DEQ-CFW_00002050

m
DEQ-CFW-00002050

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
j4—)
Memorandum
August 1, 2006
TO: Annie Godfrey, USEPA Region IV
FROM: Christopher Wu, Environmental Modeler
RE: Responses to Public Comments on the 2006 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report
The 2006 North Carolina Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report was made available for public comment on February
3, 2006 for 30 days per the regulatory agreement. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) received comments from
sixteen (16) persons or agencies regarding the 2006 Integrated Report. This document repeats the comments
received in their entirety and provides DWQ responses to the comments for the administrative record. Please
contact Darlene Kucken at [phone] ext. 354 or Christopher Wu at ext. 592 if you have any questions or
comments.
Comments were received from the following agencies/individuals (not listed in any order):
Edward Kreul, International Paper
Gary Hicks, City of Burlington
Steven Shoaf, City of Burlington
George Everett,,PhD, Duke Power
J. Glenn Rogers and Paul Dickens, Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc.
Jerry McLamb, Town of Benson
Bryan Hulka, Weyerhaeuser, Inc.
Chris Rollins, City of Graham
Caroline Choi, Progress Energy
M.J. Noland, PE, Public Works Commission of the City of Fayetteville
Ken Vogt, City of Wilmington
Amy Pickle, Southern Environmental Law Center
Diane Silver, NC Cooperative Extension Service
Allan Williams, City of Greensboro
Heather Jacobs, Pamlico -Tar River Foundation
Carol Patrick, Piedmont Triad Council of Governments
0�
Cc: Jimmie Overton, DWQ Environmental Sciences Section
Susan Massengale, DWQ Public Information Officer
All commenters listed above N Caro na
atura�{�
North Carolina Division of Water Quality/Planning Branch 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699-1617 Phone [phone]
http//www.h2o.enr.state.ne.us 512 North Salisbury St. Raleigh, NC 27604 FAX [phone]
DENR Customer Service 1-877-623-6748 An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
DEQ-CFW 00002051

Response to Comments, 2006 Integrated Report
1. Comments from International Paper (Kreul)
International Paper has been a member of the Lower Cape Fear River Program since its inception over 10
years ago and been actively involved with water quality and water resources management issues in the
Cape Fear River Basin. We have been actively involved in the TMDL stakeholder group and discussions
related to development of a water quality model for the lower river/estuary. Because of this interest, we
- are providing comments on North Carolina's draft 303(d) list, specifically on the impairment designation of
the lower Cape fear River for dissolved oxygen (DO) and pH (Assessment Unit 18-(71)a).
The impairment determination for a major portion of the lower river/estuary from Toomers Creek to
a now§, Cut is due to sampling data indicating DO and pH below standards. It is clear from the Cape Fear
ver Basinwide Water Q lity Plan, that distinctions between the Class C, SW, and Class SC waters are
ent etermination. The impaired areas are primarily in the SC sections of the river.
DO is- a daily average of 5 mg& with an instantaneous minimum of 4 mg/L.
Therefore, ins measurements are judged against .the 4-mg/L standard. The pH standard for
Class C waters is a range from pH 6 to 9. Swamp waters are expected to have deviations from these criteria
as a result of natural conditions. Class SC waters have a DO standard of 5 mg/L at all times. There is no
swamp designation for tidal salt waters.
We have researched the background on these standards because of their importance to the impairment
determination. The DO standards for Class C and SC waters were originally "not less than 4 mg/L" as.
adopted in 1953 except that designated swamp waters could have lower levels. There were changes to the
criteria over time resulting in the current wording in 1989. It appears that most of the changes were based
on staff consensus, especially for Class SC since available criteria guidance does not match the standards.
The Red Book Criteria (1976) for DO at that time only had a criterion for freshwaters which was a minimum
of 5 mg/L. The Gold Book (1986) included more complexity to the criteria but did not address tidal salt
waters.
The swamp designation was removed from all tidal salt waters in 1981 in conjunction with some other
stream/coastal water classification changes (division of Environmental Management, 1981). The record
includes little basis for the removal of the swamp designation from tidal salt water classes other than
statement that the "swamp" designation is inconsistent with a shellfishing (Class SA) designation. There
was little other discussion of the changes and nothing specific to Class SC waters. This section changed the
classification of the Cape Fear River from "upstream of the mouth of Toomers Creek to Atlantic Ocean"
from Class SC Sw to Class SC. It should be noted that the Class SC DO criterion at the time of this change
was as follows:
02B .0212(d)(3)(C) --Dissolved Oxygen:: not less than 5.0 mg/L, except that swamp waters may have lower
values if caused by natural conditions,
Now it is also important to note that after all the swamp designations were removed from Class SC waters
in 1981, the Class SC criterion was changed to its current wording in 1989 which is as follows:
02B.0212(a)(3)(B) ---Dissolved Oxygen:: not less than 5.0 mg/L, except that swamp waters, poorly flushed
tidally influenced streams or embayments, or estuarine bottom waters may have lower values if caused by
natural conditions.
Since this change continues to refer to swamp waters and broadens the exception to other categories of
estuarine waters, it appears that there is flexibility in the interpretation of the DO standard within the
Lower Cape Fear River. The criteria differences discussed above are very important to the impairment
determination and the TMDL process for the Lower Cape Fear River.
Page 2 of 20
DEQ-CFW 00002052

Response to Comments, 2006 Integrated Report
If, after review of available standards information, DWQ cannot remove the Cape Fear River Estuary from
the 303(d) list based on the flexibility in the interpretation of the standards as documented above,
International Paper strongly believes that examination of the applicable criteria driving the impairment
determination should be part of the modeling and TMDL process. The criteria will have a critical impact on
the TMDL and its allocation. EPA indicates in their TMDL guidance that the applicability of water quality
standards should be reviewed in conjunction with development of a TMDL. Given the lack of a strong
technical basis for the applicable criteria for the Cape Fear River, we believe that a use attainability analysis
should be part of the modeling and TMDL development process.
DWQ Response:
If it is discovered during the TMDUmodeling process that a standard cannot possibly be achieved,
DWQ will Investigate the issuance of a new standard. Any supporting Information supplied by
International Paper that is applicable to site conditions will be welcomed by DWQ.
-----There-is-good technical support for a revision to the tidal salt water DO criterion. EPA in 2000 published a
DO criterion for salt waters in the Virginian Province (Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras) that is applicable to
estuarine and ocean waters. This table established an instantaneous minimum of 2.3 mg/L based on
juvenile and adult aquatic life survival and a continuous concentration 4.8 mg/L. The criteria table
(Attachment 2) from the criteria document summarizes the criterion.
To date, DWQ has not incorporated potential changes to the applicable water quality criteria within the
modeling and TMDL process for the Lower Cape Fear River. We believe there is considerable evidence of
swamp or blackwater influence on DO and pH levels in the river. We also believe the current water quality
standards are remnants from old rules that do not have current technical basis. Consideration of a
standards change needs to be planned in the timetable for this TMDL so that DWQ decisions are not driven
by EPA deadlines that do not allow for the process to re-evaluate the criteria.
International Paper certainly acknowledges the effort that DWQ puts into development of its 303(d) lists,
TMDLs, and other documents and appreciates the opportunity to comment.
DWQ Response:
While DWQ does not dismiss EPA's study on DO concentrations in the Virginian Province, it should
be noted that Cape Hatteras is north of the Lower Cape Fear River Estuary and such criteria may not
be applicable. That being said, DWQ welcomes any supporting Information supplied by
International Paper that is specific to site conditions.
The following comments (from City of Burlington, CW of Graham, City of Greensboro, and Piedmont Triad Council of Governments)
were grouped together because they address the same topic. The DWQ response was placed after Piedmont Triad Council of
Government's comment
2. Comments from the City of Burlington (Hicks)
These comments pertain to the 2006 draft 303(d) list that is currently open for public comment. The local
governments of the Haw River Arm of Jordan Lake are very concerned that a portion of the Haw River (AU
16-(37.3)) below US 64 and the entire Haw River Arm of Jordan Lake (AU 16-41-1-(14)) are being impaired
for chlorophyll a.
The city of Burlington NC questions the validity of the data used to determine that the Haw River Arm of
Jordan Lake is impaired for chlorophyll a. The data collected from 1997 through 2000 was not analyzed
according to the approved analytical protocol. Chlorophyll a data from sampling in 2005 had to be
invalidated also because the samples were not analyzed according to the approved analytical protocol. The
data used to support the listing on the 303(d) list was sandwiched -between these periods of invalid sample
analyses. The proximity of the data used to justify the 303(d) listing to periods of analytical problems, and
Page 3 of 20
DEQ-CFW 00002053

