1. Request Approval of the 2014 Tar-Pamlico River Basin Plan

2. Outline General Statute requirements Intro to Tar-Pamlico Basin
Estuary status
TMDL goals
Upstream Subbasin Trends
NSW Strategy
Recommendations
Additional Information

3. NC General Statute Chapter 143, Article 21
§ B 
The Commission shall develop and implement a basinwide water quality management plan for each of the 17 major river basins in the State. …
Each basinwide water quality management plan shall:
1) Provide that all point sources and nonpoint sources of pollutants jointly share the responsibility of reducing the pollutants…
2) If any of the waters located within the river basin are designated as nutrient sensitive waters, then the basinwide water quality management plan shall establish a goal to reduce the average annual mass load of nutrients…
The Commission shall review and revise its 17 basinwide water quality management plans at least every 10 years …
A basinwide water quality management plan is not a rule and Article 2A of Chapter 150B of the General Statutes does not apply to the development of basinwide water quality management plans. …

4. Statute Requirements
Requirement of Basinwide Water Quality Plans State Water Supply Plan
Required for EMC Approval
§ B(a)
(1) All activities across a river basin and all point sources and nonpoint sources of pollutants
§ B(a)(1)
municipal wastewater facilities
Yes
industrial wastewater systems
septic tank systems
stormwater management systems
golf courses
farms that use fertilizers and pesticides for crops
public and commercial lawns and gardens
atmospheric deposition
animal operations
§ B(a)(2)
All transfers into and from a river basin that are required to be registered under G.S H.
§ B(b)(1)
Provide that all point sources and nonpoint sources of pollutants jointly share the responsibility of reducing the pollutants in the State's waters in a fair, reasonable, and proportionate manner, using computer modeling and the best science and technology reasonably available and considering future anticipated population growth and economic development.
§ B(b)(2)
If any of the waters located within the river basin are designated as nutrient sensitive waters, then the basinwide water quality management plan shall establish a goal to reduce the average annual mass load of nutrients that are delivered to surface waters within the river basin from point and nonpoint sources. The Commission shall establish a nutrient reduction goal for the nutrient or nutrients of concern that will result in improvements to water quality such that the designated uses of the water, as provided in the classification of the water under G.S (d), are not impaired. The plan shall require incremental progress toward achieving the goal. In developing the plan, the Commission shall determine and allow appropriate credit toward achieving the goal for reductions of water pollution by point and nonpoint sources through voluntary measures.
Statute spreadsheet attachment indicates were in the Plan the statute is covered and a link to the reports website.

5. Tar-Pamlico River Basin 2014 Use Support
This map shows the waterbodies that are exceeding standards for at least one water quality parameter as reported on the d list.
In the Upper Tar Subbasin, there are 6 Impairments either related to low dissolved oxygen levels or poor macroinvertebrate communities.
Fishing Creek subbasin has 2 Impairments one for low dissolved oxygen and one for zinc.
Tar River subbasin has 5 Impairments all b/c of poor macroinvertebrate communities.
The majority of the Impairments in the Pamlico River estuary are b/c of exceedences to the chlorophyll a, and copper standards. There are also a 48 Creeks that are closed to shellfish harvesting which makes them Impaired.
And the Pamlico Sound subbasin has shellfish harvesting and recreation Impairments based on data collected from Marine Fisheries.

6. 2014 Chlorophyll a Standard Violations
Areas where the chlorophyll a standard (40ug/l) are exceeded in data between (~10K acres), are shown in red. Previous Impairments extended out St.Clair Creek, where the red line crosses the estuary (~32K acres). Pungo Creek ( d) and Pantego Creek ( d) are also exceeding chlorophyll a standards.

7. Upper Station- near Washington
These 2 scatterplots show all of DWR’s Chlorophyll a data, representing conditions in the upper estuary and lower estuary. There continues to be incidences with high chlor a concentrations.
Downstream Station- below Bath Creek, near Aurora

8. Estuary Chlorophyll a Exceedence vs. Flow
The retreat of the chlorophyll a impairment within the estuary is most likely the result of low flow conditions. Our data shows during low flow conditions, the higher chl a concentrations and percent exceedences move into the upstream portion of the estuary. Versus, under normal or elevated flows, the higher chl a concentrations and percent exceedence are pushed downstream.
This is detailed out in the Pamlico Estuary report and further goes into detail about utilization of nitrogen within the estuary.

