2017 Annual Basin Planning Report

1 | P a g e

Environmental Management Commission
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Resources

Annual Report to the General Assembly
Environmental Review Commission
Basinwide Water Quality Management Planning
July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017

This report is submitted to meet the requirements of G.S. 143-215.8B(d), which requires annual reporting
on the development of basinwide water quality management plans.

2 | P a g e

Contents

1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 4
2. Basin Plan Development ...................................................................................................................... 5
2.1. Public Involvement and Educational Opportunities .................................................................... 7
3. Challenges ............................................................................................................................................ 7
3.1. Limited Data................................................................................................................................. 7
3.2. Unknown Sources ........................................................................................................................ 8
3.3. Full Integration of Water Quality and Quantity Planning ............................................................ 8
3.4. Analytical Tools ............................................................................................................................ 9
4. Statewide Water Quality/Quantity Issues ........................................................................................... 9
4.1. Biological Impairments and Habitat Degradation ....................................................................... 9
4.2. Algal Blooms ................................................................................................................................ 9
4.3. Impacts from Agricultural Operations ....................................................................................... 10
4.4. Emerging Contaminants ............................................................................................................ 10
4.5. Ground Water ............................................................................................................................ 13
4.6. Impact from Excessive Flooding (Hurricanes) ........................................................................... 13
5. Water Quality Monitoring ................................................................................................................. 13
5.1. Water Quality Monitoring and Pollutant Concentrations ......................................................... 13
5.1.1. Turbidity ................................................................................................................................. 14
5.1.2. Nutrients - Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) .............................................................................. 20
5.1.3. Fecal Coliform Bacteria .......................................................................................................... 20
5.1.4. pH ........................................................................................................................................... 21
5.1.5. Metals .................................................................................................................................... 21
5.2. Water Quality Monitoring and Associated Impairment Summary ............................................ 22
6. Summary of Each River Basin ............................................................................................................ 23
6.1. Broad River Basin ....................................................................................................................... 23
6.2. Catawba River Basin .................................................................................................................. 23
6.3. Cape Fear River Basin ................................................................................................................ 24
6.4. Chowan River Basin ................................................................................................................... 26
6.5. French Broad River Basin ........................................................................................................... 27
6.6. Hiwassee .................................................................................................................................... 27

3 | P a g e

6.7. Little Tennessee River Basin ...................................................................................................... 28
6.8. Lumber River Basin .................................................................................................................... 28
6.9. Neuse River Basin ...................................................................................................................... 29
6.10. New River Basin ..................................................................................................................... 30
6.11. Pasquotank River Basin ......................................................................................................... 31
6.12. Roanoke River Basin .............................................................................................................. 31
6.13. Savannah River Basin ............................................................................................................. 32
6.14. Tar-Pamlico River Basin ......................................................................................................... 32
6.15. Watauga River Basin .............................................................................................................. 33
6.16. White Oak River Basin ........................................................................................................... 34
6.17. Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin ................................................................................................... 35

4 | P a g e

1. Introduction
Basinwide water quality management plans are required under General Statute 143-215.8B. The plans
evaluate point and nonpoint sources of pollution using biological and ambient water quality data as well as
computer modeling and analysis. The plans for the 17 river basins are reviewed and revised by the
Environmental Management Commission (EMC) at least every ten years to reflect changes in water quality,
improvements in modeling methods, improvements in wastewater treatment technology and advances in
scientific knowledge. The plans are also reviewed to ensure waters of the state are meeting their designated
uses or if management strategies need to be modified. The basinwide water quality management plans are
not rule; however, “any water quality standard or classification and any requirement or limitation granted
applicability that implements a basinwide water quality management plan is a rule and must be adopted in
Article 2A of Chapter 150B of the General Statutes.”
To analyze surface water availability, the Division of Water Resources (DWR) uses hydrologic models. The
models are based on historic streamflow data and capture the effects of current management protocols,
surface water withdrawals and wastewater discharges over the range of streamflows in the historic flow
records. The models can be used to evaluate the potential effects on surface water availability produced by
anticipated changes in water demands and management regimes. The models are also used to evaluate
potential impacts of permit decisions including the approval of water supply allocations from lakes and
reservoirs or approval of surface water transfers. The models are available to anyone who requests access
and can be used to evaluate potential flow impacts from proposed projects and identify flow conditions,
the reoccurrence of which, could produce water shortages limiting the ability to meet expected demand.
The models also evaluate the possible magnitude of the water shortages. By statute, the models are subject
to a 60-day comment period and must be resubmitted to the EMC if there are substantial comments and/or
updates. Currently, DWR hosts hydrologic models for the Tar-Pamlico, Roanoke and Broad River basins
along with the combined Cape Fear-Neuse River basin model. A hydrologic model is also available for the
Catawba-Wateree River basin. Efforts are underway to develop models for the French Broad, Watauga and
New River basins. A combined model will be developed for the Watauga and New River basins.
Session Law 2013-413 combined the former Division of Water Quality (DWQ) with DWR which resulted in
developing data management schemes and planning initiatives to support the creation of integrated
basinwide plans to address water quality and quantity issues. Information presented in the combined plans
supports a variety of state and local programs aimed at protecting and improving water resources in North
Carolina’s streams, rivers, and estuaries. Water resource issues documented in basinwide plans provide
support for local governments, natural resource groups, researchers, soil and water agencies and other
state and local agencies in identifying current water resource issues, potential impacts from existing
conditions and potential project areas to focus restoration, conservation or preservation activities to
protect water quality.
DWR’s basinwide planning program also takes advantage of stakeholder input. Stakeholders provide
information essential to protecting and enhancing watershed water quality and issues associated with
reliability of water supplies. Partnering stakeholders typically include watershed associations, land trusts,
water quality monitoring coalitions, soil and water conservation districts, public water systems, and other
federal, state, and local agencies. DWR staff members regularly assist municipal water systems with

5 | P a g e

developing and updating their local water supply plans as well as provide essential water quality data when
available.
For implementation, the basinwide planning program relies heavily on other branches and sections within
the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), DWR and other state and local agencies to implement
water quality improvement practices. This can be through regulatory directives and/or voluntary measures.
If a management strategy is in place, the plans provide detailed updates on the implementation of that
strategy including successes, additional needs or changes that may require rule making or legislative action.
DWR is expanding the capacity to present integrated basin plans electronically, increasing the availability
to the public and enhancing the public’s ability to explore data on which basin plans are based. Basinwide
water resource management plans are available at: http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-
resources/planning/basin-planning.
General Statue 143-215.8B(d) requires that the Commission and the Department report to the
Environmental Review Commission (ERC) on an annual basis. The report includes progress on developing
and implementing basin plans as well as public involvement and education. The report also includes a
statement regarding “concentrations of heavy metals and other pollutants identified in the course of
preparing or revising the basin plans.” Table 1 identifies the sections in this report where each of these
issues is addressed.
Table 1: Report Topics and Sections
Report Topic Section 1:
Introduction
Section 2: Plan
Development
Section 3:
Challenges
Section 4:
Statewide
Issues/
Concerns
Section 5:
Monitoring
Section 6:
Basin
Summaries
Progress in
developing plans x x x
Progress in
implementing plans x x
Public involvement x x x x x
Public education x x x x
Concentration of
heavy metals x
Pollutants identified
in surface water x x x x

2. Basin Plan Development
Currently, the Broad, Cape Fear, Chowan, Pasquotank, Watauga and White Oak River Basin Water Resource
Plans are under development. Along with in-depth water quality assessments and recommendations for
improving water quality, these integrated water resource plans will include detailed evaluations of surface
water availability. Whenever possible, the plans will also include information about future water demands
and groundwater use. Table 2 lists the 17 river basins within North Carolina and the schedule for DWR
monitoring, planning and implementation. Figure 1 shows the basin boundaries.

6 | P a g e

Table 2: Basin Planning Schedule
River Basin
Last EMC
Approved
Plan
Next
Plan
Update
NPDES
Permits
Renewal
Year
Biological
Basinwide
Monitoring
Quantity
Model
Platform
Quality
Model/
Strategy
Web Links
to
Executive
Summary
Chowan 2007 2018 2017 2020 n/a NSW CHO
Pasquotank 2007 2018 2017 2020 n/a NCDP PAS
Watauga 2007 2018 2017 2018 OASIS WAT
White Oak 2007 2018 2017 2019 n/a New R.-
NSW WOK
Broad 2008 2018 2018 2020 OASIS BRD
Neuse 2009 2018/
2019* 2018 2020 OASIS NSW NEU
Cape Fear 2005 2018 2016 2018 OASIS
Haw R.-
NSW; Mid
CF - NCDP
CPF
Yadkin 2008 2018/
2019 2018 2016 NCDP YAD
Lumber 2010 2019 2019 2016 LBR
Catawba 2010 2019 2020 2017 CHEOPS CAT
French
Broad 2011 2020 2020 2017 OASIS FBR
New River 2011 2020 2016 2018 OASIS NEW
Hiwassee 2012 2021 2017 2019 TVA HIW
Little
Tennessee 2012 2021 2017 2019 TVA LTN
Roanoke 2012 2021 2017 2019 OASIS 216 Study ROA
Savannah 2012 2021 2017 2019 n/a SAV
Tar-Pamlico 2015 2023 2019 2017 OASIS NSW TAR
NSW = Nutrient Sensitive Waters, NCDP = Nutrient Criteria Development Plan,
* NSW Strategy and regulatory update prior to NPDES permits renewal; Full plan completion 2019.
n/a – currently hydrologic models are not being developed for coastal areas.

