HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft WQC Minutes Summary_11May2022
1
WATER QUALITY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
May 11, 2022
MEETING BRIEF
During the May 11, 2022, meeting of the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission’s (EMC or Commission) Water Quality Committee (WQC or Committee), the
WQC:
• Approved the draft March 9, 2022, WQC meeting minutes.
• Approved proceeding to the EMC with the 2022 Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin
Resources Plan.
• Approved Proceeding to the EMC with Proposed Reclassification of Teer Quarry and a
Section of the Eno River to WS-IV Critical Area.
• Approved Proceeding to the EMC with Revised Neuse and Tar-Pamlico New
Development Stormwater Local Programs.
• Heard two informational presentations: 1) NCDEQ’s Estimated Timeline for
Development of a Statewide Recreational Standard for Escherichia coli (E. Coli) in
Primary Recreation (Class B) Waters, and 2) 2022 North Carolina Water Quality
Assessment and 303(d) List Update and Prioritizing Waters for Restoration.
WQC MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE
Ms. Marion Deerhake, Chair Mr. Christopher Duggan
Ms. Patricia Harris, Vice-Chair Mr. John McAdams
Mr. Charles Carter Ms. Robin Smith, Ex-officio, EMC Chair
Ms. Donna Davis Ms. Margaret Monast
DEQ STAFF & OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE
Mr. Richard Rogers, Director, DWR Ms. Virginia Baker, Ms. Trish D’Arconte,
Ms. Elizabeth Kountis, Mr. Christopher
Ventaloro, and Mr. Cam McNutt, DWR
I. Preliminary Matters
1. Meeting called to order and notice of NCGS 138A-15 regarding conflict of
interest: Chair Deerhake called the WQC meeting to order at 9am. None of the members
2
announced they had a known conflict of interest regarding the matters on the meeting
agenda.
2. Approval of draft March 9, 2022, WQC meeting minutes: Commissioner McAdams
made a motion to approve the meeting minutes, and Commissioner Duggan seconded.
There was no discussion, and the meeting minutes were approved unanimously.
II. Action Items
1. Request Approval to Proceed to the EMC with the 2022 Yadkin Pee-Dee River
Basin Resources Plan (Virginia Baker, Division of Water Resources – Basin
Planning Branch)
Commissioner Davis – EMC Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin Liaison - gave opening
comments explaining basin plans, noting that this is the fourth document to be developed
for the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin by DWR.
Virginia Baker of DWR’s Basin Planning Branch explained the Plan. She started by
noting that basin plans are watershed-based approaches to managing water resources that
consider the cumulative impacts of all activities across a river basin, including point and
nonpoint sources. These plans provide recommendations, not rules.
Ms. Baker gave an overview of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin, noting the size of the
basin (7,221 square miles in NC and 18,864 total square miles), its geographic location,
and rivers located in the basin. She also stated that the basin covers three ecoregions: the
Mountains, the Piedmont, and the Sandhills. The land cover of the basin is mostly forest
(54.5%) and agriculture (24%). Ms. Baker also highlighted the permitted point and
nonpoint pollution sources in the basin and presented some statistics about animal
agriculture in the basin.
Next, she discussed water quality conditions in the basin, noting that for monitored areas,
there was 28.1% exceedance for freshwater miles and 79% exceedance for freshwater
acres. She mentioned information regarding biological monitoring, turbidity, fecal
coliform, dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, chlorophyll-a, polychlorinated biphenyl
(PCB) fish tissue, total nitrogen, nitrite-nitrate, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, and total
phosphorous. After discussing these impairments, Ms. Baker gave recommendations to
plug holes in existing data collection efforts and to better monitor fecal coliform, metals,
and algal blooms. She explained that an analysis of the mainstem stations’ nutrient data
showed comparatively higher levels than the other ecoregion stations.
Ms. Baker explained some of the concerns DWR has regarding the Rocky River
watershed’s water quality, as many of those waterbodies are impaired. She explained that
there are 25 minor and seven major NPDES polluters and 156 stormwater permits. She
3
pointed out that the water quality data indicates the Rocky River watershed is likely
nutrient sensitive and in need of a comprehensive management strategy to address
growing water quality issues and degraded aquatic habitat. DWR has identified multiple
limitations with the current model used to determine assimilative capacity for new and/or
expanding point source dischargers, and it is recommending the model be upgraded as a
first step toward addressing water quality issues in the Rocky River watershed. Regarding
High Rock Lake, Ms. Baker noted that DWR supports the Nutrient Criteria Development
Process (NCDP) that resulted in a recommended site-specific chlorophyll-a water quality
standard for the lake.
