What Stakeholders in the Neuse River Basin Know About Water Quality

D.L. Osmond, J.M. Tanner, W.F. Hunt, W.G. Lord, M.D. Woodward, C.F. Hudson, D.H. Hardy, and T.J. Hoban

North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service North Carolina State University

Introduction


The Neuse River basin is the third largest river basin in North Carolina, encompassing 5,590 square miles (approximately 9% of the state) in 23 counties (McMahon and Lloyd, 1995) (Figure 1).  The combined population of the basin is 1.5 million people.  The river originates in north central North Carolina, northwest of Durham, and flows in a southeasterly direction approximately 200 miles past Raleigh, Smithfield, Goldsboro, Kinston, and New Bern to the tidal waters of the Pamlico Sound.  The basin contains 3,293 miles of freshwater streams, about 328,700 acres of salt waters, and thousands of acres of impoundments (NC DEHNR, 1993).

Water quality has been an issue in the Neuse basin for over a century. Sixty-six percent of the 3,293 miles of freshwater streams are designated by the state to support their intended use, although many of these stream miles are threatened.  Of the 328,700 acres  of saltwater, 91 % support their use, primarily shellfish harvest.  In 1984, portions of the Neuse River were classified as Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) and the entire river received this designation in 1988.  Indeed, high nutrient loads have been associated with the Neuse River. Although the Neuse River Basin comprises only 20% of the total land area that drains into the Pamlico and Albemarle Sounds, the highest nitrogen and phosphorus loads are delivered by the Neuse River rather than the Chowan, Roanoke, and Tar Rivers that also drain into the Sound (Spruill and Harned, 1997).  The Neuse River contributes 35% of the total nitrogen and 45% of the total phosphorus to the Pamlico and Albemarle Sounds.

In 1993 the NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR) recommended an accelerated schedule for reducing nitrogen losses from nonpoint sources within the Neuse River Basin through a plan called The Basinwide Management Plan for the Neuse River Basin.  Two years later, in 1995, millions of menhaden and other fish indigenous to the estuary were killed. High nutrient loading from record rainfalls in June of 1995 lead to algal blooms and subsequently low oxygen levels that then caused fish kills.  Pfiesteria piscida were also identified as causative an additional causative agent of the 1995 fish kills.  Collectively, these incidents provided great impetus for NCDEHNR in 1996 to draft a strategy titled, Neuse River Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy, often referred to as the Neuse Rules.  After public hearings and debate, the rules became effective on August 1, 1998.  The goal of the rules is to reduce nitrogen loading by 30% by August 1, 2003.  Both point source dischargers and nonpoint sources are affected by the Neuse Rules.

The Neuse River Basin Rules provide for:

• Protection and maintenance of riparian areas with existing forestvegetation.
• Reduction of nitrogen by 30% from wastewater discharges.
• Implementation of urban stormwater management that both reduces nitrogenand does not increase flow.
• Reduction in agricultural nitrogen loading by implementing prescribedsystems of best management practices.  Alternatively, producers can joinlocally approved efforts to reduce nitrogen loading.
• Mandatory nutrient management education for anyone who in a calendar yearapplies fertilizer to 50 or more acres or an approved nutrient managementplan.

These rules are unique, not only in North Carolina, but within the United States.  To meet the challenge of the huge educational task associated withthe adoption of these rules, the North Carolina General Assembly appropriated funds to hire seven new positions within the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service: five county-level environmental area agents and two North Carolina State University extension specialists.  This action initiates a radically different educational paradigm to deal directly with environmental regulation from an educational perspective.

The newly hired agents and specialists, along with three other university-level extension specialists, form the Neuse Education Team. Each county environmental agent is responsible for both rural and urban environmental educational programs and projects in four counties.  The specialists represent different disciplinary skills that include water quality, nutrient management, watershed management, soil science, urban stormwater management, public policy and economics.  Working together, the specialists provide materials and programs for the area agents, who in turn provide programming and project support to county agents and local government officials.

The goals of the Neuse Education Team are to:

• Develop, implement, and evaluate educational programs to improve waterquality
• Build strong partnerships within N.C. Cooperative Extension Service(NCCES) and with industry representatives, commodity organizations, specialinterest groups and local government entities, and
• Improve policy making processes by local- and state-level government officials.

In an effort to establish baseline data of the public's knowledge and perception of water quality issues in the Neuse River Basin, the team surveyed key stakeholders and is using this data to determine the educational needs. The methodology, results, and implications of the survey are presented below.

Methodology


A total of 20 focus groups were convened and conducted during a five-month period in late 1997 and early 1998. A water quality survey of 10 questions was administered verbally to each focus group by interviewers (Figure 2).

Figure 2.  Focus Group Survey Questionnaire

• Do you know which watershed or river basin you are in?
• What do you know about how clean or polluted the Neuse River is?
• What do you know about how polluted water affects the environment or human health?
• What do you think are the main causes of pollution in the Neuse River?
• What practices have you heard about that we can use to prevent water pollution?
• What changes would you make or others be willing to make in order to reduce pollution in the Neuse River?
• What obstacles do you see that could prevent us from making those changes?
• What would you like to learn about problems and solutions for the Neuse River?
• How much have you heard about the water quality education programs of the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service?