f
Response to Comments, 2006 Integrated Report
the fact that this data is not supported by other results from alternate sources supports the conclusion that
the Haw River Arm of Jordan Lake should not be included on the 303(d) list for chlorophyll a until more
definitive data can be collected and verified.
The EMC is aware of the questionable data and its impact on the Jordan Lake nutrient response model and
proposed Jordan Lake Nutrient Management Strategy Rules. The City of Burlington NC objects to the
inclusion of this water body on the 303(d) list and requests that data be collected after the State Laboratory
QA/QC issues are resolved, and there is supporting data to justify this listing.
3. Comments from the City of Burlington (Shoaf)
These comments pertain to the 2006 draft 303d list that is currently open for public comment. The local
governments of the Haw River Arm of Jordan Lake are very concerned that a portion of the Haw River (AU
16-(37.3)) below US 64 and the entire Haw River Arm of Jordan Lake (AU 16-41-1-(14)) are being impaired
for chlorophyll a.
The City of Burlington NC questions the validity of the data used to determine that the Haw River Arm of
Jordan Lake is impaired for chlorophyll a. The data collected from 1997 through 2000 was not analyzed
according to the approved analytical protocol. Chlorophyll a data from sampling in 2005 had to be
invalidated also because the samples were not analyzed according to the approved analytical protocol. The
data used to support the listing on the 303(d) list was sandwiched between these periods of invalid sample
analyses. The proximity of the data used to justify the 303(d) listing to periods of analytical problems, and
the fact that this data is not supported by other results from alternate sources supports the conclusion that
the Haw River Arm of Jordan Lake should not be included on the 303(d) list for chlorophyll a until more
definitive data can be collected and verified.
The EMC is aware of the questionable data and its impact on the Jordan Lake nutrient response model and
proposed Jordan Lake Nutrient Management Strategy Rules. The City of Burlington NC objects to the
inclusion of this water body on the 303(d) list and requests that data be collected after the State Laboratory
QA/QC issues are resolved, and there is supporting data to justify this listing.
4. Comments from the City of Graham (Rollins)
These comments pertain to the 2006 draft 303(d) list that is currently open for public comment. The local
governments of the Haw River Arm of Jordan Lake are very concerned that a portion of the Haw River (AU
16-(37.3)) below US 64 and the entire Haw River Arm of Jordan Lake (AU 16-41-1(14)) are being impaired
for chlorophyll a. A decision has already been made by the EMC to revisit the Jordan Lake nutrient
response model and postpone the Jordan Lake Rules due to concerns with available chlorophyll a data and
State laboratory QAQC. ' If this data is not valid to use in a model, it is not valid to use for the 303(d) list.
The City of Graham is in strong opposition to these listings. Before these above noted sections of the Haw
River and Jordan Lake are added to the 303(d) list, it is imperative that additional sampling and data
collection be performed. The City of Graham request that these listings be removed from the 303(d) list
until more sampling data can be collected and a determination can be made if a problem really does exist.
5. Comments from the City of Greensboro (Williams)
These comments pertain to the 2006 draft 303d list that is currently open for public comment. The local
governments of the Haw River Arm of Jordan Lake are very concerned that a portion of the Haw River (AU
16-(37.3)) below US 64 and the entire Haw River Arm of Jordan Lake (AU 16-41-1-(14)) are being impaired
for chlorophyll a. A decision has already been made by the EMC to revisit the Jordan Lake nutrient
response model and postpone the Jordan Lake Rules due to questionable data and State laboratory QAQC
Page 4 of 20
DEQ-CFW 00002054

Response to Comments, 2006 Integrated Report
concerns. If this data is not valid to use in a model, it is not valid to use to for the 303d list. The City of
Greensboro strongly opposes these listings. Before these above noted sections of the Haw River and Jordan
Lake are added to the 303d list, more data needs to be collected. We ask that these listings be removed
from the 303d list until more data .can be collected and a determination can be made if a problem
really does exist.
6. Comments from the Piedmont Triad Council of Governments (Patrick)
Below are my comments/questions concerning the 2006 303d list.
Cape Fear Basin
The local governments of the Haw River Arm of Jordan Lake are very concerned that a portion of
the Haw River (AU 16-(37.3)) below US 64 and the entire Haw River Arm of Jordan Lake (AU 16-
41-1-(14)) are being impaired for chlorophyll a. A decision has already been made by the EMC to
revisit the Jordan Lake nutrient response model and postpone the Jordan Lake Rules due to
questionable data and State laboratory QAQC concerns. If this data is not valid to use in a model,
it is not valid to use for the 303d list. PTCOG strongly opposes these listings. Before these above
noted sections of the Haw River and Jordan Lake are added to the 303d list, more data needs to be
collected. We asked that these listings be removed from the 303d list until more data can be
collected and a determination can be made if a problem really does exist.
Roanoke Basin
• An Arm of Belews Lake is listed, but no documentation is noted as to why it is listed?
DWQ Response:
The use support ratings for Jordan Lake (Reservoir) were based on data collected In 2001 and 2003.
There were no reported problems with laboratory analysis of samples for chlorophyll a during this
time period. In addition, the water quality model covering the 1997 to 2001 time period also
Indicates that additional portions of Jordan Lake are likely to exceed the water quality standard for
chlorophyll a. Per 40CFR130.7(b)(5)(Y), the 303(co list should include information from predictive
models when these models Indicate non -attainment of water quality standards. Thus, two routes of
Information provide justification for the additional 303(c1J listings of Jordan Reservoir.
With regards to PTCOG's question about Belews Lake, the lake is considered impaired for fish
consumption on an evaluated basis, as fish tissue data are not available for an waters. Such fish
consumption advice was Issued by NC DHHS. Previously, Belews Lake was considered impaired
due to an older methodology. Due to a recent change In methods, however, the lake 'will be
removed from the 2006 IR but is still considered Impaired/evaluated.
7. Comments from Duke Power (Everett)
Duke Power has reviewed the 2006 North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List
(2006 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report) published for public review and comment. The proposed list of
impaired waters has a fish advisory for mercury for the waters of Belews Lake within the Dan River
drainage of the Roanoke River Basin. Based on NCDENR data for the Dan River drainage and Duke Power
data for Belews Lake and the Dan River, the proposed listing does not appear to be warranted. Given the
public interest in fish advisories and ongoing efforts to evaluate the impact of emissions from coal-fired
power plants on local deposition of mercury, it is critical that the data reported by the State and upon
which advisories are issued reflect the actual conditions as accurately as possible.
Page 5 of 20
DEQ-CFW 00002055