7 | P a g e

Figure 1: North Carolina’s Seventeen River Basins

2.1. Public Involvement and Educational Opportunities
An important component to basinwide planning is public involvement and public education on a variety of
basinwide water quality and quantity issues. DWR Planning Section staff participate in many aspects of
stakeholder interactions which range from requesting specific feedback on new rules and environmental
protection measures to requests for data for watershed planning and assessment and basin plan
development. Basin planners work with the public and resource agencies daily and act as a clearinghouse
for all basin related information. In the course of developing a basin plan, staff work directly with specific
watershed stakeholders and resource agencies with the knowledge of a specific area or concern in the
basin. The amount of interactions can vary depending on the stage of the plan development process. Over
this annual reporting period while developing the six plans listed above, staff worked directly with several
soil and water conservation districts (SWCD), regional Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)
offices, local governments as well as non-profits and watershed groups throughout the basins. Planners
have presented water quality and quantity information at several venues, including the 2017 Wildlife
Resources Commission (WRC) Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) Regional Workshops, Watershed Stewardship
Network Workshops as well as participated in watershed meetings around the state. Education and
stakeholder interactions are a critical aspect of basinwide planning. This is where implementation and
water quality improvements begin.
3. Challenges
There are many challenges in identifying nonpoint sources of pollution. These include limited data, source
identification, contaminant or pollutant identification, and available analytical software.
3.1. Limited Data
Due to limited available data, it is difficult to account for all nonpoint sources of pollution. G.S. 143-
215.8B(a)(1) states that the EMC "shall consider the cumulative impacts" of "all activities across a river basin
and all point and nonpoint sources of pollutants, including municipal wastewater facilities, industrial

8 | P a g e

wastewater systems, septic tank systems, stormwater management systems, golf courses, farms that use
fertilizers and pesticides for crops, public and commercial lawn and gardens, atmospheric deposition, and
animal operations." The spatial location of many point sources of pollution are readily available. Many of
these facilities are often required to keep records of effluent concentrations that can then be used by the
DWR to assist with identifying impacts to water quality. The amount and type of fertilizers, pesticides or
herbicides used on farms, golf courses, public and commercial lawn and gardens, however, is not readily
available. In addition, the location of poultry operations that utilize a dry waste management system and
the fields on which the waste is applied are not easily accessible or known. DWR works with several local
agencies to identify potential nonpoint sources of pollution and the types of activities that may be impacting
water quality in the area, but data is usually not available to quantify the amount of fertilizers, pesticides,
herbicides or dry waste applied to land.
3.2. Unknown Sources
Compounds of nitrogen and phosphorus are major components of living organisms and thus are essential
to maintain life. These compounds are collectively referred to as “nutrients”. When nutrients are
introduced to an aquatic ecosystem from municipal and industrial treatment processes or runoff from
urban or agricultural land, the growth of algae and other plants may be accelerated. Data collected over
the past several years indicate that organic nitrogen is increasing throughout the state (Figure 4). The
sources of the organic nitrogen in the aquatic system is not well understood at this time. Groundwater,
legacy sediments, biosolids application, atmospheric deposition as well as changes to streamflow and its
impact to permit limits may also be contributing to the increased nutrient values. Additional research and
analytical tools are needed to help DWR understand the source of increasing organic nitrogen and how to
properly manage this load. In addition, more detailed reporting on agricultural best management practices
(BMP) and changes to operations (i.e., moving from crop production to animal operation) could assist with
identifying nutrient sources and appropriate BMPs to address the source.
3.3. Full Integration of Water Quality and Quantity Planning
The basin plans include information about water quality and quantity. However, fully integrating both
aspects and offering recommendations to protect and enhance instream and off-stream uses is a challenge
due to data gaps and interpretation as well as governing policies and federal mandates related to water
resource programs. Environmental and human health standards are established by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to meet federal requirements under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), while maintaining adequate flows associated with federal actions can
be evaluated through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Information on all entities that
withdraw water and water use data, however, is managed by state policies and the overarching umbrella
of riparian rights within the state.
Hydrologic models are used to determine the places, times, frequencies and intervals in which water may
be inadequate to meet known water demands. To better incorporate flows to protect water uses, including
ecological integrity, data are needed for points of interest throughout the basins to assess flow and water
availability. Including these points of interest within a hydrologic model can assist with determining when
off-stream uses (drinking water supplies, manufacturing and industrial uses, thermoelectric power
generation) cannot be met or when aquatic communities may be impacted. DWR works cooperatively with

9 | P a g e

public and private entities seeking water supply on site-specific projects to establish flow regimes necessary
to maintain aquatic habitat. North Carolina is not alone in understanding the complexities of water quality
and quantity. Understanding how fluctuations in water quantity affect water quality is critical to
protecting all waters of the state.
3.4. Analytical Tools
DEQ is in the process of developing a statewide integrated data management system to replace the current,
segmented system. This process was initiated several years ago, and is a multi-divisional product that will
improve efficiencies and duplicative efforts. This data management system will not only allow DWR to
analyze data in a more in-depth and efficient manner but will also improve DWR’s ability to share data and
analytical results with the public in a variety of outputs as well as provide more accurate and up-to-date
sampling results.
4. Statewide Water Quality/Quantity Issues
Table 3 provides a quick glance of major issues that are identified in each of the 17 river basins. Several
issues span all the basins and include biological impairments, algal blooms, potential impacts from
agricultural operations and emerging contaminants.
4.1. Biological Impairments and Habitat Degradation
Many of the biological impairments across the state are due to poor and degraded aquatic habitat. While
seen statewide, degradation is increasingly obvious in urban and suburban areas where large impervious
surface areas are resulting in greater stormwater runoff, higher peak flows (flashy streams) and lower base
flows. Streambank and instream habitat erosion along with elevated turbidity and increased concentrations
of pollutants are making it difficult to protect sustainable aquatic populations. Pesticide and nutrient
management from urban and agricultural lands, disconnected or reduced floodplains, animal access to
streams, and damaged or aging wastewater collection systems are also identified as key contributors to
poor aquatic habitats. Maintaining or establishing riparian buffers could potentially minimize the impact
from stormwater overland flow by reducing pollutants and stabilizing stream banks. In addition, adopting
stormwater management in areas where stormwater management is not required as well as education and
outreach could also assist with improving aquatic habitats statewide.
4.2. Algal Blooms
Several algal blooms were reported across the state over the past year including the Neuse, Cape Fear,
Chowan, Pasquotank, French Broad and Little Tennessee River basins. Data collected at the ambient water
quality monitoring stations over the past several years indicates that organic nitrogen is increasing
throughout the state and these increases are offsetting nitrogen reductions made as a result of rules
established for nutrient sensitive waters (NSW). Currently, the sources of the organic nitrogen are not well
understood. Groundwater, legacy sediments, biosolids application, atmospheric deposition as well as
changes to streamflow and its impact to permit limits may be contributing to the increased nutrient values.
Additional research and analytical tools are needed to help DEQ understand the source of increasing organic
nitrogen and how to properly manage this load. In many areas, there is a direct connection between
groundwater and surface water and understanding the potential for groundwater to transport nutrients
from biosolids and wastewater land application fields to surface water is critical in identifying potential