Ms. Baker then gave an overview of water use and availability, including DWR’s
recommendation that it continues to collaborate with federal, state, and local agencies, as
well as interested stakeholders, to identify and address data gaps. She also made several
recommendations regarding point and nonpoint sources of pollution and gave a recap of
public comments.
Commissioner Duggan stated that there is a plan to build a new wastewater treatment
plant in Union County and asked about its impacts on Ms. Baker’s analysis. She said she
would need to reach out to DWR’s permitting section on the topic. Commissioner Davis
noted that she has lived her whole life in this basin, and that she encouraged everyone,
including the public, to take these recommendations seriously and use the basin plan as a
tool.
Chair Deerhake suggested DWR create an itemized table to track specific actions and the
DWR group/branch responsible for each action. She also noted that DWR should break
down beef cattle vs dairy cattle because of the difference in nutrient loading potential.
She also expressed her concern that population growth in this area will further strain
water supplies. She added that the Kerr Scott reservoir on the western Yadkin River,
which is historic for the state, was also noted in the plan as having issues of concern. She
emphasized the need for a nutrient management strategy in the Rocky River watershed.
Commissioner McAdams noted that the condition of the Rocky River watershed is a
wakeup call, as there are severe issues present. Although this is a planning document, he
asked about the likely effect of this report on watershed quality. Ms. Baker stated that the
model should be updated, and new users/polluters should be scrutinized more carefully
but that the process will take time.
At the conclusion of the presentation, Commissioner Davis moved to proceed to the EMC
with the 2022 Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin Resources Plan, and Commissioner Carter
seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
2. Request Approval to Proceed to the EMC with Proposed Reclassification of Teer
Quarry and a Section of the Eno River to WS-IV Critical Area (CA) (Neuse River
4
Basin) (Elizabeth Kountis, Division of Water Resources – Classifications, Standards,
and Rules Review Branch)
Ms. Kountis, DWR, describe the Teer Quarry’s location, the relevant part of the Eno
River, and the boundary of the proposed critical area. She noted that the City of Durham
will use water from the quarry for drinking water and that DWR’s Public Water Supply
staff do not object to the proposal. She then compared the existing requirements with the
proposed requirements, noting that restrictions on new development and industrial
wastewater discharges would apply if the reclassification were approved. A fiscal
analysis (not yet submitted to the Office of State Budget and Management) shows a one-
time cost of about $2,000 to the state. It also shows a one-time shared cost of $8,000 to
the city and Durham County associated with rezoning and ordinance amendments.
Ms. Kountis stated that sampling of groundwater wells adjacent to the quarry showed
contaminants of petroleum hydrocarbons and chlorinated solvents associated with
previous uses of the area. A report indicated that this pollution is migrating towards the
quarry and that there should be continued monitoring at the site to ensure that
groundwater pollution doesn’t spread to surface water in the quarry.
Commissioner McAdams asked if this request was to be approved only by the WQC.
Chair Deerhake noted that this request will next move to EMC for approval.
Commissioner Carter asked if this quarry was abandoned. Ms. Kountis answered yes,
adding that it was last used in the 1980s.
Commissioner McAdams said he was impressed with the coordination of local
governments regarding this matter and moved to recommend approval to the EMC of this
approved reclassification. Commissioner Carter seconded the motion.
Chair Deerhake asked for more information about what steps will be taken to monitor the
groundwater pollution that is migrating toward the quarry. Ms. Kountis noted that the
quarry will be fed by groundwater that will become surface water. Syd Miller, the Water
Resources Manager for the City of Durham’s Department of Water Management,
explained that the former property owner is responsible for monitoring the groundwater
quality and that they are currently performing that monitoring. He also noted that the City
of Durham, as user, would monitor the water quality in the quarry more frequently than
required by law. Chair Deerhake asked about the environmental impact analysis that
found no significant impact. Mr. Miller noted that DEQ issued the Finding of No
Significant Impact. Chair Deerhake also asked if the withdrawal from the Eno would
impact the Eno River’s aquatic habitat. Fred Tarver, DWR Basin Planning Group, said a
2006 finding indicated that the City of Durham has withdrawal limits pursuant to a
capacity use agreement. He added that these limits would not significantly impact the
Eno River and would satisfy the concerns of affected parties.
Commissioner McAdams’ motion carried unanimously.
5
3. Request Approval to Proceed to the EMC with Revised Neuse and Tar-Pamlico
New Development Stormwater Local Programs (Trish D’Arconte, Division of Water
Resources – Nonpoint Source Branch)
Ms. D’Arconte presented an overview of the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico stormwater rules
history. She then described the improvements in the 2020 revision of the rules and
discussed the needs and characteristics of local governments. Next, she gave an overview
of the approved model program. Local programs are supposed to cover post-construction
stormwater control, illicit discharges, and public education.
