2025-01-31 CIC meeting minutes

North Carolina Nutrient Criteria Development Plan (NCDP)
Criteria Implementation Committee (CIC) Meeting
January 31, 2025

Page 1 of 10

Attendees
CIC members in attendance:
Nathan Hall
T.J. Lynch
Keith Larick
John Fear
Andy McDaniel
Roger von Haefen
Susanna Bains (Not Present)
Anne Coan (Not Present)
CIC meeting facilitator:
Elizabeth Liebig, NCDEQ

NCDEQ staff in attendance:
Elizabeth Liebig
Cam McNutt
Peter Johnston
Chris Ventaloro
Pam Behm
Susie Meadows
Sapana Bastola
Karen Higgins
Nora Deamer
Forest Shepherd
Charlie Deaton

Guests in attendance:
Clifton Bell Jud Kenworthy Wilson Laney
Meeting notes
This meeting was held via the state web conferencing system (WebEx). All questions,
comments and answers are paraphrased.

1. Convene

Elizabeth called for a rollcall and all CIC members and Division of Water Resources (DWR) staff
provided their names and affiliations. The duties of the CIC were then reviewed. These duties
include advising DWR on the potential social, economic, and environmental implications of adopting
the proposed clarity criteria, and assisting DWR with the development of fiscal documents as required
for rulemaking, as needed.

2. Summary of SAC’s proposed clarity criteria and pathway forward for rulemaking

Elizabeth shared and discussed a slide showing the draft proposed clarity standard for the
protection of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) which was developed by the Scientific
Advisory Council (SAC). The draft clarity standard includes two photosynthetically active
radiation (PAR) extinction coefficients: 1.36/meter for low salinity SAV waterbodies and
North Carolina Nutrient Criteria Development Plan (NCDP)
Criteria Implementation Committee (CIC) Meeting
January 31, 2025

Page 2 of 10

0.89/meter for high salinity SAV waterbodies. The SAC also developed a support document to
address questions pertaining to the proposed standard. DWR is charged with taking these
components forward to get codified and implemented.

The CIC is the next step that's mandated by the NCDP plan. The CIC members are requested to
provide input on the social and economic implications of the proposed standard and to assist
the division with the preparation of the fiscal note or RIA as needed by state statute for
rulemaking. After the fiscal note is prepared, the rulemaking process will begin. That will
involve bringing the proposed standard with the fiscal note to the Environmental Management
Commission (EMC).

At the same time, DWR is actively taking steps to collect some baseline clarity data this
growing season. Dual sensor PAR meters are being purchased and will be used by both DWR
and Department of Marine Fisheries (DMF) teams to collect these measurements. The initial
data will be used as a baseline and will assist with Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)
development. It will not be used for regulatory purposes.

3. Summary of SAC’s recommended clarity monitoring procedures and assessment methods

Cam presented two slides on draft methodology for collecting the field data. Initial Tier 3 PAR
Data Collection Methods will include:
1. Extinction coefficients shall be collected using an approved meter
2. Data will be collected within 5 meters of the deep edge of SAV area (as mapped
including historical) or captured in metadata
3. Instrument shall be at least 0.5 meters off the bottom
4. Data must be collected between March 1 and October 31 (8 months)
5. Data must be collected during at least 3 months of the above period
6. Annual growing season (GS) medians will be calculated for this period each year

Cam described the decision-making tree which was also presented on a slide. Nathan
commented on the options to assess and that the implications are vastly different on how you
evaluate the standard.

Elizabeth stated that as we’re establishing baseline data, we’re looking at how to determine
costs and benefits and looking particularly at voluntary and cooperative efforts. T.J. asked if
North Carolina Nutrient Criteria Development Plan (NCDP)
Criteria Implementation Committee (CIC) Meeting
January 31, 2025

Page 3 of 10

the CIC members have any say in the process at all about the implications associated with the
stringency of the water standard as developed? Elizabeth responded that the SAC has
recommended the clarity standard, DWR is charged with moving that forward and that the CIC
is asked to advise DWR on the implication of the proposed standard.

