DEQ-CFW_00069992

FUN
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS ON THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION
OF
CAPE FEAR RIVER SEGMENT IN BLADEN AND CUMBERLAND COUNTIES
(CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN)
FROM C TO WS-IV CA AND WS-IV
PUBLIC HEARING
AUGUST 14, 2008
DUBLIN, NORTH CAROLINA
DEQ-CFW 00069992

M
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Summary and Recommendation
Summary
S-1
Background Classification Information
S-1
Classification Information Specific to Subject Waters
S-1
Current Classification (C)
S-1
Proposed Classification (WS-IV CA and WS-IV)
S-1
Implications of the Proposed Reclassification
S-3
Map of Area Proposed for Reclassification
S-4
Pr�nosesl_Aiaaend�aaent Capg�-Fe" v r Basin
_ S-5
Schedule of Classifications
Table 1. Summary and Comparison of Existing and Proposed
S-7
Classifications' Requirements
Public Hearing Process and Comments Received
S-7
Recommendation
S-9
Request for Reclassification 1
EMC/DWR/Lumber River COG Cooperative Agreement 7
Local Government Resolutions 8
Public Announcement 13
Hearing Officer Designation 15
List of Public Hearing Attendees 16
Written Comments Received
Letters Supporting Proposed Reclassification 17
Letters Providing No Stance. on Proposed Reclassification . 22
Appendix
2007 DWQ WS-IV Reclassification Evaluation A-1
NCDEH PWS Section Letter A-16
15A NCAC 2B .0104 Considerations/Assigning/Implementing Water Supply A-17
Classifications
15A NCAC 2B .0216, Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for WS-IV Waters A-22
Proposed Amendment to 15A NCAC 02B .0311 Cape Fear River Basin A-26
Cover Letter (Regarding Public Announcement) Sent to Newspapers A-32
DEQ-CFW 00069993

A-3
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
aftu � ly 1
Background Classification Information
All surface waters in North Carolina are assigned a primary classification, which is based
on their designated best uses, by the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) under the
authority of the Environmental Management Commission. Numeric and narrative water
quality standards are associated with each classification in order to protect its designated
best uses. The most common and basic classification for all freshwaters is Class C. Other
primary freshwater classifications provide additional levels of protection for uses
consisting of drinking water supply (WS-I through WS-V) and primary recreation (B).
Supplemental classifications may be added to the primary classifications to provide
additional protection to waters with special uses or values. Most of these supplemental
classifications have been developed in order to promote special protection to sensitive or
highly valued resource waters. The DWQ supplemental classifications are NSW (Nutrient
Sensitive Waters), Tr (Trout Waters), HQW (High Quality Waters), ORW (Outstanding
Resource Waters), UWL (Unique Wetlands), and Sw (Swamp Waters).
Classification Information Specific to Subject Waters
Current Classification (C)
The present classification of the Cape Fear River segment requested to be reclassified is
Class C. Class C is a primary classification.
Class C water quality standards are the basic standards for water quality applicable to all
fresh surface waters. Uses include aquatic life propagation and maintenance of biological
diversity (including fishing and fish), wildlife, secondary recreation, agriculture and any
other usages except for primary recreation or as a source of water supply for drinking,
culinary, or food processing purposes. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and
other uses involving human body contact with water where such activities take place in an
infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner. The standards for Class C waters are
outlined in Rule 15A NCAC 2B .0211, Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class C
Waters.
Proposed Classification (WS-IV CA and WS-IV)
In 2006, Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority (LCFWASA) staff requested that a
Cape Fear River, segment (Bladen and Cumberland Counties) be reclassified from Class C
to WS-IV CA and WS-IV (PA). The reason for the request is to allow a new intake
structure to be placed in the river (request package attached as pages 1-6). Initially, the
new intake will provide a potable water supply for the Smithfield Packing Company. In
the future, the intake will provide a source of potable water for potentially several
5-1
DEQ-CFW 00069994

A-�
southern coastal plain municipalities. In October 2004, the EMC, the Division of Water
Resources (DWR), and the Lumber River Council of Governments (COG) entered into a
cooperative agreement to assure that area groundwater resources are monitored and "a
regional plan for long-range, sustainable water supply sources is developed" that would
include Smithfield's participation and investigation of additional water sources, including
surface water sources (agreement attached as page 7). A regional plan was developed, the
LSFWASA was formed to include representation of several municipalities, and this
proposed reclassification is an outgrowth of that plan.
Supplementing the request were written resolutions pertaining to the reclassification from
Bladen County and Cumberland County, which are the local governments with
jurisdiction in the area to be affected by the reclassification (resolutions attached as pages
8-12); Bladen County and Cumberland County support and do not object to the proposal,
,ire pectiveLy urthermQre, lassified
meet water supply water standards and criteria for the WS-IV designation (studies
attached as pages A-1 through A-15 in Appendix). Finally, the DWR and Division of
Environmental Health (DEH) Public Water Supply (PWS) Section do not object to the
proposed reclassification.
Please note that DEH as well as DWQ have acknowledged the presence of a contaminant
found in the subject waters and adjacent waters that may be an issue of concern; this
contaminant is perfluorooctanoic acid, or more commonly known as C-8 or PFOA. DEH
has stated that "PFOA should not prevent the reclassification of this stream" given recent
sampling data, ongoing monitoring, and proposed standards for PFOA (DEH PWS Section
letter attached as page A-16). DWQ is waiting for a guidance value for PFOA to be issued
by a technical group, known as the Science Advisory Board (or SAB); once this value is
established, DWQ may derive a water quality standard for PFOA.
The WS-IV primary classification is assigned to waters protected as water supplies that
are located generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds. A Critical Area (CA)
is the area adjacent to a water supply intake or reservoir where risk associated with
pollution is greater than from the remaining portions of the watershed. A Protected. Area
(PA) means the area adjoining and upstream of the CA in a WS-IV water supply
watershed in which protection measures are required. For a proposed riverine WS-IV
intake, the area (land and waters) that is within 10 miles and draining to the intake is
known as the PA, and the area (land and waters) within 0.5 mile and draining to the river
intake is known as the CA. The criteria and standards that must be met before waters can
be classified to WS-IV are outlined in Rule 15A NCAC 2B .0104, Considerations/
Assigning/Implementing Water Supply Classifications, and in Rule 15A NCAC 2B .0216,
Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for WS-IV Waters (rules attached as pages A-17
through A-25 in Appendix). These criteria include several water supply standards -as well
as the requirement that water supply waters must be used for. drinking, culinary,. or.food
processing purposes. All Class C uses are protected by the WS-IV classification.
The river segment requested for reclassification extends from the proposed intake to a
point approximately 1 mile upstream of Grays Creek (map of area to be affected by
S-2
DEQ-CFW 00069995

A,-5
proposed reclassification on page S-4, and recommended amendment to the Cape Fear
River Basin Schedule of Classifications, which lists the existing and recommended
classifications of the waters proposed for reclassification, is on page S-5). The portion of
the river proposed to be reclassified to WS-IV CA extends along the river from the
proposed intake, which is to be placed approximately 2 miles upstream of County Road
1316, to a point approximately 0.5 miles upstream of the proposed intake. There are no
named tributaries to the Cape Fear River in the proposed CA. The portion of the river
proposed to be reclassified to WS-IV (PA) extends along the river from a point
approximately 0.5 miles upstream of the proposed intake to a point approximately 1 mile
upstream of Grays Creek. The proposed PA includes the entire length of several named
tributaries, as well as the lower portions of many named tributaries, to the Cape Fear
River; most of these waters are presently classified C and would be reclassified to WS-IV
(PA), and the remaining waters, which carry the B classification, would be reclassified to
WS-IV (PA) & B.
The proposed area is rural in character, with primarily forested lands, row crops, and
residences. Approximately 160 acres of land will become CA, and nearly 30,628 acres of
land will become PA. .
In summary, the waters proposed for reclassification are as follows:
the above -mentioned Cape Fear River segment in Bladen and Cumberland
.Counties, which is currently classified as Class C, is proposed to be reclassified. as
WS-IV CA and WS-IV
Implications of the Proposed Reclassification
WS-IV protective management strategies are outlined in the following rules:
- 15A NCAC 2B .0104 Considerations/Assigning/Implementing Water Supply
Classifications
- 15A NCAC 2B .0216 Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for WS-lV Waters
(Rules attached as pages A-17 through A-25 in Appendix)
Rule 15A NCAC 2B .0104, Considerations/Assigning/Implementing Water Supply
Classifications, describes regulations mainly pertaining to the responsibilities of local
governments with jurisdiction in water supply watersheds, and these responsibilities
involve actions concerning ordinances, engineered stormwater controls, normal pool
elevation, Agricultural Cost Share Program, etc. (rule attached as pages A-17 through A-
21 in Appendix). This regulation also addresses new, low density, high density,
expanding, existing, and cluster development, redevelopment and variances pertaining to
development in water supply watersheds. Further topics include, but are not limited to,
suitability of waters for water supply classifications, critical water supply watersheds, and
future water supply use, as well as groundwater remediation projects, joint water quality
monitoring and information sharing programs, roads, bridges, and silviculture activities in
water supply watersheds.
S-3
DEQ-CFW 00069996

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN SCHEDULE OF CLASSIFICATIONS
AS REFERENCED IN TITLE 15A NORTH CAROLINA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 213.0311
Existing Proposed
Name of Stream Description Class Description of Proposed Segment Class
From a point. approximately 0.5 mile upstream
From City of Fayetteville water
of Smithfield Packing Company's intake to
Cape Fear River
supply intake to mouth of
C
Smithfield Packing Company's intake
WS-IV; CA
Hammond Creek
(approximately 2 miles upstream of County
Road 1316).
From City of Fayetteville water
From a point approximately 1 mile upstream of
Cape Fear River
supply intake to mouth of
C
Grays Creek to a point approximately 0.5 mile
VVS-IV
Hammond Creek
upstream of Smithfield Packing Company's
intake -
Georgia Branch (Prospect Hall
Creek)
From source to Cape Fear River
C
same
WS-IV
Mines Creek
From dam at Pages Lake to
C
same
WS-[V
Georgia Branch
,Mines Creek (Pages Lake)
From source to dam at Pages
B
same
WS-IV, B
Lake
—Willis Creek
From source to -Cape Fear River
C
same
WS-IV
Unnamed Tributary at Willis
From dam at McGaugans Lake to..
C
WS-IV
Creek Church
Willis Creek
same
Unnamed Tributary at Willis
From source to dam at
Creek Church (McGaugans
McGougans Lake
B
same
WS-IV, B
Lake)
Kirks Mill Creek
From source to Willis Creek
C
same
WS-IV
From a point approximately 0.2 mile
Swans Creek
From source to Willis Creek
C
downstream of County Road 2233 to Willis
WS-IV
Creek.
From a point approximately 0.04 mile
Longs Branch (McNeill Pond)
From source to Swans Creek
C
downstream of County Road 2261 to Swans
WS-IV
Creek.
Hairs Mill Creek
From source to Cape Fear River
C
same
WS-IV
From N. C. Hwy. 87 to Cape Fear
From a point approximately 0.04 mile
Grays Creek
River
C
downstream of County Road 2233 to Cape Fear
WS-IV
River.

A-8
One of the most important aspects of the rule is that local government/s that have land use
jurisdiction within a water supply watershed are: responsible for developing and
implementing water supply watershed ordinance/s. Designated local government/s have
270 days after the effective date of the proposed rule to develop or modify watershed
protection land use ordinance/s to at least meet the state's minimum requirements (15A
NCAC 2B .0100 and .0200). The result of this proposed reclassification will be that
Bladen County and Cumberland County would be required to modify their water supply
watershed protection ordinances within 270 days following the effective date of the
proposed rule. However, please note that when a reclassification is anticipated to not
become effective before waters are to be used as a potable water supply source, DWQ
staff recommends that local governments create or modify water supply watershed
protection ordinances before these waters are utilized as a potable water supply source.
-----------------
Rule 15A NCAC 2B .0216, Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for WS-IV Waters,
features regulations regarding the best usage of these waters, con itions i�ad�o best--
usage, and quality standards applicable to Class WS-IV waters (for sewage, industrial
waste, non -process industrial wastes, or other wastes, as well as nonpoint source and
stormwater pollution for the CA and PA) (rule attached as pages A-22 through A-25 in
Appendix). The main features of the quality standards portion of this rule are described in
the following paragraphs and table.
If reclassified, additional regulations associated with stormwater control for development
activities will be required in the proposed water supply watershed. Projects that require a
state Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan and are located within the proposed water
supply watershed will be required to comply with development density and setback
requirements. More specifically, where land disturbing activities in WS-IV watersheds
require a Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan, development is limited to two dwelling
units (du) per acre or 24% built upon area (low density option) in the CA and PA. For
those developments without curb and gutter street systems, development may take place at
up to three du/acre or 36% built upon area in the PA. A high density option, which
requires control of runoff of the first inch of rainfall though the use of engineered
stormwater controls, permits development at up to 50% built upon area in the CA and
70% built upon area in the PA. Within these options there is considerable flexibility for:
local governments such as averaging development density. Thirty foot stream setbacks
are required with the low density option, and 100 foot setbacks are required with the high
density option. State Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations for WS-IV
watersheds require use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) associated with meeting the
above -mentioned requirements, and no new permitted landfills will be allowed in the CA.
Finally, forestry and farming practices as -well as dam and water resource projects will not
be affected.
In WS-IV water supply watersheds, water supply standards.must be met by domestic and
industrial permitted NPDES wastewater dischargers. In addition, new industrial process
wastewater discharges will have additional wastewater treatment requirements in the WS-
IV CA.
on
DEQ-CFW 00069999

A-t)
There are several animal operations and one NPDES wastewater discharger, Dupont
Fayetteville Works, in the proposed water supply watershed; the above -mentioned animal
operations and discharger most likely will not be impacted by current regulations .
associated with this reclassification. There are not any known planned dischargers and
developments in the proposed area that would be impacted by the proposal according to
DWQ staff in the Fayetteville Regional Office and staff with local governments with
jurisdiction in the proposed reclassification area.
The table below summarizes and compares the requirements of the existing and proposed
classifications.
Table 1.
Summary and Comparison of Existing and Yro osea uiassincations'
tce uirements
Classification
Area
Low Density
High Density
Allowable
Landfills
DOT BMPs
Affected
Development
Development
Wastewater
Allowed
Option
Option*
Discharges
Class C
Receiving
Domestic and Industrial
No Specific
No Specific BMPS
(Existing).
Stream
No Restrictions
Restrictions
Required
WS-jy
1Wmile
I DU / 0.5 acre or
24-50% BUA and
Domestic and Industrial
No New
Required
Critical Area
and
24% BUA and
100' Setbacks**
(New Industrial Process
Landfills
Pro o§ed
p_.._._.`....)...
Draining
30' Setbacks**
Discharges Will
to Intake
Require Additional
Treatment
Requirements)
WS-Iv
10 miles
1 DU / 0.5 acre or
24-70% BUA and
Domestic and Industrial
No Specific
Required
Protected
Run -of-
24% BUA and
100' Setbacks**
Restrictions
Area
River
30' Setbacks**
Pro ose� d
Upstream
Optional:
-p -
and
Optional:
3 DU / 1.0 acre or
Draining
3 DU / 1.0 acre or
36% BUA w/o
to Intake
36% BUA w/o
curb and gutter
curb and gutter
street system
street system
DU = Dwelling Unit; BUA = Built Upon Area
*High Density Option requires control of runoff from first 1" of rainfall by engineered stormwater controls. Local governments must
assume ultimate responsibility for operation/maintenance of these in a WS-lV.
** These rules apply only to projects requiring a Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan.
Public Hearing Process and Comments Received
In accordance with North Carolina General Statutes, a public hearing was held on August
14, 2008, in Dublin, North Carolina (Bladen County). Notice of the proposal, as reflected
in the proposed amendment to 15A NCAC 02B .0311 (Cape Fear River Basin), and
hearing was published in the July 15, 2008, North Carolina Register (Volume 23, Issue 2)
(proposed rule amendment attached as pages A-26 through A-31). Announcements of the
public hearing (announcement attached as pages 13-14) were sent to those people who
have requested to be placed on the Water Quality Rule -Making Announcements mailing
list and Division of Water Quality Rules e-mail list, to staff of local governments with
jurisdiction overland adjacent to the waters proposed to be reclassified, and to other
persons who may have wished to learn more about the proposed reclassification, including
staff of local interest groups, industries, environmental organizations, companies, and state
agencies. The public announcement was submitted on July 18, 2008 to two local
newspapers, which are the Bladen Journal and The Fayetteville Observer, and requested
§M
DEQ-CFW 00070000

A-10
to be published (cover letter to newspapers attached as page A-32 in Appendix). Ed Beck,
Surface Water Protection Supervisor in the Wilmington Regional Office, served as
hearing officer (hearing officer designation letter attached as page 15).
27 people registered at the public hearing,, albeit at least 28 people attended the hearing
(list of attendees attached as page 16). Of those 28 people, 26 provided the organization
they were representing: several municipalities (Bladen County, Columbus County,
Cumberland County, City of Fayetteville, Town of Chadbourn, and Town of
Elizabethtown), the Lumber River COG, NC House of Representatives, NC Department
of Agriculture, self, two consulting firms, an environmental organization, landowner, the
LCFWASA,. and Smithfield. Opening comments and slides were presented by DWQ staff
to provide a brief overview of the DWQ classification program and detailed information
about the proposed reclassification. Then a session in which the public was given the
- .- — — -- �lzp�ztunity _proyide�Qmments egarding_the rpo-Le sec 5sifica_-n-was held.
11 individuals registered to make comments at the hearing about the proposed
reclassification, albeit only nine chose to speak. After the nine individuals spoke, one
person who did not register decided to speak. All 10 speakers provided their affiliations
consisting of Bladen County, Cumberland County, City of Fayetteville, Lumber River
COG, NC House of Representatives, self, LCFWASA, Smithfield, and Cape Fear
Riverkeeper and River Watch. Seven of the speakers clearly stated they supported the
reclassification and represented LCRWASA, Lumber River COG, Smithfield, Bladen
County, Cumberland County, NC House of Representatives, and self. The remaining
speakers did not state that they were for or against the reclassification, and one of these
speakers, who represented Cape Fear Riverkeeper and River Watch, did have several
concerns (see paragraph below describing concerns).
Three of the speakers felt further public education about the reclassification was needed.
DWQ staff stated before and after the verbal public comment session that peoplemith
questions could contact DWQ staff after the hearing. In addition, DWQ staff deemed that
sufficient public notice for the.reclassification was provided, and that adequate newspaper
coverage of the reclassification was made available based on the local newspapers that
received the public announcement and were requested to publish it.
Written comments were accepted from July 15, 2008 through September 15, 2008. Two
letters in support of the reclassification and one letter that did not state a stance on the
reclassification were received at the hearing from three of the speakers. After the hearing,
one letter in support of the reclassification was received from the Municipal and County
Association of Bladen, and two letters with concerns but not a stance on the
reclassification were received; one of the two later letters was signed by two Citizens for
Clean Industry representatives, and the other letter was signed by three landowners (letters
supporting proposed reclassification attached as pages 17-21, and letters providing no
stance on the reclassification attached as pages 22-26).
Concerns expressed during the comment period (in bold) and DWQ responses. follow:
• not wanting tighter restrictions on land use
DEQ-CFW 00070001

o Please refer to the parts of the section above entitled "Implications of the
Proposed Reclassification" that describe the proposed reclassification's
restrictions associated with development. In a nutshell, the proposal would
require additional treatment of stormwater only for projects that require a
state Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plan, which is generally only
applicable when one or more acres of land is to be disturbed. In addition,
please note that development density restrictions within local ordinances
generally only allow the low density options associated with this proposal,
which means that only a 30' setback would be required for stormwater
control in the proposed water supply watershed.
• wanting an EIS conducted, and more study done on the proposed withdrawal
o Information regarding the proposed withdrawal has been reviewed by staff
of multiple government entities who reviewed the EA for the proposed
withdrawal project, and that information is presumed sufficient, given that
the EA received a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI.)
• wanting the proposal's impact on landowners and input from them to be
more fully addressed
o The impact of the proposed reclassification on landowners and their input
has been more fully addressed in this document, and will be reviewed by
the EMC before it makes a decision on this proposal.
• wanting the state to look at the immediate impact of the proposed
reclassification on the river segment, and to view it more widely and globally
o The proposal is designed to afford further protection to the subject
watershed, and thus, indirectly will also afford further protection to the
watershed of the river downstream of the intake and local groundwater
resources.
• having Smithfield involved in this proposal, given that it has caused water
quality problems, and wanting the state to greatly regulate this proposal (and
Smithfield) so as not to allow Smithfield to expand, to keep pressure on
Smithfield to keep conserving water, and to perhaps include more mitigation
for what has occurred to groundwater
o This project would allow Smithfield to get water needed for their
operations from the river and to reduce use of water from wells, and thus,
help alleviate current local groundwater quantity and quality concerns. The
regulations associated with the proposal do not address water conservation,
expansion of Smithfield, or mitigation, and requirements for those
activities are outlined in other local, state, and federal regulations.
RECOMMENDATION
It is the recommendation of the Hearing Officer that the reclassification of the segment of
the Cape Fear River, as proposed herein, be approved by the Environmental Management
Commission. In making this recommendation, the Hearing Officer has considered the
requirements of General Statutes 15013-21.2, 143-214.1, 143-215, and 143-215.3(a)(1),
and Rules 15A NCAC 2B .0100 [Procedures for Assignment of Water Quality Standards,
5-9
DEQ-CFW 00070002