Interviewers followed survey techniques outlined by Krueger (1994) in order to ensure that all participants were allowed the opportunity to talk freely and that the results were not biased by the interviewer.  Answers were recorded during each session by the same individual and also  on tape.  The taperecordings were transcribed for further analysis. Each focus group consisted of individuals with either professional interests or responsibilities.

People were grouped into the following seven focus group categories:

1. local government representatives
2. businesspersons/developers (builders, developers and businesspersons)
3. turfgrass professionals (landscapers, commercial lawn providers, golf course superintendents)
4. homeowners
5. foresters
6. agricultural producers
7. environmental organizations, such as the Neuse River Foundation and the Sierra Club.

Each focus group consisted of three to fifteen individuals. Each focus group category consisted of between one to five separate focus group sessions.  The methods of selecting group participants varied.  Some names were selected from professional or association lists (local government officials, business representatives, and forest owners). Others were selected by prominent industry representatives (builders and developers, golf course superintendents, and forest managers). Participants from the landscaping/lawn care sector were picked at random from the yellow pages. One representative from each of the major environmental organizations was invited to participate.   Agricultural producers were selected by area environmental agents. Only the homeowner group was convened completely at random.

Discussion


The objective of the survey was to evaluate the water quality awareness and educational needs of the diverse constituency groups in the Neuse River Basin.  The primary educational needs that were derived from the focus groups are listed below:

1. Science-based information about the current water quality conditions in the Neuse River and its estuary must be made available to a wide audience of constituency groups throughout the Basin.  Except for one group, participants were unanimous in requesting unbiased, reliable sources of information that describe the water quality conditions in the Neuse and their effects on the estuary.  They also want the information put in a historical context.  It is important that this information contain what we know, the limits of our knowledge, and a description of the iterative nature of watershed or river basin projects.  Because watershed or river basin projects are so enormously complex with so many varied sources of pollutants, it is essential to start reducing pollutants.  Data is collected, analyzed, and the new knowledge is used to change or fine-tune the watershed management strategy.  Often it takes many iterations over a long period of time to improve water quality.  In order for this information to reach large audiences, it was suggested that the information be available from numerous sources: newsprint media, the Web, conferences, workgroups, NCCES publications, trade-association magazines and newsletters, and public service announcements.

2. A better explanation of how pollutant source is calculated is needed by all constituency groups.  No individual in any group understood how the contribution of nitrogen from the different types of areas or sources within the watershed (WWTPs, agriculture, urban stormwater, background, and air) was calculated and then partitioned.  It is important that the constituency groups understand how the pollutant sources were calculated and the difficulty in calculating pollutant source contributions, especially for those sources (agriculture, urban stormwater, background and air) that deliver pollutants through diffuse runoff.  The authors of this paper believe that the following additional topics should be included:

• a description of the hydrologic cycle and the relationship between nitrogen movement and hydrology
• limitations of partitioning nitrogen contributions by different sources.
• nitrogen movement into the ground water and eventually into streams.
• the relationship between nitrogen loading and stream size
• the relationship between land use area and nitrogen contributions(include the percentage of different land uses in the basin)
• estimate of nitrogen used in the basin for agricultural crops
• estimate of nitrogen used in the basin for turfgrass

3. Continued efforts to increase the average citizen's awareness of their ecological address (the river basin in which a person lives) are still needed.

4. Data on the effectiveness of BMPs must be made more available.  Many groups were doubtful about the nitrogen-reducing effectiveness of the BMPs that have been prescribed for implementation in the Neuse River Basin.

5. Policy makers need more information about the water quality and land use models that are being used in the Basin.  They also need better explanations of the models.  They need to understand which physical and biological processes are accounted for in the models.  Current plans to hold meetings to discuss water quality modeling in the Neuse River Basin should help with this request.

6. Information on appropriate fertilization practices should accompany every bag of fertilizer sold to non-agricultural purchasers.  Participants in several groups suggested that urban homeowners need more information to help them practice nutrient management more responsibly.

References


Krueger, R.A., 1994.  Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research.  Sage Publications, London, UK. 255p.

McMahon, G. and O. Lloyd. 1995. Water-Quality Assessment of the Albemarle-Pamlico Drainage Basin, North Carolina and Virginia - Environmental Setting and Water-Quality Issues. U.S. Geological Survey, Raleigh, NC. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 95-136. 72p.

NC DEHNR. 1993. Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section, Raleigh, NC.

NC DENR. 1997. Report of Proceedings on the Proposed Neuse River Basin Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) Management Strategy. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC. 81p.

Spruill, T. and D. Harned. 1997. Sources and nutrient dynamics of the Neuse River and implications for management, In: Conference Proceedings - Nutrients in the Neuse River: Working Toward Solutions, held December 8-9, 1997, in New Bern, North Carolina. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.