John asked how far back the SAV losses go and what “historically” means? Cam explained that
there are data sets and maps that go as far back as 1983. Nathan then added that it goes back to 1981.
John commented that it was helpful and that it sounds like new areas will be added, but the
historical baseline is staying the same as when it was first mapped.

4. Summary of the goals and recommendations from the Pew Trust regarding North
Carolina’s coastal waters

Keith discussed work that the Pew Charitable Trusts and the North Carolina Coastal Federation
did related to the last version of the Coastal Habitat Protection Plan (CHPP). Both the Pew
Trust and the Coastal Federation were really engaged with the steering committee, convening
a stakeholder group and developing recommendations to help protect and restore coastal
water quality using voluntary improvement actions.

The stakeholders felt that there is a need for the State to invest in voluntary action with
groups like the Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, land trust coastal groups, etc.
Improving water quality by voluntarily practices will reduce the need for mandatory regulatory
actions later. Keith stressed the need for increased funding for these programs and gave a few
examples. Keith presented this information to the EMC in 2023 where there was much
support. There has not been much follow up since then. Elizabeth commented that DWR would
like to continue the momentum of that work where it's cooperative, voluntary remedies.

5. Guided discussion of the social, economic, and environmental implications of adopting
the proposed criteria and discussion of the regulatory impact analysis/fiscal note

The specific questions on the agenda to be discussed are 1) What are the costs and benefits
associated with the proposed standard? 2) Who will be impacted by the proposed standard
and what is the magnitude of that impact? and 3) What resources are available to DWR to
aid in fiscal analysis development?
North Carolina Nutrient Criteria Development Plan (NCDP)
Criteria Implementation Committee (CIC) Meeting
January 31, 2025

Page 4 of 10

T.J. asked what controls need to be put in place to manage the standard for water clarity.
Nathan responded that the first thing to look at is where the standard may fail such as the
Albemarle Sound, Currituck Sound, and upper parts of the Pamlico and Neuse Rivers. The
Albemarle Sound and tributaries are so darkly stained with colored organic matter that they
will fail without chlorophyll or any kind of turbidity. Currituck Sound has a really high level of
chlorophyll. Chlorophyll gets more important in Currituck Sound. In the upper part of the big
estuaries, such as the Neuse and Pamlico Rivers, it’s almost a split between turbidity,
chlorophyll, and color. The upper parts of those big rivers, the Neuse and Pamlico Rivers, there
are some point sources however, it is probably 80% or more nonpoint sources for nutrients.
Nathan can’t speak to the turbidity side.

T.J. asked why a standard would be put in place that no one can meet and asked what the
thought process was. Nathan responded that runoff of the dissolved organic matter gives the
estuaries, the upper parts especially, their dark color. It’s a natural process moving from the
wetlands. The thought process was likely that the darkly stained areas probably don’t have a
lot of SAV in them but that is not necessarily the case. Cam shared a map that showed SAV
areas dating back to 1981, which is where the draft standard would apply. Natural conditions
would be assessed. If there is an exceedance of the proposed standard, the component that is
causing the exceedance would be determined. T.J. asked if natural conditions would keep
something off the 303d list and Cam responded that there is a process that can be used
through a natural conditions assessment. Nathan acknowledged that the natural cause
exemption was considered by the SAC. Andy noted we will need to make some baseline
assumptions as to what management actions will be necessary to attain the standard.