A-12
especially 15A NCAC 2B .0104 (Considerations/Assigning/Implementing Water Supply
Classifications)] and 15A NCAC 2B .0216 (Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for
WS-IV Waters). In addition, the need for a long-range, sustainable water supply source
given current local groundwater issues; the need -for a new permanent intake structure to
be placed in the Cape Fear River for use by Smithfield Packing Company, and in the
future, potentially several southern coastal plain municipalities; and the opinion of
NCDEH PWS Section staff that the subject waters can be used as drinking water supply
once treated_ have been considered.
In taking this action, Rule 15A NCAC 2B .0311, which references the Schedule of
Classifications for the Cape Fear River Basin, will show that. the Environmental
Management Commission has revised the schedule for:
Smithfield Packing Company's intake, located. approximately 2 miles upstream of
County Road 1316,. to a point approximately 0.5 miles upstream of Smithfield
Packing Company's intake from Class C to Class WS-IV CA. .
• a portion of Cape. Fear River [Index No. 18-(26)] (including tributaries) from a
point approximately 0.5 miles upstream of Smithfield Packing Company's intake
to a point approximately 1 mile upstream of Grays Creek from Class C to Class
WS-IV.
The proposed effective date of this reclassification is January 1, 2009.
S-10
DEQ-CFW 00070003

A-1 3
Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates, P.A.
Consulting Engineers
14878 US Hwy 17 ` • P.O. Box 1400 • Hampstead, NC 28443
November 29, 2006
Elizabeth Kountis
Classification and Standards Unit
North. Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality- Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
RE: Application to Request Reclassification of a Portion of the Cape Fear River
Dear Ms. Kountis:
On behalf of our client, The Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority (the Authority),
we are submitting the enclosed Application to Request Reclassification of a Portion of the
Cape Fear River. The Authority proposes to construct and operate The Bladen Bluffs
Regional Surface Water System (the System). The System will involve the construction of a
raw water intake with a capacity of up to 30 million gallons per day (MGD), a Surface Water
Treatment Plant (SWTP) with a capacity of up to 4 MGD, and a 20-MG storage reservoir on
land that is currently owned by Smithfield Packing Company in Tar Heel, North Carolina
(Bladen County). The Authority will offer water services to local governments and industrial
users in the counties of Bladen, Columbus, Robeson and Sampson. Based on the location of
the raw water intake, the Authority requests that a portion of the Cape Fear River
and certain tributaries be reclassified from Class "C' to "WS-IV". The affected watershed
area stretches from the location of the intake in Tar Heel (Bladen County) to 10 miles
upstream in Cumberland County.
The enclosed application package contains:
(1) Application Form 09-04;
(2) A USGS 7.5 minute topographic map outlining the subject waters/land area;
(3) Signed resolution of support from Bladen County and draft resolution from Cumberland
County; and
(4) The report entitled: `Justification for a 30-MGD Water Intake in the Cape Fear River at
Tar Heel, Bladen County, NC" that substantiates the need for the proposed intake.
Hampstead, NC • Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] • email: [e-mail]
Southem Pines Myrtle Beach 1 Nags Head Charlotte Beaufort
DEQ-CFW 00070004

A-14
Ms. Kountis- Request for Reclassification Cape Fear River
It is our understanding that the Cumberland County Board of Commissioners intends to
consider the enclosed resolution at its upcoming meeting on December 4, 2006. We will
forward a signed copy of the resolution to you immediately after its approval.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter. We look forward to working with
you towards the approval of the enclosed reclassification request. If you have any questions
regarding this project, please call me at [phone].
Sincerely,
�4
Mo Sanchez -King, Ph.D., P.E.
Division Manager
Enclosures.
CC. Hannah Stallings, DWQ - Planning Branch (w/o enclosures)
Don Betz, Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority
H;\BLADEN COMMABC 000G Redav teation aJCape FearRitrr\GENERAL\CORRESPONDANCE\NC REGULATORY 2
AGENCIES\Redusifiration I.Merto DW,Q Konntir 112706.Joe
2
DEQ-CFW 00070005

A-1-5
APPLICATION TO REQUEST
RECLASSIFICATION OF NC SURFACE WATER
1. Date of Request: November 29, 2006
2. Requested by Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority
1107 New Pointe Blvd, Suite 17
Leland, North Carolina, 28451
phone: [phone]
fax: [phone]
3. River Basin: Cape Fear Counties: Bladen, Cumberland
4. List Waterbody requested for reclassification:
Waterbody Name Waterbody Index Current Class Request Class
CAPE FEAR NC18-(26)
5. Attachments:
Is a USGS 7.5 minute topographic map outlining the subject waters/land area
attached? YES —
Is this a request for a more protective water supply reclassification? YES_
If so, is a resolution from all local governments with land use jurisdiction within
the boundaries of a proposed water supply watershed attached? YES
Resolution from the following entities are attached:
■ Bladen County
■ Cumberland County
6. Reason for request see enclosed report: justification of a 30-MGD Water Intake
in the Cape Fear Rver at Tar Heel, Bladen County, NQ, . .
It is the intention of the Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority (LCFWASA)
of Leland, NC to initiate the construction of the Bladen Bluffs Water System
(BBWS). As a prerequisite to formal design, LCFWASA is applying for the
reclassification of 10 river miles of the Cape Fear river from Class code C to Class
code WS-IV along that length of river starting at the coordinates 34°46'17 N by
78°47'52 W at Tar Heel upstream to the mouth of an unnamed creek at the
coordinates 34°54'22 N by 78°48'55W.
LCFWASA intends to install a raw water intake in the river designed for a capacity of
30 MGD. The water intake is approximately 2.6 miles North of the town of Tar Heel.
Prepared by Hobbs, "Upchurch & Assuchnes, P.A.
&1. SAnchez-King, Ph.D., P.E. i B. FlnL
T: 910 270 5520 3
msandiezk(s hnbbsupchurch.cnm
DEQ-CFW 00070006

In addition to the intake structure in the river, a 20 million gallon holding pond and a
4 MGD treatment facility are to be constructed on the Smithfield Packing property at
the bluffs above the river.
BBWS is intended to serve the entire region through supplying raw water to Bladen,
Columbus, Pender, Robeson, and Sampson counties that currently draw water from
receding aquifers or aquifers that are in danger of chloride intrusion. With the
conversion from groundwater sources to surface sources by municipalities and
industries the stressed aquifers may recharge to original levels and quality, however
groundwater will continue to be a source for small consumers in locations where
surface regional water is not feasible to distribute.
The initial flow to be withdrawn from the river is 4 MGD to Smithfield Packing, used
for all requirements of pork processing from cleaning of carcasses through finished
product and employee consumption. However the installed intake structure, pumps,
and piping will be designed and built for the 30 MGD flow that will become available
through later appropriate permitting processes as the necessary infrastructure for
distribution becomes available. From a watershed perspective, the current proposed
consumers as well as future users would return their treated water back to the Cape
Fear.
The ultimate goal of the project is multifaceted but two primary goals are most
obvious and crucial:
1) Consumers of water in this region of the state cannot withdrawal any more
groundwater than they are at this moment. Historical levels in test wells show
localized cones of depression in the main pumping centers (i.e. Smithfield
Packing site, Elizabethtown) indicating that movement of water underground
will be flowing in from all ' directions with the possibility of salt water
intrusion, unless the current pumping levels cease. Once withdrawal from .the
aquifer slows or stops, groundwater levels very likely'will rebound over time
and become a reliable source for small consumers in remote areas. To
illustrate, provided that that groundwater 1. levels remain stable and no
additional pumping centers are activated- the' static level of the Upper Cape
Fear Aquifer would rebound at a rate of 0.10 inches/year. If, however,
pumping were to cease entirely, the static level would rise much faster.
2) The availability of a reliable and cost-effective source of water will enhance
economic development in southeastern North Carolina.
Prepared by Hobbs, Upchurch & Associams, P.A.
M. Sanchcr.-King, Ph.D., P.E. / B. King
T: 910 270 5520 4
msanchczk6i hobbsupchurch.cnrn
DEQ-CFW 00070007

Bladen Bluffs Regional Surface Water System
Cape Fear River Reclassification
Waterbodies to be Reclassified
WaterBody
Stream
Current
Request
County
Description
Index #
Class
Class
Cape Fear
18-(26)
C
WS-N
Bladen/
Cumberland
From:
34° 54' 27" N; 78 48' 47" W
River
To:
34' 46' 17" N; 78 47' 52" W
on the main stem of the
Cape Fear River
Grays Creek
18-35-(2)
C
WS-N
Cumberland
Segment from
Lary Blossom road
to the Cape Fear River
Hair's Mill
18-36
C
WS-IV
Cumberland
From Source
to the Cape Fear River
Creek
Willis Creek
18-37
C
WS-IV
Cumberland .
From Source
to the Cape Fear River
Swans Creeks
18-37-1
C
WS-N
Cumberland
From Source
to Willis Creek
Long's Branch
18-37-1-1
C
WS-N
Cumberland
From Source
to Swans Creek
Kirk's Mill
18-37-2
C
WS-N
Cumberland"
From Source
to Willis Creek
Creek
Unnamed
18-37-3-(1)
B
WS-IV
Cumberland
From Source
to dam at McGougans Lake
Tribu
Unnamed
18-37-3-(2)
B
WS-N
Cumberland
From Dam at McGougans
Lake to Willis Creek
Tribu
Georgia.
18-38
C
WS-N
Bladen
From Source
Branch
to Cape Fear River
Mine's Creek
18-38-1-(1)
B
WS-IV
Bladen
From Source
to dam at Pages Lake
Mine's Creek
18-38-1-(2)
C
WS-N
Bla.den
From dam at Pages Lake
to Georgia Branch
DEQ-CFW 00070008

A-1
- N.00'0
SS .460 - N.00'0
OS.KO
J�
�
'"
-4
J . , x i
r
'1 >.'F �� _ '-b ._ - Z'•:�.�1 Q.
_ rt} \ , i 11i • _ 7— _ .1 1
�J�_�
,_ . .
:-�'' -. It �- _.,F.:1
7k,
- ---1 - ��.. , /'. i1 - .:"�- i'S•_�-•• c
�S._ $.-�_}-7�+. .. .. r
�•'--•-'a` �._ ,
�-i
' _'�. �'___ •
..y :Y•C,.
a :rf� �-""—�= :t .IC• u •'j
._ ..-� ;J. -i: ��.
} I S �
- - '.�, ,' t �.;J"Yt ! f 1 � - •'xa..
.�,�y J� r tt }
- ,
r.L_ ''.`ax.' 7'fd.-. 3.# ��• {
,9 t i ia: 'IV , + � �' i J
_'�z� ..r �• � . (• {�'!-+j`+_ l�j aJri; '�^tr
. %.. yr � .1 �1 . ei4 �_ t A � —
1 •/"•'t - 1' I •, ,. �
3- •" ,_ l _ T '- f � � `
,
I=. �
c7 '• a {', {(!{,.
� i J i,. • ,.:'.�. •_, ..� I .�., �. �. ,. S-' '+ :
! r� S\1 .If aa. Lv� ;J,•. �' 1J7 f, -:' '?S�.
i s ' ';ftJ_ f ' _ — .r,>'�'- i . _ J
� i '•'s'ir, ���. � J_,. �-•. � '�•�c
—' i 1._
_ i L lj; , ti lFi' • E
— 1• t Ic : Fa'
L.
G11 Tfl
,�C.ii�
tee. i:fi/
F... .+ .}
' .i•^ 1, 1•
iI
'
�y
�' ` `:`
- .1 /� ' • �r
mil•_
,,ram ! ; f�•
,' ' jf
'
'r•
+}L 1. ••i.. 1-
f'
•_
A.
DEQ-CFW 00070009

INK
Cooperative Agreement between the
Environmental Management Commission, the Division of Water Resources,
and the Lumber River Council of Governments
October 14.2004
'fibs cooperative agreement between the Env-wonmental Management Commission, the Division of Water
Resources, and the Lumber River Council of Governments (which represents local governments and
stakeholders in Bladen, Columbus, Hoke. Robeson, Sampson and Scotland Counties) will assure that ground-
water levels and withdrawals arc monitored and recorded, that a regional plan for long-range, sustainable water
supply sources is developed, and Beat ground water level declines are managed to avoid damage to the
aquifers. The EMC will roview progress at least annually to assure that the specific milestones are met The
agreement allows local water users the opportunity to take responsibility for planning and managing water
resources on`a long range, sustainable basis. the BMC retains die authority to begin the development of
capacity use area rules at any tittle if it determines that progress under this agreement to resolve water
management problems is not satisfactory_
Time mcgion's water users and the LRCOG wr11 undertake the following strategies and objectives:
• improve the regional monitoring well network with a goal of investing $1.50,000 per year over five
Yew
• By February 2006, Smithfield Foods, Inc, is expected to develop a plan for sustainable water sources
either acting alone or in partnership with Bladen County and possibly with other users. The plan
must be satisfactory to the Division of Water Resources. Smithfield Foods or a partnership of water
users, if such a partnership is formed, wilf make quarterly progress reports to the Division starring in
January 2005.
• alternative water sources planning assistance by LRCOG co regional water users, including. shifting
users to surface water sources, !using reclaimed water, reducing waste of water and improving water
use of iciettcy, developing shallower aquifers, and adding interconnections amongwater systems
• arrange a 2M5 agricultural water use survey by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services with periodic updates
develop conservation and rc= strategies for cacti sector of water supply, including assistance from
the Division of Pollution Pmvention and Environmental Assistance with industrial. users; cffomts by .
the North Carolina Cooperative Extension with irrigators, agri-business and intensive livestock users;
and efforts by LRCOG to promote water efficiency rate structures and public water system
transmission line integrity
develop regional water supply plans for 2030 that encompass additional water sources, environmental
protection, Enter -system cooperatioth, and regional water =ource Management
Y:
Dr. 676vitW Tkoreau, Chajarm fivision
N. Motris,.i7it�or 4Dtor
perry, Executivel
Environmental Management of Water Resources
Commission Lumber River Council of
Governments
DEQ-CFW 00070010

Coutttp of �[aDerr
NoarD of Cnmmiggionerg
- �ie�u[ution
Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of BIaden County
in Support of the Bladen Bluffs Regional Surface Water System
Whereas, the Board of Commissioners of Bladen.County (the Board) finds that the
-- -
a liliy of wafer ? t? �0i t�A1yallLd s
45"-�_
instrumental to the economic well-being of Bladen County, particularly as it relates ,to
the growth of industry and agriculture, and the development of commercial and
residential properties; and
Whereas, the Board finds that the continued availability of such water requires
management of long-range susfiainable water supply sources; and
Whereas, the Board finds that the preservation of regional groundwater resources in
Bladen County and surrounding areas Necessitates the evaluation of alternative water
sources, including surface water; and .
Whereas, the Lower' Cape Fear Water & Sewer Authority (the Authority) is a nonprofit
public agency organized under the provisions of the North Carolina Water and Sewer
Authorities Act; and
Whereas, -the Authority is authorized to construct and operate water and sewer systems
located withixt its service area consisting of Bladen, Brunswick, Columbus, New
Hanover, and.Pender Counties, and the City of Wilmington; and
Whereas, Bladen County is a member of the Authority; and
Whereas; the Authority and Smithfield Packing Company, Inc. (SPC) signed a
Memorandum of Understanding dated January, 9, 2006 re
gardixtg the development,,
construction and operation of a raw water intake behind Lock and Dam Number 2 on
the Cape Fear River and a raw water, storage reservoir and a water treatment.plent in
Tar Heel, North Carolina and with the. possibility of additional capacity to serve the
needs of regional, local goverment and other industrial users (the Project); and
Whereas, the name of the Project shall be the Bladen Bluffs Regional Surface Water
System; and
M
A-z-
DEQ-CFW 00070011

EM
Whereas, the Authority and SPC have negotiated and executed a Project Development
Agreement (the PDA) that specifies the rights and responsibilities of both parties with
respect to the Project; and
Whereas, pursuant to the PDA, the Authority is responsible for obtaining all approvals
relating to the construction and financing of the Project including obtaining all required
local, State and Federal, land -use, environmental and other regulatory approvals and
water rights; and
Whereas, the preparation of an Environmental Assessment by the Authority and the
issuance of'a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) by the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources is a prerequisite to the issuance of
several required permits for the Project; and
Whereas, the construction of the Project and use of surface water for water supply
Purposes will require a reclassification (the Reclassification) of a portion of the Cape
Fear River from a Class "C" surface water to a "WS-IV" water supply classification; and
Whereas, the Reclassification must be approved through rulemaldng by the North
Carolina Environmental Management Commission; and
Whereas, the Authority has initiated work on the Project by awarding contracts for the
preparation of the Environmental Assessment and the Request for Reclassification; and
Whereas, the Authority intends to submit the Environmental Assessment and the
Request for Reclassification for approval by appropriate State and Federal regulatory
agencies;
Now Wherefore Be It Resolved, that the Chairman and Board of Commissioners of
Bladen County hereby endorse the Project and support the issuance of the required
regulatory approvals, including the FONSI and the Reclassification; and
Be It Farther Resolved, that the Chaim= and Board of Commissioners of Bladen
County resolve to consider purchasing water from the Authority upon completion of
construction of the Project and in accordance with the terms of an executed Treated
Water Service .Agreement
Adopted this & day of �, 2006
k' �
1
Greg Taylo-�e�nan
Bladen County d of Commissioners
9
DEQ-CFW 00070012