Ms. D’Arconte then discussed the standards DWR expected in local programs’ submitted
materials. She gave an overview of the 12 draft programs presented at this stage and the
next steps of WQC and EMC approval processes. She noted that the 12 local programs
for the WQC’s review and decision are drafts subject to change; however, DWR expects
the actual adopted program plans will be substantially the same as what the EMC chooses
to approve. Finally, she requested approval to proceed to the EMC with the first 12 Neuse
and Tar-Pamlico local programs for implementation of new development stormwater.
Commissioner McAdams asked how much back and forth there would be with the
presented plans and DWR staff. Ms. D’Arconte said that there was only one of th e12
plans for which DWR did not ask for additional information or changes. She said she
typically had significant conversations with the local governments regarding their plans.
Commissioner Davis asked if there were concerns about funding for stormwater plans.
Ms. D’Arconte answered that funding is related to addressing existing stormwater
infrastructure needs. She noted that these rules are focused on new development instead
of managing existing infrastructure.
Chair Deerhake stated that DEQ requires the local programs to inspect stream buffer-
related projects upon completing construction but that inspection should also occur
during construction since impacts can occur upon project completion. She also expressed
concerns about local programs self-auditing, self-evaluating, and self-reporting any
adjustments they find. She stressed the importance of monitoring such practices and
hopes DEQ will receive adequate funding to conduct program audits. Ms. D’Arconte
noted that she has asked local governments to explain the challenges they’ve had with
implementing past rules to aid DWR’s understanding.
Commissioner Harris asked about the tracked changes from the local governments,
noting that seeing those changes were helpful. She asked, inquiring about changes made
by DWR staff. She noted that it was interesting some plans reference other states, such as
Virginia and metro north Georgia. She also asked about template ordinances. Ms.
D’Arconte stated that local ordinances should point directly to local program documents
to ensure that legal requirements are met. She noted that the lawyers were agreeable with
6
ordinances referencing planning documents instead of the ordinances actually including
the requirements.
There was no objection to Chair Deerhake’s suggestion to make one motion for the 12
plans instead of making a motion for each individual plan. Commissioner Harris moved
to approve the 12 plans and carry them to the full EMC for consideration and approval.
Commissioner Davis seconded the motion. There was no further discussion, and the
motion carried unanimously.
III. Information Items
1. NCDEQ’s Estimated Timeline for Development of a Statewide Recreational
Standard for Escherichia coli (E. Coli) in Primary Recreation (Class B) Waters (Christopher Ventaloro, Division of Water Resources – Classifications, Standards, and Rules Review Branch)
Mr. Ventaloro began his presentation with some background information. He noted that
the workplan DEQ is developing includes three stages: rule development, statewide
bacteria study, and rulemaking. During the rule development stage, DEQ will conduct
stakeholder outreach, develop an E. Coli monitoring system, and draft rule text. During
the statewide bacterial study stage, DEQ will compare fecal coliform and E. Coli levels in
Class B water statewide. The study stage also includes time for data review and statistical
analysis and an implementation assessment period. In the rulemaking stage, staff will
review the available guidance and scientific literature, along with the statewide bacteria
study results. Upon completion, DEQ will develop the rule package for EMC
consideration.
Mr. Ventaloro explained that the workplan’s timeline specifies that the rule development
stage will occur from May 2022 to December 2023, the statewide monitoring study from
September 2022 to October 2023, and the rulemaking stage from October 2023 to
December 2024. The three stages will overlap some, and certain work will progress
concurrently. DWR will focus on bacteria during the swimming season (April - October).
Mr. Ventaloro then presented an overview of the E. coli work DWR’s Asheville Regional
Office (ARO) has performed. He noted that DWR will use ARO’s data in developing the
statewide standard.
Commissioner Harris thanked Mr. Ventaloro and DEQ for their work moving this project
forward. EMC Chair Smith asked Mr. Ventaloro to elaborate on the purpose of the study
He explained the study will provide stakeholders an idea of the potential benefits and
impacts, and it will inform the standard’s implementation water quality protection
programs. Commissioner Monast asked when the next triennial review cycle will occur.
Mr. Ventaloro stated that he is hoping the cycle will start in 2023 but that it is hard to
predict how much quicker this E. coli standard’s development will occur compared to the
7
next triennial review cycle. He noted that there will be overlap with the next triennial
cycle but that this standard development will be expedited.
Chair Deerhake asked about the importance of the April to June 2023 monitoring. Mr.