Response to Comments, 2006 Integrated Report
The NCDENR Environmental Sciences Branch internet databases indicate that the State has collected no
fish tissue data indicating a mercury contamination problem in Belews Lake. Recent and historical analyses
of fish tissue samples collected by Duke Power from both Belews Lake and the Dan River indicate that
mercury concentrations are below the 0.4 pg/g action level. Additionally, Duke Power fish tissue mercury
data from a Dan River location near Eden, NC are consistent with data collected by NCDENR
Environmental Sciences Branch from the same locale. Neither dataset indicates a mercury contamination
problem. Recent personal communications between Duke Power technical staff and NCDENR
Environmental Sciences Branch staff also support this conclusion.
Duke can envision only one explanation for listing Belews Lake as impaired waters. The Division may be
concerned that fish exceeding the action level could migrate from the "listed" areas of the Roanoke Basin
(east of Interstate 85) to Belews Lake. However, fish would have to ascend at least eight dams (John Kerr
Reservoir Dam; 4 dams in Danville, VA; a dam in Eden, NO a dam in Madison, NC; and the dam forming
Belews Lake) to gain access to Belews Lake. Considering the unlikelihood of such an occurrence and based
on existing NCDENR and Duke Power data, Duke Power believes that the proposed listing can not be
supported. Accordingly, Duke Power requests that the NCDENR remove Belews Lake from the proposed
listing of impaired waters.
DWQ Response:
Based on fish consumption advice Issued by NC DHHS, all waters of the state are considered
Impaired for fsh consumption on an evaluated basis, as fish tissue data are not available for all
waters. Previously, Belews Lake was considered impaired due to an older methodology. Due to a
recent change In methods, however, the lake will be removed from the 2006 IR but is still considered
Impaired/evaluated.
S. Comments from Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc. (Rogers and Dickens)
Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc. (Blue Ridge) is providing comments on the public review draft of the North
Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Water List (2006 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report.
Comments provided below include and reflect the conversation between Blue Ridge and Michelle Woolfolk
(Division of Water Quality) and other Division staff.
Blue Ridge and its Canton Mill operation have undertaken an aggressive and very successful effort to
improve the quality of the Mill's effluent and the water quality of the Pigeon River. Over the last fifteen
years, the Mill has undertaken tremendous efforts and invested great resources in accomplishing these
goals. We certainly respect the dfforts that the Division must make to update this Integrated Report every
two years. Blue Ridge also knows that the Division is well aware of these efforts and has been a huge part
of the water quality improvements that have been realized.
This Integrated Report is very important since it is a key part of the Division's view of these water quality
improvements and is submitted both to EPA and available to the public. In our discussions with the
Division, we understand that the current ratings of the Pigeon River are heavily based on the biological
monitoring that the Division performed in 2002. We would point out that 2002 was the final year of a
prolonged drought in the region that started in 1998 and likely represents an "unrepresentative" results for
the River, particularly your monitoring site at Clyde. When compared to the monitoring results from 1997,
the 2002 results are clear departure from the improved quality trends seen in the river beginning in the
early 1990s. The Mill's effluent quality has progressively improved over this entire period and Blue Ridge
continues to undertake more steps to further these efforts. Blue Ridge believes that the Division should
consider the most recent available data on the River to finalize these ratings.
Page 6 of 20
DEQ-CFW 00002056

Response to Comments, 2006 Integrated Report
DWQ Response:
(Comment refers to 5(7)b category 5 listing for 1998.) Data used In most recent basinwide water
quality plans are considered the most up-to-date assessment. If water quality recovers In this
segment during the current assessment period (91112003 to 813112008) it will be noted during the
2009 assessment and possibly delisted during the next lR cycle.
This segment of the river has many historical P, F, G-F and G blociassifications. Recent basinwide
plans reflected a reduced length of Impairment, but biologists noted a biological community that
appeared to be affected by toxins. The plan also states: "Additional provisions during times of
drought should be reviewed and perhaps revised In the next permit..." So the justification for listing
Is documented, and If It gets better next time, DWQ can dellst the river segment. In the meantime,
there are still Impacts from BRPP.
The University of Tennessee at Knoxville completed a comprehensive biological monitoring effort of the
Pigeon in 2005. The report that presents those results is scheduled to be finalized in May of this year. Blue
Ridge respectfully requests that the Division consider this more recent data under more "normal"
hydrologic conditions. Blue Ridge would be glad to meet with Division staff to discuss these issues. In
addition we would offer to solicit the participation of the principle scientists that did the 2005 monitoring
and analysis work for this meeting.
DWQ Response:
UT can submit these data with an approved QAPP to be used during the next assessment in 2009,
or UT can submit the data without a QAPP and a basin planner will review and summarize these
findings In the next plan, If appropriate.
Another concern is the "assessment unit" listings used by the Division. While we realize that the Division's
stream classification listing identifies only one index number for the Pigeon from Canton to the State line,
using this index number alone to describe this complex segment makes it difficult for the reader to
understand this segment and to link this report with past DWQ reporting. The previous listings/reports
from DWQ's web site for 1998, 2000 and 2004 all "break" the River into several assessments units. The
Division should continue to use the assessment units employed in the past for continuity and
understanding.
DWQ Response:
The reason the AU# is used is to avoid exactly this type of confusion - see below for clarification.
Specific issue points on this report follow:
The report lists the "Pigeon River (Waterville Lake below elevation 2258)" on page 43 of the 303(d)
list. The reason for the listing is "Impaired biological integrity" due to the current dioxin posting
for the lake. Blue Ridge believes this designation is inappropriate for the following reasons:
• The 1998, 2000, 2002 and 2004 reports all list Waterville Lake for "fish advisory -dioxin".
The reports do not list this issue as impaired biological integrity".
• Dioxin in carp has never been established as a biological impact to the carp, only as a
potential issue to humans who consume the carp.
• The 2005 French Broad River Basinwide Quality Plan (Chapter 5, page 67) states that
"Waterville Lake is on the state's 303(d) list of Impaired waters due to the consumption a
advisory". The report does not mention "impaired biological integrity" as an issue.
Based on the information available, Blue Ridge believes the only portion of the Pigeon River that
should be included on the 303(d) list is Waterville Lake. In addition, the impairment to the lake
Page 7 of 20
DEQ-CFW 00002057