A-22
(%Countp of Paben � �G
38oarb of Commig;5ionerg
�e�orutrort
WHEREAS, the Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority has submitted to the State
of North Carolina a request for reclassification of a segment of the Cape Fear River in
Bladen and Cumberland County to Class Water Supply IV (WS-IV) and Class WS-IV
CA (Critical Area Classification).
the river which will provide a potable water supply for the Smithfield Packing Company
and, potentially, for several counties and municipalities in the southern coastal plain; and,
WBEREAS, this proposal is an outgrowth of the October 2004 Cooperative Agreement
entered.into by the Environmental Management Commission, Division of Water
Resources, and Lumber River Council of Governments, to assure that "a regional plan for
long-range sustainable water supply sources is developed" that would include
Smithfield's participation; and
WHEREAS, there are not any known planned discharges and developments in the entire
proposed reclassification area that would likely be affected by the proposed
reclassification.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Bladen County Board of
Commissioners supports this proposed reclassification of the Cape Fear River; and,
BE IT FUTBER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be submitted to the
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources -Division of Water Quality,
Planning Section.
Adopted this 4d day of AU.,6 '008. .
Mqypfet Lewis -Moore, Chairperson
Bladen County Board of Commissioners
ATTEST:
Ashley C. Sasser, Clerk
U
DEQ-CFW 00070013

A-23
Cumberland County Board,.of Commissioners
Resolution of Support
For the Bladen Bluffs Regional Surface Water System
Whereas, the Board of Commissioners of Cumberland County (the Board) finds
that the availability of water suitable for industrial use, irrigation, and human
consumption is instrumental to the economic well-being of Cumberland County,
particularly as it relates to the growth of industry and agriculture, and the development of
commercial and residential properties; and
Whereas, the Board,finds that the continued availability of adequate water
resources will be promoted by the management of long-range sustainable water supplies;
and
Whereas, the Board finds that the preservation of the regional groundwater
resources supplying Cumberland and surrounding Counties will be enhanced by the
development of alternative water sources, including surface waters; and
Whereas, the Tower Cape Fear Water & Sewer Authority (the Authority) is a non-
profit public agency organized under the provisions of the North Carolina Water and
Sewer Authorities Act to construct and operate water and sewer systems in Bladen,
Brunswick, Columbus, New Hanover and Pender Counties and the City of Wilmington;
and
Whereas, the Authority and Smithfield Packing Company, Inc., (Smithfield) have
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated January 9, 2006, with respect to the
terms, conditions and important elements regarding the development, construction and
operation of an up to 35 million gallons per day raw water intake located behind Lock
and Dam Number 2 on the Cape Fear River and a raw water storage reservoir and a water
treatment plant to meet the needs of Smithfield's facility located in Tarheel, North
Carolina, with the possibility of additional capacity to serve the needs of regional, local
government and other industrial users (the Project); and
Whereas, the name of the Project shall be the Bladen Bluffs Regional Surface
Water System; and
Whereas, the Authority has determined and reported that the Project will diminish
the demand for groundwater which, in turn, will allow the recharge of regional aquifers,
thereby increasing groundwater storage volume and improving its quality by reducing the
intrusion of salt water; and
Whereas, the construction of the Project and the use of the surface water will
require a reclassification of a portion of the Cape Fear River from a Class "C" surface
x
DEQ-CFW 00070014

A-24
water to a "WS-IV" water supply classification (the Reclassification), including
approximately 18,000 acres in southern Cumberland County; and
Whereas, the Reclassification must be approved through rulemaking by the North
Carolina Environmental Management Commission; and
Whereas, the Authority must prepare an Environmental Assessment and the North
Carolina. Department of Environment and Natural Resources must issue a Finding of No
Significant Impact as a prerequisite to permitting the Project; and
Whereas, the Authority has asked the Board to adopt a resolution endorsing the
Project, the Reclassification and the required regulatory approvals.
Now therefore be it resolved, that the Board of Commissioners of Cumberland
County hereby endorses the Project, without objection to the necessary reclassification of
that portion of the Cape Fear River basin within the county's jurisdiction, subject to the
conditions that:
(1) The Project is developed incident to a plan for the development of sustainable
water sources satisfactory to and approved by the Division of Water Resources -
as contemplated by the Cooperative Agreement between the Environmental
Management Commission, the Division of Water Resources, and the Lumber
River Council of Governments dated October 14, 2004.
(2) The long-term impacts of the Project in conjunction with existing and planned
surface water use from the entire Cape Fear River Basin be fully considered by
the appropriate regulatory agencies.
(3) The Authority shall keep Cumberland County informed of the filing of all
permit applications, agencies' requests for written comments, public hearings,
and regulatory hearings conducted incident to the permitting process.
Adopted this 4 h day of December, 2006.
Cumberland County Board of Commissioners
By:
Kenneth S: Edge, Chairm
12
DEQ-CFW 00070015

NIM
ANNOUNCEMENT
PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF CAPE FEAR RIVER:
PUBLIC HEARING SET FOR AUGUST
The N.C. Department of Environment -and Natural
Resources on behalf of the Environmental
Management Commission (EMC) will conduct a
public hearing in order to receive public comments on
the proposed reclassification of a segment of the Cape
Fear River in Bladen and Cumberland Counties
(Cape Fear River Basin) to the Class Water SuppIy-
IV (WS-IV) and Class WS-IV CA (Critical Area)
classifications.
PUBLIC HEARING
Location: Multipurpose/Auditorium Bldg.
Bladen Community College
7418 Highway 41 West
Dublin, NC
Date: August 14, 2008
Time: 6:30
GENERAL DEFINITION OF PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION
A Water Supply -IV (WS-IV) water is protected as a water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes
and for those uses where a higher WS classification (such as WS-I, II, or III) is not feasible. WS-IV waters are
generally located in moderately to highly developed watersheds. In addition, a Critical Area (CA) is defined as the
area within approximately one half mile and draining to a river intake for WS-IV waters. A Protected Area (PA) for
WS-IV waters is defined as the area within 10 miles and draining to a river intake. .
BACKGROUND OF RECLASSIFICATION REQUEST
A request for reclassification of a segment of the Cape Fear River was submitted by the Lower Cape Fear Water and
Sewer Authority ("Authority"). The purpose for this rule change is to allow a new intake structure to be placed in
the river. Initially, the new intake will provide a potable water supply for the Smithfield Packing Company. In the
future, the intake will provide a source of potable water for potentially several southern coastal plain municipalities.
The waters to be reclassified meet water supply water quality standards according to 2007 DWQ studies. The
Division of Water Resources (DWR) and Division of Environmental Health (DEH) Public Water Supply (PWS)
Section do not object to the proposed reclassification.
In October 2004, the EMC, the DWR, and the Lumber River Council of Governments (COG) entered into a
cooperative agreement to assure that area groundwater resources are monitored and "a regional plan for long-range,
sustainable water supply sources is developed" that would include Smithfield's participation and investigation of
additional water sources, including surface water sources..A regional plan was developed, the Authority was formed
to include representation of several municipalities, and this proposed reclassification is an outgrowth of that plan.
WATERS TO BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION
The river segment requested for reclassification is currently Class C. The portion of the river proposed to be
reclassified to WS-IV CA extends along the river from the proposed intake, which is to be placed approximately 2
miles upstream of County Road 1316, to a point approximately 0.5 miles upstream of the proposed intake. There are
no named tributaries to the Cape Fear River in the proposed CA. The portion of the river proposed to be reclassified
to WS-IV (PA) extends along the river from a point approximately 0.5 miles upstream of the proposed intake to a
point approximately 1 mile upstream of Grays Creek. The proposed PA includes the entire length of several named
tributaries, as well as the lower portions of many named tributaries, to the Cape Fear River; most of these waters are
presently classified C and would be reclassified to WS-IV (PA), and the remaining waters, which carry the B
classification, would be reclassified to WS-IV (PA) & B. Approximately 160 acres of land will become CA, and
nearly 30,628 acres of land will become PA.
REGULATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION
If reclassified, development and discharge requirements associated with the WS-IV CA and WS-IV (PA)
classifications will apply. There are several animal operations and one NPDES wastewater discharger, Dupont
Fayetteville Works, in the proposed water supply watershed; the above -mentioned animal operations and discharger
most likely will not be impacted by current regulations associated with this reclassification. There are not any known
planned dischargers and developments in the entire proposed reclassification area that would likely be affected by
1�
DEQ-CFW 00070016

A-26
the proposed reclassification according to DWQ staff in the Fayetteville Regional Office and local government staff.
Forestry and farming practices will not be affected.
The local governments that have land use jurisdiction within the proposed water supply watershed are responsible for
developing and implementing the water supply watershed ordinances within the Protected Area and the Critical Area.
These local governments will have 270 days after the effective date of the proposed reclassification to develop or
modify water supply watershed protection ordinances that must at least meet the state's minimum requirements (15A
NCAC 2B .0100 and .0200). The local governments with jurisdiction in the proposed water supply watershed consist
of Bladen County and Cumberland County, which support and do not object to the proposal, respectively.
HOW TO SUBMIT COMMENTS
You may attend the public hearing and make relevant verbal comments, and/or submit written comments, data or
other relevant information by September 15, 2008. The Hearing Officer may limit the length of time that you may
speak at the public hearing, if necessary, so that all those who wish to speak may have an opportunity to do so.
The EMC is very interested in all comments pertaining to the proposed reclassification. All persons interested and
-----___ ,,e. I.T-afF c+vd-b=-� r -os=*I „p-stron�t-Pne�r,raaP�-rn-r-earl-r-hLs_entire=anuo ncementand---make=co unectts=on__... _--------_-----
the proposed reclassification. The EMC may not adopt a rule that differs substantially from the text of the proposed
rule published in the North Carolina Register unless the EMC publishes the text of the proposed different rule and
accepts comments on the new text (see General Statute 150B 21.2 (g)). The proposed effective date.for the final rule
pursuant to this hearing process is May 1, 2009 pending EPA approval. Written comments may be submitted to
Elizabeth Kountis of the Water Quality Planning Section at the postal address, e-mail address, or fax number listed
below.
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Division of Water Quality rules are located on the internet at http'//www newaterquality.org/admin/rules/. In
addition, this announcement is located on the internet via hD://www.ncwateMuality.orgladmipipubinfo/pubinfo.html
(look under "Calendar" link), and more information about the waters proposed to be reclassified, including.4 map of
these waters, is located on the internet at http://www.ncwatgMualiV.orc-r/admin/emc/AGENDAMAY2008.htm (look
under 11.5.). Further explanations and details on reclassifications may be obtained by writing or calling.
Elizabeth Kountis
DENR-Division of Water Quality, Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
phone [phone]
fax [phone]
[e-mail]
In the case of inclement weather on the day of the scheduled public hearing, please contact the above telephone
number for a recorded message regarding any changes to the location, day or time of the hearing.
14
DEQ-CFW 00070017

North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
July 11, 2008
MEMORANDUJ1\4
TO: Ed Bccic
FROM: Coleen Sul]'
SUBJECT: Hearing Officer Designation
I hereby designate.you as the Hearing Officer for the august 14, 2008 public Bearing in
Duplin, North Carolina. The hearing will be conducted at 6:30 p.m. in the
Multiputpose/Auditorium Building on the campus of Blade» Community College. The
purpose un
of the hearing is to receive public conents on the proposed reel assifcation of a
segiuent of the Cape rear River in Bladen and Cuinberland Counties.to Class Water
Supply-N (WS-IV) and Class WS-IV Critical Area (CA).
You. are requested to hold the heating and receive all relevant comments. Following the
close of the hearing record on September 15, 2008, staff will work with you in
developing findings and recnmmenda.tions to be considered by the EMC. If reclhssified,
the effectiye date oFthe rule, providec no legislative review is required, is expected to be
gray'., 2009.
A copy of the public announcement for this hearing will be forwarded to you soon. I
appreciate your wi ingness to be a Dart of this rule -malting process. IEyou have any
questions; please contact Elizabeth Kountis.
W'. Elizabeth Kountis
Meagen Benton.
IN
3lj lku 0 `j 7.0f"f�
DEQ-CFW 00070018

A-28
LIST OF ATTENDEES
PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF CAPE FEAR RIVER
PUBLIC HEARING: AUGUST 14, 2008 DUBLIN, NC
Hearing Officer
Beck
Ed
Surface Water Protection Supervisor, Wilmington Regional Office
Other Division of Water Quality Staff (CSU = Classifications and Standards Unit)
Kountis
Elizabeth
Senior Environmental Specialist, CSU, Planning Section
Clark
Alan
Chief, Planning Section
Faerber
Matthew
Classifications, GIS and Mapping, CSU, Planning Section
Manning
Jeff
Supervisor, CSU, Planning Section
Deamer
Nora
Cape River Basin Planner, Basinwide Planning Program Unit, Planning Section
Moore
Sandra
State Standards Co -coordinator, CSU, Planning Section
Remington
Nikki
Surface Water and Groundwater Standards, CSU, Planning Section
Kreiser
Gary
Groundwater Variance and Rulemaking, CSU, Planning Section
Caldwell
Pete
Supervisor, Intensive Survey Unit, Environmental Sciences Section
Henson
Belinda
Surface Water Protection Supervisor, Fayetteville Regional Office
Citizens in Attendance (*=made verbal comments
Last Name
First Name
Entity Representing
CY
Co un
State
Elkins
Greg
Bladen County
Elizabethtown
Bladen
NC*
Morris
Robert
Bladen County
Elizabethtown
Bladen
NC
Springer
Doug
Cape Fear Riverkeeper and River Watch
Wilmington
New Hanover
NC*
Dowbiggin
Bill
CDM
Raleigh
Wake
NC
Buckley
Brenan
CDM
Raleigh
Wake
NC
Ham
Chad
City of Fayetteville
Fayetteville
Cumberland
NC*
Sallos
Leroy
Columbus County
Whiteville
Columbus
NC
Davis
Amanda
Columbus County
Whiteville
Columbus
NC
Melvin
Ed
Cumberland County
Fayetteville
Cumberland
NC
Cooney
Tom
Cumberland County
Fayetteville
Cumberland
NC*
Lloyd
Tom
Cumberland County
Fayetteville
Cumberland
NC*
Raynor
Harvey
Cumberland County
Fayetteville
Cumberland
NC
Sanchez -King
Morelia
HUA
Hampstead
Ponder
NC
Council
George
Landowner
White Oak
Bladen
NC
Council
Patricia
Landowner
White Oak.
Bladen
NC
Betz
Don
Lower Cape Fear Water & Sewer Authority
Leland
New Hanover
NC*
Perry
Jim
Lumber River Council of Governments
Lumberton
Robeson
NC*
Melvin
Julie
NA
Fayetteville
Cumberland
NC
Alvarez
Alex
NA
Hampstead
Ponder
NC
Moms
Rick
NCDA
Bladenboro
Bladen
NC
Ward
William
Self
Clarkton
Bladen.
NC
Edge
Phil
Self
NA
NA
NA*
Johnson
Larry
Smithfield
Tar Heel
Bladen
NC*
Bailey
Keith
Smithfield
Smithfield
Isle of Wight
VA
LaBudde
Sylvia
Smithfield .
NA
NA
NA
Brisson
William
State House of Representatives
Dublin
Bladen
NC*
Cox
Stevie
Town of Chadbourn
Chadbourn
Columbus
NC
Bryant
Alton
Town of Elizabethtown
Elizabethtown
Bladen
NC
16
DEQ-CFW 00070019

Good Evening, I am uon Metz, me nxeLuuvc l- µ- ---r - - -- . - - --
Authority whom is the applicant for the proposed reclassification of the Cape. Fear River to
Water Supply IV. The Lower Cape Fear Water & Sewer Authority was incorporated May 13,
1970 as a regional water supplier with a 45 MGD Intake/Pump Station located behind Lock and
Dam #1 on the Cape Fear River, this intake is also located in Bladen County. The LCFWASA
membership consists of the Counties of Bladen, Brunswick, Columbus, Pender, New Hanover
and the City of Wilmington. Each member has one or more representatives on the Board of
Directors.
This original Intake/pump Station provides a dependable and cost effective regional water
supply via Water Supply Agreements with Brunswick County, Pender County, and New
Hanover County by way of assignment of the previous water agreement to the new Cape Fear
Public Utility Authority (effective July 1, 2008) as well as two Industrial Companies.
Brunswick County, Pender County and New Hanover County also have ground water supply
systems. The Lower Cape Fear Water & Sewer Authority provides a balance to these county
water systems with its surface water asset to assist in modifying the over all effect of the
environmental impact upon the areas aquifers.
The Lower Cape Fear Water & Sewer Authority has successfully set up this model of
regionalism with balancing surface water resources with ground water resources for over
twenty five years. This model is the initiative for the proposed Bladen Bluffs Regional Surface
Water System with an intake in the Cape Fear River at Tar Heel to provide an alternative source
of drinking water for the region via a 30 MGD raw water intake/pump station and a 4 to 6 MGD
drinking water treatment plant. The resulting benefit of the proposed reclassification willallow
the Authority to utilitmately serve its two remaining member counties, Bladen and Columbus
with a surface water system thus balancing those counties reliance on ground water with an
alternative..
The additional surface water system on the Cape Fear River, as a result of the reclassification
application, will provide an additional drought relief asset, during those times, as well as
position the region for additional economic growth. It also positions the Authority to provide
an opportunity for users to enable the aquifer to replenish itself by switching to a surface water
system from the current groundwater systems.
Furthermore, this location may provide, in the near term, an alternative source of drinking
water to the residents of Cumberland County currently served by a groundwater. system only
about eight miles to the west of the proposed project site. In the long term view, it is
Lower Gape Fear Water d- SeaverAutbority
1107 New Pointe Blvd, Suite 17 phn 910-383.1919 fax [phone]
www.lafwasa.org
Leland, North Carolina 28451
Water is our business
DEQ-CFW 00070020

