DEQ-CFW_00070609

DEQ-CFW-00070609

[ -wd: Response to Aug 30 2007 HUA response]
"T
Subject: [Fwd: Response to Aug 30 2007 HUA response]
From: Elizabeth Kountis <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:02:56 -0400
To: Jeff Manning <jef£[e-mail]>
CC: Connie Brower <[e-mail]>
fyi... I assume you got a copy of the document I cited in the e-mail below, as Nora,
Connie and I did. Hopefully, it has the red "DWQ Environmental Review Tracking
Sheet" still on it to clue you into what I'm talking about.
Subject: Response to Aug 30 2007 HUA response
From: Elizabeth Kountis <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:00:38 -0400
To: Hannah Stallings <[e-mail]>, Nora Deamer <[e-mail]>,
Connie Brower <[e-mail]>
The info below is a retort to the 8-30-2007 HUA response to 4-15-07 and 24-07
agency comments for the Lower Cape Fear Water and Sewer Authority/Bladen Bluffs EA
(#1388).
Connie and Nora: I have hopefully incorporated your edits correctly.
Hannah - Could you please send to me, Nora, and Connie a copy of what you plan to
send to HUA before you actually send it for a final read? Thanks.
Regarding the first sentence of the first paragraph on Page 3:
Please note that "would" should be replaced with "may". Sampling results for this
reclassification have not been received yet and therefore it is not certain whether
or not they will address this concern. For the two portions of this part of the
river that were "not rated" for aquatic life, the 2002-2006 data show that one of
these portions remains "not rated" but is newly impaired for merLuron water
column as well as fish tissue results. This data also shows that the second
portion, which has been impaired only on the basis of mercury fish tissue results,
is now also impaired for water column lead, low pH, and water column mercury
results. (For your information, one portion of this part of the r-1_v_e_r_RasTDeen, and
continues to be, "not rated" for recreation, and there is also a new portion of
this part of the river that the data now shows as "not rated.")
Regarding the third and fourth sentences of the second paragraph on Page 3:
It is not known at this time whether additional PFOA data for the proposed intake
and associated reclassification will be needed for the reclassification to proceed.
The Science Advisory Board (SAB) has been requested to recommend a reference dose
value for PFOA from which a water quality standard can be derived. The need for
additional PFOA data is dependent on (1) whether or not the SAB deems that existing
toxicity data is sufficient enough for them to make a recommendation, and (2) the
SAB value recommended, and in turn, the corresponding derived water quality
standard.
'i Content -Type: message/rfc822
!Response to Aug 30 2007 HUA responseili
Content -Encoding: 8bit
I of 1 9/19/2007 3:06 PM
DEQ-CFW 00070610

Re: Cape Fear Bladen Bluffs project
Subject: Re: Cape Fear Bladen Bluffs project
From: Nora Deamer <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:37:29 -0400
To: Elizabeth Kountis <[e-mail]>
There are two portions that are now "not rated" for recreation (due to elevated
fecal coliform levels). Also it is important to note that the "not rated" of
aquatic life segment is newly impaired for fish consumption based on water column
data (not just fish tissue). This indicates that the mercury issue extends beyond
just the Impaired section.
Hope this helps.
Nora
Elizabeth Kountis wrote:
Please review the info below, and let me know if it looks ok.
-
------------------------------------ ---
Regarding the first sentence of the first paragraph on Page 3:
Please note that "would" should be replaced with "may". Sampling results for
this reclassification have not been received yet and therefore it is not certain
whether or not they will address this concern. For the two portions of this part
of the river that were "not rated" for aquatic life, the 2002-2006 data show
that one of these portions remains "not rated" and the other portion is now
impaired for water column lead and mercury as well as low pH. For your
information, one portion of this part of the river was, and continues to be,
"not rated" for recreation,
l of 1 9/19/2007 3:03 PM
DEQ-CFW 00070611

Baden Bluffs infonnaiton
.,
Subject: Baden Bluffs informaiton
" From: Nora Deamer <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:57:27 -0400
To: Elizabeth Kountis <[e-mail]>
Hi Betsy,
I have attached the updated information for Baden Bluffs. The new information is in
Blue. The water quality in this section of the Cape Fear is not looking good.
There is a water column lead and mercury problem. A TMDL will have to be done at
some point in the future.
I don't know what the source of the metals are at this time.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks
Nora_
Content -Type: application/ms row d
Elizabeth Kountis requested info Baden Bluffs 9-07 doc',Content-Encoding: base64
L of 1 9/19/2007 3:03 PM
DEQ-CFW 00070612

September 19, 2007
Cape Fear River AU# 18-(26)c (4.0 miles — from Grays Creek to Lock and Dam 3) —
Impaired due to Chl a standard violation — on the 2006 303(d) list.
Cape Fear River AU# 18-(26)d (21.3 miles — from Lock and dam 3 to NC41) — Impaired
for fish consumption due to elevated mercury fish tissue levels — on the 2006 303(d) list.
This segment is now Impaired due to low pH standard violations and because of water
column lead and mercury standard violations. A TMDL for these parameters will have to
be done.
Cape Fear River AU# 18-(26)e (1.8 miles — from NC41 to Browns Creek) — Impaired for
fish consumption due to elevated water column mercury levels. This is new and will
require a TMDL.
It appears that this segment of the Cape Fear is suffering from high turbidity, high
chlorophyll, low pH , low DO and high levels of water column lead and 'mercury.
A TMDL will have to be done for this segment of the Cape Fear for Chl a, low pH, lead
and mercury.
The following are not on the 303(d) list; currently rated as ND (no data)
Grays Creek (18-35-(2)); Hairs Mill Creek (18-36); Willis Creek (18-37); Swans Creek
(18-37-1); Longs Branch (18-37-1-1); Kirks Mill Creek (18-37-2); UT @ Willis Creek
Church (18-37-3-(1); UT @ Willis Creek Church (18-37-3-(2); Georgia Branch (18-38);
Mines Creek (18-38-1-(1); Mines Creek (18-38-1-(2)
My guess would be that these have never been assessed by DWQ.
DEQ-CFW 00070613

Overall Cape Fear 18-(26) ratings
AU#
Aquatic life rating
Recreation rating
Fish Consumption
18-(26)a -
supporting
Not Rated
impaired —
evaluated
(high turbidity 10%)
18-(26)b
supporting
Not Rated
impaired —
evaluated
(High turbidity 9.7%;
High Pb -7% & Hg-9.8%)
18-(26)c
Impaired (chl a)
supporting
impaired —
evaluated
18-(26)d
Impaired
supporting
impaired —
monitored
Low p1j.13 %
• High E,b. 20%
• High H• g 20%
(low DO & high Chi a)
18-(26)e
Not Rated
supporting
impaired
— monitored
High Hg 19%
(high Chl a & low pH)
18-(26)f
supporting
supporting
impaired
— evaluated
DEQ-CFW 00070614