its subwatersheds
due to cropland conversion and development. Each year, some cropland is permanently lost to
development, or converted to grass or trees and likely to be ultimately lost from agricultural production.
Figure 12 displays the total cropland acres in the watershed in the baseline, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018.
Data regarding land use change since the baseline is summarized below.
Since the baseline, some agricultural acres have been lost permanently to development. These numbers are
not directly comparable because they are documented with varying methodologies in each county. In
addition to development, cropland can be converted to other uses. The WOC tracks the acres of cropland
that are converted to grass or trees through state or federal cost share programs. Since the baseline, the
following cropland acres in each subwatershed have been converted to grass or trees through state or
federal cost share programs: 46 acres in the Lower New Hope Subwatershed, none in the Upper New Hope
Subwatershed and 2,266 acres in the Haw Subwatershed.
Figure 12. Total Cropland Acres in the Jordan Lake Watershed, Baseline (1997-2001), 2015, 2016, 2017,
and 2018

-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
Lower New Hope Upper New Hope Haw
Cr
o
p
l
a
n
d

A
c
r
e
s
Jordan Lake Subwatershed
Baseline
2015
2016
2017
2018

18

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 3. Percent 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, the Upper New Hope subwatershed reported a 54% nitrogen loss reduction from baseline, the
Lower New Hope subwatershed reported a 73% nitrogen loss reduction from baseline, and the Haw
subwatershed reported a 49% nitrogen loss reduction from baseline. For pasture accounting 2002 was
chosen as the baseline year because the closest possible Census of Agriculture was collected and published
based on 2002 data. 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.
For CY2017, all three subwatersheds have exceeded their mandated goals.

19

Table 4. Estimated reductions in pasture land nitrogen loss from baseline (CY1997-CY2002) for CY2012 and
CY2017, Jordan Lake Watershed
Upper New Hope: Goal of 35% Nitrogen Loss Reduction
County Baseline Nitrogen
Loss (lbs) †
2012 Nitrogen
Loss (lbs)
2012 N Loss
Reduction (%)
2017 Nitrogen
Loss (lbs)
2017 N Loss
Reduction (%)
Chatham 28,977 18,328 37% 15,808 45%
Durham 19,952 8,615 56% 6,352 68%
Orange 20,350 9,892 51% 9,520 53%
Wake 655 261 60% 276 58%
Total 69,554 37,096 47% 31,956 54%
Lower New Hope: Goal of no net increase in Nitrogen Loss
County 2002 Nitrogen
Loss (lbs) †
2012 Nitrogen
Loss (lbs)
2012 N Loss
Reduction (%)
2017 Nitrogen
Loss (lbs)
2017 N Loss
Reduction (%)
Chatham 57,923 17,642 70% 15,808 73%
Wake 1,386 332 76% 295 79%
Total 59,309 17,974 70% 16,103 73%
Haw: Goal of 8% Nitrogen Loss Reduction
County 2002 Nitrogen
Loss (lbs) †
2012 Nitrogen
Loss (lbs)
2012 N Loss
Reduction (%)
2017 Nitrogen
Loss (lbs)
2017 N Loss
Reduction (%)
Alamance 201,646 151,357 25% 129,550 36%
Caswell 61,026 27,717 55% 28,513 53%
Chatham 132,263 81,473 38% 68,434 48%
Guilford 211,063 110,495 48% 74,457 65%
Orange 20,313 9,124 55% 8,277 59%
Rockingham 46,637 29,733 36% 33,845 27%
Total 672,948 409,899 39% 343,076 49%
† These figures were originally calculated using total watershed pasture acres. The Pasture Points Committee
concluded that nitrogen loss should be calculated according to only the pasture acres which remain unbuffered at the
time of each data collection. As a result, this column has been updated from what was reported previously.
The reduction percentages reported above result from a combination of pasture land loss, fertilization
decreases, stocking rate changes, and BMP implementation. Table 5 shows how these factors have changed
in the Jordan Lake Watershed since the 2002 baseline.

20

Table 5. Pasture operation changes from baseline (CY2002) for CY2012 and CY2017, Jordan Lake
Watershed
Factor Baseline 2012 2017 2002-2012 %
Change
Pasture Land 99,595 acres 83,096 acres 74,478 acres -25%
Fertilization† 103 lbs N/acre 81 lbs N/acre 80 lbs N/acre -22%
Stocking Rate 0.58 animal
units/acre ‡
0.72 animal
units/acre ‡
0.68 animal
units/acre
+18%
Livestock Exclusion
System
Implementation
976 acres 4,224 acres 6,022 acres +517%
† Total fertilization rate equals direct waste deposition times volatilization factor plus supplemental application
‡ These numbers were calculated differently in previous reports. Updated figures more accurately reflect overall
watershed stocking rates.