A-30
conceivable that this system may serve as a surface water alternative to the City of Clinton and
the Sampson County ground water systems.
Reference is made to the Cooperative Agreement, dated October 2004, in which the
Environmental Management Commission, the Division of Water Resources and the Lumber.
River Council of Governments entered into. The "charge" of this agreement was to develop "a
regional plan for long-range sustainable water supply sources that would include Smithfield
-- -. _— _ r--�� �- - lira ls� nelrn_�:e-,u-rfac-e-W_ater_S�17rCeS!' The
Packing t ompany s paru�-�pa-Orr Le=-kl-- -1., -
Cooperative Agreement called for a regional plan proposal to be presented to the EMC by the
end of February 2006. The Lumber River Council of Governments facilitated a stakeholders
group to review the process for a regional plan and engaged an Engineering Firm (HUA) to
conduct a feasibility report.
While that was in process the Lower Cape Fear Water &.Sewer Authority presented to
Smithfield Packing Company a conceptual plan and illustrated to the many stakeholders that a
Public Water Authority already existed in Bladen County. The Authority and Smithfield
Packing Company signed an MOU in January of 2006 and together provided the concept for the
regional surface water system to the EMC by the date required in the Cooperative Agreement.
In October, 2006 the parties initiated a Project Development Agreement which.provided for the
submissions of an Application for Reclassification and an Environmental Assessment
0
document.
Recently the Bladen Bluffs Regional Surface Water System received its Finding of No Significant
Impact or FONIS from DENR allowing the project to move forward to final design, permitting,
bidding and construction. Tonight DENR-is conducting the Public Hearing for the Application
for Reclassification of the surface water source so that the project can become a reality. This
regional surface water system will be financed by the issuance of Revenue Bonds by the
Authority in 2009, however such a business enterprise needs immediate customers to pay the
and interest payments 'of the debt. Thus, the:primary customer of this surface water
principal
system is the Authority's partner, Smithfield Packing Company located south east of the project
facility along NC 87. This regional surface water system will provide a transition for SPC from
its current ground water system.
However, with the location of this newsurface water system positioned along this east/west
corridor it is easily accessible to the existing. Bladen County ground water distribution system
and allows for the future assistance of USDA to financially assist other municipal systems both
large and small:
M
DEQ-CFW 00070021

A-3 -1
By the end of the end of the comment period, September 15, 2008 the project itself will be at a
60% design level, with final design completed by the end of 2008. The current projected cost of
the project is approximately 25 million dollars however a recent cost review included a 5.6%
increase over projection in October of 2007. With current inflationary conditions it is
conceivable that the project will approach 27.1 million dollars before construction is finished in
2011.
The Board of Directors of the Lower Cape Fear Water & Sewer Authority has respectfully
requested the reclassification of the proposed section of the Cape Fear River to WS-IV as the
Bladen Bluffs Regional Surface Water System will provide an alterative drinking water source
not now available in this region to service various county, city, town, and industrial water
systems now relying solely on ground water aquifer withdrawals.
Thank you,
Don Betz
Executive Director
LCFWASA .
August 14, 2008
M.
DEQ-CFW 00070022

A-32
Lumber River Council of Governments
4721 Fayetteville Road
Lumberton, North Carolina. 28358
Lnc Tel. [phone] o Fax [phone]
Dedicated to Regional Excellence F Mail: lrcog@lumberrivercog org
web: wwwlumberrivercog-org
August 14, 2008
Elizabeth Kountis
DENR-Division of Water Quality, Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Dear Ms. Kountis;
This letter is being written in support of the proposed reclassification of a portion of
the Cape Fear River in Bladen and Cumberland Counties for the purpose of
constructing a surface water intake_. by the' :Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer
Authority (LCFWSA).
Under a cooperative agreement _(copy attached)• between the LRCOG, the
Environmental Management Commission °'(EMC) grthe Division of Water
id
Resources (DWR), our agency has been' working with water stakeholders in the
Southern Coastal Plain to monitor ground water use and develop `plans for future
alternate water supplies: Part of this agreement pointed to the need for Smithfield
Packing Company in Bladen County to develop an alternate source of water for its
production facility. Specifically it was suggested that a surface water intake on the
Cape Fear River be developed.
In cooperation with the LCFWSA, Smithfield and water stakeholders in and around
Bladen County have worked to accomplish this concept. This reclassification is a
key to the continued development of this facility and meeting the state's request to
keep ground water levels from declining.
We urge the Division of Water Quality and EMC approve this request.
Sincerely,
ames Perry,
Executive Director
Attachment
BLADEN COUNTY
Bladenboro - Clarkton - Dublin
East Arcadia - Elizabethtown
Tar Heel - White Lake
HOKE COUNTY
Raeford
MEMBER GOVERNMENTS
RICHMOND COUNTY
Dobbins Heights - Ellerbe
Hamlet - Hoffman - Norman
Rockingham
SCOTLAND COUNTY
Gibson - LaLTTgburg - Wagram
ROBESON COUNTY
Fairmont - Lumber Bridge
Lumberton - Marietta - Maxton
Orrum - Parkton - Pembroke
Proctorville - Red Springs - Rennert
Rowland - St. Pauls
DEQ-CFW 00070023

A.-33
August 27, 2008
Elizabeth Kountis
DENR-Division of Water Quality, Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Dear Ms..Kountis;
This letter is sent by local governments in Bladen County in support of the proposed
reclassification of a portion of the Cape Fear River in Bladen and Cumberland Counties for the
purpose of constructing a surface water intake by the Lower Cape Fear- Water and Sewer
Authority (LCFWSA).
The Municipal and .County Association of Bladen (MCAB) represents local governments in
Bladen County. The MCAB, at its August 26th meeting approved sending this letter in support of
the LCFWSA and its proposed reclassification.
Under a cooperative agreement between the. Lumber River Council of Governments (LRCOG),
the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) and the Division of Water Resources .
(DWR), water stakeholders in Bladen County and Southern Coastal Plain have been working
together to monitor ground water use and develop plans for future alternate water supplies.
Part of this agreement pointed to the need for Smithfield Packing Company in Bladen County to
develop an alternate source of water for its production facility. Specifically it was suggested that
a surface water intake on the Cape Fear River be developed.
In cooperation with the LCFWSA, Smithfield and water stakeholders in and around Bladen
County have worked to accomplish this concept. This reclassification is a key to the continued
development of this facility and meeting the state's request to keep ground water levels from
declining.
We urge the Division of Water Quality and EMC approve this request.
Since ly,
Larry Smit , President
Municipal and County Association of Bladen
DEQ-CFW 00070024

A-34
Public Comments on the Proposed Reclassification of the Cape Fear
River to Class WS-IV
Charles Ham, Public Works Commission (PWC) of the City of Fayetteville
Phone - (910)-223-4702
Email - [e-mail]
My name is Chad Ham and I am the Environmental Programs manager for the Public
Works Commission - PWC - of the City of Fayetteville. We have a few comments on the
PWC is the primary provider of water and sewer service for the City of Fayetteville and
most of Cumberland County. In this role, our organization has a strong interest in
protection of water quality of the Cape Fear River. We depend on the Cape Fear River for
most of our water supply and we rely on our neighbors upstream and the State to ensure
that we have good quality and sufficient quantity of water. to serve: our customers.
Likewise, PWC operates two water reclamation facilities that discharge to the Cape Fear
River. We recognize that the water we discharge has the potential to affect water quality in
the Cape Fear River downstream of Fayetteville and in particular, to affect downstream
water intakes such as the current intake operated by Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer
Authority near Lock and Dam No.1. PWC takes the responsibility of water quality
protection seriously and strives for the highest performance of our facilities to protect water
quality.
22
DEQ-CFW 00070025

In addition, PWC has been very involved with protection efforts for the Cape Fear River.
First, we worked with our neighboring communities, industries, and interested parties in
the middle portion of the basin to form the Middle Cape Fear River Basin Association in
1998. This association has operated an extensive monitoring program of over 30 water
quality stations in the middle basin since 1998. The group has also funded a number of
special studies to investigate water quality issues. PWC and the association have actively
worked with the Division of Water Quality on each Basinwide water quality management
plan they have developed as well as all other major water quality issue. PWC has also
worked closely with the Division of Water Resources on water quantity issues and has twice
provided funding to support development of a Basinwide hydrological model.
In regard to the proposed reclassification, PWC already has treatment requirements that
were developed, in part, to protect downstream use of the river as a water supply.
Currently, the river is classified WS-V and WS-IV - beginning approximately 48 miles
downstream of the discharge of our Rockfish Creek Water Reclamation Facility. The
proposed WS-IV protected area will begin about 12 miles downstream from our Rockfish
WRF discharge. Based on our knowledge of the river and river basin and informal
discussions with DWQ staff, we have concluded that there will be no changes in our
regulatory requirements as a result of this reclassification. There is a large amount of
assimilation provided by the Cape Fear River and the proposed intake will still be about 17
miles downstream of our discharge. We request that if there are potential changes to our
NPDES permit requirements that they be identified as part of this process and be presented
as part of the rule -making record. We also request that this information be shared with PWC
prior to EMC action on this request.
M
DEQ-CFW 00070026

A-36
Again, we thank you an opportunity to speak tonight. My contact information is included
on my written statement if you have any questions.
24
DEQ-CFW 00070027

.A.-3'7
August 29, 2008
Citizens For Clean Industry
P. 0. Box 339
Elizabethtown, NC 28337
Elizabeth Kountis
DENR-Division of Water Quality, Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Re: Public Hearing comments on proposed reclassification of
Cape Fear River:for Smithfield Foods.
We have many concerns about this proposal. Some of.them
include:
1. Groundwater distress from SFI is already noted and
documented.
2. Plans to draw from four to as much as thirty million
gallons per day will certainly have some negative impact
on the Cape Fear River and on the Cape Fear River Basin.
More study needs to be done.
3. Who is the Bladen Bluff ..Regional Surface Treatment
Plant? Is this a new company? Where are they located?
Is this a new venture or have they done this before? What
is their envitonmental track record?
4. Land owners will have a negative impact from this.
"Tighter restrictions" should be clearly defined and the
impact on land owners and input from them needs to be
more fully addressed.
B. An environmental impact study needs to be done
on -this project to prevent further damage to the river
and surrounding lands.
Sii'ncerely,/f
1 1K,2G -�..r,� (� A
Miriam Clark
MareBeth Edge
Citizens For Clean Industry
25
DEQ-CFW 00070028

A-3 8
August 29, 2008
16224 NC Hwy. 53 W.
White Oak, NC 28399
Elizabeth Kountis
DENR-Division of Water Quality, Planning Section
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
Re: Public hearing comments on proposed reclassification of
Cape Fear River for Smithfield'Foods.
We are landowners who own land bordering the Cape Fear River
on both sides. This is a substantial amount of land and
we have owned it for many years.
Our concerns include all of those. expressed by Citizens
for Clean Industry. In addition,-_-we=Utve been negatively
impacted by the Smithfield Foods' plant since it.J4as_.built
in Tar Heel joini:ng;our._farm.- Our air is constantly
polluted, our well has gone dry and -"it is noisy. The truck
traffic is constant.
Now we are facing "tighter restrictions" as to how we may
use our river' land. We have already been restricted enough
from enjoying our daily life. We are opposed to any further
restrictions. This plant has proven that it is detrimental
to the environment.
The ---State will be negligent if an environmental impact study
is not done on this project. We also want to know what
"tighter restrictions" means to us.
Sincerely,_
X.L21Z/J<
Herschel Edge
1,1f 4 ��
Ma/Beth Edge
Van Stout
W
DEQ-CFW 00070029

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
DEQ-CFW 00070030

A- 0
APPENDIX
DEQ-CFW 00070031

S
DEQ-CFW 00070032

DEQ-CFW 00070033

M
Division of Water Quality
January 23, 2008
MEMORANDUM
To: Elizabeth Kountis
From: Harold Quidiey 1�
Laura Spell 1*
Through: Jimmie Overtone
Subject: Cape Fear River Reclassification Study 2007
(subbasins 03-06-15 and 03-06-16)
Findings: 1. Based on fecal coliform sampling (5 events in 30 days), one-time chemical sampling and
review of historical DWQ Ambient Monitoring data, the Cape Fear River in the designated study
area will meet Water Supply IV standards during normal seasonal flow conditions.
2. A single parameter (Bromodichloromethane) was found at levels slightly above the DWQ
water quality standard of 0.55 µg/L in 3 volatile organic (VOA) samples collected in the lower
study reach.
3. It should be noted that the reduction of dilution of the Cape Fear River, in association with the
ongoing drought might have attributed to the slightly increased Bromodichloromethane levels
detected during the study.
Background:
At your request, the Intensive Survey Unit (DWQ) conducted a reclassification study in an approximate 10-mile
reach of the Cape Fear River in Bladen and Cumberland Counties. The Lower Cape Fear River Water and
Sewer Authority (LCFWASA) has requested that the section be reclassified from C to Water Supply -IV [WS-IV
CA and WS-IV (PA)]. The request states that the reclassification is needed in order to install a raw water
(supply) intake. If approved, the raw water intake would supply a 4 MGD surface water treatment plant
(SWTP). The initial water to be withdrawn would be used by Smithfield Packing for all requirements of pork
processing and employee use. The study area includes a 9.97 mile river segment from (Lat34.960111 Long —
78.815278) downstream to (Lat 34.771389 Long-78.797778) near Tar Heel. The proposed intake is located
approximately 1 mile upstream from SR1316 (Myers St. Tar heel).
Drought and hydrology information:
The Cape Fear River reclassification study request was received by the ISU during March 2007, however due to
the extreme drought persisting throughout the summer and fall, field sampling was repeatedly postponed to
assure that study results would reflect water quality in the Cape Fear River during normal seasonal conditions.
During October 2007 it was decided to proceed with a preliminary study even though extreme drought and
unusually low water levels continued to affect the region. On 12/04/07 ISU staff completed the 5-week study
that included physical profiles and chemical sampling at 7 sites in the requested reclassification reach of the
Cape Fear River, (Station Locations Table I and Map Figure 1). Resulting data from the study will also be used
as part of the ongoing drought monitoring effort being conducted by DWQ during 2007-2008. A review of 25-
years of USGS data for William O'Huske Lock and Dam #3 indicates that the mean of monthly discharges for
Environmental Sciences Branch Water Quality Section
A- I
DEQ-CFW 00070034

A-42
the month of November is 3,020 cfs with a range from 978.3 cfs to 10,190 cfs. Preliminary data from the USGS
site for the month of November 2007 (Cape Fear Reclassification Study) indicates that the mean monthly
discharge was < 600 cfs. A total of 0.23 inches of precipitation was recorded at the Lock during the study with
a maximum of 0.17 inches occurring during one event on 11/15/07. River stage remained relatively stable
throughout the study with gage height measurements fluctuating within a relatively narrow range of 0.17 inches.
Mean discharge, gage height (stage) and precipitation data (USGS 02105500 Cape Fear River at William O'
Huske Lock nr Tar Heel, NC) for the month of November 2008 can be found in Table 2.
Table 1 Cape Fear River Reclassification Study Site Locations
CPFl Cape Fear River at upper boundary of requested reclassification reach. Cumberland Co.
Lat 34.906111 Long-78.815278
CPF2 Cape Fear River 0.3 miles downstream from the mouth of Grays Creek. Cumberland Co.
Lat 34.887694 Long-78.815639
CPF3 Cape Fear River 1.5 miles upstream from Willis Creek. Cumberland Co.
Lat 34.872028 Long-78.819444
CPF4 Cape Fear River 250 feet upstream William O'Huske Lock and Dam 3. Bladen Co.
Lat 34.837083 Long-78.823111
CPF5 Cape Fear River 0.73 miles downstream from Georgia Branch. Bladen Co.
Lat 34.807056 Long-78.813611
CPF6 Cape Fear River 0.48 miles downstream from UT Bladen Co.
Lat 34.789111 Long-78.801167
CPF7 Cape Fear River at lower boundary of requested reclassification reach. Bladen Co.
Lat 34.771389 Long-78.797778
Study Parameters:
1. Physical profiles (dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH and conductivity) measured at the surface, mid -depth
and bottom at each site during each sampling event.
2. Fecal coliform samples collected weekly at each site during study, (5 sampling events conducted during a 30-
day period).
3. A one-time. sampling event at each site for water chemistry consisting of the following parameters:
Nitrogen & Phosphorus, (NH3, TKN, NO2 + NO3, NO3, P-Total)
Sulfate
Methylene -Blue -Active Substances (MBAS)
Metals (nickel, calcium and magnesium)
Organochlorine Pesticides
Acid Herbicides
Base/Neutral & Acid Extractable Organics
Purgeable Organics (VOA)
4. Review. of DWQ Ambient Monitoring Station Summary (B8305000 Cape.Fear. River at SR1316 at Tar Heel).
Environmental Sciences Branch Water Quality Section
A-2
DEQ-CFW 00070035

on
Figure 1
Cape Fear River Reclassification Study Sites - 2007
;',Hope mills
;r..... .
- OGri95CFF4 t
f f
Ad D
.._.'!y%y�!ll...• � l!!/l1g fir_ `� —J
Lock and Dam #3
r4 0 LA D E i' '3ni Cab
.... -. _ _
• +Vf_' ;err f ..__�, r '1r '�._. r
CPF6 l
CPF
_ Tar Heel Landing at SR 1318
" Ambient Station: 68305000
eel
A-3
DEQ-CFW 00070036

A-44
Studv Results and Discussion:
Physical Parameters
Physical measurements, (temp, dissolved oxygen, pH and conductivity) were taken at the surface, mid -depth and
bottom during each sampling event at all sites during the study (Table 3). Physical parameters were measured
using a Hydrolab Quanta multi -parameter meter. Meters were calibrated (initial and terminal) using the DWQ
ISU Standard Operating Procedures for Physical and Chemical Monitoring, Version 1.3. Physical profiles
indicated all values to be within acceptable seasonal levels with temperatures gradually decreasing throughout
the month of November. Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.) ranged from 8.01 mg/L to 9.89 mg/L in the study reach with
% saturation levels reaching 90.7% well within the i 10% water quality standard. Conductivity values were
typical for this area of the Cape Fear River ranging from 108 umhos/cm to 180 umhos/cm with the lowest values
recorded during the first week of sampling. A storm event occurred during the week proceeding 11/06/07 (V
sampling event) resulting in an increase in flow and dilution and a subsequent reduction in conductivity values
in the Cape Fear River. Decreasing flow and stage can be seen at Lock and Dam #3 during the first week of the
Iy_(Discharge, Gage Height and Precipitation, Table 2). Values for pH ranged from 6.0 su to 7.9 su at the 7
.-r- - ,.
sites with slightly higher values measured at the surface. These higher values a he surface are fixelY a resu'it
of minimal algal productivity resulting from increased sunlight in the upper portion of the water column. A
review of DWQ Ambient Monitoring System Station Summaries (Table 4) for station B8305000 (Cape Fear
River at SR1316 at Tar Heel) found that all physical parameters measured during the Cape Fear River
reclassification study were typical of water conditions occurring during the period from 01/15/02 through
12/06/06. DWQ ambient monitoring station B8305000 is located 2.07 miles downstream from CPF7.
Fecal Coliform
One focus of the 2007 study was to assess whether the section of the Cape Fear River would meet fecal coliform
bacteria requirements of a geometric mean of less than 2001100 ml (MF count) based on at least five consecutive
samples examined during any 30-day period. The 7 sampling sites were sampled five consecutive times during a
thirty -day period between 11/06/07 and 12/04/07. The resulting data (Table 3) indicated that the geometric
mean for all six sites did not exceed 200/100 ml and did not exceed 400/100 ml in more than 20% of the
samples. Geometric means for each site were well below the limits and ranged from 5.86 /100 ml to 44.7 with
the highest mean detected at CPF1, the uppermost site. The lowest geometric means occurred at the 3 most
downstream sites CPF5 through CPF7 with geometric means ranging from 5.86 to 8.16/100 ml. These values
are consistent the DWQ Ambient Monitoring System Station Summary for station B8305000 (Table 4) which
provides a geometric mean of 471100 ml for a total of 58 samples (02/01/31 to 06/12/12).
Chemical Parameters
Chemical sampling was conducted at sites CPF5, CPF6 and CPF7 on 12/03/07 and at sites CPF1, CPF2, CPF3
and CPF4 on 12/04/07. The DWQ Chemistry Laboratory performed all chemical analyses for the Cape"Fear
River reclassification study.
Metals samples collected during the Cape Fear River reclassification study included nickel (Ni), calcium (Ca)
and magnesium (Mg). All nickel values were reported as "not detected". Calcium and magnesium results were
used to calculate hardness data for the study. Resulting hardness values ranged from 26.35 mg/L to 27.77 mg/L,
below the water quality standard of 100 mg/L. The DWQ Ambient Monitoring System Station Summary for
station B8305000 at Tar Heel (01/15/02 through 12/06/06) indicated 17 sampling events for the following
metals; aluminum (Al), arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), iron (Fe),- lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), nickel
(Ni) and zinc (Zn). Results of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, mercury, lead and nickel were reported as "non
detect' for all samples. A total of 17 copper samples resulted in 2 "non detect" and 2 samples above the action
level standard of 7 µg/L. A total of. 17 iron samples resulted in 5 samples greater than the 1.0 mg/L action level
standard. Analysis for Zinc resulted in 11 samples as "non detect' with the remaining 6 samples below the
water quality standard of 50 µg/L. Metals data for the Cape Fear River reclassification study can be found in
Table 4 (Ambient Monitoring System and Station Summary) and Table 5 (Cape Fear River Water Samples —
Nutrients, Metals, MBAS, Sulfate and Hardness).
Environmental Sciences Branch Water Quality Section
A-4
DEQ-CFW 00070037