9. These graphs also show that during assessment timeframes that included drier years the concentration levels and percent exceedance of the 40ug/l standard are higher in the upper estuary than the lower estuary.

10. Trends Analyses Seasonal Kendall Flow-adjusted Concentrations
Flow-normalized Load Estimates
LOADEST- annual load
In order to assess the amount of nutrients being delivered to the estuary from the upper subbasins 3 different types of trend analyses were performed:
-Seasonal and flow-adjusted concentration trends; used to evaluate long term changes in instream concentrations
-Flow-normalized (FN) nutrient loads estimates
-Annual nutrient load using flow weighted average concentrations; used to evaluate which flow interval (low, medium or high) delivers the largest portion of the overall load to the system.
-Long term flow-normalized load estimates; used to evaluate long term changes in nutrient loads associate with different flow regimes and comparing to a benchmark 5 year period ( , except for Chicod Creek which is )
-USGS LOAD ESTimator (LOADEST) annual load; used to estimate an annual load time series and estimated unit area loading time series (using watershed area).

11. TP Load at Grimesland Target = 396,832 lbs/yr
TMDL GOAL: No increase in TP from 1991
Target = 396,832 lbs/yr
Mean 579,692 lbs/yr (LOADEST)
Mean 567,000 lbs/yr (Flow-normalized load)
The TMDL goal for TP is no increase from the 1991 levels. The target is ~400,000lbs/yr. but two different loading estimates show that the current load remains in the high ~500,000lbs/yr. Load assessments (concentration x flow) are highly impacted by precipitation as can be seen in 1999 (hurricane Floyd) and 2003 (unusually wet year).
The LOADEST assessment was used to see the general pattern of loading compared to the 1991 baseline year. The loading only fell below the 1991 baseline during very low flow stream years- 2007, 2008, & 2011.
Flow-normalized TP loading at Grimesland has been consistently lower than the corresponding loading until the period when the load began to increase and has climbed to approximately 30% greater than the load .

12. TN Load at Grimesland Target = 3,000,491 lbs/yr
TMDL GOAL: 30% reduction in TN from 1991
Target = 3,000,491 lbs/yr
Mean 4,593,624 lbs/yr (LOADEST)
Mean 4,700,000 lbs/yr (Flow-normalized Load)
The TMDL goal for TN is a 30% reduction from 1991 levels to meet a target of ~3million lbs/yr. The two different loading estimates both show an average load over 4.5million lbs/yr.
It is important to remember that 1991 was a very dry, low stream flow year which affected the overall loading for both nitrogen and phosphorus. The TN loading only fell below the 30% reduction during the low flow years of 2007, 2008, & 2011
Flow-Normalized (FN) load estimated under long-term average flow conditions were compared to the average load for the period. Five-year moving averages of NOx-N, TKN, TN and TP loads were computed and compared with the corresponding value for the 1991–1995 period.
Results of the FN loading analysis indicates a reduction in NOx-N loading along with an increase in TKN (organic nitrogen) loading. The increase in TKN and TP over the last three to four, five-year periods need further investigation in order to determine the cause of such a drastic shift in the loading of these two nutrient parameters.