Response to Comments, 2006 Integrated Report
should be consistent with previous 303(d) listings in which the lake is listed due to the fish
consumption advisory. Updated data on dioxin concentrations in carp are enclosed for review.
2. If it is the intent of the Division to list only Waterville Lake on the 303(d) list, the description of the
impaired water should be changed. Currently the description reads "From 0.15 miles downstream
of W. Park to State Route 1642 (Main Street)" (or AU# 5-(7)b). The current description should be
changed to exclude any portion of the main stem of the Pigeon River. The description should be
consistent with other descriptions of the lake (e.g. Page 4 of the list of Impaired Waters not Needing
TMDLs) in which the lake is described as follows: "From White Oak Road to Waterville Reservoir
Dam" (or AU# 5-(7)e) with the appropriate number of FW acres identified.
3. The report also lists the Pigeon River in Table 3-18 "Waters Delisted from Categories 5, 6 and 7 (or
the 303(d) list)". Blue Ridge agrees with the delisting the main stem of the Pigeon River.
Please consider these comments when evaluating the final 2006 Integrated Report and contact us if you
have any questions or need additional information.
DWQ Response:
The AU with impaired biological Integrity is AM 5-(7)b. This segment Is in category 5 described as
from 0.15 miles downstream of W. Parks St to State Route 1642 (Main Street) 6.4 FW miles. This
segment was initially listed in 1998 and is not related to the dioxin listing for AU# 5-(7)e (discussed
below). It is currently Impaired due to a Poor bloclassiflcation. It Is noted In the 2005 FBR BWQP
that Improvements have been made at the plant.
AU# 5-(7)e Is Waterville Lake in category 4b for dioxin from White Oak Road to Waterville Reservoir
Dam (773.1 FW acres). This AU Is downstream of the biological integrity listing noted above.
9. Comments from the Town of Benson (McLamb)
The Town of Benson respectfully submits the following comments on the NC Water Quality Assessment
and Impaired Waters List (2006 integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report) — Public Review Draft, February 2006.
The town's comments relate specifically to that portion of Hannah Creek from its source to NC 96
(Assessment Unit 27-52-6a, Subbasin 03-04-04, Neuse River Basin) that is included on the state's draft 303(d)
list. This portion of Hannah Creek is included on the list as a Category 5 stream impaired due to low
dissolved oxygen (DO).
Before addressing the report directly, let me first express the seriousness with which the Town of Benson
approaches its wastewater treatment practices. By all accounts, the town runs an efficient operation that
consistently meets its treatment goals. In addition, we are proactive in planning for our future wastewater
needs. Towards this end, we are currently upgrading and expanding our wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP) to 1.9 mgd to account for the continued growth of our community. We are also planning even
further ahead and are in the process of seeking expansion of our WWTP to 3.0 mgd to accommodate future
growth.
This introduction brings me to our first comment on the draft 2006 Integrated Report. The Town of Benson
believes that it was not sufficiently informed of Hannah Creek's impaired status. In fact, it is only during
our proactive wastewater planning process — in a letter received from the state's NPDES Unit denying the
town's request for 3.0 mgd Speculative Limits — that Benson learned of Hannah Creek's 303(d) listing in a
meeting with the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) on February 17, 2006. It learned of the comment period
only after researching the matter in more detail on the Internet.
Page 8 of 20
DEQ-CFW 00002058

Response to Comments, 2006 Integrated Report
DWG Response:
There were 4 public meetings held as part of the 2002 Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan
public review. During this process the Lower Neuse Basin Association (LNBA) questioned why the
LNBA data had not been used In the assessment. Based on these comments the Impaired list was
reassessed using the LNBA data and subsequently, Hannah Creek was listed as Impaired due to
exceedances (48%) of the dissolved oxygen standard at the LNBA monitoring site at 1--95. Officials
from Benson were on the DWQ mailing list and notification of the public meetings were sent to all
entries for the Neuse River basin In mailing list database. In addition, notices for the meetings were
sent to local newspapers and several electronic list servers. -Hannah Creek has also been publicly
noticed to the entire state two times as part of the 2004 Integrated Report and once during the 2006
Integrated Report It would be cost prohibitive for DWQ to Individually notify local governments of
Impaired waters in those jurisdictions (over 1000 listings statewide). DWQ Is making efforts to get
local governments more Involved In the basin planning process so they will be aware of water
quality Issues soon after they are Identified.
As the only owner and operator of a municipal WWTP that discharges into Hannah Creek, we believe a
more diligent effort should have been made to notify the town of the imminent change in status of the
creek. Hannah Creek is critical to the growth of Benson. We believe that if the seriousness of its
impairment had been communicated more clearly, the town would have helped to investigate and improve
its status. As noted in the 2002 Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, DWQ stated it would, "work
with Benson... to determine the source of low dissolved oxygen in Hannah Creek." To date, we do not
believe that DWQ has supported the intent of these words with any actions to engage Benson in an effort to
improve the creek.
DWQ Response:
The Point Source problem will be addressed through permitting activities underway.
Second, since Benson learned of Hannah Creek's position on the draft 303(d) list, the town has had
personnel monitor DO at six (6) locations along Hannah Creek and its tributaries. The results of our own
DO monitoring, presented to DWQ staff in a meeting on March 3, 2006, call into question the accuracy, of
the DO measurements recorded by the contractor employed by the Lower Neuse Basin Association
(LNBA). Thus far, the LNBA measurements are considerably lower than our own measurements. We ask
that DWQ consider the town's data -performed by certified personnel -in any future analysis of Hannah
Creek.
DWQ Response.
A QAPP would need to be approved and data submitted as part of the 2011 assessment LNBA has
submitted data at the same site as well as other sites In the Hannah Creek Watershed to be used In
the 2006 water quality assessment
The station at 1--95 continues to Indicate exceedances of the DO standard that would result in an
Impaired rating. A station at Ivey Road also Indicates DO violations. There Is also a Fair
bloclassit7cation just downstream of this segment which will result in listing for impaired biological
Integrity during the next listing cycle.
Third, LNBA test results and our own test results have often shown lower DO levels in Hannah Creek
upstream of the WWTP than downstream. This suggests that the town's WWTP may not be the primary
factor in the depletion of DO in the creek. We believe that the cause of the low DO levels in Hannah Creek
may be non -point, agricultural sources elsewhere along the creek and its tributaries. We plan to continue
our testing to better determine the source that is depleting the stream of DO. If we can verify that non -
point sources are a contributing factor in the condition of Hannah Creek, we will work to improve the
status of the creek by addressing non -point source pollution. The town would hope to improve the creek to
a point that its impairment could then be re -visited.
Page 9 of 20
DEQ-CFW 00002059