f'A-45
Chlorinated Pesticides
Pesticide samples were collected at each site with analysis resulting in all 51 target compounds reported as "non
detect" (Table 6). All 7 sites, had additional unidentified peaks ranging in numbers from 1 to 9. Unidentified
peaks are usually found in pesticide scans and are not considered significant.
Acid Herbicides
Herbicide sample analysis for each site resulted in all 15 target compounds reported as "non detect" with the
number of unidentified peaks ranging from 5 to <10 (Table 6). Unidentified peaks are usually found in
herbicide scans and are not considered significant.
Semivolatile Organics (BNA's)
Semivolatile Organics samples were collected at each site with analysis resulting in all 66 target compounds
reported as "non detect" with 0 unidentified peaks (Table 6).
Volatile Organics (VOA'sl
Volatile organic samples were collected at each site and were analyzed for 60 targeted compounds (Table 6);
Chloroform was detected in all samples and ranged from 0.1 µg/L to 0.91 µg/L with the lowest value detected at
CPF7, the most downstream site. Chloroform is commonly used as a solvent, a reagent and may also be used in
the production of dyes and pesticides. Chloroform values reported for the Cape Fear River reclassification are
below the DWQ water quality standard of 5.6 µg/L.
Bromodichloromethane was detected in VOA samples from all of the Cape Fear River sites with the exception
of CPF4. Reported values for bromodichloromethane were 0.46 µg/L (CPFI), 0.33 µg/L (CPF2), 0.34 µg/L
(CPF3), 0.60 µg/L (CPF5), 0.58 µg/L (CPF6) and 0.61 µg/L (CPF7). Sample results from 3 of the sites listed
above were slightly higher than the DWQ water quality standard of 0.55 µg/L. Most bromodichloromethane is
formed as byproduct when chlorine is added to water -supply systems to kill bacteria.
VOA analysis detected 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene in samples from Sites CPF6 and CPF7. Trimethylbenzene is
primarily used as a gasoline additive. Trimethylbenzene was detected at 0.37 µg/L at site CPF6 and 0.39 µg/L
at site CPF7, both values well below the DWQ water quality standard of 850 µg/L.
Toluene was detected in very low levels in VOA samples collected at CPF6 (0.12 µg/L) and CPF7 (0.14 µg/L).
Both sample results were qualified as (143) = Estimated concentration is <PQL and >MDL. Also detected at
very low levels at CPF6 and CPF7 was m,p-Xylene (0.41 and 0.42 respectively). Both sample results were
qualified as (N3) = Estimated concentration is <PQL and >MDL.
Nutrients
Nutrient levels for NH3, TKN, NO2 + NO3, Nitrate and P total were collected at each of the seven sites (Table
5). NH3 values ranged from 0.03 mg/L to 0.05 mg/L and may be considered lower than typically measured in
this reach of the Cape Fear River. This is evident when comparing these values to DWQ Ambient Monitoring
System Station Summaries for station B8305000 (Cape Fear River at SR1316 at Tar Heel) Table 4. This range
of NH3 values fall between the 10 and 25`h percentile of total observations at the Tar Heel ambient site. This
was likely the result of the drought conditions occurring during the study that provided residence time necessary
for nitrification to take place. This can also be seen in moderately low TKN values (ranging from 1.2 mg/L to
1.5 mg/L) and relatively higher than expected NO2 + NO3 values (ranging from 1.2 mg/L to 1.5 mg/L). Values
for TKN fall between the 10`h and 50`h percentile while NO2 +NO3 values fail in the 90`h percentile indicating
little localized drainage entering the system resulting from low flow conditions. Total. phosphorus values ranged
from 0.17 mg/L to 0.23 mg/L and were found at levels normally detected in the area. Nitrate values ranged from
1.2 mg/L to 1.5 mg/L, below the 10.0 mg/L water quality standard for Class WS-IV waters.
Environmental Sciences Branch rwarer Vuawy aecuun
DEQ-CFW 00070038

A.-46
Additional Chemical Parameters(Sulfate MBAS Fluoride and Chloride)
Sulfate levels were detected in a relatively narrow range of 18 mg/L to 20 mg/L at the study sites, below the 250
mg/L water quality standard for Class WS-IV. MBAS results were found to be at "non detect" levels or at 0.1
mg/L with the water quality standard for Class WS-IV at 0.5 mg/L. Fluoride levels were "non detect" or 0.4
mg/L within the Class WS-IV standard of 1.8 mg/L. Chloride results were reported at 19 mg/L or 20 mg/L at all
sites, below the 250 mg/L water quality standard for Class WS-IV. Sulfate, MBAS, fluoride and chloride data
can be found in Table 5.
cc: Belinda Henson (FRO)
Dianne Reid (Basinwide Plannng Program Unit)
Danny Strickland (FRO)
Environmental Sciences Branch Water Quality Section
_A-6
DEQ-CFW 00070039

-'7
Table 2. William O'Huske Lock and Dam #3 USGS Site 02105500
Mean, Daily Discharge, Gage Height and Precipitation
Date Mean Discharge Mean Gage Height Precipitation
mm/dd/yy cfs ft (stage) in. daily total
11/06/07
669
1.08
0.00
11/07/07
578
0.99
0.00
11/08/07
533
0.94
0.00
11/09/07
506
0.91
0.00
11/10/07
520
0,93
0.00
11/11/07
528
0.93
0.00
11/12/07
518
0.92
0.00
11/13/07
503
0.91
0.00
11/14/07
506
0.91
0.00
11/15/07
517
0.92
0.17
11/16/07
528
0.93
0.00
11/17/07
542
0.95
0.00
11/18/07
546
0.95
0.00
11/19/07
552
0.96
0.00
11/20/07
542
0.95
0.00
11/21/07
540
0.95
0.00
11/22/07
546
0.95
0.02
11/23/07
560
0.97
0.00
11/24/07
539
0.95
0.00
11/25/07
519
0.92
0.01
11 /26/07
558
0.97
0.01
11/27/07
623
1.03
0.01
11/28/07
651
1.07
0.00
11/29/07
*
1.05
0.00
11 /30107
630
1.04
0.00
12101 /07
615
1.03
0.00
12/02/07
601
1.01
0.00
12103/07
603
1.01
0.01
12/04/07
558
1.00
0.00
* no discharge data available for this day
M
DEQ-CFW 00070040

A-48
Table 3. Cape Fear River Physical Data (surface, mid, bottom) and Coliform (surface only, 5 samples in 30 days)
Station
Date
Depth
Time
Temp
DO
pH
Cond
Fecal Coliform
Geometric Mean
mm/ddmyy
s/m/b
hrs
(IC)
(mg/L)
(su)
umhos/cm
#/100 ml
Fecal #1100 for Site
Cape Fear River
11/06/07
surface
1105
14.5
8.16
6.9
112
38
Site: CPF1
11/06/07
mid
1105
14.5
8.01
6.8
112
11/06/07
bottom
1105
14.5
8.06
6.9
112
11/14/07
surface
1115
11.9
8.70
6.6
149
70 (64)
11/14/07
mid
1115
11.9
8.65
6.7
150
11/14/07
bottom
1115
11.9
8.69
6.5
149
11/19/07
surface
1050
1'1.6
8.61
7.4
168
150
11/19/07
mid
1050
11.6
8.78
7.3
168
11/19/07
bottom
1050
11.6
8.67
7.2
169
11/28/07
surface
1120
11.8
8.66
7.0
172
41
11/28/07
mid
1120
11.8
8.59
7.0
172
11/28/07
bottom
1120
11.8
8.85
6.9
172
12/04/07
surface
1200
10.4
9.24
7.4
179
11
-
Cape Fear River
11/06/07
surface
1045
14.8
8.01
6.9
114
36
Site: CPF2
11/06/07
mid
1045
14.6
7.80
6.8
114
11/06/07
bottom
1045
14.6
7.95
6.8
114
11114/07
surface
1055
12.3
8.41
6.7
148
9
11/14/07
mid
1055
12.0
8.42
6.8
150
11/14/07
bottom
1055
12.0
8.41
6.6
150
11/19/07
surface
1030
11.7
8.60
7.5
169
150
11/19/07
mid
1030
11.1
8.62
7.4
170
11/19/07
bottom
1030
11.7
8.60
7.4
170
11/28/07
surface
1100
11.9
8.66
7.2
165
5
11/28/07
mid
1100
11.8
8.70
7.1
165
11/28/07
bottom
1100
11.8
8.58
7.0
165
12/04/07
surface
1120
10.6
8.86
7.5
169
15
12/04/07
mid
1120
10.6
8.82
7.4
169
12/04/07
bottom
1120
10.6
8.84
7.3
169
20•52
Cape Fear River
11/06/07
surface
1020
14.8
7.77
6.8
108
39
Site: CPF3
11/06/07
mid
1020
14.7
7.70
6.8
109
11/06/07
bottom
1020
14.7
7.77
6.8
109
11/14/07
surface
1025
12.1
8.41
6.7
146
20
11/14/07
mid
1025
12.0
8.40
6.8
148
11/14/07
bottom
1025
12.0
8.45
6.6
146
11/19/07
surface
1015
11.9
8.40
7.7
167
150
11/19/07
mid
1015
11.8
8.47
7.6
168
11/19/07
bottom
1015
11.8
8.37
7.5
168
11/28/07
surface
1045
11.7
8.69
7.2
166
39
11/28/07
mid
1045
11.8
8.66
- 7.1
166
11/28/07
bottom
1045
11.7
8.57
7.0
167
12/04/07
surface
1115
10.8
8.74
7.5
172
17
12/04/07
mid
1115
10.8
8.83
7.3
172
12/04/07
bottom
1115
10.8
8.51
7.3
172
37.83
A-8
DEQ-CFW 00070041

-9
Table 3 (continued)
Cape Fear River
Physical Data (surface, mid, bottom) and Coliform (surface only, 5 samples in 30 days)
Station
Date
Depth
Time
Temp
DO
pH
Cond
Fecal Coliform
Geometric Mean
mm/ddmyy
s/m/b
hrs
(°C)
(mg/L)
(su)
umhos/cm
#/100 ml
Fecal #1100 for Site
Cape Fear River
11/06/07
surface
1000
15.1
7.43
6.9
108
43 (131)
Site: CPF4
11/06/07
mid
1000
15.0
7.45
6.8
1D8
11/06/07
bottom
1000
15.0
7.58
6.8
108
11/14/07
surface
1005
12.5
8.51
6.9
135
20
11/14/07
mid
1005
11.9
8.14
6.8
138
11/14/07
bottom
1005
11.9
8.17
6.6
137
11/19/07
surface
0955
12.0
8.79
8.1
160
61
11/19/07
mid
0955
11.8
8.40
7.9
159
11/19/07
bottom
0955
11.8
8.40
7.7
159
11/28/07
surface
1020
12.1
8.06
7.3
167
10.
11/28/07
mid
1020
12.0
8.04
7.2
167
11/28107
bottom
1020
12.1
7.90
7.1
167
12/04/07
surface
1000
11.0
8.49
7.8
171
12
12/04/07
mid
1000
11.0
8.50
7.9
171
12/04/07
bottom
1000
11.0
8.61
7.8
171
22.89
Cape Fear River
11/07/07
surface
1050
14.3
8.60
6.3
118
11
Site: CPF5
11/07/07
mid
1050
14.3
8.64
6.3
117
11/07/07
bottom
1050
14.3
8.69
6.0
118
11/20/07
surface
1055
12.1
9.43
7.1
174
7
11/20/07
mid
1055
12.1
9.42
7.0
175
11/20/07
bottom
1055
12.1
9.40
6.9
175
11/26/07
surface
1010
11.9
9.72
7.6
178
5
11/26/07
mid
1010
11.8
9.68
7.6
180
11/26/07
bottom
1010
11.8
9.82
7.6
180
11/29/07
surface
1015
11.9
9.65
7.8
172
9
11/29/07
mid
1015
11.9
9.65
7.6
172
11/29/07
bottom
1015
11.9
9.70
7.6
172
11/30/07
surface
0915
11.6
9.81
7.1
173
2
11/30/07
mid
0915
11.6
9.82
7.1
173
11/30/07
bottom
0915
11.6
9.89
6.9
173
12/03/07
surface
1000
11.4
9.57
7.7
176
`
12/03/07
mid
1000
11.3
9.56
7.6
176
12/03/07
bottom
1000
11.3
9.65
4.4
175
5.86
Cape Fear River
11/07/07
surface
1035
14.4
8.80
6.3
122
18
Site: CPF6
11/07/07
mid
1635
14.4
8.73
6.4
122
11/07/07
bottom
1035
14.4
8.70
6.1
122
11/20/07
surface
1030
12.4
9.51
7.1
172
4
11/20/07
mid
1030
12.4
9.39
6.9
172
11/20/07
bottom
1030
12.4
9.50
6.9
172
11/26/07
surface
1030
11.9
9.64
7.5
180
9
11/26/07
mid
1030
11.9
9.65
7.4
180
11/26/07
bottom
1030
11.9
9.65
7.3
180
11/29/07
surface
1035
12.1
9.52
7.6
173
8
11/29/07
mid
1035
12.0
9.51
7.3
173
11/29107
bottom
1035
12.0
9.61
7.3
173
11/30/07
surface
0936
11.7
9.80
7.3
173
7
11/30/07
mid
0936
11.7
9.83
7.2
173
11/30/07
bottom
0936
11.7
9.84
7.1
173
12/03/07
surface
1030
11.4
9.57
7.6
174
12/03/07
mid
1030
11.3
9.56
7.4
175
12/03/07
bottom
1030
11.3
9.56
7.3
175
8.16
A-9
DEQ-CFW 00070042

A-50
Table 3 (continued)
Cape Fear River Physical Data (surface, mid, bottom) and coliform (surface only, 5 samples in 30 days)
Date
Depth
Time
Temp
DO
pH
Cond
Fecal CoCdorm Geometric Mean
Station
mm/ddm
' s/m/b
hrs
°C
m
su
umhos/cm
#/100 ml Fecal #/100 for Site
11/07/07
surface
1015
14.6
8.81
6.3
122
33
11/07/07
mid
1015
14.6
8.63
6.3
122
11/07/07
bottom
1015
14.6
8.60
6.1
122
11/20/07
surface
10D5
12.2
9.38
7.3
168
8 -
11/20/07
mid
1005
12.2
9.40
7.1
169
11/20/07
bottom
1005
12.2
9.51
6.9
168
11/26/07
surface
1055
12.0
9.36
7.4
180
10
11/26/07
mid
1055
11.9
9.46
7.2
180
11/26/07
bottom
1055
11.9
9.43
7.2
180
11/29/07
surface
1055
12.2
9.51
7.5
173
1
11/29/07
mid
1055
12.3
9.52
7.3
173
11129/07
bottom
1055
12.3
9.50
7.3
173
i�r3otD7
surface
0950
11.7
9.65
7.3
173
20
11/30/07
mid
083i?
11?
9ii6
r•
i --
11/30/07
bottom
0950
11.7
9.70
7.1
173
12/03/07
surface
1105
11.6
9.51
7.4
175
'
12/03/07
mid
1105
11.4
9.54
7.3
176
8.8
12/03/07
bottom
1105
11.4
9.54
7.2
176
Qualifier Codes:
B1 - Countable membranes with <20 colonies; Estimated
B4 - Filters have counts of both <60 or 80 and <20; Estimated
. - No sample needed
A-10
DEQ-CFW 00070043

Ambient Monitoring System Station Summaries
Table 4 NCDENR, Division.of Water Quality
6asinwide Assessment Report
Location: CAPE FEAR RIV AT SR 1316 AT TAR HEEL
Station #: B8305000 . Subbasin: CPF16
Latitude: 34.74477, Longitude:-78.78563 Stream class: C
Agency: NCAMBNT NC stream index: 18-(26)
Time period: 01/15/2002 to 12/06/2006
# # Results not meeting EL Percentiles
result ND EL # % %Conf Min IOth 25th 50th 75th 90th Max
Field
D.O.(mg/L)
49
49
pH (SU)
48
48
Spec. conductance
49
(umhos/cm at 25°C)
Water Temperature(°C)
49
Other
TSS (mg/L)
16
Turbidity (NTU)
48
Metals (ug/L)
Aluminum, total (AI)
17
Arsenic, total (As)
17
Cadmium,.total (Cd)
17
Chromium, total (Cr)
17
Copper, total (Cu)
17
Iron, total (Fe)
17
Lead, total (Pb)
17
Mercury, total (Hg)
17
Nickel, total (Ni) .17
Zinc, total (Zn)
17
Fecal coliform (#/IOOmL)
# results: Geomean
45 82
0
<4
1
2
3
5.1
5.9
7.7
10
10.9
14.9
0
<5
4
8.2
3
5.1
5.9
7.7
10
10.9
14.9
0 •
<6
2
4.2
5.4
62
6.3
6.7
6.9
7.1
7.3
0
>9
0
0
5A
6.2
6.3
6.7
6.9
7.1
7.3
0
N/A
53
79
98
118
150
181
289
0
>32
0
0
5.9
7.9
11.2
18.1
24.7
27.7
29.6
0
N/A
7
7.7
9
14
20.8
27.6
29
0
>50
3
62
1.9
8.1
9.9
16
22.8
36.9
90
0
N/A
230
318
360
570
660
2080
2400
17
>10
0
0
5
5
5
5
10
10
10
17
>2
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
17
>50
0
0
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
2
>7
2
11.8 76.2
2
2
2
3
4
8
9
0
>1000
5
29.4 99.5
370
482
670
840
1100
2400
2400
17
>25
0
0
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
17
>0.012
0
0
0.2
02
0.2
0.2
02
0.2
0.2
17
>88
0
0
10
10
10
t0
10
10
10
it
>50
0
0
10
10
10
10
13
17
20
#> 400: %> 400: %Conf.
8 18
Key:
# result number of observations
# ND: number of observations reported to be below detection level (non -detect)
EL: Evaluation Level; applicable numeric or narrative water quality standard or action level
Results not meeting EL: number and percentages of observations not meeting evaluation level
%Conf : States the percent statistical confidence that the actual percentage of exceedances is at least 10% (20% for Fecal Coliform)
Stations with less than 10 results for a given parameter were not evaluated for statistical confidence
A-11
A-51
DEQ-CFW 00070044