10 | P a g e

sources of organic nitrogen. In addition, more detailed reporting on agricultural BMP and changes to
operations (i.e., moving from crop production to animal operation) could assist with identifying nutrient
sources and the appropriate BMP to address the source.
4.3. Impacts from Agricultural Operations
Understanding the impacts from large-scale agricultural operations can be challenging due to minimal
monitoring in the watersheds in which they are located. Waste treatment from concentrated animal
feeding operations (CAFOs) normally includes a liquid waste treatment lagoon. Solids settle to the bottom
of the lagoon, and the liquid waste is applied to crops through a spray irrigation system. If not effectively
utilized by vegetation, nutrients produced by animals can enter surface waters by atmospheric deposition,
groundwater transport and stormwater runoff. Excess nutrients in surface water can impact aquatic
ecosystems and the type and amount of treatment required to ensure that water is safe for human
consumption. DEQ has regulatory authority over swine and cattle operations that use dry or liquid manure
waste management systems and poultry operations that use a liquid waste management system (i.e., spray
irrigation). These permitted animal facilities are inspected annually. Most poultry operations, however,
produce a dry litter waste that typically falls under the deemed permitted category (NCAC 02T .1303) and
do not require an NPDES or state permit. Operations that fall into this category are only inspected if a
complaint is filed. Because information about the location, number of animals, amount of waste produced
or fields on which the dry litter is applied is unknown, determining the extent of potential impacts from
animal waste to water quality is difficult to assess. Additional information is needed about the location of
deemed permitted operations and land application sites to assist DWR in establishing new monitoring
stations to assess potential nutrient impacts to aquatic ecosystems and water quality.
4.4. Emerging Contaminants
Emerging contaminants are a potential issue for all waters (surface and ground) of the state. Emerging
contaminants come from a wide range of sources including pharmaceuticals, pesticides, disinfection by-
products, wood preservatives, personal care products and industrial chemicals as well as their by-products.
These contaminants are released into water from multiple sources including conventional wastewater
treatments plants, individual onsite wastewater collection systems, and industrial and chemical
manufacturing facilities. Many of these potential sources do not have treatment systems in place that are
designed to detect, eliminate or treat these poorly understood contaminants. While a contaminant may be
unique to a specific source or river basin, many are widespread. The effects of emerging contaminants on
aquatic ecosystems and on human health are mostly unknown, and the lack of appropriate analytical
methods and monitoring techniques makes identification and management a challenge. The uncertainty of
whether these contaminants are present, their effects on human health and their impacts to aquatic
ecosystems is a growing public concern. Because emerging contaminants are not fully understood, it limits
the State’s ability to protect water quality. It also limits the State’s ability to regulate the contaminants or
identify treatment options for water treatment facilities to provide safe drinking water to the public and
ensure that aquatic ecosystems are protected.

11 | P a g e

Table 3: Issues/Concerns Identified in Each River Basin
Issue/Concern BRD CPF CAT CHO FBR HIW LTN LBR NEU NEW PAS ROA SAV TAR WAT WOK YAD
Algal blooms (includes potentially
harmful algal blooms) x x x x x x
Animal feeding operations (NPDES or
state permit, certificates of coverage) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area
(CCPCUA) NA x NA NA NA NA NA NA x NA x x NA x NA x NA
Coal ash ponds x x x x x x x
Elevated levels of bacteria x x x x x x x x x x x
Elevated levels of bromide x x
Emerging contaminants x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Fish consumption advisories for PCBs x x
Impacts to trout waters (temperature,
low dissolved oxygen, habitat
degradation)
NA NA NA NA x x x NA NA x NA NA x NA x NA NA
NPDES wastewater facilities and
collection systems (sewer overflows,
inflow and infiltration, level of treatment,
emerging contaminants, nutrients,
location of return)
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Nutrient management strategy (nutrient
sensitive waters) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA x NA NA NA NA x NA NA NA
Nutrients (inorganic nitrogen, organic
nitrogen, phosphorus) x x x x x x x x x x x
Onsite wastewater collection systems
(damaged or failing systems) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Poultry operations that produce a dry
litter waste and are deemed permitted
under NCAC 02T .1303* x x x x x x x x x x x x
Sediment loads increasing (habitat
degradation, increased treatment costs
for water supplies) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

12 | P a g e

Issue/Concern BRD CPF CAT CHO FBR HIW LTN LBR NEU NEW PAS ROA SAV TAR WAT WOK YAD
Shellfish harvesting areas closed (coastal
basins) due to elevated bacterial levels NA x NA x NA NA NA x x NA x NA NA NA NA x NA
Stormwater (includes concerns related to
increased volume and velocity) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Increasing temperature (higher
temperatures can contribute to algal
blooms, decrease dissolved oxygen
concentrations, decrease benthic and
fish productivity)
x x x x x x x x

*The location of operations that are deemed permitted are unknown. Information about the number and types of birds in a county can be found in the USDA National
Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS) quick stats query tool.

13 | P a g e

4.5. Ground Water
Ground water is an extremely important water source in North Carolina with nearly half of the state’s population
relying on it for water supply. For most public water supply systems in the coastal plain, ground water is the
primary water source. The Central Coastal Plan Capacity Use Area (CCPCUA) is a 15-county area that was
designated by the EMC in August 2002 because of concerns about the viability of several ground water sources or
aquifers. The CCPCUA requires water use permits for large entities that use more than 100,000 gallons of ground
water per day. It also requires that small ground and surface water users that use more than 10,000 gallons per
day register their withdrawal under CCPCUA. Over a 16-year period, many large water users in the CCPCUA are
required to reduce their withdrawals by up to 75% from certain aquifers and use alternate water sources.
North Carolina continues to monitor ground water quality and gauge contamination based on the 2L ground water
standards rules. Recently, the Ground Water Management Branch (GWMB) conducted a pilot study in Sampson
and Duplin Counties to assess the most common nonpoint source pollutants in ground water at DWR’s monitoring
wells. Long term plans include broadening the sampling effort to all wells in DWR’s statewide monitoring network
to provide ambient measurements of a large number of parameters and quantify background concentrations.
4.6. Impact from Excessive Flooding (Hurricanes)
In October 2016, the Cape Fear, Chowan, Lumber, Neuse, Roanoke, Tar-Pamlico and Roanoke River basins were
severely impacted as result of excessive flooding due to Hurricane Matthew. A special study of the surface water
quality impacts associated with the hurricane was conducted. Thirty samples were collected across the seven river
basins and results indicated that any negative impacts to surface waters from the severe flooding appeared to
have been transient, lasting several weeks. Water quality returned to pre-storm baseline conditions when flows
returned to normal. It may take years to determine the long-term impact to the basins from such a historic
flooding event. Biological monitoring will be done in the future to assess the impacts and recovery to the aquatic
ecosystems as a whole.
5. Water Quality Monitoring

5.1. Water Quality Monitoring and Pollutant Concentrations
DWR’s ambient monitoring program, along with seven monitoring coalitions, collect physical and chemical data
at many stations across the state (Table 4). Data was assessed to identify possible statistically significant statewide
concentration changes over time. This statewide trend assessment is a screening tool that DWR is using to identify
changes occurring across the state that need further investigation and analysis. This could result in pollutant
source identification studies, prioritization for stream restoration work, development of an EPA 9-element
watershed restoration plan, basinwide management plan focus area or the development of a total maximum daily
load (TMDL).
The trend analysis was developed using a seasonal and non-seasonal version of the non-parametric Mann-Kendal
trend test to determine temporal trends in water quality (Steve Winkler, 2004. St. Johns River Water Management
District Technical Publication SJ2004-4. A Users-Written SAS Program for Estimating Temporal Trends and Their
Magnitude. ftp://secure.sjrwmd.com/technicalreports/TP/SJ2004-4.pdf). The dataset encompasses 1997 to
August 2016, only stations with at least 5 years and 40 samples, and that have at least one sample in the past 5
years (Figure 2). The trends analysis indicates whether a parameter concentration is increasing or decreasing with

14 | P a g e

a 90 percent confidence. Those stations that do not show a significant change are identified as “insignificant.”
This analysis does not indicate impairment or the magnitude of the concentrations or change. Concentrations of
the different parameters are different from station to station and from ecoregion to ecoregion. This screening
tool only assessed a change at a specific station over the set period of time. This analysis is to be used as a
screening tool and should not be used for any other purposes outside of its intended use.
Table 4: North Carolina Ambient Monitoring Program Water Quality Parameters+
Physical Parameters Chemical Parameters Biological Parameters
Dissolved Oxygen Nutrients – NH3, NO2+NO3,
TKN, TP
Fecal Coliform Bacteria – Fresh
& Saltwater
pH Hardness Enterococcus Bacteria -
Saltwater
Specific Conductance Turbidity
Water Temperature Chlorophyll a *
Metals ^ – Al, As, Cd, Cr, Cu,
Fe, Pb, Mn, Ni, Zn
+ Not all parameters listed are collected at each station or collected at the same sampling frequency.
Generally, all stations are monitored monthly.
* Chlorophyll a is collected in lakes and estuaries or in areas of slower moving water such as behind a
dam on flowing streams.
^ The standard for metals changed from total recoverable to dissolved metals as part of the 2015
Triennial review process. In 2007, DWR suspended sample collection for total recoverable metals due to
the change in the proposed metals standard. In 2016, DWR started collecting dissolved metals for
assessment purposes at select stations throughout the state. At this time, no new metals data is available
for assessment purposes. Dissolved metals will be assessed and included in the upcoming 2018 303(d)
Impaired waters list.