Response to Comments, 2006 Integrated Report
DWQ Response:
DWQ would be willing to work with the town of Benson in this effort.
Finally, if Hannah Creek remains on the 303(d) list, the Town of Benson would be willing to contribute its
DO data and assistance in expediting the development of a TMDL for DO for the creek. As expressed
above, the town takes its planning practices very seriously. We are therefore willing to use our resources to
help improve Hannah Creek so that we can better prepare for the growth of our town.
The Town of Benson thanks you and your department for the opportunity to comment on the draft 2006
Integrated Report. Should you need any additional information, please contact me at [phone] or
email me at ierrv.mclambOiohnstoncc.edu.
10. Comments from Weyerhaeuser, Inc. (Hulks)
Weyerhaeuser Company is pleased to offer the following comments on North Carolina's Proposed 2006
303(d) Report. These comments will be more thematic rather than stream specific and will focused on
those water bodies in the vicinity of our timberland ownership.
Weyerhaeuser Company is an international forest'products company with a half century of history in
North Carolina. We produce pulp and paper, lumber, structural panels and containers and own over
550,000 acres of timberland in coastal plain of the State. Weyerhaeuser has a long-standing commitment to
healthy aquatic ecosystems and we work cooperatively with the State and other organizations to protect
water quality. Both our mills and forestry operations have invested heavily in water quality research and
management.
Best Management Practices
It is appropriate that forest management and timber harvesting are virtually absent from listed potential
sources of pollution in the Report. It is well established that forested watersheds produce high quality
water and that utilizing EPA -approved Best Management Practices (BMPs) mitigates the water quality
impacts of forestry operations. Thousands of annual BMP inspections by the NC Div. of Forest Resources
indicate BMP compliance rates of over 80%. BMPs are forestry's contribution to the protection of water
quality. Therefore, as TMDLs are developed no reductions should be assigned to forestry operations.
Low DO, Low nH and Fecal Coliform
Headwaters to many of the waterbodies listed as impaired in the proposed 2006 report are remnants of
pocosins or other swampwater systems. The background condition for many of these waterbodies likely
includes low dissolved oxygen concentration, low pH and elevated fecal coliform numbers following
rainfall events. Defining appropriate background condition for these waterbodies should be an important
component of future studies. For waterbodies that will have a TMDL developed, use of forestry BMPs
represents an ongoing contribution to protection of water quality and no reductions should be allocated to
forestry operations.
DWQ Response:
Work is ongoing to determine background conditions in these watersheds. Waters in these areas
are not rated as Impaired based only on low DO or pH. Most are not rated. Fecal coliform data has
to be collected as worded In the standard in order to impair a water for recreation.
Page 10 of 20
DEQ-CFW 00002060

Response to Comments, 2006 Integrated Report
The Neuse and Tar -Pamlico Basins
All forest land in these two basins is subject to forested buffer regulations. One could argue that, given the
effectiveness of forestry BMPs and the high BMP compliance rates, these regulatory buffers are
unnecessary. Nevertheless, given their existence, it is doubly important that no reduction requirements in
these basins should be assigned to forestry operations.
Beaver Ck (Neuse• AU=27-101-15),
In the case of this creek, outflow from forested headwaters drains through other land uses. It will be
important in the ongoing investigation of these waterbodies to characterize the observed natural water
quality condition from the organic soils. The current biological condition may reflect natural swampwater
conditions, and we do not believe there is a basis to link the current biological condition to forest
management.
DWQ Response:
Sources are identified as potential sources only. Further studies are needed to determine the
Impacts from certain land uses in a watershed.
11. Comments from Progress Energy (Choi)
Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC), a subsidiary of Progress Energy, provides electricity and related
services to more than on million customs in North Carolina (NC). The company is headquartered in
Raleigh and serves a territory within the state that encompasses more than 29,000 square miles including
the cities of Raleigh, Wilmington, Fayetteville, and Asheville. PEC owns and operates 17 power plant sites
in NC with a total generating capacity of 11,000 megawatts electric. Water bodies associated with two of
these sites appear on the recent North Carolina draft Water quality Assessment and Impaired Water 303(d)
list. The following comments are being submitted by Progress Energy Service Company, LLC on behalf of
PEC:
Page 43 of 126 from the 303(d) list: Pigeon River (Waterville Lake below elevation 2258) From 0.15 miles
downstream of W. Park Street Road 1642 (Main Street)
PEC believes that it is misleading to include Waterville Lake in the description of the impaired section
of the Pigeon River because the impaired stretch of river is approximately 21 river miles upstream of
the Waterville Lake headwaters (at the Hepco Bridge). PEC recommends deleting the reference to
Waterville Lake from the 303(d) list.
DWQ Response:
AU# 5-(7)e is Waterville Lake in category 4b for dioxin from White Oak Road to Waterville Reservoir
Dam (773.1 FW acres). Because Progress Energy has data but no approved QAPP, it is considered
ImpalredlEvaluated (11E).
Page 78 of 126 from the 303(d) list Hyco River including Hyco Lake below elevation 410; from source in
Hyco Lake to dam of Hyco Lake, including tributary arms below
The location description of the impaired water is confusing. While it indicate that Hyco Lake in its
entirety, its headwaters, and tributaries, are included in a fish advisory for mercury, the listing shows
the length of the impaired waters as only 0.2 freshwater miles. Since the waterbody is much larger than
0.2 miles, it is difficult to determine the exact location of the impaired waters.
Page 11 of 20
DEQ-CFW 00002061

Response to Comments, 2006 Integrated Report
However, the primary issue for PEC is that Hyco Lake is listed as impaired due to a fish advisory for
mercury, but to our knowledge, there is no fish advisory or posting of Hyco Lake fish for mercury.
PEC has monitored fish tissues for many years, and the data indicate that mercury concentrations in the
edible flesh of fish from Hyco Lake average below mercury tissue screening values used by the State of
North Carolina (Public Health and Division of Water Quality). PEC requests eliminating Hyco Lake
from the 303(d) list as impaired due to a fish advisory for mercury.
DWQ Response:
Based on fish consumption advice Issued by NC DHHS;, all waters of the state are considered
impaired for fish consumption on an evaluated basis, as fish tissue data are not available for all
waters. Previously, Hyco Lake was considered impaired due to an older methodology. Due to a
recent change in methods, however, the lake will be removed from the 2006 IR but is still considered
impaired/evaluated.
PEC appreciates this opportunity to comment and looks forward to working with you and your staff in the
future.
12. Comments from the Public Works Commission of the City of Fayetteville (Noland)
The Public Works Commission (PWC) of the City of Fayetteville in conjunction with the Middle Cape Fear
River Basin Association (MCFRBA) is providing comments on the subject draft report. PWC has been
actively involved with the Division of Water Quality's assessment and planning processes for over 10 years
and through our involvement, we provided comments on the draft Cape Fear River Basinwide Plan in May
2005.
On the draft Cape Fear Basinwide Plan, we made some specific comments regarding the sampling protocol
used for collecting samples for chlorophyll a analyses in the Middle Cape Fear River basin. Data collected
through a contractor to the MCFRBA was used in the basinwide plan to show that portions of the Cape
Fear were not supporting aquatic life uses. In the subject report, there is a category 5 impairment listing for
the Cape Fear River at the following locations based on chlorophyll a standard violations:
• Cape Fear River from the junction of the Haw and Deep Rivers to NC Hwy 42 (two segments that
are immediately upstream of Buckhorn Dam)
• Cape Fear River from Grays Creek to Lock and Dam 3
If this listing is included in the final report, it will require the development of a TMDL for these portions of
the Cape Fear River.
The chlorophyll a data was measured in samples collected by the MCFRBA contractor as surface grabs (as
approved by DWQ through several field audits) versus as a depth integrated sample from the surface to
twice the secchi depth as specified in DWQ's monitoring Standard Operating Procedures (SOP). Also, the
MCFRBA was only collecting chlorophyll a data from April or May through September or October
(depending on the year) as outlined in the MOA with DWQ for coalition monitoring. The chlorophyll a
standard was specifically modified to be a year-round standard around 1989 so the summer only collected
biases the use support assessment. In the Basinwide Plan comments, PWC argued that because of these
issues, the data should not be used to declare the areas as impaired and should not be placed on the 303(d)
list. Apparently, neither of these arguments was accepted since these are included on the draft 303(d) list.
When the issues with chlorophyll a data were identified, the MCFRBA immediately began sampling
chlorophyll a on a monthly basis, year-round and began collecting samples as depth -integrated composites
from the water surface to twice the secchi depth (as specified in the DWQ SOP). When the draft Cape Fear
Page 12 of 20
DEQ-CFW 00002062