Ambient Monitoring System Station Summaries
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
A- 2
Table 4(continued)
BasinMde Assessment Report
Location: CAPE FEAR R1V AT SR 1316 AT TAR HEEL
Station M B8305000
Subbasin:
CPF16
Latitude: 34.74477
Longitude:-78.78563 Stream class:
C
Agency: MCFRBA
NC stream index:
18-(26)
Time period: 01/31/2002
to 12/12/2006
#
# Results not meeting EL
Percentiles
result ND EL # % %Conf Min
loth
25th
50th
75th
90th
Max
Field
D.Q. (mg(L)
84
0 <4 1 12 2.9
5.8
6.4
7.5
8.8
10.8
13.1
84
0 <5 4 4.8 2.9
5.8
6.4
7.5
8.8
10.8
13.1
pH (SU)
84
0 <6 2 2.4 5.6
6.3
6.5
6.8
7
7.2
7.9
84
0 >9 0 0 5.6
6.3
6.5
6.8
7
72
7.9
Spec. conductance
84
1 N/A 57
90
106
124
158
.194
. 371
(umhos/cm at 25'C)
Water Temperature CC)
84
0 >32 0 0 3
7.6
15.3
23.3
27
29..1
30.6
Other
Chlorophyll a (ug/L)
35
6 >40 0 0 1
1
2
3
4
8
17
-_----T-tnvti=;----------
=�
----^. 7fz-------------__----5=3=-=31�
v
t�
2R�
93t
Turbidity (NM (NM
59
0 >50 2 3.4 4
6
7.5
10
16
30
130
Nutrients (mg/L)
NH3 as N
59
4 N/A 0.02
0.03
0.05
0.06
0.09
0.I7
0.33
NO2 + NO3 as N
57
0 N/A 0.36
0.51
0.71
0.93
1.12
1.4
3.44
TIW as N
59
3 N/A 0.1
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.9
3.1
Total Phosphorus
59
1 N/A 0.01
0.11
0.13
0.16
0.26
0.34
0.93
Fecal coliform (#/100mL)
# results: Geomean
#> 400: %> 400: %Conf:
58 47
5 9
KEG
# result: number of observations -
# ND: number of observations reported to be below detection level (non -detect).
EL: Evaluation Level; applicable numeric or narrative water quality standard or action level .
Results not meeting EL:- number and percentages of observations not meeting edaluation level
%Conf : States the percent statistical confidence that the actual percentage of exceedances is at least 10% (201/6 for Fecal Colifbrm)
Stations with less than 10 results for a given parameter were not evaluated for statistical confidence
A-1
DEQ-CFW 00070045

Table 5
Cape Fear River Water Samples - Nutrients, Metals, MBAS, Sulfate,
Hardness, Fluoride and Chloride
Station Date Time Ni-13
TKN
NOX
Nitrate
P Total
Ni
Ca
Mg
MBAS
Sulfate
Hardness
Fluoride
Chloride
mm/dd/yy hrs. mg/L
mg/L
m /L
m /L
m /L
ug/L
m /L
m /L
mgtL
mq/L
m /L
mg/L
m /�L
Cape Fear River 12/04/07 1135 0.04
0.50 (J2)
1.5
1.5
0.23
10 (U)
6.3
2.8
0.1 (U)
19
27.61
0.4 (U)
20
Site: CPF1
Cape Fear River 12/04/07 1100 0.03
0.42 (J2)
1.2
1.2
0.19
10 (U)
6.5
2.8
0.1
18
27.77
0.4 (U)
19
Site: CPF2
Cape Fear River 12/04/07 1035 0.03
0.47 (J2)
1.3
1.3
0.20
10 (U)
6.3
2.7.
0.1
18
26.85
0.4 (U)
20
Site: CPF3
Cape Fear River 12/04/07 1000 0.04
0.53
1.2
1.2
0.20
10 (U)
6.3
2.8
0.1
18
26.61
(U)
20
Site: CPF4
.OA
Cape Fear River 12/03/07 1000 0.06
0.49
1.3
1.3
0.19
10 (U)
6.2
2.8
0.1 (U)
20
27.01
0.4
19
Site: CPF5
Cape Fear River 12/03/07 1030 0.05
0.36
1.3
1.3
0.17
10 (U)
6.1
2.7
0.1 (U)
20
26.35
0.4
19
J Site: CPF6
ti.
Cape Fear River 12/03/07 1105 0.05
0.42
1.3
1.3
0.17
10 (U)
6.2
2.8
0.1 (U)
20
27.01
0.4
19
Site: CPF7
WS-IV & C Standards -
-
-
10 mg/L
25 ug/L
-
-
0.5 mgl L
250 mg/L
100 mg/L
1.8 mg/L
250 m/L
Qualifier Codes:
(U) - Samples analyzed for this compound but not detected
(J2) - Reported value failed to meet QC criteria for either precision or accuracy; Estimated
■
91
6
Io
0
0
14
0
0
rn

Table 6
Cape Fear River Water Samples
Pnsticldes. Herbicides and Semivolatlle Organics, Volatile Organics (VOAs)
Pesticides and Organics
Cape Fear River - CPF1
Cape Feaz River- CPF2
C�4/•,
oar River- CPF3
12/04107 1135
12l04/07 1100
mm/dd/
mm/dc�
Chlorinated Pesticides
mmlddl
e1151 target compounds (U) not deteced
all S1 target compounds (U) not deteced
all 51 t•,{'got
compounds (U) not deteced
3 unidentified peaks detected
3 unidentified peaks detected
3 unl&111ntified
peaks detected
Acid Herbicides
all 15 target compounds (U) not deteced
all 15 target compounds (U) not deleted
811151
i
get compounds (U) not deteced
<10 unidentified peaks detected
<10 unidentified peaks detected
<10 utS
dentified peaks detected
Semivolatile Organics (BNAs)
all 66 target compounds (U) not deteced
all 66 target compounds (U) not deteced
all 66 tl
rgat compounds (U) not dalaced
0 unidentified peaks detected .
0 unidentified peaks detected
0 until i
—ten.
ntlfied peaks detected
Volatile Organics (VOAs)
58 target compounds (U) not detected
58 target compounds (U) not detected
TB �et
compounds (U) not detected
Identified peaks:
Chloroform 039 ug/L
Identified peaks:
Chloroform 0.57 ug/L
identif�
Chlorr
d peaks:
orn 0.57 ug/L
Bromodichloromethane OAS ug/L
Bromodichloromethane 0.33 ug/L
Bromri
,I
lichloromethane 0.34 ug/L
sample not analyzed for this compound:
sample not analyzed for this compound:
sampli it
Chloroethyl
not analyzed for this compound:
vinyl ether
Chloroethyl vinyl ether
Chloroethyl vinyl ether
I
Table 6 (continued)
Cape Fear River Water Samples
Pesticides: Herbicides and Semivolatile Organics, Volatile Organics (VOAs)
Pesticides and Organics
Cape Fear River- CPF4
Cape Fear River- CPF5
12/03/07 1100
Capelt
12103(7
ear River- CPF6 -
1030
12/04/07 1000
Chlorinated Pesticides
mm/dd/
all 51 target compounds (U) not deteced
mmlddl
all 51 target compounds (U) not deteced
mml
all 611
I
rget compounds (U) not deleted
9 unidentified peaks detected
3 unidentified peaks detected
1 unid
ntified peaks detected
Acid Herbicides
all 15 target compounds (U) not deteced
all 15 target compounds (U) not deteced
all 15,argot
compounds (U) not deteced
410 unidentified peaks detected
5 unidentified peaks detected
<10
ildent1fied peaks detected
Semivolatile Organics (BNAs)
all 66 target compounds (U) not deteced
all 66 target compounds (U) not deteced
a11
i
argot compounds (U) not deteced
0 unidentfied peaks detected
0 unidentified peaks detected
0 unit
entined peaks detected
Volatile Organics (VOAs)
59 target compounds (U) not detected
57 target compounds (U) not detected
55 to
' et compounds (U) not detected
Identified peaks:
Chloroform 0.59 ug/L
Identified peaks:
Chloroform 0.85 ug/L
ldent�
Chlo
led peaks:
None 0.91 ug/L
Bromodichloromethane 0.60 uglL
Bro
)dichloromethans 0.58 uglL
sample not analyzed for this compound:
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.36 uglL
Tolu
m,p-)
i e (N3) 0.12 ug/L
}ylene (N3) 0.41 ug/L
dhtoroethyl vinyl ether
sample not analyzed for this compound:
1,2,4,
n imethylbenzene . 0.37 ug/L
Chloroethyl vinyl ether
sam�,de
not analyzed for this compound:
Chic)
�I
ethyl vinyl ether
Qualifier Godes:
(U) -Samples znalyzed for this compound but not detected
(N1) - The component has been tentatively identified based on mass spectral library search and has an estimated value
(N3) - Estimated concentration is <PQL and >MDL
Table 6 (continued on the following page)
4-

A
Table 6 (continued)
Cape Fear River Water Samples
Pesticides, Herbicides and Semivolatile Organics, Volatile Organics (VOAs)
Pesticides and Organics
Cape Fear River- CPF7
12/03/07 1115
mmIddIvv
Chlorinated Pesticides
all 51 target compounds (U) not deteced
<3 unidentified peaks detected
Acid Herbicides
all 15 target compounds (U) not defaced
<10 unidentified peaks detected
Semivolatile Qrganics (BNAs)
all 66 target compounds (U) not deteced
0 unidentified peaks detected
Volatile Organics (VOAs)
55 target compounds (U) not detected
Identified peaks:
Chloroform 1.0 ug/L
Bromodlchioromethene 0.61 ugiL
Toluene (N3) 0.14 u /L
m,p-Xylene (N3) 0.42 ug/L
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 0.39 ug/L
sample not analyzed for this compound:
Chloroethyl vinyl ether
Qualifier Codee•
(U) - Samples analyzed for this compound but not detected
(N1) -The component has been tentatively identified based on mass spectral library search and has an estimated value
(N3) - Estimated concentration is <PQL and >MDL
I

North Carolina Division of Environmental Health
rx) Terry L. Pierce, Director
1Y
Public Water Supply Section
DWon alHeaof
Environmental Health Jessica G. Miles, Section Chief
February 8, 2008
Elizabeth Kountis
Classification and Standards Unit
Division of Water Quality -Planning Section
RE: Application to Request Reclassification of a Portion of the Cape Fear River
State of North Cardlihe56
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
William G. Ross, Secretary
The Public Water Supply Section has reviewed the application to request reclassification of a portion of the
Cape Fear River which was submitted by Hobbs, Upchurch & Associates on behalf of the Lower Cape Fear
Water and Sewer Authority and based on field investigation and review of sampling data finds no reason to
object to this reclassification.
The only issue of concern raised during this investigation was the level of an unregulated but potentially
emerging contaminant, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA or C-8), in the Cape Fear River at the outfall location of
the permitted discharge by Dupont approximately five miles upstream of the proposed intake. Sampling data
provided by DWQ and the Lower Cape Fear Water & Sewer Authority indicates that there is no significant
increase in PFOA caused by this discharge. Current levels of PFOA are below any known health based site
specific or ground water proposed standard. Furthermore, it is noted that PFOA monitoring is now a condition
of the NPDES permit for the Dupont facility. In the event that PFOA is ultimately regulated, this monitoring
data will be important to DWQ in modifying the discharge permit. In addition, as a part of the PFOA
Stewardship Program with EPA, Dupont is on a voluntary schedule to reduce PFOA from emissions and
product content by 95 percent no later than 2010, and to work toward eliminating PFOA from emissions and
product content by 2015. Therefore, we can only conclude that the PFOA should not.prevent the
reclassification of this .stream.
Please feel free to contact Debra Benoy at 910-796-7441 or meat 919-715-3232 if you have questions.
Sincerely,
Je siea G. Miles. P.E., CPM
cc: Debra Benoy
Wayne Munden
1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1634: One
NOrthCarOhria
Telephone [phone] ♦ Fax [phone] s Lab Form Fax [phone]
http://ncdrinkrt��tater.state.nc.us/ �/ V4turq[��
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
DEQ-CFW 00070049

A-57
1SA NCAC 02B .0104 CONSIDERATIONS/ASSIGNING/IMPLEMENTING WATER SUPPLY
CLASSIFICATIONS
(a) In determining the suitability of waters for use as a source of water supply for drinking, culinary or
food processing purposes after approved treatment, the Commission will be guided by the physical,
chemical, and bacteriological maximum contaminant levels specified by Environmental. Protection Agency
regulations adopted pursuant to the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 201 et seq., as amended by the
Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300(f) et seq. In addition, the Commission shall be guided by the
requirements for unfiltered and filtered water supplies and the maximum contaminant levels specified in
the North Carolina Rules Governing Public Water Supplies, 15A NCAC 18C .1100, .1200 and .1500 and
comments provided by the Division of Environmental Health.
(b) All local governments that have land use authority within designated water supply watersheds shall
adopt and enforce ordinances that at a minimum meet the requirements of G.S. 143-214.5 and this
Subchapter. The Commission shall approve local water supply protection programs if it determines that, the
requirements of the local program equal or exceed the minimum statewide water supply watershed
management requirements adopted pursuant to this Section. Local governments may adopt and enforce
more stringent controls. Local management programs and modifications to these programs must be
approved by the Commission and shall be kept on file by the Division of Environmental Management,
Division of Environmental Health and the Division of Community Assistance.
(c) All waters used for water supply purposes or intended for future water supply use shall be classified to
the most appropriate water supply classification as determined by the Commission. Water supplies may be
reclassified to a more or less protective water supply classification on a case -by -case basis through the
rule -making process. A more protective water supply classification may be applied to existing water
supply watersheds after receipt of a resolution from all local governments having land use jurisdiction
within the designated water supply watershed requesting a more protective water supply classification.
Local government(s) requesting the Future Water Supply classification must provide to the Division
evidence of intent which may include one or a combination of the following: capital improvement plans, a
Water Supply Plan as described in G.S. 143-355(1), bond issuance for the water treatment plant or land
acquisition records. A 1:24,000 scale USGS topographical map delineating the location of the intended
water supply intake is also required. Requirements for activities administered by the State of North
Carolina, such as the issuance of permits for landfills, NPDES wastewater discharges, land application of
residuals and road construction activities shall be effective upon reclassification for future water supply
use. The requirements shall apply to the critical area and balance of the watershed or protected area as
appropriate. Upon receipt of the final approval letter from the Division of Environmental Health for
construction of the water treatment plant and water supply intake, the Commission shall initiate
rule -making to modify the Future Water Supply supplemental classification. Local government
implementation is not required until 270 days after the Commission has modified the Future Water Supply
(FWS) supplemental classification through the rule -making process and notified the affected local
government(s) that the appropriate local government land use requirements applicable for the water supply
classifications are to be adopted, implemented and submitted to the Commission for approval. Local
governments may also adopt land use ordinances that meet or exceed the state's minimum requirements for
water supply watershed protection prior to the end of the 270 day deadline. The requirements for FWS
may also be applied to waters formerly used for drinking water supply purposes, and currently classified for
water supply use, at the request of local government(s) desiring protection of the watershed for future water
supply use.
(d) In considering the reclassification of waters for water supply purposes, the Commission shall take into
consideration the relative proximity, quantity, composition, natural dilution and diminution of potential
sources of pollution to determine that risks posed by all significant pollutants are adequately considered.
(e) For the purposes of implementing the water supply watershed protection rules (I5A NCAC 2B .0100,
.0200 and .0300) and the requirements of G.S. 143-214.5, the following schedule of implementation shall
be applicable:
August 3, 1992 - Activities administered by the State of North Carolina, such as the
issuance of permits for landfills, NPDES wastewater discharges, and land application of
sludge/residuals, and road construction activities, shall become effective regardless of the
deadlines for municipal and county water supply watershed protection ordinance
adoptions;
A-17
DEQ-CFW 00070050

A- R
By July 1, 1993 - Affected municipalities with a population greater than 5,000 shall adopt
and submit the appropriate drinking water supply protection, maps and ordinances that
meet or exceed the minimum management requirements of these Rules;
By October 1, 1993 -Affected municipalities with a population less than 5,000 shall adopt
and submit the appropriate drinking water supply protection, maps and ordinances that
meet or exceed the minimum management requirements of these Rules;
By January 1, 1994 -Affected county governments shall adopt and submit the appropriate
drinking water supply protection, maps and ordinances that meet or exceed the minimum
management requirements of these Rules.
Affected local government drinking water supply protection ordinances shall become effective on or before
these dates. Local governments may choose to adopt, implement and enforce these provisions prior to this
date. Three copies of the adopted and effective relevant ordinances shall be sent to the Division along with
a cover letter from the municipal or county attorney, or its designated legal counsel, stating that the local
government drinking water supply protection ordinances shall meet or exceed the rules in 15A NCAC 2B
.0100, .0200 and .0300. If the rules in 15A NCAC 2B .0100, .0200 and .0300 are revised, the Division
shall modify and distribute to local governments, as appropriate, a revised model ordinance. The Division
snap approve-tne arr►�nuEa-io�ar-n��ap� oiu��la�rce�� of 1Lgi3e�� tile-couii2louiC':I=t.^,- 'M:.+ i..yp•..pif t..
action under G.S. 143-214.5.
(f) Wherever in this Subchapter it is provided that local governments assume responsibility for operation
and maintenance of engineered stormwater control(s), this shall be construed to require responsible local
governments to inspect such controls at least once per year, to determine whether the controls are
performing as designed and intended. Records of inspections shall be maintained on forms supplied by, the
Division. Local governments may require payment of reasonable inspection fees by entities which own the
controls, as authorized by law. In the event inspection shows that a control is not performing adequately,
the local government shall order the owning entity to take corrective actions. If the entity fails to take
sufficient corrective actions, the local government may impose civil penalties and pursue other available
remedies in accordance with the law. The availability of new engineered stormwater controls as an
alternative to lower development density and other measures under the provisions of this Subchapter and
local ordinances approved by the Commission shall be conditioned on the posting of adequate financial
assurance, -in the form of a cash deposit or bond made payable to the responsible local government, or other
acceptable security. The establishment of a stormwater utility by the responsible local government shall be
deemed adequate financial assurance. The purpose of the required financial assurance is to assure that
maintenance, repairs or reconstruction necessary for adequate performance of the controls may be made by
the owning entity or the local government which may choose to assume ownership and maintenance
responsibility.
(g) Where higher density developments are allowed, stormwater control systems must use wet detention
ponds as described in 15A NCAC 2H .1003(g)(2), (g)(3), (i), (j), (k), and (1). Alternative stormwater
management systems consisting of other treatment options, or a combination of treatment options; may be
approved by the Director. The design criteria for approval shall be 85 percent average annual removal of
Total Suspended Solids. Also the discharge rate shall meet one of the following criteria:
(1) the discharge rate following the 1-inch design storm shall be such that the runoff draws
down to the pre -storm design stage within five days, but not less than two days; or
(2) the post development peak discharge rate shall equal the predevelopment rate for the
1-year, 24 hour storm.
(h) Where no practicable alternative exists, discharge from groundwater remediation projects addressing
water quality problems shall be allowed in accordance with other applicable requirements in all water
supply classifications.
(i) To further the cooperative nature of the water supply watershed management and protection program
provided for herein, local governments• with jurisdiction over portions of classified watersheds and local
governments which derive their water supply from within such watersheds are encouraged to establish joint
water quality monitoring and information sharing programs, by interlocal agreement or otherwise. Such
cooperative programs 'shall be established in consultation with the Division.
0) Where no practicable alternative exists other than surface water discharge, previously unknown existing
unpermitted wastewater discharges shall incorporate the best possible technology treatment as deemed
appropriate by the Division.
A-18
DEQ-CFW 00070051