For the purposes of this annual report, the division focused on the changes in turbidity, total Kjeldahl nitrogen
(TKN) which represents mostly organic nitrogen, fecal coliform bacteria, and pH. These are the constituents that
were identified as parameters of concern in the basin planning process over this last year and verified by this
screening tool as areas in which DWR needs to provide additional resources to understand the causes of water
quality degradation.
5.1.1. Turbidity
Turbidity is caused by particles suspended or dissolved in water that scatter light making the water appear cloudy.
Particulate matter can include sediment, fine organic and inorganic matter, algae and other microscopic
organisms. Turbidity is a pollutant that generally increases as result of nonpoint sources during precipitation
events, streambank scouring from elevated peak flows, and/or added nutrients which can increase biological
(algal) productivity. The turbidity standard varies depending on the surface water classifications as seen in Table
5.
Table 5: North Carolina Turbidity Standards Based on Surface Water Stream Classification.
Stream Classification Turbidity Standard (NTU)
Trout Streams & Lakes (Tr) 10
Lakes (C & B) 25
Estuaries (SC & SB) 25
All Other Streams (C & B) 50

15 | P a g e

Figure 2: Statewide Monitoring Sites Used to Assess Trends

16 | P a g e

Figure 3: Turbidity

17 | P a g e

Figure 4: Nutrients - Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)

18 | P a g e

Figure 5: Fecal Coliform Bacteria

19 | P a g e

Figure 6: pH

20 | P a g e

The trend assessment shows an increasing trend in turbidity concentrations throughout much of the
Piedmont and Coastal Plain (Figure 3). The reason behind this is not completely understood. It could be
due to climatic differences between the ecoregions; extended periods of drought over the last several years
in the mountain ecoregion; difference in the number of stations assessed; or more protected and natural
forested areas that provide buffers that reduce stormwater and sediment from entering the streams. It is
important to recognize that these trends don’t necessarily indicate the magnitude of the instream
concentration or the impairment status, just if the concentration is going up or down at specific stations for
this specific time period.
5.1.2. Nutrients - Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
Nitrogen and phosphorus, generally referred to as nutrients can be a pollutant at high concentrations
resulting in eutrophic conditions and increased biological productivity. Sources of nitrogen and phosphorus
include both point and nonpoint sources. While North Carolina does not currently have instream nutrient
standards, DWR, as an EPA requirement, is in the process of developing nutrient criteria with the assistance
of a Science Advisory Council (SAC). The goal is to develop lake, stream and estuarine standards that will be
applied to the surface waters of NC.
A basinwide planning branch requirement for all NSW basins, is an assessment of the NSW strategy as part
of the plan development process. To fulfill this requirement, a robust in depth statistical trends analysis is
done. DWR has reported a steady increase in organic nitrogen (TKN) in many of the NSW watersheds
assessed to date. The statewide screening trend assessment tool provides strong evidence that the trends
documented in the Neuse and the Tar-Pamlico River Basins are occurring throughout the state as well
(Figure 4). The sources of the organic nitrogen are not well understood. It is likely that there are nutrient
sources beyond those regulated under the NSW strategy that are contributing to the nutrient loads and
some nonpoint sources may not have been accounted for or are exceeding the original source (i.e., land
use changes or changes to agricultural operations). Groundwater, legacy sediments, biosolids application,
atmospheric deposition as well as changes to streamflow and its impact to permit limits may also be
contributing to the increased nutrient concentrations. Additional research and analytical tools are needed
to help DWR understand the source of increasing organic nitrogen and how to properly manage this load.
5.1.3. Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Fecal coliform bacteria are indicators of fecal contamination and of the potential presence of other harmful
pathogens. This can be the result of both point and non-point sources. The trend assessment (Figure 5)
shows increasing concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria occurring across the state. The reasons for
increasing concentrations is likely due to changes in stormwater runoff from impervious cover and
development, failing infrastructure (onsite and municipal), animal access to streams where BMPs are not
in place or insufficient, or waste application near streams with inadequate riparian buffers in place.
The area of decreasing concentrations is mainly located in estuarine waters. This needs further
investigation as to why there is a decrease, but it is likely due to the assessment methodology that are now
used in the coastal areas. The areas that are classified as SA (Shellfish Harvesting Waters) are now sampled
well after rain event when the Shellfish Sanitation Program expects the waters to have low bacterial counts,

21 | P a g e

allowing these waters to open to shellfish harvesting. Collecting data only when there is expected low
concentrations can skew the data to indicate a trend that is not truly present.
Fecal coliform impairments occur across the state. Instream concentrations vary widely and are generally
higher after rain events. The standard is based on a specific sampling protocol of collecting at least five
samples during a 30-day period and using the geomean or greater than 20 percent exceedance for
assessment (Table 6).
Table 6: North Carolina Fecal Coliform Bacteria Standard
Stream Classification Geomean Standard Mean Standard
All Class C & B Streams Not to exceed 200 CFU/100mL* Not to exceed 400 CFU/100mL* in more
than 20 percent of the samples
Class SA (Shellfish
Harvesting Waters)
Not to exceed 14 CFU/100mL Not to exceed 43 CFU/100mL in more
than 10 percent of the samples
Class SC and SB waters have an Enterococcus standard instead of a Fecal Coliform standard.
*Impairments are based upon at least five consecutive samples examined during a 30-day period.

5.1.4. pH
pH is a measure of how acidic or basic a waterbody is. pH of waters affects the normal physiological
functions of aquatic organisms as well as affects the solubility and toxicity of chemicals and heavy metals
in the aquatic ecosystem. For example, as pH increases the toxicity of ammonia to aquatic species also
increases. The pH standards vary by stream classification (Table 7). The trend assessment (Figure 6) shows
increasing pH levels occurring in the eastern and northern portions of the state, while the southern and
western portions show a significant decline in pH levels. Acid rain deposition, mine drainage or stormwater
runoff from highly impervious areas could lower pH levels, while increased pH could be the result of
increased biological productivity or swamp drainage to a system. Additional research is needed in order to
understand the shifts in pH across the state.
Table 7: North Carolina pH Standard
Stream Classification pH Standard (SU)
Class C & B Streams (Freshwater) Range between 6.0 and 9.0
All Sw (Swamp) (Fresh or saltwater) As low as 4.3 if it is the result of natural conditions
Class SC & SB (Saltwater) Range between 6.8 and 8.5

5.1.5. Metals
Water quality monitoring for total recoverable metals assessment was suspended in April 2007 to allow for
evaluation and re-adoption of revised standards using the most current science. In November 2014, as part
of the Triennial Review process, the EMC approved new dissolved metals standards, which became effective
for state purposes in January 2015. The EPA approved these standards for Clean Water Act purposes in April
2016. DWR began collecting dissolved metal samples at certain locations in 2016. This data has not been
assessed by the basinwide planning branch to date. An assessment for metals will be incorporated into the

22 | P a g e

next integrated report in 2018. The metals data included below are for total recoverable metals
impairments (Figure 7).
5.2. Water Quality Monitoring and Associated Impairment Summary
All water quality parameters collected in a waterbody or assessment unit (AU, a defined portion of a
waterbody) are assessed independently. Assessment criteria are based on frequency of exceedance of
numeric and narrative water quality standards. There are 13,393 AUs in the state and they vary in size based
on the specific characteristics of the water body being evaluated. Because the characteristics of AUs vary,
some units are only monitored for a subset of the parameters shown below (Figure 7).
Figure 7: Statewide Water Quality Impairments for Integrated Reporting (IR) Years 2014 and 2016
Statewide Water Quality Impairments
Total AUs Assessed*ArsenicCadmiumCopperLeadNickelZincMercuryDioxinPCBChlorophyll aTurbidityLow Dissolved OxygenHigh pHLow pHSaltwater EnterococcusSaltwater Fecal ColiformFreshwater Fecal ColiformMacroinvertebrateFish CommunityNumber of Impaired Assessment Units (AUs)0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
5000
10000
15000
2014 IR - Years 2008-2012 Data Based on 3,626 Assessment Units
2016 IR - Years 2010-2014 Data Based on 3,737 Assessment Units
MetalsChemicalPhysicalBacterialBiologicalFish Tissue-3 -1
-33
-1 -1 -7
+43
+2 +7 +18 +6 +3
+16
+21
+2
-3
-10
0 0

Water quality impairments are compiled and submitted to the EPA for review and approval pursuant to
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. The results are based on a five-year compilation of data that has
been quality assured and quality controlled (QA/QC). The 2014 and draft 2016 impairment assessments are
based on data collected from 2008-2012 and 2010-2014, respectively. Figure 7 illustrates the number of

23 | P a g e

AUs impaired for each assessment period based on the water quality parameters shown on the bottom of
the graph and denotes an increase (red) or decrease (blue) in the number of AUs between the two periods.
6. Summary of Each River Basin