Response to Comments, 2006 integrated Report
Basinwide Plan comments ere prepared, only a limited amount of data using the proper sampling protocol
was available. At this time, we have complete data for 2005, which had hydrological conditions (i.e. low
flows) that were similar to previous years where elevated chlorophyll a conditions were measured. All of
this data has been submitted to DWQ and shortly will be included in the MCFRBA annual report that will
also be submitted to DWQ. The following is a comparison summary of the chlorophyll a data:
Station
Value
1998 to 2004
2005
#
Chl. a
#
Chl. a
samples
(u JL)
samples
(u JL)
1
Mean
39
20.2
12
8.9
Above Buckhorn
standard
Daze
deviation
22.6
7.6
Maximum
105.0
26.0
Summer Mean
39
20.2
7
12.9
14
Above L&D #3
Mean
39
24.3
12
2.7
Standard
Deviation
26.7
1.8
Maximum
129.0
6.6
Summer Mean
39
24.3
7
3.4
The 2005 data collected with a correct sampling protocol clearly shows much lower values than data
collected from 1998 to 2004. Average chlorophyll a values are less than half of the previous data. The data
variability (as measured by the standard deviation) is also lower for the data collected with the correct
sampling protocol. This difference is so significant that we believe the previous data, which we know was
collected with an invalid protocol, should be invalidated.
Previously for the draft Cape Fear Basinwide Plan, PWC indicated that the 1998 to 2004 MCFRBA
chlorophyll data was not sufficient for determination of use support because of the combination of biased
sampling periods and inappropriate sampling methodology. We believe the new data provides more direct
evidence of the importance of correct sampling. DWQ has been struggling with issues related to the
validity of data, particularly chlorophyll a data, used for 303(d)listing and as the basis for modeling to
develop TMDLs and nutrient management strategies. There is no uncertainty associated with the MCFRBA
data. We know the sampling protocol used from 1998 to 2004 was not valid. DWQ has a strong basis to
invalidate this data and continue to evaluate the monitoring data collected by the MCFRBA for the river. It
is not an effective use of the State's resources or those of the regulated community to deal with the
implications of an "impaired" determination and potential development of a TMDL at this time.
DWQ Response:
DWQ will reassess water quality in these segments during this assessment period and will revise
the impairment status (if necessary) during the next assessment period.
PWC, the Middle Cape Fear River Basin Association (MCFRBA), and the Western Wake County WRF
Project Partners worked with DWQ to develop an interim nutrient management strategy because of
concern about elevated chlorophyll a in the areas of the river immediately behind Buckhorn Dam and Lock
Page 13 of 20
DEQ-CFW 00002063

Response to Comments, 2006 Integrated Report
and Dam 3. We continue to support this interim strategy that was included in Chapter 30 of the draft Cape
Fear Basinwide Plan, despite the fact that data used to determine the areas as impaired is not valid.
PWC appreciated the opportunity to review the draft report.
13. Comments from the City of Wilmington (Vogt)
The City is aware of the availability of the referenced document for public comment due 03/04/2006.
The City's primary area of concern is the portion of the lower Cape Fear River/Cape Fear River estuary
experiencing low dissolved oxygen. It is my understanding that this section of the waterbody exceeded a
dissolved oxygen standard of 5.0 in more than 10% of the samples and was thus determined to be impaired
and placed upon the 303(d) list. The basis for the concern is the analysis of the data inferring the prevalence
and/or severity of the inability to meet the referenced standard.
The database used to support NCDENR's position was requested and subsequently made available through
the efforts of Cam McNutt, Jay Sauber, and Andrea Thomas. We appreciate their cooperation in conveying
to us their starting point. We understand the importance of accumulating and evaluating a large dataset in
order to support your decision -making process. However, I believe we need to distinguish how the
database is collected and compiled as opposed to how it is reduced, analyzed, and assessed.
We note that an extensive dataset exists, but that collection locations (spatial) and intervals (temporal) vary.
Several months are missing completely. In some months, sample collection is limited to a single sample
taken at a single depth. In other months, there are several samples taken at multiple depths. I don't recall if
NCDENR stated which data, all or part, were used in establishing impairment and the justification for
reaching that decision. Quite clearly, upon analysis, samples taken at uniform location and frequency will
appear to be significantly different from samples taken at variable locations and frequencies, especially if
the sampling is biased by being focused/intensified to detect critical values. Put in other terms, if you look
close enough long enough, you can probably find violations in just about anything.
If the purpose of accumulating the database was to ensure capture of the single, lowest critical value
(spatial and temporal) that would involve one type of database collection, segmentation, and analysis. If
the purpose of accumulating the database is to identify long term trends and variability and calculate
summary statistics, then a different type of database collection, segmentation, and analysis would probably
be more appropriate.
DWQ Response:
Data are compared to the standard for that classification and 10% of samples can exceed the
standard. Monitoring is not targeted to capture a single low critical value. Statistical trends can be
developed using the data collected in certain areas. Our use support methods, however, have not
previously included trend analysis.
To the best of my knowledge, prevailing applicable guidance (07/21/2003 Diane Rigas memo - Guidance
for 2004 Assessment, Listing, and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the
Clean Water Act: TMDL - 01-03; USEPA EPA/600/R-96/084 July 2000 "Guidance for Data Quality
Assessment/Practical Methods for Data Analysis/EPA QA/G-9 QA 00 Update") seem to support the
notion that it is acceptable to both collect and report as much data as you need but to allow discretion in
devising an analytical approach, including extraction or segmentation of the database, consistent with your
end use.
Page 14 of 20
DEQ-CFW 00002064

Response to Comments, 2006 Integrated Report
The database included data collected during extreme events such as hurricanes. These are conditions
under which no amount of control can be exerted to ensure complying with standards and whose data
should be excluded from analysis.
Several months (8) were missing/not represented within the database, six of which would have likely
yielded compliance while two would have likely yielded noncompliance.
DWQ Response:
Ali data collected during the assessment period were used In the assessment. The assessment
period In question spanned a drought, several hurricane passes, as well as a high flow year. Data
are not collected during hurricane events for safety reasons but are collected after hurricanes to
assess recovery. Again, use support assessment does not consider trends as it Is reasonable to
assume that 50 plus data points collected over a 5 year period will cover many different conditions.
All of these factors contribute toward a finding of standards violation and impairment more severe than we
believe actually exists. For uniformity/bias removal, I've elected to analyze 1 sample per month at one
depth, usually at or near the surface. The % exceedance (severity) under this analysis typically is less than
that cited by NCDENR by about 5 -10%.
We would recommend you reassess and identify the selected partitioned database extracted from the
overall complete database appropriate for your end use and state the methodology, approach, and
justification used in reaching that decision. It should be an essential component of the report
documentation.
I appreciate the opportunity afforded to review and comment upon the referenced document.
DWQ Response:
This was the third assessment of this portion of the Cape Fear River and the results have been the
same each time using the same standard and criteria for assigning a use support rating. The
methods clearly state criteria used to make use support assessments. These methods are based on
federal guidance. The spatial extent of the Impaired area has increased due to more sites
established further down In the estuary.
14. Comments from the Southern Environmental Law Center (Pickle)
The Southern Environmental Law Center appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above -referenced
report.
The proper identification of impaired waters and development of total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) to
limit the pollutant or pollutants that cause the impairment is essential to efforts to improve the quality and
restore the uses of state waters. The draft Integrated Report fails to identify the state's impaired waters
properly and to ensure reasonable progress in the development and implementation of TMDLs. The 2006
Integrated Report retains the deficiencies we raised with the state's 2002 303(d) list:
1. Omission of waters impaired by sediment from scheduling and prioritization for TMDL
development.
2. Omission of impaired shellfish waters from scheduling and prioritization for TMDL
development.
Page 15 of 20
DEQ-CFW 00002065

