1. Department of Environmental Quality
November 10, 2016
Department of Environmental Quality
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
And
Environmental Management Commission
Division of Water Resources   
Annual report to the General Assembly
Environmental Review Commission
Basinwide Water Quality Management Planning
July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016

2. Annual report to the General Assembly Environmental Review Commission
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Environmental Management Commission and Water Quality Committee Division of Water Resources
Annual report to the General Assembly
Environmental Review Commission
Basinwide Water Quality Management Planning
July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016
Ian McMillan
Chief, Basin Planning Branch
Division of Water Resources Department of Environmental Quality
Department of Environmental Quality

3. § 143-215.8B. Basinwide water quality management plans
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Environmental Management Commission and Water Quality Committee Division of Water Resources
§ B.  Basinwide water quality management plans
(d)       The Commission and the Department shall each report on or before 1 October of each year on an annual basis to the Environmental Review Commission on the progress in developing and implementing basinwide water quality management plans and on increasing public involvement and public education in connection with basinwide water quality management planning. The report to the Environmental Review Commission by the Department shall include a written statement as to all concentrations of heavy metals and other pollutants in the surface waters of the State that are identified in the course of preparing or revising the basinwide water quality management plans.
This is the relevant portion of the statute governing the content and timetable for annual reporting of the progress on developing and implementing basinwide water quality management plans.

4. Basin Plan Development
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Environmental Management Commission and Water Quality Committee Division of Water Resources
Basin Plan Development
Of North Carolina’s 17 river basins, five water resource plans are currently under development:
The Cape Fear, Chowan, Pasquotank, White Oak and Watauga River Basin
Table 1: Basin Plan Schedule
River Basin
Last EMC Approved Plan
Next Plan Update
NPDES Permits Renewal Year
Biological Basinwide Monitoring
Quantity Model
Quality Model/ Strategy
Web Links to Executive Summary
Chowan
2007
2017
2020
n/a
NSW
CHO
Pasquotank
NCDP
PAS
Watauga
2018
OASIS
WAT
White Oak
2019
New R.-NSW
WOK
Broad
2008
BRD
Neuse
2009
2018/ 2019*
NEU
Cape Fear
2005
2016
Haw R.-NSW; Mid CF - NCDP
CPF
Yadkin
YAD
Lumber
2010
LBR
Catawba
CHEOPS
CAT
French Broad
2011
FBR
New River
NEW
Hiwassee
2012
2021
TVA
HIW
Little Tennessee
LTN
Roanoke
216 Study
ROA
Savannah
SAV
Tar-Pamlico
2015
2023
TAR
NSW = Nutrient Sensitive Waters, NCDP = Nutrient Criteria Development Plan, * NSW Strategy and regulatory update prior to NPDES permits renewal; Full plan completion 2019.
n/a – currently hydrologic models are not being developed for coastal areas.
Currently, the Cape Fear, Chowan, Pasquotank, White Oak and Watauga River Basin Water Resource Plans are under development. Along with in-depth water quality assessments and recommendations for improving water quality, these integrated water resource plans will include detailed evaluations of surface water availability as well as future demands and groundwater use where possible, Table 1 lists the 17 River Basins within NC and the schedule in which DWR monitoring, planning and implementation activities are slated to occur.

5. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Environmental Management Commission and Water Quality Committee Division of Water Resources
Total and Dissolved Metals in North Carolina Surface Waters: RAMS Data Exploration January 2007 – June 2013
Overall, 98/120 of RAMS stations DID NOT exceed standards.
22 had one or more metal exceedances. Of those,
Arsenic: Two stations were over current and proposed (unchanged) total arsenic Human Health standards.
Copper: Seven stations were over the current total copper standard.
Lead: Two stations were over proposed calculated hardness-dependent chronic dissolved lead standards.
Mercury, Selenium and Silver: There are no proposed changes to total mercury and total selenium standards. Results were not available for silver evaluation
Zinc: Seven stations were over the current total zinc standard. Five stations were over proposed calculated hardness-dependent chronic and acute dissolved zinc standards.
While some individual results were higher than standards, the overall results from the majority (98/120) of RAMS stations were not higher than standards for any total or dissolved metal through any of the three evaluation methods. Twenty-two stations returned results over standards for one or more metal(s) through the evaluation methods above. For each parameter with results over current or proposed standards, results were over the evaluation threshold(s) at two to twelve stations.
No stations returned results over the evaluation thresholds for current Aquatic Life standards for total arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium or lead, nor over Water Supply standards for total nickel. No stations had results over proposed chronic or acute standards for dissolved arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium1, lead (acute) or nickel.
Arsenic: Results from two stations were over current and proposed (unchanged) total arsenic Human Health standards.
Copper: Results from seven stations were over the current total copper standard. Results from twelve stations were over proposed calculated hardness-dependent chronic dissolved copper standards. Results from six stations were over proposed calculated hardness-dependent acute dissolved copper standards.
Lead: Results from two stations were over proposed calculated hardness- dependent chronic dissolved lead standards.
Mercury, Selenium and Silver: There are no proposed changes to total mercury and total selenium standards. Results were not available for silver evaluation. Please see relevant sections within the report for details on these metals.
Zinc: Results from seven stations were over the current total zinc standard. Results from five stations were over proposed calculated hardness-dependent chronic and acute dissolved zinc standards.

6. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Environmental Management Commission and Water Quality Committee Division of Water Resources
Turbidity
Yadkin River Basin – Highest
River Basin Mean 25.2 mg/L
Median Turbidity Concentration 11 NTU mg/L
0% Change
South Yadkin Subbasin – Highest Subbasin
Subbasin Mean 39.3 mg/L
Median Turbidity Concentration 16 NTU
14% Increase
Based on the 4-year assessment window of and comparing the percent change from , it was determined that the Yadkin River basin has the highest river basin mean and median turbidity concentrations of 25.2 and 11 NTU’s respectively, with a 0 percent change in the median turbidity concentration over the two time periods (Table 3). The South Yadkin subbasin ( ) had the highest subbasin mean and median concentrations of 39.3 and 16 NTU’s respectively, with a 14 percent increase in the median concentration between the two assessment time periods.

7. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Environmental Management Commission and Water Quality Committee Division of Water Resources
Turbidity % Change
Largest Subbasin Percentage Increase– Middle Roanoke 41%
Largest Subbasin Percentage Decrease – Hiwassee River 23.6%
The largest subbasin percent increase in turbidity concentration occurred in the Middle Roanoke ( ) subbasin with a 41 percent increase and the largest decrease of 23.6 percent occurred in Hiwassee River basin ( ).

8. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Environmental Management Commission and Water Quality Committee Division of Water Resources
Total Nitrogen
*No current standard, but as an EPA requirement, DWR is working with a Science Advisory Council (SAC) to develop nitrogen nutrient criteria.
Yadkin River Basin – Highest
River Basin Mean 2.90 mg/L
Median Total Nitrogen (TN) 1.49 mg/L
13% Increase
Rocky River Subbasin – Highest (in the Yadkin River Basin)
Subbasin Mean 5.91 mg/L
Median Total Nitrogen (TN) 3.97 mg/L
While the State of North Carolina does not currently have a total nitrogen instream standard, the division as a requirement of the USEPA, is in the process of developing nutrient criteria with the assistance of a Science Advisory Committee (SAC). The goal is to develop lake, stream and estuarine standards that will be applied to surface waters of NC.
Based on a 4-year assessment window of and comparing the percent change from , it was determined that the Yadkin River basin has the highest river basin mean and median Total Nitrogen (TN) concentrations of 2.90 and 1.49 mg/L respectively, with a 13 percent increase in the median TN concentration over the two time periods (Table 4). The Rocky River subbasin ( ) in the Yadkin had the highest mean and median concentrations of 5.91 and 3.97 mg/L respectively in the Yadkin River basin.

9. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Environmental Management Commission and Water Quality Committee Division of Water Resources
Total Phosphorus
*No current standard, but is being reviewed as part of the nutrient criteria development process
Yadkin River Basin– Highest
River Basin Mean 0.31 mg/L
Median TP Concentrations 0.11 mg/L
21.4% Decrease
Rocky River Subbasin (in the Yadkin River) – Highest
Subbasin mean 0.67 mg/L
Median TP Concentrations 0.49mg/L .
While the State of North Carolina does not currently have a Total Phosphorus (TP) instream standard, TP will be reviewed as part of the nutrient criteria development process discussed above. The goal is to develop lake, stream and estuarine standards that will be applied to surface waters of NC.
Based on a 4-year assessment window of and comparing the percent change from , it was determined that the Yadkin River basin has the highest river basin mean and median TP concentrations of 0.31 and 0.11 mg/L respectively, with a percent decrease in the median TP concentration over the two time periods (Table 5). The Rocky River subbasin ( ) in the Yadkin River Basin had the highest mean and median TP concentrations of 0.67 and 0.49 mg/L respectively.

10. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Environmental Management Commission and Water Quality Committee Division of Water Resources
Total Phosphorus, cont.
*No current standard, but is being reviewed as part of the nutrient criteria development process
Catawba River Basin
2nd Highest Basin Mean TP Concentration 0.22 mg/L
Neuse River
2nd Highest Median TP Concentration 0.10 mg/L
Largest Subbasin Increase and Decrease
Lower Catawba %
Roanoke’s Lower Dan River - 88%
Six of the 17 river basins have basin TP mean concentrations greater than 0.10 mg/L, these include the Cape Fear River Basin (0.15 mg/L), Catawba River Basin (0.22 mg/L), Neuse River Basin (0.13 mg/L), Roanoke River Basin (0.11 mg/L), White Oak (0.15 mg/L) and the Yadkin River Basin (0.31 mg/L).
The Catawba River Basin had the second highest basin mean TP concentration of mg/L and the Neuse River Basin had the second highest median TP concentration of mg/L. The largest subbasin percent increase in TP concentration occurred in the Lower Catawba subbasin ( ) with a 60 percent increase and the largest decrease of 88 percent occurred in Roanoke’s Lower Dan River subbasin ( ).

11. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Environmental Management Commission and Water Quality Committee Division of Water Resources
Total Phosphorus, cont.
*No current standard, but is being reviewed as part of the nutrient criteria development process
Six of the 17 river basins have basin TP mean concentrations greater than 0.10 mg/L
Cape Fear River Basin (0.15 mg/L)
Catawba River Basin (0.22 mg/L)
Neuse River Basin (0.13 mg/L)
Roanoke River Basin (0.11 mg/L)
White Oak (0.15 mg/L)
Yadkin River Basin (0.31 mg/L)
Six of the 17 river basins have basin TP mean concentrations greater than 0.10 mg/L, these include the Cape Fear River Basin (0.15 mg/L), Catawba River Basin (0.22 mg/L), Neuse River Basin (0.13 mg/L), Roanoke River Basin (0.11 mg/L), White Oak (0.15 mg/L) and the Yadkin River Basin (0.31 mg/L).