6.1. Broad River Basin

The Broad River Basinwide Water Quality Plan is being updated and is scheduled to be presented to the
EMC for approval in 2018. In most cases, habitat is degraded by the cumulative effect of several stressors
acting in concert. These stressors often originate in the upstream portions of the basin and may include
runoff from impervious surface, sedimentation from construction runoff, general agricultural practices,
and/or other land disturbing activities. Naturally erodible soils in the Broad River basin make streams highly
vulnerable to these stressors. Habitat degradation (as indicated by impaired biological integrity and high
turbidity) was identified as a major stressor for nearly 270 miles of streams in the Broad River basin. The
wide distribution of turbidity standard violations at ambient monitoring stations make it difficult to isolate
a single source whether point or nonpoint in the Broad River basin. However, it appears that violations are
highest in urban and agricultural areas and lower in the upper headwater portions of the basin where land
use is predominantly forested and there are more natural, wider stream buffers to reduce the amount of
nonpoint source runoff from entering the stream.
Fecal coliform bacteria and low pH are also stressors identified in the Broad River basin. Even though no
waters in the basin were Impaired for fecal coliform bacteria, concentrations were above the standard of
400 CFU/100 mL water quality guidelines in more than 20 percent of samples at four of the eight ambient
monitoring stations. The presence of fecal coliform bacteria in the aquatic environment indicates that the
water has been contaminated from the fecal material of humans or other warm-blooded animals. Low pH
was noted in two stream segments: First Broad River and Sugar Branch. Values below 6.5 may indicate the
effects of acid rain or other acidic inputs. Additional research is needed to determine the sources resulting
in low pH.
Stormwater, increased flow and velocity, erosion and sediment control, steep slope development,
pesticide/herbicides and nutrient management from urban and agricultural land (crop, animal and
aquaculture facilities), animal access to streams, and damaged or aging wastewater collection systems have
been identified as key contributors to water quality issues and habitat degradation in the basin. It has been
recognized that there are several abandoned furniture manufacturing plants that are contributing large
amounts of stormwater runoff issues to this system due to unmaintained BMPs and large concentrations
of impervious cover. This is one area in which economic redevelopment with appropriate stormwater
controls could improve downstream water quality.
6.2. Catawba River Basin
In the Catawba River Basin chain of lakes, the majority of the lakes are becoming more eutrophic
(specifically, elevated nitrogen levels). Increased nutrient monitoring and additional studies are needed to
determine the sources of excess nutrient loading. Better understanding of these sources would be
beneficial prior to South Carolina's implementation of the nutrient TMDL currently under development.

24 | P a g e

Many of the biological impairments within the basin are due to poor habitat. Increasing amounts of
impervious surfaces in and around urban areas are causing streams in the Catawba River Basin to become
increasingly flashy even during small rain events. This sudden increase in volume and velocity of stream
flow can cause significant scouring and eroding streambanks which eliminates aquatic life habitat.
Additional studies are needed to determine where stormwater management efforts would have the
greatest impact.
In the upper portion of the basin, high levels of fecal coliform bacteria have been an ongoing issue. Sources
of bacteria include failing septic systems, straight pipes and some animal operations. Efforts have been
made on a local level to financially assist with septic system repairs in low income areas. However, progress
has diminished when the State lost funding for the Wastewater Discharge Elimination (WaDE) Program.
Levels fecal coliform bacteria have been slowly declining as a result of efforts by the counties and the
Western Piedmont Council of Government (COG). Reinstatement of the WaDE Program would greatly
decrease the rate at which fecal coliform bacteria is released in streams often used for recreational
purposes.
6.3. Cape Fear River Basin
The Cape Fear River Basin Water Resource Plan is currently under development and is scheduled to be
presented to the EMC for approval in 2018. A major water quality concern in the Cape Fear River Basin is
nutrient enrichment. A Jordan Lake TMDL was approved by EPA in 2007 and in May 2008 the EMC adopted
a nutrient management strategy for the Haw River/Jordan Lake watershed. The implementation of these
management rules has been delayed as result of legislative mandates. The latest, Session Law 2016-94
Section 14.13 indefinitely prohibits local implementation of new development and existing development
stormwater rules. It also prevents initiation of re-adoption steps for the Jordan nutrient rules prior to
October 2019. It funded the development of a NC Policy Collaboratory at UNC. The Collaboratory will
evaluate the effectiveness of the Jordan and Falls nutrient strategies as well as the costs and benefits of
nutrient strategies in other states. The final results of its study and recommendations for further actions
regarding the Jordan strategy, including any statutory or regulatory changes necessary to implement the
recommendations, are due December 31, 2018. Session Law 2016-94 Section 14.13 also mandates the study
of in situ treatments including algaecide and phosphorus-locking technologies to determine improvements
in water quality and cost effectiveness of the treatment. Session Law 2017-57 13.24 extends this study and
funding period and removes the requirement for determining cost effectiveness. The continued delays in
implementing the best management practices and nutrient reduction strategies will most likely result in
additional nutrient reduction needs in order to meet the water quality standards in Jordan Lake.
The Haw, Deep and Cape Fear Rivers below Jordan Lake are also experiencing issues due to elevated
nutrient loading. In recent years, portions of the Cape Fear River have begun to experience algal blooms,
some of which are potentially toxic and have resulted in human contact advisories. Research is occurring at
the university level to determine the causes and potential solutions. DWR staff is working closely with a
Science Advisory Council on the development of instream nutrient criteria (as part of the Nutrient Criteria
Development Plan (NCDP) process) for the central portion of the Cape Fear River basin. This process
involves extensive data analysis, additional ambient monitoring and model development. Some of the
analysis and a detailed description of the process will be included in the 2018 plan.

25 | P a g e

Emerging contaminants have been identified as a serious concern throughout the Cape Fear River Basin.
Division staff has worked closely with research being done by NC State University to locate elevated levels
of polyfluoroalkyl substances such as C8, GenX, and Nafion byproducts as well as 1,4-dioxane throughout
portions of the basin. The basin plan will include information on these new emergent contaminants. While
specific contaminants may be unique to a particular basin, unknown/unregulated contaminants from a
variety of possible sources are occurring across NC. Public expectations of our ability to monitor and
quantify these substances is somewhat different than what is achievable. Most emergent contaminants
are not monitored due to the lack of scientific knowledge of how to sample for them, and acceptable
scientific methodologies are not yet established on how to analyze for them. As with GenX, it can take
years to identify an unknown substance and develop a quantitative analytical method. Once there is a
known concentration, the number has limited value without an appropriate standard and/or the
understanding of how these compounds might affect human and aquatic health. These are significant
challenges for DEQ and the scientific community to overcome and difficult to explain to the public who
rightfully want to know that their water supplies and recreational waters are safe to drink and swim in.
Basin Planning and the Modeling and Assessment Branch (MAB) have worked together to evaluate the long
term (through 2060) Cape Fear River water supply needs of the public water systems that depend on surface
water from the Deep River, Haw River and Cape Fear River subbasins. This information is critical for the
water quantity assessment that is now part of the integrated Water Resource Management Plan.
Round four of the Jordan Lake surface water allocation process is complete. In March 2017, the EMC
approved new and increased water supply allocations from the Jordan Lake water supply pool. To support
the decision-making process, the current and future water demands of the community water systems and
self-supplied industrial operations that use surface water from the Deep River, Haw River and Cape Fear
River basins were evaluated using the Cape Fear-Neuse River Basins Hydrologic Model. Given the
assumptions in the model, the increased allocations from Jordan Lake and the included water shortage
response plans these users are not expected to face flow-related water supply shortages through the level
of withdrawals needed to meet demands expected through 2060, with one exception. The Chatham
County-North water system, with its increased allocation from Jordan Lake, is expected meet the level of
withdrawals needed to supply anticipated customer demands through 2045. If customer demands increase
to the levels expected to be needed in 2060 the system may need to find additional sources of water.
Details of the Jordan Lake water supply allocations and the Cape Fear River Surface Water Supply Evaluation
can be found on the DWR website at https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/basin-
planning/map-page/cape-fear-river-basin-landing/jordan-lake-water-supply-allocation/jordan-lake-water-
supply-allocation-round-4 .
A Cape Fear River Basin water quantity special study as required as part of Session Law 2015-196 was
completed and is currently being reviewed internally for additional comments and edits.
The Cape Fear River Basin is experiencing many of the common water quality concerns seen throughout
North Carolina such as increased aquatic life impairments and habitat degradation due to excessive
stormwater runoff. This also leads to increased sedimentation and often elevated fecal coliform
concentrations. There is a lack of riparian buffer protections and requirements throughout the basin.