Roger shared his thoughts on the benefits of the proposed standard including a paper he
coauthored in June 2021 on an economic evaluation of submerged aquatic vegetation in the
AP estuary. It could be potentially useful for trying to monetize the benefits, but it says nothing
about costs. It focused on four key benefits: commercial fisheries, recreational fishing, the
effects on residential property values and carbon storage and sequestration. Carbon storage
and sequestration are the largest share of the potential benefits, but as specified in the report,
the estimate of total benefits is partial, incomplete, and certainly conservative. When doing a
fiscal report, it could be a starting point for presenting what is known about the potential
benefits of these particular policies. The key is to have both a baseline of what’s going to
happen without the policy and then what incremental effects will come from this particular
intervention. The report only considered SAV loss scenarios. Looking at longer trends in the AP
North Carolina Nutrient Criteria Development Plan (NCDP)
Criteria Implementation Committee (CIC) Meeting
January 31, 2025

Page 5 of 10

estuary, they are going down and it seems that SAV will continue to decline without the policy.
The policy may address some of that decline so what you may be valuing is a slower decline in
SAV population or its reversal.

Sapana commented that the paper estimates values based on the percent changes of the SAV.
We are thinking more about how we make assumptions like the availability of SAV when there
is no standard applied and what are good assumptions for the availability of SAV after the
standard is in place. She asked Roger for his opinion on what percent changes will benefit SAV
availability. Roger responded that the scenarios in the paper were recommended by Tim Ellis
and stated that probably others that have a better sense of this.

Andy asked Roger if there is a direct cause and effect relationship between the SAV and
property values or is there a chance that those are correlated? Roger suggests that it is up for
debate and that he is involved in a grant proposal with other colleagues to do a similar
property value study as to what was done in Chesapeake Bay for the AP estuary.

Elizabeth pointed out the benefit categories in Roger’s paper which were commercial fisheries,
recreational fishing, the effects on residential property values and carbon storage and
sequestration. Roger pointed out that those values may be dated a bit, particularly the social
cost of carbon that was used. He feels that the estimates in the report are reasonable and are
certainly a good starting point. There is a chapter in the report that discusses the benefits that
were evaluated as well as the ones that were not quantified. The report also discusses the
shortcomings of the benefits that were quantified. Roger suggested to quantify what can be
quantified for the proposed clarity standard fiscal note and to outline the benefits that can’t
be quantified.

Andy commented that the cost and benefits analysis should include some reasonable actions
necessary to achieve the standard. T.J. agreed. Roger asked that if the standard was fully
achieved, what the change in SAV population would be. He acknowledged that it is unknown if
it is even feasible to generate that estimate.

T.J. asked what the goal of the standard is. Elizabeth stated that it is to improve water quality
and protect SAV. Chris added that the goal is to create circumstances for SAV to grow. Based
on the SAC’s expertise, these are the conditions that will be supportive for SAV growth. A
targeted percentage of recovery would fall under some kind of management plan.
North Carolina Nutrient Criteria Development Plan (NCDP)
Criteria Implementation Committee (CIC) Meeting
January 31, 2025

Page 6 of 10

Cam stated that the way the standard is worded, because it includes the historic SAV, that the
goal would be to meet the clarity standard in all those areas - where it is existing to be
protective of those areas to make sure they do not shrink and then where it is not existing to
get the conditions in place based on this standard so that that it is not the limiting factor for
the SAV restoration. Then you’re looking at potentially a different approach to restoring the
SAV once the clarity standard is met in those places. It would be a voluntary iterative approach
to meeting the clarity standard. The standard is not worded to necessarily increase that
habitat, but if SAV were to start growing in places where it is not currently mapped, then it
would be included and then the standard would be protective of that new SAV.

T.J. expressed that point source dischargers are going to want to know how this is going to
affect their NPDES permit.

Nathan brought up that sea grasses are limited by a couple things. One of them is light and
that's the one we're talking about and the other is wave energy. If you see green on that map,
at some point the light was good and the energy was good. And the energy probably hasn't
changed very much. So, if you see green, at some point, it's reasonable that SAV could be
present there if the light's right. If sea grass starts disappearing from these green areas, it’s
possible it’s light. Important note to consider, it’s not likely that you'll get sea grass growing in
all this green area on this map every year. Certain areas in certain years are going be high flow
years and then things will go down a little bit. If we are asked to consider the assessment of
the standard, that is something we have to consider. The goal is to get the clarity good for sea
grass but realize that there are things we have control over and things we don't. We really
need to focus on the things we do have control over.