12. Fecal Coliform Bacteria
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Environmental Management Commission and Water Quality Committee Division of Water Resources
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Cape Fear River Basin –Highest
River Basin Mean 531 cfu/100ml
White Oak River Basin – Highest
Geomean Concentration 229 cfu/100ml
Basins Exceeding 400 cfu/100ml
Broad River Basin (437 cfu/100ml)
Cape Fear River Basin (531 cfu/100ml)
Catawba River Basin (504 cfu/100ml)
Hiwassee River Basin (482 cfu/100ml)
White Oak River Basin (403 cfu/100mL)
*The White Oak River basin was the only basin to exceed a geometric mean of 200 cfu/100mL.
Based on a 4-year assessment window of , it was determined that the Cape Fear River basin has the highest basin mean fecal coliform bacteria concentration of 531 cfu/100mL and the White Oak basin had the highest geomean concentration of 229 cfu/100mL (Table 7).
The basins that exceeded a mean of 400 cfu/100mL were the Broad River Basin (437 cfu/100mL), Cape Fear River Basin (531 cfu/100mL), Catawba River Basin (504 cfu/100mL), Hiwassee River Basin (482 cfu/100mL), and the White Oak River Basin (403 cfu/100mL). The White Oak River basin was the only basin to exceed a geometric mean of 200 cfu/100mL. The Fecal Coliform Bacteria standards apply only to individual stations that were monitored at least five times within a 30-day period (5in30). We use monthly monitoring data to determine areas of concern for additional bacterial monitoring. Due to staff and funding limitation, only waters classified as B, used for primary recreation, are prioritized and evaluated using the 5in30 standard assessment to determine possible water quality impairments. All other stations remain as data inconclusive (not rated) if the monthly data indicates a violation of the standard until such time as funds are available to support additional 5in30 monitoring efforts.

13. The Division’s Basin Planning Program’s Stakeholder Input
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Environmental Management Commission and Water Quality Committee Division of Water Resources
The Division’s Basin Planning Program’s Stakeholder Input
Hydrologic Modeling Stakeholder Meetings
Basin Plan Public Comment Process
Watershed Associations
Land Trusts
Water Quality Monitoring Coalitions
Soil and Water Conservation Districts
Public Water Systems
Other federal, state and local agencies
The Division’s basin planning programs take advantage of stakeholder input, which enhances public participation by maintaining electronic communications. Stakeholders provide information essential to protecting and enhancing watershed water quality and issues associated with reliability of water supplies. Partnering stakeholders typically include watershed associations, land trusts, water quality monitoring coalitions, soil and water conservation districts, public water systems, and other federal, state, and local agencies. DWR staff members regularly assist municipal water systems with developing and updating their local water supply plans.
The Basin Planning Branch will join the Modeling and Assessment Branch to provide three public meetings per hydrologic model completed in 2017.
The Basin Planning Branch will provide a 30-day public comment period after approval to release from WQC.
Various watershed associations.
Various land trusts.
Water quality monitoring coalitions
Soil and Water Conservation Districts
Public Water Systems
Other federal, state and local agencies

14. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Environmental Management Commission and Water Quality Committee Division of Water Resources
Branch Goals
Help facilitate development of a statewide integrated data management system to replace the current, segmented, disjointed, inefficient and severely outdated data management system.
Strive to increase public awareness and participation.
Evaluate statutes specific to basin planning and how to integrate water quality and quantity planning into one report.
As the basin plans move toward a more interactive, living document, they will be updated when new data is available or when restoration projects are completed. A report for each basin will presented to the EMC for approval at least every 10 years as mandated in G.S B(c). In order to move towards a more dynamic, comprehensive, homogeneous and efficient approach in basin planning, the Basin Planning Branch will:
Help facilitate development of a statewide integrated data management system to replace the current, segmented, disjointed, inefficient and severely outdated data management system. This would provide more accurate and standardized data, making it more accessible. It could include data needed to assess water quality and quantity, thereby assisting with water quality evaluation, water quantity modeling and water use needs.
Strive to increase public awareness and participation. There will be an opportunity for public participation with five basin plans being updated in There will also be opportunity for public participation as the Division works towards developing hydrologic models for the French Broad, New and Watauga in 2017 and 2018.
Evaluate statutes specific to basin planning and how to integrate water quality and quantity planning into one report.

15. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Environmental Management Commission and Water Quality Committee Division of Water Resources
Questions?

16. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Environmental Management Commission and Water Quality Committee Division of Water Resources
Contact Information
Ian McMillan
Basin Planning Branch
Division of Water Resources