26 | P a g e

Without these protections in place the continual loss of riparian buffers will only make these environmental
concerns grow. A Cape Fear River Partnership was formed in 2011 with a vision of a healthy Cape Fear River
for fish and people. DWR staff participated along with many other State and Federal resource agencies and
stakeholders to develop the Cape Fear River Basin Action Plan for Migratory Fish, in 2013. Staff members
continue to participate in the water quality, water quantity, habitat and socioeconomic subcommittees
which are working towards implementation of this action plan. Habitat protection and improvement is
needed in order to successfully restore the fisheries and improve the tourism potential of this critical
ecosystem.
Over the last several years a lot of efforts have occurred that will be included in the water resources
management plan. The Cape Fear River Basin has over 150 ambient monitoring stations from four different
monitoring programs. The goal is to complete the comprehensive water quality and water quantity analysis
for the Cape Fear River Basin in 2018.
6.4. Chowan River Basin
The Chowan River Basin Water Resource Plan is currently under development and is scheduled to be
presented to the EMC for approval in 2018. Algal blooms have returned to the Chowan River and tributaries
in 2015, 2016 and 2017. The Chowan NSW Water Quality Management Plan nutrient reduction goals of 20
percent for nitrogen and 35 percent for phosphorus were documented in the 1990's, but since 2000 the
Chowan River and tributaries have seen a steady increase in organic nitrogen concentrations.
Approximately 75 percent of the watershed is in VA, draining to NC. More collaboration with VA partners
is necessary to address the algal bloom issues. Additional research and analytical tools are needed to help
the department understand the source of increasing organic nitrogen and how to properly manage this
load.
In the Chowan River Basin, there is a large number of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs).
Waste treatment from hog operations normally includes a liquid waste treatment lagoon and application
of liquid to crop spray fields. If not effectively utilized by vegetation, nutrients can enter surface waters by
atmospheric deposition, groundwater and stormwater runoff. DEQ has regulatory authority over swine and
cattle operations that use dry or liquid manure waste management systems and poultry operations that
use a liquid waste management system (i.e., spray irrigation). These permitted animal facilities are
inspected annually. Most poultry operations, however, produce a dry litter waste that typically falls under
the deemed permitted category (NCAC 02T .1303) and do not require an NPDES or state permit. Operations
that fall into this category are only inspected if a complaint is filed. Because information about the location,
number of animals, amount of waste produced or fields on which the dry litter is applied is unknown,
determining the extent of potential impacts from animal waste to water quality is difficult to assess.
Additional information is needed about the location of deemed permitted operations and land application
sites to assist DWR in establishing new monitoring stations to assess potential nutrient impacts to aquatic
ecosystems and water quality.
In the Chowan River Basin, there is a direct connection between groundwater and surface water in many
places. There is a need to understand the potential for groundwater contamination and transport of
nutrients from biosolids and wastewater land application fields to the surface waters.

27 | P a g e

The biological impairment within the basin is likely due to stormwater runoff from agricultural fields.
Erosion and sediment control, clearcutting and damaged or aging wastewater collection systems have been
identified as possible contributors to water quality issues in the basin.
6.5. French Broad River Basin
Sediment, nutrients and bacteria are the most significant threat to water quality and aquatic habitats in the
French Broad River Basin. Several stream segments and waterbodies within the basin are classified for
recreational use. Fecal coliform bacteria is an indicator species that is used to determine if there is a
potential threat to human health. Sources of bacteria include (but are not limited to) failing septic systems,
straight pipes, sanitary sewer overflows and animal access to streams. Heavy storm events often result in
increased levels of fecal coliform bacteria due to nonpoint source runoff. Increased flows also resuspend or
mix bottom sediment which can increase bacterial levels in the water during and after rain events. Several
inquiries have been made over the past year to DWR about the overall health risk of swimming, boating
and kayaking the rivers throughout the basin. DWR and local watershed groups are actively working to
educate the public about nonpoint source pollution and its impact to water quality.
Algal blooms have been identified as a concern in Waterville Lake on the Pigeon River. The levels of algal
toxin detected in the lake were associated with a low risk of adverse health effects. Adverse health effects
have not been reported but the public was encouraged to avoid contact with large accumulations of algae
and prevent children and pets from swimming or ingesting water near or in the affected area. More
information and data is needed to identify the cause of the algal blooms in Waterville Lake.
Many of the biological impairments within the basin are due to poor habitat. Stormwater, increased flow
and velocity, erosion and sediment control, steep slope development, pesticide and nutrient management
from urban and agricultural land (crop, animal and trout farms), animal access to streams, and damaged or
aging wastewater collection systems have been identified as key contributors to water quality issues in the
basin.
6.6. Hiwassee
Fecal coliform bacteria impairments were identified in over 30 stream miles of the Hiwassee River Basin in
2012. The presence of fecal coliform in the water along these impaired segments poses a potential health
risk to individuals exposed to the water during recreational activities. This impairment has resulted in an
on-going concern for river recreation, which is a vital part of the economy in the Hiwassee Basin. Bacteria
discharged from failing septic systems or directly straight piped into streams are likely a primary cause for
this fecal coliform bacteria impairment. Another potential source of fecal coliform in the basin is livestock
access to streams. Local watershed plans are currently being developed for the sections of stream added
to the 2014 303(d) impaired waters list. TMDLs are also being developed to address the fecal coliform
bacteria impairments.
Construction in the Hiwassee River Basin has increased impervious surface areas and altered natural
hydrology by inhibiting stormwater infiltration. Riparian buffers have historically protected water quality
throughout the basin and mitigated stormwater runoff, but the removal of the riparian buffers has resulted
in an increase in nonpoint source pollution. Building near steep and unstable stream banks has been

28 | P a g e

particularly problematic for stream sediment inputs. Unstable stream banks in rural areas continue to be
an issue for sediment input.
Biological impairments to the fish community have been identified on over 20 miles of stream in the
Hiwassee River basin. A combination of factors is likely causing these impairments and includes untreated
sewage, turbidity from unstable banks and increased pollutants. In addition to fecal coliform bacteria, the
Hiwassee Watershed Coalition has identified nutrients and high instream water temperatures as water
quality concerns. DWR will work with the coalition to address these issues.
6.7. Little Tennessee River Basin
Impairments in the Little Tennessee River Basin are mostly associated with aquatic communities and high
levels of fecal coliform bacteria. Steep slope development, agricultural runoff, streambank erosion, limited
riparian areas, failing culverts, individual on-site wastewater collection systems as well as damaged or aging
municipal wastewater collection systems are key contributors to water quality issues throughout the basin.
Fontana Lake is formed by a dam downstream of the confluence of the Little Tennessee River, the
Tuckasegee River and the Nantahala River. For the past three summers (2015, 2016 and 2017), the
Tuckasegee arm of Fontana Lake has seen potentially harmful algal blooms (pHABs). Adverse health effects
have not been reported but the public was encouraged to avoid contact with large accumulations of algae
and prevent children and pets from swimming or ingesting water near or in the affected areas. Water
quality data collected at the ambient monitoring station just upstream of the backwaters of the lake
indicate that nonpoint source runoff during rain events may be adding excess nutrients to the river and
contributing to the algal blooms. The exact source of the nutrients or the reason for the algal blooms is
unknown. Additional research and analytical tools are needed to help the department understand the cause
of the algal blooms.
6.8. Lumber River Basin
Stormwater, rapid growth and development, damaged or aging wastewater infrastructure, and large
agricultural operations are issues impacting water quality in the Lumber River basin. Elevated bacteria
concentrations from stormwater runoff, leaking septic systems and/or municipal wastewater collection
systems are impacting shellfish harvest areas with all shellfish waters impaired due to either permanently
or frequently closed shellfish areas. Much of the stormwater runoff can be attributed to population growth
in Brunswick County which is located in the lower part of the basin. Brunswick County alone has grown over
500 percent in the last 50 years. Efforts are underway to reduce stormwater runoff in the Lockwoods Folly
River watershed along the Brunswick County coast. A Water Quality Management Plan became effective in
2014 and includes Lockwoods Folly River north from the Intracoastal Waterway to a line extending from
Genoes Point to Mullet Creek in effort to protect and improve water quality throughout the watershed.
Proper planning including stormwater management programs, wastewater treatment plant upgrades, and
land conservation are required to protect water quality as the area continues to grow. For activities, such
as stormwater controls, proactive implementation prior to development can save considerable costs
compared to retrofitting. Low dissolved oxygen, turbidity and low pH have also been identified as
parameters of interest in the basin.