Andy reiterated the question about what we can control or manage to try to attain the
standard? Elizabeth agreed we want to look at the baseline conditions as they look now, costs
moving forward with monitoring and then any remedies would be associated with assessment.
Cam mentioned we have limited monitoring capacity right now and not sure what that looks
like in the future. If the standard is approved as well as the assessment method and something
was put on the 303d list, the reality is that restoration planning on one listing for one cycle
would likely not occur. It will take a while. Voluntary action would be encouraged. The
department’s resources for restoration planning would have to be prioritized. We have a
public review process to prioritize where we do restoration work. At least a couple cycles of
monitoring would be needed.
North Carolina Nutrient Criteria Development Plan (NCDP)
Criteria Implementation Committee (CIC) Meeting
January 31, 2025

Page 7 of 10

T.J. asked how the fiscal note can only look at sampling and not what it may cost the
communities? Elizabeth answered that is what we’re asking the CIC to discuss. Also, we are
looking for voluntary actions such as if there are community groups that can get involved. This
is very site-specific with many different factors involved. Nathan added we’re talking about
reducing nutrients and sediments to improve water clarity. Realistically, we can’t manage
CDOM without routing water around wetlands. The only things we can adjust are nutrients
and sediments. That is a lot of nonpoint sources. There are many BMPs (best management
practices) for nonpoint source reduction and sediment retention.

Andy thinks the group needs to work toward putting together a written chart. He asks
Elizabeth if there’s any anticipation that the economic analysis that Roger spoke about is going
to be expanded as part of this. Elizabeth stated that it was a separate report, and we will be
using it as a resource. Elizabeth then asked Roger if there were additional resources. Roger
mentioned the co-authors on the report such as David Eggleston and Jie Cao who are both at
NC State as well as Tim Ellison.

Roger wondered why firms and municipalities would voluntarily adopt these things. It's costly
to them with probably not much benefit. Much of these problems are nonpoint source related,
which leads to best management practices which is costly because you're forcing firms to do
things that they otherwise wouldn't do. If it's truly just voluntary policies, you can assume
those costs are nothing because people are doing things out of the goodness of their heart.
But if they're forced to comply with a best management practice regulation, then it stands to
reason those are costly regulations and those should be accounted for in the fiscal note.

Keith said that on the nonpoint source side, there's a certain percentage of farms that will
implement improvements, whether or not there's a rule, whether or not there's a known
water quality impairment. But, at the same time, once there is a defined issue, in a lot of cases
there'll be a push, NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) through USDA (United
States Department of Agriculture) might have a program for a specific area. In that case, there
are farmers who otherwise would not have implemented practices that would if NRCS pays a
part. There will be some cost but it’s hard to define off the top of my head.

Nathan agrees that agriculture might be a big part of it. However, there is rapid development
along the coast, especially the Currituck area. He is not certain but believes much of that
development is on septic with at least one wastewater treatment plant discharging into the
North Carolina Nutrient Criteria Development Plan (NCDP)
Criteria Implementation Committee (CIC) Meeting
January 31, 2025

Page 8 of 10

shallow aquifer. It’s not just from agriculture. In addition, there are places like eastern Carteret
County where there is a lot of SAV and not much population right now. Interstate 42 is coming
and there is going to be development.

Andy said that from his perspective that they must assume that there's going to be some sort
of regulatory requirements that'll need to be implemented. He doesn’t think anything will
happen voluntarily. If that's the approach, then there's really no need for a water quality
standard for clarity. He thinks we need to move forward with the assumption that there will be
required actions to attain the proposed standard and that's where the focus should be in
terms of cost and benefits. Roger added to that any kind of monitoring costs that the state
incurs to monitor water quality and then monitor compliance too. Nathan asked if he means
compliance with the standard or compliance with whatever rules are set out to achieve the
standard. T.J. stated to comply with whatever rules are set out too.