13. Seasonal Kendall Flow-Adjusted Concentration Percent Change
Water Quality Constituents mg/L
Upper Tar River
Fishing Creek
Tar River at Tarboro
Chicod Creek
Grimesland
Ammonia (NH3)
* *
- 39 % *
- 41 % *
- 36 % -29%
- 25% *
Nitrate-Nitrite (NOx)
- 80 % *
- 42 % *
- 52 % *
- 26% *
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
+ 37 % *
+ 60 % +61%
+ 44 % +39%
+ 55% +43%
Total Nitrogen (TN)
+ 32 % +38%
* +21%
+ 12% +24%
Total Phosphorus (TP)
+ 25% *
* +28%
* +31%
* No Trend
Flow-adjusted Concentration Trends with data from , indicate the stations are declining in Nitrate-Nitrite and Ammonia. Total Phosphorus concentrations are only increasing in the Upper Tar River, while TKN concentrations are increasing in all stations except Chicod Creek.
The same trend was run on data from , indicating a few differences, where NH3 & NOx showed significant declines there was no positive or negative trend for these parameters over the past decade. This may indicate that the initial reductions were realized in the 90’s.
Organic Nitrogen is the component of TKN that is increasing and this rise is occurring in the other coastal basins too. Its bioavailability and sources are unknown.
The drainage to the Upper Tar ambient station contributes ~4% of the load to Grimesland (mean TN 300,929lbs/yr. & TP 39,105lbs/yr.). Data indicates a rise in TKN and TP, with TN loads only falling below the 1991 baseline in 4 out of 22 yrs and TP falling below the 1991 baseline 3 out of 22 years.
The area draining to the Fishing Creek station contributes ~8% of the total load to Grimesland (mean TN 160,918lbs/yr. & TP 19,264lbs/yr.). Data indicates a rise in TKN and TN, with TN loads falling below the 1991 baseline in 10 out of 22 yrs and TP falling below the 1991 baseline 9 out of 22 years.
The Tarboro station contributes ~62% of the total load to Grimesland. (mean TN 3,161,774lbs/yr. & TP 393,712lbs/yr.). Data indicates a rise in TKN, with TN loads only falling below the 1991 baseline in 5 out of 22 yrs and TP falling below the 1991 baseline 4 out of 22 years.
The Chicod Creek station drains into the Tar River just upstream the Grimesland ambient station. (mean TN 188,112lbs/yr. & TP 32,110lbs/yr.).

14. Loads vs. Watershed Size
The Basin Plan goes into detail in calculating the unit area loads from each of the trends stations, as shown in this graph Chicod Creek (light purple) has a substantially large load based on watershed size. Nutrient data have consistently been below the 1993 levels (1993 was a much higher flow year than 1991, so levels more easily attainable), although since 2008 there has been a steady increase. This watershed is primarily an agricultural watershed so a change in agricultural practices since 2008 might help explain why the increase. We are recommending groundwater quality sampling in this watershed to help understand how groundwater nutrients are impacting surface waters.
The Upper Tar River has a relatively high level of loading for a headwater region that is mostly forested, additional research is needed to understand why the TKN and TP are increasing here.
Fishing Creek has a low level of loading based on drainage area compared to the other studied areas, although TN and TP show increasing loading trends in recent years.

15. NSW Report Trend Analyses Details Review of NSW Strategy & progress
Identifies additional sources
Recommendations & Needs
- Groundwater
- Atmospheric deposition
- BMP efficiencies
- Ag nutrient accounting
- Existing development nutrient loads
- Estuary nutrient cycling
The NSW report is dedicated to the review of the Nutrient Sensitive Water Strategy in which, we recognize the progress made by dischargers, stormwater and agriculture on achieving their 30% reductions. Dischargers(TPBA) have reduced nitrogen loads by over 40% and they have consistently remained below their collective nutrient loading cap and agriculture has had an estimated average 45% nitrogen reduction.
The details of the previously discussed trends analyses are also discussed in this report.
The chapter also reviews potential gaps in the strategy and research needs, including
-groundwater contributions to baseflow
-atmospheric deposition
-BMP efficiencies
-ag nutrient accounting
-land application of waste
-existing development nutrient loads
and estuary nutrient recycling.
Literature reviews and recent discussions with researchers bring up more questions, such as:
Bioavailability of dissolved organic nitrogen
WWTP technology changes results in transfer of nitrogen spp
Septic systems contribution of organic nitrogen
Soil erosion contribution of organic nitrogen
Intensification or application of land use activities are changing
Quality of data used for the original TMDL vs what is available now Anthropogenic vs natural loads of organic nitrogen
We are anticipating the completion of two research studies that may help in identifying nitrogen sources in both the Tar-Pam and Neuse River Basins.