Response to Comments, 2006 Integrated Report
These concerns are explained in more detail below.
I. Insufficient Data
The Integrated Report fails to include lists of water bodies that fall in Categories 1
through 3. This omission impairs and frustrates the public's ability to look at the
condition of the state's waters as a whole and determine whether the water bodies
within those categories have been appropriately listed. This omission also
contravenes EPA's 2006 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment
Report Guidance ("2006 Guidance"), which states that the Integrated Report
should include "a description of the water quality of all waters in the state." 2006
Guidance at 9 (emphasis added). We encourage the state to include a full list of
waters in the final Integrated Report.
DWQ Response:
All 12,675 assessment units have been assigned a category 2-7. No AUs met criteria for Category 1.
These will be made available on the DWQ website.
H. Categorization of Impaired Waters The draft Integrated Report contains two
categories in addition to the categories set forth in EPA's 2006 Guidance. These
new categories — Category 6 (Biologically Impaired Waters) and Category 7
(essentially impaired SA waters) — include thousands of miles of impaired waters
for which the state asserts TMDLs are not appropriate or cannot be developed.
However, DWQ references no justification or legal authority for this determination,
which contradicts the Clean Water Act and its regulations. These waters must be
listed in Category 5 and scheduled for TMDL development and implementation.
L "Biologically impaired waters"
The draft Integrated Report omits from scheduling and prioritizing for TMDL
development numerous waters that the State identifies as "biologically
impaired waters." The cause of impairment of nearly all of these waterbodies is
sediment. TMDLs are required for all waterbodies impaired or threatened by
one or more pollutants. Sediment is a pollutant and is included in EPA's list of
acceptable pollutants for the Integrated Report. For years, EPA has made clear
that impairment listings and TMDLs are required for all pollutants. See, e.g., 43
FR 60662, 60665 (December 28, 1978). In fact, EPA has addressed the many
ways that sediment causes impairment of designated uses, outlined control
strategies, and presented concrete examples of how TMDLs can be prepared
for sediment -caused impairment. See, e.g., Protocol for Developing Sediment
TMDLs, U.S.E.P.A.
All 6f the waterbodies in Part 6 of the Integrated Report that are impaired by
sediment must be listed in Part 5 and scheduled and prioritized for TMDL
development. Failure to list sediment -impaired waters in Part 5 is an
abdication of the state's responsibility to proceed expeditiously to prepare and
implement effective TMDLs for the waters and to address this widespread
cause of impairment with a reasonable assurance of success.
DWQ Response:
DWQ has scheduled the development of TMDLs for biologically Impaired waters for 200& This
schedule is located on Table 3-19 in the draft 1R. Although sediment may be a contributing stressor,
there is no current standard for calculating a sediment daily load. Many other nonpoint stressors
Page 16 of 20
DEQ-CFW 00002066

Response to Comments, 2006 Integrated Report
have been Identified in various studies that may also be impacting biological communities and
these, In addition to sediment, will be reflected In the biological TMDLs.
ii. Impaired shellfish waters
Category 7 of the draft Integrated Report includes shellfish waters impaired by
the pollutant fecal coliform. The State contends that "proper technical
conditions do not yet exist to develop TMDLs" for these waters and excludes
these polluted shellfish waters from scheduling and prioritization for TMDL
development. The State fails to provide any reasonable justification for
removing these fecal -impaired waters from Category 5 of the list, thereby
sidestepping its duty to prepare and implement effective TMDLs for these
waters. Moreover, many of the water bodies listed in Category 5 are impaired
by fecal coliform, yet presumably adequate technical conditions exist for
TMDL development. The state has not offered an adequate explanation for its
disparate treatment of these waters, most of which are impaired by
contaminated stormwater runoff.
Furthermore, the draft Integrated Report states that waters impaired by
bacteria were prioritized for TMDL development. Integrated Report at 57.
Despite this assertion, Table 3-19 includes few impaired shellfish waters. All
waters in Category 7 must be incorporated into Category 5 of the list as waters
impaired by a pollutant and scheduled and prioritized for TMDL
development.
DWQ Response:
SA waters in category 7 are open non -land draining (no watershed) waters. The technical ability to
model and develop a TMDL for fecal coliform bacteria In these waters does not currently exist.
In addition to the concerns listed above, we commend your work in listing and developing a TMDL for the
B. Everett Jordan Reservoir. We understand that the draft 2006 Integrated Report now includes all of Jordan
Lake on the 303(d) List. This listing is consistent with our review of monitoring data and the experiences of
citizens with Jordan Lake.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments.
15. Comments from the NC Cooperative Extension Service (Silver)
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and
Impaired Waters List (2006 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report).
I have reviewed the draft Integrated Report and the draft 303(d)list, and I offer these comments:
1) In the Integrated Report, in Table 3-18, one segment of Mud Creek (AU 6-55a) is included for delisting.
Referencing the French Broad River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (April 2005), it appears that the reason
for delisting is that this stream segment received an S rating (supporting) for Aquatic Life and an NI (not
impaired) rating for benthic community. This data is from the year 2000 — five years old. I respectfully
recommend that this segment of Mud Creek not be delisted. In the past five years, since this data was
collected, significant development has taken place in the headwaters of Mud Creek, near the stream
segment in question. I have received many reports from residents of sediment pouring across Kanuga
Road into Mud Creek, probably due to increased stormwater run-off as a result of the new development.
Page 17 of 20
DEQ-CFW 00002067