29 | P a g e

In October 2016, the Lumber River Basin along with the Cape Fear, Chowan, Neuse, Roanoke, White Oak
and Tar-Pamlico River basins were severely impacted as result of excessive flooding due to Hurricane
Matthew. A special study of the surface water quality impacts associated with the hurricane found that the
negative impacts to surface waters from the severe flooding appears to have been transient, lasting several
weeks. Water quality returned to pre-storm baseline conditions when flows returned to normal. It may
take years to determine the long-term impact to the basin from such a catastrophic event. Biological
monitoring will be done in the future to assess the impacts and recovery to the aquatic ecosystem as a
whole. The most recent Lumber River basin plan was completed in 2010.
6.9. Neuse River Basin
The Neuse River Basinwide Water Resource Plan is proposed to be completed in 2019. The goal is to have
an update on critical portions of the plan prior to the NPDES permit renewal process scheduled for some
time in 2018. This would include an assessment of the Neuse River Basin NSW strategy and trend analysis,
Falls Lake Management implementation progress and concerns with known water quality and quantity
issues in the basin. A Cape Fear-Neuse River basin hydrologic model and analysis is complete and will be
included as part of the final Integrated Neuse River Basin Water Resource Plan.
DWR resources and implementation activities in the Neuse River Basin have focused primarily on the
implementation of the Falls Lake Water Supply Nutrient Strategy (15A NCAC 02B .0275 to .0282 and 15A
NCAC 02B .0235 and .0315) which became effective January 15, 2011. Neuse River estuarine NSW
implementation efforts are ongoing and have been reported to the Water Quality Committee (WQC) and
EMC as requested and through the annual agricultural report to the EMC. Basin Planning Branch staff will
work with the Modeling and Assessment Branch to update estuarine trends over the next year for
incorporation into the proposed 2018 update.
Falls Lake nutrient management and rule review were affected by the Session Law 2016-94, Section
14.13. This legislation prevents initiation of re-adoption steps for the Falls Lake nutrient rules prior to
October 2022. It also funded the development of a NC Policy Collaboratory at UNC. The Collaboratory is
tasked with evaluating the effectiveness of the Jordan Lake and Falls Lake nutrient strategies as well as the
costs and benefits of nutrient strategies in other states. The final results of the study and recommendations
for further actions regarding the Falls Lake strategy, including any statutory or regulatory changes necessary
to implement the recommendations, are due December 31, 2021.
The water quality analysis of the Neuse River Basin finds that the overall NSW 30 percent total nitrogen
reduction goal has not been achieved. The original nutrient reduction efforts were successful in reducing
loads from both municipal and agricultural sources. The required riparian buffers have helped to limit
additional nutrient-laden stormwater runoff from new and existing development throughout the basin.
However, despite all of these efforts, and reductions made, DWR has identified an increase in the organic
nitrogen load which is currently offsetting the reductions made as result of the NSW rules. The sources of
the organic nitrogen are not well understood at this time. Additional research and analytical tools are
needed to understand the source of increasing organic nitrogen and how to properly manage this load. The
trend in increasing organic nitrogen loading appears to be occurring across the state. It is critical that the

30 | P a g e

department support research in order to identify the possible sources of organic nitrogen to assist with
reevaluating the existing management goals to reduce the overall loading to this very sensitive system.
As part of the required basin planning process in a designated NSW watershed, the success and limitations
of the NSW rules are assessed. In the Neuse River basin, the assessment identified gaps in the existing
nutrient management strategy and included recommendations or modifications to possibly improve the
strategy in order to meet water quality standards in the estuary. As a result of the required rules review
legislation (General Statute §150B-21.3A), the Neuse River Basin Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW)
Management Strategy rules found in 15 NCAC 02B .0232 - .0242 must be re-adopted.
Since 2013, DEQ has worked with stakeholders to address concerns with the existing nutrient management
strategy and the adaptive management rule in the Neuse River basin. Because the Neuse River Estuary
continues to exceed water quality standards, DEQ has proposed minor modifications. The modifications
address the recommendations identified during the basin planning process as well as the rules review and
stakeholder input process. Reviewing and modifying the existing rules provides an opportunity for the State
to grant additional protection and/or management measures in the basin to achieve the required goal of
improving water quality and meet water quality standards in the Neuse River Estuary. As land use changes
and development continues, it is important to utilize the adaptive management approach to improve the
outcome and protections necessary to improve water quality in the estuary. As technology and scientific
knowledge improves, utilizing the adaptive management option will play an important role in meeting
water quality standards.
6.10. New River Basin
In most cases, habitat is degraded by the cumulative effect of several stressors acting in concert. These
stressors often originate in the upstream portions of the basin and may include runoff from impervious
surface, sedimentation from construction runoff, general agricultural practices, and/or other land
disturbing activities. Habitat degradation (as indicated by impaired biological integrity and high turbidity)
was identified as a major stressor for nearly 136 miles of streams in the New River basin. The distribution
of turbidity permit violations and standard exceedances at ambient monitoring station (AMS) sampling
locations make it difficult to isolate a single source in the New River Basin. However, it appears that
violations are highest in urban and agricultural areas. Violations are lowest in most headwater portions of
the basin where land use is predominantly forested. This demonstrates the importance of protection and
conserving stream buffers and natural areas.
Data collected between 1997 and 2009 at the six AMSs within the New River basin showed an increase in
pH levels. An increase in surface water pH can be influenced by many different natural factors: drought;
heavy rains; algae or other aquatic plant growth; and decomposition of organic material among others.
Human influences to rising pH levels include discharging acidic effluent, atmospheric deposition, and
stormwater runoff containing excessive nutrients. Monthly data shows a gradual increase from 2001 to
2008. The presence of periphyton was noted several times during the last sampling cycle. This algae-like
growth flourishes in water columns with elevated nutrient levels and ample sunlight. These conditions
during periods of drought can greatly accelerate aquatic plant growth. The photosynthesis process uses CO2
within the water column, which can cause pH levels to increase. This may be one possible cause of the

31 | P a g e

increasing pH levels. Other possible causes of the increasing levels in the basin could be atmospheric
deposition, groundwater influences or precipitation influences. However, the exact reasons for this
basinwide increase is unknown at this time.
6.11. Pasquotank River Basin
The Pasquotank River Basin Water Resource Plan is currently under development and is scheduled to be
presented to the EMC for approval in 2018. The Pasquotank river is not classified as a Nutrient Sensitive
Water (NSW), but the Albemarle Sound, Little River and Perquimans River have experienced algal blooms
in 2015, 2016 and 2017. Monitoring data show a steady increase of phosphorus on the Little River since
the early 1990's. There is also a steady increase of organic nitrogen across all monitoring stations since the
mid 1990's. The sources of the organic nitrogen are not well understood at this time. Additional research
and analytical tools are needed to understand the source of increasing organic nitrogen and how to properly
manage this load
Aquatic weeds such as alligator weed and hydrilla are impeding recreational activities and causing
navigational hazards. There is a need for a regional approach in this area to control the spread of these
invasive weeds.
Many of the biological impairments within the basin are due to copper. Other key contributors to water
quality issues identified in the basin are: stormwater; increased flow and velocity; erosion and sediment
control; development; pesticide and nutrient management from urban and agricultural land (crop, animal
and aquaculture facilities); and damaged or aging wastewater collection systems.
6.12. Roanoke River Basin
The main water quality concern in the Roanoke River Basin has been the coal ash spill in the Dan River from
Duke’s Dan River Steam Station near Eden, which occurred in February 2014. Current water quality
monitoring data of the Dan River indicate levels of coal ash related constituents similar to conditions
measured upstream, or what is considered to be background conditions. A formal Closure Plan is being
developed to support the proposed closure of the coal ash basins. Coal ash excavation from the onsite pits
started in November 2015.
There is an active Bi-State Commission in the Roanoke basin that focuses on water quantity and quality
issues. A Roanoke River Basin Bi-State Commission meeting is scheduled to be held in November 2017. The
main water quality concerns identified in the 2012 basinwide management resource plan included copper,
turbidity and fecal coliform. The cause of the turbidity in the Dan River has previously been linked to
instream mining operations and agricultural fields along the river. However, no permitted mining
operations remain and many agricultural practices have adopted better management practices to reduce
sediment reaching the stream. The development and implementation of three Dan River subbasin
watershed restoration plans have contributed to effective management measures in the basin. The plans
were developed by local resource agencies and stakeholders throughout the basin and funded through EPA
Section 319 grants administered through DWR. There continue to be benthic macroinvertebrate
community impairments on Smith Creek and Smith River. The continued implementation of these three
watershed restoration planning efforts are working towards improving the water quality and habitat

32 | P a g e

causing these impairments. (The three restorations planning documents are the Dan River Watershed
Restoration Plan for Agricultural Non-Point Sources of Pollution (2012), Smith Creek Watershed Restoration
Plan (2008) and Eden Area Watershed Restoration Plan (2014).)
6.13. Savannah River Basin
The only ambient monitoring station in the Savannah River Basin is located on Horsepasture River. The
data indicate that this portions of Horsepasture River is impacted on occasions by low pH as well as elevated
temperatures and fecal coliform bacteria. The statewide trend screening assessment tool verified the trend
in decreasing pH and increasing bacteria concentrations in this watershed (Figure 6). Horsepasture River is
classified as Trout (Tr) waters, which makes this area extra sensitive to changes in water quality. There is a
need to identify the source of these changes in this watershed. Downstream of the ambient monitoring
station the river is part of the North Carolina Natural and Scenic Rivers System and is also a National Wild
and Scenic River.
The Chattooga River also has the National Wild and Scenic River designation. A special biological study was
performed in the Chattooga River in September 2016 due to public concerns of trout habitat degradation
from sedimentation. The river is classified as B (primary recreation), ORW (Outstanding Resource Waters),
Tr (trout). The study was the result of a specific public concern related to the impact of whitewater boat
trails and access points contributing to increased erosion in the river. The special study reported a trend
between 1991 to 2011 in land-use patterns with land use changing from forested to more developed and
increased imperviousness. The study determined that, although no rainbow or the native brook trout were
collected, the population and the diversity of age classes of brown trout supported the continued
classification of the river as an Outstanding Resource Water.
6.14. Tar-Pamlico River Basin
The Tar-Pamlico River basin was designated as Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) in 1989. Despite the
apparent successful implementation in reducing nutrient loads from municipal wastewater facilities and
several agricultural practices, the goal for reducing total nitrogen by 30 percent has not been met. Data
collected over the last several years indicate that organic nitrogen is increasing. The sources of the organic
nitrogen are not well understood. It is likely that there are nutrient sources beyond those regulated under
the NSW strategy that are contributing to the nutrient loads and some nonpoint sources may not have been
accounted for or are exceeding the original source (i.e., land use changes or changes to agricultural
operations). Groundwater, legacy sediments, biosolids application, atmospheric deposition as well as
changes to streamflow and its impact to permit limits may also be contributing to the increased nutrient
concentrations. Additional research and analytical tools are needed to understand the source of increasing
organic nitrogen and how to properly manage this load. In addition, more detailed reporting on BMP and
changes to operations (i.e., moving from crop production to animal operation) could assist with identifying
nutrient sources and the appropriate BMP to address the source.
Stormwater, increased flow and velocity, erosion and sediment control, pesticide and nutrient
management from urban and agricultural land (crop, animal and aquaculture facilities), and damaged or
aging wastewater collection systems have been identified as key contributors to water quality issues in the
basin. There are several communities within the basin that do not have or do not fall under a stormwater