21

Phosphorus Indicators for CY2015 through CY2018
The qualitative indicators included in Table 6 show the
relative changes in land use and management
parameters and their relative effect on phosphorus loss
risk in the watershed from the baseline. This approach
was recommended by the Phosphorus Technical
Advisory Committee (PTAC) in 2005 due to the difficulty
of developing an aggregate phosphorus tool parallel to
the nitrogen NLEW tool. The PTAC reconvened in April
2010 to make minor revisions for the tool’s use in this
watershed and the approach was approved for use in
the Jordan Lake Watershed by the Water Quality
Committee of the EMC. This report includes
phosphorus indicator data for the baseline period (1997-
2001), CY2016, CY2017, and CY2018. Most of the
parameters indicate less risk of phosphorus loss than in
the baseline.
Contributing to the reduced risk of phosphorus loss is
the reduction in the acres of tobacco, the decrease in
the amount of animal waste phosphorus, and a
movement to 90% conservation tillage on cropland in
the watershed.
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 6 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 Jordan Lake Watershed.

Phosphorus Technical Assistance Committee
(PTAC):
The PTAC’s overall purpose was to establish a
phosphorus accounting method for
agriculture in the basin. 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
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.

.

22

Table 6. Relative Changes in Land Use and Management Parameters and their Relative Effect on
Phosphorus Loss Risk in the Jordan Lake Watershed
Parameter Units Source
Baseline
(average 1997-
2001) CY2016 CY2017 CY2018
Percent
change
(baseline
to CY2018)
CY2018
P Loss
Risk
+/-
Cropland Acres NC Ag
Statistics 87,077 88,945 77,989 95,004 9% +
Cropland
conversion (to
grass & trees)
Acres
USDA-
NRCS &
NCACSP
1,359 2,141* 2,183 2,270 67% -
Conservation
tillage5 Acres
USDA-
NRCS &
NCACSP
1,997 19,790 19,801 19,801 892% -
Vegetated
buffers
(cumulative)
Acres GIS
analysis 54,212 52,835 52,835 52,842 -3% +
Tobacco acres Acres
USDA-
NRCS &
NCACSP
7,667 4,242 4,511 4,302 -44% -
Scavenger crop Acres
USDA-
NRCS &
NCACSP
0 2,378 2,700 2,700 2,700% -
Animal waste P lbs of
P/ yr
NC Ag
Statistics 7,965,784 4,432,752 4,522,375 4,403,627 -45% -
Soil test P
median
P-
Index
NCDA&
CS 72 61 68 64 -11% -
*This numbers was reported differently in past years due to a spreadsheet error which has since been corrected.

5 Conservation tillage is being practiced on additional acres but this number only reflects acres under active cost share
contracts, not acres where farmers have adopted the use of conservation tillage without cost share assistance. An
estimated 93% of producers are practicing conservation tillage on cropland in the Jordan Lake Watershed. Source:
O’Connell, C. and D.L. Osmond. 2018. Carolina Dreamin’: A case for understanding farmers’ decision-making and hybrid
agri-environmental governance initiatives in agricultural communities as complex assemblages in Agri-environmental
Governance as an Assemblage: Multiplicity, Power, and Transformation. Editors: Jérémie Forney, Hugh Campbell, Chris
Rosin. Rutledge Press.