Karen shared a different perspective. Talking about putting in regulatory requirements to
comply with the standard is a lot of steps down the road. If there are requirements needed,
then there will be a fiscal note for those requirements. Right now, we don’t have monitoring
yet, we don’t have an assessment methodology developed or implemented yet. She thinks it's
good to be thinking about if there are issues attaining the standard, then we look at what
those causes could be. Is it CDOM, turbidity, nutrients? There may be a different approach for
each situation, and we can talk holistically about what types of approaches those are. In this
rule making package we are not going to be able to identify a nutrient management strategy
for the entire coastal area of North Carolina because each area is different. It may be that
there is no voluntary or regulatory mechanism that will attain the standard. The standard is to
support biota and aquatic life. We look to see if the water quality is doing what we need it to
do. If it isn't, what can be done?

Karen went on to say that this is not straight forward and that it is very nuanced. In North
Carolina, there are a lot of things that we address through TMDL alternatives which are not
regulatory from a rule making standpoint. Communities talk with us, and they work
collectively, collaboratively, and voluntarily. North Carolina is a leader in those types of
approaches. That's why Keith talked about the Pew charitable trust work because it's looking
at where we can get improvements. Karen wanted to back up and look at the big picture, so
that we're not setting an unrealistic expectation for what this group is going to accomplish or
what the rule making will address with a clarity standard.
North Carolina Nutrient Criteria Development Plan (NCDP)
Criteria Implementation Committee (CIC) Meeting
January 31, 2025

Page 9 of 10

Nathan asked if that means they’re only supposed to consider the costs for monitoring.
Elizabeth responded that this fiscal note needs to be taken forward for the standard, which
includes the costs of sampling and monitoring.

T.J. stated his concerns from participating on the High Rock Lake CIC and saying there was no
cost but then dischargers to the stream were getting nutrient limits because of the standards
that were put in place. Karen stated that High Rock was listed prior to any of the NCDP work
and that standard has not been included in the assessment methodology yet. That work is
different from this one. For this fiscal note, we will assess the cost of monitoring and it’s fine to
acknowledge there are different scenarios that may happen. It is important to caution that
nothing is predetermined to happen. If there is a need for rules, we would address specific
costs in a fiscal note for those rules. There are different approaches and possible avenues for
success, and this has been done through the work of Cam and Pam and her group. It depends
on the cause. What is causing the clarity to not be met? If it's turbidity, what's causing the
turbidity? If it's chlorophyll, what’s causing that? We don’t know exactly what that’s going to
look like. If it is regulatory, that will be addressed in a separate rule making. With this, there
are different options depending on where on the coast it’s not being met, what the reason is,
and potential solutions. We’re not able to figure all that out right now.

Andy stated that there might be an opportunity to do a tiered approach. The basic costs would
primarily be to the state for the monitoring and assessment. This would include benefits as
well. Another tier could be the cost for a voluntary approach to the standard and another tier
could be if we take a regulatory approach to the standard. Andy agrees with Karen that we
can’t figure out all of what would be in a future management strategy as part of this approach.
We can make assumptions on the cost/benefit analysis and be clear on those assumptions.
There's been enough of these done that we understand the types of activities that generally
occur. We may not know the specifics, like wastewater treatment limits. Again, you can make
an assumption. It’s important to be transparent and state a range of costs and benefits
associated with this standard. This range will be influenced by subsequent actions the EMC
may take or by voluntary actions taken. T.J. thinks the EMC would send it back to staff if it
didn’t include those things.

Chris stated that one way the regulatory impact analysis addresses this is by separating the
immediate impact of the adoption of the standard versus the anticipated costs and benefits
associated with it.
North Carolina Nutrient Criteria Development Plan (NCDP)
Criteria Implementation Committee (CIC) Meeting
January 31, 2025

Page 10 of 10

6. Closing

Elizabeth closed out the meeting by thanking everyone for sharing their expertise and for a
good first meeting.