Response to Comments, 2006 Integrated Report
No studies have been done in that stream segment since the 2000 study, but this anecdotal evidence
suggests that the situation has worsened. I believe it warrants a more up-to-date study before it is delisted.
DWQ Response:
DWQ Is working with agencies in the Mud Creek watershed to identify the potential water quality
stressors mentioned in these comments. Water quality will be reassessed in this AU in 2009. There
are over 15 miles of Mud Creek listed as Impaired for Aquatic Life (AL), and only the upstream 2.4
miles has an S rating due to an N/ bloclassiflcation; this all appropriately matches our use support
methods.
2) A comment on usability of the reports offered for public comment: Table 3-18 of the integrated report
gives Waters Delisted from Categories 5, 6 and 7 (or the 303(d) list). In that table, the original reason for
listing is given, but the reason for delisting is not given. It would be valuable to have a column showing the
reason for de -listing. The French Broad River Basinwide Water Quality Plan is referenced in the
Description column, but no information is given about the reason for de -listing. By working back and forth
between the Integrated Report and the BasinWide Plan, I was finally able to identify the use rating that I
presume is the reason for the de -listing of the stream segment that interests me. It would be valuable, and
more helpful to watershed coordinators like me, if that information were provided in the same document.
DWQ Response:
The description column refers to the document explaining why the delisting occurred. Many times
this information is too much to fit into a simple table.
Additionally, in Table 3-18, the Assessment Unit is given, but no description of the AU is given. In the
303(d) list, a description is given. I had to work back and forth between the two documents to figure out
exactly which section of Mud Creek was being proposed for de -listing. This was cumbersome and time
consuming. It would be very helpful if Table 3-18 in the 1R were set up in the same format as the 303(d) list,
with a description of the waterbody as well as the AU number.
Finally, a quick note on a small detail: In the French Broad 2003, Basinwide Assessment Report,
(http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/esb/Basinwide/French Broad 2003 Report.pdf), on page 39 and 40, several
photos are mis-identified as being in Buncombe County. Mud Creek and Clear Creek are both located in
Henderson County.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on these draft reports.
16. Comments from the Pamlico -Tar River Foundation (Jacobs)
The Pamlico -Tar River Foundation (PTRF) submits these comments on the draft North Carolina 2006
Integrated Report. PTRF is a grassroots organization representing 2400 members, whose mission is to
protect and improve the water quality of the Pamlico -Tar River, its estuaries and watershed.
PTRF appreciates the improvements to the 2006 integrated report from the 2004 report. There are more
clear & improved summaries of information of impaired waters available in table format and some of the
recommended changes for the 2004 report have been incorporated into the draft 2006 report. My hope is
that the 2008 report will be very similar in format to the 2006 report to be able to make clear comparisons
between years. It is very difficult to get a true understanding of the changes, for better or worse, in the
number of impaired stream miles or estuarine acres compared to the 2004 report.
After careful review of the Tar -Pamlico 303(d) list and comparison to the 2004 Basinwide Water Quality
Plan, I believe there are several reporting mistakes that should be amended. They are as follows:
Page 18 of 20
DEQ-CFW 00002068

Response to Comments, 2006 Integrated Report
1) Table 3-18 should be amended to include the delisting of a section of Sandy Creek;
Subbasin 03-03-02. In the 2004 303(d) list, Sandy Creek was listed from the dam at
Southerlands Pond to NC Hwy 401, then from 401 to NC Hwy 561. The 2006 report delists
the first 3.8 mile section of Sandy Creek and only includes 11.3 miles from Hwy 401 to Hwy
561.
DWQ Response:
AU# 28-78-1-(8)a had a Good -Fair bloclassification In 2004 assessment resulting In a Supporting
rating which led to the delisting of this segment. The next AU# had ambient monitoring data
Indicating that no standards had been violated resulting In a Supporting rating. However, no
biological data were collected during the assessment period In this segment so the original listing
for Impaired biological Integrity will stand until data are collected to Indicate otherwise. DWQ's
biological assessment unit has since sampled this segment of Sandy Creek (in 2003) and rated the
conditions as "excellent." Because this rating falls outside the 2006 IR assessment window for the
Tar -Pamlico (1997-2002), the data will not be reassessed until 2009.
2) The 303(d) list for subbasin 03-03-07 fails to include the following waters listed as impaired
in the 2004 Basinwide plan for chlorophyll a standard violations (Basinwide plan page 147):
Tar River (338 acres); Pamlico River (2505.1 acres); Chocowinity Bay (891.8 acres- which
actually should be 892.8 acres as noted in Table B-13 of Basinwide plan); Kennedy Creek
(32 acres) and Rodman Creek (19.1 acres).
DWQ Response:
These rive AUs are listed In category 4a as a TMDL that was approved and completed to address
nutrients that have caused chlorophyll a exceedances. These AUs were formerly Identified as
Pamlico River (DEH Area) G11.
3) The 2004 Basinwide plan total estuarine acres for chlorophyll a standard violations equals
6440 acres. [Add the acreage in #2 above with acreage of Pantego and Pungo Creeks (2654
acres)]. However, Table 3-14 of the 2006 integrated report stats that 6071 acres are impaired
due to chlorophyll a violations. This discrepancy should be amended.
DWQ Response:
The 370 acre difference Is because Kennedy Creek (28-104) and Tar River (28-(102.5)) are class C
NSW waters and were not summarized with the salt waters. These acres are accounted for In table
3-13 with freshwaters.
My final concern is with what appears to be the ambiguous listing of certain sections of the Tar River for
mercury fish advisory. The sections that are listed are as follows:
1) Subbasin 02; Tar River from Maple Creek to point 100 feet downstream of Old Rocky
Mount Water Intake
2) Subbasin 04: Tar River from Tarboro Raw Water Supply Intake to Suggs Creek
3) Subbasin 05: Tar River from Greenville Raw Water Supply Intake to a point 1.2 miles
downstream of the mouth of Broad Run.
Apparently these areas were all listed due to the recommendations of the 2004 Basinwide Water Quality
plan that states the fish tissue sampling in those areas revealed sampled large mouth bass that exceeded the
state criterion of 0.4 pg of methylmercury per gram of fish tissue. For example, the listing of the Tar near
Rocky Mount is due to the fact that 5 out of 13 largemouth bass exceeded the state criteria. At Tarboro, the
Basinwide plan states 7 out of 13 exceeded the criteria; and 7 out of 7 at Greenville. After further review of
Page 19 of 20
DEQ-CFW 00002069

Response to Comments, 2006 Integrated Report
the fish tissue data (available on DWQ's website) it appears these sections have been listed due to the fact
they are the only areas that have been sampled since the year 2000. However, data from 1997, that is
included in the 2003 Basinwide assessment report (which helps provide the information for the 2004
basinwide water quality plan which in turn provides the basis for this 2006 Integrated report), should not
be disregarded. For example, Lake Mattamuskeet (at Rose Bay Canal), when sampled in 1997 revealed that
14 out of 16 largemouth bass exceeded the state criteria for methylmercury. Three out of the four
largemouth bass sampled at Swift Creek in 1997 exceeded state criteria. Three out of the five sampled at
Falkland in 1997 exceeded the criteria. And five out of the 9 largemouth bass sampled in 1997 at the Rocky
Mount Reservoir also exceeded the state criteria. Two questions arise from this information. One, why was
1997 data that was apparently used for the 2003 basinwide assessment report, disregarded for this 2006
Integrated report. And two, what criteria does DWQ use to determine if an area should be 303(d) listed for
mercury fish consumption?
DWQ Response:
Based on rish consumption advice issued by NC DHHS, all waters of the state are considered
impaired for fish consumption on an evaluated basis, as rish tissue data are not available for all
waters. Those waters currently listed on the IR for mercury are specifically targeted because DWQ
has rish tissue data that Indicate impairment
We appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments. If you have any questions regarding the above
comments/concerns, please don't hesitate to contact PTRF. Thank you.
Page 20 of 20
DEQ-CFW 00002070