A-59
(k) The Commission may designate water supply watersheds or portions thereof as critical water supply
watersheds pursuant to G.S. 143-214.5(b).
(I) A more protective classification may be allowed by the Commission although minor occurrences of
nonconforming activities are present prior to reclassification. When the Commission allows a more
protective classification, expansions of existing wastewater discharges that otherwise would have been
prohibited may be allowed if there is no increase in permitted pollutant loading; other discharges of treated
wastewater existing at the time of reclassification may be required to meet more stringent effluent
limitations as determined by the Division. Consideration of all practicable alternatives to surface water
discharge must be documented.
(m) The construction of new roads and bridges and non-residential development shall minimize built -upon
area, divert stormwater away from surface water supply waters as much as possible, and employ best
management practices (BMPs) to minimize water quality impacts. To the extent practicable, the
construction of new roads in the critical area shall be avoided. The Department of Transportation shall use
BMPs as outlined in their document entitled "Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters which is hereby incorporated by reference including all subsequent amendments and editions.
This material is available for inspection at the Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality Planning Branch, 512 North Salisbury Street,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
(n) Activities within water supply watersheds are also governed by the North Carolina Rules Governing
Public Water Supplies, 15A NCAC 18C .1100, .1200 and .1500. Proposed expansions of treated
wastewater discharges to water supply waters must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health.
(o) Local governments shall correctly delineate the approximate normal pool elevation for backwaters of
water supply reservoirs for the purposes of determining the critical and protected area boundaries as
appropriate. Local governments must submit to the Division a 1:24,000 scale' U.S.G.S. topographic map
which shows the local government's corporate and extraterritorial jurisdiction boundaries, the
Commission's adopted critical and protected area boundaries, as well as the local government's interpreted
critical and protected area boundaries. All revisions (expansions or deletions) to these areas must be
submitted to the Division and approved by the Commission prior to local government revision.
(p) Local governments shall encourage participation in the Agricultural Cost Share Program. The Soil and
Water Conservation Commission is the designated management agency responsible for implementing the
provisions of the rules in 15A NCAC 2H .0200 pertaining to agricultural activities. Agricultural activities
are subject to the provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985 and the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and
Trade Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-624) and 15A NCAC 2H .0217). The following shall be required
within WS-I watersheds and the critical areas of WS-II, WS-III and WS-IV watersheds:
(1) Agricultural activities conducted after January 1, 1993 shall maintain a minimum 10 foot
vegetated buffer, or equivalent control as determined by the Soil and Water Conservation
Commission, along all perennial waters indicated on the most recent versions of U.S.G.S.
1:24,000 (7.5 minute) scale topographic maps or as determined by local government
studies; and
(2) Animal operation deemed permitted and permitted under 15A NCAC 2H .0217 are
allowed in all classified water supply watersheds.
(q) Existing development is not subject to the requirements of these Rules. Redevelopment is allowed if
the rebuilding activity does not have a net increase in built -upon area or provides equal or greater
stormwater control than the previous development, except that there are no restrictions on single family
residential redevelopment. Expansions to structures classified as existing development must meet the
requirements of the rules in 15A NCAC 2B .0100, .0200 and .0300; however, the built -upon area of the
existing development is not required to be included in the density calculations. Expansions to structures
other than existing development must meet the density requirements of these Rules for the entire project
site. If a nonconforming lot of record is not contiguous to any other lot owned by the same party, then that
lot of record shall not be subject to the development restrictions of these Rules if it is developed for
single-family residential purposes. Local governments may, however, require the combination of
contiguous nonconforming lots of record owned by the same party in order to establish a lot or lots that
meet or nearly meet the development restrictions of the rules under 15A NCAC 2B. Any lot or parcel
created as part of a family subdivision after the effective date of these Rules shall be exempt from these
Rules if it is developed for one single-family detached residence and if it is exempt from local subdivision
regulation. Any lot or parcel created as part of any other type of subdivision that is exempt from a local
A-19
DEQ-CFW 00070052

A-60
subdivision .ordinance shall be subject to the land use requirements (including impervious surface
requirements) of these Rules, except that such a lot or parcel must meet the minimum buffer requirements
to the maximum extent practicable. Local governments may also apply more stringent controls relating to
determining existing development, redevelopment or expansions.
(r) Development activities may be granted minor variances by local governments utilizing the procedures
of G.S. 153A Article 18, or G.S. 160A, Article 19. A description of each project receiving a variance and
the reason for granting the variance shall be submitted to the Commission on an annual basis by January 1.
For all proposed major and minor variances from the minimum statewide watershed protection rules, the
local Watershed Review Board shall make findings of fact showing that:
(1) there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships that prevent compliance with the
strict letter of the ordinance;
(2) the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the local watershed
protection ordinance and preserves its spirit; and
(3) in granting the variance, the public safety and welfare have been assured and substantial
justice. has been done.
The local Watershed Review Board may attach conditions to the major or minor variance approval that
�,_�-. _ -
- - — -- support a purpose of fne local waters ea-ploreetron Ur lndn�e: - it E vaiiaTicc iequZscquacici�s aS a a. wr----
variance, and the local Watershed Review Board decides in favor of granting the major variance, the Board
shall then prepare a preliminary record of the hearing and submit it to the Commission for review and
approval. If the Commission approves the major variance or approves with conditions or stipulations
added, then the Commission shall prepare a Commission decision which authorizes the local Watershed
Review Board to issue a final decision which would include any conditions or stipulations added by the
Commission. If the Commission denies. the major variance, then the Commission shall prepare a
Commission decision to be sent to the local Watershed Review Board. The local Watershed Review Board
shall prepare a final decision denying the major variance. For all proposed major and minor variances the
local government considering or requesting the variance shall notify and allow a reasonable comment
period for all other local governments having jurisdiction within the watershed area governed.by these
Rules and the entity using the water supply for consumption. Appeals from the local government decision
on a major or minor variance request are made on certiorari to the local Superior Court. Appeals from the
Commission decision on a major variance request are made on judicial review to Superior Court. When
local ordinances are more stringent than the state's minimum water supply protection rules a variance to the
local government's ordinance is not considered a major variance as long as the result of the variance is not
less stringent than the state's minimum requirements.
(s) Cluster development is allowed on a project -by -project basis as follows:
(1) Overall density of the project meets associated density or stormwater control
requirements under 15A NCAC 2B .0200;
(2) Buffers meet the minimum statewide water supply watershed protection requirements;
(3) Built -upon areas are designed and located to minimize stormwater runoff impact to the
receiving waters, minimize concentrated stormwater flow, maximize the use of sheet
flow through vegetated areas, and maximize the flow length through vegetated areas;
(4) Areas of concentrated density development are locate_ d in. upland areas and away, to the
maximum extent practicable, from surface waters and drainageways;
(5) Remainder of tract to remain in vegetated or natural state;
(6) The area in- the vegetated or natural state .may be conveyed to a property owners
association; -a local government for preservation as a park or greenway; .a conservation
organization; or placed in a permanent conservation or farmland preservation easement.
A maintenance agreement shall be_filed with the property deeds; and
(7) Cluster developments that meet the applicable low density requirements shall transport
stormwater runoff by vegetated conveyances to the maximum extent practicable.
(t) Local governments may administer oversight ,of future development activities in single family
residential developments that exceed the .applicable low density requirements by tracking dwelling units
rather than percentage built -upon area, as long as the wet detention .pond or other approved stormwater
control system is sized to capture and treat runoff from all pervious and;built-upon surfaces shown on the
development plan and any off -site drainage from. pervious and built -upon surfaces, and when an additional
safety factor of 15 percent of built -upon area of the project site is figured in.
A-20
DEQ-CFW 00070053

A-61
(u) All new development shall meet the development requirements on a project -by -project basis except
local governments may submit ordinances and ordinance revisions which use density or built -upon area
criteria averaged throughout the local government's watershed jurisdiction instead of on a
project -by -project basis within the watershed. Prior to approval of the ordinance or amendment, the local
government must demonstrate to the Commission that the provisions as averaged meet or exceed the
statewide minimum requirements, and that a mechanism exists to ensure the orderly and planned
distribution of development potential throughout the watershed jurisdiction.
(v) Silviculture activities are subject to the provisions of the Forest Practices Guidelines Related to Water
Quality (15A NCAC 1I .0101 - .0209). The Division of Forest Resources is the designated management
agency responsible for implementing the provisions of the rules in 15A NCAC 2B .0200 pertaining to
silviculture activities.
(w) Local governments shall, as the existing laws allow, develop, implement, and enforce comprehensive
nonpoint source and stormwater discharge control programs to reduce water pollution from activities within
water supply watersheds such as development, forestry, landfills, mining, on -site sanitary sewage systems
which utilize ground adsorption, toxic and hazardous materials, transportation, and water based recreation.
(x) When the Commission assumes a local water supply protection program as specified under G.S.
143-214.5(e) all local permits authorizing construction and development activities as regulated by the
statewide minimum water supply watershed protection rules of this Subchapter must be approved by the
Commission prior to local government issuance.
(y) In the event that stormwater management systems or facilities may impact existing waters or wetlands
of the United States, the Clean Water Act requires that these systems or facilities be consistent with all
federal and state requirements.
(z) A model local water supply watershed management and protection ordinance, as approved by the
Commission in accordance with G.S. 143-214.5, is on file with the Office of Administrative Hearings and
may be obtained by writing to: Water Quality Planning Branch, Division of Environmental Management,
Post Office Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535.
(aa) The Commission may delegate such matters as variance approval, extension of deadlines for
submission of corrected ordinances and assessment of civil penalties to the Director.
History Note: Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-215.3(a)(1);
Eff. February 1, 1976,
Amended Eff. August 1, 1995; August 3, 1992; March 1, 1991; October 1, 1989.
A- 2 I
DEQ-CFW 00070054

E",
15A NCAC 02B .0216 FRESH SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR WS-IV WATERS
The following water quality standards apply to surface water supply waters that are classified W S-IV. Water quality standards
applicable to Class C waters as described in Rule .0211 of this Section also apply to Class WS-IV waters.
(1) The best usage of WS-IV waters are as follows: a source of water supply for drinking, culinary, or
food -processing purposes for those users where a more protective WS-I, WS-II or WS-III classification is
not feasible and any other best usage specified for Class C waters;
(2) The conditions related to the best usage are as follows: waters of this class are protected as water supplies
which are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds or protected areas and meet average
watershed development density levels as specified in Sub-ltems-(3)(b)(i)(A), (3)(b)(i)(B), (3)(b)(ii)(A) and
(3)(b)(ii)(B) of this Rule; discharges which qualify for a General Permit pursuant to 15A NCAC 02H .0127,
trout farm discharges, recycle (closed loop). systems that only discharge in response to 10 year storm events,
other stormwater discharges and domestic wastewater discharges shall be allowed in the protected and
critical areas;: treated industrialwastewater discharges are allowed in the protected and critical areas;
however, new industrial wastewater discharges in the critical area shall be required to meet the provisions of
15A NCAC 02B .0224(1)(b)(iv), (v) and (vii), and 15ANCAC 02B .0203; new industrial connections and
- -�-T—ten - - - �,-5 7� 'Gh-� MH--.G90 -------
are.. _.__------
- _ exp�ions io exrsiing �� a1 -ClI8C1Iai'gesWiLti a'pTe cauuc2l�YiOg-i'aiTipuavuau� tfr i.r-ri1`��.ri....� .viva
allowed; the waters, following treatment required by the Division of Environmental Health, shall meet
the Maximum Contaminant Level concentrations considered safe for drinking, culinary, or food -processing
purposes which are specified in the national drinking water regulations and in the North Carolina Rules
Governing Public Water Supplies,15ANCAC 18C.1500. Sources ofwaterpollutionwhichpreclude any
of these uses on either a short-term or long-term basis shall be considered to be violating a water quality
standard. The Class W S-II or WS-III classifications may be used to protect portions of Class WS-IV water
supplies. For reclassifications of these portions of WS-IV water supplies occurring after the July 1,1992
statewide reclassification, the more protective classification requested by local governments shall be
considered by the Commissionwhen all local governments having jurisdiction in the affected area(s) have
adopted a resolution and the appropriate ordinances to protect the watershed or the Commission acts to
protect a watershed when one or more local governments has failed to adopt_ necessaryprotection measures;
(3) Quality standards applicable to Class WS-IV Waters are as follows:
(a) Sewage, industrial wastes, non -process industrial wastes, or other wastes: none shall be allowed
except for those specified in Item (2) of this Rule and Rule .0104 of this Subchapter and none shall
be allowed that. shall have an adverse effect on human health or that are not effectively treated to
the satisfaction of the Commission and in accordance with the requirements of the Division of
Environmental Health, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Any
discharges or industrial users subject to pretreatment standards may be required by the
Commission to disclose all chemical constituents present or potentially present in their wastes and
chemicals which could be spilled or be present in runoff from their facility which may have an
adverse impact on downstream water supplies. These facilities may be required to have spill and
treatment failure control plans as well as perform special monitoring for toxic substances;
(b) Noupoint Source and Stormwater Pollution: none shall be allowed that would adversely impact the
waters for use as water supply or any other designated use.
(i) Nonpoint Source and Stormwater Pollution Control Criteria For Entire Watershed or
Protected Area:
(A) Low Density Option: development activities which require a
Sedimentation/Erosion Control Plan in accordance with 15A NCAC 4
established by the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission or
approved local governmentprograms as delegated bythe Sedimentation Control
Commission shall be limited to no more than either: two dwelling units of single
family detached development per acre (or 20,000 square foot lot excluding
roadway right-of-way) or 24 percent built -upon on area for all other residential
and non-residential development; or three dwelling units per acre or 36 percent
built -upon area for projects without curb and gutter street systems in the
protected area outside of the critical area; stormwater runoff from the
development shall be transported by vegetated conveyances to the maximum
extent practicable;
A-22
DEQ-CFW 00070055

em
(B) High Density Option: if new development activities which require a Sedimenta-
tiouBrosion Control Plan exceed the low density requirements of Sub -Item
(3)(b)(i)(A) ofthis Rule then development shall control the runofffrom the first
inch of rainfall; new residential and non-residential development shall not
exceed 70 percent built -upon area;
(C) Land within the critical and protected area shall be deemed compliant with the
density requirements if the following condition is met: the density of all existing
development at the time of reclassification does not exceed the density
requirement when densities are averaged throughout the entire area;
(D) Cluster development shall be allowed on a project -by project basis as follows:
(1) overall density of the project meets associated density or stormwater
control requirements of this Rule;
(11) buffers meet the minimum statewide water supply watershed protection
requirements;
(1I1) built -upon areas are designed and located to minimize stormwater
runoff impact to the receiving waters, minimize concentrated
stormwater flow, maximize the use of sheet flow through vegetated
areas, and maximize the flow length through vegetated areas;
(IV) areas of concentrated development are located in upland areas and
away, to the maximum extent practicable, from surface waters and
drainageways;
(V) remainder of tract to remain in vegetated or natural state;
(VI) area in the vegetated or natural state may be conveyed to a property
owners association, a local government for preservation as a park or
greenway, a conservation organization, or placed in a permanent
conservation or farmland preservation easement;
(VII) a maintenance agreement for the vegetated or natural area shall be
filed with the Register of Deeds; and
(VIII) cluster development that meets the applicable low density option
requirements shall transport stormwater runoff from the development
by vegetated conveyances to the maximum extent practicable;
(E) Iflocal governments choose the high density development option which requires
engineered stormwater controls, then they shall assume ultimate responsibility
for operation and maintenance of the required controls as outlined in Rule .0104
of this Subchapter;
(F) Minimum 100 foot vegetative buffer is required for all new development
activities that exceed the low density option requirements as specified in Sub -
Item (3)(b)(i)(A) or Sub -Item (3)(b)(ii)(A) of this Rule, otherwise a minimum
30 foot vegetative buffer for development shall be required along all perennial
waters indicated on the most recent versions of U.S.G.S.1:24,000 (7.5 minute)
scale topographic maps or as determined by local government studies;
(G) No new development shall be allowed in the buffer; water dependent structures,
or other structures, such as flag poles, signs and security lights, which result in
only de minmmu increases in impervious area and public projects such as road
crossings and greenways maybe allowedwhere no practicable alternative exists.
These activities shall minimize built -upon surface area, divert runoffaway from
surface waters and maximize the utilization of BMPs;
(I� For local governments that do not use the high density option, a maximum of 10
percent of each jurisdiction's portion of the watershed outside of the critical
area as delineated on July 1, 1995 may be developed with new development
projects and expansions to existing development of up to 70 percent built -upon
surface area in addition to the new development approved in compliance with
the appropriate requirements of Sub -Item (3)(b)(i)(A) of this Rule. For
expansions to existing development, the existing built -upon surface area shall
not be counted toward the allowed 70 percent built -upon surface area. A local
government having jurisdiction within the watershed may transfer, in whole or
A-73
DEQ-CFW 00070056

A-64
in part, its right to the 10 percenV70 percent land area to another local
government within the watershed upon submittal of a j oint resolution for review
by the Commission. When the designated water supply watershed area is
composed of public land, such as National Forest land, local governments may
count the public land acreage within the designated watershed area outside of
the critical area in figuring the acreage allowed under this provision. Each
project shall, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize built -upon surface
area, direct stormwater runoff away from surface waters and incorporate best
management practices to minimise water quality impacts;
(ii) Critical Area Nonpoint_Source and Stormwater Pollution Control Criteria:
(A) Low Density Option: new development activities which require a Sedimenta-
tion/Erosion Control Plan in accordance with 15A NCAC 4 established by the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission or approved local
government programs as delegated by the Sedimentation Control Commission
shall be limited to no more than two dwelling units of single family detached
development per acre (or 20,000 square foot lot excluding roadway right-of-
�'oP8)O -- ....._ - - --- - - -- - - --- --- - - -- -
-- L't�efOori� uiuY�-u-pOu iuca tui au v ci icSi eu auu uvn-r�Si CLdaa -
development; stormwater runoff from the development shall be transported by
vegetated conveyances to the maximum extent practicable;
(B) High Density. Option: if new development density exceeds the low density
requirements :specified in Sub -Item (3)(b)(ii)(A) of this Rule, engineered
stormwater controls shall be used to control runoff from the fast inch of rainfall;
new residential and non-residential development shall not exceed 50 percent
built -upon area;
(C) .. No new permitted sites for land application of residuals or petroleum
contaminated soils shall be allowed;
(D) No new -landfills shall be allowed;
(c) MBAS .(Methylene -Blue Active Substances): not greater than 0.5 mg/1 to protect the aesthetic
qualities of water supplies and to prevent foaming;
(d) Odor producing substances contained in sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes: only such
amounts, whether alone or in combination with other substances or waste, as will not cause taste
and odor difficulties in water supplies. which can not be corrected by treatment, impair the
palatability offish, or have a deleterious effect upon any best usage established for waters of this
class; .
(e) Chlorinated phenolic compounds:. not greater than 1.0 ug/1 to protect water supplies from taste
And odor problems due to chlorinated phenols shall be allowed. Specific phenolic compounds may
be given a different limit if it is demonstrated not to cause taste and odor problems and not to be
detrimental to other best usage;
(f) Total hardness shall.not exceed 100 mg/1 as calcium carbonate;
(g) Total dissolved solids shall not exceed 500 mg/l;
(h) Toxic and other deleterious substances:
(i) Water quality standards (maximum permissible concentrations) to protect human health
through water consumption and fish tissue consumption for non -carcinogens in Class
WS-IV waters:
(A) Barium: 1.0 mg/l;
(B)
Chloride: 250 mg/l;
(C).
Manganese: 200 ug/1;
(D)
Nickel: 25 ug/l;
(E)
Nitrate nitrogen: 10.0 m9/1;
(F)
2,4-D: 100 ug/l; .
(G)
2,4,54? (Silvex): 10 ug/l;
(11).
Sulfates: 250 mg/l;
(ii). Water quality standards (maximum permissible concentrations) to protect human health
through.
water consumption and fish tissue consumption for carcinogens in Class WS-IV
waters:
(A)
Aldrin: 0.05 ng/l;
A-24
DEQ-CFW 00070057