33 | P a g e

program. Additional research and analytical tools are needed to assess how uncontrolled stormwater runoff
is impacting surface water and the nutrient loads in the estuary. Protection of existing riparian buffers play
a critical role in stabilizing and protecting stream banks as well as reducing nutrients from overland flow in
these areas.
While the implementation efforts taken to date have not fully achieved compliance with the TMDL, the
nutrient reductions achieved by point sources and agriculture have helped reduce the severity of fish kills
in the Pamlico River and Estuary. DEQ is continuing to work with municipal wastewater facilities and the
agricultural community to maintain their compliance with the strategy.
As part of the required basin planning process in a designated NSW watershed, the success and limitations
of the NSW rules are assessed. In the Tar-Pamlico River basin, the assessment identified gaps in the existing
nutrient management strategy and included recommendations or modifications to possibly improve the
strategy in order to meet water quality standards in the estuary. As a result of the required rules review
legislation (General Statute §150B-21.3A), the Tar-Pamlico River Basin Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW)
Management Strategy rules found in 15 NCAC 02B .0255 - .0261 must be re-adopted.
Since 2013, DEQ has worked with stakeholders to address concerns with the existing nutrient management
strategy and the adaptive management rule in the Tar-Pamlico River basin. Because the Pamlico River
Estuary continues to exceed water quality standards, DEQ has proposed minor modifications. The
modifications address the recommendations identified during the basin planning process as well as the
rules review and stakeholder input process. Reviewing and modifying the existing rules provides an
opportunity for the State to grant additional protection and/or management measures in the basin to
achieve the required goal of improving water quality and meet water quality standards in the Pamlico River
Estuary. As land use changes and development continues, it is important to utilize the adaptive
management approach to improve the outcome and protections necessary to improve water quality in the
estuary. As technology and scientific knowledge improves, utilizing the adaptive management option will
play an important role in meeting water quality standards.
6.15. Watauga River Basin
The Watauga River basin plan is being developed, has undergone internal review with local resource
agencies and watershed groups, and is scheduled to be presented to the EMC for approval in 2018.
Stormwater, steep slope development, limited riparian areas, streambank erosion, individual onsite
wastewater collection systems as well as damaged or aging public water supply systems and municipal
wastewater collections systems are impacting water quality and quantity in the Watauga River basin.
Beaverdam Creek is the only impaired water in the North Carolina portion of the basin, and several
agricultural best management practices have been installed and continue to be installed throughout the
watershed in an effort to improve aquatic habitat and remove the stream from the impaired waters list.
Water quality data collected at the ambient monitoring stations and by the Wildlife Resources Commission
(WRC) indicates that temperature is increasing in the mainstem of the Watauga River. Many of the streams
in the basin support a rich and diverse trout population, but the numbers have been declining over recent
years due to development, limited shade from riparian areas and increased stormwater runoff.

34 | P a g e

The Town of Beech Mountain is located in the Beech Creek watershed. The Beech Mountain public water
supply system (PWSS) serves a year-round population of 340 people and a seasonal population of over
5,000 people during the months of January, February, March, July, July, August and December. Based on
information reported in the 2012 local water supply plan (LWSP), the PWSS cannot meet the current or
long-term water supply needs for its customer base. Working with town, DWR issued a Water Supply
Availability report in September 2015 that identified the needs and challenges associated with the town's
current water supply. The report included several options for the town to consider. In the 2015 LWSP, the
town reported that it has taken several steps over the past several years to monitor water use and identify
areas for improvement. The improvements have resulted in water loss being reduced from 85 to 47 percent,
but the town is still not able to meet its long-term water supply needs.
6.16. White Oak River Basin
The White Oak River basin is currently being developed and is scheduled to be presented to the EMC for
approval in 2018. Stormwater runoff, new development/construction, impervious surface areas, animal
waste management, and damaged or aging wastewater collection systems are impacting water quality in
the White Oak River basin. Coastal communities in the basin are constantly changing, and for decades, the
traditional uses of waterfront property have been shifting to accommodate an increase in permanent
residents, seasonal rental properties and new development. Residential development has moved inland
along tidal creeks and rivers introducing more impervious area and increased stormwater runoff. As a result,
many of the water dependent resources that people seek out from the North Carolina coastline are
diminishing. Public waterfront access is limited, high fecal coliform levels prevent shellfish harvesting and
beach recreation, fish houses have closed, and overall fish harvests have continued to decline in the White
Oak River basin.
Most of the White Oak River basin lies within the designated Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area
(CCPCUA) established by the EMC in 2002. Water users that withdraw more than 100,000 gallons per day
of ground water within the designated area must obtain a permit from DWR and regularly report the
quantity of water withdrawn. In April 2004, the Public Water Supply (PWS) Section completed source water
assessments for all drinking water sources and generated reports for the PWS systems using these sources.
In the White Oak River basin, 257 public water supply sources were identified. All of the public water supply
sources are ground water wells. Of the 257 ground water sources, 28 have a High susceptibility rating, 141
have a Moderate susceptibility rating and 88 have a Low susceptibility rating. For a public water supply to
be determined susceptible, a potential contaminant source must be present and the existing geological and
hydrological conditions of the PWS intake location must be such that a water supply could become
contaminated. PWS is currently reassessing the wells in the CCPCUA and results should be released by the
end of 2017 or early 2018.
Several agencies, including DWR, Coastal Management, Land Resources, Marine Fisheries, the Soil and
Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs), Parks and Recreation, and Environmental Health, are responsible for
many coastal activities, policies and education and outreach throughout the basin. Topics include
stormwater management, development, erosion control programs, agriculture and land preservation,
shellfish protection and recreational monitoring. Additional state programs and many interagency and
group partnerships work together to protect the resources found in coastal waters and communities. The

35 | P a g e

Coastal Habitat Protection Plan (CHPP) is a plan to manage and restore aquatic habitats critical to North
Carolina's commercial and recreational fisheries resources. The New River NSW strategy will be evaluated
as part of the basin plan update and may include recommendations for possible nonpoint source nutrient
contribution reductions.
6.17. Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin
Many streams in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin are impaired for aquatic life due to degraded habitat. This
is occurring throughout the basin but largely in urban/suburban areas where increasing impervious surfaces
result in greater stormwater runoff, higher peak flows (flashy stream), and lower base flows. Stream bank
and instream habitat erosion along with elevated turbidity and pollutant loading concentrations are making
it difficult to protect sustainable aquatic populations, which are leading to stream impairments.
Elevated fecal coliform bacteria due to stormwater runoff in urban and agricultural areas is occurring. There
are minimal required riparian buffers throughout the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin to aid in the protection
and stabilization of streams and to reduce impacts to water quality.
There is a large increase in poultry operations in the Upper Yadkin-Pee Dee watershed. Specific
geographical spatial locations, numbers of birds and amount of dry litter waste production is not available
making it difficult to evaluate water quality impacts from this growing source.
High Rock Lake is impaired for turbidity, chlorophyll a, and high pH. High Rock Lake is very turbid in the
upper reaches and for a large portion of the year experiences algal blooms downstream of the location
where the sediment settles out. There is a Nutrient Criteria Development Plan (NCDP) process well
underway which will aid in the development of appropriate instream standards for this system. This process
involved extensive data analysis, ambient monitoring studies and a watershed and lake model. A science
advisory council (SAC) was developed to aid DWR on developing these standards. The data indicate that
High Rock Lake’s trophic status is eutrophic to hypereutrophic depending on the time of year. Nitrogen,
phosphorus and sediment reductions could be required in the future in order for High Rock Lake to comply
with instream water quality standards. This determination and a regulatory process will follow after
appropriate instream standards are finalized.