Ventaloro said DEQ wants to capture climate-related changes in E. coli for a full
swimming season and determine if any identified E. coli and fecal coliform correlations
are maintained across the state. Then she asked if there was anything that could be done
during that 5-month waiting period for the Spring 2023 round of bacteria studies. Mr.
Ventaloro said that during that period, DEQ will do a Quality Assurance/Quality Control
review of monitoring data collected. DEQ will also be able to evaluate any issues
identified during the summer 2022 stage and perhaps reconsider what objectives and data
needs for the second stage. Chair Deerhake stressed that there should be a well-developed
Quality Assurance Project Plan to reduce the amount of work that DWR would have to
do. Finally, she thanked Mr. Ventaloro for his work.
2. 2022 North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and 303(d) List Update and
Prioritizing Waters for Restoration (Cam McNutt, Division of Water Resources
- Modeling Branch)
Mr. McNutt began his presentation by showing the Integrated Report framework with
categories of “meeting criteria”, “data inconclusive”, and “exceeds criteria” (i.e.,
impaired). He presented two pie charts showing the results of the 2022 Clean Water Act
Section 303(d) assessment summary. He then presented a graphic illustrating change
from the 2020 assessment, showing how many assessments changed from “meeting
criteria” to “exceeding criteria” or to “data inconclusive”, and vice versa. His next slide
was a graph summarizing the 2022 303(d) list by water quality indicator parameter.
Mr. McNutt noted that DWR received comments from nine organizations and grouped
the comments into three areas: 303(d) list, Integrated Report, and comments related to
standards. He then presented a chronological work plan for the 2024 Integrated Report
which begins in 2022 and ends with submittals to EPA on April 1, 2024. His next slide
was a map and graph of the waterbodies that have at least one 303(d)-listed parameter.
He noted that these impairments should be addressed with a Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) or Management Strategy. Next, he discussed prioritizing waters for restoration
plans, noting that in 2015, DWR committed to developing restoration plans for 59 water
bodies. He reported that 30 of these 59 restoration plans have been completed.
Mr. McNutt discussed integrated reporting categories for restoration plan approaches: 4t,
4b, 4r, and 5r. He explained that these plans are posted online in an interactive,
continuously updated map-based format.
Mr. McNutt said that DWR solicited candidates for Watershed Action Plans development
but received no formal candidates. However, staff did identify several informal
candidates that will be used to develop restoration plans for the next 10 years. This
8
candidate pool and commitments will be updated on the Integrated Report schedule. Mr.
McNutt concluded the presentation with a mapping tool demonstration. EMC Chair
Smith asked what parties are interested in these watershed plans. Mr. McNutt replied that
interested parties are local governments and conservation groups. Chair Deerhake asked
when the restoration plans are in place, do those receive any funding priority. Mr.
McNutt answered yes, noting that these plans are necessary to receive Clean Water Act
Section 319 money. Then she asked if DWR is tracking and documenting when
restoration is achieved. Mr. McNutt said DWR has developed tools to track small scale
incremental success, and that is important because some of these plans span 50-year
timeframes.
Chair Deerhake then asked about the diagram of changes from the 2020 assessment,
noting that it appears that water quality degradation is occurring. Mr. McNutt said that
when DWR establishes new monitoring sites, it is often because the Division knows
water quality changes are occurring, so those sites often go straight to the 303(d) list. The
other explanation is that a lot of those monitoring sites with inconclusive data changed
categories based on only one or two samples. Chair Deerhake said she continues to see
PCBs in the new listings with old dates. Mr. McNutt said it might be because DWR
increased the extent of the monitoring area, so it would look like a new listing. Over the
years, he said, DWR has been refining those listings. Chair Deerhake asked about the
PCB problem listed in Lake Crabtree, noting that it is an historic issue. Mr. McNutt said
DWR is not aware of any new PCB discharges to Lake Crabtree.
IV. May 12, 2022, EMC Meeting Agenda Items
Chair Deerhake noted that she was not aware of any WQC issues on the next day’s EMC
agenda.
V. Future Committee Interests
Chair Deerhake said she distributed to WQC members a living document, explaining the
status of progress on a variety of topics WQC members are interested in addressing.
VI. Director’s Remarks (Richard Rodgers, DWR)
DWR Director Richard Rogers was present but did not have any additional comments.
VII. Closing Remarks
Chair Deerhake noted that in addition to the E. Coli update, the WQC and EMC directed
DWR to make progress on a scientific literature review for the silver aquatic chronic
toxicity standard. She stated that she was told that DWR is working on that matter.
With no further business before the WQC, the Chair adjourned the meeting at
approximately 11:30 am.