16. Action Plan Nutrient Sensitive Water Rules Review Watershed Model
Ag baseline adjustments
Stormwater updates
Watershed Model
Identify data needed for development of model
Watershed Monitoring & Trends
Additional assessment of organic nitrogen
Groundwater Monitoring
Commence groundwater quality monitoring
Stormwater
Agriculture Nutrient Tracking
Atmospheric Deposition
Threatened & Endangered Spp
Aquaculture Facilities
Restoration Prioritization
Action Plan is located at the back of the Summary document, along with additional research needs.
The action plan covers topics that were highlighted in the plan that need additional follow through or implementation with the Division and other agencies. We plan on tracking our progress on each of these topics and can report back yearly on the status.

17. Public Comments Farm Bureau Pamlico Tar Foundation
BOC resource limited
Request additional potential source information
Pamlico Tar Foundation
Minimal flow requirements to protect designated uses
Revise TMDL and NSW strategy to reallocate wasteload allocations
The Farm Bureau’s comments included their involvement on the Agriculture Basin Oversight Committee which is responsible for collecting data on agricultures nutrient contributions to the basin. Several recommendations in the plan call for more specific and detailed tracking of BMPs and potential ag sources of nutrients by the BOC. Farm Bureau noted that resource limitations prevent the BOC from doing so and additional funding is needed for BMP research.
Farm Bureau also wanted to support the need for stormwater nutrient rules to apply to existing development and asked that we look into other permitted sources as contributions of nutrients like high-rate infiltration systems, sanitary sewer overflows and waste treatment facilities put on moratorium.
The Pamlico Tar Foundation would like to see more detailed information on impacts to streams b/c of increased water supply demands, IBTs and increased wastewater flows which would involve minimal flow requirements to protect designated uses. Refocus on the NSW strategy to consider all sources by revising the TMDL and to prioritize action items that are attainable given reduced funding and staff. Other recommendations include commencing a groundwater quality monitoring program, assessing ammonia atmospheric deposition, quantify impacts from poultry operations and the removal of their “deemed permitted” status, mapping of CAFO sprayfield tile drains, regulate runoff from existing development, support research into legacy sediment contributions to nutrient loads and to protect riparian buffers.

18. Basin Plan Website
Additional information in the Basin Plan including interactive maps, groundwater, model results, basin geographic features, land cover and population growth are all found under various links on the Basin Plan’s website.

19. Interactive Maps
This is an example of the ambient interactive map. When one of the water drop symbols are clicked on, a pop-up box opens with a station details and links to the water quality data collected there.

20. Water Quantity
Drought planning, stream flows and IBTs and the results of the OASIS water quantity model (previously presented to WAC & EMC in 2014) and a summary of the reliability of our public water systems, are available under the water quantity tab.

21. Water Demand Planning Water System Avg Demand (MGD) 2010 2030 2060
Franklinton
0.3
Adequate
0.4
0.5
Franklin County
2.4
5.3
11.4
Louisburg
0.6
0.9
Rocky Mount
10.2
12.3
Needs further investigation
15.2
Enfield
Tarboro
2.8
3.6
4.9
Greenville Utilities Comm.
18.1
42.2
The projected water demands which are provided to the Division through the LWSP are input into the hydrologic basin model. This table summarizes the surface water systems and their ability to meet their demands as an output of the hydrologic model.

22. Subbasin & Watershed Assessments
Any information specific to a stream whether it is permit compliance issues, stream restoration activities or monitoring data details are described in the watershed reports, which can be opened by clicking on one the green maps. We hope to be able to update these reports as information becomes available instead of having to wait until the next basin plan cycle, these reports are useful to groups or municipalities looking to improve water quality through planning and grants processes.

23. Request Approval of Final Tar-Pamlico River Basin Plan in Accordance to General Statute 143.215.8B
This is the first integrated water resources basin plan since the merger of the two divisions and look forward to hearing suggestions on improvements as we move forward with the next basin.

25. Extra Estuary Chlorophyll a slides