23

The WOC finds that the decreased risk of P loss is associated with the following three important parameters:
• increase in conservation tillage acreage
• decrease in animal waste phosphorus
• decrease in tobacco acreage
A 43% reduction in animal waste phosphorus is due primarily to a past closure of a large poultry processing
plant in Siler City, which temporarily decreased the demand for broilers in the region and resulted in a
significant downturn in production. That plant reopened in 2019 and is currently operating at less than their
250,000 broilers per day production capacity. The WOC expects local producers to meet increased demand
incrementally as the Siler City plant approaches full capacity in coming years. In addition, an overall
reduction in cattle inventories and permanent closure of many dairy operations in the watershed have also
contributed to reduced animal waste phosphorus.
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 the Division of Water Resources
(DWR) annually, and to bring any concerns raised by the results of this effort to the DWR’s attention as they
arise, along with recommendations for any appropriate action. The WOC expects that BMP implementation
may continue to increase throughout the watershed in future years, and notes that BMPs installed for
nitrogen and sediment control often provide significant phosphorus benefits as well.
Due to the number of permitted biosolids application fields in the piedmont, the Jordan Lake Watershed
Oversight Committee also initially recommended adding tracking of the annual application of human
biosolids, but ultimately removed this element from the tracking methodology due to lack of readily
accessible biosolids data. Currently, biosolids applicators submit paper copy annual reports containing
application and site information; however, due to limited resources NC DEQ is not keying the information
into a database. To include this information would require new resources to mine historical and enter new
hard copy data. To date, resources have not been obtained for this purpose. When digital biosolids
information becomes available the human biosolids component will be tracked as a separate component of
the phosphorus accounting. In an effort to improve nutrient management strategies that are part of the
residuals (biosolids) application program, NC DEQ formed a stakeholder group to evaluate available nutrient
management tools for phosphorus and make recommendations for future phosphorus management of
biosolids applications. The WOC is unaware of the current status of this stakeholder group and recommends
that DEQ re-engage this conversation.

24

BMP Implementation Not Tracked by NLEW
Not all types of nutrient- and sediment-reducing best management practices (BMPs) are tracked by NLEW.
Other BMPs include: 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 because overall conservation
practice implementation gives a comprehensive picture of the work that is being done on agricultural land in
the watershed. Table 7 identifies these BMPs and tracks their implementation in the watershed since the
end of the baseline period.
Table 7. Best management practices installed from 2002 to 2018, Jordan Lake Watershed6 (cumulative)
Conservation practice Units 2015 2016

2017

2018
Ag road repair-stabilization feet 3,207 3,207 3,207 3,207
Agricultural pond restoration/repair units 22 25 25 25
Closure-waste impoundments units 19 19 19 19
Constructed wetland acres 2 2 2 2
Critical area planting acres 74 78 83 85
Cropland conversion-grass acres 1,065 1,139 1,139 1,237
Cropland conversion-trees acres 1,002 1,002 1,002 1,033
Diversion feet 6,450 6,450 6,450 6,450
Fencing (USDA programs) feet 41,253 60,503 71,898 74,831
Field border acres 147 147 155 160
Filter strip acres 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
Grassed waterway acres 293 295 300 306
Habitat management acres 310 310 310 310
Nutrient management acres 5,290 5,295 5,295 5,295
Nutrient management plan number 30 30 30 30
Pasture renovation acres 2,881 2,881 2,881 2,881
Pastureland conversion to trees acres 31 31 31 31
Pond number 1 2 2 2
Prescribed grazing acres 5,113 5,169 5,284 5,404
Sediment control basin units 2 2 2 2
Sod-based rotation acres 9,916 9,940 10,657 10,744
Streambank and shoreline protection acres 16,905 17,050 17,050 17,080
Terrace feet 31,379 31,379 31,379 31,379

6 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.

25

Looking Forward
The Jordan Lake WOC will continue to improve 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.
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.
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 two basin
coordinators. The technicians’ primary responsibility was to assist farmers with BMP implementation. These
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.
WOC recognizes the dynamic nature of
agricultural business:
➢ Urban encroachment (i.e., crop selection
and production shifts as fields become
smaller)
➢ Age of farmer (i.e., as retirement
approaches farmers may move from row
crops to livestock)
➢ Changes in the world economies, energy
or trade policies
➢ Changes in government programs (i.e.,
commodity support, crop insurance 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).

26

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 the Phosphorus Loss
Assessment Tool (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.
Over the next year a group called Jordan Lake One Water which is comprised of multiple stakeholders across
the watershed is meeting to draft an integrated watershed management plan for future implementation.
This plan will be released to the public in time to inform DWR’s ongoing rule revision process for the Jordan
Lake Nutrient Strategy. This plan will incorporate watershed-scale priorities and draft a framework for
incentivizing work in and around the watershed which will promote pollutant reduction simultaneously with
economic development and community resilience. Some agricultural stakeholders are participating in this
stakeholder process and have begun providing recommendations for ways to incorporate this sector into
future partnerships.
Conclusion
The Jordan 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 reduction
goals. 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 nitrogen loss reduction goals. 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 Jordan Lake.
Final report submitted April 16, 2020.