A-5
(B) Arsenic: 10 ug/l;
(C) Benzene: 1.19 ug/l;
(D) Carbon tetrachloride: 0.254 ug/l;
(E) Chlordane: 0.8 ng/l;
(F) Chlorinated benzenes: 488 ug/l;
(G) DDT: 0.2 ng/l;
(11) Dibldrin: 0.05 ng/l;
(1) Dioxin: 0.000005 ng/l;
(J) Heptachlor: 0.08 ng1l;
(K) Hexachlorobutadiene: 0.44 ug/l;
(L) Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (total of all PAHs): 2.8 ng/l;
(W Tetrachloroethane (1,1,2,2): 0.17 ug/l;
(1) Tetrachloroethylene: 0.7 ug/l;
(0) Trichloroethylene: 2.5 ug/l;
(P) Vinyl Chloride: 0.025 ug/l.
History Note: Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-215.3(a)(1);
Eff. February 1, 1986;
Amended Eff. May 1, 2067; April 1, 2003; June 1, 1996,• October 1, 1995; August 1, 1995; June 1,199.4
A-25
DEQ-CFW 00070058

A-66
1 15A NCAC 02B .0311 is proposed for amendment as follows:
2
3 15A NCAC 02B .0311 CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN
4 (a) The Cape Fear River Basin Schedule of Classifications and Water Quality Standards may be inspected
5 at the following places:
6 (1) the Internet at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/; and
7 (2) the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources:
8 (A) Winston-Salem Regional Office
9 585 Waughtown Street
10 Winston-Salem, North Carolina
11 _�B) Fayetteville Regional Office
12 225 Green Street
13 Systel Building Suite 714
14 Fayetteville, North Carolina
15 (C) Raleigh Regional Office
16 3800 Barrett Drive
17 Raleigh, North Carolina
18 (D) Washington Regional Office
19 943 Washington Square Mall
20 Washington, North Carolina
21 (E) Wilmington Regional Office
22 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
23 Wilmington, North Carolina
24 (F) Division of Water Quality
25 - Central Office
26 512 North Salisbury Street
27 Raleigh, North Carolina.
28 (b) The Cape Fear River Basin Schedule of Classification and Water Quality Standards was amended
29 effective:
30 (1) March 1, 1977;
31 (2) December 13, 1979;
32 (3) December 14, 1980;
33 (4) August 9, 1981;
34 (5) April 1, 1982;
35 (6) December 1, 1983;
36 (7) January 1, 1985;
37 (8) August 1, 1985;
A-26
DEQ-CFW 00070059

o7
1
(9)
December 1, 1985;
2
(10)
February 1, 1986;
3
(11)
July 1, 1987;
4
(12)
October 1, 1987;
5
(13)
March 1, 1988;
6
(14)
June 1, 1988;
7
(15)
July 1, 1988;
8
(16)
January 1, 1990;
9
(17)
August 1, 1990;
10
(18)
August 3, 1992;
11
(19)
September 1, 1994;
12
(20)
August 1, 1998;
13
(21)
April 1, 1999;
14
(22)
August 1, 2002;
15
(23)
November 1, 2004;
16
(24)
November 1, 200-742007:
17
(25)
May 1, 2009.
18
(c) The Schedule of Classifications and Water Quality Standards for the Cape Fear River Basin has been
19
amended effective June 1, 1988 as follows:
20
(1)
Cane Creek [Index No. 16-21-(1)] from source to a point 0.5 mile north of N.C. Hwy. 54
21
(Cane Reservoir Dam) including the Cane Creek Reservoir and all tributaries has been
22
reclassified from Class WS-III to WS-1.
23
(2)
Morgan Creek [Index No. 16-41-1-(1)] to the University Lake dam including University
24
Lake and all tributaries has been reclassified from Class WS-III to WS-I.
25 (d) The Schedule of Classifications and Water Quality Standards for the Cape Fear River Basin has been
26 amended effective July 1, 1988 by the reclassification of Crane Creek (Crain Creek) [Index No.
27 18-23-16-(1)] from source to mouth of Beaver Creek including all tributaries from C to WS-III.
28 (e) The Schedule of Classifications and Water Quality Standards for the Cape Fear River Basin has been
29 amended effective January 1, 1990 as follows:
30 (1) Intracoastal Waterway (index No. 18-87) from southern edge of White Oak River Basin
31 to western end of Permuda Island (a line from Morris Landing to Atlantic Ocean), from
32 the eastern mouth of Old Topsail Creek to the southwestern shore of Howe Creek and
33 from the southwest mouth of Shinn Creek to channel marker No. 153 including all
34 tributaries except the King Creek Restricted Area, Hardison Creek, Old Topsail Creek,
35 Mill Creek, Futch Creek and Pages Creek were reclassified from. Class SA to Class SA
36 ORW.
A-27
DEQ-CFW 00070060

A-68
1 (2) Topsail Sound and Middle Sound ORW Area which includes all waters between the
2 Barrier Islands and the Intracoastal Waterway located between a line running from the
3 western most shore of Mason Inlet to the southwestern shore of Howe Creek and a line
4 running from the western shore of New .I-opsail inlet to me eastern mourn of vtn i opsaii
5 Creek was reclassified from Class SA to Class SA ORW.
6 (3) Masonboro Sound ORW Area which includes all waters between the Barrier Islands and
7 the mainland from a line running from the southwest mouth of Shinn Creek at the
8 Intracoastal Waterway to the southern shore of Masonboro Inlet and a line running from
9 the Intracoastal Waterway Channel marker No. 153 to the southside of the Carolina
10 Beach Inlet was reclassified from Class SA to Class SA ORW.
- 11 (f) The Schedule of Classifications and Water Quality Standards for the Cape Fear River Basin has been
12 amended effective January 1, 1990 as follows: Big Alamance Creek [Index No. 16-19-(1)] from source to
13 Lake Mackintosh Dam including all tributaries has been reclassified from Class WS-III NSW to Class
14 WS-II NSW.
15 (g) The Schedule of Classifications and Water Quality Standards for the Cape Fear River Basin was
16 amended effective August 3, 1992 with the reclassification of all water supply waters (waters with a
17 primary classification of WS-I, WS-II or WS-III). These waters were reclassified to WS-I, WS-II, WS-III,
18 WS-IV or WS-V as defined in the revised water supply protection rules, (15A NCAC 02B .0100, .0200 and
19 .0300) which became effective on August 3, 1992. In some cases, streams with primary classifications
20 other than WS were reclassified to a WS classification due to their proximity and linkage to water supply
21 waters. In other'cases, waters were reclassified from a WS classification to an alternate appropriate
22 primary classification after being identified as downstream of a water supply intake or identified as not
23 being used for water supply purposes.
24 (h) The Schedule of Classifications and Water Quality Standards for the Cape Fear River Basin was
25 'amended' effective June 1, 1994 as follows:
26 (1) The Black River from its source to the Cape Fear River [Index Nos. 18-68-(0.5), 18-68-
27 (3.5) and 18-65-(11.5)] was reclassified from Classes C Sw and C Sw HQW to Class C
28 Sw ORW.
29 (2) The South River from Big Swamp to the Black River [Index Nos. 18-68-12-(0.5) and 18-
30 68-12(11.5)] was reclassified from Classes C Sw and C Sw HQW to Class C Sw ORW.
31 (3) Six Runs Creek from Quewhiffle Swamp to the Black River [Index No. 18-68-2] was
32 reclassified from Class C Sw to Class C Sw ORW.
33 (i) The Schedule of Classifications and Water Quality Standards for the Cape Fear River Basin was
34 amended effective September 1, 1994 with the reclassification of the Deep River [Index No. 17-(36.5)]
35 from the Town of Gulf-Goldston water supply intake to US highway 421 including associated tributaries
36 from Class C to Classes C, WS-IV and WS-IV CA.
A-28
DEQ-CFW 00070061

Em
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
0) The Schedule of Classifications and Water Quality Standards for the Cape Fear River Basin was
amended effective August 1, 1998 with the revision to the primary classification. for portions of the Deep
River [Index No. 17-(28.5)] from Class WS-IV to Class WS-V, Deep. River [Index No. 17-(41.5)] from
Class WS-IV to Class C. and the Cape Fear River [Index 18-(10.5)] from Class WS-IV to Class WS-V.
(k) The Schedule of Classifications and Water Quality Standards for the Cape Fear River Basin was
amended effective April 1, 1999 with the reclassification of Buckhorn Creek (Harris Lake)(Index No. 18-7-
(3)) from the backwaters of Harris Lake to the Dam at Harris Lake from Class C to Class W S-V.
(1) The Schedule of Classifications and Water Quality Standards for the Cape Fear River Basin was
amended effective April 1, 1999 with the reclassification of the Deep River [Index No. 17-(4)] from the
dam at Oakdale -Cotton Mills, Inc. to the dam at Randleman Reservoir (located 1.6 mile upstream of U.S.
Hwy 220 Business), and including tributaries from Class C and Class B to Class WS-IV and Class WS-IV
& B. Streams within the Randleman Reservoir Critical Area have been reclassified to WS-IV CA. The
Critical Area for a WS-IV reservoir is defined as 0.5 mile and draining to the normal pool elevation of the
reservoir. All waters within the Randleman Reservoir Water Supply Watershed are within a designated
Critical Water Supply Watershed and are subject to a special management strategy specified in 15A NCAC
02B .0248.
(m) The Schedule of Classifications and Water Quality Standards for the Cape Fear River Basin was
amended effective August 1, 2002 as follows:
(1) Mill Creek [Index Nos. 18-23-11-(1), 18-23-117(2), 18-23-11-3, 18-23-11-(5)] from its
source to the Little River, including all tributaries was reclassified from Class WS-III
NSW and Class WS-III B NSW to Class WS-III NSW HQW@ and Class WS-III B NSW
HQW@.
(2) McDeed's Creek [Index Nos. 18-23-I1-4, 18-23-11-4-11 from its source to Mill Creek,
including all tributaries was reclassified from Class WS III NSW and Class WS-I1I B
NSW to Class WS-III NSW HQW@ and Class WS-III B NSW HQW@.
The "@" symbol as used in this Paragraph means that if the governing municipality has deemed that a
development is covered under a "5/70 provision" as described in Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0215(3)(b)(i)(E)
(Fresh Surface Water Quality Standards for Class WS-III Waters), then that development is not subject to
the stormwater requirements as described in.rule 15A NCAC 02H .1006 (Stormwater Requirements: High
Quality Waters).
(n) The Schedule of Classifications and Water Quality Standards for the Cape Fear River Basin was
amended effective November 1, 2004 as follows:
(1) A portion of Rocky River [Index Number 1743-(1)] from a point approximately 0.3 mile
upstream of Town of Siler City upper reservoir dam to a point approximately 0.3 mile
downstream of Lacy Creek from WS-111 to WS-III CA.
A-29
DEQ-CFW 00070062

ow
1
(2)
A portion of Rocky River [Index Number 17-43-(8)] from dam at lower water supply
2
reservoir for Town of Siler City to a point approximately 65 feet below dam (site of
3
proposed dam) from C to WS-III CA. s
4
(3)
A portion of Mud Lick Creek (Index No. 17-43-6)-from a point approximately 0.4 mile
5
upstream of Chatham County SR 1355 to Town of Siler City lower water supply
6
reservoir from WS-III to WS-III CA.
7
(4)
A portion of Lacy Creek (17-43-7) from a point approximately 0.6- mile downstream of
8
ChathamCountySR 1362 to Town of Siler City lower water supply reservoir from WS-
9
III to WS-III CA.
10
(o) The Schedule: of Classifications and Water Quality Standards for the Cape Fear River Basin was
11
amended effective November 1, 2007 with the reclassifications listed below, and the North Carolina
12
Division of Water Quality maintains a Geographic Information Systems data layer of these UWLs.
13
(1)
Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point Pools, all on the eastern shore of the Cape Fear
14
River [Index No. 18-(71)] were reclassified to Class WL UWL as defined in 15A NCAC
15
02B .0101.
16
(2)
Salters Lake Bay near Salters Lake [Index No. 1844-4] was reclassified to Class WL
17
UWL as defined in 15A NCAC 02B .0101.
18
(3)
Jones Lake Bay near Jones Lake [Index No. 18-46-7-1] was reclassified to Class WL
19
UWL as defined in 15A NCAC 02B .0101.
20
(4) •
= Weymouth Woods Sandhill Seep near Mill Creek [18-23-11-(1)] was reclassified to
21
Class WL UWL as defined.in 15A NCAC 02B .0101.
22
(5)
Fly Trap Savanna near Cape Fear River [Index No. 18-(71)] was reclassified to Class WL
23
UWL as defined in 15A NCAC 02B .0101.
24
(6)
Lily Pond near Cape Fear River [Index No. 18-(71)] was reclassified to Class WL UWL
25
as defined in 15A NCAC 02B .0101.
26
(7) .-
Grassy Pond near Cape Fear River [Index No. 18-(71)] was reclassified to Class WL
27
UWL as defined in 15A NCAC 02B .0101. .
28
(8)
The Neck Savanna near Sandy Run Swamp [Index No. 18-74-33-2] was reclassified to
29
Class WL UWL as defined in 15A NCAC 02B .0101.
30
(9)
Bower's Bog near Mill Creek [Index No. 18-23-11-(1)] was reclassified to Class WL
31
UWL as defined in 15A NCAC.02B .0101.
32 (10) Bushy Lake near Turnbull Creek [Index No. 18-46) was reclassified -to Class WL UWL
33 as defined in 15A NCAC 02B .0101.
34 (p) The Schedule of Classifications and Water Quality Standards for the Cape Fear River Basin was
35 amended effective May 1, 2009 as follows:
36 (1) a portion of Cape Fear River llndex No. 184201 (including tributaries) from Smithfield
37 Packing Company's intake located approximately 2 miles upstream of County Road
A-30
DEQ-CFW 00070063

A-71
1 1316 to a -point approximately 0 5 miles upstream of Smithfield Packing Company's
2 intake from Class C to Class WS-IV CA.
3 (2) a portion of Cape Pear River (Index No.18-(26)1 (including tributaries) from a point
4. approximately 0 5 miles upstream of Smithfield Packing Company's intake to a point
5 approximately 1 mile upstream of Grays Creek from Class C to Class WS-IV.
6
7 History Note: Authority G.S. 143-214.1; 143-215.1; 143-215.3(a)(1);
8 Eff. February 1, 1976;
9 Amended Eff. May 1, 2009 November 1, 2007; November 1, 2004; August 1, 2002; April
10 1, 1999; August 1, 1998; September 1, 1994; June 1, 1994; August 3, 1992; August 1,
11 1990.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
A-31
DEQ-CFW 00070064

A-72
North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources' • . .
Michael F. Easley, Governor NCDENR
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
July 18, 2008
TO: Major Newspapers of NC
FROM: Ms. Elizabeth Kountis
Environmental Senior Specialist
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
SUBJECT: Publication of Public Hearing Announcement for Proposed
Reclassification of Cape Fear River
Attached is an announcement for a Public Hearing for the Proposed Reclassification of
the Cape Fear River. The legal requirements for notice of this hearing as required by
G.S. 150B-21.2 have been met by publishing this notice in the NC)2egister. Publishing
this notice in newspapers is not a statutory requirement and has therefore been recently
cut from the Department's budget as non -essential spending. However, we do recognize
that newspapers are one of the most effective methods to convey information to the
public, and many newspapers contain a public announcement (or similar) section that
does not charge a fee to service its readers with public hearing announcements.
Therefore, we are presenting the attached announcement to you for your information to
publish at your discretion.
Should you decide to publish this information, it would be greatly appreciated if you
would notify us. I can be contacted at any of the following:
By Email: [e-mail]
By Fax #: [phone]
By postal mail:
Ms. Elizabeth Kountis
NCDENR-DWQ-Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
By phone: [phone]
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you
sincerely for your consideration.
Enclosure
EA-32
DEQ-CFW 00070065

[Fwd: Re: Reclassification Cape Fear River]
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Reclassification Cape Fear River]
From: Elizabeth Kountis <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:37:13 -0400
To: jeff manning <jef£[e-mail]>
fyi
---------------------------------
Elizabeth Kountis
NC DENR
Division of Water Quality - Classifications & Standards Unit
[phone] direct line
[phone] main DWQ line
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina
Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
Subject: Re: Reclassification Cape Fear River
From: Elizabeth Kountis <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:34:44 -0400
To: Don <[e-mail]>
You are correct regarding the Jan 1, 2009 effective date.
Regarding documentation, the rule amendment associated with the reclassification has
been codified into 15A NCAC 2B .0311, as can be viewed at the following link:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/rules/15A2BO311_CAPEFEAR_1jan2009.pdf (look at "(p)"
on the very last page of this webpage)
Don wrote:
Elizabeth:
Hope this finds you well. The Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority is in the
process of submitting application for Stimulus Funding through the Public Water
Supply Section and staff within Jessica Miles section is seeking some degree of
clarification on the Reclassification of the Cape Fear River for raw water supply
to the water treatment plant.
According to the diagram you previously supplied for "Procedures for Rulemaking"
(June 25, 2003)... the proposed rule becomes effective first day of the month
following the RRC approval. Would that have been January 1, 2009 ? Is there some
sort of documentation that can be provided?
Thank you!
Don Betz
Executive Director
Lower Cape Fear Water & Sewer Authority
[phone] Office
[phone] Fax
1 of 2 3/16/2009 12:37 PM
DEQ-CFW 00070066

[Fwd: Re: Reclassification Cape Fear River]
---------------------------------
Elizabeth Kountis
NC DENR
Division of Water Quality - Classifications & Standards Unit
[phone] direct line
[phone] main DWQ line
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina
Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
Content -Type: message/rfc822
Re: Reclassification Cape Fear River.eml
Content -Encoding: 8bit
2 of 2 3/16/2009 12:37 PM
DEQ-CFW 00070067